Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 12 April 2007

Biography: Arts and Entertainment Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as High-importance).

Suicide Attempt

Does anyone have any info on his suicide attempt? I haven't researched it, but maybe more needs to be said about his suicide attempt and how that might have influenced his writing.

The recent article on the BBC has a small bit of info about his suicide.--76.215.17.251 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Appearance on Daily Show

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Kurt-Vonnegut1.wmv This should somehow be referenced I think, particularly under politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VarunRajendran (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Sunscreen

I think something should be added about the whole sunscreen debacle.

http://www.wesselenyi.com/Vonnegutstory.htm

anyone???

-Andrew Markiewicz

Errata

In "Fates Worse Than Death" Vonnegut says his first wife's name is Jane Marie née Cox, not Jill. Jill is the second wife. He also mentions in the same book that Jane dies of cancer, so I don't know if your mention of divorce is accurate.

The "Family" section contradicts itself a tad. I don't know whether his daughter Lily is a biological relative or not (I don't really know anything about his family), but someone should look into that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.221.136.117 (talk • contribs) .

I reworded some of the Family section having to do with the adoptions; the previous language was very confusing. MCB 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Footnote format. Several long URLs in column 1 overlap footnotes in column 2 (with my browser - Firefox 1.5) There is precedent for a change that would prevent this - give link a title (Title of article refered to followed (outside link) with publication. I'll leave edit to someone else - dont have time to do it right now. Fholson 12:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Error in quotation from Dr. Mark Vonnegut. He is quoted as saying: "If these commentators can so badly misunderstand and underestimate an utterly unguarded English-speaking 83-year-old man with an extensive public record of exactly what he thinks, maybe we should worry about how well they understand an enemy they can't figure out what to call." There is probably a word left out -- query -- record of saying exactly what he thinks? Janice Vian, Ph.D. 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Vonnegut smokes Pall Mall cigarettes.

Still? At the age of 82?

Yes. He chain smokes them, too, I've read. - 129.137.3.98 15:43, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know his character does this in Breakfast of Champions, but the most that can indicate is that Vonnegut was a smoker in the early 1970s.

What makes you think being old is going to help stop a smoking addiction? Vonnegut attended self-help classes and actually did quit smoking for a while, but has since then decided to start again.

Anville 17:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What makes me think that being old is going to stop a smoking addiction is that most people who smoke cigarettes, particularly high tar/high nicotine cigarette like Pall Mall, don't live to age 82. Crunch 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a need for the trivia section too? Some of the stuff could be moved into other partics of the article but some of it doesn't seem worthy of an encyclopedia article. De we really need to know he smokes Pall Mall cigs or made a cameo appearance in a movie? Commonbrick 22:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the chain smoking is relevant to understanding his personality. --Saforrest 15:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Vonnegut himself is always pointing it out (his smoking habit, and that he smokes Pall Malls). I remember reading something he wrote (sorry, can't source) where he refers to himself as "an old fart with my Pall Malls". I also remember reading an interview, maybe the Playboy Interview, where he said that he tried to give up smoking once but his weight doubled and he got all sorts of other problems so he took it up again.

I agree that a lot of the trivia can be merged into the rest of the article. It also needs verification. Crunch 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've now added a new heading, "Vonnegut in pop culture" to house some of the items from the Trivia section. I still think we need a reference for the cigarette smoking detail: the fact that he smokes, the brand of the cigarettes and the quote attributed to him about smoking. I also find it unusual that an 83 year old man smokes Pall Malls without evidence of severe tobacco-related illness. Crunch 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I know it is unsourced but my girlfriend knows Kurt's grandson quite well and has met Kurt a few times: as of a few years ago he still smokes Pall Malls like a chimney. She says "about a pack an hour". This can definitely be sourced because almost every interviewer makes a comment about his smoking habit. Inoculatedcities 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I liked the bit on the BBC news website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/629620.stm) where he says: "I'm suing a cigarette company because on the package they promised to kill me, and yet here I am." Obviously no longer but I'm sure you get the point Soarhead77 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Trivia section was almost entirely unsourced, and reads like the sort of folklore that pervades Internet trivia sites. Unfortunately, that does not meet Misplaced Pages guidelines for verifiability. I added citations where sources could be found, and attached {{fact}} where none could be easily located. If these items cannot be verified they should be removed. --MCB 06:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The asterisk can also be found in Galapagos indicating the character is about to die. I haven't read Breakfast of Champions yet, so I'm not sure which meaning is more appropriate. User:Annonomous 04:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Is there a need for the quotes section? Shouldn't that be in wikiquote? 141.211.231.51 20:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be in Wikiquote. That there's a quotes section here means either Vonnegut doesn't have his own Wikiquote page or no one has added the template to link to it yet. -Seth Mahoney 21:33, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

But there is a page for him. The quotes here just need to be moved there. 141.211.231.51 22:56, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Go for it! -Seth Mahoney 08:07, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Formely known as 141.211.231.51 Commonbrick 22:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kazak's gender

I seem to recall that Kazak was female, at least as depicted in Galapagos. --Xiaou

Definitely male in Breakfast of Champions and The Sirens of Titan. Anville 10:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There are problems with that entire paragraph. The dog in Galápagos was named Kazakh. The two Kazaks, in SoT and BoC, can't possibly be the same dog, since one is a mastiff and the other is a Doberman. Plus let's not forget that one of them was chrono-syncastic infundibulated and then blown out of the solar system. As for Francine Pefko, I'm assuming the sentence was meant to read "from Cat's Cradle." However, I also doubt strongly that the two Francine Pefkos are meant to be the same person, as the events in the final chapters of Cat's Cradle would seem to preclude the possibility that BoC could be taking place in the same world. Squidd 18:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

True enough. But the dog and Francine i'm sure are meant to be the same people, just in different universes. Vonnegut loves to reuse his characters by placing them in different literary contexts, which he often makes mention of as "universes." Kilgore Trout for example has been married, been in jail, died poor and lonely, died as a rich and respected man etc... The paragraph does make sense in that, Breakfast of Champions was meant to be a smashing of these universes where the characters would take on roles with "free will" which was obviously satirically limited by being creations. Thus Kazakh striking back for being cut out of an earlier draft is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, which makes a great deal of sense and is actually quite clever. Though admittedly, it really is only a theory so maybe it should be deleted/revised. I won't do it though, because i'm not sure how i feel on this particular issue. Is there any textual allusion to Kazak wanting to bite Vonnegut for tossing him out of an earlier draft? If so, keep it for sure. 70.48.54.27 05:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Songs KV has written Lyrics for

This seems to have been overlooked, does anyone have a list of songs / bands KV has written the lyrics for?

Vince S

Template

I've created a template that I'm going to add, of course, it's up for editing...one thing that I didn't put in was the dates of each novel/play/etc. I played around with it, but it looked kind of goofy I thought with the dates, but feel free to mess with it. Oh, and by "created" I mean of course "borrowed" from the Lemony Snicket Series of Unfortunate Events template... --Easter Monkey 16:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing, let me know what you think of the template before I go through the process of adding to every other article...:) --Easter Monkey 16:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

After looking at several of the plays and various other works, I've decided to not add the template to a couple of them, such as histoire etc. as this is not strictly a Vonnegut piece and it would look weird to have this big box at the bottom, but as always I defer to the collective wisdom of the wikipedia. --Easter Monkey 14:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I knew it wouldn't take long...

...before the suicide bombers comments got deleted. "But...but he wrote my favourite book in high school! How dare you, you dirty fascist!" As James Lileks brilliantly put it, "What’s the matter with us? Do we excuse everything because it kicks Bush in the nuts?"

If it gets wiped out again, Misplaced Pages will be revealed as not just stridently left-wing, but terrorist apologists as well. RMc 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the suicide bombers section. Twice i might add. Why? Because an article about Kurt Vonnegut is meant to be (more or less) a BIOGRAPHY. Not a list of everything Vonnegut has ever had an opinion on. I could have cared less what the political leaniancies in his comments were. They weren't at all relevant to a biography page. If you would like to put it in his wikiquotes section, that would be more than acceptable. But this isn't wikiquotes. Vonnegut has said many things in his 80+ years of life. Should we include them all? Or should we include the ones that you feel represent your own personal political ideals? Misplaced Pages is meant to be as objective as possible in all respects. If you included perhaps a brief line about his stance on suicide bombing, i would have let it slide. But a whole section? Not going to happen.

I agree with the reasons for the deletion given above. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to cut and paste articles that pissed you off. If you want to put the effort into creating a career-long overview of Vonnegut's beliefs about war, religion and the value of human life, go for it. That would have some value in a biography. Gorilla Jones

Thanks for proving my point, Mr. Jones! The quote concerns a current event, and has a lot to do with Vonnegut's state of mind these days; it is very relevant to this article. And since the mainstream media has ignored this story, it's highly educational, too. I think people need to know that Vonnegut's hatred for George Bush is so strong he's actually praising the thugs who murder women and children.

I could have cared less what the political leaniancies in his comments were.

Bull. If Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly had made comments apologizing for suicide bombers, you'd be ripping them ten ways to Sunday (and rightfully so), so don't even try it. (Oh, and work on spelling, mmmkay?)

