How Vonnegut's writing style annoys me - John

Anyone else feel that Vonnegut's gone of on way too many tangents in Slaughterhouse five? There seems to be an abundance of unneeded fluff in his writing. Things like Maggie, the stereotypical dumb blonde who seems to serve no purpose whatsoever in the novel or Vonnegut's descriptions of Kilgore Trout's novels and what happens in them. Is knowing if Jesus really died or his height before his death in Kilgore Trout's novel really going to change my understanding of the book? I have come to see Vonnegut's writing as what i'd like to call verbal diarrhea on a silver platter. The novel might have taken many years to write, but the fashion in which it is written appears to me as a non-stop stream of thoughts that have been slightly cleaned up in the end.Vonnegut's gone off on so many tangents that it has become difficult to tell which facts are actually important and which ones are just simply pointless (A.K.A. the reason why i will fail the content quiz).

Novels should provide a clear and understandable vision of what the author wants to show, but Slaughterhouse only comes off as a jumble of madness. This writing style is suppose to represent the distorted mayhem of war the message is so incomprehensible that few will ever relate it to war. It wasn't even until this matter came up in class that I even considered that there was a reason behind the madness. The messages that other people seem to get from the novel just doesn't come to me. I didn't see the relation between war and the distortion, and this may be due to my lack of knowledge on war, but the relation between these 2 weren't so clear. If an important message is to be given through a novel, it should be crystal clear to see within the book or many readers will not catch what could be the most significant part of the book.