Category: Kurt Vonnegut

Kurt Vonnegut’s interpretations of religion throughout his book talks about his way of what the right practice of religion might be, as expressed in “Cat’s Cradle,” the primary source of religion is bokononism. The novel takes place in a fictitious island called San Lorenzo, the inhabitants there foresee the faith if bokononism as their only way of practicing religion. Vonnegut explores the lies and truths of real hope offered to man, and his whereabouts are to express bokononism the way he intends too across his book and how people from San Lorenzo follows his traditional views. A lot of the faith that is expressed permits Vonnegut to reveal many of his fictional beliefs; he highlights that faith is from the person’s perspective so that other religions seem unreal and absurd.

From the beginning, Vonnegut implies the fact that Bokononism is not real faith; it is just a made-up fiction. The book opens up with a foma, which is harmless truths, “Live by the foma that causes you to be brave and type and healthy and happy” (Vonnegut). Foma is used to give the iconic appeal of something wrong but right, how faith is characterized as a comfort to man through this religion, of course, given the number of problems that came from religious beliefs. Bokononism was created by Kurt Vonnegut to explain most actions throughout the story, is expressed fictionally, and can be practiced by whoever. Vonnegut and his partner Edward McCabe did not raise the conditions of life on the island, bokonon developed by giving the islanders a leap of faith, their own faith. It taught McCabe to outlaw the religion as a way of easiness that built excitement in the novel. The leader of the island, Papa Monzana, often practiced bokononism in secret, which served his purpose of faith.

Vonnegut so portrays faith as an exercise that though it brings hope to the habitants of San Lorenzo, even though most of them are ugly truths. By the unrealistic truths of bokononism insight for the reader, it shows the lifestyle that implies that other religions may be wrong. In the book, it mentions “The thing I like, said Hazel, ‘is they all speak English and they are all Christians. That makes things easier” (Vonnegut). He is saying how ironic it is to live in San Lorenzo and be Christian for which San Lorenzo is not a Christian land. Hazel does not recognize it, so she feels as if she belongs. In centuries, these religions have lost sight of their importance and traditions as they had portrayed in truths. Kurt Vonnegut tells the novel implores the reader to look at other religious beliefs as foolish, as well as other people can believe that bokononism is a lie. This is not to estimate an atheist belief, but Vonnegut is speaking of the absurdity of religious beliefs even if people claim their beliefs. As how many people do not believe in bokononism, people who are bokononist relinquish other religions. He explains it like this since a lot the readers may have their views of what is right or what is wrong regarding religious traditions. He is showing a method that can guarantee people’s faith and providing people hope.

Cat’s Cradle is written when certain events are happening like wars between religions. The talker John has written during the last days how his practices with religion are portrayed along with the book. The invention is Kurt’s religion was to explain the role of faith, the utility of bokononism as a trait that permits people to have their belief. For example, John frequently mentions “karass” this is declared as a bunch of people gathered along to do gods “work.” Kurt Vonnegut conveys the ideas of power and fate, determining the thought of faith by people who carry faith without knowing what their purpose is. The division of certain people echoes the split of different religions into the land. Most of the other beliefs are scattered along with other communities portraying a new division. Vonnegut looks to discover the direct nature of religious divisions and examines how people’s faith can match other people from different regions regarding beliefs. That is where foma comes along, plays a part in the book.

Another example is that a bokononism ceremony is a style of leadership between two bokononist. Vonnegut gives these moments as a darkly comic and how it should be practiced. He speaks to the people who exercise beliefs and tells the reader how to complete faith is supported by lies. Of course, the idea of social awareness is iconic since it is the opposite of what people do. It shows how controversial the idea of religion is since no other religion is accepted other than bokononism. How are people going to be social and discuss their similarities if not everyone in the book has the same beliefs? As Kurt explains how a foma is created for people to criticize other people’s beliefs, but as how it is portrayed, it seems as if people gather around to distinguish what is right or wrong. That is the irony if social awareness since no one is talking about the same beliefs other than bokononism.

Bokononism functions as the way Kurt Vonnegut implies, as the relationship with faith and belief instead of a regular religion. Furthermore, the people from the island commit suicide on the implication of bokononism, for which removes the sense that the book’s thought as of how faith should be shown. However, bokononism ends by explaining how younger men would be blinded by improper human choices, instead of men choosing faith as their guide. The majority of the time, when Kurt explains how bokononism is, he talks about the importance of religion but not talking about how it impacts many people.

Work cited

1. Vonnegut, Kurt. Cat’s Cradle. New York, NY: Delta Books, 1963.

There are many reasons as to why it is possible that Kurt Vonnegut’s intention in the novel Slaughterhouse Five was to portray Billy Pilgrim as a Christ-like figure even though we will never truly know. Vonnegut uses many literary devices to make the reader question Billy’s purpose.

The first instance of Vonnegut representing Billy as a Christ-like figure is Billy predicting his own death and Jesus doing so as well. When Billy is predicting his death, he “invites the crowd to laugh with him” as he talks about his death at the baseball stadium knowing that nearly an hour from then he would be shot. (Vonnegut 181) He wanted his followers to be there to hear him state how he will die. This holds a lot of similarity to how Jesus gathered his most loyal followers, the twelve disciples, for dinner to tell them about how one of them would betray him and how he was going to die soon. Another similarity between these two is how Billy’s followers did not believe him, they wanted to figure out a way to get around their leader’s death. Likewise, the disciples were in disbelief that Jesus would die and insisted that he should find a way around his crucifixion. Both Billy and Jesus tried to make it clear that their death could not be avoided, it was something that had to be done.

When Billy goes with the German, “middle-aged, scrawny corporal” without a fight is another reason why Vonnegut really may want Billy Pilgrim to appear as a Christ-like figure .(67) He is completely accepting of the fact that there is nothing he could do to get out of the adventure he is about to embark on. He does not fight because he knows that fighting will not change anything. This is parallel to how Jesus behaves in John chapter 18 in the New Testament of the Bible. He let the Roman soldiers take him, even though he knew that it would result in his own crucifixion on a cross on display in front of others. He knew it was something that he was going to have to go through whether he fought or not.

Later John chapter 19 goes on to talk about how Jesus was trapped on a cross with no way off on display in front of his friends, family, and completely random strangers. This really resembles the time Billy is abducted and held in the glass dome with no way out with Montana for “the myriads of Tralfamadorians” to see. (169) Another minor detail that is similar between Billy and Jesus is that Billy is an optometrist, an eye doctor. Jesus displayed his healing power when he healed the eyes of a blind man who could not see from the time he was born.

Although there are a good number of examples as to why Billy can be seen as a Christ-like figure, Billy did do some things that Jesus would not have done. While the number of times it happened is unclear, Billy did cheat on his wife Valencia with Montana Wildhack the “motion picture star” at least once.(168) Another difference between the two is that Billy is seen as a weak person “with a chest and shoulders like a box of kitchen matches”. (43) Jesus was not seen as a weak person. He had a peaceful strength and was known by his followers to be firm but loving.

Another point why it may be Vonnegut’s intention to portray Billy as a Christ image is when Billy “Bursts into tears” out of compassion for “the condition of his means of transportation” when speaking of the horses. (252) This is the first time in the whole war that Billy just breaks down. He is surrounded by death, killing, and war but it is the horses who were completely undeserving of the way they were treated that made him cry. This relates to the time that “Jesus wept” in John chapter 11 out of compassion for Lazarus’ sisters. Jesus did not weep over the death itself because he knew that Lazarus would soon be resurrected. He wept out of compassion for the sisters while confronting the deceased man. This is the only time in the Bible that Jesus cries and that is what makes his reaction so significant. Both characters display their compassion and humanness in these scenes.

