"He wore a white ten-gallon hat and black cowboy boots decorated with swastikas and stars. He was sheathed in a blue body stocking which had yellow tripes running from his armpits to his ankles. His shoulder patch was a silhouette of Abraham Lincoln's profile on a field of pale green" (207).
"God is listening, too. And on Judgement Day he's going to tell you all the things you said and did. If it turns out that they're bad things instead of food things, that's too bad for you, because you'll burn forever and ever. The burning never stops hurting" (219).
"He had never had an old gang, old sweethearts and pals, but he missed one anyway" (220).
"He had supposed for years that he had no secrets from himself. Here was proof that he had a great big secret somewhere inside, and he could not imagine what it was" (221).
"This family knew that Dresden was gone. Those with eyes had seen it burn, understood that they were on the edge of a desert now. Still––they had opened for business, had polished the glasses and wound the clocks and stirred the firs, and waited and waited to see who would come" (231).
Questions:
1) I laughed out loud when I read the description of Howard W. Cambell Jr. the American writer who is now an avid Nazi. He serves as yet another example of how nonsensical Billy Pilgrim's world is. Why do you think Vonnegut puts him in? There are plenty of bizarre war characters of exceedingly appalling nature. Why include this cowboy nazi?
2) Do you think there is a God in this novel? Do you think Vonnegut's continuous biblical references such as Lot's wife, the crucifixion, and Judgement day are his way of comparing the absurdity of war to the absurdity of religion? Do you think he is making these biblical analogies to show the connections of human suffering throughout time? Or do you think it is something all together different?
3) Finally, what do you make of Kilgore Trout? Is he what you pictured an unsuccessful author would look and act like? Why do you think Billy invites him to his eighteenth wedding anniversary?
Good questions, Sarah!
ReplyDelete1. When I was reading the description of Howard W. Campbell Jr.—such a blah name even with the middle initial and Jr.—I wrote in my book "a parody of Captain America?" The blue body stocking is what made me think of a superhero costume—and Captain America comics did indeed exist in World War II, first seen in 1941. There was before the war Americans sympathetic to the Nazi regime, the German American Bund. So the idea of an American being a Nazi stooge is not impossible; but yes, like Sarah—and I love the picture, though it really is a superhero costume, I think—the description is outrageous and absurd. He's an idiot. But it's not a mistake, of course, that poor old Edgar Derby, "mournfully pregnant with patriotism and middle age and imaginary wisdom"(191),challenges Campbell with impassioned talk of "freedom and justice and opportunities and fair play for all" (209). Earlier in the novel, and twenty some years later from this moment, we know the black folks in Ilium will riot and burn down their neighborhood—echoes of the 1968 riots after MLK was killed—because there is no "fair play for all" for them. Who is the bigger fool—Campbell or Derby?
2. Anna and I were talking about this very question while Sarah and her crew were making Hamentaschen on Friday in the gym kitchen. I don't think there is a God in the novel. The sadness and misery and inevitability of both that is, for me, the bedrock of this book, not to mention Dresden and the Holocaust, speaks to the absence of God. Or if there is a God here, it's the God of Voltaire's "Candide" who can't be bothered with the mice in the hold of the ship—the mice being humans.
3. I haven't read any other Vonnegut besides this book, but I do know Kilgore Trout—like Eliot Rosewater—appears in other books of his. I was thinking about this question while reading today. I think about Trout's novel with the robots who drop napalm with no moral qualms—they're robots—and terrible bad breath that makes them unforgivable to humans. Trout writes this years before Dresden—he seems like some sort of mad prophet, someone who understands the need for humans to hurt each other; and no one reads him. "Everything was fine and nothing hurt." I think Billy invites him to his wedding anniversary because he appreciates his understanding of the world. And he's entertaining.
I think Cambell Jr. is Vonnegut’s way of giving us more context into the various mindsets of our characters in this novel, as they represent the world we are given. He is one of the myriad extremes to whom we are introduced. His outfit is very much similar to Billy’s toga and silver Cinderella combat boots; it’s ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI do not think there is a God in this novel, and if there is, I think Vonnegut would say that he has better things to do than pay attention to the ridiculous wars of human beings and Tralfamadorians, I guess, because God “lets” them destroy the world. I do not know that he thinks religion is necessarily absurd, but maybe moreso beyond the realm of a conceivable world for civilians at least. The Tralfamadorians did speak of the fourth dimension in which we could categorize all these ridiculous things (war; cowboy Nazis; togafied Billy’s; cursing, jacked, English Cinderella’s, etc.) I do think these biblical references do a good job of showing connections between states of human suffering over time. I also think that sometimes these references show the power of choice, but also how powerless we are in the Grand Scheme of Things. For example, I think the story of Lot’s wife could demonstrate both of these things.
