Kurt Vonnegut has given me a headache

[tribdog]

I just finished reading my very first Kurt Vonnegut novel. I've always known who Kurt Vonnegut was and known some of his books, but I never read any or knew what they were about. I just finished Cat's Cradle and I'm having a hard time deciding if I loved it or hated it. I might have to read it again. I think I'm edging towards loving it. It was definitely different. I'm going to give it a few days, maybe I'll read Slaughterhouse 5 before I make my decision. Have you read any Vonnegut? I'd like some opinions.

 

[russ_watters]

I read Slaughterhouse 5. Not a fan. IMO, writing crazy doesn't make one brilliant, it makes one crazy.

 

[tribdog]

IMO, writing crazy doesn't make one brilliant, it makes one crazy.

Damn, that was my last hope. maybe I am just crazy.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I read Player Piano and liked it, but I never read any other of his books.

 

[d_leet]

I've only read Slaughterhouse 5, but I really enjoyed it.

 

[turbo]

I have read everything of his that I could get my hands on. Yeah, he's different, but that's not a bad thing.

 

[BobG]

His style is a lot different. It's like any other style, though. If it's done well, it's good. If it misses, it misses.

I really liked God Bless You Mr Rosewater and Breakfast of Champions. The rest of his books - not so much. I feel like he's trying to be humorous and never really feel any empathy for his characters.

 

[Redbelly98]

I liked Cat's Cradle and Sirens of Titan. Started reading Slaughterhouse 5 once but didn't get very far, just couldn't get into it.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Sirens of Titan is my favorite of Vonnegut's books, but I think they are all wonderful. I love the Tralfamadorians.

 

[WarPhalange]

I read Slaughterhouse 5. Not a fan. IMO, writing crazy doesn't make one brilliant, it makes one crazy.

Slaughterhouse 5 was awesome. Certainly the best book I've ever been forced to read.

See, I know where you're coming from. The time jumps and stuff like that. It helps to watch something like Pulp Fiction before reading the book. Then you'll realize how big of a pile of crap Quintin Tarantino is and how awesome the book really is.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Slaughterhouse-Five is one of my favorite novels. I guess it could be kind of boring to some people, with all the flashback's of billy's life and his experience on Tralfamadore, but to me, they kind of showed the humanity of an individual prisoner of war compared to his status, as, well, a POW.

I also felt a humanity flowing through the novel, and wasn't really lost by the non-linear story line. Player Piano is also good, and I have Sirens of Titan but I haven't read it yet.

Mother Night I got from the library and it is pretty good. Mother Night is great and often overlooked.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I have read everything of his that I could get my hands on. Yeah, he's different, but that's not a bad thing.

Any particular favorites?

 

[LukeJD]

Slaughterhouse-Five was awesome.

 

[Redbelly98]

My reading of Vonnegut happened between 20 and 30 years ago (my late teens to late 20's). I should try re-reading him, my tastes have changed enough that it might seem quite different.

 

[Evo]

Trib, just watch Slaughterhouse 5 the movie.

 

[WarPhalange]

You're only saying that because both your arms are in casts and you can't flip through the pages in the book.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Evo could injure herself with a book.

I'm not one to talk. I injured myself pretty badly with a piece of paper once.

 

[morphism]

War In Reverse: A Tribute to Kurt Vonnegut

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_72wGGgtv9I

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've only read Slaughter House 5 so far. Thank you for reminding me to look for some more fo his books. Whenever I go into a book store every book I told myself I need to look for always leaks right out of my brain and I can't think of anything.

I've read several very odd and crazy sorts of books so that didn't bother me about Vonnegut. I just didn't think that SH5 was executed as well as it could have been. It came off as mostly just silly to me. If you like crazy Philip K Dick is where it's at. Alot of his books are hit or miss but there are plenty that are very good. If you are interested in some titles let me know.

 

[russ_watters]

War In Reverse: A Tribute to Kurt Vonnegut

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_72wGGgtv9I

See, this is exactly what I mean. What's the point of that? Would it be nice if that were a reality? It's not, it's just a daydream of a weak or overloaded mind. It has no meaning at all.

Incidentally, that youtube clip is the second hit on google for that subject. Here's the first: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/buzzell041207

For years, my best friend would tell me all about this writer that he liked to read named Kurt Vonnegut...

I'd been in country for awhile, and then one day at mail call I received a care package from that friend of mine. Enclosed was a note that said, "Now's the time to read this" as well as a used paperback copy of Slaughterhouse-Five. I kept the book in my cargo pant pocket while on patrol. I'd read it on my vehicle. I remember being upset and saying, "God-damnit!" out loud whenever the vehicle stopped and we'd have to dismount and do our thing because that meant I'd have to stop reading.

