# Reading > Forum Book Club >  September / Dystoptian Reading: Fahrenheit 451

## Scheherazade

In September, we will be reading Fahrenheit 451.

Please post your thoughts and questions in this thread.

----------


## DocHeart

I read it in my third year at Stirling, which would make it 1995. I *remember* bits, though, they stuck with me. The way some people had chosen to memorize books to pass them onto future generations, so one of them was Plato, the other was Shakespeare, another was Virgil. Also, the medical men that visited the protagonist's wife and simply attached a machine to her which brought her back to life after she had died. And the dogs on the motorway, put there deliberately by the government so that drivers could have fun hitting them.

Blimey. Don't the years go by fast.  :Frown: 

Regards

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I'll be re-reading it in a week or so. Hopefully a good discussion develops.  :Nod:

----------


## Lohena

Hey everyone, hope you don't mind if I join this reading group. I'll order a copy of 451 this weekend and have it shipped so I might be a little late in adding to the discussion.

Paul

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Of course you're welcome, Paul.  :Smile:

----------


## OrphanPip

I finished rereading it today, I'm really not too fond of Bradbury's novels.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Why not?

----------


## OrphanPip

I don't know, there's always an unmistakably pulpish quality to Bradbury's writing. If it didn't take itself so seriously, it might have a bit of a campy fun appeal to it, like a Heilein novel. However, Bradbury never quite gets that, instead you get firemen burning things as a completely serious metaphor. 

Overall, it works fairly well as a sort of light fun old sci-fi novel. It unfortunately lacks the sort of astute social criticism of Brave New World or 1984, instead it is more of a banal complaint about the base nature of the masses and an expression of Luddite fears of modern media. Much of it is also rehashed from A Brave New World with nothing new added to it except for the pulp fiction action elements.

----------


## Dark Muse

> I don't know, there's always an unmistakably pulpish quality to Bradbury's writing. If it didn't take itself so seriously, it might have a bit of a campy fun appeal to it, like a Heilein novel. However, Bradbury never quite gets that, instead you get firemen burning things as a completely serious metaphor.


This is my first time reading the book, and I haven't got that far yet, but I can see where you are coming from there. 

I am enjoying reading the book all in all, and I do like the prose style of it and while on the one hand the irony of a fireman who burns things I thought was interesting, but it is also simplistic and it does seem to lack the more intricate complexity which is usually found in dystopian novels. 

As of right now I really don't have a sense of what is really going on, only bits and pieces are offered to give a glimpse of the world in which the book is set in and a reference to another time when things were different. But I presume as the story progresses it will begin to develop more of just what has issued, and how/why it came about.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> I don't know, there's always an unmistakably pulpish quality to Bradbury's writing. If it didn't take itself so seriously, it might have a bit of a campy fun appeal to it, like a Heilein novel. However, Bradbury never quite gets that, instead you get firemen burning things as a completely serious metaphor. 
> 
> Overall, it works fairly well as a sort of light fun old sci-fi novel. It unfortunately lacks the sort of astute social criticism of Brave New World or 1984, instead it is more of a banal complaint about the base nature of the masses and an expression of Luddite fears of modern media. Much of it is also rehashed from A Brave New World with nothing new added to it except for the pulp fiction action elements.


I get your point, OrphanPip. Personally, I try hard not to directly compare dystopian novels because it always comes down to "author x is doing what y does, but not as good." The two "major players" - BNW and 1984 - are so often compared and I find most of the time a person will prefer the one he/she read first. 

As to Fahrenheit 451 - while it is not as dense in regards to social commentary as others - I really enjoyed it and found that it has a lot to offer in such a small story, told so simply. What I particularly like is that the oppressive rulers are hardly directly present in the story, even though you know they're there. This allows for the focus to to be not "we do what we're told because someone is watching over us and controlling us" but more a reflection on critical thought. 

There are some aspects of the novel that do not hold up well - technology has far surpassed anything the novel envisions - but that being said, particularly in regards to the way books are treated, there is still some excellent points to be taken from the novel. 

And finally - it's fun. I thought it was really fun, and lacked that "constantly beat you over the head with philosophy" that overpowers so many dystopian novels.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I'm really looking forward to re-reading this. Last time I read it, I found the prose to be quite lyrical, but I also read it years ago (before reading 1984 and Brave New World) so maybe some of its originality will be lost for me.

----------


## Paulclem

I'm about half way through, and I agree with the general consensus so far. it doesn't express a lot of ideas about the society and how it got like that. In those terms it is a sinpler tale compared to someone like China Mieville who populates the novels with a great extravagant texture. I feel spoiled as a result, and I expect more from a new drawn world. I am enjoying it though.

----------


## Scheherazade

Waiting for my copy still...

