Alienation and the corrosive impact of all day entertainment and short attention spans. Most hopeful of the classic dystopian novels in a sense, but lacking the unflinching quality of 1984 for me
Don't ask for guarantees. And don't look to be saved in any one thing, person, machine, or library. Do your own bit of saving, and if you drown, at least die knowing you were heading for shore.

Ignorance is bliss is taken to a literal extreme in this classic, for Guy Montag and his psychological turmoil when paradigms start to shift after meeting an overly inquisitive neighbor. Guy is a fireman, tasked with destroying books by fire, with mechanical hounds aiding him. The society he lives in is an America full of TV screens and people (including his wife) being on drugs to deal with existential emptiness and the threat of nuclear holocaust.
Egalitarian tendencies and, interestingly enough forming a precursor to fears of “woke”, censorship by minorities being offended are mentioned by Ray Bradbury as a reason for media dumbing down the general populace.

The system is a bit lightly painted in Fahrenheit 451, but then again how well can anyone in our current society paint the intricate working of capitalism and democracy?
I did however wonder, if this existential doubt which happens to Guy Montag, who is relatively well off in the system, and which is something quite often experienced based on his manager speeches, how can the system of firemen then endure?

The ending of the book is a bit sudden for me (and the incompetence of the system, who has robotized dogs and surveillance to its disposal, feels like a letdown compared to the ruthlessness and efficiency I was expecting from for instance 1984). Also the moral side of murder is rather easily ignored.
In the end there is a hopeful conclusion (although just as much channeling The Road as something else), with Columbia and Harvard professors to the rescue, however meagre their chances of turning the societal tide without external pressure.

This TED movie captures the tones of the book well: https://youtu.be/YMZcp0EQO2s
I enjoyed reading the book but found it less nightmarish and claustrophobic than George Orwell his classic.

Quotes:
If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you'll never learn.

Books were only one type or receptacle where we stored a lot of things we were afraid we might forget. There is nothing magical in them at all. The magic is only in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us.

Nobody listens anymore. I can't talk to the walls because they're yelling at me, I can't talk to my wife; she listens to the walls.

We have everything we need to be happy but we aren't happy.

She didn't want to know how a thing was done, but why.

Vraag geregeld “Waarom” en je wordt inderdaad erg ongelukkig, als je niet op tijd stopt.

That’s right, I finally showed up at the party! I somehow have gone through life as a book geek and a science-fiction nerd without reading this book. It was always on my to-do-list but over the years, I just didn't get around to reading it. Thank you Justin for kicking my ass in gear to read this masterpiece!

So you ask, what happened when I finally read Fahrenheit 451?

I read it in one day!!!! I absorbed the pages while ignoring the world around me. I laughed and gasped at amazing quotes in the book. I shook my head with the similarities of a book wrote in 1953 and the current world and events today.
Burning books is such an effective tool to leave society less intelligent and reinforce their ignorance. We're overstimulated with TV, media, walking around mindlessly with headphones in our ears, not questioning politics or world events, etc.
I could go on, you get it. Ray Bradbury wrote about this in 1953 and it's so accurate today. I think he might have been psychic. ha!

“Don't ask for guarantees. And don't look to be saved in any one thing, person, machine, or library. Do your own bit of saving, and if you drown, at least die knowing you were heading for shore.”

And another quote Bradbury described perfectly in this book.

“The good writers touch life often. The mediocre ones run a quick hand over her. The bad ones rape her and leave her for the flies."

Bradbury wrote a classic that will stay with me forever and I wish I could give this more stars. I am so glad to read this book at my age because it resonates more at age 39 instead of age 17 and being forced to read this in English Lit.

Bravo Bradbury, bravo!!

It’s easy to see why ‘Farenheit 451’ is a cult classic, beloved by the majority of bookworms. Oh, it validates us, doesn’t it? Here is a future world where books are banned, and look at this; it has gone to the dogs. The saddest of all post-apocalyptic worlds, the bleakest dystopia, what a nightmare – NO BOOKS!

The good are those who read, the bad are those who watch the TV. Yes, this is what we like to read to make us feel all warm inside. And because of that we are seemingly willing to forgive Bradbury for a lot of things: really poor world-building skills, lacklustre characterisation, inconsistencies.

Oh, and sexism. The women in the books are generally brainwashed bimbos, except of course for the wonder-child Clarisse from the beginning of the book, who is a representation of a very annoying archetype as well.

