Why do you think the city was actually bombed?
because they were at war and I think it was also very symbolic
Because there were so many books that had been found in the city
Do you think it was the country's own government that bombed the city? Or do you think it was another country, the country they were at war with?
The government wanted to destroy all books in that city to rid of the famine that is books.
Its a war. The enemy attacked them. By using bombs they maximized damage while keeping them safe.
Aly, I think that the city was bombed because of the war the people were talking about. Personally, I think that there actually was a war going on. I think that this was just a part of war in their society.
How would our society learn from our mistakes and prevent future mistakes without written history?
They wouldn't. Without written history that the event actually happened, we are going to make the same mistake
I think that we can take their use of technology and learn from that. There is a point where people are just watching TV to watch, or using technology just to use it. If we cut back on technology, then we'll have a better future.
It wouldn't because no one could ever question or learn fron there mistakes that have happened in the past.
On page 146, the book talks about it being impossible to make people listen. Do you think that in any possible society it would be possible for the government to force every single person to listen?
Sarah-I don't think it is possible to make everyone listen to the government unless humanities way of thinking is taken away. There is always someone who is out there who will always defy you.
I think that the only way a government can make all the people of their country listen would be to cut off all other options. They would have to influence the people so that the people wanted to hear what the government had to say.
No, but they can make it very hard for people not to.
I don't think so. Unless the government had something that forced them to listen, there will always be at least one person who stands out and disagrees.
Sarah:Probably not. I believe that contrasting opinions of, say, muslim and atheistic denominations bare uncountable dissimilarities. In order for any government power or leader would have to find a way to blend the beliefs of both without causing problems. That being said, no one can say that their opinion is the correct and true way without lying or unknowingly contradicting themselves.
I believe that the government could never convince the total population on a certain topic or issue. The fact is that minorities will never be appeased in any government system. Even in this book's society, minorities are present. The intellectuals are the minorities, and it is clear they disagree. However, I don't believe the government needs ever single person to listen. If they condense and isolate the parties that disagree with their policy, they no longer can hinder the government's goals.
I don't think it's possible, there will always be people like Montag who will speak out against the government.
Sarah, It is impossible to make everyone listen it is human to disagree. I think that the governments power makes everyone afraid to speak out.
Why do you think the government chose to destroy the entire city instead of ridding the city of those who were 'corrupt'?
Because the people of the city are expendable. Its faster to bomb the whole city rather than go in and have a search
I think the government was afraid of what could happen. They realized that people could change the society, and not necessarily for the better.
I think that they probably it was easier and took less time.
Aly,The government does not care about individuals. I agree with Ian I also think it was faster.
The government didn't drop the bombs. Why would they blow up their own city? It was blown up because of the war.
I find it very hard to believe that the government would bomb the city to kill one person. I believe we have escalated the war out of context and over thought it's meaning. No government would destroy valuable buildings and people for a single murderer. This was not a government attack, but instead from another country.
What do you think that Montag will do now that everything he ever loved has been bombed and none of the books he hoped so much to know are seemingly gone from his memory? Can he rebuild?
There was nothing really gone that he loved, and he has the book memorized already
Tony, I think that this loss of life and everything he knew will encourage Montag to try and influence everyone ever where so that the people will want to decide how their life is run.
Ian: I agree he didn't actually love anything or anybody in the town. And also I think that all together the profesors will rebuild.
In the book it says that he will learn to memorize books and still know them to pass on from generation to generation until society is ready to use books again. As for his old life, I don't think that he wants it back. He wants to learn to memorize books and learn to think.
There always books out there. There are millions pom millions of books out there. It would be hard for the firemen to destroy all books. He will always thirst for knowledge and always move on to find new things to read and learn.
On page 140 what does Montag mean when he says he is floating away from the people who eat shadows for breakfast and steam from lunch and vapors for supper?
He means that he is distancing himself from the people who are of no substance.
When Montag escapes, the police chase down and kill another man in his place. Does Montag feel guilty about this? Is it his fault? Does the fact that the city was bombed and the man probably would have died anyway impact the answers to the first questions?
Ethan-I don't think Montag feels guilty, I think he is disgusted by the fact that the government would kill someone to restore there power. The pedestrian would have probably gotten arrested or killed anyway because he was a pedestrian... Didn't Clarisse's uncle get arrested for that?
Ethan, I don't believe that Montag feels guilty because he was only trying to save his life. He is desperate to survive. This isn't his fault because it was the government who had decided to capture someone to take Montag's place. I don't feel that the fact of the bombing changes my answers.
