First, prepare a response to the statement below in a Word document using coherent arguments, clear writing, and correct grammar. The initial response should be roughly 500 words in length with vivid and specific details from the text. Once the response is of publishable quality, cut and paste it into the blog thread prepared for the novel you read. You will be posting with students from all of my classes who read the same novel. Second, respond to three (3) students in the same blog (you may respond to students not in your class). Your responses must be at least 150 words in length, well-written, and correct in grammar. Make sure you thoughtfully respond to the initial posting, referencing the original student’s thoughts, as well as anyone else who has responded. Include in your responses informally referenced historical or modern day examples to support your argument. This is a scholastic application of Internet networking – “Internet speak,” acronyms, casual or inappropriate language, off-task communication, or profanity is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Any inappropriate response will be deleted immediately and no credit will be given.
Statement: Ray Bradbury strongly comments on American society in Fahrenheit 451. Describe the commentary and Bradbury's purpose behind it, supporting your analysis with vivid, specific details from the text.
Zach Hurst
ReplyDeleteRay Bradbury had a lot to say in “Fahrenheit 451”. Pretty much the entire novel was a message about censorship, power, and life values. Through Montag’s reactions to all of the events and aspects of society in the novel, Bradbury was able to portray his views on the matter.
Censorship was a key element of the novel. The government outlawed BOOKS for Christ sake! They wanted the masses to see what they wanted them to see. They even decided to change recorded history, saying that the firefighters were established to start fires all along, not put them out. They transformed religion from a community of united people into a way to sell products and advertise. The citizens of the country only heard what the government wanted to about the war, and killed an innocent man with the Hound rather than portray that it can indeed fail. Who knows how many other times it did? It failed to get Montag, it probably failed to get several criminals. The government portrays the message that everything is okay and under control. The government has true power.
All of the actions that the government takes are for their own good. They want to have total control over the people, eliminate the things they don’t want in the world, and incorporate the things they do want. Books were a thing they decided they didn’t like, decided they needed to eliminate. Was it really because it was doing bad for the world, or was it because they wanted to see if they could delete all of history with one stroke. That’s power, the ability to ensure that the last few thousand years were all for nought because you don’t want the people to adopt those ideas. It was a method of control. Books sparked freedom of thought in peoples’ mind, the need to question. You can’t have total control if people question, so books were outlawed, and the people turned into zombies and fun-junkies. Transforming the way an entire people lives their lives is power.
Sure, the government made life for the people the way it was, but were they complaining? No. People were satisfied with their ignorant bliss, satisfied with living for materialistic possessions and worrying about nothing but fun all the time. They’re satisfied with not wondering about things like books and embracing the electronic gizmos that have been dangled in front of their faces like candy. Through Montag’s violent, dissatisfied reactions to these things once his eyes were opened, Bradbury states his opinion on the matter. The whole world of the novel is an exaggerated depiction of our own world. Technology has become a more prevalent thing in our lives every day, and people are starting to lose track of one another more and more. All of the old ways are soon being forgotten, the days when all that mattered to people was one another. There was no love in the novel, between spouses or children and their parents. It was a world of materialistic selfishness and desire, a world that Montag (Bradbury) despised.
The gap between how America is now and how it is in the novel is probably very similar to the gap between America at its founding to how it is now. This is a way to gauge the change we’ve been through, and to show that this hellish place could possibly become reality. I don’t think it will, I hope it won’t, but we can’t know. These elements of the world: censorship, power, and changed values, are already appearing in American society. They were when Bradbury wrote the novel in 1966. The book’s purpose was to warn people of what we may become, what we’re already becoming.
Sophie Asero
ReplyDeleteRay Bradbury’s view on society is very apparent in the plot of Fahrenheit 451. Ignorance, stubbornness and refusal to listen, and conformity are just a few of the traits he makes blatantly clear through his characters. The firefighters are the basis for comparison of all the other characters, and their content in burning individuality and expression shows what the society Guy Montag lives in is formed off of. He also shows societies numbness and lack of concern to harm or injustice brought onto others; it has become a daily and accepted thing in his opinion. Only towards the end of the book does Bradbury show hope for society, and even then it’s fairly uncertain.
Ignorance is most clearly shown through Montag at the beginning of the book. When he is first introduced he seems prideful and happy with his job. This is shown in the care he takes in shining his helmet, hanging his flameproof jacket neatly, showering luxuriously, and whistling all after his day of work described on page 4. He doesn’t understand yet what the books contain or what they can do for society, but he just doesn’t have the desire to.
Meeting Clarisse is when Montag starts to question the conformity and strictness of the society, and it’s in meeting her he sees the difference and loneliness in his, along with the others who obey the standards, ways. Clarisse makes Montag wonder how he got started in burning books and why he does it. She tells him about how people used to talk to each other and not sit around watching their “family,” on television, and when she explains her uncles’ crazy ideas and continues to make conversation with Montag, he is convinced she is strange. It’s in conversing with her that he sees he isn’t really happy, and that he isn’t something to fear, but something to pity because he has no feeling or opinion on anything. When he doesn’t see her in days, that’s when he realizes something is missing and he starts to change.
The firefighters don’t mind hurting the people inside the homes they burn, but simply getting rid of the books and whatever stands in their way. People also aren’t fazed by the amount of suicides attempted, they actually just treat it as something that is expected; stomach pumping jobs are even compared to handyman work. Montag’s wife acts as though it never happened to her, and when Clarisse is killed she acts like it’s just like any other news to tell her husband. Beatty also isn’t sympathetic when he has to burn one of his own men’s home and belongings, he actually seems quite smug about it.
The end of the book, when Montag meets up with other scholars who don’t agree with society’s rules and ideas, is the only sign of hope for change. Even then the scholars know that it will take time because no one wants to change how they are and the war is going to continue to spread. The ignorance of society though prevents them from surviving it. I think that is Bradbury’s way of showing that our society is practically self destructing and unless we express ourselves and learn from history and others experiences, we’ll be stuck unhappy and unable to change our ways.
Ray Bradbury provides specific details on American society throughout the novel Fahrenheit 451. Throughout the novel, Bradbury shows us readers on how stubborn and ignorant the American society can be. People “go with the flow” of society and it doesn’t seem to bother them. It is evident in the novel that the people in the book lack a basic understanding of knowledge and everyone seems to have equal intelligence because in this society, no one is considered better than anyone else. Everyone is on one equal level. People like Guy Montag have a desire to express individuality and personal ideas/thoughts, but their society that they live in prohibits it. As evident in the book, Guy Montag is punished by the people in their society and the society itself by wanting to express his own beliefs. The people who go with the flow of society see Guy Montag’s actions as threatening and it could do them harm since he is going against the society, so the people act on what they think is best for society as a whole. Characters like Captain Beatty try to take action when he sees what Guy Montag is doing. Captain Beatty fears for the worst and tries to stop Guy Montag from going against the “flow” of society, and ultimately pays the price for sticking up for society when Guy Montag burns him alive. When Montag realizes what he actually wants, it seems like no one or nothing will stop him from achieving it.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that represents the ignorance of society is at the beginning of the book when Guy Montag talks to Clarisse McClellan, who is a girl who just moved in that he is extremely intrigued by. Clarisse just seems so open and free and it seems like the reason Montag is so intrigued by Clarisse is because he is jealous of how free her lifestyle is. Clarisse expresses individuality, which is what we come to find out that Guy Montag desires after he decides change is what will be best for him. When he gets home that night, he realizes how miserable he actually is. Before Montag decided he wanted to change, he went with the flow of society and that ultimately hid how miserable he is. He thought since everyone else was living the same as him, that everyone was also happy. He is just one of the few people in their society that realizes he doesn’t want to live in misery anymore so change is needed.
I think the title of the book, Fahrenheit 451, could ultimately describe that American society after reading the book. Bradbury’s choice of the title of the book could be taken different ways. One could take it the literal way, meaning the temperature at which book paper catches fire and burns. The title of the book could also be taken into careful thought and consideration after reading the entire book. It seems as though the books aren’t the only thing that is burning or being destroyed though. As evident later on in the book, the society is burned down and ruined. The few people left in society that share similar ideas as Guy Montag is the only hope of restoration of a new and improved society that allows the expression of individuality among people.
Raven Wilson 9-07-10
ReplyDeleteAp English 11
Pd.3
In “Fahrenheit 451” my biggest disagreement is the books being illegal to read. The title of the book “Fahrenheit 451” means 451 degrees is when book paper burns, it was very clever to have the name of the book. I think we all should be able to read books. That is where everyone gets their knowledge from. Guy Montag went behind his works rules and read books anyways, they were important to his and life meaning. I think he was doing a great thing reading books if you care that much about something I think you should fight for it. In the future the fire fighters start the fire which confused me a little on that what if the fire spreads to another house. When Guy Montag says he doesn’t trust his hands it makes me wonder if he’s a theft. Which later on in the book he is stealing books from his job to read and keeping them underneath his pillow. The quote his work followed by was,” Monday burn Millay, Wednesday Whitman, Friday Faulkner, burn’em to ashes, then burn the ashes”. The quote is followed strongly by others and highly against the law.
In the beginning of the book Guy Montag was a guy who didn’t know much about himself. He really thought he knew himself turns out he really doesn’t. I believe in the real world no one knows who they are until another person points it out or you have an epiphany. When Clarisse asked Guy if he was happy he told her yeah he was. But he kept replaying in his head the question and kept saying I am happy, but he realized he isn’t happy. I think everyone once in their life time has ruff spot or unhappy but we learn how to get unhappy. When Guy realizes a way to feel happy again the conflict shows up in the story. What makes Guy happy and where he can escape from the separation of Mildred and him is reading books.
I feel like Guy and Mildred relationship if falling apart. I can relate to relationships problems where you aren’t close anymore after a period of time everyone spreads apart from one to another, some just spread apart faster than others. Mildred has a pill taking habit I think this is dangerous to her health but since Montag doesn’t pay her no attention she does it to feel better and she calls the TV her family because that’s all she has. Montag says she can overdose tomorrow and I wouldn’t care. I truly believe he still cares everyone cares about their significant other in some kind of way. I think them not being as close leads to strong conflict between their life style in there home and outside the home. I feel that everyone should support one another to make it through life. Life hits you with ups and downs some people learn to get up on their feet faster than others and some other cant get up due to the lack of carelessness.
When Clarisse dies Guy doesn’t believe it he is in shock and later on in the story he learns to take what she said as advice and she was right. So he just does as he pleases. The whole outer line of this book is the meaning living with difficulties and circumstances you have to face through life.
I feel like most people think that authors write books to play out their utopia and show the world what things could be like in a perfect world and that this is what Bradbury was trying to do as well. I don’t believe that. I think Bradbury was trying (and actually, succeeding) to write a book with elements that sounded in the extreme view, but were actually just about fifteen degrees from reality to show us how we need to take stock in our lives. Do we really want to end up in a world like Guy Montag’s? Where open-minded, free spirited people like Clarisse are killed off because that’s not what the government wants? Of course not, we fought against radicals like Pol Pot in Cambodia for this very reason.
ReplyDeleteRay Bradbury presents a very interesting and dystopian society in his book Fahrenheit 451. The people living in this make believe society have no access to books and the most of them spend their days addicted to the television, like Guy Montag’s wife Mildred and her friends were. They spent all day in the parlor, watching their ‘families’ portrayed on three wall-sized television screens, even given scripts and their own parts in some cases to make them feel more at one with their ‘families’. This really outlines what people of today could catastrophically become. Many people of today spend all their time watching television and becoming addicted to mindless shows like “Jersey Shore”. Some of them even get to the point where television has taken the social part of their lives and destroyed it. They are so focused on what happens on television shows because of how interesting or more glamorous it may be that they forget it’s not important at all. People read this book and think “Oh, how terrible that is, that people can be that focused on something unreal.” What they don’t see is the connections already being made in the real world. Televisions are getting larger and larger, almost wall sized, and people are already addicted to television. It seems so distant and unreal that it’s hard to fathom how close we are to this happening.
Bradbury brought up a key point in this novel about how rushed people seem in those days. Guy Montag mentions that the cars in his time all go at speeds well over 100 miles per hour and that when people get out of their car they don’t really slow down at all from that speed, figuratively speaking. People in our world are the same way, always rushing and running and creating stress for themselves daily, in situations like driving especially.
Bradbury also gets into things like how the news can lie to us, like how the Hound killed a man and said it was Montag. People tend to forget that because the news is the only way many of us know the story, they can bend it and break it. Not to get too into things like the ‘conspiracy theorist state of mind’ or disinformation, but Bradbury does lightly touch on how we are at a handicap not being witness or informed firsthand to most events with this little piece of disinformation.
Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” is a book with a lot to say about the futuristic American Society. Bradbury reveals that America has become this society where books have become illegal, and should be destroyed at all cost. If you are caught with books you are reported, and your books are burned. The government will do whatever it can to destroy literature in America.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel, Bradbury shares with us that Benjamin Franklin originally setup the first Fire Fighting Company to burn books, and not put out fires. The American government is doing whatever it can to make sure that there is no evidence of literature left in the United States. Montag is a fireman who would take care of the book burnings; this is what he was paid to do. He was pretty much brainwashed to do whatever the government told him to do. He didn’t know that books could actually be good; he just knew that he was to destroy them.
The government may have burned books to protect society so that they could keep everyone under control. Or maybe they burned books so that there wasn’t any jealously of one another. Whatever the case may be burning books was a widely accepted idea that people followed. Ray Bradbury just tells us that books are the thing of the past, and now they are just another object to burn.
When Ray Bradbury wrote this book America was going through the cold war, and its struggle with communism. Now in the book the government is trying to make America this place where everything is the same in a sense. Without any books there isn’t any competition with literacy, or becoming the next genius. So it might be possible that Bradbury was describing that this futuristic America was turning into somewhat of a communist society.
Later on in the book Montag has changed his life, and tries to save books. He becomes this super hero who is going to try to save books, and stop people from destroying them. I think that this is really cool because you now have a character that is going against what he was forced to believe; and now he is becoming what he tried to stop. When you have a character that does something extraordinary like this, then the whole book can change.
I think that this book was originally written to show how much society can change if something that is important to the society is destroyed. In OUR modern American society, books are not as important as they used to be; they are just becoming less important because of movies, music, and other pieces media. People just don’t read books like they used. Why read a book when you can watch a movie that tells the same story? I think that one day America will turn into something like this. Maybe it won’t be as extreme, but books won’t be important. Ray Bradbury could have been warning us that the world might come to this one day, and maybe he was right…….
Ray Bradburys book “Fahrenheit 451” gave me a completely new outlook on everyday thought. His book really emphasized on how powerful knowledge can really be. With out the knowledge we gain from books we can do not have the ability to make our own opinion or be our own self, making all of the people the same and dull. At first I argued that we do not get all of our knowledge from books, as I kept reading I slowly realized we actually did. We learn from books only the information it gives but, we then apply it to our everyday life or situations. Which made me greater understand why the government would want all books to illegal.
ReplyDeleteI felt that one of the points Bradbury was trying to make with all the element of censorship in this book was to show the United States what it would be like to fall to communism. That if we became a communist nation we would be lifeless, stupid, law abiding citizens. Something that really stuck out to me was changing history saying that firefighters are supposed to start fires. This stood out to me because it showed how far the government would go to keep their people from the truth and to control what they knew.
My favourite part of this book was when Clarisse asks Guy Montag if he is happy. It was almost like Guy said yes to being happy because he was trained to do so all his life. Then when he really started to think about it, if he was really happy he noticed he was not. This made me realize how in a world where books are legal that we can do this same thing. I have noticed that many people including myself mindlessly respond to questions with the same answer because that is the answer we have always given.
Another interesting concept this book has made me realize is that we, as people, tend to go with whatever society is doing. Everyone went along as if nothing was wrong no one second guess the government. This book showed that everyone goes along with everyone else “it’s the normal thing to do”. If I were to live in the society Bradbury portrayed I would not have rebelled or heaven forgive read a book. I probably would have been just like everyone else. This really made me admire Guy not only for breaking the law by reading books or continuing to read books ,but mostly because his job was to burn them, he did the exact opposite. I think it would be more hard to step out of job description because most of the time you are doing that job because you believe in it.
The fact that Bradbury was trying to convey his opinions on society at the time of the novel’s writing is fairly apparent. Bradbury saw an issue with the world around him and thought of the implications involved if it were to escalate. The novel is essentially a hypothetical imagining of what might happen in a worst case scenario, which serves as a warning to people today.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of book burning is pretty preposterous to most people, but Bradbury utilizes the characters and explores their emotions and motives to show just how dire the situation is in Montag’s society. People still go to school and read, but the government has outlawed books to keep control. The idea is to keep people out of touch with reality, therefore keeping them content. The problem is that critical thinking, analysis, and creativity is a built in component of the human mind.
In conjunction with the removal of any real literature, the media has taken a turn towards the abstract in an attempt at gaining mass appeal. The stories and characters portrayed in Mildred’s favorite programs lack any depth; they only serve as something to look at and hear without really saying anything. While the government may have had political interests in removing intellectually stimulating material from literature, the media had a financial interest.
Montag’s wife is used as an antithesis to Clarisse. Although she indulges in the mindless media and shuns books, under the surface she is severely depressed. On the other hand, Clarisse shuns the more primitive thrill seeking activities of her peers and prefers to enjoy nature and the people around her. Some people as (relatively) low ranking as Beatty are aware of the real history of the firefighters, and although he appears to be a villain, he is also portrayed as a victim after his death. He was also sick of living a shallow life and felt trapped.
Although it could be said that an oppressive government is to blame for the way things turned out, a very important point is made by Faber and his peers. Even during the events of the novel there is at least a guise of democracy present to the people. The majority of people must have consented to this happening, or perhaps they never realized that things were changing until they became the minority.
Guy comments that Mildred left nothing behind; he only remembers her having idle hands. Granger says that people need to mold the world in some way, as to leave behind part of themselves. This behavior has been denied or neglected by the majority of people in the city, and that’s what really causes them to be sad. The whole society seems very twisted and disturbing, but I can see Bradbury’s concern. Bradbury feared that enough people would become accustomed to mindless entertainment and unfulfilling occupations that they would neglect their own creativity and have nothing substantial to share with one another. I think that people in our time and society often “go with the flow” and float through life without accomplishing anything important to them. Although everyone dies, the fact that you once lived could be valuable when you’re gone.
Ray Bradbury in “Fahrenheit 451” had a lot to say about American society and how stubborn that it can be and also how unwilling they can be. They just follow along with society not believing in what books had to say in them. All the people in society seem the same as if they are all of the same intelligence. It’s like Guy Montag as a fireman his duty is to destroy knowledge and promote ignorance in order to equalize the population and promote everyone to be the same. Guy was one of these regular fireman he was happy with his job and thought that things couldn’t get any better up until he met Clarisse. After meeting her he started to question society, and then soon after that he started to question his job and why he even burned books. Through his conversing with her he finds that he isn’t happy about his job and even his wife that he sort of liked Clarisse, but then she disappeared for some days and that’s when Guy started to change. It all changed for him when they were sent to a lady’s house that had books in her attic and they were told to burn it and the lady wouldn’t leave her house and was burned along with her books. From this, Guy was desired to change his ways and read the books and turn against society’s ways and to see what they had against the books that just had writing in them and knowledge to gain.
ReplyDeleteWhen Guy stood against society Captain Beatty tried to make him go with flow but he didn’t so he burned and killed the Captain. But, Beatty didn’t deserve to die because he was only going along with society and not questioning it like Guy was. The reason that Guy did this was because he was miserable and wanted a change and didn’t want to be like everyone else thinking they are happy when the government just tells everyone its ok and everyone is almost all communistic.
The author was trying to show us that American society was tough and powerful in that if you questioned it you would pay. Guy paid for this by having to burn his house because he had all those books inside of his house. This was due to the power that society had over people; it tried to make them all the same not wanting to have books and not to question it.
Then, at the end of the book when Guy met up with the scholars that were just like Faber in that they were against society. They also, wanted change and believed in the books and the knowledge that they contained. And, all that they can do is sit and wait because of the war is continuously spreading. This is Bradbury’s way of showing us that we need to believe in different ideals and stand behind them because we all can’t become equal or the same. Because, if we did we would all be unhappy and become maybe eventually like Guy Montag and maybe even Bradbury feels that this could be our society eventually.
I definitely agree with Cary. I think the book was just meant to be an eye opener. As in, if we don’t slow down and listen to each other, just take time from our daily lives to actually connect with someone we might lose that intelligence and social skills and we’ll all be distant and careless. Televisions are definitely getting bigger and for years its been a big discussion on the effect that’s having on time spent reading per day. According to Norman Herr, Ph.D. the average American teenager watches more than 4 hours of TV each day, which is 28 hours per week, or 2 months constant TV-watching per year. This is opposed to the mere 26 minutes ON A SCHOOL DAY, American teens spend reading, according to Infoplease. The difference is severe and I think it does show in society. We now hear about violence and war everyday in the news, and see it in video games, movies, and hear it in music. It’s come to be a normal thing to hear about, and we don’t really think to relate or sympathize with the victim as much anymore. We act as though it shouldn’t affect us, simply because it didn’t happen to us.
ReplyDeleteRay Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 did indeed; prove to society the importance of individualism and the strength one must have to overcome forces stronger than themselves in pursuit of truth. One underlying theme of this novel is the focus from “I” to “Us” and “Me” to “We”. Contrasting Ayn Rand’s Anthem that most read last year, Fahrenheit spotlights the need of individualistic ideas, which provides a distinction between the main character, Montag, and the society he is forced to live in.
ReplyDeleteFrom the day children are born, in this distant future, they are taught to disregard anything relating to books, literature, novels, poems- HISTORY. The society depicted in this novel places an unrelenting censorship on individuals’ use of books. Children, adults and elders are all forced to BURN any trace of literature they may stumble upon. Bradbury emphasized this need to “rid society of its history” by creating each household with an incinerator just for the purposes of burning books. Neighbors would turn on neighbors- man would turn on man. If one refused to leave their home, if caught with a book- they would be murdered among the blaze of burning books and fire.
I believe that Bradbury wanted to give his readers a glimpse into the future, if we do not hold strong onto our world’s history and traditions. When Beatty discusses the evolution of the Firemen he states,
“Once, books appealed to a few people, here, there, everywhere. They could afford to be different. The world was roomy. But then the world got full of eyes and elbows and mouths. Double, triple, quadruple population. Films and radios, magazines, books leveled down to a sort of paste-pudding, do you follow me?”
This passage proves that society, filled with mass technology and advanced necessities, is beginning to neglect the history behind where we are today. What has happened in the past has lead to numerous discoveries and new ways of thinking. Our advanced economy can only be attributed to that of our history’s past. When people disregard how far we’ve come and forget where most of us started off; our world is bound to become unsettled. Beatty continues with his point on history’s “dull” past,
“Picture it. Nineteenth-century man with his horses, dogs, carts, slow motion. Then, in the twentieth century, speed up your camera. Books cut shorter. Condensations. Digests. Tabloids. Everything boils down to the gag- the Snap Ending. Classics cut to fit fifteen-minute radio shows, then cut again to fill a two minute book column, winding up at last as a ten- or twelve-line dictionary resumé.”
