/lit/ - Literature

>>15834007
Because mastercard and Visa control 90% of the world and the federal reserve keeps people down

Kill off niggers and jews and every problem that current society faces would disperse with ease

>>15834007
The Orwell just more pop-ish as a writer, so that's why. Both books are just "republic of plato but the charactets live inside of a dialogues. The same question might be referred to hundeds of others dystopian books like Zamyatin's "Us" or even other books by Bradbury

>>15834007
Because it’s a boring shitty book that everyone forgot about. Orwell is a shit writer.

>>15834071
>>15834096
Wow, you guys so cool for disliking Orwell!

I personally think Brave New World is far more pertinent than either. 1984 is far too brutalist. I would take it as exaggerative to more clearly convey a subtlety that would otherwise be missed. I also detest his views on sex

>>15834124
I'm not disliking Orwell, I dislike the whole subgenre of fiction dystopia. I even like other Orwell's writings on the other hand.

>>15834016
okay, how do we popularize killing niggers and kikes enough that they all die?

>>15834184
I don't know, I've only read half of mein kampf

Give me a few more days and I'll have an answer for you

Orwellesque sounds better than Bradburyesque

>>15834007
>this book predicted it

brainlet take on literature

>>15834208
Orwellian, you fucking nugget

>>15834184
tell the niggers about the kikes

>>15834007
Personally, I think Orwell's prose is better and his ideas are more immediately frightening. I even put Bradbury below Huxley. But I think if you're asking why "Orwell, 1984, Orwell, 1984" gets repeated ad nauseam in the media, part of it is the argument of Fahrenheit 451. Remember how a ton of F451 was about "Reading books is a challenging way to improve yourself and the world whereas television is a brainwashing program that you choose to enroll yourself"? That's not exactly a satisfying moral for all the silly fucking geese out there who think showing their teenage children John Oliver and Trevor Noah is "an education".

>>15834016

I liked 451 far more than both 1984 and BNW. To me it was the one that was far more relevant to our world.

1984 is captivating but at the same time so heightened its almost cartoonish. It's so oppressive it becomes detached from reality. I may have to give BNW another read, but people apply it to today's capitalistic world and I think the author was attack far more specific parts of American culture, it's not so simple to just boil it down to "reverse 1984".

To me 451 is both great in setting/style (reverse firemen) and relevant regarding the state of society - people willingly choosing to give up things that are uncomfortable to them.

>>15834322
I doubt there is a single fbi agent on /lit/
The governmental tools of the current day have more than likely never read a book in their life, nor have the capabilities of paying attention for longer than 15 minutes

How do you expect fat black sheeboons or absolute mongoloid spics to ever even respond to a post.

Glownigger posting has been greatly exaggerated from the 8ch scandles to the point where we pretend as if they're omnipotent beings with more power than they actually have
Imagine unironically fearing an in ruins state

It's like being scared of your lunchlady

>>15834353
I prefer 1984, but I think you're right; some of it gets so cartoonishly bleak that it almost feels like one of those dark parodies that were popular around 2005-2009. BNW is very prescient and thought-out in its claims and ideas, but the narrative and prose (in my opinion) is pretty shit.

>>15834007
It is easier to ignore the faults of the population and their role in enabling the goverment in 1984, lots of bad guys to blame. In f451 is not as useful politcally speaking, even if it is more accurate, they would have to admit that their consumption and pleasure seaking is what allowed the world to become as it did.

>>15834376
Frankly it was a long time since I read BNW, and I was influenced by the foreword that said "Huxley fucking hated America". But I did get the feeling it's kinda pigeonholed to be 1984-reversed when I think he had more to say about society, like how the book focuses on that tribal dude who becomes the next big thing.

Not that I remember it perfectly but the impression I was left with was that he wrote more about modern society and superficial culture than a straight dystopia

>>15834016
The only reason Jews made it to the top is because 21st century neoliberalism selects for backstabbing kikery. They didn't win by cheating the system or something, they won by playing the game exactly according to what the system rewards.
If you snapped your fingers and every Jew died tomorrow, within five years their roles would be filled by whatever whites are willing to engage in the same evil shit because that's what wins neoliberalism.

>>15834222
based trips

>>15834007
>Why is 1984 dominating public discourse
It isn't, it's being used as a synechdoche for totalitarian thought-control schemes including in cases dramatically different from those shown in 1984. Most of the people saying it haven't read the book since middle school if ever, and that doesn't matter because it's a meme that gets the point across to anyone who didn't grow out of being that guy who goes ACKSHUALLY

>>15834491
where did 21st century neoliberablism come from

>>15834007
What's your favorite Bradbury?
For me? The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit.

