Vonnegut, you've done it again!
What a brilliant fucking novel. I began writing this post about a week ago and literally stopped after the second sentence with no clue on how to continue reviewing this. To be honest, I still don't know. This story tackles such fascinating and complex concepts that I'm left pouring over it again and again wondering if there's some fundamental message to be taken from all of this. With what seems to be standard for Vonnegut, the story is very bleak resulting in what's pretty much the end of the world while while commenting on human nature and religion. I'm sure people have already developed theses on this - pages and pages of information unpacking maybe just one factor of this story. I have no desire or expectation to try and philosophize on anything groundbreaking here. Let me just give you some overall impressions and you can take it from there.
Oh, and for anyone who hasn't read this yet, I'll probably be ruining some major points of the story (previously mentioning the whole ending of the world thing might have been your first clue to this). If you really care about spoiling a 49-year-old book, then skip over this.
The whole novel is basically a long-winded journal entry from a writer sent out to do a piece on Felix Hoenikker - a fictional co-creator of the atomic bomb - who is now deceased. While researching about this man, the writer is eventually lead to the fictional third-world country of San Lorenzo where he discovers Felix's eldest son Frank. Frank is now the head general, and second-in-command to the leader of the impoverished country, "Papa" Monzano. (Side note: I believe Monzano translates in Spanish to apple tree. Not that it's a big deal, but considering this story revolves around religion and man's own destruction of the world, this might be symbolic to the whole man eating the apple and falling from grace. Maybe a bit of a stretch... it just sticks out in my mind.) While on San Lorenzo a couple of facts are revealed: "Papa" is on his death bed; San Lorenzo is in need of a new ruler; everyone in town fears this fictional religion of Bokonon (based on the writing from a mysterious man of the same name); and Frank is in possession of his father's last deadly creation, Ice-Nine (a compound capable of turning all water into a solid, instantaneously). A lot to take in. But to sum things up quickly, Frank gives "Papa" his Ice-Nine who then ingests it in an act of suicide. Later, during a some military display in remembrance for a past tragedy, "Papa's" house is accidentally blown-up throwing his Ice-Nine corpse into the ocean which then freezes the whole planet within a moment. Our writer then heads into seclusion to wait out the worst of the impending storms where he begins to learn about this forbidden religion of Bokononism and starts this journal.
A far over-simplified summary, but it gets the basic points across - or at least allows me the chance to run through everything in my head again. The most fascinating part of the story is the development of this religion Bokononism. It's a fairly crude and bleak look at humanity that doesn't seem to deal so much with supernatural notions, but more realistic in humanity's stupidity and unfortunately fate. Although this island of San Lorenzo has outlawed it, it's eventually revealed that nearly everyone practices it... even "Papa" Monzano who leads the charge to outlaw it. It's this idea that to spread the religion you have make it desirable. To do that, you make it something you can't have. A logic you would see easiest in children. There's a toy a kid doesn't want to play with. However, if you tell him he can't have it, he'll want it all the more. I'd like to think that there's much to take away from how this religion as it plays into the development of the characters and the story, but, frankly, I think I might need to read it again to truly grasp this. With all the terminology and quotes Vonnegut throws at you, it's hard for it all to stick in one pass.
For now, this stands as my fourth Vonnegut novel I've gotten through (along with Breakfast for Champions, Slaughterhouse-Five, and Sirens of Titan). According to Vonnegut's self rating system on Wikipedia, he ranks this along with Slaughterhouse-Five as his two favorites. At this point in my limited review of his work, I would agree. Are either of these two better than the other? It's the apples and oranges debate. I would say I had an instant liking of Slaughterhouse-Five - enjoyed from beginning to end - but with Cat's Cradle, it wasn't until the very end that things started to come together for me. They're two very different stories that accomplish very different things. Both are recommended.
One last thing is the book's title. What does it have to do with story? This is something that always sparks my curiosity with certain books. I remember being completely puzzled with Catcher in the Rye's title before reading it; however, Salinger was fairly straightforward with this answer. Vonnegut - in this instance - not so much. Maybe I missed it, but I've only got three answers for this. One is straightforward. Felix Hoenikker is making a cat's cradle when his atomic bomb is dropped on Hiroshima. The second is alluded by his youngest son Newt. He questions the reason behind the naming of a cat's cradle. With that cross stitching you do with your hands, it looks nothing like a cradle for a cat. Therefore that name is complete bogus. This might play out in a larger theme as there are several items in the story to revolve around the idea that things aren't always what they seem - maybe more to peoples' intentions. Then there's the last bit of symbolism that you get when looking at the book's old covers.
.jpeg)
Maybe some sort of imprisonment? Your hands bound together by your own doing? Who knows. No clear definition is ever given. It's a strange title for an even stranger book.
Now seeing as this and Slaughterhouse-Five stand as Vonnegut's two greatest books (at least from his perspective) are there any others in his collection that are worth a go? I'll leave this one up to you guys.
Oh, and for anyone who hasn't read this yet, I'll probably be ruining some major points of the story (previously mentioning the whole ending of the world thing might have been your first clue to this). If you really care about spoiling a 49-year-old book, then skip over this.
