Losing Oneself

"Time passed. I never told my Helga I was a spy. To tell her would only put her in danger and live in constant fear. So I hid my true self from her, knowing that politics had no place in our nation of two. I suppose the moral here is you must be careful who you pretend to be because in the end, you are what you pretend to be."
(24 min)

This is the first scene where Howard Campbell begins to lose himself. By committing himself to a cause he does not believe in and through his job as a propagandist he brainwashes others through his speeches and begins to brainwash himself. He breaks his commitment with Helga to stay true to their "nation of two" by not telling her who he really is. If he cannot be true to his wife (in his opinion their "nation of two" is greater than both America and Germany) how is he able to be true to himself and know who he really is? This followed by the death of his wife and the horrors of war allows Campbell's original self to be destroyed and replaced by the new Campbell who he had originally pretended to be. Without Helga to keep him in touch with reality Campbell has no way to know who he really is. Eventually he becomes engulfed by his work as a propagandist and embodies the beliefs of the Nazis. 

Do the people around you effect who you are? How do the traumas of war effect our personalities?

Mother Night

"You broke my heart when you married my daughter.

--Yes, I know.

I wanted a German soldier for a son-in-law. Because I hated you so much, I studied you. I listened to everything you said. Never missed a broadcast. Did you know that until this very moment, nothing would have delighted me more than to prove you were a spy, to see you shot? Now I couldn't care less if you are a spy.

- Do you know why?

- No.

Because now I know that even if you were a spy, you could never have served the enemy as well as you served us. All the ideals that make me proud of being a Nazi... they came not from Hitler, not from Goebbels but from you. You alone kept me from concluding that Germany had gone insane."

--Conversation between Howard Campbell and Herr Noth.

In the scene preceding this conversation, Campbell admits in a monologue that he is an American spy. He says he hasn't told his wife about who he is because 'politics has no place in their nation of two' and to prevent her from living in constant fear.

Campbell is caught up in espionage and has done such a remarkable job to this point that higher-ranking officials including his father-in-law, the Police Chief, trust him.Campbell explains that the "moral is to be careful what you pretend to be because in the end you are who you pretend to be"; suggesting that he may become a member of the Nazis since he has lived as one for so long. He had been told by the American officials he reported to that if caught, they would deny knowing of his existence as a American or

a spy. Do you agree that pretending to be something you're not can eventually result in actually believing you are that?

"Because in the end, you are who you pretend to be."

The theme of deception embodies many forms in Mother Night. Campbell is willing to “create the most complicated character and play it himself” to preserve his marriage. Early on he warns that , “in the end, you ware what you pretend to be” and this warning becomes clearer as time progresses. His life is the façade of a Nazi radio personality and he manages to live unmolested as an American in Nazi Germany. This lie becomes more elaborate as he is coerced into relaying American spy codes during his transmissions. He juggles the responsibilities and his warning serves as a lesson. Everyone believes he shares their anti-Semitic sentiments and he plays along, although deep down he has only continued the lie to continue his relationship. Since this whole hoax has been for the preservation of his marriage, the death of his wife in a bombing leaves his life with no purpose. However, the deceit continues when he allows his sister-in-law to pretend to be his wife. The lies Campbell employs as the glue holding the pieces of his life together eventually comes undone as his past catches up with him. He is sheltered by Nazi sympathizers. Trapped by his lie, he must continue feigning anti-Semitic sentiments and rely on the safety provided by these relics of his past. After years of adopting a different personality, his true identity is known only to himself and his blue fairy godmother – but this cannot defend that his actions helped preserve Nazi Germany and lead to many innocent deaths. Neither the Nazis, Americans, nor his wife, know that what began as a lie for preserving his relationship with Helga has grown into a beast he must handle on his own. As his blue fairy godmother communicates to him that his wife and best friend are Russian spies, his life spirals into a pit of lies and he gives in, finally deciding to come clean and turn himself in to authorities to face punishment for his war crimes. It is easy to sympathize with his predicament. He created the radio personality of “the last free American” to shield himself and Helga from the trials of the outside world. Her death leaves him with nothing but his lies and crimes. The warning “you are who you pretend to be” has defined his life for years. He played the role of a Nazi to save himself but only one other person knows it (his blue fairy godmother) and despite knowing he does not sympathize with the Nazis, in writing his memoirs, he realizes that there is only one real way to show the world how guilty he feels. After reflecting back on his actions he sees no alternative. His actions as a Nazi may have been insincere, but the repercussions were real. In taking his life he tries to cleanse himself of all his crimes. Riddled with guilt, he answers to himself in an honest manner for once.

Given that he took responsibility for his actions and assuming his blue fairy godmother later testified that he was a spy, did he effectively clear his name and manage to let the world know who he really was and what his motivations really were?

War Crimes

" I was deposited on to the streets of New York, restored to the mainstream of life. I took several steps down the sidewalk when something happened. It was not guilt that froze me; I had taught myself never to feel guilt. It wasn't the fear of death; I had taught myself to think of death as a friend. It was not the thought of being unloved that froze me; I had taught myself to do without love. What froze me was the fact that I had absolutely no reason to move in any direction."

Much like Slaughterhouse Five, Mother Night also concerns itself with the atrocities of war and how it can change those who are inextricably involved in it. Howard Campbell Jr., having just only just arrived from Germany, is now uncertain of where he stands in the world. War has taught him how to disguise his true self, how to mask him emotions, leaving him somewhat confused and lost. Now, he is left with daunting task of defining himself and his purpose, in addition to reconciling his identity with his actions and the questionable role that he played in the war. Campbell's true self has become both lost and irrelevant, in a sense, because of his role as a both an American spy and a notorious Nazi propagandist. He has difficulty in evaluating the true intent behind his actions in the war, and he is left as a shell of a human being, one dazed on the streets of New York with "no reason to move in any direction."

Should Campbell be held responsible for the part that he played in the war, even if he was just playing the role that he was casted? Do you think that his intentions were pure?

Mother Night

"You broke my heart when you married my daughter.

--Yes, I know.

I wanted a German soldier for a son-in-law. Because I hated you so much, I studied you. I listened to everything you said. Never missed a broadcast. Did you know that until this very moment,

nothing would have delighted me more than to prove you were a spy, to see you shot?

Now I couldn't care less if you are a spy.

- Do you know why?
- No.

