O'Brien and Vonnegut writing styles

There are many similarities between the ways that O'Brien and Vonnegut's write their stories. I would like to emphasize the most prominent three; the lack of sequence while trying to narrate and tendency to go in a circular way of speaking, they both keep their readers question the validity of their stories, and the fact that none of their stories really had an ending. The first point, the lack of sequence, is prominent in Vonnegut's writing in the way that each story seems to have a smaller story within it to explain the previous story but it never really gets back to that main point. The difference in this case though is that O'Brien at least would stay in the same 'ballpark" of the idea, but Vonnegut would just completely get off topic by talking about other people which would then make you question if those characters were even real. This is also similar to O'Brien because he outright told his audience that he may make some people up. This is a way that they get their readers to question the validity of what they are reading. They say all these stories like they are so definite and true to their lives and then they go back and contradict what they say by adding little statements, for instance O'Brien "The truths are contradictory. It can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in truth war is also beauty." This is the introduction to one of paragraphs and he questions himself, and kind of takes what he says and says it may not be the way he explains, in the first two lines. With their circular writing method, none of their stories really ended in any known manner which makes it hard to follow their thought process. All of these similarities in their style of writing actually all goes back to how they have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder that both of them most likely suffer from being involved in war.