Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Oh I get," I said, "it's a parable. Cute. Let's go eat."
Posts
We read! We read good!:
- Everything Ravaged, Everything Burned by Wells Tower
- Lamb by Christopher Moore
- Edisto by Padgett Powell
- How I Became a Famous Novelist by Steve Hely
- Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson
- Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson
- Mother Night, by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
- Revolutionary Road, by Richard Yates
- Last Night at the Lobster, by Stewart O'Nan
- Johnny Got His Gun, by Dalton Trumbo
- A Confederacy of Dunces, by John Kennedy Toole
Funny thing: once I started reading this I realized that I HAD read it before, however so long ago that I was only remembering plot events as I re-read them. After a second read through, I, like Dan, was also struck by how much more serious the tone felt in comparison to the rest of Vonnegut's catalog. I was puzzled at how others could call it "darkly funny" while I mostly felt it to be profoundly sad. Then, just for kicks, I read it a THIRD time, and it wasn't really until that read when I could allow myself to find the humor in the novel. I don't know if it was the tragic love story, the moral ambiguity of the protagonist or my own inherent difficultly in seeing humor in Nazis, but it took me a while to allow myself to laugh (smirk?) at this book. It's classic Vonnegut - zany, satiric, freaking brilliant - and probably one of his best, most thought-provoking books. Glad I read it again. (And then again.)
ReplyDeleteI'm going to lose some serious lit-cred here, but this was my first Vonnegut book. There was a definite undercurrent of black humor there that I could appreciate but I was more struck by the growing sense of isolation and abandonment that Campbell felt as the novel went on, even as he was describing events that should have made him more connected with the world - meeting his friend, reuniting with his "wife", the revelation of his vindication. Instead the end of the novel hung over everything like a black cloud. Vonnegut managed to effectively foreshadow the end without being explicit, and by the time Campbell revealed he was going to hang himself, I was right there with him - if I were in his shoes I probably would have done the same thing.
ReplyDeleteHey all. As you may or may not know I spent all this last week and will be spending all of next week in Daytona Beach reading AP comp essays. My internets is limited, so I'll pipe in (quite late) after I return at the end of next week.
ReplyDeleteHaving read several Vonnegut books, I found this book to be less outwardly funny. You'd have to have a really dark personality to laugh out loud at most of this. It was more smile funny. I don't know, maybe it is the Nazis. I don't find them funny unless they are behaving more like the 3 Stooges.
ReplyDeleteFirst I have to admit a few things. Because I read this before a long time ago and I really tackled it for a bit each day after cramming 8 hours of handwritten 16-year-old writing in my brain, I kind of gave this more of a perusal that a full on read. Luckily though, I think KV is light enough to allow for that in a second take no matter how many years later.
ReplyDeleteI find the ideas of reliability and hoax really interesting and it did make me read it in a different light. Because it has been awhile since the discussion (again sorry) and the last comment Dan made kind of leads this way, I think it's interesting to view this in context with the narration and POV is some of Vonnegut's other books that I'm assuming at least some of you have read (gasp...sorry paul). In particular, I believe he wrote Slaughterhouse Five right after this. In that book, the narrator gets conked on the head in a plane crash (if I remember correctly) and becomes "unstuck in time" flitting back and forth between the present, his WWII past, and some spacey future. Because he's suffered a head injury, his reliability is also questioned even though that book is told in 3rd person. Perhaps Vonnegut was developing this storytelling style organically?
Also, another quick contextual aside: Mother Night was released the same year as Revolutionary Road. Other than timewise, are they even comparable?
I'm looking through the book again and seeing what other bright ideas I have. Just thought I'd make sure I'd stay 5 for 5 and throw my two cents at the conversation...
I'll come out and admit it as well: this was my first Vonnegut book. And I guess what I took away from it was that I didn't "get" what the big deal was. Not so much with this story, but with Vonnegut in general. I mean, I've had a lifetime of folks really talking up his business, so I guess actually reading it was bound to be a little bit of a let-down. (The same thing happened with the Shawshank Redemption. People talked that up to a level that no movie could live up to) After some discussions with PB, I think it's true that I also lack the cultural frame of the time when it was written, but I also think that it shouldn't have to be necessary to fully "get" the book.
ReplyDeleteIt was a very easy read, and for that I was thankful. And I'll echo some of the sentiments said above: the whole Nazi thing did make me uncomfortable. Like, when I was having people over the apartment, I didn't want the book lying around with it's Swastika just hanging out. It might def give the wrong impressions. But I'm digressing a little... the Nazi content was a little unsettling as well. I think that comes from growing up with grandparents in the War and countless movies, documentaries and all manner of media detailing the Nazi regime. If you want to talk about cultural frames, that *has* to affect the way we read it.
