Back to Normality - Uncle Vanya, by Anton Chekhov: Act 4

The final act of Uncle Vanya is a very normal falling action and resolution. The first two acts of the play were monotonous and negative exposition and rising action. The third act was the climax which differs completely from the rest of the play because it is very agitated and many interesting things occur. The fourth act, as I said before returns to the normality of the first two acts. The end is basically a conclusion in which the professor and his wife leave because of all the problems they have caused, and the house goes back to the usual work and routine. Some characters are disappointed with this decision, while others are very happy. I can see a clear connection between the end of Chekhov's play and Voltaire's play Candide. In both works the characters were dissatisfied with the way their lives turned out, but they had to contempt on being busy. Candide married an ugly Cunegonde but accepted his life in simply settling down and working. Vanya had wasted his whole life, but in a way, was glad to go back to normality. When Serebryakov and Elena were home, he was useless all day, complaining without work. When they left, even though he wasn't successful with Elena, he could be busy once again. In this, the two works are very similar. Vanya and Candide simply wanted to go to work.

" 'That's true enough,' said Candide; 'but we

must go work in the garden.' "

"Voinitsky: Let them go, I... I cannot. I feel

miserable. I must get busy with something 

as soon as possible... Work, work!" 

(Act IV, Pg. 222)

Both quotes show very little interest from the characters to the people they were talking to before. Vanya and Candide are simply concentrated on working. They were both pessimistic about life in the past, but at the end, accept their lives as they are. Vanya does this in a negative way saying he is doomed to die without doing anything in his life, but other characteres, such as Sonya try to see the good part of life. "You have had no joy in your life, but wait, Uncle Vanya, wait... We shall rest... We shall rest!" (Pg. 227) We see quite a big character development in Sonya. In the beginning she was obsessed with Astrov, but after she knew he didn't feel the same way towards her, she simply accepted life, and in the last act was one of the few positive persons.

A Change in Perspective - Uncle Vanya, by Anton Chekhov: Act 3

The third act of the play is extremely exhilarating. Many things happen, everybody has there own beliefs, everything changes, and it is the climax of the book. Regarding the relationship between Sonya and Astrov, everything went wrong. Sonya finally accepted to tell the doctor what she felt, but didn't do it herself, Elena asked him for her.  She obtained an answer nobody wanted to hear. Not only did Astrov say he didn't like Sonya, but he said he liked Elena. When he expressed this love, he kissed her, and in that precise moment, Vanya came in. Everything turned out upside down, and everyone was dissatisfied. Vanya was sad because Astrov kissed the love of his life, Elena. Elena was disappointed in Astrov because of the way he acted. Sonya would never have the only thing she ever wanted in her whole life: Astrov's love. In conclusion, to add to everyone's hate of life, everything became worse for all of them. 

All these problems between relationships were not the only things that happened in the third act. Serebryakov called together a family meeting to say he wanted to sell the estate, and there was a whole discussion about who wanted what. Vanya made a big fuss about working his butt off and wasting his whole life only for him, and now at this age, he wouldn't leave. I believe this is a good reason to not sell the estate, however Vanya didn't approach it the way he should of. He acted like a crazy man and tried to kill the professor. This was a very tense moment for all the characters who each had their own discussion. In this scene we can clearly see the self-centered manner of acting by the characters while they don't listen to other people's points of view. Elena is desperate to leave, Vanya is mean and wants to stay, Serebryakov wants money, Maria wants to please Serebryakov, and Sonya is sad and depressed about the doctor.

In this act I also realized another topic of the play is laziness and boredom. The perfect description of this is Sonya's monologue on page 196 while she talks to Elena: "You're bored, you don't kow what to do with yourself, and boredom and idleness are catching. Look: Uncle Vanya does nothing, just follow you around like a shadow, and I left my work and came running in to have a chat with you. I've grown lazy, I can't help it!"

In general I was very impressed with this act and I feel it's very different from the first two. Things actually happen that interest the reader a little bit. I am anxious about knowing the end, but I feel it's not going to be as interesting at this act, but more along the lines of the first two. What will happen with Sonya? With the professor and his wife? With the doctor? With Uncle Vanya?

...And Time Keeps Passing - Uncle Vanya, by Anton Chekhov: Act 2

Continuing on my last entry about this play, I say not much has changed. As I expected, Uncle Vanya is a literary work in which nothing happens at all. There's simply a cast of characters living in one depressive house being self-centered and criticizing life all the time. It is very monotonous and simply narrates a normal, boring, life where time passes and nothing goes on. In my past entry I talked about Uncle Vanya and the doctor's negativism, and the way they affected the rest of the characters. Even though most characters were pessimistic I still had a small hope on Elena, being the only happy person in the first act. Nevertheless, I have seen my prediction was wrong. After all, Vanya and his negativism prevailed over the good side of life. When Sonya and Elena were having a deep conversation, Sonya asked Elena "as a friend" if she was really happy. Her answer was no. This might've been predictable but it was disappointing seeing that I still had hope for the play to be a little less pessimistic. Now, as Elena dislikes her husband and the whole house, there is no salvation.

Another interesting thing to mention about the play is the relationship forming between Sonya, the professor's daughter, and Astrov the doctor. Sonya is deeply in love with him but can't express this love, and simply accepts the fact he comes and goes. When he is visiting their house, Sonya is very nice with him, and tries to please him in many manners, offering him food, drinks and having long conversations with him. The doctor doesn't show much of a reaction to this and simply says he is too old to love anyone. He doesn't even notice all the indirect expressions of love Sonya shows him and keeps on complaining about his work and life in Russia. I feel that this relationship isn't going anywhere if Sonya doesn't express her love to him; And, even if she did, it might not work anyways because of the doctor's way of life.

Monotonous Negativism - Uncle Vanya, by Anton Chekhov: Act 1

The first scene of Uncle Vanya is set in a regular house in the hills of a country side. A normal family, with many different people and very opposite personalities is described. I have a few initial reactions to what I think the play is going to be about regarding the first act I read. I believe the plot is going to be very monotonous with nothing going on, and simply a family with disputes between the members will be exposed. Until now, I feel most of the characters are very negative about life, and don't appreciate what they have. I also accept it is hard keeping track of all the russian names of the characters. I confess looking back at the list  of characters several times to recall who is who. What really confuses me is that not only are the characters addressed by one name, but there are various possible ways to refer to one person. They can be called their first name, last name or nick name. For example Uncle Vanya is also known as Ivan Petrovich or Voinitsky.

I am amazed at the constant fights between family members or friends because each person only hears their own opinion and wants to benefit only himself. Most characters are mean, self-centered and pessimistic. The doctor, Astrov goes around helping people to keep a life he thinks is worthless. He is constantly complaining about his work and the people around him. When talking to the nurse, Astrov said: "I'm on my feet from morning to night, I don't know what rest is, and at night I lie under the blankets afraid I might be dragged out to see a patient. During all the time you've known me, I haven't had a single free day." (Act 1, Pg. 164) I wonder if the doctor will always be unhappy with his life throughout the play? Will he ever find the true love he wants? Or perhaps, will he be so frustrated he'll consider suicide? I would also like to know if he will be an important character or simply a doctor that comes and goes without leaving an impact on someone. Will he ever have a free day? Does he really like his job, or will he quit?