No it is not Montag's fault that the government killed that man. If he had not run then he would have died and they could use that man as a future scapegoat.
Do you think it was good or smart that the professors memorized the books then burned them?
I think that it was a smart idea, but I also think that by choosing to burn them they almost went along with the government. They were too afraid to fight for what they believed.
This strategy appears to be a sensible method, but most changes and revolutions in human history happen quickly and violently in contrast to this slower method. Perhaps the reason for that will thwart this strategy.
Leah, I think that it was an very smart idea but I agree with Sarah I think that they are a little afraid to fight for what they beleive.
What if they are killed and they already burned the books, how will anyone ever know about these books?
Leah: I do think that it was a good idea for them to memorize the books then burn them. That way they can still know the book, but can't be punished for having a book.
It is smart but why burn them. They could just read them then hide them in the forest. If they are found and burned oh well but if they are not then they are there for others to read.
Granger mentioned that all of the professors have a photographic memory. They utilize this to memorize books and keep literature alive. However, over time the brain will degenerate exponentially. Synapses and lobes of the brain responsible for memory are affected first; and what is remembered is proven to be partially incorrect no matter how vivid the memory.
I believe it was intelligent to burn the books. A book is simple made out of paper and ink symbols. The book is only material, it's points are fluid and motivating. A book is only a capsule of how ideas are spread. When they memorized the books, the ideas are still present, not burnt with the books.
What is the point of the professors who me memorized books? what is their role in society?
Well first of all they did not play a role in society and that is why they are in the country. And the point is to give hope and let us know that there is always hope.
I think that the fact that people knew the content of books, even if it wasn't the whole thing, gave them hope that if society did fall apart, they had a little bit of it left.
Their role in society is to wait until the city changes (being blown up), and then they would come out and share their memorized books with others.
How can they give hope if there is no one who knows about them?
Or if its not common knowledge I mean
Their role is to be the thinkers because without thinkers then we would end up being brainless beings that serve no purpose being alive.
But in this society, we are brainless beings for the most part
Why do you think that Montag suddenly felt bad for Mildred and wanted her to get out when the bomb hit? Do you think that there could have been anyway that he could have saved her? Did he feel bad for her? why?
Giovanna-I feel that Montag really did love Mildred, even if she didn't feel the same way. I don't think he could have saved her. The reason I think that is because he has tried several times in the past to talk to Mildred to get her to listen, but she wouldn't. I think she was to brainwashed by society to listen to Montag.
I think that he still cared about her. Just because he didn't love her doesn't mean that he didn't care about her or care if she died. He probably just wanted her to be safe.
Giovanna,Montag loves Mildred, but he hates to love her. He knows that his feelings are hardly returned, and she's basically just a shell of a person. I doubt there was any way he could have saved her because she would have resisted him. I think sooner or later Mildred would have died. Montag certainly did feel bad for her because he wanted her to survive. He had known her for years and years, and he has a connection to her.
I think that Montag wants to experience emotion and he wants to love her. I think that he is saddened by the fact that he spent so much time with her and he didn't love her.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What is the significance of the rapid destruction of the city? Was it just part of the progression of the story, or did it symbolize something?
It symbolizes the way that those peoples lives did not matter and they will never be missed because they never did anything to be remembered.
I think that it showed the government's power, and their ability to control the society.
Ethan,I feel that the rapid destruction of the city shows the hidden weakness of the society. I think that it shows how quickly something can wipe out that society.
I believe that the significance of the destruction of the city was to show that nothing can stay the same forever, and that nothing can be perfect. It symbolizes that change always happens, that there is always one person who is different, one person who changes the opinions of others. It's like the Pheonix, as Granger said in the book. It grows, burns up, regenerates, and grows again.
Why was Clarisse even put into the book if she just ended up dying or being killed? Do you still think that she was really killed?
Clarisse was put into the book to show you what the norm of the society's memebers was. That most people are like Clarisse
Leah- I think that they put Clarrise in the book because she really did help open his eyes and get him to think. She has helped him be bold and actually act on his thoughts. I think she probably was killed.
I think that Clarisse was put into the book to make Montag question the different parts of his life, and whether he is really happy or not. She made Montag realize that he does have options, and that there are still 'real' people out there. I do think that she was killed, because the government was afraid of her influence. Her death also cause Montag to rethink himself even more, and it brings him to action.
Leah, I think she was put into the book because she is the whole reason Montag starts thinking about the bad in this society.
