In our post for Jailbird, I found myself returning to the opening lines of Slaughterhouse-Five's final chapter as an elegant evocation of 1970s cultural malaise that began with a few violent acts in the late 60s. Now, as we begin our week with Vonnegut's 1982 novel, Deadeye Dick, we return to it once more — not to memorialize Robert Kennedy or Martin Luther King, but rather for the mention of Kurt Vonnegut's father and his gun collection, which factors heavily into the setting of Deadeye Dick.
As we've discussed in regards to several of the novels we've read this quarter, Vonnegut had issues with both of his parents that made their way into his writing. Still, it's not until we reach Deadeye Dick that we have Vonnegut's most sustained critique of his upbringing and his parents' failings, mixing thinly-veiled autobiography with fictional inventions to create the KV-analogue, Rudy Waltz. This frankness was a long time coming — Kurt Vonnegut, Sr. died in 1957, but it's notable Vonnegut kept the "Jr." suffix through Breakfast of Champions (a novel that represents, appropriately, a death-of-the-self). Conversely, it's fascinating to read the Waltz family against the hypothetical depiction of Vonnegut and his parents in heaven that begins Jailbird (which, though frustrated at times, does start with the touching wish that Vonnegut and his father might be better friends in the afterlife than they were on earth).
Should you be interested in more widely exploring Vonnegut's work at some point in the future, it's worth noting that aside from Midland City itself, a number of characters from books we're not reading this term can be found in Deadeye Dick — chief among them Dwayne and Celia Hoover (protagonists of Breakfast of Champions and Rabo Karabekian, protagonist of Bluebeard).
In a long and lavish review of Deadeye Dick for The New York Times — one marked, appropriately enough, by a retrospective mood — Benjamin DeMott addresses Vonnegut's detractors and offers a lovely summation of what marvelous gifts he offers to readers of all kinds, along with a prediction of how their (and perhaps your) appreciation for his work might evolve in time:
I know that on some days this very odd writer is good medicine, whatever one's age: on the day when, for instance, you hear that the shelling hasn't stopped, or that the liveliest young mind in your acquaintance can't find work, or that it's been decided, in the newspapers, that the operations mutilating a loved one are no longer regarded as correct procedures. One reason for this is that Vonnegut's inexplicables are admirably plain, homely, abundant, up front; there's no epistemological complication, few philosophical conundrums, just the improbable mess of any probable human week. And the other reason is that there's no cruelty in the man. He is, evidently, playing; take away the ever-present question (namely, How on earth can you explain this?) and his activities might not be easily distinguishable from those of a child setting up and batting down toy soldiers on a rug. But gloating and meanness are excluded from the game, and the observing eyes are sad, humorous, kind.
I predict that many Vonnegutians will grow up and away from their favorite author. I also predict that, a decade or two after they do so, many will grow back. The old rule applies: As soon as you put on weight on this earth, you discover it makes a kind of sense to lose it.
Here's our reading schedule for Deadeye Dick:
- Thursday, May 10: Deadeye Dick ch. 1 - 15
- Tuesday, May 15: Deadeye Dick ch. 16 - epilogue
And here are a few supplemental links:
One theme in Vonnegut’s novel Deadeye Dick is the character’s perception of time and how time changes perception. When Rudy Waltz is left in the prison for the people of Midland City to ridicule he thinks, “This was a planet where everything happens much too fast. I can hardly catch my breath” (82). Vonnegut plays around with the idea of time in a number of his novels. In Slaughterhouse Five the main character experiences a series of time travels to different events of his life. In God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, the main character completely forgets a whole year of his life. In Jailbird the main character spends most of his life in prison with nothing but time to keep him company. In Deadeye Dick, Rudy’s life is transformed by one second in time. This is the moment he triggers the gun out the window and kills Eloise Metzger and her unborn child. What is Vonnegut saying about the significance of time? How is the importance of time emphasized in the beginning of the novel and how does it affect the characters?
ReplyDeleteAnother theme in Deadeye Dick that is also an overarching theme for Vonnegut is the idea of sanity versus insanity. It seems that Vonnegut’s sane characters blame their actions on insanity and his insane characters blame their actions on morality. In Deadeye Dick Rudy states, “What was my own opinion of myself? I thought I was a defective human being, and that I shouldn’t even be on this planet anymore. Anybody who would fire s Springfield .30-06 over the rooftops of a city had to have a screw loose” (87). Do you believe that Rudy is insane or that he is just blaming his split decision of shooting the gun on insanity? How does this trauma affect the life of Rudy and his family? Is there any clear way to tell which of Vonnegut’s protagonists are sane or insane?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that Otto and his wife are useless and unable to do anything simply because they don't know anything else. So the responsibility falls on Otto's sons, Felix and Rudy. Felix makes the money to support himself, his brother and his useless mother and father. All the while, Rudy has to cook, clean and take care of his parents well into and past his college years. At such a young age, Felix and more so Rudy are forced to leave their short-lived childhoods, grow up and become men. Rudy is forced to grow up under unfortunate circumstances however. He earned his nickname for life, Deadeye Dick because he accidently shot a pregnant women right between the eyes. Rudy would characterize his ascent into manhood differently though, "I had been initiated into manhood. I had killed the chickens. Now I had been made master of all the guns and all this ammunition. It was something to savor." He added, "The bullet was a symbol, and nobody was ever hurt by a symbol. It was a farewell to my childhood and a confirmation of my manhood."(68,70) At the time, little did Rudy know that his symbol of manhood had killed a mother and her unborn child. What is Vonnegut trying to do here by presenting us with this image of Rudy's parents as helpless and useless people who can't do anything for themselves? And what about Felix who had to support the family? And Rudy who ascended into manhood with the symbolic firing of the Springfield or was it that manhood was forced upon him at the age of twelve after accidently murdering two people? What is Vonnegut trying to say about what it means to be a child and it what it means to be an adult? This was all at a time when America was sending babies off to war to kill in the name of liberty and justice. What is Vonnegut saying about cultural ideas at the time about manhood and the reality of manhood? Was American culture at the time saying that killing made you a man, or did killing force manhood on babies?
