Talk:Kurt Vonnegut/Archive 2

message: No list of his works?  Aww, man...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.146.219 (talk • contribs) 22:34, December 12, 2005
:When I created the "Vonnegut" template I cut and pasted from what used to be a list of his works contained in the article.  Is the template not working? Does for me though.  --Easter Monkey 12:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to knock the tamplate but I think it would be better if it listed the books with the year in an actual list not right after each other like it does here. Thoughts?--DannyBoy7783 00:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To easy.  I don't have the time right at the moment to add all of the dates for the ones that aren't already in the individual wiki article for those that I didn't get to.  The template looks "cooler" then just a straight boring list.  --Easter Monkey 11:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what "too easy" is supposed to mean. Either way, the site is about information and ease of searching not how cool it looks.--DannyBoy7783 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what respect would a list improve on the current template? It already has the dates of each book and the books themselves arranged in chronological order. How would a list be more informative or user-friendly than the template? A list would double the length of the article, which certainly would not increase the "ease of searching". Gorilla Jones 08:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "To easy" in that you want dates, you got dates.  As Gorilla said, it's already in chrono order anyway.  And if we can get an element of coolness and still convey the info, why the heck not?  I can't imagine what you mean by "ease of searching" --- if you're looking for a Vonnegut book, search for Kurt Vonnegut, look for the list of his works, click on the link, and there you are.  Sounds easy enough to me.  --Easter Monkey 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: This should somehow be referenced I think, particularly under politics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VarunRajendran (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance on Daily Show 

message: In "Fates Worse Than Death" Vonnegut says his first wife's name is Jane Marie née Cox, not Jill. Jill is the second wife. He also mentions in the same book that Jane dies of cancer, so I don't know if your mention of divorce is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.163.133 (talk • contribs) 12:21, January 11, 2006
:The "Family" section contradicts itself a tad. I don't know whether his daughter Lily is a biological relative or not (I don't really know anything about his family), but someone should look into that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.221.136.117 (talk • contribs) .
::I reworded some of the Family section having to do with the adoptions; the previous language was very confusing. MCB 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Error in quotation from Dr. Mark Vonnegut.  He is quoted as saying: "If these commentators can so badly misunderstand and underestimate an utterly unguarded English-speaking 83-year-old man with an extensive public record of exactly what he thinks, maybe we should worry about how well they understand an enemy they can't figure out what to call."[4]  There is probably a word left out -- query -- record of saying exactly what he thinks? Janice Vian, Ph.D. 18:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my hunch was wrong, and after checking Mark Vonnegut's editorial in the Boston Globe, I have changed the quote back to its original form, which is somewhat grammatically odd.Janice Vian, Ph.D. 15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errata 

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

message: The biography says that Vonnegut moved to Massachusetts following the fire at his townhouse.  A recent entry says that he has moved back to Manhattan.  Could we have a cite for the latter claim?  And if its true, the sentence about him living in Massachusetts needs to be updated to the past tense. Anson2995 15:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best I could find is a reference to a 2006 interview that mentions talking to Vonnegut in his Manhattan apartment.  I'll presume that as the authoritative cite unless somebody offers something else, and I'll make the necessary clarification in the article. Anson2995 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wherabouts 

message: Kurt Vonnegut seems to hold a patent for an easy-clean tobacco pipe, filed in 1944. See: 
:Interesting.  Is this the author's patent or his father's?  Doctormatt 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be his father, the architect Kurt Vonnegut, Sr..  The author was in the army from 1943-1945 and most certainly not pursuing patent applications. In Fates Worse Than Death, the author writes: "The truth was that the Great Depression and then World War II, during which almost all building stopped, came close to gutting [my father] as an architect. From the time he was forty-five until he was sixty-one he had almost no work." (ie, 1929-1945).  Anson2995 16:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia - patents 

message: Somebody added an entry that said Vonnegut and Kremenz had divorced in 1991. It was reported that they filed for divroce but that the petition was later withdrawn. They are still married. Anson2995 02:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore. --The Outhouse Mouse 11:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that really necessary? Tvoz |talk 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The article says that he lived with Jill until 2000, but doesn't mention anything about their separation, and her own article claims that she is his widow, meaning that they were still married. Does anyone know anything about this? Academic Challenger 02:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I hadn't noticed that - all reports that I've read refer to Jill Krementz as his wife, not his former wife.Tvoz |talk 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think so -one  piece  said after he fell asleep smoking and caused a major fire in their  town house:  "After the doctors finally released him, Kurt went off to a month's rehab, and when he returned to 48th Street, the locks on the doors had been changed. Jill was going to teach him not to smoke at home. Kurt checked into a hotel for a few days, a peace treaty was eventually signed and a somewhat stormy marriage resumed."   And as I said, all sources I've seen say she's his widow or wife - I think our article had it wrong.  Tvoz |talk 04:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriages 

