“Burning Bright” is the final chapter of Fahrenheit 451, and marks the complete rebirth of Montag, the firefighter who obeyed the twisted norms of society reborn into the free thinker enlightened by the wisdom of books. The title can take a literal meaning of describing the fire Montag uses to scorch Beatty and the mechanical hound, a metaphorical meaning of how brightly Montag’s new persona shines against the person he once was, or even a contextual meaning to refer to the symbolic Phoenix described by Granger at the end of the novel. Regardless of the interpreted meaning, the recurrent symbol of fire plays a role in most understandings of Fahrenheit 451’s themes and motifs.
Fire, and its multiple meanings.
Fire is the one symbol of the novel that, depending on the event, changes meanings. Bradbury employs the various meanings of fire to outline Montag’s dynamic characterization and to thematically address what is “right” and what is “wrong” in the novel. The ideas of good and evil were discussed in the last class, and there are multiple interpretations of what exactly can be considered evil or not. Fire, in “Burning Bright,” is described using unique adjectives that changes meaning constantly as the chapter progresses. Bradbury illustrates fire with “a great nuzzling gout of fire leapt out” and as “a gift of one huge bright yellow flower of burning” to describe the flames used to destroy Montag’s house, as “a shrieking blaze,” and “writhing flame,” when he turns the flamethrower on Beatty, and as a “bloom of fire, a single wondrous blossom” when he uses the flamethrower to destroy the mechanical hound. Bradbury carefully uses fire and it’s adjectives to describe what he believes is right or wrong, which can be seen in the destruction of Montag's house, starting with his bed to the parlors. Fire, in this event, is deconstructing the tenets of what made their utopian/dystopian society the way it was. Fire was referenced similarly as a blooming flower (a symbol of birth) when it destroyed the mechanical hound, another part of the society that Bradbury so abhors.
However, fire is described in a negative light when it destroys Beatty, which is “shrieking” and painful, which will be explained in a moment.
Dualism of fire; Dualism in society
As much as it was a prison to Montag, fire is also his salvation in “Burning Bright.” Following this line of fire having a dual nature, the three main characters also show dualism. Montag showed his duality at the very beginning, followed by Mildred, who despite her deep sadness within shows the same exterior that everyone else in the society shows, and finally, is shown by Beatty. Beatty is the captain of the firefighters, who are trained to erase books out of existance,and yet he secretly harbors a love for books. In the “Afterword,” Bradbury discusses Beatty more in depth, stating that his life was a “dream went sour” when the answers to his life problems (he had a very tumultuous childhood) were not found in the books he had loved so much. Beatty, showing the dualism motif so prevalent in the novel, is shown to be just as much a victim as the old Montag and Mildred (as well as the rest of society), and this is why the adjectives of fire at Beatty’s death did not illustrate the same beauty of “blossoms” and “nuzzling gout” as it did with the purely "evil" aspects of their society. Beatty death was even described by Montag, once he realizes what he had just done, as Beatty’s will. “Beatty wanted to die.” he thought, as he said Beatty insinuated his own death and forced his hand on the flamethrower.
In the final portion of “Burning Bright,” fire is given its soothing nature again. It is described by Montag, when he sees the vagabonds huddled around it, as “not burning... (but) warming.” In this case, fire was used to keep the men alive and warm, reinforcing Bradbury’s notion that fire should be used to preserve life, and not be used to destroy.
The Printing Press, New Technology, and the Future
People are reading less; that is the fact. But is it bad? Does it mean we are going to turn into society of people who are not able to think, like people in Fahrenheit 451? Or does it mean that, it is just a natural order of things? Hundreds years ago the books were invented, but may be now it is time for books to give way to other new sources of information?
Books, as we know them now, were not always as popular. Majority of people did not have access to any books at all till 15th century when the printing press was invented. Before, only few people from the upper class could afford handwritten books, and the invention of printing press was seen as “information revolution” because information became available to many more people. Besides, with printed books the information could travel faster and it could travel into different parts of the world at the same time. ( unlike the hand written books, which one would have to copy manually). However, as everything new, printed books were looked at with suspicion. In his article “Don’t Touch That Dial” about the new technology , Vaughan Bell writes that the famous philosophers of 15th century were afraid that the accessibility of printed books will cause “information overload”, “both confusing and harmful to the mind” . Bell also writes how everything, even a pencil went through the stage of being a “new technology”. (http://www.slate.com/id/2244198 ). So, it seems that more then five centuries ago people had the same concerns we have today. Just like we discuss Kindle nowadays and compare it to books, people used to discuss the printed books and compare them to the handwritten books. And guess what, many preferred the texture of the handwritten books over the machine printed versions.
Bradbury wrote his book about half a century ago so his fears mostly target the TV that just appeared at that time, but as you see, we still do not live in four TV walls. Now, with internet becoming more popular, people are more concerned about Web: for example in the cartoon WALL-E the future people represented as obese technology slaves who can not do anything (even walk) on their own, who fall in love and marry looking at their lap top screens and not at the people who are next to them. So, with every new technology new fears arise, but does it mean those fears will come true?
In the last chapter of Fahrenheit 451 the people who had knowledge kept their knowledge not in the books but in their heads. May be the author is trying to tell us that our own heads , and our own thinking ( if we think of course) is much more important then books, TV s, internet and other sources of information?
Questions to Consider
What are your overall views and opinions based on the analysis above? Do you agree/disagree with what was stated?
What do you think? Are we, people living in the 21st century are that different from people who were living 2 -3-5 hundreds years ago?
Do we feel less?
Do we think less?
Or is it just normal for us to exaggerate things when we compare ourselves to previous and next generations?
Do you agree that Beatty wanted to die? After reading the afterword, do you feel that the information neglected from the main (canon) story would have clarified the story or made it more interesting?
Do you agree with the idea that fire is given a "personality" by Bradbury? What do you think he is trying to say through the symbol of fire? Do you agree that fire is truly given varying roles to help influence the reader's thoughts on the current event in the chapter?
Sean and Tatiana,
ReplyDeleteLots of good questions to consider.
"It doesn't matter what you do...as long as you change something from the way it was before you touched it into something that's like you after you take your hands away." (157)
Bradbury has faith, faith in the power and ability of the human mind. He does, however, have a particular criteria, as evidenced in the preceding quote spoken by Granger to Montag, for how the mind should be used. This criteria is deceptively simple, though, as it seems to identify a possible paradox.
At the start of the novel, wasn't Montag changing something, imprinting his self on the world by burning books? Wasn't the world "more like him" after the fact?
In order to identify Bradbury's criteria -- and pin down the presence of a paradox -- "change" must be defined. What does Bradbury mean by "change"?
Hint: What is Bradbury's metaphor for change (see Sean and Tatiana's last question)?
Throughout the book the main change that is talked about is fire. How they use it to take everything away, how its peoples job to use it to their advantage, and how it's the last thing some people see. Fire also has many forms in the book: flamethrower, the sun,matches, candle light ....Fire shows the end result that some want to see, that in the end theirs nothing left, but as you see threw out the text they find more and more things to hide, so they have something to remember.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fears that arises when new technology are produced. There are always many concerns and worries about new technologies being used in the society. However, not all these fears will come true. Bradbury’s fear about television corrupting our minds was untrue. We have not become brainless individuals and books still exist. When new technologies are developed, people are concerned because many cons are unpredictable. They worried about the negativity that might come upon the society.
ReplyDeleteThe 21 century is definitely different from few years ago. We feel more and think more nowadays. For example, people are supporting “go green”. Many people wants a healthier environment and fear of global warming. A lot of individuals didn’t pay any attention to that few years back. It is normal for us to exaggerate about things when we are comparing ourselves to the previous generation because a lot of things had improved. New and advance technologies are being produced.
For Beatty’s death, I am still a bit in confused. From the reading, it is hard to determine whether he wanted to die purposely or was it murder.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo answer some of the questions asked,
ReplyDeleteI Think that us as a society living in the 21st century is really different from people living centuries ago. It would be easier for them to thrive in our time than if the roles were reversed. We have gotten so accustomed to the luxuries of today that we can hardly survive outside of the United States much less a few centuries ago. I think has time changes the people also change. One perfect example of this would be the soldiers; I can use this example because of my experiences and those of our ancestors. In Vietnam, soldiers were brave, they would never cower in the face of enemy, and they charged the adversaries without fear of loss of life or limb something that today soldiers are terrified about. Many friends have deserted the army because of fear of dying, we have become softer and more cowardly that our predecessors.
I think we feel less because we are more comfortable and as a race we have grown to also love less. However, I do think that we think more, solely because we are more educated that people of the past. Things that are common knowledge to everyone would be considered privileged information in the pass. We do exaggerate things sometimes as some of us, (Me) feels that we have more think about and more to navigate for a successful future something that was not so hard for our ancestors. In one phrase; “The Sphere has grown”, leaving us more to navigate.
Do I think Beatty wanted to die? No, I don’t think he wanted to die, I think he was so cocky and arrogant that he couldn’t see beyond himself being the Captain that anything could happen to him. It could also be because of the way Montag was acting; (quiet and dazed) that he had nothing to fear since Montag was showing no signs of life before he delivered these actions.