ReplyDelete-Jp White
When the husband of the wife Rudy killed came to see Rudy in his cell, he did not show Rudy hatred but sympathy and disgust for the police who had treated him like an animal. Here we see the American people demonizing Rudy and his father for the accidental murder of two people while they themselves were going off and supporting a war in Europe where countless numbers of innocent people were killed all in the name of justice and liberty. Vonnegut is calling out the hypocrisy of the American people who supported a war which killed hundreds of civilians and then demonized a father and son, calling them Nazis and murders, when they themselves were no better than the Nazis they fought against. Vonnegut also told us that Rudy's hometown, Midland was not destroyed but all the people in it are killed by a "Neutron Bomb" and that there is talk of making the town into a refugee camp. The American government takes the blame for the death of the whole town. What is Vonnegut doing here by killing off the entire town of Midland and all the people who had demonized Rudy for accidentally killing two people? The townspeople of Midland ultimately had an unexpected end and so who is demonized for this massacre? Vonnegut is asking what is the value of human life and what does it mean to take a life and be a murderer?
ReplyDelete-Jp White
Vonnegut as we well know was not very fond of Cornell among others things in his life as is anybody. In many of his books that we have read so far the main character often makes a crucial decision such as Rosewater leaving his riches behind and living in the town named after him, Paul having to decide whether or not to just bide into the system or fight it, or even something so plain as Billy marrying his wife which he admits to regretting to a point due to her being ugly. In Deadeye Dick he states "That is my principal objection to life, I think: It is too easy, when alive, to make perfectly horrible mistakes." (6) Does Vonnegut say this in reference to his own life in a way does he wish he could change events in his life? Does he ultimatley believe that maybe in his writings his characters make horrible decisions? It is clear that as people we all do make mistakes but rarely does a character in a book or the author state it so bluntly. This line at least caught my eye more so than most.
ReplyDelete-Richard Marnell
Another part in the book that caught my attention is the part on page 114 when Rudy says an English teacher gave him a prayer that said God moves in mysterious ways. Even though Vonnegut does not believe in a particular religion he can seem at least spiritual in some aspects of his writings. Even though in the pervious response I questioned Vonnegut's use for writing we all make horrible choices in putting this particular prayer in his book his way of saying despite the horrible choices you make or that he made ultimately is ok with what has happened. Vonnegut made it through the War, he made it through life for the most part, he ended up as a writer even though he orginially studied Chemistry. For Vonnegut to live the life he lived and end up doing the things he did it is clear if there is a God he does work in mysterious ways.
ReplyDelete-Richard Marnell
The very last sentences of Vonnegut’s novel Deadeye Dick gives us an idea of Vonnegut’s view of the world that we live in. He says, “You want to know something. We are still in the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages—they haven’t ended yet”. As one might know, the Dark Ages refers to the fall of the Roman Empire and the years following were characterized by culture, social, and economic deterioration. These ending lines give reason to the whole novel and they can be related to almost every event that takes place in the book. Is Vonnegut’s main aspect of the novel trying to portray an underlining message that however chaotic, unclear, and out of order the world may be, it is survivable to the accidental mess of anyone?
ReplyDelete-Megan Obermeyer
Once again the author, Kurt Vonnegut, portrays himself in the life of his characters. In Slaughterhouse Five, he uses the main character, Billy Pilgrim, to tell of his personal war stories that are otherwise unbearable to discuss if associated to the author himself. In the novel, Deadeye Dick, Vonnegut tells us in the preface “The neutered pharmacist who tells the tale is my declining sexuality. The crime he committed in childhood is all the bad things I have done”. Rudy Waltz, the neutered pharmacist, is the main character. We see throughout the book that Rudy tells his stories in forms of plays, or incorporating recipes. “I have this trick for dealing with all my worst memories. I insist that they are plays. The characters are actors. Their speeches and movements are stylized, arch. I am in the present of art”. Are Vonnegut’s strategies representatives of the way that all men cope with a world of accident?
ReplyDelete-Megan Obermeyer
“To be is to do” – Socrates.
ReplyDelete“To do is to be” – Jean-Paul Sartre.
“Do be do be do” – Frank Sinatra.
(224)
A Vonnegut character (for the third time?) yet again quotes a bathroom wall. The first two from Socrates and Sartre are obvious throw backs to the debate of Rudy’s killing. Pulling the trigger of the Springfield .30-06 was to do, or was the doing the act of being- the becoming of a man? The playful Vonnegut a la Frank Sinatra, reason is “Do be do be do.”….here’s that cat, here’s the cradle. We’ve not really discussed why we think Rudy pulled the trigger, “I could let the down the hammer gently, without firing the cartridge. And then I could withdraw the bolt, which would extract the live cartridge and throw it away. But I squeezed the trigger instead.” (62)
Why do you think Rudy did it?
“You want to know something? We are still in the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages- they haven’t ended yet.”
ReplyDeleteThe last lines of the book can be traced back to the middle of the book, Rudy in the display jail cell. This statement of the non-development of humans and it’s follow up sentence a morbid punctuation “they haven’t ended yet.” This is a pretty typical Vonnegut stance of dire view of the world’s humanity. How do Vonnegut’s characters deal with what they most often see as an inevitability of a human’s path to death via destruction?
“You want to know something? We are still in the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages- they haven’t ended yet.” (240)
ReplyDeleteSorry, forgot to the add page number the first time.