posted 03-22-2004 03:49 AM               

Last summer I visited Forrest J. Ackerman and asked him about Serling, who he called "a very nice man who was every bit as pleasant in person as he seemed on television." These are close to his exact words, and, of course, I can always check the tape. Unfortunately, it was ALL I could get him to say about Rod. He talked at length about people he knew well, including Ray.

Another thing strange to say: I know I had the Alfred Hitchcock anthology in which I first discovered Ray out from the library the same month and year that Rod died. Wouldn't it be eerie if I read the story ("Homecoming," of all things) on the very day Rod passed away?

Wild speculation here: I wonder if it's possible that Ray resented Rod because he felt he could do better and didn't give it his best shot, where he seemed to hate John Huston not nearly as much, because he felt he was doing as well as he could? Or did he just feel Huston was more original himself, and gave more credit to his sources, than did Serling? Heard a story on NPR Sunday which reminded me of this whole issue. The host of the show mentioned a certain blues singer who once went off right in the middle of a set, ranting and raving about how people had stolen from her and not given her credit. They told a story of how Janis Joplin recorded one of her songs, and when they met the blues singer got all over her about how those who PERFORM the song get famous and can buy a big house and drive a Porsche car, while those who WRITE the song get nothin'--not only in terms of money, but even recognition. Joplin listened to this for some minutes, looked at the people with her, plunked a $20 bill on the table, and left.

It's also possible that Ray did hate John Huston as much as or more than Serling but was not as obvious in stating it--perhaps in part because Huston lived years longer than Serling and could still have come after him, heh-heh. Anyhow, it took about 25 years to process his experience with Huston into writing "Banshee." Wonder how it would come out if Ray fictionalized his experience with Serling--or if he did inspire a fictional character of Ray's I failed to recognize.

posted 03-22-2004 05:24 PM               

Red.
The color of the car was red...don't ask what color red, because it was getting dark...so I would say, at most, dark red. How's that !!?
________________________________

by the way...
Ray's great teacher and friend. Her name was....
Leigh Douglas Brackett

see: http://www.altfactor.gr/cgi-bin/websf2.cgi?brackett2

posted 03-23-2004 12:43 AM               

I feel so much better now, because William Shakespeare had both m's and e's and we are all inspired by him. No d, but a p is just as good. Also, my favorite show, "Emergency!" has not only m's and e's in the title, but the main character was a doctor named Brackett. I never made a Bradbury connection there (except that both are in
Los Angeles--duh!) till what you said just now. I feel so much better now, knowing that all good things in the universe really are connected to Ray Bradbury. Thanks again and wishing you a happy spring.

posted 03-23-2004 05:30 AM               

Page 295 relates, "Serling equipped his long, purple-colored 1931 reproduction of an Auburn with a custom horn that blared the theme song to Bridge Over the River Kwai. Carol never liked the car, feeling it overly conspicuous. The day he had the horn attached, he took her for a ride and waited until they stopped at a red light. With dozens of cars all around, he honked the horn. With the top down on the convertible, she had no place to hide from all the stares. He grinned from ear to ear."

Page 299 says, "he seemed overly preoccupied with his new Excalibur car. Whether it was parked in the garage or being driven down the street, he continually scrutinized every detail, every inch of paint, every imperfection--real and imagined."

This reminds me of a rather unsavory character in Phyllis Reynolds Naylor's book "Shiloh," whose dogs and truck had to be perfect to make up for so much that wasn't. This was at a particularly unhappy time during Rod's life--between "Twilight Zone" and "Night Gallery"--and it sounds as if he was transferring his anxieties onto his car.

posted 03-23-2004 10:03 AM            

Different characters they were. Creative! - without a question. Ego is a positive thing until it gets in the way of honesty and cooperation. (J. Huston proved this loudly.)

From the many anecdotes presented in these posts, it becomes clear RB would not compromise on his stand concerning RS after "somethings" occurred that rubbed him the wrong way. I can understand this and would not think less of RB for it.

