Mildred's betrayal is the push Montag needs to fall off the first cliff. How will Montag inspire change in this crazy world?
I think since he has been reading books he will encourage others to do the same. They will find out that society used to be different and they will challenge the government.
Through planting the books in the Black's house, he has sown seeds of suspicion. Also, everyone is focused on him now. Everything he does can affect millions of people.
Now that Montag is all over the news, he is exposing his passion for books and encouraging others to be passionate as well.
What do you think made Montag snap and murder Captain Beatty?
Montag wanted to protect Faber. That is why he murdered Captain Beatty. Because if Beatty tracked the bullet, it would have led to Faber.
I think that it was the danger to Montag's life and the life of the books, as well as to Faber.
I also think he was scared. Everything was happening so fast and I'm not sure he knew what to do.
I think, as says on page 131, "How many times can a man go down and still breathe?" By this Montag means that so much happened in one week: his friends are dead, he murdered his co workers, etc. It is so much to take in, and I think he just snapped, although it was extreme he probably needed it.
He was just so fed up with everything that was going on. He realized that the only way out of the situation was to kill Beatty. All of his instincts were telling him to do it, so he did. It really symbolized just how far Montag was willing to go in order to make this change in the world. He is very determined.
Montag had no other choice, and he had to do that to stay free.
I feel that Montag killed Captain Beatty because it was the only choice he had left. He was trapped in a corner and had no other way out.
His guide is dead, he is betrayed by the person he trusted most, and now he is on the run. Do you think he will overcome this and change the world, or will someone come and rescue him and the others from this world before anything else goes wrong?
I think at this point Montag himself has no idea what he will do. However, my prediction is that he will set of looking for others like Faber and Clarisse. Trying to find people who will join him.
I honestly don't believe Montag will be able to change the world. He has really good intentions but I don't think there is enough people who support his ideas. I believe that Montag and Faber will plant the idea, and the idea will grow and eventually change the world.
I agree with Riley, I think he will look for the groups that live on the railroad tracks that Faber told him about.
I think that Montag will continue to move away from the city and will eventually meet up with people who think like he does.
I don't think he will be able to change the world. There are too many people that disagree with him, and right now he is all alone. If he was going to change the world, I think it would have happened by now. He might be able to create another spark, but I'm not sure of how much he can do after that.
I agree with Erica! The book isn't much longer, so I don't think he will have much time to make the big impact we are expecting.
The writing style of Bradbury changed compared to the other parts of the book. Is this intentional? If so, why?
This is intentional - his writing style in this section portrays the haze and chaos of Montag's situation.
I agree with Hunter, different writing styles gives the reader a different view point or emotion. By mixing it up, we can gain many different points and see how Montag truly feels.
I don't know if it's necessarily a change. Yes, in this section Montag has much more stress put on him, but I feel like Bradbury has been writing in a way that makes Montag appeared stressed throughout the entire book, and Bradbury wrote it as such. I suppose there was a boost of emotion and stress in this section, but Bradbury didn't change his writing style.
How can this section of the book be a motivator for social change?
I think this section truly shows that you can't trust anyone. When Montag was sharing poetry, the ladies, even Mildred stuck up for him, was calm. Then, behind Montag's back, Mildred and her friends reported him and his world spiraled down. I think society can take that effect away from this section.
I agree with Lauren, this section shows that things aren't always what they seem.
Beatty had been having the hound track Montag. Had anyone suspected this before? Or did you think the hound was only a part of Montag's imagination?
I knew that the hound was tracking Montag; however, I did not think that Beatty was the one that sent the hound.
Well, Montag senses the hound twice. The first time I think the hound was in his imagination because he was so stressed about taking the book. But the hound also sows up when he's reading the books with Mildred, and I think that that time the hound was real.
I wasn't really surprised that Beatty had the hound track Montag. He had made a pretty clear warning to Guy, but he knew that it wasn't enough. I think that Beatty had been working long enough to realize that Montag was going to try to make a change, and he needed to stop it.