Nobody's going to take Wiki seriously if you insist on defending the Kurt Vonneguts of the world, guys. Ever. RMc 00:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for the author of the unsigned paragraph above the one I wrote, but I guess I'll just have to take that risk, champ. Personally, I don't care what Rush or O'Reilly (or Franken) have to say. Cable news sucks. But regardless of the blissful simplicity suggested by a world in which life, art and context can be discarded in favor of For Bush or Against Bush flags, cutting and pasting a newspaper article still isn't worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. If that was common practice, nobody would find Wiki remotely useful, let alone worth taking seriously. Gorilla Jones

You might want to put the gun away before you lose any more toes. RMc 01:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, folks, let's put aside the personal attacks and work to make the article better...how about a compromise? A section titled "Political views" or "Politics" or some similiar wording (of course that would necessitate encompassing a great deal of more information from his lengthy career)? or even a sub-article on that subject with a brief summary on the main page? It seems to me that a biography on Vonnegut would necessarily contain some sort of mention of his politics, and not just because of this one recent incident. He has never shied away from political commentary, it's the very basis of much of his work, so why not include it, but in an NPOV, detached, factual way? --Easter Monkey 02:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a section like that would be in order. The paragraph currently in the 'Biography' section beginning "Vonnegut is a humanist..." might serve as part of such a section. And there wouldn't be anything wrong with including the comments about the suicide bombers in a career-spanning overview. Gorilla Jones

Ok? Can we all be friends again? Pretty please? --Easter Monkey 11:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit late now so I won't bother arguing with RMc (who clearly has no idea as to what objectivity means.) I'd just like to say that the solution proposed was quite a good one and that Gorilla Jones wrote it equally well. 64.230.74.18 04:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess this issue has been settled as it has been over 6 months since the last salvo in the debate, but here are my twin coppers: Controversy is the life's blood of literature! Where would Capote, Mailer, Vidal, Martin Amis, or Salman Rushdie be without it? If Vonnegut said something that pissed people off enough to start some sort of debate then great. That's what a writer is supposed to do. I read the interview and it ain't pro-terrorist. It is in line with a historical long-view objectivity that Bill Maher used when he said it was braver to blow yourself up in front of your enemy than it is to launch an attack via cruise missle (I am paraphrasing of course). But I can certainly see why any variance from the lock-step mantra of terrorist = mental cause would offend folks who are attempting to justify an untenable narrative about a so-called "war against terror." It is because the interview was controversial and because Vonnegut is a famous writer that the incident should be well-recorded in any biographical article. Jackbox1971 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in guys, but there was a few things I wanted to throw out there about Vonnegut. Firstly I just wanted to state that yes; Vonneguts political views are of huge relevance to understanding him as an individual and how it it turn, has shaped his writings, hence it should be there among biographical content.(Hell, try to do up a biography of the Ken Kesey and try not to mention the Prankster's opinion of acid.......it doesn't work) We can already see that Vonnegut is terribly anti-war from the overtones of Slaughterhouse 5 and even the way post-war America is portrayed in Player Piano. (Incidentally, this bleak outlook was how Vonnegut actually felt about the US post WWII, while he was working for General Electric) Regarding looking down upon Vonnegut for his comments about the "terrorists" all I can say is: I'm terribly sure Vonnegut does not advocate the creedo of suicide bombers (Purple Heart remember) and his respect does not wave past admiration for dying for a cause. We view suicide bombers as manical, religion crazed individuals who are only out to strike down ideals. The same happens here in North America. Here we view patriotism as the sole ideal and even though the devotion placed in a flag is strong enough to be sent overseas to die for, many people neglect the fact that the same emotions and same drive is what drove those planes into the towers. PS........anyone else see HUGE similarities between President Lynn and Bush?

List

No list of his works? Aww, man...

When I created the "Vonnegut" template I cut and pasted from what used to be a list of his works contained in the article. Is the template not working? Does for me though. --Easter Monkey 12:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to knock the tamplate but I think it would be better if it listed the books with the year in an actual list not right after each other like it does here. Thoughts?--DannyBoy7783 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To easy. I don't have the time right at the moment to add all of the dates for the ones that aren't already in the individual wiki article for those that I didn't get to. The template looks "cooler" then just a straight boring list. --Easter Monkey 11:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what "too easy" is supposed to mean. Either way, the site is about information and ease of searching not how cool it looks.--DannyBoy7783 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In what respect would a list improve on the current template? It already has the dates of each book and the books themselves arranged in chronological order. How would a list be more informative or user-friendly than the template? A list would double the length of the article, which certainly would not increase the "ease of searching". Gorilla Jones 08:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"To easy" in that you want dates, you got dates. As Gorilla said, it's already in chrono order anyway. And if we can get an element of coolness and still convey the info, why the heck not? I can't imagine what you mean by "ease of searching" --- if you're looking for a Vonnegut book, search for Kurt Vonnegut, look for the list of his works, click on the link, and there you are. Sounds easy enough to me. --Easter Monkey 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut's page is not for advertising fo the World Can't Wait)

Agreed. Nor is it for advertising Cornell University, the U of Chicago, or Slaughterhouse 5. Shall we remove those references too? His endorsement of a statement comparing the Bush Agenda to fascism is a snapshot of his mind and a significant act, and thus a worthwhile contribution to the Politics section of this page. Why do you assume that posting this information is an endorsement or an advertisement? Did it ever occur to you that someone opposed to WCW might consider this information important? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.199.155.82 (talk • contribs) .

