5
27

[–] Vvswiftvv17 5 points 27 points (+32|-5) ago 

"Comedy writer needs more publicity to land a new job before The Daily Show is cancelled. Self-publishes snarky letter he writes to his kids teacher as a sad last resort to showcase his talent."

There, I paraphrased it for everyone.

0
6

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

That pretty much summarises almost all of my comments here too :-(

0
3

[–] GrabHerByThePussy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

John Oliver is a smug turd. I hope it gets cancelled.

2
3

[–] invisiblephrend 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago  (edited ago)

smug "comedy" writer who routinely churns out propaganda on a daily basis preaches about the dangers of censorship by citing a book that is not about censorship.

0
1

[–] Monkstar1 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I agree mostly with you, however how is that book NOT about censorship?

5
-5

3
24

[–] Fragnostus 3 points 24 points (+27|-3) ago 

Good book, I recommend it to everyone.

Also read:

  • 1984 - George Orwell
  • Animal Farm - George Orwell
  • Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
  • Anthem - Ayn Rand
  • Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

I would say these are the Dystopian novels that one should read, and discuss. They present completely different futures, and yet they're all closer to reality than one should like.

0
6

[–] CyFi 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I also highly recommend Kurt Vonnegut's short story Harrison Bergeron, and the TV movie from 1995 that stars Christopher Plummer, Sean Astin and Howie Mandel. It's easily my favorite dystopian movie ever because it's terrifyingly accurate.

0
1

[–] Fragnostus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yes, absolutely another must read/watch.

0
0

[–] GuyIDisagreeWith [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Harrison was a twit. He died poncing about on stage rather than getting things done. He was a show off. A gloryhound. If he was clever he would have been the one with the "double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun", and the story would have climaxed in Diana Moon Glampers' office.

0
0

[–] Dumpsterjuice 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Great short story didn't know they made a movie out of it

0
5

[–] 6713711? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

All great books. I haven't actually read Animal Farm but I watched the cartoon rendition back in high school.

I would recommend these books to anyone, Atlas Shrugged and Nineteen Eighty-Four in particular.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Fragnostus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I didn't forget it, I hadn't even heard of it yet :-/

I'll look for a copy ^^

0
2

[–] cavehobbit 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a classic as well

0
1

[–] firex726 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Love that book, read it a half dozen times. Surprised by how little attention it gets.

4
18

[–] HeartAttack99 4 points 18 points (+22|-4) ago  (edited ago)

People totally have the meaning of this book incorrect. It is not about censorship, or at least that is only an ancillary part of the meaning.

Bradbury says it is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature.

Edit: Love the down-vote, what a gimp. Bradbury has spoken about this many times, he wrote the damn book, I think he knows what it is about. LOL. http://www.laweekly.com/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted-2149125

1
8

[–] frankenmine 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

You're correct about the author's intent with (or interpretation of) his work, but wrong with the absolute tone. Art is what you take from it.

1
3

[–] HeartAttack99 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Is it? Or is this really a repeat of what people were taught in middle or high school by their teacher, and repeated as truth? Be honest, did you come up with that interpretation, or was it told to you, and then you read the book, so were able to pick out and remember only the theme to which you were exposed in school?

There is no doubt there is a censorship component, but did you remember that it starts as self-censorship, not by the state? What we would call being PC today? Do you remember because of group-think they end up burning the people, not just the books? Do you remember that they self-censored because media was a easier distraction and non-threatening making an illusion of happiness?

Do you remember that minorities and what we might call "special interest groups." in order not to offend any group and sub-group, be it ethnicity, religion, profession, geography, or affinity, that all traces of controversy slowly died from public discourse, and magazines, and other forms of mass-media became "a nice blend of vanilla tapioca." Further, "intellectual" became a swear word, and books came to be seen as a way a person would lord his or her knowledge and learning over someone else, and that means they were not equal. Books, and the critical thinking they encouraged, became seen as a direct threat to equality.

Read that last line again. Doesn't this sound like a warning of exactly what is happening now?

By only accepting that one version, one misses out on the other major themes and warnings about mass-media, group conformity and think, Distraction being masked as happiness, and inaction V. action,

1
3

[–] Laurentius_the_pyro 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

It was intended as being about technology destroying literature but it just works so much better as being about censorship, even if unintentionally.

If Fahrenheit 451 was solely interpreted as it's author wanted it to be then I doubt it would be considered the classic it is today.

"Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's cautionary tale about book censorship, was written as a response to the paranoid political climate of the McCarthy era"

The first part of this quote is a perfectly valid interpretation (even if it does not align with the authors), where as the second part is objectively false as it makes claims of the author's intention behind writing the book which in actuality had nothing to do with McCarthyism.