I have a lot of memories of Iraq, but the one that will stick with me forever was when I was in my room, lying down on my back reading Slaughterhouse-Five, and got to the part where Billy Pilgrim became unstuck in time and saw the war backwards.

The book helped him get through the war and honestly, good for him. He needed a fantasy to latch on to to help him cope with a difficult reality. But that's all this is. It is neither real, nor meaningful - it's just a drug.

edit: Thinking about this more, I'm trying to figure out why I dislike it so much. I think it's the pretentiousness. There is nothing inherrently wrong with fantasy - I'm a big fan of Star Wars, Star Trek, James Bond, and Tom Clancy - but when something is claimed to be Literature, that's supposed to mean it has something deep to say. But this doesn't. It isn't on a different level than any other fantasy - it's just crazier, which people mistake for being deeper.

You want an American writer who had something profoud to say? George Orwell. Genius.

 

[turbo]

See, this is exactly what I mean. What's the point of that? Would it be nice if that were a reality? It's not, it's just a daydream of a weak or overloaded mind. It has no meaning at all.

Incidentally, that youtube clip is the second hit on google for that subject. Here's the first: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/buzzell041207 The book helped him get through the war and honestly, good for him. He needed a fantasy to latch on to to help him cope with a difficult reality. But that's all this is. It is neither real, nor meaningful - it's just a drug.

Russ, some people like to visualize a world in which the alphas don't have to kill others to gain or maintain control. Kurt was one of those people, and he framed his stories in context of his state-side life and his experience as a POW in WWII. He was a decent human and his stories reflected his world-view. Your portrayal of him as weak or deluded is insulting. Many WWII vets came back with personal experiences that left them changed, contemplative, and/or disillusioned about who needed to die and why. My dad and a lot of his friends (who are dying at a pretty good clip these days) are among that group.

 

[GeorginaS]

You want an American writer who had something profoud to say? George Orwell. Genius.

Except that George Orwell was British.

Slaughterhouse Five was amazingly deep and rich. If you read about Vonnegut's actual life experience that he was illustrating in the book, then maybe it would be more significant or even poignant to you. I don't know. But knowing that it sprang from him actually emerging into a completely flattened Dresden post-fire bombing that inspired him to write the rest of his war experience, made all the difference for me in terms of context. Sometimes knowing an author's context for writing immensely informs the experience of reading their work.

 

[tribdog]

I've only read Slaughter House 5 so far. Thank you for reminding me to look for some more fo his books. Whenever I go into a book store every book I told myself I need to look for always leaks right out of my brain and I can't think of anything.

I've read several very odd and crazy sorts of books so that didn't bother me about Vonnegut. I just didn't think that SH5 was executed as well as it could have been. It came off as mostly just silly to me. If you like crazy Philip K Dick is where it's at. Alot of his books are hit or miss but there are plenty that are very good. If you are interested in some titles let me know.

i read The Man in the High Castle, I thought that was really good.

 

[Chi Meson]

edit: Thinking about this more, I'm trying to figure out why I dislike it so much.

We all know why...He's a Hippy! You dislike Hippys!

 

[russ_watters]

Except that George Orwell was British.

Oops.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, some people like to visualize...

I know. And I disapprove of chronic drug use too.

Your portrayal of him as weak or deluded is insulting. Many WWII vets came back with personal experiences that left them changed, contemplative, and/or disillusioned about who needed to die and why. My dad and a lot of his friends (who are dying at a pretty good clip these days) are among that group.

Perhaps weak is the wrong word, but certainly people who have those types of experiences often come back damaged emotionally.

 

[russ_watters]

We all know why...He's a Hippy! You dislike Hippys!

See, it's not even about that though. A book can be anti-war and be good. Catch-22 is another one I really like. But that's because instead of dealing with a fantasy, it deals with the absurdity of the reality. To me, fantasy is just not a convincing argument for anything.

 

[WarPhalange]

Incidentally, that youtube clip is the second hit on google for that subject. Here's the first: http://www.esquire.com/the-side/opinion/buzzell041207 The book helped him get through the war and honestly, good for him. He needed a fantasy to latch on to to help him cope with a difficult reality. But that's all this is. It is neither real, nor meaningful - it's just a drug.

Yes, it's called fiction. That's the point. Please tell me I'm not the first one to introduce to you stories that are not based in reality.

PROTIP: Movies aren't real either.

Neither is religion (oh snap!)

edit: Thinking about this more, I'm trying to figure out why I dislike it so much. I think it's the pretentiousness. There is nothing inherrently wrong with fantasy - I'm a big fan of Star Wars, Star Trek, James Bond, and Tom Clancy - but when something is claimed to be Literature, that's supposed to mean it has something deep to say. But this doesn't. It isn't on a different level than any other fantasy - it's just crazier, which people mistake for being deeper.

