On Paths Unknown discussion
This topic is about
Fahrenheit 451
CENSORSHIP vs FREEDOM OF SPEECH
>
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury convening thread
I can't believe I didn't already know that, even if it is very recent.I find the UK's hamfisted attempts to prevent piracy laughable. I can't imagine how I first ran across it only days after arriving here, but nothing I've found blocked by the ISP has ever taken me more than a couple of minutes to find some other way.
Mod
China's "Great Firewall" Haha that's classic.
Mod
Thanks for the interesting link, Ruth.
I'm reading an interesting book right now (thriller, possibly techno-, maybe even a little SF, but I really can't remember how it was billed), set in China. I think it was a promo from BookBub, and I downloaded it (can't remember whether it was free or just cheap) purely because it had a great title (Rock Paper Tiger), but of course the Great Firewall comes into that too.ETA: Yep, I actually spent $2 plus tax to buy this solely on the strength of the title, and when Harper released a version they changed the name to the totally dull Year of the Tiger—idiots.
Mod
Not to mention that if you enter "Year of the Tiger" in the "add book" link here on GR, you get 13 pages (it's not a very good search, so they're not all actually called "year of the tiger") but "rock paper tiger" calls up ONE book! Unique is good. But I love the play on "rock paper scissors" and Mao's "paper tigers".
Mod
Indeed!
Mod
Every time I read this I come across stuff I don't remember reading before. So much packed into such a small book!
Mod
I'm not sure if there are going to be other threads for aspects of 451, so for now I'll just say that although I've read it several times before, this time I was stunned by the beauty of the language. Somehow I'd not noticed that before. You don't expect dystopias to be so lyrical. (And then I went to 1984, which was far, far grimmer than I remembered.)
Mod
Yeah, I wouldn't call 1984 exactly lyrical. ;P
Three should be fine, but how will we divide them up?
The book is divided into three sections, so having three topics makes sense:“It Was a Pleasure to Burn”
“The Sieve and the Sand”
“Burning Bright”
Mod
Speaking of which, the story starts off in a quite dramatic way, doesn't it?
PS. I certainly hope for his sake, that he was wearing gloves on his way down that pole - ouch!
OK, if this is about the first part, yes, it's a great opening, and it's a good bit of world-building, but this was the section where the poetic language, especially relating to moonlight and/or odd contradictions lured me in. For example:“The moonlight distilled in each eye to form a silver cataract.”
"The trees overhead made a great sound of letting down their dry rain.”
Mod
Oh, the lyricism started to allure me from where he walks past the spot on the pavement where it feels to him like somebody was there, already; and slightly further on I'm starting to think that the style actually reminds me a bit of Kawabata with it's poetic impressionism.
Also
They walked in the warm-cool blowing night on the silvered pavement and there was the faintest breath of fresh apricots and strawberries in the air, and he looked around and realized this was quite impossible, so late in the year.
and
He saw himself in her eyes, suspended in two shining drops of bright water, himself dark and tiny, in fine detail, the lines about his mouth, everything there, as if her eyes were two miraculous bits of violet amber that might capture and hold him intact. Her face, turned to him now, was fragile milk crystal with a soft and constant light in it. It was not the hysterical light of electricity but what? But the strangely comfortable and rare and gently flattering light of the candle.
Mod
I'm also finding it a bit creepy; I'm finding the girl a bit creepy, like a ghost or something.
First time? Wow! Have you seen the film, or is it completely new territory?I know what you mean about Clarice, but I don't think it's a spoiler to say this isn't a ghost story.
Mod
Interesting concept about the walls of TV and the TV "shows" - it seems like some sort of interactive reality like our online world, which is quite amazing and prescient for a book published in 1953 when TV's were barely out, computers were something esoteric used by the military, and the internet was still a thought undreamed of.
Ruth wrote: "There's a film!? Cool!"Yep, François Truffaut in 1966. Not an exact adaptation (I haven't seen it in ages), but visually distinctive and stunning:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060390/?...
Traveller wrote: "Interesting concept about the walls of TV and the TV "shows" - it seems like some sort of interactive reality like our online world..."It's often seen as a book about censorship and totalitarianism, which it is, but Bradbury's main intention was to highlight the dangers of addiction to ubiquitous TV. That seems more pertinent in developed democracies today than censorship and book burning.
That was always my understanding of Bradbury's opinions. He saw anti-intellectualism and censorship arising largely from lack of imagination and the desire for simplistic ideas versus the troubling complexity one finds in literature, as opposed to vacuous television viewing. The censorship Bradbury was concerned about doesn't originate from the dictates of a totalitarian government, but from the demands of people that books be free of offensive content.
Cecily wrote: "(I haven't seen it in ages),"Neither have I. We read it in school somewhere in '73-'75, and I remember being shown the film then, but I've never seen it since.
I'm immediately struck by similarities in the way Clarice affects Guy and the relationship between Julia and Winston in 1984.
