Slaughterhouse Five, pages 96-119

On the previous entry, I was wondering whether Billy Pilgrim and Kurt Vonnegut, the narrator, were actually the same individual. Various instances of the interview to Kurt Vonnegut on http://wiredforbooks.org/kurtvonnegut/http://wiredforbooks.org/kurtvonnegut/ actually confirmed this hypothesis. For example, on his interview Vonnegut talks about drinking and making long distance calls to his friends. This same action occurs on the first chapter of Slaughterhouse Five, when the narrator of the book mentions that he has awaken in the middle of the night to drink and call one of his friends, Bernard V. O’Hare. This instance is valuable evidence that helps to confirm that Kurt Vonnegut is the narrator of the novel and the author of the book about Dresden. Later on in the interview, it was announced that Vonnegut is a German-American who fought in World War Two. In addition to this, Vonnegut mentions he was a prisoner of war, like Billy Pilgrim. This makes me believe that Kurt Vonnegut and Billy Pilgrim are the same individual. There is no other plausible explanation as to how the narrator of the Dresden book knows every detail about Pilgrim’s life.

During the interview, Vonnegut also mentions the resentment Americans have towards Germans, especially those who fought in World War Two and are living in the United States (Old Germans). Surprisingly enough, Vonnegut himself is of German origin, fought in World War Two, and lives in the United States. This leads me to think that Slaughterhouse Five is not actually an anti-war book, but an anti-prejudice book, showing that not all German-Americans are dreadful and violent. This is merely a hypothesis, and I do not have any evidence to show whether Vonnegut meant to write an anti-war book or an anti-prejudice book. It is amazing how the life and background of the author can play such a major role in shaping the trend of the novel.

Another segment of the interview that seemed relevant to me was Vonnegut’s view of religion. He objects to organized religion, but believes the Bible is a magnificent work of literature that has good insights. Vonnegut is an Agnostic who places Divine law over human law. Maybe this helps to explain the constant references to Adam and Eve throughout the novel. Vonnegut also mentioned that no one is ever sure of what God really wants. This view is expressed in pages 108 and 109 of the book, which offer a very queer explanation of Jesus’ character. “In it, Jesus really was a nobody, and a pain in the neck to a lot of people with better connections than he had.” (p. 108). The most curious yet strange detail of all is that we actually don’t know of this is true, if the interpretations of theologians are actually correct or not.

I also noticed how Eliot rosewater, Pilgrim’s companion at the hospital, always mentions Kilgore trout, a science fiction author. I also know that Kurt Vonnegut is a science fiction writer. Does Vonnegut admire Trout? Is he his literary role model?

I also noticed how the views of the Tralfamadorians concerning life and death actually challenge the Judeo-Christian Bible’s views on these topics. On page 114, Tralfamadorians acknowledge the need of seven different sexes to create a single human being. This contradicts the Book of Genesis, which says that two humans, Adam and Eve, were the ancestors of the human race, denying the existence of seven sexes (since there were only two human beings). Page 117 talks about the end of universe: “We blow it up, experimenting with new fuels for our flying saucers. A Tralfamadorian test pilot presses a starter button, and the whole universe disappears.’” (p. 117). This view is contradicting the Apocalypse and denying its credibility, as supposedly these aliens are able to see into the future and know what will happen.

Tralfamadorians are queer beings which have very unusual views on life. Their nature to travel through the fourth dimension gives them the ability to have a different perspective on life than the one we humans acknowledge. Their points of view, I believe, can teach us many valuable lessons, like always looking at the bright side of things and focusing on pleasant times rather than terrible situations because, after all, the future is predestined, and there is absolutely nothing we can ado about the bad moments in life. “’That’s one thing earthlings might learn to do, if they tried hard enough: Ignore the awful times, and concentrate on the good ones.’” (p.117). I believe this quote applies to my life, as I have a tendency to always worry about bad things and get anxious about every situation I encounter. I think I should learn to adopt this Tralfamadorian theory, as there is nothing you can do to prevent bad things in life except to look at their bright side.