Storyline: 2/5 
 Characters: 2/5 
 Writing Style: 4/5 
 Resonance: 1/5 
 "Kurt Vonnegut" 
 The name carries weight. I didn't know exactly why, but I knew he had a cult following. He is one of those rare few respected both in literary and science fiction circles. The only book I had read of his was Slaughter-House Five, and that a while ago. I think I missed the forest for the trees when reading it. I focused too much on the turns of phrase and characters and the events in isolation instead of trying to understand what it all amounted to. It is deserving of being reread, I think. With so many other books left unread though, I chose to read a Vonnegut book I had never before approached. 
 I get the appeal in his humor. Vonnegut is one of those actually deserving of the epitaph "witty." I grinned a lot through the first chapter. I chuckled quite a bit. I laughed out loud several times. I enjoyed myself. Thereafter it became a little tiresome. You know, that "funny" guy at the party that keeps telling hilarious stories long after people have tired of sharing the camaraderie? It is the same problem I have with Terry Pratchett. Another amazingly talented, intellectual, insightful, and satirical writer who just takes it too far. Every time. I've had difficulty finishing every Discworld book I've ever read even though I enjoyed them all for a while. I had a hard time coming back to finish The Sirens of Titan too. 
 I've seen this labeled as speculative fiction, but it disagree with that designation. Speculative fiction is a "what if? experiment. To some degree or another, the author of speculative fiction is uncertain of the outcome of the experiment (or, alternatively, uncertain what means are required to obtain the outcome desired). The author in a speculative fiction is trying to learn something about the world, and the reader gets to come along. This is far from what Vonnegut was doing. This was a manifesto. It was a jeremiad delivered preposterously, acerbically, and tragically. This wasn't an exploration or inquiry; it was a tirade made readable by being funny and bizarre. Vonnegut knew what outcome he wanted, the means to getting to that end mattered not at all. It stood a better chance of being read and heard if it was delivered as a humorous science fiction book than if it was an angry letter to the editor or a sober musing to a receptive audience. 
 What I least liked about the book was the consistency. Vonnegut couldn't stay on point. He couldn't concentrate on the outcome he had already settled on and was conveying. He had a dozen mini-complaints and grievances against the human condition that he was working through. Were this a lighter work from a different author, we would call them "wry observations." You know Vonnegut is aiming for something higher though. Some of these grievances and observations were similar enough to reasonably be discussed in the same book, but Vonnegut was also sloppy working through the concepts. (view spoiler)[Take free will for instance. This seems to be the major point of the book, but he devotes large section of the book to the idea of purpose. Vonnegut wants to ridicule the idea that there is some plan, some purpose for us all. This fits in with the pointed irreverence and the discussion of free will. It is very clear, though, that humanity did have a purpose in his story, albeit not a divine one. They had a purpose from Tralfamadore as well as from Rumfoord. Vonnegut lumps the lack of free will in with the lack of any purpose, but in the story it was oftentimes the purpose that denied free will. I think Vonnegut could have reconciled these issues. I think they could have been disentangled and discussed in coherent and pointed ways. My complaint is that the story was full of little diatribes that weren't fully thought through or finished. Often they contradicted one another. Another one would be the idea of God. Vonnegut makes fools of humanity (through Rumfoord) for their belief in God. Yet Rumfoord becomes a God-like figure for humanity (he can see the past and future, appears mysteriously, and speaks cryptically). I'd be willing to concede that Vonnegut was still mocking humanity by saying that they'd even make a god out of a disappearing man and his dog. In some ways, however, Vonnegut is clearly applauding the Church of God of the Utterly Indifferent for its corrective attributes. As it becomes a new religion, I couldn't tell what the author was trying to say. I really couldn't tell what the purpose of the body weights were in the religious order. Superficially, of course, they were to make everyone equal, but what did it have to tell us about the nature of religion? Was Vonnegut commending the equality or mocking it? How did it fit in with his discussion of luck? (hide spoiler)] This is one of the problems of making points through satire. It is hard to tell when you are being serious. I would have liked this a lot more were the criticisms and points careful and coherent. 
 Fans of The Sirens of Titan and Vonnegut probably will say that I'm taking it too seriously. It is true; I did take his points and objectives seriously. Taken seriously, they aren't thought-through, consistent, or persuasive. Taken light-heartedly, on the other hand, it wasn't that entertaining of a tale. It is only a science fiction novel in the trappings, and the plot is only marginally interesting. What is there left for me to like then? I think fans must value the humor and the iconoclasm. I tired of the former and never appreciated the latter. I'd rather have the lighter satire of Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams or the weightier speculative fiction of Aldous Huxley or Philip K. Dick.