I too, agree with Bianca, but not fully. It's not right to ask how on earth a book like this could "change" someone's life, because, people are in fact different. Not to say that Fahrenheit 451 changed my life in anyway, because it didn't, but that's not to say that someone could have quite possibly found a connection to one of the characters and possibly Bradbury himself, including his writing techniques. Although I have no interest in this particular book, I can understand as to why, 50 years later, people are still reading Ray. It's a classic to some, with topics dealing with a "perfect, non-competitioned world", and to others, a forceful read, dealing with subjects irrelevant to what some say is a non-realistic world that we live in. Basically, it is up to the reader to decide whether to accept Bradbury's attempt at a "level" world, or to realize that you are being strung along during the entire book.
I definitely agree with Bianca in the sense that Fahrenheit 451 did not change my life, but I do not think that it is right to assume that someone else's life could not be changed by reading this book. There are countless people who believe that an utopia, where all the reasons to be unhappy are eliminated, is a possible and a great place to live. For those people, this book provides a closer look into humans in the search for such a place, but in this journey, they lose touch with their emotions. In the search for happiness, the people living in Montag's society become almost emotionless and depressed. They have no reason to live in this "perfect" society that they created. So for someone who believes that eliminating all the reasons for unhappiness would solve the problems of the world, reading this book could change their perspective on life, and therefore be life changing.
I agree also that technology is at times frightning. We do not know what the future holds for us, but we can see the seeds that are being planted in today's world. It is scary to think of the possibilities of human cloning. It is also sad to see the direction the human race is taking with the help of technology. We are alienating ourselves from the outside world by shopping online,or watching movies on pay-per-view instead of going to a movie theater.It is possible for us to live a confortable life, without being deprived of any modern conveniences, and without even leaving our houses. The internet, telephone and television make this possible, in other words technology.
Of course, I would too, however, what you just did was compare apples to oranges, and since I like apples more than oranges, I agree with you. But the question here is the actual system itself and the practicality of it, not what it takes to get that system going. Yes the 7 000 000 dead are quite horrid, but that was done, it was a sunk cost, so to speak, and nothing could have brought them back. The result was that there was a communistic-like society left. The system itself, by the 70's, was not bad at all. It was a crime when it was dismatled.
I don't see how Montag can change from burning bookes to liking books. I noticed theat this books had a utopia such as the giver did that i read in 7th grade. I just think reading is borring, and for a person who doesn't like to read, Ray Bradburry is a pretty good author. He doesn't write about the same old ordinairy stuff.
"But the question here is the actual system itself and the practicality of it, not what it takes to get that system going. Yes the 7 000 000 dead are quite horrid, but that was done, it was a sunk cost, so to speak, and nothing could have brought them back. The result was that there was a communistic-like society left. The system itself, by the 70's, was not bad at all. It was a crime when it was dismatled.
Translator: I just can't let this go.
First, it was not 7 million murdered by the Soviets -- it was OVER 20 million. Please don't ask me to document this. I've read it in many places.
Second, 20 million people were a "sunk cost"? What does THAT mean? 20 million people are 20 million people -- not a sunk cost!!!!!
Third, The Soviet system, by the 70's wasn't that bad?????
We are really, really far apart on this one!!
I side with you on most issues. But THIS???
I can now almost see how people associate liberals with socialists or as the rednecks say, "commies".
I'll give you the benefit of doubt, as all good liberals do. Please explain your ascertation or belief or theory or whatever the hell it is that the 70's era Soviet Union wasn't that bad.
And you Republicans don't get all excited over the possibility of having a new recruit in me.
You know...there are a couple of people on this website who live in Russia. Why not ask them? They may be young, but know first hand the effects and affects of events.
One is PAVEL. I have to see how he signs on, but his websites are : http://www.raybradbury.ru & http://www.immersion.raybradbury.ru
The other fellow signs on as... elron.
One correction: that's over 40 million killed, the blame for which many would aver goes to Stalin alone.
