I can't read it! it's so weird. His stle is so strange. I started reading the first 11 pages of the book and then I just got lost, he reminds me a bit of Tolkien. I got about halfway through the 2nd book of LOTR, but then it got imposible to read anymore, he kept switching every time something actually happened! Between Frodo and his endentured servant, Pippin/merry, and Aragorn & pals. It was good until he got to that point, I got around the part where the ents started meeting then just forgot it. The flow of the story is just so weird.
So back to Ray Bradbury. His flow is so weird, he either flits from one place to the next. Lightning a house on fire, then the fire house, subway, walking along the street, then he floods you with detail as you meet "clarrise" (sorry for misspelling it - if I did, and I'm almost sure I did). OSC! Your an amazing artist, instead of creating a waterfall of detail in which you get drowned, and then getting swirled around from one scene to the next, then using vague explanations (I skipped ahead to a part where apparently Guy was hiding a book, and Mildred almost found it, and then this guy is smoking a pipe explaining about schools and whatnot, how they eventually taught peopl almost nothing.) It almost seems as if he rushed through the writing of the book. This is the second time I've tried reading the book. And I still can't do it.
Could it possibly be my feeble brain, unable to comprehend this style of writing, does it just not have enough excitement or does the plot not develop fast enough for me to read it? I really want to read it, since it's required by most schools as reading, and I might be able to use it as a reference in case I know someone else who read it.
If you loved Fahrenheit 451, explain how it was to you, why you loved it. If you hated it, also explain why you hated it.
PS: Sorry for any errors in this post, I am a bit rushed, the bell is just about to ring, so I have to get to class.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I really love that book. It's a powerful message against censorship, regardless of what group is practicing it. Then they state that it is simply easier to destroy the books, but in a way it makes a compassionless society filled with people who lack empathy and the ability to think deeply about things Except for Clarise, who's like Simon in Lord of the Flies and we know what happened to him, the sensitive types who are about conversation instead of violence.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I really like Fahrenheit 451, but I don't think the main message is really about censorship. After all, the books in Fahrenheit 451 were not devalued because of government censorship. Rather, the people chose to reject reading first, opting for simpler things to do that required far less thought. Only after books became widely unpopular did the censorship kick in.
So, I think the real message in F451 is the importance of challenging oneself intellectually, and the importance of our society not choosing to become the sort of mass-media consuming society that cares only about cheap thrills and nothing about depth of thought. It is about why it is important to flex our mental muscles in the way that books do.
And whether it is the government censoring books, or us choosing not to read, the problem is just the same.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I've never read Fahrenheit 451, but I think I need to. And honestly, at the moment, the only thing I can recall reading of Bradbury's is Dandelion Wine, which I loved. It certainly skips around all over the place in a very fantastic, impressionistic way, and doesn't really seem to have a plot at all. I also loved LOTR and although I do recall finding the jumps from one storyline to another jarring when I first read it, it never made me want to stop reading. And I also love OSCs storytelling style, although I have not by any means read all his books. There are just so many ways to tell stories.
One highly acclaimed book that I just couldn't get into was Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel. Did not like or care about Mr. Norrel enough to really care what happened to him.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alex Johansen: Between Frodo and his endentured servant,
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I think you have a really twisted view of Frodo and Samwise's relationship. That, you have have no idea what an indentured servant is (which is probably true since you can't spell it).
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: One highly acclaimed book that I just couldn't get into was Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrel. Did not like or care about Mr. Norrel enough to really care what happened to him.
That's sort of the point. You're not supposed to like Norrel. I burned through the book, wanting to know what happened to Jonathan Strange.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I never got far enough in the book to find out who Jonathan Strange was. I think it's one of those books where either you enjoy the writing style and are hooked from page one, or you don't. My best friend absolutely loved it. I know Mr. Card certainly gave it the highest praise in his review, it garnered all sorts of awards, and lots of people here at Hatrack think it's great. Me - meh.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I think it also helps that I'm an anglophile.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Could it possibly be my feeble brain, unable to comprehend this style of writing, does it just not have enough excitement or does the plot not develop fast enough for me to read it?
As Bradbury is -- far and away -- my favorite author, I'm more inclined to blame your feeble brain.
quote:I never got far enough in the book to find out who Jonathan Strange was.
