So I must say, this is not my kind of book so if you like it, be warned this may not be the blog for you.
Why I don't like Vonnegut's take on postmodernism.
The biggest issue I personally have with Vonnegut is his style; it confuses the issue of his novel-that human nature is the biggest opponent to a utopian of "happier" world. He uses very simple sentences mixed with seemingly random thoughts confusing the reader of his intent. Although some believe Vonnegut's syntax is used to deconstruct the human need for a simple black and white world or the easy argument of good versus evil, it confuses the reader (or me). The sense of purpose or meaning is then obliterated because the reader is still attempting to figure out what is going on in the novel. Furthermore, chopping up his narrative (if you can call it that...) into very short and somewhat incomplete chapters. For instance, Vonnegut splices Newt's letter into three mini-chapters (chapter five through seven) and the reader is left wondering why? Perhaps, Vonnegut is trying to prove a point, but really? I am left wondering why he titles the first “A letter from a Pre-med”, the second “Bug Fights”, and the third “The Illustrious Hoenikkers”; why not let it flow and let the readers decide what is important. He wants to satirize the idea of pure evil by exposing the complexities behind human behavior, but his greater meaning is lost in his style.
Many postmodern texts do not use a choppy style to satirize the world view of today; some use multiple vantage points that combine and intertwine to create a fuller understanding of the author’s world view. Vonnegut’s deconstructionist style can work for some, but for this reader, the implications Vonnegut makes is lost because there is no clear narrative line. He starts in one direction, the juts back to where he was two pages (or chapters) ago. It is just plain confusing for this Narrative-lover.
I totally and completely agree I also don't appreciate Vonnegut’s style. Although not only do I dislike his style of how he writes but also what the words on the page mean. Yes, he uses choppy sentences and ect. however he completely confuses the reader in Cat's Cradle. First, he tells us that everything in the book is a lie. Then we find out that the novel your reading is actually about another guy that is writing a novel inside of that novel. And this guys, John's, novel is another novel about Bokonism. Which is another set of novels that are a religion in its self completely made of lies. Its very confusing, and sends the reader the message that everything is a lie very confidently.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that at the end of your first paragraph that Vonnegut "doesn't let the reader decide what the message is, by using his writing styles." I see what you mean it seems like he doesn't want the reader to define what he saying, but that he wants to speak boldly and post it clearly what he wants you to believe and think. Its almost like he is acting like a center in a book that is about deconstruction of centers and postmodernism, very ironic.
I understand why its so hard for you to get into this book Krissie, it's pretty hard for me too. Maybe that means Vonnegut is successful then, if his goal is to confuse us to the point that we have no choice but to accept that there is no center to his writing. I don't know, it really seems as though all Postmodernism does is contradict itself... Maybe the lack of a center isn't a good thing- maybe we need at least standard base to compare and understand.Postmodernism is in itself a center that attacks centers! I often feel as though they are making too much out of nothing.
ReplyDelete