And you would think that, since the book is mostly an endless roll call of all the authors and books that need to be salvaged from the fire, at least ONE female author would get a mention. Nope. Zero. They can all burn for all that Bradbury cares. After all, the secret gang dedicated to preserving the world literary heritage is made up entirely of men. Now, this to me does look like a very sad world indeed.

Go and read Farenheit 451. It’s not a novel in its fully developed sense, more of an allegory, a hyperbole and Bradbury occasionally produces sentences of startling beauty. The problem with this book is the same problem there is with a world without books – it’s somewhat flat, somewhat numb.

A book, a flamethrower, and a very troubled mind.

In a dystopian future, firemen don't put out fires... they start it. Books, and freethinkers, are burned with a flamethrower without a seconds thought. Guy Montag, one of these incendiary firemen, after a series of events starts awakening from his long and blind indoctrination. To his horror, he finds an identity and a mind of his own. But in a completely monitored and subjugated society, thinking can cost your life. One single mistake and Guy may find himself on the other side of the flamethrower...

A very short novel, with a lot of feel of Orwell's 1984. A novel that emphasizes the value of written legacy, books, and free will. An interesting read, with lots of moments and quotations to remember, but somewhat far from the dazzling 1984 experience.

What I couldn't grasp was Bradbury's confusing way to describe things, not because of the vocabulary, but because of the phrasing. Several of them seemed incomprehensible, or incoherent. Maybe I just got one of those weird faulty electronic copies. Or maybe this was just a book that I may have been able to enjoy much more reading it in spanish. Maybe. Might try Martian Chronicles someday, in spanish.

**** Both movies fell kinda flat. Interesting, but not really enjoyable, and specially not 2018.
1966 - Definitely the most faithful to the book. Some important changes to the original plot, but welcomed ones. Unremarkable acting, at best. Decent effects, considering. Not necessarily a good film, but it does have some redeeming qualities.
2018 - It would be generous if said it has any redeeming qualities. Terribly unfaithful to the book. Besides the names, setting and *some* basic plot, everything else was changed. And not in a good way. Really nice effects though.

-----------------------------------------------
n  PERSONAL NOTEn:
[1953] [159p] [Dystopian] [3.5] [Conditional Recommendable]
-----------------------------------------------

★★★☆☆  Fahrenheit 451. [3.5]
★★★☆☆  The Martian Chronicles.
★★★★☆  The Fruit at the Bottom of the Bowl.
★★★☆☆  I See You Never. [3.5]
★★★☆☆  The Crowd.
★★☆☆☆  Embroidery. [2.5]

-----------------------------------------------

Un libro, un lanzallamas, y una mente muy perturbada.

En un futuro distópico, los bomberos no apagan incendios... sino que los inician. Los libros, y los librepensadores, son quemados con lanzallamas sin mediar palabra. Guy Montag, uno de estos bomberos incendiarios, tras una serie de eventos empieza a despertar de su largo y ciego adoctrinamiento. Para su horror, encuentra una identidad y pensamiento propio. Pero en una sociedad completamente vigilada y subyugada, pensar puede costar la vida. Un simple error y Guy podría encontrarse del otro lado del lanzallamas...

Una novela muy corta, con mucho feel de 1984 de Orwell. Una novela que resalta el valor de los libros, el legado de la palabra, y del pensamiento libre. Una lectura interesante, con varias citas y momentos para el recuerdo, pero algo lejos de la genial experiencia que fue leer 1984.

Lo que no pude digerir es la forma enrevesada que tiene Bradbury para describir las cosas. Reiteradas frases me resultaron incoherentes o irrelevantes. Tal vez me topé con una de esas raras malas copias digitales. O quizás éste sea uno de esos libros que tal vez hubiera podido disfrutar mucho más leyéndolo en español. Tal vez. Intentaré con Crónicas Marcianas algún día, en español.

**** Ambas peliculas me cayeron sosas. Interesantes, pero no muy disfrutables, especialmente no 2018.
1966 - Definitivamente la más fiel al libro. Algunos cambios importantes a la trama original, pero bien recibidos. Actuación regular, como mucho. Efectos decentes, considerando. No necesariamente una buena película, pero tiene algunas buenas cualidades.
2018 - Sería generoso decir que tiene alguna buena cualidad. Terriblemente infiel al espíritu del libro. Aparte de los nombres, contexto y *algo* de la trama original, todo fue cambiado. Y no de una buena manera. Muy buenos efectos, eso sí.

