*Note:This is specifically about the latter half of "The Fear" so potential spoiler alert, though it isn't anything very surprising.
When Dana leaves 1819 at the end of Tom Weylin's whip, Kevin is left there. He's alone, and worse yet, unlike Dana he doesn't have a way of getting home. Now Kevin does have the advantage of being White, which in the antebellum South is probably the best 'trait' you can have. Dana says she is gone for eight days, meaning that she's been gone for years in 1819 time. Kevin waited and waited and then went North. Dana is hurt by him not waiting for her. Is it reasonable to expect him to though?
I would say no. Rufus tells Dana that he waited around for a while at the plantation before finally deciding to go north. Kevin couldn't have even be sure Dana was ever going to come back. Even after he goes to the North, he still writes letters to Rufus providing his current address, so on the off chance Dana is there, she has some way of contacting him. Yet the fact is, Dana abandoned him. I realize she couldn't control it, but that is what happened. I hope for him that he did move on and find someone else, or if not another person, at least something to put him at peace in his new life.
Now I know this seems like a pretty minor detail of the whole situation to focus on, but the way Butler sets it up, it is in direct contrast with Tom Weylin's current relationship status. Tom's wife has left for Baltimore after the death of her twins, making him now twice left by women (Hannah, his first wife dying). Unlike Kevin's relative flexibility, Tom can't move because all his wealth his tied up in his land. He has to live in the same house, the same bed even.
I must admit, I haven't come up with anything to really draw from these parallel situations as of yet. However, if Kevin does come back, or if Dana somehow gets to the city he is in, it will be interesting to see how much Kevin may have changed. This change could then lend insight into who Tom was before Margaret. Perhaps when Hannah died he changed just as much as Kevin changed when Dana left. The Tom we see in the present may be a different version of his true self, maybe the past isn't as different as we normally, or want to, believe?
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Why Three?
As I think I established with my last post, I really like war art. That's why Vonnegut's one paragraph of military action, when the two scouts are killed, really intrigued me. In class we talked about how the past perfect verb conjugation makes it less exciting, and the short declarative sentences almost innocent and childlike. There is one thing we didn't talk about in class that hasn't left my head though. Why is it "three inoffensive bangs" (54)? Two scouts, three shots, the math doesn't add up. From my understanding of military training, soldiers are taught to fire two shots at a target, "double-tapping" them. It is few enough shots that the recoil of the gun doesn't throw off accuracy by very much, but enough that if both are hits the target won't be getting up. For marksmen, for the range that they presumably got to behind the two scouts, one shot apiece would have been sufficient. Depending on who the soldiers were, that's either four or two shots, so the question remains: where does the three come from?
Vonnegut was in the Army, so he would've known what was standard operating procedure, which leads me to the conclusion that the three shots was chosen for a reason. Perhaps it is suggesting that the Germans who kill the scouts aren't real soldiers and haven't had any military training, so that while one of them needs to fire twice (or chooses might be a better word) the other elects to fire only once. This would fit with the makeup of the squad that captures Billy and Roland, with the young boys, Princess, and the old men. Or perhaps the reason for the three shots is that they didn't have enough ammunition/one gun misfired and wasn't operable. This would fit with the description of the rest of Germany, Dresden essentially, being no longer militarily capable. Either way really, it still supports Vonnegut's overall point about the war, that by the time Dresden was bombed the outcome of the war was already decided. It adds to the utter stupidity of the war, that people who have no inclination toward violence are forced into it without even so much as the proper equipment or training, and still expected to succeed for their country.
Vonnegut was in the Army, so he would've known what was standard operating procedure, which leads me to the conclusion that the three shots was chosen for a reason. Perhaps it is suggesting that the Germans who kill the scouts aren't real soldiers and haven't had any military training, so that while one of them needs to fire twice (or chooses might be a better word) the other elects to fire only once. This would fit with the makeup of the squad that captures Billy and Roland, with the young boys, Princess, and the old men. Or perhaps the reason for the three shots is that they didn't have enough ammunition/one gun misfired and wasn't operable. This would fit with the description of the rest of Germany, Dresden essentially, being no longer militarily capable. Either way really, it still supports Vonnegut's overall point about the war, that by the time Dresden was bombed the outcome of the war was already decided. It adds to the utter stupidity of the war, that people who have no inclination toward violence are forced into it without even so much as the proper equipment or training, and still expected to succeed for their country.
The Makings of a War Hero
Slaughterhouse Five is an especially important book because I am one of those people who can't read enough war novels, or watch enough movies (in fact within ten feet sits a three volume set of books detailing American involvement in World War Two, and yes they were a gift for me). Vonnegut is clearly not writing this book to glamorize war, or war art for that matter. But how is he doing so? To answer that question I want to explore a little bit of what makes movie war heroes into heroes. One quick note, for the purposes of this post I will be referring to male heroes. I just want to note now that there is no deeper meaning behind this except the majority of western art depicting war has focused on men. A movie to take on the task of examining the response to a female heroine would be Courage Under Fire, which I highly recommend.
Personality: As far as I can identify, there are two types of personalities that make war heroes. There is the guy who everyone hates because he's a cocky jerk who doesn't play nice with others. Yet, in the face of danger he routs the enemy and saves his fellow countrymen. It is his belief that he is the best that allows him to be the hero, because he knows that not only his he the best, he is so much better than everyone else that they fear him. Top Gun is a prime example, Maverick (Tom Cruise) is this man, no question about it. The other type is the quiet unassuming man, hard working yet never a standout who in the face of battle finds his voice and successfully leads his men out. Damian Lewis' portrayal of Dick Winters in Band of Brothers shows this type of hero. He is catapulted during the war to higher and higher positions of authority, all the while still maintaining his unassuming personality.
