Predestination or Free Will?: Handbook of Epictetus, sections 31-53

Up to now, the Handbook of Epictetus seemed to follow a coherent pattern in style and content. However, this third section of the text presented various differences from the rest of the work. For one thing, I noticed that sections were getting longer and more explicit. Epictetus provided the reader with more examples from daily life which, I believe, make the text duller to read by omitting the possibility for us to make our own interpretations of the content. I also noticed that the tendency of the text to make references to only one god (monotheism) was replaced by a broader, more polytheistic faith in various gods. “The most important aspect of piety toward the gods is certainly both to have correct beliefs about them, as beings that arrange the universe well and justly, and to set yourself to obey them.” (p. 21). At the beginning of the work, nature was said to be in charge of establishing the course of events; however, this task has now been attributed to the gods. Does this mean that nature and the Gods are one sole entity? Judging by the changes in style and content, could you say that the Handbook of Epictetus was written by two different people?

The Handbook of Epictetus concluded with the verse “Lead me, Zeus, and you too, Destiny, / Wherever I am assigned by you…” (p.29). These couple of lines made me think about the true nature of fate and free will, and whether those ideas really existed in a world coherently planned by nature. Up to now, the text had given me the impression that the universe was in charge of determining the order of events, but that it was also up to us to be at the right place at the right time. In other words, I had understood that life was a combination of patterns and chance. Nevertheless, the concluding lines of the text made me wonder whether us humans live according to fate, in a universe where everything is predestined to occur and where every slight movement or thought is controlled by destiny, something similar to the fourth dimension. This discussion actually reminds me of Anne Hutchingson and her philosophy of antinomianism, in which she stated that there was no purpose in making an effort in life if what awaited us was always going to be the same. What difference does it make if we try to make the best out of every situation if our actions are already predetermined by the gods? Why does Epictetus try to change the way we live our lives if our existence is going to be the same no matter what?

Stoic philosophy has been one of my favorite texts. I must say that it is actually one of the few books, apart from the KJB, that has answered many of my doubts about life. What I like about the Handbook of Epictetus that other works of literature do not possess, though, is its paradoxical style of presenting complex ideas in a very simple and logical manner. However, I believe that section thirty-three lacked the superb use of rhetoric present in the rest of the text. “Do not laugh a great deal or at a great many things unrestrainedly.” (p.22). Apart from proposing vague and superficial ideas, this fragment lacked the transcendentalist spark present in the rest of the text. It didn’t pose examples to support the author’s claim and explain why we had to refrain from laughing, which I find completely ridiculous. Epictetus, what happened here?

Corrections on previous blogs

Mr. Tangen, I already made the grammatical corrections on the previous blogs. I wrote a comment on your comment on the entry on Slaughterhouse Five, pages 136-153. Everything is explained there. Thank you.

A Target is Not Set Up to be Missed: Handbook of Epictetus, sections 16-30

Probably the most interesting aspect of Stoic philosophy is its capability to adjust one’s points of view about a certain situation in order to deal with various circumstances from a different perspective. “’What weighs down on this man is not what has happened, but his judgment about it.’” (p. 15). This reminds me of Einstein’s theory of relativity, which states that when space and time come close to the speed of light, they become relative. Both of these principles stress the ideal that nothing in life is certain, but up to us to evaluate. Circumstances in life are as good or as bad as we want to make them seem. So it is always better, like Epictetus mentions, to look at the bright side of things and take advantage of every situation to grow as an individual. Everything in life has a purpose, we just need to learn to discover it. “Just as a target is not set up to be missed, in the same way nothing bad by nature happens in the world.” (p.19). Whether we want to reap the benefits of a circumstance is only up to us.

Apart from stressing uncertainty and relativity, the Handbook of Epictetus emphasizes human insignificance and vulnerability. The text places us humans at the mercy of a superior force that acts coherently upon individuals, who are unable to change the situation or defy the occurrences that nature places in their lives. “Remember that you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be… What is yours is to play the assigned part well.” (p. 16). We, humans, are also expected to concentrate on our own welfare and accept our fates by living our lives the best way we can. This gives a very individualistic tinge to the text.

I also noticed that in order to make his arguments convincing, Epictetus uses blame (or forensics) in his writing. “But are you not ashamed that you turn over your own faculty of judgment to whoever happens along, so that if he abuses you it is upset and confused?” (p.19). By appealing directly to people’s ways of acting and thinking, Epictetus, I believe, manages to make them feel guilty and more prone to accepting his ideas. People who have not been introduced to the art of rhetoric are more susceptible to fall into this trap and hurriedly believe what Epictetus is proposing without taking the time to analyze the facts and logic of the argument.

Apart from using blame, the author uses a lot of logic in his arguments. The examples he presents come from everyday life, and are therefore more credible and more likely to be accepted by the people. Epictetus merges science with philosophy in an attempt to prove that life follows an orderly pattern, and that we as humans are expected to behave rationally according to the circumstances. For example, the text makes references to Newton’s Third Law of Motion in order to explain the sequence of events in life. “For each action, consider what leads up to it and what follows it, and approach it in the light of that.” (p. 19). One of the most interesting aspects is that Newton’s Third Law of Motion is used in the majority of he texts we read last year, including the KJB and the Dao de Jing. In another instance, Epictetus used genetics to convince the reader to assume one role in life instead of behaving like a child and being indecisive about what you are. “Different people are naturally suited for different things.” (p.20). As can be seen from the previous quote, differences in people are attributed to nature, or genetics, and not to culture or other external influences. We, as actors in a play, are bound to accept the characteristics that nature gives us and make the most out of every situation by learning to recognize the orderly pattern of events and forces that govern the universe.

