Slashdot Mirror
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Dies At 84
At least twenty-two readers took the trouble to make sure we knew that Kurt Vonnegut has died at 84. From the Times obituary: "Kurt Vonnegut, whose dark comic talent and urgent moral vision in novels like 'Slaughterhouse-Five,' 'Cat's Cradle' and 'God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater' caught the temper of his times and the imagination of a generation, died last night in Manhattan... Mr. Vonnegut suffered irreversible brain injuries as a result of a fall several weeks ago, according to his wife, Jill Krementz." Reader SPK adds: "He will be remembered not only as a great writer, but also as a staunch civil libertarian (long-term member of the ACLU) and as a 'mainstream/literary' author who integrated science fiction concepts into his writing. So it goes."
God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, "Sit up!"
"See all I've made," said God, "the hills, the sea, the sky, the stars."
And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going God.
-1: flamebait should really be -1: inciteful
I just heard some sad news on slashdot - Horror/Sci Fi writer Kurt Vonnegut Jr was found dead in his Manhattan home this morning. There weren't many more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to mercurian culture. Truly an American icon.
...from those who have taken a flying fuck at a rolling donut, or a flying fuck at the moooooon.
Another one bites the dust. Ho hum.
Thanks for the good reads, Kurt. Time to go through my bookshelf, and do a little rediscovery. Thanks so much.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
a little more decency - please.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
At least he wasn't eaten by wolves. Senselessly.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
and another thing, Vonnegut... I'm gonna stop payment on the check!
to give that man 10 more years.
:-(
The world is truly poorer for his loss.
Oh man, all this time I thought Kurt Vonnegut AND his son Kurt Vonnegut Jr. were both authors. Now they are BOTH dead!
-- Boycott Shell
This is sad. Cat's Cradle instituted a real shift in my life, and he will be missed.
Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
Name the only movie Valerie Perrine showed her boobies...
That's right, Billy, it was "Schlachthof-Fünf".
Lucky Billy:
http://www.celeblinks.net/?img_id=717&=d8dcb7032f
http://www.celeblinks.net/?img_id=718&=d8dcb7032f
http://www.celeblinks.net/?img_id=719&=d8dcb7032f
Kurt's up in heaven now..
So it goes.
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
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
I just read my first Vonnegut novel a few months ago (Slaughterhouse-Five). I just started Breakfast of Champions a couple days ago. This writer that I'd somehow never heard of, who'd written Slaughterhouse-Five, instantly one of my favourites of all time, is now dead. Deeply depressing.
So it goes, I guess. So it goes.
CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
Ah, a sad day.
I can't say I read that much of his work, but he's one of those authors on my to-read list. However, I really enjoyed his essay on vulgarity in writing, and the embedded story (The Big Space Fuck). It simultaneously appealed to my juvenile sense of humor, made an impression on me about the impact of words and what true vulgarity is, and made me seriously think about how to make my characters talk like real people.
hackshop.com - My tech hobby project hub
So. Farewell then, Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
My favourites were "Breakfast of Champions" and "Bonfire of the Vanities".
Or was that one of Chrichton's?
(Age 17 1/2)
I'm glad the pain is over for him. Death is always a sure fire solution to pain. And he may be one of the last adults we will ever hear say "I didn't commit suicide because I wanted to set a good example for my children." Imagine, setting a good example. What a good thing to do. Thank you for Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt. Thank you for showing us a bunch of apes hiding in a cave full of offal and ordure while other flying apes drop rocks on them. Thank you for burning that image into us again and again. And thanks for being accountable and holding us accountable. I'm going to miss that a lot. [-)
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
My best Vonnegut moment was when I was watching that Rodney Dangerfield movie "Back To School" in a theatre. In one scene, there's a knock at the door, and Rodney opens the door, and it's a curly-haired guy who is his tutor for the writings of Vonnegut. That's when I started laughing. Three seconds later, after he says that he is Kurt Vonnegut, the rest of the audience starts laughing.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Vonnegut's Asshole -> * One of my favorite authors. I own more of his books than anyone else's.
No comment from Kilgore Trout, either.
Trolling is a art,
Now two of my favorite authors, Douglas Adams and Kurt Vonnegut, are dead. They both managed to intertwine a strange philosophy in their novels. For Vonnegut, I've always enjoyed the glimpses into Tralfamadorean philosophy. "We are all bugs trapped in amber" they said. It was impossible to ascribe morality to any act. It just is. The easy reading of this idea may say that there's no evil, no good and by following that thread, no God or heaven. But what it really suggests is an idea from antiquity to Marlowe to Conrad to taoism. We are. We must do all that we can on this earth and not let some vague idea of good/bad determine our actions. We must live according to our own personal code.
God bless you, Mr. Vonnegut.
Mitigating circumstance to mentioned on judgement day: he never asked to be born in the first place.
RIP
Monstar L
Kurt Vonnegut is in heaven now
She also showed her boobies during prime-time network television, at least in some markets, in 1973. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167415/ I never imagined that would be the first, and last time, it was done on broadcast TV.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
The days of no gravity were my favorites. The other days, when gravity nailed you to your bed, were the dark days.
So many images, so many interesting newly invented words, imagery, and the skewering of organized religions and belief systems.
Vonnegut was a Zen Master in a Hoosier Veteran's body, with a keen eye for the obscenity and violence that man foists upon man.
There's a vacuum in humanity where he once stood, a lit Lucky Strike in his hand, smiling with rapt amusement at it all.
The world was his ghetto, and rubbing feet together could make it better.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
*snif!*
Kurt is up in heaven now.
so it goes.
right and wrong exists, i know that and you know that. what you are really saying is that you want to determine what is right and wrong, not some questionably motivated external entity determining it for you
but the problem is, in your words above, there seems to be a rationale for saying that there is no such thing as right and wrong at all. i know you don't mean that, but if you parse your words above, and look carefully at what you actually say, and what you neglect to say, then you can see how your words might give those who mean ill in this world some satisfaction that you don't have a problem with them
i know what you really mean, but you have to be more careful. you have to be careful what you say, at the very least, so that you don't reinforce a stereotype: the moralizers and social conservatives who are talibanesque in their thinking and atttitudes, they look at the words you wrote above and they find a reason to attack you and paint you as an enemy because your words seem to profess nihilism. so the type of people we both dislike now have an excuse and a renewed sense of determination on attempting to foist their narrow-minded "morals" on you
what you really mean is that you don't share their agenda for, example, denying homosexuals marriage, or denying women abortion, or keeping marijuana illegal, or punishing people for adultery as if it were a capital offense. but in your words above, it almost looks like you don't care if people are murdered right in front of you. of course you don't mean that, but do you see how your words can be parsed that way? especially by the likes of the maerican taliban?
what you don't care for are the moralizers, those who would invade your personal life in the name of their simple-minded fundamentalist attitudes. good for you, i agree with you. but you need to speak more clearly, or you only give such people reason to paint you with their stereotypical brushes as a nihilist. you can see in your words above how they might think what you really mean is you don't care about anything or anyone at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
[after Diane gives Thornton an 'F' for his report, which was actually written by Kurt Vonnegut] ... and *another* thing, Vonnegut! I'm gonna stop payment on the cheque!
