The way in which Vonnegut presents us with his story is very amusing. It’s very different from the ways in which conventional novel writing is done, and very different from his past works as well.
The drawings, in particular, can be poignant or redundant, clever or vulgar. You never know what you are going to get with Vonnegut, a constant Wild Card.
The other thing that really jumped out at me was the way his narrative voice talks to the audience. It is as though he is talking to a two year old. Could this be a product of Vonnegut’s cynical maturity that has him thinking everyone in America is a moron?
Why the patronizing tone? It seems a bit alienating. But maybe there is something else to this technique. Any ideas?
The illustrations in the book are quite unusual and definitely poke fun at society. It seems as though he is writing the book to a foreign people or alien species whose first impression of America will come from this novel and the illustrations highlight what he thinks summarizes the American people. Some of the things being Assholes and Vaginas.
I agree that he must have thought at this point in his career he can get away with putting some of his disparaging thoughts out to the public and know there will be an audience for it.
Tony, the answer to your question is on page 215.
I found this interesting article about the novel.
It brings up some of the points that I am sure we will be talking about today in class.
I look forward to the discussions on this book, I am sure people will find some elaborate conspiracies among the writings.
Sorry here is the link to the article/
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/09/28/lifetimes/vonnegut-breakfast.html
I dont think Kurt Vonnegut’s voice is this novel is necessarily talking down to the readers, I just think that Kilagor and Dwayne aren’t particularly intelligent people themselves,therefore everything in this novel is written in a very simplistic way. But I do recall, that I read in Tony’s book on Kurt Vonnegut interviews, he stated that the reason why his novels are so short is because it takes a very intelligent person to be able to understand every sentence and use it in the broader picture of the novel. I think Kurt portrays that thought in all of his books, especially this one.
I do also think that Kurt Vonnegut does think that most Americans are morons. I think after reading the first chapter, which may as well have been called Why I Hate America, it is clear to see what angers him about America. Through Kilagour and Dwayne, Vonnegut is just poking fun at your typical American raised in the suburbs
I wanted to add about the talking down, there is a line on some page (can’t find it right now) BUT the narrator says “everyone in Midland City spoke simply”…its around the same time Hoover goes to his Burger Chef restaurant for lunch, and the yound girl there is dreaming of her better life thanks to Dwayne..
Anyways, I find it interesting here, that we see the narrator making a general public claim about the entire population of Midland, instead of group, demographic, etc…
I think we can make an argument, the narrator has created this simple speaking micro-cosm of the USA in as “realistic terms” as he sees fit.. On the same page he says that “black people didn’t care about making mistakes in english, so they went speaking in any which way”. page 142
ANyways, there is definately a point to be made here about even our usage of formal language at school, versus facebook, versus at home, etc
We all communicate very well, yet we vary how we speak to different people depending on that person’s relationship to us (ie: teacher, friend, manager at work, child..etc)
I wonder what Vonnegut truly intended by this..BUT I know I change the way I speak and tone, etc.. in order to maximize peoples’ potential to UNDERSTAND me..
any thoughtS?
Great class today guys. I think we covered a lot of important issues. I really liked the point that Tony and Cam brought up about the destructive testing in the GM factory. I think that’s an importnat part of the book and that one can read into that a lot.
I think that in this novel, vonnegut wrote it the way he would have written his other novels if he didn’t have to somehow mask his opinions. Several weeks ago in class we discussed that in order for vonneguts novels to have been published in the first place, his opinions would have had to be subtle as they were highly controversial. While vonnegut did have intense criticisms of the political / social / economic situation at the time, he was still subject to its rules and regulations. I think that after having established himself as an author he decided to write this as more of a no-holds-barred catalog of his societal complaints tied together by a seemingly uneventful storyline. This book was, after all, his fiftieth birthday present where he was able to “clear my head of all the junk in there”.
It might be alienating, but I think it’s supposed to really throw the reader off line. I mean, we’re not supposed to feel like “all is well” by the end of this book. We are definitely meant to be a bit cynical ourselves when reading through Breakfast of Champions.
I think the way Vonnegut narrates has a lot to do with him just not giving a shit about formalities, or political correctness. After all, he is drawing pictures of assholes and beavers all over the place. Seems to me like he’s just letting loose, taking a crack at all the things he sees wrong in the world. Either way, it leaves the reader feeling uneasy… like, what the hell is really going on here?
I think that Vonnegut is just having fun with this novel. In all his previous books, he’s written in such a way that he can (as Lee said) get his point across but still have it published. I think that he wrote his previous books so that everyone was “capable” of reading them, but only the “scholarly” readers would actually get his underlying and subtle tones. Without taking this course I really don’t think I’d get anywhere near half the things that we’ve found in the books we’ve discussed.
With Breakfast of Champions, I think that Vonnegut realized he had already attracted a certain audience that he can sincerely write to and have them still understand his goofy, cynical, but still analytical way of writing.
I think that when we say that he wrote this book with an open mind, and letting out all of his thoughts while still caring about it being published and sold, we are almost exactly correct. Does anybody know what his next book was and how it may have been written differently from this one? It would be interesting to see how they differ or to see how his cynical attitude changes from book to book.
I mentioned in class, that I found it to be quite the opposite. That Vonnegut was actually just writing in a more casual, less formal tone. That I felt more like I was on the inside of the joke with him, reading it I guess as he is telling it, rather than reading as if I am reading it for information. If you catch my drift. That he is sharing his thoughts more than he is teaching them as true. Kind of like how when Dwayne Hoover read Kilgore Trouts book. Trout didn’t intend for anyone to read it as truth, he was just telling a story from a certain perspective.
Maybe you shouldn’t look so deep into it Tony, we don’t want you believing everything the book says and going crazy and beating us all up.