RB once said something like, "I'm not a Science Fiction Author because only 30% of what I write is Science Fiction."

We all know Mr. Bradbury is prone to make outlandish, and sometimes defensive, remarks. He's the Shaquille O'Neal or Barry Bonds of "Fantastic Literature", a giant feeling the victim.

Has anyone ever tried to do the actual math, pertinent to the time of his original remark, to see if his 30% is accurate?

Wasn't approximately 50% of his material in the 60's SF? And that being after his statement?

Stephen King has made his bread and butter writing Horror novels, but that may only account for 50% of his actual material. We don't hear him complaining about being labeled and categorized thusly.

Asimov, same thing. The good doctor spent much of the 60's writing introductory science books and much of the 70's writing young adult mysteries as well as introductions to Shakespeare, and algebra, but he never dogded the "SF Giant" label. He may have been an egotist, eager to wear any hat he could and the bigger the better, but I'd like to think his efforts were genuine.

And as my final agent of comparison: Harlan Ellison. What a story. In the early 70's he gave SF the finger and ran away, disowning it, disavowing it. Only to come back home like a runaway teenager, cold, hungry, and friendless. A fallen giant.

Bradbury may have bitten the hand that fed him, yet Science Fiction has never loosened it's grip upon him. In FRIENDS OF FOUNDATION, a tribute to Asimov, he does the introduction but doesn't contribute a story. That may sum up his relationship with SF, yet it came at a point in time so far removed from the hierarchy rule of Mr.Cambell and the other critics who labeled him "anti-technology" and "anti-SF", at a time when the SF world was once again reaching out to embrace him. They honored him with lifetime achievement awards and Grand Master awards and he said, "I think I'll write mysteries."

What gives?

So many of today's "true" SF authors site HIM as their first exposure to Science Fiction, not Heinlein or Asimov or Clarke or Wells or any others. His influence upon SF is irrefutable. Not bad for a non-SF Author.

[This message has been edited by grasstains (edited 05-30-2004).]

Oh, as for my query:

Has anyone done the 30% math thing?
Why has RB stood by his original remark?
Was it out of spite?
At some point has he regretted his statement?

grasstains:::

With some math calculations on the computer and an abacus, I came out with 29.1 percent, with a .04 margin for error.

One more item.

Has there ever been a "Tribute To Bradbury" type of book?

If not, WHY NOT?

Nard-
Why do you hate me?

[This message has been edited by grasstains (edited 05-30-2004).]

There is a book written as a tribute to Ray. The Bradbury Chronicles is a book of short stories written by various authors including Orson Scott Card, William F. Nolan, Christopher Beaumont, F. Paul Wilson, and more. It is described this way on the back--"Now in recognition of all that he has given us, Ray Bradbury's literary comrades and heirs have banded together to craft this tribute to his genius." There is even a brief forward by Isaac Asimov, and one story by Ray ("The Troll"). It's a great book, and I recommend it to any Bradbury fan.

The anti-science fiction claim by Ray Bradbury is not based on "disclaiming" science fiction as much as it is a recognition of a tighter definition of scifi than many others use.

Bradbury defines science fiction as things that are within the realm of the possible. He is happy to claim Farenheit 451 as science fiction based on this criteria, but not Martian Chronicles. The problem Bradbury cites in defining Martian Chronicles as fantasy rather than science fiction is that in Martian Chronicles, people breathe normally in a Martian atmosphere that supports human life. This, in Bradbury's definition, is not possible -- hence, it is fantasy, NOT science fiction.

Nathanial Hawthorne claimed his greatest stories were not stories, but, rather, were "tales". For Hawthorne, many of the stories were psychologically real, but not scientifically possible.

In this vein, I think Bradbury is acting like Hawthorne in that he's just trying to clearly define what he's doing with his work.

grasstains:::

Your comment ...took me for a surprise.

It's Sunday. Cheer-up!!

Ah, definition of terms. Age-old struggle.
I agree with RB's (and some others') definition of SciFi, so I don't take too much umbrage with his stand on the matter.
Clarke tells us how the craft was built, Asimov tells us why, Bradbury tells us what the people did after they got off the craft. I don't think most of RB's work falls into the definition of SF that *I* hold. But I can understand your view as well.
As for your mention of Ellison's disavowing SF and coming back later like a hungry teenager, well I take some issue with that idea.
Ellison did not disavow Science Fiction in any broad sense, he gave 'the finger' to the *definition* of Science Fiction as it was then held by most in the field. He was rebelling against the common, typical state of the industry whereby authors and works get pidgeon-holed by category and therefore limited in their abilities to reach newer and wider audiences. He called SF 'Speculative Fiction' (not the first to call it that, but that was *his definition*)... And in truth, he *never* really came back to the SF he disowned back then. He stills feels that it's wrong that, say, Neil Gaiman, doesn't get as broad an audience or as exposed a career, because the industry in which he dabbles is run by people who aren't smart enough to recognize subtle but very real differences in the works of those authors, and who limit their reach by the very act of making *their* definitions 'official'.
I do understand your viewpoint, and I would not try to argue my own case as being any more sentient than your own. But I think the way we define things and the words we use to express our pleasure/distaste at those same things are as important to understanding differing opinions as any 'real' facts or events would indicate.
Bradbury probably feels the same way about publishers categorizing him, as Ellison does.
The fact that numerous SF authors credit RB or Ellison as being SF inspirations has no bearing on the latter authors' opinions on the definition of SF.
Crap, do I ramble. Sorry.
I'm not arguing, just puttin' in my shiny new copper penny's worth (read The Man Upstairs for the reference).
SM

Imskipper-

Thanks for the info on the tribute book. I guess I should have checked amazon.com before asking. I thought I'd seen everything by or about RB. I'll call it the "DAVY" factor. I always search the P-section of the bookstores hoping to find Pangborn's DAVY, but have never seen it.

Nard-

I'm sorry, I don't really think you hate me. I've stayed away since posting this thread because of all the political madness.

sclerismockrey-

Ramble On! Your opinion and knowlegde is valuable and interesting.

.

[This message has been edited by libRArY (edited 08-14-2004).]