End of Slaughterhouse-Five!

I'm sure you're wondering if I'm happy I finished this novel, and I can honestly say that it is a huge weight lifted from my shoulders in terms of content and writing and stress. 

Let's get down to business.

Dresden Comparisons

Okay, there were actually quite a few comparisons to the video. This was expected, of course. One that really stood out was the horrifying descriptions of the corpse mines. I know they didn't specifically talk about this in the video, but they did talk about all the bodies all around (sometimes stacked up like walls) and I think that relates. At first it seemed kind of strange that they were digging into the rubble--of course, one would expect something like this if they were looking for survivors--but then they kept doing it. After they knew they had found bodies, the Americans and others kept having to dig up or burn these bodies. People died in this process of body searching. How strange.

Another comparison would be to all the rubble and to the extreme heat. They talked about how the ground was hot to touch and how shoes melted to the ground in the video and in the novel they complained about touching hot rocks on their corpse searches. 

In addition to all that, I believe they also mention coming out of this shelter after days inside, after ALL the bombings had stop. This means that there were the four bombings, as mentioned in the video. Nobody in the American troops seemed terribly concerned about it all though. However, this whole ordeal stuck with Billy.

It's very interesting that something like this would stick with Billy after all the things that did not affect him or that he was apathetic to. Why did Dresden haunt Billy and why did he feel the need to bring it up later to the rich man with the broken leg who shared his room?

But perhaps that's why the name of the novel is Slaughterhouse-Five. If anything should stick with us through the novel, if we should remember anything about it, it is that Dresden was horrific and no one believed them. 

Characters

I'd like to comment on three characters in this section. 

1. Edgar Derby

We were able to see much more of Derby's character in these few scenes. First of all, we saw how it seemed at first as if he wanted to switch sides with the American-turned-German, Howard W. Campbell Jr. Of course, we were all wrong. Derby was just being his static self and standing up for his ideals of Americanism and Patriotism. 

Classic Derby.

From there, we don't see a ton of Derby, but we do get to see his death. We see most people's death in this story. 

While they're going through the corpse mines, the Americans are also looking for souvenirs. Derby happens to take a teapot. He is shot for it. Of all the things they've been through, that's what finally gets Derby. 

2. Howard W. Campbell Jr. 

This guy is...interesting. He's like the Devil trying to get people to switch to the dark side. He's an American turned Nazi. He has a very neat outfit that he put together all himself that is the assimilation of Americanism and Nazism. It's like a blue jumpsuit with a bunch of red, white, and blue swastikas and a white, ten-gallon hat. He's like the cowboy of Germany. Except he's an American. 

He's also very rich and tries to bribe others with food to switch sides. He says that they'll end up on this side anyway, so why shouldn't they come now? He's wrong, but that's besides the point. 

I don't really know what to think of Mr. Campbell, or if he even deserves that title, but he was a comic addition to the story.

3. Kilgore Trout

Kilgore is a science fiction writer. He's also...interesting. No, actually, you know what, I hate this guy! He puts all these stupid ideas into Billy's head and that's probably what caused all of his troubles in the first place! Like, all of the things that Billy has hallucinations (I have a theory, based on pg. 190, that Billy's hallucinations are caused by his coma) about are either in his books or are suggested by him. 

For example, in Kilgore's book The Big Board, it says that "it was about an Earthling man and woman who were kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo on a planet called Zircon-212." (pg. 201) Clearly, this is an example of Montana and Billy on Tralfamadore. 

(Also, Montana Wildhack being a freaking porn star?? Reallllllly???? Not like I didn't expect this, but come on.)

Also Trout is just gross and only cares about himself and that whole disgusting disgusting disgusting paragraph about how Maggie Mae was the kind of woman a guy looks at and wants to "fill up with babies." That's sooooo gross it's the grossest most disgusting thing I've ever read. It makes me want to throw up with it's disgustingness. Trout is a vile and slimy character. 

???? EXTra bONuS !!!!!!!! ---->> KURT VONNEGUT INTERRUPTION

Vonnegut interrupts a few times. One that is particularly significant is the ending chapter where it just sort of switches back to his point of view. 

But another is on page 189 when he alludes to fear of old age with the man who has bad gas and is talking about how he knew it'd be bad, but never realized it would be this bad. 

Oh and I liked when Vonnegut recognized, on page 164, that he had basically no characters who do anything significant at all and they're all "listless playthings of enormous forces." It confirmed the things we've been saying.

Wrap-up

I feel like it didn't wrap up that well  in that you could tell that it was wrapping up. It was like the ending of a long speech where they have to let you know it's about to end so you can get ready to clap.

Banned Books

I don't know whether or not this novel should be banned. I don't think any books should be banned, so I'm just gonna say that first. I can see why it would be on a list of books that parents are uncomfortable with, though. 

One, it talks about death frequently, which is a scary topic for most. 

Two, it talks about war frequently, which is another scary topic.

Three, it talks about sexual things frankly and sometimes really graphically.

Four, there is just a lot of uncomfortable, weird stuff in this novel??

So, I could see why someone would want to ban it. But banning books is wrong. 

Pretty or Interesting or Lines I liked

• "The guards drew together instinctively, rolled their eyes. They experimented with one expression and then another, said nothing, though their mouths were often open. They looked like a silent film of a barbershop quartet. 'So long forever,' they might have been singing, 'old fellows and pals; So long forever, old sweethearts and pals--God bless 'em--'" (pg. 178, about Dresden)
• I liked that this was brought up when the rich guy keeps ignoring Billy when he tries to talk about Dresden. He says, "I just want you to know: I was there." (pg. 193) This is a common theme among soldiers, and I think that it was very important that this was recognized.
• "The window reflected the news. It was about power and sports and anger and death. So it goes." (pg. 200)
• "Billy thought maybe he had known this cracked messiah in Dresden somewhere." (pg. 167)

4-6 SL-5

Another day, another blog.

Video: "For the first time in history, a firestorm was consciously planned."

It seems like Dresden was a pretty spectacular place before the bombing. This is judging by book descriptions and alllll the footage about how amazing it was. However, how very horrible it was that so many refuges had come to the city to be saved only to have even more of a death toll. Some of the descriptions were terrifying. What was especially horrible to me was the shoes melting to the asphalt and the story about the woman pulled out of the way and a beam falling right where she was. The emotions of the people telling the stories about the bombing were off the charts. One more horrifying part was how they waited two hours to bomb again. This was because they wanted the ambulances and everyone there so they could kill more people, I suppose.

There was one part of the video where they agreed with the book (or the book agreed with the video) about how Dresden was assumed safe. Dresden could never be bombed. It was off the radar. It also said that the people of Dresden put their trust into the Americans and English, which relates back. Also, interestingly enough, it was mostly all women speaking about these horrors. This relates to our novel because the men never want to speak about it (sometimes the women don't either, admittedly).

Unrelated, but it could be related later, some Czechs came and laughed at the destruction and took the clothes from people . And, the quote from Winston Churchill that says: "looks like we slaughtered the wrong pig." I suppose that could also relate to our novel's title.

After watching this video I felt their emotions, but I was having trouble imagining the ruined city. So instead, I imagined my block and my hometown ruined and in millions of little pieces with no reason behind the attack. It made me want to cry and made me feel very numb. I can understand how they felt, though never completely.

Video: "I'm not Billy Pilgrim."

So Edward Crone is supposed to be Billy Pilgrim and he died of the thousand mile stare. He was buried in Dresden and his parents came and finally found him. He said Billy Pilgrim didn't understand anything at all.

However, Vonnegut seems to definitely not care about his life and have a lot of survivor's guilt. He also makes it seem like he had it worst when he's talking with his friend. I mean, possibly he did, but whatever. The point is that they both fought in the war.

I kind of feel like maybe possibly Billy Pilgrim did exist, but what Vonnegut did was pour his own feelings of detachment and apathy into this character. This makes it okay because he it wasn't hIM who was the "dirty flamingo." It was just this kid Billy Pilgrim who didn't understand anything about the war.

Tralfamadore

I don't think Tralfamadore exists. This novel isn't fantasy/sci-fi for one, and second, Billy is suffering from severe PTSD. This means that he is probably having hallucinations. That would be my main guess. In the novel, certain objects or situations transport Billy to the planet. I believe you even said something about objects in his house relating to the form of the aliens. We have already talked about this a little, but not extensively.