• You are correct, and that is why nobody has gone around adding highly POV statements about Cornell, U Chicago, etc to the pages of every notable graduate of these schools. There are countless endorsers to this petition and the effort to place a lengthy description of it on every endorser's article obviously amounts to an attempt to spam Misplaced Pages to increase the petitions visibility. If there were anything notable about his endorsement, if he talked about it publicly in an interview, if there was media coverage of it, etc. then there would be reason to add it. Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) at the end. Thanks. Fightindaman 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your characterization of the document as a "petition" shows that if you have even bothered to read it, you have not understood it. It is not a petition. It is a call to action outside the normal channels of political activity. What exactly about the description is "highly POV"? It is an objective characterization of what the statement is about. 63.199.155.82 23:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I have read it and I do understand it and that is really irrelevant to the matter. The fact is that the statement and links which you have gone around adding to countless articles read like advertisements. Calling the group anti-fascist is a POV statement because calling Bush a fascist is POV. Fightindaman 23:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, a lot of groups describe themselves as anti-fascist but have an extemely huge definition of fascism that includes virtually all right-wing thinkers, given the continuing debate over the definition of fascism, it seems like anti-fascist is simply a self-label, in actuality meaning extremely little, but people are entitled to their self-labels

Which Generation?

The intro originally read that Vonnegut was born to fourth-gen German American parents, and an anon recently changed it to fifth gen. I took this as an opportunity to confirm the original before reverting, but what I found described Vonnegut as "A fourth-generation German-American now living in easy circumstances on Cape Cod..." So wouldn't this mean that he was born to third-generation German-American parents? Fightindaman 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

great author

Kurt Vonnegut I believe is a great author, with a great insight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Libertinesfan13 (talk • contribs) .

Wherabouts

The biography says that Vonnegut moved to Massachusetts following the fire at his townhouse. A recent entry says that he has moved back to Manhattan. Could we have a cite for the latter claim? And if its true, the sentence about him living in Massachusetts needs to be updated to the past tense. Anson2995 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Best I could find is a reference to a 2006 interview that mentions talking to Vonnegut in his Manhattan apartment. I'll presume that as the authoritative cite unless somebody offers something else, and I'll make the necessary clarification in the article. Anson2995 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Marriage to Krementz

Somebody added an entry that said Vonnegut and Kremenz had divorced in 1991. It was reported that they filed for divroce but that the petition was later withdrawn. They are still married. Anson2995 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Not anymore. --The Outhouse Mouse 11:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Friends?

I took out part of this statement "In 1974, Venus on the Half-Shell, a book by Philip José Farmer aping the style of Vonnegut and attributed to Kilgore Trout, was published. This action caused a falling out of the two friends and some confusion amongst readers." It is my understanding that Vonnegut hardly knew Farmer. He said in an interview that he had never met him. They were not friends.

Inline citations

There is only one inline citation (recently added) while all of the other citations are mere links in this format: (btw, does anyone know what these are called?) So I think the single inline citation should be removed unless we can change all of the citations to inline citations. JianLi 23:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia - patents

Kurt Vonnegut seems to hold a patent for an easy-clean tobacco pipe, filed in 1944. See: http://www.google.co.uk/patents?vid=USPAT2395596&id=naVWAAAAEBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=kurt+vonnegut#PPP1,M1

Interesting. Is this the author's patent or his father's? Doctormatt 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It must be his father, the architect Kurt Vonnegut, Sr.. The author was in the army from 1943-1945 and most certainly not pursuing patent applications. In Fates Worse Than Death, the author writes: "The truth was that the Great Depression and then World War II, during which almost all building stopped, came close to gutting as an architect. From the time he was forty-five until he was sixty-one he had almost no work." (ie, 1929-1945). Anson2995 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Death/So it goes

I feel it would be a very well suited tribute to Vonnegut to add the line "So it goes" after mentioning his death in the Personal Life section, in reference to Slaughterhouse-5. Any feelings? I know the person who deleted it doesn't like it, but why? AQ 24.168.130.150 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read What Misplaced Pages is Not. As sad as I am to hear of his passing, Misplaced Pages is not the place to have a tribute to Mr. Vonnegut. Kntrabssi 04:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So it goes.

I understand that the bare phrase "so it goes" is unencyclopedic. However, the phrase is literarily significant, and it seems entirely appropriate to mention, in the section on his own death, the trope he used in reference to every one of the dozens of deaths in his most reknowned work. I suggest doing so with words similar to: "Vonnegut summed up such events more than 100 times in Slaughterhouse-Five: "So it goes."" Craigbutz 06:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We'll keep deleting unencyclopedic content. So it goes. Billbrock 06:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Our job is to note matters of record, not comment on them. Rockpocket 06:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how a factual statement about the author's views on death is commentary. Allowing this more academic version will discourage people from repeatedly adding "so it goes" alone, which does not fit stylistically. Craigbutz 06:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article in ny times is not available without login.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.128.209.163 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 April 2007.

