The society's method of destroying books in Fahrenheit 451 is somewhat contradictory to the society's ethics. In a world that is so technologically advanced (Mechanical Hound, Electric-Eyed Snake, television walls, etc.), why hasn't a new method for destroying the books been developed? Fire is messy, it leaves behind soot and ash and sends tons of smoke into the air. It is wild and can become completely uncontrollable by a simple gust of wind. Perhaps collecting the books from the owner's home and sending them to a processing/destroying center, or to be recycled into products the society uses, would be more efficient than fire.Not only is fire messy and dangerous, but should burning the books be the most important goal? Rather than burning the books and demolishing the entire house, would it not be, perhaps, more important to remove the individual from the society? They have already read these books and learned their concepts. In other words, the damage has already been done. Burning their books will not remove their effects on the reader's mind. They can now go out into society and spread their knowledge, put what they have learned into action, and create more damage than the idle books.
Yes, these fires are entertainment for the neighbors, and perhaps that is why the practice is used. However, it is also possible that the flaws in the system reflect the flaws in the concept. Cencorship inhibits free speech, and as the Afterword mentions, Bradbury truly values free speech. By creating this inefficient system in his novel, he is expressing this.
Considering science fiction, futuristic novels are not my favorite genre, Fahrenheit was a decent book. It promotes deeper thoughts on topics such as what it takes to be a true hero, how to live one's life to the fullest, and what a significant contribution to the world is. The main theme, censorship, is unfathomable to me. I practice free speech every single day of my life and I love to soak in the thoughts and opinions of others. The most distressing part of the novel to me, however, was Clarisse's attempt at suicide. Suicide is the number one act I could never ever do. (Yes, murder is a close second, however there is that one exception of self defense, because allowing someone to kill me would otherwise be committing the never-can-do act #1!) I do not feel that there is any situation horrible enough where I would resort to suicide. Life is the most precious gift we will ever be given. Sure, Clarisse's life is pretty awful, but she has the ability to make it better, just as Beatty does, and he takes advantage of it.
Although Fahrenheit is a little heavy for a summer read, and looking beyond the science fiction aspect of it, I did enjoy pondering over the deeper questions the novel stimulated.
1 comment:
You mention how inefficient fire seems. I agree with you on this point to an extent. Though there are probably many better ways to actually destroy the books, the society lives in a world that relies on the entertainment value. Really, how else can you enjoy justice? Fire is actually very fun to watch. The smoke trails are so fun to observe, twisting up into the sky, where they drift off around the world, taking the evil elsewhere. So what if it can go out of control, that just makes it all the more interesting! A little extra excitement, a little surprise never hurt anyone. When Montag was being chased, what was the sole purpose of the broadcast? Not to actually catch Montag, he would be out of their hands soon enough, but to placate the people, to entertain them, to give them a little show that they can forget, like all the other shows. If something bad happens, give it something to turn it into a spectacular extravaganza.
Also, think of the purifying qualities of fire. Fire is considered to destroy not only physical matter, but is often referred to as being able to harm spiritual matter as well. Evil relics are often burnt to purify the area and destroy the being inside. Likewise, some items are burnt in an effort to release the soul within the physical prison. Fire has a very absolute quality to it, a thorough aspect of destruction. As technical and entertainment-oriented as Bradbury's world is, I doubt even they could forget the rhetoric of fire, the qualities so often sung and mused about it. As for the unpredictability, the language it consumes is often just as unpredictable. Perhaps fire is used because it shares so much in common with words. Words can be unpredictable and absolute, and can destroy just as thoroughly as fire can. All they need is a breeze of inspiration.
Post a Comment