Vonnegut's Letter to the Man Who Burned V's Book

[Prestidigitweeze]

I'd assumed this had to have been posted here before, but since it hasn't, here is Kurt Vonnegut's letter to Charles McCarthy, head of the school board of Drake High School, North Dakota.

But first, a bit of backstory.

November 9, 1973: After high school English teacher, Bruce Severy, decided to have his students read Slaughterhouse Five, McCarthy caught wind and ordered that all thirty-two copies from the class be burned in the school furnace to remove the stench of Vonnegut's "obscene language." Other books followed: Sixty copies of Deliverance, by James Dickey, and the anthology, Short Story Masterpieces, which included fiction by Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck.

Despite McCarthy's originally receiving the "only [non-author's] copy" of the letter, it was eventually published in Vonnegut's collection, Palm Sunday, in 1981.

Forty years after the event, Slaughterhouse Five is still challenged routinely in American public high schools. Mobile Read members have read about this as recently as a few months ago (in the News section of this forum), when the book was removed once again from high school libraries at an intolerant activist's request.

Letter deleted due to copyright issues; I'll add an excerpt if people care.

[HarryT]

Did Mr McCarthy reply to the letter?

[QuantumIguana]

I favor "waving the bloody shirt" when it comes to book burners, negative publicity is a major deterrent to book burners.

[Prestidigitweeze]

I've never read McCarthy's reply, if indeed he chose to validate Vonnegut's point with interaction, but here's a quote from the man who taught the book in the first place:

I chose the book for its immediacy, its modern style, its brevity. I believe the theme, or message of the book is a question: Why are we killing each other still? The book deals with other concerns as well. The lack of dignity and respect with which we treat each other in increasing doses. The dissatisfaction that Billy Pilgrim, the hero of the book, feels with his life of obvious material success. The emptiness of his marriage. The matter of man's own free will, that seems to be no longer functioning. The resulting apathy. It is this apathy towards an increasing state of man's inhumanity to his fellow man that the author is crying out against in protest, through Billy Pilgrim. This is a moral book. It deals with a moral question that we as humans have been trying to deal with from time immemorial. The book begs the reader to come up with a workable answer.

-- Bruce Severy (in response to McCarthy's decision
to burn copies of Slaughterhouse Five)

[DiapDealer]

Palm Sunday offers incredible insight into the mind, musings and life of Kurt Vonnegut. Regardless of the fact that he gives himself a "C" for it (within its own pages).

What a thoughtful human he was.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

November 9, 1973: After high school English teacher, Bruce Severy, decided to have his students read Slaughterhouse Five, McCarthy caught wind and ordered that all thirty-two copies from the class be burned in the school furnace to remove the stench of Vonnegut's "obscene language." Other books followed: Sixty copies of Deliverance, by James Dickey, and the anthology, Short Story Masterpieces, which included fiction by Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck.

Hemingway and Steinbeck were also burned? No great loss there

[RDaneel54]

I'm trying to remember when I first read Slaughterhouse Five. It was probably a year or two before this incident. I remember it making a big impression on me at the time. I went on to read everything Vonnegut I could get my hands on for several years. I've never been for book burning or censorship. Advice on what to read is OK, though.

I was brought up by parents who gave me freedom in my reading choices. But they also gave advice. Seemed like a good mix.

[Prestidigitweeze]

I've always suspected there was a direct lineage of satirical truth from Vonnegut to the Mark Twain of Letters from the Earth.

[tubemonkey]

I view book burning as a positive. It means the book has struck a nerve and you now have an open channel for dialog.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I view book burning as a positive. It means the book has struck a nerve and you now have an open channel for dialog.

Seriously? People who burn books are not open to dialog. They've already made their minds up and certainly are not willing to listen to other opinions.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I view book burning as a positive. It means the book has struck a nerve and you now have an open channel for dialog.

That's only if the book-burner is willing to engage in dialogue. I find that when people say or do indefensible things, you can try to explain why it's wrong, and a lot of times they'll argue that it's not wrong, and repeat the behavior later. As the meme goes, you can't reason someone out of a position in which they didn't reason themselves into.

[DiapDealer]

In this day and age of mass production and digitization, I'm sure "book burning" might not hold quite the significance (especially to a younger generation) that it would in a different context: say like an extremely limited printing of an obscure author who might have been destined to become an icon, had not two of the five books in circulation been burned 50 years prior. (NOTE: I don't mean to disparage the youth of today in any way; I only mean to point out that the age of near-instantaneous access to any text you can think of is quite young.)

I also have no doubt that occasionally, a book burning could have side-effects that run counter to the intent of the burners.

But a positive thing? That's a stretch by any imagination. Book burnings are always destructive (literally and figuratively) by their very nature.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I view book burning as a positive. It means the book has struck a nerve and you now have an open channel for dialog.

Book burning isn't a call for dialog, it's the opposite. Book burning isn't aimed just at the book itself. It sends a message that next time, it won't be the books, it will be you.

Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings. -- Heinrich Heine

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I view book burning as a positive. It means the book has struck a nerve and you now have an open channel for dialog.

Vonnegut actually thought about that approach and rejected it (possibly in part because he had the luxury):

I want you to know, too, that my publisher and I have done absolutely nothing to exploit the disgusting news from Drake. We are not clapping each other on the back, crowing about all the books we will sell because of the news. We have declined to go on television, have written no fiery letters to editorial pages, have granted no lengthy interviews. We are angered and sickened and saddened.

I personally have had a book buried due to negative attention from Jesse Helms toward the NEA grant that funded an infinitesimal part of my then-publisher's enterprise. It wasn't physical book-burning, but it was an attack on the books and writers just the same.

Helms was particularly interested in going after my friend, Doug Rice, then professor at Kent State, for his novel, Blood of Mugwump. At one point, C-Span played a video of Helms calling him "this degenerate" every few hours.

Doug and I shared the same publisher, had both written "transgressive" books, and the publisher was terrified of the attention.

Doug is a committed person and refused to back down, but he never benefited from the controversy, nor did Helms' pressure and tirades "open the door to discussion."

Instead, Doug's teaching position was jeopardized and he eventually had to leave Kent. He now teaches at Cal State, but no aspect of his book's being targeted ever did him any good. The best thing you could say is that it might have strengthened his resolve.

[wyndslash]

what's annoying is that lots of people who seek to ban certain books don't even bother to read the thing. i bet they just breezed through the summary >____>