The Human Brain

The Brain is the most complex and delicate organs found in the human body; housing memory and basic function of life, the brain can store a considerable amount of information learned through the human experience. The memory pathways and information recall is shaped by many things, but to what extent, as our newly befriended Mr. Carr examines in his article, does the new world technology, like the Internet, affect the human mind?

Carr argues that Google searches are turning the "human brain [into] just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive" leaving people to rely more and more on the collective data base of information, similar to Ford's assembly line and Taylor's time-and-motion studies. People can no longer survive on their own expertise, like turning nuts and bolts in a machine or knowledge of life, but must rely on other experts to complete the picture. So, every one becomes highly individualized and yet dependant on other individuals to survive. Google, now, is spreading the individualized knowledge to others who may not know or understand the function of another person. This in turn improves the productivity of the mind, because everyone has a place in the world with a specific job allowing the masses to do mundane jobs for the cause of productivity. This is very similar to the society in Brave New World where the "system must be first" before the people for absolute efficiency; generalizations or grand narratives can only increase productivity because people understand the need for their jobs. Now how is this affecting the individual mind? I believe that people are becoming less interested in the wider world and narrowing their focus on information that pertains to their job. The need to investigate the world's natural wonders is dwindling to a handful of highly specialized scientists that can no longer communicate intelligently to the outside community. How does this pertain to Vonnegut? The secretaries to the scientists, the people in the bar scene, etc. cannot and do not really want to understand the workings of Ice-9 or the atomic bomb-it really doesn't effect their lives, so why bother? Also, his style of random spurts of factoids and information describes the larger picture in a very fractured way, states that the universal and clear truth no longer exist.

And that's the end of it.

Disenchantment with Vonnegut.

So I must say, this is not my kind of book so if you like it, be warned this may not be the blog for you.

Why I don't like Vonnegut's take on postmodernism.

The biggest issue I personally have with Vonnegut is his style; it confuses the issue of his novel-that human nature is the biggest opponent to a utopian of "happier" world. He uses very simple sentences mixed with seemingly random thoughts confusing the reader of his intent. Although some believe Vonnegut's syntax is used to deconstruct the human need for a simple black and white world or the easy argument of good versus evil, it confuses the reader (or me). The sense of purpose or meaning is then obliterated because the reader is still attempting to figure out what is going on in the novel. Furthermore, chopping up his narrative (if you can call it that...) into very short and somewhat incomplete chapters. For instance, Vonnegut splices Newt's letter into three mini-chapters (chapter five through seven) and the reader is left wondering why? Perhaps, Vonnegut is trying to prove a point, but really? I am left wondering why he titles the first “A letter from a Pre-med”, the second “Bug Fights”, and the third “The Illustrious Hoenikkers”; why not let it flow and let the readers decide what is important. He wants to satirize the idea of pure evil by exposing the complexities behind human behavior, but his greater meaning is lost in his style.
Many postmodern texts do not use a choppy style to satirize the world view of today; some use multiple vantage points that combine and intertwine to create a fuller understanding of the author’s world view. Vonnegut’s deconstructionist style can work for some, but for this reader, the implications Vonnegut makes is lost because there is no clear narrative line. He starts in one direction, the juts back to where he was two pages (or chapters) ago. It is just plain confusing for this Narrative-lover.

Postmodernism in Cat's Cradle

Well.... Here we go again.

Within Vonnegut's first seven chapters, he uses a few main postmodernism theories/styles. The first was pointed out to me in class; in postmodernism, the idea of one universal truth no longer exists because the world is fractured and one ideology may fit one person, but it may not necessarily fit another. The idea of searching for one total truth is unreasonable-"such investigations are bound to be incomplete" (4). Vonnegut makes a point to say that there is no universal truth, and even "All of the true things...are shameless lies" (5). This idea of the lack of a universal truth is very postmodern-nothing can be held to the highest degree and be above all truths, the ultimate knowledge that gives way to all other knowledge. The second is the failure of science as a complete discourse; Frank Hoenikker, a symbol of pure science, is socially inept because he relies solely on science. His actions towards his children and job, how his daughter even thought of her father as a third child, how he asked innocently "What is sin?" (17), continues to demonstrate his lack of a grand narrative. Pure science is science for the sake of science, to find out something for no apparent reason. Without looking for a reason, like finding a cure for a type of cancer, there is no narrative, no reason for that line of science. Therefore, it is a mirconarrative, disconnected from the wider world. Thirdly, Vonnegut's writing style is very typical for a postmodernist book. Sporadic, random, and resembling the thought process, it leaves the reader to sort out the information given as important, important for later understanding, or as "what the heck am I supposed to do with this?"

So that is postmodernism in Cat's Cradle... I bet I missed something very obvious.