THIS IS OUR LAST BLOG POST FOR THE YEAR!
Reflect on something that came up in our fishbowl discussion today. You could write about a specific passage that was discussed or a connection to a modern issue that came up.
Whatever you choose to discuss, be sure to ground you ideas in the text (the text of the book and, if relevant, the text of any outside source). No sweeping generalizations without text evidence and analysis! Plan to write about 350 words -- break up paragraphs into logical chunks and proofread! Also, don't repeat what others have already written ahead of you--think for yourself!
Gideon Schmidt
ReplyDeleteThe Power of Technology (esp. in Communist societies)
One thing we mentioned in the discussion today was the role of the Cold War in the making of Fahrenheit 451. Somebody mentioned that futuristic US in which the book takes place is one with significantly less freedoms for people, very similar to the USSR, and other countries where Communists rule and people have few rights. This went along very well with the article I found, which discussed Internet censorship in China, one of the five remaining Communist countries in the world.
In countries like the US, books have always been “dangerous,” a way for ideas to be spread rapidly. The Internet is very similar, however it’s probably more effective as a tool for spread of ideas because it can spread things much, much faster. Captain Beatty shows how effective they are, when telling Montag about how books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin inspire deeper levels of thinking in readers. This is why governments might choose to cut off literature, in order to limit people’s thoughts which could in turn create ideas that could become threatening. This became very common in the USSR in the early decades of the cold war. Indeed, when Mikhail Gorbachev opened the USSR to such thinking with his policies of glasnost and perestroika in the 1980s, it was the flow of ideas that brought down one of the globe’s superpowers. This should prove that books are a very dangerous thing, that they can be used to propagate ideas in a way that can be lethal to governments and to society as a whole. Certainly, Bradford would have seen the US government’s attempt to eliminate Communist books and doctrines from American society, and this might inspire him to try and write a book which would illustrate how dangerous having full freedom of expression would be. Writing Fahrenheit 451 certainly illustrated that point. That book proved the potential that books have, and would show that in a society that was to be free and progressive, no sort of literature could be banned.
Pushing forward into the modern day, the failure of Communism is evident. Just China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam still have Communist governments. The Chinese are finding out the hard way that in the 21st century, the freedom of expression that the Internet brings can’t be checked in any way. When Wang Xiujun, a Chinese Communist who is partially responsible for Internet censorship said that “the struggle for ideological penetration would decide to a great extent the future of our party,” he proved that freedom of expression, both in print and nonprint form, is dangerous enough to knock off any country which exists by repressing the thoughts of its citizens. The Chinese situation has indeed confirmed Bradbury’s message in Fahrenheit 451; freedom of expression is dangerous. Bradbury showed that limiting it is not acceptable because it strips other humans of rights that they deserve. The decline of communism around the globe in the late 20th century shows that history agrees with this as well.
“Fahrenheit 451” - A Cultural Revolution
ReplyDeleteEmil Friedman
“Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury can, as was discussed in the fishbowl, be interpreted in a variety of ways: literally, socially, politically, etc. While the specifics of the story itself are certainly interesting to look at, and clearly feature Bradbury’s careful consideration throughout, an interesting view of the book is more holistic and through the lens of the book’s position in society.
Copyrighted 1953, “Fahrenheit 451” in its full form was released in the beginning of the Cold War era. During this time, “pro-American” movements were in full swing, and ideas contrary to full-steam-ahead American ideals were attacked. Even before the Cold War, literary censorship was prominent: the Tariff Act, which was utilized most immediately after World War I, prohibited a variety of literary classics on account of “obscenity.” Even though the act was reformed in 1933, censorship continued to play a huge role in American culture, evidenced by the government prohibition of works including Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence, Tropic of Cancer by Henry Miller, and Fanny Hill by John Cleland. Astonishingly, despite attempts to change the legal standard for the suppression of ideas, the Supreme Court ruled that states had the right to censor materials they found to be “obscene.”
The thing is, “obscene” is subjective. Does obscene mean inappropriate? Does it mean ideas that go against the cultural tradition? Or, in “Fahrenheit 451”’s case, does it mean notions that are so radical, so different, that they actually scare people? Bradbury’s novel is a bit far out, sure: toasters that automatically butter bread and wall-sized interactive television screens are difficult to connect with technology available today. But the larger ideas contained within the are more revolutionary.
The largest theme of “Fahrenheit 451” is, arguably, the idea of the government ensuring population happiness by banning books, and, thus, preventing the spread of a rich collection of ideas. What a great idea! After all, isn’t a society that doesn’t have to bother asking the tough questions and thinking deeper going to be more relaxed, more content, and easier to govern? Plus, by restricting the spread of books, the population won’t be exposed to scary ideas that might make citizens doubt the choices being made by the government. And who wants to read, anyway, when you can simply kick back in front of the television and relax?!
CONTINUED BELOW:
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:
ReplyDeleteOh, wait. That sounds a lot like the United States, circa 1950, doesn’t it? Here’s what’s ironic. “Fahrenheit 451” discusses the consequences of governmental censorship of books -- again, considering the fact that books contain ideas and counterarguments. It promotes freedom and expanded thinking. Despite these ideas, “Fahrenheit 451” itself was censored for the first thirteen years in publication by its own publisher! The reason? Bradbury had, outrageously, used words like “hell” and “damn” in his book. (Sure. That’s the only reason….)
After the first thirteen years of publication, “Fahrenheit 451” underwent an edit by its publisher, Ballantine Books, eliminating the scary, vulgar language. But the publisher went further than that. In the end, over 75 passages were edited in some form. A scene featuring a drunken man was changed to a scene with a sick man. The machine that helped save Mildred from her overdose was changed to a machine that cleaned ears. And in the end, the essence of “Fahrenheit 451” was lost, and the novel was reduced to an easy read for high school English classes. In this case, ideas were eliminated, just like ideas were eliminated in the novel itself. Outrageously, the copyright page of this edited version failed to reflect any modifications at all. And between 1973 and 1979, only the censored version was even available to purchase. When questioned, the publisher indicated that it believed it was doing a “public service.” That sounds a little bit like the “Fahrenheit 451” government maintaining public happiness, doesn’t it?
When Bradbury discovered the censorship of his own book, he demanded that the publisher shift back to his original version. As a result of such extreme editing and misrepresentation of ideas, the American Library Association even got involved, taking a new role in book censorship issues. The ALA probed deeper and found other works -- award-winning works -- that had been censored as well.
So what can we learn from the roller coaster that “Fahrenheit 451” experienced after its publication? I learned that, after stripping away the clearly-fictional decorations throughout the novel, the ideas contained within “Fahrenheit 451” are truly grounded in reality. The suppression, and even removal, of ideas is something that actually happens. Not in a few hundred years, but right now. Maybe this is the consequence of having such an established government. Maybe it’s what happens when countries are at war and nationalism is thriving. No matter what causes it, “Fahrenheit 451” teaches us responsibility, really. A responsibility to question everything. A responsibility to dig deeper. A responsibility to defy the status quo. And isn’t that what truly effective literature is supposed to be all about?
Websites I used:
http://newsletter.library.villanova.edu/147
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/censorship-in-united-states.html
Molly Nealon
ReplyDeleteApathy in Fahrenheit 451 and our world today
During our discussion on Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 yesterday, a wide range of ideas in the book came up. One that we did not discuss quite as much, yet I found intriguing nevertheless was the theme of apathy in the book. Through various examples in the book, it is repeatedly expressed how little anyone cares about anyone else anymore. All that worries the characters in the book is what will happen to them and/or their loved ones. Although it is tempting to categorize our protagonist as the “perfect” character, he does this too. Besides himself, Clarisse, Faber, and maybe even Mildred, how many times do we see Montag genuinely worry about someone else? The answer is not very many.
The most prevalent example of this, at least in my mind, is when Montag decided to plant the books in another fireman’s house and call it in. Although it is understandable that he was working for a cause, trying to bring down the system, he still failed to take into account that that person whose house he was getting burned down had a life of their own. They had a family, and just because Montag didn’t care about “following the rules,” doesn’t mean that this person didn’t either. They likely were just a normal person. They went to work every day and did their job, just like everyone else. They didn’t deserve to have their house burnt down and to get in trouble for something that they didn’t do, and Montag just didn’t even think twice about it. Why? Because he was too worried about his own cause- tearing down the oppressive system of book-burning that he and everyone else have lived under for so long.
Another example of complete and utter indifference to the well-being of others would be when those kids tried to run over Montag in their car. They didn’t care at all whether he lived or died: they just wanted to have fun. And it didn’t matter who got killed in the process because what do they care? They didn’t know the guy or anything. It wouldn’t really effect them. Just another name on a gravestone. Montag even says it: “They would have killed me … For no reason at all, they would have killed me.” (Bradbury 128) He knows that he did not matter whatsoever to those kids, and his life had no importance to them. It baffles him, this apathetic attitude towards the life or death of one’s peers, and I suppose I would feel the same way if I were put in his situation.
Beatty addresses this same issue of people only caring about themselves on page 115. He says “For everyone nowadays knows, absolutely is certain that nothing will ever happen to me. Others die, I go on. There are no consequences and no responsibilities.” This quote is probably one of the most important when looking at how the characters in the book look at life. An example of the relevance of Beatty’s statement can be found coming from the mouth of a very minor character: Mildred’s friend, Clara Phelps. She and Mildred are discussing war and she says “It’s always someone else’s husband dies, they say.” She truly believes that there is no way her husband is going to die, because someone else’s will. She fails to realize (or care) that one day she may be the “someone else” whose husband dies.
Also looking at the indifference towards life and death of Clara Phelps, her own husband was at war and she didn’t even seem to care. She says “the Army called Pete again yesterday … I’m not worried … I’ll let old Pete do all the worrying.” (Bradbury 94) She later reveals that both her and “old Pete” are on their third marriage now, and they’re independent, implying that neither of them really care for each other as spouses usually do. It really wouldn’t matter to her whether Pete lived or died, because she can just find a new husband.
-CONTINUED BELOW-
-CONTINUED-
ReplyDeleteAlthough we did not discuss any of these passages in great detail in our discussion, they are extremely relevant to the topic of apathy that we did discuss. In addition, that same theme can be connected to the political apathy that some believe exists in today’s younger generation. Many believe that nobody cares anymore about politics, and certain people (e.g., ChicagoNow writer Christoffer Bell) think that the answer to this problem is a military draft. I completely disagree. In actuality, I believe that Bell’s suggestion to instill a draft so that people start caring again runs parallel with the indifference towards life and death that is characteristic of people in Fahrenheit 451 such as Clara Phelps, Guy Montag, and the kids who tried to run him over.
These are all people who are so blinded by their own interests that they don’t think about the welfare of others, much as Mr. Bell clearly did not consider that by putting this military draft in place (especially when there are more than enough people willing to volunteer to serve in the army) would put random people on the battlefront that did not ask to be there, taking them away from their families. And all for what? To prove a point? To get others interested in his cause? That sounds far too similar to Guy Montag’s attitude for me to be even remotely comfortable with it.
OUTSIDE REFERENCES:
http://www.chicagonow.com/what-really-grinds-my-gears/2013/07/political-apathy-in-young-adults-is-a-draft-the-answer/
Melissa Stuart
ReplyDeleteNegative impacts of technology.
One of the many things that came up in the Fahrenheit discussion was the negative impacts technology can have not on society as a whole, but on an individual. Millie is the best example of this. One person brought up an article on how artificial light from TV, cell phone or tablet screens can disrupt ones sleep pattern, and it’s true that today so many people suffer from sleep apnea that studies have been conducted and show that the longer you go without looking at a screen before bed, the better you’ll sleep. Millie loves her giant TV’s and even feels that some of the characters are her family. She relies so heavily on sleeping pills that one night she almost kills herself with an overdose. Montag finds her and the “small crystal bottle of sleeping tablets which earlier today had been filled with thirty capsules and which now lay uncapped and empty. (Bradbury 13)”.
It was also brought up that technology can be a major factor in divorce. It is clear that Millie and Montag disagree often, especially over the TV’s. Even before she finds out about his books he questions her obsessions with buying a new expensive TV wall which is one-third of his yearly pay, while they are still making sacrifices to pay for the third wall they got only a month ago. Today, studies show that with more technology there is less communication between couples leading to unstable relationships. Milies friends show the situation can worsen leading to a divorce- or in her case, four. The seashells that Millie loves to listen to can be compared to headphones. It is clear that headphones and the seashells allow people to distract themselves from the real world, however why would someone want to escape reality? I think is can be a variety of reasons, a big one being that they are not happy and feel that they need a break. Millie shows many signs that she is not happy with her marriage. She cannot remember the first time she met her husband then she is the one to report him to the firemen.
Technology can have it’s perks but it’s taken until now for many people to realize just how negative it can be on our lives. Ray Bradbury seems to be hinting at this in the 1950’s through the details he includes in Fahrenheit 451 including Millies overdose, her relationship with Montag and her friends relationships.
Additional Source:
Lee, Amy. "Technology And Divorce: A Correlation?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 09 Dec. 2010. Web. 05 June 2014. .
English Fahrenheit blog
ReplyDeleteNoah Daviero
In the book Fahrenheit 451, the author, Ray Bradbury creates a fictional future world in which the characters are deeply immersed in a technology filled world. Unfortunately for the characters in the book, this technology has drained them of emotion and feelings for anything in their world. In other words, the technology has depersonalized the world that they live in.
As a person deeply engrossed in the walls and Seashells, Mildred is a perfect example of how technology has depersonalized their world. Every night, instead of talking to her husband Montag, Mildred lays in bed and listens to her Seashells. This action, choosing technology over humans, is a serious problem in their society. Another problem that the Seashells seem to cause for Mildred is forgetfulness. One night when Mildred is wearing her Seashells, she overdoses on sleeping pills because she keeps forgetting that she has already taken them. Essentially, this incident is an accidental suicide caused by technology. However, the most disturbing and dehumanized part of the incident is still to come. When Montag calls the emergency number to have someone come and help Mildred, what he gets is essentially two factory workers running machines and making rude chatter about their job. His wife is dying because of an overdose and the hospital doesn’t even send a doctor, they just send unskilled laborers to fix her up. This specific incident is proof of how dehumanized the medical system has become because of the technology that is available.
This idea about the dehumanization of the people through technology was really a very good future prediction by Ray Bradbury. In our world today, technology has slowly led to more dehumanization in communication. It used to be that you could only communicate via talking in person if you wanted to talk to someone soon. Then, with the introduction of phones, people were able to talk without seeing each other, an immediate step down in human interactions. Then, even farther down on the human scale, people can now just text and email people without using their voice. Basically, as the technology gets more and more advanced, humans have less social skills because they have never needed to use them.
Overall, the idea of the dehumanization of the world through increased technology is a good point and applies to our world today as much as it does to the fictional world in Fahrenheit 451. This connection to our world today makes it a more interesting topic to talk about and discuss to consequences of and that is why I chose it to write my blog on.
Priyanka Vijay
ReplyDeleteConformity through technology
In our discussion yesterday, a wide range of modern issues came up but one in
particular, I found most interesting. The idea of how conformity in society can be blamed on the media and television really fascinated me. Conformity is the tendency to align your attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those around you. It's a powerful force that can take the form of overt social pressure or subtler unconscious influence. As much as we like to think of ourselves as individuals, the fact is that we're driven to fit in, and that usually means going with the flow.
In Fahrenheit 451, the entertainment the citizens received provided them with so much excitement in such a short amount of time, that they had no time to think for themselves. Their mind had no room for thoughts as they had their senses occupied with what was happening in front of them. They would just follow anything that was asked of them, or told to them and did not question anything. "The televisor is real. It is immediate, it has dimension. It tells you what to think and blasts it in. It must be right. It seems so right. It rushes you so quickly to its own conclusion your mind hasn't time to protest."
