he hasnt aged well.

Why will people never learn that the characters are not the author.

Well I think he’s great.

Vonnegut may not be your cup of tea, but smug and arrogant are about the last adjectives I could see him getting tagged with.

I liked it. But I like Vonnegut’s style.

Using characters to push a point doesn’t make a book bad, it just means that the primary purpose of the book is to show an argument through analogy and story rather than to develop unique characters.

So make yourself stop viewing through the mindset of hunting the smug.

i like his speech/essay/article collection Palm Sunday much more than I expected to after reading vast swathes of his fiction. the fiction doesn’t appeal to me either. in his straight pieces he dispenses with most of that overdone whimsy and gets to the point. that’s much more to my personal taste.

I also found his fiction to be overpoweringly American. there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s another point of disconnection for me.

brace yourself 😋. people hate it when you criticize Vonnegut. some of his most serious disciples can’t deal with the idea at all.

Breakfast Of Champions is not a good one to start with. I maintain that that book was Vonnegut seeing how far he could shove a book up its own ass, now meta and pretentious he could make it, and still have people fawn over it.

I wanna be mad at you but honestly I read cat’s cradle like 20 years ago and I don’t remember anything

Maybe Vonnegut is not for you idk 🤷‍♂️

Was not a fan of Breakfast of Champions either. It’s quite some time since I read it, but I’ve never come to understood why that one in particular is so popular.

However, I have not read Cat’s Cradle and have been unsure about going into it. Unfortunately, your review doesn’t really give any actual examples of how Vonnegut is ‘condescending’ or ‘arrogant’, nor how the book ‘beats shallow nihilism over the reader’s head the entire time while ignorantly bashing on those with different views’. Do you think you could expound on this? You’re obviously quite certain about it and probably have examples bursting out of you. Please just pop a few in to help illustrate your point.

Is it also possible to explain why the characters ‘were one dimensional cardboard cutouts’ by stipulating what was missing from their characterisations - and why Vonnegut did not choose to leave this missing on purpose which might not be inappropriate if there’s so much nihilism - because at the moment, your review doesn’t really convince me of anything. I’ve definitely found thin characters in Vonnegut before, but I’ve always found he gives them something in an effort to add depth to them, although I’ll also argue this doesn’t always work. As such, your insights here would be pretty interesting.

You’ll also have to forgive me, but with the total lack of examples in your review, I genuinely thought you were just an edgy high-school student. Do you think you pop in a few more details? It would be much appreciated and hopefully add to the strength of your arguments. Cheers!

He’s not for everyone.

Vonnegut drew a picture of his own asshole in Breakfast of Champions that people now have tattooed on themselves.

I just don’t think he was taking himself too seriously with that one.

I don’t really care for Cats Craddle. I’m more of a what’s the potato barn person myself (Bluebeard)

love this take. slaughterhouse 5 is wildly overrated