Since the movie isn't out in theaters yet, you've written an unfalsifiable post. How convenient for you.

Look out! Josh is channelling the Church Lady!

Riefenstahl is not even near being in the same class as Moore. She was a great filmmaker. She just worked for the wrong boss. She was also a great actress, a great photographer, a great traveller, and led a great life - more of a life than many of us can ever hope for. Compared to her, Moore is a cretin.

But then, compared to almost anybody, Moore is a cretin.

Josh; that made no sense. Especially since Joe is writing about "...mainstream media coverage of Moore" and not the movie itself.

How inconvenient for you.

> Joe is writing about "...mainstream media coverage of Moore" and not the movie itself.

Oh, right. He's not attacking Moore. What was I thinking? I must be delusional. Man, you guys can make yourselves believe anything.

Joe: Just out of curiosity, have you seen the movie you're attacking?

Hitchens saw the movie, and he takes it apart pretty handily, if you bother to read the article.

Josh, rather than attempt to misdirect everyone, why don't you take on Hitchens' article? I would be interested in your response.

For the record, I will not be seeing this movie. Nor will I be drinking bleach, nor will I be listening to Slim Whitman records.

Josh,
Do you really think there's something in the film that will change Joe's mind?

Tell you what. You watch it first and then report back to this thread why you think we should go see it. If you can make a decent case that it actually improves political dialog, I'll put down my hard earned (non-matinee) money and buy a ticket. Deal?

The Kerry campaign seems to be getting behind the Moore film. Some top contributors are trying to make sure that DVDs of 9/11 are distributed to all americans before the election.

Josh Yelon:

Which part of this don't you understand:

Watching mainstream media coverage of Moore, one reflects how fortunate the man is to have so much kissing space on his ass.

Josh Yelon:

Which part of this don't you understand:

Watching mainstream media coverage of Moore, one reflects how fortunate the man is to have so much kissing space on his ass.

Why give Michael Moore publicity? That will be the main result of all the conservative outrage, it merely feeds him. Publicity is what he wants, after all; that's his business, and he can drape every attack over himself like a fashion statement, and his fans will love it.

Yawn at him enough and maybe he'll fade out.

In a way, this may be on point. It was said about a nominee in the 1856 Presidentical election but is a warning about the dangers of taking celebrity and publicity -- in any sphere -- too seriously:

" ... nor the creation in newsprint of a great public hero, is [not] an invention of our age, which has not seen any betterment of the technique that erected [John C.] Frémont into a martyr … That creation was almost enough to wreck the republic. It was enough to convince innumerable people born since the advertising stopped and its proprietors died … that incompetence is courage, that self-seeking mutiny is statesmanship, that youth and purity of intention — if purity exists in the main chance — qualify a stupid man to lead armies and govern a nation, that martyrdom in headlines erases blunders and nullifies treason, that greatness is a loud noise.”
—Bernard DeVoto, The Year of Decision: 1846 (published 1943)

> Josh, rather than attempt to misdirect everyone, why don't you take on Hitchens' article?

Any attempt to comment on this subject without seeing the movie is inherently dishonest, so I'm not going to do it. I was planning on seeing the movie this weekend, so if somebody posts a new thread on Monday, I'll be able to respond then.

> Any attempt to comment on this subject without seeing the movie is inherently dishonest

That's a completely ridiculous statement: under this regemin, all the bad guys have to do to win the PR war is to produce more dreck then we have time to watch.

> all the bad guys have to do to win the PR war is to produce more dreck then we have time to watch.

Nice argument, based on the theory that it takes more time to watch a movie than to produce one.

What it comes down to is this: if you don't feel like seeing the movie, fine. Just don't write an article about it if you're not willing to see it.

Hey! Leave good ol' Slim out of this! Yodelling Rocks!

CBK

I agree with Bob Harmon, any publicity is good for this moron.

As to Josh's posturing, please, Joe, do start a thread on this on Monday so Josh can fill us in. I won't be seeing the movie, but then the last movie I saw in a theatre was at a Bogie festival in Cambridge in 64.

• Richard Clarke testified that he approved the flight of Saudi nationals (including the bin Ladens) out of the USA. That doesn't answer the very interesting question of who initiated the flights.
• Hitch writes of Zarqawi in a way you might almost think he was an ally of Saddam, operating from Baghdad after 9/11. Yes, Hitch, long after 9/11, as in, after the fall of Saddam. Until then, Zarqawi operated out of the Kurdish northern zone, out of range of Saddam's forces. Newsweek reported that the Bush Administration repeatedly avoided attacking Zarqawi and his Ansar al-Islam group who are now attacking our occupation forces, so that their presence within the nominal borders of Iraq could be used as a pretext for the war.
• Why Michael Moore has to suffer for the stupidities of Gore Vidal is beyond me, but I suppose it's a distraction from coming to terms with the difference between the deer-in-the-headlights seven minutes President Bush spent after the attacks with the heroic mien Bush displays in the authorized hagiographical TV-movie by Lionel Chetwynd.

You've presented nothing but opinion. Amidst all of that flowery punditry is zero substance. One is supposed to just accept the thesis that Moore is bad because a lot of big words and obscure referrences have been used.

Another Dreamer:

You've presented nothing but opinion.

Besides the rebuttals in Hitchens' piece, opinion is the classic form movie reviews take.

Andrew J. Lazarus (9:17pm):

Um. Like you and Josh Yelon, I haven't seen the Moore film under discussion here. I have, however, read the Hitchens piece. You say he does a pretty sloppy job with facts, and make 3 points. In order:

1. "Richard Clarke testified that he approved the flight of Saudi nationals" -- This is what Hitchens says, and what I recall. Hitchens provides a hyperlink. Sloppy?

2. "Hitch writes of Zarqawi in a way you might almost think he was an ally of Saddam..." -- The only mention of Zarqawi is this: "And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad." What point that Hitchens is making are you contesting?

3. "Why Michael Moore has to suffer for the stupidities of Gore Vidal is beyond me" The article's sole mention of Vidal is "This [that Bush knew the 9/11 attack was coming] is the line taken by Gore Vidal..." Again, why is this sloppy writing?

You conclude, I could go on and on, but what would be the use?

If you meant to point out that you don't like Hitchens' position on F9/11 or his writing style, 'nuff said.

If, on the other hand, you meant to provide evidence that Hitchens' review is careless with facts in the same fashion that Moore's movies have been shown to be...

Andrew,

Mike Moore takes the same line as Gore Vidal. Both of them said that the only purpose in the War in Afghanistan was to build a oil pipeline.

Moore is on public record saying this. God, he even trots that trope out in "Dude where is my country". In "Dude", he spins a bunch of tripe about the admin support of the Taliban. All thoroughly debunked on spinsanity and elsewhere. Puhleeze!

Do you think he is right or wrong for that assumption? Was that the sole purpose?

Moore is known prevaricator and distortion expert. Go sell crazy somewhere else.

I feel a little uncomfortable defending Michael Moore, because his distortions in Bowling for Columbine were in fact indefensible. My view is he's our Rush Limbaugh, never one to let the facts stand in the way of a good jab. If it hadn't been for the controversy, I would have thought long about seeing F9/11 when it comes out, waiting for other liberals to examine it closely.

But Hitchens is over the top. We'll have to see the movie, for instance, to see if Moore presents it as a mystery who finally approved the Saudi rescue flights, which would no longer be true, or if Moore wants to know who thought up the idea and who thought it was wise and who thought it was fair to the grounded American citizens, all of which I find interesting questions. The trailer doesn't make clear which approach Moore takes.

On the other points, I am not inclined to be charitable. To give the context, the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq is in a paragraph devoted to reasons to take out Saddam. For the reasons I already stated, this argument fails to impress me.

Hitchens' defense of Bush's response to news of the 9/11 attack is an especially cheap shot. Rather than comment on the implications of the curious behavior Bush actually displayed, it posits two irresponsible responses to Bush's having done something else, (one of which is Vidal's) and criticizes Moore in advance for the fact he would have taken one of these choices. That's one False Dichotomy plus one Irrelevant Alternative, to go please.

I think there is a distinction between a documentary (in this case) and a propoganda film. Of course the line between the two is hard to draw, yet it is drawn.

The problem is, once you've crossed that line you can no longer trusted, nor be taken seriously. After all, smoke and mirrors are not revelation or enlightment, they're just trickery.

