Questioning Sanity

Billy's state of sanity is a question that seems to keep coming up time and again in our discussions. At first I really considered the question, but then, especially after the pair of panel presentations today, I realized his mental stability really isn't essential to what we as readers take away from the novel. I hesitate to class anyone as 'mentally unstable', and I think we collectively as a society are reluctant to throw that term around. It's hard to put that label on someone when they aren't a threat to themselves or society. If Billy has a way of thinking that deviates from the norm, does it really need to be addressed? Like we pointed out in class, several of the characters in the book seem to have their own fictionalized version of themselves, each to a certain degree detached from their realities. Getting at a question that was posed earlier in class today, I would argue that it is inherent in human nature to use our imagination as a means of escape. Even the way we look back on things are affected as individual human memories are some of the most flawed accounts of personal history. Imagination is our natural form of escapism, and ultimately through this Billy is able to confront his most painful memories from the past. In a roundabout way while skirting around the events at Dresden, Billy is forced to recount it and come to terms with it in a way that still feels surprisingly comfortable. Maybe it's because I know I personally tend to block out painful memories until I feel strong enough to revisit them, but I can relate to Billy's more unique line of thinking as a coping mechanism. I wouldn't question his mental stability, but at the end of it, his sanity really doesn't matter.

On the Tralfamadorian novel

Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five is often described to be an "earthling approximation" of the Tralfamadorian novel. While some may agree with this comparison, I found that my knee jerk reaction was a definite no. Sure as I spent more time thinking about it I was able to convince myself into seeing the similarities, but for the most part, the resemblance just doesn't strike me. Written in fleeting bunches, each clump describing a singular moment, Tralfamadorian novels are non-linear and lack a narrative. According to the text "there isn't any particular relationship between the messages", though they are strategically selected by the authors for effect. The appeal of this writing is found in how these distinct pieces all conglomerate together to give the reader insight into the beauty of life. Slaughterhouse Five, I feel, is an extremely poignant piece of work, but achieves this through different means. Despite the time warps and the jerky chronology of plot, there is an identifiable overarching story line that Vonnegut introduces the readers to.  I would also assume that without any relation between one message and the next, Tralfamadorian novels would not be able to sustain a central protagonist, and maybe not even include recurring characters throughout the text. In Slaughterhouse Five, Billy Pilgrim really acts as our sort-of anchor throughout the series of events, and I can't imagine a rewriting of the novel without the primary focus we have on Billy and his perspective. While both Slaughterhouse Five and Tralfamadorian novels may manage to have the same impact on readers, I wouldn't think to lump them together in the same category. Kurt Vonnegut's work remains, I believe, a still very human piece.

For the love of free will

The discussion we had in class on Friday about the differences in how humans and Tralfamadorians perceive, (or I guess believe in) free will really got me thinking about free will on a personal level. Growing up the way we have (especially with the huge sense of entitlement that is usually associated with our generation...) it's been hard to think that we have anything but free will. Class, race, economics and gender always play a role in how our opportunities are limited, but for the most part, I still think we all are led to believe that as citizens of the world, we are capable of achieving anything. At the same time, how we believe in the metaphysical, or even just destiny, can be hard to reconcile with the fact that we have free will. How can the idea of free will peacefully coexist with ideas of predeterminism? In my mind at least, it can't. I still have no idea which or what I believe in, but I find it much harder to have an optimistic view of the world when I know that everything in my life has already been predetermined. Should I be motivated to do anything if everything that's meant to happen will already happen of its own accord? That mindset is also too oversimplified a form of thinking as far as predeterminism goes, and this is where the Tralfamadorians have the upper hand. I guess we've all been conditioned for too long to quietly accept that absolute free will is a social construct. Why is it so painful for an individual to relinquish their free will? I guess in a way it feels like giving up your claim to your own life.