posted
I saw that, it was the worst obit I have ever seen. If they had any shame, they would be ashamed.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are media outlets - and individual reporters and producers - not above the same kind of pandering that afflicts politicians of all stripes.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
He may well have. But that's an issue of self-criticism, which is vastly different than poking fun at others.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 86 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what does this say about the people who don't think it was a "clear deliberate attempt at slander"?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
