Analysis Essay

A New Historicist View of The Nice Little People by Kurt Vonnegut

Jane Watson

English 201

Professor Leslie Jewkes

27th, October 2012

In the following essay we explore the in-depth relationship between a masterful storyteller, Kurt Vonnegut, and his short work of fiction, The Nice Little People. Closely examining Vonnegut's unique writing style and simple prose, we take a look at the man himself through his other stories and his own writing devices using a new historicist lens, with a special emphasis on Vonnegut's employ of characterization and his humanistic approach to storytelling.

Jane Watson
Professor Leslie Jewkes
English 201
27 Oct 2012

A New Historicist View of The Nice Little People by Kurt Vonnegut

Kurt Vonnegut's short story, The Nice Little People, is a fun demonstration of quirky science fiction in post world war II America. The Nice Little People is a short story found in a collection with thirteen other stories that were posthumously published in Look at the Birdie in 2009. This vignette is a compelling story written by one of the world's most unique writers. Vonnegut is most widely known for the literary masterpieces written with a strong influence from his experiences both as a soldier and a prisoner of war. This new historicist look offers a glimpse of this great american writer not through the horrors of war, but more by the Kurt Vonnegut who reveled in humor, pessimism, science fiction and moral reverence.

The protagonist told by third person limited is called Lowell Swift, and within the first paragraph Lowell is easily likable, identifiable, and cared for. Vonnegut felt it was important to create a character that could be easily followed along with and rooted for, a testament to his humanistic connection to the world. He flawlessly does this by creating a character who could be anyone and anywhere, your neighbor, friend from work or one of the nice guys at church. You root for Lowell Swift, maybe because he works an honest day's labor, maybe because you know his marriage ends that day and it feels all the more tragic because of the “red roses in a long, green box under his arm.” (431) Vonnegut's portrayal of Lowell Swift seems to be a moralized standard of the hard working joe post word war II. Because of Vonnegut's disgust at death and destruction and the effects it had on him while a prisoner of war, Vonnegut was drawn to kindness despite his negative views of the world.

Lowell Swift is too kind. You first get a taste of his moral character following just beneath the first paragraph when the narration begins with, “the bus was crowded but no woman were standing, so Lowell's conscience was unencumbered.” (431) Lowell then spends his time on the bus thinking pleasant things about his wife. Right away the reader couples Lowell's positive thoughts about his wife and the end of the marriage occurring on the same day, paving more sympathy for Lowell. The absolve of a marriage usually happens with negative foreshadowing by one or both parties involved, and the reader is told who to side with on an early basis within the story. One of Vonnegut's common storytelling devices is to shock, and because we have no idea precisely when or how the marriage will come to an end, Vonnegut has already set you up for a surprise outcome.

Vonnegut's light tone proceeds through the story, much like his other more well known works, such as Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse-Five. Though unlike the heavy themes of death, war and destruction in these aforementioned novels, The Nice Little People seems to be a far departure. Upon further reading, Lowell is further developed with neat description that deepens the connection between reader and character, as we now know that Lowell remains far too kind for his own good and makes less money than his wife. He's afraid she might leave him. Vonnegut explores the inequality between Lowell Swift and his wife and Lowell's humble acceptance that though she made quite a bit more money than he did as a real estate saleswoman, “God had made him-even as he had made Madelaine-presumably with some good end in mind.” (431)

Vonnegut often explored the theme of free will throughout his books. Slaughterhouse-Five and Breakfast of Champions are two well received novels that deal with the concept of free will and the view that it is nonexistent. In Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut wrote, “If I hadn’t spent so much time studying Earthlings," said the Tralfamadorian, "I wouldn’t have any idea what was meant by 'free will.' I've visited thirty-one inhabited planets in the universe, and I have studied reports on one hundred more. Only on Earth is there any talk of free will.” Vonnegut explores his un-harmonious relationship with freewill again in The Nice Little People when Lowell Swift suddenly encounters a paper knife. It appeared to be thrown at him as he waited for the bus. While there is no mention of free will in the story directly, through study of Vonnegut and his work, it is clear he has put Lowell Swift in a position where he had no choice but to encounter the paper knife. Because nobody around claimed the paper knife to be their own, Lowell put it in his pocket.