Josh,

The subject of this article is, in fact, the reactions and reviews of Moore's work by prominent leftist commentators. Both of whom are more than slightly upset by Moore's consistent lack of truthfulness, and both of whom use the Riefenstahl comparison or comparable analogies.

This obvious to most people who can read.... but the attempt to distract from the argument using an irrelevancy (really, do you have ANY other debating approach?) was a nice try.

Big difference between Moore and Hellman. Hellman, whatever her politics, had talent.

> The subject of this article is, in fact, the reactions and reviews of Moore's work by prominent leftist commentators.

I repeat: bullshit. You're saying that your article is NOT an attack on Moore? That you're not merely channeling somebody else as a way of insulting him? Do you actually think anyone is going to believe that? Spin on, Joe.

Actually, I think Moore DOES have talent, though I agree he's no Riefenstahl in the aesthetics department. Then again, who is?

But saying that Moore has no talent is like saying George Bush is stupid. As Armed Liberal has pointed out before, people who ascend to high rankings in politics aren't stupid, and it's an insulting form of projection to say so just because one dislikes the man. Well, film-makers who rise to the level and popularity Moore has aren't talentless either.

I remember Moore had a TV episode where he decided to move into a neighbourhood and blatantly act like a serial killer, to see if any of the neighbours would notice. This included having vats of acid delivered, a backhoe excavating a "dungeon" at night, and more. No-one complained, or investigated, or thought their neighbour was dangerous (though they did refer to him as "quiet and reclusive". Uh-huh). Personally, I thought it was pretty brilliant.

Talent isn't my criticism of Moore, nor is it Hitchens' or White's (though White does judge Moore's latest work to be infrerior). Their problems, and mine, and Andrew's too it seems, go deeper and deal with Moore's increasingly deceptive and manipulative approach. As Hitchens and White point out, Moore's chosen approach is nothing less than a betrayal of his craft - and of more basic and enduring values as well.

"Moore's chosen approach is nothing less than a betrayal of his craft - and of more basic and enduring values as well."

Ah, then in that sense, Moore is the left's Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coutler, all rolled into one.

The straightforward comments on this thread are, like the original post, quite critical of Moore's truthfulness and ethics. Moore's would-be defenders are resorting to unserious tactics--crass language, tu quoque, sarcasm.

If there are good reasons to pay attention to Michael Moore, I'd be interested to hear them. More than anything, he appears to be a talented and malicious clown. His schtick this time seems to be mockery of the notion that militant Islam is a genuine threat to a civilization that's worth defending.

9-11 brought some of us, belatedly, to a different conclusion. I guess some other folks just aren't going to see things this way, no matter what.

Joe:

Talent isn't my criticism of Moore, nor is it Hitchens' or White's (though White does judge Moore's latest work to be infrerior). Their problems, and mine, and Andrew's too it seems, go deeper and deal with Moore's increasingly deceptive and manipulative approach. As Hitchens and White point out, Moore's chosen approach is nothing less than a betrayal of his craft - and of more basic and enduring values as well.

Your comment reminds me of G. K. Chesterton's complaint about H. G. Wells—that he had sold his birthright (as a storyteller) for a pot of message.

Josh, I don't quite understand why it's suddenly off-limits to insult an ambitious, rich, popular public figure.

AMac, I'm sorry, but I resorted to some crass language on my blog, too. Do a Google search on "scrotum sniffer" and see whose picture comes up in the links.

There are catch phrases which will endure, and one of Moore's (liberal, has seen the film) reviewers has coined a good one regarding Moore: "Liberalism with a fascist face". I like it!

Moore's would-be defenders are resorting to unserious tactics--crass language, tu quoque, sarcasm.

Andrew J. Lazarus (3:56am):

Thanks, I re-read Hitchens' piece while considering your original critique (9:17pm). I find his columns to be mostly serious. IMO, he's pretty honest with how he presents facts, and clear as to his moral stance and his logic.

However, you or I won't be convincing each other of the virtues or demerits of Hitchens' polemics. Anyone else who's read this far can hit "Page Up" a couple of times, find the link, and decide for themselves.

Josh,

According to your standards wouldn't any and all commentary about Abu Ghraib be off-limits by anyone who didn't observe it first-hand?

> According to your standards wouldn't any and all commentary about Abu Ghraib be off-limits by anyone who didn't observe it first-hand?

I mean only that it's rather facile to bash the movie, when you're sure that there's nobody out there who can possibly refute your argument. It would have been much more honest to wait until Monday.

Josh,

What's this word "honest" you keep using? I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Nice argument, based on the theory that it takes more time to watch a movie than to produce one."

I don't think so. Think about cumulative man-hours that go into a movie. The audience (at least for a movie like this) is just a tad larger than the production and editing crew.

Furthermore, they make the movie for a living and the rest of us have to endure it in our spare time - in order to be 'honest' that is.

Similarly, it's important to distinguish the individual facts in a polemic from its conclusion. Partisans always list several awful things a particular administration did (and every administration has several) and then a (non sequitur) conclusion such as "Virtually every significant problem facing the American people today can be traced back to the policies and people that came from the Reagan administration.".

Then comes the supposed moment of triumph - if you can't disprove one fo the facts, the conclusion must be right.

It is perfectly possible to argue Moore's conclusions without watching the movie or contradicting the individual facts. Some of the facts can even be stipulated. Because it is an advocacy piece it presents only part of the picture.

The original point stands - we do not have to read every tortured page and bullying lecture by Chomsky to disagree with him and we certainly don't have to watch this thing - especially since we would be financing Moore's silliness by doing so.

"Coulter, Limbaugh of the Left". This is a badge of honour? I didn't buy any of their stuff either.

By your standards, if Michael Moore is "betraying his craft" by presenting information in the unabashedly biased manner he does, then you would have to acknowledge that the Bush Administration is also "betraying its [political] craft" in the selective and biased manner in which it presents information to the public.

Clearly, I would regard the latter to be a much greater transgression than the former, since as a private citizen Moore has every right to be biased, while the leader of a pluralistic country has no business being so.

> The audience (at least for a movie like this) is just a tad larger than the production and editing crew.

We're not talking about the man-hours of the entire audience here. We're talking about the man-hours of the bashers - people like Joe Katzman.

Joe formed his opinion long before the movie was made. He confirmed his opinion by seeking out articles that confirm his preconceived beliefs. He ignored the articles that refute his preconceived beliefs. He refuses to go to the original source to sort out the truth, calling the truth "an irrelevancy." Finally, he created the discussion thread to bash the movie days before the movie was released, thereby guaranteeing that there was nobody able to fact-check any of it.

He has pieced together a narrative laced with tinfoil drawn from every left-wing blog in cyberspace and has told a story with it. It's not the truth, I suspect, given Moore's record in Bowling and my own understanding of the nature of our Islamist enemies. But it does not need to be the truth, given Moore's intent.

Moore's point is not to present the truth. Rather, it is to entertain his audience with a narrative that they have accepted before they even bought their popcorn.

Moore knows that Middle America won't flock to this film. That's not his market. His niche markets are the True Believers, the Democratic Party activists, the Birkenstock crowd, and the folks who believe that yes, Bush is Hitler. Or, that Bush is Clueless. Or both.

These people don't want to be presented with an argument (a competition between two competing sets of propositions from which is derived a conclusion), they want to be entertained by a polemic that reinforces what they already believe to be true. Namely (choose one):

Bush = Adolf or

Bush = Clueless Puppet of the Oil Cabal and the Neocon Jewish Banking Conspiracy

(By the way, folks, trust me on this: the Left will eventually get around to blaming "the Jews". Everyone always gets around to blaming "the Jews". The Goyim never change, and I speak as an Episcopalian...)

The fact that Bush can't Equal Hitler and Equal a Clueless Puppet a the same time cannot dawn on Moore's audience. It is not meant to. Remember, Moore is presenting polemic, not argument. And if that's the case, then Moore is not betraying his craft. Hitchens, rather, misunderstands what Moore's craft is:

Moore's craft is that same as that of Riefenstahl: propaganda.

Which means that Hitchens' criticism is based on a misunderstanding of what Moore was up to.

What liberals need to understand is that Moore's film is propaganda, not argument. When you folks understand that, you will lose the need to be so defensive of Moore.

There's good propaganda and bad propaganda. William Wyler (I think it was him....) did Why We Fight, and used the words of the Nazis themselves against them. (I think John Ford was involved as well...)Triumph of the Will, is used as an example of the Evil that Director's Do.