I suspected this before. Earlier in the book when the hound repeatedly threatened Montag I knew something there was a reason to why he didn't like Montag. Once I learned that the hound could track specific people I started thinking about who could've programmed the hound to track Montag
I agree with Olivia. I thought that Beatty wanted to help Montag and Faber save the books. I was very shocked the Beatty was the one to send the hound.
How has Montag changed since the beginning of the book?
For starters, Montag has become much more rebellious and curious. He has been transformed from the simpleton that he was at the beginning of the story.
Montag has started to think for himself and to doubt what everyone around him is doing. It started with Clarisse but now he is able to think and act on his own.
He no longer conforms to society. He is more brash, more determined. However, he is also more confused. Everything is collapsing around him.
Montag now has a more realistic view on the world. The conversations with Clarisse helped spark a revolution in his mind and working with Faber fueled that fire. When he was captured and sent to burn down his house that turned the the fire into and inferno of revolution.
Montag has grown mentally since the beginging of the book. In the beginging, he didn't think much of their society or the way they act. Now, he knows that the society is missing knowledge and diversity.
In the beginning of the book, he was just another fireman that believed in his job and believed in the ideas that their society had created. Then he met Clarisse, collected more books, and watched the woman die for the books. All of this and more changed his perceptive on society and soon began to feel curious about what he could be missing out on. He has become more of his own person and is starting to finally understand who he is.
How does this section of the book compare with the other section of the book in the style of writing?
Other sections and this section both contain paragraphs of suspense. The author likes to add to the feel of craziness by telling events without separating the sentences: just having commas. I think this section, however, is more suspenseful as the other sections was the build up to Montag's growth.
On page 102 (white book) Beatty says "the crisis is past and all is well, the sheep returns to the fold. We're all sheep who have strayed at times."Do you think it is ever beneficial to be a sheep and follow the crowd?
That's a good question. I personally believe it depends on the circumstance, but you should never follow the pack if its against something you believe in.
Good point. I always believe in being your own person: believe in what you think is right. Sometimes the crowd does make the right decisions. For example, if most of the crowd is against smoking then it would be beneficial to follow their lead. However, someone should be strong enough to decide what is right for themselves.
I think in this society, yes. Following crowd is what everyone does and if you don't your punished. Today though, people are encouraged to be their own person.
In most situations, no it is not beneficial. In this case it is especially not beneficial because the government uses and brainwashes the sheep following them.
How has the symbol of fire come up so far? What do you think fire symbolizes? Why?
The symbol of fire is changing in Montag's view. It used to be his job but now he sees it as evil, so the symbol of fire is evolving.
Fire is something that wipes a new slate clean. This is a reflection of the society, nobody ever mentions having pictures of the people they love in their homes or saving sentimental pieces. It shows how emotionless these people are, they don't have a problem with losing things, they hardly even feel love.
Montag first thought that fire was cleansing, that it was good and pure. Now he sees it in a different light. He sees it as a destructive force.
I agree with Riley in the sense that fire cleans or gets rid of things. The fire is viewed as good by the society, but they don't realize what the fire is actually doing. The fire is destroying the knowledge and information they have left. The fire is making them simple-minded without them noticing or even caring.
Bradbury uses the idea of the hound a lot in this story, and brings it into the story whenever Montag is stressed or fearful. What do you think the hound could represent?
I think the hound represents society and how it appears harmless, yet it is not.
I think the hound represents what you just pointed out, fear and stress. It is just another big arrow pointing out Montags emotions.
The hound represents guilt and fear. The hound strikes fear into Montag whenever he is guilty about doing something wrong.
Not only does the hound represent fear, I think it represents evil, and the inhuman evil that society is capable of.
I think that the hound is the embodiment of the evil side of humanity- just like Jack was in Lord of the Flies.
Why do important characters (like Clarisse and Faber) have such short parts in the story?
I think this shows how little someone has to do to impact a life. The author is trying to make a point, all you need is a spark.
Clarisse and Faber have such short parts in the story because they are there to push Montag forward and help him move towards his goal in going against the government.
I feel that the reason that Clarisse and Faber are so brief in the novel is to help show that potential spark of revolution is quickly put out in this society.
It makes these characters in a way more important because they leave a lasting impact on the story. Clarisse and Faber are in this story to help Montag in his journey.
I think this is Ray Bradbury almost toying with the reader. Clarisse and Faber can connect so quickly with readers, and by taking them away so abruptly so the reader can truly feel the impact of these key characters.
Why do you suppose that America has secluded itself from the rest of the world as described in the book?
I think America has such strong nationalism that they feel that they should lead by example: they should try to indirectly show Americas influence on the world. America is trying to create this perfect society: that no one is above someone, where everyone is "happy." America is trying to prove to the world that they are perfect and possibly others should follow behind.
I think America has stopped getting involved in world affairs because Montag said since 1990 America has already been in two nuclear wars, and that is probably one of the main reasons why society is so strict. I think America doesn't want to get into anymore wars because another nuclear war could either destroy all of America, or destroy the government and the remaining people (if there are any left) would have to rebuild.
My history teacher refers to the most powerful or popular nations as being a 'top dog.' I think America wants to be the top dog so they are constantly trying to come up with new ideas. They want to have the perfect society so they make up new ideas and beliefs and change society. But I think that the other countries either are unaware of this change or don't agree with it.
It is not America that has secluded itself, but the American government that has done this. They did this because they wanted to keep the American society oblivious to the rest of the world and keep them cut off from information. The people are brainwashed by the government and because they don't know differently, they go with it.
The book does not explain this entirely but something big happened like a nuclear war. It seems that the rest of the world is like this now too.
I believe its because Americans, even today, appear arrogant, like they are so much better then everyone else in the world
I think that American society secluded itself because the population has become selfish and greedy. People no longer cared what was going on in the world, so as a result the government became secluded as well.
I think it is because America thinks so highly of itself so it believes that it doesn't need to be tied to other nations in order to be powerful and strong. We are a country of independence, and Americans like to keep it that way. I also think it is an attempt to stay out of war (even though it's failing) and to keep their country safe.
The book said that there have been two nuclear wars. Also, if America is enough of a super-power to have formed this utopia, they probably don't need to be involved with other countries to prosper.
Why did Bradbury lay such a fog around Beatty's character? At some points in the book, he seems like a good friend. At some points he seems like he might be someone who reads books. Toward the end of his time in the book (and his life) it becomes clear that he is the opposite of the two.
I think Bradbury described Beatty as a friend in the begining because Montag didn't know who he truly was. As Montag learned more, Bradbury shows more of Beatty's true colors. Bradbury was using Beatty to show how Montag has grown mentally.
Will the hound find Montag? If not, how will the government tell the public that Montag has escaped- and not even the Hound can find him?
I think Montag will manage to evade the hound. The government might simply brodcast that Montag was caught, or even fake his killing by the hound.
I don't think the hound will find Montag. I also don't think the government will update the public at all. The government already falsifies the information, so I don't think they will inform the public about a mistake that they made. I believe that the public will forget all about this incident, they are too absorbed in their own lives to worry about an escaped criminal.
P. 103 referrs to a huge big blazing meteor that makes a pretty fire in space, but sometime it has to hit. What does this mean?
I think it means that things can be good in the beginning and happy, but eventually a bad time has to come. For Montag, he had the opportunity to read books and show Mildred and reconnect with Faber but then Beatty figured this out and that's when the meteor hit.
I think this is a reference to books being burned. The burning might be pretty for awhile, but eventually the lack of literature will severely damage society and have a negative effect.
