This is topic Fox News does the Kurt Vonnegut obit in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=048376

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
yeah yeah "fair and balanced lol" but seriously, this one's worth watching.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I saw that, it was the worst obit I have ever seen. If they had any shame, they would be ashamed.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Wow. Just... Wow. That was awful.
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
Huh. That was ... odd.

--j_k
 
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
 
Well, that is just horrible.

For shame.

very true, Morbo.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
When Morbo linked to that yesterday I sent a copy of the link to David Langford, along with a transcript of choice parts of the obit, for inclusion in the "How Others See Us" section of The Ansible.
 
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
yeah yeah "fair and balanced lol" but seriously, this one's worth watching.

I'll grant that I've never been a fan of Vonnegut, but I can't see what was wrong with that obit. Seemed like a decent summary and tribute to me...
 
Posted by Heffaji (Member # 3669) on :
 
Wow. That was horrible.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Shmuel:
I'll grant that I've never been a fan of Vonnegut, but I can't see what was wrong with that obit. Seemed like a decent summary and tribute to me...

Did you watch the entire thing?

It was truly awful.
 
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
I'm trying to decide if they genuinely didn't like him, or if they were criticizing him as a joke because he would have found it amusing.

I think that what was said wouldn't normally be out of bounds for an opinion piece, but if it wasn't a joke, it was inappropriate for an obituary.
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Seems pretty mean spirited to me. Did he sleep with Fox News' girlfriend?
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Why would they do that? Why? I don't even know much about the man but that was just mean.
 
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Shmuel:
I'll grant that I've never been a fan of Vonnegut, but I can't see what was wrong with that obit. Seemed like a decent summary and tribute to me...

Did you watch the entire thing?

It was truly awful.

Yes. I did. And my response stands. What was awful about it?
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Which part was mean? I don't understand what the awful part was?
 
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Uhh, I'm not sure if we all watched the same video. I really don't understand how that was mean. The first line of it is "Kurt Vonnegut probably wouldn't have wanted a classicly stuctured obituary" which means that they probably thought they were being creative by making an obit in the same way that the writer wrote. But I don't see how any of that could be interpreted as mean. [Confused]
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
Um.. the part where "he didn't want his children to say he was an unhappy man, so I'll say it for them..."?

To begin with?
 
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
quote:
I'm trying to decide if they genuinely didn't like him, or if they were criticizing him as a joke because he would have found it amusing.
That's what I was wondering.

--j_k
 
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
 
The whole thing comes off as someone very bitter lamely trying to hide it with humor. Its pretty easy to be clever without making those sort of mean-spirited jabs.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Those of you who didn't think it was mean or were undecided, did you watch the end? Up until they end, I thought the piece could simply have been intended as a fitting joke but the final line

quote:
Vonnegut, who failed at suicide 23 years ago, said 34 years ago that he hoped his children wouldn't say of him when he was gone "he made wonderful jokes, but he was such an unhappy man." So I'll say it for them."
Was so mean spirited that it erased any doubt in my mind about the intent of the rest of the piece.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The whole thing comes off as someone trying to imitate Vonnegut.
 
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
 
There are media outlets - and individual reporters and producers - not above the same kind of pandering that afflicts politicians of all stripes.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
The whole thing comes off as someone trying to imitate Vonnegut.

You're too generous. At best it comes off as someone who disliked Vonnegut trying to imitate Vonnegut.

[ April 18, 2007, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Then Vonnegut disliked Vonnegut, because it sounded remarkably like some of his forwards.
 
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
quote:
Then Vonnegut disliked Vonnegut
He may well have. But that's an issue of self-criticism, which is vastly different than poking fun at others.
 
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
 
Especially when said others are dead.
 
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
That just struck me as a hamfisted attempt at a tribute. It may have been poorly constructed, such that the intent wasn't sufficiently clear to overcome the negative reactions folks are having ... but I really don't think it was ill-meant.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
The last sentence came of as mean spirited, but I don't think Vonnegut would have cared.
 
Posted by Dog Walker (Member # 8301) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
When Morbo linked to that yesterday I sent a copy of the link to David Langford, along with a transcript of choice parts of the obit, for inclusion in the "How Others See Us" section of The Ansible.

