This Photo is Lying to You

CHECK IT OUT. This article on photoshopping pics from "Outside" magazine provides a great compliment to our discussions of _Cat's Cradle_, and it raises additional interesting questions for both readers and viewers, photographers and photographs, writing and writers.

Here's a sample:

"Of course, truth in photography has always been fuzzy. The old trope 'The camera never lies' is, in fact, backwards—the camera always lies. Since the birth of the medium, photographers have been crafting their images with lens selection, film type, and all manner of darkroom tricks."

I'll look forward to any and all comments you would like to submit!

I pulled a Michelle.

All I wanted to call that was "Bokononism."

"All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies." I know that that's not a thesis, but in all honesty I'm not trying to prove anything. I assume that I'm probably the last person posting before tomorrow, I figured that I'd just talk about bokononism. This is a blog after all...
The false religion of bokonon seems entirely real to me. It gives life meaning where it lacks some, just like almost every other religion. The definition of religion (off google) is "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny." Bokononism is also perfect for our literature class because it's based completely off lies. If people just keep making up lies, they won't have to see the world for what it really is. This is how bokononism gives people hope. I like the idea of foma, a harmless untruth, particularly the fact that it's never called a lie.
It'd be pretty interesting to see what the world would be like if bokonon was a major religion. Deceit can be a powerful tool if used correctly.

strange days

Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut is a really entertaining book. I quite enjoyed reading it, and I’m really glad it was assigned. The plot was so interesting! I am all for characters with crazy personality traits, and this book was totally full of them. First of all, there was a bizarre religion involved. That always mixes things up. In addition to that, there was a strange island with strange people ruled by a strange dictator (with that strange religion). Also, the home life of all of the Hoenikkers through out all stages of life was never normal. They always had something wrong with their lives. 

I also liked the critique Vonnegut gave about the lies people tell themselves to feel better. The whole novel was so cynical about science and religion, often criticizing the perceived heartlessness of scientists and the blind faith involved with religions. 

This book was great for all of that. 

Living By the Foma

Really, what is the truth?

I think that the true definition of the truth depends on the context.

The truth, according to Webster, is "the state of being the case". Basically, a truth cannot be something that is not right, such as "A cat's cradle is a bunch of string." In science, truths are not argued or disputed; they are accepted wholly as what is real. The truth and logic are the momentum behind science. Though it is understandable, that through these scientific truths, knowledge is acquired. From knowledge, one is meant to grow.

Religion doesn't need the truth.

Religion is based not on knowledgeably sound solutions, but rather solutions that are spiritually and morally sound. What is morally true to one man, isn't necessarily the same as what is true to the next man over. Religion is based on the individual's assumption of the facts, rather than a textbook written by a scientist who researched and found the truth to be indisputable. Religion can be disputable. Religion is always changing, unlike the concrete knowledge behind science.

By living in the twisted world of John's (Jonah?) karass, the truth is taken in by the vacuum of Bokononism and spun around into something unlike anything it was before. The fomas, or harmless untruths, take control of a world so chaotic that no science can do it any good. The mysterious religion of Bokonon, a religion based on falsities, becomes less terrifying and scandalous and more relatable and acceptable as Cat's Cradle reads on, especially to the pathetic citizens of San Larenzo. San Larenzo is a secretly Bokononist nation, with a staggering population and abundant poverty. The San Larenzon lifestyle is not one of glamour or material happiness. The only cares of the typical San Larenzon are "fishing, fornication, and Bokononism". It is understandable to relate to the San Larenzo's desperate desire in a religion that is not logical as they live impoverished. The San Larenzons do not need science to amend their painful existence, but rather an escape through a mystical religion to justify a worth of meaning. Such a hopeless and fruitless nation still prevailed prior to the ice-nine tragedy due to the San Larenzon's secure belief system in lies.

Religion is needed for security. Bokononism, though full of total and utter malarky, gives security where science cannot. To live by the foma as Bokonon preaches is truly the solution to the menagerie of desperate characters in Vonnegut's world.

Hook Line and Sinker

It's hard for an author to catch someone's attention after just the first page, but Vonnegut had no problem reeling in mine. Even though I was already told that everything in the book is based on lies, or untruths, I still read the story as if it were true and didn't think to myself "I wonder what the possibilities of that being plausible are." For example, Newt's girlfriend was a 42 year old masquerading as a 23 year old. Logically, it's quite impossible for a middle aged woman to pass for someone barely out of her teens, but who cares? It sounded good.
What draws me to this book is the way Vonnegut installs these emotions and personalities into these people. Though their lives are exaggeratedly interesting, he gives them emotions that make them appear human and therefore make it easier to believe that they are real people. I like how he can maintain a balance of reality and falsehood and still pull everything together to make a story absolutely worth reading.