-----------------------------------------------
n  NOTA PERSONALn:
[1953] [159p] [Distopía] [3.5] [Recomendable Condicional]
-----------------------------------------------

Such an enlightening read. Ray Bradbury, a true bookworm.
There’s so much depth to this story, of his analysis of society, that I’m finding it difficult to put my thoughts into words.

This is the type of book that one can read and every paragraph would bring about beautiful discussions.

It’s passionate. It’s written with so much love and wisdom, and emotion. It speaks about a crime that has happened and he was fearing for the American society at the time and its reduction in interest in literature.

In my privileged state of mind, I’m unable to fathom having no access to books, because of the ease I have now. But censorship was a law and the way it’s tackled in this book is quite incredible.

Really enjoyed this book a lot!

"We are living in a time when flowers are trying to live on flowers, instead of growing on good rain and black loam."

As I write this review, the year is 2012. We do not live in a perfect world; in fact, in many ways we don't even live in a good world. But one thing I believe with all my heart is that we live in a world which, on the whole, is better than it was fifty years ago. Now, I know I'm writing with limited perspective and that progression and development hasn't been the same all over the globe and even the definition of those words can change depending on what part of the world you live in. But here's what I do know: the average world life expectancy is higher, the infant mortality rate is lower, access to education is greater and the amount of countries that hold regular, fair elections has increased.

On average, people today are smarter than they were fifty years ago. And I know this is where older generations throw up their hands in indignation and start yelling about how exams were much harder in "their day" and they really had to work for it. I am not disputing this, I have no idea if it's true or not. But what is true is that more people today than ever before are going on to further education after high school, the barriers that once stopped the working class from being as smart as society's more privileged members are slowly starting to break down bit by bit. Literacy rates have been on the rise the whole world over:



It's true. We have entered the age of computers and electronics, social networking and personal media players... and the world has not ended, the robots haven't taken over and people haven't become so stupid that they feel the need to rage a war against books. And this is the main reason why I think Bradbury's dystopian tale is out of date and ineffective. The author was writing at a time when technology was really starting to get funky, the digital age was still decades away but people were doing all kinds of crazy things like listening to music with little cones plugged into their ears. Bizarre.

Readers often choose to view Bradbury's story as one about censorship instead of technology because that allows a more modern reader to connect with the world portrayed. But taken as it was intended, I just don't share the author's sentiments. Not all technology is good, but I'm of the opinion that the good outweighs the bad: medical advancements, entertainment, access to information via the internet... I'm the very opposite of a technophobe because, in my opinion, forward is the way to go. And I'm sure it's because of the age I was born into, but I cannot relate to the apprehension that Bradbury feels when he tells of this true story (note: this is not in the book):

"In writing the short novel Fahrenheit 451 I thought I was describing a world that might evolve in four or five decades. But only a few weeks ago, in Beverly Hills one night, a husband and wife passed me, walking their dog. I stood staring after them, absolutely stunned. The woman held in one hand a small cigarette-package-sized radio, its antenna quivering. From this sprang tiny copper wires which ended in a dainty cone plugged into her right ear. There she was, oblivious to man and dog, listening to far winds and whispers and soap-opera cries, sleep-walking, helped up and down curbs by a husband who might just as well not have been there. This was not fiction."

I know many still think today that we are becoming a completely unsociable species because of mobile/cell phones, social networking sites, etc. but I have made friends from all over the world thanks to technology. I have talked to people that fifty years ago I would never have known, I have learned about different cultures and ways of life because I have access to most areas of the world through the web. So, no, I'm not scared of this so-called technological threat that is somehow going to turn our brains to mush and create a society where we cannot concentrate long enough to read a book. And here is where I (finally) get on to details of this novel.

What I am supposed to believe in here is that - because of technology - humanity has become so stupid that they couldn't concentrate on books. So books were simplified at first for easier understanding, then banned, then burnt. Why? I am okay with the realistic aspect of "people have short attention spans because of technology so they don't want to read books", but why burn books? I don't see why this would need to happen and why it would become a criminal offense to have books in your home. This is where I understand why so many people prefer to apply this novel's message to censorship, because it works so much better that way. The argument for the technological side of it is weak - even for the time in question.



