False?

 “Falsehood is never in words; it is in things.” (pg. 62)

The fourth section of Invisible Cities talks about perspective. Every city in the section is seen differently depending on the beholder, or the way one looks at it, or the way it is described.

Olivia is the perfect example of how a city can change depending on its description. Marco Polo explains how in the case of this city, you describe the aspects of the city you want others to see, leaving out the obvious downsides. “If I describe to you Olivia, a city rich in products and profits, I can indicate its prosperity only by speaking of filigree palaces with fringed cushions in the seats by the mullioned windows… But from these words you realize at once how Olivia is shrouded in a cloud of soot and grease that sticks to the houses…” (pg.61) Much like any work of literature, Olivia can be described but not fully explained by a single person, because each reader will describe what he wants the next to see or only what he understood, even though the true meaning hidden in the book can be completely different.

“It is the mood of the beholder which gives the city of Zemrude its form” (pg. 66) This city, shows how every single person that reads a book, or lives a specific situation, may see it differently depending on his mood, the things that happened before that event, or the books he read before. The example Calvino gives for this city in order to explain it properly is very simple, yet effective. If you travel the city whistling, tilting you head back, it is inevitable that you see only the high areas of the city, the sunlit buildings and windows. If you walk hunched, with your hands in your pockets, and looking at the floor, you will see the sewers, the dark and less prosperous areas of the city. In reality, this city comes to show how there are two sides to everything, and what is seen depends on the beholder.

“..Aglaura imprisons your words and obliges you to repeat rather than say.” (pg. 68)

The city of Aglaura focuses is a city which is seen the same way by all its inhabitants. They have become so accustomed to its grandeur, that it no longer seems impressive. Furthermore, the inhabitants have stopped noticing the change and growth of their city, they just repeat what the previous inhabitants said about the city, causing any change in the metropolis to go by unnoticed. This phenomenon happens daily in reality. We have grown so used to seeing poor people working at the stop-lights, that it has ceased to affects us like it probably affected the first people to see them. It has become a common occurrence.  What's more, the excerpt on this city which is mentioned above, could also relate to the phenomenon which takes place in our heads every time we read a new good book. The author has stressed that as we near the ending of the book we will become “an emblem among emblems” (pg. 23) This means that we will become a part of the book, and the book will become a part of us. Every work of literature forces us to repeat rather than say. Not literally of course, we are never forced to agree with a book or begin to live by it, yet, if we like it, we invariably do.

As I continue reading the book, I have no way to know what the cities that come next will represent. I can’t even know what they will look like or what they will say. Still, I find myself trying to make predictions, or even trying to imagine what Calvino would like to write next. I have no way of predicting this, and there is no way to get it right, “’And yet I have constructed in my mind a model city from which all possible cities can be deduced…’” (pg. 69)

"You advance always with your head turned back?"

“Futures not achieved are only branches of the past: dead branches” (pg.29)

The past, and a future not lived, are ultimately the same thing, because neither of them can be recovered. As he opens the second section of Invisible Cities, Calvino seems to emphasize on the past, and all the different types of futures we could have.  At the end of the introduction to the section, the Kahn asks a question which can be formulated in two very specific ways: “Journeys to relive your past?” or “Journeys to recover your future?” (pg. 29) This question, or questions, alone portray the importance of past and future in this section of the book, which later moves on to explain cities overflowing with unfulfilled futures and past decisions.

“…through what it has become, one can look back with nostalgia at what it was.” (pg. 30) The city of Maurilla is one that changed from small town to metropolis, slowly gaining strength and power, but losing most of its grace. The previously mentioned excerpt, which is used to describe this city, can tie in perfectly with the idea of growing up. As a person changes from kid to adult, most of the personality, looks, and beliefs change as well, making the grown-up just a shadow of the kid he was. However, the loss of the child is bitter-sweet, as it is with the city of Maurilla, because it allows us to look back at what we once were, but still embrace what we have become.  The past is key in this city, it is a city of Memory, it looks back on the past while still moving forwards, just as we are forced to do every day.

