Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Teaching Fahrenheit 451 and Censorship w/ a Tech Twist? 129

Posted by Cliff from the classes-I-wish-I-had-in-high-school dept.
scrimmer asks: " I'm a second year high school English teacher--heaven forbid I misspell something in this post! I'll be teaching Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 for the first time this semester, and I was hoping Slashdotters could help me out a bit. I want to make the novel as relevant as possible to my students, but I would also like to work DMCA-related stuff, free speech-on-the-Internet stuff, and other issues--as seen on Slashdot--into the unit to give it a fresh spin, in addition to the traditional censorship issues normally taught alongside this novel. I've been chasing web links for weeks, but I'm afraid I might miss some salient issues. If you were a student in my class for a few weeks, what kind of angle would you most like to investigate while studying this novel?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Teaching Fahrenheit 451 and Censorship w/ a Tech Twist? More

Teaching Fahrenheit 451 and Censorship w/ a Tech Twist?

Comments Filter:
  • in the spanish version of the book there is a short story name "And the stone shout", about a cuople of americans in mexico, after a atomic war. the people of the mexican town kill the couple, with anger. T think Its a interesting history in this war times.

  • This is what I'd like to see (Score:3)

    by ThePilgrim ( 456341 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @11:18AM (#2986888) Homepage
    1. Cencorship v's Moderation
    2. What news organisations fail to report Indymedia [indymedia.org]
    3. Why an illetrerat (sub)population can be easally lead by emotion
    4. why my spelling is so bad :)
    5. And if you can tie in 1984, Why the distruction of words is a bad idea.

    Good luck
    • I wouldn't really consider Indymedia news, so much as a collection of stories too good to let facts get in the way of.

  • You'd have a great resource... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JMZero ( 449047 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @11:40AM (#2986997) Homepage
    ... if Michael hadn't killed censorware.org - as it stands censorware.net is a good resource for the info you want to teach.

    And yes, I'm talking about the Slashdot editor ("User" if you will) who's username is michael.

    • Resources for living the metaphor of 451'F (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @05:50PM (#2989766) Homepage Journal
      Hmm. I'm obviously biased, partial, self-interested, etc. But topics such as What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com] wouldn't be a half-bad way of making the issues relevant to the students. I've often called censorware "electronic book burning".

      That is, ask the students: What would it be like to be Montag? How's it feel to have The Hound (take it as a symbol for the legal system) nipping at your heels, or seeing it devour others? To have your employer give you an "out" for your activities, and would you take it? What if someone could advance their career by doing ill to fellow booklovers?

      Now, honestly, Jon Johansen [linuxworld.com] and DeCSS is actually a better individual example. It's not inconceivable that one of the students could find themselves in a similar situation (below is one of my favorate quotes, where Jon is responding to reporter Declan McCullagh, given Declan was arrogantly giving Jon a hard time for not immediate returning Declan's request for comment):

      Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:26:23 +0100

      From: Jon Johansen (Micro Media ADB) digitech@m...
      Subject: [Livid-dev] Wired article on legal threats

      I assume you've read a great deal of articles on the subject? If you have, you might have noticed that I'm only 15 years old; which means I go to school. Norway is GMT+01. You should be able to figure out the time difference, and when I would be available for comment :)

      That is, Fahrenheit 451 takes place in metaphor. But there's real battles going on right now, right this minute, and there's real-life opportunities to be Montag. But beware The Hound.

  • Focus on illiteracy, too. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mfarah ( 231411 ) <`miguel' `at' `farah.cl'> on Monday February 11, 2002 @12:01PM (#2987122) Homepage
    The thing that stuck out most for me when I read the book was that pretty much everyone was illiterate - remember the scenes where the wives talk about "politics", and the deeper issue they discuss is the physical appearance of the candidates. This obviously was caused by the lack of thinking books make you do.

    Also point out the television content! Game shows and game shows and game shows...



    P.S.: don't forget to completely ignore the hideous movie [imdb.com] Truffaut made! It ignores several key points and simplifies the plot to a disgusting level.


    • remember the scenes where the wives talk about "politics", and the deeper issue they discuss is the physical appearance of the candidates

      The news reported the exact same thing between Clinton and Dole. I find it interesting that appearance in politicans is an important part of their ability.

      I always thought Starship Troopers had a lot better political message.

      Just my $0.02 - Vertical
    • I agree it's not Truffaut's best movie, but then again the depiction of the 'game shows' you mentioned was very good (on flat panel plasma screens, no less). Also the scene where Montag's wife is 'revived' after overdosing was very well done.

  • Rather than preaching... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xonker ( 29382 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @12:13PM (#2987202) Homepage Journal
    Make your students do a project tying the novel into something happening now. They'll likely come up with something you haven't though of, and it would be more instructive than just shoving a message down their throats.

    Try the Socratic method -- lead them to the ideas you want them to discover by asking questions, not by preaching at them.

    Just a thought...
    • I do hope that you are teaching a group of more advanced students. Any "average" or lower student wouldn't care about it enough to make the Socratic Method work.

      A higher level class might make it work, but make sure that there are PLENTY of people with some work effort and enough processing power to understand the book without coaching.

      I know this much about high school students because I go to school with them.
      • Any "average" or lower student wouldn't care about it enough to make the Socratic Method work.

        And they'd respond to being lectured? I think you're failing to make a distinction between average intelligence and motivation. Students that aren't in high level classes can be motivated, but the average high school instructor isn't really up to the task. I stand by my original recommendation -- lecturing a class full of teenagers about the evils of censorship and so forth isn't going to make an impression. Certainly, you want a few examples to get started, but it's up to the students to make the connections. If you can't motivate them to care, you've failed either way.

