Pro-War Characters with an Anti-War Message Essay -- Literary Analysis

In the first chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five, the narrator goes to meet an old war friend, Bernard V. OHare, who served with him in World state of war II and was also witness to the bombing of Dresden. The narrator, having attempted to write a novel based on his experiences during that era for many a(prenominal) years, was hoping that, between the two of them, they could come up with some good war stories to incorporate into his novel. After many failed attempts to find something of substance upon which to base his novel, twain men failed, for there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre (19). Instead, the most important thing anyone came up with that evening was one who hadnt even served in the war. Mary OHare, Bernards wife, was opposed to war, it was war that made her so angry, and feared that, through the narrators story, he would ask war look just wonderful, so well have a lot more of them (15, 14). Upon hearing Marys outburst, the narrator promised her there wouldn t be a part for Frank Sinatra or John Wayne in his telling of his experiences during war (15). Instead, the narrator pledged that he would title his novel The Childrens thrust, which Slaughterhouse-Five is subtitled, and dedicated the novel to her.While Slaughterhouse-Five may not have any characters Sinatra or Wayne would be suited to play, it does contain many characters that hold pro-war views. In many ways, the narrators honest portrayal of characters who view war in a positive manner or who attempt to justify the bombing of Dresden working against them. The narrator, for the most part, doesnt attempt to rebuke or criticize these views, but instead represents them in all their unflinching honesty. By highlighting the inhumanity and rigour of these char... ...more sympathetic than Eaker to those who lost their lives in the Dresden bombing. Saundy believed that the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny, and that it wasnt necessary to the Allies efforts to win th e War (187). However, he does defend those who directed the bombing, stating they were neither wicked nor cruel, but instead forced into making a tough decision in a decisive time in the War (187). Saundy presents a much more humane view of the bombing of Dresden than Eaker. Saundy doesnt attempt to justify or chastise the bombing he instead portrays it as one of the many horrors of war that can only be viewed in hindsight as such.These official assessments offer the card that military men responsible for such slaughters act not out of malignity but from muddled values which prevent them from seeing simpler moral truths (Reed, 54).