I do not believe that Granger is Clarisse's uncle because Granger had said that there actually were many more intellectuals in the city, but they were hiding. Clarisse's uncle probably was just one of them.
I don't think Granger is Clarisse's uncle because, to me, it seemed like her uncle lived with Clarisse and her family. Plus, Granger is like all the other "book rememberers", except he was somewhat the "leader" of them who just kept everything organized and explained their ideas to Montag.
i agree with alex that Granger is not the uncle, also because granger says they have been out in the country for a while now and just like a month ago or whatever the uncle was living next door to Montag
I think both are good. Because yes you need to use the book but you also need to come up with your own interpretation and opinion. Isn't that the whole point of these discussions?
I think that if the entire discussion is based on factual evidence from the book, than they are actually getting less into the book. the point of these discussions was to interpret and analyze the book. Not every inference can be backed by evidence.
I agree with Kylee. We should use the book to use a little support for our opinion (our opinion can't be completely out of no where). But we really have to express our own opinions and interpretation.
Like somebody said in the discussion, fire represents change and a new start. That goes back to the very beginning of the book where on page one Montag says, "It was a pleasure to burn, it was a pleasure to see things blackened and changed."
I don't believe that Clarisse was a symbol. I think she was put in the book to start the story, but I she was put in the book to influence Montag, if she hadnt been in the story, Montag would probly still be the same man he was at the beginning of the book.
In response to Anish's question i think Bradbury included Clarrise to be kind of a catalyst in Montag's transformation from being a rule abiding fireman to a rebellious person who challenges the system. Had Clarrise not been in the book then there would have been no story.
For anish's question, i agree with tim that Clarisse had to be in the story for Montag to start challenging the system. I don't think it would have happened if she wasn't there and then there would be no story
I agree with what Jillian is saying that all we seem to talk about in these discussions is the symbolism. Of course that is important, but so are the characters and everything else. And not EVERYTHING HAS TO BE A SYMBOL. There are some things that you need to just take as there are.
Kylee, I agree with you. Clarisse and Granger aren't related in any sort of physical, genetic way. But the way that they are related is in the way they think. They share the same ideas and optimism, but not the same genes.
I think that Jon brings up a good point. Jillian, i think that by Clarisse being put into the story for a reason, she must symbolize something. I think that she has something to with the professors at the track because it shows how these men hide away and no one bothers them even though they are thinking these thoughts and remebering these stories, and how clarisse is able to remember the things that she sees. She is thinking outside of the box in the society and people, unlike with the men, are starting to notice.
Yeah, i agree with Kylee. I mean, sometimes I think we over-analyze thingss, like Jillian says, and we try to look for too many connections, and symbols. It's important to look for some of these things, but I think sometimes that Bradbury is just writing, no trying to make so many things confusing with symbols and stuff.
Morgan - I guess Clarisse might not be a symbol, but she definitely was very important to start off the story and she had significant meaning. From that, I kind of imagine the symbol she represented, whether she was meant to be a symbol or not.
I agree with the comment Brian A. just made about Clarisse being a catalyst in this story. Without encountering Clarisse I don’t think that Montag would have gone through such a dramatic change as a person. She really encouraged Montag to think and challenge the system and everything that he was used to.
I think that everything is put into the book for a reason, wheather they are in it to symbolize something, or to be there for dramatic effect, there will never be a character that isnt important or just thrown into the story.
i don't really think Clarisse was a symbol. i guess she could be but i just didn't see her thaqt way. she was just part of the story. but then again i might not be analyzing this story enough.
montag definitley went through a dramatic change. his thoughts on everything changed drastically. his perspective took on a whole new veiw on life, happiness and love
Oh yes, I definitely agree that we over-analyze and think of symbols too much. But we are not totally sure what things are symbols, and what aren't, so then we create a symbol for anything so that we cover it all and even more. :)
I definitly agree that Clarisse was JUST A CHARACTER, she was not a symbol, just one fo those people n a book, that is vital to the plot, but is not necesarily a symbol.
I agree with Paige and Brian. If Montag had not met Clarisse he definitely would not have gone through the dramatic change he went through. Do you think Montag would have "seen the light" eventually?
Jack and Bryce have a good point that Clarrise was really the starting force of the story. But I don't think there is much more to her. She may represent the group of people that is challenging the system, but that is about as far as her symbolism goes.
