I agree with his general point that people who tell authors to change things and/or try to edit their previously published work for them are presumptuous idiots who have no right to do that, and he's 100% right to tell them to write their own stuff.
That said, he essentially presents diversity/political correctness and aesthetics as opposites, which is a false dichotomy. It's one thing to say, "I'm a white male, so of course my stories are from a white male perspective, and I can't please everybody." But even if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he's talking about his personal aesthetics and not aesthetics in general, he lists some specious examples that seem more interested in scoring points against perceived critics than providing context.
F'rinstance, he blames "ERA ladies...with ballbats" for his all-male play not being performed at a university when it's far more likely that they opted not to perform it because drama departments need to provide performance opportunities both male and female students with limited production budgets (did Bradbury REALLY suggest separate-but-equal?). Not to mention the fact that he's demonstrably wrong about that attitude discounting Shakespeare. There are no all-male Shakespeare plays!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you'd like to see more diversity in the media you consume. There is also nothing wrong with criticizing the media you consume for failing to include women/characters of color, especially in speculative fiction, which is all about trying to envision a future different from the present.
There is, however, something wrong with trying to bully a creator into presenting your perspective and/or trying to change an author's completed work, especially without deference to the cultural context in which it was produced. I'm with Bradbury 100% on that. Don't like what I write? Write you own damn story. And maybe I'll satirize you in a future piece of work :D
no subject
That said, he essentially presents diversity/political correctness and aesthetics as opposites, which is a false dichotomy. It's one thing to say, "I'm a white male, so of course my stories are from a white male perspective, and I can't please everybody." But even if you give him the benefit of the doubt that he's talking about his personal aesthetics and not aesthetics in general, he lists some specious examples that seem more interested in scoring points against perceived critics than providing context.
F'rinstance, he blames "ERA ladies...with ballbats" for his all-male play not being performed at a university when it's far more likely that they opted not to perform it because drama departments need to provide performance opportunities both male and female students with limited production budgets (did Bradbury REALLY suggest separate-but-equal?). Not to mention the fact that he's demonstrably wrong about that attitude discounting Shakespeare. There are no all-male Shakespeare plays!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you'd like to see more diversity in the media you consume. There is also nothing wrong with criticizing the media you consume for failing to include women/characters of color, especially in speculative fiction, which is all about trying to envision a future different from the present.
There is, however, something wrong with trying to bully a creator into presenting your perspective and/or trying to change an author's completed work, especially without deference to the cultural context in which it was produced. I'm with Bradbury 100% on that. Don't like what I write? Write you own damn story. And maybe I'll satirize you in a future piece of work :D