Slaughterhouse-Five Microlabs

Round 1:  "Actually, Billy's outward listlessness was a screen.  The listlessness concealed a mind which was fizzing and flashing thrillingly.  It was preparing letters and lectures about the flying saucers, the negligibility of death, and the true nature of time." (p. 190)

            Context: Billy is recovering from his head wound in the plane crash, and appears listless to the real world...

            Juxtaposition of Billy's Tralfamadorian mind and his appearance in the moment; death and life are meaningless; word choice of "flashing" and "thrillingly"

Round 2:  The recurrence of the motif "So it goes" in the novel makes death seem meaningless, thus making the life of the person who died, or as Billy Pilgrim would likely argue, experienced death, void of meaning as well.  This idea paints every human being as an "it," a machine.  This is in contrast with the argument that Vonnegut is making.  The passivity highlights the inhuman nature of war.  The motif paints war as simply a slaughterhouse.

Round 3: Kilgore Trout's stories aid in carrying out the argument or theme of the text, in providing somewhat cynical stories around the idea of the human condition -- thus encouraging people to act differently; ppl don't like reading books where ppl die and fail, but this is the true world -- the money tree is an example of the portrayal of human greed

Round 4:  The Edgar Derby tragedy, instead of being the climax of the book, is simply another "So it goes."  Despite being the killing of one of Billy's companions in the dramatic death by firing squad, Edgar Derby is just another death.  Slaughterhouse-Five does not attempt to really have a climax in trying to convey a Tralfamadorian-style plot line.  The book jumps around in plot, but goes together like the Rocky Mountains.  Also, Edgar Derby helps shape the idea of fate versus free will, in that Billy likes to point out the superficiality of his death.

Round 5: Showing humanity in times of war is seen as a weakness (pillar of salt) -- people have to move on from negative experiences -- introduces Tralfamadorian concept of time from the get-go.  Billy doesn't have to look back, because there is no back.  Poo-tee-weet at the book's end shows the curiosity of a species as to the destructive force that humans possess.

Round 6:  Vonnegut does offer some hope, and ultimately by portraying war as inhuman, he shows that humans, through utilizing free will, have the capability to end the mindless slaughter that is war.  In particular, I think of the movie rewind: bringing the bombs back through the bomb bay doors, and preventing destruction: it can happen, but with belief and free will.  People must realize how dehumanizing war is.

Round 7:  I disagree that Vonnegut supports a Tralfamadorian view of time.  The consequences for a universe governed by a Tralfamadorian view of time are the deprivation of human dignity and free will, really the things that distinguish human beings from other species.  Vonnegut instead seeks for people to act humanely, respect the lives of beings, and not engage in the massive slaughter that is war.  He wants people to be themselves, and not the Tralfamadorian aliens that have a massive disregard for life.  War embraces a mob mentality.  If people recognize the way that war leads the human condition, they will not go to war.