Bradbury's "Zen and the Art of Writing" (sort of a review)
Al Smith
I was just reading Ray Bradbury's "Zen in the Art of Writing." I
read about half of it and had to stop. I sat there and said to
myself, "Jesus, this man is full of himself." That's right, I'm
going to insult the teddybear that is Ray Bradbury in the public
mind -- Ray Bradbury is full of shit. Hearing him talk about himself
in that treacle-sweet writer's voice of his is enough to make me
want to vomit.
Funny thing is, when I was a teenager, Bradbury was one of my very
favorite writers. It just goes to show that a writer can't always
survive maturing tastes and greater critical discrimination. I once
gave a book of his stories to my father and got him to read some of
it. His reaction disappointed me ... he wasn't impressed by Bradbury
at all. At the time I thought he just had poor literary taste, but I
now realize he had mature literary taste. Bradbury doesn't age well.
He's all musical prose and bitter-sweet angst with very little real
substance.
His book about writing is, as far as I can see, just about worthless
to anyone trying to learn how to write. There's no Zen in it and not
much about how to write, either. It is a collection of old essays
about his favorite subject, himself. Here and there he drops the
name of a famous person he knew back in the Jurassic Period. It's
all so "Me-me-me, look at me, how rainbow technicolor god-damned
wonderful I am!" Sickening stuff.
What Bradbury did best was horror stories. Some of his early horror
stories have stayed with me. His science fiction, not so much. It
was too sugary and facile. His more mainstream stories, not so much,
because he didn't have a hell of a lot to say that was important to
listen to. He couldn't write a novel to save his life. His best
attempt was probably "Something Wicked This Way Comes." His more
famous "Fahrenheit 451" was an extended short story. It is probably
his best single work, because it says something important.
I'm not saying Bradbury is a poor writer, I'm saying that he's
overrated, and nowhere more so than in his own mind. Bradbury has an
ego the size of Alaska. I've never seen it come out in such a
disagreeable way as in his "Zen in the Art of Writing."
-Al-
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
I haven't read that, I admit, but I recently wrote the introduction to
the new edition of LONG AFTER MIDNIGHT. As I began to reread the book
I was afraid the magic might have gone away, but it certainly hasn't
for me. Incidentally, the two writers about whom I've most often heard
it said that you need to read them while you're a teenager if you read
them at all are Bradbury and Lovecraft (so this does have something to
do with this discussion group after all). I don't think it's true of
either.
Al Smith
Interesting. I don't believe it is true of Lovecraft, because,
although I enjoyed his stories as a teen, I value them more today,
when my teen years are far behind me. Bradbury, on the other hand,
I've found almost impossible to read this last decade, and even
before that. I went from revering the man's writing -- absolutely
worshipping it, and re-reading it over and over just for the music
of it -- to finding myself drifting from indifference to positive
distaste.
There's just nothing solid there, Ramsey. Nothing to chew on. It's
all jingly-tinkly prose, it's all contrivance, all effect -- and
studied effect. There's nothing spontaneous or natural. Bradbury
discovered a formula, and damn, the man has milked it for all it is
worth, and then some. I'm sick of the formula.
You know how, when you listen to a favorite song over and over,
eventually you reach a point where you don't want to hear it any
more? That's how I feel about Ray Bradbury's writing style. I won't
talk about his content because there really isn't any. He does tone
poems in words. It's like chewing pink cotton candy, trying to read
his prose.
As I said above, I do like his early horror stories, the sort of
stuff he was selling to "Weird Tales." There are some solid little
stories. The malicious wind. The homicidal baby. The self-aware
skeleton. Good stuff. But when he latched onto his sickly-sweet,
half-bitter, wistful, regretful, sighing formula style, he seems to
have forgotten what he had been doing. As for his poetry -- well, we
won't go there.
