Tribute to Vonnegut

Immortal friends Vonnegut and Heller are no doubt enjoying the good life over a celestial pint, relishing each other’s rich company while examining the purview of the 20th century, absurdity and all. But I’m sure each of them gave more than a chuckle with the irony of opposition to “uncontrolled violence” on the battlefield, because so much of war is so organized in the first place!

That aside, it’s important to point out a number of heroes of war – namely women. In World War 2 a sick soviet sniper woman, Lyudmila Pavlichenko, took out 309 Germans. She then went on a 1942 publicity tour. Her “campaign slogan”? “Dead Germans are harmless”. How brutal is that? On the intolerably vile topic of fighting in war, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman wrote that a major problem with women on the battle scene is “the sight of a female soldier being killed or wounded seemed to trigger ‘uncontrolled violence’ among her male comrades” (Tribune Perspective 1). “Uncontrolled Violence”. Imagine violence, but violence that is not in the normal realm of “control” on the battle scene. Even more grotesque is there have not only been accounts of pregnant women fighting in battle, but data of military actually having maternity uniforms. What would you call that? A militaristically inclined abortion jump-suit? But enough on war, because too much disdain for any topic manufactures of a milieu of disdain, which is, ultimately undesirable and disruptive.

Kurt Vonnegut wrote about Slaughterhouse-Five, a satire of a single absurd war, had no idea that his work would be cross-referenced as commentary for another war. Herein lies the problem about focusing attention – any type of attention – towards undesirably topics – the law of attraction plays its part. Was Vonnegut criticizing, humiliating, and illuminating the absurdity in deplorable conditions and ramifications of war? Most definitely. But did his emphasis of war lead to further introspection of belligerent battles? In a way, yes. “You write about one hell, you’re automatically connected to a fresher one” (Keller, Tribune 1). It’s great to point out the horrors of war, but better solution is to point out the joys of peace. Because then you gravitate towards the eras of joy and are “automatically connected to a fresher” and more sincere bliss. Just goes to show, regardless of your eloquence, superb literary command, and remarkably clever voice, be careful of what you write about, and play it safe by always making sure cons of war are always being, at the least, one-upped by the joys of peace. This way your dialogue and thought collective embodies appreciation of harmony and will resonate with concordance.