Talk:Kurt Vonnegut

Bipolar Disorder

For Kurt Vonnegut to be placed in the category of "People with bipolar disorder" or whatever it was, there has to be some kind of evidence or reference or mentioning in the article. 67.174.181.164 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One of Seven American Survivors?

In the entry, it says he was one of only seven or eight American survivors of the Dresden bombings, but I haven't found this in any sources. In Slaughterhouse-Five (which is I know is not non-fiction, but is still autobiographical), he says he and a hundred American soldiers survived the bombings. - Jeremy Peter Green 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In Fates Worse Than Death he mentions (several times) the EXACT people he was with in the slaughterhouse while Dresden was bombed. The total was 5-8, I forget the exact number (I can look it up later). The Rypcord. 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe American soldiers elsewhere in Dresden at the time of the bombings survived. Vonnegut reprinted material from David Irving's The Destruction of Dresden in Slaughterhouse-Five, which implies that he researched the bombings for the book. Still, Slaughterhouse-Five is fiction. I think this detail needs more research, possibly from sources other than Vonnegut? -TeeRebel (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Characters named after real scientists

Vonnegut characters are in general named after real scientists who contributed to sciences like atmospheric science, rockets or space travel. See external link http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.kurt-vonnegut/browse_thread/thread/25bfa6bbace249e7/e1e07e1494ce93ad?lnk=st&q=the+vonnegut+file&rnum=1&hl=en#e1e07e1494ce93ad. Or just go to google groups and search for "The Vonnegut File"

I would like to frivolously add that one of the scientists is George Springer, used in the short story about a band leader. In real life, Springer was the author of a very good book on Riemann Integrals. Most card catalogs do not include this book, but instead they list George H Springer, author of a book on care and maintenance of band instruments.

If you are an NFL football fan, former Browns quarterback Frank Ryan wrote his PhD thesis on this subject - elliptical Riemann Integrals of the second and third kind. Frizb 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Trivia & References still need a cleanup. But it's a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recurring themes?

It might be wise to list several recurring themes in his books -- most importantly, the recounting of his son's death through decapitation in Sweden after desertion from Vietnam.

Kundera

I mentioned this at Milan Kundera's page, but I do hope that there can be work done on the two articles to show some kind of comparison in themes and style. I won't be working on this for a few weeks, but perhaps someday I'll get back to it. Tdfriese 06:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

reason for change

If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WAS MUSIC

"Vonnegut's Blues For America" Sunday Herald (7 January 2006)

Response concerning Vonnegut's atheism

Using this source to conclude that Vonnegut sincerely believed in a God, and was therefore not an atheist is, I believe, based on an an overly literal and naive interpretation of the Blues for America essay, and illustrative of one of the pitfalls of interpreting primary sources without examining the context provided by other sources. Vonnegut's self-identification as an atheist, humanist and freethinker is substantiated by many quotes and secondary sources throughout his career, and this single figurative paragraph from an essay is hardly indicitive of some sort of dramatic turnaround and embracement of theism. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

From the context of this essay alone, it's clear that Vonnegut is not presenting a serious proof of the existence of God, but is making a comment about how much he appreciates music. The paragraphs immediately preceding and following the imaginary epitaph show that the greatness of music is his topic. The epitaph is a literary device used to express his point about music, not a sincere profession of belief in God. Later in this same essay Vonnegut says "And by the grace of God, or whatever, I am not an alcoholic..." The flippant addition of the or whatever shows that Vonnegut speaks of "God" figuratively, but does not commit himself to genuine belief in God.

Vonnegut was a Unitarian (or more specifically, a Unitarian Universalist, or UU). [8] Anyone familiar with UUs will know that many of them are accustomed to using theistic language symbolically, without themselves being theists. In such cases, the word "God" is taken not to represent a supernatural being as it is in theistic worldviews, but some abstraction, such as supreme goodness, or harmony with nature or humanity, love, or any number of other ideals. As a member of several UU congregations, I have witnessed many members who identified themselves as atheists who nevertheless spoke of "growing into harmony with the Divine," or who wholeheartedly sang songs about God. Speaking of "God," yet being nontheistic in outlook, is a common phenomenon among UUs, and one must be very cautious about assuming what a UU believes based on the theistic language they might use.