----------


## cl154576

Can I join? I have the book but I'm just starting it; I might be reading slowly because school is beginning again.

----------


## OrphanPip

It's very short, it only took me 3 hours to read.

----------


## Lohena

Just ordered my copy, shipping soon. No copies at library except an adaptation. Anyone heard of that?

----------


## TheFifthElement

> Much of it is also rehashed from A Brave New World with nothing new added to it except for the pulp fiction action elements.


I'd say the same about 1984 after having read _We_ by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Orwell gets a lot of credit for rehashing someone else's idea. Fortunately for Orwell, _We_ is not that well know. 

We - an overview

----------


## Paulclem

I thought it was good, but the ending is simplistic. Perhaps it's an unfair criticism 30 years on, but a world war conveniantly wipes out the frivolous and oppressive society leaving it open for the tramps to re-educate. Despite the explanations of difficulty, it leaves aclean slate to begin again without any complexity.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

After reading it again, this is still a favorite of mine. I get the complaint of over-seriousness (though, I think there are still humorous sections), but I find the writing to be beautiful. I love Bradbury's poetic prose. And while it does borrow a lot from other dystopian novels, I think it takes an original look at this type of society, i.e., from the point of view of the people who destroy the art that is deemed dangerous, how they destroy it (I found the descriptions of the fire particularly well done), and why they do it. The only real complaint against the book is that it's dated, but so is almost every sci-fi book from the 50s, so I don't hold that against it. 

Also, as to the comment about the convenient ending, I never got the impression that. . . 

(SPOILER) 

. . . just because that town was destroyed, that the whole of the oppressive society was destroyed. I think it was just meant to seal Guy's fate.

----------


## Paulclem

I liked the use of fie in the descriptions too - particularly as it changes with his circumstances - the warm tramp's fire for example.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> I liked the use of fire in the descriptions too - particularly as it changes with his circumstances - the warm tramp's fire for example.


agreed. Also the contrast between fire and water is done very well.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I also thought the scene where he is riding the train, and the droning voice of the news (or whatever it is) droning on and on slowly drives him nuts. Bradbury really did a good job of getting the feel of that down, and he does this quite consistently. It's why I like his writing.

I found the excerpt:




> He was on the subway.
> 
> I'm numb, he thought. When did the numbness really begin in my face? In my body? The night I kicked the pill-bottle in the dark, like kicking a buried mine.
> 
> The numbness will go away, he thought. It'll take time, but I'll do it, or Faber will do it for me. Someone somewhere will give me back the old face and the old hands the way they were. Even the smile, he thought, the old burnt-in smile, that's gone. I'm lost without it.
> 
> The subway fled past him, cream-tile, jet-black, cream-tile, jet-black, numerals and darkness, more darkness and the total adding itself.
> 
> Once as a child he had sat upon a yellow dune by the sea in the middle of the blue and hot summer day, trying to fill a sieve with sand, because some cruel cousin had said, "Fill this sieve and you'll get a dime!" `And the faster he poured, the faster it sifted through with a hot whispering. His hands were tired, the sand was boiling, the sieve was empty. Seated there in the midst of July, without a sound, he felt the tears move down his cheeks.
> ...

----------


## Scheherazade

I am finally starting to read it... Whohoo!  :Willy Nilly:

----------


## Abu3li

Thank you for choosing such an amazing book. I've enjoyed reading it.
back with more soon

----------


## Abu3li

After reviewing the parts I've underlined, I can say that Bradbury had a great vision of the future. Although I agree with the many people's conclusion that the novel is about *censorship*, I believe he also blamed the people themselves for ignoring reading/contemplating and going after trifle stuff such as watching TV 24/7. 

Also -as a teacher- I admired his criticism/ satire of education 



> "Why aren't you in school? I see you every day wandering around." 
> "Oh, they don't miss me," she said. "I'm antisocial, they say. I don't mix. It's so strange. I'm very social indeed. It all depends on what you mean by social, doesn't it? Social to me means talking to you about things like this." She rattled some chestnuts that had fallen off the tree in the front yard. "Or talking about how strange the world is. Being with people is nice. But I don't think it's social to get a bunch of people together and then not let them talk, do you? An hour of TV class, an hour of basketball or baseball or running, another hour of transcription history or painting pictures, and more sports, *but* *do you know, we never ask questions, or at least most don't; they just run the answers at you, bing, bing, bing, and us sitting there for four more hours of film-teacher.* That's not social to me at all. It's a lot of funnels and lot of water poured down the spout and out the bottom, and them telling us it's wine when it's not. They run us so ragged by the end of the day we can't do anything but go to bed or head for a Fun Park to bully people around .... I guess I'm everything they say I am, all right. I haven't any friends. That's supposed to prove I'm abnormal."