Do you think Guy still has hope of making a change in society?
He might have hope but even if he did have hope it wouldn't do much for him, considering he is on the run from the government. Without anyone helping him he wouldn't have much of a chance to do anything.
I think the chance for Guy to change society is definitely become smaller. I feel like his "army" with the book lovers, Faber now aren't here for him, thus his confidence is changing in helping society "regress" back to what it was. This will truly impact his chances. I guess the fact that he is a wanted man might not help his case...
Of course! I don't know if we will be able to see the results of his attempted revolution, but we can see the start of this. Why wouldn't he be able to change society?
How does this aspect of "war" add to the story?
This whole "war" is reminding Montag, and the reader, that this story is not confined to one area or country. This concerns the entire planet.
The war adds to the story by showing the power of the government and military and how deadly the weapons and technology are.
In response to Emily W... But does it concern other parts of the plant? Do other countries burn books?
It also shows off how powerful the government is, if I was Montag going up against this incredibly powerful and advanced government I would feel powerless.
I think that they are mentioned so briefly because they show a spark of rebellion but are dashed out instantly. I believe that this shows how far fetched the idea of a rebellion at this point really is. It shows how far gone the cause is.
Sorry, this was supposed to be connected to EmilyW's comment.
Why is it that in most attempted utopias equality is so important?
Because there is always discontent if people are uneven.In order to have a utopia you can't have discontent.
The point of a utopia is to make everyone happy. One of the main reasons for people being unhappy is not feeling good enough, wanting to be richer, or have more stuff. If everyone has the same amount of stuff, it makes people believe that they are the best of the best.
If people aren't equal they will not be happy. If you are poor you will be mad at the rich, so if everyone is rich then everyone is happy. There is no competition. If there is not equality people will be upset, but with equality people will be happy
If equality is not achieved in a utopia, there is no utopia because a utopia is a society of equals ruled by a superior government.
I think it is part of human nature to want to be the best. If everyone is equal, one person isn't any better than another person. The animosity and envy towards others will vanish.
Equality is considered perfection, or happiness. If everyone is equal then jealousy and unhappiness is basically nonexistent, therefore is feels like a utopian society. Clearly the attempts at this type of society is failing, but the basic structure of it has some valid points. If everyone is equal, feelings of worthlessness are not possible.
BIG question: Why do most, if not all, attempted utopias fail?
because society wasn't created to be equal. People were all born different for a reason. In utopias, the government tries to change the people and I don't think you can change someone so much that everyone is equal.
Utopias fail because it is impossible to make everyone happy. There will always be people who are more talented or smarter than another. Its hard to either dumb people down or make them grow in knowledge.
Most if not all, attempted utopias fail because there is always someone who isn't happy with society. People try to be equal, but there can never be total equality. Even if there was total equality, people would not be happy with being equal.
I personally believe that humans are inherently evil. Therefore, no matter how many rules or restrictions a government places on the people, there will always be bad, and there will always be resistance.
Utopias fail because it is very hard to keep everything equal. Also everyone may not want to be equal. There is always someone who wants to be better. They will do whatever they can to get more than the average person and that will tear apart the Utopia. Soon no one would be equal
Utopia will always fail because in a utopia, everyone is equal. The only flaw is that humans by nature are not equal. We all have different talents and abilities that will be better than somebody else. For example, Usain Bolt will almost always beat Michael Phelps in a footrace. But in the pool, Bolt has no chance against Phelps. If a government tries to equal everybody in EVERYTHING, society will collapse.
They fail for one major reason: human nature. There will always be someone who has to rule or hold the power or else all the equal people will have no one to turn to. If all the equal people are like sheep, they need a Shepard to heard them somewhere, give them a purpose.
I agree with Hunter. Humans will always rebel against those who have power. I don't think that a government will be able to oppress every person. Utopia will be destroyed if one person resists.
