Nazi Book Burning
"We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the constitution says, but everyone made equal . . . A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man’s mind."
"Do you know why books such as this are so important? Because they have quality. And what does the word quality mean? To me it means texture. This book has pores."
Tonight I thought I would review one of my top ten books of all time: Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.
Difficulty: 3/5 Bradbury lays the satire and social commentary on a little think here, but in between we get rich metaphor and imagery. Sometimes people get a little confused, but ultimately, he wants us to get it and even if the plot seems convoluted at times, the message never is. Like all of the best books, every time I read it, I pick up something new though.
Enjoyment: 5/5 This book never fails to get me excited and worked up. Perhaps it is because the message is something that I believe in wholeheartedly, perhaps because every time I read it, the message gets that much more applicable to our own society.
I think in order to fully appreciate Fahrenheit, you need to understand the inner workings of the dystopian novel. For the most part, a dystopian novel contains a few parts: A small group of people controling the larger portion of people, an adherence to some sort of ideal or else some attempt at creating a perfect society, and an innocent discovering the truth. Often, dystopian societies take some ideal within our own society and turn it on its head or look at the direction of our society and project the end result. As an example, look at the movie "The Truman Show" in it, we see the end result of our television obsessed society in which a person is born and raised on a television set and the entire world watches his life. Every aspect of his life is controlled and censored and the only person in the entire show who doesn't understand this is Truman himself.
In Fahrenheit, we see Guy Montag a futuristic fireman who starts fires instead of putting them out. In fact, his job is to burn books because they are evil and make people sad. He is married to an unfeeling woman who is obsessed with television and entertainment and can't hold a serious thought in her head for any length of time. None of this seems to phase Montag until he meets a young girl named Clarisse who asks him questions such as "are you happy?" and tells him "I'm not afraid of you." All of this gets Montag to reevaluate the life he is living.
The plot in this book is secondary to the internal message and Bradbury's diatribe against our own society. One of the most amazing things about this book is that despite its warnings, we are closer to Bradbury's future than ever before (keep in mind, Bradbury wrote this book in the early 1950's) He predicted that people would have wall-sized televisions and watch them constantly, more interested in the pretty lights, game shows, and mindless soap operas than actually thinking. When not watching television, or sometimes while watching television, people have little ear radios to entertain them as well. The society is sped up and no one is allowed to think or ponder serious questions about life. It is all go,go,go all the time.
When Montag realizes the silliness of it all, he begins to inquire about books and what makes them so evil. The answer is that books make people think, books make people realize bad things about their world that makes them sad. Books can be offensive to people as well. It's easier to read summaries of books or watch movies, or better yet, ignore them all together.
Interestingly enough, we see the same thing today. Movies of books in which the plot and the best parts of the book are left out or altered (The movie Troy comes to mind when King Priam's scene asking Achilles for his son back comes off as just a throwaway line instead of the focal point of the book.) We see from the left and the right people who want to censor or ban stuff because of its message or content because in one way or another it offends them. Reasons include but are not limited to cussing, it has a racist message (Huck Finn), it offends a religious group (Harry Potter), it has too much sex in it or too much violence, it doesn't have enough women in it, it stereotypes gays, and the list goes on and on.
The problem of course it that this kind of censorship eliminates our ability to think and choose freely. There are plenty of images that offend me. Two in particular are rape and blasphemy. That being said, I can choose not to watch, read about, support, or participate in those activities. Watching a movie that challenges my belief in God is often more of a positive thing for my belief in God than a negative. I was watching a seminar discussing Dan Brown's awful book The DaVinci Code in which the professor said something to the effect of "faith is not the absence of doubt, otherwise it wouldn't be faith, it would be proof. Proof is the opposite of faith" She used it to show that we shouldn't be afraid to read books or materials that challenge our faith as they are often an impetus to renew and rediscover why we have faith in the first place. Rape is very hard for me to stomach, but I can't ignore it completely or I may forget why it is that it is so despicable. I will be posting soon about the book the Kite Runner in which there is a horrific rape scene. I could have put the book down right there, and I almost did, but instead I kept reading and got further insight into the effects rape can have on a person physically, mentally, and emotionally.
If Fahrenheit has taught me anything, it is to be careful of people who want to control your mind, thoughts, and actions. I am capable enough to do that myself.
Currently reading: A Thousand Splendid Suns
Currently listening to: My Morning Jacket ruled on Saturday Night Live last night.