The city of Fedora however, is more interesting than most I this chapter. It is the city of unfulfilled futures:  it is everything we want to be, brutally contrasted with what we actually are. Within every small glass orb in the city, lies a diagram of what the city could have been, but never became. The author explains that the city could never become anything those diagrams portrayed because as they were being invented, the city was already changing, making it impossible to create the perfect model.  Much like Fedora, as we grow, we constantly try to create a perfect version of ourselves. But as we create that version, we are changing, making the model inadequate the minute it is created.  This happens as well in literature. A book may be completely planned out before the author even begins to write, however, as soon as the author begins to write, his train of thought changes, rendering the plan useless. Furthermore, books also change every minute, a path not taken can alter the ending of a book as a missed chance can alter our future. Thus the parallelism between life and literature continues.

Zenobia is the city of forgotten desires. “…those that through the years and the changes continue to give their form to desires, and those in which desires either erase the city or are erased by it.” (pg. 35) This classification of cities contributes to the relationship between life and literature in the story, as everything in the chapter can refer to either of the two. The first category, shows the typical ideal of growing up, in which what we want remains the same as we grow older and is ultimately achieved. It can also be interpreted as a book that was written according to the author’s original plan, something that doesn’t change. The second category is more realistic. It is the group in which most of us will eventually fall. It is that scenario in which what we want is erased by who we are, or vice versa. In a book, this is one that changes as it is written. One in which the story evolves until the meaning is erased by the plot, or the plot disregarded for the meaning.

We advance looking backwards, because it is the only place we've got to look. We analyze the past and figure out the roads not taken, but in the end there is nothing we can do to change it. All we do is understand what we didn't before, and then regret not understanding sooner. 

As we continue to read the book, Calvino’s words seem to be as vague as ever. Even though I have begun to understand what the meaning of the story is, as the author promised in the closing of the first section, it is not completely clear and some cities still escape my grasp. However I believe the book is meant to be understood gradually until the reader reaches a point in which he seems to be reading Calvino’s mind instead of his words.

“… in their conversations, most of the time, they remained silent and immobile.” (pg. 39) 

Bookception

It has been stressed this year that literature has no point, it doesn’t really mean anything. Literature just is. If this is true, why is it that we find ourselves constantly looking for meaning within the pages of a book? Every piece of literature we read defines us, changes us. Every time we finish a particularly mind-blowing piece of literature, we unconsciously begin to live by what the author stated, forgetting immediately that there was no point at all to the narrative.

Life has been explained in many ways through the ages. Philosophers try to understand life, never getting anywhere, probably because there is nothing to understand. Life, like literature, just is. We live, we breed, we die. What was the point? What was the meaning? Probably it was absolutely nothing. This is why literature is the one subject which comes so close to life, it is the one subject which really understands life, because it is just as pointless.  

The brilliance of Invisible Cities is that it can be used as an allegory to life, or to literature, making them seem like they are the same thing.

“The new fact received a meaning from that emblem and also added to the emblem a new meaning.” (pg.22)

The previous excerpt from the book tells us how we will begin to understand previous pieces of the narrative and at the same time could hold an important truth on life.

In terms of literature, the phrase above is explaining how, in later chapters of the book, we will come to understand the details we have read thus far, and see them in a different way as we continue reading. In terms of life, the same meaning can be applied. As we grow older, we will learn new things and have new experiences, which will add meaning to what we have lived before and put it all in a different perspective.

As far as I know, every city in the book is mainly a small piece of our “empire”, or our world. In the book, the author is telling us about our world as he tells us about the book we are reading. I guess bookception is an accurate description for it all? 

Hosts

The Host by Stephenie Meyer creates a society in which aliens in the shape of small, shining, gel-like creatures are taking over the world. These aliens can live for millions of years, as long as they have bodies to carry them around. See, the aliens by themselves are incredibly weak creatures, brilliantly smart, but physically weak. In order to survive, they are inserted into a human’s body through a small cut in the back of the neck. Once inside the body, they take control of the brain and ultimately live as themselves with a puppet that helps them survive. In the book humans are survival machines for the aliens, much like we are in real life for the genes.

