Mr. Dark:
You're dad may not have had all the answers, like most dads, but at least he made enough sense to me to point him out as a dad that seemed to understand a lot....

I AM being civil. You then wouldn't want to hear me on my uncivil day, which was yesterday evening, off on-line....

Nard:

I'm very comfortable with your civil side. I just don't remember "hearing" you "swear" before. Just want to avoid "roughening" the board. Kids come out here to do research and they might start including our salty language in their own papers on Bradbury. Then, where will it all end? Boundaries, you know. Boundaries.

:-)

On the other hand, who put me in charge of board tone? Sorry about the preaching!!!!

:-(

Mr. Dark
What offends you the more: using the 'bs' word...or someone suggesting that Bradbury has loose morals....?
Hey, I have no problem 'editing' the word down to 'baloney'....but what do I do with the latter....?

Mr. Bradbury has his stories printed in both Playboy and Penthouse magazines and I doubt very much that he would approve of the Captain Beatty's of the world burning those publications.
Shame of sex is a dangerous thing to teach.

Sigh.

Yes, Bradbury's been published in Playboy. His praise of this magazine has been noted above. I'm not so sure about the Penthouse claim but, well, so what? No one's advocating the burning of either. And no one's advocating the teaching of sex as a shameful thing. My point was -

Ah, never mind. No point in getting all hepped up again. Can't add anything new to the discussion so I won't.

Pete

pterran:

WHAT!!?
Give up already. Gee! It's only August....

Per Bradbury's works in Playboy, and other similiar publications:

If you put out a great and magnificent masterpiece in a dark room, does it de- value the painting, as well as the painter? Some will pass it by, others will squint, and find it strange of what they can barely understand. Still others may see, if for a moment , some of its power, and remember it for years to come. Now if that "piece" is no longer by a 'master', but by a 'masquerader', the room falls darker, darker, and darker still....

As to whatever praise Bradbury has for these publications:
Every previous shameful and embarassing moment now demands recognition, acceptance, and our full attention. However, a romantic/poetic breathe encompassing the inane, often comes back unexpectedly as foul air ...




[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 08-17-2003).]

Nard,

Given up? Naw. Just taking a breather. Looks like you've taken up the argument nicely, though. I'll just sit back and watch a while.

Pete

"Mr. Dark
What offends you the more: using the 'bs' word...or someone suggesting that Bradbury has loose morals....?
Hey, I have no problem 'editing' the word down to 'baloney'....but what do I do with the latter....?"

Nard: Sorry I never answered. As a vestige from my youth (no swearing allowed in the house) and my own carrying over of this into my home raising my kids; I am sensitive to swearing. I guess it's like someone allergic to smoke or who never hung around it being hyper-sensitive to smoke. For me, swearing coarsens the board in a way that makes me uncomfortable. But, as I said earlier, I'm not in charge of the board's tone, and apolgize again for preaching.

If someone wants to say Bradbury has loose morals, I'm not opposed to that. I don't know his morals, but find it hard to believe that he does have radically loose morals. His writing seems to have a very high moral tone and message, yet many artists are able to compartmentalize their art/talent from any sense of personal ethics. Having met with Ray, reading his writing, and reading through scores of interviews, the claim that he was a man of loose morals would have to be documented.

I think that Bradbury, being human, is entitled to some mistakes without being labeled a guy with loose morals. Disruptive life events, or mistakes in some decisions, may or may not reflect on a person's ethics or morals. I know he's been married a long time. I know he's raised four daughters. I know he has touched millions of lives through his literature. I know, having met him, that he is a kind, humorous, generous man.

On the other hand, there could be a disagreement on what "loose" morals are. He does sometimes swear in his interviews. The inclusion of his stories in Playboy may or may not constitute an endorsement of it. If I wrote a short story (fat chance!) and if Playboy were to pay me to publish it (even fatter chance!) I would not hesitate to let them publish it.

We are in a pluralistic society. Within reason, we have to accept some variance in personal ethics. I don't personally believe that means we toss out the entire Judeo/christian ethical tradition, though.

Hope this is helpful.

Mr. Dark:

Is it the late hour (12:30AM Chicago time) or do you sound very Politically Correct?

You will notice that I have given in to the pressure of the "board" and reconfigured the objectional word (which is / was also the name of popular 'Penn and Teller' Cable program series) into a few symbols. So in this instance, I have become Politically Correct.

Back pedaling a bit, to the beginning of this entire discussion, I still am infuriated with the suggestion made by 'patrask' involving Bradbury. I'm obviously not going to convince anyone of the reasons for my agitation. Perhaps I took it personally. It was a flippant comment at best...


[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 08-18-2003).]

Wait a moment, I'm confused.... How does NOT swearing mean that a person is politically correct? As far as I am aware, there are precious few advocating the use of cleaner language in this country.

