Points Summer Book Club

I'd like to revisit something that's been touched on several times in our conversation so far: the difference between leaders and followers in war. Chuck mentioned it yesterday in referring to Kropp's opinion of men like Himmelstoss: "It's not only Himmelstoss, there are lots of them. As sure as they get a stripe or a star they become different men, just as thought they'd swallowed concrete." Kat follows with his conviction that "in himself man is essentially a beast, only he butters it over like a slice of bread with a little decorum." Given the chance to exercise power, all men "soon acquire the habit more or less."

In the closed-off world of the novel, where we get no perspective from the ranks of the leaders, should we accept Kat's estimation? He is the hero among his comrades at the Front; he can always find bread and beans for his friends; yet he implies that if he himself were given power, he'd abuse it, too. He'd become like Himmelstoss.

According to this Hobbesian reasoning, war brings out the worst in every individual unless he's at the bottom of the ranks. It's only at or close to the bottom that a Sergeant York can emerge and accomplish feats that everyone will admire. Reading the novel, are we supposed to regard the wisdom of the trench soldier as absolute? So far, we haven't seen any criticism levied against a comrade by his fellow soldiers (I don't recall).