Utopian Tinges in a Universe Controlled by Nature: Handbook of Epictetus, sections 1-15

As I read the introduction to the text, I noticed that its author emphasized and talked about a specific section of Epictetus’s Handbook. “Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well.” (p.2). This excerpt, apart from being one of the most important doctrines of Stoicism, has a great impact on me. Perfection is the basis of my life. Everything I do or think has a rigid, synchronized order. Whenever my mental order is interrupted by an event, I get completely frustrated and alarmed. I cannot stand the fact that there are things that I cannot control. This is why I disliked the concept of the fourth dimension present in Slaughterhouse Five.

The fact that the whole future is already planned disturbs me because it reveals human weakness. Many people have told me before to stop being so rigid about my life or about what may or may not happen, but I have never paid attention to them. I consider myself as a different person, as a question mark in society, as someone who doesn’t exactly fit in. However, as soon as I read this section of the introduction and the explanation the author provided, I realized that, in fact, there are things that I cannot control. “The basic idea is that for a human being to be in an ideal state is to lack all dissatisfaction with anything about the world, while at the same time being conscious and intelligent.” (p.2). The universe has an established order that we cannot alter. Nature and God, which are presented here as similar beings, have a complete control of everything that happens. Objecting them would be completely irrational because they possess a coherent pattern that governs the universe. “So detach your aversion from everything not up to us, and transfer it to what is against nature among the things that are up to us.” (p.12). It is amazing how the logos and ethos presented in the text manages to persuade the reader to accept the ideas of the Stoics. Personally, I was finally convinced that there are things that you simply cannot prevent, events that will always happen no matter what. The important thing is to learn how to deal with this and make the most out of every situation.

I also noticed how Stoicism goes hand in hand with Christianity and the Bible. For one thing, both texts recognize one God who controls the universe and mankind. “As long as he gives it, take care of it as something that is not your own, just as travelers in an inn.” (p.14). As it can be inferred from the previous quote, there is a character (“he”) that has the power to manage the affairs of mankind. This, according to the KJB, is God. Both texts also recognize the existence of the soul, or something independent from the physical body. “Illness interferes with the body, not with one’s faculty of choice, unless that faculty of choice wishes it to.” (p.14).

On the other hand, Stoicism contradicts the middle-of-the-road theories presented in the Dao-de-Jing. According to Epictetus, “…to be in a fully ideal and dissatisfaction-free state of mind, one would have to possess a completely detailed knowledge of all aspects of the organization of the cosmos, including a great deal of physics and also logic…” (p.4). Daoism, on the other hand, argues that there always has to be a balance in what you know and what you have. Knowing too little is equally as harmful as knowing too much. Personally, I would like to say that I agree with the Stoic view: knowledge is never too much, and logic is the key to discovering the mysteries of the universe.

I would also like to mention that the handbook of Epictetus is one of the few texts that actually proposes how to achieve the ideal state of mind, or a personal utopia. “The Stoic idea of the ideal human condition, therefore, can be fairly well approximated by saying that it attributes to that condition many of the characteristics that many people attribute to God…looking at matters from a purely impersonal point of view…an ideal state would involve looking at all events in the world in this way.” (pages 6-7). This quote not only identifies Stoic philosophy as a path to utopia, but Christianity and the belief in one God as well. This instance may be connecting Stoicism and Christianity as one sole faith. There are many similarities between them both, similarities that I have learned not only through the KJB but also by going to Church. Who knows if both of these beliefs are not actually one sole faith expressed in different ways by two distinct cultures?

Slaughterhouse Five, pages 181-215

On my previous entry, I mentioned that Slaughterhouse Five was not an anti-war book. I now believe the opposite. Throughout the novel, Vonnegut cleverly narrated the story of a miserable individual, Billy Pilgrim, and the effects World War Two had caused to his personality. At the beginning, I thought the novel was trying to advocate the preservation of individuality in an imperfect world. On these few pages, however, I realized that what Vonnegut was really trying to say is that mankind has a mentality to destroy whatever is in his path, a mentality that most of the times results in war and the utter destruction of the essence of human beings: their identities. “We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.” (p.186).

Thomas Hobbes’ theory that man is naturally evil and selfish, expressed in his book the Leviathan, is advocated by Vonnegut when he talks about the fourth dimension. There is nothing that can be done to prevent individuals from being wicked. I now believe that the “so it goes”, apart from being Billy’s defense mechanism, many also be interpreted as mankind’s cold and indifferent response to death. Humans are so accustomed to death, especially deaths caused by war, that their immediate reaction is the same as Pilgrim’s: so it goes. Billy Pilgrim has become so marked by death that he has succumbed to denial, to “…the negligibility of death, and the true nature of time.” (p. 190). Maybe Vonnegut is also trying to awaken change in individuals. He may be trying to prevent wars or convince humans to resist the transformations that wars may bring: loss of identity and feelings.

