Talk:Fahrenheit 451

The Actual Temperature Farenheit 451

Can we please put a mention of the following fact in the article? Paper nor books burst into flames at the temperature 451 degrees farenheit. This title was used simply because Bradbury liked the number. I read that in a book once. It quite annoys me when I get into arguments with people ignorant enough to believe that temperature thing as fact and are adamant to believe any argument contrary. .... You know the kind of argument you get into with a person who acts like they're much smarter than they prove to be and refuse to take any sort of correction - even when you have facts in from of them. Abrynkus 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

well then put the little trivia somewhere... and also try to meet new people too, just a friendly advice.--201.215.168.125 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It really neither entirely true nor entirely false. Some paper does ignite at 451F. Most does not. It depends on the paper and variables that go into making of paper. Some paper ignites at temperatures higher than 451, some at temperature lower than (mostly lower, average is about 339 SD=62 low=152 high=526) Engstrom et. al. Fundamental Combustion Rates of Live Fuels. 2003 ACERC Conference. But you already knew that cause you read it in a book somewhere. With evidence like that I don't know why people doubt you. Jvbishop 21:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury mentioned, during the LA Times Festival of Books (2007) that took place at UCLA, that he was looking for the temperature that would cause books to burn. He said that he called the UCLA and USC chemistry departments, and other science departments as well, and couldn't find the answer. He received the number 451 by phoning a local fire department. 76.171.182.55 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to admit, you can't really have a title of Fahrenheit a bunch of numbers, it just doesn't sound as good. BunnyFlying (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Let's see: "Fahrenheit 339±187" No, you're right. Nowhere near as snappy. Mr. Jones (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to point it out: the autoignition temperature of paper is 450 degrees Celsius. Not that it really makes a difference. Tealwisp (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the citation, the autoignition temperature is APROXIMATELY 450C, which seems might close to 451...do you think it's possible there was confusion about Celsius and Fahrenheit, and somebody somewhere got it switched? [citation needed] 88.5.119.44 (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. It is likely that Bradbury chose "451" because it sounds cool. "Celsius 451" doesn't have the same sinister effect, and celsius wasn't in common use at the time. Tealwisp (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This source puts the ignition temperature of paper at 425F [1]. Another source puts it between 218C and 246C (424F to 475F). [2]. Yet another puts it at 446F [3]. Another source puts it between 442F and 446F [4]. 451F is a fair enough approximation to these temperature ranges.

All this speculation on the origin of the title seems to ignore the introduction provided by Bradbury to the 2003 edition and his comments during the Los Angeles Times's Festival of Books of 2007 as mentioned above by an anonymous user. Bradbury states that he was unable to find a temperature until he phoned a local fire department. I think this should be mentioned in the article rather than speculation about what Bradbury might or might not have thought.Unmotivate 16:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

451 degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature Pizza burns and It is clearly stated in the movel that 451(Celsius) is the temperature book paper burns, Not any random piece of paper. --Bladepker80 (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you but no matter how many times you tell them they will listen to your explanation of how he got the name for one simple reason. Here there be trolls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.103.73 (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict with another article

Ok, well, the article about the book Fahrenheit 451 says paper burns at 450C, while the article about movie links to the Autoignition temperature article which says it's more like 450 F. So the two articles contradict one another badly. I'm going to tag so someone can sort this out who's a better scientist than myself. Blackplate (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Um...the physics article cited in the book article was talking about books vs. the burning of paper in the autoignition temperature article. One sheet of paper needs less heat then a book. 10max01 (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is currently quite misleading. Bradbury states that he was told 451F was the temperature at which paper burns at the time he wrote and titled the book. So it is not true to say that he chose the title because he liked the way that it sounded. It is also ridiculous that the citation for the part about contemporary sources pointing to 451C as the correct temperature, is for a book that is not a contemporary source.