I myself am on the "other side" if your emplying that the "right" is the other side, and I don't have harsh feelings towards Vonnegut.
Vonnegut is one of my fav. writers and I was sad to see him die. I enjoy reading and watching things that challenge my beliefs. (i.e. the show Boston Legal, Dan Brown,Ray Bradbury.....) Everyone should get away from the bubble they live in and listen to the "other side".
I also don't believe Fox was being mean spirted but rather was giving Kurt the obit. he would have writen himself. Those words would be far to cruel to be serious. I think a fan wrote that piece rather than a critic.
At least I hope this was a joke...
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
No, that wasn't what I meant at all, actually. Langford is a SF author, critic, and fan. He publishes a monthly online newsletter called The Ansible. One of the regular sections in it is called "As Others See Us", with "Us" being SF authors and readers. A fairly typical "As Others See Us", taken from this month's issue, is

quote:
More on Iain Banks, crushing our hopes that there might be such a thing as serious sf: `Whether writing science fiction (under the name of Iain M. Banks) or serious fiction (without the "M"), the underlying message of Iain Banks's work is "life's a game".' (Mark Sanderson, Sunday Telegraph review, 11 March) [AS]
the quote I sent to Lanford was the bit having to do with "sci-fi mumbo-jumbo".

I would love for you to be right about the intent of the person who did that obit, Dog Walker, but it really didn't feel that way to me.

[Edited because I realized that it wasn't Wonder Dog that I was addressing, but Dog Walker]
 
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
 
Sorry, I don't give Faux News any credit at all. It was mean, it was intentional. End of story.

Irrelevant by the '70's. Sheesh.
 
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Those of you who didn't think it was mean or were undecided, did you watch the end? Up until they end, I thought the piece could simply have been intended as a fitting joke but the final line

quote:
Vonnegut, who failed at suicide 23 years ago, said 34 years ago that he hoped his children wouldn't say of him when he was gone "he made wonderful jokes, but he was such an unhappy man." So I'll say it for them."
Was so mean spirited that it erased any doubt in my mind about the intent of the rest of the piece.
Yes, we watched the end. No, I didn't think the last line came across as mean-spirited. It seemed like a fitting sendoff.

(What, you thought Vonnegut's life was all sunshine and puppies, or that it'd be more appropriate to pretend it was? Really?)
 
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Puppy:
That just struck me as a hamfisted attempt at a tribute. It may have been poorly constructed, such that the intent wasn't sufficiently clear to overcome the negative reactions folks are having ... but I really don't think it was ill-meant.

They only quoted him when he stated his birth, said his name, made self depricating remarks, and made an off colour joke. The only positive thing they said of him was his kind words about New Yorkers and inviting anyone to an introduction. I would really like you to explain how the following transcript is not sufficiently clear to you how Rosen wasn't stopping just short of slandering a dead man.
quote:
From the FOX Clip:
Kurt Vonnegut: I never thought I'd amount to a hill of beans...

James Rosen: Kurt Vonnegut probably wouldn't have wanted a classically structured obituary. His life's work, fourteen novels, short stories, plays, essays, left wing screeds and random musings, was much too quirky, too filled with scatalogical humor, cosmic coincidences, and self admitted sci fi mumbo jumbo for him to have enjoyed stately induction into the great pantheon of American writers, so here's the Cliff Notes version.

Kurt Vonnegut: I was born in 1922...

James Rosen: And he joined the army in World War II. Taken prisoner in Germany, Vonnegut survived by pure chance, by some indiscriminate stroke of fate he later made a career out of conjuring, the firebombing of Dresden by Allied planes: a Hell on Earth experience that flattened the city and killed 25,000 people.

James Rosen: The horror of the war never left Vonnegut, it figured prominently in his books, most famously Slaughterhouse 5, which, like other of his works made it to the big screen.

John Podhoretz: He drew explicit parallels between his experience in World War II, witnessing the destruction of the German city of Dresden by Allied forces, and the American involvement in Vietnam. It's one of the reasons why it was so popular, and it's also one of the reasons why it was such a radical book for its time.

James Rosen: Vonnegut thought Richard Nixon was not evil, just mean, and that Ronald Reagan was old fashioned, ignorant, provincial, and dangerous. Such views made Vonnegut a countercultural icon and ultimately propelled the author himself to the big screen.

Vonnegut in "Back to School": Hi. I'm Kurt Vonnegut...

James Rosen: His early work in science fiction brought little acclaim until the publication in 1963 of Cat's Cradle, a story of Earth's destruction that became a cult classic.

