Ice-Nine

I found that in the second half of Cat’s Cradle, ice-nine posed an interesting issue for the reader. Although ice-nine does not actually exist, it is essentially a form of the atomic bomb on an extreme scale. Although it seemed easy as a reader to be separated from the scene where ice-nine is accidentally released into the ocean near the end of the book, I found it very similar to an even more extreme version of the purposeful dropping of the atomic bomb without knowing its own potential.

I remember my high school teacher explaining that the atomic bomb represented a crucial shift from individualized combat to the power of a single person determining the fate of entire populations by a push of a button, or in this case a blue-white substance. The individuals responsible thus distance themselves from seeing the impact of their own destruction. This is directly applicable to the relationship between ice-nine and both Felix Hoenikker and his children. Felix Hoenikker seems to be aware of his power of creating ice-nine, but is completely disconnected from its possible impact on humanity.  When he finally chooses to reveal his secret to his children right before he dies, Felix Hoenikker is only continuing the inevitable unleashing of the destruction of ice-nine because the children have no idea of its power. When they “divided up the old man’s ice-nine,” after finding him dead they seem to be destined for the disaster that happens later on San Lorenzo (pg. 115). Ironically, the three children hold this substance closely to them, as almost a memory of their father, yet are ignorant of its true impact and its potential for worldwide annihilation. This seems to force the reader to recognize the problems attached to giving a small number of people the power to determine the survival of humanity, or in the real life situation, the ability to drop an atomic bomb. 

Cat's Cradle

          The parallel between the nothingness and redundancy of the cat's cradle and the tale of Jonah is a rather obvious discussion. However, the importance of the child's game through the eyes of Felix Hoenikker is a completely unique tale. The one important detail about Dr. Hoenikker is that he seemed to have an excess need for children's play things. In his office he had spinning top things and turtles and of course; the piece of string needed for a cat's cradle. At first I simply viewed this his means to pass time and to break up the monotony of working in a large corporate laboratory. However, as I really began to think about it, wasn't he merely using these toys as a means of escape? I mean how long can a person work on such as project a the atom bomb without stopping to think of the devastation that this bomb will cause. With all the stress and anxiety that surrounded the development and production of the A-bomb, Dr. Hoenikker simply needed a way to escape from it all and reclaim the innocence of his youth.

           I find this to be very evident in life as well. As people grow older and their days become more droll and boring, they feel a need to capture the simplicity of childhood. If I learned anything from this book, it's that childhood (pre-adulthood) is a unique and short period of time that needs not be wasted in trying to "grow up" too fast. But rather, it should be enjoyed and used as a place to which one can escape and go back to when life becomes too taxing. I believe that the story of Dr. Felix Hoenikker sums it up best in reclaiming his child-like innocence through the simplicity of play.

Universal subjective reality, and other analytical problems

I have certainly enjoyed all of our discussions concerning Vonnegut and Cat's Cradle thus far. However, I am still concerned that, as we begin to write our own extended analyses of the book, we will persist in making a particular kind of error. In a class constructed around the examination of truth and fiction, of lies and reality, we have made very little concentrated effort in coming up with a working definition of any of these important terms. Admittedly, this is not a class taught through the philosophy department; we are here to examine these concepts within literature, not in their own independent contexts. However, it becomes very difficult to manage any serious literary analysis when terms like “subjective truth” and “personal reality” are casually used without further elucidation. In the absence of a standard definition, the listener (or reader) must input their own, which may not be the intended definition of the speaker. If we each are holding our own subjective definitions of “subjective truth”, untangling the literary knot of Cat's Cradle will only be half the battle; the other half will be spent fighting against our own prose.

There are also, I think, further reasons to be wary of identifying the subjectivity of reality itself as a primary theme behind this book. On the surface, the term appears to nicely wrap up the smorgasbord of lies, truths, and metatexualities contained within Cat's Cradle, but the phrase itself is not quite as intellectually sound as we might think. After all, when we say that reality is subjective (in this case, meaning that each individuals sense of qualia is no better or worse than another person's), do we intend to make that a universally applicable statement? Is it objectively true that all reality is subjective? We fall into a old philosophical trap; if the statement is accepted as true, than it follows from necessity that the statement is false.

Knowledge is Power

Or is it? Vonnegut seems to be of the opinion that knowing the truth is less important than many people think.  The Bokononist creation story about the mud provides a great example of this:

"God leaned close to mud as man sat, looked around, and spoke. "What is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely.
'Everything must have a purpose?' asked God.
'Certainly,' said man.
'Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this,' said God."

He made beings out of the mud on a whim so that it could admire what he had done. There was no greater purpose for man, but man demanded one. The greatest irony is that man's purpose became to determine its purpose which is clear satirization of man's desire for knowledge. Bokonon even tells us directly that this search for a purpose is a hoax and yet he creates the idea of karasses and wampeters as a kind of game for his followers to entertain themselves.

Dr. Breed’s research laboratory works toward the pursuit of knowledge through “pure research.” His scientists just try to attain knowledge to no end – knowledge that may not even aid humankind in any way. In fact, Hoenikker’s invention of the bomb harmed humankind. Breed’s secretary calls science “magic” and dismisses it. She is content to live in ignorance, while many of the scientists are unhappy and driving themselves mad trying to make sense of the world. I think Vonnegut wants to give us the following message: It’s not about searching for the truth. It’s not about knowing why or how humans came to be. The only useful thing for humans to do is to find ways to be content with one’s reality.

Coping with Reality

I held the belief that even though Bokonon clearly states that everything in The Books of Bokonon is a lie, Bokononists simply ignored this fact.  The San Lorenzans could only live happily because they rejected reality and made the lies of Bokononism their reality.  Jonah’s warning about Bokononism, however, rings true, “anybody unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either” (6).  Understanding this warning is the essential requirement to be a Bokononist, so contrary to my initial belief, none of the San Lorenzans ignore reality but live happily while coping with it.

For example, the most faithful Bokononist we know, Mona, in the moments before her death, tells Jonah that Bokonon himself would never take his own advice, because even “he [knows] it was worthless” (273).  Her awareness of the lies of Bokononism means that she is not truly ignorant of the misfortunes of the world.  Despite knowing all of this, she chose to follow Bokonon’s final instructions.  Her question to Jonah is a pivotal moment, because it reveals an understanding of reality shared by all Bokononists and not just Mona.  “ ‘Would you wish any of these alive again, if you could?’ “ (274).  She kills herself after Jonah fails to answer her within thirty seconds, because Jonah cannot reasonably answer that he would bring the dead back into a doomed world.  In the same way, Bokononists realize that they cannot cope with the world of ice-nine and choose to accept Bokonon’s lie that God wants to kill all of them.

Bokononism as a coping mechanism and the horrors of reality appear to be in dynamic tension.  The tougher reality becomes, the more people appear to rely on Bokononism to provide them with some happiness.  But once the world freezes over with ice-nine, no amount of boko-maru or fomas can help the San Lorenzos cope with reality.  As a result, they choose death.

A Simple Description of the Game of Cat's Cradle

Photo Credit: Carl Collins  http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlcollins/448906380/lightbox/ 

       The game is silly and pointless, but worldwide, children still go through the its same old motions every day. Here's how you play it: You weave string together to create a something that resembles a cradle. You show this to a friend, who moves the string around a bit, and together you make a design. You meander through more designs before you return to the first one and do it over and over again. As you go through the motions of the game, it becomes clear that there is no way to win or lose; there is no score and no referee. Nobody cares but you.

All of the game unravels when a careless mistake is made; someone grabs the wrong string or forgets to hold it tight. The elaborate structures you have built reveal themselves to be nothing but lost, pointless constructions, and you are left with nothing but a simple, endless loop. The only purpose of the designs is to distract from the fact that all we have is a useless circle.

       Life is silly and pointless, but worldwide, people still go through its same old motions every day. Here's how you play it: You weave ideas together to create a something that resembles a purpose. You show this to a friend, who moves the ideas around a bit, and together you make a belief. You meander through more beliefs before you return to the first one and do it over and over again. As you go through the motions of life, it becomes clear that there is no way to win or lose; there is no score and no referee. Nobody cares but you.

All of life unravels when a careless mistake is made; someone grabs the wrong idea or forgets to hold it tight. The elaborate structures you have built reveal themselves to be nothing but lost, pointless constructions, and you are left with nothing but a simple, endless loop. The only purpose of the beliefs is to distract from the fact that all we have is a useless circle.

That was a very nihilistic metaphor to make, and I don't think the purpose of Cat's Cradle as a book is to say that life is meaningless. However, the game of Cat's Cradle, which represents nihilism, is held in dynamic tension with the idea of hope. These opposing motifs, along with many others, are part of the web of paradoxes that make up the world of Cat's Cradle.

