Slaughterhouse Five-Billy Pilgrim and his Compromises

When I first thought about Slaughterhouse Five and Billy Pilgrim, I didn't think that any compromise was present in the story. But as I dug deeper, I realized that Billy compromises his beliefs for the majority of his life, as he keeps the aliens and his experiences to himself. Although he knows in his head that the experiences are something that he shouldn't share with anyone because they will think he is crazy, at some point he decides that telling the world is what is more important to himself.

When Billy finally decides to share his experiences, it seems as though he sets himself free. Although his daughter and son-in-law think he has lost his mind, and spend their time worrying about how his actions will affect them, he couldn't care less. He feels as though his experiences need to be shared, whether or not anyone believes that what he has to say must be shared.

As I thought of all of this, I felt that Vonnegut was sharing an important truth with his readers: we shouldn't compromise when it comes to our happiness. He seems to be saying that while other people may not agree with what you have to say, saying it will set you free simply because you are being honest.

I'm not sure how I feel about this message. I do agree that it is important to do what it takes to make yourself happy, I don't feel like you should step on others to ensure your own happiness. I actually want to "compromise" his message, and meet him halfway. Do what you can to make yourself happy, but don't be willing to ruin relationships around you just to make sure that your feelings are where they want to be.

Invisible Man-Compromises all around

As I read Invisible Man, i was struck by how much the narrator waffled back and forth between being willing to compromise and sticking to his guns. When he does what he thinks is best, and takes the white man in his care to a black bar to get him something to drink and save his life, he is in deep trouble with his president. When asked why he did what he did, the narrator will not explain and stand up for himself, which is disheartening to read. He just takes his punishment. Then, as he is about to leave, he begins to yell at the president, trying to get his point across before he is expelled from the school. This actually works in a sense, because the man sends him to Harlem with letters of reccommendation so that he can get a job. Although this wasn't his intent, his sticking to his morals seems to have helped him at the time.
From that example, it feels like compromise is a problem, which I don't think is the case in real life. Because he was unwilling to compromise and do what would have been "best" for the white man, he lost his job and his livelihood. I wonder what Ellison is trying to say? Does he think compromise is not worth our time or energy? I don't think so. I think he is telling us that there is a balance. Compromsie at times, but when it's necessary, do what's right. For you.

The Stranger-Compromise, or Sticking to Your Beliefs?

As I finished The Stranger, I really felt as though there was little to no compromise in the novel. For example, Meursault refuses to comply with societal norms, and doesn't really have the time or energy to be bothered with the fact that his mother died. Although not everyone loves their mother and wants to spend every minute with them, the fact remains that they gave birth to us, and are an integral part of our lives. It would have been a compromise for Meursault to at least pretend to be broken up about his mother's death, but he simply slept through the entire event and went along with his life.

Another example of lack of compromise I saw was when the priest came in to Meursault's cell near the end of the novel and tried to convert him to Christianity. I was surprised at Meursault's behavior, obviously, but he made his beliefs known. The priest wouldn't even consider this fact, and continued to probe Meursault until he exploded. Meursault refused to even consider the idea of religion, which surprised the priest, and they both refused to compromise, and stuck to their beliefs one hundred percent.

After reading the novel, one question I came up with was: is compromise a good thing? An argument can be made on both sides. Compromise helps everyone to work together, and allows everyone to get a little bit of what they want. On the other side, compromise keeps people from sticking to their beliefs, and allows people to submit to others rather than fighting for what they want. It's kind of scary to think about whether or not compromise should even happen, and while I'm inclined to say it should, The Stranger may suggest otherwise...

Crime and Punishment Compromise?

As I read Crime and Punishment, I saw just how little compromise there truly was throughout the book. Razkolnikov will not compromise with his mother, and won't take money from her most of the time. Instead, he will live in poverty, because he wants to be the one providing for his mother and sister. Similarily, Luzhin will not compromise his own beliefs, and lets Dounia walk out of his life because he will not compromise the idea that he is the provider, and that his wife will need to be submissive in order for their relationship to work. Both of these examples lead to suffering for the person who refuses to comprise. Razkolnikov lives in poverty, and commits a murder in order to "provide" for his family. Luzhin faces a life alone because he lets a wonderful woman in Dounia walk, as he cannot handle that she is willing to stand up to him.

These examples lead me to kind of a dramatic conclusion. People who refuse to compromise suffer. The message truly is that without compromise, we all end up alone, without other people around to spend time with and create relationships with. Compromise is an integral part of life, as it allows us to take the time and be with other people around us.

Compromise in King Lear?

As we have just finished reading King Lear, I have been instructed to consider my big question in terms of the tragedy: does compromise truly exist? My question is possibly morphing into a similar one: did compromise ever exist?

If compromise existed in Shakespeare's tragedy, much of the tragedy could have been avoided. The story begins with a lack of compromise: when Lear asks his three daughters to quantify their love for him, his youngest, and favorite, won't do it. While his two older daughters fall all over themselves to come up with the most grandiose explantions about how much they love their father, (all of which is a lie, by the way,) Cordelia tells her father that "she cannot heave her heart into her mouth." She simply will not put an amount to how much she loves her father. Thus, the trouble begins. Throughout the novel, the other sisters and Lear are battling over power, over what Lear will be allowed to do even though he isn't technically king anymore. Lear wants to bring 100 knights with him wherever he goes; his daughters want him to bring none. They cannot reach a compromise. The daughters are warring over who should receive the largest share of the kingdom, and Gonerial ends up killing Regan rather than share the kingdom like they were instructed to.

