F13 Book Club Week One-Two: Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut

[Prospero]

Recall only two hundred years ago Europeans were bleeding each other to make themselves better. They called that medicine.

Technically, we still do.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2001/12/13/leech011213.html

Actually on topic though...

I wasn't blown away by CC. It's very well crafted, it touches on many human issues, but its coverage was too topical to really spark any thought for me. It seemed like a bunch of very general statements on what is to be human and the follies of our species. Woo. The dark humor was more like light gray humor. There wasn't enough meat to be interesting to think about, and the characters were made to be thin, so there was no empathy to carry the book. I'm still glad to have read it, but I won't weep when it goes to the used book store.

[lamaros]

I'm still glad to have read it, but I won't weep when it goes to the used book store.

If you're tempted to give up on V because of this I'd maybe hold the thought. I've been informed by a few people that many of his other books are more interesting and rewarding. Specifically Mother Night. My feeling about the book was similar to you and the recommendation comes from people who have similar taste to me.

[Phildo]

Mother Night was my first Vonnegut.  I remember it being more of a straight-forward story without all the lofty ideals, etc.  But a great story.

[Prospero]

If you're tempted to give up on V because of this I'd maybe hold the thought. I've been informed by a few people that many of his other books are more interesting and rewarding. Specifically Mother Night. My feeling about the book was similar to you and the recommendation comes from people who have similar taste to me.

Cool. I'll have to take that for a spin sometime.

[cmlancas]

freezepocalypse (popciclypse?)

Hiphopapotamus?

Oh, and lamaros, your posts have come a long way from "we can't analyze it like we're in 1963." "Putting a book in its historical context" is, in my opinion, about the same as the previous statement.
When I say, "Vonnegut upholds an ideal through his plot and deflates it through his style," that equates to your serious-silly dichotomy. I don't see the confusion. The last sentence I made was a summation of what I said before. I don't need to elaborate, you need to engage your brain, sir. My post is pretty well written, I think. I actually put some effort into it. 

Oh, and for those of you who are looking for another Vonnegut, perhaps try Breakfast of Champions or, if you haven't yet read it, Slaughterhouse-Five.

[lamaros]

Oh, and lamaros, your posts have come a long way from "we can't analyze it like we're in 1963." "Putting a book in its historical context" is, in my opinion, about the same as the previous statement.

Well, if you want to play the "lets be complete bitches" game. No it hasn't. I'm just explaining it to you that given the context in which it was made (Samwise's point about it being counter to SF of the time) it means the same thing. You wanted to blow your misunderstanding out in to some self righteous ego and good for you, but that doesn't change what I actually meant.

When I say, "Vonnegut upholds an ideal through his plot and deflates it through his style," that equates to your serious-silly dichotomy. I don't see the confusion. The last sentence I made was a summation of what I said before. I don't need to elaborate, you need to engage your brain, sir. My post is pretty well written, I think. I actually put some effort into it.

Just confirming that you meant the same thing. But hey, I should have assumed you meant something else and used it as a platform to be a dickhead instead, eh?

You just said that Ice-9 does all these things. But you didn't say how you think Ice-9 actually does them. You set it some pretty high goals:

Global warming, quantum physics, string theory....perhaps tomorrow they are nothing more than foolish notions. Generally, science, literature, history, and most great branches of knowledge save mathematics undergo transitionary periods when splendid new theories quash old ones. Recall only two hundred years ago Europeans were bleeding each other to make themselves better. They called that medicine.

Besides the fact that the last statement is questionable at best (and a flippant and isolated example that is completely incapable of bearing the weight of the previous assertions at worst) it requires a bit more on behalf of your "well written" self to link Ice-9 to this notion than just saying it demonstrates it. For someone studying these things you have a worrying propensity not to directly reference the text in any detail. Margalis' criticism (of me) from earlier applies:

It discourages me when I see people who think that an entire novel can and should be summarized in a sentence or two. It makes me wonder why people bother reading at all.

The argument that Ice-9 "completely elaborates the fallibility of human progress" is yet to be sustained. If that last line were a summation then the previous points would be the argument. There is no argument however. Yet you make no reference to the role Ice-9 plays in the book, nor any reference to how the 'idea' of Ice-9 relates to this view of human progress. You imply an argument, sure, but so does V himself. If we are to talk about CC it helps that we talk about the text, and not just pull out general ideas and assert them as fact.

The question How does Ice-9 demonstrate "the fallibility of human progress"? Does not have the answer: "Ice-9 completely elaborates the fallibility of human progress by showing us that most great branches of knowledge (save mathematics) undergo transitionary periods when splendid new theories quash old ones."

