Making up the Truth

“Almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true.” As I read this seemingly paradoxical statement, my mind wandered. What did this mysterious line mean? How could something be true and false at the same time? As I read the story about Curt Lemon and Rat Kiley, the answer seemed to be obvious.

             The story of and following Curt Lemon’s death highlights the misery of war. Lemon, after stepping on a mine, almost dies “gracefully” because of the beautiful scenery with stunning flowers and majestic trees in the background. Rat Kiley, in turn, mourns the death of his friend by slowly annihilating a baby buffalo. The readers feel pity for the baby buffalo and for the soldiers. O’Brien makes his readers sympathize with the characters and makes it seem like the reader is caught in the crossfire by describing the death, brutality, and gore in painstaking detail.

            After explaining the story, O’Brien reveals that the story is a fiction. He will add and subtract a few details to get to the real truth, or the moral. According to O’Brien, lying about the story will more effectively make the reader understand the point of the story because it will directly point them to the true meaning of the untruth. As we come to find out, this story is not about war, but rather, about remembrance and friendship. As O’Brien points out, this is a method to make people truly listen to the story, and not absorb the evident superficial information. By lying, O’Brien effectively plays his readers into what he actually means, because the truth alone is not sufficient.

Living on a Throne of Lies

After class today and after reading Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, it's easily to get lost in the misery and despair of the world he depicts. He has shown us readers a world that is essentially pointless and without a purpose. What I believe to be the clearest illustration of this is found in the first sentence of the First Book of Bokonon. It describes how when God created the world and man, man asks God, "'What is the purpose of all this?' 'Everything must have a purpose?' asked God. 'Certainly,' said man" (265). Here, God, the creator of all things, does not supply the question of the meaning of the world; man does.

Now I know what you're thinking, that this is nothing but foma, nothing but a pack of lies. I'll bear with you on this. Say that we take this story from the First Book of Bokonon and we examine it understanding that it's all lies. If we read that passage on page 256 line by line, word by word, we can rule out all of this Genesis-esk story with the exception of one line:

Everything must have a purpose?

What is incredible about this question is that no matter how skeptical you are of what this passage says, this question still remains. It is, in essence, immune to our skepticism and therefore persists in the text. Consequently, we as readers ask ourselves questions like, "Is there really a purpose to our world? Is it man that really supplies the meaning of the world? Why should there be a purpose to all of this?"

And so we fall into our own game, into the game Vonnegut wants us to notice: into our own cat's cradle. Every human being, in one form or another, is compelled to find meaning and purpose in all things. It is a natural part of our evolution and it is why we have science, religion, nations, cultures, societies, families, love…

But as Vonnegut shows us, in the end (literally), none of this matters. The reality we perceive is ultimately and absolutely meaningless, because like a game of cat's cradle, there is no purpose to it. We just keep pulling on the strings, making things look different, but like "Jonah" says, "'what would it mean?'" (271).

So our lives our meaningless, according to Vonnegut, and it is, in the very least, convincing. However, we cannot forget that if games are to provide us with anything, it is comfort. Vonnegut shows us in the end of the novel that it's okay to find comfort in love, and family, and religion, things that are without an ultimate meaning. That's all fine as long as we find comfort and consolation in what we do because that will, at the end of everything, help us deal with the hopelessness of our world and our existence.

As a student, as an aspiring scientist, and as a devout Catholic, I find this all both jarring and oddly soothing. So what if there is no purpose to it all? So what if I'm just living in some game? Despite everything Vonnegut says, I can still hold onto the fact that my existence is enriched by how I experience it, by how I enjoy it. So even if all that becomes of me is a pile of ash, I can be comforted by the fact that I will have loved others, lived a life of compassion, and that I lived enjoying everything I did. At least I can have that.

A No-Win Situation

After finishing Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle, I found myself contemplating my own ideas about religion. Vonnegut basically comes to the conclusion that what is important is the illusion that meaning and purpose exist in religion for the individual, not that it actually exists. In other words, he believes that even though religion may or may not provide humanity with the real truth, religion serves only the purpose of giving people hope and faith and make them feel like their lives have a purpose. Upon understanding Vonnegut's argument, the question I would pose would be, what is wrong with that? Vonnegut essential says that truth plays no part in religion, but isn't it the truth that religion makes people feel like their lives have meaning? I guess Vonnegut has accomplished his goal here in successfully manipulating the reader. Even though he warns the audience that nothing in the book is true, we, as readers, still fall for his manipulation. Clearly, Vonnegut is a man who understands the silliness and meaninglessness of life, and probably enjoys the fact that he is teaching the reader something about how he makes them believe that they all believe in something. What a vicious circle!

