Talk:Slaughterhouse-Five

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The narrator of the novel is not Vonnegut[edit]

I think we should avoid referring to this narrator as Vonnegut, even in the first chapter. It is a convention of academic discussions of novels that we avoid asserting a simple 1:1 correspondence between the narrator and the author. I think we could discuss this potentially interesting problem of the apparent correspondence between author and narrator in the "Literary significance and reception section." Certainly, some of the criticism asserts that the narrator and Vonnegut are the same person, and I think we can usefully address the confusion here. I really think that the tone of this article should be scholarly and neutral. We all have a deep love of Vonnegut, so let's keep the tone of the article as encyclopedic as possible. Victorianist 17:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither Pilgrim is the narrator[edit]

I read the same mistake in the Spanish article for Slaughterhouse five. Billy Pilgrim is the main character, he's not the narrator. The narrator talks about himself several times even though he doesn't mention his name. He's one of the prisoners who was with Pilgrim in Dresden, as well as his friend O'Hare, who he visits in the first chapter and travels to Dresden with in the last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.219.33 (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed text[edit]

I removed the following piece of text because it is extravagant in its claims. Vonnegut did not pioneer the use of choruses (refrains as I have modified the term in the main article). I am not sure of the legitimacy of the term "plant-connect," but since I've never heard of it, I don't think it's real. In any case, a better term for what the author of the passage has described is "metaphor" or even "analogy." But we should be clear that Vonnegut's novel is not pioneering for its use of figurative language, which may be described as impoverished. The point of the narrative style of the novel is to be clear so that it appears that what is being described is fact, when it is not fact.

Two techniques Vonnegut pioneered were the use of choruses and the "plant-connect" analogies. The "plant-connect" analogies are probably best explained with an example. Vonnegut uses the phrase "radium dial" to describe both a Russian's face in the prisoners' camp, and Billy Pilgrim's father's watch in the utter darkness of the Carlsbad Caverns. This emphasizes a connection between the two. The Russian's face reminded him that the other people in the camp were human, and that moment of recognition is thus filled with hope for him. So it was with Billy's father's watch, a bastion of security and familiarity in an unfamiliar place.

Victorianist (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this block because this article should be about Slaughterhouse-Five and not Kurt Vonnegut.

Vonnegut uses metafiction to an even greater degree in his more recent novel Timequake. In it, Vonnegut discusses an old version of the book and how improvements were made on the original.

Victorianist (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of the examples cited are from Slaughterhouse Five though, so it might be more appropriate to edit the section to make it clear that it is discussing a technique used in the novel? 203.39.12.130 (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Patrick Bateman

Trivial Allusions in other works[edit]

The following material has been removed from the main article because the references are too trivial. If we are going to note allusions in other works to S5, we should be prepared to justify the allusion. Wikipedia is not a storehouse of pop-culture references, but an encyclopedia. I think a good guideline for an allusion is whether or not it requires critical commentary. The mere presence or mention of this book in a film or song probably does not require critical commentary and thus probably does not pass the smell test.

  • The character of Clayton reads and briefly discusses the book in the film The Recruit. Other references to Kurt Vonnegut's work in this movie include the presence of a computer virus named ICE-9 (from Cat's Cradle), and Clayton referring to his father's eggs as the "Breakfast of Champions", which might be understood as a reference to the Kurt Vonnegut novel of the same name.
  • The book is mentioned in the 1984 film Footloose and the subsequent musical of the same name.
  • James Van Der Beek is seen reading the book in the 1999 film Varsity Blues.
  • The book is mentioned in the song "Shut Up & Make Out" by The Hazzards.
  • American rock group Nine Inch Nails uses a passage from Slaughterhouse-Five in the Year Zero album's coinciding Alternate Reality Game.
  • American rock band Kifkiñata wrote a song entitled "The Ballad of Billy Pilgrim" about the main character.
  • The character of John Crichton makes reference to Slaughterhouse-Five in the science fiction series Farscape] at the beginning of the fourth season which dealt with "Unrealised Realities".
  • The Sloppy Meateaters' song "So It Goes" refers to the novel. Also, the pyschedelic punk rock group Nebula (band) has a song of the same name that is a reference to Kurt Vonnegut.
  • The janitor in Disturbing Behavior has a copy of the novel in his back pocket, the novel is mentioned in brief dialogue.
  • In Frasier season 8, episode 7 (The New Friend), Niles Crane gives his father Martin Crane a gift box of five types of meats, called The Slaughterhouse Five. The corresponding act's heading is With apologies to Mr. Vonnegut.
  • Montana Wildhack and Kilgore Trout are mentioned in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier.

Victorianist (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another trivial allusion:

Yet more trivial allusions:

  • In the TV series "holy shit", the character Daniel Faraday refers to a lab rat's condition as "unsticking in time", and therefore hinting Desmond Hume has become "unstuck in time", in a similar manner as Billy Pilgrim does in the novel.
  • On the March 2, 2008 episode of Saturday Night Live, in the sketch "The Dakota Fanning Show", Fanning (played by Amy Poehler) mentions her assumption that the name Hannah Montana is an obvious allusion to Montana Wildhack's character.
  • In the film Footloose, the novel is thought to be a terrible, sinful book, most likely due to the title alone. Kevin Bacon's character defends it as a great story. Victorianist (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Nick Lowe has a song titled "So it goes". --76.83.24.57 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And more:

The episode The Constant in the television show Lost features a character who becomes similarly "unstuck in time" and revisits moments from his past. Victorianist (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They just keep on coming:

Sherman Alexie's novel, Flight, was published in 2007 and contains an epigraph quote from Slaughterhouse-Five, while also clearly speaking back to Vonnegut's writing style and structure.

In their 2007 album Bone Palace Ballet, the Michigan-based band Chiodos has a song titled "Teeth the Size of Piano Keys". This is a quote made in reference to the appearances of German soldiers as compared to American prisoners.

mewithoutyou, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based indie rock band, has a song entitled, "everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt," a reference to the "crazy thought" of Billy Pilgrim that could "make a good epigraph" in chapter 5. Victorianist (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it not relevant to reference the fact that Vonnegut and Joseph Heller were friends, even appearing in a playboy interview together (Copyrighted, hence my not editing the article to include it) here: http://www.vonnegutweb.com/vonnegutia/interviews/int_heller.html

I realize this is more relevant to Vonnegut's page than Slaughterhouse-Five, however, in "Closing Time", the sequel to Catch-22, there's a reference to a character in Dresden who survives the fire bombing, the character's name is "Vonnegut". Reference the wiki for Closing Time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closing_Time_(novel) (last paragraph).

Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.206.167 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Lost reference was apparently reinserted and I deleted it. Maybe this article should be locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.116.148 (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

These trivial allusions keep popping up:

  • In the movie Footloose, the book is referenced and criticized based purely on how it has a "God awful name".
  • The protagonist of the film Varsity Blues can be seen reading Slaughterhouse Five hidden inside a playbook during a football game.[1]
  • In the episode "Teach Me Tonight" in Season 2 of Gilmore Girls, Jess Mariano chooses to read Slaughterhouse Five instead of taking a test in his class or doing his schoolwork.

Victorianist (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Miscellaneous misplaced comments[edit]

Moving these comments from above to here. Note that none of these comments are by me, Victorianist.

  • {{{So what are some of the similarities between Tralfamadore and earth? I have discovered many clues on my own, but feel I am missing a big hidden one. Care to shed light anyone?}}}
  • Is there anywhere on this article to add its on the AS level curriculum and is a bitch of a book to analyse?82.39.40.93 23:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it possible that possible that Billy is not traveling in time at all, but is merely seeing life as a moment? He exists, always has existed, and always will exist. There is no chronological order. He views life as the tralfamadorians do. Just a thought —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.17.233.85 (talkcontribs) 22:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC).

