Fahrenheit 451 [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

Munro

07-27-2003, 12:51 AM

I read Fahrenheit 451 during my last holiday and I was really disappointed, because heaps of people had told me how great it was and were even rating it next to Brave New World as a classic SF novel.
I found Bradbury's writing childish, almost as if he was trying to be poetic and it was all a bit clumsy. The dialogue was unrealistic, and the characters were pathetically undeveloped. Even the SF style action was unexciting and tame...it was all fairly predictable.

What I liked about the book was it's central idea: a world where books are burnt by the state and no one sees value in reading anymore, and its result on society. Unfortunately I think that Bradbury handled a subject/idea that had so much potential to make a great novel very very clumsily and thoughtlessly, as if he rushed the novel or something. I have to say that I did enjoy the parts with Clarisse in the beginning, as a lovely and sweet figure of the only remainding educated and free spirits in that world, I thought those scenes where she and Montag talked and wandered about the streets had a nice feel about them.

Why is it so highly rated, particularly here in the forums? I know there are a few Fahrenheit 451 fans here...why do you guys think so highly of it?

Vronaqueen

07-28-2003, 12:56 PM

I think it's enjoyed so much because of its central idea. Everyone who posts on this board are book lovers and the idea of books having no value it catastrophic. But I think that most of us don't regard it as a science fiction novel. True, Bradbury is a SciFi writer but this book has gone beyond the scifi genre. It's classic literature and is therefore not criticized like other novels of that kind.

But it's a matter of preference--even the writers heralded for their greatness can really stick--Like Charles Dickens or Herman Melville. They're not liked by everyone but historically, they can do no wrong

gatsbysghost

07-29-2003, 01:49 AM

I enjoyed F451 and other Bradbury works for their simplicity. It left room for me to picture the characters and surroundings instead of being force fed the author's description. Whether or not this was his intention I don't know. He may have just rushed it to press. Give him another chance and pick up The Martian Chronicles.

davey_boy

08-03-2003, 10:11 PM

Don't you think the plain characters and mechanical dialogue was what Bradbury was aiming for? A world without books is a world without free thought, and if we don't have free thought, where would we get the individuality that makes characters interesting and dialogue seem natural?

Koa

08-15-2003, 06:15 PM

I dont usually like sci-fi but I loved this. I read some short stories by Bradbury and I didnt appreciate them, they gave me the same empty feeling a smost sci-fi.

But Fahrenheit 451... I loved it! It caught me, I read it all in one day or two... Interesting, and yes the idea is ingenious...
There are a lot of books where the charcters are plain, that's usualy because the story counts more than the psychology of the characters... (something Dosotevskij couldn't do? ;))

There's a moment towards the end where it says something like people need books because most people will never have the possibility to see much of the world, so they can at least imagine it through a book...
I copied this quote and till have it but I can't re-quote it here cos it was a translation and I dont know the original words, hope I summed up the feeling well...

fayefaye

08-16-2003, 03:39 AM

i think the thing about f451 is that it's themes were kinda brilliant, but they're world is so like ours.

Ibtihaj

08-16-2003, 08:02 AM

I loved this novel and it gave me a queer sensation. Its theme is brilliant and I believe that it iwas handled very well by the writer. If the tne novel were not a sf, I would agree that there are better ways to handle such theme ...

plea4peace

08-16-2003, 11:50 AM

I've read Fahrenheit 451, as well as Something Wicked this Way Comes and A Graveyard for Lunatics, and I really like his writing style, it's descriptive without coming right out and telling you how things are. And it's really sad that it mirrors society today so well, it's scary to think about that happening for real, even though I think it very possibly could.

AbdoRinbo

08-17-2003, 07:49 AM

I think the books that were burned--almost ritualistically--in F451 represent the Jews on some historical level. At the end of the novel the people had actually 'become' the books they were trying to preserve in their memories. To send human knowledge up in a cloud of smoke is just what the Nazis had done at Auschwitz, only they were burning living, rational beings (but, then again, when the writers of great literature die it is only their books that remain--living, organic; and they, themselves, are certainly rational).

Robert E Lee

08-17-2003, 10:18 AM

AbdoRinbo

08-17-2003, 03:18 PM

I agree with Munro. F-451 is not on par with Brave New World. Bradbury's style is childish sci-fi junk. He has no sense of irony or nuance.

I didn't even think the theme was that interesting. Wow, books are burned. It's not as if all books are rational in the first place. Books can be used for propaganda. And film and pictures can be used to express revolutionary ideas.

::Sigh::

Lee, if even a few books existed that were 'irrational', they could not have been written by human beings--rational animals. The fact that people write books at all (using language and complicated rules of grammar) is all the reason we would ever need to show that every single book that is published (including Finnegans Wake) is a portrait of human reason. Friederich Nietzsche might have gone mad with syphilis, but he still wrote on subjects more complicated than anything you and me think we understand and we can still interpret his madness. And who cares if F451 is not at 'par' with Brave New World? Some think it is an interesting read, and both are considered literature. Would you rather we stop discussing Bradbury altogether because you think he is intellectual inept?

Here's where you're wrong again, Lee: try memorizing the Mona Lisa in your mind and then you'll have some understanding as to why the the firemen burned books and not pictures. A novel can be memorized word-for-word and reproduced; but with a picture or a film, even if you memorize every angle, color, and dimension, you still have to be an adept artist to reproduce it. We don't have to worry about perfecting our tools with language, everything we need already exists. Books can be deadly tools or mindless pleasures, but, characteristically, the same goes for us.

Robert E Lee

08-17-2003, 05:07 PM

::Sigh::

Lee, if even a few books existed that were 'irrational', they could not have been written by human beings--rational animals. .

This isn't necessarily true. "Rational animal" is an oxymoron. The only truly rational things are computers. Human beings are driven by their emotions, and both literature and visual art can exploit our emotions.

AbdoRinbo

08-17-2003, 06:06 PM

This isn't necessarily true. "Rational animal" is an oxymoron. The only truly rational things are computers. Human beings are driven by their emotions, and both literature and visual art can exploit our emotions.

Yes, Lee, but you still aren't accounting for our use of language, which is driven by reason, not human emotion. Moreover, it is reason that allows for us to interpret our emotions in a way similar to the interpretation you gave me when you said that the term 'rational animal' was an oxymoron (though you are overlooking the fact that reason is not a force that the mind either accepts or rejects--agrees with or contradicts--, it is a natural extension of the mind). You've unknowingly placed yourself in a double-bind, Lee, because if you deny that human beings are rational creatures, then it will always be impossible to logically deduce anything from any statement--not the least of which being posts on an internet forum.

Don't put all of your faith in computers, either. For example, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem has already proven that no logical system (in this case, a computer) will ever be free of internal paradoxes or 'anomalies'. In other words, every statement (logical, mathematical, &c.) can be reduced to a contradiction--including this one.

gatsbysghost

08-24-2003, 03:54 AM

checkmate

JediFonger

07-07-2004, 04:42 PM

give Martian Chronicles a chance. F451 was written in 1 week!!!! of course it feels rushed! let Martian Chronicles convince you. it's one of the classic SF collections of short stories.

cblake2008

07-14-2005, 08:02 PM

kind of a silly question but was Montag sort of in love with Clarisse??

mister_noel_y2k

07-15-2005, 03:20 AM

the girl he meets at the start and then disappears? i think so.

:banana:

Literal

09-17-2005, 02:24 PM

kind of a silly question but was Montag sort of in love with Clarisse??

That is not a silly question at all. When I read the book and discussed it with several of my peers, they thought as you did - that Montag was infatuated with Clarisse. Although the author was very descriptive of Montag's character, it was difficult to distinguish whether Guy's feelings towards Clarisse were solely affectionate - as with a father and daughter - or if it progressed to an even deeper emotion.
But the novel did not concentrate primarily with Clarisse and Montag; the book also contained messages of censorship, the significance of thought, man's ability to rebuild, etc. The characters are also a factors in the book that continually cause much discussion, and one in particular was whether Faber was a hero, or an ignorant coward.
My comment is merely touching the novel in all its complexity. If one is curious to read and delve deeper into the book, I say "Go right ahead!" I would definitely recommend this book and rate it with 5/5 stars. :thumbs_up
As an afterthought, Fahrenheit 451 is often compared to George Owell's well-known book, 1984. I have not read the latter book, so I am wondering, What are the similarities between these two highly-praised novels, and which is a better read? :confused:

Houndicus

10-19-2005, 05:11 AM

Themes and ideas???

any background on when it was written and what Bradbury was trying to say???

ponynikki

10-19-2005, 11:25 AM

The novel is primarily about freedom and morals. I can't remember it entirely, but in brief- the author was trying to express his view through an extreme situation- he wanted the reader to see the importance of literature ( his wife had nothing but television, nothing to live for.) It shows that before one obeys the rules set for them, they first must think of the consequences.

papayahed

10-19-2005, 01:24 PM

The movie was really good, especially the ending part.

Kiwi Shelf

10-19-2005, 02:22 PM

My God, I keep meaning to read this book and then I forget because something else catches my attention.

MiSaNtHrOpE

10-19-2005, 02:42 PM

F451 is one of my favorite books of the ones I read this year, and I got, from the explanation to Montag by the Captain, that the minority essentially got what they wanted, everyone gradually stopped reading literature. Everything that meant something was abandoned. I take it as a lesson to not allow books to be banned. (See pages 57-62 of the 50th Anniversary Ed.)

underground

10-19-2005, 04:38 PM

Truth_Told

12-12-2005, 09:19 PM

has anyone read this book and if so what is it like. my teacher is trying to find a book for our class to read over the holidays and she asked me if i thought it would be a good book, she comes to me cause i read a lot. she told me the basic story line, about people in the future not being allowed to own books. The course is Advance Placement Literature, highschool juniors and seniors, do u think we would be interested in it? :banana:

RobinHood3000

12-12-2005, 09:32 PM

I read it, and I thought it was pretty interesting. A little odd, perhaps, but insightful and engaging enough.

starrwriter

12-12-2005, 09:51 PM

Only good novel Ray Bradbury ever wrote.

EAP

12-13-2005, 07:39 AM

Oh, definately. It's short, it's not boring, and it hammers the point home into your head with an acuteness not many books can match. You could do much worse than select 'Fahrenheit 451' for your advance placement class.

^

Ouch. Something wicked your way comes! Beware! for Death is a lonely business.

Koa

12-16-2005, 06:40 PM

I absolutely loved it... It got me really involved and I read it very quickly cos I just couldn't put it down... I don't know what you mean by the course name, I suppose it's something like first year at Uni? I don't think reading has much to do with age/class, though of course some things are more enjoyable when you have some more background culture, but this book seems to me just good for any kind of person, I think I was 16 when I read it, I think I have read it another time but I can't recall anything about it... anyway go for it, definitely. It's deep and involving.

LinFreakinRules

12-16-2005, 07:59 PM

The first time I read it was my junior year in high school and I loved it. I have read it about 3 times since then and it never gets old. I definately recommend it, especially if you enjoy reading. It's the kind of story you can either take at face value as good fiction or study it as a scary future that seems to be coming closer and closer to reality.

Matilda

12-19-2005, 02:22 PM

Yes, I think it's a good choice. It's really good, with lots of interesting thoughts. Quite easy as well, think I was twelve when I read it.
a little strange sometimes though, but much better for a class to read than 1984, for example

The Unnamable

12-27-2005, 07:04 PM

Only good novel Ray Bradbury ever wrote.
I know it’s not a novel but there is a great short story of Bradbury’s worth reading – “The fruit at the bottom of the bowl.”

Alex E Art

01-03-2006, 11:28 AM

Only good novel Ray Bradbury ever wrote.
What about Martian Chronicles?

Blitzstar

01-03-2006, 10:13 PM

I really enjoyed Fahrenheit 451, first read it in middle school. The vision of such a future world Bradbury paints is utterly frightening, not least of all because it relates so much to our own.

starrwriter

01-04-2006, 02:25 PM

Only good novel Ray Bradbury ever wrote.
What about Martian Chronicles?
Surely, you jest. Bradbury must have had a brain hemhorrage for breakfast the day he wrote the ending. The human father looks at his son and says: "We're the Martians." Gimme a break.

The ironic thing about Farenheit 451 is paper books WILL disappear, but not the way Bradbury envisioned. They will eventually be replaced by digital versions.

Xamonas Chegwe

01-04-2006, 05:47 PM

Only good novel Ray Bradbury ever wrote.

Bradbury had a unique gift for returning the reader to a childhood that never was. A childhood of endless, sunny summers, adventure at the bottom of the garden and always, something threatening and unknown lurking just below the surface of the everyday.

"Something Wicked This Way Comes" and "Dandelion Wine" are 2 perfect examples of this gift. I would rate either of these as highly as Farenheit 451.

His short stories are also worthy of credit. The originality of his ideas and economy of his writing is comparable to O Henry. Check out "The October Country" or "The Day It Rained Forever", both fantastic collections.

He was also a poet of no mean note.

There's a lot more to RB than 451!

I should be interested to learn how many of his books you have actually read to come up with such an informed opinion of the body of his work Starrwriter.

EAP

01-05-2006, 07:11 AM

Well put, Xamonas.

Anon22

03-06-2006, 11:58 PM

Well... I got to write an essay for Fahrenheit 451. Here's the assignment:

Explain the symbolism int he book thusfar of darkness and light as well as the paradox or duality of fire. How does each give us an insight into the society in which the characters live, in addition to an insight to the characters themselves? What does it say about their lifes and their happiness?

Discuss what Montag is going through psychologically (cognitive dissonance). What is it causing him to do to his life, his job, and his society? How do we know he is doing this? Give examples, how does that relate to the symbolism of light and darkness?

Here's what I've got so far for the essay:

"Cats and dogs, fire and water, dry and moist, rain and sunshine, sun and moon, night and day, black and white, good and bad, joy and grief, anger and tranquility, solitude and company, ignorance and knowledge, contentment and discontentment, love and hatred, life and death... everything in life pretty much has an opposite, a yin and a yang, and that's something everybody should pretty much be aware of. One of the most famous "opposites" is that of light and darkness, it is commonly used everywhere and is the core of some of the most interesting books around, like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, as well as movies, like Star Wars. It's unavoidable as well, as many of the books made may probably use the concept unintentionally. Another thing that's commonly done (especially in religion) is the symbolizing of fire making it represent purity, divinity, and even destruction, it is one of the 4 classical elements (which are fire, water, air, and earth), as well as one of the 5 chinese elements (which are fire, earth, metal, water, and wood). In the case of this book, light and darkness is used to symbolize the problems, and conflicts of the world the characters live in (pretty much the "what could be" versus the "what is"), it also uses fire to symbolize them both, and, moreover, it explains how everyone represents either one of them as well as the situation with Montag, and how he is pretty much kept "in the gray" (so far, anyways).

One of the most famous myths on this Earth is that of the phoenix, a bird which lives for up to 500 years, and then, at the end of its life-cycle it builds a nest of cinnamon twigs which it ignites soon afterwards causing it and the nest to reduce to ashes, in this case, fire symbolizes the destruction of the phoenix. In the book, the firemen burn down books by igniting them, it represents the destruction of knowledge, memories, and history, and by doing that they control the information they give to people, so they can slowly, like a parasite, rob them of their identity, and keep them ignorant to what's going on. This ignorance keeps the people in a state of unhappiness and discontent, because they are out of touch with reality and to try and be happy they just commit suicide thinking its the only way out. Anybody who isn’t in that state of sorrow, is therefore considered strange, and that’s what the darkness symbolizes, the ignorance, the melancholy, and the horrible view of the world.

Now even though fire symbolizes the destruction of the phoenix, because it is reborn from the ashes, it also symbolizes the birth of the phoenix, the birth of life. Once Montag met Clarisse he was exposed to the light, he realized that the life he thought was normal, wasn’t normal, or in the world’s terms it was, but he realized that normal wasn’t the best life that one could possibly have and this realization struck him like a punch in the face, and he had to go through cognitive dissonance where he fell into a state of chaos and confusion and was unable to quiet the storm (or to over exaggerate, the hurricane) in his mind. Now he is trying to look for a way to reach the light, the happiness, the tranquility, and wants everything back to the way it was before, “normal”. He no longer wants to burn books, he wants to know the truth about them, they're meaning, and he’s probably going to do anything to find it. Interestingly enough, the world was trying to keep every one on the same level, and thus they took away books so that that could happen, and so was suppose to keep the world “perfect”, and as Beatty said, “everyone was made equal", but it only ended up making it worser, ironically."

It's not exactly done yet, and I'm working on the last 2 paragraphs at the same time so that'd probably be the reason why it might looked "chopped up" or whatever. Any advice from what I have so far?

PeterL

03-07-2006, 11:26 PM

I think that your ideas are a little too metaphysical for that book.

Truth_Told

03-08-2006, 01:01 AM

first off, i think you make way to many comparisons in the beginning. I have read this book and i too had to write a similar essay. Peter is also right you seem to stray from the initial questions and deliver interesting but irrelavent information. True it does make the essay more interesting but at the same time if i were reading it to grade you, i would have been bored half way through. It seems you basically, for lack of better words, BS'ed your way through so far. The fire in the story represents the dark side of things, represents what the people of that time have grown to fear. Farber(dont remember the spelling to the letter) has refused the "darkside" in a sense for he refuses to conform as the rest of society has. Initially you are lead to believe that Farber is the dark one, but it is all based on how you look at it. True he was a rebel, a rogue, but he had a strong and just cause. One key element to Montag that you may overlook is the young girl(cant remember her damn name)Claire or something like that i think. she is the one that sparks Montags true desire to read the books he has been collecting. She shows him that he must question life whether it be directly or in-directly. It is typical human nature to question that which they know is wrong, so even more then others Montag felt the desire to see what was in the books that he burned, to see what was so "evil" that they had to be destoryed with no second thought. His fireman cheif knew that what they did was unneccessary but he had done it all for so long that he knew no other way to live. when he found out that Montag was reading he gave him the chance to stop, but that chance pushed Montag just that little bit more to continue and his chief knew that it would. He had finally found a way out of it all.

this is just bits and pieces of my essay i turned in. it was about three pages and had almost the exact same questions just worded a little different. if you what to know more just ask.

hope i was some help... :cool:

Anon22

03-08-2006, 04:04 PM

BS'd it? oh oh, that's not good... well anyhow, thanks, I'll try to fix my essay then :) great help :)

Whifflingpin

03-08-2006, 04:54 PM

"everything in life pretty much has " "everybody should pretty much be aware of" "pretty much the " "he is pretty much kept"
It's a horrid phrase to put in an essay. Make your mind up - everything in life has - everybody should be aware - - he is kept.

