Slaughterhouse 5
discussion
How bad is it
message 51:
by
Duane
(new)
-
added it
Aug 07, 2015 11:51PM
How did anybody ever deicide that it was supposed to be "Worth Something", or have some "Point", in the first place? Somehow I never managed to get *that* far, even...
reply
|
flag
Duane wrote: "How did anybody ever deicide that it was supposed to be "Worth Something", or have some "Point", in the first place? Somehow I never managed to get *that* far, even..."Like Erich Maria Remarke's All Quiet on the Western Front and Anne Frank's Diary of a Young Girl, SH5 depicts war at an intimate personal level. By not dwelling on the reasons for war, Vonnegut conveys the helplessness he felt.
The reasons don't matter when you're in combat. It doesn't matter why you are there. All that matters is surviving, moment by moment. And what you have to endure leaves not just a physical toll on lives, fortune and the landscape, but a mental toll on the survivors and humankind in general.
"In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on..." a center for art and culture that had no military significance, no bomb shelters, and had swelled in population from the influx of 300,000 war refugees and prisoners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...
The Allied military establishment was so embarrassed by what they had done that they classified for decades the horrific death toll, which has been estimated to be ten times the official politically-correct count of 25,000. The actual number of bodies could not be counted because they were inaccessible, covered by tons of rubble--an effective mass grave. But Dresden's estimated death toll exceeds Hroshima and Nagasaki combined.
SH5 cuts through war propaganda and brings us face-to-face with the grim realities of waging war. The hallucinations about Tralfamadore show how the mind can play tricks in order to give itself respite from the haunting memories of inhumanity, gore, death and destruction.
You never can find peace of mind, only a sense of acceptance, which is emphasized in the novel repeatedly.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hiros...
Nico never commented in response.Conclusion: you've all been trolled, though not very well, and yet 54 responses later here we are anyway.
Easytarget wrote: "Nico never commented in response.Conclusion: you've all been trolled, though not very well, and yet 54 responses later here we are anyway."
HMM... YOu gotta point dude... Especially from the looks of *this*
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/4...
He/she/it better look out, after what happened to the Amanita space-fungus that was on here trying that stuff a while back... It was almost too horrible to describe
I didn't think it was bad but thought it was pretty weird in some parts.. Still, it kept me engaged and I read it pretty fast.
I was obsessed with the fire-bombing of Dresden after reading this book. I even went out of my way backpacking through Europe to visit Dresden in 1995.One of the best, funny, sad, horrifying books ever written.
It's horrendous. I can never call this classic and I'll never understand the fascination because it simply caters to a specific group of people whose mind work differently than mine. Not saying one crowd is superior to the other, they are just different. I've tried Timequake before and had similar disdain and disappointment but thought it was something wrong with me. But nope, this is enough proof that I should not read further.
It's a decent book for what it is but if you go into it expecting something mindblowing or take it too seriously you'll hate it. Postmodernism and Kurt Vonnegut aren't for everyone.
I think it's a work of genius: original, imaginative and very well crafted. One of my favourite books.
Gordon wrote: "I was underwhelmed by it. I am no war monger, I just think this is one of those books that everyone praises because everyone else does. If you just picked it up cold, and didn't know anything about..."totally agree. I don't think is a horrible book, however is not so good as most of the people claim. So it goes!
It does have an overblown, memetic reputation, but then again so does every book that's sufficiently famous. Forming your opinion as nothing but a reaction to other opinions makes as little sense as just hopping on the bandwagon in the first place.
Roberto wrote: "It does have an overblown, memetic reputation, but then again so does every book that's sufficiently famous. Forming your opinion as nothing but a reaction to other opinions makes as little sense a..."<./i>It's really too bad Nico doesn't qualify his opinion. I would love to hear why he thought it was horrible. It's certainly not on my favorite's list.
According to his review it looks like he hasn't even read it. Though his main complaint is that he doesn't like the main character.
Roberto wrote: "According to his review it looks like he hasn't even read it. Though his main complaint is that he doesn't like the main character."Someone should explain to him that disliking the main character doesn't make the book "horrible". That might make an interesting thread, though: Main characters you hated in books that you loved.
I agree, but I'd say that it's impossible to explain something like that to someone. It's one of those things that I think he'd have to realize on his own at some point to really appreciate.
Anyone starting this thread is clearly just trying to create a platform for trolls, so it goes. This is a fantastic book that incorporates several advanced thoughts into it including time as a dimension and not linear. The thought of aliens observing humans as we study every other aspect of life and beyond. Plus it brings to light issues soldiers have and the overall effects of war on the participants. I understand if you do not like his style, or even content, but to call this book horrible is just trying to stir the masses and beget ignorance among people who have not read it.
Marc wrote: "Anyone starting this thread is clearly just trying to create a platform for trolls, so it goes. This is a fantastic book that incorporates several advanced thoughts into it including time as a dime..."Of course he was trolling but there is a chance, though a remote one, that Nico would learn something through the comments of the serious and thoughtful readers like yourself. Of course anyone who would not read a book because of someone else's opinion - we'll just say that's short sighted.
I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's just a kid who doesn't know any better.
Roberto wrote: "I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's just a kid who doesn't know any better."Fair enough.
Nico wrote: "Who agrees that Slaughter house 5 is horrible?"
This is an old an inactive thread. Monsieur Nico, you may be reading above your educational or experiential level. This is a complex and multilayered metatextual book, and you are apparently unqualified to comment upon it, or were at the time of your original post. I admire your free expression of your opinion. You may say it again, you are free to say this again. You are also free to research and make a meaningful comment at a later date.
However, I no longer hold my tongue. When a book, recognized as complex and important is dismissed, I have to respond.
Perhaps by quoting Mr. Faber from Fahrenheit 451:
“Mr. Montag, you are looking at a coward. I saw the way things were going, a long time back. I said nothing. I’m one of the innocents who could have spoken up and out when no one would listen to the ‘guilty,’ but I did not speak and thus became guilty myself. And when finally they set the structure to burn the books, using the firemen, I grunted a few times and subsided, for there were no others grunting or yelling with me, by then. Now, it’s too late.”
― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
It is not too late, not yet, to save a book from firemen such as yourself. If you had put the least intellectual effort into your thread, I might have let it go.
Sorry. I hope you come back to Slaughterhouse-Five when you are ready to like it or dislike it for coherent reasons.
This is an old an inactive thread. Monsieur Nico, you may be reading above your educational or experiential level. This is a complex and multilayered metatextual book, and you are apparently unqualified to comment upon it, or were at the time of your original post. I admire your free expression of your opinion. You may say it again, you are free to say this again. You are also free to research and make a meaningful comment at a later date.
However, I no longer hold my tongue. When a book, recognized as complex and important is dismissed, I have to respond.
Perhaps by quoting Mr. Faber from Fahrenheit 451:
“Mr. Montag, you are looking at a coward. I saw the way things were going, a long time back. I said nothing. I’m one of the innocents who could have spoken up and out when no one would listen to the ‘guilty,’ but I did not speak and thus became guilty myself. And when finally they set the structure to burn the books, using the firemen, I grunted a few times and subsided, for there were no others grunting or yelling with me, by then. Now, it’s too late.”
― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
It is not too late, not yet, to save a book from firemen such as yourself. If you had put the least intellectual effort into your thread, I might have let it go.
Sorry. I hope you come back to Slaughterhouse-Five when you are ready to like it or dislike it for coherent reasons.
Well said, Virginia!
This was a terrible book... some jack-nut critic along the way said it was “deep” and “important” but it was not. There was very little about Dresden in this story as is oft claimed by supporters and did not offer much of anything about the character of Billy Pilgrim. He is as successful businessman and family man but made to look like a retarded person? I read this on the notion that it was a good book, but it was among the worst I have read, and I have read many.