Does the phrase "so it goes" in the section on Vonnegut's death really need to go? I've reverted it a couple of times myself, but now I'm beginning to wonder if that's really necessary. It didn't sit right with me at first. Now, it occurs to me: Misplaced Pages doesn't have a policy against irony, and the content obviously isn't malicious. It's small and I don't think it could do much except honor the spirit of the late Mr. Vonnegut. --Moralis (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, sorry I just reverted its most recent addition, it means nothing to uninformed readers as a stand alone comment.--Alf 06:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To elaborate: I fail to see how the phrase violates Misplaced Pages policy, and in light of the circumstances, I think perhaps it's not inappropriate... and I also think we have better things to do as a community than to keep removing it. There is significantly less encyclopedic information out there that we could be removing right now. --Moralis (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One could discuss Dresden's effect on Vonnegut's worldview, integrating the tag line into an (appropriately sourced) discussion of Slaughterhouse-Five. Many (most?) readers of this article have never read Vonnegut & will not understand the reference. We look for new knowledge in encyclopedia articles, not irony. However, you honor Vonnegut's memory by asking the question. Billbrock 06:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure someone will come in and eradicate the little So It Goes that someone put at the end of the news of his death. But I hope it stays a while as a tribute to KV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Malnova (talk • contribs) 07:02, 12 April 2007.

Gone daddy gone. Someday you and I will be gone, too. So it goes. Billbrock 07:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Added, with citation, and I hope it sticks. Tvoz |talk 07:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to say "hopefully Tvoz's edit here will ameliorate this", but I got edit conflicted - no surprise on that here today ;)--Alf 07:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Tvoz. Though I imagine we can expect plenty more attempts at adding it to the death section over the enxt 24hrs. So it goes, indeed. Rockpocket 07:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. See below. Tvoz |talk 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it should be kept as such. Misplaced Pages is not simply an encylopedia, it is a presentation of our generations feelings. If it was simply an encylopedia, there would not be an article on nearly every city in the US, there would be no article on ATHF or any show that only our generation loves. It is an indication of our beliefs. It should be kept to pay tribute and I hope whenever someone takes it down someone will put it back up. Redsxfenway 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which generation would that be? --Guinnog 08:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I put it back and hope we don't need to take this to an rfc or such - I was one of the people who, with regrets, removed it from the Death section because although I appreciate the irony and rightness of it as per Redsxfenway (go Yankees), it was not right for Misplaced Pages. It's my generation, and I share the feelings, but after all is said and done, it just doesn't belong here as a commentary. But it is a totally sound and important literary point, no less than "unstuck in time", and I think it absolutely should have been in the article all along. If someone has a suggestion for a more elegant or better place to put it, I'm all ears - but just removing it is simply not ok. The Boston Globe - and the NYTimes, by the way - saw fit to single it out in their obituary, out of the tens of thousands - perhaps millions - of words that he wrote. That is notability. Tvoz |talk 08:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Being" is a funny accident. The tagline is a bittersweet way of saying that death is in the nature of life-- WP:NOR? ;-). WP takes no position on the nature of existence. But by all means, work the thing in by explaining it in context. Billbrock 08:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the phrase "so it goes" might be a fitting end for this author, I do not believe Misplaced Pages should add this in as it gives a non-academic perspective/point-of-view of his death. I also would like to know where Misplaced Pages states it is a "presentation of our generations' feelings"? This is the first time I've ever heard such purpose of Misplaced Pages. As far as I know, such purpose violates the NPOV policy and would open to the debate of "What is our generation's feeling of ?". As another thought, do we do such things to other authors' deaths? As in trying to add in a remark or comment of their death by referencing their own works?--BirdKr 09:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If necessary it can perhaps be mentioned that the phrase is used in relation to his death by several news sources. No generation owns Misplaced Pages though. Granted males 16-35 "own" Misplaced Pages as much as any generation can, but I don't think that's even the "our generation" referred to.--T. Anthony 11:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that people will agree that the way the phrase has been added is encyclopedic, and notable. It's not there as POV of his death anymore. If some choose to interpret its inclusion in the Works section as a tribute to the man's genius, a nod to him upon his death, that's ok with me - the eye of the beholder, and all. But I will argue strenuously for its legitimate inclusion as a literary point. Tvoz |talk 09:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"So it goes." belongs with the mention of Kurt Vonnegut's death. If you don't agree, you should not be editting his page, because you don't understand him. Besides, it is three little words, let it go. Ugnut 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm usually a Wiki stickler, but I am inclined to agree here. If you can't deal with "So it goes." as it relates to Vonnegut, then you really have no business editing the article. KyuzoGator 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

