A New Prose for a New Medium
Andrew Liao (2002)

      
    With  a casual  and rambling  prose reeking  of Internet
trash,   Marek  Vit’s   “The  Themes   of  Kurt   Vonnegut’s
Slaughterhouse-Five may  remind readers of such  web pages as
“Ms.  Smith’s  homeroom:  top  ten  favorite Bernstein Bears
books”. While Vit’s casually rendered first-person narrative
will never find a place in “Contemporary Literary Criticism”
or  even  English  101,  his  essay nevertheless effectively
opens  new perspectives  to Kurt  Vonnegut’s Slaughter House
5 for a different and more  accessible audience : the casual
reader  who reads  the novel  in a  nonacademic setting.  By
means of a wayward narrative  and an informal writing style,
Vit is able to allow a less academic audience to become more
familiar  with  the  novel’s  background,  themes and prose.
Importantly,   this   familiarity   contributes   to  a  due
understanding  of the  themes -  such as  determinism and an
emphasis on  the beauty in  life - that  embody the core  of
Slaughter House 5.
    An  academic who  is  studying  (as opposed  to pleasure
reading)  Slaughter  House  5  and  familiar with Vonnegut’s
prose will prefer conventional essays characterized by deep,
careful analysis  and a no-nonsense  prose. Textual examples
are used  to support interpretations  that should bring  new
meaning  to an  already  carefully  read passage.  The essay
writer  is also  expected  to  use strong  and authoritative
language in  the third person  to add convincing  support to
a debatable thesis. This style allows the wr iter to deliver
hi/r  two  cents  in  as  concise  and  profound  manner  as
possible. Conventional literary analysis writing has evolved
to  this  style  in  order  to  open  or  alter perspectives
concerning  a novel  for well-versed  academics clearly  and
effectively.
    A fine  example of conventional essay  writing is Leslie
Phillips’   “So   it   goes”.   His   concise  four-sentence
introduction  immediately  ends   in  an  authoritative  yet
debatable  thesis: “Vonnegut  has disguised  a great lecture
against war  and an acceptance  of death through  the idiocy
and simplicity of Billy  Pilgrim” (Phillips). By convention,
Phillips assumes  that his paper  should fully support  this
proposition, thereby  allowing him to  use commanding prose.
This is a  style he wields well, as  Phillips’ pro positions
are more authoritative than feeble. He is not merely hinting
when  he  assuredly  says,  “Billy  Pilgrim  is  a master of
disguise.  He serves  as a  superb mask  that Vonnegut hides
behind in  order to get his  messages across without scaring
readers  away with  boring  lectures.  Vonnegut wants  us to
accept  life  as  it  is  and  to  understand  that death is
inevitable and something we must not fear” (Phillips).
    In  contrast,  Vit’s  prose  is  anything  but  that  of
conventional  analytical pieces.  Vit sets  up his  opinions
with   “I  think”   statements,  a   practice  that  weakens
conventional   analysis   by   allowing   claims  to  appear
tentative.   This  irregular   style  is   most  startlingly
exemplified  in Vit’s  thesis: “I  will try  to explore  the
novel in a greater depth and  try to say which of the themes
mentioned  characterizes the  book to  the greatest  extent”
(Vit 1). Not only does Vit  fail to proffer a main theme (in
answer to  his posed question),  but he also  diminishes his
own authority by admitting to  the exploratory nature of the
essay.
      Rather than being a  careless mistake, the exploratory
nature is an intended tool that is characterized by informal
prose.  Vit’s  decentralizes  his  own  authority  by  using
phrases such  as “in my  opinion,” and “I  think” throughout
the essay. These subtle phrases put him at an equal and thus
more comfortable level with the reader. Furthermore, the use
of  the  first  person  has  conversational connotations, in
effect  giving  the  reader  the  option  to  input hi/r own
opinions  as well.  The overall  result is  that Vit creates
a tone  effectively inviting  audience participation  in the
quest for the theme that  characterizes Slaughter House 5 to
the greatest extent.
    In contrast,  a thesis such  as “Vonnegut has  disguised
a great  lecture  against  war  and  an  acceptance of death
through  the   idiocy  and  simplicity   of  Billy  Pilgrim”
(Phillips  1)  makes  a   proposition  with  the  weight  of
authority. By not using the first person, Phillip allows his
argument to resemble a  universal interpretation rather than
one open  to discussion. While this  method is effective for
those   with   strong   contradicting   opinions,  a  strong
authoritative  style  that  invites  minimal audience partic
