Post a blog on the movement classification of Kurt Vonnegut's SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE. Is it a Modernist or a Postmodernist text? Use the criteria that I gave you in class. Be sure to back up your viewpoint with evidence from the text. A variation of this question will be on the midterm exam.
Due: Monday, February 28, 11:55 pm.
From my personal understanding, the easiest way to find the difference between modernist and postmodernist text is by finding the text’s attitude toward meaning. If the novel searches for meaning in a chaotic world, it is a modernist text. If it parodies the quest for meaning and asserts that there might be no such thing (because without a central point of reference, there is no verifiable source of truth, hence meaning is created and enforced by individual/society), it is a postmodernist text. Taking these definitions into account, Slaughterhouse Five is a postmodernist text. It begins with structure – the writer of Billy’s story introduces himself before the actual novel takes place. Vonnegut confesses that one should not look back and try to find meaning in things, but it is perfectly human to do so. Because of his looking back and hoping to find meaning, he calls the novel about Billy a failure. It could be argued that his intention was to write a modernist novel – one that does find truth and meaning – but ended with a postmodernist work on his hands. Throughout the story, good people die and bad people live. Billy is a kind, innocent young man, and for that he is constantly mocked, bullied and hated by everyone around him. Later in life he finds out from the Trafaldamorians that regret is pointless, because whatever happens is something that was always going to happen, and is happening consecutively at all times. The novel ends with the great climax of the story, the bombing of Dresden, a city which had no significant targets for the Allies. Along with innocent civilians and children, Allies slaughtered many of their own men, who were held in Dresden as prisoners. On the last page of the novel the end of the war is declared, yet the world somehow doesn’t seem to be a better place. All Billy sees are two horses dragging a coffin, and the last words of the novel come from a bird, because as Vonnegut writes, “there is nothing intelligent to be said about a massacre.” The birds will keep singing and the world will keep turning. The dead will be remembered and then forgotten. After reading the novel five times in my life I always walk away with the same thought – looking for meaning in war and violence is pointless. There are no answers. The best we can do is keep going and live our lives as happily as we can. So it goes.
ReplyDeleteWhile Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse V utilizes many modern stylistic characteristics, the text is more an example of his post-modernist ideology.
ReplyDeleteThe Norton anthology discussion of modernist techniques portrays use of: “dissonance and discontinuity rather than neat formal structure” (p 712), and “construction out of fragments…consisting of vivid segments juxtaposed without cushioning or integrating transitions…rhetoric [that is] understated, ironic…suggest[ive] rather than assert[ive], making use of symbols and images…” (712-713). These are methods Vonnegut employs, but he goes beyond that, stepping into the realm of postmodernism.
I had to dig more to better understand the distinction between modernism and post-modernism. According to Barry Lewis, “Modernist literature sees fragmentation and extreme subjectivity as an existential crisis…a problem that must be solved, and the artist is often … the one to solve it. Postmodernists, however, often demonstrate that this chaos is insurmountable; the artist is impotent, and the only recourse against ‘ruin’ is to play within the chaos. Playfulness is present in many modernist works … but with postmodernism playfulness becomes central and the actual achievement of order and meaning becomes unlikely.” (“Postmodernism and Literature." The Routledge Companion to Postmodernism. p 123. NY: Routledge, 2002)
In this light, it is easier [for me] to understand how Vonnegut uses Billy Pilgrim’s narrative in Slaughterhouse V as a manifestation of postmodern style. Billy’s “path” is known to the reader (and essentially, to himself), because of the fragmentary style, from the beginning. Vonnegut uses the unique introductory chapter to lay out the overview of the following story, therefore injecting some “play” into the “chaos” of the “ruin.” On Billy’s pilgrimage and through his time-travel revelations, he is forewarned and knowledgeable that there will be a limited “achievement of order and meaning” to everything that’s going on around him. The Tralfalmadorians give Billy (and the reader) unique perspective of time, human relations, and priorities to which “playfulness” is a central theme for Vonnegut. He constantly “plays” with human accepted truths (meta-narratives) such as the idea that marriage is sacred and fulfilling (by Billy’s passive relationship with his wife and “more intimate” relationship in the zoo on Tralfalmadore); and with the “truth” of death as permanent (“So it goes”). Readers are aware through Vonnegut’s injection of sarcasm and humor, and his approach of the sensitive topic with Mrs. O’Hare, that he does not want to glorify and “play up” the traditional views of war, but instead, to “play with” the idea of the traditional view of war; exemplified when he tells her he will call the story “the Children’s Crusade.” This “playing with” the “truths” of reality – such as the theme of the novel discussed in class of the absurdity of war - could be a literary cousin of a postmodern style of theater: “The Theatre of the Absurd,” where, in a godless universe, existence has no meaning or purpose and therefore all communication breaks down. (The Hutchinson Encyclopedia, Millenium Edition, Helicon 1999) Vonnegut does seem to remove the importance of God from Slaughterhouse V – as everything is known and has to happen; moments are “fixed” in their permanence – and Billy’s communication with other humans is significantly altered by that experience (Tralfamalmadorian knowledge.)
