As I mentioned in class on Tuesday, we'll be following up each of the rest of our novels with a thread where each of you will post one additional thing — one interesting fact, one astute observation, one cogent comparison, etc. — about the book that we did not discuss during our in-class conversations.
Think of this as a) an opportunity to put forward that brilliant insight that you were too terrified to say in front of all of us, b) a chance to share new conclusions that you've come to after ruminating on the book, and c) (perhaps most importantly) yet another (informal) grading opportunity.
Your final observations don't necessarily need to be long, but they should be substantial and interesting, and rooted in the text itself (or its contexts). Ideal thoughts should follow from openings like "did you notice . . ." or "isn't it fascinating that . . ." (though you don't need to actually say this).
Please post your observations as comments on this thread and be sure to include your name. So that we can make a clean break in starting on our next book, and so you can have the weekend to yourself, the window for posting is between the end of Thursday's class and 6pm Friday. Finally, as is the case with the discussion leaders' posting of their questions on the respective novels' threads, these final observations are also "first come, first served," so you can't repeat what someone else has previously said. You can, however, use someone else's post as a jumping off point for your own insights.
While reading the end chapters about Bokononism, I noticed a lot of similarities between the character Bokonon and Vonnegut, himself. Both seems to share an acceptance of the absurd nature of the world and the problems of human indifference, ignorance, arrogance, etc. Bokonon approaches these issues by infusing humor into his religion, much like Vonnegut infuses humor into his novels. Bokonon's religion is essentially a joke- "all of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies"-but it is designed to help the people of San Lorenzo live their lives without hatred or despair.
ReplyDelete"Laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward."
-Brooke Beery
It was brought up in the discussion on Tuesday, albeit briefly, that there may exist some correlation between three key pairs of characters from the readings. In Cat's cradle the two key pairs were Hoenikker and Dr. Asa Breed, and the other pair which consisted of McCabe and Bokonon himself. The possibility was also brought up that these two pairs could be linked to the pair of Baer and Kroner in Player Piano.
ReplyDeleteAs suggested I believe that in Cat's Cradle you have the two pairs mentioned previously. Though they are the second to be listed in the book I would say that the "first" pair is McCabe and Bokonon. Chronologically they were a pair before Hoenikker and Breed, but they were also first in the sense of the way in which the protagonist sees the world Vonnegut creates around him. In both books the protagonist starts out with a very cut and dry view of how things are.McCabe and Bokonon display this exactly. They physically separate religion into one member of the pair (Bokonon) and Science into the other (McCabe). Over the course of the novel however, Jonah begins to realize that things are not so simple. While science can be a powerful ally in helping us to progress in life and gain power, it can also be a tool that causes massive amounts of destruction and death. On the other hand Religion can be a powerful tool as well to give people hope and something calming to rally behind, but blind faith can have equally tragic results, as with the San Lorenzans how commit mass suicide at the suggestion of their leader. This view from Jonah is more accurately matched by the pairing of Hoenikker and Dr. Breed. Hoenikker follows science blindly. He disregards basic human emotions and even the most important people in his life, possibly as a sort of defense mechanism against the possibility of facing the terrible tragedies that some of his inventions may cause in the name of sciene. Likewise Dr. Breed follows claiming that it is pure research and that whatever it is used for is not his fault, even to the point of angrily denouncing the existence of the potential doomsday device, ice-nine.
The parallel in Player Piano I believe to be not only Kroner and Baer, but also Finnerty and Lasher. In the beginning of the book Paul goes about his work mechanically, pardon the pun, doing what he is obligated to by protocol and regulation. He sees this as the way things are done and that's it. Completely black and white. This is like Baer and Kroner. Kroner in this scenario represents the scientific aspect, the methodical mastermind of how to keep things running how they are. Baer represents religion. He doesn't seem to plot or plan, or even be aware of the rather maniacal plots hatched by Kroner, he simply has blind faith that the ways things are going is the way they will always go and that everything will work out.
As the story progresses Paul realizes that this isn't exactly the case. He comes to love the common people and sympathize with their plight. He realizes there is a way other than the way that things have always been done and this brings the second pair, Lasher and Finnerty. Finnerty is the scientific side, planning out the overthrow of the establishment and Lasher is the religious one, holding blind faith that they will succeed. However, as in Cat's Cradle, things are not so cut and dry for this second pair. It turns out as you all know that Finnerty knows that his plan alone will not work, but that they will need some amount of faith, and Lasher it turns out didn't have that much faith to begin with because he knew that the original Ghost Shirts all perished. Like Bokonon he was, in a way, sending his followers to their untimely deaths. These pairs in a way represent the two wampeters it is said that each karass has. One waxing and one waning. As the protagonist moves on from one pair he moves on to another.
