Fahrenheit 451: The Future Is Now

Books Features

By Phillip Routh Jan 7, 2009, 8:53 GMT

I recently watched the film version of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. I had resisted seeing it – or reading the novel, which was published in 1953 – because I thought I already knew the drill (and I was right): books are good (very, very good); book burning is bad (very, very bad). Reading makes you a better, more compassionate human being. The book burner is depicted as a uniformed fascist. People who don't read are lacking in feeling; they are, as the main character calls them, "zombies."

In Bradbury's world of the future books are a dire threat to a regimented society in which everyone should be an obedient, unthinking automaton. Thus there are firemen, whose job is to seek out hidden books and burn them. Reading is done in secret; in the case of one woman, her books are so precious to her that she chooses to burn with them.But the future is now, and it turns out that there was no need for flamethrowers. Indifference will do the job quite nicely. A book unwanted is as dead as one in ashes.True, there are books galore being published every year. But – and this is a vital distinction – how many of those books qualify as the type that Bradbury was holding up to be cherished? In this day of polls one should be conducted in which a million Americans, selected at random, are asked if they've read twelve books from the Modern Library's 100 Best Novels of the 20th Century list (not that I agree with half of their choices, but I want to use an "official" source). The books selected should not be taught in high school or college, nor should they be difficult reading (such as Ulysses, Under the Volcano) or notorious (Lolita, Portnoy's Complaint). Here are a dozen which would do quite nicely: Nathanael West's The Day of the Locust, Evelyn Waugh's A Handful of Dust, John O'Hara's Appointment in Samarra, Elizabeth Bowen's The Death of the Heart, John Dos Passos' U.S.A., Arnold Bennett's The Old Wives' Tale, Paul Bowles' The Sheltering Sky, John Cheever's The Wapshot Chronicle, E.M. Forster's A Passage to India, Theodore Dreiser's Sister Carrie, Jean Rhys' Wide Sargasso Sea, Robert Graves' I, Claudius.Based on my observations of the world around me, far from academia, I believe that less than 5% of those polled would have read even one of the books.But I have a fresh argument supporting the decline-of-reading theory. It has to do with a phenomenon that has almost disappeared: the novel published in serial form, in a magazine or newspaper. I was already aware that crowds would gather awaiting the next installment of a Dickens' novel, not only in London but in Paris, Moscow and New York. A little research produced this partial list, a kind of sampler, of other novels first published serially: Far From the Madding Crowd, The Three Musketeers, Anna Karenina, Portrait of a Lady, Vanity Fair, Pere Goriot, Around the World in 80 Days, Middlemarch, Tender is the Night, The Way We Live Now, Treasure Island, The Magnificent Ambersons, Crime and Punishment, Germinal, The Hound of the Baskervilles, Madame Bovary, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, The Age of Innocence.Some are mainly entertainment (though on a high level). Others are serious Literature. Yet people wanted to read the next installment. A magazine or newspaper would print these novels only if doing so was financially beneficial to them.I wrote that the serial novel has "almost" disappeared. For the right material an audience still exists. Rolling Stone published Tom Wolfe's Bonfire of the Vanities in biweekly installments and Armistad Maupin's Tales of the City ran for years in the San Francisco Chronicle. Both were topical, controversial, and extremely readable (with Wolfe's novel on the Literature side of the scale and Maupin's on the entertainment end). But there are so few examples of such successes! Today only a handful of large circulation magazines are left that publish a single short story. Certainly none would serialize a National Book Award winner; that type of rarified fiction, emanating from university MFA programs, has no appeal for the general public. As for what does make big bucks, the novels of the same dozen authors dominate the bestseller list, each providing their formulaic popcorn for the mind. They are not the books that Bradbury was talking about. The twelve books I selected from the Modern Library list are. They are accessible to the reader; they have originality and substance. They are not outdated (there's no expiration date on excellence). They will have emerged to the awareness of one who loves good books.In Bradbury's futuristic world enough people loved good books to necessitate squads of fireman to ferret them out. Today the percentage of true readers is probably about the same. We are free to read, and some do; but the vast majority, after their formal education ends, don't.Which brings up another aspect of Fahrenheit 451 to consider: whether the death of the book (death by indifference) has had the dire results predicted by Bradbury. In the era when reading was most popular were people more compassionate? A quick study of 18th and early 19th century history gives us the answer. The same year that Londoners were weeping over the death of Little Nell, British military might was forcing China to allow opium to be unloaded in its port cities (the poppy was grown in India, another British colony, and the Chinese population presented a large market for addiction). Wars abounded in the 1800's, and the factors that led to World War I were inexorably moving into place. That catastrophe would never have happened if enough enlightened minds in England, France, Russia and Germany had prevailed. Yet two gunshots in Sarajevo set off a lockstep to a gruesome folly, while crowds cheered. And besides the warfare, these societies were guided by the principle of greed, on both the personal and the national level. The poor were neglected and exploited in a brutish way.I only need to look at myself, a lifelong reader, and ask "Am I a better person for having read a lot of books?" I have to answer "No." I have merely been entertaining myself. I look at my non-reading friends, and I do not see unfeeling zombies. I'm no better than most (many are better human beings than I am). Has reading made me more intelligent (as some claim it does)? I do believe that reading quality work exercises the mind. But what of the restaurant owner, the real estate agent, the crane operator? Are they not, in their jobs, constantly working out difficult problems?An argument against the uplifting effects of great literature is found in the biographies of the men and women who produced it. Many led miserable lives, and a good number did much damage to others in their personal relationships. In today's literary world, among both the successes and the failures, I observe much contention, jealousy, manipulation, callousness – even maliciousness. Where's the wisdom, the openness, the compassion?At the end of Fahrenheit 451 the Montag character, once a fireman but transformed by the power of the written word into a reader, finds refuge in a community of Book People. It is portrayed as a serene, pastoral, kindly world of the enlightened. Each person in this community memorizes a complete book; they become a living version of that book. They pass it on to a young person who also memorizes it and keeps it alive. The actual book is destroyed after someone "becomes" it. The idea behind this is that books are living things; they become your flesh and blood. In a commentary that accompanied the film, Bradbury says that he never sees the end of the movie without tears coming to his eyes. My reaction was a bit different. I was wondering if they'd accept a poem.I'm merely being realistic and honest (for aren't those virtues?). I'm not good at memorizing. Vanity Fair is a great novel – but ye gads, man! Also, isn't this whole idea rather restricting? You dedicate yourself to one book; I want to read new ones. New wonderful books exist, and I want to find the next and the next.Because, setting all cynicism aside, my personal belief, my credo, is that works of art, in whatever forms they take, are sacred and should survive. Survive for me and for others who may care. If a time comes when no one cares, they should still survive, for who knows if a renaissance may follow us. Though a disquieting thought comes to mind. Bradbury's burning of books may be taking place. And now the loss is complete and irrevocable. In our constricted and insular literary landscape works of real worth – books that, in the past, would have been published – are submitted as unsolicited manuscripts and are summarily rejected. At their authors' deaths it is quite possible that these manuscripts, full of living characters, wind up being dumped in a backyard incinerator, where they are soon in flames.Read Phillip Routh's previous essay "The Rise and Fall of the American Bestseller."

