When I finished Cat's Cradle, I found that I was satisfied with the story, it played out the way I thought it would, with very little twisting of the plot. However, as the days have passed and I've reflected back over it I've found myself becoming less and less satisfied with it as a whole. And there is one nagging question that I can't seem to pull myself away from, no matter how hard I try.
What on Earth is Vonnegut talking about!?
I had never read Cat's Cradle before, but had heard it referenced and recommended a thousand times. I had asked people to tell me what it was like and had never really gotten a good answer, nobody knew what to compare it to. Now I do, Candide by Voltaire. Both stories have alot of fluff and nonsense that is actually trying to get at something else entirely. Which, I must say, is as entertaining as it is infuriating.
I think, and don't quote me on this, that Cat's Cradle is really a commentary or criticism of religion and science, particularly the H-bomb. Vonnegut is criticizing the scientists who created the bomb without regard to the massive devastation that it would incur, or even the price that the scientific community would pay. These "fathers" created a weapon that changed the face of our culture, wiping away the past with a shockwave and a mushroom cloud.
I think, in part, Vonnegut despises science for its creation of weapons, of civilization killers. It is as if he believes that all science can do is damage and kill, hence ice-nine.
Vonnegut proposes this chemical as the downfall of all life on earth. He also shows that to it's creator it was nothing more than a toy to be played with on the kitchen stove. The scientist could not see the reprecussions or moral arguements against such a thing and so he never thought "Maybe this is a bad idea", because he didn't understand the difference between good and bad.
Throughout the book religion is also satirized by Bokononism. A religion of foma, of lies. Yet it is as true to the devout bokononists, as the bible is true to devout christians. Vonnegut is really saying that all religion is lies accepted by people. Foma, lies that provide comfort to the people, giving their lives direction and meaning and purpose. I'm not sure if Vonnegut is saying this in a patronizing manner or in the way a parent propagates the Santa Clause myth to their children, with love and understanding of the limit of innocence.
But Vonnegut never SAYS any of this! It is all implied in hints and clues and slight of hand. Voltaire was less-than-subtle with his criticism of the church and of the politicians whereas Vonnegut is maddeningly subtle. I'm not sure if he is saying anything, or if my poor brain is simply grasping at straws, trying to draw a deeper meaning from the text. I know there is a meaning there, I just can't seem to grasp it properly. And I'm sure that's just what Vonnegut wanted. To make me keep thinking and investigating. Damn him.
This is a great post! Candid... and, all punning intended, with an accurate parallel drawn to Voltaire's "Candide." To your question of "What on Earth is Vonnegut talking about?" I can only answer as little Newt would: "no damn cat, no damn cradle." (That, at least, would be the short answer...)
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you said about how this book is a criticism on the H bomb especially. The Ice-9 is essentially the same as the H-bomb, and in the book it ends up pretty much killing everyone when all the water dries up. It shows how some science shouldn't have ever been created, because it's obviously only meant for destruction. It is so interesting how we all sort of get the same idea, though Vonnegut never says any of it, as you said. All that "fluff" kind of implies what is never said. I think you're post is really spot on though
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comparison of "Cat's Cradle" to "Candide". Both of the authors did a wonderful job of saying nothing and everything at the same time, and entertainingly so. I also think, however, that Voltaire was spewing what was obvious BS whereas Vonnegut actually makes you consider that what he is saying might or might not be true.
ReplyDelete