James Rosen: By the late 70's Vonnegut was rich and irrelevant, the subject of other people's books, a sacred cow of the New York literary scene. He once said any New Yorker you've met once, you get to call your friend. He then listed his New York friends, and asked if anyone wanted an introduction.

Kurt Vonnegut: American male writers have done their best work by the time they're 55. Then it's pretty junky after that...

James Rosen: Vonnegut kept at it, and persisted in his unique brand of dispondent leftism.

Kurt Vonnegut: The bad news is that the Martians have landed in New York City, and have checked in at the Waldorf. The good news is that they only eat homeless men, women, and children of all colors, and they pee gasoline.

James Rosen: Vonnegut, who failed at suicide 23 years ago, said 34 years ago that he hoped his children wouldn't say of him when he was gone that he made such wonderful jokes, but he was an unhappy man. So I'll say it for them.

James Rosen: Kurt Vonnegut was 84.

James Rosen: In Washington, James Rosen, FOX News.

The "failed at suicide" jab was horrifyingly insensitive. The "dispondent leftism" remark was obviously pejorative, given how they cut him off mid sentence to insert the comment. I don't know what Rosen or FOX has against New York, but pointing out that Vonnegut was irrelevant and following the remark with the "sacred cow of the New York literary scene" comment seemed to ignore how the "New York literary scene" is anything but irrelevant. Calling Cat's Cradle a "cult classic" is underestimating its lasting appeal. Bringing up Vonnegut's opinions of only Nixon and Reagan were obviously biased, since Vonnegut has stated before he would rather have Nixon in office than the current president, has spoken disdainfully of Kerry, and I don't recall him holding Bill Clinton in high regard when in office either. Pointing that out wouldn't have made the "left wing screeds" comment seem so biased, though, would they?

Between the obviousl juxtaposition of Rosen's comments next to cut-off quotes, the clearly pejorative characterizations, and the disrespectful (at best) remark of a "failed" suicide, the intent behind the whole video clip is clear. I am curious, however, to understand how that transcript above could have been interpreted as either positive or neutral, so I am honestly asking that question. Please explain why you think so.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
One of the liberals' sacred cows died today, after failing at suicide. He was irrelevant since the 70's and we checked to make sure he was against Reagan. The poor guy was released from his despondent leftism. He didn't want to have to say he was sad, so we'll go ahead and imply it. For fox news, I'm a freaking dittohead. Back to you, Mike.
 
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:

Sorry, I don't give Faux News any credit at all. It was mean, it was intentional. End of story.

Irrelevant by the '70's. Sheesh.

Absolutely. Not just because I strongly dislike Fox, but because this is clearly a deliberate attempt at slander.

"Sacred cow"? "Despondant leftism"? Summarising his very well documented political views as animosity towards Nixon and Reagan? "American male writers have done their best work by the time they're 55. Then it's pretty junky after that... Vonnegut kept at it..." These are not well-intentioned mistakes by any stretch.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
So, what does this say about the people who don't think it was a "clear deliberate attempt at slander"?
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
It sounds to me like someone tried to follow Vonnegut in blasting through societal expectations and...is getting excoriated for not conforming to societal expectations. This thread is fantastic.

You know, I wonder how most of us really would respond if we went to a funeral and got a Speaking instead. Not that this video was a Speaking, but...I'm thinking most of us would not take it the way we would like to think we would.
 
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:

It sounds to me like someone tried to follow Vonnegut in blasting through societal expectations and...is getting excoriated for not conforming to societal expectations. This thread is fantastic.

There is a difference between disregarding social conventions or writing very leftist political criticism and broadcasting an obituary which is a thinly veiled and highly distorted personal insult to a recently deceased author. And last time I checked, respect for Vonnegut wasn't exactly a ubiquitous social expectation in the US. Fox refers to him as the "sacred cow" of counter-culture for a reason.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Venerating the dead certainly is. It looks like people are all for mocking sacred cows except, of course, when it is THEIR sacred cow.

ETA: You added the last sentence after I wrote my post.
 
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
I'd oppose distorted biographies and ad hom slander in most contexts; especially on nationally broadcast news channels. An exception might be a clearly satirical show. This is not one of the exceptions. The fact that it pretends to be an obituary merely adds insult to injury.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Your outrage is dependent on the motivations you have chosen to place on them. It may or may not be true, but it doesn't have to be. Without those invented motives (which you must believe in order to retain the moral superiority you have assigned yourself), your outrage fits in really well with what Vonnegut generally tried to undermine. Congratulations!
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
Some people keep saying that Rosen was only trying to immitate Vonnegut in order to give him a proper obit. If this is the case, I don't think Rosen read very much Vonnegut, and if he did, he didn't understand.

