Fate.

Fate, the ability to control one’s future, is a common theme amongst songs and novels and is also a common and controversial topic in conversations around the world. The idea that people by nature have free will, as carm.net puts it – “freedom of self determination and action independent of external causes” – is a very popular belief. Perhaps equally popular; however, is the opposite belief, that people do not have free will at all. Illustrated by the Hermetic Philosophy Glossary: “All there is is Consciousness, there is absolutely no free will; everything is God’s will, the impersonal functions of Consciousness, manifesting as destiny, individual or otherwise; decisions have to be made so one makes them as if there is free will – the result is God’s Will.” Both sides have powerful arguments, and neither side can prove that they speak the truth.

            Slaughterhouse-Five and Forrest Gump both convey the idea that human will isn’t completely free. Slaughterhouse-Five argues that the book of life has already been written and that humans just exist on the page of today unable to foresee the pages to come and unable to change them. Forrest Gump implies that there are multiple hallways to go down, but in the end they all lead to the same place and that the only things that humans can change are the paths from major event to major event.

Evidence of the “pro-fate, lack of free will” outlook is easily evident in the quotes scattered throughout both works. Perhaps the most famous fate-related quote is found in Forrest Gump: “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” This quote is both very similar and very different to the outlook in Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five. In Slaughterhouse-Five, the Tralfamadorians are the authority on fate. They let Billy Pilgrim know what the truth is: that the future is going to be how it’s going to be, and there’s nothing that Billy, or anyone can do about it. The future, past and present are all happening at the same time, and since the future wasn’t changed, it can’t be changed. These outlooks are essentially the same, but are surprisingly different if dissected. If there were absolutely no free choice at all, as the Tralfamadorians would promote, choosing a specific chocolate out of the box would not be a possibility because choosing exercises free will. Both outlooks have the end result the same: eating chocolate, or getting to the end result. To apply the box of chocolates analogy further: in Forrest Gump, it doesn’t matter what choices are made, i.e.; which chocolate is chosen, because the same end result will always be achieved, i.e.; eating chocolate. In Slaughterhouse-Five, choosing to do things differently is impossible, i.e.; picking a different chocolate, and obviously, the ending will be the same, i.e.; eating chocolate.

Comparing the feather in Forrest Gump to the ‘Poo-tee-weet’ by the bird at the beginning and end of Billy’s story yields similar results. The feather in Forrest Gump can float and twist any which way that the wind takes it, and it will always get to where it needs to be, but Slaughterhouse-Five’s birds will always say exactly ‘Poo-tee-weet’ at the same time, at the same place, and in the same pitch. The idea of the end result being destined shines with both the feather and the birds, but the ability for the pathways leading to destiny is only evident with the feather.

Forrest himself agrees with the analysis presented in the previous paragraphs, and he says so. “I don’t know if Momma was right or if, if it’s Lieutenant Dan. I don’t know if we each have a destiny, or If we’re all just floating around accidental like on a breeze, but I, I think maybe its both. Maybe both is happening at the same time.” Maybe it’s both happening at the same time – the ability to choose ones own path to get to where one must be. Agrees with the box of chocolates quote. Agrees with the feather. Partially agrees with Slaughterhouse-Five. They’re similar in that, they both recognize that free will is not present in every aspect of life, and they’re different in that Forrest Gump gives more power to the people – suggesting that people do indeed have some free will.

Is the future set in stone? Can it be changed? The answer depends on who gets asked, but Forrest Gump and Slaughterhouse-Five agree on one thing – that some things are indeed set in stone, and will always happen. Be it, eating chocolate or floating around in the wind people will always be where their destiny needs them to be. Can humans choose which doorways to go through, even if all them lead to the same place? Forrest Gump says yes, Slaughterhouse-Five says no.

The argument over the truth about fate, destiny and free will shall likely be an endless war because there is no way to know if choices can be made to change the would-be future. Is it possible to influence the future? Or maybe just change how to get from A to B? Or does nothing change at all regardless of the choices that are made? The truth is unknown, but there will always be great novels and song as well as persuasive arguments on every side of this volatile topic.

The power of love in Slaughterhouse-Five and House of Leaves

If we deny love that is given to us, if we refuse to give

love because we fear pain or loss, then our lives will

be empty, our loss greater.

-Unknown

Love is a powerful emotion, perhaps the most powerful of them all. It can make or break men, driving them to the brink of insanity or pushing them to the top of their game. It’s both a motivator and a deterrent; both a blessing and a curse. When bestowed upon a once humble, indifferent individual his or her life is changed, for better or for worse, forever.

Perhaps even more moving than love itself is the power love has to change people, and the central role this “changing power” plays in novels. Particularly the role this power plays in both Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five and Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves. In both books the main characters are effected by love greatly, one driven to insanity and the other pushed to fame.

Navidson and Pilgrim are both heavily effected by love. Navidson and Karen are deeply in love with each other, but they aren’t loyal to each other. Navidson, a reporter always puts his adventuring spirit before his dearly beloved, and Karen responds by having multiple affairs. Pilgrim, on the other hand, never loved Valencia, his wife, but she was deeply and immensely in love with him. The situations that love puts both Navidson and Pilgrim in, making them feel empty at times and full at others, is a very large part of both character’s personalities.

In House of Leaves, Navidson’s feeling of emptiness left by his wife’s betrayal if symbolized as a house that’s bigger on the inside than on the outside; an obvious metaphor for a man distraught; his inner troubles are much larger than anything that could fit inside of a body so tiny in size when compared to his woes and inner void. The walls of the house shift more and more violently as Karen gets equally more and more upset with Navidson’s obsession with the house. Eventually, after the house, and Navidson’s obsession with it, cause them to separate the house swallows Navidson. Karen sensing that her true love is in danger rushes into the hallway that she fears and realizes how much she loves Navidson. The thought of the true love defeats the house, or fills the void, and she finds him almost instantly and when she does, the walls of the immense labyrinth dissolve. Navidson’s movie of the whole ordeal becomes a famous work of art, and its all because of the love that he and Karen share with each other. Love is crazy like that, it made the horrible situation that almost killed him, then it saved him from it and made him famous.

Billy Pilgrim has a similar story to tell. He marries Valencia, the daughter of a rich and powerful man in the line of work Billy wishes to enter: optometry. Billy never loves Valencia, even though she’s deeply and madly in love with him. When Billy’s plan crashes and he’s the only survivor she rushes to the hospital to see him and dies on the way, to carbon monoxide poisoning. Billy is never the same after this. He can no longer distinguish fact from fiction, present from memory. All he can do now is hope he can protect others from his sad fate, and he does so by prescribing corrective lenses for the soul: allowing people to peer into themselves and fill any emptiness, emptiness that
Pilgrim has to live with for the rest of his life.

These two characters have a lot of parallel aspects but are also distinctively different. While the both have pain caused by love, one’s pain comes from loving and the other’s comes from being loved without returning the love. Both men are very empty when things aren’t going their way, and Billy stays empty for the remainder of his life realizing that he should have loved his wife, a realization that came a little too late. The pain that is caused is a very central theme in both of the books, Billy’s “time jumps” and Navidson’s “house that’s bigger on the inside and on the outside” are both symbols of what love can do to men.

For better or for worse couldn’t be more accurate. It’s a vital line when getting married, and it’s the most uncertain. Will it be for better or for worse? It’s quite possible it could go either way, because love is the all powerful miracle and the malevolent execration.