LIT 4303
Dr. Lillios
________________________________________________________________________
Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five
Reading Assignment: Read the book by Tuesday, February 8
Schedule:
Tuesday, February 8: Biography of Vonnegut, Dresden, beginning of novel, style
Thursday, February 10: Continue discussion of structure of the novel, science fiction, and role of comedy.
Monday, February 14:
Submit journal entry to http://www.postww2lit.blogspot.com (see below) by midnight. Be sure to sign your entry.
Tuesday, February 15: Discuss blog entries in class (be sure to bring a hard copy of your own entry to class.
Journal Assignment:
Read selection, “The Death of the Author,” by Roland Barthes (Richard Howard translation).
http://books.google.com/books?id=hfZ841vHJCIC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=%22the+death+of+the+author,%22+richard+howard&source=bl&ots=Lstus3sSXM&sig=2u3P0opQD-Br-gzfHLnlY_UySzQ&hl=en&ei=53NRTda3OYK0lQen-vzKCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Google: “the death of the author,” Richard Howard
Go to entry: “The Rustle of Language” at books.google.com/books
In this excerpt, Barthes claims that the author is simply another reader of his/her text after the words are set down on paper. Do you agree with Barthes? What is the role of the author in SH5? Comment on what you think Vonnegut’s view of the author is.
Write about a page or 200-250 words and then post to blogspot. Please try to read the entries of the other students in class before Tuesday. You can post a comment on their entries, if you wish.
Slaughterhouse 5 Discussion (Roland Barthes)
ReplyDeleteIn Barthes’s “The Death of the Author” he is pretty adamant about doing away with looking towards the author as a means of interpreting a text. In claiming that the author disappears within his text, becoming not a separate entity but one and the same, he also claims that once the work is finished, the author cannot provide us with any more helpful insight than the average reader. Barthes severs the connection between the artist and his work, placing the importance in the words as they stand themselves, free of all the baggage of the author’s character, personal history and reasons for writing. He says, “it is language which speaks, not the author,” (Barthes 50). In the same characteristically postmodern sense, Barthes claims that there is no single meaning that can be derived from a text because the text itself cannot be objective. Vonnegut was influenced by encounters with many cultures, conversations, sights,and experiences, and his work, therefore, is an interweaving of subjective experience. In that sense, I can agree with Barthes in claiming that once the work is finished, the author becomes just another reader who gleans his own interpretation from the text. In SH5, Vonnegut doesn’t make himself the protagonist, instead opting to follow the life of a fictitious Billy Pilgrim. Vonnegut mentions himself in the story simply as another character, unnamed and faceless, existing in the background. In accordance with Barthes’s argument about the role of the author, Vonnegut separates himself from his work, allowing his story to exist as a world of its own.
Barthes states “to give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing”.
ReplyDeleteA text such as Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five certainly cannot be thought of as closed, and so for Vonnegut to remove himself from the text and place Billy Pilgrim at the center seems to allow the multiple layers of meaning to transcend the limits of memoir or historical texts. Barthes goes on to say “We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash. The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.” I feel that Slaugtherhouse Five in particular becomes a “multi-dimensional space”, one that plays with both language and time to convey a plethora of meanings.
Vonnegut delves into extremely thought provoking subject matter, and yet the language and words themselves often appear meaningless when they are removed from the novel’s context. For example, as the novel comes to an end so too does World War II, and as Billy Pilgrim steps out into utter silence, the only sound that is heard is when “a bird said to Billy Pilgrim, “Poo-tee-weet?”(Vonnegut 275). This essentially meaningless language is a stark reminder of the novel’s message: that war is senseless, and that there is nothing of substance to be said about war.
In thinking of a text as a vast, open space filled with endless opportunity for interpretation it is therefore rather liberating to eliminate the “Author God” and allow the language to just be viewed as it appears within the novel.
Lucy Baugh
Journal Entry 3: Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut
ReplyDeleteParke Cooper
I have always sided with Roland Barthes’ concept that the text becomes its own animal once it has left the author’s hands. I consider it the most personally and professionally important lesson I took from the literary theory classes which I have attended here at UCF. Then, should you ask that I agree with his idea, I must emphatically say “yes,” and I would further tell you that I consider the idea central to my own fiction. That isn’t to say I don’t respect the authors that we have studied – far from it – but I fully believe the book should be permitted to speak for itself. If I’m unfamiliar with an author, I consciously avoid reading about her / his life… the jacket-liner biographical blurb is the absolute last thing I’ll read of any book I pick up.
