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. O’Hare, who served with him in World 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 time for many 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, both men failed, for â€Å"there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre† (19). Instead, the most important thing anyone came up with that evening was one who hadn’t even served in the war. Mary O’Hare, Bernard’s wife, was opposed to war, â€Å"it was war that made her so angry†, and feared that, through the narrator’s story, he would make war â€Å"look just wonderful, so we’ll have a lot more of them† (15, 14). Upon hearing Mary’s outburst, the narrator promised her â€Å"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 â€Å"The Children’s Crusade†, 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 narrator’s honest portrayal of characters who view war in a positive manner or who attempt to justify the bombing of Dresden works against them. The narrator, for the most part, doesn’t attempt to rebuke or criticize these views, but instead represents them in all their unflinching honesty. By highlighting the inhumanity and cruelty of these char... ...more sympathetic than Eaker to those who lost their lives in the Dresden bombing. Saundy believed â€Å"that the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny†, and that it wasn’t necessary to the Allies efforts to win the War (187). However, he does defend those who directed the bombing, stating they â€Å"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 doesn’t attempt to justify or condemn 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 observation that â€Å"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).