Four

In my opinion, these readings seem to adequately represent a future in store for us if we continue to forget to make the distinction between concepts such as equity and equality; freedom and fairness. In Voneger's work, Harrison is oddly characterized as a monstrous figure: fourteen years old and 7 feet tall, able to break bars of steel like "celery". It seems this extreme hyperbole reveals much about what the nature of a leader strong enough to break the cycle of "political correctness" and oppressive government will need. Harrison acts like a king, calls himself "emperor", elects an "empress" and has an overall domineering, dictatorial personality. This, in combination with the fact that he is the only one to stand up against the tyranny hints at what Voneger thinks about standing up to enemies. However, since Harrison's seemingly smooth transition to freedom is cut short by the government—ending his life as well—Voneger seems to dismantle any statement the author might have been making in the characterization of Harrison. Might Voneger be revealing with this abrupt ending that once government takes over, there is no turning back? I'm not sure how the Hunger Games series ends, but so far, I've seen that Collins takes a different approach—allowing Catniss to be the leader of a revolution that seems to be working. What ironically endures in Voneger's world, however, seems to be the Herculean male-complex, as he seems to force by instilling fear, the ballerina to become his "empress". Perhaps in this Voneger is saying in this that in his metaphor for the future (or reality) he believes that gender equality—unlike everything else—will remain unequal, and women will still be inferior?

Looking at the timeline of dystopian novels and the PBS YouTube clip, the evidence of the projection of humans' fears into media seems compelling. However, I didn't really think the graph was that accurate in predicting world conflict. The 9/11 rise in dystopian novels was slim to none, thus proving the proof was not very conclusive. However, like the PBS video claimed, I do think that our "monsters" are reflections of our fears. For example, the political debates going on now about the national common core standards—a manifestation of growing government standardization—and the parallel increase in dystopian novels with oppressive governments.

Night of the Living Dead revealed subtly, that government will not be able to distinguish between zombies and real people, a metaphor for the fact that government/authorities will continue in their equal treatment and lump even rational beings into one category.

I think one thing we forget too is that the obsession we have with zombies, vampires, and other monsters is just because they are sensational. We recycle the same stories over and over again because generations come and go. While the editors at PBS may call this an over simplification of these trends, it is a possibility. Like Ezra Pound says "make it new", we know that stories always resurface, but new authors just want to get the edge and put a new twist on old tales. What I did agree with in the YouTube clip, was that the types of monsters that resurface seem to have characteristics that align with the times. Looking at the monsters of Night vale, angels are seen as bad. Maybe this is a reflection of our current generation's identification with naturalism and materialism as ways of life, rather than religion? Even the authors of Night Vale take a jab at the NRA, suggesting that it's proponents forget that guns kill, and simultaneously revealing a similar view our generation has against groups associated with conservatives?