One way that Billy and Jesus are similar is how both were average people until they are re-born. Before they are re-born they both follow their dads. Jesus followed his father, Joseph, by learning about carpentry, and Billy focused on following in his father-in-law’s footsteps with optometry. Jesus’ rebirth occurred when John the Baptist baptized him. Billy’s rebirth takes place when he first goes to Tralfamadore. Once both are re-born they start to build a group of followers who are transformed by the beliefs of these leaders.

After Jesus was baptized his life revolved around spreading the gospel and teaching others about to grace of God. After Billy first goes to Tralfamadore he starts to gain a following by spreading his thoughts that were based off things he learned from Tralfamadore like the fact “that we will all live forever”. (269) Each of their beliefs caused Jesus and Billy’s sanity to be questioned, especially because each of their teachings originated from omniscient beings. People hated Jesus because of the message that he spread, and people did not like the way his messages made them feel. Billy’s daughter thought that he was going crazy with some type of mental disease eventually causing her to get mad at him easily because the things that he often says are insane.

The way that the Tralfamadorians encouraged Billy to see things is another similarity to Jesus that Vonnegut adds. Billy says that no one is ever dead, people are just experiencing different times. Just as Jesus’ teachings said that you are never really dead. You are just not on Earth.

In “2 B R O 2 B” by Kurt Vonnegut, the writer presents a technology fiction tale that informs us things that people feared at that time it was created: overpopulation, battle, plague, and poverty. Then provides a darkish solution to resolve these problems. Furthermore, his sad history affected just how he views the world that was obvious within the book. The story’s plot is addressed in the foreseeable future where immortality continues to be scientifically achieved, a time when aging continues to be cured, people have indefinite lifespans, and populace control can be used to restrict the seemingly growing population of America. Are you aware that synopsis, the Federal government Bureau of Termination life from the protocol saying “In order for one to live, another one must die” (Bixler, 2007).

Darkish and provocative, those will be the first words to come quickly to mind after reading through Kurt Vonnegut’s brief tale “2 B R O 2 B.” Vonnegut places his own encounters and his participation in World War II sufficient reason for how fleeting existence could be into this tale and produced something so darkish, yet so exciting and relatable. Within the short story, an end to aging continues to be discovered, and the united states have exceeded legislation that no-one can come into the planet without someone furthermore leaving it. The only real issue is they need three visitors to donate their life to permit their children to call home. The comparison between this globe and the planet Vonnegut is surviving in at that time is very various. In his globe, immediately after the war, maybe the time of the infant Boom. After troops came house from the war, they started to spend more period with their substantial others, and in the outcome, many were put into the population. The planet Vonnegut is authoring differs from his in considerable ways but additionally pertains to it. He could be residing a post-war existence while his figures come in a dystopian globe just appearing out of a depression. In his present situation, most are attempting to repopulate instead of the planet of “2 B R O 2 B” where they’re keeping the populace under strict rules. The group of life sticks out towards the reader through the entire story.

Various kinds of conflict exist; nevertheless, one sort of conflict impacts the planet probably the most; war. A populace of a nation can be managed by war. Through the war, there’s a higher death price and the reduced birth price which decreases the populace drastically, however, article-war you will see a low death rate as well as the high birth price which escalates the population. The result in of war performs a key part like the treatment of competition changes and may trigger friction between two various races or within exactly the same competition, dividing the competition clearly in various perspectives as well as the clash of these perspectives activates another war etc, causing rapid modifications in the populace. There may not be any main war happening at this time, but we have been still influenced by wars that occurred years ago.

Vonnegut believes the near future may be provided as he’s got seen into the thoughts of some really controlling individuals. The chaos from the overpopulation has arrived in order by the brand new regulations set up by the federal government. As the function progresses it really is seen that not really everyone is taking off the existing state of the planet and wants some type of switch. Will this discord produce a hero? Will, somebody feels the requirement to rebel, to improve the minds, as well as the culture of individuals around them? This hero is actually Wehling, the daddy of the arriving triplets. He must discover a way to save lots of his family members and keep the concept of chaos and purchase carefully together. The author uses themes from the circle of existence and chaos and purchases to help keep his literary function interesting and relevant to the stage he is attempting to portray.

Inside the walls from the story, chaos offers risen leading to a result of necessary order. The federal government leaders have place laws set up to control the populace as it offers increased. Regulations state that no individual can be given birth to into the nation without somebody volunteering to venture out. This comparison between purchase and chaos provides an underlying theme that allows the story plot to withhold material. A number of the significant chaotic occasions in the tale are solved from the laws doing his thing causing order. Once the triplets are given birth to chaos occurs, and there occurs a dependence on an answer. This resolution includes what we’d consider typically being truly a type of chaos; however, in this story, it really is displayed as purchase. The main personality, Wheling, takes the problem into their own fingers and murders the physician as well as the suicide associate, and in the long run, himself. This take action of what could possibly be viewed as selfless may be the resolution had a need to bring the purchase to the chaos. Therefore, his children are usually born and in a position to live.

Like Kurt Vonnegut, Filtzer discusses how through the Second World War, for the very first time because the 1920s, food cravings and starvation grew to become legitimate items of a medical study. Although the subject matter of starvation continued to be highly delicate and circumscribed, medical scientists found methods to record and conceptualize the common effects of food cravings around the Soviet populace. Manley traces the introduction of a report of dietary dystrophy, as well as the fascinating ways that ‘the blockade produced a fresh conception of food cravings like a unified sickness and produced distinctive conditions for the analysis of food cravings’ (p.219). Food cravings became not really a condition of inadequate meals, but a condition with distinct phases. The techniques Manley traces and deconstructs the Soviet vocabulary of hunger, as well as the terms used to spell it out starvation illnesses, will be masterful (Filtzer, 2015).

Life is normally viewed as an undeniably delicate gift, however in the story plot of “2 B R O 2 B,” it really is treated even more as something special towards the newborn from days gone by life. As each volunteer would go to the “cat box” they’re providing another to call home a life that could not otherwise become possible (Schreiber, 2018). That is highly contrasting to your world on the planet as we think that everyone must have a right to call home and also have the freedom to call back the life they need. In the tale, life is indeed easily disposable. Nobody sees the worthiness of residing an experience well worth keeping in mind because everyone resides so long as they need until they opt to end theirs. Inside our lives nowadays, we make an effort to value every instant because life will be fleeting, and we recognize that tomorrow is in no way guaranteed, but contrasting that, individuals in the tale are always guaranteed a later date. They never start to see the true worth of an instant so that they don’t value the tiny things once we do. This provides a perspective that people hardly ever peek our eye into once we care all way too much in what we do with these lives for we realize it impacts our lives, therefore nearly. This notion of the group of life certainly varies from ours once we live and pass away, but in the story plot, they live to call home so long as they select. This concept provides reader insight right into a different existence; he cannot assist but be puzzled by. We as residing and dying people, cannot relate to this experience, which means this theme brings an entirely new viewpoint on killing and the need for it. Kurt Vonnegut experienced World War II, and he presents his experience through ‘2 B R 0 2 B’ in science fiction. The story is relevant to present day.

Work Cited

1. Bixler, A. (2007). Teaching evolution with the aid of science fiction. The American Biology Teacher, 69(6), 337-341.
2. DiChario, N. (2008). 2 BR 0 2 B. Philosophy Now, 70, 45-45.
3. Filtzer, D. (2015). Starvation Mortality in Soviet Home-Front Industrial Regions during World War II. Hunger and War: Food Supply in the Soviet Union during the Second World War. Bloomington (IN), 265-335.
4. Simpson, J. (2004). ‘ This Promising of Great Secrets’: Literature, Ideas, and the (Re) Invention of Reality in Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, Slaughterhouse-Five, and Breakfast of Champions’ Fantasies of an Impossibly Hospitable World’: Science Fiction and Madness in Vonnegut’s Troutean Trilogy. Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction, 45(3), 261-272.
5. Schreiber, J. (2018). “Grinning Horribly”: A New Cultural Analysis of Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle. American Papers, 39.

