Fahrenheit 451 MP3 CD – Unabridged, December 9, 2014

Fahrenheit 451 is one of my all time favorites. It's written in the third person, placing you into the shoes of an objective narrator who has special access to the thoughts and world view of the characters within the book, especially that of the protagonist. The protagonist (Guy Montag) actually begins the story as a sort of villain really. His profession is that of a future based fireman, who don’t really put out fires like they used to. In fact, they professionally start fires. What a clever twist on Bradbury’s part.These firemen are sanctioned by what one can only conclude to be a dystopian government to burn books, as well as the houses they are contained within. In this future world, the government has deemed books as dangerous, containing ideas that run counter to the narrative they wish to form and broadcast via televisions that cover entire walls within people’s homes. And the people want this, as they feel more comfortable with their government fed information. How dystopian indeed.Reminds one of the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church during the Dark Ages. The two have book burning in common, as well as burning Bibles (in the case of the RCC, Bibles that didn’t subscribe to their criteria – even though they came from source material originating from the same authors). No offense to Catholics – some Protestant sects weren’t much better (like the early Anglicans who destroyed much of the Church’s property, including relics, as did Orthodox Christians during the Iconoclast Era).Montag takes quite apparent joy in his job, causing a smile to overcome his face every time he gets to burn those devilish books. That is, until he becomes intrigued by a young neighbor girl named Clarisse. Clarisse is a female character that many feminists sadly overlook as to her importance in the overall arc of the story. Good on Bradbury for taking this approach, as you know what they say – “behind every great man, there’s an even greater woman”. This doesn’t always have to imply a spouse, mind you, and Bradbury exploited this fact while using Montag’s lame wife as a great contrast.Clarisse is somehow able to tap into Montag’s emotional capacity to better understand what exactly his job is harming, and how his otherwise dull life (including dull wife who serves as a great example of the brainwashed zombie like people of his society) could become so much more enriched by. This confrontation with not only Clarisse – but himself – causes a sort of psychosis for our villainous protagonist. And thus begins his character development that makes the book really begin to take off and hook the reader into the protagonist’s story arc and growth.At first, Montag struggles with his newfound understanding of the profound beauty of books. He is intrigued by the sense of wonder, emotion, and timelessness that books have to offer compared to the mind numbing talking heads that rule the day (sounds similar to our times with all the political talking heads telling how people should think, unlike books that allow people to draw their own conclusions). Yet he is still skeptical, resisting this newfound understanding as he continues in his line of work.He challenges the notion of books being a net positive for society along the way, including challenging protectors of books along the way. All of this amidst some unknown war going on in the background of the story that is never really described in much detail. I assume that Bradbury himself had assumed (living in the days of the Cold War between the US and the USSR) that some kind of war of that magnitude coming to fruition was sadly somewhat inevitable.As his change of heart is occurring, he struggles with his chief named Beatty (the antagonist of the story). Beatty is a walking contradiction, as he is full of knowledge pertaining to the books they