Showing posts with label Kurt Vonnegut. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kurt Vonnegut. Show all posts

Friday, October 24, 2014

Freeing the Virgin (DRAFT)

I apologize for this being so late.

                                                 Freeing The Virgin: a mental assassination
Reading Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Welcome to the Monkey house" you feel betrayed. The author takes the reader on a journey, filled with dark humor and satire that brings a smile to your face. Floating on this cloud you enjoy the dystopia story of the world during a population crisis, with solutions like suicide parlors and genital numbing pills you find yourself enthralled and diving deeper into the narration absorbing every moment. Until in the end you are dropped on your head and all you can do it try and pick up the pieces after the final period; just like the character Nancy must now pick up the pieces of her own life to decide for herself what she now believes. In this work of fiction written by the late Kurt Vonnegut he transitions from a story filled with dark humor and satire to one of serious content and a political and societal message in attempts to end the story leaving the audience in awe and alone with their thoughts searching within themselves for understanding and answers. By creating characters that transform in personality and characteristics we as an audience are transformed in opinion of these characters, changing the tone of the writing and inserting page breaks and dramatic pauses slows the reader and creates a deeper importance to really hone in on each sentiment coming from these characters. The jokes and humor end in this last excerpt of the story and in the end we are left just as Nancy is left, alone, uncertain and needing to search within ourselves for our own truth.
"Which he did." (Vonnegut 47). The page break following this sentence is the beginning of the end. Not only is this the last page break of the story but in this next excerpt the entire tone and voice of the writing changes. No longer are we as readers meant to laugh and enjoy this story, from here on out we are meant to think, analyze, and determine for ourselves the morality of the characters, the world of the past, our current culture and our plausible future. This is the turning point and from here we must take note and be prepared for the emotional warfare we are about to experience because Vonnegut spares no feelings. The page break on page 47 is not the only grammatical aspect that dictates meaning and creates an important element to the text. The use of the em-dash is essential in changing tone and determining dramatic importance in the story.  "On the contrary, he was terribly depressed, and said to Nancy, "Believe me if there'd been any other way---"' (Vonnegut 47). Billy does not finish this sentence, he interrupts himself with silence because there is nothing more to say. There is no other way, he knows that, Nancy knows that and him saying anything about that now is pointless. What's done is done and showing regret for that now is unnecessary. The use of the em-dash is prevalent through out the ending of the story and that's because the author wants us to slow down, we are supposed to read this last part carefully. This use of grammar is meant to show us that by taking this new pace it creates a more serious tone to the reading and ensures that we as the reader really understand and absorb the ending of the story. And the true difference between what we've read up to this point and everything here after. 
The author changes his characters in the end. Billy is no longer this idea, he's here and his purpose is no longer a joke. He has come to do a job and in doing it we are moved. "He deflowered her with a clinical skill she found ghastly." (Vonnegut 47). Billy the poet was cold, he was methodical and he knew what he was doing. Like a surgeon cutting into human flesh, Billy did his job with all seriousness and without wavering. This is important, because it signifies that Billy was not happy to be doing this and in this moment neither was he  destroyed by his actions. It was a job that needed done and one that he was capable and willing to do. We know all along Billy's ultimate driving force, we know his motives and yet we don't see it happening this way. Despite Nancy never wavering we just assume she'll give herself over. When Billy has to rape Nancy we feel unprepared. In a way as an audience we also feel taken advantage of.  