Talk:Fahrenheit 451

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot.
Any sections older than 360 days are automatically archived to Talk:Fahrenheit 451/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.

Contents

[edit] Images

The three images in this article are largely-identical covers of three different editions of the book. I don't think all three are necessary.

[edit] This Article

May 8th, 2008 - plot summary rewritten to remove significant vandalism. Wiki caretakers, please review the changes. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.109.163 (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, Mildred wasn't very stable to begin with. Instability + drug use = suicide attempt. Registered Arsonist 178327 Was here. 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

        • YES the wife did try to commit suicide, in the book it appears that this is a typical thing in the new world, even the guy who came to save her had a bunch of other people to save that night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.118.77 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Clarisse's age is actually 16. She claims to Montag that she's 17, but when he questions her she admits that she's not quite 17 yet. Since 17-1=16, I'm changing her age back to 16.

Is this a distopia? The presented government's efforts on internal affairs aime happiness (content) among people. I read that Bradbury has mentioned that he criticizes the thought-oppressing McCarthyism in this novella(A Portrait of Genius: Ray Bradbury: SHOW, The Magazine of Arts, December 1964, NY) however the book does not mention that the government would have a demagogic leader nor it states that the people en masse would be displeased. As Bradbury "has often referred to Montag as an allusion to himself" it seems evident that he finds the "love of knoledge" more valuable than "happiness and complacency"(quotes from the article) but even this doesn't make Fahrenheit 451 distopia. Hedonism is popular in our time and it is far from the consensus to call it a dystopian trait of lifestyle. --HAG

Is written SO terribly... it would be a good idea to try rewriting parts of it.

Regarding this quote in the wiki entry:

She seems to be happy staring at the screens but actually attempts to commit suicide, revealing her emptiness. She takes too many pills which actually should make her happy.

I don't think she deliberately attempted suicide, but more along the fact that she became so absent-minded that she forgot how many pills she took (in reference to the first chapter of the book). Want to make sure if this is alright with everyone before I make the changes. --Vnv lain 13:10, 2005 Oct 2 (EST)

I'm not too sure about this, being absent-minded seems to be the excuse Guy makes for her. It seems apparent that she infact is an empty person who realizes how pitiful her life is and tries to commit sucide. I don't see how her just being absent minded about taking pills would fit into the plot. --User:John
I'm quite sure that Mildred would never realize that she is empty and so would never make an attempt to commit suicide. This seemes adequate because she is happy throughout the story and lives a exciting life as she shares it with the "family". Sure it is depicted to be empty from the POV of Guy, but it seemes to be a generally accepted lifestyle. As the episode about the "mechanic snake" could be left from the novel without changing it significantly it is important to notice what it adds to the story. First of all, it visualizes the woman's emptiness, not only from the POV of Guy, but maybe from the POV of the narrator as well. In addition it introduces a scientific research whose only importance lies in the countering of the common practise of taking an overdose of sleeping pills. Furthermore, and in my opinion the most importantly, it's an episode where Guy saves the life of Mildred whom he doesn't love, who never believes his husband's kindness of saving her life, who only needs his husband for his money (to buy more and more tv-walls), who won't agree with Guy to have children and who betrays him finally. --HAG

Film trivia: The only prints/text in the movie are at the wall of the fire-department. It's the "451". Look here: http://www.dasfilmarchiv.de/fahrenheit.jpg

That is not true; but it seems that in the fictional world of the movie, alphabetic text is banned, but it is OK to use numerals as labels.

Then how is it that Guy is literate? It may be worth mentioning in the article that, while he is literate, it is never explained how he gained that ability. Also, Mildred is literate. --X Wild Irishman x (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that in the book's dystopian future, technical knowledge was actually promoted, probably to keep people from thinking about literature. I think some people erroneously think the book is about a future where all knowledge is banned, as opposed to a future where ideas are censored. For instance, I think at one point in the book Guy mentions that almost everyone could describe the inner workings of the (complicated) tv systems. I'm not sure how they could convey all this technical knowlegde without some sort of text, although it certainly would be in electronic (not book) form.

I think the analysis section of the previous version should be added to the current one. I think it makes a valid point about political correctness.

I think the Analysis section needs some wikification. It doesn't sound too encyclopedia-like.

