“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference.” - Kurt Vonnegut

This simple prayer provides hope in a world of great tragedy. It proposes fundamental principles of the universe as it acknowledges the existence of both fate and free will. In essence, the prayer states that fate controls much of life. However, man is still capable of influencing events by determining his own actions in response to the given circumstances. Such a philosophy is explored in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five. The novel follows the story of Billy Pilgrim, a World War II veteran and a survivor of the Dresden firestorm. He stumbles through life, living the failed American dream and coming into contact with alien life forms known as Tralfamadorians. Through his experiences, Billy concludes that the world is controlled by fate. Yet, he still clings to romantic ideals of bringing happiness to the world. From the novel, one concludes that the world is neither completely fatalistic nor idealistic. Vonnegut’s interpretation of fatalism depicts man as having no control over his future. Free will is nonexistent, and fate controls absolutely. The other philosophy discussed in the novel is passionate idealism displayed through society. This idealistic theory expresses faith in man’s abilities. In an idealistic world, man controls all situations and is responsible for all events. With Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut conveys the theme that each individual is responsible for finding a balance between the passive, fatalistic Tralfamadorian theory and aggressive, passionate idealism. This balance allows one to survive in a world in which fate controls everything except a person’s reaction to conditions. Vonnegut expresses this theme with the Tralfamadorians, his depictions of modern society’s values, and by including his personal struggle with Dresden in the novel.

Fate is one of many philosophies which explain the nature of the universe. It is known as an omnipotent force, predetermining all events and actions. Fatalism is one of the most important concepts of Slaughterhouse Five as it provides explanation for at least some events. Throughout the novel, fate is shown to control the lives of the characters, exemplified by the Tralfamadorians. Events are always out of the control of characters and the blundering life of Billy Pilgrim is a prime example of how completely fate seems to direct the course of events. Not only is fate presented as a fact of life, with such a deterministic outlook comes a passive, almost uncaring attitude toward life and tragedy. In the novel, tragic events are always depicted in the same way. “Martin Luther King was shot a month ago. He died, too. So it goes” (Vonnegut 210). The phrase, “so it goes”, becomes the symbol for fatalism. “[The narrator] declares ‘so it goes’ whenever he describes an unpleasant event...‘So it goes’ is a Tralfamadorian expression used by these robots to describe an unpleasant event which cannot be avoided since man and robot both live in a universe in which there is no such thing as free will.” (Schatt, 86). Vonnegut further explores the topic of fate through Kilgore Trout’s novel, The Big Board. In Trout’s book, humans are abducted to an alien planet where they are led to believe that they have millions of dollars invested in stocks. A fake stock market ticker and board are used to influence their emotions (201). “The Earthlings would realize the absurdity of their actions if they could perceive reality, but they cannot. Similarly, they have no control over their destinies and are as much the playthings of fate as Billy Pilgrim” Schatt, 91). Fate continues to control circumstances in which characters find themselves participating, even in fictional literary works within the novel itself. Another reoccurring phrase describing fate is “poo-tee-weet?” (Vonnegut 215). “Hovering above the abyss of total destruction, reminding us that there is little to say about massacres, and nothing to say about Purpose and Meaning, Vonnegut continually pictures a small bird asking eternally a small question: ‘Poo-tee-weet?’ If such a question means anything, it probably means ‘so what’” (Olderman, 407). With his novel, Vonnegut presents the idea that due to the fatalistic nature of the world, there is no larger significance or even an explanation for events. Events simply occur as they have been fated. The concept of events occurring by fate rather than for a reason is repeated when Billy’s mother is dying. His mother feebly asks, “How did I get so old?” (Vonnegut 44). “The fact that there is no appropriate answer leaves the reader feeling the same emptiness Vonnegut confronts with Dresden and Billy feels with his mother’s impending death.” (Klinkowitz, 50). Events simply occur and neither humans nor Tralfamadorians can do anything to alter them. Fate brings not only a lack of control but a rather apathetic outlook on life exemplified by such phrases as “so it goes” and “poo-tee-weet”.