-Al-
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
Al, that's a very trollish comment. These guys who have earned
literary greatness all age the same as any other human, that is,
gracelessly. How old are you pal? I bet well over 40, surely you
recognize the clinging to the past until sheer reality overwhelms and
the bitterness starts to consume? Harlan Ellison is the same, he is a
bitter old guy now who is a caricature of the incredible rebel writer
and anthologist of the late 60s. It is tempting to attack such old
people for their posturing and so on, but damn it, remember their
greatness and that every dog has his day and, it is **only** a day.
Look at Arthur Clarke, fiddling with little boys in the Orient,
becoming a recluse and pretending to be the Delphi oracle - but it
doesn't for a moment detract from his ineffable greatness in the
literary and scientific worlds.
Shun the temptation to criticize this guy, he is truly great and we
shouldn't be pedantic about his antics now that he is geriatric.
thang
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
wrote:
These guys who have earned literary greatness all age the same as any
other human, that is,
Well, not all. Fritz Leiber didn't, nor Manly Wade Wellman, nor Hugh
B. Cave. And I don't see any lack of grace in Brian Aldiss or Harry
Harrison. I could cite others, I'm sure. Jack Williamson, Fred Pohl...
As for Ray, I think it's worth remembering that he continues to
influence fine writers as various as Pete Crowther and Caitlin Kiernan.
Evans
Personally I've never cared for Bradbury myself. I remember reading
back when I was fifteen and thinking how sickly his prose seemed. But
then again I should probably be excused from this question since I
freely admit I'm not a sci fi fan.
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
>On Jul 24, 9:33?am, thang ornithorhynchus <th...@spitzola.com.org.net>
>wrote:
>These guys who have earned literary greatness all age the same as any
>other human, that is,
>gracelessly. ?
>
>Well, not all. Fritz Leiber didn't, nor Manly Wade Wellman, nor Hugh
>B. Cave. And I don't see any lack of grace in Brian Aldiss or Harry
>Harrison. I could cite others, I'm sure. Jack Williamson, Fred Pohl...
>
>As for Ray, I think it's worth remembering that he continues to
>influence fine writers as various as Pete Crowther and Caitlin Kiernan.
No you don't get my point. I am speaking literally about the decay of
the body as one ages, leading to loss of agility and rheumatoid issues
etc, increasing pain, nostalgia (especially by those who have peaked a
long time ago), and so on. Literally, gracelessness.
I have never met Wellman, but I have his pic as quite an elderly (but
imposing) gentleman in a plaid shirt in Perret's Faces of Science
Fiction. He was 81 then in '84 and his comments in that book
indicate he was already despairing as only an old man can - "I'll keep
at it in the lonesome valley where a writer must write, until I can't
anymore."
Fritz is in the book too, already damn old and tall as a willow. He
is bent and crotchety, speaking of his "septuagenarian sufferings",
his aging faster than his two characters, and his yearning to escape
back to middle age. More gracelessness.
I suspect you knew or met them, perhaps being a little younger they
mentored you, therefore you have a rosy perception? Aging is a pain
for anyone, let alone for those of prior greatness and creativity. All
I was saying to Al was, cut Ray Bradbury a little slack in view of his
age.
thang
thang ornithorhynchus
And how far back was it when you were 15? I was 15 in 1970 and Ray
Bradbury was peaking in form, style and content, let alone sheer
creativity. I never cared much for his style I must say, being more
of Hal Clement type in SF (Analog rather than If or Galaxy), but his
Mars series had me entranced. The Summer of the Rocket, and all those
stories, the man was pure genius and is a treasure of SF.
See, if you are brought up in the age of Rap, then you aren't going to
really appreciate the Beatles being before your time. However, if you
were old enough to be young and impressionable in the late 60s, you
are definitely going to appreciate the Beatles.
thang
Avid Fan
I still enjoy Ray Bradury's work as much as I did as a teen. I find
them so well written.
I never got much into science fiction apart from Ray Bradbury's work,
the other big names of science fiction seemed IMO incapable of writing
an ending, the stories just seem to end and that was it.
Al Smith
So what you are saying is that we shouldn't criticize Bradbury
because he is old? I was not in any way attacking the man, I was
commenting about his writings.
You're free to follow your own advice if you like. I will feel free
to write whatever I think to be true about Bradbury's prose -- which
is the only thing I can criticize since I've never met the man
personally. The self-centered conceit that is evidenced in the text
of his book "Zen in the Art of Writing" is a criticism of Bradbury
as a writer, since the insertion of so many self-serving comments
into his text is a part of his writing.
You might want to reconsider whether you are correct to tell someone
else not to express their opinion about a writer, in a forum
dedicated to discussion about writings, merely because you regard
that particular writer as in some way or other above criticism.
-Al-
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
wrote:
>This is just a ramble, apropos nothing, do disregard if you wish.
Al, I've got to agree with you for once. I was never all that
impressed by Ray Bradbury, even as teenager, let alone as an adult.
And I agree that his horror was better than his sci-fi, Fahrenheit 451
being the one great exception (if you call it sci-fi, which I don't,
not that it matters).
On the other hand, I adored Isaac Asimov in my early teens, then met
him as a young adult and found the experience very disillusioning. He
did nothing but talk about himself and how great he was. It made me
glad I never met Robert Heinlein who I also adored in my youth and
suspect I wouldn't have liked in person from all I've read about him.
And Arthur C. Clarke also seemed to have been quite full of himself,
judging by the many interviews I've seen and that dopey paranormal TV
series he hosted back in the 90s.
The fact is, great authors, like great scientists or great composers
or great whatevers, are not necessarily great human beings. The
nature of literary genius, or even near-genius, may be such that there
is actually a negative correlation between it and likability. And
fame does seem to go to pretty much everyone's head.
It makes you wonder how HPL would have handled it had he become famous
in his lifetime.
Al Smith
I think his unnatural style appeals to certain readers. I couldn't
get enough of it as a teenager. Funny thing is, back then I loved
for its prose-music his later poetic, musing, poignant style, which
we see in his science fiction and fantasy stories, but today I value
more highly his earlier horror stories, which were written in a more
natural, straight-forward style.
-Al-
Al Smith
Most science fiction writers have trouble with plot and character
development. You are supposed to contemplate in gap-jawed wonder the
amazing concept, or concepts, around which they have constructed the
scaffolding of their story. If you are a reader who is not blown
away by a mind-bending scientific concept, SF is bound to leave you
cold. It is otherwise depressingly wooden, with a few exceptions.
When I was nine years old I started reading Heinlein, and continued
to read at least two SF novels or story anthologies per week, but I
reached a point in my early 20s when I simply could no longer read
it. I've read very little SF since then, although a few writers
transcend the genre.
-Al-
Avid Fan
Why is writing science fiction so different from horror? Why can't
plot character and good endings with a twist of the blade be part of the
deal. Ray Bradbury could do it.
Out of interest what did you not like about Ray Bradbury's work?
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
>Al Smith wrote:
>> On 7/24/2009 2:56 AM, ram...@ramsey-campbell.com wrote:
It's my observation that many authors seem to have trouble with
endings, Stephen King being a prime example, IMO.
Even HPL at times: For example, I've always thought that the
otherwise brilliant Whisperer in Darkness has a rather lame ending,
highly implausible and somewhat anticlimactic.
Al Smith
I'm sure Lovecraft would have been quite gracious in person, but he
probably would have resented the burden of fame, since he was only
comfortable socially when with an individual or small group that he
knew.
I always wanted to meet Heinlein. He was a kind of surrogate father
to me, through his writings. His advice about life has formed much
of what I am today. He's had a greater influence on me than any
other writer, in my personal life and in my attitudes toward life.
When I finally got around to writing him a fan letter, I learned
from his wife, who answered my letter, that he had died. Oh well, he
probably wouldn't have been greatly impressed by me in any case.
Heinlein suffered a lot from criticism that he was a survivalist and
libertarian. I've even read critics who have called him a fascist,
which seems to me unjustified. True, he wrote about fascism, but
that doesn't make him a fascist.