The quote about Billy's depression is also relevant to the changing of Billy's character because of what it says about him. "On the contrary, he was terribly depressed, and said to Nancy, "Believe me if there'd been any other way---"' (Vonnegut 47). This passage is the first time we realize the effect that the plight of reawakening a sexual revolution has on Billy. He doesn't enjoy forcing himself on women, there is no part of this violation and rape that brings him joy. He is bothered by his actions but that doesn't change the fact that he believes in what he's doing and it's importance. This passage shows us that his beliefs come at an emotional price and that's something Billy can not get away from. But Billy isn't the only character suffering and he's certainly not the only one to make a dramatic change in behavior. "Her reply to this was a face like stone--and silent tears of humiliation." (Vonnegut 47). Again we see an em-dash used to signify the importance behind the second portion and it's true weight. This is the first time Nancy has ever shown weakness. She is broken, her confidence was taken from her and she's no longer the same woman. "Big as she was, like a double bass wedged onto that narrow shelf, she felt like a pitiful little thing." (Vonnegut 47). Up to this point in the story Nancy had the desire to fight, the confidence in herself and her ability to kick-ass, but now she's defeated, in the following sentence it says that she pulls the covers up to "hide her face" (Vonnegut 47). She feels shame, and we pity Nancy. This whole story we see her strength, Nancy reassures the audience she's strong and that she doesn't need any help with defending herself and now we see her defeated and it's painful to read. Nancy is full of shame and wants to just hide from the world. This is not the same woman we were introduced to in the suicide parlor. This woman has changed and it's unclear at this moment whether what was done to her truly was for the better.  
"And he left. And they all left but Nancy." (Vonnegut 50). At the end of this story Nancy is left alone to deal with what just happened to her. She must process her sexual awakening and how she feels about it, she must process what Billy tells her about the government and the lies she'd been fed in order to shape her life. Being left alone with her thoughts, now armed with the truth she can decide her own fate. This is also how we as an audience are left. The author doesn't tell us how to feel at the end, he doesn't tell us what to think or how to react. He just tells us the facts, he predicts a future filled with government mandates in order to control sexuality, and at the time this was written the government had already began a war on drugs during a time where experimenting with drugs was just as much apart of a culture as sex. So why should the freedom of sex not also be threatened? The way this story ends is pivotal in delivering it's message. The author tells no more jokes, describing Champagne as a drug as illegal as heroin is the last piece of humor we find (Vonnegut 46). This digression away from humor is so important in creating a serious message and ensuring that the audience is receptive to the new direction of the tone.  
In essence while reading "Welcome to the Monkey House" we are both being violated, the reader and Nancy. The author draws us in, makes us feel safe and then violates that trust creating this feeling of vulnerability. We don't know what to think, we are empathetic to a rapist and yet we understand his motives and have to question our own morals for understanding. This wasn't what we agreed to, this wasn't what we were sold in the beginning, Vonnegut promised us humor and witty quips and then he stole that away from us. He stole the innocence of the story away from us just as Billy the Poet stole away the innocence of Nancy. Forced the reader to see something ugly, something true. In order to find enlightenment. We are in a way just like Nancy, in order to understand we must be forced. The page breaks and grammar tell us that this passage is serious and that we are to take note, we are drawn in all along by humor but those jokes end and the serious nature of this story ensues. Billy the Poet becomes a monster and a hero in a matter of seconds and we are left unsure how to feel about him after all and Nancy transforms from the charismatic, beautiful, confident and strong woman to someone afraid so show her face. Unable to muster the will to even fight. She's confused and in the end she's left alone. This entire story Nancy is never alone, from the beginning with her co-worker and police officer to being kidnapped and guarded at all times. Even whilst being raped, she's surrounded by people holding her down, but in the end she's alone. Finally, to decide for herself what her truth is. We are like Nancy, the author is no longer telling a story, the facts are all laid before us and we are to determine our own truth. Are we to be empathetic to a rapist? Should we support this ideal of the sexual revolution and the reawakening of the population? Can this be a righteous cause if the solution is to violate women? These are what we are left with as an audience, self doubt, the need to find answers within. Vonnegut performs a mental assassination on his audience at the last minute in order to really get them to think and it's one of the most amazing pieces of literature that I've read in a long time.



