When I started reading Kindred, I was really struck by its resemblance to Slaughterhouse. In terms of their structures and overall premises, the two books are super similar.

        Both start with some form of foreshadowing which gives us a look into the very end of the book. The functions of these prologues are super similar in that both of them grab the reader's interest and leave them wanting to more. The prologues are both narrated by survivors of whatever is to come. Right off the bat, in Kindred's prologue, readers know that whatever happens to Dana, she will survive, but she will also suffer from it, both physically and mentally. In a similar vein, Slaughterhouse-Five's prologue establishes the fact that the narrator has survived the tale he is about to tell.
        We discussed in class how part of the significance of Kindred's prologue is the fact that it establishes the normalcy of the situation. In the hospital, Dana and Kevin discuss the events leading up to her injury in a way that suggest they have become relatively regular for them. Even though we as readers have no idea what might have happened to Dana, there's the sense that whatever it is, we would not consider it normal. The first few chapters of Slaughterhouse-Five are very similar. They establish the normalcy of Billy's seemingly impossible, unrealistic situation, without giving us much reason or context. 

        More generally, both books revolve around a time travel plot, where someone from the modern time is transported backwards into a period which carries not only historical significance, but also significance as it relates to the present day. In both cases the concept of time as we know it comes directly into question . Dana is not just traveling backwards in time, but time in the Antebellum South passes far quicker than time in the present. In Billy's case, he is transported to random points in time based on no apparent order. Sure these are very different situations - unlike for Billy, in Kindred, time for Dana at least remains more linear than not  - but in both cases we see time acting wildly different from the way it's supposed to.

       While their central focus on time travel is an important similarity between the two books, there is initially a fundamental difference in the ways that each character interacts with their respective pasts. The way that time travel functions for Billy, he is a in a constant state of living in the past, and in occupying a space that he belongs in because he has lived it already. In contrast, Dana is initially  thrown into a world she has never known before, where she is forced to experience and witness the past. She is not occupying it in the same way that Billy does. However, as Dana becomes further entrenched into the world of the past - as she spends more and more time there, she shifts from being a witness, to being a direct participant. She begins to live in and occupy the past, and eventually it becomes so familiar to her that time travel within the book becomes more and more similar to that of Slaughterhouse-Five.

How do you guys see the function of time travel within Kindred and Slaughterhouse-Five? How does it differ? Does it have to do with the fact that Tralfmadore and time travel in Slaughterhouse-Five  are much more ambiguous (there's the possibility, at least, that it's all in Billy's head right?), or is it just because Kindred depicts a much more linear version of time travel? Tell me ur thoughts or don't it's fine