Kurt Vonnegut said that he only found out he was writing science fiction when he read his reviews, and he wasn’t too happy about it either.

This strange, funny, goofy, mildly annoying little novel came out in 1963 and people connect it with On the Beach and Dr Strangelove because it’s about the inventor of the atom bomb and how science earnestly dutifully ploddingly presents human beings with the means of obliterating life on this planet.

But I would instead connect Cat’s Cradle with a string of weird and wonderful anti-novels that appeared in the mid sixties :

Beautiful Losers by Leonard Cohen


Snow White by Donald Barthelme


Trout Fishing in America by Richard Brautigan


And others.

Like Cat’s Cradle, these novels weren’t normal, they had little or no plot, they were full of riffs, spoofs, cartoon characters, pages from the author’s diary… they were comedies – that is to say, they were ridiculous over the top serious comedies. They were hip and happening. They put the zeist back in the geist. They gave you the impression that they knew the recipe for the cake that was left out in the rain in Macarthur Park.

Cat’s Cradle is the first of these that I’ve come across AND it contains a deadpan dead-on spoof of what did not happen for another three or four years after it was published: alternative religion. It’s called Bokononism and its sweet-natured flat-out pessimism is one of the funnier strands here.

Has to be said, KV fans, that some other aspects of CC have not worn so well – all that talk of benighted grovelling natives and the regrettable sex bomb character of Mona – but we shouldn’t clutch our pearls too tightly. CC is still woozily amusing. And it inspired some great book covers.

Oh, I don't know.

There's so much potential here - as always with Vonnegut: a compelling subject of thought-provoking complexity, an incredibly up-to-date awareness of ecological/political/cultural issues... and yet, I just don't feel sated. It's not that I didn't like this book, but I can't help concentrating on its shortcomings rather than on its merit.

The plot.
A guy decides to write a book on F. Hoenikker, one of the 'fathers' of the atom bomb; more precisely, the book will focus on Agust 6, 1945, the day Hiroshima became the largest laboratory - and show-case - in the world.
The narrator's attempts to gather some useful information fails, due to the triviality of Hoenikker's sons memories of that momentous day.However, during an interview he accidentally learns about the scientist's last creation, the ultimate Deadly Weapon: Ice-nine, 'a polymorph of water which instead of melting at 0 °C (32 °F), melts at 45.8 °C (114.4 °F)'.
Let aside the scientific data (as far as I know about science, earth is a flat disk and the whole universe rotates around it) what we all can easily understand is that if a molecule of Ice-nine comes into contact with water, it causes its total solidification. Ergo, by dropping a crystal of Ice-nine in a river one would start the process of solidification of the whole oceanic masses: the climate would consequently undergo a dramatic change and life on earth would become virtually impossible.

After Hoenikker's death, the crystals of Ice-nine are in the hands of his three sons: a dwarf, an asocial weirdo and an ugly giantess. Quite a reassuring trio, uh?
Anyway, they all gather on the fictional Caribbean island of San Lorenzo, where the weirdo Hoenikker brother has been chosen as the local dictator's successor.
By the way, San Lorenzo is also the only place on earth in which Bokononism, a crossing between existentialism and Christian eschatology, is the official - although outlawed - religion.
Alas, during a military exhibition the dictator's castle is accidentally destroyed; the crystals of Ice-nine fall into the sea and the chain reaction begins.

End of story.

Soooooo.
The problem here is not the flimsy plot: not for me, at least. As a voracious reader of post-modern fiction, I'm not a purist of linearity and I'm not afraid of dealing with the often questionable techniques of experimental literature. The thing is, there must be a compensation. The dematerialisation of the literary structure must be balanced with an exponentially high dematerialisation of the language, namely poetry. Unfortunately, there's none here. Only some good excerpts here and there.