I think Billy believes it exists because 1) the familiar household objects give a sense of security and realism, and 2) PTSD hallucinations are very, very real while happening. In general, Billy was not given (obviously) the correct treatment in the mental hospital. This was common though.

I think the reason Billy is imagining these "aliens" because he wants to get away or escape from life (or war tore him from reality) and aliens in a spaceship could be about the easiest way to do it. He lives a normal life inside the terrarium on Tralfamadore and even comforts himself with the "death is just a point in time." I think that makes him feel better about war n general.

Characters

I thought that Roland Weary was an interesting character, and you said so also. I liked how he was so prepared for war and to kill, but what he really wanted was to be a part of something ("Three Musketeers;" by the way, what is up with that candy bar??). I think while Weary seems mean, he's just trying to fit in. His redeeming quality is the "we" or "team" thing.

Paul Lazarro is also a very fascinating character. He is purely mean-spirited. This is cool for a character because he's so flat and unchanging (always keeps his word). But I suppose his one human quality is trying anything to save himself. I think what he wants, at times, is just respect. That's why he damages others.

Edgar Derby is the quintessential "fight for my country" soldier bro. He taught English, took care of his body (and later others), and got in the army when he was older. Derby is very human and caring, but I also don't think it's what he wants to do, he just feels it's his duty. All the characters are different archetypes you see in war novels.

Commentaries

I like that the human-against-human aspect of war is shown. It's very murky. It's not just one man against another. Especially the scene with the Russian guy speaking gently to Billy at night by the fence. That's probably been one of my favorite parts of this novel. Human-ness and humanity are what attract me to stories and novels.

Free Will

And I believe we spoke about free will and how there are varying degrees of it.

Slaughterhouse-Five Blog #1

First of all, the introduction was interesting. If you could even call it an introduction. I think that it's a little funny, too, that we are just talking about introductions in English 101 with The Turn of the Screw and if they are necessary or not. I'm not sure about this one. Originally, it was a little confusing. However, looking back, I think it gives away more than it hides. It makes it seem like this is less fiction than real life and that Slaughterhouse-Five could actually be real. This brings in an element of interest because this could all be real stuff and real people and you could be reading a true story--even if it says it's fiction.

There were quite a few instances of satire in the first chapter, too. Most of the things that came out of Vonnegut's writing were either making fun of something or presenting a completely uncomfortable similar thing. For example, on page 4 when he talks about "getting this disease late at night" but really he's just talking about he himself getting drunk because he's sad. Also, when he talks about the anti-war and anti-glacier books.

((I also thought that the line, "The destruction of Dresden was represented by a vertical band of orange cross-hatching, and all the lines that were still alive passed through it, came out the other side" (pg. 5), related to the poem "Buttons" we read. Basically that entire paragraph. Just the juxtaposition of crayon on paper to the actual atrocities happening.))

[Oh! and a related line to City of Thieves that I found very interesting: "...who took us to the slaughterhouse where we had been locked up at night as prisoners of war." (pg. 1) This is opposed to CoT's "In the slaughterhouse where we first kissed, the air still stank from the blood of the lambs."]

The view on war in this book seems to be that it was useless and futile because everyone is going to die one way or another anyway. However, the view on death seems really optimistic, somehow? Especially the lines on I-don't-know-what-page about death being a point in time where you're not alive, but you are alive in some other point in time. It's kind of strangely comforting. Most people in these few chapters realize that war is bad and no one is going to make it out (relating back to the poem about duty), but some people were a little more optimistic. This is seen in the two snipers (were they snipers?) who try to leave "the three musketeers" but are shot. Additionally, a lot of terrible things in this book--like the packed train to the camp--were represented not at all terribly. This kind of relates to CoT with how a lot of very terrible things didn't sound that terrible to them because they'd had worse. 

On to structure. I kind of really, really don't like the structure of this novel. Stream-of-consciousness makes me so upset because you get all this unnecessary, round-about information that no one actually wants and you take away from the actual story. Sure, you get some details/thoughts you may not have before, but you don't get the actual elements of plot. Going off of that, this style left me with little to no understanding of what the hell was happening. 

Questions:

• I really don't understand anything about the "unstuck in time" thing. It's confusing and I know things about the story I don't want to know yet. I feel like I read the ending before reading the beginning. It's a little frustrating. Half the time I have to read over what I just read about five times before I realize that this isn't present day or this isn't during the war. The only explanation that I really found while reading could be a kind of PTSD thing. I honestly don't know.
• Billy Pilgrim makes me want to smack him. He obviously has some form of PTSD but also he is a drag and boring and apathetic.
• The "So it goes" lines seem to happen after every death. That's interesting.

Cool lines:

• "Through the valley flowed a Mississippi of humiliated Americans." pg. 64
• "Now they were dying in the snow, feeling nothing, turning the snow to the color of raspberry sherbet." pg. 54
• page 53 3rd paragraph

Options for Final Project

In looking at what to do for the final project, I researched fairy tales and their common elements and compared them to the book.

1. Set in the past. Check. This book is set during WW2 in Leningrad. 
2. Include fantasy, supernatural, make-believe aspects. While this isn't a concrete thing, there were several mentions of how unreal everything was. How there were cannibals and death and whore houses and how war made everything strange and unrealistic. Like they were somehow removed from the real world. So I think this could be a nod to the fairy tale aspect.
3. Clearly defined good/evil characters. This one was harder. I think it's not so much good and evil characters, but something else. I believe all the characters are supposed to be the "good" aspect, and the environment is supposed to be the "evil." Or rather, the war is the evil. I know there are some characters that could be defined as evil, but I believe they are only that way because of the environment.
4. Involves magic elements. Alas, there is no magic in this story. I wouldn't even know what could relate to this. 
5. Objects, people, or events in threes. The trio (Lev, Kolya, and Vika) could be classified in this way. The dozen eggs are a multiple of three. I think they also have three hundred rubles at some point? I could be wrong on that, though. This one is kind of a stretch, but there are a few elements in threes. 
6. Focus on a plot/problem that needs to be resolved. The entire trip they are focused on getting the dozen eggs for the colonel, so I believe that counts.
7. Often have happy endings, based on the resolution of the problem. Well, I guess the ending could be seen as a kind of bittersweet happiness. While Kolya did die, Lev did get the eggs to the colonel and the colonel gave him two first-class ration cards and we do know that Lev and Vika lived "happily ever after." 
8. Usually teach a lesson/values important to culture. I'm not exactly sure what the lesson would be. There isn't a huge theme throughout the book, but I guess friendship could count. 

I then looked at another sheet for common fairy tale elements.

1. Special beginning or ending words. The beginning and ending words kind of matched. Vika saying she didn't cook.
2. Royalty. There are a few people who could be considered royalty in this story. Probably the NKVD man who sent them for eggs and the Nazis who captured them. Also the girls in the log cabin could be considered royalty, even if they are being forced. 
3. Poverty. It's everywhere. It's basically the whole book.
4. Universal Truths. Coming of age, sexuality, friendship, bravery, fear, war, and so on. 

There was also one common motif that I found very fitting: Impossible tasks. 

And while I was looking on that page, I found something else interesting that could be related. 

Morphology

analyzes the function of each character / action = a tale is composed of thirty-one elements and eight character types; Vladimir Propp, Russian fairytales

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After that, I looked at Kaputt and The 900 Days. It appears that Kaputt was part autobiographical and part fiction. This means that some of Benioff's information on the siege could be a little off. However, it appears that The 900 Days was pretty much completely accurate. However, it appears that most of the source information (people) are now dead. There is one person, though, who talks about how there is an overuse of people from "the arts and crafts crowd" (artists, poets, musicians" opinions. This would make sense with the views that we get from Benioff. Other than that, I didn't really see anything that could have made any of his telling faulty. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I'm either going to be on the track of writing a paper or doing the video with information option. Unless we can come up with something else that could be interesting and informative. 

Also, I'm pretty sure I want to do the fairy tale paper/video. 

City of Thieves - Last Chapters

In this blog, you told me to write about the interesting things in this book or interesting points that I noticed in the last chapters.

These probably aren't going to be in order, but I'm sure you'll get the gist of it. 

