What I found interesting about Galapagos was the connections that were made throughout the book. This lead to this and if this hadn't had happened this wouldn't be the way it was today. It's like a delicate spider's web. Everything is interconnected, down to the iguanas who cook the seaweed in their stomachs before being able to digest it. It makes you looks at you won life and string all the instances that have happened to get you where you are today. You don't even know all the little things that lead to it all. This level of thought is really interesting to read and helps to connect the whole story together for me.
"Darwin did not change the islands, but only people's opinions of them. That was how important mere opinions used to be back in the era of great big brains" (16). Vonnegut goes on to show that opinions govern and rule the lives of people. I know this was discussed in class, but the idea of the big brain in relation to Vonnegut's thoughts on humanity is an easy pairing. When people evolve in the book, they turn into the dolphins that focus on eating and surviving, not opinions of thoughts that could create anxiety. What I'm trying to say is that I think Vonnegut wanted to show the world how happy people could be without opinions. In fact, he says that the new "fisherman" like creatures laugh at farts and such. The simple things that really bring out the joy in humanity has overpowered "big brains". The opinions of people that humanity is such a great ordeal that will be forever meaningful could lead to to more stressful lives. Maybe we all need to just focus on the little things, or so it goes.
"Again: The value of their money was imaginary. Like the nature of the Universe itself, the desirability of their American dollars and yen was all in people's heads" (30) This is yet another reference to religion both church as a religion and science as a religion. Vonnegut seems to be very realistic and in this quote I took it as him telling both sides, look, no one was there, we can pretend to know all we want but the fact is we will never know. Comparing it to money was also clever and so related. Paper money is supposed to be a representation of gold, which somehow has worth to humans, and we pass this piece of paper from hand to hand like it means something, when it reality it is a piece of paper. Comparing it to the nature of the universe, we can back up claims with scripture or science but the worth of those things is found within people, it has no worth within the universe itself. The whole book I believed Vonnegut was playing to both sides of the "nature of life" coin in that he brought up natural selection and played out evolution but also pointed out flaws in the Galapagos story in how the animals actually got there. I am seeing him more as a practical person and in a way I feel bad for him, that he can see both sides so clearly that he will end up having faith in nothing.
When reading this novel I underlined this quote in my book, "About the mystifying enthusiasm a million years ago for turning over as many human activities as possible to machinery: What could have been but yet another acknowledgment by people that their brains were no damn good?"(39). I couldn't help but be taken right back to the beginning of the quarter when we read Player Piano. Vonnegut view of technology, I believe is the truth that is slowly developing throughout his life and the life after his novels. It is funny how we compare our everyday cell phones (that most of us can't live without) to the Mandarax. The capability and size are so comparable, and in 1985 Vonnegut saw this apart of human lives in the future. I agree with Vonnegut that the "big brains" occupying humans minds are going to eventually get us into trouble, especially in relation to technology. I mean just today on the news when I came home from class, it talked about how New York airports are going to start using Avatars to answer simple customer service questions. This will replace many jobs that real human beings could hold. Scary to think Vonnegut has a good perception of what the future may actually become.... Here is the link to the avatar news from TIME: http://techland.time.com/2012/05/22/hologram-like-helpers-materializing-at-new-york-area-airports-soon/
I am intrigued by the nature of Leon Trout's "deal" with his father or the omniscient beings who control the blue tunnel to the Afterlife or himself. Whoever it is with, Leon forges an accord which says that he is to stay on earth to discover something close to the meaning of life. What he discovers is that life goes on. And then he leaves. It's like Galapagos, greater than any others in a way, is Vonnegut's autobiography (maybe that's not the right word, but I'll stick with it). He stays on earth to observe, comes to a conclusion, and leaves. Maybe that's what Vonnegut has done and is doing. He has observed life for some decades and made his summations of it with air on air, and feels like its time to go into the big blue tunnel into the Afterlife. It doesn't matter who will read it; it doesn't matter that NO ONE will read it. What matters is that he wrote it because he could write it. And maybe that is the meaning of life.
