Print This Page

It’s Ray Bradbury’s future—we’re just living in it.

By Daniel J. Flynn | January 4, 2012

Ray Bradbury would have made a great “Revenge of the Nerds” character alongside Gilbert, Lewis, Poindexter, Wormser, and Lamar Latrell, had he not been such a caricature. A four-eyed, zit-faced, bully bull’s-eye gliding through Los Angeles on steel-wheeled rollerskates, Bradbury was a fanboy who forcefully demanded autographs and pictures from Hollywood’s most glamorous stars. Nobody told the uncouth teenaged transplant from the Midwest that he was staring at his opposites when he cornered Marlene Dietrich, Clark Gable, and Judy Garland. The stargazer dared to become the star. His life is the ultimate revenge of the nerd.

The writer once rebelled against his nerd designation. Now he rebels against nerds themselves. Technology, the plaything of geeks, is Bradbury’s punching bag. Seventy years and more of his short stories have taken readers from Nowheresville, Middle America to the ancient ruins of Mars, meeting along the way big, beautiful, tattooed women; Mexicans time-sharing a $59 vanilla leisure suit; and midgets achieving vertical liberation through funhouse mirrors. Within that gigantic oeuvre no theme is more, well, Bradburian than that of contraptions designed to make life better actually making it worse.

“I,” three-centuries-dead William Lantry announces in 1948’s “Pillar of Fire,” “am an anachronism.” Bradbury might well have been talking about himself. Science fiction’s greatest living writer never bothered with a driver’s license, regards video games as time wasters, refuses to unbind his books for electronic readers, and dismisses the computer as a highfalutin typewriter. In 1968 he missed receiving the Aviation-Space Writers’ Robert Ball Memorial Award in person because fear of flying prevented him from arriving at Cape Canaveral from Los Angeles in time. The bard of Martian civilization didn’t make it above the Earth’s clouds until his seventh decade.

Even the emailed correspondence for this article reached Bradbury only through a human intermediary. Seeing “Ray Bradbury” appear in my inbox produced a momentary letdown akin to learning that Ted Nugent is a vegan or A.J. Foyt rides a bicycle. But the pay-no-attention-to-that-man-behind-the-curtain feeling evaporated with the comforting discovery that his daughter handles such modern communications for him.

For H.G. Wells and Edward Bellamy, utopia was the far future. Bradbury looks in the other direction. He sets his wayback machine to Green Town, America circa 1920. The son of a Swedish immigrant mother and a power lineman father, Bradbury cherishes a nostalgia for boyhood along Lake Michigan that would seem odd given the mama’s boy wimpiness that made him a target for his peers. His family’s poverty limited his opportunities; so hard up were the Bradburys that one older brother taken by 1918’s influenza epidemic lies in an unmarked grave, while another older brother shared a bed with Ray in the makeshift living room/bedroom well into adulthood.

This time and place is nevertheless the Eden of Bradbury’s fiction. This is perhaps most loudly pronounced in “Mars Is Heaven” (1948)—redubbed “The Third Expedition” in The Martian Chronicles (1950)—in which the red planet turning out to be heaven is overshadowed by the fact that heaven turns out to be small-town America.

The colonization of Mars is nothing new: it’s the conquest of the North American continent all over again. Martians play the role of Indians; disease wipes out the original inhabitants; St. Joseph’s, Missouri becomes a launch pad; adventurers go native; boom towns yield to ghost towns; and Earthlings go up instead of west to start anew. The Martian future is the American past.

And the American past that Bradbury most longs for is his own. Uprooted from Waukegan, Illinois as a teenager, the Tinseltown-transplant developed career aspirations higher than the Hollywood sign. Bradbury stayed in California, but his imagination frequently journeyed back to northern Illinois. What do they know of Waukegan who only Waukegan know?

Bradbury’s retro heaven meshes with his skepticism of progress, science, and technology. His life exhibits throwback tendencies; his fiction, all the more.

Two miners arise from the subterranean darkness into sunlight in “Almost the End of the World” (1957). They discover that solar emissions have turned off television and turned on people. Instead of watching, people do. They jam on instruments, hold neighborhood beer bashes, go bowling. People talk to one another rather than absorb the idiot box’s monologue. The town barber, unaware that he has never had it so good, tells the miners that screens going blank “was like a good friend who talks to you in your front room and suddenly shuts up and lies there, pale, and you know he’s dead and you begin to turn cold yourself.”