Vonnegut was a cynic and poked fun at just about everything, but that was just it: poking fun. There was nothing fun or clever about Rosen's obit, and if he intended there to be, he failed (as far as I am one of his audience and it did not come across this way to me at all).

When V seamed to be being mean, there was always a larger point, a message he was trying to get across. What was the message in Rosen's piece? "I don't like Vonnegut" seemed to be the message to me.

But again, I don't think anybody's turning in their graves over this one.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
Vonnegut was a cynic and poked fun at just about everything, but that was just it: poking fun.
Aw...heez just razzin'. Vonnegut never meant any harm.

I don't know. I am not going to speculate on the motives behind the piece and maybe the journalist got it all wrong, but I don't belive the conspiracy theories and I definitely don't think that fans of Vonnegut have any place to be outraged at the treatment of their author. It's like getting upset because someone wrote an epitaph for E. E. Cummings in blank verse.
 
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:

Your outrage is dependent on the motivations you have chosen to place on them. It may or may not be true, but it doesn't have to be. Without those invented motives (which you must believe in order to retain the moral superiority you have assigned yourself), your outrage fits in really well with what Vonnegut generally tried to undermine. Congratulations!

What exactly is it that you believe Vonnegut was attempting to undermine?

Do you believe this was an honest attempt at a fair and balanced or at least neutral obituary?

Even if the motive was honest, it still remains a distorted biography which puts Vonnegut in the worst possible light.

I don't know about you, but I hold national news outlets to certain standards of journalistic integrity, and expect them to lay off with the tabloid-like personal slander.

[Edit: sp]

[ April 19, 2007, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Now you're just calling them names. I understand you want choirs to sing and arcadian light to glow when someone gives an epitaph to an author you love, but I have to say - I don't know what the motives were, but at least it wasn't an <insert name here> tribute. Like shooting Scotty's ashes into space, it was an attempt at a customized sendoff.
 
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Actually, Vonnegut was all about invented motives and outrage. Foma, for one; the entire novel God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater for another.

-Bok
 
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Euripides:
Do you believe this was an honest attempt at a fair and balanced or at least neutral obituary?

I believe that it succeeded as a playfully affectionate and appropriate obit, yes.

One might turn Zeugma's claim around and wonder whether anybody would be taking umbrage at this had it aired anywhere other than at Fox News.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
quote:
outraged
is definitely not the right word in my case. A person doesn't have to be outraged to think a 'news' piece is in bad taste. Outrage isn't necessary to think that Rosen misunderstood Vonnegut and his writing and came off as a jerk when trying to immitate it.
 
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
katharina, let's agree to disagree.
 
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Shmuel:

One might turn Zeugma's claim around and wonder whether anybody would be taking umbrage at this had it aired anywhere other than at Fox News.

If the New York Times published a similar obituary, I would still think of it as very distasteful ('moral outrage' is katharina's description, not mine). Of course, I would be a little perplexed, considering the editorial leanings of the newspaper.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
It sounds to me like someone tried to follow Vonnegut in blasting through societal expectations and...is getting excoriated for not conforming to societal expectations. This thread is fantastic.
It would be totally cool if the obit managed to ape his style at all, or -- failing that -- manage to give a relevant obit with taste. It accomplished neither.

It was pretty bad, fyi.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Most blank verse is, frankly, dreadful. Most poetry in general is dreadful. I hate all poetry in E.E. Cummings's style except for the stuff written by E. E. Cummings.

That someone tried and failed is not a reason to condemn them for trying. [Smile] I can't think of a more surefire way to cobble creativity into generic blandness than to blast someone for not being as good as a famous author.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I'm a Vonnegut fan, and I am most definitely not a fan of FOX News.

I thought it was an accurate Speaking, if unfortunately phrased.

The mention of his opinion of Nixon and Reagan is appropriate because those outspoken beliefs are what helped make Vonnegut a well-known name. And he definitely did produce his share of left-wing screeds, becoming something of a hero to the left-wing literati (along with a few zillion college students). His later comments on Carter and Clinton didn't affect his own life as drastically, so they didn't get mentioned. However, Rosen should have mentioned those views to present a more rounded man who distrusted most politicians, not just the ones on the right.

