Category: Harrison Bergeron

Harrison Bergeron is a short story written by Kurt Vonnegut and tells of Harrison Bergeron, a tall, handsome and strong young man. In spite of the governments attempt to suppress him, Harrison is not contented with this state of things: he knows himself, he is aware of his strength and smartness and flaunts it. So he escapes from prison to realize his goals, but the government murders him (SparkNotes). Of course, the typical vibrancy of his age helps his rebellious psychology against the status quo. But it can also be said that his age, marked with the unreserved youthful belief in possibilities, is what becomes his undoing.

Vonnegut, in this story, is also making a political and a social point. Many critics have interpreted the storys futuristic utopia as representing egalitarianism, the critique, its argued, is on the dangers of egalitarianism (all-round equality of people) as enshrined in the American constitution. Thus, it is said, his satire seems to argue that the efforts meant to attain equality are absurd (Hattenhauer).

But Vonnegut is not arguing against equality per se, rather he seems to be laughing off the simplicity of that dreamt-of equality and the misunderstanding of what chasing it entails. He argues that egalitarianism calls for the suppression of the bright and hardworking in order for them to be equal with the rest; that it assigns much importance to peaceful living at the expense of intelligence and artistry (SparkNotes). In a too vigorous attempt to enforce equality, Vonnegut seems to say theres a risk of society penalizing excellence, including physical grace, good looks, and imagination. Regarding this, Stanley Schatt writes, in the process of acquiring equality, what is sacrificed, by Vonneguts argument, is grace, beauty and wisdom (133).

More specifically, this work is seen as Vonneguts literary attack against the misunderstanding of the US in its fight against socialism and communism (Hattenhaur). The ultimate objective of the story is to show how society would be absurd if egalitarianism, as popularly perceived by Americas popular and dominant culture, was to be achieved (Hattenhauer). By Vonneguts stand, therefore, the efforts to uplift minority groups, he seems to suggest, is such a move that kills intelligence and artistry (SparkNotes).

While this argument has been reflected in the effort to uplift women, for instance, where the modern strife for gender balance has at times superseded merit, Vonneguts stand seems to insist that only certain people (the majority, for instance) are capable of intelligence and artistry, and refuses to acknowledge that the minority can also have these virtues and only need an objective platform for them to also prevail.

Vonneguts stand also assumes that egalitarianism suppresses ones strife and the ability for individual success. On the contrary, egalitarianism calls for giving everyone an equal chance for optimum self-realization. Vonneguts argument takes a rather utopic approach to egalitarianism, reflected in the futuristic utopic setting of his story. In his effort to objectify Americas popular distrust for the so-called intellectuality, he ends up exaggerating it.

To an extent, Vonneguts reflection on identity and individualism can also be seen in Steinbecks Chrysanthemum; one, because both stories seem to argue that individual success and excellence involves taking risks. For as long as Harrison Bergeron, for instance abides by the governments treatment of him, the efforts meant to put him down, there is no possibility he will come to realize his full potential. In order to excel, he must go against the government, a risk that costs him his life.

But he may as well be dead if he cannot achieve his full potential; similarly, Steinbecks Elisa must also fight against the suffocating male chauvinism if she is to be free. By doing this, she risks being considered as an outcast or even being left by her husband, but she does manage to take that risk. In doing so she remains in her emotional, sexual and physical isolation since there is simply no way that she will excel.

In line with this, both stories also seem to argue that individualism is not independent of society; that in the struggle for self realization, one is bound to encounter conflict which may at times be detrimental. The society that defines boundaries for human behavior and the scope of individual will then presents the obstacles.

For Harrison Bergeron, it costs him his life. For Elisa in Chrysathemum, not only does it promise war with the prevailing male chauvinism psychology, but it also starts a conflict in her between the new character who has been nurtured by the tinker and the one that her society knows. In the end, she loses the fight as fog does not go with rain (Steinbeck 1). This does not end her conflict as reflected in her continued slipping between masculine and feminine characters (Budnichuk).

Works Cited

Steinbeck, John. The Chrysanthemums. Literature: An Introduction to Fiction. Poetry, and Drama, (1999): 219-27. Print.

Budnichuk, Monica. The Chrysanthemums: Exposing Sexual Tension through Setting and Character. Universal Journal. 2009. Web.

Many people want to know what could happen in the future. Well, Kurt Vonnegut is a American writer, he is known for writing his satirical literary style, as well as the science-fiction elements in his work of writing. The most known work of science -fiction is “Harrison Bergeron”, which is a short story of a dystopian future of society that is a also a satire short story about the future.

But the most known in his writing is satire and imagery. He based his writing on what humans have down. Most of them are mostly satire of the government, even humans behavior towards one another. He mostly gets the starie and very detailed imagery, because he served the military. He was a prisoner-of-war in a slaughterhouse in Dresden. Which has so much experience and he wrote many stories oh the satires of war and a future society.

He has worked many jobs until a point where his writing career took off. The most known short stories that is based on a dystopian future that he wrote about. Is about “Harrison Bergeron”. Is a story of a boy who wants to overthrow the government, because the society is trying to make and achieve everything in a perfect world, but they completely fail. Kurt Vonnegut has so much imagery in the story. Describing the weight of the boy that is 300 pounds and is handicap, which in the story he is seen as a nobody. Which to the people in the future don’t even care for him or his family. Even as a “simple intelligence” is seen as not very smart at all, just a simple dumb human. He can not do anything to give his out his own opinion in this future world. Even by just him giving out his own bravery and being smart can lead him to prison. Which is an experience that has happened during war. Kurt Vonnegut is very detail in the stories, he has so much on what society wanted to do to humans. It is like how war is, when many people did not want to join or be drafted. Society, well mostly the United States government does not care about the opinion. If you give out your opinion, they will imprison you and fine you for your own right. That is what Kurt Vonnegut is believed to be saying. Because he served in the military during World War II.

In the story is describe how society is achieving greatness but end up failing. It is efficient that during the time Kurt Vonnegut was in the military, many governments in the war were in a crisis of trying go conatin before all went loose. Even the United States government was having a bad situation on the war. Other countries see the United States as a big achievement in their society back in the war. And some have to copy how the United States where, but end up failing. That is why some governments decided to follow other rules or even governments so they can be a super power nation like the rest of the “First world countries”. That is why in the story is believed that the society is trying to process, but end up failing as a nation.

The climate of “Harrison Bergeron” is very political based on the judgement of what the intelligence of a person and how the government sees it and judges it and warns the society of that person or how not to act like an individual who is “Smart”. Kurt Vonnegut added imagery to what it feels like how a future society can become a political judgment in a future world. He is telling a statement how the United States government and some of the people can judge and feel of an over controlling and judging characteristics of a society during a war. So they could feel important and smart about the situation.

This was an experience with Kurt Vonnegut during his time. Many people were very ignorant on someones opinion of what they thought of the government or even other countries who did not see the United States as a great country to follow, which lead to them following other nations. Like communism and seeing a super power nation fail or even seeing a super power nation achieve something great. Which Kurt Vonnegut satire of a future that a society can not achieve. Kurt Vonnegut is saying how Humans will always be somehow or in a way controlled by anyone, no matter what it is or even the situation, Humans will have a behavior towards something they believe in. Achieving equality for everyone is difficult and can lead to being dangerous at moments. That is why Kurt Vonnegut is trying to believe to be saying that Humans will always find ways to think or try to use behavior to feel more dominant towards an achievement. Which can be a scary way of how sometimes governments can try ways of controlling humans, this is why humans have an instinct inside of them telling them what is wrong and what is right, so that their ideas can be overthink or have a second thought. The way humans have is behavior which gives them a “Gut” feeling.

In conclusion, Many people want to know what could happen in the future. Well, Kurt Vonnegut is a American writer, he is known for writing his satirical literary style, as well as the science-fiction elements in his work of writing. The most known work of science -fiction is “Harrison Bergeron”, which is a short story of a dystopian future of society that is a also a satire short story about the future. The boy “Harrison Bergeron” is a boy who wants to overthrow the government. The theme Kurt Vonnegut is saying Humans will have a behavior towards something they believe in. Achieving equality for everyone is difficult and can lead to being dangerous at moments. Because humans do not know what are the limits when it comes to doing an achievement and a dangerous moment of achievements of realization of what power it could lead to mankind or its followers.

Introduction to Utopia and Dystopia in ‘Harrison Bergeron’

Nothing is perfect, not even the modern society. Most of the people who live on Earth desire to live a much happier and connected world where everyone unites as one, like a place known as Utopia. This is a place, state, and/or idea that seems perfect in a sense that respects policies, laws, conditions, and such. If people lived in a Utopian society, all issues that society has brought forth will be lifted and everyone will be happy. However, not all Utopias are as magical and wonderful as they seem. In fact, some are the quite opposite, which are also known as a Dystopian society. In “Harrison Bergeron”, written by Kurt Vonnegut, the main characters wear some kind of mask and sit in front of the television to see what is going on around the world, but everything is operated by the government and the government takes control of people’s true feelings and emotions. Vonnegut argues the idea that extreme equality can be very dangerous and may not be the right path for a Utopian society.

Symbolism of Handicaps: Government Control and Forced Equality

To begin with, “Harrison Bergeron”, written by Kurt Vonnegut, has plenty of literary elements embedded into the story. One element Vonnegut uses throughout his story multiple times is symbolism. For instance, one example of symbolism Vonnegut uses throughout his story are the handicaps. In the year of 2081 (the year that this short story takes place), people are required to wear these handicaps issued by the government. This is “a little mental handicap radio” that is attached to the people’s ears (Vonnegut, no page). These handicaps were “tuned to a government transmitter”, which then sends a “sharp noise” every 20 seconds (Vonnegut, no page). These handicaps have been issued to the public to “go above the threshold of ‘normal’” (Littlehale, no page). This was a disadvantage because these people are “forced into wearing handicaps” (Joodaki, Page 70), and if people are forced into wearing something the government officials have issued out for the people, it is essentially stating that the government wants to take over the people’s bodies and minds to have extreme equality. Later, in the short story, “Harrison rips off his handicaps” (Vonnegut, no page) because the main character wants to break free from the extreme equality the government is trying to implement. Harrison knows exactly what the government is trying to do, but he refuses to comply because he wants to be unique and think differently than others. He does not wish to have the same mindset as others.

The Ballerinas: Limited Freedom and Altered Beauty

Another example of symbolism that Vonnegut uses are the ballerinas. In this short story, there are eight ballerinas that are shown on live television, and they are all wearing their handicaps. But as Harrison watches these ballerinas, Harrison realizes how limited these dancers are with their freedom. Harrison believes that “dancers shouldn’t be handicapped” (Vonnegut, no page). It is as if the dancers are very limited to their dancing and movement because the mask/handicaps are restricting them and weighing them down on their talents. Also, these masks are “altering their beauty” (Joodaki, Page 73). All the ballerinas that are on television have a lot of talent and they are unique in their own ways, but the government is making sure that every person has the same mentality and move as one. With that being said, the handicaps are limiting everyone to their own thoughts and talents, which is why extreme equality will not work out for the society they are currently living.

Television as a Propaganda Machine

The final symbolism that Vonnegut includes in his short story is the television system that each person watches. Many people know that the television is the best source to distribute information, such as the news and weather. Some channels may be owned by the government, others may be owned by local stations. But no matter what channel someone watches, they all share a common similarity; television is the fastest way to spread information. Most of what people watch on television nowadays is a lot of fake news and propaganda, which is why the government in this short story favors this power device so much. “TV is the propaganda machine of the government” (Littlehale, no page). The televisions have control over a person’s mind and thinking. When Hazel, Harrison’s mother, witnessed a shooting on live television, her mood suddenly changed to sadness and disappointment. But shortly after, the handicap sent a current, so Hazel forgot what she has seen on television and cannot tell whether it was real or fake. Hazel had “witnessed the murder of her own son” on live television, and Hazel “cries but she can’t remember why” (Joodaki, Page 71). This shows that the government can change a person’s perception and mentality, whether it is for the better or the worse. Vonnegut’s use of symbolism is used throughout his whole short story in an effective way to demonstrate how extreme equality can do more harm than good to the future generations. Extreme equality operated by the government is a deadly weapon because the government could manipulate one’s thinking, and if it is an extreme equality society, then everyone will have the same mindset and will all share the same feelings in real time. The government can change one’s feelings, emotions, and thoughts with just one device like the handicaps and/or television.

Figurative Language: Similes and Metaphors in Depicting Control

Another literature element Vonnegut uses throughout his story are figurative languages such as similes and metaphors. Throughout his story, Vonnegut uses a lot of simile to describe how the main character of the story behaves. “His thoughts fled in panic… a burglar alarm” (Vonnegut, no page). This simile is used to discuss how Bergeron lost his thoughts and how they escaped his mind like someone trying to steal a store but did not do so successfully. Bergeron’s thoughts left his mind because the handicap mask sent a current to his head, which deleted his previous thoughts. The government operates the handicap mask and sends currents every 20 seconds to change the people’s thoughts and feelings so everyone can be on the same exact level of thinking and feelings. “The bar snapped like celery” (Vonnegut, no page). This simile describes the strength that Bergeron has within himself. Bergeron has gained all this strength because of the developing hatred he has for the government trying to make everyone wear a mandatory mask that makes everyone alike. Bergeron’s frustration is taken out on the handicap, which snaps into two, breaking the mask. Bergeron is tired of living in an extreme equality society. Bergeron has finally realized that living under extreme equality is not beneficial to society because it hinders one’s freedom and thinking, but the government in this short story wants to control and take over people’s minds. The metaphor, “Harrison’s appearance was Halloween and hardware” (Vonnegut, no page), talks about how Bergeron has too much on him, including the handicaps, that make him stand out. These handicaps are key role to government control and oppression of free thinking. Everyone in the system must wear them because the government wants nobody to rebel against them and they want to live a utopian life, when in reality these handicap masks are giving them the quite opposite, a dystopian society. The propaganda the government puts out using systems such as televisions and the news usually is a sign of a dystopian society because the government wants to feed the people lies so they can start to believe what they see and what they hear. Also, being under a constant surveillance is another sign of a dystopian society, which is harmful for the people living in the society as well because they are limited to what they can do.

Vonnegut’s use of similes, metaphors, and symbolism throughout the short story helps portray what a dystopian society would look like under one rule, one government, one mindset. Vonnegut has written this short story using such effective literary devices to raise awareness of what may come soon if people are not careful enough with our system. The system could mess up any day now, and if it does, the future generations may be living a dystopian society, living under strict rules that the government has to offer the people. The short story depicts a scenario where Bergeron and Hazel live in their home all day, watching the television and seeing what is on for “entertainment”. But every twenty seconds, their moods and ideas disappear because of the signals the government sends to their body using the handicap mask. The idea of extreme equality is discussed throughout the whole essay and it brings up some points on why it is bad. “Vonnegut renders the greatest theme in the story” (Joodaki, Page 71). The theme of a dystopian society and living under extreme equality is strongly discussed throughout Vonnegut’s short story to raise awareness of the dangers that extreme equality could bring forth using symbolism like the ballerinas, the television as fake news, and the masks as ways to delete people’s true feelings and thoughts.

Thinking freely is encouraged so generations could live a better future and not repeat the same history that others had to face decades ago. There are many groups and organizations that encourage free thinking and going out your own way to develop your own thinking on certain topics. There is a non-profit organization called “Think Freely Media”, which helps others develop their own thinking. Their goal is to “build even more resources and media captivities” and “strengthen advocacy for free markets and individual liberty…” (Think Freely Media, no page). Vonnegut’s story about living under extreme equality goes great with this organization because both encourage to be unique and think freely. “… that believes that free enterprise and liberty unleash… essence of the human spirit” (Think Freely Media, no page).