I see Vonnegut, Jr.’s role in the text of Slaughterhouse-Five is reduced to a position similar to that of the old-timey usher at the movie theatres of yore. He exists to guide people into the rows of chairs, to turn down the lights. He exists to shush people who talk during the “movie,” (in this case, the book) and to shine a flash-light in the face of those brazen enough to prop their feet up on the back of a seat. He exists to close the doors of the theatre after whispering, “Enjoy the show… You poor saps.” Ultimately, Vonnegut wrote the book, and that can’t be denied, no matter how much the ghost of Barthes screams in the face of the literary establishment, and no matter how much I agree with that phantom’s sentiments. But I get the feeling that Vonnegut himself was possessed by both the spirit of the war and the spirits of those murdered at Dresden… To return to the metaphor of Vonnegut as an old-fashioned theatre usher, the usher didn’t have anything to do with the creation of the movies which he proctors, he’s simply there to keep the peace. Along the same lines, Vonnegut went on the record saying that Slaughterhouse-Five was the only book which he “had to write.” That is a crucially subtle statement… He Had to write it. He Had to bear witness to the massacre of Dresden. Something was forcing him to it. Then, in Vonnegut’s own eyes, was he the sole creator, or simply the mediator between the spirit of the event itself and the page? Perhaps there is a little bit of Roland in Kurt.
I’m not sure what Vonnegut taught at his Creative Writing workshops, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was familiar with Barthes’ “The Death of the Author.” I agree with Barthes’ assertion that the author becomes another reader of their works; and it seems that Vonnegut was as well.
ReplyDeleteAs Creative Writing students now, we are taught that the work must be capable of “standing on its own” once completed. The work must be able to sustain inquiry and criticism, and the author will not be there to defend, expound, or clarify. The author must declare the work “completed”; and by doing so announces that the work is prepared to withstand scrutiny; to function as its own entity in the world. Once completed, the author’s intimacy as “creator” of the text is reduced to mere “observer;” becoming no more than an audience member.
Vonnegut also seems to realize this in SL5 with the distinct author-narrative of the 1st chapter, compared with the fictional narrative of Billy Pilgrim. The introduction serves audiences a disclaimer; an apology that if it all isn’t captured in the tale, Vonnegut has done the best possible. He uses a tone of compassion; the reader may find some aspects of the tale remarkable, outlandish, or unbelievable, but he (as an author) has no more to say on the matter. He has said all he can. The fictional narrative of Billy then, is used not only as a veil behind which Vonnegut can morph his personal experience; but distinctly, Vonnegut uses Billy Pilgrim to function as his own entity in the world. Billy’s tale stands separately from Vonnegut’s, their intimacy is eliminated, and Vonnegut’s responsibility for the events of Billy’s story is erased as Vonnegut becomes only another observer of the events.
Cortni Merritt
I’ve been torn on the theory Barthes poses since first coming into contact with it in my Lit Theory class. On one hand, I would agree that searching for the author in the text imposes a “break” on it, giving it some final meaning that everyone should discover. However, I find it impossible not to consider the author when reading a novel. I divide my final verdict on meaning into two points: one which considers nothing but the story, and derives everything from there; and another, in which I consider the author’s background and its direct impact. I don’t merge those two points, and take them as two different approaches, both of which are okay to take as long as they are separated. I have no problem with the birth of a reader, but I do have an issue with the death of an author. Literature is a conversation between the writer and a reader, and I’m not sure how that could change.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut gives us a profile of the author writing Billy’s story at the very beginning. To him, then, an author has a place within the novel, and we are actively aware of the author’s presence the entire time. The Author promises his friend’s wife to write a novel that does not glorify war, while listening to another friend, who advises him that writing an anti-war novel is a fruitless task. The result is a novel in the Tralfamadorian format, divided into short paragraphs which capture moments of beauty and significance, but do not include any direct moral statements on war. The Author, despite his apparent presence, does not engage in a direct conversation with the reader, but allows the reader to derive meaning from the simple language, which reminds the reader of newspaper reporting. Vonnegut creates another author of the novel within a novel to disguise himself, but even in this disguise, he refuses to intrude on the reader’s experience.
Jaroslav Kalfar
Howard states that “language knows a ‘subject’, not a ‘person’” and that the subject is “empty outside of the very enunciation which defines it”. Once the words are written on the page the author no longer becomes part of the story. All attachment between the story and its author is broken and the words stand alone, allowing the reader to interpret the story according to the meaning of the language used. Because of this, I agree with Howard’s statement that the “reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed…a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination”. I believe that Vonnegut fully develops this idea both through his detachment as an author-narrator and also through the way in which he fragments Billy’s story. Rather than providing facts about his own experiences, Vonnegut allows the reader to interpret the story along with him as he leads the reader through the life and mind of Pilgrim. Through Vonnegut’s use of a fragmented plot line he is able to fully convey the idea of how a text’s unity lies in its destination. In doing so he allows the reader to fully interpret the story free of his personal bias, but also allows the reader must interpret the story as a whole, all at once, rather than linear from start to end. Because of this, I feel that Vonnegut agrees with the idea that once the text is finished the author, in accordance to the meaning of the text, is dead.