That really was one of the best parts I liked.

That's all for now.

----------


## Paulclem

It does feel a bit as if he's constructed the story from a series of set pieces. I agree that the Dentrifice satire is well done. I was also trying to see how the three walled TV would work. It seemed passive -I suppose the tech for interactivity wasn't thought of then. But the novel moves from his encounters with the girl, to disatisfaction with his home life and expectations, to the firestation. All the ideas are good, but they seem stitched together. The hound is the only bit where we can anticipate a future conflict - though we realise quite quickly that Montag is not happy with the book burning. One sequence follows another without any sophisticated narrative storytelling. Perhaps I've been spoilt. :Biggrin:

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Even if Bradbury anticipated more interactiveness with technology (even though it is there, as the characters of the shows talk and ask questions of the viewer), I doubt he would've included it in his future world, as being sedentary and near-brain dead watching the TV walls was largely the point. The TV walls seemed more like a drug than anything else, putting the viewer in their own weird, zombie world. When asked, Guy's wife couldn't even begin to give a plot summary of anything she watched.

I also think Bradbury was a stronger short-story writer than novelist, and what you said above, Paul, kind of shows how it seems hard for him to get out of that fragmented type of story-telling. But, like I said, to me Bradbury's greatest strength lies in his prose.

----------


## OrphanPip

I find it strains credulity a little too much for me, which is a problem considering, according to Bradbury himself, we're meant to take this novel as something "real" that could actually happen. Ironically, for a writer associated with sci-fi, Bradbury is a pretty spectacular Luddite. He's never gotten a driver's license or flown on an air plane. 

I like Bradbury's short fiction though, I've read most of his short story collections and he has produced a number of gems. 

On a related note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1IxOS4VzKM

Edit: I will say that I think Fahrenheit is a much better novel than Something Wicked This Way Comes.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Why does it strain credulity for you? Just because of the technology, or thematically?

Funny vid.

I really enjoyed _Something Wicked This Way Comes_, but I read it in high school.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Why does it strain credulity for you? Just because of the technology, or thematically?


I think Bradbury assumes people are much weaker willed and stupider than they really are. There's too much of a smug sense of superiority that runs through the novel. I'm not saying this is a terrible novel, just that is not a particularly brilliant novel either.

----------


## Dark Muse

I agree with what Mutatis-Mutandi stated previously about the prose of the book. I really enjoy the way it is written in that regard. There are some very beautiful descriptions within the book, and at times it is even almost poetic. There also seems to be a certain sparseness in how it is written which is something that I often enjoy in books. I do liked the sort of minimalist approach. 

I also agree with Mutatis-Mutandi about the originality in the book in the way in which it is told from the point of view of the "destroyers" so to speak. I love books which offer the reader unconventional perspectives and allow us to see things from varying different points of view. I like the way in which the books does sort of force the reader into being sympathetic towards Montag, when he would ordinarily be seen as the bad guy. 

I like the sort of working man picture we are given of him. He is not the one who is in charge, and he himself is just trying to do his job without any reason for him to question the rightness or wrongness of what he is doing, becasue he has never known the world to be any different. Yet he does have his moments of struggle and questioning in which he is not completely at ease with his conscious. 

But in some way's it feels as if this book is more of a character study than really an examination of soceity becaue there is still not presented a clear idea of just what is taking place, or the reasons for how things got to that point. Thus far the only insight that has really been offered is that there are fireman that go around burning books, there is still no indication of what the ones who have created this world are aiming to acomplish with thier censorship. 

And though we are given indications that things were not always like this, there is still no offered explanation for how they had come to be this way. 

So it is an interesting look into the life, thoughts, feelings, of Montag, but still I do not have a clear picture of what is happening outside of that. 

And while the whole idea about having the fireman now being the ones to start fire, I thought was a bit of an interesting concept, at the same time, it did seem to be a bit cartoonish that nothing else about being a fireman seemed to have changed or evolved. I could not help but feel that it was a bit silly to have the firemen sliding down the poles still, to rush off and start a fire. 

Another thing I did not quite understand, is why the have to completely burn down some ones entire house if it is the books they are after. Is it meant to be a punishment? or are they jut too lazy to take the books out of the house and burn them in the street? It seems like a bit of overkill that they find a book in someones house so they burn the whole house down.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> Another thing I did not quite understand, is why the have to completely burn down some ones entire house if it is the books they are after. Is it meant to be a punishment? or are they jut too lazy to take the books out of the house and burn them in the street? It seems like a bit of overkill that they find a book in someones house so they burn the whole house down.


The idea I took from that is that the books are an infection which spread to the people in the house. Burning the books is not enough to erase them (as demonstrated by the book-memorizing professors) - so you must destroy everything - the more destroyed the better.

