Fahrenheit 451 - Spoilers > Likes and Comments

I read this novel awhile ago and found the concept to be incredibly interesting. I am not usually one for dystopian-esque novels, but there was something very unique about the plotline that I really enjoyed. I am looking forward to seeing what everyone else thinks!

Fabulous book. I have recently discovered the awesome power of the dystopian novel...

Did folks finish this one? What did you think? I found it more enjoyable (and less frightening) than 1984 and Brave New World.

I read this one quite a while ago. I definitely need to do a re-read though. I do love a good dystopian-esque novel.

Hope wrote: "I have read all 3 at least twice b/c I liked them so much.
Ayn Rand wrote *Anthem* and Lois Lowry wrote a young adult book * The Giver* you might try."

I liked The Giver, read Atlas Shrugged but haven't read Anthem

I read Oryx and Crake! Very interesting and thought provoking.....but also very strange. It definitely took some time to process what I had read.

Is this the extent of the discussion? Or is there another discussion that I missed?

Alicia wrote: "Is this the extent of the discussion? Or is there another discussion that I missed?"

Sorry Alicia, I am afraid we did not get much discussion going for this book. Hopefully we will revisit this one again and get something going. And we do keep the book threads open, maybe we can get some more interest in this thread.

Anyone else still reading?

I don't think that a lot of people read this one. I read it a few years ago, so I'm afraid I don't remember all of the lesser details, but I do remember enjoying the novel. I was hoping that a few comments about the plot would help to refresh my memory. Did you have something to discuss? It might help to jump start some comments!

Yes, it has been many years since I've read this one. I am afraid I will need to re-read in order to be able to add to the discussion.

My life is hectic at the moment so I am still reading it. Hoping to finish this weekend.

Finished it this evening. I would not add this to my bookshelf for a re-read. I found the similarities in the book to many of the things we do today to be disconcerting.

I finally got to read this one! And I´m glad I did, even though I´m not a dystopian fan. But this was much more real and scary than today´s dystopian books. I can´t believe this was written in 1953, could have been any day. I think it reflect todays social media greatly and also the what-you-can-say -debate (for example related to religions). I think this should be a must read (if there should be such a thing!).

I think this is a book where the majority of readers see something a bit different than Bradbury intended. Bradbury has stated that the book isn't about censorship.

To me, it very clearly is about censorship. Bradbury has written enough stories about censorship for me to think was a little silly of him to claim that this particular one isn't. But it's not only about censorship.

For someone who's thought of as a sci-fi writer, Bradbury has a rather ambivalent relationship towards technology. For Bradbury, the biggest issue wasn't that the books were burned, but that the books weren't valued to begin with.

His argument was, basically, that TV would rot your brain, and make it so that you can't concentrate long enough to read novels - only short stories, if you read at all. I find that rather ironic coming from someone who primarily wrote short stories (even this novel was a set of short stories first) and wrote screen plays.

Something that I've gathered from reading Bradbury is that he really, really valued the idealized small-town America he remembered from his childhood; anything that differed from that was undesirable. He remembered a time when people took long walks, or sat out on their porches, or talked to their neighbors. The decline of the community was as much of an issue for him (IMO) as the censorship was.


Anyway, that's just my two cents after having read lots and lots of Bradbury over the years.

I liked the book very much. I loved the writing style, the story, the main points. I just thought that the end was little weak. I was very tangled up in the story, but then the end was just a little bit flat for me. However, it is a wonderful book and I will read it again for sure!

I agree that the end was weak and that kept me from giving it a higher rating. Once you put the work out there in the world, it means whatever it means to the reader, and for me it was definitely about censorship and the control of knowledge to control the people.

I can relate to Bradbury's lamenting the loss of the community and simpler times. I can remember when everyone gathered on the porch, traded stories and played music and sang. I have spent hours shelling peas and listening to my grandmother talk about her life as a child. We have lost a lot to technology.

