Cat’s Cradle is anything but the simple story of a man writing a book about a bombing. Vonnegut weaves social stereotypes, humanity’s flaws, and the truth of religion and science into his satirical view on the madness of mankind.
Much of the seminar was focused around what Vonnegut was trying to say about religion. The group ultimately concluded that Cat’s Cradle was Vonnegut’s way to critique that of which humans have decided is the answer to the bigger questions in life. Many people thought he was mocking, or even poking fun at religion. I think Cat’s Cradle shows how amazed Vonnegut is with mankind. He seems like a humanist that is enthralled with picking apart the social dynamics and driving forces of the human race. To me, the book was a way for Vonnegut to question humanity’s obsession with a larger force. There is no evidence to show that Vonnegut was religious, but the fact that he was able to make up an entire religion shows that he was very knowledgeable on the subject. The connection that Vonnegut thought up both Bokononism and ice-nine made me wonder what his purpose in this was in writing about book based on two completely fake ideas. Vonnegut may be trying to reveal that the things we look to to answer our questions, religion and science, are made up. Bokononism and ice-nine may be just as real as Christianity and black holes. Religion is based on a faith that was written down and passed on through generations. Science is humanity’s attempt at explaining our complex world. Ultimately, I think Vonnegut is outlining humanities stupidity. Both science and religion are a reach to calm our need to know. Vonnegut is interested in man’s desire to understand, fundamentally though, we will never have all the answers. In this sense, religion and science become rather discredited.
To add, we questioned the title of the book. What does cat’s cradle have to do with the book? The title seemed very irrelevant to the book until I realized this was the entire purpose. “See the cat? See the cradle?” (Vonnegut 224). Cat’s cradle is a simple game made from string yet nothing in the game has to do with a cat or a cradle. The name is conjured without reason. Vonnegut used this to his advantage when he writes about religion and science. He is saying that we conjure these things from nothing. If they answer our questions but are not proven to be real, are they worthwhile? Vonnegut would say yes.
It is not the truth of the matter that defines its value: “Live by the foma that makes you brave and kind and healthy and happy”(Prologue). Vonnegut believes happiness is more important than truth. I think man has a hard time with this concept because he doesn’t realize this is exactly what science and religion are. When they are put into these terms, the entire idea is changed. Vonnegut supports this idea because as of the present, we have no other option. We grasp onto the idea of science and religion as a way to ground ourselves. The untruth of it should not matter because science and religion are the best thing we have to understand our world.
In the time Vonnegut wrote Cat’s Cradle, truth was a very talked about subject. World War II was ended with the atomic bomb, but the Cold War began soon after. People were concerned with the war, the bombs, and nuclear power. Nothing was very clear or simple at this point in time. I think Cat’s Cradle was a reaction to much of what was going on at the time. Cat’s Cradle has themes relating to the weapon and technology race (ice-nine), propaganda wars (Bokononism ban and threat of the Hook), and nuclear power (bombing of Hiroshima). Vonnegut may be trying to make a point about the untruth of the time. Bokonon’s philosophical freedom that allows lies in place of the horrors of reality may have been constructed by the complexity of the reality of the time period. Vonnegut decided to show that no man cannot believe something to be 100% real without a little bit of delusion.
After the seminar I was still confused on how the bombing relates to the second half of the book. What was Vonnegut’s reason for including it? I think it is possible that Vonnegut was trying to bridge a connection between religion and science but putting the Hoenikker siblings in a science-driven and then religion-driven situation. Science and religion then circle back around in the end of the book when ice-nine destroys the world. I think this could be the symbolic bombing of religion. My other question is what does Mona symbolize? I think she may have been a symbol for humanity’s stupidity. She was the exact definition of a follower. She never questioned the rules or if her faith was legitimate. Vonnegut may be using Mona to outline one of humanity’s flaws.
Choice Project- Picture Artist Statement
Even though it relies on belief without proof, religion satisfies humanity’s need for an answer to the bigger questions about the world we live in.
In Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, religion and science are interwoven to show just how similar they really are. Both try to explain how the world works, and humanity’s purpose on earth. The interesting thing about both these concepts is the fact that human’s created them. Man has a need for knowledge and closure. Science and religion give us this yet, neither of them are proven to be “correct”. It is fairly amazing to me that humans are okay with this fact. If we are happy, the value of truth seems to decrease. Vonnegut emphasizes this with his made up religion of Bokononism that functions off lies that make reality more bearable.
The idea for my piece was based around the idea of lies powering society, like in Bokonon religion. I incorporated the quote to show the irony of living by something conjured from our imagination. The feet relate to the Bokononist belief that placing feet sole-to-sole create a connection between people. Wrapped around the feet is the string game, Cat’s Cradle. This symbolizes the lies the hold together how humans view the world. The quote and sketch of feet juxtapose each other in style, but ultimately work off each other to show the relationship between religion and science. I wanted these too things to be very related in some ways yet very separate in others. They are forced together in this piece just as they are forced together in the world.
