Talk:Fahrenheit 451

Regarding this quote in the wiki entry:

She seems to be happy staring at the screens but actually attempts to commit suicide, revealing her emptiness. She takes too many pills which actually should make her happy.

I don't think she deliberately attempted suicide, but more along the fact that she became so absent-minded that she forgot how many pills she took (in reference to the first chapter of the book). Want to make sure if this is alright with everyone before I make the changes. --Vnv lain 13:10, 2005 Oct 2 (EST)

Film trivia: The only prints/text in the movie are at the wall of the fire-department. It's the "451". Look here: http://www.dasfilmarchiv.de/fahrenheit.jpg

That is not true; but it seems that in the fictional world of the movie, alphabetic text is banned, but it is OK to use numerals as labels.

I think it is important to note that in the book's dystopian future, technical knowledge was actually promoted, probably to keep people from thinking about literature. I think some people erroneously think the book is about a future where all knowledge is banned, as opposed to a future where ideas are censored. For instance, I think at one point in the book Guy mentions that almost everyone could describe the inner workings of the (complicated) tv systems. I'm not sure how they could convey all this technical knowlegde without some sort of text, although it certainly would be in electronic (not book) form.

I think the analysis section of the previous version should be added to the current one. I think it makes a valid point about political correctness.

I think the Analysis section needs some wikification. It doesn't sound too encyclopedia-like.

I agree with the above poster. It needs some work. jtmendes 03:01, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --fvw* 03:01, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I'd just like to make two points in response to the above. First, a reader can note a deficiency without knowing enough to write a better version. Second, the instructions for using Wik are incredibly confiusing and tangled (the glories and misfortunes of the Web used as Webbers currently style it). I'm sure there are thousands of people who have been scared off by Wik's imposing character or left frustrated after being pushed around by links, shunted down dead-ends, etc. kdammers.

I agree with the posts above and below that made by fvw. If I had read the book, I could probab;y write a better analysis, but I am yet to, so have no idea of the significance of events and meanings read into them &c. --210.246.47.205 09:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Science fiction

I've only read this book once but, um, where's the science fiction? Cburnett 07:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Science fiction is written by people who don't know anything about science" -- (I believe Vonnegut, but my memory is bad). How many so-called "sci-fi" works have you read/seen that contain more than a shred of scientific accuracy? -- uberpenguin 03:51, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Science fiction means many things to many people; it's as vague a term as "fantasy". The book is closer to the sci-fi genre than many others, though, as it includes a mechanical robot dog, tiny two-way radio transmitters, big-screen HDTVs, crime TV shows, and nuclear weapons, among other things.

Bradbury has been remarkably accurate with some of his predictions. The two most striking to me are his prediction of the cell phone (complete with buses/subways packed with people desperately calling home to let their SO know they're on their way) and the need for continual self-stimulation (I notice an awful lot of people these days have an electronic device of some sort constantly jammed in their ears). We haven't gotten to the book-burning stage. Yet.

• Issac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke for example do certainly know SOMETHING about science. They both have PhD, and Clarke is indeed one of pioneers in making telecommunication satellites. "Science fiction is the most important literature in the history of the world, because it's the history of ideas, the history of our civilization birthing itself. ...Science fiction is central to everything we've ever done, and people who make fun of science fiction writers don't know what they're talking about." says Ray Bradbury, also he says: "Anything you dream is fiction, and anything you accomplish is science, the whole history of mankind is nothing but science fiction." Qoqnous 16:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Meaningful Names

I didn't read the book, but just by reading the summary, one point immedately sprang to my mind: the symbolism of names. Guy Montag is a name that could be pretty much anybody (guy meaning... well, simply guy, anybody; and Montag is German for Monday). Faber also relates to the idea of the Homo faber, a man changing his environment with machines/tools. I found that interesting, but maybe it's just wrong in the context of the novel... or irrelevant, I don't know... anybody here who wants to help?

The paperback edition everybody I know read for high-school lit class includes various afterword materials from Bradbury. In one of these essays, he notes that Faber is a pencil manufacturer and that Montag (if I recall correctly) is a company which builds furnaces. Apparently, Bradbury was unaware of these "meanings" while writing the book; he blames his overactive subconscious. Anville 03:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Montag was a brand of Paper. Ironic for a story of book burning, the two important characters named after paper and pencil?

time?

Okay, may I ask why this page says the book takes place in the 24th century? From reading the book, I felt it took place around the mid-21st century. Many people have suggested this, primarily from the quote "We've had two atomic wars since 1990!" The tone of the quote makes 1990 seem like a recent year.

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the book to hand, but here's what I've noted:

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/fahrenheit/essays/essay1.html sazs 24th century. (by Michael Wainwright, but in an essay about characters)

The Cliff Notes Web site also says 24th century in an intro blurb but not in the extended discussion.