I was also struck by Bradbury's use of "refract", when he actually meant "reflect". "How like a mirror, too, her face. Impossible: for how many people did you know that refracted your own light to you?" I never imagine that when a poet uses a word oddly, that it was a mistake, but I bet he fought an editor or two over it. It's an intentional foreshadowing: refract—To deflect from a straight path. She certainly does that...
Whitney wrote: "The censorship Bradbury was concerned about doesn't originate from the dictates of a totalitarian government, but from the demands of people that books be free of offensive content. "
Yes, but the two things are not exclusive. Dictators (and, unfortunately, politicians in general) take advantage of that kind of environment.
Mod
Indeed; just look at Donald Trump, although he is by far not the only one...
Hmm, I do find the text quickly becomes rather preachy. Which real person is ever, for example, going to say: "Do you know, I’m responsible. I was spanked when I needed it, years ago."
Ouch!
Mod
Mod
That sounds not terribly far from the censorship system Australia seems to have in place right about now; books are only reviewed for restriction or ban if someone requests the censorship department review them.
Traveller wrote: "Reading and discussing this retro- speculative fiction, is reminding me of all the cultural events that I'd missed, and I realized that watching the movie Back to The Future was one of them - and t..."
O_O
Whitney wrote: "The censorship Bradbury was concerned about doesn't originate from the dictates of a totalitarian government, but from the demands of people that books be free of offensive content. "Yes, exactly. Later in the book, we learn:
“Our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred”, so everything that might upset anyone is destroyed.
“It didn’t come from the government down… Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick… Today… you can stay happy all the time” because only comics, confessions and trade journals are permitted.
and
“The firemen are rarely necessary. The public stopped reading of its own accord.”
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I'm immediately struck by similarities in the way Clarice affects Guy and the relationship between Julia and Winston in 1984."As soon as I finished (re)reading this, I (re)read 1984, and I see what you mean: in both cases, the woman opens the eyes of the man to other possibilities. However, the two women themselves could hardly be more different: Clarice is fiercely, dangerously, intelligent, introspective and well-read, whereas Julia is utterly uninterested in reading and theory, and only cares about the Party and the Brotherhood when they directly affect her life.
Traveller wrote: "I do find the text quickly becomes rather preachy.."If you think THIS is preachy, beware of 1984!
Mod
Mod
If you think THIS is preachy, beware of 1984!"
Did you miss our 1984 discussion at the beginning of this year? https://www.goodreads.com/topic/group...
Actually, I didn't find 1984 overtly preachy, no. What did you find he waxed preachy about? Maybe let's discuss that in this thread? https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/... I could have sworn there was another thread for the ending, but maybe this one was it, so I have now named it accordingly.
...or if you feel it pertains to Fahrenheit, we can discuss here. :) How about in the next thread, since I'm starting to worry a bit about spoilers. On the other hand, we're probably throwing out 1984 spoilers like mad too. :P
Traveller wrote: "Did you miss our 1984 discussion at the beginning of this year..."Yes, because at the time, I'd not read it for years. I'll have a look though. Thanks.
Cecily wrote: " I see what you mean: in both cases, the woman opens the eyes of the man to other possibilities. However, the two women themselves could hardly be more different: "Yes, the women are not very similar, but that opening encounter with Clarice just reminded me so much of Winston and Julia. And I thought I had to mention it because I knew you'd just finished 1984 :-) I think though that while the women aren't similar, my vague recollections of this book (I probably haven't read it in the last 30 years, despite the fact that it's one of my very few 5-star books) and my better memories of 1984, suggest that there's a distinct echo in both books of the Garden of Eden story, with Eve tempting Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And in each case, it's a denial of the dogma that this is the original sin. It's an argument that Adam deserves to know for himself what is good or evil.
Mod
Yes, the women a..."
Oh crap, I think you've just summarized the book! :O XD
Right. My job is done here...
Thank you, Derek, for my morning giggle. :D
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "there's a distinct echo in both books of the Garden of Eden story, with Eve tempting Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."Damn, that's good.
And I can't even steal it to put in my own reviews. ;)
Sure you can. I'll never tell!
Mod
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Sure you can. I'll never tell!"Ha ha.
Added to both, but credited to you. Thanks. :)
Traveller wrote: "Hey, I want it too! Catnerdfight!"
Hey, Trav: who are you calling a nerd?
I don't mind being a bit of a geek, but I deny nerdhood!
Mod
I think that the meaning of nerd has changed quite a lot - to me it's a positive thing, meaning not a jock, but instead a more intellectually inclined person. :) Not sure what the term means to you, but we could call it a geek-fight if you like. ...just that.. when I see a geek, I see a fat, round-shouldered person with glasses and braces.... :P
Well, apart from the fact I could be fat, round-shouldered, with glasses and braces*, this summarises my impressions:
Source: http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/u...
*I tick only one of those boxes.
Mod
On Paths Unknown
Books mentioned in this topic
1984 (other topics)Year of the Tiger (other topics)
Rock Paper Tiger (other topics)
Hello everybody!
We thought the well-known novel by Ray Bradbury might be a good way to celebrate our "banned books and freedom of thought and speech" project, so do come and pop in even if you've already read the book.
Looking forward to your participation.