Across the Species Boundary：Dethroning the”Paragon of Animals”
Slaughterhouse-Five：A Story of Blurred Boundaries
What a piece of work is a man， how noble in reason， how infnite in faculties， in form and moving how express and admirable， in action how like an angel， in apprehension how like a god！The beauty of the world， the paragon of animals！（Hamlet，Ⅱ，ii）
For centuries， Hamlet's eulogy of man as“the paragon of animals”next only to angels and God in the Great Chain of Being has been regarded as one of the finest expressions of man's successful elevation from the world of beasts。 It consummately sums up the Western belief since Aristotle that man is apart from and superior to animals。With its assistance， the insuperable line between humans and animals has become further fortifed。
However， while canonizing Hamlet's celebration of man's nobility and power， we cannot ignore the following part of the speech：“and yet， to me， what is this quintessence of dust？/Man delights not me—nor woman neither， though by your smiling you/seem to say so。”After all， Hamletis making the remarks to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern， who he knows very well are sent by the king to test his state of sanity。 Is Hamlet serious with his laudatory evaluation of man， or he is simply poking fun at the prevailing Renaissance concept， as he does many other conventions of the era in his feigned madness？
In Slaughterhouse-Five（1969），Vonnegut gives his answer。 In a novel that is based on real war experiences and is supposed to be a protest against war， Vonnegut creates a gallery of animal images：dogs， horses， pigs， birds， giraffes， snakes， bugs， flamingos， carps， etc。Besides these individual images， the two overarching images of the novel are definitely animal-ridden：the slaughterhouse and the zoo。In a word， there are more animal images in Slaughterhouse-Five than we tend to believe。As Erica Fudge points out in her study of the human-animal relationship in early modern English culture，“humans define themselves as human in the face of animal”（Fudge 2000：1）。With these animal images both as subject matter and rhetorical vehicle， Vonnegut investigates the meaning of humanity and tinkers with the idea of the insuperable line。What he achieves upgrades the book from simply another anti-war novel to a masterpiece of critique of humanity。As to the Hamlet riddle， his answer is unequivocally negative：No。Man is not the“paragon of animals”。At best， he is one of them；at worst， he is even lower。
In Timequake（1997），the author's self-alleged last novel， an autobiographical mixture of experience， thought， and imagination， Vonnegut distinguishes two kinds of writers：swoopers and bashers。
Writers who are swoopers， it seems to me， find it wonderfulthat people are funny or tragic or whatever， worth reporting， without wondering why or how people are alive in the frst place。
Bashers， while ostensibly making sentence after sentence as efficient as possible， may actually be breaking down seeming doors and fences， cutting their ways through seeming barbed-wire entanglements， under fre and in an atmosphere of mustard gas， in search of answers to these eternal questions。“What in heck should we be doing？What in heck is really going on？”（T 138）
In the essay， Vonnegut classifies himself as a“basher”，and he is fair。 Sorting out entangled truth from lies， breaking down barriers and difficulties that block understanding， battling his way through suspicion， criticism， and even scorn， in a stubborn effort to seek answers to sophomoric but essential questions such as the meaning of life，is exactly what he has been doing in his five-decade career as a writer and public spokesman。
The statement well describes， in particular， the writing process of Slaughterhouse-Five（1969），his“famous Dresden book”that took him twenty three years to fnish。 Besides the pain and frustration Vonnegut has to go through in writing this book， as well as the bombardment of negative reviews he has to face， the statement stakes out a momentum that has been largely ignored in Vonnegut scholarship-the impulse to disrupt established borderlines。
