Slaughterhouse-Five v.s Maus

The only similarity Vonnegut and Speigelman share in their stories is the topic of WWII. While both novels center around WWII, they contain completely different story lines. Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five is written as a science fiction novel from the perspective of an American soldier who survives the bombing of Dresden. Aliens and time travel are then inserted into the story, which causes the reader to become confused and question what to take from the novel. It is difficult to tell if the outrageous parts of the story should be taken seriously or symbolically.  

Speigelman’s Maus is drastically different from Slaughterhouse-Five. Maus is a graphic novel written from the perspective of a Polish Jew and Holocaust survivor. Speigelman uses animals to depict different races of humans. For example, Jews are mice, Non-Jewish Poles are pigs, and Nazis are cats. Compared to Slaughterhouse-Five, this novel is much clearer and more straightforward. The illustrations capture the reader and help explain the story so there is no confusion for the reader.  

Cat and Maus

There are both similarities and differences between Speigelman's and Vonnegut's stories. It was interesting to see how Speigelman, similarly to Vonnegut, went back and forth in time to tell the story. It was almost like he was more telling the story of when his father told him the story than just telling the stories that his father shared with him .Also, there are really three different main times that he is going between, the war, him going to his father, and finally him actually telling the story.  The difference is that since Maus is a graphic novel it is much easier to follow and understand when the time has changed since we have the illustrations to help as a visual guide to his story. Another similarity between the two is that they both use unconventional writing strategies to make a point. In Slaughter House Five, Vonnegut uses crude language to make his point that war is crude and anyone who has to go through the experience of war will be as crude as the war they lived through. Speigelman uses broken English in the novel and I think that he does this to give it more validity and a genuine feel to it so that you can really hear it in your mind how each of the different people that were affected by the war would speak if they were to speak English. This also gives more a definition between each race which gives you more of a feeling of disconnect between them. Though I actually enjoyed Slaughter House Five, I really like Maus because it is much easier to follow because the illustrations, though not necessary, really help bring the story to life, not only because they are pictures but because of the way that they chose different animals for each of the races, Germans being cats that prey on the Jewish mice. I really like how well thought out it is and it really flows though it brings you back and forth in time. 

Spiegelman vs. Vonnegut

Spiegelman wrote Maus as a graphic novel, which is the main difference in writing style between Spiegelman and Vonnegut. Additionally, the story line is different for both writers. In Maus, the story line is somewhat linear and can be followed easily, while Slaughterhouse Five is complex and contains stories within the main story, which at times makes it hard to follow. In both novels, I saw similarities between characters.  Vladek is similar to Billy Pilgrim in several ways. For example, both initially seem disinterested in women. Vladek when dating Lucia would try to distance himself from her. He went through the motions of dating, yet he seemed very uninterested. His interaction with women changed when he met Anja. Billy Pilgrim got married to his wife because he thought it was right. Billy Pilgrim also seemed uninterested in his wife. Throughout the book, Billy Pilgrim is seen in a way disconnected from his wife. Like Vladek, Billy Pilgrim would follow the motions a man in love would have followed, he does not complete the actions out of love. Another similarity between the two characters is the fact that they were both soldiers in World War II. Both men received little training and were sent to the battle front. When faced in a combat situation, Vladek did not start shooting instead he hid until another fellow soldier questioned as to why his gun remained unused. Billy Pilgrim’s response, when attacked by the enemy, was to remain in visible sight making him an easy target. It wasn’t until the other soldiers would pull him or yell at him to go towards safety that Billy Pilgrim would respond. So far, from what we have been assigned to read I prefer Spiegelman’s graphic novel. I prefer his novel due to his simplicity. While reading Maus, I did not have to re-read sections to understand the story. Slaughterhouse Five had so much going on that I constantly had to flip through the pages in order to follow along with the story line.

Spiegelman vs. Vonnegut

      There are more differences than similarities between Spiegelman and Vonnegut's styles. The only major similarity between Maus and Slaughterhouse-Five is that both books are related to the topic of war. While Slaughterhouse-Five is a formatted as a novel, Maus is a graphic novel. Although Maus appears to have less written content because it is a graphic novel, Spiegelman does a better job of providing the audience with useful and coherent information than Vonnegut; one of the ways he does this is through his narration. Vonnegut's narration was confusing because the reader never knows from what point of view he/she is reading, whether it is Billy, Vonnegut, or some other character, however, Spiegelman makes it clear who is narrating or talking in the cartoon strips.One major difference I noticed was the main character's background and characteristics. Billy is a very passive young man from America who rarely has a strong reaction to anything; Vladek Spiegelman is a Jewish man who is very active and reacts to even little things. While Billy believes all events are destined to happen no matter what; Vladek believes there is always a better option. When facing a difficult situation Billy does not take any type of action, like when he his being shot at in war and when he knows he is about to be killed by a hit man hired by Lazzaro. However, Vladek attempts to find solutions when he has a problem, such as, when Anja gets depressed and when he becomes a prisoner of war. Although both were drafted, Billy was a naive, young boy thrown into the war, and Vladek had voluntarily joined the Polish reserve, even though his father discouraged him greatly; he was he was too determined to be stopped from joining. One element in Maus that caught my attention was the interaction between the writer and his father, unlike Slaughterhouse-Five that had unrealistic events involving aliens and time travel, Maus appeared to be more truthful because of the casual conversation between father and son. Particually, when Vladek talks about how he met Anja and tells his son not to write about it; yet the son promises and writes about it anyways. This made it seem as if the author is not censoring his writing. Overall, I prefer Speiegelman over Vonnegut because it flows naturally because it is written by someone who is interviewing a person that has dealt with war first hand, but the writer can take the information and attempt to piece it together in order without getting distracted. I also think the representation of the different races of people is clever and lessens confusion; especially considering the quote by Hitler at the beginning of the book.