For the entirety of the novel, everyone – the author, the protagonist, the reader - goes along with a story to which they know the end. As readers, Vonnegut tells us (but essentially not Billy) that he has struggled with relaying this tale; in reality, the only way to tell a tale of such magnitude (to “speak of the unspeakable” as referred to in class) is to play with what the narrative says, and the method in which it speaks. There is no order or meaning to Billy’s narrative outside of Vonnegut’s toying with the experience of telling this experience, and that’s what makes SL5 a post-modern text.
Slaughterhouse V is most definitely a post-modernist text. The satire, and how Vonnegut delivers this satire is probably one of the major factors when determining if this is a modernist or post-modernist text. Vonnegut portrays Billy Pilgrim as the contradictory narrator, the man who says one thing and means another, does one thing while he's actually doing something else years from that point. The introduction of time travel, the constant struggles with being for or against war, the concept of living with another human being and simply living... these are all post-modern elements of the novel.
ReplyDeleteThe satire within Slaughterhouse V is the most prestegious element when it comes to considering all of the other aspects in the novel. The satire is what gives Billy his sense of character and Vonnegut uses this satire to simply be able to poke fun at what is happening in all three periods of time in Billy's life that the reader is experiencing. If a post-modern text is supposed to play with the chaos of the novel, then Vonnegut hit the nail on the head with this one. He is using Billy to show that whether the time travel is real or make believe, Billy still holds chaos within the novel and Vonnegut is still there to portray how this chaos works.
Slaughterhouse V does not really find any meaning, and at the end of novel one might wonder why they just wasted their time reading a novel that didn't actually seem to go anywhere. But in all reality, you 'wasted' your time because you believed that there was a meaning. I know I read the novel because I have always respected Vonnegut as a writer, and because I find my own personal meaning and purpose within the novel. Low and behold, you realize there wasn't really any meaning... Vonnegut has played with the chaos once again.
-Lauren Slygh
In my opinion, Slaughterhouse-Five is predominantly a postmodernist text. Although it houses several characteristics of the modernist novel (namely a fragmented plotline that blurs the edges of reality), Slaughterhouse-Five mainly serves to reveal the unanswerable “questions” in life. In this case, Vonnegut uses his novel to portray that, no matter how hard one tries to decipher the meaning and purpose of war, there will never be solid reasoning behind the act of waging it. Vonnegut’s seemingly satirical and ironic approach to divulging this message solidifies that the text is particularly postmodernist. Unlike other postmodernist texts, however, Vonnegut’s novel seems to house the particularly modernist notion that art is meaningful. Vonnegut outright expresses his value of the novel as a means to divulge important and often inexpressible messages to the world, placing the author as a “treasured alarm system,” who holds the responsibility of conveying relevant insights to the reader. Taking this into account, Slaughterhouse-Five warns the reader of the consequences of warfare, but by making it seem utterly pointless. For example, he mentions how a fellow soldier manages to make it through the Dresden bombing and other war-related atrocities, only to get reprimanded for looting a teapot from a civilian. Such an ironic and redundant instance puts Slaughterhouse-Five in the postmodernist genre, where the writer “uses and abuses, installs and then subverts, the very concepts [he] challenges” (Hutcheon). In this case, the war achieves nothing. Vonnegut consistently ridicules war in this manner throughout the novel, consequently portraying a postmodernist perspective on the subject matter.
ReplyDeleteSolely based on the Norton Anthology’s excerpt on the Modernist movement, I find that Kurt Vonnegut’s acclaimed Slaughterhouse Five can be viewed as a modernist text. Although the novel does embody characteristics of both modernist and postmodernist movements, the excerpt depicts solid modernist characteristic exemplified throughout the narrative. Norton’s excerpt immediately establishes that “a key formal characteristic typical of high modernist works, whether in painting, sculpture, or musical composition, is its construction out of fragments - fragments of myth or history, fragments of experience or perception, fragments of previous artistic works.” Vonnegut’s novel is an excellent example of such characteristic as most of the text is fragmented into different character experiences. While Billy Pilgrim’s experience is the predominant focus of the text, Vonnegut also includes a myriad of different accounts into one novel. Moreover, the Norton excerpt discusses the tendency of modernist works to include, “Allusions to literary, historical, philosophical, or religious details of the past often keep company, in modernist works, with vignettes of contemporary life, chunks of popular culture, dream imagery, and symbolism drawn from the author’s private repertory of life experiences.” This important characteristic of modernist texts is seen in Vonnegut’s novel through the time traveling and time wrap included in Billy Pilgrim’s narrative. The juxtaposition of the past and the present reveals those “vignettes” of contemporary while still regarding the past. Conclusively, Slaughterhouse Five’s most significant modernist characteristic is its representation of “what’s missing.” The novel purposefully omits and confuses certain experiences in order to allow the reader to determine the meaning themselves. Slaughterhouse Five could surely be defined as a postmodernist work, however examining the text through the Norton Anthology’s excerpt on the modernist movement, the work is easily identifiable as modernist.
