Would Slaughterhouse 5 be a canonized work?

[IceM]

In asking this question I have to make an assumption; that a formalized canon of any sort exists; but because various scholars and LitNet posters refer to some works as deserving to be canonized, I'll pose this question.

Is Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5 a canonized work?

A member of this forum once posted that the only works that should be written about in a literary critique are ones that would be canonized. Being a 16 year old high school student, I want to push my boundaries as a writer early so that I may be more developed and mature in my style when I enter college less than a year from now. I feel that writing a literary criticism on a book would help. Because Slaughterhouse 5's style and message appeal to me, I was curious if Slaughterhouse 5 was profound enough, or applauded enough by scholars to be worthy of such a literary criticism.

Is it?

[JBI]

Some think so; I don't particularly care for his work though, so will reserve my judgment. I suspect his "canonization" if such a term can work within this context, will be to how history treats American post-modernism as a genre in itself (that which was written from lets say 1960-1990, give or take a decade on each side). If the movement is more or less dismissed and fails to emerge as a mainstream-absorbed movement - like Modernism or Romanticism, I suspect he will not make the cut.

The movement he belongs to to me seems caught in the failure of the cold-war to turn outwardly violent on a mass scale. Strangely enough, I think his fiction was severely hurt in the quiet end to things, and that has perhaps taken its tole on his reputation, as well as many of his contemporaries.

[dfloyd]

Literary canonization refers to a number of works written within a certain time period or country which reflect historical, social, or literary values which make such work the epitome of those prodsuced within the specific time period or country. There is no formal canonization so a literary work my slip from canonization into obscurity. Only those which have escaped obscurity, such as the works of Dickens, can be considered canonized. Such works as the novels of Theodore Dreiser, An American Tragedy and Sister Carrie are examples, have fallen into relative obsurity. As the cold war becomes less and less a factor of public interest, the novels of Vonnegut will tend to disappear. In a hundred years, I doubt if Vonnegut's work will be on anyone's best list.

[sixsmith]

I actually agree with JBI here. The general thrust and approach of what we are now calling 'post-modernism' is, in my opinion, perhaps fatally wedded to the historical events and sociological particulars which gave rise to that movement. I might be wrong. It seems to me that, in any event, Vonnegut is fairly low on a list of survival candidates: I've never harbored any affinity for his work. More importantly, I suspect that the paranoid tomes of big game authors like DeLillo and Pynchon are by no means the canonical certainties that some critics suggest them to be.

[Quark]

Is Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5 a canonized work?

Well, of course, it depends on what you call "canonized," but the book has stayed well-regarded for most of its history. It's still read, and even those who haven't read it generally know of it. The phrase "so it goes" has entered the culture. The novel routinely makes "best of" or "top" lists of recent fiction, and is taught in schools. Whether you like the novel or not, it's pretty hard to say that it hasn't been successful and will probably continue to be successful in the next couple of decades, at least.

Much of the book's success has to do with its accessibility. The prose is rather basic. The plot has science-fiction elements. Themes are overt. Readers usually find the book a quick, easy read--something which has kept it in the mainstream. Many of the postmodernist have been accused of putting out pompous, indecipherable works, but Vonnegut's casual tone and approachable prose have allowed him to stay aloof from those criticisms.

I don't think anyone is really going to argue that Slaughterhouse Five represents a literary achievement like the works of Faulkner or Austen are, though. Unfortunately, the book is a little thin. There really isn't that much to taken away from it. I suppose you could talk about the anti-war message, the alien's philosophy, or the pomo elements, but after that we've run out of things to say. I think if the book continues to please readers it will stay in the public eye, but it will probably take up a place like the novels of Sinclair Lewis, another reader-friendly author who has something to offer--just not that much.


The general thrust and approach of what we are now calling 'post-modernism' is, in my opinion, perhaps fatally wedded to the historical events and sociological particulars which gave rise to that movement.

I know postmodernism has pretty low stock among common readers these days, but this criticism might not be fair. After all, if literary movements are tied to time periods (which they are), then almost by definition they're going to be linked to historical events. And they are. Romanticism has a lot to do with the changes in the then contemporary changes in publishing, advances in science, economic conditions, and political fortunes of the countries involved. This doesn't cheapen the movement, though, and we still read the main Romantics. Just because a movement has something to do with history doesn't mean it's disqualified from being literature. If it did, then there wouldn't be much literature left to talk about.

[Virgil]

There is no official cannon of course, but I think Slaughterhouse Five would be a cannonized work, should be a cannonized work, and may already be a cannonized work. It's a terrific and original novel.

[IceM]

Much of the book's success has to do with its accessibility. The prose is rather basic. The plot has science-fiction elements. Themes are overt. Readers usually find the book a quick, easy read--something which has kept it in the mainstream. Many of the postmodernist have been accused of putting out pompous, indecipherable works, but Vonnegut's casual tone and approachable prose have allowed him to stay aloof from those criticisms.

