Fahrenheit 451 is about a fireman named Guy Montag whose job is to start fires. The story takes place in a world where books are illegal and if said books are discovered, they'll be burned to ashes. Guy Montag has done his job without the least bit suspicion until one day he met a 17-year-old girl named Clarisse McClellan. Clarisse and her family is different from everyone else in this world where the story unfolds and her outgoing personality sparks an interest in Guy's mind. After meeting Clarisse, if you'll notice, Guy starts to question things around him. For example Guy asked, "Was- was it always like this?" (Bradbury, 34) a little after Clarisse told him that her uncle said that firemen use to put out fires instead of starting them. After Clarisse allegedly died, Guy started going into a panicked state, making a rationalization about the way society is in his world. Guy starts to read books that he had been hiding and collecting and tries to avoid being caught.
In my opinion, I think that Fahrenheit 451 is a very good novel because it has an original plot and conflict, the main character is well written, and the figurative language used triggers a lot of imagery in my mind. The diction was something that I needed to get use to and at certain points of the story, a more advanced set of vocabulary words were used. I was okay with this since I like a challenge. Fahrenheit 451 would most likely fit into the category of dystopian fiction, similar to Lord of the Flies, The Giver, and Harrison Bergeron. Guy Montag was written very well in my opinion because he starts out in the similar position as all of the people in this world where everyone's mind set was very similar, books are illegal and no one questions as to why firemen start fires. Guy then sees that books can be a source to finding answers and stashes away a collection of books. He starts to read these books and learn things that he has never known before. Sadly, knowing is half the journey. He seems to lose his mind on the way to finding the truth.
When I first started reading Fahrenheit 451, I immediately connected it to Harrison Bergeron and Catcher and the Rye. The reason why I connected it to Harrison Bergeron is because the characters are similar, Guy reminds me of George and Mildred (Guy's wife) reminds me of Hazel. Guy starts to question why firemen started fires and why books were illegal and George started to question why in his world, they put handicaps on talents people in order to make everyone in their society "equal."Mildred is half-witted and moronic, similar to that of Hazel. Mildred thinks that the people on television are her 'family' and doesn't remember that she drank a whole bottle of sleeping pills and about how Clarisse had died 4 days ago. Hazel doesn't have a good memory and repeated her recent comment when replied with, "You can say that again." Another similarity I saw between all of these texts was the idea of conformity. In all of these pieces of literature, the law or the world is trying to make everyone equal or make them act/think a certain way. In the end, is everything really equal?
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
RAFT
Dear Faith,
Today we discussed the similarities of our books, Fahrenheit 451 and Monster. I told you about how my book was about a world where our traditional firefighters are given opposite roles and starts fires instead of putting them out. In this world, books are illegal, by law, and are burned if discovered. The main character, Guy Montag, realizes that their society isn't right and starts to hide books away and even starts to read them himself. He starts to question why their society is like that and ends up having to hide his collection of books.
You told me that your book was about a teenager named Steve who is wrongly accused for murder. You also said that he goes from flashback to present a lot in the book. You mentioned that your book was hard to grasp due to the many flashback transitions which I could relate to because Fahrenheit 451 has a somewhat confusing diction. Also, Guy Montag has several hallucinations/visions too which confused me because of the sudden transitions. Due to these circumstances, we both have a trickier time understanding our books fully.
A theme that we both saw in our books were that the law oppressed the main character in some way. In Fahrenheit 451, the law stopped people, including Guy Montag, from reading books, which are filled to the brink with knowledge. This makes progression levels in this world lower as I would expect. I questioned why a world would do this because it seems counter-intuitive to ban a source of knowledge that aids in the advancement of global conditions. In Monster, Steve is oppressed by the law because he is accused of murder. Due to this, Steve probably has to hide or must not be able to have a good life as of late because of this rumor/accusing statement. Having a criminal record doesn't look good so he might not be able to get a good job or go to a good school. These are just predictions of how the law oppresses people. That's why I think the law oppression theme in both books makes a valid connection.
Sincerely, Hannah
Today we discussed the similarities of our books, Fahrenheit 451 and Monster. I told you about how my book was about a world where our traditional firefighters are given opposite roles and starts fires instead of putting them out. In this world, books are illegal, by law, and are burned if discovered. The main character, Guy Montag, realizes that their society isn't right and starts to hide books away and even starts to read them himself. He starts to question why their society is like that and ends up having to hide his collection of books.
You told me that your book was about a teenager named Steve who is wrongly accused for murder. You also said that he goes from flashback to present a lot in the book. You mentioned that your book was hard to grasp due to the many flashback transitions which I could relate to because Fahrenheit 451 has a somewhat confusing diction. Also, Guy Montag has several hallucinations/visions too which confused me because of the sudden transitions. Due to these circumstances, we both have a trickier time understanding our books fully.
A theme that we both saw in our books were that the law oppressed the main character in some way. In Fahrenheit 451, the law stopped people, including Guy Montag, from reading books, which are filled to the brink with knowledge. This makes progression levels in this world lower as I would expect. I questioned why a world would do this because it seems counter-intuitive to ban a source of knowledge that aids in the advancement of global conditions. In Monster, Steve is oppressed by the law because he is accused of murder. Due to this, Steve probably has to hide or must not be able to have a good life as of late because of this rumor/accusing statement. Having a criminal record doesn't look good so he might not be able to get a good job or go to a good school. These are just predictions of how the law oppresses people. That's why I think the law oppression theme in both books makes a valid connection.
