Bradbury's Criticism In Fahrenheit 451

In his 1983 essay Jack Zipes, literary critic, questions Bradbury’s criticism of a sociopolitical society after World War II (Zipes). Zipes suggests that Bradbury overplays the struggles of American problems to the point that they are “omnipresent and constantly projected into the future” (Zipes). Zipes believes that Bradbury creates “massive contradictions” in his commentary on the eradication of humanity with his novel Fahrenheit 451. (Zipes)
Fahrenheit 451 is a novel that develops as Montag, the main character, learns more about life and humanity. At the end of his journey Montag transforms and “Is no longer a fireman but a prophet of humanity” (Zipes). Bradbury’s criticism of a dystopian future finishes as a vision of utopia. A major fault Zipes finds with Bradbury’s critique is that he “doesn’t locate the source of destruction in the state, class society, or technology, but in humankind himself” (Zipes).
While Bradbury recognizes the power of the state, he instead shifts the blame of totalitarianism onto human nature, suggesting a form of predestination (Zipes). In Fahrenheit 451, Beatty tells Montag that minority groups wanted proper representation within the media which eventually led to the elimination of individualism and the rise of conformity. By suggesting this, Bradbury absolves the government from any blame and instead gives it to the American people who

Beatty lists 21 pressure groups to Montag as evidence that minority intolerance led to greater censorship. Beatty then shows how minority groups grew upset over opposing views, which led to the abolition of independent thought (McGiveron, What). McGiveron believes that “Despite the obvious role of intolerant minority pressure in the decline of thought, the text actually shows mass exploitation to be the more serious problem” (McGiveron,