In Galapagos, in contrast with all of the other novels written by Vonnegut that we have read this quarter, the problems that the characters underwent were caused by a new culprit. “The big problem, again, wasn’t insanity, but that people’s brains were much too big and untruthful to be practical” (Vonnegut 207). In past novels that we have read, Vonnegut repeatedly introduces the concept of insanity – many of the characters within Vonnegut’s writing suffer nervous breakdowns and are questioned time and time again about whether or not their actions could possibly be justified, or if he/she is simply insane. In this novel, I found it very interesting that, in addition to the structural difference of this piece in particular, that Vonnegut also incorporated a new problem in the lives of his characters – their big brains.
Throughout Galapagos, Leon mentions how the world is 1 million years after 1986. At first, as he described the world then, I thought it sounded absolutely crazy. I thought "people need big brains, and hands, and opinions." (Me) However, as I kept reading, I realized that some opinions were better not known and this world described might not be so bad after all. Although that world is drastically different from what we are used to now, it might be a much simpler world which could be very promising in the long run. I doubt that I will ever see a world like that in my lifetime, but it is interesting to think about how such a world could come about and how those strange differences might not be that terrible after all.
I found Galapagos to be a very enjoyable read. Present in all of Vonnegut’s novels but most blatant in Galapagos, is Vonnegut making fun of humans. How humans over think things, with oversized brains. I found a particular part very poignant, I can’t remember what page it was on, but it was discussing how in one million years, people don’t know they are going to die. They are much happier due to their smaller brains. So to take it further than ‘ignorance is bliss’ I entertained the thought that Vonnegut maybe in the back of his mind was saying ‘live for today.’ Once you stop obsessing and fearing death, you can get on with living- be happy. Given Vonnegut’s notorious morbidity and depression this reading might completely off target- but it still is possible, and certainly was a possible side of Vonnegut I enjoyed thinking in the light of.
When Captain von Kleist is suffering from Alzheimer's disease and Mary comes to make her peace with him on his deathbed, he takes Mandarax away from her and throws it into the sea. Mary goes in after it as she intends to pass it on to Akiko when she dies, but both her and Mandarax are eaten by a great white shark. It is at this point that we can understand the true value of a tool like Mandarax to the stranded survivors. Mandarax is their last link to human culture as they know it. This piece of technology represents the enlightenment of mankind over centuries and centuries, the many advances that humans have made in art and science that separate us from the animals. It's ability to accurately keep time over the years represents the continuum of recorded human history. The demise of Mandarax marks the end of recorded history and the final detachment from human culture as we know it. The big-brained ideas of the past are simply no more. It is also interesting to note that as the Captain throws away Mandarax (and all of the memories of humanity that it contains) he himself is suffering from debilitating memory loss. His last conscious act, during his brief moment of clarity is to sever the final tie to the modern society he came from and usher in a new age of devolution.
Galapagos was my favorite book that we have read so far. As we discussed in class there were a number of ways that the book conveyed a point of pointlessness in life, like a lot of his other books. Another way that it does that is through the process that happens with the humans. Vonnegut almost pokes fun at all of humanity with the ending of the book. Humans have long seen themselves as the dominate species on the planet. We think that we are better than any other species or animal on the planet and yet at the end of the book there is only one way that we can survive, and that is buy evolving into a goofy looking seal like creature with fins instead of hands and a beak instead of a mouth and brains that are much smaller than they are now and less intelligent. -Elliot Shouse-
While reading Galapagos, I really noticed how Vonnegut pokes fun at people, especially in a very sarcastic way. His main way of doing this is through talking about how humans have "big brains." For me, I interpreted him meaning that people are supposed to be so smart, yet they are sort of stupid. He used the different characters in this book to try to prove this point in a way. When he describes the times where people have small brains, he shows that everything is so much more simplistic in the world. This is due to people not really being able to think too much about things.
It's funny that the narrator was a ghost, don't you think? It plays along well with one of the books themes of living long enough to reproduce in order to be successful in an evolutionary sense. The narrator is someone who didn't live long or reproduced. It's ironic. The narrator failed at natural selection, but due to reasons caused by man. His child was aborted and died from unnatural causes. From all of this, I think Vonnegut was hinting at at humans stunting their own evolution. By living in our own environment where lives are cut short on purpose or by accident, we put a stop to our own evolution. Only when humans are put back in to nature are we able to continue to evolve, maybe even into small-brain seal creature things.
