Don't let the slightly less than agreeable individuals grind you down

Looking at this in the context of AP lit. test dogma, there is repetition of the lines "And you can dream...So dream out loud" in the second, third, and sixth line. These lines embody the meaning of the song in its entirety. It empowers the oppressed to rebel and transcend their "chains", and to of course, not "...let the bastards grind you down". This coincides directly with Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. This song depicts the submission of a girl who once "... had fire in [her] soul" but who is stifled by her surroundings. Moira was rebellious and individualistic. She refused to be kept prisoner by the Aunts, yet in the end, she becomes the epitome of all that she had protested against in her freedom. She becomes a prostitute at Jezebel's. Offred is terrified by this "..indifference and lack of volition" in her friend and says "Have they really done it to her then, taken away something-what?-something that used to be so central to her?...I don't want her to be like me. Give in, go along, save her skin...I want gallantry from her, swashbuckling, heroism, single-handed combat"(249). Both works call for the rise of the oppressed and depict the frustration("I know you'd hit out...") and perceived helplessness of these individuals. The last lines of the last 2-3 stanzas are very short and are essentially the final words of encouragement, leaving the ultimate possibilities in the hands of the girl. The last stanza repeats the words "you can", leaving hope for escape. Another connection between this song and the novel is the idea of choking.
And you can swallow
Or you can spit
You can throw it up
Or choke on it.....

Yeah I'd break bread and wine
If there was a church I could receive in
'Cause I need it now

These lines from the song automatically reminded me of the imposition of religion in The Handmaid's Tale. When Offred recites her altered version of the "Our Father" she says "I have enough daily bread, so I won't waste my time on that. It isn't the main problem. The problem is getting it down without choking"(Atwood 194). This idea of choking in both works illustrates the suffocating nature of both instances being depicted. This "daily bread" represents the repressive society, and "choking" represents the individual's inability to swallow and accept their new reality. In both works, an indivdual seeks solace in religion, yet finds it inadequate in justifying or remedying the corruption which surrounds them.

There's something about Beatty

There's been a lot of speculation on the heroism of Montag, but what about the antagonist? What is it that makes Beatty such a believable character? How does Bradbury create a character that is so easily disliked? In class we discussed the possibility that he had alternative motives, that perhaps he really wanted Montag to recognize the corruption of their world and that he truly wanted Montag to do what he could not. Personally I think it had more to do with power. Beatty was the head of the fire department, despite the fact that he clearly had an intense love of books. By having this authority over Montag and the other men, he is able to control and create torment, unlike his own torture. Misery loves company, right? Both are tormented by literature, Montag by the stolen book and the forbidden mystery which surrounds it and Beatty by the questions that the books could not answer. I think that Beatty's destruction of books is a form of self-deprecation/self-destruction. It really is the classic tragedy, mankind destroys all that he loves out of vengeance and self-hate. This man had an enormous library; he was able to quote books and had a clear obsession, yet he is in charge of burning these same books which he is so passionate about. When Montag sets him on fire, he does not attempt to run, he remains still, accepting and welcoming death. Beatty wanted to die from page 1. How could anyone who dedicates their life to destruction of something they love be happy in their existance? There is one instance where Beatty says "Forget them. Burn all, burn everything. Fire is bright and fire is clean". By burning the books, Beatty was burning a part of himself. His fate represents his final cleansing; the only way to remove corruption from a life he became disgusted with. I don't believe Beatty had alternative heroic ambitions; his struggle was entirely internal and not meant to aid future generations.

Though I'm usually not fond of science fiction novels, I really liked this novel. The characters are incredibly complex and the fundamental ideas of the novel can be applied to any generation. What I've learned to appreciate about these novels featuring distopian societies is their lack of finite conclusions. There is no definitive "happily ever after" (especially in WE); there's a lot of room allotted for personal interrpretation. Bradbury creates a melancholy hope at the end of the novel, leaving the reader with a sense of the uncertainty that awaits these characters and the weight of reconstruction.

I also found it interesting that Bradbury depicts the "villain" of the novel as such a tragic character. I also found it interesting that despite my sympathy for Beatty, I disliked him the most out of anyone in the novel. So quick question: What do you think was Bradbury's purpose of adding this tragic dimension to the antagonist, if still the overall attitude toward him is disdain? Just curious....