This is a passage from Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions:
"As I approached my fiftieth birthday, I had become more and more enraged and mystified by the idiot decisions made by my countrymen. And then I had come suddenly to pity them, for I understood how innocent and natural it was for them to behave so abominably, and with such abominable results: They were doing their best to live like people invented in story books. This was the reason Americans shot each other so often: It was a convenient literary device for ending short stories and books.
Why were so many Americans treated by their government as though their lives were as disposable as paper facial tis-sues? Because that was the way authors customarily treated bit-part players in their made-up tales.
And so on.Once I understood what was making America such a dangerous, unhappy nation of people who had nothing to do with real life, I resolved to shun storytelling. I would write about life. Every person would be exactly as important as any other. All facts would also be given equal weightiness. Nothing would be left out. Let others bring order to chaos. I would bring chaos to order, instead, which I think I have done. If all writers would do that, then perhaps citizens not in the literary trades will understand that there is no order in the world around us, that we must adapt ourselves to the requirements of chaos instead. It is hard to adapt to chaos, but it can be done. I am living proof of that: It can be done."
Do you agree with his philosophy and idea of storytelling?
Some of this is hard to follow, but I think that people shouldn't have a certain way to write things, they just need to write what they feel.
ReplyDeleteSome of this is hard to follow, but I think that people shouldn't have a certain way to write things, they just need to write what they feel.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I had a really hard time trying to find what the author's message was. However, I found one thing very interesting: when he explained that shooting (and killing) people is a convenient literary device to end stories. I feel like many writers choose to kill off a character or have their story end in death just to get it over with. I believe that great stories can still be great without describing the psi of someone else (PS:Sorry, I know this doesn't directly relate to the passage).
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I had to really dig deep into his words to understand what he was trying to say. Or at least my understanding of this particular piece of this writing. I do not believe that are society necessarily follows what they read in books or short stories, I don't believe that is why we have a poor government or shootings. Yet I do agree with the fact that there is chaos all around us and we have to figure out a way to bring our own type of order to it. This world is chaos and you don't have to look far to find it, but there is also beauty and order to this world but you must create your own order. People bring chaos but they also create order within the chaos.
ReplyDeleteI think what he was trying to say is American's tend to follow occurrences that happen in books/short stories. For example, if an author kills off a side-character because they're unneeded, people in real life will begin finding that acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with Brooke. Reading this I began to think how easy it is to mistreat a "side-character" and it happens when we least expect it. The person sitting alone at the table that we forget to notice. The one with their head down in the back of the class. We don't take into account the circumstances that surround us and we must begin to.
DeleteI also agree with this brooke. It is so easily to have something to a "side character" because there probably just an "extra" in the book and anything could happen to them when we least expect it.
DeleteBoth death and life amaze me so much, but in different ways. The quote for some reason reminds me of the book Fahrenheit 451, I read it in eighth grade and I don't remember it all that well, but I do remember that they banned (burned, to be exact) books because, I think, they felt they were a poor example to society. Having people imagine unordinary, fictional tales. In a sense, creating chaos. I don't think reading books about shootings promotes shootings. It has a lot to do with the type of person you are, you can read a book about a shooting and say "Hey that sounds like fun, I'm gonna try it!" (I'm not promoting this, please don't arrest me.) Or you can say, this is awful, I can't even imagine. Some people bring chaos, but others bring peace.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that storytelling may have some degree of influence on Americans killing others. I mean people see it in stories all the time where the good guy kills the bad guy and gets praised for it. But I don't agree that this storytelling should be shunned. After all this is not the only reason America can be such a dangerous or unhappy place. There are so many other factors that storytelling hardly seems like a huge influence.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are varying degrees of truth to this. Not all of society and our government is influenced completely by works of fiction, but a better part of it could be. I also believe that it could be the other way around. Perhaps it is our government and our society that influence the writers to write as they do.
ReplyDeleteI agree, writers pull from their own lives so it's almost a cycle of influence: society to writing and writing to society.
DeleteI'm struggling a bit to keep up with this but from what I do understand, I feel like it's the author's choice and theirs only how they bring order to the world in their stories. Whether it's bringing chaos to order or order to chaos, it's the author's creative perspective.
ReplyDeleteNo I don't agree with this if every character was jut as important as the other the story would drag I and there would be way to much info in the story which may make the reader confused.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with with that. I think that every charter does not need to be recognized not all need to be the main charter in the story every character makes the story intresting
ReplyDeleteI do not agree or disagree with his idea of writing, I do agree though that it is possible, but its not needed. Some stories should give equal notation to all character's , but also some shouldn't. Depending on the story, type and genre, that should be the given factors weather not or to give equal acknowledgement to all character's.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think every person in a story is important. There is a reason why major and minor characters are created. It'd be very difficult to make every person important. I also think that not all information is important either. There are some things about the character or plot that should never be forgotten, and other information that is just there.
ReplyDeleteI dont agree. I think this is saying that all writers should bring chaos to order, meaning that writing should be organized but I believe a writer can write however they want.
ReplyDeleteI don't completely understand everything in this. But I really like the part where he talks about writing everything as real life. Giving everything the same amount of importance as everything else. I'd really like to try that in a piece. I've never thought about that before.
ReplyDeleteI don't completely understand everything in this. But I really like the part where he talks about writing everything as real life. Giving everything the same amount of importance as everything else. I'd really like to try that in a piece. I've never thought about that before.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure we can consider it "mistreating" side charcacters because it's hard to write everyone with a perplex back story. Everything jumbled together and becomes a mess. It's much easier to focus on the main character and their back story and it also makes it easier for the reader to follow. Sure, we can give the side characters some back story, but it doesn't have to be in depth. It is interesting that this author writes his characters with elaborate back stories, but that doesn't mean everybody has to do the same as him.
ReplyDeleteThis was kinda hard to understand but from what I was able to get out of it. I don't think it's necessary to consider every character a main character. But in full the pice was pretty good
ReplyDeleteI was having a hard time keeping up with this but I do feel as if some stories should give equal attention to all characters and others should not. Some stories are just meant to be strictly focused on one or two characters and others are just kinda there.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this, I realized that the spotlight was on 2 characters, and the others were only there when they were needed.
ReplyDeleteI'm having a hard time understanding this but from I understand of it I think it's up to the writer to choose how to incorporate the world into their stories
ReplyDeleteThis was interesting, and hard to understand. If he is talking about everybody just being the same as the next, then I disagree because we need people to be different in the world. However, if he is saying people should be treated the same then yes I agree.
ReplyDeleteThis was interesting, and hard to understand. If he is talking about everybody just being the same as the next, then I disagree because we need people to be different in the world. However, if he is saying people should be treated the same then yes I agree.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we live in a world of organized chaos. The chaos around us does not end if we stop one person, because there will always be another, but we do have the means to try and stop it, one crazy at a time. I don't agree that stories influence our daily lives, even if they can impact. Harry Potter is a very famous book, but you don't see an old man trying to kill some kid with a scar on his forehead or having some creepy man watch you sleep then fall in love with them. I don't believe it's a probable statement to blame every violent action on a story that someone can read.
ReplyDelete