You must log in or register to comment.

JetPunk t1_iu1rzmm wrote

Here's another fun fact. Each year the American Library Association puts out a list of "banned books". But these are only books that library patrons have requested to be banned.

Books that are actually banned by libraries don't appear on the list. So the banned books contains exclusively books that are NOT banned by libraries.

Now that's Orwellian!


cerpintaxt33 t1_iu2beba wrote

What sorts of books are actually banned?


JetPunk t1_iu2e36i wrote

I don't know. Anarchist's Cookbook. Mein kampf probably.


GrymanOne t1_iu2hgr1 wrote

The Cookbook isn't really what you think it is, more of a CIA tool. The latter is certainly purchasable.


vegainthemirror t1_iu3dni8 wrote

It is now, because it is public domain. Up until 2015, 70 years after ole Adolf's death, it wasn't possible to have it legally republished


madnessmaka t1_iu3i9nh wrote

I laugh thinking of his estate taking people to court over copyright infringement.


vegainthemirror t1_iu3j5j5 wrote

It was less of an estate, but more of a general (governmental?) agreement that anything AH-/Mein Kampf-related was not allowed for use to the public. At least in german-speaking countries


Salty_Animator_4019 t1_iu4e5sg wrote

The government of the German state Bavaria took over the copyright from the original publisher after the Nazi time and tried to ensure that the book was not published other than perhaps in a scientific research context. This ended when the copyright ran out 70 years after Adolf Hitlers death.

A new, official version WITH critical annotations was made available, since this year also in a free edition on the internet (in German):


arcosapphire t1_iu68no2 wrote

What? Back around 2000, my mom got me a copy, I assume from B&N. It certainly wasn't banned.

I feel obligated to add a disclaimer: my mom is Jewish and it was for educational reasons to understand history. That said, I couldn't make it more than a couple of pages in. I was expecting some intelligent but misguided philosophy that I could eruditely analyze and go, "aha, here was where he went wrong" and pat myself on the back. Instead it's a bunch of immediately blathering nonsense. Which is educational in a different way, relevant to note recent events this very article is tangentially related to, that such nonsense can actually get people politically pumped. But I don't think more than a couple of pages would have been necessary to learn that anyway.


vegainthemirror t1_iu696lh wrote

Depends where. In german-speaking countries, it was banned, difdicult if not impossible to obtain it, physically and digitally. I know of a history teacher at my high school who somehow was able to get a copy from somewhere, but we've never seen it, let alone read from it.


arcosapphire t1_iu6acyp wrote

Yeah, it was rather famously censored in Germany. But I don't think there was any restriction in the US, certainly not something about publishing rights and public domain. The 70 year copyright thing is also country-specific and thus couldn't explain it being somehow unattainable anywhere. Which it wasn't.


-BlueDream- t1_iu2jqc7 wrote

Most of the shit in anarchist cookbook is bullshit or already relatively common knowledge like making a Molotov cocktail. Nobody is building a bomb or stealing a car with these instructions, it’s basic shit made to entertain people.


BarbequedYeti t1_iu3wl5a wrote

You sure as shit ain’t getting high from banana peels.


Bigred2989- t1_iu2ofwl wrote

A British anarchist named PA Lutty published guides on how to make submachine guns without heavy machinery. He was arrested for illegal firearms production but died of cancer before being prosecuted, and people in the UK who have downloaded his guides have been raided by law enforcement. No idea how it's treated in the US, but the more recent debates over 3D gun files rings similar.


OcotilloWells t1_iu2z4e1 wrote

I'm sure it's fine in the US. Generally knowledge is fine, it's when you make things like this that it becomes a problem. There are exceptions.


cC2Panda t1_iu4n49x wrote

The FBI might show up at your door anyway. After the Boston bombing there was an uptick in people saying they got FBI visits after looking up how to make a pressure cooker into a bomb.


uristmcderp t1_iu3aqco wrote

Maybe for like childrens' libraries.

