By reading Fahrenheit I suddenly realised the importance of books since I got to read about a world without them. Without books people are limited to their thinking and acts as a control by the government. I think people should be allowed to access information and they could judge by themselves what’s right and wrong not just ban the books. It restricts the freedom of speech making people clueless on what’s been hiding from them.The government can more easily controlled and not many people may rebel the government or even realising what they’re doing. An example of a person controlled by the government is Montag’s wife since she only likes to watch TV and only wanted to receive information only not by thinking but just being feed of the television. Books are a source of knowledge a way writers communicate and pass on their thoughts, ideas and experience to the readers and by banning books the negatives outweighs the benefits so in my opinion, Montag did the right thing to rebel against the law.
In Fahrenheit 451 books are banned and most people does not take it much into consideration and instead take interests into other forms of media. In my opinion, books provide more imagination which surprised me that people in the book all ignores them and only take interest in televisions and other forms of media which only provide people with “ready” information. In the real world people usually questions things that’re suspicious but in the book only a few is like Clarisse, which in the real world should be a majority of people. The other thing I find interesting is the fact that most people in the book are like zombies and they’re ignorant because they agree to whatever the government tells them to do and agree with them on what they told them like thinking that books are bad and should be banned. This is the part of the book in which I find the book unrealistic and inaccurate since people in real world and in the book are completely different.
We all know that the government banned books since that they think it’s risky to them, if people read and have a right to speak what they think. So I wonder what people in the book think about this policy. In my opinion, I think the younger people wouldn’t consider this policy and big question. However, I think there some older people who would have form a group that would stand up against the law to speak out what they think. I guess this is because the past time that wasn’t present in the book, the government might haven’t banned the books. So older people get to read and understand what is right or wrong and have the right to speak out.
“Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking. They’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.”
Despite books being banned, the people in the world of Fahrenheit 451 are surrounded by mass media and chocked full of arbitrary facts. Unlike the futuristic worlds of other famous English-language dystopian novels such as Orwell’s 1984, the government in Fahrenheit 451 does not produce propaganda to discourage the reading of books. This is because they do not need to. As Beatty explains, people gradually began to find it more convenient to consume media when it is condensed rather than in its full form- “everything boils down to the gag, the snap ending.” With the rise of mass media, books in their full form gradually became obsolete and people are reduced passivity due to the wealth of convenience in their lives.
The government of Fahrenheit 451 does not need to take great measures in prohibiting free thought as they do in 1984, because people are so occupied with empty pleasures and thoughtless consumption that they do not have time to think. To the characters in the novel, “life is immediate, the job counts, pleasure lies all about after the work.” The convenience in their lives has led to their extreme passivity, and they do not bother “learning anything save pulling buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts.” Montag does not even stop to question what he is doing with his life until Clarisse – whose unaffected nature and gentle curiosity provides a catalyst for the onset of Montag’s intellectual awakening – questions him on it. He does not even realise that he does not love his wife because he is not accustomed to thinking.
With the popularity of mass media and technological convenience, people are reduced to mindless consumption and do not even stop to question the nature of their own occupations, and things in life that truly matter are drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
People choose to see what they want to see. By not knowing the truth, let people live without stress, and everyone can enjoy living day by day senselessly. People only care about them self and decided to look over responsibilities. As people don’t read anymore books and only listen to the news past television etc. which cause the job call Fireman to born. The purpose for fireman is to burn books
“It was a pleasure to burn. It was a special pleasure to see things eaten, to see things blackened and changed.”
As these sentences were written at the beginning of the story to describe that Montag thought it was great to burn the book. As Montag become a firemen to search the meaning of his life and to destroy the ” Bad Books ” However, after the woman’s death, Montag’s attitude changed differently.