Vonnegut further explains Lowell's relationship with money and the lack thereof when he hops back on the bus and arrives home to a “colonnaded, white colonial apartment” (432) which without Madelaine's income, they could not afford. This is another example of Vonnegut's tumultuous relationship with inequality, a constant theme throughout the story. Vonnegut often visits this theme in his work, as well as a particular character style, which throughout the bulk of his career is dealt in little consideration and description. Vonnegut abandoned his favorite writing style with The Nice Little People with apt and personal descriptions of Lowell Swift. Vonnegut always felt that the writer should genuinely care for what they are writing, and it is evident that Vonnegut spent an intimate amount of time with Lowell to ensure that we too, as readers, care about him. The reader spends only a minimal amount of time with Madelaine, and what we do know is spoken through Lowell, and because of his childlike descriptions of her actions while they are so painfully and obviously wrong, we further side with Lowell and find his wife despicable, even though Lowell himself does not. We know more than Lowell.

Lowell arrives home, eagerly anticipating a meeting with her as it is their anniversary. Vonnegut turns the tables when instead of meeting his beloved wife, he meets a hand written note placed on the hall mirror. “Am taking a prospect for the Finletter property to supper. Cross your fingers.” Immediately we know as readers that Madelaine is doing something much more unacceptable with this 'prospect'. Lowell, however, proceeds with a wistful smile, blissfully unaware of what is so blatantly obvious.

Vonnegut loved science fiction. Anyone familiar with Vonnegut might expect some element of the supernatural. Labeled as a science fiction writer, Vonnegut's most famous pieces included elements of time travel, alternate histories, the far future, mind control and aliens. Vonnegut claimed plainly, that he noticed technology, and merely shrugged off the label of being a science fiction writer. Thus far in The Nice Little People, Vonnegut has yet to introduce any preternatural material, so when Lowell Swift hears an unusual sound coming from his pocket where he placed the paper knife, the reader may or may not be surprised at the sudden introduction of six tiny people who have come pouring out of the paper knife and are now huddled together on the protagonist's couch.

At first, Lowell doesn't know the tiny beings that have come pouring out of the paper knife are human. He prepares to smash them, but upon further examination, Lowell indeed discovers they are three men and three woman, “clad in glistening black tights.” (433) It is no surprise that Vonnegut disallows Lowell to smash the creatures as he was preparing to do until he noticed they were human beings. An active humanistic writer, Vonnegut got right down to the human element of both Lowell Swift and the creatures when Lowell begins to tenderly care about them and for them. “He congratulated himself on his calm, his reasonableness with respect to the little people. He hadn't panicked, hadn't killed them or called for help.” (436)

Lowell Swift spends the next page and a half having a great time with the little people, entertaining himself with their crazy, unexpected arrival in his life. He notices right away that these alien-human beings couldn't have landed at a better place nor with a better person to take care of them and ensure they weren't handled wrong. It's when Madelaine arrives home that the story accelerates pace.

Vonnegut goes into brief detail of Madelaine's kiss with her boss as Lowell plainly watches from the window. Lowell's reaction, is of course, not what it may have been if the little people hadn't been preoccupying his mind. Though it seems that Lowell is far too easy going regarding his wife, which makes the ending to the story that much more provocative.

Lowell must find a way to keep the little people out of Madelaine's view. He hurries them back into the spaceship as his wife makes her first appearance in the story. We are now introduced into a quite unusual circumstance between Lowell and his wife, though not unusual of Vonnegut's writing style. Madelaine doesn't discover the existence of the little people, but she does comment on the paper knife after she offhandedly tells Lowell the flowers he brought home were nice. She does apologize for her absence on their anniversary, but the interchange between them is somehow cold and quickly to the point in an uncharacteristic way of man and wife, again, a unique mechanism of Vonnegut's writing style.