        Looking back at my high school and college years, the instructors who left lasting impressions and actually taught me something were the ones who didn't just expect students to take dictation for a few weeks and then regurgitate answers. They were the ones who challenged the class and brought out the best of their students. Some kids (and adults) didn't like them, and didn't respond -- but many more did. I suspect that the ones who didn't wouldn't have gotten much out of the class regardless of the teaching style.

        This book is not beyond the "processing power" of persons of average intelligence, but most students need to be convinced that it makes a difference to them.

        I know this much about high school students because I go to school with them.

        Because you go to school with them, or because you are a high school student? I get the sense that you feel you are somehow above the people you attend school with. Your priorities are probably different, you might even be smarter, but don't assume you're better.

    • Just an idea, I like the above. Then make 30 copies of everyone's paper, and hand them out. Have the student's grade each other's paper. (you should be able to come up with criteria, get them to grade for content) Then grade their comments, and use the comments to grade the paper, and then hand the comments back to the orginial paper's author.

      If you have some brilliant students who like to play devils advocate, try to get them to do a devil's advocate "we should censer more" paper, finding all the good they can in the book. You only need one or two if well written. The shock value it provides might be the only way to get some students thinking. If nothing else exposing them to a different point of view is a good thing.

  • Hmmmm, I would love to see a unit on 1984 and how digital media/archives make rewritting history easier then ever.

    As for 451? I guess my take on it was more of a "if the Nazi's had won book" (I mean that was why everyone drove Volkswagon Beetles right, you know the "peoples car"), So explaining how propoganda, media bias and such play roles in society today. Maybe compare the US media's depiction of events to say the BBC or some other countries media (heck doing that on my own is fun, just watch IGN or the BBC and see what they say, it is almost always slightly differnt).

  • Dictionary Censorship (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One story springs to mind, but I can't remember if it was on Slashdot or not. If you type a document using MS Office 97 containing words such as cretin (S.P.) or buffoon then spell check it the words exist. If you carry out the same exercise using MS Office 2000 they are now missing. All the words that could be used for personal insult are now gone from the on-line dictionary.

    Given that the folks at Redmond are now controlling the English language I'd say that that's censorship.

    PMG

    • Re:Dictionary Censorship (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I have noticed this too! Did you know they also took credulous out of MS Office 2000? It's a derogatory word, just as cretin and buffoon are; they seem to want to "help" their users to use only nice, positive words. But these are important words, they are part of what gives the language power!
    • I beg to differ. I have a full install of MS Office 2000 (9.0.2720); both buffoon and cretin are included in the spell-check dictionary. I just tried it to make sure.

      Perhaps you have somehow broken your dictionary or have it set to use a language other than English.

  • Relevancy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ninewands ( 105734 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @12:24PM (#2987263)
    If you want to really drive home the relevancy of a book like Fahrenheit 451 in this day, I think the most important issue to address is the fact that the majority voluntarily disdained books and independent (read free) thought in the hope of maintaining their "safe, stress-free" babyfood life.

    In view of the number of people I hear advocating the sacrifice of civil liberties in the name of "homeland security" I think this is one of the most relevant issues raised by the book.

    There once was a time when Americans were a courageous people who resisted any attempt to force-fit them into a mold. Now, I fear the bulk of "We, the people" have become sheep ready to be led to slaughter by the first figurative goat to come along. I don't know how to reverse the trend, but America must return to the way of thinking that lead the founders to believe that:

    "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither.", and


    "The tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    if this noble experiement in participatory government is to survive.

    Best of luck with your class. Although some of the images the book raises are somewhat dated, I personally believe Fahrenheit 451 is one of the most important books in American political literature.

    • Re:Relevancy and sheep (Score:4, Interesting)

      by randal_hicks ( 447937 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @01:26PM (#2987601)

      This story [latimes.com] shows the reaction of our government to limit information potentially damaging to the United States. In this case, librarians are being asked to become "Firemen" and destroy information in their care. Many people who are tasked to protect their data (backups, archives, etc.) , would be outraged if they were then asked to destroy it before scheduled, that is, unless they work for Enron. How would your students react to being asked to destroy books from their library, or music CDs?

      One quote from the LA Times article sums up the motivation behind these acts that your students will be forced to challenge on their own when they graduate:

      "We have to get away from the ethos that knowledge is good, knowledge should be publicly available, that information will liberate us," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan. "Information will kill us in the techno-terrorist age, and I think it's nuts to put that stuff on Web sites."

      I'm not sure if sheep can recognize their own sheepness, but have your students try to identify such traits in the characters of the book as well as the main character's transition. It is safe to think freely, but eventually you are forced to act on those beliefs. Have your students discuss amongst themselves what concrete beliefs they are willing to stand up for.

      • Re:Relevancy and sheep (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ninewands ( 105734 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @04:37PM (#2989012)
        "We have to get away from the ethos that knowledge is good, knowledge should be publicly available, that information will liberate us," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan. "Information will kill us in the techno-terrorist age, and I think it's nuts to put that stuff on Web sites." (emphasis added)

        I am appalled, troubled and deeply dismayed that a person who would utter such a remark would be referred to as a "bioethicist". Simply put, these are the words of a Luddite spreading anti-scientific FUD.

        One does not control the effects of scientific progress by hiding them from public view, but rather by examining them, discussing them and understanding them in the full light of day.
        • You've taken Caplan completely out of context. He was referring to things such as how-to guides for bombs and detailed blueprints for airports and major buildings, all of which would be very helpful for a terrorist in this day and age. Even the most fanatical free-speechers choke on their tongues in arguing that this type of information sserves the public good to a greater extent than it harms it.

          Oh, and before you call someone a Luddite, you might want to take 10 seconds and check the quote out for yourself. It always amazes me how often freedom of information advocates fail to use the information that they've fought so hard for.

          • There are some statements that are indefensible regradless of context. "Let's kill all the Jews and take over Europe" is not made more palatable by preceding it with "I had a horrible time on the Western Front;" similarly, "Public availability of information is a bad thing" is no less terrifying just because you follow it with "It might be used by terrorists."
            • Are you joking? Have you no ability to step outside your fanaticism?

              Explain to me the relationship between "Let's kill all the Jews and take over Europe," and "Information with no redeeming value other than helping evil men kill innocents should not be publically accessable." Oh, and thanks for changing the essential meaning of Caplan's statement. I've taken the liberty of correcting it. In the real world, things aren't black and white. Filtering obviously harmful information with no redeeming value does not lead to a universal lockdown on information. See the grey area. It's called compromise, learn about it and joined us in the real world.

              • So who gets to decide what information is "obviously harmful" and "has no redeeming value?" You? Pardon me for not trusting your judgement. Caplan? Ditto. Dubya Bush? Ditto again. In point of fact, no one is wise enough to make that decision for everyone -- which is why the only solution is to make information, in general, and let people decide for themselves.

                • So who gets to decide what information is "obviously harmful" and "has no redeeming value?"


                  The DeCSS code is obviously harmful (just ask the MPAA!) and has no redeeming value. Piracy is bad. A product of hackers and terrorists in order to enable people to illegally watch movies without the MPAA's blessing on each and every viewing.

                  And please don't respond with any blasphemy about how corporate profits are not sacred.

                  Other examples of obviously harmful and no reedeming value:
                  • Software to enable you to read e-books in an uncontrolled manner, including reading bedtime stories aloud!
                  • Compression algorithms which act as enabling technologies so that you can listen to music in an un-sanctioned manner
                  • Speeches on how insecure certian audio watermarks are, which is nothing more than an attempt to embarrass the RIAA and SDMI and show people how to commit serious crimes
                  • Even a respectable corporation like Microsoft wrote an article complaining about the "weapons" that these terrorist hackers reveal to the world without first giving the vendor a several year opportunity to fix the vulnerability, which was only a theoretical vulnerability.
                  These are all examples of harmful information with no reedeming value.
    • I would have them take this very quote and relate it to modern times:

      If you don't want a man politically unhappy, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy and tax mad, better it be all those things than people worry over it. Peace, Montag.

      Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so full of "facts" they feel stuffed, but absolutely "brilliant" with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, and they'll get a *sense* of motion without moving.

      And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. Any man who can take a TV wall apart and put it back together again, and most men can, nowadays, is happier than any man who tries to slide-rule, measure, and equate the universe, which just won't be measured or equated without making man feel bestial and lonely.

      I know, I've tried it; to hell with it. So bring on your clubs and your parties, your acrobats and magicians, your daredevils, jet cars, motorcycle helicopters, your sex and heroin, more of everything to do with automatic reflex.

      That's far and away my favorite passage in all of Literature.
      • > If you don't want a man politically unhappy, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy and tax mad, better it be all those things than people worry over it. Peace, Montag.

        Thanks for posting that - brought back a lot of fond memories. A couple of other favorite literary passages:

        "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
        - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

        The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."
        - Some English Bloke, Functional specifications for something, ca. 1948.

        Suggestion for class exercise: Delete the names that identify the pieces ("Winston", "Rearden", "Thought Police", "Montag"). Dig around for some press releases and political speeches - say, Germany in the 1930s, or the USSR at just about any time, or other nascent police states - and "anonymize" them in a similar fashion.

        Hand out samples of the writing with a checkmark for "historical" and "fictional",

        After the test, read two lists of names:

        a) People who scored more than 75% correct. b) People who got less than 25% correct.

        Announce that you're escorting those in group "a)" to the principal's office. Give a 50% bonus to the people in group "b)". Give a 25% bonus to the rest of the class. "As you can see, our class average remains around 75%, so nobody's really failed."

        Once the "people who know too much" are outside of the classroom, let them in on the "joke". 15-20 minutes later, have them re-enter the class with instructions to say nothing about what happened at the principal's office. Allow one or two of them slip a rumor like "they suspended us, they wouldn't say why". (Ideally, you'd give 'em all the rest of the day off -- to the rest of the class, they'd just "disappear"...)

        Let your (and your students') imaginations take it from there.

  • Grammar (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Perl ( 12686 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @12:32PM (#2987293)
    I'm a second year high school English teacher--heaven forbid I misspell something in this post!

    Compound adjectives should be hyphenated. That should read "second-year".
    • If you're going to pick that kind of nit, I have to jump in with a Writing Clearly issue. "Second-year" is ambgious -- I went to a 3-year high school, but a lot of high schools are 4-year. "Tenth-grade" ("Eleventh-grade"?) is clearer. Not "sophomore" or "junior" -- pseudo-Latin and unnecessary jargon are also enemies of clarity.
      • I believe he meant he had been teaching for two years.
    • I'm a second year high school English teacher--heaven forbid I misspell something in this post!

      My bad. In addition to bad grammar, someone pointed out the ambiguity of that statement. By "second-year" I meant to say that this is my second year as a teacher; it just so happens that I'm also teaching sophomores (considered "second-year" students by some).

      Heh. Another clear case for clarity in writing. I'll be sure to relay this to my class.

    • This thread sums it up.

      In high school English, it is much more important to be a grammar and spelling nazi than to worry about literature or poison young minds with subversive notions of literacy and thinking for themselves. Get them to focus on the mechanical details, Montag.

  • High school is the best time for this book (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PeterClark ( 324270 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @12:48PM (#2987404) Journal
    I read Fahrenheit 451 when I was in junior high, and it had a profound impact on my life. Don't believe me? Just look at my email address. I don't treat it as some sort of Bible, and I don't believe that it's the greatest book, or even the best science fiction, ever written. It just crawled under my skin and stayed there, and I hope it does the same for your students.