You want an American writer who had something profoud to say? George Orwell. Genius.

It wasn't easy to figure out = it's not literature. Gotcha.

 

[Chi Meson]

See, it's not even about that though. A book can be anti-war and be good. Catch-22 is another one I really like. But that's because instead of dealing with a fantasy, it deals with the absurdity of the reality. To me, fantasy is just not a convincing argument for anything.

I agree. That's why I dropped Ayn Rand after a brief love affair.

 

[GeorginaS]

but when something is claimed to be Literature, that's supposed to mean it has something deep to say. But this doesn't.

Quick example: Jane Austin. Her writing is considered "literature", and she didn't have anything particularly deep or profound to say.

 

[tribdog]

Okay, I just finished Slaughterhouse 5. I'm not blown away by it. I liked Cat's Cradle better, mostly because it had a religion I can really get behind.

 

[Moonbear]

I like Vonnegut, but I don't really know why any of it counts as "literature." Then again, I've never really been sure why anything makes it to that category instead of just fiction or non-fiction or whatever it is. I think it's called "literature" if your English literature teacher likes the book.

There's something about Vonnegut's books that leave you feeling a bit off-balance when reading them (or at least, that's how I feel). I suppose I could see someone not liking them for that reason.

 

[turbo]

MB, the closest we have to Vonnegut in traditional Am Lit is Mark Twain. Writers who were willing to lay out complex situations in plain language and allow the readers to draw the ethical/moral distinctions. Twain is not good because of his writing - he is good because of the thinking behind his writing. Vonnegut's got that in spades.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. That's why I dropped Ayn Rand after a brief love affair.

I've been meaning to read some of her stuff, but I don't know if I can handle 1000 pages unless I can really get into it (and I'm not sure if I can). I should try though.

 

[Evo]

Trib, watch Slaughterhouse 5 the movie. You'll love the movie.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, it's called fiction. That's the point. Please tell me I'm not the first one to introduce to you stories that are not based in reality.

You misunderstand my issue with it. What bothers me isn't that it is fiction/fantasy, it is that despite being fantasy, it is supposed to have a message. It is supposed to be saying something profound about the world, but IMO, it is a shallow point.

It wasn't easy to figure out = it's not literature. Gotcha.

There was nothing difficult to figure out about the message of Slaughterhouse 5. That's not the point. The point is the message was not meaningful because the argument was empty.

I just think that a book that is intended to say something meaningful about reality should base the argument on reality. You can't convince me of something about reality by presenting me with fantasy. Simple as that.

 

[russ_watters]

I like Vonnegut, but I don't really know why any of it counts as "literature." Then again, I've never really been sure why anything makes it to that category instead of just fiction or non-fiction or whatever it is. I think it's called "literature" if your English literature teacher likes the book.

Agreed. I feel that way about an awful lot of books. I disliked Catcher in the Rye too, but mostly because I was hoping for something meaningful. I was hoping for literature and just got an ok work of basic fiction.

Quick example: Jane Austin. Her writing is considered "literature", and she didn't have anything particularly deep or profound to say.

Very good example. We had to read some of that in school. Basically, she's just a 19th century Danielle Steel. That's not literature, it's trashy romance novels. But then people were more 'respectable' back then, so it isn't as trashy - I guess that makes it literature!

And hey, if that's what you like, fine. I have no problem with it. I'm a big Tom Clancy fan, but I'd never claim the stuff he writes is "Literature".

 

[tribdog]

Okay Evo, I'm now downloading the movie Slaughterhouse Five. I'll watch it tomorrow and see.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

i read The Man in the High Castle, I thought that was really good.

Bladerunner was based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. The movie is quite different from the book. They more or less just took one of the parallel plots and ran with that. A major plot element they dropped was a religion which ties in with, and really fleshs out, the whole question of defining humanity.

A Scanner Darkly is pretty good. Its darker than the movie (or my impression back when I read it was darker) and may leave you wondering why you just read it. The end note from Dick about his experiences with the drug culture and listing his friends who ODed, commited suicide, and wound up in jail or mental institutions puts it in perspective though. The paranoia and personality split issues are far more present in the book.

A fun one is Clans of the Alphane Moon about a moon colony taken over by mental patients who divide into clans; defining themselves based on their psychological disorders. There's a rather obvious characterization of Dick's failed relationships in the book. This sort of thing crops up a lot in his work. Its amusing though.

Not sure if you were actually looking for suggestions so I'll shut up now. ;-p

 

[Moonbear]

Very good example. We had to read some of that in school. Basically, she's just a 19th century Danielle Steel. That's not literature, it's trashy romance novels. But then people were more 'respectable' back then, so it isn't as trashy - I guess that makes it literature!

