Feet Symbolism

When I asked my sister, (who has read Slaughterhouse Five) to give me ideas for a blog post, she said, “write about feet.” I thought about it, and I realized that this book does have a lot of references to feet.  Of course, there is the common phrase “blue and ivory,” used (seven times) to describe both Billy’s feet and the feet of dead people.

“Billy got out of bed in the moonlight….He looked down at his bare feet. They were ivory and blue"(Vonnegut 72).

“They saw the dead hobo again....Somebody had taken his boots. His bare feet were blue and ivory"(Vonnegut 148).

However there are also many other times when feet are featured at critical parts of the story. For example, the first thing Billy sees when he is captured are the golden boots and rag swaddled feet of the two German soldiers(pg 53). A photographer takes propaganda photos of Weary’s and Billy’s feet as “evidence of how miserably equipped the American Army often was”(Vonnegut 58). Roland Weary is in terrible pain from his feet and then dies of gangrene that starts there(pg 79). The horses pulling the wagon in Dresden are in pain from their broken feet (pg 196).

           I started to think about what these references might mean. One thought I had was that feet are what connect a person to the Earth, something that anchors a person to life.  Maybe when feet have turned to the dead color of “blue and ivory” it is showing how the connection to life has withered. Maybe Billy’s blue and ivory feet are showing his disconnection from the life he lives, and his removal from reality. Another thought I had was that feet that are bare and unprotected have a more direct connection with the earth, the world. Maybe the horses’ bare hooves and Billy's or Weary’s shoeless feet were indicating a direct connection with the suffering and pain of the world.

         Am I reading too far into this?  If not, do you have other thoughts about the importance of feet, particularly when related to the phrase “blue and ivory”? How could this be related to the relationship between life and death?

Edgar Derby

Out of all of the characters, Edgar Derby was the one that really stood out to me. He seemed to have more strength and personality than any of the other characters. In a way, he seemed to be the soldier most suited to being a soldier.

When the narrator first talked about Edgar Derby’s death, he mused, “‘The irony is so great. A whole city gets burned down, and thousands and thousands of people are killed. And then this one American foot soldier is arrested in the ruins for taking a teapot....and then he's shot by a firing squad.'”

            For me this quote connected back to the idea of the unpredictability and injustice of war. Edgar Derby, a strong, heroic leader, seems like the type of soldier who should die in some heroic blaze of glory, but in reality, he dies in the least glamorous, least meaningful way possible.

I also found it interesting that Derby was immediately introduced to us as a doomed man.

“Billy was put to bed and tied down, and given a shot of morphine. Another American

volunteered to watch over him. This volunteer was Edgar Derby, the high school teacher

who would be shot to death in Dresden. So it goes”(Vonnegut 98).

In not just this instance, but in every single instance, the name is accompanied by “poor old,” “doomed,” or “would be shot in Dresden.” It seems to me that the narrator wanted to impress upon us the belief that what happens in the “future” will always happen, and cannot be changed. By always reminding us that Derby dies, the narrator tells us that his death is an undeniable part of him, a part that can never be undone. Derby always has died in this way, and always will. This reminded me of Billy’s complete acceptance of his own death, seen on page 143. Billy made no attempt to prevent his death, as he accepted that it was absolutely inevitable.

How does Edgar Derby contrast the other American soldiers, and why? Are there other characters that you found particularly interesting?

Soldiers or Children?

For almost the entire time I was reading this book, I was frustrated with how dull,  uninteresting, and unmotivated the characters were. I also wondered why Vonnegut, writing an anti-war book, wouldn’t describe anything that actually resembled warfare. Then I read this quote, and started to understand Vonnegut’s motivations for writing this way.

“There are almost no characters in this story, and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces.”

    I took this quote as an explanation for why Vonnegut never showed the horrors of battle, and never showed his characters reacting too dramatically to anything. He wanted to reinforce the idea that most of the people who fight wars aren’t strong, heroic soldiers, but weak, spineless children. It seems to me that he showed only the miserable, unglamorous realities of war, while steering clear of the dramatic battles, so as not to risk us ever seeing these children as soldiers. I compared Slaughterhouse Five to All Quiet on the Western Front. The characters in All Quiet endured horrible things and mused about the horrors of war all the time, which did have a powerful effect. However, we saw the All quiet characters fight.  We saw them endure terrible things but be strong enough to get through it. We knew that they were children, but they seemed like real soldiers. In some ways, by not showing the gruesome battles, Vonnegut did a better job of illustrating the injustice of sending young and unprepared children to fight.

    What are your thoughts? Do you think Vonnegut made the book more or less powerful by choosing not to show scenes of warfare? What other explanations might there be for Vonnegut to write his characters and scenes this way?

Time

As many of us have figured out, hopefully, this book does not occur in a chronological structure of events. I, for one, have never read a book quite like this one. There are many questions I had wrestled with when first beginning this novel; the primary one being: why would one choose to structure a book like Kurt Vonnegut has structured his?

There is evidence of this odd writing style found scattered in this novel.  The time "Billy first came unstuck in time" was very near to the beginning of the book (43), and has been going on constantly. My most thoughtful answer to why one would choose this writing style is to reinforce the ideas of the Tralfamadorians. The aliens we have come to know have a very different perspective on time than what "Earthlings" possess (83). The Tralfamadorians believe that, "all moments, past, present, and future, always have existed" (27). So, my best guess. is that this book is a reflection of that belief.

What are your thoughts on the structure? Do you see the Tralfamadorians lifestyle/ beliefs reflect anywhere else in the book?

Blue and Ivory

I've noticed the repetition of the phrase "blue and ivory" several times in the book, but I'm still not sure what it means. I've counted the phrase "blue and ivory" five times, and "ivory and blue" once. Most of the time these colors were describing bare feet.

When Billy is writing about the Tralfamadorians as an older man: "He was barefoot, and still in his pajamas and a bathrobe, though it was late afternoon. His bare feet were blue and ivory" (28).

Right before Billy is kidnapped by the aliens: "Billy Pilgrim padded downstairs on his blue and ivory feet. He went into the kitchen, where the moonlight called his attention to a half bottle of champagne on the kitchen table, all that was left from the reception in the tent" (73)

When the door of the boxcar is opened for the first time: "Billy Pilgrim was lying at an angle on the corner-brace, self crucified, holding himself there with a blue and ivory claw hooked over the sill of the ventilator"(80).

At first I just thought that the author was trying to say his feet were cold, but with all this repetition I'm thinking that there's a deeper meaning.  In The Great Gatsby we talked about the color symbolism of the green light, so I thought this might be similar. From what I found, blue meant tranquility, stability, wisdom, heaven, etc. White meant purity, innocence, goodness, etc. I couldn't really find a strong connection here. Another thing I thought was that blue and ivory had to do with death, because that sounds like the ashen color of dead flesh. The funny thing is that "blue and ivory" was used to describe both dead and alive people. Maybe it's foreshadowing how close Billy is to death at certain times. 

What do you guys think? What might this be a symbol of? Do feet have significance? Is the order of the words (ivory and blue vs. blue and ivory) significant?

What is going on?

I want to share my feeling: It is just very weird book. When I read in the first chapter, that the author wants to write a war book, I certainly did not picture time travelling and aliens.

In war books, I was used to chronological storytelling. It is looking, that the author has a plan to write his story, for example The Night by Elie Wiesel. He gave us just the important information and experiences from his life, in chronological order.

However in Slaughterhouse five, it is so different and confusing. The author is jumping from one year to another, for example on page 46…” Billy blinked in 1958, traveled in time to 1961.” I know it is important to know the main character, but it is very weird for me and I do not see this book as a war book, yet. The only thing that is related to war for me, is that Billy was in army, but it seems to me, just like a one part of his life. Not special one, that we should pay attention to. It does not look, like this part is very important and the book is going to be about war.

I am sure, i will get more confused later, when the Tralfamadorians will get involved.

Do you have the same feeling? I do not see any point or author’s goal, so far...do you?

Adam & Eve

Throughout this book we have seen many obvious examples of repetition. Phrases such as "so it goes", "poo-tee-weet", and "blue and ivory" arise throughout our reading of the novel. Some of the repetition is used more frequently: such as "so it goes". Others, however, are seldom used; therefore their appearance catches the attention of a reader. The references to Adam and Eve are a clear example of this.

Adam and Eve, if you're not already aware, is a biblical story of God's two first created people. In short, Adam and Eve were forbidden by God to eat the fruit that grew from the Tree of Knowledge. However, despite his commands, they followed a snake's advice and consumed the fruit. Their wrong doing lead Adam to a life of work, as well as cursed the pain of childbirth upon Eve. This tale consists of those who were once innocent, but strayed, which lead them to punishment.