Because now I know that even if you were a spy, you could never have served the enemy as well as you

 served us.  All the ideals that make me proud of being a Nazi... they came not from Hitler, 

not from Goebbels but from you. You alone kept me from concluding that Germany had gone insane."

--Conversation between Howard Campbell and Herr Noth.

In the scene preceding this conversation, Campbell admits in a monologue that he is an American spy. 

He says he hasn't told his wife about who he is because 'politics has no place in their nation of two' 

and to prevent her from living in constant fear.  

Campbell is caught up in espionage  and has done such a remarkable job to this point that he is trusted by

higher ranking officials including his father-in-law, the Police Chief.  Campbell explains that the "moral

 is to be careful what you pretend to be because in the end you are who you pretend to be."; suggesting that 

he may become a member of the Nazis since he has lived as one for so long. He had been told by the

American officials he reported to that if caught, they would deny knowing of his existence as a American or 

a spy.

Do you agree that pretending to be something you're not can eventually result in actually believing you are that?

Death: The Moral of the Story

"It's alright. It doesn't mean anything now. Nothing means anything. Go ahead and shoot the dog." - Young Resi North, 00:33:30

We meet Resi North here, played by Kirsten Dunst, as the Russian Army comes to overtake her childhood home. Resi is sitting on the couch with her dog and seems to be completely content with the upcoming murder of her pet, which will be shot by Howard Campbell. Before they part, Resi confesses her love for Howard and her envy of his relationship with her sister Helga. This scene is particularly chilling because of Resi's absolute dismissal of her dog, yet the maturity of her developing feelings for Howard. Her feelings toward death as the only thing she believes in foreshadows her own death later after she pretends to be Helga. Though young in appearance, Resi's mature demeanor is not to be dismissed. This solidifies Vonnegut's primary theme: "the moral of the story." It's easy to not take Resi seriously because of her age, but it's important to not fully dismiss pretenses because they often turn out to be true.

Resi seems to dismiss the things that will hurt her, attempting to put up a wall against letting the permanence of death give her reason to mourn. Her maturity at such a young age helps her cope and grow into a strong minded female. Though Resi seems to be strong, is it really that important that she creates these notions at such an early age? Would her life be more successful if she had a "normal" childhood?

All The World's A Stage!

Page 257, when Howard W. Campbell Jr. asks Dr. Epstein to turn him into Israeli police:

“This is not the first time you’ve seen eyes like that,” [Mrs. Epstein] said to her son in German, “not the first man you’ve seen who could not move unless someone told him where to move, who longed for someone to tell him what to do next, who would do anything anyone told him to do next. You saw thousands of them in Auschwitz.”

[...]

“You still want revenge?” [Epstein] asked [his mother].

“Yes,” she said.

He put his face close to mine. “And you really want to be punished?” he said.

“I want to be tried,” I said.

“It’s all play acting,” [Epstein] said, exasperated with both of us. “It proves nothing!”

This passage encompasses many of the important issues of the novel, ones that I can hopefully address without rambling. What does identity mean, and who is it defined by? Are we responsible for our actions? To what extent are we both the victims and the persecutors in war? Finally, what is the meaning of life?

Identity in Mother Night is often dramatically ironic because of the novel’s premise: Howard Campbell is a spy for the Americans, but everyone in the world except for three people believe him to be a Nazi propaganda agent. There is a noteworthy divide between Campbell’s essence and the “character” he must play, but does it really matter if no one knows this inner person? I think Vonnegut actually quite explicitly answers this question, though with tongue-in-cheek, when he states: “We are what we pretend to be.” As in, Campbell’s identity has been externalized to the point where he decides to give himself up to the Israelis, because after all, he is this Nazi persona to everyone else in the world. I don’t think this is a case of cognitive dissonance either, which would suggest he turns himself in because his thoughts must conform to his actions. I think it is more indicative of his fatalism, if anything. He must accept the consequences of his actions, even IF he didn’t mean them inwardly, because he views his path as inevitable. Perhaps there is some truth in Adolf Eichmann’s advice--the secret of success is evincing what is expected of you.

It is also interesting to note the contrast between Epstein’s mother and Campbell in this scene. Life is without objective meaning or direction, as attested by the thousands of Auschwitz victims who “longed for someone to tell them what to do next.” Therefore, characters must create their own purposes in life: Epstein’s mother wants revenge, and Campbell wants to be tried for his crimes against humanity. (Note that this is not always what his purpose is--at the beginning, it seems his meaning in life is to love Helga. Likewise, O’Hare’s purpose is to kill Campbell, nihilistic Resi’s purpose is to find a purpose, and Kraft defines his purpose as primarily artistic.) To me, it is intriguing that Epstein’s mother wants revenge here. She serves as a device to demonstrate that humans all have a hateful side--fascists killed people they deemed as weaker out of self-righteousness, but those persecuted can be driven to hatred just as easily. The distinction between “enemy” and “friend” is blurred throughout the novel, and perhaps Vonnegut is saying that these are just more roles people create.

Discussion: Is everyone in the world merely playing a part? If so, how can we define truth? Is there absolute anything?

Unjust

"Alright, you want me to be a Nazi, you got ahead and classify me as a Nazi. You want to hang me, go ahead, you hang me if you think it will raise moral...." -Campbell
"I just want you to know how little we can really do for you." -Wirtanen

In this scene, Campbell is angry at Wirtanen, because no one in the U.S. can know what he has done to contribute to the war. Campbell has sacrificed his life and is left with nothing once he has returned to America. No one can know that he was actually a spy, and the world can only know that he is a broadcaster for Nazi's propaganda. This scene in the movie highlights how Campbell has made a such a big sacrifice for his nation, and yet, his nation refuses to do anything for him. The war highlights how the Nazi's were the ones who would abuse and torment the Jews, but essentially, America has done the same to Campbell. Instead of celebrating how he has aided in the war, no one can even have knowledge of the fact that he was a spy for his nation, and is left to fend for himself. The scene highlights the shortcomings of war and deglorifies it. Typically everyone hears about the heroes that have done amazing things to win the war for their nation, but we forget about the unspoken heroes.

Was it justified for America to not acknowledge Campbell's contribution to the war? Did Campbell truly remain loyal to America when he was with the Nazi's?

War and Bad Breath

"Trout's leading robot looked like a human being, and could talk and dance and so on, and go out with girls. And nobody held it against him that he dropped jellied gasoline on people. But they found his halitosis unforgivable. But then he cleared that up, and he was welcomed to the human race."

-pg 214

In this particular passage, Vonnegut is describing a story by Billy Pilgrim's favorite science fiction writer, Kilgore Trout. However, Vonnegut does not pass up this moment in order to bring to light a characteristic of human nature regarding the blind acceptance of war. Vonnegut is placing "dropping jellied gasoline on people" and "halitosis" on the same level, and further makes hurting other human beings to be more acceptable. He is not creating this comparison in order for it to be taken seriously (similar to the rest of the novel), rather he is creating this comparison in order for the reader to make a realization about human acceptance of the war. Most humans accept war as a necessary evil- of course many people do not support it, yet war continues to be looked upon as something that must be done. Most people look at war as one single action, yet fail to recognize the smaller actions within war, such as hurting other human beings. Mankind can forgive people who do this "necessary evil," yet many times steer clear of people who have simple undesirable qualities such as "halitosis." Although Vonnegut takes this comparison to the extreme (dropping jellied gasoline is not a common practice in war, and no one would actually exclude someone on the basis of halitosis), such extremity forces the reader to reflect upon common beliefs about war and its acceptability as a whole.

In your opinion, do you think that this novel effectively brought war to the extreme in order for a greater truth to be exposed? Also, is this tactic what people need in order to recognize that war is not what people crack it up to be?

Vegetable

"Why don't they let him die?" he asked Lily.
"I don't know," she said.

"That's not a human being anymore."

Billy's roommate in the hospital, Professor Rumfoord, and his wife have this conversation about him while he is assumed to be in a vegetable state. Billy is aware of his surroundings, what is happening and what is being said, but he doesn't fight this attitude people have taken toward him. If he cared to say anything in response, it would probably "I know! that's what I've been saying all along, I just want to die." Finally people are treating him how he wish they would have his whole life. Here, medically he is a vegetable and it seems to be less painful to speed up death.

But hasn't he been a vegetable all along? What does it take to be considered a functioning human being? If Billy Pilgrim has never made any choices, and really tried to live, has he just been slowly dying all this time?

pg. 275

One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, “Poo-tee-weet?” (pg. 275)

I find it interesting that Vonnegut chooses to end the novel with this line. The bird is a recurring symbol throughout the novel that serves to fill the silence when there is nothing left to be said, or perhaps when there is an inability to express what needs to be said. We first encounter it on page 24 when the narrator asks, “and what do birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like poo-tee-weet?” The novel is obviously read as an anti-war piece, yet it also acknowledges that taking this stand is futile and in the end he might as well be writing an anti-glacier book because war is not something that can be simply avoided. Billy visits and revisits the various events of his life, but doesn’t really offer any perspective to the issue at hand, other than the fact that war is devastating. The easy part for Billy is recounting all of these things and living in a state of delusion on Tralfamadore, but in the end he still doesn’t really know what to do with himself, which is why the book ends with the meaningless words “poo-tee-weet.” In my mind I read those last few words as “so now what?”

In your mind, what is the take away message of the novel? What insight did Billy’s repetitive recollections provide?

Dignity

“On an average, 324,000 new babies are born into the world every day. During that same day, 10,000 persons, on average, will have starved to death or died from malnutrition. So it goes. In addition, 123,000 persons will die for other reasons.So it goes. This leaves a net gain of about 191,000 each day in the world. The Population Reference Bureau predicts that the world's total population will double 7,000,000,000 before the year 2000.'I suppose they will all want dignity,' I said.
'I suppose,' said O'Hare.”
Pg. 488

In this passage O'Hare and Vonnegut are traveling back to Dresden and discover these statistics when looking up the population of Dresden. Vonnegut is showing that everyday people want dignity and this is a problem recurring throughout the book. Dignity is a come at a high price to death and Billy cannot find this kind of dignity on his home planet until he accepts the Tramalfadorian idea that death and life can coexist. As Billy accepts this idea, his actions show how futile free will is. If Billy had trained like the other soldiers he still might die. Even with human effort many die as Billy, a joke, survives showing human effort at a dignified death is an illusion, another reason not everyone can choose their death. Vonnegut asks if there will be enough dignity to go around the growing population, but leaves this answer for the reader to decide.

Vonnegut does not follow the traditional story pattern and with this lack of climax shows war has made the climax impertinent. Earlier in the novel, Vonnegut tells O'Hare that the execution of Edgar Derby should be the climax, but his death is stated as a simple, almost overlooked fact: “He was arrested for plundering. He was tried and shot. So it goes.” Derby's reason for being executed seems ironic when contrasted with the bodies they are about to dig up. With the repetition of the phrase “So it goes.” Vonnegut seems to imply that there is no dignity or justice in death by keeping a tally of the dead. This shows that death is inevitable for everyone, even the growing population, so it is unreasonable for every single person to die with dignity.

Is there always dignity in death? Does everyone desire this dignity for their death? By accepting Tramalfadorian ideals can there be more dignity in death?

Page 208

"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. One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters."

This section stood out to me simply because of the horrible sadness it portrays. He seems to see no hope in the war and expresses his thoughts that nothing good comes from it. Rather than creating all these heroic, ideal images and "characters" of the men fighting in the war, Billy ironically points out that war runs them down so much that they are too weak and malnourished to do anything of heroic worth at most times. When they are not fighting in the actual war, they are too busy being lethargic in their slaughterhouse to even interact, much less have "dramatic confrontations." I liked this part because it shines light, once again, on how bad being in the armed forces can actually get sometimes. It's not all rainbows, bravery, and purple hearts that we as spectators are led to believe. The soldiers are often in harsh living conditions and struggle mentally, physically, and emotionally. I think showing this aspect of the life of a soldier is one of Vonnegut's strongest anti-war arguments.

This section shows the sacrifices our soldiers make for our country. Would you have the courage and endurance to sacrifice your mental/physical/emotional health for the safety and well being of thousands of people in your country that you don't even know? Would the chance of even making it out alive be worth the incredible suffering and struggle? I think we don't think about these things enough and don't realize just how much our soldiers give up for the good of the nation.

