Allen Asch has the goods, in a video of his own. The transcript of the obituary is pretty telling:
The influential American author, Kurt Vonnegut has died at 84 after suffering brain injuries in a recent fall in his Manhattan home. Some of Vonnegut's books had, at times, been burned or banned. Correspondent James Rosen looks at Vonnegut's life and the impact of his work on the culture 20th century America.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KURT VONNEGUT, AMERICAN AUTHOR: I never thought I'd amount to a hill of beans.
JAMES ROSEN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Kurt Vonnegut probably wouldn't have wanted a classically structured obituary. His life's work, 14 novels, short stories, plays, essays, left-wing screed and random musings, was much too quirky, too filled with scatological 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 Cliffs Notes version.
VONNEGUT: I was born in 1922.
ROSEN: And he joined the Army in World War II. Taken prisoner in Germany, Vonnegut survived by pure chance the kind of indiscriminate stroke of fate he later made a career out of conjuring [--] the fire bombing of Dresden by allied planes, a hell-on-earth experience that flattened a city and killed 25,000 people. The horror of the war never left Vonnegut. It figured prominently in his books, most famously Slaughter House Five, which, like other of his works, made it to the big screen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: 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, and that's one of the reasons why it was so popular and it's also one of the reasons why it was a very, very radical book in it's time.
ROSEN: Vonnegut thought Richard Nixon was not evil, just mean. And that Ronald Reagan was old-fashioned, ignorant, prudential, and dangerous. Such views make Vonnegut a counter-cultural icon and ultimately propelled the author himself to the big screen.
VONNEGUT: Hi, I'm Kurt Vonnegut.
ROSEN: His early work in science fiction brought little acclaim until the publication in 1963 of Cat's Cradle a story of earth's direction that became a cult classic. By the late '70s 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.
VONNEGUT: American male writers have done their best work by the time they are 55 and then it's pretty junky after that...
ROSEN: But Vonnegut kept at it and persisted in his unique brand of despondent leftism.
VONNEGUT: The bad news is the 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.
(LAUGHTER)
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 "he made wonderful jokes, but he was such an unhappy man." So I'll say it for them.
Kurt Vonnegut was 84.
In Washington, James Rosen, FOX NEWS.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
It may well be that Kurt Vonnegut would not have wanted a "classically structured obituary," but I doubt he wanted this. And regardless of what he wanted, can't we save the correspondent's derogatory literary and personal opinions -- "rich and irrelevant," "sacred cow," "such an unhappy man," "mumbo-jumbo" (whether self-admitted or not), and even the largely irrelevant and needlessly harshly framed facts of the "failed at suicide" variety -- for some other context?
I don't want to make a fetish out of "never speak ill of the dead." If someone is famous for genuinely evil things, it's hard to have a sensible obituary without mentioning them. If someone is famous for good or neutral things, but has nonetheless done something genuinely evil, one might feel some obligation to bear witness to the evil even in the obituary. I disapproved of Alan Dershowitz's condemnation of Chief Justice Rehnquist the day after he died, but at least those who had a very negative view of what Rehnquist did (as opposed to just the literary quality of what he wrote) could generally believe that the condemnation was necessary under the rubric I have just described.
But there seems no such justification when the dead person's chief sins are that he wrote novels that a journalist dislikes, or that he had more glory than the journalist deserves, or that he had a personal temperament that the journalist thinks pitiful. There is no misbehavior here that triggers any obligation of continued moral condemnation, no harsh but essential facts that require a newsman's regretful candor.
All that we have here is the ultimate defeat of death for the man, sad to contemplate even though (or perhaps precisely because) the same defeat will come for us all; the tragedy for his family and close friends; and the sadness for those who liked and respected him (in his case, rightly or wrongly, very many people). Our cultural tradition of a respectful suspension of criticism is a worthy attempt to acknowledge all this, and to restrain us from making a sad occasion more painful. It's too bad that Fox News has departed from this tradition here.
Vonnegut must have been liberal, that's why FOX was meen to him
No, I wouldn't care to have my obit read quite like that, but I wouldn't quite live my life like that, either. I don't find it nasty: It's more sorrowful than critical in my view.