And hey, if that's what you like, fine. I have no problem with it. I'm a big Tom Clancy fan, but I'd never claim the stuff he writes is "Literature".

That was my impression when reading Jane Austin too. Then again, my literature instructor didn't hide that fact. She was a militant feminist (as opposed to the normal kind who just wants equality, she was over-the-top...one of those women who doesn't shave her legs and wears what looks like men's clothing and always has a rant about oppression of women or some such) and had chosen a series of books more for the progression of themes regarding women rather than because of literary value. She was quick to point out that for the time, they were just dime store rags, the same as picking up a modern day romance novel. I didn't object since I was taking it as a summer class and it was the sort of book I could just sit out on a lawn chair and read in the sun without giving a lot of thought. For all her weirdness, I actually respected her more as an instructor for not trying to pretend these books were really something special or better than the romances you could pick up off the shelf for now, but more that it was popular because for the period it was written, it was highly scandalous...the sort of book nobody admits to reading but do anyway.

 

[Evo]

I've never read an entire book by Vonnegut, I did enjoy the movie Slaughterhouse 5 as science fiction. I guess I'm shallow as I have never read a book for any "meaning" either it was enjoyable at face value or I didn't read it (except for required school reading). If an author was trying to make a statement in any of their books, it was entirely lost on me.

Trib, since you read the book, it may ruin the movie for you.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Trib, since you read the book, it may ruin the movie for you.

This is true. The book differs from the novel in several key and minute but annoying respects:

Lazzaro doesn't tell Billy at the start of the book that he fed a bunch of sharpnel to a dog; he doesn't tell Billy that at all in the novel and is speaking to the older gentleman who gets killed. This also apears half-way through the book, not at the beginning.

The conversation when Billy is in the hospital with the conservative author and scholar is completely different and in the movie I think you miss how Billy actually takes the line that all of the bombings were necessary. The way he shrugged it off is different in the book.

The interaction the POWs have with the British camp is entirely different in the film. You also miss several key scenes there as well.

Billy-Pilgram NEVER kills Ronald Weary directly by stepping on his feet. In fact, it is Ronald Weary himself who decided to bring Billy along and it was he who ended up with the unfortunate footwear that ended up giving him gangrene and making him sick - this was Ronald's own doing and he led the way to being captured, it had nothing to do with billy.

That what's his face kills him anyway is thus more proof that he was crazy. I have no idea why they rearranged this.

Vonnegut's intro is completely missing.

The movie ends differently than the film, whereas the film ends with Billy looking at a bird that says Poo-tee-wet. I don't think the quote from Reinhold Nieburh was properly displayed, either.


And so on.

 

[Evo]

It's like "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" everyone said what a great movie it was, but they hadn't read the book. I read the book years before the movie was made and I couldn't bear to watch more than a bit of the movie. The book was excellent.

Vice versa, if I've enjoyed the movie before I've read the book, then I'm critical of the book.

 

[turbo]

It's like "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" everyone said what a great movie it was, but they hadn't read the book. I read the book years before the movie was made and I couldn't bear to watch more than a bit of the movie. The book was excellent.

Ditto on that. The movie was just tolerable because the book was great and my expectations were very high. Still, everybody who hadn't read the book was raving about how great the movie was, so I'll still recommend it when someone asks for DVD rental suggestions.

I thought I'd be disappointed with the movie Dune, because after reading the book a couple of times, I thought that there was too much that might be lost. Strangely enough, I liked the movie - yeah, there was a lot of stuff changed or glossed over, but much of the book came through. Slaughterhouse 5 was not a good movie, compared to the book. Catch 22 was an OK movie because they had a perverse kind of fun with the book, IMO.

I've read the Lord of the Rings several times over, and enjoyed the movies enough to prompt me to get the DVDs, though they are no substitute for the books. The film version of The Exorcist was tame and flat compared to the book. I saw it in a theater when it came out and was quite disappointed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's like "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" everyone said what a great movie it was, but they hadn't read the book. I read the book years before the movie was made and I couldn't bear to watch more than a bit of the movie. The book was excellent.

A friend of mine told me that in earlier editions of the book the last scene was in itallics indicating, if you were paying attention, that it was a dream sequence and this was supposedly lost in the movie and perhaps inadvertantly changed in later editions of the book.

I thought I'd be disappointed with the movie Dune, because after reading the book a couple of times, I thought that there was too much that might be lost. Strangely enough, I liked the movie - yeah, there was a lot of stuff changed or glossed over, but much of the book came through.

I liked the movie too though I was sure to watch it before I read the books. Another friend of mine tells me that lynch was very particular about attemting to retain as much of the book as possible. Apparently if you pay close enough attention you may note 'significant looks' and the like in the movie that are supposed to correspond with paragraphs worth of unspoken material from the book.