1
1

[–] HeartAttack99 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

The whole thing is wrong, as it states it as a known fact, which it just is not.

Ray Bradbury's book was a cautionary tale about television usurping literature, it has a lot references to censorship because of the use of technologies to push propaganda is strong, which is not near as possible with books, therefor the propaganda pushed via technology to be accepted, books must go. By saying it is about censorship is interpreting the leaves and missing the forest. It is much broader than that, with censorship being only part of the problem. It also talks about how technology destroying the individual mind, in favor of the accepted group, or the powers that be, message. I think this is more apt now than ever, even in so called bastions of non-censorship on the internet, the medium still creates a group-think mentality with insulation of the individual from ideas that challenged ones views. Censorship is only a portion of the equation from a propaganda standpoint..

People have been taught this censorship version, which is a simplistic view of the book, and they repeat this it ad nauseam, as if it were fact. Yet my bet is most have not read the book since high school, if at all. Ironic as this is the type of 'group think' he despises.

Re-read the book knowing the intent and you will see how it works.

Here are some examples that make this obvious:

"The zipper displaces the button and a man lacks just that much time to think while dressing at dawn, a philosophical hour, and thus a melancholy hour."

This is talking about how technology abolishes individual thought. It applies as much to today's internet as it did to television.

"Maybe the books can get us half out of the cave. They just might stop us from making the same damn insane mistakes! "

Here, Montag sees books, not technology, not only as helpful tools, but as vital agents of sanity in an increasingly insane world.

"Somewhere the saving and putting away had to begin again and someone had to do the saving and the keeping, one way or another, in books, in records, in people's heads, any way at all so long as it was safe, free from moths, silverfish, rust and dry-rot, and men with matches."

This is showing how difficult books are to twist to show a different version of truth than that which the book gives, the way technology can be manipulated. I find this ironic, as re-branding the book as about censorship only, because of accepted group-think of mass-media, is exactly what Bradbury was warning about.

0
1

[–] GuyIDisagreeWith [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I wonder how he would feel about how more people are reading now that ever before, digital or otherwise.

0
1

[–] Monkstar1 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's interesting. He says it's about technology usurping literature and then his work appears in digital form on these new technological mind wasters.

1
0

[–] HeartAttack99 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I attended a few of his lectures when I was younger. No internet yet, but computers were around.

My feel I got from him is that the small sound bites, the meme, the small talk we make, etc. he would see as the same problem as television, that it is all a loss from deep dives into literature, and isolates one from being challenged by ideas that are not part of their worldviews.

1
5

[–] derram 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

https://archive.is/AcwnM :

Kid Needs Permission Slip to Read 'Fahrenheit 451,' His Dad's Response Is Brilliant | The Daily Dot

"It's 2016, and some kids still aren't allowed to read the book without a permission slip from their parents.", "He signed the slip and attached his own note, praising Milo's teacher for immersing the kids so thoroughly in the world of Fahrenheit 451.", "Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury's cautionary tale about book censorship, was written as a response to the paranoid political climate of the McCarthy era, but its message apparently still hasn't sunk in."

'Daily Show head writer Daniel Radosh just had to sign a note so his son could read it for a school book club. ', "But those objections miss the point of the novel—they could only be more ironic if parents were calling for copies of Bradbury's book to be destroyed."

This has been an automated message.

2
4

[–] strange_69 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Lost me at "writer for the Daily Show".

0
3

[–] pitenius 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I have a dim memory of a Ray Bradbury short story (one of thousands) with a theme that the gov.t has taught everyone to be dumb and smart people are culled. Early in the story a boy pesters his father with questions, like "How far away is the sun?" and got dismissive, uninterested answers ("I dunno. Like... a thousand miles.") The father can barely do his job, but the son "failed" a test is being led to an execution.

Does this ring a bell with anyone?

0
1

[–] GuyIDisagreeWith [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I recall Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut.

I recall the Twilight Zone episode "Examination Day". (Skip to 9:00 if you just want the punchline.)

EDIT: Added the 9:00 link.

0
3

[–] nobslob 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

that kid will have a note entered into his permanent record: "child of a dissident, high probability of domestic terrorism"

0
2

[–] TerraKell 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Jack London's The iron Heel** (C) 1907 is also another good read.

I like the Fahrenheit 451 book (pub. Simon & Schuster) with the intro by Neil Gaiman. It contains a back section of HISTORY, CONTEXT, AND CRITICISM Edited by Jonathan R. Eller. The notes tell how and why Ray Bradbury wrote as he did.

load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)