You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.06 AVERAGE
4.06 AVERAGE
funny
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
I initially had a hard time getting into this book, but from about halfway through I couldn't tear myself away. My reading coincided with a trip to Dresden, which certainly added to the experience. I usually avoid war literature because it triggers me, but this work gave me a new philosophy - the idea that somewhere in another moment in time we can be in a moment of happiness, even if it is not easy for us presently.
adventurous
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
sad
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
challenging
dark
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I love Vonnegut’s short stories and he did not disappoint in the novel either. While not necessarily an enjoyable read, I found myself captivated by the episodic, nonlinear storytelling that perfectly drives home the themes of fatalism and the futility of war. If you want an unsettling look into the horrors of war and the aftermath it wreaks on the pawns involved — read this.
A book with a particular way of adressing specific situations and mindsets and most certainly very well thought through and constructed. Unfortunately, despite being aware of the appeal of the writing in style and structure, it didn't really resonate with me or my personal preferences.
I know that this book is pretty revered and its praises have been sung countless times, but one thing kept going through my head as I was reading it: Just because the message of a book is good, it doesn’t make it a good piece of literature. As an anti-war stance, this is great. As a story, it is terrible.
The insinuation that if you didn’t get on with this book, it means you are either a war advocate or stupid (or both) is ridiculous. It’s like saying if you didn’t like To Kill a Mockingbird, you’re racist, or if you like Moby-Dick, you’re pro-whaling. I feel like the message and theme of a book can be powerful on its own, but it has to come with a solid and engaging narrative too. Unfortunately, this didn’t grab me in any kind of technical or literary way.
I could see what Kurt Vonnegut was aiming for – a mismatched and unconventional narrative style, jumping about all over the place to stress this idea of being ‘unstuck’ in time and place. Fair enough. The suggestion of it reflecting Billy Pilgrim’s state of mind and his attempts to deal with reality was an interesting idea, but it didn’t come across on the page for me. I found his style of writing so, so annoying. It wasn’t so much the bouncing back and forth because no ‘section’ was similar and therefore, you weren’t getting mixed up and confused with what was what, but his voice in general was like reading a kid writing a fairytale. ‘This happened’ then ‘this’ then ‘this was a so-and-so’ etc etc. There was no movement away from simple structure sentences that had no life to them whatsoever. I was like please PLEASE switch it up. I glazed over sometimes, hoping that somewhere there would be something to flesh it out, even a little. I know some people get along with that style and like the bare-bones feel, but for me, I want something a bit more.
And the ‘so it goes’ at the end of EVERYTHING that related to death and destruction. It completely lost any impact because it was like being hit in the face with Kurt Vonnegut going ‘you see what I did there? It’s sooooo cynical and that’s just how things are!’ It quickly turned into something like an awful punch-line where the entire audience groan.
I love science fiction but I couldn’t even get onboard with the space-y and interdimensional parts. It kept reminding me of the dry and try-hard dark humour of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy which relies on absurdist comedy and (for me) fell flat every time. Plus, I didn’t really get the point of why he had to be accompanied by a porn star?? I would criticise this part by saying the poor girl was such a lifeless character but then literally everyone else was as well, apart from a couple of the pantomime figures like Weary and Campbell. But the only vibe her role (loosely said) gave off for me was this kinda immature teen fantasy feel. There are a lot of references to screwing women (that is literally their role), farting and belching, and pissing and shitting, and after a while, it just came across as pretty infantile. Either like we were meant to giggle at it, or it was another tick-box exercise to show off his ‘raw and real’ style.
I felt like this whole thing had a very American viewpoint too, with certain criticisms of American values and cut-and-paste figures which were meant to represent US stock characters or something. I felt like Billy Pilgrim was intended to portray the antithesis of this – meek and passive and weepy. He was built around what values he was supposed to contradict, and that was literally it. He had no character beyond that. Even in his dissection of America, it was still centre stage.
I felt like the anti-war message was very powerful but that is a message that is emotive and powerful on its own terms. In my opinion, the book itself doesn’t provide a solid style that expands on that. It reads more like an extended news article with no emotion or growth. The whole voice of it really got under my skin. It’s probably unfair to put these books side by side, and I don’t want to turn it into a competition, but I felt Catch-22 did the anti-war satire a thousand times more effectively. The characters were more memorable, there was a hell of a lot more story involved, and it actually made an attempt to engage with the reader, rather than just like ‘this’ then ‘this’ then ‘this’ happened.