Literature, being such a wonderful and influential entity in most individuals’ lives, being cut-down, summarized? How can one take novels such as Little Women, the Grapes of Wrath, Great Expectations and To Kill a Mockingbird and simply condense them? Condense their value? What makes Fahrenheit 451 even more of a spectacular novel, is the fact that Bradbury was not afraid to go to a place that most would fear- where even the BIBLE would be burned at the binding. Not only is history being destroyed, but religion as well. Bradbury focuses his literature on teaching his readers, to respect history, no destroy it. He wants us to remember our values and where we all started off in life. When we forget where our roots reside, man becomes untrue to himself and fake to the people who view him in society. Bradbury wanted us to stress the idea of not getting too entwined in the thrill of new technology. People today, are so wrapped up in their Blackberrys, I-pads, I-Phones, game devices and so much more. When was the last time, you played outside for an entire Saturday? When was the last time you left your cell-phone at home? Why should there be any deaths relating to new technology (i.e.- texting and driving)? Try answering these questions honestly. No one is there to judge. Can you honestly say that technology isn’t everything in today’s society?
In Fahrenheit 451, I think the main point that Ray Bradbury made on society was that humans are capable of just about anything they set their minds to, but the second someone takes away books, reading, and the ability to learn, they cease to use common sense and tend to make all the wrong decisions. I believe that Capitan Beaty knew exactly what the human brain was capable of doing; he just didn’t want anyone to over throw him and his job. Burning books is probably the best way you’re going to stop the spread of literacy and with the stop of literacy you stop all of the questions that eventually lead to curiosity. This curiosity is showed through the character of, Guy Montag. He is the only person that is brave enough to go against the words of society. The society in Fahrenheit 451 is an odd one. What may seem outrageous to us is completely normal for them. For example, the schooling system is largely based on physical activities to keep the students busy; so they don’t get a chance to see what their minds are capable of. Many people in this book find speaking your mind or even thinking, complete nonsense. Throughout the book the word, thinking, is often italicized, I believe that Bradbury wanted to make it clear that ‘thinking’ in this society happened only once in a blue moon. However, there is a character that stood out from all of the rest and that was Clarisse McClellan she was Guy Montag’s neighbor and was eventually the person that led Montag to question what he believed in. The simple question, “are you happy?” that Clarisse had asked Montag one night, opened Montag’s eyes to the fact that he wasn’t happy, in fact he was unhappy. I believe that the reason he was so surprised to hear such a simple question was because it was personal and he actually had to think about it.
ReplyDeleteReading books was against the law, yet speeding and crashing a car was completely fine. These chaotic and unintelligent laws made putting someone’s life at risk better then actually putting your own life to good use. When I say putting your life to good use, I mean attempting to make a difference for the better of mankind. This obviously was not present in Fahrenheit 451. Characters such as English professor Faber, Guy Montag, previous professors, teachers, and philosophers were kind of the unseen heroes of the book because in the end they were there to pick up all the pieces after the bomb.
Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 gave us readers a chance to experience a society where books were burnt to keep everyone on the same level of thinking. Clarisse explains, “But they all say the same things and nobody says anything different from anyone else.” With society wanting to keep everyone the same, I believe most people were afraid of being different, afraid of being their own person. Instead, they let technology fill in the emptiness in their lives. They relied on material objects to make them content. For example, Mildred and her parlor, at times I even thought that she cared more for her parlor then her own husband. With everyone relying heavily on technology, everyone just stopped reading books. A society solely based on burning books, is a society wasted.
Brendan Jeffries
ReplyDeleteRay Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 was a book about control, Government control as well as civil control. There are many examples of these controlling “figures” in the book. In addition there are also examples of foreshadowing in the book. Ray Bradbury is very specific in capturing these images of a lifestyle that is based on control, which is not so different from modern life, in the way he portrays the main character, Guy Montag. His actions that affect the people he professes to love and the way he starts questioning the motives of such government officials such as himself and the rest of the firefighters.
The entire book was about control. The government controlled everything that the public heard, which happens on a much smaller scale today, and in doing so, outlawed books for fear of what people would find in them. Every single sentence or word from any type of media was manipulated into something that the government was sure would not cause grief of any kind. Grief or sadness was an emotion that nobody felt anymore. Nobody knew what it was like to grieve over the dead and feel real emotions, emotions other than the fake happiness that had enshrouded them. In addition to the outlawing of books and the “control” over the population’s emotions, the government also changed history itself. They needed a reason to have the firefighters there so instead of just telling the people that the firefighters once put out fire’s and everyone did read books, which would most likely cause havoc among the population, they changed the entire history telling everyone that firefighters had always started the fires.
The firefighters themselves were an extreme example of civil control in the book. They were a small step down from the government’s total control and yet they still had to “keep order” and burn books for the sake of the people. Because over the years, the population began to get used to not reading books until virtually nobody did, if the public as a whole were to begin to read them again, the emotions may have been too much for some people and it would in turn cause major grief among the U.S. The firefighters are keeping the balance of the people and all the emotions “in check” so to speak.
References are made to nuclear war in the book. It does not say with whom the war is going on but considering the book takes place in the future, we assume that’s the state of things at the moment. Bradbury made major references to another person who controlled people on the extreme level, Josef Stalin of the Soviet Union. Though his reasons may have been different from the government in the book, the outcome is primarily the same. Stalin controlled everything the people heard or saw on television and in the newspapers. His lack of trust of people turned him into a monster and ultimately led to his death. It is ironic how it is a book describing a fictional story of a government that outlaws books.
When Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451 he made his views on modern day society very clear. To say that he thought humanity had lost its individuality, creative mind, and sense of purpose in exchange for dull, mind-numbing lives would be just touching the tip of an ice burg. In the novel he clearly describes how books have become some dark secret that must be locked away and silenced in some icy compartment of the mind. To be well-read made you an individual, and with individual, developing thoughts a person would become a threat. To be smarter than your peer caused arguments and unleashed foul feelings, but if you were all the same you could skim across the surface of life without having to muddy your feet in all the distasteful parts. “So now do you see why books are hated and feared? They show the pores in the faces of life,” clearly shows that this is in fact what people are so afraid of. They fear having their faces shoved towards a mirror so they can see what their lives have become. The thought of conflict terrifies them in such a way that they opt out of real emotion all together; hiding their true feelings behind masks.
ReplyDeleteThroughout this book people are trying to make people into what they want them to be, not what they ought to be. Clarisse was avoided because all of their attempts to cram her into the same mold as the rest of them failed. Her identity was criticized because it was different and she was loathed because of it. On a side note, this desire to change her into what they think would be better alludes to Bradbury’s note in the back of his book about censorship. He describes how his works have been criticized and how many people think that “this” would be better, or “that” would be a better ending. To him, a person believing that they know what is best for his work is the fuel for burning books. If someone thinks that they know better, it’s like burning someone else’s work, thus, Fahrenheit 451, the temperature in which books burn.
What makes his views on American Society more intriguing is the thought that people have lost their ability to care for life; anyone’s life. In Fahrenheit 451 he shows just how much he believes this idea. When Mildred overdoses on her pills the men who come to revive her don’t even care. She’s just another person, and just another pay check to them. Besides, it’s not like they know her personally or anything. At the same time, Bradbury writes about a war going on at the time, yet, as you read, no-one really knows anything about it. If asked directly about the war, they’d say something about having heard about it from the family, or some other silly response, but nothing was ever said. Even on smaller matters discussed by the “family,” everyone gets really excited about it, but they do nothing besides saying that someone ought to do something. It’s like they’ve lost the ability to care what happens to them. As long as they had all their fancy gadgets, they could care less. To Ray Bradbury, this is what he predicts will happen or already has happened to our society in the future.
“Fahrenheit 451” was written in 1953. Ray Bradbury wrote this book to reveal many things about American society. Ray Bradbury narrates this book with his main character; Guy Montag. Many other characters represent people in the outside world as the antagonists. Such as Mildred, which was Guy Montag’s wife, she made it hard for him to hide his books and read them. People from the outside world, such as someone that keeps you from doing things like, dictatorship. I believe this book is based on other forms of government such as dictatorship. It may sound weird, but once you think about it, it will all make sense.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Bradbury has predicted what it will look like in the mere future. When Bradbury added that people lied about how firefighters put out fires rather than starting them in the past. In the future, people will lie about the past and they will get by with it. This is why books like this, “Fahrenheit 451”, shows us how the future will be.
Control is a big part in this book. Everyone wanted control. Captain Beatty and Mildred were the two main characters that wanted control over Montag. In the future, I believe the government will also want control over individual people, instead of the whole nation. Fact of the matter is how close are they into achieving this goal? For instance the government has total control over him the president Obama. We need to do something about this. Fahrenheit 451 has symbolically showed us how to survive, this government phenomena. “It was a pleasure to burn”, is what Montag said while burning a house full of books. Ray Bradbury is trying to say to us, that sooner or later everyone won’t have a problem taking things down. We will end up doing it with a smile on our face. It will BRING PLEASURE to us! We do not want this, I am pretty sure I am speaking for everyone. It won’t be hard for us to take things down that don’t mean a thing to us but mean a great deal to other people.
If we don’t change our future, then we will become worthless, to everything. Once the government finds us becoming useless to the environment, economy, anything. They will take us down. They will take everything from us that have a meaning to us. They will do it with PLEASURE! What Ray Bradbury is trying to tell us is to stay strong. Don’t let anyone take advantage, because once they do, they will take everything. Once they take everything, they will have nothing else to do, so they will find some crazy thing to do that involves hurting us in some way. Bradbury warned us, and if we don’t change, then something will happen that we don’t want to. In “Fahrenheit 451” they didn’t do anything, so the government outlawed books. The government can do worst to us. All we have to do is one simple thing, change.
Zack -- I enjoyed your point at the end, about this being a cautionary tale that may well be happeneing before our eyes, but you focus much on the government's power to censor. What about the people who first just stopped reading/thinking? Didn't the goverment simply make into law the lifestyle of most of its citizens? So who is more dangerous: the "government" or the majority? Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteIn Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, the society portrayed is one of censorship and government control. With the outlaw of books, the society has been molded into a “zombie” nation. From the transition of a society with books to one without them, humans in general have gradually lost their ability of free thinking. The government controls the society literally via brainwashing. The media only lets the people know what the government wants them to hear. With the absence of free thinking, everyone is submissive to the government which gives them this zombie characteristic. Even the firefighters, who were once men that helped, saved, and assisted society, has become a group of men dedicated to the unknowingly further destruction of human culture. In a way the firefighters resemble a form of s.w.a.t. team or population control in which they get calls about books and respond on the scene to burn them. They have stooped down to even lying about their history in order to completely forget the society that once was in the book and is today in real life.
ReplyDeleteThe society itself reminds me of a communist regime. In the book everyone is portrayed as equal. They live in the same conditions and all act in the same way. An example of this is when Guy Montag is on the run and the television instructs everyone to walk outside of their homes and check to see if he is there. Everyone, with a few rebellious exceptions, is the same in their submission to the government; much like a communist regime requires. Everyone works together for the benefit of the nation. Like the society portrayed in Fahrenheit 451, communist societies also practice censorship. An example of this was how Stalin used censorship while he was in power to influence and present biased information to the people of Russia. The burning of books is a prime example of this because it does not allow people to see multiple views on a certain topic. Books provide one with the ability to question and free think which again, causes the society into their submission into the government.
It is curious to wonder why Ray Bradbury would have written this novel. Again referring to the society resembling one of a communist regime, Bradbury might have been influenced to write this book to portray a world where Communist Russia had won the cold war and taken over the world. The book mentions certain nuclear wars that have occurred in the past that could be referring to this struggle for power. Another possible motivation for Bradbury to write this book would be to show how society is and has slowly disintegrated. With the benefits modern conveniences have to offer, society has changed drastically over time. With the invention of the radio, television, and internet, people are found more and more investing their time into these while in older times, the only form of entertainment was reading. Bradbury could have written this book to provide a warning and a glimpse of the future where society has disintegrated to a point where books are no longer used; even to a point that they are outlawed because they make people upset. But even though books may indeed cause people to be upset with their life, they do provide to be a major ingredient in human nature.
Naturally humans question why and how which leads us to invention, innovation, and curiosity that has lead us into the complex civilization we are today. It is books that help fuel this curiosity and free thinking abilities which without we would gradually progress into a society portrayed by Fahrenheit 451.
Sophie -- Stubbornness, conformity, ignorance -- these seem to be traits that have always plagued mankind. Do you think this novel is based on a trend in modern society or is Bradbury commenting on the weakness of human nature in all time periods, or both?
ReplyDeleteWhen “Fahrenheit 451” was originally written in 1953, it appeared to be a cautionary tale of a grim, modernized future not too far off the horizon.
ReplyDeleteI believe this future has arrived.
One of the main messages in the book was that modernization due to rapidly developing computer technologies would eventually lead to a loss of individualism and an autonomous society in which nobody asks questions and everybody just does. I was able to draw a lot of significant comparisons between the “future” technologies depicted by Bradbury and the commonplace communication methods of today.
TV walls? More like webcams, Skype, Facebook.
Seashell radios? iPods and Zunes, of course.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that Bradbury has very accurately predicted the technologies of his future world, with one exception: while the censored information in the novel caused history to be rewritten (Such as the first fireman being Benjamin Franklin and the job itself having never actually been for the purpose of stopping fires), we still know the truth about history in our real world… or so we think. In using these sorts of elements which blatantly contradict what we believe to be true, Bradbury is imploring us to question what we see and ensure that what we think we know is true. Just as the novel depicted with the innocent man’s killing (to make the public believe Montag was dead), our media only shows us what will get us to pay attention, what will get them the ratings (remember that news shows need viewers just like any other television show, and if this means exaggerating stories to get a larger audience, they just might do it). As a result, there is so much going on in our world that we aren’t even aware of. I believe this is the core of what Bradbury is asking of us with “Fahrenheit 451”: he wants America to not fall into a rut of having common ideas, a rut where the individual is no more. He wants people to continue to learn, to not allow “intellectual” become a derogatory term as it is used in the novel. With the bombing of the city, he even suggests that falling into a trend of commonality will eventually lead to our ultimate destruction.
Instead, I think Bradbury is asking people to be more like Clarisse: striving to try new things, unafraid to see the world as it is instead of looking from behind a screen, confident enough to take off the headphones and actually listen. Clarisse is Bradbury’s depiction of an ideal America, and it appears that he wants it to go back to the melting pot of ideas and cultures in once was. However, with Clarisse’s death, Bradbury implies that this goal may be unattainable: everyone in the book has been so desensitized to death through news programs and the constant violence in the world (some people deliberately tried to hit Guy as he crossed the highway), especially Mildred.
I also noticed that the usage of books in the book seemed to represent all human knowledge. As more books were burned, more human history and ideals became fabricated. Citizens fell into a world of what they felt was right with nobody wanting to make a change. As Beatty said, “You always dread the unfamiliar.” In antagonizing Beatty, Bradbury also seemed to want to antagonize his ideals. The novel is asking for people to try to be different, for this is where growth comes. The few people who went against the tide in the story, actually choosing to read books for the true knowledge they held ended up being the only ones who survived.
And it is here that we encounter the crux of Bradbury’s social commentary. “Fahrenheit 451” pleads to America: don’t be afraid to try new things, don’t get swept up in a daily, unchanging routine, and, most importantly, don’t be afraid to ask questions. If nobody’s paying attention, if everyone’s in their own little bubbles, anything could happen – including the destruction of a country, a world.
Mark -- You discuss much about "going with the flow" versus being an individual. Do you see this as an American cultural conflict or as part of human nature in general? Has this conflict worsened with mass media and marketing in the modern age?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Cary Young’s statement, I agree whole-heartedly. In both our world and the world of Fahrenheit 451 people are far too addicted to television. Priorities are shifting. Where once spending time with your family and friends might be on the top of the list, now catching your favorite television show is a must. Books at least allow you to use your own imagination. Just as books in the novel have lost their importance, they seem to be falling from their pedestal in the real world, too. For example, the recent budget cuts at the libraries around the Winchester, VA area show just that. Money is going elsewhere, into things deemed more important. Our libraries are experiencing extreme budget cuts and furloughs, as well as having to shorten their hours. Without the books that force our minds to work and create, it’s quite possible that most of America will soon be surrounded by televisions the size of the wall with their mind’s shut off, eyes dazed, and drool running down their chins. (nvdaily.com)
ReplyDeleteRaven -- You mention book burning and happiness. What do you think Bradbury is trying to say about the connection between the two? Is this just about books? Why/how do books make someone happy? Or do they?
ReplyDeleteOlivia Holdway
ReplyDeletePeriod 4
AP English 11
9/8/10
Throughout the novel “Fahrenheit 451”, Ray Bradbury compares his book to American society. In many parts of the book, Bradbury describes the good and bad images of books and how people feel about them. Although he describes Montag being fond of books, it is apparent that more peoples’ feelings are against books. It seems to me that Bradbury wanted to show the American society how books affected everyone in any way. During one scene when Montag is talking to Mrs. Bowles about books, Mrs. Bowles becomes very upset with Montag on his opinion of books. I think that the author put this part in the story to show how some books really affect people. No matter what topic, everyone has sensitive feelings towards something and books cover every topic and subject possible. In society today, many religions are burning the holy text or sacred book of others just to display their thoughts and feeling about their own religion. To me, it seems that Bradbury really captured this thought and incorporated it into his book very well. Even though people agreed with the burning of books in the novel, Bradbury also added the thoughts of people that did not agree with the burning of books which allowed readers to understand both viewpoints of each group. I think the main purpose of this novel and the addition of both viewpoints was to allow readers to learn about the logic behind a persons’ choice to burn books or not. When in an argument or disagreement, the feelings of both parties must be evenly discussed and I think that Bradbury did so in his book.
In American society today, it is said that “70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.” This statistic shows that most people now do not even try to read books, just like they did during the time when Ray Bradbury wrote his book “Fahrenheit 451.” By people not reading any of the books provided to them, it seems to me that they didn’t and still don’t give books a chance. People don’t know what they are missing out on by not reading books and I think that throughout the time period described in the book, many communities could come together and appreciate and learn from books if they just tried. Within the book, Bradbury seems to show that by trying, anything is possible. Montag tried to break away from being like everyone else and had his own opinion on books. I think that this led him to finding his own true happiness by being with others that appreciated books like he did and also shared their thoughts and feelings of a common interest. I strongly agree with Ray Bradbury’s ideas of having American societies coming together even through tough times just like Montasg did. He really appealed to me as an author and I think that he added his own opinion of American society in this book very well.
I am most intrigued with your post. I fully agree with what you say about the censorship and government control. With the question you pose about how the government either outlawed books for the intentional wrongdoing of the world or to delete history in one stroke, I believe it would be the second suggestion. A nation never intends to destroy itself, but they may be unhappy with the past and attempt to start over and get a fresh, new clean slate. Even though the society disintegrated into a nation worse than it already was, it was all done with intentions to make things better. Perhaps the plan just backfired. But again to the people, everything is normal. I agree with your statement about everyone being happy but maybe because of their lack of skills for free thinking, they can not imagine a better world. They can’t question their society. Just food for thought there.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Raven, about the whole Guy Montag not knowing who he really was. I think that he knew what he was but just didn’t realize it at the moment. Later in the book Guy Montag does realize what his life is all about. Mildred was the antagonist to his thoughts and feelings, hence the fact that he never had time to realize who he was. I believe that at one point in his life, he had everything figured out, but once the government and his job took over, he was blinded from reality. I have read many things about the Taliban, and how they killed many people such as themselves for their leaders. They are blinded from reality with their religious obligations. If they just took the time and figured it all out, they would realize that they may not want to do this and stop. Or some may figure out that what they are doing is right, it is their choice. The point I am trying to get across here is that people are going through life without thinking. All we need to do is think!
ReplyDeleteDear Anabelle,
ReplyDeleteI am most intrigued with your post. I agree with your reasoning as to Ray Bradbury’s main point in Fahrenheit 451. He is making it seem as though if you were to take all of our books and such away, people would cease to want to learn. Their strive to learn new things everyday and make assumptions using their brains is only worth anything if they try. Making classes more physical so that people do not have time to think and use your brain is a horrible tactic to create much of a “zombie-type” society in where nobody has the want to know anything. They only want to be “happy”. The happiness enshrouds the entire society in the book and that is probably one reason Guy starts to question the actions of many people. His surroundings are lacking in feeling and everyone is just thinking the way the government wants them too.
Bradbury’s view on American society is very bold in the novel Fahrenheit 451. He gave us a vivid picture of what our society could look like in the future. Near or far future, that I’m not exactly sure. The way the characters are molded in this story is that they are mindless, illiterate pawns of what society had become by outlawing books. The civilians believed that the books corrupted the human mind and that they were evil by questioning the life of which they lived. They were afraid of what could be and the ideas that these authors presented to the minds of people.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest parts in the book is when Guy Montag meets Clarisse after leaving the firehouse. Clarisse was the type of character that a lot of people are attracted to because she is adventurous, bold, and always has a question that really makes you think as a reader. I found her to be the person in Fahrenheit 451 that kind of modeled for what the books could no longer provide for people. She painted a picture of life by taking in what was around her and questioning it. At one part when she and Montag are having a conversation, she asks him a question that makes him realize how empty and meaningless his life is. That was the key turning point in the book for me.
A situation that disturbed me deeply in the book is how Mildred, Montag’s wife, reacts to everything. She doesn’t at all, react to anything. She rambles on about meaningless things like the show on the television and only when Montag has to shout to get her attention does she only turn to look at him for a couple of seconds before moving on in a zombie-like fashion. In my view, she is one of the characters that paints the perfect picture for the ‘mindless, illiterate pawns’. Beatty, the firehouse captain, makes me think of a dictator. He is who is in control of everything, making others feel powerless beneath his gaze. He seems to know everything, too. After Montag stole the book and pretended to be sick, Beatty came by and began telling of books and what he saw them as, as if he knew Montag had the book, which in the long run, he did.
Overall, my interest in this book ran very deep because it made me stop and think about how our society today is and what its becoming. We depend so much on technology to do so much work for us that if a lot of us were presented with a book, we wouldn’t know what to do with it. I believe Bradbury was trying to tell the people of his time to stop depending so much on technology and start using books to answer questions instead of using computers as a crutch. From what I interpreted, he believes that books are the unbreaking structure that holds our society together and keeps it strong.
In Fahrenheit 451 a statement is being made about mankind by Ray Bradbury that illustrates the world without books. As reality goes on Ray Bradbury realized how mankind disregards knowledge from written books of the past and books are lost and forgotten because pf the new technology and phases of the decade. Within this world of Bradbury’s, the most important thing is to stay unstressed and have fun, but most were not having fun. Fast cars, destructive games, and big screen televisions were their way of entertainment. All books were banned and made to be burned if found. Bradbury painted what he thought the world would be like with books out of the equation. This was to represent how the future could be if humankind left behind the world of literature. Ray Bradbury statement was that books hold truth which made many turn away form them and that books also hold creativity and great meanings that are sometimes lost in everyday life.
