Player Piano is one of those books that I enjoy a lot more in theory than in reality. It has all the right ingredients to make an epic, but they're all out of proportion and the chef seems distracted. The book presents a very bleak world where humans are essentially purposeless - even the vocations that we all believe to be immortal have been made obsolete in some fashion by machinery. We are thus introduced to Paul Proteus' struggle to reintegrate meaning into an existence that we made meaningless.

Vonnegut shows a sense of maturity in his writing already, though it doesn't quite fit the author. The talent is there, even if the voice hasn't emerged fully. He tackles some pretty big themes with Player Piano, most of them prophetic in their relevance to our current junction. Unfortunately, the structure and the narrative are frustrating and messy, so it's somewhat of a chore to get through. Still, it is thought-provoking and helps to reaffirm the idea that purpose is so much more important than efficiency or capital.

"A step backward, after making a wrong turn, is a step in the right direction."

Several months ago, I came across a house near mine that had a box of old books outside, with a sign above saying “please take”. Naturally, I took half a dozen, including this one, a 1975 edition of a book first published in 1952. I’m unsure why they were so keen on getting rid of it.

Player Piano is set in the ‘near-future’ (which is probably the 1980s, but oh well), after a Third World War has left America dominated by machinery and industry - citizens are rated by computer algorithms and assigned jobs based on their presumed value, while machines do the menial labor once carried out by humans. Our protagonist, a high-ranking manager of an industrial sector, finds himself increasingly disillusioned with the world around him and becomes caught in a battle for the future.

I actually found myself rather liking Dr Paul Proteus. He’s almost like an un-hero, a man who is fed up with pretty much everything the plot throws at him and continually resents having to do protagonist-y things. It fits his place in the world nicely - a man raised to elitism by his father’s legacy and the computer algorithm that determined him to be ‘management material’, in spite of Proteus’ entirely apathetic attitude to his job. He also developed a dry cynicism that played well into Vonnegut’s style of humour.

The premise is somewhat surreal in the 21st century, since... well, it kind of happened. The machinery part, that is, less so the world war. Vonnegut’s ‘nightmare dystopia’ of factories run almost entirely by machines and computers is probably not that dissimilar to most modern industrial plants. The only thing separating Vonnegut’s New York from reality is the apparent absence of any jobs that would still require humans, like healthcare, entertainment, the arts, etc... But it’s an obtuse takeaway; Vonnegut was writing an allegory about the dangers of automation and wasn’t trying to be particularly subtle about it, and the allegory still works - even if we managed to sidestep most of his anticipated problems in the real world.

Stylistically, Player Piano reads like Vonnegut-lite. The dry humour is the same, but it’s clear he was still developing the unique style he’s known for. Outside of a few unusual narrative choices, I’m not convinced this novel could be identified as a ‘Vonnegut’ by its content alone. For me that wasn’t necessarily a bad thing - Slaughterhouse 5 was a bit too surreal for me at times. But his use of allegory and metaphor is seemingly instinctual, and is found here as abundantly as it is in his later works.

Carte discutata in clubul de lectura a grupului: https://www.facebook.com/groups/5oclo...

Dupa o prima interactiune cu Vonnegut, cumva nefericita, as putea adauga cu ciuda, stau si analizez maniera in care am decis sa punctez cartea. Au fost momente care mi-au placut enorm, care au ridicat-o spre 4 stelute, precum: constructia personajelor principale (Paul Proteus, Finnerty, Anita Proteus, Dr. Shepherd), umorul fin, dar mai ales calitatea de vizionar, usor fantezista, de care a dat dovada scriitorul.

Spre cealalta parte a balantei, partile care au coborat mult nota, in perceptia mea, poate chiar cele care iubitorilor de gen au placut cel mai mult, au fost acele componente ale distopiei in cauza: contextul izbucnirii revolutiei, prezentarile facute unor anumite mostre tehnologice (aparate, roboti, masinarii, uzine, etc.) pe care nu mi le-am putut imagine din pura lipsa de interes si toate aspectele ce au tinut de Societatea Camasii Fantoma, cu alte cuvinte, exact esenta cartii.

M-a deranjat putin ca naratorul nu da impresia ca stie tot ce se intampla, sa ne elucideze conjuctura povestirii, ci pare ca privim totul, in timp real, prin filtrul gandirii lui Paul. Ce vede si gandeste el, asta vedem si intelegem si noi. Dar, mi-a placut discernamantul lui Paul, acest tanar manager, care se simte apasat de segregarea inevitabila din orasul existentei lui, de un inabusit si inevitabil razboi al claselor, in urma masinilor care au ajuns sa deprecieze mintea umana.

In constiinta lui Paul incepe sa infloreasca un dureros imbold, care-l chinuie pana intr-acolo incat prietenii si colegii il vor crede in pragul nebuniei. Dar, dintr-o posibila nebunie, el doar vrea sa redea lumea oamenilor, pe care cei ca el le-au rapit-o pentru bani si faima, in defavoarea fostilor muncitori, o data si cu "sentimentul de a fi utili, temelia respectului de sine".

