TOTAL 90

In Nike's commercial,  Torres Total 90 Laser, they use ethos to advertise the shoes. Ethos is the tool used is rhetorics in which you argue by character and reputation. In the commercial Fernando Torres is playing football with the Total 90 laser shoes. He is always doing excellent moves in the field. The way they were able to use ethos, was by using a world renounced football player. In the commercial they implied that if Fernando Torres uses these shoes, you should too and you will play as good as he does. If I was a football player looking at shoe commercials, I would much prefer to buy the shoes that a good football player uses, than one a random person does. I would buy those shoes, wouldn't you?

"Poo-tee-weet?"

The most interesting part of Slaughter House-Five was all the questions we were always facing. Thats why I was looking forward to the end to get answers to this questions. When I got to the end of this book I didn't felt like I actually finished it. Why? I felt like it would had a sequel in which I would get the answers, which obviously is no the case with Slaughter House-Five. Even though some questions were answered, most of the were not. In the book we did got the answer to is Billy the alter ego of Vonnegut? At the end of the book we found out that they were separate persons in the story.

Other than that I also think sometimes having unanswered questions is what made the book unique. Most of the books, you know what the stories are behind all the crazy things that happened. But maybe thats not such a good thing. That just might be the purpose of Vonnegut, for us to have questions. "Poo-tee-weet?" This is the last sentence of the book, this is what makes me think that Vonnegut's purpose is exactly that, for us to have questions. If not, why would he end his novel with the readers having more doubts?

"Time Window"

In Chapter 8 one of the most interesting character reappeared, Kilgore Trout. Billy reminded how he met Trout in his home town, Illium. Trout was a newspaper delivery man, and when Billy knew who he was as an unknown author he was surprised. Billy invited him to his wedding anniversary. Trout was able to notice something about Billy that not most people were able to do. He realized that Billy was looking through a "time window". Billy obviously trues to hide his history trauma. Not even the closest people to Billy weren't able to realize what is going on. But Trout almost a complete stranger to Billy was able to see this.

How Trout reacted towards Billy's really reminded me of the movie The Soloist. This movie is based on a life a celloist. His name was Nathaniel Ayers and he was one part of the school music, Julliard. He is a homeless schizophrenic. But when a simple reporter from the Los Angeles was able to recognize his talent and portray it to the world. This reminds me of Trout's relationship with Billy. Why? It reminded me of this relationship, because like Lopez, the reporter, Trout was able to recognize something that nobody had ever noticed even if it was right there.

Destiny

In the book as time goes, so does how Billy manages time. He has learned that he can't define his destiny, because what is meant to be is meant to be. In a way he has learned the lesson that everything happens for a reason. In Chapter 2 we are awared that Billy suffers a plane crash but we don't really hear the story behind it. When you get to Chapter 7 Kurt Vonnegut tells the story behind the crash.

Billy knows that his plane is going to crash, but he beliefs that is the place were he belongs and that for some reason he has to suffer the tragedy of a plane crash. In this plane were 29 optometrists, counting Billy. They were going to Montreal, Valencia. During the flight he time travels to 1944, but then the plane crashes. Billy had the luck that he survived. They crashed in a mountain in Vermont and a ski instructor found him a took him to the hospital. 


Billy knew this was his destiny all along. I can help to wonder, if he knew that the plane was going to crash, did he also knew he was going to survive? And if the destiny was the contrary and he were going to die, would he even step near that plane?

Time Machines?

In Cristina Escallon's blog entry Perspectives... I saw questions that I never really though about time traveling. Cristina said things like: How would it affect your present. Always when I think myself time traveling, its just and adventure. When I imagine time travel, I just think of a machine that can take me anywhere I want. Cristina's blog made me realize that time traveling other than being an adventure it affects your present and it might affect your future.

This book does not portray time traveling as most people portrays it. When reading Slaughter House-Five I started considering that time travel was not something good, like a privilege, but like bagage that Billy got stucked with. How Cristina says, why would you change your past if you are satisfied with your present? I think that if you get the option to change things that happened in the past you don't realize that by changing them you are also changing al your present. I think that that's why it is a bagage to be able to time travel.

Alter Ego

Reading the book two characters really jumped at me: Kilgore Trout, and Eliot Rosewater. Rosewater was veteran of war, just like Billy. He is also in the mental ward for veterans and suffer of the same thing, aftereffects of war. They are both looking for an escape of this problem. The main thing that Rosewater did was introduce Trout to Billy. In the other hand we have Trout, he is a science-fiction author. 

Trout other than being a random science-fiction author, he is Billy's favorite author. I kept reading about Kilgore Trout in Slaughter House-Five. The way thatVonnegut described him gave me the impression that Trout was Vonnegut's alter ego. I asked myself a question, as some of the persons that read the book might have doubt the same thing. Why Vonnegut and NOT Billy's alter ego?

In my past blog, Is that Vonnegut?, I stated my opinion by saying that Vonnegut is trying to express himself by Billy. Reading Chapter Five my opinion in way changed. 

It changed because right now I believe that Vonnegut is trying to express himself by Trout. Why? Even though Vonnegut and Billy have similarities, Trout and Vonnegut have more specific ones. For example: the three of them lived in Illium, but Billy was born there, instead Trout and Vonnegut lived there for a period of time. Now I believe that Billy is not Vonnegut outer ego, but Trout is.

Time, Time, Time..