ReplyDeleteBooks were not only forgotten in Fahrenheit 451 but unwanted. There is a scene in the Bradbury’s book, where Montag read a poem to Mildred and a group of ladies that made one of them cry. The poem made that woman cry for it told the ugly truth about her life with her husband and her children. In many cases the truth is not comforting so one turns away from it. That in many ways is what mankind did to books in Fahrenheit 451; they find the truth upsetting and almost consider it like unneeded knowledge. Even a fiction book can bring out the truth in a real life situation. Good books whether fiction or nonfiction can make one consider the world differently, also causing problems for the fireman’s perfect view on fun and happiness. Books can also be found unsettling for they express one’s own opinion which may go against another’s. Beatty, the fireman chief, made this point to Montag by listing books that are found offensive to different races, religions and kinds of people. The reasons Bradbury gave mankind for burning books are not immoral, but the image Bradbury made of humans without them was.
Clarisse McClellan showed that truth wasn’t the only thing that was missing because of books. Clarisse was a character that Bradbury used to point out the differences of the fireman’s world and the world of the past. She often referenced to her uncle, who was around before books were burned. This made Clarisse odd to anyone else in the story. She told Montag once that she would follow people around just to see what they all talk about and how they all talked about the same things no matter where she was. This shows how without literature creativity was lacking for those people. This is true however about mankind today, like someone else has said before, if one was to take away the weather half the world would have nothing to talk about. Books help expanse the mind and lively up thoughts. Knowledge almost seems dead with nothing to stand by and support it. Ray Bradbury statement was that books hold truth and sometimes turned away form because of that fact; that books also hold creativity and great meanings that are sometimes lost in everyday life.
In response to Chelsea Chewning’s statement, I agree completely with what she said about how most people wouldn’t know what to do with a book today if they were handed one. For example, most teens today don’t crack open an encyclopedia if they want to look something up, they simply type it into Google. I’m certainly guilty of doing so. To be perfectly honest, I think that if half of the students in America were asked to look up something without using the Internet, they would be at a loss. Technology is even trying to overtake books by creating electronic versions. I personally would rather read from a paperback to get that special feeling you get from doing it, but I know many people who have already purchased a Nook or a Kindle. Hopefully as long as books exist we’ll be alright, I certainly wouldn’t want to become like Mildred. (Mashable.com - Amazon: E-books Will Overtake Paperbacks by the End of 2011)
ReplyDeleteTo add to what Olivia Holdway wrote, it’s not just that people aren’t trying to read, it’s that in this day and age a lot of people can’t read. “There are over 42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read, as well as the 50 million who read at a fourth- or fifth-grade level.” It’s because of this lack of literate people in our world that I think we have such a problem with making a better reality for ourselves. These people don’t understand certain references and often can’t tell when they are lied to. People learn from books and gain common interests. Without the knowledge we gain from reading we take comfort in not thinking. It’s with knowledge that we learn, grow, and make change. Bradbury was only trying to show people that. Basically his book shouts the question, “If we don’t read them, why not burn them?” Books exist for a reason, let’s not forget that. (Truthdig.com - Chris Hedges: America the Illiterate)
ReplyDeleteAs I finished reading, I believe that Ray Bradbury’s main purpose in writing the novel, Fahrenheit 451, was to express his thoughts on society in general. Ray Bradbury discussed human traits such as being stubborn, unintelligent, and an unwillingness to complete the simplest things. It seems as if in present day United States today, we as a whole country struggle with those traits of human nature. Although the good traits Ray Bradbury expressed in his novel were individualism and self independence. Those are two traits that seem to be lacking in our society today.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting how the people tend to forget the simple and enjoyable things in their lives. The novel was written about fifty years ago, and it was set in a futuristic time period. Even though the novel was written many years back, I believe that Fahrenheit 451 sort of gives a prediction of how times might be in the future. I do not mean to say that everyone in the future will burn books in their own fire places and never read them ever again in their lifetime. I mean that as technology advances as years pass, people will be more intrigued and fascinated about new inventions or highly improved objects. The people of the future will not use ordinary items that we use normally every day. For an example such as news papers or magazines, people now days still order news papers or magazines. Now it is much easier to look them up on the internet, phone or even your ipod.
The characters in Fahrenheit 451 seem to show no will to try or even complete things. The people seem to do as everyone else and not use their own common sense. With all new and highly advanced technology I feel as if the people in the novel are very lazy and lethargic. Now that every duty or job is controlled by machinery, it seems that the people seem to take more for granted and accomplish less. Granted that I am not the biggest reader and only read when I have too, I still do believe that the lack of books has an effect on the society. Very person is wrapped up into their own devices or new technology, and it diminishes their brains. it sort reminds me of a young boy who does not want to read and all the boy wants to do is play video games all day. The education is not enforced as much as a normal society. Even though the society set in the novel has high technology rate, I feel as if it is departing to a much more lethargic society.
The individualism shown in the novel was of Guy Montag. He went against society and risked his life. He put his job and life on the line just to explore his fascination of books and education. I felt that even now days, not too many people would go against all odds or go to extremes to overcome society.
In the novel Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury portrays the American society through out many aspects. He shows the immense impact that individualism has on people and its society, the importance of standing up for what you believe in, and the cause of ignorance towards other people. Individualism is clearly prohibited for anyone and for any reason. Bradbury makes this clear by banning books. Books gave people the freedom to think on their own and create the opportunity to disagree against another person. However, during this time, the government did not want this. They wanted complete control over the society. The government sought after people to act and think like one. This created every person in the society to have a shortness of knowledge. In return this made the society to be equal in intelligence. No one person was more intelligent than their neighbor due to the lack of books. Unfortunately, people were ok with this fact. In today’s world, with out books, how advanced would our economy, technology, or even socially would we be? If we did not have books, such as the Bible, as our reference on life, would we all be alike? In the novel, books resemble freedom. The society did not have it, therefore there was no individualism. Guy Montag became interested in reading and the benefits of having books, so therefore he became an individual in the society. All in all, Ray Bradbury uses books as a symbol of freedom.
ReplyDeleteAlong with this Guy Montag stood up for what he believed in. He believed in freedom of thought, speech, and education. Upon meeting Clarisse, Montag soon realized how lonely, depressed, and carefree the society was. The society commonly was by them selves. They did not sit around and talk for hours into the night or go out on family walks. The only family time that the society had was sitting inside and talking to their “wall family,” unlike today’s society. This is an example of how socially incapable the society was. They carry along with their own business not caring about anything in the world other than themselves. People in this society always “go with the flow,” except Montag. He believed in a better, well respected, individualistic society. For this reason, Montag did the only thing he could do, change the way the society thought about books.
In addition, Ray Bradbury showed the causes of ignorance towards other people in the American society. For example, a time in the novel that unreasonable ignorance towards another person was shown was with Clarisse. People saw Clarisse and were very well aware of her, but they disregarded her due the fact that they found her attitude peculiar and too individualistic; therefore she was not a part of the society. Unfortunately, in today’s American society this happens all too often.
The only hope that the society has is in the hands of the old and forgotten professors, librarians and authors. They are people like Guy Montag who believe in change and the restoration of their own mankind. They are the people that challenge others to be individual as Ray Bradbury portrayed in his book Fahrenheit 451.
Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 basically states his views on society, he warns us through his novel of what the world might turn into. A world where the government hides everything from the people making it seem like everything is okay when it really isn’t. Where they try to even everything out so that no one is inferior to the other.
ReplyDeleteFahrenheit 451 reminds me of the story Harrison Bergeron where the society they live in is basically the same as Montags society only they have “handicaps” that gives them disabilities. In Fahrenheit their “handicap” is to burn all books. They are scared of feeling inferior to others and they feel that books are the reason for that. They are right though because in books are people ideas and peoples ideas come from their freedom of thought. The people in Montags society are scared and they hide behind a corrupt government without even realizing the rest of the troubles in their world. For example, in the book the country they live in is on the brink of war and people just go on acting like nothing is wrong. Bradbury illustrates this through Mrs. Phelps and Mrs. Bowles, Montag asks what they think about the war and they don’t really have anything to say just “it’s always the other husbands that die”. They aren’t even worried about the fact that their husband whom they should love could die and never come back. They are in a society where everything is about themselves and as long as they are okay they don’t care about anyone else. They even think this about their own children, they ship them off to boarding schools where they don’t have to worry about them and when the children come home all they do is watch television. Even though this story was written in 1953 Bradbury pretty much got our society today right. In the story people drive around in their cars at speeds over a hundred miles per hour and never slow down. We do the same thing in our lives today, many of us don’t take time to slow down and take notice in the things that are happening around us we just keep on rushing through our lives like it’s a race. Also in the story the people lacked individuality and creativity, all they would do is watch shows on TV’s that were the size of walls. The TV’s are kind of like the government in the story where they would only show them what they want them to see and they don’t think for themselves at all which is what Montag grows to hate. Another similarity between the book and our society is the lack of people who like to read books and who actually want to. It isn’t as extreme in our society like it is in the books but still people now don’t like to read very often we’d rather watch TV or go to a movie. It kind of seems like our society is gradually becoming the society that is in the book and it makes me wonder what will the world be like in one hundred years, will we end up making the same mistakes as they did.
I found the book Fahrenheit 451 to be a very interesting book yet weird. I think the whole social aspect of the book was what is thought to be of the future. The main idea of not having books and wanting everyone to be equal is kind of what we want in our society today, wanting everyone to be equal. The people in the book have become dependent on technology so much that they don’t even talk to each other much. I think the marriage between Guy and Mildred was supposed to symbolize that. When Mildred was on her T.V thing she hardly even responded to Guy when he attempted to talk to her. She had become more interested in her fake world rather that her reality. In the first section when Guy asked where they had met Mildred responds with “It doesn’t matter.” (Bradbury 43). At that point in the book it seemed like technology was the only thing that mattered. In the fire station they used mechanical hounds to help them in their everyday job. They had fully replaced regular animals and programmed mechanical ones. I fear that our society would become somewhat like this one in the future. We live in a society where everyone is to be treated equal, in time that the word treat would be tossed and everyone would have to be equal. I think the society would fail if that would happen. This dystopia was our world to the extreme. The people even look the same, when Guy is in the fire station he looks at the other firemen and sees himself. Clarrise McClellan was the opposing factor in this dystopian world. She took the time to ask why and when. She showed a lack of fear or respect to the fact that he was a fireman which is what I noticed when she was first introduce into the plot. When Guy met her she taught him to ask questions and stand out from the everyday person. At one point in the book he actually expresses himself when talking to her, He spoke of his hypothetical plot to murder Beatty and overthrow the firemen. Guy learned from what she taught him and starts showing it in the second section of the book. He started showing more human characteristics and flaws. He begins to have no self control and hate the very world that he lived in. I feel like she was his greatest influence in the story almost like his mentor. Throughout the end of the book he sees and hears things that remind him of her such as when he is running from the hound and crosses the river, knowing that she had been there before. I think the ending was great. Although the city gets bombed I liked the symbolism used comparing the city to the phoenix saying it would rise again. I think it was supposed to represent more than the city though, I believe it was the rebirth of mankind in the world.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the book Fahrenheit 451, I can honestly say that this novel was very interesting and confusing. One thing I am confused about is what exactly the books symbolize. Are they supposed to symbolize knowledge or stupidity? My debate for knowledge would be that with reading books comes knowledge , and the purpose of burning the books is to erase knowledge in order to make everyone equal and happy (Captain Beatty, pages. 59-60). On the other hand, I could see myself arguing that the books symbolize stupidity as well. I say that because if the fire departments are on a mission and their job is to incinerate every book, then it would be stupid to keep the books. Also, with the majority of the population disposing and being against books, would the readers be viewed as stupid or different by the majority? Another thing I am confused on is what exactly Montag is afraid of by reading and possessing literature? Is he afraid of the fire department or is he afraid of society? I do not understand why he feels it is necessary to go with society. The only reason I could think of would be so no one will turn him in for having the books. And is the only reason he is afraid of the fire department because he is a fireman? Montag is viewed as an intimidating, high power individual, so to say, in the society because of his profession. He is expected to hate books, therefore if this image he has established of himself would be ruined, who knows how he would react. I am also under the impression Montag is afraid of what the books contain. Society has been used to what has been put on their televisions. Therefore he does not know what to expect with books because he knows nothing about them really. The one character I seemed to struggle understanding was Mildred. The only thing I could see her symbolizing would be a window to the modern society in the story. She wanted more than anything to be known as a member of the high society. Mildred continually gloated about her three wall-TV’s and kept nagging on how she wanted a fourth. That just showed how much social status meant to her. Ultimately I think the reason Mildred left Montag was because she did not understand what it was like fighting for something you believe in. She was so caught up in public image and cared to much about social status, while Montag was fighting to understand what books held inside them, what the message of books was, and how they could impact his life.
ReplyDeleteTo my understanding, Ray Bradbury’s purpose in writing Fahrenheit 451 was to get the message across to the readers that people are selfish and how people care more about what other people think of them instead of what they think of themselves. Besides a handful of people in the story, everyone seemed to just care about how they looked towards others. And I think that is what the world is coming to today. Bradbury used a simple idea, blew it way out of proportion, and it clearly got the message across.
I think Ray Bradbury’s commentary shows that American society is too involved in progressing in technology instead of learning from things that everyone in the past years has learned from. Books are the building blocks of learning. If we didn’t learn them at an early age we’d be lost. Its ironic to see how people in the future don’t read and its against the law to read books. I thought it was weird because how do the kids learn in school whenever they cant use books. I believe that eventually if the human race stopped reading then we would cease to exist because without that knowledge we wouldn’t know how to survive. Bradbury did a good job of portraying the way the people lived. I also think hes trying to show that the government will eventually become in a way like a communism because people will push past the limits and force them to do it. I like the way Bradbury showed people like the McCllellan family who believed in reading and learning and in a way were the rebels and they showed that you need to stand up for what you believe in even if it means going against what other people believe. I liked that Bradbury made the reader feel like they were in the story and with the characters. Like when Montag was going to find his wife you kind of got the sense that you could feel how he was feeling. Although Bradbury didn't flat out have a conversation with the reader he made the story come alive and that made me become more interested and want to read more. Ive also noticed a pattern in Bradburys writing. He likes to keep the reader on edge and i assume most science fiction novels do this also but he takes it to another level and really makes you think about whats gong on. I also like how he links everything together. Like when Montag thought he heard something outside and it was really the hound with Captain Beaty tells him towards the end of the book. I really enjoyed this book and at first i didnt think i would like it because it came off boring at first but once you got into it Bradbury hooked you into it. He knows how to make it interesting but not boring. Going back to what one of the main symbols was i thought he wrote in the book very well, it was when he alluded that the McClellan girl was like light or light came from her while the other people who were just followers and didnt see the way that she saw so i also really liked that part. Even though i wished that she would have stayed in the book longer and would have some how maybe helped him but overall i really enjoyed his commentary and thought that he did i really good job.
ReplyDeleteIn Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury described an American society of the future. His interpretation of what the future holds consists mainly of censorship and unity. The government uses technological advances to keep everyone focused on the same things. The government is not very open with what is taking place in society, and it is definitely manipulative. An example of this can be seen with the murder of an innocent man who the people in charge claimed to be Montag. Like many have said before, I believe that the unity the government is attempting to create is hurting society, instead of helping it. The people would be obviously better off if education and diversity were valued.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the main purposes of this story was to show the world, especially the United States, the weaknesses and struggles that come with communism. Bradbury wrote this story during the Cold War, in which the capitalist US was in a technological race with the communist Russians. I think this event had a major effect on Bradbury’s style of writing, and technology definitely played a large role in the story. I think he was trying to show how the Cold War could negatively affect the States and how it would divert people’s attentions from what is ultimately important; things like family and friends. Bradbury showed that technology could not always bring true happiness, and things like books and knowledge should be loved with a greater passion.
Another major purpose I think Bradbury was trying to get across to the readers was the importance of family and relationships with other people. In this story, everyone seemed very robotic. I don’t think Montag’s and Mildred’s poor relationship was solely due to a lack of caring on either’s parts. I think it was mainly because everything in this society revolved around the walls. Everyone listens and believes what the walls “say”. Montag starts to realize that the walls are full of “crazy talk” and unimportant conversations. Mildred, along with the rest of society, views the walls as family, though. It shows a lack of respect towards her actual husband and really ruins the relationship. It drives Montag crazy, and he does everything he can to have an actual conversation with her and do something with her. It shows that family time should be seriously valued.
I found it really interesting that Montag’s life could be closely compared to an object being burned: changed and blackened (pg 3). I think Clarisse and her death, the burning of the lady and her books, and Beatty’s negative speech about knowledge, can be considered the matches that spark Montag’s desire for change. He is filled with remorse from his previous career as a fireman, but channels his anger towards making a change in the world. He is tired of just being “one of the guys” or someone who (like Mark Guntle said) just “goes with the flow.” When his desire for knowledge and change was ignited, there was no stopping him. This was a very climactic part of his life, and his passion for knowledge was incredible.
Bradbury describes a society that is dominated by technology. “Talking walls”, fingerprint locks on houses, mechanical dogs, and so much more are just a few examples of the dependence of new inventions these people experience. Because of these inventions, the world itself seems to be very mechanical and robotic. People do not honestly know what true conversation is, and struggle to accept change. Technology is not doing any good for these people, and is taking the focus off of family and friends. I feel like technology today is leading us down the same path this society faced. New inventions encourage desire, and family time is slowly being pushed down on the list. I think Bradbury is warning us to stop “going with the flow”, and truly appreciate the world as it is now, or else the world in Fahrenheit 451 will become a reality.
Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451 describes his view on how the American people are beginning to become disconnected from not only literature, but also from each other and the things around us. Bradbury also comments on how advocacy groups are starting to have a considerable impact on the American society, as well as our political and social systems. From the very start of the book on, the disconnection from literature is shown as Montag cheerfully incinerates the house, as well as the books hidden inside of it. This book was written in 1953 when the lack of interest for books began, and now in 2010 our American society chooses television, movies, and video games over books for entertainment. We have also started to become disconnected from our fellow human beings. Families spend very little time together and people sometimes never even meet the people who live in the houses next to theirs. Our society as a whole has started to become one that is self-centered and gives no thought to the other people in our lives. We have also become disconnected from the natural beauties of the world. People rarely ‘stop and smell the roses’ anymore. However cliché that is, it’s the absolute truth. An ever decreasing amount of people go hiking, camping, or do other outdoor activities. People are starting to rarely go to see the natural wonders that are present on our earth. In the story, Montag is shown these things by Clarisse and is slightly amazed by all of it because he has never taken the time to notice them. We spend a huge amount of our time rushing around from one structured activity to another, without taking time to just slow things down and to just look around us and notice the small, naturally present occurrences in our world.
ReplyDeleteLobbyists have been around for quite some time now, but it has begun to influence many parts of our lives. In Fahrenheit 451, the reason why books are to be burned is because special interest groups didn’t like certain things about certain books, so they tried attempted to get them banned and burned. In the “Sieve and the Sand”, it reads, “Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it.” Lobbyists and special interest groups have started to strongly influence our country politically, and are slowly influencing other aspects of our lives as well. Lobbyists are beginning to change even the most fundamental and historical aspects of our country. Just recently it was ruled unconstitutional for schools to require students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because of it containing the words “Under God”. It goes to show that some of the oldest and regular traditions of America can be changed just by a small minority of people. Bradbury took up this idea of special interest groups changing things, and brought it into an almost alien future and upped the scale of the changes made by special interest groups by changing nearly everything.
Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451 over 50 years ago, yet most of the changes to this future world in the story are beginning to happen in our present day. Bradbury took the beginnings of these troubling trends and put them into a future that was once seen as completely alien, but as time passes, is becoming increasingly similar to our present day. It shows us that we need to make a change from our current activities to prevent the fictitious world in Fahrenheit 451 from becoming reality.
I am most intrigued by Bradely's post. It is very true that families don’t spend much time together, and if they do, it is by watching television. I mean spending time with each other by watching television is better than nothing, I suppose. Most people don’t enjoy the little details of life. Hence the fact that Clarisse only worried about the television, it was her “family”, which bothers me about the fact that our society may come to that conclusion in the future. If people just took time to look at details, then we would have, most likely, a better economy, a better community, and so on, rather than watching television, or playing video games. I have heard many stories from other families, on how they never see their children because while they are at work the kids are in school, and why they all are home; the children stay in their room. All we need to do is just spend time together. For a bonus, we will grow a better bond and get along with each other even more.
ReplyDeleteI was very impressed with your statement, Olivia. I will have to agree with you, on what you were trying to say that Bradbury was trying to tell his readers about how books are just not people’s main interest anymore. When the ‘firefighters’ in, “Fahrenheit 451”, burned the books, and you said it reminded you of how the different countries burn sacred texts to show their hatred for something. I also think that burning other countries flags, just like they do in other countries, to show their hatred for other countries, it is more symbolism of how the ‘firefighters’ burned the books. Just hatred in general, I mean people will do anything, even go beyond insanity, just to show their hatred towards others. To me, that is unacceptable and I think that this society will become like the society in “Fahrenheit 451”. We will go through great lengths to show hatred. It is human. I think if it doesn’t stop then our society and community will crumble into pathetic pieces.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the section, “The Hearth and The Salamander”, I came across a good argument between Mildred and Guy. He said “Let you alone! That’s all very well, but how can I leave myself alone? We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?” A quote like this expresses Guy’s and Bradbury’s opinions on mankind, and the lack of effect we have on the world around us. All throughout the book, characters are shown as lazy- satisfied, with no urge to question their society or government. Bradbury shows mankind as weak, as well. In the quote, he references Mildred’s overdose on drugs. It is assumed that her reasons for consuming so many sleeping pills are because of her unhappiness. Yet, in the book, doesn’t she portray herself as a “happy” person? At least to her friends she does. Mildred and Guy are at opposite ends of each other- ironic because of their relationship as husband and wife- and while Guy understands Mildred’s unhappiness, he can’t stand about waiting for his life to begin. I understood at once why Mildred either wouldn’t discuss the night of her overdose, or couldn’t remember it. It seems people block out a lot from their memory, just to stay sane. Humans in general have a lot of coping mechanisms, that being one of them.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Bradbury was trying to express with "Fahrenheit 451" that we all need to be bothered by something. Also, considering the time period of the publication of the novel as a post-WWII era, Bradbury could have been expressing his encouragement to go out and develop. While very depressing, this book by the end lends some hope toward making a difference in society. Bradbury created a wide invitation to change for all readers, especially in how he characterized Montag- as being content with society too at first. We must dig deeper as Montag did, though- attain more knowledge. Then, by gradually craving more for such information as a society as a whole, we can allow change to occur.
Characters such as Mildred and Beatty appear in the novel as obstacles to Montag, and to any one individual, really. It is the ignorance that Mildred chooses to keep that prevents her from growth that was a very large theme throughout. As I compared it to "The Grapes Of Wrath", "Fahrenheit 451" has very different ideas on ignorance. In Steinbeck's eyes, it is almost vital to stay somewhat ignorant to a big picture. If the Joads knew of the actual tragedies they might experience, maybe they would've stayed at home. Yet, to Bradbury, ignorance is what holds his characters down. You can look at the saying "ignorace is bliss" in two very different ways, but that's why it is so controversial. I agreed with both authors' points as I was reading their books, but it is all relevant to the experiences you have. Nevertheless, "Fahrenheith 451" made strong points to becoming an individual out of a crowd. Montag made his own path out of the paths of everything he knew, and I think he is supposed to be a rolemodel to all of us.