I wonder why the small details and objects Billy encountered during the war and during his entire life are mentioned again at the end of the novel. For example, the picture of the horse, the magic fingers, Wild Bob’s phrase, the saying on Montana’s necklace, and, finally, the “poo-tee-weet” of a bird in the last page of the novel are objects, ideas, or phrases that have appeared before in the novel and that are mentioned again in these last pages. Are these symbols? Are they significant to Billy’s life? Do they hold a certain meaning that is crucial to understanding the novel?

I also thought that the characters’ different reactions to death were very peculiar. For example, Rumfoord recognizes that the bombing of Dresden was far worse than the Hiroshima atomic bomb, but still says that “’It had to be done… That’s war.’” (p. 198). On the other side, Billy cried loudly when he saw the physical damage he had caused to the horses, probably the first creatures he had hurt in his entire life. “When Billy saw the condition of his means of transportation, he burst into tears.” (p.197). Maybe Vonnegut is trying to say that like Rumfoord, most people are machines who only care about their own good. Those that are “weak” or sensible, like Billy, are tremendously affected when they hurt someone or something else. Is Vonnegut trying to fight for this sensibility or just saying that wars are inevitable and that humans should therefore adopt an indifferent attitude towards them?

Time gravel may also be Billy’s defense mechanism to resist change and the millions of deaths he has been forced to see. “Nathan, according to the Earthling concept of time, had died back in 1958. According to the Tralfamadorian concept, of course, Nathan was still alive somewhere and always would be.” (p.199). The war has caused such a massive psychological impact on Pilgrim that he is forced to deny death altogether. Or maybe Billy Pilgrim is simply crazy and mistakes his reality with Trout’s books. “It was about an Earthling man and woman who had been kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo…” (p.202). It is possible that Trout found it amusing to write about the life of the only man who admired him.

Up to now, I have come up with various contradictory interpretations of this book. It is amazing how many different meanings a book may conceal. The most interesting aspect is that although these interpretations may oppose each other, like mine do, all of them are valid and correct.

Gulliver's Travels

Although written centuries apart from each other, Gulliver’s Travels and Slaughterhouse Five possess various similarities. Both Jonathan Swift and Kurt Vonnegut manifest themselves through a character in the novel. Kilgore Trout and the Yahoo (Gulliver), although writing stories about fantastic adventures, claim to be narrating true events. “If I wrote something that hadn’t really happened, and I tried to sell it, I could go to jail. That’s fraud.” (Vonnegut, p. 171). “…I would strictly adhere to the truth; neither indeed can I be ever under the least temptation to vary from it.” (Swift, 15).

Both novels are also trying to create awareness among the human race. Slaughterhouse Five, as mentioned in the previous entry, uses the character of Billy Pilgrim to portray how the loss of identity can lead to failure and denial in one’s life. Gulliver’s travels is a little more straightforward in the sense that it directly condemns mankind for being a corrupted race that makes “…no other use of Reason, than to improve and multiply those Vices whereof the Brethren in this Country had only the Share that Nature allotted them.” (p.6). Both books, therefore, reveal to us that the world that we live in is a dystopia. It is very peculiar, though, how Swift acknowledges the superiority of horses, a race other than mankind. This really reminds me of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Like many texts, including Slaughterhouse Five, Gulliver’s Travels presents a strong reaction to the historical context of that time. Huxley, and Irish writer, condemns the Europeans (especially the English) as creatures full of “Vices and Follies” (p.18). The Divine Right is objected, as well as the Europeans’ search for lands to colonize. This novel was written in 1776, time when Ireland was an English colony. Due to religion and other factors, the Irish were treated terribly by their English subjects. Maybe this is what inspired Huxley to write a book in which the main character is permanently manifesting his hatred of the human race. Unlike Billy Pilgrim, though, Gulliver is considered a hero because, amidst all the circumstances, he still preserves his individuality…

Slaughterhouse Five, pages 154-181

In my opinion, these chapters possess very important details that reveal the author’s purpose in writing the novel. I don’t believe Slaughterhouse Five was designed to be an anti-war book because, according to the Tralfamadorians, nothing in time can ever be changed (which means that wars cannot be prevented). The fourth dimension is like a book: the story is already written, and the only thing we can do is flip the pages back and forth to land at whatever event we want to get emerged in. Like George Orwell’s and Aldous Huxley’s books about utopias and dystopias, Slaughterhouse Five is trying to create awareness of our current situation as individuals. After all, our identities are the only things that remain permanent after times of crisis. Kurt Vonnegut, by means of Billy Pilgrim, attempts to illustrate how the loss of identity can lead to a miserable and pathetic existence, where possibly Billy attempts to escape reality by escaping the present and traveling in the past and future. “One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters… She asked Billy Pilgrim what he was supposed to be. Billy said he didn’t know.” (pages 159 and 164).

