Hester really has two different sides; internal and external. On the outside Hester was at first ashamed of Pearl's existance and how she came to be. After a while, she grew comfortable with herself and to her peers she is "changed". She has turned into a good person who is helpful and does good things around town. People believe the "A" has done its service and helped save her and make her back into a good member of society. Internal Hester has not changed much. She doesn't think what she did was wrong and hates the "A'. Internally she really has not changed at all. Hester really is a two sided person. People just don't see her "hidden side". Who really is Hester?

Scarlet Letter response

Scarlet Letter is a good book, but most of the time, its hard to understand. Re-reading is a must if you want to understand. The effect of the Scarlet Letter on Hester makes it fun to read, seeing her transform from an abashed widow to a brazen mother. It almost seems as if the book was meant to show people that happiness in life can come from any situation. The evil shown from Pearl kind of shows the overview of whats happen with Hester. Pearl starts off like a normal child being held and nurtured, representing Hester before the sex. Then Pearl became a soft playful joy, with a harder evil like core. This small representation of Hester adds a twist as the two characters develop separately

Slaughterhouse-Five is clearly an antiwar novel. All of Billy’s stories of war point out the bad aspects of people and life. He exemplifies death, murder, and the disgusting parts of human nature. Kurt Vonnegut repeats the phrase “so it goes” several times—always after death. He said Edgar Derby was killed in the war because he stole a tea pot… so it goes. He is always looking at war in a calm point of view, but at the same time disgusted. Vonnegut does not go into detail because everyone dies and not much matters when you are in a war. No one cares that you have a family or money back home, all they care about is winning for their country. The novel also points out that all those who are in the war are babies. He states that it is a “children’s crusade,” and the men do not all know what they are doing. The novel does not have a consistent structure. It is all jumbled up because nothing is really that significant and nothing will matter once something else happens. War is inevitable and will happen in every modern civilization. Kindness is the key to human nature.

#3: the significance

I think the significance of telling the story out of order is to show how crazy and out of order Billy Pilgrims life is. In the story Billy goes back in time a lot and when he does go back in time it isn't in order, that is another reason why the story is written out of order. KV chose this way of writing this story because that's the way he sees his life and the way other people see it. KV says so it goes after someone dies, he says this because Billy doesn't believe in time, so when someone dies they just die, there is no certain time they die at.

Question 3 SH5

The significances of telling the story out of order is that it shows that there is no time and the story doesn't have a beginning, end or middle. Its like a Tralfamadore story, no matter if its in order or not they always see it in order, the whole thing the right way. To the humans the book is out of order and it jumps randomly and they cant see it all at once. It was also chosen to not be in order because it showed that there was no time and everything is happening at once. When he would skip from time to time it would either be in a random moment or when he didn't want to experience something again, like the plane crash. Kurt Vonnegut wrote this story mixed up because he didn't believe in time, he is Billy Pilgrim in the book. KV made a character that is him but has a different name and there is one time in the book where he breaks character. This book also shows that you never die, like the Tralfamador say that they may be dead but there still alive somewhere. This book was not about showing how bad the war was cause he would say "So it goes" after anyone or anything would die, he didn't go into detail about it. Which made you think about it but not really get the full effect. This book was defiantly a anti-war book.

!!!QUESITON 3!!!

In Slaughterhouse Five the structure of the story is out of order primarly to show how time doesn't matter. Kurt Vonnegut chose this structure because he beleives time is pointless. He lives his life not depending on time. He is Billy Pilgrim in the book, and Billy also doesn't follow time. Time should not dictate when we do things, they should just happen. That is how Billy's life was, and he couldn't control it. His whole life was planned out, he knew what he was going to do, and he had no option of when to do it. He only went through the motions already knowing the outcome. The phrase "so it goes" was said after every death in the book. This relates to the concept of time because death is unaviodable, and is supposed to happen without any control. Most people can't control their death. It just is. Billy believed that after you died, you were still alive. You were still living in the past, and were constantly reliving memories. You never really died, you just stopped making new memories, and focused on the old ones. The fact that people base their lives on time, doesn't make sense to him. Everything will happen the way it is supposed to, and people should just go through the motions, not caring what section of time they are in. The structure of this book is cut into many sections to portray that everything happens, and at the time it might not make sense because settings are changing so often, but in the end it will all come together and finally makes sense. The second part of telling the story out of order is to show his emotions about the war. It was the worst time of his life, and he doesn't want to dwell on it for chapters and chapters. Instead of him talking pre war, war, and post war, he jumbles it up so you only read short summaries of the war. If he told page after page about bombings and murdering it wouldn't be as significant because we would get used to it. When he suddenly travels from Tralfamadore to the war, you get more a shock. The book was trying to make an impact on the readers, and send an anti-war message.

and then there's fate..

       The idea of fate versus free will is a very complex and controversial topic. In this novel, the Tralfamadorians say that humans are the only life-form in the galaxy that believe in free will. However, when the outer-worldly beings look at someone, they see their entire life; past, present, and future. Therefore, there is no such thing as free will, because everything is already set in stone. The author of Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut, believes that time is an irrelevant creation of man. Kurt Vonnegut, like the Tralfamadorians, doesn't believe in free will. When Vonnegut was a teenager he was stripped of all of his free will and thrown into the front lines of a war. This is why he decided to write a science fiction novel based off of a character who also has no free will, visited by aliens that reinforce the fact that nothing can be changed about his past because his future has already happened.