SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Fahrenheit 451
Group Reads Discussions 2010
>
Fahrenheit 451 Final Thoughts *Spoilers*
date
newest »
newest »
I agree with Stormhawk's notion. The actual premise of removing art or emotion from human existence Fahrenheit 451, the film Equilibrium, and 1984 as examples, I personally find a little forces. However, what Bradbury uses this for is exceptional. Bradbury's language near the end of the book, especially in its crisp honestly, is very poignant even years after because of the contrivance of the initial conflict.Stormhawk's relating the idea of the author seeking to create a classic vs. the organic nature that forms a classic once the piece is released is spot-on. I would argue, however, there are authors who attempt to create classics, and I feel that that desire often limits that author and the work from reaching its fullest potential. What makes Bradbury as an author shine is his ability to take a simple, often contrived in my humble opinion, idea and create rich, insightful humanity around it. That makes a classic-- the desire for fortune and glory makes you a relic hunter, not your work a relic.
I read this book in high school and then read it again (twenty one years later) earlier this year. It's an amazing book. The writing is beautiful. The premise is frightening and there is hope too. One thing that really impressed me was how he "called" (predicted) the dumbing down of all Media. TV shows that just skim over the surface (or condensing Hamlet into, like, four pages). F451 is one of a handful of classic books that I would love to reread (slowly) every few years. I'm sorry that I just joined this group and missed the initial discussion.
The threads remain open after the discussion month ... feel free to comment!
I haven't finished yet but I have a question. I'm listening to the audio so occasionally I misunderstand but we're they really arguing about the need for a fourth wall in their house and the fact that they were still paying off the third?
Sarah wrote: "I haven't finished yet but I have a question. I'm listening to the audio so occasionally I misunderstand but we're they really arguing about the need for a fourth wall in their house and the fact t..."If I remember correctly, the walls are a TV system. In the book, they have a screens on all the walls in the room, so the TV show happens all around them. They paid for 3 screen but the wife (is her name Mildred?) wants to add one more.
It's interesting how Bradbury predicted flat-screen TV's for entertainment.
Okay, I understand now. She was reading a script at the time so I thought the TV part was talking about that. And yes, her name is Mildred. Good memory.Yes, The flat screen prediction is interesting and I can definitely see it evolving into a three dimensional system like this.
Thanks for explaining.
I enjoyed this story immensely. Tim Robbins' narration actually really augmented the story itself. I liked the way that Bradbury captured the way that external overstimulation leads to us not really using our brain. It's the only way I can think to word it. It's interesting how he started the story just loving to watch the fire burn and how very quickly he progresses towards wanting to stop it.Spoiler time:
I was completely shocked by the murders of Beatty and the fire crew. I wasn't expecting that at all.
When the city is flattened at the end, did this have anything to do with Montag? Was it because they hadn't been able to find him? If so, I can't even really say that Mildred got what she deserved because that's just crazy.
I'm so glad that he remembered where he and Mildred met at the end of the story. I was worried that there was some government brain washing going on there.
I really liked the image of the phoenix at the end, too. The guy who was talking about it said that it must be first cousin to man because we're always setting ourselves on fire, but I hope that metaphor goes all the way and that we're reborn at the end.
There were a lot of things I enjoyed here. I'm sure I'll want to relisten again sometime soon.
The city being destroyed was due to the arrogance and oblivious nature of the society in which they lived. Throughout the story, it was mentioned that they were at war. In a way, the pursuit of Montag was a distraction from the reported escalation in the war, almost as if the government was still manipulating its citizenry to divert its attention.
Oh, I thought the war was an excuse for the government to get away with things like this bombing. They could do it themselves and claim it was war.
Mod
I didn’t know it was going to be on HBO! I’m so glad I decided to reread with y’all this month then. It’s been since high school, but I loved it back then. I haven’t started yet though, trying to finish our Feb. rereads first.
Allison wrote: "This is the reread for March 2018! What did you think of it? Excited for it to be on HBO?"I hope they don't cock it up...
I just finished this a little bit ago. It was a short and fast-paced read. I enjoyed it, and I liked its messages, although I’m not sure if the story will stick with me over the long-term. The shortness of the book didn’t allow for a lot of character development so, although I thought the characters were interesting, they were a little thin. But I just finished a series where characters had around 12,400 pages to develop, so consider my comments in that context. ;)I had some trouble identifying with the way Montag went off the deep end so easily and wasn’t more careful to avoid getting caught, particularly when his actions risked Faber. His behavior may have been realistic, though, when considering he grew up in a society that discouraged deep thought and avoided personal struggles. Nothing had prepared him for how to handle the situation he found himself in. I tried to cut him some slack based on that.