But then, I've read a lot of obits in the British papers which tend to note the failings and weaknesses as well as the triumphs and strengths. Rosen's piece is more truthful and respectful than the majority of pieces that will ever be written about Vonnegut.
Vonnegut deserves glory for writing "Harrison Bergeron," if nothing else. When I was in college in the early '70s I used a Vonnegut title, "Welcome to the Monkeyhouse," for my column in the college newspaper.
How is, "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" not an incredibly disrespectful set of remarks about a man who just died? That is awful.
Also I don't think that you can consider Vonnegut irrelevant just because his later books weren't as well received by some. Many of his novel's have become modern classics that are read by people of all ages.
But if you don't want to be ill spoken of in The Telegraph then don't bring notice to yourself for your failings and weaknesses our your obit could be like this one:
Would they describe his works as "left-wing screed" or the man himself as "irrelevant." I doubt it (at least I wouldn't). And, regardless of the answer, Eugene's main point was the forum chosen to make these comments--the man's obituary on the most popular news channel.
You can google the above for the source; it's quite readily available on the Internet.
Also, I'll just note that for such a "despondent leftist", there is a remarkable footnote in his private life. He was the father of four natural children, and adoptive father of three more. He adopted his own sister's children when she and her husband tragically died within a year of each other. Yes, Vonnegut was a writer, so his primary importance is in what he said. But it may be useful to also note what he did.
Vonnegut was a very important and extremely talented literary figure. A journalist who can't see past Vonnegut's politics is either a bad journalist or just doesn't care.
Still, is the obligation to not speak ill of dead always applicable? I wouldn't compare Vonnegut to other prominent leftists of his generation, but will do we feel an obligation to say nice things about Castro when he dies?
I'd like to bring to your attention that Prof. Volokh's post didn't mean to question whether or not the obituary gave a clear picture of the writer's cynicism. I see it more as a critique of the mean-spirited segment. I personally have zero knowledge of Vonegut, but if the transcript is genuine, I find someone at Fox really really lacked civility, to say the least...
Wouldn't Castro pretty clearly fall under EV's caveat that "If someone is famous for genuinely evil things, it's hard to have a sensible obituary without mentioning them. If someone is famous for good or neutral things, but has nonetheless done something genuinely evil, one might feel some obligation to bear witness to the evil even in the obituary."? There does seem to be a wide gulf between a Communist dictator and a left-wing novelist.
Sorry, but I think the obit is spot on. I started reading Vonnegut when I was thirteen (Siren's of Titan), have read and sometimes re-read most of his works, and have tracked his career. He was a profoundly unhappy and cynical man, of moderate talent, with leftist leanings. His better writing engenders sadness and sophomoric cynicism.
So you read his works, despite the fact that he was only of "moderate talent" and his "writing engenders sadness and sophomoric cynicism?" Why did you read them then?
The piece was a hit job on the most defenseless of targets. It was very similar in tone to George Will's piece on the death of john Kenneth Galbraith last year. Some ideologues just can't resist a parting shot.
I only read two of Vonnegut’s books, Breakfast of Champions and Slaughter House Five shortly after publication. At the time I enjoyed them both, but neither left a lasting impression.
The first is the approach to obits. They are generally positive (within plausible reason), probably relating to the feelings of the family and their grief. But I can perfectly understand a news organization wanting to be evenhanded at this time. By this view, I think the complaint would be that the obit was more editorializing than news.
The second is consistency. This is the critique on Fox, as there is doubt that it would be evenhandedly negative in its obits. We can see if, when Robert Bork passes on, the station refers to him as a "despondent rightist."
Otherwise, I could see it as a parody of Vonnegut's style, with Fox News probably figuring he would like his obituary to be unusual.
Unfortunately, James Rosen does not have Kurt Vonnegut's writing skills.
And so it goes.
First, talking about the guy and his life. This obit is mean spirited and out of line, particularly about a guy who didn't live his travails in public. I am wholly with Eugene on this.