In “The Ghost in the Machine” (1996), an enthusiastic 1850s inventor sees in his contraption a means to eradicate the scourge of horse manure and more quickly propel men to their destinations. Bewildered villagers surrounding the farmhouse laboratory see a “lunatic device, the insane machine that goes nowhere but in going might run down a child, a lamb, a priest, a nun, or an old blind dog.” The villagers petition to take the creator of the automobile to the insane asylum.

Before “Kill Your Television” became a rallying cry, Albert Brock employed a pistol to do the deed in “The Murderer” (1953). An equal-opportunity technocutioner, Brock assassinates cell phones, GPS systems, and other gadgets of today’s reality that then existed only in Bradbury’s imagination. Appearing crazy to his captors, Brock tells of his one-man revolution against invasive communications to the prison psychiatrist, whose wrist phone he promptly bites to death. The protagonist employs chocolate ice cream to assassinate his dashboard navigator/phone/radio. “That car radio cackling all day, Brock go here, Brock go there, Brock check in, Brock check out, okay Brock, hour lunch, Brock, lunch over, Brock, Brock, Brock. Well, that silence was like putting ice cream in my ears.”

He rationalized destroying his telephone: “The telephone’s such a convenient thing; it just sits there and demands you call someone who doesn’t want to be called. Friends were always calling, calling, calling me.” On the bus, he interferes with the transmission of the various electronic gizmos used by his fellow riders. “The bus inhabitants faced with having to converse with each other. Panic! Sheer, animal panic!” Albert Brock just wanted some peace and quiet in a loud world.

It turns out that the most insightful commentary on the virtual age of Facebook friends, video-game Olympiads, and online sex was written shortly after University of Pennsylvania scientists developed a 30-ton computer but before the Department of Defense transmitted data over the Internet.

Ray Bradbury loves human beings, and his hatred of the digital devices that divide us from us stems from their dehumanizing influence. Sure, they make us more passive and corrode our mental circuits. But of greatest importance, technology, amidst a million obvious benefits, has the overlooked drawback of making human life less human. Basement Internet porn addictions preventing relationships, video games supplanting sports as an afterschool activity, vicarious social life through reality television, and hundreds of Facebook friends without a single true friend are all manifestations of the way technology helps man dodge his fellow man.

The author of “Marionettes, Inc.” (1949), a story about spouses employing robot duplicates so they don’t have to deal with each other, surely drew a bead on how getting in touch with technology can keep one out of touch with people. Nothing appears so horribly dated to the present as the past’s vision of the future. But for the writer who gets the future more or less right, postdating stories is one way to keep them alive. Reality television, the Walkman, and virtual reality are among the technological developments Bradbury’s fiction anticipated. On the other hand, if his futuristic stories are to be interpreted as predictions, one could as easily say that he wrongly foresaw vacuum tubes delivering our dinners and robot murder becoming a capital crime.

Bradbury’s vision of the future germinated from what he saw in the postwar present: gadgeted distractions, screens separating humans from humans, televisions raising children, the vicarious life replacing life itself, leisure time becoming a waste of time. He sensed in which direction the world spun, and he didn’t want to go there. Alas, from Fahrenheit 451’s televised helicopter fugitive chase to the television-as-babysitter of “The Veldt” (1950), we live in the real world that his fiction had warned us about. Ray Bradbury is the atavist’s futurist.

•    •    •

But he didn’t always seem so visionary to critics. Time damned Bradbury with faint praise in 1953 by dubbing him the “poet of the pulps.” Two years later, the Luce publication, inhaling the era’s neo-phrenological preoccupation with foreheads, explained that Bradbury and his ilk “appeal to the middle or relatively uncorrugated brow, rather than the highbrow.”

Bradbury played a familiar role: the outcast. Wordsmiths were supposed to daydream of writing the Great American Novel. Bradbury preferred the more accessible short story. Pigeonholed as a writer of science fiction, a species of literature then ranking somewhere above soft-core pornography in respectability but below cowboy stories, Bradbury dabbled in the equally gauche genres of gothic horror, weird tales, and detective stories. His work inhabited the pulp ghetto of the newsstand, the bookstore’s mass-market paperback carousel, and such unfashionable stops on the radio dial as “Dimension X,” “Molle Mystery Theater,” and “Lights Out.” That was no way to get in with the in-crowd. Atop all that, he lived in Los Angeles; the literary guardians in Manhattan. They had attended tony schools; he had awarded himself a degree from the public library. For not the first time in his life, Ray Bradbury was uncool.

But the blue-collar intellectual kept writing. By his 45th birthday in 1965, Bradbury was the father of four girls—and had published 261 stories. When he turned 90 in August 2010, he had more than double that number in print. As he explained to me, “I simply had to write each and every day, whether stories sold or not.”

After a stroke in 1999, Bradbury was forced to quit Coors beer. (His enthusiasm for strawberry ice cream could not be abolished by medical edict.) He couldn’t quit writing. But like the lifestyle, the writing process necessarily changed. Instead of making concrete his imagination by means of a typewriter, the storyteller now tells his stories over the phone to his youngest daughter Alexandra, who records, then transcribes, and finally faxes—for some reason this modern contrivance has won his approval—the stories to her father for revision. In this manner, he today toils on yet another collection of short stories. Just as when he was a struggling young dad, ninetysomething Ray Bradbury simply has to write.

This commitment to his craft that won him a mass audience eventually paid off with the critics, too. Bradbury, in an effort to transcend the “genre writer” designation, submitted short stories under the name “William Elliott” to Mademoiselle, Charm, and Collier’s. All accepted within the one magical week in 1945. The 25-year-old then revealed himself as the pseudonymous “Mr. Elliott,” instructing the editors to redraft the checks and rewrite the bylines to award him the credit. If the conspicuous contributor to Weird Tales, Amazing Stories, and Dime Mystery cursed his own name for excluding him from urbane journals, he thanked his talent for finally getting him inside.

The clincher for literati acceptance, and superstardom among the literate public, came with Fahrenheit 451 (1953), the paperback juggernaut that became a favorite of high-school English teachers and librarians everywhere. A book about books is a novel way to get booklovers to love your novel, a well to which Bradbury would return often. His short-story plots include a parrot able to recite Hemingway’s lost last work, a mechanical facsimile of George Bernard Shaw keeping an astronaut company on his star trek, and a time traveler seeking to rescue the likes of Tolstoy and Melville from their miserable selves. In Fahrenheit 451, a remnant rescues books from their fiery fate by becoming books through memorization.

The obvious reading of Fahrenheit 451 reveals a story about censorship. This view lends itself to competing left-right interpretations, making Fahrenheit 451 the unique politically charged book that transcends the controversies of its day and finds welcome in conflicting political camps. Is it about McCarthyism or political correctness? The flexibility of political readings helps explain the 5 million copies in print. But the more subtle and important theme involves passive entertainment displacing the life of the mind. It is less about right-left than about smart-stupid.

Before Fahrenheit 451’s firemen came to burn books, the public deserted books. “I remember the newspapers dying like huge moths,” the story’s Professor Faber remarks. “No one wanted them back. No one missed them.” In attempting to please the masses, publishers took care not to offend the market and produced books “leveled down to a sort of pastepudding norm.” Attention spans waned in the wake of competing technology. “Picture it. Nineteenth-century man with his horses, dogs, carts, slow motion. Then, in the twentieth-century, speed up your camera. Books cut shorter. Condensations. Digests. Tabloids. Everything boils down to the gag, the snap ending.”

In the novel, people stopped reading before the state stopped them from reading. The predictable result was an ill-educated society fit for neither leisure nor the ballot. Women discuss voting for a candidate because of his handsome looks and abdicate the responsibilities of motherhood by dumping their children in front of television sets. The over-medicated, air-conditioned culture is awash in suicide, abortion, child neglect, and glassy-eyed passivity. Sound familiar?

