We’re basically at the end of the Slaughterhouse 5 unit, so I thought I’d make a reflection post, talking about what I thought about Vonnegut’s writing style and Slaughterhouse 5 as a whole. To start things off, I loved Vonnegut’s unique writing style, and it's like nothing I've ever read before. His voice as a writer is so personal and casual in his narration of the story, and it really hooks you in, completely immersing you into the crazy that is Vonnegut's mind. Reading the novel, I really felt that I was time travelling side by side with Billy Pilgrim.What I really liked about Vonnegut, was his very simple way of writing things. He didn't spruce things up with big words, and he certainly doesn't use fancy punctuation like semicolons, which is proven with his quote:
Slaughterhouse 5 was confusing at times, but Vonnegut wrote everything in a way that you could read a sentence and completely understand it the first time. Vonnegut also doesn't write in a way where he puts a lot of fluff in his writing. And that’s why I like Vonnegut. His writing is simple and to the point, and he writes it so that anybody from any walk of life could pick up his book and read it cover to cover and understand the story completely (well, as much somebody can understand Slaughterhouse).
"Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.".
Slaughterhouse 5 was confusing at times, but Vonnegut wrote everything in a way that you could read a sentence and completely understand it the first time. Vonnegut also doesn't write in a way where he puts a lot of fluff in his writing. And that’s why I like Vonnegut. His writing is simple and to the point, and he writes it so that anybody from any walk of life could pick up his book and read it cover to cover and understand the story completely (well, as much somebody can understand Slaughterhouse).
I also like how Vonnegut uses exaggeration and the contrasting of images to both describe things and prove a point. An excellent example of this is how Vonnegut describes Dresden. He describes pre-firebombed Dresden as Oz, obviously relating to the Emerald City, from the book The Wizard of Oz. This image is put into your head, and then when you find out about what Dresden post-firebombing looks like, it increases that second image ten fold, because the contrasting of those two ideas make it look that much worse. The nonlinear storyline and the way Vonnegut notifies the audience of what's going to happen in the book before it happens really gives the reader a different experience. Never before have I read a book and had the storyline spoiled by the author of the book. It
Reflecting on Slaughterhouse 5, I really enjoyed it. When we started a couple of months ago, I wasn’t really into it. I started reading the first couple pages, but I’d only get through a couple of pages and then I’d find myself putting it down. A week later I was being driven to a “Free Libya” protest in Toronto, and there was nothing else to do in the car, so I brought Slaughterhouse 5 with me. It was a 4 hour drive there and a 4 hour drive back, and in that time period I got from like page 1 to page 154. I couldn’t put it down! The nonlinear storyline and the way Vonnegut notifies the audience of what's going to happen in the book before it happens really gives the reader a different experience. Never before have I read a book and had the storyline spoiled by the author of the book. The time travelling always made you almost subconsciously readjust ever time Billy Pilgrim jumped to the future or past.
The many characters of the book (primary or secondary) were all so intriguing, and really meshed together well. They were realistic, and I would be hardpressed to see anybody not find a character to root for. The main character, Billy Pilgrim, really had nobody rooting for him, including me. This is the first book where I actually didn't like the main character at all. In Brave New World, I didn't like Bernard. But at least Aldous Huxley switches main characters to John, and you can root for him. But in Slaughterhouse 5, it's just Billy Pilgrim. He is the most unlikable and pathetic character I've ever come across as a main character, but somehow, he makes the novel enjoyable with all of the situations he goes through.Which leads me to my next point: Vonnegut's humor. I really have a problem with laughing at Pilgrim and the situations he's thrown into. Sure, it's a bit dark at times, but Vonnegut always makes it funny, without going [too] over the top. I still remember literally laughing out loud when Vonnegut was describing how the champagne was flat, and he wrote “so it goes”.
When I got to the end of the book, and I read the last phrase “Poo-tee-weet?”, I was shocked. After all the time travelling with Pilgrim and Vonnegut, it was finally done. And I'll be honest, I was disappointed in the ending of the book. And a bit angry. I know, I know... Vonnegut prides himself in his anti-climatic endings and everything, but COME ON! It was the end of the book! It wasn't even really an ending. It’s like Vonnegut just said “Aww forget it. It’s been like 20 years in the making, I’m not spending any more time on it”. I didn't expect something huge to happen at the end (although I thought that Vonnegut could've spent a little bit more time on Dresden then he did), but I at least thought that Vonnegut would've written some deep meaning at the end or at the very least given the reader a bit of closure! It’s a bit sad to see a masterpiece like this kind of end on a bad note like that, but I guess that’s just Vonnegut’s style.
