Here's the Cat's Cradle blog. What are your questions about this one?
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I definitely didn't like Cat's Cradle as much as Life of Pi. It was really interesting, but it bothered me how it wasn't really going anywhere, there wasn't a goal for the the protagonist to achieve throughout the story. One question that I have is why did Jonah give up his dream about writing his book? As soon as he was offered power and rule over San Lorenzo, he didn't even so much as think about what would come of his book.
This was the first time I read a book by Kurt Vonnecut and hopefully the last time. I guess I can appreciate his style of writing, but I didn't really like it. I was curious as to the significance of the "Cat's Cradle." I
Hey guys... I agree with what's been said so far about Cat's Cradle. The whole idea about the "cradle" and why this was significant enough to be the title of the book was confusing to me as well, even though I thought Newt's explanation was funny and interesting.
I also liked Life of Pi more than Cat's Cradle, but I did enjoy reading Cat's Cradle. I thought it was ironic how Felix Hoenikker invented the atom bomb and ice-nine, which both led to a lot of destruction, but he was not described as being an “evil” character- just indifferent. Does anyone think that his indifference to what he might cause actually makes him an evil character?
Cat's Cradle have got to be the most pointless and absurdly random book I've ever read. It's disturbing how in the beginning of the book, everything was normal, and then in the middle of everything, suddenly Jonah went to an island where he discovers a weird religion and the world ends. This sounds like something a very enlightened 2nd grader would write. One event having hardly any connection to the next, it's so WEIRD!!!
Well, I do agree that the title of the book is a strange choice, but maybe that's the point. Since the book is random maybe the title is just something random that was mentioned in the book. What I disagree about is that this book is bad. I thought it was good and very intriguing. The book was a little random, but very interesting. My question is did everyone everywhere die or just people near Jonah?
I think that I actually liked Cat's Cradle more than Life of Pi. Even though the plot wasn't very clear, I found the writing to be more concise, and it didn't seem to drag on like Life of Pi did in the middle. All the references to terms and ideas of Bokonon throughout the book were confusing, though. I guess a question I had is why the author insists on calling himself Jonah at the beginning, that whole part confused me.
I disagree with many of the posts here, as I enjoyed Cat's Cradle much more than Life of Pi. This may have in part been due to the insane oddity of the dilema the protagonist was put through. I liked seeing how everything, from Newt's letter at the beginning to the companions on the plane ride, had an impact on the novel's bizarre conclusion. I also enjoyed hearing how the insane Bokonism (spelling?) that seemed so mysterious at first ended up seeming clear and oddly appealing at the book's conclusion. I found Cat's Cradle to be much easier and more enjoyable to read than Life of Pi. My question is "Why did Felix Hoenikker focus more on creations that destroy the world rather than on his children, who ended up helping repair the world?"
I enjoyed reading Cat's Cradle more than Life of Pi, even though I didn't quite understand the meaning of the book toward the end. I found it interesting and also sad that all of Felix's children used there fair share of ice-nine to buy themselves happiness. A question that I had was did the citizens of San Lorenzo understand that Bokonon was a made-up religion and choose to live their life through comforting lies? Or was this something that only the government knew about?
I agree, Cat's Cradle was an exteremely weird book. It jumped from place to place through out the book then all of a sudden the world ended. I feel in both Cat's Cradle and Life of Pi there was a moment towards the end of the books when I was a bit upset. For CC when the ice nine took over the world and for LOP when Pi told the Japanese men the different version of the story. But both times the endings gave me something to think about. A Question about CC: What was the author's purpose of ending the book with ending the world?
Kurt Vonnegut's writing is definitely original, there's no doubt about it, and very often amusing but not what I would call grade-A literature. Mostly satirical and usually cynical, in my opinion it's nothing but literatized complaints. Cat's Cradle was really no exception. Like most of his writing, it's just a criticism - of the most overly-criticized aspect of life: religion. I was a bit confused, though, because in some parts, Bokononism is almost like an underground religious-zealot cult, and at other times it's a Nietzche-esque blend of anti-religious nonsense and irony. Just like the titular cat and the cradle, as Newt demonstrated, the story's just not there. My question is this: So what was the story behind the stone angel? Was it just a plot device?