I agree with Cali. Though Clarisse wasn't JUST a character, I don't believe she was a symbol of anything. She was just very important in the plot, Montag's change and where the story was heading.
I do think Clarisse is a symbol. If she wasn't why did her simple questions bring such a drastic change to the way Montag viewed things. Also, her death was so quick, her life to us, was so short. What was Bradbury trying to do by putting in this girl who seemed like a big part of the story, but then kills her off after we become intrigued by her?
i dont think montag represented evil at the beginning. He wasn't really doing anything bad because the society was accustumed(sp) to burning books. he was just kind of a norm in society. If he had been a dictater burning books when no one wanted them buirned then yes he would have been a symbol of evil but not in this situation
montag saw a different veiw on love he realized who he loved and what he loved he realized that burning books didn't make him happy or that watching tv wouldn't make him happy
Anish's connection to Lord of the Flies is very good I think. i belive that that in turn we can connect that to the Gilded Age in America. It looks good on the outside but once you're inside, it's not so great.
To answer Jillian's question - I think it was an attempt to a utopian society. The government tried to control everything and everyone, so no one would question anything, and ultimately nobody would be unhappy. But there are always people that will challenge the system and do whatever they want.
Cali i understand where you are coming from, but i would have to disagree in a sense. I think that Clarisse, to me, symbloizes the knowledge that was lost, and the past of kids that want to be in nature. TO ME, I think that Clarisse was super important in this book and was a symbole, but more of a character. Her every action was not symbolizing something, but some stuff was. im not aruging with you and i respect your postion, im just telling you what is going on in my head.
I understand this society to be what the people think is a utopia. As Brian said, many people had no problems with the way the government did things. Montag had no problems with it until Clarisse talked to him. The government was definitely trying to form a utopia.
Emma -- I don't think Montag would have "seen the light" without ever meeting Clarisse and especially, her death as well. Clarisse made him realize the flaws in society in a way that no one else could have. She gave him things to think about for himself, she didn't just give him a lecture, like he did with the women.
Everyone on here is talking about how Montag changes. In almost every book there are characters that change and some that stay the same. I know there are some literary term for this but i cant remember it right now. In response to John's question about what the significance of knowledge is according to the book, I think that knowledge is a force in the world that has ultimately changed the course of history. In the book, Montag gets a taste of knowledge for Clarrise and then goes on a sort of quest to gain more and more and more knowledge. Thoughts?
Exactly Hailey, Clarisse is so much more than just a girl. And while we do over analyze many things, we are under analyzing Clarisse's part in this book.
I agree with you Emerald, Montag was just brainwashed at the beginning of the book, he knew nothing else. Once he realized that what he was doing was bad, and actually started THINKING about what he was doing, he stopped, and even challenged the ways of his soceity. I think he was kind-of a tragic hero, even though he didn't die, his life is sort-of screwed up because of heroism.
I agree with Morgan in her response to Jillian's question. I think a Utopian society is trying to be created in F451 but clearly everyone wasn't happy and nothing was perfect. People like Montag, Faber, and Clarisse were challenging the system and not following the Utopian system the government was trying to create.
this is sort of like a utopian society, but not everyone is equal. the only thing is that alot of people have about the same amount of knowledge, but even then there are all the intelectuals who have more knowledge so its not really a utopia
To respond to Hailey P, I think Clarrise was just something to get the story going, and instead of trying to incorporate her through the rest of the book, he just got rid of her when he didn't need her in the story anymore and he added an extra twist with her death.
Haley and Hailey, I totally understand where you guys are coming from also, that's what makes a discussion a discussion. It'd be boring if we all agreed:)
Hayley -- Clarisse did drastically change Montag, etc. But does that necessarily mean she was a symbol? Could she still be just a very important character?
Also, I agree with Emerald that Montag didn't represent evil in the beginning of the book. Montag had no idea that he was doing something bad. Like Emerald said, he was just a normal, ignorant man. I believe Beatty and the people who weren't ignorant of the truth represented evil.
Jack, i totally and completely agree with you. I think that knowledge has lead us to what we are today and by that, we can see where we should be going in the future. So clarisse comes into play by giving him the right push to get him thinking about the future and his future. He knows that Clarisse is right and has a point.
Alright so i know that this is off task, but i was wondering, that if there was a sequel to this book, what would it be about? I am just curious to see what people are thinking. thoughts....?