Vonnegut said of good writing, that something awful should happen to the characters, “in order that the reader may see what they are made of.” Vonnegut uses a brilliant, if somewhat sadist means to end The Nice Little People. Though Madelaine and Lowell are in fact, married, she suddenly proclaims that the prospect she'd gone out to dinner with asked her to marry him, which she replied with a yes. Lowell's calm reaction is anything but what you might expect. “I had no idea it was that simple.” (438) Madelaine says she is dreadfully sorry, and Lowell asks for a farewell kiss, which Madelaine regards with disgust. She strikes him on the chest and tries to turn away, crying, “I can't stand it!” (438)

The spaceship in Lowell's hand has a greater reaction to this turn of events than Lowell himself. It hummed and grew hot. “It trembled and shot from his hand, under its own power, straight at Madelaine's heart.” (438) Vonnegut's masterful employ of great writing has the next line of text beginning with Lowell picking up the phone to speak to the precinct. He wants to report an accident-a death, and the sergeant wants to know if it was a homicide. Lowell responds that it takes a bit of explaining, which he does thoroughly, from beginning to end.

The Nice Little People is perhaps one of Vonnegut's lesser recognized works of literature that does not directly hint at his world war II experiences but does a brilliant job reflecting his black sense of humor, satire and love for science fiction. This perfectly blended mix of ingredients is the recipe for pure fun, if you can handle a dose of caustic wit. The Nice Little People is a one of a kind glimpse into the mind of a veteran with a love affair for science fiction, black comedy and a delve into the inner state of consciousness. Vonnegut delivers just that with a likable, seemingly normal protagonist many of us can relate to. We root for Lowell Swift, even as he unintentionally facilitates the murder of his wife.

Works Cited

Britt, Ryan. “The Kurt Vonnegut Question.” Genre in the Mainstream. n.s. n.d, Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

Deresiewicz, William. "'I Was There'." Nation 294.23 (2012): 32-37. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

Eggers, Dave, ed. The Best American Nonrequired Reading. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. Print.

Reed, Peter. “Kurt Vonnegut's Fantastic Faces.” Vonnegut. Origami Express, n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

Vonnegut, Kurt. How to Write With Style. Boingboing.net. International Paper Company, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

Wilson, Scott. "The Economimesis Of New Historicism (Or How New Historicism Displaced Theory In English Literature Departments)." Journal For Cultural Research 11.2 (2007): 161-174. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

Bibliography

Notable Biographies. Kurt Vonnegut Biography. Advameg, Inc, 2012. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

Vonnegut, Kurt. Bagombo Snuff Box: Uncollected Short Fiction. New York: Berkley Books, 2000. Print.

Argumentative Essay

Nurture Beats Nature

Jane Watson

English 201

Professor Leslie Jewkes

2nd, December 2012

In the following essay, Nurture Beats Nature, we explore three in-depth cases of individuals whose lives had taken an unfortunate turn, but provided researchers and psychologists with a unique opportunity to examine the ongoing debate: Nature versus Nurture. Through exploration of these cases and the philosophies of historical characters such as John Locke, we can better understand how nurture plays a significant role in the environment/gene saga.

Jane Watson
Professor Leslie Jewkes
English 201
2 Dec 2012

Nurture Beats Nature

In today's psychological world, there are a number of areas that deal with a great amount of controversy, and one of the most hotly debated is the issue of nature versus nurture. Nature versus nurture examines the relationship between traits that are inherited and the environmental factors that surround us. What is each role in development? Nature refers to the characteristics that we inherit at birth which influence our personality, physical maturity, intellectual capacity and social interactions. Nurture involves the effects of the environment on our personality, physical maturity, intellectual capacity and social interactions. Through an intensive examination of people throughout history, it is easy to see that nurture beats nature.