When I decided to do an art piece I really wanted to do a surrealist piece. Vonnegut seems to twist time and space so a surrealist style seemed fitting. I also wanted to incorporate religion because that is a central theme of book. The idea of how Bokononism circulates around white lies was also interesting. Religion and lies are both abstract ideas so it took me a while to figure out how to incorporate them into my piece. I think the quote really pulls the whole piece together and gives it some context. I also wanted to put two contrasting things together. The style of the quote versus the sketch are a reflection of the dysfunctional society that Vonnegut portrays. Vonnegut is known for his skewed reality plots so that is what I tried to reflect in this piece.
The Monkey Wrench Gang- Edward Abby
Seminar Reflection:
Environmentalism is selfish. This is a concept I had never really pondered before. At first I was fairly taken aback by the idea. How can something so positive be seen as selfish? People continued to state opinions about how environmentalists are ultimately trying to save the environment for their own sake. Once environmentalism is put in that context, the selfish aspect of it totally makes sense. At first glance, saving the environment seems like a very selfless act. In reality though, every single effort to preserve or sustain the environment is for the benefit of humans. The environment doesn’t have feelings that need to be nurtured or taken into consideration. Humans are the ones who truly care and are working to make their own lives better. This concept almost makes me feel guilty for wanting to save the environment. How can this action be turned into selfless work? I think involving other organisms or animals and thinking about the later generations is a solution.
Where the actions taken by the Monkey Wrench Gang actually beneficial to their cause?
I believe that there is a place for both the policy makers and the destructionists when it comes to making a stand environmentally. During the time that the book was written, environmentalism was very new. The destruction route was very impactful while the movement was gaining momentum. I have two problems with this route though. First, the people participating in it seemed very rash in their actions: “‘Bulldozers… Better check them out… this won’t take long.’ ‘You always say that. And then you disappear for seven days.’ ‘ Bulldozers,’ he muttered hoarsely, eyes glittering, ‘It’s our duty,’” (317). Hayduke decided on the mindset that it was his duty to destroy the industry, but in reality, I don’t believe he truly knows why he is doing it. Rash actions are a result of his undefined purpose. This is also problematic when the followers are not comfortable with acting impulsively. This tears apart the group and also decreases the effectiveness of the crusade.
To add, I wonder if the public understood the gang’s intended message. I think the rash actions and seemingly random attacks could come off as vandalism instead of an environmental movement. This act of defiance: “The bulldozer sank into the darkness of the cold subsurface waters...Sand and stone trickled for another minute from the cliff. That ceased… ‘Let’s get out of here!’ Smith called,” (128), could be seen as many different things. The fact the gang destroys things and leaves does not seem beneficial to their cause. I think once Hayduke begins leaving his ‘Rudolf the Red’ slogan, their campaign picks up speed and recognition. The destructive acts could have been any number of different groups, but the name ties them all together. It also gives the public and media something to hold on to and talk about.
I really enjoyed reading this book and being able to picture where the scenes were taking place. I think I was also able to have a deeper connection to the people because I am familiar with the culture. I have never read a book where I could directly picture where they were so that made everything more relatable and realistic.
Was Abby trying to inspire people to take action and if so, why did he chose to write about characters that were a little crazy?
I think Abby was trying to inspire a movement. His environmental ethic really sticks out. The story almost seemed too fantastical to be a persuasive work, but I think he was targeting a certain group of people. I think the take action type would be very turned on by the ideas in this book.
Choice Project: Poem Cliff
Bottled up in thoughts you hear the pulse of destruction on the brink. Raw and pure you know an ocean must part- seaweed and all, In order for a simple, world altering, success to be accomplished, And deep down you know that everyone should desire this triumph, But for some reason, that is not the case.
How can humanity be so utterly ignorant to the facts facing them? How can humanity be so utterly stupid?
You feel you must act now, there is no time to think, only act. The energy bottled up in your soul reaches a boiling point. Destruction teeters on the cliff, will it tip downwards to the depths of chaos, Or will it teeter some more until a goal is set and eyes are watching?
Artist Statement:
Since humanity always has the desire to fix things, we sometimes act rashly in an effort to make change quickly. In the novel, Hayduke has a strong desire to save the environment but his motivation behind it seems lost. I think deep down he really does want to do good and he sees a problem that needs solving, but ends up approaching it in the wrong way. He definitely chooses the extremist route and because of that his end goal gets lost. His rash actions ultimately send him down a path of destruction instead of success.
In this piece I really wanted to outline one of humanity’s flaws. We get so caught up in moment that it the end goal becomes lost. Humanity always needs to be innovating, changing, and bettering everything and I believe that sometimes we need to take a step back from the cliff. It is much easier to slip into destruction when we act rashly. I really tried to use some figurative language to reflect how Abby writes, but I also wanted it to be a little choppy to represent the dysfunction of the characters in the novel. I also decided to use second person to inspire the reader to act. Abby does a similar thing in the Monkey Wrench Gang and I think by speaking directly to the reader the message comes across fairly easily.