“The Big Trip Up Yonder” by Kurt Vonnegut and The Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley are two different literary works that are similar but as well have differences. Although the two jobs are different in the form where one is a story, and the other is a poem, the authors have Applied different literacy skills, which make the two similar. ‘The Big Trip Up Yonder by Kurt Vonnegut is a story that was set during the 2158 A.D. The story was established after the introduction and invention of medicine known as the Anti-Gerasome. The medication was made from dandelions and mud. The ingredients of the medicine mean that it was inexpensive and as well widely available. The drug was seen to halt the process of aging and as well prevent people from dying due to old age as long as they maintained the intake of the medicine. As a result, the United States is currently suffering from overpopulation, as well as the shortage of food and other resources. Observing the state except for the wealthy, the populations seem to survive on the diet foods which are processed from sawdust and seaweed.

On the other hand, The Ozymandias is a title that relates to two sonnets, and it was published in 1818. Percy Bysshe Shelley first wrote the Ozymandias. The poem was included in the Ozymandias, and it frequently became anthologized. Shelley wrote the poem in competitions. The Ozymandias is a commentary based on the ephemeral nature of political power (Philbin 31). The monarchs, dictators as well as tyrants, are always subjecting to change. The language of the writer reflects on the dislike of the rulers.

“The Big Trip Up Yonder” by Kurt Vonnegut is a short story while The Ozymandias is a poem. They both cover different themes that bring up the real picture by the author. Although various things are going on in the two literacy works more so the literacy elements, they are still different. “The Big Trip Up Yonder” by Kurt Vonnegut used foreshadowing to a great extent. Foreshadowing is a skill by the author, where one predicts the future. Kurt Vonnegut uses foreshadowing to present the state of things as they may happen in the future. When the Gramps threaten to cut the ford member, this is foreshadowing as it is an indication that the Gramps assist them financially (Wells 38). The reader is in a position to learn about the will of Gramp. The situation serves as the most considerable foreshadowing in the story “The Big Trip Up Yonder.” He appears to be in a position to divorce at his will. The use of foreshadowing is different from The Ozymandias’ poems as there is no use of foreshadowing.

The two literature materials differ in that Shelley’s poem widely imagines a meeting between the narrator of the incidences and a traveler who explained a ruined statue as observed in a desert. The explanation and description are a meditation of the perceived human fragility as well as the social power on time effects. The Ozymandias by Bysshe Shelley largely bases its argument on imagination, unlike “The Big Trip Up Yonder” by Kurt Vonnegut, which is based on reality and real-life challenges that face society. The two literary works as well differ in form. The poem is developed as a sonnet made up of a fourteen-line stanza form which has its origin in Italian love. The work is based on poetry and what was known in England. Through the poem, most sonnets break into two unique sessions, which are the sextet and octet, and the second part is based on the first part as it comments on the octet. Based on the sonnet, the first section develops the frame narrative and as well describes the statue. The sonnet describes the second section, ironically relating to the words of the king, including the description of the setting of the desert. The poem is as well written in iambic pentameter, although several pattern variations exist (Gill 26). On the other hand, “The Big Trip Up Yonder” by Kurt Vonnegut is written in continuous prose. “The Big Trip Up Yonder” by Kurt Vonnegut is generally a story with many characters.

“The Big Trip Up Yonder” by Kurt Vonnegut uses the common language in which the Ozymandias goes to the extent of calling himself the King of Kings, which is a name used in Biblical literature. The name smacks an arrogant pride. The use of the name implies his subsequent obscurity, which is seen as a punishment from God. Unlike “The Big Trip Up Yonder” by Kurt Vonnegut, Shelley developed several powerful phrases in his poem, thus making the language used in his works to be different (Stableford 270). The Ozymandias makes use of Caesurae as a break that means rhythm within a line. Shelley makes use of several rhythms in the poem to reach significant effects. The first rhythm falls in the second line after ‘who said.’ In this line, the pause is used to mimic the breadth of the traveler before he tells his story. The second caesura is seen after the statement ‘Stands in the desert,’ the use of the full stop at the end of the sentence reinforces the utilization of isolation which surrounds the strange as well as the ruined legs. The last caesura is used to isolate and complete the sentence standing in the poem grammatically. All these differ in the use of language in “The Big Trip Up Yonder” by Kurt Vonnegut.

The two literary works have a way of speaking about time, referring to the past, and carrying some eschatological content. The Ozymandias revolves around a statue that had been denuded over time. Ozymandias refers to himself as the king of kings, a phrase that is borrowed from the bible. Although the figure in question has been defaced over time, the biblical king of kings lives eternally, though the reference of the king along the figure may imply the impending destruction on Ozymandias by the true king of kings. Kurt Vonnegut’s “The Big Trip Up Yonder” is futuristic. The short story revolves around the invention of a drug that would prevent human aging. The discovered drug to prevent aging-super anti-Gerasone- raises several questions regarding the morality behind its use and its side effects. Altogether, the novel portends a dreadful future where people are afraid of old age. The author refers to the Schwartz clan whose head is 172 years old and lives with his 22 descendants (Shelley 20). Harold, named in the novel, has survived through the use of this anti-aging medicine. Therefore, these two stories reflect on the future. Both of them look at the future with dread, with Percy Bysshe using an eschatological concept, and Kurt showing fear for the future through the attempt to invent an anti-aging medicine.

The two works share the literary style of irony. The irony is whereby an author uses intentional language to signify the typical opposite. The method usually produces humor but also emphasizes the intended effect. In the Ozymandias, the king had erected a statue for the remembrance of his reign and great works. The figure contains some inscriptions outlining the essence of the statue that the king wanted to have his works live forever after him. Ironically, the icon has been denuded, and only the legs remain as evidence of its existence. The destroyed statue shows the works of the king, once expected to live forever, had been forgotten through time. In Kurt’s novel, the population in the Schwartz community has worked tirelessly to invent anti-aging medicine. Luckily enough, they have developed the Super Gerasone that has helped them to live longer. Ironically, some people, though they want to live long, wish that others die to pave the way for them to own property (Corcoran 27). Wealth inheritance has caused clan indifferences, despite the enjoyment of living long. The Schwartz clan leader, Harold was has lived for 172 years surviving on the miracle medicine is targeted by one of his descendants who wants to kill him for inheritance. Though this raises the question of selfishness and individualism, the section carries irony, in that while some clan members want to live longer, others are haunted and would go to any extend to exterminate them and take up their spaces.

In conclusion, different literary works can carry the same themes, though in different stylistic approaches. Similarly, any various literary works contain definite differences. In these two literary works, striking similarities such as the approach to the future, and general social life like resource inheritance arises. Similar stylistic approaches like irony appear prevalent in the two narratives. Finally, the works are related in that they are fictional. Despite these similarities, the jobs are also different, like Percy’s work is a sonnet poem, while Kurt’s work is a novel.

After the second World War, America solidified and extended its spot as a world superpower. Industry was booming come up, modern political reforms started to take place, and technology was skyrocketing. Everything was on the up. However, estimates range that 50 million – 80 million people died in the war. How could so many losses be worth it? One author who encountered the dark side of war is Kurt Vonnegut. World War II veteran Kurt Vonnegut’s war experiences turned him into a pacifist and fueled him to show the real side of war through the characters and events of his short stories.

Vonnegut was born on November 11, 1922 in Indianapolis, Indiana. He was born the third child of Kurt Vonnegut Sr, and Edith Vonnegut. Vonnegut Sr. was an architect who had a successful business. After the Great Depression hit in 1929, the business took a hit. This resulted in Kurt Vonnegut being taken out of private school, and being placed in public school, unlike his brothers who stayed in private school.