"struck him like a punch in the face, and he had to go through cognitive dissonance"
would you like to go through cognitive dissonance, whatever that is, after you'd been struck like a punch in the face? Keep your slang metaphors away from your technical terms, they clash.

"Interestingly enough, the world was trying to keep every one on the same level, and thus they took away books so that that could happen, and so was suppose to keep the world “perfect”, and as Beatty said, “everyone was made equal", but it only ended up making it worser, ironically.""
Wah? Throw in a few periods, buddy, or whatever it is you say on your side of the pond.

Anon22

03-08-2006, 05:34 PM

wow... I really have to proofread more often... lol... I'm really not good at expository and stuff... just narrative (better at narrative anyways). Bleh... I'm sure I'll do good on it though, I'll make sure of it anyways...

Nick Rubashov

06-02-2007, 05:44 PM

It's a really interesting article, and it brings up the the old debate that while many books are taught to mean certain, exact things, they might be completely misinterpreted, as we can not simply contact the author and ask politely what they meant when they wrote the book, it's really just a turkey shoot to figure out the meaning. I've had English teachers who will tell students their theory about a book is just plain wrong, and then tell the student what actually "means". How do they know? Get what you want out of reading, it doesn't have to be the same as what everybody else gets.

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted/16524/

barbara0207

06-02-2007, 06:25 PM

as we can not simply contact the author and ask politely what they meant when they wrote the book, it's really just a turkey shoot to figure out the meaning.

Yes, you are right, we cannot do that as a rule. And what is more - we should not have to. The reader is dependent on what the author actually writes. It has been some time since I read Fahrenheit 451, but the way it was witten made me think, too, that it was to do with a government that does not want its people to read but rather to watch shallow TV shows in order to keep them stupid and manipulate them better. (I never read any reviews.) Should I now say, "Oh sorry, Mr Bradbury that I misunderstood the meaning of your book" or should I tell him that he might have made his meaning clearer? :D

Anyway, thank you very much for the article. It was really very interesting. :thumbs_up

Lily Adams

06-02-2007, 07:23 PM

Thanks! That was an interesting read. :nod:

I actually shook Ray Bradbury's hand last summer and I listened to him make a speech and he said that he doesn't write science fiction, he writes fantasy. So there you go. Different interpretations. I mean, this isn't about interpreting meanings of the book, but it's related, right?

He said that the only sci-fi book he wrote was Fahrenheit 451. (I think that's the one. Or was it The Martian Chronicles?) Well it was really great and he signed my copy of The Martian Chronicles for me. :)

Stieg

06-02-2007, 07:42 PM

Fahrenheit 451 I guess one can consider it a future tense fantasy I suppose but it can also fit under science fiction, in fact, the novel is quite prescient in it's vision of reality television and news sensationalism.

And The Martian Chronicles has alot of strong fantasy imagery too yet set on Mars.

Thanks for the article btw! :D

Video Drone

06-02-2007, 07:52 PM

1984 was the book that I refer to one about government censorship, while Fahrenheit 451 was always about the media influence for me... and that is how I was taught, in fact. Perhaps our strange teacher had something to do with it.

PeterL

06-03-2007, 11:15 AM

If that was what he meant to convey to his readers, he should have written about that, instead of writing about government banning books and the persistence of a desire for knowledge and understanding, especially from books.

Video Drone

06-04-2007, 12:09 AM

I don't understand. Bradbury very clearly pointed out that the reason why books were banned in the first place is because the public became overinterested in television and didn't care!

Stieg

06-04-2007, 12:19 AM

I understand, remember Guy Montag's wife was obsessed with the media and even participated interactively.

But otherwise it's been awhile since I read this book and details are foggy, I can't recall there being a strong definite reason for the censorship mentioned besides the dialogue (without spoiling anything) near the end.

Tinita09

10-18-2007, 04:02 PM

Hello there literature lovers!!

My AP class is discussing Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Definately one of the best novels I've read. But I am having some troubel understanding parts of it. We finished the book today and my teacher gave us questions on the third part of the book.
What I was wondering was if you could discuss some of the topics of the book with me and other forum members. I think that discussion would help me analyzed and understand the novel better.

What I really need to know write now is what Granger, one of the fugitives Montag meets, meant when he said "we are an odd minority crying out in the wilderness."

If we could start with that, I would be extremely grateful!

sammy8

10-18-2007, 09:57 PM

I'll give you a hint - Granger is paraphrasing a famous quote. Google "crying out in the wilderness". It's from the most quoted book in the world.

After you find the phrase, read the first sentence in the chapter. By making his statement, Granger is making a comment about the importance of what they are doing. The first sentence in the chapter of the book with Granger's quote is all about how important words are.

sonofaslan

10-29-2007, 10:03 PM

I am disappointed that this thread didn't evolve into a discussion. F-451 is one of my favorite books... I just finished re-reading it.

JWHooper

04-11-2008, 07:37 PM

Hi,

I have to write an essay for the novel Fahrenheit 451. I have three choices of topics that I could write on, but the last two choices I don't understand. Can anyone tell me the simplest definition of the following topics?

1. (I think I already know what the first topic means).
2. Consider the dangers or advantages to living an life of conformity. Use the evidence from the book to support your answer.
3. Consider the pervasive nature of the media in modern society. Does this pervasiveness help or hurt you as a citizen and/or person in our society.

Please help ASAP!

Thanks,

J.

JWHooper

04-11-2008, 08:25 PM

Never mind - I decided to do the first topic, I guess...

Fire Mage

04-11-2008, 09:00 PM

Wow, you don't understand these? These are probably the simplest prompts you'll get.

What grade level are you in?

Also, if I might ask, why do you have the basic integral equation for an avatar?

JWHooper

04-11-2008, 09:07 PM

Wow, you don't understand these? These are probably the simplest prompts you'll get.
The reason I don't understand is because I'm not good at literature.

What grade level are you in?
I'm a junior in high school.

Also, if I might ask, why do you have the basic integral equation for an avatar?
The reason is because first of all, if you have an continous, defined function f on interval [a, b], then you can find the area under the curve. This process is also used in other topics in calculus, such as analytically, finding volumes in geometry terms, etc. The explained term above is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is one of the most well-known theorem in Calculus, and very useful. Prime numbers are also interesting. If you want to calculate first 500 prime numbers, you could use a compiler and programming language to write source codes and give out solution, by permission from machine language.

Fire Mage

04-11-2008, 09:31 PM

The reason is because first of all, if you have an continous, defined function f on interval [a, b], then you can find the area under the curve. This process is also used in other topics in calculus, such as analytically, finding volumes in geometry terms, etc. The explained term above is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is one of the most well-known theorem in Calculus, and very useful. Prime numbers are also interesting. If you want to calculate first 500 prime numbers, you could use a compiler and programming language to write source codes and give out solution, by permission from machine language.

I'm in Calculus...I know this. I was just asking why you had it in your avatar.

Example:

Integral of x^2 from 0 to 1

[(x^3)/3]from 0 to 1 = [1/3]-[0/3] = 1/3

Anyway that's way off topic; you don't have to be good at literature to understand a prompt. For number 2, you must know every word in it, except with the possibility of not knowing "conformity", which just means to give into society and do what other people tell you to, do what the "crowd" is doing, and so on.

If you don't know "dangers" or "advantages", you have a problem. Haha.

stephofthenight

04-11-2008, 10:54 PM

wait your a junior, and doing f451? im a sophmore and we already did it, the 3rd topic is the one i did, it has the most evidence in the story...

JWHooper

04-12-2008, 03:26 PM

Thanks for telling me the definition of conformity. I am thinking about writing about the second option (I might, Idk), but thanks for the help! (Yeah, my literature class is currently working on Fahrenheit 451 (juniors are in my class)).

The reason that I have the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus on my avatar is because I like the equation very much!

kelby_lake

04-13-2008, 01:08 PM

The 2nd option is a good choice. If I try and paraphrase the two prompts will that help?:
2. Consider the dangers or advantages to living an life of conformity. Use the evidence from the book to support your answer.
(What are the dangers and the advantages of conforming to society?)
3. Consider the pervasive nature of the media in modern society. Does this pervasiveness help or hurt you as a citizen and/or person in our society.
(Think about how important the media is in our lives today. Is this a good or bad thing?)

CocoaZhenay456

04-28-2008, 05:02 PM

Themes and ideas???

To tie this post in with discussions we've had in class on four major themes, I think that two themes that are well represented in Fahrenheit 451 are Coming of Age/ Loss of Innocence and Courage. When we are first introduced to Montag, he seems to be an overall settled man who is comfortable with his life minus a few softly-drilling questions. However, when he meets Clarisse it's like he suddenly wakes up or something. He is awestruck by this girl who ha so many "why" questions. At this point I think he loses innocence that comes with ignorance. He is introduced to someone who thinks and lives very differently from the way he and his friends and family do, and there is hardly any doubt in my mind that he had no idea that people like Clarisse existed. Interaction with Clarisse also encourages Montag to embrace his own "why" questions instead of smothering them like everyone else. This ties in the Courage theme. :idea: I also found alot of things in Bradbury's dystopian society that exist in ours. One was the whole instant gratification thing that was illustrated when Beatty was educating Montag in Fireman History 101. in essence he says books not only caused discomfort but became useless to umans and he fast-paced way of life. People started wanting the bottom line, and he talked about 12-second reviews of books! In the world we live in today one can see reading sort of losing momentum. Cliff and Sparknotes are gaining speed, and the general population, especially youth, would rather watch TV or read a magazine than crack open a god novel. I felt that Bradbury's society could be a warning to our own, and I felt that this novel is a good example of why authors write about dystopias instead of utopias. Alot of the time it is easier to tell someone what you don't want; in the same way, it's easier to offset what one doesn't want in the world, so by making the bad example we can concieve the good. :D

AdoreroDio

04-28-2008, 09:03 PM

Bradbury wrote this book immediately following WWII and wrote it as a response to what he saw the future would become- a generation without feeling, connection or knowledge. It's all about the loss of connection to the world and how technology and the nuclear race would destroy man's connections with one another. He called writing the book, not predicting the future (for indeed he predicted a lot of things- flat screen TVs, I-pods, robots, automatic bank tellers, etc) but PREVENTING the future. It was his warning. He gives hope, through literature and through, as Faber in the book says, quality, leisure, and freedom for a better future.
The themes are that from ashes comes life and that this world will become one of lost connections.

kelby_lake

04-29-2008, 03:37 PM

^ eh. i personally think this book is overrated. just because it's about a future in which books are completely banned, it goes--whoosh--bookworms around the world put it up the scale.

or maybe i'm just biased against bradbury; he's so narcissistic.

It's not just about books- it's what's inside books, what you can learn. they symbolise the freedom of expression and speech. i could tell you a certain book that is very overrated because of the subject matter...

CocoaZhenay456

05-01-2008, 03:40 PM

When I was reading Part Two of the novel Fahrenheit 451, there was one section that really struck me in religious symbolism. In this passage, Montag is returning to the firehouse after a "meeting with Jesus" experience with Mr. Faber. While reading, I pictured Montag as a convert to a new religion, one in which books are cherished and sought after. Faber acts as god in this religion simply because he holds the enlightenment that Montag seeks in order to reach a state of pure fulfillment and happiness. Montag is reluctant to leave Faber becasue he fears that if he returns to the firehouse and listens to Beatty he will be robbed of the truth he has just discovered. This is when Faber imparts a green, earpiece droid to Montag, saying that he will be with him always. This was familiar to me in that Christianity says that once one recieves Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, God imparts his Holy Spirit to that individual so that he will be with them always. Faber even warns Montag as God warns Christians against the wiles of Beatty, who seems to play the role of the devil. Faber even refers to Beatty as one who "belongs to the most dangerous enemy to truth and freedom, the solid unmoving cattle of the majority" (Bradbury108). I have heard the devil described many times in this way. Beatty even seems to compare himself to the devil as he tells Montag of a dream, in which he and Montag furiously debate on books and he triumphs by rebutting everything that Montag says with quotes from books. At one point Beatty says "The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose" (Bradbury106). This was beyond profound for me. I realized then that the situatin Montag is in is much like that of Jesus when he was tempted by the devil in the wilderness. Beatty calls Montag a fool, quotes books to describe his and their own folly, and closes his argument by saying that books are unreliable and can be used by anyone to reak havoc and confusion. Faber, however, stays with Montag throughout the ordeal, as God stayed with Jesus throughout his own temptation, through tiny earpiece that acts as Holy Spirit for Montag and keeps him connected to Faber's truth. When I decided to read more in order to solidify this theory, I found the following passage that reminded me of a simple prayer: "'Old man,' he said, 'stay with me'" (Bradbury104). I believe that Bradbury included this religious symoblism in his novel as an allusion for his audience. By making Montag a mere mortal, Faber divine, Beatty demonic, and even featuring the Bible, Bradbury takes this scene to a new level, one on which we can all relate to Montag in his struggle between the archetypal Heaven vs. Hell.

mummu:)

05-05-2008, 06:05 PM

I think a deffinate theme in [I]Fahrenheit 451[I] would be censorship and the pro's and con's of the effects of it.
I really think the thought that this book was written around 50-ish years ago is just amazing. How can someone have such an imagination to write a novel about this kind of society, right? It just really shocked me when I first found when this book was written. The most shocking part for me is the situations with technology and human interaction are becoming more common in the society today. It's just so mouth-dropping.
Personally, Bradbury is trying to show what kind of social isolation would occur if human interaction was to be almost extinct. And it's already started with all the IMing, texting, and messaging. It's just a totally different feeling for people to actually talk to others in person.

5tweezy08

05-05-2008, 10:02 PM

I agree with the about statement. It is incredible that Bradbury was able to depict society so acurately for the future. As life continues, the use of technology grows and the use of books lessens just like the novel states. :flare:

I found the paragraph in part 3 of Fahrenheit 451 when Montag remembers where he met Mildred to be very interesting. All this time, Montag and Mildred have been living very seperate lives together. Although they are married, the ways in which they live are tremendously different. Neither can remember where they met each other and that shows a slight lack of thought and love. After Montag escapes from the town and comes out of the river, he is reborn again. Just like the achetype "Death and Rebirth", Montag's first life comes to an end when he jumps into the river away from all of his troubles. He is reborn when he jumps out of the river and sees the fire ahead of him. The fire is "the light at the end of the tunnel" for Montag. He feels very welcomed to the group of old men, and he is able to relax. After sharing is thought with them and giving them time to share their stories with him, Montag feels like a new person. He then realizes where he and his wife met: Chicago. This proves that Montag felt at home with the men, because he was able to relate to them with the book of Ecclesiates that he had read and the many others that the other men had memorized. :flare:

Also, I question was brought up today asking if Beatty really wanted to die. I think he did want to die for many reasons. First of all, Beatty gave the flamethrower to Montag knowing that trouble could occur. He knew that Montag was not in a good mood and asked for it when he took out Montag's earpiece. Beatty didn't try to stop Montag from burning him with the flamethrower. To me, Beatty may have had a few secrets of his own that he knew were going to be let out soon, so he permanently handled the problem by giving Montag the opportunity to do some damage with the weapon. Beatty lived a hard life as a fireman and knew it was his time to go.:flare:

I feel very sad about the way the book ended. Of course, when a town is bombed, it must be a very sad time, but this one was different. Since it had a dystopian society, bad things are always occuring. :bawling: The ambiguous endings that conclude dystopian novels are very strange. They seen to leave the reader with an unclear, confused image of the future. I mean, once that town was knocjed out, Montag and the men could go back and change it forever by telling everyone about the books and possibly making them legal. We are not really sure as to what happens next in this novel, but considering the society, it was probably not a pretty sight. :crash:

HoOkEdOnReAdInG

05-06-2008, 11:07 PM

A good theme (in my opinion) would be the formation of a dystopia:sick: . You can add a lot of supports to it, and supports to those supports. One support could be "why do people let society become a dystopia?" You can say that over the years, people become lazy and let the society control them instead controlling the society like their supposed to. Another support that could be used is how technology has made it easier for people to find information, true or false. This could lead to burning books because they aren't needed or brainwashing by putting false information in an easy to access place online and disrupt society. In Fahrenheit 451, the only things that people are allowed to read are entertainment texts. The people who lead the society want the people to be happy, but only do what the majority of people want them to do. This leads to the minority that upholds tradition but are discriminated against. The minority usually think about others and not themselves (because of human nature) so they are the ones who truly know what's better for society. The majority want to rid the society of the minority because the minority see things differently from them. Some of the majority fear the minority because deep down, they know that the minority could make a better society, but that also means that everyone has to work. Another reason that the majority prefers the dystopian society is because the dystopian society try to keep all the people controlled and limit their thinking so that everyone is short-sighted. The majority, being lazy, therefore would rather want a bad society where they can be lazy than a good society that they can build up and leave behind a legacy. This is how a dystopia starts and stays.:banana:

mummu:)

05-06-2008, 11:15 PM

I think most people would think that the ending of this novel is terrible, but after dicussions on the ending of Fahrenheit 451, I could really understand the logic in an ending like this one. (Honestly though, I did find the ending for this novel overrated only because all dystopian novels have endings similar to this one, I was not surprised with this ending; it was typical). Even though my opinion is majorally expressed the same as others' thoughts, I do believe that the reason for such an ambigous ending is first off, to let the reader really think about everything that has happened in the novel, to really understand elements of a dystopia. If the ending were just a simple and happy ending, it would not require as much thought, which would contradict the point made in the novel: that people need to really think, not just live life without knowing. Secondly, I doubt anyone wants to live in a dystopia, therefore, the ending of this book leaves a lot of room for hope and the use of imagination to develop one's own theory for an ending. Thirdly, if the ending was a positive one, such as the dystopia is totally fixed, it would not be realistic because real life problems are not fixed quickly, it takes a lot of time and hard work. This ending keeps a realistic touch, allowing the reader to connect with such a unique story.

kelby_lake

05-07-2008, 12:44 PM

the ending is a bit 'left-off' feeling, but then it's important because it implies a mission, a further journey. Not everything is always summed-up in life.