I don't think anyone is really going to argue that Slaughterhouse Five represents a literary achievement like the works of Faulkner or Austen are, though. Unfortunately, the book is a little thin. There really isn't that much to taken away from it. I suppose you could talk about the anti-war message, the alien's philosophy, or the pomo elements, but after that we've run out of things to say. I think if the book continues to please readers it will stay in the public eye, but it will probably take up a place like the novels of Sinclair Lewis, another reader-friendly author who has something to offer--just not that much.



If I were to address anything in my mock literary criticism it'd inevitably address the need for an application of the alien's philosophy in both political and common-day life, more along the lines of politics though.

[JBI]

There is no official cannon of course, but I think Slaughterhouse Five would be a cannonized work, should be a cannonized work, and may already be a cannonized work. It's a terrific and original novel.

I won't dispute that, since from what I can tell that seems to be a grounded opinion (not one I share, but I will dismiss that as rather idiosyncratic) but, then again, how many of Doc Johnson's poets do we still read - it's all a guessing game, especially with the new political trends that will emerge - I don't doubt from our standpoint that the book has merit, so I would recommend it to anybody who has a thing for a sort of post-modern read, but Vonnegut's achievement is rather debatable; some authors I think I am sure of, such as Marquez, and Walcott, but Vonnegut I think will need a reserved judgment at the present, simply because prose fiction, and its appreciation is a far more changing field, I think, than poetry. Novels seem to have a harder time becoming canonized I think - once a poet is established as a great poet, I think they have a harder time disappearing.

[Virgil]

I won't dispute that, since from what I can tell that seems to be a grounded opinion (not one I share, but I will dismiss that as rather idiosyncratic) but, then again, how many of Doc Johnson's poets do we still read - it's all a guessing game, especially with the new political trends that will emerge - I don't doubt from our standpoint that the book has merit, so I would recommend it to anybody who has a thing for a sort of post-modern read, but Vonnegut's achievement is rather debatable; some authors I think I am sure of, such as Marquez, and Walcott, but Vonnegut I think will need a reserved judgment at the present, simply because prose fiction, and its appreciation is a far more changing field, I think, than poetry.
I guess it depends on what we mean by cannonized. Slaughterhouse Five will never be The Divine Comedy or The Illiad or War and Peace or Madam Bovary. But I think it's a better novel than anything Dreiser or London wrote. But I do think there is an incredible originality to it and it captures the ideas and views of the late 20th century. By the way, I've never read anything else by Vonnegut, so I don't know what reputation his entire opus will eventually have. But I really do admire Slaughterhouse Five, and i'm not one sympathetic to those ideas of the late 20th century. Frankly WW2 was necessary and I think Vonnegut is critical of it.


Novels seem to have a harder time becoming canonized I think - once a poet is established as a great poet, I think they have a harder time disappearing.
That's very insightful. I think you're right!

[mal4mac]

The only way a novel can enter the canon is through continuous acclaim, over a long period of time, mostly from *named* critics in *published* literature. Slaughterhouse 5 is too recent for judgement, and no one can say if it will, in a hundred years time, be considered to be as canonical as Madame Bovary or not.

[Virgil]

A hundred years? That's way too long. Joyce's Ulysses hasn't even passed a hundred years yet. I guess it depends on what one means by cannonized. Lots of works are part of the cannon that are within 20 years even. A cannon is an evolving thing. Recent works are part of a contemporary novels cannon, though I grant you they may fall off easily. And I wouldn't include just critics who establish a cannon, by the way. Other writers and publishers have as much sway as critics.

[MarkBastable]

I think that Vonnegut will make it - he's a lot cleverer stylistically and creatively than he appears, mostly because he goes out of his way to make it look off-the-cuff and trivial. There's more to him than the construction of neat ironies, which is what people generally remember of his work.

Incidentally, Virgil, you're persisting with this 'cannon' thing simply to wind us up, aren't you?

[Virgil]

:lol: I don't know what you mean Mark. I think we've all got different definitions of what a cannon actually means. I'm just stating my opinion. I was very impressed with Slaughterhouse Five.

[MarkBastable]

:lol: I don't know what you mean Mark. I think we've all got different definitions of what a cannon actually means. I'm just stating my opinion. I was very impressed with Slaughterhouse Five.

I mean the spelling, not the definition. I think we all agree what a 'cannon' is. You are definitely messing with our heads here. Which, I have to admit, is a rather admirable intention.

[Virgil]

I mean the spelling, not the definition. I think we all agree what a 'cannon' is. You are definitely messing with our heads here. Which, I have to admit, is a rather admirable intention.

Oh silly me. :blush: I'm a terrible speller. Thank you. It was not consciously done. Or actually it was but it was not meant to mean anything.

