These are the covers of the two Hebrew translations of Cat's Cradle.

The title of the book in Hebrew is a direct translation of the original (עריסת=Arisat=cradle; חתול=Chatul=cat). I do not know if there is a clarifying note about the actual meaning of “Cat’s Cradle” (grandmother knits) in the book itself, but there is one in the Hebrew Wikipedia entry about the book.

Notice the designs on the covers.

Wikipedia

simania.co.il

Bokonah Jonokonon

There always seem to be more questions than there are answers. However, in literature, there are seldom ever answers – there are suggestions and opinions.

One suggestion that I was asked to consider was the concept that Jonah and Bokonon were the same person. When looking further into the idea, I was faced with more questions and overlaps that confused the joint identify.

From the first line, ‘Call me Jonah,’ (pg.1) we are faced with a question of identity. Continuing through the text, there are instances that indicate a change in time (from past to present or present to future). ‘Jonah’ says, “when I was a younger man” (pg1) and then later on in the story ‘Bokonon’ says “ If I were a younger man” (pg287). This parallel gives us good reason to believe that Jonah and Bokonon are in fact the same person; however, can we assume based on the change in tenses that there was a transitional period or transitional event where Jonah became Bokonon or Bokonon became Jonah? Or do we assume that Jonah and Bokonon are the same person throughout the entire book? There are other instances that give concrete evidence to support the idea of Jonah and Bokonon being the same. For example, after ‘Jonah’ met with Dr.Breed, he says, “there was such a thing as ice nine” in response to Dr.Breed’s denial. How does ‘Jonah’ know this? More amazingly, at the end when we finally “meet” ‘Bokonon’, it says that he is wrapped in “tufts that said Casa Mona.”(pg286) When Jonah arrived, he checked into the Casa Mona. In fact, he was the only guest at the Casa Mona after the Crosbys decided to leave. Where would Bokonon have gotten the tufts?

If we accept this idea that Jonah and Bokonon are the same person throughout the entire story then, why does he want to be called “Jonah.” Why don’t we call him Bokonon? Is the idea of Bokonon more powerful than the idea of Jonah?

Jonah says, “It was in the tombstone salesroom that I had my first vin dit (..) a sudden, very personal shove in the direction of Bokononism.”(pg.69). If Jonah was Bokonon at this time, how is this possible? Wouldn’t Bokonon himself have already reached the full Bokononist potential? And if not, does that mean that Bokonon is just an ordinary person like the rest of the characters in this book? If they are the same person throughout the entire book, then does that mean that the Book of Bokonon and the Day The World Ended could potentially be the same book based on the ‘history of human stupidity’ (pg.287.) like Bokonon says? “Bokonon” is in search for the last line of the Book of Bokonon and Jonah says he never finishes his book, The Day The World Ended. Well, when I think about it, we never see the Book Of Bokonon get finished.

Even though I can accept that Jonah and Bokonon are the same person, there are still many questions that are associated with this - that’s not to say that there is one specific answer.

Although not obviously connected to Cat's Cradle, this Gary Larson cartoon would fit well into the Books of Bokonon, as I see it. The reader of the cartoon senses the absurdity of this man being angry about a chair when he is stranded on a desolate, minuscule island. The reader laughs at the skewed priorities of the man, but the reader must also realize, when considering Cat's Cradle, that he is the man. In an inherently meaningless world, we humans must create all of the significance in our lives, lying that this or that is important. We can deride our need to impose meaning on the absurd, and our tendency to imbue with meaning particularly ridiculous objects (like the chair in this cartoon); however, I think Vonnegut would argue that lying meaning into existence is necessary to keep us happy, or at least alive, and so, while we laugh at this cartoon, we ought to accept that chairs and God and the Books of Bokonon are required by human nature. We can laugh at ourselves, but we must also be ourselves.