Embroidery

Should the references section include Bradury's short story "Embroidery"? The women in "Embroidery" are talking about how it is people's actions they remember and the dialogue is very similar to the discussion at the end of Farenheit 451. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iain marcuson (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't know, I haven't read the story. But it certainly can't hurt, can it? BunnyFlying (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury's commentary

I think that, considering Bradbury's comments, we need to include the author's view of the book. Given that Fahrenheit 451 is quite often used as a warning against government censorship, Bradbury's intent - to suggest, not that government is oppressive, but that television is an opiate - radically shifts the book's original interpretation, though the use of the book as an anti-Big Brother piece of literature will undoubtedly remain. [5] -EarthRise33 18:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Public and professional interpretation is fine, but shouldn't we acknowledge the man who wrote the damn thing? Diamonion 00:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledging his view is fine, but don't plagiarize LAWeekly.com to avoid writing about it in your own words. That block quote was way too long. Kusand 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I (and at least one or two other contributors) have made changes over the last few days to soften up recent edits that refer to "critical misinterpretation" or otherwise imply that the book isn't about censorship because Bradbury now says that it isn't. While the fact of his own recent pushback is notable and should remain in the article, his interpretation of the work doesn't invalidate other readers'. See authorial intent. While his intimate familiarity with the book gives his interpretation extra weight, I rather think that it can't hold a candle to the decades of critical interpretation that offer a differing view. jmac 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, as the guy who stuck the term "Critical Misinterpretation" on the page, I just want to say I'm perfectly fine with the above approach (recognizing Bradbury's statements while giving other interpretations equal validity) and am glad to see the way the article is evolving... not that I expect anyone to be losing any sleep over what I feel (*GRIN*). Oh yeah, and "Critical interpretation vs. authorial intent" is indeed more descriptive than my original subheading title. --KNHaw ^(talk) 04:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've made another tweak to the introduction. I agree that Bradbury's comments are important, but again the idea of opening and article by talking about what the novel is not about just seems wrong. If the issue is that important to take the opening sentence in the introduction (well, second paragraph...), then perhaps it deserves its own article: Critical interpretation vs. authorial intent in Fahrenheit 451 (although, frankly, I think that way is a road to madness...). Please take a peek and let me know what you think, OK? --KNHaw ^(talk) 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Though the book is often used as a warning against goverment censorship, and though bradbury does not think the book is about this topic; the theme of (non-government) censorhip is a major theme. The content of teh book directly suggest that the books began to be burned to keep the minorities happy. Censor some here, censor some there. Goverment only validated the censorship that the minorities had already begun. I think that the comment in the opening summary: "Bradbury has stated that the novel is not about censorship" is false. He may think it isn't the primary message, but it is a difinitive theme throughout the book and adressed in the later published coda, regardless of Mr. Bradbury's later re-auto-interpretations. --65.106.152.27 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Bradbury's point is not that theme of censorship does not exist in the book, but that it was not primary in his mind as he wrote it. Rather he was thinking of the stupefying effect of television and mass media. Personally (heh) I see that the censorship being permitted, even advocated, by ordinary people in the book is meant to be the consequence of that. Thus it is secondary. Of course, how it was perceived is relevant. I'm sure the context of being published in Playboy in the 1950s emphasized the censorship part of the story. Mr. Jones (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Bradbury's commentary is quite pretentious. The book itself is not an end all. Yes, it does deal with important issues of censorship in this technological age today, but he treats his story as if it is a warning, something to be put on a pedestal. The plot itself is poorly developed. I understand the fact that Guy Montag is supposed to be perceived as conflicted about technology versus nature (government exempt in the words of Beatty), but by murdering fellow firemen he just lowers himself to their level and brings the government into it. If censorship is such an problem in our world today, is the solution really to go and kill the guilty and run away. Or maybe we could burn all their houses. It is a poor example of resolve to "such and oppressing problem". And on top of that Bradbury himself declared how he needed no help. I do agree that many of the points he makes valid, but they are overshadowed by his unneeded flare. I wonder just who decided it was the "greatest science fiction novel of all time" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookworm1996 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Film irony

Hasn't Truffaut or Bradbury commented about the irony of filming a book about the suffocation of books by the audiovisual? --Error 20:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I was caught listening to the audiobook in my car with my ipod and clamshells, er, I mean, earbuds. Tuning out the rest of the world to listen to a book warning me not to tune out the rest of the world. Yikes. --65.106.152.27 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a pleasant irony in a wikipedia page about this that describes a 1994 project as a 'future film'. Rather like reading scifi after the date at which the events are supposed to have occurred. Brunnian (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian?

Would it really be accurate to include this book under the category of "Libertarian science-fiction"? After all, Libertarianism is a political and economic philosophy whereas this novel has to do with mind-rotting television and censorship, both decidedly social issues. 129.59.8.10 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming it was more Speculative Fiction, but if fits in both categories. I'll live it be for now. I'll see what everyone else says. YoungWebProgrammer ^msg 06:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be appropriate to classify this book as "libertarian science-fiction" considering the fact that it is clearly stated throughout the novel the novel that politics was not involved in the decline of literature. Bookworm1996 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

System Shock

Added a bit on 451 being used in System Shock 1/2 and their "descendants", Deus Ex and Bioshock. If it was just SS1 it wouldn't be notable, but they've made it a tradition, and I don't doubt future Shock-like games (including Deus Ex 3) will include the number as a tip of the hat to Looking Glass like DX and Bioshock did. Anyone who wants to cry citation needed can go here: http://www.deusex-machina.com/articles/makingofdeusex.asp dethtoll (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Differences Between Novel and Play

I recently saw the play in South Pasadena and didn't even notice, due to poor memory, that the play is extensively different than the novel. The article touches on this in a few places (character descriptions) but I'd say that a section exploring the differences between the play and the novel could be useful. I wouldn't go so far to say that I should write it, but here's some notes from my memories:

The old woman purposefully selects a book and hands it to Montag, there is no theft and Montag doesn't read it for quite some time.

This is touched on in the article: Beaty reveals to Montag that he has thousands upon thousands of books stored secretly in his house, but that it is not illegal because he has never read a single word. Beaty is clearly, in the play, a man who found the transition to a non-reading society particularly torturous and decided the only way to suppress the 'beast' within himself was to become a fireman and burn it all down for everyone else while secretly storing it all away.

Montag eventually begins reading (without any 24 hour warning from Beaty) but what the summary on Wikipedia states (that the words just 'fall away') is more clear: he does not feel as if he UNDERSTANDS any of the work, and hopes that Faber will help him appreciate what he reads.

Beaty and Faber (via Montag) engage in a tour-de-force quote-battle which eventually ends with Beaty yelling so loudly into Montag's earpiece about coming to get him that Faber has a heart-attack and dies (though it seems he may show up later at the end of the play, but his face is obscured). During this sequence, Beaty sends the other firemen to Montag's house and, somewhat oddly, Montag declares, "Burn the televisions! Burn my bed!" and Beaty says, "You heard the man, burn his bed!"

Beaty loads The Hound with the coordinates for himself in order to give Montag time to run (adequate coverage for not having a mechanical dog chase sequence, definitely) and we even get to hear Beaty's death cry. IIRC Montag never harms anyone in the play.

The story is the same after that, for the most part, though the destruction of the city at the end is implied, but not specifically stated.

There is also a cool sequence where Montag reads poetry to two older women, friends of Mildred over for the TV show, and the poetry makes one woman burst into hysterics and the other begins shouting and lecturing about how awful it is to feel stuff.

Ray Bradbury was there, it was awesome. The end. Brad R. (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The New Movie

The idea that the invention and wide use of computers could make the concept of a book burning future unlikely or difficult to portray is absurd. The internet continually changes. Bradbury's book is about self censorship so the internet would be the first thing to show signs of it. Computers could ultimately be so "user friendly" that all it is is touching pictures to watch your favorite music videos or Jackass episodes. If anything the addition of computers to society makes the idea more intriguing. Mildred could be watching "All my Children" and rating pics on a sort of "hot or not" website on her laptop or iPhone. Today is the perfect time setting for Fahrenheit 451. Mix in some portable DVD players and reality TV. It will be amazing.

