Originally posted by dandelion:

"1950s racism and lynchings: see "Way in the Middle of the Air" and "The Other Foot.""

I never accused Bradbury of supporting lynchings or racism. I said his utopian version of America ignored these issues. In Bradbury's modern immature utopian version of America, Americans don't do these things. In the past, Bradbury was much more liberal than he is today. Let's not confuse the views of Ray Bradbury 50 years ago with the views he holds today. His current philosophy appears to be somewhat different from his earlier views, and are very intolerant.

"McCarthyism: see "Fahrenheit 451."

Fahrenheit 451 is about Nazi-style and Communist-style censorship censorship. For Bradbury, there is no similar censorship in the US - he ignores censorship that comes from corporate cartels and monopolies in the US. I'm confident that today Bradbury would condone McCarthyite red baiting. Bradbury is aware of censorship when it comes from outside America, but he's blind to censorship that comes from within America, as the 1990 interview clearly demonstrates.

"Lack of concern for and destruction of the environment..."

I don't think anyone has accused Bradbury of being anti-environmentalist.

"Third world views of U. S. policy and attitudes: See "The Highway" and "And the Rock Cried Out.""

Does Bradbury still agree with those views today??? I doubt it.

[This message has been edited by Beery (edited 04-15-2004).]

quote:

Originally posted by Translator:
Couteau: I�m wondering about your feelings about totalitarian strains within the United States.

Bradbury: There are none.

Couteau: You don�t feel there are any?

Bradbury: No. Of course not. Never have been. We�re a free society

So to illustrate my point, it's a fact that black people were lynched in 1950s America. Since Bradbury states clearly that America has always been free, he must either believe that black Americans freely volunteered to be hanged, or he believes that blacks were not American. Any other view contradicts his theory that America has always been a free society. A free society can only be so if all members of that society (including poor blacks in Alabama) are free.

Any proof of any of this except the Cuteau interview? (For both sides of the argument).
Cheers, Translator

Here are a few more excerpts from that interview:

Bradbury: "We have a telephone for every person in the country in America. There are no automobiles in Russia. It has yet to be invented"

Couteau: "You said we have a telephone for everyone in the country. Everyone who can afford a telephone."

Bradbury: "Everyone has a telephone. Whether they can afford it or not. It�s one of those things that people have regardless of their income."

Apparently, Bradbury has never seen pictures of Russian cars, he thinks that telephones are handed out free by the US government, and he doesn't believe that telephone bills exist in the US.

Couteau: Well, how about someone who is �You�re answers are piquing my interest in other questions, of course �

Bradbury: "there are some things that all poor people have, automatically. They have TV"

Now he thinks that TVs are handed out, and that electricity is freely available.

Couteau: "Well, how about a homeless person in New York"

Bradbury: "Well, no; that�s another problem entirely, which has to do with our emptying the lunatic asylums twenty-five years ago. It was a big liberal movement, and a conservative movement, too, because we hated lunatic asylums, we hated the idea of them, and we had medicines which we thought were going to work, right? It was an honorable experiment, but it didn�t work. So those people are out there. Now we have to take them off the streets; we cannot leave them out there."

Apparently, Ray Bradbury believes that homelessness is caused by a lack of lunatic asylums (perhaps he thinks the state gives out free houses along with the TVs and telephones). Now, I challenge anyone here to explain how these words of Ray Bradbury's can be matched to objective reality. I don't believe it is possible. Now maybe Ray was drunk when he said those words, but whatever his mental state at the time, his words are those of a person who is some distance from reality.


[This message has been edited by Beery (edited 04-15-2004).]

quote:

Originally posted by Translator:
Any proof of any of this except the Cuteau interview? (For both sides of the argument).
Cheers, Translator

There are various interviews that showcase Ray's political naivete or just plain wackiness, most recently on Bill Maher's now defunct talk show "Politically Incorrect".

[This message has been edited by Beery (edited 04-15-2004).]

Ray can tend to oversimplify situations and be more outspoken than he is informed, but it is wrong to accuse him of promoting prejudice or any heartless right-wing political agenda. Some of what he says on a level actually makes sense, such as about the bomb (hydrogen, atom, nuclear) being "the greatest Christianizing influence in the history of mankind." Why? "Because it makes us behave"--in other words, find alternate solutions to conflict.

quote:

Originally posted by dandelion:
Some of what he says on a level actually makes sense, such as about the bomb (hydrogen, atom, nuclear) being "the greatest Christianizing influence in the history of mankind." Why? "Because it makes us behave"--in other words, find alternate solutions to conflict.

The problem is not that all of Ray Bradbury's musings are nonsensical. The problem is that too many of Ray Bradbury's musings are nonsensical or poorly conceived. Saying that some of what he says makes sense is kinda like saying that Saddam Hussein was an attentive father. The assertion is irrelevant to the wider issues. The good bits of Bradbury's recent statements seem mired in a sea of his general ignorance. Anyway, anyone can surely see that 'the bomb' has done little to 'Christianize' the world - George Bush's military is killing Iraqis as we speak. Maybe if the Iraqis had 'the bomb' it would have a Christianizing effect on George Bush, much as the effect the North Korean bomb had on him. But could the world take the chance of giving every nation on Earth its 'peacemaker'? I don't think so. The problem is, Bradbury's logic falls down as soon as some maniac decides to use the bomb, and it falls down because not everyone has one with which to Christianize the rogue nuclear-armed nations who want to dominate weaker non-nuclear-armed nations.