ReplyDelete-Taissa Rebroff
Echoing the common opinion so far, I also believe that Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five is a postmodernist text. A staple in the modern text ideology is that, “if meaning is a human construction, then meaning lies in the process of generating meaning; if meaning lies obscured deep underneath the ruins of modern life, then it must be effortfully sought out” (Baym 713). While meaning is at the core of modernist texts, postmodernist texts find no meaning. With this postmodernist text, a lack of meaning is identified in the occurrence of war. Vonnegut explains that, “there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead, to never say anything or want anything ever again. Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds” (24). He further emphasizes this image by ending the book with, “Birds were talking. One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, ‘Poo-tee-weet?’” (Vonnegut 275). While the nonlinear timeline of this text could easily be categorized as an element of modernist literature, its ability to bring about this full-circle theme of war’s meaninglessness is undeniable. Vonnegut diminishes any and all significance of war and its commentary to the sound that a bird makes. Call me a Tralfamadorian time traveler but equating war bird noises does not seem to edify its cause and purpose. Vonnegut’s dark humor throughout the novel further indicates its postmodernist tendency. Rather than try to say something intelligent about war, Vonnegut allows history to stand for itself. Through Slaughterhouse-Five he simply provides a satirical, postmodernist antiwar novel.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Joseph
With the evidence leaning towards modernism. I must agree. _Slaughterhouse-Five_ is modernism on the verge of postmodernism, but it is not quite there. After reading the text on modernism and the additional notes on the differences, I have come the result that _Slaughterhouse-Five_ is modernism, and is so because of its characteristic. The understanding that _Slaughterhouse-Five_ does not “use and abuse, install and then subvert, the very concepts it challenges...” It does however benefit from the ideals of modernism.
ReplyDeleteSo as it seems, Vonnegut creates as the authors of his time, and the time immediately prior to him, a new construct to tell a story, a history of Bill Pilgrim and the people surrounding Pilgrim on his journey. There are tale-tell signs of the construct in which _Slaughterhouse-Five_ is modernism, one is the framing of the story. The author trying to write a book, then the book itself. Readers know the ending and the beginning a sentence apart. This is transforming time. The narrative does this many a times without any hesitation or warning. Declaring modernism and metafiction.
The oddest thing for me in reading _Slaughterhouse-Five_ is the alien abduction. Not so much the abduction itself but what he learns from the aliens. Time is linear on Earth, it does not mean it is linear everywhere. _Slaughterhouse-Five_ is an experiment using modernism, trying to put a story together without the line directing the reader.
Lastly, I do think labeling _Slaughterhouse-Five_ or any story is a 50/50 deal. As in, the author, Vonnegut, and the reader both have a say in what kind of story it is. And for me I like the broader genre labels, like fiction. It for me _Slaughterhouse-Five_ is fiction and one of its sub-genres is modernism.
- ian g.
I too would agree with the post modern interpretation of Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut provides a rich text which seems to capture the essence of post modernism by not being defined by a pursuit for meaning or truth. A passage which closely identifies with the post modern reading occurs in the first chapter of the novel, when Vonnegut speaks directly to the reader and talks about the writing process, which in itself is an element of post modernism. Vonnegut reflects on a night he spent in a Boston hotel, and talks about the way time is constructed and its effects on the mind. He reads a passage from the Gideon bible about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and likens himself to the wife of Lot, who “was told not to look back where all those people and their homes has been”(28). Lot’s wife did look back on the chaos, and so was tuned to a pillar of salt. Vonnegut concludes that his book about the war must be a failure, “since it was written by a pillar of salt” (28), suggesting that to search for meaning in war is a futile task. A modernist text on the other hand seeks to discover truths and find meaning through art, and while there is a suggestion that Vonnegut initially attempted to do so, the fragmented blend of events in the novel certainly render his text postmodern.
ReplyDeleteLucy Baugh
The line between Modernism and Postmodernism seems a little blurred. Both seem to focus of the concepts of alienation, fragmentation and a focus on an autonomous self- contained world. However, I believe Slaughterhouse Five can be predominately classified as a post-modern novel because of its use of the metanarrative. It is direct, vivid and compressed, but yet the metanarrative creates an abstract idea to serve as a comprehensive explanation of the experience of war.
