I am not sure where to begin this discussion. The resource Farenheit 451 needs to be changed to land properly in a current high school audience. I ask other concerned citizens to join me in contacting the publisher to have the lines where Clarissa endorses spanking removed. In the 1996 edition it is on p. 30. I am horrified every time an ESL student asks what the word "spanked" means or when they get the definition out of the translator and are repulsed by the abuse of a female character captured by a male author who had young daughters at the time he wrote the novel. Not only are the students absolutely repulsed by the uncritical and ignorant state of the character to be so bullied as to endorse violence against herself to throw her into the role of house keeper, but they are thrown out of the book. They cannot relate to this character who is coerced into stating that patriarchal violence of olden times was good. Clarissa sounds brainwashed by the old times of patriarchy and is not a character the teens of today trust. She lands as the horror as her victimization with parental assault goes unacknowledged. Those lines give the audience of today the opposite reaction to Clarissa than what I think Ray intended. The lines need to be removed because they horrify the classes studying the novel. I don't mind that it moves the focus of the book to the history of protection of children's human rights and into a look at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where in 3 places it states that protection of the law cannot discriminate on the basis of age and thus all assault is illegal, but the students are so horrified by the male author setting up a young female to endorse violence against her private parts that the rest of the book is meaningless to teens in our school. The real horror the author tried to establish is lost because of the offensive attitude toward children. If this book is going to have a life in class rooms of this millenium those creepy lines need to go.

Or maybe the book just needs to be removed from the high school curriculum? In part the school board in my city is to blame for continuing to use faulty resources when other ones could like the Michael Moore film take the best awareness of what Bradbury was intending without the problems. A huge part of the problem is that teachers and schools in my city are using this problematic novel when other resources would land more succinctly. I say problematic because of the parental abuse of Clarissa that seemed to go without critique. How good were these old days if children were violated? I have to admit, after that scene I skimmed myself, so if it the parental assaults Clarissa mentions are deconstructed and critiqued please help me find those places in the novel so I can help the students I am tutoring. I have a student today who is about to start it and I immediately dreaded the horror of p. 30. Thanks for reading, considering my concerns and helping me out!

I know that Ray Bradbury was against editing or changing his books but in this case, I am putting forward a suggestion, writer to writer, that the reference to assault of children on p. 30 undermines what he is trying to accomplish. I really hope I am misreading it. I would hate to think that a father of 2 little girls would have been wanting them to go around telling people that they were assaulted by him and are better off for it. I hope the horror of this was just fictional and only happening to Clarissa. I should read the rest of the book more carefully. I just found those lines disturbing. It's hard to keep reading if the author was pro the assault of children. I sure hope I am missing something here and that truly he was non violent in real life, otherwise, the novel just doesn't have a place in a Canadian class room of this day and age. The detail is too confusing.

Although it is a small part of the whole of the book, it really doesn't land:

"Do you know, I'm responsible. I was spanked when I needed it years ago. And I do all the shopping and house cleaning by hand."

Bradbury wanted Clarisse to be a character who questions and thinks, yet here she is as a teenager, not thinking critically at all about the sexist and violent nature of her upbringing. It's yucky. I hope this is not the case, but what if Bradbury the human being had hit one of his own little daughters prior to writing that day and then hoped she would be fine with it, praising it even when grown up. I really hope to be wrong about it, but that is how dropped out of nowhere and out of character the words are to what he is trying to create in Clarisse.

I was shocked by it all when I had to substitute teach a grade 11 class doing the novel. I got the call to sub that morning and had no prep time, so there we were, the students and I, reading the book aloud and the girl reading and myself were horrified when we got to that part. And right before we started to read aloud as a class, I had read the announcements inviting parents and teens to the positive parenting workshops the school was hosting, and then this, flying in the face of everything we hold to be true in our education system - non violence, patience, critical thinking, and here is this character saying something horrible when she is supposed to be a critical thinker. It really doesn't land. It seems like the writer was letting too much of his own sub conscious into the scene and it is yucky. That is why I think it should be edited out, because it goes against the grain of the character, it makes the character not believable and it makes the book really ancient. It means we have to apologize for Bradbury's short comings and excuse him as a product of his time before we even get into his actual ideas, which are relevant, about TV replacing books and critical thought. It is so weird to me how Clarisse has no critical thought regarding interpersonal violence. Is that dramatic irony or just some outdated yuckiness? It lands as just the author's personal yucky stuff that should stay out of the novel.