Vonnegut has a long history of using theistic language, even as he identified himself as an atheist, humanist or freethinker. Take this excerpt from a commencement speech, for example: "You have just heard an atheist thank God not once, but twice. And listen to this: God bless the class of 1974." [9] Clearly, Vonnegut was prone to speaking of God as if he actually believed in him, even though he identified himself as an atheist.

The phrase "[i]f I should ever die, God forbid" in the Blues for America essay is a word-for-word recycling of a phrase he used in an address to members of the American Humanist Association for a memorial service for fellow humanist Isaac Asimov--an address of which he spoke in his latest book, A Man Without a Country:

“We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, ‘Isaac is up in heaven now.’ It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ‘Kurt is up in heaven now.’ That’s my favorite joke.” [10]

Why was this statement of Vonnegut's so funny to himself and his audience? It is because, as humanists, they do not believe in an afterlife, or in a God who sends people to heaven. When Vonnegut speaks of heaven or God, he does so with a wink. He speaks of God figuratively, ironically, or for humorous effect.

Here's another example, spoken by Vonnegut during an appearance on The Daily Show in support of his book A Man Without a Country (the same book from which the Blues for America essay was excerpted):

"I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I can't help thinking that. And this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why, and where evolution is headed. That's why we've got giraffes and hippopotami and the clap." [11]

That last example of divine engineering ("the clap") shows that Vonnegut's "endorsement" for intelligent design is only tongue-in-cheek. Vonnegut does not really believe there is some sort of intelligent, benevolent Creator guiding evolution, and his humorous mention of this noxious organism shows it.

Finally, there is the matter of Vonnegut's organizational affiliations, which belies the allegations about his latter-day conversion to God-belief. Until his death, Vonnegut was the honorary president of the American Humanist Association (AHA), an organization that promotes a naturalistic and nontheistic lifestance (humanism), and whose members consider themselves atheists or agnostics. [12] He was also a member of the Council for Secular Humanism's International Academy of Humanism, which promotes the same naturalistic, nontheistic lifestance as AHA. [13] If Vonnegut had really renounced his atheism and become a God-believer, he most probably would have ended his affiliation with these organizations. His continued membership and prominent roles in these organizations is a strong testament to his continued atheism. Nick Graves 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"overly literal and naive interpretation"

real civil. and people wonder why I don't like using discussion.Foxsux 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, hello Foxsux. Welcome to the talk page. Now, let's try to have a rational discussion here. You seem offended by the reply above. Perhaps it wasn't the best phrasing. It wasn't mine, but However, nothing you have said here responds to the substance of the reply above, but I apologize for any percieved nor any of the other citations. In dealing with Vonnegut, it has to be remembered that he was a humorist and a satirist, and that we must bear in mind the context in which his writings and statements have been made. It is for this reason that we look at all of the things that he said, and why the numerous citations and Vonnegut's actions, such as being President of the AHA, are important in evaluating his beliefs. Additionally, it should be noted that Vonnegut said lots and lots of things, and not everything that he said is notable, even if verifiable. Edhubbard 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nick's "incivility" (really, was it that big of a deal?) is hardly reason to ignore the importance of the talk page, whether you like it or not. Discussion is absolutely essential to Wikipedia, and your continued reversions without discussion are counter-productive. If you are so intent on convincing us that Vonnegut was a deist, then please take Ed's advice and prove it using rational discussion. Nufy8 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I would point this out: At the end of Palm Sunday Vonnegut himself states that he is an Agnostic believer of God. The Rypcord. 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The excerpt I read shows that he called himself a "Christ-worshipping agnostic," which is perfectly consistent with the comments I made above. He did not say that Christ was God, though he is clearly (as evidenced by this sermon and in many other writings/speeches) an ardent Christ admirer. Also agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, just as agnosticism and theism can overlap. By the way, I notice that the section of this article concerning Vonnegut's views on religion is very short, and actually much less informative than even this talk page. It ought to be expanded, and I intend to do my part soon. Nick Graves (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing career