So any feedback would be great, one thing I've unsure of is my use of the same quote twice. I think it's important in both grammatical context and character development but maybe structure wise I might set it up differently. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated in all aspects. 

Read More »

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

Equivocation of Sexual Freedom


Nineteen Sixty Eight. Sexuality is at its peak. The fight for physical freedoms rage as a nation rallies for free love and peace. In the height of sexual oppression, a tantalizing binding of barren women entrance even the most conservative of men. “Welcome to the Monkey House” was first published in the titillating pages of “Playboy.” How fitting to present a short story of sexual freedoms in such a liberal magazine of sexual desires. The profound, archaic desires of humanity entrance the nation as they forgo the expectations of society and explore a forbidden world and pleasure and lust.  

 “Billy put a small bottle on top of the book. ‘I am also leaving you these pills. If you take one a month, you will never have children. And still you’ll be a nothinghead.’ And he left. And they all left but Nancy. When Nancy raised her eyes at last to the book and bottle, she saw that there was a label on the bottle. What he label said was this: Welcome to the Monkey House”(Vonnegut). The government is seen as an enemy to personal freedoms. Vonnegut depicts the the harshest reality possible to bring to light the control he feels the government is capable to implementing. His message encourages the opposition of central forces. The message is profound. We, as a nation, do not have to conform to create a better society. No one can delineate the way one should live their life. The sinful nature to one is not equivalent to the sinful nature of another. Judgement should be a thing of the past. Freedom should empower the nation. The fight for liberties is necessary to hide the equivocation of the government. Know what you stand for and fight. Does Vonnegut accurately depict the controlling nature of the government? Was sexual freedom a good means of exploring the constraint inflicted by the government?  
Read More »

Mind = Blown

I absolutely loved Kurt Vonnegut's story. Dysentopia novels are definitely my favorite genre and when it's done right it's the most facinating look into the plausable future of our current society. Sometimes we have to remember that Vonnegut wrote these stories long before modern technology. Like most Science Fiction writers such as Orson Scott Card often he predicts technology that eventually comes to be apart of our daily lives. Ender's Game has a semi iPad that the kids use every day. While there isn't a specific form of technology predicted in Welcome to the Monkey House Vonnegut makes other inferences on a plausible future. With numb genitals being a "solution" to over population and suicide buisnesses where someone wishing to die can end thier lives. This is an ideal of the future also presented in the comedy cartoon Futurama. But who's to say that this doesn't become a reality. Should someone have that choice, when to die and how to come to that ultimate ending? Should they be able to have a lovely lady read them a menu of options on their death and they pick the final moments of their life? What about for the terminally ill shouldn't people be able to decide to die with dignity rather than suffer pain and agony, needing their bed pans changed and losing all control of themselves until they are a shell and and burden to their family? Vonnegut lightly touches on this solution to population but maybe it wasn't a satire. Maybe he really thought that chosing to die in a suicide parlor was a viable option. I mean why not? It's your life, if you chose to end it shouldn't you have that right? I've always thought the same for drugs, hell make them legal, start of buisnesses where adicts can go get high, and there's a babysitter essentially to get them through the experiences, take out the criminalization and allow the choice. It's something I've always wondered about. I love the way Vonnegut thinks though, it's like he's always saying why not, why can't people just travel through time, in one novel as the narrator he eventually places himself into the story and simulatiously talks to the auidence because why not, why can't he. It's facisnating. Sometimes his writing are so-so and sometimes it's phemoninal but I promise you it's always a literary exploration and worth reading. I loved this story the tone the way it changed at the end and the mood became dark and almost sydistic. Vonnegut has a way of creating an alternate world but it's so real, it's tangible that you wonder if that is our future if we continue down a certain road. Like Pharmaceuticals, like government mandates, like criminalizing free expression and individuality. 

Is Vonnegut's work a warning or pure satire? Why does he take on such a dark tone in the end after having such light heartedness and jovial nature why change to something so deep and twisted? Was he just an obscure Sci-Fi writer or did Vonnegut see something about his current society that others didn't? 


PS. If you've never read anything else by Kurt Vonnegut please don't start with Slaughter-house Five, it's good but it's not great. I loved Breakfast of Champions, the drawings are hilarious because they're all little doodles that he does himself. I also truly think his short stories tend to be his best writing because they didn't have any overkill like in some of his novels. But I definitely recommend reading more.
Read More »