Conclusion: The Dangers of Extreme Equality

To conclude, “Harrison Bergeron” discusses the issues of living under an extreme equality society. Vonnegut raises valid points on why living under extreme equality does more harm than good using such literary devices like symbolism, metaphors, and similes. Despite living under an extreme equality society, every person should be entitled to their own opinions, feelings, and emotions. No one should take your freedom and thoughts away, not even the government who wants to establish a society where everyone thinks and feels the same way.

Works Cited

1. Littlehale, Kristy. “Themes, Symbols, and Motifs in Harrison Bergeron.” 28 Jan. 2020 www.storyboardthat.com/storyboards/kristy-littlehale/themes–symbols–and-motifs-in-harrison-bergeron. Accessed October 31, 2020.
2. Joodaki, Abdol Hossein, and Hamideh Mahdiany. “Equality versus Freedom in ”Harrison Bergeron’ by Kurt Vonnegut: A Study of Dystopian Setting.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7 Jan. 2013, www.journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/983. Accessed October 31, 2020.
3. Tillman, John. Think Freely Media, 16 May 2009, thinkfreelymedia.org/. Accessed October 31, 2020.
4. Vonnegut, Kurt. “HARRISON BERGERON.” Harrison Bergeron, www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html. Accessed October 31, 2020.

Two short stories “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, and “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut, both share many similarities. The government has full control over society by having authoritarian practices and traditions. In “The Lottery ” the short story begins with people gathering together at the town square for the annual lottery in their small village. At the start of the story, children were playing with stones that later turned into a twist towards the end. The ‘winner’ of the lottery, was later stoned to death. “Harrison Bergeron” is about a society that has to wear handicap items depending on how intelligent they are. The story started off with Hazel and George watching ballerinas dance on the television. George is highly intelligent and is handicapped with an earpiece that plays painfully loud and distracting noises. Hazel is mentally slow, so she does not have to wear any handicapped items. As they watched the ballerinas dance, a strange event happened. Both stories share a similar theme about social issues. Social issues caused these two stories to think they are utopia, have social practices, and lack of freedom.

In “The Lottery” the small town hosts an annual lottery every year. Everyone comes together and draws names out of an old, black wooden box. The story started off with young kids playing with stones and then putting them in a corner of the town square. There was one thing that stood out the most as the people gathered together. The people tried to keep their distance between the stones and the wooden box. The stones symbolize the death of the winner of the lottery. It is very odd that the village goes along with this tradition knowing that someone will get stoned to death. Another thing that also stood out is Old Man Warner, the oldest person in the town. He said that the lottery is not what it used to be. Society could be changing its ways, and the people would not really know what the tradition is actually for. In the story, it said that the box has been around longer than Old Man Warner. This shows that tradition is very old. “The black box grew shabbier each year: by now it was no longer completely black but splintered badly…” People did not want to replace the box, because of how long it has been represented for their tradition, even if they knew what it meant. Society’s tradition is very harmful, but to them, they go along with it thinking it is fine. There were children around and it seemed like they were also being taught the tradition. It shows a lack of respect for human life. They are doing something absurd without even knowing the true reason why they do it.

The “Harrison Bergeron” story is about a society where everyone is equal physically and mentally. The government is torturing its citizens this way. George has to wear an earpiece that plays loud noises in his ear every twenty seconds to distract him from thinking and having thoughts. Hazel is mentally slow, or as they say in the book “average”. She is unable to sustain thoughts. There is no need for Hazel to wear any handicap. In the story, the ballerinas on the television had to wear ugly masks on their faces. They also had to wear two-hundred pounds of weight around their necks to hinder their dancing. “She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.” The government probably did not want the girls to compare themselves to others or does not want them to create competition, but this hides a lot of the girl’s true talent and beauty. Harrison Bergeron, who is George and Hazel’s son, is a huge threat to society. He is very advanced and had to wear a surplus of handicapped items. Harrison wanted to overthrow the government. In the story, he ended up ripping off his handicaps, started dancing with the ballerinas and told the musicians to play better. He was trying to show what the government was stealing from society and what they are being forced into. The story describes the ballerinas dancing better and the musicians playing better. This shows that Harrison showed them freedom. This could maybe influence people to rebel against their government in the future.

Everyone have to dumb themselves down or behave a certain way to not be punished by the government. Towards the end, the handicap general shoots Harrison and the ballerina on live television. The live execution gives people a warning of what would happen if they would rebel in any kind of way.

One of the best qualities humans have in life is freedom, however when it is removed, life becomes something not very pleasant. Oppression of individual and collective freedom should not be included in anyone’s life, but under the authoritarian power of abusive societies, the human value of freedom is only a dream impossible to achieve. When society implements such regulations and lifestyles to its citizens, there is no other solution than to adapt to those norms even if they are against your own belief. The idea of imposing social influences over personal beliefs and values is found in the written material of the authors Shirley Jackson’s. “The Lottery”, and Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s “Harrison Bergeron”. These two stories describe lifestyles where citizens allow their superiors to have total control, without allowing them to think freely and democratically about the rules, laws, traditions and norms that require their submission. The two reading materials offer a similar central idea, because each one talk about a community that elects to be part of a cruel, devastating and inhumane tradition, instead of allowing each individual to create their own beliefs and ideals relating to equality and freedom, but in doing so, they stop every person from this society to become a unique individual repressing their independence in their communities.

In the first story “The Lottery”, the villagers of a small town gather together in the square on June 27, a beautiful day, for the town yearly lottery. In other towns, the lottery takes longer, but there are only 300 people in this village, so the lottery takes only two hours. Village children, who have just finished school for the summer, run around happily collecting stones. They put the stones in their pockets and make a huge pile of stones in the square. Men gather next, followed by the women. Parents call their children over, and families stand together. Mr. Summers runs the lottery because he has a lot of time to do things for the village. He arrives in the square with the black box, followed by Mr. Graves, the postmaster. This black box is not the original box used for the lottery because the original was lost many years ago, even before the town elder, Old Man Warner, was born. Mr. Summers always suggests that they make a new box because the existing one is untidy, but no one wants to fool around with tradition. Mr. Summers did, however, convince the villagers to replace the traditional wood chips with slips of paper. Mr. Summers mixes up the slips of paper in the box. He and Mr. Graves made the papers the night before and then locked up the box at Mr. Summers’s coal company. Before the lottery can begin, they make a list of all the families and households in the village. Some people remember that in the past there used to be a song and salute, but these have been lost. Tessie Hutchinson joins the crowd, nervous because she had forgotten that today was the day of the lottery. She joins her husband and children at the front of the crowd, and people joke about her late arrival. Mr. Summers asks whether anyone is absent, and the crowd responds that Dunbar is not there. Mr. Summers asks who will draw for Dunbar, and Mrs. Dunbar says she will because she does not have a son who’s old enough to do it for her. Mr. Summers asks whether the Watson boy will draw, and he answers that he will. Mr. Summers then asks to make sure that Old Man Warner is there too. Mr. Summers reminds everyone about the lottery’s rules: he will read names, and the family heads come up and draw a slip of paper. No one should look at the paper until everyone has drawn. He calls all the names, greeting each person as they come up to draw a paper. Mr. Adams tells Old Man Warner that people in the north village might stop the lottery, and Old Man Warner ridicules young people. He says that giving up the lottery could lead to a return to living in caves. Mrs. Adams also says the lottery has already been given up in other villages, and Old Man Warner says that is “nothing but trouble.” Mr. Summers finishes calling names, and everyone opens his or her papers. Word quickly gets around that Bill Hutchinson has “got it.” Tessie argues that it wasn’t fair because Bill didn’t have enough time to select a paper. Mr. Summers asks whether there are any other households in the Hutchinson family, and Bill says no, because his married daughter draws with her husband’s family. Mr. Summers asks how many kids Bill has, and he answers that he has three. Tessie protests again that the lottery wasn’t fair. Mr. Graves dumps the papers out of the box onto the ground and then puts five papers in for the Hutchinson. As Mr. Summers calls their names, each member of the family comes up and draws a paper. When they open their slips, they find that Tessie has drawn the paper with the black dot on it. Mr. Summers instructs everyone to hurry up. The villagers take stones and run toward Tessie, who stands in a clearing in the middle of the crowd. Tessie says it’s not fair when she is hit in the head with a stone. Everyone begins throwing stones at her.