I agree with the above poster. It needs some work. jtmendes 03:01, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --fvw* 03:01, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I'd just like to make two points in response to the above. First, a reader can note a deficiency without knowing enough to write a better version. Second, the instructions for using Wik are incredibly confiusing and tangled (the glories and misfortunes of the Web used as Webbers currently style it). I'm sure there are thousands of people who have been scared off by Wik's imposing character or left frustrated after being pushed around by links, shunted down dead-ends, etc. kdammers.

I agree with the posts above and below that made by fvw. If I had read the book, I could probab;y write a better analysis, but I am yet to, so have no idea of the significance of events and meanings read into them &c. --210.246.47.205 09:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the motive behind destruction of books was meant to keep people happy. In (I believe) "Usher II" by Bradbury, he talks about the same brand of people as those burning the books in Farenheit 451, and that they wanted books kept away from the public to prevent them from experiencing discontent at not being able to, for example, be a knight in shining armour that they read of in a book. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.157.123.251 (talk • contribs) .

A passage in one of the first pages (when Guy Montag first meets Clarisse) refers to Clarisse reading the 'pictographic symbols' on his uniform, or somesuch. I would be able to reference, but my copy is currently on loan to a friend. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 02:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

... and she raised her eyes from his professional symbols "-the fireman." ...

It's on page 21, my [the library's] copy. It says it's the third edition. I dunno. BunnyFlying (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science fiction

I've only read this book once but, um, where's the science fiction? Cburnett 07:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Science fiction is written by people who don't know anything about science" -- (I believe Vonnegut, but my memory is bad). How many so-called "sci-fi" works have you read/seen that contain more than a shred of scientific accuracy? -- uberpenguin 03:51, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
Science fiction means many things to many people; it's as vague a term as "fantasy". The book is closer to the sci-fi genre than many others, though, as it includes a mechanical robot dog, tiny two-way radio transmitters, big-screen HDTVs, crime TV shows, and nuclear weapons, among other things.
Bradbury has been remarkably accurate with some of his predictions. The two most striking to me are his prediction of the cell phone (complete with buses/subways packed with people desperately calling home to let their SO know they're on their way) and the need for continual self-stimulation (I notice an awful lot of people these days have an electronic device of some sort constantly jammed in their ears). We haven't gotten to the book-burning stage. Yet.
  • Issac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke for example do certainly know SOMETHING about science. They both have PhD, and Clarke is indeed one of pioneers in making telecommunication satellites. "Science fiction is the most important literature in the history of the world, because it's the history of ideas, the history of our civilization birthing itself. ...Science fiction is central to everything we've ever done, and people who make fun of science fiction writers don't know what they're talking about." says Ray Bradbury, also he says: "Anything you dream is fiction, and anything you accomplish is science, the whole history of mankind is nothing but science fiction." Qoqnous 16:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I chose to read this book for an 8th grade English project, and it was very hard to follow. Jokingly, my friends said that if the could burn one book a year it would be this. I was, however, shocked at how much the wallscreens and little music devices resembled HDTVs and iPods. I think the movie must be pretty good though, as it will be easier to follow with the pictures right in front of you. -S.P. Sauk City WI
"where's the science fiction?"? I'm unaware of Walkmans existing in 1953. It was predictive, or a warning, the same way A Canticle for Liebowitz was. Which raises the Q: is it worth mentioning the similarities? (Knowledge, or science, being disdained; books banned & smuggled)
On an unrelated note, was Cpn Beatty's given name ever revealled? It's been years since I've read it. Trekphiler 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"First of all, I don't write science fiction. I've only done one science fiction book and that's Fahrenheit 451, based on reality." Ray Bradbury --HAG

Science fiction is not to be mistaken with stories about new structures or machines that fit to the laws of physics. Neutral science, historiography and social sciences are all sciences. This novella which takes place in a future when people themselves collaborate with professional book burners when goverment protects the minorities' peace from offending judgements that were channeled through books before and when people with tendency to be sad are executed to prevent their sadness is not only fictional. As the alteration of the society and of the government is interpreted in Captain Beatty's soliloquies in my opinion this novella fits the criteria of being science fiction. --HAG

Captain Beatty answers to the then sick Guy's question that Clarisse was killed by a time-bomb. --HAG

[edit] time?