I actually found the second half of the book quite captivating. The ending is abrupt and shocking - it's interesting to compare this sudden shocking event with the shocking world that preceded it. I think the shock in the end acts as a stimulus for more thought and enhances the storyline ... for the characters who suddenly find themselves facing an unexpected reality in which their mission or vision needs to be put into practice.

So I didn't think it was a weak ending. In the story, everyone is alerted to the fact that there is a war, yet they pursue things that are more trivial in comparison (Montag comments on this, his pursuit versus the war) and fail to heed the consequences of it (they seem to careless, continuing with their TV-watching lives). Contrast this with the worst possible outcome of the war ... the city is wiped clean because of it.

The terrible event that signals the loss of so many lives is a tragedy, and for Montag, it causes him to immediately reflect on his wife. Apparently, by his own thoughts and words, he didn't care for her. And yet we see him continuously reflecting on her - her reaction to the impact of the explosion on the building she was in, realising when they first met ... which I guess is part of him trying to make sense of himself and the life he led, and the key person he shared it with, but also reflects his humanity - concern and love for a person who apparently couldn't care less about him.

Wow, I have so much to say about this one. I shall take a break for now! Haha

Melanti wrote: "I think this is a book where the majority of readers see something a bit different than Bradbury intended. Bradbury has stated that the book isn't about censorship.

To me, it very clearly is about..."

Interesting points and background information, Melanti! Thank you so much for sharing :)

I don't think I thought much of censorship was I was reading this book, because the government was not the only one who was complicit, but the people were. I think that's the key point the book was reiterating - if you remember Beatty's speech as well, and it comes up several times too - that it's the people who didn't want the books. The firemen are merely an instrument for their values, and the firemen in fact provide people with a show by burning books.

I found there was a key message about books that was presented. And that makes sense, it's about the value of books (which would then be line with Bradbury's statement this book wasn't about censorship). Moreover, you get the sense it's not just about books, but what they represent - and what they represent can be obtained from other places as well, as Faber points out. In doing so, it's a broader criticism aimed at the superficial and meaningless things people value.

I think it's pretty amazing that we get to see a protagonist who struggles with what the books represent. It's a very human struggle ... he wants books, he knows it's wrong burning them, but sometimes he doesn't know what he wants. He doesn't yet understand, but he craves understanding. And Beatty taunts him about that. Oh, I loved Montag's and Beatty's exchanges.

Beatty is such an interesting character himself ... so well-read and knowledgeable, and then very interestingly, Montag points out that he wanted to die ... surely why else would he provoke a man with a weapon pointing at him (not to justify the murder). Beatty represents the guy who knows better and perhaps wants better, but is also the guy who has given up, and is in fact the one who perpetuates it all. If you think about it, he was one of the people who encouraged Montag ... telling him he could have the book for a day, and all that provocative yet insightful dialogue with Montag, surely that could only influence him further.

It doesn't matter if it is the government, posing as the people, or the majority of people (most of whom had never read a book and didn't know what they were banning), for me it is the idea that one group is being silenced, to the point of being burned for possessing the books, that is so frightening. It is the concept that people miss in the protection of free speech. Yes, you can hate what someone is saying , think it is stupid, want them to shut up, but if you stifle his right to say what he thinks, the next group that comes along will stifle your right to say what you think.

When I was in school we had debate class. You were assigned a POV, so you might have to argue the side of the issue you didn't agree with. It was an eye opening experience. It forced you to consider the other side, to listen to the other argument, and to realize that there were reasons people saw it differently. It made you THINK about the choice. It didn't always change your mind, but it did open it to a disparate idea.

If you can stop people from thinking and get them to give over all control to some group of elite, what you might get is this ending Bradbury has penned. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Abdicating your involvement and letting others decide is dangerous. Those who were fighting back against this were burned with the books. I also think it is significant that the last group is not trying to save the books, they are trying to become the books. We are back to oral tradition, to the root of knowledge, the human brain.