When not in their interactive TV rooms, many characters, including Guy Montag's wife Mildred, spent much of their time with "Seashell ear thimbles" in their ears—miniature radio receivers that play constant broadcasts of news, advertisements, and music, drowning out the real sounds of the world, prohibiting freedom of thought for the citizens and brainwashing them into believing that books should not exist. The society as a whole didn’t even decide what view to take on books, the government influenced them and made them feel a certain way; they manipulated the population. The government took charge of every aspect of the citizens life, for example what shows were being programmed on television. Every civilian was expected to follow its laws by not reading and seeking self improvement. Those who violated the laws or attempted to rebel against the system were being severely dealt with. The government chose not to send the right knowledge through media, as Faber told Montag, "It isn't 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."
Media and technology were even used as a distraction in the dystopian world they lived in. A giant war was going on and most of the citizens were blissfully unaware, curled up in their TV parlors listening to their radios. As a distraction they used Montag’s criminal act as a way for citizens to focus on something else. Montag on the run was shown everywhere on the TV and could be heard through the seashells; he was all anyone was paying attention to. Montag believed it to be “wondrous to watch” and couldn’t believe that millions of “civilian parlor-sitters” woke up to watch the “big game, the hunt, the one-man carnival.”
I thought it was very interesting how Bradbury tied technology into the idea of the government controlling your views and ideas. It is ironic how today, fifty years after this book was written, we have major issues with conformity especially through media and technology. It is slightly disconcerting that Ray Bradbury’s image of a dystopian society fits our society today very well in some ways.
In Fahrenheit 451, you can see technology being influenced in everyday life. Starting from the machine that helps with overdose to the tv walls, and the seashells that work like earbuds. This made me wonder if technology was actually a positive affect in society or if it brought negative aspects. The use of technology can affect your ability to lose confidence in speaking. Since everything is accomplished on the internet these days, there is minimal requirement to actually speak in public. You can see this in school, through class discussions and when a teacher asks questions. Not a lot of kids are confident enough to speak in front of the whole class because they may be afraid of the answer being wrong. If this was a an online class or something like that, that involved the internet, the student can look up answers on the internet and confidently contribute to the conversation.
ReplyDeleteTechnology can also cut a person off from the rest of the world. This can be seen in public. Students walking down the hallway with earbuds in their ear listening to music is an example. They are so engrossed into their music that they are not aware of what is going on around them. A contributing factor to this is being in awkward situations. Normally people tend to distract themselves with their phones or listening to music because they're in a situation where no one is really talking to them. It is a way for them to avoid being alone. Another reason could be to distract themselves from what is going on in their life. Some people who are having a rough time at home and at school need sometime to relax. Some people who don't have a very high self-confidence can listen to music to make them feel better. In these cases, music acts as a medicine for some kids.
In Mildred’s case, it was definitely a bad influence. She was cut off from the rest of the world and was zoned out a lot of times. She always had seashells in her ear, or she was always watching tv. She even pretended like the family on tv was her own family. Technology is a bad influence in this case because it makes her think that she is happy by pretending that the tv family was her own family. In reality she is actually really sad. She uses technology as a way to make herself feel better and is so dependent on. When she overdosed on the pills, a doctor did not come to help, but instead the technicians brought a machine with them. They said that this happens all the time. What happened if their technology was taken away from them? Would they still be as unhappy as they are now?
What is the significance of the war and who are they fighting?
ReplyDeleteIn our fishbowl discussion about Part 3 of Fahrenheit 451, we discussed a lot about the logical setup of the book and why Bradbury decided to put certain things in his book. One of the things we focused on was the confusing war that was sort of looming in the background of the book until the ending, and the impact it had on this futuristic society. We also talked a lot about Montag as a character and what Bradbury wanted to achieve by making his character evolve into the rebel it became by the end of the book. I think that Montag’s purpose in the story was to defy the traditional values of his society. In order to achieve that goal, there needed to be some sort of life altering event that took place in order to propel Montag to fulfill his goal (to rise up and bring literature back again). Bradbury made this event the war.
In the beginning of the book, the characters in the novel are really passive about the war and you get the feeling that it is something that people don’t take seriously. For example on page 94 when Mrs. Phelps is over at Mildred’s house, she references that her husband is in the war but it’s no big deal because “he comes and goes”. The way that Mrs. Phelps describes her husband’s absence shows a disconnect, in regards to relationships, in their society because Mrs. Phelps is indifferent to the fact that her husband is sacrificing his life as a soldier. By having the element of war, the emotional detachment prevalent in the culture of this world is highlighted and the reader is compelled to agree with Montag’s views more and more: change needs to happen.
I think this also relates to another discussion topic which was the ending of the book and the bible references. The ending of the book is significant because it shows that although the “world as Montag knew it” ended because a bomb was dropped on it, he had found like minded people and together they can begin and new world filled with intellectuals. As Granger points out by referencing to the Phoenix, the war that resulted in the destruction of society can be seen as a way to make a new society that’s better. This can also be seen on page 165 when Montag remembers scripture from the Book of Ecclesiastes. “To everything there is a season. Yes. A time to break down, and a time to build up. Yes. A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” This goes to further iterate the point that instead of feeling sad that life ended, they should be looking forward to the new life that is to come: filled with literature at the center of this new society.
Noah Wilkerson
ReplyDelete“Knowledge is a Fire”
In Fahrenheit 451, one of the major topics of the book is the burning of all books, leading to the use of fire becoming a theme. Early on in the novel, Montag revels in the power that fire brings him, how it gives him power and almost makes him lose control of his body. Fire is also used to describe Montag’s, as well as other character’s, actions, such as how the words of a book “blazed in his mind for the next minute as if stamped there with fiery steel (Bradbury 37)” as he read them during the destruction of the woman’s house in Section 1. Fire in many ways ignites Montag himself, and much of his character relates to fire; his tendencies towards anger and violence, his frequent giving in to impulses, such as his choice to read to Mildred’s friends, and Captain Beatty’s death at Montag’s hands. His life is defined by a series of gut decisions, being ignited by one singular event, in this case the woman choosing suicide instead of choosing to leave her books. Like fire, Montag spiraled out of control once he was given the means to make his own decisions, by reading books. Both fire and knowledge are described as nothing but sources of power, neither being vilified or exalted. They are seen as a neutral fact of life, to be wielded in different ways.
To Montag, knowledge served as the ignition to his volatile personality. The role that the knowledge provided by books serves in the story is quite similar to that of fire. The government in Fahrenheit 451 viewed knowledge as something that would spiral out of control and cause destruction, and needed to be kept from spreading. But, just as Montag learned near the end of the story, both fire and knowledge can be used for good. Upon discovering the fire made by the group of intellectuals after escaping the Mechanical Hound, Montag remarks that the fire “was not burning. It was warming. (Bradbury 145)” This is very different to the way fire has been used previously, as a means to destroy any sort of threat to society. Fire can be used to help and protect, as well as to harm and destroy. Knowledge as well, can be used for these same purposes. When left to his own devices, Montag was lead by his desire for more knowledge to murder, and to the destruction of everything in his life previous. Now, however, upon meeting these men, Montag learns that knowledge can be used to enlighten, and to spread ideas peacefully. So, in a way, both knowledge and fire are represented as the same thing, a means to an end, which is not inherent to the means themselves, but to the way they are used.
Fahrenheit 451 -- What does the book support/not support?
ReplyDeleteThis seemed to be the overall question we were all trying to answer. What does the book support? What does it go against? People thought that perhaps it was a political commentary; I viewed Fahrenheit 451 much more philosophically. I think Fahrenheit 451 is merely long way of asking the question -- is the freedom to pursue happiness really something we should want?
Throughout the discussion, people only seemed to be looking at historical situations in foreign countries when talking about the historical background of Fahrenheit. I truly think Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit because America was prosperous yet still so many were unhappy. Everything the average American wanted, or could even imagine, they could get, yet so many people were discontent. Discontent about the past, discontent that despite their struggles there were still so many problems everywhere else. People were discontent with the obligation to deal with those problems, and probably disappointed at their wishes to just be able to ignore those problems.
