Such relief I have after completing the required 10 posts, it seems strange that two months have already passed since we first began this project. Of course, like many others, I slacked off during that time and left plenty of posts to be done at the end, but time flew by so fast. In the near future, we will all be completing grade eleven and entering grade twelve, and then comes university and blahblahblah... Time flies by so fast that at times, it seems like I can't fully grasp what's going on. Gradually, as time goes by, we're going to forget these blogs we made and the many hours we put into finishing it - something which saddens me to some degree. On completing my blog, I felt a great sense of relief like I mentioned previously, but my heart sank a little knowing that my hardwork would soon be forgotten. Everyone forgets sooner or later. Some earlier then others, but I urge you, my fellow classmates, to remember this time we spent on our blogs and to cherish the opportunity we had to examine Vonnegut's works so closely.
Or not. Poo-tee-weet.
Monday 18 April 2011
Sunday 17 April 2011
I'm With You (Mashimaro) Brother
This is a response to Aaron Wang's blog, which can be found following this link. http://tralfamadoriansrus.wordpress.com/
At first glance of Aaron's blog, it immediately attracts your attention from the contrasting dark background to the interesting, neon-like coloured banner. After that, if you scroll down, you can see an image of a supposed Tralfamadorian along with the prayer that Billy framed in his office and on the necklace of Montana Wildhack. Personally, I enjoy dark backgrounds with words that aren't very vibrant for it makes it much easier to read posts and it is a lot easier on the eyes, which is one of the main reasons why my blog is like that and why I chose Aaron's blog to respond to(along with his ideas, of course). Some more visually appealing things on Aaron's blog is the presence of some videos and images, which help aid the viewer to visualize what Aaron is writing about, or just to relate something to. For me, I personally like to keep things tidy and classy, therefore my blog looks very humble and lacks any of those interesting things. Now onto some analysis of Aaron's writing.
Dear Dr. Seuss…
I agree that parents make up a large majority of people who push towards the banning of certain products. Parents tend to shelter their children from the harsh realities of this world, something I respect, but believe that banning inappropriate things is not the solution. Of course, if I were a parent, I wouldn't want my children developing the wrong way as a child, but I would understand that banning isn't the best course of action. Instead of banning things that could "possibly" affect your child, why don't you prevent them from watching it or making contact with these things? If you ban something, you're ruining it for the whole group of people, especially those who do not mind content and can tolerate it. There are reasons why they have labels on certain products stating what age groups they're for. If your child just played a violent video game, please don't go and try to ban it. It was your fault for buying it for them or not monitoring what they spend their money on. I agree with your statement "Are you going to hide your child from certain realities in the world, telling them that there is no such thing as communism or massacres?" This world isn't a nice place. Sooner of later, your child is going to grow up and be pit against other people to survive in this harsh world, whether it be in the business part of our world of the social part of it. All you are doing is inhibiting the growth of your child. I also agree with what Aaron said about TV shows and videos. If you really want to put an effort into protecting your child, aim your lawsuits and problems at those things first, not books. Also, Aaron's sooo right... What kind of kid reads books anyways? Aaron also makes a really good point in that if we were to censor all the inappropriate materials in offensive books, we end up with similar pieces of work. What's so unique about a book is that it was written by a person with their very own ideas, each piece being different due to its own themes and content. As well, if we remove the inappropriate books and ban them, we are left with only a selective group of material for readers. It is clearly not fair to keep certain things and allow the public to access it while other pieces of works become inaccessible. Finally, Aaron's comment on just putting a book down and walking away if you don't want to read it is what I would like people to do, but sadly it doesn't happen. It is because people don't want others to read it(in the case of parents) which is why they end up wanting to ban things. But what's ironic is that the person who wants the thing(let's say book in this case) must have read it first to develop an understanding of why they want it to banned. So is it fair for someone to read something, finding it to be inappropriate and wanting to ban it? I don't think so. I think you should let the reader decide on their own for themselves. I might find something worth banning, and you might not. Who are you to decide the rest of society can't enjoy it?
Knowledge = No Knowledge?
Knowledge is a useful tool like you said Aaron and by furthering your knowledge, you further increase your ability to complete certain tasks(like upgrading your screwdriver with more add-ons... like LAZERBEAMS). I agree with your thoughts on more knowledge equals more questions. Through our knowledge of how certain things work in this world, we end up having more questions that go beyond to why and how THOSE things works, and so on... It's like a never ending cycle! Many people are afraid of the unknown, and that's certainly fine. The unknown holds many things that we do not know, and these things can come from our lack of knowledge, OR having too much knowledge, but then you can argue if one can really have TOO much knowledge. Also, I agree with how you say being richer is not always better, for their are problems that arise with being rich. In all, you make a very good argument on whether more knowledge is beneficial for us. In my opinion, I don't think we'll ever reach a point where we'll start questioning each and every little bit of our lives and the mysteries that surround each aspect of it. At some point, you become happy with what you have and your questions slip to the back of your mind, something which I think will probably happen to us. And yes, I do realize how many questions there are in your post.
