On page 64 of Fahrenheit 451 the author refers to a character Mildred thinks she’s interacting with in the parlor as “a good friend”. Professor Ewen suggested in his lecture that general media’s images have become destructive, but is the human (Mildred’s) mind able to suspend disbelief and be unable to realize they are interacting/watching a picture programmed for them? There has to be some human, engrained feature that tells Mildred "this is a image on a screen that my husband Montag installed, it knows my name from the $100 converter we bought." Or are humans machines, crap-in and crap-out? Of course there are housewives in Kansas somewhere in which the reality of a daytime soap opera is more ‘real’ to them than the day-to-day “reality” of serving food for their husbands and cleaning the house, but because those programs, like the ones Mildred watches, allows her to clear her mind, I argue that she is not ignorant to the fact she is escaping.
But who am I to be reading into the subservient wife? OK, it’s good to acknowledge gender inequality in any piece of media, but could the book have been written any other way? Ewen suggests Fahrenheit 451 is flawed in some way because of the oversimplification. I got the feeling from reading Bradbury that it was an intentional part his literary style, like 1950’s war propaganda, to oversimplify women. I loved the short-attention-span speed of the book. Bradbury knew he was making a medium commentary about media. The professors at the end of the book are recognizable to the modern general public and the 1953 general public. Throughout Fahrenheit 451 Bradbury references ‘recognizable’ objects and authors, Shakespeare and Television for example. The Fahrenheit world is supposed to be ‘our’ world in the future. Like Ewen said, “Bradbury is giving the semblance of reality.” Although, the book is more of a representation of a reality, a future reality. A CUNY professor, or any small college professor, wouldn’t have been recognizable and therefore Ewen’s “intellectual elitism” (I am smarter than you) argument is weak. The question of “what is intellectual elitism?” also poses the question, “does intellectual elitism only apply to expensive institutions?” Of course not, that’s called social or economic elitism (I have more money than you.). “Intellectual Elitism” exists in this class and everywhere in society.
Ewen’s lecture doesn’t dig deep enough into the historical context. Ewen states that values of the 1950’s were virginal, but what about morality in the roaring 1920’s? The important question is how did morality evolve, or devolve, from the 20’s to the 50’s?
Finally why is the word ‘tension’ thrown around so much in this class? Is there really ‘tension’ between perception and the material world? Between subjectivity and objectivity? Between official and popular culture? There will always be conflicting ideas, but that’s why we have college courses so we can discuss issues and figure out both arguments. Let’s get to it, finally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteI like your spirited critique! Just a couple of responses:
First, in regards to Mildred and TV, do you think Bradbury (and Professor Ewen) is suggesting that Mildred doesn't realize--or isn't capable of-- understanding that it's a machine she's watching? If so, where do you see that in the book? Or could we see her experience as a critique of our real-world experience of watching TV? Keep in mind that Fahrenheit 451 is science fiction - a genre which often dramatizes and exaggerates certain real elements in our lives to make a point about it. So Bradbury may be more interested in using Mildred's experience to make us (or at least, 1950s readers) think about how we watch TV (and movies, etc).
I'm also a little confused over your argument about intellectual elitism - certainly professors at CUNY can fit that role, but Ivy League schools tend to signify the intellectual elite to readers, which is why Bradbury would chose to make the professors at the end from those schools.
Finally, a quick question: did you like the book? Why or why not?
-Ariana
So I don't think Mildred has close to any awareness of the destructive/empty reality she leads within the parlor. Mildred talks to the characters as if they are real and is lost in the delusion, as well as all her friends. Page 64 is a great example of her delusion. Of course she's capable of reason and separating from the 'reality' of the parlor because she helps read the books. In this aspect I feel modern audiences are far from Bradbury’s world (as seem in that dove ad.)
ReplyDeleteSo, what specifically is confusing about the elitism thing? My main point is that it just seems Ewen has beef with Columbia and NYU (somebody's bitter. . .)
I loved the book in it's own form with whatever Bradbury's explanations are, because it's a piece of art that did it's job for me. When students in class say that the women could have been more rounded it’s ridiculous for me because it sounds as if they are trying to make the story out to be melodramatic and it isn't.