Sincerely, Hannah
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Keylines
"Let me come in. I won't say anything. I just want to listen. What is it you're saying?" (Bradbury,17) -Montag
I thought that this line was important because Montag felt like he wanted to join the conversation or at least be somewhere where there were other people to be around. This could be important because it might give the reader clues to what type of person Montag really is and maybe they could also figure out what his intentions are. Maybe he wanted to be near Clarisse and her vibrant family or maybe he was feeling lonely or wanted to figure out what is going on with Clarisse's family.
"You took all the pills in your bottle last night." (Bradbury, 19) -Montag
This was important because it told me what happened to Mildred (Montag's wife). After reading about her need of medical attention, I still wasn't sure what actually happened to her. This line told me the events before Montag's call to the emergency hospital. Mildred says that she doesn't remember taking the pills which confused both Montag and maybe even the readers. Could it be another reason that Mildred was in need of medical attention? Or, could it be that Mildred is losing her mind?
"Does it have a happy ending?" (Bradbury, 21) -Montag
This line makes me think that it is foreshadowing for future events in the book because books can sometimes have a happy ending. So far, this book doesn't seem like a book that would have a happy ending. I think this because it feels confusing and twisted due to the mentioning of burning and fires. It is also due to events such as the incident with Mildred who took all of those sleeping pills.
"...because all we put into it is hunting and finding and killing. What a shame if that's all it can ever know." (Bradbury, 27) -Montag
I felt that this quote was important because Montag is starting to think, "Hey this isn't right." He is questioning what is happening in this world and is reanalyzing right from wrong. This could mean that he might develop a new goal to make a change if he realizes something is wrong with the current society and that might push the story into a compelling sequence of events. Maybe he will see that the world he is living in is a lie and then try to fix it by going against the current social norms. If this were to happen, it would be like "Harrison Bergeron," by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Harrison Bergeron saw that something was wrong with the way of life in his society so he went against the laws to try to make a change for the people. Maybe this quote could be more foreshadowing for future events in the book.
I thought that this line was important because Montag felt like he wanted to join the conversation or at least be somewhere where there were other people to be around. This could be important because it might give the reader clues to what type of person Montag really is and maybe they could also figure out what his intentions are. Maybe he wanted to be near Clarisse and her vibrant family or maybe he was feeling lonely or wanted to figure out what is going on with Clarisse's family.
"You took all the pills in your bottle last night." (Bradbury, 19) -Montag
This was important because it told me what happened to Mildred (Montag's wife). After reading about her need of medical attention, I still wasn't sure what actually happened to her. This line told me the events before Montag's call to the emergency hospital. Mildred says that she doesn't remember taking the pills which confused both Montag and maybe even the readers. Could it be another reason that Mildred was in need of medical attention? Or, could it be that Mildred is losing her mind?
"Does it have a happy ending?" (Bradbury, 21) -Montag
This line makes me think that it is foreshadowing for future events in the book because books can sometimes have a happy ending. So far, this book doesn't seem like a book that would have a happy ending. I think this because it feels confusing and twisted due to the mentioning of burning and fires. It is also due to events such as the incident with Mildred who took all of those sleeping pills.
"...because all we put into it is hunting and finding and killing. What a shame if that's all it can ever know." (Bradbury, 27) -Montag
I felt that this quote was important because Montag is starting to think, "Hey this isn't right." He is questioning what is happening in this world and is reanalyzing right from wrong. This could mean that he might develop a new goal to make a change if he realizes something is wrong with the current society and that might push the story into a compelling sequence of events. Maybe he will see that the world he is living in is a lie and then try to fix it by going against the current social norms. If this were to happen, it would be like "Harrison Bergeron," by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Harrison Bergeron saw that something was wrong with the way of life in his society so he went against the laws to try to make a change for the people. Maybe this quote could be more foreshadowing for future events in the book.
Questioning
Factual Question: Who's the main character?
My Answer: The main character is Guy Montag who is a fireman whose job is to start fires.
Interpretive Question: Why did the author choose to make firefighters do the opposite of what they actually do?
My Answer: I think that the author chose to do this because it made readers think about the conditions and situations in this world which made the character(s) act a particular way. In this case, the firefighters were probably written to do the opposite as what they are expected to do because it could foreshadow or be the cause of the conflict.
Universal Question: Is doing nothing sometimes better than do something?
My Answer: I think that doing nothing most of the time wouldn't be better than doing something but in a situation where you will only get in the way, it is probably better if you did nothing.
My Answer: The main character is Guy Montag who is a fireman whose job is to start fires.
Interpretive Question: Why did the author choose to make firefighters do the opposite of what they actually do?
My Answer: I think that the author chose to do this because it made readers think about the conditions and situations in this world which made the character(s) act a particular way. In this case, the firefighters were probably written to do the opposite as what they are expected to do because it could foreshadow or be the cause of the conflict.
Universal Question: Is doing nothing sometimes better than do something?
My Answer: I think that doing nothing most of the time wouldn't be better than doing something but in a situation where you will only get in the way, it is probably better if you did nothing.
Introduction
Hello, my name is Hannah and I am reading Fahrenheit 451 in my English class. The content on this blog will consist of my reactions, connections, the themes of the book, etc. Today in class, I was given several statements that related to Fahrenheit 451. One statement was, "In dangerous times, it is reasonable to give up some freedoms in order for your government to keep you safe." My response to this statement was, "I agree because the government would not go to such extremes if the situation wasn't critical." Think about it. What if there had been a breech in national security and the lives of the people were in danger? Wouldn't you give up some of your freedoms (ex: having strict curfews, guards/policemen patrolling the neighborhood, etc.) in order to be protected and safe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)