This post is challenging, but hopefully it will get you thinking in the more philosophical, thematic way we need in order to take your writing to the next level. Your assignment is to pose a philosophical question based on Fahrenheit 451, and give an example of where in the text Bradbury might be addressing the issues it raises (you must use a quote). Then, you have to briefly respond to two classmates' questions with your own opinion. (Note you do NOT need a quote in your responses, but you DO need to do two of them.)
How should you get started on this tricky assignment? The first step is to formulate a good question. That's also the first step in writing a good essay now that you have the freedom, and thus the responsibility, to choose your own topics. We'll be discussing question generation at this week's workshops, but here are some characteristics of a good question: -It's open ended, allowing for many different answers instead of having a "right" one -It requires critical thinking to answer, which means it is open to interpretation -It address something that really matters in human life - our nature, right and wrong, death, etc. -It makes people re-examine their biases or assumptions so that they can think new thoughts Start your post with your question, in bold, then follow it up with some further questions or commentary that integrates evidence from the text. For example: "What is the role of faith in sustaining human existence? Bradbury has Montag read the poem 'Dover Beach,' which is about a loss of faith, to Mildred and her friends, one of whom breaks into tears. What is Bradbury suggesting they have lost faith in? Is this religious faith, or something different?" From there, I'd probably quote from book guy Granger's speech at the end of the novel where he talks about being faithful to the past. Then I would leave my readers with a restatement of the question: "In your response, please give your opinion on what Bradbury is saying, and/or share your own perspective on the positive or negative aspects of faith in human life." Good luck!
206 Comments
Phoebe Carr
7/21/2014 07:17:51 am
How does such a self-destructive society effect the individual? Bradbury has Beatty, Montag, and Mildred have a long discussion where Beatty emphasizes that it was not a strictly government-pushed idea to have all the books burned, but that society had pushed books and the bookish away. Some books were offensive to different minorities, not to mention that everything was becoming faster and easier to access; you could learn the lesson a book taught in a one minute video. Language had become obsolete. How did this extinction of books and intellectualism effect those living in the society? Is the fast-paced world more valuable than one where things take time? In your answer, explain the ways this effected different characters in the book and possibly touch on how it may be effecting you or someone in your life. What are the positive and negative effects?
Reply
Lola Todman
7/27/2014 05:13:47 am
In a fast-paced society, such as the one detailed above, it is true that books and other time-consuming methods of learning and fun may no longer be needed. However, what we lose in exiling these seemingly ancient pastimes, is the virtue of patience; the essential knowledge of what it is to spend your valuable time on a satisfying outcome. Individuals are stripped of their ability to appreciate the world around them, as not everything can be observed so quickly as a one minute video. And though books can be looked at as controversial, so can most other things. Government issues, societal development, a person's outfit, etc. Eliminating books won't resolve controversy, or bias, or conflict. It will shut out so many opportunities to overcome these unfortunate problems.
Reply
Abigail Joyce
8/30/2014 06:52:38 am
A self destructive society affects the individual because the individual becomes accustom to living a life in fear. This sense of terror whips the individual into believing that it is better not to know than to be crucified for knowing. The loss of an intellectual society left the entire environment oblivion based. The government lead its people to believe that books were a form of filth and sin to manipulate its people so that they could not extend their knowledge and revolt. The way this fear had affected the characters in the novel could be seen in Mildred. She had lived her entire life avoiding books and she ended up completely eccentric. She had never learned knowledge or experienced anything other than vacancy. It had left her life with a lack of substance and importance and even left those closest to her wholly disinterested. The only positive outcome was that there was a lot more peace and a lot less of the average human worries among the people (not including those harboring novels, of course). The lack of knowledge lead to a lack of thinking and wondering for yourself. So no one ever really asked the question, "why?" which lead to a lot less explanations and a lot less of curiosity. The negative affects is that no one was ever educated; therefore, as stated above, they were easily manipulated and stuck living a life of fear.
Reply
Ryan Humelsine
7/21/2014 10:19:05 am
Why does Ray Bradbury use unbroken/never-ending cycles to criticize the society in his novel, Fahrenheit 451? This is rather specific, but there seems to be multiple occurrences of an ongoing, repetitive process throughout his work. While Guy is sitting by the fire with the men who memorize literature, Granger brings up the Phoenix, a bird that continuously burns itself, and is reborn from its ashes. He even compares the phoenix to mankind in the novel. Our society moves forward, whereas Guy Montag’s society indefinitely burns, only to be reborn from its own ashes. Guy comes to this realization while on the run from the hound near the river. “The sun burnt every day. It burnt time. The world rushed in a circle and turned on its axis and time was busy burning the years and the people anyway, without any help from him. So if he burnt things with the firemen and the sun burnt time, that meant that everything burnt!” (Bradbury 141). Granger goes on, talking about how the men can break this cycle. “‘And when they ask us what we’re doing, you can say, We’re remembering. That’s where we’ll win out in the long run. And someday we’ll remember so much that we’ll build the biggest goddamn steamshovel in history and dig the biggest grave of all time and shove war in and cover it up’” (Bradbury 164). Why does Ray Bradbury use loops (like the phoenix) to represent society? What real world examples involve corrupt, unbroken cycles? Respond with possible factors (people, historical events, etc.) that may have influenced Bradbury in his work.
Reply
Emily Fitzgerald
7/28/2014 11:47:50 am
Throughout many parts of the novel, Bradbury illustrated unbroken and never-ending cycles to criticize society. Throughout the many examples such as the ones that you stated above he was trying to communicate a message to the readers. Bradbury was foreshadowing a future society for our world in which no one goes out of their comfort zones because they don't want to risk failure or rejection.They stay in these "comfort zones" by repeating a constant routine that keeps them out of trouble and/or harm's way. He's telling us that it's best to take risks and being mediocre is boring. He used loops like the phoenix to represent society because like men, the phoenix repeatably destroyed itself over and over. One of the real world examples that involve these cycles are the ideologies that we are taught as children. Many of us were told to behave in school and do well so that we can get into college, get a good job and make a living for ourselves and so on. These ideologies can hold us back from being our true selves. Bradbury portrayed a society in which individualism was completely stripped from society.
Reply
Edith torres
9/3/2014 01:24:02 pm
If you're talking about real world examples that its easy to say that in history we always tend to have a cycle. History repeats itself, if one year a war occurs then in a century another fight may occur about quite similar problem. for example, people still fight about race and freedom and religion. when you think that you've escaped the original problems it comes right back up to you again with you even realizing it.
Reply
Lauren Kirk
7/23/2014 02:03:45 pm
How does the expansion of technology cause society to lose mindfulness of their thoughts and feelings? In the novel Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury exposes technology as a method of distraction from one’s own terrifying thoughts. Montag’s wife, Mildred, is a blatant portrayal of this idea. Mildred is constantly using one form of technology or another, leaving her no time to think. She is so used to having the ‘seashell’ radio in her ears that “she [is] an expert at lip reading” (18). The continuous sound of music in her ears makes it easy to avoid silence. To continue, Mildred is almost addicted to watching people on the television. She refers to them her ‘family’ and enjoys listening to their constant fighting. In doing so, Mildred becomes so wrapped up in their problems that she hardly has time to focus on her own. Furthermore, Mildred suggests that Montag should drive the car when he feels awful. She states “’I always like to drive fast when I feel that way. You get it up to around ninety-five and you feel wonderful’”(68). When Mildred is focused on steering a car at almost a hundred miles per hour, her mind is left with little room for thought. As previously mentioned, Mildred uses her technology as a way to escape from her own thoughts and negative feelings. This becomes especially clear when Mildred reacts to her suicide attempt. When Montag mentions it to her, she acts confused, claiming that “’[She] wouldn’t do a thing like that’” (19). Mildred does not realize her own unhappiness because of the false happiness she experiences while watching her ‘family’, listening to her seashell or driving the car. In your response, please give your opinion on technology’s role in today’s society or give another example of how Bradbury uses his novel to convey this idea.
Reply
Phoebe Carr
7/26/2014 04:50:44 am
In the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, a similar phenomenon to this is portrayed, but in a more controlling sense. In the book, one is brainwashed by government and technology before they are even fully developed humans. As fetus' they are forced into what society needs by a changing of environment, technological advances dictate every aspects of their future, from their jobs to their level of intellectuality. Obviously technology has not come this far in our lives yet, and hopefully it never will, but the idea that technology makes things better or create a false sense of security is there. It's seen a lot in people with mental disorders like clinical depression, bipolar disease, and anxiety disorders find solace in internet, using it as a safety net and a place where they can be who they are and say what they want. People who may be feeling unfulfilled or simply exhausted by their own lives tend to latch on to t.v. shows and their characters, possibly in an act of escapism. Mildred calling characters her "family" is not very far fetched, lots of people hold on to characters and have genuine love for them. Hopefully our society will not progress much farther past this point of dependency and control, to even touch what in exhibited in Fahrenheit 451 or Brave New World in unimaginable and definitely horrifying.
Reply
Claire McEvoy
7/31/2014 05:27:00 am
I believe that technology today has become overwhelming and is starting to mirror Bradbury's prediction of the role of technology in the future. Just as Mildred did, it isn't uncommon for people to walk around with headphones in their ears and keep them in when talking to others. Technology can be useful; the internet is endless, and the amount of knowledge available to society today is infinite. But it seems that our society is heading towards the basis of the society in Fahrenheit 451 because people rely on it and use it too much. Bradbury shows this idea in many ways, including the three that you mentioned, in Fahrenheit 451.
Reply
Kelly Gagliano
7/24/2014 05:34:38 am
Why are the people who question society considered negative influences? As children, we were taught that asking questions is the right thing to do. For example, if we did not understand a topic in school, we were instructed to ask questions. However, when we question things in society, we were shamed and told, "because that is the way it is supposed to be". In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Clarisse questions most everything, and in doing so, people consider her strange and peg her as someone who is against the norm. Clarisse wonders about the world and the people who inhabit it, as evidenced through her interrogation of Montag as she asks, "'How did it start? How did you get into it? How did you pick your work and how did you happen to take the job you have? You're not like the others'" (Bradbury 23). Clarisse wants to understand things in society, but is put down for it. And that poses the question: when has curiosity become a bad thing? When we were children, curiosity was encouraged, but as we age it becomes more frowned upon, continuing the trend of being told, "because that is the way it is supposed to be". If you choose to respond to this, please give me your opinion on two things: the first being why is it that when we question certain things, like when learning, it is praised, but when we question other things, like the government or society, we are put down? The second thing entails, at what point in our lives does curiosity become a bad thing?
Reply
skyler post
7/25/2014 09:44:32 am
In my opinion, fear and controversy is the reason questioning is frowned upon. In the book, people are afraid to question things because of controversy. They are too afraid to start a fight, or in larger situations, war. It is understandable that controversy can be harmful in some ways, but in others, it is good. It opens up people to new ideas, values, and beliefs. Clearly, these values and beliefs differ from person to person, but by making everyone feel the same, we begin to lose personal characteristics and emotion. The concept of living comes down to survival, and not true emotion. People become afraid to fight for their beliefs or question others because arguing is portrayed as a bad thing. As we get older, curiosity and questioning becomes a "bad" thing. People view our curiosity as defiance, and once again, defiance brings fear. It can cause harm in some ways, but without it, we have no purpose. This does not mean everyone should defy everything, but we have a right to stand against the things we know are wrong. As children, defiance seems harmless because no one takes us seriously, but as we grow older, we have a chance to be heard, and a chance to cause others to join us and rise against authority, which is in many ways a threat.
Reply
Emma Westgate
7/31/2014 06:31:09 am
A society is created so that there is order and control among people, so when people question how things are set up and run the leaders get scared. Society doesn’t want anyone who can destroy the people’s false sense of happiness. However, it is seen as admirable to question things like learning because these are just simple matters. These questions are just seen as ways to expand a person’s education. When individuals start to question society their thoughts are suppressed because it’s a menace to the system and structure of society. If one person starts to inquire how society is run, it could lead others to also question the government. Therefore, this leads to an uprise against their ways. These questions have to be put down because the control and forced happiness will diminish if people realize that their society is corrupt. I believe that curiosity arises as a negative thing at the beginning of adulthood. Most children are curious about less complex things because they don’t obtain the knowledge that adults do; whereas, adults know more about the world and are curious about issues around them. Furthermore, kids aren’t as taken as seriously as adults. So when adults question things their ideas are taken seriously, so others will listen and question the way things work also.
Reply
Skylar Simone
8/10/2014 02:23:31 am
In school we ask questions to expand our learning abilities. To learn as much as we can. But when we learn in school they way the teach us is in their own way. That way asking questions helps teachers or anyone for that matter to show you there way to make you learn there way. We are blinded by the fact that because we are learning something there is no other way to learn it then what the teacher tells you. That is not always the case though. There can be two, three or however many ways to lean say, a math equation but we only think of the one way because thats what our teachers say. The teachers are told to teach you this one away because that is what they are told from the state and so on. Its called a curriculum. And it is that that we must follow in order to pass tests like the SATS. When you question the government or society they do put you down for it. We question because we as a society know that there are other answers not like us kids in high school for learning something in particular. In society and the government we expand into groups such as Republicans and Democrats. These two groups have many different opinions and different out looks on life that some people may not agree on. But since there are so many people to each party you will seem like an outsider if you don't agree with one of them. That goes to any party in a political standpoint. You seem like a loose thread and they want you too choose. They don't want you to question because they think there way is the right way and don't have time for your curiosity. This goes now to my last question.Curiosity.When is it a bad thing. This is simple. Curiosity becomes a bad thing when you let it. Curiosity can consume you whole life with wondering. But can also put you in danger. There is a very well known quote that states "Curiosity killed the cat". I think its very true. You have to know when enough is enough. You don't have to question every little thing. At one point you're going to have to realize that not everything is a question but is the answer.
Reply
Juliet Slattery
8/26/2014 01:22:09 am
I think that in our society, many things are already predetermined for us. The way of life and how things are supposed to happen are already decided for us, many people would say. I think that in reality the norm is what people think their predetermined future is. When people start to question that or the government or the way people have been doing things for long periods of time, they are shunned. That is just the way things have been and when new generations try to change that, the people that have been living that way for long periods of time do not accept it.
Reply
Emily Fitzgerald
7/25/2014 02:22:30 am
Why did Bradbury name machines after animals? The occurrence of these machines was present throughout the entire book. These machines were used for different purposes, all in which helped benefit society. "The impersonal operator of the machine could, by wearing a special optical helmet, gaze into the soul of the person whom he was pumping out." (Bradbury 14). "The Electric Eyed Snake" was the name of a stomach pump that doctors used on humans.Bradbury goes into great detail describing it's functions through personification; giving it human characteristics such as an eye and an aggressive personality. Another machine was "The Mechanical Hound". "It was half way across the lawn, coming from the shadows, moving with such drifting ease that it was like a single solid cloud of black-gray smoke blown at him in silence." (Bradbury 120). This was stated when Montag was running from the police after they find out about his crime. The Hound was a robotic beast used to track down and harm criminals. Take note that each of the two machines, both named after animals were beneficial to only the humans. The "animals" were turned into something that we humans can use. What is Bradbury trying to communicate to the audience? Is the symbolization of animals in the novel relevant to today? In your response please answer all parts of the question and use citations from the novel when needed.
Reply
Kelsey Ballard
7/31/2014 01:09:33 am
I believe that Bradbury uses animals to describe machines to give the reader a sense of how dangerous these things can be. You mentioned that he used snakes and hounds to name the machines. Personally, when I think of these animals, I think of how a wrong move can end up with you in the hospital, getting stitches from a dog bite or having snake poison drained out of your blood stream. I feel that he used the animals he did because snakes and hounds, if mistreated or left in the wrong hands, can result in negative consequences.
