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. a lot 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. a lot 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.