Slaughterhouse-Five review
Apr. 28th, 2024 12:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
queen_unicorn_rejectSlaughterhouse-Five is an American novel published in 1969, and written by Kurt Vonnegut. It's the fourth novel I've read this year, and the second book by Vonnegut, who is my favourite authour.
Statistics time: I started reading this book on the 1st of April and finished it on the 27th of April. There was about a two week period in the middle of that when I wasn't reading anything, though. I read it for a total of 267 minutes, or about 4 hours and a half. It's not a long book, and I've read it several times before.
Kurt Vonnegut often used what he called the "shape of stories" to describe writing fiction. X axis is a linear timeline, and the Y axis is fortune/misfortune of the protagonist. It's funny he did this, because his most famous work is notorious for its non-linear story.
Slaughterhouse-5 is a book that is inherently anti-structure, and, in some ways, anti-novel. The protagonist jumps around from era to era, and there is no sense of a narrative progression or climax being built up. He tells you what is going to happen in the introduction. Dresden was destroyed on the night of February 13, 1945. 135,000 people died, about 60,000 more than the bombing of Hiroshima. Billy Pilgrim survived, and poor old high school teacher Edgar Derby did not. At every point, Vonnegut spoils you on the events to come. This book is fundamentally not about conventional "narrative payoffs."
The traditional reading is that this is an allegory for PTSD. The time travel (despite Vonnegut insisting it is true in narration) is a result of Billy's scrambled memory from the plane crash, combined with his trauma from the war. The science fiction elements, like the aliens and their teachings, are a result of him trying to make sense of the senseless killings he saw. The novel implies multiple times that every seemingly "fictional" idea is something he merely took from Kilgore Trout's novels. I like that reading, but such narrative and textual analysis of this work doesn't interest me at all. I don't think this is as book meant to be read as a puzzle to be solved.
I think the timeline Vonnegut lays out for us - Billy Pilgrim's pilgrimage through time - is not random, but rather meticulously created. You're not supposed to read this book for the plot; the events and characters (Vonnegut even disavows the very idea of "characters" existing in a war), but rather the emotional and thematic throughlines. Slaughterhouse-5 is, in a way, one of the most Vonnegut books Vonnegut has ever written. It's probably tied for second place next to Breakfast of Champions.
Vonnegut doesn't write novels, as much as he writes essays with a fictional framework. If you like to listen to him talk about war and trauma and life and death, this book is one of the best books you'll ever read. It's one of my favourites of all time. If you don't like his voice and his musings, then it won't be for you. Vonnegut is one of the most "hit or miss" writers for this very reason. I like to recommend him to everyone, because I think he's a hit for most people who like witty, charming but intelligent fiction. But there are some people who don't want to be "preached" to. I think this is a sign of insecurity most of the time, caused by a desire to be unique and independent over a desire to seek truth and earnesty.
But who am I to know.
I love Slaughterhouse-5 and what it represents because it shows us that a novel can become an "American classic", and a truly eccentric and uncompromising voice can become the figurehead for a generation, despite it being completely unconventional and bizarre. Slaughterhouse-5 is like an arthouse movie that somehow became one of the best selling anti-war novels of all time. I think that's inspiring and it's why I love Vonnegut novels. He is right there, in your face, telling you this story in real time. You can feel his presence. That's not something you see often in a "classic" novel.
Statistics time: I started reading this book on the 1st of April and finished it on the 27th of April. There was about a two week period in the middle of that when I wasn't reading anything, though. I read it for a total of 267 minutes, or about 4 hours and a half. It's not a long book, and I've read it several times before.
Kurt Vonnegut often used what he called the "shape of stories" to describe writing fiction. X axis is a linear timeline, and the Y axis is fortune/misfortune of the protagonist. It's funny he did this, because his most famous work is notorious for its non-linear story.
Slaughterhouse-5 is a book that is inherently anti-structure, and, in some ways, anti-novel. The protagonist jumps around from era to era, and there is no sense of a narrative progression or climax being built up. He tells you what is going to happen in the introduction. Dresden was destroyed on the night of February 13, 1945. 135,000 people died, about 60,000 more than the bombing of Hiroshima. Billy Pilgrim survived, and poor old high school teacher Edgar Derby did not. At every point, Vonnegut spoils you on the events to come. This book is fundamentally not about conventional "narrative payoffs."
The traditional reading is that this is an allegory for PTSD. The time travel (despite Vonnegut insisting it is true in narration) is a result of Billy's scrambled memory from the plane crash, combined with his trauma from the war. The science fiction elements, like the aliens and their teachings, are a result of him trying to make sense of the senseless killings he saw. The novel implies multiple times that every seemingly "fictional" idea is something he merely took from Kilgore Trout's novels. I like that reading, but such narrative and textual analysis of this work doesn't interest me at all. I don't think this is as book meant to be read as a puzzle to be solved.
I think the timeline Vonnegut lays out for us - Billy Pilgrim's pilgrimage through time - is not random, but rather meticulously created. You're not supposed to read this book for the plot; the events and characters (Vonnegut even disavows the very idea of "characters" existing in a war), but rather the emotional and thematic throughlines. Slaughterhouse-5 is, in a way, one of the most Vonnegut books Vonnegut has ever written. It's probably tied for second place next to Breakfast of Champions.
Vonnegut doesn't write novels, as much as he writes essays with a fictional framework. If you like to listen to him talk about war and trauma and life and death, this book is one of the best books you'll ever read. It's one of my favourites of all time. If you don't like his voice and his musings, then it won't be for you. Vonnegut is one of the most "hit or miss" writers for this very reason. I like to recommend him to everyone, because I think he's a hit for most people who like witty, charming but intelligent fiction. But there are some people who don't want to be "preached" to. I think this is a sign of insecurity most of the time, caused by a desire to be unique and independent over a desire to seek truth and earnesty.
But who am I to know.
I love Slaughterhouse-5 and what it represents because it shows us that a novel can become an "American classic", and a truly eccentric and uncompromising voice can become the figurehead for a generation, despite it being completely unconventional and bizarre. Slaughterhouse-5 is like an arthouse movie that somehow became one of the best selling anti-war novels of all time. I think that's inspiring and it's why I love Vonnegut novels. He is right there, in your face, telling you this story in real time. You can feel his presence. That's not something you see often in a "classic" novel.
