Talk:Ray Bradbury/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

National Book Award

He also got some kind of lifetime achievement National Book Award, which fact should be included in this article. I don't know the proper way to say it. 18.252.5.164 01:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I added this in and a link to his acceptance speech which is a good read. Smallpond 19:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pulitzer Citation

This was added and then removed by an IP editor a few minutes ago: this link tells of a special citation that Bradbury got from the Pulitzer committee; might make the awards/honors section. I haven't added it because I'm not sure if the IP editor wants to stick it back in herself... Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 23:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was in there when I wrote this up. That's what I get for not looking carefully. Never mind. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 23:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Woodford

I have removed this sentence from the article: "At the age of fifteen, Bradbury read Jack Woodford's book on writing, Trial and Error, which had a large influence on his career. "

I can find no mention of Woodford or his book in the authorized biography The Bradbury Chronicles, nor in Bradbury's books Zen in the Art of Writing, Conversations with Ray Bradbury, or Bradbury Speaks. — Walloon 17:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bradbury did indeed read Woodford's book in 1935. This has been confirmed by Prof Jon Eller of the Center for Ray Bradbury Studies, Indiana University, and is referred to in chapter 1 of Eller's forthcoming book 'Becoming Ray Bradbury'.

Micheal Moore

This is a response to this comment left in an edit summary: Shsilver (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 136439766 by Getaway (talk) Since titles can't be copyrighted, this has nothing to do with the issue.) Actually copyright has everything to do with the issue. In the Wikipedia article there are references to words taken by Bradbury from other authors, such as Dickens, and used by Bradbury in his works. These examples of where, supposedly, Bradbury in taking the words of other writers and supposedly is the same process that Moore engaged in. The problem with that analogy is: (1) there is no citation for the commentary, and (2) the examples given are to authors who were originally published over 50 years ago. The words referred to are NOT, contrary to the claim of Shsilver, just titles but are wording, for example the wording of Macbeth, which was published, of course, about 400 hundred years ago. Moore stole Bradbury's title while the copyright is still in effect. Also, Shsilver's comment are just flat incorrect understanding of copyright law. Yes, you cannot get a copyright on a just a title, but you can get a copyright on title which is "a work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of authorship in the form of original literary, musical, pictorial, or graphic expression." 17 U.S. 102. Now, of course Bradbury's work contains the "original literary expression" required to obtain copyright and of course the work does have copyright protection.--Getaway 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Titles cannot be copyrighted (although they can be trademarked, which Fahrenheit 451 is not) and Moore played on the title of Bradbury's work, not the text of the book. The work itself is copyrighted, everything from "1. The Hearth and the Salamander" through "The flies came down in a feeding cloak to cover the meat, once it had stopped swinging." but not Fahrenheit 451. That is why you often find different books with the same title (for instance Taltos (1988) by Stephen Brust) and Taltos (1994) by Anne Rice). More specifically, "Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark."(What Does Copyright Protect?, United States Copyright Office). I'm removing the reference to copyright since copyright, does not enter the matter legally, q.e.d.

Whether or not the item is has appropriate citation is another matter entirely.Shsilver 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In which section should his book A Chapbook for Burnt-Out Priests, Rabbis and Ministers go?

A Chapbook for Burnt-Out Priests, Rabbis and Ministers (published by Cemetery Dance Publications in 2001 ISBN 1-58767-010-0). It is a collection of all new "poetry, fiction, essays, and other oddities and fancies" per the official website. Since it fits in multiple catagories, which one should it be listed in? Antmusic 18:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Library of Congress comes in on the side of the book being mostly fiction, specifically short stories. — Walloon 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This page needs more discussion of his writing

The page launches right into discussion of his books being adapted but there is very little on his writing. Not a very helpful resource on the author.

Probably for two reasons. First, because each of his major works has its own Wikipedia article that can be clicked to. Second, because critical analysis inevitably goes into the area of personal opinion, which is frowned upon at Wikipedia. — Walloon 16:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now I see what you mean. The entire sections on his Beginnings and his Works had been deleted. I have restored them. — Walloon 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Completely. A discussion of the works should be the meat of an article like this. Not ALL the works of course--that would be far too long. But the main, most important ones. And it doesn't just have to rely on editor's opinions--someone, somewhere has published something summarizing Bradbury's primary works or life achievements and you follow that. Plus there are published reviews and commentary on the major works. We're not talking about something unusual here--look at the works section of articles on any major author like Ernest Hemingway or John Steinbeck or the like.

The list of works is great but what we are looking for here is something to put Bradbury's life work in context. Bhugh (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

List of works

Do you think that maybe the "Works" section is large enough to be broken off into its own article? I think it easily is. I also think that the two columned format looks squashed; in its own article, it could be spread out and not seem a problem. —ScouterSig 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rb451.jpg

Image:Rb451.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. ....BetacommandBot (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert War

There appears to be a bit of revert war being wagged here. Bradbury is best known to the general public as a science fiction writer. We can understand that he doesn't like being pigeonholed, but that doesn't change the public perception. One can argue back and forth about the merits of his personal opinion, but that doesn't matter to this argument. Please leave it as is. David Reiss (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional Awards

In 2004, Bradbury won a 1954 Retro Hugo Award for his 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451. The Hugo Award is very prestigious in the science fiction literature community. Fahrenheit 451 was not well known when it was first published, but the novel became increasingly famous and well-regarded with time. The 1954 Retro Hugo Awards recognizes Bradbury's great contribution to the science fiction world, albeit a bit late. Lilchibiusa (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Not well known when ... first published"?