Another detail that caught my attention is the author’s manifestation of himself through another character in the novel, the science fiction writer Kilgore Trout. “Most of Trout’s novels, after all, dealt with time warps and extrasensory perception and other unexpected things.” (p. 175). Vonnegut, or Trout, is the author of both the book about Dresden and Slaughterhouse Five. He is also simultaneously a character in both books. Normally authors include themselves in their works directly by narrating events in first person or indirectly through the use of an omniscient narrator. In this case, however, Vonnegut represents himself as an individual who feels like a failure in life, as someone even more pathetic than Billy Pilgrim.

The Febs are also a symbol throughout the novel. These individuals connect Billy to the bombing of Dresden and to time travel with Trout. This leads me to think that, maybe, the fourth dimension and time travel are a byproduct of war. It is possible that Billy’s reactions to the many deaths he’s seen are manifested by his indifference to death as a concept. The Tralfamadorians and the “so it goes” may be a product of Billy’s mind, which tries to create a defense mechanism to relieve himself from the horrors of war.

The war made such a huge impact on Pilgrim that the bombing of Dresden is the only event throughout the novel that Billy merely remembers, but does not travel to. “He does not travel in time to the experience. He remembered it shimmeringly…” (p.177). I also noticed that dogs are still being mentioned permanently. Billy’s awareness of dogs is finally concluded in the instance where Trout asks Billy if he’s ever placed a mirror under a dog. Billy responds that he hasn’t, to which Trout replies, “The dog will look down, and all of a sudden he’ll realize there’s nothing under him. He thinks he’s standing on thin air. He’ll jump a mile” (p. 175). I believe that the dogs represent us, humans, and that the mirror is a reflection of our lives. Once we look deeply into it, we’ll be alarmed at what we find, and will “jump a mile”, or try to escape our existence, something that Billy does while traveling through the fourth dimension. This ties itself to the theme of the novel I mentioned at the beginning of this entry: the preservation of individuality.

Before I’m through, I would also like to highlight the fact that the bombing of Dresden (February 13, 1945) and Billy’s death (February 13, 1976) occur on the same day, 31 years apart. Is this just a coincidence, or is it supposed to embark a hidden meaning?

Slaughterhouse Five, pages 136-153

Chapter six of the novel made me realize how pathetic Billy Pilgrim really is. His daughter hates him and his wife married him simply because, as the book said, nobody else would marry her. The idea of love doesn’t exist in Billy’s life. Instead, people around him make him feel hated and ridiculous. Billy has been so marginalized by society that he now feels accustomed to it: “As they moved near the theater, they came upon an Englishman who was hacking a groove in the Earth with the heel of his boot. He was marking the boundary between the American and English sections of the compound. Billy and Lazzaro and Derby didn’t have to ask what the line meant. It was a familiar symbol from childhood.” (p.144). This instance makes me feel pity towards Billy. This individual has never been able to fit in society or identify with other people. Billy Pilgrim is ridiculed all the time, like when the Americans arrived to Dresden and the surgeon began insulting Billy and his country. The most saddening aspect of all is that Billy has succumbed to failure, and is not even capable of responding back or explaining the situation. Maybe this is the reason why Billy Pilgrim might have invented Tralfamadore and the fourth dimension, as a defense mechanism used to escape the problems he encounters in everyday life and construct a universe of his own.

An individual that is far more pathetic and infuriating than Billy is Paul Lazzaro. In fact, Paul Lazzaro reminds me of the character Edmond Dantes, from the book The Count of Monte Cristo. Both Edmond and Paul live their lives to seek revenge from those who have injured them throughout their lives. There is one slight difference between these characters, though: Edmond Dantes feels repented after harming so many people. He feels sorry he placed revenge at the center of his life. Paul Lazzaro has a very different view on this topic. The deaths he plans are far more numerous and violent and are supposed to avenge minor crimes, such as curable physical pain (getting bitten by a dog and having his arm broken). “‘Anybody ever asks you what the sweetest thing in life is-’ said Lazzaro, ‘it’s revenge.’” (p. 139). In my opinion, Paul Lazzaro is a very weak character, more or less a “drama queen” who makes a major problem out of a minor situation. As a person, Paul Lazzaro is very weak and cowardly and, hence, pathetic.

When Billy is time traveling to his own death, the narrator mentions that “He has had to cross three international boundaries to reach Chicago. The United States has been Balkanized, has been divided into twenty petty nations so that it will never again be a threat to world peace.” (p. 142). This instance actually reminds me of the summer reading novel 1984, in which the boundaries of the whole world have been modified to construct a utopia. Although the countries actually merge in 1948 (unlike the fragmentation seen in Slaughterhouse Five), in both books there is an attempt to achieve harmony among the nations of the world to ensure their stability and hence try to establish peace. The most curious aspect of all is that these attempts to construct utopias take place throughout the same time period. In 1984, the continents of Eurasia, Oceania and Eastasia were created in reaction to the Cold War. In Slaughterhouse Five, the fragmentation takes place around 1976 (year of Billy’s death) as a response to North American imperialistic tendencies and inflated power. The time span between both of these events is less than ten years, which might suggest a possible similarity between the social contexts and ideological backgrounds of both novels.

I also noticed how the narrator refers to Edgar Derby as being poor and old just because Billy has foreshadowed that he will die in Dresden. I wonder why, being so indifferent to death and viewing this event as being insignificant, the narrator actually feels pity for Edgar Derby’s fate. Is Derby an important character in the novel? Is he a symbol that represents something abstract and important for Billy?