burn. He is so well versed in their content by heart, yet seeks to eliminate books from existence on behalf of the government.Unlike Montag who simply found pleasure in his destructive line of work, Beatty knows full well every reason and intention as to why they do and takes pleasure in doing so. This, all while being so well versed in the knowledge and insights contained within them. He overall sees them as dangerous, yet behaves as if the type of knowledge contained within books should be reserved for elites rather than the average citizen. This antagonist displays the kind of pretentious attitude that perfectly captures what it means to convey the notion of a dystopian society within a book of this genre.After trials and tribulations in his struggle, Montag reaches a point where he is so moved by the message of a particular book, that he even steals it so that he can preserve it himself. As a Christian myself, I personally loved that this book just so happened to be a Bible. Why does Montag take such a personal infatuation with the Bible?It may be that Montag’s society is so lost that when bombs begin to fall toward the end, whatever Montag had read might help him and others rebuild society for the better. After all, the Bible is full of advice, and provides direction for moral and ethical enrichment. Certainly a new society would need guidelines to rebuild and improve over mistakes made in the past.Montag refers to the book of Job at one point in the story, as well as references made about Caanan. At the end, Montag even tries to recall parts of the books of Ecclesiastes and Revelation. The book of Revelation itself (arguably my favorite book of the Bible – I’m a fan of the dystopian genre after all) deals with the end of times. Although, perhaps Montag failed to recall this as quickly as he might because they are preparing to start a new life when the world appears to be ending.The novel ends with Montag escaping the city in the midst of this new war. He escapes deep into the countryside, meeting a band of roving intellectuals who have elected to preserve significant works of literature in their memory. Reminds me of the Vaudois, the Waldenses and the Albigenses who preserved the original books of scripture in spite of the persecution they suffered from the RCC.Not long after these roving intellectuals welcome Montag into their community, an atomic bomb falls on the city and reduces it to rubble. The next morning Montag leads the men on foot back toward the city with rebuilding in mind. The novel’s conclusion functions to bring the prevalent violence to its logical conclusion, which is that violence infiltrates nearly every aspect of the world our protagonist finds himself in.The firemen violently destroy people’s property and lives. Television displays gruesome, desensitizing violence for viewers’ entertainment. Pedestrians regularly get trampled by speeding vehicles. Finally, war takes these forms of violence to a new extreme, destroying society and its infrastructure altogether. The novel’s ending depicts the inevitable self-destruction of such an oppressive society in such an effective, and rather melancholy fashion.As stated in the beginning of the Fahrenheit 451 book review, this book is one of my all time favorites. It’s no wonder as to why I give it a 5/5 rating. Bradbury’s use of language is lyrical, yet not overly forceful. He paints a picture of a world in which we as a society should wish to avoid – in a multifaceted way.When it comes to dystopian books, this is truly a classic – and for good reason. Not only was it tremendous back in its heyday; it has stood the test of time, proving to be of use to us nearly 70 years later. I absolutely love Fahrenheit 451, and I believe you would too if you love dystopian fiction and have happened to somehow not have read it yet (it happens – later is better than never though!).