The Tralfamadorian concept of fate eliminates all responsibility and meaning in life. While Vonnegut seemingly supports this callous, fatalistic approach to life, his novel proves that such a philosophy can never work for humans. The fatalistic outlook is once again presented by the Tralfamadorians. “‘You sound to me as though you don’t believe in free will,’ said Billy Pilgrim. ‘If I hadn’t spent so much time studying Earthlings,’ said the Tralfamadorian, ‘I wouldn’t have any idea what was meant by ‘free will.’.....Only on Earth is there any talk of free will” (Vonnegut 86). “This denial of man’s free will in favor of a deterministic universe is presented as a common cosmic belief...this view eliminates guilt and frees man to use his memory selectively” (9, 51). Man is thus left without the burden of responsibility. As Vonnegut, himself, has witnessed atrocities such as the bombing of Dresden, such an outlook cannot be acceptable for him or humans in general. Thus, while the novel appears to support the Tralfamadorian philosophy, it, in effect, is a testament against such notions. As Billy stays longer on Tralfamadore, he continues to learn about the “true” nature of the universe. He also learns how the universe will end. “‘If you know this,’ said Billy, ‘isn’t there some way you can prevent it? Can’t you keep the pilot from pressing the button?’ ‘He has always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and we always will let him. The moment is structured that way” (Vonnegut 117). “This is not to say, however, that Vonnegut offers the Tralfamadorian attitudes toward that vision as final truth. Tralfamadorians are not human beings, so that their attitude of absolute indifference toward the terrors of the universe - even to the ultimate terror of its annihilation - could never work for humans” (Allen, 94). The fatalistic approach to life simply brings about hopelessness and apathy. To function in such a world would require shutting off all emotion which humans cannot possibly accomplish. Even those who believe the Tralfamadorians cannot completely live in this way as proven by Billy Pilgrim. “Every so often, for no apparent reason, Billy Pilgrim would find himself weeping” (Vonnegut 52). “Billy is crying in despair for the plight of mankind even though his intellect refuses to recognize this fact” (Schatt, 86). Even though Billy desperately tries to accept the fatalism of the Tralfamadorians, he cannot bring himself to simply ignore the suffering around him. Intellectually, he accepts his and the world’s fate. However, emotionally, Pilgrim cannot come to terms with the uncaring concept of fate. Billy’s failure to accept such an indifferent view of the world reflects the inadequacy of fate as an interpretation of life.

Vonnegut’s rejection of complete fatalism indicates a need for balance between fatalism and its counterpart, passionate idealism. A strictly idealistic philosophy finds greater meaning in all events and expresses a belief in the ideals of a society. Man is responsible for his own circumstances. Slaughterhouse Five contradicts idealism as absolute truth. In the end, people do not create their own environments and are only able to control their responses. Thus, one must find a balance between both rejected philosophies to discover the true nature of the world. While Vonnegut rejects the strictly fatalistic philosophy, he also does not completely accept the passionate idealism of society. According to Vonnegut, the idealism of society is as false as the fatalism of the Tralfamadorians. Such institutions as religion are not nearly as ideal as people would depict them. Vonnegut’s criticism can clearly be seen in one of Kilgore Trout’s novels, The Gospel From Outer Space. The novel follows an alien who studies Christianity. He finds that Christians are cruel due to the wording of the Bible (Vonnegut 108). “Killing Jesus was wrong because he was ‘The Son of the Most Powerful Being in the Universe’. That leaves the impression that there remain some people it is all right to kill, namely those not well connected” (Bloom, 118). This satirical view of organized religion introduces the larger issue concerning the important structures in society. This establishment is considered to be related only with good. Yet, it is actually hypocritical and cruel. This major pillar of society has great flaws as can be seen in events throughout history. For example, in the Children’s Crusade of 1213, monks sold thousands of children into slavery claiming the children were being sent to help in the Christian struggle in Palestine (Vonnegut 16). This outrageous incident is but one example in the history of Christianity. As Vonnegut questions the innate goodness and validity of Christian principles, he also strikes against an idealistic society which believes everything has greater meaning and purpose. The hypocrisy of such an important organization within society disproves such a romantic notion. Thus, through his examination of Christianity, Vonnegut concludes that passionate idealism is false.