Sara, that was very well thought out and illuminating, thank you!

My first experience reading this book was as a teenager, reading in the car while my father drove the family somewhere to a family trip. It was sunny and beautiful outside as we drove through a quaint little town, people walking all around as we puttered along. All of a sudden I stopped reading and hid the book. I was thinking,"All of these people can SEE me reading a BOOK. Why aren't they stopping the car, dragging me out, ripping the book from my hands and burning it as they arrest me?!" Then I realized that was the world of the book, not my world. It was a powerful moment as I gave thanks it wasn't my world and continued reading.

I love this book and it scared me that we are getting closer and closer to, not necessarily burning books, but "burning" the ability to think for one's self and to speak common sense without being ignored or worse, arrested, imprisoned and even killed. We are lucky in America, but luck won't maintain our freedoms if we casually hand them over to those "better able" to think for us.

What a story, Jen. Isn't it amazing when a book can have that kind of impact on us. You have nailed it: "'burning' the ability to think for one's self."

I agree. The loss will be much more subtle than someone knocking on the door and taking the books. Our children will be taught to fall in line and never disagree or question. They won't have to be coerced. Isn't that one of the things Bradbury says...this is what the "people" want. It is frightening already how few people are truly aware of what goes on outside their little lives. The world is so much more accessible but we seem to be narrowing ourselves down to celebrity worship and internet lies that people don't even stop to question. And, Amen--luck is not enough, it never has been. We don't even have to be right all the time, I have changed my mind over and over again, but we do need to seek the truth, heed that inner voice that warns us, and not let go of our common sense.

Oops, I think I inadvertently climbed up on a soapbox.

Lol, that's ok. I think one of my favorite places is on top of a soapbox I'm there so much! Just call us Cassandra, because not many seem to listen... McDonalds and the Internet are the modern day version of bread and circuses. Books help us to think and reason on our own, which is why the burning of them in the book and the slow downward spiral in our world, is so scary and sad. I hope I'm just being more pessimistic than realistic, but children are our hope for the future. If we and the world at large fail them, it might go the way of Bradbury's imagining. Just call him Cassandra too I suppose.

Jen wrote: " "burning" the ability to think for one's self ..."

I think that's the core of what Bradbury was afraid of.

Not of censorship itself, but equivocating not reading with not thinking and being afraid of the "not thinking".

That's kind of elitist, though, isn't it? Just because it's a book shouldn't make it better than a TV show. There's plenty of mind-numbing, formulaic books out there, just as there's thought provoking, interesting TV shows.

And, sure, the internet brings insipid celebrity news, but it also brings discussions like these. It brings instantly accessible facts on places like Wikipedia, and connecting with friends and family that you might only see in person once or twice a year.

There's good and bad to everything, and I have a hard time believing the world is going to end cause technology keeps evolving.

I would argue that it doesn't matter what one reads, as long as they are reading. The owner of my bookstore has two sons. They started reading comic books and they still love comic books, complete with CosPlay and going to ComiCon. One is a lawyer and the other is a doctor. Reading, even insipid pap, will lead to more reading and thinking for one's self.

I stopped watching tv on my own when I was a teenager. I had come home from school one day and sat in front of the tv. I had a few hours to kill, so I started to watch. What felt like moments later, I came to awareness with HUGE hunger pangs. I was disoriented. It was dark outside, my jaw had slacked open and I had a line of drool seeping down my chin into a small puddle on my chest. Five hours had gone by and I didn't remember a SINGLE thing I had watched. I turned the tv off and have never turned it on since.

Give me a book any day. Not saying I won't watch tv with others, I do enjoy educational shows, but I will never turn my brain over to anything or anyone to do my thinking for me ever again.

Technology is an excellent tool, but we have to be able to use it and not let it rule us.

On the other hand, my mother loves to read Harlequin romances for the exact reason that every book is more or less the same and that there's nothing in any of them that makes her think.