Victorianist (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan Reference[edit]

The article currently says, "Billy's wife Valencia has a bumper sticker on her car stating "Reagan for President!". This refers to Ronald Reagan's unsuccessful 1976 campaign for the Republican Party nomination, not his successful campaign in 1980 for the Presidency." This makes no sense, though. The novel was written in 1969, a full seven years before 1976 - three years before the previous presidential campaign, even. How could it reference a campaign that was years away from beginning? According to the Ronald Reagan Wikipedia article, he also ran unsuccessfully in 1968, so assuredly, that's what the book is referencing. So, I'm changing the sentence in question. Jcb9 (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My teacher tell me the writer express to the absurdity in Slaughterhouse-Five, but I don't know what is the absurdity. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.28.17.42 (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Absurdity

My teacher tell me the writer express to the absurdity in Slaughterhouse-Five, but I don't know what is the absurdity. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.28.17.42 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed citation request[edit]

From the section discussing Vonnegut's use of the phrase "so it goes." I don't see how the description of this being comic relief requires a citation. Although I don't see how the phrase is comic relief and would understand an editor completely removing that opinon without citation (or even with some opinionated citation). The phrase is obviously an important device in Vonnegut's writing of this allegorical novel, however no citation for its use and existence is needed since it exists on nearly every page of the extant manuscript. I would be interested in seeing the section rewritten to remove the opinion that this phrase has anything to do with comic relief. I will give it some time before re-writing it myself to give other interested editors a chance to comment. --Markisgreen (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  • It requires a citation because the phrase can and does have a different tone depending upon the context. The last "so it goes" in the novel has a very different tonal quality than the first use because by the end of the novel so many people have died. Victorianist (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The title's meaning[edit]

I removed the following section. If you read the novel, it's perfectly clear why the title is what it is, and very clear where it comes from. This text adds nothing that cannot be gleaned from the text itself. In addition the plot introduction offers nothing that can't be covered in the plot overview.

'==Plot introduction==

Everyman Billy Pilgrim comes unstuck in time, travelling to and fro in his life, randomly (re)experiencing different times of his life, most notably his World War Two soldiering and his family relationships. Themes emerge via story-detail accretion, as sub-plots overlap.

'===The title's meaning===

In the title page, the novel's full title and the writer's biography presage the story's themes:

Slaughterhouse-Five or The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance With Death by Kurt Vonnegut, a fourth-generation German-American, who, as an American infantry scout hors de combat, 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.

The (short) title, Slaughterhouse-Five (German: Schlachthof-Fünf) is where the Germans house protagonist-soldier Billy Pilgrim as their PoW in Dresden. The sub-title, The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance With Death, refers to the Children's Crusade, in the 13th century, of which many erstwhile boy-soldiers were sold in slavery. The incidents of Billy Pilgrim's story substantiate the sub-sub-title: Duty-Dance with Death, about Louis-Ferdinand Céline's writing, discussed in the preamble.

First, the Narrator visits war buddy Bernard V. O’Hare, to talk about war incidents he might use in the novel. [1] Mrs O’Hare receives the Narrator coldly, denouncing his writing a novel in which they (he, Bernard, and their war buddies) are heroes, rather than scared boys, arguing it would encourage more wars to which children would be sent to die. The Narrator agrees, that he and his friends were children at adulthood's edge, and promises to title his novel The Children's Crusade; “she was my friend after that”, says the Narrator.

Victorianist (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Army buddy is "Bernard V. O'Hare". The novel is dedicated to two people, one is "Mary O'Hare"; yet, "Bernard V." might not be her husband, "a district attorney in Pennsylvania".