Billy Pilgrim: The Master of Time
Well, to start things off... I have no idea who Dr. Emmet Brown, Marty McFly, and Hiro Nakamura are, but I'll take your word that they have time-traveled. Your first point on Billy being a time-traveler because Vonnegut wouldn't have made it any other way due to his writing style is a valid point. I believe - more like I want Billy to be a time-traveler is simply because it makes things more interesting and fun that way. I agree with your thinking that Vonnegut's stylistic humor and satire apparent in his pieces can be used as evidence that Billy is a time-traveler because it would be too out-of-place in his out-of-place novels. Onto your second point though, I have to disagree. Despite being old, people remember things that struck out to them during their life time. In some cases, the tiny details are what makes the moment so interesting or important. For example, let's say I got 100% on two different tests. But for one of the tests, I was unsure of one question and I guessed and got the answer right. You are probably more prone to remembering the test which you guessed rather then the other one, simply because of that minor detail which made a big difference. As well, I don't find the excerpt from the novel which you used is a "slight" detail. At that moment in time, it was right after Billy arrives at the POW camp and he meets the British soldiers. After being in harsh conditions, not being fed(if I recall) and barely surviving, Billy is bombarded with what seems like a feast in a palace to him. If you were on the brink of death in the North Pole, and then the next moment you get rescued and are treated in a warm hospital being fed food, do you think you would remember it in the future? Another point that someone who disagrees with Billy being a time-traveler is that maybe Billy is dying and he's remembering all the past events that happened to him. It is like the common explanation that a person on their deathbed sees a white light and their memories flash before them. Maybe this is the case for Billy? Well, I certainly hope not. I hope that Billy was actually a time-traveler. Unfortunately, we're never told, and Vonnegut's no longer here to confirm anything.... I guess we'll never know for sure.
At first glance of Aaron's blog, it immediately attracts your attention from the contrasting dark background to the interesting, neon-like coloured banner. After that, if you scroll down, you can see an image of a supposed Tralfamadorian along with the prayer that Billy framed in his office and on the necklace of Montana Wildhack. Personally, I enjoy dark backgrounds with words that aren't very vibrant for it makes it much easier to read posts and it is a lot easier on the eyes, which is one of the main reasons why my blog is like that and why I chose Aaron's blog to respond to(along with his ideas, of course). Some more visually appealing things on Aaron's blog is the presence of some videos and images, which help aid the viewer to visualize what Aaron is writing about, or just to relate something to. For me, I personally like to keep things tidy and classy, therefore my blog looks very humble and lacks any of those interesting things. Now onto some analysis of Aaron's writing.
Dear Dr. Seuss…
I agree that parents make up a large majority of people who push towards the banning of certain products. Parents tend to shelter their children from the harsh realities of this world, something I respect, but believe that banning inappropriate things is not the solution. Of course, if I were a parent, I wouldn't want my children developing the wrong way as a child, but I would understand that banning isn't the best course of action. Instead of banning things that could "possibly" affect your child, why don't you prevent them from watching it or making contact with these things? If you ban something, you're ruining it for the whole group of people, especially those who do not mind content and can tolerate it. There are reasons why they have labels on certain products stating what age groups they're for. If your child just played a violent video game, please don't go and try to ban it. It was your fault for buying it for them or not monitoring what they spend their money on. I agree with your statement "Are you going to hide your child from certain realities in the world, telling them that there is no such thing as communism or massacres?" This world isn't a nice place. Sooner of later, your child is going to grow up and be pit against other people to survive in this harsh world, whether it be in the business part of our world of the social part of it. All you are doing is inhibiting the growth of your child. I also agree with what Aaron said about TV shows and videos. If you really want to put an effort into protecting your child, aim your lawsuits and problems at those things first, not books. Also, Aaron's sooo right... What kind of kid reads books anyways? Aaron also makes a really good point in that if we were to censor all the inappropriate materials in offensive books, we end up with similar pieces of work. What's so unique about a book is that it was written by a person with their very own ideas, each piece being different due to its own themes and content. As well, if we remove the inappropriate books and ban them, we are left with only a selective group of material for readers. It is clearly not fair to keep certain things and allow the public to access it while other pieces of works become inaccessible. Finally, Aaron's comment on just putting a book down and walking away if you don't want to read it is what I would like people to do, but sadly it doesn't happen. It is because people don't want others to read it(in the case of parents) which is why they end up wanting to ban things. But what's ironic is that the person who wants the thing(let's say book in this case) must have read it first to develop an understanding of why they want it to banned. So is it fair for someone to read something, finding it to be inappropriate and wanting to ban it? I don't think so. I think you should let the reader decide on their own for themselves. I might find something worth banning, and you might not. Who are you to decide the rest of society can't enjoy it?
Knowledge = No Knowledge?