I love Ray Bradbury, and have enjoyed reading this discussion about thinking for ourselves. If you want a treat, listen to Leonard Nimoy's reading of a related warning story of Bradbury's, "There will come soft rains."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzhlU...

It's less than 15 minutes long, and gives me goose bumps. Not only are we getting close to the date given in this story, but it seems to me we have already turned over plenty in exchange for "convenience."

We need to be present in our lives ...

"we need to be present in our lives..."

Exactly. Not that technology is bad, that giving in to the overwhelming amount of garbage that is out there is, and particularly for the very young.

Melanti--it is fine to check out now and then, but nice to know that is what you are doing, which your mother apparently does.

We have ceased to think about the costs: what we are giving up and what we are obtaining in exchange. It isn't a thoughtful process much of the time.

Sara wrote: "It doesn't matter if it is the government, posing as the people, or the majority of people (most of whom had never read a book and didn't know what they were banning), for me it is the idea that on..."

Well said, Sara! You've raised some important points. That's what happened - taking away their ability to think.

Abdicating your involvement and letting others decide is dangerous.

Yes. And that's the consequences we see in the novel.

And that's so interesting with that debate approach in school you had.

Jen wrote: "Sara, that was very well thought out and illuminating, thank you!

My first experience reading this book was as a teenager, reading in the car while my father drove the family somewhere to a family..."

Wow, what a surreal experience, Jen! Talk about living a book experience! Goodness me, really does make us feel grateful for what we can do. The ability to think for one's self isn't one that just ought to be protected and defended, but it needs to be promoted and encouraged ... otherwise people might not realise they're relinquishing this amazing God given gift ... our intellect.

We live in such an entertainment culture - and that's what Bradbury was criticising in his book, when it was apparent to an extreme degree. You no longer had just TVs, but the walls of a room in your house being the TV, call it larger than life, it was the centre of attention.

Broadly speaking, TV shows and the like don't exactly require you to think much. They mainly engage your emotions. Whereas a book (a good book) engages your mind and intellect primarily, and your emotions secondarily. TV and movies generally provide a form of escapism (well, books do too, but in a different way) ... we disconnect from our thoughts and reality. Oh, and they are so addictive too! Episode after episode after episode after episode. And you see that in Fahrenheit 451 - wow, how prophetic.

Oh, and this is not me hating on TV or anything. Just throwing in my observations. I can't and won't denounce it completely, as I don't not watch it (though I try not to watch it much), and it can have its benefits (e.g. entertainment, de-stressing), but the reality is, as technology becomes bigger and better, TV and film has become a bigger part of our culture and lives. Sadly, books are getting neglected.

But Bradbury's message isn't just about books ... this is part of the revelation Montag and the reader experiences, since the novel is about the physical burning of books. He's saying: think people! and it doesn't have to be from books! discuss! talk to each other! take time to think during your day!

Just back to a point we mentioned - censorship. Censorship definitely happens in the book. I think another form of it is beautifully illustrated in the end - with the chase of Montag and how they pretend to capture him, and how that's predicted by the guys with Montag.

But, here are some things to consider, and in light of Bradbury saying his book wasn't about censorship:

Maybe the focus of the book wasn't so much about censorship as it was a criticism of people succumbing to conditions that make censorship acceptable (and not even acknowledge it as censorship)?

Also, we barely learn about the authority who is pulling the strings, and this might be deliberate.

Kathleen wrote: "I love Ray Bradbury, and have enjoyed reading this discussion about thinking for ourselves. If you want a treat, listen to Leonard Nimoy's reading of a related warning story of Bradbury's, "There w..."

Thanks, Kathleen! :) Will have a look at this, I think I've tracked down a written copy of it.

