1984 And Fahrenheit 451: A Comparative Analysis

Many of the sources that I have researched speak on relatively the same themes: very original. Even that phrase, that phrase I just used, “very original” has been stated a plethora of times. It is a bit ironic, right? Or is that not ironic? I read somewhere that, like, anything funny is, in some way, ironic. But I don’t know if it’s funny or not. I don’t think my brain owns ‘funny,’ you know,” to think that pointing out someone else’s unoriginality would also expose one’s own. Classic. The authors of the works I researched openly admitted that speaking on originality is not, well, original. In the Atlantic article “Do I Repeat Myself? The Problem of the ‘Already Said’” the writer, John Barth, outlines how it is becoming exceedingly difficult

1984, first published in 1949, deals with freedom of thought and the restrictions that are placed upon it. In this world it is discouraged to have original thoughts, or any at all; everything that is "known" is truly just a fabrication created to set like-minded one dimensional citizens in a society of structure. The concept of uniformity becomes destructive. Fahrenheit 451, published in 1951, describes a situation in firemen, rather begin fires rather than cease them, specifically burning books. This literal and metaphorical loss of language and knowledge adds to the empty 24/7 thoughtless entertainment that is expected to be had by all, creating a place where free thinking and genuine curiosity is punishable (sound familiar). Each of these novels contain some sense of a disapproving nature of intellectuals, those who seek "why?" rather than “how?” Although these two novels deal with the same theme, they are in each its own an original work, both create their own personal story of self discovery and a thirst for free curiosity. Notice the difference in the years of publication: one in 1949 and the other in 1951. It is safe to ensure that the latter may have found a bit of inspiration in the former. Obviously there is a possibility of no direct intentional correlation, which proves originality can just as well be foiled by