Style: This may not seem as obvious, but since the beginning of action movies, style has played a big role in pointing out the hero and the villain. In thirties movies it was the color of hats (white and black of course). As America became more militarily active, the color of the uniforms, even if they weren't actually Russian, German, Chinese, etc. was meant to show the audience who to cry over. Even today in police movies, think about how the main character is normally dressed--he's probably wearing a suit but not a nice one, and doesn't look very comfortable in it. Off duty he probably wears a hoodie while he still tries to solve the case. The bad guys can be classified as gangsters or gangstas depending on the dress. Big imposing men in suits belong to the gangster realm, while the typically young gangsta has more jewelry, more tattoos and baggier clothing. Think of the famous Louis-David painting of Napoleon crossing the Alps, do you not get a sense of his power and strength by how is he dressed, and his flair while being perilously close to death?
Humanity and Self-Sacrifice: What sets apart heroes from villains often is not the amount of people they kill but their reason and feelings behind it. Villians kill for themselves, heroes kill because they have no choice. When James Bond kills Steven Obanno in Casino Royale it was because Bond was attacked and his kill is to save himself and Lynd. You can see his pain in a later scene in the shower though, how much of a toll it takes on him to be constantly flying around the world and killing people. Self-sacrifice is also important in the building of a hero. In Air Force One a random F-14 pilot throws his plane in the way of a missile to stop hit from hitting Air Force One and killing the President. Or in Captains of the Clouds, after a German pilot has destroyed two of the unarmed bombers, James Cagney steers his plane right at the German to bring him down. In both movies, the pilots know that this action will result in their death, and yet they still do it, for the mission is more important than their own life.
In a nutshell, those things make a hero. Billy Pilgrim doesn't fit any of those things specifically, Vonnegut goes to great lengths to make sure he clearly doesn't. Roland Weary looks more like a gangster than a hero. The scouts leave men behind. The British are closer, but their noble duty-bound attempts to escape look foolish because their in the middle or a Russian POW camp, and their cavorting with the Germans is not very heroic. Edgar Derby is probably the closest thing to a hero in Slaughterhouse Five, but with repeated assurances that he will die over a teapot by the end of a novel, this undermines his budding heroism. For what Vonnegut is trying to accomplish, it makes sense to not make a hero out of any character. That way, people like me don't read it like an exciting, flag waving war novel.
Personality: As far as I can identify, there are two types of personalities that make war heroes. There is the guy who everyone hates because he's a cocky jerk who doesn't play nice with others. Yet, in the face of danger he routs the enemy and saves his fellow countrymen. It is his belief that he is the best that allows him to be the hero, because he knows that not only his he the best, he is so much better than everyone else that they fear him. Top Gun is a prime example, Maverick (Tom Cruise) is this man, no question about it. The other type is the quiet unassuming man, hard working yet never a standout who in the face of battle finds his voice and successfully leads his men out. Damian Lewis' portrayal of Dick Winters in Band of Brothers shows this type of hero. He is catapulted during the war to higher and higher positions of authority, all the while still maintaining his unassuming personality.
Style: This may not seem as obvious, but since the beginning of action movies, style has played a big role in pointing out the hero and the villain. In thirties movies it was the color of hats (white and black of course). As America became more militarily active, the color of the uniforms, even if they weren't actually Russian, German, Chinese, etc. was meant to show the audience who to cry over. Even today in police movies, think about how the main character is normally dressed--he's probably wearing a suit but not a nice one, and doesn't look very comfortable in it. Off duty he probably wears a hoodie while he still tries to solve the case. The bad guys can be classified as gangsters or gangstas depending on the dress. Big imposing men in suits belong to the gangster realm, while the typically young gangsta has more jewelry, more tattoos and baggier clothing. Think of the famous Louis-David painting of Napoleon crossing the Alps, do you not get a sense of his power and strength by how is he dressed, and his flair while being perilously close to death?
Humanity and Self-Sacrifice: What sets apart heroes from villains often is not the amount of people they kill but their reason and feelings behind it. Villians kill for themselves, heroes kill because they have no choice. When James Bond kills Steven Obanno in Casino Royale it was because Bond was attacked and his kill is to save himself and Lynd. You can see his pain in a later scene in the shower though, how much of a toll it takes on him to be constantly flying around the world and killing people. Self-sacrifice is also important in the building of a hero. In Air Force One a random F-14 pilot throws his plane in the way of a missile to stop hit from hitting Air Force One and killing the President. Or in Captains of the Clouds, after a German pilot has destroyed two of the unarmed bombers, James Cagney steers his plane right at the German to bring him down. In both movies, the pilots know that this action will result in their death, and yet they still do it, for the mission is more important than their own life.
In a nutshell, those things make a hero. Billy Pilgrim doesn't fit any of those things specifically, Vonnegut goes to great lengths to make sure he clearly doesn't. Roland Weary looks more like a gangster than a hero. The scouts leave men behind. The British are closer, but their noble duty-bound attempts to escape look foolish because their in the middle or a Russian POW camp, and their cavorting with the Germans is not very heroic. Edgar Derby is probably the closest thing to a hero in Slaughterhouse Five, but with repeated assurances that he will die over a teapot by the end of a novel, this undermines his budding heroism. For what Vonnegut is trying to accomplish, it makes sense to not make a hero out of any character. That way, people like me don't read it like an exciting, flag waving war novel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)