Cat’s Cradle

Post under this page to leave your own comments or threads about Cat’s Cradle

12 thoughts on “Cat’s Cradle”

  1. naweeze

    First post on this bad boy! 😀

    Ok, so let’s talk about the title.

    Cat’s Cradle is string game, that the inventor of the atom bomb in the novel was playing when the bomb was dropped.

    I wanted to mention that I think it is very interesting to consider the intwined strings in the sense that the string is 1 piece, but when held properly looks like a blending of many.

    The novel satirisizes the arms race as well as peices together religion and science…. interesting, because technology science and religion, art even are all one piece, one string, but are always seperated or appear to be different..

    ↓
  2. karinatselnik

    Throughout or daily lives, religion,science, art, technology and everything else is all connected but yet has do many different meanings, just like you said. I think that one of the hardest things to do through it all is find a balance that lets you live your life in a way that you can be happy with it. Seeing how religion plays a major key role in the book, I find it really entertaining and amusing the beliefs of Bokonism, and how they are all based on real lies. But if you follow these lies than you will be a good person throughout your life. As blunt as Vonnegut puts it, one can argue, and has argued, that all religion, and or science, are all lies and yet many of us still pick out the truths and believe in it. I think that of the few books Ive read by him, Vonnegut is playing with religion here more than ever.

    ↓
    1. tonyeden Post author

      That’s a really interesting reading of religion in Cat’s Cradle. It kind of reminds me of this stand up comedian I saw last night…He was talking about his Jewish parents and how they consider themselves Orthodox because they never cook with pork in the house, yet they are totally ok with ordering in chinese food with pork or going out and eating it. In today’s modern society, I think these contradictions become so very prevalent because of scientific ramifications and in many cases, convenience. Why then, do people who say they are religious contradict themselves in their actions nowadays, yet continue to hold onto certain values of said religion? Is this a type of religious evolution? Is this the type of religious contradiction the Kurt is trying to advocate by stating that religion is based in lies?

      ↓
      1. alexellingboe

        Religion provides comfort for many people. I believe that is why many people hold onto it so ardently and, perhaps, irrationally. They can believe in the things that they like about it while ignoring the impossible or inconvenient aspects of it. While this may seem ridiculous to some, many people do it. That is how those “Orthodox” Jews can be alright with eating pork from a takeout restaurant.

        Religion has caused so much pain and suffering, but it has also given people an outlet to escape some or cope with some of that pain and the importance of that should not be disregarded. It has caused wars and hatred, but has also given many people a moral foundation for their lives. While I’m more on the side of religion doing more harm than good as opposed to vice versa, I do recognize that it can be a powerful and beneficial force. I think that Vonnegut recognizes this as well. We were talking in class yesterday about how Vonngeut essentially offers his own religion through many of his writings, which are all fictional (as are all religious texts according to him). Thus, he recognizes the power religion has over people. Yet, is it right of him to tear down other religions, while, essentially, offering his own? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?

        ↓
        1. N_Knoop

          It may be hypocritical to introduce your own religion while tearing apart all others, but in terms of it being “right or wrong”, I don’t think Vonnegut gives us any solid ground in the book to make this sort of moral, rational judgment. At no point in this story have I felt like there is any “correct” moral compass to assess the characters by.

          So, yeah, Vonnegut may be a bit hypocritical at times, but I think what he is pointing us to is the true absurdity and irrationality of it all. There is no rational explanation to why people act or do what they do sometimes. Just like ice-nice: ice-nine would wipe out everything, including the soldier or army that used it. There would be no victory, just complete and utter destruction. So, there is no real rational reason to have this stuff, other than to have it just to have it. (Much like the arms race in the Cold War…)

          I think what Vonnegut is getting at is that as hard as we try to make ourselves out to be rational, thoughtful people, most of the time, we’re not.
          We follow religions blindly, we make weapons that would end all life on earth… we don’t always make sense.

          And I’m alright with that.

          ↓
          1. jschneiderman

            Alex and Nick, I think more than being a hypocrite, Vonnegut is trying to mirror the ignorance he sees in religious believers to prove his own point against them. In my opinion, the only reason Vonnegut is professing his idea of religion in Cat’s Cradle (and Sirens of Titan), is because the word “religion” is the only one strong enough to capture the attention of his audience. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can write a book filled with “philosophy,” “ideals,” “morals,” etc., but by flat out calling his belief system a “religion,” Vonnegut is able to establish an even greater sense of importance. Religion implies that there is a possibility for some kind of salvation, either during or after life, and that is a hugely attractive feature to most people.

            No matter what he calls it, I think its easy to see that Vonnegut’s idea of true religion is one that gets rid of everything we know today as religion. If it still needs to be called a “religion,” so be it. So to answer your question, Alex, as to whether or not Vonnegut is hypocritical, I would say hypocrite: NO, evil genius: MAYBE.

  3. naweeze

    to continue our class topic on religion and science:
    Interesting addition would be to consider the popularity od scientology and kabalan faiths as well as buddhism and other such hollistic belief systems.
    Here is a definition of scientology:
    “•a new religion founded by L. Ron Hubbard in 1955 and characterized by a belief in the power of a person’s spirit to clear itself of past painful experiences through self-knowledge and spiritual fulfillment
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn”

    I think this fuzes the notions of scientific or self fulfillment like what Hoeniker does in the book, as well as the humanistic personae we contrast him with.

    ↓
  4. karinatselnik

    I like how once Jonah, or whatever his name is, gets onto San Lorenzo and starts reading and learning about Bokonism, we find out that the religion itself is completely outlawed and if you are caught following it or anything you will get hooked. I find it very amusing that Castle says that everyone on San Lorenzo are devout Bokonists, Im thinking that Vonnegut is continuing to play with religion by perhaps pointing out that people cant look or read too much into religion otherwise trouble will arise and consequences will occur, such as being hooked.

    ↓
    1. naweeze

      being hooked… I like your terminology.

      To further elaborate on this point. We could say that knowing too much, or knowledge itself in relation to any type of socially constructed control mechanism: which in our daily lives does encompass majority of religions, cults, etc. We believe in something so that we don’t need to assume responsibiltity for our actions, however too much knowledge or becoming hooked will always have a negative effect. Either the person becomes o hooked, and they delve deeper into the realms of ignorant worship or they become criticial, and realize that no matter what you believe your actions are always dependant upon yourself (whether they be good or bad)
      This book is fascinating and explores so many issues surrounding the question of why we do what we do….

      ↓
  5. alexellingboe

    I was just thinking about that Fox News obituary that we watched in class, and I can see why they said what they did. Although it’s radical and, perhaps disrespectful, Vonnegut does criticize just about everything Fox News stands for. Fox News, supposedly, stands for Christian ideals, and supports far right values. What does Vonnegut do in his book? He crucifies (had to use it) religion, and questions (if not fully denounces) many free-market ideals and economic prescriptions the U.S. supports. So, while I don’t like how they portrayed Vonnegut because he’s one of my favorite authors, I appreciate where their side is coming from.

    ↓
    1. juval

      Nice to have someone point that out. I was thinking along those lines but was nervous I’d get crucified for being so sympathetic to the broadcast. What they said about Vonnegut was not outrageous and it was mostly quite accurate from what i thought. It may be true that an obituary Usually speaks of only good things and ignores the bad or negative in a person, but as Vonnegut shows in his books, that which is usual or traditional is not necessarily right.

      ↓

Leave a Reply