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

message: Footnote format.  Several long URLs in column 1 overlap footnotes in column 2 (with my browser - Firefox 1.5)  There is precedent for a change that would prevent this - give link a title (Title of article refered to followed (outside link) with publication.  I'll leave edit to someone else - dont have time to do it right now. Fholson 12:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one inline citation (recently added) while all of the other citations are mere links in this format:  (btw, does anyone know what these are called?) So I think the single inline citation should be removed unless we can change all of the citations to inline citations. JianLi 23:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations 

message: There were more serious American authors circa 1970, but none more popular.  Vonnegut's death is currently the lead feature on the NY Times & Chgo Tribune homepages; it would be appropriate for the WP main page, Rule 5 notwithstanding.  (From a US perspective, Vonnegut's death is perhaps the most newsworthy obit for 2007 to date.)  A thorough copyedit of this article would certainly help.  Billbrock 04:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is going to receive a lot of traffic in the next few days, lets try to get it up to at least GA standards. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP main page should contain the news of vonnegut's death. currently we have days old news on the news section.. i feel frustrated. Candymoan 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: like-minded people should head to main page disscussion.. i've already entered my disbelief.. okay, ITN does not list obituaries.. except for those who are notable experts in their field.. i agree, but if vonnegut doesn't qualify, who does? if it had been norman mailer or noam chomsky, i'm pretty sure the elite intellectuals running wikipedia would spend no time to turn the entire main page into a shrine.. the "free encyclopedia anyone can edit"?? i have been around for a long time, but i've never been nauseated until today by the policies and bureaucracy.. so it goes..Candymoan 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  This is a significant world news event and should be included. KyuzoGator 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably too late, but didn't Anna Nicole Smith/Steve Irwin's death's hit the front page? Sam 03:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death -> WP Main Page? 

message: "Interview Public Radio International (October 2006) 
If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDEDFOR THE EXISTENCE OF GODWAS MUSIC Vonnegut's Blues For America 07 January, 2006 Sunday Herald"
Sounds like he was at least an agnostic towards the end. Mayorcheese 05:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theist? 

message: I cut this passage from the WWII section of the article.  Not to delete it, but because it was both vague and misplaced.
Later, he joined the war against poverty by establishing what was known as the IFF, the International Feeding Fund. Although this is not widely known, Vonnegut played a crucial role in the short but effective life of this organization.  
Billbrock 06:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IFF 

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

message: Here's a link to the sales page for the Indianapolis home: It can be confirmed to be the Vonnegut home through this link:  I'm not sure that it is encyclopedic that his boyhood home is for sale (it's currently in the article), but if it is, this should satisfy the needed citation requirements. 64.35.225.1 12:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home for sale 

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

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

message: From the article:
In addition to recurring characters, there are also recurring themes and ideas. One of them is ice-nine, said to be a new form of ice with a different crystal structure from normal ice. When a crystal of ice-nine is brought into contact with liquid water, it becomes a seed that 'teaches' the molecules of liquid water to arrange themselves into ice-nine. However, this process is not easily reversible, as the melting point of ice-nine is 114.4 degrees Fahrenheit (45.8 degrees Celsius). Ice-nine could be considered a fictionalization of the real scientific controversy surrounding polywater, a hypothetical form of water which has since been disproved.
Metaphorically, ice-nine represents any potentially lethal invention created without regard for the consequences. Ice-nine -- the eighth in a series of differently crystalizing ices with successively higher melting points -- is patently dangerous, as even a small piece of it dropped in the ocean would cause all the earth's water to solidify. (Vonnegut ignores the fact that this is thermodynamically impossible.) Yet it was created, simply because human beings like to create and invent.
Is a discussion of ice-nine--the scientific relevence or interpretation of the metaphor--really necessary to this article? Both Cat's Cradle and ice-nine have wiki articles, and I think such information should be placed in either of those articles, if they are relevant to Wikipedia at all.  --buck 16:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might a modification be practical, as to suggest that Vonnegut himself was concerned with the notion of technological progression? I think that completely deleting mention would be a stretch, but the current state is somewhat verbose, and appropriate for exploration in the alternate articles.-EarthRise33 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Vonnegut was a Luddite, he was just concerned about the lack of perspective. Ice-Nine was assumed to be a satire of such things as the guys who exploded the first nuclear bomb, not knowing for sure what would happen, i.e. whether it might set off a chain reaction that would destroy the earth (as Ice-Nine essentially did), but doing it anyway just to find out. Wahkeenah 19:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's still logical to retain a reference to ice-nine in order to flesh out Vonnegut's philosophy, regardless of what the philosophy is. -EarthRise33 20:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide the editor stays away from putting his own spin on it. Wahkeenah 11:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ice-nine 

