I know it's considered a "must-read" among many, but I've never read it. I'm new here and going to start on this book tonight, so anyone care to join in? The theme is so intriguing, I can't believe I've never read it before.
"The system was simple. Everyone understood it. Books were for burning, along with the houses in which they were hidden."
After this book of censorship, defiance, and the government's ultimate control over us, I thought Brave New World by Aldous Huxley would be a perfect follow-up. I'm trying to read books that have influenced people to think for themselves and ultimately question society and the government's control.
Anyway, does anyone, or is anyone, reading this?
-
In total there are 14 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 12 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 880 on Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:45 am
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
-
Ophelia
-
- Oddly Attracted to Books
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:33 am
- 16
- Location: France
- Been thanked: 35 times
books and censorship
Hello meesh, and welcome! 
I haven't read Fahrenheit 451, what I know about it is through Francois Truffaut's movie.
In 1953, in Bradbury's utopia the suppression of knowledge could only be done by destroying books. This is still done selectively in many places of course, but they now have to fight on several fronts, such as controlling the internet in China, trying to control pictures citizens make with cell phones and then smuggle out from Burma.
Just out of interest, I sometimes check on particular books that are forbidden in the West. "Mein Kampf", by Adolf Hitler, is supposedly forbidden in Germany, but can be bought on amazon in France and the US. In Germany, you can buy books studying "Mein Kampf", with extracts and comments.
Still, in the West, as far as I know, when a book is forbidden it means the author and the publisher are not allowed to sell it anymore, but selling used copies on e- bay or buying a copy if you can find one is not illegal.
There was a controversy in France in 1982 when a book about suicide by Claude Guillon and Yves Le Bonniec (Suicide, Mode d'emploi) was found to be "promoting death" and was forbidden. Yet, thousands of copies had been sold and the book had been translated into 5 languages by the time the Court Order took effect. This really made an impression at the time, and used copies of the book now sell for Euro 200 or 300.
Twenty years later, the auhor published a second book which is about the controversy concerning the first one. There is nothing in it to worry the powers that be anywhere, but they still made some references to concrete information, quotations from the first book, which are again censored. So I read a book that had just been published in France with frequent
occurences of: " [xxxxxxxxxx] (censored)".
I must say this made me feel uneasy, and the situation was a first in my reading experience.
From what I read in the second book and from other reports, the authors discussed suicide from many points of view and were giving info, not urging suicide. My analysis as to why the book sold so well is that anything relating to suicide is repressed in societies like France that
1- have had a very long Catholic tradition
2- have a tradition of anything relating to the combination of ethics+ medicine being firmly in the hands of authorized persons, ie physicians and people in authority.
I think the book sold because it had a catchy title (which was a mistake and gave a wrong impression, in my opinion).*
I suspect that the fact that the book sold so quickly ( which had so alarmed the authorities) was that many people expected the book to be banned, so hurried while they still had a chance to decide for themselves what they thought of this book.
The only point about which I agreed with the authorities (and this a very important point indeed), was the problem of teenagers. Many teens aged 15 to 18 try to commit suicide, and here I entirely agree that they should not be able to buy this book.
In 1982 there was no internet in France, so the problem was bookshops.
Ideally, if there was a way of restricting books to over 18s, that's what I would have chosen.
If the authorities had explained that this could not be done, so they would just have to ban the book for everybody, I would have understood.
But I didn't like their stance that they knew what was best for adult citizens and would decide for us.
* Since I hate being told what I'm allowed and not allowed to know, I later found a book on amazon which covered some of the ground, though from a different perspective and seemed to have been published much more dicreetely: Final exit, by Derek Humphry.
Even so, the books contained many warnings that it was not about this, not about that, not meant for some categories of people, so there was obviously a fear that he might be sued.
-------------
Meesh, we are going to discuss A Thousand Splendid Suns, by Khaled Hosseini. Do you know about this book?
I haven't read Fahrenheit 451, what I know about it is through Francois Truffaut's movie.