Okay, may I ask why this page says the book takes place in the 24th century? From reading the book, I felt it took place around the mid-21st century. Many people have suggested this, primarily from the quote "We've had two atomic wars since 1990!" The tone of the quote makes 1990 seem like a recent year.

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book to hand, but here's what I've noted:

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/fahrenheit/essays/essay1.html sazs 24th century. (by Michael Wainwright, but in an essay about characters)

The Cliff Notes Web site also says 24th century in an intro blurb but not in the extended discussion.

Book.rags (a crib company?) says 21st century.

"near future (later in 21st century) - medium future 22-24th century" is what Linda Napikoski (http://www.allscifi.com/Topics/Info_6789.asp ) says.

SparkNotes says, "setting (time) · Sometime in the twenty-first century; there have been two atomic wars since 1990." Kdammers 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

im reading the book right actually an i believe its in the 24th century from what either faber or beatty says. ill go back and try to find the quote.

"We've had two atomic wars since 1960", I believe my copy said. I'll have to check that when I get it back. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't quote the original text but in my re-translation of the Lóránd Imre(Hungarian) translation of the novella: "We started and won two atomic wars since 1960" -- shouts Guy after Mildred refuses to listen to him quoting from books. --HAG

Montag (to Mildred): "We've started and won two atomic wars since 2022! Is it because we're having so much fun at home we've forgotten the world?" Simon & Schuster 40th anniversary edition (1993), p.101. To me that implies that the novel is set in the early to mid-21st century. But comments above give more or less the same quote with different dates -- could this have been changed/updated in later editions?

[edit] letter of the alphabet analyses

  • GuywireMontag [sic] is the protagonist and fireman (look above) whose metamorphosis is shown in the course of the book and which shows (allegorizes to) him the dystopia through the eyes of a loyal worker.{Sorry, I don’t follow the grammar here}, a man in conflict over him and a man above him, in order to be free from him.
  • Faber is a former English professor who represents those who know that what is being done is wrong, but is too fearful to act against it.
  • Mildred Montag is Montag’s wife. She tries to avoid questioning her own emptiness and fear of her condition/situation or to use drugs to hide from the meaningless twittering, and a constant “splash” of the t.v. She constantly attempts to attain a glorified state of happiness but is internally miserable. She is symbolically the contra-point for Clarisse McClellan.
  • Clarisse doesn’t show McClellan every characteristic that Mildred has {There seems to be some garbling in the original; as it stands, I don’t follow it, esp. since Clarisse is McClellan}. She is outgoing, naturally friendly, and intuitive. She serves him, during his “call” {during calls?} to awaken Montag by asking him “why.” She is not popular with her peers and rejected by her parents for asking why and for being interested in Nature instead of technology. Montag always sees her as odd {orig.: mathematically odd!}, but upon her being killed by a speeding car he misses her greatly.
  • Capitanist [sic] Beatty, Montag’s boss and the fire [department] leader. He tries to lure Guywire back into the burning business of the book {I guess: back into the business of burning books} but is burned alive by Montag when he underestimates Montag’s resolution/determination. He is the symbolic opposite of Granger.
  • Granger is the leader of a group of wandering exiled intellectuals, who memorize books.. Where(-as) Beatty destroys, Granger causes [creates]; where(-as) Beatty uses fire to burn, he uses it in order to warm. His taking in of Montag is seen as the ultimate step in Monta’g metamorphosis – and is of critical value in Beatty’s incorporating (happiness and satisfaction) {I don’t understand the original here}, to the incorporation of his value[s] (the love of knowledge).

Dude you know i love to eat fried chicken on the weekends, i bet this Guy fella loves chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.174.248.162 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on setting and other issues

First off, to address some of the questions that have popped up about this book:

This book takes place in the USA in a city that may be, but probably isn't Chicago, IL. It is America, and it is in the 24th century or later. How so? In "The Hearth and the Salamander", Beatty describes the downfall of society as it wanted it to happen. Yes, there have been two nuclear wars since 1990, but the textual evidence in the 50th anniversary edition (paperback) is on page 55, "Do you see? Out of the nursery into the college and back to the nursery; there's your intellectual pattern for the past five centuries or more."