In the book Fahrenheit 451 Ray Bradbury shows both unique and odd rules in society. I believe the society in the book would be classified as a society of impatient people. Rules such as you must drive fast, you don’t walk anywhere and you don’t hold conversations almost at all show how the people are impatient. Another thing in the book that shows that it is run by impatient people is that you can not read books. Reading is a time consuming and sometimes considered boring thing to do so that is why it would not be an activity of an impatient person. Since they are not allowed to read books there are “firemen” who burn all of the books. I find it ironic that the firemen in this society are used to catch things on fire rather than put them out. It is also ironic how Ben Franklin established the first library and in the book also established the Firemen of America to burn English influenced books. Another interesting point I noticed in the book was that the people in the society act so oblivious to nature, but yet they have use things from nature as symbols and names such as the salamander on the fireman's uniform. In Montag’s society everyone is on an equal level. Montag and other people in the society want to express there individuality and thoughts about things but they can’t because the rules in there society prohibits it. I believe that the society in Fahrenheit 451 can easily be compared to the poor society in The Grapes of Wrath because in both societies they seem to be miserable with the way they live their lives. The emotions that Ray Bradbury puts into his writing such as hatred, sadness, or happiness are easily expressed by him since the book was written during the Cold War. I believe that the society in Fahrenheit 451 is supposed to represent a communist nation. Ray Bradbury is trying to put out how horrible a communist form of government would be horrible. At the beginning of the book Ray Bradbury describes Guy Montag in a dark sort of manner, but throughout the book you see changes in Montag but mainly in the beginning. Guy Montag is a person who wants his free will and to express himself. Although at the start he didn't want to break the rules but towards the end of the book you can tell that he wants to express himself and have free will. In the beginning of the book when Montag meets Clarisse McClellan, you can tell that Guy Montag is very interested in her. Later on he seems to be jealous because she expresses herself and has free will which is some of the things Montag has always wanted. I believe Ray Bradbury style of writing is unique since he had the changes of his main character in the beginning of the story. Montag is not the only person unhappy in his society. Many other people in the society are also miserable and want to live a free life. The people like this in society are the only chance for there to be change.
ReplyDeleteIn the book Fahrenheit 451 Ray Bradbury shows both unique and odd rules in society. I believe the society in the book would be classified as a society of impatient people. Rules such as you must drive fast, you don’t walk anywhere and you don’t hold conversations almost at all show how the people are impatient. Another thing in the book that shows that it is run by impatient people is that you can not read books. Reading is a time consuming and sometimes considered boring thing to do so that is why it would not be an activity of an impatient person. Since they are not allowed to read books there are “firemen” who burn all of the books. I find it ironic that the firemen in this society are used to catch things on fire rather than put them out. It is also ironic how Ben Franklin established the first library and in the book also established the Firemen of America to burn English influenced books. Another interesting point I noticed in the book was that the people in the society act so oblivious to nature, but yet they have use things from nature as symbols and names such as the salamander on the fireman's uniform. In Montag’s society everyone is on an equal level. Montag and other people in the society want to express there individuality and thoughts about things but they can’t because the rules in there society prohibits it. I believe that the society in Fahrenheit 451 can easily be compared to the poor society in The Grapes of Wrath because in both societies they seem to be miserable with the way they live their lives. The emotions that Ray Bradbury puts into his writing such as hatred, sadness, or happiness are easily expressed by him since the book was written during the Cold War. I believe that the society in Fahrenheit 451 is supposed to represent a communist nation. Ray Bradbury is trying to put out how horrible a communist form of government would be horrible. At the beginning of the book Ray Bradbury describes Guy Montag in a dark sort of manner, but throughout the book you see changes in Montag but mainly in the beginning. Guy Montag is a person who wants his free will and to express himself. Although at the start he didn't want to break the rules but towards the end of the book you can tell that he wants to express himself and have free will. In the beginning of the book when Montag meets Clarisse McClellan, you can tell that Guy Montag is very interested in her. Later on he seems to be jealous because she expresses herself and has free will which is some of the things Montag has always wanted. I believe Ray Bradbury style of writing is unique since he had the changes of his main character in the beginning of the story. Montag is not the only person unhappy in his society. Many other people in the society are also miserable and want to live a free life. The people like this in society are the only chance for there to be change. -John Hayes
ReplyDelete“The author of your novel is strongly commenting on American society.”
ReplyDeleteThe above statement, to which I am responding, indicates that Bradbury is commenting on American society. However, Fahrenheit 451 did not provide insight into America’s true society. America is a melting pot with many different cultures mixed in. For instance, I, a Christian, am currently sitting beside an Atheist and a Hindu. I can not believe that America is a land of only one culture. In Fahrenheit, Bradbury depicts very little culture at all. I believe he avoided culture on purpose, claiming that our once great melting pot has cooled into a lazy, uninspired, defeated, faithless lump. I beg to differ with Bradbury on this point.
I agree with the author that the media controls much of American life. I also agree that literature has taken a drastic fall over the last few years. The point I disagree with is the lack of culture in the novel. In Fahrenheit, there are three main groups, one of which clearly holds the major power. There are the firefighters, the indifferent people, and the ones attempting to protect the books. Bradbury mostly killed off any sort of actual religion by using it as a tool of manipulation and nothing more. These “groups” are not cultures! Though cultures are admittedly based off beliefs, there is not a strong enough essence of individuality or spirituality in these to be considered actual cultures. A culture is alive when a Chinese man is sitting atop a mountain meditating on a bed of needles, when Christians leave Church on Sunday mornings full of praise and fried chicken. A culture is alive when Hindus refuse to eat meat, or when radical Muslims strap bombs to their backs to destroy the Great Satan. America has all of these aspects of culture that Bradbury overlooked.
This novel does not depict the true American society. Society must include individual thoughts and ways of life to exist. The Bible is mentioned a few times and a few men died for their beliefs, but no true individual sense of being an American was ever accurately portrayed. Americans do often spend hours a day in front of televisions that are increasing rapidly in size, but not to the extent that Montag’s wife and her friends live. Sure there are intellectuals out protecting the books, but they never seemed to express American society. This book could have easily taken place in any country of the World. It never showed any aspect that commented on the American society alone. Though the statement to which I am disagreeing states that the author is commenting on American society, this book could have just as easily been written about a Russian, Chinese, British, or any other country. It never honestly comments on the American society, or any existing societies.
America is a country full of strong men and women who will give their lives to protect us. We have great minds out inventing airplanes, publishing books, saving lives, finding cures, and creating art. This is not at all how the author showed us. Bradbury depicted us as unobservant, lazy Neanderthals who simply worked and returned home to watch TV, without giving life another thought. This is not us at all. We are a varied, educated people overall with some less-motivated people that slow us down. But that is just their culture. Not all people are the same, which is great. Bradbury did not comment on the American society that I know and love.
Ray Bradbury was ahead of his time. Fahrenheit 451 is a cautionary tale of what our future could entail if we humans stay on our current path. Today, our country is wrapped up in the now. We never stop and think about the past, and rarely about the future. Bradbury saw what was going on, even in the late 1940’s, and he acted upon it.
ReplyDeleteIn Fahrenheit 451, the government was in total control of its people. They initially removed books, because books get people thinking. The power of books is evident on page 74 when Montag begins to read. Guy starts to use his brain and connects important ideas and knows that changes are necessary for humankind to be successful. Books teach us about the past, and they inform us of details around the world. Most importantly books allow an individual’s thoughts to be heard.
A main hold on society in 451 was through the television parlor walls. The government had people in the palm of their hand with this mindless device. The scariest part of the television, and what the people were choosing to do, was that it was exactly what the government wanted them to do (go to ‘fun parks’, ‘car wrecker’, ‘window smasher’, etc. (pg 30)). The government didn’t actually force any of the technology or new forms of leisurely activities on the people. The public decided their fate themselves.
On page 58, Beatty discussed why books were failing and why there was a rising rate of thoughtless writing and entertainment by saying, “Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick.” America’s society is freely letting our minds go. We have no desire to think for ourselves. Why think when you have a calculator or Google close by? These human flaws are exactly what Bradbury was advising us to steer clear of. “Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking they’ll get a sense of motion without moving (pg 61)”. Bradbury wanted Americans to imagine and create their individual ideas. Bradbury’s thought was that we should question authority and not just believe and trust everything that is presented to us.
There was very little human contact in 451. On page 29, Clarisse said, “Social to me means talking to you about things like this.”Clarisse’s views were frowned upon by society. People were to spend time together in television class or playing sports (29). There is so little contact between citizens that when Clarisse speaks to Montag openly, he is almost unsure of what to say or how to respond to her ideas. Talking gets people thinking and that is just what Ray Bradbury wanted people to do. If people in 451 had actually discussed what was going on they could have fixed many of the problems both publicly and within the government. When Montag began discussing books with Faber, they soon devised a plan that would have changed the world as the public knew it. Just think of the problems that could be solved if people got together and discussed the situation.
Violence is another major part of Fahrenheit 451, as well as in our world today. On pages 127-128 there was a car loaded with teens who were going to kill Montag just for ‘fun’. “They would have killed me, thought Montag….for no reason at all… (pg 128)” People today do the same thing! Not with cars but with other weapons. Bradbury saw how violent the world was becoming and knew that if we didn’t change our ways innocent people would be killed. Bradbury believed that American society was on a downward spiral, and change was necessary.
ReplyDeleteBradbury not only wrote a great novel, he wrote an advisory to human societies of the future. Bradbury shines a light on the importance of great books. Without books in the world how would we be able to learn from our past mistakes? If Grapes of Wrath had been banned, then our country would not have known the devastation of the depression, and changes might not have happened as swiftly as they did. Bradbury knew the importance of a thriving society, and he also foresaw the terrible things that humans were capable of. American society should learn from Fahrenheit 451; if we don’t change our ways, the message in this book will become a reality.
Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is one of the most fascinating pieces of literature I have ever read. The novel is not only written well, but it also has hidden information between the lines that the reader needs to understand in order to fully grasp the purpose of the book. In my opinion, Bradbury wrote this magnificent narrative to show the audience his vision of a futuristic America. His vision, however, was not one that most people would look forward to. He portrayed a future in which technology and other advances were taking the place of human interaction and knowledge. In my view, there were three main purposes Bradbury wrote this novel: one, to show the chaos and ignorance that comes with a dystopian society; two, to illustrate the importance of family and human interaction; and three, to explain to the audience the disadvantages that unknowingly come with the development technology.
ReplyDeleteFahrenheit 451 was written in the year 1953, when the tensions of the Cold War were at their greatest height. At this time, people around the world were debating which type of government was ideal and what the responsibilities of government were. That is why Bradbury portrayed the type of government he did. He wanted to give an idea of the turmoil and confusion that came with Communism or his view of a perfect dystopian society. He wanted to illustrate that in the future the government would do practically anything to create “equality”. However, not equality in the sense that everyone has equal rights, equality in the sense that everyone is the exactly the same. On page 58, Beatty quotes “We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the constitution says, but made equal.” This quote symbolized that government officials wanted a society that was ignorant so that it would be easier to rule.
Not only was the illustration of a disorderly society a reason why Bradbury wrote this novel, but so was to show the value of family and human interaction. In the novel, there was very little human interaction. It was as if the emotions of love and care had ceased to exist. For example, Montag and Mildred cannot even remember where they had first met each other. They do not spend time together, and hardly even know each other. Also, another example of the decrease in the value for family is when Mrs. Phelps, Mildred’s friend, is asked how her children are doing. Mrs. Phelps boldly replies “You know I haven’t any! No one in his right mind, as the good Lord knows, would have children.” This quote symbolizes the fact that parents in that society did not care about their children. They were merely emotion-less caregivers.
The final, and in my opinion most significant, purpose of Fahrenheit 451 was to warn the audience about the disadvantages that unknowingly come with new technology. Even though technology is meant to make the lives of humans easier and simpler, Bradbury explains that eventually technological advancements will take more away from society than adding to it. The author warns that everyone will be too obsessed with some sort of technology, like Mildred was with her “walls”, and will not have time for discussion or even time to spend with family. The population will eventually lose all individualism and most people, like Mildred and her friends, will just “go with the flow”. People will become too dependent on technology that they will not be able to enjoy everyday life with friends and family like Clarisse did.
Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 caused me to think about things that I have never thought about in detail before. It caused me to question all the technology we are dependent on. In fact, after pondering a while, I realized that we might have entered the beginning of Bradbury’s chaotic vision of the future. Most of the children today, including myself, spend very little time with their families and hardly ever do anything that does not involve high-tech gadgets. If this pattern occurs for a long period of time, before we know it we will be in the midst of a world that was portrayed in the novel. We must reduce our dependence on technology and take time to enjoy the natural world. Take time to question and discuss problems. We must pitch different ideas and have arguments because they are the only things that will bring growth to our society.
ReplyDeleteKelly, you bring up an excellent point. There is a quote from the singer Aaron Tippin that says “you’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.” The society in “Fahrenheit 451” really did fall for anything. The majority of society gave into the instant gratification aspect of life. The people simply didn’t have time for reading, they didn’t have time for learning or thinking, they didn’t have time for quality time, and they certainly didn’t have time for getting truly, righteously angry about anything. Revolution was simply not included in their lifestyles.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible says that it is good and holy to be full of a righteous anger. Unfortunately, the common people had no access to the Bible. Considering most copies of the Bible and other inspirational books were burned, and most of the remaining copies are locked in peoples’ brains who are on the run, the commoners were missing a big chunk of what often stirs up such revolutions.
I love how you mentioned that technology is controlling us. I simply love the irony that you typed that idea on a computer. I agree with you one hundred percent. However, I also think that it is a fantastic thing that I can sit in a room miles away from you and send you ideas through an invisible network. I have the ability to get in a car and drive to see friends and family anywhere in the country. What man has created over the millenniums continues to build on itself, and we do become more dependant. I agree with you on that point. Technology is a huge part of our lives, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. When technology stops people from living their lives, then it is a bad thing. Characters like Mildred and her friends show us how technology can be abused, while they sit around watching their giant TVs all day every day and appreciating those false lives more than their own. Technology is a huge blessing when it is used correctly. For instance, I don’t know how I could ever function without my watch. Even with my phone, computer, and many other technical blessings I have, my watch is by far my most used and depended upon. I would be completely lost if I could not find out the time. The international pastor Chris Hill says that “time is a thing God invented so that we can keep up with how good He is to us.” I feel like that quote also sums up technology really well. Technology is also one of those things “God invented to so that we can keep with how good He is to us.” When used correctly, it can make our country prosper unbelievably.
ReplyDeleteRay Bradbury was a very prominent and controversial author in his time, and his ideas and opinions are very much relevant today. “Fahrenheit 451” contains some of his stronger impressions on American society. The book was written 1953 and has passed the test of time and is still more than intriguing and relatable to today’s culture. This is one of the most fascinating things about his works is that they can be a source of discussion and reference during any era. Ray Bradbury’s purpose of writing this novel was to reveal his criticism on American society and how it is very censored, power-hungry, and completely dependant on technology. His last but greatest thought, in my opinion, is his view on the mindless modern day citizen. His portrayal of this character is extremely stressed in this novel.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel, the government controlled the entire population of citizens through censoring the things they deemed the public shouldn’t here. They changed the course of history and lied to the people about everything, including the progress of the war and the status of police chases. Past history was changed so the citizens do not realize what life was like in the past so they wouldn’t be tempted to change it now. This was a way to control the population and keep, what they considered to be, the peace. Bradbury relates this to American society by showing how the government should not try to overpower the citizens and skew their judgment or opinions. I assume he thinks this is also a way of keeping order in the community.
The authorities in the novel are very motivated to achieve this ultimate power over all the citizens. Their drive for complete control over the mindless followers results in outrage and social mayhem whenever an individual chooses to defy the law. The law is very strict and was to be obeyed at all times. The government wanted a very ignorant type of society so that controlling the people and censoring information would be much easier to rule over. To make things easier for the government, Bradbury presented the everyday citizens’ personality as bland, ignorant, and easily persuaded. I believe Bradbury chose to model the government and citizen this way so we can see how in time, or soon to be, the government will make us a unit of followers instead of a nation of individuals. His purpose was to warn us to take our own actions and follow our own beliefs.
Finally, he presents his last purpose which was the dependence on technology instead of the knowledge we can obtain through the freedom and enjoyment of books. I thoroughly believe that Bradbury is stressing the danger of revolving our lives around useless technology and how it can just as easily backfire on us. He also stresses the society where everyone is virtually the same with regards to personality, intelligence, hobbies (watching the walls) and moral views. Burning books symbolizes the destroying of a culture and all that it entails. Guy Montag is the icon that we need to follow, Bradbury infers, because he refuses to destroy those books and finally sees the good in the world. Not burning books and, instead, learning from them returns the individuality to the citizens of the world. His purpose was to warn us of an impending disaster with technology as well as holding near and dear the moral, social, and mental characteristics of every human that sets us apart as individuals.
I agree with how you said that some books really affect people such as when Montag is talking to Mrs. Bowels. I believe that the “reason” books were outlawed was because they made people feel less appreciative of their own lives and this caused them to be depressed. But due to human nature, books do cause a reaction in us which varies. It’s much like how Pastor Terry Jones from Florida planned on burning the Quaran on September 11th. In a way like the firefighters burn books to prevent people becoming upset with them, Jones is doing the exact same thing because he is upset with how Muslims make him feel. Whether his actions are right, wrong, justified, or whatever, the fact is that he is burning these books. Bradbury might possibly suggesting in this book that over time, maybe multiple situations like this will occur causing book by book to be burned which would eventually lead to an overall ban on books themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Zach Hurst
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your interpretation of the novel’s portrayal of a censored society. The government rooted out all the people who ever achieved an individual idea because of the fear that they would eventually not follow the laws of the land. You are also right when you say that you cannot have complete control if people question things, so books were outlawed. This reminds me of the situation in Zimbabwe where their president hasn’t gone so far as to outlaw books, but has considerably censored information in order to keep the peace in his nation. I also agree with your comment about the effect technology has had over the people in the novel as well as what is going on in our society today. People are becoming too consumed with it that they lose sight of bigger and more important things in life. It is accurately described in your post that his purpose is to warn us of what we are becoming, and to think that he wrote this more than 50 years ago makes me wonder if the world we live in today is what he was afraid of or not.
I found the book Fahrenheit 451 to be a very interesting book yet weird. I think the whole social aspect of the book was what is thought to be of the future. The main idea of not having books and wanting everyone to be equal is kind of what we want in our society today, wanting everyone to be equal. The people in the book have become dependent on technology so much that they don’t even talk to each other much. I think the marriage between Guy and Mildred was supposed to symbolize that. When Mildred was on her T.V thing she hardly even responded to Guy when he attempted to talk to her. She had become more interested in her fake world rather that her reality. In the first section when Guy asked where they had met Mildred responds with “It doesn’t matter.” (Bradbury 43). At that point in the book it seemed like technology was the only thing that mattered. In the fire station they used mechanical hounds to help them in their everyday job. They had fully replaced regular animals and programmed mechanical ones. I fear that our society would become somewhat like this one in the future. We live in a society where everyone is to be treated equal, in time that the word treat would be tossed and everyone would have to be equal. I think the society would fail if that would happen. This dystopia was our world to the extreme. The people even look the same, when Guy is in the fire station he looks at the other firemen and sees himself. Clarrise McClellan was the opposing factor in this dystopian world. She took the time to ask why and when. She showed a lack of fear or respect to the fact that he was a fireman which is what I noticed when she was first introduce into the plot. When Guy met her she taught him to ask questions and stand out from the everyday person. At one point in the book he actually expresses himself when talking to her, He spoke of his hypothetical plot to murder Beatty and overthrow the firemen. Guy learned from what she taught him and starts showing it in the second section of the book. He started showing more human characteristics and flaws. He begins to have no self control and hate the very world that he lived in. I feel like she was his greatest influence in the story almost like his mentor. Throughout the end of the book he sees and hears things that remind him of her such as when he is running from the hound and crosses the river, knowing that she had been there before. I think the ending was great. Although the city gets bombed I liked the symbolism used comparing the city to the phoenix saying it would rise again. I think it was supposed to represent more than the city though, I believe it was the rebirth of mankind in the world.
ReplyDeleteYou are absolutely right, Bradley. The family unit clearly is dying off these days. We allow TVs, iPods, and the internet to consume huge portions of our everyday life. These are not true family activities. In Fahrenheit, Mildred clearly symbolized this by showing that her love of her fake technology family was much greater than her love for Montag. Even the love for people outside of the family was dying off. When Clarisse died, nobody except Montag seemed to care in the slightest. When Montag was escaping from the robo-hound and it murdered an innocent man instead, that showed how little death seems to affect us these days. People are still human, and that should mean that they are missed when they are gone. Instead, the supposed death of Montag was treated as a big game that everyone could see from the comfort of their homes. These days, anyone can turn on the news and flip to the next channel without feeling a thing. Everyone is worth something, and time with those people can really build up a society. Whereas this book clearly depicts what could very possibly happen in the future if we continue to idolize technology in the ways we do now. The technology will only continue to grow from here on out.
ReplyDeleteThere are countless ways each individual who has read Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” could view the significant themes he expresses in his future foreseeing novel.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest messages to the reader is that of anti-censorship. Society has gone to such extremes, that every piece of literature has been made illegal to possess. It is against the law to own, read, or write a book. Simply because the government finds that literature could lead to people beginning to question the world and why it is the way it is. So to them, literature poses a sort of threat. What the government and even society fails to realize is that books hold such a greater power than they can imagine; the power of knowledge. Although knowledge could break someone, books hold knowledge of the past, and by being aware of our histories mistakes we can prevent ourselves from making the same ones today. The lack of awareness of their history in the novel enabled the government to almost create one of the own. For example, the job of the firemen was said to have always been to create the fires, never to put them out.
Guy Montags society has evolved in such a way that people are so anti-independent that it’s easier for them to not think for themselves or deal with any sort of problem they face that comes with negative emotions. Their main goal is to either feel happiness or feel nothing at all. So really, it’s not so much that the government has tried to mimic a tyrannical form of society but that the people fear the thought of knowing, so they rely on the government to think for them instead.
Interestingly enough, a piece of literature was not what sparked Guy Montag’s thoughts and urge to question. It was the impression Clarisse McClellan had on him. It was her ideas, visions, hunger to learn and her observant and carefree persona that led a man who burned books for a living, to suddenly become curiously doubtful of the life he was living. It’s those who are like Clarisse that the government is so hasty to do away with.
Society prefers to be secluded in their own little “television is reality” world and oblivious to the world around them. Bradbury voices his views of anti-television in this way. It seems as if television, which leads to violence, depression, and even suicide, causes more problems than books. Mildred Montag is a perfect example of these disconnected people. Her suicide attempt made it obvious that she has a very deep rooted pain that only her television family can keep her from confronting the feelings that are buried deep within her.
Bradbury made many biblical references throughout the novel as well. Faber describes Montag and fire and himself as water. And together, the two will make wine. This relates to when Jesus Christ turns water into wine to instill his faith in his role as the savior. Which becomes similar to Montags own self-transformation. The last line of the book from Revelations “When we reach the city,” was in reference to the holy city of god. And when Montag watches his old life crumble under an atomic bomb, it’s symbolic to the Apocalypse of the Bible.
