Why is this book so hyped? All I hear is some crochety old man complaining about how all the whippersnappers are watching those newfangled "televisions"
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Fahrenheit 451
Why is this book so hyped? All I hear is some crochety old man complaining about how all the whippersnappers are watching those newfangled "televisions"
|
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Is it hyped? Everyone shits on it
I mean when I was in middle school this book was hyped and I guess there is that HBO original series based on it. It's like 100 pages and a very basic message of how censorship is bad, if you have any passing curiosity this is a trivial read.
It has nothing to with censorship, try again kid.
It's a book about guys literally burning books because they cause people to think. I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling me, in which case I say good one, or if you were filtered so good you have the world record in being filtered.
He's retroactively changed the meaning of the book several times, give anon a break. If anything, the "it's about censorship" is the view you were fed in high school and thinking differently means you AREN'T a pleb.
It wasn't taught at my high school due to content. Until censorship is defined as anything other than the act, process, or practice of censoring, which burning books falls under then it is by definition a book about censorship. Apparently we have 2 filtered plebs in here trying to argue they weren't filtered. So I will entertain an argument that it isn't about censorship if either of you can actually make one.
>It wasn't taught at my high school due to content
Huh what there isn't even a rape scene
>a very basic message of how censorship is bad
Holy shit. Did you even read it? It's not even about censorship.
Captain Beatty just about explains the theme of the book for you, when he gives his speech to Montag. It's very well-written, but it doesn't take a lot of finesse to put together what the book is about. It's like a basic litmus test of whether someone has read the book, do they believe it's about censorship?
It's about culture declining so much due to television, prescription drugs, and a refusal to be challenged or criticized, that it decides books must be extinguished.
>a refusal to be challenged or criticized, that it decides books must be extinguished.
So in other words censorship bad.
Books aren't censored based on their contents, there's a unilateral ban on books as a medium of information.
There is no particular thing being censored, it's a mode or knowledge itself which is being cast off. In almost no other way is censorship depicted, in terms of restricting ideas. There is no specific story, idea, or belief which is being censored, because all of them can be manifested into books. You can argue semantics that there's some definition of censorship that applies, but it doesn't matter. The critical issue is owning and reading books, not saying or believing something.
This is why it's not about censorship, at all. That's the most midwit take, and misses the real point of the book. It makes you think, the problem is a tyrannical and censorious state. No, the problem is people being stupified by technology, and incapable of seeing the value of traditional books.
If they were so archaic and people just voluntarily decided to disown them why have the firefighters? Why is it a crime to hoard them like the one firefighter ends up doing? If you have criminalized access to information in total it is just a heavier form of censorship to saying you can't say certain things but it's still censorship by definition. If you cannot own and read books then you are being censored, it is literally that simple. By definition it is a book about censorship and this response further proves you are filtered, by Ray Bradbury no less, he's not even that cerebral, it's just sub-midwit at this point.
As
has pointed out your argument rests on the notion that the book still has censorship as one of its core themes. You can spend as much time finessing what the book is about as you claim is required and you still only came up with an argument that includes censorship as a theme. This isn't just filtering, it's straight cognitive dissonance.
It's great. Pseuds can't handle reading pulp, their loss.
>In a 1994 interview, Bradbury stated that Fahrenheit 451 was more relevant during this time than in any other, stating that, "it works even better because we have political correctness now. Political correctness is the real enemy these days. The black groups want to control our thinking and you can't say certain things. The homosexual groups don't want you to criticize them. It's thought control and freedom of speech control."
Extremely based, especially since this was an interview from 1994.
The book is from 195diggidy and it talks about how books were banned because they gradually banned anything that offended people until they ended up banning it all. That guy was a visionary. His dystopic concept is more spot on than 1984 or brave new world
>It's thought control and freedom of speech control
Okay but both of those things are good.
You only think that because you can't persuade others with persuasive speech to agree with your ideas, or you don't have the truth on your side.
Thought control is the aim of all political and social life--to influence people's minds and opinions at a non-rational or emotional level.
And limiting speech is a necessary reality of living in any organized society, that certain ideas are excluded from discourse.
One may be allowed at a legal level to say anything, while in actuality not really be allowed to express certain ideas.
Every existent society, even the ones that claim to have free speech, practice the limiting of speech to a narrow range of ideas acceptable to the mainstream.
Societies that have free speech, actually have a narrow range of ideas that are allowed, while others are deliberately excluded by powerful interests.
What you say is not wrong, but making an apology for dogma is another extreme. Things aren't just black or white.
it's kino
"His wife stretched on the bed, uncovered and cold, like a body displayed on the lid of a tomb, her eyes fixed to the ceiling by invisible threads of steel, immovable. And in her ears the little Seashells, the thimble radios tamped tight, and an electronic ocean of sound, of music and talk and music and talk coming in, coming in on the shore of her unsleeping mind. The room was indeed empty. Every night the waves came in and bore her off on their great tides of sound, floating her, wide-eyed, toward morning. There had been no night in the last two years that Mildred had not swum that sea, had not gladly gone down in it for the third time."
The prose was good