1. How does Bokononism try to solve the problem of violent, religious dogmatism?

a. Bokononism is solely based on “LIES!” In the novel, religion is beneficial not because it portrays some truth about the world, but instead it gives people elaborate lies in which to believe. Vonnegut is thus showing that religion is useful to one’s life. Bokonon’s lies have the means for making men feel better about their lack of purpose and needy existence. Furthermore, one of the central ideas of Bokononism is that when man was created they are responsible for giving life meaning because it doesn’t have meaning in the first place. Bokononism’s purpose is to also provide people in general with “better and better lies” that will protect them from seeing the truth about life. Truth that life is short and harsh. The lies fabricated by Bokonon are both the people of San Lorenzo’s source of hope and the reason for their endurance to hardships (ie the HOOK). And all of this is the basis of the solution for violent, religious dogmatism.

2. How does Felix mock the prevailing notion that “evil” is humanity’s biggest problem?

a. I don’t think evil itself is the biggest problem of humanity it is the type of person that holds that evil, which is shown through Felix Hoenikker. Felix Hoenikker was a great scientist that development the atomic bomb, which was dropped on Hiroshima. Hoenikker does not care about the responsibilities that come with great power. That’s probably why Felix was also emotionally indifferent when it comes to people, including his family, he doesn’t really want anything to do with people, simply because his not a people person.  Furthermore, throughout the book Felix Hoenikker was conveyed as someone who approached his work if it were a silly game (ie. Cats Cradle). His office was filled with silly knick knacks that children would fine amusing such as toys. Felix would also suddenly talk about turtles. When it comes to it Felix Hoenikker is a CHILD! For example, when Felix created “ice-nine”, to help the military go across the mud with ease, he did not hide the ice-nine and after his death he left the ice-nice in plain sight where his three children would obviously used it for their own self. Though he may be a mad genius his mind set when it comes to want his doing is like a child, does not know what he truly is doing. In a sense Vonnegut is not mocking evil itself but the fact that there are people out there such as Felix Hoenikker who is incapable of understanding the destructive power he yields.

3. How does the commencement speech delivered at Frank’s high school graduation mock the valorized status that science occupies as a means to discover “truth?”

a. Well truth is something everyone seeks for in life. Truth is something that is desirable to the human eyes. To have answers to human problems makes a great impact in someone’s life. But, sometimes truth can lead to devastating results such as the invention of ice-nine, which in the end eradicated every living soul on earth . In the speech Frank’s colleague discovered the basic “secret of life” which later on found out to be some protein.  And so I believe the commencement speech mock the “valorized” status of truth mainly because science in turn does not bring life but death.

4. How does Vonnegut satirize humanity’s obsession with the “truth?” Why does he satirize it? Why does he think it is dangerous?

a. What I have noticed in Cat’s Cradle is that Vonnegut juxtaposes science with religion. He conveys religion as a form of creating “LIES” while on the other hand science as finding “TRUTH.” Vonnegut satirize humanity’s obsession with the truth by attacking the idea that truth is desirable in our culture and it is something good. But what humans tend to forget that Vonnegut ridicules and points out, is that truth is used for power/material gain without fear for the long-term effects it has on humankind. For example, Felix Hoenikker’s invention, ice-nine, was invented because the military needed an easy way to get through the mud. What ice-nine does is freeze the mud to make it more stable to walk on. However, what Felix Hoenikker disregarded is that he also invented a destructive weapon that can obliterate the whole world and it did at the end of the novel. For that very reason Vonnegut mocks truth because in reality humans discover and create “truths” that may seem to reveal answers for human problems (ie the mud) but eventually leads to inevitable consequences. Vonnegut think it is dangerous mainly because of the incomprehensible damage truth can produce. Felix Hoenikker’s truth led to their demise and ultimately the billions of people on earth.