In the second story “Harrison Bergeron”, takes place in the future and it is supposed to be in the United States in the year 2081. The main character is Harrison Bergeron who is fourteen years old who continues to defy the Government. This Government believes in “quality”, no one in this society can be better looking, more intelligent, or more athletic than anyone else so the handicapper general who is name is Diana Moon Glampers is in charge of determining and judging who does not comply with these regulated standards within this society. By implementing this type of “lifestyle”, this Government claimed to have equity among all its citizens. The main character Harrison does not agree with this, he states “we should not be equal, we should not be wearing this handicaps”. He believes that everyone had the right to express their unique identities. The society presented in this story is based on equality but in reality, no one is really equal. We have been taught that equality is something that is a good thing, something that we should strive for. However, in this society equality is their driving force is how they give people jobs, is how they give people a fighting chance to live.

In both societies there is lack of freedom and violation of the human rights. In the first analysis the author Shirley Jackson represents a tradition that has as consequences the abuse and integrity of the person who loses the lottery game. In the same way, Kurt refers to the deprivation of expression that every human being is entitled by law. Both authors presented a society where abuse of power and authority harms a minority group. We have been taught that equality means being able to express our thoughts without fear of being repressed, that equality means having rights and duties as citizens, that equality means having authenticity in our actions but above all the meaning of equality is to respect others to be respected. Both environments presented uncivilized and unsuitable behaviors, such as innocent people being killed in front of their loved ones. There is not worse feeling that helplessness when a loved one is in need. The traditions displayed appear to be “innocent”, however both stories turned out to be the perfect recipe for catastrophe.

Work cited

1. The Lottery, Shirley Jackson. http://fullreads.com/literature/the-lottery/5/
2. Harrison Bergeron, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt

There always comes a time where a change in life needs to happen. Change is not always negative; it sometimes can be positive depending on the situation you are dealing with. You will never know how it can affect you if you never try to attempt it. In Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” and Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron”, there were people who feared change because of the possible consequences they may face. We only see that perspective from two main characters in “Harrison Bergeron” and mainly one character in “The Lottery”. In one story people knew the consequences of the tradition they were participating in while the others attempted to change and was punished for doing so causing the rest of the society to live in the same way. In ‘The Lottery’ and ‘Harrison Bergeron’, there is a fear of change that comes with severe repercussions that modify the minds and lives of the citizens negatively forever.

These stories both present a dystopian world that these people, unfortunately, had to deal with themselves. When reading ‘The Lottery’ we were brainwashed to think the lottery was a good thing when in reality it was not. It was not a lottery where you win money, in the end, it was the lottery of people sacrificing their lives for other people. The sacrifice of the life killed was for the people not killed to gain more crops. So, with them gaining crops they felt that it was right for someone to die just for them to profit off it.

In “Harrison Bergeron” the government distracted the minds of their people by placing dancers on the T.V. This distraction kept the people from recognizing the wrongs being done to them as they were smart enough to figure it out had they had a real There is no unique individuality between the people as the government makes everyone the same.

However, “The Lottery” also displays a deceptive appearance of a utopian world where is everything was made to seem perfect. There was nothing wrong with hosting the lottery or making the prize of the lottery death instead of something positive. Even with someone being stoned every year at the lottery it never crossed anyone’s mind that we are killing for again. Not a single person attempted to change the minds of the participants of how the ending result will affect families. Killing mothers and fathers only show the children that killing is always the right thing to do.

These stories have a conflict of man vs. society that was a major issue for them to the shank and a major indicator of the climax of the story. In “The Lottery” Tess who represents the man argues with the town who represents the society about how she felt the lottery was unfair because she won the lottery. In reality, she did not win the lottery, the lottery won her. In “Harrison Bergeron” Harrison who represents the man argues with the government about handicapping his strengths. He gets close to overpowering the government but is killed before he can do so completely.

In both of these stories, there are people who against their will participate in traditions set. The tradition was a lottery held every year and a town of people being the same and being mistreated by the government. The lottery was the killing of a citizen from different families as their names were drawn and they were stoned to death. The mistreatment of the citizens by the government was forcing them to wear headphones to prevent them from thinking or making others walk with shotgun pellets to prevent them from being strong or faster. These both diminished the real purpose of life as for one society you had no way around death it was only luck if you were stoned for that year and another society where you were limited from being successful and you had no help from anyone as your fellow citizens were the same as you.

Both of these stories display people never attempting to speak out against the wrongdoing that was being done to them. The individuals never questioned their leaders on why the traditions that were forced upon them even existed. They never questioned the other citizens on why they continue to follow the harmful traditions or why they won’t find a way to get rid of the leaders. No one in either story came together to even discuss why the traditions were mandatory for them to follow. The participants of the lottery should have interrogated why the result of the lottery was being stoned to death. Even though it may have been hard for the people of the Bergeron story to even understand how to question the government it was not stated that it was impossible. There were however in both stories’ main reasons why no one ever thought to ask or go against the traditions and that reason was death and depletion of true human life. It was unfair for anyone to even live in that type of society.

In “The Lottery” the people automatically knew what they had to do even though they were told multiple times. Mr. Summers who directed the lottery stated, “Now I’ll read the names- heads of families first- and the men come up and take a paper out of the box keep the paper folded in your hand without looking at it until everyone has a turn everything clear” (Jackson 640). The reaction from the participants was half-listened and dry. They had done it for so long that did not need a reminder but with him being dominant he did it anyway. The people lived their life letting this man control the possible last moments of their lives. That life to the entire society became ordinary to the point they felt it was nothing wrong with living like that.

In “Harrison Bergeron” the two characters George and Hazel deal with physical and mental disabilities ordered by the government. Similar to “The Lottery” in the aspect of their life being controlled by someone but in their case, in their case it was the Handicapper General Diane Moon Glampers, but their laws were not repeated multiple times as they were already aware of them. They were given these disabilities to make them equal with everyone else so that one could be more advanced than others. As stated in the story, “Nobody was smarter than anybody else, Nobody was better looking than anybody else, Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else” (Vonnegut). This created a society of equality but not in a fairway. The leaders of these towns manipulated the minds of their citizens by making them think there was such thing as freedom by taking away their freedom of speech and their freedom to think about the meaning of human life. The people of these stories were forced to live off the ideas of other people and not their own.

Sadly, both of these stories had similar endings that we would never hope for but happen sometimes in literature. In ‘The Lottery’ during the lottery the only character who recognized what was right and what was wrong was Tess. In the end, Tess Hutchinson is stoned to death because of that. She takes the ultimate sacrifice of death before she had the chance to rebel against the ballots that determined her being stoned. The main influencer in her death would have been Mr. Summers. This is because for two reasons. The first is he was the only conductor of the lottery and he officially opened the lottery. Second, he draws the names and creates the slips that belong to the black box. The lottery is only possible with him and Tess had no help from anyone as they all obeyed his orders to stone her.

In “Harrison Bergeron” Harrison who is above average intelligence than everyone else wants to put an end to the way society is treating the citizens of his country. He wanted everyone to have average intelligence like him, but he mainly wanted them to have the freedom to be like they wanted to be. He attempts to do this for everyone but only gets a slight number of people freed before he is killed by the handicapper general. The general took away his chance to help others.