As for the context of the society - I have to believe that he purposely decided not to reveal the back story to the war - probably in attempt to make it seem more realistic. We don't know exactly how this started - so maybe it could happen to us?

----------


## Dark Muse

> The idea I took from that is that the books are an infection which spread to the people in the house. Burning the books is not enough to erase them (as demonstrated by the book-memorizing professors) - so you must destroy everything - the more destroyed the better.


Now that you mention, that does make me think back to when Montag had his wife's stomach pumped when she swallowed the sleeping pills. The people who came to do it made a statement of that similar affect. That you have to take out all of the bad blood and put in new blood becasue if they leave anything behind than the mind can still become infected, or something close to that effect. 

That it would not do any good if they only removed the poison of the pills, but everything had to be taken out to truly cleanse the person. 

So it is similar with the books in this case. As you stated, it would not be enough to simply just remove the books, becasue they have already begun to spread their poison, so everything must be burned down thus forcing the people to buy a new home and start completely afresh.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I kind of like that there's no back story to how the society became the way it is. It would have just been exposition, and it would have been, quite likely, extremely unoriginal, so I think it was a good idea to just leave it out. We can make inferences.

----------


## Dark Muse

*deleted*

----------


## Paulclem

I've been a bit negative, I feel, about the book, and perhaps not refelcted how much I liked it whilst reading. I'm going to make another negative though.I don't feel he fairly reflects people generally. They are presented as weak and almost hypnotised by 
the adverts and the TVs. 

I think people are much more complex than having existential crises hidden which only emerge in suicide attempts. I think a great number of us are naturally subversive - not actually lawbreakers - but law benders. We also see the women as weak. The only positive one is Clarissa McClellan, and she comes across as a bit of a dippy hippy from our perspectve here.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Yeah, but the people have become much weaker mentally do to the societal conditions. Now, whether the societal conditions could cause such a drastic behavioral change is a whole other issue. 

One must also consider the context of the time this came out, right when TV was becoming popular. He was taking a leap in predicting how bad it would become (and I doubt he would admit that he really believed this was going to be the future), and, honestly, he isn't that far off--statistics showing how much time people spend watching TV is proof enough. Also take in to account the quality of programming. People now watch "reality TV," which makes even the worst of sitcoms seem artistic. People do often zombify in front of the TV.

And, as a reversal on Paul's statement, I think I've been a bit over-positive. I don't know how other people do the rating system above, but I rate purely on enjoyment. If I had to rate in an objective sense as to the quality of the book (or at least as objective as is possible) it'd be a 3 or 5.

----------


## Paulclem

In the 60s and 70s people were "very concerned" about the effects TV would have on the kids - from scare stories about developing square eyes to moral concerns about the possibility of weakened wills. You get the same kinds of things said nowadays about about computers and games consoles. The same generation that's supposed to be vegetating in front of the computer screen was organising and getting out to riot only last month.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Yeah, I don't get the whole "technology is desensitizing kids" argument. Allegedly, it's supposed to be destroying kids' ability to interacte face-to-face, even making it so they don't smile because they aren't used to actually showing physical emotion. After teaching high school for a semester, they seemed pretty normal to me.

----------


## cl154576

I finished this recently and I agree with some of the things Orphan Pip and Paulclem said.

I thought the ending was weak and overly convenient ... A group of homeless people walking places, warming themselves, observing nature, and somehow restoring art to a degenerated society? It seems a little trite.

I hope this doesn't sound too stupid, but I thought some of the passages were inserted solely to expound Bradbury's theory, and did not really flow with the text. Others seemed a bit too rushed: for instance, when Clarisse asks Montag if he is happy at the very beginning. There is not enough leading up to it.

About his style – I liked some of his prose, but not the beginning. He spent too much time describing Clarisse repeatedly in clichéd adjectives without enough verbs to hold them together.

This sounds a bit negative but I did enjoy some of his ideas. I haven't read Brave New World or 1984 yet so I don't know how they compare.




> Yeah, I don't get the whole "technology is desensitizing kids" argument. Allegedly, it's supposed to be destroying kids' ability to interacte face-to-face, even making it so they don't smile because they aren't used to actually showing physical emotion. After teaching high school for a semester, they seemed pretty normal to me.


Really? I would argue that, if anything, they exaggerate emotion. There are a host of girls who giggle or cry perpetually only to attract attention. It irritates me considerably.

