Response Paper:


Fahrenheit of Lies
Literature is a gift taken for granted. Or so it could be assumed it is according to the world of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Society today lives in a world in which tolerance is strived for but looked bad upon. The diversity of books shows many different characters and life forms in every part of the world. Relating with some character in any of the books the world has to off should not be an issue. The question in here lies if society today is ready to stand up for its beliefs and feel the persecution that people suffer in books and in the world today. Bradbury is asking society to stand up for what it believes because without tolerance there is no difference.
Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, is a character the starts to realize what the world has to offer through the life of books. When he experiences the woman burning herself to die with her books Montag has this sense of remorse and self awakening. The realization through the heart ache of someone else leads Montag into an experience of tolerance for difference. Looking at the film version on Fahrenheit 451 the director subdued to the society and put in a love affect that the book lacked on purpose. Bradbury had the two women in Montags life leave (or die). The debate on why does not matter here but the result in the film does. Society demands in film a love interest. Why? That’s an entirely different question also not needed to be answered here. The added love interest greatly affected the outcome and result of the film. By replacing Farber for a female love interest the film lost the heart that the book contained. In a class presentation the question was asked “Do you feel Clarisse adequately replaced Farber in the film compared to the book?” The class overwhelmingly responded with no. The emotion of the characters was lost. By the director choosing to follow the society wants he ended with a piece of art that lacked a following the way the book did.
In 1984 Orwell instills a slogan of magic that reads “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” (Orwell 6). Diving straight into this slogan is one of great distress. The first part of “war is peace” encourages war. War encouraging tolerance seems odd to believe. The part of “freedom is slavery” seems almost perfect for this argument. This suggests that with the freedom we are now enslaved but to have the freedom we need to be enslaved. In the novel of 1984 there is a thought police which watches over your thoughts. The suggestion of a “Big Brother” watching over us to have the great life is a notion that can bring forth no toleration since there will be no differences between each person. “Ignorance is strength” insinuates that knowing nothing, or being blind to what is happening, is the strength behind it all. It fills in the saying of “what you don’t know won’t hurt you” perfectly. In the film of 1984 you see the slogan everywhere. It makes appoint of saying the slogan over and over again to show the audience the strength behind the slogan for the society of 1984. Uniting the slogan we can see that Orwell shows that if society allows itself to be ignorant we have no individual strength, with allowing slavery of others society allows its freedom for un-individualism, and to give society peace it needs war. In Winston’s character in the film we see a man who is aged and really dead. By the end he really hasn’t changed in appearance. So what does society have to lose with change and tolerance is one the film can be argued it makes.
To say a world has no tolerance would be a lie amongst many. The goal of a society should be to be one of tolerance. Though it may be impossible, it is those differences that make us who we are. Tolerance is a subject many people get upset with because to be called intolerant is morally wrong. A self reflection is needed to fully understand if being tolerant is within your mind. Charles Taylor suggests in his book, Modern Social Imaginaries, that “mutual respect and service is directed toward serving our ordinary goals: life, liberty, sustenance of self and family” (Taylor 13). There may be some truth in that. But it is the “our” that must be remembered. Being tolerant is difficult for some, noticeable for many, and not practiced by all.

Works cited

Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. New York: Ballantine Books, 1988.

Orwell, George. 1984. New York: New American Library, 1961.

0 comments:

Post a Comment