Talk:Fahrenheit 451
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] This Article
I'm pretty sure Clarisse's age is actually 16. She claims to Montag that she's 17, but when he questions her she admits that she's not quite 17 yet. Since 17-1=16, I'm changing her age back to 16.
Is written SO terribly... it would be a good idea to try rewriting parts of it.
Regarding this quote in the wiki entry:
- She seems to be happy staring at the screens but actually attempts to commit suicide, revealing her emptiness. She takes too many pills which actually should make her happy.
I don't think she deliberately attempted suicide, but more along the fact that she became so absent-minded that she forgot how many pills she took (in reference to the first chapter of the book). Want to make sure if this is alright with everyone before I make the changes. --Vnv lain 13:10, 2005 Oct 2 (EST)
- I'm not too sure about this, being absent-minded seems to be the excuse Guy makes for her. It seems apparent that she infact is an empty person who realizes how pitiful her life is and tries to commit sucide. I don't see how her just being absent minded about taking pills would fit into the plot.
--User:John
Film trivia: The only prints/text in the movie are at the wall of the fire-department. It's the "451". Look here: http://www.dasfilmarchiv.de/fahrenheit.jpg
That is not true; but it seems that in the fictional world of the movie, alphabetic text is banned, but it is OK to use numerals as labels.
I think it is important to note that in the book's dystopian future, technical knowledge was actually promoted, probably to keep people from thinking about literature. I think some people erroneously think the book is about a future where all knowledge is banned, as opposed to a future where ideas are censored. For instance, I think at one point in the book Guy mentions that almost everyone could describe the inner workings of the (complicated) tv systems. I'm not sure how they could convey all this technical knowlegde without some sort of text, although it certainly would be in electronic (not book) form.
I think the analysis section of the previous version should be added to the current one. I think it makes a valid point about political correctness.
I think the Analysis section needs some wikification. It doesn't sound too encyclopedia-like.
I agree with the above poster. It needs some work. jtmendes 03:01, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
- If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --fvw* 03:01, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
I'd just like to make two points in response to the above. First, a reader can note a deficiency without knowing enough to write a better version. Second, the instructions for using Wik are incredibly confiusing and tangled (the glories and misfortunes of the Web used as Webbers currently style it). I'm sure there are thousands of people who have been scared off by Wik's imposing character or left frustrated after being pushed around by links, shunted down dead-ends, etc. kdammers.
- I agree with the posts above and below that made by fvw. If I had read the book, I could probab;y write a better analysis, but I am yet to, so have no idea of the significance of events and meanings read into them &c. --210.246.47.205 09:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the motive behind destruction of books was meant to keep people happy. In (I believe) "Usher II" by Bradbury, he talks about the same brand of people as those burning the books in Farenheit 451, and that they wanted books kept away from the public to prevent them from experiencing discontent at not being able to, for example, be a knight in shining armour that they read of in a book. —This unsigned comment was added by 69.157.123.251 (talk • contribs) .
- A passage in one of the first pages (when Guy Montag first meets Clarisse) refers to Clarisse reading the 'pictographic symbols' on his uniform, or somesuch. I would be able to reference, but my copy is currently on loan to a friend. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 02:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Science fiction
I've only read this book once but, um, where's the science fiction? Cburnett 07:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "Science fiction is written by people who don't know anything about science" -- (I believe Vonnegut, but my memory is bad). How many so-called "sci-fi" works have you read/seen that contain more than a shred of scientific accuracy? -- uberpenguin 03:51, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
- Science fiction means many things to many people; it's as vague a term as "fantasy". The book is closer to the sci-fi genre than many others, though, as it includes a mechanical robot dog, tiny two-way radio transmitters, big-screen HDTVs, crime TV shows, and nuclear weapons, among other things.
- Bradbury has been remarkably accurate with some of his predictions. The two most striking to me are his prediction of the cell phone (complete with buses/subways packed with people desperately calling home to let their SO know they're on their way) and the need for continual self-stimulation (I notice an awful lot of people these days have an electronic device of some sort constantly jammed in their ears). We haven't gotten to the book-burning stage. Yet.