Jack - I think that the significance of knowledge in the book is like challenging the system in a way because the government doesn't want the people to think over the things they are doing and decide it's wrong. I also think that knowledge is power as well.
That also means they are almost controlling the people...so does that mean this is a dictatorship and not a democracy in a way.
Does anyone have a new topic or new question??? i think that we excersiced this topic pretty well, but if we want to keep talking about Clarisse, that's cool too. haha
Kyle... I disagree in the sense that Bradbury killed off Clarisse just because he didn't need her anymore. What could Clarisse's death symbolize or mean?
i still wonder if beatty was informed Melissa. He acted like it but i don't think he knew the truth. i don't think the government in this society would want people outside the government knowing whats going on. I think Beatty was just following out his orders and i think he was given a story, but it wasnt the REAl story why they started burning books.
Jack and Hailey, good points. Also, do you think that our society right now has any chance of being a Fahrenheit 451 society? Do you think that we are trying to make our society a utopian society?
Hailey- I think that a sequel to this book would maybe show how/if the society has changes, or after this whole ordeal, they just go back to normal. It would probably be a follow-up on where the Fahrenheit 451 society has gone from here.
Kylee - A dystopia is like a utopian society that is wrong or bad. It is "a totalitarian and repressive world". That is what Fahrenheit 451, to me, is.
I believe Wikipedia lists this book as one as well ;)
In reply to Hailey J, I thought that the book just kind of ended without really ending if you know what I mean. So the idea of a sequel is very relevant. I think it would just continue with Montag's fight for what is right, which I would really like to see because I am curious if he is successful or not...
Bryce- that was exactly what I brought up last time, and there was mixed emotions about it. I persoanlly think that if we don't change the direction we're going in, we could definetly end up like this society. If you think about how much Bradbury has already predicted.....it's kind-of creepy.
Bryce: I think our society has the potential to become like F451, but not quite as extreme. In my opinion, we are bound to be overcome by technology sometime in the future. Our generation in itself is one of technology. We rarely write letters to communicate, or do things that was a part of the generation before us. We have everything basically at our fingertips, we've become more and more lazy. Which makes us vunerable to becoming apathetic towards the great knowledge and insight that we've been given by generations past.
It is extremely creepy about how much Bradbury has been right about this. What ways in the world today, like specific examples do we see our society, nation, whatever, just molding towards this F451 society?
I think Cali brings up a good point about the accuracy of Bradbury's predictions so far. It is scary to think that our society could possibly be headed in the same direction as the society in this book has.
Emma - I agree. Bradbury doesn't just kill off his characters because they are of no use anymore. That had to had a reason, but not necessarily have a symbol. Maybe if Clarisse stayed alive, she would have caused something to occur. There could be many reasons that Bradbury had Clarisse killed.
Emerald - I think Beatty did know the truth. I think that he was just so convinced that it is good to burn books in order to keep society happy and control. Plus, the story he told Montag made a ton of sense, etc.
i think a sequal to this book would ruin it honestly. i think this book was meant to make you think at the end. i dont think it was meant to give answers, but instead leave questions
i agree with Emma. I think the sequel would be Montag and all of the new guys he has met maybe like talking to citizens and telling them all the things they've learned and how books are so great. Maybe start a revolution?
Hailey-I brought this up last time, but I mean there was 20 years until abortion would be legalized when this book came out, but now it is a very big (leaglized) issue, also, we have very big TV's, maybe not wall screens, but I would guess in a few years, those will be here. Also, bluethooth, for the phnes are similar to the device Faber creates, and iPods are like Mildred's seashells.
I'm not sure that you can have a sequel to this novel. The novel ends with Montag and his companions going to try to rebuild the society. If they wrote a sequel it wouldn't allow for the reader to think and interpret what will happen to this futuristic world.
I totally agree with Emerald. The end of this book lets you imagine what happens afterwards. It lets you think and interpret the rest yourself. I sequel would totally ruin the book for me and I would not read it. It would have a "right" answer to all of our questions and thoughts. And the answers that we came up with would all be "wrong".
I realize we are talking about what could be in a sequel to the book, but don't you think it would be difficult to write one, since technology has changed since Bradbury wrote this book. Wouldn't it be hard to keep imagining the future, when technically, we are fairly close to his predicted future?
I was listening to the inner circles discussion and I think Jillian mentioned a while ago that teenagers don't think about things, they just agree and believe it. I agree to some extent but I disagree because teenagers enjoy challenging the system. And because we do enjoy it, we have their own opinions on many subject. This discussion is a good example of that.