Random note of interest: My JV Boys took third place in the 200 free relay and 2nd in the 400 free relay at sections this year in swimming. There were just over 100 teams represented and we beat some big private schools with loads of students, money, and recruiters so it was a pretty big deal. They swam the 400 in 3:26.33 which is a 51.5 second average 100 for each of them.
6 comments:
This was interesting to read but I do have some questions/feelings about it all. I do not believe that we should not read because it has bad themes in it (i.e.-rape, racism, etc.) However, there is also the question of 'do I really need this in me life?' I have found that I am what I read...if I read material that is negative and in no way uplifting I become that way. I become cynical and negative and it changes how I behave and treat my kids. My big hang up on reading is when it comes to bad language. I will get that language in my head and I don't want it there. I know that in regular society most people use the f word and don't see what is wrong with it. Therefore, it is just a part of the dialogue when they read. I don't talk that way though and I don't want to read it. And it always leads me ask, "Is it worth reading this book at the cost of having bad words in my head? Do I really need this in my life?" So I am pretty cool with reading books that get into offensive scenes but it is the language that I hate. I have more to say but we are headed down town. I will write some more later. I would love to hear your opinion.
One comment that I have been thinking about is "be careful of people who want to control your mind, thoughts and actions." While I think this is good advice I could also see where it could be taken wrong by some head-strong teenager. What is the line between "controlling" and being a parent?? Would having rules that are restrictive be considered controlling or not? Also, many people would say that the church is controlling because they tell you what not to do. For many of us we know that the church isn't forcing us to obey-we have the choice to follow or not. But they are trying to guide us by telling us what choice will lead to happiness and which ones won't. The church tells us that if we follow their guidelines and make certain covenants that we will living a life that brings us back to God. However, some would say that the church is too restrictive because you have to live by the guidelines to be a temple-worthy member.
Another scenario can be found at our own home. Mom always said that if you got a tattoo she would kick you out of the house (she threatens to kick you out of the house for just about anything). But, the question is are her rules controlling you or helping you towards a bigger/greater goal? Is it restrictive and controlling to say "No R-rated movies in the house" or is it good parenting because you want to shield your kids for as long as you can?
Then there are those who say you should experiment bad things so that you can make your own educated decisions. You will be better able to know the dangers because you have experienced them. You will be more knowledgeable about the world and society because you have experienced it. I am not saying obvious bad things that even society shuns like hard core drugs or prostitution. But there are lesser evils that people in society would think were fine but that we have been told to avoid. By avoiding them are you living a sheltered life or a smart life?
I could see where a lot of teenage kids (who already think their parents are behind the times and restrictive) taking that advice and blowing off what they have been taught they should or should not do. So, my question is what is the line between controlling and parenting?? As a parent do you allow a child to break your house rules or not? If your son/daughter says that a curfew, dating age, dress standards, etc are controlling their actions what do you do? We are seeing more and more where the rights and the role of a parent are being undermined by teenagers claiming that they should have the right to do whatever they want. Where do you draw the line? Does any of this make sense? Sometimes I ramble and it doesn't make a bit of sense to anyone but the person inside my head. OK, I am done for the night.
Your points are interesting, but ultimately flawed. I'm not going to address them all, but I will address a few.
As to the cussing or letting anything else into your life, I agree, but cutting yourself off from what might be an amazing learning experience at the expense of a few cuss words seems to be counterproductive. I find it interesting that people find cussing to be the line so often, because it is rarely offensive to me (except in the case of blasphemy which is extremely offensive to me.) The church says we shouldn't cuss and people in the church are very strict about allowing cussing in their house. The church is also against murder and violence and yet in almost every house, you see a lot of that both within movies, television, and video games.
As to the cynicism that develops around books...most books are depressing and have negative themes because that is what makes for interesting reading. To quote from Fahrenheit, "The good writers touch life often. The mediocre ones run a quick hand over her. The bad ones rape her and leave her for the flies." We read to understand what it is about that makes life worth living and to understand those whose lives are not like our own. Books are often depressing because they point out the flaws in our society that create social change. They speak of the human experience and of the suffering of existence and the triumph over defeat. Otherwise, they are writing about as Faulkner said, "He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, and victories without hope and worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands."
If books make you cynical, then maybe there is something to be cynical about instead of hiding out and accepting life as it is offered. Should you treat your children worse as a result? No, in that case you should refocus your energies to the reasons behind your cynicism.