The materialism of postwar America falls short of its fanciful depiction as well. Billy Pilgrim’s life after his World War II experiences is an obvious example. Billy is engaged to a rich woman and has a successful optometry practice yet he has put himself into a mental hospital (Vonnegut 102). “Vonnegut wants to show that all Billy’s material comforts...can do nothing to smooth over the pain of what he has experienced” (Allen, 91). Billy realizes that the emptiness of American materialism is not enough to give him a truly content life. His rich wife is an example of the emptiness associated with materialism. “The cracks in the American dream show through Billy’s apparently successful postwar life. Valencia is a parody of consumerism, since she constantly consumes candy bars while making empty promises to lose weight in order to please Billy sexually” (Allen, 91). Vonnegut shatters the fantasy-like illusion of materialism by showing how the American dream of money does not necessarily bring happiness. Capitalism is one of the principles America was and is built on. It is a perfect example of an idealistic approach to life as man’s fate is solely in his own hands. Once Vonnegut shows the reader that materialism lacks anything of importance, the reader also realizes that an idealistic philosophy of life cannot be true. With Vonnegut’s interpretation of materialism, another fanciful philosophy and passionate idealism is discounted.

The most obvious ideal to be shattered by Slaughterhouse Five is the heroic, glamorous nature of war. The concepts of honor and glory gave war an attractive yet false quality. “[The British] made war look stylish and reasonable and fun” (Vonnegut 81). “They transform the ugly, horrifying realities of war into something magical and beautiful. But midnight tolls and Billy once again sees the real picture of warfare” (Schatt, 94). The heroic image of war is constantly proven false by reality. The only soldiers who can give war such a depiction are prisoners of war on overabundant rations. The ragged and weary state of the American soldiers quickly points out how those who are actually fighting feel the war is neither heroic nor fun. The horrible reality of war is further described during Billy’s experiences behind enemy lines. One of the soldiers who is fleeing the Germans with Billy is Roland Weary. Ignoring the true, dangerous situation in which he is involved, Weary imagines he and the two scouts accompanying Billy are a modern day Three Musketeers (Vonnegut 42). Weary chooses not to recognize the horrible situation he is in just as many refuse to acknowledge the appalling nature of war. “When Roland Weary escapes from the unbearable reality of war into his private fantasy world of the Three Musketeers, he tells himself about the heroic deeds of these legendary heroes....Weary’s fantasies [are] a timeless human aberration” (Bloom, 80). This idealized perception of war is obviously false as Weary is soon deserted by the other two “musketeers”. War is further denounced by the most important even in the novel: the Dresden firestorm. The focal point of Slaughterhouse Five is the Dresden firestorm and coping with such a horrible event. Vonnegut’s anti-war theme is obvious. “At all times, wars have cruelly deprived children of their childhood, destroyed priceless cultural values, and wiped out innocent lives, and thus it makes perfect sense that in [Vonnegut’s] ‘anti-war book’ the Dresden firestorm is seen as just another instance in the endless sequence of human brutality from Sodom and Gomorrha through the medieval Crusades to the jungle war in Vietnam” (Bloom 86). The ideal of war is discounted by Billy’s experiences further disproving the validity of passionate idealism. The idealistic concept of absolute self determination is invalidated by depictions of war as well. “Only on Earth is there any talk of free will” (Vonnegut 74). “When [Vonnegut] ponders the question of human free will, what he really is asking is, if man does indeed have free will, what rationale can he possibly have to explain his actions during the war, particularly his fire bombing of Dresden” (Allen 82). The horrors of Dresden cannot be effectively explained. Reasons provided by Professor Rumfoord in the novel “range from the claim for moral superiority through the insistence on rightful revenge to the admission of logistic mistakes and Eaker’s version even insinuates that one can balance one atrocity against another and thus expiate guilt by mutual neutralization” (Bloom 77-78). As all proposed explanations are either outrageous or absurd, Vonnegut finds that a philosophy of absolute free will cannot adequately explain tragedies such as Dresden. None of the aforementioned ideals concerning religion, materialism, or war provide meaning or happiness. Vonnegut finds he cannot agree with an outlook of passionate idealism any more than passive fatalism as ideals are proven to be either falsely portrayed or unable to explain tragic events.