The best thing about this whole book is the discussion about the phoenix and the comparisons made between the legendary bird and humanity: in the same way that the bird dies in flames only to be reborn again from the ashes, humanity constantly repeats mistakes made throughout history and never seems to learn from them. Secondly, to give credit where it's due, the writing is suitably creepy for a dystopian society and I understand why people who do actually share Bradbury's concerns would be caught up in the novel's atmosphere. But, overall, this wasn't a great dystopian work for me, I didn't agree with the point it was trying to sell me and I don't think it made a very successful case for it. Furthermore, I had some problems with the pacing. The book is split into three parts and the first two are much slower and uneventful than the last one - which seems to explode with a fast sequence of events in a short amount of time and pages. Disappointing.

Farenheit 451 has been analyzed and reinterpreted by every successive generation to change its meaning. This is chiefly because the book is full of assumptions and vague symbolism which can be taken many ways, and rarely does anyone come away from the book with the conclusion the author intended, which would suggest that it is a failed attempt.

There are grounds to contend that even the title is inaccurate, since contemporary sources suggest paper combusts at 450 degrees Celsius, which in Farenheit would be more than 800 degrees. The truth is, paper combustion is gradual and dependent on many factors; even if some paper might combust at 451F, his title is at best an oversimplification, but Bradbury was more interested in a punchy message than in constructing a thoughtful and well-supported argument.

It's not a book about book censorship, but a book about how TV will rot your brain. Bradbury himself has stated this again and again, as evidenced in this article which quotes Bradbury and in videos from Bradbury's own website--indeed, in an interview, he stated he was inspired to write it because he was horrified that a woman might listen to a radio while walking her dog. Not only does he patronizingly assume that she's listening to a soap opera, instead of news, or appreciating classical music, but it's a strangely anti-technology pose for a sci fi writer to take--does it really matter whether we get our art and knowledge from compressed tree pulp, or from radio transmissions?

This book falls somewhat short of its satirical mark based on this cranky lawn-loving neighbor's message. Then again, it was written in the course of a few days in one long, uninterrupted slurry (mercifully edited by his publishers, but now available utterly restored). It contains archetypes, misconceptions, and an author surrogate, but can still be seen as a slighting view of authority and power, and of the way people are always willing to deceive themselves.

Unfortunately, Bradbury did not seem to recognize that reading has always been the province of a minority and that television would do little to kill it. More books are written, published, and read today than at any other point in history. Most of them are just redundant filler, but so is 90% of any mass creative output, books, art, movies, or TV, as Sturgeon said. And there's nothing new about that, either: cheap, trashy novels have been a joke since the Victorian.

Television is a different medium than books, and has its own strengths and weaknesses. Bradbury's critique of TV--that it will get larger, more pervasive, and become an escape for small minds--is just as true of books. As for television damaging social interaction, who is less culturally aware: the slack-jawed boy watching television or the slack-jawed boy reading one uninspired relic of genre fiction after another? I read a lot of books as a kid and watched a lot of TV, and each medium provided something different. Neither one displaced the other, since reading and watching aren't the same experience.

There is an egalitarian obsession that people are all capable of being informed and intelligent. We now send everyone to college, despite the fact that for many people, college is not a viable or useful route. The same elitism that values degrees values being 'well-read', and since this is the elitism of the current power structure, it is idealized by the less fortunate subcultures. Bradbury became informed not because he read, but by what he read. He could have read a schlocky pop novel every day for life and still been as dull as the vidscreen zombies he condemns.

He has mistaken the medium for the message, and his is a doubly mixed message, coming from a man who had his own TV show.

the way you can tell this was written by a man is he writes a teenage girl who walks alone at night and voluntarily begins a conversation with a male stranger

2,5/5

"The books leapt and danced like roasted birds, their wings ablaze with red and yellow feathers."

I can't. I just can't.

(Breathe. Breathe. Breathe.)

*Need time to get over this.

I am still curious about the audio-capsule (this guy - a genius, he already predicted wireless headphones or chips, whichever suits) and the procaine needles (I still need to know the biochemistry and mechanism of action of procaine. This guy brought back alive the old science soul in me ☺️).


Beatty. I liked this character. Intimidating and boisterous to the max. (And I am always in awe of someone who can quote quotes like breathing in and breathing out. I am sure he had a hidden The Beauty and The Beast kind of library. Don't you ever kid me that he didn't!)

Faber. (Was he one of the Faber and Faber? I highly doubt this ☺️ His quest and enthusiasm as an old frail man to save books and to reproduce more. Well, I hope you can throw that responsibility to me, Mr Faber.)

Montag. (The inbetween one. I see him as the one struggling to live the dreams of all the book lovers, not understanding much what was going on but yes, the belief that something phenomenal is hidden in books and he was ready to fight for it. I wish he was here with me now. I would make him read all the books in my shelves. Like he would kiss my books until he dropped. Yes, 2gether forever.)