Whatever the final number is, it's an amazing figure. How this can be discounted is beyond me. How persons can be discounted as "sunk cost" is beyond me.
I feel badly that there have been between 10 and 15 thousand persons killed in the Iraqi war. The war (argued by many) is being fought to set up a freer government. The 20+ (to 40) million were killed to set up an oppressive regime. How persons are okay with killing 20+ million to set up a repressive regime, but argue vociferously against 10-15 thousand to set up a freer government is difficult for me to understand.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 09-15-2004).]
the idea here is this:
While I was and still am strongly opposed to the war on very many reasons, one of the biggest ones being that innocent lives were going (which was confirmed) lost, I am now assessing the situation. If the end result of such very many needless deaths was stability, equality, and a general improvement in Iraqi life, then I would say that, although what happened to get the Iraqis to that state was bad, what they are now faced with is good, hence the current system as at sept15 2004 should be left in place. I would still condemn the invasion of Iraq, and would consider it to be a very badly planned, unprovoked attack, but I would admit that it had some benefits, and hence, that some good came out of it. If it was up to me, then, I would not invade Iraq (I would try other means, or better yet, I would simply forget about it and focus on real issues - like terrorism). However, if I took the reins of power after the stupid invasion happened, I would do all I can to build on what was accomplished, and try to actually make the sacrifice of civilllians worth something. That is it, that is the idea. (Of course, the Iraqis are now dying by the hundreds at the hands of foreign terrorists, and their life is not much better. Hence I doubly condemn the attacks as asanine, for the quagmire was quite predictable).
WIth Russia it was the same. Millions of people died needlessly - in the revolution and afterwards - but finally the killings stopped, and relative peace arose. The benefits were plain to see - free medicare, free universities, a steadily increasing lifestyle, and a loosening on the freedom of speech. Granted, millions of people died to bring this about, and,although that was quite unfortunate, there was no reason to destroy what their blood paid for. Again, if I was a leader in the pre-killing russia I would not attack the Tsar. But if I was a leader after the killings, say, in the 70's, I would never attempt to dismantle what came by. Hence, to destroy a communistic system as exhibited by the Russians of the 70's and later on was a crime not only against the living russians, but also against those who died. For with the dismantling of the system they have indeed died for absolutley nothing.
[This message has been edited by Translator (edited 09-15-2004).]
Thank goodness this is not set in stone, but only Translator's take on the subject.
Well, if one knows any Russians, one's take on history is dramatically different...
Quote: "...relative peace arose. The benefits were plain to see - free medicare, free universities, a steadily increasing lifestyle, and a loosening on the freedom of speech."
You are the only person I've ever seen characterize 70's Soviet Russia this way. You apparently totally discount the records of Solzhenitsyn and Sakarov?
These millions of people didn't die to get freedom. They had no choice. They were murdered in a powergrab by a bunch of ideologues.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 09-15-2004).]
If you're implying that I don't know russian, you are mistaken.
Mr Dark, I am not disregarding the two S's. Notice I said of the 70's. By that time the gulags were becoming much more humane, the political prosoners were dissapearing, and human rights groups were negotiating limited acess to those living there. By the 80's the situation improved even more.
When you say that those millions dies without a choice, I would agree with you. They were the poor unfortuante victims of a badly thought out plan that apparently did not consider single human life to be of any meaning. However, their death brought benefits to the country, if they who died liked it or not. Their death brought a solid socialist system by the 70's and 80's. Wheteher those who died were willing participants or not, upon their blood was built a system that was somewhat at least concerned with the disadvantaged. I'm saying that that final system, although quite clearly not justified by the many deaths, was a good thing for russians, and it's dismantlement was not. So, to rephrase again, Had I had the choice of killing the many millions of russians to bring about communism I would not. But if I was faced with a done fact - the millions of deaths - and a system that was finally beginning to work, I would think very, very hard before I would destroy it.
This, again, applies to the Iraqi war as well. I take you could make the paralells yourself.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2 3 4|