In high school, Vonnegut wrote for the student paper at Shortridge High School (Allen).

This is where he learned the ropes of writing. The students there enjoyed his work, and he mastered his style and craft as he ventured through.

Vonnegut was enlisted in 1944 into the US army at age twenty. He was apart of the 106th Infantry (Farrell), who fought in the Battle of the Bulge, or the Ardennes Counteroffensive. During this battle, he and other members were captured as prisoners of war (POW) by Germany.

During his captivity, the Dresden Firebombing took place. On February 13th, Allied bombers dropped thousands of tons of bombs on the city of Dresden (History.com). Vonnegut and five other members survived because they hid in meat lockers several stories underground (Allen). Estimates at the time suggested nearly 200,000 people were killed by the attacks. This would make it one of the grandest death tolls in the whole war (History.com). In the aftermath of the attacks, Vonnegut had to burn the dead remains of the bodies for weeks.

War has an ability to take control away from one’s life. This was exemplified in the Dresden experience, where a city with no military power or occupancy was targeted and decimated. Vonnegut’s short story, “All the King’s Horses”, displays this horror through the characters and events of the story. After a plane crash on the Asian mainland, Colonel Bryan Kelly was challenged to a chess game against a communist guerilla leader named Pi Ying, where the other Americans were the chess pieces on Kelly’s team. Pi Ying’s pieces were represented by wood carvings. Everytime one of Colonel Kelly’s pieces were captured, the person representing that piece would be executed. Four people were executed within an hour. Pi Ying sadistically wanted whatever killed the most people. Battling with his brain, Kelly struggled to think of moves. Then, he realized the only way to win was to lead Pi Ying into a trap. The catch to the trap was that it needed bait, a sacrifice. To open up the proper line of attack, Kelly needed to sacrifice his horse, and the horse was his son. There was no other way. If x dies, everyone else lives. Hastily approaching the ten-minute turn limit, Kelly had to state his decision. Shock and hysteria had consumed his wife and his son. Before Pi Ying can order the child to be killed, a young Chinese girl, who had been watching in subtle discomfort, got up to stab and slay Pi Ying, and subsequently herself. Major Barzov took over after a hefty wait time, only to be beaten in three moves by Kelly. Barzov blamed Pi Ying’s bloodlust and ignorance for the loss, but congratulated Kelly nonetheless.

Colonel Kelly’s experience during the ‘game’ of chess is parallel to the feelings and emotions Vonnegut felt during his service in World War II. The sheer terror is voiced through the mental vertigo of Kelly and his chessmen.

“Kelly’s calm was shattered, and with it the illusion of the game. The pieces in his power were human beings again. The precious, brutal stuff of command was gone from Colonel Kelly. He was no more fit to make decisions of life and death than the rawest recruit. Giddily, he realized that Pi Ying’s object was not to win the game quickly, but to thin out the Americans in harrowing, pointless forays.” (Vonnegut 5)

The strong word choice of Vonnegut brings out the proper tone of war. Every humane aspect was taken out from the scenario. Kelly’s realization that this is all a ploy for ‘pointless forays’ of death conveys the idea that Vonnegut does not see the need to kill others in any circumstances. It would be unnecessary to take the lives of others. This means that Vonnegut would believe the death of people in war could be prevented, by not fighting at all. It is stated by Pi Ying that sacrifices are what wins chess matches, as well as battles (Vonnegut 3). In addition, Kelly deduces that sacrificing his son would be that sacrifice. When x dies, everyone else will survive (Vonnegut 6). When Kelly really thinks about it, he realizes that this is no different to what he knows of war (Vonnegut 1). “When human beings are attacked, x, multiplied by hundreds and thousands, must die,­­­ sent to death by those who love them most. Kelly’s profession was the choosing of x.” (Vonnegut 6)

The chess game is a scaled down game of war, as Pi Ying, Major Barzov and Colonel Kelly all know. The mental obliteration experienced by the people affected in the game is multiplied by hundreds and thousands in real war. Vonnegut’s addition of this epigram is condemning those who engage in war. The thousands of lives taken as x could all be prevented. As shown in Dresden, Vonnegut believes the deaths are just wasteful. “I was simply impressed by the wastefulness, the terrible wastefulness, the meaninglessness of war.’ (NPR: All Things Considered) According to Vonnegut, what comes with war is death and sacrifices, and those are wasteful and unnecessary ones, but is in “the essence of war.” to have it (Vonnegut 3).

War separates people from who they love the most. He constantly wrote to his first wife, Jane Cox (The New Yorker). They felt the war had separated them. Vonnegut got married on September 1, 1945, exactly when the war ended (Vonnegut Library). This is translated in the short story “Long Walk to Forever”. An American soldier, named Newt, deserted his post in the war once he found out that his longtime childhood friend, Catharine, is getting married to someone else. Newt goes AWOL to go back and convince her to marry him instead. Newt takes Catharine on a walk like they always used to as kids. This is to remind Catharine of the great times they had together, and that more could come. Newt’s reasoning for asking to go on a walk with Catharine was that he loves her. Catharine is honored, but believes that this is all craziness, and suggests Newt should go back. However, she bursts into tears out of nowhere when Newt tells her to remember how much he loves her. Catharine tries hard over and over again to not let the situation get any further, but Newt knew exactly what he was doing, and he was getting closer to Catharine admitting her love for him. They kissed two times, the second Catharine wanted to without saying it. Without knowing it, the two walked far away from their starting point. They ended up in an orchid. Newt tells Catharine to go to sleep and dream of her husband-to-be. Newt confesses his love again, but they both say “too late” (Vonnegut 8). They decided to part ways there, but soon after Newt turned around and called to Catharine, and she ran as fast as she could into his arms.

If Newt did not go AWOL for Catharine, their true love might’ve never came to surface. Yet, Newt will face consequences for his actions, by spending days on days in the stockade (Vonnegut 6). The war separated the two from matching with each other, and if it weren’t for Newt’s persistence, it would have stopped at “too late”. This is just one way that war can separate others. Even in Vonnegut’s case, when he entered at twenty years old. He was sent to fight, leaving his family, friends, and soon-to-be wife behind.

Vonnegut came home from the war on leave for Mother’s Day in 1944. He came home to find that his mother had overdosed on sleeping pills the night before (Baker). He said that the suicide would hover over him for the rest of his life (Farrell). The war took Vonnegut away from his loved ones, as it does to so many.

Vonnegut believes that war is a thing that destroys, which is why he’s a pacifist. It needs unnecessary sacrifice of lives, and separates loved ones. All the tragedy could be avoided without fighting.

Kurt Vonnegut Jr. gave us a glance in “Harrison Bergeron” of the United States in the year 2081. The United States had become a dystopian nation, where everyone was considered equal before God and the law. The citizens were physically altered, so all of them have the same ability and strength. They are required to wear a mask if they are beautiful, given handicap radios if they are too smart and to wear extensive weights at all times if they are strong. In today’s world, it is quite common for everyone to strive for equality; however, Vonnegut made a wonderful case that this could be detrimental if taken too far.

George and Hazel were the main characters; along with their son named Harrison Bergeron. Although George does not completely agree with the law, he follows it unconditionally. Both George and Hazel were having an interesting conversation when Hazel said “If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few.” George then replied, “The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?” (Vonnegut 196). I found the statement by George ironic, if not comical. The government is trying to turn its citizen into robots and is about to murder his son on television, but George is more focused on being obedient, instead of standing up to a corrupt and oppressive government.

Can you imagine living in a world where we all are equal in every facet of our lives? Tila Tequila once said, “I think every person has their own identity and beauty. Everyone being different is what is really beautiful. If we were all the same, it would be boring.” Vonnegut did an exceptional job relaying a political message. He wanted us to see the harmful results of being alike, but he also showed us that we needed to have the aspiration to be different from each other. Our founding fathers never intended for the government to have too much power or control over its citizens.

