To be perfectly honest I don't understand how this book could have changed ones life. Don't get me wrong, it was most definetly a well written and purpusefull novel, however it seems to me that people are making this out to be bigger than it should be. furthermore, there are a few things which i agree with Ray upon. This society in which they live in symbolizes the dangers of an utopia and how ideas, movement, and interactions are key to the human survival. Its a necessity for people to think for themselves and argue they opinions. every day the world's technology grows even more and sometimes it scares me. It scares me for two totaly opposite reasons; first of all because to think of how one day all these amazing discoveries will die and we will have to start from scratch once again. However, I have never been a big fan of technology. Just the fact that things are easier and less thinking is needed makes me meloncoli. Anyway, back on topic; this book is a classic, no doubt about it but some people are taking certain things Ray quoted over fifty years ago too personal.
Bianca I agree, because technology is growing everyday and it scares me as well. Pretty soon we will invent robots and flying cars to help improve our chances toward a utopia. This will rue our world and destoy our chances of this. Farenheit 451 brings a great futurisitc view of Earth. The mechanical hound is genious. He had a great insight on what will come. There are also a lot of speeches in the story that are very wise and questionable. Good post Bianca.
[This message has been edited by murawbra000 (edited 08-27-2004).]
I definately agree with you Bianca. technology is growing more rapidly than ever before and it scares me 2 but I mean when peole say that they are going to change there lives because of this book i mean that is just outragous. Don't get me wrong this book is one of the best books I have ever read but i mean its not LIFE CHANGING.
Posts: 12 | Location: lemont,IL,USA | Registered: 27 August 2004
Originally posted by murawbra000: Bianca I agree, because technology is growing everyday and it scares me as well. Pretty soon we will invent robots and flying cars to help improve our chances toward a utopia. This will rue our world and destoy our chances of this. Farenheit 451 brings a great futurisitc view of Earth. The mechanical hound is genious. He had a great insight on what will come. There are also a lot of speeches in the story that are very wise and questionable. Good post Bianca.
[This message has been edited by murawbra000 (edited 08-27-2004).]
i also agree with the idea that the mechanical hound is ingenious. With tieing in the idea that now firefighters have become the enemy in this story, no longer helping people to stop the fires they are starting them. The fear that is felt in this book of the firemen ties in the humanistic idea that people dont want blame. Now that the firefighters are the enemy they must "make" a way to switch the blame from them to something else. In making the mechanical hound they can now say that it was the hound who did it and not themselves. The firefighters now take no responsiblilty for damage or havik reaked on humans. This shows the nature of humans, that we want to "solve" probelms but dont want to deal with the consequences.
The book changed my life. Why do you say it couldn't change anyone's life?
Technology is fascinating. We always fear future technology, but we accomodate each "advance". For interesting thoughts on technology and it's interaction with man, I highly recommend what Henry David Thoreau had to say about it in WALDEN. He was born in an era where we were changing from an agrarian culture to a technology-driven industrial age. Really interesting observations -- I think he's actually more relevant today than he was back in his day.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 08-27-2004).]
F-451 is not really about technology per se. Technology is a tool in the novel, but the real essence of the piece is the power of government. The people were robbed of independent thinking.
Mr. Dark: I agree with you about Thoreau. "Simplify, simplify, simplify." A good piece of literature has a universal theme that has a relevency in any era. Shakespeare's themes of power, greed, and love are the same today because people still have human traits. The tools we use change, but our characteristics remain (BASICALLY) the same.
And society is somewhat that way now.....people don't want to think or have to take responsibility for themselves, which is why we have idiotic lawsuits (remember the granny and McDonald's coffee???) and even more idiotic cautionary statements on nearly everything you buy. I've actually seen, on a hair dryer, "Do not use while in shower."
Posts: 213 | Location: New Berlin, WI, USA | Registered: 21 June 2004
Pete: Willingly gave up? Do you not think it was a process of evolving power? We can argue that it is in today's society to a point. As a teacher, I see the lack of free thinking often, but the effect of television and video games, (and I am not against either)have lessened the reading time of young people. Also, the lack of parental involvement in their kids education is a factor.
The characters in 451 lacked free thought because of the long period of indoctrination. The novel begins long into the book banning era. Although many in the novel believe the books are a waste of time, there is still a great resistance, otherwise the firemen would have no function. Without the edict, the books would be more readily available to those who chose not to read out of brainwashing or shear fear of the consequences. Perhaps they would pick up a book eventually and open their minds as Montag did.
In Orwell's 1984, people believed, or forced themselves to believe, things to be true that were false the day before because of government control and power. Of course that novel goes a step further with the concept of "thoughtcrime."
Mr Dark: As far as the McDonald's coffee incident, it is a good example of irrational thought, but I believe the system has more to do with that than society as a whole.
Some else brought up the McDonalds coffee incident.
I've heard both sides on this one. The lawsuit was stupid, or that the coffee actually wasn't just hot, it was way hotter than the regulated serving temperature of coffee -- hence the extreme nature of the burn.
I'm a fan of personal responsibility, and I don't know the details of his particular incident. But I'm tired of individuals persons always being responsible, but corporations being sometimes given a wash. Responsibility lies on both sides of the exchange.
I was laid off from Nortel Networks. Of course, I'm accountable for making myself marketable; but the CEO responsible for the layoffs made huge business errors (and, I'm convinced unethical behavior) that led to the layoff of over 60,000 people. He walked away with 100,000,000.00 (yes, one hundred million). The CEO who followed was just fired for illegally manipulating the numbers to pad his profits. He was fired, 3500 - 5000 people are being laid off, and he just bought himself a 4.5 million dollar mansion. Who's responsible?
Sorry for the off-topic rant. I promise to behave now.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 08-29-2004).]
So it goes. Unethical behaviour was at the root of the folding of 'my' erstwhile company, and I was whisked away to the other side of the country to accommodate a handful of colleagues with political protection. A couple of years ago one of the incompetents responsable for the whole sorry mess (which involved thousands of layoffs and finally the annihilation of the company itself) made my day when he died of a particularly nasty disease. Hey, I'm only human.
Mr dark, you've just experianced Capitalism. Smith was wrong, or rather, those who read him don't understand the principles (though Smith was wrong in that he didn't emphasize it enough). Capitalism is a system where everyone monitors everyone else. If you get screwed, it's your fault. Your CEO screwed you. It was your fault for getting screwed. Wouldn't you rather live in a Walden II society?
Cheers, Translator (screwed, in that context, isn't a very bad word, I hope?)
The founding fathers (of America, I'm not familiar with Canada's story of origin) were very clear that freedom and capitalism work fine with a common moral code, but that without it, freedom was subject to abuse.
Nevertheless, I think America is working out a good balance between communal help (Social Security, Medicaid, Public Education, Public Works, Public Libraries, fire and police departments, food stamps, unemployment, etc.) and individual responsibility.
I don't see this as "proof" that capitalism is inherently evil.
At the risk of engendering another round of debates (I'll say this and announce that I won't participate in another hate-filled, judgemental, off-topic rant), I will say that I'll take the often-painful business cycles of capitalism over the 20,000,000 soviet murders under communism's "egalitarian" reign.