Utopias fail because happiness is impossible to achieve. Humans live there life to reach their goal of obtaining happiness. If people don't have this goal, then there is no reason to live. It is impossible to create happiness, especially when there is no set definition for it.
Why is that part about the kids trying to run Montag over included in this section?
This just shows how corrupt society had become and how kids were so influenced by the TV and the propaganda to the point of killing.
It created suspense, as well as gave more detail about how their society works. It also gave Montag another reason to want to change things. He sees kids trying to kill other people, and he believes this is wrong. It empowers him to try even harder to change society.
I think the section of the teenagers trying to run Montag over was included in this section added to suspense beforehand. Reading it, I thought it was the police and I felt myself read faster. When it was revealed to the readers that this was teenagers messing around, it added playfulness to the text, and gave more of a hope that Montag will live on and continue to (hopefully) change society.
I found it odd how Faber's and Guy's goodbye was too..calm. They were making small talk almost saying, "If we are both in good health, next week, the week after, get in touch, General Delivery, St. Louis." (Faber, pg 136). Why do you think Ray Bradbury made that so?
I think that Bradbury wrote it this way to show that they are both scared of what will happen, and that they didn't actually say goodbye. Maybe he is foreshadowing that they will meet again and that wasn't actually goodbye.
I don't think Bradbury wanted the reader to focus on that goodbye very much- he is telling people that it will be okay (foreshadowing!), and indirectly telling them that it won't be the last of Faber or Montag.
I think that both Faber and Guy are so scared of what they are about to do that they try to calm themselves down through conversation and not show outward fear.
Do you think the teenagers who tried to run over Montag are really the ones that killed Clarisse? Why?
The reader has no way to know if the teenagers who tried to kill Montag are the ones who killed Clarisse. The majority of the kids of that time pretty much acted the same, so it could have been the same group and it could have been a different.
I don't think they are - almost all the teenagers in the society are this way, any one of them could have run Clarisse over.
I think that the teenagers who tried to run over Montag are generic teenagers. I don't think that it was actually the same teens, but that Bradbury was trying to say that everyone thinks the same in this society. They all think and act the same way.
I do not think that the teenagers were the same. America has a very large population and the chances of that are very slim.
What is your definition of equality? Is it like in the book, where everyone should be mentally equal? Is like in Harrison Bergeron, where everyone should be physically and mentally equal? Or is it something else?
I don't think we can ever have true equality. We don't live in a perfect world, and we never will.
My definition of equality is to let people follow their beliefs and do not argue them, let people have the same pay for the same jobs, let all people have access to certain activities, let all people have a voice. I do not think that dumbing people down or trying to make everyone's brain overlap at the same level is the answer to a happy society. A happy society includes all types of people: smart, stupid, athletic, to voice their opinion.
Everything is the same. No difference. No separation, levels, no good, no bad, everything is neutral.
How does the media have an affect of the society in this book? How does the media have an affect on our society?
The media in this society effects how people how think. They feed them what they should think and believe. Essentially, the government is just very good at creating propaganda.
Media affects our society a lot, we use media and technology to change the way we learn in this classroom. We also use social media to communicate. People in their society used media to entertain themselves, but the media was just useless and meaningless and it destroyed and brainwashed their society into thinking violence and killing was okay.
In our society, especially with the internet and social networking, the media is no longer the only source of information for people. The population now is able to get more than one viewpoint and more than one opinion. "Media" as Ray Bradbury knew is very different from what we know media.
This book was written in the 50's. What do you think the people who read it back then thought about the book.
I thnk that some of the people who read it in the 50's thought that Bradbury was crazy and that society would never end up like the society in the book. However, I think that there was also some people that saw things the same way Bradbury did, or once pointed out to them, they saw what society was destined for.
I think they thought it was really far fetched. In the 1950's you had no way of telling what the future would be like, and you still don't today. The people probably were a little freaked out by it. What if society was like this in the future? Also it mentioned nuclear war and I think that also would've scared some people
People probably would have been shocked and disturbed about this book, thinking that it may come true in the future.