[This message has been edited by Beery (edited 04-15-2004).]

quote:

Originally posted by dandelion:
Ray can tend to oversimplify situations and be more outspoken than he is informed, but it is wrong to accuse him of promoting prejudice or any heartless right-wing political agenda.

Who accused him of such a thing??? Not me. The fact that he's a right wing wacko in no way means that he has materially furthered a right wing agenda. I would say that the opposite is more likely to be the case, since any rational person who has heard him speak on political issues can quite easily see the illogic of his statements. The problem is with those people who listen but don't think critically about what they hear. If that's a majority of the people, then we're in big trouble - especially so if these folks are listening to Ray Bradbury.

[This message has been edited by Beery (edited 04-15-2004).]

Ray is not a right-wing wacko. What is your agenda?

The purpose of this site is to celebrate the writing of Ray Bradbury.

If you aren't interested in that, you're free to take off. There are literally thousands of "trash whoever" sites out there for people like you who apparently have nothing more constructive to do with their lives than tear down persons who have had a positive impact on tens of thousands of lives.

This site was much better before persons like you -- name callers, persons who over-simplify others' positions and insist on dwelling on the negative -- began to come here. Please, go to your juvenile, testosterone-driven hate sites.

Is this a site for celebrating the writings of Bradbury, or is this a site for trying to better understand the person behind the writings? I thought it was the latter.
Cheers, Translator

Mr. Dark, pterran, dandelion, others:

Beery...
...is the type of fellow who hasn't yet discovered romanticism, but just a vague idea of the universe teeming with the unknown and gory things. Beery is a student of the very liberal agendas, who have done very well with him.

Sad!
But, what better to cheer him up than a sudden dose of an enchantment with life. But I don't think that is going to happen any day soon...

I've always felt this is a site to celebrate the writings of Ray Bradbury, and to mention him in the same breath as Saddam Hussein is preposterous. If there is a particular author I don't care for, whether it be his writing or his politics, guess what? I don't waste my time going to his website to trash him. It serves no purpose and just seems low-class.

"Is this a site for celebrating the writings of Bradbury, or is this a site for trying to better understand the person behind the writings? I thought it was the latter.
Cheers, Translator"

Bit of a false alternative, there Translator. It is not, "EITHER trash the man" OR "celebrate his writing". How about an objective look at his literature and contributions, rather than pulling apart pieces of interviews?

Bradbury speaks in generalizations. The interviewer is an idiot if he thinks, for example, that Ray didn't understand that a meticulous search could conceivably turn up a house in North Dakota without a phone. The interviewer is an idiot if he really thinks Ray believes there is not a SINGLE car in all of Russia. It's called reading in context. Ray loves to bait. The interviewer apparently lacked the maturity to see that; and, as a result, over-reacted because he (the interviewer) took every single comment of Ray's mouth as literal, factual, all-encompassing truth.

Additionally, calling him names and oversimplifying his positions does NOT help us understand the person behind the writings. Let's go to his writings, study his use of symbols and metaphors, look at the themes he deals with, examine how he handles characters and location, look at what kinds of amazing things he creates with his imagination, what kinds of warnings his writings portend, How he is almost a magician with language, etc.

Calling him a right wing fanatic, I would suggest, does not help us get at Bradbury the writer.

This is not one of your better moments, Translator.

What moment? I beg your pardon, Mr. Dark, but it wasn't I who called him a fanatic. Had you read all of the posts, you would have seen that I called for both sides to speak, and personally stayed on the fence (except for the initial post which started it all; I wrote it to see whether Ray really believed in what he said to Couteau, ).
Why would you think that Couteau was an idiot? Have you read the entire interview? Show me where he behaves like an idiot, and I'll oficially appologize for doubting you.
Cheers, Translator

ps - this is the edited part - 1) I also agree it's not an either/or alternative, but should rather include both. Hence, the original post is valid, as well as the follow up. 2) If I see a point of view that is not being taken out of context, which happened in this case, I like to explore it. Show me how it was taken out of context.

Cheers x 2, Translator

[This message has been edited by Translator (edited 04-15-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Translator (edited 04-15-2004).]

By "your moment", I meant your attempt to defend the rantings of Beery, as though they represented an intelligent or even meaningful discussion of Bradbury or his works.

I never accused YOU specifically of calling him names. My comment was a general comment on the postings (not even just in this thread) that have polluted this board for the last several months. In this particular case, the terminology used about Bradbury simply has not contributed to an honest discussion of the man or his works.

Your post, in presenting a false alternative, seemed to represent a kind of defense of the postings I was discussing.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 04-15-2004).]