 I keep reading Slaughter House-Five, and every time the Trafalmadorian believes come up, they always stun me. In the end of Chapter 4 there’s a phrase that really caught my eye. "All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations." 

In this quote really we can see the main thing Trafalmadorians do, see in all directions and all periods of time. The time in Tralfamadore is much different than earth. In Trafalmadore it might look like a long period of time, while it might be a small time period in Earth. Even though this explanation of time is mentions in Chapter 2, it is manifested through the whole book. The way that Vonnegut was trying to express his feeling of life and war in the book is through time.

All the ideas of the Trafalmadorians really resembles to the novel also movie, The Time Travelers Wife. In this novel we are also confronted with a controversy of time. The main character is a man that has a genetic disorder, this makes him time travel unpredictably. In these journeys he has he dangerous experiences. This reminds me of Slaughter House-Five because of the dilemma with time.

Is that Vonnegut?

Through the book we still are reading about Billy's life. I can't help to wonder, Is Vonnegut Billy Pilgrim? When I read this book, the narrator talks about all the bad things that happens to him.

Vonnegut at the beginning of the book has a character, which name we don't know. The only thing we know about him is that he was int he Bombing of Dresden and that he is trying to write a book about it. In the book, Billy Pilgrim also experience the bombing. I wonder is Billy that character from the first chapter, and is that charcter Vonnegut?

I decided to look for Vonnegut's biography. He was a prisoner of war which really influenced his work. He was imprisoned in Dresden, Vonnegut was chosen as a leader of the POWs, because he spoke some German. While a prisoner, he witnessed the fire bombing of Dresden in February 1945. Looking at some of the the events in his life, and then going back to Pilgrim you can really see a connection. Billy when he became a prisoner, he is ordered to move. He joined a stream of POWs marching in the road. I was able to see that there is a whole connection between the author and the main character in the book. I can't wait to see all the other thing they have in similar.

So it goes

In the second chapter of Slaughter House-Five, we are presented to a new character, Billy Pilgrim. We can see how Billy travels through time and  by the theory of Trafalmadorians, he explains the true nature of it. Vonnegut doesn't really tell Billy's story in a chronological way, but instead we're seeing his whole life passing to define him.

In this second chapter, we see Billy's life pass through, including war. Billy, you can say that really isn't the best soldier. He doesn't have actual friends in war that would give there life for him. Already into the chapter Billy meets Roland Weary. He saved Billy's life once, for his own delusional fantasy of heroism. Then Vonnegut expresses that war is war and death is death. 

I really don't know why this book remind me of all of those post or apocalyptical movies, especially The Road. In this book/movie theres two characters, a father and its son. They are journeying in a post-apocalyptic world. They are looking for warmth and for more "good guys". This actually reminds me of this, because the novel is always implying that there are non hero without villains and victims. In the road like in all apocalyptic and any type of book/movie theres: victims, villains and heroes. 

Anti-War Books Don't Exist

In the first chapter of Slaughter House-Five, Vonnegut, the author, decides he wants to write a book, an antiwar book. The narrator was present in the Bombing of Dresden. He wants to talk about this event that marked him, but he doesn't really now what. He says that is hard to remember things that maked you suffer, even if you want to remember them. I had heard about this event before, but I didn’t really know the story behind it. So I decided to research it.

The Bombing of Dresden was a military attack by the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air force. They were Allied forces in the Second World War. They send 3,600 planes, from which 1,300 were heavy bombers. They dropped approximately 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices into Baroque, destroying 15 square miles of the city center.

The author says he can’t really remember much. He remembers silly things such as songs, especially one, “My Name is Yon Yonson”. He tries to reunite with an old war buddy, Bernard V. O’ Hare. The author really wants to talks with V. O’ Hare about the bombing. He has the same problem, he remembers vaguely that event. While going to visit V. O’ Hare he got meet his wife. His wife is in total disagreement with the author to write this book, because he thought it would say that war is wonderful. She also said that anti-war books don't exist. The character of Mary V. O’ Hare really stood out to me, I really see her and all I can see is Ms. Pillsbury from Glee, the psychologist. Ms. Pillsbury roll really is always looking out for the children of Glee and from all the school. So does Mary V. O’ Hare, when she doesn’t want Vonnegut to write the book because it will influence babies. She is especially trying to protect hers and Bernard V. O’ Hare sons. 

Theory of Perfection

People can consider what happiness is by judging the perfection that surrounds them and by that they may also think they can judge the quality of their life. John Koethe describes the perfect life as the moment that he lives in his youthful years. For him it is youth that makes you see everything no matter how dull it is in the most wonderful way, making it seem even the simplest life has no way of being imperfect. In an indirect way he describes perfection as the journey people live throughout life. He expresses that as the human mind matures throughout time it become concerned about the flaws that life may bring and with that perfection starts to loose itself as life passes making even the most beautiful things appear cold. With that it is safe to say that slowly and as the years go by the person will loose not just physical but also there mental strength and in a indirect way is comparing perfection with the human body, with a strong and empowering youth that slowly deteriorates until the moment of death.

"Life is a constant expectative of the future." In my opinion perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. I do relate in a way to John Koethe in his poem of "The Perfect Life", because I do think when you are younger you always have motivation to do what ever you put your mind up to do but as you get older that motivation you had in your younger ages is not there. But in the other hand I hope when I do grow up that doesn't happen to me because I always want to an interest in life and I don't think anyone should close their mind to new ideas because of their age.