Remember: Kurt Vonnegut Was 47
Key topics
The article reminds readers that Kurt Vonnegut was 47 when he wrote Slaughterhouse-Five, sparking a discussion on the role of age in creativity and productivity, and challenging the notion that youth is a prerequisite for success.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
27m
Peak period
60
0-12h
Avg / period
13.8
Based on 69 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 29, 2025 at 4:19 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 29, 2025 at 4:47 PM EDT
27m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
60 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 4, 2025 at 7:26 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
I grew up as a young 20-ish programmer in a FOSS community that had multiple people in their 60s and 70s act e.g. as module maintainers and similar, and you can be productive and matter and contribute to greater things for far longer than most people seem to assume.
The bottom line is perhaps more that "finding ways to apply yourself" and doing the right things is challenging at any age.
One of them runs a very large venture backed company and is active right here on this site, the other you've likely never heard of, is super modest and absolutely blew me away with their ability while still in high school, by which time they'd been programming for more than a decade. Some kids really are amazingly capable.
I think it would be better if HN didn't tell impressionable 20yo techbros things like this.
> massive amount of value older people can still easily bring to society around them.
This is generally recognized in many places, outside of techbro echo chambers.
> in a FOSS community that had multiple people in their 60s and 70s act e.g. as module maintainers and similar,
To your 20yo techbro, this sounds like damning with faint praise.
Some solutions require an entirely new perspective while others require a lifetime's worth of information and experience to be properly collated I guess.
However, this is packaged as a self help book, which probably sells more but doesn't interest me at all.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/201064797-second-act
Sure, Slaughterhouse Five was Vonnegut's big financial breakthrough, but by that time he was a very well-known writer with several classics, including Player Piano and Harrison Bergeron, and a Guggenheim Fellow, and made a decent living from writing full time. Not glamorous for sure, but in line with most very good writerd.
Far from demonstrating the author's thesis that "failure can ripen into art", his story is the story of a man that had no notable failures in writingy, who consistently produced great work, and continued to do so until he made it big.
If you were unfortunate enough to be passionate about something physical like a sport or game, not much to look forward to
Coach Little League. Physical passions can be a lot more fullfiling than otherwise
If the article had tried to make your point, it would have been a much better article.
Instead, it made a different, much less true point, and had to contort Vonnegut's biography to make it.
"His career looked like a sequence of failures until it suddenly wasn't" is just not true of Vonnegut, not true of Galilei, not true of any of the other "examples in all fields" cites in the article. All of them are people who consistently produced great work from early on, well before their 40s, and then produced a magnum opus that really stood the test of time.
Colonel Sanders started KFC in his 40s and didn’t come up with the signature recipe until he was 50. KFC as we know it didn’t exist until he was 65.
Truth is, most successful business owners start in their mid 40s or around 40.
As the poster says, "Winners never quit and quitters never win. But those who don't win and don't quit are idiots." This idiot affirms that advice.
What would your advice be?
Sometimes they are offered in your 20s. Sometimes they are built over time for 20 years.
Ask yourself some serious questions in the mirror. Why would you pursue early retirement and money? To get rich? For what purpose? You lack the vision right now to even see it through. Take a step back, focus on your immediate needs, stop chasing other peoples dreams and start dreaming of your own future - who would you be?
IMO any fulfilling goal needs to be about more than just yourself. Not just avoiding discomfort for yourself, but also providing stability for a family (note: not saying this needs to be a "traditional" family). And in business the goal should be to contribute positively to your community, which can include seemingly mundane things like producing things of value, establishing trust-based relationships, mentoring others, providing employment opportunities, etc.
I also don't think the goal of early retirement should just be to quit and do nothing - I think that's actually quite unhealthy. But rather to free up time to focus on the things that are most important to you. Self improvement, health, family, charitable causes and other causes that are important to you, and of course some leisure time as well.
I think by those measures, Kurt Vonnegut was a very successful person. I don't know that always translated into happiness, though. Although I think he was about as happy as he could be - which is the most we can ask for.
If you're poor, yes. I don't mean this in a derogaroty way.