The genesis of Slaughterhouse-Five can be said to be propelled by a moral quandary of side-taking。 The Dresden story， after all， is about the indiscriminate killing of German civilians by the Allies， a military act that lacked sound strategic ground since， frst， Dresden was an open city and had gathered thousands of refugees and captives but little military defense， second， Hitler's army had already been put to rout by the time the Allies launched the destructive bombing， so the military necessity of the bombing is dubious。Therefore， in the bombing that claimed 135，000 lives， mostly civilians and refugees， there was serious confusion of the innocent and the evil， the just and the unjust， the right and the wrong。Vonnegut， as an American veteran， was to write a book condemning the atrocity on the side of the Allies while everyone was well-informed of the wickedness of Nazi Germany。This was one of the biggest diffculties he had to deal with。Whenever he began to talk about the horror of this man-made disaster， people would tell him how much more evil deeds the Nazis had committed：
I happened to tell a University of Chicago professor at a cocktail party about the raid as I had seen it， about the book I would write。 He was a member of a thing called The Committee on Social Thought。And he told me about the concentration camps， and about how the Germans had made soap and candles out of the fat of dead Jews and so on。（SF 10）
In the fctional part of the book， the concern of moral positioning is addressed again， with more explicit moral judgment， in the mouth of Ira C。 Eaker， retired Lieutenant General of U。S。A。F。In the foreword he writes for The Destruction of Dresden， a book written by an Englishman named David Irving， the Lieutenant General remarks：
I fnd it diffcult to understand Englishmen or Americans who weep about enemy civilians who were killed but who have not shed a tear for our gallant crews lost in combat with a cruel enemy。[……]I think it would have been well for Mr。 Irving to have remembered， when he was drawing the frightful pictures of the civilians killed at Dresden， that V-I's and V-2's were at the very time falling on England， killing civilian men， women， and children indiscriminately， as they were designed and launched to do。It might be well to remember Buchenwald and Coventry， too。
[……]
I deeply regret that British and U。 S。bombers killed 135，000 people in the attack on Dresden， but I remember who started the last war and I regret even more the loss of more than 5，000，000 Allied lives in the necessary effort to completely defeat and utterly destroy nazism[sic]。（SF 187）
For both the University professor and the Lieutenant General， the logic is a sound one：Because Hitler started the war and because the Nazis had done unbelievable atrocity against humanity， it was justifable for the Allies to do similar things to his people；any guilt can be expiated in such acts。 Even for people who saw the logic mistaken， such as the British Air Marshal Saundby who admitted in embarrassment that“the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny”（SF 187），they chose to keep their mouths shut or tried to play it down by emphasizing the wickedness of the Nazis。This was what baffed Vonnegut：“Probably the most curious thing， in retrospect， is that I think I'm the only person who gives a damn that Dresden was bombed， because I have found no Germans to mourn the city， no Englishmen”（CKV 231）。So when Vonnegut decided to write about the destruction of Dresden， it was like tackling a moral taboo，“to speak the unspeakable”（Allan 1991：77）。
But the urge to tell was irresistible。“[I]t seemed a categorical imperative that I write about Dresden， the frebombing of Dresden， since it was the largest massacre in the history of Europe and I am a person of European extraction and I， a writer， had been present”（CKV 230）。 To resolve the tricky situation of positioning， however， Vonnegut needed first to overcome the suppressive ideology of political correctness， to“break down seeming doors and fences”。His unique identity as a German-American who suffered anti-German sentiments as a youth and who thensurvived the destruction of Dresden by the Allies as an American POW in German captivity turns out to be useful。It offered him a middle ground where the victim and victimizer would meet， where their identities became complicated and interchangeable， and where the issue of right and wrong could be approached from multiple perspectives。Consequently， disrupting and crossing the borderline became a preferred mode of narrative。