“When we have served our purpose we are cast aside.” (pg. 35) This belief is depressing on many levels. Firstly it takes out all meaning in our silly lives, which aren’t really that grand to start with. In just one phrase Dawkins manages to turn a human being into an object, which can be easily cast off at the first sign of trouble. Secondly, it steals all hope for a better existence, seeing as our purpose is nothing more than full housing service for millions of genes. Thirdly: if this is true of our lives, if it really is as Shakespeare put it “a tale told by an idiot…signifying nothing,” (Macbeth, Act V, scene v), then why is it that we consider ourselves so important?

That is the main weakness of humanity: we like to fool ourselves into believing we are more important than we actually are.  We love to think that the world will change, that something will be altered when we die. The truth is we aren’t that special. In our lives, we may be capable of making a few people smile, hopefully we will have the chance to help some people or to leave a mark on them, but in the end we all walk towards the same door. “In a few generations the most you can hope for is a large number of descendants, each of whom bares only a tiny portion of you- a few genes- even if a few do bear your surname as well.” (pg. 35)

This idea brings me back to The Host, mainly because the meaning of life is also questioned in the book. The way the humans in the book see it, there’s no reason to live if you aren’t controlling yourself, if you mean nothing. The rebellious humans that still remain hidden on earth have various strategies to kill themselves before becoming a host, or as Dawkins would put it: a survival machine.

If we really are merely survival machines for our genes, what do we mean? Do we mean anything at all? Should we still have hope for a better society if The Selfish Gene is managing us? What if we are no more than hosts?

“We should have been wiser; we should have died yesterday” (Stephenie Meyer, The Host) 

The Beauty of Choice

“They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines. ” Pg.20

Philosophers exist on earth to answer two main questions: Why are we living? What is our purpose on earth? Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene manages to answer both those questions in just one chapter. Obviously it must be acknowledged that the answers to these questions may vary depending on the way they are studied. In this book’s particular case, they are examined from a scientific point of view, which is exponentially easier to figure out. According to Dawkins we are here solely because the replicators, commonly known as genes, need survival machines. Our purpose is to carry said genes through our life time and pass them on before dying, in order for them to continue living.

This point of view on the meaning of existence seems unsatisfying, especially when philosophers have tried to find a deeper meaning since ancient Greek times. Many will argue that this cannot be the meaning of life, that humans are not guided only by their genes. I counter those thoughts with the knowledge that everything comes from our genes. Even the feeling many say is achieved through anything but biology: love.

Genes cause the first step towards love, the carnal attraction that comes with the animal inside every human being. Without this burst of attraction, love would be impossible because there would be no need to satisfy. Humans and animals alike thrive on survival. Dawkins explains this through the idea of competition. The earth’s size is finite, and thus every species must fight for their piece of land, this is, after all, what we are designed to do. Genes are meant to survive, that is the reason life has appeared on earth, the genes’ need to maintain itself alive is the drive of every species.  Humans or any animal for that matter, don´t do anything without a need to quench.

Why are humans different to animals then? Simple: we have more needs, and through time we have learned to exploit them. Curiosity is the main need that affects our separation from other animal species.

How does this prove the previous point on love? Genes spur the need humans have for love in the form of physical attraction, having this need is the first step towards a relationship and thus appears love. So it is safe to say that genes actually do create love. They create everything inside us.

The idea of the “Selfish Gene” is interesting and most likely correct, if it wasn’t so the human race would be extinct. The proof of this gene is clearly traced through years of human’s taking over the world without blinking. The only thing that is exempt from our genes in our train of thought, which in turn gives us the single most important ability a man has: the ability to choose. 

Hypocritical

"I am the best-tempered man there ever was, yet I have already killed three men..."

Sure Candide, you really are one of the best-tempered men I've ever heard of. 