"The Courtyard Hound"

• The book is, I think, Kolya's autobiography. We learn this on page 238 through 241. 
• The "courtyard hound" (the actual old dog in the courtyard) is, I believe, a metaphor for Kolya meeting Lev. When the hound comes up and then dies, it's such a big deal because "all these women come over to Radchenko's, constantly trying to get him to go outside with them, and he never does. It's almost like a game for them; they all want to be the first one to lure him out the gates, but none of them can make him go. Only the dog." (241)
• This is pretty significant because Radchenko is Kolya. The hound is Lev. And Lev is the first person that has made Kolya come out his reverie of only looking out for himself and caring for himself. 
• The building is his bad surroundings he's lived in forever and how he's only surrounded himself with artificial things and things he should want and hasn't left that world til Lev came.

Kolya Dying

• wow, no. not okay with this at all.
• when Kolya asks as he's dying about the title being Radchenko or The Courtyard Hound he's asking if he was self-centered and vain and superficial his whole life or if he did something good and adventurous like Radchenko with the hound. Lev tells him he did do things well.
• The last line about the, "it's not how I pictured it," really really killed me. that line...just. no.
• it's really heart breaking because it can be related in several ways:

1. (the first way) is the Big Fish (the movie) way where he expected to die in some grand, adventurous, cool manner and ended up with a normal death (the mundane-ness of it was the fact that he couldn't get to the hospital because of the train and he got shot after all this time because of his gun)
2. (or) the "I don't think I want to die, especially not like this" way. whereas before kolya was fearless
3. (or) the, "I see the afterlife, and I was wrong about it" way

I'm not sure which one is right, if any, and there could be more options, but this line is just heart breaking to me. 

Brutality

• the part where Vika kills the traitor in the night who ratted out Markov is showing just how much they value sticking to what is right instead of what is easy and it also maybe shows Vika did care a little bit about Markov, even if she claims she didn't
• The irony of Kolya getting shot in the butt because of his gun
• The Russian soldier in the group of prisoners who had no boots, just socks, and picked his spot, then did the mock Nazi salute
• The Einsatzkommando with the funny mustache: the brutality of the sorting and the cleverness of the trio to figure it out, and the (sexuality) strange hint that maybe he liked Kolya a little too much, and (racism) the part where the Einsatzkommando says that Lev might be a Jew and Kolya says something to the effect that he is later on but Lev says explicitly that Kolya didn't mean anything by it (he probably genuinely thought it was a compliment)
• The chess game: the stakes, the cutting off of fingers, the fact that Abendroth liked the game enough to keep Lev there even if he was a Jew
• The cruelty of the eggs at the end of the book (//slams fists into a wall in rage)

Quote I loved:

• "We ran for the forest, crashing through the stalks of wheat, beneath the rising moon and the stars spinning farther and farther away, alone beneath the godless sky." (233)

Miscellaneous

• Kolya finally poops! we know something crazy had happened. This means his adventure is over!! 
• The sexual subplot between Vika and Lev is resolved when Lev "becomes a man" with the knife fight/chess game. He finally is carrying a soldier's knife, not a looted Nazi souvenir. 

And I'd love to know your final thoughts on this book. I really love this book for so many reasons and I hope you thought it was a good read too. 

City of Thieves 10-18

Okay! I left my book at school but I absolutely have to do this tonight, so we'll see how this goes. I guess it doesn't really matter whether or not I have page numbers or direct quotes because you and I have different ways of reading.

On to the questions!

1. How is this novel serving as the seemingly modern trend to look at how humans react to traumatic situations? How is this an open and honest look at the suffering caused by war?

This novel is representing how humans deal with traumatic situations really well. Instead of showing people gloriously fighting battles and heroically dying for their country, it shows the truths about war. While the people were still sometimes ardently proud of their country (think Lev serving on top of the Kirov or Kolya fighting with the regular army), they were also experiencing horrible things day to day and having to find some normalcy in the situation. This book shows things like Vadim the dying boy with the chicken/rooster, which shows child death in war. Also in that scene, just the dead old man who forced his grandson to be there with him. The dead people on the Neva also was pretty horrifying. In addition to that, the cannibals and how Kolya and Lev sort of ignore them.This book is very open and honest because it shows all of these things, but then it also shows people coping. We have Sonya who helps whoever needs and with her darning egg. We also have Kolya and Lev's companionship and how they lean on each other. There's happiness even in the darkest of times. 