I agree with the fact that people are reading less....the question to ask is what is the point of reading? The point of reading is to gain knowledge. Just because people aren't reading as much anymore doesn't mean they aren't gaining knowledge. The amount of people with college degrees today are far more then the amount 20 years ago. As long as you still have that thirst for knowledge then society won't become like Fahrenheit 451. I personally learn most of my knowledge through internet research. I watch youtube clips online in order to gain knowledge ( I don't mean music videos). I also read articles and Forums.
ReplyDeleteI actually think society is going in the opposite direction of Fahrenheit 451. If I want to gain knowledge on a certain topic and I prefer to go online, who has the right to say I can't gain knowledge that way? The other day I had a test and the textbook wasn't helping me grasp the information on it. I found a Youtube clip explaining the information and that helped me learn the information.
I am not saying anything bad about books. I love books and always will. There is nothing like sitting down and having that good read. There is nothing like carrying that book with u in your bag wherever you go and being able to pull it out on the train. I do however believe that because of technology that we are headed in a different direction. As long as we as a society continue to have that thirst for knowledge, think analytically, and challenge ideas our society will be perfectly fine.
We, as a society, have come to a point where we think less, ask fewer questions and do our best to maintain the status quo. As we become caught up in our fast paced lives, we forget the value of "leisure time". However, as much as we push it to the side, as humans we innately feel and have emotions. So although there are a few similarities, we as a people could not become as stolid as the many civilians described in Fahrenheit 451.
ReplyDeleteI feel that one of Montag's greatest revelations came to him when he realized the power of flame to give as much as it took. He was ready to give back to this world and create a change that lasted and remained imprinted in someone's life. He was tired of leaving behind ashes wherever he went, he wanted to create rather than destroy.
In agreement with the above, I do believe that our society, as opposed to societies of centuries ago, is thinking less on their own, and simply relying on computers and such to provide the answers for us. I also agree with Nate in him saying that if the roles were reversed it would be easier for them to thrive in our time--- directly pointing to the fact that we have SO MANY MORE advantages and resources READILY available, which then points to the fact of failure in our society--- if one fails by today's standards, its more likely their own fault for not caring enough to utilize the resources at hand. Excluding for the exception (homeless, destitute individuals), it is mainly our own personal fault for failing in society, because if we look and strive for something, we can find & accomplish almost anything we desire.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be that instead of our society turning into what Montag's society valued, we seem to be doing the opposite, with things such as the internet, always probing for MORE information rather then supressing it.
I loved the ending of this book to close out an amazing story. Montag has finally made the complete turn into the innovative, inquisitive, person we were all hoping and betting he would become. Montag takes risks for his beliefs and is not afraid to let others in. I believe the quote posted by Professor Dodson posted,
"It doesn't matter what you do...as long as you change something from the way it was before you touched it into something that's like you after you take your hands away." (157)
holds an excellent example as to exactly how Montag has transformed- he values change now, instead of uniform activities day in and day out. Beatty represented the firehouse & authority to continue to burn books & his death to me was the ultimate symbol of change or new comming
I believe that our society has come to a point where we honestly believe that we have access to everything we are interested in. I find that we may not realize how much we actually do not know. One the same token we do not feel the need to question, we feel content where we are in society and don't feel the need to change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that society is always afraid of change and afraid of something new. When looking at the world and imagining the future I am curious about the effect of the ebook. Because I am a strict Sabbath observer, I cannot use an ereader on Sabbath. Because of this I wonder, if the world turns entirely to ebooks, how will I manage if I am not able to read on Sabbath.
Looking at the book, I am impressed with how the fire changes it identity throughout the book. In the beginning of the book Montag sees the fire as a source of salvation, it is his way of living. In the middle of the book the fire is evil and destructive. He cannot see beyond the fire to what it is doing, he is watching it destroy a women. Towards the end of the book (in Burning Bright) Montag uses the fire as both a destroyer and a savior. He uses it to destroy what he imagined his life was, it was a life he hated but it was a life he had. He uses the fire as a savior to save himself from Beatty and the hound. When he stumbles upon the intellectuals surrounding the fire the fire becomes his ultimate savior because it brought him to these people. These intellectuals are those who help him to realize that he is not so different from the person he was.
I do not believe Beatty wanted to die. I think that Beatty didn't expect Montag to turn the fire on him. It is similar to when a child tempts and teases another child, he does not expect him to actually act on it but rather just to rile him up. Beatty acts as a child throughout the book (his timid understanding of books and his acceptance even if he disagrees) and here he is truly showing his colors as someone immature.
I don't think it was his choice to be immature but the society didn't allow him to mature. Society did not allow anyone to mature and become their own person with unique personalities.
