So It Goes

            What will the world’s end bring? Humans have pondered this colossal question since the beginning of time and Kurt Vonnegut chooses to tackle the ambitious topic in his 1963 novel, Cat’s Cradle. Vonnegut, who fought in World War II and experienced the massive bombing of Dresden, creates an apocalyptic tale on the island of San Lorenzo. The novel, which received publication during the Cold War, ends in a slightly open-ended fashion and, as a fan of ambiguous finales, I enjoyed Vonnegut’s culmination. Towards the end of the novel, the narrator, John, finds what he feels stands as his life purpose: to climb San Lorenzo’s largest mountain, Mount McCabe. Although John knows he must climb the mountain, he does not know what to bring with him. At one point, the protagonist cries out “’what… would the right symbol be?’” in distress (285). John’s struggle to find a symbol acts as a synecdoche of man’s quest for the meaning of life, and his lost hope parallels the lost faith in humanity the religious leader, Bokonon, felt at the world’s nadir. However, unlike the pursuit of life’s purpose, John eventually finds his answer. Vonnegut closes the novel with the final thoughts of Bokonon who expresses his desire to climb Mount McCabe and make a stature of himself “thumbing my nose at You Know Who” (287). The scholar’s purposeful omission of the word “God” illustrates his indignation and sneering view of the deity; Bokonon’s ideal final act serves to mock God and his creation of mankind, his supposed most prized design. I enjoyed Vonnegut’s choice as it asserts that humans often reveal their true values in times of crisis and panic. Thus, the last quote reveals how Bokonon stands as just another ordinary man. This idea reflects the central theme that nothing has meaning until humans construct it, as the citizens of San Lorenzo did with Bokonon. Moreover, I commend the novelist for his vague ending. Vonnegut’s deliberate lack of closure reflects his consistent claim regarding the insignificance of the human race.  I admire the author’s denouement as it accurately reflects human tendencies during catastrophes and depicts a similar view to my own in regards to the reaction to the end of the world. After reading Vonnegut’s ending, I advocate those stressing over their purpose in life to accept that the truth will never reveal itself. Although I want to also advise humans to learn from Vonnegut’s portrayal, what can we really learn? No one can anticipate how the world will end and, even if one could, would it really matter?

Suitable Satire

              In the 1963 novel, Cat’s Cradle, by the veteran-turned-novelist, Kurt Vonnegut, the writer discusses issues such as religion, the meaning of life and politics through the eyes of the protagonist, John. Published in the midst of the Cold War, the book emphasizes John’s quest to discover more about the fictional, father of the atom bomb, Frank Hoenikker, and his family. The narrator’s research leads him to the small, poverty-stricken country of San Lorenzo where Vonnegut continues his sarcastic and satiric examination of society. As I have often received criticism for acting overly sarcastic, the novelist’s cunning tone, especially in regards to the Hundred Martyrs to Democracy, appeals to me. I believe Vonnegut’s satire holds a mirror up to humanity and his particular mockery of the Hundred Martyrs of Democracy illustrates his views on military enterprises and heroism. When John arrives on San Lorenzo with Newt and Angela Hoenikker, the President, “Papa” Monzano, informs the group that they arrived the day before San Lorenzo’s “greatest national holiday,” (142). While most people consider a religious holiday their most important, the adulating diction of “greatest” illustrates how much importance the Hundred Martyrs to Democracy Day has to the citizens of San Lorenzo. However, as Vonnegut reveals more about the holiday, this exaltation begins to hold situational irony. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, San Lorenzo sent a “hundred men” to the United States for training and “to fight… [for] democracy” (149). Before their arrival, the ship sunk and, since then, the country has celebrated their efforts on the anniversary of the martyrs’ deaths. By stating that San Lorenzo sent a “hundred men,” Vonnegut’s data exposes how little of an impact the untrained, unarmed, conscripted soldiers would have had in the scale of World War II. Moreover, the entire idea of San Lorenzo sending men to fight for democracy stands as ludicrous because the country only claims to have democratic values when truly it acts more like a dictatorship. Vonnegut slowly exposes the illegitimate roots of the “greatest national holiday” in order to utilize the illogical holiday as a synecdoche of the hope humans construct out of foolish events, alluding to the central idea of a cat’s cradle and its unreasonable meaning. The novelist’s ironic anecdote and satirical style exposes his critical views on military endeavors by pointing out the futility and inevitable wastefulness of military effort. Although I do believe war can prove necessary and constructive, I agree with Vonnegut in that many military efforts stand as unnecessary and counterproductive. I advise those offended by Vonnegut’s black humor to allow themselves to acknowledge their own faults and the faults of modern society as many of his convictions stand as true.

Vonnegut's Views on the Realm of Religion

        In Kurt Vonnegut’s 1963 novel, Cat’s Cradle, which he published in the wake of the Cuban missile crisis, the novelist discusses multiple issues such as the effects of advanced science on the world and the eternal subject of religion. Vonnegut, a self-proclaimed Humanist, takes a satirical approach to the unwavering religious devotion of the narrator, John, to the denomination of Bokononism. As an agnostic, I agree with many of the writer’s views on faith. For instance, when first introducing Bokononism, John cites the opening sentence of The Book of Bokonon: “’all the true things… are shameless lies’” (5). The contradictory juxtaposition of “’true’” and “’lies’” illustrates the bold nature of Bokonon. This boldness, along with the brazen diction of “’shameless,’” creates an interesting contrast of Bokonon to other deities.  Unlike other divine beings that leave their beliefs to faith, Vonnegut purposefully devises a god to foil this. I admire Vonnegut’s choice as I feel it allows readers the unique opportunity to question their own beliefs—does it really matter if the Bible, Koran etc. exist as the truth or not? I contend that fallacies play essential roles in our lives; fictional novels have inspired me countless times and have even changed my life, yet these books technically remain as untrue. Moreover, I defend Vonnegut’s views on the socialization of religion. One specific encounter John has with Hazel Crosby parallels this. After discovering their shared Alma mater, Crosby because instantaneously fervent and demands John to refer to her as mom. John then wonders about the “seeming team that was meaningless… a granfalloon,” (91). Although I do not feel that close-knit religious communities reside as “meaningless” in the slightest, I do feel that, considering the opposing views within religious denominations, one cannot have an intense connection with someone just based on a worldwide religion. Also, Vonnegut’s use of incomprehensible diction such as “granfallon” reflects another criticism Vonnegut and I share: religion has become over-complex and intricate. Vonnegut asserts through his cynical tone that religion has become worn and often remains as merely a social gathering, both of these take away from the essential values religions advocate. I contend with many of Vonnegut’s opinions, but not always to the same extent. I advocate that those offended by Vonnegut’s ideals use their indignation to strengthen their own faith. In contrast, those who, like me, often agree with the novelist, do so in a less belligerent fashion than Vonnegut.