I also like your idea about propaganda. There is some propaganda in the book and they make fun of literally every single piece of it. This stamps out the idea that propaganda really does anything for the citizens of the country. It's for other people to look at and feel some kind of nationalism or patriotism. 

2. What sort of commentary is Benioff offering about the treatment of Jews and the prominence of racism?

Lev always seems very afraid and/or annoyed when Kolya brings up that he's Jewish to other people. However, Kolya is very open and kind of childish in that he doesn't understand how other people might take this information. While Kolya acts old and mature, he's actually very childish in a lot of aspects. Also, I love how he uses the nicknames "my little lion" and "my grumpy Israelite," and Lev is just like *grump grump* stop it kolya. Kolya is so offensive, but I feel like he doesn't really realize it and Lev isn't going to say anything. I would say also that Lev isn't going to say anything because he's kind of used to these kinds of names and people looking down on him, which is another aspect we can add to how he isn't/wasn't loved a lot through his life. 

Some of the racism is understandable in this setting, though. The Russians are obviously going to be wary of the Germans and vice versa. This means some prejudice and some racism. 

There's a lot of stuff to talk about with this, but I'm not sure in which direction to head. What did you think of this topic? 

3. Are there any other moments of homosexuality or companionship throughout the novel? How do these moments contrast the typically "manly" view of war? (yes, mr. lister, we can do the novel you want if you want)

There were some more moments! I noticed first of all, Vika says something about how the Kolya and her commanding officer were gonna "get it on" or something. And they all blow it off. And then later when they're all walking through the snow in the single file line at nine paces apart and Kolya and Lev start walking together and talking in whispers, Vika sneaks up behind them and suggests they *ehem* get a room. Seemingly all the talk of sex is directed towards Kolya. Also, I'm not sure if this is in chapter 18 or 19, but when they're sleeping on the floor of the house and Lev is describing how Kolya is like really close to him and won't leave him alone and is breathing in his ear and whatnot and then someone, again, I think, tells them to (politely) get a room. 

I really, really love your thought about "how do these moments contrast the typically "manly" view of war." That is so interesting. I read that and was like "oh my god, that is actually really cool." I think it kind of contrasts this manly view of war by saying that war isn't really manly at all. War shows you that it's not about the things you have or the people you know, it's about who's on your side and making connections. Being a civilian during a war is about trying to live without possessions, and instead with love. I think this could be the author's view being cleverly imposed on the story. Lev and Kolya display this so perfectly because they were both jerked out of their normal life and only given each other as a kind of safety net. They're, obviously, pretty dependent on each other by now and care pretty deeply about each other. Whether or not they think they do. 

I can't remember, but did Lev already figure out that Kolya was writing his own book? I just really love that scene. That scene and the whole scene where Lev is half-asleep/dead tired while they're trudging through the forest and Kolya is like "I'm right here, little lion. I'll hold you up." The latter had a kind of dream-like quality to it and I think it's probably, honestly, my favorite scene in the entire book. They are just really frank and honest with each other by that point and they depend on and trust so heavily in each other. so much companionship!!!

4. Eye color count and interesting information.

When they first meet Vika, Lev mentions her eye color actually a few times. I believe it says that they were brown. And then he says it again a little later. *hint hint wink wink*

I'm not sure if he says anyone else, but Vika does seem to be a little different for Lev. She's not an object like every other girl. She's a real, whole person. It's kind of funny because usually, I mean from an evolutionary standpoint, the boy would go for the pretty girl and he would be the protector. But with Lev and Vika, Lev is kind of looking for someone to protect him. And Vika is perfect for him in this respect. It's another reversal of roles that I think Benioff is really fond of. It could also be showing, again, how war isn't masculine or manly. 

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by coming in for half of psychology and also on Monday? Here's what I got from that: you can come in on Friday for two periods, since it's a half day; you can come in during half of psychology on Thursday/or Monday (i don't know what you meant) and then if you came in Thursday, you would have a blog post due that Sunday (three days away the 10th) or if you came in Monday then that weekend (the 17th). I kind of have no idea what you mean there. 