Had the piece closed with a clip from Vonnegut talking about his unhappiness and his suicide attempt it would have worked. Coming from someone else talking about Vonnegut, it adds a disparaging tone. I can call myself a failure and it's funny or sad or ironic, or a little of all three. If you call me a failure it sounds mean.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
How about I condemn them for making an obituary which was a bald-faced insult, filled with ignominious supposition and partisan overtones, and was not at all an accurate description of the man?

Anyone who wanted to describe Vonnegut as 'the liberal's sacred cow' who had been 'irrelevant since the 70's' and descending into whack leftism should have been shot, or at very least not given the chance to give the obit.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Wow.

That obituary was terrible.

"Vonnegut wrote that he didn't want his children to say that he was a very funny man, but terribly unhappy...so I'll say it for them."

Worst. Line. Ever.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"So, wow. Anna Nicole Smith, like, died or something. She did some stuff and had, y'know, big boobs. And she married this old guy and he died and his kids, like, had a cow about her getting his money. So there was that. Anyway, lots of people said she totally looked like Marilyn Monroe when she wasn't too fat. She being Anna Nicole, not Marilyn Monroe. But they both died of an overdose, so they're, like, freaky blonde sisters."

"Jimmy Doohan's broken up! They sent him back out into the world held together with trilinium and duct tape, and there was just too much pressure in his arterial conduits! He gave us a few more years, but he couldna kep himself in the air any longer!"

*hands waved in air, indicating Marcel Marceau's death*

-- equally-tasteful theme eulogies
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
It may be just me, but I enjoyed those much more than the FOX Vonnegut one...
 
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
I can't get past saying he failed at suicide. That is not a comment that is made with neutral or no intent. That is blatantly malicious. The attempt to trash the NYC literary scene was also very much unlike Vonnegut, and yet very much like typical FOX News. FOX and / or Rosen may not like it, but the New York scene is far from irrelevant, and in many ways is more relevant than both Washington and Hollywood. Rosen spoke the whole piece with an air of sour grapes. I have yet to see anyone actually give a reason why they think otherwise based on the text I posted. I am basing my comments on what was actually said and the tone I perceived in Rosen's voice. Can an alternate interpretation please do the same?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
After giving it about ten minutes of thought, here's what I decided:

That wasn't an obituary.

That was an opinion/editorial piece, explaining to viewers of Fox why they should not honor Vonnegut's death. It was couched in political, derogatory language; it minimalized the impact Vonnegut supposedly had on the literary community; and it informed viewers that Vonnegut was a unhappy, failed, miserable man. So, presumably, they could make the decision NOT to care about him.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
It may be just me, but I enjoyed those much more than the FOX Vonnegut one...

It's not just you.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Hear hear, Scott.
 
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
I get the impression that some of you are reacting worse, and offering less benefit of the doubt, than you normally would, because of a preexisting opinion towards Fox News. That they are clearly the devil, and therefore, any evil act can be attributed to them and believed.

I think it's a bad obituary, but because of poor communication skills, and not because of ill intent. I mean seriously, who would ever write an intentionally-scathing obituary and expect to keep their jobs? It seems pretty obvious that the intent was not to be scathing or derogatory, but to be imitative and flattering. That it failed to achieve these ends is a problem of execution, not intent.
 
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Puppy:
I get the impression that some of you are reacting worse, and offering less benefit of the doubt, than you normally would, because of a preexisting opinion towards Fox News. That they are clearly the devil, and therefore, any evil act can be attributed to them and believed.

That is a dishonest argument. The same could be said of a preexisting opinion in the other direction. You just pigeonholed anyone who would think the linked clip is mean spirited as someone who fits your irrational character.

quote:
I think it's a bad obituary, but because of poor communication skills, and not because of ill intent. I mean seriously, who would ever write an intentionally-scathing obituary and expect to keep their jobs? It seems pretty obvious that the intent was not to be scathing or derogatory, but to be imitative and flattering. That it failed to achieve these ends is a problem of execution, not intent.
They actually used the phrase "failed suicide" during the course of the bit, among other things. Failed suicide. Maybe he should have tried harder? How is calling someone irrelevant not intentionally scathing? Had Rosen ever met the man, in order to make a claim about his happiness?