"That's the thing about growing up; we don't know what to believe"

Who knew that a book full of lies could keep readers interested? Apparently Kurt Vonnegut did. Since I've read one other novel by Vonnegut, I expected Cat's Cradle to have a similar, unfamiliar writing style. What I didn't expect, though, was a novel full of lies. Despite the disclaimer at the beginning of the book that blatantly states none of it is true, I found myself reverting to my old ways of reading; I believed everything to be true, and still can't figure out which is the lie.

Looking back, it's hard to imagine that I believed a book of lies. What I find amazing, however, is that Vonnegut managed to keep me interested throughout the entire novel. I never once thought,"Dear God, can I just skip this part, and be done with the book?" It's because of this that Vonnegut has become a favorite author of mine. He makes his readers think by presenting them with the unknown. The religion of Bokononism is a perfect example. By exposing me to Bokononism, Vonnegut made me think about my own religion, and what exactly it is that I believe in. Again, I couldn't decide what was truth, and what was a lie. That's the beauty of Bokononism. It's all a lie, but at least it gives people something to have faith in. Even though Bokononists know their faith is based on lies and only lies, they still follow it. We all experience lies in some way. Lies can change lives. Why not have faith in them? They seem to be the only consistent thing in this world.

Thanks to Kurt Vonnegut and Cat's Cradle, I can't help but wonder how many things that I've been taught throughout my life are actual lies. That's the beauty of being a kid. You believe everything you're told. I think it's about time people start questioning the norms, and forging their own opinions and beliefs. Whether it's believing in a world of lies, or simply going against the "socially accepted" beliefs, people need to think for themselves for a change. Vonnegut did it; Felix Hoenikker did also. Without their questioning of accepted truths, the world would be a different place both in reality and the fictional world.

The Pain of Truth and Lies

In Cat’s Cradle, lies ultimately lead to truth. In Vonnegut’s satirical voice, that truth does not reveal itself until the lies play out. Each web of lies finally arrive at the same truth: believing in the lies will lead to destruction.
Bokonon and McCabe are prime examples of this. When they cannot improve the misery in San Larenso, they invent the religion Bokonism. Bokonism is complete fiction, yet the people, including its makers, are expected to believe in it. Outlawing the false religion then becomes a second lie. In reality, the government knows everyone is a Bokonist, yet it declares anyone practicing Bokonism will be impaled on a hook. The society thus becomes a web of lies, and McCabe and Bokonon are ensnared in their own trap. McCabe plays the role of the dictator forbidding the religion, while Bokonon plays the hunted holy man. They eventually become so bound by their acts, that they forget their true identities and fall to insanity. By believing in the lies, the two men lose themselves, thus meeting their own destruction.
In a similar way, Felix himself is the ultimate lie. As a scientist, he represents a source of pure truth through his discoveries. However, his actions reveal two lies that sully this reputation. He tells Dr. Breed that he never invented ice 9, yet before his death, he gives each of his children a piece of the lethal isotope. With this one verbal lie, he not only contradicts the occupation he holds, but betrays the world. The world trusts that knowledge and science will further its well-being, but ice 9 brings about the apocalypse. On the surface, science appears wholly benign and is easy to accept. But the effects of ice 9 demonstrate that blind approval is a liability for deception.
Ultimately, Vonnegut proves that humans prefer to believe small lies rather than truth. The lies take less energy to accept and cause far less pain. Though in the end, we must decide with which we would rather live: the lies that will eventually destroy us or the pain of the truth.

How to Tell a True Story- (Don’t) Ask Kurt Vonnegut

*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?

So my name is Michelle, and I'm an idiot because I didn't give my blog a title.

Hey no big deal or anything, but that blog right below me... lets just call it "Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies." Basically because Fleetwood Mac rocks.

In approach to Cat's Cradle, the reader goes in to the book knowing that the subject is based on seeking truth and lies. In class discussion, we are vigorously searching for what is "true" in the book and trying to dissect every phrase of every word, constantly questioning whether or not we are being lied to. Yet, in every other piece of literature I have read before this class, it never once occurred to me that everything I had been reading was a lie. Cat's Cradle is just stating the obvious; our society is full of harmless lies that we buy into everyday.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you think about it, a majority of leisure time in our society is spent dwelling on harmless lies. When you watch a TV show, when you read a novel, when you watch a movie - often times, they are completely fiction. Yet it never bothers us that so much of our entertainment lies in lies (I didn't even do that on purpose.)

