Ultimate Popsugar Reading Challenge discussion

September group read discussion is open for Fahrenheit 451 for "a banned book (during banned book week)." Of course, since Banned Book Week is at the end of the month (September 27 - October 3, 2020), most of you will probably start this book before BBW begins, or else how can we have a discussion all month? Awkward!

The discussion leader this month is Lynn!

Please use spoiler tags if you are sharing any plot related surprises.

TO ADD SPOILER TAGS

Use this for spoilers, just remove the spaces:
< spoiler > write your spoiler here and close with < / spoiler >


Posts here should only be about this book.

I am getting a slower-than-expected start to my September reading, so will be reading this next weekend (September 5-7). Thank goodness Monday is a holiday. Although classes are in session this year, administrative staff do not have to be on campus! :) I really need that extra reading day!

Are you planning to join in this discussion? If so, what do you anticipate in this book? All I really know about it is that books are burned in it. :)

Having read The Martian Chronicles last month, I'm anxious for some more Bradbury! I read him as a pre-teen/teen (13-14 years old) when I went through a science fiction spell... Love his writing as well as Isaac Asimov.

Have you read much "classic" science fiction? From either of these authors or others?

I read this book a very long time ago. I loved it back then it made me start thinking about society..... Starting today.

I read this book roughly five years ago and loved it. It seems like a good book to revisit! I know I appreciated the themes of the story, and of course the writing is beautiful--Bradbury had amazing talent.

I haven't read Asimov, though I want to! As far as classic sci-fi, I've read 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke and The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells. Both were excellent!

Elaine wrote: "I read this book roughly five years ago and loved it. It seems like a good book to revisit! I know I appreciated the themes of the story, and of course the writing is beautiful--Bradbury had amazin..."

Those are two I have not yet read, but intend to...

I read this today and was blown away! Bradbury puts you right in the world and I found I really had to concentrate to understand and incorporate all the aspects of Montag's world.

I read a 50th anniversary edition that included an interview with Bradbury as well as an Afterword, and his Coda.

I will post some questions tonight and more tomorrow. As well as some of my reactions.

In the Coda, Bradbury describes how the publisher as well as various teachers, etc., have actually deleted and/or changed (read--censored) sections of this novel.

He harkens back to Fire-Captain Beatty's description of people actually burning pages from books which eventually led to libraries closing and all books being banned/burned. As Bradbury states, "The point here is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches." (page 176)

Would you agree? Do you believe books should be censored? Why or why not?

The interviewer asks Bradbury about the "decline in standards of journalistic objectivity." Bradbury responds, "It's not just substance, it's style. The whole problem of TV and movies today is summed up for me by the movie Moulin Rouge...It has 4,560 half-second clips in it. The camera never stops and holds still. So it clicks off your thinking; you can't think when you have things bombarding you like that. The average TV commercial of 60 seconds has 120 half-second clips in it, or one-third of a second. We bombard people with sensation. That substitutes for thinking." (page 184)

Do you agree?

And how about the way the 'government' (that was never well-defined, IMO) finally wraps up the case against Montag? (view spoiler)[I admit I was horrified, shocked, and disgusted at the way they hunted down and murdered an absolutely innocent man, pretending it was Montag. Case closed. UGH! Though I consider this to be no different than our own government in the US unjustly charging, convicting, incarcerating, and even murdering innocent people to 'solve' a case. Just look at those death-row convicts that Bryan Stevenson has defended and gotten released because the prosecution and conviction were obtained with either false 'evidence'/testimony or absolutely no solid evidence. Yes, these were typically brown and black males. If you haven't yet read Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption, please do yourself a favor and 'just do it'! (hide spoiler)] I found that appalling, yet totally believable...unfortunately.

Do you believe books should be censored? Why or why not?

I do not believe that books should be censored. I do not want someone else choosing what information I am able to access. I don't mind a warning or two, or a foreward that might include information about the time and place of objectional material, but people should be free to read what they choose. That being said, I do believe that education can be helpful in leading people to the best books that will encourage thinking and not just reacting.

