[ Home ] : [ News ] : [ Links ] : [ Pics ] : [ Bio ] : [ Store ] : [ Resources ] : [ Wanted ] : [ Comments ] : [ Rant ]

The Ellison Bulletin Board

Comments Archive - 12/06/98 to 12/31/98

Charlie
- Thursday December 31 1998 19:18:09

Swinky - Keep your eye on the Showtime site for upcoming Outer Limits episodes. showtimeonline.com Charlie

MAGGIE: No, I'm not a native Utahn, or even that lower form of life, a California Transplant; we moved here from New Jersey (near Philadelphia) in 1991. One of the most moving pieces of HE's writing, for me, is in the introduction to Shatterday, where he recounts telling a Salt Lake radio DJ how sometimes HE wished his sick mother would just die, shocking the DJ--but then a woman (I'm presuming a "Saint") called in to say that she thought she was the only one who had those same type of feelings. Read it if you get a chance. I'm in tears just typing here now. -- Billy D.

While you're waiting for Harlan to appear on Politically Incorrect, give a listen to his performances on the Dove Tape editions of "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea" and "The Titanic Disaster Hearings" the latter contains three different characters portrayed by Harlan. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'll be happy to see the end of 1998. In the month of December alone my Father suffered a massive stroke on the 6th, his twin sister also suffered a massive stroke on the 17th, and my Father-In-Law had a quadruple bypass on the 28th. Here's to a much, MUCH better 1999. ___________________________________ Shane

Hey Billy D - Wow. HE fans were REALLY thin on the ground when I still lived in Zion. I always imagined that was because HE would not be likely to find favor with "The Brethren" as it were. Emmigration Canyon is a nice area. Are you native, or one of (what seems like) the millions of California refugees? PEG - it was rather nippy here this week. One day, as I was standing out in the wind (30-50mph gusts) with an actual temp of 1 (waiting for the bus), I kept telling myself that it was much colder where you were! Finder! Yeah! The Bobs! I am not much of a morning person, and in fact, it takes a good 20 - 30 min of really loud music to get me out of bed in the morning. So, one morning, I was in bed, barely in the here and now, when I heard "First I was a Hippie, then I was a Stock Broker, Now I am a Hippie Again." Actually woke me right up to stare at my radio in amazement. Ended up calling the radio station later in the day to be sure I hadn't dreamed the whole thing. How can you not love a group that sings such songs? Not the same since Janie Bob and Gundar Bob left though. Anyway. Essay vs. fiction? Well, it depends upon my mood. Although, it was "The Glass Teat" that just sucked me on in to the writings of HE. I am really looking forward to the Edgeworks volume that has that and "The Other Glass Teat" in it. It was the book that really helped me start the whole process of critical thinking. Trust me, it wasn't taught in my school or anywhere else I went. I think sometimes about becoming an English teacher, and if I ever do it, "The Glass Teat" would be required reading. Especially in high school! Well off to earn my buck. See you all next year! (yes, I know that seems very adolescent, but somehow - likely my father's genes - I really get a huge kick out of telling everybody that!)

That's i-n-t-r-i-g-u-e-d. Right?

Here, here, Swinky. You are right--I'm just getting used to the idea that I can talk to people who actually read HE, and it's interesting to find out where we fall on the wide spectrum of his writings. Sorry about the double-post. I got disconnected in the middle of the first attempt (rookie move). Finally found the Onion (I got the address wrong on my first try and ended up on some webline-matchmaking-singles thing) and laughed my ass off. Found an interview with HE and lots of other interesting people, too. The Church of the Subgenius requires knowledge and dialect I hope I'll pick up in time, but I was really intriged. Gracias! Wylie

hey everyone! I saw some new sights (sites) today--thanks for the tips and keep 'em comin'. The kid's asleep, spouse is at work, and it's my night to surf...or read...or watch a movie...or call a friend... lucky me. So long. wylie

hey everyone! I saw some new sights (sites) today--thanks for the tips and keep 'em comin'. The kid's asleep, spouse is at work, and it's my night to surf...or read...or watch a movie...or call a friend... lucky me. So long. wylie

Hello Again I may have missed the answer to my question or maybe y'all just ignored me, But I wondered If anyone knows. When will Human operators be aired on The Outer Limits? Thankyou if anyone knows. On a different note many people here have mentioned that they like the darker, or the lighter, or the non-fiction, better. but I would argue that the value of Harlan's work no matter what it may be is that it makes us think. He is a gadfly in a society that needs more of his kind. Thankyou for your time. Thankyou Mr. Ellison for your stories and essays alike. One more thing. I think that every one of his stories is a commentary on politics, society or just humanity. This may be obvious to you all but it needed to be said

I'm torn on the fiction vs. essay preference. A lot of it has to do with mood and expectation, I guess. With a HE essay, I know I can expect an unflinching, no-apology opinion, and I will probably learn a few things in the process that will make me stop and think. A story from HE will cause a similar 'whoa, never thought about that before', but it's a more subtle effect, almost subversive in its way. The essay comes screaming from the sky, the fiction prowls with the grace of a panther. Either way, I'm usually left dazed in the aftermath...PAUL - The only problem I have with Prince (or the Artist, as is his current want) is that his focus has been very soft since the early 90's. He's a tremendously gifted musician, and when he's tuned in, he can write very poetic and insightful (and very wryly amusing) lyrics. But over the last few years, it seems like there's been a lot more run-of-the-mill dance filler spacing out his gems. "Emancipation" could have been solid at two discs, for example. And as an aside, I thought HE was still very much into the Blues and a variety of jazzes; is my intelligence outmoded again? -- Finder

Wylie - If topical satire is your bag, check out The Onion (www.theonion.com). It's an online version of a print newspaper from Milwaukee. Very funny, sometimes painfully so. It also has reviews, interviews and other goodies. For inspired weirdness, try the Church of the Subgenius (www.subgenius.com). Religion? Hoax? Performance art? Parody? The choice is yours...Happy Surfing! Mitch

BILLY D> thanks for the tip--I'm looking forward to checking out that site. :) PAUL> that's -mine-,not -fine-. typo city. zang. see ya, wylie.

Sometimes I think I prefer HE's non-fiction, too, Paul. I remember enjoying the introductions to his stories more than the stories themselves. An aquaintence (sp?) of fine says HE is the greatest essayist of the 20th century. duuuuhhh!

MAGGIE--re: your "feet of the Wasatch" reference: my wife and I have been building a home in Emigration canyon for the last four years. When you're back visiting Zion next time, give us a holler. WYLIE: If you like both reading and movies, then combine the two: check out www.script-o-rama.com -- it has hyperlinks to loads of screenplays. I go there when I need inspiration (or just a scene to steal). -- Billy D.

Am I the only one who wants Harlan to go back to non fiction? His essays are the more interesting of his written works because he gets to the bone a bit more. His angry style is good to see in an age of the newt world order. And on the music tip. Harlan is not fond of rock music so you folks who adore a certain band, believe me, harlan could care less.(lol) Hes into classical and more softer forms now for some reason. Rock is the music of rebellion, You would think that would help his muse more. Oh well thats life eh? Noone mentioned prince as a musical influence. Can You name a better musician or songwriter? The harlan ellison of melody id say. Peace.

Hi. My name is Peter. And I'm a bookoholic. It's been three minutes since I read my last book. I went on a binge and devoured all four hundred pages of the new Dean Koontz in less than eight hours of total reading time. I started this afternoon and ended at approximately midnight (how appropriate). Do I need help? How can people claim that illiteracy runs rampant in this world when people like me make up for those millions who don't read? I dunno. I'm zoned. I'm tired. I feel like I've been mentally violated. But wow, what a ride. (this has been brought to you by the society to promote reading at all costs. Read a book. Read a good book. Read a shitty book. Read the ingredients on your hot dog packets -better not- just read. Thank you) ---Peter (feeling slightly better except for the strained eyes and blurred vision.)

So, I can't stay away. All of you sure listen to interesting music. I think ecclectic tastes are really the norm among thinking types like HE readers. Thought I'd mention Ray Charles and Etta James, Van Morrison, Dave Matthews Band, Mozart, Henryk Goreki, and Portishead._________________________________________ ______Would anyone like to share a favorite site with me? I know the web is full of cool stuff, but maybe someone can send me in a direction I wouldn't find on my own. So far, Ellison Webderland is the only site I check out every time I go online and I love it, but what else is out there? Thanks in advance.--Wylie

Welcome to all the newcomers/recently de-lurked! MAGGIE - I know the Bobs - I had a very dear friend in college who introduced me to the whole a capella side of the galaxy (he was in the male a capella group at the university). Since his introduction of "My, I'm Large" into my consciousness, I haven't looked back - though I still haven't added "I Brow Club" (though that Borders Books & Music gift card is buring a hole in my pocket, it may go towards the new Miles Davis "Bitches Brew" sessions box) ALL - Hope your holidays were good to you; my gifties were mostly practical (I had a new kitchen and nothing to cut/cook/eat with - the perils of growing accustomed to a roommate and the associated accessories), but courtesy of a very good friend (I know where you lurk), I've got my illustrated "Repent, Harlequin..." - now all I need is someone to tuck me in and read it to me...SIGH. Maybe next year...Enjoy what remains of '98 --Finder

P.S. HE appears on PI on 1/5, not 1/4 as previously reported.

Thanks for the "Jeffty" replies. Charlie

I've spoken to Harlan about why and for whom he writes, but have little more to add on the subject. I do know that he doesn't write an autobiography or novel because he doesn't WANT to, and he was taken back by the notion that he should because the works would be popular or well liked or make lots of money. As for little Jeffty, let's just say that as much as one may like a radio, it's not a good idea to set it on the side of the tub during a bath. You know, one little "slip" by Mommy and bzzzzzzzzzzzt....

charlie> his mother kills him. still gives me the shivers. read it again. happy trails--wylie

Gotta Question Re: Jeffty- I know HE says you're a sloven reader if you can't figure out what happens to Jeffty at the end of the story. Okay, so I must be sloven. What happened to little Jeffty?????????

Not that anybody cares, but... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On priorities in HE's writing - we talked about this a bit during our phone call. I asked if there was something he wanted readers to take away from his work, beyond a gosh-that-was-entertaining feeling. And essentially HE said no, he's not necessarily out to enlighten the world. (okay, it's paraphrasing a bit, he was quite a bit more animated about it!) From the interviews, commentaries, etc., I've seen, my impression is that HE writes because he can't not write, it's what he DOES. (and that could be a direct quote of some kind). Add to that the phone call, and I think he primarily wants to entertain readers, but he writes about what moves him not what moves them. If they get some deep thoughts and grow a bit, all the better, but it's more a bonus. Anyway, I'm not the end-all authority, Rick or Barney could give a better answer I'm sure. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On music - I find I enjoy almost any variety of music *in the right forum*. I love to dance to ANYTHING with a rythym I can follow, but I don't necessarily enjoy just listening to the music (industrial and country fall into this). Lots of music I like to sing to as well that I would probably pass by in other circumstances. Opera is really best in live performance, pales on a record. So, anyway, I like TONS of stuff. Our CD collection is eclectic at the least, bizarre in some cases (aborignal australian anyone?) and mainstream across many genres. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gotta go, back to the grind >>>>>>>>>>> The Pegster

Howdy to you too Sue! Am I supposed to post some sort of bio? Let's see, the short version of that goes something like this - I was born and raised at the feet of the Wasatch Mountains and my heart's home lies high up in the Uintah's. I got a degree in theatre (technical mostly - lighting designer, stage manager, master electrician that sort of thing) with a minor in English. Quickly decided that this was not the way I wished to make a living. Lived in Boulder for a couple of years and then packed up and moved to Minnesota. I have a very checkered career history, but worked with developmentally disabled folks for 8 years. Finally decided I was sick and tired of living pay check to pay check, and here I am in the land of filthy lucre. Oh yeah, I'm a girl! In case you were wondering. Hey Paul, what exactly do you read that you would not call HE a very good writer?!?!? I write things all the time and I'd give body parts for even half of the precision of HE's writing, let alone the creativity! And if you start quoting Ulysses at me, I am going to get very hostile. I'm really not all that interested in self-indulgent, great art crap (I have nothing against Joyce, I think he was marvelously gifted, and I do admire the pushing the boundaries aspect of that whole stream of conciousness thing, but enough is enough. Hey, I don't get that philosphy - you know, if a tree falls in a forest - thing either. Seems a complete waste of time to me, but there you go, just the kind of person that I am). About my musical tastes - the list is big. I don't go in much for country - all that whining - although I do like generally like western music. Not big on rap or most of the guitar abuse passing for heavy metal. I took voice lessons for 7 years, and I have noticed that if a song has words, I have definite predilection for words I can sing. This means I own virtually no sopranos. Anybody ever hear of The Bobs?

greetings all. have realized that lately i've read tons about HE, and nothing by him. i'll come back when i've refueled. be well.--wylie

Ooooo...so many topics. Where to begin? PAUL - Let's start with you. Harlan 'cares more about entertainment than enlightenment'? Then why is he virtually unknown outside of SF circles, yet Sidney Sheldon cranks out bestsellers? I think the reverse holds true. Next, you criticize him for not being the vocal activist he was in previous years. Activism isn't a one-man operation. Hopefully, he's inspired others, including yourself, to get involved. As for the Henry Miller issue...Huh? Maybe HE doesn't have an opinion of him, maybe he hasn't seen the need to commit said opinion to paper. Terry Pratchett is one of my favorite authors. I've never read anything by HE that mentions him. Big F@ckin' Deal. Anyway, thanks for your 2 cents, here's your change...MUSIC - I'm a big PJ Harvey fan. Just got her new album for Xmas. I also love They Might Be Giants, Floyd, Tool, Chemical Bros, old-school rap, Van Halen (w/ DLR, natch), Metallica, Simon & Garfunkel, and of course, the greatest band in Canada and all points south, RUSH! Don't swallow your tongue, kids...MOVIES - My favorite directors are Woody Allen (despite his personal life, he makes a helluva flick), Terry Gilliam (if you haven't seen Baron Munchausen, do!), Joel Coen ("Miller's Crossing" is still their best work) and Akira Kurosawa (RIP). Other top movies include Dangerous Liaisons, Searching for Bobby Fischer, The Blues Brothers, The Fifth Element and Conan the Barbarian (great soundtracks on the last three, BTW). All talked out for now. Mitch

wylie::: Rammstein is a German metal/industrial band who recently gained a modicum of notoriety in the States when a couple of their songs appeared on the soundtrack for David Lynch's LOST HIGHWAY. They have two albums (both of which are available in most record stores), Sehnsucht and Herzeleid. They sing completely in german (though Sehnsucht has a couple of songs sung in translation, the german is infinitely better), and rely heavily on both electric guitars and sampler keyboards. Uhh. Does that answer your question?---Peter (getting better slowly, ever so slowly.)

This board always draws me back...but since I'm only skimming, I'd just thought I'd note a factual inaccuracy in SLIPPAGE, wherein Ellison suggests Donald Westlake's "Curt Clark" fiction is hard to find--it might be out of print now, but Mysterious Press/Warner had a collection of Westlake's CC work, TOMORROW'S CRIMES, out about six years ago that is likely attainable with a small effort. ANARCHAOS, the novel that takes up the bulk of the collection, is remarkably stupid as extrapolative sociology (Westlake has leftist-communitarian-anarchist types engaging in behavior the most addled Ayn-Randian Objectivist would find a bit egomaniacal), particularly coming from the same man who could write "The Winner" or some of the other stories in this book, but it is readable, and the other stories in the book make up for this one's conceptual problems (and Ellison liked it a lot more than I did). "Nackles" is unsurprisingly included as well (I first read "Nackles" in Terry Carr's NEW WORLDS OF FANTASY series, but that dates back to the late '60s/early '70s). Just in case the taste of "Clark" in SLIPPAGE made you hungry for more, beyond such recent Westlake speculative fiction as HUMANS. Happy belated solstice, all! (And, Cookie, I've never found it hurt my puzzler too much to like both punk and jazz, and even people like John Zorn who want come close to uniting both...anyone else hear Al Kooper on NPR's FRESH AIR, talking about the early good days of Blood Sweat and Tears, the other band ((with Chicago)) that boldly set the standards for fuzak after they kicked Kooper out? Fusion was bubbling up all over the latter '60s, Miles Davis was riding that pony by '68 and he wasn't the first, B. Free Jazz and Fusion were two sides of the same coin, along with Chamber Jazz and Hard Bop continuing to make their presence felt, and pop bands like the Animals and the Zombies trying to get as jazzy as they felt their audiences or their recording labels would allow...)

Gratitude, Sue, for your response. wish i had time to find those archives, but i have to get to work and review the holiday carnage, so maybe tomorrow. it's starting to sound good compared to witnessing my now wildly spoiled son freak about getting back into a routine which doesn't involve opening presents and eating fudge and basically getting away with murder. maybe i'll put on boy and his dog after the store closes, now that i'm prepared. thanks again. wylie

Welcome wylie :-) and a belated howdy to Peter, and Maggie (oops - that's the trouble with lurking when you should be writing).. Nice to get new blood - relieves me of the guilt and burden of having to post daily to see the list move... ;-) ... If you've been lurking for a while, you know who I am. If not, ummmm, I think I did that "bio" thing when I started posting here.. In the archives somewhere.. back, ummm, well, I can't remember.. And no comments on that, folks.. **WYLIE** Speaking of 'Blood' - I have "A Boy And His Dog" in the VCR Vault somewhere. I thought it stuck to the origonal story line pretty well. A somewhat bleak flick visually, and quiet aurally (which fits the story) - a very skinny Don Johnson in the lead (liked the dog better) - and I haven't even thought about it in a looong time, so it couldn't have impressed me too much.. I don't know if that is the kind of feedback you were looking for, but that's all I have... ;-) ... Hope everyone got sated on Holiday goodies - I did. And now off to restack and recount the "take".. Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

Thanks scot for your redneck chowderhead response. Anyone who lives in Alabama deserves what they get eh? I looked over my writing and didnt see the mistakes you attribute to me. But maybe debate is not an esteemed method of operation in your sector of lowbrow thought. I made some good points about Harlan, but they were breezed over. Makes you wonder what that southern flag is doing to y,all down there. Yow..

Nicole> have to say it's the less dark stuff of HE's i prefer. honestly--I've never been able to stomach deathbird stories at all. i remember a cool story from the first Poppy Z. Brite collection of vampire stories--lesbian vampire who did safe, free abortions--know the one? by the way, I don't want to pull a "Shaz" and be of ambiguous sexual identity, so here's the 411: I'm female, married, bi, and a mother of a toddler. Everything they say about 2 year olds is true...

Peter> tell me about Rammstein. that's a new name to me. sorry your sick. take care. wylie

Music, eh? NIN is cool. But my tastes vary when it comes to music. I love jazz. Played a mean trombone when I was younger. Loved wrapping myself around a slow melodic swing. Especially the bass notes. mmmm. I smile just thinking about that buzz. Some of the resurgent swing/ska bands don't do much for me, but Brian Setzer is okay, and I can really get into Save Ferris.--- A lot of rock, from the Beatles, to Pink Floyd, to Smashing Pumpkins. Some weezer, a little pinch of Metallica, a dash of Devo, a smidgen of Tori Amos, a whole heap of Rammstein, plus one or two strays such as Korn, Space, Spacehog, and Tool. You've basically got my album collection. Hmm, I wonder what that says about me? I look at it all as a sign of balance. But that's me and my philosophical beliefs talking.::: Peter (brain dead and still sick. That goodness it happened AFTER finals.)

Well, if we're talking about music, I have to jump in. Nice list, Doc, especially NIN. I didn't see any Goth music tho. I listen mostly to stuff like Switchblade Symphony (favorite band!), Christian Death (esp the stuff with the late Rozz Williams), Alien Sex Fiend (I get makeup tips from Nik Fiend...kidding!), The Cure, Bahauus, Crux Shadows, and the Sisters of Mercy (when I get Floodland, I get my official Goth card ;) ). Wonder what this all says about my personality. On second thought, I think I can guess. As for favorite collections, I started out with IHNMAIMS, and that is a good one, but my absolute favorite has to be _Love Ain't Nothing But Sex Misspelled_. The new ones, while good, lack some of the darkness of the earlier collections. What I would like to see is a collection of Ellison's more horror/vampire- themed stories, both early and late. These days, I find myself moving more towards horror erotica, like stories from Poppy Z. Brite. Ellison's stories in that area are good, but it would be nice if they could be collected in one big volume.

so no one wants to touch the boy and his dog query? maybe i'm not the only one who hasn't watched it yet. maybe i missed something, but although the Dude and his pal (John Goodman) were genius in the Big Lebowski, the rest of the movie bored me to tears. it totally pales compared to Fargo.