Spiegelman vs. Vonnegut

World War II is a subject that spans an immense array of topics. The war looked completely different to every party involved. It is because of this that no two wartime narratives are quite the same. Take, for example, Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five and Art Spiegelman’s Maus. Both stories are about the war, but from vastly different perspectives with vastly different narrative techniques.

Vonnegut writes from the point of view of an American serviceman named Billy Pilgrim. Though the tale is ultimately about the firebombing of Dresden, a sci-fi twist is applied to the narrative, introducing time travel and aliens to Billy Pilgrim’s experience. It is entirely unclear what is real and what is made up. Readers are not even sure if the Tralfamadorians and time traveling are supposed to be taken at face value or supposed to be symbolic. Ideas are scattered, left unfinished, and incoherent. The novel is written as a pessimistic satire. It is a rather detached, grim read, leaving the reader feeling jaded and confused.

Spiegelman’s story is something else entirely. It is the story of Vladek Spiegelman, Art’s father, who was a Jew living in Poland when the Nazis took over. Art captures the tale of Vladek’s capture by the Nazi forces in the form of a graphic novel. The Jews are depicted as mice, the Poles as pigs, and the Germans as vicious cats. This novel is much more believable and much less confusing than Vonnegut’s. The story is straightforward and vibrant, with the addition of pictures to make things even clearer. The events of Vladek’s life and the interactions between him and his son are unvarnished and human. It is very easy for the reader to relate to the characters, unlike in Slaughterhouse-Five, and walk away with a message of hope. Perhaps a reason for this different narrative style is that Art, who wrote the book, did not actually live through the war. The story is all Vladek’s, with Art merely acting as the messenger. Perhaps if Vladek had written the story, he would have told it much differently. 

Hopeful vs. Hopeless

So, obviously Spiegleman and Vonnegut wrote very different books. One is a graphic novel while the other is a satiric novel with a not so subtle hint of pessimism. I don’t think it would be outlandish to speculate the overwhelming majority of readers would prefer Maus to Slaughterhouse-5. The latter is more difficult to read and become immersed in while the former has a very fluid storyline. That being said, the two do have some similarities like Kathryn, Paul, and Sarah discussed; I would be incredibly dull if I repeated them. Although we don’t really get introduced to this side of the story by page 71, I am very interested to see how the perspective and the content will start to differ. Of course the protagonists in both stories are prisoners of war, but Vladek was a Jew. So, I’m curious how a Jewish POW to whom the war meant fighting for his lives and the lives of his family, will tell his story as opposed to the American soldier who wasn’t invested in the cause for the war. Thus far, the one thing I very much enjoy about Maus is the optimism embedded in the novel. Vonnegut chooses to tell a very bitter story that doesn’t get any better when the war is over, when he talks about the war, he immerses you in the immediate filth of it, when he brings you out of a flashback, it’s not a particularly pleasant scene either. Spiegleman chooses instead to interrupt the war story to bring us back to a living room where a father talks with his son about the events he survived. You can tell that there is affection between the two, but not in a romantic sense where it’s a perfect father/son relationship, it’s something readers can relate to. The dad is aggravating, but he’s old, and he looks out for his son. Yes, he complains about his second wife, but he’s not having an affair or ripping into her. In summary, I think Maus is more pleasant to read because there are subtle reminders on every page that surviving was worth the endurance and sacrifices it required. 

Spiegelman vs Vonnegut

In Maus, Spiegelman’s writing is different compared to Vonnegut’s book Slaughterhouse-Five. Maus is a war story written as a comic book. I thought that it was interesting that the characters in the story are depicted as mice. I wonder why Spiegelman choose to do that. The beginning of the book starts with Spiegelman asking his father questions about his father’s life. The reader gets an insight of how Spiegelman’s parents met and background information of his family. Some similarities between Speigelman and Vonnegut’s books are that they both convey a message about how the war has affected veterans physically and mentally. Spiegelman’s father, Vladek, shows many signs of physical damage from the war. He has a heart problem, his vision is bad, and he has to take lots of medication. In Vonnegut’s story Billy Pilgrim suffers from mental disabilities and struggles throughout the story. So far by just reading the first three chapters of Maus, I prefer reading Maus than Slaughterhouse-Five. I think it is much easier to read Maus because it is not jumping around to different stories as much as Slaughterhouse-Five. In Vonnegut’s book I was often confused because I could not keep track of the different stories inside a story. Billy Pilgrim could be in the war at one moment and in Tralfamadoria in another second. So far in Maus, there is the past and present and it is not so hard to follow. Both of these books tell a war story in unconventional ways and it is very fascinating to get a different interpretation of the war.    

Spiegelman vs Vonnegut

The one striking difference between Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five and Spiegelman’s Maus is that Slaughterhouse-Five is a novel, while Maus is a graphic novel. As expected of a graphic novel, Maus is written in a comic strip format while also presented as a book. In the comics, Spiegelman depicts the story of his dad’s (Vladek) struggles during the Holocaust. There are many similarities and differences between the themes and narrative structure within both books. One of the main similarities is that both books centers on a traumatic event within WWII, the bombing of Dresden in Slaughterhouse-Five and the Holocaust in Maus. On top of that, both of the main characters were drafted into the war, captured, and ordered to work as prisoners of war. Another similarity between the books is that time plays a major role within the storytelling. Both stories are told in the past and present, though Vonnegut obviously exaggerates more as Billy Pilgrim is able to travel through time and this happens frequently. I also found it odd that both of the main protagonists married into a wealthy family and was able to become well off through marriage and not of hard work. I’m not exactly sure if this was purely coincidental, or perhaps the author was trying to convey a message. One of main differences between the two books was the reliability of the narrator. In Slaughterhouse-Five, the narrator was, I felt, unreliable because sometimes it seems like there were two different narrators. Also the story of Billy Pilgrim is not in chronological order, which makes it more difficult to understand. In Maus, the narrator was more clear and precise and the story is structured chronologically, and as a result I was able follow along more easily. Though I found Spiegelman’s work easier to comprehend, I was not fond of the English within Vladek’s dialogues. As stated earlier, the main difference between the books is that one is a novel while the other is a graphic novel. As a result, one allows the reader to use his or her sense of imagination to the fullest extent, while the other allows little to no imagination; however, we the readers are able to see things directly from the author’s perspective. While each has its pros and cons, I personally preferred reading Maus to Slaughtherhouse-Five.

Spiegelman and Vonnegut

There are many differences between Spiegelman’s and Vonnegut’s story telling. The most obvious is that Vonnegut’s is a novel and Spiegelman’s is a graphic novel. Spiegelman shows no signs that he is going to drift into the land of science fiction, while one could argue that Vonnegut’s book clearly fits into the science fiction genre. It is interesting that all of the Jewish characters in Spiegelman’s story are represented as mice, yet if one was to read the text without the graphics, they would have no idea of this. To me, this is nowhere near as strange as the aliens in Vonnegut’s story. In fact, while I have little experience with graphic novels, I do know that several comic strips have animal characters who seem to live human lives. One similarity between the way that Vonnegut and Spiegelman tell their stories is that the narrative of the war is not presented straight through, it is broken up. In Vonnegut, this was quite a bit more confusing because even the overall order was not chronological. In Spiegelman the narrative is broken up because the father, Vladek, becomes distracted by things while telling his son, Art, about the war. Vladek also sometimes briefly skips ahead to share a shorter anecdote, but this is usually set straight by Art bringing his dad back to what they were previously talking about. One thing that I like about Spiegelman’s story is the voice. Vladek, who is telling the majority of the story, has an accent and sometimes his diction and syntax show this clearly. I like that the way the story is written does not correct these deviations from what we would likely consider normal or fluent english. I also enjoy that the manner in which the narrative is structured really conveys the feeling of a father talking to his son and telling his son about his past. I find that it makes it easier to follow the chronology of the story, even with the interruptions in the war narrative, such as when Art dropps ashes on the floor. I usually do not care for graphic novels, but I prefer Spiegelman to Vonnegut. (Of course, I do not tend to enjoy science fiction either.)

Vonnegut vs. O'Brian

Kurt Vonnegut and Tim O'Brian are similar in the ways that they write their stories. They are both war veterans that write about their past experiences with war. Vonnegut writes “Slaughterhouse-5” in no chronological order with random flashbacks that often interrupt the story. O’Brian uses a similar method in “How to Tell a True War Story.” He writes his story in section that shift from the main story to O’Brian giving his opinion about war stories.

Both authors also write their stories in ways that often confuse the reader. Vonnegut tells “Slaughterhouse-5” from the point of view of a mysterious narrator who is never really explained. It’s difficult to understand why he took this approach and why the narrator is seldom mentioned. In O’Brian’s sections where he gives his opinion on war stories, he says things that contradict his story. For example, in one of these sections he is quoted saying, “In any war story, but especially a true one, it’s difficult to spate what happened from what seemed to happen… The angles of vision are skewed.” This immediately raises the question of if his story is actually true.  

Vonnegut's Narrative Structure vs. O'Brien's

     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.

Vonnegut vs. O'Brien

When examining Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five against Tim O’Brien’s “How to Write a True War Story,” the writing styles of each appear very similar to one another. Slaughterhouse-Five is a novel that can be read as a war story or as a simple science fiction story, but approaching it with knowledge of war stories can greatly affect the way that it is perceived by the reader.

Both O’Brien and Vonnegut employ a very scattered method of storytelling. Ideas bounce around like atoms in space, bumping into each other and rattling around. The murkiness of the narratives reflects the chaos of the battlefield as well as the ambiguity of wartime morals. Oftentimes, particularly in Vonnegut’s writing, a story will be interrupted by a completely new idea, as though to further explain the story at hand, which then overtakes the narrative and leaves the initial story unfinished. It gives one the impression that the stories are stream-of-consciousness narratives told by authors whose minds are heavy with thought, but who are struggling to articulate what they want to say.

Repetition also plays a role in both authors’ stories. While O’Brien would outright repeat the same account multiple times through his passage, Vonnegut repeats phrases and images throughout his work, such as the two poems introduced at the beginning and the phrase “so it goes” every time death is mentioned. Repetition is crucial to war stories because it can represent flashbacks as well as many veterans’ repetitive soul-searching in light of wartime events.