Bradbury wrote from Los Angeles, the capital of mindless distraction. But he did so inside a citadel of the book: the library. Plugging away at coin-operated typewriters in the basement of UCLA’s library, the cash-strapped father finished the initial draft of Fahrenheit 451 in nine days for $9.80. One version was serialized in early numbers of Playboy, an ironic venue for both its constant attention from would-be firemen and its place among magazines as a favorite of readers with something other than literature on their minds. But that was Ray Bradbury, bashing the vacuity of television on “The Ray Bradbury Theater” cable show, highlighting the sins of science through science fiction, lambasting shrinking attention spans through the shortest of short stories.

•    •    •

Bradbury certainly does not censor himself. His unmuzzled views are heard through the pages of Sam Weller’s Listen to the Echoes: The Ray Bradbury Interviews. Weller published this 2010 volume in the aftermath of his definitive 2005 biography of Bradbury. In the interviews, Bradbury manages to offend just about every major constituency in his target audience.

Liberals attracted to a writer who took out a full-page advertisement in Variety after the 1952 elections to blast Joseph McCarthy, Dwight Eisenhower, and the Republican Party should be thoroughly horrified at Bradbury’s political transformation. Ronald Reagan “was one of the best presidents of the last century,” the born-again Republican maintains. The 40th president and Pope John Paul II, he holds, won the Cold War. Friend Charlton Heston was an “intellectual” hated by liberals “because of the NRA. That’s a lot of crap.”

Sci-fi aficionados find one icon tearing down another quite painful. The overlap between fans of Ray Bradbury and fans of Rod Serling is almost complete. Bradbury wrote one episode and two never-filmed scripts for “The Twilight Zone.” But Bradbury contends that much more of his work appeared on Serling’s classic series without attribution. “He was unconsciously aggressive,” Bradbury asserts. “He plagiarized without knowing it.” Bradbury, retelling his dramatic, friendship-ending, you-are-dead-to-me letter to Serling, leaves fans of both brokenhearted.

The awkward adolescent males drawn to Bradbury—who elsewhere compensate for a lack of stereotypical masculinity by amassing giant collections of throwing stars, listening to aggressive heavy metal, watching slasher movies, playing first-person shooter games, and striving for the role of D&D dungeonmaster—may gag on the tough medicine the author prescribes. Women rule, men drool. Accept it. Women “have all the power. The essence of a woman is the power she has to attract just by being.” Bradbury confesses to Weller, “I don’t believe in masculine power. I’m not masculine. I’m a sissy.”

For cultural anarchists who clouded the conservative message of Fahrenheit 451 with an interpretation that imagined moralists as the book’s target, it may be jarring to discover that the occasional screenwriter cites “rape” as the reason he turned down scripting “Anatomy of a Murder” and the theme of “drugs” as the sticking point for “The Man With the Golden Arm.” Bradbury’s refusal to join the cult of venery won him the admiration of Russell Kirk and the scorn of numerous critics. Though Bradbury occasionally tackles mature themes—the X-rated “medicine” for an inconsolable 19-year-old woman in the G-rated “A Medicine for Melancholy” (1959) turns out to be a man’s sexual embrace—he does so in a manner that would have passed muster with Hays Code enforcers.

Lastly, the cognoscenti who dismissed Bradbury as mass-market junk before warming to him may be compelled to reappraise their reappraisal. “I no longer want to be accepted by certain intellectuals,” Bradbury confesses in a previously unpublished 1976 interview with George Plimpton included in Weller’s collection. “If I hear tomorrow that Norman Mailer likes me, I’ll kill myself.” Similarly, should Kurt Vonnegut express admiration, “I would worry.”

Nonagenarians don’t have time for political correctness. Nor do good writers, who cannot afford to weigh down their words with euphemisms. Nerds, accustomed to the crowd’s disapproval, eventually develop an independence of mind that speaks without reference to the crowd’s care. The nerd scribe who happens to be a senior senior-citizen is, then, a perfect storm of outspokenness.

Though Bradbury’s best work roughly coincided with the two decades following World War II, critics paid penance for the earlier indifference by lavishing praise upon him long after his heyday. In 2000, the National Book Foundation honored Bradbury with its Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters. George W. Bush awarded him a National Medal of Arts in 2004. His 90th birthday in August 2010 served as the occasion for a weeklong celebration in his adopted hometown of Los Angeles and for reams of articles on his life from across the globe.

