Spiraling Into Oblivion

One of the main themes of Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 is the topic of censorship throughout the novel. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In Fahrenheit 451, though, books are banned altogether and even possessing one is crime; restricting not only freedom of speech, but also freethinking.

Bradbury never blatantly tells us why censorship has become so important in the futuristic society in which Montag and the others live. He does, though, give us a little insight as to how it got that way.

One of the main reasons books are banned in Montag’s society is because it sparks intellectual thinking, which the government does not want. The government believes that any kind of knowledge provided by books is harmful because books encourage people to question power, freedom, and society. The government also fears the fact that books have the ability to make certain people or minorities discontent. This is explained when Beatty says “Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo, burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin, burn it” (59). Eliminating the uncomforting aspects of life was the main goal of society at this time.
Another reason that books have been banned is due to the stimulation of newer technologies such as interactive televisions, which has slowly dwindled peoples’ desires to read. People would rather spend time interacting with their televisions or driving their fast cars than sitting down to read a book. Beatty states, “it didn’t come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick” (Bradbury 58).

Since the government has censored so many aspects of the society’s life, they no longer know what the needs of real families and real people are. Because everyone focuses so much on television, people do not realize that the family portrayed in the shows are another tool used by the government to control society. People do not realize that by censoring books and providing television as the only source of entertainment, their minds are manipulated so that everyone has only one point of view.

Freedoms Surrendered?

In a world where freedoms are disappearing around every turn, Fahrenheit 451 brings up an interesting perspective. In the book, Bradbury portrays a twist on the typical view of the loss of freedoms due to government regulations. As you read through the story you begin to understand that rather in contrast to the modern day view of freedoms lost to growing government regulation, the society in the book came to a near unanimous decision to forgo their right to having and reading books.

Captain Beatty explains to Montag that reading breeds differing viewpoints, which is the enemy of peace of mind, he says. Beatty tells him that after all houses were fireproofed, it was convenient to give firemen a new job, “custodians of our peace of mind…” (59). This is how the transition was made from the idea that books were not healthy for a society to the ultimate surrender of that freedom.

This is an interesting contrast to the general idea of government wrestling freedoms away from us. As seen in the book, the culture forfeited their rights and only later, partially as a result of the need to reassign the firemen, the rights are taken from them.

In our modern world, a government would not be able to revoke freedoms without a vote or there would be an uprising. One look at the current state of airport security, however, and you can see that freedoms are slowly surrendered every day by our society in the name being a safer nation.

In Fahrenheit 451, the trade-off that we observe is one of liberties for peace of mind. But as you read through the text, you will notice how, although the society agreed with the idea that books are the enemy to peace of mind, the idea wasn’t necessarily a viewpoint that originated within the culture.

So who is posing the idea that relinquishing certain freedoms to the government makes us better off? Is it a general consensus of our society, or an idea promoted by the very government offering protection?

Are We All Conformers in the End?

Throughout Fahrenheit 451, there are many symbols and motifs that demonstrate the ideas of conformity and the efforts to create equality of intelligence throughout society. For example, Beatty says to Montag, “We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the constitution says, but everyone made equal . . . A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man’s mind” (58). It is clear that Bradbury is trying to show the connection between the negative effects technology and censorship have on people’s ability to think for themselves. Bradbury conveys these ideas of censorship through characters like Beatty and Mildred, as well as roles of opposition through Montag, Faber, and Clarisse.

Montag’s boss, Beatty plays a crucial role in showing the importance of conformity, as well as having the knowledge to back up his reasoning. He argues about the content of books and how they only cause disagreements. Beatty says, “Now let’s take out the minorities in our civilization…dog lovers, cat lovers.. the bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, Remember that" (57).

Mildred is also a good example of a character that readily conforms to the ideals of censorship within the book. Based on her unwillingness to connect with any characters in the novel, let alone her husband, she is portrayed as an empty human being devoid of any warmth. This makes it difficult for readers to empathize with her and she easily serves as a perfect contrast to Clarrise McClellan. Bradbury often alludes to Mildred’s emptiness by describing Montag’s bedroom at first as “not empty” because it contains Mildred and then later as “indeed empty.”

