In the slides, I brought up Justice Antonin Scalia’s use of “Harrison Bergeron” in a dissenting Supreme Court opinion. Vonnegut is among the most quotable of 20th-century authors in English, dispensing quips, aphorisms, and confusing proverbs about the modern human condition. His genius is for simple, compressed phrasing that exposes depths of contradiction, joy, pain, or confusion:
Here’s an example: “One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.”
How is this quotation relevant either to “Harrison Bergeron” or “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow”? How do these stories see television and its social impact?
Or, if you prefer, how does the quotation shed light on an actual and widely televised death that “entertained us” in recent years? Perhaps some of the truth(s) in Vonnegut’s comment are proven by how often we see people dying on our screens.
The quotation is relevant to the story Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, as in this world, people have seemingly evaded the possibility of death, but instead of using this privilege to live super human lives, it seems that their fear of mortality has rather pushed them to a much more limited and diluted lifestyle than what they once had. Gramps and his family spend their days mindlessly watching TV and living in crowded circumstances with no other purpose in life. It seems as if the only reason they get up in the morning is to improve their standing in Gramps’ will. With the looming coming of Gramps’ death, Em and Lou compete to become favored in his will, and this seems to be the only other form of entertainment in their lives other than TV. In a world where mortality has been eradicated, one of the few forms of entertainment left is the thought of death itself.
Death has been normalized for us on screens. We have dissociated the on-screen death with the physical act of it happening to ourselves. They make us feel something, nonetheless. Happiness, sadness, revengeful or shell shocked that our favorite show would kill off our favorite characters (In a way like Fahrenheit 451). However, in the past year, we witnessed in so many murders on tv such as George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery. Which the feelings I felt I cannot even put into words, but it led to a global civil rights movement. That’s why I might disagree with this quote that these horrible deaths did not entertain us, but more so enraged us. TV has gained so much importance in today’s society along with social media such as YouTube, its allowing these stories that were once silenced now being broad casted for the world to see. Thankfully the government has not created a device like that of HB which disrupts the higher thought process (but then again in other ways they have…).
I agree though to on Vonnegut’s comment and the overall sense of seeing death as entertainment on television. Why is it human nature to be fascinated death? It’s this weird twisted joke the universe is playing on us, but It’s the one thing that humans live for. We have created cultures, religions, beliefs all centered around this one entity. We are drawn to it. Lucky for us, we created the television that allow us to watch captured moments in time, and replay them over again infinitely. You could only guess what we do with this new technology? We record and watch death to be replayed several times. It’s the closest that some may get physically before it happens to us. It allows us to imagine what it could be like. No one imagines a horrible death for themselves, so witnessing one on tv, I would say is the ultimate hit of dopamine for us as humans.
The quotation feels particularly relevant for “Harrison Bergeron”, as Harrison takes his final stand on a literal stage on live television. In order to reach his audience of subjugated citizens, Harrison is forced to thrust himself in front of the camera and commit his martyrdom to the national audience. However, all his actions amount to are a forgetful diversion from the normal programming on screen. This is seen in how his parents cannot recall what happened immediately after watching. Not that it was actually that forgettable, but that the masses, through government coercion or otherwise, are unable to retain the meaning of what they see on the screen, and are only able to be subdued or “entertained”. The story illustrates how death is appropriated into a means of entertainment on television; one can see this in the ubiquity of programs revolving around murder and violence. We are transfixed by the thought of death, and instead of fearing we have learned to compartmentalized it into something entertaining on the screen. I believe this limits the symbolic power of publicly viewed death. Scenes of real war for example, fail to elicit the type of reaction it ought to; rather than being appalled or moved, people probably unconsciously search for its entertainment value. The television desensitizes us and make real meaningful illustrations of death seemingly impossible. However, if I saw someone hijack a television station the way Harrison did and record his own death, I think I would be moved more than the people in the story.
The quotation, “One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.” Is clearly a cynical view on the world and implies that the entertainment value in TV is a very important aspect of society. A very similar message is sent from the short story Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow. Gramp’s large extended family essentially has the ability to live forever. However, instead of spending their days living crazy impossible lives they all sit around watching TV in their cramped apartment. In this story TV’s importance to society is magnified as it seems as though the majority of life is spent watching mindless television. Therefore, in context with the quote I’m sure seeing death on TV in the envisioned world of Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow would actually be the highlight of peoples days, weeks, months, or even years. Especially seeing how rare death is and how monotonous their lives have become. Television has essentially numbed the lives of the family in this short story.
From a literal standpoint, the quotation is relevant to “Harrison Bergeron” as he, the protagonist, dies tragically on TV at the end of the story. Despite the fact that his death was not entertaining in the traditional sense of the word, one could say that it was meant to be theatrical on the part of Diana Moon Glampers, the all powerful ‘Handicapper’ in the story. Her job in that scenario was to quickly demonstrate dominance and end the threat to her egalitarian society as quickly as possible for anyone viewing the program.
The story sees television as a means of numbing the population to reality, in my view. For George and Hazel, their TV is a staple of their lifestyles, and is clearly a major theme in the story. In other ways, it is also something that serves as a distraction. Hazel often forgets why she was crying while she is watching TV.
The story also seems to insinuate that TV is a powerful tool for both spreading ideas and population control. Towards the end of the piece, when Harrison Bergeron goes on TV to attempt to overthrow the status quo, he is quickly killed my the Handicapper. In my view, the speed of the direct ‘government’ involvement in this event demonstrates its function in the society; it’s a state sponsored tool to suppress people. Were it not, the reaction would not have been so swift.
On a similar note, TV in the story is a means of controlling people’s sentiments. The concept of ‘Not wanting people to feel bad’ if something on tv is too good (i.e. the ballerinas dancing) appears a few times. In this manner, TV functions as a suppressant for the population by regulating what its people feel, and when they feel it.
The quote of “One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us” is very relevant to Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow with Gramps’s life. Gramps is well over a hundred years old, but is taking the anti-gerasone that allows him to avoid dying a natural death. The whole family, especially Em and Lou, are constantly thinking about the day that Gramps will die and how he will write his will. This is a form of entertainment for the family, which keeps them entertained during their long, drawn out, meaningless life of constantly watching TV. After Lou is caught changing the vials, even though he was technically fixing the situation, then he loses his placement in favor with Gramps. Finally, once Gramps has had enough and announces he is leaving for his death, the family gets in a massive argument. The family is not worried about Gramps “dying in vain” or suffering over the next few days, instead, the family proceeds to argue about who will get the private room. Gramps’s life was centered on entertainment for the family—they all were pushing for a better position in his will. When he announced he was going to die, no one went after him to try and help fix the situation, they acted selfishly and only cared about how much of the will was going to be portioned to them.