Diane: Whoever *did* write this doesn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut!
[cut to Thornton's dorm suite]
Thornton Melon: [on the phone]
[Kurt tells him off]
Thornton Melon: Fuck me? Hey, Kurt, can you read lips, *fuck you*! Next time I'll call Robert Ludlum!
[hangs up]
Yes, my girlfriend is a BitchX
No.
RIP Mr. Vonnegut Time will be stuck for a few of us today.
My handle here at Slashdot is a Vonnegut character that I mis-typed. It's always bugged me that it's wrong.
"Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
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
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Thanks for all the books, Mr. Vonnegut. Rest in peace.
... writing out code while crying. Most of the sods I had to talk to today, other departments and what not, tell me 'kurt vonnegut who?' The fist of death may make an unscheduled arrival today. Arg.
Tiger got to hunt
Eagle got to fly
Man got to ask his self
Why, why, why?
Tiger got to sleep
Eagle got to land
Man got to tell his self
He Understand
--Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
But his body of work will go on and on. The world is a better place for having had him in it for a while.
As a side note, I saw this in the Firehose earlier, and felt really odd about clicking the "thumbs-up" icon next to it.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
"But whoever did write it doesn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut!"
God I'm going to miss that bastard. He wrote so little and yet gave us so much.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
He just came unstuck in time.
Today, Kurt Vonnegut became unstuck in time. /salute /rip
'Truth' is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it...
"So it goes."
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Spoken like someone who's never read a book in his life. Well done, you're this guy.
Not only was he an incredibly insightful author, as in the "emperor has no clothes" school (Ed Abbey, Hunter Thompson, et al), but he was funny as FUCK!
I can't remember which book it is, but there is one part where a rabid dog is coming at the character in the book (I think it's himself he's writing about) and he says something to the effect of, "he was so scared, that his testicles retracted up into his body like the landing gear on an aircraft". I was on the bus when I read that, and I laughed out loud, with everyone on the bus looking at me!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Including my two favorites: Bluebeard and Galapagos.
RIP Kurt, your books sustained my love of literature in the desert of creativity that is a university's liberal arts department.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
We will miss you, Kurt.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
That was one hell of a graduation speech he gave a few years back.
Without a citation of a "Gramscian" case, that's just a rehashing of far-right propaganda. The ACLU has defended far-rightists including Rush Limbaugh, despite all the nasty propaganda he spread against them. Very Christian of them in the, "Love thy Neighbor" sense if not the Bushbot sense.
To someone unfamiliar with his works ... is there a best place to start?
From what I've gathered, it sounds like there are some recurring themes/characters - so I'm not sure if there are stories that should/must be read before others or if it isn't so important to go through in a particular order.
Any advice for the Vonnegut newbies out here?
man that's too bad I really liked Nirvana
Truly an American literary great.
And so it goes...
In Back to School, Vonnegut was hired to write a report for a class about one of his own books. The results of that report being graded were a failing grade and the remark "whoever wrote that didn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut."
To my way of thinking that was probably the funniest bit of the movie (my own experiences in English classes in high school made me wonder essentially the same thing - did the author ACTUALLY mean any of this?), and I have always wondered who's idea it originally was to do that bit.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
"Right" and "wrong" have no existence outside our heads. I'm against certain kinds of behaviour, but that's not because they are wrong by some external moral standard, but because I find them to be wrong. This position is known as "moral non-cognitivism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism
Note that it is *very* different from what some people call "moral relativism" - it is perfectly consistent for a moral non-congnitivist to eg have someone arrested for murder, even though they do not believe that murder is somehow "objectively wrong".
Xenu loves you!
Slaughterhouse Five
Oddly enough, he died while I and some co-workers were watching Mother Night (based on his story).
A rather disturbing coincidence in the light of the next day....
"Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt." So long, Kurt. I hope it was a great adventure.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elrous0/ -Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
*
There, I drew it.
Don't eat your soul to fill your belly.
conesus.com
if someone murders, you would have them punished. that is all that matters to me. the rest of what you said, including your link, is pointless semantics. i don't care how you reason to come to think of murder as something punishable, as long as you think it is punishable
you of course, say to me that that doesn't mean you think it is "wrong", according to the convoluted reasoning you have presented to me above. whatever. at this point we could have an infintely regressive argument about the definition of right and wrong, good and evil, but i don't care. it's a boring conversation
i don't care because we both agree as to MEANING, regardless of the VERBIAGE around the meaning: if you kill, you should be punished. that's substantative reality for me, and all i need to know about how you think. the rest to me is just a hodge podge of semantics that are of secondary importance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well, someday, I won't be playing cards with Kurt and miles Davis when I don't go to the afterlife that doesn't exist...
Read some Robert Anton Wilson too (he died recently as well). Kind of like James Joyce on LSD. For that matter, read some James Joyce.
I'd suggest Slaughterhouse Five or Player Piano. Both easy reads with good messages.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Oh man. I totally forgot about that saying after I got done with high school.
S5 was a good interesting read. Highly recommended. Kinda saddening realizing that Vonnegut and Hunter S Thompson have both died in the past year. I'm just wondering who's the next author to die from my senior year of High School reading list?
Insert Sig Here
it's called self-fulfilling prophecy
human beings and their reality are not dictated by math equations. the human animal is unique in that other animals adapt to their environment, buthumans adapt their environment to themselves. if we believe in something, we make it so. this explains everything from making a simple stone tool to going to the moon, to banging a drum, to creating a religion
so how and why does right and wrong exist? because we make it so
if you reject this simple assertion you suffer form stasis: you are comfortbale with and appreciate the laws of nature and physics and math and simple logic. but you are uncomfortable with the monkey in the room... the naked, smart monkey. his exertions matter just as the static forces of nature, and what he calls "truth" is just as powerful as tsunami
you need to appreciate that. it's as hard and cold a truth about reality as any physical law you care to recite. believing things into existence is true as surely as any other fundamental truth of your reality: gravity, sunlight, the oceans... the human desire, willpower, and ability to shape his world is no small thing. reflect on that, and appreciate it
so if enough people say murder is wrong. it's wrong. as far as any reality you exist in matters. thus the importance of the push and pull of ideology and politics and religion. it shapes your world powerfully and you must contribute to it, so that what you think is "wrong" doesn't become "right"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
"A crazy thought now occurred to Billy. The truth of it startled him. It would make a good epitaph for Billy Pilgrim - and for me, too."