-Elliot Shouse-
Similar to Player Piano, the title of the novel is mentioned only a few times in Cat’s Cradle. I found it interesting how Vonnegut used it to develop the character of Felix Hoenikker and the role in which it played in the book.
ReplyDelete-Cameron Lozier
I am not much of a leisure reader, Player Piano, and Cat's Cradle are the only books by Kurt Vonnegut I have read thus far, and they are also the only novels I have read in quite some time. With that being said the first thing I noticed was the difference in Vonnegut's writing between the two books. Although there are plenty of theme similarities, and almost a decade of time between the two novels, Vonnegut seems to trust his readers more in Cat's Cradle. However, in Player Piano, everything seemed to be clearly 'spelled out'. Vonnegut describes his characters and made sure their meaning and relevance in the story were enforced to the reader. In Cat's Cradle, I found that the characters relevance and meaning was left up to the reader to interrupt for themselves.
ReplyDeleteAgain as a beginner reader I found Cat's Cradle to be a little harder to follow and understand until almost the end of the book, whereas in Player Piano, I followed along with the author well.
-Megan Obermeyer
Caleb Kennedy
ReplyDeleteA reoccurring theme in Vonnegut’s writing is that of which is capitalized on in his book “Mother Night”- the theme or mode I am thinking of can be found in “Player Piano” as well as “Cat’s Cradle.” The reoccurring theme is that of convenient scapegoats or symbols. In “Player Piano” Paul is used by both sides, first off used as the mascot of a saboteur (Kroner and others) - then as a revolutionary leader (by the uprising: Finnerty and others) In “Mother Night” the main character is an American spy used against the Nazis. So deep was this secrecy that only one person in the entire world knew what he truly was doing- and that he was an American spy- not a Nazi. The Nazis loved him and the American’s hated him seeing him as the ultimate traitor- an American going over to work in propaganda for the Nazis.
The moral of “Mother Night” as stated by Vonnegut in the first paragraph is "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." This struck a chord of similarity with Vonnegut’s fascination of good and evil, through the characters of “Papa”/McCabe vs. Bokonon. Both were putting on a front to benefit the masses but at the loss of personal sanity and reality. The depiction of the loss of their sanity brings into question Vonnegut’s opinion of the subject- sure these instances are in extremes- but could we stretch this idea to apply to a closer subject of society- such as self-compromise? Whatever it may be, to conform, to please, and to obtain something? A possible ethos of Vonnegut through the reoccurring writings of Vonnegut- his statement- to compromise one’s self- is to lose one’s self?
P.S- Is was very satisfying to add the word “Bokonon” into my Microsoft word dictionary. lol
One of the motifs in "Cat's Cradle" is the idea of destiny and is used in the Bokonon religion frequently. Vonnegut toys with this idea through the course of the novel and their is multiple examples in the book. It seems that the main character, John, has these life-changing events just fall into his lap. He happened to be going to San Lorenzo on the same plane as the Hoennikers. He was basically forced to become king of the country and make Mona his queen which is perfect for him because he was in love with her the first time he saw her. Vonnegut takes the "everything happens for a reason" cliche and highlights it. The Hoenniker children are in John's "karass" and they end up being some of the only people surviving on the island, along with Bokonon. On page 265, John explains that in the first Book of Bokonon it said... "What is the purpose of all this?" he (a man) asked politely. "Everything must have a purpose?" asked God. "Certainly," said the man. "Then leave it to you to think of one for all this said God. And he went away". I think that the text supports my claim because it seems that John's destiny came to be just as it should be. Vonnegut doesn't really give us a reason for why the main character's life is turned completely upside in a matter of days and it doesn't really seem that John seems to mind. Vonnegut does not go into detail about characters' emotions which leaves the readers to interpret how certain characters percieve situations.