Ray Bradbury wrote this book to pose a question to the American people. Is thinking worth it? I think the book leans towards yes, but not because thinking makes people happy but because of the belief that thinking is the essence of life, and without it there is nothing to live for. While there was a background of possible censorship happening, I don’t think it had gotten so bad that Ray Bradbury wrote a book out of fear for the future. I think he wrote it to get people thinking about their actions and emotions.
He created one of the first problemless worlds, and did it by getting rid of his character’s abilities to think. I don’t personally think the book was that well written, but in terms of getting tons of ideas out there for the public to question and acknowledge in the form of a quick read, he did a great job. I wish the discussion could’ve been broken into more themed sections, such as different groups discussing political aspects of the book, social/historical aspects of the book, and a discussion about happiness using the book as a lens.
I think a book from the perspective of the thoughtless people would really spark discussion over whether the society in Fahrenheit is good or bad (morally and otherwise). I definitely do not think Beattie wanted to die, I think he, a thinker, truly thought that thoughts did not benefit anyone, and I think Ray Bradbury included him for a reason. Whilst the bomb in the end killed everyone, it was not a result of not thinking. A bunch of people died without knowing why they died, but in the end, did anyone care about dying or the deaths with the exception of Montag and the group of thinkers?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn our discussion, it was briefly mentioned that there were many personifications of objects throughout the book. This is very true and it is a major part of the book both as a stylistic effect and as a way to underline important themes. Most notably, books have been personified as being alive, as in: “flapping pigeon-winged books died on the porch and lawn of the house” (Pg.3). Later, at another fire, the books are again described as being alive enough to “die” (Pg. 38). Although some live on, of course, when embodied by people: for example, “I am Plato’s Republic. Like to read Marcus Aurelius? Mr. Simmons is Marcus” (Pg.151). In this way books are alive: they die with people, and they live within people. I believe the author did this to get across that books, and more specifically the knowledge and human insight they contain, are how we are able to live properly. Without them, we are unable to think individually or to understand great human experiences and so we become lifeless. At the end of the book, those who were “the books” survived and those within the city did not. Those who became books inherited some of the great achievements of human culture and will be able to carry them into the future. So the metaphor of the book as a person becomes almost literal.
ReplyDeleteSome further examples of personification in the book include a “great python spitting its venomous kerosene upon the world…” (Pg.3) (the fire hose), “One of them slid down into your stomach like a black cobra…” (Pg.14) (a medical device), “The voice clock mourned…” (Pg.32) “The orange dragon coughed to life” (Pg.35) (a fire truck) and “The parlor was dead” (Pg.71). These provide for a more intense text, making everything in the story itself come alive— but in a largely dark and threatening way (the comparisons are to snakes and death). The metaphoric descriptions also allow the author to express certain emotions of the characters and what they are seeing or imagining. When referring to a “great python spitting its venomous kerosene upon the world” we get the sense of a deadly weapon that wreaks havoc within Montag’s world rather than simply a neutral description of a fire hose. This is also interesting because it is the fire hose that ends up killing Beatty, and so it makes it seem less like it was Montag’s fault and more this snake-like creature’s instead.
Because personification is so often used when talking about technology in the book, it is interesting to look at living things within the story. These are described as being more lifeless than the technology, as when Montag describes Mildred as having “hair burnt by chemicals to a brittle straw… her flesh like white bacon” (Pg48). It is an interesting parallel that the author has created and one that makes for a clear message; when technology is such a major part of society that it controls almost every aspect of daily life, people become as lifeless as technology. It is in a way a form of de-personification.
Julia Wagner
ReplyDeleteTechnology’s Effect on Guy and Millie’s Relationship
The idea of how technology affects the relationship between Guy Montag and Millie was brought up briefly during seminar last class and I would like to elaborate on this topic. The technology in Fahrenheit 451, mostly the “parlor families,” has a negative impact on Montag and Millie’s relationship. It’s clear that they have a poor relationship and that they don’t seem to care for or love each other or even enjoy each other’s company. Even when Guy and Millie were in the car together Millie would drive “…a hundred miles an hour across town, he shouting at her and she shouting back and both trying to hear what was said, but hearing only the scream of the car.” (Bradbury 46) And even when they “…stepped out of the car, she had the Seashells stuffed in her ears.” (Bradbury 46)
A great example of how the “parlor families” created this distant relationship is that they cause fights between Millie and Guy. Even in the very beginning of the book, the couple starting bickering about getting a fourth wall for their house. Millie argued that “It’s only two thousand dollars” while that is “…one-third of [Guy’s] yearly pay.”(Bradbury 20). Even though it is obvious that this fourth wall would be a big expense for them, Millie just thinks that Guy should “consider [her] sometimes” (Bradbury) and that he doesn’t care for her because he is being realistic about their money. This shows how technology like the parlor walls creates conflict between Millie and Guy, but it also shows how it effects their agreement on their financial state. Monetary issues are one of the most important things that a couple should agree on. If they don’t agree on important things such as money, Millie and Guy could end up with four walls, no money, and Millie blaming Guy for their financial circumstances. This does not create a healthy relationship and is hard to mend.
The Parlor families also keep Millie and Guy apart from each other which keep them from developing a strong relationship. Guy even thought that there was “…a wall between him and Mildred, when it came down to it[.] Literally not just on wall but, so far, three! And expensive too!” (Bradbury 44) Montag recognizes that the technology is getting between him and whatever wife he has left. If Millie and Guy bought another parlor wall, they would just be paying thousands of dollars to add more bricks to the wall that’s already between them.
Also, the article that I found and annotated for the discussion last class is about how, in the world today, there is a connection between technology and divorce. The article states that “If you’re engaged in civic institutions there’s a certain cri de coeur that’s more meaningful than watching the Eagles play at your buddy’s apartment.” This means that being engaged in real life rather than passively watching TV creates a strong and healthy relationship. This is the type of relationship that Millie and Guy lack due to the Millie’s obsessions with the “parlor families.”
Millie and Guy’s relationship suffered because of technology present in the dystopian society in Fahrenheit 451 caused disagreement in important parts of their relationship and creating a wall between them.
Outside Sources:
Lee, Amy. "Technology And Divorce: A Correlation?." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 9 Dec. 2010. Web. 5 June 2014. .
Dilip Aaron
ReplyDeleteTechnology Dependence in Today's World and in Fahrenheit 451
One topic that was lightly discussed was the dependence on technology. People may not realize but most people rely on technology heavily, and almost few to none can say that they don't depend on technology. I personally depend on technology for communication with others, finding out information quickly (Google), and almost every aspect of my life. Which I will admit that I am pretty dependent on technology, and my life would be probably pretty boring to me without technology. This also connected to Fahrenheit 451 in the dependence that Mildred had for technology. Mildred was so dependent on her technology that when Montag burned the house down Mildred muttered, “Poor family, poor family, oh everything gone, everything, everything gone now…(page 114).” Dependence on technology is growing problem in today’s world and there seems to be no slowing down of it as we see 1st graders with iPhone 5’s and Babies using Ipads.
In today’s the world most people can’t live without technology. A research experiment done by the University of Glasgow found that half of the participants checked their email once an hour, while some checked their email 30 to 40 times in one hour! An AOL study found that 59 percent of PDA users checked their email every single time a new email arrived and 83 percent check their email every single day on vacation. This is one of hundreds of studies done that people are dependent on technology and we can clearly see that almost everyone today is dependent on technology.
In Fahrenheit 451 Mildred’s life was almost revolved around technology. Mildred’s “so called” family, the parlor, was one of the closest thing that Mildred had to herself. You see that when Montag burns their house down and Mildred went into the beetle saying, “Poor family, poor family, oh everything gone, everything, everything gone now…(page 114).” You can see that Mildred was seriously attached to her parlor family as she repeatedly said “poor family, poor family,” which means that was her main concern as that was the first thing that she said.