I tend to think it isn't about censorship since the subject matter did not determine if a book was burned or not. They were all burned indiscriminately. It seems more of a warning against the adoption of mindless entertainment. As Nargus said, TV doesn't really engage our minds. When this novel was published in 1953 television was just becoming more available to the average person. It was a long long way from being the pervasive presence in society that it is today, but I think Bradbury was imagining the future. He did a good job of foreseeing giant TVs in our homes that broadcast shows 24 hours a day. Just imagine what he would think about people looking at their Facebook and Twitter feeds on their smartphones all the time. Talk about mindless entertainment.

Wow, all of your comments are wonderful. I definitely see your point, Laurie that it isn't really censorship per se, because that implies that some material would be accepted and none was.

It is such a fine line between using technology and giving in to it. I love the example of the "media" pretending Montag had been caught and killed, because that is also one of the dangers. People believe whatever they hear on TV or read on the internet. I actually had a person argue with me that something was true that obvious was not and the evidence she gave me was "it is true, I read it on the internet." Can we really be that obtuse, yes, yes we can.

The TVs have taken over here. The wife will not be happy until every wall is covered. The TV has taken the place of the family. I remember the first visit I had from my granddaughters that they spent the entire ride down here glued to the cell phones. As soon as we arrived at my home, I made them surrender the phones and did not give them back until they were ready to leave. I wanted them to visit with me, not bury themselves in the phones. Their parents hardly noticed, they had already become used to it. I'd say Bradbury got it right in many ways.

Hmm ... if I remember correctly, comic books and porn apparently were allowed ... let me check ...

Oh yes, here it is:

"But the public, knowing what it wanted, spinning happily, let the comic books survive. And the three-dimensional sex magazines, of course."

(from Beatty's speech to Montag at his home when he is "sick")

Laurie wrote: "I tend to think it isn't about censorship since the subject matter did not determine if a book was burned or not. They were all burned indiscriminately. It seems more of a warning against the adopt..."

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Laurie :)

"Mindless entertainment" sums it up very well!

Comic books and porn were allowed to remain. I had forgotten that so definitely censorship was a factor. I bet a comic book about politics or some other serious subject would not be allowed since they might lead people to think.

Comic books can carry pretty complex messages, but at this time probably viewed as just reading for kids and porn, well obviously that wouldn't take your mind into any intellectual space. Yes, Nargus, I had forgotten that passage, great point. So, I have done a 360 and I'm back at censorship being an important part of this story.
So, both messages are running parallel.

I keep coming back to the (near) end when they are discussing how they have incorporated the books into their minds where they cannot be destroyed. One of the men tells Montag that he has already turned the corner because he has thought that the burning was not right. I think Bradbury was afraid the message would be narrowed to being about censorship alone, when it was more importantly about keeping men from thinking for themselves and making their own choices.

Sara wrote: "Wow, all of your comments are wonderful. I definitely see your point, Laurie that it isn't really censorship per se, because that implies that some material would be accepted and none was.

It is ..."

You go Sara :)

You know what, all this talk about TVs reminds me of what Roald Dahl says about them - and I was quite surprised they were from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, given that wasn't the key thing I remembered from my childhood read of it. Here:

"So please, oh please, we beg, we pray,
Go throw your TV set away,
And in its place you can install
A lovely bookshelf on the wall.
Then fill the shelves with lots of books."
— Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Charlie Bucket, #1))

Yay for books! :)

And it comes from a larger poem, which you can check out here. Wow, sounds like a manual for raising children!

Maybe Bradbury and Dahl were friends, best friends? ;) lol

Sara wrote: "Melanti--it is fine to check out now and then, but nice to know that is what you are doing, which your mother apparently does. ..."

OF course it's fine. I'm just trying to make the point that there's nothing inherent about written books that makes them better than TV or movies. Drivel exists in both forms. It's the content, not the form of media that makes one thing better than another.

Books have a higher ratio of "brain engaging" to "drivel" compared to TV, but I think it's a little elitist to say that reading any book is always going to be better than watching any TV show.

