Slaughterhouse-Five: A Novel (Modern Library 100 Best Novels)

Felt like poetry at times

The book has two unique attributes: 1. It is fundamentally amoral. That does not mean Vonnegut thinks there are no such concepts as good and evil. I would say virtually every author suggests morality, by merely putting such actions and characters in the story. The mere existence of so-and-so means the author intends to emphasize them. In contrast, Vonnegut explicitly tells you there is no such thing as good and evil. One of the quirks of Slaughterhouse-Five is that Vonnegut is indifferent to the concept of what is real and what is fiction; there is only the "sense" or the "essence" of the thing. "You don't have to feel anything about the book, because the events of the book are events, and what happens is very funny," so Vonnegut tells you. And that is the ultimate lesson the protagonist, Billy, takes: whatever happens, happens. 2. To accommodate this very unique take on fiction, Vonnegut adopted an unusual writing style; we have an idea of who influenced him, as he references French writer Celine. Whereas most fiction has a "chronology" or an order, Slaughterhouse-Five is a series of paintings, and the subject of each painting is something fascinating or strange about humanity. I believe Vonnegut described his writing style as a series of punchlines. I've observed literally only one American attempt anything like his style, and that's Gertrude Stein, the great iconoclast. It's such a hard book to wrap one's head around. The reason why an author develops characters and settings is to have a vehicle for "meaning" or the "message" or "theme" of a story. Vonnegut defies that. Billy is not really a character; he is a collage of moments Vonnegut chooses to depict, and Vonnegut lets you know immediately that the collage is incomplete. You must be satisfied with the pieces Vonnegut provides you. There is no story. There is only the "thing", the what-ness of the book, which is not even real. And yet, after doing away with all the "reality" of a novel, the suspension of the audience's belief and the play-pretend that the content of a novel is in any way factual, Vonnegut is almost begging you to understand that this real person suffers real pain and deserves real empathy, regardless of what he has really done and believed in his life, empathy being the one thing that transcends any perceived reality. And yet it's difficult for me to point out which part of the novel explicitly says this. It is the book's magic to make you conclude this, without placing exactly why. Many books came to symbolize the '60s counterculture, but this one is special. I think this one will last a long time. This was a re-read; I remember a woman, in passing, saw me in Bryant Park reading this and said, "Slaughterhouse-Five; nice."

I'm not much of a SciFi fan typically but this book is amazing. I recommend it to anybody. Still very relevant.

Read this a few months ago. This book was fun to read and explorative in style. All of the characters and events were a little ridiculous, which touches on the book's theme of how ridiculous the act of war is. If you're looking to read some classics, I say this is an easy book to start with because of its easy to read writing and its short length. One of my favorite quotes of all time is from this book: "Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt". If weird sci-fi books are your thing (time travel/aliens) this is a good book for you.

absurd and hilarious but couldn't be a better depiction of war