June 25th, 2009 / 9:58 am
Snippets
Snippets
Gene Morgan—
Looks like another old person hates our freedom. Ray Bradbury describes us as “not real” and “meaningless.”
“Yahoo called me eight weeks ago,” he said, voice rising. “They wanted to put a book of mine on Yahoo! You know what I told them? ‘To hell with you. To hell with you and to hell with the Internet.’”
weird
weird
yeah well the martian chronicles aren’t real either and they never gave me access to porn or shane jones, so, which one wins in the whole “not real” and “meaningless” thing whatever i’m going to drink some more coffee
yeah well the martian chronicles aren’t real either and they never gave me access to porn or shane jones, so, which one wins in the whole “not real” and “meaningless” thing whatever i’m going to drink some more coffee
You’ve left out the context of this: “Bradbury was being interviewed prior to a public appearance benefiting Ventura County’s H.P. Wright Library, which is in danger of shutting its doors because of budget cuts.”
We can’t go back again, nor would I want to, but man, it sure would be nice if we could have Internet and not have libraries get the budget ax. You can’t really blame stuff like this on the Internet—you really can’t, it’s misplaced and ineffective, and if there are leaders in Ventura County making budget decisions based on some dumb idea that no one is reading books anymore, well, that’s just idiotic. But I understand why people make incendiary remarks like this.
Jeez, anyway, I think Ray Bradbury has earned a little break here, the guy is almost 89. (“Hates our freedom”? You were being funny, quoting George W., right? If so, it is funny—but I still think Ray Bradbury deserves a little break.)
You’ve left out the context of this: “Bradbury was being interviewed prior to a public appearance benefiting Ventura County’s H.P. Wright Library, which is in danger of shutting its doors because of budget cuts.”
We can’t go back again, nor would I want to, but man, it sure would be nice if we could have Internet and not have libraries get the budget ax. You can’t really blame stuff like this on the Internet—you really can’t, it’s misplaced and ineffective, and if there are leaders in Ventura County making budget decisions based on some dumb idea that no one is reading books anymore, well, that’s just idiotic. But I understand why people make incendiary remarks like this.
Jeez, anyway, I think Ray Bradbury has earned a little break here, the guy is almost 89. (“Hates our freedom”? You were being funny, quoting George W., right? If so, it is funny—but I still think Ray Bradbury deserves a little break.)
Oh, he’s right. I’m not real.
Oh, he’s right. I’m not real.
It was a joke. I thought everyone used the phrase “______ hates our freedom” ironically. I was afraid I was using a cliche.
I don’t actually think Ray Bradbury hates our freedom, and I wasn’t trying to skewer him by using his words out of context.
Every time an older writer, especially one of the greats like Bradbury, talks shit about the internet I just find it a little ridiculous. It would be like an old scientist talking shit about the human genome project or something. People are using words on the internet, people are writing letters and reading articles. It’s ridiculous for any writer to lambaste something that is going to be so fundamentally a part of writing for centuries to come.
It was a joke. I thought everyone used the phrase “______ hates our freedom” ironically. I was afraid I was using a cliche.
I don’t actually think Ray Bradbury hates our freedom, and I wasn’t trying to skewer him by using his words out of context.
Every time an older writer, especially one of the greats like Bradbury, talks shit about the internet I just find it a little ridiculous. It would be like an old scientist talking shit about the human genome project or something. People are using words on the internet, people are writing letters and reading articles. It’s ridiculous for any writer to lambaste something that is going to be so fundamentally a part of writing for centuries to come.
Well, you know, I’m a young writer. And I still think the internet sucks. It’s not the only ‘game’ in town. It’s, like, a cliche machine. And it has done nothing, really, to make me ‘more free’! I mean, it’s here, but I don’t have to like it. TV’s here and I don’t like TV either.
Anyways, never mind. The internet is the new god. And I am totally, totally a cliche. Oh yeah, and what Catherine said below.
Well, you know, I’m a young writer. And I still think the internet sucks. It’s not the only ‘game’ in town. It’s, like, a cliche machine. And it has done nothing, really, to make me ‘more free’! I mean, it’s here, but I don’t have to like it. TV’s here and I don’t like TV either.
Anyways, never mind. The internet is the new god. And I am totally, totally a cliche. Oh yeah, and what Catherine said below.
Hey, I thought it was a joke, and it really is funny, I wasn’t being sarcastic—I’m just saying the guy is 89, and he’s defending a library. Going about it the wrong way, sure, I hear you.