The Books of Bokon

During class on Thursday we spoke a lot about the line, “Nothing in this book is true”.  This was on its own page along with the quote, “Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy” The Books of Bokon I: 5.” While from our class we found how interesting the words, “Nothing in this book is true” were, I found the line from The Books of Bokon to have a much larger impact on me while I continued to read Cat’s Cradle.  I loved this phrase because according to the reference in the book the word foma means harmless untruth.  The word harmless makes this phrase so powerful.  If it was just untruth it would not have the same meaning because people picture untruth as a negative idea.  The word harmless is added to untruth and it takes away some of the negativity of the word untruth to the reader.  The line from The Books of Bokon is pretty much saying that there is nothing wrong with a harmless untruth if it makes your life better and that people should just go along with them.  Personally the quote reset my mindset for this book.  At first I was going to treat this book like a game and try to keep Vonnegut from tricking me in any way.  After reading the phrase, though, I decided to just go along with everything Vonnegut wrote and see where it takes me.  Nothing bad can happen from just losing myself in the reading and according to The Books of Bokon, you should, “live by the foma that make you… happy.”

Free Will

"What the prophet has written cannot be unwritten.”* In our class discussion we talked about the analogy of God and writers. Writers control their “worlds” same as gods do – as it is widely believed – whether these worlds are complete fiction or attempts at representing truths. Every action Sam and Dean made to oppose their faith brought them closer to it. The power of their free will is tested against the power of the prophecy (by God) and the screenwriter. In opposition to the perceived freedom of choice in the real world, characters in literature (and the like) are bound to the will of their creators. That said, these characters do appear to have free will within their worlds, though it is subject to their creators’ control.

As the audience, we have the freedom of choosing how to react to the plot adjustments and twists, and consequential discrepancies, which are under the control of the creators. How did Sam and Dean find their way to the prophet just as Lilith went after them? Did God Enable Castiel to indirectly aid the brothers in spite of the prophecy? Or did the screenwriter enable it by “hiding” this information from the character of God? We, the audience, are active participants, and as such we can demonstrate our free will. Will we choose to be fully immersed in the creation and let the manipulation made by the creators take over us? Will we notice the discrepancies and oddities but choose to overlook them? Or, will the plot line be too difficult to accept and our choice will be to disregard the creation completely?

Writers have control both over the characters in their stories and the audience. The audience has the ability to choose whether to allow that control to lead them, whereas the characters do not. In real life, as far as I know, we write our own prophecies.

*Supernatural, season 4, episode 18: The Monster at the End of This Book

**Inspired by class discussion

"All This Happened, More Or Less"

There’s another fun Vonnegut reference for you.

Within both Supernatural and “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” we see the power of a writer to create a set of characters, a plot, and, in essence, what we see as reality, at least in the context of the story. This is normal, but somehow within both these stories it seems revolutionary. We’re comfortable with the idea of fiction being fictional, but the idea that that these fictional worlds are somehow not even happening within their own versions of “reality” is a step too far. We’re not comfortable with the reminder that writers create every facet of their characters. Within Supernatural this is even addressed as Dean tells Chuck, “you didn’t create us,” but why not? What is actually to say that Dean’s life and experiences have not been created by Chuck just as Bierce creates the life and memories of Peyton Farquhar in “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”? Dean is uncomfortable with the idea that his life is being designed, but perhaps the thing that really disturbs him is the idea that his thoughts, actions, and memories are not exclusively his own or are even some how fictional? Why can’t Dean simply be a character that Chuck has designed? (I’m going to let something slip here and it’s this- I’m more than a one time viewer of Supernatural. I’ve seen the show and I know there’s a popular theory that Chuck is not just a prophet, but actually God himself). If Dean is actually just as fictional as Peyton Farquhar, even within the Supernatural universe, then there’s more at play than Dean being uncomfortable with someone else knowing what’s to come; he’s rejecting the idea that at base he is himself somehow fictional, that his life and memories are false.

Perhaps we can relate to this ourselves. While we’re not fictional a characters (though I do remember having some really bad dreams as a kid in which I was simply a doll being controlled by a giant), some parts of our conception of ourselves are fictional. Most notably, we have our own false memories. When we consider our past experiences, we are very much affected by the retellings of others. Even those memories which seem to us to be most vivid are often somewhat variable. I’m not going to go into this too much because it’s complicated, but there’s an explanation of this phenomenon here.