Stylistically， the entire story of Billy Pilgrim is based on borderline transgression， of reality and fantasy， facts and fiction， present， past， and future。 Being“unstuck in time”，Billy travels between all the three temporal dimensions， between the American contemporary life of the 1960s and his experiences as a POW during WW Ⅱin Germany。Kidnapped by the Tralfamadorians， either in the science-fction reality or in his schizophrenic illusion， Billy’s story is further complicated with experiences on an extraterrestrial planet， adding to the story one more spatial dimension。On the level of narratology， the book itself features an intricate interplay of facts and fction， history and fabulation， autobiography and historiography。The two chapters at the beginning and the end of the book are both the author’s truthful accounts of himself， about his writing of the book and his experiences during and after the war。They serve as the traditional prologue and epilogue to the book， in this sense。But they also constitute the framework of the story， begin and conclude it， and are thus part of the narrative。Meanwhile， the author constantly pops up in the midst of narration， reassuring the reader that， for example，“I was there”（SF 67），and“That was I。That was me”（SF 125，148）。The distinction between fction and fact is thus undermined。
In terms of identity， examples of blurred borderlines in Slaughterhouse-Five are numerous。 Billy Pilgrim and Roland Weary are captured by the German soldiers behind the German lines， a real borderline that is broken down after the Battle of the Bulge， victorious on the German side。When they are found by the Germans， instead of fighting against their enemy， the two Americans are having a war within themselves—Weary is beating Billy to death because the latter's unwillingness to live has caused Weary to be ditched by the two American Scouts with whom Weary fancies himself as the Three Musketeers。In contrast to Weary's brutality， one of the Germans“helped[Billy]to his feet”and the others“came to dust the snow off Billy”（SF 53），all of which are gestures of kindness but demonstrated by the enemies。The German that helps Billy up is a ffteen-year-old boy。To Billy， the boy is a“blond angel”，a“heavenly androgyne”，“as beautiful as Eve”（SF 53）。An implied mistrust of the traditional gender distinction is discernible in such a portrayal。In Dresden， the young guard， Werner Gluck， was“tall and weak like Billy”，and“might have been a younger brother of his。They were， in fact， distant cousins， something they never found out”（SF 158）。
Here is a more conspicuous challenge of political identities—that enemies are actually relatives， which could be true， considering the shared ancestral origin of Americans and Europeans。In this sense， all human beings are relatives， as descendants of Adam and Eve according to Christianity， or as Homo sapiens descending from Australopithecus according evolutionary theories and anthropology， a subject Vonnegut majored in for his MA。Then we have Howard W。Campbell， who is an American but turns into an ambitious Nazi， and the German couple， who show humane concern for the suffering horses that draw Billy's wagon。In all these cases， identities， particularly political identities， become indeterminate and fluid， sometimes even reversed。Judgment of good or bad， right or wrong， friend or enemy is no longer as easy as pie。
So indeed， one of the most important dynamics of the book is the urge of transgression：nothing remains fxed and certain；nothing is clear-cut and self-contained。 There is always the impulse of“becoming”the other between the dualistic opposition of“either……or……”，turning the prejudicial binary structure into a more tolerant， inclusive“both……and……”。As Lundquist puts it while examining the novel's innovative technique，“thenovel functions to reveal new viewpoints in somewhat the same way that the theory of relativity broke through the concepts of absolute space and time”（71）。In this way， Vonnegut challenges the Western thinking tradition that privileges one over the other， usually to the interest of those in power。By so doing， he not only redresses the moral implications of the Dresden frebombing， but opens fre at the entire Western civilization， as is alluded to in the name of the subject Edgar Derby teaches at high school before entering the war，“Contemporary Problems in Western Civilization”（SF 83）。
On the species level， there is even stronger implication of identity fluidity and impulses of“becoming”。 Much of the blurring of identity borderline， in effect， is achieved through the images of animals。Throughout the novel， the condition of humans are constantly paralleled and put in juxtaposition with that of animals， either by means of comparison and metaphor or in parallel depictions of realistic experiences。For example， wretched， lanky， and poorly donned Billy Pilgrim is compared to a“flthy famingo”（SF 33）。Emerging cautiously from their hiding place， the four stray American soldiers“crawl into a forest like the big， unlucky mammals they were”（SF 39）。Paul Lazzaro， a paranoid sadist， imagines himself to become a dog shot dead by a policeman who then sends his head to a laboratory for examination of rabies（SF 144）。Likewise， in his morphine-induced dream， Billy sees himself walking leisurely among giraffes in a garden， he himself a giraffe， too， chewing a juicy pear。“The giraffes accepted Billy as one of their own， as a harmless creature as preposterously specialized as themselves”（SF 99）。
