communication breakdown

Book Review: Slaughterhouse Five (1969)

[ 5 / 10 ] I know several of you have been wondering: "When is Shaun going to read and review a book that he doesn't think is great?" Indeed, up to this point, all of my book reviews have carried ratings of 8/10 or above. Well, I'm about to break that streak, with what must surely be considered an unlikely choice. For years I have heard the name Kurt Vonnegut and listened as people raved and showered praise upon him, even referring to him as "America's best author". Heck, Preston Meyers even refers to him as his idol in Can't Hardly Wait, and Preston's a pretty cool cat, so I figured there must be something to this Vonnegut fellow. Well, I finally got around to reading one of his books, the classic anti-war novel "Slaughterhouse Five". And to be perfectly honest, I was surprised not by its brilliance or profoundness, but by its mediocrity...

"Slaughterhouse Five" is a bizarre read, to say the least. It relates to us the story of Billy Pilgrim, an American soldier in World War II who experienced first-hand the fire-bombing of Dresden. But Vonnegut, in his quest to write the atypical anti-war novel, adds a strange twist to the tale of this simple soldier. At one point in his life Billy is abducted by aliens from the planet Tralfamadore, and is taught the secret of time travel. So Pilgrim's story is told, not linearly, but in disjointed fashion, as we follow Billy's jumps backward and forward through his own life experiences.

Despite the curious injections of unabashedly sci-fi elements such as aliens and time travel, "Slaughterhouse" admirably retains its focus on the main character, rather than straying too far into the paranormal. Billy is a simple man, as his very name suggests, and he is quite the interesting choice as protagonist. In no way is Billy a hero. He is a passive agent, a being acted upon by his surroundings and external forces; a victim, perhaps, but certainly not a hero. Despite all of this, it's not hard to feel sympathetic for Pilgrim, as Vonnegut hopes we will; despite his lack of ambition or determination to alter his situation, he is plagued by unfortunate, and oftentimes horrific, events throughout his life. Through his eyes (and Vonnegut's, who was there in Dresden himself), we see the horror of the American fire-bombing, which claimed the lives of more people than any other attack in the war, including both the atomic strikes.

From the start of the book, Vonnegut is very clear about his aims: he wants to create a novel in stark contrast to those war stories which glorify battle. He wants to protect the "babies" from having to go out and fight any more wars for the politicians. And his sense of timing is certainly impeccable, releasing the novel as the conflict in Vietnam was escalating, providing a scathing rebuke of America's actions there. No doubt his novel was effective among the American public, and as such, his effect on America's staying power in Vietnam was tangible and significant. For this he must be given great credit.

I should also point out that Vonnegut employs many interesting ideas in the book. While the bulk of the story centers around Billy Pilgrim and his exploits, the first and last chapters are told from Vonnegut's own perspective. Interestingly enough, in the first chapter, he tells us how the book is going to start and end; amazingly, he's exactly right on both counts. Vonnegut's own personal feelings about war contrast with those of his main character. While Billy Pilgrim comes to believe, based on his time on Tralfamadore, that all actions are inevitable and nothing can be prevented, Vonnegut's writing of this very novel suggests that he believes otherwise. And he also uses a fair amount of repetition, sometimes to connect events and reveal how everything is not so disjointed, and other times to drive home a point which he feels is significant. One of the most famous lines in the book, "So it goes", is said every time that something dies. Whenever anything dies. From soldier, to family member, to animal, to the protagonist himself - Vonnegut's only commentary on death is "So it goes". A satirical and very effective way of exhibiting the dehumanizing ability of war.

Despite the subject matter, the conversational style of the narrative makes it extremely easy to read. He even mixes in subtle touches of irony. Billy's time-travel experiences are obviously discounted by everyone, despite the fact that they really happened (or did they?) And it just so happens that a group of POWs, held in a slaughterhouse in the middle of a city which will never be attacked, are among the few survivors after the city is destroyed.

Hopefully I have done my best to make the novel seem interesting and worthy of its critical and popular acclaim. However, despite all of this, I cannot help but feel disappointed after finishing the book. For all of Vonnegut's aims, I was not really moved or affected to understand his cause. While the book is slightly bizarre, occasionally humorous, momentarily devastating, and at times satirical, it is thoroughly lacking in anything substantial. While we learn plenty about Billy Pilgrim, he's not quite the kind of character to captivate our attention. And despite its fervent desire to stand out from other anti-war novels, all it really does is fade into the background, trumped by far superior examples from its own genre. "Slaughterhouse Five" lacks the absolute, unmerciful satire which is ever-present in "Catch-22". While the latter novel focuses on this as its primary tactic for espousing its views, the former uses it too sparingly to be that effective. It also lacks the haunting portrait of wartime found in books such as "The Naked And The Dead" or even "A Farewell To Arms". Pilgrim's experiences with time travel break up any sense of despair built upon by the wartime scenes, and even his depictions of Dresden, supposedly the central point of the book, lack powerful imagery.

Maybe my expectations were too high. Or maybe I didn't get it. But I propose a third possibility: this was a novel intended for a different audience in a different time. I think Vonnegut wrote a novel that the American people of the late-60s needed to read, and as such, it was wildly effective. Clearly, the book has elements interesting enough to keep readers captivated for years to come. Yet I cannot help but feel that it is overrated in relation to the praise it has received. Despite Vonnegut's noble intentions, I walked away from the book not changed, affected, or moved in any way. While it was an interesting read, if only for its creative elements and the occasional pondering on the human condition, I feel that "Slaughterhouse Five" lacked the ruthlessness and clarity of purpose to be a exemplary anti-war novel.