Hm. Kilgore Trout is definitely a very interesting man. He is kind of what I imagine an unsuccessful author to be like, but to the extreme. He seems insane but also more sane/logical/perceptive than most people in the fact that he can tell exactly how Billy is feeling just from mere observation. I agree with John in saying that I think Billy invited Trout to his anniversary for entertainment value. Most events at the party were incredibly staged, especially the gifting of Valencia’s ring. I am wondering why Vonnegut chose Billy’s 18th anniversary in particular. It makes me think of 18th birthdays, and how, as much fun as they are to celebrate, it doesn’t mean much more than the day before or the day after. It has no inherent value, just as the ring Billy idly gives to Valencia or the entire party in general, including its attendants, do not appear to have much value.
1. I think that Vonnegut includes this ridiculous Nazi to reinforce his promise to Mary
ReplyDeleteO’Hare; there are no villains in this book—not even the crazy, traitorous Nazi. While—as Edgar Derby shows in his moving speech and fine action—Campbell deserves utter contempt for his treason and praise of Nazism, he is not just a crazy, idiotic cowboy. Slaughterhouse Five was published into America during the Cold War, in which Nazism was detested, yet the United States was in the midst of its second full-scale war on the spread of Communism. Campbell’s point that “You’re going to have to fight the Communists sooner or later” is very impactful to the reader because he is right. It shows that Campbell—crazy as he is—is not simply an idiot, and thus, he is not some simple villain.
2. I would argue that no, there is no God in this book, or at the most a Deist version of God. I would argue that Vonnegut uses the biblical references to comment on himself or his characters—which he does in his telling of Lot’s wife and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I do not think that there is any higher power in this book that minimizes the tragedies that define the narrative.
3. I would argue that Trout is another way Vonnegut comments on (or criticizes) American society. His story about the robots dropping fire onto civilians casually is significant as both a criticism of American action in Dresden, but also a criticism of America in 1969 when we napalmed the jungles of Vietnam to oblivion. Honestly, I pictured an author like him to be some ascetic who favors the worlds of science fiction more than the world he really lives in. I think Billy is a simple man, so he invited Trout because he likes the man’s books.
1. I think Vonnegut included this ridiculous description of Howard W. Campbell Jr. to simply reinforce his common theme in the book of outrageousness and absurdity- only in this book would such a playful and funny description of a nazi be included. Nothing is serious and nothing really makes sense! This random description of a cowboy nazi in no way surprised me, in fact I think it fit right in.
ReplyDelete2. This reminds me a lot of the conversation we had about free will the other day in class because there is a lot of discussion about free will as it pertains to religion as well. I do think there is a God in this novel. I think that Vonnegut's descriptions of kind of the blind faith and absurdity of the walk of life reflects the blindness and absurdity of religion as well as, I think Billy's just acceptance of fate and the future and knowledge of what is going to happen in the future but his inability/lack of wanting to change it reflects the kind of whole idea in religion about following a plan and letting God's plan play out for you and not trying to change what is in your plan or what is supposed to happen in your life. Both Billy and Christianity share this common idea of everything happens for a reason. Even though Billy knows that, for example, the plane is going to crash or Dresden will be fire bombed, and even though the Tralfamadorians know what is going to happen when the pilot presses the button, they will always let it happen because it is supposed to happen.
3. I think it was really interesting the description of Kilgore Trout looking like a prisoner of war, in many ways I think he mirrors Billy. They both feel this need to explain or excuse triumphs/events in life with science fiction. Maybe it's coping? I guess Kilgore Trout isn't exactly who I imagined he would be when we read about him earlier as an author because I pictured him as more esteemed or put together, but now that I have read it, this description of Kilgore Trout makes complete sense. I think Billy invites Kilgore Trout to his 18th wedding anniversary because they have an understanding and they share a similar view of the world; a view that most people in Billy's life besides Rosewater cannot understand or really accept.
1. I agree with Keyes that Howard W. Campbell Jr. is included in this story as a non-villain. I think the Campbell server to illustrate how the Nazi’s aren’t actually too different from the Americans. Here is a man who, despite supporting Hitler, is a walking American stereotype. He bridges the gap between the two sides of the war, and, despite supporting the Nazis, is oddly American. I think that Vonnegut includes him to prove the point that the war wasn’t black and white—the Nazi’s made soap and candles out of all the people they killed while the Americans boiled schoolgirls alive—and that it is much more complicated than a simple Hollywood plot.
ReplyDelete2. Honestly, while I like the idea of all the biblical references connecting to a deeper meaning, I think that they might just be included to help illustrate Vonnegut’s various points. As the Bible is a fairly influential book (understatement of the year), biblical references are pretty much universally understood, and are fairly timeless: while the Valley of the Dolls reference might go over a modern reader’s head, they probably have at least a basic understanding of many biblical stories. As for if there is a God in this novel, I agree with everyone that there is not, because I don’t believe that the atrocity described would happen in the control of God.
3. As I read this, I couldn’t help but wonder if Trout is a version of Vonnegut, especially after John told us he is a recurring character. The obvious connections are there, they both are science fiction writers (though Vonnegut is clearly more successful than Trout), but I wonder how much more Trout inspired Vonnegut. I don’t think that Vonnegut would describe himself as an unpleasant man, yelling at paper boys and making fun of people at parties, but I also know very little about Vonnegut. I think that Billy invites him to his wedding anniversary because Trout has had a strong influence on Billy’s life and his perception of the world—I mean, he thinks that Trout’s books are real and happening to him.
1) I agree with you that Howard W. Campbell Jr. is another example of how crazy Billy Pilgrim’s world is. In particular, it shows how nonsensical war is. Howard supports America, but also the Nazis. It is proof that often times the lines between sides are blurred in war. It isn’t clear why people are fighting on different sides or what the sides even are. He also tries to bribe the men to join his “Free” American Corps with food, which shows that fighting is often not based on a belief system, but rather on things as simple as food. I also think he is included to provide a contrast to the “true” Americans and their ideals (which is shown when Derby stands up to him). However, while the section includes a lot of patriotism and seems in clear support of the Allies because Derby wins the argument, we are reading it knowing that the Allied forces are about to bomb Dresden, which was an action that contrasts these ideals.
ReplyDelete2) I’m not sure. While Vonnegut makes frequent references to the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity, he doesn’t write much about God. I do see a lot of similarities between the Tralfamadorians and their ideas and God. For one, they are both not of this world. Like Molly wrote, both Billy and the Tralfamadorians also believe that people cannot change the course of their lives, and many religions believe that God is the reason for that. I think the world of the Tralfamadorians is a kind of substitute for God and religion in the book because they function as BIlly’s belief system. However, I do think that the biblical references are showing the absurdity of Christianity. For a soldier in war, being a devoted Christian seems to have little effect on whether he or she will survive.
3) Kilgore Trout is an interesting character. He is actually close to what I pictured. However, I expected him to be a little more strange than he is at the party. I thought that he would be too socially inept to hold a conversation with anyone, but he is popular among the dinner guests. I think Billy invited Trout to his wedding anniversary because he is looking for a coping mechanism, and Trout’s ideas are perfect for the job. Billy never seems focused enough on people in the real world, but he is engaged during his talks with Trout. The fantastical stories which Trout writes give Billy more material to conjure up an escape from the traumatic events of his life. Also, Trout is a connection to Eliot Rosewater, someone who Billy seemed to like relatively well, and Billy probably wants to bring someone interesting along to a party.
1) I think that Howard W. Cambell Jr. is included in this portion of the story to contradict his own writing from his monograph. In the monograph, he discusses America’s “mass of undignified poor,” and the wealth divide in America (165). This build up to his entrance into the novel creates an interesting image of him and the prisoners of war. He stands above them in his extravagant uniform and offers them “steaks and mashed potatoes and gravy and mince pie,” which creates a metaphor where Cambell is the rich and the prisoners are the poor (208). In his monograph, he denounces the American poor, but in this situation Derby, who symbolizes the poor, stands up to him and calls him a “snake” (209). I don’t think Vonnegut is making a political statement in this moment, rather he is showing another example of the unimportance of material wealth. Back in the beginning of the book, Vonnegut showed how Billy lived a very rich life as a successful optometrist, but he was still unhappy. In this instance, I think Vonnegut is showing that will or strong beliefs are far more important than material wealth.
