While Vonnegut says in the very first chapter of Slaughterhouse Five that he intends the story to be an “anti-war book” (which he admits will be about as pointless as an “anti-glacier book”), it seems to me that he also (and probably not secondarily) intends it to be a platform for questioning some basic tenets of Christianity.
The main character is Billy Pilgrim, whose name is significant in that he's a childlike American who finds himself on a sort of a spiritual journey. Throughout the novel, the author draws parallels between biblical events and the events in the story, although these parallels aren’t always immediately evident. As Billy’s journey takes him down paths of dubious validity (specifically, abduction and captivity by friendly aliens), we eventually see what Vonnegut is saying: Billy’s complete faith in his extraterrestrial experiences is similar to, and as silly as, the believers’ faith in Christ.
Sooo, fair warning: If you’re a Christian who doesn’t like to be questioned or challenged, you’ll probably find Slaughterhouse Five an uncomfortable read. But if you’re up for some challenging thinking outside the Bible box, you’ll find lots of thought-fodder here.
As for the story itself, it is not driven by a linear plot. In fact, as Billy hops involuntarily and unpredictably back and forth through time, the story develops like a puzzle, with each vignette adding a new piece of the intended picture. You see more clearly what the author wants to say as the puzzle gets closer and closer to completion. Instead of being swept into the story by a riveting plot, you’re carried by your empathy for Billy and by intrigue at the philosophical ideas Vonnegut subtly presents through him and the people he finds himself attached to.
The first and last chapters work like a picture frame. After finishing the book, you may want to reread them. Vonnegut plants several little ideas there which may have seemed inconsequential on the first reading. On second look, though, you’ll understand how significant they are, and you’ll appreciate the masterful way he develops those seeming trivialities into key elements of Billy’s story.
Since I read Slaughterhouse Five not long after finishing Unbroken (Laura Hillenbrand), I'll give ya a little “compare & contrast.” While both are WWII stories, the obvious difference is that Unbroken is a biography and Slaughterhouse Five is blatantly fiction.
Other differences:
Unbroken’s humor is light and quippy. Slaughterhouse Five’s humor is dark and sardonic.
Unbroken’s prose is conversational. Slaughterhouse Five’s prose is poetic.
Unbroken celebrates Christianity. Slaughterhouse Five seriously questions it.
Also, Unbroken and Slaughterhouse Five have entirely different objectives. Unbroken lauds an American hero by minutely detailing the horrors he suffered and his actions toward survival and success. On the other hand, the Slaughterhouse Five war stories, which are nowhere near as graphic, serve mainly as background for the characters’ psychological development. In Slaughterhouse Five, there are no overt heroes. Instead, we see mostly childlike soldiers who develop various neuroses and psychoses as a result of their war experiences. And I suppose that’s what makes it an “anti-war book.”
I've heard of this book most of my life but never read it and quite frankly had no idea what it was about. I THOUGHT it was about life on a chicken farm. Well the tail end of life, anyway.
ReplyDeleteYour review compels me to give it a shot. I wouldn't mind a little challenge to the beliefs that were thrust upon me as a child. I suppose if there's any validity to my faith it will stand up to Vonnegut's jabs. I think I'm open minded enough to hear other opinions and theories without automatically fearing my faith will crumble. I think people who warn others from reading books that may be contrary to their beliefs live a very sad and sheltered life. Well that's my opinion, anyway. Absolutely free and worth every cent.
Thanks for your insightful review. Are you being paid by the publishers for everything you read & review? So far you've piqued my interest on all of them.
Five little chickens all blithely pecking away until their inevitable strangulation? So sad! Maybe that would be a good children's primer before we advance them into grown-up war literature.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible teaches us to "be excellent at what is good and innocent of evil." "Good" is defined by many as "anything okayed by the Bible," whereas "evil" is anything outside of those cowhide covers. Therefore, many Christians will view the ideas in Slaughterhouse Five as "evil" and censure it in order to protect the innocence of their souls. On the other hand, #you and I, Herb, are thoroughly evil and proud of it. (-:
I expect payment from publishers eventually, but until then, the commendation of my readership is all the payment I get. Lay it on, Baybee!
This review made me go back and look over the book again (for the third time at least). Just to look for these themes.
ReplyDeleteI think that when it was published in 1969, at the height of the VietNam War, it was a means of expressing opposition to that war by indirect reference. Direct criticism was all too polarizing.
In any case, it is curious to see how it is read now, in a different historical period.
By starting from a diferent frame of reference, we end up with a different book.
Was it Santayana who said he had never read the same book twice?
Very good review, Nina. Who knows, maybe , someday, you’ll be noticed & get a newspaper column!
