It's a public community. I can respond to what I choose to respond to. When someone posts a message out here that attacks Bradbury, I can choose to respond and challenge those comments.

We are all a part of this community. It's an interesting phenomenon. When comments are put out here, they impact the community -- whether those thoughts are constructive or harmful; whether they contibute to the discussion or mitigate it's value.

Beery speaks arrogantly of Bradbury's "responsibility" to justify his positions and formulate them according to Beery's mandates; but what is Beery's responsibility to this community? Apparently he has none.

The climate of this set of boards has traditionally been defined by a celebration of Bradbury's works. This has never meant sycophancy. In the last several months I have watched as the quality of this board has been diminished by those who pollute it with arrogance, attacks, name-calling, and recently, with shallow political grandstanding.

As a member of this community, I sometimes chose to ignore these comments; but I also sometimes choose to engage. What Beery, and others say, impacts the nature of this community whether I respond or not. As I say, sometimes I choose to respond. Beery's attacks on Bradbury have been capricious, judgemental and mean-spirited. This has not contributed to the mandate of this board nor to the quality of this community.

Please don't tell me to ignore this community. If I choose to respond, I will. If I choose not to respond, I will do that. If I see a weed (Dandelions excepted), I may chose to respond.


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

"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"

My comment was directed at this quote. If you're not interested in the so-called pissing contests over Ray's political views, but rather in celebrating the works of the man, then why are you continuing this converstion with Beery? An uninterested man would not behave that way. Hence, you are either interested in this conversation (positively or negatively), and are lying to yourself that you aren't, or you are truly not interested in this conversation, and like doing unintersting things like participating in conversations that you are totally uniterested in. As that would seem bizzare when applied to a man of your intellect, I would bet on the first alternative.
I have no problem with the rest of your post - I tend to mostly agree.
Cheers, Translator

I do disagree with you that this post has seen some shallow political grandstanding recently, as I've been here for a couple of months and, barring some very shallow political grandstandings by some of the less educated/logically critical members (ie, T2 and others) of this board, all I've seen is that the memebers have expressed valid and reasonable political opinions. That includes myself, yourself, and Beery.
Cheers, Translator

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

Beery, by calling them as you "see 'em" you may be forgetting that you should still filter whatever comes out of your mouth, or through your fingertips, by the apprortiate social filters if your ideas are to be seen as valid here or anywhere else. I may personally not get touchy on the issue, as my vocabulary includes a number of expletives which I frequently and passionately use when I'm in company that doesn't mind them, but others here will pounce on just that and drown out your possibly valid arguments. So, if your're genuinely interested in this issue, and have some proof outside the Couteau interview which we all read many times by now, then bring it out, stop using the words "wacko" (even if you truly believe that, as, objectively speaking, that is a derrogatory phrase when applied to a person who is clearly in possession of his wits), and let's all have ourselves a real discussion here.
Cheers, Translator

Translator. I find them annoying. While you're probably right in coining the term "negatively interested", annoyed would be the term I would use. When I say I'm not interested in these discussions, I mean I'd rather we not have these kinds of narrow-minded discussions and assertions on these boards.

I see the forum here as almost like a biological community. The name-calling and over-simplification of political views diminishes that community. Calling RB names like, "Right wing wacko", ignorant, etc. demeans the quality of the community. Nor do these discussions contribute to either a celebration or an analysis of Bradbury's works.

While I sometimes ignore these kinds of posts, I'm tired of appeasing what I see as intellectual arrogance and sloth all the time. Sometimes I call it as I see it. Sometimes I ignore it. I will say that the nature of the board has changed recently and I see much of that change as constituting a devolution, rather than an evolution.

