Vonnegut doesn't talk bull - but I do

“He told Bill that humanity deserved to die horribly, since it had behaved so cruelly and wastefully on a planet so sweet. "We're all Heliogabalus, Bill," he would say. This was the name of a Roman emperor who had a sculptor make a hollow, life-size iron bull with a door on it. The door could be locked from the outside. The bull's mouth was open. That was the only other opening to the outside.

Heliogabalus would have a human being put into the bull through the door, and the door would be locked. Any sounds the human being made in there would come out of the mouth of the bull. Heliogabalus would have guests in for a nice party, with plenty of food and wine and beautiful women and pretty boys--and Heliogabalus would have a servant light kindling. The kindling was under dry firewood--which was under the bull.”

I love Kurt Vonnegut and his cynical yet colorful language - this particular reference had the effect of making me feel rather ill however, especially as when I cross-checked the story of Heliogabalus and it turned out to be a supposed historical fact other than a sordid creation from the author.

How can a human do that to another human?

Straightening my hair this morning made me feel even queasier, as I felt the heat radiating dangerously close to my ear and imagining the unimaginable – of being the one trapped inside that bullish oven.

But what, I thought to myself, if this was not a mere pain for pleasure kick on the part of the emperor?

What if the person condemned to a gruesomely painful death inside the bull was a criminal who had raped and tortured a young boy?

Surely a torturous death in return is made almost condonable, and thus the emperor’s role is switched from that of a sadist to a purveyor of justice.

How do you feel about the human in the torture contraption bull now - a little better? Perhaps you are consciously alleviated by the knowledge that his death was not merely in vain - but a consequence to an atrocity committed by his own hand.

In our own minds the situation might be somewhat resolved - the criminal being punished in a manner suitable for the extent of his crimes by the emperor who is socially responsible for the retribution.

Then though, what had driven the criminal to commit an act that disturbs us much like the thought of the emperor getting his kicks from torturing an innocent person? Well, as it happens, he himself was subjected to a lifetime of abuse from his father from a very young age. He was born with a slight defect of speech and his father would beat him for it, as well as degrading him verbally at every opportunity. Imagine, years of humiliation, repression, abuse – what do you think happens to a person in those conditions?

I wonder what your opinion is now, does it narrow down to a culmination of a series of unfortunate events? The end never does justify the means no matter how far down the chain you get.

What if I were to also say that under the rule of the emperor, any children born with defects were deemed unworthy of life, and all children under the age of 5 who had any form of disability had to, by law, be sacrificed to the fertility gods.

The reason the father was so harsh on his son was to try and save his life.

In the end the story comes full circle with the governing hand of the emperor again seeming to cast the stones of fate.

Anyway, there is a sort of short moral to this rambling...

Everyday we are subjected to endless media forms of news - on which we base opinions taken from what little facts we ‘know’. We cannot judge a situation or a person based on such unsubstantiated information that is essentially an opinion regurgitated through the filters of social or cultural acceptance.

Unless it is the whole truth, it's everything but the truth.

Also don’t judge a book by its cover or by a short quote – Breakfast of Champions is well worth the read