Unlike Tess who technically needed help from others, Harrison attempted to help others as he became upset at the distribution of handicaps as their only representation of themselves. But both stories show how no importance of every life was created but only of how society governed their lives in an obstructive and manner.

The themes of these two stories differ in ways that show us, readers, how to identify when you are receiving unjust treatment. The theme of ‘ Harrison Bergeron’ is no matter how hard you try, no one will ever be equal. It is never fair to make every person in one society the same whether it is a physical trait or a mental trait. One person should not be the only one to attempt in making a change for the better of society. It should be a wholesome effort from everyone so you can at least say everyone put to make a change. Whether you are successful or not, it is better to know you have a large participation rather than small participation.

The theme of ‘The Lottery’ is unseeingly following traditions will only lead to harmful consequences. Just because there is a tradition in place does not mean that it cannot be changed. But as stated before it takes a large group effort to overcome a dominant force who does not want to see the town happy. Traditions are generally happy and not deadly. It should never be to a point that an innocent life has to be taken all for a lottery game. The lottery should not even be used for this kind of purpose as a person is gambling their own life away not money-wise but for their life that you only get one of. People have to be able to notice when there is a situation that is not fair for all citizens and have to attempt to speak up it regardless of the consequence. It is better to die striving to save people than just being outright murdered.

Harrison Bergeron’s story was a better example of having bravery for the sake of others and not just for your good. He didn’t just let his community murder him instead he showed more courage than anyone else and spoke out against the government. He showed us, readers, that it is not always required that you just sit around and allow bad things to happen to you but that it takes you to start a movement for change. Harrison had more than just average intelligence he had the intelligence to run the government himself. He could change the government from controlling the people to the people controlling their own lives. Had he lived maybe there could have been the change that I felt could have been there that would have bettered the lives of the people that enabled them to control their own decisions and have complete freedom.

To conclude the reasoning behind this essay, there were similarities and differences listed that showed fear of complete change. The people of these societies never knew that a real quality of life consisted of freedom and happiness. They only knew that one person controlled the decisions of their life and everything that person said do was the correct thing to do and there was no wrong behind it. They also knew that if they went against what their selected leader that there may be deadly consequences that brought out the fear in them. Even with that, there were opportunities for someone to step up and have the courage to put a complete end to the controlling orders that surrounded their lives. Harris attempted to do so and lost his life doing so and no one went behind him to support what he wanted to do and tried to do anything better than he did. Instead, the society was controlled by two figures who had no remorse for the unfairness they showed on their citizens. In the end, for a society to be positive and fair you must have leaders who want the best not just for themselves but for everyone they are leading. It is also essential that you enforce change when it is necessary to and not just hold on to the same traditions that have been followed for the longest time. This will only ensure that everyone is happy and there is a reason for fear to find its way into the lives of people who are trying to be positive where for people who don’t suffer the consequences. Where everyone has equal opportunities at different things but are not identified as the same or forced to change their physical appearance like the one of someone else.

Works Cited Page

1. Jackson, Shirley. “The Lottery.” Fiction 100: An Anthology of Short Fiction, by James H. Pickering, Pearson, 2012, pp. 638–642.
2. Vonnegut, Kurt. “HARRISON BERGERON.” Harrison Bergeron, www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html.

Elizabeth Holmes, the former CEO of Theranos, was once valued at ten billion dollars for her idea of a revolutionary machine that could detect diseases including cancer, diabetes, and tumors from a single drop of blood. However she was a fraud, and her Silicon-Valley startup was a hoax. Even worse, some people knew, but never could speak up due to Elizabeth’s meticulous organization of the company. Employees were never allowed to talk to each other about their tasks, and if they did resign, then they had to sign nondisclosure agreements. They were endlessly threatened by Elizabeth to stay silent, and with a board of trustees made up of the largest names in industry and politics, people felt obligated to believe in the product simply because others did. No one dared to make their voice heard. Throughout history, the connection between silence and oppression has grown. Silence is what allows hypocrisies to perpetuate, crimes to go unpunished, and rights to be violated. In dystopian literature, silence is often equal to conformity, and rebellion guarantees death. Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” and Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” exemplify this, as they both discuss the blind observance of communal traditions set forth by previous generations. Specifically, the power of group mentality pushes both groups to commit barbaric actions. The irony within “Harrison Bergeron” and “The Lottery” highlight a complacency toward antiquated customs and even worse, a mob-regulated adherence to toxic traditions, exhibiting humanity’s violent silencing of those who effect positive change.

In “The Lottery,” a bucolic, pleasant setting is ironic when juxtaposed against the evil, murderous actions of the society; this underscores the savagery of mankind under a facade of perfection, where although freedom is preached and appreciated, no one is ever exempt from the shackles of herd mentality. The story starts with a beautiful description of summer: “flowers blossoming profusely and the grass richly green” (Jackson 1). Imagery of a warm, pleasant day immediately comes to mind, carefree and unrestrained, creating an atmosphere of safety. Children are playing on the grass, and the positioning of the square, “between the post office and bank,” adds to a sense of an idyllic community. The title itself refers to an anticipatory event where the promise of a winning money or prizes is imminent. However, the mood shifts as soon as the black box is introduced to the story. The black color connotes a promise of death and the once serene atmosphere of loud giggles dulls to an ominous hum. The pacing picks up through subtle foreshadowing of impending doom, as “the villagers kept their distance” (Jackson 1). Suddenly, after Tessie is announced as the “winner,” elucidation of truth appears in the climax of the last two paragraphs. Giddy with relief, everyone immediately grabs a stone to partake in her violent murder. Even friends and family do not hesitate, as Mrs. Delacroix, Tessie’s closest companion, “select[s] a stone so large she [has] to pick it up with both hands” and “someone gave little Davy Hutchinson a few pebbles” (Jackson 7). The role of her family is eclipsed by peer pressure, shown when they fail to provide her with protection, one of the most basic obligations of a family unit. More problematic is her husband Bill actively supporting the tradition of the lottery over the death of his wife, demonstrated when he wrenches the piece of paper out of her hand to display its black dot to the crowd. He has fallen victim to the ritual of slaughter, displaying loyalty to the wider public.

The setting—after the purpose of the lottery is illuminated to be a ritualistic vicious killing—emphasizes the nonchalance of the villagers in a more profound light. The stones are mentioned in the first paragraph in an innocuous way. Here, Jackson subtly introduces the stones as nothing more than a childhood game by describing “Bobby Martin [stuffing] his pockets full of stones, and the other boys soon [following] his example, selecting the smoothest and roundest stones” (Jackson 1). The children are given the sinister task of gathering stones, done without protest, which demonstrates that they have been brainwashed to willingly participate in the lottery. The children gain a sense of fulfillment and validation through their collection of the murder weapon, thus feeling obligated to cooperate. By ensuring their future compliance in the act, they too will be desensitized to violence altogether after a couple lotteries. Old Man Warner, upon hearing other villagers contemplate abandoning the lottery, defends that “there’s always been a lottery” (Jackson 5). This phrase reveals his unwavering mindset of passivity; following the tradition simply because the ones before him did is the norm, and thus he approves of continuing without really ever questioning its actual meaning or purpose. Mrs. Delacroix even off-handedly tells Tessie to be a “good sport” when she is about to be murdered, showcasing the lack of awareness that the lottery has become a sort of demented leisure activity (Jackson 5). After generations of the lottery, its influence has only calcified, playing an integral role in the community’s identity. Truly, the lottery has been set in stone.

