It’s really interesting what Vonnegut does with all of his characters in Breakfast of Champions. Everyone in his novel gets their own “time in the limelight,” and gets to share parts of their backstory and perspective. This goes back to the ideas that Vonnegut expressed in his interview: he wanted his novel to be like a mythological story, and he wanted to abolish the distinction between major and minor characters. We are able to connect a little bit more with all of his characters because of the tidbits of personality we learn about them and, as a result, everyone becomes a major character. Or perhaps everybody becomes a minor character? When I read the book, I couldn’t really empathize much with any of the characters, including Kilgore and Dwayne, who the story revolved around the most. Even the omniscient and omnipotent narrator of the story didn’t have as much control over the path the novel was going down as I expected him to have. In a humorous ending to the book, the narrator was going to prove himself as Kilgore Trout’s maker and reveal all to him but was suddenly attacked Kazak the dog, who he claimed was originally the “main character” of the story. Although he eventually showed Trout his powers, it seems unusual that even the writer could not have anticipated everything that happened in the story. Just like in Trout’s story, it appears as though most of the characters in the novel are just machines that lack free will, and are unable to do anything outside of their programming. In the end, Vonnegut is calling into question whether or not we truly have free will through the carefully defined yet somewhat equal-in-power roles he has assigned to all the character machines in his novel.
-Sofia Yi