*Note: I've posted this for one of our out-of-class followers, Amelia. The credit for the following thoughts must go to her. (We're working out the kinks, so stay tuned for her future comments!)
As the story is introduced- “Nothing in this book is true” – I say who cares, whether or not there is an iota of truth does not affect the interpretation and experience (books are the physical objects, housing stories, and hence do not have attributes or values of truth or lies. Stories or narrative can have the ascribed ‘value’ of truth, lies or untruths more on this later), furthermore it JUST DOESN’T MATTER. Interesting that Vonnegut chose the word ‘book’ and not ‘story.’ I believe that this might be because Cat’s Cradle is a patchwork of stories, some true and some less true than others- Vonnegut was a WWII veteran and who is to say that some of his life experiences were not woven into the quilt? There is some credence to events and people in Cat’s Cradle- see Wikipedia.
Vonnegut does not advertise Cat’s Cradle as a true account, ala I, Rigoberto Menchu and then later inform the reader that the author was not present at all events or that there were truths and non truths seamlessly blended together. Cat’s Cradle is much like Life of Pi, where at the end one reads that the narrator is told by officials that no bodies of wild animals were found only those of his dead family- but the narrator firmly believes that he did in fact survive at sea with the animals. Which brings on the idea of reliability in the narrator and the shaping of memories by time and space. Is Jonah a reliable narrator? The tales recounted by various characters are memories- whose to say that their version is reliable as a whole, would their story change if they had been standing more to the left? (Or some other alteration of their POV to the memory)
But mainly I ask why do we care whether or not there is truth? What makes something true? Because God or science says so because we decide that it is so- if God or science told you that ultimate truth could be found by not drinking water would you do it and does it make it true because of the source? Everyday we evaluate truth from sources, news, friends and sometimes we put more credence into one over another- but our decision is not necessarily the same as the person standing next to us. Secondly God and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive and both do have the same end game and both can be fatally dangerous, which Vonnegut artfully illustrates. Dr. Asa Breed laments the murderer who had ‘twenty-six bodies on his conscience (29)’ and yet he was key in the Atom Bomb development. Is it because that the bodies of enemies are less valuable than American civilians? The single death of an American soldier makes the news, and yet the multiple daily deaths of Iraqi/Afghan citizens get a passing mention in the context that the Middle East still needs us, if all lives are equal, according to the Bible and the founding principles of democracy (funny how it all sounds great in theory) why is this a truth?
You present some interesting questions in this blog. I especially liked the question you posed about the equality of all people. One of America’s core values is that “all men are created equal.” If all are equal, then why is so inequality and injustice widespread in society?
ReplyDeleteI'm very happy that you mentioned the fact that Vonnegut was a WWII veteran because I think that it explains his abjection to science and truth and his treatment of men like Dr. Breed.
ReplyDeleteI also am glad that you questioned Jonah's credibility as a narrator. I usually ask myself about the narrator's credibility as I read, but in this book I was too wrapped up in everyone else's illusions to question the prose being spoon fed to me. You've made me question a lot of passages I previously accepted without a second thought.
It's late and I only got through the first part of this post, i'll finish it tomorrow. I completely disagree with the first part though. The first line "Nothing in this book is true." is obviously important. Lies and deceit help define this novel. The society described in cat's cradle is based completely off a web of lies. I think that introduction set's the stage perfectly. By book I don't think vonnegut was referring to the outer cover either, but to the pages itself. Secondly I think we should definately care if it's the truth. If we didn't care what was true and what was a lie, what would our society be like? It's human emotion to want to distinguish lies from truth.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jeremy- If Vonnegut had not opened the story with "Nothing in this book is true" would your reading have been different?
ReplyDeleteVonnegut did not break the contract between author and reader in _Cat's Cradle_. Pigeon holing _CC_ into a story of truth and lies detracts from the farce and commentary Vonnegut is making. Jonah is your only source of information, which is problematic because Jonah, as a narrator, has his own agenda. _CC_ allows one to read Jonah as Vonnegut or to pit Jonah against Vonnegut, they ultimately work against each other.
I completely agree with your opening paragraph about Vonnegut's disclaimer that "nothing in this book is true." It doesn't matter. I actually started reading the book before our teacher pointed out the disclaimer to us.
ReplyDeleteIf I would have known before, I honestly wouldn't have read the story any differently. Does it really matter if he told us the book was a lie or not? The book stands on it own, full of lies or not, it doesn't matter. An author could create a fictional novel but sell it to the readers as a piece of non-fiction. In the same way an author could present a novel as fiction but it was a story that actually happened. So does it matter? No, because the reader would read the story just the same.