The facade of the lottery protocol hides the innate barbarity of the villagers, who are perceived to be respectable civilians. Though the lottery is meant to be the same formal procedure every year, precisely set on June 27th, the current lottery is not the same as the original. It used to start with a “recital of some sort” and a “ritual salute,” but now has neither (Jackson 2). The black box itself, once polished and new, is now “splintered badly along one side to show the original wood color, and in some places faded or stained” (Jackson 2). The disregard for the articles of the lottery parallel its meaning: they are a front intended to present justification to both themselves and others. The one thing that has remained the same is the act of stoning, highlighting the underlying bloodlust of the villagers, where they seem to derive the most pleasure from the killing. If they truly did the lottery out of respect for a tradition, then they would actually mend the box and perform the pre-ceremonial song. Like the box, which now is almost unrecognizable due to its years of use, the morality of the village is just as worn and disintegrating. No one follows the lottery for the sake of upholding respect, they do it simply because they want to fulfill their thirst for slaughter. When they go through the ritual, they de-individuate and consider only the need to finish the task. There does not appear to be empathy for the townspeople who will lose their life nor do the villagers consider the impact on the family members. They are not thinking about the reasons behind their actions, they are simply not thinking. The villagers are instead hiding behind a guise of planned procedure to rationalize their thirst for blood.

Vonnegut establishes similar irony in “Harrison Bergeron” by flipping the idea that those who are blessed either intellectually or physically have the upper hand in society. Like the act of winning the lottery, the cruelty that immediately befalls those with these lucky traits directly unveils the barbaric need for punishment. Harrison is a naturally gifted man, with an impressive height of seven feet and athletic build, so to create equality by lessening his gifts, “scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard” (Vonnegut 20). Born as a genius, a completely random event, Harrison is assigned the harshest punishment so that he is supposedly equal to everyone else. He is a representation of how society could rise up to do great things, but its own debilitating rules, the handicaps imposed, only pave the way for mediocrity. This supposedly advanced society is no different from the savage ancestors of which they were afraid and tried to distance themselves away from. Like the villagers of the “The Lottery,” the government hides behind metal technology to appear sophisticated, whereas in reality they are no less savage than animals.

In “Harrison Bergeron,” even the idea of equality is ironic, where it is portrayed by uniformity, instead of individuality through equal promises of opportunity. The actual structure of society, which has hierarchy and imbalance, only further enforces a lack of progress. Even in the setting, it is apparent that the citizens are under the will of the Handicapper General, Diana Moon Glampers. An example of satire, as she rises above others while they are brought down. Glampers is a clumsy, even ugly name, yet she is the one with ultimate power. Citizens do not question her authority, and believe that obeying the rules will keep them safe from competition with each other. They have been brainwashed into equating average-ness with freedom—all while the government use their advantages to cancel out any potentially rebellious thoughts through the power of noise. With this, cruelty is justifiable as a means to maintain a perfect society. Harrison’s murder is live broadcasted on government-regulated television witnessed by his parents: “She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor” (Vonnegut 5). In the span of two sentences, Harrison’s resistance is no more, mirrored by how George promptly forgets what he has witnessed and goes to retrieve a beer. Memory is temporary, and so nothing in society has any purpose, and there is never a change to be brought. History and facts are able to be twisted in favor of Diana’s government. Irony can even be seen in the futility of handicapping, where the handicapped still retain a discernible appearance. The most beautiful ballerina can be found by looking for the one with the heaviest weights or ugliest mask. This forceful equality is achieved by bringing everyone down through elimination of beneficial attributes instead of amelioration of weaknesses, ultimately having no effect as individuality cannot be completely repressed. Again, there is no purpose of the government except to cause harm.

Irony between the two texts is found by examining the respective attitudes toward control. Though Harrison’s world is much more restrictive in thought, people are able to realize their disturbing reality; In “The Lottery,” no one fights against the wicked stoning even when free thought and movement are possible. This distinction between the two communities highlights the dangers of bystander apathy, and especially conveys Harrison’s world as all the more depressing. In “Harrison Bergeron,” George asks Hazel to think about the future but quickly forgets his question: “‘The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?’ If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head” (Vonnegut 2). George contemplates life without handicaps, showing that he is able to reflect on his current state of living and has the possibility to realize his tormented state of living, but cannot remember the idea long enough. The sirens cause him to forget, making it all the more painful to read. Realizing he is shackled, yet is powerless to do anything about it. Tessie also experiences a short moment of clarity, voicing her frustration only when she becomes the next victim. As she yells “‘It isn’t fair, it isn’t right,’ it is far too late (Jackson 7). Her selfishness is established, as she only cares about herself. It is thus reasonable to assume that if someone else was chosen from the box, she would not have yelled the same thing and would have continued on with the stoning. From the moment the black box was placed, her mob-regulated role as a cog in the machine of tradition was solidified.

Harrison and Tessie suffer the same heinous fate, portraying humanity as a hopeless cyclic entity always resorting to savage means to maintain the status quo, especially pertinent to Theranos’s dehumanisation of those who tell the truth. Despite their different levels of conformity, where Harrison escapes his shackles and Tessie silently stands until the very end, the two stories both end in bloodshed. In “The Lottery,” this is the norm and happens annually, and so the repetition of brutality continues each June 27th while Harrison was shot because of his flagrantly rebellious acts. The ends are the same, though the means differ. It is necessary that, in both texts, people died violent and public deaths, to confirm the continuation of each society’s values. These individual demises can be broadened to both stories, where all “dead,” metaphorically. In “Harrison Bergeron,” the deletion of the past makes people soulless, walking around with neither purpose nor rational thinking. Same in “The Lottery,” where it is only a matter of time before a person picks the marked slip of paper. This disregard for human value is illustrated in the real-life example of Theranos’s suppression of the truth. When Tyler Shultz, grandchild of George Shultz, contacted local authorities, concerned about the inaccurate machines and unsanitary conditions of the labs, Theranos lawyers showed up at his house, trying to force him to sign documentation that he was lying. His own grandfather, who was on the board of directors at the time, even believed Elizabeth over him. Shunned from his own family, and berated in public by Elizabeth, Tyler had to endure constant negativity by almost everyone. Elizabeth, much like Diana Moon Glampers, did not care about what methods she had to use, as long as she could maintain the facade of the empire she had built up. Luckily, it all came crumbling down as more evidence surfaced and others came forward, and she now awaits trial in August 2020. A rare instance of positive pack mentality, as it only takes one person to inspire the same drive in others.

Through the prominent irony in both “The Lottery” and “Harrison Bergeron,” an accurate depiction of innate human violence is uncovered. Tessie’s brutal story, compared to the peaceful setting, is Shirly Jackson’s criticism of the ossification of tradition without reflection, while Harrison’s brave selflessness is Kurt Vonnegut’s criticism of total equality and communist ideals, which result in hindrance of momentum due to the absolute control of the handicapping government. In society today, these stories still carry heavy meanings. Though no-one wears collars around their necks filled with lead balls, there are equally as damaging, invisible barriers. People are afraid to voice their opinions due to the potential backlash they may face. Humans are even more afraid to tell the truth, as evidenced by the social injustices that have occurred in the past decade. The censoring of the Rohingya genocide, the Uighur genocide, and even climate change are all examples of history’s repetitious nature, where governments or giant corportations do not want news to get out. Herd mentality supports this, where people feel that they are not capable of change due to the sheer number of individuals against them. As we progress into the future, have we truly made any noteworthy impact? Or are we just sheep in a worldwide herd? Surrounded by daily reminders of the cruelty of our world, hope is hard to find. Conformity is the new currency, and those who are oppressed are often poor in resources, making rebellion more and more difficult to carry out. Silence sweeps us under the waves of corruption, and we are tasked with the impossible: rising up for a breath of untouched air. Silence is consuming, silence is deafening and silence is hypocritical. We must let our voices ring out.

Works Cited

1. Jackson, Shirley. “The Lottery.” The New Yorker. 28 June, 1948. Web. 12 Jan. 2010.
2. Vonnegut, Kurt, Jr. “Harrison Bergeron.” The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. Oct. 1961. Web. 12 Jan. 2010.