It is apparently agreed that the main theme of this novel, "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury, is that the censorship and physical elimination of books will lead to a dystopian nightmare.But this is not the main theme of this novel. The main theme is given on page 104: Faber (channeling the author) says to montag: "But remember that the Captain [fire Captain Beatty] belongs to the most dangerous enemy to truth and freedom, the solid unmoving cattle of the majority. Oh, God, the terrible tyranny of the majority."Author dehumanizes the majority of people as "cattle" and the "enemy." There have been many terrible examples of where this kind of dehumanization can lead.The main theme: the majority of people are so defective, stupid, callous, incurious, gullible, envious, etc that democracy (rule by the people) cannot succeed and must lead to a hyper-conformist, totalitarian, ultra-repressive dystopian nightmare.This theme reverberates throughout the entire novel. Surprisingly this nightmare society is a democracy. The authorities in Montag's city regularly hold free elections, and the people can vote for anyone they want to. The elected officials do everything they can to gratify the desires of the voting public. And so this results in the nightmare described.Bradbury describes the voters (p.93) as too stupid and superficial to make an informed decision as to whom to vote for.Bradbury speaks through Faber, Granger, Clarisse, and sometimes through Montag and fire Captain Beatty.Montag's city is destroyed in just a couple seconds because the regime is frequently going to war and without any public debate at all. Why? Because the people does not want to debate these or any issues. It wants the regime to make the decisions for them.Fire Captain Beatty (speaking for the author) explains to Montag (p.56) that people "live for" and just want to have "fun," "pleasure," "titillation," and to be "happy." And so the democratic regime provides these to the people. The author apparently believes that people (or the majority of) do not seek meaning, but only fun & pleasure. This is of course not true.The author is a misanthrope. He consistently describes the "common" people as stupid, violent, envious, callous, incurious, gullible, superficial, etc who want other people (the politicians) to make decisions for them.The author believes the answer lies in getting rid of democracy and instituting an aristocracy (a government or state ruled by an aristocracy, an elite, or a privileged upper class). It's not a coincidence that Granger (a character the author clearly loves and speaks through) is "Plato's Republic" (p.144), a work that describes the ideal society as rigidly hierarchal and ruled by a philosopher-king. Plato hated democracy and felt it led to tyranny, and the author shares these views. And the author doesn't make any attempt to hide these opinions. They permeate the entire novel.The author postulates that sometime between the 1950s, when this novel first appeared, and 2049 CE, when it is apparently set, the people of the United States will voluntarily and democratically decide to institute the horrible nightmare dystopia described. Did this prediction come true ? No. There are 27 years left, but is seems unlikely.The novel is a very emotional (indeed hysterical) screed against democracy and the people and for the author's belief that only an aristocracy can save them. The novel is enormously tendentious.The author never precisely explains how this nightmare scenario emerges. He gives clues. Among other causes, he (speaking as Beatty) blames "minorities" (p. 54-57). He says they complained about being discriminated against and portrayed negatively. The author apparently wants "minorities" to just shut up.Beatty (speaking for the author, p.55) explains the public wanted books eliminated, so the democratic government got rid of them.Faber (speaking for the author, p.83) explains to Montag: "The public itself stopped reading of its own accord." Does this seem at all likely ? No. Just more of the author's ever-present misanthropy and bias.The author (speaking as Clarisse, p.27-28) endorses spanking children. Clarisse explains: "They [earlier generations] believed in responsibility, my uncle says. Do you know, I'm responsible. I was spanked when I needed it, years ago. And I do all the shopping and housecleaning by hand." Also the author is endorsing a gendered division of labor. Does spanking children lead to "responsibility" ? It seems unlikely. Author apparently believes technology gives ordinary people too much free time to think which they can't productively use because they are defective.Beatty (speaking for author, p.51) explains that increasing population size inevitably means the intellectual infantilization of the entire society. Is this true ? I don't see why it would be.The author (in the scene between Montag and his wife's friends) wants important issues to be discussed and questions to be asked (p.92-98), but he only wants some questions to be asked and only his preferred "answers" to be given. That Montag reads "Dover Beach" by Matthew Arnold to these women is not a coincidence. The author (speaking through Montag) clearly believes a lessening of religiosity and increasing secularism are the signposts of a degenerate society and will lead to disaster. Has this disaster happened ? No.Near the end of the novel (p.151-153), Montag's city (Bradbury hates cities) is destroyed by enemy bombing. This is the author's view of the inevitable result of allowing "the majority" to rule.Granger ("Plato's Republic" and a character the author clearly loves) says (p.150-151) to Montag: "Ask no guarantees, ask for no security, there never was such an animal." He says that anyone getting, wanting "security" would be a "sloth," "sleeping its life away." Clearly he is a Libertarian. Is it true that, when people have "security," they "sleep" their lives away ? No it's not.The political stances of the novel are consistent throughout: the endorsement of aristocracy, authoritarianism, elitism, misanthropy, hostility to democracy, etc. And conservatism, elitism, authoritarianism, aristocracy, hierarchy as the "answer," "solution" to the democratic dystopian nightmare presented.A hard right-wing conservative reactionary reading this book would find NOTHING to complain about. Some people say this novel is "satire." Clearly some parts of the book are satirical, but others aren't.I did an Internet search: "Ray Bradbury conservative," and I learned that he was a "tea-party icon" and that he hated President Clinton & loved President Reagan. Having read this novel, I'm not even remotely surprised.I'm not saying that people shouldn't read this book, but they should be aware that the burning, censoring of books is NOT the main theme. It's surprising that a novel that expresses such repulsive political, social, philosophical ideas should become a science-fiction "classic."A person could write an entire book on the bad ideas in this novel.I believe that Ray Bradbury saw increasing liberalism after World War Two as a "threat" to truth and freedom and that this "threat" is the main theme of this novel.