The real dystopia is if those books are actually banned. That implies there's enough power in whatever's written that it would sway the worldviews of your citizens. Or your citizens are that easily manipulated.

In reality, banned books are more like unpopular books that aren't worth shelving much less printing.


[deleted] t1_iu2i5b2 wrote



CakeDayisaLie t1_iu4aao9 wrote

Mein Kampf was accessible to me as a 4th grader in my private Christian schools library lol. No idea why.


Wide-Composer-7230 t1_iu5vbz3 wrote

Yeah I took out Mein kampf from my public library.

I was just curious as a history major who took so many World War II history courses in college.

I read it in English and thought that it was terribly written from a grammatical and humanitarian standpoint . To clarify, I am the farthest thing from a racist but was surprised that this book was written by an individual who was able to take control of Europe for half a decade. It sounded like a whining child rambling about life‘s unfairness. So then I thought maybe the translation to English changes the perception, so I spoke to a few Germans I knew in the literary field and they all said the German version is exactly the same.


ThepalehorseRiderr t1_iu5ud99 wrote

I actually accidentally stumbled upon the anarchists cookbook at my local library WAY back in the day. Even then, it blew my young mind and I knew I was looking at some heavy shit.


[deleted] t1_iu6awce wrote



ThepalehorseRiderr t1_iu6bgmu wrote

I remember the cookbook had detailed schematics to build all sorts of heinous shit. One such device was called "the blotto box". Supposedly you'd make this thing, plug it into your phone line and not only would it make every phone in your area code ring but would shock people nearest to you.


mcampo84 t1_iu41t74 wrote

I highly doubt Mein Kampf would be banned, given its historical significance.


TaftIsUnderrated t1_iu1z23e wrote

And book stores make bank selling "banned" books. A lot of the book banning fear mongering has been a marketing ploy.

And most actually banned books are banned because of copyright violations.


PercussiveRussel t1_iu3c7gr wrote

>A lot of the book banning fear mongering has been a marketing ploy.

^([citation needed])


Stachemaster86 t1_iu2tndn wrote

Originally published in Playboy. Other fun fact. 451 is what the fire department said was the temp for paper to burn. Don’t remember anything else about reading the book in junior high.


blitz672 t1_iu34vxt wrote

I don't know if it's still the case but I am as in high school in the early 2000s I would check the list every year and read from it. At that time there was an explanation on the website that said they were frequently banned or challenged books


open_closet OP t1_iu1rvmg wrote

And the reason why they do it in the book is even more surprising.

From Wikipedia: "over the course of several decades, people began to embrace new media (in this case, film and television), sports, and an ever-quickening pace of life. Books were ruthlessly abridged or degraded to accommodate short attention spans".


psibomber t1_iu269mz wrote

There's a scene in the book where someone uses the internet to chat in a VR chatroom... like 40 years before the internet was invented. There was a short story about a smart home.

Bradbury was an author far ahead of his time.


TheAmbiguousRedditor t1_iu29tr9 wrote

What about the little seashells everyone wears in their ears playing music!


Littlestan t1_iu2f08y wrote

You put those back in the bathroom where they belong!


psibomber t1_iu2i8u2 wrote

They never explained how to use the three seashells.


TheStrangestOfKings t1_iu2odh6 wrote

A lot of Sci Fi authors predicted the creation of the internet or smth comparable to it, tbf. I imagine it wasn’t an uncommon trope at the time


OcotilloWells t1_iu30ro8 wrote

Someone wrote about an atomic bomb before there was one. He got a visit from the FBI during WWII. I want to say it was Issac Asimov, but I'm probably wrong.


lordthistlewaiteofha t1_iu3sjlm wrote

Not what you're talking about, but HG Wells wrote a story about an atomic bomb in 1913, The World Set Free.


SFF_Robot t1_iu3sk96 wrote

Hi. You just mentioned The World Set Free by HG Wells.