That's like watching Jackson's version of The Fellowship of the Ring and turning it off because you didn't like the lame-ass depiction of Sauron in the prologue.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It is about censor ship because of the speech that one fellow made about all manners of people being offended by books like Little Black Sambo and Uncle Tom's Cabin, and the part at the end where Bradbury was ranting about how frustrating it was having these groups of people complain about so many books. I kind of agree. Stereotypes and racism annoy the heck out of me, but sometimes stuff that is too "PC" makes for very bland reading. Like, female characters that are considered strong because they act like the most irratating male stereotypes... But, your points are good. It can be looked at from a lot of angles, censorship and people not wanting to take the effort it takes to read books and think instead of just crashing things and watching dull emotionless television shows... Reminds me of these days to a certain level except for the book burning. But all the good books make you think of your own time. 1984 and The Giver come to mind as books with a simular theme.
Also, Dandelion Wine is one of the best books ever! It was the first time someone ever described that feeling of knowing you're alive I used to have all the time when I was a kid. What a sweet great book.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:His stle is so strange. I started reading the first 11 pages of the book and then I just got lost, he reminds me a bit of Tolkien. I got about halfway through the 2nd book of LOTR, but then it got imposible to read anymore, he kept switching every time something actually happened! Between Frodo and his endentured servant, Pippin/merry, and Aragorn & pals. It was good until he got to that point, I got around the part where the ents started meeting then just forgot it. The flow of the story is just so weird.
So back to Ray Bradbury. His flow is so weird, he either flits from one place to the next. Lightning a house on fire, then the fire house, subway, walking along the street, then he floods you with detail
You are probably going to want to stay away from Kurt Vonnegut as well.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am not a huge V fan myself, although some of his stuff is fun.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
The first post in this thread...
Is the single most awful post I've ever read on hatrack.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: You are probably going to want to stay away from Kurt Vonnegut as well.
And Frank Herbert. I typically don't mind the start-stop-jump plot lines, but Dune Messiah and Children of Dune put me to the test in terms of keeping with who was where, doing what, and in what sort of peril.
Farenheit 451 continues to be one of my favorite is sobooks. Every time I see a copy, I've continued to be impressed that I remember so much content in a book that is quite short. Then again, this is probably the one defining characteristic of my favorite books (H2G2, F451, Gateway, Sten, and so on).
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alex Johansen: Could it possibly be my feeble brain, unable to comprehend this style of writing, does it just not have enough excitement or does the plot not develop fast enough for me to read it? I really want to read it, since it's required by most schools as reading, and I might be able to use it as a reference in case I know someone else who read it.
The problem is more likely that you're just too used to the standard narrative style. You want the story laid out for you so that you don't have to think too hard about what's going on or why it is going on.
A good analogy would be someone who has only ever read comic books their entire life suddenly being put in a room with expressionist paintings. They'd denounce the works as stupid or cheap because the drawings aren't clear or don't show exactly what's going on and why. They'd never know that that's exactly what those painters were avoiding when they created their great works.
Not everyone likes art. Lots of people like everything spelled out for them. I think it's a matter of whether you'd like to spend the rest of your life having your entertainment condescend to you or if you'd like to rise above such limitations and enjoy things for yourself.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Of the "mandatory 20th century dystopian novels" genre, I think F-451 is the best written. There's a texture there not in the other 2 biggies (1984, Brave New World). It's theatrical, really (which makes sense, in a way, since Bradbury was a decent poet, right?). 1984 would be my second in the list, having a quasi-historical grittiness to it, and the surprising story it tells. BNW slides a little too close to farce, without really admitting it (as Vonnegut clearly does), and has some large plot holes... Though of the three, it's vision of the future scares me the most.
Oh, and Vonnegut rules. The first decade and a half, anyway (before he got repetitive and nearly egomaniacally self-referential, with a few exceptions).
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I should note that to me, 1984 is the best book; it suits my preferences, such as they are, the best. I just thing the artfulness of F-451 can't be denied.
Although I think criticizing people who don't get it such as has occurred here is a bit over the top.
Alex, my first recommendation is to read it as a play, a poem, interrelated. Understand that it is written with staunchly Positivist American 1940s/1950s assumptions. Put yourself in that era, and read it as talking about a future that isn't very far off from now.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
One last thing: never attempt to read HP Lovecraft, Alex. He will spend half a page describing a thing he initially asserts that the protagonist cannot describe (due to its horrific alien nature). I think you find your patience tested even more so, and his longest stories are 80 pages.
And there is almost no dialogue.
