So, now we're done with Slaughterhouse Five, and I realized I basically only have one post on it, which made me sad, as this is definitely my favorite book so far. So, this post will be a little disorganized, but I'd like to share some of the things that I've been thinking about now that the book is over, and after the discussion we had in class today.
To refresh everyone's memory, today we talked about what effect that one guy's discreditation had on Vonnegut (if any), when he cited a death toll somewhere around 100,000-200,000 when it was really more like 20,000-40,000. I started to think about this, and I came to the conclusion that it's not Vonnegut's moral responsibility to put out some kind of annotation or anything to correct the error. Vonnegut cited the number 100,000 (or whatever it was). That is how Slaughterhouse Five was written. That was the effect it created, and it was created from what was going on at the time. It is what it is. So it goes.
Your moral stance on firebombing is going to be the same whether or not you know the death toll or not, and it may only shift slightly depending on whether or not the city actually was active during the war effort. I feel like nothing else really matters. The way that the information is presented surely has an effect on how we view the information, but I don't think it is our job to fact check every single piece of information that we encounter in our lives. That would be impractical. I don't mean we should take every "official" view or "expert" opinion to be the truth at all times in every situation. I mean that an "official view" like a death toll of 100,000 has to be trusted, and is really all you have, until you hear anything differently.
I suppose what I'm saying is there's nothing inherently wrong with keeping to an "official" view of history. It's just that if other information arises then you need to take it into account and decide what you think "really happened." If one can.
I'm not sure how that related to what I was saying earlier, but it was a little jarring in class to hear the official view bashed so much just for being the official view. It's like saying you were going to do what the government says to do anyway, but now that they're telling you to do it, you're not going to do it. That's just stupid and impractical, because if you're views were already that way, why should it change just because "the man" is telling you to do it?
Anyway, I liked Slaughterhouse Five and I thought it was one of the most thought-provoking and engaging books we've read so far this semester. I connected with lots of Billy's struggles; being consumed with the things in your past and afraid of the things in your future, meaning that you won't enjoy any of the things in between. In any event, things work themselves out and everything is fine.
So it goes.
1 comment:
When the "official view" literally derives from the government, which is the organization waging the war and has a strong vested interest in justifying and maintaining that war, there's good reason to be skeptical. It's a fact (and I'm sure Sutton, Butler, et al. will back me up on this) that ALL governments lie during wartime, with no exceptions. So it's not just that skepticism is called for; one might say we have a *patriotic duty* to challenge the official history. And personal narrative is an excellent and authorititive way to do that.
(And when that official account comes from the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, we have especially good reason for skepticism. Vonnegut, of course, doesn't know the figures he cites come ultimately from Goebbels.)
Post a Comment