Clarisse McClellan and Faber are very influential characters throughout this novel as well, and in contrast to Mildred and Beatty, are opposed to conformity: an ongoing theme seen throughout the novel. Clarisse is one of the first people that Montag meets, and she plays a crucial role in advancing Montag’s continuing skepticism and curiosity he has for books. Faber, the English professor that Montag encounters, is the prime example of opposition in the book, and competes with Beatty to win over Montag’s mind. Montag feels he is desperately in need of change, although, he never truly changes for himself. He still relies on other’s to tell him how to think, and this is seen when Montag says to Faber, “I’m not thinking. I’m just doing like I’m told, like always” (92). This would suggest that he is as empty and vulnerable as Mildred.

Finally, conformity and equality of intelligence is portrayed as being inevitable throughout this novel. With the use of technology and censorship, people begin to lose a sense of self and what is truly valuable or real. The question that remains: are we getting what we want out of life, or are we just as naïve as the characters in the novel?

Man vs. Himself

At various time in the novel, Ray Bradbury presents Montag questioning himself and this rebellion he has started with himself and society. This revelation of a conflict between man and himself begins with the neighborhood girl, Clarisse. During their first meeting, she questions Montag's line of work and reveals to Montag the history of the fireman and how it evolved. After further questioning, Bradbury acknowledges that Montag begins to doubt the information he already knows. Bradbury states, "He suddenly couldn't remember if he had known this or not, and it made him quite irritable" (10). Montag begins to search for his personal identity after Clarisse leaves him with the question of whether he is truly happy.

The reader sees this ambiguity throughout the novel. However, the most apparent is the conversation between Montag and Faber through the "bullet." Montag states his confusion to Faber by saying, "I'm not thinking. I'm just doing like I'm told, like always. You said get the money and I got it. I didn't really think of it myself. When do I start working things out on my own?" (92). Montag's uncertainty causes the reader to question his beliefs and later leads to ambivalence.

Montag's fluctuation in his beliefs is obvious in the scene in which he arrives to burn his own home. The impulsive decision to burn the books, which he risked his life to hide, is yet another example of Montag questioning what holds true.

Through Bradbury's revelation of this inner struggle, the reader can further question Montag's reaction if faced with adversity in the future.

Faber: Voice of Reason?

Faber was a vital character in contributing to Montag’s curiosity about books. Unlike Beatty, who says books allow one person to sense that they excel over others and cause everyone else to feel inferior, Faber says that books allow a person to think and reason about the information they have just read. He also explains that books allow people to think freely instead of being persistent and dominating like the “family.”

Montag first meets Faber when he is walking in the park. He catches Faber with a book and only after reassuring him that he is safe does Faber talk to him. Faber gives Montag his address and phone number with the option of befriending him or turning him in. Montag goes to Faber’s house after obtaining what he believed to be the last copy of the Bible. Faber then tells him, “It’s as good as I remember. Lord, how they changed it in our ‘parlors’ these days. Christ is one of the ‘family’ now” (81). What Faber means by this is that the “family” is a substitute for books. Books used to be the primary source for information, but now new media has taken over.

Montag is so used to being dependent on others to tell him how he should live his life that he looks to Faber for advice. Faber takes Montag under his wing so that he can live his life through him, seeing how easily influenced Montag is. Faber tells Montag that it is not books that he is looking for, but the meaning that they contain and what he feels about those meanings. He then gives Montag an earpiece that permits them to communicate with each other discretely. Faber tells Montag what to say when Beatty attacks him by quoting different literary works. After Beatty sees that Montag is listening to something in his ear, he knocks the earpiece out and threatens to trace it. Montag kills him with the flamethrower and flees to Faber’s house. Faber instructs Montag to follow the abandoned railroad tracks to hide. Here he finds a new “family.”

Montag rebelled against everything that the government told him to be with Faber’s help. Was Montag’s choice in befriending Faber the right choice to make? Did the knowledge that Faber gave Montag help him to achieve freedom and happiness in the end?

An F451 Reason to Watch the Oscars

Keep your eyes peeled on Sunday for Julie Christie, who was nominated for best actress in a leading role (and favored to win at that) for her part in Away from Her.

Christie, as you now know from our discussion in class, is the actress who played not one, but two roles (Linda, Montag's wife, and Clarisse) in Francois Truffaut's adaptation of Fahrenheit 451. In addition, she's usually recognized most for her role in Doctor Zhivago (1965).

What's of particular interest is that she won her previous Oscar for her role in Darling (1965) the same year that she appeared in Fahrenheit 451.

If you have a moment, take a look at the film trailer below. In addition, it looks like the critics agree that the film is excellent.

