Is Slaughterhouse Five an Anti-War Novel? I've read…
0 reactions
Is Slaughterhouse Five an Anti-War Novel?
I've read slaughterhouse five six times. The first time I read it, I was baffled by the plot, despite vonnegut's very simple and approachable writing style. But I was obsessed with it.
I've read a few of his other books, and tbh, none of them really clicked with me the same. they're all very weird and just kind of boring. But S5 has me in a chokehold. It seemed clear (even from the first, confusing readthrough) to be an anti-war novel. However, it wasn't until my most recent reading that i realized: it isn't anti-war at all. The entire book is just vonnegut admitting to his own failure.
He says right from the start: "you might as well write an anti-glacier book." meaning that stopping wars through writing is utterly pointless. But there might still be something meaningful to say, right? No. Every significant plot event- the tralfamadorians, the time travel, the assassination at the end- they are all metaphors. Kurt is trying to hammer home the point, that trying to find meaning in conflict, death, and destruction is utterly pointless, and doomed.
The book ends with "poo-tee-weet." This is a symbol for the fact that there is nothing at all to be said. Nothing.
I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this. Is S5 an anti-war novel, or a failed anti-war novel, or something else entirely?
And also, does anyone know what "everything was beautiful and nothing hurt" means? This quote has me stuck
#entertainment
source
I've read slaughterhouse five six times. The first time I read it, I was baffled by the plot, despite vonnegut's very simple and approachable writing style. But I was obsessed with it.
I've read a few of his other books, and tbh, none of them really clicked with me the same. they're all very weird and just kind of boring. But S5 has me in a chokehold. It seemed clear (even from the first, confusing readthrough) to be an anti-war novel. However, it wasn't until my most recent reading that i realized: it isn't anti-war at all. The entire book is just vonnegut admitting to his own failure.
He says right from the start: "you might as well write an anti-glacier book." meaning that stopping wars through writing is utterly pointless. But there might still be something meaningful to say, right? No. Every significant plot event- the tralfamadorians, the time travel, the assassination at the end- they are all metaphors. Kurt is trying to hammer home the point, that trying to find meaning in conflict, death, and destruction is utterly pointless, and doomed.
The book ends with "poo-tee-weet." This is a symbol for the fact that there is nothing at all to be said. Nothing.
I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this. Is S5 an anti-war novel, or a failed anti-war novel, or something else entirely?
And also, does anyone know what "everything was beautiful and nothing hurt" means? This quote has me stuck
#entertainment
source
| 1,000 mlx | |
| 1 | |
| 0 |