i say leave it up. geoff 12:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"So it goes." does not belong in the "death" section of the article. The section on his death is supposed to provide information on his death; it is not there to create an emotional spark or feeling about the authors own feelings about death or life. There could be a whole section on "so it goes" as it is an important catch phrase related to the author but adding it as a trailer to his death section is completely unprofessional and unencyclopedic. Argueing that someone does not "understand" Vonnegut if they don't see a certain poit of view shows a complete bias and lack of NPOV that also does not belong in the article.--Csfgdead 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article including "So it goes" as a literary device and an attributable quote to Mr. Vonnegut is completely acceptable. Misplaced Pages is not Facebook or Myspace. We need to be as academic as possible. This isn't the place to run around posting tributes to dead authors, as sad as it is to see them pass. With hope, this problem has resolved itself, but as a matter of precedent, there SHOULD be a policy written on this if it isn't already. Kntrabssi 14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Vonnegut said that, when he died, his preferred joke would be for people to say, "He is in Heaven now." Mind you, I don't support adding either that or "so it goes" to the article, because while both will be appropriate in obituaries and tributes, neither is appropriate in an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is "So it goes." really not encyclopedic? Think about it for a second. The words "so it goes" don't editorialize anything. Technically, saying, "Kurt Vonnegut died. So it goes." is just reiterating what happened and can be interpreted as being a description as well as an extremely fitting tribute. I say keep it. KyuzoGator 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems we need to take a poll. Shiggity 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"So it goes" is a commentary. Misplaced Pages articles do not add commentary, they simply report on facts from verifiable sources. If anyone involved in this discussion can find a Misplaced Pages policy that says that commentary is okay when it's about someone we really like and respect, I'd love to see a link. Moreover, it isn't even a very good tribute. It's like adding "Live long and prosper" to Leonard Nimoy- cliched, and a minimization of the value of the man's work. Frankly, in addition to not meeting Misplaced Pages guidelines, I just think it's tacky. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FisherQueen, maybe you can point out the violation of Misplaced Pages's guidelines with a link, because I don't see any. Shiggity 16:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I totally understand why people want it included, and there is absolutely the 60s part of me that would enjoy seeing it stay - but as FisherQueen said this is not an obituary, and it's not a tribute. Of course it is editorializing - it's a meta comment on an event. We don't allow "George Harrison died. All things must pass." That same part of me would like to see that too - but it's not going to happen, and if we want it to then we have to adjust the nature of the encyclopedia across the board. I'm not saying that's not worth exploring, but realistically, it's not going to happen just because people re-insert the phrase here. Sooner or later someone will lock the page up completely. Make a proposal wherever such things are done - you may get a good deal of support from people who would like Misplaced Pages to be more elegantly written, becoming something more than another Britannica. But this isn't the way to accomplish that, I'm afraid. And no, we don't need a poll. Tvoz |talk 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Then a link to where it is explicitly forbidden should be posted here, because otherwise there's no good reason to get rid of it. If you say we don't need a poll, I say fine, we can just keep editing it directly. Shiggity 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:TONE ("Misplaced Pages articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone."), plus the basic issue of original research, if we're not explicitly attributing the quote to anyone, in respect to Vonnegut's death. --McGeddon 16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be seen as propaganda and/or advocacy by those unfamiliar with the subject, once they've puzzled out why it was there and then what it means, prop. and ad. are not on, see WP:NOT#SOAPBOX.--Alf 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut has been a hero and inspiration to me. So it goes is a great sentiment for all who cared about him. This is an encyclopedia, however, and therefore cannot include something much better suited for a eulogy or obit. Also, any who truly followed the sentiment wouldn't put it on an encyclopedia, they should accept the death with a "so it goes" and move on with life. I believe that's what he would've wanted. Rest in Peace, Kurt Vonnegut. ReverendG 16:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per McGeddon, perhaps there is someone to quote who said it today - or someone could write up something that talks about the many obits today that use the phrase "so it goes" in their leads, etc - and with refs, that should stand in the death section. But the reason I said we don't need a poll is it isn't a matter of reaching consensus - even if every editor of this article says he or she wants it in, having the phrase alone as a comment I think still will be pulled or the page locked because it goes against several[REDACTED] policies that other people will invoke (TONE, OR, RS, NOT, maybe NPOV, possibly others). Even the completely supportable addition of it as a literary device was (incorrectly I believe) deleted the first time I added it - so rather than trying to defy the structure of the encyclopedia, maybe a creative solution will satisfy. I reverted it once, but not any more - I'll leave that to others, but I am quite sure the others will be there. Tvoz |talk 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So why not quote the newspaper obituaries after the line about his death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.220.224 (talk • contribs) - 4:36, 12 April 2007

Try it out.Tvoz |talk 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

UU?

I'd never heard of Vonnegut being a Unitarian Universalist until today. Can anyone give any conformation for this other than a link to a link of a list compiled by a UU member? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 06:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this claim is based on a line in Fates Worse Than Death -- "In order not to seem a spiritual quadriplegic to strangers trying to get a fix on me, I sometimes say I am a Unitarian Universalist (I breathe)." Speaking as a Unitarian Universalist who gets and appreciates the joke, I'd say this is pretty shaky evidence. Garrick.linn 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

more pop culture trivia

in the niven/pournelle book "inferno" (based on dante's work), vonnegut has a tomb in the circle of hell occupied by creators of false religions. he's not named, but the tomb has a flashing sign that says "so it goes", a common phrase of vonnegut's —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.68.224 (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Death => WP Main Page?_WP_Main_Page?-2007-04-12T04:53:00.000Z">

There were more serious American authors circa 1970, but none more popular. Vonnegut's death is currently the lead feature on the NY Times & Chgo Tribune homepages; it would be appropriate for the WP main page, Rule 5 notwithstanding. (From a US perspective, Vonnegut's death is perhaps the most newsworthy obit for 2007 to date.) A thorough copyedit of this article would certainly help. Billbrock 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)_WP_Main_Page?"> _WP_Main_Page?">

This article is going to receive a lot of traffic in the next few days, lets try to get it up to at least GA standards. ˉˉ╦╩ 04:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

WP main page should contain the news of vonnegut's death. currently we have days old news on the news section.. i feel frustrated. Candymoan 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

like-minded people should head to main page disscussion.. i've already entered my disbelief.. okay, ITN does not list obituaries.. except for those who are notable experts in their field.. i agree, but if vonnegut doesn't qualify, who does? if it had been norman mailer or noam chomsky, i'm pretty sure the elite intellectuals running[REDACTED] would spend no time to turn the entire main page into a shrine.. the "💕 anyone can edit"?? i have been around for a long time, but i've never been nauseated until today by the policies and bureaucracy.. so it goes..Candymoan 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a significant world news event and should be included. KyuzoGator 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Theist?

"Interview Public Radio International (October 2006) 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 07 January, 2006 Sunday Herald"

Sounds like he was at least an agnostic towards the end. Mayorcheese 05:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

IFF

I cut this passage from the WWII section of the article. Not to delete it, but because it was both vague and misplaced.

Later, he joined the war against poverty by establishing what was known as the IFF, the International Feeding Fund. Although this is not widely known, Vonnegut played a crucial role in the short but effective life of this organization.

Billbrock 06:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bulge / POW

More bio material desperately needed here; life-shaping events. Billbrock 06:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone could rework the following copyrighted material (from the NY Times News Service obit) then delete this copyrighted stuff (I'm off to bed):

In 1944, he was shipped to Europe with the 106th Infantry Division and shortly saw combat in the Battle of the Bulge. With his unit nearly destroyed, he wandered behind enemy lines for several days until he was captured and sent to a prisoner of war camp near Dresden, the architectural jewel of Germany.

Assigned by his captors to make vitamin supplements, he was working with other prisoners in an underground meat locker when British and U.S. warplanes started carpet bombing the city, creating a firestorm above him. The work detail saved his life.

Afterward, he and his fellow prisoners were assigned to remove the dead.

"The corpses, most of them in ordinary cellars, were so numerous and represented such a health hazard that they were cremated on huge funeral pyres, or by flamethrowers whose nozzles were thrust into the cellars, without being counted or identified," he wrote in "Fates Worse Than Death."

Tx. Billbrock 07:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Home for sale

Here's a link to the sales page for the Indianapolis home: http://www.mlsfinder.com/in_mibor/mswoods/index.cfm?action=listing_detail&property_id=2721607&searchkey=e5caa920-c1df-b013-5da5-51d8f5a45878&npp=10&sr=1

It can be confirmed to be the Vonnegut home through this link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1582/is_200410/ai_n9438141

I'm not sure that it is encyclopedic that his boyhood home is for sale (it's currently in the article), but if it is, this should satisfy the needed citation requirements. 64.35.225.1 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

random trivia error

Kurt Vonnegut also gave a commencement speech at Lehigh University in May, 2004, where he said the same quote that he is listed as saying at Ohio State: "If you really want to disappoint your parents, and don't have the nerve to be gay, go into the arts." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.54.86 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Appropriate response to "so it goes"