In 1953, in Bradbury's utopia the suppression of knowledge could only be done by destroying books. This is still done selectively in many places of course, but they now have to fight on several fronts, such as controlling the internet in China, trying to control pictures citizens make with cell phones and then smuggle out from Burma.
Just out of interest, I sometimes check on particular books that are forbidden in the West. "Mein Kampf", by Adolf Hitler, is supposedly forbidden in Germany, but can be bought on amazon in France and the US. In Germany, you can buy books studying "Mein Kampf", with extracts and comments.
Still, in the West, as far as I know, when a book is forbidden it means the author and the publisher are not allowed to sell it anymore, but selling used copies on e- bay or buying a copy if you can find one is not illegal.
There was a controversy in France in 1982 when a book about suicide by Claude Guillon and Yves Le Bonniec (Suicide, Mode d'emploi) was found to be "promoting death" and was forbidden. Yet, thousands of copies had been sold and the book had been translated into 5 languages by the time the Court Order took effect. This really made an impression at the time, and used copies of the book now sell for Euro 200 or 300.
Twenty years later, the auhor published a second book which is about the controversy concerning the first one. There is nothing in it to worry the powers that be anywhere, but they still made some references to concrete information, quotations from the first book, which are again censored. So I read a book that had just been published in France with frequent
occurences of: " [xxxxxxxxxx] (censored)".
I must say this made me feel uneasy, and the situation was a first in my reading experience.
From what I read in the second book and from other reports, the authors discussed suicide from many points of view and were giving info, not urging suicide. My analysis as to why the book sold so well is that anything relating to suicide is repressed in societies like France that
1- have had a very long Catholic tradition
2- have a tradition of anything relating to the combination of ethics+ medicine being firmly in the hands of authorized persons, ie physicians and people in authority.
I think the book sold because it had a catchy title (which was a mistake and gave a wrong impression, in my opinion).*
I suspect that the fact that the book sold so quickly ( which had so alarmed the authorities) was that many people expected the book to be banned, so hurried while they still had a chance to decide for themselves what they thought of this book.
The only point about which I agreed with the authorities (and this a very important point indeed), was the problem of teenagers. Many teens aged 15 to 18 try to commit suicide, and here I entirely agree that they should not be able to buy this book.
In 1982 there was no internet in France, so the problem was bookshops.
Ideally, if there was a way of restricting books to over 18s, that's what I would have chosen.
If the authorities had explained that this could not be done, so they would just have to ban the book for everybody, I would have understood.
But I didn't like their stance that they knew what was best for adult citizens and would decide for us.
* Since I hate being told what I'm allowed and not allowed to know, I later found a book on amazon which covered some of the ground, though from a different perspective and seemed to have been published much more dicreetely: Final exit, by Derek Humphry.
Even so, the books contained many warnings that it was not about this, not about that, not meant for some categories of people, so there was obviously a fear that he might be sued.
-------------
Meesh, we are going to discuss A Thousand Splendid Suns, by Khaled Hosseini. Do you know about this book?
Last edited by Ophelia on Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:35 am, edited 4 times in total.
Ophelia.
-
Mr. P
-
- Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
- Posts: 3826
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
- 20
- Location: NJ
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- Gender:
Re: Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
I read BNW in 06. Another goodie!meesh wrote:After this book of censorship, defiance, and the government's ultimate control over us, I thought Brave New World by Aldous Huxley would be a perfect follow-up. I'm trying to read books that have influenced people to think for themselves and ultimately question society and the government's control.
Anyway, does anyone, or is anyone, reading this?
As for the censorship issues, I have read that Bradbury states that the book is not so much about censorship, but about a rejection of reading and how that can lead to an uniformed society. Where we rely on mass media to obtain our knowledge, we are robbed of any real understanding of the world and will thus be led to a less informed existence.
I do not remember too much about this novel to really join in...but if you post some thoughts, it may jog my memory and I can add my two cents.
