Cat's Cradle

Firstly, I wasn't particularly impressed by Cat's Cradle at all. I slogged through it and when it was finally finished I breathed a massive sigh of relief. I'm sure people will tell me I just didn't get it, or I wasn't open minded enough but in my pathetic opinion the book boils down to a long-winded discussion that suggests that humanity's search for purpose and the rational structures it creates to this end are ultimately futile and pointless; just like a game of Cat's Cradle. We therefore must learn to tolerate ambiguity and the absurdity and contradictions of life.

I identified these themes in the book:

1. How can the religion presented in the book, Bokononism, declare itself to be based on a lie but galvanise such devotion? Vonnegut suggests that the purpose of religion is to give the lives of its followers the illusion of meaning and purpose. Its needed because science can't provide all of the “keys to life”, which one of Felix's colleagues suggests is merely a protein: a conclusion which means nothing to people; so religion steps in and fills a perceived void.

2. Felix was indifferent to his actions concerning not only his children but also the consequences of his work too. For example, he is more concerned about playing Cat's Cradle than pondering what the effect his “pure research” will have. His pursuit of knowledge is an end in itself and his apathy and trivialisation of how his weapons (the atom bomb and ice-nine) are used does not equate to him being an innocent actor: science may have discovered how to cure many of the world's diseases but it has also discovered how to wipe out all of humanity.

3. Felix's children are perhaps a representation of all of humanity? They want happiness but have been given the power to destroy all life, suggested directly and indirectly in the book, for example in the model which is built or the insect filled bottle.

4. The Crosbys highlight the risks of holding narrow-minded religious and nationalistic views. Both of these group people together in a somewhat arbitrary manner and lead to entrenched world-views resulting in conflict and unhappiness. The book submits that people and nations have a damaging craving for power and arrogantly believe that other people should conform to their particular ideals, especially if those other people are weaker and less privileged then they are. Additionally, this irrational grouping of people generates an illusion of collective identity which is used a yardstick for determining so-called unpatriotic behaviour (think of McCarthyism): should governments take a totalitarian approach to conformity of its own “disloyal” citizens?

And that's it!

So in summary this was a disappointing read for me. Perhaps you'll enjoy it more? Good luck!