All Quiet on the Western Front Seminar
In the seminar, we had a lengthy conversation about the book “All Quiet on the Western Front” by Erich Maria Remarque and what the truth of war is according to this book. Most of us said that the truth of war is that it drains you of your will to live and most of your interests and joy. We referenced certain parts in the novel that we thought communicated the truth of war, such as when Paul goes home and attempts to read his books only to find that they hold no meaning to him anymore. Something that shocked me was when Jasper threw out the idea that maybe Paul committed suicide and was not shot down by an enemy. This gave us something new to argue about, saying that even if he did live, he probably would have killed himself in the long run. I believe this part of the seminar was the most interesting. We argued whether or not he would be able to get his life back on track, and India stepped in to say that it was impossible. She also pointed out that when he did die, he had an “expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come.” I believe India made some wonderful observations throughout the seminar.
One of the questions we debated was “is this an anti-war novel?” And I strongly believe it is. In no part of the book does it condone any of this. Someone in the seminar, I think it was Sam or Jasper, said that Paul never said anything against it. I believe he did throughout the whole book. For example, in chapter 12, he rants about how he has nothing left to live for since the war took it all. On page 88, in the first paragraph, he goes on to say that he was just beginning to love life, but he had to “shoot it to pieces.” If that’s not an anti-war statement, I don’t know what is.
Throughout the entire book, he makes plenty of comments about how the war has made him feel numb, such as when he leaves Kropp in the hospital, shrugging it off, saying “a man gets used to that kind of thing in the army.” He’s so used to seeing his friends die and leave that he doesn’t feel as terrible saying goodbye to his friend for good.
This unit kind of reminds me of this conversation I had with my mom. She was telling me about this war veteran she knew who was completely traumatized by the war. He would lock himself inside of his house on the 4th of July because the sound of fireworks reminded him of the bombings and shellings back in the war. If anything were to jump out at him he would get incredibly scared and he would just start throwing punches. I believe that if you do survive war, it messes with your head and you’re permanently damaged psychologically in some way.
Now, the moment you’ve all been waiting for: The quote that best describes the truth of war is on page 294, paragraphs 2 and 3. Paul contemplates his time in the war and what life would be like if he were to go back home now. He writes “now if we go back we will be weary, broken, burnt out, rootless, and without hope. We will not be able to find our way any more.” He believes that he really has nothing left to live for or go back home to and if he did, there would be nothing but sheer depression. He goes on to say that men will not understand him and this war will soon be forgotten. The next generation will “push us aside.” He concludes the passage with “…the years will pass by and in the end we shall fall into ruin.” These passages sum up the entire book, saying that should he return home, he would be alone and forgotten and all his efforts will have been in vain. I believe a good way to interpret this would be in a one-act show or a movie. A drawing or a picture can only express so much, but a movie or play can express everything… every event, every movement, every word. If I had to do anything as a project for this book, I would probably make it into a short film and come up with a relevant soundtrack. I would even hold auditions in order to make it as refined as possible.
Slaughterhouse 5 Seminar
During this seminar, people made many interesting comments and we got off on lots of little tangents regarding different philosophical elements that related to us. However, the comment that blew everyone’s mind was when John asked us if free will really exists. This sparked an argument that went on for quite some time. Certain people said that free will does exist, and that we can control what we do and say. Others argued by saying that some things are set in stone and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Finally we reached the conclusion that no one would ever know about whether or not free will exists, because there is really no way to prove the existence of free will. John continued to make other amazing connections and comments. Another intriguing one was when he said this was neither an anti-war novel nor a pro-war novel, but more of a coping novel. Kurt Vonnegut really doesn’t say anything about how war is bad or good, he just seems to list little anecdotes of things that could have happened in the war and sometimes talks about himself. He doesn’t make much of an effort to put his views out there. I can definitely see why John would think this is more of a coping book.
The seminar had many thought-provoking questions, but I believe the most challenging question was “What is the truth of war communicated in this book?” This question was very hard indeed, and we discussed it for quite some time, making the same points over and over, using “so it goes” as our only evidence. Almost everyone decided that Vonnegut’s truth of war is that war is inevitable and people die—it just happens and we can’t stop it no matter what you do. I see why they might think this is the truth for Vonnegut. After all, he does say “so it goes” multiple times and also mentions the bird, which we decided symbolizes the exact same phrase (so it goes) in a different way. In chapter one, when Vonnegut expresses his desire to write an anti-war novel, someone asks him why he didn’t write an anti-glacier novel instead. In my opinion, that is only half of his truth, and Vonnegut is trying to say so much more than just “War happens.” As a veteran, there would definitely be more underlying opinions that Vonnegut is trying to communicate.
I believe another view Vonnegut has on war is that once you enlist and become a soldier, you don’t belong to yourself anymore. You immediately belong to your country and no one else. All your views are immediately silenced. Vonnegut himself says “One of the main affects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters. But old Derby was a character now.” By saying that “people are discouraged from being characters” is saying that there is no time to be yourself in battle. Another thing he says about the matter is “There are almost no characters in this story, and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces.” I find it interesting when he says that there are no dramatic confrontations, because I think that he is saying that speaking up and confronting someone during a war could be perceived as going against your country and questioning them, which, in war, could cost you your life. Edgar Derby, the character who confronted someone, was later executed.
It is hard to connect this book to anything else because it is so original. The ideas are out of the ordinary, the imagery is sublime, and the plot and how he describes war is outlandish and unbelievable. Vonnegut puts so much thought into his writing and thinks of things from every aspect. Like on page 52 at the end of the first paragraph, when he even describes how the dog the Germans use is feeling: “She had never been to war before. She had no idea what game was being played. Her name was Princess.” It’s so simple, yet it makes you think so much. Very few authors have that ability. But, if I could compare anything in this novel to something in my life, it would be how the Tralfamadorian passages remind me so much of conversations with my freshman Humanities teacher, John Fisher. After reading the Tralfamadorian parts of the novel, I was left completely in awe. I would sit there and think it through for quite a long amount of time, wondering if what Vonnegut had said was true. Vonnegut made the Tralfamadorians sound so real and intelligent; it almost felt like what they were saying was true. The entire conversation about free will was enough to provoke a huge debate between mere high school kids who would normally rather be at home shooting zombies on a television screen. It was the same case in class last year. After my first official lecture on sociology, I went home and just thought… and thought… and eventually I ended up contemplating my entire existence. Mr. Fisher was able to take mouth-breathing arrogant children and get them to, God forbid, think about why things are the way they are. Vonnegut was able to do the same thing using the Tralfamadorians.
The first book we read, “All Quiet on the Western Front” by Erich Maria Remarque was completely different from “Slaughterhouse Five.” However, there is one part in Slaughterhouse that I believe strongly relates to AQotWF. On page 172 of “Slaughterhouse”, Billy and Valencia are celebrating their anniversary. A band starts playing a song that upsets Billy: “Gee, that song went, but I’d give the world to see that old gang of mine. And so on. A little later it said, So long forever, old fellows and gals, so long forever old sweethearts and pals—God bless ‘em—And so on.” This is similar to “All Quiet” in the way that both soldiers are upset by the losses of their comrades in the war. On page 139 of AQotWF, paragraph one, Paul lists all his friends who are currently dead. In paragraph two on the same page, he talks about how short life is and how he is hoping he can make the best of it before he dies as well. Throughout the book, Paul becomes more and more depressed until, on the last page, he declares that the war can take nothing from him. While both soldiers in these books are very different, they both feel drained from the war.