The writing career section says that ice nine is a recurring idea. Where does it appear besides in Cat's Cradle? Also the analysis of what ice nine represents is unsourced original research. Ashmoo 13:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is claimed that "Report on the Barnhouse Effect" was his first short story published, in 1950. I need to research it, but I'm pretty sure he published in the late 40's. My recollection is that he was able to quit his "nightmare fucking job" (as described in a letter to his father) at GE to make a living as a short story writer, and that by the time Player Piano was published he made less money on it than he had on his first short story. (in the late 40's you could make a very good living publishing short stories in popular magazines -- and I believe this is what Vonnegut did.) Again, I do need to find the citations before I change anything, but if anyone else already knows the relevant sources it would be useful.

Lecturer: I also think it is relevant that Vonnegut spent years on the college lecture circuit. He says somewhere "You can make more money from speaking at a half-broke college than writing the greatest short story in the world." A comparison with his idol Twain could be made in this respect, as Twain made a fortune on the lecture circuit. Stevewunder (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When discussing Harrison Bergeron, egalitarianism seems to be the incorrect description, specifically when this is contrasted with statism, which more correctly describes the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.101.73 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Influenced - Douglas Adams

I removed Douglas Adams from the influenced list, because I see no way that he could be, and there is no citation. 1) Douglas Adams was nearly the same exact age as Vonnegut and much of his work was published around the same time, 2) Douglas Adams' humor was Brittish, where as Vonnegut's is American. Adams used humor in an uplifting funny way, where as Vonnegut's humor was bleak, black comedy, and was quite different from Adams.

The only reason I see that Adams was listed as being influenced by Vonnegut was because 1) They both employed humor, 2) Adams is a science-fiction writer and much of Vonnegut's work had a Sci-Fi lean/bent towards it.

Thus why I removed Adams from being influenced by Vonnegut. The Rypcord. 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point two is wildly off the mark. Vonnegut was born in 1922, Adams in 1952. Vonnegut's first novel was in 1952 (the same year Adams was born) and two of Vonnegut's best known novels were published in 1963 and 1969. Adams' first novel was published in 1979. These are things that are easily verified in their respective articles. So, there is no logical reason that Vonnegut could not have influenced Adams.

Furthermore, there are possible references to the connection between Adams and Vonnegut: I've pulled the following up in literally 30 seconds.

So who did he read with relish, in these formative, creative years? And what made an author special for him? He could almost have been describing his own work as he paid his spontaneous tribute to the effortless, fertile genius of Kurt Vonnegut.

"Tom Stoppard. Otherwise, Tolstoy I love. Solzhenitsyn. Kurt Vonnegut, who I think is absolutely superb. I've read The Sirens of Titan six times now, and it gets better every time. He is an influence, I must own up. Sirens of Titan is just one of those books – you read it through the first time and you think it's very loosely, casually written. You think the fact that everything suddenly makes such good sense at the end is almost accidental. And then you read it a few more times, simultaneously finding out more about writing yourself, and you realise what an absolute tour de force it was, making something as beautifully honed as that appear so casual."

[14]. This appears to be a reliable source in that it is a direct quote from an interview with Adams. Based on this, I have reinstated that Vonnegut influenced Adams (I don't think it gets any clearer than "He is an influence") along with this reference. Edhubbard 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ps: They were also both avowed atheists. Edhubbard 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Edhubbard 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There's a bit of vandalism on this page, please revert —Preceding unsigned comment added by TehNomad (talk • contribs) 23:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is overly long and poorly organized

Much of the writing on this page consists of very subjective critiques and summaries. Some of these are general and some very specific, but most are perhaps out-of-bounds in terms of what goes into an encyclopedia. Some exposition and examination of Vonnegut's life and work is appropriate, but currently there is no sense of organization or authority. Would someone with more experience and a better knowledge of Vonnegut than I please bring this issue to her attention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.29.0 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