Most amusing short-lived side character: Claresse. Ethereal and so normal that she mesmerized me with all her calmness and fictionalized reality.

Mildred. Wife of Montag. The most annoying character ever. Suicidal, an addict and so damn unreliable. (Author, you made your point.)

The first half was good but it's the second half that all hell broke loose and I wasn't reading the book fast enough!

I was rooting for the character to save the last few remnants (if I can say that!) and escape from the Hound! It was utter madness during the last few pages!


I love the writing. I can feel the angst. I could touch the emptiness. I could experience the want of emotions and feelings. I could sense the hunger for change. I could live the adventure of saving what's most important. One of the best dystopian classics indeed!

Ray Bradbury sets up a totalitarian society where people are not allowed to keep books, no one reads, and firefighters are tasked with finding and burning books.

This is a very simple anti - intellectual society setting, and it's not particularly surprising. But to observe whether a world setting is powerful, it's not just about looking at the trope, but also about the details. In other words, how are the logic and rules of this world reflected in specific details of daily life?

In Bradbury’s setting, people are driven to live, always busy. Vehicles must travel at speeds over 150 kilometers per hour; people sleep with earplugs to listen to various sounds; there are 3 television walls in every home, with various relatives constantly talking to you; if you commit suicide by taking medication, there is a blood - cleaning device that can replace your entire body, allowing you to live again and forget why you took the medication.

These are specific lifestyles. But why is this?

Because they believe that keeping people from thinking and simply providing them with happiness is the best thing. The "pressure of the minority" is the reason. The larger the population, the more complex the types of minorities. Don't step on the toes of dog lovers, and there are also cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, all kinds of officials, Mormons, Baptists, monotheists, second - generation Chinese immigrants, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites... The bigger the market, the harder it is to deal with disputes. This seems to be the dilemma faced by Bradbury in 1940s America. Because conflicts are so difficult to deal with, create a world without conflict? Is this the reason for the formation of an anti-intellectual society? Is this reason sufficient to lead to an anti-intellectual society?

Well, maybe I'm being too demanding. Worldbuilding is always arbitrary.

In the middle, there's a thought-provoking passage. When the fire captain is brainwashing Montag to make him believe that a world without books is better, he gives a long and eloquent speech. He uses contradictory quotes from various philosophers to attack each other. What's the use of books? Books only bring contradictions and chaos, and books contradict and confuse each other.

So I waited for Bradbury, through Montag, to refute this directly. But he simply escapes. In this frontal battle, why escape? Why is the need for books, for these chaotic and contradictory ideas, a self - evident truth?

I was quite disappointed when I read about the escape. This is a difficult question to debate. Abstractly speaking, why do we need contradictions, chaos, and diversity? If science fiction wants to discuss this axiom, then this axiom should be discussed seriously. Because in an anti - intellectual setting, it is precisely something that needs to be discussed, and if it is self - evident, it would not lead to this result.

Of course, maybe Bradbury’s strength is not in reasoning. His strength lies in scenes and lyricism. He wants to use the details of dandelion seeds sticking to the chin, real conversations between people, lying on a pile of dead leaves by the railroad tracks, asking his wife what love is, etc., to evoke people's innate nature - respect for people's own senses and thinking - to indirectly illustrate the self - evident nature of this axiom.

I can't say it's ineffective, I can only say that it left me disappointed in the expectations of a frontal battle. These scenes are gentle and sentimental, like eyelashes blinking on your cheek. Yes, it's good, but it's still not enough, not powerful enough for this world setting, and this debate should be difficult and powerful.

So in my opinion, Bradbury strengths shine brightly in The Martian Chronicles. But in this book, he's struggling.

Finally, I'll set aside my evaluation and quote a paragraph I personally like: ”Everyone leaves something behind when they die, my grandfather used to say. A child, a book, a painting, a house, a wall you built yourself, a pair of shoes you made yourself, or a garden full of flowers. In some way, you've touched something with your hands, so when you die, your soul has somewhere to go; people look at the flowers and trees you've planted, and there you are. It doesn't matter what you do, he said, as long as you can change it, it was one way before you touched it, and after you took your hand away, it became something like you. The difference between a man who only mows the lawn and a real gardener is in their touch, he said. The man who mows the lawn seems to have never been there; while a gardener will be there all his life."

3.4 / 5 stars