There were a couple of things from the reading that struck me, so I am going to offer up a couple of ideas for all of you and hopefully at least one of them will resonate with you as well.
First is the ideas of toys and playing. As we discussed on Wednesday, Newt offers up the idea that his father never plays games, saying, "that cat's cradle was the closest I ever saw my father come to playing what anybody else would call a game" (Vonnegut 11). Along with the accounts of other people, we seem to content ourselves with the idea that Dr. Felix Hoenikker was not one for playing games of any sort. But what if "anybody else" is the key phrase here? Felix was, as proven, not interested with people (we know this both by the incidents with his children and with the people at work), but I think he was above all interested with playing games. First he became obsessed with playing with turtles, and when they were taken away, he "looked for things to play with and think about" (Vonnegut 16) and all that was around was the atomic bomb. Similarly, his office is filled with cheap toys (a paper kite, a toy gyroscope, a top, a bubble pipe, and a fish bowl), suggesting that even at work all he does is play. It is the senselessness of this playing, the use of the cheap, dollar store toys in contrast with the expensive, complex laboratory equipment, that I think attempts to satirize the idea of the scientist who searches for knowledge with no concern for its application. It is ironic that this man of "incalculable importance" could be solving problems for the military, but instead chooses to fill his office with the toys of his fancy. Vonnegut uses this idea to satirize the aimless search of knowledge to no end.
I also find what I think Vonnegut says about truth to be interesting. From the epigraph we see "Nothing in this book is true" meaning that the truth in itself is really not that important. On a side not, this reminds me of the book "The Things They Carried". For those of you that have not read it, the book is war narrative, that is revealed to be untrue. Yet, the point of telling stories that are not true is through telling lies, reality can be exposed. Anyways, from the beginning we see Vonnegut's opinion of the truth: "Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either" (Vonnegut 5-6). Furthermore, in the exchange between Miss Faust and Dr. Felix, when she responds that "God is love" is an absolute truth, Dr. Hoenikker says, "'"What is God? What is love?"'" (Vonnegut 55). I think through all of these examples Vonnegut tries to make the point that truth in itself does not suffice. Neither scientific nor religious truth are wholly, absolutely true, yet they are the truths we create to fulfill our human needs, both spiritual and otherwise.
The last idea I found interesting was the juxtaposition of Martin and Asa Breed. Obviously we are meant to compare them, as they are brothers, and it becomes clear that despite both working in the business of death (Asa in the creation of weapons of mass destruction, Martin in a tombstone shop), they respond very differently to the concept of death. Asa, being removed from the consequences of his actions, feels no remorse and instead esteems the atrocities of warfare. Martin, on the other hand, deals directly with the grief experienced by families, and is thus one of the most sympathetic characters introduced to us in the book. He understands the pain of the Hoenikker children, and while Asa highly esteems Dr. Felix, his intelligence, and his accomplishments, Martin denounces him for his selfishness, saying, "That man, who's so famous for having a great mind, he pulled that girl out of high school in her sophomore year so he could go on having some woman take care of him" (Vonnegut 71). Despite his sophisticated job, Asa appears ridiculous and ignorant when compared to his brother, whose deep understanding of grief and human relations prove him to be the most normal and likable character portrayed thus far in the book. In this instance, Vonnegut satirizes the obsession of our society with fame and money, as it pales in comparison to compassion and sympathy towards fellow human beings.
I have a very busy Thursday night so posting this now instead... hopefully this will make it easier on the rest of you as well because you now have more time to read over my post before getting your responses in by 9PM!
I think that the idea of truth that we've seen come up so much in this book is especially interesting when we consider it in the context in which Vonnegut has written in this book. As Emily showed us, Vonnegut definitely has a complex view of the merit of truth. Through his character of Bokonon, Vonnegut shows us that truth itself only has value when it serves to explain something... or at least, this is the value it has to the people it satirizes. I wonder if Vonnegut is using this to point out the greatest shortcoming of the American people: that, regardless of how horrible something (like the atom bomb?) is, they will not accept that truth because it doesn't sit well with their conscience.
