Category: Slaughterhouse Five

Describe the way Time is used in the novel. What might the author be saying about the way people conceive of time?

In Slaughterhouse-Five, Kurt Vonnegut displays two types of time, Tralfamadorian time, and Human time. At the beginning of the novel, Tralfamadorian time appears far superior to human time, with the ability to relive any moment of your life like a movie and seemingly never die. As the novel progresses, through Billy’s storytelling, the reader starts to realize that Tralfamadorian time has some major downsides and that human time should be celebrated for what it is. Tralfamadorians ignore the bad moments in their life and strictly focus on the good memories while humans must suffer through the pain. This may seem like a downside, but in the end, the human gains knowledge and learns from their mistakes while the Tralfamadorian does not. Additionally, in Tralfamadorian time, cause and effect mean nothing. When Billy asks why he was taken from Earth, he questions a Tralfamadorian who explains: “That is a very Earthling question to ask, Mr. Pilgrim. Why you? Why us for that matter? Why anything? Because this moment simply is. Have you ever seen bugs trapped in amber? …Well, here we are, Mr. Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why.” (Vonnegut ibook pg 156). This is scary to think about for humans because if there is no cause or effect, then free will does not exist, therefore, no one can choose to do anything and everyone is essentially a machine. Billy shows that he has no free will by boarding a plane that he already knows is going to crash. In Billy’s mind, he is already on the plane, and will always board the plane because that is how the moment was structured. Kurt Vonnegut is using Billy’s ridiculous decisions to imply that free will is logical due to our linear time, and that in any moment, we can do whatever we please. Billy could have simply not boarded the plane but Vonnegut is trying to teach the reader an important value about human time and freedom. Vonnegut’s message to the reader is that all humans should live in the moment and each day of our life has value because we will never be able to live in it again.

Discuss the Dehumanizing features of the novel. What sort of idea is the author trying to say about the ways we treat each other’s?

One of the main themes of Slaughterhouse-Five is dehumanization which is demonstrated through the poor treatment of humans and the ignorant view of human death. Dehumanization is especially evident in the POWs during Billy Pilgrim’s World War Two experiences where we see the Germans treating their prisoners like animals. In chapter three, while Billy and Weary are on their way to a German POW camp, the Germans have begun to lack the needed space for all of their prisoners. Instead of making more room, the Germans force the POWs to live inside a train car. Whilst living in the train car, all of the prisoners were fed through the ventilators in the train car, “Human beings in there were excreting into steel helmets which were passed to the people at the ventilators, who dumped them. Billy was a dumper. The human beings also passed canteens, which guards would fill with water. When food came in, the human beings were quiet and trusting and beautiful. They shared.” (Vonnegut p. 90). Forcing all of the POWs to live in a dirty train car and go to the bathroom in a helmet demonstrates just how dehumanizing and cruel the war was. To the Germans, the Americans were not equals, they were just meaningless numbers. Vonnegut is trying to express that war makes people forget that everyone is also a human trying to survive in this world. Another way Slaughterhouse-Five dehumanizes people is by ignoring the importance of death. For Tralfamadorians, death is not relevant or meaningful because they can always relive any moment from their life, hence the phrase “so it goes”, following each death in the novel. For humans, death is the end of everything so it cannot just be ignored. Vonnegut is demonstrating that each human only has a certain amount of time to make their life important so we should respect that and treat everyone as equal.

To be considered classic literature, a text must be of outstanding quality in the time it was written and be first of its class, of lasting worth or have timeless qualities. Although writing style is forever evolving, a classic can always be appreciated for its construction and artistic qualities. The very best of classics form the literary canon, a group of literary works considered to be the most important of a time period or place. When a work is canonised, it becomes part of a group of widely respected and studied literary works. The canon deserves a place in the school curricula today, as children of the future deserve access to the best classic literature available. Slaughterhouse Five (1969) by Kurt Vonnegut and Apocalypse Now (1979) by Francis Ford Coppola are two classics which undoubtedly deserve to be a part of the canon and curriculum. Both Vonnegut and Coppola have made deliberate stylistic choices to effectively and uniquely convey the anti-war message. These engaging classics have the potential to shape the attitudes of future generations towards war.