Finally, the element of truth, or lack thereof, forms a backbone for both pieces. Vonnegut opens his story by outright stating that “All this happened, more or less.” He proceeds to launch into the story of Billy Pilgrim and his visit to another planet and traveling through time, a highly unbelievable tale. It is entirely unclear who Billy Pilgrim is. Vonnegut also admits to changing all of the names in the story. O’Brien insists that “in a true war story nothing much is ever very true.” It is common for war stories to have these element of untruth in them, as those that tell them are only telling them as they perceived them and are often forced to make things up for the sake of believability.  

Is It What They're Saying or How They're Saying It?

Kurt Vonnegut and Tim O’Brien have some stark similarities. First, we are not entirely sure who is narrating the story. At some points it could be the other, and then three sentences later, it could seem like a character. Both authors also have a tendency to be sporadic within what seems to be a storyline, but then turns out to be more a collage of stories. Meaning, their writing mirrors more of a thought process than an actual story. Their order for telling the story is broken, seemingly unintentional, hard to follow, and frustrating at times. It makes it some what difficult for readers to really immerse themselves into the story; perhaps that was the intent. However, not being able to do so lends support to a level of skepticism where readers are not entirely sure how to take or understand the message the author is trying to convey. Is it literal, figurative, or just made up? O’Brien openly acknowledges this to a point when he divulges that the truth is too crazy to believe and that the believable things were made up and added to make the unbelievable things seem more possible. Another similarity between the two writers is their excessive fixation on particular events. They will revisit the same story multiple times. Which could be an indication of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in both; seeing how both men were veterans in horrific wars. Which has caused both of them to be decisively critical of war policy and the attempt at creating causal explanations for wars and what goes on during them. Both men share a bias against war, war doctrine, conduct of belligerents, and moral explanations, which I had to recognize and understand before continuing in either work. At first glance a reader could think that both pieces are anti-war, and I’m not saying they aren’t. However, I consider it equally possible that the writers simply told their story the way it happened and that although they were not trying to write an anti-war book, because they published it to people who had mostly never experienced anything like what they did, the pieces come off as anti-war when the real purpose is to simply tell a true war story.

O'Brien and Vonnegut writing styles

There are many similarities between the ways that O'Brien and Vonnegut's write their stories. I would like to emphasize the most prominent three; the lack of sequence while trying to narrate and tendency to go in a circular way of speaking, they both keep their readers question the validity of their stories, and the fact that none of their stories really had an ending. The first point, the lack of sequence, is prominent in Vonnegut's writing in the way that each story seems to have a smaller story within it to explain the previous story but it never really gets back to that main point. The difference in this case though is that O'Brien at least would stay in the same 'ballpark" of the idea, but Vonnegut would just completely get off topic by talking about other people which would then make you question if those characters were even real. This is also similar to O'Brien because he outright told his audience that he may make some people up. This is a way that they get their readers to question the validity of what they are reading. They say all these stories like they are so definite and true to their lives and then they go back and contradict what they say by adding little statements, for instance O'Brien "The truths are contradictory. It can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in truth war is also beauty." This is the introduction to one of paragraphs and he questions himself, and kind of takes what he says and says it may not be the way he explains, in the first two lines. With their circular writing method, none of their stories really ended in any known manner which makes it hard to follow their thought process. All of these similarities in their style of writing actually all goes back to how they have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that both of them most likely suffer from being involved in war. 

Vonnegut and O'Brien

   Kurt Vonnegut's narrative structure displays many similarities to O'Brien's structure. The first similarity that pops out is his frequent change of subject; he often begins to talk about one story then adds in unrelated information to that particular story until he is completely off topic. While Vonnegut writes he keeps mentioning how he is supposed to be writing this book about Dresden, however he mainly talks about individual soldiers in WWII; often giving unnecessary detailed information about those soldier. O'Brien also did this instead of mainly speaking about the actual the fighting or strategic components of war. Although O'Brien would get off topic he did concentrate more than Vonnegut on the general idea of war and possible events; Vonnegut gets far more detailed in describing one character's life, Billy. The presence of Billy in his writing seems suspicious. Billy appears to serve the purpose for the writer to jump from one subject to another, or from one point in time to another since Billy is supposedly "unstuck in time." It makes me wonder if Billy actually existed, or if his character was created for the convenience of the narrator. O'Brien had characters like this, but he admitted these people might not exist. Another similarity is the confusion of who is speaking. It is especially confusing if Billy happens to be a real person because of the detailed information of his life. How does the narrator know so much about Billy's life, if he isn't Billy? Could it be a journalist, or Vonnegut that got this information from Billy? Also, like O'Brien he repeatedly draws the reader's attention to question his storytelling. While O'Brien would often redefine what a true war story is he also said you never finish telling a war story. Vonnegut often finishes a passage by saying "so it goes", which attempts to say that the story has ended and the audience can accept it as truth or reject it as false.