I think that Scott R is correct, and this is not an obituary. Just another attempt at painting someone as something they are not by the media. I wasn't particularly fond of some of Vonnegut's views, but that's no reason to disrespect him in death. Obviously he was relevant enough for FOX News to run a piece on his death, and for the entire US media to make a note of his passing. Sour grapes from a bitter 'news' segment writer.

"Vonnegut, who failed at suicide 23 years ago, said 34 years ago that he hoped his children wouldn't say of him when he was gone that he made such wonderful jokes, but he was an unhappy man. So I'll say it for them."

Not only does the "failed at suicide" remark sound repulsive, but it is disconnected from the rest of the statement.
 
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
quote:
I don't really understand how any thoughtful, educated person could not be.
I hate the tactic of characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as being a list of negative characteristics. It's a poor argument, and it's dirty pool.
 
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
quote:
I don't really understand how any thoughtful, educated person could not be.
I hate the tactic of characterizing anyone who disagrees with you as being a list of negative characteristics. It's a poor argument, and it's dirty pool.
That is exactly what Puppy did to those of us who think that the segment was intentionally malignant. Surely what he said is no less dirty?
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zeugma:
Numerous studies have found that regular viewers of Fox News are significantly more ignorant of even the most basic US and world affairs than viewers of almost any other news program on television... why is this?

By your argument, CNN's viewers must possess poor judgement as well, since those same studies show listeners of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly far exceeded CNN viewers. In fact, the difference between O'Reilly and CNN was greater than the difference between CNN and Fox.

I don't watch any of it, except some MSNBC at lunchtime in the cafeteria, because that's the only thing on. I'm in the category of 'get my news from Hatrack.'

Edit: Oh and to answer your other question, sure, I'd trust Fox news as much as I trust CNN or MSNBC (which isn't very far). There's been enough examples in the past few years of the press making stories rather than reporting them that I've becoming pretty skeptical. *shrug
 
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
I kind of miss the days when regular news broadcasts weren't trying to be "inventive" and "clever" and were rather trying to present facts as bland and unbiased as they could manage.
 
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
 
Thread time-out.

Edit -- I apologize if anyone lost a post because I locked this while they were typing in a reply. And I will unlock the thread in a short while.

Time in. Please keep it cool. --PJ

[ April 19, 2007, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
 
Posted by Kasie (Member # 3100) on :
 
quote:
I do think that Fox News aims to promote a neo-conservative agenda, and deliberately misleads its audience to further this agenda.
While I agree that the content you receive on Fox News has notable differences from the content you will receive from CNN or MSNBC, I don't thin it's because they have a "neo-conservative agenda." The cable networks have one agenda, and one agenda only: making money. Whatever conservative slant you see in their news casts, in my opinion, comes because they tapped into a market of people looking for that type of slant and not finding it. While it's certainly possible that top leadership are conservative and would like to see conservative ideals advanced (obviously Roger Ailes was a Nixon speechwriter, Murdoch is conservative, etc), if the money was to be made pandering to liberals that's what they would be doing.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
yah, Murdoch goes where the money is. If his viewership was more acquainted with how easily he sells out his principles and his objectivity to ensure the largest possible market share, they would be disinclined to continue thinking of Fox as 'their' news network, nor would they be inclined to believe that Fox news could honestly be expected to be providing an honest counterpoint to 'mainstream' news.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Tom: [ROFL] You put me in the uncomfortable position of wishing more famous people were dead so that I might read more of those. I'm conflicted about that.

Scott: Well said.

I have no attachment to any particular News Outlet, as a confirmed head-in-the-sand, please-just-don't-kill-us mother of two. I have no real knowledge of, or opinion about Mr. Vonnegut.

I was pretty much with the obit until it ended. The "...I'll say it for them" bit might not have been out of place in an obituary, but I maintain that this particular piece didn't earn it.

Even the worst of us have moments of brilliance and things we do that are, however briefly, transcendant of our baser selves. This thing didn't give a glimpse of anything like that from Vonnegut, and I suspect he was far from the worst of us. Though I don't really have a personal stake in it. He was not my sacred cow.

But he was a person, and even the simplest of people have more complexity than that obit implied.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
That's a good point. There was nothing to suggest why he was honored and loved by so many people, only that he was an author and occasional left-wing crank. A mention that, say, "Breakfast of Champions" is widely considered to be one of the most influential books of the 20th century would have helped "earn" the disparaging remarks later.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee (2 posts):
The whole thing comes off as someone trying to imitate Vonnegut.

