Chaos Reading discussion
This topic is about
Slaughterhouse-Five
Chaos Reading Bookclub
>
DISCUSSION OPEN Slaughterhouse-Five Group Read
To me, the refrain "so it goes" is like "c'est la vie" in reverse: not "that's life," but "that's death." It always seems to follow a mention of death or disaster, expressing in a world-weary way the inevitability of death due to the inevitability of war due to the inevitability of human mindlessness. Billy Pilgrim's only escape is to Tralfamadore.
Mod
Yes! I kept thinking the same thing as I was reading it. Then I started thinking of it as a bit of a marker, like a verbal tombstone to mark someone's passing. By the end of it though, it seemed to me like a blessing - like a Catholic making the sign of a cross. There was something respectful but automatic about it.
I love your phrase "verbal tombstone," Ruby. I may have to steal it! My experience of the tone differs, though. I sense not respect but resignation tinged with disgust. I wonder if anyone ever asked Vonnegut?
Billy Pilgrim is a fascinating character. To me, the phrase, "so it goes" was one of his ways of coping with all of the horrors he faced. I love the line, "Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future." It seems to me that he needed to believe this.
I don't think you're making any great leaps there, Mark. Unless there really is a Tralfadmadore, Billy took refuge deep within his mind. To him, it beat Earth.
Note: I have never discussed a book before and excuse my potential ignorance of any matters whatsoever if I make a remark that is possibly wrong or misinterpreted. Please kindly and gently point out to me! Thanks!This is the first time I am reading Vonnegut. The 'time travelling' was well-written and I found it so easy to follow. I was Billy Pilgrim and I was in his mind.
'So it goes', to me, was generally an acceptance of the inevitability of death with a deep sense of helplessness attached to it. There is also, somewhat, a tone of indifference about it. With all the unnecessary deaths in war, any other deaths, be it natural or in a plane crash or accidental carbon monoxide poisoning, is pretty tame and the fact is dealt with quickly and moved on immediately.
Billy used the Tralfamadorians' view on free-will to justify or explain his state of powerlessness over his situation, from the start when he was drafted to when he was thrown in combat and beyond, there was nothing he could do. He was thrown into it and could not get out of it and completely resigned to it. At the same time, I don't think he realized that he doesn't subscribe to the view entirely. He did want to get out and tell the world about Tralfamadore, didn't he? That is definitely some form of action on his part to alter his future.
Mod
Nasrul - There's no such thing as a wrong opinion, and personally I think you've tapped into and expressed some of the really key points beautifully.
That last point about whether Billy Pilgrim totally subscribed to the Tralfamadorian view on fate/free-will is a really interesting one to me. I hadn't thought of it like that, but I think it's true. That is (as far as I recall) the only time he really tried to take action on something, rather than simply accepting events as inevitable.
I was thinking this morning too - By accepting events as inevitable, it does take away some sense of personal responsibility, and lend some comfort. I think religion can often do the same thing for people.
In Billy's case, surrendering to fate must have been essential to his survival. He couldn't possibly have dealt with the horrors in his life without having some sort of survival mechanism kick in to relieve his burden. I just wonder what that cost him. Could he perhaps have prevented some things from occurring had he chosen to act? Could he have done something that gave him joy to balance out some of the horror, had he been less passive in life?
A rare pleasure to follow your eloquent and penetrating exchange, Nasrul and Ruby.Let's remember that Vonnegut wrote this book against the grain of post-WWII American novels, most of which glorified the war (Catch-22 being a famous exception). Come to think of it, Dylan wrote "Seems Like a Long Time" in the same era, with the lines: "Wartime is only/The other side of peacetime/But if you ever knew how wars were won/You'd know what it's like/To wish that war was done/And it ..."
Vonnegut knew how wars were won. He was there. It was ugly and stupid and mean. And it kicked Billy Pilgrim in the head, metaphorically speaking. Something broke inside of him. He became a walking shadow. So sad, and so real.
Excellent observations, Jon! Pilgrim found a way to survive after the war, but nothing more. Your description of him becoming a walking shadow is exactly right.Vonnegut moved past mere survival after his experiences with war. Writing, for Vonnegut, was one way to express his sense of powerlessness. He clearly identified with Billy Pilgrim, and I think that's why Pilgrim's character seems so real.