On some level, this is also arises within Cat’s Cradle as Newt Hoenikker tries to retell his memories of the day the bomb was dropped. he notes that he was very young at the time and, furthermore, that even his most vivid memories have been affected by those around him. He even states that the day has been redescribed to him as he says, “My sister Angela has told me many times that I really hurt my father that day when I wouldn’t admire the Cat’s Cradle” (Vonnegut 13). Perhaps Newt’s memories are just as false or affected as those Dean and those of all of us are. Further, as Newt describes his recollections, he leaves them to again be reinterpreted and, thus, at least partially transformed by an author.  

The Importance of Deception

When we read books, we have a peculiar relationship with the author.  We are in his or her hands as they give us the story as crafted by them.  We are basically on a roller coaster; guided by where the author chooses to take us. When I read, I put a lot of trust in what the author is saying because I have an assumption that the piece of literature is worth hearing and I am being treated respectfully by the author.

In An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, the dynamic is different.  There is much deception going on in the last third of the book.  We are challenged on two levels.  One is the basic understanding of the plot.  The second is in the way we are also challenged to think critically on the relationship between the author and the reader.  The author clearly has control of where the story goes, but often will not draw attention to this fact.  Once again, there is definitely an assumption made by the reader to have trust in an author and what they say.  Owl Creek obviously distorts this bond.  The act of purposefully deceiving the reader over text is both shocking and definitely acknowledging the fact that the reader is reading an author's story.  Owl Creek is rife with this moments in which it is aware of itself, including the section that was mentioned in class in which the story says,  

"As these thoughts, which have here to be set down in words, were
flashed into the doomed man's brain rather than evolved from it the
captain..."

This intense awareness in literature is refreshing to the reader and helps us analyze our role in the reading process.  Should I feel betrayed by the illusion seen in the last third of the book? The breaking of my expectations does more for me than simply listing the plot ever would.  However, I feel like this works primarily due to the preexisting tropes and expectations of someone reading more classical literature would have. 

The Monster Is In Your Thoughts

I came across a tweet that says of mysterious texts, "There's a monster at the end of this book. It’s the blank page where the story ends and you're left alone with yourself and your thoughts." Its relevance to the title of the Supernatural episode we watched is worth exploring. In Supernatural, the story has two ends—one for Sam and Dean and one for us, the viewers. For Sam and Dean, the monster - the blank page - appears in the final moments of the episode, after they've left Lilith and Chuck. In the car, driving away from the horrifying motel, they're left with more questions than answers—what happens now? Why is Lilith so ready to bargain with them? Do they have free will, or can they escape what Chuck predicts about their future? There are real monsters in the show, but the metaphorical monster that looms over them in the car might be the most important. It’s the reason they're still uneasy, despite escaping with their lives; it's the reason that ending scene doesn't seem like a true ending, but more like yet another beginning.

For the viewer, the monster is less scary and more confusing. You're left wondering, what did i just watch? (Or, more often in this class, what did I just read?) The show ends and it's up to you to decide what's real. There is manipulation everywhere in the episode – Lilith manipulates Sam; God manipulates Sam, Dean, and Chuck; and in return, Sam uses Chuck to manipulate God. Who’s telling the truth? Is it Lilith, scared and trying to save her own life, telling Sam she doesn’t expect him to believe her even though she’s being honest? What about God, using Chuck to force his idea of destiny on the brothers? How about Sam and Dean, desperately trying to hold onto the idea that they can make their own choices? All these questions are the monsters that plague viewers as we try to unravel the meaning of this episode. The story ends and you cant help but think about it, think about the way you’re manipulated into caring about what happens to the characters.

SO MANY LIES

This is a course on truth, lies, and being wary of words on a page. As I read Cat’s Cradle, the following line fired synapses in my brain even as I strained my glazed eyes and tried hard not to fall asleep. “Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either” (5).