I agree with Munro. F-451 is not on par with Brave New World. Bradbury's style is childish sci-fi junk. He has no sense of irony or nuance.

I didn't even think the theme was that interesting. Wow, books are burned. It's not as if all books are rational in the first place. Books can be used for propaganda. And film and pictures can be used to express revolutionary ideas.

The book doesn't imply that all books are lovely and moral- it's more about language, opinions, a cold mechanical future. Just because it's easy to read doesn't make it junk. And the book shows what all good books should show- a love of language.

NickAdams

05-07-2008, 01:33 PM

I enjoyed the book, but it seems that it should be shelved with teen lit. I liked the premise (which goes beyond burning books; there is a government agency assigned the task). I wish Bradbury would have explored the movement from oral to written and back to oral more. This would have been the time to as T.S. Eliot said "great writer's steal". This was a great opportunity to go through public domain and lift passages whole. This would make great meta-fiction. I would have incorporated Derrida's idea of différance.

I would love to see what Beckett might have done with the seed of the book. Others might feel that this is more in Barth's and Barthelme's field.

5tweezy08

05-07-2008, 06:33 PM

I thought i would share my ideas for journal #5. In my opinion Fahrenheit 451 is a better title for the novel than the original title The Fireman. Montag is a fireman for the first two parts of the book, and obviously quits went he runs away. He does not want to remember himself as a fireman, because he now realizes that he loves books and they are very key to have in life. Since part three is about the men that Montag meets and the books that they have memorized, the whole keeping books in your life idea is still there that Montag had experienced earlier. In this case, the title Fahrenheit 451 is a better title because it refers to books in which are the main topic of the novel. The Fireman would not be a good title because Montag now understands how important books are and he wants to stop firemen, so The Fireman should not be the title.:flare:

mummu:)

05-07-2008, 11:29 PM

I would also like to say that dystopias are certainly utopias gone wrong.
I though it would be nice to bring that up...

Any thoughts?

trackgrl26

05-08-2008, 06:49 PM

Growing up is an important theme, especially in part two. This is when Montag seeks out Faber. You can really see him losing innocence and ignorance as Faber tells him what he'll have to do in order to fix the society. He says he'll have to "shout louder than...the parlor families" (87) its really a wake up call to Montag that this is going to take more than just him to fix and that some people actually WANT it this way so they dont have to think! It also shows how much Faber has gone through since the closings of the libraries, ect. that he has such a realistic view on the society compared to Montag's attitude that he, one person, can fix it all.
You can see Education through Faber as well. The "right to carry out actions based on what we learn" (85) is completely new to Montag, and the risky actions he performs at the end of the novel prove that Faber's advice has hit home.

dystopias are definetely utopias gone wrong.
the whole idea for this book was that people kept pushing toward a world where they didnt have to think and once they got it, they were happy. or at least felt like they were. Clarisse changes Montag though and makes him want to investigate the books. there are only a select few in this society who actually KNOW theyre unhappy, though, so the dystopia continues.

bookworm_girl

05-08-2008, 10:09 PM

I was thinking that the two scenes with Faber talking to Montag through the earpeice while other people were present (Mildred's friends, Beatty) are an example of dramatic irony because the other characters have no idea that what Montag is saying is meant for Faber and not for them, and they respond to Montag. Also, I have noticed that dystopian novels are not the only ones with ambiguous endings. The ending of The Giver, which is a utopian novel, was rather unclear and left room for debate. Did Jonas die? Or did he find the other communities in the world that did not choose to lose color and memories? Does his old community survive the flood of disturbing and strange memories? Or were they unable to handle it and wiped themselves out? Similarly, F451 leaves you with many questions. Do the "book people" manage to return books to the society? Or are there enough survivors in the city for a society to even be present? Will the government let them get away with returning books? Will they be able to rally enough support to get others to leave them alone? and so on.

As for themes... definately Coming of Age and Education. Stereotypes play a major role. Beatty and Montag are portrayed as stereotypical firemen at the beginnning, but both turn out to be different. The obvious one would be dystopia;) Going with the crowd or making your own decisions...the importance of thinking and caring about the world instead of being carefree into your death...

Beautifull

05-08-2008, 10:19 PM

i thingk this has to do with how the utopian world's aredestroyed and how they don't last... books like these are, i think, written to show how utopian worlds can't last forever...
as for how they end the book with questions.. it's supposed to leave you thinking, most good books do...
i also believe jonas does find another community that isn't utopian...

bookworm_girl

05-08-2008, 10:24 PM

I just thought of this. Clarisse is a dramatic foil for not only Montag, but the whole society as well. The whole family is, but Clarisse is the only one you know personally. She is the "oddball" in this society; she pays attention to nature, goes slow, sits around and talks, and is viewed as anti-social. Also, Mildred and Montag are dramatic foils for each other. Millie brings out Montag's inquisitive nature, and Montag brings out Millie's brainwashed attitude and unhappiness (the sleeping pills, "Does the White Clown love you") Also Faber and Montag. MOntag brings out Faber's reluctance to take action, Faber Montag's impulsiveness and, again, inquisitive nature

oops last post was supposed to be at end, but i accidentally typed in Quick Reply area =)

CrazyZorro

05-09-2008, 08:58 AM

I enjoyed this book because I realized the similarities of our society and the society that Montag lives in. The first time I read this book I just did it for pleasure so I didn't really pay attention to it, but when I read it for school I was astonished at all of the things I had missed from the first time I read it. This book also shocked me because I realized that that society could come soon and I would hate it.

AuntShecky

08-22-2009, 02:54 PM

Today is Ray Bradbury's eighty-nine birthday. Though rightly placed in the pantheon of America's finest science fiction, Bradbury's work often transcends that specialized genre and closely approaches the rarefied realm of "literature." By that I mean, Bradbury's prose style and themes exemplify the beauty of the English language and hold a crystal-clear mirror up to human nature.

Coincidentally, just this week Slate ran a cogent and insightful article on what arguably might be deemed Bradbury's finest work, Fahrenheit 451, recently published, ironically as a comic book. Here is a link to the Slate article by Sarah Boxer:

http://www.slate.com/id/2223495/

If you remember, the term "Fahrenheit 451" refers to the temperature at which paper burns; Bradbury's novel (and the 1966 screenplay which he adapted with director Francois Truffaut) presents a dystopia in which firemen do not put out fires but start them--to destroy every book in the world. Bradbury's novel first appeared in 1953, when the horrors of the Third Reich, World War II, and the Stalinist regime were fresh in the collective consciousness.

But Sarah Boxer's contemporary take on Fahrenheit 451 is not a political one, but the changes wrought on our society by technological advancing like out-of-control wildfires:

'Books cut shorter. Condensations. Digests, Tabloids. … Classics cut … to fill a two-minute book column. … Speed up the film, Montag, quick. Click, Pic, Look, Eye, Now, Flick, Here, There, Swift, Pace, Up, Down, In, Out, Why, How, Who, What, Where, Eh? Uh! Bang! Smack! Wallop, Bing, Bong, Boom! Digest-digests, Digest-digest-digests! Politics? One column, two sentences, a headline! Then, in mid-air, all vanishes!' (Sounds like the Internet, doesn't it? News articles become blogs, blogs become tweets.) "School is shortened, discipline relaxed, philosophies, histories, languages dropped, English and spelling gradually neglected, finally almost completely ignored." (Texting, anyone?) 'More cartoons in books. More pictures. The mind drinks less and less.' "

Some of the blame I think, can be placed upon the sorry state of public education and the general "dumbing down" of our culture.

But back to Sarah Boxer's basic premise: will comic books supplant books as we know them?:
"Maybe Bradbury sees the comic book as a kind of life raft, a salvation, for books. At the end of Fahrenheit 451, an underground society of persecuted book lovers picks volumes to memorize before burning them. They recite them to others. It's back to the oral tradition to save the literary world. Today a similar thing (minus the burning) is happening in reality, as graphic novelists pick out classics to retell in their own way. Fahrenheit 451 is but one of many. This year alone, there are new graphic novel versions of Moby Dick, The Trial, Crime and Punishment, The Great Gatsby, and the Bible. Is Bradbury saying that it's back to pictographs to save the literary world?
I don't think so. Graphic novels may win some new readers, but the text is almost always shortened to make way for pictures, and what survives of it is radically different: It's mostly dialogue, like a screenplay. In the graphic-novel version of Fahrenheit 451, almost all of the words are spoken. Even the pictures confirm that the novel has become a script."

And if there's anyone who thinks (as Marshall McLuhan did) that the screenplay is a natural progression of the novel, think again. Look at many of the movies released in the past decade and a half: heavy emphasis on special effects and CGI, scant attention to the script in the genre in which scores of presenters on award shows paid pro forma to the fact that the "story was king."

As I implied in an earlier thread about Amazon's erasing of certain Kindle books via remote control, I do have some fear that censorship --a less drastic but just as oppressive tactic as actual book-burning--may someday arise for political, religious, or social engineering purposes, but I am more concerned that something fine about civilization may be lost, and that is writing as an art form, the creation of powerful, subtle, and aesthetically pleasing prose, as well the scrupulous effort to say exactly what one means to say.

If comic books, graphic novels, Twitter and all the rest take that away from us, then yes, the future looks bleak indeed.

What say you?

TheFifthElement

08-23-2009, 06:02 AM

Ah, ace!! I just read Fahrenheit 451 - excellent book. I found it especially interesting that Bradbury, perhaps, predicted the iPod culture, and the fact that there was no 'state' to blame for the decay but rather that people gave up books first, only later did the state ban them. And there's also this interesting idea that the demise of books is a natural progression of the 'politically correct' culture, that in some way books and the ideas in books are potentially offensive to minorities. This comes up in the discussion between Montag and Beatty:

Not everyone born free and equal as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against. So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man's mind. Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man....there was no longer need of firemen for the old purposes. They were given the new job, as custodians of our peace of mind, the focus of our understandable and rightful dread of being inferior...
You must understand that our civilisation is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred....
Coloured people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it. Someone's written a book about tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet into the incinerator.

Can I envisage a future without books? I don't know. Books are too integrated into my own life for me to consider a society without them and yet they are a luxury and I know many people who already live without them. Not all those people Twitter or surf the web. I think so long as we value diversity then there will always be people who champion books.

Perhaps what Bradbury didn't anticipate is that in the future there will be no paper books to burn, only digital ones?

JCamilo

08-23-2009, 12:46 PM

Bradbury finnest work is Martian Chronicles, the movie -as Bradbury admits is better than his book because Truffaut final is better.
Certainly, to Bradbury would be no difference if the books are burnt or deleted. Exactly why he liked the idea of keeping them in the memory.

dfloyd

08-23-2009, 02:17 PM

as Montag's boss explains to him why he has such a coolection of leather- bound books in his home: 'It is not illegal to own books; it is illegal to read them.'

Bradbury's two classics, Fahrenheit 451 and The Martian Chronicles, were given absolute literary status when published by The Limited Editions Club in the 1980s. He joined the ranks of Swift, Dostoevsky, Dickens, and James Joyce, and a few more contemporary writers, such as Tennessee Wiliams, John Hersey, and Arthur Miller, when his books were selected for publication by the club.

These two publications were creatively designed and published with the beautiful illustrations of Joe Mugnaini. While not within everyone's affordability (the two books are now selling for over $400 each), they are more affordable that the 1950s issue of F. 451 bound in asbestos. This more or less circus book has become a collector's item priced about $15,000. But it is not for readers, but for those who like books 'under glass' and collect books like some collect stamps and coins or butterflys

TheFifthElement

08-24-2009, 03:37 AM

as Montag's boss explains to him why he has such a coolection of leather- bound books in his home: 'It is not illegal to own books; it is illegal to read them.'
Where is that in the book? I can't find it.

mal4mac

08-24-2009, 06:27 AM

Bradbury's two classics, Fahrenheit 451 and The Martian Chronicles, were given absolute literary status when published by The Limited Editions Club in the 1980s. He joined the ranks of Swift, Dostoevsky, Dickens, and James Joyce...

How can there be such a thing as "absolute literary status"? How can there be an absolute anything? Even Shakespeare doesn't rate that status - for instance, Tolstoy and Shaw didn't rate him.

Many serious critics don't even bother to rate Bradbury (Bloom, Fadiman...).

What do you mean by "...joined the ranks of Swift, Dostoevsky, Dickens, and James Joyce?" If you simply mean "was published by the same company as", then fine. Otherwise, that's a statement that will need some defending!

Hank Stamper

08-24-2009, 08:06 AM

Where is that in the book? I can't find it.

it is definitely not in the book, but there is a scene in the play where beatty takes montag to his house to show him his shelves of discarded books

PeterL

08-24-2009, 08:49 AM

General literacy is a recent thing, and it isn't all that general. Of people who read there is a greater desire for books than at any time in the past. While there has been a slight trend toward diminution in reading material, the books that get published tend to be longer every year. Alas, the authors don't include more actual content, just more words. Even if novels go out of style fo entertainment, there will be instruction manuals of various sorts, and they will be printed as a back-up to electronic versions. There will be demand for books for several hundred years, at least, but we can't predict further out than about five hundred years with any confidence.

dfloyd

08-25-2009, 01:53 PM

In a previous post I briefly described a scene where Montag goes to Beatty's apartment and views his extensive library; and Beatty tells Montag it is not against the law to own books, but it is against the law to read them. In the Introduction of my copy of F. 451, this scene is described in detail by Ray Bradbury who wrote the Introduction. The scene is indeed from a play which, though not written by Bradbury, is used to make several points in his Introductory material. My memory was in error in saying the scene was in the book.

I also stated that Bradbury's two novels were given 'absolute classical status.' These novels were, of course, F. 451 and The Martian Chronicles. Perhaps the word 'absolute' was used incorrectly here, but I thought it obvious that I was not commenting on Bradbury's literary talents, but only upon his being admited into a very elite group of authors who have been published by the Limited Editions Club (LEC). The LEC from 1929 to 1985 published many of the works, often those commented upon by this very forum, which are generally considered classics. It was the foremost by- subscription-only American book club of the 30s and onward. To be admitted into this pantheon of writers was indeed an honor for Bradbury. But I was neither claiming or suggesting that Bradbury had reach any level of literary achievment.

Bigauburnfan101

04-23-2010, 02:24 PM

I thing that Bradbury wrote this book in order to show people what are world would be like if we did not have any books. This novel shows the quest of Guy Montag who is searching for all the books that he can find so that he can hopefully get the knowledge out of them. He has to be careful, because if he is caught with a book, then he will be burned along with all of the books. All in all, this is a pretty good book.

scaltz

04-23-2010, 03:51 PM

Gosh too many people here think that the ending is left to be desired....compare this ending to 1984, geez.

First of all, one of the more important aspects of this book and like any other dystopian novel is how that society came to being. Ray Bradbury started to write this book in the late forties then eventually published in 1953. The era late forties and fifties were all about «*The American Dream*» of finding comfort, success and affluence, so to simply find paradise on Earth.
So basically in the society in Fahrenheit 451, we see a world where the major problems during the sixties never happened and that this pseudo happiness of the fifties continues to exist to the present day. So what occurs when that happens is we get improvement on the radio, television, media. People are seeking faster and more accessible ways to information to the point that they don't even have to do anything (Internet in the world for example); they're seeking ways to make their lives more comfortable and happy, to increase their welfare; so basically this becomes a society of short-lived enjoyment, of false satisfaction, of “cheap thrills”.

Other themes include the absence of depth, the intended ignorance of the people (NOT society, please don't make this mistake) over knowledge and the happiness of the citizens (real or not and why?).

I love this book for it really DID portray the future of our postwar society (fast infos=internet, tv wall "families"= Soap operas, REALITY tv).

litforum

04-24-2010, 10:35 AM

I think death and ignorance is definitely a theme in Fahrenheit 451. For instance, in Part Two, when Montag attempts to bring up Clarisse in his conversation with Mildred, Mildred openly refuses to talk about someone who is dead. She's completely void of any emotion. She prefers to talk and think about her television family, which seems more real because of the pretty colors and mostly because it doesn't require her to think as much over what she sees.
For me, Mildred represents the entire dystopian society in the novel. She's the perfect example of a person that would rather not think about what happened in the past and what will happen in the future. She'd rather sit in front of her "family" all day than actually sit and talk to her husband (Part One - when she rushed Montag out of the house to his work). And I think that's what Ray Bradbury was trying to say through his novel: not reading books or even not communicating can lead to mindlessness and the loss of profound thought. For instance, at the end of Part One, there's this quote from Gulliver's Travelsthat says, "It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times suffered death rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end." Though this quote is very profound in meaning, Mildred exclaims that it is pointless and stupid. As a conformist of the dystopian society herself, Mildred doesn't realize that this quote is referring to her husband and all the other people who'd rather follow their own rules.
Montag, however, is very in touch with his feelings. He doesn't mind thinking about Clarisse and her death and how she can relate to books written by dead authors. He even openly talks to Faber about death in Part Two. This shows how Montag, along with Faber, Clarisse and her family, the old lady, and possibly Beatty, is different from everyone else in the novel.

"It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times suffered death rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end."

Mildred claims that there is no meaning behind this quote, but there is. In fact, I think this quote summarizes the entire novel. After doing some research, I discovered that Gulliver's Travels is one of the greatest literature masterpieces of all time, and there has to be a meaning behind this statistic. Breaking one's egg at the smaller end refers to doing some that doesn't conform to society - in this case, a dystopian society. The eleven thousand persons refers to the large number of people, such as Montag and Faber, that are willing to risk everything to break this conformity and change society into one that is able to think for itself again.

Placement of this Quote: I think that Bradbury placed this quote perfectly in the novel. It seems to summarize and foreshadow the future events and placing it at the very end of Part One seems ideal. This is where the action of the novel builds up and it simply makes sense.

Bigauburnfan101

04-26-2010, 08:25 PM

One of the greatest things that I enjoy about this novel is watching Guy Montag develop a new sense of uniqueness throughout the novel. At the beginning of the novel, Guy is set at being a fire fighter and burning books for a living. Then, he meets Clarisse and he starts to look at things from a new perspective and now Guy is able to think more about situations for himself instead of just going with what everyone else says is right. After Clarisse is killed in the car accident Guy really starts to think for himself and wonders if the way that things are going is really the way that they are supposed to be going. The final thing that pushes Guy over the edge is the scene when he and the other firemen go to the lady's house to burn the books. When they arrive she is very reluctant to give up her library. They warn her and she still does not want to come, and she insists on staying and being burned along with her books. This lady is able to show Guy that books really are worth it and that they can have a huge impact on the knowledge of people and a whole nation. This is when Guy first finds his interest in books and wants to learn everything that he can about them and what is in them. Even though Guy is now on the side of the books, he still is not willing to really fight for the right to have the freedom to read. The one character that helps him develop this urge is Faber. When Guy first meets Faber he is scared to stand up for the books and reading, but after a while he is ready to fight. Guy show his first defensive instinct towards the books when he persists to read the poetry to his neighbors. He then takes his fight to the highest level when he turns the flamethrower on Beatty to defend his books that he had hidden and been caught with. This is why Guy makes a huge and interesting character development throughout the novel. He goes from burning books all the way to burning people in order to defend books.

Further Questions:
1. What other characters in this novel have noticeable character development throughout the novel?
2. Since I have not finish the novel quite yet, what other stages, if any, does Guy go through in his character development?

I would love to get answers to my questions and would also love to hear any comments anybody has about character development in this novel or just the novel in general. Thanks!

After reading a little bit further in Fahrenheit 451, I was able to answer the second question that I asked following my last post on character development.

I found that Guy takes a very crucial step in developing as a important character. He starts off defending books and individual thought in section 2, but in section 3 he has a quote that allows him to physically say that he is against burning books. Guy thinks to himself, "He knew why he must never burn another book in his life" (Bradbury 141) I think that this is especially important because, now it is impossible to have any doubt that Guy still wants to burn books. Instead of taking actions against firemen, like he does to Beatty at the beginning of section 3, he is verbally committing that he will not burn any more books. This, to me, is the official rebirth stage of Guy in his cycle of death and rebirth. He has killed his ways of a fireman and now he is committed to fighting against the firemen and for the right to have individual thought.

If you have any other comments on this matter, then please let me know.

Dodo25

04-28-2010, 06:42 PM

1. What other characters in this novel have noticeable character development throughout the novel?

No other character develops, that's the point of the book. Most of the character die anyway, Montag's wife stays the technology/media junky she always was, and the professor is 'wise' ever since he was introduced. Beatty didn't change either..

If one has to pick someone, I'd go with that one friend of Montag's wife that started crying after she heard poetry or whatever it was.

triplejoy

04-29-2010, 06:54 AM

When a character goes through a positive change in the novel, it is called coming of age. In Farenheit 451, Montag comes of age. He learns how to think for himself and to interpret what he reads. People like Millie, Faber, and Beatty have positive and negative impacts on the coming of age process. Montag has to decide what is right for himself in order for him to truly grow.
Faber also goes through his own coming of age. Before he meets Montag, Faber is a frightened, sad old English professor. He gains the courage to stand up for what is right, beacuse Montag is so quick to do so. Faber believes that if a fire man can stand out on behalf of reading, an old English teacher can as well. Faber's gaining courage deals with his coming of age, and his coming of age shows that a people can never be too old to grow and be reborn.:party:

No other character develops, that's the point of the book. Most of the character die anyway, Montag's wife stays the technology/media junky she always was, and the professor is 'wise' ever since he was introduced. Beatty didn't change either..

If one has to pick someone, I'd go with that one friend of Montag's wife that started crying after she heard poetry or whatever it was.

I believe that Millie's friends, and Millie as well, see that there needs to be change in their lives. Millie has commited suicide. She and her friends cry when they her Montag's poetry. They know that the time has come for change, but they are afraid to embrace it. All that they have known is the dystopian society, and they are fearful of what may happen if what they know is gone forever.

Unfortunately, I doubt that Millie and her friends will ever change. They act more as the stereotypical women in a dystopian society. They live in such a dehumanizing state that they have gotten used to death. Montag, by reading poetry to them, wants them to join the fight for education. He wants them to grow out of their government influenced ignorance and learn. He wants them to get their noses out of the parlor and into books. This all sounds well and great, but I doubt that Millie and her friends will ever change.

What do you think? Do you think that Millie and her friends will change?

mastermind777

04-30-2010, 01:31 AM

Mrs. Phelps is the woman that was crying after hearing the poetry excerpt. Also, it's not very likely that Millie and her friends will change, seeing as the town was nuked at the end of Part 3. :P

---------------------
Guy Montag read the latter half of "Dover Beach" by Matthew Arnold.

The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand;
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the A gaean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

The part of "Dover Beach" quoted by Montag (Bradbury 100) might as well have been written about their present society. The first quoted stanza mentions the Sea of Faith, which was once very full and surrounded the earth. The Sea represents the society of long ago, which still has books. The narrator of "Dover Beach" then says that all he can hear now its "melancholy, long, withdrawing roar", which indicates that this time of knowledge is long gone, and that the past knowledge has receded.

The second stanza is a clear-cut description of the present society. The world, which seems to be perfect for most people, is actually imperfect. Old thoughts and feelings have been willingly suppressed to the point of degradation. People no longer feel true emotions; instead they are slaves to simple, fast entertainment- the "snap ending" that is necessary for them. They now live for the sole purpose of entertaining themselves. Religious ideals are instead ported to become advertisements, as shown when Faber tells Montag about Jesus becoming part of the "family" and making subtle endorsements to "certain commercial products every worshiper absolutely needs" (Bradbury 81). This is Montag's world: a world where there is no joy, nor love, nor knowledge; this world has only emptiness. The people are merely "ignorant armies [clashing] by night" living inside a barren world, who for all intents and purposes are losing the battle against themselves in their bid towards a richer life.

This poem was written by Matthew Arnold as mentioned above. Arnold was a school inspector as well as a poet. Arnold believed very strongly in the necessity of education as a means to hold back barbarism and to produce good, civilized people. Bradbury portrays a world in which education, particularly the written and printed world, is being simulantaneously burned up and drowned in society's daily mindlessness; Montag's world is a world in which the Dark Age feared by Arnold has taken root, and the people are oblivious. They are the ignorant armies clashing by night.

-------------

litforum

04-30-2010, 08:29 PM

No other character develops, that's the point of the book.

I disagree. Captain Beatty did have a character development. As cynical as he was throughout the entire novel, at the beginning of the novel, we get the sense that he is the villain. However, the villain is the dystopian society itself. We know for a fact that Beatty does read books and obviously enjoys them, but why would he discourage reading books?
Well, I believe that secretly at heart, he realizes that books do hold wisdom that can help the society. However, being the chief fireman, he knows that he must do his job and remain loyal to those who gave him authority. Also, he himself must have became discouraged at one point because he realized that nothing can be changed. Through his rambling dialogues with Montag, Beatty reveals the wisdom books hold but manipulates the facts to discourage Montag. Why? He might have done so because he doesn't want Montag to lose hope like he did. He might have seen something in Montag that was similar to himself... It's just a thought...
Also, Beatty is so discouraged that even Montag realizes near the climax that Beatty wanted to die - unable to do anything...

triplejoy

04-30-2010, 08:47 PM

I disagree. Captain Beatty did have a character development. As cynical as he was throughout the entire novel, at the beginning of the novel, we get the sense that he is the villain. However, the villain is the dystopian society itself. We know for a fact that Beatty does read books and obviously enjoys them, but why would he discourage reading books?
Well, I believe that secretly at heart, he realizes that books do hold wisdom that can help the society. However, being the chief fireman, he knows that he must do his job and remain loyal to those who gave him authority. Also, he himself must have become discouraged at one point because he realized that nothing can be changed. Through his rambling dialogues with Montague, Beatty reveals the wisdom books hold but manipulates the facts to discourage Montag. Why? He might have done so because he doesn't want Montag to lose hope like he did. He might have seen something in Montag that was similar to himself... It's just a thought...
Also, Beatty is so discouraged that even Montag realizes near the climax that Beatty wanted to die - unable to do anything...

Beatty does seem to know a good bit about books, considering that it is his job to burn them. What I wonder about is why Beatty keeps quoting certain novels and literature. Isn't he supposed to be the one tossing books into the flames? I think that Beatty has a hidden stash of books just like Montag. He keeps picking on Montag; that ridicule may be the force that keeps him from analyzing his inner self. Again, the dystopian society is very dehumanized, so Beatty has feelings of death. He may have had feelings of commiting suicide because of how awful things were in their city. He bullies Montag so that he will have self-fufillment in his life. I still wonder why Beatty keeps quoting literature. It gets on my nerves.:wave:

litforum

04-30-2010, 08:56 PM

Mildred and her friends obviously represent the dystopian society, and one of the characteristics of a dystopian society is that its inhabitants live in a dehumanized state while showing no sense of independent thought. When the poem was read to the women, they showed various emotions because they didn't know how to react. Mrs. Phelps, the woman who was clearly void of emotion when discussing her children and her husband at war, started crying because she became overcome with emotion. She understood the depth and meaning of the poem but didn't know how to react. This was Bradbury's way of showing how literature is important in forming a society. Without literature, the people lose independent thought, like the women had. And when they were forced to face what was being kept from them all this time, the women realized the beauty in literature.

Beatty does seem to know a good bit about books, considering that it is his job to burn them. What I wonder about is why Beatty keeps quoting certain novels and literature. Isn't he supposed to be the one tossing books into the flames? I think that Beatty has a hidden stash of books just like Montag. He keeps picking on Montag; that ridicule may be the force that keeps him from analyzing his inner self. Again, the dystopian society is very dehumanized, so Beatty has feelings of death. He may have had feelings of commiting suicide because of how awful things were in their city. He bullies Montag so that he will have self-fufillment in his life. I still wonder why Beatty keeps quoting literature. It gets on my nerves.:wave:

Beatty DOES have an entire library to himself. If you read the afterword and cota of the novel, you learn that Bradbury imagined Beatty to be almost exactly like Montag. However, Beatty was more of a mix of Faber and Montag. Though he wanted do something about the lack of literature, "life got to him" and all he was able to do was keep a stash of books in order to prevent them from being burned. So, unlike Faber, Montag, and the hobo men, rather than memorizing literature, Beatty actually preserved them for future generations. However, by letting the books rot on the shelves, he also killed them in a different way than burning them. And I think that constantly quoting literature was his way of hinting that he was on their side. He seemed to help Montag mentally.

As for his "suicide," I think that he had finally lost hope in his plan of preserving books because society would never change, therefore, he allowed Montag to continue with his own plan...

And yes, I agree with you. Beatty constantly quoting books did make the book more difficult to understand =]

mastermind777

05-03-2010, 03:03 AM

Adding to litforum's and triplejoy's discussion about Beatty:

Beatty's quoting books is part of his character. Captain Beatty is a very ambivalent character, being the antithesis to Montag's resolve. Beatty has read many books in his time, but he has since lost his trust in books. The recession of his literati persona leads him to become dispirited with books, and in extension, life. Beatty telling Montag that "life happened to [him]" (Bradbury 171) explains that Beatty grew to find that books were no source for solace after suffering many hardships. Beatty is filled with bitter resentment as he tries to find a way to offset his anger with the world. The only thing left for Beatty is to deaden himself to the world so that he does not feel any of its pains. Beatty applies for the position of Fire Chief in order to avoid having to feel his inner turmoil. When Montag becomes a fireman, Beatty appears to form a link with him, inviting him to his apartment and showing him his hidden library. Beatty reveals his personality to Montag, and this plants the seeds of curiosity in Montag's heart about books. Beatty uses his quotes to needle and vex Montag in order to test his mentality. In a way, Beatty can be considered as a kind of mentor to Montag, being the one who sparks Montag's curiosity in books initially. Beatty later realizes that Montag is the same as he was, except that Montag sees the true value of books. This is why Beatty drives Montag to kill him- after a long period of being tormented by life, Beatty is ready to burn himself so that Montag will rise out of the ashes.

litforum

05-03-2010, 08:08 AM

gagaolala86

05-04-2010, 01:35 AM

I think the theme of Fahrenheit 451 is basically to teach people to never let the society drift off to the point where they become restricted to the things we take advantage of such as reading books, or understanding symbolism. Montag's society is filled with easy to get items and things are just handed to the people of this society so easily. There is no thinking involved in anything that the people do. And if you look at it, its sort of what our society is becoming; everything is handed to us with the click of a mouse. or with a simple text message to ChaCha (which is actually a terrible service). This book also sparked my mind into thinking that technology is overrated in my opinion. It is so easy to do things now. What if something were to happen where all technology is lost? What are we going to do? We are so dependent of things being given to us that we don't want to spend the time searching for the answers on our own. So I think Ray Bradbury made this book to show people what our society could turn to (maybe not exactly on that level). But anyways...I thought it was a great book that made me think outside of the box :)

I read Fahrenheit 451 during my last holiday and I was really disappointed, because heaps of people had told me how great it was and were even rating it next to Brave New World as a classic SF novel.
I found Bradbury's writing childish, almost as if he was trying to be poetic and it was all a bit clumsy. The dialogue was unrealistic, and the characters were pathetically undeveloped. Even the SF style action was unexciting and tame...it was all fairly predictable.

What I liked about the book was it's central idea: a world where books are burnt by the state and no one sees value in reading anymore, and its result on society. Unfortunately I think that Bradbury handled a subject/idea that had so much potential to make a great novel very very clumsily and thoughtlessly, as if he rushed the novel or something. I have to say that I did enjoy the parts with Clarisse in the beginning, as a lovely and sweet figure of the only remainding educated and free spirits in that world, I thought those scenes where she and Montag talked and wandered about the streets had a nice feel about them.

Why is it so highly rated, particularly here in the forums? I know there are a few Fahrenheit 451 fans here...why do you guys think so highly of it?

I totally agree! At first it was really annoying because he'd be like "Montag is dashing, dashing, DASHING!! Run run run run run" (not really a quote) but the repetitive stuff is just annoying. Sometimes I just want to yell "I get it. Please stop now." But I think that's just Bradbury's way of being poetic. Maybe overly poetic but surely he is at least trying. But his annoying banter for an attempt to make the book longer is non-existent when I think of the book as a whole. The central idea is amazing...and at least I figured it out eventually. But Bradbury is a great writer and I think that the banter is just one of those things you have to just deal with when your'e reading a Bradbury book (maybe? I don't think I've read any others...hmmm maybe I should get on that). :)

:party:

One of the greatest things that I enjoy about this novel is watching Guy Montag develop a new sense of uniqueness throughout the novel. At the beginning of the novel, Guy is set at being a fire fighter and burning books for a living. Then, he meets Clarisse and he starts to look at things from a new perspective and now Guy is able to think more about situations for himself instead of just going with what everyone else says is right. After Clarisse is killed in the car accident Guy really starts to think for himself and wonders if the way that things are going is really the way that they are supposed to be going. The final thing that pushes Guy over the edge is the scene when he and the other firemen go to the lady's house to burn the books. When they arrive she is very reluctant to give up her library. They warn her and she still does not want to come, and she insists on staying and being burned along with her books. This lady is able to show Guy that books really are worth it and that they can have a huge impact on the knowledge of people and a whole nation. This is when Guy first finds his interest in books and wants to learn everything that he can about them and what is in them. Even though Guy is now on the side of the books, he still is not willing to really fight for the right to have the freedom to read. The one character that helps him develop this urge is Faber. When Guy first meets Faber he is scared to stand up for the books and reading, but after a while he is ready to fight. Guy show his first defensive instinct towards the books when he persists to read the poetry to his neighbors. He then takes his fight to the highest level when he turns the flamethrower on Beatty to defend his books that he had hidden and been caught with. This is why Guy makes a huge and interesting character development throughout the novel. He goes from burning books all the way to burning people in order to defend books.

Further Questions:
1. What other characters in this novel have noticeable character development throughout the novel?
2. Since I have not finish the novel quite yet, what other stages, if any, does Guy go through in his character development?

I would love to get answers to my questions and would also love to hear any comments anybody has about character development in this novel or just the novel in general. Thanks!

Oh yeah. Sorry for not answering your questions. :P
:party:

tumble

05-04-2010, 07:07 PM

Honestly, i liked the ending of this novel. The ending of a book is supposed to leave an impression on you, and cliffhangers such as this book certainly grab your attention. This novel was a DYSTOPIA. Meaning that the society in which the characters live is drastically wrong. The ending of such a book can not be a happy one. Sure, the characters can survive, but they do not bounce happy and laughing out of the book and leave you with a definite ending. The point of a open ending novel(especially dystopian novels) is usually one on two things: The author felt that the reader has gained what he/she wants the readers to gain, and therefore is no longer in need of further writing; or to prove a point that the author wants to make. With open ended novels, the ending is rarely happy or directly informative. The author leaves to the reader to decide how the character's life will play out further; or let the reader to simply make the decision of wether or not what happens to the characters at the end is really important to the story. The ending of Fahrenheit 451 fits well with the format and point of the book. The reader needs to figure out that what happens to Montag after is not really important. What IS important is how Montag got to where he leaves off. His retaliation to the society's way of life, escaping from this life, and ultimately learning how to be an individual shows what Ray was trying to explain. The society burns books and free thinking is strongly discouraged. The way the people live is terrible, and they do not even see it. They have nothing to compare the wrong and right way to live to. Everyone is isolated. Montag starts off the same as all the others: blissfully ignorant. Clarisse shows him how to live, and also gives him a reason to live. After meeting her, his life does a 180. He dose not know how to think for himself, so he seeks a mentor. Faber helps his see the reality of his life, and from there on Montag starts thinking for himself. At the end of the novel, Montag has grown into a thinking, opinionated, and free person. Ray wanted you too see how straying form normality and thinking for yourself will ultimately set you free from the society's bad influences. Ray makes to the point to explain that while learning people find things that WILL make them uncomfortable, but this uncomfortable knowledge is what humans learn from. "With knowledge comes great responsibility." to quote Spiderman. Montag definitely earns his responsibility by the end of the book, and therefore Ray's point was made. There was no need for further explanation of Montag's life because the reader has learned what they need from the book. Our job as readers is to use this new knowledge and not fiddle over the minuscule details such as the endings of books, but rather reflect on what your have learned though the entirety of the book.