He may have seen what occurred as an insult or breach of friendship. Honesty IS the best policy until someone's ego driven motives come back to bite someone else! If it was RB who got nipped - and it sounds as if this may be the case, especially at the price of his art and at a time when fanatsy and SF were finally getting some of the long desired recognition, it is easy to see why he would severe the ties. How would each of us feel if 20 years effort to "establish and spread the word" were suddenly upstaged by another who had been trusted and thought to be going in the same direction. And then to have your work (or a very close rendition of it) appear without your name on it!

In an interview aired a few weeks back, Marc Zicree was talking about the writing of his "TZ Companion." He said he was allowed by the Serling family to go through the attic of RS for his research. There were volumes of screen plays (many boxes) all meticulously saved. Zicree said that one of the most interesting finds he uncovered was a box* containing Ray Bradbury stories re-written for the show - that never made it to production!!!
(*I thought the interview was a recent one, but it may be the one listed below. However, in listening to the dialogue much of what I remember being said is not a part of this Lynn Neary audio clip. So, whether I was recently listening to a newer interview (not yet presented on the NPR site), or this original has been editted - I can not say. Did anyone else catch it? (I will continue to search for the Rb reference and add if discovered.)

Lynn Neary's interview with Marc Zicree, 1999: http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/twilightzone/index.html
(Scroll to the bottom here for other related TZ topics and sites.)
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1064803

Twilight Zone "Result 1-10" from NPR: http://search1.npr.org/search97cgi/s97_cgi?CleanQuery=twilight+zone&ResultTemplate=allow_re_sort.hts&SortSpec=Date+Desc+Score+Desc&ViewTemplate=docview.hts&collection=ALL02&Action= FilterSearch&filter=topic_filter.NEW.hts&QueryText=&x=32&y=5

posted 03-23-2004 10:51 AM               

I would have mixed feelings about a DVD release of Ray Bradbury Theater. Being a completist, I would expect a DVD release to be complete and definitive. However, too many of the episodes of RBT were so bad as to be embarrassing - and positively harmful to Ray's reputation.

Then there is the question of how economically viable it would be. Given that there were 65-ish episodes of RBT, that would be about 10 discs or more, which could potentially be a costly package.

posted 03-23-2004 01:28 PM               

I thought maybe I saw Serling with a 'replicar', an Auburn Boattail Speedster. But I do not believe they made those at the time I saw Serling, about 1970. They were making the Excalibur, and maybe it was one of those. But THAT was not a replicar. It was...what it was.

Serling did own a 1963 Studebaker Avanti, my ultimate favorite car, but THAT was definitely not an Avanti.
(here's a 1963 one for sale): http://www.cars-on-line.com/63avanti10549.html

From the one picture of the links you provided, it appears he owned...it looks like it could be a Fiat. It even might be a older Maserati. Not too familiar with all those thousands of Fiat models.

I think I would have been familiar with the Excalibur at the time. So... don't know what it was, as of this writing...
________________________________

(Did you know there is a gigantic Rod Serling Gala coming up later in the Summer, 2004? About anyone who ever worked on, or appeared in a 'Twilight Zone', I guess, will be there, that can be...)

posted 03-23-2004 04:48 PM               

"TZ Companion" doesn't refer to scripts in the attic as such, although it is clear that Zicree had an unusual level of access to scripts and other materials. He does devote a couple of pages to Bradbury. He does this when discussing the episode "I Sing the Body Electric", this being the only Bradbury-scripted episode of the series.

Zicree outlines the initial contact between TZ and Bradbury; identifies all the Bradbury scripts written ("I Sing" which was filmed; "Here There Be Tygers" which was rejected; "Miracle of Rare Device" which was bought and had a director assigned, but was never filmed). He also refers to Serling being a fan of Bradbury, and discusses Bradbury references in "Walking Distance" and "A Stop at Willoughby". He also quotes Bradbury as not wishing to talk about TZ.

