Take a photo of a barcode or cover
elaineyh1216 's review for:
Fahrenheit 451
by Ray Bradbury
challenging
dark
tense
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 as part of a local bookstore's Banned Books Club. This is the club's first selection, and what a great one to start with!
Fahrenheit 451 has often been described as a book about censorship. However, I found it more interesting to note how the complacency of people regarding knowledge and the pursuit of pleasure and entertainment led to the society of Bradbury's dystopia. Bradbury is clearly critical of technology (e.g. the wall-sized televisions and earbud-like "seashell radios"). They certainly played a role in desensitizing the people in this society, causing them to become unthinking, shallow, and lacking of empathy. Bradbury seems to imply that technology is inherently bad, but I think it should be noted that the programs on these televisions and radios are described as simplified content. I could not help but think of how this parallels the short-form content prevalent on the Internet today and how we're seeing people becoming more and more unwilling to think for themselves. So perhaps it's not technology that Bradbury's critiquing, but how the technology is used.
As thought-provoking as Fahrenheit 451 was, I do think it has several shortcomings. First, the characters were underdeveloped. All of the characters felt very one-note to me. All of them read more like symbols, rather than fully fleshed out humans. I found it very difficult to understand Guy Montag, the protagonist. His transition from a fireman with no independent thought to rebel was so abrupt. I think the short length of the novel was ultimately the reason why the characters all felt undeveloped. I also had a lot of bones to pick with the depiction of women in the book. Clarisse felt like the "manic pixie dream girl" archetype, while Mildred and her friends were insipid, vacant, and shallow.The old woman who chose to burn with her books was the only female character who seemed to have some depth, but her role was to be the instigating event to trigger change in Montag.
I also had qualms with Bradbury's writing style. There were definitely turns of phrases in the book that were amazing. However, the disjointedness and overly ornate metaphors often would confuse me, and I would have to go back and rereada passage several times before I could understand what was going on. The pacing was also inconsistent. Some readers may love Bradbury's writing, but it's not really for me.
In general, I'm glad I finally read this classic in my 30s. I didn't read it when I was in school, and I think that was a good thing because it definitely would have gone over my head then. It's still very relevant today in 2025, over seventy years after its first publication, and I'm sure I will reread it at some point.
Fahrenheit 451 has often been described as a book about censorship. However, I found it more interesting to note how the complacency of people regarding knowledge and the pursuit of pleasure and entertainment led to the society of Bradbury's dystopia. Bradbury is clearly critical of technology (e.g. the wall-sized televisions and earbud-like "seashell radios"). They certainly played a role in desensitizing the people in this society, causing them to become unthinking, shallow, and lacking of empathy. Bradbury seems to imply that technology is inherently bad, but I think it should be noted that the programs on these televisions and radios are described as simplified content. I could not help but think of how this parallels the short-form content prevalent on the Internet today and how we're seeing people becoming more and more unwilling to think for themselves. So perhaps it's not technology that Bradbury's critiquing, but how the technology is used.
As thought-provoking as Fahrenheit 451 was, I do think it has several shortcomings. First, the characters were underdeveloped. All of the characters felt very one-note to me. All of them read more like symbols, rather than fully fleshed out humans. I found it very difficult to understand Guy Montag, the protagonist. His transition from a fireman with no independent thought to rebel was so abrupt. I think the short length of the novel was ultimately the reason why the characters all felt undeveloped. I also had a lot of bones to pick with the depiction of women in the book. Clarisse felt like the "manic pixie dream girl" archetype, while Mildred and her friends were insipid, vacant, and shallow.
I also had qualms with Bradbury's writing style. There were definitely turns of phrases in the book that were amazing. However, the disjointedness and overly ornate metaphors often would confuse me, and I would have to go back and rereada passage several times before I could understand what was going on. The pacing was also inconsistent. Some readers may love Bradbury's writing, but it's not really for me.
In general, I'm glad I finally read this classic in my 30s. I didn't read it when I was in school, and I think that was a good thing because it definitely would have gone over my head then. It's still very relevant today in 2025, over seventy years after its first publication, and I'm sure I will reread it at some point.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Suicide attempt, Murder, Fire/Fire injury
Moderate: War