I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here:

YouTube | THE WORLD SET FREE by H.G. Wells - FULL AudioBook | Greatest Audio Books

I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.

^(Source Code) ^| ^(Feedback) ^| ^(Programmer) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)


KanoeKnight t1_iu4n43u wrote

And TVs in your house that can take up a whole wall


GrandmaPoses t1_iu26g4i wrote

Yeah the book is more a critique of modern pop culture than anything but - proving the book’s message - the actual meaning has been buried under the more sensational and easy to digest “they burn books in the future”.


Swellmeister t1_iu30fmk wrote

No. It's because the original message is drivel "People became too stupid to read, all cuz of TV!" Hurrdurr. What a childish reactionary story, repeated a thousand times throughout the ages without a lack of truth.

"People will selfcensor because it's easier than thinking" is actually thought provoking, and quite easily found in the book, even if Bradbury didn't intend it.

Bradbury wanted there to be one theme. That doesn't mean the book doesn't have a better, more intelligent theme in it.


naraic42 t1_iu4jn8u wrote

>"People became too stupid to read, all cuz of TV!"

I mean, is he wrong? People used to read Dickens novels to their kids, now he's considered a slog to read. In the case study of yours truly, I used to read shitloads of books - then along came TV, games, and internet, and all the quickfire instant gratification with it. Now I can barely do a chapter of a book before losing focus. Fast paced shallow entertainment is shortening attention spans, and the ability to digest longform content.


Swellmeister t1_iu4p88z wrote

Counterpoint. Dickens is a slog to read.

And reading is not a magical source of information or intellect. There are significantly powerful stories to be told in video games and television and people eat it up. Senua's sacrifice won goddamn awards, and thats a story that cannot exist in any print medium, and only house of leaves comes close and its still not as good. The point Bradbury is makingthat people became vacuous idiots. And there is amble proof that it's a stupid ignorant point.


nomagneticmonopoles t1_iu4taj5 wrote

I'm not disagreeing about the value of the stories in other media, but wouldn't TikTok and the general push towards shorter videos and more digestible content be exactly the confirmation of Bradbury's hypothesis? Media is dumbed down by becoming less verbose, and in doing so, meaning is lost.


Swellmeister t1_iu97fxk wrote

No. It's only the first half of his theme. "People will consume information in smaller bits" it still lacks the second half "and that will make them willfully stupid".

In essence they do the opposite. The drive for knowledge is a large part of what tiktok does well. People in this age have access to greater knowledge than ever before and they are taking advantage of it greater than Bradbury could have ever imagined


naraic42 t1_iudz4cc wrote

There's much more information. I'm not sure how much more actual knowledge there is...


Gizogin t1_iu52ccl wrote

Except that the older generations have been complaining of this for literal centuries, and it’s just kind of meaningless. New forms of media supplant old ones all the time, and it isn’t inherently a bad thing.


SirBellwater t1_iu3dcx1 wrote

I've been reading some Bradbury short stories and he really has a theme of technology breeding complacency as a huge danger across a lot of his work


live2rock13 t1_iu49fml wrote

THANK. YOU! The government did not wake up and just start banning things out of the blue, THE PEOPLE wanted things banned for being "Too offensive" to other people.


Gizogin t1_iu53i7w wrote

People in Fahrenheit 451 don’t want books banned because they cause offense to others. They want books banned because they feel threatened when someone else knows more than they do. Bradbury describes the process as a growing divide between those who take the time to read a book and those who do not. The non-readers, not wanting to be left out, seek out synopses and summaries to be “in the know”. Eventually, the shortened versions take over, and then even they have their own summaries for people who find the abridged versions too time-consuming.

