The Concept of War Told by Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse-Five

Introduction

Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is one of the most famous writers of postmodernism. His writing is hailed as easily approachable but profound – simple structures dealing with serious questions about the society while blurring the lines between aspects of the real world and science fiction. (Farrell 3) Slaughterhouse-Five is, perhaps, Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s most famous work as well as one of the most famous postmodernist works, and it deals with the remnants in the society of what was one of the most harrowing events of the 20th century. It is partially also meant to be autobiographical, as the writer intends to portray the Bombing of Dresden as he saw when he was a prisoner of war, too. This essay aims to examine in which ways Kurt Vonnegut Jr. reflects on World War II and what kind of sentiments are represented in the book. Billy Pilgrim

The focal point of Slaughterhouse-Five is Billy Pilgrim whose life the reader gets to see in fragments as Billy travels through time, a consequence of being abducted by aliens from Tralfamadore. Tralfamadorians teach Billy about their beliefs, which heavily rely on predetermination and examining all events as a singular point in time, happening “all at one time”. (Vonnegut 53) This, in turn, shapes a bigger portion of Billy’s insights and plenty of them take time throughout the novel to fully develop into a picture that explains Billy’s background.

Nihilism and fatalism dominate in Billy’s point of view as he is portrayed as a relatively helpless person who does not seem to live his life, but his life rather seems to just kind of happen around him, which includes becoming “unstuck in time” seemingly at random. Vonnegut does seem to offer a possible explanation for the elements of time travelling, and Billy’s existentialist way of coping: “...they were trying to re-invent themselves and their universe. Science fiction was a big help.” (59) This is said as Billy and Eliot Rosewater are being treated at a mental health veteran’s hospital and Rosewater introduces Billy to the works of a science fiction writer, Kilgore Trout, who seems to be a continuous influence on the episodes Billy experiences while travelling through time.

Contemporary psychiatrists suggest Billy’s case of travelling through time can be interpreted as PTSD episodes, which are influenced in part by the Kilgore Trout novels he has read but does not fully remember. (Mustazza 294) This can also account for Billy’s resigned attitude towards life, a coping mechanism where he is only able to sustain if he takes everything that happens as something that must have happened. “So it goes” is by far the most used phrase in the novel, noted each time death is mentioned, regardless if it is war related, if it was a group of people, a person or even horses. It happens as if to confirm the thought that death is just what happens and there is not much one can do about it. It is taken out of a Tralfamadorian philosophy Billy says he has learnt – “dead person is in bad condition in that particular moment, but that the same person is just fine in plenty of other moments. Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is ‘So it goes.’” (Vonnegut 24)

Vonnegut also provides a snippet of Billy’s conversation with a Tralfamadorian about war, as the planet seems awfully peaceful to Billy – as it turns out he has been mistaken, and it is only peaceful at the moment. Tralfamadorians teach him another thing about dealing with war: ““That’s one thing Earthlings might learn to do, if they tried hard enough: Ignore the awful times, and concentrate on the good ones.”” (67) A striking scene in the book is when Billy Pilgrim watches a war film backwards, watching airplanes putting buildings back together, shipping the bombs back to factories, “...separating the dangerous contents into minerals. Touchingly, it was mainly women who did this work. The minerals were then shipped to specialists in remote areas. It was their business to put them into the ground, to hide them cleverly, so they would never hurt anybody ever again.” (Vonnegut 46)

It seems then, that through Billy, Vonnegut is trying to rationalise a battle with the aftermaths of war. He seems to be exploring what lengths a person might go to, emotionally and mentally, to be able to face both with the past and with life afterwards. Billy has developed a sort of a detachment from the outside world, despite finishing school, being successful at his job, marrying and having children. However, once he is “unstuck in time” he is not much more than an observer of his life who becoming more and more transfixed with Tralfamadorian views, to the point where he wants to make other people aware of them, perhaps because they have helped him tackle life after he wound up in the veteran’s mental hospital after the war.

Other Characters’ Perspectives

The first character that gives a blunt view on the war in the novel is Mary O’Hare, the wife of Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s fellow veteran who has also lived through the Bombing of Dresden. Vonnegut visits his friend and talks about writing a book on Dresden, which seems to unsettle his friend’s wife. “...then I understood. It was war that made her so angry. She didn’t want her babies or anybody else’s babies killed in wars. And she thought wars were partly encouraged by books and movies.” He echoes her sentiment and promises to her: “I’ll call it ‘The Children’s Crusade.’”, and true to his promise, that is the subtitle of the book. (Vonnegut 18) Through the character of Billy Pilgrim’s wife, Valencia, as she asks Billy about the war as they watch a glamorous yacht go past them on their wedding night, Vonnegut tries to in a very general manner comment on the other side of the female perspective on war somewhat begrudgingly, but sticking to his conviction that the image of war as a noble cause should be destroyed. He writes: “When the beautiful people were past, Valencia questioned her funny-looking husband about war. It was a simple-minded thing for a female Earthling to do, to associate sex and glamor with war.” (68)

Vonnegut also supplies views on the war in the war scenes where he through, for example, Roland Weary, tries to portray a man who has a heavily glamorised and romanticised vision of the war in his mind, not unlike those Mary O'Hare fears, only to have his strength and determination torn apart by the devastating consequences of the war.