Knowledge is a useful tool like you said Aaron and by furthering your knowledge, you further increase your ability to complete certain tasks(like upgrading your screwdriver with more add-ons... like LAZERBEAMS). I agree with your thoughts on more knowledge equals more questions. Through our knowledge of how certain things work in this world, we end up having more questions that go beyond to why and how THOSE things works, and so on... It's like a never ending cycle! Many people are afraid of the unknown, and that's certainly fine. The unknown holds many things that we do not know, and these things can come from our lack of knowledge, OR having too much knowledge, but then you can argue if one can really have TOO much knowledge. Also, I agree with how you say being richer is not always better, for their are problems that arise with being rich. In all, you make a very good argument on whether more knowledge is beneficial for us. In my opinion, I don't think we'll ever reach a point where we'll start questioning each and every little bit of our lives and the mysteries that surround each aspect of it. At some point, you become happy with what you have and your questions slip to the back of your mind, something which I think will probably happen to us. And yes, I do realize how many questions there are in your post.
Billy Pilgrim: The Master of Time
Well, to start things off... I have no idea who Dr. Emmet Brown, Marty McFly, and Hiro Nakamura are, but I'll take your word that they have time-traveled. Your first point on Billy being a time-traveler because Vonnegut wouldn't have made it any other way due to his writing style is a valid point. I believe - more like I want Billy to be a time-traveler is simply because it makes things more interesting and fun that way. I agree with your thinking that Vonnegut's stylistic humor and satire apparent in his pieces can be used as evidence that Billy is a time-traveler because it would be too out-of-place in his out-of-place novels. Onto your second point though, I have to disagree. Despite being old, people remember things that struck out to them during their life time. In some cases, the tiny details are what makes the moment so interesting or important. For example, let's say I got 100% on two different tests. But for one of the tests, I was unsure of one question and I guessed and got the answer right. You are probably more prone to remembering the test which you guessed rather then the other one, simply because of that minor detail which made a big difference. As well, I don't find the excerpt from the novel which you used is a "slight" detail. At that moment in time, it was right after Billy arrives at the POW camp and he meets the British soldiers. After being in harsh conditions, not being fed(if I recall) and barely surviving, Billy is bombarded with what seems like a feast in a palace to him. If you were on the brink of death in the North Pole, and then the next moment you get rescued and are treated in a warm hospital being fed food, do you think you would remember it in the future? Another point that someone who disagrees with Billy being a time-traveler is that maybe Billy is dying and he's remembering all the past events that happened to him. It is like the common explanation that a person on their deathbed sees a white light and their memories flash before them. Maybe this is the case for Billy? Well, I certainly hope not. I hope that Billy was actually a time-traveler. Unfortunately, we're never told, and Vonnegut's no longer here to confirm anything.... I guess we'll never know for sure.
Humanity: The Best Poison
It is unfortunate that one of the greatest Americans to embrace the role of an author passed away in 2007. Maybe if we were to have done this project before his death, we could have had the opportunity for him to comment on what his thoughts were on this project we are doing. Sadly, we no longer have that chance. And now I ask myself, what would Vonnegut think about this project we are doing? We can no longer ask him, but from what I know about Vonnegut through the research I did, he would have been proud. Here is a quote of Vonnegut's:
"Well, I've worried some about, you know, why write books ... why are we teaching people to write books when presidents and senators do not read them, and generals do not read them. And it's been the university experience that taught me that there is a very good reason, that you catch people before they become generals and presidents and so forth and you poison their minds with ... humanity, and however you want to poison their minds, it's presumably to encourage them to make a better world."
- Kurt Vonnegut
Yes, I know, we aren't writing books. We're writing blog posts, but this quote of Vonnegut still applies in my opinion. Vonnegut is right in these words. Why do people bother writing books or creating literature if the people in charge of our society do not bother reading them or learning from them? In Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut does not glorify war. Vonnegut instead focuses on the truths of war: soldiers aren't always macho, brave, courageous, handsome men. War is not a good thing. People die. There is no chivalry. But still, our political leaders charge into war, and they revel in each of their victories, ignoring the casualties caused to the other side. Despite being our enemies, they are still people. Our opinions may conflict, but as humans they have rights. Yes, I know that wars are sometimes necessary and inevitable, but it is the approach to wars that is wrong. It's not just Slaughterhouse Five or the other books Vonnegut wrote, you can also apply this to other books such as 1984 or Brave New world. If we allow our government to take full reins, our country would fall into disaster. Our sense of freedom would be lost. Eventually, the government will spread its propaganda and instill fear into its citizens. Or in the other case, if the world leaders aim to please everyone through pleasurable activities and uniting as a community, we will all conform to the same norms and lose our sense of individuality.
But for Vonnegut, he was able to remove his doubts on why we write and why we teach how to write. It is for the generations of youngsters who have yet to be potty-trained. It is for the generations that have yet to come into this world. It is for the future. We write for those in the future who have yet to grown up and become susceptible to the ways of those in power. Their minds are still fresh and have plenty of room to learn and grow. Vonnegut, being a humanist, valued the rights and freedoms of humans. He believed we all deserved the chance to develop our own beliefs and values, especially as children. And so we "poison" these young minds with humanity. We infect - we teach them and instill the values of humans into them through the literature passed on to us. Not just the values of humanity, but whatever else is necessary for them or whatever we want to teach, as quoted from the latter part of that sentence, "and however you want to poison their minds." Through whatever we teach them, we encourage them through these teachings to make the world a better place. Do not glorify war. Do not support the wrong things. If it weren't for the writings that we have passed down from the past, how are we supposed to learn from our mistakes? It is because of literature and writing that we know better then to drop a bomb on a city and completely annihilate thousands of innocent lives. It is because of literature and writing that we know about our ancestors and the things they did for us to allow us to live the lives we have now. If it were not for written literature, we would not have a past to rely on.