As for Clarke and young boys, I have no way of knowing whether those
rumors have any shred of truth in them. I've never worried much
about it. I like his ideas. I find his writing a bit wooden. He
suffered from the common failing of many SF writers, an inability to
develop characters.
I wrote to Asimov once. He responded with a post card, which I
thought was pretty decent of him, given how busy he must have been
all the time. But it is obvious from his recorded interviews that he
was a bit of an egomaniac.
-Al-
Al Smith
When I was younger, I loved Bradbury's work. What I don't like about
it today is the obsession with melancholy and bitter-sweet memories
of childhood and vague regrets, all written in an artificial sugary
style that may have been original, when he developed the formula
some fifty years ago, but which comes across now as affected and trite.
-Al-
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
wrote:
> No you don't get my point...
I fear you don't get mine.
LookingGlass
>
> When I was younger, I loved Bradbury's work. What I don't like about
> it today is the obsession with melancholy and bitter-sweet memories
> of childhood and vague regrets, all written in an artificial sugary
> style that may have been original, when he developed the formula
> some fifty years ago, but which comes across now as affected and trite.
AGE has a tendancy to do that to old men. Dickens suffered from that
very malediction.
ALL writing is artificial and manufactured. ART by its very nature is
artificial. Artiface. Try growing a Mona Lisa, a Rigoletto, or a Les
Miserables in your backyard.
Avid Fan
>> the other big names of science fiction seemed IMO incapable of writing
>> an ending, the stories just seem to end and that was it.
>
> It's my observation that many authors seem to have trouble with
> endings, Stephen King being a prime example, IMO.
>
> Even HPL at times: For example, I've always thought that the
> otherwise brilliant Whisperer in Darkness has a rather lame ending,
> highly implausible and somewhat anticlimactic.
I am bit surprised that you should mention Stephen King as some one who
has trouble with endings judging from movies like "Secret Window" and
"The Shawshank Redemption". Stephen King often uses his endings to
give it to the bad guy in the neck. You know it is coming but he does
it so well that you don't care.
I have not read as much Stephen King as I should have. If anybody knows
what "It grows on you" was about please tell me. The story just ended
and that was it.
As for a Stephen King book that is well written with a chilling ending I
submit "Cell". Great book IMO.
A great ending must be very hard to do. I have not read as much of
Stephen King as I should.
The last Stephen King book that I read "Cell" has I think a really
A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com
Never judge a book by its movie!! LOL However, the two movies you
cite are indeed excellent, and both are arguably better than the
stories on which they were based.
Some of King's endings are good, but to me many of his novels run on
fifty or a hundred pages past where they should have ended, the uncut
version of The Stand being a prime example, while others simply end a
bit lamely, And IMO that's not an uncommon problem for authors in all
genres, but perhaps most especially in horror..
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
>On Jul 24, 1:36?pm, thang ornithorhynchus <th...@spitzola.com.org.net>
>wrote:
>
>> No you don't get my point...
>
>I fear you don't get mine.
Well I did actually. However, there is no mitigating the human
condition, which involves at the terminus of the cycle, gracelessness.
In all cases, regardless. When one feels the bony fingers of Ol' Sam
tapping the clavicle, then one feels indeed the insignificance of
one's life and resorts to such familiar comforts as the grandchildren
(I have 6, by the way:), the accomplishments (I have many, as do you,
and as do probably most in this room), the enlightenments (I have had
many, such as visitations to oriental countries and plenty of
hallucinogens, plus muchos reading, as undoubtedly have you), the
exercise and futile combatments with those of younger years, what I
call the Peter Pan years, and so on and so on, but none of it avails,
we all meet that most dreaded of times...and therein lies
gracelessness.
Take it easy, Ramsey, life is not what it is crocked up to be, its
actually more.
thang
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
Yes. Age diminishes the brain and all other organics comprising the
entity. As a consequence, the mind suffers (because it is housed in
the physical organism which degenerates according to age). The brain
is the radar, the mind is the signal.
>
>You're free to follow your own advice if you like.
Thanks Al, I certainly will. And I will accept the results of my
choices.
I will feel free
>to write whatever I think to be true about Bradbury's prose -- which
>is the only thing I can criticize since I've never met the man
>personally. The self-centered conceit that is evidenced in the text
>of his book "Zen in the Art of Writing" is a criticism of Bradbury
>as a writer, since the insertion of so many self-serving comments
>into his text is a part of his writing.
He's an old man now, give him a break. Read some of the short stories
he wrote in his prime and you will have a more compassionate view. Its
probably better if you read them as an awe stricken teenager though.
>
>You might want to reconsider whether you are correct to tell someone
>else not to express their opinion about a writer, in a forum
>dedicated to discussion about writings, merely because you regard
>that particular writer as in some way or other above criticism.
Oh come Al, I assume we are all grown up here so why talk crap to me?
Simply put, I remember back in the 60s Bradbury was a mighty writer
who shaped SF forever. Now he is a bit older, why take the piss?
thang
>
>-Al-
ram...@ramsey-campbell.com
I see what you mean, but I do think the folk I cited didn't lose (or
haven't lost) grace. One I didn't mention was Bob Bloch. A friend we
had in common told me that when Bob knew he was close to dying he said
he would like friends to call (by phone, if they were far away), and
so I phoned. We talked for about half an hour. Bob seemed exactly like
the good chap I'd always known, and - more relevantly - he said he was
able to see a pattern in his life and was happy with it. I've always
hoped I'll end as gracefully as he did.
LookingGlass
wrote:
>
> He's an old man now, give him a break. Read some of the short stories
> he wrote in his prime and you will have a more compassionate view. Its
> probably better if you read them as an awe stricken teenager though.
>
> Simply put, I remember back in the 60s Bradbury was a mighty writer
> who shaped SF forever. Now he is a bit older, why take the piss?
>
> thang
I read Bradbury many years ago...and loved him. Recently, I acquired a
large volume of his collected works and began reading the tales
again...to discover that I loved him more. There was wisdom in his
writing that came through *unconciously* when I was young...now it
comes through loud and clear. He was one of the most *joyous* writers
I have had the pleasure to read...his "joi de vivre" comes through
even in his most nostalgic works. He is one of the few writers that
(for me) seemed to retain that youthful *wonder* at everything in
LIFE.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
-- Dylan Thomas
Al Smith
> On Jul 27, 3:42 am, thang ornithorhynchus <th...@spitzola.com.org.net>
> wrote:
>> He's an old man now, give him a break. Read some of the short stories
>> he wrote in his prime and you will have a more compassionate view. Its
>> probably better if you read them as an awe stricken teenager though.
>>
>> Oh come Al, I assume we are all grown up here so why talk crap to me?
>> Simply put, I remember back in the 60s Bradbury was a mighty writer
>> who shaped SF forever. Now he is a bit older, why take the piss?
>>
>> thang
>
>
>
>
> I read Bradbury many years ago...and loved him. Recently, I acquired a
> large volume of his collected works and began reading the tales
> again...to discover that I loved him more. There was wisdom in his
> writing that came through *unconciously* when I was young...now it
> comes through loud and clear. He was one of the most *joyous* writers
> I have had the pleasure to read...his "joi de vivre" comes through
> even in his most nostalgic works. He is one of the few writers that
> (for me) seemed to retain that youthful *wonder* at everything in
> LIFE.
You assume that the youthful wonder is completely natural on his
part, and unfeigned. I see it in a slightly different way, as a vein
of valuable ore that Bradbury has been mining since discovering it
some fifty or sixty years ago. His style is so distinctive, it might
as well have a patent on it. I think he gets up in the morning,
looks around, and thinks to himself, "What can I look at today
through the wondering eyes of a five-year old, that I can turn into
cash?"
-Al-
james ambuehl
mentioned it, Ramsey -- Pete certainly is inspired by Bradbury, but also
a very fine writer on his own as well. I wonder if some of the novels
of Christopher Golden might also contain a hint of Bradburyesque writing
as well?
