Simeon’s review of Slaughterhouse-Five > Likes and Comments

456 likes · 
Comments (showing 1-20 of 20) (20 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Simeon (new)

Simeon How long has it been? I was getting around to reading SH5 for ages before I finally had the chance.


message 2: by Perrystroika (new)

Perrystroika The idea that Pilgrim's conversation with the Air Force historian represents agreement on his part with the official version of things is ridiculous. The book has no message and no center. Pilgrim is a shattered and fragmented individual. All the book says is "I'm here. I survived." The very book's existence is a demand for recognition of suffering that has been left out of the official versions of history. That's what Rumford's acknowledgment of Pilgrim's existence means. What he says after that sounds like excuses. Pilgrim's nonresponses ironize and contextualize Rumford's small reasons. From the standpoint of the cosmos, Billy's perspective, the view of a dead man, we are all just dust.


message 3: by Simeon (last edited Jun 22, 2012 10:25AM) (new)

Simeon Perrystroika wrote: "From the standpoint of the cosmos, Billy's perspective, the view of a dead man, we are all just dust."

Really well said. I completely agree.


message 4: by Liz (new)

Liz This was an amazing review! I hate it when people say that Vonnegut "trivialized" the war when in fact, its the complete opposite.


message 5: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Well put. It's annoying when people mistake Billy's resignation to Dresden as a tacit admittance by Vonnegut himself that war is so terrible that we should look away. The Tralfamarodian ethos isn't meant to be a positive one


message 6: by Kealan (new)

Kealan O'ver have only recently discovered that one of the most depressing things that one can do is to go to the page of a book you love and filter the reviews by one-star to see the absolute drivel that falls out of your computer screen. Thanks for getting it.


message 7: by Paul (new)

Paul I read Slaughterhouse Five this week and I'm a bit annoyed that I'd been put off trying it by the war/sci-fi themes. I'm even more glad I didn't read that other review beforehand - I was baffled by how wrong it was. Thanks for this!


message 8: by Kealan (new)

Kealan O'ver Paul wrote: "I read Slaughterhouse Five this week and I'm a bit annoyed that I'd been put off trying it by the war/sci-fi themes. I'm even more glad I didn't read that other review beforehand - I was baffled by..."

Awesome :D


message 9: by Barney (new)

Barney Pite its satire


message 10: by Kinan (new)

Kinan Abbas there are a lot of books that are pro-war. like, stories about brave men who go to Vietnam to kill the bad guy are pkind of pro war. but pro-war ideologies have largely deminished since World war 1 ande after


message 11: by Callie (new)

Callie Rose Tyler I'm slightly confused by your review...you say "Incidentally, how can anything be pro-war or anti-war? Because being anti-war is a bit like being anti-conflict, anti-death, and anti-suffering. Is there a book that's pro these things? Is there a book that touches on the subject of war and is not against it?"

When I read this book I didn't feel like it was anti-war, and I view being anti-war as a bit of a naive concept in general for the very reasons you stated. I felt like it was showing the harsh realities of war, and was definitely not painting it with a heroic brush but overall I got the sense that the Tralfamadorian philosophy does hold true, things happen and you are powerless to stop them. 'So it goes' might not be a positive mantra but doesn't it hold true, people die whether there is a war going on or not.


message 12: by Maggie (new)

Maggie Gammons "Do you know what I say to people when I hear they're writing anti-war books? . . . I say, 'Why don't you write an anti-glacier book instead?'"


message 13: by Andrew (new)

Andrew Obrigewitsch If this book is pro war, then so is 1984, and all quit on the Western Front. Some not too bright people don't get irony at all.


message 14: by Robert (new)

Robert Mills The one thing that every misses about the former general is he probably sent men to their deaths flying bombing raids. Dresden was covered up by the allies just like coventry was covered up. It's after the fact that historians have to deal with and explain how using civilians is a time honored and horrific tactic in war. The pilot of the the Hiroshima bombing to his death said it was a necessary to drop the bomb.


message 15: by Jesse (new)

Jesse Efymow Kinda like the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... The books more realistic then you think


message 16: by Jesse (new)

Jesse Efymow Kinda like the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... The books more realistic then you think


message 17: by Greg (new)

Greg Z Simeon, I think in light of today, of what we see on TV, of beheadings, of what we now know about WW2, in light of Desert Storm and 9/11, we've unfortunately been desensitized. Some reader's may not feel as reader's felt in 1969. I can understand why some reader's might not feel the "antiwar" themes. And isn't that sad? We are now so jaded by beheadings that some can't see an antiwar message? That's horrible.


message 18: by Vijay (last edited Jan 17, 2016 08:16PM) (new)

Vijay Albeit I agree with this review, the Dresden bombings were much less severe than the atomic bombings with a confirmed death toll of 25k(supported by a research conducted by the Dresden city council in 2010) whilst the death toll of the atomic bombings on Hiroshima was a conservative estimate of 150k.


message 19: by Gilkesl (new)

Gilkesl Everything Vonnegut writes is satire.


message 20: by Marsh (new)

Marsh Bloom Rumfoord's comments seemed clearly defensive on his part. And Billy just does his "so it goes" in different wording in response.


back to top