One of Vonnegut main character in the short story was Harrison Bergeron. He was a prisoner in the ruthlessly egalitarian society. He was the youngest character, the smartest, more athletic but wore the heaviest handicaps and weights. According to the text, “Harrison looked like a walking junkyard” (Vonnegut 197). It was clear that Vonnegut wanted his readers to know that, no matter of your age, you can be brave and fight for what you believe. While Harrison had the heaviest of headphones, he still had the determination to do what no other man did. He showed the willingness to defy the authorities but paid the ultimate price. Although Harrison was murdered, there is a valuable lesson for all of us. Vonnegut was successful in making us feel that no matter the struggles and burdens we carry, we still can strive for greatness.

While watching the Kurt Vonnegut interview: “So It Goes”, Vonnegut stated that his father was demoralized and grumpy during the great depression. Vonnegut’s father was working as an architect but lost his job during the great depression (Kurt Vonnegut: “So It Goes”). It must have been a discouraging time for Vonnegut’s father, but I wonder what effect it had on Vonnegut himself. Take into consideration that the great depression lasted for approximately a decade. I think it had to have some effect on the kids also. Vonnegut stated in the interview that science fiction writer writes about the most important issues of our time (Kurt Vonnegut: “So It Goes”). “Harrison Bergeron” was published in the year 1961, during the time of the Vietnam War. I strongly believe that Vonnegut was using irony to mock the attitudes and behaviors of the citizens and the government during the time of the Vietnam War. He also used his writings to give a vision into his mind and to make observations of what’s happening around him and to tell a story using satire and comedy. While reading another of Vonnegut’s book: Slaughterhouse-Five, I definitely saw how he used the same mechanics to accomplish his goals.

During the Vietnam War, there was a public opinion being ‘fought’ on television also, as a lot of Americans were disenchanted with the War. Vonnegut knew the importance television has on society. I don’t think it is an accident that most of the story took place while George and Hazel sat in front of the Television. Television was used as a method to further petrify the citizens. The killing of Harrison Bergeron on live TV was an effective way to show all the citizens what would happen to anyone who tries to defy the law. Hazel saw her son murdered on TV by Diana Moon Glampers but was too incoherent to process what had happened. Television has been used for many years to shape our worldviews. Just like Hazel, I believe society has become numb to some of the things being shown on TV today. The amount of sex and violence that I was exposed to as a child while watching television is like night and day compared to what our kids see nowadays.

When all is said and done, Vonnegut left us asking; is total equality worth striving for? If we are to achieve equality, are we to subject ourselves to government castigation? If we adhere to social norms, forced to be normal or allow the government to have its will on the citizens, then we as humans will become robotic and cowardly. If there is one thing we all can agree; it was clear that Vonnegut was trying to get across that we must stand up for what we believe in spite of the dangers. As it is the honorable, just and necessary thing to do. Vonnegut uses a short story to make an excellent case by implying that it is impossible to have a normal and functioning society where its citizens are all equal.

For centuries war has been romanticized as a heroic battle between a purely good side and the evil side. Incredible heroes fight against evil and give peace back to the good. The good and innocent all live peacefully afterwards while the evil are punished and forced to take responsibility for the war that they inevitably have caused. This heroic and manly battle of pure evil against pure good is the exact picture that Kurt Vonnegut strives to destroy through his novel Slaughterhouse-Five. Vonnegut seeks to show the reality of war and how damaging the evil verses good image has been on society as it contends humans against each-other. “For Vonnegut the subject matter is not simply Nazi atrocity; it is many other things” (Lundquist 43) such as many people’s obsession with revenge, issues of racism, and most importantly the question of how to tell a true story that is unimaginable to the point of borderline fiction. In Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five he uses a blend of realism and utopian imagination along with dark humor to deromanticize war.

As a German-American who fought with the allies in World War II, Vonnegut is torn between both sides of war. He recognizes the evil of Nazism and that the war was a necessary feat but cannot stand behind the attack “designed by the Allies to kill as many German civilians as possible” (Allen 95) as well as annihilate the beautiful and historic city of Dresden which held little to no value to the German Military. (Freese 77) War brings out an inhumanity in people that is unfathomable to Vonnegut. He finds it reprehensible that this attack, which seems purposeless for anything but revenge, had been kept almost entirely secret by the government. Vonnegut decided that it was his duty to write about Dresden to expose the truth about the attack and its severity. Still, the pressing issue stands that “there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre” (24) which makes writing about one all the more difficult.

To tell his story Vonnegut uses three different characters with varying opinions and perspectives regarding the story of Billy Pilgrim. While Vonnegut makes Pilgrim similar to Vonnegut in his war experiences, he does not exactly represent Vonnegut’s life or perspective. Due to the similarities between him and his protagonist “Vonnegut creates a mask, a narrator who provides a certain distance between” (Schatt 99) Billy and his author. The narrator serves to tell Billy’s story entirely through his own voice which allows Vonnegut to interject a few small comments of his own into the story, proving his views to not be congruent with those of the narrator. By showing himself as an Army scout alongside Billy, Vonnegut “dispel[s] any thought that Billy Pilgrim was an autobiographical rendering of the actual author” (MacFarlane 151). Through using perspectives unlike his own to tell Billy’s story and talk about war, Vonnegut is able to make the reader focus on their own thoughts and opinions rather than his.

The story’s protagonist, Billy Pilgrim, is in some ways the same as and in many other ways totally different from Vonnegut. While Vonnegut seems to have an attitude of wanting change in the world and striving to accomplish his goals, Pilgrim is an extremely passive character which makes him a very odd choice as a protagonist in a war story. The choice to convey Billy as passive and unenthusiastic about life makes him the exact opposite of the typical hero in war stories. This places Billy, as the protagonist, in the place of an anti-hero which gives the book a clear anti-war message (Marvin 124).

While Vonnegut believes in a man’s ability to change his fate, Pilgrim is convinced by his imaginary abduction by aliens called Tralfamadorians that a person’s life is already planned to follow a set course from birth until death. Tralfamadorians believe that life is full of set moments that cannot ever be changed but can be visited at any time at random. “Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time” (29) and he believes that he can now time travel to any point in his life whenever he pleases. Pilgrim cannot accept everything about fate like the Tralfamadorians. Although they tell him to focus on the good moments in life and not the bad ones, Billy still cannot simply forget and accept that there is nothing he can do for others’ suffering (Schatt 100). Billy’s lack of control over his life is meant to appear ridiculous to the reader and emphasizes Vonnegut’s point that people can control the world around them even in regards to war.

One of the ways that Vonnegut denounces romanticized stories about war is through his comedic depictions of characters that bear similarities to the classic war heroes. The strongest example of this strategy is found in a young soldier named Ronald Weary whom Billy fights alongside in the war. Weary is the exact opposite of Pilgrim in nearly every way. He is an obese boy who “had every piece of equipment he had ever been issued” (50) by the military and more. While Billy spends time daydreaming about his future on Tralfamadore and his life outside of war, Weary spends every second pretending to be some great war hero as if he is preparing the story that he will tell his family when he gets home. Despite the fact that he is actually strongly disliked by the other three men in his small squad he “imagines himself to be one of the three close war comrades who call themselves the ‘Three Musketeers’ ” (Schatt 101).

In reality, Weary is simply a child who tells other men stories, which he creates in his mind, in order to feel as though he is a hero. Vonnegut, Billy, and Weary “had been foolish virgins in the war, right at the end of childhood” (18) Weary’s stories are his way of coping with a war that he, as a mere child, is unable to comprehend. The kinds of false stories that Weary creates represent the type of stories where veterans will “pretend [they] were men instead of babies” (18). These stories are exactly what Vonnegut promises his friend’s wife Mary O’Hare that he will never write. Weary’s character is Vonnegut’s way of showing what people do not see when they read or hear about men who are glorified as heroes.