Mildred Montag: Epitome of Emptiness

Mildred Montag, the wife of Guy Montag, is a perfect representation of how a person will end up as a result of exposing themselves to meaningless media. She is brainwashed into believing that what she views through the television walls is her escape from her own reality. Her thought processes do not flow very deeply as she never questions society’s motives and, in turn, just takes them at face value. The very cause of this could be most contributed to the absence of books in her lifetime.

Mildred’s mind was very void of substance, but was filled with meaningless information from mass media. Unlike Faber and (later) Montag, Mildred and the rest of society do not learn how to think for themselves.

An example of how unsatisfied she is with the reality of her own life, she suffers an overdose of sleeping pills without even realizing what she has done. Mildred and Guy Montag speak briefly the next morning and after Guy tells her she took all of the pills, she says, “what would I want to go and do a silly thing like that for?” (19).

Mildred’s appearance also suffers due to her sedentary lifestyle. Her features are vividly described. “Her hair burnt by chemicals to a brittle straw, her eyes with a kind of cataract unseen but suspect far behind the pupils, the reddened pouting lips, the body as thin as a praying mantis from dieting, and her flesh like white bacon" (48). Guy Montag then says he cannot recall her any other way.

Mildred’s state of mind is one that begs pity, especially from Montag. The two do not communicate very frequently, but if they were to, Montag cannot think of one thing they would discuss. Mildred is so absorbed in her television “family” that she can recall many events that happened throughout the programs. Unfortunately, this causes her to have trouble recalling some of the most basic details from her own life such as how she met her husband.

Not only does Mildred not question society’s role, she embraces the control it has over everyone by begging Guy Montag to purchase a fourth television wall so she can feel “like this room wasn’t ours at all, but all kinds of exotic people’s rooms” (20-21).

Mildred is a prime example of where today’s society is going. The growing impact of technology on peoples’ lives is leading to the downfall of individualistic thinking. The media is constantly dictating what should and should not be done and society is becoming more prone to accepting these ideals.

From the Lighter Side of Censorship

Check out Deadspin's hilarious take on China's recent reaction to international criticism of their human rights record. In short, they decided to ban scary movies for the duration of the Olympic games. Per the Yahoo story:

The new guidelines aim to "control and cleanse the negative effect these items have on society, and to prevent horror, violent, cruel publications from entering the market through official channels and to protect adolescents' psychological health."

So, go ahead, have a good laugh at China's expense. But then remember, they're really banning these films.

Beatty: Friend or Foe?

Captain Beatty is an intricate character in the novel, Fahrenheit 451, who brings forth controversy throughout the storyline. Beatty explains books to be a cause of unhappiness in society and that the persistence of reading books would only cause disruption. However, he utilizes the knowledge learned from his own reading of books to deceitfully shape Montag's opinion of his profession's intentions. There are many times that occur in the book in which Beatty uses his knowledge of literature.

Following Montag's stealing of a book, Beatty arrives to talk to Montag as if he is already aware of Montag's crime. Ironically, during this part of the story, the reader first realizes Beatty's vast knowledge of books and the skewing of literary works to explain the reason for the burnings. Beatty takes advantage of Montag's ignorance of books by altering a quote from the Declaration of Independence; however, he introduces the passage as being from the Constitution. The Captain argues, "Not everyone born free and equal as the Constitutions says, but everyone made equal" (58). In a way, his speech is projected in a regretful tone. The reader could later question whether Beatty chose his job after the corruption of books or to simply have legal access to books through his authorative occupation.

From Montag's point of view, who has never heard of the Constitution before, the quote means nothing. However, the reader recognizes its great importance. The reader must then question who makes this mistake and if it is on purpose. Is it Beatty or Bradbury?

Although Beatty has had the inclination of Montag’s secret for a while, he chose not to say anything until now and allows the protagonist 24 hours to do as he pleases before the book is destroyed. This affair causes the reader to inquire whether the Captain is truly the antagonist of the book.

In addition, during Beatty and Montag's second meeting, (while playing poker) Beatty recalls his personal experience about reading. The Captain claims that chaos is the only result of reading. He compares reading as going insane and continues with, "Bang, you're ready to blow up the world, chop off heads, knock down women and children, destroy authority. I know, I've been through it all" (106).

Beatty then declares that the destruction of books leads to more happiness and equality. Through the argument fact there is no need for any critical thinking, he reveals that the world is a more satisfying place to live. However, Montag later realizes after Beatty’s death that the Captain may have allowed Montag to kill him as a form of suicide. Was Beatty truly against the information literature had to offer?