Reply
Bobby Villaluz
7/31/2014 02:53:02 am
Bradbury’s use of animal names for these fictional machines shows how humans have used technology and their knowledge to separate themselves from all other forms of life on Earth. Originally, humans were simply animals, struggling with the same basic needs as all other organisms on the planet: food, water, and shelter. However, over time as humans used technology to satisfy these essentials for living, they did not have to worry about them anymore. One should note that these are not real animals but instead machines created by humans. This shows how humans have become almost creator-like beings in since they have the power to produce artificial life. In addition, Bradbury shows that rather than humans existing in balance with all other living things, in his fictional work, all other “living” things exist for the benefit of humans. For example, when Montag starts to feel upset and questions the way he was living, Mildred tells him to go drive, “You hit rabbits, sometimes you hit dogs. Go take the beetle” (Bradbury 64). This quote struck me because it shows how Mildred felt that the animals existed for humans to vent their frustration on something. The symbolization of animals in the novel relates to today’s society in a way that it manipulates animals to serve it. Police forces breed, train, and use dogs to chase and take down criminals. Also, animals like cows and chickens are not hunted by humans anymore but instead are born into environments where they are predestined to satisfy our appetites.
Reply
Tierney Baldwin
7/25/2014 04:19:14 am
Can a perfect society actually be created if it comes with the cost of losing the ability to express oneself and have emotion? In order to feel the bad, one must first experience the good, and vice versa, but what if one never felt either? If there never was a time where one was happy, then they could not feel sadness. If there never was a moment when everything was comforting and serene, then no one would be able to distinguish pain from normality. If one has never felt love, then they could not feel hate, either. Similarly, in Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, society chooses to ignore both the good and the bad in order to achieve a false sense of happiness. They burn their problems rather than face them; if anything displeases them or disturbs their ideology of perfection, then they eliminate it. People avoid having to stop and process, and instead drown themselves in technology to avert thinking. As a result, they never experience any negatives, and therefore they should be happy. However, Montag feels like people “have everything [they] need to be happy, but [they] aren’t happy” because they are unable to express themselves and be a true individual when they are deprived of books and intellectual thinking (Bradbury 82). Is he right? If removing the bad from life simultaneously cancels out the good, are all attempts to achieve perfection ultimately worthless?
Reply
Phoebe Carr
7/26/2014 05:08:06 am
Because of the nature of emotions, the rawness of them and how they effect the individual, I do not believe that to feel happiness one must feel sadness. Sadness only amplifies the happiness. So, if happiness - or more contentedness - is all you ever know, it must start to feel like the norm. If the world were a solely "happy" place, the happiness would be dull. The aforementioned rawness of the feeling would be more manufactured; if you are happy and everyone around you is happy, what is there to care about? Regularly, I do not believe in cliches, but there is no such thing as perfect. It is projected all throughout literature that a "perfect society" is unattainable because of the flaws of the individual. If arbitrary things like happiness are dulled, one will try to compensate with balance, like the amplification of recklessness. In Fahrenheit 451, Mildred says that driving at nearly 100 miles per hour makes her feel better. In conclusion, any attempts at a perfect society will ultimately lead to merely a differently flawed lifestyle than the last.
Reply
Zoe Kralyevich
7/30/2014 01:43:57 am
I believe that it is impossible to create a perfect society without emotion. Ray Bradbruy's "perfect" society gives people a false sense of happiness, which really reveals how truly depressed everyone really is. I mean they have housecalls for people who commit suicide! If you cut off everyone's chance to express emotion, that would limit you with barely any activities and very emotional people. Activities such as art and music, and many others are a way of expressing yourself in different ways. It's a way to show emotion and if you take that away, people are going to start bottling up their feelings. This is unnatural and unhealthy, because humans need to vent and express themselves. Otherwise, this leads to many serious emotional and health issues. In conclusion, by taking away a person's way of emotional escape, you take away their happiness. This would cause even more issues than our society today.
Reply
Chase Hintelmann
8/14/2014 06:03:42 am
I believe an attempt to create a utopian society could work for a while, but due to the complexity of the human mind and the difference in the way each person functions, emotion would not be able to be contained for long. After a period of living in this perfect society, somebody would question the workings of the government or population and discover it is not as perfect as they thought, for they cannot feel emotion. Also, since a human's mind works in so many different ways, I don't see how it could be changed so as to not feel emotion. Some individual would break the system and escape from the controls over their emotion and realize how much better a world with feeling is.
Reply
Claire McEvoy
7/25/2014 05:25:02 am
Is it more important to be honest to yourself about who you are even if the truth can hurt? Or is it more important to ignore what you know and bury it deep inside you, sparing yourself inevitable pain? Ray Bradbury touches on this internal struggle in the novel Fahrenheit 451 when the protagonist Guy Montag embarks on a journey to discover his true self. When Montag talks to Mildred during one of their few conversations, he claims, “’I’m so damned unhappy, I’m so mad, and I don’t know why…I feel like I’ve been saving up a lot of things and don’t know what. I might even start reading books’”(Bradbury 64). Montag experiences these foreign feelings only when he starts to come to the realization that his ideas have been handed to him his whole life. Montag goes through pain to accept that the society he lives in is corrupt, so would it have been better to surround himself with distractions like his wife Mildred did? Would Montag’s sheer ignorance have been a better solution to this novel, or would the novel have changed at all? Would ignoring his true feelings just buy Montag time, and would his life have turned out the same in the end? Ponder these questions and write your responses below.
Reply
Lola Todman
7/27/2014 06:04:03 am
It seems very easy for all of Bradbury's characters to stuff pain deep within themselves, and sugarcoat the surface of unhappiness. There are so many distractions provided, just as there are in our own society, outside of the book. It's interesting, because Bradbury laid a plethora of individual character developments in front of us. To pick just two, Mildred and Guy. At first it appears they are both happily distracted with their everyday "lives." Guy, being blindly led into oblivion by his job as a firefighter, and Mildred more than occupied with her "family." But soon, thanks to Clarisse, Guy begins to take a closer look at the way he's living his life. From there, although things start to spiral out of control, he gets in touch with himself, and his sense of what's right and what's wrong. This is something that Mildred decided never to do. We can see the decline in both of their lives, yet still they are headed in different directions. Montag refuses to stop fighting for truth and answers that no one ever gave him. Mildred fights for her oblivion. Even if they both died in the end (note where Mildred ended up and where Montag is) who would be happier? A person who never learned to live, but reveled in her feigned joy? Or a person who learned to grasp reality, and fix it.
Reply
Emma Westgate
7/31/2014 07:35:54 am
In my opinion I believe that it is more important to be honest to oneself. Even if it does cause pain, the truth can change a person in a positive way and help them break away from what’s being hidden. Usually the deception is something negative that everyone is tricked into being a part of. So isn’t it better to get away from a corrupt matter, possibly fix it, and suffer the pain then be part of something that negatively impacts the world? In Fahrenheit 451 Guy finds out the truth about his society, and even though understanding the actuality about his world is difficult and hurtful, he becomes a part of the solution to preserve books. If Guy hadn’t had been honest with himself and continued to surround himself with technological distractions, he would be part of the problem. He would continue to burn books instead of passing the words to future generations. Even if Guy ignored the truth, I think eventually he would break away from society because he would start to feel guilty, and the war would change everything.
Reply
Tierney Baldwin
8/1/2014 01:29:02 am
Although it might be unpleasant in the present moment to acknowledge our faults, being honest with ourselves and identifying who we truly are allows us to grow and progress as a society. When we accept our mistakes, we provide ourselves with the opportunity to learn from them. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Montag recognizes that learning about the past through books “just might stop [them] from making the same damn insane mistakes” (Bradbury 74), but because the rest of society is so heavily distracted by technology, there is nothing to prevent everyone else from endlessly making the same mistakes. Even if the truth hurts and is discomforting to hear, being honest with ourselves and accepting our true personalities and feelings ultimately molds us into better people.
Reply
Chase Hintelmann
8/14/2014 06:09:39 am
I believe many people in todays society would say that being honest with yourself about who you are, even though it hurts, is better. However, many of them don't do this. Instead, they hide who they really are so they can "fit in" or "be cooler". Nowadays everything is about popularity and how "cool" you are. I believe that everyone should be open about who they are and not be ashamed of themselves. If you enjoy something, then do it, even if it isn't the "normal" thing to do. I also believe that if you are honest with yourself about who you are, then the people who become your friends will like you for you, rather then someone you pretend to be.
Reply
Emilie Weiner
8/25/2014 10:46:41 am
Although this is a question of moral values, I do believe that being honest with oneself is more important than avoiding the truth. A person living in constant question of whether or not (s)he's doing the right thing is never a happy one, nor a peaceful one. Right from the beginning of the novel, Montag says to himself, "Darkness. He was not happy. He was not happy. He said the words to himself. He recognized this as the true state of affairs" (Bradbury, 9). It's an awakening for him, realizing the way he's been lying to himself for his entire life, and in the end, it's revitalizing. While he makes sacrifices, the book would have taken none of the same turns without his ability to put honesty and ethical truth above the hurt and challenge that comes with it.
Reply
Ryan Garley
7/25/2014 05:44:27 am
Why do secular people always use media as a purposeful distraction from the outside world? In Ray Bradbury’s novel, Fahrenheit 451, technology and media has become the main focus of this futuristic American society. Their everyday lives always include technology; much like present day America, technology is starting to become a part of everyday life and activities. In Bradbury’s novel, Montag pleads,”‘Will you turn the parlor off?’ he asked.” Mildred replies, “’that’s my family.’” Montag responds, “’Will you turn it off for a sick man (Bradbury 48)?’” We can see the Mildred clearly includes her parlor as her “family". The media has taken a toll on Mildred and many others in this setting. They are oblivious to a war that is occurring because of their media and technology. An instance that shows that they are oblivious to the war is, “’Oh they [wars] come and go, come and go.’ said Mrs. Phelps. ‘In again out again Finnegan, the Army called Pete yesterday. He’ll be back next week. The Army said so. Quick war. Forty-eight hours, they said, and everyone home (Bradbury 94).’” Please state your opinion fulfilling the question’s parts.
Reply
Kevin Laughlin
7/29/2014 02:37:43 am
I believe people always use media as a distraction from the outside world because it is so accessible to them. It is so easy for people now a days to just go on their phone or watch TV and see what other people think about something rather then analyze the facts and have an original belief for themselves. Another reason people are addicted to media is because they think of it as an escape from having to actually be social and actually make friends, People are trying to take the easy way out from having to communicate face to face with another individual. Media has become attached to people and their lives. People use it as an excuse when facing the realities of life.
Reply
Bobby Villaluz
7/31/2014 03:25:06 am
People use media to distract themselves from several things. One thing that people like to be distracted from thinking about is current events. You pointed out that the citizens in the society were quite oblivious to the war that was occurring. This was because they were so engrossed in the media and technology that their society created for this very purpose. People do not like to think about issues that are occurring because they realize they live in a world that is imperfect and fear that they could be affected. Therefore, rather than trying to contribute towards a peace agreement or at least supporting America’s army, the citizens remain unconcerned about the war and other global issues. In addition, people use media to distract their minds from thinking about inevitable life events such as aging and death. Since there is no way to escape these events, people simply do not think about them. However, distraction from thoughts of death is not the only way to face this “issue”. People could accept that aging and death will occur and give them positive uses. For example, death could be a motivation to make every action purposeful, and aging can be viewed as a milestone where one has become wiser. Lastly, people also use media as a distraction from their current state of living. You demonstrated that Mildred was quite engrossed in her television walls, which had a program that simulated a real family. Mildred may have used this, among other purposes, as a way to feel a part of a more complete family since she had an odd, somewhat fractured relationship with Guy.
Reply
Max Lane
7/31/2014 07:09:24 am
I agree that the people have been so focused on technology that they have become completely oblivious the war. In my opinion they use technology and television as an escape from their responsibilities.
Reply
Nora Fraser
8/1/2014 04:39:14 am
People use media as a distraction and also a space filler in their lives. Technology is an easy way to forget about life and travel somewhere else for a while. I described media as a space filler because of the way Mildred treats the parlor walls, as her "Family". Media replaces loneliness, at least for a while. It is also a way of escaping life, such as hiding the war, and pushing away depression.
Reply
Connor McCarthy
7/25/2014 06:01:27 am
Would it be more desirable for a person to completely overlook the errors, miscalculations, and loves lost, or would a person be more content with committing the embarrassments, mistakes, and pain to memory so that the person would make sure that the blunder would never happen again? In the futuristic United States, that Guy Montag lives in, the people and the State try their best to forget the past and move forward into their oblivion. Many people today try to learn from the past no matter how hard it is to think about it because they learn from it. Although the moving forward does cost less pain for many people which is always good. Bradbury demonstrates that the State doesn’t need the past by destroying books. Though no one understands what is happening, the firemen are deliberately destroying the past because of orders from the state. “’ Do you know why books such as this are so important? Because they have quality. And what does the word quality mean? To me it means texture. This book has pores.’”(Bradbury 83) Professor Faber shoes that he know that the books history is important an shows that he would want to keep them. Meaning he does not want to forget the past. Whether it makes a person more jubilant to forget the pain and embarrassment, or is a person happier when they hold on to their mistakes to learn from it and make sure it never happens again.
Reply
Ryan Humelsine
7/28/2014 01:29:51 am
In my opinion, I think it’s better to learn from your mistakes, rather than go on, and run the risk of making that same mistake again, regardless of how painless it is to forget the past. Looking back on your own errors may not be as easy as forgetting them, but a mistake is only bad if nothing is learned from it. I see it as a way to build up your common sense. However, oblivion may lead to making the same type of mishap that you have made before. One famous saying explains, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Most people in Fahrenheit 451’s society continuously shelter themselves, not only from the past, but from opportunities to becoming better people.
Reply
Kevin Laughlin
7/29/2014 01:26:30 am
In my opinion, I feel it is better to face the fact that you made a mistake and have the courage to fix it, than to completely rid your mind of the past. If you do not attempt to fix your mistake, there is no reason to think you may not make the same mistake again. Also, I feel that people who do not have the courage to admit and fix their mistake are not secure about how they are as a person. I feel this is the case because if you do not want to admit you messed up, you are trying to act perfect to not only yourself but others. You should be the person you are. Learning from your mistakes is a courageous and intelligent thing to do.
Reply
Elizabeth Paterno
8/7/2014 03:53:05 am
I feel that although it is important to learn from mistakes and never forget them completely, it is also important to move on. You cannot define the future from what happened in the past, however it is necessary to to something out of the bad. If you do not learn from the past, then mistakes will continually be repeated, however if you linger on what happened, then you will be afraid to take chances and hold back in life. In my opinion you should never just move on completely from the past, just keep what happened in mind and learn from your experiences.
Reply
Bobby Villaluz
7/25/2014 06:02:05 am
Are people afraid of being forgotten? Is that one reason that society values history and literature? When Montag first meets the group of intellectuals that memorized works of literature and history, their leader, Granger, explains how they use their memory to preserve history. Specifically, to preserve history, they memorize the works of individuals who influenced it the most. Although these important figures certainly had multiple motives for writing these historical pieces, the effort they put into writing these works raises the question if they feared that they would be forgotten if they did otherwise. Granger explains to Montag, “We are all bits and pieces of history and literature and international law. Byron, Tom Paine, Machiavelli, or Christ, it’s here” (Bradbury 152). If these historical leaders did not write these works, there would be no solid, accessible material to remember them or their contributions. Since they have helped society to advance, one may ask the question, “Were they also afraid for the sake of others if they were forgotten?” If society was not able to refer back to what these individuals experienced and learned, how could it make progress? What alternative forms of self-expression besides writing do people use to create a lasting memory of themselves? Contemplate and explain your opinion on these questions.
Reply
skyler post
7/27/2014 12:30:31 am
I believe that many well known historical figures who expressed their opinion with the sole purpose of being remembered. On the other hand, there must be selfless people who only wanted to help the world advance for the better. However, both types of people have contributed to society. We could not advance without other people's ideas. People are remembered in many ways, expressing themselves through art, music, dancing, writing, and more. I'd like to believe that we choose to express ourselves because we put emotion into our lives, not because we want others to recognize our problems and draw attention to it. A person's life is eternal because of the time they spent existing, and the people they touched around them. No one's life is eternal by memory, whether they recognize it or not.
Reply
Alma Sanchez
7/30/2014 05:20:23 am
Being remembered has been the goal of many influential people in history. The fear that one day your existence shall be completely forgotten, has pushed people into achieving many things. Being remembered is only part of the reason why many people strive towards achieving great things. Whether it be music, visual art, or preforming, people themselves do not have a lasting memory in our world. The impact a person has, is what stays in our memory. We remember the melodies that have been created by famous musical artists, we don't necessarily remember the strife that came along with creating the composition. I believe, that we take more into account, the tangible proof that a person leaves behind. Society needs to be able to have inspiration, and references from past individuals to make progress with their own works. People who have left their lasting memory, are the ones who have had the greatest impact on the present day people. These people have left behind their stories in the form of art, music, writing, or their acts of bravery. These people have made changes in the past, that affect our current situation.
