Slaughterhouse Five - Chapter Two Discussion

[Nick, Founder (In Absentia)]

To get some discussion started on Chapter Two I want to ask a question: What did everyone think of Roland Weary?

He reminded me of someone I knew in NC. Not as hardcore as Weary but he had a fascination with the game of warfare and always had some new toys to show off. He could also be cruel when he wished to be and had this sado-masochistic streak. I personally think Vonnegut is using him as the stereotypical gungho warrior that is typical of Hollywood. He is cranked up a notch but it also goes a long way to deromanticize war, keeping his promise to Mary. What does everyone else think about this and the other events in the chapter (there are plenty).

[Kristjan]

Slaughterhouse Five
Kurt Vonnegut
Chapter Two Discussion (Spoiler):

This is presumably where the real story begins, with Billy becoming 'unstuck in time.' Or more accurately, the author stating that Billy believed such to be true. Before we are treated to his first 'trip' experience, we are introduced to the sum total of a mentally damaged but apparently successful life story of the WWII veteran. The author clearly wishes to paint Billy as a tragic figure (or victim) who was completely powerless to change his fate ... the how Tralfamadore episode and subsequent 'time travel' appears to establish support for a determinism philosophy (as opposed to free will). This path begins in a ditch in Germany during WWII where Billy starts his 'time travel' ... another clear statement that the root cause of Billy's problems is his war time experience ... Only I don't buy it. The catalyst for the story is actually the plane crash where Billy is the only survivor and the tragic loss of his wife from CO poisoning.

Whatever purpose the author may have in putting this event into the story, it strikes close to home for me personally as I watched my uncle come completely unhinged when he lost his wife to CO poisoning as a result of running his car in the garage with the garage door closed while his wife was in the house upstairs over this same garage.

In addition to this singular tragedy, the author provided Billy is a significant head injury (reference his scar following his release from the hospital) to explain his sudden disclosure of alien abduction. This brain damage appears to be a mechanic for the author to remove some of the 'hero' veneer' from his discussion of the war (presumably for a more honest debate about the ills of conflict); however, the net result for me was that instead of highlighting the tragedy of the war, Vonnegut simply puts it on par with the rest of life's tragedies. So it goes ...

The most egregious error by Vonnegut was his relatively clumsy assault against religion in Chapter Two. His attempt to mis-characterize chaplain assistants was grossly inaccurate and exceptionally inadequate to illustrate the lack of preparedness in our soldiers actually fighting the war. According to the MOS, Chaplain Assistants ARE combatants and are therefore ARMED and tasked with the specific duty of protecting the Chaplain, who is by law unarmed. Further, in choosing to use a chaplain assistant, it is clear that he is primarily interested in a cheap shot against religion in general, supported by such statements as: " A chaplain's assistant is customarily a figure of fun in the American Army" and [he] "had a meek faith in a loving Jesus which most soldiers found putrid." Here is where I pretty much loose any interest in the rest of the story and any respect for the author in general.

[bsc]

Obviously, you should stay away from Vonnegut if you are so easily offended. He is like an old curmudgeon, and nothing is sacred to him. He has a lot of wonderful things to say, though, so please do not let your prejudice rob you of the pleasures found in this book.

[Kristjan]

Actually I am not that easily offended; being decided anti-war myself, I am even a sympathetic reader in that respect. I doubt my prejudice here is robbing me of anything; I simply expected better.

What is the purpose of these statements? What literary device is he using here? How do they advance the central theme or subplots? Are they a reflection of the author's bias (yes) or are they accurately attributed to a group at large (no)? These are pretty strong statements to be relatively unimportant filler ... so they must have a purpose. What is it? He did SO much better with his characiture of the bully warmonger Weary.

Granted nothing is 'sacred,' but once again, I do expect a little more finesse when tilting at windmills ... something to make me stop and think that maybe I might have missed something or I might have to re-think something. As this book is not really within my selected genre of Science-Fiction, and I realize that my pedestrian analysis might lack something, I have even gone so far as to read a hand full of critical analysis notes on the book to see what I may have missed (because a fair amount is not obvious to me) ... and I am still looking here.

Of course you are welcome to point out anything that I may have missed? This is after all a book discussion group and I typically play the part of devil's advocate in most discussions :) So fire away ... what pleasures have you gained from this book?

[The other John]

Regarding Weary, I saw him more as one of the "children" of the crusade. He's a rather pathetic young man, cruel, but also on the receiving end of cruelty. A nebbish who was almost as out of touch with reality in chapter two as Pilgrim was. He wants war to be a big adventure and an avenue to friendship, yet the reality is that being a soldier is just plain hard work. It's pain, and sweat, and frustration.

Regarding Vonnegut's shots at religion, I found them detracting as well. The reason I can't simply ignore the offensive parts of the book and take pleasure from the rest is that ideas elicit responses, good and bad. If those ideas which match my beliefs lift my spirits, those ideas that counter my beliefs are going to drag them down. I can't just turn my "prejudice" on and off while I'm reading--nor would I want to.