Fahrenheit 451 Socratic Essay

Fahrenheit 451 Socratic Seminar Entry Ticket
1. Read the article “Are iPads, smart phones, and the mobile web rewiring the way we think?” Then take 3-5 hours out of your day to avoid technology (cell phones, calculators, computers, iPods, television, movies, CDs, etc.). You must log these hours all at once, and it must be during “free time.” Sports practices, after school clubs, and other homework time do not count as “free time” and cannot be used for this 3-5 hour chunk. Once you have completed this task, have a parent sign here x (signature can be found on last page) and type a 200 word reflection. Describe your thoughts, feelings, and overall experience with letting go of technology for a few hours. Did you value your time more

or less? Why?
I was pretty much horrified at the thought of letting go of technology for a few hours. I honestly had a bad time after I got as much done as I could. I read a large majority of the books I own, I took a walk, made lunch for my family, and attempted to finish a crossword. After that, I focused a lot on all of the things that I could have been doing with my time. I tried really hard to finish everything that I could, but then I realized how dependent I was on technology. I needed the computer to do my homework, the TV when I ran out of books, and my phone to socialize with friends. I think I learned to value my time more, because while I was technology-free, all I could think of was how much I could've completed in that time. But, as I further reflected, I realized that if I used technology to do my homework, I wouldn't have gotten all of those things done anyways, because I'd be texting people, checking email, playing games, and wasting my time in general. I do need to value my time, and I realized I need to also discipline how I use my time with technology. Technology is a great tool that certainly makes life easier, but it also makes it harder to focus, prioritize, and get things done.
2. Is it ever right to break the laws of a society? Is it right to use violence and destructive tactics to combat an unjust system? Is Guy Montag right in his plan to call in alarms against firemen? What about his choice to kill Beatty? Are his actions justified by the situation created by the society?
I believe that it is right to break the laws of a society in current circumstances.

Violence and destructive tactics are okay to use in order to combat an unjust system if it is the only way to break the system, the system is self-aware of its wrongs, and if the system itself has been using destructive tactics. Therefore, Guy Montag was wrong in his plan to call in alarms against firemen. The firemen were destructive, but they did not realize what they were doing was wrong. They were simply molded by the society they were brought up in. Guy Montag did not try to explain to each of them how they were wrong; therefore, having their houses burnt down was wrong, even though they were destructive as well. Montag was correct in his choice to kill Beatty however, because it was the only way to break the system. Beatty was self-aware of his wrongs, and used destructive tactics as well. Therefore, it was correct. His actions were justified, but not by societal situation, but objective responsibility as a moral

