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.