Like Ragtime and Mumbo Jumbo, Slaughterhouse-Five has been another enjoyable read. Vonnegut’s
ability to incorporate humor in such a serious and deadly event surprises me,
and the Tralfamadorians somewhat confuse me, but both lead me to wonder why
Vonnegut wrote this narrative of the bombing of Dresden the way he did. The
Tralfamadorians, especially, seem out of place at first, but I think that they
further support Vonnegut’s mission to create an antiwar novel.
In chapter one, Vonnegut explains “how tempting Dresden has
been to write about,” yet “not many words about [it] came from [his] mind” (2).
In class, we discussed that he wanted to make this novel an antiwar novel and
anti-war novel, which may have been part of his delay. Just so we’re on the
same page, an antiwar novel (we defined) is a novel that portrays war in a
negative view—or at least claims to do so. Sometimes, antiwar stories can sort
of glamorize the struggles that soldiers and civilians face, making war and the
problems that those who are directly involved deal with, a distant reality that
portrays those individuals as clearly suffering but possibly also heroic for
facing those issues. Vonnegut, rather, goes a step further and creates an
anti-war novel, a novel about war but is nothing like what one would expect
from the traditional war or antiwar novel.
The Tralfamadorians obviously make Slaughterhouse-Five an anti-war story, for no other story about war
prior to this novel incorporates such “unrealistic” science fiction.
Nonetheless, I find that they have a somewhat postmodernist view of history.
They see history as scenes without “any particular relationship between” them—“no
moral[s], no causes, no effects” that can be drawn from, lead to, or result
from the events—rather, just events or facts that are not influenced by any
overarching metanarrative (88). Vonnegut’s writing style of direct, unemotional
descriptions of the war along with this Tralfamadorian/postmodernist style
makes it seem that Vonnegut may be suggesting that war is similar to and maybe
should only be seen through the Tralafamadorian style. War, like Tralfamadorain
history, is just a series of events that, although have much effect to mainly
those who are directly involved (so it goes,) have no causes (what are the
motivations behind bombing civilians?) and no morals. Usual war and antiwar
novels incorporate strength in difficulties (in two very different
connotations, one promoting war while the other criticizing it) or other
morals, but Vonnegut disproves the strength needed in war as two skilled
soldiers of the Three Musketeers are quickly killed, but the weak Billy Pilgrim
survives. By placing this events-only Tralfamadorian view of time and history
beside a war story, Vonnegut seems to be asking us what is the moral to be
drawn from war and is there a moral to be drawn from war? in the same
unanswerable way of “Poo-tee-weet?” As an antiwar novel, the answer may be that
there is no moral of strength, toughness, etc. to be found in war, but
thousands of deaths can lead to the conclusion that war is unnecessary.