Now, I know Vonnegut has great intuitions. What he lacks - in my opinion, of course - is the literary skills to give shape to something more than intuitions; he just doesn't get to the core of them.
This book deals with ecology, militarism, madness, deranged science, religion... but it's all kind of blurred, out of focus, with no depth whatsoever.
What I mean is: you can't put science into question for having served politics and ideology (see project Manhattan, project Artichoke, project Bluebird, MK Ultra and so on) without making some moral statements as a writer. As for religion, I wish Vonnegut had been more courageous, even blasphemous, whereas his critique is too tamed (shallow?) to be really meaningful.

When I pick up a book about controversial matters, I want it to be controversial too. I want to be outraged, upset, shocked, hurt, disgusted... I want to remember that book not because of its contents but because of my reaction to them.
Well, I had no reaction at all while reading this one.
I suppose it's only me; I've been pushing a bit too hard on outrageous lit lately, and now I might be unable to appreciate this kind of subtle wit.

“Sir, how does a man die when he's deprived of the consolation of literature?"
"In one of two ways," he said, "petrescence of the heart or atrophy of the nervous system.”

Meh.

Originally published as Cat's Cradle.

John had "only" wanted to write an account of the day the atomic bomb had dropped over Hiroshima. He had been diligently gathering data for it, even going so far as contacting the chief scientist's youngest son. And what a story that avenue had revealed! But... that had been 2 wives, 250,000 cigarettes, 3,000 quarts of booze... and a different religion ago. He's a Bokononist now. A much more sarcastic, realistic-sounding, but also a shameless lie of a religion. The perfect one, actually, for his current situation... as the reader will find out.



I had heard of this book, back when I first joined GoodReads. I swear, absolutely everyone and their pet chihuahua was reading it, had read, or was planning to do so in the near future. This of course, gave me enough reason to avoid it more eagerly than the plague. I have never been good at literary analysis, nor at reading profound message between the lines, so COUNT! ME! OUT! from this rapture.

... but then last year I stumbled on a heavily discounted Romanian translation of it, in hardcover no less, which I just had to buy. And since I did buy it, I might as well read it. A year later.



It was... weird. Sort of similar to the Alice in Wonderland brand of weirdness, but without the talking animals, or flamingo croquet bats. And a whole lot more science. That is to say, talk about how everything is all science, and thus perfectly easy to understand. Or at least, it should be.

n
“Magic,” declared Miss Pefko.
“I’m sorry to hear a member of the Laboratory family using that brackish, medieval word,” said Dr. Breed. “Every one of those exhibits explains itself. They’re designed so as not to be mystifying. They’re the very antithesis of magic.”
“The very what of magic?”
“The exact opposite of magic.”
“You couldn’t prove it by me.”
Dr. Breed looked just a little peeved. “Well,” he said, “we don’t want to mystify. At least give us credit for that.”
n

Then there is also Bokononism, as it slowly grew on me, to the point that I wouldn't mind converting to it. Even though the author (and Bokonon) warns us at the beginning, that it is in fact a religion based on shameless lies, I couldn't help but nod along to every Calypso, or anecdote, that the narrator would cite.



Score: 4.5/5 stars

A lot of the humor and sarcasm was lost in translation. I don't mean to say that it was (necessarily) poor. Truth be told, I actually suspect the problem may lie with me, who reads much more in English. That, and the fact that I grasp double-entendres much easier in English.

This is why I'm still unsure what rating I should give this book. Did I find it a 5-star master piece, or did I just like it very much (4+ stars)? On the one hand, I read it very fast, and without getting (too) bored. Heck, I even liked its religion a lot, and could see myself adopting it... maybe. Should I manage to put my lazyness/comfort aside for long enough to do so.

“Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.”

You can always find great quotes in Vonnegut books that are effective even outside of the book’s context. The above quote hints at one of the book’s central themes of dangerous knowledge or technology. Cleverly conceived but applied without wisdom, compassion or humanity, to disastrous effect. Sounds grim but Cat's Cradle, like every Vonnegut books I have read, is actually very humorous.

Cat's Cradle tells the story of a writer’s research into the life of Felix Hoenikker, the “father of the atomic bomb” which leads to this writer meeting eccentric members of the Hoenikker family. This research also uncovers the existence of an extremely dangerous substance called “ice-nine”, invented by the same Felix Hoenikker, and the catastrophic event that soon follows.

I wonder why Cat's Cradle is categorized and marketed as science fiction while  Slaughterhouse-Five is marketed as some kind of lit fic. Of course, categorization and marketing do not have any effect on the quality of either book, I just wonder about the publisher’s inconsistency. Like  Slaughterhouse-Five, Cat's Cradle uses sci-fi as a prop to tell a satirical and allegorical story that is a commentary on some aspect of society. The main theme of this book - if I understand correctly – is the misuse of technology and knowledge untempered by concern for humanity. Beside this Vonnegut also parodies the development of a new religion, Bokononism, arising out of the need of a people living in the harsh conditions of a little island called San Lorenzo, the setting for the second of this book.

Kurt Vonnegut’s novels are not like anybody else, the micro-chapters, the satirical style, the humour which often has a melancholy undertone. I found the first half of Cat's Cradle to be a little meandering and unfocussed, not as compelling as my favorite Vonnegut books such as  The Sirens of Titan or  Mother Night. However, it is never dull and I was always happy to pick it up again whenever I have time (as opposed to making time for reading it). However, the second half of the book is quite riveting, as the situation in San Lorenzo becomes more and more absurd, and eventually leading to a darkly hilarious climax.

On the whole, I really enjoyed Cat's Cradle, it is funny, entertaining and thought-provoking. I prefer more of a narrative momentum in the first half, but most fans of Vonnegut would probably prefer it as it is. After all, according to Goodreads, this appears to be his second most popular book. When I first read it a few years ago I was much less familiar with Vonnegut’s style and felt less appreciative of it. I was also approaching it as a sci-fi novel instead of a funny, dark satire. If you are looking for actual sci-fi along the line of Clarke or Asimov you would be barking up the wrong tree. Just enjoy Cat's Cradle as it is, forget about genres or categories, then you will get the most out of it.

Note:
The comments below from 2014 refer to my original review of this book. This review is completely revamped as I feel that I have a better understanding of Vonnegut’s charming idiosyncratic style now.

Quotes:
“Peculiar travel suggestions are dancing lessons from God.”

“People have to talk about something just to keep their voice boxes in working order, so they’ll have good voice boxes in case there’s ever anything really meaningful to say.”

“It isn’t size that makes a man a pissant. It’s the way he thinks. I’ve seen men four times as big as this little feller here, and they were pissants. And I’ve seen little fellers—well, not this little actually, but pretty damn little, by God—and I’d call them real men.”

“And I made the mistake of taking an albatross canapé from a passing tray.”

The following text is a comment by a Reddit user on the topic of this book, the whole thread found here. I think it's better than anything I could have possibly written about the book, which is nothing (and I've read it in 2013):