Enjoy the read!
Mr. P.
When you refuse to learn, you become a disease.
Im surprised...In most forums people don't seem to reply, but within my first (or technically second) post people have already replied. So thank you!
I just finished reading the book. The minute I picked it up, I couldn't put it down. Although it is a short read, it was definitely packed with everything a good novel needs (imho).
I'm glad you pointed out the censoring aspect, Mr. P. In the novel, it describes the history behind the book burning, and it was exactly what you said - society lost interest in the books and sought out an instant satisfaction. That led to the government taking advantage of the fact and banned books. In the interview in the back, he says "We bombard people with sensation. That substitutes for thinking."
Thus, this leads to some thoughts and hopefully your insights.
Throughout this whole book, I feel like it was describing the reality of today. Our society has become so detached, not only from literature, but meaning and our real "souls." We drown our sorrows in medication and take the "ignorance is bliss" stance. With our war now, do you believe we are ignorant to the facts? And the stereotyping and assumptions we have of Islam. After traveling to a Muslim country, I feel that I was extremely ignorant of their beliefs.
He even says something along the lines of the TV causes a lack in concentration and attention span. Looking at today and the rise of ADD in children, I can't help but feel we've caused these problems ourselves. Do you believe we can cure ourselves?
In his interview, he says education is the problem. Yes, our school systems could improve, but how? Do we take the privileged out of children using the internet and tell them to rely on books? Where do we draw the line of privileges and destructions?
Also, in another book I read (Three Cups of Tea) the author suggests that the conflicts we have with other countries is also education. Lack of education ruins the world, and the relationships among nations. But where do we draw the line of what we should teach and what should be censored? After hearing all "the doors of perception," should we be able to make our own choices? It's obvious that a country needs rules to sustain a functional society, but should this include censoring books? And what of the internet? And then with art? Like the controversy in the 80s over homosexual art, considering it "obscene." And then it obviously leads to the question of pedophilia and pornography.
Maybe this is too large of a subject that cannot be answered in a paragraph, but some insight and opinions would be interesting.
Ophelia, I'm very interested in reading some of the things that were banned. The reasoning of banning Mein Kampf in Germany is obvious, but didn't he start with banning certain texts? Isnt this contradictory? While I was traveling in Europe, I asked a German student what they were taught about the Holocaust. He said that they discussed it openly. If that's the case, then shouldn't they give their students access to a historical work (regardless of the effects it had)?
I haven't read A Thousand Splendid Suns, but his other book is fantastic. Since I just spent all my money on other books, I might have to hold out on that. But I will try to get on the next discussion.
I just finished reading the book. The minute I picked it up, I couldn't put it down. Although it is a short read, it was definitely packed with everything a good novel needs (imho).
I'm glad you pointed out the censoring aspect, Mr. P. In the novel, it describes the history behind the book burning, and it was exactly what you said - society lost interest in the books and sought out an instant satisfaction. That led to the government taking advantage of the fact and banned books. In the interview in the back, he says "We bombard people with sensation. That substitutes for thinking."
Thus, this leads to some thoughts and hopefully your insights.
Throughout this whole book, I feel like it was describing the reality of today. Our society has become so detached, not only from literature, but meaning and our real "souls." We drown our sorrows in medication and take the "ignorance is bliss" stance. With our war now, do you believe we are ignorant to the facts? And the stereotyping and assumptions we have of Islam. After traveling to a Muslim country, I feel that I was extremely ignorant of their beliefs.
He even says something along the lines of the TV causes a lack in concentration and attention span. Looking at today and the rise of ADD in children, I can't help but feel we've caused these problems ourselves. Do you believe we can cure ourselves?
In his interview, he says education is the problem. Yes, our school systems could improve, but how? Do we take the privileged out of children using the internet and tell them to rely on books? Where do we draw the line of privileges and destructions?