ipation  is  likely  to   produce  less  participation  with
Phillips’ enthusiasm.  Sooner than later, a  reader could be
turned off to Phillips’ ideas and take a passive role in the
analysis to how Billy Pilgrim accepts his death.
    How  this  is  harmful  can  be  seen  in  the following
example,  where  Phillips  tells  the  reader  the  thematic
significance of living our lives  as bugs in amber: “Yet one
of the main themes of the entire work is the ‘bugs in amber’
or  the existence  of the  past, present,  and future all at
once.  In the  opening chapter  he also  humbles his work by
telling us how it begins  and ends, stressing the succeeding
theme”  (Phillips).  In  this  passage,  Phillips outrightly
gives  an interpretation  that the  reader is  exp ected  to
either   know   or   believe.   However,   being   told   an
interpretation is different from developing one for oneself.
The  book Slaughter  House 5   serves no  value if  a writer
discourages or assumes the reader’s role of interpreting for
the text. The point is to  engage the reader with the themes
that Vonnegut so excellently  conveys, such as the unnerving
ordeal of war.
    In  contrast, the  manner in  which Vit  poses the  same
theme  is more  inviting and  less authoritative.  “The most
often expressed  theme of the  book, in my  opinion, is that
we,  people, are  ‘bugs in  amber’ (Vit).  By including  the
crafty  “in  my  opinion,”  Vit  is  inviting  the reader to
reflect on other possible  instances when Vonnegut expresses
this theme. In  this way, Vit strives to  include the reader
in close resemblance of a discussion, knowing that one would
always feel  excited having hi/r opinions  co nsidered. This
excitement effectively allows for  greater incentive to find
further evidence  that supports how Slaughter  House 5 shows
that  we are  bugs in  amber, such  as when  Billy and  some
soldiers unknowingly  abuse two horses  in the aftermath  of
the  war.  They  do  not  do  it  out  of  cruelty  or  even
absentmindedness but mainly because that is the way they are
meant to treat vehicles of transportation.
    Vit’s prose calls for more participation, which leads to
more reflection and thus a development of ideas about themes
such as  the importance of love.  To further facilitate this
hands-on  approach,  Vit  minimizes  the  amount  of textual
evidence he  uses to support his  propositions. For example,
he proposes  that “Vonnegut…uses the word  love very rarely,
yet  effectively”  (Vit  4).  In  more conventional literary
analysis  pieces, this  is an  empty claim  as it is propped
with little  support. In conventional  literary analysis, as
Vit fails to do, a  claim is immediately followed by textual
evidence: “Another aspect of this cycle is Vonnegut's use of
repetition.  "So it  goes" is  the most  used phrase  in the
book. Pilgrim is often saying "um" while Vonnegut's personal
narration repeats  phrases such as  "mustard gas and  roses"
and "listen" (Phillips).
    In  contrast  to  Phillips’   analysis,  Vit  gives  the
participating reader  the option to  agree or disagree  with
his  statements.  In  light  of  a  writer’s  encouragement,
a reader may have the incentive to go back and experience if
Vonnegut does  use the word  “love” efficiently. The  reader
may discover,  according to hi/r  biases, that the  claim is
false.  In  the  end,  the  text  is  more powerful than the
analysis,  and an  analysis should  be merely supplementary.
A reader must be given the choice to make hi/r own opinions.
Vit effectively supplements Slaughter  House 5 by giving the
reader a greater  incentive to scour the text,  and this may
result in the deeper appreciation of powerful themes such as
the extrinsic relationship between humans and soldiers.
    Participation is turned off when a writer analyzes until
the reader  is forced into  submission. Here, Phillips  over
analyses Slaughter House 5’s cyclical theme:
“There is a continuing cycle of death and renewal throughout
Billy's story.  “So it goes”, found  over one hundred times,
plays  an   important  role  in  the   continuation  of  the
novel…This  expression  ties  many   aspects  of  the  story
together, helping the entire work to keep dying and renewing
itself  again…They   [Tralfamadorians]  saw  the   world  as
a portrait,  laid  out  and  finished  with  all experiences
present at once. "All time is all time. It does not change,"
they tell him (211; ch. 10)… "I, Billy Pilgrim,... will die,
have  died,  and  always  will  die  on February thirteenth,
1976"  (141;  ch.  6).  Billy   dies  and  renews  his  life
repeatedly,  enforcing  the  cyclical  nature  of  the book”
(Phillips).