The questions remain: How much of our personality is determined by the manner with which we are raised by our parents? What role does our childhood experiences play in who we become? According to Psychology in Everyday Life, Nature and Nurture begs the question: “How does our genetic inheritance interact with our experiences to influence our development?” (64) Does it simply come down to having good or bad genes, and all else doesn't matter so much? Perhaps it's some of both. In the text Psychology, scholars ask, “is a person like Hitler born that way, or did something happen to make him the person he was?” (251) After we study the case of Genie, it's easy to conclude that nurture has an absolute profound effect on what makes us who we are.

Genie is not the name of the girl who was discovered, but rather a name given to her as a representation of a 'feral child'. Genie spent nearly all of her first thirteen years of life locked in her bedroom at home. She is arguably America's best known case of a wild child, a child who experienced extreme social isolation by being strapped to a potty chair, where she stayed indefinitely, whether she was eating, sleeping or doing nothing at all. Genie had just entered her teenage years, but could barely walk, talk or otherwise behave normally. Genie was forced to be alone all the time, and had nothing to do, or anyone to talk to. A social worker discovered her, still in diapers. In the review of the book, Letters, the author wrote:

Genie was hospitalized in November 1970 at the age of 13, not because she did not speak, nor even because she had undergone abuse. It was because of the totality of her state of being. At the time of her admission she was virtually unsocialized. She could not stand erect, salivated continuously, had never been toilet-trained and had no control over her urinary or bowel functions. She was unable to chew solid food and had the weight, height and appearance of a child half her age. (New York Times Book Review)

Within Genie's isolated upbringing, she was neglected and abused by the hands of her father, and her mother did nothing to help in the welfare of their daughter. Once Genie was discovered, her father killed himself, making it impossible for researchers and scientists to question him about the circumstances. Instead, Genie's team of neurologists, linguists and psychologists were left with a puzzling case that might shed some light on the nature versus nurture debate. Genie was a unique chance to investigate the influences of these two forces. Genie's case gives light to the concept of “tabula rasa”, the idea that humans are essentially born a blank slate. Of course, this isn't new. The idea can be traced back to Aristotle.

The blank slate theory is most widely attributed to John Locke's, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, from the 17^th century. John Locke was a philosopher in the 1600's and believed nurture is everything. In Locke's philosophy, the idea is that the human mind at birth does not come preloaded with instruction and data. He wrote:

It is an established opinion among some men, that there are in the understanding certain innate principles; some primary notions, characters, as it were, stamped upon the mind of man, which the soul receives in its very first being, and brings into the world with it. It would be sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this supposition. (12)

Our sensory experiences through life, rather, are what makes us the people we are. In fact, Sigmund Freud was also a proponent of nurture, and believed that one's character is more determined by upbringing.

At the time of Genie's discovery back in 1970, there was a debate brewing. Scientists declared that Genie was already mentally retarded at birth. If this was the case, then we could definitively say that Genie's nurturing had nothing to do with the state of her intellectual capacity and behaviors...but this is not the case. One of the members of Genie's team at the Children's Hospital in Los Angeles, California, Susan Curtiss, claimed that Genie's mental age increased by one year every time she was tested, which is impossible of someone who is mentally retarded. If such be the case, nurture beats nature exponentially.

Genie, undoubtedly, is a fascinating and unsettling glimpse into what a human being is like without the strict structures of our society. Though wild children are not the only cases that bring up the nature versus nurture debate. According to the text, Psychology, authors Ciccarelli and Meyer state that the debate is “quite important. Are people like Hitler, the infamous serial killer Ted Bundy, and Timothy McVeigh (the man responsible for the Oklahoma bombing of the Federal Building) the results of bad genes? Or was it bad parenting or life-altering experiences in childhood?”

A close examination of serial killers will lend strong support to both behavioral problems due to upbringing as well as inherited traits. While it's difficult to rule one completely out, we are still left with the question of which one is more strongly attributable....genetics or environment? In the article Phenomenology and Serial Murder, Candice A. Skrapec writes, “There are many studies of individual serial killers that describe and seek to understand their behavior under the terms of an established paradigm.”