In the world of the novel, the people who are too caught up in the increasing pace of life to enjoy media “properly” are so threatened by those who read that they seek to ban books entirely. He is criticizing not “cancel culture” or “political correctness gone mad”, but nearly the exact opposite. Of course, in doing so, he merely repeats the same tired complaints about young people moving too quickly as generations of people have done for literal centuries.


guynamedjames t1_iu24l7p wrote

Funny enough it's a pretty short book that doesn't require much attention span. Personally I don't think it's that great, I think the only reason it's so popular is that people who really like books find the idea of burning them so appalling that they feel the idea is worth the mediocre story.


-BlueDream- t1_iu2k09p wrote

When fiction books became mainstream people said it’s bad for the mind and ruined the younger generations, same with TV when it came out, same with video games when they came out and now it’s social media and mobile phones. I bet in 20 years, smartphones will be fine but something like VR would be the thing politicians blame school shootings and controversy on.


quondam47 t1_iu67jie wrote

Which is ironic because the South African book burnings ended in 1971 which was five years before the Apartheid government allowed for the introduction of broadcast television to the country.


Gizogin t1_iu4yx0i wrote

Which is just old man Bradbury shaking his walking stick at the youth of his day, the same as every generation before him.


akaupstate t1_iu1tey2 wrote

I need to read this again. Can't believe how accurately Bradbury predicted the future. TV walls, "the Family" ,and everyone walking around with seashells in their ears.


ggill1313 t1_iu1wkn8 wrote

It’s disappointing that people often get the intent of Fahrenheit 451 wrong and erroneously depict it as a discussion of censorship. In reality, it’s more accurately characterized as a discussion of the dilution of thought within the individual and the pursuit of hedonism above all. Burning books to suppress the proliferation of ideas is more of an allegory for that than necessarily a point on censorship.

Indeed, Bradbury hit the nail on the head in a lot of ways. Short attention spans, reduced social engagement, etc.


Imrustyokay t1_iu1znse wrote

It's "Father I can't click the Book" but done right, actually, because it sounds like Bradbury was an old man who doesn't like these newfangled transistor radios and televisions, but in actuality, it's a book about how while new technology isn't inherently bad, it can be used to distract, censor, and shield the public from anything that the government doesn't want them to know about.


psibomber t1_iu26lcf wrote

How would it not be about censorship too? It was published in 1953, not far from WWII being on the public mind...


ggill1313 t1_iu4iq3c wrote

The ideas are certainly adjacent and I would be remiss for not saying that the act of censorship is part of what Bradbury was writing about… sort of. Censorship inherently is the act of reducing the onus of thought to the individual, which is, at its core, the discussion he’s making, but censorship is more the product of that notion rather than the notion itself. Luckily, Bradbury was quite explicit in revealing why he wrote the book, but often cited several (linked) reasons.

His first description was that, as you alluded to, he was worried that book burning was going to spread like fire, pun intended, on the heels of WWII.

>“When I heard about Hitler burning the books in the streets of Berlin, it bothered me terribly. I was 15 when that happened, I was thoroughly in love with libraries and he [Hitler] was burning me when he did that…. The reason why I wrote Fahrenheit is that I am a library person and I am in danger of someday writing something that people might not like and they might burn. So it was only natural that I sat down and wrote Fahrenheit 451.”

But later, he describes the motivation similarly, but expounds on the seed that would instigate those behaviors, or, rather allow them to proliferate:

>“I wrote this book at a time when I was worried about the way things were going in this country four years ago [1952]. Too many people were afraid of their shadows; there was a threat of book burning. Many of the books were being taken off the shelves at that time. And of course, things have changed a lot in four years. Things are going back in a very healthy direction. But at the time I wanted to do some sort of story where I could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.”

Bradbury took care to characterize the lifestyles, archetypical beliefs, cultures, etc. which might produce a civilization that would be apathetic and more interested in panam et circenses, so to speak.

Indeed, they’re linked, which is why it’s often described as a book about censorship. But I’d submit that censorship is more of a character in the book more than the point of the book.


psibomber t1_iu4sb6v wrote

Wow, I wasn't expecting such a long response.