More pedantic points: Baudelaire does not "remind us", Baudelaire merely 'said'. Don't give yourself an authority you don't have. As I reminded you, "true genius comes from being able to defend your argument clearly and coherently, not just setting up a field of straw men to run around yelling whatever 'truth' you want at"

[cmlancas]

I'm not sure where all the hate is coming from.

Some bullet points:

Ice-9 is another development of the sciences. The global/quantum/string bit was a comparison to Ice-9 as a great achievement of science. Vonnegut elevates the work of his protagonist, Ice-9, and deflates it by ending the world (plus suicide). Is that clear enough?

I don't think the statement was flippant. I think it made the point rather well. I could create a long list of things people believed that turned out not to be true. Whether it was called science, history, or religion depends on the example.

It sounds like you want me to write you a paper juxtaposing Ice-9 and human fallibility. If I have time, maybe I'll write you three pages or so.


And the "authority I don't have"? I don't know how to answer that without sounding like an arrogant fuck. Let's just say that I've impressed some pretty major scholars as an undergraduate. I don't want to make this a let's have cmlancas boast about how great he is, but let's just not go there. Unless you're a published M.A. or Ph.D, you might just want to quiet yourself. 

I'll just put it this way: I'll send you a copy of my paper when it gets published. Then maybe I'll have some f13 Book Club cred. 

I apologize to everyone else in the thread for all the dick waving. I'd like to get back to the discussion. :D

[lamaros]

I'll all ears and ready to be impressed, I like to see the arguments that impress rather than just the conclusions, is all. Maybe (also being an English major?) I'm expecting the discussion to go a little deeper than it probably is, but I assure you if you write 3 pages or send me your paper I'll give it an honest read.

I thought the thread could use a bit of dick-waving, seeing how the conversation seemed a little stalled. Get opiniated everyone! If no one else starts saying stuff I'll probably come and bore the pants/annoy more of you by pointing out my individual dislikes of V's prose style. You have been warned.

On topic:

Bokonon himself: One lazy fuck, eh?

EDIT: I write 'just' too much. Fixed.

[Margalis]

Interesting opinions make for a good book club, not fucking morons who think that the posting style of the Politics forum is also the proper style for discussing books. Jesus people get a grip. Save the 'tardery for the correct forum.

[Phildo]

How does Ice-9 demonstrate "the fallibility of human progress"?

I could be completely wrong here, but it seems pretty simple to me:

"Marine general wants to keeps marines from wallowing in mud --> Scientist creates way of solidifying mud for this purpose --> Scientist fails to think about the consequences of his action --> Ice-9 has absolutely NO practical use that doesn't end up destroying the world --> Ice-9 accidentally destroy the world."

Something that should never have made it past the conceptual phase is designed by a man without any thought concerning the consequences.  Simply because, as his boss put it, he was into "true science."

[Margalis]

I don't agree with cmlancas that Ice-9 is in the same category as things we think are true that turn out false. Ice-9 worked, it wasn't incorrect science. It just had no upside.

So it does demonstrate fallibility, but not in the "some science turns out to be junk" way. Ice-9 is worse than that. It's creation wasn't an error, just immensely stupid.

[NowhereMan]

It's creation was meant to be a massive repudiation to any ideal of 'pure research' in science, the idea the director embodied that somehow only scientists working on their own projects that were the result of their interests are real scientists. All the others conducting research into solving real world problems or improving lives are simply engineers, tinkerers too caught up in the practical sphere to do anything truly worthy. It's an attitude in lots of fields of study, that study and research for its own sake is somehow more worthy than research carried out in smaller areas for specific problems, or research into the application of more ground breaking research. In this case it's a doubly cruel joke because the genius scientist's motives for study are based on whatever happens to randomly catch his interest (the turtles at one point) and it turns out not bothering with any practical applications means he really does just do whatever the hell he feels like without considering the practical implications.

That's certainly how I read it at any rate, I suppose you could expand it to an attack on any system of thought that sidelines the every day at the expense of high blown ideals that don't necessarily relate. If you took that line then Bokononism would seem to be the ideological opposite, it becomes an everyday concern with no greater overarching ideal, in totally ridding us of wider goals it ends up becoming meaningless itself.

[lamaros]

Conversely it also presents a system of though (Bokononism) that presents high blown ideas divorced from reality that are deliberately entertained despite everyone recognising this fact. Contradiction?