Did Vonnegut feel helpless throughout his life? He certainly wasn't the passive character in this story. To me, Vonnegut's courage shines through in every one of his novels.
I found some comfort in the "so it goes" phrase, I think because early in the book it spoke of dying by saying that no one really dies, because of the past, present and future being so tied together. It said that some one dead now is alive in the past, so virtually alive! My dad died in January at a young age (68) totally unexpected. I found great comfort in that sentiment. To me, "so it goes" was just a statement of life, one we must accept or be miserable.Life is a cycle that includes death.
I really like the time travel aspect of the book. To me it symbolizes the time travel we all do when we reminisce or when we look to the future. It is real easy to lose the present when doing so, and I think it was Billy's loss of the present (maybe because of his war experience) that ultimately made him so unhappy.
And hello! What did you think of the tri-focals that kept coming up! Excellent motif/symbol right? Near, far, and midrange prescription. Beyond clever, Vonnegut!
This is my first Vonnegut read and I am happy!
Mod
Vonnegut chose the passive Billy as the perfect foil for all the horrors he was presenting. Instead of bombarding us with a mind-numbing parade of blood, death and terror, Vonnegut took a distant tone, laundry-listing that endless parade and always following with a resigned “so it goes”. Much of this book is an echo of Harrison Starr’s comment in the first chapter on hearing Vonnegut was writing an anti-war book - ‘Why don’t you write an anti-glacier book instead?’ The jumping around in time also brings home the inevitability of events, the Tralfamadorian concept that past, present and future are inevitable and unchangeable.
I think the question of Vonnegut’s feelings towards his fatalistic and helpless character is a good one. Many of his books have people who are essentially just along for the ride, frequently ending up in positions where any kind of action is effectively impossible (with some exceptions such as Harrison Bergeron). At the same time, his passive characters are ‘nice’ people. Billy is a good guy - he doesn’t judge or hurt anyone, he’s a good husband to his not always loveable wife. And he repels the more ‘active’ characters such as the blowhard Rumfoord.
Vonnegut once wrote that a reader’s summary of his books as “Love may fail but courtesy will prevail” was true and complete. I sometimes think Vonnegut’s philosophy can be boiled down to simply “wouldn’t it be nice if everyone was nice?”
Mod
Yes! Great observation!
I think it was Billy's loss of the present (maybe because of his war experience) that ultimately made him so unhappy.
Why do you think Billy was unhappy? I agree more with your initial statement that there's comfort in the idea that past, present and future are all tied together, and in acceptance of the inevitable - I thought Billy believed this as well.
Whitney wrote: "Valerie wrote: "And hello! What did you think of the tri-focals that kept coming up! Excellent motif/symbol right? Near, far, and midrange prescription...."Yes! Great observation!
I think it was..."
I only think Billy was unhappy because he said he was. (unreliable narrator?). I personally take comfort in the Tralfamadorian view, but I am not sure Billy does.
So it goes. I agree with the previous view that since everything is already set in a planned cycle, so it goes that a death happens. The cycle is already planned so it goes, things are going as they will. It was poetic how when the worst things that could happen (death) it was always finished with the cold hard fact of "so it goes." Why fret over things that can't be changed?
Ruby wrote: "Nasrul wrote: "Note: I have never discussed a book before and excuse my potential ignorance of any matters whatsoever if I make a remark that is possibly wrong or misinterpreted. Please kindly and ..."Hey, thanks Ruby! - I think Whitney has correctly pointed to us that Billy was always a passive character. He had a general disinterest in life from young. I think Vonnegut made Billy such to prove what the horrors of war could do even to a person with very little energy or a lack of passion for living.
I'm "in' on the classification of Billy as a foil, Whitney, All -- quite a choice for a main character! He's a foil to forces far too powerful to combat - the war itself, first, and then the mind-numbing conformity of the materialistic and in some ways vapid American suburban landscape of the post-war era. As Bogie said in Casablanca (melodramatic, granted, but apt in meaning if not harmonious in tone), `The problems of a couple people like you and me don't amount to a hill of beans in this world of ours.' More importantly, what the hell can any individual do when "the dogs of war" have been unleashed? Horror leads to horror. And so it goes.But let me shift the discussion to the war itself. The fire-bombing of Dresden was one of the great horrors of a war beset with numerous unspeakable horrors. Americans, like myself, and Englishmen too, I suspect, have contended far less with the moral dimension of that bombing campaign than we have with the horrors of the Holocaust and the rape of Nanking and so on and so forth ... I think the unspoken premise was that the Germans "deserved it." But this was a bombing campaign that had little or no military justification and caused the terrible deaths of tens of thousands. The fire-bombing of Hamburg had a like magnitude of destruction. I think a full discussion of this book would include consideration of this. Thanks all, I'm loving this discussion.
Mod
Thanks Jon - as someone who doesn't know a lot about any of the world's major conflicts, it was a bit stunning to me to read some of those details. It's incredible that it's still not really discussed very much.
Valerie - Great point about the trifocals. I was only vaguely aware of the repeated references, but I haven't given any thought to the meaning. What do you think Vonnegut meant by it?
Something that just occurred to me from the points everyone has raised: If Billy was born passive and became even more passive with the idea that events are fixed in time why did he take action to tell the world about the Tralfamadorians?
I'm curious as to what you all think about the scene near the end in the bookstore/porno shop. There seems to be a lot of symbols in the things that Billy sees and it also happens right before he decides to tell the world about the Tralfamadorians.
Jon wrote: "I'm "in' on the classification of Billy as a foil, Whitney, All -- quite a choice for a main character! He's a foil to forces far too powerful to combat - the war itself, first, and then the mind-n..."Yeah Jon, I agree that the Dresden bombing should be included in the discussion. The Dresden bombing was senseless and a terrible failure on the Allie's part and they got away with it. Nobody had to answer for the destruction of the city and deaths of innocent people.
In my opinion, Vonnegut wanted to show readers not only of the atrocities of the unjustified senseless bombing but of the hypocrisy that lies in even the supposedly good forces/leaders that directed the massacre. Everything is a failure, the war is nothing but a failure.
Mod
This is an excellent point to bring up. Most the discussion of the book revolves around the war, but you're right - there were definite points being made about the mind numbing surrounding of suburbia. Things more subtle than war can produce shell shock.
As for Dresden, I wouldn't say the idea that the Germans deserved it is unspoken, it gets spoken loudly and repeatedly whenever even the idea of Britain or the US offering an apology comes up - an argument that seems to boil down to two wrongs somehow making a right. I think there are many other reasons Dresden doesn’t get the degree of moral consideration that other atrocities have – the most obvious one being that the winners aren’t forced to confront their misdeeds in the same way as the losers. I also don't think it helps that the neo-Nazis made Dresden a major Cause Célèbre in their efforts to mitigate or outright deny the horrors of the holocaust.
Nasrul – I absolutely agree with your point that Vonnegut was showing the hypocrisy of the supposed good guys in causing an unjustified civilian massacre. I wouldn’t go as far as you in saying his message was that war is nothing but a failure, though. Vonnegut himself said on many occasions that he thought the allied war in Europe was completely justified, but he was at least able to separate out the justification for the war itself from a justification for atrocities committed in the name of pursuing that war.
Great discussion! And sorry for the long posts, I'll attempt to reign it in a little.
Mod
I don't think he necessarily became more passive with the idea of events being fixed in time, but rather that he became excited by an idea that essentially freed him from survivor’s guilt, since it meant everyone was still alive at some point in time. He made his fist call to the radio station about Trafalmadore after the plane crash in which everyone but him died, followed by his wife’s death after she rushed to see him in the hospital. On top of Dresden, that’s an awful lot for anyone to carry.
Mod
I concur with Vonnegut wholeheartedly! Two of my very favourite quotes from the book reflect this point:
“Like so many Americans, she was trying to construct a life that made sense from things she found in gift shops.”
also (to the psychiatrist), "I think you guys are going to have to come up with a lot of wonderful new lies, or people just aren't going to want to go on living.”
In going through the quotes to find these, I also came across this one: “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.”
This makes me wonder if perhaps the tri-focal lens imagery was there to provide a counterpoint to the Tralfamadorian idea of things being fixed in time? Perhaps the characters wearing them were demonstrating the opposite of this ideal at the time? I'd need to go back and check the book to see..
Daniel - I'm keen to go back to that sex shop scene now to have a look at that symbolism..