ReplyDeleteWithin Vonnegut’s metanarrative of Billy Pilgrim lays another unique, developing metanarrative, that of the Tralfamadorians. Billy Pilgrim learns from these extraterrestrials and lives his life according to their ideologies. Tralfamadorians perceive time as an assemblage of moments existing simultaneously rather than as a linear progression. Also, they openly accept the concept of death. Through the use of these two characters, Vonnegut conveys his perspective of the condemnation of war and revealing its ugly truths. In fact, the purpose of him setting out to write his anti- heroic war novel is to debunk the notion that all war novels glorify the atrocities war creates. Slaughterhouse Five never outright states Vonnegut's perspective of war but rather mocks traditionally held views, allowing the reader to make their own interpretation.
Lauren Supersano
"So it goes" (Vonnegut 8).
ReplyDeleteThough it appears there may be some overlap for Slaughterhouse-Five, based on the definitions given, I did feel that the postmodernism definition was a bit scant. What I did not find, as the Norton Anthology indicates is indicative of typical modernist design was an arbitrary beginning. From the opening line, "All this happened, more or less," with its metafictional undertones, to the final verse, "One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, "Po-tee-weet?"' I felt Vonnegut wove a patchwork quilt of purpose using postmodern techniques (Vonnegut 1). Utilizing a pastiche framework of part science fiction, part war fiction, he combined multiple genres with metafictional aspects and authorial intrusion. This is particularly evident in chapter one, where Vonnegut describes the book as, "so short and jumbled and jangled . . . because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre," which serves to down play the writer, the actual importance and genius of the work though not arbitrarily (24). Further, the Norton Anthology asserts the reading will be challenging and difficult. Even with the non-linear narrative and jumps of Billy Pilgrim, who "has become unstuck in time" (Vonnegut 29), I did not find this to be the case (especially after reading Borges). Another feature I found to be evident of its postmodern nature was the minimalist characters such as Billy, who is not particularly special, but a rather gawky and foolish man thrown into extraordinary and extreme situations. Finally, the Norton Anthology indicates that the POV is often that of a "naïve or marginal person – a child or an outsider" (714). Granted the narrator with his third-person omniscience could be considered an outsider in all but the first and last chapter, but I hardly found him, Vonnegut, appearing naïve or marginal in those first-person accounts.
Cassie Turner
Slaughterhouse Five is undoubtedly a Postmodern work, but to label it as such is to generalize, thereby ignoring that Slaughterhouse Five is also undoubtedly a Modernist work. Modernism has been defined as a perspective that accepts that "structures of human life, weather social, political, religious, or artistic, [have] been destroyed." Therefore producing art that seems arbitrary, plotless, subjective, and compressed. It does not however ignore these broken metanarratives, instead choosing to reconfiguring them to structure and display contemporary life. This is where Vonnegut and the Modernists go their separate ways. Modernism is also a movement of "serious" literature, "attacking the old-style idea of traditional literature" and feeling in turn attacked "by the ever-growing industry of popular literature." As we discussed in class, Modernism was frightened by the truth in meaninglessness, where as Postmodernism embraces it.
ReplyDeleteAs Lauren S argued hours ago, the real metanarrative of Slaughterhouse Five is Vonnegut's own creation, the Tralfamadorians. Billy Pilgrim's name and quest for meaning mock that of Pilgrim's Progress while the pop culture creations of Kilgore Trout, and the Tralfamadorians establish a structure for meaning by opposing human preconceptions of such structure. time is cyclical and infinite, free will is moot, Vonnegut's real war experience can only be explained through fantasy. Modernists would have scoffed at Vonnegut's affinity for sci-fi, but as Wilfred Sheed noted (Wikipedia, so sorry) "His [Vonnegut's] scripture is Science Fiction, Man's last, good fantasy." Vonnegut's fiction defies the true chaos of the Postmodern by idealistically looking towards the future.
~Ben Slaughter
Kurt Vonnegut’s monumental novel “Slaughterhouse-Five” implements stylistic techniques and characteristics that are prominent in both modernist and postmodernist schools, but in my opinion the novel rests soundly in the canons of postmodernist literature.
ReplyDeletePostmodernist texts make use of distinct techniques such as irony, playfulness, black humor, subversion, metafiction and a slew of others. From the very beginning of the novel, Vonnegut delves into the concept of metafiction by writing about the process of writing “Slaughterhouse-Five.” By blatantly pointing out the fictitious nature of the narrative despite having actually lived through the Dresden firebombing, Vonnegut instantly gives his novel a postmodern aura. Additionally, by having an unreliable and atypical hero like Billy Pilgrim, Vonnegut is able to subvert and play with the traditional concept of a hero during wartime. Billy Pilgrim’s nature makes it impossible for the reader to procure meaning through conventional analysis and is forced to look past the generalized concept of a war hero and virtue. The novel is less about one man’s plight and journey through World War II and more about the overall condition and status of mankind after having lived through the war.