Triumph of the Will was, by any measure, a masterpiece of filmmaking, far superior in scope and skill to anything that Moore could begin to dream of. Triumph was propaganda placed at the service of Evil. Moore is following in the tradition of both Riefenstahl and Wyler, but much more so in the tradition of Riefenstahl.

Why We Fight was propaganda placed at the service of Good.
In 1942, many Americans had to be convinced why it was necessary to fight Germany first. Wyler's film was propaganda dressed up as argument. It was meant to persuade the millions of young privates why it was necessary to deal with the Germans instead of the hated Jap.

Riefenstahl's job is less strenuous. The Germans loved Hitler. They loved his strength. They loved the rallies. They liked Strength through Joy. Hitler meant jobs and a strong Germany. The Autobahn. Volkswagens. Putting the Jews in their Place. Rearmament. A Greater Germany. One People. One Nation. One Leader...

Did I mention that they liked the part about putting the Jews in their Place? I did? Okay...

Riefenstahl's job was to cater to the prejudices of the German; what Churchill would later call "...the dull, brute mass of German soldiery." Will does that, superbly.
The need to feel as part of an unstoppable human force is overwhelming, and Riefenstahl fullfills that need. One outtake shows an SA man exclaiming: "We work together!"

Moore has the same task. He knows his audience hates Bush with an unbridled force. This isn't some measured, argumentative criticism that one finds in the pages of The New Republic. They hate Bush more than they could ever bring themselves to hate bin Laden or al-Zarqawi, and Bush has yet to behead his first Muslim.

Nope. Moore wants his audience to hate, and gives them a narrative that confirms that it is okay to hate, to fear, to despise. But to despise Americans, not jihadis.

His narrative is one teardown after another. For instance, the fact that 9-11 occured between the first meetings about natural gas in Afghanistan and the invasion itself is given short shrift. The
fact that Richard Clarke actually did okay the flight of the bin Laden's is not commented on; that might interrupt the story. I leave the rest of the contradictions to Hitchens.

Bush is both Hitler and Clueless Asshole at the same time because Moore knows that that is what his audience believes. They will believe in everything, and nothing.

Just like the dull brute mass of German soldiery.

Josh Yelon (5:47pm):

If any reader wondered about your disdain of Joe Katzman, I think you've put their doubts to rest.

I remain a bit puzzled about why it's unfair to review a movie seen at an advanced screening arranged by the distributor, or perhaps why it's wrong to discuss those reviews ahead of opening day. What about those movies that open on different dates in different cities?

> [Katzman] ignored the articles that refute his preconceived beliefs.

Okay, I'll bite: which articles? If you put in the links, I'll click on 'em.

Apolos for my nicshifting, but I think the pangs of registration are finally over! :)
section9: A vrai dire! If we are told the contents, we can certainly agree or diasagree with out seeing.
After the disasterous Bowling for Columbine, I shall never contibute funds to viewing a Mike Al-Moor movie again. Josh, what about Bayesian probality? Yes, I freely admit bias, but IMHO Mike is a waste of spacetime, and a large one at that!

Defending Moore is an honorable leftist activity, since Moore is the hero of all of us leftists. We adore him for simplifying important ideas to the level that even we can understand them. It isn't easy but he does it, and we love him for it. Right whingers need to get a simplifying documentarist of their own and leave ours alone!

"'Coulter, Limbaugh of the Left'. This is a badge of honour? I didn't buy any of their stuff either."

Good on you. My point was that they are equally betrayers of their crafts, yet the selective outrage of this blog never seems to find the space to attack their betrayals. Nah, the real outrage here is not at sleaze, it is at Moore's directing his particular brand of sleaze at the political icon of this blog. Not that fairness and balance is expected here . . . I'm just sayin'.

Relax people, it is only entertainment. Michael Moore is simply a movie director. The "Entertainment/Industrial Complex" doesn't actually kill anybody. They use make believe for that. All this breathless invoking of Leni Riefenstahl fails to mention she was working as a hired gun and being paid a fee from Hitler. Now thats Propaganda!
I am forever puzzled when the same people that can chortle when a wedding party gets shelled fume indignantly about something that is basically an amusement that serves to pass time. There is no liberal media. There is no liberal media. There is no liberal media.

joel (11:01pm):

Not that fairness and balance is expected here . . . I'm just sayin'.

obelus (11:10pm):

I am forever puzzled when the same people that can chortle when a wedding party gets shelled...