Finally, A Post About Death on a Blog in which Nobody is Complaining About Life

People die and it is sad. I know, what a cliche and simple way to put it, but it's true. Yet, in this text it seems that people matter more when they are dead or when they create death than when they are actually alive or carrying about their normal lives. When Jonah first sets foot onto San Lorenzo he describes the scene as, "Five thousand or more San Lorenzans stared at us. The islanders were oatmeal colored. The people were thin. There wasn't a fat person to be seen. Every person had teeth missing. Many legs were bowed or swollen" (Vonnegut, 136). These people are obviously starved and needing of help, but they hold very little significance to us as readers. That is, until they are dead. When the San Lorenzans die in a mass suicide brought on by Bokonon they achieve meaning. We see that this population of starving people become an example of the mercy of death. On the island, the population was in constant suffering, but in death they are peaceful. They are no longer being shammed into life because there are no lies in death.

The character who, I think, is the most central to the concept and relationship of death in this novel is Dr. Hoenikker. With his creations, both the atom bomb and ice-nine, he paves the road for Jonah to experience this Armageddon. He also is a connecting factor between science and religion. The end of the world is usually thought of in a biblical sense; Judgement Day. Dr. Hoenikker, though, paves the road for this with science. Through his creation of mass death he bridges the gap between religion and science in this one awful truth; death. Now, I'm not saying that all science or religion have to offer is death, but it is what connects them in this novel. Bokonon brings on the death of the San Lorenzeans through religion and Dr. Hoenikker brings on the death of millions through science. Death, my friends, is the common denominator.

Self-Interest

I think a big thing throughout Cats Cradle was that people made the most of their situations. Hoenikker’s children barely mourned his death and after discovering his invention they quickly began dividing it up. The kids use Ice 9 to be happy though not always knowing it. Frank bought himself a job with a title by giving Papa Monzano some Ice 9. Angela was able to get herself a husband with Ice 9. And even Newt got himself a relationship even though it was short lived and Newt had his Ice 9 stolen. Also Jonah made the most of his situation when he willingly accepted the idea of being President of San Lorenzo the second he heard about marrying Mona. We discussed a bit in class how religion and science gave people happiness and even a meaning in life. But if we are not given direction by science or religion is life given meaning by looking out for self-interest above all else? It can even be said that all of Jonah’s ideas of making San Lorenzo a great place to live was more about making him known as a great leader then helping the people themselves. The only people who don’t seem to be looking out for themselves were the Castles, who sacrificed their lives to help others, if anyone at all. People always try to give life meaning but maybe helping others is the greatest thing one can do. Even if it is part of human nature to put ones interest over others does that make it right? Also, if it is in the best interest of others to lie to them and make up false tension is that okay?

Nonsense

"The Girl Pool", "Vin-Dit", "Hoon-yera mora-toorz", how could these three phrases be chapter titles in the same book? When the book is completely ridiculous, that's when.
Just as we think we are finally beginning to understand Vonnegut, or Jonah, or Sam rather, one of these three, whoever it may be, throws us another sentence along the lines of "Monzano in order to boost Monzano's popularity, 194-199, 216n.; childhood in compound of House of Hope and Mercy,  63-81..."(120).
But amongst all this nonsense, if we look close enough, we can catch the resemblance of some sense. Over there in the corner, do you see it? Vonnegut does not make it impossible to find, but neither does he have a neon arrow pointing us to its various locations. Perhaps he wants us to search for ourselves? And maybe the discovery process is part of our enlightenment? As readers we act as sieves, attempting to shift through the confusion to find pieces to grasp onto. I find the best tactic is to create a mental pool of sorts, one in which I place all the facts and ideas I obtain as I read. When a possible connection or truth emerges, I simply return to my pool and take a dip.

Life's but a Walking Shadow...Or is It?

            If there’s one thing I remember learning in my sophomore year of high school, it’s the words of wisdom from the great Thomas C. Foster in How to Read Literature Like a Professor: “when in doubt, it’s from Shakespeare.” For a while it was hard for me to get this, but now I can see Shakespeare everywhere. Even when an author doesn’t make an explicit reference to the Bard’s work, the connections are always there. So naturally when Vonnegut brings up the idea in Cat’s Cradle that the people “were all employed full time as actors in a play,” I thought of poor old Macbeth’s soliloquy: his famous “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” speech (need a refresher? read lines 19-28).

