Slaughterhouse Five was definitely the easy book to comprehend so far, at least on the surface level. It had clear sentences and correct grammar, unlike Mumbo Jumbo. I really thought the way the author depicted PTSD through a chronologically disorganized book was super cool and interesting. It was really easy to keep up with the readings because I just wanted to keep reading it. I have already read this book from Mr. Butler’s class last semester, but reading it a second time gave me a whole new perspective and I was able to understand the deeper meaning of the book.
My favorite part of the book is how blunt it is. It doesn’t dance around the subject of death, nor does go into excruciating detail. Kurt Vonnegut describes things exactly the way he saw it, even if was something as gruesome as the Dresden bombing. Seeing the narrator be so disconnected from real life and emotions gives the reader a new perspective on how war can effect veterans and how they are left with PTSD afterwards.
Even though I’ve already read this book in Mr. Butlers class, we never actually had any class discussion on it so I was left to think about it myself. We read this book alongside One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich which I often thought about while reading Slaughterhouse Five again. If you haven’t already read this book, I strongly recommend it. This book gives a whole new meaning to life and what it is like to live freely. It also showed me that someone with PTSD can be suffering as much inside as someone stuck in a Russian gulag.
So far, Slaughterhouse Five is my favorite book that we’ve read. I found it the easiest to understand while depicting a much deeper, emotional theme. Even though Billy Pilgrim doesn’t seem to be a super sympathetic person, the book finds a way to make you feel sympathy towards him.
I agree, I also really like Slaughterhouse 5. It was a lot easier to understand than Mumbo Jumbo. I also read the book earlier, but reading it for this class helped me gain a deeper understanding. I liked reading about Tralfamadore and thinking about what it could really mean - I took it as a part of his imagination that he used to cope with his trauma.
ReplyDeleteThis was also my second time reading sh5. The bluntness around death stuck out to me as well. Most of the novels I've read glorify death in some way. Characters die in some heart-wrenching way that makes us feel weighed down by sadness, or go down in victory, or something of the like. Sh5 described death more in the way that a biography would. Rosa Parks died at age ... she was ... years old etc. funny thing, reading a biography we aren't usually saddened by the death. We remember everything we just read--it's almost tralfamadorian, the person lives on in those moments, death is just one moment in the book. Death is only sad if you connected with the person, and with war, you didn't connect with nearly 100% of the people. Death is pretty insignificant, so "so it goes" makes sense.
ReplyDeleteI think Slaughterhouse Five was also my favorite book we read this quarter. I enjoyed that it was an easy read compared to the previous books we had read. I also found Billy a very interesting character and different then any other character we had read about before. The bluntness with regard to death of the book was something I had not experienced before. "So it goes" to me is the most iconic quote in the book, probably because it is used so often. "So it goes" is also a unique look at death.
ReplyDeleteSlaughterhouse five was actually my least favorite book of the semester. What interests me in a novel is human connection. The perspective I tend to take on life is, our existence as people and as the human race is so insignificant in the grand scheme of time, that any actions or lasting effect we have on the earth will be completely forgotten and erased. Because of this, what makes life worthwhile (in my opinion) is meaningful connections with the people around you. Billy lacks these human connections, and because of this I don't like him as a character or the novel he is in.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting how clear and "simple" vonnegut makes the language. It seems like a purposeful choice. it could partly serve to make the book more accessible and impactful. yet it also feels consistent with the point that there is nothing good to say about war. Would a more fancy worded book with complex vocabulary be doing justice to war and death?
ReplyDeleteI think the simple language and short sentences that Vonnegut uses only serves to emphasize Billy's blunt way of thinking. I've definitely never read a book with this kind of structure, it was interesting!
ReplyDeleteVonnegut's blunt wording really emphasizes Billy's disconnection from the world. Slaughterhouse Five's noticeable simplicity compared to the other books we've read also adds to this effect. Dramatic scenes are described quickly, without any flowery and complex language.
ReplyDelete