Vonnegut is one of the masters of black humor and playfulness, and “Slaughterhouse-Five” is replete with both. War, destruction, death and the frailty of human life are all serious, thought provoking concepts. Vonnegut is able to make the reader understand and acknowledge all of these ideas but in a highly ironic and humorous fashion. Whether it be the death of Edgar Derby due to the theft of a teapot or the over-the-top military ambitions of Roland Weary, Vonnegut pokes fun at the thought of war in an effort to prove how truly meaningless it is. Therein lies another aspect of postmodernism – meaning by way of meaninglessness.
“Slaughterhouse-Five” is perhaps most famous for it’s unique distortion of time and place. Throughout the novel, Billy becomes “unstuck through time” and is thrown to and from different points in his life, whether it be in the past or the future. This gives the novel multiple narratives and perspectives, a common tenant of postmodern literature. The inclusion of aliens, time travel and otherwise unnatural and otherworldly apparitions are also highly postmodern characteristics. The tendency to fictionalize otherwise true events is a common theme throughout the entire novel and Vonnegut utilizes this technique to satirize cliché themes and messages.
All in all, the futile search for meaning may be the text’s most prominent attachment to the postmodern school of thought. For Vonnegut, waging a war never was and never will be a good idea. What better way to prove that than to write a book about a war? Billy Pilgrim’s pseudo “journey” will never be remembered when paired up with World War II as a whole, and the same goes for every other soldier’s journey. War destroys human life, both literally and by erasing the lives of those involved, making the war the only thing that “mattered.” Vonnegut could have just said that and been done with it, but that really isn’t postmodern, so he wrote “Slaughterhouse-Five” instead.
-Wilson De Gouveia
Upon reading the Norton Anthology's commentary on Modernism I could not help but draw so many parallels to the work of Kurt Vonnegut, notably Slaughterhouse-Five. So much of the modernist ideology is present within Vonnegut's writing that one could make a strong case for its modernist traits, however, Vonnegut surely takes things into a much more Post-Modern realm with his humor and unabashed dismissal of any readily available solution or truth in a chaotic world where thousands can be killed without much notice.
ReplyDeleteThe Norton Anthology's commentary on Modernism states, "At the heart of high modernist aesthetic lay the conviction that the previously sustaining structures of human life, whether social, political, religious, or artistic, had been destroyed or shown up as falsehoods" (712). This concept appears again and again throughout Slaughterhouse-Five, as Vonnegut subverts the modern world and its contradictions. An example can be found when the narrator discusses Billy's involvement in church as a child and states, "The altar and the organ were made by a vacuum-cleaner company in Camden, New Jersey--and said so" (Vonnegut 31). It is clear that the narrator is making a special point of addressing the absurd commercialism involved in something that is supposed to be sacred. Of course, there are numerous examples throughout the novel of sustaining structures being destroyed, as the narrator relates Billy's experiences in WWII.
Slaughterhouse-Five can also be viewed as a modernist work in the way that the Norton Anthology attributes "fragments of myth or history, fragments of experience or perception" to be characteristics of a modernist work (712). Throughout the novel Vonnegut employs a technique that involves the total breakdown of linear time and instead creates a fragmented view of Billy Pilgrims life, from start to finish. These fragments can be seen to be reflective of the modernist ideals, however, I find them to be employed in a fashion that is much more post-modern in nature. The modernist fragments in order to show a more "real" depiction of reality, but Vonnegut uses fragmentation to suggest the cyclical nature of time and the notion of fate as a product of chance. People die, and life moves on. There is no mythical quest for truth in Slaughterhouse-Five, in fact, the story of Billy Pilgrim works to subvert the entire notion of a the epic hero, and their quest for truth. Billy moves through his world with an air of bewilderment, as if nothing at all makes sense, and nothing can be done to make meaning. In this idea Vonnegut brings his novel into a realm that is much more Post-Modern in that it seems to laugh aloud at the idea of meaning.
Matt Knight
2.28.2011
Kurt Vonnegut’s novel, Slaughterhouse-Five, is a difficult work to classify as either modernist or postmodernist because of its eclectic nature. In many ways the novel is a pristine example of postmodernist writing: the author plays an active role in the telling of the story, the main character Billy Pilgrim is a playful character that makes meaning based on his experiences difficult to calibrate, and the use of science fiction in what would normally be a straight forward war novel comparing war experiences with postwar experiences. But, even with these postmodern aspects being such a strong force in the novel, there is one main aspect of the novel that seems to defy a postmodernist labeling; Kurt Vonnegut clearly ends the novel with a message to his readers that follows a modernist need for meaning.