ReplyDelete2) Although the world Vonnegut describes has so many inevitabilities, they don’t seem to come from the hands of a God. The character that seems to reference God the most is Kilgore Trout, but he does it in an almost ironic fashion. At one point in the chapter, Trout is talking to Maggie White and he is tricking her into thinking that it is fraud to lie in his books and or advertising. He goes on to say, “God is listening too. And on judgement day he’s going to tell you the things you said and did” (219). I think in this moment Vonnegut is denouncing the idea that God regulates good and evil. If we think back to Dresden, thousands of innocent people are killed very arbitrarily but as Trout says, “If it turns out they’re bad things [...] you’ll burn forever” (219). This seems like a clear indication that people don’t “burn forever” because they were bad people and God decided it so. I think this shows that Vonnegut does not think the world is determined by God, rather it is controlled by people themselves.
3) I think that Kilgore Trout is Billy’s way of rationalizing his own thinking. I agree with John in that Trout brings with him some views that confort Billy and he enjoys them. In my opinion, Trout serves as a sort of connecting point between the two very different ends of Billy’s world: Tralfamadore and Earth. He seems to be the character that understands Billy the best, especially when he sees that Billy is visibly upset by the “Febs.” Overall, Trout is very similar to Billy because they both write science fiction, the main difference is that Billy believes his.
1) I laughed out loud when I read the description of Howard W. Cambell Jr. the American writer who is now an avid Nazi. He serves as yet another example of how nonsensical Billy Pilgrim's world is. Why do you think Vonnegut puts him in? There are plenty of bizarre war characters of exceedingly appalling nature. Why include this cowboy nazi?
ReplyDeleteI think Vonnegut includes Howard to give the audience a bit more perspective. Oftentimes, when talking about war, it is very polarized: you are on one side or the other. You are for war or against it. You kill or run away. Yet here we have a character that embodies so many different American stereotypes and at the same time, defines every symbol of what America prides itself to embody. It’s a bizarre mix of reality and worlds that you probably wouldn’t ever imagine having in war, but Howard is there. It shows how just anything can happen, and tells the reader to never think distinctively one one assumption or another, because you’ll never know when you will be proven wrong. Keep an open mind.
2) Do you think there is a God in this novel? Do you think Vonnegut's continuous biblical references such as Lot's wife, the crucifixion, and Judgement day are his way of comparing the absurdity of war to the absurdity of religion? Do you think he is making these biblical analogies to show the connections of human suffering throughout time? Or do you think it is something altogether different?
This question is interesting to say the least. One part of me says that there is God, while another part of me thinks there is. On one hand, it would seem that God would never allow the bombing of Dresden to happen, would never allow the Hollowcaust to take place, and the absence of God is what triggered these events. However, war has been going on till the end of time. Is that to say that there was never God in the first place if that statement remains true? Or is there a God but he has no control over what happens or everything has a purpose. Perhaps as the Tralfmadorians say, “It just is.” I can see both sides to the question, and any answer could be right.
3) Finally, what do you make of Kilgore Trout? Is he what you pictured an unsuccessful author would look and act like? Why do you think Billy invites him to his eighteenth wedding anniversary?
Kilgore trout is quite the character and his stories are built upon truth in a very futuristic version. It was interesting how he himself didn’t even acknowledge himself to be an author when asked. He was so associated with that role, showing how unsuccessful he was at the time. He is very interesting and always has something to say, even making things up along the way to keep the conversation growing. However, I believe that Billy idolizes Truot in a way because Truot understands him on a deeper level. Many of the themes of his books stem from the trauma of war, and time travel. Perhaps Billy actually had the idea of time travel after reading his books. If not, his books give Billy some sort of validation that what he feels holds true.
1. After I looked up whether or not Howard W. Campbell Jr. was a real person or not (which he isn’t), I did not really think much of him. I think the reason I was able to discard this character so easily is because he does seem to fit in so well with the rest of the absurd world that Vonnegut has created. Throughout the book we have seen many of strange war characters with twisted morals and Howard W. Campbell Jr. does not differ from that pattern.
ReplyDelete2. Besides the few biblical references here and there, I do not see a lot of “God” in the true spiritual sense throughout this novel. Although God and religion is mentioned I think it is because the Bible tells ancient stories of human destruction, and not because Vonnegut is in any way endorsing religion in his absurd, nonsensical world.