I know that I too will be a flawed product of my time. I am a flawed person. I don't mean to be overly critical of an excellent writer, only to find a bridge between generations where we give the best of our messages without the burden of unresolved pain. I realize that in the fifties when the book was written, the assault of children was common and misconceptions about the practice rampant, but as a teacher and tutor in today's world, the well being of my students is so crucial to me. I don't want to dump unresolved horrific, unhealthy, violent, dysfunctional relations into their lives without resolution. If the scene is just the author's unresolved yucky stuff that slipped into the book and is wrong, wrong wrong... then I really believe as a writer, editor and teacher that it is best to remove it and bring it to therapy or let it go. Probably the personal healing, resolution and change of thought have already transpired in the human being, so the lines should be removed from the book so as not to trigger others and especially not to confuse readers with misinformation. The information in those lines is wrong from a child development point of view. They just don't belong in the book as far as I can see and they take the reader out of the novel into worry for the real children in the writer's life and hopes that the writer did not violate them, stuff we as readers carry as a burden that distracts us from the book. I know that all early writing is always a product of time and place and our work today will have flaws shown to us by future generations. I just hope to help mend the bridge between the future readers and the place the work came from so future students can receive it without being jarred by details the writer did not realize were upsetting.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Keith Walker,

Ironic.

No need to edit it.
Just burn it.

Also, check out "Chronological Snobbery" on other threads.

Thanks Doug! I woke up today really considering the possibly of ironic. thank you!! That is how I will teach it. I was thinking that no teen I know of would say those words freely. So for Clarisse to say them would imply that she was not entirely free in her old society. I got thinking about how the ending of the book is giving the readers in a sense the opportunity to create a new society, not to return the patriarchal society that assaulted children and had them brainwashed into saying it was good, but a new society. Thank you so much for your insight! It makes much more sense to me that the author was aware of the irony of how those words suggest that Clarisse was not free.

I've been thinking a lot about misunderstood irony in novels like Lord of the Flies or Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. I was taught that anti semitism in Merchant of Venice was simply the author being a product of his time, so I wrote it down, memorized it and recited it back. But every time I see a film of that play, I am so deeply pained from the dramatic irony of Portia making that beautiful speech about mercy then not having enough mercy toward Shylock. I left the theater last time wondering how on earth Shakespeare could have missed the dramatic irony, and concluded that he did not miss it, our society did. I concluded that Shakespeare was using dramatic irony to point out the hypocrisy in the attitude of Christians of his time toward Jews. I woke up this morning wondering if Bradbury was doing a similar thing and I had missed it. It makes much more sense to me that Bradbury purposely created Clarisse with flaws so that she would be a round character and that it is ironic that she was brainwashed and not free in her old society, that the old society too was flawed. I get the book now!!! Thank you so much!!

That's what I'm thinking, Keith.

In the old, free society, spanking was banned. Then, they needed to control people. So they brought it back. Look at Montag's salary. Not livable in today's society. Obviously, wages were controlled. So were other things. Good, now I don't have to ask Ray how he would answer and see whether or not it would be printable.

I think Doug was referring to a different irony. That someone would seek to censor a book which is about censorship. (Yes, I know Bradbury says it's about television rather than censorship, but that's his curmudgeonly present-day take on what he wrote, rather than what the book is evidently about.)

In any case, regardless of what elements may or may not make sense in the classroom, to suggest modifying the text is absurd and defeatist. If the kids can't understand it or accept it, the teacher must find a way of contextualising it so that it does make sense.

Hello Keith

Does the current edition of Fahrenheit 451 you are using as study material contain the epilogue called Coda? This was written by Ray Bradbury, to help answer some questions and comments about his writings. This may also be useful to discuss. I found at link to the piece on http://members.iquest.net/~jswartz/jks/humor/451.htm

Explaining writings in the time and period they were written should be an important part of any study of a book. If we were to study only modern writtings, you would be teaching the awefull text of J K Rowling or Dan Brown. And the sentences would be in txt lnge...

quote:

Originally posted by Keith Walker:
Thanks Doug! I get the book now!!! Thank you so much!!

Always glad to help someone understand Ray's work.

quote:

Originally posted by robnz:
If we were to study only modern writtings, you would be teaching the awefull text of J K Rowling or Dan Brown.

