Genre Science Fiction Publisher Random House Date Published 1953 Review Posted on 7/7/2004 Reviewer Rating Reader Rating
# of Ratings: 215 Average Rating: 6 out of 10
Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury
Reviewed by Tim Deland
If you've read this book, why not
Chances are, whether you've read this book or not, you've heard about it. It's one of the modern classics of American literature (not just sci-fi) and rightfully so. This is probably Ray Bradbury's most important novel, at least in terms of his subject matter. Published in 1953--the same year he wrote the screenplay for John Huston's Moby Dick--it's also one of his earliest.
The story concerns Guy Montag, a fireman in a not-so-distant future, whose job it is to burn books, which are illegal possessions. Montag is fairly contented in his life until he meets Clarisse, a teenaged neighbor who seems wise beyond her years and asks him questions nobody else ever has before--namely why. Why is the world the way it is? And, most poignantly for Montag, are we truly happy? Soon Montag finds himself questioning everything he once took for granted--including the most taboo subject of all. What's inside those books that make them so dangerous?
Many people who have never read Fahrenheit 451 often make an incorrect assumption about its meaning. It is not, in fact, just another book about government repression as often alluded (in Michael Moore's recent film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' for example) but is also an impassioned outcry against the dumb-ing down of culture as Bradbury saw it. In his world, it is not government that has forced people to stop reading books (and watching meaningful plays, movies, etc.) but rather themselves. Desiring to avoid the annoyance of conflicting ideas and painful facts, people simply gave up their right to read--and their right to think as well.
For the most part, Bradbury's criticisms remain as pertinent today as when they were first written, whether you agree with them or not. The future he describes is a frenetic world--where the five second news blurb and video soap opera (eerily similar to certain online role playing games) rule. People don't have time to sit down and read a classic, and would find all the thinking it required disturbing and bothersome if they did. While the government did not create this mess, it is glad to take advantage of people's purposeful ignorance, waging wars overseas that nobody actually understands or really cares to (including the widows whose husbands have died there).
It is easy to see how Bradbury's book still resonates in our increasingly fast-paced, politically correct, and, far too often, shallow society. Besides its ideas though, there are other features to recommend this book. Bradbury keeps the tension at a constant boil, as Montag skates closer and closer to the edge, his enemies all the while piling up against him--including his oppressive boss Beatty, his vacuous and suicidal wife, and the cold metal jaws of the Hound, a robotic dog programmed to hunt down any and all book-reading lawbreakers.
Of particular interest is Beatty, one of Bradbury's stronger characters, a man absolutely convinced that destroying books is in society's best interest. While it is clear he is the villain (we're reading this in a book after all, right?) Bradbury provides him with compelling arguments, rather than making him the jackbooted pseudo-Nazi we might expect. "Ask yourself, What do we want in this country, above all," he asks Montag at one point, "People want to be happy, isn't that right? Haven't you heard it all your life? ...Well, aren't they? Don't we keep them moving, don't we give them fun? That's all we live for, isn't it?" People don't want or need philosophy and sociology and so on, he argues, because that way lays confusion and "melancholy." And in some ways we know he's right. How many intellectuals do you know who are truly happy people?
There are, unfortunately, some bad points to Fahrenheit 451 as well. Despite how short the novel is, it still manages to drag at times, particularly during the beginning and end. Much of this is due to Bradbury's wordy prose. He has a tendency to go off on lengthy tangents, over-describing a scene or action in a way that makes me skip to the end of the paragraph just to get through it. To this complaint Bradury provides his own answer in the Afterword--"If teachers and grammar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture." Er, touché, I guess.
In my final analysis, Fahrenheit 451 may not be perfect, but it's still an absolute must read, whether you're a fan of speculative fiction or not. If you haven't picked it up and read it yet, do so. Now.
I cannot believe what D. Maxwell and the other person said about us. I am a 13 year old and i am perfectly able to look at the world around me. Remember, that while you are "more powerful" now, one day us youngsters will one day be making all the decisions. We have rights to make our own decisions, and what you are suggesting, to drub out any other questions, is an entirely totalitarian idea. Look where that got us. 1944. I can still not get my head over what you said, it is so....words don't express my feelings.
Posted by on 5/10/2009
I am pretty sure that the post by amherst is meant to be sarcastic, but i got the idea that someone didn't realize that. just clarifying.