On the opposing page, a drawing of a tombstone with the epitaph:
EVERYTHING WAS BEAUTIFUL AND NOTHING HURT
My complete Vonnegut collection is worth something due to the Dead Authors Effect. Let the bidding begin!
Vielen dank, Kurt.
Thanks a lot, big brain. (K. Vonnegut, "Galapagos")
On President George W. Bush:
If ever I had a tough letter to write, this is it. My challenge is to convince you that we are in trouble when hitherto reputable people resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution. For the sake of review, George W Bush's plaints have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply combative. Now, not only are they both malicious and unsavory, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that Bush had previously claimed that he had no intention to capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would promote group-think attitudes over individual insights. We all know what happened then. Now, Bush would have us believe he'd never ever trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. Will he? Go figure. My view is that I myself have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that Bush spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is antidisestablishmentarianism, which says to me that the concepts underlying Bush's brain-damaged, barbaric convictions are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea -- that the heavens revolve around the Earth -- was wrong, just as Bush's idea that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom is wrong. Given Bush's current mind-set, people often get the impression that the most prissy renegades you'll ever see and Bush's proxies are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Bush uses the word "hyperphosphorescence" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. Call me a cynic, but his responses to my attempts to summon up the courage to speak out against behavior and speech that is intended to support international crime while purporting to oppose it generally involve crying, whining, and wrapping himeself in a self-protecting mantle of superiority. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. Bush will undoubtedly damage the debate about this issue, because we will have to spend lots of time correcting misunderstandings that are directly attributable to his vaporings. It's debatable whether he has refused to make a public apology for his mindless, yawping tricks. However, no one can disagree that if the only way to rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause is for me to fall into the trap of thinking that Bush is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people, then so be it. It would undeniably be worth it because he likes modes of thought that let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of lame-brained good-for-nothings. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that he is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore!
I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Bush and his buddies, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that if we let Bush oppress, segregate, and punish others, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. He is not just uneducated. He is unbelievably, astronomically uneducated.
I have seen and heard enough. Now, it is time to enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensiti
on question of murder, everyone agrees: the ancient bible era people, and all societies today
now ask about taking two wives... you'll find a western/ islamic rift there
ask about child rape... as you say, you'll find an ancient/ modern rift there
ask about marijuana legalization... now we are drifting into serious fracturing of belief into right or wrong in terms of time/ space
so morality is soft, or relative, on some questions, but hard, and rigid, and absolute on others
so morality is not completely relative, only partially relative
but even then, this is a statement of reality, but not a statement i should respect or accept. the idea of relativity to be a cop out: of course people have different opinions, but that doesn't mean you have to accept them or tolerate them. do i accept female circumcision? no. should i? why should i? i think it is wrong, and i will tell people from west africa it is wrong, because i believe it is wrong, absolutely
moral relativity is all about the evolution of morality. but this is suggesting that we are bugs trapped in amber, completely helpless about the march of progress and history. no, false. we are active players in it. morality, if anything, is a human code, and a human drama. and as a human being who care,s i will contribute in that drama, and add my voice to the litany of what i think should be right, and what i think should be wrong. simply accepting that someone else believes something else just because i have accepted the fact that other people have other beliefs is not valid
on questions of CULTURAL differences, of course there is no quesiton that i tolerate this. but what about on the quesiton of whether or not suicide bombing of civilians is a valid tactic in a geopolitical sturggle. i am supposed to accept that as a cultural difference? bullshit. it is wrong, on an absolute moral basis
my reasoning? we are all human beings. and this observation trumps all cultural relativism, completely
we live in an age of jet air travel and the internet, not spanish galleons and monks with quill pens. in such an era, the only moral and intellectually defensible position, on any problem, is a global one, a universal one, and therefore, an absolute one
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
he could be a nihilist. i hope he isn't. i'm just giving him the benefit of doubt
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'd suggest reading them chronologically in the order he wrote them, since there are some recurring characters. They are all quick reads, and well worth your time.
"I got it off a hair dryer."
According to the brothers there, it was a long standing tradition for a few seniors to sleep on that verandah every night for their last year, and KVJr did so in his last year. Since this was many years before Al Kilgore-Trout realized the earth was getting warmer, I can assure you that in the middle of February, it got DAMN cold in Ithaca. But again, the brothers assured us he toughed it out for the entire year. So he wasn't just a damn fine writer; he was a tough SOB as well.
What was once true, is no longer so
Beats me why parent gets modded Funny (rather than insightful or interesting). Probably the nervous laughter from the people who haven't quite shaken feelings of guilt for their unbelief:).
Anyway, furthering the off-topic tangent, this is the reason I can rarely take people seriously when they say their life has more meaning or depth because of their religion. I don't recognize the meaning in spending your life sucking up to an insecure being and playing other arbitrary games to get a high enough score to prevent the "God of love" from damning you to eternal torment for some transgression. Similarly, terminating inquiries into the nature of the universe with "God did it", is not life-enriching to my mind.
And yet I hear all the time how the secular life is empty, sterile, shallow, or otherwise lacking...
My father died in the mid 70's when he was still relatively young. I was having some problems making sense of it and I discovered Vonnegut. Somehow his writing provided a fresh perspective on the nature of reality, humanity and mortality. While I later drifted away from Vonnegut's narcissism, I still recall those days as his novels became the perfect form of escape for me during a really tough time.
RIP Kurt.
-- Should there be smoke coming out of my CPU?
No, Cat's Cradle!
Ice-9 rocks!
I drank what? -- Socrates
Before you we read long latin words spliced and diced,
Generally disrespected,
Always knowing that the old and the dead are great,
Sanctified by burial,
Having taken big parts of our living tongue to Hell,
Selfishly conniving,
Leaving us with less to say and fewer words to use,
Horribly reduced.
You took us though and through your books,
Full of blood and sex and true things,
You point out lies and fuck us up,
With thoughts of what we've done-
You goddamn *.