I believe that the author is trying to tell us that we gain knowledge through books, which we can use to incorporate within our own thinking. He uses Montag to demonstrate this idea, comparing the ignorant Montag we (as readers) knew in the beginning of the reading to the much more knowledgeable Montag we see at the end of the reading. I also feel that the people living a few hundred years ago were probably less aware in certain areas of things that we now know today. They were knowledgeable on the physical aspects of things such as creating things hand-made. We, living in the 21st century, are probably much more mentally knowledgeable in that we now have books, televisions, and the internet to gain knowledge as oppose to the people living a few hundred years ago who barely had any form of technology to place their ideas on to shared with the public.
ReplyDeleteI think this part of the book is summed up in this quote, " What did you give to the city, Montag? Ashes. What did the others give to each other? Nothingness" (Bradbury, pg. 156) Fire, the use of the word in the book. The action of it, the repercussions of it make me think of it as a cleansing but negative, powerful but cowardly, final but aiding in new beginnings. Montag took risk to follow what his gut instinct were telling him. He couldn't ignore his inner dialogue and in a way made it out pretty well despite the situation. I keep thinking of the risk and his almost blind faith in doing what he felt necessary. Montag links up with others who have had similar experiences and have learned how to foster books in their minds. Their description of this city has this part of this book, this city has a few copies of this was a relief to me for Montag. He will execute what he was trying to do all along by sharing what books had done for him. The group immediately accepted him because they knew of his intentions. He watched his whole existence go up in flames in the city but he still survives. -As a metaphor for books? Maybe? Or for the inner value that books hold. I have to say, I wish I got a clearer understanding of the little girl. She plagued me through out the book. I was hoping she would come back in the story which she did a little bit but I wish she really came back! I loved what she represented and how she changed the dynamic for Montag.
ReplyDeleteI believe that knowledge does come from books, and that's the message I see being shown in Fahrenheit 451. I feel we wouldn't have gotten where we are today without reading. Reading makes us think and when we are thinking we are using our brain, and there we are gaining knowledge. Bradbury gives a good example, on the way he uses Montag's character. In the beginning Montag is knows nothing, he thinks that he has the best job in the world, that he's making the world a better place. But towards of the end of the book those changes, Montag begins to gain more knowledge. That's why I feel we should never stop reading, but always progress our reading.
ReplyDeleteI think Beatty wanted to die. He knew the day was when the system he represented so much will fall or be questioned. He knew he could not have live with the change so like the lady he will die for what he believes and represents. He lived by the flame died by the flame. Fire is the purification which is believes by many. Fire can be use to create or destroy depends on the purpose. One thing is sure anything once place in fire must “change” its form. Beatty all his professional life has use fire as his main tool keep order and peace. Deep down him knew that this nature of society would not last forever.
ReplyDeleteThis is being posted for Cristal:
ReplyDeleteI agree with John A. , the point of reading means to gain more knowledge. But that doesn't necessary mean that we have to read a book to gain that knowledge. I think technology has made our life a little easier and if anything it has made us smarter. I wouldn't be aware of important news if it wasn't for my iphone. I have no time to watch the news or read a newspaper but yet I know what is happening in the world thanks to my phone. I get updates on the topics of my interest right to my email. I don't think we will ever end up like thet society in Fahrenheit 451 .
I liked the ending of this book because Montag was able to realize just holding a book doesn't make you a different person but its the information inside and what are you willing to share that makes a whole difference.
I do agree that people are reading less and turn to TV shows and movies because they are more easily understood. Many people like movies because it shows them something and even if it’s bad at the end the good always triumph and in books it’s the same. This is an example of how we are being given the things we want because if we didn’t like the ending to a movie we wouldn’t watch it. I think it’s the same for books we want them to come to a close and if they don’t we don’t recommend them. If Fahrenheit 451 had ended without Guy meeting the remaining people who conserved what little literature there was left and instead had been caught by the mechanical hound no one would like the book. Can you actually think of what it would be like if things couldn’t change for the better because the way of life in the present is irreversible. In books and movies things no matter how hard they are always get better but if something similar happened in the real world could it get better.
ReplyDeleteI believe the vision of the author of F-451 is becoming a reality as we leap into the future. Books would be a thing of the past as internet and other digital media is becoming more and more prominent. There will be some rebellious book lovers who will strive to keep books alive.
ReplyDeleteRay Bradbury used fire as a symbol of destruction and so it is well suited. As fire resembles power that can completely destroy or change the state of an entity. Fire is also in some religion considered a way to be reborn by destroying the old body and coming to life in a new form. In this comparison, the books are being set ablaze and is reincarnated in the form of digital media.