There is no liberal media. There is no liberal media. There is no liberal media.

...or perhaps the second time around.

There is no liberal media. But read about the coverage of the war here.

There is no liberal media. But read more analysis here.

There is no liberal media. But follow links from commentary here.

Who chortled?

I predict this dung-heap of a movie will fail at the box office. Noone is interested in Moore's anti-American propaganda. It'll probably not even crack the top ten in box office receipts for the week. You heard it here first.

I don't suppose there's much chance you'd make a large cash bet? The advance Internet sales to date alone will be enough for better than 10th place. (This is, I might add, orthogonal to the movie's veracity or quality.)

> Okay, I'll bite: which articles? If you put in the links, I'll click on 'em.

I was accumulating some links for you, but then I realized that all you have to do is go to rottentomatoes.com. They have a little search box at the top, type in 'fahrenheit'. They have links to some 40 reviews all in one place.

Correction... they have links to more than 100 reviews. They also tell you whether the review is generally positive or negative, so you can seek out the bad ones, if you like.

Triumph des Willens also won a major film award. In France, of course.

Now that Moore's film is enjoying their promotional assistance, will Hezbollah turn into "minutemen?"

I saw this "documentary" tonight, a lefty friend bought me a ticket. I'm glad, otherwise I'd have to deal with having paid for that.

I will not go on a big rant, I will simply say :

"Farenheit 9/11 adds nothing to the debate."

If you think this movie has actual content, you are exactly the ignorant person Moore is trying to flatter. Congratulations on being a total sucker.

Go read some history books, you might learn something.

=darwin
PS - I am obviously referring to "you" in general not any particular commentor above.

Josh Yelon (8:55am):

On this thread, you’ve accused Katzman of bull****, dishonesty, being unfair by blogging before F9/11’s opening, and “[ignoring] the articles that refute his preconceived beliefs.” Katzman is a big boy and can defend himself as he sees fit. My request to you (6/24 7:42pm) was to cite the articles you had in mind that refute Katzman’s preconceived beliefs.

You’ve responded by pointing out that rottentomatoes.com aggregates links to movie reviews.

I’ve now read two positive reviews of F9/11, including the NYT one highlighted on the RT site. So some reviewers liked F9/11, for various reasons, and others didn’t, again for varied reasons. It is specious to claim that the existence of glowing and even fawning (NYT) reviews refutes (or even addresses) either Hitchens’ or Katzman’s points.

I’ve no intention of spending the time or money to see F9/11, given my now-preconceived belief that Moore is a talented apologist for Evil causes, whose standards of integrity and honesty are in the gutter. But then, I haven’t read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion either, and I hold opinions on that subject as well.

Mr. Yelon, I recall your first posted comments at WoC, and welcomed your perspective. As you know, Mr. Katzman has offered knowledgeable, open-minded people of the Left opportunities to guest-blog at this site. My disappointment was crystallized this morning, on re-reading your contributions to this thread. Please don’t mistake my silence from this point on as agreement.

In essence, what darwin tried to say is: "I don't know shit, but i pretend i know some, so i wouldnt say too much to blow my cover, and make myself to look smart by telling others to read some 'history' book prolly like those written by David Horowitz"

how smart.

Yeah, I don't know shit. You got me.

Whatever you say, chief.

=darwin

FWIW, 81 reviews as of today at Movie Review Query Engine (www.mrqe.com, search on "fahrenheit"), since the flick is now showing. (MRQE isn't a bad site as an index of reviews, BTW).

A sidebar story: Ray Bradbury isn't happy about the obvious co-opting of the "Fahrenheit 451" title. A quick google on Moore, Fahrenheit and Bradbury gets some differing accounts on this; foreign-language sites seem particularly interested in this controversy. What Mr. Bradbury said seems to vary in the accounts, English-language and otherwise; I'm not sure that "skitstövel", "fürchterlicher Mensch", or "drecksack" are compliments.

Could be an interesting lawsuit.

Titles can't be copyrighted. Bradbury's chances look slim to me.

Andrew,

Right, probably no legal traction there. But the choice of title still looked kind of un-original to me, and Mr. Bradbury's work is very definitely original.