"Cat's Cradle is one of, if not my favorite book I've ever read. Like you, I didn't get it the first time I read it either. I only started to understand it once I read a bunch of online essays about it, and then a re-read solidified my love for it. Like the other people said, the book has so many different themes and statements going on, that you could interpret the book many different ways. So I'll just talk about an interpretation that I don't think the other posters have touched upon yet.
I think one of Kurt's biggest points in the book is that life may be completely meaningless, but that doesn't mean we can't give it meaning. In the book he rails on both Religion and Science. The two biggest things that provide meaning for people. Throughout life, we are constantly trying to understand everything. Things need to make sense. Mysteries are unacceptable. WE NEED TO KNOW WHY. And of course the biggest mystery of all, is life itself. Why are we here? What is our purpose? Who put us here? Many people need to know the "answer" so they turn to Religion or Science to explain something that may have absolutely no explanation. And they lie to themselves, they find the explanation that comforts them best and they envelop themselves in it and use it to defend them against the uncertainties of life.
It's easy to see how religion would fit in here. But science is a bit more tricky. Real Science, science that is always open to new "truths" and new ideas, is alright with Vonnegut. It's just the Science the get's set in it's ways that is bad. The scientists who think they find the truth and they are die-hard about it and they don't care how it affects humanity, as long as they get to the "truth". And we see how both Science and Religion negatively affect the world.
Dr. Hoenikker only cares about his Science. He treats it as one big puzzle and he doesn't care about the outcomes. He treats it as a game. And of course he ultimately creates ice-nine out of his carelessness. On the other hand, like another poster said, we see the follower of bokonism all kill them selves because they suddenly see no point in it all.
And what was the point of it all? Was there any? The whole world just died because of one man's selfishness towards solving a puzzle. And the key symbol here is the Cat's Cradle. Since childhood parents cross a bunch of random strings in their hand and say "See the Cat? See the Cradle?". And like Newt says in the very end "No damn cat, no damn cradle." The Cat's Cradle represents how we are constantly searching for meaning in what really may be just a bunch of random crossed strings that occasionally forms a pattern.
So if life has no meaning, why shouldn't we live by what makes us happy? As others have pointed out, the key phrase is "Live by the foma [harmless untruths] that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy." If what you believe isn't hurting anyone, and it makes you happy, go for it. There's nothing wrong with lying to your self as long it makes you happy and it doesn't hurt anyone else. Because no matter what, there is one thing that awaits us all in life, death.
I don't know if that made sense. I struggled to get all my thoughts in a coherent form. But if you read the whole thing, thanks. I just love this book, and it has influenced me in a lot of ways and so I'll bite at any opportunity to talk about it."

Smart, witty, satirical..... what Vonnegut does so well!

It is damn obvious to me now, but I spent sixth grade in perpetual annoyance at how a dumb 'game' like cat's cradle could become a rager among my classmates in middle school. There was another lunchtime hit that involved kids hooking the pinkie of their right hand to their belly buttons while touching the thumb to their noses and spinning around bent in that position until very dizzy, but cat's cradle somehow remained the stupidest, most meaningless of all (at least the spinning gave the restless prepubescents some sort of a high).

Unsurprisingly, I instantly took to it when Frank Hoenikker—progeny to "the father of the atomic bomb" in this novel—exposes the 'game' as "nothing but a bunch of X's between someone's hands." I felt it in my bones when he dropped a bomb of his own: "No damn cat, and no damn cradle." The meaninglessness and emptiness of these mere X's, like that of most human actions and endeavours, is what forms the cynical, ironic core of the story in Cat's Cradle (1963).

Now, sure, life is meaningless—so what do we make of things when life on earth is coming to an end? Published right after the nerve-wracking impasse that was the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle presents the terror of nuclear annihilation of the Cold War era as a delicious and desperately humourous satire, narrated by a man attempting to write a book about the day Hiroshima was bombed in August 1945.

Cold War and Science
The bombing of Hiroshima may have ended the second World War (sike), but it also led to a crazy arms race between two great world powers, bringing humans the closest we had ever been (yet) to complete self-destruction. In Vonnegut's vision of the apocalypse, it is not nuclear weapons that push us over, but a substance called Ice-nine, capable of freezing the entire world forever (Cold War, amirite?) and created at the behest of the US Marines by..."the father of the atomic bomb", Dr. Felix Hoenikker.

Vonnegut based the character of Dr. Hoenikker on the Nobel-prizewinning chemist Irving Langmuir, who according to him "was absolutely indifferent to the uses that might be made of the truths he dug out of the rock and handed out to whoever was around."

