The Sirens of Titan

Kurt Vonnegut was a literary genius and his book The Sirens of Titan definitely emphasises that fact. Not only is it an entertaining read, full of absurd scenarios and witty phrases, but it is also a novel that makes you think about "the bigger picture" (I'll explain what I mean by that in a minute).

The Sirens of Titan is a science fiction novel set in the 22nd century. It follows the intersecting lives of two characters: Malachi Constant and Winston Niles Rumfoord. The way that these two characters are connected is pretty complicated to explain in this blog post because things like time travel, erased memories, and changed identities are involved. Some parts of the narrative almost read like a detective story because you have to try and figure out the order of complexity between character relationships. I don't know if this aspect of the novel was intentional or if it's just the way my brain works, but I couldn't help but try to understand who a character was and why they acted in the way that they did, way before Vonnegut explained it to me. Funny thing is, I was right on the money about 90% of the time.

This novel, to some extent, reminded me of Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in terms of the absurdity of the plot. However, whilst I think that Adams is very obvious with the fact that his novel is supposed to be humorous and ridiculous. Vonnegut takes a different approach. Absurd events do occur, and humour is intended, but there is also a more serious undertone to the novel. In particular, the issues of agency and free will are discussed. This is what I mean by "the bigger picture". Vonnegut reflects on the big questions in life, like: Are we really in control of our own destiny? What is the purpose of our individual lives? To what extent do our lives intersect with the lives of others? The reader can't help but reflect on these questions too. This is where The Sirens of Titan is similar to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, because Vonnegut's answers to these serious and philosophical questions (or rather, potential answers since nobody can know the true answers) are far fetched and rather ridiculous. But I guess, since nobody can know the true/correct/accurate answers, who's to say Vonnegut's reasoning isn't plausible?