Reply
Claire McEvoy
7/31/2014 08:29:01 am
I think the fear of being forgotten is inevitable in most people. There are, of course, the few who do not want to be remembered, but to some, that is the whole point of living: remembrance. People feel that their life had value if they are not forgotten once they pass. In a way, this is true. Then again, just because someone is remembered after they die, does not mean that they made a positive contribution to society as a whole. Many people are remembered infamously after they die. I think your view on how others may want to have their ideas remembered for the sake of advancing our society is interesting because I never thought about it in that regard. People use different methods of self expression to create a memory of themselves because they want something to be left behind for others to discover when they are not around anymore. I really like the perspective you took when you wrote this question and how you connected it to Fahrenheit 451.
Reply
Elizabeth Paterno
8/7/2014 04:01:11 am
I believe that everyone is afraid of being forgotten, whether its for selfish and vain purposes, or for the sake of others. Historical figures have made documents in order for others in the future to see their work. If things were not kept on record, then all the work of people from the past will have gone to waste.Those who did the work were probably fearful that their work would be forgotten and advances would never be made. It is in human nature to be fearful of whether or not you made an impact on the world after you leave. If everything one did in the past was forgotten, then what would be the purpose of their life? It would be as though they never exsisted. in my opinion, i find it rather scary to never be remebered for anything you did. People are fearful of being forgotten because they worked so hard to be known.
Reply
Skyler Post
7/25/2014 09:27:45 am
Would people really be happier if there was no controversy as well as deep thought? Beatty, the fire department'a captain, reveals the reason books are burned on page 57 when he talks to Montag about keeping books. Montag had been feeling "sick," and Beatty knew that he was curious about the books. Montag questioned if burning books was wrong, but Beatty seemed to justify it by telling him, "The bigger you market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that!" (Bradbury 57). Beatty claims that people are happy when there is nothing to argue about. They appeal to everyone, including minorities, by making TV episodes as general as possible. While no one is offended, harmed, or dissatisfied in any way, the world has become one with no substance, emotion, or even human-like qualities. Books, according to Beatty, caused controversy, fighting, and even war, so by burning them, they are keeping the peace. Would you rather live a life with both pain and joy, or would you rather have no feeling, yet suffer no emotional hardships?
Reply
Cecilia McCormick
7/28/2014 10:57:07 am
I think the people would be happier if there still was controversy and things to debate on. In Fahrenheit 451, there is so much protection so people don't get offended and everyone stays happy, but honestly I think people would enjoy putting their two cents in every once in a while. Since these people in the novel are so blocked out to feel any emotion, I think it would be a much better choice to let them know how they actually feel about things sometimes. In our world, the controversy can get a bit out of hand occasionally leading to war, but not knowing how you are feeling is just not worth it. I would definitely rather live a life of feeling happy and sad than feeling nothing at all.
Reply
Emily Fitzgerald
7/28/2014 12:02:22 pm
In my opinion, people wouldn't really be happier if there was no controversy as well as deep thought. These things are crucial for someone to develop a strong, personal outlook on life. Avoiding controversy makes society a bunch of cowards who can't face their own thoughts; which can only lead to more problems such as the ones that Bradbury stresses (warped time, lack of emotion, technology obsession, etc.). Personally, I would rather live a life with both pain and joy than having no feeling and suffering no emotional hardships. This is because being emotionless is such a burden on an individual and I can't imagine living in a world in which I cannot express myself. I would take a life with both pain and the joy over that any day.
Reply
Alma Sanchez
7/30/2014 05:26:51 am
Without having strife or pain, joy has less meaning, in my opinion. Living in a world were everything is censored, you live a mediocre life, at best. According to Fahrenheit 451, so many people attempted suicide, such as Montag's wife. These people, craved something outside of their restrained and censored lives. They wished for something more, not necessarily pain, but something that could not be provided by their environment. They lacked choices and the excitement of being able to have controversy. I believe you need some pain or some hardships in your life, to be able to truly enjoy your life.
Reply
Alex Sosa
7/30/2014 05:40:50 am
I believe that people would be much happier with controversy and deep thought. As humans, we love to share our opinion and knowledge on certain topics. At times, it is quite hard to keep quiet. When we speak up and debate about topics is how we make our society a better place. If the characters in Bradbury's novel were to come to our world, they might enjoy it more. That is why we have freedom of speech and are entitled to our opinion. We need to release our emotions and tell others how we are feeling.Deep thought also leads to a lot of great ideas and new ways of life. Even though some may hate, even more people will be able to love.
Reply
Annabel Martin
7/31/2014 07:16:31 am
I think that theoretically, the world would be a perfect place if there was no controversy, however that is boring and unrealistic. As humans we form our own thoughts and we have the right to believe in different things. Perhaps the books were burned because they exposed minorities or had abstract views. I would rather lead a life that contains pain and joy, than live a very sheltered and unaffected life, because everyone can never agree. Controversy and debating strengthen peoples minds, and allow individuals to think in new ways.
Reply
Jack Stamer
7/31/2014 12:02:07 pm
I would rather live in a life with both pain and joy. In Bradbury’s novel, people live without feeling or emotional hardships. Pain and joy make life interesting. The joy part of life helps you enjoy life. Pain is felt everywhere along with joy. Pain can be physical and emotional. Examples could be losing a family member or getting a cut on your elbow. In life, there always has to be a little pain to keep a person’s life balanced. Joy is how a person reacts positively to life. It can be the result of getting a hundred on a test or winning a championship. On the other hand, a life without feeling is very dull. It is very difficult to enjoy life in this type of situation. In Fahrenheit 451, Mildred is constantly watching television. She doesn’t enjoy life, she just watches television for hours. In the end, I would rather live in a life with pain and joy.
Reply
Kyle Neary
8/2/2014 05:03:43 am
As humans, we love to share our opinions with others. We like to do this because it helps make us stand out. Without controversy, we wouldn't have opinions. Without controversy, we wouldn't be able to stand out. I would rather live in a world with both pain and joy, because looking at things from two angles can strengthen our minds.
Reply
Emma Wright
8/5/2014 08:43:10 am
The phrase "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind here. Although I admit sometimes life would be easier being naïve to all hardships, knowing the truth is crucial. Keeping the peace by never bringing up anything controversial is impractical and frustrating. It is better to be hurt by the truth than to go about life blind to anything but lies.
Reply
Kelly Gagliano
8/10/2014 11:13:43 am
In my opinion, I would live in a society with both pain and joy. As humans, we must experience different emotions to grow and create our own personality. Without these emotions, all people
Reply
Kelly Gagliano
8/10/2014 11:26:22 am
would be the same. There would be no variation or originality, thus creating a lack of progress in society because there is no person to think differently and innovate the world.
Grace Cody
8/19/2014 01:38:10 pm
I think that if there was no controversy or deep thought people would be happier. I think this because people would not be questioning their actions or beliefs or other people's actions or beliefs. If people just went with whatever everyone else was doing never thinking twice about it, they might be happier with never questioning themselves. This is not necessary saying that people would always be doing the right thing. If you just went along with what everyone else was doing, you might be happier, but you also might not be doing the same thing. Which leads to the question, it your happiness worth doing what is right?
Reply
Shannon O'Donnell
8/29/2014 09:20:07 am
I believe people would not be happier if there was no controversy and deep thought. In the society of Fahrenheit 451, people are never offended and almost everyone remains emotionless. They are sheltered from curiosity and true emotion. I think that it is much more important for people to have free speech and formulate their own opinions based on real feelings. The people in the book are hindered from feeling any emotion. It would be better to let them have feelings and opinions about the world around them, whether they were good or bad feelings. It is true that controversy can lead to horrible events. However, living in a state of blandness and boredom would probably lead to worse things occurring in our own minds. I would certainly prefer living a life with both pain and joy instead of having no feeling whatsoever.
Reply
Jade Glab
7/26/2014 03:59:39 am
Why should one with great integrity be faced with consequences of offense? In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Beatty starts to become very suspicious when Montag becomes fascinated with literature. However, Montag is aware of Beatty's concern and makes an attempt to hide his interests. Despite his efforts to conceal his passion for literature, Beatty soon after received a call describing a house that needed to be burned down. "Why, we've stopped in front of my house." (Bradbury 110) Montag was in disbelief. He couldn't believe that his passion for literature would actually lead to penalty. Although he knew that books were outlawed, he probably didn't see the predicament in being creative and forming his own opinions. However, the government believed that an uninformed society was an imperative step to forming a fair and equal one. If Montag lived in a normal society, his fascination with literature would be acceptable. Although, in the society he lives in, what is considered right in a normal society is considered wrong in Montag's. Would you rather have freedom but no guarantee of your fate or be controlled by a dictator who can only promise artificial joy?
Reply
Priscilla Triolo
7/26/2014 04:57:10 am
Is it worth losing yourself to be accepted into society? Is it right to hold back your thoughts because it is easier to hide them rather than feeling them? Ray Bradbury showed his readers that most of the characters in Fahrenheit 451 would hide their emotions because they did not know how to handle them. At the start of the novel, Montag was one of these characters. He would feel guilt for burning people's homes but did not understand why because none of the other firefighters felt this way. He also did not enjoy his marriage with Mildred. As the book progressed, he began to understand himself and acknowledge the fact that he did not like the person he was. Once his self-actualization took over him, he did not try to fit into society any longer. He did no longer wanted to go to work and he tried talking to Mildred about their relationship but, she did not know how to communicate so she ignored him and payed more attention to her “family” rather than him. Frustrated with how everyone around him was, Montag tried showing other people how they need to feel. “Go home and think of your first husband divorced and your second husband killed in a jet and your third husband blowing his brains out, go home and think of that and your damn Caesariam sections, too and your children who hate your guts!” (Bradbury 101). In this quote, he was showing Mrs. Bowles that she should have some feeling of hurt instead of acting as though she does not care about anything. That is why she eventually broke down into tears. How would you to act if you were in Montag’s position? Would you challenge someone for what you believe? Would you stay true to yourself or cowardly keep quiet because of fear?
Reply
Ryan Humelsine
7/27/2014 01:51:57 am
I think it’s more sensible to to stand out based on your personal opinions, rather than to blend in like a coward. You may face temporary consequences, such as ridicule, and even arrest (based on the circumstances). Look back on historical figures who spoke up, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. Both of them faced resistance in their peaceful protests/campaigns, and both were assassinated. Despite their unexpected deaths, both men are considered among the most influential peaceful politicians of the 20th century. I see more importance in the legacy you leave behind than trying to “fit in”.
Reply
Jade Glab
7/29/2014 05:01:42 am
It is definitely not worth losing the person who you are to become accepted into society. Holding back your thoughts because it is easier to hide them rather than feel them is corrupt. As you mentioned, Montag was one of these characters who ended up realizing the trueness of these statements. Although he knew burning others' possessions was immoral, he still continued to do it. He also understood that his relationship with Mildred was wretched, however, he didn't do anything to settle it. Knowing this information, I completely agree with you when you acknowledge Montag is disappointed in who he is as a person. I believe society has really shaped him into someone who he isn't. If I were in Montag's position, I would stay true to myself no matter what. I would do everything I possibly could to stand up for my own beliefs, even if that means challenging someone else. Everyone has been created differently for a reason and I believe that you are who you are, regardless of how others try to shape you.
Reply
Bryce Barnes
8/1/2014 05:13:31 am
I think that people should be open to ideas and thoughts and believes. Otherwise, we walk around like robots. Not caring and going through a daily ruitine of watching TV (in this case). Even showing hate and anger as Mrs. Bowles did is better than being emotionless. Fighting for your voice to be heard is courageous and should be done because everyone's opinion deserves to be heard.
Reply
Debra Tuberion
8/7/2014 04:37:13 am
If I were in Montag's position, I would challenge others' ideas for what I believe. It is always better to stay true to yourself and stand up for what you believe in rather than "cowardly keep quiet because of the fear". Standing up for what you believe in has a better outcome in the long run than not proving yourself simply due to fear.
Reply
Griffin Perry
9/2/2014 12:06:00 pm
Your question is 100% prevalent in the novel. Montag covers up so many of his emotions in fear that those around him will judge him or see him as a different person. In this society, I think those who question the natural flow or aren't pleased with what's around them don't share with anyone their thoughts because the consequences are less severe as if you do speak out. This might be because they are so blinded by propaganda that they don't even know or understand how to react to their own emotions which is sad because this could cause serious problems. By doing this, they never really are their own person and are just bended into this gray society where everyone fake-feels the same thing all the time.
Reply
Andrew Schembor
7/26/2014 06:40:43 am
Could watching TV all day provide a positive outlook on society. In Fahrenheit 451 written by Ray Bradbury, books are banned and burned, while TV is known as a all powerful source of everything. The issue with TV though, is that the information enters the head while the person does not even think about what the true meaning of it is. "School is shortened, discipline relaxed, philosophies, histories, languages dropped, English and spelling gradually gradually neglected, finally almost completely ignored." (Bradbury 55) In this type of society the basics of education are lost, which in the end will damage the society, which may make the it in the long run fall apart.
Reply
Jake Lane
7/29/2014 06:25:35 am
In my opinion only watching TV all day could only be a negative outlook on society especially in the world Montag lives in. In Montags world the government is able to keep oppression over the people by using the television. What the people see on TV is just what the government wants them to see so that they can keep control over the people. Even some of the things people see on TV may not even be true.
Reply
Max Lane
7/31/2014 07:06:04 am
In my opinion the people use technology as a distraction from their responsibilities.They have been focusing on technology more than things such as the war.
Reply
brenna bonner
8/1/2014 01:45:59 am
i believe that watching tv all day provides a negative outlook on society. i think even though watching tv is what society wants you to do, it damages you. in a society where everyone watches tv, has shortened school days, and english and spelling are neglected, it will soon fall apart.
Reply
Krista Dalton
8/1/2014 04:47:35 am
I believe that watching TV all day will not provide a positive outlook on society as it does not benefit anyone in a helpful way. In this society, all TV does is distract people from the real world. These people do not realize they are wasting their time watching TV and that they are missing out on the things worth learning.
Reply
Bryce Barnes
8/1/2014 05:17:00 am
In my opinion, the overuse of technology is unhealthy and does not replace education. The only educational programs going on is what the government makes the viewer believe. Also physical and psychological strength are decreasing.
Reply
Paige Whittle
8/1/2014 07:13:35 am
TV has been shown to have nothing but a negative impact on the way people are living in this novel. As you mentioned, basic education is being neglected and replaced with the modern technology. Books will soon become extinct, leaving no culture behind as people do not keep up with their basic understandings of the English language. At this rate, the future will be full of uneducated beings sitting in front of a TV screen all day.
Reply
Bailey Smith
8/12/2014 01:32:03 am
TV cannot provide a positive outlook on society. The government in Fahrenheit controls the people from TV's. People don't get to see the real world. From TV's people will get a false sense of happiness. They will get happy when they see the TV's, because it is controlled environment.
Reply
Cecilia McCormick
7/27/2014 02:52:58 am
Is the idea of all people being "equal" really going to create worldwide happiness? In Ray Bradbury's novel, Fahrenheit 451, the burning of all books is allowing all previous knowledge to be destroyed. Without this knowledge people are pretty much brainwashed to all be the same person. If the books weren't burned some people might get "offended" by them. Beatty explains this thought when he says, "Colored people don't like the 'Little Black Sambo'. Burn it. White people don't feel good about 'Uncle Tom's Cabin'. Burn it. Someone's written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book" (Bradbury 59). Not to be insensitive, but there are a lot of things worse in the world than reading a book you don't agree with. Centering a life around the fact that books cannot be read because they may hurt someone's feelings will only weaken the society. Soon enough every little thing will be an insult to someone and the government will have to make a law against that too. Eventually the life everyone thought was so happy is now so limited and no ones free to actually be who they are or do what they want. Is banning everything someone might be insulted by the way to happiness? Or should society stop being so sensitive and move on to realize sometimes life isn't fair and people aren't always going to be just? Please leave your opinion on this topic below.
Reply
Kelsey Ballard
7/31/2014 01:18:02 am
I personally believe that all in all, a society can never be completely equal. In George Orwell's Animal Farm, the society of farm animals begins with equality and eventually ends up with the pigs leading all. I feel that even though the society Bradbury has created seems perfect on the outside, with everyone equal, there must be someone who makes the decisions for the nation and in return, receives a fair share of money for it. Montag only makes 6,000 dollars a year, surely there is someone out there that makes more then he does. But the people would never know. From what I understand, most people don't travel outside of their cities, they don't know what it's like on the other side of the country. They most likely think that it's the same, while in reality, there could be rich people, or an area destroyed by war.
Reply
Victoria White
7/31/2014 05:45:33 am
I feel that this spoken about society should stop being so over sensitive. They should also realize that everyone has different opinions and that something you worship could be spat upon by someone else. If you were to ban the things that made people, minority or majority, unhappy or offended, you would literally have to ban everything. There will always be that one person who has an issue with the littlest of things. So, in summary, the government just needs to learn that they can't be super man and try to fix everything. Life is unfair and people are just going to have to learn to live with that.
Reply
Kelsey Ballard
7/27/2014 03:50:25 am
When will society begin to question the things that are perfect? In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, the society that Guy Montag lives in seems to be perfect. Books are for burning, televisions take up entire rooms, and all is right. There is no sadness, only happiness. However, this society makes one question- is it too perfect? Why do we burn the books? Guydares to ask the questions, and finds himself, for the first time in his life, unhappy. He used to love his job, "it was a pleasure to burn" (Bradbury 1). But ever since he grabbed the book and dared to question the beliefs of society, he has been confused and unhappy.
Reply
Zoe Kralyevich
7/30/2014 01:33:54 am
There are very few groups of people who like to go the opposite direction as everyone else and dare to be different. This is what I see as a group of free-thinkers, who aren't affected by the expectations of society, but of their own. These are the people who are going to change society. I can say from first-hand experience that many kids my age realize how wrong society is. However, we are society, and we, as kids, don't know how to fix it. I know a lot of people realize that society is far from perfect, it is just the matter of how we are going to fix it is the big issue.
Reply
Alex Sosa
7/30/2014 05:32:15 am
In our society today nothing or nobody may be perfect without an exception.We like to nitpick little things. That show is great but, I don't like this about it. As much as we'd like everything to be perfect and to our standards, nothing can be. However, in Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, the people don't bother to question these things. They accept everything they are told. If books are for burning, why not? If that T-Shirt rips, it was meant to be. Our society today would change all that by questioning and changing things. Proving that Bradbury's society is not too perfect, just left alone.
Reply
Lola Todman
7/27/2014 04:51:29 am
Is it dangerous to learn our history by the way others teach it to us? Bradbury’s characters are virtually resourceless in regards to obtaining a substantial knowledge of the larger world. They are only permitted access to the information they receive from the government and others in the community. The following is a quote from a fireman’s rulebook (likely government issued) that also contains a brief history of America’s firemen; “Established, 1790, to burn english-influenced books in the colonies. First fireman: Benjamin Franklin.” State whether or not you believe it is dangerous to learn history from the way others teach it to you.
Reply
Cecilia McCormick
7/28/2014 10:46:56 am
Learning history only by other people passing it down is not very safe and reliable. Over time words get mixed up and the stories change. Think of it as a game of telephone: In the beginning the sentence makes perfect sense, but by the end of game the sentence is completely different due to misunderstandings. Other than stories not being heard correctly, people may change the way it is told purposefully. It is dangerous to learn history from the way others teach it to you and I believe there should be artifacts, such as books, to back up the facts.
Reply
Jade Glab
7/29/2014 05:54:41 am
I believe it's imperative to learn from our past, however, you can't be 100% sure of what you are educated on as a result of others' opinions. As you mentioned in your post, the society Montag lives in is substantially limited to the amount of knowledge they can attain. It's as if the government confines the knowledge of society so they have the opportunity to tyrannize its citizens. In my opinion, I believe that learning history from others could be dangerous, depending on the circumstance. If someone told a lie regarding history, it is from that point on unreliable and therefore, potentially dangerous. However, if there is a reliable source backing up one's knowledge, such as an artifact or textbook, it can be trusted and therefore is accurate. I believe it is imperative we learn from our past, however, to prevent dangerous misunderstandings, backing up known facts with reliable sources is always recommended.
Reply
Jake Lane
7/29/2014 06:32:38 am
Learning history through word of mouth or other people passing it down is dangerous and unreliable. When you hear history passed down it is always different from what actually happened because people are able to change the actual events and just tell you what they think is true. If someone tells you a story maybe the person is actually telling the truth or maybe the person is using their opinion on the topic so you never know if what someone is telling you is true or not when it is passed through word of mouth.
Reply
Matt Santos
7/30/2014 01:14:52 am
I believe that history could be dangerous by the way others teach it to us. Some aspects of history could be based on purely that persons point of view on a specific topic. Also, in Bradbury's case, people have to access information, which means not all the information could be given. If all people taught history the same way, then it could be helpful because everyone would agree. History is dangerous to learn the way others teach it.
Reply
Jack Mangold
7/30/2014 02:35:13 am
It is dangerous learning history by the way others teach it because you are not always going to hear the same story. If you asked ten different people about a topic in history you may hear ten different answers because everybody has a different opinion. In this futuristic America, the government changes history so you hear what they want you to hear and what you learn probably is not true. I believe that learning history is dangerous by the way others teach it because somebody could always change a story.
Reply
Victoria White
7/31/2014 05:32:59 am
I believe that it is in fact dangerous to learn history from stories merely being passed down to you . How can you be sure that you are being told the truth? You can't. Unless you are there witnessing the situation first hand, you have no way of proving the validness of what you are being told. This could create confusion and chaos among people whom may have been taught/told conflicting things. All in all, no-- I do not feel that it is safe or rather ethical to learn history only the way it is taught to you by someone who had to be taught the same thing.
Reply
Krista Dalton
8/1/2014 05:05:16 am
Learning history from the way others teach it to you may not be completely reliable and can potentially be dangerous. Certain people leave things unsaid, or may even stretch the truth just to please society. Overtime, stories will change and at the end of the day, all we can wonder is if what we have learned from the past is really the truth.
Reply
Paige Whittle
8/1/2014 07:23:25 am
It can be extremely dangerous to learn our history by the way others teach it to us. Anything said about how things are run in the world may be passed down by speaking to others; however, the receivers of the information are likely to misinterpret what they hear. Just as in the classic game of "Telephone", the original message is never the same as it is in the end. The same thing will be demonstrated further along in this dystopian world because there will be no original books to be read about history. All of the information from the books will have to be passed down by word of mouth, and it is certain to be altered at some point in this chain of handing down information.
Reply
Emma Wright
8/5/2014 08:38:46 am
It is important to not trust everything blindly, like the people in Fahrenheit 451 do. Although learning about history is crucial, the characters in Bradbury's novels are obviously being told lies. It is dangerous to trust everything you hear. I think history should be original taught by the people who have experiences the actual event, and then passed down in books so no details can be altered.
Reply
Grace Cody
8/19/2014 01:43:43 pm
It can be dangerous to learn our history by the way others teach it to us. If a teacher is bias towards one side, you may learn that one side is good and one side is bad. Never would you think either that maybe the good side could be bad and the bad side could be good. You also could be given information that has been changed so that you believe something that will help the greater party. For example, in Fahrenheit 451, when people are taught that books are bad, they let the firemen burn down buildings with books, because that is what they were taught and forced to believe is right.
Reply
Kevin Laughlin
7/29/2014 01:54:33 am
Is society, not only in a futuristic world, but also the world in which we live in today affected by technology negatively because it is easily accessed? In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, technology has taken over the world and is in every home. Seashell Radios and Wall TVs are used by anyone and everyone. Also, people have no sense of reality or creative thought, they only believe in what they see or hear from these TVs and radios. However, a quote from the beginning of the novel presents that some people, people who do not access technology as often or at all, have questioning beliefs of the new society. Montag tells Clarisse, "You think too many things." (Bradbury 9) This quote shows that there are some people who do think about things more than others, and those people are the ones who are less influenced and the ones who do not access technology. In your opinion, do you believe that technology affects people negatively because it is so easily accessed?
Reply
Jack Mangold
7/30/2014 02:03:53 am
I believe that technology does affect people negatively because it is so easily accessed. In this world that Ray Bradbury created, everybody is using technology for most of their day. Mildred is always watching television and refused to turn it off. Because everybody is always using technology they do not think or wonder about anything. Most people just thought about what they heard on the TV instead. People like Clarisse who do not use technology are curious, outgoing, and different from everybody else. Clarisse wonders about every aspect of life and always says and asks what she is thinking. I do believe that technology affects people negatively because it is accessed very easily
Reply
Andrew Schembor
7/31/2014 03:42:52 am
I agree that technology can be negative in society with it's ease of access. Since just about everyone now of days uses technology (excluding some parts of third world countries) it is everywhere and anywhere. The government controls all of technology and decides what the citizens see. An example from current time would be the NSA who have control over all technology and are constantly spying not only on other countries, but us as well.
Reply
Jack Stamer
7/31/2014 11:26:06 am
I agree that technology negatively affects people because it can easily be accessed. Technology can become addicting. For example, I think the television can be addicting because there are so many good shows on. Television is easily accessed because in most cases it takes the press of a button to be watching a season marathon of your favorite show. The negative aspect of being able to easily access television is that a person can miss out on life like being outside or hanging out with friends. I think people should enjoy life without these technologies that people can live without. Also, technology can negatively affect someone because it can persuade someone or change their opinions. An example of this would be with radios and news channels where reporters are constantly feeding news. In addition, famous people can persuade opinions on the world, which isn’t right. People should be entitled to their own opinions and not just change their opinion because a famous person thinks otherwise. Overall, I think easily accessible technology negatively affects us.
Reply
Kyle Neary
8/2/2014 04:56:31 am
I do think that technology affects people negatively because it is so easily accessed. Most Americans nowadays have at least one television in their house. It only takes the pressing of one button to turn the TV on. Once the TV is on, people can lose track of time and waste lots of time watching. A big trend in our society is watching entire seasons of shows without stopping. Not only is this physically unhealthy, but mentally unhealthy too! People's opinions can be changed because of something that happens in a fictional TV show. Technology's easy access affects people in negative ways.
Reply
Jake McIntyre
7/29/2014 04:25:58 am
Why does technology become the main focus of people’s lives, and lead to a loss of focus on the important things? In Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, it is evident that humans are always using technology. These futuristic Americans show the readers that technology has become a need for them. One character that is very focused on technology is Mildred. When Montag is sick he asks Mildred to turn off the televisions and she replies, “That’s my family.” (Bradbury 49) This quote displays her obsession for the parlor. Another example is she is so used to listening to the radio that she can lip read what it says. We can compare Mildred to present day American teens, who also have an obsession to technology. In Fahrenheit 451 technology leads to the Americans overlooking a war. Mrs. Phelps said “Oh they (“they” meaning wars) come and go, come and go. In again out again Finnegan, the Army called Pete yesterday. He’ll be back next week. The Army said so. Quick war. Forty-eight hours, they said, and everyone home.” (Bradbury 94) Mrs. Phelps acts as if she couldn’t care less that Pete was called into war. I think these futuristic Americans need to start worrying about topics like a war, and less about things like what television shows are on. Please state your perspective on the use of technology in the setting of Fahrenheit 451?
Reply
Matt Santos
7/30/2014 02:24:21 am
I agree that people should start worrying about more important things like the war, rather than what television shows are on. I think that people in the book feel this way because television has to be an everyday hobby. TV runs peoples lives so much to where people like Mrs. Phelps, don't even care about a loved one entering the war. I think that there should be a limit to the amount of TV somebody watches. This is because people need to start focusing on life itself, and and not let it slip away because of an addiction to television. TV becomes the center of peoples lives because it is available to everyone and they can watch it whenever they want. If they put a limit to how much TV you are allowed to watch, life in the novel would be better off.
Reply
Ella Brockway
7/31/2014 10:09:44 am
I think technology is the main focus of many of the characters' live in Fahrenheit 451. Mildred and her friends are perfect examples of how too much technology can really have negative effects on people. In one scene of the novel Guy asked Mildred when the first time they met was, a simple fact that most people would remember. However, since Mildred spends all of her days and nights in front of her "walls" (the television) she is unable to remember. Mildred and her friends, including Mrs. Phelps, have been hypnotized by this technology to only believe in the "families" that they see on TV. I think that focusing themselves on TV and technology helps them ignore the fact that they actually have real problems to face in the real world. Mrs. Phelps had her own problems with her husband and the war, while Mildred had survived a suicide attempt. Just as it is now in certain cases in our modern world, people look to technology to forget that they have problems of their own to deal with. I believe that this obsession with television and technology is just some of the characters' ways of ignoring, and hiding, from their real world issues.
Reply
Madison Ciccone
8/2/2014 07:13:46 am
Technology became the main focus of people's lives, and lead to a loss of focus on the important things because it became a necessity in everyone's lives. People became addicted to watching television and it became more than just watching it. Mildred even refers to the people on TV as her 'family'. However, the government wants people to watch television for extensive hours each day. They encourage the use of TV because it serves as a distraction to society. The government would rather have people watching TV then questioning their ways.
Reply
Connor McLoone
8/2/2014 08:15:40 am
Jacob, I agree with everything you said. The government has changed society to be reliant on the technology so it serves as a distraction from what is happening in the real world. People get so caught up in the T.V that they could care less about what is happening around them. I also liked your point on how teenagers now are similar in a way because our lives somewhat revolve around social media and what electronics we have.
Reply
Shaye Gilmartin
8/31/2014 05:16:23 am
I agree with everything you said, technology became the main focus of people’s lives in Fahrenheit 451 and lead to a loss of focus on the important things because they think that all technology brings them happiness. And that by watching hours of it everyday they will be happier, when all it does is keeps them distracted from the society and things that are more important that are going on. For example, the war that is going on doesn’t even phase them because they are so concentrated on certain shows that they start to call people on their television ‘their family’.
Reply
Jake Lane
7/29/2014 06:18:42 am
Is TV a way for people to be happier and let them not have to think or have any responsibilities such as having to think for themselves? In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury television has become the focal point for almost everybody in society it replaces literature and curiosity among people and is like people don’t even have to think as long as they can watch TV. “With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual,' of course, became the swear word it deserved to be.”(Bradbury 58). This quote depicts that the schools are not teaching kids to be creative or being taught to ask questions but that all kids are becoming the same. All kids have the same opinions because all they need to do is watch TV and society believes what is on TV is all anyone needs to know. Since TV tells you everything you need to know people are allowed to be lazy since they don’t need to think for themselves and that makes people happy because the less thinking and less work a person does the happier he or she really is.
Reply
Jake McIntyre
7/31/2014 01:57:33 am
I agree with what you are saying. Yes, I do think television can make people happy. But I agree that television shouldn't take away from the responsibilities of humans in society. TV should not dictate the lives of the people in Fahrenheit 451. These people act like watching TV is a job, and it is positively affecting them and there families. I think the best option is to put limits on the amounts of TV the citizens in Fahrenheit 451 can watch. I don't understand why schools would ever teach children not to be creative and to be the same as others. All people are different and shouldn't have to be the same as all others to fit in to society. I hope that this futuristic setting is not what our lives are like in the future.
Reply
Emma Keegan
7/29/2014 09:01:37 am
Why are curiosity and imagination unwanted traits in society? And why are those who possess these traits shunned by society? Clarisse McClellan was a girl who saw the word for what it is. She was curious about nature and the outside world so she explored. Her thoughts ran into daydreams and Clarisse. She asked the questions that no one dared to ask and searched for answers. Clarisse was considered an outsider, an outcast because she stopped to take a peak into nature; shunned for tasting the rain and watching the moon. When Guy mentioned Clarisse to Beatty he was disgusted by her curious ways and her different view point of the world. Her death went unnoticed because if one were to notice and take time to think and grieve over death their thoughts may consume them. Are people afraid to stop and think or read? Will books cause people to pause and imagine? Is it easier to just lose your thoughts and throw yourself into the scrambling of society? Or is it easier to brainwash society into drowning themselves in the television all day?