Along with the many other questions that arise after recognizing Beatty's point of view. Why does Beatty use literature to justify his means? Is he doing it for enjoyment or is he simply salvaging his friendship with Montag?

NEA Report on Dire State of Reading in the United States

In the previous post, the editorial from the BR Advocate hinted at the recent reports published by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) suggesting that the nation's reading habits were on the decline.

The report, published in November of last year, is indeed sobering. Have a look at the entire report here. In summary, the report concluded the following:
1. Americans are spending less time reading.
2. Reading comprehension skills are eroding.
3. These declines have serious civic, social, cultural, and economic implications.

How troubling are their findings? Here are a few quick-hit headlines:

1. Young adults a reading fewer books in general. In fact, they found that nearly half of all Americans ages 18-24 read no books for pleasure.

2. Reading is declining as an activity among teenagers.

• Less than a one-third of 13-yr-olds are daily readers.


• The percentage of 17-year-olds who read nothing at all for pleasure has doubled over a twenty year period. Yet the amount that they read for school or home-work has stayed the same.

3. College attendance no longer guarantees active reading habits.

• 65% of college freshman read for pleasure for less than an hour per week or not at all.


• The percentage of non-readers among these students has nearly doubled.


• By the time they become college seniors, one on three students read nothing at all for pleasure within a given week.
  

Other points of interest:

• Even when reading does occur, it competes with other media. This multi-tasking suggests less focused engagement with the text.


• American families are spending less on books than at almost any other time in the past two decades.


• Reading proficiency rates are stagnant or declining in adults of both genders and all education levels.

Why it matters:
1. Reading for pleasure correlates strongly with academic achievement.

• Voluntary readers are better readers and writers than non-readers.


• Children and teenagers who read for pleasure on a daily or weekly basis score better on reading tests than infrequent readers.


• Frequent readers also score better on writing tests than non-readers or infrequent readers.

2. Employers now rank reading and writing as top deficiencies in new hires.

• One in five US workers read at a lower skill level than their job requires.


• Remedial writing courses are estimated to cost more than $3.1 billion for large corporate employers and $221 million for state employers.

3. Good readers generally have more financially rewarding jobs.

4. Good readers play a crucial role in enriching our cultural and civic life. In fact, literary readers are more than 3 times more likely as non-readers to visit museums, attend plays or concerts, and create artworks of their own. They are also more likely to play sports, attend sporting events, or do outdoor activities.

5. Good readers make good citizens. In fact, literary readers are more than twice as likely as non-readers to volunteer or do charity work.

Be sure to read the full report for more information.

Editorial from the BR Advocate on F451

Have a look at this editorial published in today's Baton Rouge Advocate. One of the most effective parts of the piece is found in its reminder that Bradbury's book posits a world where book burning has become the response to the public's overall flagging interest in reading. In other words, in Bradbury's book, people don't want to read, they'd rather watch "The Family" on their wall-screens. The firemen/book burners of Bradbury's novel are only a secondary response to this lack of interest. I thought their point coincided nicely with a discussion we had early in our reading of the novel.

Bradbury's jeremiad, we said, is only partially about reading. His overriding lament is the loss of critical thought. It's not the seashell headphones Mildred uses, the wall-screen tvs, or "The Family" television show that Bradbury objects to, but how they consume/watch/listen to these programs.

The question I had after reading the editorial was this: isn't it possible to read a book in the same way that Mildred watches television? That is, reading passively without ever really considering the work's major ideas, arguments, or themes. What if reading alone isn't a silver bullet for encouraging critical thought? Just reading may not be enough. Bradbury's novel suggests that it is how we read that is important.

Article on Bradbury's Indebtedness to Cinema

Check out this story in the Peoria Journal-Star about the influence of popular culture and cinema on Ray Bradbury's writing style.

Sam Weller, a Bradbury biographer (who, as it turns out, will be speaking in BR on March 1st), argues that "Bradbury may be the first author of literature to have his sense of narrative altered by cinematic style."

The question I had after reading the article, though, is how Weller would resolve Bradbury's significant interest in popular culture (which, the writer says, Bradbury "absorbed...like a sponge in the 1930s") and his searing critique of popular culture, television, and mass media that we see in F451.

Welcome

Welcome to the blog for ENGL 2000. Throughout the semester we'll use this space to foster discussion as we consider how our texts critique the social and political uses of literacy, censorship, and writing.

Though I'll serve as moderator, everyone is encouraged to start new discussions, post relevant links, etc. in addition to your regular group contributions.

-JB