Also, I'm a bit dissapointed in this article's nearly complete omissions to the blatant biblical allusions in this piece: Faber's reading of Job to Montag reflecting the struggle that he is going through and the rewards he's reaching for, the attempt to read the passage from Matthew about not getting caught up in worldly possessions while on the subway as he's being bombarded by a Denham's Dentifrice commercial (though i've heard different interpretations of the passage), and the choice of allusions on the final page to Ecclesiastes 3 (saying that there was a time for silence and a time for waiting but now it is time to rebuild society and time to speak out to the public) and itaicized text from Revelation stating that the destruction is over but now paradise is within reach and the nations shall be healed.

There's lots there, and I'm a bit steamed by this article considering I just finished teaching and there's tons missing.

[edit] Nuclear weapons

In the "Accuracy as a vision of the future section," it is stated that nuclear weapons are used as a primary weapon in war time. As far as I know, the only time they have been used as a weapon in war time was before the book was published. Anyone else agree?

I might, if I really understood your point. ;) It was widely feared at that time, & often seen in print, there'd be another war & nuclear weapons would be used. See, for instance, A Canticle for Liebowitz or Iron Dream. This has led to a plague of bad "post-apocalyptic" novels (Deathlands, for instance) & films ("Mad Max" & "The Postman", for instance), ignoring the consequences of society's collapse to discard some inconvenient features & retain others; never explained, for example, is where these dysfunctional societies get all their ammunition... Trekphiler 00:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Where do the people get their ammunition? Even after a nuclear war there would be tens of millions of rounds around - particularly in the United States where there are more guns than people. In The Road Warrior (after the nuclear war in between that and Mad Max) there were only a handful of shotgun shells and a gun with several bullets - the rest was all arrows and homemade flame throwers. There were more guns in Mad Max 3, but not alot - most could have come from military bases, police stations and gun stores. Casings can also be saved and reloaded. One news story locally found a guy with 35 assault weapons, 100 hand guns, homemade pipe bombs and 25,000 rounds of ammunition. That alone is more than is seen in many post apocalyptic movies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.235.164 (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot summary is too long

Does anyone agree? I think it should be shortened to less than half. —Michael Z. 2006-10-04 04:16 Z

Yea, it does seem rather long. It would be rather difficult to shorten though. Somaticvibe

And misleading at one point. "... and television network helicopters in pursuit, hoping to document his escape as a spectacle with the intent of distracting the people from the oncoming threat of war ..." In the novel we get to know the purpose of the filming of Montag's escape. As the events of the pursuit unfold we get to know that a likely innocent person is killed to enable the TV news assure all those who saw the chase of the efficiency of the law enforcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.49.87 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Texan father

Houston Community Newspapers Online - Parent criticizes book 'Fahrenheit 451' on the Banned Books Week. You may find it ironic and it ellaborates on the foulness of language.

It's a good source of righteous indignation. I don't think this particular antic should be mentioned in the article, though, 451 is among the more challenged books. --Kizor, currently not logged in


[edit] The Actual Temperature Farenheit 451

Can we please put a mention of the following fact in the article? Paper nor books burst into flames at the temperature 451 degrees farenheit. This title was used simply because Bradbury liked the number. I read that in a book once. It quite annoys me when I get into arguments with people ignorant enough to believe that temperature thing as fact and are adamant to believe any argument contrary. .... You know the kind of argument you get into with a person who acts like they're much smarter than they prove to be and refuse to take any sort of correction - even when you have facts in from of them. Abrynkus 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

well then put the little trivia somewhere... and also try to meet new people too, just a friendly advice.--201.215.168.125 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It really neither entirely true nor entirely false. Some paper does ignite at 451F. Most does not. It depends on the paper and variables that go into making of paper. Some paper ignites at temperatures higher than 451, some at temperature lower than (mostly lower, average is about 339 SD=62 low=152 high=526) Engstrom et. al. Fundamental Combustion Rates of Live Fuels. 2003 ACERC Conference. But you already knew that cause you read it in a book somewhere. With evidence like that I don't know why people doubt you. Jvbishop 21:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Ray Bradbury mentioned, during the LA Times Festival of Books (2007) that took place at UCLA, that he was looking for the temperature that would cause books to burn. He said that he called the UCLA and USC chemistry departments, and other science departments as well, and couldn't find the answer. He received the number 451 by phoning a local fire department. 76.171.182.55 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit, you can't really have a title of Fahrenheit a bunch of numbers, it just doesn't sound as good. BunnyFlying (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Embroidery

