In society, we are lowering our standards to accommodate the lowest common denominator. We promote mediocrity in order to give those who are less able and talented the chance to succeed rather than promote a policy of improvement and progress. In such a society, the ambition to take initiative and improve oneself disappears, and life becomes stagnate and complacent. Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s short story "Harrison Bergeron" demonstrates such a society. The talented are forced to suppress their, the beautiful are made to mask their beauty, and the exceptional are crippled in order to hide that which makes them exceptional.
"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal in every which was" (1). This how "society" is in the story. Apparently, perfect. But the idea is not original. It has been promoted before, in the form of communism. As it is plain to see, the idea just does not work. Without any possibility of social and economic advancement, there is no cause to take initiative and improve. No matter how hard you work, you'll always be paid the same amount. There's no reward for the extraordinary, and those who attempt to advance are pushed back down, and those who wish to express new ideas are brutally and often violently suppressed.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. takes even this a step further. His use of the future allows for the ideas he expresses to become actual possibilities, for who can know what the future actually holds for us? Suddenly, the means of control that he alludes to may actually exist. For example, take George Bergeron. His is an impressive intellect, but because of the constraints placed upon him he cannot but think on the same level as those such as his wife, those who set the lowest standard for intelligence. George has the potential to exceed in his life, but he cannot move beyond the level that society has decided for him.
Harrison Bergeron personifies the ideals that his society lacks: ambition, excellence, perfection, advancement, individuality. When the news report refers to Harrison, the announcer calls him a "genius and athlete" and deems him "under-handicapped" (42). Just the fact that they feel the need to emphasize these things tells the reader how uncommon such attributes really are.
Harrison's claim of emperor may seem to us to be an almost tyrannical thing, something to be frowned upon. But in a reality of the mediocre and unexceptional, the ambitious and talented may rule. It brings to mind the old saying: "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king." In this light, Harrison's claim to power is not uncalled for, for he is truly exceptional, and has the audacity and the mettle to make that claim in a society where such competition is thought of with revulsion and fear.
This is present in our society today, albeit in a less intense way. It is readily seen in the media. Shows such as Jerry Springer and Maury, shows on which the pain, sadness, humiliation, and real troubles of others are used merely for entertainment, appeal to what is known as the lowest common denominator. Reality TV, that bane of intellectuals, seems to some to reach even past the level of the lowest common denominator. Affirmative action calls for the promotion of hiring merely based on race or religion, rather than the merit of talents. In this way the truly competent are ignored in favor of the less qualified but more diverse.
Humans are not replaceable. No one can be easily exchanged for another. We are not equal. Our very nature calls for us to be competitive, to survive using our talents. We're more than carbon and chemicals. That's a line from a song by Thrice, calling for the uprising of the individual. I've been listening to it while writing this piece, and it seems to be the soundtrack of "Harrison Bergeron." I think it'll be nice way to close. Here are the lyrics to "Image of the Invisible," by Thrice. (679)
We're more than carbon,
And chemicals.
We are the image of the invisible.
Free will is our's and,
We can't let go.
We are the image of the invisible.
We can't allow this,
The quiet cull.
We are the image of the invisible.
So we sing out this,
Our canticle.
We are the image of the invisible.
We all were lost now we are found.
No one can stop us or slow us down.
We all are named and we are known.
We know that we'll never walk alone.
We're more than static,
And dial tone.
We are the image of the invisble.
We're emblematic,
Of the unknown.
We are the image of the invisible.
So raise the banner,
Bend back your bows.
We are the image of the invisible.
Remove the cancer,
Take back your souls.
We are the image of the invisible.
We all were lost now we are found.
No one can stop us or slow us down.
We all are named and we are known.
We know that we'll never walk alone.
Though all the world may hate us,
We are named.
Though shadow overtake us,
We are known.
We're more than carbon,
And chemicals.
Free will is our's and,
We can't let go.
We are the image of the invisible.
We're more than carbon,
And chemicals.
We are the image of the invisible.
Free will is our's and,
We can't let go.
We are the image of the invisible.
We can't allow this,
The quiet cull.
We are the image of the invisible.
So we sing out this,
Our canticle.
We are the image of the invisible.
We all were lost now we are found.
No one can stop us or slow us down.
We all are named and we are known.
We know that we'll never walk alone.
We all were lost now we are found.
No one can stop us or slow us down.
We all are named and we are known.
We know that we'll never walk alone.
Raise up the banner,
Bend back your bows,
Remove the cancer,
Take back your souls...
(1030)
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Am I Sammy?
I first read John Updike's "A&P" about a year ago, in Ms. G's writing class. We read it as an example of description, and focused mainly on Sammy's description of Queenie. We concluded that while his description seems a little odd and creepy--not focusing on the parts one would normally describe--it was well-written and well-executed.
With this backround in mind, I sat down to read the story thinking that I wouldn't need to pay much attention, having read the important part already. But as I reread it I came to a slightly shocking discovery: Sammy and I are very similar in our thought process. Very similar, in fact. This shocked and astounded me, for I was of the impression that Sammy was lewd, perverted, and a chauvinistic pig. Then I realized I was describing myself.
I kid, I kid. That's not how I am. But still, the fact remains that Sammy and I are more alike than I had thought. Let me explain.
From the outset of the story Sammy displays certain attitudes and views about the people around him and his surroundings. He calls the customers in the store "sheep" (2) and paints a picture of them as dull, uninteresting, conformist, and orthodox. He says, "I bet you could set off dynamite in a A&P and the people would by and large keep reaching...." (5). And the reactions of the sheep at the sight of three scantily clad girls walking down the aisle is to look at them, do a double take, then pretend nothings out of the ordinary. This is the reaction I would normally expect out of a modern orthodox priest or an Islamic fanatic, not from everyday people. Sammy notes all of these reactions, and files it all under the term "sheep" that he has given to the populous in general.
Throughout the whole story, Sammy is contemptuous of the sheep, in his interactions with the witch at the checkout and his description of the "old party in baggy gray pants" (11). He even seems disdainful of his friend Stokesie, thinking, "Stokesie's married, with two babies chalked up on his fuselage already" (8). This statement connotes the feeling that Stokesie's already over the hill, so to speak, even though he's only three years older than Sammy.
I listen to Rage Against The Machine and System Of A Down. Need I say more? If I do, RATM is well known as an anti-conformist group and for their unconventional ideals, and SOAD no less so. I try not to move with the flow, to be different, but that can difficult sometimes, as Sammy would agree.
Sammy finds himself in a difficult position. From what Lengel suggests, Sammy and his family need this job, and the only way for Sammy to keep it is to conform to the ideals of Lengel. So Sammy is confronted with the unenviable choice between the job he needs, and the ideals he holds. It seems as though Sammy already recoils at the idea of working at the A&P, otherwise he wouldn't have been so quick to quit the jobs, with not a thought as to the consequences until after the action. And he's right when he says, "it seems to me that once you begin a gesture it's fatal no to go through with it." Once you decide to be different, to be a nonconformist, it becomes difficult to go mainstream, as is often seen in the music industry. Once you become a sell-out, few people who knew of you before the mainstreaming will respect you.
Some people think that Sammy only quit because he wanted to impress Queenie. There's some truth to this, I won't deny that. However, even if this is the case, so what? The three girls, Queenie especially, expected to attract the attention of men, and that's why they dressed as they did. But even if Sammy quits because of the girls, does that not also say something good of his character? He sees a woman embarrassed, and he decides to stick up for her, to show Lengel what he thought of his treatment of her. My father raised me to never hit a lady, under any circumstances, to always open the door for a lady, and to never treat them badly. Just the thought of a man abusing a woman infuriates me, and I dislike Lengel's lack of tact when it comes to Queenie. I think, in a similar situation, I would have acted in a very similar way.
So what have we learned? We've learned that David thinks of himself as a nonconformist, and that he likes RATM and SOAD, and now you know two more acronyms for bands you might not even listen to. Hasn't this been a productive time? (796)
With this backround in mind, I sat down to read the story thinking that I wouldn't need to pay much attention, having read the important part already. But as I reread it I came to a slightly shocking discovery: Sammy and I are very similar in our thought process. Very similar, in fact. This shocked and astounded me, for I was of the impression that Sammy was lewd, perverted, and a chauvinistic pig. Then I realized I was describing myself.
I kid, I kid. That's not how I am. But still, the fact remains that Sammy and I are more alike than I had thought. Let me explain.
From the outset of the story Sammy displays certain attitudes and views about the people around him and his surroundings. He calls the customers in the store "sheep" (2) and paints a picture of them as dull, uninteresting, conformist, and orthodox. He says, "I bet you could set off dynamite in a A&P and the people would by and large keep reaching...." (5). And the reactions of the sheep at the sight of three scantily clad girls walking down the aisle is to look at them, do a double take, then pretend nothings out of the ordinary. This is the reaction I would normally expect out of a modern orthodox priest or an Islamic fanatic, not from everyday people. Sammy notes all of these reactions, and files it all under the term "sheep" that he has given to the populous in general.
Throughout the whole story, Sammy is contemptuous of the sheep, in his interactions with the witch at the checkout and his description of the "old party in baggy gray pants" (11). He even seems disdainful of his friend Stokesie, thinking, "Stokesie's married, with two babies chalked up on his fuselage already" (8). This statement connotes the feeling that Stokesie's already over the hill, so to speak, even though he's only three years older than Sammy.
I listen to Rage Against The Machine and System Of A Down. Need I say more? If I do, RATM is well known as an anti-conformist group and for their unconventional ideals, and SOAD no less so. I try not to move with the flow, to be different, but that can difficult sometimes, as Sammy would agree.
Sammy finds himself in a difficult position. From what Lengel suggests, Sammy and his family need this job, and the only way for Sammy to keep it is to conform to the ideals of Lengel. So Sammy is confronted with the unenviable choice between the job he needs, and the ideals he holds. It seems as though Sammy already recoils at the idea of working at the A&P, otherwise he wouldn't have been so quick to quit the jobs, with not a thought as to the consequences until after the action. And he's right when he says, "it seems to me that once you begin a gesture it's fatal no to go through with it." Once you decide to be different, to be a nonconformist, it becomes difficult to go mainstream, as is often seen in the music industry. Once you become a sell-out, few people who knew of you before the mainstreaming will respect you.
Some people think that Sammy only quit because he wanted to impress Queenie. There's some truth to this, I won't deny that. However, even if this is the case, so what? The three girls, Queenie especially, expected to attract the attention of men, and that's why they dressed as they did. But even if Sammy quits because of the girls, does that not also say something good of his character? He sees a woman embarrassed, and he decides to stick up for her, to show Lengel what he thought of his treatment of her. My father raised me to never hit a lady, under any circumstances, to always open the door for a lady, and to never treat them badly. Just the thought of a man abusing a woman infuriates me, and I dislike Lengel's lack of tact when it comes to Queenie. I think, in a similar situation, I would have acted in a very similar way.
So what have we learned? We've learned that David thinks of himself as a nonconformist, and that he likes RATM and SOAD, and now you know two more acronyms for bands you might not even listen to. Hasn't this been a productive time? (796)
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Thoughts on Everyday Use
I would just like to first point out that I did not write this when it says I did, but rather wrote it earlier and didn't get around to submitting it. So I did not procrastinate and put this off in favor of conversing with the opposite sex. I am not doing this last minute. Are we clear? Good. Now I can get started.
I find it interesting that in "Everyday Use," there is quite a bit of sly irony. Dee comes to visit after a long absence, and Mama recalls how Dee always hated her life at home, to the point that she once set fire to the house, nearly killing her sister and scarring her for life. And then she goes off to school, with the money that Mama raised for her. But you probably already know all this, so I'll stop summarizing.
When Dee returns home, she is educated and appreciative of the family heirlooms, but at the same is incredibly selfish, patronizing, and rude. She claims to have a greater appreciation for the heirlooms than the rest of her family, yet she acts like a tourist, taking pictures of her family and her house, the same house that she once tried to burn to the ground. She is commodifying the objects of her family, valuing them only now that she knows they have value, rather than for their familial history. She represents a materialistic, complex, and modern way of life where culture and heritage are to be valued only for their “trendy-ness” and aesthetic appeal.
To Dee, heritage is the past - something to frame or hang on the wall, a mere artistic, aesthetic reminder of her family history. In contrast, Alice Walker emphasizes that a people's heritage needs to be a living, dynamic part of the culture from which it arose and not a frozen timepiece only to be observed from a distance (I like that sentence). It is ironic that the ones that appreciate and agree with this philosophy are the ones with little education in the ways of history, rather than Dee, who has such an education. The way the story is set, it is very clear that Mama shares Alice Walker's philosophy. To Mama, her culture and history is a way of life, whereas Dee's idea of culture entails mostly material goods.
This also becomes clear when Dee informs Mama that she has changed her name, claiming, "I couldn’t stand it anymore, being named after the people that oppress me.” Mama points out that Dee was named for her aunt, who was named for her grandmother. While the name "Dee" might not be African in origin, as Wangero Leewanika Kemanjo appears to be, it holds with the idea of honoring your ancestors, heritage, and family history, rather than picking and choosing which bits you do or don't want.
When Dee declared her admiration and desire for the quilts, deeming them priceless, Mama recalls offering
Dee a quilt to take to the university, and Dee turning her down, saying the quilts were old fashioned and out of style. But now that they appear to be priceless, Dee can't live without them (clearly an exaggeration, in case you were a little confused).
This story helps to demonstrate a problems that occurs often. People try so hard to show that they're cultured that they take objects of their culture, frame it, and put it on a wall. Alice Walker is trying to show the reader that that's not always the best option. Items have history and meaning because they have been used and appreciated, not just looked at and used as a centerpiece to impress your friends (622).
I find it interesting that in "Everyday Use," there is quite a bit of sly irony. Dee comes to visit after a long absence, and Mama recalls how Dee always hated her life at home, to the point that she once set fire to the house, nearly killing her sister and scarring her for life. And then she goes off to school, with the money that Mama raised for her. But you probably already know all this, so I'll stop summarizing.
When Dee returns home, she is educated and appreciative of the family heirlooms, but at the same is incredibly selfish, patronizing, and rude. She claims to have a greater appreciation for the heirlooms than the rest of her family, yet she acts like a tourist, taking pictures of her family and her house, the same house that she once tried to burn to the ground. She is commodifying the objects of her family, valuing them only now that she knows they have value, rather than for their familial history. She represents a materialistic, complex, and modern way of life where culture and heritage are to be valued only for their “trendy-ness” and aesthetic appeal.
To Dee, heritage is the past - something to frame or hang on the wall, a mere artistic, aesthetic reminder of her family history. In contrast, Alice Walker emphasizes that a people's heritage needs to be a living, dynamic part of the culture from which it arose and not a frozen timepiece only to be observed from a distance (I like that sentence). It is ironic that the ones that appreciate and agree with this philosophy are the ones with little education in the ways of history, rather than Dee, who has such an education. The way the story is set, it is very clear that Mama shares Alice Walker's philosophy. To Mama, her culture and history is a way of life, whereas Dee's idea of culture entails mostly material goods.
This also becomes clear when Dee informs Mama that she has changed her name, claiming, "I couldn’t stand it anymore, being named after the people that oppress me.” Mama points out that Dee was named for her aunt, who was named for her grandmother. While the name "Dee" might not be African in origin, as Wangero Leewanika Kemanjo appears to be, it holds with the idea of honoring your ancestors, heritage, and family history, rather than picking and choosing which bits you do or don't want.
When Dee declared her admiration and desire for the quilts, deeming them priceless, Mama recalls offering
Dee a quilt to take to the university, and Dee turning her down, saying the quilts were old fashioned and out of style. But now that they appear to be priceless, Dee can't live without them (clearly an exaggeration, in case you were a little confused).
This story helps to demonstrate a problems that occurs often. People try so hard to show that they're cultured that they take objects of their culture, frame it, and put it on a wall. Alice Walker is trying to show the reader that that's not always the best option. Items have history and meaning because they have been used and appreciated, not just looked at and used as a centerpiece to impress your friends (622).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