The most strikingly different insight Vonnegut provides in the story is from Bertram Copeland Rumfoord, with whom Billy shared a hospital room after his aeroplane accident. Rumfoord is a historian who is trying to do research on Dresden who although he does acknowledge the devastation in Dresden, also says, as he and Billy share the following exchange:

““It had to be done,” Rumfoord told Billy, speaking of the destruction of Dresden.

“I know,” said Billy.

“That’s war.”

“I know. I’m not complaining.”

“It must have been hell on the ground.”

“It was,” said Billy Pilgrim.

“Pity the men who had to do it.””

Vonnegut is echoing what many historians and people alike did and do use to lessen the destruction that happens in war when it is against the enemy. It is to justify it as a necessary side effect of war. Even more so, Rumfoord specifically also pays mind to the people carrying out the air raids as well, while only giving the people on the ground a passing thought.

Kurt Vonnegut’s Insights

Through the technique of metafiction, Vonnegut is able to be present and to voice his thoughts throughout the book – mostly in the beginning where he dedicates the first chapter to his own story about trying to write the novel and in the end where he gives further brief reflections on the aftermath of the bombing. Vonnegut says this is the story he has always been writing, always wanted to tell. Throughout the entire novel, Vonnegut cannot escape the dreadful thought that the Bombing of Dresden is not something that is known or talked about, given the multitude of the event. A later revision of the numbers Vonnegut talks about in the book, however, puts the death toll of the Dresden bombings anywhere from about 18,000 to 25,000, significantly less than the estimates at the time of Vonnegut’s writing of the book. (Beevor 810) In the very beginning, Vonnegut does write the comparison of “how much worse it had been than Hiroshima”, which according to new studies; it shows that in terms of numbers and the consequences – it was not. (16) Still, this factual fault, not much on part of the author, as on part of the available historical studies at the time, does not hinder the message of the book.

The eeriest presence Vonnegut has is when he interjects into the war retellings. “That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book.” (71) and “That was I. That was me. The only other city I’d ever seen was Indianapolis, Indiana.” (80) thrown into the midst of telling a story of a dysentery outbreak among the American troops as they had their first real taste of food or how they felt being in the boxcar and getting out after being transported to a camp, stick out to the reader. They tell the reader that this is not fiction, that these stories are real. Vonnegut pipes in with a firm voice, remind the reader of the purpose of the book. Vonnegut’s prime goal is to show that war is mere devastation. It holds no merit, it hits humanity all the same regardless of sides. He discusses learning during his Anthropology studies about how people are in essence all alike. “Shortly before my father died, he said to me, “You know—you never wrote a story with a villain in it.”” (15)

Some of Kurt Vonnegut’s thoughts are also very heavily pacifist. Of raising sons on the topic of war, he says: “I have told my sons that they are not under any circumstances to take part in massacres, and that the news of massacres of enemies is not to fill them with satisfaction or glee. I have also told them not to work for companies which make massacre machinery, and to express contempt for people who think we need machinery like that.” (20) At the end of the book, as well, in relation to the use of firearms, a similar sentiment is expressed: “My father died many years ago now—of natural causes. So it goes. He was a sweet man. He was a gun nut, too. He left me his guns. They rust.” (109) Vonnegut uses the moment where he himself speaks in the first person to argue his case, despite of the nihilism that prevails in Billy’s character, or the sentiments expressed by Rumfoord for example. Vonnegut uses the imagery of war to show that is it devastating and destructive, but he uses his own voice speak openly and clearly against war.

Conclusion

Kurt Vonnegut in Slaughterhouse-Five expresses a number of different ideas on the war. He faces the readers with an antihero character to represent the consequences of war, the various symbolism he uses to portray war. Vonnegut also faces the readers with the other side, there are characters that romanticise war, that argue some things in war have to be done and it should not be given much deeper thought. He openly speaks of wartime atrocities and what men in the Second World War were faced with both on the battlefields but in prison camps as well. He then uses his own voice to state his case firmly. Slaughterhouse-Five can be interpreted differently – it can be interpreted as a nihilist postmodernism work that advocates that humanity has reached a low point and there is nothing more people can do but surrender and accept it. However, Vonnegut does not really stop there, he merely uses that as an element in the entire book. The book does not feel complete if it does not also include Vonnegut’s own assertions.