Your point, that many people don't produce their magnun opus until later in life, is definitely at odds with a lot of current SV rhetoric. And it's a good point.
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.
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.