Conection! When they made the hound go after the other man instead of Montag, i noticed that it was almost exactly like the Pedestrian exept that it was an automated dog-thing instead of an automated police car.
Brianc-It said that they went after that man because they did not want to admit that they lost Montag during the chase. It talked about how they did not completely focus in on the mans face and that you couldn't tell if it was Montag or not. They only did that in order to act as if they had finished Montag off. But that was a good connection anyways!
Markg- Montag must be really overwhelmed but it does seem as if he has accepted the facts fairly well. He definately xhallenged the system and he knew what he was getting into. In a way I think that he was partially prepared for it.
What did you guys think of the symbolisim of the city being destroyed. From destruction can come rebirth. What do you think will happen now? Will society change because of this war?
lis-yes i agree. i think they didnt want everyone to know that they lost track of Montag so they just sent the hound at someone else to make it look like they found him.
What were all of your reactions at the end of the book when the whole city was leveled by the bomb? Will Montag go on to make a differece in the world?
I don't want to be a critic, but I was really unsatisfied with the ending of the book. I felt like Bradbury left a lot of loose ends; all we know is that Montag and the men that he is travelling with memorize books. We don't know if they will start a new society, or anything about their future plans; all they do is walk.
I just want to explain the meaning of the last quote in the book with the trees. That was from revelation, and its part of a description of Jerusalem after Tribulation. It is a quote that is all about restoration, the healing of the nations, and a new beginning after much suffering.
markg-i think that Montag is hessitant at first to be with the older people. he is still kind of afraid of knowledge, and he knows that these people are much smarter than he is. he then realizes that he blongs with them, and can learn to adapt to their way of life.
Mark, i think Montag was thinking that he had finally found a way to put his knowledge of books to use, and now all he had to do was find a way to put his knowledge of life to use
markg- I agree as well. If they told the people that they had lost him and there was still a murderer out there, then people would have freaked out so they had to kill someone for people to be comforted.
brianc- yeah. Maybe in a way that one guy was the pedestrian. I see what you mean. Does anyone know if Fahrenheit 451 or The Pedestrian was written first? That may tell us a little about the authors mindset.
What does everyone think about the idea of them going after another man just to entertain the public like letting them on to believe that Montag had died. It made me think of like that Montag is almost his own reality show that people have been watching on the parlor wall and as if he was in some live movie that everyone was watching trying to figure out what would happen next? What does everyone else think of the idea of killing to please the viewers on the Parlor wall.
I noticed that as the men were making their way back to the city ruins, they let Montag lead the way, why do you think that it? what does it represent?
I didnt think that the ending was very good. Ray Bradbury could have, in my opinion, made a better ending. I thought the part where he escaped the hound was alright but not as powerful as i thought it would be...
Chelsea - I think that the thing about the sun was that the sun was buring time so Montag figured that since people were using fire to burn everything, and the sun was burning time, then one of them would have to stop before everything got burned. So that is one of the reasins Montag decides to stay with Granger and help them.
Stefo I think that they will rebuild the city and pass on their knowledge on to some of the people they find. But I think after they rebuild like years after the same thing will happen again like Granger said.
Amyw, I think they were far enough away from where the bomb was dropped. You could see that the bomb still affected them, because it said something along the lines that Montag was holding on to the earth, but it wasn't close enough to kill them.
i agree with maddief, the book just kind of stopped and there was nothing really else they could do. If all the cities are burned and they just keep wandering around just remember their own parts of books i don't see how that will do any good. so do you think Montag and Fabors plan would've been more effective than the men in the forests?
amy- it talked about all of the winds and the dirt that filled thier mouths and stuff. They were far enough away not to be killed by the impact. After all, if you think about how long Montag was in the river and how far away he drifter, then it does make sense that they would have survived.
maddief- i agree with you. I thought the ending leaves readers with too many questions. But it could be a good ending because it gives you space to decide what you want the ending to be.
The inner circle is talking about how the end disappointed them. To challege the system does there have to be a big dramatic ending? This is a change from the endings that usually occur in books. Instead of a big dramatic ending and the hero rising from the ashes, Montag begins to walk away. I think the ending is more realistic to actual life
Megan U- I agree i found the end of this book to be sort of a let down. I was expecting Montag to fix the society and introduce everyone to books and they would all begin reading and learning again and then their lives would just o on that way forever but non of that happened and i was disappointed that Montag's impact was so little.
A few people were discussing this, but Liz- I think that it was exactly what he needed for him to be able to build a ne society off books, now tat it is being destroyed that now he can start from scratch and help to bring books back into society.
Why do you think Bradbury made the ending so abrupt? Why did he chose to end the city with a bomb? Is he still stating the moral of if you have a problem, burn it, so he blew up the city. What are your ideas?
brianc-the pedestrian was writen before F.451. it was published in 1951 and F. 451 was published in 1953. i think that the pedestrian is reffered to alot in this book, because it was one of Bradbury's main themes in his writing.
i agree with the quote about time and burning. Time is always going to be burning and there is no way to stop it so its up to you to decide what to do with it. You can spend your time burning and try to undo what time has done but it really wont get you anywhere. Or you can embrace time and remember things and live your life and get new places and make a difference
elizabeth- i looked online and it saysa here that the pedestrian was published in 1951 and 451 was in 1953
but just because the Pedestrian was published first doesnt mean that it was written first, becuase books do take a lot longer to write. But i thought that might be usefull
For montag to even think that deeply about like the sun shining is an example of how much he has grown as a person. In the beginning of the book there's no way he would have thought like that.
Javon- So you think that he will be able to make a difference with his memory? That is what I was sort of thinking. It also talked about how his memory came back in the end and how all of the other guys were discussing the fact that they were books. Hopefully he will try to rebuild somewhere. I wish that there would have been a sequel so all of our questions would be answered.
I think Javon M brings up a really good point. Since Montag didn't die but the society did he is able to completly re-create a society and I think that he will make the new society very different from the old one.
I also had a question about the whole farmhouse quote. Had Montag been at this farm before, or was it just a metaphor? Did anyone catch the meaning of this?
stef- That's a good point! I think there will have to be some sort of rebirth to the city. The city will hopefully go back to the way they were before the government decided to make a utopia without books. Maybe things will go back to what life is like today?