Hayduke’s character was my main influence for this piece. I think he reflects humanity’s flaws well, even though he believes he is doing the right thing. He has been though a lot of trauma just like so many Americans but he ultimately wants to do good. Unfortunately though, his motivation is not specific enough to truly have a path to walk down and a destination to reach.
Their Eyes Were Watching God - Zora Neale Hurston
Seminar Reflection: During the seminar, I was surprised by people’s reactions to the critiques we read. I agreed with many of the things Richard Wright claimed about the novel, while some of my classmates agreed more with Keiko Dilbeck’s critique. I felt like the book really didn’t have much a of plot. Janie’s life revolved around men without much of a story to go along with it. I also agree with Wright in that Hurston used the dialect as her plot. Although she does a wonderful job at showcasing an insider view on the black population's life, dialect can in no way be a substitution for plot. My classmates countered this point with the argument that Hurston’s story is supported by symbolism. Although I agree there is some symbolism, it is not apparent or substantial enough to carry a story without a plot. In addition, no symbolism jumped out at me while reading the book. Once I took time to think back on the book I was able to come up with a few examples of symbols but none that really carried throughout the entire book. I think Hurston could have been more successful if she would have made her symbols much more substantial and impactful to the story, or created an legitimate plot that doesn’t coast on dialect.
At first glance, I felt like this book did not support women rights. Janie seemed to let her husbands control much of her life. I think her grandma’s ideology about marriage could have also had an affect on this: “Yeah, Janie, youse got yo’ womanhood on yuh. So Ah mout ez well tell yah whut Ah been savin up for uh spell. Ah wants to see you married right away,” (Hurston 12). Her grandma believes that it is a women’s duty to get married and as a result of that she marries Janie off at a young age. In addition to that, Janie does not seem like a hero figure. She does not do any crazy or rebellious actions or impact all that much in the story. Based on that evidence, the book does not take shape as a women empowerment book. Through the seminar though, I realized I was wrong.
The time period of the book is the most important factor in the substantiality of the promotion of women's rights. When Janie’s action are put into historical context, she actually is a very rebellious and bold character. Once I was aware of this, I was able to see many examples of this book supporting women empowerment and rights. Janie’s life is actually full of bold moves. Starting from her first kiss, to leaving Logan, to marrying Tea Cake, to finally killing Tea Cake, Janie continually defies societal norms. The other women in the book are living the life that Janie’s grandmother envisioned for her. Janie is really is the only character that tests stereotypes in a black society. In addition, Hurston decides to end the book with Janie being alone. I think she was trying to outline the possibility of independence and self-sufficiency of a woman.
I connected this book to the societal power pyramid that we still live in today. This pyramid can take shape in many different ways but I thought it was interesting that Their Eyes Were Watching God tackles both the race and gender pyramid. Although whites do not play a huge role in the book, the situation the characters are in is a result of white action. As for gender, Janie is an outlier among women.
One of the questions I still have is: why did Hurston decided to leave the white race out of the majority of the book? I was kind of surprised by this because I think white people did affect black societies. She may have done this because she wanted to focus on how black culture works without other races involved. Hurston really does dive into the complexities of a black civilization and maybe she felt the involvement of whites would take away from this.
Honors Book Club Semester Reflection
The Honors Book Club consisted of a group of about ten students who read three books of literary merit over the course of the semester. The books we read were Cat’s Cradle, The Monkey Wrench Gang, and Their Eyes Were Watching God. For each book we were assigned to complete seminar prep, a group seminar, a seminar reflection, and a choice project that could take form as a poem, a picture, or a literary analysis. For Cat’s Cradle, I chose to make an abstract drawing that centered around the theme of the unknown. For our second book, The Monkey Wrench Gang, I wrote a poem about our world balancing on the brink of destruction. Finally, for Their Eyes Were Watching God, we were not assigned to do a choice project but I decided to make my seminar reflection a little bit like a literary analysis.
The book that impacted me most was Cat’s Cradle. This book is anything but the simple story of a man writing a book about a bombing. Vonnegut weaves social stereotypes, humanity’s flaws, and the truth of religion and science into his satirical view on the madness of mankind. I am still confused by a lot of this book. The complexities of Vonnegut’s view on the world was a whole new perspective for me. It really made me question my existence on this earth and how that relates to the circular nature of science and religion. Before I read Cat’s Cradle, I had always felt like science and religion contradicted each other. This book reveal how much they have in common and how they both are humanity's attempt to explain the world.
During the last semester, I think the book club expanded my perspective in many ways. Each of the books offered new views on issues that we are still dealing with in the world today. I think I have a much broader sense of these issues and am able to think critically, critique, and inquire about them on a higher level. At the beginning of the semester I really had to step up my thought process and put in more time then I was used to to get all that I could out of the books. This was challenging at first but I felt myself become much more comfortable about it as the semester progressed. In addition to this, balancing my normal classwork along with my honors work definitely took some time to get used to. By the last book I felt like I successfully managed my time and completed my work without being over stressed. Overall, I gained a ton of new knowledge on a range of subjects and also immensely expanded my perspective. I am so glad I decided to join honors this semester and it has inspired me to read books similar to those I read this semester.