Haley: I do not think I would be able to live in a society like the one in F451. I think one of the best things in life is being able to be and individual and not have the exact same thoughts and ideas as other people. Also, I enjoy reading and to have that taken away from me would be really sad.
Hayley - I think if I were to be put into a society like that right now, I would be like a protester in the society, who just end up being killed. :P
But if I were born into that society and grew up in there, I think I would have been just as brainwashed as the rest of society. Maybe if a Clarisse came into my life, I would change as Montag did as well. But you never know...;)
Great question hals. i think that anyone could live in the socitey becuase isn't it true that when we are told to do something or there is a consicuence (totally butchered that word) we normally do it.Im sad to say that i could see kids living in the society. but the question is, would we do something as Montag had? Or think like Clarisse?
Do you guys thik that children have good memories?? Cuz i don't know about you, but my neice remembers (and repeats) EVERYTHING. she has a better memory than a lot of adults I know
I don't know if it was just me who thought this was interesting, but I noticed that every person on the track were really smart people. They all graduated from great colleges. It is interesting that the smart people that we rely on so much today are outcasts in the future.
Melissa you are exactly right. How do you predict even more? Bradbury had an AMAZING mind to think of this in the 1950's. It's crazy, but i also think that back then they probably felt things had progressed a ton and he still managed to predict these things. So i think that he had the capability to write these things, especially with a brain and lifestyle that is not corrupted by technology. And that's what Bradbury lives.
Alex honestly i didnt like it at all. I felt it ended way too much like The Giver which is a similar book. In the end of that book the main character ends up running away from the society the he realizes is really screwed up. Montag does a similar thing by running away from the city.
To: Kylee S With Love From: ME (Cali R) hahaha sorry, that just looked so entertaining:) everyone else can just disregard this little comment:) I LOOVEEEE U KYLEEEEEE. ahahaha jjk
I don't think anyone in the class could stand a society like F451. We would all go crazy. The reason we are in this class is because knowledge and learning is such a big part of our lives. We would all end up being like Granger and the other guys, not wanting to conform to the society and defying the system.
Emerald - I think the government is done looking for Montag. As long as he is out of the city and not coming back, then he doesn't pose a threat to them so they won't bother to look for him
Alex - I really liked the ending of the book. It tells you that there is hope of reforming, but it doesn't say what exactly happens, allowing us to think ourselves.
Cali- it depends how old they are. I had this one family that i babysat for the first time, and then it was a few months 'til i babysat them again, and the 9 year old remembered me, and the little 4 year old had no idea who i was.
119 comments:
hello everyone
How do you guys think we should do our discussion? Like jon proposes or using opinion?
I do not believe that Granger is Clarisse's uncle because Granger had said that there actually were many more intellectuals in the city, but they were hiding. Clarisse's uncle probably was just one of them.
opinion
I don't think Granger is Clarisse's uncle because, to me, it seemed like her uncle lived with Clarisse and her family. Plus, Granger is like all the other "book rememberers", except he was somewhat the "leader" of them who just kept everything organized and explained their ideas to Montag.
i agree with alex that Granger is not the uncle, also because granger says they have been out in the country for a while now and just like a month ago or whatever the uncle was living next door to Montag
I think both are good. Because yes you need to use the book but you also need to come up with your own interpretation and opinion. Isn't that the whole point of these discussions?
Ok, I agree with Emerald. It's really hard to have a good discussion when there's no opinion incorporated. :)
Opinion, Cali. I really don't see what a discussion is without opinion and your own thoughts. Otherwise, you just state facts.
I think that if the entire discussion is based on factual evidence from the book, than they are actually getting less into the book.
the point of these discussions was to interpret and analyze the book. Not every inference can be backed by evidence.
i agree with Kylee. we should say what happens, then express opinions. Happy Birthday btw Kylee
But Emerald couldnt it have been another uncle? Most people have more than one Uncle.
I agree with Kylee. We should use the book to use a little support for our opinion (our opinion can't be completely out of no where). But we really have to express our own opinions and interpretation.
I agree with Emerald and Alex on the issue of Granger. I don't think that he could've moved that quickly, and established a new lifestyle so quickly.
i think our disscusion should be a mixture of what you think of bradburys thoughts
OPINION! Its hard to have a discussion without sharing opinion.
