As we conclude our discussion for Slaughterhouse-Five, I would like to say that out of the three books we’ve read this quarter, Slaughterhouse-Five was my favorite (although Ragtime does come in as a close second). Its fast-pace, black humor, and eccentric story all keep me engaged as a reader.
One of the things I ask myself is whether Slaughterhouse-Five is a novel against war or a novel against war novels. I feel like the novel has aspects of both. Slaughterhouse-Five is
certainly no anti-war novel, and Vonnegut even denies that this novel
is anti-war claiming that it was just as effective in stopping glaciers.
Wars were going to happen and it was simply inevitable whether we like
it or not. At the same time, this is not our conventional anti-war
novel. We’re taken into space, where we learn about the Tralfamadorians
and their alien race. Does Vonnegut use the Tralfamadorians as a way to
cope with his own trauma? Or does he use these characters to poke fun at
conventional anti-war novels and try to deglamorize the war concept
behind them?
When
looking back at Billy Pilgrim’s memories during and after the war, one
thing can definitely be said of him: they are very human. Yes, he seems
very childish, and makes himself look stupid most of the time, but is
that not how most of us would act if we were in that situation? He isn’t
some John Wayne that is fighting heartily and cheerfully, killing
Germans left and right. Billy PIlgrim is just a human, and like most
adults that go to war, he is a child and doesn’t realize the realities
of war. Vonnegut is saying more than that war is bad. He is exposing the
truth for what it is, and tries to shatter the myths about war that
we’ve just become so accustomed to. In a way, he treats us like we’re
kids ourselves.
The "anti-glacier" comment might reflect a general skepticism about the ability of anything or anyone to "stop war"--as we've seen within the last decade, the push to war develops a momentum of its own, and rational argument gets quickly stifled amid the drumbeat. But the novel's fundamental intention might still be to expose war for what it is (as you say), and to give its reader a strong conviction that it is brutal, absurd, meaningless, and in no way romantic. Will this consciousness among thousands of Vonnegut readers stop the next war? Maybe not. Will it help shape the deepest convictions of those who will speak out and organize against it? Maybe.
ReplyDelete