citizen.
3. Beyond mere significance to the plot, who is the most important character in this book? In other words, which character made you think most? Or which character related best to our world? Which character’s actions or words had the most impact on the message that you got from the book?
I feel like Clarisse was the most important character in the book. She made me think the most, and she made Guy Montag think the most. I feel like Mildred was an accurate representation of how our current generation uses technology and social media in order to satisfy our need for connections. We measure our strengths with friends and family based on how often we text or call them, if we're friends with them on Facebook, and whether or not they like our selfies. Mildred used technology as a way to drown out her sorrows and attempt to find real happiness, just like the way we write bad reviews and post passive-aggressive, ambiguous statuses if we're upset. Faber's words about the things that are necessary for truly understanding a literary work really impacted how I viewed the message that the book displayed. The book emphasized how we want to know factoids, not lessons, and we only want to know them so we can impress and beat others. Therefore, we should read not for the purpose of competition and hierarchy, but to help ourselves create better connections with others, and Clarisse brought up that idea at the start of the book, Faber pointed it out blatantly, and Montag put it into action.
4. Has social networking (Facebook, Myspace, etc.) reshaped our definition of “friend” the way that the parlor walls reshape Mildred’s definition of “family”? Does the term “friend” have less meaning than before? Are friendships as strong when conducted largely through social media (Facebook, email, texting)? How does social media impact your life?
Yes, social networking has definitely reshaped our definition of "friend". The concept of friends definitely has less meaning than before. Friendships aren't as strong when we basically form, maintain, and break them over social media. Social media is a neutral factor in our lives, but the way we use it makes it either positive or negative. We communicate through keyboards, and we believe that what we say online won't affect anyone. In fact, they're just words, like "love" and "hate", not to mention "friends". But it does matter. We don't really acknowledge the real meaning of friends, and nor do we notice that the term has lost its meaning. When we use the term to describe anyone that we've recently had any form of contact or conversation with, we lower the value that we give to the people that we are actually connected with. Therefore, by giving out a term to just anyone, we demote the people that deserve the title. I, personally, don’t have any forms of social media other than texting. Texting is a positive and negative. It’s a positive because I can easily contact people. That’s also why it’s a negative: it’s distracting, it keeps me from getting things done, and I always prioritize it over everything else. So obviously, the negatives outweigh positives, but I still make it a part of my life anyways.
5. Last year, a student said, “We read literature not to learn, but to understand.” What did he mean? Provide an answer by referring to Montag or any other characters from F451.
When someone writes something down, whether it be an essay or a reminder note, it is not because they want to learn it, but they want to understand it. When you learn an equation, you simply memorize it and what you can use it for. However, when you understand the equation, you first identify all the separate components. Then, you ask why those components are included, and how they all generate an answer, and the answer that is generated. Then, you find out how each component interacts with another, and why they generate the answer that they do. All of this sounds repetitive, but each part has a different function, yet all of those parts work together to create one answer. To truly know the whole of something, you must know the separate parts of it, and that comes only from understanding. The difference between learning and understanding is demonstrated through the actions and thoughts of Faber. Faber, before collaborating with Montag, learned what he must do to end the societal mess he lived in. However, he applied it only when Montag forced him to understand the necessity of his actions. Therefore, Faber achieved the strength of understanding only after he applied his knowledge to his actions.
6. What is your honest opinion of reading literature? Should the study of literature be mandatory in a public high school curriculum? Why or why not?
I like reading literature, and I agree that the study of literature should be mandatory in a public high school curriculum. However, most high schools make it so that only old literature is studied, and some of my past teachers have made it so that all we are supposed to do is to accept that Shakespeare is a god and that we should hold a shrine to John Steinbeck in our basements. It is important to study, learn, and understand literature. However, by making it so that we must analyze each paragraph and memorize quotes from a given novel, then testing us on it, high schools create the inevitable possibility that there will be students that dislike reading. I genuinely can’t remember a single book that I’ve read for fun now, because I don’t have time to read anymore and now I expect to be tested on the book afterwards. I understand that studying literature is an important skill, but the way the courses are designed, reading isn’t fun anymore. I think it’s mandatory, and it’s fine the way it is, but to increase people’s openness to voluntarily taking an extra English class, high schools need to make it more approachable by replacing the phrases “necessary for a job” and “colleges love it”, with words like “enjoyable”.
7. Look at Faber’s three main points that are needed in a healthy society (85-87). Do we have all three in America today? If not, explain. If so, which one are we most in danger of losing? Use specific examples to support your views.
The three main points that Faber says are necessary in a healthy society are quality information, time to process the information, and the ability to act on the information. We have quality information in America today, but it is often drowned out by information that is meaningless and therefore useless. The average American teenager wakes up at six and goes to bed around eleven. That gives the teen seventeen hours to work with, but six of those hours are spent at school, one hour for extra-curricular activities, one hour for sports, one hour is spent on eating, one hour for socializing, and one hour for transporting from one place to another. That leaves the individual with six hours. With four core classes (of which two can be honors/AP), and four electives to be doing homework and studying for, that amounts takes away five hours. That gives the teen one hour to thoroughly read a book, identify themes and literary devices, and recognize the message that the author tried to get across in his novel. However, that teen still needs to find a way to apply the message to his already busy life. This all sounds stressful, chaotic, and insane. Therefore, I don’t believe that we have the time to process the information. If we don’t have time to process the information, then we don’t have the ability to act on the information because we don’t know it. Thus, I believe that we have the capability to have all three in America today, but with the way our society forces us to prioritize what’s going on in our lives, I don’t think we have them as of right now.
8. In your opinion, does our society have the potential to become like the one in the book? If yes, how so? If no, what keeps us from ending up that way? What do we have or value that keeps us from becoming that society?
I certainly think that our society does have the potential to become like the one in Fahrenheit 451.

