Thomas More and Ray Bradbury’s novels both present thoughtful views of what

the future potentially holds for mankind. Although separated by over 400 years,

both authors were keenly interested in their worlds and the direction those

worlds could take for better or for worse. Their ideas are conveyed clearly

through the elements of the narrative, particularly the structure, the language

used and characterization, and although mankind has never found More’s

utopian paradise we have however come closer to realising Bradbury’s

nightmare vision.

Thomas More’s “Utopia” presents just that-an ideal, altruistic society, free from

the burdens of the then present world. The novel is a satire of European society

in the early 1500’s, addressing current problems and suggesting feasible

solutions. The novel was More’s mode of communicating his ideas about

contemporary society. He uses irony to hide his criticism, and attempts to tell the

ideas through using other people as sources. This was in order to avoid

punishment and to fulfil his aim- “to tell the truth with a laugh”.

“Fahrenheit 451”, Ray Bradbury’s novel, presents a darker image of what the

future could be with an eerily futuristic and glum tone. It is a world where there

is no individual thought, and books are seen to cause conflicts. “We burn them to

ashes and then burn the ashes. That's our official motto.” The firemen who have a

responsibility to protect the people, ironically burn books filled with history and

thought. The government caters to people’s material needs, and prevents them

from thinking too deeply on matters. The society featured in the book takes the

approach that “ignorance is bliss” and that it is easier for people not to know,

and therefore they will stay happy.

“Fahrenheit 451” follows the typical novel structure, with rising action leading to

a tense climax and a conclusion that sees the hero saved from the fate that befalls

others. However More’s novel is divided into four sections – “More’s Letter to

Peter Gilles”, “Gilles Letter to Busleiden”, “Book 1”, and “Book 2”. The story is

told as if it is a realistic traveler’s guide, with accounts from a sailor, Raphael

Nonsenso, and in the letters More is praised by Peter Gilles, a prominent citizen

in England at the time, and some doubts are expressed by More about

publication. This structure is effective in giving the book credibility, and allows

More to highlight the injustices he sees in the real world through the voice of the

character Nonsenso.

Both literal and figurative language is used in “Utopia”. The use of factual/literal

language allows More to tell the story clearly, and communicate his opinions to

the reader. It also builds onto the credibility present through the novel, which is

More’s mode of conveying his ideas. Figurative language features used in

“Utopia” include juxtaposing England with life in Utopia, and the book itself is a

metaphor, a picture of a better world, which More can only dream of.

“Fahrenheit 451” relies heavily on symbolism to convey meaning. Fire is the

absolute symbol that holds the book together and is an artificial substitute for the

reality of truth, which the author suggests can be found in books. The title of the

book is significant because it is the burning temperature of paper, relevant

because in the text they burn books. The Salamander emblem represents the

firemen of the book and is important because of ancient beliefs that it lives in fire

and is unaffected by flames. Bradbury uses the Salamander to exemplify the

conceited nature of the government. The Sieve and the Sand image is used to

explain Montag’s goal to learn the knowledge he reads in books. Like sand
falling through a sieve, Montag thinks that if he reads fast enough, at least some

of the books’ wisdom will be retained before it falls through the sieve of his

mind. The symbol of the phoenix’s rebirth refers not only to the recurring nature

of history and the collective rebirth of humankind but also to Montag’s spiritual

rebirth.

The Utopia that More takes readers to is a communist republic in which

everyone has communal ownership. “No creature is naturally greedy…, from

vanity”. This contrasts markedly with Bradbury’s view of the future. His world

is a dictatorship, aiming to eliminate individual thought in order to remove the

threat of being over thrown. “You see, it's... it's no good, Montag. We've all got to

be alike. The only way to be happy is for everyone to be made equal.” This ties to

the original vision of a dystopic future defined as an imaginary place where

everything is as bad as possible, the exact opposite of utopia.

Throughout “Fahrenheit” we see the characters in a far more emotive light.

Readers sympathise with characters who are the victims of a cruel and ruthless

dictatorship and can identify the dangers that such an oppressive form of

government poses. Montag, Faber, and Beatty’s struggle revolves around the

tension between knowledge and ignorance. The fireman’s duty is to destroy

knowledge and promote ignorance in order to equalize the population and

promote sameness. Montag’s encounters with Clarisse, the old woman, and

Faber ignite in him the spark of doubt about this approach. His search for

knowledge then destroys the unquestioning ignorance he used to share with

nearly everyone else, and he battles the basic beliefs of his society.
Both novels have serious messages about the way people live and may be forced

to live in the future. We must heed these warnings as it has been proven that “the

only thing people learn from history is that people do not learn from history.”

People need to look back on their own errors in order to move forward in the

world and avoid making the same mistakes again. More’s optimistic tale

presents a world that we are always looking for, but unfortunately we all too

often find the bleak reality of Bradbury’s inferno.

In the two texts, we are presented with differing views of the future, one positive,

communal and altruistic, and the other far less bright, with a conceited

government and uncaring population. Structure, language, contrasted detail and

characterizations were various techniques the two authors employed to help

readers realise the strength of the underlying messages within the texts.
“Forget them. Burn all, burn everything. Fire is bright and fire is clean.”

It’s [Fire’s] real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences. A

problem gets too burdensome, then into the furnace with it.

"If you don't want a house built, hide the nails and wood." It makes complete

sense as to why they burn the books because they don't want the threat of being

overthrown to become burdensome.

"Don't judge a book by its cover." Pg 155.

In the beginning Montag would burn books along with the other firemen. He

made a judgment, just as most of the characters did, that books are bad for you.

Therefore, he judged a book by its cover. In the middle of the story Montag starts

to look beyond the covers' of books. He finally realizes how wonderful a book

can be and how much meaning they have to life. At that point Montag learns not

to judge a book by its cover but to truly look at the lessons that come out of

books. It shows the troubles that Montag went through when he judge/burned

books.

The utopian world is described in full detail to the reader, assisting More in

being able to get all his opinions across, rather than focusing on individuals. For

example the clothing people wear, the trade arrangements and where people eat

are explored in quite a lot of depth.