Dodo25

05-04-2010, 07:47 PM

I disagree. Captain Beatty did have a character development.

No I don't think so. There was indeed a shift of how the reader sees him, but that's due to the narrating and not due to his character. As more things are revealed, the reader's impression of him changes, but there is no reason to assume he went through a change at any time in the story.

And to answer the other question, I doubt Mildred and her friends will change.

Actually I didn't really like the book.. I know it's awesome how it kinda predicted the future, but somehow it was too much of a caricature, so I found it boring..

The next sachin

05-04-2010, 09:08 PM

Reply to the discussion about Beatty:

We know that Beatty once found books to be wonderful... we can see that when he is quoting all kinds of texts. However, I think he was in the same position Montag is in now, but was never able to think about what he was reading, and what it was supposed to represent. I think that like Montag, Beatty was once looking for that one thing missing to achieve total happiness. He too believed that it was books, but he was never able to grasp what the books were trying to carry over to him. I think he tried restlessly to find a book that can show him some meaning, something that would help him, but he was never able to find it. I think that despite having so many books, he could not find what he was looking for to make his society better. THanks to Clarisse, Montag learns to think about what he reads or hears. He is able to see the meaning of something he reads. I agree with what matermind 777 had to say about Beatty being a mentor to Montag in a way since he is the one who truely sparks the idea of reading books into Montag's mind. I think that Beatty knowing that he could not change his society, wanted to die and pass the burden onto Montag. Beatty was more than happy to finish with his rough life of disappointment... he knows that Montag has a better understanding of books, and if anyone is going to change the dystopia, it would be Montag.

The whole point of the novel + themes:

I believe that the whole point of fahrenheit 451 is to show how bad things can get if things like censorship continue. I bet before Bradbury wrote this book, he saw an example of censorship somewhere. He must of had a brain blast all of a sudden, of what would happen if censorship got really out of hand. Bam! That leads you right into Fahrenheit 451! The whole point of this book is to warn present-day people what will happen if we let books die and gov. controlled technology control every aspect of our lives. Now I have nothing against technology... but if it is completely controlled by the government to a point where we loose the knowledge of the past, then there is something wrong. The whole human race is completely imperfect, we have to be able to learn from our mistakes and try to make tommorow bettter. Today the internet and tv can teach us these things, so some people will say that we don't need books, but what if the internet and tv are controlled to an extent that we are blocked away from this information. We loose so much and we forget how to think and how to care for each other. We will just go around, beat up Bob and run over Joe! Now Im not Ray Bradbury so U can't be sure what themes and lessons he had in mind when he wrote this book, but when I read it, this is what comes in mind immediately.

Babak Movahed

05-05-2010, 05:40 PM

It really is way over-rated

In regards to the writing being childish, I have to completely agree with you. I mean I was taught this book in my 7th grade english class, that has really got to say something.

I'm not the biggest fan of Sci-fi novels but this particular book wouldn't even make my top 10.

litforum

05-05-2010, 06:32 PM

Censorship is one of the main themes in Fahrenheit 451, but The Next Sachin seems to be saying that the government is censoring/controlling both the literature and technology. However, in Beatty's lecture to Montag, Beatty says that the people (minorities) were the ones that first censored the media: "It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God (Bradbury 58). So, he is saying that books were burned gradually - starting with the removal of a couple words until the books became empty and the people's minds were open only to information found in technology, which didn't require them to think.
As for the technology, it was not the government-controlled technology that led to the censorship of books. The government is not the one who actually makes the technology. Again, we, the people, bring this onto ourselves. In the novel, the people are the ones who invented all this technology that made them want more simplicity. They are the ones who let this technology do the thinking for them - not the government. As Faber says, "It's not books you need, it's some of the things that once were in books. [...] The same infinite detail and awareness could be projected through the radios and televisors, but are not" (Bradbury 82).
Both Beatty and Faber echo the words of Ray Bradbury himself. In the Coda of the novel, Bradbury explains that some people want certain parts of his works altered because they sound prejudiced. Also, he says that he rejected offers to include his writing in a school textbook because they remove all the detail. Bradbury then goes on to say, "There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with matches" (176)
Bradbury is obviously expressing his discontent of censorship (by the people) through his novel, and I couldn't agree any more with him.

cheesywalrus

05-05-2010, 08:10 PM

and the professor is 'wise' ever since he was introduced.

The professor (Faber) isn't necessarily "wise" ever since he was introduced. Instead, he plays it safe for most of the time. But then I think, maybe playing it safe is a wise choice. If Faber really cares about the content of books so much, then he needs to put himself out there and speak up so that the society won't go down-hill more then it already has. Faber is too afraid to take action so that he won't have to risk his life. And he puts shame on himself for backing down to the fight that he would have had to suffer so that he can get his message across. What is the message? It's that the burning of books is the source of unhappiness, but its not the books by themselves. As Faber says, it's the things in books. Books have the facts of life that people don't want to know. It's true that life is not always great, so to avoid unhappiness from real life, people just avoid the facts. So, society starts living in a fake state of happiness. I think that if this isn't stopped, people's brains will be blank because they will soon block out everything so it won't get in the way of their "happiness." Faber probably sees this, and he wants to do something, so Montag is put out in the danger zone, and Faber is held safe behind the wheel. I wouldn't say this would be "wise"... and Faber knows this because he even calls himself a coward. But, I'm glad that at the end before Montag heads off to the river, Faber goes to St. Louis to meet with a retired printer. He is finally taking action, and action on his own part.:bigear:

Instead of taking actions against firemen, like he does to Beatty at the beginning of section 3, he is verbally committing that he will not burn any more books. This, to me, is the official rebirth stage of Guy in his cycle of death and rebirth. He has killed his ways of a fireman and now he is committed to fighting against the firemen and for the right to have individual thought.

If you have any other comments on this matter, then please let me know.

I really love your point about Montag making this verbal commitment to not burn books anymore. And I also agree that this is Montag's official rebirth. I think that this is when Montag transforms from once being a literal fireman to a symbolic fireman. What I mean by being a a symbolic fireman is that now, Montag symbolizes fire as having knowledge and life. No, he is not technically a fireman like he used to be because he just made a commitment to not burn anymore, but he now has a mission that he didn't have before. He has a new determination and hope to make somewhat of a difference in society, because he realizes that he and the intellecuals are the few ones capable of doing what is right. But like Bigauburnfan101 said, Montag isn't going to take physical actions on the firemen anymore, but he's going to fight against their ways. I think that this is because Montag didn't know how to control his sudden realization of society. Montag describes how at times, he felt as if his hands were doing things out of his control. He didn't have enough understanding of why the world is so unhappy, so he didn't know how to react efficiently. But now with his gain of knowledge, Montag can actually do something that might help society instead of hurting it more, which is to not burn.

dfloyd

05-06-2010, 02:04 PM

having only read several classics by Jules Verne and H G Wells. But about a year or so ago I read F 451 and The Martian Chronicles. I found them both to be intelligent novels which I enjoyed. I wouldn't say they are overated, unless you are comparing them to The Great Gatsby or The Sun Also Rises, in which case, if you rank the Bradbury novels along with Fitzgerald and Hemingway, they are indeed overated.

keilj

05-06-2010, 02:33 PM

change the title of this thread to Fahrenheit 451 is wayyyyy accurate, or a wayyyy spot-on commentary on censorship, then you got it

Otherwise, I don't think it can be fairly compared to Brave New World. Fahrenheit is a fairly short book with a concise thesis that it explores - it does not delve into some of the wider issues that 1984 or Brave New World does

triplejoy

05-06-2010, 06:18 PM

The professor (Faber) isn't necessarily "wise" ever since he was introduced. Instead, he plays it safe for most of the time. But then I think, maybe playing it safe is a wise choice. If Faber really cares about the content of books so much, then he needs to put himself out there and speak up so that the society won't go down-hill more then it already has. Faber is too afraid to take action so that he won't have to risk his life. And he puts shame on himself for backing down to the fight that he would have had to suffer so that he can get his message across. What is the message? It's that the burning of books is the source of unhappiness, but its not the books by themselves. As Faber says, it's the things in books. Books have the facts of life that people don't want to know. It's true that life is not always great, so to avoid unhappiness from real life, people just avoid the facts. So, society starts living in a fake state of happiness. I think that if this isn't stopped, people's brains will be blank because they will soon block out everything so it won't get in the way of their "happiness." Faber probably sees this, and he wants to do something, so Montag is put out in the danger zone, and Faber is held safe behind the wheel. I wouldn't say this would be "wise"... and Faber knows this because he even calls himself a coward. But, I'm glad that at the end before Montag heads off to the river, Faber goes to St. Louis to meet with a retired printer. He is finally taking action, and action on his own part.:bigear:

Faber does not go out and stand up for books the way that Montag is able to, because he is afraid. Faber does not want to get hurt or killed in the process of defending the books that he loves so much. You would think that if a person really loved something, they would do everything in their power to save that thing from destruction. Faber, though, is not in your average setting. Faber lives in a dystopia where the items that he loves more than anything are illegal. His fear of what may happen to him if he goes out on faith and stands up for what he believes in overpowers him. Finally, Faber encounters Montag, who is not afraid to voice himself and say what he believes. Montag gives Faber more confidence and courage than he ever had in his life. Old Faber would have never helped Montag leave the city after he killed Beatty. New Faber is a resurrected and courageous old man.:angel:

llama_llove

05-06-2010, 06:28 PM

I think this dystopian novel was written to the world to offer what may occur if our society starts to act similar to the people's actions in Montag's society. One reason Bradbury was so vague to what the time period of this book is, is to show that our society could easily turn into their mindless world. The heroism that Montag posesses is different than some in a usual novel because Fahrenhiet 451 is a dystopian novel and most things are opposite. Although Montag is betraying his city, he is choosing knowledge over controlled thinking and anyone who has the choice between those two options would probably choose the same as Montag, no matter what the consequences might be.
~Mrs. H's favorite student :)

Bigauburnfan101

05-06-2010, 06:31 PM

T.Ray15

05-06-2010, 07:14 PM

Bigauburnfan101

05-06-2010, 08:10 PM

I also said that Clarisse was the mentor. Faber even admits that "you are looking at a coward." Faber didn't have the courage to challenge the government's censoring limitations, while Clarisse was openly defiant to the government and actually thought about things and denied herself the pleasures of her peers. Like you said, she encouraged Montag to cross the first threshold and experience all that books have to offer--especially to a world that has been without them. Montag was inspired by Clarisse and she began his journey in the first place by inquiring into his happiness, which slowly makes him realize what his society really is and the importance of books and knowledge to any one person or society.

That's exactly why I picked her. Well except for the fact that Faber admits to being a coward. I would not really say that that makes him not the mentor. It just proves that he is a coward. But you could look at it either way. Anyway, I agree with the rest of your points, and would love to hear someone state why they chose Faber as the mentor just so that I can see the differences.

fahrenheit451

05-06-2010, 09:16 PM

Themes and ideas???

any background on when it was written and what Bradbury was trying to say???

I believe the theme in Ray Bradbury's novel is censorship. In the society that Montag lives in, books are not allowed. If a book is found, it is burned. In this society, everything is mechanical. Instead of reading books, people watch television and listen to radio. Since this novel is a dystopian novel, everyone in the society believe that they are living in a perfect society. The government does not want the people in the society to read books and gain knowledge from it. Gaining knowledge from books might cause conflicts to the society and cause the society to believe that it is not a perfect society. I believe that Bradbury is trying to express the importance of books and how people should not only gain knowledge from technology, but also from books.

cheesywalrus

05-06-2010, 09:25 PM

That's exactly why I picked her. Well except for the fact that Faber admits to being a coward. I would not really say that that makes him not the mentor. It just proves that he is a coward. But you could look at it either way. Anyway, I agree with the rest of your points, and would love to hear someone state why they chose Faber as the mentor just so that I can see the differences.

I agree that Clarisse is somewhat of a mentor for Montag, but I think that Faber fits the role better where as Clarisse fits the role as the "call to action" character. Clarisse is the one that drags Montag into the quest by making him aware that there is something wrong in society, but she doesn't specify what it is. Instead, she leaves Montag to figure out what the source of unhappiness is by himself. Clarisse kind of leaves Montag hanging, which is a good thing because her questions slowly begin to waken his brain. She gets Montag's juices flowing, I guess you could say. I don't think she is a better mentor over Faber because I don't think Clarisse actually has the answers that Montag wants, or even the answers that she wants. Clarisse is very curious and uses her time to make new observations, but her curiosity doesn't teach Montag anything, it just transfers over to him. So, Clarisse gives the call to action. But Faber has the ability to teach Montag so that he can get the information that needs to be able to take physical action. Faber gives Montag the knowledge that he needs to be taken out of the confused and hesitant state he was in for the longest time. By getting Montag out of his stuck position with his lessons and guidance, Faber gets Montag up to the point where he is able to manage the rest of the quest on his own.

fahrenheit451

05-06-2010, 09:32 PM

When I was writing a short essay the other day on how this book related to a hero's journey, I came across the question of which character is really the mentor, Clarisse, or Faber? When I wrote the short essay I convinced myself that Clarisse was the real mentor and Faber was just a very important ally. My example was that Clarisse is the one that encourages Montag to think and really stand out in the ordinary society. The main thing that proves to me that Clarisse is the mentor, is that the example of the mentor archetype is that when the mentor dies then the hero is led to cross the first threshold. In Fahrenheit 451, once Montag discovers from Mildred that Clarisse has been hit by a car he really starts to make a stand against society and for the books. This is why I think that Clarisse is the real mentor. If you agree or disagree, please let me know why. Thanks

I disagree with your opinion. I believe that Faber also can be seen as the mentor. If it wasn't for Faber, Montag might not have escaped the society and might have died due to the bomb. Also, if Montag did not meet Faber, he would not have met the homeless intellectuals. Lastly, if Montag did not meet Faber, he would not have represented the Book of Ecclesiastes and would not have been part of the group to spread the knowledge of books to the further generations.

Themes and ideas???

any background on when it was written and what Bradbury was trying to say???

I think that Bradbury was trying to express to the audience his ideas of what the future would be like without books. I think that Bradbury is right. The world is already trying to turn most things into technology to make life easier. I believe that is how Montag's society started off too. The dystopian society didn't just become a dystopian society and without books in a day. Everything takes time, and as the amount of technology increases in the world, more steps the world is taking towards a society like the society Montag lives in. Eventually, our society might get too lazy of reading books and turn books into electronic radios so all people have to do is listen. There are already cds that reads the book by to you. I also think Bradbury's prediction already happened in someway because during the holocaust, the Germans burned the books that belong to the Jews. That is like the fireman in Montag's society burning books. The world today need to read more books to stay distant from a dystopian society with no books and the knowledge they contain.

litforum

05-06-2010, 10:20 PM

I agree that Clarisse is somewhat of a mentor for Montag, but I think that Faber fits the role better where as Clarisse fits the role as the "call to action" character. Clarisse is the one that drags Montag into the quest by making him aware that there is something wrong in society, but she doesn't specify what it is. Instead, she leaves Montag to figure out what the source of unhappiness is by himself. Clarisse kind of leaves Montag hanging, which is a good thing because her questions slowly begin to waken his brain. She gets Montag's juices flowing, I guess you could say. I don't think she is a better mentor over Faber because I don't think Clarisse actually has the answers that Montag wants, or even the answers that she wants. Clarisse is very curious and uses her time to make new observations, but her curiosity doesn't teach Montag anything, it just transfers over to him. So, Clarisse gives the call to action. But Faber has the ability to teach Montag so that he can get the information that needs to be able to take physical action. Faber gives Montag the knowledge that he needs to be taken out of the confused and hesitant state he was in for the longest time. By getting Montag out of his stuck position with his lessons and guidance, Faber gets Montag up to the point where he is able to manage the rest of the quest on his own.

I agree with you that Clarisse fits the "call to action" archetype. At the beginning of the novel, Montag is an "ordinary" fireman that does his duty with no questions asked. However, once he meets Clarisse, he begins to wonder about true happiness. This is where he is very uncertain, and therefore, he asks people he knows: Mildred, Beatty, and finally Faber. When he meets Faber, he realizes that Faber can serve as his mentor, and he crosses over into the second threshold. He then undergoes trials, tribulations, and ordeals his wife's betrayal, the burning of his house, the murder of his Captain, and the wild chase scene to his only refuge - the hobo camp. Here he crosses over into the third threshold and he finally arrives back in an "ordinary" world.

qimissung

05-06-2010, 11:00 PM

I only read this for the first time recently. I don't think it's over-rated, but it may not be to everyone's taste.

At our school (I'm a teacher) it is generally taught to 9th graders, if that gives one an idea of its' level of difficulty. Bradbury can meander on a bit, I've noticed, but I've also noticed that he was way ahead of his time in depicting a society that because of rampant political correctness does not allow its' citizens to read. The effects on society are apparent and devastating. Montag's wife, Mildred, has just committed suicide when she makes her first appearance in the book. She spends her days "talking to the walls," basically watching T.V., a sort of uber, interactive T.V. at that, which is highly suggestive of today's reality T.V.

So I find it quite powerful, but it is not a big book. It is a small book that packs a mighty punch.

mikey_hicks

05-06-2010, 11:13 PM

I believe Bradbury is trying to show how the world will become in the future if the majority of peoploe in the world stop asking questions. The society of Fahrenheit 451 is all about nothing. If any questions ARE asked they are about what not why. The end result is a big:party: where nothing really happens, and people just fell like they are having fun. Bradbury is warning that if the world is prevented from things like books, which offer different points of view, people will stop wondering why things are the way they are, and everyone will live meaningless hollow lives with no real feelings.

mastermind777

05-07-2010, 01:00 AM

I believe the theme in Ray Bradbury's novel is censorship. In the society that Montag lives in, books are not allowed. If a book is found, it is burned. In this society, everything is mechanical. Instead of reading books, people watch television and listen to radio. Since this novel is a dystopian novel, everyone in the society believe that they are living in a perfect society. The government does not want the people in the society to read books and gain knowledge from it. Gaining knowledge from books might cause conflicts to the society and cause the society to believe that it is not a perfect society. I believe that Bradbury is trying to express the importance of books and how people should not only gain knowledge from technology, but also from books.