message: A section in this article is linked to the 'main article' List of the writings of Kurt Vonnegut, is there a point to this page that the template doesn't fulfill? If there isn't it should be humanely put down, if there is, it needs some work by the people in the know.--Alf melmac 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be a list of his novels... and then most importantly all his essays and writings.  I don't know why those aren't ever given as much attention.  the ones that are haphazardly found across the net.-BillDeanCarter 01:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks those who helped tidy that up, it now looks like it might be worth looking at...--Alf melmac 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of the writings of Kurt Vonnegut 

message: Does anyone have any info on his suicide attempt?  I haven't researched it, but maybe more needs to be said about his suicide attempt and how that might have influenced his writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordoftheroach2000 (talk • contribs) 13:33, March 12, 2007
:The recent article on the BBC has a small bit of info about his suicide.--76.215.17.251 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The LA Times Obituary says that he used sleeping pills and alcohol in 1984. This is the method utilized by his mother. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.38.218 (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide Attempt 

message: On tonight's Daily Show a segment from Vonnegut's appearance was the "Your Moment of Zen", in lieu of the traditional birth and death dates, it was just 'So it goes.'  On Colbert Report, Colbert finished the preview segment (prior to the theme song) with "Welcome to the Monkey House, this is the Colbert Report."  Are either of these worthwhile to mention? Ryuzx 03:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What constitutes 'trivia'? 

message: As you can see by looking at :Image:Vonnegut12.jpg, there are copyright problems with that image and it will probably eventually be deleted. Even if it were shrunk (it's way too big for fair use), we don't know who owns the copyright so we can't attribute them, which is required by wikipedia:fair use. I have found an image that will work: :Image:Kurt Vonnegut at CWRU.jpg. It's fine if you can improve upon this, but please make sure you understand our fair use criteria before you upload anything. — coelacan — 06:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: Okay.  What needs to be done to get this page up to GA or FA status.  Please put your thoughts in list form below. Remember 13:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: I just proposed the following wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Recently Deceased Biographies to help those articles about recently deseased people attain the highest quality.  Let me know if anyone is interested in this. Remember 14:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed wikiproject 

message: In the World War II and Firebombing of Dresden section, it states during the Battle of the Bulge he was cut off from troops and captured on December 14, 1944, but the Battle of the Bulge did not begin until December 16th. Someone needs to correct this. 72.51.164.34 22:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date problem 

message: Someone made the Personal Life and Death section extremely messy at the end with loose links and the like. Can someone fix that? -EarthRise33 14:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life and Death 

message: In Timequake, Vonnegut mentions that Trout is 84 years old at death. Vonnegut himself was aged 84 when he met with his end. Is this worthy of mention on either the Kilgore Trout or Kurt Vonnegut pages? Jimmy 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say no, not all coincidences need to be mentioned. Mak (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trout's Age At Death 

message: For Kurt Vonnegut to be placed in the category of "People with bipolar disorder" or whatever it was, there has to be some kind of evidence or reference or mentioning in the article. 67.174.181.164 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bipolar Disorder 

message: In the entry, it says he was one of only seven or eight American survivors of the Dresden bombings, but I haven't found this in any sources. In Slaughterhouse-Five (which is I know is not non-fiction, but is still autobiographical), he says he and a hundred American soldiers survived the bombings. - Jeremy Peter Green 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Fates Worse Than Death he mentions (several times) the EXACT people he was with in the slaughterhouse while Dresden was bombed. The total was 5-8, I forget the exact number (I can look it up later). The Rypcord. 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe American soldiers elsewhere in Dresden at the time of the bombings survived. Vonnegut reprinted material from David Irving's The Destruction of Dresden in Slaughterhouse-Five, which implies that he researched the bombings for the book. Still, Slaughterhouse-Five is fiction. I think this detail needs more research, possibly from sources other than Vonnegut? -TeeRebel (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of Seven American Survivors? 