Maria wrote: "I read this book a very long time ago. I loved it back then it made me start thinking about society..... Starting today."

It does provide 'food for thought', as they say, doesn't it? I find myself reviewing various scenes, etc., in my mind in the days following...

It seems eons ago since I read this book, and I saw the 1966 Truffaut version on late night TV years before that, when I was in high school. It was one of many classic films watched while babysitting, after the kids were in bed. I also remember watching The Time Machine and Great Expectations. Again, years before I read either novel.

I don’t believe books should be censored, and especially object to people trying to ban books they have not read. If you are worried about what your child is reading, read and discuss the book with them. My sisters and I were lucky in that our parents never questioned what we read or tried to restrict our choices. We were encouraged to read what we liked, especially during summer vacations, and visited the library weekly. Books with what some might call questionable language, situations, or themes should be used to facilitate discussion. You can’t — or at least shouldn’t — whitewash history by trying to change the language from earlier periods of our history, but learn from it.

As for classic sci-fi read, that would include a few novels by Wells, Verne, and Stevenson. I have not read The Martian Chronicles, but have read several short stories by Bradbury this year. I would recommend “Usher II” as a companion to Fahrenheit 451. I listened to a reading of it by Leonard Nimoy on YouTube (he seems to have narrated a large number of Bradbury’s stories) that was done quite well.

https://youtu.be/NHqS_yAimss

Heather L wrote: "It seems eons ago since I read this book, and I saw the 1966 Truffaut version on late night TV years before that, when I was in high school. It was one of many classic films watched while babysitti..."

I tend to not watch the movie adaptations of classics. But I may try to watch Fahrenheit 451.

I totally agree with you about communicating with others (especially your children or younger folk?) regarding any undesirable or controversial (both are subjectively evaluated, of course!) material(s). I did that with my children. I remember purposefully renting a DVD of The Crying Game since it had won an award and I thought it would "expand their horizons." (They were roughly 12, 10, and 8 years old at the time.) Let me tell you, that was the very last time I showed them a movie about which I knew little without previewing it first! I don't know who was more shocked by that one scene, but I forced them to talk about it. (Fortunately, their father was not there, 'cause he would have shown his 'red-neck' roots and turned it into a circus...) I always figured if I didn't talk to them about sex, etc., they would just listen to their peers even more, and their information might be skewed from reality.

Thanks for the suggestion of "Usher II" and about the YouTube narrations by Nimoy. Cool! Now I need another weekend to investigate all this!

Teri wrote: "Do you believe books should be censored? Why or why not?

I do not believe that books should be censored. I do not want someone else choosing what information I am able to access. I don't mind a wa..."

I would agree. For one thing, every person would have a different opinion regarding the standards to be set. I believe it is incumbent upon each of us to familiarize ourselves with materials to determine their acceptability to us.

I do believe in Trigger Warnings. One of my book club members tends to read more diverse books than the others, so she and I tend to share books back and forth sometimes. But she cannot handle reading about the death of a pet, particularly dogs, and to some degree cats. I was reading Anna Quindlen's Alternate Side this weekend and thinking she would probably enjoy reading it, too...then about 20 pages from the end (view spoiler)[their dog dies, so I immediately made a note not to recommend it to her. (hide spoiler)] And I need to post that in my review as well...just in case.

Lynn wrote: “Let me tell you, that was the very last time I showed them a movie about which I knew little without previewing it first! I don't know who was more shocked by that one scene, but I forced them to talk about it.”

The media did a pretty good job keeping that “secret” — unlike some more recent films — but I still had some idea of the plot twist based on the trailer and what I’d heard. I actually watched it with my parents, and my dad was more shocked by it than my mom or I was, but still admitted it was a good movie.

Heather L wrote: "Lynn wrote: “Let me tell you, that was the very last time I showed them a movie about which I knew little without previewing it first! I don't know who was more shocked by that one scene, but I for..."

You are correct. They did do a good job of keeping that "secret"! :) Glad to know someone else was at least surprised by it!

I just discovered an excellent resource for this book! (I get excited about such things!)

Here is a whole sparknotes website devoted to Fahrenheit 451. What I really like is the fact there are section quizzes as well as a full-book quiz! The quizzes immediately show whether you have selected the correct answer or not, so you can learn something from completing them. And I did... :)

There is also a summary and many other analyses, etc. I prefer to read a book first and then launch into all that, if at all...

In the meantime, I'm gathering information for some more questions...

I've never seen The Crying Game, but this reminded me of when my mom rented Titanic from Blockbuster when it first came out and let me and my brother watch it with her. We were 6 and 7 at the time, and I distinctly remember asking my mom why the car had gotten so foggy lol She was just like "Oops, um, look away!"

Anyway, I agree with the sentiment about not censoring stuff. Trigger warnings are great (I know I appreciate them for my own sensitivities), and I think that some students should be excused from reading certain things if they're really bothered. I had a film class in college, and the professor offered an alternate movie to be watched on the student's own time if the one he was showing had triggering content.

But outright censorship? It's a slippery slope. I'm all for personally refusing to give someone a platform. Like, if I owned a bookstore, I would personally chose not to stock books that were racist or homophobic or transphobic, etc. But I don't think the government gets to make that call. If an idea or a piece of media is truly objectionable, hopefully enough people reject it and it just flounders away.

Elaine wrote: “I agree with the sentiment about not censoring stuff. Trigger warnings are great (I know I appreciate them for my own sensitivities), and I think that some students should be excused from reading certain things if they're really bothered. I had a film class in college, and the professor offered an alternate movie to be watched on the student's own time if the one he was showing had triggering content.”

Trigger warnings and choices can be helpful. I wish we’d had the choice of an alternate movie in my one college film course. Almost anything would have been preferable to Hamburger Hill. I think I spent more time staring at my desk than the screen. (Shudder) I enjoyed my “film and lit” course much more than “film criticism.”

Elaine wrote: "But outright censorship? It's a slippery slope. I'm all for personally refusing to give someone a platform. Like, if I owned a bookstore, I would personally chose not to stock books that were racist or homophobic or transphobic, etc. But I don't think the government gets to make that call. If an idea or a piece of media is truly objectionable, hopefully enough people reject it and it just flounders away."

That would be the hope! :)

Heather L wrote: "Elaine wrote: “I agree with the sentiment about not censoring stuff. Trigger warnings are great (I know I appreciate them for my own sensitivities), and I think that some students should be excused..."

Was Hamburger Hill gory? Seems as if it might be...

Lynn— Extremely! And it was shown right after lunch. 🤢

Heather L wrote: "Lynn— Extremely! And it was shown right after lunch. 🤢"

Oooohhhh...ugh!

Okay, book burning has come up amongst my friends. If you live in the Rocky Mountain area, you might have heard about Chad and Lori Daybell, who are going on trial regarding the deaths of Lori's children. Mr. Daybell has written several books and has become a bit of a cult leader as an offshoot of the LDS church. He has allegedly dangerous ideas, like people turning into zombies that need to be killed, etc.

A friend of mine found two of his books at Goodwill and picked them up because she didn't want them to get into the wrong hands. And now she is wondering what to do with them. Many of her friends have suggested burning them.

As this friend of mine is a librarian, she cannot make herself destroy them. I suggested recycling them for the paper, but she's reluctant to do even that. She has decided to read them to see what his ideas really are.

So I initially said in this thread that I am against censuring books. But I do not think anyone should read his books.

Teri wrote: "Okay, book burning has come up amongst my friends. If you live in the Rocky Mountain area, you might have heard about Chad and Lori Daybell, who are going on trial regarding the deaths of Lori's ch...

So I initially said in this thread that I am against censuring books. But I do not think anyone should read his books."

Wow. I had heard nothing about that case or those books. I did read an article years ago discussing that publishers were of mixed feelings regarding Mein Kampf and whether it should still be published and disseminated. I had never considered such things until I read that article.

My thing with censoring is who makes the decisions? Because it is truly subjective so not every single person would agree on what is unacceptable. It is definitely a slippery slope, IMO. One of my favorite examples is Harry Potter. There are quite a few people who do not feel that series is acceptable on many levels. I guess my opinion falls on the side of each individual must decide for themselves what they wish to read or not read. I don't believe anyone has the right to deny access... But it can be tough!

And your example is definitely a good one. I would be sorely tempted to destroy those books, and yet, I believe your friend is doing the right thing by reading them herself. I truly don't mind someone who has read the material discussing their disagreement with it or the fact they find it unacceptable to read and distribute it. However, if you have never even read something I just don't think you have the right to state your opinion about it. With that said, however, there are certain books I would never willingly read--they just don't interest me at all.

It would be interesting to see what your friend's opinion is after having read them.

Teri wrote: "Okay, book burning has come up amongst my friends. If you live in the Rocky Mountain area, you might have heard about Chad and Lori Daybell, who are going on trial regarding the deaths of Lori's ch..."

That's a really interesting conundrum! I'm sort of in a similar situation with some books I was given by pretty extremist religious folks as a teenager--very anti-woman and homophobic books, specifically. These books were harmful to my mental health and I would never donate them for fear they'd end up hurting another person someday. Part of me wants to keep them (boxed, of course, not on my shelf) so that I can look back and laugh at the dumber things they said.

But I have to say, the thought of those books curling up in a fire pit... it doesn't bother me. In fact, it might be cathartic, like watching all the bad memories turn to ash. I wouldn't consider burning a book that I simply disagreed with, but a book with serious cult-vibes that does genuine mental harm to the reader... I say dispose of them however you feel is best.

Teri wrote: "Okay, book burning has come up amongst my friends. If you live in the Rocky Mountain area, you might have heard about Chad and Lori Daybell, who are going on trial regarding the deaths of Lori's ch..."

I'd not heard of that case before. What's weird is Lori Daybell's kids look like Chad Daybell. Well, that's not the only thing that's weird.

Nadine wrote: "Teri wrote: "I'd not heard of that case before. What's weird is Lori Daybell's kids look like Chad Daybell. Well, that's not the only thing that's weird."

Definitely not the only thing that weird. So many bizarre turns to this story.

Elaine wrote: "That's a really interesting conundrum! I'm sort of in a similar situation with some books I was given by pretty extremist religious folks as a teenager--very anti-woman and homophobic books, specifically. These books were harmful to my mental health and I would never donate them for fear they'd end up hurting another person someday. Part of me wants to keep them (boxed, of course, not on my shelf) so that I can look back and laugh at the dumber things they said.

But I have to say, the thought of those books curling up in a fire pit... it doesn't bother me. In fact, it might be cathartic, like watching all the bad memories turn to ash. I wouldn't consider burning a book that I simply disagreed with, but a book with serious cult-vibes that does genuine mental harm to the reader... I say dispose of them however you feel is best. "

I have some similar feelings about harmful religious books from my past. I haven't yet disposed of them, but I don't want someone else to read my copy of them in case it does similar harm. Burning them would actually feel cathartic as it has taken me years to undo the harm they caused me, but I think I will just tear them up and recycle them. Might as well help the earth instead.

Teri wrote: "Elaine wrote: "That's a really interesting conundrum! I'm sort of in a similar situation with some books I was given by pretty extremist religious folks as a teenager--very anti-woman and homophobi..."

That's true, and by recycling them, something good can come from something negative. I like that idea!

Teri wrote: “I think I will just tear them up and recycle them. Might as well help the earth instead.”

If you’re worried someone might fish them out of a recycling bin, you could always rip out the pages and put them through a shredder first. That’s what I would probably do, if burning wasn’t an option. 😉

Heather L wrote: "If you’re worried someone might fish them out of a recycling bin, you could always rip out the pages and put them through a shredder first. That’s what I would probably do, if burning wasn’t an option."

Shredding would feel cathartic. I've never purposely destroyed a book before, so it would also be strange.