3. When he was introduced, Kilgore Trout was exactly what I pictured him to look and act like — eccentric and rough around the edges. Yet despite his rather off putting presence and the fact that they are strangers, I think that it makes perfect sense why Billy would invite him to his anniversary party. Ever since Billy experience his first time warp, it seems as if he has had a difficult time connecting with real people in the real world. But in the science fiction stories presented by Kilgore Trout, Billy feels a connectedness he has not been able to find anywhere else, even in war, and so it makes sense that Billy would automatically feel close to Trout.
Another thing I just thought of while reading over the blog again was how in the very first chapter Vonnegut made several references to the crusades of Christianity and the Children’s Crusade in particular. I’m not sure if this is at all correct, but I feel as if these crusades directly connect to the type of religion-driven warfare that takes place during World War II.
DeletePrompt One: “You’re going to have to fight the communists sooner or later… Why not get it over with now?” The cowboy addresses the factory men. The factory men don’t respond, and I’m not sure why. He has offered them “potatoes and steak” when they are severely malnourished. Furthermore, as Vonnegut himself has remarked, Billy was unaware of what the candles were made. This lack of knowledge leads me to believe that these American men don’t have the grandest of motives for fighting the Germans. A point is even made that Billy’s guard is his distant cousin. Here, it seems as though the men could respond either way. Then Derby jumps up to talk about America’s glory. “There isn’t a man here who wouldn’t willingly die for it,” he says, and here is where I realize that there aren’t any other men. Repeatedly, Derby’s age difference has been mentioned. Really the rest of the Americans in the factory are just boys. Here, when tempted by Cambell, they don’t fight back like they ought to. This absurd cowboy is here to illustrate the absurdity of sending those children--not ready to die--to die for our country. Like the woman in the kitchen said, “All the good soldiers are dead by now.”
ReplyDeletePrompt Two: No. There isn’t a god. I also don’t think that Vonnegut is commenting on the absurdity of religion when he talks about the pillar of salt. For me, this was more of a praise of certain aspects of human nature, like the ability to look back. To donate all one’s attention to a single moment is an incredible honor and something the Tralfamaforians are unable to do. The only absurdity is that a three dimensional perspective can sometimes be more important than another of higher dimension.
Prompt Three: I think that Kilgore describing bombers as robots seems very similar to the Tralfamadorian perspective of humans as machines. Billy likely recognized this while reading his works and invited him to the wedding anniversary for the comfort of someone who knows your plight. For instance, after being spooked by the quartet, Billy is asked by Trout if he saw a Time Loop. This is a clear indication that Kilgore knows something similar. For him to be in his mid 60s at this point in Billy’s life, I would propose that he could have served in the first world war.
I saw it in the context of Friday’s conversation about free choice. Here’s Campbell, apparently the war criminal with the highest IQ to have faced death by hanging. If he is at all as calculating as earlier described, his offer to get them to fight the Russians is deliberate and he truly thinks that the Americans, broken down non-humans that they now are, will take him up on his offer. He sees in them something kind of like what John said in class on Friday: people make war happen and are always making war happen with their little choices. The difference is it seems he believes that they are inevitably, or perhaps just invariably, going to make the choice for personal good and for war. But there’s something hopeful about this situation that points to the existence of free choice: not only do the Americans not respond, the doomed Edgar Derby stands up to him, despite the comforts and justifications he is offering for war, and becomes a character, in Vonnegut’s words, instead of one of the many, many playthings of war. He takes action, and according to Vonnegut, it is an extraordinary act, however futile it may end up being.
ReplyDeleteAs for the cowboy portion, I saw it as a commentary on virulent nationalism. Campbell has managed to twist the ideas of patriots shedding blood for America to collaborating with the Nazis against the US in the war and getting Americans to fight the Communists with the Nazis because they’ll have to do it anyways eventually. Funnily enough, Derby is espousing a fairly idealistic, nationalistic point of view as well. Considering how disillusioned this book is, his shiny points don’t seem to hold up to examination either, but are somehow better than Campbell’s take on things.
Update: After reading John’s post, I looked up a list of Kurt Vonnegut’s other stories. Apparently, one of his earlier works was the supposed memoirs of Campbell, described as, “an American by birth, a German playwright by occupation, an American spy and, by necessity, a member of the Nazi party tasked with badmouthing the Allied forces through English language broadcasts” by Publisher’s Weekly, and the first line of the book is, ““We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” I’m not terribly surprised that there’s enough material for him to have a story of his own, but that certainly complicates things even further.