Another example of satirical versions of stereotypical war characters are the English prisoners of war whom Pilgrim meets after his capture. These men are the perfect soldiers told about in stories, confident in their troops abilities and pleasing to the eyes of the Germans as “they made war look stylish and reasonable, and fun” (120). Vonnegut then essentially dismisses the romanticized outlook of the Englishmen and the Germans in regards to war by pointing out that “the British had no way of knowing it, but the candles and the soap [the soldiers used] were made from the fat of rendered Jews and Gypsies and fairies and communists and other enemies of the State” (122). This statement, followed by the narrator’s signature “so it goes” (122), acknowledges that there is no such thing as a war hero and that anybody saying there is does not know about actual war.

Vonnegut’s opinion about people’s abilities to change their fate shows most evidently through a contrast in Billy Pilgrim. Billy struggles with his own life and death as well as his belief that the lives and deaths of those around him are unchangeable. Almost immediately after being drafted into the military Billy has his first experience with death when his father dies in a hunting accident while Billy is at boot camp. Then during the war Billy attempts to get killed several times in battle because he “didn’t really like life at all.” (130) Although Billy does not believe in the ability to change his fate he still attempts to die or at least acts indifferent to dying.

Billy’s deteriorated mental state is evident in his obsession with the question of “why me?” (97) throughout the book. When he is abducted by the Tralfamadorians and he asks why they chose him, they simply say that there is no rhyme or reason for why anything happens. Every “moment simply is” (97) and there is no way to change it. This concept ties the Nazis to the Tralfamadorians later in the book when an American is beat by a German guard for muttering something under his breath. Afterwards the American asks “why me?” (116) and the Guard’s responds is very similar to that of the Tralfamadorians “‘Vy you? Vy Anybody?’”(116). By tying the Tralfamadorians to the Nazis Vonnegut shows that the alien lifestyle that may seem utopian to Billy is not as perfect as it seems.

Billy struggles with surviving many things that he does not want to or believes he should not have. He is awestruck when looking at the moonscape that Dresden is post-bombing and cannot understand why he is lucky enough to live when so many die. He faces this existential confusion again when he contemplates the plane crash that he walks away from as the only survivor.

Despite actually being alive, Vonnegut associates Billy with imagery and symbolism relating to death. Vonnegut describes corpses as having blue and ivory feet which he also uses to describe Billy on two different occasions. He has a weird fascination with death and even spends his wedding night planning his gravestone. Perhaps the best example of the idea of death that seems to follow Billy throughout his life is when it states that Billy’s happiest moment is when he is lying beneath the warm sun, napping on a coffin shaped wagon. Even Billy’s happiest moment ties to death and lying in a coffin. By relating Billy to death Vonnegut emphasizes how a person who possesses no free will and chooses to not control their own life is essentially dead. Ironically, the quote that is supposedly Billy’s “method for keeping going” (76) is a quote about having “wisdom always to tell the difference” (77) between the things that he can and cannot change in his life. This saying holds a dark irony to Billy’s life since “the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future” (77) which is untrue for any living human being, but not for Billy, who might as well be dead. By believing that fate is unchangeable and that he cannot control his life Billy is not actually living at all.

Billy’s struggle against life leads to his imaginary episodes where he recalls being abducted by aliens called Tralfamadorians. He imagines being kept in a dome shaped container in a Tralfamadorian zoo with a young porn star named Montana Wildhack. He imagines the two living together in a picturesque life and having a child all before the eyes of the Tralfamadorians. “Billy and Montana appear as a sort of new Adam and Eve, who live in the confines of a perfect world” (Allen 103) and learn about the idea of fate and its resistance to change from the God-like Tralfamadorians.

The idea of time traveling to other moments in his life especially to Tralfamadore is Billy’s way of coping with the stress and pain he feels when remembering the war. By juxtaposing seemingly normal moments from Billy’s life to the dark moments from war Vonnegut pictures for readers how war affects soldiers minds and all of their memories. Veterans have no choice but to find a way to cope with the new state of their minds. Science fiction stories like that of the Tralfamadorians are escapes for Billy and his hospital roommate, Eliot Rosewater, who “were trying to reinvent themselves and their universe” (128). For Billy it is easier for him to escape to another planet in his mind where nothing requires any explanation than to try to understand why people do the evil things they do when their vision is clouded by war.

The novel Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut provides a clear message of ending the romanticized portrayals of war so often seen in film and writing. Vonnegut does not condemn war as a whole as much as he condemns the way that many people choose to both see it and talk about it. By using the shifts between the blunt realism of war and the idealism of stereotypical characters and a utopian world like Tralfamadore Vonnegut produces a book filled with a dark humor that does not push a particular viewpoint on readers, but instead makes them consider their own feelings and views based on only the facts.

In Kurt Vonnegut’s ‘Slaughterhouse-Five’, we see how the use of motifs is used to demonstrate the devastating effect that the war has. It is revealed throughout the novel using the motifs ‘so it goes’, ‘poo-tee-weet’, and ‘mustard gas and roses’.

From early on in the novel all the way to the end, ‘so it goes’ is brought up whenever there is a mention of death. ‘So it goes’ simply means life goes on but in the story, it has been used to take death as being meaningless. Although this idea of living has been Billy’s coping mechanism for all the death and misery he has witnessed throughout the war, it has made Billy apathetic towards life. It also ties in with the PTSD that Billy gained in the war. He needed to find a way to cope with the trauma so in which he created Traflamadore. Their way of living could be said revolves around ‘so it goes’ and Billy has gone onto adapting an living by this phrase.

Through the motif ‘mustard gas and roses’, we see how Vonnegut used two opposing words to demonstrate the devastating affect of war. We first hear this near the beginning of the novel when Vonnegut is describing his breathe as smelling of ‘mustard gas and roses’ and a little later says that he makes a phone call to an old friend while drunk. Billy later receives a call from a drunk man who is also said to have breath of ‘mustard gas and roses’. Vonnegut is connecting himself to Billy here showing how the war has affected him. We later on see a variation of this, “[t]here were hundreds of corpse mines operating by and by. They didn’t smell bad at first, were max museums. But then the bodies rotted and liquefied, and the stink was like roses and mustard gas”. It could be said that the rose represents the beautiful city of Dresden and the mustard gas is the chemical weapon that destroyed it all. The greatly opposing words here make this scene more clear. This is showing that the once beautiful city of Dresden which represents the rose would soon be ruined by mustard gas from the bomb. The opposing words clash here to represent this.

When everyone is dead from a massacre, you are left with dead silence and nothing to say, other than the birds that continue to sing ‘poo-tee-weet’. There are not any words that could truly be said to describe the outcome or justify the war. Vonnegut goes to say “[e]verything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say?’ .All there is to say about a massacre things like, ‘poo-tee-weet’ demonstrating that nothing truly intelligent could be said about the war. In the last line of the book, ‘poo-tee-weet’ is brought up once again showing th dead silence of Dresden after the war. Billy and the other prisoners leave the stable to find everything abandoned and in dead silence other then the birds that continue to say ‘poo-tee-weet’.

Through the motifs used in ‘Slaughterhouse-Five’, Vonnegut portrays the theme of destruction of war.