The context in which Slaughterhouse Five and Apocalypse Now were written explains their anti-war agendas. Kurt Vonnegut entered the Second Word War as a private in the US army. He was taken prisoner by the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge and his first-hand experiences during the firebombing of Dresden form the factual basis for Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut wrote Slaughterhouse Five during the Vietnam War, a war that was never declared by Congress. He viewed the conflict as an unnecessary use of U.S. power, as did many other citizens. This widespread public opinion meant that after many years of battle, soldiers returned home and were not congratulated for their service. This, combined with the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, form the political backdrop of Slaughterhouse Five. Therefore, Vonnegut’s novel should be interpreted as a lesson on the horrors of war at any time, not only World War II. At a similar time to Slaughterhouse Five, Apocalypse Now emerged from the Vietnam War era and took more than ten years and $30 million to make. By the end of production, Coppola was brought to the point of contemplating suicide, as the numerous delays had clearly afflicted him. The film is based loosely on Joseph Conrad’s 1898 novella, Heart of Darkness, the story of a captain’s journey up the Congo River in Africa. In 1969, the same year Slaughterhouse Five was published, Coppola founded his film company – American Zoetrope, to produce Apocalypse Now. At the time, the American antiwar movement was gaining momentum, as citizens became increasingly resentful about towards the United States’ role in the war. Millions participated in protests and riots. The movement was driven by public confusion, increasing draft numbers and the 1969 My Lai Massacre, in which the United States army needlessly slaughtered five hundred unarmed Vietnamese civilians. By 1973, 58 000 young soldiers had died and 300 000 were wounded. Three years later, filming finally began in the Philippines. Coppola tried his hardest to accurately re-create the atmosphere and action of the war. In a news conference at the Cannes Film Festival, he proclaimed, “My film is not a movie. It is not about Vietnam. It is Vietnam.” Upon its highly anticipated release in 1979, the film received mostly excellent reviews. To support their anti-war messages, both Slaughterhouse Five and Apocalypse Now Both Slaughterhouse Five and Apocalypse Now share the common theme of the destructiveness of war.

To the untrained eye, Slaughterhouse Five may appear as a sci-fi novel about a crazy old man, because of the strange way its anti-war message is conveyed. The fourth wall is broken from the first line when Vonnegut writes, “All this happened, more or less.” (pg 1) Throughout the first chapter, Vonnegut tells the reader that he is planning to tell a story about his experiences in Dresden. He briefly mentions how the story will start and finish, before it even begins.

“This one is a failure, and had to be, since it was written by a pillar of salt. It begins like this:

Listen:

Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time.

It ends like this:

Poo-tee-weet?” (pg 11)

The catastrophic firebombing of Dresden during World War II explains this and the other apparently random events throughout the novel. From his swimming lessons at the YMCA to his Lions Club speeches to his captivity on Tralfamadore, Billy Pilgrim lapses in and out of Dresden, where he survives asphyxiation and incineration against all odds. Apart from the clearly obvious portrayals of Billy fighting in the war, its destructiveness is often portrayed in a subtle way. For instance, Billy is quite successful post-war from a materialistic point of view – he is president of the Lions Club, a wealthy optometrist and a father of two children. These successes are by how the outside world views him, but under the surface, Billy is so war-torn he de-familiarises himself with the world. He is only employed because of his father-in-law. At one point in the novel, Billy initiates a conversation with his so, only to realise that they aren’t on talking terms. Vonnegut also includes science fiction elements, through the Tralfamadorians, to demonstrate how greatly war has disturbed Billy’s life. Billy hallucinates his experiences on Tralfamadore to escape a world destroyed by conflict – a world he cannot or simply refuses to comprehend. The Tralfamadorian theory of the fourth dimension serves as a way for Billy to rationalise the profound death he has been confronted with face to face. Thus, mentally, Billy remains a traumatised boy. This is substantiated by his name – Billy, a nickname for William, which depicts him as an immature boy, rather than a man. These subtle matter-of-fact descriptions of Billy’s life are effective in showing the reader that the impacts of war reach far deeper than deaths alone.