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t bothered by the book’s challenges to my faith. Instead, I was challenged by its fatalism of a determined, unchangeable universe. The characters, even the main protagonist, have almost no will. They are driven by forces that are simply too huge for them to make much of a difference. Billy’s adaption of the aliens 4-dimension “unstuck in time” lifestyle is used to illustrate this in the book. Billy is, like us the readers, simply an observer of his life. Consequently, he accepts everything that befalls himself & others, even death. He has a “peaceful” life but at great moral cost. Examples: Billy lives in a zoo without attempting to be free and, in one scene, drives through a ghetto, ignoring its inhabitants’ suffering.
(Using a Christian comparison, the book promotes the Calvinistic theology of man’s total depravity & predestination vs. the Lutheran theology of free will & repentance. Though, in the book’s non-religious predestined universe, there is no God to choose & redeem/rescue some souls, so all are left in total depravity.)
I was never able to determine if Vonnegut also objected to this fatalism. Many parts of the book imply that man’s concept of free will is irrational. However, you can also read the novel where Billy is mad due to his head injury & Dresden war experiences; consequently, it is his fatalism that is irrational. Though I prefer the latter interpretation, I believe Vonnegut meant the first.
Big Cheese, I don't know who Santayana is. You must be smarter than I am. To me, "Santayana" sounds like a description of a sleepy Saint Nicholas. Unfortunately, my innate laziness prevents me from researching to learn any more about it.
ReplyDeleteThe religious theme is definitely more buried than the socio-political theme, so I can easily understand how you missed it. From what I've observed, most reviewers approach the book from that anti-war theme. But I, like Robert Frost, like to take the road less traveled. (Since you're so smart, you probably know who Robert Frost is without having to research.)
Jeff, I think Vonnegut meant your preferred interpretation. Here's why: As you get further and further into the story, you see that many of Billy's "experiences" on Tralfamadore are excerpted from Trout's science fiction novels. The novels are like Billy's "Bible." He has internalized Trout's ideas so completely that they define his entire worldview, lead to perceived supernatural events, and compel him to proselytize with the same zeal that many Christians proselytize the biblical worldview. Because Vonnegut pokes fun at the Bible in several passages, I think it's safe to hypothesize that he uses Billy as a symbol for the perils of blind religious faith and zealotry.
Thanks, everyone, for your insightful feedback!
I think a lot of people end up disappointed with this book because they buy it expecting something totally different that what they find. The plot can be a bit confusing at times and I think that turns some people off, but this book is amazing if you take the time to really read it and read between the lines as well. This book is so much more about the message it sends than it is about telling a story. Kurt Vonnegut is telling us all through this book that war is absolutely absurd, in fact, it's as absurd as the story in this book. He wants to show us that the world is a crazy place and that in every situation there is good and bad. While the firebombing of Dresden was a horrible thing, it's also what shaped Kurt's life, so there is positive amongst such a terrible event. To understand this book, you must not take the story seriously, but take the message that Kurt is communicating to us to heart.The message that life is absurd, crazy, nonsensical and filled with horrible things, but despite that, we must carry on and be good to others, or else, what's the point of being here?
ReplyDeleteHey, Portugal!
ReplyDeleteI've never researched Vonnegut's personal life, so I'm completely unqualified to comment on how the events at Dresden may or may not have affected him.
Thanks for your insight! I'm planning to read Breakfast of Champions (also by Vonnegut) in the not-too-distant future. Hopefully I'll like it just as much as we both enjoyed Slaughterhouse Five. Check back for that review!
I recommend you read The Sirens of Titan for an earlier look at the whole Tralfamadore thing included in a riveting science fiction tale with one of the best McGuffins in all literature. It's a true mind-blower.
ReplyDeleteReg, I've added The Sirens of Titan to my Amazon wish list. Thanks for the recommendation! Science fiction is among my least favorite genres, but since Vonnegut is such a great and re-readable author, I'll give it a shot.
ReplyDeleteNina, I am a bit surprised that you don't see this as an overtly anti-war novel. And yes, it is partially autobiographical. As a soldier, Vonnegut experienced the bombing of Dresden and I believe the character who was shot for stealing a figurine was based on one of his experiences also, but I could be incorrect. Vonnegut's recurring themes throughout his books are absurdism and the uselessness of war. And all of his literature, save perhaps his short stories in "Welcome to The Monkeyhouse" which I highly recommend for their wit, is injected with his experiences. By the way, for the penultimate anti-war novel, you should read Catch 22, if you haven't already. It is one of the most masterful satires ever written, in my opinion, and definitely the best novel that came out of WWII.
ReplyDelete