Call number
FIC VON
Collection
Publication
Putnam Adult (1997), 219 pages
Description
According to Kurt Vonnegut's alter ego, the old science fiction writer Kilgore Trout, a global timequake will occur on February 13, 2001, at 2: 27 p. m. It will be the moment when the universe suffers a crisis of conscience: Should it go on expanding indefinitely, or collapse and make another great big BANG? For its own cosmic reasons, it decides to back up a decade to 1991, giving the world a 10-year case of deja vu, making everybody and everything do exactly what they'd done during the past decade, for good or ill, a second time. As a character in, and a brilliant chronicler of, this bizarre event, Kurt Vonnegut casts his wicked wit and his unique perspective on life as he lived it and observed it, for more than seventy years.
Subjects
Media reviews
Wirft man also jeden Anspruch an Angemessenheit, Regeln und Form über Bord und überlässt sich dem assoziativ-manischen Monolog dieses dirty old man mit seinem bisweilen manieristisch wirkenden Hang zur Wiederholung, dann bekommt man sicher keinen Roman, aber einen erzählerischen Trödelladen
Show More
mit einer ganzen Reihe von großartigen Fundstücken, wenn Vonnegut neben die Romanbruchstücke Reflexionen über sein Leben, das Universum und den ganzen Rest packt. Wer will, sollte versuchen, den Fisch ein zweites Mal zu filetieren. Show Less
Anyway, we should salute Vonnegut for giving us this, even if, as he suggests, he just tossed it off. It's not just his will that's free, but his mind. Timequake, both all over the place and perfectly fixed at the same time, is a sure-footed exemplar of the dictum that appears on page 191: 'Listen:
Show More
We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!'
Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member danconsiglio
Freakin' amazing! If you hate people you need to read this book. Seriously. It will make you hate them more. And enjoy your hatred more. Wow. Seriously. Wow.
LibraryThing member bgknighton
Too convoluted for me
LibraryThing member invisiblelizard
I bought Timequake back when it came out in 1997. I remember being excited when I saw it on the book shelf. A new Kurt Vonnegut novel! Wow!
I discovered Vonnegut when I was in college, maybe 5 years earlier, and greedily tore through most of his bibliography while I was in school and studying
Then a few days ago, a friend from work recommended it. Said it was his favorite Vonnegut novel. "What?" I thought. "Has it achieved some sort of cult following in the last 25 years that I've been quietly and ashamedly unaware of?" Well, I'm not sure about that, but I will tell you this: it was an absolute treat to get to read some fresh new (to me) Vonnegut this late in the game. As he has been dead for 15 years, I certainly didn't consider I'd be in this position again. I guess I'd forgotten about Timequake. But having this opportunity has been delightful.
That said, were the critics correct? Somewhat. It isn't really a novel. And Vonnegut kind of says that in his introduction (more on that later). It's a lot of autobiography mixed in with fictional characters and elements relating to the titular quake. It does wander all over the place. True. But for someone who relishes his writing, that was fine. I don't really expect a solidly defined beginning, middle, and end from a Vonnegut book, so I wasn't disappointed when I didn't get one. Is it best skipped? Absolutely not for any fan. Read and enjoy. I would just recommend that this not be your introduction to Vonnegut. Get some of his more popular novels under your belt first. Maybe even save this for the absolute last. Learn a little about the man before you read this. Pick up his biography if you have the time, or at least skim his Wikipedia page. He references many real people from his life in this book and having that knowledge, plus some idea of his past works, puts all of that into context.
Now, about his introduction. I'm fascinated. Did he really write an entire novel (Timequake One) just to throw most of it out, keep certain pieces, and write this novel (Timequake Two) around its filleted remains? He says he spent 10 years writing Timequake One, and the timequake in the novel occurs over a period of 10 years. Is this a coincidence? Doubtful. It would be a marvelous work of metafiction if this was merely a structure for telling the story that he really wanted to tell, which was Timequake Two. I suspect he is being completely up-front and honest in his introduction, but I was left with a grain of doubt.
Let me share one more iota with you. From Chapter 5:
"I still think up short stories from time to time, as though there were money in it. The habit dies hard. There used to be fleeting fame in it, too... No more. All I do with short story ideas now is rough them out, credit them to Kilgore Trout, and put them in a novel."
It's a shame, I think, that he stopped. There was no market for them, he said. But that's not true at all. Welcome to the Monkey House is still one of my favorite collections of all time. I would have jumped at the chance to read another like it. He had wonderful ideas. Those he credited to Trout in Timequake would have made fascinating stories if he had bothered to flesh them out to three thousand or nine thousand or even fifteen thousand words.
Contrast that to this passage I recently came across from Stephen King. It's in the introduction to his collection Everything's Eventual. He says:
"I've continued to write short stories over the years, partly because the ideas still come from time to time—beautifully compressed ideas that cry out for three thousand words, maybe nine thousand, fifteen thousand at the very most—and partly because it's the way I affirm, at least to myself, the fact that I haven't sold out, no matter what the more unkind critics may think. Short stories are still piecework, the equivalent of those one-of-a-kind items you can buy in an artisan's shop. If, that is, you are willing to be patient and wait while it's made by hand in the back room."
I shudder at the thought of comparing King to Vonnegut or vice versa. They are very different creatures. Their output is akin to apples and oranges, technically both fruit but very different experiences once you dig into them. Or rather, sometimes you want a cold beer and sometimes you want a dry Merlot. It all depends on what you are in the mood for, or what you are pairing them with. Is one better than they other? Opinions vary. But I digress.
I appreciate King's approach to writing. He just wants to tell stories and doesn't care so much about the format. Granted, given the money he's made, perhaps he can afford to expend time on short stories with little profit to be gained. Perhaps Vonnegut only wanted to focus on novels which he felt he could sell. Still though, after 10 years working on Timequake One, if he had instead come out with a book of the short stories he credited to Kilgore Trout, I would have snatched that off the bookshelf just as quickly. I think the lesson to be learned here is from King. Writers should write. And if what they come up with is best suited for short form fiction, write it. Sort out what to do with it later.
I discovered Vonnegut when I was in college, maybe 5 years earlier, and greedily tore through most of his bibliography while I was in school and studying
Show More
American Literature anyway. Some of his books I liked more than others, but I liked all of them to a degree nonetheless. Not a bad apple in the lot (imo). However, the reviews at the time (in 1997, for Timequake) weren't good. "Not really a novel," they said. "Wanders all over the place," they commented. "Best skipped," they opined. I chalked this up to a last effort by an aging novelist that might have been a cash grab and not much more. So it sat on my shelf for the last 25 years next to all of his other books, some with spines considerably well worn and creased, this one pristine and untouched.Then a few days ago, a friend from work recommended it. Said it was his favorite Vonnegut novel. "What?" I thought. "Has it achieved some sort of cult following in the last 25 years that I've been quietly and ashamedly unaware of?" Well, I'm not sure about that, but I will tell you this: it was an absolute treat to get to read some fresh new (to me) Vonnegut this late in the game. As he has been dead for 15 years, I certainly didn't consider I'd be in this position again. I guess I'd forgotten about Timequake. But having this opportunity has been delightful.
That said, were the critics correct? Somewhat. It isn't really a novel. And Vonnegut kind of says that in his introduction (more on that later). It's a lot of autobiography mixed in with fictional characters and elements relating to the titular quake. It does wander all over the place. True. But for someone who relishes his writing, that was fine. I don't really expect a solidly defined beginning, middle, and end from a Vonnegut book, so I wasn't disappointed when I didn't get one. Is it best skipped? Absolutely not for any fan. Read and enjoy. I would just recommend that this not be your introduction to Vonnegut. Get some of his more popular novels under your belt first. Maybe even save this for the absolute last. Learn a little about the man before you read this. Pick up his biography if you have the time, or at least skim his Wikipedia page. He references many real people from his life in this book and having that knowledge, plus some idea of his past works, puts all of that into context.
Now, about his introduction. I'm fascinated. Did he really write an entire novel (Timequake One) just to throw most of it out, keep certain pieces, and write this novel (Timequake Two) around its filleted remains? He says he spent 10 years writing Timequake One, and the timequake in the novel occurs over a period of 10 years. Is this a coincidence? Doubtful. It would be a marvelous work of metafiction if this was merely a structure for telling the story that he really wanted to tell, which was Timequake Two. I suspect he is being completely up-front and honest in his introduction, but I was left with a grain of doubt.
Let me share one more iota with you. From Chapter 5:
"I still think up short stories from time to time, as though there were money in it. The habit dies hard. There used to be fleeting fame in it, too... No more. All I do with short story ideas now is rough them out, credit them to Kilgore Trout, and put them in a novel."
It's a shame, I think, that he stopped. There was no market for them, he said. But that's not true at all. Welcome to the Monkey House is still one of my favorite collections of all time. I would have jumped at the chance to read another like it. He had wonderful ideas. Those he credited to Trout in Timequake would have made fascinating stories if he had bothered to flesh them out to three thousand or nine thousand or even fifteen thousand words.
Contrast that to this passage I recently came across from Stephen King. It's in the introduction to his collection Everything's Eventual. He says:
"I've continued to write short stories over the years, partly because the ideas still come from time to time—beautifully compressed ideas that cry out for three thousand words, maybe nine thousand, fifteen thousand at the very most—and partly because it's the way I affirm, at least to myself, the fact that I haven't sold out, no matter what the more unkind critics may think. Short stories are still piecework, the equivalent of those one-of-a-kind items you can buy in an artisan's shop. If, that is, you are willing to be patient and wait while it's made by hand in the back room."
I shudder at the thought of comparing King to Vonnegut or vice versa. They are very different creatures. Their output is akin to apples and oranges, technically both fruit but very different experiences once you dig into them. Or rather, sometimes you want a cold beer and sometimes you want a dry Merlot. It all depends on what you are in the mood for, or what you are pairing them with. Is one better than they other? Opinions vary. But I digress.
I appreciate King's approach to writing. He just wants to tell stories and doesn't care so much about the format. Granted, given the money he's made, perhaps he can afford to expend time on short stories with little profit to be gained. Perhaps Vonnegut only wanted to focus on novels which he felt he could sell. Still though, after 10 years working on Timequake One, if he had instead come out with a book of the short stories he credited to Kilgore Trout, I would have snatched that off the bookshelf just as quickly. I think the lesson to be learned here is from King. Writers should write. And if what they come up with is best suited for short form fiction, write it. Sort out what to do with it later.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Snukes
Only an author who is very well established and very much respected could get away with having written this book. I've seen it described in various locations (as I read up on it after, trying to understand what the HECK I'd just read) as a "postmodernist shrug" and a "semi-autobiographical stew."
Show More
The whole book had the feeling of sitting in front of a fire with your greatly aged grandfather and listening to him ramble about his youth, when he's come to a point in life where he can no longer recall for sure which bits of his past are truth and which bits are his past as he wishes it had gone. There were a few really lovely mini-stories, images, and turns of phrase, but if you're looking for a coherent narrative, go pick up a collection of his short stories instead. Those remain, by far, my favorite of his works. Show Less
LibraryThing member sflax
"Later work" often means "lesser work," but not in Vonnegut's case. Timequake reminded me of every reason I love Vonnegut. It was funny and sad, and occasionally bordered on mind-blowing. The passages about writing make it particularly enjoyable for those who like to write.
LibraryThing member otterley
So this was a book club book that caused a lot of disagreement. Between Vonnegut fans and Vonnegut rookies, we couldn't decide whether the loose and ramshackle structure was playful, intentional, or just plain rambling. For a short and digressive book there are a lot of ideas about time and life,
Show More
painful digs into the past and a wise (or at least resigned) acceptance of the simple pleasures and pains that life brings with it. Show Less
LibraryThing member jeffjardine
"We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!"
Timequake is not up to the standard of Vonnegut's earlier novels, and he knew it. Having read this book shortly after I read Palm Sunday, I found it very repetitive. He hits on similar themes in a lot of his books, and
Timequake is not up to the standard of Vonnegut's earlier novels, and he knew it. Having read this book shortly after I read Palm Sunday, I found it very repetitive. He hits on similar themes in a lot of his books, and
Show More
this one is no different. But repeating the same anecdotes, almost word-for-word? Well... it's still Vonnegut and it still put a melancholy smile on my face. I'm glad he was still farting around in his 70s. Show Less
LibraryThing member JohnGrant1
According to this book's preface, Vonnegut spent the best part of a decade working off-and-on on a novel called Timequake, but just couldn't get it to gel; eventually he gave it up as a bad job and cannibalized the usable bits of it, mixing them up with scattershot bits of memoir and his own folksy
Show More
philosophical musings. Real-life characters, often members of Vonnegut's own family, mix with fictional characters drawn from the novel - notable his sf-writing alter ego Kilgore Trout - and there's a similar blending of real-life and fictional events. Vonnegut does, quite carefully, indicate which is which in case readers get confused.The result is something that its publishers, equally carefully, don't bill as a novel. What it works best as is something that might be regarded as a rambling memoir but to me seems better considered as a snapshot of the interior of a fiction writer's mind while s/he's in the process of reminiscing: it's not that s/he is actually getting confused between real and invented events, just that both types have equal importance and, in a sense, equal validity. There are those mornings when you don't want to/aren't really yet awake enough to get out of bed, while at the same time you're not really asleep, and your mind seems to be wandering not under the control of your conscious impulse, mixing real events with whimsies and speculations and story ideas; that's what this reads like.