Vonnegut wouldn't want us to bottle up or opinions and forget them in the future. He would have wanted us to express ourselves in the form of writing and allow others to view our ideas and opinions. If Vonnegut was able to see what we have done throughout this project and the numerous pieces of writings we have done, I'm sure he would have nothing bad to say about it. He would most likely be glad we're examining a piece which talked about things so dear to him. Vonnegut would be glad that we are allowing the poison of our works flow through the stream known as the internet to reach and infect those who may need it in the future.
Heck. I'd even say he'd be proud of us.
"Well, I've worried some about, you know, why write books ... why are we teaching people to write books when presidents and senators do not read them, and generals do not read them. And it's been the university experience that taught me that there is a very good reason, that you catch people before they become generals and presidents and so forth and you poison their minds with ... humanity, and however you want to poison their minds, it's presumably to encourage them to make a better world."
- Kurt Vonnegut
Yes, I know, we aren't writing books. We're writing blog posts, but this quote of Vonnegut still applies in my opinion. Vonnegut is right in these words. Why do people bother writing books or creating literature if the people in charge of our society do not bother reading them or learning from them? In Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut does not glorify war. Vonnegut instead focuses on the truths of war: soldiers aren't always macho, brave, courageous, handsome men. War is not a good thing. People die. There is no chivalry. But still, our political leaders charge into war, and they revel in each of their victories, ignoring the casualties caused to the other side. Despite being our enemies, they are still people. Our opinions may conflict, but as humans they have rights. Yes, I know that wars are sometimes necessary and inevitable, but it is the approach to wars that is wrong. It's not just Slaughterhouse Five or the other books Vonnegut wrote, you can also apply this to other books such as 1984 or Brave New world. If we allow our government to take full reins, our country would fall into disaster. Our sense of freedom would be lost. Eventually, the government will spread its propaganda and instill fear into its citizens. Or in the other case, if the world leaders aim to please everyone through pleasurable activities and uniting as a community, we will all conform to the same norms and lose our sense of individuality.
But for Vonnegut, he was able to remove his doubts on why we write and why we teach how to write. It is for the generations of youngsters who have yet to be potty-trained. It is for the generations that have yet to come into this world. It is for the future. We write for those in the future who have yet to grown up and become susceptible to the ways of those in power. Their minds are still fresh and have plenty of room to learn and grow. Vonnegut, being a humanist, valued the rights and freedoms of humans. He believed we all deserved the chance to develop our own beliefs and values, especially as children. And so we "poison" these young minds with humanity. We infect - we teach them and instill the values of humans into them through the literature passed on to us. Not just the values of humanity, but whatever else is necessary for them or whatever we want to teach, as quoted from the latter part of that sentence, "and however you want to poison their minds." Through whatever we teach them, we encourage them through these teachings to make the world a better place. Do not glorify war. Do not support the wrong things. If it weren't for the writings that we have passed down from the past, how are we supposed to learn from our mistakes? It is because of literature and writing that we know better then to drop a bomb on a city and completely annihilate thousands of innocent lives. It is because of literature and writing that we know about our ancestors and the things they did for us to allow us to live the lives we have now. If it were not for written literature, we would not have a past to rely on.
Vonnegut wouldn't want us to bottle up or opinions and forget them in the future. He would have wanted us to express ourselves in the form of writing and allow others to view our ideas and opinions. If Vonnegut was able to see what we have done throughout this project and the numerous pieces of writings we have done, I'm sure he would have nothing bad to say about it. He would most likely be glad we're examining a piece which talked about things so dear to him. Vonnegut would be glad that we are allowing the poison of our works flow through the stream known as the internet to reach and infect those who may need it in the future.
Heck. I'd even say he'd be proud of us.
"Farewell, hello, farewell, hello."
"If you could change something about the novel, what would it be?"
Nothing, but it would be fun to rewrite the way that Billy dies in the future. So it goes. Therefore I am going to do that.
---------------------------------------------------
Billy Pilgrim says now that this really is the way he is going to die, too. As a time-traveler, he has seen his own death many times, has described it to a tape recorder. The tape is locked up with his will and some other valuables in his safe-deposit box at the Ilium Merchants National Bank and Trust, he says.
I, Billy Pilgrim, the tape begins, will die, have died, and always will die on February thirteenth, 1976.
At the time of his death, Billy is in his home in Ilium. He was supposed to have gone to a conference in Chicago where he was to speak on the matters of time-travel and flying saucers. During his time after the war, he had become a renowned lunatic speaking on matters which made no sense. Yet, Billy Pilgrim still attracted quite the crowd at each one of his sessions. One time, a riot broke out during one of his speeches and caused a death of a poor boy who happened to be passing by. So it goes. Since that time, the police increased security and on several occasions volunteered to protect Billy until he reached his humble home in Ilium. But this was not the case.
Billy is at home, relaxing in his leather, reclining chair, reading a novel of Kilgore Trout's which he had only recently purchased. He knew he was going to die today. He always will, always have, and always will be dying today. Billy slowly brought himself off his comfortable chair and strode towards his kitchen. He pours what always would be, always have been, and always will be his last cup of Earl Grey tea into a repulsively designed teacup which had been given to him on his fifth wedding anniversary. And then his doorbell rings. No one ever visits Billy. But he is not startled. His time has come, and so Billy sips his Early Grey once more and proceeds to open the door. He remembers the two stories that Paul Lazarro had told him, and Billy finds it quite strange that he was going to suffer a death told from both. So it goes. None the less, Billy ignores Lazarro's advice on having somebody else answer the door for him when the doorbell rings. And so Billy opens the door, and a scrawny fellow holding a plate with what seems to be a steak on it stands before him.
"Are you Mr. Pilgrim?"
"Yes."
"Well, here's a free, juicy, 16 oz. steak! May you care to try one my good sir?"
"It wouldn't hurt to try one, I guess. No forks though, huh?"
"Sorry sir, I ran out earlier."
"That's fine. I'll just eat it with my hands." And so Billy does. He takes the steak and chews on it, ignoring the cold, metal texture that he feels and the blood spilling out from the sides of his mouth. As he continues chewing, the scrawny man declares, "Paul Lazarro sent me." With that, the stranger pulls out a gun from his side pocket and shoots Billy's pecker clean off. And so Billy falls to the ground. Billy curls into a ball and lays there shivering. And then he gets shot in the guts. And the neck. And in the head. In the next moment, Billy Pilgrim is dead. So it goes.
So Billy experiences death for a while. It is simply violet light and a hum. There isn't anybody else there. Not even Billy Pilgrim is there.
Nothing, but it would be fun to rewrite the way that Billy dies in the future. So it goes. Therefore I am going to do that.
---------------------------------------------------
Billy Pilgrim says now that this really is the way he is going to die, too. As a time-traveler, he has seen his own death many times, has described it to a tape recorder. The tape is locked up with his will and some other valuables in his safe-deposit box at the Ilium Merchants National Bank and Trust, he says.
I, Billy Pilgrim, the tape begins, will die, have died, and always will die on February thirteenth, 1976.
At the time of his death, Billy is in his home in Ilium. He was supposed to have gone to a conference in Chicago where he was to speak on the matters of time-travel and flying saucers. During his time after the war, he had become a renowned lunatic speaking on matters which made no sense. Yet, Billy Pilgrim still attracted quite the crowd at each one of his sessions. One time, a riot broke out during one of his speeches and caused a death of a poor boy who happened to be passing by. So it goes. Since that time, the police increased security and on several occasions volunteered to protect Billy until he reached his humble home in Ilium. But this was not the case.
Billy is at home, relaxing in his leather, reclining chair, reading a novel of Kilgore Trout's which he had only recently purchased. He knew he was going to die today. He always will, always have, and always will be dying today. Billy slowly brought himself off his comfortable chair and strode towards his kitchen. He pours what always would be, always have been, and always will be his last cup of Earl Grey tea into a repulsively designed teacup which had been given to him on his fifth wedding anniversary. And then his doorbell rings. No one ever visits Billy. But he is not startled. His time has come, and so Billy sips his Early Grey once more and proceeds to open the door. He remembers the two stories that Paul Lazarro had told him, and Billy finds it quite strange that he was going to suffer a death told from both. So it goes. None the less, Billy ignores Lazarro's advice on having somebody else answer the door for him when the doorbell rings. And so Billy opens the door, and a scrawny fellow holding a plate with what seems to be a steak on it stands before him.
"Are you Mr. Pilgrim?"
"Yes."
"Well, here's a free, juicy, 16 oz. steak! May you care to try one my good sir?"
"It wouldn't hurt to try one, I guess. No forks though, huh?"
"Sorry sir, I ran out earlier."
"That's fine. I'll just eat it with my hands." And so Billy does. He takes the steak and chews on it, ignoring the cold, metal texture that he feels and the blood spilling out from the sides of his mouth. As he continues chewing, the scrawny man declares, "Paul Lazarro sent me." With that, the stranger pulls out a gun from his side pocket and shoots Billy's pecker clean off. And so Billy falls to the ground. Billy curls into a ball and lays there shivering. And then he gets shot in the guts. And the neck. And in the head. In the next moment, Billy Pilgrim is dead. So it goes.
So Billy experiences death for a while. It is simply violet light and a hum. There isn't anybody else there. Not even Billy Pilgrim is there.
Slaughterhouse Five... ON ICE?
What would happen if you were to turn Slaughterhouse Five into a play? Wait. I have a better question. What would happen if you were to turn it into a play... ON ICE?! Obviously, it wouldn't be a good idea, so I'll just stick with the original question. Let's think carefully. Can a book as confusing and setting-rich as Slaughterhouse Five be recreated into a "good" play? In my opinion, I think it's possible to turn it into a play, but a "good" play? First, let me define what I think a "good" play is. To me, a good play is one which stays true to the story and themes that a novel or its original form(lack of a better word) presents. A good play is one which never or very little, strays from the events that occur in its original and gives us the same characters, themes, and settings. It must portray these things to a high degree of accuracy and be almost identical to that of the original. The play must also flow smoothly and adds no junk or fille, but can remove a bit of content if it is for the sake of aiding the audience understand the story a bit more or for time concerns. This may seem like a lot, but this is for the sake of having the highest quality work which would make the original author proud that their piece was turned into a play.
So in the case of Slaughterhouse Five, I don't think it's possible to turn it into a play. Here are my seven, main reasons why:
1. Slaughterhouse Five is a book told in third person, with several parts where the narrator(Vonnegut) breaks the fourth wall. This would make the story of Slaughterhouse Five very hard to tell without the aid of a narrator, and with the use of a narrator in the play, the story gets complicated with the addition of another speaker and the play becomes too orally focused rather then the plot.
2. Slaughterhouse Five contains time-traveling. How do you show time-traveling occurring without interrupting the flow of a play? One would probably say you flip the lights off, or the curtains come down, and during that time, you change the backdrops, actors and props. But with this method, it would cause too many interruptions during the play and the audience may get annoyed. Slaughterhouse Five is a very setting-rich novel, with a lot of action occurring at many different places, only made possible through the time-traveling that occurs. Without the time-traveling, you also lose one of the books strong points: the settings. Also, how many times does time-traveling occur in Slaughterhouse Five? Let's see.. Oh. Way too many.
3. Slaughterhouse Five has a huge host of very unique characters, which may be one of the causes of confusions that readers get from reading the book. But with a book, the reader can flip back and turn the pages to refresh their minds on who these previously mentioned characters are. In a play, the audience does not have that luxury. Honestly, who is going to remember who Gerhard Muller is at the end of the play? Heck. I forgot who he was after getting through half the book.
4. In my opinion, Slaughterhouse Five is one of those books which one can only enjoy if you read it and try to envision what happens in your own mind. An example would be the descriptions of Oz-like Dresden and the ravaged, destroyed Dresden. If someone were to give you an image of what it actually looked like, you lose your ability to imagine it since you have a solid image to refer to when you think of it. It's hard to describe, but it's one of those books where it's better to use your imagination to create the recreate the images of the settings and situations, rather then having someone put a "that's what it looks like and it won't change" image.
5. Honestly, I don't view Slaughterhouse as a type of novel that would translate well into a play. Most books that are acted out in as plays were usually written to be plays in the first place(Shakespeare's works or musicals). Slaughterhouse is a very complicated(and sometimes boring) piece that does not contain any drama, much less action. I would compare it to turning the dictionary into a play.
6. I don't think Vonnegut would have wanted it to happen. He wrote the book to tell us what happened to Dresden, and not to glorify war or to gain recognition or fame. I think he wanted to get his feelings and the events that happened to him off his back; he wanted to tell of the tragedy that befell Dresden and ensure we do not forget about the lives lost. Slaughterhouse Five does enough of a good job that a play would be unnecessary to accomplish these things.
7. Tralfamodorians. There will never be anyone good enough to act as a Tralfamadorian. 'Nuff said.
So in the case of Slaughterhouse Five, I don't think it's possible to turn it into a play. Here are my seven, main reasons why:
1. Slaughterhouse Five is a book told in third person, with several parts where the narrator(Vonnegut) breaks the fourth wall. This would make the story of Slaughterhouse Five very hard to tell without the aid of a narrator, and with the use of a narrator in the play, the story gets complicated with the addition of another speaker and the play becomes too orally focused rather then the plot.
2. Slaughterhouse Five contains time-traveling. How do you show time-traveling occurring without interrupting the flow of a play? One would probably say you flip the lights off, or the curtains come down, and during that time, you change the backdrops, actors and props. But with this method, it would cause too many interruptions during the play and the audience may get annoyed. Slaughterhouse Five is a very setting-rich novel, with a lot of action occurring at many different places, only made possible through the time-traveling that occurs. Without the time-traveling, you also lose one of the books strong points: the settings. Also, how many times does time-traveling occur in Slaughterhouse Five? Let's see.. Oh. Way too many.
3. Slaughterhouse Five has a huge host of very unique characters, which may be one of the causes of confusions that readers get from reading the book. But with a book, the reader can flip back and turn the pages to refresh their minds on who these previously mentioned characters are. In a play, the audience does not have that luxury. Honestly, who is going to remember who Gerhard Muller is at the end of the play? Heck. I forgot who he was after getting through half the book.
4. In my opinion, Slaughterhouse Five is one of those books which one can only enjoy if you read it and try to envision what happens in your own mind. An example would be the descriptions of Oz-like Dresden and the ravaged, destroyed Dresden. If someone were to give you an image of what it actually looked like, you lose your ability to imagine it since you have a solid image to refer to when you think of it. It's hard to describe, but it's one of those books where it's better to use your imagination to create the recreate the images of the settings and situations, rather then having someone put a "that's what it looks like and it won't change" image.
5. Honestly, I don't view Slaughterhouse as a type of novel that would translate well into a play. Most books that are acted out in as plays were usually written to be plays in the first place(Shakespeare's works or musicals). Slaughterhouse is a very complicated(and sometimes boring) piece that does not contain any drama, much less action. I would compare it to turning the dictionary into a play.
6. I don't think Vonnegut would have wanted it to happen. He wrote the book to tell us what happened to Dresden, and not to glorify war or to gain recognition or fame. I think he wanted to get his feelings and the events that happened to him off his back; he wanted to tell of the tragedy that befell Dresden and ensure we do not forget about the lives lost. Slaughterhouse Five does enough of a good job that a play would be unnecessary to accomplish these things.
7. Tralfamodorians. There will never be anyone good enough to act as a Tralfamadorian. 'Nuff said.
"It is Done."
When the last living thing
has died on account of us,
how poetical it would be
if Earth could say,
in a voice floating up
perhaps
from the floor
of the Grand Canyon,
"It is done."
People did not like it here.
Sound familiar?
I definitely hope so, since we had an in-class writing analysis on it. This is a poem written by Vonnegut titled "Requiem". In my analysis, I wrote entirely on it's relation to Slaughterhouse Five(which is what we were told to do). But later that day, I made another connection with it. This post is going to get a bit religious for I will be speaking about a biblical connection I made, but I'll state now that I do not mean to offend anyone for I will be talking clearly about this religion by itself and not comparing it to any others.
In the Christian religion, we believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth so that he could save us. As the Son of God, we believe he was perfect in every aspect. In relation to the poem, you can say that "the last living thing" is Jesus since he was the only perfect human and his crucifixion was the fault of us(imperfect humans), which is represents the "died on account of us" part of the poem. My second connection that I made from what was given to us was the "It is done" portion of the poem. I immediately thought of a passage in the bible that connected with it: John 19:30, which states, "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." Coincidence? I think not. So, I did a bit of research and guess what I found? The entirety of the poem.
Requiem:
The crucified planet Earth,
should it find a voice
and a sense of irony,
might now well say
of our abuse of it,
"Forgive them, Father,
They know not what they do."
The irony would be
that we know what
we are doing.
When the last living thing
has died on account of us,
how poetical it would be
if Earth could say,
in a voice floating up
perhaps
from the floor
of the Grand Canyon,
"It is done."
People did not like it here.
Will you look at that. More biblical references. The very first sentence has the word "crucified" in it, also representing Jesus as Earth. It later says "our abuse of it," which signifies the torture that he went through during his crucifixion and a quote directly from Jesus in the bible, found in Luke 23:34.
So what is Vonnegut trying to convey to us through his poem? Vonnegut wasn't a religious person, present in Slaughterhouse Five through his theme of existentialism. So why write a poem titled "Requiem" which means a mass for a dead person who represents the Christian religion? Here is what I think and can conclude through my research.
Vonnegut wrote a book titled Palm Sunday(ironically it's Palm Sunday today) where he recreated his great-grandfathers funeral address which denied the existence of God. Vonnegut also rejected the divinity of Christ Jesus but as a humanist, admired the Beatitudes that Jesus spoke about in his Sermon on the Mount. Despite being an atheist and not believing in the existence of a higher being and an afterlife, I think Vonnegut wrote this poem as a tribute to Jesus, being an admirer of him and his teachings on human values.
has died on account of us,
how poetical it would be
if Earth could say,
in a voice floating up
perhaps
from the floor
of the Grand Canyon,
"It is done."
People did not like it here.
Sound familiar?
I definitely hope so, since we had an in-class writing analysis on it. This is a poem written by Vonnegut titled "Requiem". In my analysis, I wrote entirely on it's relation to Slaughterhouse Five(which is what we were told to do). But later that day, I made another connection with it. This post is going to get a bit religious for I will be speaking about a biblical connection I made, but I'll state now that I do not mean to offend anyone for I will be talking clearly about this religion by itself and not comparing it to any others.
In the Christian religion, we believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth so that he could save us. As the Son of God, we believe he was perfect in every aspect. In relation to the poem, you can say that "the last living thing" is Jesus since he was the only perfect human and his crucifixion was the fault of us(imperfect humans), which is represents the "died on account of us" part of the poem. My second connection that I made from what was given to us was the "It is done" portion of the poem. I immediately thought of a passage in the bible that connected with it: John 19:30, which states, "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." Coincidence? I think not. So, I did a bit of research and guess what I found? The entirety of the poem.
Requiem:
The crucified planet Earth,
should it find a voice
and a sense of irony,
might now well say
of our abuse of it,
"Forgive them, Father,
They know not what they do."
The irony would be
that we know what
we are doing.
When the last living thing
has died on account of us,
how poetical it would be
if Earth could say,
in a voice floating up
perhaps
from the floor
of the Grand Canyon,
"It is done."
People did not like it here.
Will you look at that. More biblical references. The very first sentence has the word "crucified" in it, also representing Jesus as Earth. It later says "our abuse of it," which signifies the torture that he went through during his crucifixion and a quote directly from Jesus in the bible, found in Luke 23:34.
So what is Vonnegut trying to convey to us through his poem? Vonnegut wasn't a religious person, present in Slaughterhouse Five through his theme of existentialism. So why write a poem titled "Requiem" which means a mass for a dead person who represents the Christian religion? Here is what I think and can conclude through my research.