I had long assumed this to be the complete story, but this thread has revealed so much more detail.

posted 03-23-2004 05:42 PM            

As for RB Theater, a "Best of Series" could include the likes of Banshee, Zero Hour, Fruit at the Bottom of the Bowl, Lonely One, Mars is Heaven, Town Where No One Got Off, The Crowd, Screaming Woman, Veldt. Out of the 60+ episodes, most did well on the screen. RB had his hand in the production of each, of course. That is quite an accomplishment, even though most were already written and collected. His chief focus was then to adapt to 1/2 hr format.

Much of his vision is lost in the translation to the screen, a concern by other producers over the years. This may have been another bump in the road with RS as he was tremendously driven in his methods for getting another show in the can to meet corporate deadlines. The RB stories you list may not have been easily adapted - then!?

It would be nice to have a big screen RB success from Thunder, 451, or Ill. Man (if ever it goes to re-production). It could be done with a mesmerizing screen play, taking into account the special effects now available to film artists.

posted 03-24-2004 05:05 AM               

It occurs to me that "Bewitched" was probably the show with the most regular and recurring cast members who also appeared on TZ. If I am wrong, someone at the Fifth Dimension can surely correct me. The premise of "Bewitched" was very much like that of Bradbury's "family of friendly vampires" in "From the Dust Returned." Strange, possibly occasionally dangerous, but generally lovable family tries to convince the neighbors they are not too "different." Both families even had a Sam--though one was a Samuel and one was a Samantha!

Thank you all for not questioning my repeated and ongoing rantings and ravings regarding this, for which I'll favor you with some explanation anyway.

Phase 1: The thing is, I have read more of Ray Bradbury's work and been more influenced by him BY FAR than by any other author! There is no possible way in hell I'm going to write much of anything, in any genre, in any direction, without at least some of such a vast and overwhelming influence showing, even unconsciously. It might even be consciously, in tribute-type fashion.

I've already pretty well concluded NOT to write about the thing I probably know most about, that is, American small town life. I don't at all resent Mr. Bradbury for this; in fact, I thank him for saving me the trouble by having already written all I would have and more, better than I would have written it! I am, however, alarmed and disturbed at the implication that a person shouldn't write about such common objects, experiences, and impressions as carnival rides due to another person's influence. The other day I tried to name songs about merry-go-rounds and came up with about three in three seconds (it is a wonderful metaphor for several aspects of life!) not to mention Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote a musical called "Carousel." I have enough trouble deciding what to concentrate on writing about, without being told what to stay away from. (Here I must add that the TZ episode "In Praise of Pip" reminds me much more of "Something Wicked This Way Comes" than does "Walking Distance." Don't offhand know if Serling wrote this one, but, if so, this, and not "Nothing in the Dark" could be the elusive "fourth time." Combine that with a certain episode of "Lost in Space," also with Billy Mumy, and the resemblances are quite striking.)

Phase 2: I happen to believe I have a pretty good sense--better than Serling's if he and his acquaintances are to be believed--as to whether something sounds too familiar and can often recall where I heard it. Should I become disabused of this belief I would lose faith in my own abilities of discernment. I happen to be VERY familiar with Bradbury's work, and the way I see resemblances, or lack of them, in the sources in question are as described above. Obviously I see certain superficial similarities, when, indeed, I see them at all, as "acceptable" while others don't, which makes me question my own judgement--an extremely BAD thing for a writer, who should be firm in their own convictions regarding their vision.

Phase 3: What I said. I walked around for twenty years thinking I "should" dislike Serling for Bradbury's sake, then found out maybe I "should" have liked him all along. This cognitive dissonance bothers me for its own sake and makes me feel like a chump!

While I'm at it, what the heck, another aspect about Serling's character is that he seems to have been a bit of a suckup. Not that he was necessarily intentionally snobbish or hypocritical any more than he was intentionally insincere when he made promises he wouldn't or couldn't keep. It was more like something he just couldn't help.

Interestingly enough, Rod and Ray were both frustrated actors. When someone asked Ray why he pursued writing instead of acting, he said (in pretty nearly these words,) "As an actor you only work when you're told and you have to be nice to a lot of people you don't like."