Two female giraffes actually kiss him with their bell-like lips。Introducing the slaughterhouse for the frst time， the narrator hints at the shared fate between the American prisoners and that of the pigs waiting to be butchered：“It had been built as a shelter for pigs about to be butchered。Now it was going to serve as a home away from home for one hundred American prisoners of war”（SF 152）。Tralfamadorians are capable of metaphor， too。Explaining the uselessnessof the Earthling free will， the Tralfamadorian guide tells Billy that they are all but“bugs trapped in amber”（SF 77，86）。
On the realistic level， human experiences are also juxtaposed with those of animals。 An underlying comparison can be found in Roland Weary and the two horses that draw Billy's wagon。Both are miserable creatures suffering from excruciating pain in the feet：Weary suffers because he is forced by the German captors into a pair of hinged clogs that transform his feet“into blood puddings”（SF 64），while the horses suffer because their hooves are broken“so that every step meant agony”（SF 196），as a result of heavy burden and lack of care。Beast or human， they are both victims of unconcern that results in cruelty。As for the agent of the infiction， it makes little difference whether it is American or German。
In the episode when Billy and Weary are captured by Germans， there is a detailed deion of the dog that comes along。
The dog， who had sounded so ferocious in the winter distances， was a female German shepherd。 She was shivering。Her tail was between her legs。She had been borrowed that morning from a farmer。She had never been to war before。She had no idea what game was being played。Her name was Princess。（52）
The dog is obviously in great fear。 She is not bred for the war and is completely confused now that she is forced into one。The dog poses a mirror for the Germans that bring her here。Of the fve， two were boys in their early teens， two others were too old to fight，“droolers as toothless as carp”（SF 52）。As a matter of fact， they are farmers from just across the German border，“armed and clothed fragmentarily with junk taken from real soldiers who were newly dead”（SF 52）。Their commander is the only real， middle-aged soldier， but he has been patched up from wounds four times， becomes“sick of war”，and is“about to quit， about to fnd somebody to surrender to”（SF 53）。The mirror of the dog also gives refection of theAmericans：Billy Pilgrim， Roland Weary， Edgar Derby， and many other American soldiers are also described as either too young or too old or too sick to fght in the war。
“You were just babies then，”said Mary O'Hare to Vonnegut when he was visiting his war buddy for war memories（SF 14）。The gathering of weakling soldiers fulfills Vonnegut's promise to Mary that he is not going to write a war novel that features tough men like John Wayne。He will call the book“The Children's Crusade”，Mary is assured（SF 15），and it turns true。Like the female shepherd， the young soldiers are not here to fght a glorious war， but to suffer and have their beautiful youth， or even life， bereft。Ironically， the name of the dog， the narrator emphatically informs us， is“Princess”。The fairy tale heroine that is supposed to be noble， beautiful， and innocent is transformed into a pathetic， scared， and bewildered creature。In face of the tyranny of the war machine， German or American， human or animal， all share the same fate—to be victimized and become cannon fodder。
There is a common feature among most of Vonnegut's representation of animals：anti-anthropomorphism， which Steve Baker terms as“theriomorphism”（1993：108）。 Instead of following the western tradition of anthropomorphism， a rhetoric of representing animals from the perspective of humans， attributing to nonhuman animals characteristics commonly regarded as exclusively or predominantly human， such as speaking， thinking， and emotions， Vonnegut does the opposite—he describes humans in terms of animals。So lonely and awkward Billy Pilgrim becomes a dirty flamingo and a preposterous giraffe；the four American soldiers crawl like mammals；the German guards peeked into Billy's car“owlishly”and“cooed like doves”to the American prisoners（SF 80）。Either on the foor of the boxcar or in the Englishmen's theatre in the prison， American prisoners of war“made nests”and“nestled”like spoons to sleep（SF 144，70）。The German reserves take“wolfsh bites”from sausages（SF 64），and the American turncoat Howard W。Campbell is called a snake（SF 164）。Even when personifcation is used， such as the birds described as talking to Billy Pilgrim after the frebombing， the animals talk in their own language， inscrutable to the human understanding。
