So far this semester, we have read two books involving time travel. The first being Slaughterhouse-Five, and the second being Kindred. Although the general idea of time travel is the same, the specifics and use of time travel in relation to the novel is very different.
In SF, Vonnegut seems to use time travel as an escape mechanism, to avoid talking about the war at times. Also, time travel isn't the main theme or idea of the novel, it just kind of happens. It's very sudden and the actual idea of time traveling isn't really a big deal. Billy Pilgrim is simply taken from one point in his life and plopped down in another part of his life and continues to live it. Billy takes his time travel for granted at this point, after it has happened many times. However, there is speculation that Vonnegut didn't even mean for Billy's time traveling to be real in the context of the novel. He may have used it just to show mental flashbacks as a possible symptom of PTSD or to cope with the war better. Additionally, Billy's time travel is not as traditional as the kind of time travel we often see in movies and such, where a character travels back to a pivotal point in history (like most of The Magic Treehouse series or the Babe & Me, Honus & Me, etc. series), but, in this case, a character travels back to different points in his own life (like Back to the Future), which happens to coincide with a famous point in history, WWII.
However, in Kindred, Dana's time travel is part of the main premise of the novel and is of the more traditional nature as explained above, where a character travels back in time to a pivotal point in history --in this case slavery-- and often tries to alter history for the better. Dana quickly learns what she must do to prepare for her trips to the past, tying a bag of supplies to her waist in case she goes back. Her travels take her back more than 100 years, way before she was born. Because of this, Dana has no interaction with herself in the past that may lead to any SF like experiences. With Billy, he is always traveling back, confined to the walls of his own life. This makes his travels much less exciting and scary, because he knows it is still him, living his life, with people he knows, where he is welcomed. With Dana, she is the same character, but she is thrust into a completely different time period where she is expected to act and behave a certain way, something she is not accustomed to living in the 1970s.
Although we have not yet finished Kindred, it is obvious that, although it involves the same idea of time travel as Slaughterhouse-Five, it is hard to compare the two novels based on this idea, because the situations in which time travel takes place, as well as the kind of time travel that occurs is so different.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Billy Pilgrim: PTSD? Fair or Foul?
I was going to bring this up in our panel presentation today, but we ran out of time. What I was going to ask was, is PTSD to simple of a diagnosis to slap on Billy to explain his actions? Is it unfair to give him the PTSD diagnosis? Since we did not get to it in class, I will answer it with my opinion now.
To put it simply, I do think PTSD is not a sufficient explanation for Billy's actions and thoughts. PTSD is a concrete disorder with concrete symptoms. Although Billy may have PTSD, that is not saying much. That doesn't really matter. All that says is that he has flashbacks from the war and it haunts his present occasionally. What really matters is the actual depth and substance to his flashbacks.
If we diagnose Billy with PTSD, it is assumed that his time travel and Trafalmadorian experiences are not in fact real but just a figment of his imagination as part of his PTSD. Even if they aren't real, if we label Billy with PTSD, it is easy to overlook them as "symptoms" instead of studying what happens in his experiences, which could tell us more about Billy than simply saying "Oh, he just has PTSD".
As Arch put to a vote today during class, are Billy's time traveling and Trafalmadorian experiences real (in context of the plot of the novel) or fictional, maybe a coping mechanism for Billy. I believe that they are real and that Billy really does go through those things. This may partly be because it creates a better story, but I still believe it. I would believe that Vonnegut may have included them in the novel as a coping mechanism for him personally, but I think they were intended to actually have happened to Billy. I guess I can't really explain why I want them to be real. On Trafalmadore, Billy experiences a way of life that adopts the notion that each moment in time is a moment in itself and we have no free will and what happens happens. He thus adopts the phrase "So it goes". I like to think that Billy's experiences with this alien society quite literally help him cope with the pains that come with war. That if he did in fact have PTSD, it is not expressed by his "made-up" experiences on Trafalmadore, but Trafalmadore actually teaches him to cope with his PTSD better.
Similarly, If Billy does indeed have PTSD, I like to think that the constant stress of time travel and not ever being relieved from war or having a substantial period of time to recover is the cause of his PTSD, not a symptom.
To put it simply, I do think PTSD is not a sufficient explanation for Billy's actions and thoughts. PTSD is a concrete disorder with concrete symptoms. Although Billy may have PTSD, that is not saying much. That doesn't really matter. All that says is that he has flashbacks from the war and it haunts his present occasionally. What really matters is the actual depth and substance to his flashbacks.
If we diagnose Billy with PTSD, it is assumed that his time travel and Trafalmadorian experiences are not in fact real but just a figment of his imagination as part of his PTSD. Even if they aren't real, if we label Billy with PTSD, it is easy to overlook them as "symptoms" instead of studying what happens in his experiences, which could tell us more about Billy than simply saying "Oh, he just has PTSD".
As Arch put to a vote today during class, are Billy's time traveling and Trafalmadorian experiences real (in context of the plot of the novel) or fictional, maybe a coping mechanism for Billy. I believe that they are real and that Billy really does go through those things. This may partly be because it creates a better story, but I still believe it. I would believe that Vonnegut may have included them in the novel as a coping mechanism for him personally, but I think they were intended to actually have happened to Billy. I guess I can't really explain why I want them to be real. On Trafalmadore, Billy experiences a way of life that adopts the notion that each moment in time is a moment in itself and we have no free will and what happens happens. He thus adopts the phrase "So it goes". I like to think that Billy's experiences with this alien society quite literally help him cope with the pains that come with war. That if he did in fact have PTSD, it is not expressed by his "made-up" experiences on Trafalmadore, but Trafalmadore actually teaches him to cope with his PTSD better.
Similarly, If Billy does indeed have PTSD, I like to think that the constant stress of time travel and not ever being relieved from war or having a substantial period of time to recover is the cause of his PTSD, not a symptom.
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Billy Pilgrim and Kurt Vonnegut
Billy Pilgrim's time travel in Slaughterhouse-Five is very confusing and oddly situated inside of the novel. I have many questions regarding Billy's time travel and how it relates to his experiences and trains of thought throughout the novel.
It is clear that Billy knows that Dresden is about to be bombed before it is even speculated, so we know that Billy has the memories from his past when he is experiencing the present. We know that he had not yet experienced the bombing in the days leading up to it because that happens later in the novel, so he couldn't have been going off of that, assuming the book is told in chronological order.
It seems like at some points, Vonnegut uses time travel to avoid talking about the war. When he's about to get to an interesting possibly climatical point in the war, he quickly transfers to his life as an optometrist or his experiences on Trafalmadore. If Vonnegut had focused this novel entirely on the war and included no other details, it would've been an awfully short novel. He seems to want to avoid the war as much as possible, but still wants it to be a war novel. Was this just extreme PTSD? 20 years after? So much so that he couldn't even write a majority of his "war novel" about the war?
Another thing to ponder is Vonnegut's use of Trafalmadore in the novel. The fact that Billy time travels and gets abducted by aliens is a big deal. Could he possibly be doing this to draw us away from the war aspect of the novel?
In the end, I think Vonnegut started this book intending to tell of his experiences in WWII through a character named Billy Pilgrim, but soon Billy needed a backstory and why not include time travel and aliens? Then he'd have to talk about the war less. Billy's relatively unexciting job as an optometrist is interesting because if Vonnegut had been following his previous trend of injecting very exciting odd aspects to Billy's life, you'd think he'd have a more interesting job. His job as an optometrist could also be a metaphor for how hard it was to write this book and how hard it was to see the war the way he did.
It is clear that Billy knows that Dresden is about to be bombed before it is even speculated, so we know that Billy has the memories from his past when he is experiencing the present. We know that he had not yet experienced the bombing in the days leading up to it because that happens later in the novel, so he couldn't have been going off of that, assuming the book is told in chronological order.
It seems like at some points, Vonnegut uses time travel to avoid talking about the war. When he's about to get to an interesting possibly climatical point in the war, he quickly transfers to his life as an optometrist or his experiences on Trafalmadore. If Vonnegut had focused this novel entirely on the war and included no other details, it would've been an awfully short novel. He seems to want to avoid the war as much as possible, but still wants it to be a war novel. Was this just extreme PTSD? 20 years after? So much so that he couldn't even write a majority of his "war novel" about the war?
Another thing to ponder is Vonnegut's use of Trafalmadore in the novel. The fact that Billy time travels and gets abducted by aliens is a big deal. Could he possibly be doing this to draw us away from the war aspect of the novel?
In the end, I think Vonnegut started this book intending to tell of his experiences in WWII through a character named Billy Pilgrim, but soon Billy needed a backstory and why not include time travel and aliens? Then he'd have to talk about the war less. Billy's relatively unexciting job as an optometrist is interesting because if Vonnegut had been following his previous trend of injecting very exciting odd aspects to Billy's life, you'd think he'd have a more interesting job. His job as an optometrist could also be a metaphor for how hard it was to write this book and how hard it was to see the war the way he did.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Art
In 2011, The Card Players, a painting by Paul Cézanne, sold for a record $269.4 million.
