Evolving Humanity
26 August 2022 – Manchester

tWell, Vonnegut has certainly done it again. He just seems to be able to slightly rework his style so that it is slightly different to the other stories that he has written, but still be uniquely Vonnegut. I have to admit that at least one of the stories that one that I have written, but is sitting at the bottom of one of my draws (or should I say in the dark corner of my hard drive) was heavily influenced by Vonnegut. However, part of that was because when I was writing it I had just been on a Vonnegut binge, so of course he was going to be influential (though I have to admit that nobody has influenced my style in the way Vonnegut has).

tAnyway, I’m sitting in a hotel in Manchester waiting to go and catch a bus to a European Rave. Mind you, a part of me feels that maybe I’m just a little bit to old for raves now, especially since the last one I went to pretty much everybody was half my age (though that was in Australia). Mind you, the heavy metal music festival I went to pre-Covid was much better because there were plenty of people my age and older. However, I can sort of tell why people from Liverpool say that the only good thing about Manchester is the road to Liverpool. Well, I guess you are going to get that rivalry when you have two massive cities literally within walking distance of each other.

tThis is a rather strange story though, and as I mentioned it is in typical Vonnegut style. For instance, he regularly tells you what is going to happen long before it actually happens. Most of the story takes place in a hotel in a swampy coastal port of Ecuador. The idea was to create ‘the nature cruise of the century’ where a ship will take people on a tour of the Galapagos Islands. This is of particular note because the story is about the evolution of humanity, and the Galapagos Islands were the place where Charles Darwin did his research to come up with his theory of Evolution. The problem is that there has been a financial collapse, and you could say that the entire world is on the brink of collapse. In fact, during the story Peru invades Equador, and when a missile goes stray, it is implied that Columbia joins the fight as well. I have to admit that I loved how Vonnegut describes the process of missiles hitting radar dishes. Anyway, the implication is that human society basically collapses, and there is a suggestion that everybody becomes infertile, but I must have missed that bit.

tThe thing is the people who has signed up for the holiday end up escaping Ecuador, but that is after the army storms the hotel (for the first part of the book a fence separates the hotel from the rest of the country, but when one of the soldier’s finds a way through, then everything pretty much goes to hell). Anyway, they escape on the ship and end up, after meandering across the Pacific for I don’t know how long, at one of the islands. The thing is that once they do escape Ecuador the idea is that we don’t know what has happened to the rest of the world because, well, they have pretty much become isolated.

tThe story is told from the perspective of a ghost, that happens to be the son of one of Vonnegut’s recurring characters, namely Kilgore Trout (who, if you know anything about Vonnegut, is a representation of himself). The thing is that the story is being written a million years in the future, so the idea is that this ghost has watched humanity evolve. The thing was that he had the opportunity of going to the afterlife, but decided to hang around for a bit to do some research. Interestingly, there is some interaction between the narrator and his father, who is trying to get him to leave Earth.

tIf there is an antagonist in this work, it is actually humanity’s big brain. The idea is that our intelligence, and out ability to reason and invent is basically our own worst enemy. There are a couple of businessmen on the trip, and of course there is an interrelation between them as well. However, as I mentioned, it is our big brain that actually makes us as bad as we are, and if we were to only remove those parts of the brain, then we would enter into a state of harmony and bliss. This is the idea of the book. It is not about not thinking, or following the crowd, it is about returning to a state where we can be truly happy, and of course, the industrialised age, or even the human ages before that, have been nothing bar war and suffering.

tJacqueline Onassis seems to play a part in the story as well, though we aren’t necessarily introduced to her. I suspect she would have been much more well known back when the story was written than today, though she was a socialite that married President Kennedy, and after he was assassinated, she married Aristotle Onasis, who was a shipping magnate. I guess the idea is that since the story is about a cruise ship, in part, then bringing in the wife of a shipping magnate probably works well.

tOh, and another thing that struck me is how Vonnegut turns the idea of human evolution on its head. I remember reading a play by Bernard Shaw where he explores this topic, and the idea of man evolving to a superman. The thing is that many authors, such as Shaw, seem to think that we will become more intelligent, longer living, and much more powerful. Vonnegut looks at it in the opposite direction suggesting that if we were to evolve, it will not be necessarily in the way other authors have suggested, but rather to become more adaptive to the environment, such as becoming more like anthropodic seals so that we can more easily hunt fish.

tAnyway, I have to head off now, so I guess I would leave it at that, other than to say that this is another one of Vonnegut’s great works.

Воннеґут пише про людей, але не для людей. Мені здається що ми йому не подобаємось і йому нас шкода. Адже ми такі в його книгах безглузді, неефективні, жорстокі й тупі істоти.

Він вміє працювати з образами та пустотами.
А ще після нього в твоїй голові стається "перегруз" і хочеться взагалі перестати читати на якийсь не визначений час.

