Spring Break... [EDIT]
is over. please refer to the course syllabus and policy statement, and let's get to work:
kurt vonnegut served as an american infantry scout during world war ii, and as a prisoner of war experienced the horrific aftermath of the allied bombing of dresden, germany. while he worked on slaughterhouse five for years, he completed and published the novel in 1969 during the vietnam conflict, and "guess[es]" that it is an anti-war book, explicitly calling it in his preface to the 25th anniversary edition "a nonjudgmental expression of astonishment." (xii) himself asking how he could possibly be nonjudgmental about the exhuming of bodies from the corpse mines in the non-city, he answers, "It was bombs that had done the killing," and offers as his core theme "the inhumanity of man's inventions to man." (xii-xiii)
our discussion should disprove "the owlish nit-wit george will," who said of this novel that it "trivialized the Holocaust." (xii) a dialogue on the Holocaust must necessarily concern itself with the inhumanity of man to his fellows on a staggering scale, and while man's cruelty does appear herein at the interpersonal level, it is not the focus of this novel which limits itself to dresden alone.
the bard once wrote "what's in a name?", and i am completely misappropriating that line to segue into the first part of our discussion: the character of billy pilgrim. how do we the reader react to billy--is he compelling or repulsive? why the name billy pilgrim, and does it serve its seeming purpose, or is there a bleak irony inherent in it? vonnegut relates, "Shortly before my father died, he said to me, 'You know--you never wrote a story with a villain in it.'" (8) while he doesn't necessarily acknowledge this statement to be true, it leads one to wonder: is there a hero in this book? does billy pilgrim fill that role, traditionally or otherwise?
[EDIT] additionally, as this book is largely autobiographical, and as much a work of non-fiction as it is a work of science-fiction, it is interesting to note that the author appears discretely only a few times, and only as a bystander: "That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book." (120) what does vonnegut accomplish by distancing himself from this sliver of his own biography, if anything? does the fictional character of billy offer something that the author's own person could not?
okay, we'll start with you. yeah, you... the one in the pants. as pat benatar once said, "fire away!"
1 comment:
First, I must say that I thought one of the advantages of an online discussion or course such as this was that pants were not a prerequisite. When you address "you in the pants", then, who do you expect will answer?
Be that as it may, I AM wearing pants, and so I guess I'll have to go ahead and be the first to volunteer some discussion on the following points...
1] Disproving the thesis that Slaughterhouse-Five trivializes the Holocaust and discussing the theme of the inhumanity of man's inventions...
Maybe the notion that this book trivializes the Holocaust lies in the perception that Vonnegut treats some of the subject matter lightly or comically. But this is his reaction, and his fiction and humor can help bring to light the absurdity of the state of being at war. Whether he chooses to laugh or cry, it is an emotional reaction or expression, not a judgment, and can still contain the same sorrow.
Vonnegut does not tackle the Holocaust full-on, but that is likely because it is outside the scope of the specifics he wants to deal with to paint the same general truths regarding "inhumanity".
2] The name Billy Pilgrim is:
Generic, common, undignified
Seemingly American
Almost overtly fictional
Innocent, Kindergartenesque
the "Pilgrim" elicits ideas of a peaceful wayfarer, and contrasts the actual reason Billy finds himself abroad: War.
The name alone suggests there is nothing all-too-special about the default protagonist who doesn't have much striving ambition and who seems completely out of place in a violent, competitive world that engenders war. There is not much in the name that distinguishes him as a prototypical hero.
Is Billy Pilgrim compelling or repulsive? Neither. More of a pathetic protagonist. It may be hard to really root for him because it seems that he just wants to be left alone to live a "dull" life, so this clashes with the ingrained notions about the dramatic arc of heroes (some eventual form of supremacy over peers and villains both).
He is unassuming, naive, gentle, and all of these almost comically so, but not possessing any heroic virtues to the extreme.
3] Autobiographical distancing...
Well, Slaughterhouse-Five has been purposefully written as a book within a book, and Vonnegut uses a large chunk of the beginning to talk about the writing of the book that is within the book. I think we should clarify that it is within the framed story (the story of Billy Pilgrim) that the reader is only scarcely made aware of the narrator's presence within the story.
The exaggeration, the caricature that Billy provides is likely hard for Vonnegut himself to live up to.
Elements of himself in the lanky, awkward youngster are present, surely, but, as Vonnegut himself said, fiction is filled with tools that can allow for more truth than non-fiction (wildly paraphrased from Wampeters, Foma, and Granfalloons because I am finishing this from work and don't have the book handy).
On an unrelated parting note, another large theme I saw throughout the book, besides the absurdity of war/the inhumanity of man's invention, was dealing with the awkward position of survival.
Post a Comment