            Originally reading Vonnegut’s comments on how his characters live a lie as actors in a play, I felt quite depressed and vaguely annoyed at what I was reading. How dare he say that life is all made up?! Life is real, no one can undermine that with such existentialist views! Then Thomas Foster’s words crept back into my mind and I remembered Macbeth. Shakespeare truly does go to that existential extreme in Macbeth’s soliloquy. He, at least in that passage, presents no hope. His play metaphor shows the complete and utter meaninglessness of life, as it is just a short show that will soon end and be forgotten. Shakespeare is bleak.

            Vonnegut, however, puts a twist on the classic play metaphor, bringing a more positive spin to it. Instead of just saying life is pointless, he proposes that we instead have to make our own meaning. Life, while still just an act to occupy the time, is not futile, but “a work of art.” It may be that people are not put here for a specific reason, but they can still make something worthwhile out of the time here. While Shakespeare’s version of the metaphor emphasizes the inevitable end of the play, Vonnegut focuses on what happens during this “play”: the significant characters, the plot twists, the emotions it brings out. Within the play of life, all these aspects still matter, even if it will end soon.

            Drawing connections between literary works is vital. It completely changes our understanding of the works at hand. Being able to compare Vonnegut’s use of the play metaphor to Shakespeare’s, I was able to pick out key differences and get a new perspective on Cat’s Cradle.  So in times of trouble, just remember “when in doubt, it’s from Shakespeare.”

A Celebration

""But if today is really in honor of a hundred children murdered in war," he said, "is today a day for a thrilling show?' 'The answer is yes, on one condition, that we, the celbrants, are working consciously and tirelessly to reduce the stupidity and viciousness of ourselves and of mankind.'" (Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle, 225) Ambassador Horlick Minton speaks these words less than an hour before San Lorenzo's icy downfall. When I read this paragraph I stopped, wrote 'fascinating' in the margins, and dog-eared it so I would remember to blog about it. The idea is an optimistic one: we can always celebrate as long as we are simultaneously making progress. Yet it is also a pessimistic one: we can never celebrate unless we are putting all of energy into benefiting society, into becoming better people than we were one second ago. That is tiring. We spoke in class about "dynamic tension", how in order to have one extreme we must have the other, and the question becomes whether anything in the middle really exists. One way to read this novel would be to say that Vonnegut constantly suggests that mankind is stupid and not capable of looking out for themselves. But another reading exists too. The people of San Lorenzo devote their entire lives to trying to be happy, trying to spin lies upon lies so that the fragile happiness does not break and instead becomes a tighter web. However, when are we allowed to stop and celebrate that which we already have? Is there ever a time we can throw up our hands and say, we have issues but we're trying, enough for today! Because if you are always happy would you even know you were happy? Would happiness even exist? The characters in Cat's Cradle tend to believe in extremes, but I believe that the balance between two ends is generally what we seek, and we must constantly take moments to stop, balance ourselves, and celebrate what we have already done, as well as what is to come.

Creating Tension

Dynamic tension exists throughout Cat’s Cradle, from the physical tension exerted on the cat’s cradle string to the overwhelming divide between science and religion throughout the book.  Other tension exists in the novel, especially between the government of San Lorenzo and the religion of Bokonon. What is distinct about this example, however, is that it is synthesized tension, as the government does not truly hate Bokononism. When Jonah finds it strange that they fail to ever catch Bokonon, Julian Castle explains, “McCabe was sane enough to realize that without the holy man to war against, he himself would become meaningless” (175). The only reason to denounce Bokononism is to give the government some sort of purpose, a tension that McCabe can execute power over. McCabe and the officials of San Lorenzo understand that people will look to leaders and an established government when they are told there is something to hate.  I realized that this concept of creating tension enabled the rule of many governments throughout history. Governments, in order to be powerful, must rely on tension in order to keep them powerful. Following this logic, it becomes clear that the most powerful empires exist in times of war. I find it interesting that even in a world where tension is present almost everywhere, people will create even more if the commodity of power is up for grabs. 

Another way in which humans introduce tension into their lives comes at a more personal level,  as our need to understand challenges the reality that many questions cannot be answered at all. The Book of Bokonon explains that “tiger got to hunt; bird got to fly; man got to wonder ‘why why why’? Tiger got to sleep; bird got to land; man got to tell himself he understand” (Vonnegut 182). The internal tension within every human can be traced to the simple concept of “why”. While the other species focus on necessary skills for survival, humans are constantly preoccupied with curiosity, always attempting to assuage the tension that unknowns and unanswerable questions create in their minds. Although humans may consider themselves superior to these species in terms of brain function and complexity, we carry the burden of an intrinsic need to understand. We are bringing unnecessary tension into our mind.