An impartial society: Utopia or Hell? What would happen to the world if people were literally equal in every aspect of their lives? In the futuristic short story, Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., the world is finally living up to America’s first amendment of everyone being created equal. In this society, the gifted, strong, and beautiful are required to wear handicaps of earphones, heavy weights, and hideous masks, respectively. Thus, these constraints leave the world equal from brains to brawn to beauty. With the world constantly pushing for equality among people, Vonnegut reveals a world that society is diligently working toward. Through this foreshadowing of the future, Vonnegut attempts to use Diana Moon Glampers and Harrison Bergeron as mechanisms to reveal and warn of the dangers of the two extremes–too equal or too unjust.

Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, symbolically portrays the idea of fairness in society. She is the one in charge of lowering the capacity of a bright and intelligent person to the level of a normal and unaware being. At the beginning of the story, the reader is given a picture of the world that Diana Moon Glampers watches upon:

The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the Amendments to the Constitution, the and vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General. (Vonnegut 234)

Diana Moon Glampers is the one who maintains the idea of ‘checks and balances’ among the society of 2081. In God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, Glampers is portrayed as a ‘sixty-year-old virgin who, by almost anybody’s standards, was too dumb to live. No one had ever loved her. There was no reason why anybody should. She was ugly, stupid, and boring’ (Vit). Diana Moon Glampers is the epitome of every possible low in the world, and this allows her to hold such a high position in this futuristic society. Since everyone is created equal, her ugliness, stupidity, and boringness all play a major role in earning her such a high position as Handicapper General. She makes sure that no one is better than her, thus making everyone equal in ‘every which way’ possible. Glampers represents the fairness that society is continually striving to obtain. In this world, everyone stays at the same level– no one is different, no one is jealous or fearful of anyone, and no one is trying to impress or overtake the next. In this sense, it is actually quite a positive point to be exactly equal in every way, or is it?

Equality is a great idea that the world should extend and embrace; however, absolute equality is another issue in which too much of a good thing may cause matters to go wrong. In a world of absolute equality, each human being would never be looked upon as anything more or less than the person beside him or her. Unfortunately, this advantage may only go so far. For example, how can an intelligent being be given as much credit as the simple-minded human beside him? This is the case with Harrison Bergeron’s parents. Harrison’s mother, Hazel, is described as having ‘perfectly average intelligence, And [while] George[‘s] intelligence was way above normal’ (Vonnegut 234). In order to stabilize their intelligence to the same level, Harrison’s father has to wear a little mental handicap radio in his ear’ (Vonnegut 234). This society’s method in maximizing complete equality is to have intelligent people wear earphones (which give off horrible sounds) to distract their trail of thought, which in turn, may unfairly give them the better advantage over the simple-minded–such as Glampers and Hazel. Diana Moon Glampers symbolizes this world by not only being the one to support these customs but by also shooting down and killing the one who is considered the symbol of freedom and difference–Harrison Bergeron. Through Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General and the murderer of freedom and individuality, Vonnegut is warning society to not lean completely towards being ‘equal in every which way’ or else society loses its chances to excel past what it has become. He satirically suggests that in order for everyone to be equal, the ones who exceed the mark must be brought down to the standard. As a result, there is a loss of exceptional talent and beauty. Moreover, just as Diana Moon Glampers represents the fairness of society, Harrison Bergeron symbolizes individuality in the world.

In a society of excessive equality, Harrison Bergeron is the one who represents uniqueness through his physical and mental characteristics. Harrison is no ordinary being in society. In fact, he is described as a genius, and an athlete, and should be regarded as dangerous. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. Scrap metal [is] hung all over him. he wears [s] at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep[s] his eyebrows shaved off, and cover[s] his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle-tooth random’ (Vonnegut 236). His physical appearance alone would definitely offset him from the rest of the crowd. Just by walking down the street, one could sense his greatness through his excessive handicaps. Furthermore, his mental capacity is great enough to override the annoying sounds that the H-G men create. The reader can obviously see that Harrison has something more to offer, yet his society is binding him down and taking away his individuality: ‘Harrison’s only crime was taking control of the television studio, but his motives outweighed the crime. He was shot for exposing the world to beauty’ (Marton). In this sense, Harrison represents the uniqueness of an individual. He is the one willing to exploit his society and have variation as being a celebration of oneself not a crime, or is this possibly his only motive?

Although Harrison symbolizes the individual, he–just like Diana Moon Glampers–reveals that too much of a good thing may cause matters to go wrong. Harrison reaches freedom and takes it to the extreme. When he takes over the Television studio, he exclaims, ‘I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!’ (Vonnegut 237). Harrison completely takes away equality. He creates this caste system with him and his queen at the top, which is then to be followed by his loyal subjects. His mentality only brings him to a downfall where he literally tries to bring back anarchy. Moreover, Vonnegut tries to warn today’s society of too much inequality. Although differences in brains, beauty, and brawn are a matter that should not be tied down, there needs to be a limit. Vonnegut shows that individuality can be a downfall because humans do tend to become envious and power-hungry. He makes this point in the beginning when Hazel and George were discussing ‘the dark ages�with, everybody, competing against everybody else’ (Vonnegut 235). People need some type of equality so that one will be able to be an individual and remain just as equal as the next.

Vonnegut presents both extremes of equality and inequality and implores society to choose the median. If this median is not met, the world may become Hell. In one corner, there is the equality that Diana Moon Glampers represents–equal in every way possible; in the opposing corner, there is the inequality Harrison Bergeron symbolizes–one king and his many subjects. Both extremes have extremely destructive consequences; one takes away individuality, and the other takes away equality. As the future draws nearer, the only true Utopia that society should strive for is the type of equality that allows and commemorates individuality.

Introduction

The world history and world literature share one thing in common as they both contain stories about heroes and inspirational leaders who make their societies change and evolve. These remarkable individuals have their own ideals and ideas, their specific tools and strategies to achieve their goals, as well as some challenges they have to face. It is possible to trace some of the major similarities and differences between Harrison Bergeron and Malcolm X, who are both often referred to as revolutionaries.

Similarities

First, it is necessary to consider some facts concerning these two figures. Harrison Bergeron was the protagonist of Kurt Vonnegut’s short story by the same name. Harrison was the man who was not afraid to stand up to the existing social order and makes some steps to achieve his major goal, which was to make all people free from burdens that had been imposed by the government (Vonnegut 8). Malcolm X was one of the iconic figures during the Civil Rights Movement who fought for the rights of African Americans in American society (Tyner 2).

Thus, the primary similarity between the two leaders is their intention to change society and make it truly just. Moreover, they both fought for the destruction of various burdens people had to endure. In Harrison’s case, those were actual burdens people had to carry if they were smarter, stronger, or more beautiful, and so on (Vonnegut 7). It is noteworthy that some argue that Harrison fought for true freedom and creativity in the art (Bates).

However, even these people still admit that the political sphere has certain effects on the development of art and culture. In the case of Malcolm X, this leader fought against burdens that prevented African Americans from obtaining proper education, employment, life.

Another similarity is associated with the methods they used. Violence was the tool they had to utilize. Harrison did not kill anybody (at least, this was not mentioned explicitly). However, he interrupted a program and used force to make people do what he wanted. Malcolm X also saw violence as the necessary measure, although he admitted it was the last-resort step in each case (Tyner 99). At that, Malcolm X did not actually use violence in his life, although he committed a crime and was convicted of burglary (Tyner 23). However, his ideas to use “any means necessary” to achieve his goals made many people think that he was inciting African Americans to revolt.

One more similarity is also related to the means of their fight. These two individuals employed mass media (television, to be more precise) to convey their ideas and draw people’s attention. As has been mentioned above, Harrison claimed his power during the program that was broadcast and viewed by millions (Vonnegut 11). Malcolm X often attended radio programs where he expressed his ideas, shared his views, and called for action (Tyner 78). He also participated in numerous activities (marches, meetings, demonstrations, and so on) that appeared on the news.

Finally, Malcolm X and Harrison faced quite similar challenges as one of the biggest obstacles they both had to address people’s indifference or inactivity that was caused by certain unnatural obstacles. In Vonnegut’s short story, the obstacles were specific electronic devices that prevented people from thinking critically or take, as it was believed in the society, to put “unfair advantage of their brains” (Vonnegut 7).