The whole novel is basically a long-winded journal entry from a writer sent out to do a piece on Felix Hoenikker - a fictional co-creator of the atomic bomb - who is now deceased. While researching about this man, the writer is eventually lead to the fictional third-world country of San Lorenzo where he discovers Felix's eldest son Frank. Frank is now the head general, and second-in-command to the leader of the impoverished country, "Papa" Monzano. (Side note: I believe Monzano translates in Spanish to apple tree. Not that it's a big deal, but considering this story revolves around religion and man's own destruction of the world, this might be symbolic to the whole man eating the apple and falling from grace. Maybe a bit of a stretch... it just sticks out in my mind.) While on San Lorenzo a couple of facts are revealed: "Papa" is on his death bed; San Lorenzo is in need of a new ruler; everyone in town fears this fictional religion of Bokonon (based on the writing from a mysterious man of the same name); and Frank is in possession of his father's last deadly creation, Ice-Nine (a compound capable of turning all water into a solid, instantaneously). A lot to take in. But to sum things up quickly, Frank gives "Papa" his Ice-Nine who then ingests it in an act of suicide. Later, during a some military display in remembrance for a past tragedy, "Papa's" house is accidentally blown-up throwing his Ice-Nine corpse into the ocean which then freezes the whole planet within a moment. Our writer then heads into seclusion to wait out the worst of the impending storms where he begins to learn about this forbidden religion of Bokononism and starts this journal.
A far over-simplified summary, but it gets the basic points across - or at least allows me the chance to run through everything in my head again. The most fascinating part of the story is the development of this religion Bokononism. It's a fairly crude and bleak look at humanity that doesn't seem to deal so much with supernatural notions, but more realistic in humanity's stupidity and unfortunately fate. Although this island of San Lorenzo has outlawed it, it's eventually revealed that nearly everyone practices it... even "Papa" Monzano who leads the charge to outlaw it. It's this idea that to spread the religion you have make it desirable. To do that, you make it something you can't have. A logic you would see easiest in children. There's a toy a kid doesn't want to play with. However, if you tell him he can't have it, he'll want it all the more. I'd like to think that there's much to take away from how this religion as it plays into the development of the characters and the story, but, frankly, I think I might need to read it again to truly grasp this. With all the terminology and quotes Vonnegut throws at you, it's hard for it all to stick in one pass.
For now, this stands as my fourth Vonnegut novel I've gotten through (along with Breakfast for Champions, Slaughterhouse-Five, and Sirens of Titan). According to Vonnegut's self rating system on Wikipedia, he ranks this along with Slaughterhouse-Five as his two favorites. At this point in my limited review of his work, I would agree. Are either of these two better than the other? It's the apples and oranges debate. I would say I had an instant liking of Slaughterhouse-Five - enjoyed from beginning to end - but with Cat's Cradle, it wasn't until the very end that things started to come together for me. They're two very different stories that accomplish very different things. Both are recommended.
One last thing is the book's title. What does it have to do with story? This is something that always sparks my curiosity with certain books. I remember being completely puzzled with Catcher in the Rye's title before reading it; however, Salinger was fairly straightforward with this answer. Vonnegut - in this instance - not so much. Maybe I missed it, but I've only got three answers for this. One is straightforward. Felix Hoenikker is making a cat's cradle when his atomic bomb is dropped on Hiroshima. The second is alluded by his youngest son Newt. He questions the reason behind the naming of a cat's cradle. With that cross stitching you do with your hands, it looks nothing like a cradle for a cat. Therefore that name is complete bogus. This might play out in a larger theme as there are several items in the story to revolve around the idea that things aren't always what they seem - maybe more to peoples' intentions. Then there's the last bit of symbolism that you get when looking at the book's old covers.
.jpeg)
Maybe some sort of imprisonment? Your hands bound together by your own doing? Who knows. No clear definition is ever given. It's a strange title for an even stranger book.
Now seeing as this and Slaughterhouse-Five stand as Vonnegut's two greatest books (at least from his perspective) are there any others in his collection that are worth a go? I'll leave this one up to you guys.
I'm glad you loved Cat's Cradle. For whatever reason, I never did. It probably merits a re-read someday on my part. As far as other Vonnegut recommendations go, here's a list I made after finishing nine of his books, copied and pasted elsewhere from the blog:
ReplyDelete1. Slaughterhouse-Five - nightmarish and depressing depictions of war and one man's utter apathy toward all the death and suffering around him, in addition to non-chronological time flow, make for one of my favorite books of all time
2. The Sirens of Titan - an engrossing and whimsical space-based adventure from cover to cover
3. Mother Night - managed to keep taking the "major plot twist" trope one step further by playing fast and loose with character identities and allegiances
4. Deadeye Dick - got bored with this one once the ending came, but was great up until then
5. Cat's Cradle - very bored with this one until the ending, but what a great ending it was
6. Bluebeard - definitely liked it when I read it, but can't recall much aside from the basic plot and a few characters
7. Breakfast of Champions - a real treat to read but I remember next to no plot details or characters at all
8. God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater - this lawyer story just never clicked for me
9. Player Piano - probably not a terrible book, but there's no flavor at all to the text, the characters, or the plot, and that left me bored as hell by the third chapter or so
Since that time I've read three other books - Slapstick, Timequake, and Hocus Pocus. All had their moments but Slapstick seems pretty universally hated (relative to his other stuff) and Hocus Pocus and Timequake were his last two books and kind of lack any plot to speak of. So based on my own list I'll tell you to check out Mother Night and Deadeye Dick.
Sounds good. I'll try and give them a go.
ReplyDeleteAnd it also seems we have fairly similar opinions on Cat's Cradle. Yeah, it was a boring read to start with, but the last 10% of the book just pulls it all together in magnificent fashion. It's biblical... literally.
I enjoyed this book way more than slaughter house five. Because of this book when I drive through town centers I take a moment to see how they stack the cannon balls. I think the big thing to take away from this book is the way people view ice nine. As a scientist he developed it because he could without really considering the implications. The army wants to use it for military dominance. The family wants to use it for monetary gain. The only part that I couldn't get was the whole "Hoosier " repetition. Why did he keep going back to that? Sorry for the rambling I'm typing this on a phone.
ReplyDelete