>“When I heard about Hitler burning the books in the streets of Berlin, it bothered me terribly. I was 15 when that happened, I was thoroughly in love with libraries and he [Hitler] was burning me when he did that

Do we not feel something similar in the modern day? Maybe not with censorship, but with propaganda, misinformation, and certain beliefs spreading?

>But at the time I wanted to do some sort of story where I could comment on what would happen to a country if we let ourselves go too far in this direction, where all thinking stops, and the dragon swallows his tail, and we sort of vanish into a limbo and we destroy ourselves by this sort of action.”

Not just a country, it is a possibility worldwide.

>Bradbury took care to characterize the lifestyles, archetypical beliefs, cultures, etc. which might produce a civilization that would be apathetic and more interested in panam et circenses, so to speak.

Older people have said that's where we are at now. I think many people do care though. I was in a reddit talk with other people who did care and had many ideas, and someone came in screaming "Why do you care?". It wasn't the first time I've been asked that. So there are a few people at that phase, but hopefully they learn to improve their 'onus of individual thought' or they stay a minority.


codamission t1_iu5ep8w wrote

Bradbury himself, early on, described censorship as a theme of the book. It is indeed a valid interpretation.


ggill1313 t1_iu5etzf wrote

Read my comment below. I’ve thoroughly outlined what Bradbury said inspired the book, redditor.


codamission t1_iu5fcfh wrote

That's rather snarky for someone interpreting a book, on reddit, dude. Chill. And if you don't want people bringing this up, don't say censorship wasn't a part of the book in your comment. Just edit it.


Ilix t1_iu1ytha wrote

Ah, the time honored tradition of restricting people’s access to information.

Glad our modern, rational society doesn’t do this…


nekomoo t1_iu2rgjn wrote

Bradbury wrote the short story (The Fireman) the novel is based on at UCLA’s library - he wasn’t a student or a professor but could freely use the books as reference and rent a typewriter for 10 cents an hour


HillbillyHobgoblin t1_iu1ucsz wrote

Hey, that's the time and place where that "self made billionaire's" parents owned that opal mine that has nothing to do with why he's so rich! /s


substantial-freud t1_iu2e2x8 wrote

Haha, you are doing a very good job of parodying the kind of idiot who believes that nonsense.


Zoesan t1_iu3wf4a wrote

The mine itself was in Zambia, but yes


[deleted] t1_iu1xy4r wrote



[deleted] t1_iu21o8f wrote



[deleted] t1_iu28uwb wrote



aboysmokingintherain t1_iu29yzg wrote

I’m kinda curious what books Dems encourage to ban? And I’m not saying “oh a boycott of tucker Carlson’s book” I mean a literal banning from a library


-BlueDream- t1_iu2kait wrote

Some democrats will try and ban media that is older and deemed racist or not inclusive to everyone…I’m generally left leaning but I think it’s bullshit. They focus too much on cancel culture and being tolerant towards everyone (like that one dr Seuss book nobody read), even for media made years ago while ignoring actual social issues like wealth inequality.


Dawnawaken92 t1_iu4s1gb wrote

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. Those downvoting us are sheeple


[deleted] t1_iu2aet8 wrote



aboysmokingintherain t1_iu2av6r wrote

Yeah i was talking more books. Twitter is a platform and a private business. You can't really expect them to play the rules of society bc they can ban you no matter what.


[deleted] t1_iu2c4jo wrote



[deleted] t1_iu2dycv wrote



aboysmokingintherain t1_iu2hk69 wrote

So they have to buy them? That’s still influencing what kids can consume. No kid can probably buy a book without their parents. So if it’s a book your parent may get mad at you’re fucked


Dawnawaken92 t1_iu4s8oj wrote

Someone's never been to a used book store. And if your polite enough. They might just give it to you.


aboysmokingintherain t1_iu5eri3 wrote

But you’re missing my message. Most kids get books from a library. Used bookstores don’t always have the books you want. And if you’re just browsing you’re not gonna find the books in question…


PhillyTaco t1_iu2uzh2 wrote

I'm skeptical there's a single person who became racist after reading a novel.


