Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle"
(I haven’t meant to avoid all things financial for this long, but in between things at home, trying to get ready for a business trip to Boston, and trying to maintain a little sanity I haven’t had much time to focus on finances.)
Has anyone else read this Vonnegut book? I’ve got several different reactions to the book and most of them are not positive. The style of writing is extremely witty and fun to read. But the underlying outlook and messages take cynicism and pessimism to high levels.
Vonnegut’s comments on science, religion, war, relationships…that is, humanity in general, walk from fatalism to nihilism in a brief fashion. I’ll only comment on his outlook on science. Little is new here—science advancing faster than our ability to ethically address what we are discovering has been covered many times before. But this isn’t just an updated “Frankenstein.” Vonnegut seems to be condemning all scientific inquiry divorced from impacts to humanity as evil. I’m rather happy about many things that have been discovered simply because someone said “What if?” Yes, there are many bad things that have been developed in this manner as well, but the factors driving their discovery weren’t always a “don’t discover = good; discover = bad” equation.
I got the feeling while reading this book that I would have enjoyed it very much while in college, but now that I’m older (trust me, I’m not claiming wiser) it has little appeal beyond the wit. Maybe one reason I’m down on it has to do with that. You can see much of Vonnegut’s personal tragedies and bad experiences reflected in these pages. A friend who is a big Vonnegut fan says I’ll probably like his later works better, and I’m more than willing to give them a try.
One other factor I couldn’t help thinking about while reading this was how badly it has aged, particularly in a post-9/11 world. I’ll be happy to discuss the book with anyone else that has read it via email, and who knows? Maybe I’ll change my mind on the work, plus I always enjoy hearing what others think about what I’m reading.
With that, I’m on to Greek tragedy. And no, I don’t know why, other than I haven’t read them.
Has anyone else read this Vonnegut book? I’ve got several different reactions to the book and most of them are not positive. The style of writing is extremely witty and fun to read. But the underlying outlook and messages take cynicism and pessimism to high levels.
Vonnegut’s comments on science, religion, war, relationships…that is, humanity in general, walk from fatalism to nihilism in a brief fashion. I’ll only comment on his outlook on science. Little is new here—science advancing faster than our ability to ethically address what we are discovering has been covered many times before. But this isn’t just an updated “Frankenstein.” Vonnegut seems to be condemning all scientific inquiry divorced from impacts to humanity as evil. I’m rather happy about many things that have been discovered simply because someone said “What if?” Yes, there are many bad things that have been developed in this manner as well, but the factors driving their discovery weren’t always a “don’t discover = good; discover = bad” equation.
I got the feeling while reading this book that I would have enjoyed it very much while in college, but now that I’m older (trust me, I’m not claiming wiser) it has little appeal beyond the wit. Maybe one reason I’m down on it has to do with that. You can see much of Vonnegut’s personal tragedies and bad experiences reflected in these pages. A friend who is a big Vonnegut fan says I’ll probably like his later works better, and I’m more than willing to give them a try.
One other factor I couldn’t help thinking about while reading this was how badly it has aged, particularly in a post-9/11 world. I’ll be happy to discuss the book with anyone else that has read it via email, and who knows? Maybe I’ll change my mind on the work, plus I always enjoy hearing what others think about what I’m reading.
With that, I’m on to Greek tragedy. And no, I don’t know why, other than I haven’t read them.
posted by Dwight at
2:33 PM
3 Comments:
I think one of the funniest parts of the book was the “science found the mystery of life years ago” joke—that people couldn’t remember the findings was spot on.
But tearing down religion, science, and society in general as contributing nothing to what it means to be human and replacing it with a “don’t worry, be happy” philosophy is a little hard for me to take. But then that describes a lot of the ‘60s so well (and its legacy). One reason I’m enjoying reading the ancient Greeks so much is that they understand human nature and don’t try to deny it or pretty it up. We are what we are.
I said the book has aged badly, but that’s not entirely true. Many of the points raised are just as relevant today (powerful weapons in the hands of madmen, science advancing before ethics, etc.). I guess it’s the outlook that I think has aged badly.
By
Dwight, at 9:24 AM
As a Vonnegut fan, I particularly love Cat's Cradle for its scathing sarcasm and profound and multifaceted criticism of humanity and American society. I think its outlook may be less common today, but I don't see it as having lost much validity. And the jokes remain terribly funny - "Someday, son, this will all be yours."
I think Vonnegut's pessimism and outrage are tempered by his respect for his characters. Vonnegut wrote in one of his later books that his father once remarked that he'd never written a story with a villain in it - and while there are a few exceptions, this is generally true. Vonnegut sees human frailty and failures as a serious threat, and sees the human ego preventing recognition of frailty and failure as an impediment to growth. This is a widely held view with reams and reams of support, of course.
Vonnegut was writing in a different era, of course - Cat's Cradle was published in 1963 - which prevents some jokes from being as accessible today. (For instance, the founder of the religion of fakery, called Bokonon on the island, has significant initials.) But the overwhelming number of topics adressed in the book's 127 chapters remain equally or even more relevant today than when originally published. I'm not sure Vonnegut is damning the scientific enterprise altogether - though this is a popular view. I see a lot of nobility and sincerity in the book's portrayal of scientists like Breedlove and Hoenniker (all the names in this book are jokes. Felix is Latin for "happy" - thus "Happy" Hoenniker). But I think Vonnegut doesn't see them as promoting universal goals and values, or even universally human goals and values - the only "scientist" who gets this level of appreciation from Vonnegut is the tragic doctor.
I'd be curious how you would compare Cat's Cradle's attitude toward science with a far more damning, satirical take in Karel Capek's (fantastic and funny) book War With the Newts. Also, I'm willing to accept that there are dated qualities to Vonnegut's 45 year old masterpiece, but if you return from your next excursion and don't see significantly more outdatedness in Greek tragedy, I'll probably question your judgment. I think you're misreading a bit if you think Vonnegut is advocating a "Don't worry, be happy" philosophy. His simple mode of writing often causes readers to attribute him having simple ideas, but I don't think this is the case. There's a lot of complexity there, which is why Vonnegut and Cat's Cradle in particular have spawned so much scholarship, and other responses - including Dave Soldier's album (released 11/20/2001) Ice-9 Ballads with Vonnegut's participation.
-Proteus
By
Anonymous, at 10:30 AM
Thanks for the comment. That’s why I enjoy writing about books here—first it makes me focus on what I read and try to get a coherent summary of that. Then I hear from people who give me more insight into the book.
I didn’t get much of Vonnegut’s respect for many of the characters. The only ones I saw that about were usually the f-ups. As for seeing human frailty as a serious threat, it seems to me he was very selective on which failures he chose to see that. Again, this is just my reaction to the book. I got the feeling a lot of this was a very shallow attempt at being deep, as well as the reflection of a misanthrope with axes to grind.
One thought did just strike me (owww). His comment on Felix being evil because he didn’t know what evil was does reflect the ultimate outcome of those proclaiming moral relevancy/equivalency today.
It’s true I oversimplified on the philosophy part, but I didn’t get much from it other than another “opiate of the masses” take on religion in general. And by dated, I mean that I didn’t see much below the surface—he was addressing many universal topics but I didn’t get the depth that others seem to receive from it. Regarding the Greeks, their questioning of what it means to be human, the struggle between competing requirements between family and state, etc. would be what I’m thinking of transcending the time.
Thanks for the comments—again, I think it’s a good book, but I just didn’t have the same reaction to it that I would have had 25 years ago. (I haven’t read the Capek book, so can’t comment on it).
By
Dwight, at 1:07 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home