Is the date of Billy’s death (February 13, 1976) supposed to mean something? Is the number 13 an ominous signal? Why do the prisoners get confined to the fifth slaughterhouse? Why not the first, second, third, or fourth? What are the numbers five and 13 supposed to mean?

Slaughterhouse Five, pages 119-136

On previous entries, I was wondering how the narrator of the Dresden novel knew everything about Billy Pilgrim’s life and experiences. I concluded that the narrator was, in fact, Billy Pilgrim, as there was no other reasonable way of explaining how another individual apart from himself could have known Billy’s thoughts and history. On page 121, however, I found a quote that said, “It would make a good epitaph for Billy Pilgrim-and for me, too.” (p. 121). This quote proved to me that the conclusions I had made about Billy’s identity were incorrect, that Billy and the narrator were, in fact, different individuals. Later on, on page 125, the narrator’s identity was finally revealed while Billy Pilgrim was taking a tour around the latrines in the middle of the night. “An American near Billy wailed that he had excreted everything but his brains. Moments later he said, ‘There they go, there they go.’ He meant his brains. That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book.” (p.125). The most ironic aspect is that now that I know that the narrator was actually a prisoner of war (like it was revealed in the first chapter), I have many more questions than I had in the beginning. How did the author know everything about Billy’s life? Why did he choose to narrate Billy’s story if, until now, he has not even exchanged words with him?

Later on in the novel, Billy recalled a moment when Montana Wildhack, an actress, was taken to Tralfamadore to be studied by the aliens. The creatures’ reaction to Montana’s hollering was so intense that “All the little green hands closed tight, because Montana’s terror was so unpleasant to see.” (p. 133). This instance shows how cowardly Tralfamadorias really are, amidst the first impression of superiority the reader gets from them. I believe that running away from possible problems in one’s life is not the solution to the problem. The situation is not going to disappear, and will keep on hunting the person until the difficulty is finally solved. This shows how the first impressions we get from individuals do not necessarily reveal their true character, and in order for us to judge them, we would need to know them much better. This makes me think that possibly the fourth dimension is not actually a symbol of alien superiority, but just a mechanism that will help them cope with their problems in a much easier way, without actually having to face the situation.

Throughout this chapter, the reader got introduced to the character of Howard W. Campbell Jr, a former American working for the German ministry. This individual describes Americans as filthy, unloving creatures who “…despised any leader from among their own number, refused to follow or even listen to him, on the grounds that he was no better than they were…” (p. 131). This fragment reminds me of Andrew Jackson, former president of the United States. He used to claim that “every man is as good as his neighbor, perhaps equally better.” Although the real purpose behind this exaggeration of democracy was the spoils system, Jackson democracy and its effects on Americans a century later were hazardous. It is therefore important to heed Confucius’ teachings of the middle way, always avoiding the extremes, as well as the importance of the conservation of balance, advocated by the Taoist theory.

Slaughterhouse Five, pages 96-119

On the previous entry, I was wondering whether Billy Pilgrim and Kurt Vonnegut, the narrator, were actually the same individual. Various instances of the interview to Kurt Vonnegut on http://wiredforbooks.org/kurtvonnegut/http://wiredforbooks.org/kurtvonnegut/ actually confirmed this hypothesis. For example, on his interview Vonnegut talks about drinking and making long distance calls to his friends. This same action occurs on the first chapter of Slaughterhouse Five, when the narrator of the book mentions that he has awaken in the middle of the night to drink and call one of his friends, Bernard V. O’Hare. This instance is valuable evidence that helps to confirm that Kurt Vonnegut is the narrator of the novel and the author of the book about Dresden. Later on in the interview, it was announced that Vonnegut is a German-American who fought in World War Two. In addition to this, Vonnegut mentions he was a prisoner of war, like Billy Pilgrim. This makes me believe that Kurt Vonnegut and Billy Pilgrim are the same individual. There is no other plausible explanation as to how the narrator of the Dresden book knows every detail about Pilgrim’s life.

During the interview, Vonnegut also mentions the resentment Americans have towards Germans, especially those who fought in World War Two and are living in the United States (Old Germans). Surprisingly enough, Vonnegut himself is of German origin, fought in World War Two, and lives in the United States. This leads me to think that Slaughterhouse Five is not actually an anti-war book, but an anti-prejudice book, showing that not all German-Americans are dreadful and violent. This is merely a hypothesis, and I do not have any evidence to show whether Vonnegut meant to write an anti-war book or an anti-prejudice book. It is amazing how the life and background of the author can play such a major role in shaping the trend of the novel.

Another segment of the interview that seemed relevant to me was Vonnegut’s view of religion. He objects to organized religion, but believes the Bible is a magnificent work of literature that has good insights. Vonnegut is an Agnostic who places Divine law over human law. Maybe this helps to explain the constant references to Adam and Eve throughout the novel. Vonnegut also mentioned that no one is ever sure of what God really wants. This view is expressed in pages 108 and 109 of the book, which offer a very queer explanation of Jesus’ character. “In it, Jesus really was a nobody, and a pain in the neck to a lot of people with better connections than he had.” (p. 108). The most curious yet strange detail of all is that we actually don’t know of this is true, if the interpretations of theologians are actually correct or not.

