Good callout to Fahrenheit 451. I think Beatty’s monologues are pretty important because they’re strongly argued. His positions aren’t wholly irrational, he has given it careful, deliberate thought for a long time. The first time I read it I recall feeling compelled and almost convinced by his arguments, which is such a beautiful way to express it. Bradbury literally argues against the existence of the book Fahrenheit 451 itself, his own competing ideas that someone else would want to erase, through Beatty’s monologues. He made a compelling argument for it, too. All the books disagree, so what even is truth?
Knowing how to be psychologically resilient against such arguments is important, I think.
Good callout to Fahrenheit 451. I think Beatty’s monologues are pretty important because they’re strongly argued. His positions aren’t wholly irrational, he has given it careful, deliberate thought for a long time. The first time I read it I recall feeling compelled and almost convinced by his arguments, which is such a beautiful way to express it. Bradbury literally argues against the existence of the book Fahrenheit 451 itself, his own competing ideas that someone else would want to erase, through Beatty’s monologues. He made a compelling argument for it, too. All the books disagree, so what even is truth?
Knowing how to be psychologically resilient against such arguments is important, I think.