Not only did the irony of this whole chapter make my stomach ache with laughter, it also made me realize how many false expectations we have of ourselves every day. We would all like to believe the best things about us, as Candide obviously does. Sadly, sometimes we fail to see how wrong we are about ourselves. 

I am strong.

I am not prejudiced.

I am always in a good mood. 

I most certainly do not have my mother's temper.

Oh, how naive I have been sometimes.

How sad that we never really know ourselves, let alone each other. Why is it that Voltaire seems to point out so many bitter truths? Why is it that everything he says in the book, contains a double meaning which I believe we can all relate to?

Throughout the years I have found that most of the statements I use to describe myself are merely an image of what I want to be, not what I really am. Voltaire strongly agrees with what I am saying because he clearly ridicules that aspect of humans with Candide's claims to be "the best-tempered man there ever was." As I read I realized how pathetic humans (yes, I include myself in the generalization) really are. 

The author points out the hypocrisy that lives in all of us, as we claim to be better people than we are, yet hate the ones who do exactly the same thing. We live by our views on people, and the images we have in our head. Images about the way life should be, images which portray how everything should work, images which make us believe to be something we have never been.

Whatever happened to no hypocrites?

Please, the day there is no hypocrisy on this planet is the day humans become extinct.

We are a species which is completely hypocritical in every aspect for our lives: we pray for common good yet expect to have the very best for ourselves,  we say that prejudices are wrong but deep inside we know that we have prejudiced at least once, we claim to be the smartest animals on the planet… But I don’t see the other animals slowly killing it all, do you?

This hypocrisy is obviously what Voltaire is targeting with Candide’s words, and as a part of the hypocritical human population I want it to stop. But is there a way to stop it anymore?

Try, for just an hour to act with everything you’ve ever said. Try to stand by all your comments without being a complete hypocrite about one of them.

Hard isn’t it???   

Hakuna Matata

Why do we all choose to live? Why is it that the people with the worst lives keep fighting for an existence so awful, that they wouldn't miss anything if they were dead? "... is there anything more stupid that to be eager to go on carrying a burden which one would gladly throw away...?"(pg. 57)

Voltaire questions all these ideas in Candide and I found myself analyzing everything he said. Sometimes, things happen to us and there is nothing we can do to change it or make it better, yet we still hang on to the last strings of hope, even though we know it is no use. This is clearly pathetic in Voltaire's point of view, and thus he writes the whole passage of the old woman's tales with a strongly ironic voice, obviously claiming that she should just go ahead and kill herself. 

Past relationships, fights, losses, disagreements...

We hang on to them all as if they were needed in our lives, we hang on to every little miserable detail in the world and that is what Voltaire is protesting. It is also what I find makes life beautiful.

What would we be without our past to make us who we are? What would we have if those grudges, crushed dreams, doomed relationships, and losses weren't by our side?

We would have nothing, we would be no one. 

This part of the book, not only got me thinking about the way we hold on to life, but the way we hold on to the past. It reminded me (as weird as this may sound) of The Lion King and two of my all-time favorite characters: Timon and Pumba. 

"Hakuna Matata! What a wonderful phrase!

Hakuna Matata! Ain't no passing craze!

It means no worries, for the rest of our days...

It's our problem free, philosophy..." (Timon and Pumba- The Lion King)

I have to admit it, that song still makes me happy every time I have a problem with my family or friends. I find this "philosophy" very interesting, but I also find that it should not be taken literally. As I mentioned before, we would be nothing without our past and therefore we should never forget it completely, we should however, stop living in it. 

Somehow we all have to move on, and that's why I disagree with Voltaire's view on the miseries of life. That’s why I so strongly disagree with suicide. I find it a cowardly act, an act in which a person just can’t own up to his past and thus decides to run away from it all. The past can make us smile, or cry, or even shake our fists in anger at the unfairness of it all. The past can be sad and it can be happy. The past can be many things but if there is something I truly believe in: it’s that we should never bail on life because of it.