Posted by Dragon on 5/7/2009
I'm 14, and I have read so many books that have been supposedly "above my level of understanding". Look, adults, kids aren't stupid. We can pretty much take care of ourselves and stick to what we believe in even if we read some disturbing stuff. 451 is a very disturbing book, but I think it makes a good point. People are so glued to the television sometimes (even me) that they are "sucked in". So, all of you people who think that teenagers and young adults shouldn't read stuff that makes us think, we actually like when you don't dumb us down. Give us some credit. Pretty soon we're gonna be the ones running this country, and I'm sure we're gonna do a good job. Lay off, will ya? Stop ragging on the little guys, 'cause we're gonna be paying your Social Security.
Posted by Pearson on 3/16/2008
I disagree with the people above me stating that kids shouldn't read books that challenge their own ideas and theories. I am only 13, but have read some of the most grown up books there are out there. These things don't phase me. If a book doesn't agree with what I believe, I'll still read it. Someone not agreeing with what i believe isn't a big deal. Now, I don't represent the entire teenage population, but most kids I know can handle a book like this.
Posted by Anthony on 11/29/2007
I HATE THIS BOOK SO MUCH!
I have to read it for my college class and it's possibly the most boring piece of literature I have ever laid my sore eyes on.
Posted by Khaled Shahin on 3/6/2007
I have read this book, and I have watched the movie. It was ok. I think that the message that Ray Bradbury was trying to give everyone is different than most of his other short stories where it's: If misused, technology can be bad. Obviously. In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 however, the theme (in my opinion) is to read.
Bradbury tries to show us how important books are to humans and how a world without them would be; filled with fear and worry.
Anybody with a different idea please e-mail me at mexicanaman@msn.com - no spam please. Or post here.
I am currently writing a paper on Ray Bradbury, and as a piece of work, I have personally chosen Fahrenheit 451.
Posted by Anon on 1/7/2007
Ray Bradbury's book speaks about a society, which is based on fear and the belief that books should be burnt. The fireman Montag discovers the magic hidden in the books from a girl named Clarisse. He turns against everyone who believes books are evil and at the end he tries to escape. In my opinion, the true meaning of this story is to give us a glimpse of the unknown future. Ray Bradbury sticks to his message and gives us a full picture.
Posted by Verhaftet on 1/13/2006
It is a pity, that while the idea behind the book is excellent, Ray Bradbury can't really make it shine. Trying to portray disinterested characters, he makes them seem as having gone through lobotome. Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids..." managed to drive the point home without making the book almost unreadable in the process. The problem isn't whether the writer uses long sentences or not. James Joyce could pull this off magnificently. However Bradbury fails in this department. In my opinion he cannot be called an "American Great", for american literature has produced far better works.
Posted by Jenny Poole on 9/21/2005
Minus the language in this book, it is realy good.Makes you think a whole lot.I give Ray two thumbs up.My class loves this book!
Posted by amherst on 6/24/2005
I completely agree with D. Maxwell -- young people should never be exposed to works of literature that challenge their ideas, force them to confront uncomfortable realities or make them sort through their own ethical and social values to come up with their own response to the world. Literature should only reinforce whatever beliefs they already have been handed by people more powerful than they are. Critical thinking and confronting new ideas is something to be avoided -- children and teenagers should be given books to read and plays to watch that make them memorize the slogans we wish them to absorb so they can repeat them, unquestioningly. If we see signs of them wondering, pondering, or questionign we should drub these qualities out of them. Please, take your teenagers to plays that will feed their sense of self-righteousness in whatever ideas they have absorbed before they are 12, and do not disturb them with making them confront their own lives or the behavior of other people. If children are never exposed to naughty words during a play based on an important book, we know they will never have to face the problem of langauge in rwal life.
Posted by D.Maxwell on 2/2/2005
Iwas shocked by the offensive language in the stage play at Children's Theatre of Charlotte. I accompanied 7 middle school students to the theatre, not realizing it contained offensive language, but thinking the theme of the play/book would stimulate the kid's interest in reading. It was a good production and kept the kids interest mainly because of the sound effects,good acting and especially the mechanical dog. The kids remarked about the language afterwards when I asked them what they thought of the play. I apologized and contacted the parents as I felt responsible for exposing these kids that, I love' to it. After emailing the Arts Director about rating the show, he agreed that there should be a warning for the public...even though it was recommended for 12 years old and up.This was advertised in connection with the school system and other public agencies. The theatre is also funded by the taxpayers as a public service. Heaven forbid that we should ever be party to censorship of such a valuable piece of literature.I personally think they could chose some works in the future that would be better for the kids to be exposed to. I get the idea, but guess what I'm one of those that fits into Bradbury's Backword list of prudes that have given him a hard time. I think everyone could live a productive, inspired life, without ever having the book in their hands.
We can do a lot better for our kids anyway...even without the language. Just had to have my say! Thanks! D. Maxwell