Blurred Line Between Fact and Fiction

While reading the first half of Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, I was hysterically laughing. Vonnegut creates an enjoyable fictional story, which leads me to trust the narrator despite the fact that the author claims, “nothing in this book is true” (iii). This statement makes me feel conflicted about relating the events of the story to real life and thinking the whole narrative is a fantasy. The author even states, “’the more truth we have to work with, the richer we become’” (41). Vonnegut is toying with his reader by juxtaposing relatable events and thought-provoking ideas with extreme storylines and confusing plot twists. I want to believe the narrator because he is touching on a subject about which I am able to relate: weapons of mass destruction and complex families.  However, most of Vonnegut’s points are ludicrous, especially the religion of Bokonon… if it even is a religion. The concept of Bokonon and the descriptions are so farfetched and outlandish that it is almost believable, but then the narrator introduces Johnson’s story. 

The thought of a man “emerging naked from salt water” (107) onto a new land is hilarious. The translation of “Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star” and San Lorenzan’s national anthem to the tune of “Home on the Range” captures me by planting the real tunes into my head. By doing this, Vonnegut incorporates reality but twists it so that is in another (the characters) reality. Similarly, everyone has a “pissant” (130) in his or her life. That word and the description, “somebody who thinks that he’s so damn smart, he never can keep his mouth shut” (130) reminds me of Holden’s character in Salinger’s Catcher in The Rye. By adding this colloquial description, Vonnegut is once again seducing his audience into the story and making it seem real. Rereading my notes in order to write this response, and skimming over the book makes me excited to finish reading it so that I can double over in hysteria once more.