    Ok, regarding your question, may I suggest that you have the students do a little leg-work themselves? I don't know what country you're in, but here in the USA, dissident thought (something other than, "My country right or wrong"), doesn't really start until late high school, and develops into full blossom in college. So this is the right time, because your students are probably starting to question The System, if they haven't already. So have them research censorship in these modern times. Heck, if you're in the US of A, there's plenty within the last six months. Have them research charges of censorship, then make a case: was it censorship? Was it right? (This is an excellent time to introduce the limits of free speech, ie, "Don't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.")

    Bradbury has an appendix in some later versions of the book, where he details how F451 has itself been censored. (Mostly for language, although there have been some cases where it was to "condense" the story.) Get the students thinking about what it means to "edit" a story. How does this effect the author's intent? What about just replacing swear words with milder equivalents?

    High school students are at that very precarious stage where they are beginning to form their own ideas about politics and the nature of government. Use it! I'm one of those who believes that a little distrust of the government at all times is a healthy thing. Teach the book in such a way to create thoughtful, questioning citizens who aren't going to take what they hear from the talking heads on TV as gospel truth. Instill in them a desire to learn more about what's going on beneath the surface.

    :Peter

    • > distrust of the government at all times is a healthy thing

      Consider that the vast majority of censorship carried out today is done my large media companies and publishing houses in the name of not being controversial and ensuring healthy profits.

      Censorship in the face of fancial risk is far more poingant than public state censorship these days, although thats not to say that the state doesn't censor to a fault as well. I just think people should be distrusting people who have money to make off what ideas they are responsible for 'bringing to the market'.

      Mixing ideas with a demand-fueled economy is terribly dangerous, as the book teaches. People do want simple, thoughless solutions, and I believe it is very important to recognize that what people want, and what the truth is are two seperate things. As such, the market censors much of the most important information itself ....
      • Consider that the vast majority of censorship carried out today is done my large media companies and publishing houses in the name of not being controversial and ensuring healthy profits...

        Bullshit. The vast majority of censorship carried out today is done by governments, sometimes at the behest of large companies. The sum of all censorship occuring in the US is nothing compared to that in China or Burma.

        Certainly, those owning the large media companies may decide that they don't want to report a certain subject -- but that's not censorship. Nobody's being stopped from reporting something; rather, an entity is deciding that it doesn't want to report something. The two are worlds apart.

        One could argue that Prof. Felton's research was properly censored via use of legal threat. While the initiator of force (or, rather, a threat which might have been backed up with force) in this case was a large company, the arm supplying that force belonged to the US government. If said government decided that it were unable to assist private interests in this case owing, say, to the 1st amendment (just as US courts have decided that allowing the court system to enforce racially prejudicial private contracts is in violation of the 14th amendment), corporations would have no power to engage in true censorship through the hands of such a government.

        Without government enforcement, there's not much true censoring a private entity (you, me or McDonald Douglas) can do. Yes, you can persuede the folks running the story to take it down -- offer them money, threaten to terminate a business relationship, &c -- but this is mere persuesion as opposed to force. Censorship in its true form is something far more dangerous.

  • Some thoughts... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gordguide ( 307383 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @01:22PM (#2987586)
    I know you will mention the relevance of the title (451 degrees F) but you could note that Data (tapes, floppies, HDs, optical) fails and therefore can be destroyed at a much lower temperature; digital makes obliteration easier.

    A second though is the role of firemen pre/post 11SE. The depiction and public perception of the job has changed. They have moved from "save a child/keep my insurance cheap/friendly alternative to scary policeman/drain on my taxes" to what amounts to trench soldiers in the battle against "evildoers".
    You could ask if they think the events depicted in the book would be easier, about the same, or harder to implement with this new public perception of the fireman, the now-widespread belief that there are enemies amongst us, etc.

    Firemen themselves have always been dedicated, hard-working, and commit to a very dangerous job for the public good. But has our perception of them changed, and if so, how?
  • Why does the govenment feel the need, or even the Right to get involved in such things?
    • > Why does the govenment feel the need, or even the Right to get involved in such things?

      With all due respect, the market censors itself far more effectively than governments historically ham-handed attempts at censorship. One needs only look at what publishers are refusing to put on the market for fear of being held accoutable for controversal or critical thinking to understand that our fears should be more towards the private sector than the public sector .. unless you consider lesbianism a more important topic than critical thinking of politics and big business.
    • Why does the govenment feel the need, or even the Right to get involved in such things?

      Probably because government is comprised of individual people. Most of those people get involved in running for political office or apply for government posts because they have opinions they want to be able to enforce. Ashcroft has even said publically that he believes morality can be legislated. I don't agree with the theory, but he's right -- many laws enforce a percentage of the population's moral issues. Not everyone's, mind you, but a percentage. Gambling or prostitution for example, and liquor laws. (Live in an area where you can't buy alcohol on Sunday? Congrats, some Baptist is enforcing their morals on you.)

      For every reader on Slashdot who thinks that censorship is evil, there's a church-going, God-fearing old lady who thinks that there are things that are beyond the pale and should not be allowed. They offend her sensibility, so they must be destroyed -- and guess what? She's 10x as likely to get her old ass to the polls on election day than the average person who doesn't believe in censorship.

      Government is involved because people want and allow them to be, or at least sit silently without protesting while the people in government get involved.

      Don't like it? Speak up, get involved. Vote. Write. Protest. Support causes you believe in. Otherwise, you're as much a part of the problem as the elected officials doing things you don't like.