I can only submit that I found the book engaging, I first read it in my earlyish teens as it was in the SF section at my local library of which I was a huge fan. I had no idea that it was a cult classic or venerated in anyway, to me it was just a book about time travel that seemed interesting. It did however have quite a profound effect on an impressionable youth whose mind was beginning to open up and rail against all the lies I'd learnt at school. Also I was raised Roman Catholic but began exploring other religions, Judaism, Buddhism etc at this time so I had quite an enquiring mind back then. I liked Vonnegut mostly for his humourist style of writing and went on to read Player Piano, Mother Night, Sirens of Titan, Cat's Cradle, Welcome To The Monkey House etc, all of which explore similar territory to Slaughter House 5 and enjoyed them all. A belated thank you to the man and his words for enriching my life in many ways!
I wasn't wowed that is for sure. Had heard about this novel for years but never got around to it. When I did I was underwhelmed. Plenty of works I would suggest long before this one.Yep, gave it a 2-1/2 star. And I am broke ass. No oil baron, war-monger etc.
But to answer the question properly, not a 'bad' novel. I wouldn't toss it in with romance drivel. Worth reading to establish your own opinion.
What is everyone's opinion on having this book taught in schools? Has anyone been assigned this book to read/ Did you find it school appropriate?
Abigail wrote: "What is everyone's opinion on having this book taught in schools? Has anyone been assigned this book to read/ Did you find it school appropriate?"It's a bit advanced for most readers, especially those who are not Literature or Creative Writing majors.
That said, it has substantial significance in that it reveals truths about the bombing of Dresden that are so repugnant that they are withheld from official history books--chiefly that the war machine incinerated overnight more innocent civilians than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The book could have gone much further, for example, by illustrating the war machinery that caused the bombing--what Vonnegut later called "bureaucratic inertia." (Joseph Heller did this admirably in Catch-22. Someone needs to do it for the Viet Nam war.)
Reiterating, the principal value of SH5 is in its depiction of the inhumanity of war. Vonnegut presents this through a kaleidoscope of imaginative fantasy that distracts us from the gore and suffering, making it less traumatizing and thereby more memorable and accessible. Its one of those books you cannot forget, no matter how hard one may try.
Nico wrote: "Who agrees that Slaughter house 5 is horrible?"i have to read it again because i read it to feel cool in middle school and understood/remember none of it.
Monty J wrote: "...the horrific death toll, which has been estimated to be ten times the official politically-correct count of 25,000."Estimated by whom? I was under the impression that 20-25,000 was considered to be a reasonably accurate estimate, and that higher figures were based on German propaganda issued at the time.
Wow, there are some appallingly flawed claims being made in this thread, particularly that the reason for people not liking this book is that they lack empathy. (Not to mention the associated claim that people's level of empathy can be rated based on their political leanings--what utterly simplistic thinking).In fact, it's hard to empathize with the characters in this book because they are all one dimensional caricatures with hardly any trace of realistic, human qualities. Many people, noticing this, are correspondingly dissatisfied with this book, regardless of their stance on war.
I'm sure most of the people reading this book believe war is a terrible thing, whether they end up liking the book or not. Wouldn't it be pathetically simple-minded to love a book just because you endorse the message behind it? You believe war is bad, and you've heard that the message of this book is "War is bad", so you read it and conclude, "What a great book!" There's no thought in that.
The merits of the message have nothing to do with the quality of the storytelling. We can be critical of the delivery while still endorsing the message, and if fact, we rather ought to be, if we really care about the message. Because nothing is more detrimental to a good message than an inept messenger.
Vonnegut is a terrible messenger. His book is a mess. It may have good intentions, and it may be based on horrific events he experienced that are important for us to understand, but it's still poorly written. He wrote a book filled with wooden characters, gimmicky, repetitive prose, trite ideas, and casual, pointless vulgarity. It's too bad, too, because he did have such direct experience of those events, that he didn't write a better book.
Again, the merit of the message does not imbue the book with literary quality. Bad books can have good messages, and well-written books can have bad messages. A critical reader can separate the two.
James wrote: "Wow, there are some appallingly flawed claims being made in this thread, particularly that the reason for people not liking this book is that they lack empathy. (Not to mention the associated claim..."I liked it, and I think I would have liked it even if it wasn't about the war. It's a strange way to tell a story, but it worked for me.
James wrote: "Wow, there are some appallingly flawed claims being made in this thread, particularly that the reason for people not liking this book is that they lack empathy. (Not to mention the associated claim..."Implying that people like this book only because of the message is also fairly simplistic. Practically asserting that the novel has
no literary quality because you did not engage with it and treating people who did as not being critical readers also seems rather pretentious and disdainful. Everyone has their own opinion about the books they read and disrespecting their views because they do not align with yours is not right because you do not hold the absolute truth. Nothing is inherently "bad literature", just literature that you did not enjoy.
I understand that you do not find the novel to be compelling, but, for me, it was an absolute masterpiece. The writing style conveyed the confusion and trauma inside Billy's head perfectly. The narrative may seem disjointed, but that's the point. I honestly think that this book would not be as good if it had been written in a more conventional way.
Nico wrote: "Who agrees that Slaughter house 5 is horrible?"I think it's one of the great reads.
Ana, my comments were primarily directed to some earlier responses in this topic. I did not say that people must only like this book because of the message, but was only pointing out how silly it would be, in order to contrast with a previous comment that strongly implied any dislike of this book stemmed from a lack of empathy on the reader's part.You accuse me of showing disrespect to other readers, but in fact I was more on the defensive against sweeping and disrespectful attacks on people who disliked this book in the previous comments. So, please be fair, and consider my remarks in context.
Also in those comments, there seemed to me to be too much emphasis on Vonnegut's message and his experience in the war as the justification for this book's status as a classic, and hence my assertion that a critical reader should be able to separate such things. I still stand by that statement.
By the way, I did not dislike the book because the narrative was "disjointed" (though I've seen many people make this complaint). I understand that was part of the point. I just don't agree that it was well done.
My apologies if you felt that I did not interpreted your post correctly. I understand what you said about a critical reader being able to separate message and quality, but it seemed like your opinion was that people could not enjoy this novel for its message. This is what I found disrespectful. Different readers search for different things, and if someone finds the message to be one of the merits of the book, that does not mean that this person is not a critical reader.Of course, I see your point and respect that you think it was not well-done. I just wanted to point out that this particular reasoning didn't work for me.
Peter wrote: "Estimated by whom? I was under the impression that 20-25,000..."I didn't make an exhaustive study of it; my comment was based on something Vonnegut mentioned in a video and was backed up by one other source on the web discussing the controversy over how to estimate the number of dead from the Dresden bombing.
It's been years now since I read the book, but as I recall, Vonnegut was among the crew of people who were sent down under the rubble to look for survivors and bodies. After several days of smelling corpses and hauling out decaying body parts, they gave up. The rubble was eventually packed down and paved over, making a third of Dresden a vast burial ground.
During the war, the city's population had swelled because of a huge influx of refugees, 300,000 I think Vonnegut said. The "official" count of 25-40,000 fatalities (or whatever the number is) was based on verified bodies, but the vast uncounted majority lie even today under the rubble.
According to the web link below, the number is closer to 600,000. I don't have time to read it all, and suspect it could be neo-Nazi propaganda. But even so it could be half right:
https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/...
Here's a quote from it:
It was known as a show-place of culture. It had no military bases, no major communication centers or heavy industry. It had no air defense. In the last months of the war, it was known as “Die Lazarettstadt” – it had been declared a hospital town. It was also known as the “Fluechtlingsstadt” – the City of the Refugees.Who's going to excavate to get the count right? The true number will never be known. You can learn more, but you'll have to do some digging. Histories of war are written by those who win them. I learned just enough when I was researching it to have strong doubts about the official number.
Norman Stone, Professor of Modern History at Oxford, wrote in the Daily Mail:
“ALREADY, BY 1944, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR TO MOST PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH . . . GERMANS ONCE VICTORY HAD BEEN WON .
WE WENT ON BOMBING GERMAN CITIES MONTHS AND MONTHS AFTER IT HAD BEEN CLEAR THAT WE WOULD WIN, AND THAT STALIN WOULD BE AS POTENTIALLY DEADLY AN ENEMY. SOME OF THE BOMBING WAS JUST POINTLESS. IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE WAR, WE STRUCK AT THE OLD GINGERBREAD TOWNS SOUTH OF WURZBURG, WHERE THERE WAS NO MILITARY TARGET AT ALL . . . JUST REFUGEES, WOMEN AND CHILDREN. OF THESE ACTS OF GRATUITOUS SADISM, THE WORST WAS THE BOMBING OF DRESDEN.”