This Adam and Eve reference was brought about two distinct times in Slaughterhouse-Five. Once when we were introduced to the "gold cavalry boots" of a corporal. Soon after we were told that "if you look in [the golden boots] deeply enough, you'll see Adam and Eve" (53). The second reference was when Billy Pilgrim got "slightly unstuck in time" (73) and saw a German fighter movie in reverse. He talks about all the people and how they grew into babies, and then had "conspired biologically to produce two perfect people named Adam and Eve, he supposed" (75).

If these situations even relate, how do they? Are there any other literary elements used here beside repetition (foreshadowing, metaphor etc.)? Do you think this could lead to a theme we will see later in the novel? Are there any other Adam and Eve references that you notice? Is the fact that this is a biblical story have any significance?

So it goes

Why does the author utilize "so it goes" after every time he mentions a death? I think, the author is trying to emphasize the Tralfamadorian (what a weird name) perception of time.

"All moments, past, present, and future, always have existed, always will exist..."(p.27). By writing the phrase "so it goes", the author is trying to not put any special significance to anybody's death. Everybody, who is dead "only appears to be dead" (p.26). Death is just one particular moment, but there are many other moments as well, according the book.

It seems to me, like the author is not putting a big value to people’s life. People are dying and all he says is “so it goes” ? He said in the first chapter, that he is trying to write a war book and many people died during the war. I do not think, we should move on and not to realize, how many ordinary people actually died. Do you have any idea, why is he using “so it goes”, because it does not make really sense to me?

Tralfamadorian Ideas Shown Through Billy

So far, Billy Pilgrim has been shown as a largely one dimensional, undeveloped character. His few emotions that are revealed to us are subdued and unspecific. He never seems to have any strong desires or reactions. This makes me think that Billy’s personality, or at least the narrator’s representation of it, is correlating with Tralfamadorian philosophies.

As one Tralfamadorian said, “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” (86). On the same page the Tralfamadorian suggests that there is no such thing as free will, saying, “only on Earth is there any talk of free will”(86).

Both of these views, so contrary to common human philosophy, seem to be represented in Billy. In chapter two, page 24, Billy’s life is outlined: he went to college, got married, was set up in business by his father-in-law, became rich. Each of these events is presented as a moment “trapped in amber,” without any hard work or emotion attached to it. Then he goes to war and seems incapable or unwilling to have any self preservation instincts. Even being captured by German soldiers seems to have no emotional impact on him. It is as if Billy does not recognize that he has his own free will. He makes no attempts to make changes in his life, as if he recognizes the Tralfamadorian view that moments in time are already set, and unable to be controlled.

             Is it the narrator’s style that gives Billy this unemotional, detached quality, or is that actually an accurate representation of Billy’s personality? Do you have other ideas of why Billy is portrayed so one-dimensionally?

Example Posts - Meets and Exceeds

The following are two posts that may serve as models for your own. These posts use The Grapes of Wrath as the considered text, but the requirements are the same. The first is an example of a post that MEETS the standard; the second is an example that EXCEEDS the standard.

Meets:

It became apparent in chapter 5 that the narrative of the Joad family is only one perspective of the struggles people faced in the 1930s. The use of racial slurs and culturally insensitive language reminds us that the Joads, although they are a poor family lacking many basic resources, they do have the privilege of being white. The use of the word "nigger" and the highly insensitive way of speaking about Native Americans remind us that whiteness was a privilege that could elevate the status of even the most desperate farmer.

I wonder how this theme of race and culture will continue to develop over the course of the novel. What will the presence of race and racism continue to teach us about the social fabric of the U.S. in the '30s?

Exceeds:

The description of the land in Chapter 5 tells us a lot about the tensions arising out of the industrialization of farming. The physical connection to the land is broken, and this seems to lead to a bigger gap that transcends the physical.

In chapter 5, we learn that the tractor driver "could not see the land as it was, he could not smell the land as it smelled; his feet did not stamp the clods or feel the warmth and power of the earth...Men ate what they had not raised, had no connection with the bread. The land bore under iron, and under iron gradually died; for it was not loved or hated, it had no prayers or curses" (35, 36).

Humans are being replaced by machines, and these machines will never love and appreciate the land (and what the land provides) as much as the humans who farmed it with their own hands. I am curious to see how this theme continues to play out in the novel - will the divide between the human and the machine continue to grow, and will it cause the farmers' struggle to become increasingly bitter and devastating?

Notes:

• Please consider your grammar and spelling. These posts should be thoughtful and well-crafted. 
• As you can see, the posts need not be long. A few sentences, or a small paragraph or two is sufficient. Remember - quality over quantity! 
• Please title your post purposefully - your title should help give a heads-up about the content of your post.