Indeed, his critique here is essentially of the amoral, expansion of science, as well as of the unthinking race for possession of technology and power: after his death, Dr. Hoenikker's three children—Angela, Franklin (also known among his classmates in high school as X-9), and Newton. While Franklin gives his share of Ice-nine to the president of San Lorenzo in exchange for a job (and ultimately fucks the world up), Angela and Newton too deal with their shares irresponsibly and unwittingly put the weapon in the hands of both warring superpowers.

Ice-nine, X-9...English is not my first language, which often allows me to play with its syllables in very interesting ways, and I find these names not very further from 'asinine,' which is precisely what their referents prove to be in the end. So it goes.

Religion: A pack of foma
Most critics of Cat's Cradle hold against it its cartoonish characters and the seeming looseness of its plot (the fact that this is a satirical novel about the world coming to an end notwithstanding). Even so, everyone can agree that this book is held up by the same principle that everyone swears holds things in place when nothing else does: religion (back to the Cold War: while ideology had much to do with it, religion provided a good deal of optics to American capitalism, with its newfangled motto of "One nation under God" versus the godlessness of the Soviets).

The religion in question here is Bokononism, practiced (in secret) by the people of San Lorenzo in the novel. As a doctrine of faith it is conscious and up-front about being composed entirely of foma or shameless untruths, including all its creation myth, rituals, hymns (in the form of calypsos), and the political martyrdom of its founding rock, Bokonon, forming throughout the course of the novel several whipping remarks against blind faith and the foolishness of a search for meaning, but also revealing why and how the untruths of any religion come into being and continue to persist. Indeed, a quote from 'The Book of Bokonon' explains it best:

"Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either."

Vonnegut employs Bokononism and its 'tenets' as a brilliant device that allows the readers to see the absurdities of existing belief systems and society as a whole. The concept of karass, for instance—referring to a cosmically significant community—may seem like vague mystical nonsense, until Vonnegut comes around with satirising superficial bonds and loyalties (or granfalloon) like being a Hoosier (or liking BTS). As with any other situation in our society, religion influences and provides a window into everything in this novel.

Satirising America
The Republic of San Lorenzo is ostensibly based on dictatorships such as Haiti (with the character of 'Papa' Monzano) and the Carribbean in general (with its exploitative history of sugar cultivation). However, what it really provides a comment on is American imperialism and its view of the Third World as an opportunity. For instance, the bicycle capitalist H Low Crosby likes San Lorenzo because its desperate poverty allows him a docile workforce he can easily exploit, while his wife subtly exhibits her xenophobia:

'The thing I like,' said Hazel, 'is they all speak English and they're all Christians. That makes things so much easier.'

Similarly, Angela rants about her father's 'oppressive' salary of only $30,000 a year right amid a discussion on how bleakly the natives of San Lorenzo live, exhibiting her indifference to the suffering around her. At the same time, Vonnegut also manages to capture the stupidity of the far right with discussions on how all crimes in San Lorenzo are punished by 'the hook,' which the American characters in the novel seem to admire.

*

Evidently, Cat's Cradle deals with a lot of serious themes such as war, science, religion, love, peace, exploitation, and annihilation. The true genius of this book lies in how purely unserious it is while doing so—the ironic black comedy, the caricature-like characters, and the total absurdity of the events that take place in the book only serve to highlight the important, real issue: the stupidity of war and the need to realise that we are driving ourselves towards extermination.

And then, there's also the fact that Vonnegut isn't attempting to help readers recognise the need to avert the end as much as to come to terms with it. To that I can only say one thing: Classic Vonnegut.

'What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years?’
'Nothing'
—The fourteenth book of Bokonin, in its entirety

I've had the pleasure of reading quite a few books I've really enjoyed this year, but nothing has quite blown me away as discovering Kurt Vonnegut's writing.



Cat's Cradle is another of Vonnegut's satirical novels, in which he takes apart various aspects of living on Earth. Set in a bit of an alternative reality, we have one of the founding fathers of the atomic bomb, Dr. Hoenikker, who's left another deadly legacy to the world: Ice-Nine is a chemical substance that has the ability to freeze the entire planet. Unfortunately, it's now in the hands of his eccentric children.