Vonnegut and O'Brien

Vonnegut’s narrative structure in “Slaughterhouse Five” is similar to O’Brien’ structure in “How to Tell a True War Story.” Both of who were veterans of the war suffer from some damage from the war, whether it is psychological, physical, emotional, etc. I could definitely tell that their style of writing is influenced by their trauma from the war. There writings have similar choppiness. In O’Brien’s story he jumps from different stories and Vonnegut does the same by telling different stories of people, such as Bernard and Mary O’Hare, Billy Pilgrim, and Roland Weary. In Vonnegut’s narrative he begins with a story and then goes to another one. When I was reading I had to kind of do a double take because I was a bit confused about whom he was talking about at some points. This type of writing keeps the audience skeptical and wondering if any of the story is factual. In the beginning you can tell that there is a fictional aspect to the book because of the part where he talks about some sort of alien called a Tralfamadore. Both Vonnegut and O’Brien stories include metafiction. When Vonnegut says, “So it goes” it makes it hard for the reader to believe the stories that he tells. After reading the first two chapters I am left wondering if any of it is really part of a true war story or part of his deluded memory of the war. 

O'Brien and Vonnegut Similarities

Kurt Vonnegut and Tim O’Brien, authors of war narratives, both have many similarities in their narrative structure. Specifically, the two authors write out of sequence. Vonnegut and O’Brien start explaining one story or scenario and then they jump to another one, leaving the reader hanging or often confused. Their stories at times have no point or resolution.  For example, in Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five, he writes about his interaction with aliens; however, he never fully explains the whole story about the aliens since the author goes on to mention other events that occurred in the protagonist’s life. O’Brien does the same when he writes about Rat’s meltdown/water buffalo attack. At the end of the meltdown, Rat’s comrades share brief dialogue about the water buffalo attack, then without concluding that story the author, O’Brien, jumps into a different scenario in which he explains the ways they generalize war. Both authors seem to not have smooth transitions in their narratives.  Another similarity between the two authors is the form in which write, they make the reader question the credibility of the author. As discussed in class, the authors both incorporated meta-fiction into their work. They comment on their writing, which only adds to the reader questioning the authenticity of the sequence of events. For example, Vonnegut states “The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true” (1). O’Brien also begins his story by stating “This is True” (1). After reading such sentences, one is left asking themselves if in fact the material read was actually true or if it is all fiction. Another similarity between the authors is the repetitive phrases that they incorporate throughout their work. Vonnegut uses the phrase “so it goes” while O’Brien would repeat that Curt Lemon was dead, Rat Kiley had written a letter, and had not received a response.

O'Brien vs. Vonnegut

“How to Tell a True War Story” and Slaughterhouse-Five written by war veterans Tim O’Brien and Kurt Vonnegut, respectively, portrayed unique stories about their experiences in two very different wars, but surprisingly contain many similarities, such as a similar narrative structure. After reading each book, one may notice how both authors heavily rely on the literary technique of metafiction, which in this case, the authors seem to include or write about himself as a character in the story (Tim O’Brien in “How to Tell a True War Story” and Billy Pilgrim in Slaughterhouse-Five). The use of metafiction within both “fictional” works blurs the line between fiction and reality and thus alludes the reader to question whether what he or she is reading is truthful or not, despite the fact that both authors start off their works by saying that the story happened or is true. Another similarity between the two narrative structures of both works is the irregular progression of the storyline. While it is more apparent in Vonnegut’s work that there is not a linear progression of the story (stories about Billy Pilgrim’s life are written in segments, which do not follow each other), O’Brien’s “How to Tell a True War Story” too features a storyline that is fragmented because he begins by lecturing about the truth in war, but suddenly goes on to tell a story about how his comrade Curt Lemon died and then without any transitions continues on lecturing about the truth in war, only to return to the story of Curt Lemon’s death twice again. Both stories are also similar with regards to their overall theme: anti-war. Both authors at times use satirical language to downplay occurrences of death, to critic war, and to express an anti-war message. And finally, while both authors tried their best to provide their insight on “factual” events, it is evident that they also more or less wrote in a unique narrative structure that displayed how they psychologically felt during and after the war.  

O'Brien and Vonnegut

There are multiple ways in which Kurt Vonnegut’s narrative structure is similar to that of Tim O’Brien. One of the similarities that stands out the most to me is the choppy, segmented style of how the story is told. Vonnegut tells shorter stories within the chapter that do not seem to have much of any resolution. These shorter stories also often get repeated, almost identical to the manner of O’Brien. Notably present in the first chapter is the heavy use of metafiction. Both authors relay the difficulty they experience when trying to tell their war stories. They both also show concern about the truth in their narratives. This was extremely evident in O’Briens, “How To Tell A True War Story,” and is also present in Vonnegut’s writing. For example, Vonnegut starts the book by saying, “All this happened, more or less,” and specifies a few events that he holds really happened. Another instance where Vonnegut talks about the truth is in chapter two when he is talking about Roland Weary being bundled up. Vonnegut writes, “He was so snug in there that he was able to pretend that he was safe at home, having survived the war, and that he was telling his parents and his sister a true war story -- whereas the true war story was still going on”(53). Another similarity between O’Brien and Vonnegut is the, at times, vulgar language. Vonnegut speaks of things of the war using sexual language. When talking of the ‘mopping up’ military operation, he writes, “...whose name alone, when reported as news or history, gives many war enthusiasts a sort of post-coital satisfaction. It is... the divinely listless loveplay that follows the orgasm of victory”(66). While Vonnegut and O’Brien might appear to have a different style of crudeness, the uncensored language remains a similarity.