In ceea ce priveste al doilea plan al povestii, despre care nu prea pomeneste nimeni, cel al sahului din Bratpuhr, in rolul de vizitator dintr-o cultura diferita, intr-un stat atat de dezvoltat, perspicace si cu o "imaginatie excentrica" precum Statele Unite ale Americii, prefer sa o ignor complet, asa cum am facut-o si in timpul lecturii, sarind peste acele pagini.

Čudan Vonnegut! Tada to još nije bilo ono što će postati... Stilski je potpuno drugačije od svega što je napisao(zapravo je stilski američka moderna bez odmaka od proze Kerouca, Fantea, Steinbecka i dr...) iako Kurt daje dozu sarkazma i satire, ali nema onu oštrinu kada je uklopljena u ovaj način pisanja.

Well written and far reaching is this original first Vonnegut publication. So much so that it could easily have been written today instead of six decades earlier. Amazing. 8 of 10 stars

Questo è il primo romanzo di Kurt e si sente.
Manca tutto ciò che rende riconoscibili i suoi libri: le frasette corte e affilate, l'umorismo nero, le riflessioni e gli aneddoti apparentemente casuali che spezzano continuamente la narrazione.
E poi non si ride mai.
La prosa è insipida, manca di carattere ed è farcita di dialoghi banali.

Aggiungici che anche la storia non pare il massimo dell'originalità: il lavoro è sempre più robotizzato e gli uomini disoccupati si ribellano in una sorta di luddismo 2.0.

In realtà non è nemmeno così terribile, ma io sto invecchiando, ho una pila di libri da leggere e poco tempo da perdere quindi poco prima della metà ho deciso di mollare.

Less jokes than in his other books, but it is Vonnegut, so it is still a great book of course.

Coming to this book after reading so many of his later and more iconic works, as most Vonnegut readers nowadays probably do, it’s obvious this is a young and earnest writer with a big idea. The wry voice and gallows humor are there, but they seemed to still be in the developmental stage, and were in any case overwhelmed by the book’s warning: that man is so beholden to “progress” as to allow machines to run men. It was published in 1952, less than a decade after WWII, and depicts a post-WWIII America where industry and government are essentially the same, where society is segregated by IQ, and where automation is crushing the human spirit. Vonnegut served in the US Army, went to Cornell, and worked at the City News Bureau of Chicago and General Electric. I could see the influences of all of them in this book. Much of his later work, though often dealing with darker subject matter, was much funnier, but every career has to start somewhere. Reading this more than 70 years after publication, I wondered about the impact of this book at the time. Because of its portrayal of a dystopian future society it was treated as science fiction, as different than mainstream or “serious” literature, and this label followed him and his work forever after. This, I think, deters some readers, so that even his master works, like Slaughterhouse-Five and Breakfast of Champions, seem more like cult classics than “serious” literature. I don’t imagine that bothered Vonnegut; the same could once be said for the works of his favorite writers, H.G. Wells and George Orwell. I could see their influence on this book as well.

L'ingegnere Paul Proteus si ribella a una dittatura di tecnocrati perché troppo onesto per far finta di niente. Infatti la società è divisa in due classi: da un lato quelli che comandano, ricchi e sazi, dall'altro i poveri.

La cosa sorprendente di questo romanzo distopico è che nonostante abbia superato i 70 anni da quando uscì, rimane attuale in un modo incredibile. Se per Vonnegut la minaccia all'umanità erano le macchine che sostituivano i lavori più pesanti dell'uomo, oggi ci potremmo vedere l'intelligenza artificiale che sta schiavizzando le persone, in primis il continuo bisogno di stare connessi coi nostri smartphone. In questa riflessione sulla schiavitù delle tecnologie esce l'anima della storia: cosa accadrebbe all'umanità privata di un senso lavorativo e/o di prospettive sociali? Cadrebbe in depressione.

Lo stile di Vonnegut qua risulta ancora un po' acerbo, ma rimane un libro assolutamente da recuperare.

***The Great Vonnegut Reread of 2017 Part One***

I first read this book 20 some years ago and remember thinking at the time, "I don't ever need to read that again." A second read bears this thought out.

This is Vonnegut's first novel and it shows. It is not good. He had yet to find his voice, his fragmentary style of writing, and, quite frankly, his ability to construct a compelling narrative. Even so, embryonic Vonnegut is still Vonnegut.

FINAL WORD: I don't ever need to read that again.

DNF. I need to stop trying to read books by Kurt Vonnegut. He and I are too different in our feelings towards institutions, women.

Ależ to jest aktualna książka. Może to jeszcze "nie w pełni rozwinięty Vonnegut", może trochę ramotkowaty, może finał trochę nuży, nie dorównuje początkowi i środkowi... no ale właśnie: początek i środek. Vonnegut chyba zawsze lepszy był we wskazywaniu problemów niż rozwiązań, a te wskazane 65 (!) lat temu dziś są chyba jeszcze bardziej a propos niż wtedy. Odczłowieczająca mechanizacja, odarcie pracy z godności, kult korporacji, merytokratyczny klasizm i rozwarstwienie... Wujek Kurt wiedział o tym wszystkim, kiedy miał 30 lat. Czytasz te wszystkie komentarze i kiwasz głową, że dzisiaj właśnie tak jest. A potem Vonnegut dokłada ci bezlitośnie, że inaczej być nie może i nie będzie, bo sami to sobie robimy. Aua.