Point Of View In Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron

Kurt Vonnegut’s decision to use a third person limited point-of-view within his short story, “Harrison Bergeron,” leads the reader to question the dramatic events within the climax and falling action of the story, greatly impacting the perception of the story as a whole. In 1961, when the story was first published, Americans held a dramatized fear of Communism. They believed that the Communist way of living was the exact opposite of the way that they believed people should live—the American way. Vonnegut recognized the fear as being far too dramatic, and this belief is apparent throughout is decisions in “Harrison Bergeron.” The unreliable nature of this narrator limits insight into the characters directly partaking in the action, altering perception of these events and reinforcing Vonnegut’s intent to satirize the American notions of Communism.

Vonnegut’s narrator begins the story in a plausible way before divulging into details at a later point in the story that leads reader’s to question its credibility. The very beginning of the story is realistic and to the point as it sets up the world of 2081, where, “…everybody was finally equal,” (Vonnegut.) Vonnegut wants the reader to trust this narrator, even relating to his audience with a grievance about the month of April before the introduction of Hazel and

George. The narrator describes Hazel’s intelligence as, “perfect average intelligence, which meant that she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts,” (Vonnegut). With this quote, the narrator reveals that the society in which the story takes place in considers someone who in today’s terms would have some kind of cognitive disorder as being completely normal. It is at this point, a mere three paragraphs into these tory that this narrator’s credibility begins to falter in the mind of the reader as it begs the question of why, and how, humanity would purposefully limit themselves in such a dramatic way. The connotation of “normal,” found within the quote, is a very deceptive one that Vonnegut clearly chose in order to illustrate the severity of the mental handicaps forced upon the society, as Hazel’s intellect is far from what anyone would consider “normal.”
The narrator then goes on to describe George, someone who has to wear both mental and physical handicaps so that he cannot take an “unfair advantage,” of his brain. Shockingly, George is accepting of his handicaps, even responding to Hazel’s remark in regards to removing them with a philosophical response before his handicap destroys his train of thought. He asks her, “The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?” (Vonnegut). George’s acceptance acts as a connection to the overall satirical nature of the story, as he is the perfect representation of the America views on Communism. He is suffering from both physical fatigue and mental exasperation as a result of his handicaps, yet he continues to wear them without complaint. Hazel, on the other hand, thrives from everyone else being lowered to her level. The quote directly shows a lapse of logic from the narrator, as it is completely unrealistic that the handicapped character would have a philosophical approach to their handicaps. If anyone should see the positives of them, it should be Hazel, as she directly benefits from them, while everyone else suffers.
During his short time in the story, fourteen year old Harrison arguably becomes the only dynamic character, despite the narrator’s inability to give readers a glimpse into his mentality. The narrator describes Harrison as being someone that is seven feet tall and carrying three hundred pounds of physical handicaps. However, the narrator then goes on to describe Harrison tearing off his straps as though it were tissue paper, stating that the straps were, “…guaranteed to support five thousand pounds,” (Vonnegut.) The narrator’s description of Harrison’s weight loud dramatically changes, and the reader struggles to imagine a fourteen year old who is seven feet tall, much less one who is able to carry three hundred pounds and rip restraints up to five thousand pounds with ease. This is not a use of hyperbole, but proof of Vonnegut’s narrator being unreliable. Another example of this unreliability is when Harrison and his chosen Empress ascend from the studio floor all the way up to the ceiling, defying the laws of gravity before Diana Moon Glamper’s shotgun brings their bodies crashing down to the floor. Throughout this entire scene, there is no insight into Harrison nor Diana’s motivations or reasoning. The chain of events unfold on television of all places, and within a society that controls the mental capacities of its citizens, it is immediately forgotten. This lack of insight brings the reader to question whether or not the events ever took place, reinforcing the unreliability of this narrator.
Vonnegut uses the events to shine light on the extreme nature of American’s fears. His narrator sets up Hazel and George as the classic American family, even choosing to have George miss the climax of the story as he entered the kitchen to get a beer. Despite the extreme, unbelievable events, Vonnegut wants aspects to seem believably American. Based on the fact that the only real effects of Harrison’s live death are Hazel’s tears, of which she cannot recall a reason, and “…the sound of a riveting gunshot.” (Vonnegut) being relayed through George’s mental handicap. Thus, there is not any evidence that the events within the story unfolded in the manner in which the narrator presented them. With the author’s intent in mind, analyzing the lack of evidence towards the events actual partaking is clear proof that this narrator was purposefully unreliable. Inevitably, Vonnegut wanted his reader’s to clearly understand his satirical viewpoint. His narrator was the vessel for making his point known.
Vonnegut’s narrator, despite its inherent lack of trustworthiness, is a key element for understanding, “Harrison Bergeron.” Vonnegut’s intent with this story was not for it to be taken as a literal prediction of the future, but instead to explore the satirical nature of American views of Communist as evil and inhumane.

Without this kind of narrator in the story, it would come off as a dystopian future rather than revealing Vonnegut’s true thoughts and feelings on the subject of his satire. The narrator’s voice, even when it is untrustworthy and purposefully manipulative, is essential for the author’s intent to be clearly presented, as with “Harrison

Bergeron.”