I've stopped several times while reading this, literally thinking to myself how I could never, never even imagine writing something like this. Similarly to Slaughterhouse-Five, Vonnegut writes with the tremendous precision of a fleshly sharpened cutting knife. While his style seems mindless and casual at first glance, there's not a single word lost on the reader. Every sentence serves a purpose, every saying adds to a point being made.



And the points he's making! Since I'm already gushing anyway, how can a writer be able to cover so ridiculously much on less than 200 pages? And make it funny? And sad? At the same time? While the story is told in a linear matter, the chapters themselves are like little vignettes or puzzle pieces, all put together making points about how crazy humanity's dealing with religion can be and how crazy humanity's dealing with power can be. It doesn't take an evil mastermind to destroy the planet, but just a few reckless people who haven't really thought-through what they're doing, which scarily applies to pretty much all of us.

Kada je postalo jasno da nikakva reforma vlade i gospodarstva neće pomoći toj zemlji da se izvuče iz jada, religija je postala jedino oruđe nade.

Istina je bila neprijatelj naroda jer je istina bila tako grozna, pa je zato Bokonon preuzeo na sebe zadatak da ljude počne zavaravati sve boljim i boljim lažima.

Ovaj citat mi je odmah upao u oko, jer kao da opisuje našu banana republiku i naše političare koji su očito predani bokononisti.

...

Godinu dana prije izlaska knjige, dakle, 1962., bila je Kubanska raketna kriza, kojom je Hladni rati došao na vrhunac. Sovjeti su željeli na Kubi postaviti nuklearne rakete, ideja koja nije baš oduševila Amerikance. Ta kriza je proglašena najopasnijom vojno-političkom situacijom u ljudskoj povijesti. Kriza je trajala samo 38 dana, ali to je bio prvi put da je ljudska civilizacija bila pred realnom mogućnošću potpunog istrebljenja. Tako da se mnogo toga u Kolijevci za macu može čitati alegorijski. Roman je i satirična kritika religija kroz bonononizam, religiju koju je Vonnegut izmislio za ovaj roman. Uz to romanom izražava i svoje pesimističke stavove o čovječanstvu u cjelini i njegovoj budućnosti. On za razliku od većine SF pisaca ne vidi ni u znanosti spas. Taj stav je najvjerovatnije formirao kada je nakon 2. svjetskog rata radio u uredu za javne odnose istraživačkog poduzeća General Electric, gdje mu je zadatak bio da razgovara s njihovim znanstvenicima i složi zanimljive priče o njihovim istraživanjima. Vonnegut je dobio osjećaj da je starijim znanstvenicima svejedno za što će se njihova istraživanja koristiti. Irving Langmuir, kemičar nobelovac, koji je radio sa Vonnegutovim starijim bratom, postao je inspiracija za lik doktora Felixa Hoenikkera.

Ipak unatoč teškim i depresivnim temama, te pesimizmu, roman je napisan uz veliku dozu odličnog humora koji je svjež i originalan čak i danas. Vonnegut je majstor zanimljivih dijaloga i neobičnih opisa. Sviđa mi se kako piše, rečenice su mu jednostavne, ali jasne, dok bi se stil mogao opisati kao reportažni, na što je sigurno uticalo i to što je u mladosti bio urednik studentskog časopisa, ali i to što je glavni lik, pripovjedač koji opisuje radnju - publicist.

Uz sve pohvale roman nije bez mane, radnja jedva da je definirana i poprilično je zbrkana. Likovi i događaji su opisani bez emocija, pripovjedač hladnokrvno opisuje trenutke svojeg emocionalnog sloma i smrti nekih njemu bitnih likova, ali, opet, i time je postignut zanimljiv efekt, jer zbog te nepristranosti pripovjedača događaji u romanu dobivaju na autentičnosti.

