Generation Kill

As we begin Going After Cacciato we naturally, because of its subject matter, have discussed the Vietnam War quite a bit. Additionally, Slaughterhouse-Five forced us to discuss World War II. Not meaning the actual wars themselves, although we have done some of that, but the bulk of our discussions have been pertaining to the psychological effect warfare can have on an individual. Thanks to Slaughterhouse-Five and someone's blog (Ed or Acton I think) we are now familiar with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the consequence of war Slaughterhouse. We are presented with Billy Pilgrim's personal experiences in armed conflict and observe his struggle to deal with its lasting effect. In Cacciato, we examine one man's, desertion and the journey those giving chase to him, all tired of war themselves. Seeing this negative response to warfare by these characters, whose stories are based off the personal experiences of the respective authors, reminded me of something. This summer I watched the HBO miniseries, Generation Kill. The show wasn't particualry well done, unlike most things HBO does, but it did show a side of war that we, in this class, are yet to be exposed too. The miniseries was about a Marine batallion during the early phases of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and is based on actual events. The Marines portrayed, all based off real people, are nothing like Billy Pilgrim or the soldiers in Cacciato, but rather the complete opposite. They embrace war. Their outlook on war polarizes that of Pilgrim and Cacciato. Billy and Cacciato are depressed by war and look for any way to get out of it. These Marines, on the other hand, love it. The psychological effect on them is not a case of PTSD but rather an adrenaline rush. They do not question their presence in Iraq, as Cacciato does in Vietnam, but they accept it and quite frankly, enjoy it. How could they be so incredibly different? To be honest, I'm not completely sure but I can speculate. Obviously American society has changed since WWII and even Vietnam. Children today are surrounded by violence, be it in the form of video games, movies or whatever, it's a part of everyday life, far more so than ever before. Mr. Crotty told us in class that the military no longer has to give its volunteers desensitzing training, a necessity in the past, because of the everyday exposure to violence in today's society. Personal thoughts?

Personal Preference

No two works we have read this year have been the same. Most notably in regards to the different protagonists and major characters we have been presented with in each piece. The Illiad, a telling of the heroic deeds of the likes of Achilles and Hector. Troilus and Cressida, a Shakesperean satire that features the mockable Troilus and the beautiful Cressida. The Killer Angels, a description of the day to day lives of Gettysburg's most influential commanders: Lee, Longstreet and Chamberlain. In Slaughterhouse-Five, we are presented with a protagonist unlike any from of our previous novels, epic poems or plays. We, as the reader, are to follow the obscure and out of order adventures of Billy Pilgrim. Billy is not a fictional hero such as Achilles, a comedic portrayal such as Troilus or a famous general the likes of Robert E. Lee. But rather he is a character, although fictional, based on the real life experiences of the author. Billy Pilgrim is the fictional reincarnation of Kurt Vonnegut. Kurt Vonnegut was a World War II veteran who was taken as a prisoner of war by the Germans and detained in the old underground meat locker, Schlachthof Fünf (Slaughterhouse-Five). From there he was forced to witness the atrocities and aftermath of the bombing of Dresden. The fact that Vonnegut personally experienced many events similar to those portrayed in the book, for me at least, brings a sense of authenticity to the novel. He clearly spins his own experiences for the sake of making them humorous and more interesting but they still create a more believable and entertaining character. Maybe it's just that I like Vonnegut a lot and prefer his style but I am curious: which do you prefer? Do you like a story of mythological heroism such as The Illiad? A Shakesperean satire? A documentary-like retelling of Gettysburg? Or are you like me, and prefer the obscure and loosely based on fact mess that is Slaughterhouse-Five?

Too Little, Too Late

The other day in class, during one of our fish bowl sessions, we discussed a passage from the book in which Robert E. Lee explained the duty of an officer to General Longstreet. Lee talked of how officers must understand the possible consequences of their decisions and that they must accept them. He said Longstreet was "too close" to his men and that he must learn not to dwell on the possibility of his men losing their lives as a result of his decisions. Others in class, can't remember who, said that this was evidence of a more human side to Lee and that he was becoming a more reasonable leader. With this, I have to disagree. I see this more as evidence of the contrary, that Lee is still the same old-school general that does not fully understand the possible consequences of his decisions. He claims that officers must be willing to put their men in harms way, but at what cost? Not long after this discussion with Longstreet, Lee orders the ill-fated Pickett's Charge. He was advised by Longstreet that such a decision would be a costly one but ignores him. His old-school nature gets the best of him and forces him to look past the logic that resides in Longstreet's plans and to take a more foolish, aggressive plan. It isn't until after Pickett's Charge that Lee becomes a more reasonable and understanding leader. He sees how depleted his army is after the charge and only then does he fully understand how costly his decisions can be. This is obvious when he confesses to his army that, "it is all [his] fault," in reference to the devastation caused by his order. Unfortunately for the Confederacy, Lee's realization comes at far too late of a time.

