Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Thread for discussion of Part 2: The Sieve and the Sand

Since nobody has said anything on this section yet, perhaps I can use it to discuss something that has been bothering me about this work. Actually a few things bothered me, but I'll leave some of them for the last thread.

For now, maybe we can discuss some of the issues pertaining to the earlier section of the book:
At the start of the book, the narrative seems to address 2 or 3 main issues: let's try to tease them out.
1. Montag is a fireman who burns books in service to the establishment. He is a cog in a wheel; an unthinking one, but he is not quite as bad as his wife Millie, who is little more than an empty automaton. She is a paper-thin character - yes, Bradbury intended for her to be this way, that much is clear, but in his endeavor to make her empty and soul-less, he also makes her unbelievable. There is some debate as to whether a character should feel "real". Should a character be rounded and believable? It would be nice if the group could discuss this issue.

How do you guys feel about Millie? Do you feel happy with the way that Bradbury crafted this character?

This would bring us to Montag himself and his motivations. I felt that the author did not give us any background on Montag that would help explain his motivations; WHY is Montag different; WHY is Montag prepared to defy the system?

I feel that we have slightly more clues with Clarrisse's personality - she has been quirky from a young age and she comes from a quirky family who were non-conformists to start with. But Montag? One could perhaps argue that Clarisse 'awakened' him, but their contact is fleeting and besides, Montag had started to collect books even before he'd met Clarisse.

One could perhaps argue that characterization needn't be important in speculative fiction, but I would like to counter-argue that we're not dealing with hard SF here, we're dealing with social issues, and therefore "human" issues, and therefore, human motivations should be believable.

Any thoughts? Agreement? Disagreement?

I was super confused when the books magically appeared in the, what was it, an A/C unit? But there were hints early on that something was hidden there.

Okay, I thought it worthwhile to mention the issues that I see Bradbury addressing in part 1, and how I feel about his treatment.

As I'd mentioned in the previous thread, Bradbury's exposition feels extremely conservative to me, and since I myself am not conservative in all of the same ways, part of his message is lost on me - this is why I likened him to Theodor Adorno and why he feels like an old grump to me.

One of the things he is complaining about is television - and although his forecast of wall-to-wall TV didn't quite come true, one can see why he is worried about the trend- just sitting and staring at a screen is a very passive activity, isn't it? I guess Bradbury can be excused for not foreseeing the internet, which is of course a much more interactive medium, in 1953.

Bradbury seems to also hate haste and speed and I am afraid there he has lost me as a cheering audience. Much as I love country idylls, and dislike the smoke and noise of the city, "progress" and richness of experience has its rewards too.

I guess this is something that different people would feel differently about.

Perhaps more about the rest of what he addresses, in the next thread.

Yes, Millie is a characterless character ("paper-thin" - nice), and although in some ways I found that irritating and sexist, I think it's because Bradbury's intended message was the mind-numbing effect of constant screens and sea-shells and virtual life. If the book were written now, Montag might be female (or still male), and Montag's partner (male or female) would still need to be empty.

Clarisse was sweet in a slightly stereotypical way, and although she didn't awaken him, she certainly fanned his doubts (as well as his lust).

As for the wider issue of weak characters in sci-fi and spec-fic, if the core idea is good enough, and the writing is otherwise good, I'm quite forgiving in these genres. Yes, this is also very much about social and human issues, but that's true of many others in these genres. I completely get why some people find it impairs their enjoyment, but for me, with this book, it didn't.

Oh, but I might want to vent a bit about something we touched on earlier: Bradbury's blatant sexism and political conservatism. One sees that he bitterly complains about "minorities" in this section; and amongst those 'minorities' he means blacks and women. ( and undoubtedly gay people are implicitly included) .

This is borne out by rantings and ravings that he conducted in essays and other writings. (...and Whitney tells us in his oratory as well?)
So, this minority speaking for yours truly just says "ick" to that! (A minority that consists half of global humanity - or perhaps we're a minority because we are 'less' than human, and the 'lesser' vessels, eh?)

Cecily wrote: "Yes, Millie is a characterless character ("paper-thin" - nice), and although in some ways I found that irritating and sexist, I think it's because Bradbury's intended message was the mind-numbing e..."

Glad that you liked the writing, Cecily. I must tell you honestly that I found the writing pretty bland and lacking, especially in this middle section.