    While Phillip’s analysis leaves little doubt that cycles
are  a  strong  theme  in  the  book,  a  reader who has not
encountered  this idea  beforehand is  unnaturally convinced
– if  convinced  at  all.  A  theme  is almost impossible to
express in a few quotations,  because a writer would have to
show  that the  idea reoccurs  significantly throughout  the
book.  The  best  that  a  writer  could  do  is mention and
slightly  develop  a  theme  so  that  the  reader  has  the
incentive to reflect or go back  to the text and experie nce
the  theme   for  oneself.  Contrary   to  promoting  reader
initiative, over-analysis subdues a reader’s ideas.
    Instead of perceiving the  novel as cyclical as Phillips
proposes, a reader with the option to explore could take the
idea of the nature of time  in Slaughter House 5 further. He
or  she may  prefer  the  interpretation that  the repeating
elements of the novel are  part of separate threads that are
more  layered than  cyclical  with  a topography  that would
resemble “a  stretch of Rocky Mountains”  (Vonnegut 19). One
layer may be  Billy’s fantasy world, another may  be his war
experience, etc.
    Vit’s  prose  also  allows   him  to  address  the  many
competing  themes in  Vonnegut’s novel  with an  appropriate
fairness. A conventional essay that seeks to pinpoint a main
theme could  also be weak because  of the many contradictory
facets  of  the  novel;  an  author  that  strives  to write
a foolproof essay  pinpointing a theme  will most likely  be
unsuccessful. Slaughter  House 5 has no  single major theme.
Each idea that Vonnegut  presents is contradicted by another
theme so  that it is  extremely difficult to  evaluate where
the  author is  going. The  consistently occurring  serenity
prayer with  the line, “God  grant me…courage to  change the
things I can” (Vonnegut  153) contradicts the Tralfamadorian
philosophy of determinism, with the  belief that there is no
point  in  preventing  the  universe’s destruction. Vonnegut
professes that Slaughter House 5  is an anti-war book in the
first chapter yet he also  says via a Tralfamadorian lecture
that there is no use  in doing anything about war. Slaughter
House  5 talks  about time   and life  having “no  moral, no
causes,  no effects”  (Vonnegut 64),  yet he  emphasizes the
importance of optimism by saying: “to stare at pretty things
as eternity  failed to go  by”. The last  scene of Slaughter
House 5, traditionally the summary of the novel, provides us
with a  scene of people  digging out dead  bodies from under
bombed  rubble. This  part is  concluded by  a bird  calling
“Poo-tee-weet”  (Vonnegut  157).  Supposedly,  the  birdcall
represents the idea that there is not much to say about war,
yet the call also marks one hundred and fifty seven pages of
things to say about war.
      Vit’s use  of prose to stimulate  reader reflection is
further  complimented  by  his  organization  of  ideas. Vit
admits in his introduction that  “it is hard to decide, what
exactly is the main theme” (Vit 1). While this admittance of
uncertainty strays from  conventional analytical writing, it
is useful in that it allows  Vit to meander in his narrative
by first talking about Dresden and Vonnegut before beginning
in  his  “search”  for  the  elusive  main  theme.  This  is
important  because  Vit  needs  to  spend  time  clearing up
uncertainties about Kurt Vonnegut  and Slaughter House 5. It
would  be  difficult  to  incorporate  such meanderings into
a more   tight   and   conventional   essay,  as  Vonnegut’s
background  has  little  to  do  with  the  projected thesis
(finding the main theme of the novel).
      Most  readers who  come across  Slaughter House  5 are
likely to  be unprepared by  Vonnegut’s eccentric style  and
themes,  as they  are  both  unconventional and  quirky. Vit
meanders in  his narrative in  order to address  this issue.
For example, Vit helpfully  informs the reader that Vonnegut
is known for his satirical  and ironical language. With this
knowledge, the  following passage would not  be confused for
merely an attempt at literary description:
“Derby  described  the  incredible  artificial  weather that
Earthlings sometimes  create for other  Earthlings when they
don’t want those other Earthlings to inhabit Earth any more.
Shells were bursting in the treetops with terrific bangs, he
said,  showering down  knives and  needles and  razorblades.
Little lumps  of lead in  copper jackets were  crisscrossing
the woods under shell bursts, zipping along much faster than
sound” (Vonnegut 77).
Further  analysis  into  the  passage  could  reveal further
support  the  theme  that  all  moments  - even terrible war
scenes – are simply moments and can be considered as trivial
as weather. Vit also describes  Kurt Vonnegut to often write
books  with  “very  poor  plots  (or  none  at  all) and the
emphasis  is   put  onto  the  rather   comic  and  pathetic
characters“ (Vit). With this information, Vit allows for one
to be less  preoccupied with the fact that  the book doesn’t
have a plot or a problem to solve. Less time stum bling over
literary  inconsistencies  and   more  reflection  leads  to
greater  enjoyment  and  immersion  into  a typical Vonnegut
theme like the nature of time.
    In  addition, knowledge  of the  author always  enhances
appreciation of the context  that surrounds a literary work.
One  can  never  know  if  the  first  and last chapters are
actually  written  by  the  author   or  by  the  author  in
character. Vit  helps clear the confusion  by verifying that
Vonnegut indeed  participated in the bombing  of Dresden and
also  struggled  in  writing  Slaughter  House  5  as he had
claimed: “[Slaughter House 5] is a very personal novel which
draws  upon  Vonnegut’s  own  experience  in  World War Two”
(Vit). By understanding the background of the author, we can
appreciate  the  intimacy  that   Vonnegut  feels  with  the
subject, and  ultimately his words have  more weight. I, for
one,  better  appreciated   the  seriousness  in  Vonnegut’s
proposition -  that it is stupid  to worry about war  – upon
realization  that the  author himself  participated in armed
conflict.
      Reading Vit’s article allows for discovery and greater
appreciation  for such  themes  as  the unnerving  trauma of
death, the soothing remedy of determinism as well as a man’s
loss  and  reconciliation  with  humanity.  So  much  of the
essence  of Slaughter  House 5  is lost  if an absent minded
reader  fails to  appreciate  Vonnegut  themes, such  as the
nature of time. Of equal  tragedy, however, is if the reader
is  force-fed the  same themes  instead of  being allowed to
experience  the  magic  of  Vonnegut’s  storyte lling. Vit’s
essay,  with   its  unique  prose,   manages  to  find   the
all-important  middle  ground  between  these  processes  by
familiarizing the reader with  the text and Vonnegut through
brief analysis of themes to consider.

Works Cited

  Phillips, Leslie. "So it  goes." Kurt Vonnegut’s Corner.
August 25, 2002 
http://geocities.datacellar.net/Hollywood/4953/kv_sh5.html

  Vit,  Marek.   "Themes  of  Slaughterhouse-Five."  Kurt
Vonnegut’s Corner. August 25, 2002
http://geocities.datacellar.net/Hollywood/4953/themes.html

Vonnegut, Kurt. SlaughterHouse Five. London: Vintage, 2000.

Go back to