ReplyDeleteShelby Thorne
In his piece, “Death of the Author,” Roland Barthes explains that “the birth of the reader must be requited by the death of the Author” (55). He makes the argument that a writer is a reader of his own text; a separate entity to the book itself. Kurt Vonnegut exemplifies this notion, specifically in Slaughter-House Five, where he positions himself as a writer attempting to detach himself from his work. In accordance to Barthes’s argument, Vonnegut separates himself from the story after the first introductory chapter, which he uses to tell the reader that the events in the story are true to an extent, even though the characters are fictitious. Thereafter, Slaughter-House Five becomes a work that describes the atrocities of war and the overpowering ability it has to affect the human body and mind. Yet, Vonnegut seemingly removes himself from the text as a means to express a typically difficult subject to talk about, of which words can do no justice. If Vonnegut had written the entire book in first-person, packed with descriptive accounts of emotion and drama, it would not reveal these atrocities and powers as effectively. In respect to Barthes’s argument then, “once the Author is distanced, the claim to ‘decipher’ a text becomes entirely futile . . . “once the Author is found the text is ‘explained’” (Barthes 53). In removing himself as the speaker, Vonnegut is able to create such as “futile” text that does not allow the reader to truly decipher every detail in the book, reflecting what can be inferred as the author’s own struggle to express and understand his experience in the war. As a result, Vonnegut is able to portray the inexplicable demeanor of war that he experienced firsthand, without having to say word about it directly. Overall, Vonnegut writes as a means to reveal the brutality of war and to vent his dissatisfaction toward it, placing himself as a reader in the reader’s shoes. Blatantly explaining these feelings would do the subject less justice and would fail to represent the struggle of describing the events entirely.
ReplyDelete~Charlotte Warren
Roland Barthes says in this piece that, "it is language which speaks, not the author" (Barthes 50). To some degree I agree with what Barthes is saying, however, that writing is still a part of the author, or at least it was at some point in time, so do I think the author completely "dies" or is lost once their work is out, no. It truly is the language that speaks and not the author, however, the author is still apart of the work because they constructed the language that is speaking.
ReplyDeleteParke brought up the idea of a written work dort of becoming its own entity once it is published and out in the world. This i do believe is true, but you can't discover a novel/piece of literature and never once ask, "who was the author"--the author is forever tied to the work. Unlike Barthes point brought up about the forgotten "shamans" and such that used to tell stories and were forgotten, now authors are tied to their books because their names are printed on them.
Another point discussed is the intertexuality of all texts and the differernt layers upon which a text develops and is developed. I agree with these statements but I feel Barthes contradicts himself in proclaiming the intertexuality of text and the language used, but refuses to acknowledge the rightful place of the author. Barthes is paradoxical--at least to me.
Overall, I find it extreme to state that a piece of literature and its creator are unrelated or not connected, though, there is truth to the idea that a when you read a piece of literature, you can come to intimately know the work; which by no means suggests that you know the author. This is a complex subject but in my opinion, the author and the piece the author constructed are never fully separated.
With Vonnegut's SH5, the author is most definitely tied to the text because of the facts the are based on and because of his uniqueness of telling. Writing is story-telling; it is the reason we write. I seriously questioned Barthes agenda in reading this piece, not to sonud base, but it sounds very much like he has some sort of anti-authority or anti-paternal/God complex when he finally reveals his true sentiments on page 53 describing the author as the "Author-God". It is just all too one-sided for me to completely support, though I think what he was really trying to get at was what Parke explained as the work holding its own and potentially becoming its own thing outside and away from its creator. Barthes uses very loaded language.
