A Literary Analysis of Harrison Bergeron PDF

Preview

Summary

notes...

Description

Rachel Flick Mr. Adams September 21, 2019 ENG1302

Literary Analysis

Is phony equality better than no equality? Who can define what normal really is? Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. explores these ideas in his story. Some believe it to be a straightforward story, with the individual oppressed and eventually crushed by the collective. Others believe it to be a satire on exactly that sort of story, with a ludicrously overpowered hero and an equally ludicrous dystopian govt. everyone was equal, the world would not flourish. In this essay, I will explain why being equal will lead us in the wrong direction (in accordance to the story), and finally, I will touch on why this would hinder growth of the world. In the first paragraph of his story, Vonnegut indicates that the year is 2081. He says that everyone is equal because of the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and of the Handicapper General. What he’s really telling us here, is that a society has reached equality in a time not very far from our own, and that we made a bunch of laws to do it. Is this really equality? The conflict internally are the handicappers on George makes his skills worse, the headset he wears blares noises into his ears to disperse his thoughts and make him have an average intelligence, or the weights around his neck make him weak. This is more like a

dictatorship than something to be happy about. The people here really could care less if they were all equal. Most of them are mentally impaired or have been handicapped so that they can’t keep a straight line of thought. All they can process is that they’re as good as anybody else, but they don’t have the mental compacity to question why or how they got to this point. Anyone who tries to change the system is killed. Is keeping people from taking fair advantage of their own brains striving to reach true equality? People such as Harrison who are ‘under-handicapped’ are considered dangerous! And why? Because those people can push past the boundary’s society has dictated to them. George says, “The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?” And Hazel responds, “Reckon it’d fall apart.” But take this into consideration: Just because a law is in place (or a government for that matter) doesn’t make it a particularly good one just by default. People are held back from their full potential; from what they can truly become. These circumstances do not create an ideal society. Such measures would hinder the growth of the world. This wouldn’t just affect the individual, because without new ideas, society would stop advancing. Technology would essentially stay the same, and the only research done would be by the government. Essentially, by having this kind of superficial equality, no one would flourish, and everything would always stay the same. If everyone is the same, no one stands out, and no new ideas are presented. Society is stunted. The world grows and changes because everyone has different qualities and skills. We can’t take that away. In conclusion, because Harrison Bergeron defied his horrible government, he was killed. We need to strive for a greater equality than that. A fake equality is no better than discrimination. In order to prevent society from declining, we must never resort to purposely handicapping. The author does not like the thought of complete equality, and to make his point

he shows a cynical outlook on the story. He wants the people to see how being equal is not achieved in this society because some people are not able to use their abilities and are restricted. His critical sense and tone make the reader see the bad side of an equal society....