I have seen the 1966 movie but never got around to reading the book until now (points for owned books challenge!). I enjoyed it very much but my favorite part was the afterward by Ray Bradbury (1979). Hope HBO does a good job with the movie.
YouKneeK wrote: "considering he grew up in a society that discouraged deep thought and avoided personal struggles. Nothing had prepared him for how to handle the situation he found himself in...."Thank you.
To my shame, I never thought of him as so very much a product of his times, but rather let myself judge him by comparing him to the best of our contemporaries. That's a good point to remember in *all* literature...
I don’t always remember either, and sometimes my annoyance at a character’s behavior overrides my mental understanding that the behavior makes sense. In this case, though, it made me wonder how different of a person I myself might be if I’d grown up in a society like that.
Indeed. I think of myself as a reader, of course... but I don't think of myself as very brave or rebellious, so I'd probably be more like the wife, dissatisfied w/out really knowing why.
Mod
I agree. So many things about the book are upsetting. The slivers of hope that there are those vagabonds, for example, are the only reason I reread when groups bring it up.
The writing style felt a bit surreal to me (keep in mind I am not native English speaker), which actually gave it a bit of nice touch. As I say in my (very short) review here, I think it's very good fit for this time of political correctness and alternative 'facts' as well as shows that leave no trace in you just a minute later.I liked the movie Equilibrium a lot and knowing that this was one of the inspirations was why I decided to join the re-read.
Cheryl wrote: "I agree. So many things about the book are upsetting. The slivers of hope that there are those vagabonds, for example, are the only reason I reread when groups bring it up."The tiny band of Bookmen does seem almost futile, and yet tiny groups of monks kept reading and writing alive during Europe's Dark Ages. So maybe they can/will eventually change their world. I like to think that even one person can make a difference...
As do I, and, I'd guess, as did Bradbury.
Although it was a dystopian tragedy, it was also kind of a hopeful book with the idea of the phoenix at the end. Their world was destroyed, but for the vagabonds that was a good thing. It gave them a chance to recreate a new society.
Bruce wrote: "Although it was a dystopian tragedy, it was also kind of a hopeful book with the idea of the phoenix at the end. Their world was destroyed, but for the vagabonds that was a good thing. It gave them..." I agree. This was at least the second time I re-read this, and it seems quite pertinent to current conditions.Concerning the Phoenix concept, I think a good companion read to this would be "Earth Abides" by George Stuart.
Tomas wrote: "The writing style felt a bit surreal to me (keep in mind I am not native English speaker), which actually gave it a bit of nice touch. As I say in my (very short) review here, I think it's very goo..." I agree with your reaction to the book. I haven't seen "Equilibrium", so I can't comment on that.
Allison wrote: "It's interesting, because that was one of the things I really liked about Montag. I liked that he didn't know what the heck he was doing, and that he "messed it up." I also like that the government..." I agree, and I think that he was heroic even though, maybe because, he wasn't perfect, because he didn't give up, or betray his friend, and still even felt love for Millie.
Necroposting! Just read this and was pleasantly surprised by the richness of the language and the surreal approach Bradbury took in writing the dialogue. I felt like the book threatened to sink a little under its own weight; for me, when an author writes an allegory, a lighter touch always helps. But I can absolutely see why it’s an important book, why it’s considered a classic. Interestingly, another classic SF novel that I read in the last year also deals with the idea of preserving literature in the face of nuclear disaster: A Canticle for Leibowitz. I recommend that book for those folks who are interested in seeing other takes on this idea.
Glad you enjoyed it, Anthony. No, it’s not perfect, but because it’s short those moments are brief. It’s one of the few books I reread periodically. It’s been quite a while since I did, come to think of it.
Mod
Buddy read starts March 4 as part of a longer discussion on utopias and dystopias. That discussion is here.
Such a powerful novel, so worth the reread. I read the Neil Gaiman introduction and the ancillary discussions in the novel. I couldn't get enough of how Fear, not fire, is the Great Destroyer, how it is a perennial driver in human society, over and over again.
I was recently reflecting on the thought that no author sets out to write a classic. They put words on paper in a certain order and rewrite and revise it, and write again, eventually having something to submit to a publisher. IT's their book, their baby, and they have no idea what will happen to it once it gets sent out into the world. I love the certain order of words that Ray Bradbury chose to create Montag's world. He says a lot of things in this little book, and says out loud things that, even now, we barely whisper about in the dark.