So far this semester, I think Slaughterhouse Five has been my favorite book to read and discuss. One thing that came up multiple times throughout the discussion of this novel was whether it was successful in its goal of portraying war as accurately as possible, with no sugarcoating or glorification. I personally think that this novel did do a good job of that, especially of showing how big of an impact war can have on its veterans after the war.
I think that Billy was a good 'poster-child' for a war veteran. He fought at a young age, and saw and experienced many horrors of war that stayed with him for life. His family around him treated him as if he was slowly going insane, but he felt that he was completely justified. Even we, the readers, debated over whether the events that Billy describes were true or just a figment of his imagination. Billy wasn't the type of war hero or role model archetype that anyone would envy or try to take after. He wasn't portrayed as "cool" or even very respected by the readers or even the other characters in the book. Because of how the war seemed to have such a negative effect on Billy's life and his loved ones, the idea of war becomes more tainted in the reader's minds. We realize that not everyone who goes to war is a brave war hero. In that way, I think Vonnegut is successful in how he portrays war without glorifying it.
I also think the phrase "so it goes" which is said throughout the book serves to place more emphasis on the horrors of war. Every time Billy uses this phrase, it follows a statement about some horrible event from the war. His desensitization to the traumatic events he describes forces the reader to not only see how ugly war can really be, but to also realize that this violence and stress must have been a constant occurrence for Billy to eventually learn how to normalize it.
Another unique thing that Vonnegut does in this novel is that he reveals the fate of all his characters and even spoils the climax for us. Right from the beginning, we already know about Dresden's destruction, we know exactly how Billy will die, and more. This whole concept of non-linear time relates to Billy and his experiences on Tralfamadore, but I think Vonnegut also uses this to his own advantage. By going into the story already knowing what happens, the mystery and suspenseful elements of the story are taken away. The audience is just left to focus on each moment in time more deeply, and realize how the war has affected things. I also think knowing the unfortunate fate of certain people puts a greater edge of sadness over the entire book. By spoiling his own book to his audience, I think Vonnegut was able to more successfully de-glorify war.
Overall, I would say that Vonnegut was pretty successful in how he portrayed the war and its effects. What do you think?
I think that Billy was a good 'poster-child' for a war veteran. He fought at a young age, and saw and experienced many horrors of war that stayed with him for life. His family around him treated him as if he was slowly going insane, but he felt that he was completely justified. Even we, the readers, debated over whether the events that Billy describes were true or just a figment of his imagination. Billy wasn't the type of war hero or role model archetype that anyone would envy or try to take after. He wasn't portrayed as "cool" or even very respected by the readers or even the other characters in the book. Because of how the war seemed to have such a negative effect on Billy's life and his loved ones, the idea of war becomes more tainted in the reader's minds. We realize that not everyone who goes to war is a brave war hero. In that way, I think Vonnegut is successful in how he portrays war without glorifying it.
I also think the phrase "so it goes" which is said throughout the book serves to place more emphasis on the horrors of war. Every time Billy uses this phrase, it follows a statement about some horrible event from the war. His desensitization to the traumatic events he describes forces the reader to not only see how ugly war can really be, but to also realize that this violence and stress must have been a constant occurrence for Billy to eventually learn how to normalize it.
Another unique thing that Vonnegut does in this novel is that he reveals the fate of all his characters and even spoils the climax for us. Right from the beginning, we already know about Dresden's destruction, we know exactly how Billy will die, and more. This whole concept of non-linear time relates to Billy and his experiences on Tralfamadore, but I think Vonnegut also uses this to his own advantage. By going into the story already knowing what happens, the mystery and suspenseful elements of the story are taken away. The audience is just left to focus on each moment in time more deeply, and realize how the war has affected things. I also think knowing the unfortunate fate of certain people puts a greater edge of sadness over the entire book. By spoiling his own book to his audience, I think Vonnegut was able to more successfully de-glorify war.
Overall, I would say that Vonnegut was pretty successful in how he portrayed the war and its effects. What do you think?
I agree I think Vonnegut did a good job at portraying war as a horrible grueling experience without over glorifying it. This is especially clear in his depiction of Billy Pilgrim as the anti-war hero we think of. Though I do think the concept of Tralfamadore blurs this a bit as the story is both focused on war and the sci fi elements, the overarching theme comes through.
ReplyDeleteI also think Vonnegut did a good job of portraying war and its effects in a more realistic way than an idealistic war novel. As you said, Vonnegut not only created atypical content within his novel, but he messed with the structure of the war novel itself, which made reinforced the purpose of the book.
ReplyDeleteI've never thought about Vonnegut's use of "so it goes" as an anti-war phrase, but it makes sense. Under all the Tralfamadorian shenanigans, the novel denounces war and shows how harrowing it can be. There are no heroics, no action sequences, only tragedies amidst Billy's time traveling.
ReplyDeleteI think Vonnegut did a good job of portraying war. There were no parts that felt sugar coated or changed to portray the war in a certain light. He did not try to make Billy a "typical war hero", in fact he made fun of the characters that tried to fit that archetype. I agree, "so it goes" was a way that Vonnegut makes the horrors of war stand out even more. I can imagine seeing high officers thinking "so it goes" to sacrificing the lives of soldiers for a "greater cause".
ReplyDeletePersonally this style did not enhance my enjoyment or analysis of the war being presented. I found it bland and the power must have been lost on me because I did not find it extremely moving . Billie's complete indifference made it hard to connect with him and any other character, and I personally tend to enjoy novels with more human characters. I understand Vonnegut's aim, but in my opinion his execution was off.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think mitchell summed it up well with this book being an anti( war novel) in that the "so it goes" mentality and character of billy pilgrim subverts this idea that men go off to war and become fully adult and come back with wonderful war tales.
ReplyDeleteI really love the statement "so it goes" because it makes it feel like any death throughout the book is unimportant and really does put war in a bad light. I wish the characters had more depth and maybe Vonnegut could've made Billie more interesting but I still think he's a really good representation of a war veteran.
ReplyDelete