Maddie - I don't feel that Bradbury left loose ends because in the book, Granger tells Montag about how this sort of thing has happened before, in the Dark Ages when there was little or no improvement/discovery. Then, Montag made a resolution to stop that cycle.
molly- maybe he wrote the pedestrian in the middle of all of his other thoughts. It would have made sense if he did that. Kind of like a break in his thinking but not really a break, if you get my meaning. It was all probably part of his thought process.
I think that the book was to abrupt of an ending. I think it just challenges the reader to decide whether or not they think that the society will rebuild itself upon knowledge and books or not... and fi so they do build it back upon books and knowledge will that just be destroyed again to accompany the new technologies that the society is making.
serenal, well, he let the city die like that because it was giddily spinning and having fun, but nobody cared that they went to war, so it was the fittest end (the most ironic) for the city.
Amandah, I disagree. Challening the system is important and a big deal, but it doesn't have to be super dramatic. I think it just needs to be meaningful.
Nicolek- I agree with that. If you forget the past then you will only make the same mistakes again, and if you go on burning any records of history, then society will never move forward.
Javon-I think this government can't allow failure or weakness to show. After they lost Montags trail, the government had to kill a false 'Montag' since they can't show weakness. It connects to 1984 where the government had always to be right and falsified information just to keep up pretenses that they were right. But your right it was kind of like a reality show
alex Montag has changed a lot from the beginning of the book. He started out burning books and being a typical civilian to someone who rebels and wants to learn about books and challenges the system.
alex- Montag has changed so much throughout this whole book. So has his perspective of the whole burning thing. Also, not only has he changed, his whole life and home and everything else has been turned up side down. There is so much to say about Montag and how he has changed that I don't think we would be able to say it all. That is how dramatic of a change it was.
nicolek-i think that Mildred was used to let the reader see about the "normal" part of the society. I think it was also important for someone that Montag was close to to die at the end of the book in the bombing. it provides the reader with the impression that montag really was effected by the bombing because he lost someone he loved.
Nicole k- I think Mildred's importance in the book was kind of helping Montag figure out who he really was. Because of Mildred Montag was able to realize that he didn't really love any one, and he was able to see what extremes the society was going to because Mildred thought that her familiy was on TV and also that his memory wasn't there. If you can't remember where you met your wife you have a problem.
kristenw, didnt Beatty say the neighbors turned him in too. it seems like we spent so much time talking about if mildred loved him or not and i expected something to happen and prove that but now it seems kind of irrelavent
I think Mildred shows how people in this society live. She lives the average life and just does what is expected of her. Her betrayl of Montag is even more painful than Beatty's. In some ways, she could be a villian.
nicole- mildred acts as a catayst for Montag. if she hadn't been there to cause all the trouble for Montag. Also she added lots of emotions for Montag dudring the flaming and running away.
I think that her signifigance in the book is to do a couple of things.
1. to show how the "normal" person in this society acts. 2. to show how Montag has changed through his feelings towards her. 3. to show the typical couple of the society.
louise- I totally agree! I thought Montag would've exposed everyone to books and led them away from their parlor walls and every other part of technology. The ending was very disappointing.
alexd- i guess he is a tragic hero. i dont think that you have to make a big impact to challenge the system. The Pedestrian challenged the system by just walking at night.
molly- I don't think he even knew how to think that way. He had to learn how to learn, much like he had to learn to think. He hadn't experienced anything at the beginning of the book, I think he was still sort of brain washed like the rest of society.
Katherinem I mean to say that it had to be super dramatic I meant to say that its somewhat a big deal and that may cause it to be dramatic and meaningful at the same time.
Nicolek- I agree. I thought that there would be some kind of conclusion in their relationship, but it was just kind of left off and it seems like she never had a good place in the book
John, think about it: that would be like if you see someone who doesn't go outside, who was plugged in to the TV 24/7, and said nothing important, but said a lot of it. How would you be impacted? Its a total opposite of real life.
louiseb- That is really good point about how Mildred helped him discover who he really was. She made him realize how messed up his life was and it seemed like she was just a pawn that was taking little steps in his life on the "board" but she made a really big difference in the end of the game.
Alex - I tink Montag has changed so much from the beginning of the book. Remember, at the beginning, Montag was talking about how much of a plesure it was to burn. Now, however, he wants everyone to stop burning and is trying to save the books. So, I think he's changed a lot throughout the book.
I think someone mentioned Montag possibly being a tragic hero. I think it depends on your outlook of the book, and what side you are on for whether or not this society should contain books.
It almost seems like Montag isn't a tragic hero but that he is an actual hero. To me at least, I think Montag is justr a hero for challenging the system and attempting to bring knowledge, thoughts and books bacj into the society. Then again, if you were a everyday civilian in this society Montag lives in you would think that Montag is more of a Tragic hero. Your thoughts would probably be that Montag was a hero of his society, such a high rank in government as a firemen, destroying books, and doing good to society, but now they are seeing him as a tragic hero, who found something like books, which have corrupted his thoughts and everything within him and has turned him against fellow firemen, as well as all of society.
Maddie brought up a good point in the discussion, are we really more civilized now than we were in the times of the gladiators, we still enjoy watching violence?
kristen- good question. Did Beatty design the hound? He had some good thoughts about books and things so maybe he was smart enought to make it. Or it could have been desighned by people that were not even introduced in the book.
kristenw-i think that the hound is developed by a slect few people a the top of the government who are really intelegent, but desire power more than knowledge.
i agee, Mildred needed to show what the average person was like but i think i would've liked to know what happened to her at the end of the book or if she ever even realized her feeling for Montag like Montag did when was in the forest. He kept saying her name and remembering where they met and things that he used to take for granted
kristenw- I thought about that too. I think that there are a few people in positions of authority who have the resources to make the hound and other inventions like that. Think of how smart Beatty was
Well, I agree with Ms.Smith, but it's for purely entertainment reasons. If you laugh, everyone knows it's fake, so why not? Violence in movies aren't such a big deal, it's in real life that is worrisome. Death also might give this movie it's plot; a base of sadness and tragedy. Let the good guys beat the bad guys.
i think that in order to have a clueless society, there have to be people such as Beatty who are there to keep an eye on everyone and create new ways to control to simple people
alex I agree with you I don't think that everyone is dumb I think that we just stereotyped everyone because we didn't see other people trying to challenge the system
Javon- about the tragic hero thing. During Macbeth do you remember when we had the whole discussion about what our definitions of a tragic hero. In a way Montag was a tragic hero because something tragic occured in his life. He didn't die or anyhting but he was a hero and his story was tragic. Just food for thought.
I completely agree with what Ms. Smith and Amy said.. I don't see how people find people getting their limbs cut off entertaining. It's sick. The kids loving violence in Fahrenheit 451 is awful as well. I think violence in movies is okay to a certain extent, but once you base a whole movie on it, like the Saw movies, I think that's ridiculous.
Brian- I agree! Montag has changed so much. Burning books was his life in the beginning of the book. With the quote on page 141, Montag either said the sun and himself both burn things. To keep on going in life, either one or the other had to stop burning. The sun wasn't going to stop, so it had to be him. If he truly was the same throughout the whole book, he wouldn't have given up on something he loved so much.
well nile, i bet tha our bud Faber made it out just dandy, and even if he didn't, what was lost? not much aside from a good guy, he helped majorly in creating this new society that will be built up
louiseb- I thinnk that all throughout time people have been violent. But now in our society today its almost like we are trying to hide the violence and condem it when it has existed for all these years. I'm not saying its good but I don't believe that the we are more civilized now that back in the time of the gladiators, its the same but with technology and rules.
markg- if bradburys predictions didn't come true i don't think people would've liked this book as much because they would've thought it was so far fetched and it would've meant as much as it does to us
It is a good point Maddie, I don't knwo what is wrong with our society. Like when we watch the news we think it is terrible that someone has been shot in killed, or there has been a hit and run and someone died, or you here about a child with cancer who dies. It makes us sad and we all think of how horrible violence is and how terrible that things like this happen in society. Then wwe all go out and watch scary movies like Saw 4 and we are all talking about how good it was and the amazing graphics and gore we saw in the movie. It makes me wonder, why do we enjoy violence in society like fast cars, and intense car crashes and gory deaths, only as long as they are in a movie and NOT REAL, but when we see something on the nes it makes us gop against violence... until we see some fake violence again.
Why are people offended about books anyway? Books are purely entertainment; a work of fiction. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T READ IT!!! Why did books become THAT much of a problem?
mark, i think whether or not the book was published, these things would start happening, it just makes us more awareor what is happening, and what could be coming.
What do all of you think about the end of the world? They are talking about this in the inner circle. Do you think that maybe he was partially predicting the end of the world according to how he was it?
Although this might be obvious, Why did Mildred's friends think the war would leave them alone? I mean, they were living in a major city! They're either not very smort or they must not care if they die.
Also, why are there even soldiers if everyone else in the world doesn't care what happens as long as they get food and TV?
Finally, why are the soldiers training and preparing for war insead of at home, being brainless robots like everybody else?
Alex and Amanada- I agree with you both. We can't really judge this society and call them stupid bacause we didnt grow up in the enviornment that those people did.
NicoleK i agree with you that I dont think that people would have enjoyed this book as much if it hadn't come true. Becuase it seems like these things are really happening in our society it brings a realistic element that is really intriguing and a little bit scary.
No, elisabeth, he was quoting the book of revelations. Still, the book shows some parallels... horrible war, lots of technology(it alludes to technology in revelations), and a bad government.
No, elisabeth, he was quoting the book of revelations. Still, the book shows some parallels... horrible war, lots of technology(it alludes to technology in revelations), and a bad government.
stef- That's a really good point! There has always been violence in the world but the government has condemned it. War is very violent yet we have continued going into war after war.
Jose- do you think that our society would be worse...becuase we are entertained by voilence but not as much as in the book, and not the violence we watch is not real...
Oh, I just had a thought, even though this subject kind of passed... I think Bradbury made the ending abrupt so that we think about it. Now that the society against knowledge and diversity is gone, how do you want to start over? What can you do to prevent this from happening again? Those are retorical questions, just something to think about.
Jose- so if he was quoting the book of revelations wasn't he incorporating the end of the world in the book? I don't know what you mean by what you said. That isn't what I asked.
Do you think that the new society will have the same problems as the one before? Do you think this society was started this way? after total distrucation, and the people who survived are the big brother like people?
I can see why some people would think that violent movies are bad but I can also see the the side of why poeple want to see them, scary movies give you an adreneline rush and I think that is the reason people see them not because they like to see graphic violence.
Stefo, that's a good point! We can't judge the society so much, because it seems like those people just don't know any better. In the society, people like Clarisse were rare, so they had nobody to point out how bad their society really was and that life could be so much better if they would make changes.
i agree with what javon said, why do we enjoy movies like that are so violent? and then when we look back on old movies like the ones our parents watch that used to be so scary we find them stupid becuase they dont look real and resemble someone getting killed or tortured or something
John- alot of our country's ideals are there to keep everyone happy. Freedom of religion is to keep people from being unhappy and forced into a religion and they can chose your own. Most people watch what they say to avoide offending people. Books can sometimes offend people and that was Beatty's reasoning for burning books. I dont agree with it but i'm just gonna play devil's advocate here
alex i agree once something starts you can't stop it or at least completely. There will always be people who will keep watching, reading, or whatever it never really stops.
Ug. I can't stand violent movies. There can be violent parts in some but when it is blood the whole time I would not be able to live through it. My parents are some of the people that don't allow any major violent things in our home. Most of you would be amazed at some of the things I am not allowed to watch. But in a way I am thankful for the protection that they offer from the rest of the world. I don't like violent things anyways.
I made that same connection that Amy just made. I thought it was so strange how violent Mildred was when she wanted to feel better. She told Montag to drive around in the country and hit some dogs and rabbits. In the beginning she was unhappy so she tried to commit suicide and overdosed on her sleeping pills.
Nicole, we enjoy violence due to the feeling of control: If I kill, maim, or KO, I have control over the person who I maim. As we can better replicate that killing, we can get control.
molly- i think there is a big chance that the society would be the same as before becuase it could be just them same place with the same people. there needs to be something different to change the way the people think. And the other people need to be willing to change and learn from the mistakes made by the past society
molly I think eventually the society will go back to the way it was. Also was this recorded in history to remember the mistakes made so they can fix it and not go back to it?
Mark - do you think that we might be very close to the society in F451. If you think about it, don't we go to see super violent movies just for fun, and don't we like watching them? Also, think of all the video games and computer games and even sports. Not to scare anyone but there is so much violence in society today if you really think about it. I thinkt hat Bradbury came very close to predicting what the future would be like, what it's like today.
