Skip to main content

Non-Chronological Storytelling in Slaughterhouse Five

     One of the most unique parts of Slaughterhouse Five is the non-chronological view of the story that we get through the protagonist, Billy Pilgrim. The book explores many of the consequences of this, including the fundamental breakdown of cause and effect and even the concept of free will, and what this does to both Billy, who once had a linear view of time, and the Tralfamadorians, who always viewed time non-linearly. I think that this non-linear view of time is actually helpful for Billy, but I'm not entirely convinced that overall, this view is helpful.
     A large amount of people like Billy, who experience huge amounts of death, in both WWII, Vietnam, or more recently the wars in the middle east, have very traumatic experiences from the lack of care about human life in these wars. To Billy, the Tralfamadorian perspective offers a much more easy handling of the death he saw with the Dresden bombings. For the Tralfamadorians, death isn't really a big deal, as with a non-linear view of time, it doesn't really matter, as they still exist, just not right now, at this moment. I think this is the most beneficial consequence of this view of time.
      For normal people, who don't have extremely traumatic experiences of mass death, I don't think this view is very helpful. I think that without the concept of free will, most people would just feel apathetic, and they wouldn't ultimately think to improve or change anything, because they feel their actions don't mean anything.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are Coalhouse's Actions Justified?

     In the past two days in class, we have been discussing the character of Coalhouse Walker, and his actions regarding his car and the death of Sarah. Whenever anyone talks about why Coalhouse did what he did, they always start with "I don't endorse violence or terrorism, but ", and I started to think about why everyone does this, and this brought me to the question: Is terrorism or political violence inherently bad?       First, I think we should start with the definition of terrorism.  The U.S.  Code of Federal Regulations  defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." I would argue that actions that fit this statement are not inherently morally wrong, and I think that most people would agree, at least with some actions. I think that nearly everybody would say...
3 comments
Read more

Physical Manifestations of Psychological Experiences in Kindred

     When we were discussing the end of Kindred, we discussed Dana losing her arm, and especially  how that was a reflection of her experiences throughout the book, and how she lost part of herself at the plantation. This general theme, of mental experiences and trauma expressing physically, is not only present at the end of the book, but throughout the whole book.      In the first chapter, when Dana initially travels back, she ends up getting a gun pointed at her head, and while she doesn't actually end up getting injured, the gun represents a threat of physical injury, just like the travelling then represented only a threat of mental injury. As she keeps going back to the plantation, her mental state, as well as eventually Kevin's, gets worse and worse. This is reflected physically, in the injuries they receive. The following time Dana goes back, a white patrolled attempts to rape Dana, and Dana has the chance to gouge his eyes out with her fingers...
2 comments
Read more

How Capitalism Corrupts Tateh's Art

     One major focus of our discussions in class has been Tateh and his transformation over the book from a street artist into the rich filmmaker Baron Ashkenazi, and how that is reflected on and changes his art. Some people in the class have made the argument that even though his financial status, and his position of power, have changed, this doesn't reflect on the intentions, morality, or validity of his art, and I disagree with this statement. The reasons why The Baron makes films are vastly different from why Tateh was making silhouettes at the start of the book, and the difference between these reflects on the art, as well as on Tateh himself, so much that it's almost like he is a seperate person by the end of the book.      I think that the fundamental difference between Tateh and his art at the start of the book, and the Baron at the end of the book is the type of art they make, and how they make it. Tateh starts out making silhouettes by himself, a...
1 comment
Read more