Sign in with Facebook
Tim Paccione's Reviews > Breakfast of Champions
Breakfast of Champions
by Kurt Vonnegut
by Kurt Vonnegut
God, what a terrible book of nonsense.
The two main characters are just overly weird and bizarre for the sake of being bizarre. And I mean really really bizarre. (I suspect many people say they like Vonnegut because he is so damn weird, but theres gotta be a purpose to it. You can't just have completely random ridiculous thoughts that do not have any purpose towards the message of the story. When you do that, its like the intellectual version of VH1 reality; people love it for shock value, while I, and others like me, are disgusted by its lack of substance. You feel dumber for having spent part of your life dedicated to it.)
Theres zero suspense as you are told what the ending will be in the first chapter. The entire book is a build up to that "event" which ends up being a short, disappointingly mild one.
The entire book was written in an obnoxious tone, speaking about everything "humans" do in an condescending manner. As if the author considers himself not only separate from, but better than the human race and its tendencies.
Finally, as if the book wasn't self indulgent enough for Vonnegut, he inserts HIMSELF as a character for the last third of the novel, telling us what he can and can't do if he wishes and how every characters actions are predetermined by his will, even as he interacts with them. This came across as so arrogant and narcissistic that it was almost too much to bear.
It is clear to me after reading Breakfast of Champions that Kurt Vonnegut's biggest fan, by far, is Kurt Vonnegut himself.
The two main characters are just overly weird and bizarre for the sake of being bizarre. And I mean really really bizarre. (I suspect many people say they like Vonnegut because he is so damn weird, but theres gotta be a purpose to it. You can't just have completely random ridiculous thoughts that do not have any purpose towards the message of the story. When you do that, its like the intellectual version of VH1 reality; people love it for shock value, while I, and others like me, are disgusted by its lack of substance. You feel dumber for having spent part of your life dedicated to it.)
Theres zero suspense as you are told what the ending will be in the first chapter. The entire book is a build up to that "event" which ends up being a short, disappointingly mild one.
The entire book was written in an obnoxious tone, speaking about everything "humans" do in an condescending manner. As if the author considers himself not only separate from, but better than the human race and its tendencies.
Finally, as if the book wasn't self indulgent enough for Vonnegut, he inserts HIMSELF as a character for the last third of the novel, telling us what he can and can't do if he wishes and how every characters actions are predetermined by his will, even as he interacts with them. This came across as so arrogant and narcissistic that it was almost too much to bear.
It is clear to me after reading Breakfast of Champions that Kurt Vonnegut's biggest fan, by far, is Kurt Vonnegut himself.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Breakfast of Champions.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-27 of 27) (27 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Thanks Tim, you saved me the trouble of having to write a review myself. You've summed up my thoughts perfectly.
"what a terrible book of nonsense."its great to hear your opinions on this book,even if I strongly disagree with them. But don't forget that they are in fact opinions, not objective facts.
I am on 20% and not sure whether I should continue to waste my time on it or give him a chance to prove why so many love him. After reading your review, I won't feel guilty about quitting now. Perhaps I'll give Mr. Vonnegut another chance (or myself a chance to like him) after a few weeks. After all, I have Cat's Cradle on my TBR list.
Agreed. Trash. This is what passes for art amongst the crude, shock for shock's sake crowd. I read this after he dropped "jr." from his name upon his father's death. This is the Maplethorpe School of Literature at work. Crude vulagarity for the sake of money and there all too many Hip Reviewers ready to glorify it...
Spoken like a modernist from the 19th century. The absurd can be very enjoyable to read, but you need a mind that can handle it.
Robb wrote: "Spoken like a modernist from the 19th century. The absurd can be very enjoyable to read, but you need a mind that can handle it."This seems to be the standard reply one gets when one dares to dislike vulgarity: "you're not not smart/hip/cool/whatever enough to appreciate this" Borderline ad hominem. Anyone who doesn't share a particular world view is a knuckle dragging brute unworthy of fine things.
My mind can "handle it" but I prefer to call a spade a spade. BOC is trash in my view, pornographic trash done for no other reason than to sell books based on shock value.
References to the alleged diminished capacity of folks who don't like it speaks volumes about people making those claims.
No snappy elite hipster coolpeople comebacks? No further putdowns? No more references to "only smart/hip people" get him?Wow. Sure would have thought that more ad hominem was to follow...
Agree with you Harry. BOC was a less than great book. I think the main problem was that Vonnegut had ample opportunity to really drive home his message but chose to just make it weirder and weirder of a book.
Breakfast of Champions is the most ingenious nonsense I've ever read. I would dare to say that it's one of the least pretentious books ever written. It's so completely beyond the influence of an author's anticipation of what normal people might want to read. Some of you think it's a book for hipsters, or some crazy thing. If that's true, I guess I'm a hipster, and I'll just have to argue our case.Vonnegut deals with controversial issues with an immaturity befitting of an eighth grader. His drawings are poor, and often unnecessary. If the book itself could talk, it might say, "I am a terrible, immature, lazily-written book! Do not read me!" I'd compare it to a pug: Hideous, disgusting, smelly; but somehow hilarious and loveable all the same.
It's hilarious, and touching, and weird, and thoughtful. And of course it's pointless - but that's the point, I guess.
Harry - I'd really like to hear you elaborate on why Breakfast of Champions is "pornography". It's funny that you use it - I'm almost positive that Vonnegut would've approved of the use of that word to describe not only this book, but his life's work. I mean, Kilgore Trout is basically his alter-ego, and look at where the guy's stuff is published.
Harry wrote: "No snappy elite hipster coolpeople comebacks? No further putdowns? No more references to "only smart/hip people" get him?"I don't think "only smart/hip people" get Vonnegut. Fart jokes are pretty universal.
"As if the author considers himself not only separate from, but better than the human race and its tendencies."You must not get sarcasm at all, to think that Kurt Vonnegut dislikes humans and thinks he's better than them. He was the head of the American Humanist association, for heaven's sake! That man cared for humans more than practically anyone else I know of. He was just honest enough to admit we're all crazy.
Joshua wrote: ""As if the author considers himself not only separate from, but better than the human race and its tendencies."You must not get sarcasm at all, to think that Kurt Vonnegut dislikes humans and thi..."
Two things have amazed me about the responses to my review, although I suspect they stem from the same mentality (arrogance?)
1. How many people assume I didn't 'get' the book or that it is above my level of understanding. Congratulations, you come across as pompous as Kurt when he spent half the book criticizing lesser humans than himself. (By the way, completely not surprised he was head of a humanist organization. That guy WOULD think he should be the head of deciding what human's need. In our society there is a litany of high horse individuals who think they know whats best for mankind, this supports my interpretation of the book, it doesn't weaken it.) For the record, I get everything he was trying to say and do, which wasn't much. I get it more than most of you since you have clearly let your imaginations get away from you, which brings me to my next point.
2. How many people see things in this book that just aren't there. I get that books works of art meant for different interpretations but man, reel it in a little people. I honestly think Vonnegut could have written literally ANYTHING, and some of you would find some amazing reason behind it. He could have had a random word generator pump out a chapter and you would respond "ooooo.... ahhhhh...." I get the feeling that people resented my take on the book because they believe I don't support an author's whose vision is unique and 'courageous' Quite the contrary. I absolutely do, he's just not one of them. I think Vonnegut is a coward in that sense. Instead of providing real content he provides cheap and random (and even crude, our lowest level of cleverness) writing and passes it off as genius along with his minions. Way to go out on a limb!
To everyone who disagreed with me and responded with an open mind, thank you. I appreciate it.
Harry wrote: "Robb wrote: "Spoken like a modernist from the 19th century. The absurd can be very enjoyable to read, but you need a mind that can handle it."This seems to be the standard reply one gets when one dares to dislike vulgarity: "you're not not smart/hip/cool/whatever enough to appreciate this" Borderline ad hominem. Anyone who doesn't share a particular world view is a knuckle dragging brute unworthy of fine things.
My mind can "handle it" but I prefer to call a spade a spade. BOC is trash in my view, pornographic trash done for no other reason than to sell books based on shock value.
References to the alleged diminished capacity of folks who don't like it speaks volumes about people making those claims.
"
Harry nailed it here. Having 90% of your argument be an insult to the other person isn't a great way to make your point...
Kurt Vonnegut is a terrible person. He encourages people to find joy in creating art. Even worse he tells people to care for one another even when it's not the popular thing to do. He's just as bad as Confucius and Jesus Christ.
Haha thanks, I actually kind of like the sound of that reward. As Charles Bukowski said "An intellectual says a simple thing in hard way. An artist says a hard thing in a simple way".
You can trash him too if you like.
In defense of BoC: I don’t think this book is meant to be over-analyzed. It’s just a silly book with bad drawings. It’s full of nonsense. Like any dark, cynical work of nonsensical satire, it’s not loved by everyone. A 2” tall alien lands on Earth to teach us how to stop all wars, but gets his head bashed with a golf club when he’s discovered farting and tap dancing around a bed? A "tragic failure to communicate." I laughed out loud when I read this. But, I can’t explain why this should be funny to anyone else. It’s like trying to explain why the completely ridiculous nonsense of an English guy pretending to ride a horse while banging two coconuts together is funny. It shouldn't be - everyone knows that coconuts are tropical, and don’t even grow in temperate zones. I’m sure this did nothing to clarify why BoC is an amazing book. Cheers!
I love randomness, that's probably why Alice in Wonderland is one of my favorites and why I am enjoying this book so far when only being 55 pages in.
Tim, when you say " get it more than most of you since you have clearly let your imaginations get away from you," I am astounded. That a book could inspire such a thing is the highest praise for this (or any other) book possible. Yet, you mean it as a negative thing. Sorry, I honestly don't understand that.
I mean, the commentary on America in the first chapter alone makes this book fantastic. The weirdness of the characters themselves are incredibly insightful takes on society and mental illness. Maybe I've spent too much time at bus stops, but I'm pretty sure real people exist that are very similar to these characters.
Spoken like a hardened realist. But what is the book's overarching message?
I get where you're coming from, but you really should check out some postmodern theory, specifically dealing with the idea of chance and play within a text. Roland Barthes is a great place to start. Vonnegut's not the first to try out such "tricks" -- indeed many writers around the time Vonnegut was writing in the '70s were trying out similar experiments.
And never mind that Vonnegut actually provides an explanation right there in the book for what he's doing...