NEWS: Bradbury Sets the Record Straight on Fahrenheit 451

CULTURE: Bradbury Sets the Record Straight on Fahrenheit 451

I love Ray Bradbury. Love. I celebrate the guy's entire catalog.

So hearing from him is always a real treat, considering he's at an age where no one would really blame him if he decided to drop out of the public eye altogether, and his feature in L.A. Weekly last week is no exception. Later this month, Gauntlet Press will be releasing Match to Flame, a collection of short stories leading up to Bradbury's 1953 classic Fahrenheit 451, and when it comes to that particular novel he's got a lot to say right now. Arguably his most well-known full-length book, it is taught in middle schools and high schools pretty much everywhere, often coming tightly bundled with themes of censorship and McCarthyism. Well, enough is enough: Bradbury has had it with all these teachers and critics on his alleged theory and meaning, and he took this interview as a forum to set the record straight once and for all.

It's really as simple as that, kids. But here's some more:

It makes a lot of sense, too, once you think about it: in the big passage where Montag's boss is talking about how firemen came to be, what he speaks of is a society doing it to themselves, not at all the state intervening for them. People being too offended by books to bother with them, stripping out paragraphs until nothing is left but the footnotes. You could really analyze from the angle that the firemen only come to clean up what most people don't want anymore, now that everyone has their flat wall-sized telescreens and favorite programs and interactive entertainment and... hey, wait a minute.

So maybe it's with subtle guilt that we, as a society in general, choose to continue pushing the Big Brother Oppressor interpretation of Fahrenheit 451—we would never forgo literature by our own choices!—but it's a choice that really chaps Bradbury's hide.

I've got to admit, it must be beyond annoying to have a bunch of kids tell you what they know your book must be about when you wrote the thing your damned self. I'd bristle, too.

But it seems like the bristliest bunch in the whole lot of this article are television executives, who claim that Bradbury's claim is stuff and nonsense—rather, television has energized the book market through its snappy advertising and cross-promotion. Naturally!

Kaufer also points out that Bradbury's stories made some awesome movies and television series. Touché! But does that take away from any legitimate fear that drove Bradbury to write the novel, regardless of what spin anyone else wants to put on it? Of course not. If he says that's what the book is about, then guess what: that's what the book is about. Let the man speak. He's Ray fucking Bradbury, for crying out loud, and really—was he wrong?



_DictionaryGirl_ is off to listen to music on her futuristic "seashell" earpod headphones and chat with her "family" on the "wall screen." Oh Ray, please forgive her. Also, big ups to Media Bistro, where they've even got video on the subject. Word.

DG, you rock my world. Almost as much as Bradbury (who, incidentally, is once again on the list of Comic-Con's special guests; if you ever get a chance to see him speak, take it).

hey im reading that......

hhhhm, I don't fully agree with Bradbury. Yes his book simply started out as how television would distroy litrature and deep thoughts, but once it is published people might find conections that the author might have intended for the reader to make or was not intended. that is not to say that the reader is wrong since it was not the original idea of the author. I do think it was good that he did explaine the main theme and sya it is not government censor ship but the mass population censorship however he should not throw out how other people interpreted his book. ps. I rant and hate paraghraphs

That guy's logic makes my head all hurty.

Without trying to sound like too much of a member of the tinfoil hat club....Television has destroyed just about everything.

For every book that television has "helped" through advertising...there are millions of others that sit on the shelves in bookstores because people would rather watch tonight's episode of Who Wants to Marry A Survivor Idol?.

I wonder how many kids today would better recognize Spongebob Squarepants over Curious George, Mike Mulligan & His Steam Shovel or Harold & the Purple Crayon.

What's even worse...is that television has given birth to the video game industry. I would bet my next paycheck that the majoirty of average American kids would rather play the latest version of Madden...than actually play football...or the latest version of Tony Hawk...rather than actually leaving the house for some fresh air down at the skate park.

Screw you, TV.....screw you.

Are you familiar with the concept of a misinterpretation?

Just because people find a "connection" doesn't mean that it's a valid one. Far too often, people will take the text too literally...or they will strain to find symbolism where there is none.

