George Bergeron's character is, literally, extremely intelligent, strong, and capable. We know this because of the number of handicaps he is forced to wear by the government. His weights, for example, are so tiring that his wife suggests he risk removing them even thought the consequences are severe for doing so.
Because of his handicaps, George is a character who is incapable of changing, reacting to a situation, or even remembering what he his doing and he is such a rule-follower that he won't use his intelligence or strength to go against the government.
A reader can see that the handicaps put on George are a metaphor for the burdens that the majority of the population of America are encumbered by in real life. While most people don't have pounds of bird-shot strapped to their necks, it is clear that people ARE burdened by great amounts of debt, jobs that pay little, stresses like large families, consumerism, etc that hold them back from participating fully in life. The "handicaps'' of the story are literally meant to show how much weight we are putting on the wrong things in our lives.
Vonnegut uses characters like George to demonstrate how little people are actually living. They are flat, unfeeling, unemotional, and unable to communicate, resist, or change. It is obvious that George SHOULD react to seeing his son's violent death broadcast on national television, but he is completely incapable of doing so because of the handicaps attached to him. The lack of character development, coupled with the excellent description of George's strengths due to his handicaps is what allows a reader to understand that the character is meant to be criticized. Readers are meant to ask themselves, how could he not react? How could he not remember? Why won't he question the ideals of the government? Why won't he risk himself for something that could save his son?
Answer:
It's all good except for 18 its who not whom.
Explanation:
Answer: 3. As the narrator also believes, the lines suggest that no place can ever compare to a person’s homeland.
Explanation: it explains how they can’t compare homesick man to a persons homeland.
Answer:
Or July 21, 1969 and from the point of view of Neil Armstrong himself as he walked on the moon.
Or maybe I’d be Abraham Lincoln on the day he delivered the Gettysburg Address. We all practiced that speech in school, so how awesome would it be to actually give it!
Or I could be a visitor to the Roman Senate on the Ides of March. Begin the day by exploring ancient Rome and then end it by watching one of the most important assassinations in the history of the world. Popcorn optional.
I think part of the rule has to be that you can’t meaningfully interfere with what happened on that day — otherwise we’d probably all be morally compelled to go back in time and kill Hitler circa 1929.
_________
I’m going to make two adjustments:
1) I’ll add a follow-up question about which date you’d pick in the future. So let’s say this: You have a time machine that allows you to enter a specific date and location, and you’re taken then/there for one day (it teleports you to the location too). You arrive at 6am and 18 hours later, at midnight, you’re safely returned to the present day in your home. It can be used once to bring you to the past and once to the future. Then it disappears.
2) I like the idea of actually being in the eyes of a person in history, but let’s say you can also choose to just be you plopped down there if you want to.
A couple other notes:
Explanation:
MORE POWER