Vonnegut's Own Game of Cat's Cradle

Vonnegut carefully chose to add a pretext to this novel in an attempt to catch our eyes before we are even given a chance to begin reading: “Nothing in this book is true.” A pretext, by definition, is a reason given in justification of a course of action that is not the real reason. So before the narrative even begins, we are faced with a statement intended to be misleading. Vonnegut has already hinted at the core of his novel: we must use ridiculousness to create a shelter from reality. He tells us to live by harmless untruths, convincing us that there exists a disguise that is blurring the line between truth and lies. This falsehood indicates that this novel is essentially all a game; is Vonnegut drawing us into his own game of cat’s cradle?

The cat’s cradle serves as a symbol for the novel’s exploration of both truth and lies. Some characters tell themselves lies to create a false reality of happiness, similar to the way a child is able to envision the cat and the cradle to enjoy the game. Others see reality clearly, just as some see the X’s the string makes because that’s simply the truth of the matter. So, just as the game of cat’s cradle, this novel is seemingly a lie. We are told that from the beginning. Vonnegut wants us to know that the story he has created is simply words he put together that are intended to mean something. But what determines whether or not it is composed of lies? Being a fictional novel, we are already aware that the events are made up. So why does Vonnegut add the pretext? He is reeling us into a game and manipulating us to decide whether he has simply written a bunch of lies, or if there is a truthful meaning within the pages. While reading this novel we must question ourselves: can we accept the lies as truth, or even just find the truth among the lies, or should we simply dismiss the work as a piece of fiction?

Two Lies, One Truth

We may, and likely won't ever know if Cat’s Cradle is in fact the book of Bokonon, but does it even matter? Bokonon is a lie, a beautiful lie woven by a man who called himself Bokonon, just as Cat’s Cradle is a false tale spun by a man who calls himself Jonah but is actually John who is controlled by an external force who deceives professionally. Bokonon is merely an idea, a theoretical persona that can be adopted by multiple people and professed by those who seek a simple solution to a complex conundrum. The Books of Bokonon were created in the same fashion as Jonah’s work, a constructed reality from a constructed figure designed to lessen the misery of life. The debate over the true author of the Books is a lie, representing the focus of many on the lies being told rather than truth that may or may not exist within the text.

On a physical level, Cat’s Cradle is a book of Bokonon, volumes one through the finish. Bokonon exists only as a Kurt Vonnegut’s manifestation of human absurdity and thus as Vonnegut’s creation, Cat’s Cradle draws from the same cynical muse and by default, so does Jonah.

Everything You Told Me Was A Lie

While reading this book, I am trying to keep an open mind about the whole story being a lie. The somewhat pretext of the book states that “nothing in this book is true.” Therefore  it is a challenge to fully get into the book and believe what the author is writing because I have this thought jabbing in the back of my mind saying don’t believe anything Vonnegut writes.
Everyone is a bokononist in this book... page 218 “papa” tells the doctor to leave his room because he is a christian. They don’t practice bokononism because they want to keep the power over the people. Page 265 the initial page of the First Book of Bokononism tries to tell the reader that the whole book is “foma.” harmless truths. This is similar to the opening of Cat’s Cradle. The whole book is lies. And when I say book, I am talking about the book within the book as well as the book we have read. Jonah has based his life around the lies of the Bokononism religion. 
 Vonnegut creates an interesting image of what the cat’s cradle technically is within the story. Newt drawing which Jonah saw as a disaster, was the image of a cat’s cradle. This is important in helping describe what a cat’s cradle is. In the beginning of the novel it was described as criss-crossing of lines and then Newt tries to explain to Jonah that those crossing lines creates a cat and a cradle. 

These small little details Vonnegut uses try to bring the reader back to the beginning of the story. Brings back the idea of everything is false.