Second, talking about his writing. I think it is permissible when an author or thinker dies to comment on his or her oeuvre (sp?) including negatively if appropriate. It can be done respectfully and should. "So and so through his life argued that something or other, but in the view of many was never able to convince. His arguments were revolutionary at the time but have since been put aside by the field." It can be a harsh judgment and still fair and respectful. Rosen's problem here is that his judgment is sneering in tone and, worse, wrong. It adds up to "popular lightweight from 1965, not worth reading." Such a summary could be a perfectly tasteful and appropriate part of a, say, Barbara Cartland obit, but in this case just makes it seem like Rosen didn't read very much of Vonnegut's work.
Vonnegut was never so much left-wing as he was full of teenaged angst and cynicism about 'the system', even into his old age. Rosen was writing the obituary of someone who, in a sense, died too young despite his years.
"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 "he made wonderful jokes, but he was such an unhappy man." So I'll say it for them."
Twisting someone's words to condemn them in death? THAT is adolescent.
Surely a transcription mistake, but is Fox News inserting anti-global warming messages into its obituaries? :)
Second, I note that no one has said that anything the guy said about Vonnegut was wrong--just "mean." From my perspective, Vonnegut was a pretty mean guy himself, ready to insult any opponent at the drop of a hat.
Sauce for the goose...
So it goes.
Did he die as an unhappy man? I didn't get that impression from the NPR piece I heard following his death. Nor did I get the impression during any of my brief conversations with one of his grandchildren. Do you know otherwise?
- I take it you havent watched much FOX News
Harrison Bergeron is excellent meditation on the perils of egalitarianism.
Slaughterhouse Five is an excellent work of historical fiction (bombings at Dresden, which Vonnegut experienced) and of science fiction (notably being “unstuck in time” and having control over your thoughts but not your behavior).
God bless you, Mr. Vonnegut.
I think you do Vonnegut an injustice in presuming that no one would be justified in having a negative view of him on the same scale that Dershowitz had a negative view of Rehnquist. Vonnegut was not some romance writer, concerned mostly with helping people pass the time. He wanted to influence public opinion. He wanted to turn people against the Vietnam war. He wanted to provide serious criticism of certain political ideas and philosophies.
I agree that one should not speak ill of the recent dead, at least. In death, we should most remember that we are all more alike than we are different, that we are united by a common humanity, no matter how much we disagreed with the departed on how profoundly a level. But if you are going to provide justification or understanding of violating this rule on the grounds you set forth, I think you have to either allow such criticism of a novelist like Vonnegut or do far graver insult to him than the Fox critic did.
What kind of idiot thinks a deceased's opinion of various former presidents is proper content for an obituary?
Pure 1960s. Every time Vonnegut deprecates the United States, white people, capitalism, technology, automobiles, etc the audience applauds. The book was more fun (at least at the time) than Vonnegut’s bilious reading. He does sound very unhappy.
and usually written by the best writers on the paper rather than entry level reporters, or hacks like Rosen.
Beyond that, I must say trhat I really don't buy into the argument of "speak nicely of the dead". At least not entirely. That's an American cultural thing that doesn't always serve us well. Especialy when the figure is an historic figure (as Vonnegut was).
There is every reason to report and write of the deceased's historical influence/impact/importance and how it came to be. For this kind of reporting I believe "gilding the lilly' does a disservice to those who may not be all that familiar with the subject and for those who are, it can be a good thing to put his life in a different perspective. I don't speak here of Vonnegut alone, but of historic or near historic people generally. I'm just not that bothered by negative obituaries on Vonnegut or Regan. These types obituaries are a form of opinion journalism and not "straight" reporting. American obituaries are almost always written for "family and friends". Yet, I see nothing wrong with writing them for people who want information AND opinion. For an historic figure there will certainly be more than one written and the reader can easily get "balance".
When Vonnegut said 34 years ago that he hoped his children wouldn't say after he died that he was an unhappy man, this can mean a number of different things. For example:
1) He is and will continue to be a happy person, and he hopes his children realize this.
2) He is and will continue to be an unhappy person, but he doesn't want to be remembered principally for this.
3) He fears that he will die an unhappy person, and he hopes this doesn't come to pass.
I think 1) is very unlikely, and 3) is the most likely.
Lastly, do we know for a fact that Rosen didn't know Vonnegut?
Thanks for the link!