Mod
So maybe it was cry for help. On some level he could feel himself falling apart, and that was what drove him to action?
Mod
..."
No - I think it was just the opposite! He had a huge burden of guilt lifted and wanted to share his joy with the world: "The cockles of Billy’s heart, at any rate, were glowing coals. What made them so hot was Billy’s belief that he was going to comfort so many people with the truth about time."
Mod
I'm confused then. What forced him into action? If he had been passive by nature, and he believed there was no point trying to change anything, why did he think that telling people about the Tralfamadorians would change anything? And why did it come after a string of tragedies that would be too much for anyone to carry?
Mod
Telling people won't change events, because events can't be changed. It will make them feel better because no one has to mourn for dead loved ones since no one is really dead - they're only dead in a particular time.
I'm making the case that all of the tragedies that Billy goes through are most likely to cause him an unbearable amount of survivor's guilt. If no one is really dead, there's no need to feel survivor's guilt, hence his joy at the concept.
Ruby wrote: "Whitney wrote: "No - I think it was just the opposite! He had a huge burd..."I'm confused then. What forced him into action? If he had been passive by nature, and he believed there was no point t..."
Yeah, I would like to know what others think of this. Billy was waiting for the right time, that much we know. In his own words, "I didn't think the time was ripe.". Could it be out of loneliness of being in his universe on his own for too long and now without Valencia, in real life as well or is this simply a representation of his mental health that has always been deteriorating?
This was the first Vonnegut I read. I found it very flat and boring to be honest. There are a few interesting and thought provoking passages, but it never really captivate my attention, and the way it keeps bouncing to and from is only a small part of that. I'd say this quote pretty much defines the "why" of the staleness:
"There are almost no characters in this story, and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces. One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters."
I like the idea behind this, but in my opinion it was poorly executed.
Mod
But isn't making a whole lot of people feel good the same as making a change? I guess the point I'm getting at is that if Billy didn't believe he could affect change, then why did he make such a grand effort? It wasn't like the way he experienced the rest of life - going with the flow, doing things because that's what he knows he's supposed to do. It mattered to him. He didn't foresee the outcome either.
The only thing I can think of is that this is where his mental health reached a crisis point. As you say, he felt good at the time, but so do people experiencing the manic end of bipolar disorder. It can still constitute a mental health crisis.
I hadn't really thought about all this as I was reading the book, but now that Nasrul has brought the point up, I'm kinda curious!
Frozenwaffle..... don't you ever thaw out? :P
I think I know what you mean. It can be very hard to connect emotionally to a book when the narrator isn't connected to events either. I think that's about the only reason I didn't give it 5 stars in my review: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
I think Nasrul is right about Billy's motivations coming from a state of loneliness. I think this is a common theme for Vonnegut, especially in Mother Night, and especially as it ties in to one's involvement in war.
Mod
I think we may be getting into semantic hair splitting about 'change'. Billy's adopted Tralfamadorian beliefs are that 'events' can't be changed, but the way we think about them can. The Tralfamadorians tell him that humans would be happier if they focussed on the good events instead of the bad events. If time is like a film that we're seeing frame by frame, we can change how we feel about the film, but not what's on the film.
And no, you're right, it absolutely wasn't like the way he experienced the rest of his life, this was the first thing that had Billy really excited and where he broke away from his general habit of merely following his inevitable path through life without much reflection (although I'd add that defining Billy as 'passive' is not the same as saying he's inactive, he did finish school, run a successful business etc.).
This isn't contradictory to the idea that Billy reached a crises point, but complementary to it. He's already messed up from the war, then comes the plane crash with its head injury and his wife dying. Tralfamadorian ideas are Billy's escape (aka Billy's pathological break) from all the death and horror in his life.
Whitney wrote: "As for Dresden, I wouldn't say the idea that the Germans deserved it is unspoken, it gets spoken loudly and repeatedly whenever even the idea of Britain or the US offering an apology comes up - an argument that seems to boil down to two wrongs somehow making a right."Hi Whitney, I appreciate you picking up the thread about Dresden. I should have used qualifiers ... the premise that the Germans “deserved it” as not always unspoken; but it is unspoken when the fire-bombing itself is unspoken, and it was a non-topic, as I recall, during my school days ... just as the bloody U.S. war against the Filipino people in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War was seldom or never discussed in school in my generation (I’m 56). I wasn’t aware of the context you raise, Whitney (arguments about reparations), and I appreciate learning of it (I do love history). I have in fact seen documentaries in recent years that have squarely addressed the moral issue of the fire-bombing of Germany; not so sure about American high school textbooks though (comment, anyone?).