I think Ray Bradbury is trying to make us think that there must be a reason why the old woman decided to die with the burning books in her house, which makes Montag become curious and had stolen a book from the old woman’s house. Later, when he becomes a victim himself, he suddenly understand that there is no right to burn the books, and the old woman’s life
After reading the book I realised that Montag at the beginning of the book and at the end of the book are like two completely opposite characters. He evolved into another person. In the begining of the book he likes to his jobs and his determinations are sky high when it comes to burning books. He started changing after he met Clarisse McClellan when he started questioning his job and the society. Moreover, another main reason he changed is that he secretly started reading books and that changed his ideal since he started to think more on why he did it. In addition, the case that the lady that burned herself Towards the end of the book, Montag seems to have a different bone in his body since he killed one of his fellow fireman. Montag in the beginning of the book absoulutely no way would’ve done something like that to another fireman but he changed and was be able to pull it off. I think the way we saw Montag’s character development was quite sudden and fast. In my opinion, the way Montag changed is in a positive why because I don’t think the way the fireman burn books are the right thing to do.
By the other book, I actually mean one particular book that has several similarities to the Fahrenheit 451, ‘The Giver’. I’m not sure if anyone ever read this book, therefore allow me to briefly explain the theme of the book. ‘the Giver’ is essentially an event that set in the distance future where the people in the community were taken away ‘choices’, meaning that, everyone in the community was assigned everything in their life such as job and recreational activity. The book takes the idea to the extreme by also taking away colour and the idea of death from the people.
The theme which the writers of both books wanted to portray to the readers are essentially the same, which is the idea of the of censorship and limitation of freedom, simply said, modern day’s meaning of communism. Both books portrayed the protagonists as a person who, in the beginning, live happily inside the controlled atmosphere, and later learned the truth behind the censorship they had been obeying and decided that they are going against the system.
After reading both books, I’m actually bewildered by the fact that the only thing that keeps the
protagonists troubled is the fact that they ‘know’ what is actually going on. Their life would be
much easier, much simpler, and much happier. There was a quote by Captain Beatty saying: “people just wanted to be happy, and we are helping them” which makes me think, will life really be much easier and happier if we do not know anything? It is true that ignorance is a bliss? Captain Beatty’s monologue was so well written that it weaver my democratic resolution.
When I read Fahrenheit 451, I immediately feel that so many things are out of place and are rather irrational. For example, judging by the way several characters such as Mrs Bowles, who show lacks of empathy and thoughts into the fact that she had married three times and one of her husband died in the war, or character such as Mrs. Phelps who shows lack of interest in the matter of engaging intelligence thought and cried as she listen to the poem. I feel that it is practically impossible for people in this particular setting is able to actually innovate any idea and technologies such as those wall TVs. This is just a brief example of the things that are out of place in this book. For this reason, I found it hard to actually feel engage into the events inside the book.
In Fahrenheit 451, Beatty was portrayed as a main antagonist of the story who was briefly described as an “enemy of freedom.” However, I disagree that the captain was truly the culprit. Captain Beatty seems to accept that the country would be better without books rather than just following the law and crowds, he had his own reasoning. In the conversation the captain had with Montag in page 138, captain countered everything Montag may have quoted from the book to show that books do not give true wisdom to the readers. This proved that captain Beatty actually had read a number of books and had decided for himself that the books are “meaningless”
and “controversial.” Rather than trying to prevent the citizens from accessing the knowledge
like a typical dictator, I feel that Captain Beatty actually do not want the people in his city
to be exposed the sadness and confusion by reading books. He is perhaps, the loving and
overprotective father of this country.
This makes me wonder, what did Beatty actually thought and wanted when he handed the flame thrower to Montag? His action was very irrational, the policeman just handed the gun to the offender, what did he expect Montag to do with it? My personal guess would be that Beatty wanted to test Montag, to test that will guy be able to prove him wrong, about the books and everything he believed because deeply, Beatty may started to feel like what he has been doing is wrong this whole time and wanted Montag to decided it for him.
When i first opened the book, having partially forgot what the story was about, I was surprised by the first line: “It was a pleasure to burn.” It made the narrator sound like a pyromanic. Quite soon after I found that this was not the case. By the end, Montag starts thinking that he has left no mark on this earth or contributed to the world. But I think that he made a huge contribution. His act of rebellion probably made other people want to speak up about their own ideas and opinions. Faber also felt guilty that he didn’t do anything to prevent the book burning. He felt that he was the only person that was against the idea. But he contributed as well, Faber would talk to Montag in his ear, trying to prolong any danger her could. Maybe if the story continued he would do more with his knowledge and power from the books.