I've been thinking about some Bradbury.
I got involved in a somewhat rambling discussion this evening, about Science Fiction.
You might have noted that I am a big fan of both SF and fantasy, as well as SFnal adventure and thrillers; and even the SF/F themed romance novels that have been coming out the past few years (and are actually pretty good books in some cases), like the eariler Anita Blake books, J.D. Robb, etc...
Anyway, a few months back I saw the 100 Science Fiction Books You Just Have to Read, which Kevin Baker linked to today.
The list contains a lot of classic (including pre-golden age) SF, so most "modern" readers aren't going to have read a lot from the list, but as it turns out I've read 58 of them, and like about 48 of those.
Anyway that's not what got me to writing.
I dislike dystopianism as a whole, and a lot of the list are dystopian in nature. Of course some of that is inevitable because of the sheer volume of dystopian SF out there; and because good stories generally require good conflict, which is easier and often more interesting to create out oof very difficult situations.
In a future where technology can take us across the stars, the ordinary every day difficult situations we face today are to a great degree obivated, so often "great" SF focuses on the essential conflicts of Man vs. Himself, and Man vs. Society; which can create a mode of paranoia, insanity, hopelessness etc... Of course great SF also uses these settings, freedoms, and paradigm to allow for a great moral exploration, that would not be possible in a less constrained world.
Some SF writers are true masters at being disturbing, intentionally or not; and in particular morally disturbing. Harlan Ellison, Alfred Bester, P.K Dick, Kurt Vonnegut, and Ray Bradbury spring to mind immediately, and within a few seconds I'm sure I could list a half dozen more.
Note: If you haven't read Ellisons "I have no mouth, and I must scream" it's available free online and you need to go read it now. Then you'll understand what I mean about disturbing.
The funny thing is, I love Bradburys writing, but I don't LIKE anything he wrote; because most of what he wrote is intensely unlikeable (one should note, he never thought of himself as writing SF, except for Farenheit 451. He thought of his work as mostly fantasy).
My first exposure to Bradbury was either the TV movie of "Something Wicked This Way Comes", which most of you probably know, or something which to me was much darker; but isn't all that well known.
When I was in grade school, in one of my ACE (the "gifted program" accelerated cognitive education) classes they screened a tv production of "All summer in a day" for us. It's quite possibly the most heartless depiction of the cruelty of children I have ever heard of. As a small child it was quite frankly disturbing, and even as an adult it should screw with your head. It's available here to read online as well.
Anyway, that got me to thinking about Bradbury in general, and how he was pissed at Michael Moore for the title of Farenheit 9/11 (though he hasnt expressed a direct political opinion about the film he did say that moore was a completely phony asshole, and an awful person, and that the movie was mostly lies). And then I thought about Farenheit 451.
If you don't know the story, 451 is about a future America that has essentially abandoned all thought, principle, culture... anything but hedonsim and instant gratification. Anything that would disturb the sheeplike populace from their blissful ignorance is banned, and actively destroyed.
Books as it turns out are one of those things that disturb people; because they have bad and confusing and ambiguus 'ideas", so the government employs "firemen" to find and destroy books as they are harmful to the social order.
The protagonist of the story is a fireman who becomes disenchanted both by the life he is expected to lead (and those of his fellow Americans), and by his work, which perpetuates that life. The story then progresses into the conflict between the man and himself, and his society; that characterize so much of great literature in general, and as I metioned above great SF specifically.
It's funny, because this book is often referenced by leftists as if it was about censorship and book burning in the normal way they refernece those sorts of things; which is to say shallowly. They tend to look at it through the phony prism of "mccarthyism" and no further.
Of course that is a complete mis-understanding of the book.
The entire story is about mans struggle for independent existence, and independent thought against the all pressures that human society places on one both to conform, and to simply be hedonistic and selfish. It is a redemption story most of all.
In the end it is a rejection of dogma, a rejection of groupthink a cleansing of self; to reach a state of almost salvation through the embrace, and then fight for independent thought, knowledge, and action.
It is in it's nature one of the most ANTI-leftist books I could imagine. It is in fact almost completely libertarian (as much SF tends to be), and anti-dystopian (unlike the general run of British dystopians who seem to indulge in their depressions and feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness). Not only that but it explicitly embraces spiritual as well as moral redemption, and the necessity of good acts, and spreading of the truth.
This message; and it was most certainly explicitly intended as such by Bradbury, who never missed a chance to shoot you in the head with an idea; is something we NEED right now.
In F451, it finally takes a nuclear strike to make America understand that hedonism, and group think had destroyed it; not were destroying it, HAD DESTROYED IT; and that it must be rebuilt from the ashes, into the country of independence and self reliance that it was originally intended to be.
Funny enough, I think that is all the more relevant today than it was 53 years ago.