Although there were certainly some parts of Cat's Cradle that were humorous and fun to read, I found the book overall to be incohesive. Some parts were definitely irrelevant. It is very thought-provoking to write about the end of the world, but the way Cat's Cradle is written makes the reader wonder if there is really a point to all seemingly random events and people within the book.
I can't say that I liked Cat's Cradle better than Life of Pi or vice versa. To put one book "better" than the other, in my opinoin, would be to put one "above" the other and I just can't do that because I thought they were completely different books. I actually think the title "Cat's Cradle" isn't completely meaningless. When a person presents the cat's cradle configuration, you can't really see the cat or the cradle. It's as if they don't exist. Also, Newt continously mentioned "See the cat? See the cradle?" when he thought something was false. And Bokonism is based on lies. So I think it all ties together. But I thought the majority of book was a random collection of scenes that somehow got strung together into a story. My question is, what is the purpose of this book? I know this question is extremely vague but I honestly have no idea why the fact that the world froze over and ended was at all important to an overall theme.
I thought that Cat's Cradle was a very thought-provoking novel that raised some important topics regarding the nature of the human race (similarily to how Life of Pi portrayed the potential "animal" in humans). My question about Cat's Cradle: Bokononism is a religion based entirely on lies. Isn't Vonnegut's Bokononism a direct parody of every other religion in our world (on the perception that the "comfort" of religions rests in the lies that they are based upon)?
I didn't like Cat's Cradle as much as Life of Pi because, to me, it was merely just a series of events. The concept were interesting and original, especially Bokonism. I don't really get what to reason for writing this book is. Furthermore, I don't get why a man would create things that could destroy the world.
I'd have to say that I enjoyed both books, but found to enjoy Life of Pi, more because it was easier to understand. This book left me a tad confused as to what the moral is...every book has a moral right? Call me dumb, but I found no point really in this book. As much as it was interesting, I have to agree with Claire. There are so many questions I have, but simply cannot form them into words, rather statements....Jonah definately is not an inspiring character as Pi is. All I can say is, we need to discuss this book in class, because I think it left most of us confused...
I have to admit, I didn't really see the story at all in this book and had no idea what was actually going sometimes. It did make me laugh, but I was bothered by the fact that there wasn't a plot. I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made. It was very confusing. With that said, I also want to say that I enjoyed reading it. It isn't the type of book I usually go for, so it was interesting to try something different. I have plenty of questions about what happened and I really enjoy hearing everyone's thoughts. What was the significance of the title? I'm still confused by that.
I thought Cat's Cradle was the most witty and intelligent book I've read in a very long time. I think a lot of the bizarreness of the plot line clouded out the true messages in the book, most of which in essence were fairly simple. For example, the fact that the entire Bokononist religion is based on lies and yet the entire republic of San Lorenzo chooses to believe in it seemes to me a huge satire for the way people in our society will tend to cling to anything that gives them a sense of comfort no matter if it has any base in reality. It's reminiscent to me of how people often hear what they want to hear when others talk to them, or people spin situations because it'll put them in the favorable position because that's comforting regardless of it's truthfulness. Additionally, the fact that many events in this book came about because of Jonah's original interest in the Atomic Bomb which is such a surreal and disturbing piece of history seemed to fit the end of the book perfectly. It was as if he was writing about this bomb and then remnants of Felix Hoenikker's ice nine ended up landing Jonah in his own little "Hiroshima" in the form of San Lorenzo after the ice-nine contamination. Barren, desolate, virtually destroyed, and bereft of life. I thought the connection there was phenomenal. I loved this book and I was so involved in it that I finished it entirely in a little under 5 hours and I'm normally a slow reader so I was astounded. Question: Why did Mona decide to touch her lips to the ice-nine? Was it pure ignorance? Or did she long to get away from her San Lorenzan life style with Jonah?
I thought that cat's cradle was okay, but definitely not one of the better book's I have read. The worst part I think was that it felt as if you read the whole book and put a lot of thought into it all for nothing, because everyone dies at the end. That's one of my questions, actually; why did everyone die at the end? Not like what caused it, but why did the author choose to end the book in such a, for me, unsatisfying way?