~Sydni Gonzalez
In "Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes, he claims that "The Author, when we believe in him, is always conceived as the past of his own book: book and author are voluntarily placed on one of the same line, distributed as a "before" and "after" (52). I feel that Barthes' claim is true, especially in the case of Vonnegut's "Slaughter-House Five." Because Vonnegut has lived through the tragedies of Dresden, he is able to re-create his past, his before. Through his writing, the author has the ability, also, to alter many understandings, both of ourselves and himself. The publication of the text becomes his after. At this point, Vonnegut as author is unable to function as so. It is at this stage then that Barthes criticism works as a way in which we can no longer associate with the author. The it is at the point of publication that the author has become a reader as well. The meaning of the text then remains in constant valuation, and is represented without the intrusion of the author. By utilizing multiple narrators or "authors" Vonnegut is able to establish himself as a distinct presence in the text. By creating Billy Pilgrim, Vonnegut is able to continuously represent his own views of war, Dresden, and death, and, through this post-modern multiplicity, able to create many singular meanings that could be perceived as guises of the author. However, although we understand the text as being in connection with the author, Vonnegut, as many have mentioned, wants to be separated from the work and let it stand as an entity all its own.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, I found Barthes to be an extremely dry read, and I just think he sounds a bit pretentious. Authors are authors, words are words, and books are books. Yes, there can be great meaning taken out of texts, but they are not some sort of heavenly idol to be worshipped for as long as we live. The author most certainly can have an influence on the text and I think it's silly to think an author is completely separate from his or her work.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut is very much present in Slaughterhouse-Five, and I think it's brilliant. The book begins with a him talking about how he's having such a hard time with this book. He even references himself twice during the story. Vonnegut is a huge presence in the book, even when he's not speaking or being mentioned. His voice and style ooze out of the words, and I felt like Vonnegut himself was narrating to me, not some faceless, all-knowing narrator. I think that judging by his narrative style in this book Vonnegut thought that the author is pretty important to the text. We know that Vonnegut served in WWII and we know that he was there for the bombing of Dresden. If the text and the text alone is the only thing that's important, we would be missing a huge part of this story. Knowing he was there adds so much validity to this story.
-Elliot Northlake
Each piece of writing contains multiple layers and meanings. Therefore, I agree that a text's meaning lies not in its origins or its creator, but in the interpretation of its audience. It is impossible to determine the one, true, definitive purpose. Just as everyone has an opinion, everyone also has an interpretation of a text.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut presents precisely this idea in Slaughter House Five by bringing the reader into the novel to decipher its meaning. By introducing the story and explaining that of the events are real, the reader understands not everything in the story will be completely accurate. The repetition of the “and so it goes” after a character is said to have passed away also keeps the reader wondering is the person really dead or is this another “story.” The reader can judge for themselves where the truth is stretched and what the truth is and what overall effect it has on the interpretation.
There is a cyclical pattern that repeats as the lines between reality and fiction, past and present are blurred. By attempting to tell the story in 4-D, the story unfolds, revealing all facets of his story at one time. Vonnegut creates a jumbled and confused mess for the reader to try to make sense of. Although it may seem as if the passages are just casually strung together and bereft of meaning, they are actually carefully crafted and strategically placed. Ironically, it is the lack of semblance that leads the reader to draw conclusions about attempt to discover the overall meaning and purpose.
Barthes writes “the birth of the reader must be required by the death of the author” (55). I believe what he means by this is that in order for a reader to be able to formulate their own opinion regarding a text, they must be able to disregard the imposing figure of the author. Once authors put their ideas down, they are opening the floor to varying view points and critiques. They are no longer the controlling force behind the words, and must allow their text to be pulled and twisted. In the context of the story, a reader is able to find meaning more through the actions of the characters than solely on the life of the author. However, I feel that completely disregarding the author prevents the reader from fully grasping the events taking place. Knowing the authors background and historical time frame gives a great insight into why a character may act a certain way.
ReplyDeleteThe author in Slaughterhouse-Five is a much more present figure in the text than what is seen in other novels. Kurt Vonnegut makes his presence known by breaking the fourth wall and directly addressing the readers and making himself a character in his own story. In this way, I think Vonnegut keeps a firm hold on his novel, disagreeing with Barthes belief that “it is the language which speaks, not the author” (50). Through his introduction in the first paragraph and his continued presence throughout, the reader is unable to separate Vonnegut from his language.
Bari London
Barthes' essay stresses the importance of subjectivity. He says "we know that a text does not consist of a line of words, releasing a single "theological" meaning, but is a space of many dimensions, in which are wedded and contested various kinds of writing ... the text is a tissue of citations, resulting from the thousand sources of culture." This brings to mind the works of Saussure and Derrida who talked about the limitlessness elasticity of words. conversely, all speakers of a given language will arrive at a similar definition for any word, despite symbolic abnormalities such as trauma. Which is what Vonnegut is writing about and I would say that he defeats Barthes' argument by creating a fantasy world so far from the trauma of Dresden that the reader (despite his Barthian position) will symbolize the act as Vonnegut desires.
ReplyDelete~Ben Slaughter
As a writer I find Barthes’ view different yet also correct for his times. Now the disagreement is with his notion that nothing can be erased. In my view the delete button has changed that. Not to say completely, for if you delete it after letting others read it; it is a revision--an addition with subtraction. Speech is different though. With speaking, there are stammering and in the absences of stammering is, in my view, the rustles. But again, with time and technology--the written word has changed and set itself up for devolution within its evolution.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison, the role of the author in _Slaughterhouse-Five_ is Barthes’ rustles. _Slaughterhouse-Five_ does not have today’s technology to change it from Barthes’ thoughts on language. It is having a flawed character, an unreliable narrator in _Slaughterhouse-Five_ that gives understanding to the moments and those moments create the rustles.
I believe it is not simply language that is a stammer or rustle. We cannot compare a machine’s noises with our own. It is the words chosen, the emotion behind the words that make them what they are. A machine makes noises for mechanical reasons and it is more so universal in meaning. Humans speak and write in so many different ways. A machine only sounds, that to compare the two is a hard thought. And I believe _Slaughterhouse-Five_ makes my point true.
I believe Vonnegut would not have wrote _Slaughterhouse-Five_with the moments of first person interjections without warrant. The story needed those moments to make it surreal. Vonnegut had to have set the story up, to create the author to be Billy Pilgrim even though it is written for the most part in third person. This all comes down to the separation of what make us human and what is language. Language is more than just noise.
Ian
End of transmission.
From “Death of an Author,” there’s one instance that I agree with Barthes, and that is at the beginning of the journal, when he says that literature, “Is that oblique into which every subject escapes, the trap where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes” (Barthes). The rest of his arguments are hypothetical, so hypothetical, as if we lived in a perfect world. I don’t even think Barthes himself applied his theory, and instead, approached all texts with personal values, just like every human being; or how about “suppressing the author for the sake of writing” (Barthes)? Is it possible to do so? There’s just so much self-image brought to the experience of writing, and even though most “modern writers” will perhaps make themselves believe they’re writing for the sake of writing, even if they don’t address an audience, in the end, there will be always a reader to impress.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the author in SH5 is the same role as that of any other author, because in the end, he’s trying to portray a message of his experiences which are all original and exclusive. No text to me lacks originality because an author will never die. Vonnegut, however, depicts an interesting scenario with Billy as a character and as the writer he wants to become. Billy is such an eccentric protagonist because he can successfully break free from the readers. For example, he doesn’t show contempt for his environment, yet he doesn’t praise it. Billy is so true to himself that he knows there’s no point in having passion. I truly think that Billy is the only author who can write for the sake of writing, becoming the subject and predicate of his own writing, and perfectly achieving the death of an author and reader. So it goes. :)~
Salo Steinvortz
I think that the author’s role is dependent upon the type of literature that is written. For example, a fiction piece that is written solely to exist should not require much commentary from the author. If the text is strong enough, it should be able to stand as a story by itself without any outside assistance. On the other hand, literature that is produced with hints of important historical significance may need framework commentary from the author. Barthes explains that, “language knows a ‘subject,’ not a ‘person,’” (51). To apply this statement to Post-World War II writers would only produce ignorant readers. Kurt Vonnegut destroys this boundary that Barthes believes should be in existence as well as other boundaries like time and reality. The first chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five is filled with anecdotes that may seem random, but actually reveal small truths about Vonnegut and the story itself. The book beings with the line, “All this happened, more or less” (Vonnegut 1). Without Vonnegut’s life experience there would be no “more” of the happened but rather entirely the “less;” If it stood alone, Slaughterhouse-Five would be entirely a work of fiction. The reader knows that this is not true because Vonnegut is subtly embedded in the text. Instances like the latrine scene where Vonnegut appears in small ways proves that he is moving around in the pages, even where it is not explicitly stated that, “That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book” (Vonnegut 160). As discussed in class post-war literature takes on a persona of its own. It breaks the rules of literature, as do its uncommon heroes. Vonnegut’s life story must live alongside in order for Slaughterhouse-five to have any significant meaning to readers. It seems that Vonnegut is aware of this because of his subtly. Instead of boldly proclaiming what parts of the story are fact or fiction, he leads the reader on in curiosity to decipher what is truth, what is elaboration and what is important.