-Bok
[ February 28, 2006, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
I've read it (451) but its beena while. refresh my memory please. The protagonist and his girlfriend have what amounts to a forbidden relationship, she is kidnapped and brainwashed. Then when releasd they see each other again, i forget if she acknowledged him at all, if he was brainwashed and just went along with it to get released or what.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Wow. That sums up just about every book in the genre.
(But I think you may actually be talking about 1984.)
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
You know I might, it sure fits the big brother thing. hehe, forgot that I read 1984
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I never got far enough in the book to find out who Jonathan Strange was.
That's like watching Jackson's version of The Fellowship of the Ring and turning it off because you didn't like the lame-ass depiction of Sauron in the prologue.
Well, considering I read at least a quarter of the book I'd say it's more like reading The Hobbit and deciding I just didn't care enough about Middle Earth to read LOTR. (which I cannot conceive of, by the way, although I know it happens!)
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
I haven't read 451 or any other Bradbury in quite a while, but I remember enjoying several of his books. One of the few authors I was told to read in school who I actually liked.
JS and Mr. N was great, but the first 1/3 tended to be slow, of course the last 1/3 more than makes up for it. At first I was a little disappointed with the ending, but reflecting on it a few months later, it seems "strangely" appropriate. Its not one of those perfect endings where everything is resolved to the point you soon forget about it. I think it is the end that makes me keep thinking about the book long after I have forgotten many other books.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Oh, and Vonnegut rules.
-Bok
Player Piano anyone? I loved that book. Though I'm pretty sure the reason I love it so much is that the whole concept really appeals to me, not so much the actual writing. I think I'm a bit too close to it to judge the writing. But I do like most of Vonnegut's work, especially the short stories. "A Long Walk To Forever" (I think) is one of my favoritest short stories ever, along with "Who Am I This time?", "Harrison Bergeron", and "Welcome To The Monkey House". Yeah. I like him.
451 eh? I liked it. I won't say I enjoyed it, but I found it fascinating. It was the first time I had ever read anything in that writing style, so it challenged me, and I always love a good challenge. Same with Catch-22 , though I won't even go so far as to say I liked that book. But it was a challenge and I liked getting through it and being able to say "I read that" and actually understand it well enough to converse about it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: The first post in this thread...
Is the single most awful post I've ever read on hatrack.
I have to agree. Forget the spelling, which was just atrocious. The inability to form a recognizable sentence, and the general 8th grade tone... do we have an age limit here?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Player Piano is Brave New World done correctly, in my opinion.
Of course I think Vonnegut's best book is NOT Slaughterhouse-5, but Cat's Cradle. That was probably obvious though.
I think Harrison Bergeron is pretty average by Vonnegut standards. The very last scene (with his parents) is the only one that makes it decent, IMO. The rest of the story is kinda dumb and transparent. "Who am I this time?" is excellent, as is "A Long Walk to Forever". Which are funny, because they are straight-up romance stories.
Catch-22 took me a couple tries (which is rare for me), but once I got a third of the way in, it really got me. There are some really powerful chapters in it.
-Bok
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:"Who am I this time?" is excellent, as is "A Long Walk to Forever".
I don't know how I missed these. In fact, I've never even heard of them. I'll have to look into these.
Added: Ah, I see now that these are short stories from Welcome to the Monkey House.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Of course I think Vonnegut's best book is NOT Slaughterhouse-5, but Cat's Cradle. That was probably obvious though.
Ah, now I understand your name. Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I loved F151, and I was told to read it by an English teacher I downright loathed! (Honestly, it was the only thing I enjoyed about her class.) Anyway, what I found helpful when I first started reading books that weren't the simple narrative style, was to keep a notebook nearby, and for the first few chapters write down the imagery in one column, and write down some possible interpretations in the second.
Now this is a pain in the ass, trust me, but it's not nearly as bad with Bradbury as it is with Dickens. I found it helpful, because it forced me to take notice of the repeated images and metaphors in the story, especially at the begining when the author is doing most of the foreshadowing, and understand the significance of the longer descriptive passages. Also, you'll have much of the key metaphors writen down in your notebook, so any papers you may have to write on the subject, won't require much in the way of aimless thumbing through the book.
Since then, I've learned how to do this in my head, which makes reading "literary" works much simpler. I still can't wrap my head around "A Tale of Two Cities" but I'm working on it.
Hope that helps. Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Farenheit 451 is a classic. I read it in a half an hour or something. I loved it, though I can see why it might not appeal to someone.