ReplyDeleteI think Dr. Hoenikker's idea of a game is the pursuit of knowledge itself, but not any knowledge in particular. He sees his goal in life to find all of the random knowledge he can, even if it includes turtles or ice-nine or even the atomic bomb. He does not separate them in terms of value. Though we would consider the atomic bomb to be the most important, he considers any sort of knowledge to be equal. That's why we see him playing with turtles when he should be "working." He really is never working, as he is just attempting to find as much knowledge as he possibly can before he dies.
ReplyDeleteI think Vonnegut's use of religion is already very poignant, despite only having read the beginning of Cat's Cradle. I think he observes the ignorance that religion can create - but instead of criticizing something like the Catholic church, he instead criticizes what I think he sees as American "religions": commercialism, bureaucracy, "expert" culture, and weaponry.
ReplyDeleteFirst, this is an awesome post. 3 great arguments in one essay. Damn. Seriously though, well done! Since my work ethic pales in comparison to yours, I'm going to focus only on the paragraph regarding toys. The other topics are great though, and I think the conversation tomorrow will be very interesting! So, toys. I'm slightly irked, having not noticed the fixation on toys and their symbolism myself. These examples serve their purpose well, accentuating Hoenikker's detachment from the gravity of his creations. It is clear that Hoenikker, and by extension all scientists (or the pure-research types, at least), view their creations as transient oddities that serve as nothing more than entertainment. This ties in pretty closely to my post on Sachin's thread. Hoenikker simply seems unable to comprehend the effect his inventions have on humanity, especially the atomic bomb. They are simply trivial fancies to him! And I would agree with your statement regarding Vonnegut's intentions. I believe the text has concrete evidence (or at least the part we've read so far) supporting the satirization of the blind pursuit of science/knowledge. Perhaps this is why Bokonism is introduced into the text, as a juxtaposing force to the cold calculations of science?
ReplyDeleteThere are truths that scientists in the book care about and those that they don't. They most definitely don't care about the fact that bombs destroy things physically. Which leads me to think that they don't care at all about the results of their experiments, the truths that they create. This is why Dr.Breed doesn't care for actually creating ice-nine even though it can potentially make drastic changes to the world. On the other hand, since they are researchers, their job is to manipulate existing scientific truths. However, these manipulations are hypothetical and nonexistent unless they are proven by an existent product. So, I think the irony lies in that these scientists, who basically pay no attention to absolute truths and always seeks to change them, end up being the ones imposing the most brutal truths onto the rest of humanity.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I agree with your point that truth doesn't suffice, because Vonnegut pokes fun at the characters who live without truth, such as the Nihilist who stays at Jonah's apartment; nothing has any meaning to him, and so he becomes absurd. Likewise, Hoenikker doesn't have much of an idea of what truth is, and is too busy playing to consider such questions- which ends in thousands of deaths. However, we are also given characters like the narrator, who does have a sense of truth, though it is founded on lies, which he recognizes. Hoenikker and the Nihilist both lack truth, though their philosophy is founded on "reason." Basically, I think the author isn't saying truth doesn't suffice as much as he is reversing our ideas of what truth is.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I agree with the point that the aimless search of knowledge being satirized because that connotes that the search for knowledge is problematic. I don't think Vonnegut is condemning the search for knowledge but rather pointing out its naivety in the context of society. The toys are representative of that innocence of searching for knowledge. It seems to convey a message that knowledge isn't bad, and it wasn't necessary Hoenikker's fault for the bomb. Rather, it is society's fault for corrupting that knowledge.
ReplyDeleteThere's a line on page 11 that asks "Why should I bother with made-up games when there are so many real ones going on?" and I think that this quotation reinforces the idea that we were talking about yesterday in class about geniuses like Dr. Felix surrounded by people who don't care to seek out that higher understanding. I think that the "aimless search of knowledge" that Emily refers to is not necessarily a bad thing - I think that this pursuit frames Dr. Felix's identity as a pure intellect; unlike dilettantes who dabble as students in university, Dr. Felix is the ultimate scholar who encourages and indulges his curiosity. Often we have this low opinion of a liberal arts student, and I think that Dr. Felix's character challenges this idea in order to glorify the idea of knowledge. That he refers to the various aspects of life as "games" seems a bit cynical and dark; nothing is to be taken seriously, and for an ordinary person, normally important things like relationships and family aren't very significant. In Dr. Felix's case, however, maybe this is different - seeing as how he likes games so much.
ReplyDelete