City of Thieves!

This book, man. This book.

Let's jump right into the questions.

1. How does the author show the effect that war has on the humanity of the people?

One glaringly obvious example would be the cannibals. They are so starved that they had to resort to killing other humans and eating them. This lowers the humanity level down to almost purely animalistic. I suppose it's a little like Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs and how you can't have self-actualization, or humanity in this case, until you have your basic needs--food, shelter, water, all that. The level of humanity is lowered tremendously in some cases because of the war. 

Another example that would refute this claim, however, would be Sonya Ivanovna and her house full of doctors and refugees. She, even in times of great strife, takes in whoever needs it. (possibly not whoever, but it kind of seems like it with all the medical students and the author never really stating her profession) She shares food and shelter and helps. She clearly doesn't have enough for herself and is even described in several different ways eluding to the fact that she has no food. "She had swaddled herself in a man's greatcoat and three or four sweaters, but even beneath all that bulk I could see there wasn't much left of her" (71). Also, "She gathered me in her arms. It was like being embraced by a scarecrow. I couldn't feel any body beneath her clothing, just layer after layer of smoky wool" (72). Her spirit and humanity is not affected, though. She merely pushes through. 

One more example of spirit and humanity not being affected would be the men that stay in the Kirov even when the alarms go off, or the person that Kolya and Lev hear playing the great piano solo during the bombings. Their spirit is not affected, and they want to keep living life as it should be. 

And a last example of people being affected could be how the poor kind of controlled the rich in times of war. There was no food, so the rich people had to barter with the poor in a kind of "black market" thing. And the poor could withhold things by simply saying "go ahead, eat your silverware. See if I care." This is kind of an upheaval of the social pyramid. 

       2. Why is literature such a huge part of this book about war? What's the message about reading books in society? 

Hm. I think maybe literature is such a huge part of this book about war because it kind of shows the escapism involved in literature and writing. These people don't (and can't!) experience all these feelings of terribleness at once and they need escapes and ways out. Literature, in the form of books, helps the character to escape. In the case of Lev and Kolya, when Kolya asks Lev all these questions like "well haven't you read so-and-so's great work? that's a classic, why not!?" it's kind of bringing them back to simpler times, or rather, times before the war. The same goes for whenever Lev talks about (or doesn't) his father the poet. It's a link back to the past that he can hardly bring up because he doesn't want to tarnish that image he has of him with this horrible war and its atrocities. It was also just a super traumatic event, and it's very hard to talk about things like that, even without this added factor of war. In turn, Kolya's book (okay so we don't know it's his yet--but it is) is also a form of escapism. He's imagining himself as this great writer--which he drills into Lev's head by constantly saying how it's ridiculous how he's never heard of this great, prolific, writer--when he knows he could easily die by nightfall from starvation or a bullet or some other terror. (this relates to Kolya as a character too, in that he uses his haughty/cocky sense of self as a facade for his true demeanor which we only see when he talks about his book)

I think that the message about reading and writing in society is that it helps even the most damaged people escape from the horrors of the situation around them, and in that respect is a very useful tool. 

     3. What do you make of the pairing of Lev and Kolya? Are they a natural fit?

In terms of the world of literature, I think they are "a natural fit." It's the boy who doesn't want to do the thing (Lev) and the other boy, the contrast, (Kolya) who is like, "but the thing is fun!!!!! and ~ladies." They're a classic pair. 

 In terms of actual pairings, I feel like they work together well also. They may not listen to each other half the time, and they do get into dangerous situations, but that's the fun of it. 

Lev is a boy who believes it is his duty to guard his city. He was born and raised in Piter and knows all the ins and outs of it. Unfortunately for him, he looks, and is, Jewish and a Russian. A terrible combination, in his eyes. He has a traumatic past and his family aren't around (in the city) anymore. 

Kolya is, at first, the typical "bad boy," mischief-maker character. He looks like a German, is sarcastic and cheeky as he can get away with, and is a ladies man. He's in the army, but is a deserter. This kind of shows a little bit of his true character. He doesn't really care about the rules and regulations of the army, nor does he really want to go out there and die for this city, no matter how much he truly does wish to protect it. He's constantly talking about literature and women and how he hasn't pooped in like, what, eight days?

[the whole "I haven't pooped in (insert number here) days! how horrid!" thing obviously does mean something to the story if it's mentioned countless times throughout the book. I think that could, honestly, be a good point of discussion. I believe they talk about it so much because it illustrates how things are so strange, inhuman, and horrible in this war that not even normal functions are happening anymore. it's like the whole world has been turned on its head! I know there's the obvious, logical explanation of sawdust ration bread, but the fact of the matter is, you don't mention something more than twice if you don't think it's important in a book.]

Anyway, I think that these two characters go together so well because they're able to bounce things off of each other and hold themselves back or jump off. Lev learns countless things from Kolya--be they things he really wants to know, you be the judge--and Kolya is genuinely interested in and appreciative of what Lev has to say. This is great for Lev because he's never had anyone who really, really loved him and cared for him. Whether this be friendship that he seemed to be a perpetual fifth wheel to (the twins and Grisha and Vera already paired off and him left to the wind), or in the case of his mother who only said things about him being "stupid" as a way of "i love you." The only person that seems to have loved him was his father, who took care of him and taught him things (ding! ding!) like chess and how to win at having your swanky author friends over. Lev really needs this element of friendship/love because he's never experienced it. Kolya is a perfect half-to-the-whole for him because he likes to learn new things, and confirm suspicions, and is genuinely so very, very interested in everyone around him. Kolya needs Lev because he holds him back from some of the ridiculous things he wants to do, but he also appreciates him too. I don't think Kolya really gets many people that are truly interested in him other than for his good looks, mischief, or sex. Lev seems to understand this and listens and goes back-and-forth with arguments and comments on his behavior or ideas. I don't think Kolya gets this feedback often and it's honestly really positive.

(I found a spot where Kolya's opinion is actually respected by others and it's only when he's in an argument and people have to listen because he's a soldier. It's on page 75, and right after it everyone gets all annoyed with him and mockingly calls him 'comrade' and he goes back to his old cocksure self.)

What do you think about this relationship? I have so many thoughts on it.

And lastly, you asked me to come up with some ideas to discuss for Friday! Here goes.

• I think that the main adventure element at the very beginning is really interesting. While they are horrified at the idea of having to find a dozen eggs in Piter, they finally have a purpose. They might get out of this war if only they can find some eggs. They're scared and that seems to be the only element shown in the text, but I think they're also really, really intensely excited that they don't have to do this whole living day by day in a dying city and thinking of nothing but death. What do you think of that? 
• Darling. Let's talk about the dying boy Vadim and the grandfather and the just-fantastic surprise they get when they take the *cough* chicken *cough* home. What do you think happened to the boy? Did he get better with the help of the two girls, or did he simply waste away on the rooftop? What was it like for the boy to live up there with only the seemingly crazy grandfather? Is this another example of how humanity is taken away during wartime and a little boy is killed in the midst of it? 
• When Kolya and Sonya are going at it in the other room, and Lev is so confused as to what he's saying to her the whole time. I think in City of Thieves, sex is kind of used for Lev as a way of escapism. It's just like Kolya's book. It takes Lev away from this war and back to being a normal human teenage boy. It's also another way to further Kolya and Lev's relationship in that Kolya gets to teach something and Lev gets to be a willing subject. Also, why sex is such an embarrassing topic for Lev to talk about. This could be attributed to being a teenager, but it could also be about the war. (I actually had something really insightful about why it was about the war, but I LOST it and I can't remember it for the life of me) I guess it could be embarrassing for him also because it is a form of escapism and to even imagine himself out of this situation is kind of horrible. (<--this wasn't my original thought, but I guess it's okay) Thoughts?
• The character Sonya and why she is important. 
• Pooping!!! it's so important! (refer to above)
• When Kolya talks about needing a high and getting it from the wood alcohol on page...51. He says "I needed a sniff, I took a sniff, now I feel alive again" (51). We can just discuss how interesting this is for Kolya's character. And also why he's so honest with the amount of money that they have when they're in the market. Why would he be so honest about it when Lev clearly wants to hide it?

Not all of those ideas are particularly important or significant, but I think they're all very fascinating things. 

Anywho, I'm really excited about this book and the things that we can discuss with it.