Reply
Ella Brockway
7/31/2014 08:50:30 am
I agree with you when you say that this society thinks that books will cause people to pause and imagine. In the beginning of the novel, Clarisse told Guy a story about how people in the past would have time to sit on their front porches and actually think about things when they wanted. The government then got rid of front porches based on the idea that people had too much time to think and talk and do things that seem ordinary in our modern world. In the society of Fahrenheit 451 it wasn't that no one had the time to stop and wonder over why something happened, like Clarisse's death. They had so much time that they were trying to occupy it by always moving onto the next thing and ridding themselves of curiousity.
Reply
Emma Keegan
7/29/2014 09:09:24 am
Specifically Beatty says, "The girls? She was a time bomb. She didn't want to know how things were done, but why? You ask why to a lot of things and you wind up very unhappy. The poor girl's better off dead" (Bradbury 60). Why is easier t ask how instead of why? Does asking why truly cause someone to end up unhappy?
Reply
Matthew Santos
7/30/2014 01:03:40 am
Why does it matter if you are an outcast to society? In the novel Fahrenheit 451, written by Ray Bradbury, I would say that Guy Montag is an outcast to other people in the story. For example, it is frowned upon to have books in your possession. Most people follow these rules, but Montag doesn’t. He believes that some books are worth reading, and not burning. “I might even start reading books” (Bradbury 64). Here, Montag is starting to question society, and even go against it. “Do you know why books such as this are so important? Because they have quality. And what does the word quality mean? To me it means texture. This book has pores” (Bradbury 83). This is from professor Faber and he is saying that books actually mean something and they aren’t just paper with words on them. People can’t tell you how to live your life. Why would it matter if you are an outcast to society?
Reply
Jake McIntyre
7/31/2014 01:42:31 am
I agree with what you are saying. Being an outcast doesn't mean you are any lesser than others. Just because you do things differently doesn't mean you can't fit in with society. Without outcasts in the world, life would be very boring and dull. In Fahrenheit 451, I think Guy and Professor Faber are right when they say that books shouldn't be burned. I agree with them that books are quality and can be very important. I think that more people should start to agree with them, and give an effort towards trying to end the burning of books. Then Guy won't be considered such an outcast to society
Reply
Annabel Martin
7/31/2014 07:34:34 am
Being an outcast in society can be useful, because it causes you to think differently to everyone else. Also, outcasts are most probably more understanding and caring towards others as a result of being neglected. Montag is an outcast, however he posses the most knowledge compared to his peers. In the long run, outcasts will achieve more because they do not care what other people think about them. I think that society shuns outcasts because they are "weird" and "threats", however societies fear outcasts because they do not conform with them. Like books, outcasts bring texture and depth.
Reply
Zoe Kralyevich
7/30/2014 01:28:34 am
Why does the government not allow curious and questioning people? In the book Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Montag starts to question his everyday way of life. It all started when he met a young girl by the name of Clarisse McClellan. Within one short encounter, she had Montag completely and utterly confused about the way society was being run. He said that “[she had] incredible power of identification” (Bradbury 11). However, within a few days, she was forced out of Montag’s life. She randomly got hit by a car and her family decided to move somewhere else. Now that could not have been a coincidence. And it was also quite odd that Mildred told Montag in such a casual way. She said “Whole family moved out somewhere. But she’s gone for good. I think she’s dead” (Bradbury 47). She had no remorse or concern at all in the way she said it, which I find quite odd. This trend of taking away influential characters has been common in other books too, such as The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. Why do the government feel the need to eradicate people when they are the ones encouraging individualism?
Reply
Jodi Lynch
7/30/2014 05:15:15 am
The government in Fahrenheit 451 does not allow curious and questioning individuals for the same reason illiteracy rates in the 1600s were so high. In the 1600s, the bible was of huge importance. Society was centered around a church. Due to a lack of schools, the population relied on the preacher to tell them what the Bible said much like how in Fahrenheit 451 people rely on the government to say what is right. The lack of schools was purposeful. One might ask why it was important that few were schooled. The answer is simple, if no one could read, no one could interpret the bible differently and therefore the church would never be challenged. Books are the literacy in the society of Fahrenheit 451. If no one has a book, no one can read or present new ideas, therefore keeping the society “perfect”.
Reply
Ellie Farrington
7/30/2014 01:28:38 pm
The government does not allow curiosity and questioning because they fear the problems new knowledge can cause. Like you mentioned, sometimes it only takes one conversation to spark confusion and suspicion. Each question leads to more thoughts and questions. The society in Fahrenheit 451 wants everyone to be equal; no one person better or smarter than the other. They choose to ignore all the problems, with the mindset that books full of history/literature are dangerous. Therefore, the only way to keep it from spreading is to burn the books and get rid of anyone who goes against them.
Reply
Tierney Baldwin
7/31/2014 02:21:34 am
The state subtly disapproves of newly discovered beliefs and concepts in order to maintain their power. Although they appear to praise and invoke curiosity and creativity, in reality, they fear it, for it is a weapon that the people can use against them. Francis Bacon’s quote, “Knowledge is power” sums this up seamlessly. When people start to question why things happen and why things are being done, the state starts to lose its power over the people. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, the state burns books and keeps the population distracted with technology so they do not discover any beliefs that contradict their authority. Similarly, in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, the World State restricts the fine arts and scientific research to ensure that nothing will present a risk to their control. The state allows people to believe that they have a voice in order to please the population; however, whenever someone starts to use their voice, they immediately become a threat.
Reply
Andrew Schembor
7/31/2014 04:40:52 am
The government in Farenheit 451 controls everything you hear and watch. They basically decide what you see and hear, much like modern day North Korea. No one is allowed to question what they hear or see, as it is against the government. I feel as though a society like this would come to an end eventually because of people being curious and want to know the "real" facts.
Reply
Madison Ciccone
8/2/2014 06:50:09 am
The government does not allow curious and questioning people because they are the ones that will reveal how unperfect their society really is. The more questions that are asked the more answers people will want. Like the old saying "what you don't know can't hurt you" is what the government is getting at. They figure by burring all books and eliminated the curious people everyone will be content with how they are living without any uncertainties. This is why distractions like television and driving cars is necessary in their society because it keeps their minds occupied and not from wondering why.
Reply
Alex Sosa
7/30/2014 05:21:34 am
Can one simply be happy by ignoring the unknown? Does Bradbury create a world where answers are not rare or harmful, but unspoken? In the beginning of Fahrenheit 451 by Ray BradBury; Guy Montag meets a headstrong girl named Clarisse. As the short amount of time she is portrayed in the novel, Clarisse's views made a lasting impact on his life.Before their lives had intertwined, he seemed to show no interest in questioning his seemingly perfect life. As the story continues the reader begins to see how Montag and his perspective start to change.He realizes he is unhappy and confused. After burning a woman with her books he suddenly questions his job in the first place. He wonders why someone would give up their life for a couple of books. When speaking to Mildred about the tragedy she shows absolutely no interest in caring about a human life."You should have seen her Millie!" "She's nothing to me; she shouldn't of had books." (Bradbury, 51) After his meeting with Beatty, Montag was granted with a few answers, but was still prolonged with curiosity. He showed Mildred the books he had hidden away. They wanted to see if what Captain Beatty spoke was true. "What does it mean? It doesn't mean anything! The captain was right!" "Here now," said Montag. "We'll start over again, at the beginning."(Bradbury, 68) I believe Montag feels he can find happiness in these books. After meeting Clarisse and the message she left with him, he realizes the truth. Do books really cause harm to our society? Or is it the people that shelter us from the past?
Reply
Emma Westgate
7/30/2014 06:55:52 am
Does age and experience limit a person’s tolerance to new ideas and thoughts? In Ray Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451, Bradbury demonstrates to the reader how some people can be open to new ideas, while others are trapped in a routine, unable to break their close minded ways. Mildred, Montag’s wife, is almost twice the age as neighbor Clarisse, yet she is addicted to technology and won’t ponder new thoughts. She is scared of exploring the knowledge in books and refuses to think about them. After she reads a book she frantically yells, “It doesn’t mean anything” (Bradbury 58). She has been in society for too long, mindlessly doing what everyone else does that she can’t think for herself or ponder new ideas. The book means nothing to Mildred because she has endured thirty-five years of thoughtless entertainment, and has been told how to think. However, Clarisse seems to be more “intelligent” than Mildred even though she is younger. She is curious about the ideas in books and asks Guy, “do you ever read any of the books”(Bradbury 8). Clarisse welcomes new concepts; she isn’t afraid of them or shoots them down like Mildred. Clarisse has the advantage of being young because her society hasn’t yet stripped away her creativity, which allows her to think of different perceptions. In your response please state your opinion about how age relates to tolerance of ideas. Also answer when do people start to lose their tolerance to new ideas?
Reply
Ellie Farrington
7/30/2014 01:18:07 pm
I think you make a very interesting point about Clarisse and Mildred. They are two completely different people, however I don't believe their ages have control over their tolerance for new ideas. Mildred is older, so yes, she has had more time to get "stuck" in the routine of society, ignorant to anything going on around her. And Clarisse is definitely welcoming to new ideas and thinks for herself about everything from fireman to the rain outside. In my opinion, a person like Clarisse is special and her creativity compared to Mildred's is more based on personality. What I support this with is Montag's transformation: starting off getting pleasure from burning books to being curious about a better life where everything is meaningful. He is around the same age as Mildred, and yet he was able to accept information and look at the world in a new way. I do not think that age is a factor in how people respond to knowledge.
Reply
Alma Sanchez
7/30/2014 07:46:42 am
Beatty's experience with books is mixed. He appears to have read many books but at the same time he calls books traitors. "What traitors books can be! You think they're backing you up, and then they turn on you. Others can use them too, and there you are, lost in the middle of the moor, in a great welter of nouns and verbs and adjectives." (Bradbury page 107). There can be many interpretations on a single idea, and more so in an entire book. What do you think about Beatty's statement on books being traitors? In world were all opportunities for controversy is deleted, Beatty was was bombarded with controversy from books he's read. Do you think Beatty was betrayed by books, and if so, have you ever felt betrayed by a book or the message of an author? Consider, and state your opinion.
Reply
Ellie Farrington
7/30/2014 12:49:48 pm
Is it worth living in a "perfect" world if there is no room for any thought or emotion? Can a person truly ever be content with a society that fears the past and the unknown? In the novel Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury creates a false happiness in the lives of all the people. They have a simple routine, much of which involves technology. "Of course I'm happy. What does she think? I'm not?" (Bradbury 10). These are Guy Montag's initial thoughts when asked by Clarisse. No one in this society has experienced any real emotions like: pain, heartbreak, love, sadness, joy, etc. Everyone just assumes, like Montag, without even thinking twice, that they are happy, which is not true. There is no chance for deep discussions or rash decisions that spark feelings and let people formulate their own opinions. They are taught to not ask questions or stray from the status quo. Montag starts to realize throughout the novel that the world they live in is depressing and not at all ideal. He says to his wife, Mildred, "Let you alone! That's all very well, but how can I leave myself alone? We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?" (Bradbury 52). In this quote, Montag's frustration is very evident. He is starting to discover that everyone is ignoring the bigger picture... no one is really living at all. They burn books and take away individualism because it seems like the easier option. It will take more people like Clarisse and Guy who have the courage to choose another path,for others to see that knowledge and emotion are worthy of any problems in the world.
Reply
Jodi Lynch
8/2/2014 04:40:51 am
It is not worth living in a "perfect" world if there is no room for thought or emotion. Several of the charectars seem to have realized this as well. For example, Mildred attempted suicide, the woman whose house was burned committed suicide, and the men who pumped Mildred's stomache and cleaned her blood have all come to realize this. In addition to this, there are several references to the amounts of suicides in the futuristic yet numb society of Fahrenheit 451. To answer your second question, I'm not sure that any of the characters fear the past or unknown. They seem to be emotionless and simply staying alive. I also agree with you on your statement that there needs to be more rebels to change the society.
Reply
Jack Mangold
7/31/2014 01:57:37 am
Does watching television all day give people an excuse to things like not caring about themselves, each other, or taking on their own responsibilities? In this futuristic America that Ray Bradbury created everybody is always using technology instead of worrying about bigger problems in their lives. There are things like wars going on, but all people care about is what they are watching on TV. In one part of the book Guy is talking to his wife Mildred and he said, "Let you alone! That's all very well, but how can I leave myself alone. We need to be really bother once in awhile. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?" (Bradbury 52). This shows that Mildred hasn't done much or been bothered by anything in awhile like most people in the world they are living in even though there are wars going on, all everybody does is watch TV. Mrs. Phelps husband whom she loves was called into war and she was not even upset. All she said was, "Oh they come and go, come and go," said Mrs. Phelps. "In again out again Finnegan, the army called Pete yesterday. He'll be back by next week. The army said so. Quick war. Forty-eight hours, they said, and everyone home. Thats what the Army said. Quick war. Pete was called yesterday and they said he'd be back next week. Quick..." (Bradbury 94). This quote shows that Mrs. Phelps could not be bothered to be upset her husband is leaving. Nobody cares about anything in this futuristic American besides TV. Is television an excuse to not worry about your own problems and fulfill your responsibilities?
Reply
Connor McLoone
8/2/2014 06:46:27 am
Hey jack! I agree with what you are saying in this piece. I think that everyone is almost brainwashed into not caring about what is going on and T.V is what distracts them from the real world. And Mildred is a perfect example of this because she is really lost because she doesn't know what is actually taking place and she could care less it seems. Good job :)
Reply
Victoria White
7/31/2014 05:16:21 am
Do happiness and love have significant influences on each other? It is evident that the two certainly have a complex and quite dependent relationship but, is love necessary to have complete happiness? In the novel Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, the main character, Guy Montag, is married to a woman named Mildred. It is evident that they are not happy together. Since they live in such a sheltered and controlled world, they just shake off the awkward relationship and pretend that the lack of love doesn't exist. Is Montag’s unhappiness in part caused by his relationship with Mildred? They clearly don’t have an obvious connection and in return we know they are both unhappy in their own ways. I feel Bradbury definitely addresses this issue multiple times throughout the novel. There are multiple scenes that seem to be red flag indicators of this situation. The major occurrence, out of many, that causes me to think in this way is when Montag says, and I quote, “And he remembered thinking then that if she died, he wouldn't cry. For it would be the dying of an unknown, a street face, a newspaper image, and it was suddenly so very wrong that he had begun to cry, not at death but at not crying at death, a silly empty man near a silly empty woman, while the hungry snake made her still more empty.” (Bradbury44). You can’t be happily in love with someone and not cry at their death. This quote shows that Montag is not in love, and from the novel in general we know that Montag is also not happy. I feel that if he had true love that maybe some of his unhappiness would be eliminated and his life would've been able to play out differently. In your response, feel free to give your opinion on whether or not you feel love and happiness do in fact significantly influence each other.
Reply
Sierra Lopez
8/15/2014 07:39:48 am
I do feel as if love and happiness would have some significant influence to each other. Not that you'd have to be happy to fall in love - as people can have their ups and downs very frequently but don't necessarily fall out of love as often - but more that once you are in love it'd give you at least some amount of happiness. But that clearly does not show for Montag. Even Clarisse states it, she asks if he's happy, and he clearly is not, as you said. But once she says that he isn't in love after rubbing the dandelion under his chin, he gets very indignant and insists he is, seeming like he was angry about her saying he wasn't. But once again, like you said, he wouldn't cry if his wife died, which no person in love wouldn't do, they'd be sobbing buckets of tears. So I feel like if Montag and Mildred were actually in love, they would have been happier, but they weren't, leading to their sort of half-lives.
Reply
Shannon O'Donnell
8/29/2014 09:17:34 am
I also believe that love and happiness have a significant influence on one another. True love that is equally felt by two people undoubtedly brings happiness into their lives. The ability to love and be loved comes easier to an individual who is happy. I think that Montag has the ability to love, be loved, and be happy. Clarisse definitely helps Montag to see that for himself. However, with the conditions he faces daily and with the unloving Mildred by his side, it is almost impossible to be loving and happy. I believe that one of the major reasons why Montag begins to see the world differently and change his life is that he craves to find happiness and love.
