Slaughterhouse Five, pages 181-215

On my previous entry, I mentioned that Slaughterhouse Five was not an anti-war book. I now believe the opposite. Throughout the novel, Vonnegut cleverly narrated the story of a miserable individual, Billy Pilgrim, and the effects World War Two had caused to his personality. At the beginning, I thought the novel was trying to advocate the preservation of individuality in an imperfect world. On these few pages, however, I realized that what Vonnegut was really trying to say is that mankind has a mentality to destroy whatever is in his path, a mentality that most of the times results in war and the utter destruction of the essence of human beings: their identities. “We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.” (p.186).

Thomas Hobbes’ theory that man is naturally evil and selfish, expressed in his book the Leviathan, is advocated by Vonnegut when he talks about the fourth dimension. There is nothing that can be done to prevent individuals from being wicked. I now believe that the “so it goes”, apart from being Billy’s defense mechanism, many also be interpreted as mankind’s cold and indifferent response to death. Humans are so accustomed to death, especially deaths caused by war, that their immediate reaction is the same as Pilgrim’s: so it goes. Billy Pilgrim has become so marked by death that he has succumbed to denial, to “…the negligibility of death, and the true nature of time.” (p. 190). Maybe Vonnegut is also trying to awaken change in individuals. He may be trying to prevent wars or convince humans to resist the transformations that wars may bring: loss of identity and feelings.

I wonder why the small details and objects Billy encountered during the war and during his entire life are mentioned again at the end of the novel. For example, the picture of the horse, the magic fingers, Wild Bob’s phrase, the saying on Montana’s necklace, and, finally, the “poo-tee-weet” of a bird in the last page of the novel are objects, ideas, or phrases that have appeared before in the novel and that are mentioned again in these last pages. Are these symbols? Are they significant to Billy’s life? Do they hold a certain meaning that is crucial to understanding the novel?

I also thought that the characters’ different reactions to death were very peculiar. For example, Rumfoord recognizes that the bombing of Dresden was far worse than the Hiroshima atomic bomb, but still says that “’It had to be done… That’s war.’” (p. 198). On the other side, Billy cried loudly when he saw the physical damage he had caused to the horses, probably the first creatures he had hurt in his entire life. “When Billy saw the condition of his means of transportation, he burst into tears.” (p.197). Maybe Vonnegut is trying to say that like Rumfoord, most people are machines who only care about their own good. Those that are “weak” or sensible, like Billy, are tremendously affected when they hurt someone or something else. Is Vonnegut trying to fight for this sensibility or just saying that wars are inevitable and that humans should therefore adopt an indifferent attitude towards them?

Time gravel may also be Billy’s defense mechanism to resist change and the millions of deaths he has been forced to see. “Nathan, according to the Earthling concept of time, had died back in 1958. According to the Tralfamadorian concept, of course, Nathan was still alive somewhere and always would be.” (p.199). The war has caused such a massive psychological impact on Pilgrim that he is forced to deny death altogether. Or maybe Billy Pilgrim is simply crazy and mistakes his reality with Trout’s books. “It was about an Earthling man and woman who had been kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo…” (p.202). It is possible that Trout found it amusing to write about the life of the only man who admired him.

Up to now, I have come up with various contradictory interpretations of this book. It is amazing how many different meanings a book may conceal. The most interesting aspect is that although these interpretations may oppose each other, like mine do, all of them are valid and correct.