21 comments:
I definitely didn't like Cat's Cradle as much as Life of Pi. It was really interesting, but it bothered me how it wasn't really going anywhere, there wasn't a goal for the the protagonist to achieve throughout the story. One question that I have is why did Jonah give up his dream about writing his book? As soon as he was offered power and rule over San Lorenzo, he didn't even so much as think about what would come of his book.
This was the first time I read a book by Kurt Vonnecut and hopefully the last time. I guess I can appreciate his style of writing, but I didn't really like it. I was curious as to the significance of the "Cat's Cradle." I
Hey guys... I agree with what's been said so far about Cat's Cradle. The whole idea about the "cradle" and why this was significant enough to be the title of the book was confusing to me as well, even though I thought Newt's explanation was funny and interesting.
I also liked Life of Pi more than Cat's Cradle, but I did enjoy reading Cat's Cradle. I thought it was ironic how Felix Hoenikker invented the atom bomb and ice-nine, which both led to a lot of destruction, but he was not described as being an “evil” character- just indifferent. Does anyone think that his indifference to what he might cause actually makes him an evil character?
Cat's Cradle have got to be the most pointless and absurdly random book I've ever read. It's disturbing how in the beginning of the book, everything was normal, and then in the middle of everything, suddenly Jonah went to an island where he discovers a weird religion and the world ends. This sounds like something a very enlightened 2nd grader would write. One event having hardly any connection to the next, it's so WEIRD!!!
Well, I do agree that the title of the book is a strange choice, but maybe that's the point. Since the book is random maybe the title is just something random that was mentioned in the book. What I disagree about is that this book is bad. I thought it was good and very intriguing. The book was a little random, but very interesting. My question is did everyone everywhere die or just people near Jonah?
I think that I actually liked Cat's Cradle more than Life of Pi. Even though the plot wasn't very clear, I found the writing to be more concise, and it didn't seem to drag on like Life of Pi did in the middle. All the references to terms and ideas of Bokonon throughout the book were confusing, though. I guess a question I had is why the author insists on calling himself Jonah at the beginning, that whole part confused me.
I disagree with many of the posts here, as I enjoyed Cat's Cradle much more than Life of Pi. This may have in part been due to the insane oddity of the dilema the protagonist was put through. I liked seeing how everything, from Newt's letter at the beginning to the companions on the plane ride, had an impact on the novel's bizarre conclusion. I also enjoyed hearing how the insane Bokonism (spelling?) that seemed so mysterious at first ended up seeming clear and oddly appealing at the book's conclusion. I found Cat's Cradle to be much easier and more enjoyable to read than Life of Pi. My question is "Why did Felix Hoenikker focus more on creations that destroy the world rather than on his children, who ended up helping repair the world?"
I enjoyed reading Cat's Cradle more than Life of Pi, even though I didn't quite understand the meaning of the book toward the end. I found it interesting and also sad that all of Felix's children used there fair share of ice-nine to buy themselves happiness. A question that I had was did the citizens of San Lorenzo understand that Bokonon was a made-up religion and choose to live their life through comforting lies? Or was this something that only the government knew about?
I agree, Cat's Cradle was an exteremely weird book. It jumped from place to place through out the book then all of a sudden the world ended.
I feel in both Cat's Cradle and Life of Pi there was a moment towards the end of the books when I was a bit upset. For CC when the ice nine took over the world and for LOP when Pi told the Japanese men the different version of the story. But both times the endings gave me something to think about.
A Question about CC: What was the author's purpose of ending the book with ending the world?
Kurt Vonnegut's writing is definitely original, there's no doubt about it, and very often amusing but not what I would call grade-A literature. Mostly satirical and usually cynical, in my opinion it's nothing but literatized complaints. Cat's Cradle was really no exception. Like most of his writing, it's just a criticism - of the most overly-criticized aspect of life: religion. I was a bit confused, though, because in some parts, Bokononism is almost like an underground religious-zealot cult, and at other times it's a Nietzche-esque blend of anti-religious nonsense and irony. Just like the titular cat and the cradle, as Newt demonstrated, the story's just not there. My question is this: So what was the story behind the stone angel? Was it just a plot device?
Although there were certainly some parts of Cat's Cradle that were humorous and fun to read, I found the book overall to be incohesive. Some parts were definitely irrelevant. It is very thought-provoking to write about the end of the world, but the way Cat's Cradle is written makes the reader wonder if there is really a point to all seemingly random events and people within the book.
I can't say that I liked Cat's Cradle better than Life of Pi or vice versa. To put one book "better" than the other, in my opinoin, would be to put one "above" the other and I just can't do that because I thought they were completely different books. I actually think the title "Cat's Cradle" isn't completely meaningless. When a person presents the cat's cradle configuration, you can't really see the cat or the cradle. It's as if they don't exist. Also, Newt continously mentioned "See the cat? See the cradle?" when he thought something was false. And Bokonism is based on lies. So I think it all ties together. But I thought the majority of book was a random collection of scenes that somehow got strung together into a story. My question is, what is the purpose of this book? I know this question is extremely vague but I honestly have no idea why the fact that the world froze over and ended was at all important to an overall theme.
I thought that Cat's Cradle was a very thought-provoking novel that raised some important topics regarding the nature of the human race (similarily to how Life of Pi portrayed the potential "animal" in humans). My question about Cat's Cradle: Bokononism is a religion based entirely on lies. Isn't Vonnegut's Bokononism a direct parody of every other religion in our world (on the perception that the "comfort" of religions rests in the lies that they are based upon)?
I didn't like Cat's Cradle as much as Life of Pi because, to me, it was merely just a series of events. The concept were interesting and original, especially Bokonism. I don't really get what to reason for writing this book is. Furthermore, I don't get why a man would create things that could destroy the world.
I'd have to say that I enjoyed both books, but found to enjoy Life of Pi, more because it was easier to understand. This book left me a tad confused as to what the moral is...every book has a moral right? Call me dumb, but I found no point really in this book. As much as it was interesting, I have to agree with Claire. There are so many questions I have, but simply cannot form them into words, rather statements....Jonah definately is not an inspiring character as Pi is.
All I can say is, we need to discuss this book in class, because I think it left most of us confused...
I have to admit, I didn't really see the story at all in this book and had no idea what was actually going sometimes. It did make me laugh, but I was bothered by the fact that there wasn't a plot. I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made. It was very confusing. With that said, I also want to say that I enjoyed reading it. It isn't the type of book I usually go for, so it was interesting to try something different. I have plenty of questions about what happened and I really enjoy hearing everyone's thoughts. What was the significance of the title? I'm still confused by that.
I thought Cat's Cradle was the most witty and intelligent book I've read in a very long time. I think a lot of the bizarreness of the plot line clouded out the true messages in the book, most of which in essence were fairly simple. For example, the fact that the entire Bokononist religion is based on lies and yet the entire republic of San Lorenzo chooses to believe in it seemes to me a huge satire for the way people in our society will tend to cling to anything that gives them a sense of comfort no matter if it has any base in reality. It's reminiscent to me of how people often hear what they want to hear when others talk to them, or people spin situations because it'll put them in the favorable position because that's comforting regardless of it's truthfulness. Additionally, the fact that many events in this book came about because of Jonah's original interest in the Atomic Bomb which is such a surreal and disturbing piece of history seemed to fit the end of the book perfectly. It was as if he was writing about this bomb and then remnants of Felix Hoenikker's ice nine ended up landing Jonah in his own little "Hiroshima" in the form of San Lorenzo after the ice-nine contamination. Barren, desolate, virtually destroyed, and bereft of life. I thought the connection there was phenomenal. I loved this book and I was so involved in it that I finished it entirely in a little under 5 hours and I'm normally a slow reader so I was astounded. Question: Why did Mona decide to touch her lips to the ice-nine? Was it pure ignorance? Or did she long to get away from her San Lorenzan life style with Jonah?
I thought that cat's cradle was okay, but definitely not one of the better book's I have read. The worst part I think was that it felt as if you read the whole book and put a lot of thought into it all for nothing, because everyone dies at the end. That's one of my questions, actually; why did everyone die at the end? Not like what caused it, but why did the author choose to end the book in such a, for me, unsatisfying way?
Post a Comment