Tone of the article[edit]

This article is too interpretive. As a reminder you may not present original research in Wikipedia. That means any interpretion of the text must have a citation to quality published research. Let's keep the tone appropriate and make this article the best it can be! Victorianist (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy[edit]

Under the sub-heading "Form" the article said:

"...it is noteworthy that this novel does not follow the trajectory of the first chapter:

It begins like this: Listen: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time. It ends like this: Poo-tee-weet?"

Except that it does follow that course, so I have removed this passage. Richard75 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does not follow that trajectory. The novel begins a chapter before "Listen." Chapter 1 is something like a prologue, but it's still part of the novel. The fact in this case is that Chapter 2 starts like that, but it's not the beginning of the novel. Vonnegut is playing with conventions of beginning here which have been around literature since, oh, the beginning. It's quite a standard way to begin fictions. See, for instance, Dickens's A Christmas Carol which says three different times "Marley was dead to begin with." Such recommencements are--you don't have to take my word for it, just read around--conventional in the novel and part of the novel form. But, that said, I don't think that that passage above needs to be in the article. Victorianist (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental assumption in article may not be correct[edit]

There is a serious issue with this article - it places a particular interpretation on the novel which may not, in fact, be correct. I am referring to the assumption in the article that Billy Pilgrim's travels through time and to Tralfamadore are in fact a "fantasy" and a psychological device used to escape the horrors of his real life.

In the novel, we are never given any confirmation that Pilgrim's experiences are in fact not real. Anyone who has read other Vonnegut will perhaps agree that it is quite conceivable that the intention was that those experiences are real, within the world of the novel. See for example The Sirens of Titan, wherein similar concepts of relativity and literally fractured existences are also explored and are not meraly metaphorical or representative of some psychological state.

I think it would be appropriate to strip out statements which assume that Pilgrim's experiences are a mere psychological detour unless there is some positive statement from Vonnegut which can be cited to support that conclusion.

I do realise that there are clues that this may be the case in the novel - particularly Pilgrim's exposure to the works of Kilgore Trout and photographs of Montana Wildhack, as well as the introductory lines of the novel ("this all happened, more or less" or words to that effect). Nevertheless, Vonnegut leaves it intentionally open as to whether or not Pilgrim does actually have his experiences. For example, he knows he will be murdered, and tells the crowd he is speaking to as much, and this does not appear to be represented as part of his (alleged) fantasy world.

I also altered a reference to Edgar Derby - in the novel he is shot because he steals a teapot, not a "figurine".

203.39.12.130 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Patrick Bateman

...but there IS an INTENTIONAL ambiguity here (appologies for shouting), i.e. it is clearly supposed to occur to the reader that Billy's experiences may not be real, as evidenced by above mentioned "clues". As such is seems a shame that this interpretation has been removed from the article. Note that the charge of quietism/fatalism makes sense if Billy's experiences are real, but does not make sense if Billy's experiences are a "psychological detour". On my reading the tension between these perspectives (i.e. how ought we to respond to horrors like Dresden -with moral outrage or with "so it goes"?) is a large part of what the book is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.158 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The article states: "Because the events have made him insane, Billy has come 'unstuck in time.'" When I read the book, I assumed that we're meant to take the story at face value. Plenty of other of Vonnegut's works have seemingly insane, surrealistic settings and events. It's entirely possible that I missed something here, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this sentence should be removed/altered. If someone wants to discuss the possibility of insanity, fine, but it's not something that should be stated as definitively true.68.163.249.192 (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I find myself in total agreement with that remark. We should not be making our own interpretations of what Vonnegut intended. We would really be opening a door that should stay closed. For example, in Breakfast of Champions, Vonnegut himself appears to Kilgore Trout and talks to him. Or we going to decide now that Trout was insane too and he imagined that?--Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got time either to read or consider the above comments, but since this is a "wiki" that doesn't prevent me from voicing my own strongly held but probably ill-informed views. Oh no.

My question is this: how in God's name can this book be classified as "science fiction"? I agree that it is sort of mildly ambiguous whether the Billy character has in fact travelled to out of space, or whether (as I had assumed) the view of the martians was simply intended to be an objective analysis of irrational events from a different perspective. (Remember the Smash adverts? "For mash get smash"? The manufacturers weren't really suggesting that there are martians or that they eat ate mash. No. They were suggesting that a hypothetical martian would be surprised that people on earth go to the effort of making real mash potato instead of buying smash.) But the fact that there are references in the head of one character to these experiences does not make the book one of science fiction, any more than a book where an accountant has a dream about a dragon is a book about middle earth.

Why do Americans write so many bad books? Although in fairness this one is thought provoking and quite clever, in a slightly laboured way.

90.210.69.31 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Derby[edit]

I think that it's very interesting to note how Vonnegut talked about Edgar Derby and his execution. Every chance he had, he explained how Derby was the only man executed, and how horrible it was, and made it seem the most important fact about the man. When it comes time in the book that he is executed, it's given only a sentence or two of description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.247.222 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think all of the mentions of Derby's execution were to emphasise the inevitability of it, rather than to imply that it was an important moment for the characters. Somebody correct me if they think I'm wrong.78.86.61.94 (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Censorship Controversy vs. Criticism[edit]

I've broken the Censorship Controversy section in two: the latter part discusses philosophical and literary criticism and as such, does not involve censorship and needs a section on its own. Ross Fraser (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-War?[edit]

I think that it is debatable on whether this book is anti-war or not and it should be taken out of the definition.

It states that war is inevitable and worthless to try and fight against because “The moment is structured there” (117). Vonegut began the book by telling the reader how the book ends, and then stating that the end of the book was inevitable, characterized by the phrase “Poo-tee-weet?” (19, 22, 215).

Audiobottle (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, but seriously? There is no other way to interpret that statement than as irony. Just because a novel makes a statement that looks like a statement of fact, it does not mean that the statement is actually a fact. The pure outlandishness of Tralfamadore should be enough to convince any reader that the viewpoint of the Tralfamadorians is (aside from being evidence of PTSD) nonsense. If that's not enough evidence for you, why would Vonnegut, who has made clear statements against war have characters in his novels who say that war is inevitable, and that we therefore shouldn't try to avoid it? In a sense, you're Vonnegut's ideal reader, but you're also why teaching tone is so difficult. People just believe what they read as literal statement of fact. Victorianist (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I’m way late on this discussion, but nevertheless I don’t understand why there should be any debate as to whether or not SH5 is an anti-war novel, it’s been awhile since I’ve read (and loved!) it, but I vividly recall that the author states in either a preface or an afterwards that he had a conversation with a personal friend, a war buddy, and told him of the book he was currently writing. The friend asked if it was an anti-war book. After Vonnegut replied yes, the friend retorted: "You might as well write an anti-glacier book.” Because the author invokes as a literary device a strict determinist model of the universe based on the implied eternalism of Einstein’s relativity, doesn’t mean that he was actually stating his own view. In fact, he stated in the book's preface or afterward that he didn’t know in his usual wry manner. I think this model of realty that he invokes as a literary device was used rather whimsically with a subtext of: “Of course, we can change things if we really wanted to and the will is there.” This is why he paints war as decidedly not romantic as often portrayed in popular culture. Vonnegut was a cultural iconoclast which was the point of most if not all of his literary canon.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

ISBN for Slaughterhouse-Five[edit]

You may want to change the info you have on the ISBN, the ISBN you have refers to the 35th anniversary reissue of Slaughterhouse-Five and not the 1969 First Edition. You may want to add that to the ISBN. I have read over your article several times and find that it is well-developed and a thoughtful presentation of an excellent anti-war novel. I have only read the book twice but find your conclusions most perceptive. There were some critiques that were worth your time, but the others? Not worth the time to read.Dr Atomix (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the image on the article says it is the first edition. I picked up a copy identical to the one pictured for free at a yard sale a few months back. Seeing the wikipedia article matched my book, I looked up the price of a first edition. I was impressed by the thousand dollar price tag, until I looked and discovered that the real first edition is not the same as my book, nor the one pictured. Looking inside my book says it is the fourth printing. Thus, the picture is incorrect. Here I was thinking I made the find of a lifetime. You make me sad sometimes wikipedia :< 75.72.181.55 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The picture shows a copy of the trade paperback issued after the first edition (logo in top left identifies it as such). This may be the first paper edition, but there were multiple printings, and in those days, the printings were not always noted on the back of the title page as they often are today.140.161.86.159 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Science Fiction?[edit]

Are we not to interpret Billy's trips through time and abduction by the Tralfamadorians as delusions? Isn't that the point of the adult book shop scene? In that case, isn't the genre merely psychological rather than sci-fi?78.86.61.94 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


Montana Wildhack's Necklace[edit]

As I recall, Montana Wildhack wore a necklace with the Serenity Prayer written on it. I could be misremembering, but I thought there was some significance to it. zzzzBov (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


Photo Is Not The First Edition[edit]

As mentioned above in the ISBN comment, the photograph is captioned "First Edition Cover." That seems unlikely. It doesn't match any of the "first editions" available for sale online. And this photo includes an excerpt from the New York Times review, which also suggests it isn't the first edition. Can we either get a proper photo of the actual first edition, or else change the caption on this photo? Lafong (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Popular Culture[edit]

Should it be noted that this book is referenced in the 1984 version of "Footloose?" Kevin Bacon's character mentions that the book is a classic as the reverend speaks with a couple who are complaining that the local English teacher is planning to use the book. ***Ravion***76.106.153.88 (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

David Irving's Foreword[edit]

David Irving wrote a Foreword for "Slaughterhouse-Five", related to Kurt Vonnegut's plot use of the World War II firebombing of Dresden. Subsequently, Irving's status as a WWII/German/Nazi historian became tarnished by his being found to have been an active Holocaust denier. 49.181.237.37 (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

PTSD did not exist at the time[edit]

The diagnosis of PTSD did not exist at the time of the novel. "Soon, Billy is hospitalized with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and placed under psychiatric care." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughboy1234 (talkcontribs) 14:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I don’t have the book to hand; is Billy’s condition named in the text? I guess “battle fatigue“ would probably be the typical contemporary term, displacing “shell-shock” around or after WWII. I think we can keep the link to PTSD, but should show something more apt in the wikitext.—Odysseus1479 23:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's more to the point that Billy's symptoms do not resemble PTSD in the slightest. The diagnosis of "battle fatigue" is unlikely to be relevant either. I think the entire diagnosis should be left out of this article. Wcmead3 (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Guillermo del Toro has a Time Machine[edit]

"In 2013, Guillermo del Toro announced his intention to remake the 1972 film and work with a script by Charlie Kaufman),[33] originally hoping to release it in early 2011." (no citation)

Religion and Philosophy section[edit]

The first part of this section, focusing on Christianity, is fine, if maybe a bit too long relative to the rest of the article. The second section makes a lot of conclusions that are bizarre and show a serious lack of understanding of the history philosophy. The only source that is not a quote from the novel is a three word quote from an article. And yet, whoever wrote concludes things like Tralfamadorianism is "its own religion," or that "These two philosophies play off of one another in Vonnegut's book, creating a sense of clash in the mind of Billy Pilgrim," and insists on presenting these two philosophies as the only present in the novel (as if the Tralfamadorian philosophy appeared ex nihilo). Does this editor think Vonnegut invented determinism? Has this person never heard of the Stoics? What about French Existentialism? Heck, what about the eternal present in Browne's "Religio Medici" (1643) or we can go all the way back to pre-socratic Greece, with Parmenides' Monism, or fast-forward to when Einstein espoused views similar to those of the Tralfamadorians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtkahn (talkcontribs) 14:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Slaughterhouse-Five. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)