Entirely the book was alone a magnificent read; therefore, I begun reading with an analytical desire to pull all aspects to match the questions I should have to answer pertaining to it. After some reading I realized this was not going to happen. I found myself reading as if it were fiction, getting absorbed into the main character’s shoes. This …show more content…
I believe this is out of his desire to give the events as they happened and let the reader decide for themselves about the war or wars in general. One could also argue the contrary, that it was to give a message of how terrible war was and still is. With “over 400,000 [Americans] died… about a quarter were in the Pacific, fighting the Japanese” (Halloran), perhaps Sledge wanted to provide a decent reason to those questioning how such numbers arise. There is no correct answer given so each is up to their own interpretation. At the very least the second option allows us to answer, what can we learn from this person’s story? Sledge doesn’t in the slightest glorify the combat itself, but a general theme persists of the esprit de corps is expressed. Upon swearing against K Company “The effect on [the company] was instant and dramatic… surging angrily up the embankment towards that rear-echelon bastard” (Sledge 283). Sledge goes to great extents to ensure his buddies stories, successes, and failures all made it into the final account. He even expresses “Thanks to [his] old K/3/5 buddies who have assisted so much in verifying countless details” (Sledge XVI), in the acknowledgements and in the preface. In summary, Sledge wrote the book so a reader could understand, “The extremes of the war in the Pacific, the terror, the camaraderie, the banal, and the extraordinary” (Hanks), the war had to