How to Tell a True War Story

In Tim O'Brien's "How to Tell a True War Story," his use of repetition and nonchalant descriptions of horrific events point to signs of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD.) His parts of repetition are told with such detail that he seems to be reliving these moments as he tells the story. PTSD is common with war veterans resulting in an array of side effects, including reliving the traumatic event through recollection. In this case, O'Brien keeps referring back to the moment his fellow soldier and friend, Curt Lemon, triggered a booby-trap that lead to his death. This event is repeated in his story, sometimes sporadically, because of the psychological trauma it caused O'Brien.   

O'Brien recalls Lemon’s brutal death and other horrific events with such ease that it reflects emotional numbness, a common symptom of PTSD. Another example of this numbness is when he describes the killing of the baby water buffalo. In this section of the story, his fellow soldier, Bob Kiley, is trying to cope with the death of Lemon. In order to do this, Kiley captures and shoots away the limbs, face, and stomach of a baby water buffalo. As this is happening, he mentions that the platoon, including himself, is watching and not doing anything to stop Kiley from slowly killing this animal piece by piece. The ease by which O’Brien tells these gruesome situations demonstrate the emotional numbness he has developed towards these events. 

How to Tell a True War Story

In "How to Tell a True War Story" O'Brien displays symptoms of PTSD by the way he writes his explanation of what a war story is. The two most noticeable tendencies in his writing is when he often transitions from talking about one particular war story without telling the full story, then starts to tell another story, then goes back to add more details to the previous story and his repetitive redefining of what a true war story is. He begins by talking about Rat's emotional state and the letter he wrote to Curt Lemon's sister after Curt was killed. Instead of explaining the cause of Curt's death, he writes about Rat and Curt's relationship and Mitchell Sanders' storytelling about a listening post in the mountains. While he wrote about these stories there were bits and pieces of details of the how Curt looked right before he died and after he stepped on the round, however the audience does not realize this until he actually explains Curt's death. This type of writing can be caused by his tendency to avoid certain memories. He may interrupt one story with another story right before he gets to the worst part because he is avoiding that particular part of a memory; it seems that every time he gave little details about Curt before fully describing his death, he would interrupt himself because the imagery of his death was disturbing. The other noticeable characteristic is he frequent definitions of a true war story; he make many different definitions of what a true war story is throughout his writing. It seems as if he does this because he is constantly unsure how to define a war story, or even war in general. This may be caused by his tendency to re-experience the many unusual and contrasting situations he encountered in war. It is clear in his writing that although he feels war is pain, he also mentions that it allows a soldier to fell more alive after being so close to death.  I find it interesting that he acknowledges the contradiction of war and the uselessness of attempting to tell a true war story. He basically spends most of a passage titled "How to Tell a True War Story" writing about war stories and ends by saying the story he told was not a war story and also that none of the people existed.

O'Brien's "How to Write a True War Story"

     In this somber passage, Tim O’Brien, Vietnam veteran and author of the award winning novel The Things They Carried, shares his thoughts on writing a true war story. His unique writing style distinctly reflects the psychological effects brought on by combat. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD, affects nearly 830,000 veterans. O’Brien’s passage parallels some of the symptoms displayed by soldiers suffering from the disorder.

     The most obvious connection between O’Brien’s passage and PTSD is his frequent use of repetition. He tells the story of the day he witnessed a friend of his, Curt Lemon, step on a rigged 105 round and have his body blown into a nearby tree, killing him. O’Brien goes back to this story multiple times throughout the passage, each time mentioning many of the same small details as well as adding on more with each retelling. One of the most common symptoms of PTSD is recurring memories or flashbacks to traumatic events. Such horrible events tend to etch themselves in the mind, though many happen so quickly that it is often difficult for the person undergoing the experience to be able to recall important aspects of the trauma, even though he or she may have frequent flashbacks to it. This inability to recall the entire situation can be interpreted as another symptom of PTSD. O’Brien summarizes this phenomena when he writes, "In any war story, but especially a true one, it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen. What seems to happen becomes its own happening and has to be told that way."

     War, O‘Brien says, is full of contradictions. "War is hell, but that’s not the half of it, because war is also mystery and terror and adventure and courage and discovery and holiness and pity and despair and longing and love. War is nasty; war is fun. War is thrilling; war is drudgery. War makes you a man; war makes you dead." O’Brien certainly uses contradiction in his writing, frequently changing ideas about what a real war story means. These contradictions of combat run alongside the contradiction of morals that come with war – the blurring of what is right and what is wrong. "In war you lose your sense of the definite, hence your sense of truth itself, and therefore it’s safe to say that in a true war story nothing much is ever very true." In this loss of the sense of truth, soldiers often come to wonder what the point of war is. O’Brien mentions the struggle soldiers often face in this search for a point, using the image of a soldier reaching an epiphany, waking his wife up to tell her the story, getting to the end, and forgetting what the point was. Avoidance is another common symptom of PTSD. Soldiers puzzle over the point of war stories in hopes of finding out what the true purpose is, why such things had to happen, if only to avoid the chilling, terrible suggestion that maybe, just maybe, there is no point at all.