I remember reading the statement at the beginning of this book, "Nothing in this book is true," and feeling a sense of betrayal. What the hell do you mean nothing is true? Then I glanced over at my Harry Potter collection of books and thinking to myself, "It can't be...," and at the same time, looking to the TV where The Lion King was playing and continued to think, "Say it ain't so...." It was only when I had it laid out before me for my eyes to read that it registered in my head that daily, I surround myself with lies. It took me about 15 seconds to get over the shock and slight disgust I felt in myself, and quickly accepted this new found revelation.

Kurt Vonnegut isn't trying to make us feel bad for falling into these lies. In my opinion, he is just pointing out the way our society works. Even past the sources of entertainment, we find little lies everywhere in our world. It would be naive to deny the fact that there are lies within religion, media, and politics. Its more or less what our society thrives on.

I'm not here to say whether this is a good or bad thing. These harmless lies are a part of my life, whether I choose embrace it or not. What matters is how I let these lies influence my life. Naturally, I don't want to be a mindless numb nut who believes everything she's told. However, I live in world where more than half of what is on the TV screen isn't the truth. I'm not going to start a protest in the street over it, because
A) that would be stupid
B) no one would protest TV with me, and
C) that's just the way it goes, and honestly... I like TV.
We just have to face the facts, and the fact is, its all a lie.
Weird, eh?

My Fake Religion Can School Your Centuries-Old Traditions

Cat's Cradle is a satirical criticism of both the atom bomb and religion as a whole. However, people who knowingly follow a religion based on lies are more realistic than other kinds of believers. From page 2, the narrator starts talking about karasses, or a team that unknowingly does God's work. The word "team" implies something like a family, a group of people who work together and take care of each other. A religion, after all, is defined as spirituality with a commitment, a group of people that meet with specific intent. Maybe to worship in a church, a synagogue, a mosque. Around icons, texts, or the simple space of nothing at all (wampeters). In Cat's Cradle, John's karass revolves around ice-nine. The idea behind the religion based on lies is that its followers know going in that it's not true. There's no high expectations or false hopes here. If it gets them through the day, great. If it brings them together with other people who need the same things they do, even better. They aren't waiting for a messiah, or life after death. They're just telling themselves happy, sweet, safe lies to get through the day, which is an incredibly realistic way to behave.

Cats in the Cradle and the Silver Spoon

Once again I find myself giving into the new age of blogging; whether my hand has been forced or not, I do feel young again. These kids with their new technology, what ever happened to Atari? I think Vonnegut would appreciate another round of Mario Kart on N64 if he were still able. As evident by Cat’s Cradle, Vonnegut was not the biggest fan of technology.  Or was he? I sit here thinking to myself in a San Lorenzan accent whether Vonnegut’s novel is an attack on religion, science, both, or neither.  I really had a hard time finding a direction for this post, partly because Miley Cyrus’ new song is on repeat on my iTunes, but mostly because this entire book is based on lies, and I don’t know where to separate truth from fallacy. Vonnegut demands that we decide for ourselves whether it is best to believe in lies or to try to believe in what we perceive as fact.  As much as Bokonon preaches against granfaloons, Bokononism itself is the greatest one of them all. 

            A granfaloon by the Bokonon definition is a false karass, such as “Hoosiers,” or “The Communist Party.”  A granfaloon is basically a group of people who think they are alike because an imaginary strand ties them together.  Jonah puts down granfaloons throughout the entire book, when really he is apart one himself.

            Bokononism is a religion based on harmless untruths. People who subscribe to Bokononism are linked together because of these untruths.  Therefore they are linked together by nothing.  Bokononism is a religion based on lies and hypocrisy. I think Vonnegut is trying to convey to us that as a society, we don’t know what to believe. We will believe anything.  We will blindly follow some guy who tells us upfront that he is lying to us.  We will blindly follow some guy who instructs us to drink the Kool-aid even though we all know it smells weird. We will blindly follow some guy who wants us to lie in bunks beds with brand new Nike’s on and proceed to kill ourselves.  Vonnegut’s message transcends his era and applies to society even today. We as people don’t really know what we want. 

            The people of San Lorenzo submit to Bokonism because they are looking for something to believe in, whether it is true or not.  Is this better than believing in nothing? It is hard to say. One would think the best solution would be to believe in something real, but who is to tell what is?

I can well believe it

If you have ever heard that 95% of every "just kidding" has a little bit of truth then can you believe in anything anyone tells you? Cat's Cradle from the very first page tells us that nothing in this book is true. Can you well believe it?

Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story that has no meaning and that's made up of lies. The characters go through this whole novel ,much like everyone goes through life, searching for that one soild answer to all their problems. The truth is no one has the answer to everything that happens. When Jonah is talking about the Book of Knowledge after every question he asks, "so what?" Why does it matter that the sky is blue and etc? Sometimes people live life tryng to figure out simple questios such as Frank and the ants. Do the ants really matter that much to you to wonder how they are the way that they are? For him to actually stop and ponder and get upset about this, but for what?

That seems to be a theme in Cat's Cradle. What's the point? A simple game such as cat's cradle makes Newt the way that he is. If he simple stopped and played the game with his father he might be a little more normal with his paintings. But I guess no one really knows what in life will affect them. If we believe in the fomas people tell us and it doesn't upset us or cause danger then is that all bad? Everyone thinks lying is a horrible thing to do but if you are not hurting anyone can that lie really mean that much to you? But again what's the point?

Personally I think Cat's Cradle is to show a person that in life knowing all the answers and all the truths about everything in the world doesn't really matter. It's a book about truth and lies and science and religion and no one knows what is the truth anymore. If people go through life wondering what the point of an ant ,is for example, what reason is behind that? No one knows why someone would be interested in ants that much but it can happen. But is there a point? If they told me that ants carry 100 times their body weight I would have to agree with them because I wouldn't know if it was a lie or the truth. Many may disagree but if something is not causing me any hurt or danger then does it really matter if someone tells me a lie?

The question this book left me was what was the point of this novel? Just to tell a good story about lies or was there an underlying meaning? I feel that this is a life leason that we need to always know the truth about everything when in reality what's the point?

Cat's in the Cradle and the Silver Spoon, Little Boy Blue and the Man on the Moon

In the novel "Cat's Cradle", Kurt Vonnegut effectively portrays the bleakness of post-war society by introducing a fictional religion and science while examining their effects on human relationships.

The essence of this story is the fact that it is told from a Bokononist's point of view. Although we are told this on the very first page of the novel, we do not fully understand or grasp it's importance until the last few chapters. Early on in the book we are introduced to certain aspects of Bokononism such as the 'kan-kan' that brings a person to their 'karass' which surrounds their shared 'wampeter'. We can figure out easily at first that the kan-kan is the narrators original idea for a book, and that ice-9 is the wampeter of the karass that the narrator belongs to. Yet it isn't until the end that we figure out who all really was in this karass, and what their ultimate unknowing goal was: the apocalypse.

In the second to last chapter, John, the narrator says "I know what my karass has been up to, Newt. It's been working maybe half a million years to get me up that mountain". This statement explains that in all the time humans have existed, they've been working together as a whole to end that very existence. All scientific progression ultimately led to humanities collapse in this novel. Something which brilliantly reflected the atomic age it was written during.

So, it would seem that religion would serve as a dilution to the disastrous effects of science. But this is not so. Most Judeo-Christian religions are apocalyptic in nature, constantly stressing that final Judgment Day, where God comes down from heaven in a fiery chariot, destroying the known universe. However it turns out that it is not God who killed man, but man who killed man. I imagine this is why a Bokononist would say "Now I will destroy the world" upon committing suicide. Although it was man who killed man, it may have been God's will for man to do so, as Bokonon writes "God was surely trying to kill them, possibly because He was through with them". After all, it was John's karass, a vessel for God's will, that led to the world's end. And so it was justly right, that among the final acts of man, for John to lie down atop the highest mountain in sight, and thumb his nose at You Know Who. A perfect exclamation point on the hilarity of the world. What was the point of it all, if it was all going to end there? What was point of the relationships between fathers and sons? Why did the most beautiful woman in the world show indifference to all men? Where was there any meaning an eloping with a Russian ballerina? And who on earth would have spent all that time making model trains? Where's the cat, and where's the cradle? These will be the questions asked once the world has ended.

Another point I'd like bring up is why the airplane crashed, which all in all caused the end of the world. When I first read the book I thought I had missed something, but upon rereading it, I still don't see what made the plane crash. I wonder if it was the pilot whom Mona was performing boko-maru with, that was flying the plane.

And if Mona really was as beautiful as described in the book, it would be entirely selfish for one man to keep her all to himself, as most religions stress monogamy.

"Science has made us gods even before we are men" -Jean Rostand

It is amazing what a book of lies can make someone believe, and no I am not talking about the characters in the novel; I am talking about myself. I believe the statement "Science has made us gods before we are men" very similar to the novel. I do not believe I would have agreed with this quote before reading. However, Cat's Cradle, has completely flipped my beliefs on this upside down.