In such reversed comparisons， Vonnegut disrupts the long-established Western human/animal hierarchy and gives relentless exposition of the chaotic existentialist condition war has turned existence into。 If the anthropomorphic representation of animals is essentially anthropocentric， obliterating the non-human experience and replacing it entirely by the human， theriomorphic treatment of the distinction bears out the animal part in the human and measures human behavior against the attributes of animality， thus rejects the human separation from and superiority to the nonhuman。Speaking of humanity in terms of animality， Vonnegut debunks the human pomposity as the superior being and elucidates their similarity with the other animals， which becomes particularly glaring in times of war， as the modern warfare strips man of all the halo of glory and degrades him to the base state of existence。Dignity， beauty， rationality， free will—all the supposed human advantages are under merciless trial。
When Billy and other American prisoners are put into the train boxes to be taken to Dresden， the German guards write specifcations about the prisoners on each of the boxcars， the way people do with lifeless freight， or at best， speechless stock animals。 To the German guards， each car does become“a single organism which ate and drank and excreted through its ventilators”（SF 70）。
Even though Billy's train wasn't moving， its box-cars were kept locked tight。 Nobody was to get off until the fnal destination。To the guards who walked up and down outside， each car became a single organism which ate and drank and excreted through its ventilators。It talked or sometimes yelled through its ventilators， too。In went water and loaves of black bread and sausage and cheese， and out came shit and piss and language。
Human beings in there were excreting into steel helmets which were passed to the people at the ventilator， who dumped them。 Billy was a dumper。The human beings also passed canteens， which guards would fll with water。When food came in， the human beings were quiet and trusting and beautiful。They shared。
Human beings in there took turns standing or lying down。 The legs of those who stood were like fence posts driven into a warm squirming， farting， sighing earth。The queer earth was a mosaic of sleepers who nestled like spoons。（SF 70）
Here in the voice of the omniscient narrator the American soldiers are no longer referred to by any of their cultural or social identities， such as nationality， rank， or name， but by an all-inclusive， identity-erasing biological term：“human beings”。 All distinctions as individuals are eliminated， only the biological and anthropological features as a species retain。They are depicted， in effect， very much like a herd of animals， with the only exception of language。But the meaning and function of language is undercut to the minimum。It is actually paralleled to“shit and piss”in a sense that it is only another biological trait of the human beings。We seem to hear Vonnegut questioning Hamlet's famous speech：Where is the nobility of man？How is the divinity？Is this beauty？It is true that it is the war that degrades human beings， but if humanity is capable of being brought down， isn't it possible that the Renaissance ideal of humanism is but hubris and a self-fattering lie？
The implied comparison of prisoners to livestock leads to the association of another form of discrimination：slavery。 Boxcars are also called“cattle-cars”，as they are mainly used for transporting cattle。Cattle-cars， in turn， are allusive to“cattle-boats”，the vehicle that carried slaves in great number through the“Middle Passage”。For anybody that has some background knowledge of the Second World War， cattle-cars also call to mind the tens of thousands of Jews and others that were transported to theconcentration camps。As Marjorie Spiegel points out，“this is not just an eccentricity of our language”（Spiegel 52）。The conditions of these vehicles are indeed shockingly similar， all featuring flth， limited space， lack of care， and death。Millions of slaves and animals die on the way of transportation。In Slaughterhouse-Five， unattended deaths also occur in the boxcars， such as Wild Bob， the hobo， and Weary Roland。The implication of speciesism juxtaposed with racism is prominent。