I really enjoyed this novel compared to the other novels we have read throughout the quarter. I felt as if the whole story line was overall just happier. Even though people were dying, they played a significant role, and it did not seem unbearable. Vonnegut showed throughout this book that predetermined destinies only arise from personal decisions, like you can live a long healthy life, but if you mess up and contract HIV you're going to suffer the consequences regardless of what you do from there on out.
To me Galapagos wasn’t one of my favorites for multiple reasons, but as a novel to continue Vonnegut’s career, it made sense. This is because of the prologue type of affect, when he tells us who is going to die, and alluding to the fact that human intelligence is unimportant and how we often create things that are useless. This was funny with the handheld electronic translator that seems like it would be an invention that would help, but turned out to be completely useless to the survivors. However much I enjoyed aspects of the book, I felt like it was drawn out and hard to get through.
I feel like Vonnegut throughout all of his books has made fun of the human race in the fact that we [humans] believe we are top-dog and above all else. But yet we can destruct from atomic bombs, and depend on turning into aquatic creatures to survive. I think Vonnegut tries to express throughout his books that human beings are not a position at the very tip top, and that we are dependent on so many things to survive.
Vonnegut often warns his readers of future events in his novels, specifically the deaths of characters. “Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible.” I think he uses the asterisks in this story to prepare us for death because in the war, he himself had no warning. -Brooke Beery
Vonnegut simplifies all emotions as being procured through evolution. That were arrogant because thats how we've grown to be. It makes everyone see themselves a little less seriously. The way Vonnegut views himself and his country. Nobody is special but everyone is too.
I think that Vonnegut tries to argue that humanity is hopeless in Galapagos. The characters make mistake after mistake in the novel, yet their mistakes are rewarded and the story reaches a point where nothing even matters anymore. Nature, via evolution, takes control and humans become seal/bird like creatures. They survive. They could have all died on the island, but they didn't. I don't think that is hopeless.
I think that this was my favorite book that we read all quarter. I was really inspired and interested in how Vonnegut discusses the hopelessness of humanity with their big brains that drove them to have silly things like emotions. I was also very interested in how he described destiny. Like how that soldier had to go on the shooting rampage that killed Andrew MacIntosh and Zenji Hiroguchi, that it would eventually save the entire human race. For me, this made me think about my life and how although my life is insignificant, everything I do has the potential to change the life of someone else.
Some people have seemed to be kind of alluding to what I am about to write, but I will just dive right in and go for the kill. In Galapagos with Vonnegut talking about humans big brains and how that was our ultimate downfall and we are arrogant etc. etc. It is an arguement that I have made in years past (not that I had read Vonnegut until now). But, take away the idea of big brains for a second and allow me to say what I think it is. We as humans try to overcomplicate everything. We do this because we are humans we can talk get into deep thought, have deep personalities, drive cars, etc. But the problem is at the end of the day we are just animals truly no better than the dog we subject as our pet saying that it is inferior to use because it is not on our level so to speak. There are so many things that we as humans do that just go against the basics of being an animal that it is almost baffling. One example is besides dolphins and penguins no other animal I can think of mate for life. But as humans thinking we have this knowledge of a thing called love seek a life long companion. But is that really in our makings? Maybe this is why divorce rates are so high people are not meant to mate for life? Now I am not saying that is neccasirly true I believe in love and marriage but thats just an example of how we go against our animal insticts because at the end of the day we have one purpose in life and that is to reproduce. We may be entitled to some of the aspects of our lives, but I believe Vonneguts biggest point was because of our ego, because we believe we are so superior, and so smart with our "big brains" that we end up overcomplicating the simplicity to life and that is why we suffer and struggle. -Richard Marnell
What I found interesting about Galapagos was the connections that were made throughout the book. This lead to this and if this hadn't had happened this wouldn't be the way it was today. It's like a delicate spider's web. Everything is interconnected, down to the iguanas who cook the seaweed in their stomachs before being able to digest it. It makes you looks at you won life and string all the instances that have happened to get you where you are today. You don't even know all the little things that lead to it all. This level of thought is really interesting to read and helps to connect the whole story together for me.
