I have to do presentation for my ISU on F451 and I was wondering if anyone could add any input into style or setting. So far this is what I got for setting:

Guy Montag is a fireman who burns literature in a dystopian American city. In Montag’s fictitious world, firemen start fires rather than preventing them. The people in this culture do not read books for it is an act of transgression, enjoy nature as it suggests indifference and deviation, think independently, spend time by themselves, or have meaningful discourse. Instead, they drive hastily, watch excessive amounts of television on wall-size sets, and listen to “Seashell Radio” found attached to their ears. This society is constantly under siege by jets. The people of this city are in trepidation whenever they are there for they fear the end, but it serves more for the climax of the novel than anything as it drifts into the background of the story.

This is what I got. I don't think there is much mention of specific details of the setting but then I have only read the novel once so I may have missed details. As for style, I am dumbfounded. I have no real idea as to what to write so I was wondering if anyone could point be in the right direction. All I know is his style is very verbose and metaphorical. Anyways, any help at all would be bery appreciated, thanks.

Just popping in quickly. I think his style is pretty clean as opposed to verbose. Compare him to Dickens. There's a great writer who is verbose. Takes him three pages to describe a front porch. Bradbury paints words like an impressionist. He mentions things and somehow you know what he's thinking. So I would not call him verbose. I think he is a pretty concise writer.

He has a focus on persons and ideas. He doesn't spend eternity describing physical details. His focus is on plot and person.

I know it isn't much, but I'm pressed for time right now.

Note some of the DETAILS in the novel's settings, and how they reflect RB's dystopic vision and the values of the 'future'. Eg. The descriptions of the interior of Montag's house, the fire station, the road & billboards, Clarisse's (sp?) house ... etc.
Note also the distinct CONTRASTS in the settings. Eg. Clarisse's old-fashioned house compared to other houses, the river & woods at the end compared to the city... etc.
I just realised my post seems to contradict Mr Dark's previous post - you're right, Bradbury doesn't always spend a lot of time describing physical details, but what I'm saying is that settings & physical details in 451 carry great significance.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: oz-crumley,

I'm not sure you contradict me, but even if you do, perhaps you're right and I'm wrong.

I was trying to say that Bradbury writes in such a way that he creates settings that feel real and vivid without having to spend a lot of words doing it. It is not a coincidence that he has been called the poet of science fiction, and that he has published a good deal of poetry himself. His words are able to convey "setting" and "feeling" without belaboring his writing with long descriptions.

I think that is one noteworthy aspect of his style--the ability to convey a lot of meaning with limited verbosity. Compare him to Dickens, or Dostoevsky, or others. These are great writers, but their works contain prolonged periods--pages in many cases--with purely physical descriptions of setting. You don't see Bradbury do that. He paints a Martian landscape in just a few words and images. It is really wonderful writing.

Also, his use of language allows him to convey a lot of feeling with few words. Look at the opening paragraph of F451. "It was a pleasure to burn". In the paragraph that follows, he references fire, pounding blood, venomous kerosene, a conductor of a symphony, fireflies, the sky burning, charcoal ruins of history, flapping pigeon-winged books, a marshmellow in a fireplace, etc. Are any of these simply physical descriptions of burning? Aren't they all metaphors and images that carry much more emotional power than simply long-winded physical descriptions? Isn't this part of Bradbury's power with words? Why he's a master?

Doesn't this paragraph give you a powerful starting point for a discussion on his style?

Thanks a lot Mr. Dark and oz-crumley. I'm not one who is very familiar with the styles of writing since we, or I, never studied them in class. I was basing everything off what I had remembered from reading it which was at least a month ago. Also, I have not read neither Dickens or Dostoevsky so my idea of a verbose style is rather incorrect as I have come to understand. I noted that he is very metaphorical. Now, considering what you said I realize that Bradbury seems to write more so about the inner conflict of the character. His writing seems very personal in my opinion. I'm not sure what style he would fall under still but I'll be sure to read up on impressionist styles. Thanks.

In addition to my previous question I was wondering if anyone here could shed some light on whether or not Guy Montag is a ironic hero or romantic hero.

While this may not prove helpful, I'd day he's an ironic hero in that he is a fireman who turns against his own in violating his own code of law; but he is a romantic hero in that he connects with a kind of artist's sensitivity about where the meaning of life is going to be found.

thanks for the input because he could really be interpreted as either one of them. He is not ironic because he is not defeated by the uncaring world, but he is not romantic because he is filled with irony as he is flawed and ordinary. He bleeds and makes errors, but in the end he suceeds in understanding himself somewhat cathartically... hmmm. I'm not sure. thanks again.