I cannot believe Ray Bradbury's pissed off at Michael Moore.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but as I recall "Fahrenheit 451" was a book that spoke out *against* the censorship of information. We here in the United States have been subject to the most intensely censored war in our history. There are no major media outlets here that we can trust. It's only when the tide starts to overwhelmingly turn against Bush that the media pays attention. Thankfully, lately, that's been happening a lot. Bradbury isn't an American -- maybe the British press is more reliable than the US press (which I buy -- I live in America, and I get my news from the BBC) -- so he doesn't really know how much propaganda we're subject to just by turning on the telly. He also doesn't realize how much we *don't* know.

Ray, grow up. The reason Moore titled his film after your book was because he was trying to tell what was really behind the messages the President told us. There are a lot of people living in the US, like myself, who feel we've been subject to a lot of lies, mistruths and silliness regarding this war. We don't hear the bad side of it. That's propaganda. That's what "Fahrenheit 451" was all about, wasn't it? And correct me if I'm wrong, but your book spoke out against such censorship, right?

Mr. Moore intended the title of his film as a compliment to Mr. Bradbury. It was an homage. I'm stunned that someone with as much literary clout as Mr. Bradbury -- who has not yet expressed his views on whether this war should be happening -- could object. Did Mr. Bradbury copyright the word "Fahrenheit"? Should the estate of William Shakespeare get pissed at Mel Brooks for titling one of his films "To Be Or Not To Be"? (Better yet, should the estate of Mary Shelley be pissed at Mel for "Young Frankenstein"?)

I guess Ray Bradbury supports George W. Bush. I'm waiting on that admission from him, or that Moore is, in fact, a more evil person than George W. Bush. C'mon, Ray. Tell us where you stand.

If you stand against Bush, then you shouldn't be so petulant as to let a little filmmaker from Michigan cop your title a little bit. Apparently Mr. Moore is an admirer of yours; otherwise he wouldn't have apologized. Can't you be like every other thinking person in this country and realize that it was meant as a tribute? I guess you can't. So I'm waiting for your official endorsement of George W. Bush and his policies. I'd love to hear Ray Bradbury talk about how great the Patriot Act is for America -- that would pretty much, in my opinion, invalidate his entire body of literary output.

Drop the damn subject, Ray. You're a great writer who knows better than this. Or else come out with your unqualified support of the Bush administration, or at least make an effort to copyright the word "Fahrenheit" so no artist ever uses it again.

Yep, the idiots like me are coming out. We tend to do so when absolutely moronic crap like this rears its ugly head. This is silly, petulant and meaningless, and therefore far beneath what "artists" like Bradbury should be concerning themselves with.

Thanks for hearing me out.

[This message has been edited by paulshrug (edited 06-25-2004).]

"Drop the damn subject, Ray."

This supports the argument I previously raised. Ray has not raised a hissy fit, nor is he fanatically obsessing over this issue. It is Moore fans who have assaulted this site -- none of whom have ever directly heard Bradbury say anything about this. Bradbury has answered some reporters's questions. It is the Moore fans who need to drop the subject.

And if Michael Moore had behaved like a professional in the first place, and returned Bradbury's call in a timely fashion (not six months later, and not until after Moore's bad behavior was splashed all over the 'net), we wouldn't be having this conversation.


Steve Miller, Writer of Stuff

Knowing Ray's devotion to "getting my work done" and dislike of dwelling on anything negative, it can be safely assumed he's well into some project or other of fascination to him--not obsessing on this!

quote: "Yep, the idiots like me are coming out. We tend to do so when absolutely moronic crap like this rears its ugly head. This is silly, petulant and meaningless, and therefore far beneath what "artists" like Bradbury should be concerning themselves with."

i won't call you an idiot, but your comments show very little understanding of an artist's right to protect his/her work from thieves like michael moore. it's not "moronic crap" or "silly, petulant, and meaningless." it's called plagerism, buddy, and is not only unethical, but illegal. and by the way, shakespeare and shelley are both public domain now, so it isn't plagerism to use their works in this way. i assume mr. bradbury still owns the rights to his work.

i saw a bradbury interview last week and moore never even had the decency to call the man, depite several calls made from bradbury to him. it was a friend of bradbury's who, at a party, handed the phone to moore forcing him to talk to bradbury. then, moore promised to call him the following week. of course, he never did. he's slime and i wish mr. bradbury would sue him.

this issue isn't for you to decide. i wish the courts had the chance.

You know why Ray is going on the Dennis Miller show. Go boot Moore in the behind.

Oh, good grief. Are we then going to get an onslaught of pro-Moore/ I hate Bradbury people again?

Dandelion... can you ''''screeeen'''' the incoming Moore posts to some off -the- beaten- track- forum...?

I wish they could be somehow diverted. All I do is scan them for particularly vile or offensive modes of expression. Otherwise, pretty well let them stand.

Well, they've pretty much left the forum for now. Let's hope they just stay away.

Amen and amen.

I would certainly hope y'all would recognize that "pro-Moore" and "pro-Bradbury" are not mutually exclusive. I consider myself to be both. I just wish Bradbury would make a better effort to see things from Moore's point of view, that's all.

If Ray is going on the Dennis Miller show, it sounds to me like he's bordering on getting "obsessive" about it. Miller has just plain lost it. Whatever astuteness he used to possess seems to have vanished in thin air.

Oh well... "All the best heroes have feet of clay," as a friend of mine once said.

I think, we can`t speak about this situation as "pro-Moor" or "pro-Bradbury". There is conflict Moor-Bush. And I don`t understand Bradbury`s position in this question. I hope, he`s opposite Bush and his conflict with Moor is misunderstanding only.

Bradbury has made his position clear. He doesn't want his title (and hence him and his life's work) tied in to Moore's propaganda. He called Moore long ago to ask him to reconsider using the title, with the result that he not use the title. Moore, classless and arrogant as always, didn't return Bradbury's call.

While there may be no legal issue involved, Bradbury is a living writer whose feelings on this should have been considered. Moore did what he did because he felt it would help promote and grant some sense of legitimacy to his work.

Saturn: what is the area of confusion for you on Bradbury's position?


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 07-18-2004).]

Has Bradbury made any public comments at all regarding current politics, except to say that he didn't want his title appropriated for political purposes?