Laurie wrote: "Comic books and porn were allowed to remain. I had forgotten that so definitely censorship was a factor. I bet a comic book about politics or some other serious subject would not be allowed since t..."

But how does comic books and porn remaining support censorship more than if they didn't remain? I'm not sure I understand your argument.

IMO, the mere fact that they took something away from someone who wanted to keep it proves that there was censorship.

If we as a populace decided that TV was a bad idea and after years of talking about how much it lead to brain rot and unproductive youth, started confiscating everyone's TVs and DVD collections, that would be censorship - and it would still be censorship if we confiscated documentaries and news broadcasts in addition to sitcoms and reality TV shows.

Melanti wrote: "Sara wrote: "Melanti--it is fine to check out now and then, but nice to know that is what you are doing, which your mother apparently does. ..."

OF course it's fine. I'm just trying to make the po..."

I agree, "drivel" can exist in both forms. However, there is a key difference between them aside from content. The mode of delivery differs, and this affects how much we are intellectually engaged, how much thinking is required to process it. But the mode of delivery alone isn't the only thing, yes, but depends on content too, of course.

But I guess we're just sharing our opinions on books and TV and hope to not be judged on them as "elitist" otherwise anything anyone says that is opinionated can be labelled as such. I'm sure that's not our intention. And I don't think anyone said any book is always better than any TV show.

Plus, that's basically the view Bradbury was strongly putting forward. So in that case, his novel was elitist?

I think we should be happy to accept people's different opinions on this. This is an opinionated book, and Bradbury is sharply critical. I'm sure it's one that's bound to polarise readers, and that's fine.

Melanti--I had no intent to disparage your opinion in any way. I understood the point you were making.

I guess the difference between removing all printed material and some printed material (for me) is that one is an intent to deprive us of all thought and knowledge and the other is an attempt to channel thought and knowledge into the direction or areas that someone else decides are "good for us" or "acceptable". The reason the comic books and porn were left were that they were perceived as distracting from thought not leading to it.

Nargus wrote: "Plus, that's basically the view Bradbury was strongly putting forward. So in that case, his novel was elitist? ..."

I think Bradbury himself was at times.

From the interviews of him that I've read, he would have disagreed with this entire discussion and written it off as meaningless and unreal just because we aren't meeting in person somewhere. Never mind that we wouldn't be able to do so, considering we don't even live on the same continent, let alone the same city. He would have said that we should meet up with local readers in our local libraries rather than waste time online.

He didn't even allow his own books to be sold in e-book form, because to him, an e-book was just a manuscript and not a real book.

Bradbury is a really complicated guy. I agree his view in the book seems to be a unilateral "TV is terrible" but that didn't stop him from writing screen plays and collaborating on TV adaptations of his own stories.

That’s a great discussion with lots of good observations and thoughts!

I’m not that concerned about technology influencing people’s ability to think and discuss their thoughts. While kids may possibly not read as many books anymore, there are not only bad alternatives today, but also new possibilities (f.ex. lots of online learning programs, educational games, whole museum collections you can look at for free, etc.). The world and society change with technology, with all its good and bad sides (I think that Melanti has already mentioned something similar) – but there are definitely good sides to acknowledge (like discussing a book with people from all around the world ;) ). Throughout history, old times were often considered “better”, and it’s conspicuous that Bradbury really valued the idealized small-town America he remembered from his childhood (that one’s from Melanti as well). I would only partly agree that we have lost a lot to technology (Sara). I’d rather say it’s always the extent that counts. Technology in general, or TV, or Facebook, are not bad per se, but if you do nothing but stare into a screen and stop to think yourself and to talk to one another, it’s certainly bad…

Another important point of the discussion, as far as I’ve seen it, is censorship; I tend to think that although it’s not the main focus of the novel, it’s still a big part of it. But the danger of people turning into an ignorant, submissive, mindless society is what stroke me the most.

Jen, I love your car story! I always get much more absorbed in a book than a movie (provided it’s a book I enjoy), it’s the most awesome thing about reading!