Introduction to Tralfamadorian Philosophy

Philosophy of life is an informal concept that varies in meaning among differing societies as well as the individuals within them. In Kurt Vonnegut’s ‘Slaughterhouse Five’, fictional World War II soldier Billy Pilgrim is allegedly abducted by aliens and taken to the planet Tralfamadore where he subsequently learns about Tralfamadorian life philosophy while being held captive. This alien concept interests both Billy and Vonnegut greatly, and both men strive to incorporate it into their lives; however, significant contrasts between Tralfamadorian and Earthling abilities and societies limit their success. Although both Vonnegut and Billy attempt to apply Tralfamadorian philosophy in aspects of their lives, their inability to fully practice this alien doctrine indicates the extent to which it is unrealistic to assume humans could adopt a similar life philosophy to that of the Tralfamadorians. This analysis explores the concept of Tralfamadorian philosophy and the limiting factors that Earthlings—namely Vonnegut and Billy—face in their attempt to follow such a doctrine. Further, these ideas allow for the interpretation of Vonnegut’s objective in portraying both the attractions and limitations of Tralfamadorian philosophy and of the implications that these limitations ultimately present.

Contrasting Views on Time and Free Will

Tralfamadorian philosophy is rooted in the idea that all moments are eternal, and, therefore, no one moment—good or bad—is more significant than any other. Despite the aliens’ doubt regarding Billy’s ability to understand their higher perspective, they attempt to explain their perceptions of time and life to Billy by stating, “All time is all time. It does not change. It does not lend itself to warnings or explanations. It simply is. Take it moment by moment, and you will find that we are all, as I’ve said before, bugs in amber.… Only on Earth is there any talk of free will” (pg. 86). The Tralfamadorians’ capacity for seeing the fourth dimension—a faculty humans do not possess—allows them to view time as something that “does not change” and that “simply is”. Regardless of one’s effort to view the fourth dimension, this accomplishment is not possible for humans, and the Tralfamadorian perception of time as a constant and unwavering force is unachievable. This fact alone limits Billy’s—or any other human’s—ability to comprehend and practice the Tralfamadorian doctrine. Furthermore, the existence and importance of free will on Earth hinders human acceptance of such a philosophy that eliminates free will completely. Although Billy experiences moments randomly as the Tralfamadorians do, he relies on his sense of Earthling free will to make decisions within these moments. In order to wholly follow the Tralfamadorian ideology, one must surrender their sense of free will which plays a highly important role in Earthling society. The aliens recognize the depth of humans’ value for free will and suggest that this unique characteristic limits the human race. They believe that their view of one’s position in life as “bugs in amber” is superior to that of Earthlings who long for cause and effect. Without sacrificing free will, it is impossible for a human to fully apply Tralfamadorian philosophy in their life; however, taking into consideration the aforementioned human value for free will, such a sacrifice may not reap benefits to an Earthling but, rather, lead to an uncomfortable sense of forced restriction. To a species that knowns nothing of free will, the lack of such a liberty goes unnoticed, but to humans, an innate desire exists for this freedom. Vonnegut uses Billy’s interactions with the Tralfamadorians to highlight this difference and, in such a way, implies that perhaps living as a bug trapped in amber creates more limitations for the Tralfamadorians than the alternative creates for Earthlings.

The Art of Selective Focus on Moments

The Tralfamadorian ideology teaches that since all moments are coexistent and unavoidable, one should employ selectivity regarding the moments he chooses to focus on. When Billy questions the aliens’ apparent peacefulness, they respond by telling him, “That’s one thing Earthlings might learn to do, if they tried hard enough: Ignore the awful times, and concentrate on the good ones” (pg. 117). This concept is the core of Tralfamadorian philosophy, and the Tralfamadorians believe that Earthlings have not yet grasped this idea—it is something they must still learn, and the learning process will take great effort. The Tralfamadorians advise Billy “to stare only at pretty things as eternity fail[s] to go by”, and the reader subsequently learns that “if this sort of selectivity had been possible for Billy, he might have chosen as his happiest moment his sun-drenched snooze in the back of the wagon” (pg. 195). Billy attempts to practice selective attention to moments in his own life, but he struggles to do so as many of his happy moments are linked to unpleasant ones, and severing this connection proves difficult for him. Even his would-be happiest moment in the back of the wagon is shadowed by the event occurring thereafter in which Billy realizes that in his bliss, he has been wholly unaware of the near-death state of the horses tied to the wagon. Therefore, if he attempts to concentrate solely on the pleasant moment spent snoozing in the wagon, his focus is forced upon the helpless, dying horses coexisting in that moment with him. The Tralfamadorians would urge him to forget about the horses, but his human nature makes such selectivity impossible. This may be extrapolated beyond Billy to the human race in general as it is part of human nature to create associations between moments, and learning to abolish all such associations and focus exclusively on positive events is a highly unrealistic expectation for Earthlings to achieve. Regarding this dilemma, Vonnegut seems to adopt a mixed opinion—his repetition of this theme of Tralfamadorian philosophy indicates that he finds such a concept to be intriguing and possibly beneficial to humans; however, his inclusion of negative memories in his novel and his prevailing desire to share his war story suggest that he places certain value on all of his memories, good or bad. By promoting selective attention via Tralfamadorian philosophy while not abiding by this practice, Vonnegut presents a paradox in which the reader must adopt his own opinion.

Tralfamadorian Literature: A Reflection of Alien Philosophy

Further understanding of the Tralfamadorian philosophy is provided through the description of Tralfamadorian books. On Tralfamadore, Billy asks the aliens if they have any books he might be able to read, to which they respond:

Only Tralfamadorian novels, which I’m afraid you couldn’t begin to understand.… Each clump of symbols is a brief, urgent message—describing a situation, a scene. We Tralfamadorians read them all at once, not one after the other. There isn’t any particular relationship between all the messages, except that the author has chosen them carefully, so that, when seen all at once, they produce an image of life that is beautiful and surprising and deep. There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects. What we love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seen all at one time (pg. 88).

Billy is unable to understand the Tralfamadorian books due to their unique format of “clump[s] of symbols” containing “brief, urgent message[s]—describing a situation, a scene”. Tralfamadorians have the ability to read all of these messages simultaneously with “no beginning, no middle, no end”, which contrasts the way in which humans read books progressing from start to finish. This reflects the Tralfamadorian capability of perceiving all moments simultaneously and the Earthling inability to do so. In their books, the Tralfamadorians value “the depth of many marvelous moments seen all at one time” which “produce[s] an image of life that is beautiful and surprising and deep”. Such value of pleasant moments resembles the key principle in their philosophy which states one should focus on happy moments in order to generate a pleasant image of life. The lack of moral and of cause and effect in the Tralfamadorian books is also linked to aspects of their philosophy, namely the absence of free will. This further contrasts both human novels and human society as moral and cause and effect are all prevalent concepts on Earth. Vonnegut attempts to organize his novel in random clumps similar to Tralfamadorian novels, but human perception prevents the simultaneous reading of these messages that is characteristic of a Tralfamadorian reader. Thus, the peculiar format of Tralfamadorian novels and Billy’s inability to understand them acts as a metaphor for the unfamiliarity of Tralfamadorian philosophy in the eyes of an Earthling. Through this metaphor, Vonnegut can emphasize the great extent of human limitation by implying that Earthlings are so unadvanced compared to Tralfamadorians that they cannot even do something so simple as read a book. This stress on limitation seems to suggest that Vonnegut ultimately doubts humans’ ability to fully adopt a Tralfamadorian life approach, despite the fact that such an approach offers unique benefits not otherwise achievable, comparable to how the beauty of Tralfamadorian novels remains just out of reach of Earthlings.