You know what acting nice when you're angry is called? Hostile. Which Ray is not, and I suspect Rod was. Hostile, hostile, hostile. Because, being a bit of a suckup, he was like all kiss@ss to people he felt were more accomplished or could do something for him whether he liked them or not! Neither he nor Ray were intentionally rude to people they didn't like (the only ones who really raised Rod's wrath were religious and racial bigots, and the like, and I don't believe he felt any natural contempt for others) but Ray just won't waste time on ANYONE he doesn't think is worth it, and if a person ticks him off, he will tell them they're an idiot--it doesn't matter WHO they are or in WHAT position in relation to him. (For those of you wondering why Ray hasn't had more major movies, the reasons you gave are valid, particularly that ethereal, "lost in
translation" quality--a mood to be found in only a few of any films, and sadly lacking in most based on Ray's work, but perhaps not the "whole" story.) Ray is just lucky he had the drive and talent to have a career where he could say or do whatever the hell he wanted without worrying about offending some "boss."

Rod wanted EVERYONE to like him, but he behaved very differently with different people. If it was someone who didn't much interest him, he would put on a good impression of being interested. (A "talent" at which Rod was accomplished which Ray would never bother to learn!) If it was someone powerful who might be able to do something for him, he would hang on their every word, whether he cared for them personally or not. VERY different personal styles!

posted 03-24-2004 09:00 AM            

He said his good-byes and stood by his principles. A 3rd just came to mind, the Coda of F451 says it all. "You don't like my story? I'm not changing it to make everyone happy. Write your own!" I am sure there are many more situations also, but these speak loud and clear about the man and his life. He is one of a kind and thus my admiration!

posted 03-25-2004 09:50 AM               

Actually, it's worse than that. He really DID love his wife, and went ahead and did things to hurt and humiliate her anyway! He may have had some reason to resent her--if she was really controlling the way the second biography said--he certainly had to run everything by her and clear it with her--but his need to act out seems more to do with insecurities respecting himself than with problems with her. Then he also had to suffer the consequences, in terms of guilt or whatever other negative emotions resulted, not to mention Carol's anger. Engel notes that the tension between them was palpable.

It was bad enough if only he and his wife were involved, but yes, there were his daughters, and I do wonder how this all affected them, especially the fact that he was none too discreet about it. It wasn't as if he just had a fling when he went out of town or something, but during the worst of it (which seems to have taken place in the midst of a crisis between TZ and "Night Gallery,") he was living in a separate residence on the grounds--guest house or pool house--where his girlfriends would come over--this was less than 150 feet from the house where his family were living! He would also take at least one of his girlfriends to parties so that they were seen in public together. This was when his children were the worst possible age--old enough to know what was going on and that it was wrong, and young enough to be very deeply affected by it. This is the sort of thing that can't be hidden from teenagers, and he doesn't seem to have taken pains to hide it (which must have hurt them later as well as at the time, when they reprocessed it as more mature people). He did patch it up with his wife later, but I do wonder at the effect on his daughters.

Personal problems, well, from what I've read I can give only a very quick rundown. The most striking one seems to have been ego issues of insecurity and self-esteem. He had not only a tendency but a NEED to be the center of attention--which in many situations worked out fine and in his favor, but in some really hurt him. One of the California writers group, probably Johnson or Nolan, remarked that that group was the first time in his life where Serling had NOT been the center of attention, which was very likely true. Both they and he felt negative effects from this.

There was the tendency to treat people differently depending on how they related to his career. The reason his friend broke off with him was that every time he and his wife, who he really wanted Serling to meet, were in California, Serling would totally blow him off, neglecting and refusing to meet with him. He did have a busy schedule as host and writer of TZ, but as important as he was, it's not as if he'd have been in major trouble for something like taking time off to entertain a friend. If I were the friend, I'd have been pissed, too.

Then there were his compulsive/addictive habits. The smoking, of course, which is naturally addictive anyway, was in his case totally out of control. His extramarital affairs, too--a bad thing to do in any circumstance, but the fact that he let it hang out to that extent in front of family and friends indicates a strong lack of discretion. Then there was the drinking. Like Bradbury (who was occasionally drunk and hung over and only really quit after a stroke when he was nearly 80,) Serling was always a heavy recreational and social drinker, but during his bad phase it became really excessive. A friend said he would put away amounts nothing short of amazing for someone of his size, and a girl of 19 who met him said he seemed like an old, pathetic lush--he was a little less than 45 at the time.