JimProphet t1_iu2hd7b wrote

I mean, they've been holding book burnings in Tennessee as recent as this year.


No-Marsupial-7385 t1_iu2vbfk wrote

F451 is about a society that bans and burns books, yes.

But more so, confirmed by Bradbury, is that the book is about people who voluntarily stop reading in favor of screens and earbuds.

They decide the the ideas in books are dangerous and that only the commercial, capitalist entertainment is acceptable.

People didn’t fight against the book bans and burning. They willingly went along.


Crabrubber t1_iu2hg57 wrote

Clarisse McClellan is the original Manic Pixie Dream Girl


pickleer t1_iu2i4e9 wrote

And was mashed up with "1984" to make the Christian Bale movie "Equilibrium", as well as having its own movie. Also, the idea for "The Book of Eli" about pulling a book out of someone's head came from "F 451`"- the hobos.


PrettyGorramShiny t1_iu2rg33 wrote

A young Jed Bartlett was once slapped in the face by his father for pointing out the irony of burning this book in protest.


Hill_Reps_For_Jesus t1_iu3b3t1 wrote

I literally only clicked on this thread to make sure somebody mentioned this


PrettyGorramShiny t1_iu4v1jq wrote

Well, based on the downvotes they hate us, but they'll have to pry my West Wing references from my cold, dead hands! #bros


lllNico t1_iu3gc5d wrote

if one thing is true, it’s that far right idiots don’t see the irony in anything. Burning books about the dangers of burning books, a god damn classic.


icpr t1_iu44ggl wrote

Education is one of the worst enemies of totalitarian governments. Ironically Bolsonaro has been cutting the funding of education in Brazil massively recently and has already vowed to intend to keep doing so in his possible second term.


codamission t1_iu5eizi wrote

Fahreinheit 451 is a remarkable book, and I frequently waver on how I feel about it.

On the one hand its a great piece on the propensity for people to willingly surrender inalienable rights. Books are not banned in the novel because of a massive totalitarian state like in 1984, books are banned due to popular demand for them to be banned. Society in the book grew resentful of books as the medium of intellectuals. When television and radio and games could deliver faster, more sensory forms of entertainment, books became the realm of thoughtful and unpleasant emotions, and were soon banned by a culture that didn't want negative emotional senses, only the instantaneous bombardment of film, tv and radio.

On the other hand, I cannot help but feel as though Bradbury descends into snobbery, shunning entire mediums of art simply because they appear by screen rather than print. His disdain for television was well known, but unjustified. We can show some of the most sophisticated and thoughtful writing of our time on television, and we do. A person listening to something on headphones may just as easily take in Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D Minor or a podcast on the History of Rome as they could a heavy metal album or a new rap single. The medium may be the message, but that doesn't mean the message is to be written off, especially when one's judgements border on elitism.

Bradbury also had some contentious opinions on the meaning of the book, and he would give different meanings throughout his life. Early on, he claimed it was about censorship and was inspired by HUAC. Later, he would say it was about the dangers of television and easy stimuli, dismissing censorship themes entirely. Personally, I never liked this kind of absolute dismissal of the censorship themes, and I remember being disappointed to read that he walked out of a guest lecture when some students at a college insisted that censorship was a valid interpretation of the book. I'm of the belief that Death of the Author is a valid method of interpreting a work, and its presence in F451 is undeniable, even if its unconventionally a form of censorship by popular demand. I mean, aren't most forms of censorship that we here about the result of popular demand rather that government overreach? Fahrenheit 451 itself would be one of a slew of books frequently named in conservative communities' calls to ban books from schools and libraries. That's government institutions trying to prevent communities from censoring art, not the other way around.