[wokeem]

In a contemporary sense I would definitely say so. It's too soon to judge if it will remain there a hundred years from now, but I would say that it's a classic. Especially when compared to a lot of other literature from the period in which it was written

[The Comedian]

Something else about Slaughterhouse-Five and the rest of Vonnegut's works: they're funny. And humor has a harder time being recognized as canonical than high drama. True some authors are revered for both they're style and their humor (Twain, Austen), but I think that overall it's harder to be recognized as canonical if you're funny.

[antiprefix]

My professors argue about this all the time (in lit classes)--should a work be accepted as an authentic part of the canon? I don't really bother trying to classify whether or not a book should be placed into an imaginary reservoir of important fiction; bottom line, some books will be read for as long as books are read, and some will not. The point is: Slaughterhouse Five is an excellent book, it is taught in schools, which it should be since it is highly readable, and it is comical. Sue me for thinking this ought to be accept among literary giants like Dickens and Twain, but I do. Moreover, Cat's Cradle is better.

[Brad Coelho]

My professors argue about this all the time (in lit classes)--should a work be accepted as an authentic part of the canon? I don't really bother trying to classify whether or not a book should be placed into an imaginary reservoir of important fiction; bottom line, some books will be read for as long as books are read, and some will not. The point is: Slaughterhouse Five is an excellent book, it is taught in schools, which it should be since it is highly readable, and it is comical. Sue me for thinking this ought to be accept among literary giants like Dickens and Twain, but I do. Moreover, Cat's Cradle is better.

I agree- though the comparator I'd use from Vonnegut's compenium as a superior novel is Sirens of Titan- now that was a helluva book!

[IceM]

I always felt, and perhaps this concerns Cat's Cradle moreso than Slaughterhouse Five, that Vonnegut's work captures a genuine American fear during the Cold War (and even today, in that matter); that Man's innate desire to "know" will destroy us; furthermore, that our destruction is inevitable. Cat's Cradle has ice-nine and Slaughterhouse has, what Vonnegut regards as unnecessary, the fire-bombing of Dresden. Prior to the nuclear era this concern didn't exist. There was no fear of nuclear annihilation faster than the blink of an eye. To me, Vonnegut's work will endure because it captures an audience fearful of annihilation by an ever-expanding means. But, of course, the writer feels his subject will be canonized; why else would he write about it? I need to see how you guys view this if I were to actually write a criticism.

[Quark]

I need to see how you guys view this if I were to actually write a criticism.

You're right that Vonnegut was not a one-hit wonder. Cat's Cradle, Galapagos, and Breakfast of Champions were all quite good. Vonnegut does set himself up as the Nuclear Age Daniel in some of these works, too, and that's one of his strengths. I can't think of a better writer on the issue. The problem with his novels, though, is that they take a rather narrow view of the world. There's so much that Vonnegut either doesn't see or doesn't have anything to say about in his novels. Sexuality and relationships are reduced to matters of gratification and proximity. History is unimportant to the characters and the story. Our narrator in Cat's Cradle can become a Bokononist simply by accepting some tenets. The island is just a bundle of details. I get the sense that Vonnegut has a few points he wants to make, and that he's willing to sacrifice everything that makes a novel just to get those points across in a clever and humorous way. He does succeed where he's clever and humorous, and the few ideas that he has are interesting. That's all the texts are, though, unfortunately. That's the main drawback that Vonnegut has, and it's something that I think will hold him back from becoming hugely canonical.

[mal4mac]

I re-read Cat's Cradle recently and found it lacking in many ways. The humour seemed to have dated, the characters were two dimensional, and the fantasy elements were mostly just 'strange' rather than 'strangely interesting'. A few of the ideas were mildly interesting, but I can see nothing to indicate that it might become part of the canon. I was reading some minor Hardy & Tolstoy at around the same time and both were a much better read. Vonnegut doesn't even score very highly for originality. Fear of global annihilation was not a new idea - H.G. Well "War of the World" is an earlier example, and it's a much better book in very dimension. And,in fact, the idea goes right back to biblical sources - judgement day's a coming!

[TheBearJew]

I hate these sort of discussions, because it makes you forget what the whole deal is about. While classics are classics, and should be remembered as such, it doesn't mean that they will speak to some as much as a more modern work will.

Vonnegut has always been a writer I greatly admire, and he probably is the one I credit with my infatuation with literature, and possibly film as well. Cat's Cradle and Mother Night are the two that did it most for me, and I'd say Cat's Cradle is his real work of art, while Slaughterhouse Five was his blockbuster.

Should it be canonized? Well, I damn well think that something he wrote should be.

[dfloyd]

the more you can relate to the writings of Vonnegut. Just as in my youth, I related to Hemingway, Fitzgerald,and Sinclair Lewis. Later,I came to realize that certain of their works were not to be lionized. I have read Slaughter House 5 and Breakfast of Champions. I agree with the poster who said Vonnegut was humorous and clever, but his works will not be canonized. Thirty years from now, all who are now lionizing Vonnegut now will change their mind and see he is a humorous and clever writer, not a great one.