Apocalypse Now is slightly less subtle in its criticism of western imperialism. The film continually highlights the ironies of the Vietnam War, intending to reveal the atrocities caused by U.S. wars fought in the name of democracy and freedom. During the air strikes, sampan and bridge scenes, Coppola clearly demonstrates the utter death and destruction caused directly by U.S. involvement. Rather than saving civilians, American troops slaughter them in a panicked and thoughtless frenzy. Meanwhile, the film uses Captain Willard’s assignment as the penultimate example of hypocrisy. The U.S. military wastes countless resources and lives on assassinating one of their most successful military officials, Kurtz. Colonel Kurtz is clearly a man who has seen the great horrors of and has been forced into helpless acquiescence. He has forsaken morality for a life of great distaste. Indoctrinated into the methods of the U.S. army, Kurtz was the perfect soldier, until he killed two Vietnamese intelligence agents, at which point he was condemned. Bitter at the hypocrisy of the United States, Kurt formed his own army of loyal followers to which he acts as a God-like figure. While Kurtz is most likely insane, it’s questionable that killing him is a priority while U.S. troops and Vietnamese civilians are rapidly dying. Plus, since the military is actively engaging in assassination itself, why demonise Kurtz for dealing with two traitors to the United States? By regularly highlighting these hypocrisies, the righteousness of war is brought into question. In addition, Coppola highlights the pure madness resultant of war. As Willard’s crew continues upriver, they become increasingly agitated and separated from reality. Each character has a mental breakdown at some stage during the journey. When Chief enters the jungle and when almost killed by a tiger, he is never the same again. Indulging in drugs, his temper is shortened. Lance also withdraws into drugs. Meanwhile, Willard becomes overly obsessed with his target. What was once a mysterious and exciting voyage transforms into a hellish succession of rash and poor decision making. Their impending madness is represented through the fog and the darkness, creating an increasingly hallucinatory atmosphere. These themes are used to support Apocalypse Now’s anti-war agenda.

Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut and Apocalypse Now by Francis Ford Coppola both deserve to be a part of the canon and the curriculum. This is because both texts have the potential to successfully engage future audiences, due to their unique and captivating nature. By informing future generations of the atrocities of war, perhaps needless slaughter can be partially avoided.

The abhorrence of mankind and their society, projected in Slaughterhouse-Five, written by Kurt Vonnegut, once a prisoner of war, revolves around the firebombing at Dresden, during World War II. The tone of Vonnegut’s black humor creates a subtle disguise as light-hearted mockery on a horrific and sore subject of war throughout Slaughterhouse-Five. The pessimistic outlook seen in Slaughterhouse-Five, showcases Vonnegut’s personal bitterness on society, and the devastating effects of war/violence, which society fails to acknowledge the extent of damage. Slaughterhouse-Five reflects a fundamentally negative view of humanity; both the text and Vonnegut display a misanthropic perspective through the use of Juvenalian satire to ridicule mankind on the controversial topic of war and death.

The misanthropic perspective on mankind and society, often times leads to the avoidance of society. This is apparent through Billy Pilgrim’s character, as he shows the tendency to fantasize the Tralfamadorian society, a parallel world to the reality, a living hell Billy refuses to encounter. This society is a safe haven for Billy, he says, “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.’” (27), this shows how the fictional society allowed Billy to desensitize himself of death, one of the inevitable consequences of war, as a way to escape reality- his coping mechanism for PTSD. Tralfamadore is described almost as a utopian society; superior in ways from the world filled with impurities of war and death, desensitizing those exact impurities, shows a glimpse of Vonnegut’s misanthropic perspective on this society.