Actually, Bradbury's intent in writing this novel was never about censorship. He has stated in interviews that the theme of Fahrenheit 451 is society's increasing disinterest in books and television's effect on the decrease of reading and pursuit of knowledge. The hedonistic society of Fahrenheit 451 was never censored by the government at all- they willingly gave up books themselves, prompting the government to comply with majority opinion and follow the people's whims. Pressure for political correctness also led books to be stripped away until they became meaningless. People chose to stop thinking, and the government simply used this to divert attention away from their inefficiency and problems. Beatty tells Montag that "it didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank god [...] If the government is inefficient, topheavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it." (Bradbury 58-61). The government didn't establish the firemen until after the people gave up books.

Bradbury firmly says that "Fahrenheit 451 is not [...] a story about government censorship [...] it is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature" (http://www.laweekly.com/2007-05-31/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted/)- in fact, Ray Bradbury once walked out of a lecture at U.C.L.A when the students there insisted that the book was about censorship.

Here's a video from one of his interviews: Ray Bradbury on Censorship/Television (http://www.raybradbury.com/images/video/about_freeDOM.html)

spookymulder93

05-07-2010, 01:35 AM

This is one of the best books I've ever read. Short and to the point, with a powerful message. Sucks you don't feel the same way.

triplejoy

05-07-2010, 06:40 AM

In the novel, illiteracy was due to dejure customs, or by law. They could not read because the government told them not to. In our world today, many people are illiterate. Some people even choose not to have an education at all, a phrase we would call defacto illiteracy. Defacto means by choice, and some people in our world choose to turn on the television instead of picking up a book. Our society is becoming more dependent on machines. Television sets are on for what seems like forever in many places. If people only stared at that empty screen for a little while and took the remaining time reading, playing, or learning a new thing, we would have a healthier world. I think that Bradbury was trying to show how we could end up if the reading of books diminished in our society. Of course, this is a very extreme example, but it proves the point that knowledge is like fire; it gives people power.:troll:

kelby_lake

05-07-2010, 10:05 AM

It's enjoyable but no-one's touting it as high literature. I'd say its rating is just about right.

Desolation

05-07-2010, 11:33 AM

DarkKokiri

05-07-2010, 01:11 PM

I think Ray Bradbury is warning us about technology takeing over our lives

mastermind777

05-07-2010, 06:36 PM

In the novel, illiteracy was due to dejure customs, or by law. They could not read because the government told them not to. In our world today, many people are illiterate. Some people even choose not to have an education at all, a phrase we would call defacto illiteracy. Defacto means by choice, and some people in our world choose to turn on the television instead of picking up a book.

Close- "de jure" means "of law", but "de facto" means "of fact." This means that "de jure" refers to official status, while "de facto" refers to a more unofficial status.

I think Ray Bradbury is warning us about technology takeing over our lives

Like what I said, but more succint.

...how quickly this is abandoned... Now that extra credit time has passed, discussion suddenly dries up? Not surprising, but we did have a good discussion going...

mhamley

05-12-2010, 08:46 AM

...how quickly this is abandoned... Now that extra credit time has passed, discussion suddenly dries up? Not surprising, but we did have a good discussion going...

Well we are finished reading and discussing the novel in class. While I think it is a worthwhile read, it certainly isn't one that we can discuss indefinitely.

E.Kim7

05-09-2011, 09:12 PM

disregard.

illuminate

05-10-2011, 05:57 PM

I agree that Clarisse is somewhat of a mentor for Montag, but I think that Faber fits the role better where as Clarisse fits the role as the "call to action" character.

I completely agree with what Cheesywalrus said about Faber being the mentor, and Clarisse being the "call-to-action" character. On the archetypes handout we received in the beginning of the year, the mentor is described as a teacher to the hero that is usually old and wise. Using these descriptions, Faber fits the mentor role more than Clarisse. Clarisse is more like the stimulant for Montag. She gets him thinking with her ideas and her outlook on society. Moreover, she aids the characterization of Montag by breaking his facade of happiness, and implanting her ideas in Montag "it seemed a much younger voice was speaking for him. He opened his mouth and it was Clarisse McClellan [speaking]" (Bradbury 34). Clarisse prompts Montag to question; on the other hand, Faber prompts Montag into action using the electronic radio transmission which allows Faber to find weaknesses of the dystopian societies. Being the mentor, Faber has to teach Montag everything about the society and literature "'I need you to teach me.' 'All right, all right'" (Bradbury 88). Although Faber is a coward, per se, being a coward did not restrict him in telling Montag all about books and plans to resist the dystopian society. Faber also experiences a change-of-heart from being a coward to becoming courageous. If Faber was a coward, he would have never allowed Montag to enter his house because the Mechanical Hound registered Montag's scent.

In the novel, illiteracy was due to dejure customs, or by law. They could not read because the government told them not to. In our world today, many people are illiterate. Some people even choose not to have an education at all, a phrase we would call defacto illiteracy. Defacto means by choice, and some people in our world choose to turn on the television instead of picking up a book.

In Fahrenheit 451, illiteracy was actually due to defacto customs. People were illiterate because they chose not to have an education, "[Illiteracy] didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick ... Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal." (Bradbury 58). People who were literate had an unfair advantage over those who were illiterate. By burning all books, there were no unfair advantages, and all were made equal. This also points to a dystopian society like the one depicted in "Harrison Bergeron" where people are handicapped because some have an 'unfair' advantage over others.

Question:
Why did Beatty want to die?
Montag reflects on the murder of Beatty and notices this. Why is this?

Any other themes or symbols Ray Bradbury puts in the novel?

illuminate

05-14-2011, 08:04 PM

I thought that the first 30 pages were amazing...And then it just kind of teeters out from there. I especially thought the end scene, with the river and the people who memorized certain books, was really weak.

Bradbury's commentary on it, saying that it's not about censorship or anything like that, also kind of ruined the book for me.

I kindly disagree with your opinion of Fahrenheit 451. The book, in my opinion, is fantastic throughout all 3 parts. The dystopian society in Fahrenheit is a quite accurate telling of what our society may come to be in the future. Today, technology is dominant over literature, and as technology advances, the hours we spend using the technology increases. In many studies, it is shown that the hours spent watching television is increasing drastically each year. In Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury illustrates a year in the future in which the time spent watching television dominates over all other activities.

The end was actually very strong in my opinion. The river scene symbolizes Montag's baptism. Montag leaves the dystopian society and experiences a "death and rebirth" while floating down the river "Now here was only the cold river and Montag floating in a sudden peacefulness, away from the city and the lights and the chase, away from everything" (Bradbury 140). While floating down the river, Montag realizes the beauty of nature, and his outlook on burning and fire changes. Once Montag reaches land, he notices the natural fire. It is the fire that warms people, the hearth fire; the fire Prometheus gave humans to survive the predatory world in ancient times.

Bradbury never intended Fahrenheit 451 to be about censorship; rather, he intended it to be on the fact that, as we become more technology-dependent, the time we spend reading books decreases. Censorship usually involves the government only allowing the society to have a narrow perspective on everything, but Bradbury explicitly states that, "There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship to start with, no! Technology mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick!" (Bradbury 58). This emphasizes the fact that the government did not force society to stop reading; instead, people in the society forced it upon themselves to stop reading because of their laziness and inability to appreciate nature. Books are made from paper, paper is made from trees, and trees are a part of nature. In the dystopian society, nature is not appreciated and those who appreciate nature like Clarisse McClellan, are immediately thrown out of society as social outcasts.

english...2011

05-16-2011, 09:52 PM

Bradbury includes many biblocal allusions in Farenheit 451. In part three the river scene shocked me with the depths of its symbolism.

In the begining of part three Montag is speaking to Faber when he tells him of "how it was only the other night everything was fine and the next thing i know I'm drowning" (Bradbury 131). Montag is no longer accepted in his society. Then while while running from the firemen he jumps into the river. Instead of drowning in the river in a way he is baptized. "The river [moves] him to shore", which represents his new rebirth (Bradbury 141).

The river symbolizes the rebirth of Montag. He is no longer a mindless Dentrifice listener but an Book of Ecclesistes historian.

The archetype of death and rebirth and the cycle that make them up are shown throuhgout the entire book. Montags goes through his own cycle of rebirth with the use of the rivers baptization. However, the archetype appears again and again in the novel.
The entire city goes through the cycle. When the atomic bomb is dropped on the city the book club hobos are ready to rebuild; not just the city but society as a whole.
The phoenix is a major symbol of this cycle in the novel. At the end of the novel bradbury talks of "the silly damn bird called a phoenix" that builds its own fire to jump into (Bradbury 163). He is saying that society keeps repeating the cycle and its people who have to "stop making the goddamn funeral pyers and jumping in the middle of them" (Bradbury 163).

The death and rebirth archetype appears repeatedly in this novel, which gives the novel a since of hope for a better future.
**************************************************
Another commonly debated aspect of Farenheit 451, is wether Beatty truly wanted to die.
The truth is I have no idea but i do want to add that when Montag says "Beatty had wanted to die" after killing him, Montag may just have been making excuses for himself (Bradbury 122).
Now wether Beatty deserved to die is a completely different conversation...
(too phylosophical for me)

Question: Did Clarisse really need to die to make the book more signifigant or would the book just have been too long if she had escaped with Montag?? :seeya:

L€lä RËmØ MÅðçÂ

05-16-2011, 09:54 PM

Why this book so darn popular?

english...2011

05-16-2011, 09:59 PM

Required 9th grade IB English...
I agree.

L€lä RËmØ MÅðçÂ

05-16-2011, 10:02 PM

Oh, no wonder. Never got to 9th grade yet. Still in Middle School

cricketernikhil

05-16-2011, 10:22 PM

What are some examples of dehumanization in the society of Fahrenheit 451?

syed12

05-16-2011, 10:31 PM

"I can't talk to walls because they're yelling at me. I cant talk to my wife; she listens to the walls. I just want someone to hear to hear what i have to say"(Bradbury 82).

this shows dehumanization because it shows Montag is so desperate he expects walls to listen and reply to him and also that he cannot have a descent conversation with his wife instead he has to go to a random guy who he does not even know and met for the first time to have a conversation.

illuminate

05-17-2011, 06:22 PM

Why this book so darn popular?

It's a good book... Why else?

tiger12

05-17-2011, 07:46 PM

What is significant about the following passage from the story (What dystopian characteristic is being shown)

"City looks like a heap of baking powder. Its gone." And a long time after that : "I wonder how many knew it was coming? I wonder how many were surprised" (Bradbury 162).

"I can't talk to walls because they're yelling at me. I cant talk to my wife; she listens to the walls. I just want someone to hear to hear what i have to say"(Bradbury 82).

this shows dehumanization because it shows Montag is so desperate he expects walls to listen and reply to him and also that he cannot have a decent conversation with his wife instead he has to go to a random guy who he does not even know and met for the first time to have a conversation.

Feel free to add other examples of dehumanization from the book.

english9

05-17-2011, 07:59 PM

When Granger says thet the "city looks like a heap of baking powder" (Bradbury 162) it is an example of a simile. Granger compares the two because of the devastating effect the bomb has on the city. A dystopian characteristic shown when Granger says, "I wonder how many knew it was coming? I wonder how many were surprised?" (Bradbury 162) is how much the independent thinking of the people in Montag's society is controlled by the government. People would not have seen this coming because the government did not want them to think of the bombing as a possibility. If the people thought this was coming, it would show a lack of faith in the security provided by the government. The people in this society would not have been surprised because of the short amount of time they had to be surprised. Their independent thinking process is already slow because of the government, which would leave them an insufficient amount of time to be surprised by the bomb.

tiger12

05-17-2011, 08:01 PM

i also thought that it shows dehumanization because the people are so caught up in what they are doing that they cannot think straight and have no clue what is going on around them. If the society paid more attention to their surroundings rather than being caught up watching TV or just not doing anything they might have noticed the bomb before it came into the city and could have done something to stop it.

XML

05-17-2011, 08:49 PM

I accidentally clicked on a bookmark, and it deleted everything I had typed... so here it comes again.

Question: Did Clarisse really need to die to make the book more signifigant or would the book just have been too long if she had escaped with Montag??

Clarisse is the herald; she exposes Montag to observations such as the dew, the moon, and the rain (9). She implements into Montag alien aspects of nature, and Montag realizes how unhappy he really is compared to her bright and colorful life. Clarisse is different from everyone else, and Montag notices that she was the most sane person he was ever met. Clarisse makes Montag become aware of how his life with Midred and as a fireman is (ironically) cold and lifeless. Montag believes that he can be like Clarisse if he reads books and digest the magical substance of sustenance that can bring about a happier, more satisfying life.

Clarisse's death provides the reader evidence of society's control over the lives of the civilians. Her death shows the dystopian aspect of ridding anyone who poses a threat to its restrictions and oppressions. With Clarisse gone, Montag, more than ever, begins a "pursuit of happiness" by reading books and seeking advice from Faber. When Montag keeps Clarisse in his mind when he does things and tries to convince himself that Clarisse has done that too, is shows how Clarisse is such a motivation for Montag to keep searching for happiness and an unrestricted society.

If Clarisse does not die, then the whole story would change. Let's say that she survives. Then Montag would not have gotten the amount of motivation to keep fighting for Clarisse's beliefs (and later his own when he is more able to think on his own). It is definitely possible that Clarisse would have kept on teaching Montag. Then Montag would not have needed to visit Faber to seek guidance since he has Clarisse. Thus, the whole story would have changed dramatically. In addition, Clarisse and Montag could have gotten together to form a resistance group against the government and society. Although, this could still end in the formation of a new society, it deletes the archetype of death of rebirth/resurrection of Montag. Montag would not have been baptized in the river, would not have found the natural world, and would not have discovered the other uses of fire on his own. Fahrenheit 451 is a novel of self-examination and resurrection for Montag and the dystopian society, and if Clarisse had died, it could possibly erase Montag's rebirth as a new man.

asthashna

05-17-2011, 10:02 PM

I think Ray Bradbury is warning us about technology takeing over our lives

I agree completely. Bradbury is trying to warn us about the future of technology taking over our lives. When Bradbury was writing this book he was not in an environment that revolved around technology. He did not have everything that an author usually has to reference his work on. He was thinking this completely in his head. Bradbury’s warnings are also very ironic. The people in his time period were not used to such a novel that would be so into the future and so Bradbury thinking up a novel like Fahrenheit 451 was remarkable to most people of his time period
There are many incidents in the book that show the technology taking over our lives. The television screens are an example. Mildred is so attached to her fake television “family” (Bradbury 49) that she does not care for her real family, Montag. When Montag is sick she does not try to help him feel better. Instead she just goes into the parlor, which is what the television room is known as, and stays with the family. Another good example would be the machine used to pump the pills out of Mildred’s stomach. The machine is doing what a doctor can do. This shows how the people are not needed in the society. The machines can perform the tasks of humans more efficiently and accurately.
Ray Bradbury is trying to warn us about the technology taking over and his book still continues to warn us about our future.

Extracredit

05-17-2011, 11:35 PM

"We burnt an old woman with her books" (bradbury 49).

When that scene happened, Montag was effected greatly. His eyes opened and like a message in his brain told him that if a woman is ready to give up her life for books, these books must have something important in them. After this, he realized that its time to figure what is so good about these books and after reading some, he decides to fight for them.

Mildred is comparing the parlor to her family which represents a metaphor. Metaphor is comparing two things without using like and as. Mildred is so attached to her family that the person that is really her family is not much of a big deal in her life. Montag has a wife, but feels very lonely because his wife cares so much about her family that she can not even talk to. This is really important because this society is choosing what and who is more important. Mildred chose her parlor over her real family which is her husband.

deguonis

05-18-2011, 12:01 AM

I've read it. It's just good. I think it's not a masterpiece whatsoever. "The Secret of the Creek", by Victor Bridges, although it's not as famous it's a much better book.

am.extracredit

05-18-2011, 09:23 AM

Fahrenheit 451 is a great book it contains many literary devices such as the sieve and the sand.

bucs58

05-18-2011, 09:39 AM

:party:

h.shultz

05-18-2011, 10:02 AM

"Welcome back from the dead" (150).

After the search for him is over and society is told that Montag has been captured and killed, the intellectuals welcome him "back from the dead." Montag now has a new perspective on society and thinking. The average citizen in this dystopian society is as good as dead. They do not think for themselves and have no individuality.

aliengirl

05-18-2011, 11:17 AM

It seems that I'm one of the very few members here who have not read this book. I'll sure read it at the first opportunity. But why should we have no less than five different threads on it in the same sub-forum?

bucs14

05-18-2011, 02:05 PM

campchamp

05-18-2011, 05:47 PM

What is the significance of Montag's thought when "He burnt the bedroom walls and the cosmetics chest because he wanted to change everything[...] that showed that he lived here in this empty house with the strange women who would forget him tomorrow, who had gone and quite forgotten him already.[...] and as before, it was good to burn, he felt himself gush out in the fire, snatch, rend, rip, in half with flame, and put away the senseless problem.[...] Fire was best for everything!" (Bradbury 116)? What literary element does this quote show?

english9

05-18-2011, 05:47 PM

The people in Montag's society did not think about the bom, but Montag did. After the bomb, Montag asks himself, "How many other cities dead? And here in our country, how many?" (Bradbury 162). The fact that Montag thinks about the situation shows how much he has changed and how different he is from the simple minded people of his original society.