ReplyDeleteAfter WWI, the modernist writers, or just writers as they surely thought of themselves, sought for meaning a world that was seemingly bereft of any after the carnage of the Great War. Kurt Vonnegut shows the same need for meaning after WWII that the modernist writers showed after WWI. Vonnegut’s message at novel’s end is that war and the means to make war are abominable and should be left to die. Vonnegut describes how he cannot continue the legacy of his father’s gun collection because of what they represent: “He was a gun nut, too. He left me his guns. They rust.” Not only does Vonnegut show his disdain for war by letting his father’s guns go to ruin, but he also laments the contemporary U.S. war and its casualties: “And every day my Government gives me a count of corpses created by military science in Vietnam. So it goes” (Vonnegut 268). Vonnegut clearly leaves the reader a message in modernist fashion even though he does it through a postmodernist form—the author acknowledging himself and speaking to the reader.
Kyle Kretzer
When Slaughterhouse 5 was first published in 1965, Vonnegut’s writing, undoubtedly shocked America with its poignant anti-war message and the disastrous implications of war on mankind. While Vonnegut’s usage of time and space is more characteristic of postmodernism, his stance on art as being “meaningful” essentially designates the text as one of modernism (Norton Anthology of American Literature, vol 2). Ultimately, the distinguishing feature of modernity is the text’s meaning.
ReplyDeleteWhile Slaughterhouse 5 borders on postmodernism, it is not holistically committed to it. Even though he employs postmodern elements through his employment of time, space, and satire, the prominence of meaning among its “fragmented” elements characterizes it as a modern text. Vonnegut does challenge the boundaries of literary conventions through multiple character perspectives and his fragmented writing engages the reader with the opportunity to slowly piecemeal meaning. According to the Norton Anthology of American Literature, “If meaning is a human construction, then meaning lies in the process of generating meaning: if meaning lies obscured deep underneath the ruins of modern life, then it must be effortfully sought out” (Norton Anthology, vol 2, 713). At first glance, it may seem like to the reader that meaning cannot be gleaned from Vonnegut’s classic work, but his writing offers more power to the reader and his/her ability to construct meaning, which is a defining facet of modernism. His purpose or agenda for the novel is to not only pay homage to satirical, dark humor, but to also offer a way of perceiving the “fragmented” world in “a scene of ruin” due to the machine of war (Norton Anthology of American Literature, vol 2, 712). As Vonnegut creates the modern elements of war and society, Slaughterhouse 5 resonates with the meaning and purpose that war, in it of itself, is meaninglessness and existential.
Another characteristic of modernity that Vonnegut utilizes is the concept of the “metanarrative,” a system that is constructed to offer a new world or realm. At the beginning of the novel and at its conclusion, Vonnegut presents frame chapters that ground the literary work in its non-fiction elements. He shares how difficult it is to write about his war-time experiences, “It is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam” (Vonnegut 24). Not knowing what to say or how to say it, the novel is self-reflective in its portrayal of the metanarrative—thinking about writing. He quotes other texts, referring to “Words of the Wind” by Theodore Roethke and Celine and His Vision by Erika Ostrovsky. Quoting other works fuels his self-reflexivity about writing and his quest to “describe the indescribable” (Lillios lecture). Referencing Ostrovsky’s work, he quotes, “No art is possible without a dance with death” (Vonnegut 27). This is impactful in that it offers the reader a glimpse into Vonnegut’s value of art, his philosophy that human darkness can be captured through art, and that ultimately, “art is meaningful” because it has the ability to shed light on the human condition.
-Kerri Libra
I agree with Jaroslav, and have always felt myself, that Slaughterhouse-Five was meant to be a modernist text but in it's creation became a postmodern one. The typical characteristics of postmodern literature are there: fragmentation, questionable narration, alienation, paradox, etc., however, it is clear that the modernity of the text seems to be in its message on war and its chaos. What makes Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five postmodern comes in its use of the Tralfamadorians. It is in them that Vonnegut is able to retract from Dresden and create something entirely displaced from that time period and counter to the human race. Though this could be considered both modern and postmodern, the way in which it is utilized is highly postmodern in its use of temporal distortion contrasted with alternate, science fictional universe. The introduction of the text represents a heavily questionable, unreliable narrator who, despite Vonnegut's clear interaction with the war is able to complete distort history. Slaughterhouse-Five through it's distinct usage of satire, black humor, and other postmodern tendencies on war and alienation is a good a book as any in which to bridge the gap between modern and post.
ReplyDeletePostmodernism is the catastrophe, as some would claim, of the technotronic era. It is said that “[i]f meaning is a human construction, then meaning lies in the process of generating meaning; if meaning lies obscured deep underneath the ruins of modern life, then it must be effortfully sought out” (Baym, et. al. 713). Realism through modernism was the painstaking ideology of finding meaning and constructing narrative. One fact is that the “Great Depression was a worldwide phenomenon, and social unrest led to the rise of fascist dictatorships in Europe, [leading] inexorably to World War II” (Baym, et. al., 711). However, the postmodernists attempted to undermine this institution, for better or worse, in order to establish the shattering of human experience through war. Kurt Vonnegut attempts to undermine this establishment of meaning, in order to bring subjectivity of narrative to its panicle of sorts. Modernists akin to Wiesel attempted to describe realism. Vonnegut shattered the idea of realism and the optimist by stating issues such as: “The gun made a ripping sound like the opening of the zipper on the fly of God Almighty” (43). This creates an awkward stance of reading for those who were unprepared such as the religious community of his location. Thus, Vonnegut must be understood as the proto-postmodernist if not a postmodernist altogether.
