SQ-T-Q-C Formula for Fahrenheit 451 Essay

Status Quo- Beatty is a fire chief, and the role of a fire chief is basically to agree with, support, and enforce the laws in the society.

Trouble- Yet Beatty often says to Montag things that would go against the principles of a fire chief, and would support Montag’s ideas against the society.

Question- How do Beatty’s strange actions affect Montag?

Claim [Cause and Effect Template]- One way to consider the effect of Beatty’s actions on Montag is that Beatty is subconsciously helping Montag’s rebellion against society. What Beatty says is important enough to Montag that Montag uses these ideas to bolster and add to his own ideas on why society is not good and how it could be improved, which makes Montag a much more formidable and informed rebel, and also makes Montag a better fit for Granger and his company at the end of the book.

Exploratory Draft for Fahrenheit 451- Stage 4- 1,762 Words

Proposal: I am interested in writing about Beatty’s actions towards Montag because I want to understand why a fire chief, someone who’s supposed to agree totally with the government and with the way society works, seems to have another side to him that goes against the role of a fire chief.

One way to consider this is that Beatty acts like he supports the government, but in a subtle and possibly subconscious way, Beatty aids Montag’s rebellion against society with ideas and information without realizing it.

­This claim comes from a couple of interesting actions in the book, such as Beatty’s smoking, and his actions at his death, along with some realizations that Montag has about Beatty. My interest stems from those, and then looks for the effect of those actions- what are these actions doing?

This, I think, is a fairly deep question- we obviously don’t see Beatty going out and telling directly what he’s doing. So, this definitely has a part of analysis and interest. Another thing, though, is that due to Beatty’s character, we cannot really analyze a lot about the man himself. For example, we don’t know much at all about his backstory or what his positions really are. Fortunately, I think that my essay plan goes around WHY he does things, as we can’t really know, but what the effects of these things are. And, because my thesis includes Beatty not realizing these things, my evidence generally pertains to yes, what he says, but things that are more viable for him to believe as a fire chief. For example, we know for a fact that on the outside, Beatty is a man who does support the government (eg. Burns books, pro-government attitude), so things he says, though he may not agree with them, are still coming out of HIS mouth and affecting people, whether he likes it or not.

There’s another part to this essay though. Besides what Beatty does, we have to analyze what Montag does that could be a result of the things Beatty says, and whether or not Beatty’s saying things really changes or affects Montag. There is, I think, ample evidence in this category as well, including Montag murdering Beatty. So, we have a base of solid evidence from the text that links together to build up my thesis, which is important. Another thing that I think is worth some analysis is Beatty’s smoking, and the symbolism that is there, and what that can mean. Beatty smokes often, and is often described as hiding behind a screen of smoke, or coming through a haze, or what have you. But, what we definitively get, that connects a lot to Beatty’s character, is the sense of hiding and not knowing. We don’t know much about Beatty, just like one cannot really see a whole image behind a screen of smoke, which obstructs vision partially. This could lead to an interesting set of ideas regarding Beatty and what of what he says is true, and also to look at his belief systems.

The thesis ends up coming out to be, more precisely, Beatty’s actions, though he doesn’t realize it, affect Montag and help Montag’s rebellion against society, despite Beatty’s role as a fire chief in the society. If we are to look at evidence, we have 3 paragraph sections.

I.                    Beatty’s actions. What is Beatty telling Montag that could affect him.

II.                  Montag: How is he affected? What does Beatty do to Montag that Montag uses to rebel against society? How does he take Beatty’s ideas given to him and utilize them?

III.                Counter Argument + Response (See below).

A counter argument is a crucial part of any good argument, but it’s most effective when it can utilize the counter argument’s response to further bolster the argument you’re actually arguing for. So, one counter argument might be: Perhaps Beatty is telling the truth, and so Montag doesn’t agree with Beatty at all. For example, there are many instances of Montag disagreeing with Beatty, and not accepting what Beatty says.

Well, I think a counter argument can play into my hands beautifully. In this situation, the important part of my response would be that NOT listening, in Montag’s case, is a way that Montag GAINS information and knowledge for his rebellion on society. Why? Beatty, at least to Montag, is one of many images of society at its peak, or for Montag, a terrible society. Either way, Beatty burns books, kills people, and seems like the average fire chief brainlessly doing his job- Beatty is able to convince Montag for a while that knowing some book lines is just part of a fire chief’s job. So, Montag obviously will disagree with what most of what Beatty says, as Montag’s views on society are directly in contrast with Beatty’s. But, this is GOOD, because according to Beatty, who at least acts like he’s pro government and the society he lives in, it’s good to burn books and burn houses and burn everything that’s bad. So, Montag will DISAGREE with Beatty, and STRENGTHEN his ideas that books should be kept alive. Obviously this one example is on a very simple scale and can be easily complicated to many issues, therefore providing a deep and intelligent counter to the argument that Montag cannot learn from Beatty.