What's the secret that you know which makes poor people have a better life after 50? I'd love to hear it and quit working so damn hard. Hell these days the middle class is getting their ass kicked at the grocery store. I can't even imagine how hard it would be if you cut my income by what it would take to get me to the poverty line. That amount won't even cover my rent.
Not-so-poor people enjoy their life since their 20s, because they're not worrying about all the other things that you wrote in your comment ...
The point isn’t about money, it’s about spending time doing the things you enjoy doing. Without commitment to doing so because it’s your job. Some people find their ikigai early. Some decide to work to provide for others and put their own ambitions aside. Selflessly. So sure, the kid genius who struck it rich at 22 that now lives in a mansion is “living his best life”. By what standards? We have different measuring sticks.
It creates situations where some young person may not be "allowed to succeed" due to their unconventional approach and this continues until they turn a certain age by which point those in power think "This person cannot be good because they're 45 and I never heard of them." The suppression becomes self-fulfilling because they were unconventional even though their approach later proved optimal and everyone may be doing it now. Not everyone on the frontline gets recognition.
Also, because a lot of successful people achieved success by a certain age, they tend to look for and help people who are like them. Someone who is 45 and not successful has a very different worldview than someone who became successful in their first venture at 18 years old.
No tech bro or VC wants experienced people around telling younger versions of themselves what to avoid. =3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE
In my 20's I worked a ton of 60 hours weeks that also included mandatory travel on Sundays without any comp time.
Never. Again.
Significant double standard.
It's ridiculous though, I've seen some older mathematicians do some incredible work by themselves. Rare in my experience, but it happens.
> based on an ancient premise that old mathematicians can't make new incredible discoveries.
Not true. The Fields Medal is an encouragement to do more work, not a reward for completion.
https://www.ams.org/notices/201501/rnoti-p15.pdf In fact, the strict age limit of forty was only codified at the 1966 Congress, although an informal criterion of youth preceded it. Fields’s remark that is often interpreted as favoring young medalists, that the prize should be “in recognition of work already done” but was “at the same time intended to be an encouragement for further achievement,” is associated with no claim about the age or career status of the recipient. Rather, the stipulation that the award should be given “not alone because of the outstanding character of the achievement but also with a view to encouraging further development along these lines,” was Fields’s suggestion for how “to avoid invidious comparisons” from partisans dissecting candidates’ existing work [18, pp. 173– 174]. What started with a worry about rivalrous national factions became an excuse to narrow the pool of candidates and eventually turned into a restrictive cutoff. It is yet another myth that Fields intended the medal only for the young.
https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201504/rnoti-p327.pdf
No, it's like that because it was established to encourage young promising researchers. It should not have become the "supreme award" of mathematics. Fortunately, now we also have the Abel Prize.
Experience, on the whole, really does get you further than cleverness, but good luck telling that to the inexperienced.
But the common trajectory is that youth is not usually spent advancing the arts and sciences, but to learn the circus of society, its rules, its demands, to the point that we have the very real concept of midlife crisis when these individuals, after learning what the hell society wants from them, ask, “is that all? I got my degree, my job, my career, now what?”
Only after answering this question, in your late 30s or 40s, the road to self-realisation opens. I think rather the fact that we don’t see many Vonneguts is that the vast majority of people never make this step, and just continue to dance the monotonous rhythm of work and family, learned in their 20s, to their grave, without ever developing their full potential.
A lot of Carl Jung’s career as a therapist was dedicated to the topic of self-actualisation for middle-aged adults.
The lessons here are two-sided: First of all, don't write off experienced tech workers just because they don't have the spark of youth. Second of all, don't write yourself off just because you haven't had your breakthrough yet.
Maybe I'm too early to speak on this, since I haven't reached 47 yet ;) but so far, from having been around for a while and having seen people struggle through life, I'd say: All traumas resist immediate rendering.
Trauma overwhelms you and causes behaviors that are hard to break until you understand them. And getting to that understanding is difficult, because the behavior is mostly there to obscure that which is overwhelming, because, well, if it wasn't then the trauma would overwhelm you.
How many people I've seen who get stuck in cycles that never seem to break. But then again, most of these lives are far from over, so it's premature to add "most never will".
Good piece. There's still time.
4 more comments available on Hacker News