With the examples of science presented in the plot of the story, it becomes apparent that scientist have a whole lot of power. Taking away human life in the millions by the creation of a bomb is a god-like power. To create something like x-9 that could freeze someone to death in a matter of seconds is also a god-like power. The only other thing I think that could possibly be do this would be God Himself. This may not necessarily make scientist gods, yet they do somehow measure up to a god's powers. The question remains however, what makes us men?

This is where I believe religion ties in. Having some kind of values, morals, and belief system makes a person a person. If one was to follow Bokononism faithfully, they would "make you brave and kind and healthy and happy." A man should be those things! Religion may not make sense like science, where you can combine this and this and BOOM there goes Japan. But to be a happy man and to attempt to make sense of things like wiping out millions, I do believe religion is a necessity. We have to be good men before we attempt to be "scientific gods."

Lying in life and religion

Cats cradle is essentially all about lying, especially lying in religion. In the story, Kurt Vonnegut shows how both science and religion are essentially lies, and it makes you think if there are any truths.  I think that the story shows how people are so desperate to find some truth, that they cling to things, even though they know its not true.  People especially cling to religion for truths, and that’s something I think the author finds ridiculous, and he mocks. For example, the fictional religion of Bokononism  is based all on lies, yet the people who follow it seem completely content with this fact.  The religion of Bokononism has its own strange vocabulary, which almost makes fun of the many words in Christianity. Karass, Sinookas, Foma, Wampeter…and so on and so on.  These words sound ridiculous, but because they are in reference to a religion they are suppose to be respected.  In this sense I feel like Vonnegut made is false religion a parody of Christianity.  He constantly teases Christianity in the book, and when John’s Karass arrives in San Lorenzo, Hazel says "I'm sure glad it's a Christian country or I'd be a little scared" (96) Hazel however, obviously is not a Christian, and it seems ironic he feels safe in this religion that is not even his own.

This whole blind faith brings up an interesting point, is it wrong to manipulate the truth to perhaps do good? It makes me think of the famous Little White Lie, known as a Foma in Cats Cradle. The fact that the lie itself is white is kind of an analogy for how its good, is a sort of angelic lie. Is it wrong to tell little lies, if it’s going to make something or someone felt, look or act better? Manipulating the truth can bring big consequences, but overall it would seem that small lies are good.

 

Foma and Soma

AUTHOR'S EDIT: I lied. Soma does not come from 1984, but rather from A Brave New World. In high school, we read the two books back-to-back, and I've apparently taken parts from each story and fused them together to create my own. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. :)

Katie

The truth is sometimes hard to handle and sometimes leads to unhappiness, but knowing the truth is one of the greatest human experiences. However, Bokononism sees truth as a problem, something detrimental to mankind. The solution? Eliminate truth altogether, and replace it with foma. When I first saw Vonnegut's invented term, I was reminded immediately of the word soma in George Orwell's book, 1984, is satire about a society in which truth, among many other things, is evil and is to be avoided at all costs. To keep truth at bay, people take soma, a drug that acts as an anti-depressant, so as to mask truths and replace them with happiness and a sense of freedom from the evil and sadness that truth often brings. In the Cat's Cradle, foma is an idea instead of a tangible object, but it still has the same effect as soma, in that it masks truth with lies, therefore bringing happiness.

The definition that Vonnegut gives for foma is "harmless untruths", a nice way of saying, "it's cool to lie, as long as everyone is happy". It sounds like a euphemism to me (Orwell would have called it "doublespeak"). Foma isn't bad, but Vonnegut can't really get away with calling it "beneficial untruths", because the lies being told are not beneficial or helpful to society in the long run.

Lies are like band-aids. They cover up the ugly truth (reality) for a while, but when it's time to take the band-aid off, the injury is still there. Is truth really that horrible that it has to be hidden at any cost? Truth isn't always negative; a lot of good comes from knowing the truth. The truth helps us to grow as moral people, and to learn from our mistakes. Yes, the world can be a very unhappy place, but without the sadness and pain, we wouldn't be able to enjoy happiness and the good in the world. The truth is part of who we are, and lying to ourselves will never change that.

Bokononism completes me.

Kurt Vonnegut provides the most vulnerable foma, lie, there is. The foma is depicted by the civilians of San Lorenzo finding peace in the faith of Bokononism.

The main statement that hit me with this belief is at the very beginning of the novel, "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy." At the point when John reaches San Lorenzo this statement becomes pretty true for the people of San Lorenzo. "When Johnson and McCabe came upon the city, it was built of twigs, tin, crates, and mud... on the catacombs of a trillion happy scavengers...".(133) In this description Vonnegut gives a vivid portrayal of the depressing life of the San Lorenzo civilians. It goes on saying that Johnson and McCabe both tried to rid this island of slime and misery, but their efforts were futile. The truth of reality was making life unbearable for the people of this island. Whether the truth is science or misery it was eating the people inside out. What the people needed was some sort fantasy belief in which this melancholic lifestyle was bearable. Which is exactly what Johnson (Bokonon) does,"...the religion became the one real instrument of hope. Truth was the enemy of the people, because the truth was so terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with better lies." (172) Clearly Bokonon is pulling the people out of the dark world of reality and into a world of happiness within the faith of Bokononism.

Vonnegut goes even further by adding of pinch of zest into the faith of Bokononism with the spice brutality. He portrays Bokonon outlawing himself and the religion which will only bring the practitioners of Bokononism to the demise of the hook. Bokonon's lies expand by having people literally executed by the hook and having himself seen as traitor for his faith. With that idea in mind Bokonon only ignited more excitement among the civilians. This was the ultimate trap that would snatch the civilians out of the hands of truth. "So I said good-bye to government, And I gave my reason: That a really good religion Is a form of treason." (173) Since everyone found peace with this religion, then that only meant that everyone was a Bokononist. Though the civilians are terrified of hook, this foma faith of Bokononism is the only realm that allows to escape reality. In the eyes of the civilians truth is brutal and life is short.

Though in his "work of art", he is actually a hero to the civilians and a criminal to the government. As long as Bokonon was in exile the people would not succumb to the brutality of truth. "But people didn't have to pay much attention to the awful truth. As the living legend of the cruel tyrant in the city and the gentle holy man in the jungle grew, so, too, did the happiness of the people grow."(174) This idea of a religion being created in order to establish inner tranquility with one self got me questioning about actual faiths(Christianity, Judaism, Jainism) practiced by people. If Bokononism is founded on lies does that mean that the religions we practice in reality are lies or somewhat true? Do human beings desire to create a religion in order to protect themselves from the horrors of the world? Then would it not make all religions fomas? If that's true I wonder if Vonnegut's point of view on religion is stated by Dr. Koenigswald, " I agree that all religions, including Bokononism, are nothing but lies." (219)

"It's the chemical weapon for the war that rages on inside."

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am never at a loss for words, but it is when something brings me to the point of silence that I know it has done something right. When people have asked me what it is Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut is about, I have been just that, silent, at a loss for words. For some odd reason I have trouble describing what it is this book is truly about. The answer I most commonly find myself giving is, "You just have to read it to understand."

I think part of the reason I find myself having trouble describing this book to an outsider is because I have not finished the novel, but part of me also thinks it is because I do not know where to start.

In school, we are taught not to cheat. In church, we are taught that lying is a sin. At home, we are simply taught that lying is the wrong thing to do. So, one can understand my confusion when trying to describe a novel based on interpreting truth from lies, according to each individual reader. The problem lies in those outsiders who have posed the question in the first place, because they are looking at this novel from their societal driven eyes. The same eyes that see lies as a last resort to a problem, or the trickery of an unkind person.

For me, I think this novel is absolutely brilliant in its use of deception. It makes the reader think beyond their normal day-to-day experience where they accept most everything as a truth without ever thinking twice about it.

At the very beginning of this novel, Vonnegut states that, "Nothing in this book is true" and then further goes on to quote The Book of Bokonon that talks about foma which are "harmless untruths." I think a very important aspect to this novel is just that; "harmless untruths" and the different interpretations people can have of what those truly are. To some, untruths, or lies, might never be harmless. While to others, like our narrator who follows Bokononism, might base their entire lives on these harmless untruths. To people like Felix Hoenikker and Dr. Asa Breed their entire lives were based on truth, truth based in reason, science, and research. So for them, all those untruths would be far from harmless. In fact, those lies would be extremely detrimental to their line of work. Dr. Breed shows the split between his truth based world and our narrator's lie based world when he says, "'All your questions seem aimed at getting me to admit that scientists are heartless, conscienceless, narrow boobies, indifferent to the fate of the rest of the human race, or maybe not really members of the human race at all'" (39) This shows that sometimes it is difficult for those people who follow a certain path of honesty or deceit to see the others side or point of view.

The thing that irks me most about this novel though is not determining those who follow the truths versus those who follow lies. Instead, I sometimes find myself dumbfounded as to how I, as the reader, completely lose my sense of what is a truth and what is a lie in order to experience the novel more fully. All those teaching from my school, church, and home seem to be discarded with no remorse as I delve deeper into Vonnegut’s uncouth, untrustworthy world of the Cat’s Cradle.

