Billy's Stay On Tralfamadore Analysis
Describe Billy’s stay on Tralfamadore. What provides the substance for his fantasy life? Why does he need this fantasy life? What is he really trying to find on Tralfamadore?
From Tralfamadore, Billy says the “Universe does not look like a lot of bright little dots to the” Tralfamadorians. Instead, the “can see where each star has been and where it is going”. Aside from the view of the sky, Billy is kept in a geodesic dome with clear panels. He’s on display in a Tralfamadorian zoo. Inside the dome Billy was naked. “Most of the furnishings had been stolen from the Sears Roebuck warehouse in Iowa City, Iowa.” (112) There was a color TV, futon, end tables, lamps, ashtrays, even a bar with two stools. Billy did exercises, and listened to music …show more content…
Instilling real fear of war, of mindless slaughter, into his readers. Slaughterhouse Five is an anti-war novel. If Vonnegut had simply written Billy’s experiences down and then examined how he (Vonnegut) dealt with them, there would be no sympathy from readers, no Tralfamadorians, and in fact Vonnegut would sound exactly like Billy does to his daughter when she comes home with a copy of his letter detailing the truth about time. So, in many ways, using an anecdotal structure keeps Vonnegut sounding sane, while also amplifying his anti-war …show more content…
It’s a Tralfamadorian saying. Their reasoning behind it is simple: they see the world as a collection of moments in time and they see all of these moments at the same time, none of which can be changed, past or present. So, when they see someone who’s dead, they say “so it goes” because they see the person dead and alive at the same time, thus, they think it’s simply a bad moment for them, but they still live in the past. Now it’s not really that simple, but it explains what neither Bill nor Vonnegut could explain about war. Billy doesn’t know why some people die and why others don’t, so he and Vonnegut just say “so it goes”. Essentially, it allows Vonnegut to step away from having to address why that person died, because he can’t explain it any better than you or I could, which is also why it appears so much: there’s a lot of death in war even though many have no even semi-justifiable reason to
From Tralfamadore, Billy says the “Universe does not look like a lot of bright little dots to the” Tralfamadorians. Instead, the “can see where each star has been and where it is going”. Aside from the view of the sky, Billy is kept in a geodesic dome with clear panels. He’s on display in a Tralfamadorian zoo. Inside the dome Billy was naked. “Most of the furnishings had been stolen from the Sears Roebuck warehouse in Iowa City, Iowa.” (112) There was a color TV, futon, end tables, lamps, ashtrays, even a bar with two stools. Billy did exercises, and listened to music …show more content…
Instilling real fear of war, of mindless slaughter, into his readers. Slaughterhouse Five is an anti-war novel. If Vonnegut had simply written Billy’s experiences down and then examined how he (Vonnegut) dealt with them, there would be no sympathy from readers, no Tralfamadorians, and in fact Vonnegut would sound exactly like Billy does to his daughter when she comes home with a copy of his letter detailing the truth about time. So, in many ways, using an anecdotal structure keeps Vonnegut sounding sane, while also amplifying his anti-war …show more content…
It’s a Tralfamadorian saying. Their reasoning behind it is simple: they see the world as a collection of moments in time and they see all of these moments at the same time, none of which can be changed, past or present. So, when they see someone who’s dead, they say “so it goes” because they see the person dead and alive at the same time, thus, they think it’s simply a bad moment for them, but they still live in the past. Now it’s not really that simple, but it explains what neither Bill nor Vonnegut could explain about war. Billy doesn’t know why some people die and why others don’t, so he and Vonnegut just say “so it goes”. Essentially, it allows Vonnegut to step away from having to address why that person died, because he can’t explain it any better than you or I could, which is also why it appears so much: there’s a lot of death in war even though many have no even semi-justifiable reason to