While reading my article about my panel presentation, I found the concept interesting. Vonnegut is against Tralfamadorianism, states the author. This seemed almost counterintuitive to me, as Tralfamadorianism is portrayed as a saving grace to the poor traumatized little Billy. How could one be against the theology that helped a traumatized war veteran make piece of the world around him? It makes a lot more sense when we zoom out from the perspective of just Billy Pilgrim.
Just looking at it objectively, the tralfamadorian perspective is pretty bleak. Individual choice is a concept, everything is chance and has been sit in stone. It's a very depressing outlook on life, considering one thing many humans cherish is freedom/free-agency. However, by seeing life as preordained, it gives one easy explanations for why traumatic events happen. For example, Dresden was going to happen no matter what, allows one to easily distance themselves from these events.
Clearly, the one thing Billy wants is distance, all throughout the book Billy is zoned out, acting out a separate part of his life, or on a planet hella light years away (Sometimes all 3). While tralfamadorianism allows one to distance themselves from the happenings around them, this tends to breed more apathy than anything else. I for one can't bring myself to agree with tralfamadorianism, but I haven't been a prisoner of war or lived through a firebombing or plane crash, so I can't speak for Billy.
