Vonnegut's Use of Tone in "Harrison Bergeron” Satire: the use of humour, exaggeration, irony, and ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices often with the intent of promoting awareness or change. “Harrison Bergeron’ is littered with humour: however, the effect of using humour extends beyond producing pure shock value for the reader. “Bergeron” is a satire, and humour, in its many forms (hyperbole, irony, and ridicule), can more effectively capture some of the issues that would otherwise be passed over. Why use humour? - Humour makes the story's message easier to digest - Makes the grim or melancholic incidents and characters seem peaceful or placid - Creates an enjoyable read - Sets up ridiculous or impossible situations that leave room for debate and criticism - Allows the reader to contemplate and question how they can laugh even when a situation is so shocking and depressing, (Makes us think twice .. at least, it should!) Issues: - It is not always the case that those who the best and brightest are necessarily the ones who end up leading the pack. - Everyone is over-occupied with making things fair and giving everyone chance, but this is often impractical. - The general ignorance and apathy of society ‘In what way does Vonnegut make “Harrison Bergeron" comical? Hyperbole: ~The imagery created by the dramatic and over exaggerated handicaps easily highlights the stupidity of the situation, Consider how people stand out for being “different”. Although the handicaps appear to be accepted, it is not keeping people in the society from noticing one another's “flaws”,Striukas 2 What more ways can people be equal than before God and the law than, “... every which way .." (Vonnegut 1)? That pretty much includes everything The early paragraphs of the story are laughable because of the abrupt opening, whereby the narrator points out the fact that finally, they got it right! “THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal” (1). Why, if for no other reason than to emphasize how far- fetched the outcome may be, would the narrator accentuate the line by using it as the initial hook in the story? So much emphasis is placed on the achievement of the goal that it, by design, ultimately helps to shed importance on the subsequent paragroph, where Vonnegut parallels that notion by having the narrator ironically and despondently announce that, “[s]ome things about living still weren't quite right ."(1). What a paradox! Consequently, the reader is left wondering if equality is really that big of deal or really possible Irony: The handicaps also work to illustrate the irony of the situation, The narrator makes it clear to the reader that, “[s]he [the ballerina] must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers” (3). However, the purpose of the handicaps actually creates an ironic situation; the grander the handicap, the more painstakingly obvious a person’s beauty, strength, or intelligence truly is thereby intensifying the disparities in the society. “Hazel, as amatter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General ... Diana Moon Glampers" (1), This manages to capture the idiocy of those in power and absurdity of someone like Hazel, who in all her ways, with her immature and self-indulgent ideas, could potentially be running the country: “Only, if I was Handicapper General ... If I was Diana Moon Glampers ... I'd have chimes on Sunday = just chimes. Kind of in honour of religion” (1) Diana Moon Glampers is, herself, an ironic symbol of what Vonnegut wants his audience to recognize. Her name has a subtle, yet ironically humourous quality to it. To moon about something means to sort ofStriukas 3 daydream and have wishful thinking, so it is possible that her name works to highlight the idealist as opposed to the realistStriukas 4 Ridicule/Patronizing The reader can find moments of humour in Hazel’s ignorant patronizing of the news announcer who had such a speech Impediment that he had to hand over the announcement for the ballerina to read Hazel compliments him, suggesting that he“. should get anice raise for trying so hard (3). Understatement The reader is even left to contemplate over the legitimate severity of the dreadful news of Harrison being taken away. He/She emphasizes that the incident was without question, terrible: “It was tragic, all right ..." (1). Yet, it leaves the reader to believe that it’s not that big of a deal, and we'll get over it considering, * .. George and Hazel couldn't think about it very hard" either (1), Vonnegut's humour is so dark and dry that the reader is never really given the opportunity to absorb the sad moments, such as Harrison being shot to death. Hazel’s tears cannot even be associated with the melancholy of her son's death George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying?” he said to Hazel “Yup,” she said, “What about?" he said. “I forget,” she said, “Something real sad on television.” “What was it?" he said. “L's all kind of mixed up in my mind," said Hazel “Forget sad things,” said George (Vonnegut 5)Striukas § The abrupt ending, and Hazel and George's inability to properly mourn the death of their son, doesn't allow for the reader to empathize with Horrison, his parents or others in similar instances of misfortune. As is done in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, where the audience is able to easily cope with Shylock’s transformation from a proud and haughty Jew to a broken-down, humbled Christian, Vonnegut similarly “winds the clock the forward”, having his audience focus on the humourous handicap facing the Bergeron’s everyday lives Forget sad things,” said George “T always do," said Hazel “That's my girl," said George. He winced, There was the sound of ariveting gun in his head, “Gee - I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel. “You can say that again," said George. “Gee -" said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy."" (Vonnegut 5) Trony/Hyperbole George is insistent on respecting the laws of his society by not removing any weight from his handicap, yet the audience can clearly see the inequity of his situation (dramatic irony). Furthermore, how can he so easily forget what he was talking about with Hazel (on numerous accounts)? Vonnegut really goes out of his way to overemphasize just how difficult it is for two people to communicate with one another because he illustrates this countless times and at the worst of times. This breckdown in communication between the two characters provides for an extremely comical effect. It's too easy for the reader to quickly label Hazel and George as real-life stock characters (two “everyday”, typical old people) who suffer from a serious case of dementia. The reality, in this case, is far from that. It's sad yet humourous at the same time.