Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, could be thought of as the middle section of an it’s all your fault sci-fi trilogy, between George Orwell’s 1984 and Philip K Dick’s The Man In The High Castle. They all share the same quiet despair, and the same acceptance of an inevitable fate; but they also, ultimately, put the blame for that fate firmly on the reader’s own failings. The ruling states (or their representations) are faceless and amoral, but we are forced to look at our own amorality; the characters cause each other pain, purposely or otherwise, simply by reacting as perhaps we would.
This something that seems to be lacking from culture at present; the ability to empathise without agreeing, to ask the reader to consider their own instinctive reactions to difficult situations. In 1984, Winston Smith sells out the woman he loves because he is scared of rats; in Fahrenheit 451 society’s crime seems to be nothing more sinister than liking fun. The Man In The High Castle’s conclusion – “America won the war” – could be considered to be the characters discovering they themselves are fictional, but could also be read as a plea for the reader to consider their own reactions to the culture around them. The characters accept the fascistic state in which they live, and their interest in The Grasshopper Lies Heavy (the novel within the novel) does not actually change anything about the way they live.
This kind of self examination is important; it in considering our motivations that we find a way of acting. Much of the current criticism of governance (however justified), and specifically of the Bush / Blair relationship, has been relentlessly smug. And yet this can be seen as influenced by understandable weaknesses – an unconsidered desire for safety and security, perhaps.
Satire is a powerful tool, and causing those in power to seem ridiculous is a valuable tool in undermining confidence in spin – it has a vital part to play in any society. However, considering our own fears, and the way we react to those, is also an important way of effecting change. Fears and weaknesses are difficult to think about, and rarely talked about, because they are so easily mocked. But knowing what is mockable about ourselves is just as potent as an agent of change.
September 11, 2006 at 7:51 am |
In 1984, Smith was the exception by despairingly assessing society. And he was successfully returned to the fold, so the book simply covers the moment of consciousness in an otherwise unconscious “world”.
Our current world may be somewhat more successful in controlling Smiths and Montags. We can talk (or satirize) as loud as we want, and we may be heard, but we don’t believe in the power of our voices or actions and neither do those in power (unlike Smith and Montag who were seen as legitimate threats). The current world, therefore, either lacks the sinister danger of those worlds, or is so different that perhaps satire (even smug satire) is the the only response which brings moments of consciousness.
Also, I would add to your list , by Margaret Atwood, which may be the most scary in its prescience.
September 11, 2006 at 12:00 pm |
“we don’t believe in the power of our voices or actions and neither do those in power”
Writing this post got me thinking about the different experiences of war that led to these books as well, and what you say above ties into that very neatly. A lot of culture now (in the last 4 years or so) is writing from a place where a war has been widely protested and increasingly reviled, and yet there has been no shift in policy or even, really, explanation for it. That’s quite likely to make a culture rely on smugness and sly digs rather than, as you say, making individuals believe in the power of their words and actions. The books I write about here were all written with the direct experience of war – to a greater or lesser extent, they are all in the shadow of the Second World War – and maybe the vast social upheaval after that seemed like fertile ground for change. Certainly The Man In The High Castle, written in the 1960s with the experience of McCarthyism behind it seems the most (but not entirely) pessimistic about the possibilities of self-examination leading to any change.
Which Margaret Atwood would you recommend for the list?
September 11, 2006 at 2:36 pm |
Oops… The link somehow got lost. The Handmaid’s Tale was my suggestion.
Link
September 13, 2006 at 3:11 am |
Wow… The Link keeps not sticking, for some reason. One last try…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handmaid%27s_Tale