>>15834007
there were boring novels with way over 500 pages that i still finished but i dropped this 100 pages or so in. never experienced something this boring before.

>>15834184
"Niggers and kikes" include the military, the police, financial elite, working class, and whites who simply aren't on your side. Well over half the population. You might as well be upfront about your genocidal intentions.

>>15834007
the movie for this sucked they should make a new one now that we got cg and shit

I agree with you, I think Bradbury’s work is more relevant, and more subtle, which might be why it’s not as discussed. 1984 is very up front about the world being an evil surveillance state to the point where it seems over the top. 451 shows you more, rather than telling like 1984. In 451 it’s the people who chose to destroy books and lose themselves in mindless entertainment because it was easier than dealing with the tough questions books could ask. People talk about 1984 more because it’s easier to point and say “government bad” than it is to examine the cultural flaws and look at ourselves the way 451 asks us to.

>>15834845
They remade it a couple years ago. I like the old one, nice mix of classic British/French film.

>>15834849
>I think Bradbury’s work is more relevant,
Maybe, but debatable given how well Orwell predicted the progression of basic grammar and language in influencing thought, and the modern attempt to move away from basic things like gender in language.
>and more subtle
You've got to be kidding me. Bradbury has a stupid paranoia about books being banned and burned. But we are as far away from that as you can possibly imagine. Sure, there is 'bad thought' out there and people *trying* to police it by 'canceling' those that think it, but there is nobody going around burning copies of anything, be it BAP or Mein Kampf or My Twisted World or Huckleberry Finn or etc. People will say they're all racist or whatever, but there's no book burnings going on.

And why? Because neither Bradbury nor Orwell was prescient enough to realize that simple entertainment and distraction is enough to keep people in thrall to their overlords. Huxley had it right - we aren't damned by overt oppression, we are instead distracted by the 'freedom' of entertainment and pleasure such that we don't actually rebel. Fuck, most people can't even *imagine* a different way of living today. It's really not anything new: Huxley's feelies and soma are really just an updated electronic/pharmaceutic version of panem et circenses.

>>15834990
>Because neither Bradbury nor Orwell was prescient enough to realize that simple entertainment and distraction is enough to keep people in thrall to their overlords
Orwell was, he noted that most common English people didn't care about anything other than alcohol and sports

>>15835013
Fair enough; thinking back on it more I do remember 1984 basically ignoring the proles while still noting that they were the inert ones who were the key to any change and who would nevertheless not change.

It's been a long time (20 years?) since I read 1984.

>>15834990
>stupid paranoia about books being banned and burned
Anon, that is called symbolism.They are destroyer the past, not books.

>>15834530
It grew naturally from the combination of laissez-faire capitalism, western individualism, global lines of communication, and 20th century Bernays-style psychology of the masses. It was inevitable.

>>15835180
It's a thread that runs throughout much of Bradbury's works though. Not just Farenheit 451. You see it pop up in his Martian Chronicles and various other short stories. The guy had a fixation on books (I mean, he was an author, so no kidding, but it is a recurring motif in his works).

I am as distressed as anyone at the destruction of the west's civic architecture and remembrances (honestly if you are that ashamed by the statue of a confederate soldier, then you should leave it up and live with your fucking shame as a reminder of your past). But Bradbury doesn't care about symbols; he cares about books. Whereas society today doesn't care about books, they care about symbols.

>>15834990
>Bradbury has a stupid paranoia about books being banned and burned.
How many books have been banned from amazon? How many websites taken down by webhosts? How many youtuber videos and youtubers banned and deleted?

>>15834990
>And why? Because neither Bradbury nor Orwell was prescient enough to realize that simple entertainment and distraction is enough to keep people in thrall to their overlords. Huxley had it right - we aren't damned by overt oppression, we are instead distracted by the 'freedom' of entertainment and pleasure such that we don't actually rebel.
You didn't read F451, or if you did, you remember it very poorly.
This is its exact message. You're supposed to go into it assuming that the book burning was censorship, but near the climax it's revealed that it wasn't - people just got so distracted by reality television that they stopped reading on their own, and at the time of the story books are only burned because the populace demands the government remove them. The whole crux of Bradbury's dystopia was distraction and over-entertainment. There is no censorship of any kind in F451's society.

>>15835219
>How many books have been banned from amazon?
Maybe a dozen or so? If even that many? Amazon is more than happy to sell you Hitler or BAP or Calhoun or Schopenhauer or whomever.
>How many websites taken down by webhosts?
Many, but they're not books, and there are other hosts out there (fuck, 4chan and infinity-chan are still up and running)
>How many youtuber videos and youtubers banned and deleted?
Same as the websites.

