 |
| "Parson Weems' Fable" (1939) by Grant Wood |
Does it expose him as an immoral opportunist?
Or does it reinforce his standing as an honest man?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Introduction #5: Vonnegut = a Nazi?
Does it expose him as an immoral opportunist?
Or does it reinforce his standing as an honest man?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my eyes, Vonnegut's claim at the end of the introduction shows that he is a man of honesty and more importantly that he is willing to be real with his readers. This claim can almost go back to our first question about who we pretend to be. When I read this, I see a man who is being completely true to himself and to reality. Vonnegut isn't pretending that he would have been an "anti-Nazi/saver of all the Jews" if he had been born in Germany. He is simply realizing the reality of what that situation would have most likely been. This claim doesn't really effect MY view on Vonnegut and his morals/values. I would say that his claim gives me a deeper appreciation for him. As I shared in the first question, I'm all about being true and being real to yourself. I appreciate Vonnegut's claim because he shows us who he is and what he is about right at the beginning. He isn't the kind of guy who will say what you want to hear, he speaks truth in his life. His morals may be questionable (such as his indifference to being a Nazi) and all his actions may not be noble, but I think truth and honesty should mean more than in this case.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut took a big risk by making the confession that he might have became a Nazi if certain circumstances were met in his life. I think that his remark was genuine simply because it was such an extreme thing to admit. Now whether this was brought on by immoral intentions or not is hard to decide. He might have had the same ideology that is similar to the Nazi's and felt that their actions were right, making him an anti-Semite. Another reason could be that he would stand behind his country in whatever choices it made, making him a devote patriot. Whatever the reasoning of the statement was, it is the reader's job to interpret his intentions as they read his work.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut displays his true character by flat out telling readers that he would have been a Nazi just like everyone else that grew up in Germany during the time of Hitler's reign. This action plunges, or should plunge, readers into the morality of Vonnegut. He is not afraid to be honest with his readers and that is something that people will genuinely appreciate. To declare to the world that he "would have been..." is a big difference then "could have been..." which is why this last remark sparks such an interest. I actually applaud Vonnegut for being able to be honest with the word. If people are going to be so judgmental that they think that Vonnegut is immoral then they are no better themselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first part of Nik's comment. I do like how blunt Vonnegut is about his own actions. Not that I agree with his views, but I appreciate how honest he is with everything he says, no sugar coating.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think that if someone considers Vonnegut immoral that they're judgmental; it's just an opinion that they've formed by reading the book. Everybody's got one.
I do not think that Vonnegut is an immoral opportunist because, like Kendall said, he is willing to be real with the readers. By Vonnegut admitting he would have been a Nazi if he was born in Germany does reveal his honesty, just as everyone has commented before, but Vonnegut also reveals how easily swayed he is.
ReplyDeleteSince he was born in America, his allegiance lies with the United States, but he could have gone off to say that if he were born in some far off country not involved in the world wars then he wouldn't have given war a passing thought. Some could say that he would have been a Nazi if he was born in Germany because the surroundings of where someone grows up dramatically influences their position. But I believe Vonnegut is almost weak-willed, letting his beliefs and loyalty depend on where he is born instead of thinking for himself and choosing a side based on reason.
To me, his statement only indicates that he is aware of the capacity he had to be a Nazi. Any of us have the ability to do almost anything, commit any atrocity, if the circumstances are right. If he had been raised in a different culture, if his surroundings had been different, his ideals would have been different. It does not reflect poorly on him. It is not necessarily his declaration of honesty, either. It demonstrates that he senses the possibility of all humans to act in completely different ways than they do, the great “what if” of life. However, Mother Night is a work of fiction, and the thoughts expressed may or may not be the deeply held beliefs of Vonnegut. Even though he wrote the introduction as himself, he refers to himself as merely an editor. Sometimes it is hard to know whether the thoughts are those of an author, or those of a character.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Vonnegut's opinion about being a Nazi had he grown up in Nazi Germany not only enforces the principle that Vonnegut wants to be honest with his readers, but also draws the reader deeper into the story with more thought-provoking ideas. I believe many people today can relate to Vonnegut's statement, in that had you grown up in the hostile environment Germany had to offer, many of us would've become a Nazi to "fit in" to the population as well as protect the safety of our families. Many of the so called Nazi's didn't become part of this hostile group because they wanted to, they partaked in these actions as they were pressured into joining the group or die. Vonnegut's statement is an honest statement meant for his readers to relate in their own ways.
