So this obviously happens alot on this board but what better place to gather info than his own forum site?

Anyway I'm completing the last and lengthy part of this distasteful project. (After the first essay, the writing assignement, the PowerPoint with INCLUDED writing assigment).

It's a five page paper. My thesis- Ray Bradbury is the most unconventional science fiction writer. I must support this. I've done plenty of research but I need something more.

I have come to this conclusion using a number of facts, including his sheltered childhood, lack of a want to drive, and his refusal to fly in a plane. It is really just my opinion.

But if anyone knows of any source off hand, mainly online, that mentions something specific about his uniqueness I would appreciate a link. Thanks for any help.

That’s an interesting question. What exactly is, or was, a conventional, today or then, science fiction writer? And what is science fiction, fantasy, sword and sorcery or speculative fiction, for that matter? Oh, my!

I comparing Bradbury to other sci fi contemporaries such as Asimov or Clarke.

Those and most other writers come up with explanations for their spaceships or time machines. Such as a scientific answer to a hyperdrive. Bradbury however, does not do that. He simply says *poof* you're back in time fighting dinosaurs. Simple. No explanation of the time machine.

Also, Bradbury himself claims not to be a science fiction writer especially. Only, his few sci fi books have labeled him. This is why I see Bradbury as unconventional.

My advice, ILEC, would be to get a copy of Zen in the Art of Writing to find out what the man had to say about his own writing methods and style. The articles are concise and truly enlightening. (I still enjoy them even after "many" reads.)
Good luck. Sounds like an interesting theme.

Oh, yeah! I teach English. So, watch your "p's" and "q's" ~ or else!

Well, before you can figure out why something is unconventional, you need to know what IS conventional, and why. I'd suggest "Asimov on Science Fiction," (by Isaac Asimov, of course). It's a collection of periodical-published essays that, together, give you a pretty good overview of the whole developmenet of s.f. Some of the trend analysis is a little dated, but overall, very helpful for determining nuances within the genre.

Ray Bradbury is a poet at heart. I think this makes him different from the others. As a young writer, he realized the potential of using his visions of future as a background for his tales. Nostalgia, terror, happiness and love, they all swirl and swim together in a caleidoscope of feelings and memories that seems remote to his readers, yet strangely familiar and comfortable. No one else has achieved that in this genre - no one I can think of.

Ray is an American Will Shakespeare of sorts - there's little science in his stories, and a lot of great fiction. His love of life and his staunch honesty earned him the hearts of an ever growing readership. His values are universal and classic, simple and elegant; he doesn't have to shock us to hold us in awe, although sometimes he might just do that, and then, well, it's just great.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CaptainWilder,

You have to define what a sci-fi writer is. Actually, technically, Ray Bradbury has been defined in many UK introductions to his novels as a pulp sci-fi novelist unlike his contemporaries, even though he takes the usual stock pile of telepathy, aliens, Mars, Bradbury is more defined by his moralistic stance rather than his scientific ideas (whereas Asimov is more defined by science than fiction), he owes more to Swift than Wells.

I agree with those who say you need to define what "normal" science fiction is, first. The best source on this is the master himself. Bradbury has spoken much about science fiction. He sometimes says he writes science fiction, and sometimes says he doesn't. He talks of science fiction as the only true fiction today. He talks about prehistoric paintings on cave walls as a kind of science fiction. Read the book, "Conversations with Ray Bradbury" -- a collection of interviews with him over the span of decades. Ed by Steven Aggelis. University Press of Mississippi, 2004.

If I might add my two cents...

Perhaps you see Ray Bradbury as "unconventional" because he always has emphasized the "fiction" over the "science." Like others among the very best writers of the genre - Philip K. Dick, Harlan Ellison and Jonathan Lethem spring to mind - Bradbury's fiction has always been less about how the gadgets work and more about what it is to be human, what it is to dream, what it is to be alive; the gadgets are just props for telling the underlying story.

The Martian Chronicles could just as easily have been a Western. It's about the people, less so the places and things.

Yes, and what fun it must have been for Ray to place his story on Mars. He had that blank sheet of paper in front of him and he filled it with HIS “Martian landscape”.—Best

I see the main difference being that writers such as Asimov have a scientific background, studying science for many, many years. Mr. Bradbury educated himself with literature and observation, making his most important writing tool his imagination.

Yeah thx everybody for their opinions. I found alot of these statements to be pretty true. Especially those that coincided with an article in the Chicago Sun Times called "Bradbury a Luddite?" It certainly provided some interesting insight into the ways of the great Bradbury.

That darn paper is done and handed in. Who knows how that'll go. O well....at least a learned a great deal about a truly original American author/legend.