Bradbury & Moore (things are getting wierd)

McMurphy

Apostate Against the Eloi
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
1,146
Location
Coffee is an addiction, black-and-white horror fil
Excuse me if someone already posted this, but has anyone seen the news coverage of Ray Bradbury's venomous reaction to finding out that Michael Moore got his title for his new documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, from the novel Fahrenheit 451?

Let's just say I won't repeat some of the names that Bradbury called Moore in this forum; however, here is a link to a random online quip about the situation. :D
 
No, I hadn't heard anything about this. However, I have been wondering what Bradbury's reaction would be.

My, my...he is getting a bit cantankerous in his old age, isn't he? I think that's probably what this is about. He's certainly smart enough to know that titles are not copyrightable. And I certainly think his reaction, if reported correctly in the link you posted, McMurphy, is a bit over the top. Maybe he just doesn't like Moore's modus operandi; I don't know.

This is interesting, though.
 
The quip page is interesting. Glad to see the whole thing isn't worth taking in the slightest bit seriously. :)

Oh - and someone should warn Bradbury that "Farenheit" isn't actually a word that he invented. ;)
 
Brought that book yesterday, funnily enough. It rained so I had to go into Fagin's so I thought I might as well buy it.
 
I wonder how much Bradbury's reaction is a reflection of his rage over the name usage or because he is a Conservative supporter of Bush and doesn't want his works associated with Moore's?

I'm betting he is, if he was a supporter of Moore and his work or had similar beliefs I doubt he would be getting so upset.
 
Just finished reading it... thought it was excellant. Very well written in general. Gah. I can't write reveiws today.
 
After reading that, I certainly won't be purchasing anything of his.
 
Hypes, Bradbury is an excellent writer, and has created some beautiful SFnal visions. His output as a creative person need have no connection to his personal foibles. I recently visited Orson Scott Card's site and found that he holds political views that are nearly diametrically opposite to my own. This didn't effect my enjoyment of his excellent book, Ender's Game, although it will make me keep an eye out for sly political persuasions in further books of his - that I do intend to read.
 
Hypes said:
Call it a boycott- I don't want an idiot's vision.
While I think Bradbury's stance is wrongheaded on a number of levels, I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call him an idiot. Having not only read some of his work, but also heard him speak at a con a few years ago, I know he is most definitely not an idiot. I think it is probably more accurate to say that he is getting older, his health has not been good for some time now, and he probably has gotten to the point where he doesn't feel the need to suffer those he considers fools gladly.

Honestly, I wouldn't want to deprive myself of his wonderful writing just because I don't agree with one stance he has taken. If you don't want to contribute money to him by buying his books, at least check them out of the library and read them.

lma (on a library computer)
 
I love Bradbury's work - particularly 451 - but I think he went a wee bit over the top here.

In saying that however, I do feel that to use a derivation of such an iconic title (can a title be iconic??) shows a certain amount of laziness on Moore's part - just as I could not understand Crighton naming the second part of Jurassic Part 'The Lost World' when (again) this title has become synonymous with Prof Challenger and co.

Perhaps Moore's intention was to flatter by imitation. If so, he has failed.

Either way, it's certainly not worth depriving yourself of Bradbury's fantastic work. He might be a grumpy old so and so now, but many years ago he was a shining beacon of his genre.
 
Yeah Hypes, Bradbury's classic works are awesome feats of imagination and expression, and frankly, they do not contain any hidden agenda, political or otherwise.
Although I certainly wouldn't call the bulk of his work as SF, it's a lot more in the vein of fantasy, albeit not the tired multi-volume swords-and-sorcery yada that has come to characterize the genre for the masses.
 
Hypes, I did not choose to read the book for the reasons you suggest. I'd been looking out for it for a while, in fact, and had just managed to find it.

It's pointless to let the views of authors affect one too much. Even authors are entitled to have views.
 
Interesting question we've stumbled on -

Does an author's beliefs, such as religious, political, ethical, have something to do with whether or not you would choose to read their stories?
Orson Scott Card is an interesting point. Many of his books explore religious and ethical themes, however I've never felt he was prostelytizing me from his stories, so I continue to read his work - which I thought has always been very well-written. For an example in the other direction for me, Heinlein's tendency to duplicate a protagonist or supporting character who was bitterly sceptical and charmingly obnoxious made me feel that I was reading the same novel over and over in different forms.

I don't have a sense that Bradbury has ever pushed an agenda beyond what the story seemed to call for, which is my measuring stick - so I still read his old stories, lend and recommend them. Actually, I have a 500 volume library of sci-fi that takes me about three years to forget, so I then can start over. So my memory of Bradbury is that dated.
 
An8el said:
Orson Scott Card is an interesting point. Many of his books explore religious and ethical themes, however I've never felt he was prostelytizing me from his stories, so I continue to read his work - which I thought has always been very well-written.
I just recently posted a thread regarding Ben Bova's work and in many ways he's the same. Theres always some sort of nod to religion in the books I've read but he comes from a very middle ground with it, at least to me.

It doesn't feel preachy, and in fact, one of his books, Jupiter, has a future shadow government that controls the population through religion and moral editcts involving behaviour. Even though religion was cast as the villian in that one, it seemed more a possible evolution of what is currently going on in the world more than a damnation of it as an institution.

Some authors seem able to dance on that razors edge between offending or endorsing, I look at it as a sign of good writing and having a thorough outline before getting started.

An8el said:
For an example in the other direction for me, Heinlein's tendency to duplicate a protagonist or supporting character who was bitterly sceptical and charmingly obnoxious made me feel that I was reading the same novel over and over in different forms.
I absolutely agree.
 
I recently read an interview with British author Martin Amis, where he opined that Americans are far more interested in seeing what writers and other artists have to say on world affairs - there is a real interest in looking to them as opnion leaders. In Britain, however, he said, people are least intersted in what a writer has to say outside of their books, and actually wish the silly asses would shut up when they do offer up opinions. As we have both American and British members on board here, I'd be interested in seeing to what extent you think his take is accurate.


Out here in India, by the way, nearly every writer around seems quite politicised, and people do take it fairly seriously.
 
It's an interesting question you pose, knivesout. I think here in the States, writers and artists are like everyone else in this way: we all want to know what everyone else thinks about public issues, but we are increasingly (many of us, anyway) hesitant to voice our own opinions. This is less true about those on the far ends of the political spectrum, both left and right, of course.

I saw this trend begin around the end of the Reagan years. The radicals don't care what people think of them because of their opinions; everyone else is afraid that there will be some repercussion if they say something unpopular. And, in this day of political correctness, there sometimes are such repercussions. It has become much worse, I've noticed, since 9/11/01. I know I have seen in myself a greater hesitation to say anything that might be considered controversial since then. And I hate that, and have been consciously trying not to be so guarded, just as a matter of principle.

Another aspect of the phenomenon of celebreties in the arts as public opinion leaders: here in the States, there are a huge number of people who seem to think that writers, actors, artists, etc. do not have a right to express an opinion, especially on political issues, because "they might influence someone just because they're famous". Of course, most people don't mind as long as the famous person agrees with them; but let someone that doesn't agree with them express an opinion, and there is general outrage. It seems a bit silly to me.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top