Then Vonnegut disliked Vonnegut, because it sounded remarkably like some of his forwards.

Suppose I grant you that it was an attempt to imitate Vonnegut.

Do you think Vonnegut himself would unleash that cynical style in an obit?
 
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
quote:
Do you think Vonnegut himself would unleash that cynical style in an obit?
If he thought the subject of the obit would appreciate it, and that the audience would get it, there seems little doubt that he would. I also think he'd do a much better job than the Fox guy, and wouldn't come across nearly as badly.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I think there's plenty of doubt that he would. But I admit to not knowing him as well as others. I've read 2 of his novels and heard him speak once. I don't remember either the speech or the novels well, beyond that I enjoyed them.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Has anybody been able to find the Vonnegut quote that Rosen uses at the end of the obit?

Because the first time I heard it, I assumed it was this:

Rosen speaking: "Vonnegut said he hoped his children wouldn't say 'He made wonderful jokes, but was such an unhappy man, So I'll say it for them.'"

NOT

Rosen: ""Vonnegut said he hoped his children wouldn't say 'He made wonderful jokes, but was such an unhappy man', So I'll say it for them."

I guess my point is, I thought VONNEGUT was the one who added "So I'll say it for them" when I first listened to the tape of the obit.

Now, don't get me wrong, that's still not a nice way to end an obit, and I don't even know Rosen and am certainly not apologizing for him (but the first possibility I listed is at least a little more understandable, to me. Then again, if someone could find the actual Vonnegut quote that would put an end to it, but I searched and couldn't find it.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Oh, you know... that would really make sense. You can't see the end quotes, after all.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Belle:

The reason I don't think that is the change in voice from third person to first. If Rosen had been quoting Vonnegut, wouldn't it have been:

Vonnegut said, "I hope my children wouldn't say, "He made wonderful jokes, but was such an unhappy man. So I'll say it for them."
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Scott, you're probably correct. Like I said, I don't know the source of the original quote, so I have no idea. I did several internet searches but no luck.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
Belle, I assumed it was Rosen saying "So I'll say it for them." I didn't notice the other way of viewing that quote until now. If Vonnegut said it, it would help change the tone of the obit. I still wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be as mean.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I've been searching again. It's driving me crazy I can't find the source for that quote. Rosen had to get it somewhere but I cannnot find it.
 
Posted by Kasie (Member # 3100) on :
 
I found this from the AP obit:

quote:
Vonnegut once said that of all the ways to die, he'd prefer to go out in an airplane crash on the peak of Mount Kilimanjaro. He often joked about the difficulties of old age.

"When Hemingway killed himself he put a period at the end of his life; old age is more like a semicolon," Vonnegut told the AP.

"My father, like Hemingway, was a gun nut and was very unhappy late in life. But he was proud of not committing suicide. And I'll do the same, so as not to set a bad example for my children."


 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by vonk:
The last sentence came of as mean spirited, but I don't think Vonnegut would have cared.

Its really irrelevant whether Vonnegut would have cared. He's dead. Obituaries (like funerals and memorials) aren't intended for the dead, they are for the living. And Most particularly they are for the living who are mourning the loss and who wish to remember.

The final line wasn't just an insult to Vonnegut, it was a knife in the wound to Vonneguts 7 children and his dozen grandchildren and to anyone else who might be mourning his passing.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I wouldn't dramatize it that much, Rabbit.

I wonder how we'd all react to a Speaking.
 
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I think Speaking is a radical departure from the ancient idea that you shouldn't speak ill of the dead. It worked very well in fiction, but I doubt it will ever catch on.

Isn't a Speaking supposed to highlight the good and bad attributes of the subject? I saw an complete emphasis on the negative in this hatchet job, and so did many others.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
I'd react absolutely fine to a speaking of my death. I'd just lie there.
 
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
quote:
Isn't a Speaking supposed to highlight the good and bad attributes of the subject? I saw an complete emphasis on the negative in this hatchet job, and so did many others.
The point of a speaking (IMHO) is to speak on the entirety of a person, both "good" and "bad" because that is the only way to understand a person, and when you understand someone, then you have no choice but to love them.

This obit was in no way trying to get us to understand Mr. Vonnegut. It's goal wasn't for us to love him. In fact, it appeared to be the very opposite.

An anti-speaking, so to speak.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2