I think that Montag just had a feeling of newly found freedom and felt like he had overcame everything and had carried out what Clarisse would have wanted.
I think it represents what Clarisse stands for. I don't think Clarisse physically walked on the path but his mind set was so much like Clarisse's that it felt like she was present with him.
It could be either but i think that it is the path of understanding, because Montag realizes that he has reached that point at which Clarisse once reached. There is no way of knowing for sure if she really did walk on the track. I agree with Katie that it is the path the "different" people walked on.
I think it's probably both. It's definitely symbolic of understanding being down the railroad tracks, but since she didn't do the same things as the other kids, she may very well have walked on the railroad tracks literally.
I think that the railroad tracks represent the path of lifestyle Clarrise chose, (the more natural different life), which is uncommon and unfollowed like the tracks. Montag is choosing to follow this
I agree with Emily, I think it represents what clarisse stands for. I think she may have come across the path at some point but not physically walked on the track.
I think the “path” is a symbol for knowledge. The people who are professors and authors and people of that sort all have walked on the train tracks, and in his mind Montag thinks that Clarisse belongs with these people
I think Clarisse walked along the train tracks at least once in her life, however, because they represent the past and have the culture of the past with the camping out "Harvard Degrees." However, the chances that she was walking exactly where Montag was at that moment were slim.
I think she did walk the tracks. She was an "odd" person and actually walked unlike others. So she could have very well walked the tracks. Maybe that's how she died. Maybe she was hit by a train instead of a car crash
Their step in going backwards is not going backwards, but creating a future, and progressing with ideas from the past before society became corrupt. There is not really any going back, because the past cannot be brought back in every way, there will always be different obstacles and therefore they will forever be progressing and never regressing.
I agree with Cloe and think that the tracks also symbolize progress in the world, how they don't use train tracks anymore. It also symbolized the past because Montag could view the city from outside from the first time. He has always been inside the city but he is looking from the "past" (literally, he is on the tracks, which symbolize the past), disgusted on the evolution of society, like we students are doing right now.
I think that being traditional is O.K. I don't believe that our society is against it, but the society in 451 may be. I think it is accepted, in a slight manner. We accept it, but question it, such as in the book.
Like Kate said, the "different" people all walked down a path that was somewhat similar. Although wasn't physically the same path, they experienceed the same sort of emotional and mental struggle and experience. I'mnot sure if in our society, being different is a bad thing. i think that it's awesome that people have their owb diversity and like to "come out of their shells", but society somewhat does reject different people. The phoenix reminds me of Harry Potter 2 :)
Well, I disagree with Joe because colonial isn't traditional. It may have been a number of years ago but not in today's society. Traditional is what is still accepted but not as common in society, to me at least. So I think that the mind set of the 'bums' represents the traditional way of thinking that is somewhat accepted but definitely not common.
I think the phoenix symbolizes that, even if everything around it is destroyed, it is immortal and lives through everything, eventually starting a new world. It's ironic also how it is usually associated with fire.
We can learn from the past of books. At this time, war is commonplace. If the citizens in this society read books again, they will be reverting back to life before books. War cannot ever be prevented because people are always going to disagree, but wars will not happen as often if books and remembering are brought back into the society.
War is not progress. Even if were making things its corrupt technology its not helpful its bad. Humans will never get over war because war is a human invention. Its how we think and how we act.
I think that war would be helpful to the orl Montag lives in because war opens up chaos and change and that is something that the society needs to become good again.
If history is not known, it will be repeated, so if everybody actually learned about history and what caused war, it could plausibly be stopped. Then again, there will always be conflicts that can't be settled by ddiplomacy, so war will probably not end.
I agree that we will never go beyond war. People’s natural nature is to fight, as long as humans have this instinct there will be war. War is not good but often times people’s greed and wants overcome them morally, and war will continue.
I think that being "traditional" can be a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. Although I lean more towards it being a negitive to be traditional. We are always told to be unique and to be ourselves. So in a way, the 451 society,is too untraditional for my liking.
War I believe can never be rid of because as our world history shows us today, conflict can never be covered up. To have no conflict with the citizens themselves would be like in this society with no change in lifestyle and no thought process. As every human being is inclined to their own opinions, each opinion even if the opinion is similar, will be different in some way because every being is unique...unless society forces the people to change that like they have done so in this book.
On Amanda's point relating to the innocent man who was killed by the hound. What kind of sick world do we live in when everything is suddenly centered on impressing the people and not looking bad in front of them?
I think when a movie star dies, we miss the action and excitement that correlate with them. Especially if we don't know them closely, we will not miss them as a person. Family members, however, we miss on a higher level because we knew them better.
It's interesting how Granger said how when his grandfather died, he wasn't crying for him, he was crying for the things he did. I think that's very true in many ways, and false in others.. We miss those that are close to us for who they were, but i agree that we "miss" celebrities for what they did and what we heard about them. I don't think we can genuinely miss someone for who they are if we don't know them well
I think when people die we react differently. If we were very close to the person we miss them as a person more, the things they did were just a part of them. However when a famous person dies we miss their work, such as movies and music. We never really miss them as a person because we could never really know them.
@John Michael- I don't believ that war could ever be stopped, even if we take the time to learn about history and what caused the war. We can learn and learn and it won't stop war. War will happen because of how much society and the world want to advance. We pus to advance and get caught up in the economic, political, and social aspects of the progression.
When someone dies, what you mourn about depends on the relationship you had with the deceased. If someone was a celebrity, you would not mourn over the person just what they did. If it is someone close you mourn over the loss of them as a person, because they were a large part of your life.
@Emily B.- I also think that too much pressure is placed on how people look and trying to make yourself not look bad. It's terrible that you are judged on your "messups".
How can someone miss a person they have never met. We might feel like we met them because of the characters they have been and we have gotten to know so well. If your friend or family is great human being and you love being around them because of their personality then they as a human being will be missed. It is not possibly to miss a food you have never tasted, of song you have never listened to because there is not connection. They actions of someone famous will be missed, but unless you truly know that person, they personally will not be missed.