In what way is Fahrenheit 451 different from other books regarding the symbolic archetype fire versus ice?

erinF451

05-18-2011, 05:58 PM

"He felt like a man who had been thrown from a cliff, whirled in a centrifuge, and spat out over a waterfall that fell and fell into emptiness and emptiness and never-quite-touched-bottom-never-never-quite-no not quite-touched-bottom . . . and you fell so fast you didn't touch the sides either . . . never . . . quite . . . touched . . . anything." (Bradbury 49)

This example explains how Montag realizes that everyone in his society is falling through life. The people in Montag's society fell off a cliff when they were born and have been falling their whole life. Everyone has been falling except for Clarisse. Clarisse has meaning to her life. Clarisse is happy. The people in Montag's society are going through life restricted. They have no worth on earth. They do not get to feel how living a real life feels because they are not allowed to touch the sides. The people that touch the sides of the waterfall die in this society. Montag realizes that he wants to touch the sides and live life and be happy. He wants to change the world and hopefully, one day, allow people to touch the sides and live, too.

campchamp

05-18-2011, 06:43 PM

The portrayal of fire is quite ironic in Fahrenheit 451. It is ironic because fire is portrayed as being destructive and dangerous. It is used for evil and not for good. In most novels, fire stands for power or good, and ice is suppose to be a symbol for evil! For example, Beatty tells Montag that "fire will lift you off my shoulders, clean, quick, sure;nothing to rot later" (Bradbury 115). But as the story progresses, the view of fire is no longer destruction but instead warmth. One example of this would be when Montag states that the fire "was no longer burning. It was warming" (Bradbury 145). So, the view of fire changes as Montag escapes the grips of the book burning society.

96cmt

05-18-2011, 06:49 PM

english101

05-18-2011, 06:49 PM

Generally fire is depicted as knowledge and rebirth but during the beginning of the novel it is a "pleasure to burn" (Bradbury 3). Later, after Montag's transformation, Montag realizes that fire can be both healing and brings rebirth just as a phoenix does

english9

05-18-2011, 06:51 PM

When Montag starts to burn the house down, he forgets why he is burning it. It is a familiar feeling to him to take pleasure in burning down houses, so pleasure is what he feels as he burns his own house down. It is ironic because it is Montag's job to stop the type of crime that he committed.

campchamp

05-18-2011, 06:55 PM

What is one main event in Fahrenheit 451 that had a role in helping Montag realize that books need to be brought back? Why is this event so significant to him?

english9

05-18-2011, 07:03 PM

Towards the middle of Part 1, Montag finds out that Clarisse is dead. Montag gets angry and asks Mildred, "'Why didn't you tell me sooner,' and Mildred responds,'I forgot'"(Bradbury 47).
This is an example of dehumanization, because normally people would care if their next door neighbor was killed, but in this society technology has become such a major part of everyone's life that no one has any idea of what is really going on. Mildred does not show any sorrow towards Clarisse's death, but Montag is effected deeply. Mildred not caring is dehumanization of herself and the society.

An example of dehumanization inFahrenheit 451 is when Mildred shrugs off the death of Clarisse. She forgets to tell Montag for four days and when Montag brings it up again, Mildred says, "She's dead. Let's talk about someone alive, for goodness' sake" (Bradbury 72). Mildred's lack of interest in Clarisse's death shows that death for new people in the society might be common if they are too different from the rest of the society.

96cmt

05-18-2011, 07:06 PM

campchamp

05-18-2011, 07:07 PM

Why does Montag say that "Beatty wanted to die" (Bradbury 122)? Did Beatty actually want die, or is Montag just saying this because he feels guilty? If so,why would Beatty want to die?

english101

05-18-2011, 07:12 PM

One main event is the scene with the old lady wants to stay with the books even when the house was going to be burned. "The women on the porch [...]struck the kitchen math against the railing,"(Bradbury 40) and went down with her house. This event is so significant, because he starts to wonder what it it about books that would make a person want to die instead of living without them.

english9

05-18-2011, 07:12 PM

One main event is when Clarisse asks Montag, "Are you happy?" (Bradbury 10). At first, Montag thinks it is a silly question. He later realizes that he is unhappy, which helps push him to take action to bring books back into the world. A combination of this feeling of unhapiness, the death of Clarisse, and the death of the woman in the burning house all help push Montag to take action to bring books back into society.

english101

05-18-2011, 07:17 PM

Montag believes that Beatty wanted to die. Montag believes this because " he [Beatty] just stood there, not really trying to save himself, just stood there joking, needling," (Bradbury 122) and just kept trying to push Montag

campchamp

05-18-2011, 07:17 PM

Another example of dehumanization is how Mrs. Bowles says that she kicks her own children when Mildred says to "give[...][the dog] a kick for me" (Bradbury 77). This shows dehumanization because people do not usually kick their children or dogs for almost no reason. It is not human for parents to kick their kids or for people to randomly kick dogs that come to the doorstep.

Do you think that getting rid of books was the right thing for the people to do? Was it wrong for the people to get rid of the books in the first place? Would you want to live in a society that was the same as the one described in Fahrenheit 451?

What symbols are being used in Fahrenheit 451? What do they symbolize, and what is the significance of adding these symbols?

F451hhsfc

05-18-2011, 07:48 PM

Why is it important that Clarisse asks Montag "are you happy" (Bradbury 10)? How does this relate to Montag decision to meet Faber?

english101

05-18-2011, 08:08 PM

It is important that Clarisse asks Montag if he is happy, because it is a major event that makes him start to question whether or not what the society is doing is good or bad. This relates to Montag's decision to meet with Faber because Montag sensed that something was wrong in the society and wanted to know how books could make him or the society better

brblol

05-18-2011, 08:10 PM

how does captain beatty give hints throughout the entire novel that he suspects montag of possessing book? Also what does cpatain beatty mean by when he comes to montag house to lecture him and says "we're the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you amd I and the others' (Bradnury 60)?

tiger12

05-18-2011, 08:17 PM

Also when he sees the hobos warming their hands with fire Montag realizes that fire not only takes but can also give which in this case is warmth.

campchamp

05-18-2011, 08:27 PM

The quote shows a metaphor that compares the firemen to the Happiness Boys and the Dixie Duo. He is saying that the purpose of the firemen is too keep people happy. That their jobs is to get rid of the books, so that people will remain happy.

tiger12

05-18-2011, 08:28 PM

An event would be when he realizes that Clarisse is dead, it isn't till Clarisse dies that Montag starts to look for happiness in his life. Once Clarisse dies Montag realizes that "Clarisse's favorite subject wasn't herself. It was everyone else, and me" (Bradbury 72).

Water is used as a symbol for baptism and death/rebirth. By adding this symbol the author is able to portray Montag as a new individual when he comes out of the water. Once out of the water Montag realizes that fire "could give as well as take" (Bradbury 146).

XML

05-18-2011, 09:09 PM

During a class discussion I realized an important archetype at the end of the novel. In Part three, Montag jumps into the river, which saves him from the Mechanical Hound and the searching helicopters. Montag is symbolically "baptized" and becomes a whole new person; he throws away his fireman clothes, representing forgiveness for his past sins as a fireman, and washes onto shore into a world of nature. I thought that the river was something like a portal from the mechanistic world into the natural world, from the world of death into the world of life, from earth into heaven...

I just now (yes, just this instance) also made a connection to Greek mythology. This river is just like the River Styx! The River Styx connects/separates the physical world to/from the Underworld... Exposure to it makes you invincible (like Achilles), and it serves as a passageway to a new world through death. Similarly, Montag is protected from his enemies in the river; his baptism signifies his resurrection as a new person; he travels to a haven from the wilderness of the dystopian society; he dies as a fireman and is reborn as a reader with knowledge ("knowledge is power").

Furthermore, as Montag walks in this bright world, he observes the destruction of this nebulous war and the death of the city where once he had lived... Yet, he is not at all harmed in any way. This was the thing I realized... the archetype of Heaven vs. Hell. Through the river, Montag dies; he is then forgiven for his sins and is saved; his salvation transports him to Heaven and he is free from all sins. He watches as the world is being destroyed and plans to find a new city among the ruins and rebuild a better world.

I thought this was indeed very biblical: it heavily follows the plan of God in the book of Revelation (actually mentioned in Fahrenheit 451) to destroy the present world and rebuild a new one. Montag and the intellectuals are to keep going until they "reach the city." There, everything will be rebuilt, everyone will live happily, and the new world will be a place where knowledge is sought after without the distractions and oppressions of technology....

english101

05-18-2011, 09:43 PM

the phoenix is also used asa symbol of death and rebirth. With this symbol in the book, the reader is able to see how Montag transformation and how different he truly becomes

illuminate

05-18-2011, 09:55 PM

"'Are you happy?' she said. 'Am I what?' He cried. But then she was gone-running in the moonlight. Her front door shut gently." (Bradbury 10)
This is the first scene where Montag meets Clarisse.in this scene the reader gets a good look at both of the characters and sees that the two are complete opposites. Montag is a fireman, and is feared by almost anyone that has books or thinks differently in the world. Clarisse on the other hand is this fearless outspoken seventeen year old girl who is curious about everything. Clarisse is the first person that seems to get Montag thinking differently about the world, and while that conversation is fresh in his mind he walks into his house only to find his wife has attempted suicide.

Clarisse is also the first person to question Montag's inner happiness. In the dystopian society, the citizens have an external mask of happiness that covers all the sorrow locked deep within themselves. When people's masks are ripped from their face, they turn to suicide like Mildred and all the other suicide victims. Clarisse, with her noticing eyes, immediately sees through Montag's facade which symbolizes the call-to-adventure archetype of Montag's journey. Clarisse is not the only one who takes away people's masks, books can just as easily break the masks; for example, when Montag read "Dover Beach" Mrs. Phelps immediately started crying. This points to the power books really contain.

"Welcome back from the dead" (150).

After the search for him is over and society is told that Montag has been captured and killed, the intellectuals welcome him "back from the dead." Montag now has a new perspective on society and thinking. The average citizen in this dystopian society is as good as dead. They do not think for themselves and have no individuality.

This also refers to the "death and rebirth" and baptism of Montag. The manhunt also ends around this time, and according to the television, "Montag" dies from the mechanical hound which also aids the whole death and rebirth archetype. Once Montag experiences the baptism from the river, he immediately has a different outlook on fire and nature. He sees the hearth fire for the first time, and convinces himself that he will stop burning since the sun will never stop. His former fireman self died, and his new nature-loving self revived.

Squints1

05-18-2011, 10:24 PM

Also, because everyone in the city is not very educated and really just plain stupid, they probably did not really know what bombs are capable of and how it could destroy them. Most likely, the townspeople heard the bombs whistle on their drop to destroy the town, and they thought it was on television.

Another event is when Montag finally gets to learn how to comprehend books. This is when he talks to Faber. Faber tells him that "it's not books that you need, it's some of the things that once were in books" (Bradbury 82). Faber then teaches Montag what books have and what he needs to understand them.

Venerable Bede

05-18-2011, 10:35 PM

Seriously, why are there so many freaking threads about Fahrenheit 451? Can't you just post in the same thread?

Squints1

05-18-2011, 10:37 PM

Fire in this novel is also involved in many symbols such as the hearth and the phoenix. Fire is also used to show power, destruction, and sometimes fear. Firemen used to be used for good and helping homes from being destroyed, but now they are used to destroy houses. Fire helps show how the society has changed so much into a true dystopian society.

tiger15

05-18-2011, 11:02 PM

People asked Bradbury to change his characters and the way he portrayed them. Should he have changed them?

These symbols mentioned above are great examples. Also dont forget the salamander being a symbol of an firetruck and its coloration being part of the reason its a symbol. The title page also is symbolizing the hearth and its lack of being the center of homes.

tiger12

05-18-2011, 11:07 PM

I believe he should not change the character or the way he portrays them because making changes to the characters can cause the meaning of the whole book to change. like without Clarisse Montag would never have gotten the Call To Adventure and would go on with his everyday life and would still have the "pleasure to burn" (Bradbury 3).

tiger15

05-18-2011, 11:11 PM

It is also important in that she is showing her uniqueness over all other people and open up the eyes to deeper thought questions to Montag. This questions all of the things Montag has learned growing up. This makes him want to visit Faber and find the deeper meaning of things and what books really mean

campchamp

05-18-2011, 11:12 PM

It is important that Clarisse asks Montag whether he is happy or not because it helps Montag realize that "he was not happy. He was not happy" (Bradbury 12). This helps him realize that he was not happy, and that the only thing that was "gone was the books [Montag] burned in ten or twelve years" (Bradbury 82). He realizes that the people "have everything [they] need to be happy, but we aren't happy" (Bradbury 82). This influences Montag to go visit Faber, so that he will be able to find out the things that book have that cannot be found elsewhere. He wants to know whether books can bring happiness or not.

tiger15

05-18-2011, 11:15 PM

Especially because they are informed of a war recently they cant STOP a bomb! This is placed in the story so Bradbury can justify archetypes like death and rebirth. Not to signify the war

Exactly. Good quote. Also Bradbury would have killed his dystopian characteristics. The characterization was done perfectly to display what he believes our future society would look like in the future. The innocent dying and the followers living. This is realistic to the society.

illuminate

05-18-2011, 11:58 PM

" Well," said Beatty, "now you did it. Old Montag wanted to fly near the sun and now that he's burnt his damn wings, he wonders why. Didn't I hint enough when I sent the Hound around your place?!" (Bradbury 113) Beatty is saying that Montag wanted to be different and because of him being different he is now in trouble and there is nothing he can do. He already gave him a warning by sending the hound, and because he did not get rid of the books he is now in more trouble than he could imagine.

This quote also is an allusion to the Greek Myth of Icarus and Daedalus. Icarus gets distracted by the bird, and flies too high where the sun melts the wax off his wings causing Icarus to fall and drown. Montag got too curious which leads to him reading the forbidden books (curiosity killed the cat).
Ray Bradbury actually uses a lot of references to shakespeare and greek mythology through Faber and Beatty. I guess Bradbury is trying to portray the internal conflict of Montag to believe in Beatty or Faber. Montag is very easily manipulated, and he even says that he might go back to being a fireman.

ribbet

05-19-2011, 12:06 AM

I think it was wrong to get rid of the books in the first place, because they would be missing so many important documents. All of the history would be altered and changed to the way that the director or film maker would want it to be, more exciting. Books have the straight up facts, and they don't try to spice them up (if you've ever read a history book, you know what I'm talking about). Montag realizes that something is wrong with the way that they are living, and since "the only thing [Montag] positively knew was gone was the books [...] books might help" (Bradbury 82). But, then Faber replies, "The only magic is in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us" (Bradbury 83).

brblol

05-19-2011, 12:13 AM

The hearth is used to symbolize destruction. This shows how dehumanized this society is because usually the hearth symbolizes warmth and comfort.

This passage shows how limited they were to the information they received. They had no idea that the entire city would be flattened out because there was no way for them to find out. Any possible source of information is illegal and the citizens have been taught that their parlor walls will give them everything they need and would ever want.

No, Ray Bradbury did the right thing by not changing the book to suit the other people's taste. Changing the book would be like burning it. Like Ray Bradbury said "There is more than way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches" (Bradbury 176).

campchamp

05-19-2011, 12:35 AM

Ray Bradbury should not change his characters because they are very useful in the plot and in describing the dystopian society. For example, without Mildred, some of the basic aspects of the dystopian society would not be shown. Then, without Clarisse, Montag would never have noticed how unhappy he is and how bad society has turned out be. So you see, the characters play a big role in this book, and they should not be changed!

wareagle1796

05-19-2011, 01:34 AM

Bradbury did the correct thing in keeping the way he portrays his Characters the same. If he made his characters the way the audience wanted him to, this book would not have taken place in a dystopian society. It would probably be a perfect world, a Utopia. Mildred would not be stuck to the TV all day, firemen would be stopping fires, instead of stopping them, etc. This portrayal makes the book much more interesting compared to what it could have been if Bradbury had listened to his critics.

The Sieve and the Sand is also a great symbol in Fahrenheit 451. "Fill this Sieve and You'll get a dime!" (Bradbury 78). This is a task that one a cousin of Montag asked him to do as a child. Filling a sieve with sand is an impossible task. This relates to the society in the sense that the people will never understand. The sand can be all the wisdom and the sieve can be their brain, no matter how much wisdom is thrown at them, they will never understand what is really important in life. For example, Mildred knows nothing other than the TV that she watches all day in her house. This symbol is an example of why the government has complete control of the society and nobody has been able to do anything about it.

stlukesguild

05-19-2011, 02:08 AM

mal4mac

05-19-2011, 06:58 AM

Answering the kid's questions directly is as bad as burning the book. Encourage the kid to read the book and find the symbols!

kelby_lake

05-19-2011, 07:01 AM

Can we not amalgamate all the threads on Farenheit 451?

TheFifthElement

05-19-2011, 08:33 AM

What are some examples of dehumanization in the society of Fahrenheit 451?

What symbols are being used in Fahrenheit 451? What do they symbolize, and what is the significance of adding these symbols?

What do you think?

Mr.lucifer

05-19-2011, 09:02 AM

Use Sparknotes and stop wasting our time.

IB_KID

05-19-2011, 10:54 AM

"[...] the white and red color, a strange fire because it meant a different thing to him. It was not burning. It was warming (Bradbury 145)"

This part of Montag's journey exemplifies tha fact that he can now interract with fire without it being an element of distruction. Montag has never seen fire as a good, and helpful resource because he has never needed fire in a way other than to do his job. This quote is a large part of Montag's rebirth because fire can now be an ally rather than an enemy. For Montag to be able to fully renew himself he must make friends with the element that was keeping him prisoner throughout the entire novel. Also at the beggining of the novel Montag stated:

"It was a pleasure to burn (Bradbury 3)" this is significant because as the novel progresses (especially in Burning Bright) the reader expiriences a change in the tone of the novel. Bradbury uses this change in tone to emphasize that Montag is 'fully' renewing himself, not parcially but entirely becoming a new and more intelectual person.

englishextra

05-19-2011, 10:54 AM

One that is significant in teaching Montag that books are needed in soceicty to make people. Is when he is talking to Faber and Faber asks Motag why he wonts books so badly Montag says, "I don't know. We have everything we need to be happy, but we aren't happy. Something's missing. i looked around. The only thing i positivly knew was gonewas the books i'd burned in ten or twelve years. So i thought books might help." (Bradbury 82) So montag realizes that with every thing he has the only thing he thinks will bring him happines is missing and that is books. Montag thinks that he can get people to star reading books agin then poelpe will become happy and the cost of a human life will go up and people will start caring about there lives agin and will care if they live or die as long as they have something to bring them happiness.

Desolation

05-19-2011, 01:01 PM

Because the same student (or couple of students) posts under a number of names in an attempt to get the Lit Net regulars to do his or her homework. I feel sorry for the kid struggling with Bradbury... its not like he's Dante or James Joyce.