I also really like Vonnegut's stuff, especially his short fiction. I have a paperback copy of Welcome to the Monkey House .
I think my favorites are "All the King's Horsees," which is a very powerful story about the sacrfices one must make in life, "Tom Edison's Shaggy Dog," which is really a quite silly story that I think depicts why sometimes it is best to keep one's mouth shut, and "Who Am I This Time?" which is really just a cut down love story.
Posted by Mirrored Shades (Member # 8957) on :
F451 was actually my favorite Bradbury book, and in my opinion his easiest read... Try it again when you have some time and you're in a mood to concentrate, because it's worth the difficulty.
Also, Vonnegut's best book is clearly Breakfast of Champions. And I loved Catch-22. It started off pretty slow, but I literally couldn't put it down at the end.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
A shout out here for God Bless You Mr. Rosewater. The first Vonnegut I ever read (other than "Harrison Bergeron" which I read for school before I recognized KV's name). Got me hooked, and I obsessively read through everything the Seattle *and* King County library systems had of his or was related to them.
I even watched the horrendous adaptation of HB with Sean Astin. Sweet Lord, the pain. But going through all the film versions was worth it to find a very sweet version of "Who am I this time?" with Susan Sarandon. Yay.
*ahem* and the actual topic here-- I love F451! I think the story is great and the writing is masterful, so there you go. Hmm. Now I want to read it again. *leaves for library*
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Ooh, and another quick Vonnegut note: I read the title story in Welcome to the Monkey House shortly after hearing something about how "orange" is the only word in the English language with no rhyme. And I was thus very amused to read the poem including the rhyme "orange/ door hinge". Again yay.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
The Martian Chronicles is far and away my favorite of Bradbury's work. I love that I've read it multiple times over the last six years and each time I get something new out of it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is in my favorites list of Vonnegut's novels.
1) Cat's Cradle 2) God bless You, Mr. Rosewater 3) Player Piano 4) Bluebeard
-- To me, BoC was the ultimate expression of his egomaniacal novels.
-Bok
Posted by Mirrored Shades (Member # 8957) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: -- To me, BoC was the ultimate expression of his egomaniacal novels.
-Bok
Yeah, but the artwork! Sheer genius!
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
I adore BoC. It's among my favorites. I don't really have a problem with the as you say "egomaniacal" novels, because he writes himself as a character... but that said, I tend to enjoy self-reflexivity in art, and I know some people don't.
My relationship with BoC has also deepened and stregthened in a very strange way after I read Mark Vonnegut's (KV's son) The Eden Express. It's a memoir about him going crazy, and the time is right around BoC; in fact it's mentioned. I think K mentions it, and rightly calls it better written than his own books.
What I like about K's appearances in his own books is the constant self-mock. He's always saying what a terrible writer he is. He's sort of right. He is one of my favorite authors (joined by Tolkien and OSC) but he's there in a very different sense than JRRT and OSC are. Their prose and syntax make me swoon, wheras KV makes me high on depravity and depression. He's kinda obscenely creative, and *that's* why his writing captures, not because it's particularly beautiful.
Hopefully this rambling will make sense to someone not me. Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
-- To me, BoC was the ultimate expression of his egomaniacal novels.
-Bok Yeah, but the artwork! Sheer genius!
*
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote: My relationship with BoC has also deepened and stregthened in a very strange way after I read Mark Vonnegut's (KV's son) The Eden Express. It's a memoir about him going crazy, and the time is right around BoC; in fact it's mentioned. I think K mentions it, and rightly calls it better written than his own books.
This book sounds intriguing. I think I'll check it out.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Do so. It was a lifechanging read for me. It's quite intense and could trigger some stuff (if you're a bit self-destructive) if you're not careful. Just FYI. I read part of it for the first time in rehersal, during offstage time for a show I was in, and I ended up, like, sobbing in the bathroom and trying to pull myself together before my entrance. Yep. Intense.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I've been very interested in schizophrenia for awhile, so I do not think I'll regret it.
And, by the way, I was looking at the movie version of "Harrison Bergeron," you mentioned. There are a lot of people who thought it was good.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Well, it wasn't *bad* in and of itself, but there really was no reason to associate it with "Harrison Bergeron" the short story. I guess their overarching points were sort of the same, but they arrived there sooooo differently.
