While I was on vacation in the Dominican Republic last month, I attempted to read two things. First, I relapsed and tried to struggle through A Clash of Kings after declaring that I didn’t want to read it anymore. I’m sad (happy?) to say that I’m still struggling through it today, and I actually don’t hate it. Second, I got through a book that I’ve wanted to read for a long time by an author I’ve heard amazing things about. I read Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut. I have just one thing to say to sum up my experience:
I AM NOT WORTHY!
Needless to say, I loved it. I won’t lie, I didn’t understand it at first, especially with its quirky beginning and alien abduction scenes. But, *spoiler alert*, once I found out that the main character was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder following the second world war, something clicked, and I understood the piece for what it was — and I wholeheartedly enjoyed it! And on top of that, it was hilarious.
A lot of criticism for this novel comes from Vonnegut’s disjointed and confusing storytelling, and for the first hundred pages, I would agree with the critics. I was confused as all hell for the first third of the book, and I found myself thinking that I had picked up another 300 pages of overrated crud, but once I understood why this was happening, it became easier to read somehow, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Besides the obvious great storytelling and the layers of symbolism, one question does come to mind, and it is often debated between readers once they’ve finished reading: Is Slaughterhouse-Five an anti-war novel? Sure, the main character fought in world war two, has obvious mental duress, and believes he had been abducted by aliens to live on a foreign planet and mate with a huge movie star, but is this a criticism of war?
To be honest, I’m not sure why this question is being asked. The answer is clear: of course it’s an anti-war novel! Yes, the main character takes a rather neutral stance in regards to his time in world war two, replacing deep sentiments with the phrase “so it goes“, but that in itself is anti-war. This man is irreversibly damaged, numbing himself to great pain and living in delusions in order to escape his horrific past. Sure, nothing Vonnegut writes says “WAR SUCKS” in bold red letters, but he doesn’t need to. The fact that this man is so broken speaks for itself.
All in all, this was a great introduction to Vonnegut’s work, and I am excited to read more. He might even make it up there with some of my favorite greats: Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Margaret Atwood.
Have you read this book? What are your thoughts on the anti-war sentiment?
Michael Cristiano 