Slaughterhouse Five

"Later on in life, the Tralfamadorians would advise Billy to concentrate on the happy moments of his life, and to ignore the unhappy ones - to stare only at pretty things as eternity failed to go by. If this sort of selectivity had been possible for Billy, he might have chosen as his happiest moment his sun drenched snooze in the back of the wagon." 249

At this point in the book, Billy and five other Americans have gone back into Dresden two days after the bombing to go back the the slaughterhouse. Billy stays in the wagon once they get there and takes a nap. I thought it was really strange that this moment was described as one of the happiest moments for Billy. At the beginning we are told that this book is an anti-war novel, which is why it was weird to me that the main character's happiest moment is at a time when he is at war. Although this moment does come two days after the bombing, it is still in a time of war. This book could have continued on just fine without mentioning that this was his happiest moment.

Why does Vonnegut tell the reader that this might have been Billy's happiest moment? If this is an anti-war novel why does this moment come during the war?

Existence

"It was alright," said Billy. "Everything was all right, and everybody has to do exactly what he does. I learned that on Tralfamadore."



This is Billy's reply to Professor Rumfoord's inquiry as to how he felt about the bombing of Dresden. Billy's ambivalence to events is an extension of his ability to for see the future, thus, losing all surprise in life. It is important that Billy uses "all right" in the second part instead of "alright." Had he used "alright," he would of been continuing the confession of his emotional view of the bombing, instead, he uses "all right," which is an allusion to the fact that Billy knew what would happen because of his time traveling abilities and that everything had happened all right according to plan. This demonstrates the theme of Predeterminism that clouds the novel and Billy's perception of reality. His blunt, uncaring way of recanting the executions and deaths of his friends stem from the looming element that everything has been preplanned and will only happen that way. Predeterminism obliterates of free will, a concept that the Tralfamadorians also teach. His experiences time travelling and with the Tralfamadorians are a metaphor for the irony of free will in a world that has no surprises or possibilities of alternate outcomes.

Billy's experiences serve as a metaphor for the senselessness in human behavior in the context of predetermination and existentialism, is the inclusion in the war a cause for Billy's beliefs or an extension of them?

He was tried and shot. So it goes.

"Somewhere in there the poor old high school teacher, Edgar Derby, was caught with a teapot he had taken from the catacombs. He was arrested for plundering. He was tried and shot. So it goes" (274).

Throughout most of the novel, the narrator refers to the death of Edgar Derby. His death by firing squad is mentioned on several occasions, in fact, Vonnegut refers to Derby's death every time he is mentioned. The reader expects the description of the death, when it finally comes time for us to bear witness to it, will be detailed and lengthy because it seems to have effected the narrator as well as Billy so profoundly. In the first chapter, Vonnegut even mentions that he wished the death to be the climax in his original drafts and outlines of the novel. However, the actual event in the novel is much different than is to be expected. It comes on the second to last page and only occupies a total of 5 lines (including "So it goes" which occupies a line of its own). This ties in with the overall sense that this is the way things are, were, and always will be that Vonnegut seems to be portraying throughout the novel. Describing Derby's death in full will not change it, and reliving an unpleasant moment is, as one imagines the Tralfamadorians might put it, a foolish waste of time.

Why do you think Vonnegut mentioned Derby's death so many times throughout the novel, but then only dedicated 5 lines to describing the actual death?

Belief and Experience

“The time-traveler in the book went back to Bible times to find out one thing in
particular: Whether or not Jesus had really died on the cross, or whether he had been
taken down while still alive, whether he had really gone on living. The hero had a
stethoscope along.
Billy skipped to the end of the book, where the hero mingled with the people who were
taking Jesus down from the cross. The time-traveler was the first one up the ladder,
dressed in clothes of the period, and he leaned close to Jesus so people couldn't see him use the stethoscope, and he listened.
There wasn't a sound inside the emaciated chest cavity. The Son of God was as dead as
a doornail
So it goes.” (260).

In this passage, Billy has traveled to New York and finds himself reading a Kilgore Trout novel that he has discovered in an adult bookstore. Quite Humorously, Trout’s novel is about a “time-traveler” who journeys to Golgotha in in an effort to discover how mortal “The Son of God” really is. The empiricist time-traveler, who is twice referred to as “the hero” of the story, has wisely chosen to bring a “stethoscope” along to find out if Jesus is dead, one way or another. Interestingly, just as Billy interrupted the continuity of Trout’s narrative when he “skipped to the end of the book,” the “stethoscope,” serves as an ironic connection from the senses to experience, which disrupts the linear features of a divine being. By removing deity from the equation in “Slaughterhouse Five,” Vonnegut amplifies the absurdity of war while, simultaneously, highlighting the distinctions between belief and experiences. After all, there is no resurrection for Jesus here. In fact, there is an absence of sound indicating that no experience can be found to support his existence as myth in this passage. Jesus ends up just like everyone else, “dead as a doornail”.

How is the dismantling of Christian fantasy in this passage consistent with the non-linear structure of time throughout the novel? Could Vonnegut be suggesting that the worst things in life result from action derived from (A priori) beliefs rather than those founded in actual experience?

Why me?

‘Why me?’ he asked the guard. The guard shoved him back into ranks. 'Vy you? Vy anybody?' he said" (116).

The simple question, "why me?" is echoed here from earlier on in the book when the Tralfamadorians abduct Billy, as that is the only question that he has for them in the strange situation. It seems as if this question sums up Billy's overall question about his life, in a way, which is odd because this directly contrasts with the novel's mantra, "so it goes." "So it goes" is a phrase that exudes an easy-going undertone and makes it seem as if Billy does not care how, when, or why things in life happen, just like the Tralfamadorians. "Why me?" counters all of these ideas by showing that Billy really does wonder what the reasons are for the way that things happen, and why these things are always happening to him.

Is Billy trying too hard to buy into the ways of the Tralfamadorians after he meets them? When before, he always asked questions about why he had to suffer?

Sci-Fi Therapy

“…he and Billy were dealing with similar crises in similar ways. They had both found life meaningless, partly because of what they had seen in war. Rosewater, for instance, had shot a 14 yr old fireman, mistaking him for a German soldier. So it goes. And Billy had seen the greatest massacre in European history, which was the fire-bombing of Dresden. So it goes.

            So they were trying to re-invent themselves and their universe. Science fiction was a big help” 

–pg. 128

In this passage, we learn that Billy and Rosewater have both been permanently damaged by their individual experiences in the war. Both of which are characterized the loss of innocent life and the overwhelming guilt that the two men feel as a result. The outside world becomes a constant reminder of the traumatic incidents they both experienced in their pasts. So, the two soldiers turn to reading Science Fiction novels, specifically those written by Kilgore Trout, who even becomes Billy’s “favorite living author,” to psychologically distance themselves from the realities of the real world. By immersing themselves in a different world with different people, places, physics, laws, and lives, they are able to block out the facets of ordinary life that remind them of the horrors that the world is capable of, especially in war. This shows some encouraging resolve in Billy, who uses his Trout novels to “re-invent (himself) and (his) universe” instead of simply succumbing to the misery of his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Reading science fiction is a “big help” in this regard for Billy as he tries to live a post-war life that he and Rosewater both consider to be utterly pointless.

It is also important to note that the phrase “So it goes” follows the description of both men’s most horrific moments in the war. This phrase summarizes the powerless feeling and eventual resignation that Billy and Rosewater experience in the wake of such lasting emotional trauma.

Is Billy’s constant “time-travelling” throughout the plot an attempt to use Science Fiction themes in order to “re-invent himself and his universe” as he tries to cope with civilian life, or is he simply powerless to these shifts in time as the phrase “so it goes” would imply?

"There isn't any particular relationship between all the messages, except that the author has chosen them carefully, so that, when seen all at once, they produce an image of life that is beautiful and surprising and deep. There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects. What we love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seen all at one time" (Chapter 5, Page 207-208 ebook).

Billy is attempting to read the Tralfamadorian's novels and finds that he cannot understand nor comprehend exactly what they are trying to convey. Not really understanding just how to relate this form of literature to the norm on Earth, Billy asks if they are like telegrams, to which he is told that they are alike in that they are "brief, urgent message[s] - describing a situation, a scene." This description is almost exactly parallel with Billy's life as a time traveller and the entire structure of Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut replicates this sense of telegraphic communication by inserting lines of three star-dots, aligning his attempt to tell his story about Dresden with Billy's narrative. Though out of order, like both of these stories, all of the elements come together to create one beautiful and understanding piece of literature or art. Vonnegut seems to use Billy as a way to convey that his story cannot be complete without taking in all of the information as a whole. Just like the Tralfamadorian's literature, it's more about the big picture, like memories, all coming together at once to show a story, yet still giving important and moving details. This description makes it easier to understand the novel as a whole, rather than focusing on the snippets of information that we receive as readers. Memories are hard to decipher, and Vonnegut's attempt to organize them is interesting and entertaining.

Does Vonnegut negate the sole purpose of time and learning from past experiences to improve the future? If past, present and future are all irrelevant, does our existence become frivolous?

Determinism and War

“The American was astonished. He stood up shakily, spitting up blood. He’d had two teeth knocked out. He meant no harm by what he’d said, evidently, he had no idea that the guard would hear and understand.

‘Why me?’ he asked the guard.

The guard shoved him back into ranks. ‘Vy you? Vy anybody?’ he said” (116)

The simple response that the German Soldier gives to the American POW conveys both the idea of determinism and that war is inevitable and stupid. The German does not necessarily know why he wanted to hit the POW he just knows that the American is his enemy and should be disrespected in any way, shape or form. The German soldier also understands that he could have hit any other POW but, he happened to hit the man who talked. This encapsulates the idea that humans do not have free will and we are governed by predetermined actions. The beating also goes hand in hand with the repetition of “so it goes” to represent that we have choice in life and everything is predetermined. Vonnegut is also able to show the pointlessness of war by depicting the senseless beating of the prisoner. There was no reason for the German to beat him, he just did it because it was determined that he was his enemy. The beating was pointless, just like war is pointless from a moral and ethical standpoint.

If war is inevitable then why should their be anti-war books or ideas, shouldn’t we just accept that war happens? What is the point of existing if our lives are predetermined?

Pg 112

"There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects. What we love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seen all at one time."

At this point in the novel, Billy is discussing how Tralfamadorians write their books, which is coincidentally (or not so) how Slaughterhouse Five itself is written. I think the form in which is written is vital to the jumpiness and sparatic memories experienced by Billy. Like the books on the alien planet, Slaughterhouse Five, as well as Billy, are just a jumble of scenes and thoughts and memories that have "no beginning, no middle, no end." Also, because Billy can "time travel" he knows exactly how his life will play out and shares his knowledge of the future with the readers, which in turn gives us "no suspense." Sometimes reading the book can be a struggle if you aren't paying attention or forget what was previously happening in the scene when Billy revists it. However, overall, I think the way it is written helps us to relate to Billy and see his jumpy life from inside his mind and through his eyes.

Do you think Vonegut wasn't satisfied with telling his story in chronological order? Did he create these aliens in the story for the sole purpose of planting the idea in Billy of jumping around in the past, present, and future, so that he could construct the novel differently to make it stand out against other novels?

SlaughterHouse- Chapter 5

"There isn’t any particular relationship between the messages, except that the author has chosen them carefully, so that, when seen all at once, they produce an image of life that is beautiful and surprising and deep. There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects. What we love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seen all at one time." P. 112

In this passage, Billy attempts to read a Trafalmadorian novel. However, he is unable to read it but realizes that the books are laid out in clumps separated by stars. In the quote above, one of Billy's captors explains why Trafalmadorian novels are structured as they are.

Kurt Vonnegut obviously adopts this model in the structuring of Slaughterhouse Five. He separates clumps of texts with a row of dots. Like billy, Vonnegut also lack the power to choose his moments. Vonnegut's use of the Trafalmadorian structure appears to be a desperate effort to achieve the beauty and depth he thinks his novel may lack. The rows of dots in Slaughterhouse are something the novel can go without; they do not add any dimensions to the novel that Vonnegut may have strived for.

Do you think Vonnegut achieves the depth he aims for by separating the text with a row of dots?

Vision and Time

“While he examined the boy’s eyes, Billy told him matter-of-factly about his adventures on Tralfamadore, assured the fatherless boy that his father was very much alive still in moments the boy would see again and again.
“Isn’t that comforting?” Billy asked.
And somewhere in there, the boy’s mother went out and told the receptionist that Billy was evidently going crazy. Billy was taken home. His daughter asked him again, “Father, Father, Father— what are we going to do with you?” (172)

Billy, refreshled and inspired by his “wet dream about Montana Wildhack,” has decided to return to work and preach the “Tralfamadorian” gospel of the “fourth dimension” to an unsuspecting war widow and her son. As Billy “examined the boy’s eyes,” he attempts to adjust his sight by offering the boy a perspective of time in which his father is still alive. For Billy, the things we see are what we will always see, which is why he has taken it upon himself to inform the “boy that his father was very much alive still in the moments the boy would see again and again”. Unfortunately, the boy’s mother and Billy’s daughter are unable to appreciate his “Amor fati” (love of fate) that he describes as being a “comforting” alternative to the dull surprise offered by mortality and they conclude that he must be “going crazy”. In a final display of life as repetition, the passage concludes with his daughter asking Billy “—again, Father, Father, Father— what are we going to do with you?” Thus, the emphasis upon the importance of vision and time becomes apparent as Billy attempts to share the insights that resulted in his being “unstuck”.

