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

In the first chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five, the vote counter goes to meet an old state of war friend, Bernard V. OHare, who served with him in World War II and was also examine to the barrage fire of Dresden. The narrator, having attempted to write a novel based on his experiences during that time for umpteen years, was hoping that, between the two of them, they could come up with many good war stories to incorporate into his novel. After many failed attempts to find something of signification upon which to base his novel, both men failed, for there is nothing intelligent to vocalise about 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 angry, and feared that, through the narrators story, he would make war look proficient wonderful, so well have a lot more of them (15, 14). Upon hearing Marys outburst, the narrator promised her there wouldnt be a fiber 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 Crusade, which Slaughterhouse-Five is subtitled, and sacred 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 barrage of Dresden works against them. The narrator, for the most part, doesnt attempt to rebuke or rap these views, but instead represents them in all their unflinching honesty. By spotlight 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 can deny, and that it wasnt needful to the Allies ef forts to win the War (187). However, he does defend those who directed the bombing, stating they were incomplete 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 condemn the bombing he instead portrays it as one of the many horrors of war that can completely be viewed in hindsight as such.These official assessments offer the observation that multitude men responsible for such slaughters act not out of malignity but from muddled values which prevent them from seeing simpler moral truths (Reed, 54).