MALINTERPRETACIÓN

Ray Bradbury aclara que la muy referencial Fahrenheit 451 no es una obra sobre la censura ni es una alusión a la "Caza de Brujas" McCarthista (aunque el personaje de la vida real termina irónicamente consumido por su propia obra, al igual que el villano del -oh, ironía- libro):

Now, Bradbury has decided to make news about the writing of his iconographic work and what he really meant. Fahrenheit 451 is not, he says firmly, a story about government censorship. Nor was it a response to Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose investigations had already instilled fear and stifled the creativity of thousands.
This, despite the fact that reviews, critiques and essays over the decades say that is precisely what it is all about. Even Bradbury’s authorized biographer, Sam Weller, in The Bradbury Chronicles, refers to Fahrenheit 451 as a book about censorship.
Bradbury, a man living in the creative and industrial center of reality TV and one-hour dramas, says it is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature.
Para el autor, el estado de la ficción no es tanto el problema como la gente que no se cuestiona ni hace nada para recuperar su libertad, abandonando la búsqueda de la felicidad por el embeleso de la caja boba:

He says the culprit in Fahrenheit 451 is not the state — it is the people. Unlike Orwell’s 1984, in which the government uses television screens to indoctrinate citizens, Bradbury envisioned television as an opiate. In the book, Bradbury refers to televisions as “walls” and its actors as “family,” a truth evident to anyone who has heard a recap of network shows in which a fan refers to the characters by first name, as if they were relatives or friends.
La prepotencia como miedo a la libertad. Según Truffaut:



Via Barcepundit.

Tags:

No hay comentarios.:

Publicar un comentario

Publicar un comentario