I don't think so. I personally feel that, intended or otherwise, the book doesn't really present a 'position' per se. It is more a collection of criticisms, thoughts, and confusions that ultimately celebrate humanity despite itself. (How's that for a poorly argued conclusion!).

[lamaros]

Getting back to some productive disucssion.

How many books from that era showed us the near-end of the world, and yet the protagonist survives it all and learns some sort of lesson?  Humanity almost always survives its own destruction.  Even when Douglas Adams decided to kill us all off much, much later on, there was still plenty of life left in the Universe.  And here comes Vonnegut deciding that no one is going to survive the freezepocalypse (popciclypse?)  I like that he doesn't back down from it, as much as the idea sucks to think about.

I'm nto sure if he does. Only the Bokononists kill themseves (which is a suicide pact of sorts, not destruction). The couple of other people who survive don't, nor perhaps, does Bokonon himself. Likewise it doesn't follow that everyone on earth was killed or will commit suicide. I think it quite plausable that you could have a follow up SF story about the people who chose to live on and adapt to the changed world.

[cmlancas]

That's certainly how I read it at any rate, I suppose you could expand it to an attack on any system of thought that sidelines the every day at the expense of high blown ideals that don't necessarily relate. If you took that line then Bokononism would seem to be the ideological opposite, it becomes an everyday concern with no greater overarching ideal, in totally ridding us of wider goals it ends up becoming meaningless itself.

I like your reading. I think the line, "'All true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies,'" totally supports your argument.

[lamaros]

It's interesting that you can call something like Bokononism as being concerned with both "everyday concerns" and "high ideals". For while it does talk about literal life it goes about it in an abstract way. This same point extends to Religion: "Love thy neighbour" is both an ideal and a literal command.

I don't think this is a contradiction nor results in meaningless. It's more of an aspirational edict. If you play that against Ice-9 what you are shown is the distinct lack of direction in that particular scientific aspiration. It is not aspiring to a goal, just aspiring to creation.

But then, if Bokonon himself wants to celebrate thumbing our noses at 'God', what better way to do it than to desire to create?

[Samwise]

I'm nto sure if he does. Only the Bokononists kill themseves (which is a suicide pact of sorts, not destruction). The couple of other people who survive don't, nor perhaps, does Bokonon himself. Likewise it doesn't follow that everyone on earth was killed or will commit suicide. I think it quite plausable that you could have a follow up SF story about the people who chose to live on and adapt to the changed world.

Maybe I'm being overly doom-and-gloom, but I'm nearly positive that an Ice-9 holocaust isn't survivable.  The fact that one stray snowflake will contaminate or kill anything it touches means that anything which isn't living in a hermetically sealed environment is pretty much fucked.  As soon as that corpse hit the water, it was officially game over for life on Earth.  At best, some of the survivors might last for a generation or so on canned food and whatever power reserves are available (need to have some way to thaw ice-9 for drinking if nothing else), and that's assuming no stupid accidents, which is a big assumption.  Even if humanity manages to hang on by its fingernails for a while, the ecosystem is shot to hell and back and won't recover, which means that either the oxygen or food supplies will eventually run out completely.

[lamaros]

Well, there will be no evaportiation, so no precipitation, so no snow. But otherwise you're probably right. I think it would take a while for humanity to die out though, and that is assuming they cannot adjust is some fanciful SF way like people do to such things (building a sealed underground town with uncontaminated etc etc). Literally I don't think it survivable, but then it's not a literal story, so I think you can take the fact that people are alive at the end of it as the destruction not being assured.

Afterall, you just need some other mad scientist to invent a substance that melts all Ice-9 back to water and much of the trouble is recoverable.

[Samwise]

Well, there will be no evaportiation, so no precipitation, so no snow.

Weren't there weird weather patterns and strong winds and stuff toward the end there?  Seems like that'd get you your snow even without precipitation (a strong wind picks up a few ice-9 crystals, one happens to hit your eye or get up your nose or you open your mouth at the wrong time = no more you).

Of course, you're right that one could always do a story where a miracle cure was invented, but from what was in the book itself up to the end I very much had the feeling it was the end of the road.  It was the only thing about the book I really didn't like, actually.     Bleak endings like that depress me.

[lamaros]

My default response to miracle disasters is to imagine miracle cures

But seriously, I never actually felt the ending was bleak, I just kind of thought of that then. I guess I found the book to be so capital f Fiction, the chapter titles and brevity, silly characters, etc contributed to this, that I didn't respond to it on a literal level.

As for the ice wind; always walk with your head down, sunglasses on, and never leave explosed sores to the elements!

