Post comments here for our last novel of the semester, Breakfast of Champions!
8 thoughts on “Breakfast of Champions”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Post comments here for our last novel of the semester, Breakfast of Champions!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I love this book! It is such a fast read and Vonnegut shows just how good of a writter he is.
So, in the preface he already mentions a theme, or maybe a driver for the theme.
He says: “I could only guide their movements approximately, since they were such big animals. There was inertia to overcome. It wasn’t as though I was connected to them by steel wires. It was more as though I was connected to them by stale rubberbands.”
I am thinking he is saying that he controls his universe, yet cannot control everything in it. I find this interesting because he defies the notion of God having ultimate power to over our lives, and thus erasing free will. Vonnegut is playing with his ideas about the absurdity of religion as well as arguing, subliminaly, the free will will, does, and has always existed.
Guess I’m eager?! lol.
Anyways, I wanted to post on a line I found interesting yet confusing I suppose.
On page 27, chapter 2. Vonnegut writes:
“And here, according to Trout, was the reason human beings could not reject ideas because they were bad: “Ideas on Earth were badges of friendship or emnity. Their content did not matter.”
I think is an excellent way to describe how we define and analyze others’ ideas, especially since we just finished a peer evaluation.
I am sure that none of us would ever say to another “your idea is hitty”. This is because we respect ideas for the sake of the idea itself. Namely, like Trout believes, Idea can never be bad because we accpet them whether they are those of our friends or those of our enemies.
Or!!! is Vonnegut trying to reverse the meaning here, by saying that ideas can be bad, however humans are incapable of assessing their worth because we simply respect any idea fo rhte sake of an idea existing?
I’m loving this book!
I think that’s a really good point and something or a perplexity that the novel brings up. It’s a great image, an idea as a badge that you wear on your chest. When you think of america, it was founded on an idea, liberty. etc. I feel as though this type of idea glorification has been grounded into the society.
It’s like saying you like someone’s cooking even though it is awful. We hate to shoot people down who are trying. But I agree with you that Trout is being very cynical in his use of the term, since I think Trout really is supposed to be a cynic. If everyone out there is patting each other on the back for a job well done for every idea thought of, the content really does not matter.
Perhaps this is a whole point Vonnegut is trying to make about America. It is a mess of ideas with no content. Infomercial television advertising for products that are going to break after a week. Foreign aid missions that do more harm than good. National policies that are aimed at re-election rather than doing any good. It’s all these types of things that Vonnegut is trying to bring to the eye of the public. This quote is a perfect example of that.
Its interesting that you specifiy “America”…although Vonnegut does seem to focus ont he american faults or wrongs..
I see this thought being more universal in respect to the overall message.
For example, if we take the concept of “culutral relativism” or any form of “—– relativism”. It suggests that we need to respect, at the very least, the cultures, people, beliefs etc that exist around us.
However, can we really accept undermining women as an acceptable ideaolgy or belief? Aren’t and shouldn’t there always be one belief that is better or more reasonable, globally, than another ?
I think that with this book Vonnegut manages to explore modern day global issues asw ell he must have addressed them at the time of publication
I loved our discussion “Round table” today. Everyone has such great ideas, and this novel is a perfect finishing piece to this ocurse, because all the topics and themes that are so prevailent in Vonnegut’s other works are in this one too! Only a little les subtle with free diagrams!
One thought I wanted to add to, or just throw some more information out there was on TIME.
Life is very short, I think that is something we can all agree on, however I get a sense from Dwayne Hoover that he is not particularly concerned with time, death, or any of the complexe philosophical problems that effect Billy Pilgrim, Malachi Constant, and even Trout!
Do we worry, I suppose about the limited time we have on earth, or do we like Juval quite perfectly mentioned, that many of us live “day to day” or “month to month”…..
I would say that I try to live each day like if it is independent of all others, and that it may be my last… BUT actual real life doesn’t really let us do this..
Any thoughts?
What Juval said has much to do with socio economic status, so if we look at time in a different way based on our wealth/prestige/etc. we can see time in two ways perhaps.
As Juval mentioned, as we go higher up in the tax bracket, people live decade to decade rather than day to day. Perhaps this is true in a financial sense, but it got me thinking about the other ways in which people live. ie enjoyment, leisure etc. The wealthier can live day to day in this fashion, because they do not have to struggle as much with the day to day financial burdens, if some one who is ultra rich takes a few days off, no one is going to complain because he is at the top of the financial tier. On the other hand, less financially secure people have to plan their leisure life year to year, because they have to live day to day financially. Now perhaps you could say that some poor people live day to day both financially and leisurely, and that some wealthy people live year to year both financially and leisurely, but you cannot say that wealthy people need to scramble for their money every day or that poor people are looking ten years down the road at their future earnings on a spread sheet.
To finish my rant, I think what this is all about is our own use of time and how we construct perspectives and interpretations that are based on our place in the world. Time, in a “real” perspective, is constant. But when we take all these other factors such as wealth, health, or prestige, time becomes much more of a subjective and interactive concept.
I like what you’ve said here Tony “I think what this is all about is our own use of time and how we construct perspectives and interpretations that are based on our place in the world. Time, in a “real” perspective, is constant. But when we take all these other factors such as wealth, health, or prestige, time becomes much more of a subjective and interactive concept.”
It is absolutely relevant to the novel AND to our daily lives. The way we see not only time, but the world in general is directly dependent on our position economically, healthy-wise, and globally.
Hoover does not fit the profile, that we would expect for a man of his wealth and status in “anywhere USA”, so the Vonnegut has thrown us off. This book is as easy a read as it is challenging for various reasons that are just too screwed up to make any sense of!
For instance, like Hoover vs. Hoobler. They are fromt wo incredibly different social classes, and although Hoover should be the relativaly normal, sane one. Who demonstartes some kind of self-important behaviour acts in ways that are comparable to a 15 year old pubescent boy. And on the other hand, we find Hoobler who is scarred to be in the real world, yet I find him to be trustworthy in a some wierd way because of the calm and determination he personifies.
So, this is kind of related to Breaky of Champs but alos to the short story FUBAR.
I think what is interesting about the story is Francine. I feel like she is alot younger in the short, versus the novel. Also, her bubbly-ness towards life and “making life btter” explodes off the page.
Maybe Francine in both stories is uspposed to be this undying hope, a person with unbreakable heart and love who is always and constanly trying to make things better for others.
In the novel, she keeps running back into Dwayne’s arms even though he acts like a jackass to her, and then eventually ends up beating the crap out of her. Then in the novel, Mr Littler kicks he rout of his office, and begs her to leave, then she decides she should play music and they should skinny dip.
Any thoughts? Is Vonnegut using this “woman” as a representation of women in society, (generally) as emotionally controlled “machines” who ignore the past and always move forward without any grudge holding….Or maybe that women are just stupid…. Francine is a very troubling character for me