How to Tell a True War Story

In "How to Tell a True War Story" Tim O'Brien uses techniques like repetition and contradictions which show the torment that goes on in his mind, most likely from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The way that he speaks about the war shows the way that he is affected not only by PTSD but the war itself also. For example. when he says " In other cases you can't even tell a true war story. Sometimes it's just beyond telling." Shows that he has trouble explaining exactly what happened because of the way he had been effected by what he had seen and experienced. It also has a tone of contradiction in the way that he says that war is both beautiful and terrifying at the same time. This shows how he feels the commitment and respect for what he had lived but the pain and difficulty that he lived through watching his companions experience all of the same things that he had to and even watching people who he has come to know and care for die. This is the most probable cause of the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that he suffers from. Also, when he says " In any war story, especially a true one, it's difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen." it shows how he, himself, is not sure if what he is retelling is what is actually happened or if it was just what he thinks happened because of his certain experiences and trauma. The way that he repeats, so often, the same basic idea of war and the telling of war shows that it has become a sort of obsessed with telling what has afflicted him. The entire writing, though he does not talk about himself at all really, shows how much that he had been affected and suffered from PTSD. 

On "How to Tell a True War Story"

     O'Brien's writing very openly paints a picture of the psychological repercussions of his own experiences with war; it's particularly revealing about the specific incident he returns to over and over again, in which a fellow soldier named Lemon died stepping on a land mine. There are many things that can be drawn from O'Brien's narrative structure that can be directly attributed to his having witnessed the event first hand and having been traumatized psychological by it. 

     For starters, he masks the whole story under the premise of bringing forth some kind of truth about war stories--it's as if O'Brien wants us to believe that he doesn't have personal attachments to the stories that he is giving as examples towards whatever point he is trying to make. Which is unclear, possibly because he doesn't really have a point in saying all of this. This avoidant response is one of the symptoms of PTSD; it's an inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma in order to avoid calling up the feelings associated with it. Eventually, it becomes clear that these stories do actually involve him personally and the thin veil of "how to write a true war story" is less distracting (although O'Brien persistently returns to it again and again.) 

     Through the repetition of the story of Lemon's death, we see how more and more details--extremely vivid and specific details-- are added to the story each time, as if O'Brien is getting closer and closer to the truth, and closer to what he actually wants to say. This [initial] avoidance and repetition of Lemon's death are definitely symptoms of O'Brien's trauma having witnessed such a horrible thing happen, and it's probably the only way he can really process it.  It's also quite possible, along the lines of what O'Brien suggests, "[telling] it one more time, patiently, adding and subtracting, making up a few things to get at the real truth," that the details that change from telling to telling are a result of the teller's own mind trying to wrestle with the reality of what happened. 

"It's so incredibly sad and true: she never wrote back"

“Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” That was something my best friend came up with after our fishing adventure ended with a sunburn and not a single fish. We meant it as a joke obviously, so we told people we caught everything imaginable- in a joking way because we’re both bad liars. Reading Tim O’Brien’s accounts, it reminded me of what my friend said, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” When O’Brien talks about what’s too crazy to believe being the truth and what sounds normal being a fabrication to make the crazy parts seem believable. I was stunned to think that these men could fight in Vietnam, peel their friend off a tree, kill excessively using horrible weapons and chemicals. But they couldn’t muster the courage or the temerity to tell the unaltered truth to people who may not believe or understand- people who's opinion really doesn't matter. In a sense, that’s what PTSD is. Altering the truth, refusing to acknowledge it, or not knowing how to interpret and live with it.

Of course it’s more complicated than that, and the affects can be just like a time bomb, harmful and it goes off unexpectedly. O’Brien talks about a soldier waking up and shaking his wife saying, “I know what the point is!” Then telling her the entire story and forgetting the point at the end. That’s PTSD. In that case though- especially because it’s something soldiers struggle with even if they don’t have PTSD- the point the soldier is looking for isn’t the point to his story. I would speculate that it’s much more than that. He’s trying to justify what happened. What he did, what was done to him, what he saw, what he contributed to. And most of all, what was the point for the entire war. World War I was nicknamed “The War to End All Wars.” How wonderful would that have been... Eric Bogle wrote a song, “The Green Fields of France,” and he posed a horrifying question to someone who died in war or lost a loved one, he wrote:

And I can't help but wonder why

Do all those who lie here know why they died

Did you really believe them when they told you the cause

Did you really believe that this war would end wars

Well the suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame

The killing and dying it was all done in vain

Oh Willy McBride it all happened again

And again, and again, and again, and again

"How to Tell a True War Story"

Upon reading “How to Tell a True War Story” by Tim O’Brien, one cannot help but notice the unconventional writing techniques (e.g. repetition and contradiction) and the inconsistency that entails in Tim O’Brien’s storytelling. In “How to Tell a True War Story,” the use of repetition is prevalent and is seen when O’Brien depicts the death of his fellow comrade Curt Lemon not once, or twice, but a total of three times. Although Tim O’Brien recounts the same event a total of three times, we find it rather peculiar that each depiction was different as he adds or takes away some details even though some of these details might contradict each other. As a result the reader may become confuse over whether which story really occurred or even if the event occurred at all. Incongruously, the title of the chapter is “How to Tell a True War Story,” and throughout the chapter, O’Brien even elaborates several times about what makes a war story true and what does not. This is a perfect example of metafiction on Tim O'Brien's part, and whether the event actually occurred or not is irrelevant, while the meaning of the story is what should be taken into account. While some may find it rather strange that Tim O’Brien extensively uses repetition and contradiction in his storytelling, we must recall that Tim O’Brien was a war veteran from the Vietnam War. As a war veteran it is highly likely that O’Brien faced many situations that could have been traumatic for him, and one can suppose after reading the story that he witness the death of his comrade (in this case, Curt Lemon’s death). One of the many symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is reliving the trauma over and over again, and this is evident in “How to Tell a True War Story” as O’Brien narrates the death of his comrade multiple times. Sometimes people with PTSD try to avoid anything that makes the person recall the traumatic event, while others have trouble remembering how the traumatic event actually occurred. This too is also apparent after reading O’Brien’s short story, as we can see that the details of Curt Lemon’s death are not consistent when he repeats the event and that he tries to avoid the event by adding fillers between each time he recalls Curt Lemon’s death. Thus from reading “How to Tell a True War Story,” we are able to see that the war had psychological repercussions on Tim O’Brien through his unconventional techniques of writing. 