Having said that, E.O. Wilson (80) regularly talks shit about the overemphasis on genetic research, but it’s a little more measured conversation, admittedly, even when Richard Dawkins shouts back at him across the pond. Science often debunks and redebunks. I think your point about Bradbury stands by itself.
Hey, I thought it was a joke, and it really is funny, I wasn’t being sarcastic—I’m just saying the guy is 89, and he’s defending a library. Going about it the wrong way, sure, I hear you.
Having said that, E.O. Wilson (80) regularly talks shit about the overemphasis on genetic research, but it’s a little more measured conversation, admittedly, even when Richard Dawkins shouts back at him across the pond. Science often debunks and redebunks. I think your point about Bradbury stands by itself.
Sorry, that’s kind of a smartypants response. I hear what you’re saying, it is silly to say the Internet is meaningless, I just wanted to mention the library closing to add context.
Sorry, that’s kind of a smartypants response. I hear what you’re saying, it is silly to say the Internet is meaningless, I just wanted to mention the library closing to add context.
Library closings make me sad.
Library closings make me sad.
The internet blows.
The internet blows.
Bradbury is correct. Great swaths of the Internet are useless and a waste of time. It is indeed a distraction, and it largely used for that. It is what bad television was for to an earlier generation. Or whatever. Who cares. You don’t need to be 88 or a famous author to realize what he’s saying has more than an iota of truth to it. Every twelve year old will recognize this. Also: the reporter at the Times, if aware of what’s happening on the Interweb and digital books, would have known that Bradbury probably meant Google, not Yahoo! That would be news fit to print (if print were not dead).
Bradbury is correct. Great swaths of the Internet are useless and a waste of time. It is indeed a distraction, and it largely used for that. It is what bad television was for to an earlier generation. Or whatever. Who cares. You don’t need to be 88 or a famous author to realize what he’s saying has more than an iota of truth to it. Every twelve year old will recognize this. Also: the reporter at the Times, if aware of what’s happening on the Interweb and digital books, would have known that Bradbury probably meant Google, not Yahoo! That would be news fit to print (if print were not dead).
Also, this is nothing new, here’s Plato on writing: “The fact is that this invention will produce forgetfulness in the souls of those who have learned it. They will not need to exercise their memories, being able to rely on what is written, calling things to mind no longer from within themselves by their own unaided powers, but under the stimulus of external marks that are alien to themselves.”
Which I found on the Internet but remembered because a professor mentioned it a while ago.
Still, we can give an old guy like Plato a little break, no harm done . . .
Also, this is nothing new, here’s Plato on writing: “The fact is that this invention will produce forgetfulness in the souls of those who have learned it. They will not need to exercise their memories, being able to rely on what is written, calling things to mind no longer from within themselves by their own unaided powers, but under the stimulus of external marks that are alien to themselves.”
Which I found on the Internet but remembered because a professor mentioned it a while ago.
Still, we can give an old guy like Plato a little break, no harm done . . .
Why does it suck?
Why does it suck?
How is it true? Is all of the internet terrible? Is it all without value to humanity?
Bradbury’s assumptions are harmful and disparaging to those of us who publish and write online.
Based on your logic, you could argue that print is a terrible medium because of the amount of junk mail and pornography and celebrity gossip magazines that are printed every year.
I choose to read HTMLGIANT instead of Gawker. I choose to watch PBS with my son.
People can make their own decisions about what kind of media to consume, but to speak in generalities about an entire network of communication between individuals all over the world is just fucking ignorant.
Great swaths of the internet may be useless, but that shouldn’t diminish it’s value for those of us who use the useful parts to communicate ideas and culture.
How is it true? Is all of the internet terrible? Is it all without value to humanity?
Bradbury’s assumptions are harmful and disparaging to those of us who publish and write online.
Based on your logic, you could argue that print is a terrible medium because of the amount of junk mail and pornography and celebrity gossip magazines that are printed every year.
I choose to read HTMLGIANT instead of Gawker. I choose to watch PBS with my son.
People can make their own decisions about what kind of media to consume, but to speak in generalities about an entire network of communication between individuals all over the world is just fucking ignorant.
Great swaths of the internet may be useless, but that shouldn’t diminish it’s value for those of us who use the useful parts to communicate ideas and culture.