I disagree with Katie F. because I don't believe that water represents different people... The water symbolizes cleanliness. Montag is cleansing himself of all of his sins and putting out his fire.
I agree with Eric, about the symbolization of the phoenix. I fear that eventually, the events in this book wil become a reality in our world. We will have to rebuild everything, just how the phoenix rises from the ashes and rebuilds itself. And when someone dies, I miss them as a person. Like Amanda said, what a person does becomes a part of them.When they die, you miss them as a person, but you also miss what they did in the world because that's what shaped them.
On the conversation when everyone was asking if we miss the person or the things they did. I would miss the things they did. It doesn't have to be some major impact like Winston Churchill. If my mom died, for example, I would miss the things she did. Even as small as asking me how my day was or giving me a hug. I would miss that because what is a person without the things they do?
@Maria H. I agree with that symbol because it is the process of washing away all his sins, cleansing himself so he is ready to leave his past behind and look to better the future.
Spencer brings up a good point. If no one has emotions or feelings, how would it be possible to for citizens to encounter greed and have the rage to cause a war?
@Troy-- War can result in progress, however. Progress in technology can occur and we can build stronger relationships with other countries. Depending on the society, war can either hurt or strengthen a society.
He did not choose to be an outlaw until he thinks for himself. Which was when he read the poetry to the women. That was the first time he realized his own thoughts. The old women and clarise were not turning points they were pushes to change but not the actual change.
The river in my eyes symbolizes purity. The water cleans him from his smell, which represents his past life. It also carried him away from his past life as a “sinner”.
@inner circle-- I think that when adults have children of their own, they see the world differently. They see it, in a way, through their children's eyes and are able to appreciate the little things again.
I think Montag's turning point in the book was when he brought the books out in the open and Mildred saw them. This is where he began to really cling to the books and have a problem with destroying them, because until this point, he has just taken books from the fire out of curiasity, ut now his view of books is more than curiosity.
I think that when Montag gets away from city life and sits around the fire with Granger and the other men, he finally feels at home. He is free to think and converse his thoughts with others, something he was afraid to do before, due to the possible reprocussions.
@Macy- The people have feelings, I just don't think that they care enough to learn about what is happening around them. Greed and war/violence are part of human nature.
With Joe's point, there is always the 'other side of the fence' but sometimes it might not be noticed. It might me taken advantage of.
@macyb- Maybe the people have this rage for war because of the news society feeds them. Since they have no thoughts or opinions if the tv tells them to be mad and that they need war to end some bad event, then the people will get angry because the government has done the thinking for them.
@Maria I disagree war does not help a society it destroys one. Because of this destruction the society realizes they must change and that is where the progress comes from the guilt of their flaws not from reckless killings of thousands of men.
I think nature is symbolic for change and as montag enters it he becomes attached to themidea of change. He leaves his bad life in the city and his new life outside.
I think that we don’t truly experience life to the fullest. People no matter where they go can discover something new. The city hold different sights and sounds than the mountain, however they both are considered beautiful.
I think that the city resembles worry and confinment. While the country resembles free thought and the abiliity to express those thoughts without being criticized.
Inner circle- I believe that people adapt to their habitat. When you grow up in the city, they are used to the city. They won't die because maybe they aren't used to seeing the mountains everyday, like we do, so they don't know what that experience is like. That is just what they are used to.
I agree with everyone who has talked about the river representing purtiy and washing away Montag's past "sinner life". In the bible, and many other references, the bible represents purity and cleanliness. @Mmoritz, although I can't relate to you, I agree and see what you mean. Parents with younger kids generally seem happier and have a more "kiddish" personaltiy and perspective because they are re-living their childhood in a sense. And about the mountains- I have had several family memebers recently move to South Carolina and they have told us that it is incredibly strange to not be able to see the mountains every day. we get so used to our surroundings and we become dependent on them and they serve as a comfort to us.
I completely agree with Rheana. Also, we take advantage of what we have. I am so lucky to live the life I do but I still don't live it fully. I still take advantage of the items I have access to.
I don't think we're on the verge of a society like in F451. Our society encourages critical thinking and analizing literature, i think it's a wide stretch to assume we are on our way to a society where thinking is out of the normal, and discouraged.
The beauty of the city versus the beaty of the mountains really all relies on that person's past and personality. To make a statment that one is less or more than the other is all opinion.
The replacement of bombing would be nuclear missiles, of course. But the basic idea is the same:destroy the citizens, desroy the cities and the factories, and you'll win the war.
@Michael No matter how much money the winner gets. The winner is as much of a loser as the loser. They lose thousands of men. Also war creates depression not happyness
@macy- Of course, but to improve a government, there needs to be someone to listen and I think that the people who don't care make up the majority to the people who care.
@emmaj- I agree with you! I am learning some things in science and math the my parents did not have to learn until they were much older. We are expected to keep progressing our educational limits.
I agree with Joe. The people around the society go about their own routines and sit inside their houses but don't care about the war because they're content with themselves and the laws. I think bombs are going to become more widely used someday.
I think that I really don't understand what is really going on at the war overseas. It's crazy how much this relates to the book because the people didn't really know what was happening. It's also crazy that the media can change our focus so quickly and keep our minds off of them not being able to find terrorists.
I agree with emma. We may get there eventually, however we are far from there today. We have signs that we COULD end up there, but we are far from it. Books aren't banned, in fact they are encouraged now days.
I think that war is less attached to people as it used to be because we don't have things like a draft and it isn't a huge topic in the news anymore. But I do think we are attached to war when we start in it because it is a now moment. Again, were a now type of people.
I think every war effects us. Family members, neighbors, and friends can be in Iraq fighting as we speak. Just because we're not physically there does not at all mean we shouldn't care. How could we not care about those fighting to keep us safe??? EVERYONE is involved in some way in war. Caring is our duty. And i agree with Joe, that we cannot win a war withough our country's citizens caring.