ReplyDeleteSarah Joseph
The closing remark of Barthes essay, "We are now beginning to let ourselves be fooled no longer by the arrogant antiphrastical recriminations of good society in favour of the very thing it sets aside, ignores, smothers, or destroys; we know that to give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author," (4) cuts directly to the heart of Slaughterhouse Five as an example of post-modern fiction and perhaps more importantly in this case, a novel that is in line with Barthes philosophy. Barthes is stating that the Author in the past has used literature to project meanings and truths onto to the "text" of life. Through this action the Author and their particular view of truth becomes paramount to the book. However, with modern literature, or what Barthes prefers to call "writing" (4) we see a dramatic shift in the importance of the writer. In Slaughterhouse Five this is evident from the very beginning: "This one [the novel] is a failure, and had to be, since it was written by a pillar of salt" (Vonnegut 22). Vonnegut is telling the reader that the novel is not only flawed, but in his opinion a failure. This is because the novel is exactly what Barthes is describing: a book that "overthrows the myth". Billy Pilgrim is the antithesis to the classical hero that stands as an example for mankind. Instead he stands as proof that the mythic truths of the past are no longer applicable, and perhaps never were. Vonnegut is a true example of the type of author which Barthes is examining, an author who by writing is entering "his own death" (1). Slaughterhouse Five, as a novel, does not offer any truths or conclusions about life it merely presents the absurdities of mankind and in turn destroys the notion of truth. In doing so the reader is forced to question their world and seek their own versions of the truth. Vonnegut offers none.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Death of the Author" Roland Barthes states, "writing is the destruction of every voice, every origin . . . [it] is that neuter, that composite, that obliquity into which our subject flees, the black-and-white where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes" (49). His claim that the reader, not the author, holds the keys to the construct of both meaning and interpretation once the work is written makes sense for one because it transcends time, space and distance. To say that a text's content remains the same when the context changes would be not only false, but naïve. If any such logocentrism exists, it exists solely in the reader's personal belief system and in that of the social and familial circumstances, the reader inhabits. Just as language, and the symbolic meaning of language, morphs over time, so must the text as it is conditional upon the framework in which it is placed, rather than the framework from which it came. In other words, it is constantly evolving.
ReplyDeleteIn Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut serves as an cultural observer with a moral and social conscience to express linguistically the destruction that he as a "prisoner of war, witnessed the fire-bombing of Dresden, Germany, "The Florence of the Elbe," a long time ago, and survived to tell the tale" (Vonnegut). Vonnegut is and sees himself as the social, moral and political conscience that had to speak in the face of mass death and destruction. That his speech does not spit or scream, but rather remains rather deadpan in tone and focused on weaving a tapestry of story layer by layer, of a character who not only transcends time, space and distance, but who is a lost identity, seems to indicate his view of the writer's and reader's roles are in line with Barthes philosophy.
Cassie Turner
Barthes argument is not entirely disagreeable, in fact, it is very agreeable to assume that the reader, and even the writer who becomes the reader after the words are finished, is the main repository of the signs that give a text its multiple “meanings.” Reader Response theory makes a similar argument and suggests that the “meaning” of a book is not buried by the author into the text but is sifted out by the reader. I do agree with Barthes’s argument that a reader, with their infinite lexicon of terms, definitions, and connotations, has the ability to create within a text “meaning” where it might not have been intended, but I cannot totally accept Barthes’s implication that the author is not actively trying to create one “meaning” in a book.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I believe that Vonnegut would agree with Barthes’s argument. After all, he declares in the beginning of the novel that it is a “failure, and had to be, since it was written by a pillar of salt” (Vonnegut 28). Not only does Vonnegut’s insertion of himself into the novel seem to follow Barthes’s argument that there is no author—Vonnegut acts on par with the reader telling him the story but at the same time taking a journey with the reader—but he uses an iconoclastic symbol, “pillar of salt,” which begs us, the readers, to question whether Vonnegut even believed that he was able to recount the terror of Dresden. It is in this that Vonnegut seems to ask the reader to become part of the experience and to impart upon the novel the meanings which they can dredge from its pages—much as Barthes tells us we do.
But, although the author in the novel takes a trip through Germany, America, and time with the reader, he is most certainly actively creating the words and effects that will be perceived by the reader as some message that is trying to be patched through. He explicitly tells the reader in the final chapter what has become of his father’s guns: “They rust” (268). It is true that Vonnegut may have written the novel as a “pillar of salt”—unable to extract himself from the story or wholly put himself in—but he clearly is the author, and the reader can see that. It is a weird picture of the author that emerges, but he is clear in his intent, message, and “meaning”: no matter the intricate prisms through which we may view war, the various patterns and opinions, war is still a destructive force that cannot help but leave bodies of the dead behind. And, the reader of Slaughterhouse-Five cannot help but understand the author’s message—let the guns “rust.”
Kyle Kretzer
The contents of Slaughterhouse-Five reveal a story that is based on history and the absoluteness of what has already occurred. Vonnegut simply acts as a vessel that relays the information to his. His identity is irreverent, and despite having lived through the events depicted in the novel, his existence is casually noted here and there, but is otherwise cast into the wind. Slaughterhouse-Five is the story of events and the after effects on humanity. Whether or not Vonnegut himself is prevalent in the story doesn’t alter the course of history or the absurdity of war and violence, because that is simply the way it is. This is similar to how the Tralfamadorians describe the end of the universe when they say, “He has always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and we always will let him. The moment is structured that way.”