ReplyDeleteBy,
Eric Brame
Based on my understanding of the Modernism and Postmodernism literary movements, I would categorize Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five as a Postmodern text. Defining features of a Postmodern text revolve around the author’s intent and the literary devices he or she uses. While the backdrop for Slaughterhouse’s plot revolves around the aftermath of Billy Pilgrim’s stint in World War II and his involvement in the Dresden bombing, Vonnegut did not use these events in a way that would shock the audience. Instead, he uses Pilgrim’s relatively uninspiring life to make a criticism of the American way of life and established ideals. Even though Billy fought for his country and returned to become a successful Optometrist, his fulfillment of the American Dream did not better his psychological and emotional situation in life. Rather, it made him feel trapped and alone.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut does not attempt to explain life or rationalize how Billy’s past helped shape his present and future. Rather, he states them matter-of-factly without in-depth analysis and speculation. The text also lacks a logical sequence of events, jumping from one point in Billy’s life to the next as he jumps through time. Vonnegut’s use of irony throughout the text serves a humorous escape from the serious topics he is referring to, such as the traumatizing fires of Dresden. The fact that Billy almost died in Dresden as a result of bombs dropped by the Allied forces serves as an ironic interlude that causes the reader to both find a laugh in his unlucky misfortune, but also serves as a critique on the American idea of war. Instead of blatantly calling out the American government and military, Vonnegut uses underhanded comments and funny anecdotes to bring them to light. However, an important factor to remember is that Vonnegut doesn’t attempt to explain these events, or place them in the larger scheme of life as a building block for the future.
Bari London
To say that Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five falls under either a Modernist approach or Postmodernist one is quite erroneous. The novel, not only based on the time that it was written, but also on the information presented, and how it is presented, falls under the dichotomy of both ideals. I’m not too familiar with Postmodernism, and based on the Norton Anthology’s definition of Modernism, there are several parallels that distinguish Vonnegut on the borderline of a Modern author. The primary example of SH5 as a Modern novel is in its representation of the world as a “scene of ruin.” Billy Pilgrim, for example, uses the illusion of Tralmafadore as an escape to the demoralizing traditional society, thus Vonnegut, through the character of Billy, demonstrates the worldview as an experience of loss, where devastation sculpts people’s reality.
ReplyDeleteBeginning with Modernism, according to the anthology, novels introduced the shifts in perspective, voice, and tone. Nonetheless, Pilgrim as a character is perfect for the role of a Modern protagonist who “suggests rather than asserts.” Billy’s ambivalence with his inner and outer persona marks him as a distant narrator because of his experiences as a prisoner in WWII, which alters the product of his mind and how he handles reality. Because Billy’s selected point of view is portrayed in such a marginal tone throughout the entire novel, Vonnegut is able to convey better the reality of confusion instead of explicitly focusing on the certain.
SH5 then can be classified as a Modern work because of the concept of Billy as a character. His self-contained worlds are autonomous since he is the only one who exerts control over them (in this case it’s all in his mind). Illustrating the chaotic reality, Billy seeks to create order to find the purpose in a concealed world constructed by the falsehoods and destruction of humanity. Vonnegut and Modernists sought to challenge such realities.
~ Salo Steinvortz
Sorry its late :(
ReplyDeleteAlthough SH5 has characteristics of both a Modern and a Postmodern text I feel that overall that it exemplifies Postmodernism ideals. One aspect of Postmodernism is that discussed in our handout is that it “refuses the authority of metanarratives, attacking their discourse on the grounds that they are logocentric, linear, and totalizing...” The way in which Vonnegut structures the narrative of SH5 is far from linear in how the narrator discusses the different situations in Billy Pilgrim’s life through use of a fragmented storyline; jumping to and from different times and situations in Billy’s life that are all interconnected with one another. By creating a lack of linear structure throughout the novel, Vonnegut embraces the chaos of everyday life through the ways the novel is structured. Rather than creating Billy as an epic hero, he portrays him as weak and characteristically undefined character who finds himself at the bottom of most situations. Throughout the novel the American dream is challenged through the narrator’s difficulty in understanding the war and more specifically the bombing of Dresden. Although Vonnegut believes in the meaning of the dream he does not a have a clearly defined goal or truth that he wishes to uphold. He allows the reader to find the definition of the story through the fragmentation.