Another thing which started out as just a bad habit and devolved into a compulsion was his storytelling. In his army days, this was described as "off-color jokes." By about twenty years later, it had gone to "dirty stories." He was attuned enough to other people that he must have known they didn't like it, but it was as if he couldn't help himself. People who worked on "Liars' Club," a game show he hosted, would cringe when they'd see him coming, knowing there was no escaping another dirty story. They were all, "What do you think is wrong with him?" "I don't know, what do you think?" so there was all this amateur analysis going on. They knew something was seriously wrong but were not sure what. The sad thing is one of them said you could never have an in-depth conversation with him--he was so full of stories and surface chitchat--which considering the greatness of his mind is a terrible shame.

The observation about class is exactly right. One of the people who knew him during this time said he was a person who could have afforded to show a lot more class and didn't. It was as if, feeling that first his success and later his reputation were undeserved, he felt he had to behave in a manner which would draw some disapproval, almost as punishment. When the doubts about his writing ability (around which his considerable and fragile ego was built) set in, they became self-perpetuating. He made the bad decision of feeling that, instead of going through a "dry spell," he had "dried up," and acted accordingly. In his last interview, he seemed to have reconciled a bit and been looking forward to things, but he should really have taken good enough care of himself to get that second wind and live to complete that third act I know he had in him! Yes, the ending as it was was very sad, but came at a time when things could have gone either way--really turned around and gone uphill, or just grown sadder.

The person Rod reminds me most of is Orson Welles, who recalled being brilliant as a child. No matter what he picked up, he excelled at, for instance if he played the piano no one had ever played so well. It's obvious his family, like Rod's, kind of drooled all over to the point of spoiling him. Then, with his early dramatic successes, he was treated as the greatest thing practically since Shakespeare--exactly like Rod. After a certain point, he spent the rest of his life trying to live up to the promise of that early success and pulling a persona around himself. A good friend said the legendary Welles persona was totally fake--he'd be not at all like that when you were talking with him, then a fan or someone would approach and he would "put it on." I think Rod did this too, to some extent. He developed his TZ persona, and could put on a very nice exterior when approached by fans or so on, but people around him for some length of time tended to be disappointed by his behavior. His treatment of people was not always bad, it just seems to have been always colored by extreme doubts and anxieties concerning himself, which affected how he acted to them, no matter how they themselves acted. That's why I said he hurt himself more than others--he had to live with this and its effects all the time, didn't he? I do really ache for people close to him, especially his brother, who knew him longer than anyone else, saw these harmful behavior patterns, and couldn't do a thing, it seems, to help him, except just be there for him.

(Another thing which will no doubt come out in Sam Weller's biography--Bob Serling was at least an intelligent and sensible person who had his own successful career and seemed to enjoy the ability to be happy which so often eluded Rod. They got along well so Bob at least has pleasant memories of him. Ray, on the other hand, may have gotten all the happiness in his family. His brother, Skip, achieved nothing and reportedly hated Ray.)

posted 03-26-2004 06:29 AM               

There's no getting around it, a lot of Rod's life was sad for no clear reason--that is, I feel it didn't have to be sad, or at least not as sad as it was. The war was to blame for a lot but most likely not all of his problems.

For instance, a friend recalled when they went to see a movie about Leonardo Da Vinci, whose last words were reported to have been, "May God forgive me for not having used my talents." Rod went around sadly repeating this as if he thought it applied to him. This was a guy who wrote a minimum of twelve hours A DAY and often up to fifteen hours! And his writing was by dictation, which meant wear and tear on the voice as well! If I did any such thing (which I couldn't, and it's right out of the question to try, even as an experiment) but if I did I'd be giving myself such massive points for trying so hard, no matter what anyone else said!

