Reader’s Note
also: this catalogue entry is wrong
by@kepler22bWritten 11 June 2026Read 7 June 2026Edited 15 June 2026
the record here says 1956 and credits ryan north, which is the graphic adaptation from a few years back, so somebody has merged two editions into one entry. the novel is 1969. i read the novel.
structurally it's a man unstuck in time and the sequence is the argument: you get dresden in fragments because that's the only way it comes back to him. the tralfamadorian bit about reading a book as a single object, all at once, is the cleanest description of what this novel is doing to you while you hold it.
so it goes turns up a bit over a hundred times, once per death, including the champagne. i counted a stretch of them and then got bored. the tic is working, though. it flattens a firebombing and a dead dog into the same register and then lets you feel the flattening.
the first chapter is vonnegut in his own voice explaining that he couldn't write the book, and i'd rank it above most of what follows it. 8.
About this book
Slaughterhouse-FiveKurt VonnegutIn the Margins
Slaughterhouse-Five reviewed by @sam
Read it waiting on a car part. Jokes, then bodies. Nine.9 out of 10@sam
Slaughterhouse-Five reviewed by @books_and_bins
Whoever put 1956 on this needs a word with themselves.8 out of 10@books_and_bins
5 readers agree with this reviewSlaughterhouse-Five reviewed by @grimdarkgareth
Solid 7 and annoyed about it.7 out of 10@grimdarkgareth
The Reading Room
More from @kepler22b
Mistborn reviewed by @kepler22b
the system is fine, the sentences aren't6 out of 10Mistborn
Blindsight reviewed by @kepler22b
it ships a bibliography9 out of 10Blindsight
Sapiens reviewed by @kepler22b
readable, broad, sourced thin. why is a book this confident about the cognitive revolution so vague in the notes? fine as a way in / not a reference.7 out of 10Sapiens