Perception of Death: A Human vs. Tralfamadorian Perspective

The Tralfamadorian response to death is also somewhat of a foreign concept to the majority of humans. While writing a letter describing his time spent on Tralfamadore, Billy states that “the most important thing [he] learned on Tralfamadore was that when a person dies he only appears to die. He is still very much alive in the past, so it is very silly for people to cry at his funeral” (pg. 26-27). Tralfamadorians utilize their unique understanding of time and their ability to selectively focus on pleasant moments to explain the illusion of death, suggesting that those who die are still “alive in the past”. Therefore, there is no need for mourning of loss and no need “for people to cry at his funeral”, as is such a common occurrence on Earth. On the surface, Billy appears to grasp this concept and to accept death as it comes; however, it is clear that the extensive deaths caused by the war resonate with him. At Billy’s and his wife’s anniversary party, a barbershop quartet of optometrists perform, and the author notes that “Billy was emotionally racked…. The experience was definitely associated with those four men and not what they sang” (pg. 175-176). Vonnegut goes on to explain that this emotional association Billy makes is between the quartet and the four German guards who accompanied Billy and his fellow soldiers during and after the bombing of Dresden. Billy recalls the horrified looks on the faces of these guards when they first observed the massive amount of death caused by the bombing, and this memory disturbs Billy, causing him to feel “emotionally racked”. Although he dismisses the deaths along with the memory with the saying “so it goes”, the profound effect that the barbershop quartet and the linked memory of massacre has on him indicates that he cannot wholly accept death in such a way as the Tralfamadorians do. Vonnegut uses this juxtaposition of Billy’s acceptance and grief to suggest alternative responses to death, which, in turn, implies Vonnegut’s own emotional struggle regarding death and mourning. He seems to find the Tralfamadorian easy acceptance of death to be an attractive pathway, but his inclusion in his novel of Billy’s unavoidable negative associations with death imply a certain value for the mourning process. Thusly, the reader is again made aware of human limitation and is subsequently presented with an opportunity for personal opinion regarding benefit versus detriment of the Tralfamadorian doctrine.

Vonnegut’s Struggle with Tralfamadorian Doctrine

Vonnegut also attempts to practice aspects of the Tralfamadorian philosophy in the writing of his book. He repeats the phrase “so it goes” following every death in his novel. This phrase suggests that Vonnegut has come to terms with the idea of the lack of justice behind death and has accepted it for something that is. That being said, he does not seem to be entirely at peace with the aliens’ view on death. He states, “if what Billy Pilgrim learned from the Tralfamadorians is true, that we will all live forever, no matter how dead we may sometimes seem, I am not overjoyed. Still—if I am going to spend eternity visiting this moment and that, I’m grateful that so many of those moments are nice” (pg. 211). Vonnegut explicitly states that he is “not overjoyed” with the Tralfamadorian philosophy concerning death. He goes on to say that he is grateful for “so many” pleasant moments in his life, but this statement simultaneously suggests that Vonnegut does not view his life as entirely pleasant which indicates that he is unable to completely shift his focus away from the bad moments as Tralfamadorian philosophy would have him do. Vonnegut also states that writing this book was difficult for him because “there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre”. This statement indicates that Vonnegut feels there is no insight or reasoning behind extensive death; however, despite his difficulties, the fact that he persisted in writing his novel suggests that he felt it an important mission to complete his story of the death and destruction in Dresden. Both Vonnegut and Billy have witnessed extensive death, and both men seem to be caught at a crossroads between accepting death as unavoidable and unjustifiable, and feeling negative emotions connected with such loss. This instinctual association of death with sadness is a human quality that many people experience; however, Tralfamadorian philosophy preaches against such association. In order to practice this philosophy, humans must separate this instinctual association and view death without negative emotions. Despite being the creator of these aliens and their doctrine, Vonnegut himself struggles to accept this concept due to his innate human limitations fully. He promotes the alien idea but does so in a way that leaves the ultimate interpretation of such a philosophy to the individual.

Conclusion: The Human Dilemma in Adopting Alien Philosophy

Several aspects of Tralfamadorian life philosophy appeal to Billy and Vonnegut, but their status as Earthlings limits their perception and ability to fully practice this philosophy. Extreme Tralfamadorian views regarding time, free will, moment selectivity, and death impede humans from effortlessly adopting this doctrine. Additionally, instinctual associations that human brains make between moments and/or emotions—for example, Billy’s link between his happiest moment and the unpleasant moment that followed—are difficult to sever and further hinder the full application of Tralfamadorian philosophy. Nevertheless, Billy’s abduction to Tralfamadore allowed Vonnegut a pathway through which to present the idea of an alternative, unfamiliar life philosophy that may lead to opened eyes concerning the concept of a broader view of how one should regard life. By promoting the appeal of Tralfamadorian philosophy, Vonnegut is able to portray an attractive alternative approach to life that advocates for a comprehensive and flexible outlook; however, by also describing the limitations humans face in attempting to adopt such a life doctrine fully, Vonnegut suggests the reason why such an outlook is not widely accepted or practiced in Earthling society. Through the character of Billy and his abnormal experiences with time travel and alien abduction, Vonnegut symbolically reveals the obstacles that impede humans from adopting a Tralfamadorian approach to life and the innate improbability of overcoming such hinderances. Ultimately, Vonnegut leaves the reader with a multifaceted dilemma and the opportunity to personally contemplate the benefits versus the detriments associated with the possibility of adopting aspects of Tralfamadorian philosophy into Earthling society.

The finest example of satirical literature and science fiction, was written 1969 by Kurt Vonnegut ‘Slaughterhouse Five’. The book becomes Vonnegut’s way to release traumatic experiences during World War II and protest against it. He subtitles the book ‘The Children’s Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death’, to demonstrate many of the soldiers inexperience and little knowledge of the war, and the reality of it. However, Vonnegut does not relate his experience in World War II as a biography. He decides to write his story in an unique way and use it to reflect on various problematics the world seems to have. In the book, the author gives his public Billy Pilgrim as the protagonist, Billy symbolically is Kurt Vonnegut, his alter ego in the book. At the beginning of the book Billy is presented as an older man, who was a soldier in World War II, he has PTSD. Due to his PTSD he is triggered by many things that make him go back to his awful experiences. Billy travels through time, often finds himself “stuck” there and goes back and forth from reality and his “memories”. Pilgrim goes about life by using his catchphrase, “So it goes”, which throughout the book seems to simplify important factors; death. Thanks to the Tralfamadorians, who believed that death was simply a rock bottom moment for a person, since there are so many good memories. “So it goes”, is repeated continuously in the book emphasizing the importance of death, however, also how unimportant it was perceived at the moment.

The first example of Billy’s phrase is found in chapter 2, “When a Tralfamadorian sees a corpse, all he thinks is that the dead person in bad condition in that particular moment, but that the same person is just fine in plenty other moments. Now, when I myself hear that somebody is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is ‘so it goes” (27). From beginning to end, Vonnegut through Billy seems to embrace this catchphrase, using it to satirically highlight Billy’s lack of emotion towards the countless deaths he witnesses and the hardships of war. Therefore, Billy repeatedly uses it here and there; no one can do anything against death. It becomes Billy’s coping mechanism, almost as his therapy to confront the sad reality of war, but specially the bombing of Dresden and the scars it has left him. It is Vonnegut’s reaction to tragedy; the Tralfamadorians philosophy on death.

To accelerate the end of World War II, the British and Americans decided to bomb Dresden, known as the Florence of the Elbe for the huge number of museums and monuments, a city full of beauty. The night of February 13, British pathfinders razed Dresden in two waves of incendiary bombs. Houses and living beings were consumed by a giant rain of fire that sucked oxygen and exploded everything underneath. “He was down at the meat locker on the night that Dresden was destroyed… The rest of the guards had gone… to the comforts of their homes in Dresden. They were all being killed with their families. So it goes” (177). Around 25,000 people were confirmed dead time after the bombing, the city was fully destroyed and death could be smelled in the air. “Dresden was like the moon now, nothing but minerals. The stones were hot. Everybody in the neighborhood was dead. So it goes” (178). Vonnegut makes a strong emphasis during the book, specially on this exact date, where he seems to find himself confused. He was a 17 year old soldier, who had just been part of a massive massacre, and after a few years he finds himself accepting what happened, there was nothing that could have been done, so it goes.