Like somebody said in the discussion, fire represents change and a new start. That goes back to the very beginning of the book where on page one Montag says, "It was a pleasure to burn, it was a pleasure to see things blackened and changed."
well i guess ill just say i dont think this is Clarisse's uncle who she talked about and who lived with them
I don't see any reason why he would be Clarrise's uncle. They are definitely similar people with similar ideas, but they aren't related.
Ahh, yes - I almost forgot!! HAPPY BIRTHDAY KYLEE!!! =D (Thanks Hailey)
I think Clarisse symbolizes the realizing part of finding the truth and meaning of life. She is sort of like the process of changing.
I don't believe that Clarisse was a symbol. I think she was put in the book to start the story, but I she was put in the book to influence Montag, if she hadnt been in the story, Montag would probly still be the same man he was at the beginning of the book.
I think that Bradbury placed Clarisse in the book to really set the plot as well as to show that not everyone in this society is ignorant and afraid.
In response to Anish's question i think Bradbury included Clarrise to be kind of a catalyst in Montag's transformation from being a rule abiding fireman to a rebellious person who challenges the system. Had Clarrise not been in the book then there would have been no story.
For anish's question, i agree with tim that Clarisse had to be in the story for Montag to start challenging the system. I don't think it would have happened if she wasn't there and then there would be no story
I agree with what Jillian is saying that all we seem to talk about in these discussions is the symbolism. Of course that is important, but so are the characters and everything else. And not EVERYTHING HAS TO BE A SYMBOL. There are some things that you need to just take as there are.
whats a catalyst?
Kylee, I agree with you. Clarisse and Granger aren't related in any sort of physical, genetic way. But the way that they are related is in the way they think. They share the same ideas and optimism, but not the same genes.
I think that Jon brings up a good point. Jillian, i think that by Clarisse being put into the story for a reason, she must symbolize something. I think that she has something to with the professors at the track because it shows how these men hide away and no one bothers them even though they are thinking these thoughts and remebering these stories, and how clarisse is able to remember the things that she sees. She is thinking outside of the box in the society and people, unlike with the men, are starting to notice.
Yeah, i agree with Kylee. I mean, sometimes I think we over-analyze thingss, like Jillian says, and we try to look for too many connections, and symbols. It's important to look for some of these things, but I think sometimes that Bradbury is just writing, no trying to make so many things confusing with symbols and stuff.
Christina- it speeds up a reaction
Morgan - I guess Clarisse might not be a symbol, but she definitely was very important to start off the story and she had significant meaning. From that, I kind of imagine the symbol she represented, whether she was meant to be a symbol or not.
Jack I agree with you. Without Clarisse, Montag would have never thought about books and like you said, there would have been no story.
I agree with the comment Brian A. just made about Clarisse being a catalyst in this story. Without encountering Clarisse I don’t think that Montag would have gone through such a dramatic change as a person. She really encouraged Montag to think and challenge the system and everything that he was used to.
thanks emerald =)
I think that everything is put into the book for a reason, wheather they are in it to symbolize something, or to be there for dramatic effect, there will never be a character that isnt important or just thrown into the story.
i don't really think Clarisse was a symbol. i guess she could be but i just didn't see her thaqt way. she was just part of the story. but then again i might not be analyzing this story enough.
montag definitley went through a dramatic change. his thoughts on everything changed drastically. his perspective took on a whole new veiw on life, happiness and love
Oh yes, I definitely agree that we over-analyze and think of symbols too much. But we are not totally sure what things are symbols, and what aren't, so then we create a symbol for anything so that we cover it all and even more. :)
I definitly agree that Clarisse was JUST A CHARACTER, she was not a symbol, just one fo those people n a book, that is vital to the plot, but is not necesarily a symbol.
Happiness and love how? I mean i have my idea but Christina, how does happiness and love connect to Montag in your eyes?
i agree with cali on clarisse
she wasn't a symbol, just an important character. she helped montag see things in a new light.
but there was n othing that she symbolized
I agree with Paige and Brian. If Montag had not met Clarisse he definitely would not have gone through the dramatic change he went through. Do you think Montag would have "seen the light" eventually?
Jack and Bryce have a good point that Clarrise was really the starting force of the story. But I don't think there is much more to her. She may represent the group of people that is challenging the system, but that is about as far as her symbolism goes.