The strength of Bradbury's vision leaves this future etched in our minds long after the book is finished. He works so effectively on our fears: crazy teenagers, out to drive over helpless pedestrians; a war that no one cares about, but eventually ends our civilization; relationships completely empty of emotion and the numbness of minds. There is deep loneliness in this book, the lonely of heart and the lonely of mind. It becomes unbearably sad, and what replacement for intimacy, for humanity, can the literary gathering at the end ever be?
To me, this novel is a masterpiece. To be able to practically predict the future of American society today is beyond me. Who knows, maybe someday our world will be “Fahrenheit 451”.
There are countless ways each individual who has read Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” could view the significant themes he expresses in his future foreseeing novel.
ReplyDeleteOne of the biggest messages to the reader is that of anti-censorship. Society has gone to such extremes, that every piece of literature has been made illegal to possess. It is against the law to own, read, or write a book. Simply because the government finds that literature could lead to people beginning to question the world and why it is the way it is. So to them, literature poses a sort of threat. What the government and even society fails to realize is that books hold such a greater power than they can imagine; the power of knowledge. Although knowledge could break someone, books hold knowledge of the past, and by being aware of our histories mistakes we can prevent ourselves from making the same ones today. The lack of awareness of their history in the novel enabled the government to almost create one of the own. For example, the job of the firemen was said to have always been to create the fires, never to put them out.
Guy Montags society has evolved in such a way that people are so anti-independent that it’s easier for them to not think for themselves or deal with any sort of problem they face that comes with negative emotions. Their main goal is to either feel happiness or feel nothing at all. So really, it’s not so much that the government has tried to mimic a tyrannical form of society but that the people fear the thought of knowing, so they rely on the government to think for them instead.
Interestingly enough, a piece of literature was not what sparked Guy Montag’s thoughts and urge to question. It was the impression Clarisse McClellan had on him. It was her ideas, visions, hunger to learn and her observant and carefree persona that led a man who burned books for a living, to suddenly become curiously doubtful of the life he was living. It’s those who are like Clarisse that the government is so hasty to do away with.
Society prefers to be secluded in their own little “television is reality” world and oblivious to the world around them. Bradbury voices his views of anti-television in this way. It seems as if television, which leads to violence, depression, and even suicide, causes more problems than books. Mildred Montag is a perfect example of these disconnected people. Her suicide attempt made it obvious that she has a very deep rooted pain that only her television family can keep her from confronting the feelings that are buried deep within her.
ReplyDeleteBradbury made many biblical references throughout the novel as well. Faber describes Montag and fire and himself as water. And together, the two will make wine. This relates to when Jesus Christ turns water into wine to instill his faith in his role as the savior. Which becomes similar to Montags own self-transformation. The last line of the book from Revelations “When we reach the city,” was in reference to the holy city of god. And when Montag watches his old life crumble under an atomic bomb, it’s symbolic to the Apocalypse of the Bible.
The strength of Bradbury's vision leaves this future etched in our minds long after the book is finished. He works so effectively on our fears: crazy teenagers, out to drive over helpless pedestrians; a war that no one cares about, but eventually ends our civilization; relationships completely empty of emotion and the numbness of minds. There is deep loneliness in this book, the lonely of heart and the lonely of mind. It becomes unbearably sad, and what replacement for intimacy, for humanity, can the literary gathering at the end ever be?
To me, this novel is a masterpiece. To be able to practically predict the future of American society today is beyond me. Who knows, maybe someday our world will be “Fahrenheit 451”.
Ray Bradbury’s tone in Fahrenheit 451 is condemning to our present and future American society. As a result of progressing technology, people become progressively less personal. People numb out feelings and opinions and try to mind their own business. Montag, the scholars, Faber, and Clarisse are contrasts to common society in Fahrenheit 451, displaying both hope and criticism for American and all future societies.
ReplyDeleteMildred was the emphasizing character of this society of numbness. This is displayed from the very beginning of the book. On pages 11 and 12, he describes his bedroom as empty but not empty. Remaining in her own world at all times with her seashells and the parlor, Mildred is like the Mechanical Hound: alive, but not really living. Montag finally develops concern for this when she tries to commit suicide. Obviously there are underlying feelings that are being ignored and hidden “beneath a mask.” In part two, the sieve and the sand, Mrs. Phelps becomes upset when Montag reads poetry and discusses her husband being at war. She doesn’t like bringing up her feelings or even thinking about them.
This leads to the theme of censorship in the story. Though the government was using censorship to hide their own actions, the people actually wanted this censorship. Books, for example, discussed feelings, morals, politics, and philosophy. People no longer wanted to discuss these topics because it made them uncomfortable to address their feelings. Faber states “we are living in a time when flowers are trying to live on flowers.” In other words, people are living off of the colorful product rather than understanding how it got there, failing to see reality. The government banned books because most people didn’t have an interest in them anymore.
Again this brings Bradbury’s warning that a high tech society will cause an empty society. Society soon becomes comfortable with using technology to hide problems, and uncomfortable with addressing reality. The government makes the war sound more idealistic with colors and fireworks, when in reality it is a serious, deadly thing. They are buried under idealism.
Clarisse was the contrast to the idealistic in Fahrenheit 451. She didn’t watch TV or go speeding on the highways, but liked to stop and think about the world. In the book’s future setting, people occupy every minute of their time so that they can ignore what is truly going on in their lives and their world. Bradbury highlights the importance of taking the time to digest your thoughts. Clarisse was a symbol of reflection in the book because she made others see themselves for who they truly were. When you ignore what’s inside long enough, it can disappear completely, leaving you hollow.
However, it is also important to point out the hope for society Ray Bradbury has, despite all. The professors and scholars represent the few thousand left that really care about the future of society. They know that though a book’s significance is meaningless to the average person, they play a significant role in understanding the past, in order to better the future. The conclusion of Fahrenheit 451 certainly shows that, though the author deeply criticizes the shallow depths of the common American mind, there will always be a small group that will fight to preserve what is good. As Granger states in the last section, “But that is the wonderful thing about man; he never gets discouraged… that he gives up doing it all over again, because he knows very well it is important and worth the doing.”
For Fahrenheit 451, the extremely twisted world that we are shown is frightening in every sense of the word mainly because Bradbury has cracked into our own society to create it. Thus, I feel that overall Bradbury is not commenting but rather criticizing American society. It serves as constructive criticism, similar to Martian Chronicles or even more specifically the chapter “There Will Come Soft Rains” where technology has reached a point where it does everything for man automatically and without man it will continue until it is mechanically unable, Bradbury uses these exaggerated societies to scare us and prove that we have a problem. It’s been researched that in the US people will spend about 4 hours watching television and 3 hours listening to the radio while they also only read magazines for about 14 minutes. It’s no wonder that we can find characters like Mildred, who was constantly plugged into her radio and relied on lip reading to understand conversations, in our own society. It’s not hard to name someone you know that always has their earphones on. While Bradbury does jump to conclusions with the way society advances from when they drop books, it’s just like in Beatty’s speech to Montag. He was constantly jumping to different facts and situations after he had started with books, the school systems, the equality of man, they all fell victim once the issue with books had unraveled. The plausibility will remain present until we finally react to his warning.
ReplyDeleteNow, the one odd nature about the book is that even though Bradbury presents us this society in the first chapter throughout the rest of the book he just proves what a journey it is to break from such a life. We can’t just look at the problem, see how shocking it is and then never touch back on it again. However, Montag and Mildred display both reactions to the realization of this problem. Montag transforms from a fireman supporting ignorance and book burnings to part of the revolution, and takes all of the difficulties that come along with it. He proved his devotion by even “becoming” a book, and waited along with the other revolutionaries for a rebirth of society. Mildred heard the same speech as Montag, and even though she had Montag who was obviously passionate about turning back on society, she still falls away and back into her numbness. Both has the same resources, and virtually the same position as a mindless person within their evil lifestyles, but only one had the drive to take all of the chances he had to break out from the towering force that was their daily society and then counter it by more or less taking on the heavy burden of rebuilding society.
“Fahrenheit 451” is novel that is set in present day America that consists of modern day ideals taken to extreme levels. Such was the case of the televisions that took over an entire room which is not to far-off of what we have nowadays, which for when Bradbury wrote this novel that seemed almost impossible; the book was published in 1953. For all means and purposes the critiques in this book of American society have came true, for instance the cars that fly around at a hundred miles per hour is not all that different of today, which is what is frightening about Bradbury’s writing, for as long ago as he wrote his books almost have a nonfiction essence around them. Yet another issue that Bradbury finds in American society is the issue of showing error.
ReplyDeleteThat issue of being wrong is not an option for the American government which is why in the chase scene when the Hound losses the scent of Montag they must immediately switch the scent that the Hound is hunting so passionately for to the poor man who is eventually “caught” by the Hound. This mentality is what causes many of the other evils in the futuristic American society seen in the novel. This is relevant early on in the novel when Montag first realizes what it means to ask, why, which causes him to question everything he every knew but, as a result of that it is shot down by his superiors, or it is at least attempted to for America was wrong about books but as stated before they cannot be wrong which causes them to make the truth false and false the truth.
Truth was not the only fear that the American government had, for there was another and its name is wisdom. Wisdom is what gave reason for the firemen, for if people knew what was going on they would start to change their ways and resist the wars that were going on and all of the other issues that were going on. Although the main issue was that the government was feeding false information to the masses such the fact that there was almost three times as many soldiers mobilized. It is cases like these that cause the government to fear for itself. This fear is what caused the government to cover its back with the firemen, by “alternating” history in order to make it morally correct for the firemen to start fires rather than stop them.
At the end of the book an atomic bomb, or some other weapon of mass destruction, was dropped on the city and it was set aflame. This is, what I believe, an allusion to the phoenix which is both destroyed and reborn in fire. Fire in this book I believe is a representation of Bradbury’s opinion of the government, it is both dangerous yet amazing at the same time.
I agree with your statement that one day America may become book free like it was portrayed in Fahrenheit 451. Throughout the 20th century, it has been clear that the introduction of new technologies into our lives have provided other options to reading. If you think about it, before written languages were invented humans communicated through speech. They told stories by mouth. But with the introduction of writing, the tradition changed until all the stories were printed into a book. It’s obvious that today people are not telling Grapes of Wrath or Fahrenheit 451 by mouth. They don’t have to because it is printed in the book itself. If you look at history that way, I believe that it’s likely that in the future, some kind of technology will be available that could obsolete books like oral stories have been obsolete in the past by books. However this change might not have as big as an impact on society like the book burning in Fahrenheit 451 did.
ReplyDeleteI very much liked Barbie’s post, comparing our world to both the world of the novel and both worlds’ pasts. It is true, technology is becoming ever more prevalent in society, controlling our lives more and more with every new gizmo. I very much liked how you threw in the texting and driving thing, it is indeed ridiculous that we get so caught up in our little devices enough to bring death upon ourselves! I also noticed how Bradbury went to an extreme and talked about the death of religion, I found it intriguing. Though, if you think about it, religious people today are not nearly as intense about religion as their ancestors were! Sure they have faith, but devotion to religion is waning. Who’s to say it won’t eventually die? Right now it seems ridiculous, but it’s interesting to think about. “Fahrenheit 451” is indeed a cautionary tale. Good post Barbie!
ReplyDeleteWow Shelby, powerful post! I agree with everything you stated. Mankind’s reliance on technology is very conspicuous, and since reading “Fahrenheit 451” I’ve become very aware of my own reliance on technology! I can’t play a videogame or talk on my phone anymore without wondering what it would be like to live in a simpler society, where things meant more. That’s another thing about the book you talked about: the regression of the human soul and human nature. People simply aren’t as close with one another as they used to be! We all love people, but we’re in a time where we’ve got so much and often times lose track of the importance of our family and friends! I like to say I value everyone as much as I should, but sometimes I don’t know. I also felt that Clarisse and the scholars are Bradbury’s way of showing he had hope for humanity, as they stand out against all they things he and Montag hate. Hopefully we can be more like them and save the world.
ReplyDeleteGood job Bradley, very true, and very well done! Since reading “Fahrenheit 451” I’ve been applying it to my life. I’m not a huge television fan, but my primary sources of entertainment are the computer and videogames! When I do read I enjoy the books a lot, but I rarely do it. The only real time I spend with my whole family is when we eat dinner or when we all sit down together to watch a movie, all sitting in front of a flashing piece of technology together. I also hate how people refuse to enjoy the beauty of the world. Any time I’m outside I just like to lay in the grass and look at the sky, day or night. I love all the little things I didn’t appreciate as a child. They beauty of trees and grass, hearing crickets and other bugs in the summer night, looking at the stars, feeling the world on your skin, and all of that wonderful stuff! I’m scared that soon, nobody will appreciate these, and that there may not be any beauty left in the world if we keep expanding. Hopefully we can prevent this world, the world of the novel.
ReplyDeleteIn Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury strongly comments on the faults of American society in the present and how they might continue into the future. The novel begins with the burning of books. We don’t understand this until halfway through the book, when Captain Beatty comes to talk to Guy Montag. Beatty tells Montag how the world came to be without books. People start to become offended by what is written, or become offended by the people who write because of their higher intellect. So books become banned and the world is one happy place. Except that this explanation is merely a cover-up story. In reality, the government figured out that without the influence of books, society would basically become a bunch of mindless zombies. No culture could be spread; no imagination sparked; no opinions expressed. Education values would drop. People couldn’t think for themselves. It is a diabolical plan by the government that would give them the permission to do as it pleases.
ReplyDeleteDuring the novel, a war begins. Everyone hears about it, but act and talk about it as if it is a baseball game or something. There is no true reaction to it. A few cities will be blown up somewhere out in the world, but it’s for the entertainment of the people. Nowadays, war is a huge thing. People are always trying to think up ways to avoid it. This is because we have history in books. We know how nasty war turns out. But because people don’t know details in the book, they don’t care. Government takeover is complete.
This ignorance of the human race is covered up by the televisions. If everyone is absorbed in their televisions, they won’t care what is going on in the world. You see how obsessed Mrs. Montag is with hers. But it is so much easier for people lie on television than with actual written words. Bradbury makes a point here about how dependent we are becoming on our televisions. Most everyone gets the newspaper these days, but why spend time reading it when you can watch everything on the 11 o’clock news? Why read a 400 page book when you can just watch the movie and get the same point in a shorter amount of time? It uses much less thought concentration to watch instead of read. With this novel, Bradbury is foreshadowing the utter dependence on multimedia resources in the future. Already, kids spend whole afternoons playing video games instead of doing homework. From a very little age, we are set in front of the television to learn our colors and ABCs from colorful cartoons. If these electronic resources were taken away from us for a day, most everyone wouldn’t know what to do with themselves. Eventually, we could find ourselves in a situation like Fahrenheit 451.
Luckily, there are some people in the novel who can see through the government, like Clarisse and Faber. Faber even says at one point, “I don’t talk things, sir. I talk the meaning of things. I sit here and know I’m alive.” Clarisse follows this quote as well. She looks past the things of life and finds the meaning behind them. For example, Clarisse teaches Montag to how to feel and taste the rain. With these free thought characters, Bradbury shows us how to resist turning into mindless zombies. I think we could all learn a thing or two from people like Clarisse.
Dear All -- Such great arguments and textual evidence! Many of you commented on the dangers of technology and speed of daily life as seen in Fahrenheit 451 and our modern society. Also, several people saw the dangers of communism in the government depicted by Bradbury. However, many of you pointed out that it was the people who first gave up their rights to reading and thinking by not exercising them. Sara Richard said it best: "the public decided their fate themselves." Excellent work!
ReplyDeleteZach, you made some great points in your initial post. In Fahrenheit 451, people certainly became satisfied with ignorance. They didn’t have a problem with sitting back and acting like nothing was wrong in their life. You said, however, that the government produced this censorship, and then the people responded with consent. I actually found it to be the opposite. As Mrs. Kushner stated, I think this censorship was a result of the majority. People decided to shut out the things that made them uncomfortable, and as a result they no longer wanted to read books or hear about bad events in the news. The government then became satisfied with this reaction. It was then that they decided to use it to their advantage. At this point I do agree with you. They killed an innocent man so that they didn’t have to tell the world that they screwed up. Think about all the different media sources we have today. If the government were to hide something, one nosy reporter would be able to find out the truth. In this future time period of F451, however, there weren’t any sources outside of the government to care whether they were doing right or wrong. It was therefore easy to take advantage of this ignorant society. I agree with you completely that the government had power over the people. However I think the primary blame is society as a whole, not just the government.
ReplyDeleteAs for Bradbury warning censorship may be happening today, an obvious example is found in the Banned Books list that comes out every year. This alarmingly reflects Fahrenheit 451. According to the American Library Association, the top most frequently challenged books of this decade included classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men. It also included My Sister’s Keeper, a book that talks about current issues such as stem cell research. Society challenges these books because they include controversial issues about religion, politics, and racism. Bradbury warned about a society of censorship, and perhaps we are already seeing it today.
I don't necessarily agree with what Chelsea said. Yes, we do use the internet a lot these days simply for the convenience of it and how it makes things more simple, but according to a lot of studies, people are checking out books MORE lately due to the recession. People don’t really have the money and need to cut back on a lot of things, so libraries are being used now more than they have been in years. Yes, we are very dependent on technology because of the age we’re in and all the advancement, but I think people are starting to really be aware of that and try and make changes. Not all of the people in America today exactly have the money to be spending it on all this technology and I think that it’s starting to make us question things more and really focus on figuring out solutions and thinking more about, well, everything.
ReplyDeleteI really liked Shelby’s post, and agree with it completely. Bradbury focuses on highlighting our dependency on technology and how it’s making things less personal and making it really easy for people to hide their identities and make themselves more comfortable, and able to hide behind the things they say or do. A lot of people in America, especially it’s youth are dependent on it for entertainment, comfort, and communication, some of which is healthy, some, not so much. At the same time though, he does show there is hope for society and I think that’s a major part of the book. Although we are way too dependent on technology and it does create problems, there are many of us who are starting to realize it and want to make a change. I don’t think technology is so bad if you use it for its intended purposes and in moderation, but I think after reading this book a lot of people will find other ways to occupy their time.
ReplyDeleteVery nicely done Corrie! I agree completely that today’s society is falling into a trap in which book knowledge is not nearly as valued as before. Technology is quickly taking control of everyday life, and slowly drawing people away from the pleasant reading of a paperback. The Internet has taken over teens’ lives when it comes to needing research material, and without it, trying to find suitable information would be very difficult. I also agree that without some books, we would be at a loss in the world today. The Bible and other references bring hope to people and act as a guide throughout their lives. According to http://www.bowker.com/index.php/press-releases/563, the United States publication of traditional books has decreased by about 3.2%. While this may not seem very devastating right now, if this trend continues, new books in the US will be scarce in a few years. Let’s hope against this, and learn to enjoy reading again!
ReplyDeleteEllen, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on technology and its overwhelming envelopment of society. I too, found it very interesting when the individuals depicted in this novel, talked so briefly about the war. In a “whopping” two-five minutes, the entire war could be summarized with the click of a switch and a sit upon the couch! To think! Even in today’s society, where people are so heavily wrapped up in technology, we are still aware of the war and its impact on humanity. Community members work to discuss ways of raising money to support troops in far-off places in the world. In “Fahrenheit 451”, the war is almost a mocked aspect- providing a “soap opera” for eager listeners to enjoy. How strange a concept….. treating a WAR with such disregard! I think one of the biggest realizations for me, as a reader, was Bradbury’s futuristic “foretellings”. Bradbury wrote this novel nearly fifty years ago, and yet what is represented in the novel, strongly depicts every aspect of today’s society. So much has evolved from fifty years ago, yet Bradbury’s interpretation of the future is extremely coherent. Ellen, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your BLOG- great job!
ReplyDeleteAwesome points Barbie! I really liked reading your thoughts on remembering where we started off in life and always keeping in mind our values. I agree 100% with both of these ideas. I think many people of our society today struggle to realize how lucky and blessed they truly are. I mean, our generation has the coolest gadgets and gizmos, but yet we are never completely satisfied with what we have. Our desires get the best of us, and the idea of something better than what we have drives us crazy. We get so wrapped up in new technology that we fail to remember what the past generations used to enjoy. There have been so many technological advances over the past years. Record players to CD players to MP3 players to I-pods to I-pod nanos… and the list keeps going. Also, these new inventions take the focus off family and friends. Kids now are plugged into their music devices on car rides with their parents, isolating themselves and practically tuning out their parents existence at times. Apparently keeping in mind values got lost in all the tangle of cords and battery packs. I personally think, as individuals we need to decide what we value the most and base our lives off of those things. Hopefully this would direct us and keep us from living in a society just like the one in Fahrenheit 451.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog Matt! You made an excellent point when you said “Bradbury chose to model the government and citizen this way so we can see how in time, or soon to be, the government will make us a unit of followers instead of a nation of individuals.” This is a frightening thought because the society described by Bradbury was helpless and weak. The communist society of Fahrenheit 451 was robotic and the government used technology as their crutch to control the minds of its society. I think our government has started to do that already. Not necessarily using technology, but I feel like our capitalist government is slowly turning socialist or communist. For example, Obama is making it so everyone in the United States is becoming equal. Competition typically found in a capitalistic country is slowly disappearing. Health care reforms are making it so almost everyone in the country gets the same plans. Also tax cuts show that the upper class of society has to pay larger taxes then the middle and lower class. While these are just two examples, I think these two actions alone give government more control over the individuals. I’m not saying these two things are signs of communism and I agree with equality, but I think that the United States should be, like you said, “a nation of individuals.”
ReplyDeleteShelby, you did an extremely nice job in discussing our society’s need to mask emotion and thought. I thoroughly agree that individuals, overwhelmed by society’s advancement in technology, often find themselves disregarding common methods of communication. Teenagers are growing up in a world where “texting” is the main form of communication. The only numbers located on the internal memory of a cellular device, are cell phone numbers- not home phone numbers. Obviously, texting seems to be the easiest form of communication, for an individual is not faced with having to talk one on one. No “awkward moments” or strange pauses. Realistically though, mankind is losing its ability to communicate properly. A recent Internet study of “Cell phone Ownership Among Teens” revealed that about 71% of U.S. teens own a cellular device (http://gorumors.com/crunchies/cell-phone-ownership-teenagers/). It has also been researched that in the U.S alone- 48.81 out of 100 people own a cellular device (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_mob_pho-media-mobile-phones). If by 2010, the statistics for cell phone usage are this high, what is to say of the future? Will there be no landlines? Will home phones become a thing of the past? I agree with your commenting on our world becoming an “empty society”. People don’t handle problems like they used to. Almost every form of communication is related to the Internet or use of portable hand devices. Our world has forgotten the etiquette of speech, using slang terms and “text” lingo. If at this point in history, the world is so heavily reliant on technology, what is to say of the future when mankind reaches it height of technological advancement? Will people no longer communicate face to face? No more HAND WRITTEN letters? I guess only time will tell. Very nicely done, Shelby.