"Oh yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it: you can either run from it... or learn from it..." (Rafiki- The Lion King)

All is Fair in Love, War and Ignorance

In Ancient Rome, the Emperor and the Patricians watched as gladiators fought for their lives in the ring, not only against each other, animals were sometimes involved for the mere entertainment of the people in the higher classes. After the Roman Empire collapsed, this injustice could still be seen in the inquisition, which killed thousands of people over suspicions and religious prejudices.

As is usual in every aspect of the human society, the people who were not suffering were indifferent to the suffering of the people being burned at the stake. As a species, we tend to want equality but still hope the best is given to us, we enjoy as other people suffer as long as this doesn’t affect the way we live. In Candide, this aspect of humanity is clearly illustrated when Lady Cunégonde is telling her story and she says: “I had an excellent seat, and delicious refreshments were served to the ladies between Mass and the execution.” (pg. 42)

As the man she loves is being whipped, this lady is offered various drinks and nourishment that keep her happy, and all this because she holds the affection of two of the most important man in town, which she ironically despises.

Furthermore, in these chapters of the book, Voltaire also targets the ignorance of humanity, and the length to which people will go to solve problems that have no solution.

“…the sight of a few people ceremoniously burned alive before a slow fire was an infallible prescription for preventing earthquakes; so when the earthquake had subsided after destroying three-quarters of Lisbon, the authorities of that country could find no surer means of avoiding total ruin than by giving the people a magnificent auto-da-fé.” (pg. 36)

This quote attacks human kind as much as it attacks the inquisition. Not only does it ridicule the idea that burning people solves any problems, it also ridicules any human who has ever done something irrational to solve a problem. Any type of ritual sacrifice is ironically murdered in this phrase, as is the thought of Inquisition, irrational beliefs and in a way, religion. 

The Bitter Truth

Lady Cunégonde wanted to learn “a lesson in experimental physics” (pg.20) with the very noble and extremely willing Candide when the Baron just happened to walk by the expensive tapestry that hid them, and by pure coincidence noticed the lesson taking place, which caused him to drive Candide away from the mansion with “…powerful kicks on the backside.” (pg. 21)

“Thus consternation reigned in the most beautiful and delightful of all possible mansions.” (pg.21)

The first chapters of Candide pretty much drip with irony. Not only are many of the situations absurd, but the voice used to write the book is so bitterly sarcastic that it makes the normal situations sound insane, even if they are entirely plausible.

 The first chapter illustrates what everyone would imagine to be a perfect house with perfect people, but one slowly begins to notice that this mansion is anything but perfect. In fact, it is probably one of the worst places I’ve ever heard of.

At first, the amount of irony used to describe this house makes it seem, as I said before, a bit insane, and even though it is targeting a society that is long gone, I found that it can be applied to our very lives. People today have come to accept as an absolute reality that money is the path to happiness. This thought is a form of epistemological violence: it has been guaranteed by the media so long, that it is no longer seen as the lie it is. However, as shown in Candide, the people with the most money are not always the happiest or the most fortunate, as a matter of fact, they normally aren’t the best of people either.

Money has come to rule our society, and that, is exactly what Voltaire protests in the first chapter of his book.

 

Money doesn’t imply education or morals. Money doesn’t mean knowledge. Above all, money doesn’t give you happily ever after. 

Who is Billy Pilgrim?

In the end of chapter five I truly began to question exactly who Billy Pilgrim is.

The only idea I’ve had so far is that Billy Pilgrim is a human representation for Vonnegut’s trauma of the war. This theory is supported the following statement in the book: “It would make a good epitaph for Billy Pilgrim- and for me too.”

This statement is made in the book whilst Billy is in one of his voyages through time. If the author were not, in some way Billy, then he would have no way to know what he was thinking.

When I read that statement I felt my theory was correct, this however, was proved wrong just a couple of pages afterwards.

“”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”

Here my whole theory was proved wrong because the author explicitly separates himself from Billy. There is no way Billy can be a representation of Vonnegut’s trauma because he is completely different, on the other hand there is still the previous moment in which Vonnegut knows exactly what Billy thinks.