ReplyDeleteAshton Meadows
During Thursday’s class discussion this week, we briefly touched on the three Hoenikker children and how they each drastically differed from one another. Frank existed primarily as the spitting image of his father, the late Felix Hoenikker – Frank wished to simply “roll with the punches,” to not truly develop meaningful relationships with any individual. The youngest of the Hoenikker children, Newton, lived simply in the balance between two extremely different siblings; Newt tended to "agree to disagree" throughout the novel’s entirety, existing as a sort of mediator. Angela acted as a mothering and nurturing figure for her “three children” – Newt, Frank, and Felix (Vonnegut 15). Though subconsciously Angela knew better than anyone the actuality of both her father’s social and parenting skills, she and Felix appeared to have the strongest and healthiest parent-child relationship of any of the Hoenikker children throughout the novel. In "Cat’s Cradle," whenever any one individual would question the integrity or worth of Felix, Angela would quickly rush to her father’s defense. While examples of such acts exist sporadically throughout the novel, one scene in particular occurred when, complaining of how the world had cheated her father, Angela stated that “He gave so much, and they gave him so little” (Vonnegut 177). Despite the lack of communication and gratitude that Felix failed to show Angela specifically, why is it that she felt so entitled to protect his image as a researcher, a father, and above all, a person?
ReplyDelete- Kelsie Wilson
Chapter 78 "Ring of Steel" (pg 172) struck me as making some very specific connections between Bokononism and Christianity, specifically Catholicism. In the chapter, Julian Castle is explaining how Bokononism came to be outlawed as a tactic to make it more desirable to the people. Bokonon himself was behind the ban and Mccabe was in charge of enforcing it. The hook was implemented as a way to keep the followers of Bonknon from “straying from the flock”. Growing up Catholic, you quickly realize that the bible is ripe with graphically violent imagery of the horrors that await the non-believer. Just as Bokononism has the hook, Christianity has burning in the fiery pits of Hell for all eternity. Interestingly enough, no one can confirm that the hook has actually been used as a punishment, just like there is no concrete evidence of the existence of Hell.
ReplyDeleteIt appears the Vonnegut is implying that both have been invented by their respective religions as a way to diffuse any possible logical freethinking that might occur once it’s believers become more inquisitive. Any great dictator can confirm that the threat of physical pain is wonderful way to get the masses to behave the way you want. And while most major religions subscribe to eternal damnation in some variety, Christianity really drives the message home.
In a final comparison, the chapter ends with Castle telling about the orchestrated cat and mouse chase between McCabe and Bokonon always ending with Bokonon narrowly avoiding capture, which is proclaimed a miracle by Bokononists. This “magic act” seems to allude to another famous religious leader who is believed to have cheated death by rising from the dead three days after his execution and burial.
Like Brooke and Caleb, I am drawn to the the "lie (or pretense) becoming real" theme in at least Cat's Cradle (I haven't read Mother Night). As the Book of Bokononism starts off, "All of the things I am about to tell you are shameless lies." Sure, it starts off as a joke, but does its affecting so many people in so many profound ways make it real and very serious? I think yes. Of course it is Vonnegut's comment on all religions- that the institutions are a joke and a lie - but what is he saying or at least implying about the ideologies perhaps in spite of himself? That it actually does count for something in a world where so much does NOT count, where there are so many granfalloons? I think that Vonnegut, although a "self described atheist," has found, or at least has recognized the credibility in religion. He may not prescribe himself to it, but he sees it. And that ties into the notion of how one perceives, or READS, the world around him, and what reality and identity consist of. Vonnegut saw the world through the lens of his identity, but he also could see the lens itself and could the others' lenses, which is why he can write so well about people and motivations. That's what being human is. That's what differentiates being human from being machine or being a machine inside a human body, imperfection, skewed lenses. You CAN'T see anything for what it really is, and so everything is to some degree a lie. And if everything is a lie, and that's reality, then it ceases being a lie and becomes reality. And there is solace in that knowledge. That's what Bokononism is; that's what humanity is.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, The Intuitionist by Colson Whitehead deals a lot with this idea of a "religion" being created as a joke but then becoming real and is a great read.
P.S. Colson Whitehead is coming to UC to read next Thursday at 7 in TUC.
Austin Baurichter
THIS Thursday at 7*
DeleteWhat exactly is a very Bokononist thing to say?
ReplyDeleteA Bokononist thing to say is composed very similar to a karass. The wampeter must always be around absolute truth. Not truth for the means of the atomic make up of kazoos, or the logical equivalence of dish detergent and hand soap. But HUMAN truths. All of us are going to die and a Bokononist is not afraid to acknowledge this in their dialoge like when Newt says to John, "Well maybe you can find a neat way to die, too."