     Mindian (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)The Early Years section makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.~~

Slaughterhouse-Five (book) Cameo

Doesn't Billy Pilgrim meet Vonnegut in the Slaughterhouse-Five book or something? If so, can we add it to the cameo section? Sorry if the request has been raised before. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You may be getting mixed up with 'Breakfast of Champions'. At the end of that Book Kilgor Trout meets with K.V. In 'Happy Birthday Wanda June' K.V. also appears. I think he also appears in 'Between Time and Timbuktu'.Johnwrd (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Vonnegut 'sort of' appears in Slaugherhouse 5. There's a scene in which Billy Pilgrim overhears an American in the latrine saying something to the effect that he's excreted everything but his brains. They don't actually meet, IIRC. Sorry, I don't have the novel in front of me, and it would take forever to find the passage anyway. In any case, it probably doesn't belong in the Cameos section, as the rest of the cameos involve KV portraying himself in film or TV. Statyk (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

New Posthumous Collection

Should we add mention of the collection of Vonnegut's works, Armageddon in Retrospect, that is due out April 1 (without any trace of irony for the date choice)? [15] Of course, it should go on the complete list of his works, but should it also be added here? I don't know much about it yet, except that it exists. Edhubbard (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

2BRO2B

There is a mistake in "It will be a collection of short stories never before published, including 2BRO2B, and many more." 2BRO2B was published in The Wizards of Odd in 1996. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LenkaSt (talk • contribs) 10:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Move Proposal

Mr. Vonnegut's name is given as "Kurt Vonnegut, Jr." at the head of this article. I propose that this article be moved to Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Any objections?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I object. Kurt Vonnegut, Sr. is not notable by Wikipedia standards, and does not have his own article. Hence, there is no need to disambiguate between Vonnegut and his father. Vonnegut dropped the "Jr." from his name after his father died, and that is the name used on most, if not all, of his publications. Nick Graves (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vonnegut did not drop the "Jr." from his name until the 1980s--after the publication of Breakfast of Champions, the cover of which clearly shows his by-line as "Kurt Vonnegut, Jr."72.85.48.36 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut Jr. dropped the Jr. when his father Kurt Vonnegut Sr. passed away ie. died. This I am 97.3% sure is correct. My source is Kilgor Trout who crashed on my couch, temporarily, after the death of Kurt. This really happened, which eludes to power of Vonnegut's writing, and the abbility of transcendental experience among those readers who came to him by way of Tralfamador.beny (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many links to articles

Is it just me, or does this article have too many links to other wikipedia articles? I removed the one to cockroaches, but there are many many more to things that have nothing to do with Kurt Vonnegut. I think that goes against wikipedia's standards. If the readers do not know what cockroaches are, they can find the article themselves later. There are more, linking to suicide, pneumonia, biochemistry, frostbite, public relations, divorce, cancer, psychotic, saint, traumatic, brain injuries, time travel, molecules, melting point, Playboy, excerpt, posthumously, 2004, chimpanzees, race, short story, the Grand Canyon, cameo, rumor, and commencement speech. Not one of these has anything important about Kurt Vonnegut. I vote we delete all these links to articles. ForgetfulDoryFish (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture?

What exactly is the notability limit for pop culture references? There are some listed that I don't see as needing to be there. What if we were to remove items such as those and then simply place them in their respective articles instead? -- Qaddosh|^talk|contribs 05:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dresd 4.jpg

The image Image:Dresd 4.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indianapolis?

