

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://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4953/kv_sh5.html
Vit, Marek. "Themes of Slaughterhouse-Five." Kurt
Vonnegut’s Corner. August 25, 2002
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/4953/themes.html
Vonnegut, Kurt. SlaughterHouse Five. London: Vintage, 2000.
Go back to





Last modified: August 30, 2002