Batty About Books - Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

In light of the recent election, Maria and I have been jolted out of our comfort zones and have been trying to take action in our respective states. 

The appointments over the last month have reminded me of several dystopian novels, including Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and 1984 by George Orwell. Maria was reminded of  The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood and The Gate To Women's Country by Sheri S Tepper.

 As we decide how we want to read and discuss these books - under the regime of the president-elect - we thought we would repost our original thoughts on F451.  I thought it fit with the president-elect stating he does not read. (here and here)

This week we look back at our posting from 2012 when Bradbury died.




In tribute to Ray Bradbury, who died June 5, 2012, Maria and I decided to read Fahrenheit 451 one week and watch the movie the next week.

We read the book in its entirety then shared our thoughts.  It was a powerful book and it elicited some powerful responses.

YOU DO NOT WANT TO MISS MARIA'S THOUGHTS OVER ON MARIA'S MELANGE.  I'M TELLING YOU, IT'S GOOD STUFF!

Batty About 

Fahrenheit 451

Part 1 - Hearths and Salamanders
This part is all about light and darkness and the pursuit of happiness.  In the very first pages I love how Bradbury invokes fire/light by introducing the symbols of the phoenix and the salamander.  I also love the various ways he describes light: “the hysterical light of electricity”, “comfortable and rare and gently flattering light of the candle”. There is also much darkness - the bedroom, the time of the fires, the Hound.  And the realization that noise and action and ignorance does not make you happy. In just 68 pages he introduces you to everything he’s going to discuss later. You start to slow down and pay attention and listen.  Something the people in Fahrenheit rarely do.
Maria: I also commented on the imagery and symbolism in his description of light and fire. I found it breathtaking. I kept speeding up to read more, then slowing down and rereading so I could savor it.

Part 2 - The Sand and The Sieve

“Nobody listens anymore. I just want someone to hear what I have to say. And maybe if I talk long enough, it'll make sense.”(82)

Having a hard time articulating how this makes me feel.  I feel like this sometimes - when I’m puzzling out a problem and If I just keep repeating it, the pieces will come together. Also, though, it reminds me of how our society uses social media.  We have this stream of followers/friends but is anyone really listening? We want to be heard. Desperately sometimes. So we keep talking. And we RT things, and we share, and we like, and we comment. And all the while we are hoping that we get this same courtesy in return. We want to be heard.
Maria: Yes! I mention this when I discuss how prophetic he sounds in this book. I’ve found my voice online. Yes, many times I’m talking to hear myself talk (or tweet) but I’ve found so many more like minded souls online than I could ever find in person near my house. I want to be heard, so I try to also remember to hear others... and talk back to them the way I want them to talk back to me.

Also, though, it’s what I fear will happen to us if we continue spending so much time in front of the computer instead of with actual people.  Will we be able to communicate - which goes both ways? Are we just putting things out there and not really listening? We can’t see a person’s body language, we can’t read their sarcasm or their levels of joy or pain - because we have levels.  It’s like Montag mentions - the sand and the sieve, you keep putting it out there but it seems to just fall through the holes.
Maria: Yes, this is a legitimate fear. This is why we can’t live our lives just behind a screen. And it’s why I think people also love things like Skype. It gives us a better glimpse into the mind of those across the screen from us. I loved that image of the sand and the sieve. So powerful.

Part 3 - Burning Bright
Here we are at the end. This part was a little confusing. A little sad.

I was a little confused about Beatty and his wanting to die. His quoting of books - though it kinda reminds me of the extreme radical “christians” who use obscure and out of context quotes from the bible to justify their actions - he’d obviously been reading, but why was he still in charge (disregarding the afterwords).  Did he want to die because people he knew were now getting hurt? Did he want to die because he saw what the lack of real knowledge was doing to the people?  This scares me because I see it so much today. People argue online with no real knowledge of the underlying issues. They often are just responding to something without looking into themselves. There used to be “reliable” sources to turn to. Now you turn to Google and, depending on the metrics they are using for their search engine, they return the search they want you to see or that someone paid to have come to the top. And it’s the same for all search engines. We don’t know who the experts are anymore because anyone can publish a book or create a webpage. And we have books! Imagine if we didn’t.  BTW, have you read FEED by MT Anderson?
Maria: Okay, can I just say how wonderful it is how deep this book pushed us? That didn’t happen with World Without Heroes or Dragon Castle. And yes, I agree with you so completely here, too. I feel like I never know enough about an issue to really push back and people or argue a point, but I’m in the minority. People can twist and turn any words to fit their own preconceived notions. Yet I wonder if relying on “experts” is always that much better? Yes, at least in the past people generally had to prove some level of knowledge before they were published... but there was still a lot of wrongheaded crap published, right? (and still manages to get published now.. And no we shouldn’t just rely on “experts”. That leads to a different level of trouble!)
And no, I haven’t read FEED. I’d love to hear about it! (Remarkable YA SF read about a future where chips are implanted. They “feed” us advertising, shopping, school, etc.  A definite one for us to read!)


“But that’s the wonderful thing about man; he never gets so discouraged or disgusted that he gives up doing it all over again because he knows very well it is important and worth the doing.” (153)
It saddens me that this is the attitude, albeit a good one. We will do it again. But the underlying meaning for me was we will screw it up again. We will fight again. We will destroy again.
Maria: Hmmm... love this quote, but I both agree and disagree with it. SOME of mankind keeps the hope alive, and some gives up. I guess that’s like in the Dark Ages. Sometimes the struggle to survive is all, but there are always some who keep that fire burning for us. Thankfully.

Yes, we WILL screw up again. Destroy again - and then build again. Have you watched any Battlestar Galatica? That is the underlying theme of that tale. “It has all happened before, and it will all happen again”. We can only hope that each time we rise a little higher, and don’t dip quite as low.
(I just started watching the new (2004-2009) Battlestar Galactica! And this was going through my mind. )


On the other hand, I like that they were each books, or poems, or essays.  That you could meet with someone and they could recite something to you. That it could all be captured again. But, that is because they took the time to learn the knowledge.  This makes me want to read more classics and history books. Who is the keeper of the knowledge right now? I was going to discuss reading habits but decided that’s a rant I want to do some other time.  I’m bookmarking some studies though!
Maria: Yes! This is a point I intended to make but didn’t bring up. We can’t rely on the internet being our “keepers of knowledge”. Yet we can’t ignore the new knowledge either.

Overall
You can’t read this book too many times. I do think you can be introduced to this book too young though.  Bradbury switches around in the book between thoughts and actions and characters quickly and you must be paying attention. Maria: Yes, yes! I think if you are too young when reading this book, it just won’t “click” for you. There’s not enough action to hold a very young reader, I don’t think. High school or college is perfect. It’s not a hard read, but you really need some life experience to appreciate it. I’ll tell you what, I want to go roll in the grass right now (but it’s dark and raining). Your wrap up sounds an awful lot like mine did.
Which, is  part of the overall message I took from the book. Slow down. Pay attention. Listen. Remember. Be present above all - turn off the computer/television/smartphone and be in this moment.


I'm an Amazon Associate. Links may redirect to Amazon. Tweet

Batty About Books - Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury

Source: Wikipedia

This week the Batty About Books duo is discussing

Fahrenheit 451- The Movie

Last week, in honor of Ray Bradbury's passing, we read and discussed the classic, Fahrenheit 451. This week we watched and compared the movie.

Fahrenheit 451 - Francois Truffaut (director)
Overall I didn’t like the movie. I’d seen it before, but not this close to reading the book.  The differences between the two were startling.  I understand that a director and a script writer have to make decisions on how best to make a book visual, but I felt as if they changed the underlying themes.
Maria: I am pretty sure I haven’t seen this movie before. I agree, there are always things that need to change in a screen adaptation. I often have students watch a movie version of a book we’ve read. I’d say a major goal is to NOT change the overall meaning of the story... major fail here.

Clarisse - she was WAY too old. Not even sure why she still lived with her uncle. She didn’t convince me that she was this happy-go-lucky young lady at all. It answers my book question on why she was so young in book - made the story more believable. This just seemed odd.
Maria: Agreed. This was one of my complaints as well. She just made no sense, and didn’t really impact Guy the way she needed to.

Fire Chief - did not understand why he kept berating those two young firemen. Was it to show us how mean he was? His stiffness was the exact opposite of the chief in the book. You would not be afraid of him, you would more likely make fun of him. He seemed odd.
Maria: Yes! I can’t believe I didn’t mention that one. His character was so engaging - rich - and almost believable in the book. In the movie, though, I didn’t understand him at all! All the characters seemed stiff (though that’s partly the acting of the time). They all seemed fairly doped up for the entire movie.

Faber - why did they chose to leave him out? The idea that Montag needs a mentor to help him make the transition from firestarter to reader makes sense. He doesn’t use that part of his brain.  Leaving Faber out leaves too much for Montag to figure out on his own. Odd choice.
Maria: The only thing I could think of is that adding Faber into the story adds more complexity - and more length to the movie. I know we’re used to movies that are close to or over 2 hours, but I think movies were shorter back then. I agree, though, losing this character caused us to make huge jumps in logic. Faber was so critical to Guy’s development.

Linda - Did they change her name because they made the her so much younger? And prettier? I pictured her as old and worn out and drugged. In the movie she was young and vibrant and used drugs yes but the her overdose was not believable.  They changed so much about her it was as if she was a new character! This was like the opposite of Clarissa - she was more like how I pictured Clarissa to be! Odd!
Maria: I always find it odd when they change a character’s name. I know I put a lot of thought and effort into the name choices for my characters - and I think a name holds so much weight. I did picture her more like this movie version than you did - like a overly bored socialite - but they made her way too vibrant. Kathy: “Too vibrant” - yes, that’s what was missing and you are right, she would have been just an “overly bored socialite”.  She was only supposed to be about 30 or so, so fairly young but her only life consisting of the “family”.

