How Billy Pilgrim Ruined War
War is masculine. It’s men who fight in wars and men who start them. But it goes beyond the demographics of soldiers- war is often portrayed as the ultimate test of masculinity, a place where boys become men, a valuable event in the process of self-determination.
Traditional war novels play on this narrative; you too can be a badass! Just commit yourself to killing a few hundred mooks and a few years of bad weather. All you have to do is sign on the dotted line! Media like Call of Duty and American Sniper portray the life of a soldier as fun, accessible, even easy- and most importantly, honorable.
The destructive qualities of this narrative is not lost on Vonnegut, and is in fact openly commented upon in the opening chapter. Perhaps ironically, Vonnegut states that war is necessary to become a good artist; this idea plays into traditional ideas of war as essential to the a man’s coming-of-age. But Mary O’Hare forces him to promise not to portray war in a way that will appeal to the audience, in order to keep future generations from fighting, to which Vonnegut agrees. It is my opinion that Vonnegut fully keeps this promise by emasculating war and thus removing its most attractive quality. He accomplishes this goal by choosing to tell the story from the perspective of Billy Pilgrim. Billy isn't a war hero in any sense of the word; he's not someone worthy of admiration, not a role model to be looked up to. Instead, he is a nearly completely detached narrator who chooses to focus on the innocence of his environment rather than the brutality and by blurring the lines between enemy and friend, thus undermining the entire concept of war as being good for self-determination and the inherent righteousness of the protagonist.
By having Billy focus what little attention he does pay to his immediate surroundings on beauty and innocence -- such as the beautiful young boy or a pair of stunning gold boots -- Vonnegut undermines the grittiness that is so definitive of the war genre. War is no longer a place where men can find themselves in the depths of the trenches, coming out stronger and knowing that they can survive whatever the world may through at them; instead, it’s just another thing that happens, with just as much beauty and ugliness as any other possible event.
Additionally, Vonnegut humanizes the enemy and dehumanizes the allies. The German dog is innocent and unaware of its surroundings; Campbell, an American, unites extreme patriotism and nazism. By doing so, Vonnegut the reader to confront the possibility of that Americans and evil are not inherently separate entities, which undermines the traditional war narrative that is clear cut, black and white, good vs. evil, America vs. not. The traditional war narrative hinges on the assumption that the protagonist/male self-insert character is unquestionably correct in their choice to ruthlessly mow down a series of faceless enemies, and Vonnegut challenges this notion, thus disquieting the entire genre.
What do you guys think? Does Vonnegut succeed in writing a truly anti-war novel/anti war-novel? Could Pilgrim have been a purposeful choice as narrator to achieve this goal?
Traditional war novels play on this narrative; you too can be a badass! Just commit yourself to killing a few hundred mooks and a few years of bad weather. All you have to do is sign on the dotted line! Media like Call of Duty and American Sniper portray the life of a soldier as fun, accessible, even easy- and most importantly, honorable.
The destructive qualities of this narrative is not lost on Vonnegut, and is in fact openly commented upon in the opening chapter. Perhaps ironically, Vonnegut states that war is necessary to become a good artist; this idea plays into traditional ideas of war as essential to the a man’s coming-of-age. But Mary O’Hare forces him to promise not to portray war in a way that will appeal to the audience, in order to keep future generations from fighting, to which Vonnegut agrees. It is my opinion that Vonnegut fully keeps this promise by emasculating war and thus removing its most attractive quality. He accomplishes this goal by choosing to tell the story from the perspective of Billy Pilgrim. Billy isn't a war hero in any sense of the word; he's not someone worthy of admiration, not a role model to be looked up to. Instead, he is a nearly completely detached narrator who chooses to focus on the innocence of his environment rather than the brutality and by blurring the lines between enemy and friend, thus undermining the entire concept of war as being good for self-determination and the inherent righteousness of the protagonist.
By having Billy focus what little attention he does pay to his immediate surroundings on beauty and innocence -- such as the beautiful young boy or a pair of stunning gold boots -- Vonnegut undermines the grittiness that is so definitive of the war genre. War is no longer a place where men can find themselves in the depths of the trenches, coming out stronger and knowing that they can survive whatever the world may through at them; instead, it’s just another thing that happens, with just as much beauty and ugliness as any other possible event.
Additionally, Vonnegut humanizes the enemy and dehumanizes the allies. The German dog is innocent and unaware of its surroundings; Campbell, an American, unites extreme patriotism and nazism. By doing so, Vonnegut the reader to confront the possibility of that Americans and evil are not inherently separate entities, which undermines the traditional war narrative that is clear cut, black and white, good vs. evil, America vs. not. The traditional war narrative hinges on the assumption that the protagonist/male self-insert character is unquestionably correct in their choice to ruthlessly mow down a series of faceless enemies, and Vonnegut challenges this notion, thus disquieting the entire genre.
What do you guys think? Does Vonnegut succeed in writing a truly anti-war novel/anti war-novel? Could Pilgrim have been a purposeful choice as narrator to achieve this goal?
I agree with you; having Billy Pilgrim, basically a child who can see good in everything and smiles all the time even when terrible things are happening around him, be the protagonist completely undermines the "goal" in a war story. Billy achieves nothing as a result of the war. Additionally, all the other people who could have possibly been this glory-seeking ideal-soldier figure die or are not focused on.
ReplyDeleteThis is all very true. Billy is no hero, and Vonnegut does a good job of pointing out that wars are fought by babies -- human babies. I especially like the idea that Billy sees the innocence and beauty remaining in war. The stark contrast between being kicked to death and seeing innocence and beauty in golden boots is a startling way to dissuade people from wars.
ReplyDeleteI really agree with all of this. I especially liked your point about the emasculation of war because I really think Vonnegut does this well throughout the book. None of the soldiers (maybe with the exception of the English soldiers with washboard stomachs) are traditionally "masculine." Actually, they're all kind of pathetic. It makes their death and destruction harder to face because we can see clearly that these guys weren't cut out for war, or at least they don't fit our traditional ideas about what it means to be cut out for war.
ReplyDeleteYou are so right that war is seen often as a way for a boy to prove his masculinity and become a man, and is glorified as that in a lot of ways. I think Billy was the perfect way for Vonnegut to go against that idea by making such a weak and incompetent person the main character. I also like your point that the allies are portrayed as bad while the enemies are humanized and made into a helpless dog. This really makes the reader look at the war a different way and see that there are bad and good people on every side, so is a war really worth fighting?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that Vonnegut's characterization of war is in stark contrast to the usual way it's glorified in media. As we hear about in the introduction, he does keep his promise to Ms. O'Hare that he won't write a novel that will encourage others to send their "babies" into war. It's interesting how even though he treats everything with the same attitude of detachment, the novel still functions as a compelling statement against war because of how we can see it affecting Billy Pilgrim and Vonnegut himself.
ReplyDeleteWhen you refer, in your title, to Billy "ruining" war, I'm reminded of our old pal Roland Weary--who, as you aptly noted in class, epitomizes "toxic masculinity" in the novel, in particular as it relates to war. Roland is so disgusted by Billy in large part because he's "ruining" Roland's "true war story" fantasy by not playing along--the guy being rescued by his buddies who doesn't really want to be rescued and doesn't see these guys as his buddies. Vonnegut depicts him as a kid who badly wants to live out his fantasy of war, and dropping this ridiculous figure into the mix just "ruins" it for him. Likewise, we can see Vonnegut using Billy throughout to "ruin" any chance that the novel will yield a "good" war story, which is a big part of the point.
ReplyDelete