Slaughterhouse Five Section 2 (Part III)

As I have read Slaughterhouse Five, one of the most nagging questions I have had is whether Billy is the speaker or not. I had assumed this was going to be the author's story of how war ruined him, but this is not the case. I was a little shocked to read, "That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book (p.125)." Until this point, I thought that the story of Billy was the story of the author. I think Vonnegut made up the person of Billy Pilgrim to create the story the way he wants to tell it. Billy just becomes the innocent bystander of situations that could represent some of the author's real experiences or some fictionalized stories. I also assumed that the Dresden firebombing was fiction as well until I looked it up. It made sense to me that this significant event would be fiction because this is coming from a guy that writes about meeting aliens. Apparently, the Dresden firebombing did occur, and it is as brutal as the author describes it. Vonnegut  calls it "the greatest massacre in human history." I think this is interesting because following this statement, Billy is back talking with the Tralfamadorians, who are indifferent to the emotional aspect of this bombing.

Slaughterhouse Five Section 2 (Part II)

One of the most frequently occurring images is time. Vonnegut repeatedly talks of time throughout the novel. Most of the time, the Tralfamadorians are the ones that provide deep insights about time. I think Vonnegut chose to use aliens as the mode of presenting these thoughts because this type of thinking is completely foreign to how humans think. One example of this is "All time is time....It just is (p.86)." Of course, this novel was written before Jurassic Park, but the part about bugs in amber reminds me of Jurassic Park. I think that is a very interesting way to think of this though. Just as the scientists were able to bring back species from the past, so does Billy's time work in this sense because he is capable of seeing any part of the time in his life. Additionally, the events of one's life are inevitable. I think this is significant because it links all of this logic about time and humans with war. Humans are like machines and their life is going to happen as it is destined to happen. Similarly, war will always occur because humans functions like machines making their actions inevitable.

Slaughterhouse Five Section 2 (Part I)

Throughout Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, Billy Pilgrim has been a man of few words. Most conversations take place around Billy, or Billy simply replies with the repeated word, "um." I interpret this to mean that the person who is Billy is the "time-traveling" mind of Billy Pilgrim. A good part of the story takes place in Billy's mind. For example, Billy is on his morphine trip and has this dream about giraffes, "Billy was a giraffe, too. He ate a pear (p.99)." I feel like this quote sums up the book. One moment a story is being told, and the next moment there is a line that catches readers completely off guard, like turning into a giraffe. I think the scattered  nature of the anecdotes and actual plot help convey the troubled mind of Billy Pilgrim. The story talks of how Billy's brain was not right after the plane crash. However, the story also talks of how Billy had no desire to live at that point. I think the crazy nature of Billy's mind is due to his post-traumatic stress from the war and the Dresden firebombing. I think the point of this novel is to convey to readers how war messes with people's minds in severe ways.

Batter my hear, three-personed God

As deduced from the title, Donne's poem is addressed to the trinity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). This poem is a sonnet as shown with the fourteen lines.The poem is filled with paradoxes that display the speaker's desire to grow closer to God. My personal favorite of these paradoxes is: "Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me." I highly doubt Donne intended for this line to be funny, but the irony of it just makes me laugh. The speaker asks God to ravish him; what is not funny about that? On a serious note, this line does hold some truth. the speaker is saying the only way he can be chaste is if God loves him. Another paradox in the poem is essence says that the speaker cannot be free unless God imprisons him. The message of this poem is that sin is inevitable. The speaker knows sin is inevitable, so he pleads for go to take him away from the situation of being able to sin. The speaker is almost ashamed of his human nature, which causes his plea to God.

Acquainted with the Night

Robert Frost gives us a sort of dark poem with Acquainted with the Night. The speaker talks of life with no right or wrong. Frost writes, "I have walked out in the rain - and back in rain." I interpret this line to mean "I have been to hell and back." The speaker is careful to say that he has been acquainted with the night, not friends. Frost uses indifferent language throughout the poem. In addition to the saying acquainted, the speaker talks of dropping his eyes when passing the watchman. The speaker tries to show what this world is like with "neither wrong nor right." Initially, I believed the "luminary clock" was the moon, but after some more thought, I believe that this luminary clock is some all-knowing being, maybe God. I think that the luminary clock might not be God specifically though because the speaker talks of this world with no right or wrong, and God is love and goodness. Thus, I believe the luminary clock is just a neutral omniscient being that is proclaiming there will be a time with when the world is just as indifferent.

I taste a liquor never brewed

Well, there's nothing like reading a poem about nature written by a woman who would not even leave her room in the later part of her life. Again, Dickinson creates an extended metaphor. This extended metaphor compares nature to being drunk. Maybe Ed Sheeran took a little tips from Emily Dickinson when writing the song "Drunk." Dickinson writes, "Not all the Vats upon the Rhine yield such alcohol!" This is line is, first and foremost, an indication that the speaker is not talking about getting drunk on alcohol. My understanding is that the Rhine is a river near Germany, and Germany is really big in the brewing industry, so this is not a type of alcohol that people drink. Typically, people enjoy drinking alcohol (I assume that is why people do it anyways). Alcohol is something people can become addicted to, and Dickinson makes a comparison to this trait of alcohol as well. Dickinson writes, "I shall but drink the more!" This line makes the speaker appear to be an alcoholic, except an alcoholic of nature. The speaker gets so much joy from nature and its beauty that she enjoys it more than being drunk. Then of course there is the last stanza that talks about the seraphs and saints that rush to view the drunkard. I interpret this to mean that people pretty much say "good for you for being drunk on nature and enjoying God's creation."

Sorting Laundry

Throughout Ritchie's Sorting Laundry, the speaker is, well, folding laundry. The speaker compares the various pieces of laundry to her relationship with her husband. Ritchie creates an extended metaphor throughout the entirety of the poem that compares this action of folding laundry to their love. For example, Ritchie writes, "pillowcases, despite so many washings, seams still holding our dreams." The pillowcases, which of course are from the couple's bed, symbolize their relationship, and this single line provides many details about the couple's relationship. These pillowcases embody all of the intimate moments that the couple has had together ("...still holding our dreams."). Additionally, their relationship is still strong since "the seams still holding...". The relationship between the speaker and her husband has been a long one as well since the pillowcases have been through many washings.

Then, the last three stanzas shift to more serious and worrisome tone. The speaker talks of the shirt of a previous lover. Personally, I believed it was the shirt of the speaker's previous lover, and I had not even thought of the possibility of it being the shirt of her husband's previous lover. However, my support for this theory does not come from the text. I just thought that men do not take and wear their girlfriend's shirts, that just does not happen. It makes far more sense for the shirt to be the speaker's because she would have been the one to wear her previous lover's clothing.