I know that even today I feel removed from the war. We as teens can’t really comprehend that there is a war. In past wars citizens were really caught up in the war. They bought bonds and gave up luxuries to help the troops, now however I feel like we are just caught up in our own problems. I believe that we are not as involved in the war as in the past; this is greatly due to our own greed.
I agree with Katie, I feel like we are very removed from the war. And although it is out there, it does require some searching to fin information on it. We do not really know what goes on "behind the scenes" they could be telling us one thing and really be doing exactly the opposite. Like in the book, has the government lied to us? Are we actually safe? And when we arrest people, are we arresting the actual guilty person, or just arresting someone for satisfaction of the media?
War is removed from the people, kind of censored, in a way, in order to keep the people happy and feeling safe. also, people don't care as much. Hopefully our society doesn't evolve to the point that we don't care at all. We should be more supportive and involved in our country's dealings.
I feel like we our engulfed in our own little lives. I think the govn't takes time to make us safe or think we're safe. We don't really understand what is going on around us.
I want to know about the war! It hurts me to think of how little I do know about the war. I am fully open to learn about the war but the school rarely talks about it, I do not read the newspaper or watch the news, and I rely on my parents to deliver the BIG war news, and they fail.
Of course the government wants us to feel safe. If we dont feel safe we will create chaos which creates more chaos and less safty. No one is completly safe, your not safe when you take your dogs on a walk your not even safe when your in your house. Its all about ignorence. If we dont know where happy.
@Macy- I completely agree. Books ARE banned, however, nobody really listens to it. We have to finish our BANNED books by Friday. The individual aspect to the government makes it easier to be able to defy previous rules it seems.
Chloe- it is a reality to feel that way but how do you KNOW? How do you know that this isn't going to happen. Nothing is ever certain
I feel removed from the war, but i disagree with katie in the inner circle. I definatly am affected by the war. Even if I am disconnected from the war, I still am very consiensious and am involved in the war.
With all the things that can go wrong, how can our government suspect and predict every single thing that could possibly be a problem?
And just because we have good national security, we are not invincible. I also don't think that it is only outside forces that we need to be worried about.
I think it's surprising that we have prevented so many terrorist attacks, seriously there haven't been that many attacks. The government is pretty active in protecting us.
The threats are definitley still there. As America's intellectual level is increases, so is other countries. We may be getting safier, the others are are getting more "high tech"
The symbolism of the fire warming and burning is in it's uses. The warmth provides warmth, food, and therefore life. The burning the books is destruction in it's most final form.
I agree with Cloe, as an American I feel untouchable. We are made to believe that America is the greatest and safest country. I hear about attacks and think that could never happen to me because I’m protected.
@Micheal- I agree. think the government is on top of taking care of us. Some attacks are known but I believe the government still tries to not let everything get out to the public.
@Cloe I feel differently. If comprehended it is possible for an attack still and I can't totally let go of my fear. I think the government is VERY corrupt. There are so many secrets that are hidden from us... I feel somewhat violated just thinking of it. I wouldn't be surprised if they often use scapegoats even to prevent overthrow. Even this may be a logical solution (because overthrow is really scary), the government should just be honest.
Fire burning and fire warming are much different. Fire burning resembles burning things down and demolishing things, while warming is just simply heating.
Montag saw that fire was destructive, and the society he was in praised that. Warming fire was comforting, something more traditional compared to the world that society is in. So you can see Montag changing his views through the book, and the same fire can mean different things
Montag finally realizes that fire is not just a bad thing. at first, he is stunned by the idea of people using fire to warm themselves. He had never thought of fire in any other way then destruction and death. I agree with Joe, you have to have a happy medium with everything, including fire. Too much of it can be destructive and too little causes a deprivation of a sort.
I think it's interesting that the fire can be used by the government to burn and enforce their censoring, but can also be used by the vagabonds who represent the rebellion.
The campfire made by the outlaws relates back to the flashback Montag had of the candle. It used fire constructively, to build up rather than destroy. Montag views it as a different kind of fire, and it greatly contrasts he fire he had used on houses and books.
I think the connection between the two types of fire is that fire, like the government in this book, can be too controlling. However fire is also needed to maintain life, after all the sun is just fire. This means that you need the perfect amount of “fire” to have a good government.
Someone, somewhere will always be offended by something. If everyone who wants to express an opinion has to tip toe around different people's feelings, it's not really an opinion at all.
@erics- If the government did tell the people every secret and all the information then it would most likely result in fear and chaos. Is living a life without fears better than living a life with many fears? Could the government be doing just the right amount of censorship? Letting us in the "know", but not the information that is dangerous to us and will cause worry and fear.
The world can't please everyone. Granted, there are limits to opinions and how they should be expressed, like the KKK exceeds that limit, but in America we have the freedom of speech and personal opinion. Censoring, therefore, is not ethical.
Racism- Cloe just said that even though it is wrong, it is a reality. So even though we know it is wrong, are we not going to do anything about it just because it is "reality"?
I agree with Peter and believe that we have lost so much privacy over time with the evolution of technology. With the invention of the internet and how one may find something posted even if it was deleted, we have lost so much of our privacy. And although I don't think that we're going to become like this society (like Emma said), I think our lack of privacy is going to keep going downhill.
No matter what you say, somebody will be offended. I personally think it is ridiculous to have to censor something because somebody could be offended, because it is that person's choice as to whether or not they read, watch, or listen to the offensive material.
I think that if something on the radio, tv, etc. is offensive, it should not be removed. Because if something is offensive to one person, everything is offensive to someone. If they remove everything offensive, we won't have anything. Because I gurantee every piece of information is offensive to someone in someway
I think that people sterotype too much in the book and also in our own society. We judge people too much and sterotypes are made by Hollywood usually, and how they depict certain people.
If you judge someone through looks its wrong, but if you do it so that people are safe, then that is enough to judge. This is why its okay to steriotype muslim appearance because it has potential to save people, even if not all muslims are terrorists
Racial steryotypes are all over the world, i agree with kai that they can't fully be avoided. Most of the stereotypes are in people's head from a very young age.
But i dissagree with Peter that there is ALWAYS some truth behind stereotypes. The media portrays certain groups as things that they may not truly be. Not all stereotypes are even near true...
