In
class we’ve talked a lot about how Slaughterhouse Five isn’t like typical war
novels, we’ve even discussed how it would be an anti-war novel. As a
disclaimer, I don’t read a lot of war novels or watch a lot of war movies so
sorry if I miss something in this post. I’m going to compare Billy Pilgrim, the
main character (if you can even call him that) of Slaughterhouse Five to
protagonist one of the only “war” movies I’ve ever watched: Captain America.
Physically,
Steve Rogers aka Captain America starts off as being too small and weak to join
the war. In this case, he is similar to Billy Pilgrim who is also lacking the
ideal soldier physique; Billy is described as being “tall and weak, and shaped
like a bottle of Coca-Cola” (Vonnegut 23). However, eventually Steve is
selected to be part of an experiment that turns his body into that of an ideal
soldier, and earns him the name Captain America. This alone shows how Captain
America is more of an idealistic war story than Slaughterhouse Five. Steve
wants to register but isn’t allowed to because of his physicality, but Billy
who is possibly one of the least qualified people to be in the war is sent.
Going
off of that, Steve ends up being a typical “hero” of his narrative, while Billy
is essentially useless and disliked by most everybody. Steve is always at the
front of the action, leading the important missions and rescuing fellow soldiers
from the enemy. On the other hand, Billy, who doesn’t even have a weapon, is
seen wandering around the countryside and then sitting in prisons. Steve’s war
experience seems much more glorified while Billy’s is probably closer to the
typical soldier’s experience. Finally, Steve ends up sacrificing himself to
save people from an incoming bomb while Billy lives through the war. This, and
the fact that the experienced scouts die while Billy survives, show that
Vonnegut is trying to portray war as being random and not an opportunity for
heroes to act, unlike Captain America.
As a
side note, both Slaughterhouse Five and Captain American have supernatural
elements (the Tralfamadorians in Slaughterhouse Five and the Tesseract/experiment
in Captain America). Is that a coincidence specific to both of these stories or
is that common across war books/movies?
It's definitely possible to have a war movie without sci-fi elements, but they always seem to be historical (e.g. Dunkirk). It's like moviemakers need an excuse to show war scenes, whether it's "historical value" or "science fiction".
ReplyDelete-Reed
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApologies for the last comment. Maya stole my computer :/ I think it's interesting to think of Captain America as a war movie because if we categorize it that way, then it is certainly an pro-war movie in a sort of weird anti-war way. Peace is certainly the goal, but superhero movies idealize fighting and self sacrifice as a means of becoming a hero, just like many traditional war movies do. It's maybe anti-war because the goal is peace, and maybe for some other reasons but I haven't watched Captain America in forever. Nevertheless, the urgency and sacrifice presented in Captain America's narrative certainly contrasts greatly with Billy's passive narrative where nobody but Derby seems to be committed to standing up for anything they believe in. (Also!! There is a clear cut idea of who is good and who is evil in Captain America while everyone is pretty much neutral in Slaughterhouse Five.)
ReplyDeleteCaptain America is actually a very interesting comparison, because he really is anti-violence. He does always looks for peace, and believes in diplomacy. However, he is also a character who believes in the necessity of fighting, which makes sense when he's put in the black and white morality of WWII. However in the modern world he ends up more conflicted. What Vonnegut is doing is making WWII into the conflicting, non-black and white time. If Captain America had been at Dresden he might have been very different.
ReplyDeleteAlso what I think Vonnegut does with Billy is really make sure that he doesn't allow for any masculine fantasies of being him. No one wants to be Billy, because Billy is not a hero, nor does he try to be or rise to a cause. He has no "good" masculine traits. Whereas for however Captain America doesn't believe in violence as the first resort, he is certainly as a wish fulfillment, all about the affirmation of the masculine fantasies of people. The whole idea is that men wish they were him, not just a badass, but smart and mature (Stoic) and a strong protector. All things that pushed him to war. Contrast that to Billy's being drafted (not pushed into war by a moral compass), and utter lack of strength and stoicism. We don't want to be him, which makes Vonnegut's anti-war novel work better.
This is a really interesting post, and I think the bottom line is how different from a war narrative slaughterhouse five is. All of the characters are opposite as to what we think of as a typical war hero, undermining the stereotype of the glory of war.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting! I never thought about it, but it seems like Steve Rogers is almost an anti-Billy Pilgrim. They're opposites in almost every way. I think Vonnegut might be trying to demonstrate how idealistic, glorified war hero stories are unrealistic. I think he also wants to emphasize the fact that Slaughterhouse-Five is really an anti-war story.
ReplyDeleteI like this, it reminds me of how we say Vonnegut was writing an anti-war novel and an anti war-novel novel. I think its important that he was showing the randomness of war and I like the contrast between that and Captain America where Steve actively fights and tries to save civilians. Steve definitely doesn't have a "So it goes" attitude towards death.
ReplyDeleteI think Steve is actually much closer to Edgar Derby than to Billy. Neither Steve nor Derby like war, but war allows them to demonstrate their heroic characteristics by contrasting bullies like Weary (or, in Steve's case, actual bullies) to their upstanding heroism in the face of adversity. The distinction between Steve and Billy is that when Steve gets bullied, we pity him, because he's essentially a good person that wants to do good things. Billy is a useless weak trash-man that randomly smiles and does jack to help anyone.
ReplyDeleteNice post! For me many war movies and stories have this almost supernatural event. They often feature some kind of hero who has unbelievable luck or abilities that allow him to survive battles. I think that this is mostly just for our entertainment. Nobody like movies or stories that are too realistic. Otherwise, there really wouldn't be much of a story at all. The fact is that in most war stories, you really aren't expected to live. In fact, you are really just a statistic, struck down by a stray bullet that has killed many people already.
ReplyDelete