  • Don't pander to the Slashdot crowd (Score:3, Informative)

    by duffbeer703 ( 177751 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @01:41PM (#2987696)
    You'll find that few of your students will identify with the particular viewpoints expressed by the "Slashdot community"

    • Out of curiosity, how would you describe the Slashdot demographic?
      • My guess is Computer and tech types age 16-28 who are students, IT workers or power computer users.

        It's a very technology-oriented audience that is more white and suburban than the typical american.

        In a classroom, you'd find most of the students bored to tears with Slashdot.
    • Well, make it a graphic demonstration.

      Tell them that the MPAA/RIAA is dictating to the government and hence to you, laws that say where you can play and use your on property.

      Half the problem with Anti-DMCA groups is that they don't convey the huge violation of rights to the common person.

      While Napster is a cut and dry issue (Even then. I mean, they don't shutdown Ford because a drug dealer uses a car in a drug deal), the DeCSS case and Skylarov case bleeds into clear violations of your rights.

  • j.s. mills (Score:3, Interesting)

    by self assembled struc ( 62483 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @02:24PM (#2988020) Homepage
    give them a copy of j.s. mills' on liberty and have them read that as well and draw parallels to mills' concepts of liberty and how free thinking individuals are prone to the liberty of thought and the way the society in Fahrenheit 451 eschew those values.

  • Ray Bradbury? (Score:1, Troll)

    by fm6 ( 162816 )
    Can somebody explain to me why High School English teachers are so infatuated with Ray Bradbury in general and F451 in particular? I guess that's a rhetorical question. Bradbury has somehow convinced people that he writes real-fiction-not-science-fiction. So by teaching from his books, you give them impression that you're allowing them to read a genre they're comfortable with, while still sticking to "real literature".

    Look, if you or your school have issues with using SF or other lowbrow genres in class, that's fine. But you can't have it both ways. Nobody over the age of 12 considers Bradbury "real" SF. Pretending otherwise is a threat to your credibility.

    If you want to teach a novel about censorship, you really need to use something besides SF. (No titles come to mind, but I don't have degree in English.) There's damn little real SF on the subject, because SF is mainly about technology, and the main role of technology in censorship is to make it more and more difficult. That's also the main relevence (and absurdity!) of the DMCA.

    Now if you want to cover the social attitudes at the root of censorship, you're in luck -- provided you're willing to discard any prejudices as to what is "real" literature. The following titles come to mind: Heinlein's Orphans of the Sky; Asimov's Caves of Steel. I'm sure Slashdotters will jump in with additional titles.

    • What's your problem with it? They shouldn't teach it because it's not real SF? But they shouldn't teach SF either? Bradbury writes SF; just because his writing style is more similar to mainstream fiction doesn't negate that.

      I've never heard of him trying to trick anyone into believing he wasn't.
    • Since when was SF mostly about technology?

      Technology may make an excellent backdrop, but most good science fiction is about people. Read Ender's Game or Dune, and come back and tell me science fiction is all about tech. Even Asimov's robot stories have their real focus on human nature, merely using robots as a backdrop to tell the story; read Cal, The Smile Of The Chipper, or Robot Dreams.

      While you may disdain F451, what of Brave New World? Would you call it a book primarily about technology, and not about human nature and society?


  • What concerns me most is self censorship. There are a lot of stories that are n
    ot reported in the main stream media because of fear of lawsuits, editorial pres
    sure from owners or advertisers, or the government.


    see project censored [projectcensored.org] for recent examples.
    ~
  • I fell your pain (from the perspective of a high school senior.)

    I do find this question interesting (though I would like to know if you intended on asking the adults who frequent or the l33t kids who do) because it raises the issue of the master-disciple relationship and the Socratic method (which has been mentioned.)

    As Xunzi said, "Though the blue dye comes from the indigo plant, it is bluer than indigo." (referring to the dye as the student and the plant as the teacher with the student being bluer because of ages of re-dying from the plant -- hence being taught) Just as was the case with Plato and Socrates (and Aristotle and Plato, and Xunzi and Confucius) the master did (if they were good masters) hope for the student to be able to bring some wisdom back to the teacher after they have presented what they are capable of presenting.

    So, as the Socratic method states, come in with some (well thought out) ideas (I liked the one about giving up civil liberties and such) and then play the role of Socrates (who, at least in the Republic, would insist that he was wrong and ask to be "corrected") and watch them ponder examples that one who isn't a high school student (any longer) couldn't fathom.

    I started a Philosopher's Club here (at my high school) based entirely on the apparent willingness of all great (teachers and) philosopher's to facilitate discussion and then to sit back and ask (instead of preach) about their ideas.

    I can (warning: slightly off topic) sympathize with the difficulty in what I have proposed. It isn't so easy to get people interested in the depth of meaning in a book (or any other work.) I see it everyday. We live (at least at my high school) a life where the trouble associated with (with respect to the ease of switching on digital cable and choosing from our 700 channels) thinking makes it unpopular. This can also be a theme in your unit, however, since the parallel with the people in the book just watching their movie-walls and "taking life as it is handed to them" is easily drawn (though not easily accepted by people who it applies to.)

    So I wish you the best of luck and I beg you allow me to give you this honor: teaching is the most important occupation (second only to parenting -- which, by my observation, is failing and depending on teaching more and more) and I would say you are of a beautifully courageous type to pursue such a respectable profession.

    Much luck, and thank you for listening to my humble opinion.
    • No, thank _you_ for taking the time to respond, and with kind words to boot.

      I've tried to play a Socratic role in my classes from the beginning. Although I never hear it from them directly, I do know that many of my students appreciate the fact that they are allowed to voice opinions in my classes.

      You seem to admire teaching. Why don't you join the profession after college?
    • teaching is the most important occupation (second only to parenting -- which, by my observation, is failing and depending on teaching more and more) and I would say you are of a beautifully courageous type to pursue such a respectable profession.

