The Vonnegut and Bradbury stories that we read for today are very different in many ways, but both suggest dystopian worlds. What are one or two traits they share that make them recognizably dystopian, however different they may be in tone?
6 thoughts on “Vonnegut and Bradbury”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
In agreement with previous comments, I think that all three stories share the common theme of technology leading to a dystopian world. In Vonnegut’s “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow”, we see that technology has allowed people to live for as long as they choose but has created much more problems through the overpopulation of Earth. Technology in Bradbury’s “There Will Come Soft Rains” has also been the deciding factor in the creation of the dystopian world depicted. Technology’s detrimental effects are not represented through the highly advanced house, but rather the nuclear bomb assumed to have been dropped on the city. This short story is also evidence of the science fiction genre being heavily influenced by nuclear disasters in a post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki world. In “Harrison Bergeron” the use of technology in creating a dystopian world is less pronounced than the two other stories, yet nevertheless the Handicapper General’s ability to make everyone equal would be impossible without the use of advanced technology (i.e. the earpieces). Going off comments made by Nicholas and Sophie, I also think that these stories (especially Vonneget’s) are warnings to be cautious of ideas/technologies that appear to be terrific at first glance.
Dystopian narratives are most often born out of legitimate and pervasive societal fears- in all three stories we read, a fear derived from issues within current society drives dystopian visions of the future. In Harrison Bergeron, underlying fears of communism seem to influence Vonnegut’s creation of a dystopia where everyone is equal at the detrimental cost of eradicating individual freedom and achievement. This fear makes sense considering the time period (1960s) when tensions were escalating between the US and the Soviet Union. In Vonnegut’s other story, Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, fears of technological advancement- in the form of an aging process-halting drug- produces a society where overpopulation causes for a terrible quality of life. Lastly, in Bradbury’s There Will Come Soft Rains, the societal fear of nuclear disaster influences the vision of a world where the human race has been eradicated due to nuclear war (“radioactive glow could be seen for miles”).
The elimination of individuality, leading to essentially meaningless lives, is another common element present in these dystopian stories. Nowhere is this theme more present than in Harrison Bergeron where people are forced by the government to be equal in every possible way. Vonnegut may be making the statement that while equality is praised as an ideal, taken literally complete equality would create a society in which people live sad and dull lives. This theme also present in Bradbury’s story- speculating based on the one house left standing, it seems as though people lived very mundane, repetitive, and inconsequential lives prior to the nuclear disaster and as a result of dependence on technology.
As Sophie mentioned, the theme of nostalgia is prevalent in both of Vonnegut’s stories. In Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, the characters hold resentment for the technological advancements meant to improve the quality of life. In Harrison Bergeron, Hazel tries to find ways around the handicaps that are meant to help society. I see this as Vonnegut warning us of the consequences of technology. We are often quick to see the benefits of technology while overlooking possible problems. In all three of these dystopian stories the technology meant to improve life ends up being detrimental. These dystopian stories by nature focus on all the worst possible outcomes of innovation. Another trait that that these dystopian stories share is their believability. Each story was relatively plausible compared to other genres of science fiction. This aspect draws readers in as it is easier to relate the story to one’s own possible future.
I agree with what has been said in the previous comments in that these stories begin with a familiar prompt of what may come in the future and these authors choose to twist the narrative into something grotesque to show the reader that it will never turn out the way you want it to, and will eventually backfire. In both Vonnegut’s stories, there is a nostalgia for the days before these new methods of living were introduced, which I take to be Vonnegut reminding his reader to be satiated with what we have before us, and warning us against rapid and unrestrained advances in both societal structure and technology. These were things that were happening in society around the time when Vonnegut was writing, which Aumit also noted in his post. Bradbury takes his story a step further and just deletes human beings altogether, as far as the reader is concerned. Though it is a small aspect of the story, I am struck by his choice to use a tree branch to demolish the house. I think that this is Bradbury’s way of saying that nature will outlive all dystopian realities, and despite how we may abuse it, it is in fact more powerful than all the technology combined. In both stories there is the underlying thought that this technology should not be trusted, and that it is not all that it seems at first glance.
Dystopian worlds are often worlds that are a familiar, possible world, but that has an underlying problem, often due to something perceived as being good. We have equality in Harrison Bergeron, eternal life in Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, and technological advancement in There will Come Soft Rains. These are all on a base level good things that we’d all in some way or another wish to see in the world, but what makes it dystopian is the possible horrors that could come along with it, like a boring, painful life, overpopulation and crowding, or apparent war advances and a possible nuclear war. These are all good things that currently in our world we are striving towards and that seem like normal good things, but they have the possibility to lead to a dystopian future if handled in a certain way, and that is what is being emphasized in these stories.
Dystopian narratives are often characterized by their ability to evoke discomfort in their readers through a semblance of familiarity. In order to be effectively dystopian, such narratives need a basis in reality. In Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron,” we are presented with a dystopian future devoid of competition. In particular, all people are forced to wear handicaps as a way of ensuring that all people are equal — these handicaps are meant to target physical prowess (in the ways that strong people like Harrison are forced to weigh themselves down and graceful people like the Ballerinas are forced to hide their beauty with hideous masks), as well as mental prowess (those with higher than average intelligence would wear headphones that played loud noises at intervals to scatter the wearer’s thoughts). In “Harrison Bergeron,” it is the very absence of difference, and to a greater extent, exceptionalism that creates a dystopian world — pursuant to the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the constitution. This story was published in 1961, at a time when American capitalist ideas were building strength — ideas buttressed by the very notions of difference, competition, and exceptionalism whose absence defines the structure of “Harrison Bergeron’s” dystopian narrative. Similarly Bradbury’s “There Will Come Soft Rains” provides a different, post apocalyptic dystopian narrative that is absent of people. We see a technological house that continues its mindless routine of making breakfast and reading poems even though there is no one left to enjoy the food or contemplate the words. In both cases, the dystopian nature of the narratives is premised on familiarity — such as with competition or technology, respectively. This familiarity is then challenged with an alternate perception meant to be jarring, uncomfortable, and realistic. Dystopian narratives are considered in relation to their utopian counterparts, both of which are on opposite sides of the same spectrum of realism that lends credence to either narratives amongst their respective readership.