Looking At Gregory's Thoughts

http://wolf1sr.blogspot.com/
WA 8:

Looking at Greg's thoughts on Billy Pilgrim's character I'd have to say I'd agree with him. While Billy plays his role in Slaughterhouse 5 perfectly he would be a really annoying person to know. He touches on how Billy remains completely static throughout the novel, and this is definitely true. Billy Pilgrim has seen his entire life, the highs and lows, the ins and out. He knows how a situation will turn out and is probable capable of thinking of a way to make them all better, but he doesn't. He consciously chooses to allow unpleasantness into his life over and over again without intervening at all. Even though he says you should try and make happy moments in your life he doesn't try to make any more for himself. As a bystander, either knowing or not knowing his thoughts, it would be very annoying just to stand there and watch him do that to himself. He also doesn't seem to care about anyone. He may describe them as beautiful or intelligent but he never really shows any appreciation for them. When he is happy or sad he never actively seeks others to share in his emotion. I completely agree with you, Greg, Billy does seem to have no emotion, no will. As a person he just doesn't seem to exist.


However I do disagree with your "handsomeness" and "superior intellect"

"Playing" Billy Pilgrim

Converting "Slaughterhouse 5"  to a play would be difficult because what makes the story so compelling is Billy's ongoing narrative.A play without this narrative would be short and uneventful. Alternatively, if Billy's narration were included in a play, Billy would constantly have to break the "4th  wall" and speak to the audience. This would not be a new concept in live theater. However, Slaughterhouse 5 has considerably more narrative than dialogue so that if all of  the book's narrative were incorporated in a play,  it may not hold the audience's attention.In addition there are scenes described in the book that would be difficult to depict using stage props. For instance the Dresden bombing or the plane crash cannot be visualized solely with red lights and sound effects, at least not with the same intensity that Vonnegut describes them. Vonnegut wrote the story in such a fashion that the best medium for telling the story is in book format. Slaughterhouse 5 is just too well written to be successfully adapted into any other form of media. If one were to persist in trying to writing a play based on Slaughetrhouse 5, I sincerely believe it would require collaboration with Kurt Vonnegut himself in order for that play to be a successful.

So it goes...

Dresden in Film

If there was one section of the novel that would work well in film it would be a collaboration of all the scenes in Dresden.Dresden is the emotional center of the book and in Billy's eyes, its scenery ranges from beautiful to burning to outright destruction, before returning to something beautiful again. The  film could open with Billy's arrival in Dresden which is described by one of his peers as looking like 'Oz'. The following scene could be a transition to the the bombing of the city and the plumes of fiery destruction. Using pyrotechnics and an effective musical score  amplified by surround sound , the film could dramatically place the viewer in the midst of the siege of the city. The next scene could depict the day that Billy emerges from the safe room and surveys the once beautiful city, now charred, broken and in ashes. The closing scene could show Billy's return to Dresden, looking at the sky, and describing the experience as his happiest moment. That same scene could show that Billy is actually surrounded by a burned city, leaving the audience to doubt Billy's reasoning.

.

Presenting a scene in this way may provoke mixed feelings of happiness and sadness from the viewers and help them to focus Vonnegut's anti-war messages. If the fire-bombing of Dresden did in fact kill  more people than the atom bombs did in Japan, it is a message that should be heard.

Vonnegut's Blog

As we study Vonnegut's work, one question that comes to mind is what would he think of our endeavors? Would he appreciate our efforts to form a deeper understanding of his book or would he view it as simply a shallow critique of his work? In my opinion, based on his writing, Vonnegut would be in favor of us studying his work. In Slaughterhouse 5, Billy Pilgrim attempts to show the rest of the world what the Tralfamadorians showed him. In turn Vonnegut probably would approve that we were trying to learn more about his novel. Vonnegut would also support our right to free speech, of which he was a strong proponent. In his time it took considerable courage to write a controversial book, such as Slaughterhouse 5.Vonnegut would also appreciate our examination of his work which, because it was banned in his time, was not subjected to the critical reviews of his peers. If he were here today I think he would be as enthusiastic as Mr. Lynn about a discussion of his work.

Back to the Beginning

I enjoyed the book Slaughterhouse Five. Had I written it, I would have changed the ending and beginning. The way Billy Pilgrim lives is that he sees random moments of his life over and over again. What I thought would be a more fitting ending was to have him come back to the novel's starting point. In order for this to occur,  the novel would also have to begin differently, I would have started the novel  with the end of the world war and then followed with  Vonnegut's original beginning. It is possible because Billy does travel through time. I would envision the novel beginning and ending with the line "Poo-tee-weet?" The reason I think it should loop back like this is so that the readers can get the feel that Billy has to go through his life over and over again. This would also emphasize the idea that if you have to keep on living, you might as well have a good time. To support this change there also would have to be a change in chapter 1 where Vonnegut tells the reader the lines with which his book will begin and end. My preference would be to use that entire excerpt as an introduction rather than a chapter. I think that my changes would really get the audience thinking when they read the novel's last line.

Ban Banning Books

Censorship has no place in the literary world. In certain circumstances, some restrictions are required to limit access by certain age groups to reading or viewing potentially offensive content, pictures and video. However, in the case of books or simple text, censorship is unnecessary. While some strong words may be offensive to readers, Vonnegut uses profanity to intensify the narrative in Slaughterhouse 5, to make the situations he is describing more realistic and to reveal specific traits of various characters. Profanity is commonplace in the vernacular of a large cross-section of people and while it may be considered vulgar by some, Vonnegut's incorporation of profanity into his writing is essentially an art form and for these reasons  I support its use in the novel. In my opinion art should never be censored. In those rare cases in which the content may offend people, instead of banning a book maybe its circulation should be restricted, thereby maintaining its access by all those others who would enjoy reading it. It is rather cavalier to censor a writer's work and prevent it from publication because it includes some unacceptable words or phrases. Censorship of this kind minimizes the author's work focusing on a few words and ignoring the bigger picture of the remaining content,not to mention the time and effort that the author devoted to the development of his work. Ultimately, each individual always has the option not read a book, not to listen to music or not to watch a video that he or she deems offensive.Censorship dampens freedom of expression and free will. Books were not written to be banned so why do we do it?

Where to begin?

Whenever I begin writing a piece of work it is usually based on a profound idea that has taken form over a few weeks. I never start writing at the beginning of a story. I enjoy starting with a meaningful part of the story that is simple to tell. From there I move on and write a couple more chapters throughout the novel in no predetermined order, so that I can get an overall feel for the story as it takes form. Then I  write the beginning of the novel and play connect the dots with whatever chapters I have written, saving the end of the story for last. Writing like this may seem rather chaotic but in my experience writing out of order is a great way to keep your story flowing, but then maybe that's just me. When I write, my primary goal is not to convey a message, even though I try to include a few tidbits of wisdom. On the occasions that I write, it is solely for the purpose of entertaining the reader. The one thing I wish people would take away from my books is the good time they had reading them.