Bruce has read a lot more Vonnegut than I have. Every time some insane stuff happens, he can quote a section of a Vonnegut book that presaged it. My time in Sci Fi was long after his. I wonder about it even as a writing form, now that I look at so much of what it is - and how few followed in his footsteps.
There are a few. John Irving was hugely influenced by him. Today, Haruki Murakami. I think his style appeared deceptively simple nevermind that what he was doing was quite brilliant.
"The good news is that we Americans live under a unique Constitution, which allows us to write whatever we please without fear of punishment." Mr. Vonnegut would be appalled at what America's right wing is trying to do to our ability to read whatever we please, and by extension write it.
I agree, but let’s not limit that to the right wing. Plenty of folks on the left are quashing free speech. We may not like what someone says, but if we honestly support free speech, we must be willing to tolerate those whose ideas are radically different from ours.
I get what you mean, but it depends on what those ideas are. E.g. If someone says, "We don't care about your pronouns. We will call you whatever pronouns we please," then of course we trans folks would be angry. If someone says, "You gay people don't deserve to have equal marriage protections as straight people, because God defined marriage as between a man and a woman," then obviously we're not going to calmly accept that idea, either, lol.
Tolerance is not acceptance. We’re always free to disagree with or reject ideas or attitudes. We’re free to speak out against them, too. What crosses the line is in trying to silence or punish people for their beliefs, no matter how wrong or even dangerous they seem to us. Laws govern our actions, not our thoughts or utterances. If we want to preserve our right to say what we wish, we must uphold the rights of everyone to do the same. That’s the only way free speech works.
Maybe it would be good to clarify what we mean by silence or punish, and look at the context. For example, you might have heard of the controversy of Substack CEOs turning a blind eye to articles here that are pro-Nazi. Removing these articles and banning the authors from Substack could be seen as "silencing" and "punishing," but I'd think many, maybe even most, people could sympathize with that decision. "Free speech" must not be used to excuse hate speech.
Hey Linda, I find that the more confident I become in my writing, the simpler and less decorated my prose is! I used to be extremely decorative with my writing in high school and a few years after that. But nowadays, I don't use figurative language nearly as much as I used to---except in poetry. That doesn't mean metaphors and similes are bad, of course. But I use them more selectively now. They feel more powerful when I use them only occasionally.
It's entirely up to Substack to set policy about what content they consider acceptable. The New Yorker isn't silencing or punishing me if they refuse to publish my poetry. That's their playing field and they set the rules. If Paramount or Marvel thinks an actor's off set behavior hurts their brand, they are free to fire them under most contracts. But let's be honest, 99% of the time these decisions are made from a purely financial perspective. Corporate interests are happy to wear the banner of culture wars hero, but not if it costs them money. Ads didn't start featuring non-white people until corporate America realized they were ignoring potential markets. They didn't do it to be progressive or inclusive. They did it to plump the bottom line.
Thanks, Linda. It's always great to learn from the masters - you and Kurt. Hope you're staying warm up there - we're at minus five in Wisconsin.
We are not staying warm at all, it's -30 here. Hope it warms up soon!
Bruce has read a lot more Vonnegut than I have. Every time some insane stuff happens, he can quote a section of a Vonnegut book that presaged it. My time in Sci Fi was long after his. I wonder about it even as a writing form, now that I look at so much of what it is - and how few followed in his footsteps.
There are a few. John Irving was hugely influenced by him. Today, Haruki Murakami. I think his style appeared deceptively simple nevermind that what he was doing was quite brilliant.
Sage advice here
"The good news is that we Americans live under a unique Constitution, which allows us to write whatever we please without fear of punishment." Mr. Vonnegut would be appalled at what America's right wing is trying to do to our ability to read whatever we please, and by extension write it.
I agree, but let’s not limit that to the right wing. Plenty of folks on the left are quashing free speech. We may not like what someone says, but if we honestly support free speech, we must be willing to tolerate those whose ideas are radically different from ours.
Excellent point, Denise.
I get what you mean, but it depends on what those ideas are. E.g. If someone says, "We don't care about your pronouns. We will call you whatever pronouns we please," then of course we trans folks would be angry. If someone says, "You gay people don't deserve to have equal marriage protections as straight people, because God defined marriage as between a man and a woman," then obviously we're not going to calmly accept that idea, either, lol.
Tolerance is not acceptance. We’re always free to disagree with or reject ideas or attitudes. We’re free to speak out against them, too. What crosses the line is in trying to silence or punish people for their beliefs, no matter how wrong or even dangerous they seem to us. Laws govern our actions, not our thoughts or utterances. If we want to preserve our right to say what we wish, we must uphold the rights of everyone to do the same. That’s the only way free speech works.
Maybe it would be good to clarify what we mean by silence or punish, and look at the context. For example, you might have heard of the controversy of Substack CEOs turning a blind eye to articles here that are pro-Nazi. Removing these articles and banning the authors from Substack could be seen as "silencing" and "punishing," but I'd think many, maybe even most, people could sympathize with that decision. "Free speech" must not be used to excuse hate speech.
I’ve read that article before but the infusion today was most welcome! Thx, Linda❤️💚🩵
I'd seen it years ago, too. Was fun to stumble across it again. Thanks Jen!
Hey Linda, I find that the more confident I become in my writing, the simpler and less decorated my prose is! I used to be extremely decorative with my writing in high school and a few years after that. But nowadays, I don't use figurative language nearly as much as I used to---except in poetry. That doesn't mean metaphors and similes are bad, of course. But I use them more selectively now. They feel more powerful when I use them only occasionally.
It's entirely up to Substack to set policy about what content they consider acceptable. The New Yorker isn't silencing or punishing me if they refuse to publish my poetry. That's their playing field and they set the rules. If Paramount or Marvel thinks an actor's off set behavior hurts their brand, they are free to fire them under most contracts. But let's be honest, 99% of the time these decisions are made from a purely financial perspective. Corporate interests are happy to wear the banner of culture wars hero, but not if it costs them money. Ads didn't start featuring non-white people until corporate America realized they were ignoring potential markets. They didn't do it to be progressive or inclusive. They did it to plump the bottom line.
Love it! I was lucky to see him speak once at my university, helluva guy.