[Phildo]

And then you wear your clothes, covered in Ice-9, back to your home where you casually toss them onto the floor, which transfers the crystals, etc, etc, until your home is caked in the stuff on a microscopic level and you get a tiny but fatal piece on you.  The only way to survive is, as was mentioned, a hermetically sealed environment.  And that would suck.

No, the world is doomed completely within a generation, tops.  And I found it to be horribly, depressingly bleak.  But I'm easy to freak out =)

[Margalis]

Yeah pretty much everyone is fucked. Even with plenty of advance warning it would be difficult to survive.

Basically all the plant and animal life on the planet will dies out within weeks. Hard to come back from that.

[lamaros]

Ice nine doesn't melt, how is it going to stick to your clothes? (to carry this absurdity on longer)

[Phildo]

Doesn't have to melt to flake off.

[lamaros]

Hm? What I mean is that it won't becoem stuck to your clothes to behin with, it will just hit you and then fall off. I'm not an expert on ice (to say nothing of Ice-9!), but how will the ice stick to clothes if you dont have some melting?

[Samwise]

Big blocks of ice are heavy and slippery, but small crystals of it (e.g. snow) are light and prickly enough to stick to each other and the fibers in your clothing without too much trouble.

Just imagine going out on a snowy day and then trying to get back inside without bringing ANY snow with you, not even a flake.  Imagine also that the snow is deadly poison.  And it doesn't melt at room temperature.

[Margalis]

Has lamaros never seen snow?

[lamaros]

Hmm, how to phrase this? How does this snow stick to you if not because it's .. stuck to you? Unless you're suggesting that snow 'catches' on you like a burr in your socks. Of course they wont happen as much as it does with snow, because it wont snow, we're talking about stuff caught in wind. Different angle, velocity, frequency. Etc. I think you could deal with that if you were careful about your clothes.

When you pick up a piece of ice in your hand the ice stick to you, because of stuff that is not ice. If you get two bits of ice they dont stick together unless you get some sort of friction going to melt some of that ice, which then gets cold and hardens attaching the two.

But as Ice-9 does not melt without serious effort it's not going to 'stick' to things in the same way that snow does.

Has lamaros never seen snow?

We're talking about Ice-9, not snow. (Or were you just trying to demonstrate you don't like me agian? You can stop, I get it.)

[Samwise]

When you pick up a piece of ice in your hand the ice stick to you, because of stuff that is not ice. If you get two bits of ice they dont stick together unless you get some sort of friction going to melt some of that ice, which then gets cold and hardens attaching the two.

Like I said, that's the difference between a big block of ice and little tiny bits of it.  Two ice cubes will behave in the way that you describe, but a handful of smaller crystals (snow) will very readily form a snowball at below-freezing temperatures.

Based on the description of Ice-9, small pieces of it (e.g. the frost on the ground and the particles of it that get kicked up by the wind) behave just like snow.

[Phildo]

Or were you just trying to demonstrate you don't like me agian? You can stop, I get it.

"I don't like you either!"




j/k

[Margalis]

I was seriously asking.

Snow doesn't have to melt to stick. It gets stuck in your hat, in your pockets, in your zipper, collects on your shoulders, etc, even at temperatures where it isn't melting at all.

Its like walking through a sandstorm and expecting not to have sand on you.

[lamaros]

I guess, to use the sand example:

If you go to the beach and don't go in the water you can get the sand off you pretty easily, where it becomes trouble is in your hair, stuck to your skin (sweat, etc) and in pockets and the like. But if you're not wet, weat a hat and dont have poeckets then you can probably get away with hardly any sand at all. Snow is the same, you can get it catch to you in many places, but if it's not close to melting at all you can get away with a lot less.

And in the hypothetical world with Ice-9 the amount of stuff flying through the air is going to be a lot less than in a snowstorm or sandstorm, so if you are looking out for it and trying to get rid of it then the chances are only a small amount will get caught on you.

Which you might be able to deal with if you planned properly. It would be a lot harder to deal with snow as we know it in the same way.

It's just an exercise though, the possibility wouldn't really come up. I expect everyone who wasn't incredibly well prepared before the event to die from Ice-9 in days were such a substance to exist. But, given the fantasy of it existing I thought I'd entertain a fantasy of trying to deal with it.

[Strazos]

Sand is made up of smooth particles. Snow is not.

[lamaros]

You're going to have to explain the relevance of that comment. (if people are really so bored as to continue this discussion?)

[Margalis]

All these totally retarded conversations appear to have a common factor.