John Douglas, a former FBI Profiler, said that disorganized serial killers normally share a list of common characteristics. Of some of these, most notably, is a dysfunctional background. A dysfunctional background for a serial killer usually involves sexual or physical abuse, overbearing parents, alcohol and drug use and related problems. A classic example of a dysfunctional childhood in a serial killer is that of Ed Kemper, whose mother condemned him to the basement for fears he would molest his younger sister, despite the reality that he had never given his mother any reason to think this. He was just ten years old at the time, and was naturally confused and angry. In compensation he turned to fantasy. Brought on by continued isolation, Ed Kemper's fantasies grew worse. It's easy here to draw the connection between Kemper's poor childhood experience and his outrageous behavior later on in life. And not much later. He began criminal behavior at the age of 15 when he murdered his grandparents. We are left to wonder if Ed Kemper had been raised by two very loving parents who had never locked him in the basement, if he still would have killed his grandparents. Is there a murder gene? Each individual has the same capacity to kill, so what makes some kill, and others not?

A man named Bradley Waldroup was convicted of murder in what the NPR radio program's Morning Edition called a “war zone.” Waldroup shot the friend eight times and “sliced her head open with a sharp object. When Waldroup was finished with her, he chased after his wife, Penny, with a machete, chopping off her finger and cutting her over and over.” NPR states that it wasn't a question of “who done it? But why done it?” They claim the answer was found in Waldroup's genes. In what is no doubt compelling and fascinating evidence, but nonetheless not able to hold up in the court of law, is Waldroup's Mao-A Gene. The gene has been linked to 30 different criminal defendants, most of them charged with murder. A particular variant of this gene has been linked to violence, and Waldroup was found to “carry the high risk version of the gene.”

Can we now expect each baby to be tested for the Mao-A Gene and if present with the high risk kind, be automatically imprisoned? It certainly raises the question. In this particular case, psychiatrist Terry Holmes was called in to rebut the evidence. He said Waldroup's behavior “had little to nothing to do with his genetic makeup.” What isn't being discussed here as much, is Waldroup's abusive childhood. A bad gene is a bad gene, and we may all have some. But it must be turned on.

In 1874, Francis Galton said, “Nature is all that a man brings with him into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth.” The human body is born with 100 trillion cells, and within each cell is the backbone of who we are, strands upon strands of DNA, uniquely profiled to physically distinguish us from other people. DNA is made up of tiny chromosomes, consisting of genes, tiny units of heredity that is given to us from our parents. Within these genes we are not helpless victims, predetermined to act or behave any certain way. Behavior can be learned or un-learned, and it is largely shaped by what we see and are told.

Works Cited

Ciccarelli, Saundra K and Meyer, Glenn. Psychology. New Jersey: Pearson, 2006. Print.

Hagerty, Bradley Barbara. “Can Your Genes Make You Murder?” NPR.Org. N.S. Web. 2 Dec. 2012

"Letters." New York Times Book Review (1993): 35. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Prometheus Books, 1995. Print.

Myers, David G. Psychology in Everyday Life. New York: Worth, 2009. Print.

Skrapec, Candice. “Phenomenology and Serial Murder.” Homicide Studies 5.1 (2001): 46-63. Print.

Final Semester Reflection

Jane Watson

English 201

12-14-12

As I reflect back on this semester, I'm glad to have taken another vital step towards reaching my academic goals. As has been the case since I can remember, english has been my easiest subject and the most enjoyable. I learned a long time ago that the best way to become a better writer does not come through taking english courses, but through reading, and through writing. Over and over and over. It's also not a skill that can ever be completely mastered. You can always do better, as is the case each and every time a piece is re-written. One of my favorite examples is J.R.R Tolkien, who re-wrote Lord of the Rings...how many times? I don't believe he was ever completely satisfied.

