Scan barcode
katie_is_dreaming's review against another edition
3.0
This book seems to have entered the social consciousness at this stage. Like Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, it warns us of a future that could come to be if we aren't careful to protect books and all the forms of culture that make us think and help us to talk to each other.
Bradbury was writing at a time when television was really beginning to take off. In this novel we read about television screens that take up all the walls in a living room, where you can be immersed in the visual spectacle. Characters here can live in the television world even as they sleep, through the constant feed of drama and commercials in their ears. TV characters are relatives, but becomes clear that no one in this world is really happy, despite believing they have everything that should make them happy.
Bradbury was very much ahead of his time. This book is almost 70 years old at this stage, but it still has resonance with that sense of fear that television and other technological advances in media might end up making us soulless and unhappy, and might make us think less critically. I don't know that Bradbury's fears were entirely right, but I'm not sure they were entirely wrong either. What is important is that there is a preservation of our intellectual history, that it doesn't get drowned out by flashier new technologies.
As important and forward thinking as this book is/was, though, it's also dated. All of the key characters are men (not very heartening for a reading and thinking woman to read!), and what's perhaps even more telling of its datedness to me is that all the literary references (or most of them) are to male writers. Couldn't he have slipped Austen in there, or Brontë, or Eliot? Yes, of course the book is almost 70, but surely he was aware of great female writers he could have referenced too!
I had a difficult time with the language too, particularly in the beginning. I got used to it later, or it became less bothersome. I certainly felt it was overwritten at the start. It was a style of language for science fiction that feels very dated now. A lot of repetition and staccato sort of writing. It felt pretty stylised, rather than flowing naturally to me. Of course, all of that is very subjective, and others will love this writing style.
I did think that I would like this more than I do. I'm a bit disappointed that I don't. I think I would have had to have read it when it was written, or much earlier in its long history, to have been really gripped by it. I suppose I've read other dystopian literature that dull the impact of this (and yet, reading Nineteen Eighty-Four was the most visceral, disturbing experience, so part of me thinks that Orwell just did it better. Though I read Orwell a number of years ago too, so was maybe more impressionable then).
Over all, while I didn't love this, it is a book that people should read. If you're interested in the importance of literature and ideas, and ensuring the continuance of a society that thinks for itself, this is definitely a worthwhile read.
Bradbury was writing at a time when television was really beginning to take off. In this novel we read about television screens that take up all the walls in a living room, where you can be immersed in the visual spectacle. Characters here can live in the television world even as they sleep, through the constant feed of drama and commercials in their ears. TV characters are relatives, but becomes clear that no one in this world is really happy, despite believing they have everything that should make them happy.
Bradbury was very much ahead of his time. This book is almost 70 years old at this stage, but it still has resonance with that sense of fear that television and other technological advances in media might end up making us soulless and unhappy, and might make us think less critically. I don't know that Bradbury's fears were entirely right, but I'm not sure they were entirely wrong either. What is important is that there is a preservation of our intellectual history, that it doesn't get drowned out by flashier new technologies.
As important and forward thinking as this book is/was, though, it's also dated. All of the key characters are men (not very heartening for a reading and thinking woman to read!), and what's perhaps even more telling of its datedness to me is that all the literary references (or most of them) are to male writers. Couldn't he have slipped Austen in there, or Brontë, or Eliot? Yes, of course the book is almost 70, but surely he was aware of great female writers he could have referenced too!
I had a difficult time with the language too, particularly in the beginning. I got used to it later, or it became less bothersome. I certainly felt it was overwritten at the start. It was a style of language for science fiction that feels very dated now. A lot of repetition and staccato sort of writing. It felt pretty stylised, rather than flowing naturally to me. Of course, all of that is very subjective, and others will love this writing style.
I did think that I would like this more than I do. I'm a bit disappointed that I don't. I think I would have had to have read it when it was written, or much earlier in its long history, to have been really gripped by it. I suppose I've read other dystopian literature that dull the impact of this (and yet, reading Nineteen Eighty-Four was the most visceral, disturbing experience, so part of me thinks that Orwell just did it better. Though I read Orwell a number of years ago too, so was maybe more impressionable then).
Over all, while I didn't love this, it is a book that people should read. If you're interested in the importance of literature and ideas, and ensuring the continuance of a society that thinks for itself, this is definitely a worthwhile read.
jeanvabu's review against another edition
5.0
Randomly picked it up as an audio book thinking that I had already read it in high school. I had not. Definitely read it at the right time.
billiebeepboop's review against another edition
challenging
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
batrock's review against another edition
Like 1984, assigning a rating to Fahrenheit 451 is meaningless. There’s a lot of stuff in here that is still relevant today, and one of its greatest strengths is that it’s overtly science fiction but no one seems to notice.
Some of it is fleshless by today’s standards, the female characters are either whisked away or are completely unhelpful, and at times Bradbury himself seems somewhat reactionary.
Still, there’s a reason that people come back to Fahrenheit 451, and it’s as simple as this: modern life is rubbish.
Some of it is fleshless by today’s standards, the female characters are either whisked away or are completely unhelpful, and at times Bradbury himself seems somewhat reactionary.
Still, there’s a reason that people come back to Fahrenheit 451, and it’s as simple as this: modern life is rubbish.
alexp5124's review against another edition
4.0
Wow! I have wanted to read this for so long and I’m so glad I finally did. What a beautiful book with so much meaning.
fayevalentine's review against another edition
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
dna_heligrace's review against another edition
3.0
Ehh. Didn't like some of the characters but w/e. Not really much I can say about this book...
seangibsonesq's review against another edition
4.0
A really good book that illustrates the depths to which banality can drag a society if we stop exchanging ideas, if we shy away from the slightest discomfort or disagreement in our conversations, if we stop wanting to explore the perspectives of others.
Other reviewers appear to make a starkly literal interpretation of the book's messaging, which is less and less a good idea with every year we move away from a book's publication. Some are very defensive of their beloved technology (perhaps even *pro-tech-tive*? I'll get my coat...). They cleave to quotes where the author, outwith this book, has, in their eyes, displayed blanket approval of books and baseless prejudices against other media. Perhaps this is indeed reflective of his feelings at the time. But arguably the author, if alive today, would recognise the archival and knowledge-sharing credentials of, say, the internet, just as he did with books in his own time.
Things are a bit more nuanced, then, unless readers credit Bradbury with an incredible quality of foresight, the ability to wholesale dismiss media that hadn't even been invented at the time of writing. No? No.
In this story, the books are not simply books, they are a clear and singular metaphor for the transmission and discussion of ideas, the process of argument, of compromise, of negotiating difficult topics. They are something tangible, to which vicious things can be done as we follow the logic through to the author's chosen extremity. The other media represent the sedatives, the palliatives, the relief from all the difficulty of life, a break from the arguing and the discussing and the confrontation. These newer media the author perhaps saw as being reductive for human society, especially if developed top-down. Even if Bradbury was prejudiced against podcasts, or whatever people are extrapolating from the text, it doesn't detract from the point of the story.
And it is not difficult to apply the author's point to today's society, different though the media landscape may be. Other reviewers, attempting to defend their beloved technology against the sanctity of the printed word, which they perceive too plainly in this story, pout about the great wealth of trash books available today – as if this invalidates the author's message. But they do not see, then, in their own words, the confession that every media has been equally corrupted by the banal, by the white noise. That the pressures of life can be turned up and up and up and no one can have any time or energy for anything but relief – perhaps a fantasy, too, for those most desperate. Bradbury's Captain Beatty tells us: "That's all we live for, isn't it? For pleasure, for titillation. And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these".
The premise of this book has never been more relevant, in a modern world that is so saturated with polemics, that has never been so colossally self-aware. The urge to turn away, to say "I don't like it, burn it," is at least as intense as it ever has been, arguably more so. In its scathing reproach of what we spend our time doing, of what we allow to be done to us, of everything we turn away from, of what is intrinsic to individual and societal wellness, this book is still makes a profound impression.
Other reviewers appear to make a starkly literal interpretation of the book's messaging, which is less and less a good idea with every year we move away from a book's publication. Some are very defensive of their beloved technology (perhaps even *pro-tech-tive*? I'll get my coat...). They cleave to quotes where the author, outwith this book, has, in their eyes, displayed blanket approval of books and baseless prejudices against other media. Perhaps this is indeed reflective of his feelings at the time. But arguably the author, if alive today, would recognise the archival and knowledge-sharing credentials of, say, the internet, just as he did with books in his own time.
Things are a bit more nuanced, then, unless readers credit Bradbury with an incredible quality of foresight, the ability to wholesale dismiss media that hadn't even been invented at the time of writing. No? No.
In this story, the books are not simply books, they are a clear and singular metaphor for the transmission and discussion of ideas, the process of argument, of compromise, of negotiating difficult topics. They are something tangible, to which vicious things can be done as we follow the logic through to the author's chosen extremity. The other media represent the sedatives, the palliatives, the relief from all the difficulty of life, a break from the arguing and the discussing and the confrontation. These newer media the author perhaps saw as being reductive for human society, especially if developed top-down. Even if Bradbury was prejudiced against podcasts, or whatever people are extrapolating from the text, it doesn't detract from the point of the story.
And it is not difficult to apply the author's point to today's society, different though the media landscape may be. Other reviewers, attempting to defend their beloved technology against the sanctity of the printed word, which they perceive too plainly in this story, pout about the great wealth of trash books available today – as if this invalidates the author's message. But they do not see, then, in their own words, the confession that every media has been equally corrupted by the banal, by the white noise. That the pressures of life can be turned up and up and up and no one can have any time or energy for anything but relief – perhaps a fantasy, too, for those most desperate. Bradbury's Captain Beatty tells us: "That's all we live for, isn't it? For pleasure, for titillation. And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these".
The premise of this book has never been more relevant, in a modern world that is so saturated with polemics, that has never been so colossally self-aware. The urge to turn away, to say "I don't like it, burn it," is at least as intense as it ever has been, arguably more so. In its scathing reproach of what we spend our time doing, of what we allow to be done to us, of everything we turn away from, of what is intrinsic to individual and societal wellness, this book is still makes a profound impression.
viridian_chase's review against another edition
5.0
*Fahrenheit 451* by Ray Bradbury is a timeless masterpiece that remains incredibly relevant in today’s society. This dystopian novel presents a chilling vision of a future where books are banned and "firemen" burn any that are found. Bradbury’s writing is both poetic and profound, filled with rich imagery and powerful symbolism that provoke deep reflection on the dangers of censorship, conformity, and the loss of individuality.
The characters are compelling and well-developed, particularly Montag, the protagonist, whose journey from blind compliance to awakening is both poignant and thought-provoking. The themes of knowledge versus ignorance, the importance of literature, and the impact of technology on society resonate deeply, prompting readers to examine their own relationship with information and media.
Bradbury's ability to create a gripping narrative while tackling complex societal issues is nothing short of genius. The book is not only a warning about the future but also an urgent call to cherish and protect the freedom of thought and expression. *Fahrenheit 451* is a must-read for anyone who values literature and the human experience. I wholeheartedly give it five stars for its enduring impact and brilliance!
The characters are compelling and well-developed, particularly Montag, the protagonist, whose journey from blind compliance to awakening is both poignant and thought-provoking. The themes of knowledge versus ignorance, the importance of literature, and the impact of technology on society resonate deeply, prompting readers to examine their own relationship with information and media.
Bradbury's ability to create a gripping narrative while tackling complex societal issues is nothing short of genius. The book is not only a warning about the future but also an urgent call to cherish and protect the freedom of thought and expression. *Fahrenheit 451* is a must-read for anyone who values literature and the human experience. I wholeheartedly give it five stars for its enduring impact and brilliance!