Wow! I'm usually just a lurker here but I gotta give Swinky kudos on great taste. You named several of my top 10 films as your faves. Evil Dead/Evil Dead 2 are both masterpieces. Brazil is great. The Big Lebowski was the best film of 1998 slightly ahead of Smoke Signals. Of course, considering I also think John Carpenter's The Thing is one of the great films of all-time, I don't think Harlan would care much for my taste in film. It's always been difficult for me to resolve how I can love Harlan's writing so much and yet think so very little of his taste in film. And I've never much cared for his screenwriting either. Weird. On another topic, have any comic book readers here noticed that Stan Lee has been dropping Harlan's name a lot in the weekly Stan's Soapbox in Marvel Comics? At least three mentions of HE overthe past 6 months or so. Is it too much to hope this is paving the way for HE to write some more comics? Or are he and Stan the Man just good friend? -chris

Hello again in response to what movies do other HE fans like. I really Like Cohen brothers films. The big Lebowski was just about as good as the earlier ones. I also am a great fan of Evil Dead 2/ Dead by dawn, Brazil, a Clockwork Orange, I liked Swingers and Reservoir Dogs, Casino, The suicide Kings is a good new one. Killing Zoe, and of course that wonderful B-movie Director with a big budget James Cameron. Sorry may the Titanic burn and I think HE should have remarketed Escapegoat on a postcard or something just for fun maybe capitalize of the Titanic hype anyway Happy Hannukah, Kwanza, Christmas,X-mas, or whatever y'all celebrate.

One more thing: what the hell time zone is this site refering to?

Nevermind. Obviously I've lost my mind. The posting is there now. I'm suuuuuuch a rookie at this computer/online thing. 'night.

Wow. Did I fail the test? I had successfully posted a message, which I saw several times as I perused the postings from the past few weeks (whew!). Then I went to another part of Webderland and when I returned to the Bulletin Board, my posting was gone. What gives?

thank you, Doc! "all kinds of movies"--of course. And picking them apart is highly gratifying. guess i just feel like really talking movies, in contrast to what i do all day..."no, i'm sorry, i don't have Blade right now...no, none are due tonight...no, i can't hold one for you... no, i haven't seen Bone Daddy and i have no idea if it's any good..."--just kill me. anyway, i've never watched A Boy and His Dog, and i could, however, i've been avoiding really disturbing stuff for a while and i wonder if anyone has feedback about it before i bring it home. merry christmas all...

WYLIE> Welcome aboard! I thik you'll agree that we like all kindsa movies, especially those we can bitch about for any reason (I'm kidding -- why are you looking at me like THAT?!?). SCOTT> What do you expect from a guy living in a town where Jerry Springer used to be mayor? One gathers from the mug's syntax, spelling and punctuation that he just don't get it! But what the heck, it's Christmas: Stick around, Paul, maybe we can get you the help you need. Cheers and Bah-Humbug, Doc

Here goes, and I'll try to be short, to the point, etc., and, hopefully, not too nasty about esteemed litterchur critic Paul Blue: "I allready readed you're post and i do'nt know, but may be your right. hank semite shelf Harlan huh?" This reply has been sponsored by the ADOPS (Americans for the Death of Punctuation and Spelling). Anyhows: I was skimming through the index to a Kubrick biography and came across a few references to Ellison and fellow Alabaman Gus Hasford. Kubrick, it seems, was attempting to have his way, financially and artistically, with Hasford, and Hasford, having spoken to Ellison about the matter, was given the very special name of Ellison's lawyer; Hasford's dropping of said name to Kubrick inspired the Wacky One to give Hasford everything that he wanted. If only Jim Thompson had Ellison's lawyer, right?

Greetings. I'm new. Wondering how far back I'll have to read to catch up. Nice to have vicarious contact with other fans, as I'm the only one I know personally. I manage a video store. My favorite collections are Strange Wine and Angry Candy. I wonder what kind of movies other HE fans like...

Harlans writing style has suffered greatly as of late im afraid. I looked around slippage recently and was not overtly stunned by anything written in these pages. "Myphisto In Onyx" was very nice but I allready read the damn thing. Ellison is a wonderfull talker and story teller in person, but is getting quite stale and dry on page. Hes never been a great writer because he cares more about entertaining the flock than enlightenment, which is not a sin, but is just a thought. But I have to admit I love the guy anyway. Loved his appearances on Politically Incorrect. The guy is one tough cookie, but I do notice he is lightening up a bit, which is good and bad at the same time. He also has given up on fighting the right on any issue. He mainly stays at home or goes out and signs books. What happened to the political Harlan? We need his voice more than ever so dont go away just yet Mr. E?? I notice Ellison has never mentioned writer Henry Miller in print? One of our great poetic minds and Ellison is mute. No hank was no anti-semite dear Harlan so put that long knive back in its sheave. But as ive said I do still love ole Harlan..Cant cha tell?? lol..Peace to all..Rock on.

Don't wanna get outta here without I mention The Cramps -- Stay sick! Turn blue!

BARNEY> What does being a bit younger than you have to do with anything? If you're trying to peg me (no "dinky/bum" relation, there), I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disappoint you: I like just about anything, style-wise. Gregorian chants, Mozart, Wagner, Prokofiev, Jolson, Durante, Joplin (Scott *and* Janis), Gershwin, Ellington, Porter, Rodgers and Hart, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong, oh drea god the list doesn't *END*! Hank Williams, Sr., Bob Wills, Bill Hailey, Buddy Holly, Buck Owens, Dwight Yoakum, Beatles, Stones, Who, Band, Django Rheinhart, Stephan Grappelli, Patsy Cline, Willie Nelson -- especially the Outlaws/Red-Headed Stranger years -- Ratt, Sex Pistols,... The list (like the beat) goes on. I'm not big on Chicago, but I do get into Queen, AND Black Sabbath, AND Motorhead, AND David Bowie, AND Nine Inch Nails, etc., etc. So what does that say about me? Pick a musical style or genre -- I can probably come up with some preference. Even Rap -- Will Smith, back when he was part of the DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince thing, as well as recent work. Then of course, there's R&B, Soul, Blues (I was in Austin when Stevie Ray died, and the whole city wept; caught Buddy Guy at Antone's shortly after, and was THAT a show?). In your corner now, hot-shot. Love, Doc

I was trying to come up with something long and drawn out. But I'm sick, so I'll just throw in my literal two cents into this one.*********You know the world has gone to hell when the Third Right starts boycotting Pat Boone. ---Peter

Barney** One more thing: the bums haven't lived in Chicago for over 20 years. Happy Holidays.

whoa!! I had no idea you could psychoanalyze and pidgeon-hole people by the music they listen to.. I'm in trouble now.... All those LOUD boom-box cars going by the house are making me psychotic.. ;-) ... Welcome to the Webheads swinky! And thanks for remembering me Finder.. Barney - didn't know you needed a reason for knee-jerking. Sheeesh. That takes all the fun out of it. And Keegan - good to see ya again. :-) Ummm - that's all.

Barney** Being a life-long Chicago-guy (the city not the group) all I can say to your remarks about the group is; right-on bro! The first LP when they were known as the Chicago Transit Authority had some edge to it and their big, ballsy, brass-attack was something new to rock at the time. All of the stuff after that intial offering, forgetaboutit.

***Finder*** Yeah, I just dumped on the band Chicago but it's personal. I think the reason they bubbled up from my subconscious has to do with all the free speech talk here of late. When I was a teenager I had a next door neighbor/friend named Lori who thought the sun rose and set on that band. I believe she was a card carrying member of the Robert Lamb [I think that's his name] fan club. Now you folks may love, hate, or have no feelings whatsoever about this group and if your under the age of 30 it's entirely possible you've never heard of them. All you need to know is that they were pre-fusion jazz or jazz-wannabe crossover artists. And they were all over AM and FM for 3-4 years in the 1970's. If pressed to the wall I will admit that they were all competent musicians and that there are three or four good tracks on the first 2 albums. The point [for the sake of this anecdote] is that they were vanilla and NON-threatening in the extreme. Only the Carpenters and Bread could compete in the category of safe-listening-for-impressionable-young-girls. But they somehow managed to scare the hell out of Lori's parents, who were GOD FEARING Pentecostal Presbyterians who didn't go in for any of this rock star idolatry stuff. So, after a few years of browbeating they wore here down, and one night Lori and her parents went out to the burning barrel they had in their back yard [very rural place] and after making Lori pray to God for forgiveness for questioning their judgement, made her burn all of her Chicago records and posters. I watched this little scene from my bedroom window while listening to Black Sabbath's "Master of Reality" album. I'd like to say I did something dramatic like laughed or cried or threw up but I knew Lori's parents to well for this to have suprised me. After all, they had kicked me out of their living room countless times. Once, for doing Bill Cosby's "Noah" routine and another time for reading a couple of paragraphs of "Paingod" within earshot. A few years later they moved to Texas and the last I heard she was still living at home and working at a K-Mart. So, if we ever meet in this life and you wonder where some of my knee-jerk reactions come from, well, it wasn't all copied out of one of Harlan's books. Have a Merry Christmas everybody.

hello I am a longtime purveyor of this Bulletin Board but have not yet left a message so I thought I's try it out. First I would like to cheesily thank all of you for your Love of HE and his work. I also have a question (maybe stupid) but I wondered If anyone Knew when the Human Operators adaptation for Outer Limits was going to be aired?. Also If you guys want some good Music I think a little Pink Floyd , a little Rolling Stones, some Social Distortion, Johnny Cash , Willie Nelson, Emmy Lou Harris, U2, then end it up with some Beethoven's 9th(Maybe just my Clockwork Orange fix getting a little low) and then wome Wagner, and Tchaikovsky. There ya go that sounds good and If Mr Ellison ever sees these thankyou for the hours of enjoyment.

BARNEY - You didn't just insinuate Chicago was a band of ill-renown, did you? OH, THE HUMANITY! How could you disrespect one of the premiere pop-brass conglomerates of the seventies that, through a stellar chrysalis in the eighties, became the number one schlock FM ballad band? Why, their music is every bit as nifty-keen as anything Genesis did after Peter Gabriel ran screaming following "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway", and the entire collected works of Barry Manilow. (My tongue would leap out of my mouth if not so firmly planted in my cheek...) I'm with Keegan on this one - Miles, 'Trane, Duke (though I'll still take Billy Joel if thrown at me - you can take the boy out of New York, but...) KEEGAN & SUE - Welcome back! Always good to see familiar posters at the holidays! ALL - I hope the season brings all manner of wonderfulness and delight, merriment and mirth. Me, I'm off to make a holiday cheesecake or two in between packing for an early January move (another witness protection cover blown...when, oh when will the running stop?) Peace! --Finder

Though, Doc, I do dig Pink Floyd. That's my fantasy job: being a chick singer backing up Pink Floyd. That's neither here nor there though, so (SHUTUP!) shuttin' up!

Doc and Barney: both of you scare me. Then again, I'm a devotee and practitioner of Jazz music---what one young comrade I know once referred to as "geriatric music". Oh, well...... Read that story last night. Harlan has a beauty to his writing as well as an edge....but that's getting sappy so I'll shut up. L'chaim!

**** Hi Sue! Hi Keegan! Old listers never die!!! **** %%%% DOC %%% Too Much Information Doc! With the exception of Floyd your taste in music explains a lot. If it weren't for the fact that I know you like Harlan and Firesign Theatre I would find that list frightening beyond comprehension. I wish I could take credit for "dinky in the bum" which cracks me up [no pun intended] but I have a friend who works rehab with teenage sex offenders who coughed up that phrase one night when we were talking about Pete Townsend and various productions of "Tommy" and "Quadrophenia". [wrongheaded production, I might add] All I can say in his defense is that his job sort of requires that he take the notion of "personally well adjusted" to a very high level so when he said this phrase it was kind of like hearing Martha Stewart sing Fugees/ODB/Master P tunes. Funny as hell. I, of course, have no defense. And, by the way, Doc, since I believe you are younger than me, shouldn't you have been listening to Elvis Costello, The Clash, and Dead Kennedy's? What up, homey? If you counter with Queen and Chicago I'm outta here...

Hey All- Just a note that The Crow anthology is out in trade hb. I only mention it as the trade does NOT include HE's most recent short story, which IS included in the ltd. ed. for $225. Nonetheless, the other stories look decent and interesting, and, hell, I bought it. I already rec'd my copy of "Objects of Desire..." from Dang. Visions. Merry Crimble. Charlie

And while we're on Harlan's Homo Hate Parade. how is it that no one's mentioned, "A Path Through the Darkness?"

OTTO> I define mediocrity as: that which neither helps nor hinders. Sort of like this entire flipping "discussion." My final (oh, please, dear God) comment is in defense of verisimilitude. PLENTY of people think such crude, ugly thoughts, day in and day out. As it is such a large portion of the population, that might explain why so many of them turn up in Harlan's work. The Ellisons have never treated me with anything other than courtesy and kindness and generosity: smear them at your peril, they are my friends. As for academia, can't we all just degree to dis-degree? BARNEY> I'll have you know that *I* listened to plenty of KISS when I was a kid, even once in a (great) while these days. There was no escaping K.C. and the etcetera, who were *far* less abrasive than (ugh!) the Bay City Rollers. So how is exposure to such-like a preventative to queerdom? I also happen to like the music of The Black Crows, Queensryche, Bon Jovi, Pink Floyd, etc., and like that. You needn't concern yourself with the safety of your bum when in proximity to my dinky (which euphemism I find rather insulting, if not invasive -- stop watching me in the shower, you masher.)-- cheers, Doc

Hey, Sue! Thanks for relaying my greetings, but hey! I actually have a minnit so I thought I'd tag in and do it myself: GREETINGS ALL! Sorry about the last snivelly post I made---I was blown away by the story and lashed out. Really, it got to me. Been teaching rural white kids about Chanukah and Harlan's "explanation" of the miracle lept vividly to mind. Ain't fictional logic a grand thing. Really, I know the story is actually about more than the "miracle", but, man--what an imaginative way to explain it. Sounds plausible and made me believe. I think I'll go re-read it, even though the holiday's tecnically over. (I'm talking about "Go Toward the Light" from the January 1996 issue of FANTASY & SCIENCE FICTION. It's just been a particular favorite.....a "fun" story in some ways.)

TO ALL: If you are interested in seeing Harlan appear on The Late, Late Show with Tom Snyder send e-mail to: latelateshow@cbs.com-------------------------------- Last week, I was speaking to Susan Ellison on an unrelated matter, when she mentioned that Harlan's appearence on the January 4th broadcast of Politically Incorrect has been moved to January 5th. I recommend taping both nights. Best, Shane

**PETER** you haven't _really_ gotten into the OlFogeyTimeWarp until you are trying to figure out why your kids are older than you are.. **BARNEY** If you were sure HE would reach out and touch someone (throttle them?) from the grave, whatever made you think I could be so easily disposed of..??? ~giggle~ I'm not 'quite' dead yet.. Just REALLY busy.. I'm turning into a jet-setter of sorts, now that I have discovered that people will PAY for me to come, hang out, and have FUN.. And all I hafta do is make a Web Page for them later.. WOW!! Go figure!! What a wonderful way to fill the "idle months" when I can't ride the bike.. ;-) .. And the price is in my range - FREE.. Just got back from my second LA trip.. :-) .. Are airplanes _supposed_ to make 'grunchy-grindy' noises in the air?? And what is so "weird" about Venice Beach?? Answers to these, and other mysteries of the universe, will be posted as they become known.. **ALL** I am relaying Holiday Greetings, and well wishing (what DO wells wish for?) from Keegan, and Doc, who seem to be as busy as I am - each in their own ditinctive way.. :-) .. And keep me posted on the details of these Con thingies - sooner or later, I WILL make one. (no fair giving hints, or warnings Barney).. Peace and Happiness to all (and don't feel you have to limit it to this particular seasonal time frame)..

Wow. I'd been so wrapped up in my own little world, with finals and everything, that I hadn't realized how late in the month it actually was. My brain was still functioning as if it were still the beginning of December. More to the point, I hadn't realized how late in the year it was. Sheesh. Its weird how we get so caught up in life that things such as the date and peoples birthdays and holidays just seem to dissappear in the periphery. I have no real point with this, its just that no one has posted for a few days so I thought I'd add my two cents worth of fluff. ---Peter (who's missing a party right now)

Peter- took the words right out of my mouth. I agree that it is mostly the individual, but the real power lies, not in the words, but how they are used. Ever listen to two AfAmericans call each other "nigger"? But if Whity over there uses that term, it's offensive. Now, that last sentence may not make sense save in my mind, but there you go anyway. Glad to hear your finals are over- mine too. Just taking a break from packing up my stuff to leave Vincennes University and go to Indiana University/Purdue University in Indianapolis...a real school in a real city, *my* city, too. ::breathes a sigh of relief:: Sue & Finder- hello! It's been quite a while. Glad to see you're alive and kicking. Barney- I finished _1984_ yesterday. Now I also see what HE was referring to when he talked about Room 101 in one of his essays...reading the actual description gave me chills. And I make it a point never to watch movies based on books, or read books based on movies. The new version is *never* as good as the original.

Hmmm. I thought that Terry Gilliam had actually set out to show how boring a bureacracy was (succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, mind you). While I felt the movie (and the one I saw did not have a happy ending) was artfully directed with much of Gilliam's cartoon quirkiness lining each frame, I also cannot watch the damn thing in one sitting. I have to stop every fifteen minutes to splash water over my eyes to keep from falling asleep. Maybe its just me, but Gilliam seesm to have a hard time reeling in (pun intended)his imagination. Especially when the movie starts to get too long. Well, as my info above this message shows, I'm going home for winter break. So I probably won't be checking in here as often as I was. maybe only once a day (as opposed to four or five times a day between classes). ---Peter

***Hey Sue! *** I was going to mention that I'd heard from you so the list old-timers would know you were still kicking but you up and spoke up by your lonesome. You don't think a pesky little thing like death could stop Harlan from answering his critics, do you? I don't. ***XANADU*** I'm not often reduced to "what he said!' but, yep, what he said! And while speech does often have real world consequences, other than O.W. Holmes' 'fire in a crowded theatre" litmus test, one should never attempt to restrict speech because of potential consequences. ***Nicole*** - glad you got the book. Check out Terry Gilliam's brilliant movie "Brazil" to see the same message filtered thru the conscience of another genius. You want the long version. If it has a happy ending you got the bastardized short version. Avoid the 1980 something movie version of "1984". It's way to literal and lifeless. The cinematic equivalent of boiled food. Hope you and everybody else are doing well. Peace out.

Ummm - I don't get it... I am vastly unclear how PC terminology differs from bigotry. It makes the SAME distinctions by groups. So it's *better* because it uses "nice" terms!?!?!? There seems to be a logical flaw here... And an acedemic word to the wise seems to be in order - most Lit types wait for the author do die before they start with the deconstruction, and personal assesments of the author.. Living authors are so mouthy and messy about it all.. Occasionally sue - and win.. Good Golly Miss Molly - talk about your basic tempest in a teacup.. If you wanna know what HE meant by that - ASK him.. Haven't heard of HE failing to have an answer for ANY question. Of course, you might not *like* the answer.. ;-) .. ***BIG HUG*** to all the regulars.. Try High - Fly Straight - Drive Safe

So, I only have web access at work. A significant chunk of my time during any giving week is spent on hold. While on hold, I do email, or look at the web, or work on something to post here. Finished that last post during lunch. Went back later in the day to see if it actually went through - I posted just after HE. OH MAN! Well, that is what I get for being terminally mouthy and overly gifted with opinions - not to mention slow!