Felix Hoenikker shares many commonalities with a Bokononist without ever being acknowledged in the book for practicing. Felix practices his own version where instead of his beliefs being centered around FOMA, or lies to bring comfort in the face of terrible truths, he is centered around what I think are called TOMA, or harmless truths to make lies and schemes more tolerable. Felix researched for the sake of research so he would never see any harm in advancing his knowledge and refused to believe that tinkering could be made into something evil. Felix created his TOMA to preserve the innocence of innovation just as Bokonon created FOMA to preserve the innocence of feeling comforted. With the institution of Felix's TOMA he was able to fool himself into thinking that science is not double edged, and that he was not being exploited as a weapon basically. If Felix had been able to alleviate himself from his TOMA he would have been able to see the lies and schemes concerning the atom bomb very easily and that might have rendered him unable to function.
By "lies and schemes" I mean wartime propaganda and that what he was doing was for the good of his country and al humanity.
DeleteIn an above post, Cameron mentioned the title, Cat's Cradle, and the connection to Hoenikker. I would like to add that I really enjoyed the imagery that Newt displayed whenever talking about the cat's cradle. When someone talked about something that is believed but not actually seen or proven, he would reference the string and that when you looked at it, you never actually saw a cat or a cradle. I think it is interesting that Newt uses that similarity for religion as well. I think that the whole book is about that, which is probably why it is titled Cat's Cradle. The book is so much about religion and what people believe and yet no one can actually see or prove it, just like the cat's cradle.
ReplyDelete-Kimberly Jent
I found it interesting in the text when a scientist said to Felix that the atomic bomb was the first time science and sin had met together. Felix then asked the scientist, "What is sin?" Felix did not realize the moral danger that the bomb had created. This is probably due to the fact that he does not have much interaction with people. He does not even show much care for his own family. Felix never acquired the concept of morality because he had no interaction with other people. This shows moral innocence in Felix. He did not know much about people, but yet he created a bomb that killed many people. He also created the ice nine which would destroy the world.
ReplyDeleteOne part of the novel that stroke me as interesting and strange was the scene after John and Mona come out of their underground shelter and find that the people who survived the ocean freezing over had killed themselves because Bokonon had advised them to. John of course is horrified and disgusted that Bokonon would tell his followers to do such a thing. Mona on the other hand laughs. Vonnegut writes "I had never heard her laugh. Her laugh was startlingly deep and raw," Mona then says to John when he asks why she is laughing "It's just all so simple, that's all. It solves so much for so many, so simply." Mona then takes her own life. This screen was interesting to me in that I believe it gives us a look into Vonnegut's own views on suicide. Vonnegut describes Mona's laugh as raw, maybe saying it was a truthful laugh one of understanding. Because Mona knew it was that simple. The world was crumbling around them and the answer to there problem was so simple, take their own lives and end the suffering. Also from Mona we may see another cultures view on suicide other then our own. Our culture looks at suicide as morally wrong, but to others it may be right and even justified.
ReplyDeleteJp White
I noticed in Player Piano as well as Cat's Cradle, he plugs for the plight of the writer. In PP, the writer's wife is willing to prostitute herself to support her out of work husband, whose creativity is quashed by the machines. And in CC, the young Castle talks to Jonah about organizing a writer's strike, until the elder Castle implores him otherwise under the threat of grave consequences. Sort of ironic considering the ending of the novel.
ReplyDeleteOne thing in Cat's Cradle that I found myself discussing with Andrew earlier today is the situation with the Mintons where Horlick was branded as a Communist sympathizer and fired because his wife mentioned that Americans shouldn't act as though they are loved everywhere they go in a letter she wrote him. I found it interesting that Vonnegut included that and that mind set is still decently relative today; in America, people tend to behave and think as though the rest of the world loves them and for good reason, when it is actually the opposite in many places.
ReplyDeleteRachel Kuhn
One thing I noticed about cat’s cradle was it’s anthropological slant. Knowing that this book was submitted and accepted as Vonnegut’s thesis for his anthropology degree, this slant is not surprising. The structure of the book itself, with hundred of short chapters, Is similar to how and anthropology article or ethnography would be set up. Jonah’s observations on Bokonism and his explanation of Bokononist phrases and ideas throughout the book are also akin to how an anthropologist would explain other cultures. Finally, the history of San Lorenzo written by Philip Castle is an ethnography and plays a key role in the development of Jonah as a Character.