ReplyDeleteThat quote reflects Barthes’ theory on the author quite nicely. Sure, as the story is being written and crafted the author has full control over whatever happens, but once the book has been completed, they are just as important as any other reader. The spirit of Vonnegut’s book lies in its ability to painstakingly illustrate the horrible aftermath of war and murder and the effects it has on the human condition – the absolute absurdity and meaningless behind senseless death. His separation from the events despite having lived through them, allow the circumstances to take center stage and not just one lowly, individual soul. The death of the author equalizes the relationship between all readers, preventing one from feeling more significant or important than another. This is especially important in Slaughterhouse-Five because the message the book carries is not one solely for Vonnegut or one of his war companions, but for the population of the world as a whole.
In his essay, “The Death of the Author,” Barthes poignantly states that the power of a text lies in its usage of language and not in its celebration of the author. He argues that an exploration of a text and its meaning are hindered if the author continually overshadows the language. When a reader is too enthralled with the author’s projection on the text, he/she is not free to embrace the language and the reader’s experience. Thus, for a reader to glean his/her own meaning, the author must be “distanced” from his/her art form (Barthes 53).
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that the author plays a vital role in the writing and overall experience of the text. The author’s linguistic expression is influenced by his/her characteristics and life experiences. I argue that there is always an agenda for a writer, which tends to be of a personal nature, for writing, itself, is personal. However, I do recognize the power of the reader and his/her role in creating meaning, breathing life into the words by connecting the text to the realities of the outside world. I believe that the interplay between the author and the reader assigns textual meaning and enlivens the true essence of the written word.
In regards to the role of the author in Slaughterhouse-5, Vonnegut’s life experiences of war undoubtedly influence the text. Because his life as a soldier was characterized by darkness, trauma, and loss, Vonnegut’s style and choice of words permeate with the irony of war. While Vonnegut’s life experiences offer him a catalyst for expression, I believe that he distinctly separates himself from the text so that readers can glean their own meaning. Barthes, in his essay, “The Death of the Author,” contends that the author must “distance” himself/herself from the text for the empowerment of the reader (Barthes 53). Vonnegut accomplishes this vital separation through his creation of Billy Pilgrim, who reflects qualities of the author’s life and experiences, but not in its entirety. Without a doubt, Billy is a character in his own right. The birth of Billy serves to propel the author’s agenda for the dangerous implications of war, while also allowing room for reader interpretation and personal meaning. This artful balance is one of Vonnegut’s poignant achievements in Slaughterhouse-5.
-Kerri Libra
Slaughterhouse Five exemplifies Vonnegut’s personal feelings on war. The references to Vonnegut’s experiences in Dresden before and during the bombing are intricately woven with reflections about the Vietnam War. Billy Pilgrim echoes Vonnegut’s anti-war and war-is-senseless sentiments. However, in his writing, Barthes states that “to give a text an author is to impose a limit on that text.” In my opinion, Barthes seems to be telling his audience to interpret literature as readers rather that forcing them to see the text from the author’s perspective. Even though I would agree with that statement, Vonnegut’s message is a commentary on the senseless act of war. However, Vonnegut’s writing style in Slaughterhouse Five lends itself well to Barthes idea that the author is dead. By creating the Tralfamadorians, Vonnegut is introducing a fourth dimension. This outer dimension offers another layer for the writer to reflect on his work and the reader to view the world and the senseless acts that are committed in it.
ReplyDeleteSaraBeth Vanemon
The objectivity of the author is a recurring question in Slaughterhouse-Five. The construction of the narrative beguiles the reader who is asked to envision a story outside of time, in a non-linear story line, with details and facts that could be false, unreliable accounts. Thus, the role of the author is questioned. Who is telling the story and which do we believe: Vonnegut or Billy Pilgrim?
ReplyDeleteVonnegut insists that the author’s claim to the novel is nothing more than a claim to facts and details recounted in writing. Even as he presents the novel, Vonnegut seems unsure of its value. Slaughterhouse-Five lays in print, awaiting its consumption by an audience who might not even understand the absurdity of war, yet Vonnegut wrote a novel and composed its story in a way that detaches Vonnegut from responsibility of the novel. It is there in print. If you read it, there is a disclaimer. But it is your choice, “Not my doing”; it seems. It’s as if the author relinquishes ownership.
In relation to Slaughterhouse-Five, Roland Barthes’ “The Death of the Author” suggests that “linguistics furnishes the death of the author” and that the “removal of the author…transforms the modern text” (Barthes 51). The work is transformed once the work is complete and the author becomes the past of the book. He is now a reader, a participant in the story and no longer the story teller. Therefore the author creates the text and only appreciates it like Vonnegut is resigned to Billy Pilgrim. Pilgrim becomes the channel through which we experience Slaughterhouse-Five and Vonnegut is the seldom narrator.