Your Talkback on this Story

Note posts made on our older Talkback system will still show below. However, new posts can only be made via the new system (above). We will export the old comments to the new shortly. You can still comment as a guest on the new system but it also allows you to login using various social network and other accounts.

Other features coming soon.

Talkback

page: 1

RJLJan 8th, 2009 - 23:12:47

Norman Mailer's 'Tough Guys Don't Dance' was also published serially. In Esquire, in the early '60s.

Report this comment

prJan 9th, 2009 - 15:17:41

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info.
But, of course, that was over 40 years ago. Past vs Present.
Does Esquire publish any fiction now?

Report this comment

Jimmy ScovilleFeb 3rd, 2009 - 18:47:48

Very true! Yes, Mr. Phillip. You touch on much that is different & unusual in times now as in bygone days. I, too, wouldn't want to 'be' a single story & memorize it. As with you, my skills aren't that capable in that area, BUT more, which book would I choose???

Like many today, i haven't read any in your list. I fail. I do read when health permits; reading other authors. My list would be different than most.

I'm really glad you sat down & wrote this. It really causes me to think. We need more articles like this one. Thanks-you.

Report this comment

Gal SalFeb 4th, 2009 - 14:41:38

I too haven't read one book on that list. Guess this means I'm not a reader of Literature.
I saw the movie, and so was interested in reading the review.
Bet they wouldn't be waiting for the next installment of Dickens if they had TVs or DVDs.
I was on the side of the Readers in the movie, and here I am, not one of them (according to PR). Does that make me a hypocrite?
At least he grants me the possibility of still being a good person (and an intelligent one).
Thought-provoking article!