 

 

Remember, Nobel DID Invent Dynamite

Cat’s Cradle might become the staple of this course. The entire story is built on lies, but that foundation makes for an excellent story. Kurt Vonnegut tells us from the first page to “Live by the foma [lies] that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy”. This quote not only means that you should choose the lies you live by, but that you should, in some way, live by lies. I do not think that this book is an attack on religion. A satire, maybe, but I am of the opinion that Vonnegut is in support of religion. His true enemy is science—meaning truth.

Within the book, both the apocalyptic events of the atomic bomb and Ice-nine are caused by science; these are truths that kill thousands upon thousands of people. Bokononism, the religious aspect, that we are told on multiple occasions is nothing but lies and more lies to keep those lies alive, does nothing but bring comfort to the people of San Lorenzo, Jonah, and even Newton Hoenikker. As Julian Castle says, “I couldn’t possibly run that hospital of mine without aspirin and book-maru”. (p 171)

If the characters in the book are examined, Mona is found to be the most serene and at peace. She knows nothing of science as demonstrated when Jonah tells her of oxygen and carbon dioxide. (267-8) Her devotion to Bokononism keeps her “brave and kind and healthy and happy” right until she takes her life with a smile. She is a sort of foil to “Papa” Monzano who lives by the false pretentions of bringing science to San Lorenzo, suffers, and dies in pain from the very thing he desired.

Felix Hoenikker handed down the end of the world to his children. Bokonon gave a country a purpose. What we have here is Vonnegut pitting comforting lies against the cold, hard, truthful world under the names of religion versus science and asking us, “Which would you rather?” Should we live in the safe shroud of purpose given to us falsely, or should we accept the destruction that comes with seeking the truth? These are questions we are answering every time we read a fictional story and feel an emotional response.

"The Invention of Lying"

I’m liking this book more and more. Not only is it interesting but it’s also informative in a way that makes you think about your personal life and about lies.
My title is the name of a new movie coming out. The concept of the movie reminded me very much of this book. The main character lives in a world full of truths; people don’t even know what a lie is. But somehow he finds out about lying and starts testing the idea out. After realizing what lying does for you, he keeps on lying to benefit himself and soon after others learn how to lie. I’ve only seen the preview so I can’t say how the movie ends (i.e. if lying is worth it), but what the movie is based on is almost exactly what Bokononism is about: lying, if done correctly and results in the happiness of people, is ok to do. But of course it also depends on what one defines as a “lie.”
For example, Minton says that “There is not an American schoolchild who does not know the story of San Lorenzo’s noble sacrifice in World War Two.” Jonah bluntly writes that he told a lie but we (as a reader) don’t know if he really thought that was he said was true. What if someone lies to him and made him believe that information was true? And if he truly believes that all Americans know what San Lorenzo did for WWII, is he really “lying?” Again, I go back to my point that the interpretation of the word “lie” is totally up to the individual. Newt made this point clearer to me when he explained what a cat’s cradle was. The string between the hands is supposed to be a cat and a cradle but to the average eye it’s clearly not. But what if there is a person who sees the string as a cat and cradle? Are they lying or are they just stating what they personally see?

"I'm sure glad it's a Christian country."

In Cat's Cradle, Vonnegut finds many ways to poke fun at not only Christianity, but religion altogether.

The religious satire of the religion "Bokononism," is basically a punch in the face to every religion in the world. Vonnegut creates a language for this religion with words like "karass" and "vin-dit," words that the reader will probably find humorous or just plain ridiculous. Vonnegut uses this silly language to mock religion constantly throughout the book. Just like how the reader may find the Bokonon vocabulary to be ridiculous, it is obvious that Vonnegut sees religion as ridiculous.

What makes a mockery of religion in general is the invented religion Bokononism. Vonnegut creates these ideas that aren't that outlandish from other religions in the world, but then he puts foolish words to label these ideas.

However, what leads me to believe that Vonnegut is focusing more on making a mockery of Christianity and not just religion in general, is his sporadic references to Christianity. At the intro to the novel, Vonnegut writes, "The book was to be factual... It was to be a Christian book. I was a Christian then. I am a Bokononist now" (11). In saying that the book was going to be true when he was a Christian, can come off as the book was going to be true because it was Christian.

This might come off to Christian readers as a compliament- Kurt Vonnegut is saying that being Christians tell the truth. But to the Christian reader who sits and thinks "Yeah, that's right. Christians do tell the truth," Vonnegut has just punched him in the face. Because, as most people in the world have experienced, not all Christians tell the truth. This points to the hypocrisy found in many Christian institutions around the world.