How does fragmenting the narrative into non-linear parcels of time, enhance the effectiveness of the novels antiwar message? Are Billy’s deconstructed views of his experiences capable conveying the absolute absurdity of wars to todays reader?

Evil

"Criag lay motionless and wondered, with a clarity of mind he had not experienced in many, many days, whether he dreaded going back to the world because the world was evil, or whether it was because he felt he himself was tainted, unfit to mix with human beings again."

This passage touches on the theme of this short story. Bixby forces us to ask ourselves, what is evil? And then, how do we respond to it? Craig is very confused with how to respond. He feels like a violated victim and all at once an enabler of a terrible evil. He keeps imagining his father saying this wrong, you are wrong if you are a part of this. But he has a relationship with teh vampire that disproves all preconceived notions and suspicions about them. Why should he feel guilty about sharing life with a friend?The peace of the ocean and vast night sky above give Craig the ability to ponder all of these questions, and what he himself believes.

Should Craig have fought for his life earlier? Is there a strict definition of evil, that vampires indisputably fall into?

Share Alike!

(I see that the two people below me also posted on nearly the same thing, and I'm sorry that mine isn't very different or original--I wrote it last night before seeing any of the others. I guess I should have written about homosexuality after all... Oh well.)

Page 117:

“Still, deep in his mind, Craig’s conscience wailed. Legend, history, the church, all at one time or another had said that vampires were evil. He was submitting to a vampire; therefore, he was submitting to evil. Food or no food, the Reverend Craig would never have submitted.”

To what extent should we listen to the advice of our fathers? Do divisive lines between “good” and “evil” protect us or prejudice us? These are important questions the authors ask in Share Alike, ones that I don’t think necessarily have easy answers.

On one hand, Hofmanstahal’s vigilant, predatory presence is disturbing and clearly not as “symbiotic” as he claims. Vampires are well known to charm and exploit others, leaving behind them a wreckage of helpless followers. On the other hand, people are predisposed to think this way about them from the causes mentioned above, “legend, history, [and] the church.” In many ways, Hofmanstahal defies the traditional concept of a vampire--for example, he doesn’t feed on a beautiful virgin like folklore would have it, but another grown man (the homosexual connotations here are intended, I’m sure). The reader can sympathize with him because at times he seems caring, or at least we can say he does not explicitly value his desires over Craig’s needs, like a traditional vampire would. If we condemn Hofmanstahal as evil, we must also recognize a similar hypocrisy in human beings, in that we too kill and “give nothing in return for the food [we] so brutally take” (112).

So is Craig’s gut right in feeling that this vampire is bad news? Since his conscience is inseparable from the image of his father, it seems impossible to tell whether or not this is protective intuition/morality or conditioned prejudice. Indeed, by the end of the story, the “hallucination” of Craig’s father has fled, and it’s up to individual interpretation whether Craig has sinned and thereby shamed and disgusted his father, or whether he has cared adequately enough for Hofmanstahal that the bias against vampires spurred by tradition has been broken.

Discussion: How does Craig’s opinion of Hofmanstahal change throughout the story? Is this change of opinion genuine or can it be attributed to the hypnotic venom?

Share Alike

“We drink from the fountain of life while man feasts at the fleshpots of the dead; yet we are called the monsters.” (pg. 116)

Hofmanstahal mentions this to Craig as he is refuting the myths associated with being a vampire. This line stands out to me because it seems to foreshadow the end of the story. Hofmanstahal is the monster, yet Craig is the one who ends up committing the monstrous act that results in the vampire’s death. This story seems to emphasize the effects that society has on a person. Craig often considers matters from his father’s perspective, and recalls that church and history have determined vampires to be evil, and consequently he may now be evil as well. He fluctuates between this odd “symbiotic relationship” and feelings of guilt or being tainted. In the end, the fear of being witnessed by people on the boat leads him to knock Hofmanstahal off the boat. This is ironic in that the character who has been referred to as evil by society is actually the one who ends up the victim.

What do you think the author’s main purpose for writing this piece was? Was this the ending you were predicting while reading the story?

Father-thing, Mother-thing, Charles-thing

"What do you want? Peretti was annoyed. You looking for a bruise? Gazing unhappily down, his fists clenched, Charles explained what had happened in short, mumbled words."

Charles had just found his real father at the bottom of the barrel courtesy of father-thing, Ted. Charles, however, never explains what he saw to his mother except telling her "he's talking to himself." In peril, Charles runs to the aid of Tony Peretti- the neighborhood bully who had also beaten him up of several occasions. Charles' state of mind throughout this episode is unclear. Could he have been in a dream? Or is he just a troubled 8 year-old? His encounters with father-thing, mother-thing, and Charles-thing are obviously preposterous; if they were real, he wouldn't risk the possibility of being beat up by Peretti.

How would you explain the irony in Charles seeking out Peretti for help and not his mother?

Waves

"And Hofmanstahal, vampire or not, was an interesting conversationalist"


The human behavior that we see illustrated in "Share Alike" is candid and satirical. They end up bonding in a sudo-sexual symbiotic relationship that Craig thoroughly enjoys and even revels in the thought of the intimate act. His conversion from repulsion to appreciation of Hofmanstahal's vampire needs and his swing back to repulsion are solely guided by society. Craig's rejection of their newly developed relationship is a product of what he thinks the Navy men and also his father would think of him, showing that no matter how dire the situation is, society still guides people's actions. His father's disgusted face floats above them in the night, a sign of familial dissent that he has experienced in the past. Craig realizes when he pushes Eric into the water that he has symbolically lost what he cared for in turn for the approval of others, which is something that everybody faces in life, no matter what your lifestyle.

Is Craig a victim of society or conformity?