-- Jim
"When the Big Sleep ends, the Nightmares begin!" -- HARDBOILED CTHULHU:
TWO-FISTED TALES OF TENTACLED TERROR, edited by James Ambuehl and out
now from Elder Signs Press! Available from Clarkesworld Books,
Shocklines, Amazon, and Elder Signs Press itself!
james ambuehl
< I think he gets up in the morning, looks around, and thinks to
himself, "What can I look at today through the wondering eyes of a
five-year old, that I can turn into cash? >
Me: Ah, reminds me of the classic intro for his RAY BRADBURY THEATRE TV
series . . . "All this is my toyshop, my magician's gallery, and I look
around and think "What can I use for a story today?" (Well, I'm
paraphrasing bigtime, it was a long time ago, but I loved it just the
same!)
LookingGlass
>
> You assume that the youthful wonder is completely natural on his
> part, and unfeigned. I see it in a slightly different way, as a vein
> of valuable ore that Bradbury has been mining since discovering it
> some fifty or sixty years ago. His style is so distinctive, it might
> as well have a patent on it. I think he gets up in the morning,
> looks around, and thinks to himself, "What can I look at today
> through the wondering eyes of a five-year old, that I can turn into
> cash?"
>
> -Al-
And YOU *assume* that it is NOT natural for him to view life that
way...unless of course you know the man intimately, and he has
confided in you that he "writes for money". That is what we call
*opinion*...we all have one. You are entitled to have one, and so am
I. That he has a distinctive style is a *fault*? Not in my estimation.
I've read your posts dealing with writers and the their financial
success. I don't know why, in your opinion, it is not something that a
writer should do...that is, to write and to make a living at it. I
*assume* you work FOR A LIVING. Otherwise, you should quit your job
and work for free...that way you cannot be accused of working for
financial gain.
As an aside...WHEN should a successful writer STOP writing? His first
check? The second check? Just curious.
:o)
Al Smith
> Al Smith wrote re: Bradbury's writing style:
>
> < I think he gets up in the morning, looks around, and thinks to
> himself, "What can I look at today through the wondering eyes of a
> five-year old, that I can turn into cash? >
>
> Me: Ah, reminds me of the classic intro for his RAY BRADBURY THEATRE TV
> series . . . "All this is my toyshop, my magician's gallery, and I look
> around and think "What can I use for a story today?" (Well, I'm
> paraphrasing bigtime, it was a long time ago, but I loved it just the
> same!)
>
>
> -- Jim
>
I remember that series well. I watched every episode until it
started to go into endless reruns. It wasn't badly done. The first
was "The Veldt" if I remember correctly. Bradbury is very hard to
translate to television or film because you lose the music of his
prose, and much of the effectiveness of his stories stems from his
prose style. The movie "Something Wicked This Way Comes" had that
problem -- it was all right but it wasn't really great. At the time
I was looking forward to it with great anticipation, but when I saw
it at the theater, it was a disappointment.
-Al-
Al Smith
You obviously haven't read all my posts, or you would know that I've
advocated writing for money.
Bradbury wears the public mask of a wondering child. I think to a
large extent, it is a pose, just as Michael Moore's mask of the
average working Joe is a pose. Nothing wrong with putting on a pose,
if it sells books or movies. It's like playing dress-up in front of
a camera.
In Bradbury's case, his prose style is also a pose, which Bradbury
uses because he's found that it works. Readers respond to it -- the
whole childish "R Is for Rocket," and "S Is for Space" pose, as if
he were writing for five-year olds.
My original point, made some time ago, is that I personally am tired
of the pose. I used to enjoy it, but now I find it trite and
cloying. That's all, just a personal observation.
-Al-
LookingGlass
Again, YOU assume it is a pose. You don't care for Bradbury...that is
obvious. You state your comments are directed at his writing, yet you
attack his character. Why do you wish to demean his character.