I would also point out that at no point did I question the reliability of the narrator. I think he was spot-on when he said (paraphrasing) "if you want proof of my story, just look that I'm walking around." Not to mention that the letter from the Blue Godmother dude came through in the end.
Further complicating this rambling mess is the fact that I finished the book, like, over 2 months ago. I wish I could have had the opportunity to discuss it while it was fresh, but I'm looking forward to Gilead in this regard.
Kevin, I appreciate you admitting that you didn't get the what's the big deal about Vonnegut. He's a bit of an acquired taste, but he's such a much beloved author (especially by men) that I can imagine it would be a bit difficult to admit that you don't love him too. I think the reason why so many people DO love him so much is Vonnegut tends to be a gateway author for a lot of teenagers who are just starting to read "legitimate" fiction. You're coming at him as a reasonably reasonably well-read 31-year-old, however, a lot of his fans found him when we were younger and less literarily traveled. For me, Vonnegut was the first time I had encountered an author with such an unusual style and distinct voice, and when you're fifteen and experiencing stuff like this for the first time it can be really, really exciting. And you always remember your first. ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd Paul, you asked about parallels between Mother Night and Revolutionary Road. At first I didn't really see any, but then Kev's comment about the war got me thinking that that's a common thread between the two. Both deal with men who were emotionally impacted by the war in some way, and afterwards they seem to have a difficult time finding their place in the world and having satisfying relationships with other people. So thematic similarities, sure. Stylistic similarities...maybe not so much.
I guess I didn't mean parallels between RR and MN, but rather I guess just reflection on the fact that they were written and absorbed at essentially the same time AND they both seem to have withstood the test of time canononically speaking. The war is a common thread of course, but the lingering shadow of WWII kind of hung over the late fifties and early sixties in all regards. I just find it interesting that the books are so drastically different. Catch 22 was released in 61 as well. Huh.
ReplyDeleteI get it, Kev. After rereading Mother Night now, I can see your reservations about Vonnegut. I guess I have three responses:
1. Maggie is right. Vonnegut, stylistically, is a rather simple writer and, thematically, handles things with a quirk and lightness that I think really resonates with young burgeoning lovers of literature. I first read the entire Vonnegut catalog between the ages of 17 and 20 and going back to it now I have to balance a critical eye with nostalgia.
2. At least in terms of the humor, as Dan pointed out, this is rather unlike a lot of the best Vonnegut that's out there. You really owe it to yourself to take a run at Slaughterhouse Five or Sirens of Titan (or even Breakfast of Champions) before your jury is out.
4. It might just be you ;). You've always exhibited a kind of contrariness to well-regarded cultural entertainment modes of the past (ie. The Beatles). I mean this in the best possible way. I think it is because your tastes are so current and pop-cultural. If you were able to digest his books "in the moment" I bet you would have eaten them up (ie. The Spice Girls). :)
I take what Maggie was saying, in terms of KV being a gateway author. I'm old and wise enough to admit that if I hadn't read Kerouac when I did, I doubt it would have had the same impression on me. He, too, was another author that folks love or hate and does tend to be beloved by men almost exclusively. And like I said: I found MN to be extremely easy to read; I managed to finish it in only a couple of days (certainly less than a week). So it's not like I'm "sour" on KV, but my deal was that I just didn't see what made it special. To me, it was like eating at Big Boy- the food is perfectly fine, and well-prepared, but after the fact you don't go around telling people about the amazing meal you just had at Elias Brothers.
ReplyDeleteSo to further that point, and address your #2 PB, I'll totally give some other stuff a try (just as I'd go back to Big Boy) but this story didn't give me the fire in my belly so that I couldn't WAIT to read another one of his.
I do wish I knew what your #3 point was, though...
As for #4... sure, we all bring our personal biases to the reading table, but if you wanted to go down this path I would have thought that KV was right in the Sweet Spot of stuff that I *should* like. It's true: I still don't think there were any good movies made before 1972, but I think that literature gets a different kind of pass. I hadn't really thought about it until just now, but I think a lot of the 60s in general were overrated. Obviously there are exceptions to that statement, and of course you have to go through it to build on top of it in the 70s and 80s, but this is a whole different discussion.
But to come back to the book, and to sum up: Mother Night = the Brawny Lad + Fries + a Diet Coke. Nutritious and filling, but not particularly striking in any way.
As a sidenote and just out of curiosity, where's Courtney? Please tell me you're still with us! I can't be the sole lady in this club ;)
ReplyDeletePart of Kevin's cultural bias is that mentally he functions mostly in Lesbian mode rather than dude mode.
ReplyDeleteI hope that everyone enjoyed the light read, as sometimes I need a little break from heavy subjects, which is why I don't always read Nat Geo if the magazine is full of murder (human and earth), but other times I am intrigued. And, sometimes I turn off NPR and put in Michael Jackson!
Oh, and I agree, a lot of the 60's are over rated.
ReplyDelete