"Kurt Vonnegut was born to fourth-generation German-American parents (Kurt Vonnegut, Sr., and Edith née Lieber), son and grandson in the Indianapolis firm Vonnegut & Bohn.[3], where he served as assistant managing editor and associate editor for the student newspaper, the Cornell Daily Sun, and majored in Chemistry" well, what is wrong with this? The Cornell Daily Sun is a newspaper at Cornell which is in Ithaca, New York and not Indianapolis and as far as I can tell other than having been born in Indy he didnt have much to do with it. But I guess that is enough to be included in the project indianapolis but more important were his connections to upstate ny, it really should be included in project new york since that is where he went to college, lived in his adult life, and set kilgore trout in (fictional ilium based on the real troy, ny and then later set in the real place of cohoes, ny) 24.182.142.254 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But Vonnegut does make frequent reference to being from Indianapolis and being a Hoosier in his essays. He clearly identifies himself with the place. By comparison, David Letterman has been in NY a long time also, but constantly reminds viewers he is from Indiana. Stevewunder (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse-five introduction

In the World War II section, the article cites Slaughterhouse-Five a few sentences before introducing it as a novel detailing Vonnegut's experiences in the war. This citation before introducing the book is unclear because of the lack of a previous general description of it, and it causes the later introduction to seem awkward. The World War II section could be reorganized; maybe it could start with the book as a base for the information.72.66.134.127 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dulce et decorum est

I improved the translation, mostly by removing the barbaric word "appropriate." 71.194.38.54 (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Kurt Vonnegut's books and 12 letter names!?

Has anyone else noticed that most of the fictional characters created by kurt vonnegut consist of 12 characters? not counting spaces Mr. Rosewater-12 Billy Pilgrim-12 Monica Pepper-12 Zoltan Pepper-12 Kurt Vonnegut himself-12 Kilgore Trout-12 Dwayne Hoover-12 Wayne Hoogler-12 Dudley Prince-12 Kimberly Wang-12 Julian Castle-12 Philip Castle-12 Claire Minton-12

and more! >_>

This is probably just me being insane as usual, but i had to share what i found O.o

i myself often count characters in phrases and names and 12 is one of my favorite numbers, was this strange 12 letter naming system ever mentioned? This is driving me insane xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackypoohs (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's interesting. You might be on to something. 74.78.118.77 (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's "most"; skimming his book articles, very few of them have major characters with twelve-letter names. Most Western names seem likely to be between 10 and 15 letters long, so if you start looking for 12s (and deciding whether or not to count middle names, or to count the period at the end of "Mr."), you'll find plenty. --McGeddon (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories

American Tax Resisters? Really? Maybe I should remove that one until further notice. 74.78.118.77 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Appearance

I don't know if it's notable or not, but Vonnegut appears (namelessly) in the Niven/Pournelle book "Inferno". http://www.math.nyu.edu/phd_students/campbelm/stuff/mywords/dante.html has more info on it. Rmd1023 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Should Vonnegut be a redirect or a disambiguation page?

If you have an opinion, please make it known: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 7#Vonnegut.

There is also a related discussion about the disambiguation page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vonnegut (disambiguation)

Cheers, older ≠ wiser 22:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Who does not agree with this? read it consider it.

This is a good speech it tells u some stuff that are true u will miss u friends and your family, for example my grandfather he was like my dad since i didn't have one that speech and song reminds me of him and my friends that had to leave because of the economy. He was one of the greatest man ever to write a speech like this this is almost like Barrack Obama, and if u don't agree its because u haven't though about it so what i would do is think of your parents when they pass away how would u feel good or bad then think of who took care of u most of the time think of what u could have done before some one close to you left like a friend. A friend is like part of your Family. This is the person who you think about and talk about your feelings.Then think what would u do with out those friends to support you to help you through difficult times in your life this a great thing to talk about and to think about Reply me if u ever think this is an idea.

---

Edgard--------^_^

Link is to the song/speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfq_A8nXMsQ&NR=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.79.172 (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Edgard

The Wear Sunscreen song was not written by Vonnegut. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Category: TM Practitioner

Sorry I should have given this reference in the beginning. "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" The Telegraph (February 7, 2008)-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what I have removed the category. If you feel the source listed above is notable you can add a sentence to the article and also add back the category tag. If you feel it is not notable, then nothing need be done.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

