The Futility of Free Will

     While I have taken note of many things within my reading of “Slaughterhouse Five” by Kurt Vonnegut, the theme really screams at me the loudest, as does the theme in a film with a similar subject base called “Fury”. I recommend that you all go and read this book and watch this film, might I add. Nevertheless, since I started reading this book first, I will dissect its theme first.

     So, I think it’s pretty safe to say that the reemerging question, or the central theme question in the book is “Do we live in a world of primarily determinism, or free will?” In my opinion, “Slaughterhouse Five” answers this question, and while it appears as if it takes the deterministic side, they are some points at which that lean toward free will. For instance, the quote in the book that states “All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations. It simply is. Take it moment by moment, and you will find that we are all, as I've said before, bugs in amber,” ultimately leading me to the notion that we live in a universe of determinism. This quote definitely suggests that we live in a world where yes, we have our choices, but time and time only will show us that we are truly “bugs in amber” lacking free will, predetermined, and deceived, if you will, by time.

While the movie, “Fury”, takes on an array of somewhat similar and contradictory themes. Nevertheless, the one that I would like to discuss here is the theme of comradery. Now, I am well aware that all of the soldiers were not so fond of “Norman”(Logan Lerman) due to his slight timidity, and lack of experience of the world of war. In fact, the only one who truly ended up liking him, or more so taking him under his wing was “Wardaddy” (Brad Pitt). 

     Essentially, after the crew pretty much egging Norman on to take lives and risks that he had never done before, Brad Pitt assures him of himself, and basically lets him know that he would not be there had he not been able to handle it. In my opinion, the way in which both films share similar themes, in a way, is that they both ultimately lead the viewer or reader, that they truly have no choice in anything. More importantly in “Fury”, primarily because of the fact that I can identify with Norman in the situation in which he was in. Yes, he very well could have left had he been uncomfortable with the ravages of war, but being surrounded by these brave, courageous, war-driven men, you almost have no choice but to follow through. In addition, I think that once he was there, he felt an obligation to his country, and honestly, “how could he choose fear over patriotism?” Exactly, there is no choice.

     So, ultimately, I believe that is the Tralfamadorian teachings in “Slaughterhouse Five”, teaching Billy that free will is futile, and almost nonexistent, and that regardless what efforts, tasks performed, and actions, death is inevitable, thus making it appear as if we reside in a universe of determinism. And the manhood and nation obligatory pressures placed upon Norman that ultimately serve to the overall theme of them both, which is the “Futility of Free Will”. 

                                                                           

     "It's Never Just Heart Disease", go figure. This entire book is never just something but its not always deeper than the surface, that's understood. But what heart disease has to do with literature, I'm not exactly sure of but as I continued my reading of the chapter I quickly discovered the significance of "heart disease" in literature. First let's do a quick search on the true definition of a heart. After my search I learned that amongst all of the definitions, the true one, and the one that pertains to what is discussed in this chapter is "the center or innermost part of something". That should tell you right off the bat how important the heart is, and more importantly, how it can play a very prominent role in the world of literature.

     In the novel, "The Good Soldier (1915)", by Ford Madox Ford the heart plays a very significant role in the story. So here's a brief synopsis of the story. The narrator is apart of a pair of couples that go to the European spa every year. During these years the narrator's wife, Florence has been having an affair with the husband of the other couple, Edward. The husband having the affair's wife knows about it. The two faithful companions in each couple and maybe even the ones having an affair could be diagnosed with heart disease. Now, don't overthink it. They don't literally have a physical condition in which their is something wrong with their hearts.

     This goes to show how "In literature there is no better, no more lyrical, no more perfectly metaphorical illness than heart disease" What this means is that although there nothing physically wrong with their hearts, they have been somewhat emotionally damaged, which if you ask me, has an equal affect as the physical. So more or less that's what Foster means by "heart disease". Nevertheless, always be able to pick up on heart trouble in a story whether it is stated or not, it could most definitely help you in the long run. In my opinion, heart disease is dangerous in real life, and has the same affect in literature.

     Contrary to the notion stated above, the heart can also be a very positive thing in literature. It can represent love, compassion, chemistry, comfort, etc. And has an equal affect on the reader and the story it self as having "heart disease". That being said, a writer will rarely leave you wondering about if one of the characters has heart disease, it will be pretty easy to identify and not hard to look for. So never be too literal in regards to the term heart disease because it can have a multiplicity of meanings behind it. It's simply about the authors intentions and how and if the meaning fits into the context of the story.

     From an analytical perspective, I think that the reason writers use the heart as the heart of literature is to get to the hearts of the audience. If you have their heart, you have everything you need.