And thank you Hailey J and Melissa!!
I agree with Cali. Though Clarisse wasn't JUST a character, I don't believe she was a symbol of anything. She was just very important in the plot, Montag's change and where the story was heading.
I do think Clarisse is a symbol. If she wasn't why did her simple questions bring such a drastic change to the way Montag viewed things. Also, her death was so quick, her life to us, was so short. What was Bradbury trying to do by putting in this girl who seemed like a big part of the story, but then kills her off after we become intrigued by her?
i dont think montag represented evil at the beginning. He wasn't really doing anything bad because the society was accustumed(sp) to burning books. he was just kind of a norm in society. If he had been a dictater burning books when no one wanted them buirned then yes he would have been a symbol of evil but not in this situation
answer to hailey:
montag saw a different veiw on love
he realized who he loved and what he loved
he realized that burning books didn't make him happy
or that watching tv wouldn't make him happy
Anish's connection to Lord of the Flies is very good I think. i belive that that in turn we can connect that to the Gilded Age in America. It looks good on the outside but once you're inside, it's not so great.
To answer Jillian's question - I think it was an attempt to a utopian society. The government tried to control everything and everyone, so no one would question anything, and ultimately nobody would be unhappy. But there are always people that will challenge the system and do whatever they want.
Cali i understand where you are coming from, but i would have to disagree in a sense. I think that Clarisse, to me, symbloizes the knowledge that was lost, and the past of kids that want to be in nature. TO ME, I think that Clarisse was super important in this book and was a symbole, but more of a character. Her every action was not symbolizing something, but some stuff was. im not aruging with you and i respect your postion, im just telling you what is going on in my head.
I understand this society to be what the people think is a utopia. As Brian said, many people had no problems with the way the government did things. Montag had no problems with it until Clarisse talked to him. The government was definitely trying to form a utopia.
Emma -- I don't think Montag would have "seen the light" without ever meeting Clarisse and especially, her death as well. Clarisse made him realize the flaws in society in a way that no one else could have. She gave him things to think about for himself, she didn't just give him a lecture, like he did with the women.
Everyone on here is talking about how Montag changes. In almost every book there are characters that change and some that stay the same. I know there are some literary term for this but i cant remember it right now.
In response to John's question about what the significance of knowledge is according to the book, I think that knowledge is a force in the world that has ultimately changed the course of history. In the book, Montag gets a taste of knowledge for Clarrise and then goes on a sort of quest to gain more and more and more knowledge. Thoughts?
Exactly Hailey, Clarisse is so much more than just a girl. And while we do over analyze many things, we are under analyzing Clarisse's part in this book.
I agree with you Emerald, Montag was just brainwashed at the beginning of the book, he knew nothing else. Once he realized that what he was doing was bad, and actually started THINKING about what he was doing, he stopped, and even challenged the ways of his soceity. I think he was kind-of a tragic hero, even though he didn't die, his life is sort-of screwed up because of heroism.
I agree with Morgan in her response to Jillian's question. I think a Utopian society is trying to be created in F451 but clearly everyone wasn't happy and nothing was perfect. People like Montag, Faber, and Clarisse were challenging the system and not following the Utopian system the government was trying to create.
this is sort of like a utopian society, but not everyone is equal. the only thing is that alot of people have about the same amount of knowledge, but even then there are all the intelectuals who have more knowledge so its not really a utopia
To respond to Hailey P, I think Clarrise was just something to get the story going, and instead of trying to incorporate her through the rest of the book, he just got rid of her when he didn't need her in the story anymore and he added an extra twist with her death.
Haley and Hailey, I totally understand where you guys are coming from also, that's what makes a discussion a discussion. It'd be boring if we all agreed:)
Hayley -- Clarisse did drastically change Montag, etc. But does that necessarily mean she was a symbol? Could she still be just a very important character?
Also, I agree with Emerald that Montag didn't represent evil in the beginning of the book. Montag had no idea that he was doing something bad. Like Emerald said, he was just a normal, ignorant man. I believe Beatty and the people who weren't ignorant of the truth represented evil.
Jack, i totally and completely agree with you. I think that knowledge has lead us to what we are today and by that, we can see where we should be going in the future. So clarisse comes into play by giving him the right push to get him thinking about the future and his future. He knows that Clarisse is right and has a point.
I believe this is a disutopian society. I am not sure if everyone knows what that is though...
Alright so i know that this is off task, but i was wondering, that if there was a sequel to this book, what would it be about? I am just curious to see what people are thinking. thoughts....?
Jack - I think that the significance of knowledge in the book is like challenging the system in a way because the government doesn't want the people to think over the things they are doing and decide it's wrong. I also think that knowledge is power as well.
That also means they are almost controlling the people...so does that mean this is a dictatorship and not a democracy in a way.
Does anyone have a new topic or new question??? i think that we excersiced this topic pretty well, but if we want to keep talking about Clarisse, that's cool too. haha
Can you explain what it is then Melissa? Because I am not exactly sure what it does mean.
Kyle... I disagree in the sense that Bradbury killed off Clarisse just because he didn't need her anymore. What could Clarisse's death symbolize or mean?
i still wonder if beatty was informed Melissa. He acted like it but i don't think he knew the truth. i don't think the government in this society would want people outside the government knowing whats going on. I think Beatty was just following out his orders and i think he was given a story, but it wasnt the REAl story why they started burning books.
Jack and Hailey, good points. Also, do you think that our society right now has any chance of being a Fahrenheit 451 society? Do you think that we are trying to make our society a utopian society?
Hailey- I think that a sequel to this book would maybe show how/if the society has changes, or after this whole ordeal, they just go back to normal. It would probably be a follow-up on where the Fahrenheit 451 society has gone from here.
ok i think that we have covered these topics enough. what could a sequeal be about for this book?
Sorry, it is spelled "dystopia". My bad. :)
Kylee - A dystopia is like a utopian society that is wrong or bad. It is "a totalitarian and repressive world". That is what Fahrenheit 451, to me, is.
I believe Wikipedia lists this book as one as well ;)
emma i totally agree with you it makes total sense that he wouldn't need her
she would of just been an extra person
In reply to Hailey J, I thought that the book just kind of ended without really ending if you know what I mean. So the idea of a sequel is very relevant. I think it would just continue with Montag's fight for what is right, which I would really like to see because I am curious if he is successful or not...
Bryce- that was exactly what I brought up last time, and there was mixed emotions about it. I persoanlly think that if we don't change the direction we're going in, we could definetly end up like this society. If you think about how much Bradbury has already predicted.....it's kind-of creepy.
Hailey, I think that if there was a sequel, it would be about how Montag, Granger, and the other people try to get the "normal" population to think.
I think a sequel to this book would be Montag and his new buddies traveling and trying to a revolution.
Bryce:
I think our society has the potential to become like F451, but not quite as extreme. In my opinion, we are bound to be overcome by technology sometime in the future. Our generation in itself is one of technology. We rarely write letters to communicate, or do things that was a part of the generation before us. We have everything basically at our fingertips, we've become more and more lazy. Which makes us vunerable to becoming apathetic towards the great knowledge and insight that we've been given by generations past.
It is extremely creepy about how much Bradbury has been right about this. What ways in the world today, like specific examples do we see our society, nation, whatever, just molding towards this F451 society?
Start a revolution...sorry.
I think Cali brings up a good point about the accuracy of Bradbury's predictions so far. It is scary to think that our society could possibly be headed in the same direction as the society in this book has.
Emma - I agree. Bradbury doesn't just kill off his characters because they are of no use anymore. That had to had a reason, but not necessarily have a symbol. Maybe if Clarisse stayed alive, she would have caused something to occur. There could be many reasons that Bradbury had Clarisse killed.
Emerald - I think Beatty did know the truth. I think that he was just so convinced that it is good to burn books in order to keep society happy and control. Plus, the story he told Montag made a ton of sense, etc.
Emma- I see your point but I just disagree that it has to symbolize something. I will think more about what her death could mean though.
i think a sequal to this book would ruin it honestly. i think this book was meant to make you think at the end. i dont think it was meant to give answers, but instead leave questions
well if bradbury wanted to write a sequel it hink he would have written it by now
he is like way into retirement
i agree with Emma. I think the sequel would be Montag and all of the new guys he has met maybe like talking to citizens and telling them all the things they've learned and how books are so great. Maybe start a revolution?
I think Christina makes a good point though
i actually didnt think it made sense. i mean it made sense it wasnt gibberish but for me it seemed unlikely.
Oh wow Christina. Ok. well how about you think about what it would have been about rather than him not being able to write it. Think it through.