I would have liked the movie more if I hadn't been expecting it to be so like the story. I had to shift gears mid-screening once I realized how the filmmakers wanted me to be watching it.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
"Harrison Bergeron" was my first introduction to Vonnegut, and dystopic literature in general, so it holds a special place in my heart. Every time I read it, I always think "Now what's so great about this story?", especially when I try to explain it to others. And yet still, I love it.
And yes, Who Am I This Time? is a love story, but its a good one, and in my experience, thats rare. But then, I am very young. I watched the movie of it in my Literature class in college. I believe it was with Christopher Walken (?). For some reason I see him in the role of Harry. If he didn't play it, he should.
In an attempt to retrack this discussion on to Bradbury and 451, I seem to remember being struck by some similarities in his and Vonnegut's writing. I was on a dystopic kick when I read both of them and inhaled a lot in a short time, so I could be confusing the issue.
PS. I know The Once and Future King doesn't really belong in this discussion, but whenever I talk about dystopic literature, I remember the line above the entrance to the ant colony: "Everything not compulsory is forbidded". Seems to be a nice, succinct way of describing a large section of dystopic literature.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think both Vonnegut and Bradbury can be lyrical, but Bradbury's are a complex confectionary delight, while sometimes with Vonnegut, the "5 second rule" applies
-Bok
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 9153) on :
Loved it, but I'd seen the movie (which a lot of the book's fans hate but Bradbury loves and so do I--I believe I saw it before reading the book and suggest you do the same--) and had already read a lot of other Bradbury. If I'd tried to just jump into this one with no preliminaries, I might have become a bit disoriented, too. Try doing a search here http://raybradburyboard.com/eve where you can almost indefinitely peruse the outcries of bewildered students.
I've read everything ever written by Bradbury up to the last five or so books (only because he writes so fast and I read so slow--does that answer whether I like him?) and in my opinion F451 is atypical of most of Bradbury, most of which generally makes easier reading.
(This may be repeating as I didn't read all the replies--reading about this book CONSTANTLY on the Bradbury board as I do--but your hunch was correct. He did write the original version in only 9 days and then revise.)
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 9153) on :
As to Vonnegut, by BoC I assume you mean "Breakfast of Champions."
"Harrison Bergeron" is perhaps the single story most attributed to Bradbury not written by him. When told how frequently Vonnegut's work was mistaken for his, Bradbury was not entirely pleased.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That seems weird to me. Sure, there is a brevity and color to both, Vonnegut (almost) only writes farce and the satire of humanity. Bradbury doesn't write comedy, near as I can tell.
Honestly, Harrison Bergeron is well beneath Bradbury; heck, while superficially typical of Vonnegut's writing, it isn't a good example of it, IMO.
-Bok
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 9153) on :
Bradbury would certainly thank you for that. He said he liked Vonnegut personally but found the attitude of his work negative.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:e liked Vonnegut personally but found the attitude of his work negative.
I think that is the whole point of reading Vonnegut. Yes, humanity is disgusting and stupid and crude and depraved...Hi ho. I had to laugh like hell.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I agree with Princess Leah. There's an undercurrent in his forwards that mention that he could see himself as a Christian, if only because of the power of the Sermon on the Mount. He had issues with the practitioners, in many regards, I think, because he got impatient with their self-flagellation rationales ("We can't do X, because we humans are depraved/fallen!"); he was basically conceding the point, and saying, "Hey, we still need to deal with it the best we can, in the meantime... Oh, and by the way, look at how absurd we are."
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Alex, His style might not work for you, but Ray Bradbury is an undisputed master of his craft with an amazing amount of good stuff to offer. You could do much worse than to try to develop a taste for that type of style.
My advice is to give it a couple of years and try again. If that doesn't work, there's always Asimov, who is just about the mirror opposite of Bradbury in terms of style.
----
I'm a big fan of 451, not just for the story, but because I think it's really the most realistic of the dystopias I've read. Most of the things that Bradbury describes exist in a somewhat toned down form in our culture.
The version I have now also has a really great afterword about censorship and the whiny populist anti-elitism that is credited with driving the censorship in 451 that I absolutely love.
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 9153) on :
Yes, Asimov's style is different than Bradbury's, but their ideas have enough similarities in some reader's minds for Asimov to be the author second-most mistaken for Bradbury right after Vonnegut!
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
If people are mistaking Asimov and Bradbury and Vonnegut for each other... Just -- jesus.
I don't know what.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Seriously. I could see people confusing OSC for Asimov (or vice versa) MUCH more easily than Bradbury. Especially if we are talking about novels.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)