Classic Pre-Teen

"Don't call me Frankie! she said. 'I don't wish to have to remind you any more." -p77

This comical and exasperated response from Frankie/F. Jasmine is a brief example of her struggle in adolescence. Everything around her is changing. She is no longer considered just a child and she cannot do the things a child does. She feels uncomfortable and outcasted in this period of change, so she takes refuge in adulthood. She musters up all the sophistication she can and tries to be mature, to be a part of this grown up group. But always, impulsively, her instincts as a child fight for a chance to be heard. She tries to act like an adult, a member, by discussing the wedding in response to Uncle Charles' death. Here her child-ness shows, she cannot get over the self-centered attitude of an angsty pre-teen. So here she responds with a quick outburst of hey! don't call me that! Immediately she recovers, masks herself in sophistication and uses her best adult language- "I don't wish to have to remind you."

Adolescence can be a terrible time for many people, is Frankie just skipping out on an awkward changing period by skipping straight to adulthood? Is she suppressing her true self as Frankie here, or is this sophistication a mature and wise improvement?

One Body

"She had been breathing very fast, but after a minute her breath slowed down so that she breathed in time with Berenice; the two of them were close together as one body, and Berenice's stiffened hands were clasped around F. Jasmine's chest" (109).

In a moment of tenderness and unity, F. Jasmine climbs into Berenice's lap feeling sick and overwhelmed. The two sit, almost in silence, and breathe in time together. The narrator describes the moments as if there were together "as one body". This moment could be suggestin that when allowed to calm down, and simply be with another person, it is possible to achieve a sense of togetherness and understanding that is other wise out of reach. Throughout the novel, Frankie struggles to find her place, and yet, she finds unity in a completely unexpected moment. Following this gentle moment, Berenice and Frankie discuss what it is to be on "caught" at a certain station in life: whether this be gender, race, or personality, most people feel caught in one moment or another.

What is the significance of this gentle moment between Frankie and Berenice? If Frankie stopped trying so desperately to find her place, do you believe she would find unity more often?

Angst and Anger

"Frances wanted the whole world to die. She sat on the back seat, between the window and Berendice, and, though she was no longer sobbing, the tears were like two little brooks, and also her nose ran water. Her shoulders were hunched over her swollen heart and she no longer wore the wedding dress." p. 172

In the start of Part 3, the protagonist has once again changed her name and essentially her identity. She was first named Frankie, then F. Jasmine, and now Frances. Each time Frances changes her name, she implies that she has become a new person with a new perspective to live. Throughout the novel, Frankie was childish, selfish, and violent, and this excerpt displays that she still has the same attitude as before. Frances states she has grown, but still acts childish by moping and wishing ill-will for the world. Not only does she display her violence, but she even sheds the wedding dress as a sign of her disappointment in the wedding. Her attitude in this excerpt embody the attitude that a child would have when they're displeased.

Every time Frankie/F. Jasmine/Frances changes her name, does her attitude and personality truly change or is she still the same person?

Adulthood

"Hush up!" F. Jasmine said. The jail did not frighten her this evening, for this time tomorrow she would be far away. She gave the jail a last glade then walked on. "How would you like for someone to holler something like that to you if you were in jail?"


This scene is the turning point for Frankie's coming of age story. In this moment, we can see F. Jasmine beginning to develop the ability to empathize with others, an emotion that she was previously unable to demonstrate. As children develop, their ability to feel empathy and compassion for others develops also, a sign of maturity. This scene foreshadows her budding adulthood through her emotional changes. The scene also goes on to show her understanding of childhood by choosing not to explain the scene with the crazy man to John Henry, which is a learned skill that requires retrospective after the phase. Her empathy befittingly is first shown with the people that she identifies with- those in jail, because she herself feels alone and caged in her lack of identity. She cannot see that through the development of her ability to identify and empathize with others she will eventually find her niche and become joined with others, and in doing so, become her own self. 

The Member of the Wedding (pg. 100)

“The old Frankie. She had been in her seat on the second row and she stamped and put two fingers in her mouth and began to whistle…The old Frankie had never admitted love. Yet here F. Jasmine was sitting at the table with her knees crossed, and now and then she patted her bare foot on the floor in an accustomed way, and nodded at what Berenice was saying. Furthermore, when she reached out quietly toward the Chesterfield package beside the saucer of melted butter, Berenice did not slap her hand away, and F. Jasmine took herself cigarette. She and Bernice were two grown people smoking at the dinner table.” (pg. 100)

This passage refers to the first time that F. Jasmine has ever engaged in a conversation about love. There is an interesting interplay between silence and noise that is apparent in this scene, not to mention in several other portions of part 2. The narrator states that the old Frankie instigated a lot of commotion during a show regarding love, but now F. Jasmine has matured and is participating in an adult conversation about a topic she was previously reluctant to consider. This passage is representative of her conflict between childhood and pettiness, and the inevitable transition she must make into late adolescence and maturity. McCullers uses silence and noise to emphasize the conflict Frankie is facing. Juvenile Frankie makes lots of noise when confronted with a matter that is beyond her maturity level, while sophisticated F. Jasmine sits quietly at the table with Berenice and takes a cigarette. There are several instances in which this contrast between silence and noise can be seen. For example a few pages before, F. Jasmine sees 4 girls from the club walk by. She says that the old Frankie would have waited expectantly to receive an invitation and then shouted at them upon not receiving it. But instead F. Jasmine watched them quietly and supposedly was no longer jealous. There are also times in which periods of silence are abruptly interrupted by noise, such as the sound of the piano, further signifying Frankie’s internal conflict to achieve some level of maturity that she does not necessarily comprehend.

What significance do you see in the interaction between noise and silence? Are there other moments in the novel that this interplay occurs?

Isolation and Confinement

“Often some criminals would be hanging to the bars; it seemed to her that their eyes... had called to her as though to say: We know you” (149).

McCullers is showing again how F. Jasmine is disconnected from other people, but trapped at the same time. She feels connected to the prisoners in the same way that she feels connected to the people in the circus. She most likely feels this relation to these groups because she identifies with their isolation as well as their captivity. She feels that she cannot escape her town, her gender, or her age, just as the prisoners cannot get past the bars that hold them. She also relates to them on the basis of isolation. The prisoners are clearly cut off from the rest of society, but in F. Jasmine's mind, she may as well be just as disconnected. She feels that she has no one to relate to, no one to identify with.

Do you think there is any other way that F. Jasmine would identify with the prisoners? Why is she so intrigued by them?