Total: 787 words

3 Questions

1. When Bokonon and McCabe took over San Lorenzo, why did Bokonon “made it his business to provide people with better and better lies?”(pg.118 ch.78)
2. What made Angela’s life so “bleak with her father” that her only escape is to go to her “room, where she would lock the door and play along with phonograph records?” (pg.123 ch.81)
3. After disposing his painting why does Newt continue to say “See the Cat?”, “See the cradle?” (pg. 122, 124)

3 Assertions

1. Everybody on San Lorenzo is a “devout Bokononist.” (pg.118 ch.76)
2. Both Angela and Newt are “heavy drinkers.” Angela also plays the clarinet that “flabbergasted” John. (pg120-123; ch. 80-81).
3. After Newt asked Angela to play her Clarinet to ease her sadness, he expalined to Julian Castle and John that Angela had a hard time because her “husband always came home late, drunk and covered with lipstick.”(pg.122 ch.80)

• Talk to a parent about an illusion they feel is important to keep up (It does not have to be about themselves). Why is it important to maintain this particular illusion?

I believe everyone will agree that all parents put an “illusion.” One of the most common ones would be pretending that everything’s fine when truly they are not. Throughout my life my parents have always done this. They told me that it was not for selfish reasons but to protect my brothers and I. For example, growing up in the Philippines was hard, especially living in the province. Even though I was just a kid I can see in my parents eyes that something was wrong. My parents told me that sometimes they argue about money, that theirs not enough and then suddenly they were all happy when they saw me and my brothers. It seemed that all their troubles they just had a  few moments ago were gone. I believe my parents and most parents do this not only for protection but to let us know that everything OK. Especially because my parents did not want us to stress about the troubles they had because if me and brothers did stress about we would be vulnerable to the dangers of the streets in the Philippines. And I’ve seen it first hand, kids my age doing drugs, selling them, stealing for money, and even prostitution. I believe if we were living in a perfect world then there’s a possiblity that we can truly live ”without” illusions. But, because we do live in world full of fear and hatred then illusions are crucial to the survival of humanity.

I think out of the three versions of Hamlet this one is the best. When it comes to the acting, costumes, story; basically the movie truly captured the novel as a whole. Mel Gibson as Hamlet, I believe portrayed a balance of character. In the Branagh version Hamlet was I believe too over dramatic at times its hilarious and others times its too much. And the Ethan Hawk version of Hamlet was too little. The Hamlet in that version was just depressed all the time, I was depressed too after watching the movie. So Mel Gibson captured a balance of the two extremes. His portrayal of Hamlet was tastefully done well. Not too much nor it was too little.

However, a negative I saw that I didn’t not fully realized in the other two films was the relationship Hamlet had with his mother. I know in the play itself Hamlet and the Queen had some sort of mother/son relationship, which I really didn’t see in the Branagh or Ethan Hawk one. But in the Mel Gibson version, wow, I finally saw it. And it was surprising. Overall, I really liked this one out of the three versions of Hamlet.

Ok I take back my last post about Shakespeare being serious and boring because this film was too much for me. The Ethan Hawk version of Hamlet was very drab and depressing it had no life in it. After watching it I myself was depressed. Frankly, I thought this was stupid. Shakespearean language comes to modern day time is a bad idea. I mean come on no one talks like that nowadays not unless your playing dungeons and dragons. Hamlet in this film did not possess the  qualities the Hamlet from the Branagh version that made him so funny. That’s probably why I didn’t enjoy the film as much because of the main character. Hamlet in the Ethan Hawk version literally embodied the character of the play. He didn’t make it his own. He was just  CRAZY. Personally he didn’t stand out to me. Actually he stood out just not in a good way.

However, even though with all the negative aspects there were aspects of the movie that was unexpected. For example, the last film Gertrude was portrayed more innocent but in this version Gertrude was portrayed to be guilty than innocent. And she was very “naughty” with the king in a few scenes that made her even more guilty. I also like how this incorporated aspects of the play to modern day. For example, instead of swords that killed laeretes it was a gun which I believe is brilliant. Overall, this version was ok (3 of 5). I guess everyone has their own interpretation of the play and this was just another point of view.