If there was never any Clarisse- never any moonlit night where someone asks Montag if he is happy, do you think this book would exist? Why or why not?
The story might exist. However, the events would have taken much much longer to culminate without Clarisse, who was essentially the spark to start the fire.
Clarisse was the one who started the 'fire' in Montag. If she hadn't opened up his eyes to what was really going on I don't think that Montag would have woken up from the governments control. If he hadn't realized what was going on there would be no reason to write this book.
I don't think that Montag would have realized some of society's flaw if it wasn't for Clarisse. As Kasina put it, Clarisse was the spark that lit Montag's inferno of rebellion.
What do you think truly encouraged to Ray Bradbury to change society? His wrote this in the 1950s. Bradbury could already see the laziness becoming of people and could see the potential for technology? What was society in America like then?
In the 50's things were very different. People worked hard and had good morals. They are considered the greatest generation who ever lived. If they read this book, I think they would be horrified that all they are working for would take such a downhill turn.
I think he could sense a change was going to happen in society. With the idea of TV he thought it would expand to the level in this book and how technology and warfare would become too much for the world to handle
I think a big impact on this book (especially the wars and America's relationship with the world) is largely impacted by the atomic bombs used in WW2. People see America in the 50's as the perfect society- just like the outsider might see this world, but an insider might know the true perils of this society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Do you think the river signifies anything? Did Bradbury put the river in story to use as a literary element or does it signify something more?
I think the river signifies something big in Montag's battle. It is sort of like a climax in the story of Montag. Once he crosses the river or gets through it, maybe things will be more clear to him, or maybe even easier to change things.
Montag finally realizes that he isn't happy. Do you believe that it is possible to be happy? How do you obtain happiness? How do you define happiness?
Interesting question. Happiness is obtainable, though there are different forms of happiness, thus the different words for happiness (happiness, joy, euphoria, etc.). Methods for obtaining happiness are different for everyone.
I suppose happiness is feeling satisfied; feeling that you are completely fine with how life is treating you. I think it is possible to be happy: I feel happy finding a penny on the floor! However it does surprise me that no one in this book is tired of feeling so similar, all so happy yet no one is willing to stand up and become happier.
Predict what will happen next. Will Montag take Faber's advice to follow the train tracks? Explain your answer.
Yes. Faber is smart- and Montag needs someone to follow right now. The true question is: Where will the train tracks lead him (mentally and physically.)?
I definitely think Montag will follow his advice. He has no other leads and nothing else to go on, so he's going to take any advice he can get.
How is being so protected affecting their society?
The society is being protected too much. They are being protected from things that some people think are bad, but not everyone thinks is bad. It has gotten to the point that they are not being protected anymore, they are being deprived.
People become out of touch with society and they don't know how to think for themselves and function on their own accord. People feel safe and comfortable when they are so protected, and they don't want to change because as far as they can tell they are "happy" and having "fun"
Being protected so much is bad for society. If the government censors strong language on the TV, and one day turns it off everyone will freak out. Since they have protected the people and the people are used to it the government cannot let up. If they do then pure chaos would ensue.It is probably also hard for the government to keep up with the protection, but since they have gone so far with it they know they can't stop
How can the whole issue with the attack on the emabssy (supposedly because of the offensive movie) be related to this book?
The censorship of media and the banning of media can relate to this attack. The muslim community was offended by this piece of media and the wanted it banned/censored because it was against their beliefs. This movie was offensive to them, and in this case countries and communities should have the right to ban certain extremely offensive pieces of media if results/reactions will be violent or destructive.
How did Mildred leaving Montag affect him, or did it?
Mildred leaving Montag was his final push over the cliff. All the dominos finally fell over.
I think Mildred leaving was a sign or an indicator to Montag that he can leave, and he can change things.