ReplyDeleteTim Sievers
I found it interesting that each of the Hoenikker children surrendered their pieces of Ice Nine for acceptance, as a way for them to be appreciated and loved (in one sense or another) by someone that they wanted to be thought of well by. Angela used her piece in exchange for her husband, Newt (who more than likely mentioned it to Zinka) left his piece unguarded so he could feel wanted and love, and Frank surrendered his piece to "Papa" so he could move himself up in the world under a man who thought well of him. Instead of surrendering it to someone at the lab where their father worked or even for selling it for power and money they gave it up for what they craved most from their father that he never gave them.
ReplyDeleteNicole Ritter
In chapter 28 Mr. Knowels makes an interesting point about the actual meaning of research. "This here's a research laboratory. Re-search means "look again", don't it? means they're looking for something they found one and it got away somehow, and now they got to re-search for it?" I think this definition, while poking a little fun at the scientists who spend their whole day reading about things people have already written about, is at the core of most of Vonnegut's characters. They all have lost something earlier in their lives, whether it be love, drive or self-worth and they spend the rest of the novel trying to re-search for what is is they have lost. Some cases they search for something to replace what they have lost, like in the case of Elliot needed to fill his guilt with knowing that he is helping people. It is an overlooked part of the book but it describes Vonnegut's characters so simply.
ReplyDeleteMariah Acord
One thing that really stood out to me in Cat's Cradle was Frank's disconnection with reality. He always seemed to view humanity from a very distant perspective, which I think incorporates Nicole's observation of how Dr. Felix Hoenikker detached himself emotionally from his family. Frank was constantly ridiculed at school and as a result, he began to drift further and further from any emotional attachment. His one and only outlet was constructing model train sets, which allowed him to control every aspect from a God-like perspective (a perspective that seemed to carried with him to San Lorenzo). By the end of the novel, Frank has retreated into his own mind, giving over Mona and his potential Empire to John. Frank Hoenikker was an enigmatic character and a byproduct of his environment.
ReplyDeleteBryan Shupe
In class as we discussed that in Piano Player we ran across parts where it seems that Vonnegut weaved his thoughts about his life into his novel. In Cats Cradle I ran across this again towards the end of the book when it's discussed how writers live a hard life. "...isn't that the life we agree upon as writers?" This I feel as though is Vonnegut's way of again, weaving his life into his writing as he shows that writers (his career) is a hard job that often doesn't pay well, gives you writers block, and sometimes your writing doesn't sell.
ReplyDelete-Jennifer Mitchell
One thing that I payed so much attention to in Cat's Cradle was the idea of ice-nine. When Dr. Asa Breed was talking to Jonah about it I had thought it was just something that was in Dr. Hoenikker's imagination. I'm curious as to whether Asa Breed really knew that there was any ice-nine at all? I'm also not very good at figuring out the meaning of things when it comes to themes and stuff in books and literature. I understand that a "cat's cradle" showed up a few times in this book. The first was when Newt was talking about the day the bomb was dropped and how his dad scared him with the cats cradle that he had made. It also appeared when Newt made a drawing of a cats cradle when they were at Franklin's house in San Lorenzo. For me, however, I can't figure out what the point of the cat's cradle was in this book.
ReplyDeleteAdrienne Biggers
The part in this book that most stood out to me when I think back on the story is something that I am not entirely sure had any value to it. I have been trying to think of some connection it had to the final turnouts of the book but either I am missing it or it for some reason does not hold any real value. But the part I am talking about is when John and the cab driver are talking to Dr. Reed's brother at the cemetary. Their is this elegant tombstone that the cab driver feels like he must have and will pay any amount for it. Reed however says it is priceless as it has been in the family for sometime now. Reed then tells the story of how it came to be and we find out through John's thoughts that the man who bought it for his wife all those years ago is John's grandfather or great grandfather. This seems like such an interesting part of the book I feel many people overlooked it. At first when I read it I thought maybe later on in the story John would come back and would reclaim it but this never came to be. I am not too sure if we did ever discuss this part in class. Honestly I am not sure what to make of this part in the story other than of all the things that were going on this for some reason stuck out the most in my mind. Maybe because I cannot figure it out and feel as if it was unfinished business in the book.