Through this we can see that Bradbury was right on that in the future technology was going to be huge dependence for many people. Bradbury who wrote this book in the 1950’s was just introduced to so many new inventions and technology that is still used today. Inventions such as the credit card, television, the corvette, computers, and many more invention that maybe the exposure to these new inventions caused Bradbury to predict the dependence of technology. But one things for sure that dependence on technology is a growing commodity today.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/when-technology-addiction-takes-over-your-life
http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/technology-in-the-1950s
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete-It Was All A Dream-
ReplyDeleteAn interpretation a Fahrenheit 451
By Noah "Swag" Rohde
In the class seminar based on the interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, in which I was not there, the topic of repetition to transition from one pivotal moment of Guy Montag's life to another was frequently discussed. Or not idk ok I passed out that morning jeez sorry.
This was a subtle literary style that was masterly used throughout the entire book. The main example of how Mr. Bradbury did this was the use of Bomber Jets. The presence of a Bomber would signify a change of great magnitude in Guy’s life. In the first couple of pages, the bomber that shakes the foundations of Guy’s house symbolizes the emotion Guy feels for finding his wife dead after an overdose of sleeping pills. The passage is used to convey the feeling of uncontrolled emotional outbreak that rocks Mr. Montag to his core.
Later, after Guy and Mildred had begun to read the books that Guy stole from the houses he was supposed to burn, the second appearance of the Bombers shows how the knowledge of the books has and will change Guy 5ever. To Guy, the books not only represent newfound knowledge but, they represent independence and the discovery of learning something for yourself, which guy has not done since his childhood.
The final Bomber sighting is after Guy has been chased out of the city and has lost the government pursuers and is with Granger ‘n’ the gang. After his initial shock of finding others outside of the city, and their discussion about books and their meaning, the bombers return to make their mark upon the city. The passage within the novel is sparse and abrupt, but it went something like this: Guy: “What is that laddie?” Granger: “idk m8 must be some plan-- Bombers: “weooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwghhhhhhhhhBLAMBRRRAATKABLOEY” In case you guys didn't know the city was probably leveled, and so now Guy can go “change the world,” and “have critical thinking skills” or whatnot. The planes are the godsend that was needed to help educate the world and help destroy the corrupt and evil government.
The literary arc of the bombers, be it revelation of a suicide, a new way of thinking, or the heralding of a new age, are the spark of a beginning. Without them, the story would not have been the same. Not only does a bomber have the figurative power needed to represent the new thing, but they are also literally powerful enough to destroy, like they do at the end of the book.
you're wrong.
Delete#Guy5everMontag
Delete#Godsend?youmeanlikechinesemarijuana?
with love,
Ethan Schalekamp :)
exactly like Chinese weed
Deletexoxo bby
;)
Boys,
DeleteI don't know what you are talking about in the comments here -- I hope it is appropriate. Save the texting lingo for texting please!
Mrs. White
Sorry, we tend to mess with each other a lot. I was referencing a quote from his writing above and something he said during his debate on legalization of marijuana. We are also bros, therefore we write to each other in a manner fitting of brotherly relations, i.e. "with love". (let it be known that I did not write any X's or O's) Seriously though, sorry. It won't happen again.
DeleteWhy Happiness and Humans Don't Mix
ReplyDeleteIf you observe the patterns that are visible within human actions, as well as in Fahrenheit 451, you begin to realize that the notion of happiness being impossible is, well, possible. During our discussion today, group one spoke a lot about how,why (or why not), and whether the citizens of Montag's America were happy. I want to expand on this and introduce the idea that broad, widespread pleasure and happiness is next to impossible when pursued almost in the same way as a political, economic, or social objective.
Consider human history. If one defines happiness as a state of being or state of mind where one is utterly satisfied, desiring no more than what they have, then we have never before seen a civilization where everyone indiscriminately experiences this for an extended period of time. It's in our nature to not be satisfied. The Roman empire collapsed in part due to over expansion, they always wanted to dominate the next region. Never satisfied. One might site periods such as the Renaissance or other periods of cultural stimulation, but always there was and will be an end. Someone who comes along to exercise their ideals or power. Even children are taught by their parents and their educators to never be satisfied from a young age. "Don't settle" is a philosophy that is drilled into our heads to fuel the engine of capitalism with personal achievement.
Ferenheit 451 is an example of the futility of chasing after indefinite, worldly happiness. The implied government of Mantag's America does everything in its power to control the lives of its citizens, brainwashing them to be happy, stealing their ability to think for themselves, therefore stealing their ability to idealize and form ambition, the basis of change and the reason we can never stay satisfied. Even Mildred, a poster child for the ideal mind zombie, slave to the system, displayed signs of discontent. Such times as when she requests the installation of the "fourth wall", even though the third had just recently been added, or when she describes her late night
speeding as a means to release her negative emotions. The society portrayed in this novel is built to be a happy, wonderful, perfect candy land sugarcoated with pleasure and fun. This is not the case though, even in a fictional world. Stories of suicides, of murder are mentioned many times throughout the book. The way they are scattered might even represent the widespread reality of discontent. People like Faber, or the old lady who burned herself down with her books. These are all examples of the inevitable failure that any plot for indefinite pleasure is doomed to. Even the very day man or woman displays signs of unhappiness. Mildred's friends who visit
Montag's house after an evening of drinking to watch the equivalent of Saturday morning cartoons, for example. Upon encounter with anything out of the ordinary, anything unorthodox, they become unsettled and doubtful. On page 98 of the novel, Montag is exposing his frustration and his books to Mildred's friends, and each of them do everything in their power to escape the situation. Mrs. Phelps breaks into tears. This all just goes to show that no matter what anyone ever does, the ideal of achieving a unanimous, all inclusive, endless satisfaction is impossible, plain and simple, even if the task is carried out by enforcing a false happiness, such as with people like Mildred and her friends.
It's a sad and disappointing concept, perhaps, that you and I will likely never stay satisfied. But it is this that makes life interesting, change, expression, the ebb and flow of ideas from one mind to the next. People like Clarisse undoubtedly understand this. Regardless of what our goals are, it's always the journey that is the most fun. The struggle, the joy, the pain, this is all what a human being lives for. Montag's purpose had always been to destroy, to settle for the reality of his world. The meaning in his life was akin to the ashes left behind from the salamander's flames: wilted, airy, parched, empty. When he discovered the potential of intellectualism and consciousness, he was naturally pulled in. This is why he loved Clarisse so much and in such little time. He says himself that she made him feel like he mattered, and perhaps this was his catalyst, the driving force that brought about his new life that was full of purpose and meaning.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, also the Hedonistic Paradox: "Pleasure pursued for its own sake vanishes before our eyes."
Deletedon't remember who said that or where it's from but its completely relevant
Fahrenheit 451
ReplyDeleteAs I read this book, I was overwhelmed with the connections I could make to today;s world and how prophetic it was. First and foremost was the whole idea of a dystopian society run by basically nothing but technology. The whole idea of how humans were in a way replaced by machines. The hound for example was a great indicator of how there was no role of law enforcement, another example was the machine that was used to help Mildred by inexperienced workers that weren’t even doctors. This theme is seen throughout the book, people are cut off from each other because they have all these technological advancements that keep them occupied and they don’t feel the need to have any real conversations with people and have lost touch to the outside world. Mildred is once again a perfect example of this, how she was so indulged in the world of “people on the wall” and had “conversations” with them. This reminded me of television and computers today and how everyone of us is a victim of addiction caused by these sources of entertainment. I think Bradbury was trying to convey the whole idea of how technology is taking over our lives in a sense. How this indulgence in technology takes away from human interaction which is in no way healthy for the human mind, as we see throughout the book, the characters are very unhappy with their life but aren’t allowed to question it because they’re supposed to be “happy”, they have everything they need to be happy. When Bradbury picks up a book, he questions and that is exactly what he needed to do. During the time period which this book was written (1950’s), technologies such as the television were being introduced to the common household. Bradbury was almost in a way revealing a prophecy of how all these technologies would eventually be our downfall and one day the devices we once controlled by a remote will be controlling us. I don’t know how accurate his prediction is but I do know that even if we’re not at that point yet, we are definitely moving towards that downfall.
“The magic is only in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us.”
The theme I thought to be most influential and the main idea of the book in a way was knowledge, how knowledge is obtained and how much of it we are able to access. As I read Fahrenheit 451, every time I would see the mention of a book, I thought of it as a little bundle of knowledge that the characters in the book were trying to obtain. The setting of Fahrenheit 451 is obviously a Dystopian society whose citizen are contained within boundaries that don’t give them much access to the outside world. The whole idea of how Montag and his fellow firemen were supposed to destroy the books was a way of getting rid of knowledge, knowledge that would ultimately lead people to think, think for themselves, think for the world and then eventually question the authority a the time. Another way this can be perceived ties back into the idea of technological advancements, how technology is a platform of giving people the knowledge that you want to give them, they believe in what they see and their point of view is left to be nothing but what the media gives them. Bradbury when writing this book wasn’t saying that technology is bad or that we shouldn’t have technological advancements, he was trying to convey the fact that while we are making progress in the world of computers and the internet, we can’t completely shun the pages of reality that are binded together and contain words that are unbiased and answer our questions and curiosities. This book was very well written as it leaves itself open to interpretation and gives us a moment to just stop and ponder about how these themes are seen today, which I think they definitely are. We are glued to our phones and computers and our thirst for knowledge has significantly decreased and we are the only ones who can change that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFahrenheit 451
ReplyDeleteI was not there for the discussion, but I will right about what I wanted to talk about.
The first thing I wanted to bring up was all of the connections that we see in our world today. First of all, I was struck by the connections of the idea of instant gratification in our world today. We spoke about this briefly in class, but I really feel like this is one of the more important themes in the book. Beaty summed it up perfectly in just three words when he said "Life is immediate." That is very much true in our world today, as well, as we have the ability to get our news and entertainment over the internet or on television. Another connection I saw was how personal Mildred got with her "family" on TV. I think this can relate to certain people in our world today, as lots of times we hear people say things like "I CAN NOT believe that Bobby broke up with Mary! Mary was my FAVORITE character, and Bobby totally just betrayed me." An example from the books is when Mildred's friend said ‘'You want to visit my house and my ‘family,’ well and good.” Mildred and her friends truly felt like their "families" belonged to them and were real.
Another thing I was hoping to speak about was how technology basically ruined Mildred and Montag's relationship. One thing I noticed was that Mildred was so engrossed in her television programs, she actually began to care more about those than her own husband. Then, when Montag tried to question her, she took it personally, as if Guy had no reason to be upset. This led to a disconnect between Montag and Mildred, which got to the point where Guy even said he wouldn't be sad if Mildred were to die. Technology also has ruined relationships today, just different types of relationships. All the time, we hear about kids who play video games all day instead of spending time with their families or getting jobs. This ruins relationships within families in a similar way in which happened to Guy and Mildred.
Patrick Chi
ReplyDeleteThe Real Relationships
During the Fishbowl discussions last class, the relationship between Guy Montag and Mildred in Fahrenheit 451 was briefly mentioned, but remained largely undiscussed. When looking at the book as a whole, it’s clear that their relationship is unlike anything that we are accustomed to today in the real world, and that their relationship is definitely affected by the isolated atmosphere that is present throughout the entire book. Furthermore, these characteristics of Montag and Mildred’s relationship can be further extended to their dystopian society as a whole.
When first looking at the relationship between Montag and Mildred, it may seem like there is almost no relationship at all. During one of Montag’s confrontations with Clarisse, Clarisse suddenly accused Montag of not being in love because the dandelion pollen didn’t rub off on Montag’s face. When Montag countered by arguing he indeed was in love, “he tried to conjure up a face to fit the words, but there was no face” (Bradbury 22). The fact that Montag shows absolutely no emotion during that dialogue with Clarisse shows that it’s highly unlikely that Montag has true feelings for Mildred.
This type of “anti-relationship” behavior is exhibited by Mildred many times as well. From the time Mildred wakes up, to the time she goes to bed, her entire day almost entirely consists of listening to the Seashells or watching the Walls. In addition to this, Mildred is not supportive of Montag; Mildred doesn’t support Montag’s book collecting at all. Instead, Mildred even takes the roll of a firefighter and burns some of the books on her own. Finally, to top it off, Mildred is the one who calls the firehouse to inform that Montag has hidden many books in his house. Had they been in a true and close relationship, it is doubtful that Mildred would act the way that she did.
However, looking further into the book, it becomes clear that Mildred and Montag are not the only couple who share such a separated life with each other, but many of Mildred’s friends are under the same circumstances. Take Mrs. Phelps for example. At one point during the gathering between Mildred’s three friends and Montag, Mrs. Phelps takes the time to describe her marriage with her husbands. The first thing to notice is the how she describes them: “Oh they come and go, come and go” (Bradbury 94). From these words, Mrs. Phelps makes it seem like marriage is a routine thing, and that if one husband dies or leaves, then she can just find another one. Then, she goes on to say: “It’s our third marriage each and we’re independent. He said, if I get killed off, you just go right ahead and don’t cry, but get married again, don’t think of me” (Bradbury 95). These words further reinforce the idea that in this society, marriage almost has no meaning or value to it at all, and that relationships in this dystopian society are essentially nonexistent.
The reason for these incoherent relationships likely stems from one of the most prevalent themes throughout Fahrenheit 451, the fact that technology impacts society in a negative way. In this case, the technology makes the people of the dystopia to be more secluded and less interactive with each other, such as the fact that Mildred spends her entire day watching the walls. When Montag is talking with Faber about the plan to reintroduce books into the society, he laments: “Nobody listens any more. I can’t talk to the walls because they’re yelling at me. I can’t talk to my wife; she listens to the walls” (Montag 82). It’s obvious that this lack of communication and involvement directly lead to discontinuity in their society.
Personification in Fahrenheit 451
ReplyDeleteDuring the discussion, someone briefly mentioned that within the book, technology was often described like they were living, important characters within the story. There were many pieces of technology that played pivotal roles within the story, like the Mechanical Hound and the walls of the parlor. The technology has a negative impact on the relationships between the people in their society, and while this topic was not largely covered within the fishbowl discussion, I believe that within this story, Bradbury tries to enforce the idea that as people become dependent on technology, they stop socializing with each other as a whole and as individuals.
After Millie dies, it is interesting to see how little it bothers strangers, and the apathetic attitude they have towards her. The exchange where she is brought back to life is impersonal and easy, thanks to the machine that cleans her bloodstream. “The woman on the bed was no more than a hard stratum of marble they had reached.” The operators don’t care about her well-being, and are only there to fix her and receive their payment. Her living or dead doesn’t make a difference to them, as they don’t stay to find out if she’s ok the next day. This represents the attitudes present in the society of the book, where everyone has their own separate agendas, and trusts the machines to solve their problems so that they don’t have to face the consequences.
Another disturbing fact about the people in Fahrenheit 451 is how, although they are married to other people, don’t form emotional attachments to each other. Millie dismisses the fact that she can’t remember where she met Montag, by saying “Funny, how funny, not to remember where or when you met your husband’r wife.” This quote really shows that the two of them, although they’re living together, have no emotional connection, and are just two strangers living in the same house. Montag himself makes this conclusion the night Millie overdoses. “And he remembered thinking then that if she died, he was certain he wouldn’t cry, for it would be the dying of an unknown, a street face, a newspaper image…” With the walls, Millie focuses her time with the parlor family, instead of bonding with Montag, causing them to not have a large significance towards each other.
When Millie’s friends come to her house to socialize, all they do is watch TV together and they don’t talk or interact until Montag makes them. When the walls are turned off, the three women don’t know how to interact with each other. This brings up a similar parallel to today’s world, where everyone is on their phones all the time, even when with other people. I believe that Bradbury was attempting to warn the readers of becoming too dependent of technology.
Emilie Ravena
ReplyDeleteThe Underlying Problem: Excessive Technology
In the Fahrenheit 451 conversation we had in class, we talked briefly about the society Montag lived in. It was brought up that we never found out who they were in a nuclear war with. This was because people were so caught up in their daily lives and their “parlor walls,” they didn’t stop and wonder about the jet engines they heard flying over the house, or maybe they just had their technology turned up too loud to hear them. So why was it that Montag was different and noticed things that most of society walked right by?