Kurt Vonnegut je za roman Kolijevka za macu dobio i titulu magistra antropologije 1971. Na kraju moram pohvaliti i odličan prijevod Ivana Zorića, čitajući roman nisam ni u jednom trenutku imao osjećaj da je nešto izgubljeno u prijevodu.

Dakle, pet minus, ali definitivno petica.

یه رمان فوق العاده جذاب و خلاقانه و خوندنی علمی تخیلی راجع به یکی از چندین راه ممکن برای خاتمه جهان.. نویسنده با نگاهی طنز به بررسی نتایج پیشبرد علم و تکنولوژی در راستای اهداف نظامی اشاره میکنه. مردم سن لورنزو به عنوان نمادی از غیر امریکایی ها ملتی هستند که زیر فشارهای حکومت‌های دیکتاتوری و آموزش‌های سراسر دروغ مذهبی ، به بازی گرفته شده‌اند . طی داستان به بازی‌های جنگ طلبانه‌ی ابرقدرت‌ها هم در دنیا اشاره میشه.



عاشقان دروغگویان اند
به خویشتن دروغ می گویند
راستگویان تهی از عشقند
چشمانشان همچون صدف است



مورچه چسو ادمی س که فکر میکنه خیلی خیلی زرنگه اونقد که هیچ وقت نمی تونه
جلوی دهنش رو بگیره...هر که هر چی بگه باید با طرف جر و بحث کنه. شما می گین از چیزی خوشتان میاد و اون هم به پیر قسم براتان دلیل و برهان می اره که غلط می کنین از ان چیز خوشتان میاد.همیشه خدا تا حدی که بتونه کاری می کنه شما فکر کنی خنگ اید. هر چی بگین اون رو دستتون بلند میشه و بهترشو میدونه


جیغ کشان گفتم" وای خدایا! زندگی- کیست که بتواند یک دقیقه ی ان را درک کند؟
کاسل گفت: زور بیخودی نزن.فقط وانمود کن می فهمی.
از هم وا رفتم و گفتم: این که گفتین- این نصیحت خوبیه


قربان اگر تسلا و دلخوشی ادبیات را از انسان بگیرند این انسان محروم مانده از ادبیات چگونه می میرد؟
به یکی از این دو صورت. یا از گندیدگی قلب یا از اتروفی سلسله اعصاب

“Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.”

Another strange buddy read with Ashley, Evgeny, Christopher and anyone else brave enough to participate.

Um. Good (sort-of), but weird, and not always “good-weird.”

Blending science and morality, religion with warning, weapons and the man’s desire to create and destroy, it’s a powerful satirical novel that works in some levels and loses me on others. Nothing new for me, I’m sad to say. Damn impatience trait.

Jonah aims to write about the now-dead scientist who is credited for being a creator of a bomb – he pairs up with the three odd children left behind from the man, and they voyage to a new place that holds a weird and quirky religion, Bokononism.

I know Bokononism was created and employed to give more message regarding religion, but it was so annoying. My least favorite aspect of the book. The humor fell flat with me with the religious stuff, but the humor DID work with the unique characters and how they interacted with each other.

The author kind of overindulges in some ways and the story seems to struggle with rambling. When they get to the island it doesn’t get much better, although the ending was one of the strongest parts.

The writing is creative and I get there is plenty of message here, but the execution to bring the message alive doesn’t work consistently. I got tired of some of the stuff being too out there and satirical half the time, while the other half I ended up enjoying and admiring the effort.

معمای هستی چیست؟ پدری که با دستانش نخ‌بازی می‌کند و گهواره‌ی گربه درست می‌کند و به فرزندش می‌گوید نگاه کن، نگاه کن! اما نه گربه‌ای آن‌جاست و نه گهواره‌ای. تاریخ، تاریخ خون است. و این فرزند، منجمد نگاه می‌کند به اویی که همگی می‌شناسیم. همه‌ی این‌ها برای چه؟ هیچی.