Nargus, I agree that Beatty is a really interesting character. He kind of contradicts himself, and both accepts and does not accept the time and society he lives in. And I’m glad you mentioned that comics and porn were still allowed, I’d have completely forgotten about that…

Melanti, what you mention about Bradbury is really interesting; I must admit I have no idea about him, and have never read any of his other novels...

I think it's okay for Bradbury to advocate a strong viewpoint. It's a short-story, not a news article. And I also think it's okay to think he is elitist.

I do wonder about that term though. I guess it means a snob, but when you believe that something is bad for everyone, for society, so you speak against it, that doesn't seem elitist to me. It's more like speaking your opinions about the dangers of smoking. But I totally get Melanti's point that it could be seen in an elitist way, like "I am too good for TV--that is for poor ignorant slobs." Now that would be elitist! But I don't read Bradbury or anyone here saying that.

Melanti wrote: But how does comic books and porn remaining support censorship more than if they didn't remain? I'm not sure I understand your argument.

IMO, the mere fact that they took something away from someone who wanted to keep it proves that there was censorship.


I guess that I see banning all books as more than censorship. It demands a more harsh word like tyranny. So when it was pointed out that some books were allowed to remain, I can see it better as harsh censorship.

I also wanted to point out that the TV programs in the novel are seriously censored as well. It isn't as if Mildred and her friends watch educational programs. They only watch interactive-type melodramas (or soap operas, as I would call them) because that is all that's available other than the news. And the news was fabricated to match what the government wanted to say rather than the truth. So as far as Bradbury was concerned, TV programs are not inherently bad possibly, just certain kinds.

I don't see Bradbury as an elitist. I see him as mourning a lifestyle that he saw disappearing where visiting with neighbors was a frequent occurrence and books were important for the ideas that they spread and engender. I may be way off base with this view though. I think I need to look for a Bradbury biography now.

Religion is not the only opiate of the people. Comic books and porn will do in a pinch. Huxley's Brave New World makes this same point with Soma.

Melanti wrote: "I think this is a book where the majority of readers see something a bit different than Bradbury intended. Bradbury has stated that the book isn't about censorship.

To me, it very clearly is about..."

I have really loved reading everyone's comments and thoughts on this book!

I agree with Melanti, this book is not just about censorship, It is about not giving control of ANY freedom to another person or entity. (IMO) it doesn't matter what form that freedom takes be it books, speech, or the hated TV :)

Something that struck me hard in this story was the lack of human connection. The TV is family, young kids will run you down in the street for sport, because in this society, There is no empathy, and there is no sense of what is REAL beyond the superficial. Even Montags wife doesn't want to be bothered by his 'crisis', she just wants him to shut up or go to work so she can bury herself in the nothing. ( all proper credits to The Neverending Story )

What really got me going was thinking "How close are we to this kind of society?" with warm homes and plentiful food, the immediacy of life is blunted, and reality can feel very foggy when you are immersed in technology, or buried in a mindless pursuit. Not that I am against mindless pursuits...I indulge in them, I think it is important to let your brain rest sometimes, But they should not become your everything.

to put it very simply I think that is all Bradbury was trying to say...Protect your freedom, and the freedom of others, think for yourself, and help your fellow man.

Holly - wow, amazing thoughts! I agree.

Also, I don't think I consider Bradbury an elitist, I'm fine with him being critical in his novel. Sometimes I think that's what we're lacking nowadays anyway, good opinions. That's not to say we have to agree with it, but they make us think!

Oh, and I just can't imagine Bradbury being against a discussion like this ... we are reading books, we are thinking, we are connecting with one another. And I don't get the impression that he's a narrow minded guy. I get the impression he craved the old, simple days, as others have commented on, but he wasn't exactly against technology (it depended on its use). I can't say I know him well, but if anyone is dismissive of such an amazing discussion as this, then I simply don't agree with them at all.