      This is because any jerk can become a parent but it takes a license to teach.

      remember, our society cares more about animals and the environment than children.
  • I just thought...

    have something for them to read to further their ideas (if they become interested in the book.)

    some good ol' Locke (Essay on Human Understanding) or More's Utopia, or even go back to (a favorite) Plato and do the Republic. Maybe there are better examples (hey! I'm a high school student who spends 25 hours a week doing extra curricular activities.. i can only have so much time to read philosophy.. and these books aren't thin) but I just think it would be smart to be prepared for "that kid" who really gets into this and asks you for something else to consume... And maybe if you get this one kid to care about the love of wisdom/knowledge (the definition of philosophy) we will have the next Sartre, Camus, Descartes, or Paine. (at least that is my hope :))

    • There are now-a-days professors of philosophy but not philosophers. - HDT

      Merely learning about philosophy is a trivial task. It must be lived.

      The teacher would do his students better by teaching literature. Literature contains the best bits of human knowledge we have thus obtained. Let students come to philosophy on their own as it is not something that can just be taught and then forgotten as so many things are in high schools.

      Especially folks like More. Imagine if a student only remembered More and thought that philosophy was his twisted view of the world. What a shame that would be.
    • some good ol' Locke (Essay on Human Understanding)

      I hope you're not seriously suggesting dumping Locke on an unsuspecting HS English class. You need so much background to comprehend the Essay on Human Understanding that there's no way a group of average high school sophomores would get through it. His language is so convoluted as to be nearly impenetrable; consequently, it takes me about ten times as long to read Locke as it does to read an equivalent amount of, say, Shoemaker, Blackburn, or Molnar, to pick some examples of contemporary philosophers who deal with many of the questions Locke raises. Best to stick with things the students will be able to digest; there's plenty of time for philosophy once you get to college.

  • Be cruel (Score:4, Interesting)

    by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Monday February 11, 2002 @10:33PM (#2991904)
    Be cruel. Tell them to select a passage - any passage - that they will protect from the firemen. It just has to be at least 2000 words, and they have to memorize it and recite it during class.

    (Obviously there would be some restrictions on content - nothing indecent, and possibly no scripture.)

    There's actually a connection to your question here. Technology has allowed us to avoid developing our own memories, yet the same technology is now making it easy to rewrite history in a way that's nearly indetectable. Changing microfilm copies of a newspaper in a dozen libraries is hard, changing a database entry feeding a newspaper web site is trivial.

    We need to develop our memory, and a 2000 word passage is long enough to be a real challenge to your students. Yet it's nothing compared to a novel, and maybe a third to half of a 30-minute sitcom.
    • Are you trying to be ironic by listing restrictions? If the student decides that preseving scripture or something indecent is important to them then why shouldn't they preserve it. At the end of the book, what is the work that was memorized?
      • Are you trying to ensure that this idea would never fly? This is a high school class, not a college class, and all it takes is one "concerned parent" yapping at the school board meeting or to the local investigative reporter about their poor 15-year-old being exposed to scary ideas for the principal and/or school board to show their true colors (bright yellow).

        If a student memories "indecent" material, the teacher (and principal) are exposed to charges of contributing the deliquency of a minor. Doesn't matter that the student selected the material themselves if you have a grandstanding prosecutor out to make a name for himself.

        The "scripture" point is a bit more subtle. You're probably thinking of somebody doing exactly what I suggested, while I'm concerned about a student using this to proselytize and force the school to deal with issues that it's been trying to put off as no-win situations.
        • First of all, you don't have to have the student recite the material in front of the class. They could write it down instead. That way they don't "expose" anyone else in the class to the material they choose.

          They could also write an essay on why they choose the passage they did and why it is an important passage to preserve.

          If you are going to limit it then you would have to be pretty strict in order to avoid having to make any judgement calls. The easiest way to do is to limit them to memorizing passages from works studied in the class.

          I wouldn't try to ensure that the idea wouldn't fly. Instead I would try to insure that it was meaningful to each of the students.

          I appreciate that high school isn't college, but it also isn't grade school.

    • "I went into the woods to front only the essential facts of life..."
    • I'm reminded of a SF novel, I believe it was THE WATCH BELOW by James White, in which a luxury liner capsizes and goes to the bottom of the ocean. The survivors manage to concoct a working biosystem, but the most interesting point of the book was what they did for entertainment: reconstruct literature, mostly novels, from memory.

  • okay, it doesnt look like anybody has discussed what i have been thinking recently, so i will say it:

    censorship has changed drastically in the last twenty years. sure, the government still trys to keep some things secret, and fundamentalists still try and keep people from "dangerous" material, but overall, this kind of information control just isnt possible anymore. if the us government tries to stop NBC and ABC and CBS from reporting a story, then some cable news network will pick it up. and if the cable networks are censored, then a foreign station will cover it, and americans will get it through the magic of cable. and nowdays, some semi-respectable internet news sites, like drudge report or something, will cover it too. or in the fundamentalist case - if you want to look at pornography, or worship the devil, you can do so, or find people and places with which to do so, very easily on the internet. the bottom line is that there is just no longer any way for top down control of information.

    however, does this mean that there is no censorship? personally, i think no. people are censored everyday. bill mahr says something that may upset people, and so he is taken off the air for a while. and honestly, how can you blame ABC for doing that? their whole existance is tied to making money by having viewers watch their station. if bill mahr is alleinating viewers, it is ABC's economic interests to censor him. what is the effect of this though? dissenting opinions get squashed. what can be done? i am not really sure. you can argue that the diversication of information solves this problem too, since bill mahr will get picked up by a different station if he gets fired from his first, and there will always be internet sites which arent profit driven. overall though, the mass media is driven by profits, and therefore will tend to provide a "non-offensive" middle of the road point of view.