I picked this up in expectation of a time-travel novel, so of course was chagrined to discover its true nature. Even so, I found it entertaining enough, irritatingly trite at times, amusing at others; the usual mix. Some of the many Kilgore Trout short stories that Vonnegut summarizes through the book would make, I think, pretty good Vonnegut stories; a pity he never wrote them. Overall, my verdict's a sort of ho-hum.
The time-travel premise is pretty yummy, although one can see why Vonnegut had such difficulty constructing a coherent novel from it:
The timequake of 2001 was a cosmic charley horse in the sinews of Destiny. At what was in New York City 2:27 p.m. on February 13th of that year, the Universe suffered a crisis in self-confidence. Should it go on expanding indefinitely? What was the point?
It fibrillated with indecision. Maybe it should have a family reunion back where it all began, and then make great big BANG again.
It suddenly shrunk ten years. It zapped me and everybody else back to February 17th, 1991, what was for me 7:51 a.m., and a line outside a blood bank in San Diego, California.
For reasons best known to itself, though, the Universe canceled the family reunion, for the nonce at least. It resumed expansion. Which faction, if any, cast the deciding votes on whether to expand or shrink, I cannot say. . . .
That the rerun lasted ten years, short a mere four days, some are saying now, is proof that there is a God, and that He is on the Decimal System. He has ten fingers and ten toes, just as we do, they say, and uses them when He does arithmetic.
See what I mean about whimsy?
Everyone in the world has to relive that decade doing exactly the same as they did on the first runthrough. They have to observe as passengers as they make all the same mistakes, undergo the same joys and tragedies, fall in and out of love with the same suitable or unsuitable people. At the end of the timequake, when the world once more reaches "what was in New York City 2:27 p.m. on February 13th" of 2001, free will is suddenly restored to the human population -- with devastating results. People who were walking or running tend to fall over when unexpectedly finding they have to take charge of their bodies once more; tough luck if you were going down a flight of stairs. Car drivers and plane pilots may find themselves with just moments before disaster to recover their sensibilities; too many of them don't, and so there's considerable carnage. And so on. Kilgore Trout is one of the few to realize what's going on . . .
A few weeks ago I reread Philip K. Dick's Counter-Clock World, a novel based on a sciencefictional premise that was weird and wonderful and thought-provoking in the best skiffy fashion, yet at the same one that you could see from the outset was almost impossible to transform into a satisfactory novel. Sure enough, Dick wasn't really able to pull off Counter-Clock World. Yet I think I enjoyed his failed attempt more than I did Vonnegut's reaction to the same problem, which was to bottle out of the novel and instead produce this ragbag, however much it intermittently sparkles.
Show Less
LibraryThing member flissp
I just found this incredibly boring.
LibraryThing member dczapka
My reading of this book came almost exclusively by accident -- from my father's generosity in buying it for me to my inexplicable need to pick it up just as I was to go to sleep last night. Needless to say, as I've read it in less than 24 hours, it was a very happy accident.
This is a different
This is a battle-hardened Vonnegut, an angry but wizened Vonnegut, and it's among the very best Vonnegut there is.
This is a different
Show More
breed of Vonnegut, a Vonnegut that is as funny as he's ever been, but more caustic too. In salvaging a failed novel by interspersing its summation with ruminations on his life and characters, Vonnegut has created a living, breathing memorial to himself that's filled with the kind of humor, pathos, satire, scathing commentary, and pithy wisdom we've come to expect.This is a battle-hardened Vonnegut, an angry but wizened Vonnegut, and it's among the very best Vonnegut there is.
Show Less
LibraryThing member -AlyssaE-
i just finished this this book. i think that vonnegut is hilarious. this book made me think and wonder why he made this book. it makes me sad that he has passed away : ( this book did confuse me a bit not being able to really follow the time quakes. but still an interesting book. i loved it
LibraryThing member esoteric
Paper-thin plot, but interesting enough in its own mostly-autobiographical way. Poignant and beautiful at times, but Mr. Vonnegut mostly just comes across as curmudgeonly old man. But then I guess he was at this point.
LibraryThing member ragwaine
More like a biography. Not that funny. Repitious. No story, just babbling.
LibraryThing member petrojoh
Mr. Vonnegut has delved into the territory of the cranky old man.
LibraryThing member fpagan
Only KV's '07Apr death made me aware that I had missed this last "novel" of his. Autobographical snippets and points of personal philosophy outweigh the fictional element of a ten-year time "rerun" during which (the illusion of?) free will is inoperative. But the style is as pleasingly disjointed
Show More
as earlier Vonnegut, and Kilgore Trout is heavily involved -- what more can be asked for? Show Less
LibraryThing member miketroll
Vonnegut would probably describe himself as a likeable old fart. This, his self-proclaimed last novel, was not so endearing. I wondered why, if the world had turned so sour on him, he wanted to tell everyone about it.
LibraryThing member Devil_llama
This book starts out with an interesting premise, but fails to deliver. The universe gets tired of expanding, and begins to contract. It resets itself 10 years into the past, and everyone has to live the 10 years over, exactly as they lived it before, with no chance to change. It's just on
Show More
autopilot. Unfortunately, the book tends to ramble, and loses the story in what might be autobiographical bits and various rambling, unconnected thoughts of the author. This could have worked, and did in places, but not consistently. And somewhere around the middle of the book, the author develops a most annoying habit of repeating phrases ad nauseum, apparently deciding they were so witty they needed to be said for every character that came through and in every chapter, or just getting the idea that something was funny. The worst of it was the incessant repeating of what the author once said was "his favorite joke" - leading it to be repeated 90 times a day by everyone following his death. And he said it about a dozen times in this novel. This would not be viable even if it had been genuinely funny the first time it was said. Good points about the book: the appearance of Kilgore Trout. The use of oddball imagery and strange situations that the author is known for. An intriguing premise. Show Less
LibraryThing member brianinseattle
There were maybe a dozen moments when I was laughing out loud with this book. Vonnegut has some fantastic criticisms of our society. However, I didn't enjoy the rambling, almost thought-flow style of the book. It's also extremely repetitive which was a conscious device, I'm certain, but for me it
Show More
didn't add anything. I enjoyed Slaughterhouse Five, so I'm going to try another Vonnegut book before I decide if I love him or just respect him. Show Less
LibraryThing member davevanl
Seemed more like a transcript of a monologue than a Vonnegut book
LibraryThing member jwood652
This isn't really a novel but an autobiographical ramble mixed with snippets about the timequake. Vonnegut fans will enjoy it especially the reemergence of SciFi writer Kilgore Trout (Vonnegut's alter-ego). Kilgore's prescription for PTA (Post Timequake Apathy) is the recurring theme: "You were
Show More
sick, but now you are well again, and there is work to do." Show Less
LibraryThing member AliceAnna
Not one of his most inspired books, but enjoyable nevertheless. Silly me, I just really like a plot and this didn't have one. Ting-a-ling.
LibraryThing member memccauley6
TimeQuake seems like Kurt Vonnegut's farewell to his readers. It is not a proper novel at all, but a mish-mash of an idea for a novel, various short stories by his alter-ego, Kilgore Trout, and recollections of Vonnegut's extended family. I listened to the audio version of this book on a long car
Show More
trip, which was perfect, because there was no long plot to get lost in, merely a series of amusing anecdotes. Show Less
LibraryThing member DLMorrese
This isn't a typical novel, but then Vonnegut wasn't a typical novelist. I've only read a handful of his books, but many don't have much of a plot, and the author himself is frequently a character. And he was ... a character, that is. I didn't know him, of course, but from his writing I sense a man
If you approach Timequake as a typical novel, you'll probably be dissatisfied. It's primarily an autobiography liberally splashed with history and personal commentary loosely tied together with illustrative fictional anecdotes. But it is entertaining. It is informative. It may not be a great novel, but it is a good book.
Show More
of strong opinion and deep dismay about what people sometimes do. War was one of the big ones because he'd served in a big one. He had first hand knowledge of what they were like. Promoted as necessary, honorable, and glorious by those who start them, they were (and continue to be) just premeditated ways of spreading death, destruction, and misery. He was, perhaps, more of a disillusioned idealist than a cynic. If you approach Timequake as a typical novel, you'll probably be dissatisfied. It's primarily an autobiography liberally splashed with history and personal commentary loosely tied together with illustrative fictional anecdotes. But it is entertaining. It is informative. It may not be a great novel, but it is a good book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member TheDivineOomba
This is Mr. Vonnegut's last book - half science fiction, half biography, done in a way that only Vonnegut can do. First - it shouldn't work. But it does. With short, pragmatic paragraphs, that get straight to the point - its an easy read with deep undertones.
LibraryThing member JRCornell
A timequake throws the universe backwards and everyone has to relive the years 1991 to 2001, including the hero, a science fiction writer. By and large, people are not pleased by the development.
Pages
219
ISBN
0399137378 / 9780399137372