>>15834150
Brave New World is a society built by technology. It's a bit too far into the future unless you buy into the conspiracy theories of the elites poisoning the population with chemtrails and shit. F451 states explicitly that all changes to the society happened because it is what human nature wanted. Death by gratification.

>>15835230
>There is no censorship of any kind in F451's society.
>Main plot of book centers around firemen who go around burning books

OK. It's all fine to look for symbolism and subtext, but we shouldn't just discard the actual text while we do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIbg7oiXECE

>>15835207
Yes, but books are symbols of the knowledge that they contain and before the internet age, were the only link we have too what we had and have learned. Without books the only source of knowledge would be the chosen few rendering the population easily controlled. As long as books exist they can not control the sources. In f451 the books did not really need to be destroyed, the population had given up on hard work and choose easily attainable pleases, the only people that cared were the few, the burning of the books was just another spectacle for the masses.

>>15835247
The heat is clearly destroying my language skills. I hate this sort of weather.

>>15834150
Brave New World fits for what follows Orwell's 1984, which in turn comes after Fahrenheit 451.

First the degradation of common intelligence; next the rise of a totalitarian state that flourishes all through the Old World's collapse; and finally, the society that comes after both. An anesthetized society of saturated stimulation to the point of critical mass, where no one is anything more than their urges and their body, and the few fleeting moments where perform some kind of hollow function in a society that runs on them so scantly it could just as easily run without them.

I think the big question is what comes after that one?

>>15835277
Don't worry about it anon, your post is clear enough. The heat is a bitch over here too (add on to it some inebriation on my end so I apologize for half-thoughts and badly written posts).

I get what you are saying here >>15835247, but I don't know that I agree entirely. For one, while the burning of books was a spectacle, I don't think it was just a spectacle. I think that's a line that Bradbury started saying as we moved farther and farther away from the McCarthy era, when he was actually really concerned with the literal burning of books in giant bonfires. It became convenient for him to shift the line to 'it's really about the idea that tv and other things make a docile populace' once the specter of bookburning had largely vanished.

But set that aside, it's interesting that you bring up the pre-internet age. To some extent, sure, books were more important then. But we've been in the internet age for over a quarter century. You can find any information you could care to. Effective censorship on a large scale is essentially impossible in the west. Yet we are still fucked. Which is why I think Huxley's work was more prescient.

Though as I initially noted it's also nothing new, and you can see it discussed as far back as Juvenal.

>>15834990
By your logic, 1984 is dumber. Fahrenheit 451 did have books being banned and burned, but that was only half of it, the main point was that people simply weren't interested and wanted them removed because they were offended. It wasn't about government overreach.

>>15835326
I think 1984 is probably on the same level as F451, except it's extrapolating an essentially soviet world while F451 is extrapolating an essentially western world. But I think that BNW is a far more accurate predictor of the end-state of the west than F451 is.

Of the three, Orwell's is the best written by a country mile, and so on that basis alone I'd hesitate to say that it is any stupider than F451.

F451 reads like an YA novel.

>>15835373
The whole YA dystopian genre was built by cannibalising works like Fahrenheit 451, so it's not surprising it'd feel familiar if you read it after coming into contact with the derivative works first.

>>15835243
So you haven't read the fucking book, got it.
Halfway through the story the fire chief sits the protagonist down and directly tells him everything in my post - that they don't censor anyone because the people never needed censorship, they distracted themselves away from the books BEFORE the book-burnings ever started.

>>15835313
>it became convenient for him to shift the line
At least read a fucking Sparknotes summary of the book if you're going to talk out your ass and accuse the author of something like this.
The big twist, the moment being built up to the entire time, is Montag realizing that he wasn't a censor. This isn't hidden subtext or something read into the book by an off-color interpretation, this is what Montag's superior explicitly tells him.

>>15835427
And yet the entire plot of the book falls apart without the bookburning.

>>15835475
Yes, it's supposed to be a shock. It's a shock to Montag himself. You don't know anything about the book at all, do you?

>>15834096
>boring
only if you're low IQ.

>>15834007
Orwell is a fantastic writer but he was merely describing the situation in the soviet union.

Huxleys brave new world is by far more prophetic then 1984

>>15835475
Not really, book burning could be replaced by many things. It is just a symbol.

>>15834214
Bradbury’s message was showing people how society would become so yeah he did predict it ya cunt

>>15834150
I don't think the views on sex conflict, promiscuity and chastity can both be tools of control.

Orwell, Bradbury and Huxley were all correct, just in different ways.