I’ve never intentionally destroyed one, either. Alas, I have been forced to throw a few out that were too water-damaged to salvage. It was painful. 😐

Elaine wrote: "Teri wrote: "Okay, book burning has come up amongst my friends. If you live in the Rocky Mountain area, you might have heard about Chad and Lori Daybell, who are going on trial regarding the deaths...

That's a really interesting conundrum! I'm sort of in a similar situation with some books I was given by pretty extremist religious folks as a teenager--very anti-woman and homophobic books, specifically. These books were harmful to my mental health and I would never donate them for fear they'd end up hurting another person someday. Part of me wants to keep them (boxed, of course, not on my shelf) so that I can look back and laugh at the dumber things they said.

But I have to say, the thought of those books curling up in a fire pit... it doesn't bother me. In fact, it might be cathartic, like watching all the bad memories turn to ash. I wouldn't consider burning a book that I simply disagreed with, but a book with serious cult-vibes that does genuine mental harm to the reader... I say dispose of them however you feel is best."

Oh, Elaine! How traumatic! Yuck! Those books were definitely not meant for you to read, especially at that age.

We never know what kind of influence will be brought upon a person by a book, especially when the person is young, and typically, more impressionable.

I'm so sorry that happened to you, or anyone else! Did that experience influence your desire/motivation to read other books? I can imagine it might make you resist reading for a while! :(

Teri wrote: "Elaine wrote: "That's a really interesting conundrum! I'm sort of in a similar situation with some books I was given by pretty extremist religious folks as a teenager--very anti-woman and homophobi...

I have some similar feelings about harmful religious books from my past. I haven't yet disposed of them, but I don't want someone else to read my copy of them in case it does similar harm. Burning them would actually feel cathartic as it has taken me years to undo the harm they caused me, but I think I will just tear them up and recycle them. Might as well help the earth instead."

That is so sad...and scary! I'm sorry that happened to you! I would agree about helping the earth, though I would try to tear them up well to avoid anyone else getting ahold of them... I can see that might be a cathartic release!

So, speaking of censorship... We’ve been talking about it as it pertains to books/written material, but how do you feel about the visual aspects? Personally, I think it’s important to consider the time of day — and the target audience — for any commercial or program shown, and on these grounds the CW gets a big FAIL tonight.

I was watching the movie “Snow Day.” This is a family/children’s movie from 2000, in which kids try to thwart a snowplow driver in order to get a second snow day. It’s about kids, for kids. Thankfully, I was not watching it with any younger kids tonight.

I’m sure most people, at least in the US, have seen the awful two-minute long infomercials the ASPCA runs on many stations. Granted, they do good work, but it’s definitely not something kids should/need to see, especially the young and sensitive ones. I personally cannot stomach it and always change the channel when it comes on. If it’s hard for an adult to watch, consider how it affects young children. And yet they aired this horrible commercial not once, not twice, but at least three times during a children’s movie! Honestly, what were they thinking? There are times you wish you could reach through the screen and slap some sense into someone!

Heather L wrote: "So, speaking of censorship... We’ve been talking about it as it pertains to books/written material, but how do you feel about the visual aspects? Personally, I think it’s important to consider the time of day — and the target audience — for any commercial or program shown, and on these grounds the CW gets a big FAIL tonight."

I am spoiled. Haven't had TV in my house for 20 years and do not miss it. What is "CW"?

I do not know the commercials to which you are referring but can guess. I cannot abide anything that shows emaciated animals, etc.

Lynn,

The CW is a TV channel owned by CBS and Warner Bros. Their target audience is ages 18-34, with some programs/movies for a slightly younger audience (family programming). And you have guessed correctly as to the type of images shown in the commercial referenced. As I said, not something younger kids need to see.

I think I found the long, four minute version of the commercial currently seen on numerous channels, which features John Stamos. It is sometimes cut down to two minutes, like tonight. Regardless, I always change the channel when it comes on. (And I want to make clear that I am neither advocating for or against this org, merely expressing concern for the time of day/types of programming during which their commercials are aired.)

CW:
https://m.cwtv.com/

4 minute ASPCA infomercial:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s93G9Xm...