And, I guess you can do quite a good textual analysis using the transcript too!
I don't think what I left out made the Fox News piece look any worse than it was, by the way. I am sorry that I left some people with the impression that Fox News did not mention Dresden and Slaughterhouse 5. I was actually going to have another clip pointing out how Fox did not really honor Vonnegut's military service and instead made it out as "pure chance" that "he later made a career out of conjuring." I only left that part out because my video was already over 3 minutes...
I really appreciate that you blogged this video! :-)
I hope fox and cnn journalist have a death match one day. We can title the mass obituary: a bunch of yellow journalist died today. Both left and right wingers alike. None of them amounted to a hill of beans. So it goes.
I liked his books when I read them, and I think I read them at the right time: late in high school and early in college. I never read anything of his after my early twenties, but I still look back fondly on several of his books.
I'm not surprised that Fox's obit was both a bit disrespectful, and that it had a tin ear in trying to mimic Vonnegut's style. George Roy Hill had a hard time bringing his style to life, and he was a much better director than anyone remotely associated with Fox news.
Cat's Cradle is a brilliant work but it's the work of a brilliant adolescent.
Vonnegut was never so much left-wing as he was full of teenaged angst and cynicism about 'the system', even into his old age.
How are you defining "adolescent" and "teenaged" here? Are you just infantilizing someone that doesn't agree with you?
I'm not saying that it succeeds. Just that it was more homage than hit piece.
An obit is not the place for literary criticism.
I do have to wonder whether any obit in the history of Fox News will ever describe the deceased's writings as a "right wing screed" - kinda doubt it.
Not at all. Clever teens are a delight, albeit a fatiguing one. But with Vonnegut we had so much cleverness and so little content... did he ever write anything that couldn't be summed up as "Ah, s--t?"
Enoch:
More of a post-obit, actually! And marvelously sardonic into the bargain.
I don't think that's enough to write a negative obit of someone so quickly after their death, unless that person's death is being used as some sort of force (i.e., such a rule should not stop people from trying to prevent a replacement Chief Justice in his mold). But two defenses of AD, a man I dislike. One, he doesn't need to have the same formulation of what standards one speaks ill of the dead on as EV or myself. Two, he was approached by Fox News "only moments" after WR's death (the piece does not make clear whether AD knew of the death) to give his candid views, (foolishly) gave them in an honest way, and only wrote the obit in response to the hate mail and criticism he received for those comments. I don't think this is enough to make his obit the correct thing to do (far better to stay silent and ride out the criticism in my view), but the facts make criticism against AD more measured.
Probably not; that will be left to MSNBC and CNN.
Insert your favorite Teddy Roosevelt quote here.
Y'know. So much of a newspaper is a little sad and depressing, that I actually find myself reading the obits because they show me people who've lived interesting lives, and done interesting things. I look to it, in short, for hope. Ironic, isn't it?
But I'm telling you, when W kicks the bucket, all bets are off!
When it comes from the right, I believe the favored noun is "ravings".
I guess this should be expected of Fox News. This goes well beyond just reporting the facts, good and bad, of Vonnegut's life. That's just par for the course for "news" channels in general these days though.
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 "he made wonderful jokes, but he was such an unhappy man." So I'll say it for them.
Does anyone know the source of the Vonnegut quote within this? Because it could be that Vonnegut made a joke of the following form: "I hope my children won't say of me when I'm gone that I made wonderful jokes, but was such an unhappy man...so I'll say it for them." If that's the Vonnegut quote, then maybe the transcription is just a mistake: the quote mark should go after 'them', rather than 'man.' It is Vonnegut saying of himself that he was an unhappy man who made good jokes, not Rosen.
"Vonnegut was never so much left-wing as he was full of teenaged angst and cynicism about 'the system', even into his old age."
I find it hard to a person in his forties as adolescent. Especially someone who had survived the fire bombing of Dresden. Vonnegut may have been filled with angst but"teenaged angst" cannot really be said of anyone with Vonnegut's life experience.
Burroughs helped open the door on the public acceptance and academic adulation of violent, dehumanizing pornography as a protected form of free speech.