F. Jasmine's Biological Clock

“ The silence was over, and it was like those kitchen times when, after the first uncanny moments, she realized the reason for her uneasiness and knew the ticking of the clock had stopped- but now there was no clock to shake and hold for a minute to her ear before she wound it, feeling relieved.” pg. 165

This happens just after F. Jasmine hits her date, the drunk soldier, over the head with a glass bottle when he tries to kiss her. The silence ends just as the soldier ends and she realizes that the silence is just like the silence of the kitchen when the clock stopped ticking, but now she had no clock to try to fix. The images of past sexual events flash before her eyes and she thinks the world is crazy. By finally connecting her past encounters F. Jasmine seems to see the idea as reality instead of childish fantasies. She is unable to fully understand the maturity of the acts and seems to use the word “crazy” as a synonym for sexual. Therefore earlier in the novel when she says “ It happened that green and crazy summer when Frankie was twelve years old.” the phrase“crazy summer” can be replaced with “sexual summer” and the “it” she is referring to is not only the wedding, but her maturity.
The clock also represents F. Jasmine's sexual maturity over the passage of time. She, before, was unconscious of her biological clock but now that she is entering her more sexually mature years she is uneasy and the clock stopping shows that she is trying to ignore this change. It is strange that she jumps at the chance to be sexual and grow up quickly, but since she cannot comprehend her own sexuality she cannot use it. She should not be having sex at twelve, but she should be aware of her own biological changes that are changing her view of the world throughout the novel.

Will F. Jasmine realize her biological maturity? Will she have sexual relations before she even realizes this biological change? Why is she trying to block out her own maturity that she ironically runs towards at first?

The Member of the Wedding

"She was back to the fear of the summertime, the old feelings that the world was seperate from herself-and the failed wedding had quickened the fear to terror." 157

This passage comes from the very end of the book, after the wedding is over and Frankie is back home. At this point, she has just been caught after trying to run away because she was not allowed to go with her brother and Janice. It seems like Frankie is right back where she was at the beginning of this book and that nothing has changed. You would think that Frankie would have grown some from her experiences with the soldier and going to the wedding, but it seems like she is right back where she started. Is there some change in Frankie or are things the same?

Do you think that Frankie changed/grew throughout the novel? Why or why not?

The Member of the Wedding

Berenice: “What makes you think they want to take you along with them? Two is company and three is a crowd…Remember Noah and the ark?...He admitted them creatures two by two…”

F. Jasmine: “They will take me”

Berenice: “And if they don’t”

F. Jasmine: “If they don’t, I will kill myself, but they will”

Berenice: “Kill yourself how?”

F. Jasmine: “I will shoot myself in the side of the head with…the pistol that Papa keeps under his handkerchiefs along with Mother’s picture in the right-hand bureau drawer” (79-80)

Frankie has become Humbert-Humbert obsessed with the idea of leaving with her brother and his soon-to-be wife and not coming back. In this scene, Berenice tries very stubbornly to make her understand that it does not make sense for Frankie to go with them. However, Frankie, tired of not fitting in anywhere, dismisses Berenice’s advice and with much assurance tells her that if her plan fails, she will commit suicide. After Frankie describes how she would proceed to do such thing, McCullers describes a very vivid reaction coming from Berenice: “Berenice did not answer for a minute and her face was a puzzle. ‘You heard what Mr. Addams told you about playing with that pistol. Go on upstairs now. Dinner will be ready in a little while' (80).” She was simply speechless given that it is not common for a 12-year-old to talk so impulsively about suicide.

To the reader it seems very clear that Frankie is putting all her eggs on her brother and fiancé’s basket. However, it does not seem very feasible that the plan will succeed given that it is not the custom for a newlywed couple to begin marriage with a 12-year-old awkwardly violent girl by their side. How could the failure of the plan affect Frankie’s crazy temper?  Would she actually do something of that nature in order to show her dissatisfaction?

The Member of the Wedding- page 12

"There was in the neighborhood a clubhouse, and Frankie was not a member. The members of the club were girls who were thirteen and fourteen and even fifteen years old. They had parties with boys on Saturday night. Frankie knew all of the club members and until this summer she had been like a young member of their crowd, but now they had this club and she was not a member." (12)

Frankie in the novel seems to be alone. She is separated. McCullers says that she is not a "member," just as she is not a "member" of the wedding, her brother's wedding. Frankie appears completely isolated and alone.
McCullers seems to present Frankie's isolation in order to explain her obsession with her brother's wedding. I wondered if something in Frankie's past had been traumatic for her to react to her brother's wedding in this way. I understand that she is transitioning from childhood to adulthood. However, this doesn't seem like normal behavior. Also, Frankie really isn't alone. She isn't like Pecola where not even her mother pays attention to her. She at least has Berenice, John Henry, and possibly her father. Nevertheless, Frankie desires to connect with people.

Why isn't Frankie able to make any connections with other kids her age? Frankie had a connection with these "big" girls beforehand and was able to hang out with them. Why do you think the connection broke/ Why did these girls kick her out of her club?

Jazz Song Pg. 44

Page 44:

“The tune was low and dark and sad. Then all at once, as Frankie listened, the horn danced into a wild jazz spangle that zigzagged upward. At the end of the jazz spangle the music rattled thin and far away. Then the tune returned to the first blues song, and it was like the telling of that long season of trouble. She stood there on the dark sidewalk and the drawn tightness of her heart made her knees lock and her throat feel stiffened. Then, without warning, the thing happened that at first Frankie could not believe. Just at the time when the tune should be laid, the music finished, the horn broke off. All of a sudden the horn stopped playing. For a moment Frankie could not take it in, she felt so lost.”

The term consonance has two denotations. The first definition applies to music, meaning a harmonious sounding combination of notes. The second definition refers to an agreement between actions or opinions. In this passage, neither are achieved when the tune of the horn is suddenly cut off, leaving Frankie feeling incomplete--she waits for the ending of the song to come, but it is left unresolved. This passage demonstrates her dissatisfaction about being on the brink between childhood and adulthood, as well as her anticipation of moving on to the next segment of her life (hence the “drawn tightness”).

In reaction to this, Frankie begins to hit herself on the head and talk aloud, without paying attention to her own words. One gets the sense that not only is she incapable of communicating her feelings, but she is not always aware of what those feelings are herself. Discussion: do you agree or disagree with the notion that communication (which can be seen as an adulteration of thought and unconscious desire) is futile?