Der var engang for længe siden, da jeg begyndte at læse science fiction 'og den slags'.
Bradbury var en af de forfattere der ragede op dengang, og én af titlerne var "Fahrenheit 451".
Jeg læste adskillige andre historier af Bradbury, men de har alle én ting til fælles: de er efterhånden et halvt århundrede gamle.
Han har efter sigende altid skrevet, men jeg har faktisk ikke læst noget nyt af ham i årtier.
Mit indtryk af hans forfatterskab er derfor heller ikke blevet opdateret i årtier.
Dét blev det for nyligt...
Jeg blev temmeligt forbløffet, da Bradbury pludseligt var på banen igen. Med en ny novelle? Ny roman?
Nej, anledningen var et svensk blad der havde interviewet ham ang en kommende film:
Michael Moores aktuelle film "Fahrenheit 9/11".
Her er essensen af interviewet:
"Michael Moore er en dum skiderik, det er min mening om den sag.
Han stjal min titel og lavede om på tallene uden nogensinde at spørge mig om lov. Han er et skrækkeligt menneske. Et skrækkeligt menneske"
"Skriv blot at Michael Moore er uhæderlig
og at jeg under ingen omstændigheder
vil sættes i forbindelse med ham."
Han bliver også spurgt om han er uenig med Moores mening med filmen, og svarer: "Det har intet med sagen at gøre. Han stjal min titel, det er, hvad han gjorde. Mine politiske holdninger kommer ikke sagen ved."
Jeg fatter ikke hvordan Bradbury kan brokke sig over et lån af en af hans titler. Han har selv været ude og høste fraser: for eks fra Whitman (I sing the body electric), Shakespeare (Something wicked this way comes), Yeats (Golden apples of the sun) og adskillige andre. Ray kan sagtens, men Moore må ikke..?
Det virker lidt mere sandsynligt at Bradbury ærgrer sig over at Moore genbrugte titlen før han selv kunne nå det. Jeg kan dog ikke se hvorfor to filmversioner af 'Fahrenheit' skulle kollidere meningsmæssigt, hvis de ellers fægter for det samme synspunkt..?
Jeg gik derfor på nettet for at blive klogere. Jeg opdagede hurtigt at der nu var titusindvis af sider, der refererede og diskuterede kontroversen.
Men 99.9% kunne koges ned til:
1) Man kan altså ikke få copyright på en titel.
2) Okay, men Moore burde alligevel have spurgt...
Til sidst, efter at have vadet gennem hundredevis af næsten identiske versioner,
faldt jeg omsider over et gammelt interview i Salon.com fra august 2001:
Salon: "What do you think of President Bush?"
Bradbury: "He's wonderful. We needed him. Clinton is a shithead and we're glad to be rid of him. And I'm not talking about his sexual exploits. I think we have a chance to do something about education, very important. We should have done it years ago. It doesn't matter who does it - Democrats or Republicans - but it's long overdue. Our education system is a monstrosity. We need to go back and rebuild kindergarten and first grade and teach reading and writing to everybody, all colors, and then the whole structure of our education will change because people will know how to read and write."
Bush er vidunderlig? Well, så er sagen vist opklaret. Kontroversen drejede sig aldrig om filmens titel, men om dens indhold: Bush. Ray er for og Moore imod. Men kunne det virkelig passe? Jeg søgte endnu videre, og faldt så over følgende kommentarer:
"Dorman Shindler asked if laws like The Patriot Act or the conservative machinations of the current administration make him wary. Bradbury says he sees no danger from our governmental figureheads these days. 'There's nothing going on now that needs to be attacked. There's no censorship, there's no book burning, there's no Red-hunting. There's nothing like that going on now.'"
"I interviewed Ray Bradbury in late 2001 for the "Thousand Oaks Weekly Acorn", and asked him if the book's theme of censorship was relevant to post-9/11 America.
He replied that profanity in movies was a much more serious problem; that he and his wife had quit moviegoing in disgust after seeing "Saturday Night Fever"; and that he was a big fan of what Bush was doing for literacy.
His favorite authors working today: George Will and Buckley. I went back to re-read "Fahrenheit 451." You can project a lot of ideas into the book that aren't really there.
What I found wasn't the 1984-ish book I remembered, but a work by a young curmudgeon bitching about the fact that people watch TV instead of talk on the porch, and that minority groups (whether ethnic or religious) get offended by things they read.
Punctuating this was a new epilogue, written in the '90s, bitching about campus minority groups asking him to include more people of color in his books."
Begge ovenstående citater er fra: www.metafilter.com/mefi/31126
Hvad kan man konkludere? Jeg fristes til at sige:
Hvis Moore er en dum skiderik, så er Bradbury endt som et reaktionært gammelt røvhul.
Men lad blot Bush få de sidste ord:
"I loved history, and pursued a diversified course of study.
I like to think of it as the academic road less traveled.
For example, I took a class that studied Japanese Haiku.
Haiku, for the uninitiated, is a 15th century form of poetry, each poem having 17 syllables.
Haiku is fully understood only by the Zen masters.
As I recall, one of my academic advisers was worried about my selection
of such a specialized course. He said I should focus on English.
I still hear that quite often.
But my critics don't realize I don't make verbal gaffes.
I'm speaking in the perfect forms and rhythms of ancient Haiku."
(Bush at Yale University, 21 may, 2001)
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving.
I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are
... probably read the news themselves." (Bush-interview with Brit Hume, Fox News Channel, Washington, DC. 21 sept 2003.)
Mads Dam, juli 2004