Galápagos is Kurt Vonnegut’s satirical tribute to Charles Darwin. The narrator of the tale is a ghost existing for a million years and witnessing everything from the beginning to the end.
“Nothing could be less inviting than the first appearance. A broken field of black basaltic lava, thrown into the most rugged waves, and crossed by great fissures, is everywhere covered by stunted, sun-burnt brushwood, which shows little signs of life. The dry and parched surface, being heated by the noon-day sun, gave to the air a close and sultry feeling, like that from a stove: we fancied even that the bushes smelt unpleasantly.” Charles Darwin – The Voyage of the Beagle
The story is also a spoof of Noah’s Ark but instead of landing on Mount Ararat the ship lands on one of the islands in the Galápagos archipelago. And instead of evolution Kurt Vonnegut depicts a devolution.

Back when childhoods were often so protracted, it is unsurprising that so many people got into the lifelong habit of believing, even after their parents were gone, that somebody was always watching over them – God or a saint or a guardian angel or the stars or whatever.
People have no such illusions today. They learn very early what kind of a world this really is, and it is a rare adult indeed who hasn’t seen a careless sibling or parent eaten alive by a killer whale or shark.

Nowadays, with all the consumerism, conformism and hypocrisy surrounding us, individuals just lose their true identity and the devolution has probably already begun.

“They figure they can’t do much of anything about anything anyway, so they take life as it comes.”

One of Kurt Vonnegut’s most enviable talents as a writer was his ability to mock and celebrate humanity. Often times he would do this in the same sentence. It is a skill that only the best satirists possess. “Galápagos” is a novel tinged with darkness, but not the bitterness that would envelop Vonnegut later in his life/career.
In “Galápagos” I really like the unique idea of modern (in this novel the late 20th century) humanity’s brains being “too big” and thus a bad thing. It is an intriguing motif, which Vonnegut weaves the book around. The book takes place a million years in the future from 1986 AD and humans have “evolved’ into a sort of aquatic creature that only operates on the basic and necessary instincts of life. Get it? The irony of “evolving” into a lesser species? It is intriguing. I am not sure the novel makes a case for its being the entire focus of a book.
Many of the usual suspects one assumes would be in a Vonnegut novel are addressed in this tale, and he makes a biting connection between sex and warfare that is a nice touch. It is satirical, and yet perfectly apropos at the same time.
I will admit that I am still a little perplexed at the purpose of the use of a narrator who is a ghost, a Vietnam vet and the son of Vonnegut’s eponymous character Kilgore Trout. I don’t know that it detracts from the novel; I just don’t see the point?
Like most Vonnegut, “Galápagos” is about what it is that makes us human. Among those items: having the capacity to reason, to be motivated by selfish desires over the greater good, to laugh at farts…these are traits of most people. And Vonnegut is not saying that is a bad thing, he is just saying “The thing was…”
“Galápagos” makes me feel irritation and great love (at the same time) for those things about us that make us so wonderfully human.

*I am sure that when I reread this book I will have some very different opinions. I think that is what makes it good.

Galapagos, published in 1984, is classic Vonnegut. The book is narrated by a ghost one million years after the events in the novel, which occur in 1986. Half the fun of reading Galapagos is the gradual revelation of who the narrator actually is and of how the human race has evolved in the million years since the narrator died. The epigraph to the novel is from Anne Frank, "In spite of everything, I still believe people are really good at heart." And I'd say that in spite of all his apparent cynicism, Kurt Vonnegut still loved and sympathized with his characters. All of them.

The first hint of the direction of human evolution appears on the first page of the novel and remains a central idea--"Human beings had much bigger brains back then than they do today." Big brains lead to only one possible outcome--self destruction. A few pages into the story, the narrator asks, "Can it be doubted that three-kilogram brains were once nearly fatal defects in the evolution of the human race?" But a small group of very motley survivors--six people marooned on an island--carry the genes that allow the million-year evolution of humanity to continue, and the vessel of humanity's deliverance is the Bahia de Darwin, a ship built for "the Nature Cruise of the Century."

Typical of Vonnegut, it is the voice and the narrative perspective that makes the reading delightful. The characters make me laugh and make me want to cry. The narrative is cynical, wise, funny, and loving. I seldom ask for more than that.

To jest geniusz, nie ulega to wątpliwości, ale prawdę mówiąc, nie wiem co o tym sądzić xD

When will evolution correct its mistake and shrink our excessively big brains? - because obviously, what we do with our intelligence ultimately goes against the interest of the planet and consequently, against our own best interest. The speculative future evolutionary stages of mankind and how they might come about, that's what lies at the heart of this satiric dystopia.

The book is a typical Vonnegut: It's funny, but the humor serves to amplify the author's message which is, as usual, dead-serious. I might have read too many of his novels in the last couple of weeks and I am clearly in need of a Vonnegut break, but this certainly wasn't my last book by this amazing writer.

This was simply awful. A true testament to just....pushing through a book to get it done. It felt like there was a lot of fact and book quotes and a lot of random statements (and possible humor? what was that?) but....I didn't get any of it. The story went on long tangents and then would suddenly throw in dialogue.

not my thing, I guess.

For many people, this is a lesser of the Vonnegut books. The giants 'Slaughterhouse Five' and 'Cat's Cradle' eclipse it. Perhaps because those are required reading, they charm me less. They go in the same category as The Great Gatsby and Catcher in the Rye -- brilliant as they go, but ubiquitous.

This is more of a forgotten gem, and so I cherish it more. It's very Vonnegut in that it's unabashedly cynical, yet somehow hopeful. I love the bizarre meaning in his frank storytelling, and the amused rhythm and cadence of his style.

While other people may have moved on from Vonnegut in high school, he remains one of my top authors. I regret deeply that I never got the chance to meet him.

Чудовий гумор, захоплива історія, той самий Воннеґут

wiecie ze na tej okładce są plemniki? ja nie wiedziałam

Kurt Vonnegut, Isaac Asimov, Theodore Sturgeon and St. Peter sit in a bar in the Great Hereafter discussing, among other things, Vonnegut’s 1985 novel Galapagos.

Isaac: [Looking at Peter] What are you laughing about?

Peter: You know. [laughing]

Isaac: It’s still funny, after all these centuries, that me, a self described atheist and humanist, finds himself here in the Great Hereafter?

Peter: Yep, still funny.

Theodore: Well, it’s like Kurt’s book Galapagos, where Kilgore Trout’s son Leon is a ghost and views a million years of evolution. Kurt succinctly put together evolution and theism, tying the two together as if there was no metaphysical conflict.

Kurt: Well, there IS NO metaphysical conflict.

Peter: Ha! You know that NOW, but when you were writing, were you trying to make that point or were you being ironic?

Kurt: Irony is a big concept for a smelly fisherman!

Peter: I washed my hands, a******! [all laugh] and you are obfuscating the issue. Big enough word for you, army scout?

Kurt: Touché, Peter, and I think I was making the point that it is POSSIBLE, theoretically and rhetorically, that the two seemingly incongruent paths can arrive at the same destination.

Isaac: So back on Earth, you did not believe that you would end up here, smoking cigarettes and drinking cocktails with St. Peter and me?

Theodore: What am I, chopped liver?

Kurt: I didn’t know, and that was another point I was making, I didn’t know and no one else really knew, but there was a great amount of discussion, from both sides of the aisles that EVERYONE just KNEW what the answer was, but no one really did.

Isaac: Well, that was the scientific method describing the lack of a viable observation, it was crystal clear to me then.

Kurt: Was it, Isaac? By failing to make an observation that was sufficient for you to make an empirical statement?

Isaac: Well, hindsight being 20/20 –

Peter: You’re still full of s***.

[all laugh]

Kurt: The other point I was making was the idea about big brains. Me and Isaac, and most definitely Theodore, were often caught up in the idea that greater intelligence brought forth greater happiness, which almost always brings about less happiness. My slogan in the novel was - Stupidity May Save Us - Suppose human beings were shipwrecked on those islands? What would happen? Because all those animals out there have no business being there, you know. So I was thinking, how would human beings adapt?

Theodore: So that is how you got to the idea about reverse evolution? De-evolution?

Kurt: Of course there were no things to make tools out of out there. Just twigs, maybe some lava for hand axes. We would have to become very different sorts of animals.

Peter: But humanity would continue to live and love and marry and have kids and grow old and die even without tools, without plastic, and without big brains.

Kurt: That’s it in a nutshell, and I liked the idea that Theodore here, aka Kilgore, would be watching the whole show from the Great Hereafter.

Theodore: Turns out big brains aren’t as necessary as we thought.

[Charles Darwin approaches]

Darwin: Who wants to bowl?

**** 2019 re-read

There is an anecdote about Isaac Asimov’s wake where Vonnegut, delivering a eulogy, began with the comment about Asimov, who was a very public and outspoken atheist, “well, he’s in heaven now”. Vonnegut, ever the humorous humanist, got plenty of laughs among Asimov’s mourners. In doing so, he demonstrating his own playful irreverence towards both theism and propriety.

This novel about evolution (or de-evolution?) contains multiple Biblical references, as well as the biological references to Darwin and to his many theories which has made such an impact on our culture and thus on this story. The mainstay of this work is the premise that our “big brains” were an evolutionary experiment gone awry and that a sleeker design with a smaller brain and no hands works much better.

Much of this book is set in and around Guayaquil Ecuador and coincidentally, I’ve been to Guayaquil, in 1994, just a few years after the events of this story and so I saw the great disparity between the economic fortunate and unfortunate in that city described by Vonnegut. Strangely enough, I’ve also been to another city synonymous with Kurt Vonnegut and that is Dresden, Germany, where he spent some hellish time first as a prisoner of war and then as a survivor of the allied bombing of that once and now again beautiful city. And – I’ve been to Indianapolis and to Cape Cod, so it’s almost like I’m stalking Kurt.

The story is narrated by the ghost of Leon Trout, the son of none other than Kilgore Trout, who speaks to us from the other end of the blue tunnel that leads to the afterlife. The elder Trout admonished his late son that if he does not walk through the tunnel and join him in the hereafter, that he will not return again for a million years. The ghost of Leon Trout, then gets to narrate this brilliant work and observe humanity’s great evolutionary journey over this extended time and to see how big brains really just fouled things up.

And so it goes.