Each of these examples lead me to believe, that at least in this story, compromise doesn't exist. Period. Each character had to have what they wanted at all costs. No one could just humor those around them, they did what was best for them, throwing their loved ones to the wolves. I wonder if Shakespeare was making a commentary on compromise? Did he think that it never existed? Or was he worried, that even then, compromise was going by the wayside?

I don't think compromises have never existed. I know they exist today. But I also know that people are increasingly reluctant to use them in everyday life, WE WANT WHAT WE WANT! This makes me nervous for mankind...at some point, isn't this going to turn into a global problem that must be solved? Or has it already?

Perhaps Shakespeare can still teach us something afterall...

Oedipus and Compromise?

Oedipus is porbably the last person who one would think is willing to compromise. When the story begins, Oedipus is saying,"And therefore I have come myself to hear you -- I, Oedipus who bear the famous name," (7-8). Oedipus seems like the kind of man who is set in his ways, a man who is fairly prideful and seems like a candidate for hubris to be his tragic flaw. He acts pompous and sure of himself, and doesn't seem likely to be willing to compromise with the gods, or with anyone else for that matter. As the story continues, the reader finds out about how Oedipus came to be where he is today, what has caused him to be the king of Thebes. After the oracle informs him that he will kill his father and marry his mother, he leaves his home, sure that this will solve the problem. He is unaware, though, that his "parents" are, in fact, adoptive, and are not the object of the prophecy. He chooses to leave Corinth, his "native" land. When telling the story to his wife/mother, he says "I will tell you all that happened there, my lady. There were three highwayscoming together at a place I passed; and there a herald came towards me, and a chariot drawn by horses, with a man such as you describe seated in it. The groom leading the horses forced me off the road at his lord's command; but as this charioteer lurched over towards me I struck him in my rage. The old man saw me and brought his double goad down upon my head as I came abreast. He was paid back, and more! Swinging my club in this right hand I knocked him out of his car, and he rolled on the ground. I killed him. I killed them all," (761-774).

Oedipus refused to compromise with this man. In those times, when two chariots came upon eachother on the narrow roads, one had to get off the road, usually the younger man, as he would have an easier time getting back on the road. Oedipus decided that he was too busy and it would be a terrible inconvenience to leave the road for a moment, and instead killed the man in the other chariot, who turned out to be his actual father. Through his lack of compromise in such a commonplace situation, Oedipus accidentally killed his father, fulfilling the prophecy in a way he had never imagined.

The picture at the top of the blog portrays Oedipus killing his father, and how such a "small" compromise to ignore could lead to such huge consequences. The reader must remember that this story was written by Sophocles to encourage the viewers to return to Apollo, to follow his creed. This leads me to believe that Sophocles, at least, believed that compromise was necessary to succeed, even if the commoners of the day did not. The conclusion I have drawn is that compromise has always been a struggle, no matter what year in time it has been. Life needs compromise in order to succeed, and although not everyone has always understood that, some have, and it makes me wonder if we need someone like Sophocles to write another story to scare everyone straight, or if we should make Oedipus required reading for everyone who works in Washington, D.C.

The Beginning of the Journey...

When asked to think of a "big question" that is defining and consuming my life right now, I initially had a really hard time thinking of one that applies to all areas of my life: school, home, books, our nation, and the world. It often seems like my life isn't important enough to have anything in common with the problems The United States and the entire world. On second thought, however, I thought of a huge question that everyone I know wrestles with every day of their lives: Is there a such thing as real and true compromise? Has the art of giving up some of what you want for the ultimate solution gone by the wayside in favor of complete hedonism?

In America, this comes in the form of the government. Democrats and Republicans can't even be in the same room at this point, and vote purely on party rather than by issue. This has maifested itself in problems involving the debt ceiling, how the government almost shut down before a last second agreement.

In my own life, I struggle with compromising in my own family, whether it comes in the form of what to have for dinner, or what movie to see. Although the problems aren't life threatening in any way, we all have such complete different opinions and tastes that it is nearly impossible to come up with a meal to eat that we will all enjoy. Someone is bound to be unhappy.

This summer, I read Plainsong, by Kent Haruf. The entire story revolves around compromises being reached or being avoided. Ike and Bobby's parents split up, because they are unable to communicate and reach a compromise. Their mother will not get out of bed in the morning, and their father cannot understand what she is going through. Although he tries, she can't share her feelings with him, and lack of communication leads to the breakup of their marriage. Victoria and Dean cannot come to a compromise regarding their unborn baby, which leads to the baby in the end not having a father. Dean wants to go out and party, Victoria wants to keep her baby safe. She tries to compromise and go out with him one night, where she loses control and drinks, leading to uncertainty about the baby's health. Victoria leaves Dean, who can't see the error in his ways, and loses his family.

Without compromise, nothing gets done. Everyone sits around arguing, letting real problems go by the wayside. If the answer to my question is that compromise doesn't exist anymore, that we must have our way and that our motto is "my way or the highway," , we will need to find a way to handle not being completely satisfied, or we could be in real trouble.