So It Goes

Would it be poor form to add "So it goes." to the end of the Death section? It's a little un-encyclopedic, but not obtrusively so. I think it would be a nice touch to the article. Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it would be a nice touch, but I believe this has been beaten to death and the consensus has been no. If it were up to me, I would add it, but it's not. Zazaban (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I hesitantly agree. We are trying to write engaging articles, after all. [update: Given that only 1 obituary seems to have used it in their title, I'm going to agree with Nick Graves that it is inappropriate. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the previous discussion (Talk:Kurt_Vonnegut/Archive_2#Death/So_it_goes) and don't have time to currently. Could someone summarize the most relevant objections/points? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a bad idea. It's unencyclopedic and hackneyed. And I think it would be obtrusive as well. A reader not already familiar with his works would likely come across that sentence and just find it peculiar. A reader familiar with his works (this one included) might find it cloying and groan-inducing. Really, it's just too obvious and hokey. Encyclopedic prose it is not. Nick Graves (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I read it, and came immediately here to see if anyone mentioned it. I laughed quite hard. I guess I'd say it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia only because it gives a tone, and encyclopedias don't have any author tones (or try not to). Heh, but I love it too much, and want it to stay. : ) 80.101.162.155 (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw it before it was removed. This I consider to be a personal vindication for me and the rest of my karass Zazaban (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"The last lines that Vonnegut wrote, in his last book, go thus:"

Could somebody clarify this? It could mean either his last novel, that last book published before his death, or the most recent book published posthumously. It's not at all clear. Zazaban (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So it goes

It's here again. Why get all prissy and delete it? Why not just leave it? What would Kurt say? Give me one good reason why it should not stay. And no crap about how this is Wikipedia, because THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! Fuck Encyclopedia Britannica, this is wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not to worry. "John" has taken time out from his important edits about the Pope, Starbucks, and some other things I can't remember, to right this terrible wrong. Gandydancer (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it can be added in by finding some encyclopedic way to add it? As referenced in the Slaughterhouse-Five article.. "The story continually employs the refrain So it goes. when death, dying, and mortality occur, as a narrative transition to another subject, as a memento mori, as comic relief, and to explain the unexplained." Centerone (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Education of Kurt Vonnegut Sr. in #Early life

Article stated that both Kurt and the elder Kurt attended Cornell. However, Kurt Sr. was an MIT BS in architecture, class of 1908, as was his father, Bernard Vonnegut Sr.. Kurt Sr. also atteneded the American School in Strasburg.

Nationality

I don't think he should be categorized as German-American by nationality. By ethnicity, yes, but his grandfather was a native-born American, isn't three generations enough to be considered an American, period? Again, I'm not saying he wasn't German in any way, but it's ancestry rather than nationality. --99.249.18.156 (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

He brought this up a lot in his writings. Apparently, his family strongly identified with the label. Zazaban (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

library/museum

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/us/20vonnegut.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.159 (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This bot (10 Dec 10) stripped out work that was not subject to copyright violation. Quite a few edits have been made since the bot's edit. Could a regular editor to this article put back what was useful? Thanks. 23:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Appearances of Kurt Vonnegut

Someone who appears to be Kurt Vonnegut is featured briefly in Bob Dylan's music video "Has Anybody seen My Love?". That can be viewed on Youtube. Can it be confirmed whether or not that's Kurt playing the harmonica for a moment nearly midway through the video? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Wolk (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Kurt Vonnegut appeared in the 2002 or 2003 in a Nissan Murano commercial that aired on Canadian television. The slogan was for your on road adventures. In the commercial a man goes out to the country and stops at a used book store and finds an original edition Breakfast of Champions. While waiting in line he realizes the man in front of him is Kurt Vonnegut who signs the book for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Howard 7 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please mention the "Ambrosia" (band) connection and "Cat's Cradle" and the letter Kurt wrote praising the song "Nice, Nice, Very Nice"

Please mention the "Ambrosia" (band) connection and "Cat's Cradle" and the letter Kurt wrote praising the song "Nice, Nice, Very Nice." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.56.110 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Vonnegut IS NOT cited as a humanist

As it stands, the introduction to this article states that Vonnegut was a preeminent humanist; however even the cited NY Times obituary makes no mention of those beliefs...immediate deletion of this part of the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.54.147 (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He was indeed a preeminent humanist, as the rest of the article states, with multiple references, had you bothered to read them. I have restored the statements with yet another reference for you. Elizium23 (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

He was honorary president of the American Humanist Association... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.59.246 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Repatriated"?

