If he was critical of TV and suspicious of radio for they made people lazy and were satisfied by factoids rather than knowledge, I can only imagine what he'd think about social networks and twitter and even computer games.
I imagine him declaring them utterly corrosive to knowledge and true learning.
people said the same thing about mass production of books. It's ultimately been the major criticism of all pop culture, usually coming from people vested in more "elite" forms of culture. Meanwhile people are probably reading way more than 20 years ago (at least through social networks). And most definitely writing more.
Getting back to Bradbury's points about TV/radio, he talked about how TV/radio addiction makes it harder to read a book.
So what? You've replaced one addiction with another. Books aren't inherently better than other media (except perhaps some ancillary stuff about your brain generating imagery or eyesight). I'm saying this as a person with this lament (more because some stuff is only available in book form).
I wonder what he would have thought about audiobooks.
>I wonder what he would have thought about audiobooks.
Background noise.
Ever since the greeks began taking up writing and reading, and Socrates bemoaning the loss of the ability to memorize entire epics, there has been an attack on "vain" knowledge.
I'd guess in his mind the epitome of a learned person was the aristocratic scientist who read first sources in the native language: Sanskrit, Greek, Latin among others. First sources, always in the original, not interpreted.
I don't doubt that results in improved critical thinking. But whether it's a good investment when you have limited time, I don't know.
What do you mean mass production of books ? Democratization of the printing press ?
It seems to me the printing press actually improved things, but in more recent time the educating power and self improvement potential of books got significantly diluted by drowning books into huge numbers of published entertainment pieces. Entertainment took over knowledge.
I'd say the opposite: today people are reading less book than 20 years ago, writing on paper less and language is on a trend ot become impoverished.
Yes, exactly that. Folks thought that cheap, freely available books would ruin a generation, their minds being unable to remember things like past generations. Young folks would no longer learn as their heads were stuck in fantasy books. They might even become immoral.
They thought similar things about chess - that it would make a generation of morons.
"The Simpsons" were controversial in the 80's, since they just knew kids would try to emulate Bart, just for a more recent example. My mother wouldn't let me watch it for some years on the single family television.
And lastly: I don't know if folks are reading fewer books or not if you count digital books. That said, I think folks read a lot more than they used to, since a lot of communication is text-based.
Quick look shows I've mixed up facts, and honestly don't have the time to do a deeper search to find the attitude. It seems more of a social evil from a shallow search, but that's just a mention in the Wikipedia article [1]. A little more information here [2].It has been banned numerous times through history.
It seems to me the printing press actually improved things, but in more recent time the educating power and self improvement potential of books got significantly diluted by drowning books into huge numbers of published entertainment pieces. Entertainment took over knowledge.
What's entertainment and what's knowledge? Where do you fit Fahrenheit 451?
You don't have to imagine, he talks about internet and was extremely critical of it.
I think he missed a critical point of it though: he sees books as ways to save and exchange ideas of interests coming from various authors while TV is mostly a control tool because it has to go through one choke point that can be controlled by a big, potential nefarious, entity.
He sees internet as an extension of TV but its flow of information is inherently different.
And seeing how oeople block each other on Twitter and retreating into echo chambers all the time, people on HN and elsewhere react like babies to anything that is "too personal", he's perfectly right. It's not about knowledge, it's about being and remaining cut off from yourself and genuine emotions. Having a lot of knowledge about the world is a great way to go about that, while deluding oneself about it. Others are having power or respect. And it's not a long or complicated book, you know, so even just this discussion kinda proves it right.
Oh, and video games, where basically 95% of the "lore" just seems to be code for having issues? Don't get me started on that Deathlord McVoidtouch and all that inane BS. I've been playing games since 1990, and 99.9% of it has always been trash, while today hardly anyone is even trying. And people lap it up, the dumber it is, the more filled with marketing speak and alienated magical thinking, the better. "It's just a game, it's just a movie, don't be a party pooper". It's Fahrenheit 451 to a T.
Social networks are different, in that the people can comment back and discuss the issue if someone is trying to spread nonsense.
This is why many top news sites now have disabled comments (to "prevent trolling and hate speech" obviously) and why there is so much pressure on social media sites to ban users who are saying something different.
I imagine him declaring them utterly corrosive to knowledge and true learning.