Ray I personally don't think it very fair of you to try to get Micheal Moore to change the name of his film. So what if farenheit is in the name. YOU DON'T OWN THE RIGHTS TO THAT WORD!!! So give it a rest and let Mr. Moore have his title. If you are so HARD PRESSED for that word, then the most prudent call of action for you would be to copywrite it. Alas; You Can't. It is PUBLIC DOMAIN!!!!!! Myself I am in the process of writing farenheit 90(three years in the making). About a bullied young boy. Why don't you attack me now also;.

[This message has been edited by soopergooman (edited 06-21-2004).]

I Disagree, Soopergooman.
I encourage Mr. Bradbury to do what he feels is right. As a fellow independant, I resent Michael highjacking the title (obviously invoking the feelings and emotions expressed in the original book) and using it for his own gains. Moore projects himself as someone looking for the truth and as an artist. Well, artists should above all respect other artists. Moore's waiting so long to call Mr. Bradbury back is just plain disrespect. We have forgotten basic rules of ethics in this country. Let's not be uncivil, Mr Moore.. But alas, you've already forgotten that...

Dear Mr. Bradbury,

In light of your efforts to compel Michael Moore to apologize for borrowing his "Fahrenheit 911" title from your story "Fahrenheit 451," we are writing to inquire into the status of your own public apologies regarding your works entitled "Something Wicked This Way Comes," "I Sing the Body Electric!," "No Man is an Island" and "Remembrance of Things Future."

Sincerely,
Messrs William Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, John Donne, and Marcel Proust

Stinker,

Simply excellent. Thanks. Yes, those works are out of copyright, but certainly Mr. Bradbury isn't himself against leveraging the good words/works of others to further his own writing.

Thank you, mgotts, although I am only partly the author of that open letter. To my mind, copywriting is not the issue (although one cannot copyright titles anyway), but rather the wholly legitimate use of literary reference in creating parallels, contrasts, parody and commentary. Mr. Bradbury was certainly not the first to do it, and in theory it could be done unethically. But for him to deride Mr. Moore's use (or appropiation, if that is more accurate) of his title is disingenuous in the highest. Not only is it hypocritical, as I have pointed out here, it derides one of the conventions on which a culture's (or world's) literary body of ideas and thought is built. As an acclaimed author, I fail to see how he could not understand that.