Because Beatty and Montag are often at odds with each other in terms of their thinking, finding evidence might be harder, but there are several instances I have found in the book where there ideas, though maybe different in terms of the individual topic, are actually similar or support one another on a larger scale. One of these examples comes when Beatty is talking to Montag about the history of firemen. Though he means the following  for a different purpose, the broad idea is very similar indeed. He tells Montag that firemen SHOULD be taught their history, because the knowledge is IMPORTANT and HELPFUL. Basically, he does show Montag a very important idea on the importance of learning and knowledge, which is important for Montag later (see part about how Montag uses Beatty’s info, later on).

Another example I found where Beatty seems to be slipping ideas to Montag seems to be when Montag, after running away from killing Beatty, thinks about Beatty as he is about to die. In this thought section, the author uses a couple of phrases to connect Beatty, who at the end seems to be finally realizing the truth (“Beatty wanted to die”, page 122) of what he had done and understanding it, to Montag, who is finally acting in a rebellion against society. There are 2 phrases that both involve contradictory terms- joking/needling, and stifle/pause for air. These phrases describe Beatty and Montag, respectively, and seem to connect the two people who are, in a way, reaching their potential, Beatty for understanding what the problem is, and Montag for acting against the problem. So once again, there’s evidence that Beatty is finally showing his other side, that which was hidden, and that which we didn’t know much about. That is also the side that agrees with Montag.

If needed, I have more evidence, which comes with the actual part where Beatty is killed, on page 119. We have a lot of interesting phrases and words from Beatty as he talks before he dies. There are more contradicting points, further connecting Montag and Beatty, as previously explained, but there’s also evidence of Beatty showing the power of books- by quoting books at Montag, along with spitting words at Montag like “fumbling snob”, Beatty enrages Montag, obviously trying to get Montag to kill Beatty, especially when we consider page 122 and the “Beatty wanted to die” part. Montag basically takes out his anger on society by killing Beatty, but, in a way, can learn from Beatty. Beatty’s words from Shakespeare have the unique capability to do create, or raise, emotion, which is shown at the end of the book too, but also to be there. Just to be the right book at the right time for the right purpose shows that books have an awesome capacity to help or to hurt, maybe only the latter, but to influence someone in some way, which shows Montag the value of books.

Finally, we should get to the third and final part of the essay, the second paragraph- Montag’s response. A major part of this section is Montag talking to Granger near the end of the book, around page 152. Beatty gives Montag a lot of information about the importance and value of books, whether he means to or not. Furthermore, Montag and Beatty finally seem to have some agreement in ideas and thoughts and feelings when Beatty is about to die. To see the effect on Montag, we go to Granger, who basically gives the same advice, and to which Montag already agrees. Granger, whether his ideas are right or wrong doesn’t matter, tells Montag to keep and memorize the Book of Ecclesiastes because it one day might be important and valuable. This is a reflection of Beatty entirely. A connection that furthers this first connection between Beatty and Granger is the symbol of the Phoenix- On Beatty’s hat and in Granger’s discussions, there is a phoenix, which connects the two characters.

Montag’s disagreements with Beatty’s pro-government talk are obvious- he kills Beatty. When Beatty yells at Montag, playing with Montag, telling him to shout Shakespeare if that makes him feel good, while also calling Montag a “second-hand litterateur”, basically taunting Montag and saying Montag’s literary skills are stupid. If Montag had agreed with Beatty, they wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place, with Montag holding a flamethrower to Beatty’s head. But, clearly Beatty’s words had had an effect on Montag in the opposite way, that is, Montag disagreeing with Beatty to strengthen his own argument.

So… overall, I can use Beatty’s actions to help my argument, and words, because his bias towards his own words and whether he lies or not doesn’t change the fact that he says them. Furthermore, we can see Montag using Beatty’s information due to his actions to Beatty and against society, and also in his agreement with Granger, whose ideas seem to match with Beatty’s. Finally, as a counter argument response (counter argument being that Montag wouldn’t take information with Beatty because he doesn’t agree with Beatty on much), I can use the fact that not agreeing with Beatty strengthened Montag’s own ideas on society, and led him further on the path to rebellion.