Putting it all together, I would have to admit that I still haven’t got a clue who Billy Pilgrim is. I find him an intriguing character nonetheless, and I really can’t wait to find out where he comes form, and if he’s real. 

WAR

“Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he isn’t well connected.”

Sadly, this reminds me of our current reality.

It reminds me of the way we treat others and it reminds me of the superficial culture we have become. It is simple for us all to say that we are not superficial, that we care for others and we give away all that we have.

That is a lie.

We may feel like giving to others every once in a while, and I would love to be selfless and help everyone. But humans (yes, me included) are naturally selfish. There is no way to deny that. When it comes to a very big and important choice, you will always put yourself first. I have tried to deny it, but truthfully, it’s something we can’t help.

War is unnatural. War is just “… the incredible artificial weather that Earthlings sometimes create for other Earthlings when they don’t want those other Earthlings to inhabit Earth anymore.” We have come to a point where we invent excuses to start a war. As a race we have stopped caring about each other and thus have completely unbalanced the world.

In Slaughterhouse Five I have noticed that most of the characters seem to think of the war as a waste of time. Billy really doesn’t care for it, Derby describes it as unnatural, and even Vonnegut is clearly disturbed by it.

From this it is not hard to draw the conclusion that on the whole, war is a pretty pathetic thing. 

We Win

The books in Tralfamadore are like a picture. They are messages mixed together perfectly to evoke a beautiful and deep image of life. Most importantly, these books are (like all else in Tralfamadore), not written lineally. “There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects.” In other words, there is no room for surprise.

 I can’t picture myself living in such a measured world for more than a few minutes. I would probably explode.

 In a way the world of the Tralfamadorians can be seen as a huge chaos. With time being just a bunch or parallel moments, there is no way that the world can be organized. To me, Tralfamadore is a world of supreme order. They never ask themselves why the world is as it is, they never question living or wars. They have nothing worth living for. This makes life just a thing they have to go through every day because it is written that way. There is no room for a bit of chaos. There is no room for risk taking or for fighting for what you believe in. Tralfamadore just is, and that is what makes the whole thing dull.

“Vy you? Vy anybody?” 

This quote is actually quite touching to me and I find that it may describe many soldiers who actually lived during World War II. Most of the soldiers were just kids when they went to war, and although the posters said that they were doing it for their country I can’t help but think that they always asked themselves: why? Why were they killing the Jews? Why were they killing anyone who was different? Why were they killing at all? I can’t imagine that the soldiers were happy. I believe that any soldier has the right to be bitter and distressed. They should not have to see what they see in war. No one should have to see that. And when I think about it I always end up with the same question: If no one likes war… Why do we do it in the first place?

The world of the Tralfamadorians is very different from ours, and (call me biased) I believe our world is better. Not only a bit better, better all the way. The idea of the Tralfamadorians that life just is and that there is no way to change it makes the everything seem dull. The main difference between the Tralfamadorians and us stands in one small word: why. We ask ourselves why we live the way we do while they just say “it just is.” To me this is just a lie. It can’t be possible. There is no way that we can live without wanting to change anything, just letting people die and excusing ourselves with a simple “it just is.” If life is already written down then what is the point in living it? 

Backwards

And finally… let it be known that this book is a master piece.

I have become more familiar with the way Vonnegut writes. This has helped me understand the novel and I am now taking more out of each section I read. The time traveling Billy is subjected to is the reason for this novel’s hazy plotline. Said plotline only makes the book more interesting, each section leads to a new event, in a different year, and in completely different circumstances. As a reader I am still not sure what all these events have in common (maybe they don’t have anything at all) and where they are leading. Perhaps there is a bigger point behind all of the small memories Billy has. Perhaps they are just meant to give me more insight on Billy Pilgrim’s life. Perhaps the author used them just to fill pages. I wouldn’t know, but there they are, and they are thrilling.

