I think we can all agree that in the 21st century there is truly "nothing new under the sun". Virtually anything can be downloaded from the World Wide Web, and concepts of "intellectual property" that were once quite clear are now blurred and confused beyond recognition.

Mr. Bradbury comes from a time when it was a professional courtesy to request the use of certain words, ideas and concepts directly from the original author. I read Bradbury's interview on AP. All he is asking Moore for is an apology. He is not asking for money. I did not notice that he was even asking for credit, but if he had, he would be well within his rights to do so. He is asking to settle the matter with Moore as one gentleman to another.

Obviously, Michael Moore adores Ray Bradbury. He respects "Fahrenheit 451" and made reference to it in the title of his movie to call attention to the fact that the future Mr. Bradbury predicted is taking place in the here and now. It was a great tribute to Bradbury, but Michael Moore should have been more in tune with the traditional customs and conventions of the artist's world. He should have asked permission. He did not even return Bradbury's call, when Bradbury solicited him for information about the movie's title. That was discourteous.

The conflict between Ray Bradbury and Michael Moore is nothing big. It's just a conflict in understanding between two generations of writers. Moore is new to the writing scene; Bradbury is an old campaigner. Moore is a child of the 21st century and his productions are nonfiction, opinion, and politically based. Bradbury is a fiction writer of the old school. He was born in 1920 and lived through the Depression, World War II, the Cold War, the advent of television and a bunch of other things that Michael Moore has only been privileged to read about in history books.

Bradbury deserves to be respected. He deserves the apology that he's asked for, and credit for the inspiration he provided Moore. If Moore had been more sensitive, and more aware of what was due to Bradbury, I feel sure that Bradbury would not only have given him full permission to allude to "Fahrenheit 451" in his movie title, he would have also put his support behind the movie itself. It would have been a great promotional coup for Moore to have Bradbury publicly state his support for the movie. Moore missed out because of his naivete and lack of tact. Probably, Moore didn't even know he was making a mistake.

Now that it's come out, and Bradbury has had a chance to express his irritation with the younger artist's unintentional rudeness, I see no reason for anybody who's a lover of Bradbury's works of fiction or Moore's works of nonfiction/editorial to take sides. I've read a lot of the flame-mail posted to this site. Some people have said that Bradbury let them down. Others have called Bradbury "greedy", "senile", "petty" and a bunch of other cruel and nasty things. It makes me very sad. The people who post to this site are supposedly people who READ. If you read, then you must understand that there's more than one side to any question. Give the two men a break. Let them work out their legitimate differences without fomenting this into a war of lost readership, lost respect and political side-taking.

Shame on you sci-fi fans who have been reading Bradbury for years and now think that he's just being a jerk! Don't you understand the man at all? He's spent years being extremely generous with his time and ideas. He's helped countless younger writers establish careers, and he's made himself so available to his fans that even I once had a chance to hear him speak. You are blowing this all out of proportion and you are just making it more difficult for the two authors to come to terms. Cut it out.

I'm a huge fan of Bradbury, but what about the following titles:

I Sing the Body Electric - Walt Whitman

The Golden Apples of the Sun - W. B. Yeats

Somthing Wicked This Way Comes - W. Shakespeare

When Elephants Last in the Dooryard Bloomed - Walt Whitman (mangled)

That last one is far more egregious than what Moore did with Bradbury's title. Would Walt Whitman understand if he were alive? Impossible to know. The fact that all the quoted authors in these instances are dead is irrelevant since Bradbury is trying to make a moral argument for the integrity of his own title.

Abcrystcats,

A well written post but these are the areas with which I disagree:

