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

In the first chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five, the narrator goes to meet an archaic warfare friend, Bernard V. OHare, who served with him in World War II and was to a fault witness to the attack of Dresden. The narrator, having attempted to write a novel establish on his experiences during that meter for m both 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 date some function of substance upon which to base his novel, both men failed, for there is nothing healthy to say ab aside a massacre (19). Instead, the most important thing anyone came up with that evening was one who hadnt even served in the war. bloody shame OHare, Bernards wife, was opposed to war, it was war that made her so irate, and feared that, through the narrators story, he would make war bet just wonderful, so well have a lot more of them (15, 14). Upon perceive Marys outburst, the narrator promised her there wouldnt 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 contract, 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 captivates. In many ways, the narrators honest portrayal of characters who view war in a positive manner or who attempt to prune the barrage fire of Dresden works 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 cruelty 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 prat deny, and that it wasnt necessary to the A llies efforts to win the War (187). However, he does defend those who tell the bombing, stating they were neither wicked nor cruel, but instead forced into devising 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 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 honoring that military men responsible for such slaughters act not out of malignity but from muddled values which prevent them from seeing simpler lesson truths (Reed, 54).