I think this mainly because we already have so many of the things that America in Bradbury’s novel has. We always have violent stories on the news, we’re used to people dying, and we want our cars, technology, and life to be faster and more comfortable. The people in the book are self-absorbed and completely unable to actually hold a social conversation because we are too involved in making social connections online. Right now, there are people that obsess over how many followers they have, who retweets their posts, and who liked their vacation pictures. Therefore, we not only have the potential to become like the Fahrenheit 451 society, but we are becoming that

society.
9. Refer to the final page of the book. Why does Montag recall this quote? What meaning does the quote have?
I looked up the quote that Montag wants to save for when they get to the city, and it’s from the Bible, in the book of Revelations. First off, the fact that Montag chooses a quote from the last book of the Bible is significant. Revelations is the book that depicts the apocalypse and Judgement Day, essentially. Therefore, when Montag says that he wants to save it for the city, it means that the bombing was the end of the bad society they lived in. Furthermore, I extend this thought onto the idea that perhaps Montag and the professors will now act as judging and guiding “angels”, in a sense, because they plan on building the city up from the ashes, and discarding of what will not help the progress. They will create the new world, in a way, and they symbolize the recreation of the world using only the good and fixable: all of this alludes to a city of truly new beginnings, which is what the book of Revelations mentions, as the “holy city of the Lord”. Therefore, this quote predicts that the society of sinners has fallen, and it will be recreated by those who hold true knowledge and value for life.
10. Compare and contrast the ending to Fahrenheit 451 with the endings to the other two novels. What differences seem most significant? Do the authors communicate the same messages through the endings or not?
The ending of Fahrenheit 451 gave off the possibility that there is hope, whereas 1984 finished off with someone being tortured into submitting to a totalitarian government, and Brave New World ended with a suicide, which was caused by group sex that was fueled with “happy drugs”. The difference that seemed the most significant was that Bradbury’s novel suggested that we can fix a society, but Huxley and Orwell made it clear that once we give into ignorance and totalitarianism, there’s no going back. Bradbury’s ending quotes the end of the Bible, which reflects on the idea that there will be the end of a bad society and those with good morals will be saved to recreate the world in a better manner. But Orwell let his main character be tortured into giving up his lover, accepting defeat, and loving the ruthless face of totalitarianism. Huxley ended with his protagonist committing suicide because he participated in something he disapproved of; this promotes the idea that in a society of conformity, individualism is impossible. Therefore, the authors don’t communicate the same messages through the endings of their respective novels.
11. Which of the three dystopia books is your favorite and why? Which of the novels is most relevant to our current society?
My favorite dystopia book was Brave New World. I liked it because it provided a very unique insight into how our world could be like in a few decades. It was interesting to see the values of a world different from our own. I personally thought that despite there being a few differences between the World State and America right now, there were many similarities as well. I think that Brave New World was not only meant for Huxley's audiences at the time, but also for us. We could learn many valuable lessons from the book. My main reason for liking dystopia books in general is because we always act like they can't apply to us, but in reality and upon deeper inspection, the themes in most books, like Brave New World, actually hold warnings against how we are currently carrying our morals and society. Therefore, Brave New World promotes fixing ourselves so that our world doesn't turn into the World State. I believe that Huxley’s novel Brave New World is most relevant to our current society because America shares a lot of similar facets with the World State, as we: value comfort and luxury, rely on technology, and are shifting towards a generation that is more casual about sex than the one before us.