As far as the church and its restrictions, ask any church leader what to do concerning any new ideology, principle, or rule and hopefully the answer will not be "you should follow it because I am your leader and I am right" or "if you don't do this we will kick you out" Instead, I imagine they will tell you to pray and await an answer.
Parents who threaten their kids into submission are staving off rebellion for awhile. However, teenagers who truly want to rebel and break the rules are going to do so. Someone controlling them will not stop it, and is often detrimental to the process. Sitting down with your teenager to explain the pros and cons of decisions seems to be a much better way of doing things. Disapproval when they screw up (and maybe total intolerance) and approval when they succeed.
Also there is a difference between sheltered and setting rules. Setting rules provides boundaries and most people need them. We have rules in games and in life that tell us what and how we should behave. For most people, all it takes is a simple explanation as to why the rule is important. As long as the explanation is valid, most teenagers will follow the rule. Sheltering however provides situations in which people are ignorant, misinformed, and a danger to themselves and others as they enter the adult world. Parents who do this are doing a serious disservice to their children.
Instead of teaching their kids about life, they are blocking their kids from it and creating a false reality in which the child is forced out of at adulthood.
To end the discussion, let me ask you this...have you ever seen an Ensign story go like this? My kid had a decision to make and I forced him not to do it and it was the best thing that ever happened to me or him. No, they generally go like this: My child had an important decision to make and I explained the importance of making a particular decision and I am glad that he made it.
I guess my thing with the cussing is that it is one of those black areas that is very easily made gray for many people. Many people-even within the church-don't have a problem with swearing. And, it is more of a threat to my home than something like murder. I don't have to wonder if my kids will grow up to be murders or not. I am pretty confident that we can teach them that is wrong. But it is the softer sins that I would like to keep out of my home...those are the things that are a threat. Heidi watches LOST with us. When we watch it I am more worried about the language she is hearing then anything else. I know she won't shoot Kaylee with a gun when they play but she might start saying bad things.
Another thing that I find more offensive is pornography. I'm not talking about the obvious playboy stuff where it is a nude picture-most people know that is wrong. I am talking about the softer pornography that you see. Last night we were watching House and part of the show had him working on a diagnosis while having a fantasy of his boss stripping. They showed way too much and it was uncomfortable. It was supposed to be comical but I kept wishing that Ben hadn't seen that. Ben would never go to a strip bar and watch that but here it was in our home for him to see! Once again, watching Jack Bauer kill someone who is bad doesn't pose a threat to my home. But graphic sex scenes do.
It goes back to the question of "was it worth the risk?" Last night House was boring until the last half-hour. Then it was a really good episode. But was it worth it? Was it worth seeing a strip tease just to find out that Amber was dying? Is it worth having a movie/book full of language even if it is a great book? That is what I am wondering. Where do you draw the line on that? I read Ann Coulter's book and she is so cynical that while reading it I became that. Not intentionally, but I realized that I was becoming such. Things that you read, watch, and listen to do affect you whether or not you realize it. Perhaps that is why we need to balance out our day with things like the scriptures.
I was thinking last night about the controlling issue. I agree that the correct parenting approach is to explain the reasons behind the rules. That is one flaw I have found with many LDS parents. They always set down the rules but never explain why. One usual response is "because the church says so." That is not going to be a good enough reason on a Friday night when the kid is actually tempted with it. There needs to be more explaining and understanding taught within the church. They need to start discussing how these rules and guidelines are a part of the plan of salvation. Until we understand that people will not be able to decipher between being controlling and helping you to make it back.
Another aspect of the parenting that I thought of was things like piano lessons. We all know that none of us enjoyed six years of piano lessons. We hated it. If mom would have let us quit we would have. But she made us go. I would definitely label this as controlling. However, looking back now I am glad she made us go. In fact I plan on forcing my kids to take piano lessons. If she hadn't forced us we would have given up and I wouldn't be able to enjoy piano like I do now. She also was very strict about grades. Ben says that whenever his family complained about having to get good grades that Mike would say "at least were not like the Hancocks". Here is another issue of controlling. How much is too much? If mom hadn't made us work on school we would have been like a lot of families where the kids never got good grades. Even now we have three college graduates in our family because we were made to do well in school. I would agree that some of Joe's punishments were to the extreme (for example-the Philippines report incident). But the question I have is will you push your kids to do the same??
my kids will live in a perpetual state of fear and confusion.
Post a Comment