Yay!! I'm done with chemistry. All I've got to do now is some quick last minute revisions on my latest story and turn it into my creative writing professor and I'm done for the semester. (breathing a sigh of relief) Of course I just sold back my chemistry book and used the money to buy Pink Floyd's DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. I felt it was a fair trade since all my study sessions were spent listening to THE WALL. As for the power of words. Yeah, words do have power to influence. But unless a person's aim was to influence, we cannot blame him or his words for any damage they may have provoked. A person calling "fire" in a crowded theater is obviously trying to influnece, so he should be culpable for his actions. But a person writing a story in the viewpoint of a hate monger for the purpose of exploring what makes a hate monger hate, should not be held accountable for the influence it has on the sheep minded. If anything, the education system of the society should be held accountable before the writer. okay. I'll step off my soapbox now. ---Peter (hit bottom and climbing back up)

RICK - Please pass thanks along to HE for taking the time from his other endeavors to swipe his sword through our collective Gordian knot. XANADU - Will wonders never cease? Hello, old friend, and welcome. And would it be me if I didn't argue at you? You writ: "No amount of words will cause someone to pick up a gun and shoot another. Or hate another. Or molest another. Or offend another. Those are the actions of a single individual. The responsibility is theirs alone." I take no umbrage with the matter of personal responsibility; we are all ultimately responsible for what we do and say. But you can't simply disallow the power of words to sway the course of the individual - that's far too sweeping. Many of the things we hear every day are designed to shape our opinions, our emotions, our desires. If this wasn't true, Nike wouldn't have those spiffy ads during the Super Bowl for a princely sum, and there wouldn't be a team of speechwriters and spin doctors working inside the Washington Beltway. People in the majority are followers, and they are guided by what they are told and what they read. To ignore the power words have over them is to turn a blind eye to the potential abuse of that power by individuals who know it, understand it and use it, and the subsequent consequences of that abuse. So I would have to disagree: wielded by a charismatic individual or in a psychologically penetrating way, words will indeed cause someone to pick up a gun and shoot another who might otherwise not have. Yes, individuals are responsible for what they do - but I think hand-in-hand with that is a responsibility to not just hear and accept what they're being told, but to understand it, to question it, to take nothing for granted. Or, to paraphrase something Springsteen once said to a packed house, blind faith in anything will get you killed. Whoa - I'm having Binghamton flashbacks - gotta fly! Finder

Greetings, one and all - as you can see by the byline, I am new to this board. (Meaning only that I haven't posted here before - I have lurked, literally, for years.) DOC - you once referred to me as KEEPER (I am FINDER's writing partner and the second half of the partnership that presented HE with a sixpack of Ideas, and JMS with a box of Spare Time.) BARNEY - Thank you for your kind enthusiasm about our little projects... The name Xanadu is not from the movie starring ONJ, rather, the poem by Coleridge. Introductions aside, I come to the matter of my de-lurking. I once wrote a brief bit on the dangers of Political Correctness. The actual bit is irrelevant, but the closing argument is still valid (in it I make reference to Orwell's _1984_): PC, in the guise of "protecting" us, is similarly reducing our vocabulary... [It attempts to] eliminate words and concepts, in the vain hope that this will somehow eliminate the thought. This is both dangerous and futile. We must have the ability to differentiate the genuinely evil act from the reference to it. If we do not have the vocabulary, we cannot remember history, and as Santayana wrote, "we are doomed to repeat it." I closed with the following line: The answer is to strongly oppose the forces of PC, to resist the idea that we can "protect" people by watching what we say. Don't just avoid using PC in your own life, but we must actively oppose it all around us. Challenge the casual use of a PC concept, argue against its merits, fight the good fight and don't let the bastards get you down... Based on that closing, I am compelled to post here: SHAZ - Your arguments and points are PC. You suggest that an author must have some responsibility for what they write, lest they inadvertantly support a notion that is offensive. I would argue that such a responsibility belongs to the reader. Let us assume for a moment that your analysis is complete and dead-on accurate. So what? One, they are all from works of fiction, though you make a passing reference to an essay. It's fiction. It ain't true stuff. Sometimes characters use vocabulary and act in a manner that is repugnant to both the author and the reader (And you know what? They sometimes don't even get punished for it! Re: Thomas Harris, _The Silence of the Lambs_, Dr. Lector) You cannot extrapolate from any character what the author of the work believes, just as you can't extrapolate from a performance what an actor really believes. It's fiction. Two, they are in fact, just words. They have no power in the real world that we don't give them. None. They are a mutually agreed on representation of of thoughts and ideas. No amount of words will cause someone to pick up a gun and shoot another. Or hate another. Or molest another. Or offend another. Those are the actions of a single individual. The responsibility is theirs alone. And finally, I would hesitate to paint any individual with such a broad brush as "homophobe", or "anti-semite", or "racist", because in the end, the only value of such a depiction is to bring into question the person's character. And to cause you to question everything that the person says, without regard to their individual merit. It is an unfortunately effective tool at silencing the opposition by shouting them down. Rarely, are people so neatly and objectively codified. -Xanadu

Wow. Didn't think Harlan would actually respond. Rick, please tell him I said thanks for clarifying that story and putting Shaz in his/her place.

MAGGIE -- I agree with your sentiments, but I'm not so sure about the very last part of your line of reasoning. I've met a couple of bigots in my time who were very offended to be so identified. They're of the "Some of my best friends are . . ." school. This is, I believe, especially prevalent in the subject at hand -- that of homophobia. My personal favorite was a young man who shouted rhetoric for half an hour on the evils of homosexuality, and then took the time to explain that he was not homophobic, he was merely backing up scripture. Not that I think HE falls into this category, but it's something to keep in mind . . .

When I was a little girl, there was a girl my age who was mentally disabled. When I asked my mother about her, my mother told me that people were all different and that being different was a good thing. Now, I lived in a neighborhood so homogeneous, that the reflected glow off our bodies from that first venture outside wearing shorts in the spring, was a visibility hazard for the local F-16 pilots. When I was about 19, I was watching some news program on TV with my mother. Imagine my surprise when I heard my mother start talking about the laziness, etc, of "them." I was astonished and apalled to learn that my mother was such a world class bigot! I had taken her at her word, and there had never been the opportunity to see her words and deeds conflict. Every single second of every single day of our lives is processed through a filter comprised of all our past experiences. The impression that you have of the story that I just told, is based on your life, and the choices that you have made. Shaz, you are, by your own statement, used to living in an environment rife with bigotry. I have read as much of the writings of HE as I could get my hands on (my library is extremely accomplished at interlibrary loans), and I cannot imagine that HE could or would be homophobic (taking as a given that not wanting to be homosexual, does not mean that one is thereby homophobic). Perhaps you are still overcompensating for the environment where you were raised. Really, I couldn't say, because I know very little about you. Besides, although analyzing and deconstructing a literary work can be entertaining, this whole dissection of the attitudes of HE is pointless (because neither you nor have ever, nor are ever, likely to know the man well enough to say), and about as useful as dissecting the man himself - it might help you with anatomy, but it won't teach you a damn thing about that magic he makes with his trusty Olympia. I must admit that I sometimes wonder if I have subconsciously picked up some of mother's bigotry. Perhaps I did. I don't think so, and I don't want it to be true, but how can I ever be truly certain? Take a deep breath Shaz, and consider that people who (unlike you or I) know HE well, have vehemently denied that HE is homophobic. Who are any of us to make definitive statements about the attitudes of people we do not know?! If I were to analyze your writings on this bulletin board Shaz, I could come up with my own theories about what you were writing and why, but only you, and the people who know you, would really know if I was right or wrong. You are as welcome to your opinion as anybody else, but please, leave off inflicting this particular one on us. I am content to take the word of people who have actually met HE, over the overly deconstructed writings of someone who has not. The really funny thing is that I would guess, from what I've read by and about HE, that being called a bigot will bother HE. Somehow, I doubt that it would if he truly was one.

Academic Masturbation? Jeeze, I don't know if I'm going to be able to look at my writing professor and keep a straight face. But there is an important lesson to be learned here. If you go into a story looking for something to offend you, you'll most likely find it. Same thing as if you go into a piece of fiction looking for any kind of symbolism or deeper meaning. you can usually piece together tidbits of information to give you that meaning. Hell, I once wrote a paper that proved that grendel's mother represented how men feared the potential of women. Did I believe it? No. But as I said, you can find text that will prove anything you want. Shit, if I had a dime for everytime one of my High School english teachers tried to shove some new piece of Christ imagery down my throat I could retire. "See, his name was Jim Casey. Jim Casey, JC, Jesus Christ. See? See?" Back to chemistry ---Peter (spiraling deeper, deeper, into the pit of a thousand screams)

Sorry for the double post, will clean it up tonight. Harlan wanted me to pass on to anyone who remains interested in his "homophobia" that his most obvious and personal statement on homophobia can be found in his story "Darkness on the Face of the Deep" in SLIPPAGE. He also says this sort of narrow-minded deconstructionism and second-guessing is the Great Curse of the Internet. Of all the works out there, his are among the ones MOST approachable by direct interpretation. As HE says: "I'm Edgar Allen Poe, not James Joyce. There are no secrets here. ***THE ONLY HIDDEN PASSAGES ARE THE ONES IN MY HOUSE!***"

AS FOR "THE MAN WHO ROWED CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS ASHORE": I killed the cat because I bloody well FELT like it. Nothing irresponsible about it. I hate cats, and I killed the little fucker on purpose. Ain't that the ESSENCE of responsibility? And that's the *POINT* of the story. .......... Levendis represents the joy of life. But Levendis works for the unconcerned universe. He isn't god, or God, or even GOD. He isn't *a* god, and he isn't me(and Ms. Shaz, it's time you grew up and understood that just because an author uses the "omnipotent author viewpoint" doesn't mean everything he writes is a representation of himself or his attitudes...stop being so childish). I am an Atheist, and I believe that there is no such thing as Luck or Predestination or God's Watchful Eye. "Leave them to Heaven" is sophomoric bullshit. The universe is neither benign nor malign. It doesn't even know we're here. And so, on one day the universe throws together two people who may or may not fall in love, another day it does something "good" like upping everyone's IQ, and the next it does something "bad" like lowering everyone's IQ. It is capricious, because it's an idot. It is looking the other way. And only people like Shaz are mad enough to find order and deep symbolism in it. This is FICTION, folks. Dead cats and all.

AS FOR "THE MAN WHO ROWED CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS ASHORE" -- I killed the cat because I bloody well FELT like it. Nothing irresponsible about it. I hate cats, and I killed the little fucker on purpose. Ain't that the ESSENCE of responsibility? And that's the *POINT* of the story. ----------- Levendis represents the joy of life. But Levendis works for the unconcerned universe. He isn't god, or God, or even GOD. He isn't *a* god, and he isn't me(and Ms. Shaz, it's time you grew up and understood that just because an author uses the "omnipotent author viewpoint" doesn't mean everything he writes is a representation of himself or his attitudes...stop being so childish). I am an Atheist, and I believe that there is no such thing as Luck or Predestination or God's Watchful Eye. "Leave them to Heaven" is sophomoric bullshit. The universe is neither benign nor malign. It doesn't even know we're here. And so, on one day the universe throws together two people who may or may not fall in love, another day it does something "good" like upping everyone's IQ, and the next it does something "bad" like lowering everyone's IQ. It is capricious, because it's an idot. It is looking the other way. And only people like Shaz are mad enough to find order and deep symbolism in it. This is FICTION, folks. Dead cats and all.

This is silly. You're all indulging in too much deconstructionist bullshit. Ms. Shaz: I don't want to insult you, because apparently you've been a regular contributor to this website and everyone seems to treat you with respect, so you clearly aren't a dummy... but all this homophobia supposition is insipid. I am not homophobic. I'll not get into credentials, but I've marched with homosexual and lesbian pals of mine in Gay Rights Parades. At the moment I find this ugly suggestion particularly distressing and offensive because I'm still mourning the loss of my friend, Roddy McDowall, who was -- as you may have heard -- a gentleman of the highest quality, and coincidentally, gay. Gays have been in my employ for the past thirty years. Aw, shit...I won't even dignify this crap. ........ Stop reading so much sub-text into stories. You are clearly a very young, and provincial, person. I suppose because I used the phrase "spick band" in a story, that makes me anti-Latino. I've had characters use the words bitch and kike and nigger and retard. Hell, the story "Knox" has a litany of such words. If it makes you feel knowledgeable to keep confusing the fiction with the author, little girl, then just boogie on, 5-by-5. But don't expect me to pay any serious attention to your mumblings, because you're just silly. I'd appreciate it if folks would go back to discussing things that might shed some light, rather than indulging meanspirited suppositions like this, that exist in the darkness of too much academic masturbation. Or does that make me Onanist?

Nicole::: I thank ya for your sympathy to my plight, and offer out my own. College would be great if it weren't for the finals. Although I'd be happier taking history and english classes than chem and physics, I can only keep lying to myself that an engineering degree is in my best interest. Most people fall back on teaching, I'm going to fall back on engineering if writing only offers me intrinsic rewards. Ahhh, back to the chemical grind. I just have to keep telling myself "it'll be over in twenty-four hours" oh well. ---Peter (resuming his slow descent into insanity.)

All right, I deserved some of that, but I despise being patronized. First of all, I find it funny that you don't have the time to wade through all the hate directed at you (much of it cleverly disguised, at least in my opinion, as well-formulated arguments against your points), but you catch a throwaway comment, a nothing at the end of a post, which I must confess was a bit mean-spirited and which I regretted immediately after posting, but what's a hot-headed German to do? Seriously considering your response, though, I would have to say that no, you're not really a person. No, really. I don't know you; I've never met you in my life. All I know about you are some tidbits that you've thrown into the soup, and a limited amount of your views on about three subjects. You're not really three-dimensional to me; you're merely a mass of verbiage. As I am to you, doubtless. We are limited here in what we show of ourselves. This is not a place to carve yourself in fully glory on the internet, it is a place to discuss Harlan Ellison and related topics. If we become people along the way, well and good. But I'm not too worse off than you, I think, lumping most of the arguments under the headings of personal attacks, and deciding that if any valid points were made, they are too few and too poorly vocalized to be responded to. Those are people, too, you know.

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention. Remember, first and foremost: IT'S ONLY A STORY, DAMNIT! IT'S ENTERTAINMENT! IT'S **FICTION***!!! ::pants:: okay, there you go....

Shaz, I really am not fit to comment on many of the works you mantioned, but I will give my opinion on IHNMAIMS, that being my favorite short story of all time. I did not see anything homophobic in HE's treatment of Benny, save that I was *extremely* confused that he only went after Ellen. I mean, if the men had already fought him off, or he went after both (I know he was an animalistic character, but even animals can display homosexual behaviors now and again) that would be fine. I think mentioning the size of his dick as countering his homosexuality simply meant that his larger dick would mean any woman would want him. Peter, my sympathies with you on finals. I just found out that I have to re-schedule my U.S Gov't final so I can keep a photo shoot appointment at the cemetary with a young model I know. Best of luck to you. Barney- I got 1984 today. Great book, thanks for recomending it.

Okay...read the "essay" (hey, I can use those kewl quote marks, too! Isn't sarcasm fun?) by Shaz. However, my browser seems to be malfunctioning - the part where the context in which the quotes were irresponsible, the overall impact of those words in relation to the works and times they appeared in, and the conclusions Shaz draws about Ellison's character all seem to be missing. Did anyone else get this part, or did we have another server crash in the middle of the posting? ................ REGARDLESS, here is what I come across as accusations of Shaz's in Ellison's entire body of work: (1) HE used the word "fag" as an epithet three times and lists it as a negative trait twice in pieces over three decades old. (2) Homosexuality is presented as a horror in PUNKY. (3) In ZOMBIE (wasn't this a collaboration?), a man is thought to be a petty tyrant because he is a latent homosexual. I won't address the quote from "I HAVE NO MOUTH..." as it relies on a VERY questionable interpretation of the author's meaning. ............... Shaz's only point seems to be that these usages tend to inure us to the mistreatment of homosexuals and that by making us comfortable with negative treatment they invite prejudice, intolerance, and abuse. Or, as Alexander Pope put it: "Vice is a monster of such frightful mein, as to be pitied needs but to be seen. And yet, seen to oft, familiar with its face; we first endure, then pity, then embrace." Fair enough, but DOES HER CLAIM HOLD WATER? DOES THIS DOG HUNT? ................... My points against this have already been adequately stated - I will sum them up by stating yet again that these are pebbles thrown in a maelstrom and that the overall tone of Ellison's body of work is both FOR personal culpability and responsibility and AGAINST mistreatment of any minority or anyone who is "different". Once again, I do not see where Shaz has demonstrated that Harlan is homophobic or even advocates any sort of mistreatment of homosexuals. The comments in MEMOS are part of a true and personal memoir, and to ask Ellison to edit those recollections would be as great an injustice as any Shaz imagines Ellison inflicts upon the homosexual community. Also, these and the other quotes are neither of a horrible insensitivity nor a saintly enlightenment when presented in the context of their times. While a claim of irresponsibility MIGHT hold water were Harlan to "update" these pieces for a future publication, it doesn't hold even one drop, not even one molecule, of H2O as it stands. MY conclusion is that to rail against a man for a few sentences he wrote in the sixties AND in HIS twenties, AND to draw a conclusion about his responsibility and the tone of his work based on this requires something special but unfortunately not that uncommon. It requires deliberate ignorance of the times in which the work was written, the tone and content of concurrent works by other authors, and the past and present body of work of the author. Shaz's conclusion also strikes me as a draconian judgement of the type that would make Thomas de Torquemada choke on his sherry. ..... IN SHORT - Harlan is not to be judged irresponsible because he neglected to include the persecution of homosexuals in the list of injustices he railed against fervently and constantly in the sixties. We may wonder what good he might have accomplished had he worked as fiercely and tirelessly against the oppression of homosexuals as he did against the oppression of women and african americans. But it is not our place, then or now, to question which battles an author or a human being chooses or what "greater of two goods" they decide upon. I'm going to let Harlan respond to this, but I'm certain he will decry this kind of thinking as being as "bone-stick stupid" as criticizing him for the amount of money his "15 minute conversations" raised for charity.

..."envelope WAS to be found"... Hi Peter.

*** Hey SHAZ *** I'm all confused about this homophobia stuff. Perhaps you could enlighten me. First of all, can you take [what shall we call them this week?] "same sex oriented" people to dinner and find them jobs and let them sleep in your home and lend them money and buy their books and still be a homophobe? And if you can do all of those things - and more - with "same sex oriented people" and still find the prospect (if you are a guy) of having a dinky in the bum a little, shall we say, off-putting, does this make you a bad person? I will go just a little bit further and suggest that assigning limits to how much "cultural diversity" I care to embrace does not make me bad or evil. Some people can choose to just tolerate what others enjoy. It isn't a crime. Yet. Regarding Harlan's use of terms like fag, well, for better or worse, I think some of that was plain old boundary pushing. If you read the letters between Hemingway and Max Perkins it's amazing to find out what kind of language [ie. pretty tame] Hemingway had to fight to have included. He lost quite a few of those battles by the way. By the sixties most of those battles had been sorted out and references to homosexuals and race relations were where the outside of the envelope were to be found. You may not like "fag" and my H.U.D. neighbors probably wouldn't care to much for "second story spic" but something like "same sex oriented couple" would have gotten laughed right off the page. Tell me, do the works of Philip Jose Farmer or Robert Heinlein upset you this much? How about the erotica of Anne Rice? Any problems with Grove Press reprints of the Pearl? The poetry of Ginsburg or the prose of Kerouac or Burroughs [not Edgar - although homophobes might have a field day there]. Howzabout nigger in Huck Finn? Confused in Amish Country ... Barney

I really need to edit when I'm flustered. Heated, unfocused writing is like riding a bicycle with your eyes closed. It may be fun, but you're going to crash a few times along the way.---Peter (my last correction post, I swear)

and that is "undue responsibility"... I need to start editing my posts when they get that long. sheesh...---Peter

I meant to put "intimate relationship" but my digression cobbled my thinking a bit. ---Peter

SHAZ: gotta agree with you this time - about the insults. Won't talk about the rest quite yet (but isn't "counter arguments" redundant?). So look, gang, please feel free to keep up the usual banter and back-and-forth, but when it comes to this debate let's be civil, okay? You don't have to play nice, but at least play fair...