 

 

 

   Well, I don't want to seem sequential in the order in which I post my blogs in respect to the chapters, but I must say, chapter 2 "Nice To Eat With You: Acts Of Communion", was indeed intriguing. In addition, one thing I have observed in this chapter, as well as many others is that the content of them can surprise you if you don't expect it from the chapter title. So when I saw the chapter title for chapter 2, honestly, I was intimidated but it turned out that what the chapter had to say was easily understandable after a good reading and thorough analysis following the reading. But due to my ever so immense interest in biblical studies, religion, I thought I'd find this chapter very interesting, and it was, only to find out that Foster wasn't exactly referring to the consumption of the Welch's grape juice bland crackers on Sunday Morning, but was proposing a greater notion, which leads me to something else.

    "Sometimes a meal is just a meal, and eating with others is simply eating with others", says Thomas. What I admire so much about Fosters choice of words and sentence structure here is that before he goes into detail or contrasts this notion, he proposes the idea to the reader in such a way that somewhat instills a sense of ethos in the readers considering there's a sense of realism and believe it or not, intellectualism affiliated with it. "Eating with others" is a form of communing, stemming from the root word commune. and often times when we use the word "communion" we associate it with a religious ritual, which by definition communion is "a Christian ceremony in which break is broken and wine is drunk as a way of showing devotion to Jesus Christ", or something synonymous. However, what Mr. Foster was explaining in chapter 2 is there are communions of all kinds as far as literature is involved and it can be used in different ways in regards to the story being told.

      I found this particularly intriguing because I'm all about making things personal, and most of all shaping them to fit you and whatever you may be trying to do whether it be a novel, clothing line, blog, story, etc. So more or less I really admire the way in which Thomas Foster shaped the term to fit its relevance in the world of literature, novels, and stories. As told my the author, literary communion consists of indication of character interaction, the enabling of characters to overcome an adversity, indifference or obstacle, and then obviously a shared experience. This was a great analogy and I liked the way he executed his idea. However, I question the relevance of the statement as it pertains to everyday readers. Perhaps if that is an idea he felt had to be conveyed, he should have went about executing that in a different way. In my opinion, a more colloquial yet insightful anecdote would have been better. Nevertheless, I see myself learning a lot from this book and I look forward to what more the book has to offer and if it changes the way I read. I'm ready for the journey!

      When I saw the title of the book I was extremely curious about what the book would consist of and how exactly it would show me how to "read literature like a professor" In addition, there are a couple of other things that I noticed that will have already heightened my interest of the novel. In the beginning of chapter one, foster says "OK, SO HERE'S THE DEAL", this sort of informal introduction to the book (aside from the actual introduction) made me less intimidated of it, and honestly, more open to gaining deep insight into various entities of the books content. Essentially, this simple and forthright approach to the explanation of how "Every Trip Is a Quest (Except When It's Not)" simultaneously geared my approach and overall receptiveness of the proposition. 

      As I continued my reading I followed the story of the sixteen year old kid in the summer of the late 1960's, and was able to relate, considering I myself was just sixteen a couple of months ago. My initial thought when I began reading the story was "with this analogy, this chapter should be a breeze", and so it was. Although this may appear as a slightly simplistic observation, I admired how Thomas used this anecdote to help explain a notion to be proposed later in the chapter, or the book as a whole. The reason in which I feel as if this tactic was so strategic in its execution is because stories have been said to be the most effective way for one to convey an idea. Ultimately, his approach was obviously casual but also witty because he is able to reach people from different backgrounds. So, this especially helped for me being a high school student.

       After foster explains the story, he identifies it as a quest, and suggests that if one can figure out the quest, the rest is easy. I think I'm sure what he means by this but honestly, I'm not completely positive. However, I do see that this is his way of breaking down literature. And of course, when breaking down things, there are merely pieces left. So, in this case, the pieces are what a quest is, because I would like to think that if one can identify what a quest is, and what it consists of in respect to literature, then one can read literature with efficiency and understanding. 

     Although Foster did make it his ideas easy to grasp there are some parts that I don't understand and that I'm not sure that I will such as the reason that questers take on tasks. Yes, true enough, "The real reason for a quest is always self knowledge", but is that always true in respect to the plot of the literature? In this aspect, Foster provides us with another hypothetical situation to be further analyzed. Later we find that the stated goal began to diminish in presence and relevance, so the notion that I have developed is that perhaps there is hidden mission or maybe the "stated goal" is a symbolic form of the real reason questers take on their quests. I'm still quite curious about it all and I am excited to see what Foster has to reveal in the rest of the book.