Vonnegut's Better Half... Tim O'Brien

In Going After Cacciato, the audience really begins to understand what Vonnegut was perhaps trying to achieve with his innovative novel, Slaughterhouse Five. I believe O’Brien’s style was more effective, however. O’Brien’s story line reminds me much of the TV show Lost. On the show, Lost, there is a linear sequence of events, and throughout the show, different characters have flashbacks, which clue the audience in to aspects of different characters’ lives and beliefs that currently make up who they are on the island, upon which they are stranded. Many times the characters, and the viewers are confused between what is real and what is fantasy.

Going After Cacciato fits the format of the show well. We tend to see flashbacks -- or flash forwards, depending on how you view it—of the lives of Paul Berlin’s squad during the Vietnam War. And, similar to Lost, the reader has a difficult time understanding what is real. Even though the novel jumps around quite frequently, Tim O’Brien leads the reader on the journey with the characters he has developed. He does this in a way so that the new experiences, which are introduced through flashbacks (or flash forwards), are not fleeting from the minds of the reader seconds after the moment disappears from the story’s plot. While the story continues on in a linear fashion, after the flashback occurs, the experiences we get clued in on continue to develop the plot of the story and sometime help explain a character’s action. This differs from Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse because in that story, the reader has to do all the work, and figure out the connections. Fleeting moments in Vonnegut’s story don’t necessarily impact the plot of the novel directly after they are mentioned.

For this reason, I find Going After Cacciato to be a more compelling story. There is still mystery and there are still connections that I must make on my own, but random events don’t just seem to appear. Everything O’Brien writes has some relevance to the plot at that moment in the story. Further, O’Brien’s style - with use of language and descriptive imagery - makes his story, and the experiences woven in to it, much more cohesive and powerful as one uniform plot, versus going off on seemingly unrelated tangents, like Vonnegut.

Which story do you like better? Do you prefer Vonnegut or O'Brien's style of story telling?

Lost In Time

Any moment in time does not choose to come to life, rather, that moment is always occurring somewhere in someone’s world. We see this idea of time in Vonnegut’s novel, Slaughter-House-Five, through structure, character changes, and Vonnegut’s own interjections (specifically at the beginning and end of the novel). Vonnegut even goes as far to suggest the idea that “All moments, past, present, and future, always have existed, always will exist.” (pg. 27) While this revolutionary idea of universal time seems very out of the ordinary to most of us, it is essential to the effect of Billy Pilgrim’s character and Vonnegut’s cathartic process as a writer. I will use my own experiences as an example…
I recently wrote an essay where I tried to connect two completely independent moments, separated by at least ten years, in my life. I thought I could justify the reason for suddenly finding a brain lesion in my head now by suggesting that it was my fault ten years ago when I pulled a basketball trophy – which was stuck on top a piece of already-chewed gum -- from the top of a book shelve. The corner of the trophy landed on my head. It turns out the lesion on my brain was congenital, and completely unrelated. This was my way of collapsing these two unrelated events onto one common cause.
Using my story as a sort of explanation, the audience can see how Vonnegut’s story makes use of this notion of time. While many of Billy Pilgrim’s experiences may have felt like they were encountered linearly at some point in his life, Vonnegut presents Billy’s struggles through very discombobulating story telling. The structure in Slaughterhouse has an advantage because of the connections that can be made between discontinuous moments in time. The possible justifications for moments that have no similarities at the times they were experienced can easily be stretched to fit the eyes of the beholder. Vonnegut’s stretching and rearranging of time allows him to suggest certain reasoning to the reader and to himself. I think this is pretty cool considering that I think all of us have moments in our lives we wish to explain but cannot do so otherwise. Pulling experiences together may be the best explanations we can get.

I learned about “time” used in Slaughterhouse through a Podcast on iTunes by Radio Lab called “Beyond Time.” It was a biology assignment.

