This book is set in a future society (through the lens of the American 1950’s) where a fireman’s job is not to stop fires, but to start them. We follow our protagonist, Guy Montag, as he contentedly goes to work everyday and burns books. Sometimes, if there are many books, he and his fellow fireman burn the entire house down, and they do it without question. One day, that question is posed by an eccentric young girl named Clarisse, who challenges Guy’s notions of why he lives the way that he does. He begins to realize that everything in his life is censored to keep him from thinking. The reasoning is ostensibly that hard and difficult thoughts and ideas (like those held in books) make people unhappy, as it forces them to think. As an added example, his wife spends all day at home with her “family,” which is really just a wall of televisions that keep her entertained and thus unthinking. I found it poignant that even in the early 50’s, television had been identified as a tool for media barons to spread mass influence, especially when you consider the addiction that television and media has become in today’s age. So, Guy pushes back against the system in control (by reading a book) and he is subsequently pursued as an outsider. His life is turned upside down, he flees, and by the end of our story, he finds himself amongst the rebels. These “rebels” are former college professors and intellectual thinkers who have been cast out of the system and now live in the forest as homeless men. Their mission in life, and how they show their resistance, is by remembering. They remember the knowledge of old, things that used to be held in books, and their hope is to someday bring humanity’s collective intelligence back to the forefront of society.

What I really liked about this book was the thought put into the characters. Sure, Guy is your average guy, as his name suggests, and his wife is cast as the sucker of the system, refusing to be enlightened and instead choosing to live in blissful ignorance (at one point in the book, Guy is raising his concerns about not being happy in their shallow lives, and his wife responds “I’m tired of listening to this junk” and promptly turns from Guy back to her television program.) But I found it impressively accurate that the initial crack in the facade came from youth. At a certain age, people seem to come to a form of societal acceptance, and I loved that it was essentially a child who came along and finally asked the all important question: “Why?” It made me wonder, what do we adults lose by forgoing our ability to continually ask this question, both of ourselves and the world around us?

Another character I liked was the fire captain Beatty. Every dystopian novel needs an antagonist and this is Beatty’s role. However, while it makes sense that the haggard professors comprise the resistance, Beatty is also an educated man having read many pieces of literature and views the information in books in an opposing light. He has found them to be endlessly contradictory, and thusly tools of unhappiness, and has found comfort in his mission to destroy them. I found it fascinating that the author showed learned characters who, when presented with the same world-choices, made opposing decisions. I think it really goes to show the differing wisdoms of individual people. Two people can read the same book, and while one can love it and the other hate it, both can be correct, because it is (in most cases) a subjective medium.

Now, framed as the antagonist, some might say that Beatty took the ‘easy’ way out. But would it also be appropriate to suggest that in a world overflowing with chaos, he accepted the path of least resistance? Would there be merit in a condemnation of his choice, or should we opt for mercy? Or neither, and should we, as both readers of fiction and also members of our current society, accept his decision and the reasons behind it? I don’t have answers to these questions, and I think it wise not to try and decide. Instead, I think we should all periodically ponder them, especially as we find ourselves making similar decisions in our own lives, and watch others close to us do the same. Society doesn’t move forward when we force our opinions onto other. True merit is born of the perpetual quest for understanding and always asking why?