Reply
Annabel Martin
7/31/2014 07:01:23 am
Does living in an aesthetically pleasing world and not being aware of your roots cause a population to lack knowledge and understanding of their surroundings? Guy Montag, the protagonist in Ray Bradbury’s novel, Fahrenheit 451, is not a particularly materialistic man, however his wife Mildred is. Mildred enjoys the TV screen walls and is attracted to them because of how aesthetically pleasing they are. Although Montag and Mildred already have three TV walls, Mildred still wants more and she tells Montag, “It’ll be even more fun when we can afford to have the fourth wall installed. How long you figure before we save up and get the fourth wall torn out and a fourth wall-TV put in? It’s only two thousand dollars,” (Bradbury 20). Consumed with her virtual family, Mildred is unaware of what is happening outside of her house. To make matters worse, the shows that Mildred and her friends faun over are not in any sense educational, but they actually brainwash them. The world that Montag and Mildred live in might look pretty and technologically advanced, but they know nothing about its history. How can they live in a land they know nothing about? Is the technology bettering their lives or keeping them occupied? Use these questions to help you form your response.
Reply
Max Lane
7/31/2014 07:02:52 am
Is television and other technology an escape or distraction that the people in the futuristic society use to take their minds off of their responsibilities and other issues? In Fahrenheit 451 Ray Bradbury creates a futuristic society where television and technology are focused on and are used by the majority of the citizens. When Guy says to Mildred " How long is it since you were really bothered?"(Bradbury 52). It shows that along with many other people, Mildred has been to distracted by television and technology that she hasn't been focusing on the important crisis' that are happening in the world such as the war. The people are to worried about watching television that they have started doing less things and stopped worrying about life and their responsibilities.
Reply
Ryan Garley
8/1/2014 01:56:08 am
Technology is not only an escape of these people who live in this society, but indeed a replacement of literature. Television especially acts as a shield against the outside world. You are taught to live by television and question nothing else. Television can change people for the worst in this society. Mildred addresses the television set in the parlor as her family on page 49. It seems like she pays more at the parlor then her own husband Montag. You also said it yourself, she is oblivious to an actual war happening right outside her house, but she wouldn't know because their are no televisions outside for her to go see. Fahrenheit 451 is foreshadowing something like this occurring in the future of our modern society.
Reply
Will Grant
8/1/2014 02:21:46 am
I agree with you that technology can be a distraction to people to take their minds off of their responsibilities. I think that technology has hurt our society almost as much as it has helped us. I agree that people are too worried about watching television or checking their cell phones that they start to forget about the responsibilities they have as a person.
Reply
Jordan Swartz
8/1/2014 12:33:41 pm
Televisions and other forms of technology is a distraction to other people because of its power. For example, if a news network said there was a deadly flu that will kill you, would you go and try to do all of the things you wanted before you died? The same logic applies to the government broadcasting shows that make people not question and think mindlessly of everything. Also, if Mildred was truly worried about the war, she wouldn't have turned on her TV to watch a show, she would be constantly worried for her own safety and not be worried about what will happen next in her reality show.
Reply
Shaye Gilmartin
8/31/2014 05:24:06 am
Technology with out a doubt is a escape and a distraction from their responsibilities and other important issues occurring in the society. People don’t even worry about the war occurring outside in the real world but are only focused on things like the television shows they are watching. Mildred is a perfect example of someone who is very distracted by technology like television and does not worry about any of her responsibilities.
Reply
Ella Brockway
7/31/2014 08:43:33 am
In a world that is constantly moving fast and in a hurry, what is the importance of talking and communication, if there even is any?
Reply
Jack Stamer
7/31/2014 10:49:21 am
Why do people do things that they are told not to do? In the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, an important law is that people are not allowed to own or possess books. However, similar to our society, there are still the few who disregard the rule. When Montag calls Faber, he asks him about the quantity of certain books, Faber denies everything saying that he has no idea what Montag is talking about. Faber is lying because he knows that Montag is a fireman and Faber doesn’t want to be caught with books. Faber knows that owning books is illegal; however, he still owns them. Also, When Montag met Faber in the park a year ago, Montag noticed that Faber had a book. Montag noticed Faber “hide something, quickly, in his coat,” (Ray Bradbury 74). When Montag is talking to Faber he knows Faber has books, illegally. I think people disobey orders or laws because they have their own opinion. In the novel, Faber thinks that people should be allowed to own books, so he disobeys the law. This recurring action in society of people disobeying rules will never change because people have their own opinions. Another reason people disobey rules is because they want to find out why they aren’t allowed to do a certain thing. This occurs with Montag because he is curious why books are banned, so he looks at a book. Why do people disobey rules? In your response, include your opinion why in society, there are always people that ignore the rules.
Reply
Will Grant
8/1/2014 02:17:38 am
I agree that our society and their society are similar in that people from both societies both disregard the rules. However, I think that the rules in our society are a little bit more reasonable than the rules in their society. I think that people ignore the rules so they can stand out in society.
Reply
Aidan Smith
8/12/2014 05:28:38 am
People do things they aren't allowed to do because they like it and are passionate for it it. Would people still play sports if the government took away all sports? Yes there would be a lot of people disobeying the government and playing sports because they have a passion and like sports. Faber likes books and has a passion for them thats why he keeps them. Based on this comparison, this is why Faber keeps his books and ignores the rules.
Reply
Lauren Kirk
8/18/2014 05:38:50 am
People break the rules for many different reasons, some being more understandable than others. A strong-willed person may break a rule because they are passionate about it, and they are trying to make a statement. AN example of that would be graffiti. However, people also break rules in order to benefit themselves. An example of that is a bank robbery. I think that there are always people that will break the rules because it is nearly impossible to create a list of rules that every single person will agree on while mantaining a safe society.
Reply
James Latimer
8/23/2014 11:23:22 am
I agree that people disobey rules to voice their own opinions. When there are certain rules that people believe are unfair or unjust, the people affected by these rules speak up or challenge the law. Most people don't want to be controlled by rules or laws, so they protest and take action against them. Faber did not agree with the law banning books, so he took action by secretly storing them within his house. The group of people Montag meet at the end of Fahrenheit 451 also protest, but in a different way. They memorize a book and then burn it, so the police/fire department will have no idea that they are participating in illegal activity. I believe that those people are taunting the law and the fire dept. by learning certain literature, but also disposing of it so that they can't be jailed. They are preserving the information so that one day in the future, they can restore civilization the way it used to be, with education and literature.
Reply
Chris Brannagan
7/31/2014 10:49:57 am
Is having your life centered around technology a blessing or a curse. Ray Bradbury’s novel “Fahrenheit 451” takes place in the future were people lives are centered around technology so much that they burn books. They do this so that technology can rein supreme over books and man. An example of this is when Guy Montags wife Mildred adds a third Tv wall then says “ It’ll be even more fun when we can the 4th tv wall installed.” This shows how consumed Mildred is by technology, and how the people in “Fahrenheit 451” don’t control technology, technology controls them.
Reply
Ryan Garley
8/1/2014 02:06:55 am
Growing up in our community, everyone thought having a cellular phone was the coolest and most advanced thing to own. In Bradbury's novel, Fahrenheit 451, we can see how too much technology is a curse. I believe that too much technology is a curse, but some technology can greatly benefit us. Some technology has hidden messages almost living your life for you. One example is if you see and advertisement for Papa John's pizza on your computer, the motto is "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza, Papa Johns." If you think of that closely, you can pull the actual meaning for this which is "Go to Papa John's for better Pizza." It tells you not to try them but literally go there. In the case of Fahrenheit 451, technology is the new form of literature when it isn't even literature. It really is actually the new form of distractions from the state. It brainwashes people into what the state wants them to think and be.
Reply
8/1/2014 01:01:59 am
What consequences can come from building a “perfect” society? Is it possible to have a society with no flaws? Bradbury suggests that no society is perfect. Some flaws are harder to spot than others, but they are there. Bradbury has Granger turn the television to the police chasing Montag. When he sees that the chase is headed in the opposite direction of where he actually went, Montag becomes curious. Granger explains “They’re faking. You threw them off at the river. They can’t admit it.” (Bradbury 148). Granger then points out a man walking on the street. “See that? It’ll be you. Right up at the end of that street is our victim.” (Bradbury 148). The mechanical hound kills the innocent man, who is declared to be Montag. Because they can only hold a television audience for so long, the chase had to be wrapped up quickly. In your response, tell what other examples of an imperfect society Bradbury shows in his work, and list some consequences of building a “perfect” society.
Reply
James Latimer
8/23/2014 11:06:24 am
I agree with Bradbury when he suggests that no society is perfect. You give an excellent example with the killing of the innocent man and the escape of Montag. Another example of an imperfect society is the dialogue by the "doctors" that save Montag's wife. "We get these cases nine or ten a night" (Bradbury 15). These doctors say that suicide cases happen often, so they treat them lackadaisically and without any care. This behavior is not acceptable, and this mentality does not demonstrate a "perfect" civilization. Even when a society tries its absolute hardest to exemplify perfection, there will always be some consequence as a result of the effort. For example, Nazi Germany trying to achieve perfection in the world. Their idea of perfection was to systematically rid the world of people and cultures that were lesser than the "perfect race", the Nazis. As a result of this, the peoples that were viewed as less were repeatedly killed for the years Nazism thrived in Germany.
Reply
brenna bonner
8/1/2014 02:03:33 am
Why is Clarisse frowned upon for asking questions and being curious? In the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Clarisse questions society. Society is changing, and they decided to have everyone who owns a book to have it burned so that no one owns a book anymore. They also decide that everyone has to watch tv, because they promote themselves on the television. Society also is promoting shortened school days and a severe decrease in English and Spelling. With these new rules, the society is going to sink. The people in the society will not prosper. Clarisse, on the other hand, questions society. However, people frown upon Clarisse and think of her as weird and unnatural because she is asking questions. Asking questions is a normal thing, and is usually always recommended. When did it become normal to not ask questions? and look down on people who do?
Reply
Grace Dengler
8/3/2014 05:40:40 am
Hi Brenna, Clarisse is frowned upon for asking questions and being curious because they are hiding something. Asking questions became such a problem when the government realized that Clarisse may find out about the book burning secrets. Too much curiousty is not recommended; therefore, asking questions(which is normal) is not recommended in this society.
Reply
Hannah Noglows
8/3/2014 06:03:55 am
I think Clarisse is frowned upon for being curious and asking questions because no one else asks questions. She is different from everyone else because she questions what everyone else believes. Everybody else is content with not knowing the truth. Clarisse defies them and is curious. I think it became weird to ask questions when most of the books were burned. If they no longer have books to look back at they don’t know the truth. I think it became normal to look down on those who ask questions when everybody stopped asking questions. If there is not a lot of people being curious then it is easier to judge those who do.
Reply
Nora Fraser
8/1/2014 04:28:51 am
Why is curiosity and intelligence looked down upon in society? Clarisse McClellan was someone who was intrigued by the world around her. Because if this rarity, most saw her as strange. Captain Beatty said on page 52 that she was “better off dead.”, because of her curiosity. According to Beatty, people who ask why too often end up living unhappy lives. The society frowns upon people who are inquisitive because it is their belief that everyone should be equal and happy. Books are destroyed because they too stir up ideas and emotions. “Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book.” (Bradbury, 51). Is complete happiness truly more important than awareness? Should anything that changes society be frowned upon?
Reply
Bryce Barnes
8/1/2014 05:22:35 am
Is the freedom of speech really that dangerous to a society? In Fahrenheit 451, when Montag is on the run after killing Beatty and the other fireman, he is chased by two mechanically hounds and helicopters. Based on earlier scenes, the death of people is looked over and considered unimportant. This shows they were not chasing Montag because of murder, but because of his books and knowledge. Is information really dangerous to emotionless people? What would happen if Montag gave everyone books and ideas?
Reply
Jordan Swartz
8/1/2014 12:25:39 pm
Yes, Bryce the freedom of speech is very dangerous to society. It can start wars, topple entire governments and if one action from the government is against that, the side effects can be very bad. If you gave an emotionless person information that changed their entire life, they will try to spread that information. Then more people will have those thoughts and soon, everyone is thinking and carrying out that information. If Montag spread out books, an uprising would then occur as a result that could be catastrophic to the way people act and think all around him.
Reply
Emily Bynoe
8/3/2014 05:06:02 am
I believe that freedom of speech is not dangerous to society. People should be allowed to stand up for what they believe in. If people do not accept what you say than that is their fault. They are too stubborn and ignorant to open up their mind to other ideas.
Reply
Grace Dengler
8/3/2014 05:33:40 am
Yes Bryce, freedom of speech is really dangerous the society in this novel. Anything anyone says has an impact on peoples actions in their society. Freedom of speech can start fights, disagreements, and even lead to wars. However, I believe freedom of speech is necessary in some societies, it all depends on how the citizens react to it. If Montag gave everyone books and ideas all the secrets would be let out about the society and people would treat Montag differently.
Reply
Bailey Smith
8/12/2014 01:26:48 am
Bryce, I believe that freedom of speech is important. People have the right to say what they want; however, people also have to be careful with what they say. If they say something wrong, people may not look at them the same. People need to speak their minds so other people know what is on their minds, even if they don't believe in what you are saying.
Reply
Emilie Weiner
8/25/2014 10:51:26 am
Speech is the basis of human communication. It is primary process that spreads ideas, whether these are written down or said aloud. The people of Fahrenheit 451's society are those that have been drained of outward thought and introspection. It is the interpersonal ideas and thoughts that give people their emotions, and emotions are the things that most often cause conflict. Had Montag somehow successfully spread the knowledge and ideas he found within books, the society would no longer be under the perfect control that had settled so prettily upon them. It is the whole reason that the books are banned. They give the people a voice and a purpose, which is the last thing that this society wants.
Reply
Isabella Ramos
8/1/2014 06:12:58 am
How does the past have an affect on the future? Does altering the past through history books or erasing it completely change what will happen in the future? "Established, 1790, to burn English-influenced books in the Colonies. First Fireman: Benjamin Franklin" (Bradbury 34) Benjamin Franklin was not the first fireman therefor this quote shows how false information is being taught to the people living in the society of Fahrenheit 451. If people were educated correctly about the past would they be more aware of how to make sure it doesn't repeat itself? In Bradbury's novel the citizens are not educated about the past and instead are taught to destroy it. Do you think that if the individuals living in the society written about in the novel Fahrenheit 451 were more educated/ educated correctly their society would have any change?
Reply
Paige Whittle
8/1/2014 09:56:58 am
What is the relationship between anxiety about death and the growing usage of technology? All readers of the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury notice the abundance of time spent utilizing the technology around them, but why is all this technology so important? Technology, as Ray Bradbury views it, is simply a distraction from humans’ ultimate finitude. All of the characters, especially Mildred, never had time alone with their thoughts because these thoughts would allow them to drift off and ponder their upcoming finitude.
Reply
Sean Murphy
8/1/2014 11:28:22 am
Why is it that in the novel Fahrenheit 451, written by Ray Bradbury, that nobody seems to have an opinion, or their own likes and dislikes. It seems as though everyone is living a routine life, never branching out to try, or experience new things. A perfect example of this is Montag's wife Mildred, who doesn't even remember when she met Montag. They have been married for years and yet they might as well be strangers. The two had never bothered to get to know each other, because neither found it necessary. Another example of how people never question whats going on is Clarisse. Clarisse was considered odd by people because she asked how and why things happened instead of the exact answer. She didn't go to school because she was looked at as anti social, which is odd because in our society Clarisse would be looked at as very social."I don't mix. It's so strange. I'm very social indeed. It all depends what you mean by social, doesn't it?" (Bradbury 29) What do you think it would be like today in our society to not be able to think for yourself?
Reply
Kent Hottmann
8/6/2014 04:08:30 am
No one has opinions or their own interests in the story because they are all taught from an early age to be like everyone else and do the same things. Clarisse told Montag that she was considered anti-social because she questioned things and thought differently from everyone else. Everyone is so obsessed with entertainment that they don’t have any time to think about anything real or important.