To remain with the bombing issue, the U.S. does deserve credit for exercising humanitarian restraint for several years. The British insisted on night bombing because this reduced the risk to their fliers. The result was an indiscriminate form of bombing of cities such as Hamburg which could be readily located even in the dark: accent “indiscriminate,” with massive civilian casualties. The U.S. in contrast insisted on daytime bombing, which allowed the targeting of munitions factories and other targets of military significance, with much less killing of civilians (I won’t use the euphemism “collateral damage”). The U.S. finally shifted to nighttime bombing due largely to the huge losses sustained in daytime raids such as the disastrous raid on the ball-bearing plant in (Schweinfurt?).
Does anything evoke the horror of modern warfare more than bombing? The anonymity of the victims below seems to make killing a push-button affair. I feel this is part of the cold horror Vonnegut addresses. The world of the book is so cold. Much like the real world it depicts. So it goes.
Mod
For Billy to have gotten excited about something, and gone to extraordinary lengths to achieve something other than what he thought was pre-ordained seems significant to me. He seemed to expect that he could achieve a radical shift in the way people view the world. For all the people in the world to suddenly see life in a whole new way would be a radical shift in the way the world functions. To my mind, that has to constitute an "event".
I think that episode constitutes a departure from the Tralfamadorian perspective that Billy didn't notice he was making, and that probably this signifies a mental crisis point. But that's just my theory.
I'm not into over-the-top hunts for symbolism for the most part. My least favorite part of discussions of Gatsby is when English teachers (I love you, English teachers, no fooling) pound on the symbolism of Dr. T.J. Ecklenburg (sp?), the optician on the billboard, looking down on the ashen Long Island landscape with the eyes of god (dear English teachers, I only object when you reduce infinitely nuanced literature to a series of coded messages). Still ... do you all find significance in Billy being an optometrist? I mean, he could have been a dentist, right? Does this reinforce Billy's role as a seer?
Ruby wrote: "For Billy to have gotten excited about something, and gone to extraordinary lengths to achieve something other than what he thought was pre-ordained seems..."I think I saw it differently. To me, that was like a passive action, if that makes any sense. Billy was like a little boy in the middle of an empty desert shouting for help. I think he already knew it was futile—no one would hear him—but he does it anyway out of a sense of loneliness/frustration.
I agree about the mental crisis, though. Completely.
Mod
I have heard it said that blue and white are symbolic of peace (although colour symbolism relies on highly personal interpretation). Does anyone know what Vonnegut intended them to mean?
I did just have a quick google to see if there was a commonly accepted theory, but there seem to be a lot of different theories. The other colour combination that pops up regularly is orange & black, and seems to be in contrast to blue & white.
Ruby wrote: "Going back to the repeated imagery for a second, what struck me at the time were the "blue and ivory (or white)" references: his own hands and feet, the dead hobo's feet and some character names. ..."
Hi Ruby. For me, blue evokes peacefulness. It's opposite (?), red, evokes heat and perhaps aggression. In nature, many an animal is endowed with bright red coloring which serves as a warning to enemies: I have seen these referred to as "keep-away" colors. So whether there is a widely-accepted symbolic meaning of blueness or no (these things vary between cultures anyway), I think blue naturally evokes a peaceful feeling. Maybe K.V. was painting with blue (and white) by feel.
Mod
You could well be right - both white and blue are very commonly used across cultures to represent peace. For some reason, I have an image in mind of a blue & white flag with a dove on it, but I have no idea what the flag actually is. I thought it might have been a reference to something like that. I do get carried away with my symbols though. I find that whole subject area fascinating.
Ruby wrote: "Jon wrote: "Maybe K.V. was painting with blue (and white) by feel. ..."You could well be right - both white and blue are very commonly used across cultures to represent peace. For some reason, I h..."