So it goes.
"Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you've got about a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- 'God damn it, you've got to be kind.'" ~ God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater
Billy is speaking before a capacity audience in a baseball park, which is covered by a geodesic dome. The flag of the country is behind him. It is a Hereford bull on a field of green. Billy predicts his own death within an hour. He laughs about it, invites the crowd to laugh with him. "It is high time I was dead," he says. "Many years ago," he said, " a certain man promised to have me killed. He is an old man now, living not far from here. He has read all of the publicity associated with my appearance in your fair city. He is insane. Tonight he will keep his promise."
There are protests from the crowd.
Billy Pilgrim rebukes them. "If you protest, if you think that death is a terrible thing, then you have not understood a word I've said." Now he closes his speech as he closes every speech- with these words: "Farewell, hello, farewell, hello."
Oh me. Oh my. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but the depth and breadth of extreme-right thought in America continues to frighten me.
..but not Forgottennegut.
-- Boycott Shell
Actually I think this is the worst book to start with (it has other charcters in it for starters...)
Plus Vonnegut himself gave it a C.
(from wikipedia)In Chapter 18 of his book Palm Sunday "The Sexual Revolution," Vonnegut grades his own works. He states that the grades "do not place me in literary history" and that he is comparing "myself with myself." The grades are as follows:
* Player Piano: B
* The Sirens of Titan: A
* Mother Night: A
* Cat's Cradle: A-plus
* God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater: A
* Slaughterhouse-Five: A-plus
* Welcome to the Monkey House: B-minus
* Happy Birthday, Wanda June: D
* Breakfast of Champions: C
* Slapstick: D
* Jailbird: A
* Palm Sunday: C
Slaughterhouse-Five or Cat's Cradle are both good first books.
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
Vonnegut from "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater,"
"Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you've got about a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies - 'God damn it, you've got to be kind.' "
my feeble attempt at an epitaph
"Goodbye, Mr. Vonnegut. God bless you, Mr. Vonnegut.
You told us about ice, you told us about fire. You made us laugh and taught us to think. Your time here was too short. But you gave us a lot more than one rule, you gave us someone to root for."
I'm sorry its no Vonnegut...
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
Creepy.
"my experience that this difference *does* make a profound difference in what people do in response to moral questions"
emphasis on what they DO. who knows what they think. sometimes, they don't even know what they think. besides, such motivations really become a question of implementing a thought police. so, as you say, only if it makes a difference in real life does someone's moral reasonings matter. i don't care if you think murder is ok unless you witness a murder and do nothing. at which point, i have a problem with you, but not until that point. people have to actually DO something (or not do something) before they become right or wrong. before that, what they think is impossible to judge
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, remember when Jerry Garcia bought the film rights to make Sirens of Titan? And remember when Jerry died before that project really got started? Kurt bought back the rights and the screenplay.
Perhaps those to whom the rights will now transfer, will not do to Kurt, as was done to Heinlein or Dick.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
In my professional opinion (and by professional, I mean "one I came up with while eating cookies at my desk and not working on an essay due in several hours"), people say it because it makes them feel like their life has a purpose. Doing good in the name of the Lord gives a reason for life. A reason to get up in the morning. They can HELP someone, and they KNOW it has to be a good reason, because, like, God told them to, supposedly.
At least, that's what I've figured out from listening to some of my relatives. Me, on the other hand... I'm agnostic, because I can't say there's NO chance that there is a God... but really, to me, I think the universe can be summed up in two words: Shit happens.
My aunt told me there must be a God because she couldn't face the world if there weren't. I didn't say this to her, but I thought, "Well, good for you. But, guess what: The Universe doesn't give a flying fuck about what you, or I, or anyone for that matter, thinks about it. If you gave up on life, the world would keep spinning, gravity would keep on pulling, men would be men, women would be women, and small blue creatures from Alpha Centauri would still be small blue creatures from Alpha Centauri." (Apologies to Douglas Adams for that last bit)
Basically, I believe the very concept of "meaning" is a human invention. Deer, fish, and elephants don't really care why they exist. They just do. But humans have grown intelligent enough (well, some of us, anyway) to ask "why are we here?" Unfortunately, there's no Intergalactic or Interdimensional phonebook to let us ask potential Creators or other races their opinions. So, humans had to make their own reasons, or else it got very depressing to think we'd suffer in life for no real reason and then just die.
Thus, if humans "created" meaning to feel better, we can say there really was no meaning before us...
Oh, if you can't tell, I'm a real SMASH at parties. I really brighten up the room.
if out of 1,000 people, 999 think pedophilia is wrong, it is wrong. because they make it so. objective? subjective? completely beyond my point. my point is simply that human beings will things into being, and therefore, they become the truth. i am not saying that is good or bad, that process. i am simply asking you recognize that the phenomenon exists, and rules your life
you say i am wrong because what i am saying is subjective, and not objective. i respond by saying to you that regardless of whether it is subjective or objective, it still IS
in other words, yes, i am being subjective. but that doesn't make my point any less true than as if we were talking about the boiling point of water in terms of absolute truth: humanity makes it so, as certain as the sun rises and sets
that's my whole point, you don't have to accept it, but you live under the rules of my point as certian as you live under the rules of gravity. you don't have to believe in gravity either, but if you jump up, you're still falling down. and if you murder someone, you're still going to be a murderer, just as certainly
regardless of how objective or subjective that concept is, it's still a rock solid truth
human society is not a static math equation
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For ANYTHING to be omnipotent, it/he/she/they has to be INFINITE. This is a PREREQUISITE.
and not 'infinite' as in physicality either, has to be infinite in EVERY respect :
past future, timeless, dimensions, thoughts, possibilities, emptiness, fullness, colors, probabilities, things to be things that are things are yet not, things were - continue this sequence until eternity, for stuff you can conceive. yet, add stuff you cant conceive on top of that. and it still not enough.
for an infinity to be really infinite, it has to contain ALL things, ANYTHING. because, unlike math, logically here, if you get only ONE piece away from this set of infinity, the remainder is not infinite anymore.
hence, infinity contains EVERYTHING in it. me, you the monitor the speakers and the tune coming out of it, start counting and go forth until infinity so you can conceive what kind of stuff "we are".
i said WE, and WE are, because you and me and all stuff combined together are constituting this infinity that is "us".
hence, as an infinity, we just "be". from the perspective of infiniteness, infinity (that is us too), does NOT need to communicate with anyone, neither with assigned representatives or "angels" or anyhing, nor need to create any "written rules" on some piece of paper so that some pieces of it should follow,
and, totally foolishly infinity (that is us) does NOT need anybody to admire, worship or do anything to it, because infinity is ALL things that are. hence, it is beauty itself (himself/herself/ourself/themselves) too. even the worshipper is a piece of infinity, hence whatever s/he is going to do is already existent (the state of worshipping, the thought/feeling s/he generates while worshipping, in whatever amount) in infinity, hence it doesnt need it either, because it IS infinity.
actually infinity does NOT need to do nothing, does NOT need to be done nothing. infinity just exists.
