"Harrison Bergeron" Response

In Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron", the world is finally equal. In this egalitarian society, though, is a man who stands up to stand out. He is Harrison Bergeron, and he is coming to a television studio near you, whether you like it or not. As in many short stories, this one attempts to make it's commentary clear, effective, and quick. Vonnegut's short story is no exception.

Early on, it can be deciphered that Vonnegut has a point to make in his little tale of an equal world where handicaps are placed on those who think to much, masks on those too pretty, and weights on those too strong. Just by reading these observations of the handicapped, what Vonnegut is satirizing is very obvious, the dumbing down of American society. He's attacking the idea of making everyone equal, that no one is smarter, prettier, or athletic than anyone else, even if that means we have to lower the bar for everyone. He's commenting on this because he is against the idea that instead of making everything more challenging and harder to reach, that we should "dumb" everything down, this way more people can reach their goals and meet the standards of society. After reading Harrison Bergeron, it's safe to say that Vonnegut must have hated the recent No Child Left Behind program and the standardized tests that came shortly before his death.

Vonnegut gives a glimpse of the government's controlling of equality through the character Diana Moon Glampers. Diana, the nation's Handicapper General, in charge of keeping everyone equal under the law, is talked about by the Bergerons very briefly and seen on television at an equally brief rate whilst killing Harrison Bergeron with a shotgun blast. And while her characterization isn't very realistic, she need not be, for she is merely a representation of the dumbing down of society, a symbol more than anything. With her shotgun blast being her means of keeping things in check.

While the story is unique by itself, what makes "Harrison Bergeron" even more interesting is the fact that it doesn't focus on Harrison Bergeron or tell the story from his point of view. Instead, the story is told in third person and focuses on Bergeron's parents, George and Hazel. By doing this, Vonnegut is able to show us just how much the government has affected society and effectively handicapped the citizens. In showing George's pain from his ear transmitter to keep him from thinking and saying anything than what a 4th grader could conjure up and describing George and Hazel's fragmented conversations and limited vocabulary and depth, Vonnegut is more able to convey the strains put on the average citizens due to these governmental handicaps than if it were seen through Harrison's eyes only.

What could have been a simple commentary piece is given a unique touch thanks to Vonnegut's insight, and thank God for that.

The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas Response

Okay, if this doesn't remind me of "The Lottery" then nothing does. First, the story is set up to make the town being described, Omelas, seem completely fine and dandy like sour candy. Sure there's that eerie feeling that not everything is right, but there's nothing explicit to indicate that. Oh wait, nevermind, there's the Shyamalanian plot twist. In this story's case, the town full of happiness is only happy because of their irrational belief that if they keep a young boy held in a small room and make him suffer completely, the town as a whole will prosper. Overall, the reading was heavy on details in the first half, and by the time it began to pick up, it was over and I was left not necessarily wanting more.

In trying to find similarities to this and Orwell's 1984, I kept coming up short of a connection. My mind kept wandering toward Huxley's Brave New World. In Omelas descriptions, it speaks of a place of complete happiness, where "drooz" can be taken to be even happier, where sex is normal and frequent and random. Both have their dark sides to their externally pleasant societies. Omelas has the poor boy in the filthy room and Brave New World has its questionable ethics as to its advancements in science and civilization stability.

This entire piece is a buildup to its climactic conclusion about the boy in the room, meaning that everything before this revelation is an atmosphere of uneasiness and an increasing feeling of "what's around the corner?" This feeling can be very effective in many works, especially if what is found around the corner proves to be uniquely surprising. While Omelas had that anticipatory vibe, it's payoff wasn't exactly memorable, to me at least. From what I can take, the story's theme touches upon whether one's actions or suffering contributes to the group as a whole.

And now for the Socratic Seminar Questions...

1. What makes this story so effective? Ineffective?
2. How would you react to seeing the little boy in the room?
3. If the town really is as happy and prosperous as it claims, does that mean juvenile torture really is a sufficient way to increase the quality of your town?
4. If so many people know of the town's horrible secret, why haven't state police stepped in?
5. Where do superstitions like this come from?

7 Guiding Questions for "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us"

Here is a compiled list of questions that should hopefully guide the class discussion on this reading.

1. What were your reactions to the possibility of a continuous nano self-replication that ultimately destroys all species on Earth?
2. What are some positive uses not mentioned in the article that you believe nanotechnology could be used for? Negative uses?
3. Oppenheimer believed that the good of beating the Nazi's to the atomic weapon outweighed the dangers that came with the creation of it. Do you feel the same way about nanotechnology?
4. Do you agree with any of the Luddites' fears about present and future techonology? Why or why not?
5. Do you think warnings like this article would have stopped the development of robotics in Isaac Asimov's works?
6. If given the opportunity to improve your life with the use of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics, would you take adavantage of these? Would you undergo a procedure to rid the genes in you that can cause Alzheimer's? Have an injection of nanobots to remove possible cysts or cancerous growths? Live with the assistance of a robot you name Jeeves?
7. What do you see as the biggest ethical dillemma that comes with these life-changing advancements in technology?
8. BONUS: If robots do end up taking over Humans in the future, why haven't we gone back in time to stop this mess by killing the creators of the robots/nanotech à la Terminator 2?

Let's hope these questions are thought-provoking.