You know, this novella really disappointed me in many ways. In the first place, I found it overly simplistic but incoherent in spite of that.

Yes, the story starts out in a promising manner; Bradbury drops some powerful and even poetic prose, which we mentioned in thread 1, which makes you lick your lips for more to come. But then it never does come until you're in part 3, where it does not satisfy as expected. (Too little too late?)

...and then there is the lack of coherence issue, but let me address that in the next thread.

Cecily wrote: "As for the wider issue of weak characters in sci-fi and spec-fic, if the core idea is good enough, and the writing is otherwise good, I'm quite forgiving in these genres."

I find I am the opposite, unless I am reading an obvious allegory. I've read too many excellent characterizations in SFF to be otherwise, I guess. I loved the language in this story, but I kept thinking that if he'd rewritten so that the characters were worthy of the prose, the whole thing would have been a really breathtaking achievement.

Traveller wrote: "Oh, but I might want to vent a bit about something we touched on earlier: Bradbury's blatant sexism and political conservatism. One sees that he bitterly complains about "minorities" in this sectio..."

Bradbury's political views don't bother me as a reader. (As a reader, I am always pleased to find myself reading something I differ with in opinion or world view; I think it's good exercise.) Also, with this particular instance, I have to admit that he had a point. Writings don't just get silenced because some evil authority wants them silenced (although that happens). They also get silenced because they offend people. It's usually the majority that is offended and demands works be pulled, but here in the US we have seen some of this from minority groups as well, insisting that what they define as hate speech not be allowed on college campuses and such. Canada has had books banned based on this, as Derek pointed out in a different topic, and while I don't see that they've banned anything I would care to read, the whole premise of banning books is so specious and facile that I really don't think the free world should engage in the practice.

The sexism is an underlying issue in the work, but for me it was not an impediment outside of the fact that it so weakened the overall book. Millie had the makings of something more and better, and Bradbury would have been a better author if he had reached down deep and found that. Nihilism doesn't have to be weak and silly to be nihilism; look at Beatty.

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "Writings don't just get silenced because some evil authority wants them silenced (although that happens). They also get silenced because they offend people. It's usually the majority that is offended and demands works be pulled, but here in the US we have seen some of this from minority groups as well, insisting that what they define as hate speech not be allowed on college campuses and such...."

I'm glad you mentioned that before I started typing about it - in fact you're taking the words out of my mouth, because I was JUST about to say (in the next thread) that contrary to what I had thought, the book is not so much a warning against totalitarianism but against intellectual sloth and against neglecting history and the past. (The latter which actually becomes a lot clearer in the last section of the book - perhaps we can still talk about that aspect in the last thread. )

...and another thing is, you guys are talking as if this is SF and really, this is not "hard" SF where technologies are explored, rather than social satire where societal attitudes are discussed, and hence my requirement for deeper and more convincing characterization. Sure, there's the hound and the wall-to-wall TV, but those are not explored from a technological point of view rather than being props for getting Bradbury's point across, as I see it, anyway. The wall-to-wall television is just taking the television craze of the day (early 1950's) to its logical extreme.

Will definitely join you in the last thread for further discussion.

Traveller wrote: "...and another thing is, you guys are talking as if this is SF and really, this is not "hard" SF where technologies are explored, rather than social satire where societal attitudes are discussed, and hence my requirement for deeper and more convincing characterization. "

SF that is not hard SF is still SF, yes? Lots of SF concerns itself more with social issues than technology. It's true that I will give a little on hard SF on characterization IF the ideas are spectacular. Not much, anymore, though. Otherwise, SF is SF and it gets the same standard for good writing as everything else. I've reached the point where I'm not going to live long enough to read everything on my TBR unless I find a way to get paid for reading, and maybe not even then. I have to hold the line on some things.

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "SF that is not hard SF is still SF, yes? Lots of SF concerns itself more with social issues than technology. It's true that I will give a little on hard SF on characterization IF the ideas are spectacular...."

...but sometimes the ideas are really the thing. Take Borges for example. There it's the structure and the ideas that count, and characterization takes a back seat.

In Fahrenheit, there is nothing new, nothing interesting either technologically or in any other respect either - he says nothing new that could not have been applied to people 2 or 3 or 4 centuries ago, and that had not been said before. ...but I would really really rather have us discuss this in the last thread where I would have freedom to refer to the entire novel- agreed? See you there!
For your convenience: /topic/show/...

See you there.