Shaz::: Even if your arguments that Ellison's writings provide a true reflection of the man, and that he has a responsibility to society to "guide" them toward what is socially acceptable behavior by not expressing ideas that aren't socially acceptable. Even if that argument were to hold, you have yet to offer any evidence that would support it. You offer quotes from selections you picked out of the Essential Ellison. But those quotes come from stories and essays written between 1960 and 1970, when, as I said, NO ONE understood homosexuality. NO ONE. Its not like today when you could point to someone who gay bashes and call them a bigot. NO ONE understood it. It was taboo. As far as the rest of society was concerned, homosexuality was a dirty habit of dirty people. I'm not saying that it is, but that was the prevailing ideology of previous times. --------------------As for the idea that Ellison's writings condone such behavior because people just don't get it. Well. If you believe that people just don't get it, then try and do something about it. Try and make it so that people get it. Otherwise you are doing nothing but putting undo responsibility on Ellison's, and any other writer's shoulders. As DTS said, a writer not only uses what is within himself, but what he/she sees in society. A story is not a journalistic writing. It shouldn't be unbiased. It shouldn't be sanitized for your protection. It should have a point of view. It may not be a point of view you agree with. But it should have one.---------------------------------As for your narrow view of relationships. Jesus Christ Almighty! Do you live in the dark ages? Can't two people enjoy each other's company and carry on an intimate (not necessarily sexual, the two are mutually exclusive in the real world) without you judging them. Can't you just leave those two alone. And if you can't see what I'm saying here and how it relates to your narrow world view, then just stop reading.--------------------------As for your gripes about our arguments. I'm not even going to justify your statements by arguing with them. I'll just leave it at an old proverb; let he (or she) who is without sin, cast the first stone.--------------------- Now you can go on like this. I don't mind. I enjoy writing than anything and this just gets me warmed up to the real important work, but try to calm down. As for that connection you drew between Ellison's work and nazi treatment of homosexuals (And I did know that, they do teach that, no one is trying to sweep that horror under the carpet.) I'd get angry at your temerity if it weren't for the fact that you're arguments have started to become laughable in their extremity. I've got a chem final to study for ---Peter

Shaz: since you don't know Ellison personally, and since I don't know hime personally, it would be flat out ignorant -- no, make that stupid -- to assume anything about his personality via his writing. Especially if one tries to make assumptions using fictions he has written. After all, writers of fiction often mirror society, not just thier own thoughts and beliefs. And as far as using quotes from his nonfiction piece ("Memos From Purgatory"), I believe he wrote it (in a white heat -- very quickly) right after the experience. If you ask most persons of the male gender, and they are honest with you, most of them will tell you that when they were much younger -- and more ignorant -- and worried about maintaining a macho stance, insults toward guys you didn't like often were built around dumb epithets like fag, cocksucker, etc., etc (I know when I was ten or eleven, I hurled the fag epithet around a bit -- as an aside to all you men -- is it any wonder that some women would find oral sex off-putting after our gender has managed to use so many slang put-downs which revolve around the act?). Most of us grow up and out of that mentality. To hold us forever guilty for youthful ignorance only displays your own. Maybe (as I said in a post much earlier) you are a sensitive person, but this fixation of yours (and insistence that you, and only you, are right) goes a long way toward disproving that thought. Seek help, Shaz. Or, step back take a deep breath, and consider that -- in this instance -- you could actually be wrong. Either way, to accuse someone of a personal failing (without knowing them personally) is really reprehensible. Seasons greetings, DTS.

Otto: I just couldn't let THAT slip by. "A Shaz"???!!!! So now I've been reduced from an individual human being to a thing or a stereotype? Come now, are my ideas so threatening to other posters that they have to reduce me to a "thing"/"stereotype"/"Other" (like a fag, gook, nigger, etc.) as to avoid the implications (not about me personally, but about Ellison's work) of what I've argued? *shakes head sadly in disappointment* ---Shaz

First, let's look at the infamous scene in TMWRCCA. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FOR THOSE OF YOU WANTING TO CONTEND THAT THE PROCEEDING HOMOSEXUAL/OLD MAID RELATIONSHIP WAS JUST "FRIENDSHIP": ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The text does not support that reading. The information we are given on the characters focuses around their ROMANTIC loneliness: __****"Kenneth Kulwin,...who had LIVED ALONE since...." (This focuses the reader's attention on his loneliness in the romance department. It doesn't say he had no friends, just that he LIVED ALONE, i.e. sans significant other)****__ __**** "Anne Gillen...who had been unable to find an escort to her senior prom and WHOSE SOCIAL LIFE HAD NOT IMPROVED...SINCE THE DEATH OF THAT HOPE" (This statement equates her "social life" with being ROMANTICALLY involved with a MAN...just because you didn't have a date to the prom -- and in her time it was UNHEARD OF to go with girl friends or alone -- doesn't mean you didn't have friends of the same (or even the other) gender...and it certainly doesn't mean you don't have good friends now. All we know, in fact, is that her "HOPE" of finding "Mr. Right" is dead.****__ So, these two romantically "hopeless" souls are thrown together by the "well-meaning" Levendis to "TAKE NOTICE OF EACH OTHER" (and we all know that in common American usage, "a man NOTICING a woman" or vice versa usually means in a sexually/romantically attracted way). Further, Levendis sets up "Kenny" to be the knight in shining armor coming to the rescue (i.e. giving her a lift to the gas station) of the damsel in distress (with flat tires). Add this to the fact that they "discover that their favorite movie was the 1945 ROMANCE [!] [And it is one SAPPY ROMANCE at that], the Enchanted Cottage." Thus, the CONVERTED Kenny (yeah he wasn't gay, he just hadn't found the right desperate woman) and the grateful Anne (RESCUED from life without a man, since a life without romance with a man is obviously a LACK OF SOCIAL LIFE!) ride off into the sunset. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FOR THOSE OF YOU CLAIMING THIS CONVERSION IS "NATURAL" BECAUSE KENNY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN TOTALLY HOMOSEXUAL: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ellison used the word "homosexual." Now the word "homosexual" means being sexually attracted only to members of the same gender, just as "heterosexual" means being attracted only to members of the opposite gender. "Bi-sexual" means attraction to both genders in whatever gradation (i.e. equally attracted to men and women; attracted more often to men, but finding attraction to women frequently occuring; mainly attracted to men, but finding attraction to a very few number of women; etc.). Now we all know what a stickler Ellison is for using proper nomenclature. If he had meant "bisexual," he would have written "bisexual." But he didn't -- he wrote "homosexual." ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FOR THOSE OF YOU WANTING TO BELIEVE THAT THIS CONVERSION OF A HOMOSEXUAL TO "NORMAL" HETEROSEXUALITY WAS MERELY IN LEVENDIS' PERCEPTION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In case you hadn't noticed, except for text within QUOTATION marks (i.e. dialogue), THIS STORY IS TOLD BY A NARRATOR, NOT LEVENDIS, THUS LEVENDIS IS ALWAYS REFERRED TO AS "he." __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ NOW LET'S LOOK AT HOMOPHOBIA IN OTHER WORK BY ELLISON... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Since it's a 35-year RETROSPECTIVE, I'm taking my sources from THE ESSENTIAL ELLISON to show the presence of homophobia throughout Ellison't work. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) "Punky and the Yale Men," page 99: "Spade fag...of all the horrors...homosexuality is the most perverse." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream," page 172: "He HAD been gay, and the machine had given him an organ fit for a horse." Implying gays have small dicks? (cheap attack on the masculinity of gays) or give him a big one and he'll turn straight? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3) "The Tombs," page 307: "the schmuck...was simpering like a fag." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (4) "The Tombs," page 331: "...the fags, and the winos, and the junkies..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *IN "The Tombs," ELLISON ISN'T WRITING AS A NARRATOR, BUT WITH HIS OWN VOICE! IT'S AN (BIOGRAPHICAL) ESSAY, NOT FICTION!!!!!!!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (5) "The Song the Zombie Sang," page 451: "The stage manager was a thug. He recognized the type. [...]Latent homosexuality. Tyrant to everyone backstage except, perhaps, the chorus boys in the revivals of Romberg and Friml confections." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In "Punky" and "Zombie" Ellison uses homosexuality as another trait in a catalogue of negative traits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It's not a matter of being unPC, it's a matter of being responsible. Our society isn't developed enough to get that what he's presenting isn't a true generalization. They read it and think it's okay to feel that way. As Ellison said himself about his own readers (see "NOTE on' Attack at Dawn'" in Mind Fields) they "don't get it." And feeling that way and believing that feeling that way is o.k. (i.e. socially sanctioned) mostly leads to ACTING that way, in whatever degree of hostility (from making heterosexuality compulsory in the family or school setting through peer pressure -- resulting in a high percentage of suicides of teens who realize that they are gay; to torturing, crucifying, and murdering a young man in Wyoming (Matthew Shepard) because he wasn't heterosexual; TO THE NAZIS SENDING ALL KNOWN _HOMOSEXUALS_ TO THE GAS CHAMBERS ALONG WITH THE JEWS AND THE MENTALLY/PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED, A FACT LITTLE MENTIONED WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST.) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ***************************************************************************************************************************** And for those of you who intend on ignoring these arguments and all arguments of mine preceeding because I haven't responded to this or that point (no matter how idiosyncratic) you have posted in response: I have not read the Board since my last posting. One reason for this is that this is a very busy time of year for me. Another is that a lot of what I received as "refutations"/"counter arguments" of my points were not based on what I actually argued: many times posters responded to (1) what they THINK (and I use the term loosely) I said, (2) what they WANT TO THINK I said, or (3) what they WANT OTHERS TO THINK I said, as opposed to the actual arguments I put forth. This does not apply to ALL of the replies I received, but it does apply to a lot of them (including Rick's "counter arguments"). As for anyone who actually bothered to read my entire postings and respond to them without taking them out of context or misconstrueing my true meaning/intent, I'm sorry if I haven't addressed your arguments on the Board. There's such an immense volume of hate and trash to sort through, that I decided to stop addressing individual points as a gross waste of my time. ----Shaz *****************************************************************************************************************************

I tried to enter into the fray last week, but fortunately, the server is down. Otto: I agree with you about gut reactions. For me, the difference between good work and great work is the gut reaction. Re: Kenny and Anne, I was raised Mormon in Utah, and really, you don't get more obsessed with the idea that a woman without a man is pointless (in all fairness, I would just like to add that Mormons think a man without his woman is just as pointless), and I did not think that the Kenneth and Anne scene in TMWRCCA, was about curing homosexuality or about Anne settling for a relationship with any man, no matter how disfunctional it would be in a romantic sense, rather than being alone. Personally, I gave up dating about 10 years ago when I realized I was not able to get around all the crap I had been programmed with. I had no problem whatsoever with the idea that Kenny and Anne's relationship was just about two people connecting, and if I had no problem with that idea, given my upbringing, then Shaz et al, have really limited ideas regarding relationships between the sexes. Well, I'm back to work so that I can sneak outside today to enjoy the astonishingly spring-like weather. Of course, that's because I am not a true Minnesotan. Although I have lived here long enough to understand that all unusually pleasant weather must be paid for with a greater amount of unusually bad weather later. So, we're just sitting here waiting for the other shoe to drop. . .

DTS- When did your issue of Rabbit Hole arrive? I didn't receive mine yet and just wonderin' if I need to give Susan a nudge. Thanks, Charlie

DTS -- (Ha ha ha! I know you said that was your last word, but it's been so long since I had a good debate, I refuse to let this die! *More diabolical-type laughter* Bring on the comfy chair!) But if Levendis is an extended metaphor for the universe, isn't it acceptable to examine how the metaphor works in its surroundings to try and link it back to the larger whole? I think gut reactions are fine and dandy things, as well. But I don't think it's necessary to forget your gut reaction when you go back through and explore the text. By the way, what did you mean when you said I put my own words into translation? Do I really come off like -- dare I say it -- a Shaz?

Otto: what I should have said was, You are too literal where the subject of "Levendis" is concerned. After all, Doc, who spoke with Ellison about it, mentioned (in his post) that HE meant for Levendis to represent the Universe. That being so, everything "he" does shouldn't, perhaps, be taken as a literally physical action by carbon-based bipedal being. Perhaps Ellison is using the Levendis character, having him do and say things, in a purely symbolic fashion -- thereby making it easier for us to comprehend the actions of an uncaring, unfeeling, uninvolved (in an emotional sense) Universe. (ya know, the way the god of christians used a burning bush to reveal himself). In the end, where I'm concerned, all this deconstructionalism just takes the juice out of the story. I perfer gut reaction to over-intellectualizing. My gut reaction, from what I've heard of Ellison's comments and read in his notes for the story, seem to have been on the money. So I'll deconstruct no more (hey, sounds like the title to a country and western tune...er, maybe). By the way, I said in the case of Levendis you were too literal. In other areas, you (like Shaz -- not that I'm comparing personalities, just actions) seem hell-bent on reading too much into something said or written. Even putting your own words into the translation. In other words, nothing I've said or written smacks of distaste for intellectual curiosity. So there is no reason for that question to come up. Unless you are trying to read too much into everything. Remember what they say about the word assume. Okay. That's my final word on this subject. Have a good holiday. Out here, DTS.

I breathe a sigh of relief as I sit at home and marvel at the final I just bombed. Still. Only one more to go. Maybe it was for the best that we overloaded the server. I probably would've done much worse. Oh, and Rick. I will have to concur with your depiction of EE students (electrical engineering). As a student of Computer Engineering I have, from time to time, been subjected to their juvenile, and often times, closed minded ways. I don't understand it personally. And I'm sure there are plenty of nice and socialble electrical engineers out there in the world. But a wildly disproportionate segment of that population is just plain unfriendly. Heck, a friend of mine decided that a double major in Math and Philosophy was preferable to the carnage he was subjected to in the electrical engineering department. And where is this going? Absolutely nowhere. I'm still reeling from my first few rounds with finals. I've got one more test before I'm allowed to throw in the towel though.. Ding Ding.. Okay, back into the ring.---Peter (I once fell for an english major. Then I asked her to move her foot out of the aisle.)

DTS -- I'm intrigued: What do you mean when you say that I'm too literal and I need to get past it? I'll admit I'm the type of person who occasionally goes too far and finds parallels between the Aenead and "Croatoan," through overzealous textual analysis and possibly infernal inspiration, but (deep breath, everyone) I'm not really sure why it's a bad thing. I appreciate TMWRCCA as a great story, really I do, I make everyone read it and occasionally scream things about limited worlds so that no one will sit next to me on public transportation. But I enjoy looking through texts and playing with the details, possibly because I tend to speed read (bad habit, I know) my first time through something, and miss these gems. So I like combing the text, and when I get to a sticky place like this one, I get curious. Are you saying that intellectual curiousity is a bad thing?

Damn: can't type for sour owl poop tonight. Oh, well. You say "ether" I say "either," but neither one makes any sense.

By the way, before anyone calls me on it: "fragmanet" is an actual word. It means: a small, typed piece of fiction used by the author as a seine, or net, for attracting more verbiage that may be floating in the either region. -- Yours by way of information, DTS.

Whoops: regarding the post by me below. I said HERC newsletters were $8 and issue -- make that $8 for four issues (and a subscription). It actually runs $2 an issue. Published on an "as soon as time permits" basis. -- Over and Out, DTS.

Nicole: I'm not presuming to speak for Ellison, but regarding the first of your two questions -- maybe you, like Shaz has already done, are trying to read too much into every little thing in every story. When the couple meet in the grocery store and go home together, finding solace and comfort in each other's company, who's to say they had to have a sexual relationship as well? Why couldn't an emotional and intellectual relationship sustain them? (Ellison never wrote anything to hint of sex or sexual conversion where the relationship was concerned -- I took the passage at face value -- two lonely people had finally found someone to fill the void in their separate lives by living together). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Otto: I give up. You've worn me out. You're too literal. You need to get past that. Everyone: the new HERC newsletter has information about various anthologies, tapes and such which contain reprints of Ellison stories; it also has news about stories HE wrote recently in the "Dangerous Visions" books store ("Objects of Desire In the Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear") and with Neil Gaiman at Mad Media 5 ("Shoot Day For Night"); and a bunch of other info about books, tapes and CDs which can be order from HERC. It also contains the beginnings of 3 story fragmanets(or ideas), which were typed while the SF channel was filming Ellison in his home ("Don't Goy Me Down," "The Mini-Mall of Timesweetness," and "Killing the Shadow Toad"). Plus lots of pictures and stuff. All for only $8.00 an issue. Sign up now before copies of "Rabbit Hole #20" go out of print. (This message was not a paid advertisement of the Kilimanjaro Corp). Out here, DTS.

Barney- Sorry, I couldn't resist. On a lighter note, I picked up the SF "Seeing EAR Theatre" on tape, Vol. 1, and our own HE provides an introduction to the stories. Only a mere $18. Charlie

Good thing I took several days off to study for finals. I read through the messages, and I'm pretty sure I would have had some particularly nasty things to say to Shaz, but looks like you all beat me to them. :) Barney- that *had* to be sarcasm there. I'll admit, while I'd never personally have sex with another woman, I support homosexuality totally. Many of my friends are gay or lesbian, and the coffee shop I hang out is 90% gay, so that doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, I *do* have a question for Mr. Ellison on TMWRCCA (two, actually, but only one will I post here, since it has to do with our topic): What *was* intended to happen between Kenneth Kulwin and Anne Gillen in the grocery store? (pg. 2-3, 3rd section) Was it just friends, or was he indeed trying to cure homosexuality? This was mentioned earlier, but I don't think that question was answered.

***CHARLIE*** tsk tsk. No fair giving the game away. ***Everybody Else *** Should the homophobia discussion take place I'm afraid I will have to abstain. I have a confession to make. I am a homophobe. I am mildly horrified at the prospect of somebody sticking their dinky in my bum. I'm sorry. I know this makes me a bad person as well as being unsuited to watch many of this seasons sitcoms but I will strive to make up for it somehow. There. I said it. I hope you will all find it in your hearts to forgive me. I am a victim of my time. If you had to listen to Kiss and K.C. and the Freakin Sunshine Band during your formative years you to would see yourself as a victim. :-)

HE's commentary in the Avram Davidson Treasury explains the character of Levendis from TMWRCCA, in HE's very own words. Bye, Charlie

EVERYONE - Congratulations! There has been so much traffic here that the menagerie.net webserver ran out of disk space! We're back in business now, so rant away... ------ SHAZ - stop pretending that that I said anything meriting your state of aggrieved offense, or that you were just being "direct" and attacking my "style" in response. You know EXACTLY what sort of nastiness you were about, as do I, as does everyone else here. While it is amusing to watch you dance (especially inasmuch as fols that know me will tell you implying I am vain or sexist is like implying Rush Limbaugh is svelte or liberal), it grows tiresome. The same applies to your (one hopes) deliberately ignorant and provocative use of words like "censorship" and "plagiarism" - these sort of errors could be interpreted as gaffs from, say, an undergraduate student in Electrical Engineering, but it is difficult to accept them as genuine mistakes when coming from a graduate student in English Literature. I am glad to see our discussion of TMWRCCA ashore is behind us, and I look forward to seeing your post on homophobia in the writings of Harlan Ellison. But please, this time, spare us the rhetoric and protestation. I am adept at recognizing both the toga of the senator and the robe of the martyr, and neither outfit looks good on you.

-of how that degree WAS obtained - See? I often fail to use my degree...

PEGGY - If it came across as bashing, please accept my apologies; that wasn't the intent. In just about every technical field, the degree and the illustrated quality of how that degree were obtained are of paramount importance (no sane HR department,for example, would hire Homer Simpson to work a nuclear reactor, even with his degree...) My point was more to the flavor that the whole measure of a person's value shouldn't reside solely in whether they have a piece of paper that says "Today, you are a __________" (fill in the blank). I blame my own brand of inarticuliness at 2:15 am EST for any mis-steps in tone. Finder

And now, because fools rush in where angels fear to tread...having re-read the so-called "homophobic" section of "TMWRCCA", both after Rick's posting and several times this evening, I find it hard to swallow the leap between what HE has written and the assertion that there is something akin to a homosexual conversion cliche at the end of the segment in question. This is a tale of two people who have been in solitude, who are engineered into a mutual bridging of that lonliness (illustrated by the fact they share a favorite movie). Lonliness is a recurring trait in many of HE's characters, a devestational, long-term absence of others in the characters' lives. Consider the protagonist of "Susan", and that tale's ending. It's a condemnation of lonliness, an illustration of how deeply being without anyone's company for so long truly feels. Admittedly, there is a romantic flavor to "Susan", which doesn't make it a perfect example. But the point is some of HE's most downtrodden characters are the ones who exist alone. And some of his most triumphant are those who find, have or regain companionship of some kind. In TMWRCCA, Kenny and Anne are two lonely people (clearly stated in the text) whose worlds are opened to one another (again, clearly stated) as they find they have something in common (also clear as a bell). Finding you have something in common with someone else has never in my experience automatically presumed a deep emotional relationship, sex, marriage, children, anything. It means you have something to talk about. Is it so very different from, say, two old widowers who meet by chance on a park bench and find out they both campaigned for Eisenhower? Does that presuppose some kind of deeper interpersonal interest beyond a conversation? Or does it indicate potential friendship, companionship to pass the time for two people who have no one else to spend time with? If it's going to imply anything, there is only enough there to support the latter. What isn't clearly stated inthe story is the ultimate fate of Kenny and Anne following their introduction. It isn't even hinted at, because what happens after they meet isn't the point at all. What matters (in the context and structure of the story) is the demonstration that Levendis has done something to be perceived by the reader as "good". He has helped two people in silent worlds find out their worlds don't have to be silent. And if you've lived in that kind of silence before, you know how much of a blessing finding someone with shared interests can be. Now, if this constitutes "homophobia" on the part of the author, you'd be hard-pressed to prove it in a court of law, or in the court of public opinion. The text isn't there, the subtext isn't there, there are no shooters on the Grassy Knoll. Now, can we all move on in Slippage? I'd like to get past the first story and on to a rousing discussion of the pros and cons of the two versions of "The Pale Silver Dollar Of The Moon Pays Its Way And Makes Change" before Candlemas Day...Finder

A degree doesn't necessarily convey knowledge and wisdom, nor does the lack of one decry ignorance. But just to beat my own drum, there are fields where earning a degree means you have obtained a minimum skill and knowledge level. Probably more applicable in my field - chemical engineering - where there are tangible, demonstrable, and *necessary* skills to learn than liberal arts. I'm not advocating that you have to have a degree to properly read and review a piece of work. But let's not bash degrees altogether here.....