The biggest irony in this book (and I couldn’t help but think ‘is he doing this... deliberately?’) was his treatment of Kilgore Trout, the sci-fi writer.
‘Jesus, if Kilgore Trout could only write!’ Rosewater exclaimed. He had a point: Kilgore Trout’s popularity was undeserved. His prose was frightful. Only his ideas were good.’
Now, I can’t judge Kurt Vonnegut’s popularity as this is the first (and probably last) book of his I’ve read. But the comment about his prose and ideas is very apt.
The insinuation that if you didn’t get on with this book, it means you are either a war advocate or stupid (or both) is ridiculous. It’s like saying if you didn’t like To Kill a Mockingbird, you’re racist, or if you like Moby-Dick, you’re pro-whaling. I feel like the message and theme of a book can be powerful on its own, but it has to come with a solid and engaging narrative too. Unfortunately, this didn’t grab me in any kind of technical or literary way.
I could see what Kurt Vonnegut was aiming for – a mismatched and unconventional narrative style, jumping about all over the place to stress this idea of being ‘unstuck’ in time and place. Fair enough. The suggestion of it reflecting Billy Pilgrim’s state of mind and his attempts to deal with reality was an interesting idea, but it didn’t come across on the page for me. I found his style of writing so, so annoying. It wasn’t so much the bouncing back and forth because no ‘section’ was similar and therefore, you weren’t getting mixed up and confused with what was what, but his voice in general was like reading a kid writing a fairytale. ‘This happened’ then ‘this’ then ‘this was a so-and-so’ etc etc. There was no movement away from simple structure sentences that had no life to them whatsoever. I was like please PLEASE switch it up. I glazed over sometimes, hoping that somewhere there would be something to flesh it out, even a little. I know some people get along with that style and like the bare-bones feel, but for me, I want something a bit more.
And the ‘so it goes’ at the end of EVERYTHING that related to death and destruction. It completely lost any impact because it was like being hit in the face with Kurt Vonnegut going ‘you see what I did there? It’s sooooo cynical and that’s just how things are!’ It quickly turned into something like an awful punch-line where the entire audience groan.
I love science fiction but I couldn’t even get onboard with the space-y and interdimensional parts. It kept reminding me of the dry and try-hard dark humour of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy which relies on absurdist comedy and (for me) fell flat every time. Plus, I didn’t really get the point of why he had to be accompanied by a porn star?? I would criticise this part by saying the poor girl was such a lifeless character but then literally everyone else was as well, apart from a couple of the pantomime figures like Weary and Campbell. But the only vibe her role (loosely said) gave off for me was this kinda immature teen fantasy feel. There are a lot of references to screwing women (that is literally their role), farting and belching, and pissing and shitting, and after a while, it just came across as pretty infantile. Either like we were meant to giggle at it, or it was another tick-box exercise to show off his ‘raw and real’ style.
I felt like this whole thing had a very American viewpoint too, with certain criticisms of American values and cut-and-paste figures which were meant to represent US stock characters or something. I felt like Billy Pilgrim was intended to portray the antithesis of this – meek and passive and weepy. He was built around what values he was supposed to contradict, and that was literally it. He had no character beyond that. Even in his dissection of America, it was still centre stage.
I felt like the anti-war message was very powerful but that is a message that is emotive and powerful on its own terms. In my opinion, the book itself doesn’t provide a solid style that expands on that. It reads more like an extended news article with no emotion or growth. The whole voice of it really got under my skin. It’s probably unfair to put these books side by side, and I don’t want to turn it into a competition, but I felt Catch-22 did the anti-war satire a thousand times more effectively. The characters were more memorable, there was a hell of a lot more story involved, and it actually made an attempt to engage with the reader, rather than just like ‘this’ then ‘this’ then ‘this’ happened.
The biggest irony in this book (and I couldn’t help but think ‘is he doing this... deliberately?’) was his treatment of Kilgore Trout, the sci-fi writer.
‘Jesus, if Kilgore Trout could only write!’ Rosewater exclaimed. He had a point: Kilgore Trout’s popularity was undeserved. His prose was frightful. Only his ideas were good.’
Now, I can’t judge Kurt Vonnegut’s popularity as this is the first (and probably last) book of his I’ve read. But the comment about his prose and ideas is very apt.
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
lighthearted
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Diverse cast of characters:
No