While I agree with you, I would also like to point out that "ignorant" does not qualify as name calling if the person is indeed ignorant. Is it not possible, however unlikely that may sound, that Ray is indeed ignorant of politics? Calling him by names like right-wing wacko is being offensive, calling him politically ignorant may very well be true (though I personally see Dandelion's explenation of Ray as a goader (new word?) perfectly reasonable and take it at par in the absence of points to the contrary).
Cheers, Translator

While it may be true that Ray is "ignorant" in politics, my problem with Beery's posts on this is that he gives no evidence that Ray IS ignorant of politics -- other than the fact that Ray doesn't agree with Beery. Beery has provided no biographical evidence that Ray has not thought through his political views, he just asserts that Ray is wrong -- apparently because he disagrees with Beery.

You're also correct that "ignorant" in and of itself may not necessarily be derogative; but I would suggest that Beery's tone and context make it clear that he intends it to be a perjorative.

I get tired of the perspective that any person who is politically conservative has not thought through his or her opinions and is thus ignorant. This seems to be the brunt of Beery's criticism of Ray. Nor does he recognize that taking single line answers from Bradbury and then simplistically interpreting them in an aggressive way is not the way to get at Ray's views. It is clear that Ray is pretty conservative in some views. But Ray is far more nuanced than that one interview indicates.

Mr. Dark
Translator:::

I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, that Beery insulted Ray, and shame on Beery. I don't care what the guy said afterwards...except if he explained and apologized...and thus, merited further discussions. But as it was, no comments, at least from me, were warranted...

Originally posted by Translator:
"...and have some proof outside the Couteau interview which we all read many times by now, then bring it out,"

I don't have anything to hand. But every one of my experiences of Ray Bradbury's speaking engagements (mostly on the TV show Politically Incorrect) where he has uttered a political opinion leads me to my aforementioned opinion.

"stop using the words "wacko" (even if you truly believe that, as, objectively speaking, that is a derrogatory phrase when applied to a person who is clearly in possession of his wits), and let's all have ourselves a real discussion here.
Cheers, Translator"

I'm not at all sure that Ray Bradbury is in full control of his wits when it comes to politics. His words lead me to believe sincerely that he is not using critical thought or reason when he talks about politics. He may be sane in the more general clinical sense, but I would say that his political thought processes are not 'sane' as we would define the word, because his political ideas seem to be almost completely disassociated from reality.

"...his political ideas seem to be almost completely disassociated from reality."

From YOUR version of reality. Why is your version of reality the only valid version? Your post is speculatory in nature, yet you accuse him of not being sane. What is your evidence? WHY do you think his view of reality is different from [all] other views of reality? Why are you so confident that your view of reality is reflected in everyone else's view?

These are very general claims, and while I really appreciate that the level of discourse is elevated here, the accusation remains the same: That Ray Bradbury's political views reflect a different version of reality than yours (and, by implication, everyone else's) and that you assume your version of reality is more accurate than his, and that his view is so scewed, you indicate that it is not associated with reality.

It may sound argumentative, but I do appreciate that your tone is more even-handed. You mentioned the car and phone thing (which I think was an over-statement of his real view) and you mentioned his apparent (in your opinion) denial of the reality of lynchings and their relationship to freedom in America.

Your claim is that his views of politics are out of touch with reality. (In less discrete terms, that he's wacky.)

(1) What, then, ARE his views of politics? Define what his views really are. Like you, I've heard tidbits in speeches, but I've never seen Ray give a definitive statement of his political theories.

(2) In what ways do his views not reflect reality?

(3) What evidence do you cite for the above, and what evidence do you cite for the claim that your (at this point, rather undefined) view of politics reflects a reflection of reality that is superior to Bradbury's?



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

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
"...his political ideas seem to be almost completely disassociated from reality."

From YOUR version of reality.

Yes. In my version of reality, telephones are not freely available and poor peoples' telephone bills do not magically pay themselves; in my version of reality TVs and the electricity needed to power them cost money; and in my version of reality people in the old Soviet Union drove cars. If that reality doesn't match yours or Ray Bradbury's, I suggest that your version of reality is deeply flawed.

It is objective fact, not a "version of reality", that telephones and TVs cost money and are unavailable to the very poor. It is also objective fact that cars existed in the Soviet Union. These things are not open to debate. And I'm sorry, but given the overwhelming evidence for these facts, anyone who claims the contrary is showing either an unbelievable naivet� or a marked disassociation from reality.