Hailey-I brought this up last time, but I mean there was 20 years until abortion would be legalized when this book came out, but now it is a very big (leaglized) issue, also, we have very big TV's, maybe not wall screens, but I would guess in a few years, those will be here. Also, bluethooth, for the phnes are similar to the device Faber creates, and iPods are like Mildred's seashells.
I'm not sure that you can have a sequel to this novel. The novel ends with Montag and his companions going to try to rebuild the society. If they wrote a sequel it wouldn't allow for the reader to think and interpret what will happen to this futuristic world.
Thanks for the explanation on that Melissa. I for sure agree with you too!! By the defintion, that fits this book exactly.
Christina I don't think it's if he wants to write another, but its more what do you think he'd write about.
I totally agree with Emerald. The end of this book lets you imagine what happens afterwards. It lets you think and interpret the rest yourself. I sequel would totally ruin the book for me and I would not read it. It would have a "right" answer to all of our questions and thoughts. And the answers that we came up with would all be "wrong".
ok hailey
ok other haley
ok Christina so what do you think?
Ok how about a new topic
Anyways, to pose another question; Do you think that you, (anyone) would be able to become part of a society like F451?
ya lets listen to the inside disscusion
I realize we are talking about what could be in a sequel to the book, but don't you think it would be difficult to write one, since technology has changed since Bradbury wrote this book. Wouldn't it be hard to keep imagining the future, when technically, we are fairly close to his predicted future?
i have a question. Do you think that the government would go after Montag secretly? or will they just stop because they already killed "montag"
What did you all think about the ending... did you like it, hate it?
I was listening to the inner circles discussion and I think Jillian mentioned a while ago that teenagers don't think about things, they just agree and believe it. I agree to some extent but I disagree because teenagers enjoy challenging the system. And because we do enjoy it, we have their own opinions on many subject. This discussion is a good example of that.
Haley:
I do not think I would be able to live in a society like the one in F451. I think one of the best things in life is being able to be and individual and not have the exact same thoughts and ideas as other people. Also, I enjoy reading and to have that taken away from me would be really sad.
Hayley - I think if I were to be put into a society like that right now, I would be like a protester in the society, who just end up being killed. :P
But if I were born into that society and grew up in there, I think I would have been just as brainwashed as the rest of society. Maybe if a Clarisse came into my life, I would change as Montag did as well. But you never know...;)
Great question hals. i think that anyone could live in the socitey becuase isn't it true that when we are told to do something or there is a consicuence (totally butchered that word) we normally do it.Im sad to say that i could see kids living in the society. but the question is, would we do something as Montag had? Or think like Clarisse?
Do you guys thik that children have good memories?? Cuz i don't know about you, but my neice remembers (and repeats) EVERYTHING. she has a better memory than a lot of adults I know
I don't know if it was just me who thought this was interesting, but I noticed that every person on the track were really smart people. They all graduated from great colleges. It is interesting that the smart people that we rely on so much today are outcasts in the future.
Melissa you are exactly right. How do you predict even more? Bradbury had an AMAZING mind to think of this in the 1950's. It's crazy, but i also think that back then they probably felt things had progressed a ton and he still managed to predict these things. So i think that he had the capability to write these things, especially with a brain and lifestyle that is not corrupted by technology. And that's what Bradbury lives.
Alex honestly i didnt like it at all. I felt it ended way too much like The Giver which is a similar book. In the end of that book the main character ends up running away from the society the he realizes is really screwed up. Montag does a similar thing by running away from the city.
To: Kylee S
With Love From: ME (Cali R)
hahaha sorry, that just looked so entertaining:) everyone else can just disregard this little comment:)
I LOOVEEEE U KYLEEEEEE. ahahaha jjk
Dear Haley P,
I don't think anyone in the class could stand a society like F451. We would all go crazy. The reason we are in this class is because knowledge and learning is such a big part of our lives. We would all end up being like Granger and the other guys, not wanting to conform to the society and defying the system.
Emerald - I think the government is done looking for Montag. As long as he is out of the city and not coming back, then he doesn't pose a threat to them so they won't bother to look for him
Alex - I really liked the ending of the book. It tells you that there is hope of reforming, but it doesn't say what exactly happens, allowing us to think ourselves.
Cali- it depends how old they are. I had this one family that i babysat for the first time, and then it was a few months 'til i babysat them again, and the 9 year old remembered me, and the little 4 year old had no idea who i was.
Post a Comment