Talk:Harrison Bergeron/Archive 1

Archive 1

Movie page?

Should there be a separate page for the Sean Aston movie of the same name that was based upon the short story? The movie is VERY different from the actual story, and only has two or so scenes from the story itself.

I would favour instead trimming the very detailed description of the plot right down. If someone wants that much detail, they can read the story. In my view, this reads like a high school book report, not an encyclopedia article. It is in the nature of Wikipedia that people visit and add stuff until articles become overburdened with useless trivia. I propose this as a starting point:

The title character has exceptional intelligence, height, strength and beauty. As a result he has to bear enormous handicaps. These include distracting noise, three hundred of excess weight, eyeglasses to give him headaches, and cosmetic changes to make him ugly. Despite this he is able to invade a TV station and declare himself emperor. As he dances with a ballerina whose handicaps he has also discarded, both are shot dead by the Handicapper General. Added poignancy is created by the framing story in which Bergeron's parents are watching the TV, but cannot concentrate or remember the incident.

Notinasnaid 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No takers? Ok, done. Notinasnaid 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I signed up as a result of the original article. I'm very happy with your edit. It's concise and represents a great glimpse of the actual story. Personal and sociopolitical interpretation remains with the reader. Well done, and thanks. ×Naturopathetic 19:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Going to look for usable link re: Incredibles

I've run across various blogs that point out what I noticed on my own, which is that the movie The Incredibles shares certain themes. I'll be looking for reliable sources to quote on that one. Lawikitejana 12:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Article

I Just Read This Article [1], Which Reminded Me Of This Story. Maybe This Article Should Be Mentioned Here?--GorillazFan Adam 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Movie Correction

It states here that in the movie Harrison kills himself before the guards break in, but what actually happens in the movie is that the General orders that he isn't killed. Harrison is ordered to apologise on television and swear it was an act, and while doing so he breaks from his orders and tells the camera that it was all true, before shooting himself on air.

I can't think of the right words to put into the actual article, but someone might.

MaddenedMan (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate synopsis

Anyone reading this would be under the mistaken impression that the story focuses on Harrison; in spite of the title it doesn't, it focuses on his parents. A more helpful synopsis would start off sequentially with his parents watching tv, describe the handicaps as we become aware of them, then the climax with harrison, and then the sad fact of them not remembering it. 80.69.30.17 (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

A plot to a manga is mentioned, saying it has a very strong resemblance to this story. The link on "very strong resemblance" takes you to plagiarism. Maybe remove that link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.137 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Satire?

I read a claim that the story was actually meant to be a caricature of right-wing fears of Communist rule, but backfired, as it read a lot like 1984. Has anybody heard anything like that from a more reliable source? --129.7.240.199 (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct, Vonnegut said so himself but I don't have a source for that (possibly in his book Timequake??). It's a very important aspect of the story so should definitely be included in the article, if anyone can find a source! 98.247.242.54 (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The Hattenhauer article does just that. It also discusses why impossible things (e.g., defying gravity) take place near the end of the story. Unfortunately, the Wik article doesn't mention these things.10:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

See note below in Editor Bias for more on the Hattenhauer article and the complex satire of HB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.35.39 (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Parallels with The Sirens of Titan

I've added this section in, I feel it to be fairly important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.16.135 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are adding works that are parallel to this, shouldn't we include Thomas Moore's Utopia? After all, the whole concept of achieving equality through limiting ability was taken from Utopia...Sheriffjt (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to edit the main article, I'll leave that for someone else, but it's not true that there are no handicaps on intelligence mentioned in Sirens of Titan. The father in the story is made to wear a radio transmitter over one ear that emits a shrill sound at short intervals in order to break his concentration and interrupt his thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.28.147 (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood Movie

Most of the text in the section about the 2009 Hollywood movie is copied from the synopsis of the book just a paragraph or two above it. Probably unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.137.194 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Armie Hammer is the great-grandson of longtime American Communist and late chairman of Occidental Petroleum, Inc., Dr. Armand Hammer. 206.180.134.46 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

See Also: Flowers For Algernon?

It seems to me that the theme of Harrison Bergeron is similar (though not exactly equivalent) to that of Daniel Keyes' Flowers For Algernon (in which a moron becomes a genius through drug treatment, which unfortunately eventually wears off).