I also take issue with Bradbury's myopic idea that the answer to censorship, especially for ideas of the work being bigoted or offensive, was simply to have minority groups write their own stories. He said that if every group got to omit from art the parts that offended them, we would have bare pages. While I see what he's getting at, he fails to account for a fundamental aspect of the downtrodden or repressed. The nature of being out of power or disenfranchised is that it is significantly more difficult to have your story written, edited, and published. The poor are not as often able to write books about their perspective. Black authorship only recently took off in American history. Making sure that someone can write something bigoted and stupid may ensure that a person of color can write whatever they want, but historically, in America, it doesn't guarantee it, and there are more barriers to the creation of art than just plain censorship, whether by a government or the people.


VivaLasVegasGuy t1_iu7o4mo wrote

Interesting fact, Republicans have banned (in Republican states of course) 2,532 Books from July 2021 to June 2022, talk about the book REALLY coming true


lucifer-ase t1_iu1xl7f wrote

I wonder if Fahrenheit 451 was among the books that were burned by those right wing fanatics down south


Imrustyokay t1_iu1zrmf wrote

You know, I gotta read that book again, sometime.


Langstarr t1_iu26gsz wrote

Those who don't build must burn.


v3ryt1r3d t1_iu2j1uv wrote

Task failed successfully.


Arkaboop t1_iu2kc82 wrote

If there's one thing totalitarian governments have, it's a fucking great sense of irony.


No-Marsupial-7385 t1_iu2vj3e wrote

I live near a military base and every time the jets fly over, I think of Faber saying they do that to get us used to the sound of the jets so when the war starts we won’t be afraid.

I think about that a lot, to be honest.


TUGrad t1_iu33vy9 wrote

Sad that this is happening now in the US.


bahfafah t1_iu37nzl wrote

200 copies of the first edition were bound with asbestos covers. The book about book burning was non-inflammable!


ActiveExistential t1_iu3rwa5 wrote

This is a twisted example of “fake it til you make it”


thedankbank1021 t1_iu444zm wrote

Other fun fact. Farenheight 451 got it's name when the author called his local fire station and asked what temperature fire starts at. The fireman didn't know so conducted a little experiment by setting a book on fire and measuring the temperature. He came up with, as he reported it, "Farenheight 451". Which is pretty close, but scientists have recreated it under lab conditions and it seems like the true number is closer to 437F.


big_duo3674 t1_iu473ql wrote

I bet with different paper materials and other things like the ink used influence the combustion temperature quite a bit, I'm surprised a lab would come up with such a specific number for a widely variable thing


SnowyTheVampire t1_iu4dz83 wrote

I, a South African, learnt about this book when I was in Matric (Grade 12), 7 years ago. We had the option to read this, as part of a large selection of prescribed books, to write about in English. (I did however choose a different selection of books)


colorado_chris t1_iu4tnpv wrote

That’s irony. What’s sad is that we ban books in the USA. Nobody who banned a book was looked on favorably by history.


JerseyDad_856 t1_iu4zphb wrote

TIL that Tennessee in 2022 is like living in South Africa during apartheid


nateman133 t1_iu26dr2 wrote

Well well well, how the turns tables!


GuyM0ntag t1_iu27c0s wrote

The books are to remind us what asses and fools we are.


Moses_The_Wise t1_iu337oc wrote

One of the least surprising things I've seen here.

"Book explaining why the banning and burning of literature is a method of controlling the public is burned by a regime that bans and burns books to control the public."

Another top story: people allergic to peanuts don't often eat peanut butter.


SimonReach t1_iu3np39 wrote

Is this one of the books the Republicans banned and burned in some of the southern US states?


Radiant-Wolverine-72 t1_iu280c7 wrote

Dear Book Burners,

All these books are available on what we call the internet!!!!!!


DoodleTM t1_iu20dx5 wrote

I've read it within the last year, and I honestly can't understand what it would be banned for. It's not even a very good book.