I also noticed how Eliot rosewater, Pilgrim’s companion at the hospital, always mentions Kilgore trout, a science fiction author. I also know that Kurt Vonnegut is a science fiction writer. Does Vonnegut admire Trout? Is he his literary role model?

I also noticed how the views of the Tralfamadorians concerning life and death actually challenge the Judeo-Christian Bible’s views on these topics. On page 114, Tralfamadorians acknowledge the need of seven different sexes to create a single human being. This contradicts the Book of Genesis, which says that two humans, Adam and Eve, were the ancestors of the human race, denying the existence of seven sexes (since there were only two human beings). Page 117 talks about the end of universe: “We blow it up, experimenting with new fuels for our flying saucers. A Tralfamadorian test pilot presses a starter button, and the whole universe disappears.’” (p. 117). This view is contradicting the Apocalypse and denying its credibility, as supposedly these aliens are able to see into the future and know what will happen.

Tralfamadorians are queer beings which have very unusual views on life. Their nature to travel through the fourth dimension gives them the ability to have a different perspective on life than the one we humans acknowledge. Their points of view, I believe, can teach us many valuable lessons, like always looking at the bright side of things and focusing on pleasant times rather than terrible situations because, after all, the future is predestined, and there is absolutely nothing we can ado about the bad moments in life. “’That’s one thing earthlings might learn to do, if they tried hard enough: Ignore the awful times, and concentrate on the good ones.’” (p.117). I believe this quote applies to my life, as I have a tendency to always worry about bad things and get anxious about every situation I encounter. I think I should learn to adopt this Tralfamadorian theory, as there is nothing you can do to prevent bad things in life except to look at their bright side.

Slaughterhouse Five, pages 71-96

This chapter continues to talk about Billy’s impressions and experiences as an American prisoner of war, as well as his kidnap by the Tralfamadorians. While walking in his house late at night, waiting for the arrival of the Tralfamadorians, the narrator of the book mentions the following quote: “Billy was guided by dread and the lack of dread.” (p.73). This has been one of my favorite quotes thus far, as it makes the public aware of the narrow wall separating success from failure. It is fascinating to know hat those who thrive in life are not specifically the smartest ones or the ablest ones, just those who have the courage and will power to defeat fear and apprehension. This passage reminds me of the poem The Road Not Taken, by Robert Frost. This poem basically talks about two roads, representing the different paths in life, and how the traveler took “the one less traveled by”, referring to the decision of taking the path filled with the greatest obstacles and hardships, but that would ultimately guide him to success. Here, Robert Frost was being guided by “lack of dread”, or by the courage to take a risk and attempt to achieve success.

I also noticed the continuous reference to Adam and Eve throughout the novel. For example, on page 75 the omniscient narrator describes how Billy got unstuck in time and watched a documentary backwards, tracing the events in his head back to the beginning of humanity, to Adam and Eve. Why are these two Biblical humans so important? Will they play a mayor role in the novel? Why is Billy Pilgrim so obsessed with them?

Apart from continuously mentioning Adam and Eve, the book also makes constant references to dogs. Billy is always seeing and hearing dogs in almost every setting of the novel: the German establishment where he was taken to as a prisoner, the outside of his home while waiting for the arrival of the Tralfamadorians….. Are these animals supposed to symbolize something in the novel? Why does Billy keep on mentioning them? Why do they keep on appearing everywhere?

The narrator also repeats the phrase "So it goes" every time death is mentioned: "Then Billy got his clothes back, they weren't any cleaner, but all the little animals that had been living in them were dead. So it goes.... A slave laborer from Poland had done the stamping. He was dead now. So it goes...After poor Edgar Derby, the high school teacher, was shot in Dresden later on, a doctor pronounced him dead and snapped his dogtag in two. So it goes..." (pgs. 90, 91, 92). Like Billy Pilgrim, the narrator is totally indifferent to death. This leads me to wonder whether Billy Pilgrim and the narrator are actually the same individual. This hypothesis makes sense with the questions about the character of the narrator I had asked in previous entries, about how the narrator actually knew about everything that had happened to Pilgrim and about the thoughts that had wondered inside his head during the time warps. Are the narrator and Billy Pilgrim the same individual?

Another quote that also caught my attention was the Tralfamadore’s explanation to Billy’s inquiry as to why he had been chosen: “Because the moment simply is… there is no why." (p.77). This excerpt helps to explain the inquiry I had the night before, whether it was free will or destiny what determined our fates. Apparently, the answer is destiny. We as humans, therefore, do not have the capacity to make our own decisions because, like the Tralfamadorian says, we are merely “…bugs trapped in amber.” (p.77). I personally find the inexistence of free will very degrading. We are not even capable of controlling ourselves! This leads me to thinking, what is the purpose of life? What is the point of living if we are not able to make our own decisions based on what we want, but on what we are meant to have? What would have happened, then, if Billy, knowing the time and place of his capture, would have gone somewhere else, trying to evade the moment and trying to bend destiny? Would some sort of a force have obliged him to be at his backyard, at that specific time of the night? What would have happened if Billy Pilgrim had stayed in his bed and not done what fortune had planned?