Technology does impact kids negatively. In a way some of what Bradbury writes is true. Maybe it's less apparent in adults, but a lot of the people I know have very short attention spans, and they are painfully trivial. Increasingly they do not care about the world around them. They mock anything they do not understand. Everything from the past can rot; they only care for pop singers, Facebook and video games. Also, they throw words around so casually it's disturbing. Everyone is anorexic. I got a 99.9% and now I'm depressed so I'm going to kill myself. BFFLS! The next day: I hate you, I want to kill you. Or: I love you forever and I'd die for you, I'm going to marry you, even if I have to wait a lifetime I'll do it. One week later – I hate you!!! You ruined my _life_! You broke my heart, DO YOU HEAR ME?!?!! And then, shortly after: I'm in love again ... It's the most wonderful feeling ever!!!!

I have an idea most of them don't really know love, hate, depression, suicide, or anything, and are only reenacting drama from an adult TV show.

----------


## Paulclem

Kids were like this when I was at school in the 70s. Of course they said different things as was in fashion or a perceived norm then. Also it's a generalisation. Not all kids are like this. I's just part of development for some. They don't sty like it.

----------


## Dark Muse

> IReally? I would argue that, if anything, they exaggerate emotion. There are a host of girls who giggle or cry perpetually only to attract attention. It irritates me considerably.
> 
> Technology does impact kids negatively. In a way some of what Bradbury writes is true. Maybe it's less apparent in adults, but a lot of the people I know have very short attention spans, and they are painfully trivial. Increasingly they do not care about the world around them. They mock anything they do not understand. Everything from the past can rot; they only care for pop singers, Facebook and video games. Also, they throw words around so casually it's disturbing. Everyone is anorexic. I got a 99.9% and now I'm depressed so I'm going to kill myself. BFFLS! The next day: I hate you, I want to kill you. Or: I love you forever and I'd die for you, I'm going to marry you, even if I have to wait a lifetime I'll do it. One week later  I hate you!!! You ruined my _life_! You broke my heart, DO YOU HEAR ME?!?!! And then, shortly after: I'm in love again ... It's the most wonderful feeling ever!!!!TV show.


That sounds like pretty normal teenage behavior.

----------


## chokipokilo

First let me say that this is my first post. I've just recently started trying to read and re-read a lot of the classics, after having spent the last few years reading fantasy and sc-fi almost exclusively. I figured following the book club was a good way to pick up on some of the things I miss.

Great book to start with btw. Namely because it is both sci-fi (easy transition), and puts me in the mood to read more literature. 

Personally I found Beatty to be the most interesting character of the story. Very ironic that he's clearly well read for all his anti-literature propaganda.

My favorite scene was where the ladies talk about the president and how clueless they were to the fact that the election had been rigged.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I finished this recently and I agree with some of the things Orphan Pip and Paulclem said.
> 
> I thought the ending was weak and overly convenient ... A group of homeless people walking places, warming themselves, observing nature, and somehow restoring art to a degenerated society? It seems a little trite.


They aren't restoring anything to a degenerated society, though. They're just waiting, keeping the information. If it ended with them suddenly restoring art to the masses, and said masses all suddenly realizing the error of their ways, I would agree, but it doesn't end like that. The future if ambiguous at best. They don't really seem to know how they're going to spread their knowledge or if it has any chance of working. It seemed rather bleak, to me. 
I hope this doesn't sound too stupid, but I thought some of the passages were inserted solely to expound Bradbury's theory, and did not really flow with the text. Others seemed a bit too rushed: for instance, when Clarisse asks Montag if he is happy at the very beginning. There is not enough leading up to it.



> I would argue that, if anything, they exaggerate emotion. There are a host of girls who giggle or cry perpetually only to attract attention. It irritates me considerably.
> 
> Technology does impact kids negatively. In a way some of what Bradbury writes is true. Maybe it's less apparent in adults, but a lot of the people I know have very short attention spans, and they are painfully trivial. Increasingly they do not care about the world around them. They mock anything they do not understand. Everything from the past can rot; they only care for pop singers, Facebook and video games. Also, they throw words around so casually it's disturbing. Everyone is anorexic. I got a 99.9% and now I'm depressed so I'm going to kill myself. BFFLS! The next day: I hate you, I want to kill you. Or: I love you forever and I'd die for you, I'm going to marry you, even if I have to wait a lifetime I'll do it. One week later  I hate you!!! You ruined my _life_! You broke my heart, DO YOU HEAR ME?!?!! And then, shortly after: I'm in love again ... It's the most wonderful feeling ever!!!!
> 
> I have an idea most of them don't really know love, hate, depression, suicide, or anything, and are only reenacting drama from an adult TV show.


This is just normal kid behavior, as people have pointed out. They're trying to figure themselves out, as you, undoubtedly, are also. I think you'd be surprised to know how much they do understand, but in their little cliques, it's not socially acceptable to show a true emotional growth. I think most of them use those radical emotional swings (liking a person one week, hating them the next) as a game. Unfortunately, some take it more seriously than others, which causes victims and bullies.

----------


## Paulclem

:FRlol: Has the Fahrenheit 451 discussion burnt itself out?