***Finder*** I don't remember where I picked "muzzy" up from. Lewis Carrol? Lord Dunsany? Little Nemo? Sort of fuzzy and muffled - like the word.

It just occured to me what a good thing it is that SHAZ studies lit. instead of Physics because what they do to fictional cats in quantum theory is, umm, really clever!

BARNEY - If I have to ask, I probably don't really want to know, but - Muzzy Headed? DOC - You see what happens when you go away? The children, man, think of the children! MITCH - Amen. PETER - Don't get swerved into the trap of protracted misery over what's going on here, of all places. A degree is a piece of paper that says you successfully applied yourself to a series of topics that you may or may not remember ten years from now. I know because I have one in English. And I work as a QA and Input/Output Manager for a Billing Systems Provider. Go figure. Lots of famous literary figures to pour over there. Neither degree nor job is an adequate measure of who I am or what I'm about. The measures are the things I learned along the way, the experiences I've had, the friends I've made - and the mistakes, and how allthat has shaped me. All these are things that a piece of parchment that cost tens of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours don't and can't reflect. Could I dredge meaning out of Faulkner's "Absalom, Absalom" at this point, being an English major from back in 1990? Who cares? We each create our own unique tools from the template of education as we need them in life. For some things, yeah, an advanced degree (regardless of field) may be what an employer wants. But the other half of reality is some very brilliant, saavy and well-employed people I know hold no more than a high school diploma or, in one case, a GED. And more than a few people I know who went through Masters programs are still looking for that big breakout job. Like just about everything else, it's a crap-shoot. So don't let anyone wrankle you. And if you still have finals, what are you doing sitting there reading this? Go study, for cyin' out loud! Finder

But, DTS -- this isn't a universe that operates without judgment or intervention. Levendis passes judgment when he makes the statement about mediocrity, and the whole story is about his interventions. Levendis doesn't just exist, he exists with a will -- he chooses to disobey his orders. And I'm not trying to be a bastard about this, honest. It's just that I'm irritatingly inquisitive, and I whine until I feel that any question I've asked has been answered to my satisfaction. Usually I ask myself, then go off and write an essay on it -- I've got this whole pile of Ellison-inspired verbosity in my desk. But this has me stumped, and I'm really and truly hunting for some sort of non-contradictory answer. Uff da.

I'm gonna lay off posting for a bit. I've got finals to study for and quite frankly, the circular debates are just making me beligerant. peace! ---Peter

Well, what he said! Mitch, that is. I took a day break and then read everything over. Not trying to be mean, but it really does seem we're going in circles here. I seem to recall a truce being called on the Amarin issue. Perhaps we could at least have a bit cease fire?? I love reading the debate, but the personal bits have gone from being distracting to detracting. One of the reasons I like this board so much is that in general the posters are above all the finger pointing and flaming that happens on other boards. I'm not saying we all have to agree (I'd hate to hear what you really think of my faith, though I'm grateful y'all took it easy on me), but we've gone past that point here. I think Shaz had a good idea when she said (and yes, I realized she was a woman) she was going to write something offline. And in closing, I offer a favorite quote of mine, author unknown. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I'm off, heading home tomorrow. The Pegster

Otto: I wont presume to speak for Doc, but I think you're missing the point: the Universe, which is filled with entropy -- random, chaotic energy -- is indifferent. It cannot be mediocre if it does what it is supposed to do -- which is exist, without judgement, without intervention. When Levendis speaks -- about mediocrity, whatever -- this is just Ellison being whimsical. After all, we can't talk to the Universe anymore than blievers can talk to their Gods. All right? Now. Give it a rest already. Sheesh! Yours in good humor, DTS

Have you guys tried these Salsa Verde Doritos? They're pretty good! Spicier than the regular chip, and they don't turn your fingers orange. I've been munching on 'em, watching this debate rage along. Entering it would be pointless, since my responses would mostly consist of 'Yeah, what he said!'. I am strongly against animal abuse, especially of dead horses. Here's my proposal: take a couple days off from the board, then re-read everything that's been said so far. I mean REALLY read it. Then, if you have anything further to add, feel free to do so. Just a suggestion from the peanut gallery...mmm, peanuts...Mitch

DOC (Damn, I love this debating stuff. I'm going to have to do something about these omnipresent, irritating parentheses, though): All right, I realize that you got your stuff straight from the horse's mouth, but I don't know how much was your own extrapolation of that, so bear with me here. Levendis is the Universe. Okay. That'll have to rattle around in the head for a few days. But if the universe is indifferent, can it also have a thing about the name of a revolutionary war battle as "a matter of personal pique." I mean, there's days when the universe SEEMS to be personally ticked off at me, but . . . well. And if Levendis isn't evil when he quietly observes the skinheads, then I'm afraid you'll have to redefine mediocrity for me.

TWO vowels. 2 vowels! crap.

**PETER** It will never end. **RICK** Geo/Neon. Hey. I had to vowels right. On Jeapordy I'd be a rich man! **PETER** I knew SHAZ was a woman. Nyah nyah! I just didn't much care. **SHAZ** Yes, I did excerpt 4 sentences of yours from the bodies of their respective posts. I even compressed parenthetical remarks out of two of them to make them clearer. I did this to show readers that the fourth statement was in opposition to the other three. Adding them back into the body of your posts neither changes or alters their meanings. I did all this cutting and pasting to illustrate that you are deeply conflicted with regard to your feelings about art and its presentation in a public forum. **SHAZ Redux** You say that it is important that Ellison "examine the message that he sends to his readers". The levels of presumption attendant in this remark come close to boggling my mind. ***SHAZ redux II*** Plunging back into the strange world of fictional cats I see you are attempting to reduce Levendis' motives to two possible interpretations [both yours] while simultaneously ignoring my [and other] interpretations of the story which allow for both Levendis' behavior and consistent artistic intent upon the part of the author. Good effort. C- ***SHAZ re; dod doo*** Here is another shaz quote- " The most interesting ideologies in a work of fiction, or non-fiction, are those that the author is not fully aware of her/himself." I just want to say that is the most muzzy headed thought I have encountered in three weeks. It now supercedes the line "I'm sort of like a black Jesse Owens" in my pantheon of wrong-headed remarks. It's underpinnings are that there is extra value to be found in incompetence. ***To all - "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept" Ansel Adams

Okay, SHAZ (Otto takes a tiny stand): You stated that every negative thing Levendis does is slightly mischevious or unprovoked. Ahem. On the twenty-second, he drops "a fully-restored 1926 Ahrens-Fox model RK fire engine on a mini-mall in Clarksville, Arkansas." This is mischevious? Dropping an entire vehicle on a mini-mall, a structure usually frequented during the week by housewives and small children. It's true that no specific deaths are noted, but (assuming Doc in all his wisdom is correct), Levendis is mostly indifferent. What's important is the deed, not the mayhem it may cause. Is this provoked? There's no preceeding harangue on the evils of mini-malls. On the twenty-seventh, he "made it his business to kill the remaining seventeen American GIs being held MIA in an encampment in the heart of Laos." What did they do to deserve death? (I dunno, maybe they once tied a can to a dog's tail.) The soldiers don't worry you, but the cat does? The fact that the I.Q. of the entire human race is lowered two points is not disturbing? (I mean, that's just malicious, right there.) How can you hang this whole story on the description of a homosexual (which you may or may not have misinterpreted) and the indignity of a cat (one representative of said species I have personally, forcefully, aided out of my house) which, in the story, was still alive before the taxidermist got his hands on it?

Oh where, oh where has my little cat, gone, or where oh where could she be? Perhaps she was beaten up by a fictional character.... Shaz, "why don't I buy you a cross, so that next time you feel like being a martyr you can nail yourself to it." (Kevin Spacey, The Ref) I'm going to address this issue. Everyone has been under the misconception that you were male. Other than one comment about being "a heterosexual female" you have pretty much kept the question of your gender out of any posts. In fact, before I ever read that post I was under the assumption that you were a fifteen year old boy. Now, how should you like us to address a person whose gender is undetermined? Should we say "it"? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but other than he or she, there aren't many other pronouns in the english language suitable for addressing a person. So give it a rest! You are so quick to take offense at everything that is said on this board that its almost as if you are looking for a fight. Enough already. This bickering and name calling is pointless. You're trying to play a game of "who is superior" with a bunch of people who know they are... I mean, with a bunch of people uninterested in playing. You made your point, and whenever one of us tried to rebut your argument you've cried "woe is me," slammed the effecacy of our arguments, and derided us verbally, without ever really addressing the rebuttles themselves. Enough. Just stop. I'm tired of it. You and I have been going 'round and 'round without ever actually going anywhere. I swear. Do you want to know my qualifiactions. Fine, I don't have any. You're right. I'm a poor college student with no hope of ever understanding the complexities of nietzche or the wonders of Swift. I am a technobrained engineering student who is only suited to do mathematical computations while plugged into floppy drive of a computer with my tongue hanging out of my mouth and a puddle of drool collecting in my keyboard. I am a gauche vagabond with all the social grace of a tenor saxaphonist on crystal meth. I am shit. I am scum. Or maybe not. Because I do understand Nietzche and I love Swift. I am a creatively balanced person who is capable of solving both mathematical puzzles and creating fascinating and wonderful people from which many of my stories originate (and this is what people have told me. I'd bring them to this board to say so themselves, but a) you wouldn't believe it still. b) I wouldn't really want to expose them to the hostility that has erupted.) And you know what? Fuck the satire argument, I can see that you are set in your tiny little mindset and nothing I say will make you change your mind. I speaking as one who has written stories about people who have done both good and horrible things. You know what? I once wrote a story about a guy who stole christmas presents from children and ruined Christmas meals. Does that mean I have a secret desire to ruin christmas for everyone? No. I may not have the greatest love of religion, but far be it for me to destroy anybody else's faith. John Saul writes stories in which the main victims are usually children. Does he want to destroy children? Poe wrote stories about people being buried alive behind walls. Did he think that was a fun way to pass the time? H.P. Lovecraft, a well known bigoted, misogynist, wrote stories about demons from the great beyond and people who would dare summon them into our world. Was he a demon worshipper? If you answer yes, or if you believe the answer to be yes to any of these questions, then you need to find yourself a new line of study. As for the subject of responsibility. No one is arguing that an author doesn't have the responsibility to edit out anything that detracts from the story. What ALL of US here are saying is that YOU. YOU.... YOU don't have the right to say what an author should or shouldn't put in his stories. And if YOU have a problem with an author's work. Then DON'T read that author. And if you insist on reading that author, then DON'T BITCH about what you find offensive. Because all you have managed to do is sound whiny. I'm speaking for myself at the moment, but I'm sure some of the others will agree. You have done nothing but bitch and moan and have not given us anything to support your position but tree-hugging, left-wing, propaganda. Show us proof that Ellison's hatred of cats has clouded his literary judgement. Other than essays in which he professes to hate them. Let's treat this like court. Show us a pattern of behavior that suggests that Ellison gets his jollies by making his characters torture felines. (I seem to remember Catman as having two ferocious felines, one of whose destruction was a moment of sorrow) Show us a pattern of Homophobic tendancies. (not taking into account stories written thirty years ago when everyone, not just the bible thumping god preachers of the third-right, was ignorant of homosexuality) Show us a pattern for every single little gripe you have. We will listen. But be prepared for us to respond. For the one thing that seems to really peeve you, no matter how much you protest otherwise, is when we actually respond to one of your asanine (not nice having a word thrown back at you is it?) remarks. My gloves are off. I'm tired of this constant badgering. But I'm not leaving. I've found people here who actually care about good literature. I've found people who are like minded enough to be fun to converse with. I'm not leaving. The gloves are off. ---Peter (taking in a deep breath and waiting for the firefight to begin)

Barney: You seem to like to take my quotations out of the context in which they were written. When I said that perhaps Ellison should keep wrong ideas out of his work, ideas that are being presented in a way that doesn't BEGIN to question the validity or morality of those ideas, I was suggesting that he examine his own ideology lying behind presenting such ideas in an off-hand, non-questioning way. Certainly such ideas should be written about and dealt with...and I am not going to advocate that noone read TMWRCCA or that any books or stories be banned. That would be censorship. What I'm suggesting is that the author examine what he's written, as objectively as he can (and this can never be completely objectively), and ask what messages he's sending to his readers. Now the reason it's important to me that Ellison has written homophobic content (both non-fiction and fiction), not to mention out-right reinforcement of the "humor" of torturing certain animals that is current in some macho aspects of our (American) culture, is that Ellison has always presented himself in his essays as a "cross between Jimminy Cricket and Zorro"...fighting against injustices (such as his publicized efforts to battle racism and sexism). However you can have people who say they are against sexism, indeed speak out against it publicly, who still hold some pretty sexist ideas (like the idea that a woman in her 30's who doesn't have a man is better off having a romantic relationship with a man couldn't ever really be sexually attracted to her than perhaps being without a man). The most interesting ideologies in a work of fiction, or non-fiction, are those that the author is not fully aware of her/himself. I think the term Freudian slip comes to mind... If Harlan is truly interested in making the world a better and more just place, which he seems to be from the evidence of his personal activism in both written and physical form, isn't it a bit strange that he would write something that adds to the evil (such as misrepresenting homosexuals as inadequate men who need to find the right desperate woman, and presenting torture/murder of cats as an amusing pasttime)? I think that sums it up. --Shaz

RICK: Please STOP ADDRESSING ME AS "HE." I realize that in outdated style manuals, "he" is used automatically when the gender of a person is not known, however this is the 1990's and that is not longer done. If you had read my ealier posts, you would have read that I am a WOMAN. Yes, that's right: that was a WOMAN "rattling the bars of your complacency." Interesting that you would assume that I'm male, though... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to responding to arguments, I have already responded to several of your points about TMWRCCA in other posts (perhaps in some posts addressed to others...). But I will respond to the homophobia present in Ellison's WRITING (both non-fiction and fiction) in a later post. It will likely be a lengthy response and you can expect lots of quotes from his work to back up my argument. But you will have to wait a few days for this lengthy response, as I am currently preparing a presentation on feminist literary criticism and have a squash tournament to attend with my husband this weekend. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to behaving boorishly by attacking your vanity... You attacked my intelligence first with that snide comment about my literary tastes/skills being more suited to those stupid "THE CAT WHO..." stories as opposed to Slippage. Your manner of insult and the mock apology that shortly followed which I quoted in my last post to you, was cowardly. Yes, my attack of your style was harsh...but more important it was DIRECT. It was blatant, in fact. It was done in that way for a purpose... to show you that when you attack a person's intelligence, it is preferably to do it directly. In Lily Tomlin's words: "If you can't be direct, why be?" As to censoring me out of Webderland, that is your prerogative. Joan of Arc summed it up best: "...people are hung sometimes for speaking the truth." -----Shaz

TO EVERYONE: Levendis commits violent murders in several places in TMWRCCA. In EVERY CASE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CAT, it was a violent murder that was provoked...be it by someone dumping toxic waste illegally, being a leader of the KKK AND running for political office, being a skinhead AND attacking an interracial couple. As I said, the cat was the ONE EXCEPTION. Add to this that most of the things Levendis did ACTIVELY were either heroic -- this is the case several times such as killing evil doers, vaccinating prostitutes, etc. -- , giving history a helping hand (such as correcting falsities in history books, revealing who was really on the grassy knoll, and rowing Christopher Columbus ashore), or mischevious but not too harmful (like helping an old lady cross the road who didn't want to). The lapse in punishing the skin heads the FIRST time was SOMEWHAT made up for when he killed them the second time. But the cat thing was just awful. The cat wasn't an evil doer -- it was simply being a cat. It was the ONE time Levendis practiced UNPROVOKED torture and homicide. What does this say? Ellison once said in an interview, " [A writer's] first job is to entertain. To inform comes second. To entertain comes first." Now is the cat torture here to inform or to entertain? It was certainly not done in a way to inform readers that cat torture is unacceptable...it was done after all by what is an APPARENTLY acceptable character. Levendis was doing this for amusement. The only explanations left are that (1) cat torture/murder is just good old-fashioned fun, OR (2) cats are just as deserving of torture/murder as the PEOPLE WHO DID EVIL who Levendis murdered in the story. Now, THAT is irresponsible.

PETER: I mentioned my qualifications because you asked WHO is to say that TMWRCCA is not satire. Well, there is always the author of the work, of course. There is also the academic literary community, who in the end, will determine whether said work is classified as satire or not. I looked up a detailed discussion of the satire genre in one of my literary reference books, and can say with confidence that TMWRCCA is not a satire. As for your qualifications... You have read since a young age and have written fiction since your adolescence--SO WHAT?! I have ridden in cars since I was born, and driven them since age 16, but that doesn't qualify me as an automechanic. Degrees are not a qualification for anything? I think most employers as well as graduates would ROTFL at that one! Have you ever noticed that the people who say degrees don't mean anything are usually the ones who don't have them? As for using knowledge, one has to possess it FIRST before they can apply it properly. And suggesting that an author consider/select what goes into and what doesn't go into her/his final work (the one that is published and put out into the world for consumption) is NOT CENSORSHIP, it's common sense. Every author selects what goes into the finished product...almost everything that is published has been revised at least once by its author, and in the case of newspapers also by an editor.

Incidentally, as Chanuka commences next Sunday at sundown, I wish you all Good Yontif. And Harlan doesn't hate religion -- he hates ignorant bullies, of whom there seems to be an unfortunate preponderance running loose through the streets. I found KADAK, and subsequently "Go Toward the Light" witty and clever and heart-warming. It's the willful lack of understanding and compassion that bugs HE most, I think. Otherwise, who is HE to take issue with where people find their comfort, so long as they don't batter everyone else withit? Sholom Aleichem -- Doc

Is it hot in here, or is it me? Wow! I can't turn my back on you kids for a minute -- even if it is a two-week-long minute. Once upon a time, I did a review of SLIPPAGE, along with each individual story. While doing that, I had occassion to chat with Harlan about the work, including TMWRCCA, and this is what he told *me*: the story is his own li'l pmaphlet/tract for atheism (no flower offered). In this story, Levendis is a characterization of THE UNIVERSE. And, as we have all established, the Universe simply *is*. Is it good? Well, it must be, otherwise we'd have no place to sleep nights. Ergo, Levendis must be good -- still with me? Okay -- let me attempt to straighten a couple points, here. It is important, vastly, terribly important that we do not confuse words: "excuse" does not mean the same thing as "explain." You can explain something without necessarily excusing it. RE: Levendis's observance of the Blockheads, er, Skinheads is neither good *NOR* evil. It is impartial, perhaps even indifferent -- just like the Universe. Because though Levendis is presented to us as a *character*, he is not per se a *person*. In a person, his inaction would be wicked, criminal, yes. But Levendis represents the Universe -- which is often impartial, indifferent and remote. SO -- can we stop all this name-calling? I don't care for cats. I owned a cat, who was THE cutest thing, but was subsequently removed from my life in circumstances which I will not pursue here. I prefer dogs, have owned several, and have had no better luck retaining them -- still, I find they make better companions *as it suits my personmality*. On the subject of homophobia (and where the hell did *that* come from?), it's out there, just as much as bigotry, miscogeny, misanthropy, date rape, and cat-roasting. I have never exactly "gone public" with the issue, but it doesn't take devling too deeply to figure out that I am Webderland's Resident Feygileh. I do not associate all the characters' foibles with the author, neither have I experienced anything of the sort from the author, who was generous enough to have me to his home for lunch last February. See also his story "Darkness Upon the Face of the Deep," in SLIPPAGE. ************* So -- can we talk about something a bit more constructive now? Cheers, Doc

Wow. It's nice to not be angry on this board. I've missed this feeling. Especially with finals so damn close.... Wow. For once this week I have absolutely nothing to say. Well. I'll leave it at that. ---Peter

*** RICK *** I spent all day today fretting about the notion of free speech and responsibility in a writer and then I came home and re-read your post and realized you were talking about the kind of speech that we have libel and slander laws to keep people from abusing. No problem and no arguement. With regard to fiction however, I should note that I am a speech extremist. I can think of no other way to be. In the realm of fiction [or painting or poetry or dance] the artist is only "responsible" in the sense that they crated their art and that the art did not create itself. Neil Young wrote "The Needle and the Damage Done". As opposed to saying his muse wrote it or his guitar wrote it. Now if somebody hears that song and goes out, ties off and shoots up, no matter how pretty or compelling somebody found that song, Neil Young is in no way "responsible" for the damage done. No type of speech, no type of art [or Art] is responsible for the ACTION of another human being. Human beings are accountable for their own actions. An artist need not behave responsibly [with respect to the art he or she creates] toward their potential audience. In fact a measure of irresponsibility [Swift or Twain igoring the capacity for misunderstanding of their work, for example] can help immeasurably in the production of enduring Art. I will even go a step further than the Supreme Court and say that artistic merit and community standards are ridiculous constrictions on Speech and meaningless when applied to art being produced in a global village culture. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to defend crap like Bret Easton Ellis's "American Psycho" or some yahoo KKK web page but I can live with that. That damned book will go out of print someday and the bad Karma accrued by people who run websites like that will jump up and bite them in the ass someday. And that's as close to an act of faith as anybody is getting out of me today...