Later on, I encountered a very similar quote. This time is was said by a German oficial to one of the American prisioners: "'Vy you? Vy anybody?' He said." (p.91). This makes me wonder whether Billy's abduction by the Tralfamadorians was actually an imaginary response to what was happening at war. For one thing, we know Billy is a coward ("His mother touched him, and he wet his pants" (p. 89)). Was Billy pilgrim trying to escape reality and horror? Were his experiences in Tralfamadore a product of his mind?

Slaughterhouse Five, pages 52-71

Chapter three of the novel talks about Billy Pilgrim’s and Roland Weary’s experiences as American prisoners of war. During the chapter, Billy "unsticks" in time a couple of times and is able to live through memories that will occur in the future, when he is back at Ilium and when he is abducted by the Tralfamadorians. This makes me wonder whether Billy actually went to this planet, or just had a series of memories in which he only imagined he was in Tralfamadore… Were the remnants of his future life revealed in his memories actually real events that took place in the future, or just the product of Billy’s daydreams?

I also wonder what the Adam and Eve that Billy Pilgrim supposedly saw on the commodore’s boots at the beginning of the chapter really means. (“Billy stared into the patina of the corporal’s boots, saw Adam and Eve in the golden depths. They were naked. They were so innocent, so vulnerable, so eager to behave decently” (p.53)). I know this fragment of the narration cannot possibly be interpreted literally, which means it must have some sort of symbolical definition. Does it symbolize a new beginning or a new era in Billy’s life? If so, what views or circumstances were subject to transformation?

Throughout the novel, we have been exposed to a narrator who participated in World War II and is writing a book about Dresden, which begins in chapter two and proceeds throughout the book. The narrator’s book, or the book inside the book, is a collection of memories and stories gathered throughout his experience at war. However, there are several inconsistencies concerning the credibility of the narration. One would think that this was a story told by Billy Pilgrim to the writer of the novel, but, for example, on page 54 and in many other places in the chapter, the speaker translates the conversation of the German soldiers. Pilgrim does not know German, and is therefore unable to have translated the conversations of the soldiers into English, as they appear on the book. This makes me doubt about the character of the narrator. Who translated all the bits and pieces of information to the writer of the book? Is the narrator a type of omniscient being who can see everything, a character who also has the capacity to "unstick" in time, or just another individual who accompanied Billy throughout his journey but is not present in the actual narration?

“Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future” (p.60). I believe this quote is very important in setting the trend of the novel and once again confirming the reality of being able to "unstick" in time. It also reasserts the reality of having a determined fate, or destiny. This instance caught my attention because it reminds me of myself and about what I think about life. Personally, I believe the concept of destiny eliminates the charm and wonder of being human and of being able to control our own actions and make our own decisions. Having a determined fate means being unable to control yourself and make the good or bad choices that will guide you throughout life. It undermines the foundations of all great religions, especially Christianity, and the idea of working hard to achieve eternal salvation. Who cares if you are good or bad if you are already destined to go to Heaven or Hell? Although I personally don’t agree with this concept, I believe it is the key to the existence of the four dimensional world. Individuals are able to see into the future because there are events which are destined to occur at a specific time and at a specific place. If personal free will actually played a role in our fate as human beings, we would be unable to see into the future. Are destiny and the four-dimensional world or free will within a limited time and space what governs our universe?

Slaughterhouse Five, pages 23-51

Chapter two of the book Slaughterhouse Five begins with the words "Listen: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck on time" (23), words which were formerly repeated and emphasized on the previous chapter. This phrase is very important, if not the most crucial for understanding the thematic of the chapter. Billy Pilgrim, the main character of the chapter, acquired the capacity to become unstuck, or travel through a four-dimensional world, while he was in World War II. After having understood this experience during his kidnap by the Tralfamadorians, Pilgrim feels one step ahead of the society which surrounds him, which is unable to travel through time and merge the past, present, and future into one sole moment.

Billy also mentioned that the concept of death did not exist in the four-dimensional world. By implying this, the whole notion of Jesus and his sacrifice to humanity is being denied, as well as that of the omnipotent power of God. If death is vague and inexistent, souls are then unable to ascend to God’s judgment which, according to the King James Bible, is a system where individuals are rewarded/punished for the actions they commit throughout their lives. According to the same ideas of the four-dimensional universe, the existence of Jesus is entirely irrelevant for society. In fact, Jesus did not really sacrifice for our welfare, as he is not even considered to be dead in the world of the Tralfamadorians. By denying the passage of time, Slaughterhouse Five is simultaneously denying the magnitude and significance of God, as well as many of the works of literature which we have recently read, including Dante’s Inferno.

The character of Billy Pilgrim, in my opinion, has a close tie to the main character of the novel Brave New World, Bernard Marx. Apart from having peculiar names which may probably conceal a hidden significance, both characters make the impression of having a pathetic existence. Pilgrim and Marx are alienated from society because of their differences, which, according to both individuals, are actually advantages they possess over other people. In reality, this is what leads Bernard to exile, and Billy to social marginalization. This makes me wonder whether advantages (or what may seem like advantages in a society) may actually bring disadvantages to the people who possess them…. This sort of reminds me of Confucianism, where being average and avoiding every type of excess (in this case, advantage or difference) may be crucial in defining their downfall…. Wow, I never really thought ancient literature could be so influential in modern works…

As I read, I wondered how Billy Pilgrim achieved to travel through time… How come he, out of all people, attempted to achieve such a strange deed? Why was he chosen? How come people have failed to accomplish this using time machines and all sorts of invented gadgets, while Billy was the only one who could travel through time, without making the slightest effort? Is Billy special in some sort of way?