For Vonnegut, the resistance to map an entire lifetime’s worth of emotions and feelings into a single novel meant the novel would be meaningless. There must be a thousand more ways to tell the story in Slaughterhouse-Five and thousands more ways to interpret it. Vonnegut must feel as the author, that once complete, the author is removed from the work as an originator and has become a participant.
-Joseph Ragoonanan
The issue I have with “Death of the other” is due to the fact that there are no academic references in the work. However, to play fair, I will state that it is a fact that "[o]nce the Author is distanced, the claim to 'decipher' a text becomes futile" (Howard 53). For this reason I agree with Howard. New Critics tend to think that History is stagnant. I believe they are incompetent as people who are Literary Critics. It is necessary to go to the literature first, but the “death of the author” must come to an end or will annihilate the soul and method of writing – the author himself/herself. It seems that Vonnegut believed that the author must be true to his experience. Lucian of Samosata stated this very thing:
ReplyDelete“The historian's spirit should not be without a touch of the poetical; it needs, like poetry, to employ impressive and exalted tones, especially when it finds itself in the midst of battle array and conflicts by land or sea; it is then that the poetic gale must blow to speed the vessel on, and help her ride the waves in majesty” (Lucian of Samosata, The Way to Write History).
For this reason the novel at hand says, “All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyways, are pretty much true” (Vonnegut 1). You cannot separate the author and the literature. If you do, the literature dies for the author is the soil up which the foundations of Intellectual History is created.
Singed: Eric Brame
Barthes’ notions in his article, “The Death of the Author,” prove to be quite severe. He begins by stating that “Writing is that neuter, that composite, that obliquity into which our subject flees, the black-and-white where all identity is lost, beginning with the very identity of the body that writes” (49). Through this quote one can infer that Barthes sternly believes in the separation of the author and his or her text; in the opinion that an author simply operates as a reader of the text once it has been written. Though I do agree with the notion that an author does eventually become a reader, I find that this is part of a long process. In my opinion, an author will never simply be a reader. An author’s identity and experience are the building blocks of any piece of literature, and such a solid foundation is meant to eternally convey the author’s identity and involvement in their work. However applicable and relatable that authorial experience is to others varies, but it does not mean that the text will be stripped of it’s original roots. In Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut is very much a significant presence throughout Billy Pilgrim’s adventure. In fact, it seems as if Billy Pilgrim is simply a device utilized by Vonnegut to convey his personal experiences. If anyone’s identity is blurred in the novel, it’d be Billy Pilgrim’s as it is employed to emphasize Vonnegut’s.
ReplyDelete-Taissa Rebroff
I hate using the phrase “separate but equal” in complete sincerity, but I think it’s a useful delineation here. I do consider the author’s intent distinctly from other interpretations to an extent, but not to the point of superiority. Intent and result are two quite different things. I may know what the book is “supposed” to mean, but what I think it really means might be quite different. You could even say that the author’s point of view is correct, what with their having written it, but even “correct” is an odd term to apply to literature. I’d concede that an author’s interpretation might very well be correct, but why do we care what’s correct? Facts have no place in interpretation as anything but support for greater subjective points. A fact is a terribly inadequate conclusion for an argument of interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, see one place where authorial intent needs to be stricken utterly from the discussion: speculation. If we have a document in the author’s own words of their feelings about their text, then we have to consider the validity of their stated intent, because it presents some very interesting questions. There is no question of the value of intent inferred by a reader, though. It patently has none. Asking what you think the writer was trying to say is pointless even in a paradigm where we assume the author’s opinions matter, because unless stated explicitly we will never know them, and evaluation of the end result of the process will never yield anything more than that reader’s own interpretation.
Slaughterhouse-Five is an interesting example of an outrageously explicit statement of intent, and not from other sources but within the text itself. Vonnegut’s explanation of why he had to write the story is not a foreword but the proper first chapter. You can see the depths to which Barthes’ viewpoint has permeated literary study, though, in how the chapter is treated. Ask a scholar what the first line of the novel is and their answer will be “Listen: Billy Pilgrim has become unstuck in time,” as though there is no other way to interpret the question. I myself have referred to this point in terms like “where the story actually starts,” et cetera, as though the author’s own story is not a part of the narrative, no matter how hard he tries to make it one. Do Vonnegut’s words on the matter hold more weight by being enshrined in the actual text, though? Yes, in that they are irrevocably a piece of the text. No, however, in that they themselves are thusly also subject to interpretation. Just because the narrator is the author doesn’t mean he’s not unreliable. So it goes.
- Robbi Ramirez