# Reading > General Literature >  cat's cradle, yeh i didnt read orlando...:)

## mister_noel_y2k

so instead of reading the prescribed reading this month (orlando, though i will read it soon) i read one of those that didn't make it, cat's cradle by vonnegut. anyone else read this book? what'd you think? 
pretty good i thought, i'd not read any vonnegut before this but this one was funny in parts with a good solid story albeit a bit sci-fi. his writing style is very readable too though he used a few words i didnt know the meanings of (can't think of any at the moment) but overall it was a good story wouldn't you say? end of the world stuff is always good. 
the whole cold war theme was good too, and the character of h lowe crosby was great. bokonon seemed real smart too, his words were truly wise, i wonder if anyone ever started the bokononist faith after reading this book? thatd be awesome.
many chapters in the book too. i think ill read other books by vonnegut too. and ill read orlando soon too. 

 :Banana:

----------


## elysium

> so instead of reading the prescribed reading this month (orlando, though i will read it soon) i read one of those that didn't make it, cat's cradle by vonnegut. anyone else read this book? what'd you think? 
> pretty good i thought, i'd not read any vonnegut before this but this one was funny in parts with a good solid story albeit a bit sci-fi. his writing style is very readable too though he used a few words i didnt know the meanings of (can't think of any at the moment) but overall it was a good story wouldn't you say? end of the world stuff is always good. 
> the whole cold war theme was good too, and the character of h lowe crosby was great. bokonon seemed real smart too, his words were truly wise, i wonder if anyone ever started the bokononist faith after reading this book? thatd be awesome.
> many chapters in the book too. i think ill read other books by vonnegut too. and ill read orlando soon too.


I read this book the other day, after reading _Player Piano_ by the same author and really enjoying it. I read _Player Piano_  because I'm doing my English Lit term paper on dystopian literature, and wanted some more material. I highly reccomend both novels. In _Cat's Cradle_, I was really interested in Bokononism and the other references to religion. The most interesting quote, to me, was the one that appeared on the copyright page, about harmless truths. I found this site looking for it, in fact, but I didn't. Does anyone have a copy of the book and could look it up for me? 

Anyway, if you look closely at Vonnegut's work, it's pretty clear that the man was a cynic. Every one of his themes seems to focus on the fact that man will eventually destroy the world with his selfishness. Then again, he could have just been writing these cautionary tales as a way to condemn the current political situations during the time he lived. Such as in Dresden, where Allied forces bombed during WWII, killing masses of innocent civilians, "accidentally." Apparently he was so outraged that he wrote _Slaughterhouse 5_. I commend he, and other writers such as George Orwell and Margaret Atwood, for pointing out the dangers of things like totalitarianism and religious extremism, but I was disappointed to learn that, at threat of having his book banned in a school district, Vonnegut claimed that it was all harmless humor. Maybe that was what it was intended to be, but I'd rather pretend Vonnegut was a fearless pioneer in the world of cautionary political literature, lol.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

about that book at the start on the copyright page? i think that book was the book of bokonon or maybe im wrong, but im fairly certain that that book was made up by vonnegut. 

as for the whole thing about his book being just a bit of fun, i like that, a writer not taking his work so seriously. i mean i would hate a writer if they stood there po-faced and said with absolute sincerity that they were taking a stand against totalitarianism, i mean how egotistical would that be? i'd just laugh at them. i like the fact that vonnegut is a brilliant writer, a thinker, an original, and has a sense of humour, to me that shows all the hallmarks of a good writer. 

 :Banana:

----------


## Capnplank

I could see Vonnegut being a bit upset by the Dresden firebombing, since he was in the midst of it. It definitely comes up in his writing a lot.

For some other the-world-just-sorta-ended fun, "Slapstick" and "Galapagos" fit in pretty well, and "The Sirens of Titan" isn't far off either, what with dickering with the chronosynclastic infundibulum and all.
Slightly different reads of his that I'd highly recommend as well would be "Mother Night", about a Nazi propagandist on trial for war crimes, who claims to have been a spy sending coded messages to the allies, and "Bluebeard", about an aging artist trying to revive an incredible talent.

----------


## elysium

> about that book at the start on the copyright page? i think that book was the book of bokonon or maybe im wrong, but im fairly certain that that book was made up by vonnegut.


I was referring to a quote on the copyright page of the edition that I had read, and yes it was a quote from the Book of Bokonon. I did find it eventually though, it was:

"Live by the _foma_  that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy". 




> as for the whole thing about his book being just a bit of fun, i like that, a writer not taking his work so seriously. i mean i would hate a writer if they stood there po-faced and said with absolute sincerity that they were taking a stand against totalitarianism, i mean how egotistical would that be? i'd just laugh at them. i like the fact that vonnegut is a brilliant writer, a thinker, an original, and has a sense of humour, to me that shows all the hallmarks of a good writer.



I just find it odd that first he said he wrote it because he was angry about the Dresden bombings, and wanted to do something about it, but then when he was challenged about his material, he said it didn't mean anything and was just satirical gibberish. First of all, if he wasn't going to take a stand against totalitarianism (though I think it was something a bit less broad in the case of _Slaughterhouse 5_), then why risk writing a book that on the subject that he knew would be objected to unless it was something he really believed in? Maybe he was simply the kind of person who liked to be controversial, in which case I still don't understand why he would to make any sort of apology about it afterward.

And anyway, do you really think that using your natural vocation to work towards something you believe in is egotistical, or just because what he was mucking in was a big political deal? Because if you ever want to really accomplish anything, it certainly does take a lot of self-esteem. Where would we be if all of our best leaders were too humble to take the initiative and pretended not to recognize their own potential? 