Is this similarity close enough to warrant a mention on this page? Korax1214 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding, dude. The link between Flowers for Algernon and Harrison Bergeron is the series of statements when the Xtacles misunderstand one another in the Frisky Dingo episode "Flowers for Nearl". That is the only link between them. Of course, your comment was posted a few weeks after that episode came out, because before that episode of Frisky Dingo, so one would every have linked these two works. They were only linked in that cartoon because they sounded alike. Just iTunes that episode and all of your questions will be answered. And no- there is no reason to mention "similarity" here because there is no similarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.220.167 (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than the above reply, I've never heard of Frisky Dingo. And I don't see how anyone can claim that there's "no" similarity between these two stories, when in fact there's quite a lot of similarity; how is there "no similarity" between a story where a moron is artifically boosted to genius level (Flowers) and this story, where everybody is artificially dragged down to moron level? -- Korax1214 (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the fact that the post to which I was replying was not only made by an anonymous IP user, but one who didn't even bother to sign his post, probably says it all about the "accuracy" and "reliability" of said post. -- Korax1214 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While listening to the endless discussions about the upcoming election I was slowly making the connection between Obama’s promises and Harrison Bergeron. I reference an article where Obama made reference to sharing pizza. Has anyone else seen the similarities? 139.67.20.68 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No. -- spaceboss 15:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Appropriate Measures"

The 2006 short film referenced in the article has an uncited Vonnegut quote: "I am glad to see the appropriate measures taken with my story."

Knowing Vonnegut, this does not sound like praise. It sounds like a subtle euphemism for a mercy killing.--Spaceboss (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Licensing?

Is this story in the public domain? I don't think we can link to an unauthorized copy of the story if it's still copyrighted. -Branddobbe 07:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, and I removed it. Notinasnaid 10:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree, and I put it back in. It's not true that we can't link to what might be a copyright violation. The whole web would shut down if that were the case. —Chowbok 16:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How can an article have hundreds of edits and still be this bad? Ltbarcly 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a great article, but I can't agree that your rewrite was better. In particular (1) you removed a spoiler warning (2) you removed a relevant external link (3) your rewrite significantly increased the use of fair use quotes from the story, I think beyond a sustainable level (4) you removed italics from the formatting of quotes, so that it just looks like a misplaced paragraph. So, thank you for your work, but I feel I need to revert it. Notinasnaid 07:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This item is in the Public Domain as it was published first in a magazine during its first copyright term which was pre-autorenewal era (1961). It was not renewed and hence has moved into the Public Domain due to lack of proper renewal.66.195.42.6 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf

References

Editor Bias

Whoever edited this article seems to be a little biased toward his own opinons in the character descriptions. Don't get me wrong, if you have a source citing these examples then that's fine. Just wondering if anyone wanted to change this.

Yes, I agree that there is a heavy bias in the presentation of HB as being a straightforward satire the message of which is "watch out for Communism." Others have noted (still waiting for a citation?) that it may have been a satire the message of which is "watch out for those who would say 'watch out for Communism.'" At the very least, it would seem wise to present this as a consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.35.39 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick search finds an article by Darryl Hattenhauer in Literary Criticism (Fall98, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p387, 6p) which suggests that the Wikipedia article has completely missed the point of Harrison Bergeron. Hattenhauer notes that reading HB as a criticism of Communism would mean that this piece goes against the rest of Vonnegut's oeuvre, which would be strange. Rather, Hattenhauer notes that this is a parody of the picture, really more of a caricature, that Americans have of Communism. Would be a shame to lose this subtlety. Hattenhauer writes: "The narrator continues to give not a possible egalitarianism of the future (because, as will be noted, the text's version is physically impossible) but rather an enactment of how absurd society would be if egalitarianism were what America's dominant culture thinks it is." And further, "So this story satirizes not just mistaken notions of equality. It also satirizes the American definition of freedom as the greatest good to the smallest number. The American myth is that only in a class society can everyone have an equal chance for achieving the greatest economic inequality." I'll check back to see if anything has been done. If not, maybe it is best to leave it be in order to re-emphasize the deeply layered irony. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.35.39 (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to rewrite the Motifs and critique section entirely to match what Vonnegut himself (obviously) intended, and for instance Hattenhauer's analysis in the External links. As it stands, this article reflects only the ideological, intentional misreading of the story, which sadly is the way a lot of American high school kids are taught it. I think the John Stossel/FOX News interpretation ought to be removed from the article, or else explained clearly in its political context—it is a very political story after all. But yeah this article needs some major changes. Planetjanet (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read and re-read some of the literary criticism cited as well as the original text and Vonnegut's scant public interpretation. So far as I can determine, the fantastical elements at the end of the story do not seem to be intended as caricature. Is that interpretation so necessary and reliable that it warrants inclusion in the summary of the story? Is it not sufficient to reduce the initial description of the story and its significance to a bare outline and include various interpretations and literary critiques within later portions of the article?Voodooengineer (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

analysis section (critical review)?

