|
Ok let me try to explain why I find the analogy between SlaughterHouse 5 and Waiting a valid one (although I admit perhaps not the best one).
Both tackle the trouble of narrative in a kind of post-war scenario, which seems to have shattered the possibility of narrative. In Slaughterhouse 5 the Dresden bombing is the point of destruction. In Waiting even the destruction is hidden. There is only the present which seem to stretch it self indefinitely into the past and future (unless some difference comes from outside of the characters). Likewise time in Slaughterhouse 5 is entirely outside of the characters. The experiences of past, present and future has been preordained in some mysterious way. The difference is that the author of Slaughterhouse resigns to an acceptance of the eternal status quo of everything, thus in the end justifying the bombing (and future bombings) as inevitable, while Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot tries to make time go, to start some sort of narrative by their own doing.
Both tackles the trouble of language: There are no words to express the horrors of the Dresden Bombings, so in fact it becomes a loss of experience. The author can only come to terms with the events by narrating a universe where all determining agents in life is outside of people themselves (and so is narrative it seems... after all everything exists in both the past, present and future). We are all bystanders to our own life. "So it goes" as he again and again puts it.
In the same sense Vladimir and Estragon are caught up in their own futile language games, which may pass time, but cannot do anything else than that. They too are caught up in events (or no events happening) by some sort of will outside themselves. Past, present and future are all the same for them, unless the mysterious Godot moves it along.
But where the characters of Waiting for Godot wants to find meaning, make time go, evolve, the impression I got from Slaughterhouse 5 is much more an acceptance of powerlessness. It's an acceptance of "so it goes". The Dresden bombings are ultimately just a peculiarity of no importance in Slaughterhouse 5s notion of time. Because nothing ever dies, and everything exists to all time. Of course I do read the scifi dimension of the novel as a way for the author to come to terms with his own experience of powerlessness (both as a writer, who can't find the words and as a man who can't integrate the experiences in an understanding of his own life (because the experiences are at its core void of meaning)). So the experience of the bombings ultimately leads to the idea that no experience matters at all, because they just are a part of this determined universe, you can do nothing about. That may be a survival strategy for the person, who has experienced unfathomable tragedy. But for the notion of learning from the mistakes of the past or for a respect for the victims, it does absolutely nothing. So goes it.
Theodor W. Adorno said that after Auzschwitz no one could ever again write poetry. That doesn't mean that he thought, we shouldn't try.
|