Oh, and am I completely crazy or didn't _Bluebeard_ have something to do with the main character killing all his wives? Maybe it just had a similar title, but I always did want to read that one...

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

i dont remember the part where the main character (who might that be, the narrator yes?) kills of all his wives. did the narrator even have a wife or more than one? i dont think he did but maybe im wrong. 

i think it is egotistical to think that writing a book about something as big an issue as the dresden bombings would immediately resussitate interest, outrage, and political change. he is only one man and yes i know one man can make a difference, blah blah, but its the truth, vonnegut is only one man and just by complaining about something doesn't mean that he will do anything more than remind a few people of what happened. as for the dresden bombings, well im not sure about that as i dont know much about vonnegut or the book's origins but it seemed to me that it was a product of the cold war, making fun of man's stupidity in the arms race and highlighting the fears of an american/russian nuclear war, hence the apolcaplytic ending.

maybe he was being polemic but there weren't any real solutions to the problems to the arms race or the cold war presented in the book except for everyone to chill out and become bokononists. in that sense i think it was a sci fi story and was just a bit of fun on vonnegut's part.

all this "taking a stand" macho talk you're saying is just nonsense by the way, vonnegut like many writers have said how useless literature is and how they're just meaningless stories. i agree, they are but they're entertaining, i think you're placing far too much emphasis on the power of literature than is actually realistic and from your romantic view of opposing the machine that is totalitarianism, i would say you're probably even a bit naive. 

and besides, opinions and views can change over time, no?

 :Banana:

----------


## Bandini

Re: Noel - 
"and besides, opinions and views can change over time, no?"

And what changes those opinions? Life experience and interaction with others - _and_  considering the thoughts of others, considering others peoples life experiences and other peoples interaction. How does one do the latter? Certainly through literature. We only live one life, but we can experience phenomenon vicariously, no?

----------


## elysium

^ Can't say it any better. 

Am I naive? I don't think so, at least not about what you're talking about. Overtly idealistic? Probably. I know a lot of people who think similarly to you, Mister Noel, including my boyfriend, and we argue about this sort of thing all the time. He thinks I'm naively idealistic, and I think he's...Well, I can't explain it in a title such as "naive", since I think labelling his mindset would be far too general, but I think that in an effort not to appear naive, he says and tries to think in a cynical manner. Apparently a lot of people equate pessimism with experience and knowledge; I see this as an excuse not to expose oneself to criticism. It's hard to explain, but it's like those people who go to soppy romantic movies and complain loudly about how cheesy they are, while on the inside they really enjoyed the film and even _liked_ the cheesiness. I guess what I'm trying to say is, a huge number of people think that optimism is a sign of emotional or intellectual weakness, and I disagree. It's a lot easier to say that we're all doomed and we might as well give up than to make an effort to change things. In fact, I find that optimistic people possess a strength of character not found in most cynics. Because I choose to believe that change for the better can be accomplished through hard work and perseverance (*cringes at clichés*), you write me off as naive without considering that maybe it's just possible that I've experienced more within my 16 years of life than you have in your 20 or so, and have simply come away with a different perspective than you have. Just something to consider before you start labelling random people that you don't know.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

ok you went completely off topic there, you probably even had a tear in your eye as you typed that "true" and "meaningful" message even. 

first off, i try never to see a romantic comedy movie if i can help it and when i do see it and say its cheesy i actually mean it. theres no me inside saying oh i loved that piece of trite garbage- i actually hate those movies and thats it. 

right secondly, what was all that talk about me being a pessimist? im actually an optimist but just because i said you were naive about how you think literature can change the world and that books can cause political and social shifts, is hardly saying that i hate optimism and that i think the world is going to end. have you read cat's cradle? the world is going to end in that book, that's pessimistic. but i guess you wanted to get misty eyed and romantic once more by touting the idealistic way forward, ie. your way of life. 

stick to the subject, that is the book and the writer. polemic last stands are reserved for nobody least of all internet surfers.

 :Banana:

----------


## Capnplank

He (the narrator, Rabo Karabekian) tells the story of Bluebeard killing his wives and putting them all in a room because he (Rabo, once again) has a barn/shed that is locked up and he won't let anybody see what is inside, until the end when all is revealed.

----------


## elysium

> He (the narrator, Rabo Karabekian) tells the story of Bluebeard killing his wives and putting them all in a room because he (Rabo, once again) has a barn/shed that is locked up and he won't let anybody see what is inside, until the end when all is revealed.


That's what I thought, I remember reading a reference to it in another book we read for History last year. Sounds pretty interesting, but I won't be able to read it until at least next term, when I go back to school; my village library is pretty disgraceful.

As for you Noel, it's quite obvious that you don't really know how to carry on a conversation without making it personal, as you immediately assume that whoever disagrees with you is "naive" and assuming that you know all about them from a few posts. I'm not even going to bother setting you straight, since it's clear you're not the type to listen to what anyone else has to say. So, I'm done here. Good luck finding someone else who feels like talking to a wall.

----------


## mister_noel_y2k

As for you Noel, it's quite obvious that you don't really know how to carry on a conversation without making it personal, as you immediately assume that whoever disagrees with you is "naive" and assuming that you know all about them from a few posts. I'm not even going to bother setting you straight, since it's clear you're not the type to listen to what anyone else has to say. So, I'm done here. Good luck finding someone else who feels like talking to a wall.

ditto, little miss i dont know what the hell im talking about because i dont read peoples' posts


 :Banana:

----------

