Final Project: Allegory

Now, this may sound kind of shallow and silly, but no. "Oreos?" I know... but I think my experience with oreos very much relates to the class- when you read this, imagine the oreo cookie itself as Literature class.

(I'm going to bring in oreos; also, this whole presentation/skit will make more sense in class).

So, I don’t know about you, but I’ve always loved cookies.

mmmm.

Their smell, their taste. delicious.

Especially oreos.

I hadn’t tried oreos until very recently, actually.

My parents are kinda sorta health nuts, so I’d never actually had a box of oreos at my own house. I’d dreamed of it, but my parents would never by the name brand oreos.

We went through tons of fake oreos, because that was all I could get. Newman’s o’s? bleh.

Back to nature, “classic cremes?” Ick! 

“All natural Trader Joe-Joe’s?”
Even “WhoNu’s nutrition rich cookies!”

Ah! I desperately wanted that real oreo.

So I decided I’d work really hard to get it, begging, pleading, plotting day after day.

And finally, I came home from school one day, opened my kitchen cabinet, and there it was.

The royal blue, shiny package with the beautiful, bold, white letters spelling out “O,” “R,” “E,” O.”

I was ecstatic.

Finally, I would get the chance to eat a totally real oreo.

But suddenly, I got a little nervous.

I guess I had always wanted the oreo so badly that I never took into account how hard it would be to open the package and just take a bite.

There was a picture of the dreamlike cookie on the package itself.

So I grabbed it, staring at the picture of the cookie, and then shockingly realized the package was sealed tight, and I had no idea how to open it. So I searched and I searched looking for some instruction like “tear here,” or “pull here,” but I couldn’t find it.

After a few days of looking though, I started to get it. No one was going to tell me exactly how to open the package. Only I could open it for myself. And so I decided I’d give it a try.

So I held my fingers to the edge of the package, took a deep breath, and ripped it open.

It worked! I’d done it! 

Infront of me were 29 twinkling, delicious looking bundles of joy just staring at my face. So I greedily grabbed one, stuffed it in my mouth, tried to take a bite!!

But I couldn’t! I’d assumed that once I opened the package, everything would be a breeze. But the cookie was hard. And even I couldn’t bite it yet, I could tell it tasted good. Really good..

But that cookie was hard. I tried, again and again, using different strategies to try and take a bite!

It was just too difficult. Too unbreakable, too solid. 

And just as I was starting to feel crushed that I would never be able to taste that cookie, that oreo, that one I’d been dreaming for for so long, I heard a crunch.

I trusted my intuition and I bit further.

I crunched and crunched on that cookie, doubting my crunching abilities at times but never stopping, until finally, this brilliant taste filled my mouth. I’d hit the creme.

The cream, now mixed with bits of chocolaty cookie, it all made sense. That taste was fulfilling, I realized, only because I went through everything to get there. In order to get to that creme, I had to open the package. I had to bite hard.

And all I wanted was another cookie. More, more.

With each one I ate, I got a new taste. A new strategy.

With each cookie I tried to bite, it would be hard, it would be difficult, it would take the work of my teeth, but it all unfolded into something, all the flavors swirled together, all logical, all sensible, all purposeful, all meaningful, all delicious!

I had finally eaten a real oreo, and it was worth it.

Tree Map and Essay Draft

Tree Map

Essay Draft

(Bolded/italicized phrases and words - what I want to further edit specifically.)

In the dystopian world of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, controversy is considered a bad thing. Throughout the novel we see recurring/constant examples of characters being exposed to what we could consider the “truth,” often through literature, and we see how this knowledge is instantly equated with sadness. When Mildred’s friend, Mrs. Phelps, starts crying after Montag reads a poem out loud, instead of recognizing these tears as an expression of a positive resonation for Mrs. Phelps, Mildred immediately gets angry and assumes this unexpected burst of emotion is negative. In this world where books are burned, fire chief Captain Beatty claims, “colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on the tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book.” To the people of this world(?) it seems illogical to expose the truth when all it does is cause disagreement.

This idea clearly infers that the society is against different opinions and wants everybody to think the same way. In addition to this being an absurd claim, it seems that both preventing and maintaining an entire general public without/from having personal and varied beliefs would be nearly impossible to achieve. The most unique quality about humans, as oppose to robots and machines, is our ability to think for ourselves. We can process information from our surroundings and each form our own opinions from a unique perspective. If abnormal information shown to characters like Mrs. Phelps causes such an intense reaction, it seems the citizens of the society are pretty brainwashed, thus inferring the government has set up a very strategic system that is fairly successful in limiting and controlling what people are exposed to. So how is controversy prevented?

One way to think about this is to consider the role of technology in the book. Technology itself is used as a form of censorship to suppress multiple things. It not only fills the gap of natural hunger for information that is present without books, but is also employed to limit human interaction. We’ll see Mildred, for example, so wrapped up with her various devices that she rarely has time for any meaningful interactions with her husband, Montag. The impediment of human interaction is vital in preventing controversy because with conversation comes both disagreement, and new ideas, which leads to more disagreement, more ideas, and back again. Controversy is prevented in this society because technology operates as the expurgation of human interaction, thus creating a world of uniform thought in which nobody has a way of forming their own opinions.

First and foremost, technology is a cover up for the gap that becomes present without books. Although often unconsciously, people love to learn, love to understand, love to observe. This comes through all types of media: books, magazines, television, film. A world without any of these “information feeders” would be quite empty, and leave people alone and confused.

People need to be told what to believe–we see this quite evidently in the novel, as nearly the entire society is brainwashed and does exactly what they’re told. People are so dependent on their countless devices such as parlor walls and seashells because they’d be lost without them. And when we see characters like Mrs. Phelps exposed to information that, unlike most media, doesn’t have a concrete command or “answer,” per se, the immaturity and bewilderment is astonishing(/clear).

Just like Mrs. Phelps realizes, there’s more of a freedom of expression that comes through books, writing, literature. There’s more room for interpretation, especially because of the lack of visuals. With visual media, the information we receive is more concrete because we get to see, and that is definitely something most people really believe and trust. With dialogue and sound as well, the same is true for what we hear. So in fact, using this type of media makes it easier to persuade and convince people because there’s less room for people to form their own opinions. Using technology to provide this, the government can control what people believe.

Right from get-go we see Mildred intensely absorbed in her world of technology. In one of the first few scenes, Montag comes into the dining room one morning and approaches Mildred, ready to have a conversation with her, only for her to respond with a nod because “she was an expert at lip reading from ten years of apprenticeship at Seashell ear thimbles.” Mildred has adapted to this life style so much that she now chooses electronics over family. In fact, technology has become her family, what with the “aunts and uncles” of the “parlor walls”: she goes to these imaginary relatives that are so real to her that even “they” know her better than her own husband does. Mildred is a fair example of the majority of the society in which technology has hugely limited human interaction.

With human interaction often comes controversy, because conversation is all about comparing opinions. What often triggers the controversy, however, is outside sources that cause debate: exactly why books are such a threat to the society. In this world, the solution to this controversy is simply burning the books: as Captain Beatty argues in his long, persuasive lecture to Montag, “colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on the tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book.” The problem deepens, though, when we start to question what is really meant by controversy, because it very well could be a cover up for something deeper. Controversy typically means the disagreement of ideas, but in this context it’s more about the ideas themselves than about the disagreement. When people interact with each other, ideas are concocted. There’s this unstated yet vital claim that idea as always lead to controversy, and that controversy is bad. Beatty claims that books are burned to keep people happy. So he’s also saying that books and ideas make people unhappy. There’s so much to be analyzed about this idea chain that clearly, the government tries to rarely address because they themselves know that it’s fairly illogical.

In some ways, though, Beatty’s claim–a way for readers to see the ideals of the society in general–does seem to make sense: maybe it would just be easier to have everybody think the same way. But the way that many characters handle their feelings and reactions when exposed to ideas that are outside of their status quo shows their insecurity and the faults in this system.

Overall, they seem to be successful in making “controversial ideas” look like a bad thing. (yes, mrs. Phelps becomes “unhappy” when she hears Dover Beach. But it is the design of and the circumstances within the society that makes this reaction inevitable.)

Technology is a form of censorship, but what does censorship really mean? It’s all about fear; having power and control.

Beginning of Conclusion:

As a censor, a way to prevent human interaction, and a barracade of(to) controversy, technology the root of so much more than it initially seems. From the instability and immaturity of the characters to the lack sensitivity and expression to the indoctrinating ways of life, all the societal issues within Fahrenheit 451 are a result the distraction caused by technology. (add more)

Although it could easily be dismissed as science-fiction, the world of Fahrenheit 451 is disturbingly similar to our world today in more ways then initially obvious.