Truth Within Fiction

The best fiction, in my opinion, is not written simply to entertain. It's supposed to tell us something about ourselves or the world around us, some little truth that's easy to miss on our own. The stories might be made up, the characters might not exist in the physical world, but the truth within fiction applies to us.
The Things They Carried contains a lot of these little truths. I thought it was true the first time I read it, until I hit the part that says he made it all up. I thought O'Brien was telling his readers what war was really like, illustrating it with these crazy true stories; but once I got over the initial shock of realizing it was fiction, it didn't matter. The emotion is real, the sentiment is real. Is that what matters? That we feel something when reading a story, that it makes us realize the truth of the world?
It's like the discussion we had about the pretext in Cat's Cradle... "Nothing in this book is true." For me, it's not about the fact that Vonnegut's story is fiction, that it came from his head. It's the realization that there might be no truth in the story. You go into reading with the thought that you'll learn nothing about the world around you. "All fiction is a transmission of the truth," is a brilliant sentence I heard in Tuesday's discussion. The stories themselves are lies, but what's beneath them--emotion, the author's intent--that's real. That matters. And when Vonnegut says "Nothing in this book is true," he discounts that. He makes it seems as if he had no reason to write this book other than to entertain, when really--although Cat's Cradle fulfills that purpose--it also tells us a deeper truth about religion and science, just as The Things They Carried tells us about war.

Science vs. Reality

Despite our discussion in class on Tuesday, I am still convinced that most scientific theory is indeed fact, or at least supported enough to be considered fact. Just because a person believes that the world is flat, does not mean that that person is correct, or even sane. Facts cannot be simply refuted like an opinion, and they are by definition the truth. Vonnegut’s point in Cats Cradle is not to say that different realities contain different facts, but that individual realities are unaffected by fact. This is exemplified in Dr. Hoenikker’s interest in the string that binds the pages of 2000 A.D. rather than the book itself. He constantly plays with and manipulates the technical end of the book, the string, while completely ignoring the actual content, which can be seen as humanity. Jonah himself notes that the book he intends to write is meant to “emphasize the human rather than technical side of the bomb” (7). Here, Vonnegut introduces the separation of the content of humanity from the truths of science. This is an important distinction because it separates reality from fact without having to make such rash statements like, “science is not fact.”

Many theories are yet to be proven, and science is, of course, not perfect. We are always improving the limits of our knowledge. However, Vonnegut does not aim to question the truth of science in Cat’s Cradle. Rather, he poses a question: does it even matter?

Religion vs. Science

The point that was brought up in class yesterday that "science is not facts" threw a lot of us for a loop. I think that was the first time in my life that I have ever considered science as a theory rather than hard facts, and it was hard for me to comprehend the idea but after embracing the idea it made a lot of sense. In the seventeenth century, people were positive that the world was flat. It was a concrete fact. Today, we know that that "fact" is not true and we are positive that the world is round. In 300 years there will probably be some new kind of information that is positive that the world is                  . Whatever that new fact may be doesn't matter. What matters is that these facts, although they are facts, can turn out to be false. And just because a fact is published in a science magazine or the Smithsonian doesn't necessarily mean it is and forever will be 100% true.
Religion, in my opinion, is kind of the same. Although there are not hard facts, no concrete evidence of events or ideas, people still believe in it. Like science, religion changes day to day. People reinterpret ideas from the Bible or other Holy books, just like facts continue to change in textbooks. Either way, the two "theories" are upheld because people believe in them. Religion is upheld because people believe in some higher power. Science is upheld because people believe in scientists. I believe the two opposites are much closer together than we think.

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right, But Do Two Books of Lies Make a Truth?

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."

Distorted Views

As children we all grow up learning certain things, accepting most of them to be true. We rarely question what we are being taught, and seldom try to come up with our own radical ideas. We accept the accepted and move on. So many beliefs and ideas in our society rely on our acceptance and faith to exist. This idea of reliance became clear to me while analyzing Cat’s Cradle.

The story Vonnegut wrote primarily deals with the topic of religion: the idea that religion is constructed to make us happy. We, as humans, need to have something to believe in. We use religion to define good and bad, right and wrong, when really how do we know any of what we believe in is actually true? It would be impossible to prove that each religion is right, so instead we have faith that what we think, is correct. We are satisfied believing what we have been taught. Consequently, without this devotion to the unknown, religion would be nonexistent.