In reality， the war that Billy Pilgrim is made part of is ideologically based on the collaboration of racism and speciesism。 The rhetoric that Hitler used to legitimize the subjugation and the genocide of the Jews and other racial groups is the dualism between Aryans and“subordinate”beings， the former represented as“superordinate”，the“master race”，while the latter as fundamentally different and biologically inferior， as“non-human entities such as animals， reptiles and bacteria”（Johnson 209）。As Victoria Johnson points out， Hitler actually used the term“species”interchangeably with“race”in Mein Kampf（204）。He drew upon the Western cultural stereotypical concepts that viewed Europeans as naturally superior to Africans， Indians， and Asian races and the widely accepted colonial practices to construct a worldview where separate species and“inferior races”became interchangeable in his rhetoric（Johnson 209）。For example， as Kete notes， in a reversed human/animal hierarchy， Jews and Slavics were placed with rats， below eagles and wolves and pigs（20）。The Nazi narratives justifying the domination of human subordinates， Johnson contends， are strikingly similar to the beliefs about animals that human beings use to justify the exploitation and killing of nonhuman beings。
In Slaughterhouse-Five， we see the impulse of racial criticism in the narrator's deion of the hanging Billy witnesses of a Polish farmer who had sexual intercourse with a German woman（SF 156），and in his reference to the Polish people as“the involuntary clowns of the Second World War”（SF 197）。 The deion of tens of thousands of Americanprisoners with their hands on top of their heads moving through a valley as“a Mississippi of humiliated Americans”，sighing and groaning（SF 64），easily reminds us of the black slaves that were put into misery and suffering on the American Southern plantation。The Mississippi river， after all， is laden with associations of the inhumanity in the slave trade。Accidentally， the very book that gives the fullest account of the injustice and cruelty of slavery—Uncle Tom's Cabin—is mentioned by the end of the book， in full commendation（SF 206）。We see， too， implied parallel of racism and speciesism in the deliberate emphasis that the fat from both animals and humans are used in daily functions by the Nazis。The candles and soaps the British prisoners give to the American new arrivals in the prisoner camp“were made from the fat of rendered Jews and Gypsies and fairies and communists， and other enemies of the States”（SF 97），while the axles of the two-wheeled cart that Derby and Billy push to the kitchen in the Dresden slaughterhouse“were greased with the fat of dead animals”（SF 157）。
To sum up， the boundary between animals and humans are constantly under attack in Slaughterhouse-Five。 In the theriomorphic depiction of the human condition we see a strong disbelief in the supremacy of human beings over other animals。In face of war and oppression， animals and humans share the same fate of victimization。The classic ideal of humanism that celebrates man's dignity and autonomy as a rational entity elevated from the natural world becomes severely shattered in the brutality of war。
In light of this understanding， the significance of two major images in the novel bears out：the slaughterhouse and the zoo。 First of all， as metaphors there is obvious displacement of the signifer and the signifed in the two animal-based images， the animals replaced by the human—Billy Pilgrim， the incarnation of the contemporary Everyman。Both metaphors signal the breakdown of the boundary between animality and humanity and the dismantling of its ensuing hierarchy。Secondly， both images retain the literal signifcation of animals， one as the place where animals are killedfor food， the other as the institution where animals are kept and displayed as specimens。Where Billy Pilgrim the pathetic protagonist evokes pity and sympathy， therefore， similar compassion is encouraged to be directed to the animals as well。In this way， Vonnegut effectively enlarges the domain of moral concerns and extends the humanitarian consideration beyond the human realm to the animal world， thus he revolutionizes the traditional concept of humanism and calls for a redefnition of humanity itself。