-
-
- Issac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke for example do certainly know SOMETHING about science. They both have PhD, and Clarke is indeed one of pioneers in making telecommunication satellites. "Science fiction is the most important literature in the history of the world, because it's the history of ideas, the history of our civilization birthing itself. ...Science fiction is central to everything we've ever done, and people who make fun of science fiction writers don't know what they're talking about." says Ray Bradbury, also he says: "Anything you dream is fiction, and anything you accomplish is science, the whole history of mankind is nothing but science fiction." Qoqnous 16:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
-
I chose to read this book for an 8th grade English project, and it was very hard to follow. Jokingly, my friends said that if they could burn one book a year it would be this. I was, however, shocked at how much the wallscreens and little music devices resembled HDTVs and iPods. I think the movie must be pretty good
though, as it will be easier to follow with the pictures right in
front of you.
-S.P. Sauk Prairie Middle School, Sauk City WI
[edit] Meaningful Names
I didn't read the book, but just by reading the summary, one point immedately sprang to my mind: the symbolism of names. Guy Montag is a name that could be pretty much anybody (guy meaning... well, simply guy, anybody; and Montag is German for Monday). Faber also relates to the idea of the Homo faber, a man changing his environment with machines/tools. I found that interesting, but maybe it's just wrong in the context of the novel... or irrelevant, I don't know... anybody here who wants to help?
- The paperback edition everybody I know read for high-school lit class includes various afterword materials from Bradbury. In one of these essays, he notes that Faber is a pencil manufacturer and that Montag (if I recall correctly) is a company which builds furnaces. Apparently, Bradbury was unaware of these "meanings" while writing the book; he blames his overactive subconscious. Anville 03:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
- Montag was a brand of Paper. Ironic for a story of book burning, the two important characters named after paper and pencil?
[edit] time?
Okay, may I ask why this page says the book takes place in the 24th century? From reading the book, I felt it took place around the mid-21st century. Many people have suggested this, primarily from the quote "We've had two atomic wars since 1990!" The tone of the quote makes 1990 seem like a recent year.
Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book to hand, but here's what I've noted:
http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/fahrenheit/essays/essay1.html sazs 24th century. (by Michael Wainwright, but in an essay about characters)
The Cliff Notes Web site also says 24th century in an intro blurb but not in the extended discussion.
Book.rags (a crib company?) says 21st century.
"near future (later in 21st century) - medium future 22-24th century" is what Linda Napikoski (http://www.allscifi.com/Topics/Info_6789.asp ) says.
SparkNotes says, "setting (time) · Sometime in the twenty-first century; there have been two atomic wars since 1990." Kdammers 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
im reading the book right actually an i believe its in the 24th century from what either faber or beatty says. ill go back and try to find the quote.
"We've had two atomic wars since 1960", I believe my copy said. I'll have to check that when I get it back.
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merger?
Wouldn't it make sense to merge the plot and summary section together as they both say the samething? Bancroftian 06:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Link saturation
I think this entry contains far too many links to other Wikipedia entries. Who, among those reading this entry, can seriously be expected to have to look up what a wife or a book is, for example? And if they actually had to, couldn't they search for it themselves? That slight inconvenience is nothing compared to the alternative -- including links to just about everything -- which is just as annoying to an incalculably greater number of people. Sure, this is a problem many articles have, but you have to start somewhere. The reasons I don't just remove these links myself is that I would like to hear if anyone has a decent argument for keeping them first. After all, removing something from an article should never be done in haste. Miai 12:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree.
But should the crib ( + *BookRags Study Guide and Chapter Summary for "Fahrenheit 451" at BookRags.com; should be http://www.bookrags.com/notes/451/SUM.html ) apparently written by RB himself really have been removed?
- The credit "by Ray Bradbury" refers to the novel, not to the plot summary on that web page. Walloon 07:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I guess you're right (they also have a summary of Babbit but the arrangement there was clear, and for the various classics don't list the authors, so I was mistaken), but it sure looks otherwise.
[edit] Movie
The movie seems be incorporated here rather than having a separate entry, which it deserves.
