November 21, 2005
So it goes
Kurt Vonnegut is without a doubt my all-time favorite novelist. His observations on human nature and the depravity of society are typically dead on. But a recent interview makes me wonder if Vonnegut is losing his edge in his old age. Or maybe observations of the human condition are better made after long hours in front of a typewriter rather than during a on-the-spot interview.
Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.
"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."
Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: "I regard them as very brave people, yes."
He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman's 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
On the Iraq war, he said: "What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back."
Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."
I would prefer to read the original transcript of the interview before jumping to any conclusions, because the article appears to have arranged snippets to portray Vonnegut's comments negativley. Accusing Vonnegut of "defending terrorism" because he attempted to delve into the psyche of a suicide bomber makes me question the entire report. Perhaps he would have been better received if he had regurgitated moronic platitudes about them "hating us for our freedom" or blowing themselves just to "get 72 virgins in heaven."
It's not that he is entirely wrong; but what bothers me is what he leaves out (which is why I would like to see the full transcript). Surely Vonnegut recognizes the barbarity of targeting innocent civillians. As one who has written about war and lived through the bombing of Dresden, Vonnegut of all people should consider the murder of innocent civilians, whether by a super-power army or suicide bomber, as one of the most despicable acts imaginable.
UPDATE: Here is the author's account of the original interview. The interview was not centered around terrorism. Vonnegut gave honest answers to a few leading questions. The author seems intellectually lazy and predisposed to a certain response, but read the entire article and judge for yourself.
Next I ask him about terrorism. It's not for any particular reason. It just seems a relevant thing to ask a writer who has seen war, who has written of war and who lives in New York City, where terrorism's horror is understood so well."What about terrorists? Do you understand where they're coming from? Do you regard them as soldiers too?" I ask.
Vonnegut's reply is startling. "I regard them as very brave people, yes," he says without a moment's hesitation.
"You don't think that they're mad, that, you know, anyone who would strap a bomb to himself must be mad?"
"Well, we had a guy [president Harry Truman] who dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, didn't we?" he says.
"What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back. Peace wasn't restored in Vietnam until we got kicked out. Everything's quiet there now."
There's a long pause before Vonnegut speaks again: "It is sweet and noble - sweet and honourable I guess it is - to die for what you believe in."
This borders on the outrageous. Is the author of one of the great anti-war books of the 20th century seriously saying that terrorists who kill civilians are "sweet and honourable"?
I ask one more question: "But terrorists believe in twisted religious things, don't they? So surely that can't be right?"
"Well, they're dying for their own self-respect," Vonnegut fires back. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's [like] your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."
There's another long pause and Vonnegut's eyes suggest his mind has wandered off somewhere. Then, suddenly, he turns back to me and says: "It must be an amazing high."
"What?" I ask. "Strapping a bomb to yourself," he says. "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation ... must be an amazing high."
At this point, I give up. I can't be bothered asking him about any of the things I'd thought about: his mother's suicide, how he raised his sister's kids, the great writers he knew and partied with, how he looks back on Dresden.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at November 21, 2005 03:33 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ablogistan.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/128
Comments
"Surely Vonnegut recognizes the barbarity of targeting innocent civillians."
Well thats what the american military is doing -right now- in iraq. so it seems perfectly resonable that they should be fighting back with as much force (if not more as it is their homeland). you heard about the use of white pospherous, the horrible prison environments and the picking up of farmers, branded as terrorists right? I dont know why people, such as yourself, havent made the relatively small leap into thinking that maybe its not the best idea to save a country by blowing it and its people to bits.
the american people need to realize that when they elect people who perform horrible acts, they themselves are responsible for those acts. thats the other side to democracy and freedom. you have to pay for the choices your country, your govt, makes.
Posted by: joe anonymous at November 21, 2005 04:18 PM
Actually, I've written about the use of white phosphorus previously. Vonnegut's brilliance has been in recognizing the depravity of the entire human race, not limiting it to one culture or nationality. To justify one group's atrocities based on the atrocities of their enemy is an intellectual cop-out. There is a difference between understanding why people do something and condoning it. I think Vonnegut was simply trying to understand the suicide bomber's mentality, but the author made it seem as if he was condoning it.
Posted by: Elyas Bakhtiari at November 21, 2005 04:25 PM