My hunch is that the well-spring of this color symbolism for centuries of fine writers has been, most often, the subconscious rather than the conscious (though I think some writers may resort to color-coded symbolism charts: black = death! evil! white = purity. peace). Interesting note: A recent study found that athletic teams wearing red win slightly more often than teams wearing blue!
Billy's references to blue and white were usually in the context of someone being frozen or nearly frozen. I've heard that hypothermia is a "peaceful" way to die, but it's still death. And a passive way too (very much in Billy's style), your body succumbs to sleep.I found it interesting that the Tralfamadorians have eyes in their hands. They were observers of human nature just like Billy, possibly because they were Billy. It reinforced of whole idea that Billy was a witness to the events in his life, but not really a participant.
Billy had a near-death experience at every phase of his life: nearly drowning as a child, POW as a young man, plane crash and the death of his wife at middle age. It was not surprising that eventually all his suppressed grief/guilt/whatever would start spilling out and he would start talking. Latching on the Tralfamadorians' concept of no free will was a way to rationalize all the thing that had happened to him. Additionally, it's interesting that when he was being watched was the only time he felt good about himself, good about his body, good about his mate.....
Ruby wrote: "Whitney wrote: "..but you're right - there were definite points being made about the mind numbing surrounding of suburbia. Things more subtle than war can produce shell shock...."I concur with Von..."
Sounds like a great idea for the tri-focals, Ruby, when you consider who wears them...his wife, Valenica for instance.
Mod
I think that episode constitutes a departure from the Tralfamadorian perspective that Billy didn't notice he was making, and that probably this signifies a mental crisis point. But that's just my theory. ..."
Okay, one more post. Only because I've been uncertain about what exactly we're disagreeing about, and I really want to understand. Then I'll quit, I promise.
Is the difference here that I'm presenting what I see as entirely Billy's perspective / delusion: namely that everything is fixed and unchangeable, and learning to appreciate that is the key to happiness; while what you're presenting is an outsider rational viewpoint, namely that to change everyone's perceptions IS to change the world? Because I agree with that, and I agree that Billy doesn't see that. I don't think Billy is right, I just think he found something that let him live with himself.
Mod
I think it reinforces his role as a 'prophet', helping others to see clearly.
And I'm with you on over-emphasis on the symbolism in books and films. It frequently turns into a tiresome Rorschach-like exercise.
i finally have my Slaughter house 5 book ...yay.....just letting u know it finally arrived in the mail,lol
Lisa wrote: "I found it interesting that the Tralfamadorians have eyes in their hands. They were observers of human nature just like Billy, possibly because they were Billy. It reinforced of whole idea that Billy was a witness to the events in his life, but not really a participant..."Good observation! It is interesting that they have eyes in their hands and they are able to see everything that happens in their lives. And yet, their lives are not in their own hands. Everything is a pre-written cycle.
This was my first Vonnegut read. It was a quick, easy read and the jumping back and forth did not bother me. I was expecting more from this book and I did not like it. Billy's apathy did nothing to endear him to me. I understand that it was part of the story and because there was no free will he was powerless to change things. This added to that helpless feeling that always surrounded him and he just drifted through life accepting everything handed to him. I just couldn't care about his character so I couldn't care about the story.
I would have liked to know more about life in Dresden or life on Trafalmadore (at the zoo.)
Mod
That could well be it. I'm trying to understand what was "really" going on with that episode in his life, since it doesn't fit within his own framework.
Mod
I agree - that's a great point to raise. I see that in terms of their hands not being used to "do" but to observe.
Mod
Yeah, it's hard to feel for someone who isn't feeling for themself.
Chaos Reading
Books mentioned in this topic
The Flame Alphabet (other topics)The Flame Alphabet (other topics)
Portnoy’s Complaint (other topics)
Freedom (other topics)
Rabbit, Run (other topics)
More...
So what did everybody think of Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut?
I've jotted down a few questions to get the ball rolling, but feel free to ask/answer your own too...
- Was this a first reading for you, or have you read Vonnegut before?
- How did people feel about the way the book was structured, jumping between periods in time?
- What does the phrase, "So it goes" mean to you?
- What do you think of the Tralfamadorians' view: that if we can't change anything because it is set in time, there's no such thing as free will? Did that view help or hinder Billy Pilgrim?
- What's the significance of the repeated references to blue and white (or "blue and ivory")?
So... many..... questions......!