Of course, since I’d like to believe I’m smart, I read Jonah’s words and thought instantly, I understand. Vonnegut starts out with that quote to make us believe him, to make us say oh, I’m smart, I understand and I will understand this book, and squash the part of ourself that disagrees, because that’s the part that won’t understand.

But really? Should I understand? Is it plausible that so many people in San Lorenzo practice this religion of lies? Maybe. Most organized & useful religions have inconsistencies. Many useful things are founded on lies because vivid and well-explained lies are so much easier to believe than shaky and implausible truths.

Or, has that line, and that implausible group of loyal Bokononists been placed in the book to remind us that Cat’s Cradle is a work of fiction, that the whole story is founded on lies, and that it’s Vonnegut’s job to be a good enough writer that he can persuade us to believe what he says? Is that the real mindfuck? Are we being manipulated to believe in Bokononism and its followers through nice language and careful description, when in reality it is all bullshit and Vonnegut’s hoping, at some point, we will come back to that first sentence and understand?

I Don't Believe You, But I Believe Me

Regardless of the subject matter, regardless of the genre, a text in the modern world will be glimpsed through a skeptical lens by most readers. In this culture of criticism and irony, we are reluctant to suspend our disbelief, and to let art do work on us without pushing back. This episode of Supernatural cleverly employs evident self-awareness and self-deprecation in a way that disarms the would-be cynical viewers. We feel solidarity with the characters as they reflect our mentality. In our camaraderie, we find trust, and Supernatural is able to manipulate us.

            Sam and Dean stand in for us in this episode: as they “read” their own story and react to it, they voice many of our opinions and express our emotions towards the show. The more we identify with them, the more we allow them to act in our stead. They deride the fact that their lives could be pre-ordained. They are exasperated by the notion that Chuck wrote them such a tortuous and extremely adverse path. Eventually, they find Chuck, and their whole situation, absurd. We empathize with them. Or really, they empathize with us, and we feel bonded to them for it. When we hear an arch-angel might be the means of saving Sam, we are thankful rather than sardonic. When Lilith brings “real” danger to the plot, we are no longer critically detached.

            When Lilith proposed a deal with Sam to save the world, he gasps, affronted, “You expect me to believe THAT?” She counters, “No. But it’s the truth.” This exchange speaks to the mechanism of the entire episode. We look over the fantastical, contrived, Supernatural world and we take umbrage with the suggestion that we could be fooled to align with such nonsense. Lilith’s manipulative “No” is played out by Sam and Dean, who repeatedly remind us that they, like us, don’t believe a word out of Chuck’s mouth. These guys are sensible. They are like me. “…it’s the truth.” We believe you.

            

Destiny in Cat's Cradle and Supernatural

What determines destiny? Can we discern truth through free will, or are there fundamental truths written for us? The narrator in Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle uses the religion of “Bokononism” to explain almost everything that happens to him. Almost everyone he meets and interacts with is part of his “karass,” and many of his actions are determined by what we would call good luck and what he would call destiny. Similarly, Sam and Dean’s destinies are written in a prophecy from God in “The Monster at the end of this book.” The writer of the prophecy, Chuck, is able to predict every one of their actions, and it is later revealed that their actions are predetermined.

However similar theses two religious outlooks may seem, there are also important differences. Vonnegut’s concept of the karass is thus far preoccupied with people’s interactions in the mortal world. Its truths are not concerned with the afterlife, or even God himself, but rather destiny on earth. It in itself is a contradiction. A Bokononist believes that humans do not interact with God, but instead, God guides their actions through destiny. It may have been written into Bokonon’s destiny to become a profit, however, it is impossible to know one’s destiny, so it would be impossible for him to know the pillars of Bokononism without using his own imagination. He even admits that he made things up in order to make them fit and make his island home a “paradise” (127). On the other hand, in Supernatural, Sam and Dean seek truth through actual interaction with God and angels. Though God also predetermines their destinies, the truth is transparent; to be carried out by the protagonists, not found. God interacts with the human world, whereas in Vonnegut, the narrator must search for the truth within his karass. Though they may seem similar, Supernatrural and Cat’s Cradle have significant differences in their approach to truth and predetermination.