Thursday, October 18, 2007

Harrison Bergeron Response

We try to make everybody equal in our society and that is what Vonnegut is satirizing. I think the story argues that it is better that everybody is not equal. Therefore, the theme of this story is equality.

Diana Moon Glampers is an unrealistic character. No one person is capable of controling the whole world. She would have been stopped by a rebel long before she gained absolute power.

This story is told through the eyes of George and Hazel's. It is more effective this way because Harrison is too crazy to be a likable main character.

What Karen and Charles Wood say is not true. Some people are just more capable them others. This is the way of life and there is no way of stopping it.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Why the Future Doesn't Need Us

1. How does this story remind you of Robot Dreams?
2. How does this story remind you of Brave New World?
3. Do you think it is possible for robots to have a mind of its own?
4. Do think these people are mad and don't have a clue of what they're talking about?
5. Would robots even have a reason to take control?
6. Do you think robots would be harmless or blood-thirsty?
7. Is it possible to set up the three laws or is that a bunch of nonsense?

The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas

This story has so many unexplained things. I try to piece together what is not there, but I can not. The story is so out there that I can not even imagine what could fill in the blanks. But enough of that, what they do to the child is horrible. They treat him like he is not even human, but it must be done. For one person to lose all happiness is better than for everbody to lose it.

This story can be compared to 1984 because in both stories certain people are persecuted for the good of everbody. In this story it is the boy; in 1984 it is everybody who is taken away by the thought poolice. They are sacrificed so that everybody else can live happily in the utopia. If both societies did not do this everything would be turned upside down. Omelas would not be happy and Oceania would not have complete control over its people.

This story definitely uses lots and lots of descriptive writing. Everything is described to the smallest detail. Sometimes it seems to much detail is used. To much detail can bore people. Also, I did not need to know about the sores and the kid's butt, too much information.

1. What is the place in the mountains and why do they go there?
2. What happens when they see the child that makes them leave and why alone?
3. If you were in there place, would you sacrifce one child for the godd of the whole community?
4. Would you be able to live with yourself knowing what you are doing? Would you try and save the child?
5. Does the child ever think of trying to escape or is he contempt with where he is? Maybe he has given up all hope. Maybe he chose to do it. Is he angry with the townspeople? How did they chose the child?