“Little Newt snorted. ‘Religion!’ ‘Beg your pardon?’ Castle said. ‘See the cat?’ asked Newt. ‘See the cradle?’” (Vonnegut 183)

If we, as people, don’t believe in something, then it doesn’t necessarily exist: in our own world at least. This holds true for the metaphor of the cat’s cradle. If you are unwilling to try and see the cat’s cradle in the string, then there is no way you will ever believe that it is there. On the other hand, if you have been told to look for a cat’s cradle, then it becomes easier to distort what you are looking at into what you now view as the “right answer”.

How to do Cat's Cradle AND the next move we couldn't figure out

http://www.wikihow.com/Play-The-Cat's-Cradle-Game

Mud

In Cat's Cradle, mud is both man's downfall and its origin. Looking back, it's easy to pinpoint the initial idea that ultimately ended the world: "The absence of mud. No more mud" (Vonnegut 43). The marines asked for a way to turn mud solid, and Hoenikker's mind went off like a shot. This short-sighted request from a general is what sparked Hoenikker's imagination and led to the creation of ice-nine.

When I first read that passage, I thought the "stinking miasma and ooze" (47) that the general complained of would be mentioned only once. I figured it was a one-time symbol of man's carelessness,  a tongue-in-cheek comment about how any seemingly inconsequential thing can mean the end of the world. But Bokonon incorporates mud into the fundamental mythology of his religion. Bokononism has no Adam and Eve. Instead, "God said, 'Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done'" (265). We are the mud. By destroying the mud, ice-nine destroys humanity.

In class, we talked about how a cat's cradle represents the dynamic tension between science and religion, with each half needed to uphold the other. Mud is yet another way in which Vonnegut weaves this idea into the book. It creates a closed loop: the world began in mud and ended because of its absence. Bokononism's origin story fits neatly into place beside science's apocalypse. And so, in typical Vonnegut fashion, life on planet Earth comes to a screeching halt with perfect poetic justice.

Eat Protein at Every Meal

…“He [Dr. Breed] said science was going to discover the basic secret of life someday,” the bartender put in. He scratched his head and frowned. “Didn’t I read in the paper the other day where they’d finally found out what it was?”

            “I missed that,” I murmured.

            “I saw that,” said Sandra. “About two days ago.”

            “That’s right,” said the bartender.

            “What is the secret of life?” I asked.

            ”I forget,” said Sandra.

            “Protein,” the bartender declared. “They found out something about protein.”

            “Yeah,” said Sandra, “that’s it.”

*Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle, page 25.

“The basic secret of life.” We all seek the answer to that question when pondering about our world. We make speculations, doubt common “truths” and attend college to become “critical thinkers” and learn to analyze everything that comes our way. Some people even dedicate their entire lives looking for an answer, apparently hoping to reach some deeper understanding of their existence as human beings, seeking for meaning. And here, in Vonnegut’s book Cat’s Cradle, there is an answer, protein. Simpler and more concise than what one might expect but still an answer to what is probably one of the most sought out answers and the presumed basis to revealing all that is unknown. Yet, the bartender and Sandra mention this discovery offhandedly, days after they have learned of it, and our protagonist has not even heard of it.

Not only do the characters disregard this discovery but so too does Vonnegut. He chose to include the basic secret of life as a side note in the plot. The bearers of it are a bartender (who’s name we do not even know) and a prostitute named Sandra, who deliver it at a hotel bar in Ilium, a secondary checkpoint in the plot. The chapter ends abruptly with this one-time ‘side note’ and carried by characters who will not reappear in the novel. Shouldn’t the basic secret of life be a main piece in the plot line? Shouldn’t it be acknowledged or brought to us by a main character? Does Vonnegut suggest that we dismiss even the things that we value, by dismissively uttering this “basic secret of life”?

How can this supposed greatest discovery be disregarded so easily? It can be presumed that once you find this answer you are able to lay back and ‘enjoy the ride’, move on. No more questions, no more doubts, no more research (no more college.) All resolved, so just be present (like the pre-orientation mantra be here, now). But then, you might ask, what is next? Does Vonnegut imply that as human beings we are doomed never to find satisfaction in our lives because if we did we would lose our purpose and wander around aimlessly? That our nature prohibits us from acknowledging this “truth”? 

A Work of Art

Vonnegut argues that religion and science are both needed to maintain “dynamic tension” in the world.  He uses the image of the child’s game cat’s cradle to illustrate this concept.  In class we talked a lot about the word “tension” and how vital it is to keep the strings tight to keep the game alive (and the world together).  But for me, the key word is “dynamic.”

To play cat’s cradle, there needs to be two hands.  Continuing the parallel, there needs to be both science and religion to create balance in our world.  Science is often associated with the truth (and most people take it to be true), and according to Vonnegut, religion is harmless lies.  In cat’s cradle, since each hand relies on the other, that then suggests that truth depends on lies, and vice versa.  This creates a paradox.  How can a truth be based on a lie and still be true?  For the other side, if we lie about the truth, what is the point of knowing the truth in the first place?

This leads to the question of what it means to find the truth.  Vonnegut writes a book that starts with declaring itself untrue, and then tells a story about Hoenikker—a man who dedicates his life to the truth.  What does this say about the quest for truth?  That it is not only unnecessary, but also futile.  After all, if we are going to lie to ourselves about the truth eventually anyway, why know it?  Because we have to have something on which to base our lies.  There’s the paradox.

This is why “dynamic” is the key word.  What is true and what false is not clearly defined, and our fleeting definitions are always changing.  The tension comes naturally when we have two such opposing forces.  As Jonah puts it, “life [becomes] a work of art” (175) as we as individuals create our own realities to cope with the dynamic uncertainty.

All the World is a Stage

A device which stands out in Cat’s Cradle is the emphasis on theatre as a metaphor for life. This idea was introduced to man long before Vonnegut’s time, but it is exemplified in the novel. At a certain moment in the text, this metaphor is explicitly defined. The quote reads “As the living legend of the cruel tyrant in the city and the gentle holy man in the jungle grew, so, too, did the happiness of the people grow. They were all employed as full time actors in a play they understood, that any human being anywhere could understand and applaud.” (p. 175)

 At this moment then, it is established that all San Lorenzans are in a drama company constantly portraying a battle between good (Bokonon) and evil (McCabe). Good v. evil is a theme as old in theatre as in literature. But if Bokonon and McCabe are the principle actors and the San Lorenzans are the ensemble, who is the director? Bokononists would say “God”. I would say “God” as well. The metaphor that is presented not only shows the insincerity of the lives of Bokonon and McCabe, it also promotes the ideas of Bokononism. God controls the play, God controls everything. People believe what they see, and, in San Lorenzo, they see a play that is the work of God.

The Perks of Believing Lies

Throughout the whole novel Jonah explains that he is a Bokononist; yet he also constantly reminds the reader that Bokononism is merely a series of “bittersweet lies” (2). So why then, after having lived through the apocalypse as a member of the Christian faith, does he suddenly exchange his religion in favor of one that he knows to be untrue?

It seems to me that Vonnegut creates this inconsistency on purpose, using Jonah's acceptance of Bokononism to comment on the utility of contrived religion. After watching the effective end of the world, it would be easy to understand why Jonah would turn to atheism—in the face of hardship and disaster (or in this case, the apocalypse), it becomes harder and harder to believe in a loyal and just God. However, Jonah does not turn away from spirituality entirely, rather he picks up on a religion that he knows is completely false. At the end of the novel Jonah meets, who we assume is, Bokonon. Bokonon effectively tells Jonah that there is no God, no wampeter around which people's destiny revolves. Even still, months (years?) later when Jonah writes his novel, he still has faith.

So if Jonah recognizes that his religion is a lie, then he is self-aware: he understands that his beliefs are unfounded, yet he chooses to believe them anyway. I think that this ties into what we were talking about last class when we said that a piece of Vonnegut's commentary on religion is that being religious includes being aware of the artificiality of religion. Jonah has faith, which allows him something to believe in (a very powerful mechanism in and of itself), but he is also cognizant that his faith is not equated with the truth. This labyrinthine mode of being aware of the lies he tells himself allows Jonah to do what Newt couldn't: he is able to see the cat and see the cradle. In other words, by understanding that science and religion are human constructs rather than exhibitions of fact, Jonah is able to derive meaning from his life at his own accord—after all, the perks of believing in a made-up religion is that you get to make up whatever you believe in.

