Talk:Sarah Vowell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiWorld logo.JPG Sarah Vowell was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)
Vowell WikiWorld.png

Why do you care?[edit]

Why would someone's sexuality matter? Why do you care? Sarah is a gifted story teller and has enriched our lives with her writing. Questioning her her sexuality is offensive and none of our business. Concern yourself with who you share your bed with and leave everyone else alone. Deal?

Is the reason why someone cares about the information they seek relevant to its inclusion or exclusion? There are many facts about individuals chronicled in encyclopedias which are personal or embarassing in nature. Why censor information, if it's available and public? And if you're willing to censor some personal issues, why not censor the entire article, or at least seek explicit approval for each tidbit of information from the subject?
e.g., "Vowell lives in New York City, cannot swim, is afraid of heights, and does not drive a car. She usually enlists the aid of her friends and family to drive her to plaques and graves when doing research. She also suffers from celiac disease, in which the body has an allergy to gluten." - how is this any of your business, or relevant to Vowell's work? Shouldn't it be deleted, then? 10:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I find this discussion interesting after viewing her on the Daily Show in which she had a pronounced lisp. Seriously, no mention of her speech impediment? That's got to be at least as impactful on her life as a public speaker as who she chooses to stimulate to orgasm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree[edit]

I don't see any reason why her sexual orientation would be of circumstance unless it plays a major role in her public life (i.e. being an advocate of gay rights).--Klestrob44 20:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

i should hope that she isn't. i think i'm madly in love with her. (unsigned comment)

I agree with the above comments. I think she's just private about her personal life. I know that for a lot of the current group of autobiographical writers/essayists (cf. David Sedaris, David Rakoff, Ira Glass, Dave Eggers) that there's a certain threshold they do not cross in discussing their private lives, even though those very same lives are the ones that fuel their work.

That said, I do believe she is straight. I recall an article she wrote that appeared in The Stranger a few years ago in which she mentioned an ex-boyfriend who was obsessed w/ the band XTC. In Take the Cannoli she mentioned sharing a house with a boyfriend in college. Also in the TAL program "Invisible Worlds" (one of the best ones I've heard, by the way) she has a short vignette in which she describes wanting to have a relationship w/ a guy she's talking to at a coffee shop but realizing that such a thing is impossible because he's a libertarian. But I don't think any of this is important to mention in the article. Her sexuality is fairly inconsequential to her body of work thus far.

Apart from all of this, I don't mind that she doesn't mention her sex/relationship life at all. It is how I'm able to fuel improbable daydreams about her. ;) Melvillean 01:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

She mentions boyfriends in several of her writings, so it does look like she is straight. But since Sarah has chosen to keep that aspect of her life private, it is irrelevant to an encyclopedic discussion of her, which should focus on her career.Sandmaster 05:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So true[edit]

Sometimes its best not to know everything about a celebrity who you like. All I can say is that she has an amazing voice. Piercetp

Amen! God I love that voice! Her, David Sedaris and Jonathan Goldstein form a holy trinity of This American Life contributors. Reading her stuff is so much more enjoyable when you have the nasally twang of her voice in rattling around in your imagination. Funkyj 20:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


I just saw the film this weekend and noticed she was thanked in the final credits. Does anyone know her connection with that film? Piercetp

The director of Capote is a good friend. He is mentioned and acknowledged in some of her books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Is the first syllable of Ms. Vowell's last name pronounced so as to rhyme with "now" or with "so"?

The name "Vowell" is pronounced as in 'not a consonant,' at least by Sarah. I pulled out my Incredibles DVD and watched the Vowellet video essay to be sure, and she introduces herself in the first few moments. Wyvern 03:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This article on Sarah Vowell seems like it is written by her, to promote herself. The information is way to personal and lame.

and apparently YOU are too lame to use the correct form of the word "too." If you don't like her, why don't you simply not read about her, instead of taking the time to comment? BTW, so what if she DID write it - self-promotion is no crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
She's proud of being lame. I'd stalk her if I could summon the energy. --Vlvtelvis (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving 'External Links' into article[edit]

It seems like several of the links (especially to articles) could be moved into the main article and turned into citations. Just a suggestion for anyone with the writing talent who feels bold. Dp76764 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Suffers from?[edit]

I question the language of the statement that she "suffers from celiac sprue." Do we know she suffers because of it? Can't she just have it without "suffering" from it? I think it shows a bias people often have when discussing a health condition or disability that they don't have. Maybe instead it could read: She has celiac sprue, an auto-immune disorder caused by a reaction to gluten. Beatitudes77 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. My question is, why don't people just change things if they feel this way instead of leaving a comment here? Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia which is what makes it so amazing. Tgpaul58 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad ref[edit],1413/ Is a bad reference. Many of the people polled were joking (take for instane, Conan O'Brian, a devout Roman Catholic), so it is hard to know who was kidding or who wasn't kidding. I'll remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I put in a better reference, an article she herself wrote in the New York Times, where she declares "Because I am a culturally Christian atheist..." David Shaw (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added this ref to the article now. (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Trail of Tears date[edit]

The "Trail of Tears" story on This American Life was July 3, 1998 -- not July 4. Cjsummers (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfamiliar fishes section[edit]

In chronicling Vowell's writing, the part on Unfamiliar Fishes stands out from the rest in its negativity. While the criticisms are well referenced, and legitimate information to share, I am not certain they belong in this article about Vowell. Also, while they come from respected publications, there is nothing to indicate if they are representative of the work's reception.

I suggest that a separate page on this work be set up to provide ingormation specific to it, and that reviews be included there with greater context. Ignatios2000 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree and since no one else has chimed in in nearly 3 years, I'm going to revise that portion (in Career/Published Works) in order to shorten the negative reviews and include a positive one from the book's wiki page. El duderino (abides) 01:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarah Vowell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


Is she the oldest person to ever portray a teenager in any form of media? If so, then I think it should be worth mentioning on her page. Tyler Michael Mannix (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)