From of the start of the book, it was evident that Montag didn’t conform to society as well as his wife, Millie did. He realized quickly that he wasn’t content with his way of living, and while these feelings were unearthed by Clarissa, he seemed to have known deep down for a long time that something was wrong. After all, he had a stash of around twenty books hidden in a vent in his house. When Clarissa asked him if he was happy, Montag instinctively thought he was, but later that night, he began to realize “He was not happy. He said the words to himself. He recognized this as the true state of affairs. He wore his happiness as a mask and the girl had run off across the lawn with the mask and there was no way of going to knock on her door and ask for it back” (Bradbury 12). After being exposed to the real truth about himself, Montag began to notice more everyday happenings that most of society wouldn’t spend a second on. One of the reasons why Montag was observing more of the world than most people was because he was never reliant on the technology that was stuffed in everyone's faces. When trying to watch the parlor walls, “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…” (Bradbury 45). Montag's wife was a whole different story, and there wasn’t a moment when the parlor walls were on, or her seashells were in her ears. So what were the effects of addiction to technology on people?
An article I found on ABC News talks about why people follow “go with the flow.” People were tested on whether they would follow the crowd's ideas in different situations or speak their mind. Most people in the tests went along with what everyone else was saying, even if what they were saying was wrong. The main premise of the article is that it is much easier to follow people than to speak against them, risking their reactions. In Fahrenheit 451, Millie watched so much of her parlor walls, she could have been brainwashed to agree with the “family." It seems like it would be easy for one’s mind to be altered by the parlor walls because while watching, “You drowned in music and pure cacophony” (Bradbury 45). Since Montag was never interested in watching walls or listening to seashells, he was able to keep his thoughts to himself. This enabled him to step back and notice how enlaced everyone else's’ lives were with technology.
Sources: "Why Do People Follow the Crowd?." ABC News. ABC News Network, 12 Jan. 2006. Web. 6 June 2014. .
Lesley Santos
ReplyDeleteDuring our discussion, the negative effects of technology on society were repeatedly brought up. More specifically, we discussed how technology had a negative effect on how people viewed the idea of love. In general, technology decreased the amount of face to face communication between people. This made it more difficult for two individuals to create and share a special bond between one another, whether it was as a friend or a lover. Often times, people were scared of face to face communication and it made them uneasy. On top of this, people had to be careful of what they had to say as they were under constant surveillance by people such as Captain Beatty. A good example of this was Faber who had "lived alone so many years" (page 90). Upon seeing Montag at his door, he was very quiet and fearful. It took him a while for him to get comfortable. He later acknowledged his behavior saying, "I'm sorry. One has to be careful." (page 80). This just showed how uptight everyone was about life outside of technology.
This also interfered with people's relationship with their "significant other". For Guy Montag and Mildred, it had gotten to the point where it was almost as if there was a barrier standing between them. It had even gotten to the point where Mildred was "an expert at lip reading from ten years of apprenticeship at Seashell ear thimbles." (page 18). This made it so that every time they had a conversation, Mildred wasn't even listening. In some senses, this wouldn't even be considered a conversation. In addition, whenever Mildred and Montag would talk with each other, their conversations were short and fragmented. In comparison, Montag's conversations with Clarisse were much longer and more in depth.
This lack of communication was simply displayed by the fact that Montag and his wife never bore any children. This was not however, due to the fact that neither of them had wanted children. As a matter of fact, Montag had always been a lover of children and maybe even desired some of his own. In a conversation with Clarisse, he even admitted that the only reason he didn't have any children, was because of the fact that Mildred "just never wanted any children at all." (page 28). As we learned later on in the book, this had been a problem, not only for Montag and Mildred, but other couples as well. During a small gathering / party, Montag asked one of Mildred's friends, Mrs. Phelps how her children were. In response, she grew angry and said, "You know I haven't any! No one in his right mind the good Lord knows, would have children!" (page 96) She became so worked up over this matter, that she even surprised herself by how angry we was. This just goes to show how technology made it difficult for people to think for themselves. Another one of Mildred's friends, Mrs. Bowles came up with a different approach to Montag's question. Instead of completely shutting down the idea of having kids, she agreed that it was necessary to sustain a population and had bore two children of her own. On the other hand however, she put herself before her children and unnecessarily underwent Caesarian sections both times simply to avoid the pain. Even so, she had a clear disliking towards her own children and even went out of her way to make sure she would only see her kids 3 times a month. In this particular situation, this caused a further lack of communication between a mother and her children. As Montag put it, Mrs. Bowles children would grow up to hate her if they didn't already and that she should be ashamed of herself. This makes me wonder if the next generation of people, which had grown up hating their parents, would be the one to finally rebel against this technology-based society.
Jonathan Rettig
ReplyDeleteFahrenheit 451 connections to the holocaust
Although throughout the discussion many people pointed out the similarities to the cold war, Fahrenheit 451, a novel written by Ray Bradbury shows many connections and similarities to the tragedy that was the holocaust. Although it would certainly be a stretch to say that the novel was written as a metaphor for holocaust, there are many visible connections and I believe that the reason for that is the time period at which this novel was written.
Fahrenheit 451 was written in the early 1950's, a time period in which the holocaust was still quite fresh in the minds of American citizens, which is why it makes sense that there are several connections to the holocaust in the novel. From hidden metaphors and character traits to the blatant similarity of the burning of books in order to censor media, this novel has many connections to the holocaust. Since I already mentioned it, I will now further explain the connection of the burning of books. During Nazi rule in Germany, the Nazis ordered a specific lists of "dangerous" books to be burned. Many of these books contained political ideas that Hitler did not want to be exposed to the public, in order to protect his own power. This can be directly related to Fahrenheit 451. In this novel, the act of owning any book is illegal and supposedly "dangerous" to society. If found by a group called the firemen, these books will be burned and sometimes an entire house or people can be burned as well. Sound familiar? Beatty claims that they established this procedure in order to keep the public "happy" as shown in this quote, "'Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's cabin. Burn it,'"(Bradbury 59). Although Beatty says the books are burned to keep people from being upset, I wonder if the real reason these books are banned is because the leaders of society (in this case, the firemen) have the same paranoia and the same motives as the Nazis. I wonder if the reason they are so concerned about the existence of books is because these books may contain information or an idea that could lead to a revolution, ultimately resulting in the decline of power for the firemen. This could be the reason that the firemen are actually worried about the existence of books, and they have brainwashed society to agree with their antagonism of books.
Another way this novel shares connections with the holocaust is the characterization of Faber. In my mind, I see Faber as a parallel to the bystander countries and even some Germans during the holocaust (one could also argue that this is a similar role to Amir in Kite Runner). This role is the role of someone who knows of wrongs being committed, and has the ability to stop them, but instead doesn't get involved out of their own fear. In many instances this is almost as bad as having committed the wrong themselves and it is people like this that allow these problems to grow and grow until it becomes an awful and unstoppable problem. This idea is a clear connection between Faber and the bystanders of the holocaust as shown on page 82 "'I saw the way things were going, a long time back. I said nothing. I'm one of the innocents who could have spoken up and out when no one would listen to the 'guilty,' but I did not speak and thus became guilty myself,"(Bradbury 82). As you can see, there are many emotions and feelings that are quite similar to the bystanders the holocaust and Faber. Another way that Fahrenheit 451 connects to the holocaust, along with many more.
Seeds of Doubt
ReplyDeleteThe world that Guy Montag lives in is considered a utopia, at least from the perspective of the government and its brainwashed citizens. Everyone is supposedly happy and nothing bad ever really happens. However, throughout the novel, it is clear that different people at different points begin to doubt whether or not their society is a utopia, or whether they are even happy. For the most part, the citizens of this society never think unhappy thoughts, or think much at all, but it is evident that some begin to see the light as the novel progresses.