It's hard to know what figures to believe when any source might be biased, but I think 600,000 is probably absurd.According to Wikipedia, initial German estimates were in the 20,000s, and they added a zero for propaganda reasons. Post war German estimates confirmed the initial ones, but it seems the inflated figures had already been absorbed by the world, including Vonnegut.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...
Even 10,000 would have been a massive number, in my opinion, and I'm not surprised Vonnegut was deeply affected by what he saw.
I think the book is written in very unique manner. Mr. Vonnegut is able to keep the readers interested through this "bouncy" story. Besides that, the book feels like you are in dream that keeps on going and going. It feels like it never stops. Some of the messages in the book make people end up liking the book even more. Even though many people think the book is bad in some sense, I think it is a great book considering my taste. Overall, the book is great, but it is up to the person who reads it to decide if they like it or not.
cat's cradle is better, but vonnegut is a national treasure.
"All this happened, more or less." I've read every Vonnegut novel I could find. I don't think he was necessarily a happy person, he was a genius, and he was upset with the world. 'Deadeye Dick' was my favorite and even worse than 'Slaughterhouse 5'. If tragedy isn't remembered for what it is, and pain or fear cannot be rationalized, then we all start to suffer some delusion of our own superiority. Yes, delusion is a warm fuzzy feeling, but once we entertain ourselves to the point of defiling those who remember our transgressions, not absurdly but vehemently, then we start our own descent, a fall that civilizations have taken time and time again for thousaands of years..
The problem with creative people who flout the established conventions of their chosen artistic medium is that there's usually a very good reason those conventions became established in the first place. Flouting those conventions rarely pays off. In fact, I cannot think of a single instance offhand where it did. It certainly should never be done without strong reasons that cannot be fulfilled by a method that works within the established conventions. As far as I'm concerned, the weirdness in this novel didn't pay off.I hated this book. I'm glad that Vonnegut refused to jump on the bandwagon and glorify war. I saw John Wayne's Green Berets and cringed constantly through the whole thing. But Catch-22 did a much better job of conveying Slaughterhouse 5's message, and I couldn't even do more than browse that book.
To me, the best part of Slaughterhouse 5 was the summaries of the books written by Billy Pilgrim's favorite author - the guy whose books wound up in the porno shop so the store owner could claim that they sold real literature and not just smut.
It wasn't that I hated Billy Pilgrim. He seemed like he was mostly okay. But he sure didn't seem to care much about what was happening in his life, what had happened in his life, or what was going to happen in his life, and that made it pretty hard for me to care.
So yeah, I'm one of the people who cannot see any reason for this book to be so popular beyond its message and the fact that it's "different".
Monty J wrote: "
Probably any Texas oil baron Republican who owns stock in Halliburton and Lockheed or some other part of the Oil/Military-Industrial Complex would hate it.
People who profit from war might be sickened by a book that shows the gory truth or satirizes war. They probably hate M*A*S*H as well. And All Quiet on the Western Front.
"
Hmmmm.... I'm not a Republican. M*A*S*H* is one of the best TV series of all time. All Quiet on the Western Front" is an excellent book. My father was in WWII and his view was: "That was not a pleasant time. We did what we had to do." And he wouldn't say much more about it.
Agree with Nico, SH5 is a terrible book. Beats you to death with "your life is meaningless and there is nothing you can do about it." Suggest contrast that basic philosophy of this book with Winston Churchill. The basis of the book is absurd, hence, meaningless. Can there be anything worse?
I agree, I got no emotional response from it besides being a bit annoyed at so it goes and his communist preaching parts(he is one, you can look it up), and a rare chuckle here and there. Just another professional writer exploiting historical events to make money. Especially since he lies and says that the casualties were over 100,000 and they destroyed the entire city, just enough to be worse than Hiroshima. There's a lot of problems aside from this but I'll cut it short here.