Spoke to Harlan today on matters completely unrelated to the bulletin board, but I did mention there was quite a lively discussion on the subject of TMWRCCA. He said after the conversation played out he would be more than happy to tell folks exactly what the story was about and answer any questions, provided I can copy them to the bulletin board, which I'm happy to do. If any of you would care to create a precis detailing the questions and issues we've been wrangling over and post it here or e-mail it to me, it might help - I would do my own but I would rather not impose my own bias on the subject matter...

OTTO - mea culpa. Given your explanation and previous comments, I would agree that Levendis, by HIS definition, can be judged as acting in an evil manner. The followup question is this: based on this, can we take Levendis's statements about mediocrity and evil, and his claims to be an unlimited man, seriously, and if so to what degree? And a bonus question: how similar are the protagonists of TMWRCCA and SCARTARIS, and is the message of these two stories the same?

Yo, RICK -- although I must admit that you intimidate the hell out of me -- I think we can be justified in judging Levendis. Even if the man being beaten was the Antichrist, and the skinheads were doing the world a favor, it is still MEDIOCRE for Levendis to stand and watch. He always has the option to go help the skinheads beat up the couple.

!! WARNING !!----Amazon.Com lists Harlan Ellison as a performer on the audiobook "The Odyssey" by Homer, translated by Samuel Butler with Roger Rees as Narrator. I ordered the tapes and when I received them I could find no mention of Harlan anywhere on the liner notes. I didn't break the seal so I'll be able to return the product, but I wanted to advise others so that they may avoid the hassle.-------------------------------------------- URL= http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0787112569/qid=913225498/sr=1-18/002-7008554-6777823

Ah, I see that we pay the price for things we've said, even in haste. Well, I guess my "rant in anger" has been corrected. Maybe it would have been best had it not. But that is not my decision and history will decide.---Peter (humbly)

Rick- Enjoying everybody's rant. However, I thought one of Shaz's previous posts indicated Shaz was a "she" and you refer to Shaz as "he". Maybe I'm wrong. Never mind. Doesn't matter. Let's all go kill a cat. (-: Charlie

BARNEY - While I agree with most of what you say, I do think there is a certain point at which we can agree an author is being irresponsible in writing. We should not say a writer should NOT write something, we should NEVER censor, but they are immune to neither responsibity nor consequence. I can condemn someone personally attacking and belittling me without taking away their right to express their opinion. I've even refused to post or pass on to others things Harlan has written because, in my opinion as expressed to him they would do more harm than good or would only fuel the fires he was attempting to quench. Criticism of an author's motives or the effect of a piece of writing, when merited, should not be discouraged. PETER - welcome to the "no college degree" club. I wish I had a nickel for every programmer I interviewed who thought they were ready to operate in the real world because of a piece of paper. However, it's not necessarily a bad thing to show one's credentials where relevant...it is, however, illogical to demean the opinions and statements of others (or to forward one's own) based on such credentials as opposed to the actual merit and supporting evidence behind those opinions and statements. And on that note, I'm going to sleep. Catch you tomorrow, gang. (Ed. Note - after scanning through the volume of my comments tonight, this should perhaps be saved as an object lesson in why I usually don't barge in on discussions here...)

ON THE SUBJECT OF HOMOPHOBIA IN "THE MAN WHO ROWED CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS ASHORE" -- again, let me start with the text in question, which is presented to us by Shaz as being homophobic and belittling of women, taking place in a grocery in Wisconsin..... [...] he purposefully engineered a collision between the carts of Kenneth Kulwin, a 47-year-old homosexual who had lived alone since the passing of his farther thirteen years earler, and Anne Gillien, a 35-year old legal secretary who had been unable to find an escort to take her to her senior prom an whose social life had not improved in the decades since that death of hope. He began screaming at them, as if it had been THEIR fault, thereby making allies of them. He was extremely rude, breathing muscatel breath on them, and finally stormed away, leaving them to sort out their groceries, leaving them to comment on his behavior, leaving them to take notice of each other. He went outside, smelling the Mississippi River, and he let the air out of Anne Gillen's tires. She would need a lift to the gas station. Kenneth Kulwin would tell her to call him "Kenny", and they would discover that their favorite movie was the 1945 romance, THE ENCHANTED COTTAGE, starring Dorothy McGuire and Robert Young. .............. Now, I leave it to the reader to decide which of the offenses Shaz enumerates are actually contained in this text and which are due to a particular interpretation of the text. Levendis decides to throw together a lonely male homosexual and a lonely younger woman to discover that they have the same favorite movie and presumably therefore many other things in common. For *THIS* we are presented with a picture of the author as an irresponsible homophobe who believes a woman is incomplete without a man in her life? ...... I think it requires a specific interpretation which includes quite a lot of speculation and interpolation, not to mention bold guessing, to reach this conclusion. I also think it's fairly obvious that unless you've made your mind up about Ellison one way or another before reaching this text, you're not going to be able to reach a conclusion as to Levendis's motives or even to what happens to Kenny and Anne after they discover they have the same favorite movie in common. FOR MY PART, it may be argued that there are those who have had more traffic with the man than I and others who have known him longer and understand his personality, beliefs, and character better. However, I would be willing to bet real money that my closeness to and understanding of the man surpasses that of Shaz, and also that I know Harlan well enough to possess an informed opinion about his character in this matter. FOR THE RECORD, I have heard Harlan discuss many times his being attacked for not having enough homosexuals in his stories or for portraying them in a bad light (possibly this was a small part of why he included Kenny in this story?). In every case he was bewildered as to why this was an issue and stated sincerely that he is no homophobe and that the only reason he doesn't mention sexual orientation is that it very rarely is of importance to him in a story. I also have listened to Harlan tell stories and anecdotes about friends of his who are or were gay, and he did not ascribe any great importance to this, nor did he in the least way attach any moral judgement to their orientation or their lifestyle. He spoke of them in the same endearing and affectionate terms as he would any of his good friends, and when the details of his recollections touched upon obvious homosexual aspects he neither dwelled upon nor condemned those aspects, nor did he avoid them or seem uncomfortable. So from my personal experience Harlan is not homophobic or anti-gay, and based on that I have a hard time digging homophobic motives out of that piece of writing. At worst, if one were to consider the implication of this paragraph to be that Kenny and Anne got married and raised six kids, I would say that either Harlan is ill-informed about the possibility of "curing" homosexuality by finding the "right woman" or he is deliberately painting Levendis as the kind of character who would make this mistake. ......... However, as in the case of the skinheads, do we really know enough to judge? For example, my personal interpretation of the two skinhead scenes is that it is an attempt to show that Levendis may be inconsistent and even capricious in his application of his power, and it may also mirror (remember, these are funhouse mirrors, not the real thing) an event in Harlan's life (albeit a rare one if we consider the evidence) where he was embarassed to remain inactive in the face of injustice. But how can we know this, how can we take it upon ourselves to judge Levendis? What if in the first instance one of the two people being beset in the first scene was a pipe bomber and this beating would cripple the bomber so he or she was unable to complete their plan of peppering a densely-populated schoolyard with high-velocity nails and metal shards? What if unless the woman was unable to work the next day she would make a judgement error and run a city bus off a bridge? And hell, what if, just what if, instead of becoming romantically involved and screwing like minks Kenny and Anne instead just became very good friends and their lives became a little less lonely? Mind you, this is not my interpretation, but regardless I'm not going to jump into judgement of Harlan given the tenuousness of this kind of reasoning. .............. I think perhaps, just as I have tried to take Shaz's advice and find my own voice, just as I have tried to stop behaving in such a "stupid way", we could try to take it upon ourselves to pillory Ellison for something he's actually SAID or DONE next time instead of making our own interpretation of a fine point in a minor part of a story and then slamming him for it. Of course, I'm not engaged in advanced studies in literature, maybe that's the sort of stuff the profs in the MFA programs are going for these days...

Shaz:::While I don't possess the patience that Barney and Rick have demonstrated, I would like to try. Yes. It is true that I don't hold a degree higher than a high school diploma. It is true that I am only a junior in college, and I am majoring in computer engineering. And while that doesn't make me an expert on literature, it also doesn't mean that I don't understand literature. I also don't see how these arguments affect the debate. The only thing they accomplished was the diminishing of my patience. And when my already abnormally poor patience is depleted I am usually only able to respond viscerally to any and all attacks. Going over my previous posts I could see myself becoming meaner, and meaner. Civilized was leaving my vocabulary. As for the question of satire. I refuse to submit to any collegiate definition of satire. Satire, to me, is simply the ridicule of an idea, person, or event for the purpose of bringing its faults to light. I read COLUMBUS as such, and I stand by that analysis. Again, it does no good to attack my argument as "asinine" or to say "it doesn't wash" without explaining why my interpretation of the story as satire is wrong. I cannot except the "it just isn't" argument. Yes you may have a degree in psychology. You may be working on a masters in literature. That is fine. But I've known Ph.Ds who couldn't find their face in a mirror. So degrees don't impress me. ---Peter

(continuing with actual debate of issues) ON THE SUBJECT OF IRRESPONSIBILITY IN THE "CAT TORTURE" SCENE IN THE MAN WHO ROWED CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS ASHORE -- Shaz's contention is that the writing of this scene was deliberately and unredeemingly cruel, that it is a failure of the writer's responsibility. Allow me to retort, and to start by actually quoting the piece (as I have Harlan's express permission to quote his work up to around a paragraph in length) ......... LEVENDIS: On Monday the 7th of October, he kicked a cat. He kicked it a far distance. To the passersby who watched, there on Galena Street in Aurora, Colorado, he said "I am an unlimited person, sadly living in a limited world." When the housewife who planned to call the police yelled at him from his kitchen window, "Who are you? What is your name!?!" he cupped his hands around his mouth so she would hear him, and he yelled back, "Levendis! It's a Greek word." They found the cat imbarked halfway through a tree. The tree was cut down, and the section with the cat was cut in two, the animal tended by a talented taxidermist who tried to quell the poor beast's terrified mewling and vomiting. The cat was later sold as bookends. ................ MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS. A few weeks ago, on a flight to LA, my wife and I were unfortunate enough to see the plane fill up on a stopover and ourselves presented with a woman with a noisy and busy baby who wanted to move us over and sit in our row. So we crowded over and made do. About midway through that flight, after about the three hundredth time that darling child grabbed my magazine or startled me with a yell, I couldn't help myself but daydream about how much fun it would be to magick in a crank on the side of the plane I would use to slowly roll our window down with, then grab one of the urchin's coverall suspenders between index and thumb and, with a flick of my wrist, casually toss the tyke into 30,000 feet of practically nothing. I even picture the muppet bawling all the way down and getting buried 20 feet in the ground like a Job's plant spike, later prompting a farmer and his wife to wander over to the soybean field to see what all the yowling was where that durn meteorite hit. Now, let's suppose I were to instead of writing to you in a non-fictional way about that daydream, instead ascribe the actual actions I describe to some fictional character, let's say perhaps an unlimited man living in a limited world. Let's say I do this so I can show that this character, despite a basic good nature, is capricious and sometimes cruel and callous, perhaps due to a failure at times to understand, or perhaps care about, the consequences of my actions. This would be the very epitomy of the "worst case scenario" Shaz would have us consider in his comments about changing the cat scene to include a human child. So would I be irresponsible in my actions? .................. For those of you who are still wondering why I would commit annoyingchildicide, or who are about to berate me for my lack of understanding of air pressure, let me be more direct. It is my opinion that this paragraph is no less vital to the story and no less important to the revelation of Levendis's character than any other...in fact, it is one of the parts that really made me understand the character. Certainly Harlan is known to hate cats, and I'd even bet that the source of this paragraph was a fantastic daydream similar to mine. And of course, Harlan has not been known to be cruel to animals or to advocate such cruelty. The cat's demise is presented in a deliberately unrealistic and cartoonish manner, and you will also note the narrator refers to the cat as the "poor beast", a strange expression of sympathy if the author's purpose were to vent his hatred of cats. The whole purpose of this scene is to show us that Levendis is unlimited, and that he is not wholly bound by morality or consequence. Harlan is showing Levendis actually engaging in a type of behavior we all have daydreamed about one time or another (come on, who among you has not fantasized about booting some yowling cat into next week or launching a LAW rocket up the kiester of some early-morning barking dog?) as an exposition of Levendis's character, not as a way to get some sick revenge on kitty-kind. ........ Without this scene's indulgence of a sick humorous fantasy (the source of which we ascribe to the author), without its being deliberately cruel and unnecessary, and without Levendis's taking his actions without any real justiciation or cause (such as maybe the cat being engaged in beating up an interracial couple), it would not work. The scene would lack verisimilitude and also fail to engage in us the shock and outrage (even as we (well, some of us) laugh at the imagery) which is necessary for our understanding of Levendis as a flawed (unlimited, but flawed) being. I apologize for my patronization on this matter, and rather than be further patronizing perhaps all I would say is that I find the notion of accusing Harlan of being irresponsible or cruel or exhibiting a "smug specieism" in writing this paragraph to be every bit as abhorrent as Shaz consider's Harlan's actions to be. Also, I do not express this opinion as a result of my unquestioning devotion to Harlan or my automatic condemning of any criticism -- quite simply in this instance I find (in what I hope I have demonstrated to be my informed opinion) Shaz's judgement of Harlan's character and the context in which the "offending" text was presented, not to mention his understanding of the story, to be lacking.

Now, let's discuss the actual issues here, if such is possible. ON THE SUBJECT OF HOMOPHOBIC CONTENT IN "PUNKY" and "MEMOS" - as I have said before, I make no apologies for Ellison with regards to these pieces. I have merely pointed to the times in which they are written, not as an excuse as to any content but as an attempt to consider the pieces within the context of those times and in comparison to the knowledge available in those times rather than looking back in hindsight with the medical knowledge and other tools of "enlightenment" we have at our disposal in 1998. I have read both pieces more than once, and I made the effort to read "PUNKY" once more before responding to this. Shaz is certainly entitled to his opinion, which I will admit is adequately informed. It is my opinion, though, that he is judging Harlan rather harshly and holding him to a standard of enlightenment which, given his emotional and hurtful responses on this board, he does not himself possess. .......... I do find some of the references in these two pieces to be rather dated, at times embarassingly so, and I should such comments show up in Harlan's contemporary writings I would be very surprised and dissapointed. However, I do not see their appearance in pieces written over three decades ago as out of place, homophobic, hateful, or hurtful in relevance to their times. I also think to extend a discussion of Harlan's current responsibility and his current racial and political views to encompass criticism of these pieces is a reach, and a long one at that. I would invite anyone here who is of sufficient age to look back on the views, ideas, and knowledge they possessed 32 years ago, compare them with Harlan's writings (such as "From Alabamy with Hate") and his activities (such as his efforts on behalf of civil rights and women's lib) and tell me if they feel they were more or less "enlightened" than that man was at their age at that time. That is not to say that Shaz has no place to criticize the man for some for the most part casual comments he made over a decade before Shaz was born...but in my opinion, considering what I know of the man and what I know of the times, I don't think those few instances paint an accurate portrait of the motive, reponsibility, and "enlightenment" of Harlan's writings, nor do I think they are relevant enough to merit serious discussion or criticism. They are, quite simply, background radiation. ........ No, that's not entirely true - I do think some discussion of the statement in PUNKY that Sorokin makes "Of all the horrors Whitey has committed against the black man, homosexuality is the most perverse." Is this intended as an opinion that buggery amongst the Negro population of the time was a result of abuse by white slaveholders, or is it something more complicated? And naturally, I have to consider that if we are to attribute this statement to an actual opinion Ellison has or a statement he wants to make, we should consider that we may be going out on yet another thin limb in attributing Sorokin's opinions to Ellison, given that if so the man that felt strongly enough about racial equality to subject himself to abuse, harassment, privation, and beatings in the deep south to combat the same has his supposed namesake thinking of the black man in the story as a "spade fag". Doesn't jive with me...

"Mr. Ellison should keep some of his wrongheaded ideas like cats being tortured because they are not dogs out of his short stories for the good of his readers." ------SHAZ Monday December 7 1998 18:25:33 Frankly, some things should NEVER be presented as "funny", like torturing a jew or a homosexual (like Matthew Shepard in Wyoming) or torturing an animal. ---------SHAZ - Tuesday December 8 1998 01:08:02 "Literature that is presented to the public needs to be held up for inspection..." -----SHAZ - Tuesday December 8 1998 12:21:47 "I never said that there are things that should _NOT_ be spoken of -- I am fully against that." --Shaz -Tuesday December 8 1998 12:57:30 ***SHAZ*** OK - On to the short strokes. You CANNOT advocate that writing be inspected and that some things should be never be written and say you are against censorship. You may only say that you are against censoring that which does not offend you. So far, your distinctions revolve around subjective qualities such as artfulness as opposed to say shock value and Satire as opposed to say sick humor. You throw out straw man arguements about dolphins and shoving children through trees. You can put a million babies hugging baby harp seals into a tree chipper for all I care as long as they are fictional. You can put them in that tree chipper for no reason whatsoever. You can ram them in there for no better or "higher" reason than your own amusement. They are not real. If I have to justify Levendis's actions, well, I took care of that a couple of posts ago. If you look at the big picture and accept the POSSIBILITY that Levendis mirrors an aspect of the universe that is frighteningly petty and unfair then an artistic justification for his actions [NOT a moral one] is present. Not that I for one moment think artistic justification is remotely required in writing anything. That slippery slope led to the "Boiled Angel" case a couple of years back. Brrrrrrrrrrr. minor point - It doesn't matter if you liked "Springtime For Hitler". All you are saying is that in that instance, since you saw merit in the piece that it is OK. That it is permissable. My contention is that if an artist says or writes something that hurts and offends every single person ON THE PLANET [and the unborn] that it is still OK for that person to say that thing. Of course, offending Rick Wyatt, well, even I can't think of a justification for that. After all, he's cuter than a kitten! [not a real one...]