ANYTHING that is needing something, or doing some sort of activity is then a part, a finite part of infinity.
you go figure.
Read radical news here
The idea of an omnipotent God who creates a creature capable of reason, then throws an eternal hissy fit when that creature doesn't spend all his time telling God how wonderful He is... Well it seems like rather insecure behavior for an all powerful, all loving being.
And when you're done beating up that straw man, you can just grab a fresh bundle of straw and build another! Hooray for straw, now at only $5 per cubic bushel-meter. Or however you measure out straw.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
From Slaughterhouse 5. Billy is having one of his "episodes" whilst watching television:
... The minerals were them shipped to specialists in remote areas. It was their business to put them into the ground, to hide them cleverly, so they would never hurt anybody ever again.
"American planes, full of holes and wounded men and corpses took off backwards from an airfield in England. Over France, a few German fighter planes flew at them backwards, sucked bullets and shell fragments from some of the planes and crewmen. They did the same for wrecked American bombers on the ground, and those planes flew up backwards to join the formation.
"The formation flew backwards over a German city that was in flames. The bombers opened their bomb bay doors, exerted a miraculous magnetism which shrunk the fires, gathered them into cylindrical steel containers, and lifted the containers into the bellies of the planes.
"When the bombers got back to their base, the steel cylinders were taken from the racks and shipped back to the United States of America, where factories were operating night and day, dismantling the cylinders, separating the dangerous contents into minerals.
"The American fliers turned in their uniforms, became high school kids."
If you want to call my comment flamebait, well, I can see the justification. But modding this a troll proves either that you are an idiot, or that you are deliberately abusing moderation to suppress my opinion. So Mr. moderator, are you an idiot, or an asshole who hates slashdot?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
he's just stepped out to "take a leak" ...
Hi ho...
"And I tell you, we are here on earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different.
"Electronic communities build nothing. You wind up with nothing. We're dancing animals. How beautiful it is to get up and go do something. [Gets up and dances a jig.]"
-- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., interview in Inc. Technology January 1996, Vol.17, No. 17
The world will miss you Mr. Vonnegut.
"Don't be so humble - you are not that great." - Golda Meir
1. questions about objective truths, like the weight of oxygen and hydrogen, have no bearing on questions of subejctive truths, like pedophilia. therefore, subjectively determined truths, about subjective facts, are utterly valid. subjectively determined truths about OBJECTIVE facts, are, in fact, invalid. just as you say. i agree with you 100% and? you haven't begun to touch the issue here: subjective facts, subjective truths. different subject matter. you haven't proved me wrong, you just changed the subject
2. subjective truth, such as the acceptibility of pedophilia, does, in fact, change over time. just as you say with ancient greece. and? so what? i am fully aware of that, and your point doesn't in any way touch the point i am making: the vast majority of your fellow human beings today find pedophilia a disgusting evil. today. right now. where you live. that binds you as surely as gravity does
if i throw something out the window, it falls. if i rape a child, i'm a pedophile. both are the truth. one subjective, one objective, but BOTH valid, both binding you in the reality you find yourself living in
do you understand me yet?
all of the points you have made does not invalidate the point i am making, which leads me to bleieve you don't understand the point i am making yet
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.
And yet, "decently" has only whatever meaning with which you imbue it. In other words, living "decently" means living whatever you believe to be decent. And who could fail to live according to their beliefs if they were allowed to let what they were already doing and what they wanted to do to shape what they believed they ought to do?
By that standard, all men are decent, for who believes themselves to be otherwise?
Except, of course, those who try to measure themselves by an immutable moral rod, and improve themselves until they live up to it.
I was struck by the simplicity and beauty of it.
Kurt Vonnegut's eight rules for writing fiction
Thank you, Mr. Vonnegut. Thank you.
A few cautions for new readers:
Kurt loves certain words and names more than being consistent. As a result, be prepared to meet a few different Tralafamadorians and a few different Diana Moon Glampers, none of whom are the same as the prior incarnation.
Kurt loves non-linear storytelling (and so do I). Some people find it confusing.
Do not read Vonnegut for "hard" SciFi; he is in love with ideas, not engineering. Think "Star Wars" v. "Star Trek".
Read "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater" and "Hocus Pocus" before you die. These are considered some of his "lesser" works, but I think they contain some of Vonnegut's most relevant, scathing and self-aware social criticisms.
Finding Vonnegut is like finding "Pink Floyd" for the first time; sure DSOTM and "The Wall" are great, but the *best* Pink Floyd doesn't get radio play- you have to go find it.
barack to the future?
"(talking about when he tells his wife he's going out to buy an envelope) Oh, she says well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore."
[That's his perspective. I buy lots of stuff on the Internet.]
More Vonnegut quotes here.
if a woman is believed to be less valuable in a society, she is, in fact, less valuable. you understand me perfectly. but what you don't understand is the implications of that
you already udnerstand that concepts of right and wrong change over time (your examples of the greeks and pedophilia). therefore, you understand that someday, in societies where a woman is currently devalued, she may someday be equally valued. how? by being involved, by contributing to society, by letting your voice and your opinion be heard. such that things change
and so what is truth can change over time, on questions of subjective turths. but it doesn't mean that, in a society where a woman is less valued, you come and clear your throat and say "all women are equal to men" and boom! it is so. it's not as if women being equal to men, or being inferior, or being superior, or whatever, were a physical law of nature. doesn't work that way does it?
what a society believes is the truth, is reality, is the definition of right and wrong, is fact. you seem to refute this for a number of reasons, but every reason you have given me so far i have agreed with 100%, and you haven't even begun to touch my argument.
