3.77 avg rating — 12,290 ratings

"This is my favorite book of all time, science fiction or not. It's a daring change from the fiction that most people are used to, and seems to transport the reader in a way that is neither escapist nor with forceful agenda. I feel as if this book could kill someone. Or make them kill someone else. i.e. It's a powerful son-of-a-bitch."

3.97 avg rating — 2,844,153 ratings

"Of all of the dystopian scifi books written, this is hands-down the greatest. I'm not saying this from personal preference. Although many people will cite 1984 or Brave New World as greater books, both of those suffer from very specific mistakes on the authors' part and on the readers'. Additionally, more than anything, these two are simply a product of the time they were written. 1984 was not about the future, it was about the present. It was an analysis of what is happening in the Soviet Blok written into a story that Westerners can relate to. It's focus is Communism only. And, it is a very skewed idea of communism. Calling it 1984 was simply Orwell's neat way of making people think that what is happening in Russia could happen in England. So, all it was was an anti-communist rant, which was nothing new. In fact, it was very very average. Additionally, why the two main characters decided to fight the government by having sex is beyond me. That was a stupid idea on Orwell's part, and it did nothing to serve his message at all. But, people like the idea, so they tend to vote for it. Now, Brave New World is also influenced heavily by the Cold War era, but in a different way. He felt that communism would come from within, and that it would create a stratification of society that is unprecedented. While I will admit that this is true, it has been shown before in The Time Machine and various other pieces. Also, in Brave New World revisited, Huxley said that this change was coming faster than he thought. To me, though, that is still too soon. The gift of great science fiction authors to predict what humanity will bring upon itself is rare, and Huxley simply doesn't have it. One thing he was right about is that people in his novel were allowing themselves to be controlled and birthed and pushed around into different groups. They were eager to accept lives that were assigned to them because it made things easier. Media and the death of culture destroyed the spirit of man. While, this is certainly closer than Orwell got, it still lacks that ring of truth. Now, if we come to the superios book, Fahrenheit 451, we see several solutions to problems. Firstly, this was written by a grizzled veteran writer who had studied Science Fiction until it made him blue. He was already a great author before he attempted to lengthen this piece and republish it as a novel. Therefore, his dialog flows easier, his names and titles of places etc are better-chosen. He has a knack for that. Also, it can easily be argued that Bradbury is the greatest executor of similes and metaphors who ever lived. If you don't believe me, try reading "Something Wicked This Way Comes". I guarantee that you will not be disappointed. Now, moving on from his style, I find that Bradbury has written a story that is faithful to the epic of old scifi, while staying startingly modern. He does not used bumbling terms for devices and new technology, which is something that many authors have trouble with. He does not build any flat characters. They are multi-layered and smartly-illustrated. The epic of Guy Montag and his transformation from loyal fireman to disillusioned reader flows comfortably and efficiently. None of it seems unnatural. Additionally, Captain Beatty gives a speech about half-way through the text explaining how society chose to ban books slowly. That it was not the decision of some faceless government. This seems to be more accurate. Censorship is not usually the product of government intervention. It's the angry parents and conservative activists that bring about these changes, that ban books and censor TV. And, although the ending is far from happy, it provides a realistic sense of hope- that freedom of speech can survive more than bombs and fires. Montag's attempts to save books are futile, but he falls in with the right crowd in the end. I thought that the ending strongly supported the message without catering to readers. Also, certain editions have an afterward by Bradbury where he discusses the attempted censorship of this book itself. I find this easily more enlightening than Huxley's BNW Revisited. Now, I am not trying to dissuade readers from picking up the former two books, and I certainly think that they deserve a spot on the list. But, compared with Fahrenheit, I argue that they are paled. I have never seen better distopian fiction, and scarcely have I seen better writing in general. "