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?
Can I have Branliest for the Correct Answer?
Very often things like flashbacks, flash forwards, non-linear narratives, multiple plots and ensemble casts are regarded as optional gimmicks stuck into the conventional three act structure. They're not. Each of the six types I've isolated and their subcategories provides a different take on the same story material. Suddenly, one idea for a film can give you a multitude of story choices. What do I mean?
More than six ways to turn your idea into a film. Let's imagine that you've read a newspaper article about soldiers contracting a respiratory disease from handling a certain kind of weaponry. You want to write a film about it. Conventional wisdom says create one storyline with one protagonist (a soldier who gets the disease) and follow that protagonist through a three act linear journey. There's no question that you could make a fine film out of that. But there are several other ways to make a story out of the idea, and several different messages that you could transmit - by using one of the parallel narrative forms.
<span>Would you like to create a script about a group of soldiers from the same unit who contract the disease together during one incident, with their relationships disintegrating or improving as they get sicker, dealing with the group dynamic and unfinished emotional business? That would be a shared team 'adventure', which is a kind of group story, so you would be using what I call </span>Multiple Protagonist<span> form (the form seen in films like Saving Private Ryan or The Full Monty or Little Miss Sunshine, where a group goes on a quest together and we follow the group's adventure, the adventure of each soldier, and the emotional interaction of each soldier with the others). </span>
Alternatively, would you prefer your soldiers not to know each other, instead, to be in different units, or even different parts of the world, with the action following each soldier into a separate story that shows a different version of the same theme, with all of the stories running in parallel in the same time frame and making a socio-political comment about war and cannon fodder? If so, you need what I call tandem narrative,<span> the form of films like Nashville or Traffic. </span>
Alternatively, if you want to tell a series of stories (each about a different soldier) consecutively, one after the other, linking the stories by plot or theme (or both) at the end, you'll need what, in my book Screenwriting Updated I called 'Sequential Narrative', but now, to avoid confusion with an approach to conventional three act structure script of the same name, I term Consecutive Stories<span> form, either in its fractured state (as in Pulp Fiction or Atonement), or in linear form (as in The Circle). </span>
Below are the choices that can be found elsewhere:
a)Sir Mordred distrusts the peace treaty that King Arthur has arranged.
<span>b)Sir Bedivere lies to King Arthur about throwing the sword in the lake. </span>
<span>c)King Arthur and the traitor Sir Mordred fight to the death. </span>
<span>d)The hermit buries a dead body in a little chapel.
</span>
The answer is A
<span>Because he was an extremely religious person and found peace and salvation in faith because he was blind, he was a very nice and good person. People generally used to take advantage of him, because he was so nice, yet he did nothing to confront them. Only when he got married did his wife stand up for her husband and did the community start respecting him. </span><span>
</span>
