No, he actually writes in the morning. He usually likes to receive his phone calls around noon to roughly four or five.

Although he told me that he is extremely busy for the rest of the year, you could give it a try!

Nardster, Darkster,
The Orthodox belief (i.e. oldest Christian concensus) re "living forever" (as best I can state it) is that since Christ conquered death through His death and Resurrection ("...I am alive in Christ...") we all will live forever - whether we like it or not.

I'm beginning to sense a sort of nonsense on this board, mitigated by the comments of whoever has the last posting. It seems that often all the comments in the previous posts hardly count. After closely looking thru many previous postings, and into the archival posts, a sense of what Ray Bradbury believes is all there. His religious beliefs, his philosphies, his thoughts on many subjects. All there, as well, in much of his writings. So what's the quesrion? Why a need to call the man up, as one suggested? Just take some time, pull up a chair to the computer, or a library table, and start reading.

PK, Are you sure you mean "mitigated"?
Anyway, two of the things I like about this board are the rabbit trails we go on and the unique personalities who contribute. If you're a relatively new arrival, be patient. We usually get back on track. Sometimes we actually STAY on track!

"Nonsense" is an interesting term. It seems to connote a sort of light-mindedness or casualness. I don't think the effort to analyze a writer's work for meaning is ever a fruitless task, and, in fact, I think it is part of what makes literature (sci-fi, fantasy, theology, philosophy, novels, short stories, poetry, drama, scientific papers, etc) so rewarding and worthwile.

When you say the answers are spread out all over and we should just read, I guess I have two gut reactions to that:

(1) Part of the work of analysis and interpretation is to pull together that variety of information and synthesize it into a meaningful, centered description and understanding--as opposed to leaving a bunch of disparate and autonomous pieces of information scattered all over the place.

(2) When you say, just read it, do you mean that you read without thinking? If that is what you mean, the reading is at a rather low level. If you read with thinking, than I would suggest that, at least at an informal level, you ARE interpreting the work.

I enjoy the postings of the regulars here. We have historically had some of the Michael Moore jealots postings here, and those have been a distraction; but honest discussions about Bradbury, his writing, the meaning of his writing, and looking at his impact on culture and thought, all seem worthwhile efforts and practices.

Mr. Dark, I like your level-headedness and sense of fair play. The conversation between yourself and Nardster could've gone very badly if you had been of a different mind. And I have to agree that reading anything, whether it's science fiction, fantasy, or scripture, without questioning what you are reading, and trying to understand why it touches you, or repulses you, is a lot like watching all the Friday the 13th movies because they're "horror" films and you like horror films, or like trying snot-flavored ice cream because you like ice cream and therefore it must be good.

It is hard to discuss our personal beliefs in a calm and rational way, even in the arena of a beloved author like Ray, when we're forced to ask ourself to explain why we feel the way we do. I think we build walls to protect our icons, and thereby ourselves. It's no different with Ray Bradbury. Ray's work, Ray himself in the times I've read about him, or the interviews I've seen, or the one blessed time I got to meet the man, has always been a huge influence on me and the way I feel about writing, and writers. I guess I read things into his work that I want to see also, like Nardster. Anyway, good discussion.

RoddenII: Once again, these are NOT my beliefs. I do not believe that the street outside my house has a white line running down the middle. I do not believe the sun is rising outside my house at 6 am in the morning. I can see it, I can touch the street, I can cover my eyes from the brightness of the sun. Likewise with much in scripture. One spans a void of disbelief by belief, which brings you to the actual object, or a sense of the genuine article. Of course, this is so complex that far greater intellects than I can ever even begin the approach towards, have fired-off countless pages of writing on the subject. If someone slams you across the face and takes off, you are left to ponder the evidence, especially if you had your eyes closed or were asleep during the attack. You look at what you got! You don't try to believe what happened. You try to understand what happened. But that's what most people say when you talk about this subject.

Mr. Dark:
I am saying of course, everything IS colorized by our intellect and emotions. But that doesn't change the 'reality' of what exists outside our senses. THAT is not altered by our perception of it.

Nard:

Couldn't agree more. I think we see things through our own perceptions. Those perceptions (senses, interpretations, prior experiences, etc) color what we see. But the "object" of what we see is independent of our perceptions. This is my view. I recognize that there are arguments against this view, and I respect that intellectual level of THAT discussion, but I believe in an objective reality. Nevertheless, that objective reality is viewed from a subjective standpoint.

I always think respect and civil discourse is superior to name-calling, fallacious haggling, and ill will.

Snot-flavoured ice cream?

My thought as well. Could there being anything more gross? Well, yeah, there could, but I don't want to think about it. And to think that I was eating a reduced fat piece of string cheese when I read that. Arrghhhhh!!!

Mr. Dark:

And that's where, 'having the mind of Christ' comes in, if I am set aside...