Wow. You bash my sources, yet still come up with *none* that support your claim.
Here Smash. I'll do your own work for you:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2455/is_4_35/ai_91040892
Here's a critic that seems to agree with you. Um... Let's note the very first paragraph though:
Quote:
According to all commentary on Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," the theme of this satire is that attempts to achieve equality are absurd.
First sentence Smash. "All commentary" comes to the same conclusion I have. That the story is saying that attempts to achieve equality (I add "through legistlation", but that's close enough) are absurd.
But this guy attempts to debunk that. Horray! An advocate of the Smasharoo school of thought. Yes. It's you and Darryl as the *only* guys who think this way, but that's ok I guess...
This bits funny:
Quote:
To argue that thesis, this article begins outside of the text by situating it in Vonnegut's oeuvre: his fiction, nonfiction, speeches, and interviews. Then this contextualization will attend to Vonnegut's audience. Finally, the analysis will turn to the internal evidence.
Let me translate: I'm a hard core Liberal with pro-socialist leanings. I don't understand how anyone who has socialist leanings (like Vonnegut for example) can possibly write a story that is critical of any aspect of the socialist agenda. Thus, I'm going to start with the assumption that there must be more then the *obvious* in this story and dig really really deep to find evidence that Vonnegut is actually saying the oopposite of what the story seems to be saying. I'm going to start by showing that Vonnegut likes socialism (and follow through with my assumption that a socialist can't have any critisism of his own movement). I'm going to talk about the audience of his stories (not sure what his point here is since virtually 100% of all readers of the story come to the same conclusion (which is not what Mr. Hattenhauer wants to hear apparently). I'm then going to point out that since the world that Vonnegut writes about in the short story can't possibly exist due to glaring impossiblities and contradictions, that he's therefore not saying that this is a possible failure of socialism, but must therefore be parodying other people's absurd beliefs on the subject.
It's a nice essay. He's a moron. But it's a nice essay. Ok. Maybe moron is too strong a word. How about "He's trying to make the story say what he wants it to say instead of just reading it".
Even Mr. Hattenhauer has to go well outside the story itself to arrive at the conclusions he does Smash. There is no way you as a 12 year old, having no information other then that in the story could have come to the same conclusion. You undoubtably were taught this position by someone who thinks the same as Hattenhauer.
Heck. If anyone other then Vonnegut had written the story, this guys essay wouldn't work. He's basing his entire objection to the "normal" interpretation of the story on the author's own political leanings. The story itself simply doesn't support his conclusions. He does work very hard at twisting around reality to try to make it that way, but sometimes the obvious that's right in front of you is exactly what it appears to be. The story is about enforcing equality, and the absurdity that would result if you took that too far. Any attempts to read more into it are the result of the reader desperately trying to make the story say something it doesn't.
But hey. You keep believing that. You see everything else in the world in black and white anyway, why should this be any different?
