Category: Philosophy

A Book is a Loaded Gun: Fahrenheit 451

Banned_Fahrenheit_451

A book is a loaded gun in the house next door.

Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man?

Ray Bradbury – Fahrenheit 451

Warning: This post may contain politically incorrect language and expletives. They exist for the purpose of example and edification; they are not intended to disparage or defame any particular person, race, creed, color, or religion. If you feel you may be offended by such language, stop reading now. You have been warned.

SPOILERS AHEAD

From the Back Cover

Guy Montag was a fireman whose job it was to start fires.

The system was simple. Everyone understood it. Books were for burning…along with the houses in which they were hidden.

Guy Montag enjoyed his job. He had been a fireman for ten years, and he had never questioned the pleasure of the midnight runs nor the joy of watching pages consumed by flames…Never questioned anything until he met a seventeen-year old girl who told him of a past when people were not afraid.

Then he met a professor who told him of a future in which people could think…and Guy Montag suddenly realized what he had to do!

~ 1991 Del Ray Edition

Why the Book was Banned

1. Profanity, especially for the use of the words “hell” and “damn”

2. Burning of the Christian Bible

3. Perceived opposition to Government (c.f. 1940s and 50s McCarthyism)

Book_Gun
Photo Source: quarterlyconversation.com

Synopsis

In the future, any home containing books must be immediately destroyed by firemen. Guy Montag is one such fireman.

Several events alter his worldview. First, he meets Clarisse McClellan, a teenage girl who opens his eyes to the world around him. Second, his wife Mildred ODs on sleeping pills, further reinforcing Clarisse’s declarations.

Montag reevaluates his life, going so far as to save a book from destruction. Clarisse vanishes, most likely killed by a motorist. Suspicious of Montag’s behavior, Beatty (his boss) lectures him on the origins of firefighting. The lecture bolsters Montag’s “rebellious” nature, and he goes beyond saving books and starts reading them.

One day, Montag meets an old English professor, Faber. Reluctantly, Faber agrees to help Montag fight the firemen. Headstrong, Montag reads poetry aloud to his wife and her friends. That night, Beatty forces Montag to torch his own house.

Running from the law, Montag hides with Faber, who helps him flee the city. On the outskirts of town, Montag meets the Book People: intellectual hobos led by a man named Granger. As the Book People memorize literature to keep it from extinction, Montag volunteers to memorize parts of the Bible.

As they are talking, war strikes home and the city destroyed. The novel ends with the Book People discussing how best to rebuild society.

My Thoughts

I knew going into this project that Fahrenheit 451 would top my list. No other book in all of literature has affected me in quite the same way. The book challenged me to think critically, to memorize passages I found important, to know my past, and to not accept blindly every “fact” that I was given. (Can you tell I like the book?) Therefore, I find it quite distressing that people like this consider it trash. That said, let’s begin.

Fahrenheit 451 isn’t about censorship. Bradbury intended Fahrenheit to highlight television’s negative impact on literature. According to Captain Beatty, literature dies a slow, agonizing death:

Step One: Make things simpler. Photography, radio, and television reduce the need to reading comprehension. A picture is worth a thousand words; a 4-hour speech becomes a 30-second sound bite. What books remain are further reduced in condensations, tabloids, and digests. Cut out the boring bits and get to the ending already! Classics are adapted to radio, book columns, and dictionary/encyclopedia entries.

Step Two: Reduce the need for critical thinking. Shorten school; relax discipline; drop subjects like philosophy, history, and languages; ignore English and spelling.

Step Three: Change society’s focus. Everyone needs a job, so ignore everything you “don’t need.” After work, find pleasure in sports, cartoons, and travel.

Step Four: Tolerance. Efforts to avoid offending anyone result in bland books (and entropy of critical thinking).

Note the absence of censorship from this litany. The anti-censorship “theme” appears once:

Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator. Funerals are unhappy and pagan? Eliminate them, too. Five minutes after a person is dead he’s on his way to the Big Flue, the Incinerators serviced by helicopters all over the country. Ten minutes after death a man’s a speck of black dust. Let’s not quibble over individuals with memoriums. Forget them. Burn them all, burn everything. Fire is bright and fire is clean.

p. 59-60, 1991 Del Ray edition

The misconception persists thanks to the adage “If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth.” Over the past 50 years hundreds of critics, essayists, and reviewers promulgated the anti-censorship theory. Even Bradbury’s biographer got it wrong.  In reality, Bradbury warns us of a technology-dependent society. Taken to extremes, technology negatively influences everything it touches.

Technology kills diversity. Now, I don’t mean that technology somehow magically transforms everyone into the same race. In its attempt at diversity, technology cannot afford to offend anyone; in so doing, it kills a diversity of ideas. Society benefits from healthy dialogue and debate. These avenues allow us to progress, to move beyond the mistakes of the past, and to leave our world a better place than we found it. Ignoring “unpopular” issues or ideas solves nothing; outright suppression of opposing viewpoints breeds radicalism.

In education, technology limits the free exchange of ideas. “Impossible!” you say. “The internet provides access to more information than at any other time in human history.” Correct. But what happens when (not if) a government decides to limit access to that information? The internet transforms into an echo chamber for government-approved philosophies, resulting in citizens unable to think critically about their world.

Technology also has the power to help or harm the environment. Bradbury envisioned a future where people ignore the landscape; drivers on the superhighways can’t see it and couch potatoes can’t be bothered. It is notable that Montag’s moment of awakening occurs in the rain.

Consider, too, the implications on mental health. Cyber-bullying plagues countless teenagers. Unfiltered access to the internet warps ones perspective on self and society. In a society incapable of building real, lasting relationships, interpersonal skills break down. In Bradbury’s dystopia, teenagers succumb to violence and suicide on a regular basis and no-one bothers to ask why. Thankfully, our society is not that far gone (yet).

Speaking of violence, technology changes our morality. Consider how many studies link technology – especially video games – to violence. There’s a reason why the government uses simulation to prepare soldiers: desensitization. In Bradbury’s world, people ignore the reality of war and treat it like a game or a piece of celebrity gossip.

Bradbury’s overarching theme is inaction. The dystopia he foresees is not the result of cataclysm or military coup; it results from people not caring. They do not care to know, to learn, to grow. They care only for the immediate, for instant gratification, for the next reality show or technological “wonder.” The people voluntarily gave up their rights and chose to blindly follow their authority. Therefore, Bradbury does not warn us of a world where books are censored; he warns us of a world where they are not important. And that, dear reader, is a future most horrifying indeed.

It was a pleasure to burn.

Light the Bonfires: On Censorship

At this place, on May 10, 1933 Nazi, students burned the books of writers, scholars, journalists, and philosophers.
At this place, on May 10, 1933, Nazi students burned the books of writers, scholars, journalists, and philosophers.
Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons
Translation errors are mine alone.

Where they burn books, they will – in the end – burn people.
~ Heinrich Heine (1820)

Warning: This post may contain politically incorrect language. It exists for the purpose of example and is not intended to disparage or defame any particular person, race, creed, color, or religion.  If you feel you may be offended by such language, stop reading now. You have been warned.

First Things First

What is censorship? As a teacher, I advise my students that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source. Nevertheless, the site provides an accurate definition for censorship: “the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient.” In reality, this definition requires only one word: inconvenient. In our politically-correct, self-centered society, anything we disagree with must be the spawn of Hitler. Don’t believe me? Just check the comments section on any internet forum.

Censorship exists in many forms. Countries around the world censor the internet; the FCC regulates “radio, television, wire, satellite and cable” communications in the United States;  political and religious groups seek to enshrine their First Amendment rights at the expense of their opposition; media outlets and schoolteachers censor their messages in accordance with their audience. In our technology-dependent society, book censorship often goes overlooked. Banned Books Week exists to inform the public of such censorship.

On some level, literary censorship has always bothered me. I learned at an early age to avoid “condensed” or “abridged” novels. I assume most editors of these books desired to make classics more manageable. Hogwash. Anything worthwhile is worth working for. Now that I am older, I realize many of these books are censored for language and content, not just the “boring bits”. Imagine a world where Huckleberry Finn never says “nigger”, Holden Caufield never swears, and Jay Gatsby never has an affair. It’s one thing to disagree with a character’s actions or motives; it’s another thing entirely to make the character more “socially acceptable.”

Fuel for the Fire

There is more than one way to burn a book.

And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.

~ Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 (1953, Coda)

In general, book censorship takes on three forms.

First, some censors only edit books in their personal library. These puritanical critics take a black marker to the pages of literature and pass their objections on to others. My first copy of Catcher in the Rye, bought at a used book fair, had all the profanity blacked out. (Spoiler: profanity is essential to Holden’s character). I later bought a copy of Wicked in which all references to sexuality had been removed via Sharpie. In case you don’t know what happens when you use Sharpie on book paper, it (generally) bleeds through, effectively ruining the book.

BBWPoster2013
Like this, minus the motivational message.

Second, some censors seek to “protect” their communities via book bans. For the most part, these bans affect school reading lists, but public libraries are often targeted as well. It is this form of censorship that Banned Books Week was designed to fight.

Parental Advisory Banned Book
For some, this isn’t satire.

Finally, in its most extreme form, censors may seek to eradicate book by burning all known copies. The most infamous of these fires took place in Nazi Germany, but they also occurred in England during the 14th and 15th centuries. Even as recent as 2010, censorship zealots tried to keep the tradition alive and well.

Terry Jones Koran Burner
Terry Jones
Would-Be Koran Burner

Fighting the Thought Police

Ministry_of_Truth
From the “Ministry of Truth”

Many critics question the practice of allowing objectionable material in the first place. After all, if we disagree with something for religious or political reasons, or if we are offended by material of a certain nature, should we not have the right to protest it? Should parents not have the right to monitor what their children have access to?

I grew up in a conservative household, so I partially understand these concerns. However, what is most important: that our own beliefs advance or that people think for themselves? Is it not better to make an informed decision rather than simply relying on the words of others? In determining what a society – or a segment of society – can and cannot read, we deprive ourselves of opportunities to promote and develop critical thinking.

Productive citizens require discernment. It allows us to filter information and produce opinions based on fact and not emotions. Discernment allows us to see the big picture and make choices based on the long term. Reasoning helps us make sense of a chaotic world.

As a teacher, I see this deficiency every time I assign a “thought question” in one of my classes. No matter the grade, someone inevitably moans that the book (or my lecture) fails to fully answer the question. When this happens, I point to a poster hanging on my wall:

einsteinmotto

To me, it is not enough to simply know what you think; you must also know why you think it. I aim to teach my students to think for themselves, and then articulate their opinion in a rational manner. For example, some years ago I posed the following question: “Was Germany responsible for World War I as the Treaty of Versailles claimed? Explain your answer.” Among the varying answers I received this:  “Germany was responsible for World War I because Germany is stupid.” I gave zero credit. The student complained of unfairness; in class I had backed Germany. So I sat down and showed him how exactly he could have answered the question. Again, he complained that there was no clear-cut “correct” answer. “Exactly,” I said.

A Glimpse of Things to Come

Now you know my viewpoint. With this in mind, over the next seven days I will be reviewing seven banned books – one for each day of Banned Book Week.  Check back tomorrow  for Banned Book No. 1!

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.
~ Henry Steele Commager

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