The section on Vonnegut's WWII experiences states that he was "repatriated" by the Soviet Red Army. Because the verb "repatriate" means "to be returned to one's country of origin" (see http://m-w.com/dictionary/repatriate ) and which in this case is wrong (since he was freed from imprisonment but not sent to the USA by the Soviet Union), I changed this to "liberated." However, my change was undone because it did not adhere to "neutrality in the subject of Kurt Vonnegut." What does that mean? I simply made a better word choice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlange (talk • contribs) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not read the paragraph for context and I did not understand that he had been a prisoner. In this case, 'liberated' is an appropriate word. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On Vonnegut appearing in an Enron Commercial

A "citation needed" tag appeared after this blurb in the Appearances section: "Vonnegut appeared as part of the Enron 'Why' advertising campaign." I looked for a citation, but only found instances of Vonnegut excoriating Enron--in his Playboy interview, for example. Accordingly, I have removed the unsupported bullet point. It can be added again with a valid citation if one exists--but for now it just looked like the article had been vandalized in detriment to the character of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulsadinura (talk • contribs) 23:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of {{tooshort}} from Kurt Vonnegut

This edit summary isn't in line with WP:LEAD. The lead section of an article should serve as a full summary of it and for an established article should likely be several paragraphs long. I'll be re-tagging this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me directly and for wiki-linking WP:LEAD. I had not been aware of it's statements. On the indicated topic it refers in section #Length: "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more. The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs." Well. I'd say all these subjects (significance, criticism, style) are fulfilled in this lead. Vonnegut is significant above all for his works as a writer, he is controversely known as a liberal american citizen who supported human and civil rights and had rather humanist or even atheist views as for religion. What else contents should be missing - I have to ask you? Do you really think a broader lead of 3-4 paragraphs would be more instructive? I do not believe that - just for a better formal covering of a tabled proposal - there is any necessity to produce more lead phrases on his professional or private statements. It just makes no sense! In the german WP section where I'm mainly active we do not even know such ideas. And I'm quite an expericenced biography editor. We on the contrary do know and apply good old Ockham's Razor and "Keep it simple!". The normal reader isn't supposed to like long and winding roads of introduction paragraphs. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think a fuller lead would be constructive. The Vonnegut article's current lead section is wholly inadedquate: for one thing, it makes no reference at all of his military service, one of the defining points of his life. I'm aware de-WP has some significant differences to en-WP, but WP:LEAD is very well supported on en-WP and there's no way an article with such an aenemic lead would pass GA here, which is what we should be pushing towards with this article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see that you seem quite impressed by that first sentence, telling his life was deeply influenced by his experiences as a soldier and prisoner of war. Well, who would not expect that war is a massive impression for a young man? - And actually Vonnegut has used that emotional sources to write several of his books. But if I were to construct a psychological study of him I shouldn't do that within Wikipedia. Because it's against the rules - No original research, you know it as well as I do. Maybe some student of American literature has written a study - which I don't know. - By the way I want to point out the fact that there is a sentence in the existing lead which contains an extract of that. It's about his most famous novels and the three basic points of view Vonnegut used to apply: "satire, gallows humor and science fiction". Satire is for the weak points of human social life (remember he's a cultural anthropologist), SF is the interest for future possibilities; and gallows humor is a quality of emotional rescue against extremely dangered life experience such as in a war and POW. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead section is not an exercise in brevity. Readers should be given sufficient context to understand why someone is well-known rather than simply in which circles they are famous. As for the the specific aspect of Vonnegut's wartime experiences, they form a key part of a great many secondary sources on him and in no way would such an assertion therefore be original research. Anyway, I've said my piece. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I just thought this talk about editing Vonnegut suited much better here than at my user talk site. -- Justus Nussbaum (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)