We’ve seen in each of our books so
far that the use of trivial seriousness and serious triviality has been a
common theme. I wanted to further look into Vonnegut’s use of this theme near
the end of the story.
Throughout Cat’s Cradle, Kurt
Vonnegut constantly points out the superficial human need to find a purpose in
existence. Here we see once again, the use of something serious as a trivial
piece of satire. Bokononism stands in as
a sort of religion that people look to in order to find meaning, yet in the
very first book of Bokonon, it tells the reader to “Close this book at once! It
is nothing but foma!”, which “of course, are lies” (265). Vonnegut implies that humans are so
trivial to look at these “lies” in our seeking of things so serious as purpose
and meaning. He criticizes our choice to look at the Bible as an answer in
order to feel a sense of meaning and importance because even something so
serious and common as the Bible is hardly proven to be true.
Vonnegut continues on to further satirize
human beings and prove that we, as human beings simply have no purpose at all.
Vonnegut parallels the ice-nine flood with God’s flooding of the earth in the
book of Genesis. Vonnegut chooses to use such a petty instrument like ice-nine
to flood the earth and further kill off humanity in order to petty human
existence and the great flood in the first place. By choosing the modest means
of ice-nine, a small little seed, to wipe out humankind, he implies that human existence was
something unimportant in the first place. Vonnegut expresses this sense of unimportance through
reactions like Hazel’s who states, “it’s no use crying over spilt milk”, in reference to the spillage of ice-nine, and
Mona’s which is a simple laugh at the occurrence.
In closing, Kurt Vonnegut is
attempting to make us better. While his argument might seem unpopular, it is worth
giving a second thought to what we base our purpose and existence on.
I like what you mention here about the truth/lies in the bible (and in all religion). It's very interesting when we look at how John mentions over and over again how religion is all lies to make people feel better. In fact, Papa is a Bokononist exclusively because he agrees that it is all a lie. You mention that he (Vonnegut) criticizes our reliance on lies. However, I wonder why he does this (I do agree that he is satirizing this tendency in humans). Because this book is first and foremost criticizing science, and thus the pursuit of "truth" at the expense of others, it is interesting that he is also satirizing our desire for an easy way to understand and explain the world.
ReplyDeleteI like your idea that Vonnegut tries to prove that human beings have no purpose at all, but I want to take that in a slightly different direction to say that human beings have no power at all, with respect to nature. In our present day society, humans must adapt to the surroundings (be it weather or natural disasters), and they have no control over the course of events. For example, through a hurricane, all we can do is evacuate and hide until nature's balance is restored. With the use of ice-nine and the apocalypse, I think Vonnegut tries to show, literally, that if we try to change nature, we will not succeed. Figuratively, I think he demonstrates that altering the natural order of things will not end in our favor.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Vonnegut is trying to comment that humans have no purpose at all, but rather for us to create our own meaning. I think Vonnegut, with the end of the novel, offers commentary on those who would have others (or external institutions/ideologies) create meaning for them. This is demonstrated in the followers of Bokonon, who listen to his command to take ice-9 (thus prompting their rather immediate demise), and in Frank's retreat from the human consequences of his actions, instead focusing only on the bare scientific phenomenon of what he has done. Frank's experiment solves "the mystery of how ants could live in a waterless world," yet completely ignores the fact that he created a waterless world, wiping out nearly all life on the planet.
ReplyDeleteI meant to say in my first sentence that Vonnegut rather wants each individual to create his or her own meaning in life (a rather existentialist outlook).
DeleteI think it's a great point that both science and religion are being ridiculed and satirized in the novel as feeble attempts to "explain the world." There is great juxtaposition between Bokononism and science and other religions, in that Bokononism encourages people to recognize the lies rather than believe them in blind faith, but there is also a distinct parallel between the two seemingly opposite ideas: they are both man-made explanations. The scientific account of the world's creation has been compiled by centuries of researchers--researchers much like those at the lab where Dr. Hoenikker worked. Additionally, the Bible wasn't written in God's hand--prophets, humans, wrote the text, and most of these writers were telling of their own experiences, not necessarily taking down notes from God's dictation like a member of the Girl Pool. Bokononism is a man-made explanation of the world in its rawest form, a religion that receives new, often contradictory edits at random. All these explanations give form and reason to the world, but only one, Bokononism, recognizes the fact that they are put in place not to tell truth but to put man at ease with his place on the Earth. The use of the ice-nine, a man-made alteration of nature, to essentially destroy the planet in a mirroring of the great biblical flood further lends to the idea that because science and religion are often used as false (according to Vonnegut) means to explain the world, they will ultimately cause its destruction.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Nicky that Vonnegut is not making such a fatalistic statement that humans have no purpose in life, as this is a humorous, satirical novel as opposed to, say a tragedy. Vonnegut's message is one of caution, defeat. What I mean by this is that I believe that he believes that the way the world is going, the polarization of science, religion, and societal ignorance are all contributing to us losing compassion and interest in other people, whether as a result of willful ignorance or the dehumanization of our relationships and problems with other people. This is not to say that the human race is doomed to collapse, but rather that people need to quickly address the worrying trend of complacency and blind trust in authority that causes even the people in charge to be drowned out in the "system."
ReplyDeleteAwesome post, Willy - thanks so much!
ReplyDeleteThe serious versus trivial idea with religion and Bokononism definitely brings us back to the question about Bokononism being satire. By directly telling us that Bokononism is a pack of foma,* the audience is invited to become the satirists. When God says, "Then I leave it to you to think of [a purpose for all this]," he gives power and responsibility to the humans. This is not a common idea in religion, yet the idea resonates with people, and we buy into the satire.
*How cool is it that Vonnegut's notice at the beginning of the book is the foma quote, already inviting us to be satirists. Also, the book concludes along with the Final Book of Bokononism...how metaphysical!
I think your idea that "he implies that human existence was something unimportant in the first place" is true, especially when looking at the Bokonist final ritual (pages 220-222). People are just mud with amazing memories, which makes the premise of ice-nine all the more ironic: to take care of the mud problem, and in doing so, kill all life on earth. We also see the unimportance of human existence in the lack of importance or meaning in the death of the San Lorenzens. They choose to die based on lies, and Mona laughs at their death, saying "Would you wish any of these alive again if you could?" (Vonnegut 274).
ReplyDeleteI like the idea you touched on about ice-nine being nothing but one tiny seed... I think Vonnegut wants to make the point that human existence, in its current state, is so fragile, that even one tiny little grain of something new, of something we did not believe could exist, of something unknown to most of humanity can bring us all to an end. I think it helps to satirize our willingness to be ignorant, and I think that is complimented by the other point you have made about religion. Vonnegut wants to say that in our ignorance, we happily eat up the lies that they feed us because following a religion, such as Bokononism, can be pleasant and make us think our lives have meaning even when they clearly do not.
ReplyDeleteYour mentioning of the Bible and religion reminds me of the discussions we've had in class about choice. Just as we've been saying, humans are sometimes well-aware of lies but choose to ignore them. This ignorance, however, can also be somewhat optimistic at times, such as how Bokononism's entire premise is based on bettering people's lives by telling them lies to live by. So I don't completely agree with your point that "[Vonnegut] criticizes our choice to look at the Bible as an answer in order to feel a sense of meaning and importance." The reality in San Lorenzo, even without Bokonon's lies, already lacks meaning and importance. I think Vonnegut places strong emphasis on individual choices in this book. Regarding your analysis of the comparison of humans to mud, I disagree that it shows "human beings simply have no purpose at all." Rather, just as the ice-nine destruction is caused by the separate but causal choices of a few people, I think Vonnegut is more saying that human purposes and the elimination of their purposes are created by each person's choices. When people don't make choices of their own, they become trivial and simply a part of a larger system, be it religious, scientific, or political.
ReplyDeleteGreat job Willy :)
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned before, I have found the satire of religion in this book quite fascinating. As I've been reading though, I have felt like his satire isn't against faith but against structured religious institutions. I think the contrast between the two is important. I think faith has the ability to empower a person where a a religious institution can take advantage of a person, using that empowerment as a guise of sorts. Even though it seems to lack structure at times, I think Bokonism is a satire of these institutions and doesn't entirely imply that humans should be faithless.
A running theme through many of the novels we have read is the novel itself is there to warn us not to listen to these cliches, religions, or generalizations and make our own meaning out of what we see. Cat's Cradle is a guide on how a person should attempt to live in the modern world. With commercialism and materialism growing in the 60's, massive lies are told by corporations and government to tell the people how to live. Vonnegut is warning the us to make our own purpose out of everything that the modern world has to offer. There is no single meaning, and the meaning that "the man" tells us is not necessarily true. He is essentially allowing us to be free of any constraints, and that, ultimately, is our improvement.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how it seems very disconcerting to have such a petty instrument, such as ice-nine, end up destroying humanity. Life and humanity may have no meaning, according to your interpretation of Vonnegut, and I agree this is a plausible theory; however, I don't see how Vonnegut is somehow trying to make us better through this. The idea that satire is about bettering humanity and is optimistic is an over generalization. Vonnegut doesn't prescribe any remedy to these problems, just like how many satirists don't outline specific solutions to what they satirize. They merely outline the problem, even when it may seem very fatalistic. Satire only becomes optimistic when we as readers seek to extrapolate optimism from it. Vonnegut could just as easily be saying that "we are all screwed because of these problems." The last paragraph of your post intrigues me because I don't know and am not entirely convinced that Vonnegut is "bettering us." Thus, my question is where is the optimism in Cat's Cradle?
ReplyDeleteAlong those lines, Sachin, I feel like the ending of Cat's Cradle could even be interpreted as a warning to people who greatly esteem science and try to manipulate nature in an extreme way. Beyond implying that altering the natural order will end poorly, Vonnegut, I believe, proposes that trying to interfere too much with our environment will result in the dissolution of our society - perhaps not the demise of our entire population, but a marked change. One way that I can see this applied is in our consumption of resources; by utilizing something seemingly benign, like a car, to facilitate daily life (like ice-nine would solve the mud problem for the Marines), we have used technology to improve the trivial trials we encounter - at the expense of the serious: our environment.
ReplyDeleteLike Nicky said, Vonnegut emphasizes how important individuality, and more specifically individual thought, is. Mona even reveals to us that Bokonon once remarked that he would never take his own advice.
I think that Mona's reaction to the bodies is worth some thought. Throughout the course of the novel, Mona has been presented as a somewhat detached character, but at the end of the book, we see her laugh for the first time. For me, that bridges the gap, and I feel like she has become more substantial. I also get the feeling that she has a profound understanding of what has happened, or perhaps she has just accepted this new reality, and that's a powerful choice on Vonnegut's part too.
I had tried to post this earlier this evening, when only Anisha, Sachin, and Nicky had posted, but that didn't work out. But yeah, that was the context.
Delete