As both the philosophy of absolute fatalism and of complete idealism are proven incapable of providing happiness and a means of surviving in a world full of tragedy, one must find a balance of the two. The story of Vonnegut’s struggle with writing the novel is a metaphor for the struggle for balance. This conflict is presented in Slaughterhouse Five as Vonnegut cannot explain events purely by either method of thought. The repeated phrase of “so it goes” exemplifies the false theory of fatalism (Vonnegut 6). “Slaughterhouse Five is built on the paradox that it appears to offer acceptance and even indifference as responses to the horrors of the 20th century, when in fact it is a moving lament over those horrors - a piecing wail of grief over the millions of dead in WWII” (Allen, 95). The appearance of fatalism as correct is a facade as is the idealism presented by society. “There is no reason why 22 year old Kurt Vonnegut survived the destruction of Dresden. There is no meaning for him to discover as he reexamines his circumstances in the affair” (Klinkowitz 41). The lack of meaning surrounding events of such magnitude contradict an idealistic approach to life in which everything has purpose. In the end, only a combination of both can fully explain the world in which Billy Pilgrim and Kurt Vonnegut attempt to survive. “We eventually come to realize, of course, that blanket toleration for and understanding of human participation in evil must be abandoned, that villains do, indeed exist. But it is Vonnegut’s assertion that, for the most part, evil grows upon us rather than being consciously chosen” (Lazar, 248). While responsibility cannot be shirked by simply believing events were “fated” to occur, one cannot infer that all acts of evil can be attributed to conscious decisions. Rather, Vonnegut implies that events are often out of the direct control of people involved. Yet at the same time, those people are responsible for their actions and the decisions they make in response to the circumstances presented to them. This concept of a limited control of events and taking responsibility for one’s actions explains tragic events such as Dresden and allow witnesses to atrocities such as Vonnegut to survive mentally.

Vonnegut, himself, finds this balance when realizing that events are controlled by fate and the only thing he can control is his response. “Morally, the author appreciates how one cannot be held accountable for what one does not know, but that in learning by going where one has to go responsibility will be accrued in the same way things happen” (Klinkowitz, 37). Through analysis of the past, Vonnegut finally finds peace through learning. Vonnegut accepts the reality of Dresden while taking responsibility for his reaction. Through Slaughterhouse Five, he strives to inspire change or at least force society to recognize the horrors of not only war, but modern America as well. In a world full of tragedy, both Kurt Vonnegut and Billy Pilgrim are forced to take control of their responses to such events. Vonnegut copes through his novel as Billy brings the Tralfamadorian truth to the world. Both attempt to inspire hope and teach others the knowledge that their experiences have given them. Vonnegut expressed his experiences as follows: “The Dresden atrocity....was so meaningless, finally, that only one person on this entire planet got any benefit from it. I am that person. I wrote this book, which earned lots of money for me and made my reputation, such as it is. One way or another, I got two or three dollars for every person killed. Some business I’m in” (Klinkowitz, 43). Idealism cannot explain an atrocity with no purpose, but Vonnegut chooses to not simply allow “fate” to control the events which follow. Through his novel, Vonnegut not only conveys his theme of combining fatalism with idealism, but he accomplishes this fusion for himself.

To survive in an arbitrary, uncaring world in which one can only control his or her reactions to circumstances, one must find a balance between passive, fatalism and passionate idealism. Pure fatalism is an unacceptable philosophy as it is far too callous for humans to accept. Complete idealism is just as false as the major ideals of society are corrupt and complete self determination cannot explain tragic events. Thus, a mixture of the two is the only theory capable of explaining the nature of the universe. In the end, the prayer, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference”, summarizes Vonnegut’s complex philosophy explaining life (Vonnegut 209). The prayer acknowledges fate’s influence without completely discounting man’s ability to control his own actions. Vonnegut, himself, utilized such a philosophy, resulting in the novel, Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut was finally able to cope with the horror of Dresden through the book. Vonnegut’s existentialist philosophy was meant to be applied to the times in which Vonnegut created the novel. The Vietnam War, race riots, and the assassinations of various figures were highly controversial issues at that time. Vonnegut hoped to inspire change in an immoral, capitalistic, and materialistic society. Thus, Vonnegut attempts to share the requested “wisdom” in the prayer with the world.