The most effective pieces of literature are, in fact, the most controversial ones. In order to get a certain message across, the best way is the leave the readers horrified and dumbfounded by its contents. From the books that I've read and from the research that I've done, it seems like every highly-criticized book has an important message to convey. I think censoring or even "softening up" parts of a book in order to make it suitable for the general public will defeat the book's primary purpose.
Take Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species", for example. This book about the evolution of the human species caused an uproar in many religious sects because its contents defied the beliefs of creationism and the existence of a God. However, the message remained clear: humans and other animals may have evolved from more primitive beings through a process known as natural selection. Though I'm not going to do an in-depth analysis on this book, I'd like to illustrate how a single piece of writing from one author can impact millions of people around the world.
In SH5, Vonnegut does not explicitly condemn his countrymen, but he insinuates his disdain towards them by describing the dirty and repulsive events that occur among them. One instance that really strikes me is the passage with the "Three Musketeers". Originally, Roland Weary and two other soldiers had promised each other to stick together through thick or thin, but the two soldiers decided to ditch Weary for no apparent reason. As a result, Weary blamed Billy for being ditched and brutally abused him. Just the way Vonnegut described this scene was horrific! He wrote something along the lines that Billy fearfully laid curled up in a ball on the cold, snowy ground with his back completely exposed. Then, Weary wound his leg to kick Billy's bare "button spine". This scene just gave me the shivers, which proves that Vonnegut aptly described war as a terrifying and merciless event.
The only gratuitous parts that could have been left out were Billy's activities with Montana Wildhack in the Tralfamadorian zoo and his honeymoon with his wife. These parts deserved the criticism that SH5 received because they were inappropriate and served no purpose in the plot development. If Vonnegut wanted to attract the entire American population to read his anti-war book, the sexual nature of it would stave off many people.
To conclude, I think that almost every improper, repulsive, or gruesome story has something important to say. Using explicit material effectively depicts the true, raw nature of a certain opinions or events, and Slaughterhouse Five is a prime example of a novel that makes use of this method.