The many characters of the book (primary or secondary) were all so intriguing, and really meshed together well. They were realistic, and I would be hardpressed to see anybody not find a character to root for. The main character, Billy Pilgrim, really had nobody rooting for him, including me. This is the first book where I actually didn't like the main character at all. In Brave New World, I didn't like Bernard. But at least Aldous Huxley switches main characters to John, and you can root for him. But in Slaughterhouse 5, it's just Billy Pilgrim. He is the most unlikable and pathetic character I've ever come across as a main character, but somehow, he makes the novel enjoyable with all of the situations he goes through.Which leads me to my next point: Vonnegut's humor. I really have a problem with laughing at Pilgrim and the situations he's thrown into. Sure, it's a bit dark at times, but Vonnegut always makes it funny, without going [too] over the top. I still remember literally laughing out loud when Vonnegut was describing how the champagne was flat, and he wrote “so it goes”.
When I got to the end of the book, and I read the last phrase “Poo-tee-weet?”, I was shocked. After all the time travelling with Pilgrim and Vonnegut, it was finally done. And I'll be honest, I was disappointed in the ending of the book. And a bit angry. I know, I know... Vonnegut prides himself in his anti-climatic endings and everything, but COME ON! It was the end of the book! It wasn't even really an ending. It’s like Vonnegut just said “Aww forget it. It’s been like 20 years in the making, I’m not spending any more time on it”. I didn't expect something huge to happen at the end (although I thought that Vonnegut could've spent a little bit more time on Dresden then he did), but I at least thought that Vonnegut would've written some deep meaning at the end or at the very least given the reader a bit of closure! It’s a bit sad to see a masterpiece like this kind of end on a bad note like that, but I guess that’s just Vonnegut’s style.
Finishing Slaughterhouse 5, I think I’ve really found an author I like. I’ve searched up a bunch of interviews of him on the internet, and he’s a really fascinating character. And that's probably why I like him so much as a writer. In Slaughterhouse 5 he “more or less” describes everything how he saw it. He was there during the firebombing of Dresden, he served in the war and survived, and at the end of it all, ended up writing a book about it. Because he lived through most of what he wrote, it makes the entire book that much more realistic and hooking to the reader. I’ll probably pick up some more of his work, like Cat’s Cradle for a bit of “free time” reading.
Hi Zach,
ReplyDeleteI’ve been enjoying reading your blog posts and I agree that Slaughterhouse 5 is one of the most unique and humorous books I’ve ever read. I also laughed when he wrote “So it goes” for the flat champagne – how about the mass genocide of the “little animals” in Billy’s clothes?
While I generally agree with your review of the book, I disagree with your evaluation of the ending. You mentioned that you were shocked at the ending, suggesting Vonnegut wrote it without much thought and saying that it didn’t give closure to a masterpiece like Slaugherhouse 5. Let me first mention that Vonnegut told us that the book would end with “Poo-tee-weet” in the first chapter, so no surprises there. But I sense that you expected a deeper meaning behind the onomatopoeia, which was also my initial expectation. For that, I recommend that you reread the part in the first chapter where Vonnegut speaks as himself to his publisher, Sam, about his book Slaughterhouse 5. In it he says, “It is so short and jumbled and jangled, Sam, because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead, to never say anything or want anything ever again. Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like “Poo-tee-weet?”
Reading this, I believe Vonnegut wrote his ending the way he did out of reverence for those who died in Dresden. Reverence for the dead is omnipresent in the book; when we read “so it goes” after the deaths of animals, inanimate objects, and humans alike, we gain a deep respect for all forms of existence. Rather than fill the silence with his own reflections, Vonnegut let the deaths of Dresden speak for themselves.
I also assert that giving the book real closure would not align with the purpose of the novel. Wars will continue, and many millions will continue to die in them. Here, the massacre has ended, leaving only the sound of birds in its path, but there is still the danger that there will be more in the future. I think the ending communicates this continuity, similar to the refrain “so it goes” after every death to emphasize the cycle of dying.
So to end this post, I believe Vonnegut wrote the ending of Slaughterhouse 5 with great purpose. Could he have ended the book with a piece of profound wisdom if he wanted to? Probably so, which is yet another reason to believe that the ending was very much intentional.