Reply
8/1/2014 12:19:25 pm
Are we ever in control of our own thoughts? As depicted by Ray Bradbury, we are not. For example, for most of the book Beatty was in control of Montag. Especially when Montag was trying to escape from burning his house. “No!” cried Montag, helplessly . “The Hound! Because of the Hound!”(116,Bradbury). Truly showing that Montag had finally realized that all along Beatty was in control. But, how does that reflect on our own society. Just like Montag are we all helpless and lost until we finally come to our senses? Could Montag be a metaphor of what society used to be and The Hound is what controls and makes others change to its ways? Is there any other way of escaping this horrible nightmare like Montag?
Reply
Tyler Lewis
9/2/2014 05:11:02 am
You're absolutely correct most human beings are never in 100% control of our own thoughts. Most humans all worry about the new trend and worry if they are going to fit in with a crowd of people. People can never fully believe in only what they want without having to consider the criticism that would come into play after you perform that action. I believe that the only way to escape people controlling your thoughts is to seclude yourself until you can only think on your own.
Reply
Jodi Lynch
8/2/2014 04:19:17 am
Why does one chose to “burn” problems rather than face them? A main theme in Fahrenheit 451 is burning. This theme is not only meant literally, but also figuratively. Throughout the novel, there are several situations where a problem is present and the solution is seen as to burn it. In the following quote, Clarisse explains this with a story her uncle told. “My uncle says the architects got rid of the front porches because they didn't look well. But my uncle says that was merely rationalizing it; the real reason, hidden underneath, might be they didn't want people sitting like that, doing nothing, rocking, talking; that was the wrong KIND of social life. People talked too much. And they had time to think. So they ran off with the porches.”(Bradbury 63) In this porches allowed thinking, so they were “burned” figuratively. Montag also choses to burn his problems, but in a more literal sense. In the following quote Beatty threatens Montag. “We’ll trace this and drop it on your friend.” (Bradbury 112) Seeing this as an issue, Montag decides to burn Beatty. Why is “burning” the problem the seen as the solution?
Reply
Madison Ciccone
8/2/2014 06:26:31 am
Does lack of change play a role in distraction toward the future?
Reply
Connor McLoone
8/2/2014 06:41:04 am
Why are those who are curious and question the way society is now considered to be dangerous? In Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury Clarrise asks many questions about the way things are now, which also leads to her curiosity. Clarisse questions the way things have changed, for example she asked Guy "Is it true that long ago firemen put fires out instead of starting them?" (Bradbury 8) and these types of questions are considered a threat to the balance of society. This is because if everyone starts to question why books are being burned, and why anything natural is almost completely destroyed, then the current society would crash. Any thought or questions are an imminent threat and could risk screwing up the messed up society that takes place in this novel. Without questions there is no learning and that is exactly what this society relies on, ignorance.
Reply
Krista Dalton
8/2/2014 08:23:08 am
Would you like to live in a society pretending to be just like everyone else so that you are respected? Or would you rather be yourself, enjoying life and have everyone despise you? In the novel Fahrenheit 451 written by Ray Bradbury, it is shown how a society is afraid of wondering and learning, basically not allowing many people to "be themselves". Although many people in this novel are obsessed with electronics and TV, there are a few people who have their own interests. One specific person in this category that stands out the most to me is Clarisse. Montag admires her spontaneous personality and becomes a changed man during her existence. Clarisse states, "I'm antisocial, they say. I don't mix. It's so strange. It all depends on what you mean by social, doesn't it? Social to me means talking about things like this" (Bradbury 29). Clarisse knows that she is the odd one of the group, yet she does not care. She is not afraid of turning the TV off to try new things. Clarisse can live with being herself, and that is why Montag is so intrigued by her. At first, Montag was living in a world pretending to be someone he is not just to please everyone around him. When Clarisse comes into Montag's life, Montag stops being a follower. Montag starts to wonder about the world after talking with Clarisse. For example, Montag asks Captain Beatty, "Didn't firemen prevent fires rather than stoke them up and get them going?" (Bradbury 34). Now that Montag has changed his perspective on life, it causes issues, especially because he is a fireman. Montag finally overcomes these hurdles by taking risks. Clarisse teaches Montag that you have to take risks in order to find out who you really are. Would you take risks and be who you really are, or would you play it safe just to please others?
Reply
Edith torres
9/3/2014 01:13:47 pm
In my opinion i find that being a phony person that you can't stand to be is not even close to living. Its true that if you have no reason for doing the things you do or any goals to accomplish then its equal to not even living in the first place. Unless your true goal in life is to live with being someone that is made up or not even you, essentially a fake you, then you should never ignore your true self.
Reply
Hannah Noglows
8/3/2014 03:00:20 am
How is it possible to know someone for so long yet feel like they are a stranger? In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Guy feels like he doesn’t know his wife, Mildred, anymore. Late at night while looking at her it began to occur to him that he didn’t know anything about her. He could not even remember the first time they met or when it was. Guy thought, “ she was so strange he couldn’t believe he knew her at all” (Bradbury 42). Suddenly, Mildred is foreign to Guy. He feels like he is in someone else’s house even though Mildred has been his wife for ten years. Guy doesn’t even feel like he is in love Mildred anymore. Clarisse, Guy’s new neighbor believed that if the pollen from a dandelion rubbed off on your chin then it shows you are in love. When the pollen didn’t rub off on Guy’s chin he believes that he is no longer in love with Mildred. How can someone see a person everyday and live with them for ten years and feel like they don’t know them? Is it possible that Guy never even knew Mildred that well? Or is it possible that Guy and Mildred have changed so much that they don’t know each other anymore?
Reply
Emily Bynoe
8/3/2014 05:20:10 am
It is possible to know someone for so long but have them feel like a stranger. Mildred was so brain washed into what was "socially acceptable". Many people today are like that and they end up being someone that they are not. When they do realize that acting fake is the wrong thing to do, they try to go back to being themselves but no one will really know them.
Reply
Victoria Sullivan
8/5/2014 02:25:07 am
I agree with you. I don't understand how someone can be married to someone for ten years and not even remember how they met and fell in love. I also don't get how their love is questioned. Guy feels like he does not even know Mildred, yet they are married. It is possible that the two of them are unfamiliar with one another, but i think they have just grown apart and have fell out of love with each other.
Reply
Emily Bynoe
8/3/2014 04:59:10 am
Were the firefighters really helpful or harmful? In the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury the firefighters think that burning all of the books is solving all of the problems that society has. After the traumatizing experience where Montag watched a woman burn herself with her books, he had a wake up call. "They crashed the front door and grabbed at a woman, though she was not running, she was not trying to escape. She was only standing, weaving from side to side, her eyes fixed upon a nothingness in the wall, as if they had struck her in a terrible blow upon the head" (Bradbury 36). All of the firefighters were pulling out thousands of books out of attic. They threw them onto the ground and poured kerosene all over them. When they tried to pull the woman out of the house, she refused. “She opened the fingers of one hand slightly and in the palm of her hand was a single slender object. An ordinary kitchen match.” (Bradbury 38) The firefighters ran away and let this woman burn to her death. None of them seemed to care about her death besides Montag. Were these firefighters really trying help people? Or where they just trying to “fix” society?
Reply
Victoria Sullivan
8/5/2014 02:31:42 am
I also believe that the firefighters were being harmful. After seeing this woman risk her life for her books, all of them should have realized that books mean a lot to people and they love and cherish them. When the firefighters ran away from the woman and let her burn, they were definitely not doing their job. They are trying to "fix" society by eliminating books and whatever comes in their path.
Reply
Hannah Noglows
8/3/2014 05:38:55 am
I believe that the firefighters were harmful. Instead of preserving knowledge they are burning all of it. The firefighters are just doing what they are told and not thinking about the consequences. Burning books is not fixing all of the problems in society. Instead of fixing all of societies problems they are just hiding them.
Reply
Hannah Noglows
8/3/2014 05:40:03 am
This was supposed to be a responce to Emily Bynoe's comment
Reply
Grace Dengler
8/3/2014 05:48:43 am
How is it possible to feel like youve known someone for years when you have just recently met them? In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Montag and Clarisse have felt like they have known each other for years when they had just met. "I feel like i've known you for so many years?"(28). Their personalities just matched up perfectly; however, that does not happen often. Will Clarisse and Montag stay this close for a while? What traits do they share in common?
Reply
Kathleen Murray
8/6/2014 10:43:32 am
In my opinion I think that Guy and Clarisse seem to have known each other for years because they have interacted with each other so much and shared so many similarities about themselves that they developed this relationship of all their thoughts and feelings about many things that you would know after knowing someone for years.
Reply
Debra Tuberion
8/7/2014 04:39:04 am
I personally think that Montag and Clarisse said that they seemed to have known each other for years because they have similar personalities. It is very easy for them to understand each other. They also seem to have the same beliefs and views on many things which helps them relate to each other easier.
Reply
Aidan Smith
8/12/2014 05:34:55 am
I think Montag and Clarisse seem to have known each other for many years because the way they bond. They are able to talk freely about what they want with no restrictions. Sometimes people become shy for nervous talking to people, but in this case neither Montag nor Clarisse have any problem speaking to one another. With them being able to speak with no emotions holding them back, they are able to bond very good and it makes it seem like they have known each other for many year.
Reply
Kent Hottmann
8/3/2014 06:27:29 am
Is the government controlling the people? In Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, the government’s role in the book is not made clear. Some parts of the story give the reader the impression that the government is secretly controlling the population without them knowing it. The government gives the people endless entertainment, such as the parlor walls, to keep them ignorant. As long as everyone is entertained, no one will want to go back to books. If people start reading books again, they will start thinking freely which could end up harming the government.
Reply
sean murphy
9/1/2014 07:18:23 am
A very good question indeed Kent. In my personal opinion, I do not think that the government is controlling the people. What i think is that the government is giving the people in Fahrenheit 451 everything they could ever want to be happy, and blocking them off from reading diverse books to keep the people from developing opinions, so they are much easier to rule over. To answer another part of your question, I think that the people would want the country to remain the same, because it is the only way of life the people know. Some people may be able to adapt to change, like Montag, but others might not know what to do with their lives anymore. To me the government in manipulative and is taking to much advantage of the common people. That is my opinion on the matter.
Reply
Will Grant
8/3/2014 11:23:46 am
How has censorship really affected the world Montag lives in? There are numerous ways that censorship has affected his world. For example, the people that live in the world can not fully understand what happened in the past because all books are banned from society. They have to be burned on site. For example,Clarisse asks Guy" do you ever read any of the books your burn"(Bradbury 8). Guy responds by saying that this is against the law. That proves that censorship really does have an affect on the world because the people will never know the full truth of what has happened in the world. The lack of information that the people are given raises the level of control the government has on it's own people which is sad. The world should be full of new ideas and new adventures. People like Clarisse want to know what happened in the past, and realize that the she is being censored by the government. I think the government has some secrets that they do not want to be in the public. In the end, censorship has an affect on the world, but really in a negative way.
Reply
Kent Hottmann
8/7/2014 01:43:01 am
Censorship has affected the world in Fahrenheit 451 by making everyone oblivious to what is happening in the world. No one can know about the past because books are banned. People are endlessly entertained so they don’t worry about the real world. Everything in the book is censored, from books to the parlor walls and seashells. The parlor walls only play shows and movies with no meaning. Even the news has turned into entertainment. When the police are chasing Montag and they lose him, they pretend they are still chasing him and kill a random stranger to make it look like they got him. At one part of the story, Beatty tells Montag that magazines and newspapers slowly became uninformative and turned into entertainment. The world in Fahrenheit 451 is completely censored.
Reply
Victoria Sullivan
8/5/2014 02:19:27 am
Is it hard to be honest to oneself even when they know they are right? Ray Bradbury writes a story where firefighters burn books and start fires instead of putting them out. Guy Montag has been a firefighter for a while and believes that his job is what needs to be done. One fire that he put out happened to kill a woman along with all of her books. This opened up Guys's eyes to the world. He knew this woman had to have a reason to put her life aside for books. She was willing to die to let those firemen know that they weren't getting away with discarding her library. Montag realized that books really must have a meaning if they are willing to be fought for. He couldn't get this thought out of his head, so he decided to take out some books that he had left behind all these years. His wife Millie was shocked when he took them out but he assured her that he "[could not] burn these [books]." And that he had "to at least look at them once" (Bradbury 66). After fighting for what he thought he believed in, he had to be honest with himself and prove to himself that books are necessary in life. There are very few Shakespeare and Plato books and Bibles left. Is Montag going to be the only firefighter to be honest with himself? Or will others join him in his actions?
Reply
Kathleen Murray
8/6/2014 10:54:20 am
I think that it is hard to accept the fact that you are right when being honest with yourself. Guy knows that burning books is not they way to solve any problems and I think it took him a while to come to that realization. Also to tell himself that this is the honest truth and this is what he believes in. Guy deosnt know anyone elses' opinions so he doesnt know that what he sees is right or wrong. I think that Guy also may be the only one that is worried about what he does and the others may not join him because he may be the only one in that crowd. Or the others may not be brave enough to say what is the honest truth like Guy. .
Reply
Emma Wright
8/5/2014 08:30:16 am
How can technology be more important than people? In the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, TV parlors and seashell radios have taken over people’s lives. For example, Mildred is watching TV while Guy is trying to have a conversation with her. When he asks her to turn it off, she refuses, responding with "that's my family," (49) and refers to the characters in her favorite shows as various relatives. To Mildred, the TV matters more to her than people. In the world of Fahrenheit 451, technology is “family” while actual family means nothing. Guy has admitted that if Mildred died, he is "certain he wouldn't cry," (44) because his wife is like a stranger to him. She is too focused on technology to get to know her own husband. This issue in the book is hinting at the fact that humans are growing more and more attached and dependent on electronic things.
Reply
Elizabeth Paterno
8/7/2014 03:47:35 am
Does the age of a person really describe how old and mature that person is? In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, Clarisse seems to have more wisdom than Guy Montag or his wife, however she has only been alive for half the time as them. Does the enviroment of a person change how mature they are? How do the people who surround them affect how mature a person may grow to be. On page 23, Montag talks to Clarisse again after his wife's incident with the sleeping pills. At one point he responds to Clarisse being seventeen by saying "'How odd. How strange. ANd my wife thirty and yet you seem so much older at times. I can't get over it'". Clarisse may seem older to Montag because she has a more mature outlook o life then his wife does. Does technology keep society from maturing socially or does it promote it? If Mildred were as mature as Clarisse, would she care as much about materially items? Would Mildred be more happy if she was not so wrapped up with materially things? Being mature may not come with age, but how you have developed through the years, and maybe technology is keeping people from doing so.
Reply
Debra Tuberion
8/7/2014 04:34:03 am
Is it worth completely changing yourself and your outlooks on the world to please everyone else around you? In the novel Farenhiet 451, Ray Bradbury showed that some of the characters changed themselves due to other peoples' thoughts and opinions on how the world should be. In the beginning of the novel, Guy Montag tried to convince himself that burning books and houses was okay, just because that's what all of the other firemen thought.Guy used to say "It was a pleasure to burn." (Bradbury 1), but as the book continues he realizes he does not agree with it, but he tries to change his opinion due to what others think. My question to you is, do you think changing your thoughts and opinions towards things due to other peoples' influences is worth it?
Reply
Skylat Simone
8/10/2014 02:02:40 am
It all depends on the cause. You can change you thoughts and or opinions on anything if you think it is true to you. If you believe in it and if you think the change of though is the right thing then there should not be a reason for you to not. As long as you thinks it worth it.
Reply
Abigail Joyce
8/30/2014 07:02:19 am
I personally do not believe that an individual should be altered due to another persons influences. The purpose of humanity is to allow people the right to grow and develop their own views and opinions. Freedom is the right to believe what you believe and formulate those views on your own. If your goal in life is to conform to what a general society wants you to do, then it will be worth it for you. But if you are an advocate of individuality and you believe people should have the right to be who they want to be, then no, it is not worth it because you will never be satisfied in the society you live in.