ReplyDeleteRichard Marnell
Understanding Vonnegut is an anthropological atheist gives me an appreciation for a few of the scientific facts he sneaks into his story, whether he knew they were factual or not I am not sure. Page 277 after the chaos of the icenine storm they emerged into San Lorenzo where everything was frozen. I really liked the line where he said, 'Apparently all the germs were dead, too---or napping.' While the word 'germ' is not a technical biological term to describe microbes, he implied that even amidst the terrible conditions the 'germs' may not have just died, but rather fallen into a slumber (understandably). This makes me believe that he knew about different types of bacteria and a particular genera is able to, in fact, go dormant in unfavorable conditions. I was probably too excited to have read that, but I really do enjoy the small scientific hints in a book that is not necessarily specific to a religion but has religion as its base in the reading.
ReplyDeleteSorry ^^ Alexis Wharton
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me as interesting in Cats Cradle is the idea of what I perceived "evil" really associates to. While reading the book I never referred to Felix Hoenikker as an evil, mischievous, awful character because he's so "harmless" instead, I found myself pitying him? But is he harmless by any means at all? As we talked about in class, he created the deadly atomic bomb and ice-nine, was a sucky father to his three children, and cared no more for mankind than he did for turtles and a piece of string. This opens my eyes who I perceive as "evil" in reality. Is is masked under some sort of disguise that isn't revealed as scary and evil?
ReplyDeleteMcKenzie Moore
In both Player Piano and Cat's Cradle, Vonnegut passionately addresses a subject that we didn't discuss very much in class: technology. There were plenty of other ideas for us to chew on—loneliness, religion, scientists—and so it was easy to overlook. After all, in 2012, we have more or less come to terms with technological advancement. We've reaped its benefits to the extent that, among the general populace, skepticism is at an all-time low. Nobody has dropped a bomb on us—yet! Hooray?
ReplyDeleteI feel Vonnegut's message on technology is as pertinent as ever. "Without regard for the changes in human life patterns that may result," Vonnegut writes in Player Piano, "new machines, new forms of organization, new ways of increasing efficiency, are constantly being introduced. To do this without regard for the effects on life patterns is lawlessness." "Lawlessness" is the key word here. Vonnegut's message seems to be that for every comfort technology brings us, it also brings us a means of destroying ourselves—spiritually, ecologically, and literally. Yet there are no democratic processes restricting technological advancement; there is no one to hit a magical switch if we go too far. Per capitalism, it's considered best to let matters take care of themselves (another idea that I sense Vonnegut is sore over). In Cat's Cradle, not only does he ask us to consider the Bomb, but he gives us a character (Hoenikker) that, through either ignorance or innocence, creates Ice-Nine, something capable of ending all life on earth. I think most would agree that no one should have the power to create such a thing. But since when does what "most" believe really matter when it comes to technology?
As a sidenote to this, both Player Piano and Cat's Cradle feature (supposed) utopias. This is significant. What role does technology play in utopia? In using the phrase "human life patterns," Vonnegut seems to suggest that technology should progress in such a way that puts humans first and progress second. Are we making a more human world, or a more efficient world? Even if the idea of utopia is naive, can't we regulate technology in a way that puts happiness before technological comfort? When faced with the decision between happiness and comfort, humans always seem to pick comfort. Where will this take us?
- Elizabeth Baur
I think it is interesting how ice-nine, the scientific creation which is responsible for the death of millions in Cat's Cradle, much like the atomic bomb in real life, sounds very much like the word asinine. Asinine, according to Merriam-Webster, means, "extremely or utterly foolish". To me Vonnegut seems to be saying that the creation of the atomic bomb was fullish. Just because we have the ability to create such a weapon, does it mean that we have to use it?
ReplyDelete- Bryce Althen
Something I found interesting in this book was the concept of innocence lost. It seemed that Felix was so naive that he didn't know what sin was when the scientist said to Felix that the atomic bomb was the first time science and sin had met together. He had no idea what he did, but helped make a bomb that killed many. I vaguely remember reading something to the same degree in Timequake when they talk about the plane called Joy's Pride. I think this shows a similarity in much of Vonnegut's work.
ReplyDeleteThe theme that intrigued me the most in Cat's Cradle was the the lies of religion. It is interesting how we hold on to religion so closely when there is absolutely no proof of it being right or wrong. I see the the cat's cradle as a metaphor of religion, because religion is a bunch of bull shit, and we try to see things that aren't there.. like cats cradle. No damn cat no damn cradle
ReplyDelete