Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why can't it be both at the same time? Vonnegut was both a great thinker and a great writer (the former is typically a precondition for the latter).


Vonnegut was brilliant, but I never found his writing subtle. He generally was pretty straightforward about things. imho, Harrison Bergeron should be taken at face value as his indictment against holding back the gifted among us.

Remember that his exemplars aren't great Randian industrialists, but like... dancers. Artists. Quietly intelligent men like himself. Vonnegut isn't saying "the strong should triumph and stand on the backs of their lessers and dominate the world" but rather just "let great and beautiful things be great and beautiful".

And there's the subtle misogyny that our hero is smart and his wife is a bit dense and happily accepts their dystopia. I love Vonnegut, but that fits with his writing through and through. Vonnegut's women generally... aren't great.

Yes, letting greatness be victorious has kind of a conservative bent because it also implies letting the losers lose, which runs runs against progressive ideals that Vonnegut seems to hold of making sure everyone is taken care of. I think Vonnegut was the kind of man who could hold both those thoughts in his head at the same time.

We contain multitudes.

In general, it's a cute story within Vonnegut's body of work, but anybody who fixates on this one piece... it's kind of a red flag of "I would do great and awesome things if only the bleeding heart liberals stopped holding me back!"


You contrast Rand's heroes with those of Vonnegut as if they are all CEO-types, but they also include sculptors, architects, engineers, composers, and philosophy professors. IMO, Rand and Vonnegut are much more similar than their fans would like to admit.


Attempting to compare Vonnegut and Rand without acknowledging that Rand fundamentally believed poor people should suffer for their poorness is comparing a scathing comedian and a clown: you have to accept one has a point, and the other is a clown.


On the contrary, requiring the addition of a disclaimer containing an overall evaluation of an author before correcting someone's misleading caricature of their work would be an extremely tedious community norm.

Let's be brief and accurate instead.


I liked that Harrison immediately declared himself emperor, as soon as he had the chance. George is a big supporter of the oppressive system. The "best" ones are as much of a caricature as the oppressors.


Oof, I'd forgotten that in the end Harrison declares himself emperor. That does kind of lend towards the "satire of both sides" interpretation.

With that lens, kind of reflects the 20th century nerd experience; The tall-poppy nerd kid who is "handicapped" in school and, escaping into adulthood, becomes an arrogant and overbearing prick.


> Vonnegut was brilliant, but I never found his writing subtle. He generally was pretty straightforward about things.

I have found it to be multi-layer, with an obvious layer at the top, and other stuff for those who delve deeper.


>And there's the subtle misogyny...

Because they have genders, right?

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, not a statement of identity politics.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: