Slaughterhouse isn't exactly your traditional war novel. From my personal experience with war stories, they are very linear and connected. Events take place in chronological order and usually the "war story" is the main part of the novel. For one, Slaughterhouse Five has a separate subplot about Billy Pilgrim’s kidnapping by the Tralfamadorians. There is a tremendous amount of jumping around as the novels skipping timeline advances the story of Billy's experience during World War II with flashbacks of important events throughout Billy's life. In my personal opinion, all of these quirks make the experience feel more genuine and real for a reader. When I read Slaughterhouse Five, I felt like I was talking to a war veteran telling me about their war related experiences while also telling me about their life story. If I didn't know the veteran, it would only be natural for the person to tell me both together.
In Slaughterhouse Five, Vonnegut is recalling experiences from a very difficult and disturbing part of his life. Most war veterans who have experienced similar atrocities don't want to recall the events they experienced. Often times people try and forget terrible things so they can move on with their lives. These types of events are difficult and a "touchy subject" for many to recall and usually people tend to come out with bits and pieces slowly rather than entire narratives. The odd chronological structure of the book is explainable and makes it seem genuine. The way it skips back and forth makes it seem like you're talking to someone who was involved in the war as they are trying to recall various events that took place at various times and then frame a story. The various subplots would be a part of the conversation with this person. When people tell stories, they often digress and tell other stories that relate and then pick back up where they left off. It seems unnatural to tell an entire historical account of what happened like most traditional war stories tend to do.
For someone like Vonnegut who was captured by the Germans and placed in a work camp, experiencing the Dresden bombing is an undeniably difficult time. Witnessing thousands of deaths and immense destruction as a prisoner of war would be difficult because of how much time you would have to contemplate life and try to make sense of the terrible things happening around you. I find it reasonable that Vonnegut(Billy) had so many flashbacks and flash-forwards. These flashbacks and subplots would be an important part of the narrative that someone might tell years after the experience. How someone remembers an event isn't always defined by what happened but what they were thinking at the time. These various flashbacks might relate to things Vonnegut was thinking trying to be in a better place while the war was happening.
I think you make a good point about Vonnegut's narrative style being much more like the way a first hand history of war would actually be told out loud. The conversational tone and the non-chronological of Slaughter House Five remind me of all the conversations I had with my great grandfather, a WWII veteran, packed together in one novel. That is, without any alien abduction sub-plot. I think this is a powerful choice as a way to write an anti-war novel since the fragmented nature of the story prevents the reader from getting caught up in any notions of heroism or glorification of war.
ReplyDeleteI didn't specifically say this in my blog but I also had an uncle who is a war veteran. The style of the stories he told me reminded me of the the way Vonnegat writes in Slaughterhouse Five
DeleteYour point about the larger narrative style of the novel may get at the effect that the war had on the mental stability of Billy and maybe even Vonnegut. People tend to jump around even when recalling memories, but the effect is taken to an extreme in this novel. The novel seems to be a medium for Vonnegut to try and understand his emotions better and convey them to others to deter them from wanting war.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that this "jumping around" made the narrative seem more genuine. I think that by doing this Vonnegut makes the style of his writing more relatable to people who have gone through these experiences themselves. In addition this style of writing helps Vonnegut distance himself from the traditional war narrative that he promised Mary O'Hara that he wouldn't write. If he had told a completely linear account, it would be much easier to fall into some of the tropes of the "John Wayne" -style narratives.
ReplyDelete