Should the references section include Bradury's short story "Embroidery"? The women in "Embroidery" are talking about how it is people's actions they remember and the dialogue is very similar to the discussion at the end of Farenheit 451. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iain marcuson (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't know, I haven't read the story. But it certainly can't hurt, can it? BunnyFlying (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Bradbury's commentary

I think that, considering Bradbury's comments, we need to include the author's view of the book. Given that Fahrenheit 451 is quite often used as a warning against government censorship, Bradbury's intent - to suggest, not that government is oppressive, but that television is an opiate - radically shifts the book's original interpretation, though the use of the book as an anti-Big Brother piece of literature will undoubtedly remain. [1] -EarthRise33 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Public and professional interpretation is fine, but shouldn't we acknowledge the man who wrote the damn thing? Diamonion 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledging his view is fine, but don't plagiarize LAWeekly.com to avoid writing about it in your own words. That block quote was way too long. Kusand 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I (and at least one or two other contributors) have made changes over the last few days to soften up recent edits that refer to "critical misinterpretation" or otherwise imply that the book isn't about censorship because Bradbury now says that it isn't. While the fact of his own recent pushback is notable and should remain in the article, his interpretation of the work doesn't invalidate other readers'. See authorial intent. While his intimate familiarity with the book gives his interpretation extra weight, I rather think that it can't hold a candle to the decades of critical interpretation that offer a differing view. jmac 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, as the guy who stuck the term "Critical Misinterpretation" on the page, I just want to say I'm perfectly fine with the above approach (recognizing Bradbury's statements while giving other interpretations equal validity) and am glad to see the way the article is evolving... not that I expect anyone to be losing any sleep over what I feel (*GRIN*). Oh yeah, and "Critical interpretation vs. authorial intent" is indeed more descriptive than my original subheading title. --KNHaw (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've made another tweak to the introduction. I agree that Bradbury's comments are important, but again the idea of opening and article by talking about what the novel is not about just seems wrong. If the issue is that important to take the opening sentence in the introduction (well, second paragraph...), then perhaps it deserves its own article: Critical interpretation vs. authorial intent in Fahrenheit 451 (although, frankly, I think that way is a road to madness...). Please take a peek and let me know what you think, OK? --KNHaw (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Though the book is often used as a warning against goverment censorship, and though bradbury does not think the book is about this topic; the theme of (non-government) censorhip is a major theme. The content of teh book directly suggest that the books began to be burned to keep the minorities happy. Censor some here, censor some there. Goverment only validated the censorship that the minorities had already begun. I think that the comment in the opening summary: "Bradbury has stated that the novel is not about censorship" is false. He may think it isn't the primary message, but it is a difinitive theme throughout the book and adressed in the later published coda, regardless of Mr. Bradbury's later re-auto-interpretations. --65.106.152.27 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film irony

Hasn't Truffaut or Bradbury commented about the irony of filming a book about the suffocation of books by the audiovisual? --Error 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was caught listening to the audiobook in my car with my ipod and clamshells, er, I mean, earbuds. Tuning out the rest of the world to listen to a book warning me not to tune out the rest of the world. Yikes. --65.106.152.27 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a pleasant irony in a wikipedia page about this that describes a 1994 project as a 'future film'. Rather like reading scifi after the date at which the events are supposed to have occurred. Brunnian (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian?

Would it really be accurate to include this book under the category of "Libertarian science-fiction"? After all, Libertarianism is a political and economic philosophy whereas this novel has to do with mind-rotting television and censorship, both decidedly social issues. 129.59.8.10 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


I was assuming it was more Speculative Fiction, but if fits in both categories. I'll live it be for now. I'll see what everyone else says. YoungWebProgrammer msg 06:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] System Shock

Added a bit on 451 being used in System Shock 1/2 and their "descendants", Deus Ex and Bioshock. If it was just SS1 it wouldn't be notable, but they've made it a tradition, and I don't doubt future Shock-like games (including Deus Ex 3) will include the number as a tip of the hat to Looking Glass like DX and Bioshock did. Anyone who wants to cry citation needed can go here: http://www.deusex-machina.com/articles/makingofdeusex.asp dethtoll (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)