you still haven't proved me wrong. simply because you fail to see that my words apply to a different scope than yours does. the scope i am talking about is the scope of being a human being in a human society. that's what you are. that's what i am. therefore, it binds us, as certianly as gravity binds us to earth. that's the physical laws of nature. I AM TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT REALM. you seem to try to refute what i say... with points that lie outside the scope of the statements i am making. which simply means you don't disprove what i say, it simply means you're talking about the wrong subject matter, and don't understand my point
here it is: being a pedophile/ not being a pedophile is a truth that ONLY EXISTS IN THE CONTEXT OF HUMAN SOCIETY. within that context, it is true, or not. outside of that context, such as questions in the realm of physics or chemistry, there is no proof for statements of pedophilia,nor statements against! it's simply a different realm. get it? in the realms of physcial laws, or mathemetatics, what is pedophilia or not has no meaning, has no bearing, has no standing
it's as if the realm of physical laws of nature is the only realm you understand, the only realm that binds you. but guess what? it's not the only realm you exist in. you also exist in human society. it's a different set of mental skills you need to navigate that. you are currently using the wrong tools for the job before you
your problem is you are trying to apply a kind of mental framework on questions of morality that has no right or reason to be applied. it's as if you simply don't understand the subject matter, but comment on it nonetheless
the fluidity of human turths, in fact, is an asset, not a weakness. pedophilia being good or bad changes over time. women being equal to men changes over time. GOOD. it is through this sirt of evolution of morality that progress is made, one little bit at a time. it EVOLVES. it isn't static
in your appraoch to the subject matter, morality is utterly static. which makes you like a deeply fundamentalist religious zealot. only you and them think morality never changes, tha tit is some unchanging unyielding law of nature
do you really want to be like them? of course not. so appreciate the fluidity of subjective reality, and sotp trying to apply a straightjacket mental approach to it as if you were dealing with mathematics
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"When you're dead, you're dead."
Kurt no longer exists anywhere. The only thing left is his works, and a slab of meat the housed him.
This is a great and powerfull things.
Destiny is yours for the making. There is no plan, there is no invisible being 'testing' you or helping you.
All you can do is think and dog on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
would everyone stop writing to the man, he's dead.
People who don't realize science fiction can be literature can go frack themselves.
Actually, I think that most casual readers should start with "The Sirens of Titan" - it had everything we know and love Vonnegut for (his creative universe full of weird and insightful alien creatures, his hopeful philosophy, three-dimensional characters), but with a focus and linear plot.
Not that I'm complaining that his later works were lacking in focus and coherent plots (I'm a fan of his random philosophical asides), but people not used to Vonnegut's style may find that offputting.
Rest in Peace.
He was my favorite author of all time.
I, and many Vonnegut fans, seem to like Breakfast of Champions much more than he did. I'd call it his third A-Plus, though I wouldn't start with it as it's comparitively more "out there" (which is saying something). Other than that I pretty much agree with his grades. For stuff written after he made that list, I'd add a As for Deadeye Dick, Galapagos and Bluebeard, something less than A for Hocus Pocus and Timequake.
I'd start with any of:
Cat's Cradle (because I think it's his best)
Slaughterhouse Five (because it's his most famous)
The Sirens of Titan (because I did, and imediately continued into reading everything else he wrote)
because we cannot all agree, the liberals and the conservatives and everyone in between, you are proposing that we should have no morality, or that morality doesn't matter, or that it is just a big joke
is that what you are seriously trying to say?
if that is, you're a moron. a genuine low iq idiot. for not understanding the first bit of your subject matter, and babbling so much about it
put it this way: it's a large and complex subject matter. not every little detail is going to be agreed upon. but because every little detail is not agreed upon, the whole thing is pointless? really?!
are you emotionally autistic or something?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Breakfast of Champions got me hooked. But Slaughterhouse 5 is the best known.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"I have lived too long. Hi ho."
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elrous0/
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I always laugh at characterizations of the ACLU as "libertarian." Maybe if you want a late-term abortion or to peddle pr0n unregulated. The ACLU uses the Constitution as a means, not an end, to advance its decidedly un-libertarian, left wing agenda in many areas (Second Amendment? Low taxes? School choice?). I'm a First Amendment (speech, not pr0n) absolutist, but I'll bet Don Imus is hearing nothing but crickets from the ACLU right now as Al Sharpton calls for the FCC to regulate shock jocks.
Now, go ahead an mod down that which you disagree with. My karma can take the hit.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
God damn it, when will people get it right? Begging the question means.... no, wait, you got it right.
I'm just surprised is all. Is this Slashdot?
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
And the oh, so clever mods go on to mark a justifiable troll as flamebait. Note to Mods; all moderations are not the same, learn your informative from your insightful, your troll from your flamebait etc. before moderating. This post here, for example, is offtopic. As such, feel free to mark it so; however, when you do you'll realise that it's also informative, and probably provides some insight into the broken nature of the moderation system.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
"...George W. Bush is so dumb it wouldn't surprise me if he thought Peter Pan was a washbasin in a house of ill repute." Pick up his last one, 'A Man Without A Country", it's full of these.
in your own words above, countless times
you have a grabbag of statements, most of which are incompatible with each other, above. i don't have the time to give you the intellectual charity to help you in teasing out each and every incoherence in the mental vomit above, some of it laughable, but instead i'll just scare you with a simple truth, and leave you to grapple with it:
morality, the standardization of behaviors between people, whether right or wrong, just happens
in other words, what you seem to dislike about morality will happen in any human society, no matter what, simply because of human nature. there's no avoiding it. you have to make peace with what you dislike about morality, becuase it's not going away, ever, as long as you are dealing with humans in social groups
in other words, i'm not going to sit here and defend morality. there's nothing to defend, it's not a radical idea i am proposing, it's just a fundemtnal truth about human social reality. what i am going to say is that it. just. happens. think of it as an emergent phenomenon, like bees making honey, or fractal drawings form simple rules about irrational number math: no one intended it to happen individually, but it jus thappens as things play out under no one's individual control
neither you nor i nor anyone else can do anything about the existence of morality. it's just a facet of our existence. getting used to it is the only option. denying it, or fighting it, is not brave or wise, but just silly and pointless
i don't like AIDS. but i accept that AIDS is part of the reality i live in. you need to do the same with morality. morality is simply the byproduct of human psychology played out in social groups. no. way. around. it. it simply happens, and nothing you, nor anyone else can do or say will change that, ever
and even if you did change it, what would you be doing?
YOU WOULD BE MORALIZING, YOU RETARD. IN FACT, YOUR DIATRIBE ABOVE IS AN EXMAPLE OF MORALIZING: YOU'RE PROPOSING A MORAL STRUCTURE THAT I SHOULD ABIDE BY
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Fortunately, there is an ACLU to help mitigate the effects when people who share your beliefs acquite power.