I don't see the appeal of violent movies. Watch people be torn up and murdered in a thousand different ways, it's surprising how people can even think of all these things, actually it's slightly frightening. Plus doesn't it just give the murderers ideas on how to kill people? Like in the White Clown, they run people over so that is what the teenagers do, run people over.
amanda and nicole- see i agree, but it is differnt people, but i think that they will see why the other leaders did what they did, i think it will prove to be the easy way out in hard situations
josed- i totally agree with that. and thats why people play such violent video games, beucause they want to control what happens in them and who they hurt or kill
lia- do you really think that the city got leveled becuase they hit cute animals? or some other reason? i get the feeling that they got what was coming and this is beacuase they were doing somthing t someone else
Mrs Smith was just talking about the people in f451 having no emotional scale. Emotion seems to be the very core of every human, can it ever be eradicated? Do people become less human without emotion?
johnb- um, are you sure that the good guys ALWAYS beat the bad guys. There are several movies where one or a couple of the good guys die before they rest of the good guys win in the end. And it is all portrayed in a violent way.
josed- i agree that the appeal of violent video games is control. i think the need for control also comes into play in violent or scary movies. when you are watching a scary movie, and you are able to control your emotions and make it through the movie. it makes a person feel brave or strong when they are able to find the humor in violent movies.
Jose- ageree that we a thrilled by scary movies but that is just watching it no tactually doing it. Watching someone in a scary movie is entirely different from being in the same situation in real life. Also I'm pretty sure that while Tom and Jerry is violent in a way they dont actually maim eachother and I dont think anyone dies.
John b- That is sort of a false message to send though, the good guys might beat the bad guys in the movies, but in real life that isn't always how it goes.
Mark - Have you ever seen Tom and Jerry? The whole time Tom is chasing Jerry and getting beat up and cut in half and all these things that we think are funny.
i agree with molly- it does look like he's hinding and he doesnt want to be burning and he is scared of what they became. Also, about the paper. he is wearing a mask behind the paper and its another way of hiding
elizabthc-in alot of todays violent movies, the good guys die to provide the audience with a feeling of remorse, or sadness. i do agree that the good guys dont always win, and often times neither side wins.
Alex, is it really? Have you seen the graphics on some of these games? We went in 3 decades from "Pong" to someone trying to perfectly imitate a human being in an upcoming videogame.
brianc- There's a bit of a difference- you never see blood or anything and they always get out alive. They just get hit with irons and stuff like that.
I really think the person on the cover is Montag. He is holding something in his hand that has a picture of a salamander on it. Montag said his flamethrower was the salamander. Also, he is covered in newspaper and is on fire. I think burning the books and all of the words and thoughts, consumed his life until it pretty much destroyed his life. His head and his hands are bare, I think, to represent how he still has a chance to get out of it and break free from burning the books. Paper burns a lot easier than flesh so he could begin to take the paper off and break free.
I think the man on the cover could also be Beatty. Because he is standing on burning books which is showing his disrespect for book and he did get burned to death so that explains the man being on fire.
217 comments:
1 – 200 of 217 Newer› Newest»Conection!
When they made the hound go after the other man instead of Montag, i noticed that it was almost exactly like the Pedestrian exept that it was an automated dog-thing instead of an automated police car.
brianc-
Good point! I thought of that too
After reading this section of the book what do you think is going through Montags brain? (like going to old people place)
Brianc-It said that they went after that man because they did not want to admit that they lost Montag during the chase. It talked about how they did not completely focus in on the mans face and that you couldn't tell if it was Montag or not. They only did that in order to act as if they had finished Montag off. But that was a good connection anyways!
So did I?
Markg- Montag must be really overwhelmed but it does seem as if he has accepted the facts fairly well. He definately xhallenged the system and he knew what he was getting into. In a way I think that he was partially prepared for it.
What did you guys think of the symbolisim of the city being destroyed. From destruction can come rebirth. What do you think will happen now? Will society change because of this war?
I didn't quite understand the whole time thing, and about the sun.
lis-yes i agree. i think they didnt want everyone to know that they lost track of Montag so they just sent the hound at someone else to make it look like they found him.
Elisabeth - I know, I was Just talking about when Granger said that it was a rare sight to see a person out walking.
ya brian that is a good point
What were all of your reactions at the end of the book when the whole city was leveled by the bomb? Will Montag go on to make a differece in the world?
The ending of this book reminded me of the ending the Lord of the Flies. Both were somewhat abrupt, but powerful at the same time.
I don't want to be a critic, but I was really unsatisfied with the ending of the book. I felt like Bradbury left a lot of loose ends; all we know is that Montag and the men that he is travelling with memorize books. We don't know if they will start a new society, or anything about their future plans; all they do is walk.
I just want to explain the meaning of the last quote in the book with the trees. That was from revelation, and its part of a description of Jerusalem after Tribulation. It is a quote that is all about restoration, the healing of the nations, and a new beginning after much suffering.
markg-i think that Montag is hessitant at first to be with the older people. he is still kind of afraid of knowledge, and he knows that these people are much smarter than he is. he then realizes that he blongs with them, and can learn to adapt to their way of life.
I was confused: if a bomb was dropped, then why didn't Montag and the people he was with die?
Mark, i think Montag was thinking that he had finally found a way to put his knowledge of books to use, and now all he had to do was find a way to put his knowledge of life to use
markg- I agree as well. If they told the people that they had lost him and there was still a murderer out there, then people would have freaked out so they had to kill someone for people to be comforted.
The ending of F.451 was kind of quick, almost harsh. It was like that in Lord of the Flies too.
brianc- yeah. Maybe in a way that one guy was the pedestrian. I see what you mean. Does anyone know if Fahrenheit 451 or The Pedestrian was written first? That may tell us a little about the authors mindset.
I didn't like the end of the book at all. I thought Montag would have done something bigger.
Oh. Katherinec already said that.
Amy, Montag didn't die because he was miles away from the city, and they weren't neccessarily nukes that killed him
What does everyone think about the idea of them going after another man just to entertain the public like letting them on to believe that Montag had died. It made me think of like that Montag is almost his own reality show that people have been watching on the parlor wall and as if he was in some live movie that everyone was watching trying to figure out what would happen next? What does everyone else think of the idea of killing to please the viewers on the Parlor wall.
I noticed that as the men were making their way back to the city ruins, they let Montag lead the way, why do you think that it? what does it represent?