Vonnegut’s misanthropic perspective is visible when he downplays controversial subjects by desensitizing the effects. In the beginning of planning his war novel, Vonnegut almost sarcastically states, “‘I think the climax of the book will be the execution of poor old Edgar Derby,’… ‘The irony is so great. A whole city gets burned down, and thousands and thousands of people are killed. And then this one American foot soldier is arrested in the ruins for taking a teapot. And he’s given a regular trial, and then he’s shot by a firing squad.’” (5), this is where Vonnegut’s “black humor” becomes apparent in this quote as his tone is almost sadistic, but really was a way of him mocking mankind and society by desensitizing the killing of Edgar Derby, to make it seem as it was just a mere death compared to the thousands killed. Vonnegut’s repetitive use of “So it goes” after a death, relays a nonchalant tone, “‘And he’ll pull out a gun and shoot his pecker off. The stranger’ll let him think a couple of seconds about who Paul Lazzaro is and what life’s gonna be like without a pecker. Then he’ll shoot him once in the guts and walk away.’ So it goes.” (140), using “So it goes” at the end allows Vonnegut to unobtrusively project his disgust by brushing off death through the satirical method of irony; Lazzaro talks about how his enemy will die, yet is deemed minor with “So it goes”. When encountering the hobo’s corpse, Slaughterhouse-Five mentions that he was “frozen stiff in the weeds beside the track. He was in a fetal position, trying even in death to nestle like a spoon with others. There were no others now. He was nestling with thin air and cinders. Somebody had taken his boots. His bare feet were blue and ivory. It was all right somehow, his being dead. So it goes.” (148), casting again an ironic response that desensitizes war and its inevitable effects. Through a satirical standpoint, the repetitive use of “So it goes”, shows Vonnegut ridiculing the effects of war and violence of mankind as a way to show frustration of how it affects the society.

The issue where war is associated with glamor is thrown into the limelight throughout Slaughterhouse-Five. The association between glamor and war is seen with Valencia Pilgrim, who essentially did nothing wrong and was a loving, dutiful wife to Billy, but set out to be almost pathetic under the misanthropic light where she associates glamor and war, “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… ‘I look at you sometimes,’ said Valenica, ‘and I get a funny feeling that you’re just full of secrets.’… ‘You must have secrets about the ar. Or, not secrets, I guess, but things you don’t want to talk about.’” (121), she finds Billy’s unspeakable, therefore, mysterious past in the war as some sort of sex appeal. And on the next page, (122) a picture of a gravestone with the words “Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt,” is depicted, which could be seen as Vonnegut’s way of mocking mankind’s tendency (in this case, Valencia) to beautify war once again. When Billy gives Valencia the diamond, “she almost screamed when she saw the sapphire with a star in it.” (174), the association of glamor and war can be seen, as glamor seems to overshadow war as Valencia is completely oblivious the worth and means of the sapphire. In the beginning, when Vonnegut visits Bernard O’Hare, his wife, Mary O’Hare, immediately shows a distaste to Vonnegut’s decision to write a war novel, “‘You were just babies then!’ she said… ‘You were just babies in the war-like the ones upstairs!’ I nodded that this was true. We had been foolish virgins in the war, right at the end of childhood. ‘But you’re not going to write it that way, are you.’ This wasn’t a question. It was an accusation… ‘You’ll pretend you were men instead of babies, and you’ll be played in the movies by Frank Sinatra and John Wayne or some of those other glamorous, war-loving, dirty old men. And war will look just wonderful, so we’ll have a lot more of them. And they’ll be fought by babies like the ones upstairs.’” (14), Mary portrays the true voice of misanthropists/Kurt Vonnegut through a frustrated and disgusted tone about war becoming a glamorous illusion. Kurt Vonnegut’s unobtrusive disgust is again seen when population statistics are found in an article, “On an average, 340,000 new babies are born into the world every day. During that same day, 10,000 persons, on an average, will have starved to death or died from malnutrition. So it goes. In addition, 123,000 persons will die for other reasons. So it goes. This leaves a net gain of about 191,000 each day in the world. The population Reference Bureau predicts that the world’s total population will double to 7,000,000,000 before the year 2000.” (212), Vonnegut mocks the article’s insubstantial, lousy attempt of justification for the amount of death with the compensation of the greater amount of new lives being brought into the world.

