So It Goes

Is dying for your country in wartime altruistic? Honorable?

Vonnegut feels that war is meaningless – does he therefore believe that it is not altruistic or honorable to die for your own country? I would say no. Vonnegut, through the progression of the characters in his novel is more specifically trying to criticize the men who are sent over to war, and are still clueless about what they are fighting for. With the exception of Edgar Derby, every soldier depicted in Slaughterhouse Five seems oblivious, naïve, child-like- especially Billy. At one point, Billy is dressed in a blue curtain toga; shiny silver boots and has a fur muff. He is also once described as a “flamingo” and Vonnegut is continually referencing how “clownish” Billy is. His point in alienating Billy is to illuminate the foolishness of sending children to war, who don’t even recognize what they are fighting for. David Friedman adequately reflects Vonnegut’s sentiments towards “The Children’s Crusade” in this famous quote:

“The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.”

How can someone be considered altruistic if they die for a cause they didn’t know they were fighting for? I personally don’t think this act is altruistic. War in general, is foolish and romanticized. I think one of the biggest ways war is romanticized is through the thought that it is so honorable to fight and die for one’s country. While I greatly respect the soldiers fighting for my freedom, Vonnegut prompted me to ponder the purpose of war. The answer? There is no purpose, only pointless brutality, destruction of lives, and in the end, you’re only left with “three armies - an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves. “

Thick Love

“Love either is or it aint. Thin love aint love at all.”

Was Sethe’s violence to her children altruistic, sacrificial, or evil?

To the unassuming public, Sethe’s gruesome violence towards her children—harming three of them and killing one—would undoubtedly be considered murder. But as Morrison exposes Sethe’s mind, heart and emotions, her intentions are evident.

She killed Beloved to save her.

… from Sweet Home, from slavery, from any pain.

While certainly unnatural, strange and disturbing, Sethe’s intentions can be weirdly understood. But did Sethe truly save her daughter, her Beloved, by killing her? That answer, clear as mud, I’m sure will be debated forever.

In my opinion Sethe’s act was altruistic in the sense that she loved her child so much, she was willing to sacrifice her love and her daughter, to prevent her from experiencing the horrors that she faced at Sweet Home. And while it is understandable that a potent combination of destructive pain, temporary insanity, loneliness and the past prompted Sethe to harm her children, I still question the necessity of her act. Aren’t there other options: couldn’t she have run away with her children to hid? What bothers me even more is Sethe’s lack of regret when reflecting on that horrible day. While she initially suffers in pure ignorance and denial of the reality of Beloved’s apparition, when she finally recounts the story to Paul D, she shows no remorse. She sincerely believed she did the right thing by killing her daughter. How can it be the right thing? I found myself agreeing with Paul D when he reacted to the story with “You’ve got two legs Sethe, not four” indicating the presence of some sort of beast in Sethe that prompted the killing. But from Sethe’s perspective, that beast inside of her was love- passionate, “I’ll do absolutely anything for you” kind of love. Her immense love for her children transformed into a subhuman creature. (Similar to the instance at Sweet Home when Schoolteacher is teaching his nephews about “blacks” and tells them to write “human characteristics” on one side and “animal characteristics” on the other.

This realization led me to the conclusion that,

Love is not always beautiful, but it is never ugly.

The Stranger

I think Albert Camus had many purposes in writing The Stranger. Not only did he expose his feelings towards the meaninglessness of life, the emphasis on the physical world, and the lack of rationality in the universe, but he managed to create a main character so strange and so distant from the reader that allowed for a certain vulnerability and newfound openness. He successfully revealed how quick we are to judge, and the danger of conforming to society's norms. While it is still debatable whether Meursault is a true hero, it is certain that the reader finishes The Stranger with an odd but sympathetic relationship with Meursault, and a greater understanding of the universe.

What is unclear to me about The Stranger, is whether any element of sacrifice is included at all. While Meursault is very easygoing and tends to go along with any plans his friends have, by no means is he selfless. He does things that other's tell him to simply because he has no reason not to. He doesn't help Raymond because he firmly believes in their friendship or in order to save him - he is even somewhat annoyed when Raymond calls him "pal." He helps Raymond with an attitude of "Why Not?" This attitude carries throughout the novel, coming off as apathetic and indifferent. Meursault does not sacrifice anything for anyone- evident in the fact that he is peeved by how long the journey is to his own mother's funeral. Because this novel is written in first person limited, we are restricted to only Meursault's thoughts, making it very difficult to understand the human nature of other characters in this novel such as Marie, Raymond, and Salamano.

Perhaps the absence of any sign of altruism is Camus' way of expressing that he thinks sacrifice, especially religiously speaking, is not necessary to the functioning of society. (this is also seen in the way Camus' portrays the Chaplin as over the top, narrow minded & judgmental.)

While Camus' uncovered many universal truths and exposed the judgmental aspect of human nature, he did not even address the theme of sacrifice. So, in relation to my big question, I began to wonder, can there be a world without the existence of sacrifice?