Who Is Kurt Vonnegut

1017 Words3 Pages

In this piece, the sardonic and biting wit often seen in Kurt Vonnegut’s works melts into New England colloquialisms and purported journalistic observation. The narrator mentions the details of each murder grippingly and often nearly too closely, bothering the reader and muddling the possibility for these observations to be truly journalistic, for such lurid detail is already unseemly to the academic psyche, let alone the public’s. The frequent hyperbole used, as word-of-mouth and the narrator filled in whatever the narrator didn’t actually view, coupled with rhetorical questions which do not seem directly asked to the reader take the reader for a short ride, and when the reader is abandoned for a moment while the narrator speaks to his daughter, …show more content…

(Vonnegut 5) For what reason did he so curtly and with seeming pointlessness end such an account of grave murders? Did any of it really matter to the narrator? Why did the narrator originally write the work, if only to end the piece on his daughter? And upon positing the final question, one can take few steps to realize the purpose of both the work and the poignant ending. Conversely, though, never does anyone even attempt to find Costa’s purpose in the town of Cape Cod. The lawyer working on the case, Edmund Dinis, the first man to whom a motive would be indispensable for any evidence to be put forth, entirely discards the possibility, remarking that “[in] this instance… we will not attempt to establish a motive. Who knows why anybody would do such a thing?” (Vonnegut 1). So, as the order was put forth, never does a single person attempt to establish motive, a crucial step in acquitting or condemning any criminal. This misstep is an especially important point for the narrator, however, for to establish said motive would possibly give the man he sees as detrimental to his daughter some legitimacy, or at least, less of a villainy. Of course a motive was established, but any believable motive would be detrimental to the narrator’s cause, for he had to cultivate the more lurid sides of the tale, and similarly, in doing so, …show more content…

Referring to the fact that many profit from famous serial murderers, and attempting to induce sadness and what he believes to be healthy revulsion in his daughter, he calmly remarks, about someone with whom his daughter would be familiar, “Lester Allen assures me that an enterprising young businessman is now selling packaged sand from the grave sites for 50¢ [sic] a pound. Want some?” (Vonnegut 3). The reader may be confused, slightly amused, or even abhorred, but the true recipient of this question, the narrator’s daughter, has been induced to feel as if she has been erring. The narrator reminds her simply, with a bag of sand, that at any time she could have died at the hands of a plain and entirely conventional man. Costa’s conventionality would have been, however, supplanted by these new findings; thus, the narrator precedes the question with a quaint anecdote, “I doubt that tourists seeing Tony around last summer found him much of an attraction. He was customarily neat and clean--cleaner than most anybody, in fact, because he took three showers a day” (Vonnegut 3). The narrator, now having muddled Costa’s previously assumed conventionality, Costa’s habit which could be written off as a simple quirk, and Costa’s newly assumed insanity, speaks indirectly to his daughter and reprimands her in the final paragraph of the piece, reversing the spotlight from

Open Document