I believe that the authors' main argument is that we as a generation have lost, well more like made the idea of having a story behind a picture obsolete. He lets this be known in his writing with the use of tone, diction, syntax and rhetorical strategies.
He starts off with a tone of disappointment towards himself for following the trends of a millennial. He shares what was going on in his head while taking that picture. Mocking himself for acting like a millennial. You can see that with the diction he uses at the very beginning. He writes, "Oh no!, I thought. I've become one of those narcissistic sharers I used to make fun of. I'm a wannabe Millennial." And it's very true! the new generation now a days goes to a restaurant or simply at their homes and when their food comes out, they have to let the world know what they are having for dinner that evening. The prefer for their food to get cold while trying to find the perfect lighting to show off how delicious their food looks to the world.
The author makes a great statement that connects with his main argument about pictures back them and how we see them now. He states that pictures back then were used for the photographer to tell a story with them. Now the picture tells the story for us. He uses syntax when telling us about how when his neighbors would go on a vacation and host a dinner for his family and share the pictures and stories. That was nostalgic for him and it gives us a better understanding of how they truly have changed throughout the years. He does say the importance and good the internet has to the world as well. The internet helps many people stay connected with each other. He used himself as an example with staying connected with his daughter and why he took and sent the picture he did. I very well agree with the author and his claim that our new generation has degraded the importance of a picture and the stories that are behind them that we tell. We ,and I say "we" because I am the same way, just post pictures because we want to show off either what we have, what we are doing, or even what we are eating.
In Fahrenheit 451 Ray Bradbury creates a world which no one could imagine at the time it was written. He describes new and out of the ordinary contraptions that people in the book use such as the ear piece that Faber gave Montag. Guy Montag is the protagonist of this story. He is a firefighter, which in the story are now burning things instead of putting the fire out. The world has changed, but Bradbury creates Montag as a character with different values than the rest. He creates two different worlds between Montag in the sense of his inner world and the world around him.
Bradbury uses a different language than any other author I have read before. He uses his words to describe what he is picturing. He uses them in the way so that the readers can portray that image in their minds. With doing this, he uses much of repetition, synecdoche, imagery, etc. We see these literary devices throughout the entire story, but they are centered in the idea of Montag's different worlds. The inner world and outer world.
Guy Montag is a firefighter who has been living his life like the rest of the people in his world. He doesn't really think for himself and believes he is happy. That is until he meets this seventeen years old girl, Clarisse, one night walking around, which was out of the ordinary. She changed his entire life from that night and on by making his realize what was truly important to him. The inner Montag liked books and fought for what he thought was important. He was fed up with the world that he lived in and took a stand. Although his actions weren't exactly the best ones. Bradbury takes us into Montag's thoughts and while in there he uses a lot of repetition. It sort of lets us see how Montag thinks and processes things.
After meeting Clarisse he finally saw the world clearly once he wasn't part of it anymore. What good did it do to burn books and innocent people for them? Why couldn't he remember how he met his own wife? How is it possible that everybody cares about a family on television instead of their own? Montag didn't care about what the rest of the world cared about because the rest of the world was selfish, ignorant, shallow, and unknowledgeable. He knew is wasn't right, so he decided to take a stand against his boss , Beatty, and the world. Bradbury uses synecdoche with books to represent Montag's feelings and fire that drive him to be who he is. Because of said books, he takes risks and I feel that at the end of the story he is truly happy in comparison to the beginning when Clarisse made him that life changing question. "Are you happy?".
In conclusion, Bradbury is a one of a kind author by the way he uses diction and the way he predicted how the future world would be and in my opinion I don't think that our world is that far from becoming like the world he describes in the book. It truly amazed me reading this story and thinking of how not many people think for themselves anymore. The new generations are taught, more like trained, since kindergarten to obey and people tell us what to believe in. The inner world and outer world of Montag, I believe that exists to this day. I believe that every person can relate to Montag in the sense that they will risk and fight everything for who or what they love and care about.
I think that Gatsby is no doubt a good person. That doesn't take away the fact that he is selfish in his way when it comes to Daisy. I feel that he is only selfish because of his love for Daisy & desire to be with her. But taking away his selfishness, Gatsby is a good person because he has lavish parties in which HIS GUEST enjoy and use it to get away from their lives. He did a huge favor for an officer he didn't even know and when Nick told him that Daisy was going over for tea, he offered to cut Nick's grass. He didn't "have" to cut it because Nick had already arranged the meeting; Gatsby did it out of generosity and thankfulness