4 comments

• 

  Mark Horne

  2 years ago

  For the record, I didn't think the TV reference eliminated censorship. But, for example, the entire discussion of the presidential candidates was a scathing attack on TV and political campaigns that had little to do with censorship. And when the fire chief explains how censorship came to be, he makes it clear that there was a popular demand for it.
  
  And who can forget the chase scene? Reality television and the OJ Simpson police chase all predicted decades earlier.
  
  The message of Farenheit 451 is that mass media produces a market demand for censorship and spreads intolerance of eccentricities in society.
  
  I read a blog entry but missed the full force of what Bradbury was trying to say. I gravitated toward the TV explanation because I had thought it before. People tend to see Farenheit 451 as a 1984 type novel when it is really more like Brave New World, if that makes any sense.
  
  So I think you're right to deny Bradbury the authority he is arrogating to himself. The only time to look at authorial intent is when there is a legitimate ambiguity that can be settled that way. What the book means is determined by what the book says, not by what the author says. Words are used to bind people to certain things. If authorial intent determined meaning, then written words would be meaningless, binding no one.
  
  Also, if I knew the answer on a test question, but accidently wrote the wrong answer, then I could say I got the answer right because my intention determines meaning.
  reply
• 

  Jandy

  2 years ago

  Mark, I figured you probably didn't, but the way you said it was ambiguous. :p I probably should've asked you first, but I was also sort of including the blog you referenced. And yeah, like I said, I don't remember the details of the story that well (it's seriously probably been ten or twelve years since I read it). Why is there popular demand for censorship? That just doesn't make any sense to me--hence why I need to reread. If no one is reading books, why wouldn't they die out naturally, and why would people braindead through television care if anyone else was reading books?
  
  I love your test analogy...that's a perfect way to define the difference between intention and what's actually on the page. I may have to use that sometime.
  reply
• 

  Mark Horne

  2 years ago

  I got the test analogy from Professor John Frame in private e-correspondence. He now teaches at RTS Orlando
  
  I think the problem for the authorities in Bradbury's novel is predictability and control. In a media-saturated culture people can be controlled. The censorship represents an attempt to make sure the influence of unconrollable people does not spread. Readers might want something more in debates than ugly and pretty candidates....
  
  I'm just relating the book, not agreeing with anything. I do sort of resonate with it. But I loved Atlas Shrugged, so what do I know?
  reply
• 

  Evan Donovan

  2 years ago

  The most important reason Bradbury can't get away with this re-interpretation is that a few years back he wrote a postscript to the novel in which he talked about how bad censorship was. He made some very good points. I don't know why he would back away from it now. I think both the anti-TV and anti-censorship themes are important in the novel.
  reply