General Comments

So if you have anything to say that is not related to the other topics, just leave what you need to say here.

So this book is rather interesting. It grabs my attention sometimes when the book explains why something is the way it is. It also does have some description, like when Bradbury's talking about Clarisse McClellan and her "fragile milk crystal" face, or the machines that suck up the poison in Mildred. But I feel that Bradbury doesn't always put in the description that's needed. He describes the machine, but not the TV wall until later in the book so you are confused about what he's talking about. The book is also interesting at certain points, but other times, it rambles on or is rather boring. It doesn't have the suspense or thrill of other books. Maybe it's because it is a classic. Classics aren't necessarily written the way YAL books are written so it's definitely a change. I kind of hope that Logan's Run will be a bit more captivating or exciting. And i guess i should stop rambling on and on.

i think that ray bradbury explains to many things!!! he has reduncency issues!! like just say what you want to and get it over with!!

nicole wrote:i think that ray bradbury explains to many things!!! he has reduncency issues!! like just say what you want to and get it over with!! (j'aime elephants)

Really? Well i guess he does point out something a few times but I feel that he states something, like an object (take the Seashell for example) and doesn't explicitly say (or say at all until later in the book) what the object is. and it really bugs me because i DON'T know what it is!!!!! As i said in some earlier posts, maybe bradbury is just building up curiosity or suspense. But when i read something and don't understand what the author's talking about, i just feel frustrated that he's not describing what the thing is!!!!!!

e=mc^2 wrote:

nicole wrote:i think that ray bradbury explains to many things!!! he has reduncency issues!! like just say what you want to and get it over with!! (j'aime elephants)

Really? Well i guess he does point out something a few times but I feel that he states something, like an object (take the Seashell for example) and doesn't explicitly say (or say at all until later in the book) what the object is. and it really bugs me because i DON'T know what it is!!!!! As i said in some earlier posts, maybe bradbury is just building up curiosity or suspense. But when i read something and don't understand what the author's talking about, i just feel frustrated that he's not describing what the thing is!!!!!!

Yeah, or maybe they don't have a word for it other than seashell. Like when I was little I used to read this seires called Warriors, and it was from the poit of view of wild cats, so they didn't have words for many human things like cars. They'd call it something else, like a "monster", and it would take you a while to get what the heck the author was talking about. So maybe, these people don't have a word for telephone, or at least the same word.

So I have a question for everyone (well it's two people really). Why do you think the parts are named the way they are? The Hearth and the Salamander, The Sieve and the Sand, and Burning Bright.

So I've started to reread F451. On the first page, it talks about how thrilling it is to burn things and it it says "With the brass nozzle in his fists, with this great python spitting its venomous kerosene upon the world...". I realized that Bradbury sometimes compares things to animals. Also, on page 11 at the bottom, it says "The little mosquito-delicate dancing hum in the air, the electrical murmer of a hidden wasp snug in its special pink warm nest.". He uses an animal (insect really) to compare the hum in the room to the hum of a mosquito.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Even thought aren't many animals in the book, it mentions them a lot.

Do you think that Montag has two personalities or a split personality like Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Hyde? Because sometimes he's the perfect fireman and acts like a "normal" person. Other times, he's like Clarisse (not that she's bad) in that he babbles a lot in his mind or just loses his train of thought and goes into wonderland or something. On page 10-11 (bottom of 10 to top of 11) it talks about Montag coming back from his walk with Clarisse and thinking about her. he finds himself wandering through his mind and says

"'What?' asked Montag of that other self, the subconcious idiot that ran babbling at times, quite independent of will, habit, and conscience."

e=mc^2 wrote:Do you think that Montag has two personalities or a split personality like Dr. Jekyll and Dr. Hyde? Because sometimes he's the perfect fireman and acts like a "normal" person. Other times, he's like Clarisse (not that she's bad) in that he babbles a lot in his mind or just loses his train of thought and goes into wonderland or something. On page 10-11 (bottom of 10 to top of 11) it talks about Montag coming back from his walk with Clarisse and thinking about her. he finds himself wandering through his mind and says

"'What?' asked Montag of that other self, the subconcious idiot that ran babbling at times, quite independent of will, habit, and conscience."

I think he has one personality, but likes to hide it. Or once he meets Clarisse and actually starts to think, he realizes how he feels about being a firemen.

Yeah, I think it was like an apifiny.

i dont think that guy should have told mildred about the books...she overreacts too much!!!

So yesterday the group talked about static and dynamic characters. if you don't know what types of characters these are, a static character doesn't change throughout the book. He/she/it stay in the same mindset and personality up to the ending. Dynamic characters are characters that have a big change in personality or in their mindset. This change could happen anywhere in the book.

Dynamic Characters to
So the group thinks that Guy Montag is a dynamic character. For example, in the beginning, Montag was a fireman who burnt books (which are banned in F451). He took pleasure in burning books and houses that contained the books. He never really thought of why he was burning the books and just did what he was told. But after talking to a curious girl Clarisse McClellan and a professor named Faber, Montag learned to observe things. Question things. He then decided not to burn books and try and save them. His thoughts shifted from burning books to saving books.

Static Characters to
The group thinks that all of the other characters mentioned in the book are static characters. Mildred, Montag's wife, always stayed in her mindset, watching TV walls and talking to friends. She never questioned anything like Montag did in the beginning. When Montag showed her his hidden collection of books (which is against the law), she thought he went insane and didn't really trust him or love him as much.
Clarisse McClellan and Faber are static characters as well, even though they are considered as "good" people. It is a good thing that they didn't change though. Clarisse was a curious person who wondered and observed things in life. She noticed that there's dew on the grass in the morning and there is "a man in the moon". No one else would observe those things and imagine. Faber is static as well because he always had the same mindset. He thought that books were good and burning them is outrageous. He believed that knowledge is good and reading is good, unlike the thoughts of most other humans.