It affected him very minimally, they had been very distant for a long time and have grown apart.
I think Mildred had very little affect on Montag. He didn't love her and she didn't love him. It would be like watching a stranger drive past you - it doesn't really matter.
I think it provided an opportunity for Montag to do whatever he wanted because he no longer had any ties to that society, so he can leave and learn knowledge like he wanted to before.
Also, it is like Mildred is letting Montag go. He can do what he wants now without worrying how it will affect Mildred.
I don't really think it did. He feels more alone, but he was expecting it. They clearly didn't love each other. They more in love with the idea of being in love than they actually love each other, so if it affected him at all it was probably just the idea of being alone that hurt.
Did Mildred and Montag really love each other? Did they feel any connection at all? I mean they can't even find the strength to remember how they met! What is the basis for marriage?
Social status. Everyone gets married so why not do it yourself. They are all followers.
It is the social norm. I think they felt a connection when they were young but have long since forgotten what love or happiness is. So no. They did not love each other.
I don't think they love each other. I think they stay together because its a social norm. For a marriage to succeed they must be happy together. Considering Mildred thought her family was the TV, you can see they weren't happy together.
They are only married for the heck of it, and for the money that comes from it. If you live in their society, you marry someone who makes a lot of money.
Montag and Mildred did love each other. If not why would they get married? I think they gotten sucked into the black hole that is society and cannot get out. Mildred is way to involved in her parlor walls and she over doses frequently. Guy realizes this and starts to not care for Mildred, because she doesn't care about him. I don't think they have love for each other anymore
I think that maybe Mildred and Montag were infatuated with each other in the begining, but they never actually loved each other.
They really have no basis because they basically just got married because it was what is normal in society and they couldn't think for themselves. They didn't love each either because they can't even feel real emotions because they have no reference beside all the superficial influences in that society.
I feel that Mildred did not truly care for Montag, but Guy truly cared for and loved Mildred, to an extent. The basis for marriage is to maintain the social norm and to fit in.
How is the literature in the book motivating social change in the book? (Think beyond Montag, please.)
It shows the power of media. the kids do what they do because they are plagued by what they see on TV.
This book movtivates society to be more aware of what is happening and if they are really happy, and if we are really aware of the society we live in. We also think about the censorship levels and corruption of our world.
Thank you for thinking on a deeper level!
What happens to Faber after Montag leaves?
Nothing, the hound almost went to Faber's house, but it turned away at the last second.
I think Faber is truly becoming more courageous. He, as he said, is going to visit printer which he would have never done in his past, so Montag is really effecting him. I do hope that Faber's and Guy's paths begin to cross again so that they, together, can do something about it.
What is the author trying to tell our society? Are we really falling to shambles?
Our society is slowing regressing to that point.
He is trying to warn us of where our society might be headed and end up. There is still hope for change, that's why Bradbury wrote the book.
Bradbury is trying to warn us of what COULD happen if we let society escalate to this level. Bradbury is trying to show what could happen and try to prevent it from happen.
Technology is constantly getting more and more interactive. Will it ever get to the point where there is something similar to "the relatives?
Yes technology will get there, but hopefully not for a while.
I think it will. We already have 3d televisions and interactive video games. We are already very close.
When Montag reads Dover Beach, Mildred's friend begins to cry even though she doesn't know why. The content of the poem obviously touched her in some way and seh probably wont be able to forget those feelings until she resolves her conflict, and changing socially.
I agree, we have websites and machines that can have a conversation with us already. We are not too far from having a TV be able to do the same thing.
How has this book motivated change in you?
Why do you think this book has not motivated social change so far?
Look at the NOT, people.
I think it has. We are a lot like the society in the book, but we aren't at the same time. We have access to information that the society in the book doesn't.
Why were books banned in the first place?
Because books encourage rebellion and the government doesn't want that. The government wants everyone to be equal and books inspire you to be unique.