That you would reply AC.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Yeah, his grade of Breakfast of Champions confuses me. Bang-on with the "D" for Slapstick and Wanda June. Suck-tastic. Those two and Mr. Rosewater (yeah, yeah, I'm a heathen) are the only ones of his that I recommend people NOT read. I also recommend that people not read Timequake first, as I consider it to be mediocre.
I'd put his novels into four tiers, and new readers of his should start with the first and work their way down:
1. Slaughterhouse Five, Cat's Cradle -- They're his two biggies, and both great. about 1/2 of all pop culture or common conversational references to Vonnegut can be understood after reading these two.
2. Sirens of Titan, Galapagos, Breakfast of Champions, Mother Night, and everyone else but me would probably put Mr. Rosewater here, too.
3. Everything else (except Slapstick): Timequake, Bluebeard, Hocus-Pocus, Jailbird, etc.
I personally love Bluebeard, and would make it second tier, but I seem to be in the minority. The only two novels of his that I've not read are Player Piano and Deadeye Dick, but I have both and will probably get to them after I finish with Irving and Woolf. I'd have read them already, but a few years ago I went on a Vonnegut binge and was kind of burned out by the time I got to them.
As Dinitia Smith writes in Vonnegut's New York Times obituary, pity the poor high school student who thinks that Vonnegut's novels are what literature is all about. I suspect that many past readers view Vonnegut's works through rose-colored glasses because he was a "counterculture" celebrity, encouraging the young and impressionable in grandiosity, fatuity, and irresponsibility. As someone else said, from an adult perspective one can see that the novels are full of cheap irony, insufferable sentimentality, paper thin characters, and forgettable plots. Vonnegut's early story "Harrison Bergeron" is one of his better works. He wrote of a nightmare future in which "everyone was finally equal." It's a tale that points out the deadly and inconvenient flaws of the type of current leftist political orthodoxy that Vonnegut was a symbol and spreader of.
So it goes...
Now mod abuse away some more, since hypocrisy seems to be the theme of the day.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I'd take it as an indication that he read a blog, not that he's well read.
Trout's epitaph: Life is no way to treat an animal.
Thanks for everything, Kurt.
Trout's epitaph: Life is no way to treat an animal.
Amen!
Take off every 'sig' !!
What a strong argument. Sounds like you have been doing a lot of reading too. Maybe i thought his books sucked and his politics despicable?
BTW what kind of moron links to CAD? who reads that trash? oh wait..
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
"See the cat? See the cradle?
WAAAAAAAH! (kid crying)
So long, Mr Vonnegut. The world was a better place with you in it.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Ting-a-ling, you son of a bitch!
No sense of fairness, just moral superiority that makes anything you do OK. You're just proving my point.
We can still have good opinions of him now and share those. That is his reward.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
A few days before he died, a friend of mine pulled out an almost complete collection of Vonnegut's books from a "Half-price Books" dumpster.
Sad and happy all at the same time.
(Side note: I also got my Java Networking book, and Understanding the Linux Kernel from this dumpster)
kaens.blogspot.com
Assume there is an omnipotent god that created us for the discussion.
1. Were we made in God's image? Our creator might not be like us at all therefore we can't contribute human characteristics to God (Anthropomorphism)
2. Does God care about us? Is God a dead-beat parent? Power to create does not automatically mean feelings of responsibility to the creation
3. Does God change? Living beings can change throughout their life. Has God changed between Creation and now? If God has then any old information we have on God might be wrong.
4. What is the source of information on God? Where did we get this info and how has the info been manipulated by man or other entities? Even if God talked to a prophet, how do we know the information hasn't been changed by people in power in secular or spiritual organizations or the Devil himself.
5. Should you believe everything written about God? If holy books are the Word of God and haven't been changed by outside sources should you treat them as the whole truth. God's actions may not reflect his own teachings. If you choose not to accept everything as truth then what amkes you decide what parts to believe in. If you're a Christian, should you believe God flooded the world and killed most people or let Jesus die for our sins? Both could be true or false.
5. Is God fair or good? Power doesn't equal either. If unchanging or changing rules have been set, it doesn't necessarily mean fair in one sense. A good person could still be punished for not worshipping God in a lot of religions. It might be fair in another sense that the rules are applied equally to everyone. If God is good and rewards good people whether or not they worship him then is any religion necessary?
6. Should we worship God? Even if God is a good, fair, and loving parent, does that mean we should worship? Maybe a thanks and I love you every once in awhile, but worship? Do you worship your own parents?
7. Which religion or religions are right. I don't know all religions so maybe my parents taught me the wrong one.
I have a lot more questions, but unfortunately no answers.
(because I'm in constant danger of arrogance)
"Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math doesn't mean we deserve to conquer the Universe."
- Vonnegut, "Hocus Pocus"
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
Does anyone know if there will be a public memorial service?
A odd thing to say to a Buddhist from an asian country. I dont even own a TV genius. I cant tell you whats on foxnews because i've never watched it we dont even get it here is it anything like the rubbish on CNNI or the BBc? You do realize muslims have been slaughtering people in Asia for some time now dont you? maybe you ought to read the news a bit more. Take a look at the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand or India. The war is hardly confined to iraq. Maybe you ought to read more. I've just realized the obvious fact that muslims will slaughter pacifists. Go read the koran.
Slaughterhouse 5 was rubbish. Its message was appalling.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
From Cat's Cradle:
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
I agree with most of your ratings, but quibble with a few. I'd put Sirens up in the first tier. I'd put Timequake and Bluebeard in the second tier. Bluebeard is actually my favorite of the later Vonnegut novels, where I define "later" as anything after Breakfast of Champions.
I'm ambivalent about Galapagos. I like the concept of this novel, but I think he takes his familiar technique of foreshadowing future events too far here, so that by the time the narrative reaches the actual time of an event, you already know exactly what transpired. OTOH, it does have an evolutionary twist that is pure Vonnegut. So I can't decide between the second and third tiers for this one.
For the two you haven't read:
Player Piano: Vonnegut's most conventional novel (this was early on in his career, before he found his own unique style, after all). Judged by more conventional standards, it's pretty good, and does hint at some of his later themes. I'd put it in the second tier, 'cause it's a good story, but it's atypical for the Vonnegut canon.
Deadeye Dick: It's been so long since I read it. I don't remember a whole lot about it, other than how the title character got his nickname. From what I can recall, it's probably close to breaking into the second tier, if not quite actually in it.