Didn't like it, didn't hate it, just didn't get it.
Gordon wrote: "I was underwhelmed by it. I am no war monger, I just think this is one of those books that everyone praises because everyone else does. If you just picked it up cold, and didn't know anything about..."I read it due to it being on Kindle unlimited without knowing much about it and I loved it.
I loved the book. I think most people get hung up on the non-linear narrative, but that is exactly what I loved about the book.The structure of the novel allows Vonnegut to capture the fundamental nature of being human: the ability to reflect on the past, contemplate the future, and lose sight of the present. Focusing on this disconnect makes it easier for Vonnegut to explore the profound themes he raises in this story.
I thought it was well executed.
Roy wrote: "I loved the book. I think most people get hung up on the non-linear narrative, but that is exactly what I loved about the book.The structure of the novel allows Vonnegut to capture the fundamenta..."
I'm sorry, but bouncing around in time is not part of the "fundamental nature of being human". Of course if someone actually were bouncing around in time, that certainly might lead to his feeling disconnected from the present, but such an impossible scenario has absolutely nothing to do with how ordinary people can worry about the future, dwell on the past, and lose sight of the present.
If Vonnegut wanted to write about something fundamental in human nature, he should have stuck with possibilities instead of writing about something so wildly impossible that even a reflective, careful reader cannot produce any sympathetic understanding of what his character is supposedly experiencing. Not even Vonnegut's own character seemed to have much sympathetic understanding of what he was experiencing. He wasn't dwelling on his past or worrying about his future; he was disconnected from ALL of it. The way I remember it, Billy was pretty much just going with the flow and waiting for his life to be over. And there's a tremendous difference between losing sight of the present while focusing on the past or future and not actually caring all that much where you are in your life or what's happening or when it's all going to end. Indifference to your life is not the same as forgetting where to focus your energies.
This novel tells us nothing about the essential human experience. That's exactly why I couldn't care about it.
It's a matter of perspective.While one may fairly disagree with Vonnegut's views, it nevertheless remains possible to appreciate his use of narrative structure to express those views. While the average person may feel so invested in his or her own life and the perceived ability to control their destiny that they cannot relate to Billy Pilgrim, Vonnegut's writing allows the reader to experience the world through the eyes of someone subjected to its darkest aspects.
Indifference to one's own fate may be the only logical response to a scenario in which one is deprived of autonomy and subjected to the whims and caprices of one's worst enemy. I think the non-linear narrative of the novel does an excellent job of expressing the fear, anxiety, and horror the average person would experience when subjected to the nightmare scenario that Pilgrim experiences.
In this sense, I believe that Vonnegut's story is more realistic because of its surreal narrative structure and that it speaks to deep truths about human nature.
Roy wrote: "It's a matter of perspective.While one may fairly disagree with Vonnegut's views, it nevertheless remains possible to appreciate his use of narrative structure to express those views. While the a..."
What deep truths?
I've already said that I can see how Billy Pilgrim might come to feel disconnected from his own life under the circumstances. That's not the issue. The issue is that what Billy is experiencing is so far outside the realm of possibility that we can only guess wildly at how we or anyone would react under those circumstances. And that's not a narrative structure that expresses much of anything except confusion, and it's a confusion that has no relation to the realistic confusion of ordinary people.
And who is this "worst enemy"? I don't recall the novel ever explaining why Billy was bouncing around in time, let alone attributing it to a plot by his worst enemy.
You're being inconsistent. In the exact same paragraph that you speak of being indifferent to one's fate as being possibly the only logical response to Billy's peculiar circumstances, you then go on to talk of fear, anxiety, and horror. But Vonnegut isn't depicting fear, anxiety, and horror. He's depicting numb indifference. He isn't expressing any of the things you're attributing to this work.
And that isn't just a matter of perspective.
This last line is precious given we're talking about the meaning of a work of fiction.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Fahrenheit 451 (other topics)
The Universe Versus Alex Woods (other topics)
Slaughterhouse 5 (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Slaughterhouse-Five (other topics)Fahrenheit 451 (other topics)
The Universe Versus Alex Woods (other topics)
Slaughterhouse 5 (other topics)