message: Vonnegut characters are in general named after real scientists who contributed to sciences like atmospheric science, rockets or space travel.  See external link http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.kurt-vonnegut/browse_thread/thread/25bfa6bbace249e7/e1e07e1494ce93ad?lnk=st&q=the+vonnegut+file&rnum=1&hl=en#e1e07e1494ce93ad.  Or just go to google groups and search for "The Vonnegut File"
I would like to frivolously add that one of the scientists is George Springer, used in the short story about a band leader.  In real life, Springer was the author of a very good book on Riemann Integrals.  Most card catalogs do not include this book, but instead they list George H Springer, author of a book on care and maintenance of band instruments.
If you are an NFL football fan, former Browns quarterback Frank Ryan wrote his PhD thesis on this subject - elliptical Riemann Integrals of the second and third kind.
Frizb 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters named after real scientists 

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
Trivia & References still need a cleanup. But it's a B.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I mentioned this at Milan Kundera's page, but I do hope that there can be work done on the two articles to show some kind of comparison in themes and style.  I won't be working on this for a few weeks, but perhaps someday I'll get back to it. Tdfriese 06:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kundera 

message: 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" Sunday Herald (7 January 2006)
===Response concerning Vonnegut's atheism===
Using this source to conclude that Vonnegut sincerely believed in a God, and was therefore not an atheist is, I believe, based on an an overly literal and naive interpretation of the Blues for America essay, and illustrative of one of the pitfalls of interpreting primary sources without examining the context provided by other sources. Vonnegut's self-identification as an atheist, humanist and freethinker is substantiated by many quotes and secondary sources throughout his career, and this single figurative paragraph from an essay is hardly indicitive of some sort of dramatic turnaround and embracement of theism.       
From the context of this essay alone, it's clear that Vonnegut is not presenting a serious proof of the existence of God, but is making a comment about how much he appreciates music. The paragraphs immediately preceding and following the imaginary epitaph show that the greatness of music is his topic. The epitaph is a literary device used to express his point about music, not a sincere profession of belief in God. Later in this same essay Vonnegut says "And by the grace of God, or whatever, I am not an alcoholic..." The flippant addition of the or whatever shows that Vonnegut speaks of "God" figuratively, but does not commit himself to genuine belief in God.
Vonnegut was a Unitarian (or more specifically, a Unitarian Universalist, or UU).   Anyone familiar with UUs will know that many of them are accustomed to using theistic language symbolically, without themselves being theists. In such cases, the word "God" is taken not to represent a supernatural being as it is in theistic worldviews, but some abstraction, such as supreme goodness, or harmony with nature or humanity, love, or any number of other ideals. As a member of several UU congregations, I have witnessed many members who identified themselves as atheists who nevertheless spoke of "growing into harmony with the Divine," or who wholeheartedly sang songs about God. Speaking of "God," yet being nontheistic in outlook, is a common phenomenon among UUs, and one must be very cautious about assuming what a UU believes based on the theistic language they might use.
Vonnegut has a long history of using theistic language, even as he identified himself as an atheist, humanist or freethinker. Take this excerpt from a commencement speech, for example: "You have just heard an atheist thank God not once, but twice. And listen to this: God bless the class of 1974."  Clearly, Vonnegut was prone to speaking of God as if he actually believed in him, even though he identified himself as an atheist.
The phrase "[i]f I should ever die, God forbid" in the Blues for America essay is a word-for-word recycling of a phrase he used in an address to members of the American Humanist Association for a memorial service for fellow humanist Isaac Asimov--an address of which he spoke in his latest book, A Man Without a Country:
:“We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, ‘Isaac is up in heaven now.’ It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ‘Kurt is up in heaven now.’ That’s my favorite joke.” 
Why was this statement of Vonnegut's so funny to himself and his audience? It is because, as humanists, they do not believe in an afterlife, or in a God who sends people to heaven. When Vonnegut speaks of heaven or God, he does so with a wink. He speaks of God figuratively, ironically, or for humorous effect.
Here's another example, spoken by Vonnegut during an appearance on The Daily Show in support of his book A Man Without a Country (the same book from which the Blues for America essay was excerpted):
:"I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I can't help thinking that. And this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why, and where evolution is headed. That's why we've got giraffes and hippopotami and the clap." 
That last example of divine engineering ("the clap") shows that Vonnegut's "endorsement" for intelligent design is only tongue-in-cheek. Vonnegut does not really believe there is some sort of intelligent, benevolent Creator guiding evolution, and his humorous mention of this noxious organism shows it.
Finally, there is the matter of Vonnegut's organizational affiliations, which belies the allegations about his latter-day conversion to God-belief. Until his death, Vonnegut was the honorary president of the American Humanist Association (AHA), an organization that promotes a naturalistic and nontheistic lifestance (humanism), and whose members consider themselves atheists or agnostics.  He was also a member of the Council for Secular Humanism's International Academy of Humanism, which promotes the same naturalistic, nontheistic lifestance as AHA.  If Vonnegut had really renounced his atheism and become a God-believer, he most probably would have ended his affiliation with these organizations. His continued membership and prominent roles in these organizations is a strong testament to his continued atheism. Nick Graves 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hello Foxsux.  Welcome to the talk page.  Now, let's try to have a rational discussion here.  You seem offended by the reply above.  Perhaps it wasn't the best phrasing.  It wasn't mine, but   However, nothing you have said here responds to the substance of the reply above, but I apologize for any percieved nor any of the other citations.  In dealing with Vonnegut, it has to be remembered that he was a humorist and a satirist, and that we must bear in mind the context in which his writings and statements have been made.  It is for this reason that we look at all of the things that he said, and why the numerous citations and Vonnegut's actions, such as being President of the AHA, are important in evaluating his beliefs.  Additionally, it should be noted that Vonnegut said lots and lots of things, and not everything that he said is notable, even if verifiable. Edhubbard 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nick's "incivility" (really, was it that big of a deal?) is hardly reason to ignore the importance of the talk page, whether you like it or not. Discussion is absolutely essential to Wikipedia, and your continued reversions without discussion are counter-productive. If you are so intent on convincing us that Vonnegut was a deist, then please take Ed's advice and prove it using rational discussion. Nufy8 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought I would point this out: At the end of Palm Sunday Vonnegut himself states that he is an Agnostic believer of God. The Rypcord. 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The excerpt I read shows that he called himself a "Christ-worshipping agnostic," which is perfectly consistent with the comments I made above. He did not say that Christ was God, though he is clearly (as evidenced by this sermon and in many other writings/speeches) an ardent Christ admirer. Also agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, just as agnosticism and theism can overlap. By the way, I notice that the section of this article concerning Vonnegut's views on religion is very short, and actually much less informative than even this talk page. It ought to be expanded, and I intend to do my part soon. Nick Graves (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reason for change 