I didn't really like the ending...it was weird and abrupt, and I didn't understand like half of it.
I didnt think that the ending was very good. Ray Bradbury could have, in my opinion, made a better ending. I thought the part where he escaped the hound was alright but not as powerful as i thought it would be...
Chelsea - I think that the thing about the sun was that the sun was buring time so Montag figured that since people were using fire to burn everything, and the sun was burning time, then one of them would have to stop before everything got burned. So that is one of the reasins Montag decides to stay with Granger and help them.
Stefo
I think that they will rebuild the city and pass on their knowledge on to some of the people they find. But I think after they rebuild like years after the same thing will happen again like Granger said.
Even though it frustrated me that the ending was not exactly complete and explanitory i kind of liked how it left some things mysterious....
I mean, blew up the city, not killed him
Amyw, I think they were far enough away from where the bomb was dropped. You could see that the bomb still affected them, because it said something along the lines that Montag was holding on to the earth, but it wasn't close enough to kill them.
i agree with maddief, the book just kind of stopped and there was nothing really else they could do. If all the cities are burned and they just keep wandering around just remember their own parts of books i don't see how that will do any good. so do you think Montag and Fabors plan would've been more effective than the men in the forests?
amy- it talked about all of the winds and the dirt that filled thier mouths and stuff. They were far enough away not to be killed by the impact. After all, if you think about how long Montag was in the river and how far away he drifter, then it does make sense that they would have survived.
maddief- i agree with you. I thought the ending leaves readers with too many questions. But it could be a good ending because it gives you space to decide what you want the ending to be.
The inner circle is talking about how the end disappointed them. To challege the system does there have to be a big dramatic ending? This is a change from the endings that usually occur in books. Instead of a big dramatic ending and the hero rising from the ashes, Montag begins to walk away. I think the ending is more realistic to actual life
molly... i think that the they let Montag lead the way because he kinda started a mini-revolution. He is the starter of it and a leader...
Megan U- I agree i found the end of this book to be sort of a let down. I was expecting Montag to fix the society and introduce everyone to books and they would all begin reading and learning again and then their lives would just o on that way forever but non of that happened and i was disappointed that Montag's impact was so little.
amyw-
I agree that the ending was weird, but then again so was the rest of the book. It is all abstract
A few people were discussing this, but Liz- I think that it was exactly what he needed for him to be able to build a ne society off books, now tat it is being destroyed that now he can start from scratch and help to bring books back into society.
I think that the ending is really something that Bradbury did to keep the story open ended: he could make a sequel when the movie comes out in 2009
and abrupt
Why do you think Bradbury made the ending so abrupt? Why did he chose to end the city with a bomb? Is he still stating the moral of if you have a problem, burn it, so he blew up the city. What are your ideas?
stefo-
so does that make him a tragic hero?
Stefo
I think to challenge the system is a big thing so there is no way it can't be big and dramatic.
brianc-the pedestrian was writen before F.451. it was published in 1951 and F. 451 was published in 1953. i think that the pedestrian is reffered to alot in this book, because it was one of Bradbury's main themes in his writing.
I thought that it was kind of cool how all those events led up to Montag escaping, and then his escape saved him from being killed by the bomb.
i agree with the quote about time and burning. Time is always going to be burning and there is no way to stop it so its up to you to decide what to do with it. You can spend your time burning and try to undo what time has done but it really wont get you anywhere. Or you can embrace time and remember things and live your life and get new places and make a difference
elizabeth-
i looked online and it saysa here that the pedestrian was published in 1951 and 451 was in 1953
but just because the Pedestrian was published first doesnt mean that it was written first, becuase books do take a lot longer to write. But i thought that might be usefull
For montag to even think that deeply about like the sun shining is an example of how much he has grown as a person. In the beginning of the book there's no way he would have thought like that.
Javon- So you think that he will be able to make a difference with his memory? That is what I was sort of thinking. It also talked about how his memory came back in the end and how all of the other guys were discussing the fact that they were books. Hopefully he will try to rebuild somewhere. I wish that there would have been a sequel so all of our questions would be answered.
I think Javon M brings up a really good point. Since Montag didn't die but the society did he is able to completly re-create a society and I think that he will make the new society very different from the old one.
I also had a question about the whole farmhouse quote. Had Montag been at this farm before, or was it just a metaphor? Did anyone catch the meaning of this?
Not only did I not like the ending, it doesn't even feel like it ended.
stef- That's a good point! I think there will have to be some sort of rebirth to the city. The city will hopefully go back to the way they were before the government decided to make a utopia without books. Maybe things will go back to what life is like today?
Maddie - I don't feel that Bradbury left loose ends because in the book, Granger tells Montag about how this sort of thing has happened before, in the Dark Ages when there was little or no improvement/discovery. Then, Montag made a resolution to stop that cycle.
mark, but what did he do to spark that? was he the one to say that they needed to go back?
stefo-There does not need to be a dramatic ending but a ending that is more meaningful and that leaves you with a good feeling.
molly- maybe he wrote the pedestrian in the middle of all of his other thoughts. It would have made sense if he did that. Kind of like a break in his thinking but not really a break, if you get my meaning. It was all probably part of his thought process.
I think that the book was to abrupt of an ending. I think it just challenges the reader to decide whether or not they think that the society will rebuild itself upon knowledge and books or not... and fi so they do build it back upon books and knowledge will that just be destroyed again to accompany the new technologies that the society is making.
serenal, well, he let the city die like that because it was giddily spinning and having fun, but nobody cared that they went to war, so it was the fittest end (the most ironic) for the city.
How has Montag changed from the begginning of the book?
Amandah, I disagree. Challening the system is important and a big deal, but it doesn't have to be super dramatic. I think it just needs to be meaningful.
molly- no he wasnt the one tat said that they needed to go back, he just said that they need to change the way that the live...
chelseas
I think that the farmhouse part represents his childhood and he grew up in a farmhouse.
Nicolek-
I agree with that. If you forget the past then you will only make the same mistakes again, and if you go on burning any records of history, then society will never move forward.
Molly-
Actually, 451 was published in 1950, under the title "The Fireman".
nile- and at the beginning at the book, would he even have wanted to? think this way i mean.
Javon-I think this government can't allow failure or weakness to show. After they lost Montags trail, the government had to kill a false 'Montag' since they can't show weakness. It connects to 1984 where the government had always to be right and falsified information just to keep up pretenses that they were right. But your right it was kind of like a reality show
I was wondering, if Mildred just disappears and probably ends up dying what was her significants in the book?
nicole-
the book needed mildred to turn montag in and almost give montag an opposite.
molly-I think he would have been scared to think that way.
I'm glad Montag eventually realized what was wrong with society, but I still don't understand how Clarisse affected him with such force.
alex
Montag has changed a lot from the beginning of the book. He started out burning books and being a typical civilian to someone who rebels and wants to learn about books and challenges the system.
Nicole, her significance was that she showed how most people in this dystopia was.
alex- Montag has changed so much throughout this whole book. So has his perspective of the whole burning thing. Also, not only has he changed, his whole life and home and everything else has been turned up side down. There is so much to say about Montag and how he has changed that I don't think we would be able to say it all. That is how dramatic of a change it was.
nicolek-i think that Mildred was used to let the reader see about the "normal" part of the society. I think it was also important for someone that Montag was close to to die at the end of the book in the bombing. it provides the reader with the impression that montag really was effected by the bombing because he lost someone he loved.
Nicole k- I think Mildred's importance in the book was kind of helping Montag figure out who he really was. Because of Mildred Montag was able to realize that he didn't really love any one, and he was able to see what extremes the society was going to because Mildred thought that her familiy was on TV and also that his memory wasn't there. If you can't remember where you met your wife you have a problem.
kristenw, didnt Beatty say the neighbors turned him in too. it seems like we spent so much time talking about if mildred loved him or not and i expected something to happen and prove that but now it seems kind of irrelavent
Nilcole- I think mildred is significant in the sense that it shows how little people felt for one another.
I think Mildred shows how people in this society live. She lives the average life and just does what is expected of her. Her betrayl of Montag is even more painful than Beatty's. In some ways, she could be a villian.
nicole- mildred acts as a catayst for Montag. if she hadn't been there to cause all the trouble for Montag. Also she added lots of emotions for Montag dudring the flaming and running away.
nikole-
good question?
I think that her signifigance in the book is to do a couple of things.
1. to show how the "normal" person in this society acts.
2. to show how Montag has changed through his feelings towards her.
3. to show the typical couple of the society.
Nicolek-
Mildred's significance in the book was the average life (minus living with Montag) of a normal civilian.
louise- I totally agree! I thought Montag would've exposed everyone to books and led them away from their parlor walls and every other part of technology. The ending was very disappointing.
alexd- i guess he is a tragic hero. i dont think that you have to make a big impact to challenge the system. The Pedestrian challenged the system by just walking at night.
nile i agree, i agree
molly- I don't think he even knew how to think that way. He had to learn how to learn, much like he had to learn to think. He hadn't experienced anything at the beginning of the book, I think he was still sort of brain washed like the rest of society.
Katherinem
I mean to say that it had to be super dramatic I meant to say that its somewhat a big deal and that may cause it to be dramatic and meaningful at the same time.
Nicolek-
I agree. I thought that there would be some kind of conclusion in their relationship, but it was just kind of left off and it seems like she never had a good place in the book
John, think about it: that would be like if you see someone who doesn't go outside, who was plugged in to the TV 24/7, and said nothing important, but said a lot of it. How would you be impacted? Its a total opposite of real life.
sorry random thought-
if these people are so dumb who is making such complex things like the hound.
louiseb- That is really good point about how Mildred helped him discover who he really was. She made him realize how messed up his life was and it seemed like she was just a pawn that was taking little steps in his life on the "board" but she made a really big difference in the end of the game.
Alex - I tink Montag has changed so much from the beginning of the book. Remember, at the beginning, Montag was talking about how much of a plesure it was to burn. Now, however, he wants everyone to stop burning and is trying to save the books. So, I think he's changed a lot throughout the book.
i like the way you phrased that Serena, learn to learn, learn to think, is right on, because Montag really had everything to learn
I think someone mentioned Montag possibly being a tragic hero. I think it depends on your outlook of the book, and what side you are on for whether or not this society should contain books.
It almost seems like Montag isn't a tragic hero but that he is an actual hero. To me at least, I think Montag is justr a hero for challenging the system and attempting to bring knowledge, thoughts and books bacj into the society. Then again, if you were a everyday civilian in this society Montag lives in you would think that Montag is more of a Tragic hero. Your thoughts would probably be that Montag was a hero of his society, such a high rank in government as a firemen, destroying books, and doing good to society, but now they are seeing him as a tragic hero, who found something like books, which have corrupted his thoughts and everything within him and has turned him against fellow firemen, as well as all of society.
Maddie brought up a good point in the discussion,
are we really more civilized now than we were in the times of the gladiators, we still enjoy watching violence?
What makes you think that everyone is dumb?
i dont think that all of them are...
kristen- good question. Did Beatty design the hound? He had some good thoughts about books and things so maybe he was smart enought to make it. Or it could have been desighned by people that were not even introduced in the book.
kristenw-i think that the hound is developed by a slect few people a the top of the government who are really intelegent, but desire power more than knowledge.
kristenw- I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they are only enhanced technologically, not in history and emotion.
i agee, Mildred needed to show what the average person was like but i think i would've liked to know what happened to her at the end of the book or if she ever even realized her feeling for Montag like Montag did when was in the forest. He kept saying her name and remembering where they met and things that he used to take for granted
kristenw-
I thought about that too. I think that there are a few people in positions of authority who have the resources to make the hound and other inventions like that. Think of how smart Beatty was
What do you think would have happened with this book if none of the things in it came true? It is kind of a hit or miss plot in telling the future...
Well, I agree with Ms.Smith, but it's for purely entertainment reasons. If you laugh, everyone knows it's fake, so why not? Violence in movies aren't such a big deal, it's in real life that is worrisome. Death also might give this movie it's plot; a base of sadness and tragedy. Let the good guys beat the bad guys.
kristen-
that last comment was for you..
kristen, thats not random
i think that in order to have a clueless society, there have to be people such as Beatty who are there to keep an eye on everyone and create new ways to control to simple people
I wonder what happened to good old Faber.
lia- ya and that brings me back to the thought that people of authority maybe have books.
Well, mark, people wouldn't be as careful and it WOULD happen.
alex
I agree with you I don't think that everyone is dumb
I think that we just stereotyped everyone because we didn't see other people trying to challenge the system
Javon- about the tragic hero thing. During Macbeth do you remember when we had the whole discussion about what our definitions of a tragic hero. In a way Montag was a tragic hero because something tragic occured in his life. He didn't die or anyhting but he was a hero and his story was tragic. Just food for thought.
I completely agree with what Ms. Smith and Amy said.. I don't see how people find people getting their limbs cut off entertaining. It's sick. The kids loving violence in Fahrenheit 451 is awful as well. I think violence in movies is okay to a certain extent, but once you base a whole movie on it, like the Saw movies, I think that's ridiculous.
jose-
What do you mean people won't be careful?
Brian- I agree! Montag has changed so much. Burning books was his life in the beginning of the book. With the quote on page 141, Montag either said the sun and himself both burn things. To keep on going in life, either one or the other had to stop burning. The sun wasn't going to stop, so it had to be him. If he truly was the same throughout the whole book, he wouldn't have given up on something he loved so much.
well nile, i bet tha our bud Faber made it out just dandy, and even if he didn't, what was lost? not much aside from a good guy, he helped majorly in creating this new society that will be built up
nile- I am pretty sure that Faber died in the bombing. After all, the whole city was leveled and as far as we know Faber did not try to run away.
jose what do you mean by that?
louiseb- I thinnk that all throughout time people have been violent. But now in our society today its almost like we are trying to hide the violence and condem it when it has existed for all these years. I'm not saying its good but I don't believe that the we are more civilized now that back in the time of the gladiators, its the same but with technology and rules.
alex, pheobe, and anyone else who coomented my comment-
ya and it seems that all the smart people have books. so maybe the people who made the hound have books.
markg- if bradburys predictions didn't come true i don't think people would've liked this book as much because they would've thought it was so far fetched and it would've meant as much as it does to us
It is a good point Maddie, I don't knwo what is wrong with our society. Like when we watch the news we think it is terrible that someone has been shot in killed, or there has been a hit and run and someone died, or you here about a child with cancer who dies. It makes us sad and we all think of how horrible violence is and how terrible that things like this happen in society. Then wwe all go out and watch scary movies like Saw 4 and we are all talking about how good it was and the amazing graphics and gore we saw in the movie. It makes me wonder, why do we enjoy violence in society like fast cars, and intense car crashes and gory deaths, only as long as they are in a movie and NOT REAL, but when we see something on the nes it makes us gop against violence... until we see some fake violence again.
Why are people offended about books anyway? Books are purely entertainment; a work of fiction. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T READ IT!!! Why did books become THAT much of a problem?
Mark- I dont think its very possible for none of these predictions to come true. And if they didnt would we still be thoughtful and inteligent?
mark, i think whether or not the book was published, these things would start happening, it just makes us more awareor what is happening, and what could be coming.
Well, I mean that if none of what happened in the book came true, people would grow decadent, and it could come true, Mark.
What do all of you think about the end of the world? They are talking about this in the inner circle. Do you think that maybe he was partially predicting the end of the world according to how he was it?
Although this might be obvious, Why did Mildred's friends think the war would leave them alone? I mean, they were living in a major city! They're either not very smort or they must not care if they die.
Also, why are there even soldiers if everyone else in the world doesn't care what happens as long as they get food and TV?
Finally, why are the soldiers training and preparing for war insead of at home, being brainless robots like everybody else?
Alex and Amanada- I agree with you both. We can't really judge this society and call them stupid bacause we didnt grow up in the enviornment that those people did.
John- it talked about how the books just kept being minimized and minimized and eventually they disapeared.
NicoleK i agree with you that I dont think that people would have enjoyed this book as much if it hadn't come true. Becuase it seems like these things are really happening in our society it brings a realistic element that is really intriguing and a little bit scary.
No, elisabeth, he was quoting the book of revelations. Still, the book shows some parallels... horrible war, lots of technology(it alludes to technology in revelations), and a bad government.
No, elisabeth, he was quoting the book of revelations. Still, the book shows some parallels... horrible war, lots of technology(it alludes to technology in revelations), and a bad government.
stef- That's a really good point! There has always been violence in the world but the government has condemned it. War is very violent yet we have continued going into war after war.
Jose- do you think that our society would be worse...becuase we are entertained by voilence but not as much as in the book, and not the violence we watch is not real...
Oh, I just had a thought, even though this subject kind of passed... I think Bradbury made the ending abrupt so that we think about it. Now that the society against knowledge and diversity is gone, how do you want to start over? What can you do to prevent this from happening again? Those are retorical questions, just something to think about.
i dont know how i feel about violent movies..
i understand why people wouldnt watch them because they do promote violence but then again i dont think anyone can stop the violent movies...
too many people watch them..
Jose- so if he was quoting the book of revelations wasn't he incorporating the end of the world in the book? I don't know what you mean by what you said. That isn't what I asked.
elizabethc-
Thank you for being the ONLY one who has answered any of my questions.
Do you think that the new society will have the same problems as the one before? Do you think this society was started this way? after total distrucation, and the people who survived are the big brother like people?
I can see why some people would think that violent movies are bad but I can also see the the side of why poeple want to see them, scary movies give you an adreneline rush and I think that is the reason people see them not because they like to see graphic violence.
Our society, worse than 451? No, not yet. Maybe in a few decades, but we're getting there.
Stefo, that's a good point! We can't judge the society so much, because it seems like those people just don't know any better. In the society, people like Clarisse were rare, so they had nobody to point out how bad their society really was and that life could be so much better if they would make changes.
i agree with what javon said, why do we enjoy movies like that are so violent? and then when we look back on old movies like the ones our parents watch that used to be so scary we find them stupid becuase they dont look real and resemble someone getting killed or tortured or something
John- alot of our country's ideals are there to keep everyone happy. Freedom of religion is to keep people from being unhappy and forced into a religion and they can chose your own. Most people watch what they say to avoide offending people. Books can sometimes offend people and that was Beatty's reasoning for burning books. I dont agree with it but i'm just gonna play devil's advocate here
Alex-
I agree violent movies seem kind of pointless but they are entertaining so a lot of people watch them
serenal- thats what i think. It like you create your own ending.
alex i agree once something starts you can't stop it or at least completely. There will always be people who will keep watching, reading, or whatever it never really stops.
jose-
i do think that our society will eventually be that bad..
but NOT in a few decades. i think it will take a little bit longer than that.
but i agree that eventually it will
Ug. I can't stand violent movies. There can be violent parts in some but when it is blood the whole time I would not be able to live through it. My parents are some of the people that don't allow any major violent things in our home. Most of you would be amazed at some of the things I am not allowed to watch. But in a way I am thankful for the protection that they offer from the rest of the world. I don't like violent things anyways.
Jose -
I do think that our society might eventually get ot a really b ad point but I think that it will take a really long time, not a few decades.
Thank you Stefo... point taken.
I made that same connection that Amy just made. I thought it was so strange how violent Mildred was when she wanted to feel better. She told Montag to drive around in the country and hit some dogs and rabbits. In the beginning she was unhappy so she tried to commit suicide and overdosed on her sleeping pills.
Nicole, we enjoy violence due to the feeling of control: If I kill, maim, or KO, I have control over the person who I maim. As we can better replicate that killing, we can get control.
John- your welcome. Maybe people aren't seeing them or something. I don't know.
molly- i think there is a big chance that the society would be the same as before becuase it could be just them same place with the same people. there needs to be something different to change the way the people think. And the other people need to be willing to change and learn from the mistakes made by the past society
molly
I think eventually the society will go back to the way it was.
Also was this recorded in history to remember the mistakes made so they can fix it and not go back to it?
Mark - do you think that we might be very close to the society in F451. If you think about it, don't we go to see super violent movies just for fun, and don't we like watching them? Also, think of all the video games and computer games and even sports. Not to scare anyone but there is so much violence in society today if you really think about it. I thinkt hat Bradbury came very close to predicting what the future would be like, what it's like today.
I don't see the appeal of violent movies. Watch people be torn up and murdered in a thousand different ways, it's surprising how people can even think of all these things, actually it's slightly frightening. Plus doesn't it just give the murderers ideas on how to kill people? Like in the White Clown, they run people over so that is what the teenagers do, run people over.
jose-
how do you get pleasure from maiming people if you dont maim them? what do you mean?>
Josed, I think our society could eventually become like Fahrenheit 451, but it's preventable.
megan-
I agree. I think it's weird how they drive fast and hit poor animals just to feel better after a bad day. No wonder the whole city got leveled.
Well, louise, think about it...
We get thrills out of Saw and there are movies like "Shoot 'em up."
Have you ever seen a Tom & Jerry show? That was from the Bradbury's time, and it shows maiming and killing.
How far do you have to go until we go there?
katherinem- maybe we should get a bunch of people to read this book so that we could try to prevent this fromm happening in our society.
amanda and nicole- see i agree, but it is differnt people, but i think that they will see why the other leaders did what they did, i think it will prove to be the easy way out in hard situations
josed- i totally agree with that. and thats why people play such violent video games, beucause they want to control what happens in them and who they hurt or kill
jose- tom and jerry doesnt cut each other up...
THE POINT OF VIOLENCE IN MOVIES ARE A SINCE OF HURT OR TRAGEDY. A since of good may overcome evil. THE GOOD GUYS BEAT THE BAD GUYS.
I think the man on the cover page is Montag and showing how he felt as if he were burning in his thoughts and in books.
elizibeth
good idea but...how could we make people read the book?
Alex, think about video games.
lia- do you really think that the city got leveled becuase they hit cute animals? or some other reason? i get the feeling that they got what was coming and this is beacuase they were doing somthing t someone else
Mrs Smith was just talking about the people in f451 having no emotional scale. Emotion seems to be the very core of every human, can it ever be eradicated? Do people become less human without emotion?
johnb- um, are you sure that the good guys ALWAYS beat the bad guys. There are several movies where one or a couple of the good guys die before they rest of the good guys win in the end. And it is all portrayed in a violent way.
Elizabethc, that's a good idea. By reading books like this and letting people know how bad our society could possibly become, we can prevent it.
josed- i agree that the appeal of violent video games is control. i think the need for control also comes into play in violent or scary movies. when you are watching a scary movie, and you are able to control your emotions and make it through the movie. it makes a person feel brave or strong when they are able to find the humor in violent movies.
Jose- ageree that we a thrilled by scary movies but that is just watching it no tactually doing it. Watching someone in a scary movie is entirely different from being in the same situation in real life.
Also I'm pretty sure that while Tom and Jerry is violent in a way they dont actually maim eachother and I dont think anyone dies.
John b-
That is sort of a false message to send though, the good guys might beat the bad guys in the movies, but in real life that isn't always how it goes.
I agree with what Molly said I think he was hiding from the fire which hurts im and others in his society.
alex- good question. I'm not sure. Maybe we could try to introduce it to more schools and have them show it in thier classrooms.
Mark, they did cut each other up in the original ones sometimes. Or, they got shot in the face, or get cut, or hit....
jose-
but that completely different than doing it in real life..
playing a game and violently murdering somone are very different actions.
Mark - Have you ever seen Tom and Jerry? The whole time Tom is chasing Jerry and getting beat up and cut in half and all these things that we think are funny.
i agree with molly- it does look like he's hinding and he doesnt want to be burning and he is scared of what they became. Also, about the paper. he is wearing a mask behind the paper and its another way of hiding
Well, the good guys don't always necessarily beat the bad guys.
elizabthc-in alot of todays violent movies, the good guys die to provide the audience with a feeling of remorse, or sadness. i do agree that the good guys dont always win, and often times neither side wins.
Alex, is it really? Have you seen the graphics on some of these games? We went in 3 decades from "Pong" to someone trying to perfectly imitate a human being in an upcoming videogame.
brianc- There's a bit of a difference- you never see blood or anything and they always get out alive. They just get hit with irons and stuff like that.
I agree with what Molly said in the inner circle about Montag hiding himself on the cover of the book.
nicole- i like the way you phrased that about being scared of what they became
I really think the person on the cover is Montag. He is holding something in his hand that has a picture of a salamander on it. Montag said his flamethrower was the salamander. Also, he is covered in newspaper and is on fire. I think burning the books and all of the words and thoughts, consumed his life until it pretty much destroyed his life. His head and his hands are bare, I think, to represent how he still has a chance to get out of it and break free from burning the books. Paper burns a lot easier than flesh so he could begin to take the paper off and break free.
And again, movies are a source of entertainment. In real life, well, that's totally a different story.
JOSE and BRIAN
No getting hit with something and getting decapitated is two compleatly different things...
I think the man on the cover could also be Beatty. Because he is standing on burning books which is showing his disrespect for book and he did get burned to death so that explains the man being on fire.
Post a Comment