The Hound - where was he? I thought Montag’s fear of him in the book was an integral part of the story. Instead they used another fireman to turn on Montag. I wasn’t able to understand that character’s motivation - unless he was jealous of Montag’s promotion. No real character development from him struck me as odd.
Maria: Yes! Montag and the hound was a bit part of the book. Montag’s growing realization that humanity’s use of technology only reflects the violence within them. Maybe they didn’t’ have the budget for this effect? Though I can’t imagine it would have been that hard. Maybe something else about the 60s that would lead them to remove the robot from the story?

The Family - so creepy. Not inviting and engaging at all. I would have been turned OFF by them not felt like I should watch them 24/7. It was a little funny how they included her name in the show but they were clearly NOT concerned with her or her thoughts. They were just odd.
Maria: The “cousins” were SO incredibly bizarre! Creepy and disturbing. Again, I think Bradbury did a remarkable job describing his vision of the entertainment system in his book - and they completely ignored it. Did they even READ the book when they wrote this movie? Kathy: Haha! Exactly! It’s like when you hear a student talk about a book and you know they have no clue because they only read the book or heard others talking about it!

Housing - I liked the firehouse and Montag’s house.  I didn’t like the houses they showed in the beginning. They were too sturdy and I thought the houses would be more easily burnable.
Maria: Hmm... I thought they looked like they belonged in the 60s. I guess I get why they wouldn’t want them to look too futuristic - the goal of the story is to feel “near future”, I think. But it’s like they could only say “hey, doors might open on their own” and that was the only nod to futurism at all. Even the phones looked ancient, and there were no “seashells” except when she went to bed. That appeared to only be her way to hear the tv without disturbing Guy’s sleep.

Televisions - what happened to the wall? That could have been done with a green screen! Yes, they had them in every room, but they didn’t seem immersed in them which is the impression I received from the book.  
Maria: This was - honestly - the very first thing that pulled me right out of the movie. This would have been so easy to get right!

Television shows - they actually had the news playing at some point. Where was the fun and loud noise? Montag and Linda watched a show together! Also, when her friends were over - they were barely paying attention to the show, instead they were all talking.
Maria: I hated how they handled the television, sets and shows. So much of what I got from it was just the overwhelming CONSTANT noise, commercialism, etc. Yet this was missing completely from the movie. Again, did they read the book?

Book Burning - They mostly burned the books outside of the house. It was daylight. These choices were the opposite of Bradbury’s. What happened to all the contrasts of light/dark? Or even the types of light itself? And Montag wore special clothing to burn the books. That made the books more important and the invasion of television less so.
Maria: This was a startling change. Think how amazing the visuals on this could have been! Movies are supposed to be a visual experience, so why did they fall down on this area?

S-E-X - What about the scene on the tram where EVERYONE is touching themselves? The innuendoes from the blood changing men? The scene with Montag and Linda after she was cleansed? Was this just a French thing?
Maria: Heh. So true. Though if other things had been done well I could have understood this. I saw it as people craving true sensory input (rather than the sterile input from a screen). But the fact that they completely removed the “living life - experiencing life” message from Clarisse, this seemed like a bizarre side scene. Ah! that makes sense.  

Police - a little “big brother” ish with the way they answer the phone Listening. Also why was it necessary to cut people’s hair? The police played a more prominent role in the movie. They even completed files on the “perpetrators” that were then sent to firemen.  AFTER they’d already burned those people’s books.
Maria: I’m betting this ties in with the 60s mentality. Honestly, what a cool high school media literacy project this could be! Study the 60s and then watch the movie to pull out the possible reasoning for the movie choices.

River - First, flying policemen? That didn’t even make sense. And how did he know when they were gone if he was under the tarp? Why was there only one boat there? Also, he found the river much too easily. The chase scene was so much less dramatic without the hound. And the pretend chase? He ran around the fire department and got shot? No tension at all. And what about the people at the river? They weren’t even hiding! They were loud so it didn’t make sense that the government didn’t know they were there. Why were they allowed to congregate like that? I did like that they were like a family with people of all ages. And also that people’s names were changed to reflect the book they’d memorized. I didn’t like that the guy from the beginning of the movie and Clarisse were both there, but I guess it worked for the movie.
Maria: Can I also say that I didn’t like the way it just ended? Yes, the bombing in the book was extreme - but I thought it was more powerful. I also laughed when I saw the flying police officers. So they can do that - but not have wall sized televisions? So strange!

Well, have you read the book or seen the movie? Or both? We'd love to hear what you think about all this.  In the meantime, pop on over to Maria's Melange to get her side of the (visual) story!


I'm an Amazon Associate. Links may redirect to Amazon. Tweet