ON THE SUBJECT OF MY BRAIN, OR LACK THEREOF - Having sought treatment with a neurologist some years back for migraine headaches, and having been subjected to a number of tests including an MRI, I can definitively state that (as in the case of the Scarecrow) it was my surprise to find I had a brain all along. ................ It strikes me as a strange tactic to accuse me of a lack of such an organ, or to claim that this organ is not functioning at its top level, or to suggest that I am substituting imitation for its actual use, while at the same time ignoring those points I make and those questions I ask which demonstrate at least a rudimentary level of intelligence in favor of savaging me on a personal and petty level. These tactics beg the question: is the progenitor of such tactics ignoring those point and questions in favor of more rewarding avenues of attack or is he incapable of responding to them? My opinion, Shaz, based on the responses you have made to date, is that you are that particular sort of person who is only interested in the merits of his own argument, and who concerns himself with either attacking those who would debate him on a personal level or instead singling out particular statements out of context and attacking them instead of responding to the questions he is asked or responding to a statement as a whole. For example, when I say I am not apologizing for statements in writings made decades ago but specifically addressing your comments about THE MAN WHO ROWED CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS ASHORE, and then ask you what the specific text was that offended you and why you felt it would have a significant and irresponsible effect, you choose to ignore the question and instead decide to accuse me of "incorrect information" in calling the "Punky homophobia incident" a singular occurence. When I ask you the same question about the cat torture incident, instead of making a rational response that addresses that question you instead choose to attack me as unable to handle any criticism of my "idol". When I claim that I have never heard Harlan utter (that's UTTER, by the way, not WRITE) homophobic statements even given ample opportunities and many situations in which they might come up, you choose to make some comment about writings in the 60's and make yet another petty and belittling comment about my tone and my voice. ......... I'm waiting for you to prove me wrong, but it seems to me that you are waging a decided battle to make this discussion more about me and thee than about the actual issues. I would ask you if you are truly interested in debating those issues to cease doing so. I harbor little hope that your next response will be anything more than more personal attack and innuendo, or perhaps a dismissive and abrupt post to the effect that I or others are not worthy of the discussion or that I have you all wrong and you will not dignify me with further replies. However, as I say, I'm hoping you will prove me wrong. After all, as a completely non-original and imitative pawn of my idol Harlan Ellison, about whom I will brook no harsh words or criticsim; as a man bereft of intelligence or a even brain to harbor such should it come to light within the confines of my skull; as a vulgar and patronizing thug who operates via sham apologies and denials of truth; I certainly could be excused for making this one mistake in my assessment of your character, couldn't I?

ON THE SUBJECT OF VULGARITY AND PATRONIZATION - you may have not noticed, but the tone of this board is neither scholastic nor formal - it is intended to be conversational, and as such I use language I would use in everyday conversation with my peers. Regardless, in my last post to you I don't even find a PG-level vulgarity in 500 words. In fact, including the only other post I have addressed to you, I find in almost 900 words the phrases "pissed him off", "fuckin' gorgeous", and "the little furry fuckers." Hardly vulgar, "randomly" or not. I also would like to hear if anyone else besides Shaz thinks my overall tone was vulgar or patronizing, or if it merited the calumny heaped upon me in response.

Okay, let's get right down to brass tacks. TO THE SUBJECT OF MY IMITATION AND PLAGIARISM OF ELLISON -- first of all, I'm not even going to dignify the accusation of plagiarism with a response. I'm certain it was not serious, as the alternative is to think a graduate student in literature would not be aware of what exactly constitutes plagiarism (hint: using someone's unidentified "catch phrases" ain't it). As far as imitation goes, Shaz, you are correct in identifying stylistic similarities between myself and HE. However, I will beg to differ with your raising them to the level of breathtakingly-unsucessful imitation or your ascribing of motive. I believe I deal with this issue more than adequately in my rant of several months back "Critics and Other Worthless Appendages", which can be found at http://harlanellison.com/rants/rt980709.htm. I have nothing further to say on the subject. However, to address your claim specifically from that rant - Harlan has read most of what I have written on this site and he does not feel my writing is derivitave or imitative of his or lacking in its own merit. To accept your opinion I would either have to conclude that you have a better understanding of our respective writing style than does Harlan or that Harlan was merely lying to be nice to me. As to the former, you will excuse me if I say that perhaps HE possesses a more reliable expertise on his writing and his imitators than do you. As to the latter, I believe that Harlan is almost famous for being the type of person that, if anything, would go too far in the OTHER direction. And finally, the validity of any claim you might as to my imitation of Ellison has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand and is nothing more than a mean-spirited and belittling digression, or perhaps a distraction at best. You are not the first to attempt this distraction or to make this spurious and close-minded claim, and you will not be the last -- and you are no more right than any of those who have gone before or will come after you.

(Waving the trusty pop gun in the middle of the battlefield, wide-eyed with wonder at having pushed the initial snowball that started the avalanche.) SHAZ -- I'm responding to a point you addressed to me at some point down this board -- we seemed to have missed tracks on the question I was asking and the answer you gave. I was asking if Levendis contradicts himself by saying he is not evil, as according to the definition of evil he gives, not your view (although I agree with you on this point). By his definition, that only mediocrity is evil, he is not evil when he kicks the cat. The skinheads are not evil when they beat the interracial couple, and neither is Levendis when he kills them. But he stands and watches . . . the unspeakable crime. Does this make him, in fact, evil?

SHAZ - Ordinarily I would respond to such boorish and supercilious behavior as that you have exhibited by nuking every trace of your posts from this board and making sure you and anyone else in your domain have a very difficult time revisting this site. However, many other people seem to be enjoying this debate and I would do them a disservice through such a deletion. However, please remember that everyone here IS effectively a guest in my home and while pointed debate and passion is to be expected given the subject matter, I won't allow the kind of thuggishness you're engaging in. ................ I invite you to read what I have said to you and what you have said back, and ask you who is being petty and engaging in personal attack and who is attempting to debate the issues. ........... Now here is what I am going to do. I will first address your comments about me personally, as my manner and intelligence seem to be of some keen interest to you, and then reply to the issues you have raised, issues which you have bypassed by choosing to ridicule them and personally attack me rather than intelligently discuss them. Also, since you seem to take great affront at vulgarity and any sort of personal attack, I will avoid both, regardless of the fact that you choose a curious way to respond to me concerning the latter. Of course I will have to touch upon personal comment and claims you have made relevant to the discussion, but I will try to avoid any futher attack or patronization. In short, I will do you the favor of playing by your rules, despite my belief that almost no one here would argue that I owe you even the slightest bit of civility, let alone favor. If you cannot respond in kind, then I ask you to take this debate instead to the Ellison Usenet newsgroup. Fair enough?

And sarcasm doesn't add to your point. It just makes you look petty.

Shaz::: Now you've got me in a better mood. Actually. the frightening thing about "A Modest Proposal" was that there were people who took it seriously. People honestly thought that Swift was advocating the consumption of small children to ease the economic strains placed on Ireland by the british governement. They didn't tink it was a good idea (thank goodness) but they certainly thought he was seriously advocating it. Now you take the same position with Ellison's work. And yes the story is satirizing something specific. It is satirizing God and people's insistance that God affects every tiny aspect of their lives. Ellison is showing that god is nothing more than a random particle with whims both benign and malignant. That is satire. And to repost something that got lost in my previous post. Don't wave degrees at me and shout "what are your qualifications" because degrees are not qualification for anything. Its how you use the knowledge that gives you any kind of qualification for anything. and as for censorship. You advocating that someone not write or publish something based on your morals is censorship. Its chickenshit censorship because it shifts the actual censoring to the writer, but it is censorship nonetheless. I have been reading since I was four and I have been writing fiction since I was thirteen. Don't ask me what my qualifications are again. And don't tell me, or anyone else what we can or cannot write. Whether it be me, Ellison, or the sick fuck who writes porn for the Alt.Sex newsgroups. Don't try to impose your knee-jerk liberal ethics on us. Many people don't understand this, but the political spectrum is not a rainbow. It's a complete circle. And your ethics are so far left wing right now that your actions are bordering on right wing. Think about that. ---Peter

Perhaps its just as well that My rather scathing response got cut off... ( Ed Note: It didn't - Peter just used a greater than sign, which most browsers accept as the start of an command - since he never closed it with a less than, his whole post got nuked. I have restored it, in my own Levendic fashion. Is the world a better place for this action? You decide. ) Peter

satire-n[[L satira]]1 a literary work in which vices, follies, etc are held up to ridicule or contempt. (webster's new world dictionary) Now I've tried being civilized throughout this whole debate. Civilized in the face of the unreasonable who is quicker to wave flags called degrees than to produce any actual arguments not based on sentimentallity and the blind imposition of a moral code that not everyone on this board agrees with. You ask me what my qualifications are? Well, according to your standards I have none. My highest degree is a high school diploma. I'm working toward a BS in engineering. BUT! Those have nothing to do with qualifictation. I have never actually studied literature. I have read the damn stuff. I have been reading since I was four years old. And I don't mean the cat in the hat shit. When people my age were reading the Judy Bloom I was reading Roger Zelazny, Anne McCaffrey, Robert Louis Stevenson, and H.G. Wells. I have been writing (stories) since I was thirteen, seriously since I turned nineteen. So don't wave your useless pieces of paper or attempted pieces of paper at me and scream "what are your qualifications!" Now. As for CC being a satire. I believe it is. I don't see how it is to be taken seriously. For one you are dealing with the concept of an omnipotent,omnipresent, and omniscient being who likes to torture small cats. I certainly wouldn't take such seriously. I could see how such a being might be made to ridicule. I just see the story as having been written straight face ala "Modest Proposal" rather than obvious ala Voltaire's "Candide" or maybe Ellison had taken on more than he could chew in his original assessment of the story. I do see where the satire dissolves but I don't see anything that says "I harlan ellison am a psychopathic, homophobic, cat torturing shit who thinks we should all stick to our own race or face the consequences." If that is what you see, then you need to look into your own life, and your own past and find out why you project those qualities onto what is otherwise a brilliant piece of literature (don't take my word for it). Don't attack me or anyone else while holding out your degrees like a shield. I said I've tried to be civilized, but I don't see how I can. As for the censorship issue. I don't care how much you say you are against censorship. The fact of the matter is, you are advocating that someone not write (or publish) something because it conflicts with your morals. That is censorship. You can't rationalize around it. That is censorship. No one should force a writer, especially a writer worth his salt to censor his work. Least of all himself. So to cry out "I'm not censoring Ellison, but he should be careful with what he writes" is nothing but a chicken shit attempt to shift the actual censoring to the author. An author shouldn't censor his work anymore than a commitee should. Maybe in your own world view you are right. Maybe all of us here are just blowing smoke trying to defend our positions against your obvious closed mindedness. But At least, as I feel, we have a position worth defending. Don't try to stick us with your knee-jerk liberal code of ethics. It's ethics like those that keep the cousin lovin' conservatives in power here in the grand ol' US of A. And don't try to censor anyone. Me, Ellison, or the sick fuck who writes porn on the Alt.Sex news groups. Just don't read them. Avoid them at all costs. Live in your shell and keep away from anything that might offend your delicate sensibilities. But leave me alone. ---Peter (who has been in better moods. But is still a likable guy)

Now, how would you have reacted had Levendis kicked and then picked up a small child, instead of a cat, and forcefully shoved it THROUGH a tree. This would be an agonizing death for a child. Would we have thought it funny--would kiddie in tree bookends be funny? No. Why? Because it was a human. And those of you who would have a problem with Levendis doing the same treatment to a human child, but don't react quite so violently to that being done to a cat, are exhibiting smug specieism. Perhaps we could slaughter some dolphins for a laugh... ----Shaz

DTS: Don't worry about me simmering down. Debating doesn't get me angry. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------What DOES get me angry is people attempting to make my arguments seem invalid by addressing them (and me personally) in a patronizing manner, poorly masked as humor ( ***RICK*** ), using incorrect information (such as the Punky homophobia incident being singular), and trying to sound like Ellison -- and failing IN A BREATH-TAKINGLY EMBARASSING WAY, I might add -- by using his catch phrases (without acknowledgement of the source of said phrase--can we say plaigarism, kiddies?) and profanity (for the sake of profanity--it doesn't come across as avant-garde as you might have wished, RICK), then responding to my understandable anger at said patronization with a sham apology (which is just, in fact, further patronization) couched in a badly constructed sentence: "A failure to differentiate between the author and his work, in my opinion, deserves, nay, BEGS for patronization although in deference to your wishes I will relent." That's the sentence of a coward if I ever heard one. What you patronized me for originally, RICK, is my evaluation of the cat torture scene as being unnecessary, gratuitous, in no way fundamental or enriching to TMWRCCA--you couldn't handle me speaking ill of something your idol wrote. And you're in denial about Harlan's muttering of homophobic remarks...he may have never said them to you personally, but he sure as hell put them down in the non-fiction MEMOS, and incorporated them in Punky and TMWRCCA. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding ain't prejudice free. Perhaps your time would be better spent not trying to convince me to stop reading (and thinking for myself about) writings by Ellison, but on creating your own voice for expression on here. You use vulgarity randomly, trying to mimic Ellison -- your whole tone is a bad imitation of Ellison. Imitation may be the ultimate flattery, but BAD imitation is not. Your attempt at imitating Ellison's personal style is a prime example of people being influenced by the media (writing by Ellison in this case) to behave in a stupid way they might not have come up with on their own, without the influence. Take a walk down the Yellow Brick Road with the Scarecrow...perhaps you can get your very own brain! --------------Best of luck, Shaz

PETER: No, your comparison with Swift does not wash. "A Modest Proposal" was SUPPOSED TO BE OFFENSIVE -- this is how Swift most effectively SATIRIZED the treatment of the Irish by the then British government. Because "A Modest Proposal" was clearly written in the form of satire, no one took the proposal of eating children literally. Everyone who read that essay knew that his suggestion of cannibalizing little children and babies of Irish citizens as a solution to the problems the Irish people faced (like unemployment, poverty, and -- in the eyes of those who wished to keep a tight reign on the number of Irish people -- high birth rates), was in fact a direct blow against British politicians who did nothing to alleviate, nay indeed did everything to exacerbate (due to prejudice), the plight of the Irish people. Thus, the offensiveness SERVED A SPECIFIC PURPOSE--it enriched the effect of the essay. As I have said earlier, the gratuitous cat torture scene in TMWRCCA reached no such height. If Ellison intended for the scene to enrich or increase the effectiveness of the story, he failed. And, by the way, before writing "Modest Proposal," Swift very much did fear offending the wrong people (i.e. those in power who could hurt him). His writing before Gulliver's Travels had resulted in a royal personage blocking his expected career advancement (to the position of bishop) in the Church. So, when Gulliver's Travels was published, it was done with the identity of the author as anonymous. Just a bit of historical information for your reading pleasure. ----Shaz

In Re: Harlan & Cats: In defense of Harlan, doesn't he use a cat in "Soldier" that communicates telephathically with Quarlo. (Sp?) Now, I haven't read Soldier in a while, but I do recall that. I don't believe the cat was tortured in that story. Telepathic cats & dogs...hmmm. I happen to love both cats and dogs and I agree that Harlan wouldn't advocate the actual torture of cats. However, didn't he mail, what was it, a dead squirrel or was it bricks (or both), to the publisher who put a cigarette ad in one of his books. Just chiming in... Charlie

Shaz: speaking for myself, I don't think I ever argued that constant exposure to violent films and such wouldn't make one callus and more inclined to violent reactions. I said (and still believe) that it is the parent's responsibility to monitor what his or her child watches or reads. To make sure that (with cable TV beaming such movies and shows into our living rooms) the child doesn't get exposed to those things until he or she is old enough to deal with the fact that it is a movie. And old enough to have lived (long enough) in a compassionate and empathetic environment which would nurture his or her sensibilities -- not dull them. Since, eventually, all children (when old enough) will, out of curiosity, seek out the forbidden, at least children who have been raised right (with love, intelligence, and care, and WITHOUT a steady visual diet of violent images) will react in the proper way. Too much of ANYTHING is a bad thing. Whether it be violent films or large doses of sugar in your diet. Doesn't mean we can put blinders on or quickly bury all the horrible things in order to protect our children. And with the advent of the information age, more children driving at a younger age (with fewer classes and lessons, at least, here in America), people still over-indulging in alcohol and other substances, and simply MORE of everything available to young minds, well...it just means that, as parents, we have to be that much more vigilant. That much more invovled, that much more aware of and available to our children. Which means parenting has become an even tougher job than it used to be. But since it is a lifetime vocation for which one volunteers, no one should complain. And no one should shirk their responsibility. (all of which doesn't mean that I think violence in the media -- most especially television, movies and video games, should be ignored -- it needs to be talked about and addressed -- just as long as one remembers that it is a symptom of a larger sickness). As to your comparing yourself with Ellison (on the censorship issue), ya gotta admit -- Ellison would never suggest that a writer tailor his or her output in order to suit the readership (the crowd has got a point there). In any case, perhaps you should cool your jets for a while. Let everything simmer down. Give yourself time to reflect. You may see that some of us have valid ideas. (then again, maybe not). Heck, even I, in my all-knowing, all-seeing state, have sometimes found that I was wrong (I know, I know -- hard to believe). You sound like a nice, sensitive person, Shaz. Something we can always use more of in this world. But, having come from the same background as you (raised, for fourteen years in Texas, liberal, etc., etc.), I know that time changes everything and adds some perspective. (I'm sounding like an old fogie, now). (whew, I'm tired, and starting to ramble). Anyway, I wouldn't take all of this heated argument too personally. It's been my experience that 99% of the folks around here just enjoy a good debate. They'd still go to dinner with you (if you're buying, of course). Out here, DTS

To all of you who have cried "censorship" and pointed in my direction: You should, if you've read what I've written, know that I'm against censorship. I will not post anything else in specific regard to my problem with Ellison's use of cat torture in TMWRCCA in relation to CENSORSHIP. Or, as Ellison said: "I'm [against censorship]...one hundred percent, which, if you weren't an airhead, you'd know." ----Shaz

BARNEY: I left out a "not" that makes one of my statements illogical. READ: "I never said that there are things that should _NOT_ be spoken of -- I am fully against that." --Shaz

The suggestion that I ignore/not read a story, or anything for that matter, that I find offensive is blatantly pandering to maintenance of the status quo. If I ignored every story or poem that I found to have offensive elements, I would have to give up the study of literature entirely. I certainly couldn't read most of the works listed on English and American lit. course syllabi -- works often filled with racism, sexism, elitism (of the worst sort), etc. I read literature, and hence Ellison, because that literature is involved in discourse with society. Yes, I admire great style and innovative techniques, but to focus on those things only while ignoring content is to put on blinders -- it is a painfully conservative stance that Ellison himself would find abhorrent. Ellison certainly doesn't do that. Look at his essay "The Thick Red Moment," and notice that he exposed himself to knife-kill flicks (though he found them distasteful and harmful) so that he could critique them. Both Ellison and I are against censorship. But there is a difference between censorship (as in burning or banning books) and the selection process that goes on when a book like Best American Short Stories picks what goes in its volume, or a parent chooses what her/his child is exposed to at a particular age, or an author chooses what elements to put in his/her story. An author is responsible for what s/he writes. And Ellison himself objects to "violence escalated...beyond any value to plot advancement or simple good taste." If this applies to films, surely it applies to written works. I found no value in plot advancement no good taste in Ellison's use of cat torture in TMWRCCA. Cat torture in that scene is senseless violence for the sake of violence, and not for the sake of critiqueing such violence. I AM NOT AGAINST VIOLENCE OR INDEED VIOLENCE AGAINST CATS BEING DEALT WITH IN A PIECE OF FICTION. Indeed, there is a scene of cat torture in THE BLUEST EYE by Toni Morrison. THE BLUEST EYE has many horrid abuses in it, from cat torture to child rape, but these abuses are handled in a responsible way by a talented author -- these abuses are there for a reason, and they enrich the reading experience and impact the novel has on its reader. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And for any of you who find the idea of people being influenced in their actions by media exposure to be BULLSHIT, Ellison made my point in his "The Thick Red Moment" essay by quoting the LA Times, which "[proffered] clinical substantiation of the theory that splatter movies, knife-kill flicks, raise the tolerance level of men for violence against women." If you still don't believe that media, in whatever form, affects our perceptions and thus the way we behave, you can take it up with Ellison himself.