I agree, I am going to make a separate entry for the movie, as it is a separate entitity from the book.Ionesco 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Law Enforcement Robots
Fsiler, let me make this clear to you, the reason why the robots are even mentioned at all in this article is intregal to the reason why there is section on futuristic predictions of the book. Moreover, the fact that you left the "military applications" part in tact implies one of three possible motivations for the edit on your part:
- misguided understanding of the subject
- a pathetic attempt to censor information (ironic)
- simple vandalism for antagonistic purposes
Regardless of your reasons, I would advise you to more carefully consider the implications of your actions the next time time you intend to edit the page... or any other. Sweetfreek 19:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] German translated
The out-edited German material is translated below. Some-one else can do the comparison suggested. Kdammers 01:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The German is a bit strange in places, beginning with the first word, if not letter. Anyway, here is a slapdash translation. ==letter of the alphabet analyses== * ' ' ' [ [ ]] GuywireMontag [sic] is the [ [ protagonist ] ] and fireman (look above) whose [ [ metamorphosis ] is shown in the course of the book and which shows (allegorizes to) him the dystopia through the eyes of a loyal worker.{Sorry, I don’t follow the grammar here}, a man in conflict over him and a man above him, in order to be free from him. * ' ' ' Faber ' ' ' is a former English professor who represents those who know that what is being done is wrong, but is too fearful to act against it. * ' ' ' Mildred Montag ' ' ' is Montag’s wife. She tries to avoid questioning her own emptiness and fear of her condition/situation or to use drugs to hide from the meaningless twittering, and a constant “splash” of the t.v. She constantly attempts to attain a glorified state of happiness but is internally miserable. She is symbolically the contra-point for Clarisse McClellan. * ' ' ' [ [ ]] Clarisse doesn’t show McClellan every characteristic that Mildred has {There seems to be some garbling in the original; as it stands, I don’t follow it, esp. since Clarisse is McClellan}. She is outgoing, naturally friendly, and intuitive. She serves him, during his “call” {during calls?} to awaken Montag by asking him “why.” She is not popular with her peers and rejected by her parents for asking why and for being interested in Nature instead of technology. Montag always sees her as odd {orig.: mathematically odd!}, but upon her being killed by a speeding car he misses her greatly. * ' ' ' [ [ Capitanist [sic] Beatty ]], Montag’s boss and the fire [department] leader. He tries to lure Guywire back into the burning business of the book {I guess: back into the business of burning books} but is burned alive by Montag when he underestimates Montag’s resolution/determination. He is the symbolic opposite of Granger. * ' ' ' [ [ ]] Granger is the leader of a group of wandering exiled intellectuals, who memorize books.. Where(-as) Beatty destroys, Granger causes [creates]; where(-as) Beatty uses fire to burn, he uses it in order to warm. His taking in of Montag is seen as the ultimate step in Monta’g metamorphosis – and is of critical value in Beatty’s incorporating (happiness and satisfaction) {I don’t understand the original here}, to the incorporation of his value[s] (the love of knowledge).
[edit] attacked by other countries
What other countries have attacked the US since Pearl Harbor? I removed the remark but the removal was reverted. Gerrit CUTEDH 09:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 21st century or 24th century?
In the beginning of the Plot section, it says, "The story takes place in the mid 21st century," yet under Accuracy as a vision of the future it starts, "Several aspects of the fictional 24th century future..."
Googling Fahrenheit 451 "21st century" and Fahrenheit 451 "24th century" give comparable results. Which is it? StradivariusTV 01:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I: have edited the article to leave it ambiguous. Kdammers 08:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Predictions
As it now stands, the Wiki article says that government endorsement of high-speed vehiclular traffic on highways has NOT come about. I think this should be removed. Here is a URl giving speed limits in the U.S.: http://www.iihs.org/laws/state_laws/speed_limit_laws.html. Kdammers 02:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] translations
I think it would appropriate to list the langs. into which its been translated - or at least given an indication of the number of languages. For starters: Spanish (ISBN 8401422825 ) Russian Czech (2001 by with Jarmila Emmerová & Josef Škvorecký) German 07:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Accuracy as a vision of the future:
Isn't there a part which mentions 24 hour automatic bank machines?
[edit] Setting
The novel is set in an unspecified city in America, not England. Evidence:
- 1. The firemen's rule book contains brief histories of the Firemen of America
- 2. "they say there's lots of old Harvard degrees on the tracks between here and Los Angeles"
- 3. Faber tells Montag that he is leaving on a bus for St. Louis
- 4. Montag used to live in Chicago, where he met Mildred.
— Walloon 06:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Notes on setting and other issues
First off, to address some of the questions that have popped up about this book:
This book takes place in the USA in a city that may be, but probably isn't Chicago, IL. It is America, and it is in the 24th century or later. How so? In "The Hearth and the Salamander", Beatty describes the downfall of society as it wanted it to happen. Yes, there have been two nuclear wars since 1990, but the textual evidence in the 50th anniversary edition (paperback) is on page 55, "Do you see? Out of the nursery into the college and back to the nursery; there's your intellectual pattern for the past five centuries or more."
Also, I'm a bit dissapointed in this article's nearly complete omissions to the blatant biblical allusions in this piece: Faber's reading of Job to Montag reflecting the struggle that he is going through and the rewards he's reaching for, the attempt to read the passage from Matthew about not getting caught up in worldly possessions while on the subway as he's being bombarded by a Denham's Dentifrice commercial (though i've heard different interpretations of the passage), and the choice of allusions on the final page to Ecclesiastes 3 (saying that there was a time for silence and a time for waiting but now it is time to rebuild society and time to speak out to the public) and itaicized text from Revelation stating that the destruction is over but now paradise is within reach and the nations shall be healed.
There's lots there, and I'm a bit steamed by this article considering I just finished teaching and there's tons missing.
[edit] Nuclear weapons
In the "Accuracy as a vision of the future section," it is stated that nuclear weapons are used as a primary weapon in war time. As far as I know, the only time they have been used as a weapon in war time was before the book was published. Anyone else agree?
[edit] Accuracy as...
The section on the novel's accuracy at foretelling the future is pretty lame and should be removed unless someone has a burning need to justify the disappearence of front porches. Isopropyl 23:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Completely disagree. The section is entirely appropiate, especially given the genre and age of the original release of the book.
- Agree. Bradbury never intended for Fahrenheit 451 to predict the future. That notion totally misses the message of the book. -- uberpenguin
@ 2006-07-31 19:37Z
Regarding the porches: what is the basis for this? Is there any statistic showing that "front porches" are less common now than in the 50's? By the 50's, I mean the actual 1950's, not television's depiction of it. I'm taking it out. If someone can find support then they can put it back in.
I just took the whole section out. It was mostly unreferenced opinion, at best, and at worst original research that had no real connection to the book. Isopropyl 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plot summary is too long
Does anyone agree? I think it should be shortened to less than half. —Michael Z. 2006-10-04 04:16 Z
Yea, it does seem rather long. It would be rather difficult to shorten though. Somaticvibe
[edit] Texan father
Houston Community Newspapers Online - Parent criticizes book 'Fahrenheit 451' on the Banned Books Week. You may find it ironic and it ellaborates on the foulness of language.
- It's a good source of righteous indignation. I don't think this particular antic should be mentioned in the article, though, 451 is among the more challenged books. --Kizor, currently not logged in
[edit] books
you have at the end that people put intire books to memory but that is only in the movie, at the end of the book granger says about how people have bits of books, and says that there is enven a town were every one is a part of the same book so that the town is the book Shinigami Josh 11:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Actual Temperature Farenheit 451
Can we please put a mention of the following fact in the article? Paper nor books burst into flames at the temperature 451 degrees farenheit. This title was used simply because Bradbury liked the number. I read that in a book once. It quite annoys me when I get into arguments with people ignorant enough to believe that temperature thing as fact and are adamant to believe any argument contrary. .... You know the kind of argument you get into with a person who acts like they're much smarter than they prove to be and refuse to take any sort of correction - even when you have facts in from of them. Abrynkus 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- well then put the little trivia somewhere... and also try to meet new people too, just a friendly advice.--201.215.168.125 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- It really neither entirely true nor entirely false. Some paper does ignite at 451F. Most does not. It depends on the paper and variables that go into making of paper. Some paper ignites at temperatures higher than 451, some at temperature lower than (mostly lower, average is about 339 SD=62 low=152 high=526) Engstrom et. al. Fundamental Combustion Rates of Live Fuels. 2003 ACERC Conference. But you already knew that cause you read it in a book somewhere. With evidence like that I don't know why people doubt you. Jvbishop 21:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)