Also, in another book I read (Three Cups of Tea) the author suggests that the conflicts we have with other countries is also education. Lack of education ruins the world, and the relationships among nations. But where do we draw the line of what we should teach and what should be censored? After hearing all "the doors of perception," should we be able to make our own choices? It's obvious that a country needs rules to sustain a functional society, but should this include censoring books? And what of the internet? And then with art? Like the controversy in the 80s over homosexual art, considering it "obscene." And then it obviously leads to the question of pedophilia and pornography.
Maybe this is too large of a subject that cannot be answered in a paragraph, but some insight and opinions would be interesting.
Ophelia, I'm very interested in reading some of the things that were banned. The reasoning of banning Mein Kampf in Germany is obvious, but didn't he start with banning certain texts? Isnt this contradictory? While I was traveling in Europe, I asked a German student what they were taught about the Holocaust. He said that they discussed it openly. If that's the case, then shouldn't they give their students access to a historical work (regardless of the effects it had)?
I haven't read A Thousand Splendid Suns, but his other book is fantastic. Since I just spent all my money on other books, I might have to hold out on that. But I will try to get on the next discussion.
-
Ophelia
-
- Oddly Attracted to Books
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:33 am
- 16
- Location: France
- Been thanked: 35 times
Meesh,
The ban of "Mein Kampf" in Germany made some sense when groups of neo nazis were first formed (in the eighties, I think). I agree with you about historians.
The numbers of sites dealing with this on the net is amazing. Here is one link I found interesting:
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/mo ... story.html
---------------
Meesh wrote:
The ban of "Mein Kampf" in Germany made some sense when groups of neo nazis were first formed (in the eighties, I think). I agree with you about historians.
The numbers of sites dealing with this on the net is amazing. Here is one link I found interesting:
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/mo ... story.html
---------------
Meesh wrote:
I have started a thread about The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini under "Additional fiction discussion". I was greatly moved by that book and I think it is really exceptional. Would you like to join me? Perhaps we may yet convince Booktalk members of giving it a try.I haven't read A Thousand Splendid Suns, but his other book is fantastic.
Ophelia.
-
Mr. P
-
- Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
- Posts: 3826
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
- 20
- Location: NJ
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- Gender:
Was 1084 good? I read 1984, but not 1084.bradams wrote:I read Fahrenheit 451 about 17 or 18 years ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. I also enjoy similar books such as 1084 and Brave New World.
I might grab a copy and reread it as I think I'd enjoy discussing it with someone. How far into the book are you Meesh?
They were all three great reads. I like Bradbury. I just picked up the Martian Chronicles yesterday as I found I had lost my copy somewhere over the years and I wanted to re-read it.
Mr. P.
When you refuse to learn, you become a disease.
-
Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2730 times
- Been thanked: 2666 times
- Contact:
I vividly remember reading Farenheit 451 when I was in Grade 6 at Eastwood Public School in 1974. The image that stuck most for me was the TV rooms in which the screens occupied entire walls, and the consumerist goal was to have all four walls covered by giant screens, enabling a completely separate reality. Such a prescient call regarding wide screen TV today, and the capacity for mindless manipulation. I thought Ray Bradbury was unfair to criticise Mike Moore about this - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mo ... eit_9.2F11
-
Theomanic
-
- Agrees that Reading is Fundamental
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:34 pm
- 16
- Location: Toronto, ON
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
I read Fahrenheit 451 about five years ago, so my memory of it is not crystal clear. I picked up the book because I selected it as my pick in another book club I was in... I chose it because it was one of my fathers favourite novels, and I quite enjoyed it myself.
I am a huge Bradbury fan. The Illustrated Man is one of my favourite novels, and I've been meaning to get a new copy (my old one vanished a long time ago). I really think Bradbury is an interesting thinker. Some novelists write great books, but I wouldn't care to have a conversation with them. Bradbury I would definitely have over for dinner.
I think I would agree that the main point of the book wasn't exactly censorship. It seemed to me to be about the loss of individual thought. I would indeed compare it to 1984. I haven't read Brave New World yet, though I intend to.