Vonnegut manages to find the obscure line between excessive description and not enough description in this book. Every event is described perfectly. The author gives enough insight so the reader will get the exact image of the scene, but not so much that the reader will get bored through it.

This scene is a complete contradiction to the Tralfamadorian ideal which states that time is not linear. The way Vonnegut describes every detail of time (even if it is going backwards) clearly states that time is lineal. According to the Tralfamadorian way of thinking, time can’t go forwards or backwards, it just is. 

Furthermore this scene is just a mockery of war in general. It doesn’t illustrate war as something painful or even as something that has an effect in human lives. It just describes war as a comic book would, as if it were nothing more than a few pieces of scrap metal and some humans lying around crying melodramatically. It takes away the importance of war, which is also a contradiction seeing as it was this war that caused Billy all his suffering in the first place.  This is the main reason I loved the beginning of chapter 4.

I would like to begin by saying that the description of the movie seen backwards by Billy Pilgrim is easily the best scene I have ever read.   

(all confused readers please read the paragraphs from last to first)

Past, Present, Future

“Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future”. This quote from the book appears contradicting seeing as Billy Pilgrim is seemingly able to travel in time. In this chapter, Vonnegut treats the past and present as if they were insignificant, somehow merged together. He writes them as though the limits between them were blurred. Billy’s life is a mixture of past, future, and present. He spends his time falling asleep while he should be awake but finds that sleep doesn’t come to him when he has the time for it. Throughout this chapter it is easy to see that Billy Pilgrim finds his life unfulfilling. As a war veteran and wealthy optometrist this seems hard to imagine, but that’s the way it is. His daughter thinks he is a liar, he was a war prisoner in Germany, he falls asleep during his work meetings and nothing seems to fill him up.

The fact that he seems to be crazy and is unable to sleep may lead to the reader believing that Billy Pilgrim has post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the war, and I must say, to me, that is the most likely explanation for his behavior and his idea of being kidnaped by aliens. The Tralfamadorians seem to be his way of getting over what he saw in the war. They believe that every moment has always been the same way and thus it could have never been changed. This probably helps Billy live over the regret of war. This ideology probably is the one thing that keeps him sane, or at least relatively so.  He is certainly a troubled man and I think some of this confusion may be due to the war and possibly to the bombing of Dresden which is what the book is supposed to be about.   

Something that struck as very interesting to me in this chapter was the plaque in Billy’s office which stated: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference.” This plaque seems to tie up with the quote I mentioned at the beginning, it states that there are certain things that cannot be changed, and we must accept that, but in a way it also contradicts it by saying that some things must be changed if they can be. I have noticed that Vonnegut seems to contradict himself a lot in his writing, even if it is with little things such as this. To me this is part of what makes him such a brilliant author, his book is fascinating to read because it is complex. You find yourself rereading pieces of it, just to make sure you understood right. The novel is extremely well written and the situation is so bizarre it is hard to put it down.  

So It Goes

Death always happens when you least expect it: “So it goes.” Most people would agree to this statement, and most would try to ensure their survival for the longest amount of time. Billy Pilgrim however, is not one of them. He lives in a constant state of fright due to his time traveling. What I find interesting about Billy’s situation, is the fact that he is doing nothing to prolong his time on earth. On the contrary, he wishes it was all over. He wishes to be left alone so “he wouldn’t cause anybody any more trouble.” In a way this reminds me of a book I read a while ago called Speak. In this book the main character was raped and she constantly feels the need to just disappear, like Billy, she would’ve liked to just “turn into steam and float up among the treetops.”

The Tralfamadorian idea that time is not linear is, to me, one of the most interesting ideas in the second chapter. Maybe that is the way the universe really is organized. As human beings we have come to consider ourselves the most knowledgeable species in the universe, yet we constantly prove each other wrong. If we can prove each other wrong, then maybe we are all wrong right now. Maybe someone will someday discover something that will change the world. Maybe someday we will realize that time is after all, non-linear. By then I will probably be dead, and the world will have changed. Maybe someday we will find that there really is a grand purpose for life and for our existence but for now we are just doomed to wander in a world we barley understand. We watch time go by and then we die. “So it goes.”

Even though the book constantly refers to death (that is not surprising, it is a war book after all) the feeling of the writing is not so serious. I believe this is mostly due to the simple three words the author uses after every death scene, the three words I previously quoted: “So it goes.” This phrase lightens the mood of every death, making it sound as something normal, something that can’t be changed and therefor is not worth dwelling over.

 Death happens: “So it goes.” 

Everything Happens, More or Less.

“All this happened, more or less.” The bombing of Dresden happened and eventually Kurt Vonnegut wrote a book about it. He had trouble doing it though. He had trouble remembering the most traumatic event of his life.  The most important events in a person’s life normally shine like a beacon in his memories and they have probably been replayed constantly. But when it comes to actually describing said events, you may find that they become a full on blur, and no words seem to fit.  The moment you really have to think about that episode that changed your life, suddenly the memory seems to be gone

“All this happened, more or less.” Everything seems to be that way in the world now, even in Kurt Vonnegut’s reality. We never really know what’s happening. Twisted propaganda, social classes, and commercialism have led us all towards different realities. We all live in bubbles, thinking that our own specific reality is the same around the world. We live without realizing that what to us seems normal, may be considered completely abnormal in someone else’s life.

“All this happened, more or less.” This phrase is how Kurt Vonnegut chose to start Slaughterhouse Five, one of his most famous novels. In my opinion no other beginning would have fit this book better. The whole first chapter of Slaughterhouse Five is completely different from anything I expected. Having heard that it was a famous “war book” I wasn’t expecting what I read. I was pleasantly surprised though, and I noticed that this seemed more realistic than any other book that simply talks about war. The way the author captures the want to write about war, and at the same time the hesitancy to do so, makes the book a master piece.  Vonnegut doesn’t organize his ideas in a traditional way. He jumps from memory to memory, creating a brilliantly messed up order for the story. He writes in short chapters, each one being a specific memory. Although this manner of writing may be frustrating for the reader at times, I find it makes the book even more interesting and realistic, because no one really thinks in chronological order. 

The Perfect Life by John Koethe

As we grow up and learn about ourselves and the world that surrounds us the magic we used to find in simple things is gone. The world seems to lose half its color and the things we used to associate with happiness and fun lose their special touch, turning into everyday activities. In this poem John Koethe  illustrates his life this way and conveys to the reader a certain desperation to find something more, something that brings back the perfection in his life. 
I believe perfection in life doesn't come from the perfect circumstances but from the bright moments that make a difference in daily life. Perfection depends on the person who is striving for it because it may mean something different for everyone. To me perfection is freedom.
Nobody is free in this world. The greatest enemy to freedom is the person looking for it.You  may set the bar to be free, but by doing so you create expectations for yourself, the same expectations you wanted to be free of in the first place. This is, what I believe John Koethe wanted the reader to see in his poem, a certain wish to be free and see life in technicolor as kids do. A wish for magic to come back and for repetitive routines to end. In many ways I think the author just wishes to be a child again just as most people do.
When we are young we all wish to be grown-ups and have a more complicated life. We spend our days pretending to be older and wiser, we see adults as all powerful beings. Beings that could solve all our problems and make everything perfect.
Now as adults (or at least  on our way to become adults) we wish our problems were make-believe as they once were, we wish life was as simple as once was but most of all, we wish the world was as colorful as it once seemed to be.  

POETIC JUSTICE

"When the savage spirit quits the body from which it has torn itself, then Minos sends it to the seventh maw. It falls into the wood, and there's no space to which it is allotted, but wherever fortune has flung that soul, that is the space where, even as a grain of spelt, it sprouts." (Dante's Inferno; canto XIII; 93-99)
This quote represents poetic justice in Dante's Inferno because it illustrates how the spirits have that which they misused taken from them. Their bodies were given to them by God and they were unthankful for them. That is why they are later punished as trees, condemned to miss what they wasted for all eternity.