Awefull!? Rowling has written the best fantasy series since Narnia!

Surely you're having me on.

Thanks for all the thoughts. It's so important to contextualize the work for the students and first I need to understand where the author stood on issues, how he reacted or accepted attitudes of his time period and where he is being ironic. Of course I am well aware of the irony of removing sentences from this book. I laughed to myself before posting and made the burn it jokes in my own mind, but in all seriousness, I am tutoring this material to ESL high school students and I occasionally get called in to substitute teach it. Plus, if I grasp the author's irony and fully understand all of what the author is saying, I can appreciate the book more fully and add it to my curriculum. I now think that Bradbury was being ironic. We can all see the irony in suggesting a line be removed from a book that is said to have a theme of anti censorship, but beyond that, there is the issue of the violence against children and the depth of brainwashing Clarisse was indulging in. I would think after much reflection that the author was using that as a tool and not just having it in there due to personal bias and blindness. It threw me at first and that is why I turned to this support board of his fans. I need to really delve deeply into the author's use of literary tools. I have students who are taking the book apart to understand the construction of literature and I want to grasp the author's intent one way or the other with those lines. I am going to have to stop at them with students because in this day and age they fly off the page plus with ESL we stop at new words. I am of course aware of the irony of suggesting that lines be removed in high school versions, but beyond that irony I think Doug was responding to my genuine question - is Bradbury using dramatic irony with Clarisse's character? I felt much better this morning reading Doug's post because it put the book in its best light for me. It is much easier to teach the novel leaning toward the belief that Bradbury was using intentional irony to enhance theme and character rather than that the lines are just dropped in. It makes more sense to me that the author would have awareness and would have planned carefully. It just took me a bit of time to digest it. I was well aware of the pro hitting culture of the time period in which he was writing, so it took some time for me to digest. It makes so much sense to me after reading Doug's small comment, that Bradbury would be aware of the irony in the lines and using that irony as a tool to drive the theme forward. Thanks for the tip about the version with Coda, for links to other discussions in here and for dandelion's explanation of the time sequence in the book. I didn't get the irony that first day so I want to give the book my full attention and really understand it so I can be prepared. It makes for a much more powerful message to see those lines as intentional irony and makes more sense. As writers we are told to give the audience credit that they will get what we are saying and as a reader I should have given the writer much more credit. I'd rather portray writers as advocates for human rights if I can and I also think it sits better to give the writer credit for being aware of the implication of all that is said in the book rather than assuming he is blinded by biases of his time period. Sorry if my first posts were jarring in any way.

My initial suggestion to remove the line was not in favor of censorship, but because my first experience with the line was that when students were reading it literally and taking it at face value, they were getting the opposite message out of the book than I think was intended and it caused them to disengage and reject the book as too old or out of date. It was hard for them to connect to a book that seemed in the moment to be putting forward a message of violence against children or stereotyped gender roles. If I was sitting in a creative writing workshop I would have suggested that the lines be removed if they were an oversight or a pro hitting statement because they detract from the novel or I would have suggested that the ironic message be expanded a bit to help the audience get it. Now that I see them as intentional irony, the work as a whole makes much more sense to me. I was never promoting censorship and of course the joke of why don't we burn it came to mind in myself. I just wasn't seeing the intentional irony the first time reading it and so it had the opposite effect on myself and students than I think was intended. Anyway... I am off to enjoy reading the novel slowly and carefully. Thanks again!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Keith Walker,

quote:

I'd rather portray writers as advocates for human rights if I can and I also think it sits better to give the writer credit for being aware of the implication of all that is said in the book rather than assuming he is blinded by biases of his time period.

Why not portray the artist as he/she is, rather than applying some politically correct bias to it? I think Bradbury would be quacking in his boots over this conversation. Read his comments on censorship and politically correct "corrections" on his (or anyone else's writing). I'm appalled at the dialog here.

quote:

It was hard for them to connect to a book that was putting forward a message of violence against children or stereotyped gender roles.

The claim that "spanking" is violence against children is vague. What kind of spanking? How hard? What preceded it? Is spanking inherently evil? Your assumption that spanking is violence against children is not shared by all. So when you frame it "your" way, you are propogating a bias yourself. Why not let the students read the book and interpret it in the context of the book itself?