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Apparently.

----------


## Dark Muse

Sorry, I have not quite finished the book yet, and I was going to wait until I finished before adding my further thoughts, but I just have to say that I think thus far one of my favorite parts of the book is when Mrs. Phelps, Mildred, and that other woman whose name slipped my mind were sitting around discussing the election, and who they voted for or were going to vote for and all they really cared about was that one of the candidates was so tall and handsome and the other short and fat. 

I think there is a lot of truth in that reflected in today's soceity. There are jokes people make today about how presidential elections will become run like American Idol. And the very existence and prominence of TV and media, has made physcial appearance to in face become an important part of the process. Once you are confronted with the visual images of these individuals than it is just a part of human nature for one to have a reflex reaction to thier appearances, and while an intelligent person recognizes these reactions for what they are and does not allow them to be the basis of thier decision it does play a role in how we think of things, and the truth is a lot of people do just go one thier gut reactions.

----------


## chokipokilo

> Sorry, I have not quite finished the book yet, and I was going to wait until I finished before adding my further thoughts, but I just have to say that I think thus far one of my favorite parts of the book is when Mrs. Phelps, Mildred, and that other woman whose name slipped my mind were sitting around discussing the election, and who they voted for or were going to vote for and all they really cared about was that one of the candidates was so tall and handsome and the other short and fat. 
> 
> I think there is a lot of truth in that reflected in today's soceity. There are jokes people make today about how presidential elections will become run like American Idol. And the very existence and prominence of TV and media, has made physcial appearance to in face become an important part of the process. Once you are confronted with the visual images of these individuals than it is just a part of human nature for one to have a reflex reaction to thier appearances, and while an intelligent person recognizes these reactions for what they are and does not allow them to be the basis of thier decision it does play a role in how we think of things, and the truth is a lot of people do just go one thier gut reactions.


I thought Bradbury was trying to indicate that they were living in a totalitarian system and weren't aware of it. The ugly short guy picking his nose sounded like he was hand-picked to lose the election, giving the naive people a false sense of democracy.

----------


## Dark Muse

> I thought Bradbury was trying to indicate that they were living in a totalitarian system and weren't aware of it. The ugly short guy picking his nose sounded like he was hand-picked to lose the election, giving the naive people a false sense of democracy.


I saw it as another way in which people were conditioned not to truly think for themselves becasue of TV and modern technology. But that idea can tie into it. People no longer have to seriously concern themselves with politics or worry about the election, the decision has been taken out of thier hands and pre arranged for them, and yet in order to continue that false sense of happiness which is instilled with them they are given the facade of a democracy without having to put the effort into it. But rather than just naivety I see it as a sort of self-denial. They would not want the actual responsibility of having to truly make the decision on thier own and so it is easier for them to have the decision hand fed to them while they get to pretend as if they acutally did have a say in the matter.

----------


## Paulclem

I think this was insightful of Bradbury. Elections now have to have the right person. At the moment the Labour leader in the UK is being scrutinised for his charisma, which is a bit lacking. I remember Dukakis having the same effect in the US. And of course this has to be maintained. I think a lot of John Major's - former UK PM - credibility was eroded by the media image of him that grew into a grey man who wore y-fronts and spoke with a kind of David Beckham voice, (which he did). I remember some of the cartoonists would go on about him complementing his wife on the peas they were having. 

At the time he was having a rather racy affair wit one of his ministers - which came out later - which just goes to show how wrong an image can be. Yet, as we can see, image becomes the main focus.

----------


## chokipokilo

> People no longer have to seriously concern themselves with politics or worry about the election, the decision has been taken out of thier hands and pre arranged for them, and yet in order to continue that false sense of happiness which is instilled with them they are given the facade of a democracy without having to put the effort into it. But rather than just naivety I see it as a sort of self-denial. They would not want the actual responsibility of having to truly make the decision on thier own and so it is easier for them to have the decision hand fed to them while they get to pretend as if they acutally did have a say in the matter.


I definitely felt the scene indicated naivety, but I don't doubt that the people were intended to be blissful in their ignorance. That's the whole idea of replacing literature with the mindless "family" right?

Of course, given Beatty's oration about censorship stemming first from the citizens, I can see the government using political apathy as a means to gradually take control of elections in this way.

----------


## Dark Muse

> I definitely felt the scene indicated naivety, but I don't doubt that the people were intended to be blissful in their ignorance. That's the whole idea of replacing literature with the mindless "family" right?
> 
> Of course, given Beatty's oration about censorship stemming first from the citizens, I can see the government using political apathy as a means to gradually take control of elections in this way.


But I think it is something of a self-chosen naivety. As seen in Montag's attempts to try and wake Mildred up to get her to read the books with him, to make her feel and experiencing something real. She resists becasue she does not acutally want to be confronted with the truth. 

