Slaighter House Five Rhetorical Analysis

1648 Words7 Pages
Slaughterhouse-Five is about a very particular experience of war. This book isn't about officers or heroes. It's about privates, most of whom don't want to be – and shouldn't be – on the battlefield. And it's about prisoners of war, men who have been deprived of any kind of control over where they go and what they do. There is nothing romantic about war in Slaughterhouse-Five. In fact, the villains of the novel are the ones who continue to romanticize violence and killing, men like Bertram Copeland Rumfoord and even foolish Roland Weary. Vonnegut shows that war is inevitable. Stopping a war, or writing an anti-war novel, is like stopping a glacier: it is an exercise in futility. As a result, humans lose their free will and become victims in the machinery of war, casualties of political ends. The entire novel illustrates the destructiveness and suffering of war. By using a repeated refrain, precise characterization, satire, and tone, Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is able to effectively illustrate the destructiveness of war. Whenever someone (or something) dies in the novel, "so it goes" is Vonnegut's automatic mantra. There is nothing a person can do about death - it happens to us all. Because the novel's main focal point is the chaos caused by the allied bombing of Dresden, Vonnegut is obviously trying to make the point that war is bloody awful, but also inevitable. When he tells a friend that he's writing an anti-war novel at the very beginning, he's told he might as well write an anti-glacier book. In other words, war will happen; people will die. So it goes. The repeated refrain of, "so it goes"(2), is said over 100 times in the novel. At first, the saying can be looked upon as funny in an ironic way. However, as one reads further, the phrase becomes irritating and irreverent. The reader cannot fathom so many deaths meaning so little. It is most likely Vonnegut's
Open Document