Scan barcode
oliver_farah's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.5
aloure's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
lduubs's review against another edition
dark
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
not_khadija's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.25
bb_nostradamus's review against another edition
5.0
Still a banger honestly better than I remembered
mkmoore00's review against another edition
2.0
I know, I know, I'm an English teacher giving two stars to the most famous novel about the need for books. I have three actual critical reasons for this rating (along with the fact that I just didn't really like it).
Reason One: Lack of Substance
Unlike the two other famous dystopian novels about the need for free thinking from this period ("1984" and "Brave New World"), I found that "Fahrenheit 451" lacked any real substance. If we were just operating on the premise that books have been banned for some reason and we're following Guy's journey, I would have found that believable. Instead, we're given a pretty flimsy reason for the reality of the world: people stopped reading because they like TV better and then the government found that the public was easier to control and rewrote history to demonize books. This just doesn't feel very believable. It's almost like Bradbury was trying to emulate the nonsense monotony of "1984" but couldn't think of a good enough reason for that world to be reality.
Reason Two: Unclear Lesson
After finishing this novel, I'm not convinced that the lesson is actually that we need books in order to thrive or that censorship is dangerous. If anything, Bradbury seems to be criticizing technology and people who don't think critically. Faber even says, “Books were only one type of receptacle where we stored a lot of things we were afraid we might forget. There is nothing magical in them at all. The magic is only in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us.” So is it the books that matter or the thinking they encourage? I'm not sure it matters perse, but I don't think it's great that such a famously cited book isn't clear on what it wants.
Reason Three: Sexism
Pretty self-explanatory. The only people who like books and actually think are men. Just about every author referenced is a man. The women are vapid and selfish. Clarisse is this magical free-thinking teenage girl that inspires the adult male protagonist before dying tragically. Not a fan.
This wasn't a bad book necessarily, but for being so famous I expected more. There are some great lines and ideas, but it's not the most cohesive or well-thought out book.
Reason One: Lack of Substance
Unlike the two other famous dystopian novels about the need for free thinking from this period ("1984" and "Brave New World"), I found that "Fahrenheit 451" lacked any real substance. If we were just operating on the premise that books have been banned for some reason and we're following Guy's journey, I would have found that believable. Instead, we're given a pretty flimsy reason for the reality of the world: people stopped reading because they like TV better and then the government found that the public was easier to control and rewrote history to demonize books. This just doesn't feel very believable. It's almost like Bradbury was trying to emulate the nonsense monotony of "1984" but couldn't think of a good enough reason for that world to be reality.
Reason Two: Unclear Lesson
After finishing this novel, I'm not convinced that the lesson is actually that we need books in order to thrive or that censorship is dangerous. If anything, Bradbury seems to be criticizing technology and people who don't think critically. Faber even says, “Books were only one type of receptacle where we stored a lot of things we were afraid we might forget. There is nothing magical in them at all. The magic is only in what books say, how they stitched the patches of the universe together into one garment for us.” So is it the books that matter or the thinking they encourage? I'm not sure it matters perse, but I don't think it's great that such a famously cited book isn't clear on what it wants.
Reason Three: Sexism
Pretty self-explanatory. The only people who like books and actually think are men. Just about every author referenced is a man. The women are vapid and selfish. Clarisse is this magical free-thinking teenage girl that inspires the adult male protagonist before dying tragically. Not a fan.
This wasn't a bad book necessarily, but for being so famous I expected more. There are some great lines and ideas, but it's not the most cohesive or well-thought out book.
icouldifiwantedto's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
gothiclibrarian's review against another edition
5.0
I am fascinated by the idea of this book. There is always debate in our society about the freedom of speech and I don’t think that the prohibition of books is that different; especially since there are many occurrences each year of people demanding that certain books be banned from schools/libraries etc.
I think that even though he’s a complete jerk, Beatty is a genius; an evil genius of sorts. He moderates the book burning firefighters and strives to make sure that no one who is found with books goes unpunished.
I’m not sure if Montag is a hero or a kind of anti-hero. He was a fire fighter but his curiosity about books is inspiring. I wonder about Beatty’s true self. I am unsure about his knowledge of books; he could be using his knowledge as a two-faced approach to catching the rule breakers. But part of me wonders whether or not he’s actually a closet intellectual who is torn by his passion and his civic duty.
I love Beatty’s insistence that the first fire fighter was Benjamin Franklin. It’s the evil genius side of him that I kind of admire. (I mentioned this in a discussion of the book with the club mates). What made Franklin such a great diplomat was that he not only knew how to listen, but knew how to subtly sway people to his lines of thinking, but could also sway them to do has he wished in financial matters which is no small accomplishment. Those traits mirror Beatty, though Beatty is perhaps a bit more sinister.
I love that the message of the book is a little open-ended, at least in my opinion. What I take away from the book is that prohibition or censorship may seem like it puts everyone on the same plane it also has the ability to cause a fair to significant amount of dissention. Bradbury leaves the question as to whether or not that is a fair compromise up to the reader.
I think that even though he’s a complete jerk, Beatty is a genius; an evil genius of sorts. He moderates the book burning firefighters and strives to make sure that no one who is found with books goes unpunished.
I’m not sure if Montag is a hero or a kind of anti-hero. He was a fire fighter but his curiosity about books is inspiring. I wonder about Beatty’s true self. I am unsure about his knowledge of books; he could be using his knowledge as a two-faced approach to catching the rule breakers. But part of me wonders whether or not he’s actually a closet intellectual who is torn by his passion and his civic duty.
I love Beatty’s insistence that the first fire fighter was Benjamin Franklin. It’s the evil genius side of him that I kind of admire. (I mentioned this in a discussion of the book with the club mates). What made Franklin such a great diplomat was that he not only knew how to listen, but knew how to subtly sway people to his lines of thinking, but could also sway them to do has he wished in financial matters which is no small accomplishment. Those traits mirror Beatty, though Beatty is perhaps a bit more sinister.
I love that the message of the book is a little open-ended, at least in my opinion. What I take away from the book is that prohibition or censorship may seem like it puts everyone on the same plane it also has the ability to cause a fair to significant amount of dissention. Bradbury leaves the question as to whether or not that is a fair compromise up to the reader.
hudasaeedd's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
reflective
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5