Malcolm X also had to face numerous people’s indifference, but it was caused by bias, prejudice, beliefs, and traditions that existed during that period. White America thought that African Americans were inferior and had to live or rather exist within certain boundaries, while some African Americans (including Malcolm X at some periods of his life) believed in their supremacy over the white race (Tyner 58). Those who could think critically kept silence due to fears, their focus on their own problems, etc.

Difference

However, there is possible to consider a significant difference between the two leaders. This difference is associated with the goals they managed to accomplish. Malcolm X was more successful as he was more active and pragmatic. For instance, Harrison claimed himself to be an emperor, chose his empress, and started enjoying his metaphorical power (Vonnegut 14). He did not make anyone’s life better. He barely affected several people’s lives during a minute or two. Unlike Harrison, Malcolm X inspired thousands and even millions through his talks, preaching, writings, etc. He became a member of some organizations and met numerous politicians and political activists. He actually made a difference and managed to restore justice in some cases helping some African Americans (Tyner 144).

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is possible to note that Harrison and Malcolm X were two leaders who tried to make the world better and their societies truly just. They had to face people’s indifference and inability or unwillingness to understand. They also acknowledged the power of mass media. However, the two leaders’ actions were not the same and had different results. Malcolm X was more pragmatic while Harrison was idealistic and simply claimed his powers instead of trying to actually do something to overthrow the existing government and make people’s lives better.

It is also noteworthy that both Malcolm X and Harrison were killed, which shows their societies’ unpreparedness for change. However, unlike Harrison, Malcolm X contributed to the development of his society as the United States became a better place to live for people of different races and ethnicities.

Works Cited

Bates, Robin. “Liberals Must Reclaim Harrison Bergeron.” Better Living Through Beowulf. 2015. Web.

Tyner, James. The Geography of Malcolm X: Black Radicalism and the Remaking of American Space. Routledge, 2013.

Vonnegut, Kurt. Welcome to the Monkey House: A Collection of Short Works. Dial Press Trade Paperbacks, 2014.

The story Harrison Bergeron, written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., takes place in 2081 in the United States. The story is written in the third person, with the reader getting a glimpse into George Bergeron’s mind. The core subject of equality is established from the outset. Since the novel is satirical, the descriptions of equality deviate from what people often imagine when someone claims they seek justice. Being average meant no one was stronger, more attractive, innovative, or faster than everyone else. In his story, the author discusses the concept of the Tall Poppy Syndrome. The societal phenomenon occurs when people are insulted, demeaned, hated, and condemned by society for their accomplishments or skills. Vonnegut critiques the government in Harrison Bergeron by using indirect characterization, cynicism, and suffering. This is made clear throughout the narrative and will be further evaluated in this analysis.

The narrative implies that complete equality between people is not something to strive for because it is risky and likely to have unintended consequences. The short story showed the creation of an egalitarian society, where everyone is made equal strictly “through cruel, authoritarian means” (Abdul Latiff et al., 2020, p. 27). The equality, mindset, and physicality of a totalitarian regime are the main topics being stated in the very beginning by the phrase, “Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else” (Vonnegut, 1991, p. 1). In this story, the government constructed brutal, mind-controlling technologies that were used against the populace to achieve social, mental, and physical equality.

Hazel, the wife of George Bergeron, is considered ordinary in every respect, including voice, strength, intelligence, and attractiveness. The government wants George to stop thinking about his disabilities, his weight since he is strong, and his ear transmitter because he is astute. Because the government has brainwashed George into believing that if handicaps did not exist, society would revert to the previous eras, and everyone would again be competitive, George believes that handicaps are reasonable, thinking that he is a product of his disabilities, also being unable to focus for a long time. Thus, he is unable even to contemplate what is good or wrong. His disability has, as a result, shaped who he is. Hazel, on the other hand, is the opposite since she has “perfectly average intelligence, which meant she could not think about anything except in short bursts” (Vonnegut, 1991, p. 1). Since they only want average or below-ordinary people, Harrison’s character is seen as a societal threat because he is highly above average, brilliant, and athletic. He has a unique appearance and is charming. He has an arrogant personality and longs for freedom.

Social ties are significant because they show an impermeable link to society that benefits both the community and the individual. Although the citizen may be compelled to give away some of his rights, he receives other valuable benefits from society in exchange. Social connections are thus a type of social contract that ensures the upkeep of the community, the current state of affairs, and the citizen. The removal of Harrison Bergeron’s handicaps serves as a metaphor for someone escaping the constraints of society’s social relationships. People behaving this way are typically classified as criminals, sociopaths, or psychopaths. For his refusal to uphold the forced social ties placed upon him, Harrison Bergeron in the story Harrison Bergeron is branded as a criminal.

Harrison’s dance with the ballerina is to symbolize how the world might be if people were able to express themselves and display their beauty, brilliance, and other physical qualities. “Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while-listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it…And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang! Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well. They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun. They leaped like deer on the moon” (Vonnegut, 1991, p. 4). These few passages highlight this moment’s tremendous and precious when it isn’t suppressed. Harrison’s dance with the ballerina exemplifies unadulterated, ideal freedom. The text is exaggerated and upbeat, describing feats that an average person cannot accomplish. The Handicapper General enters the studio and shoots Harrison and the dancer, which only lasts for a short period until the speed picks up and the tone shifts. The goal of this dance is to demonstrate to everyone how beautiful differences can be. By depicting a charming, beautiful sight rather than the typically harsh tones, the paragraph affects how the story is told. By structuring the scene in a particular way, the author demonstrates to the reader how, despite appearances, no one is truly equal and that a society with perfect equality is not possible. People who experience physical or mental disabilities feel imprisoned and shut away. They are liberated and able to fly once they have been removed.

George and Hazel feel something is wrong after their son is killed and the crime is broadcast on television, but they cannot make sense of it. They are unable to express strong emotions. Because of the state’s social training and the limitations placed on people like George, they lack emotional literacy. In this way, the condition can keep individuals under control. A dystopian nightmare society also exists in Fahrenheit 451. The situation encourages vapid feelings, manipulating individuals by pressing bland lives and ideas. Like Harrison Bergeron, little emotional literacy exists, and most individuals lead meaningless detached lives.

The novel’s first words are, “THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way” (Vonnegut, 1991, p. 1). Even though it may seem like the ideal society or paradise, after reading the entire account, it is clear to the realization that such equality has come at the sacrifice of liberty and individuality. The author clearly sees and depicts the equality system as “something ridiculous” (Oktarini, 2020, p.51).

Harrison Bergeron, a short fictional story by Vonnegut, emphasizes the value of striking a balance between equality, freedom, and individualism. The narrative explains how equality should not be confused with uniformity and warns about the consequences of stifling originality. The advancement of knowledge and technology is one of the themes frequently present here. Although the narrative does not explicitly criticize technology, it highlights the insanity of permitting technology to advance beyond conscious control. A futuristic device is an example of the technique of mental handicapping that George Bergeron must accept – a small cognitive handicap transmitter in his ear. Harrison, his child, must also wear bulky earbuds and unique glasses that impair his eyesight and give him pain. The government’s required physical handicaps are reasonably simple, consisting of canvas sacks filled with lead balls to impair physical abilities and masks to reduce beauty, in contrast to the sophisticated technology employed to harm George and Harrison intellectually. In conclusion, the narrative depicts a dystopia in which the government uses technology to manage its populace.

Works Cited

Abdul Latiff, Muhammad Farid, and Hannah Feisal. “The Poverty of Equality: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Harrison Bergeron”. ResearchGate, vol. 4, 2020, pp. 27-35. Web.

Oktarini, Rahayu. “An Analysis of Irony in Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.”. Journal of English education, vol. 3, no. 1, 2020, pp. 47-55. Web.

Vonnegut, Kurt Jr. Harrison Bergeron. Alphascript Publishing, 1961.