The most important piece to accomplishing english 201 is getting through it. Without getting through it, you can't continue to progress through an english degree. Therefore, english 201 is as valuable as any other english course that can ever be taken on a higher education level.

Furthermore as this is a research writing class, it's been a greater struggle than english classes I've taken previously, as I do not enjoy doing research writing, it's a bit of a taxing go through. I've always thought this kind of forced writing takes the fun out of writing almost entirely, and turns it more into a chore. I've never done particularly well at chores, which I guess explains why I sometimes struggle as a student!

I suppose the greatest successes achieved this semester is getting through the essays in one piece, particularly the analysis essay, as I thought I was going to die as I wrote it. I've never written an essay that took longer time preparing beforehand without even having typed a single word. It was like trekking through a muddy field with 50 pound bricks tied to each leg. In the dark. It's probably quite sad, as I'm sure they'll only get further and further taxing. I'm glad to have the experience tucked away in my writing folder.

As I just mentioned, I'm still vigorously working on the entire concept of research writing. I don't know how to make it an enjoyable time of writing, and I'm beginning to think that it never will. We all have those things in life we just don't agree with and mine might just be research writing. I'd love to figure out ways to get around that so that the rest of my college experience isn't so miserable!

I've definitely learned that essays going forward won't be as easy as they have been in the past, and to give myself more time to get through them. It can be difficult to find good resources, and I found that the scholarly options available at the library leave much to be desired. I'm glad to have the foundation laid by this class to launch from in ongoing classes.

As a blog and article writer outside of the school environment, all writing I do contributes in a positive way to my work. As I mentioned previously, writing is an art that requires continual improvement through the action of doing. Practice does make perfect, and writing is no exception to this rule. 

Bibliography

"10 Fascinating Facts About the Placebo Effect." Mind Power News. N.P. 2011. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.

Britt, Ryan. “The Kurt Vonnegut Question.” Genre in the Mainstream. n.s. n.d, Web. 5 Nov. 2012. 

Ciccarelli, Saundra K and Meyer, Glenn. Psychology. New Jersey: Pearson, 2006. Print.

Deresiewicz, William. "'I Was There'." Nation 294.23 (2012): 32-37. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.

Eggers, Dave, ed. The Best American Nonrequired Reading. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. Print.

Grad, Bernard Raymond. "The Laying On Of Hands: Some Clinical And Experimental Concerns." Journal Of Religion & Psychical Research 17.4 (1994): 182.Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.

Hagerty, Bradley Barbara. “Can Your Genes Make You Murder?” NPR.Org. N.S. Web. 2 Dec. 2012

"Letters." New York Times Book Review (1993): 35. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.

Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Prometheus Books, 1995. Print.

Myers, David G. Psychology in Everyday Life. New York: Worth, 2009. Print.

Newberg, Andrew M.D., and Mark Robert Waldman. How God Changes Your Brain. New York: Ballantine, 2009. Print.

"Periaqueductal Gray.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 16 July 2012. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.

Pretorius, Stephan P. "Is 'Divine Healing' In The 'Faith Movement' Founded On The Principles Of Healing In The Bible Or Based On The Power Of The Mind?." Hervormde Teologiese Studies 65.1 (2009): 399-405. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.

Researchers Demonstrate How Placebo Effect Works in the Brain.” Phys.Org. N.P. 2012. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.

Reed, Peter. “Kurt Vonnegut's Fantastic Faces.” Vonnegut. Origami Express, n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

Skrapec, Candice. “Phenomenology and Serial Murder.” Homicide Studies 5.1 (2001): 46-63. Print.

Vonnegut, Kurt. How to Write With Style. Boingboing.net. International Paper Company, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.

Welch, John S. "Ritual In Western Medicine And Its Role In Placebo Healing." Journal Of Religion & Health 42.1 (2003): 21. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.

Wilson, Scott. "The Economimesis Of New Historicism (Or How New Historicism Displaced Theory In English Literature Departments)." Journal For Cultural Research 11.2 (2007): 161-174. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2012.