Spreading Like A Stain

There was this “one moment of emptiness in all the battle, as if in that spot the end had come and there were not enough men left now to fill the earth, that final death was beginning there and spreading like a stain.” (224 Killer Angels)

When the narrator of The Killer Angels says this line amidst a Confederate surge against the Union, the audience is joined by the thoughts of Chamberlain in battle. While Chamberlain does not actually say this line [above], it feels as if it is something he would say. Michael Shaara presents us with a philosophical description of the war. He obviously intends for his thought to be the thought of Chamberlain’s character. I also believe this is how Shaara and Chamberlain surmise the war.
In this excerpt, I feel that Chamberlain recognizes what this war has done to the country. In that empty spot in the line of men, “the end had come and there were not enough men left now to fill the earth.” While Chamberlain appears to envy and enjoy the life of a soldier, we see his philosophical, teaching side shine through his character. It is through Chamberlain and Shaara’s view of this single skirmish that they synthesize their opinions about the war. The battle and the war seems meaningful but pointless at the same time. Why? Well in the end, the war will spread “like a stain” and there will be no one left, no purpose, and no foundation to build upon, even if one side does win. Immediately, Chamberlain identifies what could become of the Union and the Confederacy, although he does not share it to the audience out of a lingering fear.
Simultaneous thoughts of plugging his brother to fill the hole and thoughts of the end of a nation cloud Chamberlain’s mind and put him at a crossroads. Even though Shaara sculpts the problem as being about Chamberlain brother, I really feel that Chamberlain’s issue is with the total fall of the nation and complete destruction for both sides. The war wasn’t deemed absolutely necessary, but when the fighting began, the fate of all the men seemed sealed. The nation was going to fail. Chamberlain and Shaara’s realization, however, appears to come too late in the story. At this point in the story, Chamberlain, the Union, and the Confederacy were all at the point of no return for salvaging the country. It is interesting that Shaara chooses to insert an aspect of reason in the middle of this battle, and it really sheds light to Chamberlain’s motives and the possible outcome of the Civil War.
This is my interpretation of what Shaara says to the audience and what I think he purposefully links to Chamberlain’s rooted character. What do you guys think about this?

War Is Not Inherent

My mind is still in the process of healing so try and stick with me on this. I hope this makes sense…

I have come to believe that it is not an inherent part of human nature to naturally want to fight wars. People are not openly looking to fight wars. There is cause, generally. I feel that resorting to fighting is not the way it used to be. It seems that war was a concept developed throughout time. Now, to many people, it may seem inherent as part of human nature, and sometimes inevitable. Yes, the notion of war is a major part of our culture and is introduced to us at an age when our parents can no longer shield us. Even though some wars should be fought, we can still lower the prominence of war in our culture. It is precisely the display of war in education, movies, music, and photojournalism that brings us to understanding what a war can be like. However, this does not charge humans as inherently evil beings.

I am not suggesting that we are not sometimes evil, or that history should not be taught in order to further shelter our minds from destruction. But, perhaps the best method to stop war from being a reality and solely making it a possibility or cause for concern is by creating alternative, peaceful ways to advance and succeed as a society or country. I think with proper limitations on the study of wars, people alive today can reduce the chance of war in the future with the removal of “war chatter” from cultures worldwide. I think we have only given the image that war is inevitable and inherent in our nature because we so often and readily fight them.

A True Leader

What is the difference between a good leader and a bad leader? What does it take to be a leader? Have we surrounded ourselves with the best leaders possible?

The idea I want to discuss challenges the notion that you have to be in a high-ranking position to be considered a “leader” in war. Put simply, I think the answer is no. We mentioned in class that leaders should possess “experience, wisdom, hindsight, honesty, trustworthiness, and etc.” I don’t disagree with these qualities in a leader, but I think not all of these must be considered. There is more to a true leader than just these qualities, and rank is much less part of that. Further in class, we questioned the ways a warrior should act. Merging the idealized presentation of a leader and a warrior together, we can talk about Homeric characters in The Iliad, and the flaws in Homer’s thinking, and also a leader and a warrior in modern terms.