No, Mr. Kimball, that door was always open and for precisely this reason. Your "violent, dehumanizing pornography" is somebody else's "striking cultural satire." Let us all take a moment and thank the Founding Fathers that you are not the arbiter of so-called cultural decency.
In short, what offends me most about these editorials is not their negative attitudes, but their profoundly inaccurate records of these men's lives. The primary job of an obituary author is to accurately capture the individual's life and legacy and all of these works do a terrible disservice to their subjects and their readers.
Amativus: it's a culture war, you're just on the other side. Note that there's a difference from what's legal and what's acceptable. Imus' recent comments being an excellent example of legal but immoral and unacceptable. Write out 1000 times "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism, simply freedom from state enforced censorship".
It isn't a coincidence that both Ginsberg and Burroughs were gay, and the WSJ lays the blame for just about everything bad about our society at their feet. To conservatives like those at the WSJ or Fox, anything gay is automatically bad. (Unless of course, you are a closeted gay Republican. Then they just treat you like you are invisible.)
But all these ravings are just that: howls against anyone who would dare question authority. Ginsberg "Howl" was just that, a wake up call that conformism isn't always good, and is often bad. That our so-called leaders don't always know what is best for us or our country. That our businessess care only about the bottomline, and not much else. And so on and so on.
Ever read the books by Robert Bork? He said nothing good came out of the 60s. Nothing! No music, thought, movements, ideas -- nothing. These people want you to 'know your place' and don't ask questions, or rock the boat. of course, the rules are fixed to benefit them, and they certainly don't feel they have to answer even to the paltry rules they set up. Ethics? Transparency? Above board dealing? Those are for OTHER people, not the establishment.
Sorry for sounding like a 60s radical. I'm really not. But I do find it amusing that these conservatives are so upset.
and, hey, they lost. We won. So I don't really care what they think.
I don't think Amativis said anything to imply that he didn't know that.
However, you are correct -- this is all part of the so-called culture war. What's funny, though, is that these conservatives have no problem questioning authority when the authority being questioned is a Democratic president, or a liberal institution. Oh, they're all for that. But when it's time to criticize Wall Street, or business, or religion, they go all postal on us.
In other words, they are quite happy to use the culture war not to better our society, but to better themselves.
Their writing.
Which was sorta the point. instead of relying upon an authority to tell you what to think, you should examine the evidence and then think for yourself.
And furthermore, although Ginsberg experimented with drugs in his life (and who didn't in the 60s?), there is really nothing 'despicable' or degenerate about his life. As for Burroughs, he did some crazy things, it's true, and there is no defending it, and there is no reason not to put some of that in an obit. But that isn't the point being debated here.
Not at all. Clever teens are a delight, albeit a fatiguing one. But with Vonnegut we had so much cleverness and so little content... did he ever write anything that couldn't be summed up as "Ah, s--t?"
So discontent equals adolescence? Or just discontent that you disagree with or deem "too much"? Seems very much like infantilizing. Perhaps your work with "clever teens" has left you with a desire to exercise the level of control some have over teens over others by infantilizing them? The founding fathers were very discontent, were they adolescent?
To think that Rosen is being truthful and respectful here is way off mark. You may have read Vonnegut in the past, but you've definitely forgotten what it meant.
I'd imagine you could say that about any writer if you don't try to digest the meaning.
Adolescent as it may have been, it was honest. Most "adult" writing is less cynical only because it has become more willing to accept and make excuses for the unacceptable. I admire Kurt V. for doggedly refusing to do that more than for anything else he did.
The most offensive thing about this obit is its charictarization of a great man. It sounds like his self-portraits looked.
How are you defining "juvenile"?
By contrast, Rosen's little smear of Kurt is disingenuous and smarmy, largely employing insinuation to the effect that Vonnegut's contribution to American thought is of no consequence and therefore unworthy of the audience's attention, especially now that the man is finally dead, like he wanted. Rosen's entire point could be easily encapsulated thus:
It's a gross mischaracterization, but at least that would be honest.
The attempt to mimic Vonnegut's style just lets the asshole hide behind the claim that he was being ironic. It's a rather quiet and cowardly smear, designed to denigrate the man without allowing him the dignity of controversy, which after all might interest folks enough to actually read his books.