Admittedly ignorant

A topic discussed in class sparked my intrigue about the way that I deal with unfavorable discoveries. This topic transpires as the belief that one’s willingness to take responsibility for distressing information contributes to their integrity. I have come to understand that there remains a line between behaving ignorantly and realistically when faced with the obstacle of taking responsibility. These ideals are represented in both Roald Dahl’s writing and in my life. Dahl exhibits a scenario in his short story, “The Sound Machine,” that poses the necessity for rational thinking. An inventor named Klausner adamantly experimented with a machine that could hear an undetectable “world of sound” (29). However, the sounds that surfaced with his invention opened an additional realm of problems. After hearing the pain experienced by roses and a tree, he urged the skeptical Dr. Scott to listen to the noises as well. Upon using the device, the Doctor reacted strangely by exclaiming not so convincingly that he didn’t hear anything. By indirectly characterizing him as anxious, Dahl implies that he did, in fact hear the noises also heard by Klausner. This complication surfaces the question: Why would one lie about such an instance? I believe that this reaction, although selfish, transpires as natural for many people. It stems from the widely held belief that “ignorance is bliss,” and signifies the previously mentioned line between ignorance and realism. Dr. Scott foresaw the problems that society would face if they were exposed to the unforgiving sound machine. In this particular situation, it proved beneficial to behave realistically. Thus, by denying it’s ability (and not taking responsibility) to detect such horrible noises, he avoided the possibility for change in society. Conversely, in reality, I faced a similar situation quite, but on a smaller scale. When I first saw the Kony video, I became outraged at the fact that so many children were falling victim to one horrible, selfish man. This is where the test of my integrity came into play. I might have shed a tear or two, but then I proceeded with my normal life. To avoid feeling sad, I did not invest any money or effort into the cause. Basically, to evade worrying myself further over a cause that I convinced myself I could not effectively contribute to, I did not take responsibility. Although my lack of taking responsibility differs from Dr. Scott’s, each reaction represents the spectrum of ignorance to realism. Reading Dahl’s story opened my eyes to the consequences of remaining ignorant, but also instilled on me the importance of remaining realistic in occasional circumstances like the one depicted in his work.  

Appreciative of the closure

The ending of Oliive Kitteridge, written by renowned author, Elizabeth Strout, left me feeling content. The novel followed the life of Olive Kitteridge and the many couples in Crosby, Maine intertwined in her life. Throughout the reading, I never quite felt at ease. Even in the most stable of relationships portrayed by Strout, she depicted flaws that led the relationship to dysfunction. For example, the relationship between Rebecca Brown and her boyfriend, David, was not a respectable one on the outside. With Strout’s use of dramatic irony, the reader can perceive that Rebecca still loves her previous beau, Jace. Rebecca even ordered a shirt for David that she realized she had truly ordered “for Jace” (247). Their relationship serves as a synechdoche for the majority of the relationships in this novel, which were depicted as dysfunctional. However, the ending poses a new claim, inconsistent with Strout’s views on love throughout the rest of the book. Strout concludes with the notion that a pair can work through their flaws and still live happily together. This claim is presented with the relationship of Olive and Jack Kennison. After the two lonely adults met by chance, they fell in love. Olive even feels guilt for not “[loving] Henry this way for many years” (269). Despite Olive’s apprehension towards Jack for “[voting] for a man who is lying to the country,” she learns to sacrifice her expectations for love. The happy relationship provides hope as well as closure to the conclusion of the book. Following all of the miserable relationships illustrated, Strout concludes her novel with a promising one. She writes to those who have been through hardship in love, advocating the possibility of being happy even amidst certain flaws.

Work on it

I felt furious consistently throughout the reading of the second third of Olive Kitteridge by New York Times best-selling author, Elizabeth Strout. I became extremely irked at the claim in which Strout constantly portrays through the relationships of protagonists in her novel. I feel that she perceives love as predominantly flawed, and implies that as human beings, we should settle for whatever life hands us. Despite her valid claims, I heavily disagree. I do concur that love has its flaws…nothing in life is perfect. However, Strout illustrates the relationship between the Kitteridges as well as the relationships of the people intertwined in the sole couple’s lives as cheifly dysfunctional. For example, when Henry and Olive Kitteridge discuss the trials of being parents with Bunny and Bill Newton, they reveal that their daughter, Karen, had “carried on a brief affair” then “decided… to stay in her marriage” (107). This first incidence indicates that Karen was unfaithful to her husband, which implies that she became unhappy in her current marriage. The idea of cheating on a person strikes me as quite selfish. Why lead your “partner” on and create a false sense of happiness? People become unsatisfied with their relationships, and instead of addressing the situation, they take action that allows them to settle. Further, Strout paints even the relationship between Olive and Henry as flawed. Even after the effect of the life-altering incident at the hospital had died down, the words that the couple had exchanged in that time of extreme intensity would never be forgotten. Strout indicates simply, “they would never get over that night” (124). However, instead of portraying the pair as intending to fix their problems, she portrays them settling into an unhappy relationship. I believe this is problematic, especially because Henry and Olive have acted as the pinnacle for a happy relationship throughout the book. Despite their differences, Henry “stands [Olive]” (130). But this particular instance delineates the couple accepting dysfunction. Finally, Strout maintains the trend of representing imperfect relationships through the introduction of Jane and Bob Houlton. Following the revelation of Bob’s dishonesty, Jane quickly accepts  his disloyalty. The author reveals Jane’s thought process in her forgiveness: “What did they have now…what could you do if it was not even quite that?” (139). Her assessment of the situation, I believe, is deeply distorted. Why do people feel the need to settle? When the question of “what could you do” is posed, many logical resolutions surface. I consider settling as the easy route and simply as embracing a life that you wouldn’t prefer in lieu of making it better. 

Olive has my attention

I believe that author Elizabeth Strout possesses two distinct writing qualities that have contributed to the appeal of her novel, Olive Kitteridge. Throughout the first third of the novel, Strout develops the story of protagonist Olive Kitteridge as well as the characters whose lives are somehow intertwined with hers in their small town of Crosby, Maine. Strout evolves both these characters as well as their individual stories utilizing indirect characterization and suspense. For example, when first introducing the relationship of Olive’s husband, Henry Kitteridge, and his co-worker Denise Thibodeau, Strout indirectly characterizes Olive as jealous through her harsh tone towards Denise, saying, “’No one’s cute who can’t stand up straight’” (5). This particular indirect characterization becomes significant in the novel because it introduces the conflict of Olive’s jealousy, stemming from Henry’s compassion for another woman. The indirect characterization not only develops Olive more as a character, but also provides a sense of foreshadowing, implying that the relationship between Henry and Denise will become more intimate. In addition to this instance, Strout indirectly characterizes Kevin as extremely sinister after including his wish to work with psychiatry patients “whose feet had been beaten raw” (36). In doing so, the author successfully juxtaposes Kevin’s dark feelings to Olive’s friendly advice. Strout effectively illustrates the influence of which Olive has over people in her life through her prevention of Kevin’s suicide. Furthermore, Strout’s use of suspense appeals to my enjoyment as a reader. With a foreboding tone and sharp diction, Strout successfully portrays the suspense of a tragedy, writing, “A Saturday at home…’you poor, poor child’” (18). With short syntax, and a lack of emotions in description, merely a summary of the incident, Strout creates suspense that will ultimately be a turning point in the chapter, “Pharmacy”. The loss of Denise’s husband results in sympathy from Henry, adding to the tension between he and his wife at home. With so many characters, it’s extremely interesting to see the way in which each of the extra characters’ own personal trials ultimately affect Olive and her immediate family. I think these factors contribute for a more interesting plot, holding my attention easily. Another example of suspense in the novel transpires as Kevin’s plan to commit suicide. Without even knowing about his suicide, something troubling is implied with Strout’s illustration of him. The author displays Kevin as loitering, explaining, “How much time went by, Kevin didn’t know” (31). Again, with short syntax and lack of explanation of what Kevin planned to do, suspense became introduced along with a curiosity of his intentions. The inclusion of Kevin’s inner conflict in addition to the way in which Olive acted as a savior to him (preventing him from taking his own life) added interest to the story as a whole, as well as the interest of Olive Kitteridge and how she seems to play a role in the lives of many eccentric people. With the use of indirect characterization and suspense, Strout appeals to the reader’s interest. And in all of these instances, she proves that compassion can be both harmful and beneficial to those who believe otherwise.

Insights at the end of a twisted plot tunnel

After finishing 20th century author Kurt Vonnegut’s novel Cat’s Cradle, I realized that even despite the far-out, fictional plot, I gained several insights from the reading. The novel follows an aspiring author, Jonah, on his journey to acquire knowledge about the day that the atomic bomb dropped, and more importantly, the life of the man who created that bomb. Vonnegut’s many assertions and claims throughout the book become prominent through the actions of the protagonists. Firstly, he asserts that people desire what they cannot have when exposing the ways of Bokonon, the man who craftily created the outlawed religion of Bokononism. It becomes apparent that he outlawed the religion to make it more desirable. By adding more “’zest,’” to the practice of Bokonon, it became more appealing to participate in the religion. I find this to be true in the reality as well. For instance, when watching R-rated movies remains prohibited for those under 17 years old, the movie only becomes more mysterious and attractive to those who cannot watch it. Another assertion made by Vonnegut within the reading transpires as the fact that people will go to extreme measures to attain something they desire. He displays this assertion perfectly through the experiences of the Hoenikker family. All three children acquired their father’s secret science project, ice-nine, and then proceeded to be taken advantage of by people they believed they could trust. Frank explains to his siblings that he attained a job with his share of ice-nine just like “’[Angela] bought [herself] a tomcat husband’” and “’Newt bought himself…Russian midget!’” (243). Each of their own circumstances prove that a person will do anything to acquire something they lust; both Angela’s and Newt’s significant other faked their love to acquire their ice-nine, and Frank paid for his job with it. In actuality, many people would do the same. For example, businessman Bernard Madoff participated in fraud, merely to acquire more money. However, his extreme actions landed him in prison. Lastly, Vonnegut claims throughout the book that not every situation is how one perceives it on the outside. Newt Hoenikker constantly explains that a cat’s cradle has absolutely nothing to do with either a cat or a cradle, making the game deceiving. So when he explains that his sister, Angela’s, life is not as glamorous as she leads on, he asks, “’See the cat? See the cradle?’” (179). Angela told the speaker, Jonah, about her husband, but neglected to tell him that, “’[he] is mean as hell to her’” (179). Moreover, I have taken this particular instance to mean that you cannot take every person and situation at simple face value. Ultimately, even among a twisted and fictitious plot, Vonnegut illustrated several very important insights that I will forever keep in mind. He encourages readers to stay away from materialism, to prioritize morals before desires, and to live with an open-mind. These particular lessons are targeted towards those who allow their desires to dictate their actions and to those who judge other prematurely.

No longer a Bokononist

Although I had warmed up to his teachings in the first third of Cat’s Cradle, Bokonon has lost my respect as a person. The further the acclaimed author, Kurt Vonnegut, illustrates his way of life, the less I can tolerate the religion he created called Bokonism. Bokonon has quickly become my least favorite character in the second third of Vonnegut’s novel. He “’cynically and playfully’” crafted the religion to “’provide the people with better and better lies’” (172). Despite the fact that these lies provide people with hope, any sense of hope remains false with the lies with guide the Bokononist way of life. Vonnegut indirectly characterizes Bokonon as cunning as well as insensitive through Julian Castle’s negative diction of “’cynically,’” implying that his own twisted desires lead him to manipulate the thousands who follow him (172). He also schemes with his partner-in-crime, Corporal Earl McCabe, to “’give the religious life of the people more zest,’” and creates two solutions. Firstly, he decides to outlaw his religion, purely to make it more appealing to people (173). He makes the claim that people want what they cannot have, fostering the “’zest’” he desired (173). This situation depicts another scenario in which Bokonon emotionally manipulates his followers the way that he pleases, indirectly characterizing him as cruel and devious. The religious leader not only inflicts harm emotionally on his followers, but also physically. The credible Castle explains that Bokonon “’suggested the hook’” for a savage form of capital punishment for those caught practicing his religion (173). He crafted this penalty to physically harm those caught practicing the religion he created, under the law he imposed. His lack of sensitivity becomes prominent after the revealing of these details, furthering my hatred for this man. To me, any person who maintains a clear conscience while taking human lives (even indirectly), cannot be tolerated. Despite my previous understanding for the basic principles of Bokononism, my opinions have altered greatly after reading the second third of the novel. I can only hope that Bokonon will change his need for “’zest’” and simply allow people to practice his religion without persecution (173).  

My very own vin-dit

Throughout reading the first third of Cat’s Cradle written by renowned author Kurt Vonnegut, my opinions regarding the religion of the speaker, Jonah, have altered greatly. My change in perspective regarding Bokononism has everything to do with the way in which Jonah writes about the applications of the religion in his life through the making of his book within Vonnegut’s book. The novel explores the life, in first person, of Jonah, and the journey that came of his endeavor to write a book called The Day the World Ended. He meant for the book to expose the life of the man who created the atomic bomb, Felix Hoenikker. But, on his journey to complete the book, he encountered the religion of Bokononism. I originally discounted this particular religion as a legitimate practice. Jonah learns that Bokononists believe firmly that when a person finds oneself involved with others “for no logical reasons,” there is, in fact, a purpose for their coming together (2). Those who practice Bokononism perceive these intertwined lives as a “karass,” and the reasons that bring them together as “kan-kans,” (2). Jonah displays this perspective through his odyssey to write his book, which transpired as a “kan-kan” for “[his] own particular karass” (2). I have come to appreciate the Bokononist view on fate, simply because of the eclectic group of people brought together for one sole purpose in Vonnegut’s book. The Breed family, the Hoenikker family, and the other characters who have helped Jonah along the researching of his book, all contribute to his karass. The juxtaposition between these characters displays the random yet helpful way in which people become intertwined for a purpose. Another Bokononist philosophy transpires as a “vin-dit,” a “sudden, very personal shove in the direction of Bokononism” (69). For me, this particular philosophy became credible following Jonah’s encounter with Marvin Breed. After meeting him, the son of Asa Breed who worked as a co-worker to Felix Hoenikker, Jonah found something very personal in his possession. Breed worked in the tombstone salesroom where Jonah found this personal item. It was a statue with a history; a man had ordered the extravagant piece yet had not had the money to pay for it. So, the statue remained in the store for many years, and there it remained until Jonah saw the engraving on it, with “the name that was [his] last name” (73). This instance represents an incredible coincidence. Jonah’s purpose of writing a novel led him to Breed, which ultimately led him to this personal item. One can interpret an instance so situationally ironic as a “personal shove towards Bokononism” (69). As I learn more about the way of life, I have become more understanding of their philosophies, and even interested. Vonnegut portrays the religion as credible as he depicts Jonah’s journey to becoming a loyal Bokononist.