Dystopia Essay: 1984 and Harrison Bergeron

The novel depicting a negative utopia, 1984, was written in relation to the events happening in the year 1948. The Second World War and the Holocaust were major events that this audience could relate to 1984. While readers of the novel today feel that it holds little relevance to the world in the 21st century, it contains many elements that compare to 2015. 1984 shows relevance today in 2015 through the telescreens, the news, and by the rationing systems. Although 1984 had a lot of relations to the year 1948, it still has a large impact on events happening in today’s world.

I am going to start by examining the genre of the novel. 1984 is one of the most popular novels of George Orwell’s work. When defining the genre, we can state that it is a dystopian, or negative utopian novel, since the writer aims to portray the worst human society imaginable to persuade readers to avoid any path that may lead towards it, while a novel of utopia does the exact opposite.

How would the world survive if the government controlled us? In 1984 and Harrison Bergeron, the government gained control over its citizens by using a telescreen or television and if they have any thoughts, it would be interrupted. In the book by George Orwell and in the short story by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., they both wanted to show how the government controlled the citizens in a dystopian society. To gain control, the government uses total equality in Harrison Bergeron and in 1984, the government uses totalitarianism.

Who was King Henry VIII and who was King Louis XIV? How are they different and similar to each other? Well, one thing for sure, both of these rulers were Roman Catholics. Henry ruled England from 1491 to 1547 and Louis ruled France from 1643 to 1715. This essay analyzes the differences and the similarities between these two Roman Catholic kings. Henry VIII, compared to Louis XIV, was overall a ruthless monarch who wasn’t afraid to show off his greediness, abuse his power, or influence others with his clever political strategies. Louis XIV had the longest reign in European history (1643-1715). During this time he brought absolute monarchy to its height, established a huge and grand palace.

Complete control over a society can brainwash the citizens into believing the government laws and ways of life are normal. George Orwell's 1984 portrays a Utopian society in which the people of Oceania are blind to the world outside the controlling party. Reality control and surveillance of the citizens plays an important role in 1984 by George Orwell because of the negative Utopia that is illustrated by the use of paradox, symbolism, and imagery.

Different societies have risen and fallen in the continual search for the “perfect” society. The definition of this utopia is in constant flux due to changing times and cultural values. Many works of literature have been written describing a utopian society and the steps needed to achieve it. However, there are those with a more cynical or more realistic view of society that comment on current and future trends. These individuals look at the problems in society and show how to solve them with the use of control and power. Such a society is considered undesirable and has become known as dystopian society.

Vonnegut Jr.'s Harrison Bergeron and Orwell's 1984 are based on the concept of negative utopia. The governments in both these novels control their masses using harsh methods. The government in 1984 uses brainwashing, doublethink, mutability of the past and vaporization to control its masses. The government in Harrison Bergeron uses physical and mental handicaps to control its masses and in the effort to make everyone equal. Both the governments have a tight control on its people but the government in 1984 has a stronger and more affective control over its masses than the government in Harrison Bergeron.

Monarchs who hold the divine right to rule appear time and time again throughout history. Oftentimes, they use this ‘mandate of heaven’ to exercise full and absolute control over the governmental system of their society. This form of government is called an absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchy is a tool that, wielded well, can become extremely prosperous for both the kingdom, as well as the king that presides over it. On the other hand, when less capable figures attempt to harness the power of absolutism, it can lead to political and societal upheaval, and it usually does not end well for the one that tried to use it. King Louis XIV was able to achieve mastery of absolutist rule because the French government had been primed for absolutism

Kurt Vonnegut’s dystopian story, “Harrison Bergeron”, takes place in 2081. It is a story about everyone being equal, nobody is smarter than anybody else, nobody is better looking than anybody else, and and nobody is stronger or quicker than anybody else. This is because everybody wears handicaps to make everyone equal to each other. But basically, one boy named Harrison Bergeron takes matters into his own hands and goes against the Society. The Society basically makes all these people wear their handicaps all the time. One lesson the story suggests is that you should never be afraid to stand up for what you believe in, like Harrison.

Can you imagine being condemned because of your thoughts? Yes, because dystopian society is a community that is unpleasant and frightening controlled by the government. If anyone thinks they might get arrested by the police because in dystopian society people are forced to live in the cruel society.The novel 1984 and Harrison Bergeron are similar novels that are dystopian, however, in the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the main character Winston is afraid of getting arrested by the thought police because he always writes in his diary. The citizens are constantly being watched by “Big Brother” and controlled by propaganda. In the novel, Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, the main character George, and his wife are being brainwashed by the handicap

Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, and 1984, by George Orwell, explore various possible future dystopian societies that maintain control through the limitation of freedom, regulation of behavior, and the implementation of rigid class systems. Both authors experienced traumatic wars, and recognized the danger of certain world powers. Their novels serve as extreme political commentary on their contemporary societies. Orwell saw the rise of fascism and communism, and as a result developed the ideas of “the party” in 1984. Huxley observed the after effects of WWI and the Depression in Britain.

In the early 1500’s, Europe was constantly plagued by conflict and poverty caused by the failing monarchal system and the widespread religious intolerance. The use of elevated diction in the King’s title “His Invincible Majesty, King Henry the Eighth of England” emphasises the King’s absolute power and divine authority, portraying how the English society revered their monarchs. More’s examination of effective leadership draws on his personal dilemma about whether to join the King’s council or to remain a philosopher, a debate which is captured in the argument between More and Raphael. As King’s councillor, More had first-hand experience of the king’s inability to lead, as well as the rise of humanism and Protestant during the European renaissance which influenced his concerns for the society. Raphael’s analogy equating the councillors to animals “That’s why raven chicks are such a delight to their parents, and mother apes find their babies exquisitely beautiful” ridicules their propensity to value ideas out of the mutual self-interest and political expediency.

Counsel to Royalty Thomas More’s Utopia and Machiavelli’s The Prince both concern themselves with the fundamental issues of how a society works and maintains itself. The goals behind the two works, however, differ considerably.

Sixteenth century Western Europe was ruled by kings chosen by divine right. Convincing a nation of people that their king deserves his power because an unseen creator made it so is not an easy task, therefore every action a king makes must be carefully constructed to balance all things that produce a beloved leader. A politician during this time named Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the world renowned book entitled The Prince which advised soon to be kings how to maintain control over their peoples without being a tyrant and losing their head. In his book Machiavelli stated that, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you can not be both” (Machiavelli). He felt that when governing a state, a king was more powerful if he was feared by his people

These themes are addressed in abundance and form part of the message that Bolt sought after to convey to the post-world war audience. Thomas More’s utmost sense of moral compos and his admiration of the judicious law is prioritized by Bolt in the preface to address More’s seemingly paradoxical modus operandi (Bolt, 1960:xiii). Meticulously realistic More never speaks ill about the king which is in order with the Act of Supremacy, yet strongly opposes the king’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon and remarriage to Anne Boleyn. More is not governed by his duty to his king nonetheless has faith in God’s law which is greater than any worldly sovereign (Bolt, 1960:66-68). Man’s laws can be changed at will and yet More is anchored in his principles (Bolt, 1960:69). More’s actions and lack of discourse may at times be seen as duplicitous; in actuality More is only trying to balance his respect for man’s law with the laws of his God and self. More embodies such a sense of self and of moral supervision that oversees his actions; that he would rather die than betray his faith and