In 1990, The Concert, by Johannes Vermeer, along with 12 other pieces of art, was stolen from Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. The 13 pieces had a value of over $300,000,000. A reward of $5,000,000 is still being offered for information on the heist.
The Mu'tafikah stole thousands of artifacts and artwork from a countless number of museums around the world. Think how much money that would be worth if sold for ransom or in the black market. Instead, they send it all back to its original home, whether that be Asia, Egypt, or another place around the world. This shows how much it meant to the Mu'tafikah for this art to get back to its original location, risking their lives, and not for any personal gain other than the knowledge that the art is back where it belongs (in their opinion).
Art, as the Mu'tafikah seem to understand it, is more than just a painting or sculpture hanging on a wall or set up in a museum for people to constantly walk by, admire (for what reason?), and to continue on their way to the next "masterpiece". The Mu'tafikah seem to think that art is an experience. Art is more than just what is within the frame to which it is confined. Viewing an Egyptian sarcophagus next to hundreds of other mostly unrelated pieces in a giant hallway surrounded by tons of other people waiting to catch a glimpse is far different than traveling deep into the heart of Egypt, down to the burial chamber of an ancient Egyptian pharaoh and seeing the sarcophagus next to all of the pharaoh's belongings. However, what about the extreme inconvenience that comes with the "full experience"? The Mu'tafikah obviously think that you only deserve to see the art if you go the extra mile to get to the art.
Obviously, society has chosen a different path to art viewing. Across the entire world are art museums devoted to displaying thousands of artifacts, paintings, sculptures, and other various art mediums. Generally, you walk inside, pay admission (unless you have a pass), and are free to wander the various exhibits. At the art institutes I've been to, the art is sorted loosely by era, movement, or location.
The Mu'tafikah are a group who think it is some sort of crime to keep art in museums like this. They call the Metropolitan Museum of Art the Center for Art Detention. Personally, I love the idea of traveling deep into the jungle to see an ancient piece of art, but thats unrealistic in most situations, and I do still want to see the art. Besides, there are still artifacts in the world that are still hidden, some known, some unknown.
In 1990, The Concert, by Johannes Vermeer, along with 12 other pieces of art, was stolen from Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. The 13 pieces had a value of over $300,000,000. A reward of $5,000,000 is still being offered for information on the heist.
The Mu'tafikah stole thousands of artifacts and artwork from a countless number of museums around the world. Think how much money that would be worth if sold for ransom or in the black market. Instead, they send it all back to its original home, whether that be Asia, Egypt, or another place around the world. This shows how much it meant to the Mu'tafikah for this art to get back to its original location, risking their lives, and not for any personal gain other than the knowledge that the art is back where it belongs (in their opinion).
Art, as the Mu'tafikah seem to understand it, is more than just a painting or sculpture hanging on a wall or set up in a museum for people to constantly walk by, admire (for what reason?), and to continue on their way to the next "masterpiece". The Mu'tafikah seem to think that art is an experience. Art is more than just what is within the frame to which it is confined. Viewing an Egyptian sarcophagus next to hundreds of other mostly unrelated pieces in a giant hallway surrounded by tons of other people waiting to catch a glimpse is far different than traveling deep into the heart of Egypt, down to the burial chamber of an ancient Egyptian pharaoh and seeing the sarcophagus next to all of the pharaoh's belongings. However, what about the extreme inconvenience that comes with the "full experience"? The Mu'tafikah obviously think that you only deserve to see the art if you go the extra mile to get to the art.
Obviously, society has chosen a different path to art viewing. Across the entire world are art museums devoted to displaying thousands of artifacts, paintings, sculptures, and other various art mediums. Generally, you walk inside, pay admission (unless you have a pass), and are free to wander the various exhibits. At the art institutes I've been to, the art is sorted loosely by era, movement, or location.
The Mu'tafikah are a group who think it is some sort of crime to keep art in museums like this. They call the Metropolitan Museum of Art the Center for Art Detention. Personally, I love the idea of traveling deep into the jungle to see an ancient piece of art, but thats unrealistic in most situations, and I do still want to see the art. Besides, there are still artifacts in the world that are still hidden, some known, some unknown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)