Monday, January 26, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
it's interesting--like i said in my post, i really loved Slaughterhouse Five. i still can't help hating Billy, though; maybe i myself am too stuck in the traditionally "macho" image of a warrior. As a hero, Billy lacks a fair bit. Vonnegut's style throughout the book really appeals to me, however. i agree with you about the sense of realism: Vonnegut's involvement in the war means that this novel seems more authentic.
I like the way you show the differences between each of the works we have read this year. When studying war, it is important to look at many different styles of presenting it. As you state, Slaughterhouse-Five is almost humorous. The reason Vonnegut presents the novel this way is to make his story a form of satire. Like Twain's Huck Finn and Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, Vonnegut tries to reveal his true thoughts through making his opposing views seem ridiculous. In the case of Slaughterhouse-Five Vonnegut tries to show the evils behind war.
I also like how you differentiate between all the works we have read so far this year. Personally, I have liked the Iliad the best so far. I think it all depends on your personality though. I love Arnold Schwartzinagor (sp?) movies even if they are really cheesy and love stupid action movies like that. I think the Iliad is very reflective of those types of movies.
I would say I liked Killer Angels the best because I like detailed information of what has happened. This makes the story so much more credible than any others that we have read and makes it easy (and fun) to read. Although I'm not trying to bash any of the other books we have read, I am just expressing my point of view.
Killer Angels was a book mixed with a lot of facts and character development. I don't think we can ever know if the characters in Killer Angels were really like they were in real life. Maybe that is because the Civil War is not as contemporary as WWII. I like Slaughterhouse Five because we know who wrote the book actually experienced WWII. I think that Vonnegut makes the book more interesting by creating a fictional character and pretty much eliminating himself from the picture. The book doesn't become so a work of history as it does a work of literature. I like seeing the war through the eyes of Billy, and I think the story would have been way different had the story been told through Vonnegut's eyes. But the actual structure of Slaughterhouse still would have been interesting.
Good post nick, personally I like the sloppy, all over the board fact based novel. I like it over the others because Vonnegut actually experienced everything he wrote about. The book is based off of his experience. Now some things might be slanted to make it a book over an auto-biography. Vonnegut directly put his thoughts and feelings into the character Billy. We as the read know that this really happened and that a person actually felt the feelings and saw these horrific sights. That is why I prefer his type of writing over all the other works we have read in the class.
I have to agree with Sam's comment. All of the novels we have read so far have been totally different, and i think that's really good because no two readers like the exact same stuff. Getting a survey of different literature really helps cater to the uniqueness of the personalities within our class. I liked Killer Angels the best so far though. I guess im pretty interested in documentary movies, but since Shaara had room to interpret gave it the best of both worlds.
Slaughterhouse Five really does have a authentic feel to it. While the character of Billy freaks me out sometimes, I can't help but me intrigued by his actions and thoughts. He is presented as such a genuine character that I feel a connection with him. I truly believe the traumatic experiences Billy has gone through and understand how the character has come to be how he is. The author does a great job in splitting the novel in different time intervals and in turn deepens the character development of Billy.
I like a little bit of a mix between killer angles and slaughterhouse 5. I like the way the story is layed out better in killer angles but I like how kurt isn't tied to a story that everyone knows the ending to by making his character fictional.
I would say that I have enjoyed Killer Angels the most because it is the most tightly based on a true story. It is interesting, however, all of the different types of characters, as you listed, that appear in stories that are all roughly about the same topic. I suppose that looking at many different types of characters gives us the most perspective when trying to understand such a complicated topic.
Post a Comment