Continuing on with my assault on the world of literature today's analysis is Slaughterhouse Five.
By Kurt Vonnegut, it is a novel loosely based on his experiences as a prisoner of war during the bombing of Dresden. Before I critique the book I believe a look into the context Vonnegut's book is quite in order. Slaughterhouse Five was released in 1969 one year after the battle of Khe San, generally believed to be the turning point of the Vietnam War as support for the war waned after the battle. The book's timing couldn't have been better, as it's decidedly anti-war stance favoured war protester's.
How exactly is the book anti-war? well to quote Vonnegut in his upfront style of writing that contains the usual amount of wit for himself:
"....he raised an eyebrow and inquired,'Is it an anti-war book?'
'Yes,' I said. 'I guess.'
........'Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?'
What he meant, of course, was that there would always be wars, that they were as easy to stop as glaciers. I believe that too."(p 3)
He openly admits, and as it will become apparent, that Slaughterhouse Five is against war and so hence against the bombing of Dresden. Despite this he is realistic, something the hippy movement of the 1960's lacked, in stating that wars happen and continue to happen. This would, if he were a historian, place him under the Greek (Thucydides) concepts of the nature of humanity and that things SIMILAR in history will reoccur, but not in any deep, significant way.
Vonnegut is very much so against Dresden being bombed, though he uses other texts, be it one he invented, to represent his feelings towards the raids. He mentions the book 'Gutless Wonder' by Kilgore Trout ( A fictional character in more than a few of his books). The book is called Gutless Wonder in an attack on the bomber crews of the the RAF/USAAF, calling the bombing of a civilian city, as he does in his forward manner. He continues his off-sided, be it frightfully witty, condemnation of the bombing;
"....it (Gutless Wonder) predicted the widespread use of burning jellied gasoline on human beings.
It was dropped on them from airplanes. Robots did the dropping. They had no conscience, and had no circuits which would allow them to imagine what was happening to the people on the ground."(p 138)
This is straight forward reference to Dresden, considering the mention of incendiary bombs in the raid and Vonnegut's mentioning of Napalm ("jellied gasoline"). Vonnegut consider's the crews that bombed the incapable of understanding the suffering those present in Dresden during the raids (including Vonnegut himself). This paragraph also alludes to the pain, both mentally and physically, that the bombings caused him. This is important because this bitterness is prevalent throughout the book.
The referral of the bomber crews as robots parallels with the routine like approach to the raid the further callousness of the Air Ministry as the war dragged on, the thought of "Victory by Christmas" was found wanting after the Ardennes offensive.
Cities as a military objective is also brought up bluntly in the book, be it hard to spot. Though it is a sight bit of an over-reach I still believe it is relevant.
"Rumfoord was thinking in a military manner: that an inconvenient person, one whose death he wished very much, for practical reasons, was suffering from a repulsive disease."
As is debated throughout the argument over Dresden, it's legitimacy as a military objective is questioned by Vonnegut. In this quote he is stating that during war, at the very least during the ending of World War Two, Military commanders will conjure up reasons to allow them to kill civilians simply because they were inconvenient to the military.
David Irving is mentioned in Slaughterhouse Five, which is primarily the one of the reasons I read the book, the other being the first-hand perspective, despite it's absurdness. However, I believe that Irving in this book is a blog on it's own and so this will be all for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment