'''DON'T REASON WITH THE UNREASONABLE'''

dandelion:
Can this be put up in some sort of blinking banner above the Bradbury website?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

How's that for communicating?

My, how you love to hear your own voice. As I know nothing of you, neither do you know anything of me. I wasn't aware it was a contest.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-30-2004).]

I think I'll take Nard's advice.

Best,

Pete

Here's a quote from this morning with which I agree:

�Since the book remains in print, and Bradbury has some hope that a new film version will be made in the foreseeable future, he may be concerned that hoopla about Moore's film will harm the market for his book, or for a remake of the movie based on his book,� said Litman, author of �Digital Copyright,� a 2001 book on the effect of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act on consumers.

Agree with it or not, like it or not, there will be a cognitive association between F9/11 and any future F451 film release. Mr. Bradbury's objections are perfectly sound.

Fascinating discussion. But back to the title debate, I�m not sure I understand why Mr. Bradbury is so upset. Especially since alluding to another author�s work in a title is a literary trick he has used himself. Imitation is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

As to whether Michael Moore should have been more �fair and balanced� in his portrayal of Bush, after years of listening to the complete hogwash that often comes from Bill O�Reilly or Rush Limbaugh it seems a little funny to hear the Right-Wingers talk about accuracy and even-handedness. Sounds more like they are mad that the left is finally using their own tactics against them.

In fact, considering the bomb threats at some theaters showing the movie (and Oklahoma City and numerous family planning clinics), perhaps that�s why they are mad at the terrorists as well.

And I think the axiom is, �Argue with a fool and there are two fools arguing.�

Just joined to say this: (also posted this elsewhere but wanted to contribute to this thread, too, since I found both interesting. Please forgive if you've seen it elsewhere.)


First, if you want to hear Ray Bradbury speak on his own behalf, go to www.wbur.org, the local NPR news station in Boston. Robin Young interviewed Mr. Bradbury on the "Here and Now" program at noon yesterday, June 29. (You can find it by doing an easy search. Hear and Now links back to this site.)

Second, Mr. Bradbury said his book was primarily about literacy and the dangers of the loss of literacy, particularly the failure of schools to teach literacy at the younger ages. And, I extrapolate from his words although he did not say this outright, the loss to our society when people stop thinking and analysing for themselves.

Third, Mr. Bradbury indicated that Michael Moore's comment "9/11 is the temperature at which freedom burns" is a false analogy. That Michael Moore's movie has nothing to do with the messages Mr. Bradbury felt he was pursing in his book. He obviously feels his message has been hijacked and diluted by Michael Moore's use of the title of Mr. Bradbury's book.


And frankly, I agree with Mr. Bradbury. It's a hollow analogy. It didn't make a lot of sense to me that Michael Moore would name the movie "Fareinheit 9/11" - I don't see any similarity in his railing against the Bush Administration and Mr. Bradbury's warning against the dangers of literacy and becoming too addicted to moving images. (I don't even understand Mr. Moore's movie to really be about free speech, either. It may be free speech for him to create and publish the movie, but that has nothing to do with whether the Bush Administration failed to pay enough attention to terrorists and allowed 9/11 to happen. But I have not seen the movie - I'm only going the information contained in reviews I have read.)

Indeed, I am almost amused by the irony. Mr. Moore made a movie - moving images. There are plenty of moving images in Mr. Bradbury's book and they are clearly the problem in Mr. Bradbury's view. Mr. Bradbury warns against allowing moving images (TV, movies) to take over our lives and dictate our thoughts, instead of pursing literacy and learning on our own.

Images are powerful, and persuasive. But they are also easy. It is easy to sit slackjawed in front of a TV, or a movie, and accept those images as true. (That's why there is such a huge problem with advertising to children.) It is harder to read a news analysis, because to read it, you must attempt to understand it, which requires using your brain.

It seems to me that Michael Moore just thought it would be a catchy name and so he used it. He didn't spend much time thinking about whether the message of his movie really had anything to do with Mr. Bradbury's book. He obviously didn't have the courtesy to call Mr. Bradbury before and discuss it. In fact, he reportedly waited 6 months to return any calls to Mr. Bradbury about the title.

It is my understanding as well that titles are not protected by copyright in the U.S., so it is unlikely that the title alone would be the basis for a legitimate law suit in the U.S. There may be an argument if Michael Moore has done more to "trade off" of the title/concept made famous by Mr. Bradbury (advertising, making it seem like Bradbury approved, etc.) but that seems unlikely.

I don't blame Mr. Bradbury for being annoyed, though. There is no reason to choose "Farenheit 9/11" without specifically intending to reference the famous book - it is a phrase that otherwise means nothing on its own. To me, it just shows me that Mr. Moore was just trying to trade off of Mr. Bradbury's creative work. Mr. Moore could have spent a little more time with his brain cells and come up with his own title.

I have not seen the movie. But I also find it annoying that Mr. Moore would be sanctimonious about his own point of view, and have no problem trading off of someone else. So, I doubt I'll go. I'll stick to getting my news and analysis from the newspapers. And NPR.

Political Veldt, Inkling,
Welcome on board! Please visit the "Who are YOU?" thread under resources to tell us a little about yourself, but especially how you chose your names on this site! Once again, welcome, and, Veldt, well put.

I was quite upset hearing about Mr.Bradbury's upset with the title FAHRENHEIT 9/11.

Mr.Bradbury is one of my favorite writers, and his work always seemed to me to appeal to open exchange of ideas, and ideals.


I think this whole tempest could have been avoided had Mr Moore's people passed along Mr Bradbury's message sooner.


I for one thought Farheneit 9/11 one of the most important films this year (no desire to see Mel Gibson's snuff film -- having gone to seminary awhile, I have no use that religion should be based on the death of Christ, but on his ideals & love of mankind)..


Now I understnad that their is a conservative filmmaker who is making who is making a film which attacks Michael Moore directly.
That is his right, but I hope he has documentation for his accusations, otherwsie it is slander.

You noted that Mr Moore has not been hit with such a lawsuit because of his film...

That said, I hope next time I post on this site, it will be more to praise the wonderful brillance of Bradbury's writing and storytelling, and to discuss perhaps the film and play adaptations of his works...

Has anyone looked at changing the name of 'Fahrenheit 451' to something catchier for the movie?
I thought of 'Centigrade 232.78'

Maybe instead of the cheap-shot sounding 'Fahrenheit 9/11', Michael Moore may have checked the rates at which steel, jet fuel and human flesh burn, and he could have averaged the three, or done something to that effect?

"something to that effect?"

F'rinstance: 'Centigrade xxx'; Centigrade xxx'; Centigrade xxx: Or, the point at which GW becomes a real minoxidilic moron."

How about 'Kelvin 505.78'?

'Rankine 910.67'?

Noted,

Thanks for posting the info on the Bradbury interview. I'm glad to hear Brabdury himself expound a bit on exactly why he didn't want his title hijacked by Moore. I've asked elsewhere about how Moore ties his assertion that if F-9/11 is the temperature at which freedom burns. From what I've read and heard about the movie, it's mainly about how bad/incompetent/overzealous George W. is and not much at all about how our freedoms have been restricted.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Best,

Pete

Wow, Mr. Dark. I read your entire post and heartily agreed, fully convinced the whole way that you were railing against the Bush administration. Then I got to the last line. "That is why I oppose Moore."

Amazing. Or did you mistype the last word? I'm asking seriously.


"... there is a tendency of the public to be stupid and lazy. To appeal to the lowest common denominator via demagoguery is cynical and demeans us all. The best path is to appeal to the highest in people and try to get them to stretch themselves. The low path is to assume they are stupid and then cynically and arrogantly use shallow, dishonest tricks to persuade them to one's own perspective through appeals to emotion, anger and prejudice.

"... There is much good in humanity. It is that to which I think we ought to appeal. [Bush?] does not make such an appeal. It is more work to base one's arguments on reason and balanced evidence, but it is worth it. A "victory" won on the basis of demagogery is a shallow and dishonest victory. It is this I oppose in ..." ... Bush?


[This message has been edited by CanCanMan (edited 06-30-2004).]

Blah, blah, blah, indeed. Funny how you couldn't defend your indefensible asessment that Michael Moore will soon be forgotten, but what the effing hey? You seem reasonable enough. Who figured out at which temperature paper burns? Was it Bradbury? Well, I think that whoever did would be elated to have Bradbury return his number. This whole "don't try to reason with the unreasonable" routine is a bit hackneyed, wouldn't you agree? It stands to reason that you just can't hold your own in any debate that seems unwinnable, and for that you suffer the fate of all similarly benign sophomores. Maybe you should learn how to write a simple declarative sentence before fooling yourself into believing that you are qualified to have any kind of opinion at all. Was George W. Bush any less of a propagandist as he flew onto an aircraft carrier? Please.