Ashley Irwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.34.49 (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No regime on earth could manage to have total control over the internet, since severs are implanted worldwide. This is one thing Bradbury never foresaw coming. It'd be hard to realistically portray a speculative future involving Firemen in the 21st century, since literature would've been easily distributed throughout the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.1.16 (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's assuming that the people aren't censoring themselves, as they did in the novel. The government in the novel didn't just censor books out of the blue to control the populace.

The people in 451 became apathetic, hedonistic, and afraid of dissonance. Each major segment of the population presumably played a part in the censorship. The government merely fulfilled the will of the majority. NJMauthor (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

F451 Refrence in Starcraft?

In the campaign editor, there is a Hero Firebat (uses a flamethrower) named "Gui Montag." Does this fall into the article?

JJ12121616 (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and add it, please. you could place it under the allusions section, but unless you can get a source to confirm that it is a reference, make it clear that it isn't proven. Tealwisp (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Would a screenshot be enough evidence? JJ12121616 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Audio books

I wonder if it would be feasible/helpful to include audio books references to paper books articles. For example as far as I know there is an audio book 'Fahrenheit 451' read by Ray Bradbury himself. I mean if we include movie adaptations why don't we include audio books to the articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.134.22 (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Literary Goldmine

In this book the literary devices and figures of speech are virtuously endless! He in the first 11 pages uses more than 24 metaphors, similes, and personification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.218.192.170 (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Publishing history

in the section printings, there are 3 different kinds of Editions mentioned. If all this is known - why is not the date known? It would be very kind if someone could add day and month to this lapidar "1953" - thank you (please excuse my bad english) -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 00:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Request by one of wiki editors...

I was trying to put up a link and one of the editors told me to ask you if I can. So here I am posting and asking whether I should post my link to an essay for this book.

Link is http://bookstove.com/science-fiction/fahrenheit-451-novel-debate/

What the problem with that? I inserted the link into the wiki page for this book and one of the editors removed it. May you please explain why?

--Vom53 (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(A) You have a conflict of interest in that its your own website/post that you're adding a link to (B) Per the external links policy, no blogs or fansites. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bradbury did any amazing job at writing this book. It really shows a lot of censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.94.0.125 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

  The first line of the plot summary estimates the time to be in the mid 1990's based on a characters reference(Grangers) to a v-2 rocket launch fifty years earlier. I believe the author of this article both misunderstood the reference and missed altogether an earlier time reference that would have placed the setting sometime after 2022. 
  First, the misinterpreted quote: Granger said "My grandfather showed me some V-2 rocket films once, fifty years ago." This seems to me to mean that he saw the films fifty years ago. There is no reference to how old the films were when he is shown them.
  Second, an earlier time reference: While trying to bring his wife out of her malaise, Montag said "...Why doesn't someone want to talk about it! We've started and won two atomic wars since 2022!" This can be found near the beginning of the second book: the sieve and the sand.Bmanto (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)BMANTO

Reply to above

My book does not say 2022. It says 1990.

One suggestion for you: please put in the topic correctly. It shows up as a gray box with text extending past the boundaries... Wiiop (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Wiiop

Oh, and thx to whoever inserted the reference for me :). 69.228.133.200 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Wiiop

My 1970 Corgi edition says 1960! Clearly Bradburty doesn't want us to be able to date the action of the novel. Daisyabigael (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

F 451 Musical

I know that Fahrenheit 451 was adapted into a musical, with Bradbury's input. I want to say that it was in the '80s. It debuted at the Civic Theater in Ft. Wayne, IN. I saw it, but it has been too long for me to remember any details to add to the article, but someone with more knowledge might be able to help. Boomcoach (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Fahrenheit 451 is a science fiction novel, not a romantic comedy to be degraded in such a fashion. Having a singing number including the Beatty and Montag was not exactly the way Bradbury's work should have been brought to life. Bookworm1996 (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

nachos?

Why does it say he memorizes recipes to compete in a nacho contest? Who's the idiot who put that down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.210.161 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)