ReplyDeleteShelby, I agree with you completely on the fact that technology is used in the story to hide the emotions of the people in their society. Surely they know what is going on in the world and with themselves but they don’t want to think about it, they just worry about having fun and hiding behind a fake government. Another thing about technology today is more and more people are getting addicted to it. Children are becoming less social because they would rather watch t.v. or play videogames than go out with friends and having face to face conversations. I also agree with your statement on how Mildred is like a mechanical hound in the sense that she is alive but she isn’t really living. She is just a play doll like the rest of the people in her society. They don’t even realize that the war that they are in is extremely deadly and its eventually their downfall.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Rushabh Shah. Rushabh stated, “…..Not Equality in the sense that everyone has equal rights, equality in the sense that everyone is exactly the same.” In our society we all want equality, and rightfully so, but some people want EVERYTHING to be identical. Each person should have the same legal rights, but that doesn’t mean that everyone should have the same opinions, like play the same sports, or have the same beliefs. While no country’s economy is purely communistic, Cuba and Laos are currently enforcing communistic ideas. The Cold War was basically waged so that America could stop the spread of Communisms. In 451 their economy is almost the picture perfect idea of communism. Throughout the story, we never hear of anybody who has more money than other; everyone has the same possessions. They also have the same television, cars, and activities in which to participate. If all the citizens had the same paycheck and belongings, then there would be no stealing, as well as less crime and violence. Like Rushabh said in his post, the government in 451 wanted the public to be easy to control.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ellen Hollingsworth; her post is great. Ellen stated that the reason our society today fears war, “…is because we have history in our books.” This is true, history repeats itself. How would we know our mistakes as a nation if we didn’t have them recorded? We wouldn’t. Even though our country isn’t perfect, and we often make the same blunder numerous times, we have the opportunity to learn and change our ways. In 451 the only memories they had were the ones that weren’t washed away by the television walls. No one really took anything seriously; partially, as Ellen said, because the general public didn’t comprehend the magnitude of the situation. When the government controls what people watch, they can put anything in or out of the news as they please. Today there are several countries that are under severe media control (Eritrea, North Korea, Cuba). It is hard to believe that Bradbury’s exaggeration is a reality.
ReplyDeleteBradley, you are right about how today family and neighborly traditions are fading away. People seem to care less and less about others and the little things like families sitting together to eat dinner seem like they don’t matter anymore. Like you said we don’t ever slow down and take the time to “stop and smell the roses” we are all just caught up in the rush of our jobs and even school. I also agree with you that technology is influencing our lives more and more and it seems like we are heading straight towards the society that was expressed in the book. For example there are people like Mildred today who would rather watch t.v. than talk to their family. Children are also being influenced by technology more and more, I know kids who are in elementary school that have android phones, laptops, and t.v’s in their room. Why would children so young need things like that, when we were their age all we needed was a sunny day and friends to have fun but now everything is different. Our lives now revolve around things that should be the least of our worries.
ReplyDeleteDear Joshua “Leroy” Jenkins, I agree with your post. I agree with your statement on how the society in the book resembles a communist society. Equality between people was the main reason for burning books and without books it takes away peoples creativity which would spark ideas. So with the books gone the people in the society are just puppets for the government to easily control. I also agree with the fact that Bradbury may have very well written this novel to show people what life would be like in a communist society. I didn’t see the link before but it makes sense because of the time period. More evidence of this being placed in a communist society is at the end when the city gets bombed. Whoever bombed the city probably represented the United States because they were obviously against communism and were doing everything to stop it from spreading just like the U.S. was
ReplyDeleteSara, you had a really great post; I agree with every aspect of it. I like how you brought up the violence that was occurring, especially in children and young adults. If a carload of kids are purposefully driving to hit an innocent pedestrian, there is a serious lack of ethics in this future society. Clarisse depicted the morale of adolescents of this time period quite bluntly on page 30. “I’m afraid of children my own age. They kill each other…six of my friends have been shot in the last year alone. Ten of them died in car wrecks.” As you said, there is little contact between citizens, and this includes parents and their children. Mrs. Bowles describes taking care of her kids as easy as “washing clothes: stuff laundry in and slam the lid!” (96). She sends them to boarding school, and anytime they’re home, she tells them to go watch TV. Parents don’t take the time and therefore the responsibility to raise their kids properly. They can’t waste valuable time on their kids, so they rely on technology to keep them occupied. This can be seen in society today. According to Nielsen Media Research, the average American now spends four and a half hours watching TV a day, or 31.5 hours a week. Compare this to the 38 minutes that the average parent spends A WEEK having a meaningful conversation with their kids. Though this is quite a dramatic statistic, I actually don’t find it that hard to believe. How many teens do we know that have a close relationship to their parents? I think this falls in direct correlation to the violence described so much in 451. I don’t think watching TV is an action of Satan, but too much technology, along with little family communication, can certainly alter a person’s moral perspective.
ReplyDeleteAwesome job Sara, you brought up a lot to think about.
I really enjoyed Anabelle Merrera’s blog; it had some very interesting points. I totally agree with Anabelle when she said, “…they let technology fill in the emptiness in their lives.” There was almost no human contact in this book. If people were feeling lonely they would turn on their interactive televisions, instead of talking to the person sitting next to them. Montag and Mildred would never really talk. She would always blare the television. Technology gets in the way of our relationships. In 451, technology trumps everything. Unfortunately, this is exactly what we do today. If we are bored we get on Facebook, text someone two doors down, or turn on television. The majority of our society never really thinks about going outside or talking with a neighbor. As Anabelle previously stated, technology is what kept people pleased in the book, as well as in our world today.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I like what Anabelle had to say about the laws. I also think that it was crazy that the government let people have guns and momentous cars, but they weren’t allowed to read a book. This shows how intent the government was on making sure people were preoccupied so they wouldn’t have time to stop and think about what was going on in the world. Clarisse talked about how fast people were moving on page 9. She mentions that the people don’t have time to see what life has to offer. In 451, the citizens never took any time to look around and notice all the trouble surrounding them. If they had, the devastation at the end of the book could have possibly been avoided.
I completely agree with all of the points that you brought up in your blog post. It seemed as if the government was indeed trying to “brainwash” society as a whole during the time period. I liked that you brought up Benjamin Franklin also. To me, I interpreted that scene as someone trying to cover up wrong-doings of their own actions. When people make mistakes they usually try anything to cover it up and it seems that the American society was trying to cover up the thoughts and feelings of others that is shared in all books throughout the world today. The reflection that I agreed with the most was when you said that America was turning into a communist society. It does seem as if others in the community do not want people to be better than themselves. Although most people now try to be the best that they can and compete with everyone else, Bradbury made it just seem like they didn’t care and did not try to break away from the whole group of people that were too afraid to, or simply just did not want to read.
ReplyDeleteBrendan, I agree with what you said 100%. Fahrenheit 451 is a book about control, and what the government does to have control. When you compared it to Josef Stalin’s control over the Soviet Union and the futuristic government controlling media over the citizens; I feel like that is what Ray Bradbury was trying to get across. The book seems to have a Soviet Russia Communist feel to it, and I think Ray Bradbury might have thought that there was going to be a communist overthrow in the future. Since the Red Scare was going on in the same time period that the book was being written maybe he thought that America might come to a communist society where media, like books must be controlled by the government. Since the government can control TV, and news broadcasts they will allow; but they can’t control old literature so that is why it is illegal.
ReplyDeleteAnabelle, you definitely brought up one of Ray Bradbury’s main themes of the book: to cherish and make time for individual thought. As Faber described in “The Sieve and the Sand”, every person needs to allow themselves time to think. Montag didn’t realize he was unhappy until Clarisse pointed it out to him. He didn’t realize why he hated being a firefighter until he floated on the river and collected his thoughts. Instead of taking the time to look inside themselves, as you said, people let technology do the thinking for them. “It tells you what to think and blasts it in. It MUST be right. It rushes you on so quickly to its own conclusions your mind hasn’t time to protest.” Because of this, everyone is on the same shallow level of thinking, and therefore, with no individual opinion, nothing is achieved for the better of the community. Maybe we can relate this to history- Medieval Age thinking versus the Renaissance. This future society wasn’t trying to think for themselves, they let TV and the government tell them what to think. In the medieval age, the church told the people what was right and what was wrong. They even told people how to believe the planets orbited! Bradbury warns of a future time where we go back to not asking questions. Montag and the scholars hoped for another Renaissance, a rebirth of ideas, where people could create new philosophies, theories, and art. Once this happens, as you stated, “people can attempt to make a difference for the better of mankind.”
ReplyDeleteDear Corrie,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your thoughts of individualism in Fahrenheit 451. Ray Bradbury was trying to get the point across at the end of the book when Guy was saving books after he kills his boss. When I was responding to Brendan’s Blog I mentioned the whole idea of Josef Stalin’s version of communism, and how it seemed like the futuristic America was coming to that. Then when Guy Montag breaks away from that, and starts to save the books; I found that to be pure individualism. When he does that, it completely changes the whole book in a great way. The whole theme of individualism in Fahrenheit 451 works well because it made the book even more interesting, and it shows how one characters action can completely change how the whole story structure goes.
I very much agree with your post. You brought up many things that I didn’t even think of that could be related to the world today. When you brought up the ideas of dictatorship and control in your post, that is where I really connected with your thoughts on the matter. The government actually does seem to be taking control over every aspect of people’s lives these days. Just like Montag did in the novel, we as a nation need to break free from the people that are controlling us. He broke away from Mildred, who always wanted to know where he was and what he was doing, and he also broke away from society as a whole by reading books and sharing his feelings about them. Others should not tell us how to live our lives, which is exactly what the government is doing now. By Montag breaking away from everyone else who just went with what the government and the rest of the community was doing, he was a hero to me. People who can be themselves and not care or worry about what will happen to them are just very heroic to me.
ReplyDeleteI think that Guy is afraid of going against the society by owing and holding books. He seemed to be afraid of the whole society which would include the fire department but, I guess it worried him more since he worked there. I agree with your reason for him wanting to go with the society so no one turns on him. I completely agree with your opinions about Mildred. Her need for higher social status seemed to take over the marriage. She did not understand what it was like to fight because she had not been introuduced to the idea like Guy was. He had Clarisse to show him new ways. Do you think Bradbury used Mildred to represent the people want to conform with the society so much that they are willing to do anything to get it?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Especially when you were talking about Clarisse, she does influence Guy in a way that changed his thought process and what he believed in. I also agreed with when you were talking about our society today. We don’t care enough really to spend quality time with our families. Instead we would rather play on the computer or do something with technology. Most families all even have their own laptops and communicate through texting so I see where Bradbury was trying to go with this. Also I agree with when you’re talking about how Mildred and Guy are separated by the technology. I don’t think it’s just them though it’s also the other wives who Mildred is friends with they also are distant from their husbands and even their children. I thought it was awful how they were talking about the kids like they were just really nothing special.
ReplyDeleteI agree that people are too absorbed with technology. I myself probably couldn’t go a day without my phone. Technology has become so popular in the last decade and it will most likely continue to become more popular. Soon we will have things that seem unimaginable like the things in the novel. I also agree with you about Clarisse if she wasn’t in the book and didn’t influence and teach Guy the things that he learned he would’ve continued to be the same careless person and wouldn’t have opened his eyes to the reality around him. Like before he didn’t even realize that Mildred and his self were not connecting anymore. The problem with most couples today is that they are clingy and fall in “love” too easily while in the story Bradbury shows that couples are barely interested in each other. This has to deal with like you said no one being influenced or reading the love stories like Romeo and Juliet.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your connection of “Fahrenheit 451” to the story “ Harrison Bergeron.” Although you said that the burning of books was a “handicaps” it also seems as if society was a “handicap” to the government. The government just wants to be in control of everything and to them, society slowed down their advances in the world. When you brought up the part in the story about Montag, Mrs. Bowles, and Mrs. Phelps, I thought a little differently than you did on the topic. To me, them not knowing or caring about the war just showed how much people not reading was crippling the community. Since they weren’t allowed to read books, they could not learn about what was going on in the war. Also in you post, I really agreed with your thoughts on the book not having very much individualism. No one, other than Montag in the end seemed to have their own real thoughts and opinions on books or any other aspect in their lives. They just went through life not even trying to be their own person. Society now really does need to stop every once in awhile and realize what they are doing and how it affects everyone.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you say that Bradbury did have somewhat of a clue of the future when he was writing the book. I was good that you pointed out how it is a little scary that what he is writing about in his novels is coming true in a way so far. Should we be worried that it will continue to worsen? Also I like how you pointed out about the atomic bomb at the end of your response. It does seem ironic that the people didn’t care about the war really at all and in the end they were destroyed by it. When you pointed out about the government being like fire I have to disagree with that just because it seems too broad or out there. I think that fire in the book represents that it you can keep the flames down by putting things on it but unless you put it out the right way you’re not going to put the fire out completely and you will have to deal with the consequences which is what goes on in the book.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you said in your blog post. I agree with what you said about the outrageousness of their society and how they can do terrible things that would be harshly punished in our society but in theirs it’s like nothing happened, but if they harbor a book in their home there house is burnt. You said Clarisse stood out from the rest of the characters in the book and I completely agree. Do you think Bradbury used her to somewhat mentor Montag in the story to later change the outcome of what happens? I agree when you say that the unseen heroes were not seen much in the book almost leaving us with unanswered questions as to what else they might have done while the plot we were following was going on. I also agree when you said a society wasted on burning books is a wasted society but don’t you think there are other ways than reading books to make a society thrive?
ReplyDeleteI’m going to start by giving you some kudos for bringing up the burning of religious texts to show their inferiority. This entire controversy about the Qur’an burnings could not have been better timed for this discussion. Additionally, in saying “No matter what topic, everyone has sensitive feelings towards something,” you essentially summed up the entire logic behind political correctness (which frankly makes me rather angry sometimes).
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you when you mention that some of the aspects of Bradbury’s future world have shown themselves in today’s society. However, I fail to see the significance of your statistic: “70% of U.S. adults haven’t been in a bookstore in the past five years.” While I will admit that some people don’t read books as much as they could or should, thinking that they can get the same experience from TV or movies, I think there is more to that statement that meets the eye. A lot of people still read books: they just don’t necessarily get them from bookstores. Lately, Amazon’s Kindle and Apple’s iPad have been sweeping across the digital book market. I myself am more of a hard-copy kind of guy: if I were to read something digitally, it wouldn’t feel like I actually read the book, but some really long file. Still, I can’t remember the last time I bought a book from a bookstore: it’s just as easy to buy it online for a cheaper price or get it from a library for free.
Still, I believe you did an excellent analysis and I think you saw exactly the warning Bradbury was trying to provide with his book: keep reading.
In your initial response Chris I completely agree with your statement that technology is started to take far too much of a hold upon our daily lives. We are beginning to become almost completely dependent upon technology. It shows how much we are in blackouts and other occurrences that result in a loss of electricity, and thus a loss of the technologies that we rely upon. People spend a vast amount of time dealing with television, iPods, cell phones, and video games. By spending so much time with these things we are beginning to distance ourselves from the people around us. Families barely spend quality time together anymore because of this. Even when the entire family will be in the house together, usually the kids will either be on their cell phones, watching TV, or playing video games, all while their parents are usually watching TV or doing something else apart from the rest of the family. I believe that we need to push ourselves away from technology in order to bring families, and people as a whole, back together.
ReplyDeleteRushabh: I think it’s awesome that you were able to make a connection to yourself, noting how many people spend more time with technology than with their families: I can relate to this just as well. Just recently I read some datum saying that the average teenager watched four hours of television after school every day. The people in the media know what they’re doing and they do it well: it causes people to keep coming back, unwittingly making the television companies more and more money every day.
ReplyDeleteI was also quite intrigued by your mention of the Cold War, which I, too, think was a large part in the writing of this book. While I think that there may have been some anti-Communism bias caused by the general American opinions of the time (which are still around, in part), the book appears to be a fairly accurate representation of what would happen if almost everybody was forced to think and act the exact same way.
Bradbury intended for his fictional world to be feared. However, the way you phrased your post almost compares today’s technology to the equality antagonized in the Cold War. Really, your perspective on the book makes me want to shut down my computer and never look at it again. Great job.
One of your final statements was extremely fascinating: “People care more about what other people think of them instead of what they think of themselves.” This actually answers one of your earlier questions: Why did Guy feel it was necessary to go with the rest of society? We as humans are afraid of how other people see us, and will even show ourselves to be people we know we’re not, so long as we can get other people to believe it. We live in a world where public opinion is key: everything from a simple song on the radio to the president himself has a rating showing what people think.
ReplyDeleteI think that everybody, like Guy, questions society at some point. It could be as simple as questioning a minor law that seems insignificant or a speed limit that appears to be too low. However, we accept that these things just… are. It’s a standard norm that we’ve built ourselves into, and this is exactly why Guy was so afraid to read books: firemen just weren’t supposed to.
I think you hit the nail on its head in stating that the simple idea of public opinion, when taken too far, could lead to catastrophe… not that we’d realize it.
For starters Zach, you wrote an excellent response. I entirely agree with your statement about censorship being one of the big points written about in Fahrenheit 451. It is crazy to think that the extent of the censorship done by the government could happen, although even today we are beginning to see it, especially in China. China’s government has banned many books, banned religion, banned the telling of a certain period of history, and extensively controls the lives of the Chinese people. It goes to show that what we think of as crazy and something that could never happen is already happening in other countries today.
ReplyDeleteI also thoroughly agree with your statement about how Fahrenheit is actually just an exaggerated depiction of our current time. Technology has taken a huge hold upon our daily lives and things like books are beginning to become a thing of the past. As a nation we have begun a trend where we are reading less and less each year. People have also begun to let technology take the place of spending time with other people. Instead of spending time together as a family, kids spend a huge amount of time with cell phones, video games, and television, and parents spend a huge amount of time watching TV and doing other things not with their children. Generally, the most time spent as a family now is watching TV together, which isn’t quality time at all. I believe that if we continue to follow the trends that we are on currently, that the hellish future described by Bradbury will eventually become reality.
Very interesting interpretation Brock! It certainly made me think. I believe that Bradbury made no mention of certain types of religions, so that this book could relate to many societies in the world today. He didn’t overlook cultures and/or religion, but rather kept the novel at an easily interpretable standard that many people could understand. There are two ways to look at this novel in regards to religion.
ReplyDeleteThe first, is that there were many points in this novel that reflected passages from the Bible or religious teachings. Towards the end of the novel, Beatty references Christ’s transformation of water into wine. He states that Montag is Water, while he, himself, represents fire. Together they would create the miracle of wine. Just as Christ proved his miracle to his disciples, renewing faith from his non-believers; Montag wanted so badly to create his own identity and renew people’s faith in literature. “Give a man a few lines of verse [from the Bible] and he thinks he’s the Lord of all Creation. You think you can walk on water with your books.” Beatty pulls from Christ’s ability to walk on water, to Montag’s secrecy in hiding novels- which should be burned. In addition to these religious (mostly Christian) references, Bradbury includes other passages and/or verses from the Bible to add to the religious abandonment in society as well.
The second way that you could look at Bradbury’s, say “lack of” religion could be for the fact that even in society today, many people are disregarding the words of the Lord, losing faith in their journey to salvation. One minor example of the above topic, would be a statistic taken in 2009 discussing the percent of religious books purchased. “Religious book sales dropped 9.0% to $659m in 2009, from previous years (AAP Yearly Industry Statistics). According to the latest American Religious Identification Survey “Americans are significantly less religious now than 18 years ago, which sheds light on significant shifts in the religious make-up of the country. Christian Americans have decreased by more than 11 percent since 1990, and the percent of Americans who claim “no religion” has almost doubled in that time, jumping from just more than 8 percent of the population to 15 percent.” America, regardless of the melting pot that it may proclaim itself to be, has indeed heavily declined in its faith.
In this respect, I do think that Bradbury did a fine job in relating to America’s religious and cultural aspects. Although he might not have fine tuned his degree of explanation, religion is very much alive in this novel. I do agree however that he did avoid the cultural aspect perhaps a little more than religion for he was trying to depict a society of “uninspired, lazy and somewhat defeated” individuals. Brock you did a great job in your explanation.
I agree that Guy's statement about needing to be bothered is a good summary of what's wrong with the society presented in the novel. The people in Guy's city simply ignore the world around them. They are incapable of asking themselves difficult questions or making their own purposes in life. These people have been unexposed to the variety of ideas that good literature, film, or music presents. These people have not been provided the tools to deal with their feelings of emptiness, and this is why Mildred resorts to the overdose, even though she probably doesn't realize it herself. People like Mildred and Beatty have an urge to shape the world in some way, but it's much easier for them to spend their lives idly watching TV because it's all they've ever known. The people in this society do have problems that should bother them, like Mildred's friend who broke down and cried over the poem. Instead of dealing with her concerns, this woman and the rest of Mildred's friends would rather pretend they didn't exist and watch substanceless TV.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Orr- I agree with everything you said. It really showed what the power of reading has on us. I particularly found it interesting in your journal when you mentioned Clarisse asking Montag if he was happy. The point that you mentioned about it is really true. People are pretty much brain washed into thinking whatever the government wants them to in this book. No one person had freedom of thought. Until Montag shared his thought on books and broke the law, just like you mentioned. Also, I agree with what you said about this also occurring in today’s world. It happens more and more as the society separates themselves into other groups. And I believe this will just increase. I respect your opinion about admiring Montag as a character. I believe he is a very strong character to act as a role model for many people. Overall, you made some very interesting points. Very good!
ReplyDeleteKenneth Phipps- This really made me think! I did realize what Ray Bradbury was trying to tell us about the first line of the books. However, your journal made it clear to me. Very well done! I found it interesting that you think dictatorship is a part of the book, most people would think it’s communism. But actually you are right. Mildred and Beaty wanted complete control over Guy Montag. And I believe this is part of the reason why he broke the law. He wanted from the two people that he wanted to please in the past, because they were not giving him what he wanted, which was change. Just like you said that we all need change. However, what would happen if we had complete change? There would be no control that we do need to keep people in line, there would be chaos everywhere. Nevertheless, I mainly agree with all the points you made.
ReplyDeleteOlivia Holdway- I agree with you all together. It is interesting how Ray Bradbury told the stories of both sides, and kept us informed of them. I do not think the book would be the same if he did not do that. Do you think that we are becoming the type of society and government that Bradbury portrayed in his book? Like you said there are religions that are burning the holy books of religions. Is this the starting point of it all? People do not go to book stores and are not reading as often as before, just like the book. Is this another hint that the burning of books may happen eventually? Throughout your response it made me frequently think about what today’s world has in common with the book. The points you made were great. I was very shocked about the percentage of people that go to the book store. I wonder if that is because you can read them online now. Very well done Olivia!
ReplyDeleteI honestly couldn’t have summed up the idea of the novel better myself. I think you really hit the nail on the head in your final paragraph. I do, however, disagree with the idea that our society is now on the verge of being nearly as convoluted and void of thought as the society that Bradbury presented in the novel.
