Carlo

Fahrenheit 451 is based on the quasi-original premise of how the world will look like if books were banned and most importantly (well, for Bradbury at least) if books were burned. Unfortunately, this premise is stifled by a lack of imagination mostly because there is no creative or intriguing plot as much as an excessively symbolic prose, even at places where clarity is crucial. I certainly won’t be exaggerating when I say that I've made a real effort at times just to stay focused on it.

There are many things that I didn't like in this book, but what I've even found annoying was Bradbury’s style of repeating words and perceptions, not only for two or three times, but sometimes as much as fifteen times. This can be very useful in another book written with a simple tone, but not this one. His repetitious words coupled with his long symbolic prose drew whatever enjoyment possible from the book and replaced it with frustration. I recall passages absolutely out of place and unrelated to the story. I believe this style of writing is unsuitable for dystopian novels, where the story is already allegorical and symbolic. Apart from that, it was very hard to connect with the book's unbelievable characters, even at times where the events were a bit interesting.

I am a skeptic when it comes to sudden transformations of character. I prefer the gradual and natural change which is more driven by people and circumstances that makes the story rich, rather than by mysterious and vague factors and deus ex machinas. The book is filled with sudden and unclear transformations that could have been condoned if accompanied by profound circumstances. I didn't find such profundity in the events and the changes were mostly brought about by vague and unclear circumstances, which miraculously rendered a man who for years took pleasure in burning books, into a hero willing to risk his life for only a couple of books.

Finally, the book is very brief in terms of describing the world in which the events are taking place or the systems upon which the society runs, especially when you consider its long and descriptive prose. If we take the possibility for example, that Orwell got the same idea and wanted to write a book about it, I believe he would not have written a book about something as abstract as a world where books were banned or burned, but instead a dystopian world where this - the banning of books- was one of its outcomes.