The love didn’t always flow his way so easily. Kids teased the young Bradbury for reading Buck Rogers comics and playing with toys when he appeared too old for all that. L.A.’s fledgling science-fiction community found him as a teenager too much the misfit for their gang of misfits. Even Uncle Sam rejected him from the Army during World War II. At Comic-Con appearances, during book signings, and even on walks down the street, Bradbury has treasured his celebrity the way only someone who knows what it feels to be an outcast could. “To know you are loved everywhere you go,” he confesses in Listen to the Echoes. “That’s wonderful.”

At the conclusion of “Revenge of the Nerds,” the bespectacled buddies Gilbert and Lewis, pushed over the edge by bullying jocks and condescending prom queens, proudly declaim their nerd status at their college’s homecoming celebration. The spectators slowly evacuate the bleachers and join the beleaguered rejects in nerd solidarity to the sounds of “We Are the Champions.” Nerds may not be popular, but they are populous. This realization that there are more of us than there are of them has also struck fans of Ray Bradbury. It has become respectable, if not obligatory, to read science fiction’s most famous living writer. Once the after-school pastime of geeky guys from the advanced placement class, reading The Martian Chronicles and The Illustrated Man is suddenly cool. Mikhail Gorbachev, Black Francis, Stephen King, David Bowie, Hugh Hefner, and Sam Peckinpah came out of the closet as Ray Bradbury readers. Now it’s safe for the rest of us, too.

Daniel J. Flynn is the author, most recently, of Blue-Collar Intellectuals: When the Enlightened and the Everyman Elevated America.


Print This Page

39 Responses to “Revenge of the Nerd”

  1. [...] Full story here. [...]

  2. >> “Mikhail Gorbachev, Black Francis, Stephen King, David Bowie, Hugh Hefner, and Sam Peckinpah came out of the closet as Ray Bradbury readers.”

    That’s splendid. But I admit to harboring an intense longing that they retreat to their dim little closet, right this instant.

    “Readers” the rascals all may be, yes. But can it be concluded, from this advisory, that the devourers are truly appreciative and knowing gourmands of what they have encountered?

    What is the evidence of an insightful change in perspective, from these earthly movers-and-shakers (since it may be too much to request a repentance)?

    I’m thinking, when’s the next departing wagon-train to Mars?

  3. What a great introduction to Bradbury’s life and work!

    I had forgotten Bradbury wrote TTZ classic “Body Electric,” one of my favorites. Now I’m motivated to re-read Fahrenheit 451.

  4. Wormser,..rings a bell..wasnt he in a fiction called Animal House?

  5. “I Sing the Body Electric” has to be one of the greatest collections of short prose ever assembled. My personal favourite is the story “The Man in the Rorschach Shirt”. I still remember reading it for the first time, at age 12. Immediately I began to write my own short stories.

    Obviously, my tastes have changed in the last 20 years, but I’ll always have a soft spot for Ray.

  6. I read “The Murderer” before cell phones became so prolific and was amazed that he not only predicted them but so correctly anticipated what they would do to our society.

  7. Uh…Jack Vance is still alive.

  8. “Science fiction’s greatest living writer” – never heard of Larry Niven, I take it.

  9. “Something Wicked This Way Comes” still puts the same tingles on the back of my neck that it did when I was a junior in high school. And “Martian Chronicles” remains a tour-de-force of futurist imagination that is grounded in a keen understanding of the human condition. Plus, Bradbury is a writer of elegant craftsmanship from whose better books you could teach principles of English composition.

    Richard

  10. Really well written lucid piece of work.

  11. I read Fahrenheit 451 when I was 16. It was OK, but I liked his collections R is for Rocket and S is for Space much better. By the end of high school I had read The Illustrated Man and I Sing the Body Electric. That was 1971.
    Then, just last year, I was asked to teach Fahrenheit 451 to a group of bright freshmen. I was blown away by the prescience, about how Bradbury in 1953 was warning that we were amusing ourselves to death. Reality TV, earbuds, anomie, groupthink, and so much more. A delightful book for adolescents of any age.