    overall, i think that the real problem is that in america (i apologize if you are writing from somewhere else, but i tend to think in american terms), economic success is the ultimate good. i will spare you the rant, but i personally think it is the root of alot of problems. it essentially causes economic censorship.

    to provide one more example, where i live, a rich man wants to build a 250ft cross on his private property near a highway. it will probably be rejected because it is ugly, but what if it was rejected because it was a religious symbol? is this censoring his religious views? does he have the right to "impose" his religious views on everyone who drives on the freeway? do rich people have more right to express their religious views then poor people?

    anyways, the point is that while fareingheit 451 is a wonderful book, the way it presents censorship is very cut and dry. and nowdays, we have essentially moved past that simple issue to a much more complex and nuanced one. so by all means, cover the basics, but try and cover some of the "iffy" areas too, since these are the most interesting ones.

  • Thanks a bunch . . . (Score:2, Interesting)

    by scrimmer ( 229387 )
    . . . for pointing out the tech-related topics and--especially--my grammar lapse! The censorware site was interesting.

    In the two weeks I was waiting for this question to be accepted, I put together for my students a small, research-oriented group project. I've asked them to scour the library and web in search of, among other issues, real-life incidents of "book burning" and censorship (in books, film, and music). I've pointed a few students to Neil Postman's [preservenet.com] work as well.

    Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure of reading this book until recently. It has fast become one of my favorites, and I really hope I can share my enthusiasm for reading this novel with my students.

    Oh, and I put a li'l bit of Socrates in all of my lessons, not just this one.

    Thanks again for the ideas

  • ... What every you do, do NOT show the movie they made out of the book. I had to sit through that in grade 11. It is one of the worst book movies I've ever seen.

    Also see you can get a later addition of the book where Ray Bradbury writes on the censorship of his book. This is a great addition to the read.

  • At the risk of baiting anti-RMS folks... (Score:3, Informative)

    by cowbutt ( 21077 ) on Tuesday February 12, 2002 @05:39AM (#2993041) Journal
    ...I always felt the themes of his essay "The Right to Read" [gnu.org] meshed well with F451.

    --

  • Question mark (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) on Tuesday February 12, 2002 @10:54AM (#2993932)
    Am I the only one who don't think the theme of F451 was about censorship? I've read it several times and I think it is more a work on sociological decay than censorship. The concept of censorship manifested through the burning of books is not really a central theme. It is merely a derivitive of the enforcement of the society's weird form of socialism. The secondary and tertiary events in the book have more to do with the central theme rather than the primary actions of the primary characters. Clarisse being killed by a wreckless driver and Millie not concerning herself enough to tell Montag for over a week conveys an idea of humanism being supplanted in their society by secular socialistic consumerism. The little things like the lack of porches on houses, 200' billboards because cars go over a hundred miles an hour, televisions that take up four walls of your house, ect.. Those are the thematic elements of the book in my opinion. F451's society is a not so far out extension of American society in the 1950's. The act of censorship was just another tool used to pacify the human spirit in their society. If you wanted to use a real censorship piece 1984 would be a much better candidate. Censorship in that society was an end rather than just a means to an end.

    I think if you want to add a tech twist to studying F451 have students examine things from the novel (like houses built without porches) and have them find them in real life. When I first read it forever ago I'd never seen a house with a porch except on TV when they showed some old house in some old part of the country. Then my friend rented a house with a porch on the front in a pretty old part of town. We spent a lot of time out there and met several of her naighbors just by being outside. Every time I went to her house I was reminded of the book. It isn't every day a book makes such a big impression on me that I think about it for years after reading it. Activities like that might make for a pretty cool way to study the book. Consorship issues in the tech sector might apply if you were reading The Wealth of Nations but I don't think intellectual property fits in well with F451. I'm envious of your position right now, I'd love to be able to teach that book to kids.
    • That's just it. Censorship really isn't the main theme of the novel; surely it's one of them, but only one.

      I'm trying to get my students to research the censorship angle on their own instead of listening to me lecture about censorship issues present and past.

      Once the students review the issues that are most frequently mentioned in relation to the novel, I'm hoping they'll be able to make the leap beyond those issues into the real meat of the novel: the loss of individual thought, etc.

      Thanks for the input.

      • There's a passage in the book that iterates what caused the decay in the first place, and it was very definately censorship. The passage talks about how it got started- they removed one piece because someone got offended, then another because some other group was offended, then another piece and another and another. Eventually, there wasn't anything controversial left in the "official" literature, and the government got the Firemen to burn the books.

        I think I would agree with a statement that the book has a lot of non-censorcism meat to it. I wouldn't agree that it wasn't specifically about the effects of censorcism.

        I think that I would summarise the "moral" of the book is that we need those "evil, controversial ideas" to continue to be thoughtful, intelligent beings. And censorship only serves to remove those ideas from circulation.

  • At the time I read the book, I thought Bradbury was alluding to soap operas with the Family room of wall-sized interactive televisions. Now I think that active webcams, chat rooms, Instant Messaging, and e-mail are more like what he had in mind. They all involve a bunch of unrelated, unacquainted people talking, chatting, and interacting. They form artificial bonds to these people, because when away from the PC, they're out of mind.

    There is also an addiction factor to these casual acquaintances that mimics Mrs. Montag's addiction. Real people have broken up over Internet acquaintances, similar to the way Montag goes for an affair.