ReplyDelete"Darwin did not change the islands, but only people's opinions of them. That was how important mere opinions used to be back in the era of great big brains" (16). Vonnegut goes on to show that opinions govern and rule the lives of people. I know this was discussed in class, but the idea of the big brain in relation to Vonnegut's thoughts on humanity is an easy pairing. When people evolve in the book, they turn into the dolphins that focus on eating and surviving, not opinions of thoughts that could create anxiety. What I'm trying to say is that I think Vonnegut wanted to show the world how happy people could be without opinions. In fact, he says that the new "fisherman" like creatures laugh at farts and such. The simple things that really bring out the joy in humanity has overpowered "big brains". The opinions of people that humanity is such a great ordeal that will be forever meaningful could lead to to more stressful lives. Maybe we all need to just focus on the little things, or so it goes.
ReplyDelete"Again: The value of their money was imaginary. Like the nature of the Universe itself, the desirability of their American dollars and yen was all in people's heads" (30) This is yet another reference to religion both church as a religion and science as a religion. Vonnegut seems to be very realistic and in this quote I took it as him telling both sides, look, no one was there, we can pretend to know all we want but the fact is we will never know. Comparing it to money was also clever and so related. Paper money is supposed to be a representation of gold, which somehow has worth to humans, and we pass this piece of paper from hand to hand like it means something, when it reality it is a piece of paper. Comparing it to the nature of the universe, we can back up claims with scripture or science but the worth of those things is found within people, it has no worth within the universe itself. The whole book I believed Vonnegut was playing to both sides of the "nature of life" coin in that he brought up natural selection and played out evolution but also pointed out flaws in the Galapagos story in how the animals actually got there. I am seeing him more as a practical person and in a way I feel bad for him, that he can see both sides so clearly that he will end up having faith in nothing.
ReplyDeleteMariah Acord
When reading this novel I underlined this quote in my book, "About the mystifying enthusiasm a million years ago for turning over as many human activities as possible to machinery: What could have been but yet another acknowledgment by people that their brains were no damn good?"(39). I couldn't help but be taken right back to the beginning of the quarter when we read Player Piano. Vonnegut view of technology, I believe is the truth that is slowly developing throughout his life and the life after his novels. It is funny how we compare our everyday cell phones (that most of us can't live without) to the Mandarax. The capability and size are so comparable, and in 1985 Vonnegut saw this apart of human lives in the future. I agree with Vonnegut that the "big brains" occupying humans minds are going to eventually get us into trouble, especially in relation to technology. I mean just today on the news when I came home from class, it talked about how New York airports are going to start using Avatars to answer simple customer service questions. This will replace many jobs that real human beings could hold. Scary to think Vonnegut has a good perception of what the future may actually become....
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the avatar news from TIME: http://techland.time.com/2012/05/22/hologram-like-helpers-materializing-at-new-york-area-airports-soon/
I am intrigued by the nature of Leon Trout's "deal" with his father or the omniscient beings who control the blue tunnel to the Afterlife or himself. Whoever it is with, Leon forges an accord which says that he is to stay on earth to discover something close to the meaning of life. What he discovers is that life goes on. And then he leaves. It's like Galapagos, greater than any others in a way, is Vonnegut's autobiography (maybe that's not the right word, but I'll stick with it). He stays on earth to observe, comes to a conclusion, and leaves. Maybe that's what Vonnegut has done and is doing. He has observed life for some decades and made his summations of it with air on air, and feels like its time to go into the big blue tunnel into the Afterlife. It doesn't matter who will read it; it doesn't matter that NO ONE will read it. What matters is that he wrote it because he could write it. And maybe that is the meaning of life.
ReplyDeleteAustin Baurichter
In Galapagos, in contrast with all of the other novels written by Vonnegut that we have read this quarter, the problems that the characters underwent were caused by a new culprit. “The big problem, again, wasn’t insanity, but that people’s brains were much too big and untruthful to be practical” (Vonnegut 207). In past novels that we have read, Vonnegut repeatedly introduces the concept of insanity – many of the characters within Vonnegut’s writing suffer nervous breakdowns and are questioned time and time again about whether or not their actions could possibly be justified, or if he/she is simply insane. In this novel, I found it very interesting that, in addition to the structural difference of this piece in particular, that Vonnegut also incorporated a new problem in the lives of his characters – their big brains.