I can't handle those abused & neglected dog ads. I've got two dogs, both rescues, and I'm maxed out on dogs right now, so all the ads in the world can't change me. There's no sense in tormenting me!

All of my TV viewing has been Netflix or Hulu these days - I should really just cancel cable. Hulu has ads, but they are mostly for Carvana and Geico

Heather L wrote: "Lynn,

The CW is a TV channel owned by CBS and Warner Bros. Their target audience is ages 18-34, with some programs/movies for a slightly younger audience (family programming). And you have guesse..."

Thanks for the information, Heather. I totally understand that your concern lies with the timing of such infomercials/commercials. Children are impressionable. Past research has shown that violent content affects children more than sexual content. And, IMO, these images are violent.

I get it. They're trying to appeal to our emotions (empathy, sympathy, etc.) but in so many ways this mirrors what I consider to be 'wrong' or at the very least negative in mass media--the emphasis on sensationalism to sell. Sensationalism is so manipulative, using our most basic emotions. However, I keep reminding myself that if it didn't seem to work, media wouldn't continue to use it, I guess.

I did watch the four minutes, though I had to break it up because here it is Sunday morning and I have tears running down my cheeks.

We currently have 4 cats in the house and 2 outside. We have rescued at least 15 strays in the 20 years I've lived here and either taken them in or found homes for them. I try to do what I can for the animals in my immediate area. If I had extra disposable income I would donate more than I do...

Time for some discussion questions, folks!

1) Although Montag (view spoiler)[discovers books and gives in to his curiosity to steal, hide, and start reading them, it would appear that they destroy his life. He loses his wife, job, and home as a result. He even commits murder and is forced into living outside society and roaming the land as a nomad. (hide spoiler)] Do you believe he gains any benefits from the books and/or his reading? If so, what are they?

2) Montag believed that (view spoiler)[Beatty purposefully baited him so he would kill him. He believed Beatty actually wanted to die (hide spoiler)]. Do you agree? Why or why not?

3) Ray Bradbury's work is often categorized as "science fiction," but Fahrenheit 451 seems to say plenty about our world as it is now, not just as it could be...in the future or an alternate reality. We have already mentioned the theme of censorship. Any other themes that emerged while you were reading this work, or perhaps as you contemplate it in the aftermath? If so, what are those themes?

How did the characters reveal any of those themes? What do you think of that within our own society now?

4) Clarisse tells Montag that her uncle was arrested for "being a pedestrian." Why would "being a pedestrian" be considered a crime?

5) Beatty tells Montag that firemen are "custodians of peace of mind" and that they stand against "those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought."

How well are the firemen accomplishing these objectives?

Can conflicting ideas exist beyond the world of books and reading?

Is everyone unhappy with "conflicting theory and thought"?

6) Are (view spoiler)[conflicting ideas the only source of unhappiness in Montag's society? (hide spoiler)] What other sources might there be?

7) Captain Beatty quotes history, scripture, poetry, and philosophy. He is obviously a 'well-read man'.
Why hasn't he been arrested and punished? Why do you think he views books with such contempt now when he has obviously immersed himself in them in the past?

8) One suicide and one near-suicide are described in this book. (view spoiler)[One woman, who shuns books but loves TV and driving fast in her car, anesthetizes herself; "We get these cases nine or ten a night," says a medical technician. Another woman, who cherishes her books, sets herself on fire along with the books; "These fanatics always try suicide," says the fire captain. (hide spoiler)]

Why would two people who seem to be so different from each other try to take their own lives?

It appears suicide is a frequent occurrence in Montag's society. What do you believe is the major cause?

9) Why does Beatty (view spoiler)[program the Hound to track Montag even before Montag stole the book?
Do you believe Beatty had seen him steal books? Or did Beatty simply detect a change in Montag? (hide spoiler)]
What incidents described in the book make you believe that?

10) Why does the government (view spoiler)[murder an innocent man, claiming it was Montag? (hide spoiler)]

Do you think the government (view spoiler)[believes Montag is no longer a threat? (hide spoiler)]