Do you think bradbury really saw the future of our society being like the society in farenheit 451?
thank you

I think it's a commentary not on how he thought the future will be, but on how he viewed the present day. He said that you don't need to burn books, you just have to get people to stop reading them. Look around at the way people are today. Walk down the street and try to discuss classic literature with someone (or classic film, classical music, art, etc.) and see how many people even know what you're talking about. A few will, and those few are the walking books. The ones in which live the ghosts of Poe and Whitman, the echoes of Bach and Beethoven ringing in their ears. It sort of forms a little bond between people who know about these things. Which is why we all come to this page. To interact with others who share our common literary interest.

I think we might see a rise in reading, thanks largely in part to books like Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Goosebumps, etc. that are capturing a new generation of readers. Can't forget the Hardy boys!

But as far as people who aren't aware of the classics, it can be frustrating when you make a really witty joke but nobody gets it because they're uncultured. I had a friend who had a really old car that was in terrible shape. It was ready to collapse at any moment, and it happened to be red. She nicknamed her car the Red Death. Well, of course I got the reference, but not too many of our other friends did.

It's also fun to just shock people sometimes. I like to name the classical pieces and composers that come out on people's cellular phone ringtones. "Oh, that's Promenade from Pictures at an Exhibition by Modest Mussorgsky," and everyone looks at me like, "HUH!? There's a NAME for that song? I thought Nokia made that up!" It's kind of fun just showing off like that. I'd better be more careful, though, or they might send the mechanical hound after me...

[This message has been edited by groon (edited 01-12-2004).]

I don't know, petie. I would guess so. I see it in different ways than groon. Of course, it is art like a painting which people interpret differently when and after looking at it. Unlike groon, I do not get upset when people do not know the classics. People today, I am happy just getting a "Hello" out of. I don't see it as much about people not reading but about them not feeling. I see the folks that had the stories in their memories as an opposition to the "death culture" that surrounded them.

I think Bradbury saw F451 -- like many of his other writings -- as "warnings" of what could be if we didn't take preventative action.

I agree with both posters:

The classics ARE horribly neglected and we may lose them. I agree with groon that this is a real loss -- not just of great literature, but of a cultural heritage that partially defines who we are as a culture and as humans. I think this is the kind of thing Bradbury was frightened of . . . that books and ideas would be lost -- not through censorship (although he feared that, also) -- but through personal neglect.

Kant warned, in an essay called, "What is Enlightenment?" that people turn their life decisions over to others and he cites two reasons why they would do this: fear and laziness. We are afraid of making our own decisions, and we are too lazy to do the work required to really take responsibility for understanding our lives and making decisions based on OUR OWN views -- rather than the views of others.

And, with ought not, I also worry about the loss of feeling. There's a biblical prophecy that in the last days, "the love of many shall wax cold". Without getting biblical, I think wat that verse alludes to(whether prophetically or in a sense of literary commentary) is the sense of the wasteland (in literature and poetry) that was developed during and between the two world wars. We are devoid of feeling as a way of numbing us to pain. But when we lose feeling, we loose much of what it is to be human.

Bradbury writes again and again about love as the basis of human goodness. A popular book talks about love being a verb, but it is also a feeling. When you're numb to feeling, you're numb to love. And I think Bradbury's view is that if you are numb to love you are numb to happiness.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 01-12-2004).]

Bravo, Mr. Dark.

Petie,

You have posed a question worthy of answer. So far, everyone has answered the question.

Groon offers us proof with his analogy of today's walking books forming bonds with like-minded individuals as the personification of Bradbury's future society.

Ought Not describes a death culture society void of human emotion. Parallels abound on that level as well. Just walk through any public place and look into the eyes of the people you pass. How many genuinely look back? How many seem void of emotion? Did Bradbury foresee a death culture?

And the sagacious Mr. Dark offers insight into how our current society has become numb to feelings like love and has allowed fear and laziness to guide our indecisions.
Bradbury has nuged us with this truth through his writing while also showing us the error of our ways.

Bradbury, in my mind, is a visionary. He is a pioneer of listening to the inner voice and sharing the insight. There is no other explanation for his consistant and accurate tracking of humanity's pulse.