We must understand whom we surround ourselves with when going to battle. Which would you rather have, men (I am being politically incorrect) who fight alongside you or men who fight with you from behind a desk in Washington? Speaking for myself, I would like to fight with men who fight alongside me. In strictly a Homeric sense, warriors are men (in the most general sense) who fight valiantly with skill and foresight. Typically, I see these warriors depicted as leaders in The Iliad, and there seems to be no mistaking that thought. Homer leaves out of the story’s core what I believe to be true warriors or leaders or both – the actual common, “disposable” men fighting amongst characters like Achilles and Hector. In this manner, I think we falsely perceive leaders and warriors in our modern culture to be greater than they actually are, or we give them too much credit. Especially now, who are the actual leaders and warriors of our country?

I do not mean to downplay the significance of past or future leaders with rank, like the President. I can find exception to my argument by talking about Alexander the Great who fought among his soldiers across Europe and Asia. But, even if there is a modern day case of this, we must question who we surround ourselves with in battle. The very leader and warrior one needs may be himself, or his best friend shooting the M16 right next to him.

It is important to realize that not every so-called “leader” is the best or has what it takes. The superficial leaders may be easy to pick out. True leaders may not have all the experience or wisdom desired to win a battle, but that doesn’t mean they cannot win one, and with more integrity and valor than that of a leader who pretends to fight. Further, we must recognize that Homer twists true leadership in The Iliad, with characters like Achilles and Agamemnon. In my eyes, neither of them are great leaders. Patroclus acts more like a leader and warrior than anyone else. Homer idealizes what seems to me to be the wrong persona to adopt when trying to be seen as a leader. Honor through action and glory don’t have to be the underlying motives in a fighter. A person just wanting to stay alive is motive enough for me to win a battle. If we do not assume the idealized sense of a leader and a warrior, I think we could see much more progress in future wars, or in avoiding wars. Thus, I think you have to question who you surround yourself with in battle, and if that person is a leader to you --barring conventional wisdom -- and if not, where you can find a true leader.

Ideas Are Bulletproof

Many people question, “can one win or lose a war against an idea?” After further discussion in class about this question, I believe a nation can certainly lose a war against an idea, and they most certainly cannot win a war against an idea. As the character V, in the movie “V for Vendetta,” powerfully puts it, “ideas are bulletproof” (viewer discretion advised http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A7FG_QKUfU). There is no arguing with this statement. When a nation wages war against another country driven by a concept, that nation is doomed to lose. Practically, that nation can constitute the war as a victory if they have “out lived” the other side. However, they have not truly won - even if that is what the numbers and pictures show. The idea still lives on.

In my opinion, the “War on Terror” is the United States’ war against an idea. Now, while many people believed and still believe that the U.S. has probable cause to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, this is irrelevant. While it seemed that there was a good reason to wage war because of the September 11th attacks and the supposed weapons of mass destruction, I think this war is now baseless. The country has classified its war as a concept – the “War on Terror.” While our country may be fighting to eradicate terrorism, or more easily, to assuage terrorism, in theory the idea of terrorism will always be present and prominent. By way of the media, the idea of “terrorism” will always be written in our history books. Therefore, because of modern technology, we can never win the “War on Terror.”

 

The United States could try and constitute a form of victory. Yes. They have lost fewer men. Yes. They have done more damage to a country than thought possible. Yet, they have failed to truly and successfully implement democracy in a broken country. While they definitely cannot win the “War on Terror”, they also cannot spread their own idea of democracy founded by an everlasting support. This is not to say that they should not try to share democratic ideals. However, they should not rely on democracy as a reason to wage war, and much less the notion to defeat terrorism.

Furthermore, idea is not cause. In Homer’s “The Iliad,” the Achaeans and Trojans fight not over ideas, but over different causes. While the root of the war is because of a foolish cause, the fight over Helen, it still has a tangible purpose. Whereas the “War on Terror” initially had cause, it has grown to be a war over an idea. Because of this message, “ideas are bulletproof,” I think the United States is much better served fighting terrorism through diplomacy and peaceful efforts.

While it may be nice to think that the U.S. can overcome terrorism on the battlefield, the idea of terrorism will always outlast bullets and bombs. Although at first glance war may appear the most effective method to defeating an idea, it is only temporary and quickly fleeting. Eventually, the idea takes a backseat to the fighting and, the whole purpose of war is lost. A nation cannot win a war against an idea. It must resort to more methodical approaches to defeat an idea. With war, logic is thrown out the window, and the idea still remains.