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.