I think that Clarisse played a really important part because she influenced Montag and got him to start thinking, without her, Montag may have not realized everything that he did. I do think that she was most likely killed.
I think she helped spark the thinking of revolt in Montag. Once he realized that he wasn't happy, and that he WAS being controlled, he didn't want to put up with it any longer.
Yes I think that she was killed. She was put in the book because she was the person that opened Montag's eyes. Her disappearing was what drove him to action.
It is impossible to say weather or not she was killed or not. However, no movement or idea will ever strive if not given something to empower and progress it. Clarisse planted seeds in Montag's mind and left; forcing him to water and tend to them himself. Her disappearance motivated him to fight for what she believed in, and throughout doing so his own heart and mind were opened to the truth. I believe that Clarisse is in the book to act as a catalyst and sort of push Montag along into the end goal.
Leah: I think that she was put in the book to start the change that made Montag start thinking and really started the whole story of Fahrenheit 451.
Leah,Clarisse was put into the story because she was basically the reason Montag began to question his morals or relationships. I think she really was killed, but not by accident, instead by the government.
Do you think that when the government killed a person in place of Montag could that have potentially happened to Clarise?
Zach, maybe but I don't think her being killed was a mistake or even in place of somebody. The government wanted to kill her and I think they did.
I think that Clarisse was killed because she had an opinion and she actually thought things through, and she was really open about it- she openly talked to a fireman about what she thought. So, I feel like the government noticed this and decided that they needed to get rid of her.
I believe that it is also possible that Clarissa survived. However, it is also possible that other figures may have survived as well under this idea. For example, during the great escape at Alcatraz, it is possible that the inmates survived. With the idea, it is only an assumption not a truth that Clarisa survived.
Like Montag, the government thought that she was a threat, so they killed her and that was not a mistake, but i don't think it was in the place of anyone.
Zach-It is obvious that this society doesn't like her for her thoughts. They send her to a psychiatric because she thinks. Perhaps they had tried to stop her before, but she continued to get worse in societies eyes and killed her.
What is your viewpoint with the ending of the book? Did you like it or dislike it?
Nicole, I think that is was the best it could be. I don't think it would be a good ending if it had described the new community of these people. I think it is good that you kind of form it in your own mind.
I didn't know what to think. At first I thought that Montag was dead too, and maybe that would have been a message to the reader to take the opportunities they are given before it's too late.
I didn't really like the ending of the book because I wanted Montag to have a bigger influence on society, instead of everyone just dying.
I agree with Elise. The author wants you to think about it on your own, which is one of the main themes of the book.
Clarisse may have provided the catalyst Montag needed to try to make a change. He may prove instrumental in the coming change. Will Clarisse ever receive the recognition she deserves?
Ethan-Even if Montag never speaks of Clarisse she will always be one of the big reasons that he changed and opened his eyes. Maybe he will tell his story to others and Clarisse will be recognized as an important person who died because she would think. Montag could prove injustice and show the corruption of society and the need for change through her.
Are you saying from our stand point reading or fictionaly in the book.
Do you think that people that live in the rural areas on farms haven't been effected by the government or technology?
I think they have. I don't believe that the government would allow them not to be effected by it. The government would try its best to reach every part of every person to make them be under their instruction.
I think they have been affected by the government, but they may not follow the law as much because the government probably doesn't come and search their houses as much as the people living in the city. They may be hiding and reading books in their house.
Lena: I think that they probably have but not as much as the people who live in the city. Unlike most people in the city they have a job that they have to do so they can't just sit around and watch TV.
I don't think so because the government is not worried about them because they are cut off.
Some censorship in books could be beneficial to our society, but at what point in the novel did it go too far?
When they begsn to burn entire houses if they had a SINGLE book in them
At any point where an administration in any position of power can completely control the opinions of educated individuals in the general public, censorship has gone too far.
Burning any books is going too far, I think that people should not be afraid, we don't need censorship to stay safe.
Haleigh-They would either kill people or send people to asylums for having books. Censorship can be beneficial for certain things, but to get rid of all books, I feel that that is a little much.
Lena,I think that they have but not as much as everyone else because they experience the rural area they see whats real.
Do you think that our society could ever end up like the society in the book?
Erina,Like Smith said i think it is already starting I think people need to look to books like these and start to change the direction we are going in.
On page 156, Montag is thinking and he thinks this line: "What did you give to the city, Montag? Ashes. What did the others give to each other? Nothingness." What is the significance of this thought?