ReplyDeleteKelsie Wilson
Throughout Galapagos, Leon mentions how the world is 1 million years after 1986. At first, as he described the world then, I thought it sounded absolutely crazy. I thought "people need big brains, and hands, and opinions." (Me) However, as I kept reading, I realized that some opinions were better not known and this world described might not be so bad after all. Although that world is drastically different from what we are used to now, it might be a much simpler world which could be very promising in the long run. I doubt that I will ever see a world like that in my lifetime, but it is interesting to think about how such a world could come about and how those strange differences might not be that terrible after all.
ReplyDeleteKimberly Jent
I found Galapagos to be a very enjoyable read. Present in all of Vonnegut’s novels but most blatant in Galapagos, is Vonnegut making fun of humans. How humans over think things, with oversized brains. I found a particular part very poignant, I can’t remember what page it was on, but it was discussing how in one million years, people don’t know they are going to die. They are much happier due to their smaller brains. So to take it further than ‘ignorance is bliss’ I entertained the thought that Vonnegut maybe in the back of his mind was saying ‘live for today.’ Once you stop obsessing and fearing death, you can get on with living- be happy. Given Vonnegut’s notorious morbidity and depression this reading might completely off target- but it still is possible, and certainly was a possible side of Vonnegut I enjoyed thinking in the light of.
ReplyDeleteWhen Captain von Kleist is suffering from Alzheimer's disease and Mary comes to make her peace with him on his deathbed, he takes Mandarax away from her and throws it into the sea. Mary goes in after it as she intends to pass it on to Akiko when she dies, but both her and Mandarax are eaten by a great white shark. It is at this point that we can understand the true value of a tool like Mandarax to the stranded survivors. Mandarax is their last link to human culture as they know it. This piece of technology represents the enlightenment of mankind over centuries and centuries, the many advances that humans have made in art and science that separate us from the animals. It's ability to accurately keep time over the years represents the continuum of recorded human history. The demise of Mandarax marks the end of recorded history and the final detachment from human culture as we know it. The big-brained ideas of the past are simply no more. It is also interesting to note that as the Captain throws away Mandarax (and all of the memories of humanity that it contains) he himself is suffering from debilitating memory loss. His last conscious act, during his brief moment of clarity is to sever the final tie to the modern society he came from and usher in a new age of devolution.
ReplyDeleteGalapagos was my favorite book that we have read so far. As we discussed in class there were a number of ways that the book conveyed a point of pointlessness in life, like a lot of his other books. Another way that it does that is through the process that happens with the humans. Vonnegut almost pokes fun at all of humanity with the ending of the book. Humans have long seen themselves as the dominate species on the planet. We think that we are better than any other species or animal on the planet and yet at the end of the book there is only one way that we can survive, and that is buy evolving into a goofy looking seal like creature with fins instead of hands and a beak instead of a mouth and brains that are much smaller than they are now and less intelligent.
ReplyDelete-Elliot Shouse-
While reading Galapagos, I really noticed how Vonnegut pokes fun at people, especially in a very sarcastic way. His main way of doing this is through talking about how humans have "big brains." For me, I interpreted him meaning that people are supposed to be so smart, yet they are sort of stupid. He used the different characters in this book to try to prove this point in a way. When he describes the times where people have small brains, he shows that everything is so much more simplistic in the world. This is due to people not really being able to think too much about things.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I forgot to put my name above!!
ReplyDelete-Adrienne Biggers
It's funny that the narrator was a ghost, don't you think? It plays along well with one of the books themes of living long enough to reproduce in order to be successful in an evolutionary sense. The narrator is someone who didn't live long or reproduced. It's ironic. The narrator failed at natural selection, but due to reasons caused by man. His child was aborted and died from unnatural causes. From all of this, I think Vonnegut was hinting at at humans stunting their own evolution. By living in our own environment where lives are cut short on purpose or by accident, we put a stop to our own evolution. Only when humans are put back in to nature are we able to continue to evolve, maybe even into small-brain seal creature things.
