Comments: 3
What I am reading 1 year ago
As a huge Vonnegut fan myself (I fell in love with him after reading Slaughterhouse Five as a matter of fact) I cannot resist asking.. Do you really think, that the language was secondary to him?
Chris Blocker 1 year ago
I used "language" rather generally there and probably shouldn't have. My point was that there is not much ornamentation to the prose: Vonnegut was not particularly showy and his descriptive sentences are rather simple. At the same time, Vonnegut was very clever and used wordplay with skill. So you're absolutely right, language was very important, but in a different way than I was meaning when I made that comment.
What I am reading 1 year ago
I absoulutely agree :) I am always amazed by his writing, I think it takes talent and a lot of work to write like that that, because as ridiculous as it may seem, it is the seemingly "simple" syntax of Vonnegut, which is the hardest to do. And because you mentioned ingenuity, I think this goes hand in hand with the most important feature of his writing – his humour which couldn’t be expressed any other way.