@Kate E.- I agree. They are probably smart in deciding what they hide from us for the good of everyone. The government is corrupt in other ways though (spending).
In Lord of the Flies, how much information was censored from day to day? Not much. The information they had was shared and look what happened to their society. Compare this to Ferenheit 451 where the government censors everything they possibly can. Look at their society, it looks awefull to us and the result was destruction in the end. A medium is needed and in my opinion our information is pretty close to that "happy" medium.
A person has the right to chose whether they believe in it or not. If it is offensive to you, don't listen, read, or watch it. That is the beauty of the world we live in. We have the choice so being offended seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Like Kai said, if you are stereotyped so often, I do think it gets to you and eventually, you become what your stereotyped as. It's like the saying "you are what you eat" in a way.
I think that most of the time people do become their stereotype because it is easiest to become. When someone is their stereotype, they aren't judged as an individual, but as a group instead. It is part of the mob mentality.
I agree with matt in the inner circle. He is saying how being scared of terrorists is based on race. If a cocasian man was a murder, you are not scared of the entire race, you are just scared of the person. Which apposed to Muslims are all asumed to be terrorists its horrible.
I don't think stereotypes make people want to become the stereotype. I think if anything it convinces them not to act like their stereotype, so that nobody will have an excuse to make that assumption that, for example, all muslims are terrorists.
@Abby- It is better compared to that but it also seems to desensitize us. To what point to the video games become so influential that it doesn't matter which one is killed? Or will it ever get to that point?
I think racism is too big of a problem, but with saying that I also understand people’s feelings. When people are scared of Arabic this is understandable to a degree. 9/11 was caused by Arabic; this gives people a right to be scared because this is a major scar in America’s history. If you had a family member on one of those planes you would have to be scared because of the similarity of the situation. Although chances are they are a normal person the thought will still be in your mind. I don’t agree with all of this but it is just the way it is.
@Abby K. and @rchambers- This brings up the topic of the evolution of technology. Video games and television are disgustingly more violent than ever before and are very widely played among chlidren and teens. Kids wouldn't have so much anger if these video games weren't made, so they wouldn't have to take out their anger on real people...
@AbbyK- Yes, but "killing" people through video games is not the only outlet for anger, like Emma said, there are other ways to get anger and frustration out rather then turning to violence.
Racism has been here forever. I think that no matter where you go there is going to be racism. I think it is acknowledged more in the US because we are more exposed to it.
I think that people don’t suspect white people because you assume that they are from a good American family, or at least from a civilized country. However when you see a Arabic you assume that they are not from America and they are more likely to create a act against America.
@Cassie- I agree but I think that they are very stereotyped. However, many people in our society are very prejudiced about it. We don't really care about the whites who get in trouble because it seems that they are the majority of this country. We are more interested in the people who are typically prejudiced.
Of course she didn't literally walk on the path. If she did, she wouldn't return.
ReplyDeleteI think that Montag just had a feeling of newly found freedom and felt like he had overcame everything and had carried out what Clarisse would have wanted.
ReplyDeleteMontag felt that Clarisse had guided him to the tracks and maybe knew that she would eventually push him to leave the city.
ReplyDeleteI think it represents what Clarisse stands for. I don't think Clarisse physically walked on the path but his mind set was so much like Clarisse's that it felt like she was present with him.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a path of enlightenment, light Joe said, because she was in theory she was being "set into place."
ReplyDeleteIt could be either but i think that it is the path of understanding, because Montag realizes that he has reached that point at which Clarisse once reached. There is no way of knowing for sure if she really did walk on the track. I agree with Katie that it is the path the "different" people walked on.
ReplyDeleteI think it's probably both. It's definitely symbolic of understanding being down the railroad tracks, but since she didn't do the same things as the other kids, she may very well have walked on the railroad tracks literally.
ReplyDeleteObviously she didnt literaly walk the train tracks. She might have menataly, because the train tracks are that of thinking freely
ReplyDeleteI think that the railroad tracks represent the path of lifestyle Clarrise chose, (the more natural different life), which is uncommon and unfollowed like the tracks. Montag is choosing to follow this
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily, I think it represents what clarisse stands for. I think she may have come across the path at some point but not physically walked on the track.
ReplyDeleteMaybe she walked down the path and that's what actually happened to her, not her dying. Maybe her whole family went down the path.
ReplyDeleteI think the “path” is a symbol for knowledge. The people who are professors and authors and people of that sort all have walked on the train tracks, and in his mind Montag thinks that Clarisse belongs with these people
ReplyDeleteI think Clarisse walked along the train tracks at least once in her life, however, because they represent the past and have the culture of the past with the camping out "Harvard Degrees." However, the chances that she was walking exactly where Montag was at that moment were slim.
ReplyDeleteI think she did walk the tracks. She was an "odd" person and actually walked unlike others. So she could have very well walked the tracks. Maybe that's how she died. Maybe she was hit by a train instead of a car crash
ReplyDeleteTheir step in going backwards is not going backwards, but creating a future, and progressing with ideas from the past before society became corrupt. There is not really any going back, because the past cannot be brought back in every way, there will always be different obstacles and therefore they will forever be progressing and never regressing.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government was making progress, but it was making progress toward a very bland, normal, shrinking society instead of expanding.
ReplyDeleteJohn Michael- Since she was walking around trying to discover things, I agree, I think it is actually likely that's where she disappeared to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cloe and think that the tracks also symbolize progress in the world, how they don't use train tracks anymore. It also symbolized the past because Montag could view the city from outside from the first time. He has always been inside the city but he is looking from the "past" (literally, he is on the tracks, which symbolize the past), disgusted on the evolution of society, like we students are doing right now.
ReplyDeleteI think that being traditional is O.K. I don't believe that our society is against it, but the society in 451 may be. I think it is accepted, in a slight manner. We accept it, but question it, such as in the book.
ReplyDeleteLike Kate said, the "different" people all walked down a path that was somewhat similar. Although wasn't physically the same path, they experienceed the same sort of emotional and mental struggle and experience. I'mnot sure if in our society, being different is a bad thing. i think that it's awesome that people have their owb diversity and like to "come out of their shells", but society somewhat does reject different people. The phoenix reminds me of Harry Potter 2 :)
ReplyDeleteWell, I disagree with Joe because colonial isn't traditional. It may have been a number of years ago but not in today's society. Traditional is what is still accepted but not as common in society, to me at least. So I think that the mind set of the 'bums' represents the traditional way of thinking that is somewhat accepted but definitely not common.
ReplyDeletei think that we might be able to maintain a peaceful society for a while, which might continue forever, but to make "progress" there is always war.
ReplyDeleteI think the phoenix symbolizes that, even if everything around it is destroyed, it is immortal and lives through everything, eventually starting a new world. It's ironic also how it is usually associated with fire.
ReplyDeleteWe can learn from the past of books. At this time, war is commonplace. If the citizens in this society read books again, they will be reverting back to life before books. War cannot ever be prevented because people are always going to disagree, but wars will not happen as often if books and remembering are brought back into the society.
ReplyDeleteWar is not progress. Even if were making things its corrupt technology its not helpful its bad. Humans will never get over war because war is a human invention. Its how we think and how we act.
ReplyDeleteI think that war would be helpful to the orl Montag lives in because war opens up chaos and change and that is something that the society needs to become good again.
ReplyDeleteIf history is not known, it will be repeated, so if everybody actually learned about history and what caused war, it could plausibly be stopped. Then again, there will always be conflicts that can't be settled by ddiplomacy, so war will probably not end.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we will never go beyond war. People’s natural nature is to fight, as long as humans have this instinct there will be war. War is not good but often times people’s greed and wants overcome them morally, and war will continue.
ReplyDeleteI think that being "traditional" can be a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. Although I lean more towards it being a negitive to be traditional. We are always told to be unique and to be ourselves. So in a way, the 451 society,is too untraditional for my liking.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Clarisse had an effect on society because they didn't accept her and they didn't want to listen to her, except Montag.
ReplyDeleteWar I believe can never be rid of because as our world history shows us today, conflict can never be covered up. To have no conflict with the citizens themselves would be like in this society with no change in lifestyle and no thought process. As every human being is inclined to their own opinions, each opinion even if the opinion is similar, will be different in some way because every being is unique...unless society forces the people to change that like they have done so in this book.
ReplyDelete@TroyW. Is progress "good"? "Even if were making things its corrupt technology its not helpful its bad."
ReplyDeleteHow would there be war in their socity. Everyone is made alike. There is almost no contravesy in their socity.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn Amanda's point relating to the innocent man who was killed by the hound. What kind of sick world do we live in when everything is suddenly centered on impressing the people and not looking bad in front of them?
ReplyDeleteI think when a movie star dies, we miss the action and excitement that correlate with them. Especially if we don't know them closely, we will not miss them as a person. Family members, however, we miss on a higher level because we knew them better.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how Granger said how when his grandfather died, he wasn't crying for him, he was crying for the things he did. I think that's very true in many ways, and false in others.. We miss those that are close to us for who they were, but i agree that we "miss" celebrities for what they did and what we heard about them. I don't think we can genuinely miss someone for who they are if we don't know them well
ReplyDeleteI think when people die we react differently. If we were very close to the person we miss them as a person more, the things they did were just a part of them. However when a famous person dies we miss their work, such as movies and music. We never really miss them as a person because we could never really know them.
ReplyDelete@John Michael- I don't believ that war could ever be stopped, even if we take the time to learn about history and what caused the war. We can learn and learn and it won't stop war. War will happen because of how much society and the world want to advance. We pus to advance and get caught up in the economic, political, and social aspects of the progression.
ReplyDelete@Michael progress is good but war is not progress. It hurts a society not build it
ReplyDeleteThe river symbolizes Montag's actions that have led him away from his sins and former life.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone dies, what you mourn about depends on the relationship you had with the deceased. If someone was a celebrity, you would not mourn over the person just what they did. If it is someone close you mourn over the loss of them as a person, because they were a large part of your life.
ReplyDelete@Emily B.- I also think that too much pressure is placed on how people look and trying to make yourself not look bad. It's terrible that you are judged on your "messups".
ReplyDeleteHow can someone miss a person they have never met. We might feel like we met them because of the characters they have been and we have gotten to know so well. If your friend or family is great human being and you love being around them because of their personality then they as a human being will be missed. It is not possibly to miss a food you have never tasted, of song you have never listened to because there is not connection. They actions of someone famous will be missed, but unless you truly know that person, they personally will not be missed.
ReplyDeleteKerosene/fire is very similar to blood in Macbeth. Water symbolizes the same thing both in Macbeth and Farenheit 451.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Katie F. because I don't believe that water represents different people... The water symbolizes cleanliness. Montag is cleansing himself of all of his sins and putting out his fire.
ReplyDeleteThe river is very symbolic because it show how Montag has progressed and his travel through the story.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the river symbolizes cleanliness. His smell changed when he floated down the river, and i think the water was in a way washing away his past.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric, about the symbolization of the phoenix. I fear that eventually, the events in this book wil become a reality in our world. We will have to rebuild everything, just how the phoenix rises from the ashes and rebuilds itself. And when someone dies, I miss them as a person. Like Amanda said, what a person does becomes a part of them.When they die, you miss them as a person, but you also miss what they did in the world because that's what shaped them.
ReplyDeleteOn the conversation when everyone was asking if we miss the person or the things they did. I would miss the things they did. It doesn't have to be some major impact like Winston Churchill. If my mom died, for example, I would miss the things she did. Even as small as asking me how my day was or giving me a hug. I would miss that because what is a person without the things they do?
ReplyDelete@Maria- If the water/river is leading him away from his former life, do you think this applies to more than just Montag, such as society?
ReplyDelete@Maria H. I agree with that symbol because it is the process of washing away all his sins, cleansing himself so he is ready to leave his past behind and look to better the future.