It is not a matter of simply not knowing any better, but of not wanting to know any better.

----------


## Lohena

Sorry for the late reply on my first book club, been a busy month.

My thoughts were that the writing was too simplistic and lacked any depth of character development or expression. I also felt he was way too overt with his point. 

With that being said I think this is an excellent book for a new or young reader and would be perfect for someone transitioning from pulp writing into more serious stuff.

I actually enjoyed it overall largely because I agree with his implications. One question that I am still thinking about is whether books were burned by force or did people choose to reject them. This makes me wonder about our society now. Are we allowing our brains to turn to mush with reality show, cable news, facebook, etc. because it is forced on us or are we as a society choosing that path for ourselves?

Glad to finally read it.

----------


## Paulclem

> Sorry for the late reply on my first book club, been a busy month.
> 
> My thoughts were that the writing was too simplistic and lacked any depth of character development or expression. I also felt he was way too overt with his point. 
> 
> With that being said I think this is an excellent book for a new or young reader and would be perfect for someone transitioning from pulp writing into more serious stuff.
> 
> I actually enjoyed it overall largely because I agree with his implications. One question that I am still thinking about is whether books were burned by force or did people choose to reject them. This makes me wonder about our society now. Are we allowing our brains to turn to mush with reality show, cable news, facebook, etc. because it is forced on us or are we as a society choosing that path for ourselves?
> 
> Glad to finally read it.


Which people are you referring to? People don't turn to something en masse because they are of different ages and inclinations. Are we being dumbed down/ dumbing down ourselves? There are more qualified, educated and literate people today than there has ever been. The growth of Facebook and 24 hour news doesn't necessarily mean this, in fact is Facebook still popular? I do wonder if Facebook will go the way of Myspace, and just turn out to be a developmental fad in the wider development of social networking. Not that I think Facebook is dumb necessarily either. It has educated a wide portion of the population in what is possible with social networking - not just young people. Whether it continues perhaps depends upon what new spin can be given to socal networking that will entice a newer generation.

----------


## Lohena

Sorry, was referring to Americans and our cultural/educational direction.

----------


## Paulclem

> Sorry, was referring to Americans and our cultural/educational direction.


Hi Lohena- I've just read back what I put. I hope it didn't come across as bruaque - not intended that way, and no need to say sorry. I was just enquiring. 

I do agree with your analysis of the book, and I neglected to say so as well.  :Biggrin:

----------


## books+coffee=<3

i really liked it. however, if it were a contest between Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 orwell would have my vote. that does not change the fact that this was a wonderful book. the thought of memorizing literature in order to keep it amongst man, if only amongst a few, is such a beautiful sentiment. by the way, i am new here. hope you don't mind that i joined in on this one. =)

----------


## Abookinthebath

Hi all, 

Hopefully I have caught this discussion before it ends! I am new here and this book was recommended to me by a good friend (as was this site!). 

This book is really a trip away from my 'usual' reading material and to be honest, I enjoy a good story with no questions asked, but I am beginning to appreciate that there is more to a good book than that. 

I was blown away with the descriptive writing in Part One of this book in particular. I felt myself drawn in and able to imagine the world of Montag (perhaps something to do with my own job, but that's by the by!). But I came away, especially after Part One (which I had to re-read as it was so beautifully written), with an overwhelming sense of sadness.

Others have commented how our world today, in general, does not reflect Bradburys 'predictions'. But really, how far away are we from the many of the key points he made within society? It amazes me that this book was written so long ago and how accurate his ideas have become. 

Anyhow, overall I enjoyed the book, but I found myself rushing the last 30 or 40 pages, as the story seemed to stall and almost get caught up in a bit of self indulgence. For me, there was not enough of Clarisse - she ended up feeling like a convenient addition to Montags life in order to progress the story. Beatty was the character I found perhaps the most complex - he seemed to have a power and knowledge that was never really fully explained - all in all a very dangerous person, I felt. 

I know I have really not done everything in the book justice here, but those were my thoughts straight after reading it, and I am prepared to be shot down in flames!

----------


## Scheherazade

Welcome to the Forum, Choki, Lohena, Coffee and Bath!  :Smile:  I am glad you are able to join our discussions. Don't forget to check out the other discussion threads in this section.



Would you like to watch Fahrenheit 451 on October 15th at 11.00 pm UK time?


The movie is available on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWFmK...eature=related

Countdown Timer

----------


## Abookinthebath

> Welcome to the Forum, Choki, Lohena, Coffee and Bath!  I am glad you are able to join our discussions. Don't forget to check out the other discussion threads in this section.
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to watch on October 15th at 11.00 pm UK time?
> 
> 
> The movie is available on : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWFmK...eature=related
> 
> Countdown Timer



Many thanks for your welcome and invite, Scheherazade.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to, but I will have a look at the film and post comment later!

