Blog review!!!=D

After nibbling through some of the posts that my classmates wrote for this English blogging project, I have decided to review Alicia’s blog basically because we had different opinions on many topics. There are many posts that I want to comment on, so I will just start with her first official post so it’s easy for you to track.

The post, “I believe in fate.” is an illuminating addition to my one-sided perspective. Believing in fate has always seemed too risky to me. To me, believing in fate is like assuming a power without proof that it is omnipotent or that it even exist in real life. It is true, that: “One’s fate might not be set in stone, but there is a plan out there for all of us.” Certain things in our life are possibly destined, like true love and career. She mentioned that although we can change fate (which I strongly believe in, by pure hard work and belief of the indubitable free will, of course), we can’t change the bigger picture. Maybe putting the extra effort into studying for a test might resulting in a better mark in contrast to not studying, it is not going to change who we are fated to become and the important people that we are meant to meet. Alicia also made connection to Billy Pilgrim believing in fate. She mentioned that Billy was told about his “death, birth, and everything in between” by the Tralfamadorians. Billy truly accepted what he was told. He knew that he was going to die before his speech in New York but confided the guards to stay away from him without second thoughts because he thinks that the moment, his death, was structure that way. (If I were him, I’d be hysterically gnashing about the grisly event that is to be happening soon.) Clearly, he is enthralled by fate and the Tralfalfamadorian advocates. Another point that Alicia brought up was that fate will always be there. Well, since our lives are intended to be a certain way, I suppose that fate won’t go away right?

Ok, on to the next post. “Don’t censor me, bro!” is another post that caught my attention. I agree whole heartily that good literatures should provoke big reaction. Often a piece of art work is only controversial when it is well created just like the naked Venus, Mona Lisa with her mysterious smile, and…yes, Twilight. Remember two years back when every single girl who had access to media was either on Team Edward or on Team Jacob, and there are endless critiques on how crappy the movie/story line/actors was? If Twilight wasn’t famous, people wouldn’t be squabbling all over it until now, little eight-years old wouldn’t be begging their parents for permission to watch it. Slaughterhouse-Five too, attracted a crowd. What’s different is that the crowd consists of a group of reprehending parents who repudiate their children reading a novel with racial and sexual contents, a recoiling government which recks every opinion on the country, and lastly, a writer forced into quandary – Vonnegut himself. Without further ado, Slaughterhouse-Five got banned. My opinion is the same as Alicia’s on this; “I definitely don’t think that books should be cencered if they’re controversial or whatever society deems them. It’s good to make people think once in a while.” If we hide the harsh realities in life, in war, what good will it do? Numb all? Let’s reference to the almost closedown of Whitehouse for example. Maybe the truth is the key to waking up the aggravating U.S. economy. If only the banks were warned, exposed to what’s to come, they will be better equipped against bankruptcy. If only they had foreseen the jeopardy that comes along with offering loans on real-estates when the land price is decreasing, they could have possibly saved their company and the government wouldn’t be in as much debt as it is in right now.  (No offense to the amazing country that I love shopping in; putting it on the spot just for an example.)  Similarly, just like what Alicia wrote, “Vonnegut was just being brutally honest. He took away the glorified image of an American solider that the society had and replaced it with the harsh reality that war isn’t pretty.” Vonnegut wrote what he saw, he told the truth, and anyone who reads, shouldn’t be hide away from it.

Alicia’s ninth post was about Valencia. Throughout Slaughterhouse-Five, the only image I ever had about Valencia was an over-weight woman holding a chocolate bar in her hand. I never actually paid attention to her like Alicia did. So here goes my apology to the dear, commonly forgotten Valencia. I agree with Alicia that Valencia was overlooked in many sections of Slaughterhouse-Five. (Sympathy is simmering in my heart as I am typing this right now.) Valencia is possibly the kindest person in the whole novel. She was the perfect wife: cared about Billy, visited him in hospital, and offered him chocolate bar…the list goes on. As Alicia mentioned in her post, “To me, she is that overweight, quieter girl who just wants to be liked, but isn’t necessarily attention seeking.” Valencia did have a subtle, affable character. It is almost heartbreaking to see her trying to please the insensate Billy. If only the poor girl was treated better...wait, did Vonnegut plan this on purpose? I suppose it doesn’t matter since the novel is published already. Anyways, I’m going call it a day and end this post soon. So, to conclude, I really liked how she focuses on many small details of the book that I overlooked while reading. Her opinion on many subjects such as Fate/Free Will is very inspiring and it allowed me to see the other side of the argument. Even though my comment of the post about Valencia is short since Valencia didn’t have many parts in the novel that post is my favorite out of all. I actually got a little emotional and really felt sorry for her. I felt that she was abused by Vonnegut for comic relief and defenseless as she is, she was still mocked.

For some random reason I was listening to Heart Breaker by G-dragon while typing the Valencia paragraph. Valencia needs to sing this to Billy someday....well, if she can. Here's an english cover for it....

Poo-Tee-Wee

Nancy