Translator,
No offense, but it seems that, while you both have very good points and are obviously intelligent individuals, Mr. Dark has one-upped you at every turn. It has been a very interesting debate, or rather discussion, between the two of you.

My post presented an alternative that was not included in your post, and it was done so that we agree, after the anticipated correction (which happened), that this messageboard isn't only one-tracked. I agree with the name calling - that should not happen. But I also like to see Ray's true nature, so that I may gain more insight into what propels a true writing genious. If Beerer has some good points, then I give him credit too, and try not condemn the man outright memerly for his use of a somewhat offensive term.
Thanks for the comment about our discussion; of course the result is always open to interpretation. Some will side with Mr.Dark, some with me, some with none, and some with both. I see no problem with that.
Cheers, Translator

As for Ray's "true opinions," sometimes he takes a firm stand, such as "writers shouldn't go to college," sticks with it, and won't back down despite any evidence or arguments to the contrary.

Sometimes he gets all kind of ethereal and can't be pinned down to a statement. Obviously, he is this way regarding any concrete beliefs or statements concerning God, religion, belief in an afterlife, etc.

Somewhat more rarely, he talks in generalities, for instance: it is generally difficult for a writer to write a long sustained work about a character of the opposite gender to themselves--BUT Ray doesn't say it CAN'T be done--he presents it as being difficult but not impossible. (I settled this question to my own satisfaction years ago and am willing to tell those who say it "can't" be done where they can put it!) He doesn't talk in generalities such as, "Sometimes this works, sometimes that works" a heck of a lot. He almost always has a firm and strongly expressed opinion! The thing is, this applies both to subjects on which he is expert and subjects on which he is only acquainted. Sometimes he comes off like a junior high school student offering overly simple solutions to complex issues.

Other times, when challenged on a statement, he says, "I didn't say this, I said that," even if it is different than what he originally said. He seems to be saying, "I said this, but I meant that." It seems it's more important to him to goad you to action by making you think than to be held to specific statements. He is also touchy on certain subjects, sometimes getting defensive about things he didn't say and no one really accused him of saying!

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Ray is not a right-wing wacko. What is your agenda?

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

No it isn't. This forum is here for "Avid readers of Ray's books? Studying Ray? Come here to discuss or offer resources." I'm an avid reader of Ray Bradbury's books and short stories who happens to think the author should either educate himself about politics or, if he won't, should keep quiet about the subject.

In other words, if he agrees with you, all is well; if he has a set of political views that are different than yours, he's a "right wing wacko".

"Celebrating a lifetime of wonder and imagination." Right from the home page. This actually IS the purpose of the website.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 04-17-2004).]

quote:

Originally posted by Translator:
If Beerer has some good points, then I give him credit too, and try not condemn the man outright memerly for his use of a somewhat offensive term...

I call 'em as I see 'em. If Ray Bradbury's political opinions appear to me to be incredibly ignorant or illogical, I'm not going to pretend that he's merely misunderstood. Now let me be quite clear - I love Bradbury's fictional writing. The man is clearly a literary genius and perhaps the greatest living writer of fiction. But I think he really needs to stick to fiction and keep his mouth shut on political matters. He simply doesn't have the equipment for it.

Again, if he disagrees with your political views, he should keep his mouth shut?

Are you then taking it upon yourself to define correct political views and then censoring/silencing all contrary opinions?

Bradbury has no right to a political opinion unless you endorse it?

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
"In other words, if he agrees with you, all is well; if he has a set of political views that are different than yours, he's a "right wing wacko"."

No. If he has a set of political views that are conservative and based in purest fantasy (for example are you seriously suggesting that his opinions about TVs, telephones and Russian cars are reasonable and not based in fantasy???), he's a right wing wacko.

""Celebrating a lifetime of wonder and imagination." Right from the home page. This actually IS the purpose of the website."

But it's not the purpose of this forum. As someone else already noted, celebration does not equate to sycophancy. Sycophantic forums tend to be extremely boring - everyone always agrees with one another.

[This message has been edited by Beery (edited 04-17-2004).]

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
"Again, if he disagrees with your political views, he should keep his mouth shut?"

