Mr. Anger,

Never having been to the Michael Moore site, but following the furor he's kicked up with his intellectually dishonest movie, Bowling for Columbine, I doubt you'll find much satisfaction over there. Nevertheless, no need to go away mad. As the posts above prove, we're eager to discuss the issues here in a civilized manner. Fail to follow the formal and informal rules may get your post delete but, again, nothing stops you from posting it elsewhere.

Pete

Okay, I didn't want to reply seeing as 'i took my toys' away? It would seem hypocritical of me to do so. But here goes.

1: I am a pacifist, and have been the brunt of many slanderous, violent and terrible attacks both verbally and physically. So no, Writingreptile I would not strangle you, or remove your post (if I was a moderator) although I might feel like doing both (stress the word 'feel' here). There is a vast chasm between thought and action -- between lies our humanity.

2: Mr.Dark, you may not come here for 'juvenile rants' and 'gutter language' and that is your perogative. To ignore such rants would seem the simplest option, but in my opinion, the challenge of freedom is to 'stand up' for what you believe, and not ignore as though the 'horrible nasty thing at the top of the stairs' does not exist. An opinon, for sure, but one I cherish dearly, along with my hero's such as Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

3. Gutter language Mr.Dark? I seem to remember a book by D.H Lawrence that was also considered gutteral at the time it was published, and also removed from public viewing for awhile. But I do agree, Dandelion does do a fine job, on the whole (I have been reading the posts for a longer time than my membership as a poster). But the analogy you use again of the newspaper industry is tenuous at best. This is not a newspaper, it is a forum. Yes there are rules, but my initial response, if you wish to check back, was one of surprise and a plea for such opinions as Bradburysmells to be heard, not dismissed out of hand.

4. Nard, I was not trying to 'fool' anyone. My beliefs are very strong and I will fight for them. I do believe in a free internet as the sounding board for ideas good and bad. Restricted, sure, but restricted because 'we don't agree' or the language is 'juvenile' I'd hope not, and not in such a place as the Bradbury message board. Oh, and if you want to structure an argument don't use phrases like "certain posters who have taken their toys and gone home". If you have something to say, then say it, do not weaken what you believe by saying 'certain posters'. I want debate, I want expression. But not people who sit on the fence and can't even reply in name to the object of their disagreement. Again, I agree, there are certain limits to free expression, both personal and logical. I don't want to see the internet flooded with 'child pornography' or 'real footage of death'. But if someone has an 'opinon' on these topics, I'd still like to hear it, and decide for myself, most probably respond for myself.

In closing. I have very little doubt that the original post by 'Bradburysmells' was ridiculous and illogical (the name gives it away). But with my strongly held beliefs, I think and still plead for such posts to be heard, discussed and dismissed by all, not by a select few who arbitrate taste. I give a personal example. If I took what I found distasteful from this site, then all mention of 'Literary' would dissapear overnight. The term annoys me more than any other in relation to the written word. For me it is a snobbish, elitist term that is used by those who want their fiction to be 'above' others. Stories are my concern, not 'literature'. I can pick up a million pamhplets from the local Healt Centre and they're all 'literature'. But this is my view of the world, others have different views, which they are willing to hold. I would not in a million years remove postings of this type. Why? Because I believe in freedom of expression and discussion. You want to call a work of fiction 'literary' then go ahead. I will discuss and debate with you over this term, but I have no right to stop you from using it, or believing in the meaning.

As you can see from my posts, I am neither a 'troll' or doing any of this out of a need for confrontation. But I will defend what I believe, even to the extent of leaving a board because of moderator actions. This is my perogative, and you will see I neither ignored what was said, or buried my head in the sand over this topic. I made a decision, and I am trying to hold to that. It was a decision made out of disbelief and sheer frustration over the actions of the moderator, and those who so willingly agreed to these actions.

my email is frankanger@hotmail.com.. you may post me the review if you like. But this to me is nowhere near what I would have hoped for from fans of Ray Bradbury.

Peace
Frankanger

Mr. Anger,

Good to have you back. Thanks for the nice post. Sounds like you're in the spirit of things around here.

Pete

Thanks Pete,

I know this is a bit off-topic, but why did you think Michael Moore's movie was Intellectually Dishonest? I thought some of it was brave, some scary, in the end I thought it was muddled and didn't seem to have a real point, or a way to solve any problems, but I did not think it was dishonest. I did come away with the feeling that America is not a place I would want to be right now.