I read the first four or five pages four or five times. Once I got myself into "dystopian" mode, then I was flying. Frankly, this book blew me away. Published in 1953, the future Bradbury imagined has well and truly arrived. I'm not talking about "robo dog" and book burning in a literal sense, but the mind numbing effect of social media, the empty diet of visual pap and meaningless tripe so many of us call "entertainment" So many scenes in this book stand out; slap you hard in the face for being willfully ignorant about important issues; for being politically apathetic. Let's hope that we will be spared the cataclysmic ending Bradbury envisioned. The writing is efficient rather than lyrical, but the intellectual content is astounding. Would recommend.

Fahrenheit 451 is a book I would probably have said I'd read if you'd asked me. I could probably have told you the basic premise: a dystopian land where books are banned and 'Firemen' don't put out fires any more. I might well have read it and - rather counter to the spirit of the book - then pretty much forgotten it. And that's kind of sad because this book is one that most readers know about, a book that challenges the things we love, and yet it's also not really all that great. I hate to say it but it's a little bit forgettable.It's a short novel and a quick read and it lights the flicker of a flame of thinking about the power of books but it's all just so rushed, so fast to develop and accelerate, that a lot of the opportunities to explore deeper are missed. Montag the fireman - one of the elite who set fire to books, burn people's houses to punish them for the knowledge in their books - witnesses an old lady start a fire and kill herself because she can't be without her books, and meets a young girl who tells him there's so much more to books then just fuel for his fires. He takes a book and becomes part of the anti-establishment.In the foreword to the book, Ray Bradbury tells us he spent less than 10 dollars hiring the use of a typewriter to write Fahrenheit 451. Sadly sometimes it shows. This is just the bare bones of a story, lacking the meat to flesh it out into something more satisfying, more horrifying. It was written in the 1950s with the Nazi book burnings still fresh in people's minds but long before the wall-to-wall round the clock interactive television experiences that Bradbury envisions. For its time it must have been revolutionary. Today it just looks a bit tired and much too rushed.

This is a classic novel that I have never got round to reading. I came across it recently being compared to a modern dystopian novel and thought it would be interesting to read this book to see if it had aged well. It may also be curious to see if any of it elements have come true (it was published in 1953).At 225 pages split into three parts this book is small, particularly when its larger than average font is considered.It's a long time since I've read a Ray Bradbury book (since I studied The Illustrated Man in 1983!!). I have little interest in science fiction or fantasy novels although enjoy some dystopian novels so I approached this cautiously but hopefully.There is a great quote at the start of the book "If they give you ruled paper, write the other way". Maybe this is a hint of the rebellion in this book.I always ignore introductions to "classic" books as they are usually written by sycophantic admirers and give away too much of the novel (note to publishers... always put these at the end of novels not the beginning). This introduction is written by the author himself and worth reading - it gives context and sets the scene of him writing the story.I tried very hard to enjoy this book but it was ultimately too much of a struggle and took a huge amount of time to read. The language is overplayed with some of the descriptive sections not actually describing anything at all. I wanted to try to get to know the characters but didn't get anywhere close.I love the idea of the concept of TV taking over from books and how this effects society so was unsure how this author managed to make the narrative so uninspiring.The novel was controversial when it was released and I can see why but the world has moved very far since then and, without the shock factor, this book is more of a curiosity than a classic.

Guy Montag is a fireman, but in his world, firemen start fires rather than extinguish them. His job is to rid the world of the last vestiges of literature by burning the houses of people found to possess the contraband items. His wife, Mildred (Millie), is obsessed with TV programmes & listening to never-ending noise on her earbuds, but doesn't want to question why this makes her unhappy. Montag also doesn't question what he does or how they live until he meets, Clarisse (early Manic Pixie Dream Girl alert!!), a young teenage neighbour who talks about things that Montag never really thought about before. When Clarisse disappears, Montag spirals into behaviour that will ultimately threaten his marriage, his job, & even his life.Finally got around to reading this one folks, & it's...OK. I wasn't blown away by it as I found the characters all a bit hard to like or empathise with. The female characters especially are very thinly drawn, with Clarisse & Millie nowhere near being fully fleshed characters who the reader can care about. There's quite a bit of casual cruelty (treatment of animals, & the car full of young people who try to run Montag over just for fun), especially the killing of an innocent man just for ratings. To me, the author is trying to say a lot about censorship, apathy, & the dumbing down of standards, but it gets lost in the overly florid writing style. 2.5 stars (rounded up to 3 on sites which don't allow half star ratings).

Fire Is Bright And Fire Is CleanThe first thing that struck me was the style. It reads a bit like a fairy tale - Brothers Grimm - the language at times has a poetic quality, at times even puerile. The pace is unusually fast. There are no chapters as such, just the three parts and the book burns through fiercely. But there are some important messages going on here and some warnings about the unpredictable or perhaps even predictable course society is following. If they are not burning books they will be censoring the internet. It is about control. We all know the historical precedents. So for me this book is a reminder to be vigilant!There is a very telling dialogue with Beatty, Montag`s fireman colleague who sets out very clearly the reasons why people need to be controlled. This episode is striking and deserves close attention.I was reminded a bit of Orwell`s Animal Farm in that we have a fairly short story with a surreal like quality but with a very powerful message at its core and a warning of the perils which are ever present.