Once again.....

...anyone who calls Ray Bradbury a 'wacko'...
...doesn't have the least idea of what Ray is up to and about.

Beery might fit in well with the people in scripture, who thought it was a sin that Christ and his followers were eating the wheat they were plucking by hand on the Sabbath. With the many other examples to back up, I'd say...they didn't get it either.

Ray is no Christ, but the point is about understanding motive...

"Yes. In my version of reality, telephones are not freely available and poor peoples' telephone bills do not magically pay themselves; in my version of reality TVs and the electricity needed to power them cost money; and in my version of reality people in the old Soviet Union drove cars. If that reality doesn't match yours or Ray Bradbury's, I suggest that your version of reality is deeply flawed.

Once again, Beery, you've completely ignored my prior posts on these subjects and have yet to provide any meaningful discussion of what Ray's political views are or what yours are. These three items you obsessively focus on are very particular items that are of little broad significance. It is just silly and jinogistic to assert that Ray literally meant that there are no phone bills in America and that there is not a single car in Russia. To take these singular statements as reflections of Bradbury's political views and not research any other sources for an understanding of his perspectives is simply intellectually lazy. To judge and condemn his views on this very narrow issue is just silly.

Do some research.

For example, Two issues that Bradbury addresses are censorship and spending money on the space program.

When Bradbury looks at what is desireable in a governmental body, a focus on the freedom of the individual is primary. This leads to his concerns against governmental over-involvement in the affairs of man and an aversion to the over-regulation of man's affairs. Where does one draw the line on a government that respects man's freedom to define himself and to take and retain control and responsibility over his own life verses a version of government that may be more paternalistic and controlling? What are man's obligations and responsibilities to community, as opposed to government's obligations to provide safety nets, etc. Where do these lines manifest themselves in Bradbury's writings and speeches?

What about the space program? Bradbury is willing to spend billions of dollars in space exploration and risk the lives of "thousands" in getting our species off the planet. What about his assertions that that is money well-spent and risks well-taken. Should we focus more money on feeding the poor (and, Beery for your sake, getting phone service to poor Americans) or re-building the infrastructure. Or, should we "throw all this money into space"? This is a legitimate political issue that Bradbury has discussed with both passion and frequency.

Bradbury was too poor to go to college. While he says writers shouldn't go to college (and I doubt he is universally anti-college in any literal sense), his own story is that he was too poor to go to college and he sold newspapers on a street corner and sacrificed so he could write. Should the government have given him free phone service, or should he have paid his own way? What is government's obligation to the poor? What does Bradbury think about that?

There are real issues that Bradbury addresses -- both in his writings and in speeches and interviews. Before castigating him as being disassociated from reality and as being a right wing wacko, do the research. Study the man's life and writings. To evaluate his mental capacity and political acuity based on excerpts from a single interview is just lazy. Do the research. Get off the web and do some real reading, research and thinking. Do the research before making assumptions and accusations.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 04-18-2004).]

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
Once again.....

...anyone who calls Ray Bradbury a 'wacko'...
...doesn't have the least idea of what Ray is up to and about.

Beery might fit in well with the people in scripture, who thought it was a sin that Christ and his followers were eating the wheat they were plucking by hand on the Sabbath. With the many other examples to back up, I'd say...they didn't get it either.

Ray is no Christ, but the point is about understanding motive...

Nard's messianic references show that Nard is hardly an objective voice in this conversation. If Ray Bradbury says things (while he's presumably conscious and lucid) that don't mesh with objective reality, the problem is Ray's, not mine. Is this forum a place for rational conversation, or are we here solely to praise Ray Bradbury unconditionally? If we're deifying Ray - if it's "my Ray Bradbury, right or wrong", then clearly I've stumbled across a group that doesn't require reason, and instead insists that an appreciation of Ray Bradbury must be based on a kind of religious fundamentalism.