ReplyDeleteI understand that Bradbury was trying to encourage people to expose themselves to different ideas, embrace their own creativity, and pursue their goals. The actual events on the novel, however, would never take place. It is human nature to observe the world around us, analyze what we observe and come to conclusions based on it, do something to mold the world to our liking, and share our thoughts with others. It is a drive to share ideas with others that caused people to invent not only books, but also television, radio, and the internet. The book seems to say that technology is bad because people might spend too much time idly enjoying technology which appeals to us with sights and sounds, yet enjoying nature exclusively for its aesthetic properties is a good thing. Technology isn’t going to make us all brain dead sheep; media (books included) only reflects the thoughts and feelings of people. Realistically speaking, I don’t believe that an educated human (capable of reading, writing, and speaking with other people) is capable of throwing away their ability to ask meaningful questions.
In response to Sophie, I think it is sad but believable statement of a fact that American students only spend an average of 26 minutes a day reading on a school day. We as a population of Earth think of school ass a place to take joy in the knowledge that books and such give to us, especially in the United States, where a luxury such as a free education is government run and given away for free. Even though Bradbury published this book in 1953, he looked to the future and saw the declining morals regarding knowledge of our American society and decided to do something about it. There is a mixed emotion that comes around when you think about how true this book is and how scary that this book could one day be the truth. Paired with the already eerie coincidences we see and a short rate of change, it makes you wonder how soon this work of fiction could be nonfiction.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex, I see where you are going with this. In a roundabout way, the fact that libraries are being forced to undergo budget cuts because people are not able to force themselves to image things laid out for them in books really shows the height of laziness that is becoming like a plague in the United States. I think, not only are people too lazy to actually read the books, they are too lazy to get themselves to a library or book store to be accommodated with said books. People think it is such a good idea to have books online, and yes, it is, but it is also just pointless. Why take the time to copy each book into online text when they are sitting on a shelf in your local library just begging to be read? I agree completely, priorities really are shifting this day in age.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sam, I sort of have to disagree with your statement “With out the knowledge we gain from books we can do not have the ability to make our own opinion or be our own self, making all of the people the same and dull.” In my opinion this is a bit off. If everyone reads from the same book, gathering and believing the same ideas, wouldn’t that make us just as dull and the same? For the sake of originality, I don’t really think we need other ideas, for perfect originality at least. The knowledge we get from books may help us to see that we disagree with a certain statement, but I don’t think it can really help us be more original. For example, if we all were to read The Communist Manifesto and think, “Hey, this is great, Marx really knew what he was doing”, it wouldn’t be “original because we are all thinking, Now if you disagree with the book, there lies originality.
ReplyDeleteI see this as a part of human nature in general. I definitely agree that a “going with the flow” type of mentality has worsened with mass media and marketing in the modern age. I think people are starting to realize they don’t always have to think for themselves and they see if they “go with the flow”, then they will fit in with everyone else. No one sees a problem with just fitting in with the crowd because no one will be mad at you for expressing individuality because if you are just going with the flow, individuality is nonexistent. I also think this can be associated with an American cultural conflict because in our own society, we are always jealous of what someone else has, how they look, how rich they are, etc. In our society, we always judge people based on what they have, which in turn worsens with mass media and marketing in the modern age.
ReplyDeleteChris, you made some very interesting points throughout your blog. I enjoyed your outlook on Bradbury’s dystopian society and ours. I agree with you on that, the people in this book greatly depended on the use of technology in their lives. Technology seemed like the only thing that kept the people sane. This obsession with technology was portrayed through the character of Mildred. She was always in her parlor and even when she was away from it she was always talking about how great it was, when in reality, it was a distraction. Almost all technology in this book was a distraction. I also like how you expressed Clarrise as Guy’s Mentor, on that note; I can answer your question about Clarrise, in all honesty I never really thought about Bradbury using her as a mentor for Montag. However, there is no doubt in my mind that, that is very possible. She was the one that basically stirred up the entire book because without her questioning him, he would have went on with this life, burning books. The other question you asked me was referring to books, and yes I do think that there are other ways than reading books to make a society thrive, because there are always going to be people such as Faber and other college professors that will contribute their knowledge to society and help try to build it from the base up.
ReplyDeleteChelsea, I found your blog to be well written and composed of original thoughts. I really liked how you connected the character of Clarrise to a book, both of which were considered to be odd and a disgrace to society. I agree with you on how you said that Clarrise was the type of character that many readers were attracted to. I think we found her appealing because she was the only character that was somewhat like us. By that I mean, she was free-spirited and questioned everything. Clarrise was the character that everyone could connect with. I also agree with you on your comparison between Captain Beaty and a dictator. This truly says it all, Beaty was power hungry and most dictators are. My favorite part of your whole blog was your ending because it summed up the importance of books, “books are the unbreaking structure that holds our society together and keeps it strong.”
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your initial response. You said people go with the flow and it doesn’t bother them but do you think they just wanted to conform to the society out of fear? I agree with your statement that the first representation of the ignorance in the society is when Guy meets Clarisse. Do you think the he is jealous of the fact that she is free or the fact that he doesn’t understand how she can be so care free even though she lives in the same society as him? You said that he thought that everyone else lived in the same society so he thought they were also happy but was he truly ever happy to begin with? I had never really thought about the title of the book but I agree with the way you described it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Ray Bradbury’s purpose was to stress the emphasis on how important individualism and society are. In our society, we take individualism and self independence for granted and act like it’s not big deal. This ideal society in Fahrenheit 451 shows what a world would be like without anyone who expressed individualism. Without individualism, it is evident that the society wouldn’t be as advanced as it is today and it allows us to argue our very own personal beliefs and opinions. I also agree that through all struggles we have, people do forget the enjoyable things in life. Maintaining a positive attitude and outlook on things keeps people from forgetting about how enjoyable life really is. With the novel being written fifty years ago and the novel being based on futuristic events, it almost shows that Bradbury thinks our society will soon turn out to be like the society in Fahrenheit 451.
ReplyDeleteRushabh, I enjoyed every aspect of your blog, it was insightful and compelling. I liked your idea of communism within the book and I completely agree with your view on their government. What is sad is that, they focused so much on keeping everyone the same; they never gave the people a chance to explore what they were truly capable of. I also like the fact that you incorporated the value of family in your blog. The term, family, was handled very lightly in this book and relationships between husband and wife only seemed like acquaintances. I found that the relationship between Mildred and Montag was a sad one, because the readers could tell they were obviously no interested and defiantly not in love with eachother. I found is kind of odd how they both slept in two separate beds. The mothers in this book shocked me on how heartless and how uncaring they were to their children. This dependence we have on technology is growing and we as a society are changing, I hope that we don’t end up as bad as the society in 451 but as we are introduced to more and more advancements our lives become more based on what lead Montag’s society to a downfall.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you when you say Ray Bradbury’s purpose of the novel shows how people in our society are completely dependent on technology. Throughout the entire book, the book stresses the reliability of an ordinary citizen on modern day techonology. I also agree with you that Bradbury uses the burning of books as a way to maintain peace in society. This allows no one to have the “upper edge” and everyone is considered equal. The authorities of this society have it easy: it is almost like they brainwashed each and every person in their society and they don’t even need to try to make them follow their rules because the citizens do it willingly. The citizens were brought up that way, and since they had never seen anyone rebel before or go against society before, they were under complete control of the authorities in society. I consider the society ignorant as a whole because they are all followers who are looking for someone or something to be their “leader”. Fortunately for the “followers”, all they had to do was go with the flow of society.
ReplyDeleteJackson Mankins, after reading your blog post I totally agree with your statement of saying that people are selfish and how people care more about what other people think of them instead of what they think of themselves. I feel as if like that is still a major and huge problem factor in our modern society today. When you first asked the question about Guy Montag being afraid of being caught by the police reading and possessing literature. I think you just slightly answered yourself in your concluding paragraph of your blog post. Guy Montag was surely afraid of going against the law and society. Who would not be afraid of breaking the law and going against everyone and everything you have ever known. That is definitely a hard challenge for anyone to face in their lives no matter the possibilities or outcomes. It is remarkable what Guy Montag did, but he certainly accomplished it.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Derek Davis
ReplyDeleteDerek Davis, I strongly agree with your opinions on society and human nature. Even though those traits are found in people that live in the United States, I think they can also be found every where else in the world. Those seem to be characteristics of everyone and it is almost as if we can expect it in all of us. I also agree with your statements on the characters. In my opinion the characters do not even act like people at all. They act more like robots just doing what they are programmed to do. My question to you is do you think the characters even want to gain knowledge? I ask that because they seem so caught up in what is on their televisions they do not even think about what anything else would contain. I want your opinion because it does not even seem like they would have any interest in gaining any knowledge.
Chris Otoya, I agree and disagree with your statements expressed in you blog post. I believe your thought about the advance technology, and how it affects the people in Fahrenheit 451. I think you are correct about how the advancements in technology control the character’s own actions of them becoming lethargic. They depend too much upon it, which it then leads to the characters to never communicate or interact. I do have some disagreements also with your blog post. I believe our society today is showing a want of individualism. It seems as if everyone is expressing themselves more so than wanting to be one or as a whole. many peers and people that I have looked up to in my day and time, tell me that I need to be myself and own person. Still to this day they say that I need to take risks and not always follow the pack.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Chris Otoya
ReplyDeleteChris, although you make some key points in your blog post, I do not necessarily agree with your statement on how everyone wants everyone to be equal in a modern society. I think that is the government’s goal in the story, but not in today’s society. Yes, I think the marriage between Guy and Mildred Montag symbolizes what technology can do to people, but I believe it symbolizes more than just that. Marriage is supposed to be the one thing that can not be broken, “till death do us part”. So when the marriage between Guy and Mildred is broken, I think it shows how technology and selfishness can break apart even the strongest of things, which is love. However, I do like your comment of how the city and the birth of mankind could be related to a phoenix. But once the city is rebuilt and say books and knowledge are introduced once again, do you think technology and selfishness will overcome those aspects once again?
Jackson Mankins, I feel as if it is not so much as if the characters do not want to gain knowledge, I think that the characters are afraid of knowledge to be honest with you. I believe that all the characters want to be equal in a sense, which is not necessarily a bad thing. What I mean by that is that I believe that the characters do not want others to read because they don’t want the other who read to gain more knowledge than them. The story emphasized that all characters wanted equality, so they took matters and they made sure they did so. I just feel like the characters feared the unknown, and to make that not possible they would prevent those actions and certainly not let them ever happen or occur. I know you will appreciate my response to your comment. I’m pretty sure I made myself clear and answered your question precisely.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nick Strosynder
ReplyDeleteNick Strosynder, I do not agree with your comment referring to Captain Beatty, “he was only going along with society and not questioning it like Guy was.” We as the readers do not really see the government at a personal level; we see it as a whole. With Captain Beatty, I think he is a window for the government so we can somewhat see it at that personal level. I say that because he commands and persuades Guy to do his job and burn the books. Captain Beatty does this to Guy in order to attempt to make everyone equal, which is the governments goal. I do agree word for word with your closing statements. I agree that everyone cannot be the same or society would be demolished. Without different opinions and beliefs, everything would be based on one central idea and that would not work out.
To Ryan Duffin,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your statement that the future has arrived. Ray Bradbury is predicting the future very well in this book. It is almost insane how accurate his predictions may seem at times. You discuss that Benjamin Franklin originally wrote that firefighting was developed to burn books, and not to put out fires. Maybe you are right to think that what we think about is history is completely wrong, and inaccurate. Your whole blog is quite amusing because your theories are different from what everybody else has said; yet what you say makes sense to what happens in the book. When you talked about how media only gives us what we want, I have to say that you are completely correct because the whole media industry is all about control and money. “Don’t be afraid to try new things”, that is a brilliant statement, and it represents the theme of the book quite well.
I thought your blog had some very good points. There is no way you can deny that technology has taken over our lives. I believe there is always technology though. Even in cavemen time, fire was a new technology to them, so to speak. So technology IS natural. The problem is if it becomes the consumption of your every minute, seen in the book. It can cloud your vision of what reality really is. Guy Montag didn't see how his relationship with Mildred was actually no relationship. They barely remembered how they'd even met. I feel if technology is used to improve society, and not mask it, then it will not turn out as in the book.
ReplyDeleteI like how you wrote about the book as if you were reading it at that moment and how you took parts out of the book that most impacted you. I agree with how you viewed Montag as not knowing himself in the beginning of the book. Through the book he learns more of himself through other people around him. Almost everyone in this book seems to be asleep and people seem to almost wake like Montag did, when they start to read books. For reading makes one think differently and respond in a advise way. This reminds me of when Montag read a poem to Mildred friends and one of them cries for they had just realized the truth about her life and how she had been living. In Fahrenheit 451 books bring the characters alive for it opens their minds and the same is true for real life.
ReplyDeleteI like how you thought of when the book was written and what the author was think according to the time period. I believe the world around Bradbury had a great impact about he wrote the book and I agree with you that the cold war could have been is main influence of how he wrote the government to be. I believe it also influenced him about how he wrote about the war in the book. About how citizens knew nothing about what was going on and never knowing when the enemy could attack which is true for the cold war. They always thought they were going to get bombed, but it never happened. It also true about how the government wouldn’t think much of Montag in a mist of a war like the cold war.
ReplyDeleteRyan:
ReplyDeleteOnce I read your post, I became lost in a trail of thought. I completely agree with your view that Bradbury accurately predicted the technologies of the present-day world; however I have never quite thought about the fact that the beginnings of Bradbury’s grim future could have already started to spread. Children are spending more and more time alone living in, as you mentioned, “bubbles”. In fact according to “Kidshealth.org”, an average teenager spends at least six hours a day with technological machines. This reduces the time they spend with family as well as the time they spend doing physical activities.
Another point that you made that I agree upon is that Bradbury is trying to persuade the audience to be more like Clarisse. He wants people to experience new things, enjoy the natural world, and most importantly, ask questions. Consequently, the author wants readers to become less like Mildred and “go with the flow”. The only way one can increase their knowledge is by asking questions.
The last point I found interesting within your post was that commonality can lead to the “ultimate destruction” of society. I agree 100% with the fact that if our society is deprived of all individualism, there will be no growth. If we fail to remain different and argue, Bradbury’s future will be our reality. Great analysis and nice job.
I like what Alex said about how it was like no one care for life, let alone others. All they cared about was following the strict rules set by the government at that point in time. Mildred, for example, didn’t want anything to do with her husband half of the time. All she wanted to do was sit around, watch TV, and listen about the “Family”, who/what was never even described in the book. Which leads to other ideas and thoughts about the book. Who was the “Family”, really? I believe that it was most likely the government and the had brainwashed the citizens so thoroughly that that is how they wanted people to see them as. The “Family”. I don’t understand how people could just let the firefighters burn books. It makes our society seem like cowards, afraid to stand up for what they believed. Yes, not everyone wanted the books to be around, but the people who did didn’t do or say anything. Again, I call them cowards.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Ellen said with the whole deal about the war being spoken about as if it were a form of entertainment. It’s true because during the novel, people would be sitting at a TV listening to it and speaking about it in a friendly conversation. Like she said, it is a serious topic nowadays, only because we have been in one since 2001. I also really like how she said, “the ignorance of the human race is covered up by the televisions.” In the book, it was completely true. The only form of true ignorance was whenever Mildred spoke. It was like she was A.D.D. throughout the entire book. Everything she said had nothing to do with the conversation presented to her. It was a very annoying thing to read. I agree with what Ellen said about how Faber and Clarisse could almost see through the government. They always questioned things the way books did. I believe Clarisse opened Montag’s eyes to the world and made him really question his own life, wondering if it had meaning.
ReplyDeleteI like how Ryan started his post, but the statement, “I believe the future has arrived,” confused me. If he means that he believes that it’s here now, than I have to disagree. Our society still depends on books, just not as much as we did back in older times. I like the point he made about how the government actually changed society, saying the Benjamin Franklin was the first firefighter. Nothing was said about how he invented things, was one of the Founding Fathers of our country, or anything else of greatness. It’s like all they wanted people to know is that everyone before us burned books. Then the question comes to mind, how do people not question how there were ever books? How books were ever created if all we were going to do is burn them in the future? It goes to show how he portrayed the society as being close-minded and ignorant.
ReplyDeleteShelby:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post on Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, there was only one word I could describe it as. Amazing. I believe your post was not only insightful, but it also sums up the purpose of the novel really well. Even though I am in compliance with almost all of your ideas, the third paragraph of your post caused me to ponder the most and dig deeper into the book. I began to understand the fact that people wanted to censor their feelings because they felt uncomfortable discussing them. In fact, even today, many people decide to “go with the flow” and disregard their feelings. If this continues, we will be in the midst of Bradbury’s vision of the future. Another point I greatly agree with from your post is that people are losing their ability to communicate well. As Barbie said in response to your post, I believe that texting and instant messaging is causing our communicating skills to go downhill. In fact, a recent article on “Aboutourkids.org” shows that texting is up 450% from the past two years. Eventually, it will be very difficult to communicate face to face simply because people will lose their habit of speaking directly to someone. Overall, I believe your post contained a great analysis of the novel and its purpose. Good job.
Zach
ReplyDeleteI am most intrigued with your post. I agree with what you’re saying about the book. The people were satisfied with materialistic possessions because they hadn’t felt what it was like to obtain true knowledge. Sure they knew how things worked, but nobody knew why, nor did they wish to know why. Being without books and all that they hold made the generations that followed change dramatically because they did not have the books. I also agree with what you said about censorship and how it was portrayed because of the outlawing of books. The government is supposed to represent our government on a drastic level. Our government today maintains a small part of control over the media. Though it is a small part, there are still things that the world does not know about and that the governments would like to keep that way. Some of it is understandable for a lot of people may not be able to handle what the government is withholding. However, the government in the book has a different aspect of control.
Mitchell
ReplyDeleteI am most intrigued with your post. I like the connection you made with the cold war and agree with what you said about him changing into this superhero character. He starts realizing through the book that books might actually have something worthwhile to say in them or the government would not destroy them all. I’m not sure whether the government wanted to “protect” the people from what the books had to say or if they were just another thing that the government could easily control but Montag was sure by the end that he had to put effort into trying to stop it. Learning about the Bible and what it had to say made Guy realize that there were things in the book and he became determined, not only to learn about them but also to get more people to read. The book is a good example of how something can drastically change if you believe in it.
Ellen:
ReplyDeleteI believe you have truly grasped the purpose of Bradbury’s novel. Your post summarizes, as well as analyzes the purpose extremely well. One of the points I agree with you on is in your first paragraph. I like how you described the fact that without knowledge and books, Mankind would be like “mindless zombies”. You mentioned that no culture would spread, and no imagination would spark; I would like to add and say that Individualism would be completely lost. We would be living in completely autonomous society where different opinions would hardly ever exist. Another point that I connected with was that people are becoming more dependent on televisions and visual media. As Sara Richards briefly mentioned, government could easily control society through these mediums. Officials could show us what they want and the citizens would blindly believe the government. I would also like to add the fact that the number of people reading newspapers are declining greatly. According to the “Stateofthemedia.org”, now only 54% of Americans read newspapers and this number is expected to decline as time progresses. Others tune in to the radio or television to stay up to date with current events. Overall, I enjoyed reading your post. Hopefully, however, Bradbury’s vision isn’t our future.
Sara you talked about “Clarisse and her death, the burning of the lady and her books, and Beatty’s negative speech about knowledge” all were buildups of things that finally led to Guy Montag wanting to change, and make a change. I couldn’t agree more. And I couldn’t help but to think back to a similar occurrence in “The Grapes of Wrath” when all it took was the murder of innocent Jim Casey and seeing his society spiraling downward for Tom Joad to crack. They had series of events to fuel them to want to be courageous enough to make a difference; whether it was in themselves, or the lives around them. They both channeled the anger that was bottled inside them to change, like you said. By the end of the two novels both leading characters knew what they had to do. As if they had finally realized their calling.
ReplyDeleteRyan I completely agree on your response to “Fahrenheit 451” when you state the comparisons of the futuristic society Bradbury paints for us in his novel, and the one we live in today. Everyone would agree that Ray Bradbury intended for the book to be his predictions of the future. Guy Montag’s society is literally so consumed by these ‘fantasy families’ and seashell radios that they have forgotten what it really feels like to live in their world. In our society, people age 18-plus watched 319 minutes of television a day, according to the Media Comparisons Study 2010 commissioned by the Television Bureau of Advertising (TVB). That figure more than doubles the time spent on the Internet (156.6 minutes), and dwarfs daily time spent engaging with radio (91.2 minutes), newspapers (26.4 minutes) and mobile (19.2). Other findings showed that television reaches nearly 90% of people 18-plus every day, better than the Internet's 67.5%, radio's 60.6% and newspapers' 38.6%, and TV reaches over 80% of the general population. So as you can see… Bradbury’s predictions of a technological take over were not far off.
ReplyDeleteDear Bradley,
ReplyDeleteI found all of your insights to be very intriguing. But one in particular caught my eye. You brought attention to the fact that we have “become disconnected from the natural beauties of the world”. Luckily for Montag he had someone like Clarisse, who opened his eyes to the natural fascinations of our world. Her passions of hiking and catching butterflies seem simple, and yet to her, they’re so fulfilling. Before Clarisse, the closest Guy Montag had ever gotten to nature were the fires he created. At first, Montag accuses her of thinking too much, until he realizes that he too can think individually. This leads to his abrupt awareness that he has been unhappy all along. It makes me think of those who live in our modern society today. Like you said, a lot of us have already lost our ability to take even moments to stop, and appreciate the little things in life. What if we never have people like Clarisse? People like Clarisse who are capable of ‘waking’ a person of their robotic ways that so many of us find ourselves in?
Shelby, I love the last quote that you stated. I, too, picked that out and underlined it in my book. I think it describes human nature very well. I also like what you said about censorship being caused by the people because of their fear of uncomfortable feelings. This is completely true. Did you know that the Grapes of Wrath was banned in some places in the United States, especially California, for a little while because people were afraid of the feelings it held? The people living in California felt that it made them look bad. Plus, they didn’t want to face the truth. I believe the same idea happened in Fahrenheit 451. The people didn’t want to face the truth about what the government was doing to them. People would rather live in their own world instead of coming face to face with what was occurring to them. Overall, I like what you said about censorship being caused by the people.
ReplyDeleteRyan, I agree with you. Ray Bradbury was very accurate with predicting the technology nowadays and in the future. It is amazing that he could tell what was coming that far in the past. Another example of an accurate prediction was the green headset that Faber gave Montag to put in his ear. The point of it was that it was too small for anyone to notice. This green headset is now know as a Bluetooth in today’s technology. As we speak, major companies are competing to create the smallest Bluetooth. Motorola has gotten theirs down to 33 x 41 mm. That is pretty impressive! The point of making it smaller is so that it is less noticeable if someone is making a phone call. Even now, it takes me a while to realize if someone is wearing a Bluetooth. When I hear someone talking to themselves, my first thought is that they have gone crazy. However, the explanation for this scenario usually involves a Bluetooth. All I can say is, it’s uncanny how accurate Bradbury is with his technology predictions.