Suicide is a central theme in the novel. Sprinkled throughout it are various reports of someone jumping off a bridge or overdosing on prescription drugs, which is what Montag’s wife did early in the novel. This is not just a coincidence; these attempts at suicide show that some of the people are coming to the realization that their lives aren’t so enjoyable after all, and these people don’t see a way out other than ending their lives.
Another example of someone coming to grips with their situation is Montag himself. He goes through a nearly full transformation in his feelings towards society. In the beginning, he is burning books, and loving every second of it. When Clarisse asks him whether he is happy, he is baffled and can’t see why someone would even ask something like that. When he begins to examine himself, however, he realizes that he has had a false sense of happiness throughout his life. After watching an old lady burn herself alive with her books, he loses the joy he once had in burning things, and begins to take interest in the books he had been stealing. He reads these books, and realizes that the society he lives in suppresses valuable thought and creativity, and he begins taking significant risks to convert society into book readers, not burners.
In Bradbury’s futuristic society, most have the thought that they are thoroughly content with their lives, but Bradbury shows that even in a society where talking about legitimate issues and even thinking, are suppressed, the human mind cannot be completely quenched of thought and analytic thinking. Considering the circumstances of Bradbury’s world when he wrote this novel, he probably felt he shared a connection with Montag as being someone who discovered the secret, the secret that the world is not alright.
Danielle Duguid
ReplyDeleteTechnology’s effect on love
One topic that was slightly touched upon in the second discussion group which needs to be explored more in depth is technology’s effect on love and relationships. In Fahrenheit 451 Guy Montag and Mildred say that they are married, but the couple hardly ever talks. Mildred goes to bed every night in a separate bed listening to her Seashells. At first I believed that Guy and Mildred were the only ones with this odd relationship but as the book went on you saw other examples of this as well. Mildred’s “friends” Mrs. Phelps and Mrs. Bowles also seem to have this type of unloving relationship, claiming to not love their children and just wanting to be rid of them. Guy Montag realises that if Mildred died he wouldn’t have cared in the slightest. It seems insane to me that a person can be so unfeeling or uncaring where the death of another person is involved, especially when that person is supposed to be their wife.
Technology seems to stop real relationships from occurring because with this overflow of technology, everyone is so immersed in their selves that there are no real relationships or bonds formed. Mildred’s friends only come over to watch the walls. Even though this is considered friendship in this bizarre future it is really not. The overuse of the instant gratification indirectly had a huge impact on all types of love or relationships. Actually it can be argued that the government Fahrenheit 451, who seems to be deathly afraid of individuality and imagination has cultured their society so there is no love because love brings out individuality and imagination in people. Love makes people open to new ideas and new ways of thinking, and not just romantic love, love between friends of parents and children aren’t apparent in this world either.
It seems that the people who live in Guy and Mildred’s world have to some extent subconsciously acknowledged that they have never experienced love, which explains why people such as Mildred turn to the Parlor families for comfort. The Parlor families are used as an attempt to mimic real relationships, and seem to be valued more than actual families. Mildred alone has more “conversations” with their parlor family than she does with her own husband.
Technology has a huge impact on all relationships. Even in our society technology has changed the way relationships are. In Fahrenheit 451’s futuristic society it goes to a whole new level.
Jill Armenia
ReplyDeleteCensorship
In the Fahrenheit 451 fishbowl, a theme that repeatedly came up was how censorship affects life in the dystopia and also throughout history. Obviously in Fahrenheit 451 we see the censorship of books by the government through the burning of homes. This completely changes the perspective of the citizens because now, essentially all of their ideas come from government produced media, such as television or the “seashell radio.” The government essentially does this to ensure that no one will have their own ideas, and will only believe what their technology teaches them. This leads them to never question the government or cause any trouble. A similar process has taken place many times throughout world history. Nazi Germany for example, censored media in order to gain support for their party and war effort. They used propaganda to encourage discrimination and were able to persuade a vast number of people to favor their cause. Another example of this is the Cold War era Soviet Union, which destroyed what they believed to be “politically incorrect” media and any foreign literature that went against communist ideals. Again, removing a citizen’s right to think for himself. In Fahrenheit, the government manipulates it’s citizens to fulfill it’s own agenda. They brainwash their citizens into believing books are meaningless, such as Mildred, who on page 68 says “‘What does it mean? It doesn’t mean anything!” She has been taught to believe everything she hears and refuses to form an idea of her own, even with her husband begging for her help. What we failed to talk about in the discussion however, were the people who refuse to follow the agenda of the government and disobey the regulations put in place for them. Montag, for example, clearly understands there is something more to be learned and he goes out of his way to find out what and put a stop to the oppressive ways of his superiors. This also happens in history when brave individuals are able to speak out for the things they believe, becoming iconic and inspirational for everyone who sees them.
Throughout our conversation, this connection between the dystopian society in Fahrenheit 451 and the USSR continued to surface, only to learn in the last chapter of the book that it was in fact the United States the entire time. The book was a commentary on how in order to fight the enemy of the USA, we had to give up our own freedoms and things that we stood for, and how if we continued on this path, we would be no better than our enemy.
ReplyDeleteIn the Soviet Union, the only worth a person had was the work they put forward for the state, and in the book, everyone was seen as objects and not as individuals. They were only seen as very simple creatures which had no way of thinking for themselves. Even the curious people, such as Montag, Fahber and Beatty, were all people who bent to the will of their superiors. Beatty blindly followed the firehouse rules. Fahber hid from the world that hated the books he loved, and Montag blindly followed both of them, only acting on his own volition once or twice in the book.
And in this society, where people bend to simple leadership, people start to become objects, only good for certain things. Mildred, for example, is nothing more than a consumer, not doing anything to better society other than to buy seashells and to indulge in the parlor families. Even those who fought against censorship were forced to be reduced to objects. One of Granger’s friends introduces himself, saying “I am Plato’s Republic.” (pg. 151) He was only worth the book he memorized. Similarly in the Soviet Union, people were reduced to machines, only worth their industrial output. People were not respected for their intellectual understanding but for what they could provide the state. And this reducing of people to their jobs allowed for the censorship of ideas and control of the people’s minds.
All these signs could lead the reader into thinking the dystopian society is in fact the Soviet Union, and would be impossible to know for sure whether or not it was the USSR until the very last chapter after the bomb went off and we got to see exactly what the path of censorship lead to. Ray Bradbury only dropped city names such as Chicago or St. Louis until he demonstrated how censorship was really the end of the world. He showed the hypocrisy in fighting an enemy to spread freedom, while removing those freedoms in order to fight them.
Sorry this was late. It turns out I forgot to hit “publish”.
Destruction and Creation
ReplyDeleteAlthough I was not present for the discussion one of the more subtle themes I discovered throughout the course of Fahrenheit 451 was that Bradbury implied that humans are constantly prone to destruction. Bradbury wrote this novel during the Cold War not too long after World War II had ended, after a time of great annihilation and the usage of the most catastrophic weapon mankind has ever constructed. Even in this futuristic dystopia which is accompanied by clear advancements in technology the society is deprived of basic human morality and ethics, and wars are a constant presence in their daily lives with “jet bombers going over” (Bradbury 11). But as Montag develops as a character he seems to realize with destruction there must also be room for creation.
In the beginning of the novel burning books or destroying them is an exciting and thrilling occupation for Montag; “It was a pleasure to burn” (Bradbury 3). In this society the fireman’s sole purpose is to use fire as a means to set ablaze and destroy books and at first Montag sees that as the only valuable application of fire. But towards the conclusion of the novel Montag realizes that fire “meant a different thing to him” (Bradbury 145) that it could be used not just for destroying but also for creating, “It was warming” (Bradbury 145) which conveys that fire is only destructive if manipulated for the purpose of destroying. This directly relates to the internal conflict Montag faces but is able to resolve which is that he is destructive only when he chooses; that he has a choice in what his purpose is to be. That the only true way to achieve some sort of legacy is creation “as long as you change something from the way it was before” (Bradbury 157) and this society has not only produced destruction but has also taken away the people’s ability to create which like Millie renders their life futile.