Report this comment

prFeb 5th, 2009 - 13:28:20

You're probably both good people and intelligent too.
Why do people aspire to be readers? And feel disappointed in themselves if they aren't? We're buying into a myth (on display in the 451 movie) about the elevating effects of literature. I tried to show in my article that it isn't that big of a deal.
I read because it's my form of entertainment. I think that's the best reason - to read for entertainment. The worst reason may be to get credit for reading some classic (and hate every minute spent on this chore).
People are different in what they find fulfilling. Life is short. Fill your time doing things you enjoy. That's not wisdom - reading hasn't made me any wiser than you - just common sense.
Though I do have an opinion about the consumption of junk - in books, TV, movies, etc. Junk is not good for you (and junk that degrades is harmful). What you enjoy should be uplifting in some way.

Report this comment

arickaFeb 21st, 2009 - 23:58:05

you say that your friends don't read as much as you do and that they are smart and are not zombies, but isn't it true that in Fahrenheit 451 people were zombies because nobody had read? there wasn't anybody around to instill morals or virtues because nobody was allowed to even speak intelligent thoughts without being punished. obvioulsy people now-a-days would not be zombies because thankfully there are people who read and can teach or make known the different morals or virtues out there. isn't it a given why people aren't zombies? because everyone around them is not a zombie. we are allowd to read about religion, politics, history, philosophy etc. which gives us self-induced thoughts and permits us to have opinions and to feel passionate about those opinions because of what we read.

Report this comment

jaMar 3rd, 2009 - 10:21:18

pr could it be that the writer and the reader are flip sides of the same coinage -- escapism? Could it be that the non-reader has earned their humanity by getting their hands dirty in the real world and, thereby, having empathy for those around them experiencing their own personal tragedies both great and small?

Report this comment

prMar 5th, 2009 - 19:06:49

Arika -- I haven't visited the site for a while, so sorry for taking so long to respond.
You say, 'isn't it true that in Fahrenheit 451 people were zombies because nobody had read?'
Yes, but I believe that's a false cause/effect. People are free to read now, but the vast majority don't -- or at least don't read the type of work that Bradbury was holding up as exemplary. And some of these non-readers think just fine.
However . . .
The appalling wasteland of television gives us insight into what the masses want for entertainment. And there are a lot of mental zombies around today -- political campaigns gear themselves to people who can't think.
I felt that Bradbury was over-glamorizing the value of books, and I resist over-glamorization. Though I believe that all the arts are of great value, and I wish more people felt that way.
The state of the arts today is another matter.
ja -- I agree with your point. 'Hands dirty' -- I like that.
I also like to see words like 'passionate' and 'humanity.'
Thanks to both of you for sharing your thoughts.

Report this comment

J.M.Mar 8th, 2009 - 04:29:55

You are focusing to much on the example Bradbury used, its not just books he means anything that provokes critical thinking. He makes that extremely clear with the conversation Montag has with Faber about the importance of books 'No no its not books at all you're looking for. Take it where you can find it...Books were only one receptacle where we stored things we were afraid we might forget. There is nothing magacle in them at all.' Bradbury is trying to get across that we need to actually think not just know. That is what to point of the book was, to warn the world what could happen if we all stopped Thinking, granted its a bit of an extreme representation but that was to make an impact and make people take notice.

Report this comment

prMar 8th, 2009 - 14:06:26

jm -- I agree with your words: 'That is what the point of the book was, to warn the world what could happen if we all stopped Thinking.'
I guess we're there -- if we use what's popular on television as a barometer. Mindless entertainment. It's what people want. Political campaigns are run on the assumption that people can be led by a simplistic slogan.

Report this comment

prMar 8th, 2009 - 14:13:11

An addenda (actually, a shameless promo). At the end of this article is a link to a piece I did on the American bestseller. You might want to take a look at that.
I think things are going downhill, culturally. I find that true with movies too. Can the decline be reversed? I'm pessimistic.

Report this comment

page: 1

Books

Fahrenheit 451: The Future Is Now

Books Features

Your Talkback on this Story

Talkback

Latest Headlines in Books

Fahrenheit 451

From Sites We Like

Latest PopEater News

Latest Cinema Blend News

Latest Tech Herald News

In Monsters and Critics

Corporate

The Fine Print