Re: Banning Books, Right or Wrong? - Milan, WA3

I find it ironic that Americans find it necessary to overglorify war. In the process, they ignore the negative effects of war. This does, in fact, match the Tralfamadorian view of focusing on the positive aspects of life. However, back at home Americans are almost encouraged to be pessimistic in their pursuit of prosperity and happiness. Of course this book doesn't reflect their views of war, because the average citizen's view on war is that it can be used for positive end results; the end justifies the means. However, the soldiers are aware of their experiences and realize the true hell that war proves itself to be time and time again. These soldiers in turn attempt to forget as much as possible their traumatizing experiences in order to move on with their lives. But in the process they begin to convince themselves that it was all worth it, and when something contradictory approaches them they feel offended that someone can even propose that the deaths of thousands of soldiers have been for nothing. So it goes.

Mothers may also feel offended because they are told their sons were killed bravely and partiotically fighting for their native country; all families are told exactly the same thing. But fathers who participated in WWI would be the most stricken by such news: they know what terrible atrocities their sons must have seen before they died; they never had the chance to see the truly beautiful moments of life.

Americans never truly grasp the significance of war, and with all likelihood they most likely never will. At home they are encouraged to forget about their tragic experiences, move on, and discontinue their reminiscing. Consequently, they once again conform to the majority in their glorification of war and, for the lower class, their everlasting struggle for prosperity. Do these weak-minded people have the right to even call out against others' opinions when they are ignorant of the facts? Or do they instead have the right to know the truth and choose whether to focus on the good or bad?

Only fate will tell.

But banning a book on account that it contradicts your beliefs is ludicrous. Furthermore, should you be ignorant to the validity of said beliefs, then you've more or less lost your 'right' to an opinion. Vonnegut stands to make a point with his novel, and that point does not include insulting those who choose to fight wars and those who choose to support them. Rather, his message aims to alter peoples' mindsets regarding the root of all wars: and that is people believe that wars are a necessary method to achieve whatever change they believe. Perhaps the means do indeed justify the end, but instead of promoting wars to change the bad in society people should promote social movements to improve the good.

However, this kind of thinking results in a system where the people are empowered to make a change. The only organizations that have the power to change the 'bad' are governments, and without this power governments would lose their iron grip over the populace. In some countries, this kind of thinking has begun to prevail (such as in Canada, where the people decided not to become a military superpower after World War II). But the majority of other countries, unfortunately, do not share our collective way of thinking, and this is who Vonnegut was targeting the message to.

If there would be anything to criticize in Vonnegut's novel it would be the subliminal insistence that the current society is wrong. Even though the Germans in the time period are humanized, they are still known to be monsters by readers that have learned anything about history in the past century. Americans instead take the sharp end of the spear, and their society is almost said to represent all of the developed countries in the world. Clearly, this cannot be true, as the non-developed countries do not share these 'bad' opinions as they have not yet been influenced by more powerful nations. To this day there are wars in the third-world nations of the world where people struggle over their beliefs.

Anyways, the main point here is that Vonnegut's novel deserves to be read by everyone. It is within their entitlements as human beings to have a choice as to how they want to live their lives. If other opinions are blocked out, people are denied the opportunity of living their life to how they see best. In the end, that is a matter which must be considered before thought-provoking novels such as Slaughterhouse-Five are denied from the eyes of readers.