Here I am Stuck in the Middle with You

Vonnegut wrote this novel to highlight the balance between rational, scientific thought and irrational, religious thought that man needs to live. The novel hints at it in many ways, from the explanation of the planned dictatorship of San Lorenzo, to small nuances such as the criticism of the game cat's cradle, and the irony of the warning to children in the wax museum. While Vonnegut could have ended the book with Mona and John in the shelter, he decided to add chapters to the book so he could expose the dynamic tension, front and center.

After Mona commits suicide, John finds his karass, and through his life with them, the reader can observe Vonnegut's idea on dynamic tension. On the rational side, you have ants who survive by murdering each other and committing cannibalism. On the irrational side, you have the "surviving" members of San Lorenzo, who escaped without pain, but were nevertheless dead. And right in the middle is the author’s karass, alive and satisfied; using logic to survive in the new, while clinging to the trappings of a society passed.

Again this paradigm of either side is repeated in the Hoenikker family. Frank is enraged by the pointlessness of his science but refuses to give into irrational thought, while Angela dies happy, because she refuses to understand the reality of the situation. Newt, the last Hoenikker, is able to both survive and feel content by following Bokononism. These clear examples of dynamic tension both highlight the bleak lifestyle of a rational thinker, and the ignorant life of an irrational one. The only man who survives whole is the one who recognizes the current situation, yet accepts certain beliefs that allow him to stay content.

A thought on questioning beliefs

While I had originally thought Cat's Cradle was the Books of Bokonon, I am now entirely unsure. One would assume the Books would be the words of Bokonon, however at the beginning of chapter 92 this Jonah writes, "These are not Bokonon's words. They are mine." If everything this Jonah has written until this point is the Books of Bokonon, then does that make him Bokonon? It's hard to believe, but then again does it really matter if "Nothing in this book is true"? Chapter 110 is curiously titled "The Fourteenth Book". How can there be a fourteenth book if there are supposed to be only six? I have so many questions about the fundamental structure of the book that this Jonah created for us. What should I believe, or is it better not to believe anything?

This is all fiction written by Vonnegut, so I've also been questioning his motives behind confusing us so greatly. Mona's words on page 274 answer my question simply. Upon looking at all the people of San Lorenzo who had taken their own lives she said "It solves so much for so many..." Vonnegut's commentary on human belief and their need for explanations can often lead to dissatisfaction. Instead of being frustrated by not know fully who this Jonah is or what the message Vonnegut is trying to create, we should enjoy the thoughts it creates. This blog post is an example for all the different ideas and discussions sparked by one book. What do we choose to believe and why? In the Spanish language, when one "believes" something, but there is some uncertainty or doubt we use the subjunctive. A whole other tense is applied to statements of uncertainty, however in English there is no distinction between statements of truth and lie. Instead we need to choose what to believe.

“See the cat? See the cradle?”

          The Bokononists practice a religion based off of lies. Vonnegut writes on page 172, “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 and better lies.” These lies form a religion that allows people to cope with the living conditions on San Lorenzo. Does that mean that lies can sometimes be the better alternative to truth? It’s a difficult question to tackle. If covering up the truth makes you happier, maybe that means it’s a good thing. On the other hand, are you just prolonging something that will inevitably catch up with you? On page 179 Jonah discovers that Angela’s husband is mean to her and he comments that from the way she talked, he thought it was a happy marriage. Newt replies, “See the cat? See the cradle?” Newt is referencing the game cat’s cradle, which is really just a bunch of X’s of string. Similarly to the game, Angela made something out of nothing. I’m inclined to believe that in Angela’s case, ignoring the problems in her marriage may not have been the best solution. However, in the case of the game and other instances in life, maybe little lies are more beneficial than harmful.

I have never realized before, similarly to the characters in Cat’s Cradle, that I use lies to “better” situations and increase morale, on regular basis.  I’m a coxswain on our crew team, which means I am solely responsible for motivation and mentally helping the rowers to (hopefully) win races. After years of experiencing many different races, both good and bad, you develop some tricks. I have discovered that with races that are not going well, the only way to continue motivating the rowers is to just lie. By giving them hope and encouragement, they are able to row much more successfully than if I told them during a race “We are in last place. And we probably will never reach the boat in front of us.” Just like this example, we can all probably think of certain situations in our lives where we embrace the ideas of Bokononism and look for the “cat and the cradle” in what is really just X’s of string.