I’m only agreeing with Bradbury’s point that the Internet is a huge distraction. It is. That bored America and the rest of the hopelessly idle world is wasting innumerable lifetimes online (blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc) is plainly obvious. At least I thought it was. Great swaths of printed material are also useless and a distraction. Has been this way for a long time and will continue to be (I guess). So he doesn’t understand the positive aspects of the Internet, as a technology, if not always in terms of content. Big deal. That battle is over and the Internet won. But you said that the Internet is “going to be….fundamentally a part of writing for centuries to come.” How do you know this? The flip side to saying the Internet is meaningless and nonexistent is to be a cheerleader for it. I found Bradbury’s quote amusing and refreshing. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
I’m only agreeing with Bradbury’s point that the Internet is a huge distraction. It is. That bored America and the rest of the hopelessly idle world is wasting innumerable lifetimes online (blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc) is plainly obvious. At least I thought it was. Great swaths of printed material are also useless and a distraction. Has been this way for a long time and will continue to be (I guess). So he doesn’t understand the positive aspects of the Internet, as a technology, if not always in terms of content. Big deal. That battle is over and the Internet won. But you said that the Internet is “going to be….fundamentally a part of writing for centuries to come.” How do you know this? The flip side to saying the Internet is meaningless and nonexistent is to be a cheerleader for it. I found Bradbury’s quote amusing and refreshing. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Was Wordsworth all wrong, decrying the modern age, wanting clean air and bucolic countrysides? Was he completely right, being a Luddite? Maybe not—but ignorant?
The younger generations push forward with something new and fascinating, for better or for worse. The older generations remind us—vehemently, and sometimes not wholly correct—what we’ve lost. Is anyone ever utterly right?
When I said give the guy a break, he’s 88, I meant, consider the context, what he’s lived through to arrive at those statements.
Was Wordsworth all wrong, decrying the modern age, wanting clean air and bucolic countrysides? Was he completely right, being a Luddite? Maybe not—but ignorant?
The younger generations push forward with something new and fascinating, for better or for worse. The older generations remind us—vehemently, and sometimes not wholly correct—what we’ve lost. Is anyone ever utterly right?
When I said give the guy a break, he’s 88, I meant, consider the context, what he’s lived through to arrive at those statements.
David Foster Wallace and co. talking about this very issue back in ’96:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6191
David Foster Wallace and co. talking about this very issue back in ’96:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6191
Actually, Gene, I totally agree with you. The internet has made my life so much better. Meet me for lunch some time?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=366WxovQzxE
Actually, Gene, I totally agree with you. The internet has made my life so much better. Meet me for lunch some time?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=366WxovQzxE
I loved it when Wallace got sassy toward Lethem.
I loved it when Wallace got sassy toward Lethem.
I liked it when he told Franzen to “enlighten” him. Good stuff.
I liked it when he told Franzen to “enlighten” him. Good stuff.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the internet is going to be a fundamental part of society for the entire foreseeable future. I don’t picture millions of people ordering the big set of encyclopedias from Britannica in the next hundred years, and I don’t see newspapers dropping their online content to return fully to newsprint. We have this thing, and it’s going to get used.
I would be an asshole if I didn’t honestly believe that the internet has the ability to enrich our lives as readers and writers of literature. I’d be willfully and knowingly wasting “innumerable lifetimes online” if I didn’t believe the websites I am involved with have some sort of value beyond being a distraction.
I don’t fault Bradbury for hating on it, because he’s old and I don’t think he goes on ubu.com and watches Warhol videos or reads Bookslut while he eats his lunch. I’ve got no problem with his sticking-up for libraries either.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the internet is going to be a fundamental part of society for the entire foreseeable future. I don’t picture millions of people ordering the big set of encyclopedias from Britannica in the next hundred years, and I don’t see newspapers dropping their online content to return fully to newsprint. We have this thing, and it’s going to get used.
I would be an asshole if I didn’t honestly believe that the internet has the ability to enrich our lives as readers and writers of literature. I’d be willfully and knowingly wasting “innumerable lifetimes online” if I didn’t believe the websites I am involved with have some sort of value beyond being a distraction.
I don’t fault Bradbury for hating on it, because he’s old and I don’t think he goes on ubu.com and watches Warhol videos or reads Bookslut while he eats his lunch. I’ve got no problem with his sticking-up for libraries either.
Sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uldt6Y-CE3s
Sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uldt6Y-CE3s
It’s usually kind of annoying to hear these old timers blasting the internet. The internet is, really, just a tool and it’s up to us to use the tool correctly. But I think, sometimes, folks like Ray Bradbury aren’t blasting the tool so much as our use of it. In many, many ways we’re not using it to it’s full potential.