  12. Fanboys? Hell, he wrote “Dandelion Wine”; he wrote for 14-year-old girls.

  13. Interesting article Daniel and well said Richard. SWTWC sticks in the mind like an autumn storm.

  14. Bradbury remains an okay writer for confused, backward adolescents who never quite grow up enough to read Harlan Ellison. But his one-note schtick simply becomes tiresome, and his vision of the small-town past as some bucolic paradise is simply silly, not only because it ignores the reality of the past (which was a long way from paradise) but because it is so quiveringly pusillanimous about the present. Bradbury fans refuse to grow up and face the real world because they take their cue from a timid, quaking boy who wanted (and still wants) to hide from it. As a writer, Ray Bradbury is a one-trick pony, and the novelty has long since worn off. His collected works say nothing that wasn’t said, and said with greater eloquence and piquancy, in E.B. White’s “The Morning Of The Day They Did It”. It’s Bradbury’s failure to move past his earliest theme of gee-whiz, misty-eyed technophobia, never finding anything new to say, that keeps him in the ranks of third-rate writers.

  15. Bradbury is a remarkable writer, one of the most prescient of his generation. Just as importantly as his vision is that he spins ripping yarns.

    What motivated me to write is an observation about a phenomena as unwavering as the speed of light. Conservative journals love nothing more than the story of a reformed liberal. A liberal who sees the light and becomes a conservative makes conservatives absolutely giddy with delight. It’s a confirmation that the natural order is conservatism, and, once a thoughtful person transcends the original sin of liberalism, their soul is at peace for eternity.

    Go back through the archives of this and other conservative journals and you will see this story of redemption repeated again and again, the previous sins of the saved amusedly forgiven.

    Of course, being a conservative doesn’t make you good, or bad, or your behavior good or bad, and the same is true for a liberal. Fascism is bad, Stalinsim is bad, liberal or conservative, not so much – and seriously, given what passes for conservative and liberal thought these days, what do the terms even stand for anymore?

    Smart actions and not so smart actions are what would should be striving for, not purity of thought. History doesn’t flatter those whose world view was based on purity of thought.

  16. You were right in qualifying Mr. Bradbury as the greatest LIVING Sci-Fi writer.

    Because the greatest Sci-Fi writer is Stanislaw Lem, who, unfortunately for Americans, was born in Poland.

  17. “In the novel, people stopped reading before the state stopped them from reading.”

    IMHO this is the core message of the novel- in this world, reading (and the critical thinking that goes with it) became marginalized long before it became criminalized.

    Yet as tought in public schools, the message is often reduced to “It’s a novel about the evils of censorship!”

    And it is, but it’s about so much more …

  18. Ray, Kurt Vonnegut did admire you. In fact, he was slightly in awe, and flattered by your kind responses to his letters.

    Charles J. Shields
    And So It Goes: Kurt Vonnegut, A Life (Holt 2011)

  19. “Science fiction’s greatest living writer”?
    Perhaps, since Theodore Sturgeon passed in 1985.

  20. Bradbury is the greatest. RFeading his ‘Martian Chronicles’ always sends shivers to my spine. I love his work and his philosophy.
    To Dave Khan: see above comment: “But his one-note schtick simply becomes tiresome…”

    written like a true “I know what I like, but I know nothing about art” type of guy.

  21. Bradbury predicted everything. He even created a society where everyone was gay except a few rebels. It is not right to call him a sci-fi writer, he is much more than that.
    Ray Brdbury is a writer, writer , writer. You can start with the Martian Chronicles and read him forever.

  22. No one has brought up the life and works of Issac Assimov, Robert Heinlein or Ursula Leguin? Is Issac Assimov just chopped liver? Assimov also didn’t like to fly but used several electric typewriters working on several books and articles at the same time. Assimov took science fiction writing to pay his way through college. He has also written non-fiction science textbooks and guides in addition to his many works of science fiction. He has written so may fiction and non-fictions books in his lifetime that if you piled all the books up, you could make a living room chair with a back and arm rests.
    I remember once seeing him sitting on this chair made from his books in a magazine article. Assimov is right up there with Bradbury in terms of their contribution to science fiction.
    Bradbury may not be the literary equivalent to a Faulkner, but he is more than a Steven King’s self assessment of his own work as “being the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries.

  23. To Ilse, re: “Reading his ‘Martian Chronicles’ always sends shivers to my spine.”

    Spoken like someone who truly believes “Stories that were good enough for me at age 15 are good enough for me forever; my literary tastes don’t need to grow or develop beyond adolescence.”

  24. Mr. Bradbury’s career neatly exemplifies an important aspect of education, in that education pre-exists knowledge in the form of an aggressive, acquisitive curiosity and desire to understand. The author’s beautiful work, rather than simply describing or predicting the future, displays the richly sensitive, insightful man who produced it.

    And to Dave Khan, thank you for sharing.

  25. It’s ‘Asimov’ and ‘Stephen’ … thank you.

  26. You’ve got this wrong, ilse: ‘written like a true “I know what I like, but I know nothing about art” type of guy.’

    Try ‘written by a true “I’m a whole lot smarter than the rest of you and I’ll tell you what it really means” type of guy.

  27. Some fifty years ago, browsing through the science fiction section of my local public library, I came across a copy of Something Wicked This Way Comes, on the flyleaf of which a previous borrower had written, “Probably the greatest fantasy novel ever written”.

    I read a few pages at the library, took the book home and read it at one hit and have been an admirer of Bradbury ever since.

    If that note writer wasn’t correct I’d like to read whatever it is that’s proved him wrong.

  28. ‘Death is a Lonely Business’ is such a well written spine chiller, I still think about it after 20 years.

  29. They may label Bradbury a science fiction writer, but like Harlan Ellison, he’s a fantasist.
    Much of his work is what used to be called “science fantasy.”
    Or, we could just call it literature.

  30. Written as if Bradbury were the horseshoes on a one-trick pony. SF is a complex genre, actually more of a complex species. Ray Bradbury was in a small group of prescient writers who’d locked themselves into reactionary postures. cummings raved against machines. Wells and Verne ranted against hyper-industrialization. Bradbury saw everything, not through geek goggles, but through geezer goggles.

    I loved him when I was fifteen, but by the time I got older I was more at home with PK Dick. A few years later I got hooked by Vonnegut, Ellison, and so on. My other loves as an adolescent were the likes of Heinlein, Asimov, and Norton. Later on, a whole battalion of SF writers informed me of alternate realities, possible explanations of the why and how of things, now and as they might turn out to be.

    I don’t exclude other genre writers, but this is about Bradbury and his relationship to SF: deep, but not broad. To my view, SF and Fantasy share a blurred boundary, and generalities about them break down easily. You might say that fantasy writers don’t have to show the science or that SF writers can’t use magic, but any statement is easy to attack by showing examples to the contrary. This is a strength of the genre. Writers get to invent ways to do stuff. New writers (of succeeding generations) bring new sensibilities. Some try to be predictive, others try to be expository, while yet others simple feel the need to scream.

    The best SF writer? Pah! Doesn’t Flynn read this genre?

  31. Back in the early ’90s, Bradbury spoke at the Louisiana Scholars’ College at Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, Louisiana. After his talk, students flocked to him with copies of his books for him to autograph. One student only had a copy of The Bhagavad Gita, so he gave it to Bradbury. Without missing a beat, Bradbury autographed the text, saying, “Hm, I don’t recall writing this.” A memorable moment.

  32. Walked by a bookshelf that had “The October Country” on it, and was hooked for years. Loved Asimov too, along with Tolkien. Ah, to have had the imagination and writing ability of any of them.

  33. I hate to say it, cherishing as I do a dislike for the world view of Daniel J. Flynn, but this is easily the best author profile I’ve read in years.

  34. “Dandelion Wine” is one of his best works. Each time a close family member dies, the chapter about Grandma’s death gets read aloud. The way Bradbury captures the essence of preteen boyhood is remarkable.

  35. I must have met him in the airport on one of the very first times he flew. Funny.

  36. Well written, informative and imaginative. Thanks, Love reading short stories especially Ray Bradbury. JR

  37. Mr. Flynn owes it to himself to read Gene Wolfe, who is still alive and writing.

  38. [...] weekend I read Daniel J. Flynn’s wonderful piece on Ray Bradbury in The American Conservative. I hope my friends who are: a) not American, b) not conservative, or [...]

  39. [...] It’s Ray Bradbury’s Future, We’re Just Living in It (well-written essay in the American Conservative) [...]

Leave a Reply