1.) I think this is more than just a misunderstanding between two generations of writers. If Moore would like to be considered a craftsman, he should know a little bit more than he lets on about borrowing titles. No one disputes he�s within his legal rights to use a part of Bradbury�s title � though it�s my opinion that the title is virtually trademarked, as Bradbury mentioned in his appearance on Dennis Miller�s show last week, and a good case could be argued that Moore filched his trademark. I don�t know where I stand on the concept of �intellectual property� and new technology but neither cinema nor literature is a new art form. No, Moore�s blunder has more to do with his insensitivity to the matter than anything else. (I find no evidence at all that Moore adores Bradbury or respects F-451. I think Moore�s action was purely commercial � not that I have a problem with that � and he had hoped to glom on to the cultural memory of our society and have Bradbury�s title do much of his heavy lifting. A close read of F-451, and a close viewing of F-9/11, reveals little in common between the two works. Remember, Moore�s tie-in was that if F-451 was the temperature at which paper burns, then F-9/11 is the temperature at which freedom burns. And then Moore goes on to tell, in a dishonest manner, a story that has nothing to do with the restriction of freedom by the government. The future that�s depicted in F-451 is not at all like that depicted in F-9/11. Just saying that it is doesn�t make it so. You have to offer some example. Moore, to my knowledge, doesn�t make his case about the burning of freedom.)

2.) You make an enormous leap when you speculate that if only Moore had been more sensitive and polite he might�ve had Bradbury�s blessing on the movie. While I�m unaware of any direct mention by Bradbury about his thoughts of the movie�s content, I know what he�s said in the interview included with the 50th anniversary edition of F-451. (When the interviewer tries to make your point � that the future of F-451 is now, Bradbury forcefully puts the interviewer back in his place.) I also know what he�s said in other interviews � take a look at the Playboy interview that, I believe, is still available on this site. Finally, if Bradbury had seen the movie, even if he had agreed with the underlying premise, I�m not so sure he would have signed on to the dishonest presentation by Moore. I think Bradbury would value intellectual honesty over political posturing but I may be wrong.

3.) While your post is entitled �In Defense of Ray Bradbury,� I actually found it to be a defense of Michael Moore. Oh, sure, you mildly take Moore to task for his actions but phrases like �Obviously, Michael Moore adores Ray Bradbury,� �He (Moore) respects "Fahrenheit 451," �(Moore used F-451 to) call attention to the fact that the future Mr. Bradbury predicted is taking place in the here and now,� �Probably, Moore didn't even know he was making a mistake� tell me you may be taking a back door to defending Moore. (Then again, you may only be trying to be even-handed. If so, okay. But you�re point would be stronger if you took a stand and argued forcefully for it. This way, I�m left confused and a little bit irritated because I think you�re motives aren�t entirely honest. Not in a conscious or deliberate way because I think you intended to defend Bradbury. But you�re support for Moore is obvious and only undermines your argument. Correct me if I�m wrong.)

Thanks for the well-mannered post. A nice change of pace for this sensitive topic.

Best,

Pete

As a matter of fact, "When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloomed" is one of the few Whitman poems I can actually stand. Weird Walt was usually pretty incoherent.

Thelostemperor,

You're post hit the board while I was composing the above so I'm sorry for not addressing yours as well.

It�s entirely relevant that these authors are no longer alive; if they were, Bradbury might�ve gotten their consent. Because they aren�t, he couldn�t. Also, there�s another nice post elsewhere that points out these works are in the public domain and may be used by anyone.

But even so, that�s not the real difference between Bradbury using these titles/phrases and Moore pilfering Bradbury�s title. No, the real difference is that Bradbury took these titles/phrases and constructed art. Moore took Bradbury�s title and constructed a dishonest diatribe. Apparently Bradbury wanted no part in it. Moore was too boorish to respect Bradbury�s wishes.

Can Moore use Bradbury�s title? Absolutely. Though I�ve made an argument elsewhere that there may be a case for trademark infringement.

But let�s not equate Bradbury�s use of titles/phrases with Moore�s practice. They�re hardly in the same league.

Best,

Pete

No, I have to say that this might be just a little bit of hypocrisy from 'our'Ray on this one, but calling Moore dishonest were does that leave George Dubya? I can't believe people who like Rays Writing could be so right-wing, unless perhaps he is like it himself. lets hope that is'nt the case.

[This message has been edited by Paul White (edited 11-04-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Paul White (edited 11-04-2004).]

I've been surprised by the vitriol of anti-Bush posters. It seems a bit of an obsession to me. You don't like him, don't vote for him. I don't lambast persons who voted for Kerry. They have a different view of the role of government than I do. So they should vote differently. I thought that was the point of elections. The personal attacks on Bush are really quite unwarranted and irrelevent to this board.

I wouldn't be able to vote for either, I'm Australian.

[This message has been edited by Paul White (edited 11-05-2004).]