While I appreciate the sentiment behind the addition of this tribute phrase, it is clear that Misplaced Pages guidelines don't support it. Is it appropriate to vandal-warn those who persist in adding it? Should repeat additions lead to temporary user blocks? -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but until someone cites a specific violation of the guidelines, your removing it constitutes vandalism as much as my adding it. Shiggity 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a memorial service, obituary column, or place to express sentiments. WP:NOT covers this. -/- Warren 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This was perhaps one of the most touching things I have ever read along many years of wikipedia. It would be a shame to see it cast away entirely. Maybe the guidelines prohibit it, maybe not, so if the rule lawyers want to make a change, how about: As Vonnegut would say, "So it goes". 76.99.57.18 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be touching. The proposed change is still a violation of WP:OR and WP:TONE. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd been adding the {uw-joke1} warning. I'm not sure it's the right one, but it seems closest. What do folks think? -- Narsil 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Linda Ellerbee also used to say "And so it goes". It would probably be sufficient, and a good compromise, to cite a well-written obit which is titled "so it goes"... the point of that being to show the verifiable fame of this quote. Wahkeenah 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's been suggested - someone needs to do it though. (Ellerbee was quoting Vonnegut when she adopted that phrase as her sign-off.) As for vandal-warning: I'd support a short amnesty after the death of someone like this for things like this - let the text stand for a little while and then remove it - what I've heard described as a "slow revert" - and no, I'm not reporting vandalism on this one, not today. To each his own. Tvoz |talk 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also inclined to cut the users some slack after a famous event. Once the frenzy dies down, the "slow revert" that you mention can be applied. Wahkeenah 19:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If people are particularly persistant, one could always direct them to the discussion here, as explanantion for why it is not appropriate. Rockpocket 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the slow revert in cases of celebrity news events. Just the other day I read a CNET article critical of Misplaced Pages's response to the DNA results announcement regarding Anna Nicole Smith's baby's paternity. CNET quoted liberally from reverted edits. In short, the media is watching, and the media is especially watching these types of articles during moments of breaking news. If something isn't appropriate, the more quickly we correct it, the less credibility we lose. Rklawton 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, Rklawton, for almost all such events - 100% about Anna Nicole, or Imus or Elizabeth Edwards, or any positive or negative news or news-y event. But let's just take a step back and recognize that adding "So it goes", Vonnegut's catchphrase about a death used exactly as he would have minutes and hours after his death, is really not harmful to our credibility. If anything it might enhance it - it shows that we're not all culture-less teenage boys (no offense intended to any of the 3 groups I just smeared). I hear you, and in the long run I think it has to be removed or placed in an encyclopedic way as has been discussed - but I think a little benign neglect is not the worst thing here. Tvoz |talk 19:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So far, the only CITED source against adding this has been "Misplaced Pages articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone." But this is subjective, as it goes on to say "Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter." To say "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a memorial service, obituary column, or place to express sentiments" without citing a direct quote, and instead just writing "WP:NOT covers this" is immaterial. It DOES say "Misplaced Pages is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Kurt Vonnegut was NOT my friend, or my relative, AND he was notable. {uw-joke1} is inappropriate. "So it goes" is NOT a joke. It is a literary reference. As Tvoz said, it really isn't harmful to credibility and might enhance it -- if anything, it displays the detailed nature with which articles on Misplaced Pages are created and updated. There's a difference between sloppy, casual writing not worthy of encyclopedic inclusion, and a clever addition to an accurate statement that is appreciated by those who immediately understand it, and perhaps encouraging the unenlightened to read more. As Misplaced Pages is a reflection on human culture, it should also reflect a human-like approach, not machine-cold, pedantic, stilted phrases governed by a bunch of rules that have been arbitrarily inferred from what are supposed to be general guidelines. Shiggity 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

recurring themes

The recurring themes bit is oddly worded. It makes it sound like Ice Nine is a recurring theme, rather than the more general harms caused by technological progress. --Ryan Wise 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ice-nine

From the article:

In addition to recurring characters, there are also recurring themes and ideas. One of them is ice-nine, said to be a new form of ice with a different crystal structure from normal ice. When a crystal of ice-nine is brought into contact with liquid water, it becomes a seed that 'teaches' the molecules of liquid water to arrange themselves into ice-nine. However, this process is not easily reversible, as the melting point of ice-nine is 114.4 degrees Fahrenheit (45.8 degrees Celsius). Ice-nine could be considered a fictionalization of the real scientific controversy surrounding polywater, a hypothetical form of water which has since been disproved. Metaphorically, ice-nine represents any potentially lethal invention created without regard for the consequences. Ice-nine -- the eighth in a series of differently crystalizing ices with successively higher melting points -- is patently dangerous, as even a small piece of it dropped in the ocean would cause all the earth's water to solidify. (Vonnegut ignores the fact that this is thermodynamically impossible.) Yet it was created, simply because human beings like to create and invent.

Is a discussion of ice-nine--the scientific relevence or interpretation of the metaphor--really necessary to this article? Both Cat's Cradle and ice-nine have wiki articles, and I think such information should be placed in either of those articles, if they are relevant to Misplaced Pages at all. --buck 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Might a modification be practical, as to suggest that Vonnegut himself was concerned with the notion of technological progression? I think that completely deleting mention would be a stretch, but the current state is somewhat verbose, and appropriate for exploration in the alternate articles.-EarthRise33 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Vonnegut was a Luddite, he was just concerned about the lack of perspective. Ice-Nine was assumed to be a satire of such things as the guys who exploded the first nuclear bomb, not knowing for sure what would happen, i.e. whether it might set off a chain reaction that would destroy the earth (as Ice-Nine essentially did), but doing it anyway just to find out. Wahkeenah 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• High-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles