Read for the second time in June 2013.
I read "Slaughterhouse Five" for the first time some ten or fifteen years ago and upon re-reading remembered almost none of it save for the fact that I remembered the concept of Tralfamadorian's seeing in four dimensions in one of Vonnegut's novels. And upon rereading I remembered the part where Vonnegut becomes friend's with his war buddy's wife over their shared disdain for war and over the idea that Vonegut would not glorify war.
Upon rereading, I can understand why I don't remember this. I understand that this is his most noted work, but it feels insignificant to me and I didn't really enjoy reading it. I feel like this is where Vonnegut can be dismissed as Ayn Rand for liberals.
I didn't have this strong of a negative reaction the first time I read it, though I never would've counted it as among my favorite Vonnegut's. I never recommended it to anyone (unlike Cat's Cradle which I long considered my favorite), but I didn't have a negative memory of it either. I just counted it as among the 10 or so Vonnegut's I had read that I really enjoyed.
But the first time I read it, I was younger, and it was during the days of peace and prosperity. Probably during the late Clinton administration or the early W years, pre 9/11. I want to talk about this as much as possible in a way where my own politics are beside the point. Let's just say that in that earlier environment, I was not only unexposed but war was maybe more abstract. Being pro-war or anti-war was neither here nor there. I think the culture had even decided to stop arguing about Vietnam more or less.
And so here I was at this point in time, where I was young and relatively unexposed, and being anti-war or being pro-war or however you want to phrase it was not really a thing. Cultural artifacts that took an opinion on war did not really exist back then. There was no way for their forms and opinions to have solidified into something to be tired of.
And then of course there was 9/11 and the Iraq War and my young adulthood as secular big city hipster type. And you know by 2004, the ironic jokes of "blah blah blah are the real terrorists," or "if you let blank happen, the terrorists will win" went from funny parody to groan-inducing hackdom. And there's been so much goddamned John Stewart and his knock offs in the intervening years and so much joking and commentary about all this whether you agree with it or not, it just all became tired and too much. Whether it's shrill sarcasm and outrage masquerading as humor or it's just run through some kind of abstract machine to where it's silly. Being serious about war in a funny way or not is just something that I don't have patience for in art right now.
Like at one time John Stewart felt like such a breath of fresh air compared what else was on television. And now if I turn him on I really only get that sense of smug, knowing, speaking to the converted, self-conscious wink of sarcasm and I'm tired of it. I've drowned in it over the last decade.
That's an explanation. I mean Vonnegut is such a precursor to this tone we all took for a while, and maybe he doesn't deserve to be rated negatively for it. But I also think he published this in 1968. And I think it would have been a lot braver to publish it in 1965 right? Like I think about that and I think what a safe move. And I know that's sort of crazy. It's always right to take the right stand. And who is anyone to judge anyone, especially me. Nonetheless, all together and at the end of the day, "Slaughterhouse Five," unlike "Siren's of Titan" or "Jailbird" or "Breakfast of Champions," feels a little like "Atlas Shrugged" for liberals. And that probably explains as well why it's his most poplar.
No comments:
Post a Comment