It boggles my mind that we can find "truth" in the layers of meta-textual lies that the reader is told throughout Cat's Cradle. Taking a step back from my easily manipulated reader-self, I realize that I am constantly reminded that what we are reading is "false". The first text that we read is that "Nothing in this book is true,"(Vonnegut, pre-text) and then we continue to see that also on the title page of the Book's of Bokonon it reads, "Don't be a fool! Close this book at once! It is nothing but foma!"(Vonnegut, 265). How can we still draw meaning and find truths from the multiples levels of lies that are explicitly stated to be untrue?
I think there is meaning in the double negative that exists in the multiple layers of falsehood. If you think about technically, if the pre-text states that everything is untrue and the Book's of Bokonon (inside the false setting of Cat's Cradle) state that everything in that book is lies, then shouldn't the Book's of Bokonon actually be the opposite of lies? If a lie is in a lie is it inherently true?
This reminds me of the classic where you reach a fork in the road and there are two brother that one always tells the truth and one always tells a lie, and you can only ask them each one question to figure out the correct way to go. The answer is that you ask each of them what their brother would answer, therefore the truth telling brother will give you the lie and the lying brother would also give you the lie, and you go the other direction. It's in this double lie that we are given the right path, similar to some of the meta-textual double lies that end up revealing truths in Cat's Cradle.
I think this is where Vonnegut puts a lot of meaning in the satire in this work, as the layers of lies, in which the reader thinks are false, actually are revealing a deeper layer of truth in which the reader can choose to accept or deny. I think Cat's Cradle is a clever way of blurring the line between true and false because in the end, isn't "our world" a lot closer to the world in Cat's Cradle where seemingly "nothing in [it] is true."
The point that you raised here is very interesting. It compliments the argument that was raised in class that Vonnegut must have had some moral or lesson for the reader since her bothered to write the book in the first place. It is interesting to consider: do two negatives make a positive? Do two lies make a truth? I think that it is possible in this instance.
ReplyDelete