message: Using this source to conclude that Vonnegut sincerely believed in a God, and was therefore not an atheist is, I believe, based on an an overly literal and naive interpretation of the Blues for America essay, and illustrative of one of the pitfalls of interpreting primary sources without examining the context provided by other sources. Vonnegut's self-identification as an atheist, humanist and freethinker is substantiated by many quotes and secondary sources throughout his career, and this single figurative paragraph from an essay is hardly indicitive of some sort of dramatic turnaround and embracement of theism.       
From the context of this essay alone, it's clear that Vonnegut is not presenting a serious proof of the existence of God, but is making a comment about how much he appreciates music. The paragraphs immediately preceding and following the imaginary epitaph show that the greatness of music is his topic. The epitaph is a literary device used to express his point about music, not a sincere profession of belief in God. Later in this same essay Vonnegut says "And by the grace of God, or whatever, I am not an alcoholic..." The flippant addition of the or whatever shows that Vonnegut speaks of "God" figuratively, but does not commit himself to genuine belief in God.
Vonnegut was a Unitarian (or more specifically, a Unitarian Universalist, or UU).   Anyone familiar with UUs will know that many of them are accustomed to using theistic language symbolically, without themselves being theists. In such cases, the word "God" is taken not to represent a supernatural being as it is in theistic worldviews, but some abstraction, such as supreme goodness, or harmony with nature or humanity, love, or any number of other ideals. As a member of several UU congregations, I have witnessed many members who identified themselves as atheists who nevertheless spoke of "growing into harmony with the Divine," or who wholeheartedly sang songs about God. Speaking of "God," yet being nontheistic in outlook, is a common phenomenon among UUs, and one must be very cautious about assuming what a UU believes based on the theistic language they might use.
Vonnegut has a long history of using theistic language, even as he identified himself as an atheist, humanist or freethinker. Take this excerpt from a commencement speech, for example: "You have just heard an atheist thank God not once, but twice. And listen to this: God bless the class of 1974."  Clearly, Vonnegut was prone to speaking of God as if he actually believed in him, even though he identified himself as an atheist.
The phrase "[i]f I should ever die, God forbid" in the Blues for America essay is a word-for-word recycling of a phrase he used in an address to members of the American Humanist Association for a memorial service for fellow humanist Isaac Asimov--an address of which he spoke in his latest book, A Man Without a Country:
:“We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, ‘Isaac is up in heaven now.’ It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ‘Kurt is up in heaven now.’ That’s my favorite joke.” 
Why was this statement of Vonnegut's so funny to himself and his audience? It is because, as humanists, they do not believe in an afterlife, or in a God who sends people to heaven. When Vonnegut speaks of heaven or God, he does so with a wink. He speaks of God figuratively, ironically, or for humorous effect.
Here's another example, spoken by Vonnegut during an appearance on The Daily Show in support of his book A Man Without a Country (the same book from which the Blues for America essay was excerpted):
:"I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I can't help thinking that. And this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why, and where evolution is headed. That's why we've got giraffes and hippopotami and the clap." 
That last example of divine engineering ("the clap") shows that Vonnegut's "endorsement" for intelligent design is only tongue-in-cheek. Vonnegut does not really believe there is some sort of intelligent, benevolent Creator guiding evolution, and his humorous mention of this noxious organism shows it.
Finally, there is the matter of Vonnegut's organizational affiliations, which belies the allegations about his latter-day conversion to God-belief. Until his death, Vonnegut was the honorary president of the American Humanist Association (AHA), an organization that promotes a naturalistic and nontheistic lifestance (humanism), and whose members consider themselves atheists or agnostics.  He was also a member of the Council for Secular Humanism's International Academy of Humanism, which promotes the same naturalistic, nontheistic lifestance as AHA.  If Vonnegut had really renounced his atheism and become a God-believer, he most probably would have ended his affiliation with these organizations. His continued membership and prominent roles in these organizations is a strong testament to his continued atheism. Nick Graves 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, hello Foxsux.  Welcome to the talk page.  Now, let's try to have a rational discussion here.  You seem offended by the reply above.  Perhaps it wasn't the best phrasing.  It wasn't mine, but   However, nothing you have said here responds to the substance of the reply above, but I apologize for any percieved nor any of the other citations.  In dealing with Vonnegut, it has to be remembered that he was a humorist and a satirist, and that we must bear in mind the context in which his writings and statements have been made.  It is for this reason that we look at all of the things that he said, and why the numerous citations and Vonnegut's actions, such as being President of the AHA, are important in evaluating his beliefs.  Additionally, it should be noted that Vonnegut said lots and lots of things, and not everything that he said is notable, even if verifiable. Edhubbard 21:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Nick's "incivility" (really, was it that big of a deal?) is hardly reason to ignore the importance of the talk page, whether you like it or not. Discussion is absolutely essential to Wikipedia, and your continued reversions without discussion are counter-productive. If you are so intent on convincing us that Vonnegut was a deist, then please take Ed's advice and prove it using rational discussion. Nufy8 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought I would point this out: At the end of Palm Sunday Vonnegut himself states that he is an Agnostic believer of God. The Rypcord. 16:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The excerpt I read shows that he called himself a "Christ-worshipping agnostic," which is perfectly consistent with the comments I made above. He did not say that Christ was God, though he is clearly (as evidenced by this sermon and in many other writings/speeches) an ardent Christ admirer. Also agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, just as agnosticism and theism can overlap. By the way, I notice that the section of this article concerning Vonnegut's views on religion is very short, and actually much less informative than even this talk page. It ought to be expanded, and I intend to do my part soon. Nick Graves (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response concerning Vonnegut's atheism