ReplyDeleteSpencer brings up a good point. If no one has emotions or feelings, how would it be possible to for citizens to encounter greed and have the rage to cause a war?
ReplyDelete@Troy-- War can result in progress, however. Progress in technology can occur and we can build stronger relationships with other countries. Depending on the society, war can either hurt or strengthen a society.
ReplyDeleteHe did not choose to be an outlaw until he thinks for himself. Which was when he read the poetry to the women. That was the first time he realized his own thoughts. The old women and clarise were not turning points they were pushes to change but not the actual change.
ReplyDeleteThe river in my eyes symbolizes purity. The water cleans him from his smell, which represents his past life. It also carried him away from his past life as a “sinner”.
ReplyDelete@inner circle-- I think that when adults have children of their own, they see the world differently. They see it, in a way, through their children's eyes and are able to appreciate the little things again.
ReplyDeleteI think Montag's turning point in the book was when he brought the books out in the open and Mildred saw them. This is where he began to really cling to the books and have a problem with destroying them, because until this point, he has just taken books from the fire out of curiasity, ut now his view of books is more than curiosity.
ReplyDeleteI think that when Montag gets away from city life and sits around the fire with Granger and the other men, he finally feels at home. He is free to think and converse his thoughts with others, something he was afraid to do before, due to the possible reprocussions.
ReplyDelete@Macy- The people have feelings, I just don't think that they care enough to learn about what is happening around them. Greed and war/violence are part of human nature.
ReplyDeleteWith Joe's point, there is always the 'other side of the fence' but sometimes it might not be noticed. It might me taken advantage of.
@macyb- Maybe the people have this rage for war because of the news society feeds them. Since they have no thoughts or opinions if the tv tells them to be mad and that they need war to end some bad event, then the people will get angry because the government has done the thinking for them.
ReplyDelete@Maria I disagree war does not help a society it destroys one. Because of this destruction the society realizes they must change and that is where the progress comes from the guilt of their flaws not from reckless killings of thousands of men.
ReplyDeleteI think nature is symbolic for change and as montag enters it he becomes attached to themidea of change. He leaves his bad life in the city and his new life outside.
ReplyDeleteI think that we don’t truly experience life to the fullest. People no matter where they go can discover something new. The city hold different sights and sounds than the mountain, however they both are considered beautiful.
ReplyDelete@TroyW. It depends on which side you are, the winning side has an improved economy, and the spoils of victory.
ReplyDeleteI think that the city resembles worry and confinment. While the country resembles free thought and the abiliity to express those thoughts without being criticized.
ReplyDeleteInner circle- I believe that people adapt to their habitat. When you grow up in the city, they are used to the city. They won't die because maybe they aren't used to seeing the mountains everyday, like we do, so they don't know what that experience is like. That is just what they are used to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone who has talked about the river representing purtiy and washing away Montag's past "sinner life". In the bible, and many other references, the bible represents purity and cleanliness. @Mmoritz, although I can't relate to you, I agree and see what you mean. Parents with younger kids generally seem happier and have a more "kiddish" personaltiy and perspective because they are re-living their childhood in a sense. And about the mountains- I have had several family memebers recently move to South Carolina and they have told us that it is incredibly strange to not be able to see the mountains every day. we get so used to our surroundings and we become dependent on them and they serve as a comfort to us.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Rheana. Also, we take advantage of what we have. I am so lucky to live the life I do but I still don't live it fully. I still take advantage of the items I have access to.
ReplyDelete@emily- but if that's true, wouldn't there be some people who cares enough to stand up to the government?
ReplyDeleteI don't think we're on the verge of a society like in F451. Our society encourages critical thinking and analizing literature, i think it's a wide stretch to assume we are on our way to a society where thinking is out of the normal, and discouraged.
ReplyDeleteThe beauty of the city versus the beaty of the mountains really all relies on that person's past and personality. To make a statment that one is less or more than the other is all opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe replacement of bombing would be nuclear missiles, of course. But the basic idea is the same:destroy the citizens, desroy the cities and the factories, and you'll win the war.
ReplyDelete@Michael No matter how much money the winner gets. The winner is as much of a loser as the loser. They lose thousands of men. Also war creates depression not happyness
ReplyDeleteI agree with Peter, nuclear weapons destroy morale, they would be more practical than mass firestorm bombings.
ReplyDelete@macy- Of course, but to improve a government, there needs to be someone to listen and I think that the people who don't care make up the majority to the people who care.
ReplyDelete@emmaj- I agree with you! I am learning some things in science and math the my parents did not have to learn until they were much older. We are expected to keep progressing our educational limits.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Joe. The people around the society go about their own routines and sit inside their houses but don't care about the war because they're content with themselves and the laws. I think bombs are going to become more widely used someday.
ReplyDeleteI think that I really don't understand what is really going on at the war overseas. It's crazy how much this relates to the book because the people didn't really know what was happening. It's also crazy that the media can change our focus so quickly and keep our minds off of them not being able to find terrorists.
ReplyDeleteI agree with emma. We may get there eventually, however we are far from there today. We have signs that we COULD end up there, but we are far from it. Books aren't banned, in fact they are encouraged now days.
ReplyDeleteI think that war is less attached to people as it used to be because we don't have things like a draft and it isn't a huge topic in the news anymore. But I do think we are attached to war when we start in it because it is a now moment. Again, were a now type of people.
ReplyDeleteI think every war effects us. Family members, neighbors, and friends can be in Iraq fighting as we speak. Just because we're not physically there does not at all mean we shouldn't care. How could we not care about those fighting to keep us safe??? EVERYONE is involved in some way in war. Caring is our duty. And i agree with Joe, that we cannot win a war withough our country's citizens caring.
ReplyDeleteI know that even today I feel removed from the war. We as teens can’t really comprehend that there is a war. In past wars citizens were really caught up in the war. They bought bonds and gave up luxuries to help the troops, now however I feel like we are just caught up in our own problems. I believe that we are not as involved in the war as in the past; this is greatly due to our own greed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katie, I feel like we are very removed from the war. And although it is out there, it does require some searching to fin information on it. We do not really know what goes on "behind the scenes" they could be telling us one thing and really be doing exactly the opposite. Like in the book, has the government lied to us? Are we actually safe? And when we arrest people, are we arresting the actual guilty person, or just arresting someone for satisfaction of the media?
ReplyDeleteWar is removed from the people, kind of censored, in a way, in order to keep the people happy and feeling safe. also, people don't care as much. Hopefully our society doesn't evolve to the point that we don't care at all. We should be more supportive and involved in our country's dealings.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kai-bin. I think that the government doesn't want overthrow and uproar.
ReplyDeleteI feel like we our engulfed in our own little lives. I think the govn't takes time to make us safe or think we're safe. We don't really understand what is going on around us.
ReplyDeleteI want to know about the war! It hurts me to think of how little I do know about the war. I am fully open to learn about the war but the school rarely talks about it, I do not read the newspaper or watch the news, and I rely on my parents to deliver the BIG war news, and they fail.
ReplyDeleteOf course the government wants us to feel safe. If we dont feel safe we will create chaos which creates more chaos and less safty. No one is completly safe, your not safe when you take your dogs on a walk your not even safe when your in your house. Its all about ignorence. If we dont know where happy.
ReplyDelete@Macy- I completely agree. Books ARE banned, however, nobody really listens to it. We have to finish our BANNED books by Friday. The individual aspect to the government makes it easier to be able to defy previous rules it seems.
ReplyDeleteChloe- it is a reality to feel that way but how do you KNOW? How do you know that this isn't going to happen. Nothing is ever certain
I feel removed from the war, but i disagree with katie in the inner circle. I definatly am affected by the war. Even if I am disconnected from the war, I still am very consiensious and am involved in the war.
ReplyDeleteWith all the things that can go wrong, how can our government suspect and predict every single thing that could possibly be a problem?
ReplyDeleteAnd just because we have good national security, we are not invincible. I also don't think that it is only outside forces that we need to be worried about.
I think it's surprising that we have prevented so many terrorist attacks, seriously there haven't been that many attacks. The government is pretty active in protecting us.
ReplyDeleteThe threats are definitley still there. As America's intellectual level is increases, so is other countries. We may be getting safier, the others are are getting more "high tech"
ReplyDeleteFire means something else to Montag now. He sees it in a different way that it can be a benefit and give, not just take.
ReplyDeleteThe symbolism is kind of obvious one was destructive and one was helpful.
ReplyDeleteThe symbolism of the fire warming and burning is in it's uses. The warmth provides warmth, food, and therefore life. The burning the books is destruction in it's most final form.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cloe, as an American I feel untouchable. We are made to believe that America is the greatest and safest country. I hear about attacks and think that could never happen to me because I’m protected.
ReplyDelete@Micheal- I agree. think the government is on top of taking care of us. Some attacks are known but I believe the government still tries to not let everything get out to the public.
ReplyDelete@Cloe I feel differently. If comprehended it is possible for an attack still and I can't totally let go of my fear. I think the government is VERY corrupt. There are so many secrets that are hidden from us... I feel somewhat violated just thinking of it. I wouldn't be surprised if they often use scapegoats even to prevent overthrow. Even this may be a logical solution (because overthrow is really scary), the government should just be honest.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Troy, it was pretty "to the point" and it really stood out as symbolism
ReplyDeleteFire burning and fire warming are much different. Fire burning resembles burning things down and demolishing things, while warming is just simply heating.
ReplyDeleteMontag saw that fire was destructive, and the society he was in praised that. Warming fire was comforting, something more traditional compared to the world that society is in. So you can see Montag changing his views through the book, and the same fire can mean different things
ReplyDeleteMontag finally realizes that fire is not just a bad thing. at first, he is stunned by the idea of people using fire to warm themselves. He had never thought of fire in any other way then destruction and death. I agree with Joe, you have to have a happy medium with everything, including fire. Too much of it can be destructive and too little causes a deprivation of a sort.
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that the fire can be used by the government to burn and enforce their censoring, but can also be used by the vagabonds who represent the rebellion.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe campfire made by the outlaws relates back to the flashback Montag had of the candle. It used fire constructively, to build up rather than destroy. Montag views it as a different kind of fire, and it greatly contrasts he fire he had used on houses and books.
ReplyDeleteI think the connection between the two types of fire is that fire, like the government in this book, can be too controlling. However fire is also needed to maintain life, after all the sun is just fire. This means that you need the perfect amount of “fire” to have a good government.
ReplyDeleteThe fire at the end of the book supports Montag's opinions and the destructive fire is what the water has washed away, if that makes sense.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Joe- you need a balance of how much you use this good thing whether it is government or fire.
Peter- that is what Bradbury mentioned. Something is always offensive. But in America, don't we have the right to be offensive, to a certain extent?
I disagree with Joe, fire isn't just used by the government as government structure, the bombs being dropped destroyed government.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech, your opinion isn't a fact so it shouldn't be taken very offensive.
ReplyDeleteSomeone, somewhere will always be offended by something. If everyone who wants to express an opinion has to tip toe around different people's feelings, it's not really an opinion at all.
ReplyDelete@erics- If the government did tell the people every secret and all the information then it would most likely result in fear and chaos. Is living a life without fears better than living a life with many fears? Could the government be doing just the right amount of censorship? Letting us in the "know", but not the information that is dangerous to us and will cause worry and fear.
ReplyDeleteThe world can't please everyone. Granted, there are limits to opinions and how they should be expressed, like the KKK exceeds that limit, but in America we have the freedom of speech and personal opinion. Censoring, therefore, is not ethical.
ReplyDeleteRacism- Cloe just said that even though it is wrong, it is a reality. So even though we know it is wrong, are we not going to do anything about it just because it is "reality"?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Peter and believe that we have lost so much privacy over time with the evolution of technology. With the invention of the internet and how one may find something posted even if it was deleted, we have lost so much of our privacy. And although I don't think that we're going to become like this society (like Emma said), I think our lack of privacy is going to keep going downhill.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you say, somebody will be offended. I personally think it is ridiculous to have to censor something because somebody could be offended, because it is that person's choice as to whether or not they read, watch, or listen to the offensive material.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that the FCC should be allowed to censor the radio? Do you think that's a violation of freedom of speech?