ReplyDeletePatrick Schwarz
I really enjoyed this novel compared to the other novels we have read throughout the quarter. I felt as if the whole story line was overall just happier. Even though people were dying, they played a significant role, and it did not seem unbearable. Vonnegut showed throughout this book that predetermined destinies only arise from personal decisions, like you can live a long healthy life, but if you mess up and contract HIV you're going to suffer the consequences regardless of what you do from there on out.
ReplyDelete-Alexis Wharton
To me Galapagos wasn’t one of my favorites for multiple reasons, but as a novel to continue Vonnegut’s career, it made sense. This is because of the prologue type of affect, when he tells us who is going to die, and alluding to the fact that human intelligence is unimportant and how we often create things that are useless. This was funny with the handheld electronic translator that seems like it would be an invention that would help, but turned out to be completely useless to the survivors. However much I enjoyed aspects of the book, I felt like it was drawn out and hard to get through.
ReplyDelete-Rebekah Andrews
I feel like Vonnegut throughout all of his books has made fun of the human race in the fact that we [humans] believe we are top-dog and above all else. But yet we can destruct from atomic bombs, and depend on turning into aquatic creatures to survive. I think Vonnegut tries to express throughout his books that human beings are not a position at the very tip top, and that we are dependent on so many things to survive.
ReplyDelete-McKenzie Moore
Vonnegut often warns his readers of future events in his novels, specifically the deaths of characters. “Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible.” I think he uses the asterisks in this story to prepare us for death because in the war, he himself had no warning.
ReplyDelete-Brooke Beery
Vonnegut simplifies all emotions as being procured through evolution. That were arrogant because thats how we've grown to be. It makes everyone see themselves a little less seriously. The way Vonnegut views himself and his country. Nobody is special but everyone is too.
ReplyDeleteI think that Vonnegut tries to argue that humanity is hopeless in Galapagos. The characters make mistake after mistake in the novel, yet their mistakes are rewarded and the story reaches a point where nothing even matters anymore. Nature, via evolution, takes control and humans become seal/bird like creatures. They survive. They could have all died on the island, but they didn't. I don't think that is hopeless.
ReplyDelete- Bryce Althen
I think that this was my favorite book that we read all quarter. I was really inspired and interested in how Vonnegut discusses the hopelessness of humanity with their big brains that drove them to have silly things like emotions. I was also very interested in how he described destiny. Like how that soldier had to go on the shooting rampage that killed Andrew MacIntosh and Zenji Hiroguchi, that it would eventually save the entire human race. For me, this made me think about my life and how although my life is insignificant, everything I do has the potential to change the life of someone else.
ReplyDeleteSome people have seemed to be kind of alluding to what I am about to write, but I will just dive right in and go for the kill. In Galapagos with Vonnegut talking about humans big brains and how that was our ultimate downfall and we are arrogant etc. etc. It is an arguement that I have made in years past (not that I had read Vonnegut until now). But, take away the idea of big brains for a second and allow me to say what I think it is. We as humans try to overcomplicate everything. We do this because we are humans we can talk get into deep thought, have deep personalities, drive cars, etc. But the problem is at the end of the day we are just animals truly no better than the dog we subject as our pet saying that it is inferior to use because it is not on our level so to speak. There are so many things that we as humans do that just go against the basics of being an animal that it is almost baffling. One example is besides dolphins and penguins no other animal I can think of mate for life. But as humans thinking we have this knowledge of a thing called love seek a life long companion. But is that really in our makings? Maybe this is why divorce rates are so high people are not meant to mate for life? Now I am not saying that is neccasirly true I believe in love and marriage but thats just an example of how we go against our animal insticts because at the end of the day we have one purpose in life and that is to reproduce. We may be entitled to some of the aspects of our lives, but I believe Vonneguts biggest point was because of our ego, because we believe we are so superior, and so smart with our "big brains" that we end up overcomplicating the simplicity to life and that is why we suffer and struggle.
ReplyDelete-Richard Marnell