Personally, I don't really agree with the idea of banning books. I think it causes problems on two fronts. First of all is the obvious question of trusting someone else (or even worse, a group of some else's) to decide what a person can and cannot read/know. I understand that some things exist for no purpose other than to spread hate or disinformation, but once banning books becomes okay, I could easily see a descent of the likes of both 1984 and 451. Knowledge shouldn't be restricted, regardless of source. I think what is key is raising people to have the insight and strength of character not to be easily swayed by random propaganda.
Meesh mentions a problem in the school systems, and that children are becoming ADD because of television. I really don't believe that to be true. I think primarily it comes back to parenting. Responsible parents ensure a good variety in a child's experience, and teaches them what they need to know in order to make good decisions. A lot of people are raised with TV and terrible schooling, and still manage to have the attention span longer than a commercial. I would agree raising a thinking child would be easier with better schools and less mindless TV.
The second reason I find banning books to be a problem is the "forbidden factor". Once something is not allowed, it makes all the rebels of the world want to do it. Like smoking! Recently there was an anti-teen smoking add campaign in Toronto along the lines of "If they can't get em, they can't smoke em." I'm positive teen smoking went up as a result of those adds. Certain sorts of people will gravitate towards forbidden things, and give them all the more credit just because they're banned. Rage Against the Machine, you know what I'm saying.
As to Bradbury's criticism regarding Michael Moore, I can understand both perspectives. From the little I know of Moore, I could see how this book affected him. Also, Moore seems rather egotistical, so he probably never though that Bradbury would be anything but honoured by this homage. However, it was pretty ill-mannered of him not to at least speak to Bradbury about it, if he was indeed trying to pay his respects to the novel.
I am a huge Bradbury fan. The Illustrated Man is one of my favourite novels, and I've been meaning to get a new copy (my old one vanished a long time ago). I really think Bradbury is an interesting thinker. Some novelists write great books, but I wouldn't care to have a conversation with them. Bradbury I would definitely have over for dinner.
I think I would agree that the main point of the book wasn't exactly censorship. It seemed to me to be about the loss of individual thought. I would indeed compare it to 1984. I haven't read Brave New World yet, though I intend to.
Personally, I don't really agree with the idea of banning books. I think it causes problems on two fronts. First of all is the obvious question of trusting someone else (or even worse, a group of some else's) to decide what a person can and cannot read/know. I understand that some things exist for no purpose other than to spread hate or disinformation, but once banning books becomes okay, I could easily see a descent of the likes of both 1984 and 451. Knowledge shouldn't be restricted, regardless of source. I think what is key is raising people to have the insight and strength of character not to be easily swayed by random propaganda.
Meesh mentions a problem in the school systems, and that children are becoming ADD because of television. I really don't believe that to be true. I think primarily it comes back to parenting. Responsible parents ensure a good variety in a child's experience, and teaches them what they need to know in order to make good decisions. A lot of people are raised with TV and terrible schooling, and still manage to have the attention span longer than a commercial. I would agree raising a thinking child would be easier with better schools and less mindless TV.
The second reason I find banning books to be a problem is the "forbidden factor". Once something is not allowed, it makes all the rebels of the world want to do it. Like smoking! Recently there was an anti-teen smoking add campaign in Toronto along the lines of "If they can't get em, they can't smoke em." I'm positive teen smoking went up as a result of those adds. Certain sorts of people will gravitate towards forbidden things, and give them all the more credit just because they're banned. Rage Against the Machine, you know what I'm saying.
As to Bradbury's criticism regarding Michael Moore, I can understand both perspectives. From the little I know of Moore, I could see how this book affected him. Also, Moore seems rather egotistical, so he probably never though that Bradbury would be anything but honoured by this homage. However, it was pretty ill-mannered of him not to at least speak to Bradbury about it, if he was indeed trying to pay his respects to the novel.