Judging from television and the movies, most Americans vastly overuse about half-a-dozen swear words. I don't understand why, really. I was also brought up never to use that language, and told that those people who swear so much seem to have a lack of a more varied vocabulary. Oh, it sounds very prudish, I'm sure, but I always thought that there are other more creative ways of expressing yourself. So I don't see why not using questionable language is even a subject that would come up, on a board undoubtedly read by many teens, who could use a good example.

Okay, enough from my soapbox! I know, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic--sorry....

[This message has been edited by octobercountry (edited 08-18-2003).]

My point about shame is this. There have been a couple of references to people having no shame and shameful and embarassing mistakes. What is there to be ashamed of? Sexuality is a human nature and a part of each of us. If we are exposed to it and taught not to be ashamed of it there is no problem, Hugh Hefner or Jenna Jameson never hurt anyone. But if we teach people that part of their nature is something to be ashamed of, something to repress it builds up, and confounds, and confuses, and festers and then you have sex crimes and priests molesting children. If you are afraid of pornography then don't look at it but don't try to tell other people it's wrong because you don't approve. Pornography doesn't hurt anyone - censorship does. Again, that is what Fahrenheit 451 is about. And I'm not mad or hollering, (it's hard to tell online) I'm just discussing.

GreenTown:
Pornography is one of the most destructive things that can happen to a person. It'll rob you of EVERYTHING...and leave you utterly blind. It'll steal every bit of your life and not let you know it for years. Pornography is the perfect substitute of many things 'we' cannot do, because it replicates... identity.

If you want to talk about this subject, I have lots and lots and lots of background to fire back....hundreds of people I've come across that have been damaged by it. Where do you want to start?

If you are a young person growing up in this society...and that's about all you're looking at, you are in profound trouble...and no one will be able to tell you differently. That''s the real rub....

I knew Hefner for a while while I was in high school. Want to get me started there, too? Actually I'm not interested in really going there... because you have your mind made up, and no one is going to change it... and it takes a lot of energy to keep talking in the wind and going nowhere.....




[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 08-18-2003).]

When there is no shame is there a point to be made about it? The statement by Greentown is incredibly more terrible than using a few cuss words. It is like watching someone beat their dog, but remarking how cordially they were while doing it.

[This message has been edited by Ought Not (edited 08-18-2003).]

Trying to keep this specifically tied to Bradbury is getting to be a bit of a stretch, but at some level it involves levels of censorship, the repression of ideas, etc.

I think some kids are taught that sex is something to feel shame about. I think that can go too far and create unhealthy attitudes about what should be a very healthy human activity. I think, however, that it is possible to teach about human sexuality in a very open, healthy way and retain the following:

(1) A recognition that sex is a private matter.

(2) A recognition that sex is an activity that has boundaries. There are spiritual and emotional considerations that are relevant.

(3) A recognition that levels of acceptable sexual activities can be age-specific.

(4) The recognition that putting limits on things does not -- in and of itself -- make them things to be ashamed of.

Now, pornography. I really don't know what Bradbury's view on it would be. F451 makes it clear that he does not like the supression of ideas. Is pornography an "idea"? Many argue that pornography is addictive and dehumanizing. Many argue that it is inherently an affront to God or human decency. Is the statue of David pornography? It's full-frontal male nudity. Is Playboy pornography, or have the other magazines become so brutally coarse that Playboy has become relatively mild? How much of what is deemed to be pornography is determined by prevailing standards? A 16-year-old girl topless in Zaire is nothing. A 16-year-old girl topless in an American mall would be removed and covered. Is pornography ever used to enoble mankind? Does all activity have to enoble mankind? In many cases, women involved in the production of pornography are little better than white slaves. Is pornography wrong if created in a coercive environment, but okay when everything is above-board, voluntary and produced in a protected and regulated environment? If pornography is always wrong, what, exactly, is it? In Afghanistan, under the Taliban, for a woman to expose any part of her body in public was essentially deemed to be pornographic. In early America, any woman who showed her ankle was manifesting loose morals and public indecency.

For me, I kind of like the Supreme Court's comment, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

This is a totally non-helpful post, isn't it?

I tend to think pornography is wrong. But should it therefore be illegal? And if so, where do you draw the line in a society with multiple moral visions?

I think Greentown's statements, while they may be naive, in my view, are less dangerous than they are, well, lazy. They seem more a rote recitation - the repression of sex leads to sex crimes and priest molestations, pornography doesn�t hurt anyone, censorship does - than anything. Perhaps Greentown really feels this way but, as Mr. Dark is so astute at pointing out, these topics, when subject to closer scrutiny, reveal many layers of argument that can, and should, be considered.

Again, since Mr. Dark covers the arguments pretty well, I won�t re-visit them. But I will point out that with the rise of the Internet, there can be virtually no censorship. Except for the area of kiddie porn, or possibly other areas that violate the Patriot Act, such as publishing information that�s a threat to national security, most anything goes. While I enjoy F-451 immensely, I advocate certain restrictions - call it censorship if you will - but that�s a long way from the future this book predicted. In the world of online publishing, Bradbury�s advice -if you don�t agree with what an author says, write your own book - has become ridiculously easy to follow.

Pete