Book.rags (a crib company?) says 21st century.

"near future (later in 21st century) - medium future 22-24th century" is what Linda Napikoski (http://www.allscifi.com/Topics/Info_6789.asp ) says.

SparkNotes says, "setting (time) · Sometime in the twenty-first century; there have been two atomic wars since 1990." Kdammers 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merger?

Wouldn't it make sense to merge the plot and summary section together as they both say the samething? Bancroftian 06:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Merged, saving as much of both as I could. Alf ^melmac 09:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Link saturation

I think this entry contains far too many links to other Wikipedia entries. Who, among those reading this entry, can seriously be expected to have to look up what a wife or a book is, for example? And if they actually had to, couldn't they search for it themselves? That slight inconvenience is nothing compared to the alternative -- including links to just about everything -- which is just as annoying to an incalculably greater number of people. Sure, this is a problem many articles have, but you have to start somewhere. The reasons I don't just remove these links myself is that I would like to hear if anyone has a decent argument for keeping them first. After all, removing something from an article should never be done in haste. Miai 12:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree.

But should the crib ( + *BookRags Study Guide and Chapter Summary for "Fahrenheit 451" at BookRags.com; should be http://www.bookrags.com/notes/451/SUM.html ) apparently written by RB himself really have been removed?

Movie

The movie seems be incorporated here rather than having a separate entry, which it deserves.

Law Enforcement Robots

Fsiler, let me make this clear to you, the reason why the robots are even mentioned at all in this article is intregal to the reason why there is section on futuristic predictions of the book. Moreover, the fact that you left the "military applications" part in tact implies one of three possible motivations for the edit on your part:

• misguided understanding of the subject
• a pathetic attempt to censor information (ironic)
• simple vandalism for antagonistic purposes

Regardless of your reasons, I would advise you to more carefully consider the implications of your actions the next time time you intend to edit the page... or any other. Sweetfreek 19:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

German translated

The out-edited German material is translated below. Some-one else can do the comparison suggested. Kdammers 01:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The German is a bit strange in places, beginning with the first word, if not letter. Anyway, here is a slapdash translation. ==letter of the alphabet analyses== * ' ' ' [ [ ]] GuywireMontag [sic] is the [ [ protagonist ] ] and fireman (look above) whose [ [ metamorphosis ] is shown in the course of the book and which shows (allegorizes to) him the dystopia through the eyes of a loyal worker.{Sorry, I don’t follow the grammar here}, a man in conflict over him and a man above him, in order to be free from him. * ' ' ' Faber ' ' ' is a former English professor who represents those who know that what is being done is wrong, but is too fearful to act against it. * ' ' ' Mildred Montag ' ' ' is Montag’s wife. She tries to avoid questioning her own emptiness and fear of her condition/situation or to use drugs to hide from the meaningless twittering, and a constant “splash” of the t.v. She constantly attempts to attain a glorified state of happiness but is internally miserable. She is symbolically the contra-point for Clarisse McClellan. * ' ' ' [ [ ]] Clarisse doesn’t show McClellan every characteristic that Mildred has {There seems to be some garbling in the original; as it stands, I don’t follow it, esp. since Clarisse is McClellan}. She is outgoing, naturally friendly, and intuitive. She serves him, during his “call” {during calls?} to awaken Montag by asking him “why.” She is not popular with her peers and rejected by her parents for asking why and for being interested in Nature instead of technology. Montag always sees her as odd {orig.: mathematically odd!}, but upon her being killed by a speeding car he misses her greatly. * ' ' ' [ [ Capitanist [sic] Beatty ]], Montag’s boss and the fire [department] leader. He tries to lure Guywire back into the burning business of the book {I guess: back into the business of burning books} but is burned alive by Montag when he underestimates Montag’s resolution/determination. He is the symbolic opposite of Granger. * ' ' ' [ [ ]] Granger is the leader of a group of wandering exiled intellectuals, who memorize books.. Where(-as) Beatty destroys, Granger causes [creates]; where(-as) Beatty uses fire to burn, he uses it in order to warm. His taking in of Montag is seen as the ultimate step in Monta’g metamorphosis – and is of critical value in Beatty’s incorporating (happiness and satisfaction) {I don’t understand the original here}, to the incorporation of his value[s] (the love of knowledge).

attacked by other countries

What other countries have attacked the US since Pearl Harbor? I removed the remark but the removal was reverted. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 09:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

21st century or 24th century?

In the beginning of the Plot section, it says, "The story takes place in the mid 21st century," yet under Accuracy as a vision of the future it starts, "Several aspects of the fictional 24th century future..."

Googling Fahrenheit 451 "21st century" and Fahrenheit 451 "24th century" give comparable results. Which is it? StradivariusTV 01:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I: have edited the article to leave it ambiguous. Kdammers 08:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)