ReplyDeleteMelissa, I like what you said about Bradbury criticizing American society through technology. And it is so true what you said about people always having headphones in, especially now with the school allowing ipods in class. Now just about everyone is listening to music 24/7. With this allowance, it seems like we are slowly moving towards the future Bradbury describes in Fahrenheit 451. I also like what you said about Mildred and Montag having different opinions, even though they both experienced books. I think what made Montag decide to do something was his conversations with Clarisse. Because she had taught him to think in a new way, he was able to resist being mindless. Mildred, on the other hand, never met Clarisse. Therefore, she reacted differently to the books. I love the way you worded this phrase about Montag, “one had the drive to take all of the chances he had to break out from the towering force that was their daily society and then counter it by more or less taking on the heavy burden of rebuilding society”. I think it sums up the whole point of Montag’s part in the story in one sentence. Good job.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, in that when Bradbury published this book, it was almost unimaginable to have huge flat screen T.V.s. This is exactly what we have now though. I thought it was interesting in how you said the firemen had wisdom, I'd been trying to find the words to describe someone like the chief, and that fits perfectly. The chief, and some other firemen, did know that books made you wiser in just having knowledge. To be culturally aware,that's what couldn't happen. As you said the government always had to be right. If they weren't right, they'd MAKE themselves right. Just like your example of when they couldn't find Montag, so they found a random person, in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pretended he was Montag. It is sickening, and makes you wonder what kind of world our world may soon, or slight already is, becoming. I didn't even think about the explosion at the end as a phoenix. That makes a lot of sense, being reborn. I sort of thought it was just the fire finally cleaning something, like the book said it did.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that we do not take enough time, or even a little amount, out of the day to just 'smell the roses'. I, myself, am guilty of this on a daily bases. I'm constantly in a rush to get to school, a rush to get out of school, a rush to incar, a rush to do homework, even a rush to sleep. I try to take in natural beauty sometimes on the weekends though. The 100mph cars talked about in the book are very similar to the cars we have now. We speed through it all. Especially American culture is always in a rush, though I can't say I don't like it, only because I'm so used to it. You said how 1953 was the start of Lobbyists and less book reading. I would agree books are very ancient, and newer technologies have practically just begun on a timeline, such as computers, video games, t vs. It isn't right to burn something, just because you don't like what it is. Such as the burning of Korans at ground zero recently. Nothing was achieved except more conflict and the Islamic religion will still carry on anyways. You also said how lobbyists are trying to get kids not to have to say The Pledge of Allegiance because of the words "Under God" in it. Did you know that actually the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't have the phrase "Under God" in it? I find it interesting that it is trying to be changed once again. It shows our society is constantly changing, but also reverting back. Just as when the bomb goes of in the story, and it reverts back to how it started somewhat. All in all, very good post.
ReplyDeleteRandi Jones said...
ReplyDeleteRay Bradbury shows how the American society is naïve and ignorant. In Fahrenheit 451 books are made illegal to have or read in fear of people having knowledge of their past generations. The government will go to great lengths to make sure all books are burned and will never be read, they change firemen from putting out fires to starting them if they must. For people being able to have a say or have their own opinion is important and in this book people don’t, they do not know the difference because everyone is looked at in the same way, no one is unique except for a select few and those are hunted down and “taken care of.”
The whole society reminded me of communism. People are not able to think for themselves. All they know is what the government has taught them or will let them be able to learn. No one really even realizes how shady their government is because they are too busy doing whatever they want and don’t even stop to think about what really is going on in their lives. If you are different or think for yourself you are looked at as an outsider and are most likely going to be killed if someone finds you as a threat to them or the society. Everyone is equal which sounds like it would be a good thing but in reality it just causes chaos and when people find out that there is more to life and that they really aren’t that happy, then they choose to rebel and go against everything they know.
Montag first starts having feelings of being different or wanting to explore more about books when he meets his friend Clarisse McClellan, his neighbor. He is surprised when she is not even shaken that he is a firemen and knowing his occupation she still was not worried about hiding how different she is. She asks him questions about himself and their life that he has never even thought about. Clarisse shows a different perspective for Montag, he being a fireman all he has ever done is follow orders and burn books but then he feels the urge to read and wants to see what the fuss is over. Once reading one book, Montag knows that he can never go back to his old life.
At the end of the book an atomic bomb is dropped on the city, also like the town the phoenix is set aflame but then reborn again from the fire which was an allusion at the end of the book. Without the few in the book that choose to be different and think for themselves it shows how the government was not able to corrupt everyone and the few that were different show there is hope even in the worst situations.
Josh I believe you made some really great points on the situation of the “communistic” government that was seen in this novel. The point tough that you sated that I might have an issue with would be the statement that the firemen were like a swat team, I believe that they were more used as a tool of fear than a tool of destruction. The reason why I believe this is because if you noticed the houses they burnt down really were not all that state of the art, it actually seemed as though the house were almost neglected, although that may just have been the time period. Along with that though is that I got the feeling that a lot of the nights the firemen really never accomplished anything, except for maybe watching a mechanical dog brutally attack small animals and would wager money on how fast it could kill it.
ReplyDeleteJohn Hays in response to Derek Davis,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about how you thought that Ray Bradbury was predicting the future. Although the book was written a while ago the futurist time period and setting seems to be accurate to me. I also agree with your statement about people forgetting about the simple and enjoyable things in there lives. People's lives in society can be very hectic but those simple things that bring you joy are the one things that can keep you sane and without them, your would be out of your mind. The society in Fahrenheit 451 could be an example of a society that has gone out of whack and separated from the normal world and gone into a period of insanity. Although in the future I doubt our society will be burning English literature, the society Ray Bradbury creates is very realistic in the case of a future society.
John Hayes in response to Randi Jones
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about how the society in Fahrenheit 451 can be compared to communism. People not being able to think to themselves and learning only what the government teaches them is another thing that points to communism. The book was written during the Cold War so Ray Bradbury's society in the book could have been pointing to what could come to be if the government would revert to Communism. The Cold War was a very difficult time in America and a lot of the emotion in the book could point to the hard times they were going through with the Cold War. The idea of Communism may sound like a good form of government with no social classes and sharing everything but can actually become a catastrophe. The people within a communist society have no ownership of anything and don't have control over there belongings. Ray is pointing out the harshness of a communist society.
First off, let me just say that I absolutely agree with your first paragraph and had very similar thoughts as I read the book as well but yours made the final connection I didn't quite see. It seemed very particular that the government is not even mentioned throughout the book and that's the exact way the government officials want it to be. The common folk are just a barrier full of pointless remarks to them, but if they removed the “loaded gun” that are the books, they really do just become zombies that can be manipulated. As long as everyone thinks they're living a happy life, they won't say a thing. The only thing is that now that you fully mention the government, it makes me wish that Bradbury brought in more nuances that showed the darker underside to this government and more about the war's purpose, if there really was purpose to the war at all. Maybe for all we know the government officials are under the same state as society, being unconscious to life and they're just waging war for the sake of it. Still overall, spectacular point!
ReplyDeleteJohn Hayes in response to Shelby Franklin
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about Ray Bradbury saying that a High Tech Society will cause an empty society. A society based to much on technology could lose touch with reality and be lost from all of the wonderful, natural pleasures of the real world. I find it ironic how the people in the society are completely oblivious to nature yet, some of the symbols and names for things are related to nature such as the salamander on the fireman's gear. I also agree with your statement about how the government makes the war sound more idealistic. Because the people of the society are so oblivious to their surroundings they are unable to comprehend the damage of something as serious as war. This all points back to the original statement that Shelby pointed out that a high tech society is a empty society.
Brendan,
ReplyDeleteI've thought about what you said, and I think I understand the book a little further now. Thank you. In response to what you were discussing about firefighters, I now believe that firefighters were the actual problem in the book, not government, which is usually blamed. Maybe the government controlled them, but in doing nothing to revolt against their superiors, firefighters contributed to the issue. "If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Have you ever read "1984"? That book compares with "Fahrenheit 451" in that they both represent censorship, most likely derived from Stalin's rule. I'm glad you mentioned Stalin. I like the part of your blog that discusses how the characters in the book have lost feeling, and barely grieve anymore. To me, I could compare that with everyday life, to be honest. Nobody feels as much as they should, yet I understand why. People like Mildred can get so lost and torn down from emotion, that sometimes it is better to not feel at all.
Alex, I really like your sentence that I firmly believe hammers the nail right on the head on one of the main debates of Fahrenheit 451 “The reasons Bradbury gave mankind for burning books are not immoral, but the image Bradbury made of humans without them was.” In our society, that in some ways mirrors the book's but still not fully, we can see some holes within the way their society did turn out without books and we can argue that. Still, in the end societies are unpredictable and as long as they believed that what they were doing was perfectly justified and not immoral in anyway, it's what they'll accept. What Bradbury wrote was really just one of the many possibilities of how the world could end up without books.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, your entry really seemed the stress the idea that this society's people lacked a wide and diverse horizon of knowledge without books, which I agree with without a doubt. However, one thing I think may question is whether you really mean true happiness when you refer to the “fun and happiness” that the people think they have is really truly happiness. It should be just like with the narrow horizons, when you only know one emotion, in this case happiness, it loses it's value as good or bad so it's no longer the "happy" we know of. It's more like a numbness we might feel when we're waiting in line or something bleak like that. It's then brought into play with how books bring an opposing opinion to your own, it's not necessarily bad it's just new and unknown. Without a wide variety of opinions to pull from, everything truly does become lost from there.
Zack,
ReplyDeleteI wrote in one of my journals that beside the fact that this book is fiction, most of it's impact comes from acknowledgement that its plot is very well realistic. It will probably never happen, but the extent of what book-burning represents should have given the readers of his era an idea at how controlled their society really was. With that much conformity to a plot, and with an obvious purpose to compare the book to his own society, readers would no doubt become aware. I agree that what Mildred chooses to watch on television lacks any depth at all. In response, consider what most teenagers watch on T.V. Some of us just have more of balance than people like Mildred. We can watch all the junk T.V. we want, yet we still can intact with feelings, and ideas with a larger meaning than just a surface. I think what you said about needing leave part of yourself behind explains why Montag left his life behind in the first place. He didn't have anyone to impress, until he found Clarisse, and then he felt moved to change. With a society of unoriginal people, there will never be an urge to impress, and Clarisse changed all of that for him just by expressing her unique ideas.
Mitch,
ReplyDeleteI liked your thought that maybe books were being burned to stop jealousy. It's interesting, because isn't that a rational thought for a leader like the government? They could have been trying to help people all along (with maybe some hopes along the way of attaining votes), to make society happier. Jealousy is a terrible thing, but the problem with this is that without experiencing the feeling, no one can grow from it. Most often, jealousy is looked at as a bad thing, yet what else pushes us to do better? That's what the government was trying to stop. So, in response, I completely agree that the novel represents communism. I think your conclusion as to why the book was written is also pretty sound. After reading the last section, I wrote in my response journal that Granger was probably the most realistic of anyone in the novel. He clearly understood that society wouldn't suddenly be ready to change. However, like you said, if something is destroyed that is important enough to people, society can alter in the worst ways. Bouncing back from it all would be the most important part, but Bradbury leaves us on an optimist note at the end, with hopes that Bradbury's society could change.
My, my, very critical at the end of our technology savvy society, but it's all in good reason. However, I do believe that, even though the warning Bradbury gave are frightening and we are all pretty much guilty of the acts you mentioned, but in one way or another technology is a necessary evil. And though we do get caught up in our new development in the world, don't you feel that at one point this society got tired of looking back into our history and what it was? They reveled in it's glory but then once they were given the chance to look onto tomorrow, it seemed like an impassible terror. The terrors of tomorrow are much worse then those of our past would have to look forward to, so do you think that maybe they got rid of history as not to remind themselves of the horrible mess society was made into? Atomic bombs, genocides, and anything else that was planted in motion by some milestone passed in years before. It goes along with building ignorance in the world so that what they have to deal with today does not seem so bad. The war that Mildred and the other women talked about didn't seem so terrible at all, but if they were comparing it to other wars outcomes and such, the spirit of the room would have been killed and melancholy would set in. Society was simply afraid of what could happen, so they resorted to the extremes where they had to decide that they didn't care what had happened, so it wouldn't given them ideas about what horrible things could happen.
ReplyDeleteAll this implies that the negative is being focus on, but overall society seems much more pessimistic in my opinion. We seem much quicker to bring up the negative rather than to exploit the good in life.
In response to Jackson,
ReplyDeleteWith your question whether or not it represents knowledge or stupidity, I believe it represents something much more involving. I think it is about Bradbury’s criticism of society and his very controversial ideas of his time, even though they still relate today. You were saying about Mildred that she seems to represent a modern day person and how she is completely focused on material possessions instead of leading an active life. This also relates to the problem we have in America today with obesity and how it is caused by the lack of activity in most Americans lives. Another thing he stresses, like you said, is how everyone is concerned about how they look and appear to someone else instead of caring how they look to themselves. I also agree when you talk about standing up for something and taking action for something you believe in. I am most intrigued by your take on some of his ideas and opinions.
In response to Nick Patton,
ReplyDeleteI am really interested in your take on some of the themes in the novel, but I don’t quite agree with some of the things you say, especially in the beginning of your post. I believe the time period is supposed to be in the future (when it was written over fifty years ago) but I still believe it took place even later than our present day. I also find it interesting when you state that this story seems to have a nonfiction essence to it. I somewhat agree because many of the larger themes have become a reality while the minor details, such as the television walls may not be so accurate. You talk about the government feeding the public the wrong information and leading them to believe false events. I can relate this to present day because even in present-day America we still have to censor sensitive information for different purposes, so I can see the resemblance. Your post is quite thought provoking and I agree with many of your opinions.
The points that you brought up in your response were very true bout the book. I also believe that the society in this book is an uncaring one in which many people die every day and no one cares about them in any shape, way, or form. Although I must say that when you say the war will continue to spread I actually believe that it will start to become an unfavorable thing and many people will try and stop it. The reason why I believe this is because in the book I got a feeling that the United States never actually experienced a hit on its home front. I also believe that ignorance was a major part in the reason why there was such an acceptance across all of society in America, for all of the deaths and suicides and murders, no one actually realized it was taking place.
ReplyDeleteBradley, I agree with you a hundred percent on the fact that our society today reflects that of the one in this book, we are too concerned with the electronics that are present today in everyday life. Although I must say that the technology today is oddly reminiscent in the novel it is not an exact replica of it, it actually is a little down graded but that is not to be taken lightly because we probably will soon have the technology for a mechanical hound that can smell out its victims. Also I feel that the warfare technology though in the book was a little closer to what we have today and I believe that we are to concerned with the here and now and that we should help others more.
ReplyDeleteI like how Mitch Dively compared the book to Benjamin Franklin. I can see where Mitch is coming from with the cold war comparison to “Fahrenheit 451”. I also agree with him about how the book and society changes. Pretty much when someone fights for something they care about the whole outcome changes may be good or bad. When Mitch said about the whole book and movie concept is pretty much common sense. Usually movies do come from books anyways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zach Hurst completely about when eliminating the books they were trying to eliminate history. Yes, I also believe that books were people get most of their ideas. I really like how Zach prospected the whole story. The Government will do anything to have power, but taking out books every one needs books, or manual to do something once in their life I wouldn’t understand how kinds would learn. The government didn’t look at the whole aspect of it they just looked as it well… has full control nothing else. It is the governments job to manipulate people for their power.
ReplyDeleteI was very impressed with how Sam Orr put her aspect of how she saw it. Sam is completely right about using books. Without books we would be dumb I personally believe also, we use books in everyday life. Pretty much with out books we would fall to communism we would have little knowledge and we would look up to the government thinking they were right. Yes I strongly believe too that Montag wasn’t happy at all once he thought about it. We never know what is going to happen next. My favorite part in the book is when he fights to read books for the society too. I really can relate to what Sam is saying.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how Randi Jones saw communism in "Fahranheit 451". I believe Bradbury was using the image that americans at the time had againt communism and how it could be like. One can tell from his book, that he would rather be against communism than for as most in the USA were at the time period he wrote the book. He wrote it that way to maybe attract more readers and to had a deeper depth to his story.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Chris Otoya
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris and how he said that technology was pretty much the most important thing in their world. How they replace animals or pets with mechanical ones is just showing how the government is corrupting everything. Also how making everyone equal is what we are even trying to do today in our society because the overall idea of everyone being the same is a great thing but in reality it is not, which can be a scary thought if in the future the government really does try to do something like in the book Fahrenheit 451. Being unique is a key theme in this book because it practically saves Montag his life and starts a whole new one for him to discover.
In response to John Hayes
ReplyDeleteI agree with John and his statement on how impatient people can be. I did not realize how the rules the government made like you have to drive fast and you are looked at oddly if you walk somewhere shows just how time is key and that the people are not patient. Also a giveaway like John pointed out books are not allowed to be read either but it also takes time to read books, it can be a very time consuming activity to do and if you are an impatient person you are most likely not going to be doing that.
In response to Jilmar Rodriguez
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jilmar on how in their society everyone thinks the world revolves around them. No one cares about anyone else, not even husbands are worried about their wives, and mothers are not worried about their children .Like in the book Montag and his wife do not have the greatest relationship, they both can hardly remember how they even met. His wife spends her day staring at the T.V. and they don’t really have any connection to each other. Another point JIlmar brought up that I agree with is how our society is becoming so lazy to where instead of reading books we would rather go watch T.V. or do anything besides that so he makes an interesting point on whether in the future will our government or society let us get to that point.
Thank you to all the participants!
ReplyDeleteIn Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” there were specific details on American society throughout the novel. Bradbury shows his readers censorship and how ignorant and stubborn people in society can be. Censorship is one of the prime themes in the novel. Throughout the novel, Bradbury never gives a clear explanation why books are banned. I believe the people in this society are either bored of books or technology has completely taken over the novels. People now want faster technology to get the task done quicker with minimal effort. Clarisse in “Fahrenheit 451” talks about how drivers, “don't know what grass is, or flowers because they never see them slowly” and she also says, “If you showed a driver a green blur, Oh yes! he'd say, that's grass! A pink blur! That's a rose garden! White blurs are houses. Brown blurs are cows. My uncle drove slowly on a highway once. He drove forty miles an hour and they jailed him for two days.” The speed limit in the novel is so high they do not even see objects but just blurs. People basically do not want to waste their time anymore. We want things to take less time so we can have more time to do other responsibilities. Their society is exactly like ours. In “Fahrenheit 451” television and radios have basically taken over. Mildred Montag is a prime example of this. Mildred is obsessed with the television and rarely talks to her husband (Guy Montag). Maybe Mildred has received a lack of social skills because she is always watching the television. All of the new technology that is being created is replacing novels in general. Bradbury believes that this causes no one to have time to concentrate. Also, since there are so many books being published, this leads to the society in his time period and even now to buy condensed books instead of the actual book. Objections to special interest groups are one of the biggest factors that lead to censorship. When Beatty talks about dog lovers and cat lovers, the reader must figure out what special interest group Bradbury is trying to describe. Along with censorship, the struggles in the novel revolve around knowledge and ignorance. The firemen in society basically promote ignorance and strongly want to destroy knowledge. Once Montag meets with Faber and Clarisse, Montag begins to crave for knowledge and go against the society’s ignorance. Equality throughout society is extremely important. Society in “Fahrenheit 451” is completely unfazed by knowledge. The majority of them could care less about books because they want to stay equal in intelligence. Basically nobody is better than the other. Though ignorance vs. knowledge is one of the main focuses of the novel, there are many other important sections of the novel. Bradbury’s central focus point is to get his thoughts across about American society and how it will probably end up in the future.
ReplyDeleteCommenting on Zach Hurst
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Zach about how the government would only allow the people to see it as all powerful and in control of every situation, whether it be war or a single fugitive. This is all part of its act to maintain its hold over peoples’ lives. China has also shown this trait when it denied that the massacre in Tiananmen Square. Montag, at the beginning of the story, showed a tendency to hide his insecurities as well as his books in favor of remaining a model Fireman. The society in the book continues to remain static because of peer pressure. No one wants to be different because different in that society equates to death. I do disagree with Zach on one point, though. I believe that the citizens impassive, rather than satisfied, about what happens to them and in their culture. Some of them have children but could care less about what happens to them. To me, this attitude is more impassive than anything else.
Commenting on Mark Guntle
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mark’s first point about how Americans are stubborn. Even today we tend to be resistant to major changes unless something really extreme prompts it. Not only that, but the change is also initiated by a minority that gains power, although it usually takes a long time for this to happen. This is what the scholars in the book intend to do. Wait out America’s inflexibility and take the first opportunity to spread their knowledge and hopefully lift the ban on books. Again, I concur with Mark on the idea that those who go against society are punished, even if they haven’t done anything illegal. Take Clarisse, for example. To our knowledge, she never hid books away, she was just freethinking and the government didn’t approve. They also must have feared her ideas and attitude taking root and gain the support of other individuals, which is exactly what happened.
In response to Randi
ReplyDeleteI agree that the book relates to communism. The government in “Fahrenheit 451” controls all of society and refuses to let them gain knowledge. This concept definitely reminds me of communism. Communism in today’s society lets the people of its society gain knowledge unlike in the novel but other than that, communism in today’s society is almost the exact same as in the book. I also agree with how equality sounds great but in reality equality cannot truly be achieved without causing chaos. Equality is impossible to achieve because everyone in society is different and everyone has their own opinions. Since nobody has the same exact likes and dislikes, obviously equality cannot be achieved, which may cause people to rebel against the government and the knowledge they have.
Commenting on Barbie Sinnathamby
ReplyDeleteAlthough Barbie’s argument appears contradictory to mine, upon further reading, I can see where she’s coming from. I interpreted Fahrenheit as expressing the negative effects of having a static culture without literature. She understood it as discussing and advocating “the importance of individualism.” I’ve been trying to figure out Bradbury’s motives for the society’s disregard for history. The only thing I can think of is so that people won’t want to change. Studying or, at the very least, acknowledging history show people society’s past mistakes allowing them to learn from said mistakes.
I also had not considered why Bradbury wrote this novel, besides to warn people of the dangers of communism. Her judgment gives me another thing to think about and agree with. It is also true that technology has become irrevocable part of our everyday live, just as it was in the book. This could be another thing that Bradbury was trying to teach us, through literature, so that we would not have to make this mistake.
In response to Zach
ReplyDeleteI agree that technology has become a more prevalent thing in our lives every day, and how people are starting to lose track of one another more and more. Technology causes people to lose their social skills and grow farther apart from their families and friends because people become so absorbed and obsessed with technology. What surprises me the most is that the society is not even fazed about the fact that their lives are being taken over by technology. I liked how you stated that, “People were satisfied with their ignorant bliss, satisfied with living for materialistic possessions and worrying about nothing but fun all the time.” I absolutely agree with this statement. Luckily, there was a few people in the society who rebelled and against this ignorance and craved for knowledge.
In response to Cary
ReplyDeleteI definitely do not want to end up like Montag. It is truly ridiculous how people like Clarisse are killed because they are expressing their opinions and crave for knowledge. Unfortunately since society in the novel is corrupted, they are all stuck on technology. Basically if people want to survive in this society they are forced to be ignorant and know little about the truth of the world around them. This causes the society in “Fahrenheit 451” to be completely addicted to the television. As you stated, many people today spend their time watching television. I absolutely agree on the fact that people have destroyed their social lives with the television. People get so infatuated with what they see on TV to the point that they cannot tell what reality is and what is scripted. I believe Bradbury’s main point he is trying to get across is that society needs to stay away from technology every once and a while.