Shelby Thorne
Sorry I am late.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Modernism and Postmodernism, I really don't notice a huge difference. I believe that Postmodernism is a continuation of Modernism. It is really hard to define Postmodernism, being that it is very similar to Modernism; in a way SH5 could be both. The historical content that the authors depict, represents an aspect of Postmodernism. In Postmodernist literature, authors find new ways of telling stories and representing history. Vonnegut deconstructs the boundaries that exist between history and fiction. He mixes is story with real events that actually happened. A great example of this will be the bombing of Dresden and his the time he spent as a POW. SH5 also shows different aspects of Modernism. The world in SH5, is what Vonnegut think it is. Its unordered and there isn't really an absolute truth.
I believe that Slaghterhouse Five is a postmodernist work. One of the major characteristics of postmodernism is a disillusionment with war, and SH5 is an openly anti-war novel. Throughout the book, the reader is faced with various characters whose glorified ideals of the war are what lead to their demise. This is seen in the characters Weary and Edgar the teacher.
ReplyDeleteWhile others try to find an answer for war, and a purpose behind it, Vonnegut is clear in that it was senseless to be in war, as it was a "children's crusade" and Dresden wasn't even meant to be bombed. That massacre was inexplicable and his part in it had no meaning (although it did, for we wouldn't even be studying this book had he not been involved).
The only point i can make for it being a Modernist text would be his Tralfamadorian ideals. To him, those theories make sense, and help shape meaning in the world around him in reference to death, purpose, and even his views on life as one unit rather than a straightforward timeline. This idea that there is some sort of meaning to the world and a truth that cannot be found in this world but rather elsewhere in the universe (as Billy was abducted and taken elsewhere to find a truth in the universe rather than in his home planet) points to a characteristic of Modernism: there is a universal truth that can be discovered. I'd classify it as Postmodernism, but ultimately, even the comment that there is no absolute truth in the universe (being a postmodernism theory) is said as an absolute, and therefore classified as a truth, and therefore pointing back towards Modernism.
Perhaps the ultimate expression of postmodernism is to narrow down all of the conventions of literature, all the tools that writers use to construct narratives, to the one core principle, the one key to story, and then subvert that. Fortunately for Vonnegut, the first half of this has been hacked away at by literary critics for decades now (and later by people trying to sell books and seminars to aspiring screenwriters). Depending on what aspects of fiction you hold to be most essential, you will find a different solution at the end of this process than somebody might who went into the search by a different route. Plot over character, one might say, while another might hold theme or language over both.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut, however, knew what he was writing. It was a war story, and the heart of a traditional war story can only be one thing. War, these stories say, makes heroes. What one element, then, lies at the heart of a war story? First we have heroism, but can we go deeper? How does the protagonist become a hero? He learns from his experiences. He grows and changes. In literary terms, we have the dynamic character. Essential, yes, but there is always another layer. What is essential to the dynamic character? A sequence of events must occur that make our boy a man. What do we need to have a sequence of events? We need causality, we need a paradigm in which one thing leads to another. Is that the heart of it? Is that the most basic, most essential element? No. Causality needs a structure itself. This is where Vonnegut’s elementary particle lies. This is the ultimate concept that can be overturned in the ultimate subversion.
The hero must, above all else, exist in linear time.
From pulling the rug out from under the forward progression of time in the hero’s life, the house of cards collapses. Everything built upon it falls away. If everything happens all at once then there is no lesson. He is one man now and forever. He cannot have a journey, because he is already everywhere. The great revelation that makes a hero can do nothing to change Billy Pilgrim. It happened to him as a young man but also as an old man, and as a child and at all points in between.
Slaughterhouse-Five is not a postmodern novel because it deconstructs everything about the hero’s journey. It’s a postmodern novel because it deconstructs the only thing about it.
- Robbi Ramirez
The line between modernist and postmodernist seems, to me anyway, to be very thin. I think that Slaughterhouse-Five is an example of a modernist text. It follows one criteria for a modernist text by acting as a reaction for the war that Vonnegut himself saw. He saw war, was throughly disgusted by it, and decided to write an anti-war book. He creates his own universe, one where aliens exist and where all of existence is happening all at once. Vonnegut also creates meaning in his text by saying there is no meaning.
ReplyDelete-Elliot Northlake
Though the boundaries that separate Modernism and post-Modernism are still quite blurry for me, after having done some extensive research and talking with my peers, i came to the conclusion that modernism and Post-Modernism both mock certain things, Modernism mocking blind faith in religion and such and Post-Modernism mockin Modernism. Basically, Modernism looks for a truth or meaning from a text and Post-Modernism does not.
ReplyDeletei found SH5 to be Modernist with a Post-Modern flare becasue there is a theme and lesson to be learned; as preached by Mary O'Hare in the beginning pages of the novel, however, the structure is very unique to Vonnegut and very playful. Vonnegut makes light of heavy situations with the comment "Amnd so it goes" but still lets the reader know that war is essentially pointless and savage.
Sydni Gonzalez