3 Text Explorations (Stage 3)

Page 122. Montag is running away from his burned house at this point, running towards Faber’s house. Right after this, Montag keeps on running towards Faber’s house, trying to escape the other firemen and the Hound who are arriving on the scene. I chose this scene because I think it could give me some insight on to what made Beatty want to die earlier in the text, which is a crucial point in the book for understanding Beatty.“Beatty wanted¹ to die. In the middle of the crying Montag knew it for the truth. Beatty had wanted to die. He had just stood there, not really trying to save himself, just stood there, joking, needling², thought Montag, and the thought was enough to stifle³ his sobbing and let him pause for air. How strange, strange, to want to die so much that you let a man walk around armed and then instead of shutting up and staying alive⁴, you go on yelling at people and making fun of them until you get them mad⁵, and then…”

1 [Word definition]: Wanted can mean desired or needed. This means that apart from not wanting to live anymore, he actually desired death, or needed death. Perhaps this could indicate that he, for some reason, no longer valued life.

2[Wording/Style/Syntax]: It’s interesting that Beatty was joking, but needling. Joking is to make jokes, or to jest, which would seem to be a more friendly thing to do. Needling, though, is to annoy, pester, provoke, or even torment someone. This would seem to be not friendly, even mean or cruel. So it’s interesting that Beatty would do both at the same time right before his death (pg. 119). On one side, he seems to want to annoy Montag, but on the other hand, he seems to be friendly with Montag, even though Montag was ready to kill him. This indecisiveness, I think, is clear evidence of the sort of subconscious agreement Beatty has with Montag and what he does.

3[Word definition/Wording/Syntax]: Stifle can mean to kill by producing a choking sensation or by making it difficult to breathe. It’s an interesting choice of words to say the thought stifled Montag’s sobbing instead of stopping Montag’s sobbing or a similar term. However, it gets even more interesting to look at when you consider the result of the stifling of Montag’s sobbing- it let him pause for air. This is strange, because letting someone or something breathe is the exact opposite of what stifling does. This relates to Beatty’s confliction between joking and needling. In a sense, this shows a relationship between Beatty and Montag in an interesting way. It’s connecting Beatty to Montag through the conflicting terms.

4[Wording/Style/Syntax]: Firstly, I notice the repetition of “strange” and “and then”. The repetition of strange is emphasizing that it was weird that Beatty would let Montag kill him instead of fighting back. I see this as showing that Beatty didn’t care about life at all. He was so willing to die that instead of fighting back, or running, or calling for help, he just yelled at Montag. The repetition of “and then” is also interesting. For one thing, it extends the sentence into one long, running sentence. That type of sentence is like a contrast to Beatty’s monologue on page 119 before he dies- Beatty spoke in short, choppy sentences, unlike the longer, running sentences spoken by Montag in this piece. This shows some contrast between Montag and Beatty, in a way juxtaposed to the similarities shown right before that line. It shows that Montag and Beatty were similar in some ways, but different in others, and that Montag and Beatty have some defining characteristics that set them apart from one another.

5[Trouble]: This piece of the text is fairly straightforward in terms of wording and style, but I think this is interesting all the same. If we look back throughout the text, Beatty is most often a calm and collected person. He never yells, and when he makes people mad, which actually is surprisingly rare, it’s in a subtle way that kind of builds up, not a blatantly obvious statement. So, it’s troubling that Beatty’s character changes so drastically in the moments before his death that Montag describes to us here. The switch from a calm, controlled person to one who is yelling and screaming and visibly enraged is strange- but what it means, at least to me, is that Beatty’s character is changing. The reason for this seems to be his realization at what he has been doing (burning books, killing people, etc.), which seems to occur right as he’s about to die.

Page 119. At this point in the book, Montag has just burned his house down, but has taken the flamethrower and is now threatening to kill Beatty with it. Immediately after this, Montag does, in fact, kill Beatty, and, after collecting the remaining books in his house, begins to flee the scene. I chose this part of the book because I think it shows a vital part of Beatty’s life in the book- right before he dies. I think there is a lot of valuable information on what Beatty thinks/feels for real and what he does to hide his true thoughts and feelings. “Beatty grinned his most charming grin¹. ‘Well, that’s one way to get and audience. Hold a gun on a man and force him to listen to your speech². Speech away. What’ll it be this time? Why don’t you belch Shakespeare at me, you fumbling snob³? “There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats, for I am arm’d so strong in honesty that they pass me as an idle wind, which I respect not!”⁴ How’s that?⁵ Go ahead now, you second-hand litterateur⁶, pull the trigger.⁷’”

1[Word definition/style/syntax]: A grin is a way to express pain by drawing back the lips and showing the teeth, or it can mean a forced or unnatural smile indicating stupid wonder or something similar. This is interesting for several reasons. First of all, the fact that Beatty is grinning at all means he’s uncomfortable in some way, either due to pain or perhaps being worried, in which case the smile would be forced, to make it look like he was not worried. Also, a grin could be indicating stupid wonder, which could be the sudden realization of what he had been doing, and wonder of why he’d been doing it for so long. Secondly, it’s strange that a grin, which is unnatural or indicative of pain, could be considered “charming”- a word that means highly pleasing or delightful to the mind or senses. However strange the word choice is, it connects to a lot of things in the book, like on page 119, where Montag’s sobbing was stifled, allowing him to breathe, or when Beatty was joking but needling. Both of these were two words or phrases are conflicting one another. This kind of connection happens throughout the book, but it is most prominent here. It perhaps makes a comparison between Montag and Beatty, which could indicate their suddenly agreeing interests and ideas.

2[Wording/Syntax]: Like in number 1, despite Beatty’s confident-seeming tone, this may be a disguise for a feeling he doesn’t want to express. This connects, in a way, to pages 54-59, where Beatty talks to Montag about the history and purpose of firemen. In that passage, Beatty is smoking, and the smoke covers his face. That’s another indication, perhaps, that Beatty says things, but thinks something completely different. A troubling aspect of this part, though, is Beatty’s purpose, whether it be confident, meaningful, or not at all. He seems to not care if Montag kills him. He seems like he knows it will happen. Even more, it seems like he wants it to happen- he’s carefree, telling Montag to tell him his speech.

3[Word definition/Syntax/Trouble]: Firstly, let’s look at the word belch. It means to vent words or feelings vehemently or violently. Beatty seems fairly angry in this scene, and it seems like he wants Montag to be angry too. He wants Montag to yell Shakespeare at Beatty, in a sense. To follow that up, to make Montag even angrier, he calls him a fumbling snob. A snob is a vulgar or ostentatious person, so using this term to describe Montag is meant to make him angry. When analyzing the purpose of this though, I ran into something interesting. Making Montag mad will make him mad at Beatty. This will have 2 consequences. Firstly, and more obviously, Montag will be more likely to kill Beatty. This is probably an intention of Beatty’s, as he has shown he wants to die. But, looking more deeply, you run into a second consequence. Montag will be mad at Beatty. Beatty, though, is, at least to Montag, someone who is in league with society. So, in a way, Beatty is getting Montag angrier at society, and the system he lives in. He made Montag burn down his house, his books, and his life, basically (pgs. 113-117). Perhaps, Beatty is showing Montag how terrible the system is in the only way that wouldn’t jeopardize himself- by doing things legally to show Montag what is really there. Finally, Beatty tells Montag to yell Shakespeare at him, which is troubling because Beatty is one who is supposed to burn books, so we get more insight into Beatty’s knowledge of books.

4[Trouble/Wording]: Clearly, the first thing that meets the eye is that Beatty, a fire chief whose life is burning books which even Beatty says are only made to confuse people and make them sad (pages 58 and 59), is quoting books. This is a simple trouble in itself. When we look at WHAT Beatty quotes, though, things get even more interesting. His quote is very applicable to the situation he finds himself in. The quote essentially says that one’s honesty can protect one’s self from the threats of others by essentially diverting them so they pass by you harmlessly. Beatty is saying that his knowledge is worth more than Montag’s threats of killing him, further showing that Beatty isn’t scared of death, but more importantly, that Beatty’s knowledge is very helpful and important, and it’s worth a lot. Montag would know at this point that Beatty’s knowledge includes an extensive amount of information on books, considering he could pick a quote that applies directly to the situation. In a subtle way, maybe even without realizing it, Beatty is giving Montag information on the importance of knowledge of books, something that Granger will emphasize towards the very end of the book (around page 152).

5[Wording/Syntax]: A simple question, but it holds a decent amount of weight for its small size. Right after he quotes Shakespeare, obviously something surprising and strange to Montag, Beatty follows up with a rhetorical question- “How’s that?” This rhetorical question emphasizes the fact that Beatty said that quote, and the importance and meaning of the quote.

6[Word definition/Wording/Syntax]: With this line, Beatty seems to try and further annoy and anger Montag. Calling Montag a “second-hand litterateur” is seemingly insulting Montag’s literary skills. Litterateur means a literary person. So, Beatty seems to tell Montag that he’s not really a literary person, he just thinks he is, or saying that Montag wants to be a literary person. He seems to be goading Montag to kill him at this point. Montag notices this as being very strange on page 122, when he notes that it was “…strange, to want to die so much that you let a man walk around armed and then instead of shutting up and staying alive, you go on yelling at people and making fun of them until you get them mad…”. But this behavior does emphasize and repeat the fact that Beatty does want to die. This fact is repeated over and over again, in different ways, to show the importance of Beatty’s acceptance of death at this point in the book.

7[Wording/Style]: Like number 6, Beatty again tells Montag to go ahead and kill him. There is the possibility of like a double meaning here- Beatty knows that by saying this, he might scare Montag or make Montag not want to kill him. But, because Beatty has made Montag enraged (or at least he hopes to have done so), then Beatty probably thinks this will further goad Montag into ending Beatty’s life.

Pages 53-54. In this part of the book, Beatty has come over to Montag’s house after Montag said he wouldn’t come into work because he was sick. Beatty has come over and begins to talk to Montag. After this section, Beatty will continue talking to Montag more specifically about what he’s talking about, and display his thoughts on it. I chose this piece of the book becaue  I think it shows some interesting parts of Beatty, including what he may be hiding, and some information he may be giving to Montag. “Beatty puffed his pipe.¹ ‘Every fireman, sooner or later, hits this. They need only understanding², to know how the wheels run. Need to know only the history of our profession³. They don’t feed⁴ it to rookies like they used to. Damn shame.⁵’ Puff. ‘Only fire chiefs remember it now.’ Puff.⁶ ‘I’ll let you in on it.’⁷”       

1[Wording/style]: Beatty puffs his pipe a lot. One possibility for a symbol of puffing a pipe, making a lot of smoke, as mentioned in the text, could be hiding something. For example, the term “blowing smoke” basically means lying. At one point in the text, on page 56, Beatty was “invisible, a voice behind a screen of smoke.” This could mean he is lying, or his actual feelings and thoughts are hidden, but only his words can be seen. Here, it is the same thing- his puffing a pipe could mean that perhaps his words later on are not entirely reflective of what he truly believes- something that would identify why he could, for some reason, be aiding Montag.

2[Wording/Syntax/Trouble]: Beatty tells Montag that understanding is evidently a key part to being a firemean- understanding of the history of the firemen. He says that it might at first hurt, because the knowledge Montag gained about firemen made him sick (pages 52-53). Yet, Beatty thinks that knowledge is important. In a way, it seems that Beatty is telling Montag that knowledge, in the end, is always important to have, even if it is bad at first. This, embedded in talk of the firemen, is a key piece of information for Montag to use, and another example of  Beatty giving that information.    

3[Wording/Style]: It might seem at first that the history of the firemen is the only thing that Beatty thinks people need to know. But, if we look at the smoking, and the fact that Beatty may, in fact, be hiding his real thoughts and feelings, he may be subconsciously not agreeing with this. The fact that Beatty smokes may indicate this to the reader, but not to Montag. The way Montag figures out what Beatty is really saying is the fact that Montag doesn’t agree with Beatty- as a fire chief seemingly against books and one who burns the books, anything Beatty says, Montag is likely to disagree with, especially due to his extra knowledge and rebellion against society’s ways. So, in a way, Beatty is giving Montag information that he hides.

4[Word definition/Wording/Syntax]: It’s an interesting choice of word to say that the information should be “fed” to the rookies. The definition as it is used here is basically to give to satisfy someone. So, the information is even more important, as it once satisfied people to know this information- Beatty thinks it was good that the old rookies used to be fed the information. So, here’s another time where Beatty seems to be pro-knowledge, something not common in his time. This is emphasized by using “feed” instead of “give”, or a similar term. The information is given, yes, but given for a reason- to satisfy what seems to be a thirst for knowledge that people have.

5[Wording/Syntax/Trouble]: In this line, it becomes more evident that Beatty thinks that the giving of information is important- it’s a “damn shame” that information is not given to the firemen anymore. So, perhaps Beatty is showing some of his other side, his true feelings and thoughts, but it’s still covered somewhat by him saying that it’s the information about the history of firemen that needs knowing. It’s troubling, though, that Beatty is possibly so secretive- he would seem like a person who has little need for secrets, as most fire chiefs would probably have completely acceptable views within the society. This makes Beatty a VERY different character in the very same role as many other characters who are just pawns in society- the fire chiefs. Beatty seems to be someone who doesn’t agree with what society does, at least inside of him, but he acts like he does at all times- a very good actor. But, if we assume he does, in fact, have some hidden feelings, some ideas that he might have do slowly come out through what he says and does.

6[Wording/Style]: The puff here is obviously Beatty blowing smoke from the cigarette. But the repetition of this puffing is interesting. The fact that he continues to keep “puffing” the smoke out means you can never get a clear view of Beatty- you’re always looking at him through the smoke. It’s certainly interesting that Bradbury would make Beatty smoke so often, especially when his character is immediately a little abnormal for the society, considering he quotes books even though he’s a fire chief. This aligns with #1, where we see that it could mean we don’t get a clear view of Beatty as a person, or what his true beliefs are.

7[Wording/Style/Trouble]: Here, Beatty is clearly trying to give Montag an obvious bit of information- the history of firemen. But if we connect this one line with the previous part of the quote, we see an interesting progression: Firemen need understanding and knowledge, and it’s bad that they don’t get it anymore and basically no even remembers it anymore. Then, Beatty goes on to tell Montag that he will give Montag the information- so Beatty seems to want to give Montag the information, as he thinks it’s helpful. But, of course, Montag might not agree with Beatty, because they disagree seemingly on how society works. But, the reader does get an indication of Beatty giving Montag a lot of information that might not be relevant in its content, but certainly is relevant in the very idea of the power of information itself. This idea is something that Montag is much more willing to agree with, because he already thinks that knowledge is power, and that’s the whole basis of his rebellion against society. So, throughout Beatty’s small dialogue, he gives Montag small tidbits of information that reinforce things he agrees with- and this seems strange for a fire chief to do- the only real reason would seem to be his true feelings interfering with his actions in small ways.

Fahrenheit 451 Essay Brainstorming

These are some ideas/theses I came up with regarding ideas for a possible essay.

- Looking into Montag's Relationship with Mildred and possibly society's effects on relationships
- Beatty is subconsciously helping Montag fight against the government because he is too scared of the government to do anything.
- Looking into why Beatty is so hypocritical all the time, and what that means about his thoughts/ ideas on the world.
- The influence  of the government, whose goal is to prevent people from rebelling/thinking is actually making Montag want to rebel.
- The Hound as a symbol connecting to Montag or maybe society as the government would like it to be. Or maybe how the hound symbolises both- two opposite things symbolized by one thing??
- Comparisons between Faber and Beatty- both influential on Montag's rebellion, but why/how/ what makes them different or similar?
- Look into what the goals of the government are. If the government didn't originally start the idea of burning books, as Beatty tells us, why does the government support it? What are they looking to get out of this kind of society, and what will it do for the government?
- Beatty maybe not telling Montag truthfully how he feels or what he thinks- true feelings masked by the smoke and lies. Why would Beatty not tell the truth and/or why does Beatty hide it?
- Look at comparisons between the Hound and Montag- what does the Hound show Montag about himself? About others? About society? Basically, what is the importance of the massive amount of detail we get about the Hound?

Process Post for Close Reading

Over the last couple of weeks, while reading Fahrenheit 451, we've been practicing a very important skill for deeply looking into a text- close reading. We've used this technique for a variety of reasons, including looking for symbols, analyzing meaning, and looking at comparisons. One thing that I see as vital for close reading, especially when you want to get the most out of close reading a part of the text, is knowing the context in which the part of the story you close read exists in. I believe context is such an important part of close reading because without knowing the context, you can't fully understand the part of a text you close read.

I don't think any reader would normally just pick up a book and flip to a random page and read from there, and that's because the reader wouldn't understand the situation that the reader finds him or herself in at that random page. The same goes for close reading, in my opinion. You may know the part of the book you want to close read, but I think that knowing what comes before it and after it opens up a whole new level of meaning to the passage you close read. Aside from just giving the reader basic knowledge about the text, the context can open up the possibility for symbols, and further analysis of the part a reader chooses to close read. For example, in Fahrenheit 451, some symbols are dragged out from past a certain section. When Clarisse tells Montag he's not like most of the firemen, Montag thinks his body is split in two, a hotness and a coldness. However, if you only close read the part in which Montag talks to Beatty about the Hound, where this hotness-coldness is repeated in similar forms, perhaps the whole meaning of the symbol would not be found.

Obviously, one doesn't need to close read the entire book to scrape out every tiny word and phrase, looking for the slightest meaning. However, just reading over the parts before and after a text one decides to close read could be hugely important and beneficial to close reading the passage itself.

Klosterman Essay Tree Map Picture

May be a bit hard to read, but  I can read it ok.

Malcolm X Intro Draft

                Decisions people make often define the life they lead later on. So, often when people have to make a decision that could have a huge impact on their life, they take a while to think about the decision and make sure that they make the right, and most sensible, decision that would most positively influence their life, or is in their best interest. This is so commonly done because it would seem to make sense- you spend time on important things to make sure you make the proper choice, instead of rushing a decision and maybe getting it wrong.

            Even though taking your time would seem to be a normal action to do when making decisions, Malcolm X changes his views from views he had strongly agreed with for over 12 years to almost the complete opposite in a very short amount of time after his experiences in Mecca. This seems odd to me, because the change Malcolm undergoes is certainly a massive one, and one with great impact on his life- yet he still changes in no time at all. It is very intriguing that Malcolm could so profoundly change his entire system of beliefs without seemingly giving it very much effort or thought at all, because of the short amount of time in which he changed. If taking time to make the right decision when you have a potentially life-changing decision at hand is often thought of as the right approach, but Malcolm makes a massive change to his beliefs, changing from something he believed for 12 years to close to the opposite in such a short time after Mecca, then what enabled Malcolm to make the decision without having to spend time on making sure it was a good choice and one that would benefit him? Understanding this crucial change in a crucial point in the book can give us a deeper understanding of how Malcolm viewed the world, and what he saw change in the world to be, which is extremely vital to understanding Malcolm’s life as a whole, due to the fast-paced and often changing lifestyle Malcolm led for much of his life.

            One way to think about how Malcolm changed so quickly and decisively after Mecca is to consider the role of Malcolm’s new religion, “true” Islam, or the Islam practiced in the East, on the changes he made in his life, making Malcolm not worried about what he previously believed, but instead focusing him on the challenges that had always been a part of his life, and a new way that, perhaps, Malcolm could look to solve those issues.

Exploratory Draft Reflection.

Mine:
Claim- Religion let Malcolm X change and divert from his previous views quickly without looking back and spending a long time dwelling over it and instead let him look at the challanges that lay ahead.
Question-After being in the Nation of Islam for so long, how did Malcolm change so quickly and decisively after his experiences in Mecca?
Trouble- Malcolm changes his views from something he had agreed with for over 12 years to the near complete opposite in a very short amount of time.
Situation/Status Quo-
-When we make important decisions, we tend to take time to think them over, to help us make the best possible choice.
Reworded question- If we normally take our time with important decisions to help make the best choice possible, but Malcolm changes his views from those of the Nation of Islam to what is close to the complete opposite in a very short amount of time, then what allowed Malcolm to change so quickly and decisively after his experiences in Mecca from something he had held on to for so long?

Brenda's:
Claim- Malcolm took a long time to realize that not all whites were bad because of his poor experiences with whites in America.
Question- What took Malcolm such a long time to realize that not all whites were bad?
Trouble- While Malcolm advocates against racism against blacks, he constantly stereotypes whites.
Situation/Status Quo-
- Usually if we are advocating for something not to be done to one person, we don't do it ourselves, like the "golden rule" suggests.
Reworded question- If usually people are not hypocritical about something they are advocating to not be done by doing that same thing themselves, but Malcolm stereotypes whites even after he is saying that whites should not be racist towards blacks, then what took Malcolm to realize he was stereotyping ALL whites as evil racists?

Malik's:
Claim- People look up to Malcolm even after the bad things that he did because he did things that were very important for society.
Question- What did Malcolm do in his life that would be worth remembering him for that outweighs the bad things he did?
Trouble- Malcolm does a lot of criminal acts in his life, yet he is remembered as a hero or role model.
Situation/Status Quo-
- Criminals aren't considered heroes by most.
- Society in general looks down on criminals.
Reworded question- If criminals are usually looked down on by society, but Malcolm, who does many criminal acts in his life, is looked on as a hero or role model, then what did Malcolm do in his life that was benificial to outweigh the bad things he did in his life?

Malcolm X: Exploratory Draft

            I am writing about how Malcolm changed so quickly after Mecca after holding on to his beliefs with Elijah Muhammad for so long. Under Elijah Muhammad, he was basically advertising for the ideas that the Nation of Islam held, going to speeches and trying very hard to convince others of what he thought, and what the Nation of Islam thought as well. He was, besides Elijah Muhammad himself, the face of the NOI, and so when he suddenly and completely changed his views to the near opposite, I found that to be very troubling.

            Malcolm had done so much against white people in America, because basically his whole career was devoted to fighting the white “devil”, that I found it very odd that he could suddenly just go back on that without even giving it too much thought- obviously he thought about it, but he just seemed to decide after Mecca that he should change. He seemed so intent before Mecca to keep on doing what he was doing, and keep on going where he was going for a very long time, even after he left the Nation of Islam, he still didn’t seem to have changed very much. This makes his change all the more interesting, but troubling at the same time. Why would he change because of one experience after having so many with the Nation of Islam? What did Mecca do to him that gave him these ideas? These kind of questions lead up to give the situation a more troubled one for me.

            I think this change is very important to look at because if we look at it deep enough, and discover a lot about it, we can discover things about how Malcolm looked at his life, and what Malcolm thought about change, which is, in my opinion, vital to understanding Malcolm’s life, which was full of changes that were very influential to how his life went on. Understanding these changes can make us see how Malcolm’s life went on in a new and unique way that will give us a deeper understanding to many other parts of his life, like what he believed throughout his life and why, for example, or any other part of Malcolm’s fast-paced and sometimes chaotic lifestyle.

For example, if, let’s say, looking at the changes in Malcolm’s life leads me to say that Malcolm changed because he had little regard for people he previously worked with when he had other views, so he changed quickly because he didn’t care what the other people thought, and he decided this would make him a better person (this in no way reflects what I believe my understanding will be). From this, I could perhaps be lead to believe that Malcolm was actually a more carefree person who decided what he wanted to without looking at possible consequences, or that Malcolm changed often because he often disliked people he shared ideas with. This just goes to show that from having an understanding of Malcolm’s reasoning for change can give a person further understanding in other parts of his life that are also important to his life as a whole.

My claim is that religion allowed Malcolm to change without having to look at what he was leaving behind and instead focus on the future and the challenges he faced ahead of him. My reasoning behind this is that because he realized that the Nation of Islam was being basically misled, because the people were not being taught the “true” Islam of the East, and the rest of America were not into Islam at all either, so I think that once he saw the benefits of Islam at work in Mecca, he changed his views to try a different method of ending racism and segregation in America- a religious method that would be correct, and would be beneficial to everyone of all races like in Mecca.

The best example of this is in Malcolm’s letter to himself at the end of the chapter Mecca. In the letter, he talks about the only way to get America away from its racist self is to basically be shown the spiritual path away. He talks about what Islam in Mecca did to his views- how he was changed. The main part that is still ambiguous is why he would do it so quickly- but it almost seems like Malcolm was surprised himself in the speed in which his views change. He says in the letter that it might be shocking to hear his new views coming from himself, but that he was able to change because of his flexibility and, in a way, realist attitude. But this, of course, is not the whole story, because, in a way, he is not always true to the point with what he says. Later on in the letter, he claims that blacks should never be blamed if they themselves are racists. So another question that comes to mind for me is: What made Malcolm keep some views and change certain others? But for now, I can see from his letter that he looked to religion at least in some ways to help fight his problems. Obviously, after discovering Mecca and “true” Islam, religion became extremely important to him, so this is also another reason I think religion could help him change his views despite his past.

Overall Malcolm’s changes were troubling to me due to the speed in which they occurred and based on his past experiences. His time with the Nation of Islam would, after these changes, seem like a waste of time in a way if so suddenly he decides to completely go back on his previous views. To look into how he managed this change, I think religion played an important role to change his ideas so that he didn’t have to look back and instead could look towards his goals that he found important with “true” Islam. 

Proposal for Malcolm X

I am interested in writing about the way Malcolm changed so quickly from views he had held for so long after his experiences in Mecca because I want to discover how Malcolm was able to so quickly throw away 12 years of his life under Elijah Muhammad where he was believing and convincing others of certain things and suddenly believe a whole new set of things that were often contradictory to the beliefs he held before and were at least incredibly different. This is important because looking at why Malcolm was able to change so quickly and decisively may give us better insight into how we look at the effects of change in the world around us as well as in ourselves compared to how Malcolm viewed these same topics. One way to look at this is that Malcolm, perhaps, viewed his religion as a way to change his views to contrast previous views quickly without looking back and, instead, focusing on challenges ahead. 

Intro to Mecca

Going into the chapter "Mecca", Malcolm had previously been, in America, only exposed to whites being cruel and not kind or generous at all. Because of his past experiences, he had been in the Nation of Islam and elsewhere, trying to show black Americans that the white man was "the devil", and giving examples of how white people were evil and horrible as people. Clearly, he believed that all whites were horrible people, as he stated many times.
However, when he travels to Mecca in the chapter, he realized that there was a flaw in his understanding in regard to the way white people could act towards other people, including people of other races. In Mecca, he realized that whites could be kind, generous, and friendly, like any other person of any other race. This sudden realization made Malcolm undergo a huge physical, emotional, and mental change, but he did so with amazing, almost alarming ease. How could Malcolm, someone who had for most of his life believed that white people were evil and terrible, change his views to almost the complete opposite in such a brief period of time with so much ease both mentally and physically?
Malcolm was able to adapt so well because after seeing so many acts of brotherly love between whites and people of other races in Mecca, united under the "Oneness of God", he could use his religion to guide him into a new set of views easily and without very much trouble.

Weekly Reflection- Sept. 21- 279 words.

This week, I have mainly been re-reading Malcolm X. A sort of trouble and confusion I've been having while reading the book is: Is Malcolm completely unbiased when he tells the story of his life? Sometimes, while reading, I notice some things where Malcolm will say that something happened on purpose, when he really, I don't think, has enough knowledge to tell for sure. For example, he says that the welfare people and CPS were basically obsessed with trying to destroy his family and separate them. Obviously, he has some grounds to make that argument, but I kind of doubt he knows that for sure. There are a lot of scenarios where Malcolm is a bit biased, at least in my opinion, and in a way, that being biased slants the truth somewhat from the actual occurances. Becuase Malcolm is telling the story, I think he can be biased, and I think that would happen for anyone telling a story from a long time ago, but it makes me wonder if he was adding more bias than needed, and if he was, why. I think that bias can be very helpful in proving a point that you want to make, but it leaves me wondering after some points in the book, asking "is that actually what happened?", or "what could have happened if this isn't what happened?". One thing I do think, for sure, is that looking for some bias in the text has actually made me look deeper into the story, so I guess I'm fine with it. In the end, it's his book to do what he wants to it. That's the way I look at it.