posted 07-05-2004 08:26 PM            

Secondly -- didn't Ray Bradbury write a short story titled "Usher Two"? If Poe was alive, do you think he'd be upset about it?

posted 07-06-2004 12:01 AM            

My question, rephrased, is this: How is Michael Moore naming his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" somehow worse than Ray Bradbury naming a short story "Usher Two"?

Because E.A. Poe is dead? What does that have to do with it? So it would have been OK, if Bradbury had died?

posted 07-06-2004 12:20 AM               

Oh! But you seem to be emotional.
And that you don't know it, requires that someone bring it to your attention.

posted 07-06-2004 12:26 AM            

One of the best things about Ray Bradbury's works is that he helped one to learn to THINK. So I'm amazed at your reply.

(In case you are wondering what "ad hominem" means: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.)

posted 07-06-2004 12:36 AM            

A good debate is fun and educational. I like debate because I might learn something, or better, yet, bring someone 'round to my point of view.

Good debates are hard to find on internet message boards: Too often, the debate degenerates into "You're wrong because you're an idiot" types of statements (or "you're wrong because you're emotional")

The fact that I cannot logically discuss this title issue on a BRADBURY board, with other Bradbury readers, saddens me. I would have thought Bradbury readers would be above that kind of immature response.

But, then again, I'm also saddened that Ray Bradbury, one of my heroes, has turned out to be someone that whines about someone else "stealing" his title.

posted 07-06-2004 12:45 AM               

Just some advice that you find chilling. No need to be defensive.

That definition, however, is a little thin. 'ad hominem' has more to do with being prejudiced against someone. I think your 'attitude' stinks, not you.

posted 07-06-2004 12:49 AM            

Here it is again:

posted 07-06-2004 01:05 AM               

Well, to start off...

You just don't do that kind of thing...in the industry. It's a business. A publishing business. A film business. A business.

Segments of artistic endeavor, more creativity than business, find those where everyone seems to step on everyone's toes and everyone seems to make do.

I think Moore quite possibly did it without realizing what he did. I think that a very good possibility. When Bradbury called him on the carpet about it, some 7 months ago...(if Moore got the information that Bradbury had called him on the telephone about it)...he probably didn't answer back right then and there because he didn't know how to answer.

And I would conjecture that he felt that it would all work out and Ray wouldn't mind.

Also, it's a today thing.

Fahrenheit 451 has been on the best seller list in Los Angeles recently, a remake of Fahrenheit 451 is being put together by Mel Gibson's company, with the screenplay having just been completed last few weeks.

There's a long following of Fahrenheit thru the last 50 years !! It's required reading in many schools.

posted 07-06-2004 03:28 AM            

In motion pictures, there have been eleven movies or television productions entitled "Cleopatra" between 1917 and now, and another eleven with "Cleopatra" as part of the title, such as "Cleopatra Jones." Another eleven movies or TV shows have borne the title "The Last Days of Pompeii," some of which have no resemblance (thankfully) to Bulwer-Lytton's novel. During that time, seven movies have borne the title "Hercules."

Other examples of duplicate, triplicate, etc. titles in movies and television, as well as in literature, are too numerous to mention. The usual convention is that if two works are about to be released at nearly the same time, one or the other producers will alter the title to avoid confusion, out of consideration for the audience. Thus, the director's name was added to "Fellini-Satyricon" at the last minute, though the producers of "Satyricon (1968)" were not entitled to any legal consideration or even a courteous gesture, since Fellini's production company had not known of the existence of the slightly earlier work.

It is pertinent to this discussion that although "Fellini-Satyricon" remains a popular and acclaimed masterpiece, the 1968 "Satyricon" has vanished into obscurity; quality will out. If "Fahrenheit 451" is required reading in more high schools than Huxley's "Brave New World," I suspect that this may be because too many teachers don't trust their students to be able to handle the more supple, nuanced, and artistically truthful "Brave New World."

There have been two short motion pictures whose title began with "Zen and the Art of" since Pirsig published his book, and dozens, perhaps hundreds, of books besides Bradbury's have been published in that time whose title began with the words "Zen and the Art of" or "Zen in the Art of."

I don't know much about Pirsig, but I doubt he is pouting, publicly or otherwise, that Ray Bradbury, and so many others, stole his title.

Yeah, that's what I wrote. Or is the word "stole" only valid when Bradbury uses it? Or was it perhaps also invalid when Bradbury used it?

If Pirsig happens to be distressed about anything in our world, a more likely candidate for the cause would be something like Richard Clarke's reporting, repeated in "Fahrenheit 9/11," that George W. Bush began planning to invade Iraq, on whatever pretext he could find, almost from the first day of his presidency, and that Bush ignored the repeated warnings of Clarke and others, again almost from day one, that a comprehensive program of intelligence gathering on Al Qaeda needed to be put into place.

And now, if I may do a little emotional grandstanding of my own, I am going to ask my readers once again: people, please, PLEASE try to have some sense of perspective here. On the one side, you have one author's hurt feelings regarding a book he wrote about burning paper. Arrayed on the other side, I want you to envision burning bodies. Lots and lots of them. That includes soldiers and civilians, Americans and their allies, Iraqis, Afghanis, infants, children, the well-off and the poorest of the poor. Almost all of them should be considered innocent and undeserving of their fate.

Which side of the picture most makes you want to scream?

posted 07-06-2004 02:21 PM               

You took off too quickly last night. You know, I'm not the fastest typist on the planet....

posted 07-10-2004 10:45 AM               

Thanks for the excellent link. I might note that Moore makes the same argument that many of his supporters have (That Bradbury used lines/titles from others.) Great minds think alike, I guess.

Best,