Jonah's Cradle

In class we focused on the phrase Bokononists say right before they commit suicide: “now I will destroy the whole world” (238). This quote applies to Jonah’s story as it fits into the template of the hero’s journey. As soon as Jonah seizes power, and ascends the throne both metaphorically and physically to the “uppermost battlement of the castle” (226), the glamour of ruling San Lorenzo starts to fade for him. Jonah’s reached the end of his quest. He has an entire island to rule, and will marry Mona, the woman he’s been lusting for since arriving in San Lorenzo. Despite Jonah’s incredulity that it was so easy for him to become President of San Lorenzo, the island seems lackluster now that it’s his. He says, “I looked out at my guests, my servants, my cliff, and my lukewarm sea” (226).

Jonah is free to stop striving and let his fingers to slacken on the Cat’s Cradle. As he does that, the world ends, just as a real cradle would fold. At the moment his hero’s journey is completed, at the moment he stops working to progress, what he’s won seems less worthwhile than before. The world ends both because it can’t keep moving without a desire for progress, whether that progress is “true” or constructed, and also because it is no longer necessary to serve as a backdrop to Jonah’s story. Jonah, as the author, has the fate of the world in his hands. Without the previous tension inside him (lust for Mona and desire for power), the Cat’s Cradle can’t exist. Now that Jonah’s written all he wants of the story, he can become complacent and allow the ice-nine to creep in.

Changing Connotations

               For some reason, a reason I never questioned until now, the word "lie" has a terrible connotation. Children, from a young age, are encouraged to use their imaginations, but are scolded when they lie. They are told that lying will get them tangled up in a web that will only get them into trouble. Of course, there are some things that one should always be truthful about; things that, if they are lied about, will harm others. But, as Bokononism depicts, if the lies are used to make everyone happy, are they really bad?
             The Cat's Cradle, a children's game that is played with string, loses it's meaning without lies or imagination. Without imposing the meaning of the cat in the string "cradle," there is no real reason to keep tension in the string, and the game falls apart. In a similar way, lies can give meaning to a meaningless life. They can camouflage misery and hopelessness, and make people feel genuinely happy. Bokononism uses lies to complete exactly this task, and although everyone is aware that the religion is constructed to do this, it doesn't matter because they are all happy with the outcome. Creating this alternate, personal reality is harmless, and only does good for the otherwise miserable people of San Lorenzo.
            Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle has, for me, changed the connotation of lying from something entirely negative, to something that can actually be very positive and helpful. If living in a constructed reality can make a population content, then why not construct this reality? In the end, when you are on your deathbed, none of the lies you told yourself throughout your life will matter. When a Bokononist commits suicide he or she says "Now I will destroy the whole world." (Vonnegut, 238) Although in the context of Papa Monzano's death the world is actually destroyed, this statement usually describes destroying one's own world; his or her personal reality. Even when this reality is destroyed, others' realities still remain intact. Therefore, lying to oneself in order to turn a miserable situation into a happy one is not harming anyone, it is only helping.
             

"She loves me." "She loves me not."

I find the idea of Bokononism in Cat's Cradle to be interesting.  Essentially, in Bokononism, there are teachings, exercises, and doctrines that are all 'fomas', or  lies that are relatively harmless in life.  It's interesting how open Bokononism is about itself, however (reminds me a bit of some of the segments on metafiction based on how "aware of itself" Bokononism is), specifically with how it is explicitly stated how it is built of lies.  Any conscious person should have a red flag set off at that point.  How can so many people simultaneously believe in something that is stated to be a lie?  Can one person sincerely believe in two conflicting thoughts at the same time?  It sounded very reminiscent of "doublethink" from 1984 to me, which essentially is holding two beliefs that contradict each other in order to fill some purpose.  In 1984, the act of doublethink seemed to be an appeasement to group mentality and government.  In Bokononism, however, this is more of a nod to how humans live.   The religion is completely aware of human suffering and need for human connection and thus is a construct providing both.  If untruthfulness is equated with meaninglessness, then Bokononism ideals are entirely devoid of true realistic meaning.  And yet, to be a Bokononist like so many, this has to be acknowledged.   

I think there are definitely thoughts and ideas that we subconsciously know are inaccurate or not consistent with reality.  "Hope for the Future", "Trust", and "Love" comes to mind as primary examples of this.  Like the San Lorenzans, this helps us cope with our lives, and is why we can paradoxically believe two opposing facts at once.