Vonnegut wrote a book titled Palm Sunday(ironically it's Palm Sunday today) where he recreated his great-grandfathers funeral address which denied the existence of God. Vonnegut also rejected the divinity of Christ Jesus but as a humanist, admired the Beatitudes that Jesus spoke about in his Sermon on the Mount. Despite being an atheist and not believing in the existence of a higher being and an afterlife, I think Vonnegut wrote this poem as a tribute to Jesus, being an admirer of him and his teachings on human values.
Saturday 16 April 2011
The Good "G'oal" Times
The net shook. The ball, still affected by the spin but on it, rolled gently down the mesh as the ball hit the dry ground beneath with a less-then-resounding thump. Unsure of where the ball went, Wesley looked around and noticed the ball had gone in the net, with his hair messed up from the header he had just attempted from the corner kick. It was a goal. A smile lit on his face and he was assaulted by several teammates celebrating his first goal of the season for his second year on the senior soccer team. He hugged the first person in sight, who seemed to be happier then himself. He heard his coach from a distance, who yelled "Hey Wessss..."
"Wes! Stop running so fast!" said a teammate who seemed amused by how fast Wesley was running after his achievement. It was a goal. But for Wesley, it was not just "a" goal, but his second one of the game. He was still a relatively new player, being with his travel team for only one season and having recently finished his season with the junior soccer team. It was the semi-final game for his travel team playoffs, and Wesley's team was up 2-0 thanks to a somewhat lucky strike from his left leg. The obviously happy boy gave a sigh of relief and was subbed off, happy he could lead his team at a game as important as this. He sat on the bench and closed his eyes, trying to visualize the image of him scoring...
And so, time passed. Wesley opened his eyes. It was now the second half and Wesley was back on the pitch, playing with a 3-1 lead. Having missed an open net earlier for a hat trick, Wesley was not happy and was hoping he could make up for it. He walked up the wing he was playing on and awaited the next pass that would reach him. And so the pass came to him. He ran up the wing, trying to avoid the defenders tenaciously marking him. But unfortunately, he was unsuccessful and got clipped from behind, leaving him tumbling to the ground. As he fell, Wesley felt a painful sting come from his hand. He let out a brief scream as blood trickled from his bloody hand which had just been punctured by the cleats of an opposing defender...
Wesley held out his hand to be shaken. It was the end of a match where Wesley was the star of the show, having scored five goals of his own. It was Wesley's final year of elementary school and he was glad he could tell the tale of him scoring five goals if any travel teams wanted to know hear of his credentials. The other team grinned as they accepted their lost and shook the hands of the many players who had been told by their coach to not say anything. According to Wesley's coach, the other team didn't deserve to be told anything during the hand-shaking ritual practiced after every soccer match because they had been "rude" and "unsportsmanlike." After finishing the handshakes, Wesley packed his stuff and prepared to leave, ready to tell his father about his amazing feat accomplished today. As he walked off the field, a teammate of his holding the game ball signaled to him, obviously trying to tell him to take the game ball with him for scoring a hat trick, yelled.
"Hey Wessss..."
"Wes! Stop running so fast!" said a teammate who seemed amused by how fast Wesley was running after his achievement. It was a goal. But for Wesley, it was not just "a" goal, but his second one of the game. He was still a relatively new player, being with his travel team for only one season and having recently finished his season with the junior soccer team. It was the semi-final game for his travel team playoffs, and Wesley's team was up 2-0 thanks to a somewhat lucky strike from his left leg. The obviously happy boy gave a sigh of relief and was subbed off, happy he could lead his team at a game as important as this. He sat on the bench and closed his eyes, trying to visualize the image of him scoring...
And so, time passed. Wesley opened his eyes. It was now the second half and Wesley was back on the pitch, playing with a 3-1 lead. Having missed an open net earlier for a hat trick, Wesley was not happy and was hoping he could make up for it. He walked up the wing he was playing on and awaited the next pass that would reach him. And so the pass came to him. He ran up the wing, trying to avoid the defenders tenaciously marking him. But unfortunately, he was unsuccessful and got clipped from behind, leaving him tumbling to the ground. As he fell, Wesley felt a painful sting come from his hand. He let out a brief scream as blood trickled from his bloody hand which had just been punctured by the cleats of an opposing defender...
Wesley held out his hand to be shaken. It was the end of a match where Wesley was the star of the show, having scored five goals of his own. It was Wesley's final year of elementary school and he was glad he could tell the tale of him scoring five goals if any travel teams wanted to know hear of his credentials. The other team grinned as they accepted their lost and shook the hands of the many players who had been told by their coach to not say anything. According to Wesley's coach, the other team didn't deserve to be told anything during the hand-shaking ritual practiced after every soccer match because they had been "rude" and "unsportsmanlike." After finishing the handshakes, Wesley packed his stuff and prepared to leave, ready to tell his father about his amazing feat accomplished today. As he walked off the field, a teammate of his holding the game ball signaled to him, obviously trying to tell him to take the game ball with him for scoring a hat trick, yelled.
"Hey Wessss..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)