Killer Angel

Today in class (Thursday), we dicussed the book's title, The Killer Angels, and its origin. The author of the book, Michael Shaara, got it from Chamberlain's title, Man, A Killer Angel. The title raises the point of man's capability do both good and bad, to be a killer and an angel. Every man is born with the ability to be violent, most just have to be pushed into doing it. For the most part men do not want to kill but if pressed, they will turn to violence. On the other hand, man also has the capability to be inherently good, to be an angel, as the title suggests. Most will argue, as will I, that man would rather live in peace than in war and would prefer to avoid violence. However, every man has their breaking point and far too often, it is reached. Take Chamberlain for example, he is clearly not a violent man by nature. He is a scholar rather than a soldier, but when war is thrust upon him, he accepts it. He even goes as far to say that he likes the life of a soldier and has grown to tolerate and to an extent, enjoy, the consequences of it. He grows accustomed to and takes a liking to the violent life he now leads, revealing his inherent ability to be a "killer". The opposite scenario of Chamberlain, is that of Longstreet. Longstreet is a military man by nature and is comfortable with war. But, he displays his "angel" side in his desire to preserve as many lives as possible. Unlike his superior, Lee, Longstreet values human lives and does not see his soldiers as expendable items. He sees them as people, just like him, and wishes to prevent as many of them from dying as possible in battle. Yes, his desire to take a defensive stance is a strategic decision but it is also to on behalf of saving lives, showing his inherent capability to be good. Chamberlain and Longstreet exemplify man's capability to be both an angel and a killer.

Role Players

I was watching an episode of the greatest show on television, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, when I noticed a sort of parallel to Troilus and Cressida. In the episode three friends were working as a team to solve something, what they were trying to solve is not important. What is important is how they tried to solve it. They realized that each of them had something to contribute and they could each serve a ‘role’. The self-proclaimed handsomest of the group was designated, “The Looks”, with the smartest of the three being, “The Brains” and the crazy, unpredictable one serving as “The Wildcard”. Though not directly comparable, it did make me notice how in the Trojan War characters seemed to serve roles in similar ways. On the Achaean side of the war, many of the participants appear to have very distinct roles. Ulysses, with his intellect and wit, plays the part of “The Brains” while Great Ajax, with his size and strength serves as “The Muscle”. Achilles, because of his volatile nature, can be pegged as “The Wildcard”. In the show, the friends recognize that they must stick to their roles in order to succeed. In the Trojan War, they seemingly do so unintentionally. Ulysses constantly serves as the voice of reason, Ajax is good for nothing but fighting and Achilles can never be controlled or told what to do.
As is becoming custom in these blogs, everything can be related to the sports world. On every great sports team, people have their roles. Take, and this might anger a few of you, the San Antonio Spurs for instance. For almost a decade now they have been considered the closest thing to a dynasty in the NBA and their players have very distinct roles. Players like Bruce Bowen, who provides as a defensive specialist and Brent Berry, whose only asset is his ability to shoot threes, fill important voids for the Spurs. Without people to serve such roles, it’s hard to say they would have enjoyed as much success as they have over the last ten years.

Hector's Heroism, Or Lack There of

It’s probably safe to assume that even before we started reading The Iliad, we all knew who the heroes were. We all knew that Achilles was the prominent hero of the story with Odysseus and others filling the void in minor roles. At the beginning of the trimester Mr. Crotty warned us that we should look beyond the obvious Achaean characters and look to Hector as the possible hero of The Iliad. Upon concluding the story, I have tried to find evidence to back such a claim for Hector, but have found it difficult. On numerous occasions, Troy’s commander-in-chief flees from danger in a most un-heroic way. Twice he runs away from Great Ajax and again he turns his back on a fight when he retreats from Achilles. When Hector finally decides to confront Achilles, he first begs to negotiate and then literally runs away in fear. Only upon the belief that a fellow Trojan has joined him does he turn to face Achilles. With the reality being that his fellow Trojan is merely Athena in disguise and that he is all-alone in facing his enemy, Hector is easily defeated. Hector’s numerous acts of cowardice are what prevent him from being a hero. Granted, he does lead the Trojans to some success on the battlefield but he demonstrates his incompetence as he lets the success go to his head and in turn makes several over aggressive, costly decisions. Even simply as a commander does Hector fail to exert himself as proficient. Throughout the poem it hard to find true heroes as even Achilles shows flaws but of the major players, Hector appears to be one of the least heroic.

The Power of Pride

Through the first five books of The Iliad, there appears to be one major theme. One theme that is, up to this point in the epic, the driving force behind the majority of the action. Just about every character thus far, both minor and major, has an incredible ego that dominates their personality and their judgment. From the very inception of the story the egos of the prominent characters are already at the forefront of the action. Though not for certain, the Achaeans’ presence in Troy can be attributed to Menelaus’ desire to restore his pride after having his wife taken from him. Nine years into the war, the egos of Menelaus’ brother, Agamemnon, and Achilles, are the cause for conflict amongst the Achaean army. Upon having to forfeit Chryseis, his captured prize, Agamemnon demands that Achilles relinquish his own prize, Briseis, to the Achaean commander. This request, in Achilles’ mind, undermines him and as a result, he refuses to continue to partake in the war. Achilles’ immense pride and massive ego is the sole force behind his decision. Agamemnon’s decisions are also ruled by his pride as he commands the Achaean army no only to recover his brother’s wife, but for his own material gain. Mortals are not the only ones subject to their own pride, as the gods too, have trouble setting aside their egos. The gods are split over whom to support in the dispute and for that reason, they become intricate parts of the war. Whether it is Athena and Hera defending the Achaeans or Apollo and Ares fighting on behalf of the Trojans, the egos of the gods further escalate the already epic conflict. Their pride and desire to outdo one another forces them to physically take part in the mortals’ war. Everyone in this epic tale, both mortal and immortal, is controlled by his or her own ego.