He was always a major writer within SF, the only (or one of the very few) SF authors to be regularly published in the slicks. Consequently, he was envied by every other SF author. The phrase "not well known" cannot be applied readily to anything by Bradbury.

Varlaam (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

New picture

I found a new picture at flickr which I think is more flattering of Ray in 1975 when he was a bit younger. Its freely licensed, so there should be no problem in that regard.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you did. One of the annoying things about Wikipedia biographies is that the pictures are often of a 97 year old man. When I look up Paul McCartney, for example, I want to see him in 1969 or 73 or so -- in other words, in the height of his fame. But most pictures (because of DMCA copyright crap) in Wikipedia will show some modern fanshot. Pete Townsend at his current age -- all well and fine, but Townsend became famous at age 21, so the iconic image of him should be from the 60s or 70s, not now, when he is a celebrity mostly because of his achievements as a youth...

grrr. Really hate the DMCA, and corporate-influenced copyright laws in general. They distort the entire effort of something like Wikipedia, and they were created solely to protect corporate-assets... Jefferson's original concept of copyright (50 years past creator's death) was more than adequate by common sense measures... the DMCA is really all about making sure that Mickey Mouse never, ever, enters the public domain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by StrangeAttractor (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First issue of Future Fantasia

Is there any reason to discuss the contents of the first issue of Bradbury's fanzine Future Fantasia:

In the first issue, Issue No. 1, from the summer of 1939, was his short story "Don't Get Technatal" under the pseudonym Ron Reynolds, the editorial "Greetings! At Long Last -- Futuria Fantasia!", and the poem "Thought and Space".

If not, I'm going to delete it. None of the pieces mentioned are "firsts" of any kind for Bradbury, and none have been famous. — Walloon (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Disrespecting a Great Man is in Bad Taste

I don’t know who keeps putting those childish comments on this page, but please reframe from it. Ray Bradbury is a great man and his page should have more respect than that. If you have issues with other contributors, do it here and not on the article.

mtpascoe 01:02, 30 January 2010 (PST)

Health?

Could someone please comment on his health if known? I know he made it through a stroke, and is at least in a wheelchair sometimes. Maybe medical issues are not a topic to talk about, but I love his writing, and hope he will be able to write more, and of course hope he is not in ill health as he seems to be such a good person. (PershingBoy)63.3.10.130 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I, too, was shocked to see him in a wheelchair on the most recent picture. If he is indeed suffering from medical problems then it should definitely be included. Not doing so would be tantamount to excluding any reference of Hawkin's lateral sclerosis or Goody's cancer diagnosis. 203.184.48.237 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Tribute???

I don't know what the man himself would think but I would be flattered by this ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1IxOS4VzKM&feature=player_embedded 82.42.179.120 (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's hilarious. Not to mention hot. :) Jalwikip (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

They are both referring to the clever parody song "Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury" by cute comedienne Rachel Bloom, which does a very good job of utilizing Bradbury book titles, much as Woody Allen did with Dostoyevsky in Love and Death, but with added humping and masturbation.

The logical place for it is in the
==In popular culture==

section but, surprisingly, there is no such section at present.

Varlaam (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think mention of this should go in somewhere! It's a youtube phenomenon! And apparently Ray liked it, too. Here's some background for anyone who has the energy to put this into the article: http://blog.seattlepi.com/booktryst/archives/218876.asp There are other online reviews of the video as well. Boxter1977 (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The Veldt

Consider linking one of the mentions of The Veldt to The_Veldt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.63.83.70 (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Sooner or later somebody will have to add this into the honors.... Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form The Hugo Awards 2011 Nominees Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury, written by Rachel Bloom; directed by Paul Briganti --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Template?

Any reason why no one has created a template, or templates, for his works? many other SF authors have them, and are listed at Category:Speculative fiction author templates.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Feud with Disnelyland

Public Feud with Disneyland over expansion of the Monorail for public transportation During the 1970s Ray Bradbury had a very public argument with Disneyland over their Monorail ride. He appealed to Disneyland to expand the Monorail outside of Disneyland and make it into public transportation. Disneyland ignored his request. Ray said because the Monorail is elevated above the traffic it will not contribute to congestion like buses do. It will ride above the traffic and relieve congestion. It can carry passengers with ease and is a better answer to our traffic congestion than an underground subway is in an earthquake area. Since Ray has no driver's license and relies on taxis or friends and family to drive him around he had a vest interest in the Monorail expansion. Ray took his argument to the press. In particular the Orange County Register newspaper gleefully carried every quote Ray said about Disney and every quote Disney said when they fired back. They argument became quite heated and protracted playing out on the network TV news and in the L.A. Times and OC Register. The argument was great gossip for the Hollywood film industry, L.A. residents and OC residents. It went on for nearly a decade and is a quite famous feud. I am surprised it is forgotten. He dared to take on super corp. Disney which runs Anaheim and owns their city council and police force. That takes balls! Unfortunately to find references to it you have to physically visit the L.A. Times building in Los Angles, The Orange County Register in Santa Ana, Channel 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 to get clippings and news footage from their morgue as it is too old to be posted on the Internet. Anything not on the Internet is in their morgue, but you used to have to go there to pull the story yourself. Maybe today they do it over the phone or via email? I don't know. Bree25 (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Homecoming/The Homecoming

In this article, a 1946 story by Bradbury is referred to as "Homecoming", but in all later appearances (Dark Carnival, From the Dust Returned, the 2006 illustrated edition) the title is given as "The Homecoming". Was the story originally published as "Homecoming" and changed in later uses? Or was it in fact originally published as "The Homecoming"? Either way, this should be cleared up here.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)