‘Fahrenheit 451’ is known as one of the greatest
dystopian novels of all time, and its anti-censorship interpretation is very
freedom-oriented. It explores the possibility of a world where books are burned
(the title refers to the temperature at which such burning is done) as a means
of stifling ideas.
Its author, Ray Bradbury, has just passed away. For the
past 10 years that I’ve been aware of his work, I’ve considered him as one
of my three favorite short-story writers, and his ‘The rocket man’ (which
inspired an Elton John song of the same name) is my favorite short story ever.
I wasn’t a particular fan of the libertarian themes apparently
present in his work (and Bradbury himself seemed to downplay them). I guess
I had long considered myself anti-censorship, even before understanding free
markets, so I was not too influenced by others espousing such views. I just loved his ideas so full of wonder and heart. But I
suppose he has had some influence in the growing public awareness of these
issues; at least, his popularity signified such an awareness. Hence this homage
of sorts.
AYN RAND AGAINST
SCIENCE FICTION, AND WHY SHE IS WRONG
Forgetting that Rearden Metal in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ is
somewhat sci-fi, libertarian author
Ayn Rand was very critical of fiction stories premised on what we consider to
be impossible.
Rand believed such stories to be depictive of the
helplessness of man against nature, a betrayal of reason, which is of course a
completely stupid reason to disparage
what is meant to be fiction or possibly metaphorical.
 |
| From Whitman to Bradbury to Serling. One of the more heartwarming episodes of The twilight zone. Watch here. |
Rand and her disciples could not understand that ‘what
if?’ is precisely the means by which change, or ‘what ought to be’ is realized.
I’m not just talking about creating stories for entertainment, but even the ‘stories’
by which the world is interpreted: scientific theories.
‘What if?’ treads the uncertain, but this does not disparage
the world or belittle humanity as much as it offers new possibilities. Besides,
human reason, for all its practical purposes, could never lead to complete
mastery of the world. To think of ‘reason’ so simplistically is to hold the
same conceit of political leaders and ‘planners’ who think the economy can be manipulated
by nonmarket elements.
We can thus see a greater significance of ‘mystical world
betrayers’ such as Ray Bradbury, with their great ‘what ifs.’ We can almost say
a great scientist has passed away.
No comments:
Post a Comment