←back to thread

334 points musha68k | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
karaterobot ◴[] No.41896910[source]
> While The Sirens of Titan was a deeply cynical view of war, GHQ is deeply uncynical. In fact, his own pitch letters note that Vonnegut thought GHQ would be an excellent training aid for future military leaders, including cadets at West Point. How are modern audiences to reconcile those words from the same man who wrote Cat’s Cradle?

As we all know, authors can only write things they themselves believe wholeheartedly, and veterans have uncomplicated relationships with war. In general, people only hold simple, consistent positions that are legible to others. That's especially true if those people are introspective, creative types. So I agree, and this is a head-scratcher for me just like it is to the author of the article.

replies(12): >>41896954 #>>41896991 #>>41897048 #>>41897072 #>>41897102 #>>41897366 #>>41897405 #>>41897602 #>>41897703 #>>41897709 #>>41898401 #>>41899495 #
1. aprilthird2021 ◴[] No.41897405[source]
This argument is wild to me because anti-war types and protestors aren't, largely, against the military existing or being effective or good at its job. They usually just disagree with the aims or conduct of a particular campaign, or disagree about the cost-benefit ratio. Most people know a military is essential and want it to function properly