           

Life as a Performance

I found, in the second half of Cat’s Cradle, that my opinion on Bokonon’s purpose and Vonnegut’s purpose did not change. The events that unfolded centered around the same concepts that came up in the first half, and actually furthered my understanding of them, as was probably Vonnegut’s intention. I believe these concepts can be summed up by Philip Castle’s statement, “They were all employed full time as actors in a play they understood, that any human being anywhere could understand and applaud,” said when he is describing how people in San Lorenzo lived life. I think this applies to idea of “meaninglessness” that we touched upon in class on Tuesday and alludes to the circles that we run in when discussing the book, filled with “no damn cat and no damn cradle.” 

According to some, the San Lorenzans are not living reality, but to every one of them, it is reality—they know no other reality. In this way, reality is completely dependent on perspective and thus essentially meaningless. Everyone is acting, faking, and pretending and the San Lorenzans have come to accept this; it’s as if they have it down, and everyone else needs to catch on to the strategy. Distinguishing between lies and truths, as Kurt Vonnegut demonstrates in his fiction work about untruths, is all a game, no aspect of which is even close to permanently damaging. The lesson learned is, inside and outside of Vonnegut’s novel, people need to take the lines they are given, the roles they are told to play, and the cards they are dealt, and simply go along with it, so that they can achieve happiness, so that fate will clap in favor of their “performance.”

FACTS: and the lies we tell.

What is reality? What is illusion? People seem to have different interpretations of what is real and what is not. In this world there are only facts; nothing more and nothing less. However, as people, we feel the need to take the facts that are convenient to us and label them truth. It is the way we deal with reality. The facts that work against us are seen as illusions because they contradict an established truth about ourselves. However, the question then becomes who has made our reality? Kurt Vonnegut, would say our reality is not in our own hands but in the hands of the people that control the flow of information. In San Lorenzo, information is dictated, by The President. In addition, at the same time the island is controlled by to religious forces, one known—Christianity--and one secret--Bokononism. These three forces constitute a large part of the spectrum of what is true for the island. Once Jonah comes to the island we see how his personal facts, which govern his reality affect the island. His facts are based off the stereotypical beliefs of American civil rights, and righteousness. He believes people cannot be happy if they live in horrible situations and do not have enough food. He is unable to perceive happiness connected to anything beneath what Americans would consider middle class.  The way of living for the residents of San Lorenzo is a truth Jonah and Kurt Vonnegut are unwilling to accept. Therefore, Jonah tries to establish the idea that as president he will help the people of Lorenzo discover true happiness; happiness based on his own personal facts about the world. As for Vonnegut, he writes a story based on facts he personally rejects in order to make the whole book a lie. The only fact in Cat’s Cradle is that “Human perception of the world changes with the individual”.

To Lie or Not to Lie

Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle” is a satire that pokes fun at most of human nature.  He teases man’s many faults like stupidity, but he completely tears down the oh-so human belief that truth is good.  Honestly, I think this is the first book I’ve ever read where liars are praised.  Think about it: The Scarlet Letter, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Great Gatsby… nearly all the books we read growing up and in high school emphasized that truth is honorable, that honesty is the only respectable way to live, that only the innocent, those who have never told lies, are “good.”  But Vonnegut, through the voice of Bokonon and various other characters, basically says, “Screw that!”  Does being truthful guarantee we will be rich and successful? Not usually.  Does it make us happier? Not always.  Does it mean we will live longer, smile more, or cry less? Probably not.

Bokononism is based on foma, the harmless lies that improve life.  By creating this religion, Bokonon not only condones the telling of little white lies, he rejects the entire concept that truth is good.  He tears down an idea that has been transcribed in our brains for years and years, a belief that has been recited for generations. 

Science is presented as the search for truth and understanding.  In Cat’s Cradle, scientists are not heroes and science is not worthy of praise.  Think of the products of Dr. Hoenikker’s years in the lab. He created the atomic bomb and ice-nine.  Certainly Dr. Hoenikker discovered truth in the possibility that these things could in fact exist, but I doubt anybody would argue that the atomic bomb and ice-nine were good inventions. No, certainly these discoveries were bad. Very bad.  Like, potential-to-destroy-every-living-thing-on-the-planet bad.

So from now on, I am going to question the benefits of the truths I tell (just as I have always considered the consequences of my lies).  Will this true statement benefit me? You? The world? Or is it better to embrace the foma, those harmless lies that were always forbidden, but now seem so much less destructive?