Taking a small sound-byte out of context and adding a seventeen word opinion is kind of meaningless.
Old scientists talking shit about the human genome project would be sad, but if the human genome product was mostly being used to sell people more shitty products, I’d kind of understand their gripe.
It’s usually kind of annoying to hear these old timers blasting the internet. The internet is, really, just a tool and it’s up to us to use the tool correctly. But I think, sometimes, folks like Ray Bradbury aren’t blasting the tool so much as our use of it. In many, many ways we’re not using it to it’s full potential.
Taking a small sound-byte out of context and adding a seventeen word opinion is kind of meaningless.
Old scientists talking shit about the human genome project would be sad, but if the human genome product was mostly being used to sell people more shitty products, I’d kind of understand their gripe.
Interesting to note what Foster Wallace, Leyner and Franzen did or have done, as writers of fiction, since this interview took place. Leyner wrote one more novel in 1998. Appears to have given up writing books. Franzen wrote The Corrections. A novel that probably got more attention than it deserved; there was that aborted Oprah appearance as well. DFW: two collections of stories (and one unfinished novel) before killing himself.
Anyway, the conversation here is about fiction. But the impact of the Internet is similar on other fronts; similar to the effect television had on an earlier generation, as Foster Wallace alludes to.
The negative impact is worth exploring as a serious topic. Doesn’t mean those who do are, necessarily, Luddites, regardless of age, or hate technology or are nostalgic for an earlier, simpler time. To recognize the downside of any technology is healthy, I think, not destructive or dangerous. There was life before the Internet. If you’re 88 or 68 or 48 or even 28, you know this from personal experience.
This talk took place in 1996. Think about the difference in the Internet between 1996 and 2009. Or even between 2006 and 2009. Or the technological advances in the last six months. The clip at which things change is truly astounding. But to marvel at change and accept it without questioning its impact is a mistake that any thinking person ought not make. I find that most pronouncements about the future when it comes to technology are very hollow; in fact, as are pronouncements about the future, generally. We can talk about what’s to come and what’s ahead and how we’ll live when we get there, while all along forgetting how to live entirely. Which is what I think has happened in many ways to the culture on the whole. The Internet plays a role in this. Undoubtedly. In my opinion.
Doesn’t mean there are not great things about it and that it is not a “place” where an intellectual life can be enhanced or even, in many ways, supported. But Bradbury’s sentiment above is perhaps what any person who takes a serious look at how our lives have changed might think at any given point. Resonated with me, anyway.
I love the Internet. I also hate it.
Interesting to note what Foster Wallace, Leyner and Franzen did or have done, as writers of fiction, since this interview took place. Leyner wrote one more novel in 1998. Appears to have given up writing books. Franzen wrote The Corrections. A novel that probably got more attention than it deserved; there was that aborted Oprah appearance as well. DFW: two collections of stories (and one unfinished novel) before killing himself.
Anyway, the conversation here is about fiction. But the impact of the Internet is similar on other fronts; similar to the effect television had on an earlier generation, as Foster Wallace alludes to.
The negative impact is worth exploring as a serious topic. Doesn’t mean those who do are, necessarily, Luddites, regardless of age, or hate technology or are nostalgic for an earlier, simpler time. To recognize the downside of any technology is healthy, I think, not destructive or dangerous. There was life before the Internet. If you’re 88 or 68 or 48 or even 28, you know this from personal experience.
This talk took place in 1996. Think about the difference in the Internet between 1996 and 2009. Or even between 2006 and 2009. Or the technological advances in the last six months. The clip at which things change is truly astounding. But to marvel at change and accept it without questioning its impact is a mistake that any thinking person ought not make. I find that most pronouncements about the future when it comes to technology are very hollow; in fact, as are pronouncements about the future, generally. We can talk about what’s to come and what’s ahead and how we’ll live when we get there, while all along forgetting how to live entirely. Which is what I think has happened in many ways to the culture on the whole. The Internet plays a role in this. Undoubtedly. In my opinion.
Doesn’t mean there are not great things about it and that it is not a “place” where an intellectual life can be enhanced or even, in many ways, supported. But Bradbury’s sentiment above is perhaps what any person who takes a serious look at how our lives have changed might think at any given point. Resonated with me, anyway.
I love the Internet. I also hate it.