Chapter 10: Rhetorical Question: “Poo-tee-weet?”
There is
nothing that can be said about a massacre. That is why Vonnegut uses
“Poo-tee-wee?” at the end of his book. There are no words that can describe the
massacre of Dresden and there never will be. I feel as if this question,
“Poo-tee-weet?” was use by Vonnegut to get a strong response from the reader.
He meant to leave this unanswered in order to allow the audience of Slaughterhouse
Five to create their own reactions and thoughts to his anti-war novel. All that
rushed through my brain when I read that last question at the end of the book
was, what happened? What is there to do now? How…? What is going on…?!? This
left me speechless and I am pretty sure that was what Vonnegut was getting at. Vonnegut
ends his thought of war with a rhetorical
question and a simple response to the death and bloodshed of the bombing of
Dresden. This “Poo-tee-weet” or chirping of innocent birds is what was needed
to end a book that had no words that would have done it justice to begin with.
I think, aside from your point, the question of "Poo-tee-weet?" also harkens back to earlier in the story, where Vonnegut himself states "[the story] is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam, because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre". The book ends on a birdsong because Vonnegut can say nothing more intelligent about the massacre that had just occurred.
ReplyDeleteI agree with just about everything you said here. I wanted to elaborate on the whole "what happens now?" mentality after finishing the book. This was the way Vonnegut wanted the readers to think about the massacre and the effects of the war. He wasn't supposed to survive. His voice wasn't supposed to be heard, as everything is supposed to be "quiet" after a massacre. The government even went out of its way to try to keep the bombing of Dresden a secret. They didn't want to hear his voice, the survivor of a highly questionable and inhumane attack on an open city.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Vonnegut was trying to evoke a strong response from the reader with this question. I thought this was a very creative way to prove his point that there is nothing important to say about a massacre. I thought this was a powerful and interesting ending to the book.
ReplyDelete