But, that student appears to be answering all of their own questions...

Venerable Bede

05-19-2011, 01:05 PM

Because the same student (or couple of students) posts under a number of names in an attempt to get the Lit Net regulars to do his or her homework. I feel sorry for the kid struggling with Bradbury... its not like he's Dante or James Joyce.

Yeah, all of the questions they're asking sound like homework assignments. I wonder why the mods haven't started deleting threads yet.

am.extracredit

05-19-2011, 01:24 PM

This is a great book. I love that Ray Bradburry did not intenatly plan on naming Montag after the printing press and Faber after pencils. His book is amazing because not only does he show how society would become without books but how books are easily destroyed without them having to be burn. The fact that society deals with nature vs. technology throughout the book is similar to todays society yes we don't havespider dogs but books are becoming more obsolute due to television and the internet. Montag has to overcome many obstucles and one is his obsiosion with fire but instead of overcoming it he finds a new way to use it for good. For warmth and comfort torwards human beings.

illuminate

05-19-2011, 02:37 PM

Do you think that getting rid of books was the right thing for the people to do? Was it wrong for the people to get rid of the books in the first place? Would you want to live in a society that was the same as the one described in Fahrenheit 451?

I believe it was wrong for the people to get rid of the books. They choose to have a simplistic life of watching television which requires no thought; instead of, reading novel's where one's adventure while reading a novel always differs from the next reader. The people in the society wanted to get rid of books because of their laziness and to be equal. Like Beatty said, that one boy who always answers questions, who always speaks up will be harassed because of the fact he is educated. The society Montag lives in sees books as power not knowledge. All have to be equal under the Constitution, so gradually people stopped reading and those that were harassed would most likely stop reading. I would never want to live in a society like the one in Fahrenheit because of the lack of thought and education throughout the society. I tend to be quite social, and if people only talk about the same things like Clarisse said, the conversations would quickly burn out.

Maybe Beatty wanted to die. In the novel, Montag realizes that Beatty kept harassing him through literature even when Montag had the flamethrower pointed at Beatty's face. In the Afterword it mentions that Beatty himself admitted to loving books at one point in time, until everything went wrong, and the words in the books were nothing but ink to him. This could be his breaking point, in which, he feels guilty for the destruction of all the books he once cherished. Who knows..

That passage definitely has irony to it. After reading the books and finding out what is in them, Montag hates his job of burning books; however, in this passage he enjoyed burning his own house down. But, his actions are justified in a way. He wanted to remodel everything, his former life, all the walls he wanted broken down.
This passage also points to the literary element of foreshadowing. He later murders Beatty (The Problem) using his flamethrower.

I believe Ray Bradbury is referring the walls to the 'parlor' walls which dominate the entirety of the societies' minds. Because Mildred is so dominated by her 'family' in the television walls, Montag can not have a conversation with Mildred. However, Montag knows that Faber is or was a book reader one point in his lifetime from the interaction of the two at the park, so Montag seeks out the only person he knows that treasures books, Faber.

I think a more accurate act of Dehumanization is when Mildred will not turn down the parlor walls for sick Montag. Montag has to ask Mildred many times to get medicine, but Mildred refuses to give him one. His own wife will not take the time to care for her own husband.

Mutatis-Mutandis

05-19-2011, 05:26 PM

Use Sparknotes and stop wasting our time.
I don't think anyone's forcing you to peruse these threads, no?

I wonder why the mods haven't started deleting threads yet.
Why should threads start being deleted? Are they breaking any rules?

Aside from the annoyance of all these threads popping up and being created (I agree, lets just keep it on one thread) I'm not really seeing the problem. I have a theory that some students stumbled on to this site and decided to use it as a discussion area for the book (maybe they aren't getting this in their class), which I see no problem with. Like Desolation said, they seem to be answering their own questions, not begging too much for help from veteran members. I'm sure they were hoping for some, though :lol:.

It would be nice if one of our members would enlighten us, though.

illuminate

05-19-2011, 05:31 PM

Beatty probably became most suspicious when Montag started to interact with Clarisse, and the unending questioning of firemen history and novels. Here are some quotes that portray Beatty's suspicion: When Mildred found the book underneath Montag's pillow she gets excited and asks, "'What's this?' asked Mildred, almost with delight [...] Beatty went on as if nothing had happened"(Bradbury 56). Beatty also becomes suspicious when Montag says, "'just how it would feel. I mean, to have firemen burn our houses and our books.' - 'We Haven't any books.' - 'But if we did have some.' - 'You got some?' Beatty blinked slowly." (Bradbury 34). Montag also uses the phrase once upon a time the opening sentence in many fairy tales in which Beatty quickly replies, "Once upon a time! [...] What kind of talk is that?" (Bradbury 34). Ultimately, Beatty was quite suspicious in the beginning, but waited until the beginning of "Burning Bright" to harass Montag with literature and attempt to arrest him.

It really just emphasizes the hero's journey in our archetypes notes from call-to-adventure to seeking out the Mentor. Clarisse is the call-to-adventure character who, with her noticing eyes, takes away Montag's mask, and places her ideas and unending questions in Montag's brain. After Clarisse dies, Montag has no one to talk to anymore, so he remembers the old man he met in the park a few years ago and pays a visit to him

Sarah_Smith

05-19-2011, 06:35 PM

Beatty himself says that he's "Full of bits and pieces [...] Most fire captains have to be. Sometimes I [Beatty] surprise myself" (Bardbury 40). Also the fact that Beatty continually stresses that book hiding is something normal that all firemen go through suggests that he's done it and can tell when someone, in this case Montag, has done the same.

Venerable Bede

05-19-2011, 06:44 PM

Why should threads start being deleted? Are they breaking any rules?

Because the first page is being overrun with these threads. And they keep creating new ones for every single slightly new thought they have. If everybody did this for their latest read, the forum would become unnavigable.

illuminate

05-19-2011, 09:51 PM

Ray Bradbury talks about how books started to burn first in the novel through minority pressure. "Fahrenheit 451 described how the books were burned first by minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries close forever." (Bradbury 177). "A letter arrived from a solemn young Vassar lady [... asking if it would] be a good idea, this late in time, to rewrite the book inserting more women's characters and roles?" (Bradbury 175). If Bradbury had deleted the former characters and added other characters, wouldn't he be part of the minority group that ripped a part of a book out because it was unappealing to that one group? This goes exactly against what Bradbury warned to the future of in the novel Fahrenheit 451, so I believe he should not delete/add any other characters.

XML

05-20-2011, 12:19 AM

Ah! Stop the censorship! Students have the right and freedom to post whatever they want (within certain limits). If these posts are destroyed, information is lost and can never be fully recovered! Doesn't this sound like a certain book written by Ray Bradbury regarding the lost of knowledge and critical thinking skills in society? Oh that's right! It's this exact novel we're talking about! Given the three components of a happy society provided by Faber (quality, leisure, and freedom), I see that this forum offers a very practical use for the discussion and analysis of this particular novel. I find it very ironic (and thus, dystopian...) that we are being limited in our freedom and choice to think critically and to write down thoughtful observations regarding this book. It's restrictions like this, along with the ignorance of the population, that progresses the world into a dehumanized world of technology and oppressed uniformity.

Fortunately, we have enough sense to acknowledge the restrictions and have resisted against its advancement in progress. It is also ironic that we are using a technological apparatus (the Internet) to discuss the wrongful, quick integration of technology into our daily lives. I guess it just goes to show how this world is full of irony and aspects of an imperfect utopian society. If we are not careful in our everyday senses to continue our advancement as a whole of mankind, we may someday become that world that Ray Bradbury wrote about in his book. People will turn into machines and machines will turn into people... Animals will be the victims of entertaining murders and even the eternal heat of fire will not warm the society....

Then, out of a chaos of fire, an new being is born -- a special man by the name of Guy Montag, who resists the oppressions of society and begins a quest to save the world from its eternal dehumanization and sins. Only a few of us will be that Guy Montag, lifting the burden of all humanity on our shoulders to overcome that unfavorable world. We will join together and we will fight to the DEATH until we succeed. We will then be REBORN as a new nation and we will find a new world in our future path of view and we will rebuild it into the perfect world... Only then will we really be humans, only then will we live as a race of creativity and thoughts and individuality... Only then will we live to be the human race and not the machine race....

With that said, I hope we never go through this proposed stage of our existence. I hope we will recognize our failures before advancing further. And most importantly, I hope we will all learn a lesson that our actions and thoughts DO, very much, determine our outcome, and that we should be not limit our freedom because that is the first step into becoming transformers. (By the way, isn't a new Transformers movie coming out soon?) Anyway, I had a great year with Mrs. Hamley and I hope this posts will get you thinking instead of sitting in front of that TV flipping through all the useless shows that are on tonight. I hope you will open up a book and word by word, sentence by sentence, page by page, you will finish that book. You will let your imagination take you on a journey into a whole new world... a whole different world about the burning and destruction of books...

Thank you and I hope this was worth reading!

musiclover123

05-20-2011, 12:21 AM

I know that imagery was already discussed a little bit in class, but it is one of the main reasons I enjoyed the book. The imagery helped me understand Fahrenheit 451 and the awful dystopian society Guy Montag had to live in.

The cruelty of the socitey is shown alot in Part 3: Burning Bright. One quote that described how cruel the government in this dystopia is when the Hound kills an innocent man just so the public will be at rest. Montag describes what he sees on the intellectuals television, "The camera fell upon the victim, even as did the Hound. Both reached him simultaneously. the victim was seized by Hound and camera in a great spidering, clenching grip. He screamed, he screamed, he screamed!" (Bradbury 148). This passage is very descriptive about the poor man killed by the government.

Another passage that has great imagery is the passage where Montag realizes that he has put his friend Faber in danger with his scent. Montag could feel that, "the sweat of his hand hung from the doorknob, invisible but as numerous as the jewles of a small chandelier, he was a luminous cloud, a ghost that made breathing once moer impossible," (Bradbury 133). This passage gives a good image of how dangerous Montag is, even his scent could get Faber killed by the Hound.

I hope this helped someone else who is reading the novel because I know imagery really helped me!

Venerable Bede

05-20-2011, 01:03 AM

Okay, not sure how making you post in one thread instead of ten will turn us all into robots. It hardly restricts your freedom if you have to post in one thread. That is how most people conduct discussions on forums and they don't complain about limited freedom.

Desolation

05-20-2011, 01:21 AM

okay, not sure how making you post in one thread instead of ten will turn us all into robots. It hardly restricts your freedom if you have to post in one thread. That is how most people conduct discussions on forums and they don't complain about limited freedom.

Fascist!!!

XML

05-20-2011, 01:27 AM

Mr.lucifer

05-20-2011, 02:56 AM

I think someone is putting on a sockpuppet show for us. Bradbury is a good and imigative writer, but theres many other thought provoking writers out there. You should give them a try.

You might like this since you're a bradbury fan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1IxOS4VzKM

Mutatis-Mutandis

05-20-2011, 09:10 AM

Anyway, I had a great year with Mrs. Hamley
Who is Mrs. Hamley?

Seriously, will one of you let us in on the situation? Are you high schoolers? What grade? Where are you from?

Venerable Bede

05-20-2011, 01:28 PM

Anyway, alot of the threads seem to be gone, so I'm happy :).

Fascist!!!

:devil:

XML

05-21-2011, 11:30 PM

Anyway, alot of the threads seem to be gone, so I'm happy :).

This just continues to show that you are in favor of the destruction of information for the general society. You support less availability of knowledge and thoughtful inputs to the population, and you try to restrict our freedom to express our opinions.

This also shows that you are very much a hypocrite in your reasoning skills. You had previously said that the forum was filled with too many different threads and that they should all be combined into one thread. Now you tell us that you are happy just because no one has continued to post anything, yet the threads that you thought were superfluous were not at all deleted. Thus, your reasoning does not, at all, stick to your claim. This irony can now be used to exemplify all the censorship and propaganda in the society, reasonable or not, to try to control the population. And if no one sees this irony or hypocrisy, the society will soon be machines under the direction of a totalitarian iconic figurehead or government, and life, as we know it, will become an essence of the past.

Therefore, Ray Bradbury tries to warn us, through his book, the terrible consequences of ignorance and the death of life in the society through this ignorance.

erinF451

05-22-2011, 12:19 PM

"'But Clarisse's favorite subject wasn't herself. It was everyone else, and me. She was the first person in a good many years I've really liked. She was the first person I can remember who looked straight at me as if I counted.'" (Bradbury 74)

These sentences show how alone and isolated everyone is in Montag's society. Montag is talking about Clarisse. How she is the only person that has ever actually cared about him. In Montag's society no one cares about anyone else; people just live their lives not feeling anything. Clarisse changed Montag from being like everyone else to being an actual human. People in Montag's society just go through life not really caring about anything. When Mildred acts rude to Montag when he is supposedly is "sick", shows how Mildred cares about no one except herself. This quote shows just how isolated everyone is from everyone else and that no one has feelings for anything or anybody.

erinF451

05-22-2011, 12:37 PM

"'It doesn't matter what you do, he said, so long as you change something from the way it was before you touched it into something that's like you after you take your hands away.'" (Bradbury 158)

This example shows what Granger believes. He believes that you can do whatever you want, but if you do not change the thing to something better, then it is not worth doing. Montag wants to change the world and teach people about books. Like my earlier post about the imprint that Clarisse has left on Montag's heart, this example applies to the same idea. Granger wants to show Montag that if one person affects someone else then that person affects someone else and it turns out to be a chain reaction. Then soon the whole world could be a better place, but there has to be at least one person who is willing to make the first step. Clarisse was that person for Montag. Now Montag wants to show people how great books can be and hopefully imprint on their hearts for years to come.

Mutatis-Mutandis

05-22-2011, 03:19 PM

This just continues to show that you are in favor of the destruction of information for the general society. You support less availability of knowledge and thoughtful inputs to the population, and you try to restrict our freedom to express our opinions.

This also shows that you are very much a hypocrite in your reasoning skills. You had previously said that the forum was filled with too many different threads and that they should all be combined into one thread. Now you tell us that you are happy just because no one has continued to post anything, yet the threads that you thought were superfluous were not at all deleted. Thus, your reasoning does not, at all, stick to your claim. This irony can now be used to exemplify all the censorship and propaganda in the society, reasonable or not, to try to control the population. And if no one sees this irony or hypocrisy, the society will soon be machines under the direction of a totalitarian iconic figurehead or government, and life, as we know it, will become an essence of the past.

Therefore, Ray Bradbury tries to warn us, through his book, the terrible consequences of ignorance and the death of life in the society through this ignorance.
There is nothing hypocritical or ironic in his reasoning. He complained that there were too many threads for Fahrenheit 451 (which there were). Many threads have been deleted, which makes him happy. He didn't say he was happy people were posting less, just that less threads were being made, which is completely in line with his original assertions. So, it's your reasoning that is faulty.

So, get over yourself. You kids were flooding the forum. "Thoughtful inputs"? It's not like you were making any revelatory discoveries on your discussion, just repetitive regurgitations of what's been said before. This isn't one group of people's personal discussion forum, it's for everyone. That one class got on here to discuss there final project or whatever was annoying, and the fact that none of you will explain yourselves is also annoying, and furthermore, rude.

Venerable Bede

05-22-2011, 03:36 PM

This just continues to show that you are in favor of the destruction of information for the general society. You support less availability of knowledge and thoughtful inputs to the population, and you try to restrict our freedom to express our opinions.

I am in no way in favour of restricting the freedom to express opinions. I am, however, in favour of keeping a forum clean from spammers and trolls.

This also shows that you are very much a hypocrite in your reasoning skills. You had previously said that the forum was filled with too many different threads and that they should all be combined into one thread. Now you tell us that you are happy just because no one has continued to post anything, yet the threads that you thought were superfluous were not at all deleted. Thus, your reasoning does not, at all, stick to your claim. This irony can now be used to exemplify all the censorship and propaganda in the society, reasonable or not, to try to control the population. And if no one sees this irony or hypocrisy, the society will soon be machines under the direction of a totalitarian iconic figurehead or government, and life, as we know it, will become an essence of the past.

Actually, I said that that I was happy that the threads were gone, which they are. I don't care if you post to your heart's content about Fahrenheit 451 in this thread. All of your ideas can be freely expressed in this one single thread.

EDIT: I missed MutisMutandi's post so some of what I say overlaps with him. Anyway, props to him.

Mr.lucifer

05-22-2011, 03:54 PM

You do know that bradbury himself said the book was not about censorsip but how television and new techology dumbs down technology?

XML

05-22-2011, 09:52 PM

You do know that bradbury himself said the book was not about censorsip but how television and new techology dumbs down technology?

Do you know what propaganda is? Well, do you agree that propaganda is the spreading of information often through aspects of the media to influence and indoctrinate people? All right, now do you know what censorship is? Do you agree that propaganda censors information in society? Yes, Bradbury is right in that there is NOT a government who enforces censorship in the society. But that advancement in technology, such as TV (which IS a form of propaganda) naturally (no irony intended) creates censorship. The technology lessens the intake of information, which decreases the ability to critically think for one's self. Thus, it can be concisely said that advancement in technology causes the censorship of information in society which ultimately results in a dehumanized population.

Therefore, this book IS about a special kind of censorship, that which is started by the people (not the government), which eventually causes their own fall.

Thoughtful inputs"? It's not like you were making any revelatory discoveries on your discussion.

Now, we are freely expressing discoveries of ourselves (even if such findings are not original). We may not know a certain one who was the first to notice a symbolism or archetype, but we ARE, in our point of view, the first to realize such aspects in our own paths of learning. It doesn't have to be the first time something is truly discovered to have such an impact, just the fact that we have found these wonderful things by ourselves say a lot about our lives as humans: we are able to think on our own and come up with great points of value. We are not controlled by technology or a totalitarian, so we should have freedom to go on any literary journey we'd like and discover, for ourselves, the hidden treasures in a book.

This supports the fact that we are fairly far from that total dystopian world in the book. We are able to think critically. So we should continue to make more discoveries, and write about all the things that we find, so that this valuable ability of thinking would not become extinct. Thus, we should be encouraged to post our findings instead of being told that we are
spammers and trollers.