Vonnegut’s misanthropic point of view is seen throughout his text through satire as he mocks mankind and society for glamorizing war; overlooking the horrifying effects of war. The mentality influenced by war on mankind is revolting for Vonnegut, a prisoner of war, who inserted himself throughout the text on events he faced himself. The dark humor, often found in Juvenalian satire, presents a tone of disgust and sarcasm in Slaughterhouse-Five where Vonnegut abhors what war (particularly the World War II and the firebombing at Dresden) and violence does, not only to the people but society as well.

Works Cited

1. Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse-Five, or, The Children’s Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death. Dell Publishing, 1991.

Kurt Vonnegut’s novel “Slaughterhouse 5” is one of the novels that are written as an anti war book. An anti-war book either speaks against war or is written in a way that the deadly consequences of war are brought out clearly. This particular book was written during the Second World War. It features one very important character by the name Billy whose pilgrim’s tales are narrated. The book reveals its anti-war nature through the themes that are presented in the book. It is a book that contains very ugly scenes and hardships that are experienced by Bill (Harold, 2007). Through reading the novel, the reader gets to feel the effects of the war. A very good example of such a theme is the consequences of war. Billy’s unfortunate experience during his abduction by the aliens is compared to the experience an individual soldier would have in the event of war.

The writer was motivated by the events that took place during the Second World War. In his language of writing, he uses some very deeply sentimental statements that speak against war (Thomas, 2002). Also the experience that Billy – one of the characters – went through shows how detrimental the war can be to the lives of people. It compares to the real life experience that a man by the name Vonnegut who was involved in the Second World War went through. This happened at the time when he was working in a place called Dresden where there was a bomb explosion. This bombing event greatly affected him for rest of his life. The event also claimed a total of more than 135,000 lives which can also be compared to the incident that occurred in Hiroshima. In this particular book, the character Billy also had an experience of the war the same way that Vonnegut did.

Some of the experiences of Bill and Vonnegut that resemble each other include the bombing and the issue of being a prisoner of war (POW). However, in the novel the experience of Billy is more of a lesson that tries to teach readers against war through the manner in which Billy is seen to perceive war (Thomas, 2002). This influences the reader to also take war as a very absurd event to get involved in. Apart from the writer showing the experiences of Billy during the war, he also shows the effects he had to suffer after the war. The fact that Billy is shown to help people correct their sights shows how destructive a war can be.

In addition to the war events and effects, the use of fiction by the writer is another way in which the book is revealed as anti-war. Some of these include life with the aliens. Also the use of tralfamadorians by the writer shows his strong feelings against war. It is used to demonstrate how Billy used it to escape the effects of the war on earth. Another way in which this book is shown to be anti-war is through its structure and style. A good example is the use of black humor; very dark comedy. These are used to amuse or make the audience to laugh when they are not supposed to or to minimize the stress of the disturbing effects of war (Harold, 2007). A good example is when Billy attempts to write about his experience with tralfamadorians. It is also illustrated in the ironical experiences in the book for instance where a soldier survives the war but still dies later from dry heaves as he buried the bodies.

The novel “Slaughterhouse 5” is anti-war in so many ways. The adverse effects of the Second World War such as the loss of lives of people and the effects on survivors all demonstrate that the book is opposed to any war.

Reference List

1. Harold, B. (2007). Kurt Vonnegut’s slaughterhouse-five. London: Chelsea House.
2. Thomas, F. (2002). Kurt Vonnegut: a critical companion. New York, NY: Greenwood Publishing Group.