Cat’s Cradle 4 Questions

Posted on May 25th, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

Question 1:

The beliefs of Bokononism are very similar to a Buddhists’ in respects to the non-violent approach. Bokononism places the highest value and worth to the people, not any deity, sacred cow, ect. So logically if the number one priority of the religion is to help and respect the fellow man, religious dogmatism will not take place. People will not argue over how to go about living their lives in the views of Bokonon, which is the root cause of most all religious strife and conflicts. When there is an equal amount of respect going from one to another, in the case of Bokononism, there is no need to fight because it goes against the only rule that Bokononists hold which deters any real conflict. Not to say that Bokononists are not passionate, it is just they are all on the same philosophical level.

I found the part about inevitable fate to be a great answer because if people believe that everything is already decided then no matter what actions they take the outcome will all be the same. This explains the passivism extent of the religion. The spark note answer also points out that the book of Bokonon provides an illusion of meaning for those who demand answers in life. Meaning they want the comfort of lies in a passive religion, instead of asking the same questions in a religion that has violent dogmatism.

Question 2:

Felix Hoenikker underscores the prevailing notion that evil is humanities biggest problem in two ways. First of which is through is indifference to man and his and her entire society. Felix simply doesn’t care about other people’s problems and through his non intervening actions the audience can get a sense of his characteristics. If man’s biggest problem is evil, this evil has to spread through the result of man. So by Felix Hoenikker’s sense of unconcern, Vonnegut is able to mock the evil embedded in all of mankind.

Spark notes pointed out that Felix in many ways was innocent and childlike when it came to corruption. He was even asked about sin, and his reply was “what is sin?” So the notion that Felix mocks evil in Cat’s Cradle because he represented a perfectly naïve and untouched person from the depths of evil.

Question 3:

Frank’s graduation speech is used to mock the concept of truth coming from the valorized status of science because the secret in life is protein. This over simplification of life and its meaning is meant to be treated as a hyperbole, creating an aurora of mockery and irony. The meaning of life is an elusive questions and even to put it in perspective authors personify and use other devices in order to try to explain it. But there is no answer, so by saying that science is the key to unlocking the future and life’s meaning is arbitrary. One might as well speculate that the meaning of life could come from cooking a meal, fixing a toilet, or cleaning a spill of the ground. The absurdity of that event occurring is precisely the point Vonnegut is making, saying that protein is the answer to life.

Question 4:

Vonnegut satirizes the human obsession with the truth by using the teachings of Bokononism to parallel the sources of reality. Bokononism allows Vonnegut to create a reality where people knowingly follow a religion based on lies because it provides them some sort of comfort. It is ironic that people will follow shameless lies, because they want to know the truth so bad. I think that Vonnegut makes light of truth because there is no other reaction that is truly appropriate for one’s circumstance. Meaning that if something is so complicated that there is no possible way one could understand and have a beneficial impact should one get mad and waste the rest of his or her life in a negative mind set or should that same individual simply smile, sit back, and enjoy the present time. Finally Vonnegut thinks that violent dogma and sick obsessions with knowing the truth is dangerous because of historical figures that rules in the name of absolute truth. A brilliant example of this is Hitler and Stalin’s dictatorships where they killed millions in the name of a so called prophecy or final solution. Vonnegut and the rest of the world has seen the capabilities of a few individuals that use other’s obsession with truth to create a dangerous environment.

Questions and Assertions on Cats Cradle

Posted on May 19th, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

When Angela had a couple of drinks in her and was talking about her father being under appreciated and under compensated, why did Vonnegut decide to tell us that story? Is this foreshadowing to a catastrophic event later?

Why does Harrison Conners decide to marry Angela, when he is described to be handsome and successful and Angela really had nothing going for her after her father’s death?

What is Vonnegut’s view on atonement and how does Dr. Koenigswald play into his argument?

I think it is rather poetic that Vonnegut is having a dictator like Papa die from cancer because cancer is having one cell go haywire and reproducing until the body becomes filled and is unable to fight of the mutagens. Much like an uprising would be in respects to the people he is leading.

In response to the retrospective view that Jonah plays as the narrator, there are subtle textual clues that can give away the ending and on page 139 it says that he has been with 53 women. Meaning his relationship with Mona will not last.

Frank gets the name secret agent x-9 because he is always secluded to himself while he was in high school. But now that he is a Major General the name seems to take on a different meaning almost James Bond-ish.

The guard at first was hesitant to show Jonah where a Book of Bokonon was, but after awhile he showed him. This makes me believe that only the people of San Lorenzo should be afraid of Bokonon and prosecuted if found guilty.

Illusions

Posted on April 23rd, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

It is impossible to live without illusions. Even the most honest of people can unknowingly give a false impression and the perception of that person can become misconstrued. Whether it is what someone wears, acts, or the associates people will always try to conceive an image that is not necessarily accurate to them self. To me an illusion is any minor detail about a person that embodies his or her identity. It is entirely possible to go to great lengths to deceive someone with your illusion or facade, but the average person is capable and frequently distorts the truth because of tiny minuscule details.

Not all illusions are bad and a great example of a needed illusion comes from superheroes in comic books. For example Superman, Spider-man, and Batman all cover up their true identities because it could result in direct harm and unnecessary trouble. So if an illusion prevents others from harming an individual it is a necessary white lie, that has the intentions of safety and good will.

Hamlet (2000)

Posted on March 20th, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

I found this rendition of Hamlet to be quite entertaining for more or less. The parallels to the original Hamlet were at time a little far-fetched but the overall theme of the movie wasn’t to far off track. If the recreation of Hamlet was to be done in modern times this movie is exactly how I feel it should be done. While the acting was sub-par and I wouldn’t care to watch the movie again, the overall experience wasn’t intolerable. Plus compared to the other line for line reenactment film, this one was a whole lot shorter and came across the same points.

One part of the movie that bugged me though, was at the end when Laertes shoots Hamlet then shoots himself. I think if someone was in a path of destruction and madness they would not spare Hamlet like he did. Instead he should have killed him and made sure of it =) . I just found that the actions taken at the end did not reflect the true emotions of the characters, it seemed like they were not completely submerged in their roles, rather there to make a movie. The Denmark corporation was cool though.

Zeffirelli’s Hamlet

Posted on March 13th, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

I’m not sure whether to classify this as a joke to Hamlet or a serious misfire that was poorly guided to begin with. I found it incredibly hard to follow any sort of plot or true emotions that the play of Hamlet should bring out plentifully. Mel Gibson was the only bright stop of the movie to me becauseof how funny he was. The screaming part was one of the funniest things I have ever heard. The two hours I spent watching this movie I felt deeply disappointed because of the lack of acting and the cuts and editing that occurred to the play.

There were also a couple of scenes where I didn’t understand what was going on. It might just be my cultural acceptance, but there were many scenes with people kissing. Hamlet even appeared to have sex with his mother, but I don’t believeZeffirelli intended it to be seen like that. Because of the under acting and the lack of any real spark I became less and less interested in it as it progressed. The one thing that I feel the director and producers got right was the setting and time. The castle and the land around Denmark was to a T my mental image of how Elsinore should look.

Keneth Branagh’s Hamlet

Posted on March 13th, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

When I first heard that this movie was a line for line interpretation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet I thought of all the positives of correctly portraying his work. But as the movie drug on and on I found the exact following to be a major set back. There were  a lot unnecessary words and the time that it consumed seemed to be an inordinate amount of time. With that said the acting and interpretation was adequate to good. Hamlet, Laertes, and Claudius were all characters that I thought did a nice job of acting but the movie needed something else.

I can not get over the fact that there were so many random secret doors and anachronistic details. The continuity of the film was terrible and it made me focus on some stupid detail than the development of characters and story. The straw that broke the camels back for Branagh’s interpretation of Hamlet was the thrown sword at the end. That seemed like such a cheesy and improbable action that undermined the seriousness of the scene.

I was entertained with these random occurrences in the movie, but really nothing else. In theory I believe a line for line interpretation sounds good but in this case the end product didn’t match my standards of good Shakespeare.

Zora

Posted on February 23rd, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

Henry Louis Gates Jr. afterward reflects upon Hurston’s life outside the realms of literary analysis and goes more towards social acceptance. Whether Hurston cares about this acceptance or not, she is still judged by all her peers, Wright being the most crucial and most adamantly against. Gates essay compares the two styles of the black authors, focusing mostly on the use of vernacular of the blacks in Hurstons novels. Wright during the mid 20th century became popular while Hurston was given a back seat.

Not until Alice Walker came along and realized the intent and message that Hurston wrote, she was talked about as a literary entrepreneur. Other black authors style their narratives around Hurstons’ and more people have read her novels now then when they first came out and lingered for a couple decades. Walker and Gates both agree when discussion around Hurston’s effective use of character, diction, and symbolism arise. They both see the bright and positive side of the grity black coloquial diction.

Mrs. Turner

Posted on February 9th, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

Mrs. Turner is a mix breed between white and black. She is a mulatto just like Janie except she only values the white side of her heritage. Believing that the white in her makes her better than everyone else in her society, Mrs. Turner emphasizes the importance of Janie and her brother being together. Nanny and Mrs. Turner are like two peas in a pod because they both look over their children without asking the opinions of the person, who they are controlling. With the Turner’s blood and Janie’s blood, Mrs. Turner can finally achieve her goal of prosperity and eliminating all reminisce of black oppression.

Gambling and Money

Posted on February 8th, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

Money is what makes the world go round. To Janie money is not a necessity but rather a comfort. After two marriages that ended in deep disappointment to Janie, she is now looking for love and the person to be her pear tree. Janie meets up with Teacake in her store and is immediately enthralled with him. She later on learns that he doesn’t have a dime to his name and everyone in Eatonville thinks that Teacake is just after her money. Janie understands the situation and can’t blame Teacake for trying to seem more suitable to the standards that everyone else feels they should abide by. Janie is not angry or even disappointed in the gambling but rather indifferent.

The money represents a difference in class and the social heirarchy. Teacakes needs money to seem adequate to Janie, but Janie has never asked for him to give her things. Money is a security blanket that runs completely against love and everything Janie has now realized she wants. Money relates to the ideals of Nanny but not to the pear tree.

What about the mules and buzzards?

Posted on February 5th, 2010 in Uncategorized by sillysally444

Mule:

The degradation and mistreatment of the mule is an ongoing motif in Their Eyes Were Watching God. The mule is used to show the black slaves in an animal form, so that mistreatment isn’t looked at as totally barbaric. But most importantly it parallels Janie and the treatment she gets from her husbands. Janie sympathizes with the old mule when it is being antagonized by the village people of Eatonville because it is like her and all the other black women who are said to be just like the mule in an earlier part of the novel.

 

Buzzards:

The buzzards represent the decay and the effects of time; I would even go as far as to say it represents death (death of dreams and aspirations). When the old mule dies after it has been liberated the entire town mourns in the loss except the previous owner, all that is left of the mule is a dead carcass with its legs sticking straight up. The town gives the mule a burial and then leaves the body to the buzzards, where they go on to desecrate and scavenge the carcass for food. The details associated with the mule are gruesome and it was emphasized by Hurston to show the outcome of everything will eventually end up dead and being devoured by others. If the mule represented a dream or rights of the people Hurston’s point that she makes is pessimistic.

Next Page »