Critical Introduction

DECONSTRUCTION

“Deconstructing the Scary Truth of "Harrison Bergeron’s" Idea of Freedom” is a deconstructionist analysis on the short story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. In the analysis I dig past the text to find out the scary truth that Vonnegut hid from us. That scary truth being what is true freedom. To us when we think of freedom we think of no one controlling our lives except "Harrison Bergeron" shows us that we are actually being controlled by an unseen force and that the truest freedom is something we hate to admit true. What is it? Well through careful analysis of flipping tables and heads I have come to the final conclusion that it the answer is everything has to have an end for true freedom.

NEW CRITICISM

Kurt Vonnegut was an American writer born and raised in Indianapolis. He was a writer of the short story “Harrison Bergeron” which appeared in the magazine of fantasy and science fiction in 1961. The main theme of the short story is the equality in America is not good or beneficial for the country. The story takes place in the future, the year of 2081, where technology helps to impel the stronger, the smart ones, the better good looking to be equal to those who are the opposite. The number of events that happen are really unrealistic leads readers to believe is a satire short story. The exaggerations in the short story helps to identify the short story unreal. Therefore, “Harrison Bergeron” is a satire short story in a fantasy mode. The satire story involves in the Bergeron family, George and Hazel had a son which his name is Harrison. Harrison is the protagonist of the story, as the story develops readers learned how unreal he is. First, he is seven feet tall, something very but very unusual for a fourteen-year-old boy. The antagonist of the story is Dianna Moon Glampers, the handicapper General. She ends the life of Harrison while he was in midair floating. To back my thesis, I use the scholar article “The Politics of Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron” by Darryl Hattenhauer” she states that “the theme of this satire is the attempts to archive equality are absurd.” This article helped understand and comprehend the short story better. The narrator is unreliable but readers do not notice until the end, that’s where part of the irony is in the short story. In the end the family suffers even though according to the government they are “equal to their eyes.” However, is clear is not the case. The tensions I found using new criticism by doing a close reading lead to believe the short story is satire. The unreal and exaggerated amount of event lead me to believe the text is speaking to me in this tone.

READER RESPONSE

“Hi, I’m Harrison Bergeron: Subjective Reader Response to ‘Harrison Bergeron’” is a reader-response exploration of how artistic individuals are being academically, professionally, and personally “handicapped” in an eerily similar way to the titular character of Vonnegut’s satirical short story. Through personal anecdotes, situational evidence, and the voices of prominent scholars, “Hi, I’m Harrison Bergeron” illustrates how creativity and intelligence are treated as “mutually exclusive” and the former is oppressed while the latter is rewarded. By comparing the experiences of real-world artists to the characters and events in “Harrison Bergeron,” the piece seeks to inform from the unique perspective of creative individuals and to persuade its readers that any too-narrow definition of equality will create outliers who are punished for failing to fit the mold—much like Harrison himself.

NEW HISTORICAL

"This Year, We Are Equal," is an analysis of Kurt Vonnegut’s "Harrison Bergeron." Using the lens of new historical criticism, it finds parallels between Kurt Vonnegut’s past, the wartime Vonnegut’s short story was written and communist ideas believed by the USSR, and the ever debated topic of achieving true equality in society. This story, then, proceeds to challenge how the standard definition of equality does not hold true in a realistic setting, and how we must focus on, instead, accepting diversity, eliminating prejudice, and finding ways to create an equally fair sense of living by catering to the needs of the individual.