"How to Tell a True War Story"

In “How to Tell a True War Story” Tim O’Brien uses different techniques in his story telling. One of O’Brien’s unconventional techniques in his story is repetition. Throughout history war has caused not just physical damage to a soldier but also psychological effects, in particularly PTSD. The repetition throughout the story reveals the psychological repercussions of war. PTSD caused many veterans to have symptoms that wouldn’t even show up until years later. Some of the symptoms include reliving the past in nightmares and flashbacks, fear in certain situations that could trigger memories of war, and difficulty in performing daily tasks. The way that O’Brien writes shows that there is a side effect of war in which the person is sort of scatter brained. To cope with the trauma of war people reinvent the events of the past, they sort of recall events in a different way or tell it in a different scope. O’Brien retells the death of Curt Lemon multiple times throughout the story and each comes with different changes. The way that O’Brien describes Curt Lemon’s death is in a beautiful but realistic way. O’Brien’s writing is also choppy and sometimes inconsistent. He jumps from different stories of his war memories.. The main point of O’Brien’s story is to show the psychological repercussions of war and how the effects carry on in a veteran’s life. Even though a war story may not contain any truth in events, the real truth to be taken away is the grief and sorrows of war and the emotional and psychological outcomes.

"How to Tell a True War Story"

The writing techniques used by Tim O’Brien in “How to Tell a True War Story,” demonstrate how a soldier’s brain is affected psychologically by the war. A soldier when retelling a war story is reliving the experience, much like PTSD episodes in which the soldier feels as if he/she were back in combat. The storytelling written by O’Brien seems very repetitive due to the constant flashbacks one may experience of the war. PTSD has several symptoms including: re-experiencing, avoidance, and numbing. O’Brien’s writing demonstrates how PTSD affected his memories. When O’Brien explains the killing of the baby water buffalo, he demonstrated the way soldiers are numb to their feelings.  While Rat Kiley was transferring his anger to the baby water buffalo, the soldiers instead of preventing Rat Kiley from ultimately killing the animal just stood there watching him, “the whole platoon stood there watching, feeling all kinds of things, but there wasn’t a great deal of pity for the baby water buffalo” (O’Brien, 6). The soldiers were numb, they hardly expressed any emotion until Rat Kiley had begun to cry and had finished his anger outburst. The way O’Brien describes this scene and constantly repeats the same story basis (i.e. Lemon was dead, Rat Kiley had written a letter, and had not received a response) effectively show the reader how the war/PTSD affects storytelling. Upon completion of this story, one notices the different flashbacks of the war that the author has while retelling his experiences. The sudden flashbacks make the story seem out of sequence; however, O’Brien was affected psychologically by war which affected the way he tells his story. The sudden flashbacks allow one to feel as if O’Brien were personally informing the reader on his war memories, since storytelling (on a personal level) is sometimes out of sequence.

How To Tell A True War Story

One noticeable characteristic of Tim O'Brien's writing is the disconnected choppiness. O'Brien often jumps from the larger narrative to telling a specific story with little transition between the two. I think that this could possibly be an intentional choice on his part, but intentional or not, it relays the confusion and chaos that can be experienced during war, and likely have long term effects on soldiers even once out of the battle field. Another thing that I noticed is how O'Brien tells multiple versions of the story of the death of Curt Lemon. To me, this repetition is an example of how a person's mind after war just cannot quite make sense of what and how an event actually happened. O'Brien touches on this concept of being lost in the memory of an event when he says, "Often in a true war story… the point doesn't hit you until twenty years later, in your sleep, and you wake up and shake your wife and start telling the story to her, except when you get to the end you've forgotten the point again. And then for a long time you lie there watching the story happen in your head"(78). Many PTSD patients consistently recall traumatic events and have trouble making any sense of what happened. O’Brien’s writing also contains many contradictions. While I think that this is another aspect that relates to the chaos of war, I also think it shows his struggle relay the vast spectrum of emotions felt during war. For example, O’Brien states, “You hate it, yes, but your eyes do not, Like a killer forest fire, like cancer under a microscope, any battle or bombing raid or artillery barrage has the aesthetic purity of absolute moral indifference -- a powerful, implacable beauty...”(77). This makes sense to me in a way, because as O’Brien says, it is something you believe or understand in your stomach. When one considers the contradictions that O’Brien presents, you can almost sense what he’s saying in your gut. It is something hard to explain using analytical logic because it is more of a feeling, a gut instinct. I think that is also along the lines of what O’Brien means when he talks about the truth. He says, “A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth”(80). When I think about this statement it makes sense to me, my gut understands what O’Brien is saying, but when I try to explain it, I can’t. I think that’s because it’s something that, as O’Brien might put it, the gut can understand but the brain cannot. This feeling of disconnect between what you feel is correct and what you are able to prove is correct may be a sense of the internal disconnect caused by war.