He was so set on his own strange fixations and no one could get through to him. Carol was probably telling the truth when she said it was great being married to Rod. She got a lot of neat opportunities she wouldn't have had if he'd just stayed and taught school in New York, but she also had the job of trying to establish some practical ground for someone who was not the most down-to-earth person, a difficult and thankless task which must have been frustrating. On the family front she had the double problem of not only being cheated on repeatedly and at times almost constantly, but dealing with the effects of this on her children, who she mostly raised herself. A good mother is going to be more concerned with her children, which takes her mind off her own misery while also increasing it.

It is VERY sad that Rod's insecurities made him "a chaser." It wasn't just a matter of groupies happening his way, he actively went looking for it, to "prove" he was this great and attractive stud beyond however he seemed at home--like his home identity wasn't "enough." That's what I call a lose-lose situation. It seems he was smart enough to eventually see that.

What I find amazing is that given his habits he survived as long as he did in even as good shape as he appeared. How could he put away all that liquor with stomach ulcers without dying, just for one? I forgot to mention under "faults" that he also suffered from hypochondria, which is a mental disorder, not a physical one.

The fact that he was able to respond kindly to others and really help people shows that he wasn't totally self-centered. His ability to instill good things in others, perhaps even despite himself, seems to me his most redeeming characteristic among a number of endearing character traits. I'll be among the first to acknowledge he did some very bad and wrong things, which I might not have been able to forgive had I been on the receiving end, yet he possessed so many genuinely good traits one can't help wanting to help him.

posted 03-27-2004 11:47 AM               

I was happy to hear of the TZ forums, which I haven't checked out as of yet, but will try to do so soon. I'm a big fan of the show--still waiting for the time when CBS (or whoever has the rights) gets their act together and releases the show season by season on DVD. The current haphazard release of four random episodes per disc is simply ridiculous.

And I was most interested in hearing of the Serling/Bradbury connection. I hadn't known much about it before, other than the facts given in a few pages of "The Twilight Zone Companion." I don't know... Seems to me that those two would never have gotten along, regardless of any professional disagreements. They are very different personality types, and in society in general there are people who simply will never get along with each other, no matter what--they don't see the world, or react to it, in the same way. Unfortunately, I don't think we will get an ubiased viewpoint of the whole situation in the upcoming biography, which after all is all based on Ray's recollections. So who knows what the complete story is there.

I will venture to say, however, that Bradbury's ability to utterly and completely disregard those people or opinions which disagree with his own viewpoints is not necessarily an admirable character trait. While it can be considered being strong-willed--having a clear vision, and "standing up for what you believe in" and all that--it also comes very close to being pigheaded and close-minded. I think we have to be at least open to the ideas and opinions of others; willing to consider alternate viewpoints a bit, without instantly dismissing or denigrating what others have to say. The interchange of ideas and opinions can help a person stretch his mental boundries.... (I've had this problem in my relationship with my own brother, so perhaps I'm projecting here. But said brother is so very vocal about proclaiming his own viewpoints --often about religion and politics, topics sure to cause strife in the most polite of conversations!--that he leaves absolutely no room whatsoever for any deviation of what he considers the "right" way to think. And so unfortunately we are not as close as we once were--there just doesn't seem to be much to talk about anymore, since we can't have real give-and-take conversations.)

Any discussion of Rod and Ray of course invites comparisons of their respective television shows. And I feel so very disloyal for saying so, but "Ray Bradbury Theater" comes off the worse for this. Much as I love Ray's written work, I think that over half of the episodes of his show were simply terrible. A Bradbury story requires a very special touch to bring it to life, and I really believe that Bradbury himself is not the person to adapt his own material, and write the scripts. Of course, "The Twilight Zone" had more than its share of clunkers. But there were so many episodes of that produced over the course of five years (when a typical television season may consist of thirty or thirty-five episodes) that the really excellent episodes are remembered, while the duds have been forgotten.

posted 03-27-2004 12:46 PM               

I'm looking foward to Weller's biography, also; and imagine that -- while it is the official biography -- Sam will be honest and even-handed in it.

posted 03-27-2004 11:32 PM               

It's questionable when or even whether I'll catch up on other forums for two reasons: one, it is coming into my busiest time of year for doing any house and yard projects and also any projects involving leaving the house or yard (that is, driving--since the roads are better.) Two, I promised Ray I'd finish a chapter of that novel a week, which I think I'd better do! Now that my computer is back and I actually have a WORKING printer (!), there's just no excuse not to!

