At Careers End? Kevin Alexander Boon, ed. At Milleniums End: New Essays on the Work of Kurt Vonnegut.

Forward by Kurt Vonnegut. Albany: SUNY Press, 2002. vii-xii + 204 pp. $18.95 pbk. If the test of a collection of essays on the work of a single author is whether or not the reader of those essays soon finds herself or himself poring over the works of that author to determine which to buy, then Kevin Alexander Boons At Millenniums End passes with flying colors. This collection takes advantage of the fact that Vonnegut announced his intention to stop writing novels when he published Timequake (1997). Boon and his contributors thus have the opportunity, until Vonnegut decides that he has another novel to write, to see his work in sum. The result is a series of essays that refute Vonneguts claim in his Foreword to At Millenniums End that his personal and professional survival and success have been the consequences of dumb luck (vii). Instead, the eleven chapters in this relatively slim volume argue compellingly that Vonneguts enduring contribution has been his attempt, as Boon puts it, to talk sense into people who are willing to balance the world on the precipice of utter annihilation (ix). Make no mistake: this collection, like many of Vonneguts novels, is not for novices. Each chapter applies it argument to a significant cross section of his work, if not the entirety of it. Fortunately, all the writers Boon has gathered here are up to the task. Notably, the collections first chapter is contributed by Jerome Klinkowitz, whose name dominates any librarys shelf of scholarship on Vonnegut. In addition, all the material in At Millenniums End is clearly written and well documented with endnotes and bibliographic citations. Though they often overlap in productive ways, the essays do not fall victim to redundancy. Klinkowitzs essay, which starts the collection, focuses exclusively on Vonneguts work as essayist, early and late in his career, and is balanced nicely by Jeff Karons article on Vonneguts short fiction, often overlooked not only because of its place in his career and its alleged immaturity, but also for its focus on science. Donald Morse contributes an examination of Vonneguts attitude to the notion of progress that pairs well with Hartley Spatts argument about the real quality of Vonneguts disdain for technology. These two essays, along with Loree Hackstraws chapter on Vonneguts use of quantum leaps and the piece by Karon mentioned previously, would most interest readers specifically wanting to situate Vonnegut within an sf framework. David Andrews explores the role of aesthetic humanism in Vonneguts work in a way that juxtaposes well with Todd Daviss investigation of Vonneguts postmodern humanism. Lawrence Broers essay Vonneguts Goodbye: Kurt Senior, Hemingway and Kilgore Trout discusses questions of identity and masculinity, preparing the reader for Bill Gholsons look at the relationship between morality and Vonneguts narrative self. Finally, the volume finishes with Boon and David Pringles critique of the film adaptations of Vonneguts work. Rather than rehearse and assess each of the intriguing and complex chapters by the authors mentioned above, it seems more appropriate to comment on what seems the overall mission of the collection. The central idea or agenda of At Millenniums End is its attempt to reconcile Vonneguts postmodern writing style with his humanistic, idealistic, and ethical aspirations. To generalize, his postmodernist use of time and narrator/author dynamics, or autobiographical collage, position him as a writer who might be expected to reject the relevance of ethical or

moral behavior/thinking. But these essays, particularly Todd Daviss Apocalyptic Grumbling: Postmodern Humanism in the Work of Kurt Vonnegut, do not accept such a facile stereotype. In particular, Davis argues that Vonneguts work marries his postmodern and ethical postures by rejecting grand narratives in favor of local stories or petites histoires (151). While rejecting absolutist thinking and the kinds of stories that promote that kind of thinking, Vonnegut does not suggest that fictions we live by, that we create in order to live, are incapable of doing harm or good. As Davis suggests, the fact we can only know our world through language, through the fictions we createas with the Constitution or Vonneguts own amendmentsdoes not make the plight of humanity, the emotions and physical needs of men and women, any less real (160). That is, since real people must live in a world composed of fiction, people will be affected, for good or ill, by these fictions. They must be created and chosen with care. This notion echoes part of the argument Klinkowitz makes in Vonnegut the Essayist when he points out the impact of the narrative spun for Vonnegut by his architect father and scientist brother: namely, that his education, his mental framework, and ultimately his art/work should be defined by usefulness and not ornamentality (1). Thus, none of his postmodern play could be solely play for its own sake. I well remember the frustrating experience of trying to process the drawings in Breakfast of Champions (1973), not knowing, as a young reader, what their purpose could be. Similarly, the dark visions of some of Vonneguts early work such as Player Piano (1957) should not be seen merely as pessimistic/apocalyptic visions of a world beyond saving. No doubt, he continues to be dissatisfied with the political engagement of his fellow citizens. In a 1998 interview with Lee Roloff prior to the production of a 1996 Steppenwolf Theatre adaptation of Slaughterhouse Five (1969), Vonnegut expressed his distaste: I look at anti-nuke rallies, anti-war rallies, save-therain-forest rallies, and all that, and its the same old bunch of moldy figs. Its the same seventeen moldy figs who show up every time. Why arent there more people?(17). Despite this, the writers in Boons collection remind us that there is a glimmer of optimism, of choice, of chance in Vonneguts work. Hartley Spatt talks about the recuperating use of humor in a novel like Slapstick (1976), and Vonnegut himself has suggested that writers such as George Bernard Shaw taught him that it was possible to be funny and serious at the same time. But many of the writers Boon has assembled differ as to which novel provides the best perspective from which to find Vonneguts vision of what might be useful or what might create an opportunity for optimism. In contrast to Spatts focus on Slapsticks humor, Rackstraw pays attention to Slaughterhouse Fives liberating use of time. Morse points to novels like Hocus Pocus (1990) and Galapagos (1985) for the ways in which they demystify humanitys sense of itself and its role on the planet. Gholson suggests that it is Breakfast of Champions that challenges and empowers the individual to ask questions about morality and identity and then to pursue their answers. By positioning so many of Vonneguts novels as fulcrumatic in significant ways, this collection makes an additional and indirect argument. That is, Vonneguts career should not be organized around one canonical novel. Themes may resonate and return, but what we are always experiencing when we read a Vonnegut novel, as Boon and Pringle posit, is the state of Vonneguts consciousness (170). As a living writer, he changes over time and as a result of time. No one novel can dominate the others, since all the novels were written in time and,

more specifically, in their own times shaped by the petites histoires Vonnegut was telling himself and being told at the time. That At Millenniums End adds to Vonnegut scholarship cannot be disputed. Recent collections such as Forever Pursuing Genesis (1990) and Critical Essays on Kurt Vonnegut (1990), edited respectively by Leonard Mustazza and Robert Merrill, cannot do what Boons collection does. Since they predate Vonneguts lets call it a career declaration, they offer more traditional single-text readings as compared to the sweeping, career-gazing readings of Boons contributors. Klinkowitz and John Somers The Vonnegut Statement (1973) offered essays with broader analytic approaches and positions than the kind found in Boons volume. But that book is now nearly thirty years old and cannot address the large part of Vonneguts career that occurred after its publication. The one thing that this volu>me misses, on occasion, is a dissenting voice: that is, someone who would say, as Vonnegut himself might, that all that is being said about him and for him is just so much horseshit. As if to anticipate such a critique, Boon admits, in his introductory essay, that some of the authors collected in At Millenniums End are among Vonneguts circle of friends or are Vonnegut scholars compelled to assemble here by a deep appreciation for the man and his writing (ix). Indeed, these writers have come to praise Vonnegut and not to bury him, even if his career may be dead. Scott Ash, Nassau Community College