Again, no. You are choosing to misunderstand what I'm saying and you're trying to create a straw man argument thereby. It's not his political stance that's at fault. If his right wing views were adequately defended or substantiated, that would be fine by me. The problem is that his views are ridiculously superficial and based on ignorance, poor logic and prejudice.

"Bradbury has no right to a political opinion unless you endorse it?"

Everyone has a right to a political opinion. But they also have a responsibility to themselves and others to ensure that it's well considered, and not just a knee-jerk response. Otherwise they lay themselves open to justified criticism. If I was to say that I was going to vote for John Kerry rather than George W. Bush simply because Kerry is taller, that would be something people should take me to task over. If no-one speaks up, then my ignorance is just as much their fault as it is mine. That's why Ray Bradbury's irrational pronouncements are my business. Especially so since he is an internationally respected figure who commands some enhanced level of respect due to his intelligence in terms of his craft. It is a pity that he hasn't used his clearly superior intellect (which is evident at least in terms of his literary craft) to hone his political philosophy to even a small degree. It is a tragedy that a literary genius who chooses to voice a political opinion fails abjectly to make his opinions defensible in the least. In my opinion his political naivete detracts from his achievements in the literary arena because a true literary genius (especially one who works in the field of science fiction) should be above all a knowledgeable and considerate social critic. Ray Bradbury's genius appears to exist on some subconscious level despite his conscious philosophy. That means that it is absent any directing intellect. Ray is probably creating his wonderful characters and worlds almost by means of 'channeling' his subconscious rather than by a conscious process. It seems to work for him and for us in terms of his writing, but oh Ray, for the love of God, shut up about politics. Your opinions make you look like an arse.

[This message has been edited by Beery (edited 04-17-2004).]

You've twisted my comments, but it doesn't matter. (the comment of telephones in America and cars in Russia has already been dealt with.) You have a clear set political agenda and it's been made clear that to agree with your view is bliss, to disagree with you represents a state of right wing wackiness. Who cares?

He's 83 years old. He has a right to hold his own political views. He has a right to formulate those opinions in any way he wants. And he has a right to express those views. I imagine he could care less whether or not you agree with his views. Why do you feel you have the right to set standards on this that everyone else must follow?

Also, please try not to over-simplify my comments. Celebrating Bradbury's writing does not necessarily equate to sycophancy. This board has been around quite a while before you came here, and there have been alot of views expressed. A lot of the dialogue has been both interesting and vigorous. The old-timers among us have generally been able to express our views without attacking or belittling those of others.

Whether you like it or not, the home page says the forum is to "celebrate", as noted. Just because you assert that is not the purpose of the board does not make it so. The statement on the board is for all to see.

"If he has a set of political views that are conservative and based in purest fantasy..." Quote from you. Are you saying that his views would be okay with you if they were "liberal and based in purest fantasy"?


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 04-17-2004).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
"You've twisted my comments, but it doesn't matter..."

I can't see how I could possibly have 'twisted' your comments by quoting you directly. Clearly you are not willing to engage in a reasoned debate without engaging in evasion, sophistry and ad hominem attacks. It is pointless discussing this further with you if you insist on these tactics.

[This message has been edited by Beery (edited 04-17-2004).]

Right. You're so objective . . .

:-)

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Right. You're so objective . . .

:-)

Just as I said, more ad hominem attacks. Have you nothing else?

Beery:

I normally don't engage in these kinds of juvenile "he said/she said" debates.

You have yet to respond honestly to anything I've said. You say you aren't twisting my words because you quote me directly. This isn't even honest. You quote me directly, THEN you obfuscate, distort, twist, or fail to respond. I never accused you of directly "misquoting" me.

You love to throw out the names of fallacies, but I'm not sure you understand what they mean or how to recognize them in context.

Being critical of Bradbury and attacking his political views and calling him names is simply not the same as conducting a literary analysis of his works. Apparently this distinction evades you. I'm simply not interested in pissing contests over Ray's political views -- whether you think they are bizarre or not. At this forum, I'm interested in "celebrating" the works of this man.

Right, but then why are you arguing over Beery's comments? If you are not interested, you shouldn't respond to him; if fact, you shouldn't even read his posts.
Cheers, Translator