I think my position on the Bradbury/Serling dispute is pretty plain. As an artist, I prefer Bradbury. As a person, I no doubt prefer Bradbury, too, but I still refuse to negate Rod's influence on me artistically or put him down as a person. As far as the personality thing: yes, he rubbed Ray the wrong way and I have no way of knowing whether he'd have the same effect on me as I didn't know him, though so many people were well-disposed to him I like to think I'd have liked him. Both Sam and this other individual who it's not necessary to name, though, were completely convinced by Ray's negative perceptions of Rod. I don't believe that William F. Nolan, George Clayton Johnson, and others who KNEW them both were, and, having examined the evidence, neither am I. I agreed with this poster on the Serling board that Rod did some very wrong and bad things which had either of us been married to him he'd have caught hell for (she says she'd have divorced him, and I'm not inclined to disagree). I don't, however, think he should be viewed as a total villain--particularly for things he may not have even done! I have no reason to believe Sam's biography won't be fair and accurate--just a very gentle caveat not to take everything Ray says at absolute face value as Ray has been known to be just a tiny bit biased on certain matters.

I had to laugh at your description of Ray's viewpoint. Wishy-washy, he is not. That is GREAT, when you want a DEFINITE answer--which I did when I called him up and asked what steps to take regarding my novel. The response couldn't have been more plain and clear, and was just what I needed! Don't try arguing with him on any subject on which he has an opinion, though. I've tried to make him see other points of view on several issues, and he only gives two answers: "that's not what I said," a variation being, "you totally misunderstood what I said," or a reiteration of his original view and his reasons for it. Period. There is just not much exchange of debate.

What I said about his brother comes from a certain person, again, not necessary to name, but this person, raised an only child and currently bringing up an only child, has completely missed (and perhaps in some ways idealized) the sibling aspect of existence. When he saw Ray and Skip together, he was dismayed to note, "There is NOTHING between them." They had a conversation of sorts, then when Skip was gone, Ray said, regretfully but matter-of-factly, "Skip hates me, and I don't blame him." As for "accomplished nothing": I saw in a writeup on Ray, in "Current Biography" or a similar source, that Skip had aspirations of writing. I don't know if it is true, but for over twenty years I have kept careful track of everything published under the name of Bradbury to list Ray's work, and have never seen anything by Leonard "Skip" Bradbury. It's my understanding he became an electric lineman like their father, married, and returned to live in the midwest. I don't know the size of his family or whether he is still alive.

That's funny what you said about your brother because Rod had the same problem with his brother, Bob. Unlike Ray and Skip--who were only four years apart, but I believe were never close, even as children--very different personalities--Rod and Bob were close despite being about six and a half years apart. Rod was a complete and total bleeding heart liberal to a ridiculous degree, unable even to see any downside to the liberal left-wing viewpoint. Well, one time he and Bob got into an argument about politics which turned into a major shouting match with name-calling and all. They were so appalled they agreed never to discuss politics again for the good of their relationship!

posted 04-06-2004 05:51 AM               

"The next morning the word went from house to house that Ruby Gillis was dead. She had died in
her sleep, painlessly and calmly, and on her face was a smile -- as if, after all, death had come as a kindly friend to lead her over the threshold, instead of the grisly phantom she had dreaded."

posted 12-08-2004 03:43 PM               

Finally, for whatever reasons of his own, the site owner quit. Another Matthew did an excellent job of rallying the troops, who most or all ended up at a wonderful site run by another fan, Eric, which can be found here: http://www.tzworld.com/home.html

I really have to hand it to Matthew for keeping everyone in touch and up to date. As you can see, there is a (carefully moderated!--we had a few problems on another!) message board there, but I just haven't taken time to register! Just because I've been lax in this doesn't mean you-all should, and I hope you enjoy it!