I wonder what the structure of the novel will be like… Is the story going to be written using flashbacks and random scenes of Billy “unsticking” in time, or just in plain chronological order? I believe this question is very important for determining the real significance of the fourth dimension, whether it is real or just something that is only going on in Billy’s mind. I guess only TIME can tell….

Blogs

A. What is the difference between a blog and a book?
B. How have blogs changes recently?
C. Why might you read a blog?
D. Is there reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog? Why? Why not?
E. If you kept your own blog, what would you title it?

A. There are many differences between a blog and a book. Probably one of the most obvious one is the space in which each of these is created. Books are the final product of amny revised drafts which have been given to a publishing company to print and distribute among the population. Blogs, on the other hand, are found on the world wide web, a place anybody can have access to anywhere (unlike bookstores). Blogs can talk about many different subjects, and, unlike books, many people's writings and opinions contribute to the maintenance of the blog. Blogs are much more concise and to-the-point than books, which tend to ramble a lot to try to make the literary work interesting. Blogs permit you to easily access and have information about whichever topic you like by simply searching on the web or starting your own discussion. They are some of the best places to search when you are looking for specific information about a certain topic, and at the same time offer a great variety books don't possess. Unlike books, blogs can be updated on-line, and are permanently expanding. Blogs possess links, which are pieces of text which you click on to get transported to another website which complements your blog. Lastly, books have certain spelling and grammar rules which must be followed - they have a strict structure, which has to follow a specific order depending on the genre. Blogs are informal - they don't require you to have perfect spelling or grammar, and even permit you to include animations and emoticons, as well as commonly used abbreviations (LOL, OMG, FYI, OMFG).....

B. Blogs, although somewhat recently invented (1980s) have undergone vast changes in the past years. In the year 1998, blogs began to become popular around the world. At the beginning, these didn't include commentary from people, just a series of links that people wanted to offer that took you to specific websites. In 1999, blogs began to gather momentum and expanded rapidly around the world. The whole character of blogs changed: new websites began to appear which offered people assistance in creating their own blogs, which could include as much information as its author wanted to show. Comments from other people began to make their appearance on blogs, a custom which has come to define blogs today. from the years 1999 to 2003, the number of blogs on the web began to expand: from a few hundred to two million, its numbers doubling every five months. The blog boom erupted with the nw millenium. People wanted to gain fame and attention of the web. Links directing you to outside pages began to be replaced with links that took you to your own blog. Opionions began to be more liberally expressed in blogs, which began to talk about subjectys of controversy in order to attract more viewers and people to post comments. People wanted to become popular, or "link-whores". the past few years have presented dramatic change in the nature of blogs. they have now become massive, popular, accesible, free-minded places where you can express your opinion and talk about whatever you like.

C. One of the reasopns blogs have become so popular is because people read them a lot. Personally, I would read a blog to get informed about the most recent news about a topic, or the "411" of the day. I would also read blogs to get informed about opinions from other people about a specific subject. These are very important, as they break the boundaries of your mind and introduce to you new ideas and points of view you might never really have thought could exist. I might also read blogs to get fast, easy, and accesible information about a topic. Of course, if I wanted to get into detail I would rather read an encyclopedia, but blogs have the benefit of being fast and accesible whenever you want to get briefly informed about something, especially something recent that INVOLVES OPINION. I would read blogs whenever I am bored, or as it is said in Colombia, "desplanada". That is, when I have nothing urgent to do and would simply like to have a fun time messing in people's private lives.

D. There are many reasons to doubt the objectivity of blogs, as blogs are places where people express their opinions obout something. They don't commomly inform you about facts (which are left for you to google), but on the opinions and personal reactions about events. therefore, they are very subjective. As was mentioned, people want to attract viewers to their blogs. This means that they will probably be radical about their positions in order to make blogs more entertaining and attractive and so people may contradict or support you, and hence you get more viewers. if you ask me, I think blogs are more subjective than the editorial page of newspapers, as they show opinions and comments from people from all over the world and in all sorts of situations. Blogs are places of gossip, where people go to to let the public see what's on your mind.

E. If I kept my own blog, i would probably title it "the 411", as I would want to talk about the most recent news and expect people to be gossip-ish and express their opiniomns on my blog. This name actually appeals to the public, or at least to every girl teen in the world, which I expect must have seen the movie "Mean Girls". I would choose this title because it has significance for me and my best friend natalia, who has also seen the movie a dozen times, and we always laugh about the wanna-be Barbie, dumb-blonde, socially-preocupied mother of one of the preppy school girls, and is constantly asking "what's the 411, what's everybody been up to!!", hence making reference to the theme of recent news I would want to talk about in my blog...

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to post your comments. if you have any questions about point E (which I expect you seem to think is a little strange), feel free to talk.. remember, blogs are random!!
P.S. please excuse me for any typeos you may run into