Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five
"A Launching Pad of Belief:
Kurt Vonnegut and Postmodern Humor
Kevin Brown
Humor critics have argued that satire is not possible any longer, largely due to the horrors ofthe twentieth century and the postmodern belief in the lack of objective truth, especially in relation to morality. Because of these developments, they argue that no moral stance can be taken through satire; instead, satirists now write merely for pleasure, not to instigate any change in morality. Several postmodern authors, including Kurt Vonnegut, however, still attempt to provide moral messages through their writing. John
Gardner, for example, attacked existentialism in Grendel. Several critics, though, misread the novel and viewed the narrator and the author …show more content…
Another reason that Slaughterhouse-Five has been misinterpreted results from a comment that Vonnegut makes in the opening chapter. He relates a conversation he had about Slaughterhouse-Five:
Over the years, people I 've met have often asked me what
I 'm working on, and I 've usually replied that the main thing was a book about Dresden. I said that to Harrison Starr, the movie-maker, one time, and he raised his eyebrows and inquired, "Is it an anti-war book?" "Yes," I said, "I guess."
"You know what I say to people when I hear they 're writing anti-war books?" "No. What do you say, Harrison Star?"
"I say, 'Why don 't you write an anti-glacier book instead?" '
What he meant, of course, was that there would always be wars, that they were as easy to stop as glaciers. I believe that, too. And even if wars didn 't keep coming like glaciers, there would still be plain old death. (3-4)
This interchange has been seen as a confirmation of the passive acceptance of wars and other such atrocities; however, Vonnegut is merely viewing
Kurt Vonnegut and Postmodern Humor
Kevin Brown
Humor critics have argued that satire is not possible any longer, largely due to the horrors ofthe twentieth century and the postmodern belief in the lack of objective truth, especially in relation to morality. Because of these developments, they argue that no moral stance can be taken through satire; instead, satirists now write merely for pleasure, not to instigate any change in morality. Several postmodern authors, including Kurt Vonnegut, however, still attempt to provide moral messages through their writing. John
Gardner, for example, attacked existentialism in Grendel. Several critics, though, misread the novel and viewed the narrator and the author …show more content…
Another reason that Slaughterhouse-Five has been misinterpreted results from a comment that Vonnegut makes in the opening chapter. He relates a conversation he had about Slaughterhouse-Five:
Over the years, people I 've met have often asked me what
I 'm working on, and I 've usually replied that the main thing was a book about Dresden. I said that to Harrison Starr, the movie-maker, one time, and he raised his eyebrows and inquired, "Is it an anti-war book?" "Yes," I said, "I guess."
"You know what I say to people when I hear they 're writing anti-war books?" "No. What do you say, Harrison Star?"
"I say, 'Why don 't you write an anti-glacier book instead?" '
What he meant, of course, was that there would always be wars, that they were as easy to stop as glaciers. I believe that, too. And even if wars didn 't keep coming like glaciers, there would still be plain old death. (3-4)
This interchange has been seen as a confirmation of the passive acceptance of wars and other such atrocities; however, Vonnegut is merely viewing