Later
Frankanger

(They should open Dandelion Wineland, where we can all have Bradbury's imagined childhood to share. It'd be better than Disneyland for sure).

Hello, Mr. Anger,

Thanks for the response. I think we can get away with being a little off-topic here for a moment or two.

First, though, I'd go along with you on the Dandelion Wineland idea. Better than Disney? Them's fightin' words! You're talking to one of the world's biggest Disney fans. Well, Disneyworld fan, that is. Sort of a love/hate relationship, since I love the place but hate the fact they've practically priced themselves out of my budget. Still, because Bradbury consulted on Epcot's big golf-ball thingy is reason enough for all Bradbury fans to love the place.

As for the Moore documentary, as I said, I haven't seen it and don't plan to. Yeah, okay, that makes my criticism suspect since all I know is what I read but there've been several pretty good articles debunking the movie itself. Try visiting Andrew Sullivan's blog spot at, of all places, andrewsullivan.com. I'm not sure if there's a search capability there but I recall accessing some links from that site. In light of Charlton Heston's recent alzheimer's disclosure, (and I'm a big fan of his as well,) the sequence in the movie where Moore corners Heston must now seem pathetic.

Don't worry, Mr. Anger. American's still a great, safe place to live, despite it's perceived faults. Certainly a great place to discuss the merits of Ray Bradbury. (How's that for getting back on topic?)

Pete

If you're a pacifist, is the "frankanger" designator ironic?

The pacifists you mentioned neither walked away from conflict (" . . . if you don't like my way, I'll take my ball and go home. . ."), nor did they fight for their causes through gutter language or personal slurs. MLK and Ghandi were both highly literate spokesmen for their causes.

No one here has EVER said that opposing opinions should be suppressed. But, whether some people like it or not, there are standards set by various communications channels that maintain a certain demeanor in the exchange of ideas. There is far FREER discussion of ideas when common rules of civility are honored. The exchange can then be adult, logical, and based on objective criteria. Without these kinds of standards, the discussion descends into heated name-calling and emotional retort. As I've said before, there are plenty of places for that kind of exchange to take place.

I disagree that the analogy to the newspaper is tenuous. Newspapers have long served as a forum for public debate and dialog. The Letters to the Editors and Op-Ed columns have always been among the most popular features of the press. Again, I just disagree with you that the fact that there are writing and style standards represents a form of real censorship. I don't see why the accessibility of the internet should necessarily degrade the quality of public communications. Why make the argument that the internet requires, necessitates or enables the posting of items without any regard to their content, value, or demeanor?

While it is true that D.H. Lawrence's "Lady Chatterley's Lover" was banned (in high school I had to read my copy secretly to overcome my parent's censorship!), I would argue that the quality of LCL is substantially above that of the mean-spirited and juvenile rant that was deleted. It is that quality of "literature" that, in the end, won out, and Lawrence is now recognized as one of our great modern writers. In my college literature classes, D.H. Lawrence is always on my book list -- not because he used crude language, but because he opened up the world of literature to honest representation of an important part of the human condition.

You said you issued a plea that Bradburysmells's opinion should be heard. No one said his opinion couldn't be heard. All he had to do was post it in a way that comported with common standards of public discourse. Why is that so difficult? His posting was not dismissed out of hand, it was dimissed because of its crude nature.

As a matter of discussion, I do not see the term "literature" as being -- necessarily -- an elitist term. It just indicates that the nature of the writing is such that it includes a serious-minded attempt to explicate some aspect of the human condition. Fiction is purely for entertainment -- great stuff, for sure; but no attempt to make a statement about the human condition.

angerfrank

You mixed up...your commenting...on writingreptile and Nard Kordell....

Shoud I be amused or offended that you pay so little attention to whom you are addressing....?

Hey all,

To Pete first. Yeah, I didn't think of the Alzheimers angle until you mentioned it. The interview with Charlton Heston can be seen as somewhwat cruel taking into account Mr.Heston's condition (i have nothing against good old Chuck by the way, I love the movies Omega Man, Planet of the Apes and Soylent Green for example. I just find it odd that he so violently turned against his old principles. I seem to remember he once marched with Martin Luther King for civil rights. Such a u-turn is astounding to me.