ReplyDeleteI think that if something on the radio, tv, etc. is offensive, it should not be removed. Because if something is offensive to one person, everything is offensive to someone. If they remove everything offensive, we won't have anything. Because I gurantee every piece of information is offensive to someone in someway
ReplyDeleteI think that people sterotype too much in the book and also in our own society. We judge people too much and sterotypes are made by Hollywood usually, and how they depict certain people.
ReplyDeletePLAYING VIDEO GAMES IS NOT A WAY TO GET OUT ANGER BY SHOOTING PEOPLE ON YOUR TV!
ReplyDeleteIf you judge someone through looks its wrong, but if you do it so that people are safe, then that is enough to judge. This is why its okay to steriotype muslim appearance because it has potential to save people, even if not all muslims are terrorists
ReplyDeleteRacial steryotypes are all over the world, i agree with kai that they can't fully be avoided. Most of the stereotypes are in people's head from a very young age.
ReplyDeleteBut i dissagree with Peter that there is ALWAYS some truth behind stereotypes. The media portrays certain groups as things that they may not truly be. Not all stereotypes are even near true...
@Kate E.- I agree. They are probably smart in deciding what they hide from us for the good of everyone. The government is corrupt in other ways though (spending).
ReplyDeleteRChambers- Wouldn't you rather have people get their anger out that way instead of killing rreal, alive people?
ReplyDeleteIn Lord of the Flies, how much information was censored from day to day? Not much. The information they had was shared and look what happened to their society. Compare this to Ferenheit 451 where the government censors everything they possibly can. Look at their society, it looks awefull to us and the result was destruction in the end. A medium is needed and in my opinion our information is pretty close to that "happy" medium.
ReplyDeleteA person has the right to chose whether they believe in it or not. If it is offensive to you, don't listen, read, or watch it. That is the beauty of the world we live in. We have the choice so being offended seems pretty ridiculous to me.
ReplyDeleteNo the government cannot cesnsore anything. It might cause a scene but so will censoring. Its not right to hold any information from people.
ReplyDeleteThere is a balance that needs to be maintained. We cannot offend people but we also need to keep people safe, like in airports.
ReplyDeleteLike Kai said, if you are stereotyped so often, I do think it gets to you and eventually, you become what your stereotyped as. It's like the saying "you are what you eat" in a way.
ReplyDelete@Abby- Are there no other ways to get anger out then killing people? Electronically or not??
ReplyDelete@Maris H I agree, censoring should be limited, and there should be a healthy balance.
ReplyDeleteI think that most of the time people do become their stereotype because it is easiest to become. When someone is their stereotype, they aren't judged as an individual, but as a group instead. It is part of the mob mentality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with matt in the inner circle. He is saying how being scared of terrorists is based on race. If a cocasian man was a murder, you are not scared of the entire race, you are just scared of the person. Which apposed to Muslims are all asumed to be terrorists its horrible.
ReplyDeleteI don't think stereotypes make people want to become the stereotype. I think if anything it convinces them not to act like their stereotype, so that nobody will have an excuse to make that assumption that, for example, all muslims are terrorists.
ReplyDeleteIn order to keep people safe, I think we almost need to offend people to see what we need to do to keep each other safe.
ReplyDelete@Abby- It is better compared to that but it also seems to desensitize us. To what point to the video games become so influential that it doesn't matter which one is killed? Or will it ever get to that point?
ReplyDeleteI think racism is too big of a problem, but with saying that I also understand people’s feelings. When people are scared of Arabic this is understandable to a degree. 9/11 was caused by Arabic; this gives people a right to be scared because this is a major scar in America’s history. If you had a family member on one of those planes you would have to be scared because of the similarity of the situation. Although chances are they are a normal person the thought will still be in your mind. I don’t agree with all of this but it is just the way it is.
ReplyDelete@Maria H- I agree with you, the balance is needed or we will fall. The book's societys we have recently read into show us prooves this.
ReplyDelete@Abby K. and @rchambers- This brings up the topic of the evolution of technology. Video games and television are disgustingly more violent than ever before and are very widely played among chlidren and teens. Kids wouldn't have so much anger if these video games weren't made, so they wouldn't have to take out their anger on real people...
ReplyDeleteI think that everyone has a potential to commit crime as everyone else regardless of their race.
ReplyDelete@AbbyK- Yes, but "killing" people through video games is not the only outlet for anger, like Emma said, there are other ways to get anger and frustration out rather then turning to violence.
ReplyDeleteA reasone is not a right. If someone kills your dad thats a reasone to kill him its not a right.
ReplyDeleteWith all the video games getting more and more violent, that leads to kids accepting it which is so corrupt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Eric. The argument that video games are better then doing it in real life is unrealistic. Why do we have to do it at all?
ReplyDelete@CassieC- I completely agree with you, it depends on the person's past and situations they have experienced.
ReplyDeleteRacism has been here forever. I think that no matter where you go there is going to be racism. I think it is acknowledged more in the US because we are more exposed to it.
ReplyDeleteLast thoughts?
ReplyDelete@Emma- Exactly! I agree with you completely. It is not the only outlet.
ReplyDeleteI think that people don’t suspect white people because you assume that they are from a good American family, or at least from a civilized country. However when you see a Arabic you assume that they are not from America and they are more likely to create a act against America.
ReplyDelete@emmaj- I think we have it all because it is fun for us. I do not know how we have reached the point were killing is fun, but it has come to that.
ReplyDelete@Cassie- I agree but I think that they are very stereotyped. However, many people in our society are very prejudiced about it. We don't really care about the whites who get in trouble because it seems that they are the majority of this country. We are more interested in the people who are typically prejudiced.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed that the places with the strictest security are the ones that have experienced terrorists or planned attacks.
ReplyDelete