Rhetorical Analysis Of Fahrenheit 451

966 Words4 Pages
During the period of time when Patrick Henry delivered his “Speech to the Second Virginia Convention,” the relations between the British crown and the colonists were strained. The British government heavily taxed and oppressed the colonists, who were protesting against this unjust treatment. By embellishing his speech with allusions and rhetorical questions, Henry conveys his message that urges decisiveness regarding independence from Great Britain and also warns against possible deception and betrayal. At the start of the speech, Henry alludes to Greek mythology, asserting that the colonists “are apt to shut [their] eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms [them] into beasts” (Henry 2). The…show more content…
Bradbury takes issue with a technological era that is an intellectual dark age stemming from increasing amounts of trivial thoughts. If the issue is not resolved, Bradbury foreshadows a future dystopia where people live an empty, oblivious life where people idolize technology. In contrast, Henry speaks to the convention about the grim future of the colonists in the event of a refusal for revolution and the government’s abuse of power, a theme also seen in Fahrenheit 451. Like the government that Fahrenheit 451 describes, the British are beguiling the colonists with illusions of a mutually beneficial partnership between the two parties and are denying the rights of the colonists. Yet, a key difference between the two texts is that Bradbury conveys his message using a dystopian novel while Henry is using his speech. By using his dystopian fiction, Bradbury is able to create a fictional, but realistic world, allowing the reader to see what grim future awaits should his issue remain unresolved. Once the reader knows more about their bleak future, he or she will be more proactive in combating the issue. Conversely, Henry speaks to his audience rather than present his arguments in a textual format because he wants to personally encourage revolution and form a direct connection with the people. Only then will his audience be able to make a stand. In contemporary society, we must all examine how we feel on the inside in order to decide if we want to tackle an issue or not: When, if ever, is the right time to challenge authority? When we feel oppressed? When we have no other choice? Are we ready to question the very laws that we’ve lived with for possibly the majority of our lives and regardless of whether our opinion will have
Open Document