Epicac

Fiction | Short Story | Adult | Published in 1950

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Story Analysis

Character Analysis

Themes

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Literary Devices

Satire

Vonnegut writes “EPICAC” as a satire, which is the literary device allowing the story to be both humorous and serious at the same time. Many of the satirical elements in the story are focused on the human inability to believe there is a force we cannot control. EPICAC is a force that its (his) makers cannot fully comprehend or control despite their being the ones in control of its (his) making. The story’s human characters all seem to believe that every problem is solvable. The Brass believe they can solve all of their military problems with the right computer. The Narrator believes he can solve his problem (Pat not loving him) with the “right words.” Pat also believes her problem (not finding a man romantic enough) can be solved if she waits until the proper suiter presents himself. Ironically, though, EPICAC is the only character who admits his destiny, his fate is the only problem he cannot solve, which is simultaneously humorous and tragic because neither he, nor any human can solve the “problem” of fate (though the story seems to believe “fate” is more malleable than the dictionary may have us believe). There is also satire in the narrator’s admittance of EPICAC’s true story only once resolved of his own issues and removed from the conflict entirely. While he is vehemently insisting he wants to “vindicate” EPICAC, he also waits until EPICAC has self-destructed and until he has achieved his own goals at EPICAC’s expense.

Colloquial Diction

“EPICAC’s” human characters all employ a colloquial diction in their interactions with each other and with the reader. The informal nature of their voices makes this seemingly “larger than life” subject accessible. Despite being a government mathematician working on a high-profile military supercomputer, the narrator says things like, “Hell, it’s about time somebody told about my friend EPICAC” and “[Pat] was a brown-eyed strawberry blonde who looked very warm and soft to me […] she was—still is—a crackerjack mathematician” (Paragraphs 1 and 10). The characters, especially the narrator who speaks the most, sound as if they could be anyone, which makes it possible for this story to be emotionally resonate despite being fictional. Politically motivated writing and speaking is often ill-received when delivered in didacticisms and presented as cautionary tales. Vonnegut chooses to make these people as “real” as possible by allowing highly intelligent people to speak among themselves and to the reader in a manner that feels inclusive and relaxed.

Personification

This story only works if the narrator believes EPICAC to be his equal (if not his superior). To achieve this end, Vonnegut personifies the computer so that both EPICAC and the narrator may be round characters with full story arcs. The narrator only refers to EPICAC with a pronoun other than “he” when speaking from the Brass’s point of view, and even then, he cannot help but personify this computer who became his best friend. The parenthetical personifications such as, “the Brass wanted him to be a super computing machine that (who)” and “I won’t go into details about how EPICAC worked (reasoned)” work to demonstrate in the first two pages that the narrator is completely earnest in his describing the computer as “the best friend I ever had” (Paragraphs 5, 7, and 2). The personification makes the narrator reliable, which is what makes the story and the emotional weight translate to the reader.

Juxtaposition

“EPICAC” makes use of juxtaposition both literally and figuratively to achieve its exploration of the difference between men and machines. The narrator and EPICAC are literally juxtaposed in the same physical setting (the fourth floor of the physics building at Wyandotte College) because the story requires the computer’s operators to type to the machine, but also so the comparing and contrasting elements of “man” and “machine” can happen within a reliable narrative framework.

Placing the two in the same physical setting allows the interactions to take place in the story’s present so the narrator may relay not just the dialogue spoken between him and EPICAC, but also his feelings during the dialogue, which heightens the tension by revealing that the narrator himself is unsure about the exact difference between man and machine. For instance, EPICAC asks the narrator “How long does [protoplasm] last?” to which the narrator replies, “‘lasts forever,’ I lied” (Paragraph 44).

The many instances in which the narrator emotes during his dialogue with EPICAC are mirrored by the machine in instances such as the moment when EPICAC asks, “What’s 7,887,007 times 4,345,985,879?” (Paragraph 39). The narration continues with, “‘34,276,821,049,574,153,’ clicked EPICAC. After a few seconds’ pause he added, ‘of course’” (Paragraph 41). The “of course” works to personify the computer through the juxtaposition of his human-esque retort amid a conversation happening with the human narrator narrating his own emotions alongside his verbatim dialogue. Placing these characters side by side physically allows them to also be juxtaposed figuratively as they both characterize themselves almost equally as “man” and “machine.”