I think you kinda have to agree with Bradbury since he...you know....kinda DID write the darned thing.

yes he did write it, and of course there is misinterpritation, however just becouse there can be misinterpritation does not mean that you should throw out all interpritations. Good books make you think about lots of different themes that are not exactly related to the main theme. I feel the Author is almost destroying the quality of the book by pretty much saying "This book is ONLY about _____ and all other ideas and thoughts are WRONG". it is good he set it straight for the main theme of the book since lots of people miss the mark but he should not have said all other interpreted themes are wrong

"As early as 1951, Bradbury presaged his fears about TV, in a letter about the dangers of radio, written to fantasy and science-fiction writer Richard Matheson. Bradbury wrote that "Radio has contributed to our 'growing lack of attention.'... This sort of hopscotching existence makes it almost impossible for people, myself included, to sit down and get into a novel again. We have become a short story reading people, or, worse than that, a QUICK reading people."


This is so true today. Consider that most novels published today use a larger font, wider margins and still rarely reach a length of over 300 pages.

It used to be that people wanted to write teh great american novel, now people waht to write the great american screenply!?!?!!? WTF?? Give me a big, fat novel anyday!!!

but OF COURSE tv and movies have helped literature. look at the success of luminaries like Stephen King, Grisham, and Clancy!

:/

No, I'm pretty sure that after all this time the author would know if there were any connections he might have missed. Also, yes, the reader is wrong if it was not the original idea of the author. And yes, yes the author can hate how peopel misinterpret his work.

In high school we are taught that there are no wrong answers when discussing poetry or literature, but poets and authors have definite ideas. I don't understnd the attitude that somehow writing isnt animportant subject like math or chemistry therefore we as students can interpret anyway we want.

If he wrote the book, and he came up with the ideas within said book, that would mean that he quite possibly has the best knowledge of any person pertaining to what the book is supposed to be about. You can say whatever you want about it, and that doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it right either. The interperetation is up to the end user, but the true meaning behind a book is only for the author to decide.

Well said!

thank you. well said, but poorly spelled.

That's all I was trying to illustrate, really. I can read the book and, in my own head, think..."Oh...clearly this book is about bunnies and bunny-related issues".

However....just because I think that...doesn't make it so.

A culture rife with mistrust for the government is bound to see a story about political oppression rather than a negative message about the boob tube they like to watch. Ray's behaviour reminds me of the Sean Connory's character in Finding Forrester.

He was right, of course. I haven't read a book I haven't already read a dozen times for far too long.

That's because it's almost exactly the same scenario. Bradbury wrote something, and the general public misinterpereted it (and spelled things wrong) and ran with what THEY thought it was about, nevermind what the writer thinks.

People Always see thing their own way. And they usely whant to look smart... So they over analyse thing... As they did whit Ray's F-451. No surprise there!!! And Thank's to Ray Bradbury to reset the clock!

In my high school book report, I focused on the book that Montag had to memorise - Ecclesiastes - the story of an unhappy man.

I'd love to hear what R.B has to say about this.

That's funny--I've taught this book many, many times, and I sort of thought all the things he said (posted above) were obvious. I love Bradbury (though he is a curmudgeon--hell, so am I) and I love this book.

There are, of course, many different literary theories--one of the most popular (and least liked by many writer--including me, I suppose) is "reader-response" wherein the author's opinion about what he wrote simply isn't relevant; the only meaning is what the reader gets out of it. Also, in Freudian theory, of course, the author's intention is also irrelevant.

But anyway. Kudos to Ray and kudos for you for posting. Thanks.

So we have free interpretation of the author's text versus Author Orthodox. As long as we don't start Literary Wars that last centuries and kill millions, I'm prepared to agree to disgree.

I love reading, I love Sci-Fi, and I love Ray Bradbury. I think getting the author's scoop is much more valuable than 7th grade interpretations of an author's words. I also think that themes can present in a novel that the author didn't consciously construct. There is a range of interpretation that is still meaningful, but I think the TV will kill literature theory is pretty much winning out. I'm one of the few geeky book worm, lit degree carrying, sci-fi addicts left...

Another gret link from _DG_!

Thanks again!

Bradbury gets upset because people don't read the meaning into his books he reads into them. Meh. I prefer Eco's take on things. All the writer does it write. It is up to the reader to inject meaning.

great article. Well written.

. I would agree with Bradbury that the gov't doesn't NEED to censor books, because for the most part, we don't read them anyway! And to the TV executive, What kind of social value does a writer like Stephen King provide? It's just fluffy entertainment. Nothing wrong with entertainment, but if there was a popular success on TV or something by Oscar Wilde, or anything else of true cultural value, I would be impressed. The value of books is that they ask important questions or teach you things. And there are some TV programs that do that, but yeah, the main problem is that people just don't care about important things, only the trivial.

MR