Tying Loose Ends

I have to say; this book’s ending was disappointing. What could I expect? The author’s style isn’t made for big mind blowing endings. I didn’t imagine a nerve wrecking end we are used to. But I did expect for most mysteries to be solved with a simple sentence at the end. It was ignorant to think so. The last chapters were no change of passé; we learned nothing, just hints to the truth behind the book.

As most nonlinear novels, the book ended as it began. As a reader I have more questions that I had in the beginning. Throughout the chapter we were given more clues on the existence on Kilgore Trout. This solved and created questions. He is indeed a fiction of Billy’s imagination. He created him to have something to hold on to. Of course as most things in this book, we may never know.

What these final chapters really do is: they expose the moral and style. The final moral being death is a cruel thing and there is nothing we can do about it. In chapter 10, Vonnegut writes as if he was in the book. He writes of the death, like of important people like Martin Luther King Jr and soldiers fighting in the Vietnam War. Most of all he takes the topic on a personal level, how he will live on even after his death. The highlight to the ending of the book is the crude style. The pictures and references to sexual encounters are very graphic.

I really enjoyed this book. The references, second meanings, and awesome topics really make this an intrepid novel. “Poo-tee-weet?”

Contradictions and More Contradictions!

As I started to read this book, I was quite eager to read on. The book’s topics are my favorite. There is war, manhood, and science fiction. It’s almost as if we could call Slaughterhouse Five, a guy flick. Throughout the first chapters I read not because I had to, because I wanted to. The feeling has faded. I now find myself angry because of the number of second meanings in the book. Nothing in Slaughterhouse Five is for certain. Everything has a relation to other chapters, Vonnegut’s life, or information not found in the book like some historical events. To be honest it’s getting annoying. Although I don’t want to read another word of the novel, I must continue on to find the ending to an incredible story.

The problem with this novel is it’s complex ideologies. This leaves room for criticism and mistakes by the author, contradictions if you will. The main ideology in the book is: everything is inevitable. All moments are permanent. This can be very hard to comprehend. The perfect metaphor is a rollercoaster; you know where you’re going yet you can’t stop it. In Chapter 7 there is a major contradiction. From what I understand, according to the book, you can’t change your destiny. Some novels and movies, explain this by showing that if you try to avoid it, you’ll just make it happen. Like quicksand, the more you try to escape, the quicker you’ll sink. Vonnegut made a mistake in this chapter with how Billy knows he is going to crash on the plane; nevertheless he can’t to anything about it. “He knew it was going crash, but he didn’t want to make a fool of himself by saying so.” The mistake is simple. If Billy is reliving the moment, he can change things that are up to him for example, when he goes to the bathroom. He is a slave to destiny but he isn’t a puppet. He has some freewill. It might not be a mistake; it’s just an ideal I don’t share. Billy has the ability to choose whether he boards the plane or not. He is actually living the moment not just being there.

The most annoying factor is by far: uncertainty. As you read you’re always wondering. It’s not just the plot; it’s the existence of Vonnegut in the book, if what you’re reading is an explanation or a reality. I can relate this to the bible. You know some of it is true however you don’t know how much. Right now I wonder on two things. Are Billy’s “time windows” true? And, does Kilgore Trout exist? Throughout chapter 7 and 8 there are more and more signs to time windows being just dreams. “Billy dozed in the meat locker. He found himself engaged again word for word, gesture for gesture in the argument with which this tale had began” These short signs indicate Billy is just wondering off in his dreams, he doesn’t “become unstuck in time”. The existence of Kilgore Trout is also undefined. In no point does he mention he doesn’t exist, he just suggests it. “Everybody was thrilled to have a real author at the party, even though they had never read his books.” It appears as if Billy had invented Trout for him to have something to hold on to. Although there are many references to the existence of Trout there is one that directly proves my theory. “You ever put a full length mirror on the floor, and then have a dog stand on it? Trout asked Billy.” The many clues to this mysterious author indicate he is only an illusion. As you may know he isn’t real author, he is a fictional character found in many of Vonnegut’s books. What’s his importance in Slaughterhouse Five?