    Another parallel that may work is with online games like Everquest. The addicted have a more fulfilling fantasy life than a real one--all achieved through sight, sound, and communications.
  • ...Network Associates' attempt to use their EULA fine print to pre-censor independent reviews of their products.
    ...Microsoft's similar action with the FrontPage 2K license.
    ...China's "national proxy server," and private web use / e-mail monitoring.
    ...AOL's mega-anal chat room monitors.
    ...The ongoing efforts to force libraries to use site blockers on their net PCs.
    ..."Voluntary" ratings on movies/TV/games.
    (Coming Soon: equally "voluntary" web page ratings!)
    ...Australia's increasingly Draconian net censorship laws.
    ...France's attempt to force a U.S. company (Yahoo) to deNazify its online content.
    ...Marketers' rights to advertise their products vs. consumers' rights not to pay to download two dozen "Make $5000/month while enlarging your penis!" ads every day.
    (This isn't really a censorship issue, but that's the way the spam wraiths cast it.)

    DDB (...{chime}...make that two dozen + three...)
  • In my experience, people who make a living doing security are at the moment having a field-day. This was true before 911, too.

    The reason is the profound ignorance about what crackers can do, the many scary stories, the small-minded mentality of Americans in general. Did you know that America has more people in prisons and jails than China, which has maybe 4 times the population? Americans are hyper-paranoid about crime. Crimes of almost all types have been decreasing in the past ten years, but many cities have doubled their police forces recently.

    In California, many public libraries now have private security guards roaming about. It's simply not necessary. But it's trendy to be paranoid.

    How does this tie in with F-451? I think perhaps the novel and movie didn't cover the behind the scenes reality of the security aparatus enough. But the movie at least did depict the mindless fears of the public.

    Anyway, the book is more appropriate now than ever.

    If a person told me I had to fear the unknown, then told me I had to hire him to protect myself, I would call him a crook: I'd say he's with the mafia.

    Today, we call these people "security".
    • Trendy to be paranoid, trendy to appear to be paranoid anyhow. I work at one of the movie studios in Hollywood. Working here is now a PITA, every single car is inspected every single time it enters the lot - mirror underneath, trunk open. It takes ages and I wouldn't mind if they were actually being thorough. However my trunk is full of stuff - tools boxes etc. Do they ever say a work about it ? What a joke. At least it's created lots of jobs.
  • Obviously the whole dumbing down of the society angle. Compare the family the people watch on the "wall" versus what is called "reality TV shows" in todays world (in America). How did Ray Brabury know? Just a massive flood of this image that people need to be a certain way or that most people are a certain way and give a false sense of inferiority to any not conforming to these ideals.

    Those reality TV shows are basically nothing like anyones reality that I know. As a comedian has said, "Reality TV would be acurate if all they showed were fat, lazy, americans sitting on their asses watching TV." So if we can get a lot of Americans to watch these fake shows, we can show them all these rugged SUV commercials and make them think they need a tough $30,000 vehicle and that they need this and that and have to keep up with the Jones'. Beer, Abercrombie & Fitch, Ford, Pepsi, Britney Spears, etc etc. In Fahrenheit 451 they convince you books are bad for society and thus you should fear them. If you do not, you are basically a felon and shunned by the entire society, only a few secret admirers exist.

    Brainwashed, dumbed down and no sense of individuality except in the form of status based on how much you own is what the society in F451 is with a rather tragic ending, losing most everthing tangible you ever knew. In real life, are we really much better? We have big bombs with half of our citizens not voting. Decisions made by less and less people, less diversity means less resistance to anything new.

    I do not have a graceful ending to this comment/rant so it ends... now
  • Walter M. Miller, Jr.: A Canticle for Leibowitz.

    It has a lot of other issues involving religion, but much of the story is set in a post-apocalyptic world where knowledge and wisdom have been spurned, and man has engaged in a dark age of deliberate ignorance. In it, there are a few learned men, who like during the medieval Dark Age, escape persecution by becoming monks. These men hide and memorize the few remaining books, at great danger to their own lives, in the hopes that the descendants of the ignorant masses who loathe and fear knowledge may use that knowledge to make the world a better place. They bear a strong resemblance to Mr. Granger and the "hobos" at the end of Fahrenheit 451. Specifically Mr. Granger's quote: "There was a silly damn bird called a phoenix back before Christ, every few hundred years he built a pyre and burnt himself up. He must have been first cousin to Man."

    However, I'm not sure whether it will be truly appropriate for a high school class - besides the religious motifs, there is a lot of Latin and quite complex adult concepts, as well as the extremely pessimistic viewpoint it takes on mankind. The two books (Fahrenheit 451 and A Canticle for Leibowitz), by the end of each, both paint the same terribly sad and depressing view of mankind's nature, but there's a spark of hope - just a spark - left at the end. I heartily recommend it, and I hope your students get something out of both books.

    -Kasreyn

  • This isn't exactly a geek reference, but another way to look at Farenheit 451. On the Disney channel, there was an episode of The Famous Jett Jackson where Mr. Jackson's home town declared the book Farenheit 451 itself forbidden reading, on the grounds that it promotes defiance of authority. A group of high school students smuggle in some copies and stage a read-in protest, and things go on from there.


    I only caught part of the episode myself. If you can, I suggest seeing it and possibly getting permission to show it to your students. The nature of the story makes it 451 in a nutshell, and might draw students into the actual book.

  • Another story today [slashdot.org] already made me think of Fahrenheit 451. Once they know which books we are reading, they know where to start burning...

  • In The Beginning Was The Command Line [dhs.org]

    A long, incisive, and--in its own way--funny essay by sci-fi author Neal Stephenson [cryptonomicon.com]. Nominally about the OS wars, it has an interesting analysis of the way our culture has traded in text (books) for media (videos, movies, TV, music, theme parks, etc). It is a different take on many of the issues raised by Fahrenheit 451.

    You can get a taste of it from this cookie file [std.com].

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close