• news
  • TUESDAY JUNE 5 2007 2:00 AM

Bradbury Sets the Record Straight on Fahrenheit 451

Submitted by _DictionaryGirl_

Edited by erin_broadley

Tags: Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, censorship, television



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.

Bradbury, a man living in the creative and industrial center of reality TV and one-hour dramas, says it is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature.


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

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.”

He says the culprit in Fahrenheit 451 is not the state — it is the people. Unlike Orwell’s 1984, in which the government uses television screens to indoctrinate citizens, Bradbury envisioned television as an opiate. In the book, Bradbury refers to televisions as “walls” and its actors as “family,” a truth evident to anyone who has heard a recap of network shows in which a fan refers to the characters by first name, as if they were relatives or friends...

His fear in 1953 that television would kill books has, he says, been partially confirmed by television’s effect on substance in the news...“Useless,” Bradbury says. “They stuff you with so much useless information, you feel full.”


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.

He bristles when others tell him what his stories mean, and once walked out of a class at UCLA where students insisted his book was about government censorship.


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!

Bradbury’s latest revelations might not sit well in L.A.’s television industry, where Scott Kaufer, a longtime television writer and producer, argues, “Television is good for books and has gotten more people to read them simply by promoting them,” via shows like This Week and Nightline.

Kaufer says he hopes Bradbury “will be good enough in hindsight to see that instead of killing off literature, [TV] has given it an entire boost.” He points to the success of fantasy author Stephen King in television and film, noting that when Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451, another unfounded fear was also taking hold — that television would destroy the film industry.


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.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
gdarklighter

gdarklighter

San Diego, CA
August 2005

JUN 05, 2007 02:18 AM

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).

Sedition1216

Sedition1216

Buffalo, NY
July 2005

JUN 05, 2007 02:24 AM

hey im reading that......

abbazappa

abbazappa

Sacramento, CA
June 2006

JUN 05, 2007 02:40 AM

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

Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

JUN 05, 2007 02:43 AM

Bradbury's latest revelations might not sit well in L.A.'s television industry, where Scott Kaufer, a longtime television writer and producer, argues, "Television is good for books and has gotten more people to read them simply by promoting them," via shows like This Week and Nightline.

Kaufer says he hopes Bradbury "will be good enough in hindsight to see that instead of killing off literature, [TV] has given it an entire boost." He points to the success of fantasy author Stephen King in television and film, noting that when Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451, another unfounded fear was also taking hold _ that television would destroy the film industry.



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.


Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

JUN 05, 2007 02:49 AM

abbazappa said:
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.



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.

abbazappa

abbazappa

Sacramento, CA
June 2006

JUN 05, 2007 02:56 AM

Cash said:

abbazappa said:
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.



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

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

I'm lost
January 2006

JUN 05, 2007 03:07 AM

pmonkeyEsquire

pmonkeyEsquire

I'm lost
May 2004

JUN 05, 2007 03:55 AM

"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!!!

Volkov

Volkov

San Antonio, TX
OLD SKOOL

JUN 05, 2007 04:09 AM

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

:/

pmonkeyEsquire

pmonkeyEsquire

I'm lost
May 2004

JUN 05, 2007 04:34 AM

abbazappa said:
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



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.

SnowgodCCR

SnowgodCCR

Derry, NH
November 2006

JUN 05, 2007 04:45 AM

abbazappa said:

Cash said:

abbazappa said:
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.



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



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.

SnowgodCCR

SnowgodCCR

Derry, NH
November 2006

JUN 05, 2007 04:46 AM

pmonkeyEsquire 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.



Well said!

pmonkeyEsquire

pmonkeyEsquire

I'm lost
May 2004

JUN 05, 2007 04:48 AM

SnowgodCCR said:

pmonkeyEsquire 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.



Well said!



thank you. well said, but poorly spelled. blush

Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

JUN 05, 2007 04:48 AM

SnowgodCCR said:
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.



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.

Trahern

Trahern

United Kingdom
March 2003

JUN 05, 2007 05:12 AM

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.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

featured interviews