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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments