Billy Pilgrim embodies all the characteristics that are not desirable in a soldier; his appearance and skill causes disillusion, pity and mockery, instead of ... ... middle of paper ... ...Slaughterhouse Five, serves as much more than a just a Sci-Fi element in a war novel; it is a portal into the nonsensical and destructive nature of war meant to invite the reader to adopt an active stance against war. The realities of war have long been tainted by history, retailing the brutal events as a saviour’s tale full of honour, glory and patriotism. However, the truth sits far away from the textbooks and scholars. Those who have marched, fought and survived that blood thirsty, chaotic development can testify to its destructiveness. However, the absurdity and trauma causes scars that lay in deep ravines logic cannot reach.
The diction that Owen ha... ... middle of paper ... ...ry a soldier tells is the truth. It also contradicts what is portrayed in movies. O'Brien makes the reader question the truth behind war in a way that Owen is not able to. In fact his entire book is dedicated to unraveling a true war stories. The similarities and differences between O'Brien's book and Owen's poem help convey a single message.
The first element to why Slaughterhouse-Five is an anti-war novel is because Vonnegut, the character, says it is. In the first chapter the character Vonnegut speaks with Mary O'Hare, the wife of Bernard O'Hare and antagonist of war, regarding the book that he will write and how it views war. Vonnegut also discusses with Mary why the book will be called The Children's Crusade. Mary says, "‘You will pretend you were men instead of babies...’" (14). Mary is accusing Vonnegut of writing the novel and saying that they were prepared for war because she thinks that he will glorify war by disregarding the fact that he and her husband were just young men not ready to fight in a war.
Woolf also condemns people like Bradshaw. Woolf may not be concerned with the mud and barbed wire of the war but her work is a political attack on those who managed the social and economic aspects of the war and kept its victims under control afterwards. Woolf herself states that “Septimus must see somehow through human nature, see its hypocrisy and insincerity, its power to recover from every wound, being incapable of taking any final impression, his sense that it is not worth having.” Lois R. Robley remarks that “the horrors of war cannot be imagined by those of us who have not witnessed it. It is perhaps up to the poets, the writers, the movie directors, and the photojournalists to distill and recapture the images that remind us of the traumatic influence of war. Perhaps only then can we extinguish the need to be reminded and ready for war related PTSD.”
These wars often proceed due to perceptions conceived within the depths of peoples’ imaginations. Irrational assumptions, fears of the unknown, and the development of nonexistent threats allow the justification of these wars within the individuals. In A Separate Peace, wars such as these are seen between the characters and within the characters of Gene and Phineas. John Knowles’ A Separate Peace reveals Gene’s perceived war with Phineas and Phineas’ internal conflict with World War II to be intertwined with each other through Gene’s misunderstanding of Phineas and Phineas’ dependency on Gene to escape the realization of war itself. Phineas is an individual who is unable to accept the war, and in retaliation to the war, attempts to avoid it altogether.
O’Brien’s provides prose that arise doubt both in his work and other war novels by his metafiction within the novel. A reader could potentially read “How to Tell a War Story” and doubt the “credibility” of all war stories on the basis of how the story is presented. He does this by providing an additional perspective of the storyteller by providing realistic motives in the narration of stories that are often overlooked. O’Brien explicitly says this to the reader as: In many cases a true war story cannot be believed. If you believe it, be skeptical.
His goal is to tell the stories of the individual soldier, and his experience. The primary focus of the book are the realities of the war. Fussel doesn’t agree with the often romanticized, systematically sanitized and Disneyfied picture of the war. He criticizes the literature, news and other media that presented the war in better light than it actually was. Fussel opposes the notion of the “good war” and tries to make people understand that war was messy and very cruel, it was by no means a good thing.
Vonnegut uses these examples to show how controlling war propaganda and rhetoric can be to soldiers experiencing the war. He also shows that he does not agree with the rhetoric as he juxtaposes idealized, incongruous versions of the war with the horrible reality. Vonnegut seems to want to show the realities of war as opposed to the common images of glory and honor seen in propaganda to actually give the soldiers the respect they deserve for the challenges they have had to face rather than for falsely glorified accounts of battle. Finally, Vonnegut uses his novel to comment on symptoms of PTSD as the soldiers are so traumatized by their war experience that they must create quixotic fantasies about the war to replace the overly disturbing reality.
He exaggerates the evils and tends to look past some of the positive endeavors that took place. Adams’s book offers primarily correct information, however, it is overly negative in order to create an audience that questions and contradicts the popular belief of utter glory and success. Adams argues that Americans have an intriguing way on which they view certain aspects of history; people tend to often only remember the good and to evade the bad. “To make World War Two into the best war ever, we must leave out the area bombings... ... middle of paper ... ... faulty” (Adams 78). The United States of America enters the war with a burst of well-trained troops to help the Allies.
Even though Finkel gives an unbiased report of the Iraq war, in doing so he forgoes the traditional storytelling methods and undertakes the method of reporting. Finkel provides concrete factual evidence but fails to also portray emotional truths which make it hard to believe. For any storyteller, the hardest part is getting the attention of the audience and once the attention is obtained, the next hardest thing is keeping that attention. Finkel’s texts tend to lose the audience from time to time, and according to O’Brien, if Finkel cannot make the audience believe than truth is obsolete which makes his war stories false even though they are true.