It's difficult to have to compare two writers who have so many similarities and yet are so different. Vonnegut and O'Brien were both soldiers, both write about their experiences with war, and both have unusual styles of story-telling, which may be brought about by their experiences. Both writers seem to try to distance themselves from the subject of their writings, even though they both obviously draw from their own personal experiences. It's not exactly clear to me why they do so, but I if I had to guess I'd say that it's because they don't want to give the impression that their own feelings and emotions are getting in the way of telling the story. That's just a guess, though. Both writers distance themselves by using meta-fiction, or by writing a story about a story.
The way these stories are organized is also similar between the two. Both authors play with time when telling their stories; rather than telling the story in chronological order, they skip about and repeat certain things much in the way a person with PTSD would recall traumatic events. In the case of Vonnegut, it's less clear if PTSD has anything to do with the story being told this way.
Another key difference for me, and one that makes me favor Vonnegut's writing out of the two, is the tone and language used. O'Brien's language can be described as simply "rough," or even "vulgar" for the most part. That's not to say it's bad, in fact the vulgarity perhaps lends it more credibility--but honestly, it's a different type of story and the vulgarity works for O'Brien where it wouldn't for Vonnegut. Vonnegut's writing is less vulgar and more thoughtful. His story is less anecdotal and more sci-fi, so this difference in language seems appropriate. And although both play around with time and repetition, I found the writing in Slaughterhouse Five to be easier and more entertaining to read because there's a more solid narrative to follow than in How to Tell a True War Story.
You make a valid point in saying that the authors distancing themselves from their work to leave a less direct impression of personal feelings. One of the reasons I think they do this is because while they where surrounded by war they were over-whelmed by too many different and indescribable feelings. The actual experiences during war were so heightened that when they attempt to convey those feelings in there writing they can't handle expressing them in first person, therefore using a character's story. As far as whether Vonnegut has PTSD is concerned, I agree that it is hard to tell. However, Vonnegut makes his meta fiction more obvious through Billy's character leading me to believe that PTSD isn't influencing his work.
ReplyDelete