No. The first we see of God is Him as a force of destruction in Sodom and Gomorrah. Considering its similarity to the Dresden firebombing in the nature of the destruction and that he compares himself to Lot’s wife, who disobeys and looks back, I don’t think Vonnegut holds any fondness for religion. Instead, he goes by “accident willing.” I’m not sure it’s absurd in the same way war is, either. It seems more like the same critique he makes with Tastee-Freeze. It’s superficially attractive, feel-good, and ultimately meaningless. Christianity forms not only a common knowledge base for many people, but a shared sense of morality. It’s used to justify all sorts of things while being seen as righteous and making sense of the world, and Vonnegut is pointing out the hypocrisy of religion and the humanity that made it. After all, permission for violence and horrific revenge and murder is baked into so many parts of the Bible.
Perhaps not as bizarre, but it seems reasonable that publishing seventy books and none of them succeeding would make someone bitter. This is kind of far-fetched, but I did wonder if there were any elements of self-satire in there. Vonnegut is also a science fiction writer that deals with societal issues in very quirky ways. Honestly, several of Trout’s books sound like they could be Vonnegut book idea rejects. As to his wedding, I think Kilgore Trout’s science fiction writing was much more real to him than most “real” things in his day-to-day life. After all, he doesn’t love his wife and even if Trout is an outrageous faker and bloviator at times, he’s spoken to a truthful absurdity and disillusion with the world that resonates with Billy.
I agree that Vonnegut uses the bizarre characters in this story to point out the absurdity of life and how sometimes people, like life, just do not make sense. Cambell serves the same purpose, but I would argue that his character points out the irony in the war and especially in the bombing of Dresden. After finishing the chapter, I felt deeply sad for the people of Dresden and struggled sympathizing with the Americans. I do understand that this is because of the context of the story and also that I am seeing through Billy’s perspective. But I kept thinking about the girls who died a probably undeserved death and the hospitality of the German hotel couple at the end of the chapter. I wonder if by associating Cambell, who is American, as a Natzi, Vonnegut is trying to show us how awful both sides of the war can be. Even the “right” side can be evil sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI definitely do not think that there is a god in this novel. It is interesting, though, that this novel brings up themes of absurdity, hopelessness, and a lack of free will that I do think are prevalent in religious texts. In times when people heavily relied on god, for example, during the middle ages, they believed in a predetermined life which, it seems, Billy does as well, though for different reasons. I think that the references to the bible are used to connect with the reader rather than to establish a god in the novel.
I agree with what Jordyn and John said about how Trout is entertaining and therefore a valuable friend for Billy. In the civilian world, Billy seems to be the outsider. Trout, I think, understands Billy more than his family appears to. I found the commentary about Trout’s money tree in his book on 213 very interesting, “It attracts human beings who killed each other around the roots and made very good fertilizer.” I wonder if this is one of those times that Vonnegut's personal views really shine through his characters. Through this description, he exposes the absurdity of capitalism and how all humans are capable of committing terrible things. And then by saying that humans are ultimately fertilizer, he is pointing out the insignificance of humans.
1) I think that Campbell represents the enemy or antagonist of the intoxicating and somewhat addictive patriotism that often rears its ugly head during wartime. This classic American-centric “us versus them” mentality can be quite a force to be reckoned with, as we see in Derby’s speech, but Campbell represents the opposing side of this mentality. I think it puts into perspective how different the war may seem from different angles, and it reinforces the idea that each side of a war feels that they are in the right. Campbell believes in his cause just as much as Derby believes in his.
ReplyDelete2) I think that Vonnegut definitely treats the Bible as an analytical text, referencing its themes and stories as if they are not held on a religious pedestal. Stripping the Bible of this spiritual context definitely makes a statement, one that makes sense given all the trauma that Vonnegut and Billy have endured over the course of their lives. Vonnegut’s choice to frame the Bible in this light is a direct commentary on how he feels God has treated him in his own life.
3) I think that he is definitely a character that has been faced by a lot of hardships in his life, and I think that Billy can relate to these hardships. Trout treats his frustrations with aggression and lashes out at the people around him, pours himself into his work and gets frustrated with the children he’s in charge of. Billy does nothing, and remains passive throughout all of his troubles. The two men are extremely différent in how they react to very similar trauma.