Kenneth Branagh’s version of Hamlet was hysterically funny. When ever I read any of Shakespeare’s work I have always visualized it as serious and frankly boring. Because of the different style of language and the thought of Shakespeare’s work as a tragedy I perceived the movies to be exactly like the book. BOY I was wrong!?!? Kenneth Branagh’s version was hilarious.  There was such a drastic transition from what I’ve read and the way I read the play. I didn’t see any humor at all, whatsoever in the book. But the movie was something. Especially the actor that played Hamlet in the movie. I didn’t picture him to be so funny and old. There were moments of the movie where Hamlet would go off and start talking to himself. And then when a character or characters come into the scene he drastically change from a crazy person to this happy go lucky guy. I mean I know in the book he had to play it cool but the movie was such an over exaggeration that it made the whole scene so much better. And what really got me was the scene where Hamlet accidentally killed Polonius, thinking  it was his father Glaudius. For like 1omins. Hamlet and his mother was just talking and totally forgot that there is a dead body covered with a pool blood on the floor. This movie was over the top but I guess that was the purpose. If the movie was serious all the way through people and I would not finish the movie. Overall this movie was hysterical and truly captured the book in a different light.

OF COURSE WE DO!!! That was my initial gut reaction. I STRONGLY agree and believe that we owe so much to our parents. This statement is very true even if your parents aren’t the best parents but no one is perfect. Personally, in my situation I would NOT be here right now if it wasn’t for my parents. Growing up I did not have a lot. It was a very difficult living in the conditions I was raised in. I mean if you see poverty here in America, the richest and probably the most powerful country in the world, try comparing that to the poverty in a third-world country. It’s hard and for  my parents to sacrifice everything they had to let my four brothers and I come to America. To have an opportunity to basically have a second chance of a better life then I owe my them my infinite gratitude.  And even though a lot of people has not experience the life I went through I still believe you owe a debt to our parents. Even if some parents aren’t as structured (lets just say) or not there for you as much or their drug addicts what ever, that doesn’t mean that their bad parents. And a lot of kids today say that they did not have a choice to be born, well you are here and make the best out of it. Love your parents even if you think that they won’t change keep loving because someday they will see it and the end you won’t regret being born.

Even the way Mrs. Turner was described in the book as “a milky sort of a woman..her shoulders rounded a little, her pelvis….stuck out in front of her so she could always see it, [with] nose slightly pointed, thin lips, [and] even her buttocks in bas-relief, set her aside from Negroes” (pg139-140). And she was proud of it. However, this was not that truly set her apart it was the way she talked about it almost “preaching” to others, especially, to Janie. She stereotypes in her own race talking about how she “can’t stand black niggers” that there should be a “class” for her and Janie (141).

Then Mrs. Turner continues to a point that her talking about race to a “religious belief” with alters and gods. Gods that are molded to characteristics of white people, with “straigtharied, thin-lipped, high nose bone white seraphs” (145). It came to a level that she is comparing gods to white folks and that being the epitome of white is way to salvation.

Janie is not mad at Tea Cake for gambling because it is a “part of him.”  To Janie gambling is “all right.” Janie would rather be “angry at imaginary people who might try to criticize.” She would rather have Tea Cake gamble than having people always criticizing them and “lying [with their] tongues” all the time, about their life and how they can to be.

The MULE!

• In the earlier  chapters Nanny said that “black women are the mules of the world.” Chapter 6 and previous chapters brought up a motif of mules which parallels not only to black women but more specifically Janie. When Janie married her first, Logan Killicks, had mules that worked and so did Janie. In chapter 6 she then married Joe starks and during that time they came across  a mule whom the towns people including Jody ridiculed. Janie then muttered to herself to leave poor animal alone, which paralleled to her present situation. She felt sympathetic for the beast because it was mistreated and downgraded like herself.

The BUZZZZZZARDS!

• The passage about the buzzards on page 61 is also related to Janie. When the buzzards communicated upon each other provided the human characteristic that parallels to Joe and the townspeople. Joe represented the Parson who achieved personal gain by feeding off the mule, which is paralleled to Janie and the buzzards represented the townspeople who then fed off the leftovers by Joe. The townspeople including Joe all had a major role in the funeral basically sucking the life out of the mule and ultimately out of Janie.