Dresden Rebuilt

One thing that really struck me about the article about Dresden was the images that were taken of present-day Dresden. After seeing the contrast between the bombed-out tower and the bright, bustling snapshot of the historical center of the city really struck a chord with me. As was said in class, this image really evokes a sort of Trafalmadorian idea. Horrible wars occur, it is unavoidable, they will happen, but they should not be focused on, they shouldn’t change anything, look at the happy times. The seemingly decadent modern Dresden does not belie the bombing that destroyed most of the city and killed thousands of people. I believe that this meshes well with the views adopted by Bill Pilgrim, and I do not entirely agree with it. I guess. To be honest, I’m quite conflicted about this whole thing. On one hand, I do agree with and understand the need to move on, there will always be violence and disaster sadly, and we can’t let that stop us from moving forward. I agree that it is important to rebuild, and that it isn’t healthy to just focus on the sad things, in this case the war and the bombing. However, I disagree with the seeming facet of this idea that wars should not be thought about at all. While one should not let a war define them, to try to completely ignore it is dangerous. I might as well throw in the cliché, “those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.” War changes. You can’t ignore that. War changed Billy. War changed the war. And while that seems awful, I believe you can and should learn from it. I think that instead of just covering up the damage and trying to hide it, it should be taught. Dresden moved on, which was good, but I feel that an emphasis on the importance of the war should be present. You can’t just go with the flow, you have to allow these things to change you and grow from it.

Billy as a Protagonist

Billy Pilgrim is not what you would expect in a war book. At least, not as a protagonist. I could see him as the comic relief, the guy who is in the war due to some odd series of events and just should not be there. And I think this is why he works as the “hero” of Slaughterhouse-Five. In an anti-war novel, he fits. I think Vonnegut was very smart in his characterization of Billy.

I see Slaughterhouse-Five as a decidedly anti-war novel, obviously. I mean, after Vonnegut’s supposed trip to the O’Hares’ house, and the mention of the Children’s Crusade, I can’t look at it any other way. Due to it being an anti-war novel, it should portray war in a way totally different from pro-war media. In most works revolving around war, even with a reluctant hero, the protagonist is a “good warrior.” He can fight, he can get through the war, he is a survivor. I would not call Billy a survivor. He lets a sniper take another shot when the first one misses. He literally needs to be dragged across the battlefield so that he doesn’t stay there and die. He has no weapons, no training, he doesn’t even have boots or appropriate clothes. This brings me to my main point: Billy should be dead. Logic dictates that the man who wasn’t even trained for battle, who has seemingly no valuable survival skills, and who has no will to live should die in the midst of a war. But he doesn’t. Thousands of real warriors died in horrible ways, not knowing who killed them, not knowing they were going to die, and Billy stumbles through the war, somehow surviving. This brilliantly showcases the terribleness and randomness of war. There isn’t structure or rules or etiquette involved. It is senseless death and destruction. Billy doesn’t survive because he is fitter than everyone else. He survives randomly. It just happened, and many others died randomly. Vonnegut uses Billy as an example of the unrestrained, needless destruction of war. He uses Billy to show one of the ways war is so terrible.