It's interesting that of all the books in our class, this is the one I've read before. It's interesting because, unlike most books, nothing is really spoiled plot-wise by having read the book once. Vonnegut specifically designed the book to spoil most of everything in the first chapter, so essentially, the first time a person reads this book it will feel like the second time. I hope I'm making sense here.
The point I'm trying to get across is that I can't talk about my second reading of this book in the same way I could with a book like Ragtime or Mumbo Jumbo. This fact made me reconsider what it usually means to read a book a second time, and what is gained in the second reading.
In the first reading of a book, much of the focus of the reader is devoted to following plot-lines, character arcs, and story developments. Even when a reader is incredibly focused, there is an element of understanding about the novel and its characters that isn't achieved. The way to reach this new level of appreciation for the writing is either through writing papers (the quicker and more common academic tactic) or re-reading the text with your newly gained understanding of the developments of the story. Doing these things allows you to use hindsight to better understand how a character grew and changed. To quickly think of an analogy, reading a book for the first time is like riding a roller coaster; a thrill ride which can turn any which way, surprising you at every turn. Whereas reading a book for the second time is like viewing a roller coaster from above; you can see all the turns and twists coming, and can better understand how the ride functions as a whole.
The way Slaughterhouse-Five is different is that Vonnegut seems to intend for the reader to skip the first step entirely, pushing them directly into the realm of analysis, greatly de-emphasizing the importance of story development. He does this both in his spoiling of important plot elements early on and his use of the Tralfamadorian writing style. There is no tension involved in Billy Pilgrim's direct survival, because we know he dies much later in life from an assassin's lazer bolt. At the same time, the book is incredibly engaging, because the reader adapts to this style and focuses their energy trying to understand Billy's mental state and character development.
The way that Vonnegut does this means that my second reading of the text is still very similar to how I first read it. This does not however, result in the book being boring, as many simple story based books tend to be on the second read, because by the end of my first reading, I had formed many opinions about Pilgrim's character arc and how Vonnegut designed it as a writer and now, in my second reading, is my time to test how those theories hold up to direct comparison of the text. Vonnegut has found a way to make reading a book almost purely analysis and critical thinking from the very first to last time you pick it up.
This is an interesting point: I pretty much always like rereading, and it's easy for me to place myself back into the flow of a narrative and to pretend I don't know what's about to happen (and I like being alert to ironies I might have missed the first time through--often these are only visible in light of what comes next), but you're right I think that _S5_ is a book that is especially good for rereading, precisely because plot development is NOT an issue, and there's no sense of diminished "suspense" or narrative momentum. Your second reading is more "Trafalmadorian": you get to see it all at once, as it were.
ReplyDelete