Subject:
|
Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jun 2004 19:31:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
833 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
No, it’s based on common courtesy, or the lack thereof on the part of Moore.
|
Since common courtesy is in the eye of the beholder, and since a title can
certainly be spoofed without seeking the indulgence of the title’s holder, then
Bradbury is left with nothing but sour grapes. Sorry, Ray, but that’s how it
goes in the arena of public consciousness.
| |
Farenheit 911 is so obviously a takeoff on Farenheit 451 that it’s not really
questionable that Moore intended to rip off the name recognition Bradbury has
earned for the title. I mean, really, can anyone debate that?
|
So, you’re citing your inference of authorial intent as justification for
condemnation? Sure we can debate it. Name recognition is likewise in the eye
of the beholder. Stop 100 people on the street six months ago and ask them what
Fahrenheit 451 means. And then ask them how Ray came up with the title. How
many would correctly answer both questions? If anything, Bradbury’s work will
enjoy additional name recognition in the wake of Moore’s film. He may not agree
with the politics (or he may agree--it’s his right, obviously), but if he
accepts even a dime’s worth of royalty from increased sales resulting from
Moore’s film promotion, then he’s complicit.
| |
But who on this list is surprised? Moore is entirely without shame and his
approach to his work is entirely without merit. That he happens to be on the
right side of the issue this time is fortuitous coincidence for him, nothing
more.
But I would argue that the issue of Bush’s complicity in sparking an
unnecessary war would be better served by Moore’s keeping his mouth entirely
shut, as his arguing in favour of something tends to suggest that being
against that particular something might be the better course to a large
number of people, including myself.
|
That’s pure ad hominem reasoning, and it’s beneath you. I reject Libertarianism
because Harry Browne and John Stossel are jerks. Does that make more or less
sense than your own dismissal of causes that Moore embraces?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) Why? Is it ad hominem against short sellers to point out that when short interst is high is often a good time to buy stock? (1) It is not. It is merely an observation of a useful negative correlation. Same thing holds here, Moore is a liar and (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) No, it's based on common courtesy, or the lack thereof on the part of Moore. Farenheit 911 is so obviously a takeoff on Farenheit 451 that it's not really questionable that Moore intended to rip off the name recognition Bradbury has earned for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