To Mr.Dark.

Yes, Frankanger is ironic, but not in the way you might think. The original name is taken from a student comic doodle I did many years ago, about a 'commie hating' detective. His name was frankanger, a crusader for the american way, and also stupidly violent about all aspects of his life (including making coffee). So it's sort of an in-joke for myself.

To yor D.H Lawrence point, and I think this is very important. The perception of Lawrence was that he was vulgar and depraved (I myself think he is overated and quite possibly one of the dullest novelists in the English language). You said the "quality of LCL is substantially above that of the mean-spirited and juvenile rant that was deleted". This is a subjective statement, and as I see no conclusive method of testing what is and what is not 'quality' other than my own perceptions, I still would have liked an oppurtunity to decide for myself. I have a big problem with 'official' sanction of what is good and what is not, and that leads me to my next point.

As to your other point. I must disagree on the 'literature' comment. I said 'if i were to remove the word, it would be the word 'literary'. As a part subscriber to the post-modernist theory of viewer, rather than viewed, I tend to think any inherent merit within a novel or work of entertainment cannot be judged independentally or objectively. For me there are no such things as 'classics' or meaningful in a traditional sense. I think it is wholy subjective whether a novel shows these qualities of a 'serious-minded attempt to explicate some aspect of
the human condition' and from what I've read of Bradbury and his working methods, I would say he neither strives for this effect, or actively promotes the idea of it within his own fiction. Neither do I think this can be seen in most fiction, apart from subjectively. We as readers cannot possibly, and conclusively know the intent of a work of fiction, only the effect it has on us. Take for example the creation of the movie 'Casablanca'. A classic by most people's standards (mine too) but from reading about the making of the film we see that the scripts were done 'on the fly' day to day, without much intent other than getting the film completed and out into the cinemas. What do we take from this? That there is no way of defining a work as meaningful or any other definition, whether under a consensus of opinion or not. The only way we can judge is personally, without intrusion of governing bodies, or collective agreement on the work under discussion. Bradbury, I think, tells us this. Srike out on your own road, make up your own mind, chase your joy. I like many different writers from Anne Tyler to the violent novels of Richard Stark (the Parker series), the only way I can define these as meaningful, is the meaning they have to me. If they happen to give meaning to many other people in the meantime, good, but I do not think we can judge as a collective. Another objection, again a subjective opinion, is the use of the words 'serious minded'. To me this conjurs up images of the serious writer starving to death in a garret for his 'art' (by the by another word I despise, and believe has been bastardised for elitist and exlusive purposes).

To Nard -- sorry for the mix up. Offended much?

Commie-bashing cartoon thug
Frankanger

Thanks for the clarification on the name frankanger. I really was curious about its origins.

I agree that the appreciation of much of literature (sorry) is subjective; but a work seems to become a classic when it strikes a cord within multiple generations of readers. That cord is that it seems to resonate with some insight on the nature of what it is to be human or what the human condition is. Some works immediately "feel" like classics and indeed, over time, are proven to have appeal across multiple cultures and generations.

While I recognize that much of literature is a subjective experience, I don't think that means there are not some criteria that make a creative textual work "literature" as opposed to popular fiction. I think there are standards that constitute quality in art. While I agree that some of these standards evolve over time, I don't buy the argument that there is no way of determining what is good literature verses bad/poor literature. Quality of language, creation/development of character, plot development, quality of dialogue, development of themes, etc., are all criteria for determining what is good in literature.

My personal opinion is that much modern criticsm adds real value to literature, by emphasizing the subjective role of the reader. In fact, I have posted to that very point in the past. But that doesn't mean we don't look at author intent, societal influences, writings/interviews of the author, textual exegesis, etc. The claim that literature is exclusively subjective seems like an over-claim to me. I think it is both -- not either/or.

While Bradbury may not have set out to create a classic piece of literature; over time, some of his works have stood out and become classics (F451 certainly falls into that category).

To your separate point about Charlton Heston: Why do you imply that support of the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, as espoused by Heston, represents an about face of his earlier support of civil rights? Isn't the right to own a gun a civil right? It has certainly been interpreted as a constitutionally protected civil right by the courts.

(Man...I leave the computer to watch the superbowl and look what I miss.)

>>> If you have something to say, then say it, do not weaken what you believe by saying 'certain posters'. I want debate, I want expression. But not people who sit on the fence and can't even reply in name to the object of their disagreement.

Oh, come on frankanger, you weren't even gonna be around to debate--you resigned, remember? Seems rather hypocritical to scream "I want a debate" when you insisted you were leaving.

>>>Nard, I was not trying to 'fool' anyone.

Um, aside from the fact it was me, not Nard, that made the comment...frankanger, the "not fooled by cries of censorship" comment was directed at the comments in the original post by Bradburysmells, not you.

frankanger:::

Offended?

Tell you what....I'll give you a little more rope.... so answer me this: are you centrifugal...or centripetal?

Can't tell me both....

Mr. Anger,

In re: the Charlton Heston point. I concur with Mr. Dark in that a love and defense of the 2nd amendment is hardly a U turn in the defense of civil rights. From reading his In the Arena, it appears he, like a lot of Democrats in the 60s, became disillusioned by the hijacking of the party by the fringe element and found a home more akin to his beliefs in the Republican party. As he, Ronald Regan, William Bennett and others who did the same would point out, it wasn't they who changed but the Democrats.

Ah, you mentioned Anne Tyler. Glad to meet another fan. I believe there's no other greater writer in America today than Ms. Tyler. Perhaps there's another forum out there you know about (I don't.) that's dedicated to her work.

Now, having said that about Ms. Tyler, and to bring this back to the subject of this forum, my praise of her is in no way to slight my admiration of Mr. Bradbury. Obviously, they're two writers out to achieve different effects. And I doubt anything of Ms. Tyler's will have the affect that Bradbury's F451 has had on literature but then not much has. I just believe that what Ms. Tyler is accomplishing with her work speaks more to us now than what Bradbury is currently putting out.

Pete

Being snubbed by an online community for making accusations or stating an unpoular opinion, is the standard, not the exception.

However, since this message board and all of it's topics are pro-Bradbury, derogatory posts seem a bit out of place here.

I came here about three weeks ago, attracted by the intelligent appreciation nurtured for an outstanding literary legend. The compelling topics within "BRAVE NEW WORLD" proded me into registering here to participate in my favorite subject: Man's spiritual relationship with God. I was exstatic about exchanging thoughts with the intellectual pillars of this site.

However, I quickly found that posting my opinions, caused a sudden snub by the same posters that drew me here. I had hoped to keep the string alive with equitable insights, and instead managed to alienate myself.

If I have offended anyone with my choice of words or by expressing my views, please accept my apology.

Celestial

Celestial:::

These specific 'posting-people' wouldn't know an apology from an apostasy.

Lot of these ideas about freedom of speech that are being expounded have ...little to nothing ...to do with freedom of speech...merely a license to be a goof-ball....

If they can't come in and behave themselves, we shouldn't be answering the door...

Let us for a moment consider what this site would be like if those who believe vulgarity, slander and disgraceful innuendoes have a proper place here!

Does anyone think the information offered would really go anywhere - in terms of purposeful dialogue related to the author, his works, and his inspiration to readers?
That, after all, is the reason for this RB Page.

Some of you who "protest too much" may have not been privy to some of the first year posts that took many days of diligent follow-ups to get scrubbed from the site. The comments included statements no (sane) parent would allow in the presence of their children, no boss would allow from his/her employees, and no civil human being would allow to be said about a friend or family member. These sort of posts raise their ugly heads from time to time because it is an open site. They have been the rare exception now into the 2nd year of the site and approximately 3700 exchanges.

If you think RB's works don't cut it, state your point and face the responses from those who read the page. Or maybe even get some agreement on that same topic. If you take offense that filth has been clean from the view of youth, educators, and literary fans from all over the world who read this page, maybe you should start your own site and talk to those of similar interests.

Cel. - I thought you posed very good ideas. Because they may have caught a bit of flack (I too have felt the heat on more than one occasion) does not mean you are being closed out of the conversations - on the contrary!

In all aspects of society, a certain decorum is understood and expected. For over a year, Dandy has nobly maintained a quality for the site that makes the "vast majority" of visitors comfortable so as to learn, offer, and enjoy to return occasionally or frequently.

Now, if that were not the case, would you honestly care to come back on a regular basis and be exposed to the alternative?!