Ontbijt voor kampioenen

The way he breaks the fourth wall and plays with the narrative feels revolutionary. I wonder if he intended to challenge readers' perceptions of fiction and reality.

Some jokes land brilliantly, but at times it felt like it was walking a fine line between satire and insensitivity. How did others interpret this tone?

The fragmented chapters and shifting perspectives seem to reinforce its themes. Do readers see this as a deliberate artistic choice or just a reflection of Vonnegut's chaotic style?