----------


## Scheherazade

Last night we watched the movie based on the book and based on the book loosely it was!

Such a great disappointment... The story line was altered beyond recognition and characters felt like paradoies of themselves. Clarisse's role (who happened to play the wife as well - why? I have no idea.) was extended so much that I am wondering if the scenario writer or the director had a crush on her and could not bear letting her go.

Considering that the movie was made more than 40 years ago, the sci-fi elements seemed almost funny but that was the only saving grace about the movie, I felt.

It is worth watching still... Just to see how an alternative storyline to the book would have developed.

The discussion thread for the movie: http://www.online-literature.com/for...cussionid=1446

----------


## Abookinthebath

Apologies for not making the 'screening' - I thought I'd post my comments here though, I watched it earlier this week. 

Now, I am not Jonathon Ross, but.....

I'll echo Scheherazade here - a big disappointment, despite giving it the benefit of the doubt for being as old as it is. 
Montags accent got on my nerves and as much as I wanted to see more of Clarisse in the book, I felt she was overdone here. The relationship between Montag and Clarisse was a kind of mutual curiosity in the book (as I understood it) - this looked more like an affair waiting to happen.
I didn't get the relationship between Montag and his wife - in the book, she was far more remote and helped to explain the 'society'. In fact, overall, I felt that it didn't capture even half of what the book was about. 

I didn't particularly like the end of the book, but I liked the end of the film even less so. What were Tweedledum and Tweedledee all about (sorry, Pride and Prejudice!).

Saving Graces - well, it did begin to explain a bit about Montags journey from one point of view to another, but hardly in depth. And yes, a couple of the 'special effects' made me smile (particularly when they are chasing Montag using jet packs!).

Oh, and I need some of those cones with flashing lights on them!! They would make my life much easier!

If ever a film could do with a remake, then this is it!

----------


## Scheherazade

> The relationship between Montag and Clarisse was a kind of mutual curiosity in the book (as I understood it) - this looked more like an affair waiting to happen.


I agree and this possibility somehow trivialised Clarisse's role in the story, I felt.


> I didn't get the relationship between Montag and his wife - in the book, she was far more remote and helped to explain the 'society'. In fact, overall, I felt that it didn't capture even half of what the book was about.


The scenes involving "Linda" felt like they were badly written attempts at humour but they fell short... Her depiction was nothing more than a display of stereotypes.


> If ever a film could do with a remake, then this is it!


Now, there is an idea... Who could we cast?

----------


## Abookinthebath

> Now, there is an idea... Who could we cast?


Hmm, what about Alan Rickman as Beatty (typecast, I know!), Faber (assuming they actually cast him!) could be Morgan Freeman (another typecast!), and Montag, hmmmmm, tricky one.......

----------


## Alireza Rowhani

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. THANKS IN ADVANCE.  :Smile: 

“Shut up, shut up, shut up!” It was a plea, a cry so terrible that Montag
found himself on his feet, the shocked inhabitants of the loud car staring,
moving back from this man with the insane, gorged face, the gibbering, dry
mouth, the flapping book in his fist. The people who had been sitting a
moment before, tapping their feet to the rhythm of Denham’s Dentrifice,
Denham’s Dandy Dental Dertergent, Denham’s Dentrifice, Denham’s
Dentrifice Denham’s Dentrifice, one two, one two three, one two, one two
three. The people whose mouths had been faintly twitching the words
Dentrifice Dentrifirice Dentrifrice. The train radio vomited upon Montag, in
retaliation, a great tonload of music made of tin, copper, silver, chromium,
and brass. The people pounded into submission; they did not run, there
was no place to run; the great air train fell down its shaft in the earth.

Questions :
1. What is happening in this passage?
2. What is meant by “the train radio vomited upon Montag”?
3. What is meant by “the people pounded into submission”?
4. Why is this passage significant in describing the society Montag lives within?

----------


## Alireza Rowhani

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. THANKS IN ADVANCE.  :Smile: 

Once as a child he had sat upon a yellow dune by the sea in the middle of
the blue and hot summer day, trying to fill a sieve with sand, because some
cruel cousin had said, “Fill a sieve and you’ll get a dime!” And the faster he
poured, the faster it sifted through with a hot whispering. His hands were
tired, the sand was boiling, the sieve was empty. Seated there in the midst
of July, without a sound, he felt the tears move down his cheeks.

Questions :
1. What is the significance of this memory as Montag sits on the train? (pp. 7475)
a. Think about what happens next in the story (pp. 7475)
2. What does the author mean by “the sand was boiling”?

----------