perhaps, there could be some analysis section. something like "what message did the artist convey in his piece". if someone could dig out something about that. it is strucking how the tone of the story differs from the (mostly) fist person narrator/hero ironic lamentation, so typical to Vonneguts most known pieces. even though the sirens of titan that fit better that line was published a year or two before this one.

what seems to me a weak point (eg: oversimplification) of the narrative setting is why a very "unaverage" person would chose their mate someone with so different a character. and also why would their son be so different unless the environment shaping him also contains and rewards in some way the traits that make him different from the accepted norm. i'm afraid there's missing something in the narrative that would deal with or at least make notice of the unavoidable pharisaical nature of (any) realistically portrayed society, eg: it's cognitive dissonant double-(or multi)standardness. 176.63.176.112 (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

Very Confusing Article

"Replacing the economic equality with the over-stretched one, i.e. complete equality in terms of equal looks, brains and body, the story satirizes the American Cold War anti-Communism propaganda that portrayed the former as equally absurd as the latter. Mostly overlooked by American interpreters and readers[citation needed], the real object of satire is revealed at the end of the story with the main character breaking the law of gravity to achieve his over-stretched idea of freedom, and declaring himself "the Emperor".[1] This interpretation is confirmed by the author himself, stating that his satire is "about intelligence and talent, and wealth is not a demonstration of either one".[2]"

What exactly does that mean? Can you translate it into English? Just who or what is satirized in the story?

I think I know what your writer is trying to say, but he or she isn't saying it very clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Confusing, and Tendentious as Well

You are correct. The paragraph you cited above should be excised: it is tendentious, and quotes Vonnegut in http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/may/05/vonnegut_lawyers_could/ in a misleading way, and out of context. Citation needed, indeed. Without proof otherwise, the reasonable person would conclude, from reading the story, that it is a satire of attempts to enforce equality (or equal outcomes) on mankind -- not that it is a satire of those who think that anyone believes such equality enforcers exist, in theory or practice.

Draco von Faust (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Bloated plot summary

The plot summary might as well be the whole story. Efforts seem to have been made in the past, but it has grown again since then. It needs to be trimmed down to the essentials per WP:PLOT.--Spiritsoar (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It reads like a junior high book report, where someone was trying to pad it out to the required number of pages. Needs harsh and vigorous pruning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.56.229 (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Does it need the lengthy character descriptions, for a start ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing link to full story

I removed the link to the story because of what is stated in Wikipedia:External links. That is: "Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page is not violating copyright per contributors' rights and obligations. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." So I think it was important to remove this link. I intend to remove it again, unless a discussion reveals we should do otherwise. Notinasnaid 07:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh. I didn't know about that. It's too bad it was brought up here, because we could have claimed ignorance before, but now it's obvious that we're "knowingly and intentionally" directing people to a copyright violation. Lesson for the future is don't say anything when you see these.

Still, it's hard to see how Google can legally link to that but not us. —Chowbok 15:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am so sick of copyright BS.

So am I, and I'm also sick of this silly restriction whereby I'm not allowed to simply kill everyone who gets in my way; unfortunately, these restrictions are there for good reasons, and we have to abide by them.

KB Doesnt anyone else think the ending of the film was not optimistic as stated? I think it shows that his suicide was in vain as it had no impact on the masses, this is a sad ending.

This item is in the Public Domain as it was published first in a magazine during its first copyright term which was pre-autorenewal era (1961). It was not renewed and hence has moved into the Public Domain due to lack of proper renewal.66.195.42.6 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

https://americanliterature.com/author/kurt-vonnegut-jr/short-story/harrison-bergeron

On Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

"First published in 1961, Harrison Bergeron is not in the public domain and I cannot publish it here in its entirety without permission from the copyright holder. I have requested permission but have not received a reply."

Just as Ray Nelson's "8 O'Clock in the Morning" turned out to be copyright renewed properly when too many people wanted to treat it as public domain, it seems "Harrison Bergeron" also has been copyright renewed and rights are held by the Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Trust.

That people have posted transcripts of "8 O'Clock in the Morning" or "Harrison Bergeron" in the belief that they are P.D. does not make it so. Besides, some of the fan transcripts are riddled with typos.

Proceed with caution. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)