I started rereading all the Vonnegut novels a while back, in order of publication, and got through Mother Night, but I've been interspersing them with other authors and haven't returned to the sequence yet. Looking forward to picking up Cat's Cradle soon!
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
I was trying to make it more useful as advice. What I put was what I felt was more-or-less agreed upon by Vonnegut fans, and I've found few who thought that Bluebeard was especially good, mostly owing to its being a bit "un-Vonnegut", and too conventional. Mind you, I'm not saying that "3rd Tier" ones are bad, but just that they're not nearly as famous, and are FAR less likely to have been read by someone who's just kind of picked about at Vonnegut's oeuvre, rather than simply devouring the whole thing.
I thought that the narrative in Galapagos was great. Done poorly, the execution of the concept could have been dreadful, but I think that he paced it perfectly; he spaced out info so that the entire story ahead was filling in at about an equal rate as the reader progressed, so that, by about 1/2 way through the book, the remaining half was already about 1/2 known to the reader, and that knowledge was distributed fairly evenly over the remaining part. It was amusing, and fun, but definitely something that should be used only sparingly, and never by a poor author. I'm glad he only did it once, at least to anything approaching that degree.
Let's give the devil his due here. We can say that the FSM didn't REALLY make the world because we know people made him up as a clever parody of modern religious stupidity. With many different strong religions out there, there IS a possibility that at least one of them at its core isn't complete crap. Or maybe they all are, and God is an unknown, unspoken deity... or maybe it all depends on how you "define" God. Or... who cares? We're here, we're bipedal carbon-based life forms capable of analyzing our surroundings, get used to it.
Who knows... Someday, you may just get touched by His Noodly Appendage.
R-amen.
Whenever you need an informed opinion about a topic you ask somebody that has gained expertise in that topic.
Why one would not do the same in regards to literature scapes me.
You can consult different experts for sure, that would be the sensible thing to do, but never ever being even remotely curious about the opinions of experts in the field just shows a monumental amount of both arrogance and ignorance.
But if your anti-intellectual stance makes you feel better, who am I to get you out of your delusion?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
To anybody else, even religious people in other religions, that is all complete hogwash.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
> Deer, fish, and elephants don't really care why they exist. They just do.
Just to play devil's advocate for a second (how's that for a poorly-chosen phrase?), how do you know that elephants don't care why they exist? Fish: sure. Deer: who cares. But elephants are pretty smart and old animals, who may even have artistic abilities. There are elephants that have been "taught" to paint. Whether that is artistry, mimicry, or just some moron sticking a paintbrush in an animal's nose is debateable, but if it is capable of artistic thought, why should it not have the ability to question the nature of its existence?
I'm no PETA member (I prefer cooking over hugging) but I never understood why humans are so quick to believe they are superior to everything else in every way. I can only imagine this arrogance comes from our religious histories that tell us we are superior to all but the (G/g)od(s).
> We can say that the FSM didn't REALLY make the world because we know people made him up as a clever parody of modern religious stupidity.
Actually no, we can't say that with 100% certainty. While I agree it's just a parody, if we accept that any religion can be true, prophets and all, then we cannot rule out FSM.
What if FSM were the "One True" religion, and It became irritated with the fake religions, so It inspired someone to present his truth, starting with parody in an attempt to draw people away from their false beliefs before revealing Its Truth to the world. Of course this is a silly idea, but so are many firmly-held religious beliefs.
Many self-proclaimed prophets of various religions have been put down as attention-seekers, deceivers, and more. Granted, I don't know of any who actually made fun of their own religion at the same time...
To be fair, I'm not an advocate of "humans are soooooooooo much better than animals." I just believe that humans are, for the most part, the most logic-based species. *Insert a flurry of jokes about how illogical most humans really are* I believe contemplating the finer points of existence is difficult even for us, so to assume other animals on Earth can, well... I'd like to see some evidence first (assuming we CAN...) My point was just that a lot of life on Earth is unaware of its own existence... or, pretty much, as far as we know, unaware of ALL things (plants are living creatures, after all). So the idea that life inherently has meaning just seems a little weird.
Of course, many counter this by saying animals ARE soulless, inferior creatures put on this Earth for OUR benefit. This makes me wonder what benefit sealife in volcanic vents provides us. And who could dare say this to the face of an adorable puppy?
i'm probably being trolled, but if you seriously dont know what slaughterhouse 5 was about go back, read it and then look at the context og when it was written. Google it or something. You havent even read it if you cant figure out what the message was.
As for saying good riddance, you dont know what karma is do you? It has nothing to do with your score on slashdot. I shed no tears at the death of demon. He's bound to his sins.
You are a sad example of a stereotypical slashdot poster. You should really change your ways. Stop pretending you know what you are talking about and read a few books (including slaughterhouse 5, which you have not read at all). You will never learn anything if you act like you know it all beforehand. If you dont like what i tell you because of the messenger, remember even Ram valued the wisdom of Ravan. (dont know what that means? if you're supposedly the expert at asian religions you should)
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
"We do,
...
Doodley do,doodley do,doodley do,
What we must,
Muddily must, muddily must, muddily must,
Muddily do,
Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do,
Until we bust,
Bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust."
from the preface of Wampeters, Foma & Granfallons
by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
One of the few people I would have ever considered giving up lifespan equal to double the time I could spend with them in conservation over a frosty bottle of Markers. Hope you have a good time in eternity ya ole rascal. So it goes
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
I have little doubt that Kurt Vonnegut went to same place that the proverbial candle flame goes to when it goes out, but just in case-
/. !
Kurt, ya gotta read this hilarious side-splitting, hair-splitting discussion on
Bokononist url
And the usual toast of Pinoqachole to the departed.
.
- aqk
F U
No, you're not being trolled. You yourself are the troll, coming here to insult someone who is revered by many.
Regarding Slaughterhouse 5, you should google it yourself. You have some issue with it which you haven't explained, and you confuse your misunderstanding of an interesting work with the work itself. I've read all of Vonnegut's well-known books, and many of his less well-known ones, and that is precisely why I take issue with your comments about him. I think you have not only misunderstood his message, but you show the weaknesses in your own character in the way you react to that message.
I would value your wisdom if you were saying anything wise, but all you have said so far is empty, you have said nothing of substance. Why not mention specifically what you see as the problem with Slaughterhouse 5? Perhaps you are afraid that you have indeed misunderstood its message?
Fish gotta swim
and birds gotta fly,
But they don't last long
if they try.
--Tom Lehrer, Pollution, That was the Year That Was
What?