Another negative character is Voinitsky, or Uncle Vanya. I believe he will always be an old scrooge and will never have fun. Whatever activity he chooses, he will be unhappy with. If he works, he'll complain, if he has nothing to do he'll complain, if it's a sunny day, he'll complain, if it's a rainy day he'll complain. He has no relief or chance of getting better. Even when the impossible love of his life, the only positive character in the play, Elena is happy, he won't be.

"Elena Vasilyevna: It's a fine day today... not too hot...

  [A pause]

  Voinitsky: A fine day to hang oneself..." (Act 1, Pg. 172)

As we can see, he is completely negative about life. This is why I say he can never change and Uncle Vanya will be a monotonous pessimistic play the whole time. Nevertheless, with characters like Elena, there is still a small hope. Will goodness prevail? Or will Vanya prevail?

So Did Fate Really Matter? Final Reaction to Macbeth

I was very curious about Macbeth's ending specially regarding the witches predictions about Macbeth being killed when Birnam Wood arrived to his castle. I recall logging or making a write now about fate before we began reading Macbeth. I said that I didn't believe in fate what so ever or in things such as horoscopes or weather predictions. I still maintain this point about fate, however, regarding Macbeth itself I would have to say I believe practically all of the witches predictions seeing that they all come true. At the end of the play, the witches predict Macbeth can't be killed by any woman-born, and he should only worry when Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane. Macbeth's life became in danger when this precise situation occurred: Birnam Wood moved to Dunsinane and Macduff said he was not woman born and wanted to fight him. It is said that Macbeth's death was a practical suicide because he knew he would be killed. I completely agree with this idea because, as I said before, all of the witches predictions come true in the play. Macbeth knew he would be killed by a man born not by woman, but he decided to fight Macduff anyways, who said he had been born by force prematurely.

In the end I think that all the witches predictions did was make things occur. For instance, it was not fate that made Macbeth kill Duncan, it was the fact he was intrigued by the witches predictions. He wanted power, and felt he had to fulfill what the Weird Sisters said. Perhaps, if these sisters hadn't told Macbeth he would be killed by a man not born by woman, he would of won the battle against Macduff. However, since Macduff wasn't woman born and Macbeth accepted all the witches predictions, he probably had already accepted his defeat. He thought he couldn't do anything about it, and therefore fought Macduff, with failure already in his mind.

I was also surprised about Macbeth's personality at the end, and the way he reacted to his wife's death. The character development seen in Macbeth throughout the acts is amazing. In the beginning, he was a humble soldier that wanted to protect his country, then he strived for power when hearing of the possibility of becoming King. He was weak when thinking of killing him, but Lady Macbeth led him to do it. When he became King, power slowly started corrupting him. He didn't feel guilty for killing Duncan any more, and basically changed places with his wife. Instead of being weak and afraid, this was now Lady Macbeth's role along with guiltiness and suicide. Macbeth was now past all the guilt and simply wanted to stay in power. This is why his reaction to his wife's death was so out of place. "She should have died hereafter. There would have been a time for such a word." (Act 5, Scene 5, Line 20-21, Page 177) This acceptance is also relevant to the topic of fate, seeing that Macbeth is once again accepting fate, and doing nothing about it, not even mourning about his wife's death.

A Simple Heart

"A Simple Heart," by Gustave Flaubert describes the story of Felicite, a religious, economical, disciplined servant that worked for Madame Aubain. She was very vulnerable, insecure and dependent of other people. We can see her insecurity in her grief of Virginia's death, Madame Aubain's daughter in chapter 3. "For two nights, Felicite never left the corpse. She would repeat the same prayers, sprinkle holy water over the sheets, get up, come back to the bed and contemplate the body." (Pg. 13) In this quotation, we can see that other than Felicite being insecure, she was also restless because she couldn't just sit and grieve and do nothing about it, but she had to move around and try to help Virginia even though she was dead. This also proves her religiousness, because she prayed and put holy water on the sheets. We can also see Felicite's insecureness and restlessness when Loulou gets lost. Loulou is Felicite's pet parrot, the main symbol of the story which perhaps represents hope. I believe he represents hope because Felicite had always been a very lonely person that had nothing to live for. However, when Loulou comes into the story in the fourth chapter, he gave Felicite hope of not dying alone and having some company and somebody to worry about. Nevertheless, when Loulou gets lost, Felicite worries a bit too much. "When she returned, she found no parrot! She hunted among the bushes, on the bank of the river, and on the roofs..." (Pg. 17) Here we can see, once again, Felicite is very restless, and she can't just sit and wait for the bird to come back, but she has to look for him all around the city.

I believe this story is completely based around Felicite's life, feelings, and all emotions. Basically,  Flaubert centers his story in one character, Felicite. He doesn't use other ways of writing such as a whole group of characters, but he simply picks one important person, and everyone else automatically becomes a secondary character. This is a common way of writing which I have seen in practically all the other books I've read this year in English class. Candide, Slaughterhouse - Five, and The Crying of Lot 49 all use this style. In those cases, as in this one, the main character controls the happenings. I believe that to be able to write this way, the author practically has to stop thinking as him, and start thinking as the character. This is what actors have to do to play well a character: They have to be the character. This is a very important connection between literature and film that will always be present.

This story is simply a narration of Felicite's life and the way people and things would just come and go. She could never stop doing things so at many points in the novel she devoted and attached to someone she felt she had to take care of. The perfect example is Father Colmiche. The old man depended on Felicite to keep living so she felt attached to him, but eventually he went out of her life. Unfortunately this is the way everything happens in the story. The most important figure in her life, Loulou also died after accompanying her some time, but she felt so devoted to him, she stuffed him and kept him as a symbol of the Holy Ghost. Since all the important figures in her life died, she eventually became a materialist person, only caring about the physical appearance of things such as the bird. "They associated in her mind, the parrot becoming sanctified through the neighborhood of the Holy Ghost, and the latter becoming more lifelike in her eyes, and more comprehensible..." (Pg. 19)

Basically, I believe "A Simple Heart" is simply a story about the development of a character. In the beginning, we as readers got the vision of Felicite as a humble, dedicated, religious servant, that was unfortunate because of her loneliness and way of life. However, afterwards, little by little her character or personality became to change. She began to look at life a different way. First she became attached to individuals that needed her, which gave her life meaning. Unfortunately, then she started to notice the reality of life as these figures began to die, so she thought her only way out, and the only true things in life were the material objects. She attached herself to material things gathered from all periods of her life and the house fell apart. The parrot began to decay, but nevertheless, she hung on. In the end, Felicite simply died and accepted the reality of life: time passes, people die, and life goes on. I believe that Felicite never really lost hope, and no matter the circumstances, she always believed in God. This is represented by the parrot. As I said before this main symbol of the story represents hope and the Holy Ghost. Even in the time of her death, Felicite saw parrots all around and in the end a huge parrot "hovering" above her. This shows she still had hope and the Holy Ghost was present in her life.

Candide: chapters 25 to 30 - Conclusion

Continuing on the topic of my last blog entry, I believe Martin is the cause of Candide's negativism. Martin is always talking about the bad things that happen to all humans in a pesimistic way; moreover, he believes humans are born to suffer. In the very last chapter we learn many things and conclusions, within these, we can see Martin can influence the life of many people. "Martin's conclusion was that man was born to suffer from the restlessness of anxiety or from the lethargy of boredom. Candide did not agree, but he admitted nothing." This is why I believe that in the previous chapters Candide negativism was caused or arranged by Martin.

However, in the last six chapters we can see another shift in Candide's personality. As I stated before, this novel is based completely on Candide, and because of this all the passing characters influence him and make him change personalities many times. At the beginning of the book many bad things happened to him, but he always thought everything was for the best because that was what Pangloss had taught him. Around the middle of the book, when Pangloss was gone, Candide began to think of all the bad things that happened to him, and became a pesimist. At the very end, when Pangloss re-appears, he is optimistic once again. "I have been thinking it over again, my dear Martin, and find that Pangloss was quite right; all is for the best." Because of this sequence and change of personality, and because of Pangloss' and Martin's influence on Candide, I have to say that Pangloss represents optimism, and Martin represents negativism.

In the very end, we can continue seeing Candide's optimism. He is always thinking about finding Pangloss again and he does, and when he finds Cunegonde, even though she is very ugly, he marries her thinking that it's for the best. In the end, all the characters are very unfortunate but Candide keeps pushing his optimism, which we can see perfectly in the very last sentence of the book. All the characters are arguing about their miserable conditions, but Candide insists everything will get better in a famous quote: " 'That's true enough,' said Candide; 'but we must go and work in the garden.' " Some people claim the garden is the Garden of Eden, where everything is perfect, but I simply believe this represents a place where people have to work to earn their lives and survive. This is Candide's optimism, he must work to earn better conditions.

Candide: chapters 19 to 24 - A Change in Personality

I believe this series of chapters is also very important for the novel. Candide meets a new passing character which acts kind of as a second Cacambo, and changes his personality and way of thinking a lot. This new character is Martin, and I say he is similar to Cacambo because he also gives me the impression of being a bodyguard to Candide. I say Candide changes his personality because he accepts the new world is no better than the old. This change in personality had started occurring from before when Cacambo insisted they should go back to Europe, before they found Eldorado. However, in chapter XIX Candide definitely accepts the evil in the world. 

" 'Oh Pangloss! cried Candide. 'A scandal like this never occurred to you! But it's 

the truth, and I shall have to renounce that optimism of yours in the end.' " (Pg. 86)

Here we can see Candide is almost completely opposing Pangloss' theory and nature of philosophy. He said that everything was for the best no matter what happened, and now Candide is starting to doubt this, which is what he was taught his whole childhood. Here is when we start seeing the very nature of the satire in this book. The name Candide means optimism, and at this point that is what Candide less is, an optimist. This is both ironic and absurd because his name id optimism but he regrets and complains about everything that happens to him.

I still believe that Martin's appearance will be of more importance further on. What is this character's purpose in the novel? Why is he always cursing life? Is he the cause of Candide's negativism? 

Homework - What's the Point?

I read the short story "Homework," by Helen Simpson, found in The New Yorker. This story is about a teenage kid that comes home and, as any regular kid, left his homework for the very last minute. He starts complaining saying that a 13 year old boy isn't capable of writing a 3-page story. He decides to ask his mom for help, which is the narrator of the story, and explains she will only help him this once. They talk for a long time discussing a topic that would change a boy's life. Together, they create a fictitious story about his parents divorcing. The story basically goes on describing what the boy writes while his mom gives him all the ideas. It kind of gets interesting in the end when the boy explains his only way out of his parents divorce was watching soccer, or football as the British say, and states his love for Manchester United. The very end of the story is quite cool when George chants "UNITED, UNITED" ironically, since his parents are not united at all. 

I found this story quite meaningless and boring. Even though it is well written, and I felt connected to it, the plot isn't very exciting. The author clearly doesn't have any imagination whatsoever. I chose it because I hate homework and this title caught my attention. Perhaps it could've been a funny and interesting theme, but it wasn't well developed. Putting my boredom aside, I do have to say I felt quite connected to the story. My whole life I have thought of my parents divorce as the most tragic thing in the world. If this fear ever came true I know it would be an event that would change my life completely. The theme of soccer is quite present in my life also. Ever since I was a small boy I've always liked this sport, and my passion towards Nacional has never ceased even though I left Medellin as a small boy. The mentioning of Manchester United as George's favorite team made me quite happy, seeing that this is the team I support in England. Just yesterday I watched the semi-final of this year's UEFA Champion's League between Manchester United and Barcelona.

Going on I have to say there is really no point in this story. I can see how someone would like to write something about homework, but I can't see how someone would think of such an uninteresting thing. It is probably easier to think about something interesting and exciting than something that boring. I was almost as depressed reading this story as George was writing his own work. "It's English so it should be all right, but he still wants to make it hard. We've got to do three sides of paper out of our own heads." (Pg. 1) I can't believe I chose such a boring story to read. I can't even think of a few paragraphs to blog about!

Candide: chapters 13 to 18 - Candidecentrism

In this series of chapters, many things occurred to Candide. I would say Candide is almost the only main character, while all other important characters are just passing by. I can also say Cunegonde is just a passenger because even though she affected Candide's life, in chapter 13 they were separated. Once again, I had the pleasure to act a few scenes within these chapters, in which I represented the governor and Cacambo. To complement on the idea Candide is the center of the whole story, I would say Cacambo is almost like his bodyguard. Cacambo always accompanies Candide, he always does the 'dirty work', and stays behind protecting him. However, Candide needs to maintain his leading position and therefore does some things to make the story interesting. Some of these 'interesting' things are murdering people. Candide basically adopts a personality of killing anything that comes in his way. At one point, in chapter 15, Candide even kills Cunegonde's brother. The coming chapters are kind of boring, unnecessary, and not interesting for the idea of Candidecentrism. Candide meets more passing characters, in this case in the form of two women and two monkeys, which Candide also kills. Later, Candide and Cacambo reach the city of Eldorado, where they meet the Kings and encounter themselves with a lot of gold. Candide is amazed with all their riches, however, they don't seem to be satisfied. The main character envies them, but does nothing about it. The way in which Voltaire writes, and describes the foods, and dresses and golds clearly shows an amazement of the country: 

"Two waiters and two waitresses, dressed in cloths of gold with their hair tied in ribbons, invited them to sit down to table and put before them four tureens of soup, each garnished with two parakeets, a boiled vulture weighing about two hundred pounds, two delicious roast monkeys, three hundred doves on one plate, and six hundred humming-birds on another, as well as exquisite stews and luscious pastries, all served on plates of a sort of rock crystal." (Pg. 76) 

This very long sentence clearly shows one of the characteristics of satires: hyperbole. All the descriptions are extremely exaggerated. How can their be three hundred doves and six hundred humming birds in one meal? That's impossible. The description is very detailed and says the exact amount and serving every plate had. I wonder why Voltaire decides to write such a long sentence? This also forms part of the exaggeration in the description of a country Voltaire envies. 

Candide: chapters 7 to 12 - A Change in Perspective

After I read these chapters of Candide, my view towards this novel completely changed. I had the fortune of acting out a few of these scenes or chapters which helped me understand completely the meaning of the happenings. I carefully studied chapters 9 and 10 and noticed many interesting things. First of all, I say I changed my view towards the novel specially because of Candide's acts. I used to think of Candide as a rich, spoiled child that came by misfortune and was thrown out of home. I also thought he was constantly changing moods depending on his circumstances. If he was lucky, he was happy, and vice-versa. Now, I started thinking of him as a criminal, because he killed everyone that came in his way. In a way, I think this sudden change of personality came about because of a sense of protection towards Cunegonde. In the ninth chapter Candide killed a priest and a jew (which I represented in the play), and was forced to run away with Cunegonde and the old lady towards a small town called Avacena.

I believe this book is also about misfortunes and how to deal with the circumstances that come about. In the tenth chapter Cunegonde is robbed of all her possessions, and the three characters are forced to sell a horse to be able to move on to a new town, called Cadiz. This chapter is characterized by all the complaining done by Cunegonde and the old lady. Because of their misfortunes, the trio decides to go to the New World in search of better lives. On the way there, the women complain always about their misfortunes, and then the old lady tells her long, tragic story in the eleventh chapter. Some people believe these chapters are mocking the New World because it is though of as a second chance, a second living after messing up lives in Europe. 

"We are going to a different world, and I expect it is the one where all goes well; for I must admit that regrettable things happened in this world of ours, moral and physical acts that one cannot approve of." (Pg. 48)

In this passage we can see, the New World is described as a completely new place, almost alien to the Old World. Perhaps this is mocking people who think this. In general, I have to say this section was sort of annoying because of all the complaining, and it completely changed my perspective about the novel. This part of the book was also about changing perspectives rapidly, and noting optimism. For example, when one person was complaining the others tried to be optimistic and say it didn't matter because they were going to start a new life. To prove optimism, and change of perspectives, I would like to end with a citation of a song from our play from the part where they are on the boat on their way to America, and Cunegonde is telling of her tragedies.

They robbed me of all my possessions

But there's always a new world

We sold one of our old horses

And everything will turn out well

Candide: chapters 1 to 6 - Labniz success satired

In the beginning of the book I found a lot of satire divided into many different categories. One of the most absurd parts I could see, occurred in the fourth chapter. After being kicked out of the castle, Candide was forced to be a beggar in the streets, but absurdly enough, he found Pangloss his past philosopher - tutor, in a worse condition than himself. How can a wise philosopher be in a worse condition than a young kid that just got thrown away from home? Other than absurd, this is even a little ironic. 

" 'Pangloss!' cried Candide. 'Can this be my beloved master in such a shocking state? 

What misfortune has befallen you? What has driven you from the most lovely of mansions? 

What has happened to Lady Cunegonde, that pearl among women, the masterpiece of nature?' " (pg. 28)

I also found some hyperbole amongst these chapters, such as the disease Pangloss had spoken of in the fourth chapter, and the way Pangloss and Candide are arrested in the sixth chapter. Voltaire exaggerated the disease completely by saying it tracked back all the way until Columbus' era. On top of this, in the sixth chapter hyperbole is clearly shown with the arrest of Pangloss and Candide simply for "speaking and listening with an air of approval." (pg. 36) All these small themes of satire can sum up to the target of the author within these chapters. I believe that in general Voltaire has the same target throughout the first six chapters: against philosophers and their success. I have heard Pangloss is really Labniz, a philosopher from the XVIII century that said everything is for a reason. Taking into account all the bad things that happen to Pangloss, and knowing he is really Labniz, I believe he and other successful philosophers are being targeted.

The Crying of Lot 49 - Sixth Chapter

The final chapter of the novel had a ton of information but I was disappointed with the way it ended. Within the chapter I found many interesting points and satirical elements. For some reason or another throughout the final chapter I asked myself who Bortz really was. What does he represent? Why is he included at the very end of the novel? Unfortunately I never really got to answer this question, but it is something I would like to investigate further. Other than finding out the origins of trystero, I liked the fact the author explained the novel's title. I had been very intrigued about what the lot 49 was, and when I found out I was very happy.

Talking about the satire in The Crying of Lot 49, I think I found a very important point. The part where we found out that there was a pornographic version of The Courier's Tragedy in the Vatican seems absurd to me. I believe this is making fun of the church. Continuing with the topic of satires, I believe the dirty version of the play is a satire because it is mocking theater. "'Why should they do a dirty version of his play?' 'As a morale example. They were not fond of the theater. It was their way of putting the play entirely away from them, into hell.'" (pg. 128)

I also found a connection with Macbeth. "Robert Scurvham had founded, during the reign of Charles I, a sect of most pure Puritans. Their central hangup had to do with predestination." This idea of predestination is connected to the destiny of Macbeth in Shakespeare's play. The Scurvhamites or pure Puritans can be compared to the Weird Sisters of Macbeth.

When I was reading this chapter I was constantly thinking about the characters in the novel. It seams very strange to me to see so many different characters throughout the book. This was very confusing because there were some characters that simply appeared once, but were mentioned later. In the beginning or middle of this chapter I was also thinking how all this linked back to Pierce. Fortunately, I found this out later knowing that all the places he owned were linked to Trystero workers. Finally his collection of stamps led to the lot 49 at the very end. Even though I was interested in the name of the book, The Crying of Lot 49, I was disappointed with the end. It was interesting to read the explanation of the 'crying' of this lot: "'We're in luck. Loren Passerine, the finest auctioneer in the West, will be crying today.' 'Will be what?' 'We say an auctioneer 'cries' a sale." (pg. 151) I say I was let down with the end because even though Oedipa found out all the information on Tristero, she didn't do anything about it. The last weeks of the investigation were written in a way that showed an Oedipa that didn't care or believe anymore. Nothing really happened in the novel.

Vocabulary

Whimsy (pg. 134): Playfully quaint or fanciful behavior or humor.

Fountainhead (pg. 136): The headwaters or source of a stream.

Incommensurate (pg. 147): Out of keeping or proportion with.

The Crying of Lot 49 - Fifth Chapter

The fifth chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 is very extensive and dense. It covers a lot of information but at the same time, leaves some space for questioning at the end. In general I felt very informed and found a few connections throughout this chapter. I found a couple of connections with philosophy and once again, with Slaughterhouse - Five. I also found a lot of words to investigate to add on my vocabulary.

Initially, I found the first connection with philosophy on page 95. When Oedipa is in her long night of walking (and riding) around the city, she mentioned it would be hard to distinguish between reality and dreams the next day. Many philosophers talk about dreams, and pose the question of how we know our whole life is not just a dream. Taking into account many dreams feel very real, how can we know we are not in a dream right now? This is a theme I can specifically know is mentioned by Descartes in his Discourse on the Method. Further on in the novel, philosophy is recognized again when Freud is mentioned. The context is when Dr. Hilarius is becoming crazy and he describes his hatred against Jews. His excuse is that he is not really a nazi because: "Yes, you hate me. But didn't I try to atone? If I'd been a real nazi I would've chosen Jung, nicht wahr? But I chose Freud instead, the Jew. Freud's vision of the world has no Buchenwalds in it." (pg. 112)

I also found a new connection with Slaughterhouse - Five. Although small, I believe this discovery leads to relate these to novels more and more. Oedipa was having many encounters with the WASTE symbol and  people related to it, and in one opportunity she saw a mother saying goodbye to her son and advising him to mail by means of the WASTE system. At this point Pynchon wrote "So it went." (pg. 100) This is extremely similar to So it goes and although in different circumstances, is very curious.

Throughout this chapter I also found some other interesting things. First of all I found some new funny parts proving this novel is a satire, but I still don't know of what. When Oedipa is talking to Jesus Arrabal, this small part made me laugh and reminded me to be in the look out for the satire. "But your friend, unless he's joking, is as terrifying to me as a Virgin appearing to an Indian." (pg. 97) I also found a new interesting abbreviation. In the novel ACDC was Alameda County Death Cult. I believe the satire might be a joke to some mexican - american thing because of all the bilingual parts and the jokes. How can the name of a music group be used as an Alameda Death Cult? I believe this has more information to it than I know.

I found this chapter very interesting because I got a lot of information on the Trystero and the WASTE system. When Oedipa went to the gay bar, she found a person wearing a pin of the WASTE symbol, so she decided to ask this person what it was. Supposedly, it was the symbol of a group called the Inamorati Anonymous or  IA, and WASTE was their mailing system. After reading this chapter I felt more informed, and I knew more about the novel. However, the end is kind of confusing once again when Oedipa goes home and sees her husband acting strangely. She finds out he's on pills and this makes him seem as if he were many people at the same time. He starts talking about his knowledge in languages and analyzind music and rhythms backwards and this kind of confused me once again.

Vocabulary

DT, DT's, and dt (pg.105): Delirium tremens: Colloquially, the DTs, "the horrors", "the shakes" or "rum fits"; afflicted individuals referred to as "jitterbugs" in 1930s Harlem slang; literally, "shaking delirium" or "trembling madness" in Latin.

Idly (pg. 93): With no particular purpose, reason or foundation.

Brody (pg. 92): not found

Cataclysm (pg. 97): A large - scale and violent event in the natural world; A sudden violent upheaval.

Jitney (pg. 101): A bus or other vehicle carrying passengers for a low fare.

Catatonic (pg. 112): State of immobility and stupor; Abnormality of movement and behavior arising from a disturbed mental state.

Atone (pg. 112): Make amends or reparation.

KCUF (pg. 113): FUCK. This is the radio station I mentioned in my previous blog, but it is fuck spelled backwards.

Chapter Four in The Crying of Lot 49: Connections, Answers and Questions

The fourth part of Pynchon's novel is short but very important for the rest of the book. It answers some of the questions brought up before, but leaves new ones to look for afterwards. This makes it the most interesting chapter so far. The novel is progressing to a point where I've changed my view towards it and its theme. Before this chapter I thought the book was slow, and not very interesting. I didn't even know what the main theme really was! After reading this chapter I think it is a lot more interesting and I'm a little more settled. I believe this novel's main theme is Oedipa's investigation to find out the meaning of the WASTE symbol, the Tristero, the mailing system, and something deeper in Pierce's will.

In this chapter we found out that the WASTE symbol is very similar to the 'post horn', the Thurn and Taxis symbol. From what Cohen said in this chapter the WASTE symbol might've been created to silence the Thurn and Taxis symbol. "There it was again, her WASTE symbol, showing up black, a little right of center. 'What is this?' she asked, wondering how much time had gone by. 'I'm not sure,' Cohen said. 'That's why I've referred it, and the others, to the Committee." (p. 77) The very curious fact about the WASTE symbol is that everybody avoids talking about it. Every time Oedipa goes on an investigation wanting to find out about the symbol, she never gets an answer. Why is it that many people know a lot about this, but never talk about it? This mystery is why I believe there is something deeper en Pierce's will. I think this is the reason why Pierce chose her, Oedipa, not a lawyer or a trusted friend, to execute his will. 

I concur with Mariana, which on her blog said she believed Oedipa is so desperate to get information on anything that will lead her investigation further that she is far - fetching information. For example when she is pondering about the murder in the lagoons. The site said: "The only other clue was a cross, traced by one of the victims in the dust." (p. 71) Oedipa tried linking this small cross with the tristero: "A cross? Or the initial T? The same stuttered by Niccolo in The Courier's Tragedy." (p. 71) She is so hopeless about find answers she is thinking a cross can be a T, and that T stands for tristero, not any other word in the english dictionary starting with a T.

The Crying of Lot 49 - Third Chapter

The third chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 is very complex and includes many important things. First of all it introduces "The Tristero" through a play called The Courier's Tragedy, and I believe this will be of a lot more importance further on in the novel. I also found some more patterns that are continuously used throughout the book such as the use of strange names, in this case, Mike Fallopian. Curiously, I also found a few connections with Slaughterhouse - Five.

The main topic covered in this chapter is that of the play The Courier's Tragedy. There are many connections between this play and the lives of the characters in The Crying of Lot 49. First of all, the relationship mentioned the most, is the fact both plots dug up bones from the bottom of a lake. This coincidence led Oedipa to find out more about the play at the end of the chapter when she went to talk to the director. This small talk led to the importance of the word tristero. From that moment on, Oedipa connected everything in her life to The Tristero. Another similarity between both plots was the use and mentioning of a mail system. The Thurn and Taxis' conspiracy is strictly connected to the sue Manny Di Presso established against Pierce  Inveraity. It also resembles the mail system Pierce owns. When Pynchon talked about The Courier's Tragedy, he explained absolutely everything and included all the small details. Once again the author is using exaggeration.

Another point that stood out to me in this part of the novel, was Manny Di Presso's description of the battle in Lago di Pieta during World War II. Even though this battle didn't really occur, I believe Pynchon might've invented it  based on a different, similar situation. "For weeks, a handful of American troops, cut off and without communications, huddled on the narrow shore of the clear and tranquil lake while from the cliffs that tilted vertiginously over the beach Germans hit them day and night with plunging, enfilading fire." (pg. 46)

This is what led me to find a couple of small connections between The Crying of Lot 49 and Slaughterhouse - Five. First of all, both authors mentioned World War II (obviously Vonnegut's novel is completely based on this war, and Pynchon barely mentions it). Another similarity is that of the use of the word latrine. Even though latrine is not a very common word, both authors used it in their novels. "On the latrine wall, among lipsticked obsceneties, she noticed the following message..." (Pynchon pg. 38) "Billy was approaching, without knowing it, the back of the latrine." (Vonnegut, pg. 124)

Vocabulary:

Vertiginously: Causing vertigo by being extremely high or steep. (pg. 46)

Divan: A long low sofa without a back or arms, typically placed against a wall. (pg. 51)

Interim: The intervening time. (p. 53)

Livery: Special uniform worn by a servant or official. Or, a special design and color scheme used on products of a particular company. (p. 55)

KCUF: The call sign of the radio system in The Crying of Lot 49. (p. 63)

The Crying of Lot 49 - Second Chapter: Exaggeration in Satires

When I read the second part of Pynchon's novel, I encountered myself with several parts that were interesting, or stood out. First of all cam the intrigue of why the TV was called a tube. Then I noticed that Pynchon writes in a very exaggerated manner, something typical in satires.I also questioned the reason for including so many songs. Is this necessary for the overall meaning? Finally I noticed that the author is constantly mentioning other countries. I believe this might indicate (as I mentioned in my previous blog) that Pynchon doesn't like his country.

"Oedipa had planned on nothing more involved that evening than watching Bonanza on the tube." (pgs. 17 - 18) I am not sure whether "the tube" is just the way it looks or if it is something special or new made especially as a tube and not a TV.

One of the most important parts of this chapter is where I notice an exaggeration. Oedipa is preparing herself to play strip botticelli and goes in to put all her clothes on. When she looks at herself in the mirror a hair spray can falls and blows all around the room. This is so exaggerated that it takes up a whole page of description. "The can, hissing malignantly, bounced of the toilet and whizzed by Metzger's right ear, missing by maybe a quarter of an inch." While on the topic of Oedipa and Metzger in the motel room, I would like to mention the prolonged importance of the movie Cashiered. I feel this is unnecessary and takes up a lot mores space than needed. The point that Pynchon is really trying to stress is simply the fact a lawyer is an actor at times, and an actor is a lawyer at times. All of this is basically describing Metzger's personality and life, which I think will play an important role further on in the novel.

Another catch in The Crying of Lot 49 is the excessive use of songs. Throughout the second chapter Pynchon shows us three different songs: Miles's Song, Baby Igor's Song, and Serenade. I feel that the author is trying to express something through the use of songs but don't really know. Perhaps Pynchon is criticizing or making fun of music as a vice in modern people's lives.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, Pynchon uses many countries throughout his novel. I believe the excess use of foreign countries as examples or important roles, might be leading towards a dislike of his own country: United States. In the first chapter Mexico and Germany were mentioned, and in the second, England plays a pretty important role. The Parnoids is a music group Oedipa meets in this chapter through the manager of the motel she is staying in. As a member of the group, Miles told Oedipa it was important to sing all the band's songs in an english accent.

Rapunzel and Uncle Sam: The Crying of Lot 49 - First Chapter

In the first chapter of The Crying of Lot 49 I experimented with Pynchon's way of writing and got an introduction to the novel.  I found some comical moments and got to know some of the main characters: Oedipa Maas, 'Mucho' Maas and Roseman. The structure of this novel and the long sentences made it hard to understand at times, and required more than one time of reading it. I believe some of the jokes come through the characters names such as Dr. Hilarius, Roseman and Mucho Maas. Roseman's name might be linked to his personality by showing a type of romance. I recall a part were he told Oedipa to run away with him and that is what lead me to think this. Some of the words in spanish might show the author knows this language and "mucho mas" (meaning 'a lot more') might have a deeper meaning.

Some of the parts that stood out in the beginning of the book were the references to Rapunzel and Uncle Sam. Oedipa Maas compares herself to Rapunzel indicating a claustrophobic and trapped personality. I believe she wants to be saved by her ex - boyfriend Pierce Inverarity (now deceased), but when this fails it can show a failure of their relationship. "...only when Pierce had got maybe halfway up, her lovely hair turned, through some sinister sorcery, into a great unanchored wig, and down he fell, on his ass." This is another funny part in the novel and when mentioning "some sinister sorcery" this might mean a powerful source didn't let their relationship succeed.

Thomas Pynchon uses Uncle Sam to describe the moment when Dr. Hilarius tells Oedipa he wants her for an experiment. Here, a weak Uncle Sam is described with "his eyes gleaming unhealthily, his sunken yellow cheeks most violently rouged..." This description of Uncle Sam might mean the United States are fragile or the author doesn't like this country. I am also intrigued about the author's mentioning of Germany in several cases such as the connection with the German symphonies. Will this play an important role further on during the novel? If so, this can be connected both to A Clockwork Orange and The Man in the High Castle. In A Clockwork Orange the German symphonies are also mentioned, and in The Man in the High Castle Germany occupies the United States. I am also intrigued about how Oedipa Maas will carry out the execution of Pierce's will.

Changes in Love Songs Throughout the Years

I decided to compare "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by T.S. Eliot to "And I love her" by the Beatles. Their song goes like this:

I give her all my love

That's all I do

And if you saw my love

You'd love her too

I love her

She gives me ev'rything

And tenderly

The kiss my lover brings

She brings to me

And I love her

A love like ours

Could never die

As long as I

Have you near me

Bright are the stars that shine

Dark is the sky

I know this love of mine

Will never die

And I love her

Bright are the stars that shine

Dark is the sky

I know this love of mine

Will never die

And I love her

I chose this song because I consider The Beatles to be a great group, with good songs and very inspiring lyrics. I had never heard of this song but when I read it I thought it was great in terms of getting to all the love souls on the world. However, when comparing it to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock it was nothing like it. For one, the vocabulary and way of writing was very different in 1917 and 1964. I also think that they are very different because they were written for different purposes. Eliot is a writer, and I imagine he wrote this Love song thinking more of a poem than a song. In contrast, Paul McCartney is a singer which probably wrote And I love her specifically as a song for his group. Obviously the length is another different factor between these two love songs, Eliot's having 130 lines and the Beatles song having just 24 lines.

The meaning of these two love songs is also quite different being that And I love her is just a repetitive rhythm with very monotonous words and phrases. The only thing this song says is basically "I love you, I love you, and I will never leave you." Completely opposite is The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock having possibly many more meanings than the ones I even comprehend. What I barely do get from reading this poem is the fact Eliot isn't so descriptive and doesn't show his love very much. The poem is just about a man, Alfred Prufrock that spends his life beside one woman until he ages. Some parts are very strange and don't have anything to do with love or the rest of the song. For instance, every once in a while Michelangelo is mentioned, and all the women love him. Perhaps this is the ideal man described in the poem.

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock doesn't have any kind of pattern or meter the readers can follow to find a specific meaning or important words. Every line has a different number of syllables. The only important catch is the rhyme every once in a while:

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

There is also an interesting rhyme scheme in the Beatles song, which is probably the only relationship with Eliot's love song. The words shine and mine, and sky and die repeated in the last two stanzas rhyme.

The End of The Waste Land: Hope for Our Voyage

The last two parts of The Waste Land are called Death by Water and What the Thunder Said. The second to last section is the shortest of all because, perhaps, Eliot despises this kind of death more than all others. Death by Water simply narrates the story of Phlebas the Phoenician, a sailor who got drained by a current in the ocean and killed. I believe Eliot despises this kind of death because he describes Phlebas as once handsome and tall, but now simply dead.

I think the last section, What the Thunder Said, is one of the most important parts of the poem. Here, Eliot describes and combines deaths by water and by fire. As Juan Mauricio Venegas said in his blog, I think fire might represent spontaneous, and passionate humans, while water represents calm humans that allows the fire to stop and come back some other time. Hope is also very important in the last part of the poem. When Eliot tells the story of a voyage through a mountain with no water, I believe the water represents hope. 

Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road
The road winding above among the mountains
Which are mountains of rock without water
If there were water we should stop and drink
Amongst the rock one cannot stop or think

This relates to modern society where all humans want to get to the top of the mountain, but if they don't have any water they won't get anywhere. Therefore, I believe that indirectly Eliot is trying to tell us that we always need hope to achieve our goals.

The Waste Land: Describing a utopia?

As Camilo Bermudez said, throughout the second part of the Waste Land, A Game of Chess, T.S. Eliot compares death to a game. The game of chess that Eliot proposes to play is simply wasting time, wating for something to come.

And if it rains, a closed car at four.
And we shall play a game of chess,
Pressing lidless eyes and waiting for a knock upon the door.

I believe the chess game might represent life and the players are simply wating for death to arrive, which would be written as a knock on the door. This connects to what I said in my previous blog which is death as a natural part of nature. Humans, or the players of a game, just accept the time when it comes.

I think this second part of the Waste Land is related to the movie The Seventh Seal. In this movie the main character plays a game of chess with Death, and simply waits for the time to come when he is beaten by him. The same thing is told in the quotation above where two people play a game of chess determining their life or death.

When I read the third part of The Waste Land called The Fire Sermon, I couldn't help but notice the numerous times the author talked about the same things over and over again. In various cases Eliot mentions the "Unreal City" and names it as if the sermon was directed to it. For ex:

Unreal City
Under the brown fog of a winter noon
Mr. Eugenides, the Smyrna merchant
Unshaven, with a pocket full of currants

I believe that in this case the three lines after "Unreal City" are directed towards it. Kind of as if there was a colon in front of it, kind of as if the other lines were said in honor to it. I believe this "Unreal City" might be a utopia or a dystopia because utopias and dystopias are fake. They are bad or good worlds that don't exist. Considering what comes after this line, I believe T.S. Eliot might be imagining a utopia in which everything occurs well. I think it is a utopia because it is set in winter, and Eliot describes winter as the best season of the year. However, I might be wrong in my hypothetical thinking, maybe the "Unreal City" has nothing to do with utopias and dystopias. What I do know is that the author wants to make this line stand out. I know this because in the first part of The Waste Land the quote "Unreal City Under the brown fog of a winter noon" appeared identically with one small change. First it said dawn, and then it said noon. This means this poem is set in the Unreal City, but at different times.

I also agree with Mariana Rodriguez about the mentioning of the Inferno in The Fire Sermon. On line 245 Eliot makes allusion to Dante and Virgil in their voyage through hell.

I who have sat by Thebes below the wall
And walked among the lowest of the dead.

The Waste Land

I thought this poem was very hard to understand and to read; However, when listening to T.S. Eliot read it, many things became a lot more clear.  For example, in the beginning I was kind of confused when reading lines 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. In all of these lines there is an enjambed word at the end, and that confused me about which line that word belonged to. 

APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing

Here I didn't know whether breeding was part of the first or second line. Fortunately, after listening to Eliot reading it I knew it was part of the second line. In the beginning of the poem (as shown in the quote above), The Waste Land talks about seasons. April being the worst month, and December being the best (winter).

The Burial of the Dead was a great introduction to the rest of the poem. I believe The Waste Land is based on death. At least this is the theme that excels the most, and surpasses all other, smaller themes. The first part, titled The Burial of the Dead talks mainly about the changing of nature. I believe Eliot expresses natures changes as part of life, something inevitable. This can also be applied to death, because death is a part of nature, which we can't change. This can be linked to Slaughterhouse - Five because Billy Pilgrim eventually accepts death due to the lessons taught to him by the Trafalmadorians.

Another interesting point in this poem is the fact that the author includes some parts in German. I wonder whether this is important to the overall meaning? Does this, in any way, link T.S. Eliot to Kurt Vonnegut for the fact Vonnegut also includes some interesting parts involving Germans in World War II?

Handbook of Epictetus, Sections 31 - 53

One of the most important ideas I got about the reading of these sections was in section 31. Epictetus said that it is important to obey the gods in what they say and not blame them for the bad things that happened to you. This same idea is also displayed in the very last section, section 53: 

"On every occasion you must have these thoughts ready: 

Lead me, Zeus, and you too, Destiny, 

Wherever I am assigned by you; 

I'll follow and not hesitate, 

But even if I do wish to, 

Because I'm bad, I'll follow anyway."  

These two sections or ideas lead me to connect the handbook of Epictetus with "The Serenity Prayer". The Serenity Prayer says to accept the things you can't change but to try changing the things you can. As told by Reinhold Niebuhr this prayer says: 

"God grant me the serenity 

to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference."

Both of these pieces of text express the idea that humans have to obey everything an all powerful, supreme being such as Zeus or any other God says. Humans also have to accept things that happen to them without blaming the Gods, or try to change the bad things that happen to them.

In general throughout the end of the handbook Epictetus gives us many lessons about not judging people. I completely agree with this idea, and return to the fact that if everyone follows it, we would live in a utopia. This philosophy told by Epictetus is very wise, and I wish I could apply it to my every-day life.

Epictetus in my Life

Once again the handbook of Epictetus reminds me a lot about my life. I can basically relate anything he talks about to my life. One of the things I read in the sections 16 - 30 that created mixed feelings and reminded me about my mother was in the 16th section.  Epictetus said not to grieve about the departure of a child or the loss of land. I say that it created mixed feelings because my mother always tells me and my brothers that we are growing up fast and she doesn't know what she is going to do when we leave. In ways this makes me laugh  because I always tell her not to worry about that. However,  in other ways this makes me sad because of the idea of my mother crying about me, and reading that she shouldn't do that.

Another very interesting part of this section was the part when the author compared humans to actors and life to a play: "Remember that you are an actor in a play, which is as the playwright wants it to be: short if he wants it short, long if he wants it long." (p. 16) I believe that here Epictetus is trying to say that humans are at the compassion of a superior force. I believe I know exactly what he is talking about because last year I was in the play The Sound of Music, and as an actor I had to do exactly as the director told me to. Now the only question is: Is Epictetus right? Are humans really at the mercy of a superior God?

One of the best lessons for life is told in section 29: "For each action, consider what leads up to it and what follows it, and approach it in the light of that." I have heard this many times in my life. In school, at home from my father, and everywhere in general. It is not an easy task to follow, but I believe Epictetus is right. If only everyone followed this advise in the world I suppose it would become a utopia because no one would do bad things, everyone would think before time and realize they shouldn't do that.

Handbook of Epictetus, Sections 1-15

As I was reading the first section of "The Handbook" I encountered myself with a curious situation. Epictetus suggested that whenever we encountered ourselves with a harsh appearence we should ignore it, surpass it, or say it doesn't affect us. In a way, this reminded me to "The Seventh Seal" where the main character surpasses death, stands up to him, and beats death. Throughout the reading I also encountered myself various times with the fact Epictetus says if you want something, and really desire it, you will get the complete opposite. For example he says: "But if you want both those great goals and also to hold public office and to be rich, then you may perhaps not get even the latter just because you aim at the former too" (pg. 11) This relates specifically to my own life because my mother is sometimes supersticious so she might knock on wood every once in a while or tell you not to say it is going to rain because it really will.

In the third section I also carefully looked at the part where Epictetus said: "If you kiss your child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset." This is very interesting because just the other day I was thinking about all the movies where two loved ones are fighting, and before one of them can say they're sorry, the other might die. The other person will have this on their conscience for the rest of their lives, so every once in a while, I remember this and try to always end off happily with a person because you never know what can happen to them. For example I remember to tell a loved one I love them just to be safe.

Throughout the whole handbook the author really knows what people are thinking, and he basically gives people lessons about life.I specifically found the fifth section very interesting because it applies to everyone's life. Epictetus tells us it is not right to blame someone else for our wrong - doings. Another grate lesson is the eighth section; It is simple and perfect: "Do not seek to have events happen as you  want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well." I really do believe in this statement, and if one really did it, I believe it would work, meaning your life really would go better. I might even try applying this in my own life, however it is not easy.

Slaughterhouse - Five Reading Blog: Chapters 9 and 10

I really liked the end of the book, even though it was kind of strange (well I suppose the whole novel is a bit strange), it was very entertaining. Chapter 9 begins with the death of Billy's wife, Valencia. When it happened Billy was unconscious because of the plane wreck, but when he found out hours later, he wasn't upset, just the usual "so it goes." One thing that did disappoint me about the last two chapters of the novel, was the lack of information on Montana Wildhack. I guess I was just expecting a bigger influence of her on Billy. While in the hospital in Vermont, Billy was constantly going unstuck in time, traveling to Trafalmadore, then to when he was a young teenager, etc.

An interesting moment in the 9th chapter is when Vonnegut describes how Robert, Billy's son, had changed during his life. I believe this is very meaningful to the novel, and creates a new theme in the book. That of changes in life. Billy himself changed a lot once he discovered new points of view from the Trafalmadorians, especially regarding death. He also changed a lot after the war, as we saw during the last chapter when he got so nervous when he saw the quartet singers.

Another interesting part regards the new character introduced in this chapter, Professor Rumfoord. Rumfoord is constantly talking badly about Billy, thinking he is not listening even though he was. In one of these moments he mentions his thoughts to Lily, Billy's daughter. He thinks they should just let Billy die, because he thinks he has no brain and useless people aren't needed. In his own words the Professor said: "That's not a human being anymore. Doctors are for human beings. They should turn him over to a veterinarian or a tree surgeon. They'd know what to do. Look at him! That's life according to the medical profession.  Isn't life wonderful?" I think this is very important because Billy is never affected by death, he just let's deaths go, and in this case that's what is being done to him. 

I also found the fact that Billy cried about the horses very impressive. I couldn't believe that he didn't cry in the hanging of the polish, or the bombing of Dresden, or as a prisoner of war, but he did cry when he saw the circumstance in which the horses where in. I think that he cried here because he noticed that everything was so wrong and so messed up, that even the horses were dying. I also think he cried because he realized that he and his country were the ones doing all this, not only hurting the horses, but killing so many people and destroying so many cities. This also shows Vonnegut's interest with animals, in Slaughterhouse - Five he mentioned horses and dogs.

The last chapter is very similar to the first chapter. I believe Vonnegut includes himself a lot more in the first and last chapter than in all the others. He mentions his story as well as Billy Pilgrim's life. He revives the moments in which he was with Billy Pilgrim and O'Hare in the slaughterhouse as well as when he goes back to visit the new city of Dresden. One of the coolest moments, is at the very end of the book when Billy and the fellow Americans are allowed to leave the slaughterhouse. The war is over and everything seems renewed, calm and peaceful. "Billy and the rest wandered out onto the shady street. The trees were leafing out. There was nothing going on out there, no traffic of any kind. There was only one vehicle, an abandoned wagon drawn by two horses." (pg. 215)

The article about Kurt Vonnegut and Slaughterhouse - Five was very interesting. The writer, once again, returns 'the favor' Vonnegut had against everyone else. This is a writing about Vonnegut's death and the words used by Lev Grossman to describe this incident are precisely 'so it goes'. Therefore I can link it to the moment in the book with Professor Rumfoord. In this article the author also mentions that Billy experiences his birth and death in random orders. This specific phrase reminds me of a book called "La Muerte de Artemio Cruz", this book tells the story of the whole process of Artemio's death. In the very last chapter he experiences his birth in a very real manner. It's not time traveling, he is just remembering, but it's so real that it reminds me of Billy's going unstuck in time.

Slaughterhouse - Five Reading Blog: Chapters 7 and 8

Much is talked about during these two chapters. Vonnegut takes us to many places, including the day in which Dresden was bombed. "It was like the moon" (pg. 179), this is the way in which Dresden is described after the bombing. Even though some people think this novel is not about war, I believe it is. I noticed that the way in which the Dresden massacre is described is showing that the author really does want the readers to know how violent the human race really is. This can be related to Gulliver's Travels, where Jonathan Swift describes horses as the leading race called Houyhnhnms, and the human race as servants called yahoos. In one part a Houyhnhnm tells a Yahoo that the rest of his race is a very violent and primitive one. In this, I think these two stories are related.

I recall a specific part during the eight chapter that stood out to me. Earlier in the novel I was wondering whether dogs would be important in the book. On page 168 Billy Pilgrim is talking to Kilgore Trout, the science fiction writer that he just met. Here it is said that Trout is "scared to death of dogs" and this answers my question. Dogs don't have a huge impact on the novel, however, they are linked to an important character, Kilgore Trout. I think Kilgore will be very important later on in Slaughterhouse because he will probably be the only person, or one of the few people that will believe Billy about his time - traveling.

Towards the end of the novel I will still expect Montana to have a bigger role in the story. She rarely appeared during these two chapters because Billy never time travelled to Traflmadore, but the short moment she came into the story she was pregnant with a baby assumed to be Billy's. Another interesting fact about these chapters is that I found out Billy does nothing to change what happens in his life. For example the day he got on a plane for working purposes, he knew the plane would crash and most of his working peers would die, but he did nothing about it. He thinks people will call him crazy, and he is scared, so he doesn't say a word: "Billy Pilgrim got onto a charted plane in Ilium twenty - five years after that. He knew the plane would crash, but he didn't want to make a fool of himself by saying so." I don't agree on what Billy is doing because he could possibly prevent the death of many people such as those optometrists on the plane, or thousands of people in Dresden.