Al Smith
I used to love Bradbury. Then my literary tastes matured, and I saw
what he was doing, and became less impressed. The man himself
strikes me as an egoist -- this really comes out in his collection
of old articles, "Zen in the Art of Writing" which, as I've said,
has nothing at all to do with Zen and nothing much to do with the
art of writing. It is all about the wonderful creature that is Ray
Bradbury, and his fabulous, important friends, and all the important
and wonderful things he did.
It is amusing to consider that Bradbury stole the title from the
very popular book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" --
given the fact that he practically had a stroke over Michael Moore
using a take-off of his book title "Fahrenheit 451." I guess it's OK
when Bradbury does it to some other writer, but not OK when some
other writer does it to Bradbury. Because ... he's ... soooo ...
special.
-Al-
LookingGlass
>
> I used to love Bradbury. Then my literary tastes matured, and I saw
> what he was doing, and became less impressed. The man himself
> strikes me as an egoist -- this really comes out in his collection
> of old articles, "Zen in the Art of Writing" which, as I've said,
> has nothing at all to do with Zen and nothing much to do with the
> art of writing. It is all about the wonderful creature that is Ray
> Bradbury, and his fabulous, important friends, and all the important
> and wonderful things he did.
>
> It is amusing to consider that Bradbury stole the title from the
> very popular book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" --
> given the fact that he practically had a stroke over Michael Moore
> using a take-off of his book title "Fahrenheit 451." I guess it's OK
> when Bradbury does it to some other writer, but not OK when some
> other writer does it to Bradbury. Because ... he's ... soooo ...
> special.
>
> -Al-
Just shows he's human like the rest of us.
But again, you stated that you were commenting about not liking his
writing, and yet you persist in attacking his character. What gives?
So you don't *like* him. So...? Gee...he's not the first person with
an ego.
Perhaps he's "special" because of what he writes. There are many
people who appreciate Bradbury the writer without knowing Bradbury the
man. Myself included. I like his style AND the sense of wonder he
brings to his tales. All *entertainment* need not be deadly
serious...nor does it HAVE to teach us great wisdom. I enjoy reading
Bradbury because it is pleasurable, and it reminds me what it is like
to see through the eyes of a child...again...with a sense of
wonder...not child-ish, but child-like. Perhaps that is a wisdom we
should remember.
I don't believe it is a pose...though only he knows that. His
"mask"...persona...does not reveal to me a man inclined to manifest
himself in the real world through false action. I don't think he has
lost touch with his creative spirit. He is true to his muse...genuine.
But this is just my opinion.
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
>On 7/28/2009 12:06 AM, LookingGlass wrote:
Al, you are starting to sound like a troll. You know what that is in
Usenet terms don't you? I was always taught to respect my elders and
I am damn sure that Ray Bradbury is your elder, by the tone and style
of your posts.
I am also disappointed in you. Some time ago I thought you were in
fact someone like Gene Wolfe, incognito, but you definitely ain't
because writers of that caliber would not bad mouth a contemporary
like Ray Bradbury.
You should perhaps take the path of least resistance here. A word of
caution also - I would not be using words like "stole" in this context
because Usenet may not be as anonymous as you think.
Finally, can I just make a few observations about Mr Bradbury and his
place in the literary world?
Somerset Maugham said "I have an idea that Bradbury's work would have
given Edgar Allan Poe a peculiar satisfaction to have written them
himself". Sir Alec Guinness said "Bradbury's dramas are admirable and
curious and disturbing". Now, I think you would consider both of
these gentlemen mature, would you not? How then do you gel these
opinions with yours - the latter of which is, restated, that Bradbury
does not write for a mature audience? (You stated that "when your
literary tastes matured" you became less impressed).
You cannot have read a lot of Bradbury either, mein ami. Have you for
instance read "The Foghorn"? He wrote that in 1951 for the Saturday
Evening Post. I would not call that story, written in his youth, a
work of immaturity.
thang
Al Smith
I've said what I wanted to say about Bradbury.
-Al-
LookingGlass
>
> I've said what I wanted to say about Bradbury.
>
> -Al-
Feel better now?
:o)
thang ornithorhynchus
wrote:
Sure, as long as you understand that you are totally wrong.
thang