ReplyDeleteWhen Vonnegut stated that he would have been a Nazi given the proper circumstances, my first reaction was disgust. However, after a brief amount of thought, that disgust turned into the sad realization that this fact is true for almost all members of the human race. While someone may say that they would have never joined the Nazi party no matter what the circumstances had been, they don’t realize that while we view the word “Nazi” as horrific or heinous, in those days in Germany, the word was associated with very different emotions. In Germany, “Nazi” was synonymous with pride, nationalism, and undying loyalty. Almost anyone who had been raised in that environment would have been Nazi, too. In those days, there really weren't many other viable options for Germans. So while Vonnegut’s statement reveals him as a very honest and sincere man, it also shows that he is very logical and analytical.
ReplyDeleteBy Vonnegut admitting that he would have been a Nazi had he been born at the right time in the right place (or wrong time in the wrong place) I believe he is really allowing the reader to understand him and his motives behind writing Mother Night a little more. Vonnegut does not have his protagonist come off as a hero despite the fact that Cambell was a spy for the United States and put his life at risk. He portrays Cambell more as someone who just did what they did to do it. Not for moral reasons or for love of country. Vonnegut's admission identifies him with his protagonist. He would have done whatever was there just because. Had he been born in Germany he would have become a Nazi. Had he been in Frank Cambell’s shoes, he probably would have become an American spy. Just like Evan said, probably a majority of the world population would do the same. They do what they do because it’s there. Not for real reasons.
ReplyDeleteWhen Vonnegut stated that he would have been a Nazi if he was born in Germany,in my opinion, makes him look like he is an immoral opportunist because in his statement it does not state anything about him not doing any sort of crime. But what Vonnegut said was that he isn't technically one of them and that he is not a Nazi.But its up to the reader to interpret the information given because, one can infer from his statement that Vonnegut was being innocent.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kendall, Vonnegut shows how real he will get with his readers by his ending remark in the introduction. I believe what he meant by “suppose he would’ve been a Nazi,” is that he wouldn’t have had a choice, but to be what he was made to be. But not only that, but he was strong enough emotionally to deal with it. Obviously, since we already know he did while he was assumed a Nazi, indeed. That doesn’t make him a good guy, but it doesn’t make him a bad guy, either.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read this question, I thought like many of you: Vonnegut is just being honest; people conform to their surroundings, etc. The more I got to thinking about it though, the more I started wondering about the immorality of the situation. Does the human race know good from evil? Do they know when something is inherently evil? When Vonnegut makes his claim that he probably would have been a Nazi too, he is disregarding his own sense of right and wrong. He is making a fallible assumption that all people in Germany during this time became Nazi's. True: much of the country and surrounding areas conformed to Nazism because of the wide spread propaganda. However, not all people did. There were still some people who knew what the Nazi party stood for was wrong and they fought against it. There were many Gentiles in Germany and neighboring countries that helped the Jews escape. These people were not influenced by the propaganda and their surroundings. They were instead directed by their own moral compass. So the question is: how easily are you persuaded and where does your moral compass lie?
ReplyDeleteI think it shows that he is an honest man. He is simply stating that if he had grown up in Germany then he would have most likely had the same attitude as all the other Germans in that time period. Few people would be willing to admit that their views would probably not be the same if they had been in the other person's shoes.
ReplyDelete