Now someone who is reading this blog post might be thinking "hypocrisy can be found in many religious institutions around the world," and you're right. However, I think Vonneguts use of the word "Christian" and not just religion as a whole is what makes me believe he is mostly mocking Chrisitanity.

When John and his karass land in San Lorenzo, the first words from Hazel Crosby's mouth are, "I'm sure glad it's a Christian country or I'd be a little scared" (96). It seems that Vonnegut placed this quote here to, again, mock Christianity.

Vonnegut succeeds tremendously in offending not only Christianity, but all religions.

As Bokonon as My Witness

In one of the first pages of the book, before the story actually begins, Vonnegut quotes The Book of Bokonon about living by the foma. He cites the quotation as “The Books of Bokonon I: 15,” which is how one would refer to a passage from the Bible (for example – John 4:24). This is how Vonnegut begins, what I perceive to be, a mock on religion and what society attempts to learn from religion – truth.

Vonnegut says that the religion of Bokononism began on the island of the Republic of San Lorenzo, a place where “they just don’t have any crime,” and “they’re all Christians” (pg. 93). This land where people live in pure form could be compared to the Garden of Eden, the paradise of Christian beliefs. Vonnegut also throws in several song-type passages from Bokonon, called “calypsos,” which can be paralleled to the psalms of the Bible.

Also, Vonnegut makes San Lorenzo an island that, as stated above, is filled with Christians, and Bokononism is banned. However, as the story progresses, readers learn that almost all of the inhabitants of the island do, in fact, practice Bokononism as opposed to Christianity. Characters of the story even refer to Jesus as “him” and ironically name an army camp “Fort Jesus,” showing no reverence to the Christian figure.

So why start out saying one thing about the people only to show that they feel the opposite in regards to the religion? It could be to show that society is easily persuaded, not knowing how to believe that they individually want – only looking for what seems to be a truth to believe in. It seems that through the parallelism that Vonnegut is trying to say that society is so devout to specific religions and yet they have no clue as to what it is they believe in – people just want to be told what the truth is and believe it.

By making Bokononism seem so similar to Christianity, Vonnegut may be saying that Christianity is just a device for society to believe they have knowledge, when it is really just a bunch of lies that people are comfortable believing in.

Nothing in This Post is True

Kurt Vonnegut is the most honest liar I believe I will ever encounter. But is he a liar?

Cat's Cradle seems to weave to together some of the most believable fiction I have seen. Without a little research, one may never know that the elaborately illustrated Hoenikker family never existed, there is no such place as the sad San Lorenzo never existed (though many cities are named San Lorenzo) and Bokononism is not a real religion. Well, maybe the last one wasn't too hard to figure out.

But all of those are just examples of fiction to reality. There are even examples of fiction to the book, showing that we can't even believe the story from the narrator's point of view. For example, when he arrives at San Lorenzo, he sees signs indicating what will happen to those people who show any sign of belief in Bokononism. However, he later learns from Julian Castle that that was invented by Bokonon himself, with the belief that people would be more into it if it was illegal. It seems too, that most of the more powerful characters are well aware of this, but they play along.

Does that mean fiction is more enticing? That the people would know the threats are false, but still hide their religion is interesting, especially since we all know that "nothing in this book is true," yet we all want to keep reading.

Innocent Murderers

Cat’s Cradle immediately captures the reader’s interest imbibing them in a world of blatant irony and subtle pacifism. Throughout the novel, the author, Kurt Vonnegut employs ironic humor to highlight humanity’s indifference and blatant stupidity. Vonnegut illustrates that the same scientific community that produced life-altering breakthroughs like medicine and refrigeration, also created the atomic bomb, which had catastrophic consequences for millions of people. On page 29 Jonah, the story’s protagonist, has a conversation about the a murderer with Dr. Breed the supervisor of the laboratory which created the atomic bomb that killed over 100,000 Japanese citizens at the end of WWII. Breed said, “Think of it! Twenty-six people that man had on his conscience!” A man who murdered 26 people astounds Dr. Breed, when the death of 100,000 people should be on Dr. Breed’s conscience. All the characters that Vonnegut portrays have a disturbing sense of innocence about them; they are blissfully unaware of how their choices hurt others. No individual character is intrinsically evil; rather each characters seemingly innocuous attempts to find happiness has a ripple affect leading to the suffering of untold numbers of innocent people. Dr. Breed is quoted again on page 29 saying “New knowledge is the most valuable commodity on earth. The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become.” Does advancement in science really improve humanity? In this book, new science put in the hands of the stupid people consistently hurts humanity as a whole. Throughout Cat’s Cradle, Vonnegut utilizes irony as a means to question whether science is truly beneficial.

What are you trying to say?

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.