Reply
Kathleen Murray
8/7/2014 11:36:56 pm
Why is it that people become impulsive when they are curious? In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Guy has a call to go to a lady’s house because she is keeping books. He curiously reads a line of a book bursting into flames. Why did he do that even though it’s against the law? And why is he curious about something that he does not believe in and use (books)? After talking with Clarisse about his job and his views on what he does, Guy starts to second guess or rethink the whole outlawing of books. Because Guy is interested and tempted by books all around him he sees a line from a book. To explain what Guy has done the author states “his hand had done it all…with conscience and a curiosity in each trembling finger,” (Bradbury 37). Without thinking of the consequences, Guy willingly reads part of a book to see what it said. He becomes impulsive and acting in the moment and does not think about the long term effects. This ultimately foreshadows his changing of views on the society that he lives in and his way of living. It also is a stepping stone of what he will do next because of his curiosity and because of temptation and acting willingly. So was this impulsive act really worth figuring out the truth about the past?
Reply
Skylar Simone
8/10/2014 01:58:59 am
Should you express your opinion even if you know so many people do not agree with you? In Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 Clarisse is one to speak her mind and think outside the box even when she knows so many people are against her. She never seems to doubt herself. She brings out the very best in Montag and shows him the meaning of things in another perspective. At one point in Clarisse and Montag's conversation she says or rather points out "You laugh when I haven't been funny and you answer right off. You never stop to think what I've
Reply
Sierra Lopez
8/15/2014 07:27:50 am
Clarisse was definitely correct to show what she felt and express her opinion, because she changed Montag's mindset. And if a person could make a positive difference in the life of even just one other person, and help them grow and change, wouldn't that make any forthcoming consequences worth it in the end? I would certainly like to think so.
Reply
Jack McNally
8/11/2014 10:07:38 am
Is it wrong to do things that make you happy without questioning these things? In the futuristic society that is portrayed in Ray Bradbury’s novel, “Fahrenheit 451”, people watch endless amounts of television and drive fast cars because these things make them happy, or at least they think these things make them happy. However, characters in this novel such as Montag and Clarisse think that people shouldn’t do these things, and instead, they should spend more time thinking deep thoughts and appreciating the world and the people around them. Montag’s wife, Mildred, is trapped in a life of television; she watches it all day. While she seems happy on the outside, she is actually very unhappy, and tries to commit suicide towards the beginning of the book, though she never admits to it. She refuses to think her own thoughts or acknowledge her feelings, and instead, she lets her mind be controlled by the television. Montag asks her “Does your ‘family’ love you?” (77). Montag is referring to the people on the television, who she calls her family, because she feels like they are a part of her life. The problem with that is that no matter how much time she spends with her television ‘family’ she can’t be emotionally attached to them, because she can’t talk to them. However, Clarisse, who spends time outside, and likes to explore the world around her and think about things that have importance to her, seems to be very happy.
Reply
Bailey Smith
8/12/2014 01:09:33 am
Why do people fear the outside world, and use technology as a distraction from it? Throughout the novel, Bradbury shows how important TV screens or ‘parlors’ are to people’s lives, and how much people have traded them for time outdoors enjoying nature. In the novel, people can interact and talk with their parlors; much like real life interactions. Mildred plays a part in a movie from her parlor, and she even says “That’s my family,” when talking about the interactions she has (Bradbury 48-49). This example shows how important technology is in the novel and how technology has replaced normal everyday interactions between people and the natural world. Also, Professor Farber says parlors are “an environment as real as the world” (Bradbury 84). When Professor Farber says this, I was surprised, but knew that Farber didn’t believe in parlors, because he said “my parlor is nothing but four plaster walls,” (Bradbury 84). Clarisse, Montag’s neighbor, loves the natural world, and because of this she is considered weird and different. She would rather take a walk, then sit in a parlor and stare at screens. Clarisse thinks differently than everyone else.
Reply
Aidan Smith
8/12/2014 05:19:20 am
Is technology pulling people away from the real world? Ray Bradbury shows us how people are taken into a new world with technology. In the novel, people live in an un-real world; people have created a utopian world with fake happiness. People act like technology is their new family, and they are a ‘perfect’ self. The people on television in the “parlor” are “family” and they “love” one another. The parlor, “ that’s [Mildred’s] family. (Bradbury 49)” People don’t realize that its just pixels, wires, plastic, stuff. It’s not a real world. And shouldn’t be used as a way to escape from what is happening outside. There is a war going on, but no one takes notice because they are too busy in their parlor with their perfect utopian universe filled with “family”. If someone can live in a perfect world through technology, why would they bother with the real world’s drama and commotion?
Reply
Griffin Perry
9/2/2014 12:39:20 pm
I completely agree with your thought process here. The ignorant people in Bradbury's twisted world are in their own world composed of televisions and phones. They are oblivious to their real surroundings because of the advertisements and propaganda telling them to watch more and more and more. Even Montag feels the television has put a wall (both physically and emotionally) in between him and Mildred. The society clouds their emotions with these fancy gadgets, creating how you said a "utopian world with fake happiness". This technology, contrary to the citizen's beliefs, is dangerous and slowly breaking their feelings and person down into just a shell of human skin that does nothing but sit in a room and watch television.
Reply
Chase Hintelmann
8/14/2014 07:00:09 am
Why do people always believe they live a better life today when they never lived in the past? In the novel, there are several examples of how people in the so called "utopia" Bradbury created have more cases of depression, suicide attempts, and anger then todays society. Another example from the novel is the lack of social behavior between people. In Bradbury's novel, "socializing" is sitting in a parlor watching wall TV's with a couple other people in the room. The teenagers in Fahrenheit 451 are violent towards each other and are unfriendly to those who don't fit in, like Clarisse. "I'm afraid of children my own age. They kill each other. did it always used to be that way? My uncle says no. Six of my friends have been shot in the past year alone. Ten of them died in car wrecks. I'm afraid of them..." (Bradbury,30) Clarisse said this to Montag about her peers, people who should be her friends. Instead, they are violent, murdering, uncontrollable beasts with no adults containing their wild side. Obviously, if teens are murdering each other, people aren't as happy in this society as it seems at first glance. People need to take a look into the past and see if something hasn't gone wrong in the development of society. If all these technological advances hadn't occurred, would we be living a happier life, a more honest life?
Reply
Sierra Lopez
8/15/2014 07:23:52 am
How do you know when something you trust in is corrupted? Well, to first find out, you can do a quick Google search to find out that corruption is defined as the "dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power". So if they work with deception, such as saying one thing and showing another, it's a huge sign of corruption. Which is what happens when when the news is covering the Hound chasing Montag through the city. They build up the chase and when they lose him, they go after an innocent man, because, as Granger said, "They can't admit it. They know they can hold their audience for only so long. The show's got to have a snap ending, quick! If they started searching the whole damn river it might take all night. So they're sniffing for a scapegoat to end things with a bang." Why? To show that they can't be wrong, to send a message to everyone. "It saves face." Because they feel as if their image is more important than the truth, which is true far too often even in our world outside of the novel. People often say that there are two roads, the easy one, and the right one, and when the people in charge who are obligated to choose the right one instead choose the easy one just to save themselves from being disgraced, then that is corruption.
Reply
Tyler Lewis
9/2/2014 05:03:24 am
I felt as though the entire city was corrupted on the same foundations of lying to their people and how they lied to people on the chase. But I believe the newscasters had faked Montag's death was entirely based on the factor that if he got away it wouldn't just make the police look bad but it would send a message to every person in the city that there are ways to escape the law. Just like Montag did because then there would be a huge rise in crime in the city due to the belief of escape to the people who aren't convinced life was in a television.
Reply
Grace Cody
8/19/2014 01:32:31 pm
Will people from the future think that our way of living now is outlandish and odd? In the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, we view the world that they live in as very odd and different to ours. In our world reading books is encouraged and common and in this world it is illegal to own a book. When Montag had read a piece of poetry to Mildred and a group of her friends on page 101 Mrs. Bowels responded by saying, "You're nasty Mr. Montag, you're nasty." I think that is a very good way of showing how people thought of poetry and most literature for that matter. While they were living in this world, though, they didn't realize how odd this was because they had never thought other of it. It makes me wonder if maybe the world we are living in now will seem very different in major ways to the future world.
Reply
James Latimer
8/23/2014 10:31:54 am
How is mob mentality controlling society and why is it restricting people from educating themselves? This idea is a prominent topic throughout Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and even currently in today's world. Mob mentality can be described as a group influencing decisions made within the group and the decisions made by an individual. This concept is displayed by the society that forbids books from being read or published in Fahrenheit 451. This society will become like automatons, who will not use their brains to think for themselves but instead operate based on how they are programmed. “Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God.” (Bradbury 58). When Captain Beatty says this, he represents all the brainwashed firemen in Montag's department. Those firemen are very similar to animals' behaviors; they do not think of original ideas and only respond to the stimuli that is in front of them. People were brainwashed into using these advances to keep them happy when books became unlawful. This became the popular opinion within society and pressured everyone into acting like it was true. People were tricked so that they could lead happy lives without literature, but really end up becoming senseless, miserable human beings. This idea of the group controlling the creation of ideas can also be applied to real life. Humans are tricked into thinking a certain style or way of thinking is better than another, when really everyone has the ability to formulate their own opinion. Mob mentality affects the ways humans communicate and the decisions they make as group.
Reply
Elijah Nishiura
8/24/2014 03:51:42 am
How does an authority convince the public that their way is the right way? People will always use fear as an advantage. In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, the government has successfully convinced the society that books were harmful to their community. This system has happened multiple times in history. For example in Germany during World War II, after the economy was on a strong downfall Hitler convinced Germany that the solution was to blame the Jews. People were so scared of the economy going down the toilet, they would believe anything to get some hope. Just like in the book the authorities convinced the public that books were harmful and that they should be scared of them and that burning them was the best way to keep peace. And the public both times simply believed them. Authorities simply used fear against the public.
Reply
Juliet Slattery
8/25/2014 02:50:56 am
Is the violence prevalent in this novel by Ray Bradbury alike to our society in anyways?
Reply
Abigail Joyce
8/25/2014 09:04:28 am
In the novel Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury a story is told about firemen burning the homes of book keepers in order to halt extensive knowledge. The purpose of this is eternal happiness. They believe that by this action, they are not only diminishing knowledge, but enhancing peoples abilities to be happy in society, with out having to worry about larger things in life. In one scene, a women is described in her home that has already been soaked with lighter fluid by the firemen. Usually, the men would evacuate the homes allowing the victims to at least survive while their home goes up in sparks. However, this women was reluctant. She refused to move and even counter-acted by lighting her OWN match. Do you believe that committing suicide for something your passionate about is rational? Furthermore, if you were in a situation of the loss of something you love, would you purse the same outcome?
Reply
Emilie Weiner
8/25/2014 10:35:16 am
Is it safest to voice your opinion and suffer the consequences, or instead suffer the pain of keeping quiet, even if you disagree with a situation? In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, Guy Montag learns the way of the world after a sudden realization of his own unhappiness. He chooses to stand up for what he thinks is wrong, by going against both his employment and the government and beginning to harbor books rather than burn them. In the end, he's caught and hunted for the crimes he's committed, but he's satisfied that he's stood up for the knowledge and wisdom that lingers within the words he's saved. On the other hand, women like Mildred and her friends suffer daily for surrounding themselves with television walls and a sense of falsity. When Montage read them a poem, they shrieked and cried and instead had to suffer from an inner emotional turmoil instead.
Reply
Emilie Weiner
8/25/2014 10:36:48 am
**What's better: to suffer internally or externally? And are the consequences enough to live with?
Reply
Shannon O'Donnell
8/29/2014 05:58:32 am
How come those who question society today, and in the world of Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, are viewed negatively? In society today, people are encouraged to ask questions. If someone does not understand something going on in a particular situation, he or she is told to initiate and ask questions. By asking questions, knowledge grows, and therefore, individuals have more of an ability to think for themselves. However, when it comes to their society, people are often told that society is just the way it is. In Fahrenheit’s society, those who question anything, especially their society, are outlawed, and sometimes executed. Obtaining knowledge and individual thought has become against the law. The character of Clarisse is a breath of fresh air among the many people who do not even think about the flaws in their society. She questions the world around her. By doing so, others view her as rather odd. Clarisse is curious about her society and wonders about the people in it. This is proven when she questions Montag: “Is it true that long ago firemen put fires out instead of going to start them?’" (Bradbury 8). Clarisse wants to understand not only society today, but how society worked in the past. Unfortunately, because the ability to think freely has mostly vanished in their time, she is belittled for her natural curiosity. She even tells Montag, “‘You’re one of the few who put up with me.’”(Bradbury 23). How come curiosity is viewed as such a terrible thing? In your response, please give your opinion on questioning society, and how it can be both a blessing and a curse to have the desire to do so.
Reply
Shaye Gilmartin
8/31/2014 05:02:10 am
Reply
Tyler Lewis
9/2/2014 04:57:46 am
Why does Guy Montag’s society frown upon individual thought? If there is no individual thought there would be no controversy over people’s ideas. Without that controversy people lose their reason to fight for their lives and wake up every morning. This is made apparent when the people come and pump Mildred’s stomach with the snake and comment on how many people are now having this happen to them because they don’t want to live anymore. ”They want to know what I do with my time. I tell them sometimes I just sit and think. But I won’t tell them what. I’ve got them running. And sometimes, I tell them, I like to put my head back and let the rain fall in my mouth.” (Bradbury 23). Clarisse is forced to see a psychiatrist because she thinks about her surroundings and the people in them, and that’s considered irregular in everyone’s mind. Would you choose to live in a society where everything is decided for you? Would you block out all emotion for an easy life?
Reply
Griffin Perry
9/2/2014 11:58:32 am
Why are those who go against the flow of society looked at differently than those who do? Are those who follow the flow all blinded by something that makes them all look in one direction? In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, Montag's rebellious thoughts are sparked by Clarisse's questioning and expressiveness. Once he begins sharing these ideas with others, he is viewed as a threat and different from the rest of society. When this happens, the rebels are eliminated. The author alludes to this when he explains how Clarisse and her family are "gone for good" , with thoughts of their death (Bradbury 47). Those in society who follow the flow are blinded by the constant propaganda like "two hundred-foot-long billboards" and "three walls, soon to be four" televisions (Bradbury 42). For example, it isn't socially acceptable to go on walks or pick flowers or drive slowly but it is a good thing to sit in a room and watch television all day in Bradbury's dystopian world. Because humans like Mildred do this, their thoughts are clouded by government indoctrination which create this natural flow of what is tolerable and what is not. For instance, in real life today when people see celebrities do certain things or wear certain clothes, we do the same thing; and this is what people expect. To conclude, why are those who don't do what everyone else does looked at so differently, and is it because there is a greater force telling those who follow to do so?
Reply
Edith torres
9/3/2014 11:51:56 am
What is the real meaning behind the books that the firemen burn? Is it the knowledge received from them or is it the emotions that the firemen have lost their grip on? As Guy montag's story progresses it is hinted about just what could be the messages these symbols, books, bring. For the emotions, think back to the time montag read the poetry book. "Mrs. Phelps was crying. the others in the middle of the desert watched her crying grow very loud as her face squeezed itself out of shape. they sat, not touching her, bewildered with her display. She sobbed uncontrollably. montag himself was stunned and shaken."(Bradbury, 100) the part about them being in a desert showed how they weren't used to emotions that break into lively tears, and how refreshing it could be like water. there's also the example of when Beatty tells montag his dream he was hinting to him how he knows montag was reading books. "'Knowledge is power!' and 'A dwarf on a giant's shoulder sees the farthest of the two!'"(Bradbury, 107) Beatty read books as well and it was obvious that he saw the power in knowing things no matter how much he was against the written word. Leave your thoughts on this idea,to show how you perceived Bradbury's point of view, on books.
Reply
Kristen Wimmer
9/4/2014 08:27:09 pm
Does the government cover up everything they don't want to know? In the novel "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury, Guy Montag is a fireman. However, he doesn't put out fires, he starts them in order to burn books. It's not until he's done this job for many years, that he wonders, why? Why do these books have to be burned? What is inside them that nobody can read. With Faber's help he discovers (from books) that the job of a fireman was once to put out fires rather than to create them. Moreover, in the novel, the government creates copious distractions, so citizens don't even have the time to read a book with their faces so far into technology. For example, Mildred barely has the time to talk to Montag because she devotes so much of her attention to the television walls in the parlor. By the government creating a stimulating, distracting environment, very few individuals even think about reading. Perhaps guy used this technology-obsessed milieu to show how it is a significant distraction for the government to keep us from learning things they don't want us to know.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
AuthorMr. Justin Biggs Archives
August 2016
|