BARNEY: I discussed my personal experience with cats because other board members felt it necessary to chime in on why they PERSONALLY hate cats. It was a response. As to Ellison's position on cats, it has everything to do with the story, because he WROTE said story and because we can confirm his hatred of cats as fact due to his expounding on this hatred in nonfiction (i.e. essays). Yes, Mel Brooks MADE FUN OF Nazi's, and I have to say that the "Springtime for Hitler and Germany" musical was immensely enjoyable. The point, which you have missed, is that Brooks makes Nazi's look ridiculuous in his humor. What Ellison did with Levendis and the cat torture scene didn't do that--it wasn't even close to satire of people who need to torture helpless creatures for "amusement." I never said that there are things that should be spoken of -- I am fully against that. What I said is that some things should never be made into a joke (a joke that serves to make said atrocious behavior seem O.K., as opposed to seeming cruel/stupid/childish...the latter sort of humor is what Mel Brooks accomplished with his satirization of Nazis and the first sort is what Ellison achieved with Levendis torturing the cat for fun). And I never said Levendis was a "God" -- Ellison is, as far as I know, an atheist -- I said he was superhuman. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *******PETER: Well, anyone who's studied literature enough to know what qualifies as "satire"--and I am speaking about TMWRCCA in its entireity--is to say that TMWRCCA is NOT a satire. I'm doing my graduate work in literature, what is your qualification? As for Ellison torturing a cat on paper to get out a small sense of catharsis--it's one thing to do that in the imagination or a piece of work written for yourself...it's quite another to do so in a PUBLISHED story. (As for self-control, this cat torture scene looks like a lapse. Getting in a dig about cats because he hates them doesn't really enrich the story...if it's an attempt at representing entropy, surely it could have been done in another, perhaps more effective, way.) Literature that is presented to the public needs to be held up for inspection- - I say INSPECTION, NOT censorship -- because it is involved in discourse (discourse between said literature -- especially that literature adopted into the "canon" of Best American Short Stories -- and the society in which it was produced and the society that reads it). I'll point out a wart, or blind spot, when I see it without apology. Neither Ellison's work nor the bible nor any of the works of "great literature" are above question. Period. As for getting defensive, that usually happens when one is presented with (in this case, verbal) behavior approaching the type exhibited by the Islamic community against Salman Rushdie when HE dared question a "holy writ." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****DEACON & RICK: Your assertion that Ellison is not homophobic is BS. Capital BS. Punky isn't the only time (far from it) where Ellison's phobia has reared its ugly head. Read MEMOS FROM PURGATORY. He makes mention of "the fags" several times. In fact, I can give you a list of a lot of such references if you like. And what makes MEMOS particularly obvious as a testament to phobia is that IT'S AN ESSAY. NOT FICTION. Ellison is speaking with his own voice...not that of a narrator. And the "he just hasn't found the right woman yet" theme in the homosexual+old maid scene from TMWRCCA further expounds this phobia, though in a "kinder, gentler" manner. And, **DEACON**, as to the "constructiveness" of my analysis, I will give you an old Southern (racist) phrase: "Call a spade a spade." I will "label" something (whether that be simply one element in a story or a major theme in a work) racist when it smacks of racism, sexist when it smacks of sexism, classist when it smacks of classism, and homophobic when it smacks of homophobia. If you can't see the constructiveness in that, I doubt you understand much of what Ellison tries to do in his work (both nonfiction and fiction). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****OTTO: As for Levendis and his passivity with the skinheads as mediocrity... I read his passivity as criminal negligence--he was, was he not, PUT INTO that position of power for a reason (otherwise he would not have been "fired" for his actions at the end of the story). His torture of the cat was criminal. This goes beyond mediocrity and into evil. -----Shaz

***PETER*** Nope, I'm fine. Not thrilled about this Packer game but other than that I'm fine. ****SHAZ**** 2 points: Point the first - Whatever you think of Harlan for not liking cats and however much you enjoy the company of cats has nothing to do with the story. What I was attempting to say earlier is that Levendis may not be functioning on the same plane as anybody mortal and finite. He may represent both a random benifecence AND a random malignance in the universe and the way it operates. What we want a God to be like and what a God might actually be like may be very different things. For me the puzzle with Levendis is , Is he detached from humanity or engaged in humanity. It is the growth of detachment that I find actually mirrors the author on some level. Point the Second - Regarding your throwing down the gauntlet about some things not being fit to make fun of. What's the word I'm looking for here , oh yes, Bullshit. Would you take Mel brooks out to the Boonies and string him to a fence? He has said "I'm the only Jew who ever made money from the Holocaust." Poor taste? You betcha. And yet, he has spent a big chunk of his career making fun of Fascists, Nazis and Hitler. Demeaning Nazis is a noble pursuit as far as I'm concerned. Bill Hicks, Sam Kinison and Lenny Bruce have proved to me beyond any doubt that any subject can be addressed. Even if TMWRCCA was/is an outright failure [not to me] we should never go to that "next level" that something shouldn't be spoken of. I'm off to my non-procustean bed now...

Is it me, or have we all gotten a little hot under the collar as of late? ---Peter

Barney::: I'll be the first to admit that my own feelings on religion may have influenced my analysis of Kadak. And I wasn't denigrating the tradition, I was commenting on the fact that the tradition had become so marred in its own form of red tape that the characters becames trapped in loophole after loophole until finally they are saved by a different loophole.Shaz::: Obviously this is a sensitive topic, but please try not to get defensive. No one here, particularly me, is trying to attack you or your ideas. We are simply trying to present our own. As for the claim that my comparasons to Swift and Nabokov were silly. Well I think they are well founded. Who is to say that TMWRCCA isn't a satire? I certainly see nothing in it that should be taken completely seriously. I certainly see a lot that is intended to disturb me and make me think, but I'm not going to come away from this story wanting to torture cats or beat up interracial couples. I know that Ellison hates cats. I've read the same NONFICTION that you have. I've also seen his commentary on that old Scifi channel show. I know that he hates cats. That does not mean that he wants to go around torturing cats. I don't think that he points his car toward every cat he sees crossing the road and tries to hit it. I just cannot believe that. And do you want to know why? Because those would be the actions of someone who has no self control. Now as for writing that scene in the story. Okay, I'll bite. It may have given him a small sense of catharsis. But that's it. Anybody who is easily influenced by such needs help and anybody who finds it offensive should avoid it. Its that simple. ------And I resent the implication that I or anybody else around here is nothing more than some kind of pathetic sychophantic ellison worshipper, even as a jest. As for responsibilty in writing. The writer has only the responsiblity to write what it occurs to him to write, That is it. To force a writer to write some things and not others based on law, religion, morality, or some other external influence is censorship in its most basic and primitive form. A writer's first responsibility is to the work, then himself, then the reader. That is it. The work comes first. And to further milk my asinine comparason to Swift. What would have happened if he had said, "oh my god, someone might find this offensive. I can't write this. What am I to do." We would have gotten some piss poor essay that would have achieved nothing. Now you might not like the story. You might take offense. fine. But don't expect a writer to kowtow to yours or anybody elses morality but his own. Morality is something to discovered, not imposed.---Peter (I'm really a likable guy. Honest)

Regarding the violence done to the cat. Didn't it bother you that all the other times Levendis killed someone in the story, it was because that person was doing something evil (like beating up an interracial couple, or being a KKK leader running for political office, or dumping toxic sludge)? The cat is the one exception. So either the cat is evil and must be killed, or Levendis has a sadistic streak in him and needs to torture a small, furry, helpless creature.

PETER: My reason for saying that Levendis seems a thinly disguised Ellison is that so many of Ellison's pet peeves( peeves which he has ranted about in NON-FICTION, i.e. essays) become major issues for Levendis to pay attention to. I mean "mediocrity" may be the greatest evil for Levendis, but it's a sure bet that the Chinese women who got raped in the Indonesian riots, the Jews exterminated by the Third Reich, etc. would NOT agree with this claim. Also, he specifically takes great pains in differentiating "momentarily" and "in a moment." Like I said, I see Levendis as a thin barrier between author and reader at MANY points in the story. The cat episode is a case in point because Ellison has earlier elaborated on his hate of cats in a (NONFICION!) essay. The cat torturing was particularly atrocious because it was being presented as amusement for Levendis, whose name means joy/pleasure in living. It was presented in a "humorous" fashion. Frankly, some things should NEVER be presented as "funny", like torturing a jew or a homosexual (like Matthew Shepard in Wyoming) or torturing an animal. Presenting cat torture as an amusing pasttime for Levendis, who goes about and does so many things righting social injustice, serves to make the act more palatable to the reader...which can be seen from the mentions by other posters about their own hatred of cats because cats are "tempermental" or "pissy." Let's all jump on the band wagon and try to be like our "hero"--isn't it fun! And anyone who would dismiss cats as pissy and tempermental --DEACON-- is obviously describing a personal character flaw transferred onto to cat. Cats respect you if you respect them. They require simply respect and caring, and give the same in return. I love both cats and dogs (I have 2 cats and 2 dogs, who get along wonderfully). If you are pissy and tempermental with your cat it usually will be so with you, though cats are forgiving if there is a stable caring relationship between owner and pet already established. As for pop psychology, it was merely my personal opinion based on observation. But I can tell you that the whole viewing violence and acting it out phenomenon is all too real. Why do you think people who are abused as children usually turn out to be child abusers as adults (this is statistically true)? People learn from their environment. And I have a Bachelor of Science in psychology, how about you? I'm not labelling and "tearing apart"--oh my, have I defiled your holy temple of Ellison worship?!*Gasp*--unconstructively. I am making an evaluation on what I've read from the author...the MWRCCA story and essays where similar points have been made. As for "asinine" statements, making a comparison between Ellison's story and Swift's "Modest Proposal" and Nabokov's "Lolita" is just dumb. Swift's "Modest Proposal" (as well as "Gulliver's Travels") was a SATIRE. TMWRCCA is not a satire. Also, Nabokov might have wanted to sexually molest little girls--neither you nor I know for sure--, because in "Lolita" he presents the girl as the temptress and the older man as the "victim" (which avoids responsibility of age, gender, and power, i.e. the older man). Most childhood sexual abuse survivors, and probably women who haven't been brainwashed into thinking rape or child sexual abuse is the fault of the person raped or abused, would find this assignation of blame disgusting. And you can never fully seperate a writer and his/her work, especially with Ellison (since we have lots of non-fiction evidence we can investigate with relation to issues in his fiction)--doing so is a cheap way to weasle out of the responsibility of the writer for what s/he writes. What anyone writes has ideology in it, whether s/he knows or admits it or not. It is inescapable. And to deny that is the biggest lie of all. --------------Shaz

****PETER**** What you call hatred reads more like sad bemusement to me but that's just me. If you have the tape of "Kadak" and the CD of "Paladin" you can here the difference in tone he takes. There's contempt for what people do in "Paladin" that "Kadak" just doesn't rise to. For me. If I were Jewish I would say that what Peter calls beuracracy Jews call TRADITION, but I'm not so I won't. ****NICOLE**** While I am in total agreement with you regarding the importance of Bradbury's "Faranheit 451" , the instructive book on the danger of labelling any speech as hate speech is Orwell's "1984". It's double plus un-bad! - and if that sentence doesn't make sense then you definitely need to check it out. Crap, now I have the theme to "Brazil" stuck in my head - again!

Barney::: Actually, I wouldn't call Kadak positive, but I would call it the least negative. While it does espouse some of the positive aspects of religion, it also lampoons the ridiculousness of organized religions. Even the ending shows how the bureaucracy of organized religion can get people into trouble. So as I said. His hatred of organized religions shines most prominently in Kadak, even if it isn't specifically stated. ---Peter

Just wanted to say I've really enjoyed this. Who says nobody wants to discuss Harlan's work. Hah! ***RICK*** I'm with you on the let's-not-confuse-Harlan-with-the-characters-front. In fact, I'd have to say that I see less of Harlan in Levendis than I do in most of his other characters. Which dovetails into my response to ***DTS*** who I am with almost line for line. Great post. I think where I part ways in interpreting Levendis with many of you [and I stress interpret] is that rather than seeing Levendis as Harlan or Human or Entropic I think of Levendis as Divine. Not that I'm big on the Divine. I felt that one of the points of the story was that God [any God] might exist and might simply NOT be playing by any of the guidelines or rules that we like to think an omniscient being would work within. A way of looking at the Universe is that God might exist and the existence may be completely unfathomable and that MIGHT NOT BE A GOOD THING FOR US. [see Paingod] ***PETER*** While most of us have heard Harlan's thoughts on religeon I don't think any reading of "KADAK" supports a notion of "hatred of religeon". It's almost the only positive statement about the religeous impulse in the canon. ***Shaz*** There's plenty more FICTIONAL cats to roast where those came from. :-) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OTTO - to answer your question, I would say that, while Levendis is not evil, Yes, he is commiting an evil act by refusing to intervene. Harlan has a well-documented and intense dislike for people who claim to be good yet let bad things happen that they could easily have prevented. Was it Don Drysdale who commented on ballplayers thanking God by saying he thought the Almighty was concerned with injustice, not the outcome of baseball games? I think Harlan's point is that based on past history he cannot find any consistent logic behind the big A's supposed interventions with *either* of the two.

SHAZ - Your patronization is my humor - you say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to, let's call the whole thing off. Regardless, it's specious to criticize HE on the basis of his having a cat tortured in one of his stories...obviously HE is not a strong proponent of cat torture, nor has he been known to torture cats. It's just something that happened in his story, get it? In I HAVE NO MOUTH... he kills off the entire human race except for a handful of survivors who are constantly tortured - are we going to claim he hates humans or is humanophobic due to this? In THE DAY I DIED, he kills himself multiple times - are we to assume he hates himself or advocates his own death? If you are going to demonstrate that his cat torture was irresponsible you must show that it has a significant and relevant meaning and effect and that this effect is irresponsible. As for the "jim crow" stuff - as I clearly noted in my original response, I said I was not addressing the later work but specifically PUNKY AND THE YALE MEN...I repeat that any homophobic overtones in that work should be viewed with respect to the times in which it was written. And again, in order to attack Harlan as being irresponsible you need to do more than just comment on some haphazard treatment of a homosexual in a single piece of writing - what was the specific text that you felt was irresponsible, and how do you feel it would contribute to homophobia or anti-gay prejudice in the people who might read the story? Finally, while I am not one to get into a tiff over alternate interpretations of a work, in this case you are making a criticism based on an interpretation of yours that Levendis is an Uber-Ellison. I know from past discussions with the author about this work and the similar SCARTARIS that nothing could be farther from the truth, and while you are free to take your interpretation of the story as far as you want you are going out on a very thin limb when you extend that interpretation to criticism of the person your interpretation says the story represents. Pieces of Harlan's likes and dislikes, his pet peeves and his warts, were of course drawn into the depiction of Levendis - this is true of almost all of Harlan's protagonists. Without those personal touches, without that verisimilitude, would HE have been able to breathe life into his character with such effectiveness? However, do not make the mistake of taking this one step further and thinking that Levendis is an outgrowth or a mirror of Ellison, or that Harlan advocates that we act in the same manner as his protagonist. A failure to differentiate between the author and his work, in my opinion, deserves, nay, BEGS for patronization although in deference to your wishes I will relent.

(Trying frantically to get back to the text, and desperately sorry to have opened up such a philosophical/moral/theological/sociological can of worms) I'll buy the chaos and personal responsibility bit; no problem. I think a little gratuitous violence every now and then isn't so bad; just an acknowledgement of a basic human need to be destructive everyonce in a while. But the question I was initially driving towards is over what appears to be a contradictory message in "The Man Who . . . ." Levendis says he's not evil; that the only true evil is mediocrity. Fair enough. But, when he watches the beating, doesn't he act in a mediocre manner? I mean, this guy is basically omnipotent. There are some limits written into his job description, apparently, but we know that he's chosen to ignore them. For this man, with this much power, to merely stand and watch without either attacking or even abetting the skinheads seems, to me, to be a mediocre action. Is Levendis then, by his own definition, evil in this moment?

Peg and DTS, you were right on the mark about not reading/watching something if it offends you. No use removing things because someone finds something offensive. If things were censored just because a group of people had a problem with it, there would only be those idiotic sitcoms on TV and the only books would be those inane (in my opinion) _Chicken Soup For The Soul_ books. The purpose of literature is to shock people and get their attention. At least, that's what I strive for in anything I write, be it news article, poem, or short story. I believe in freedom of speech and expression so long as it doesn't deliberately harm people (I do not condone hate crimes or speech) On the subject of God, it was that whole "all powerful loving God" thing that turned me away from Christianity ten years ago. Levindis, I believe, is nothing like that, nor really any of the ancient gods. Levindis is thouroughly human, as can be told from his randomness. He just, is. Not divine or even semi-divine. Just a person getting along in the world, with his own whims and ideas, not a crusader for this cause or that. He's like all of us- basically good, but with his quirks. He is living, and that is the only way it can be explained. No one can thoroughly say they have lived if they haven't done some shitty thing or another. It's all part of experiencing one's humanness to its fullness. And for those who disagreed with me on the television issue, you do have a point. A lot of that comes from my anti-censorship paranoia. There's already a movement in that direction, and the last thing I want to do is throw out any comments that might add fuel to the fire. May I suggest to everyone that they read or re-read Bradbury's "Farenheit 451" and try to understand what I'm seeing here.

Okay, delurking for a reality check, 'cause my blood's been a-boiling, and something's got to give...SHAZ: I think part of the message from "The Man Who Rowed..." has been misplaced - as DTS indicated, the message is YOU are responsible. But if you know HE's expressed point of view, then you know that You need to be responsible because THEY are not reliable aides. THEY may be God, the people in your apartment building, fate, the tea leaves the psychic friends network reads to you for $8.99 a minute over the phone, the little green men you firmly believe are going to take you bodily to the comet and spirit you to heaven, whatever your particular bent is. They are shuck and jive artists, cons, artful dodgers, and they could care less if your faith is misplaced, because when you're gone, there's always another mark coming down the line to swallow their pitch. Ultimately, YOU are responsible, to know and conduct yourself, to know and act accordingly when dealing with the world and people around you, and if you proceed as if some Cosmic McGuffin is going to come between you and the bear, regret to inform you you're going to get eaten nine-hundred ninety nine times out of a thousand...is Levendis really HE with power over the universe? Sure. Levendis is as much as HE as Jefty, AM, the Tick-Tock Man, Vic AND Blood, and any other fictional character he's created. They all contain elements of the man in some regard, whether its some latent element of his personality or some bugaboo of his imagination. But to say Levendis is a thinly disguised Ellison because of a mutual shared hatred of cats is at least preposterous, and at most grossly poor scholarship...In a similar vein, to brand HE "homophobic" on the basis of two writings out of a body of work encompassing more than a thousand is simply unfair. Consider it in terms of pigeon-holing any person who posts here on the basis of a single posted comment - would you consider that fair grounds for an appraisal of someone else's personality?...Senseless violence is a sad fact of the world. Should it be ignored in a literary context to lessen its spread? If so, where does the line get drawn? Do current authors police their own work? Do we start labeling potentially controversial work? Who goes through the backlog and decides to start yanking books because their content might be detrimental to the greater good? Did I read that right? Perhaps the author should keep his wrong-headed ideas out of his short stories for the good of his readers? Just who do you think Harlan Ellison - or any author, for that matter - writes for? HE is writing for him. And he is a creature of his times, shaped by his experiences, who writes through the prism of his life. We're the individuals graced by his desire to share his work. THAT DOESN'T GIVE US A SAY IN WHAT COMES OUT OF HIS OLYMPIA, DARLIN'!! The real writer writes for him or her self, from the heart, warts and all. To suggest that any author censor his or her self to spare you depictions of violence, or ideas that you may not agree with, to infer the writer should put aside the honesty of what they do (and, in doing so, become false) to remove the responsibility from YOU for being educated in what you read is simply asinine. Goes back to the top: You are responsible for you. If you don't like "The Man Who Rowed...", that is your right. If you want to express an informed opinion about it, that too is your right, and I fully defend that right for everyone. You even have the right to not read any author who pisses you off or disappoints you so deeply. The stores are full of other writers who'd be happy to sell a book. But for Chrissake, think before you start labeling people and tearing in to them with no constructive point whatsoever. If you don't like HE, no one's holding a gun to your head. You should know by now he's not perfect, nor, to paraphrase "Amadeus", so lofty that he shits marble. And by the by, I'm not a big fan of cats myself. They're pissy creatures of the most temperamental kind who might suck up to you or go for your eyes with claws extended, depending on the prevailing wind. I prefer dogs because they have far more stable temperaments and boat-loads more personality, and not because of any misplaced control issues, or whatever pop psychology BS you care to impart. Sorry about the length of this; but the concept of censorship, especially suggesting the author should sanitize himself for his readers' sake, is a very hot button for me.

How could you two interrupt my longest continous post?!?! Curses, foiled again.... *laf*

And a last word on God (since Barney invited us). I think this is it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, I should admit to you that I'm a fundamental, born-again Christian (hey, on an Ellison board that's something of a coming out of the closet *laf*). I'd ask that while you may not agree with my beliefs (or more to the point find them ludicrous) you at least not shun me for them or discount the ideas I express just because I am the source. (or course, you certainly have the right to do so if you choose). Next, I'm NOT defending God, proving His existence or non-existence, etc. Way out of my league. I'm just building on the idea of what interaction He might have in a world with personal responsibility. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'll start with the belief that in order to have personal responsibility we must have free will. I also think that having the ability to choose is pointless in a pre-ordained society, so I don't believe in a pre-ordained future (and just because God may know all, doesn't me He took the action to make things the way they are). If God doesn't allow us to use our free will - regardless of whether or not He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient - then there is no personal responsibility. Frankly, what I've read and heard of the Bible *HIGHLY* advocates personal responsibility and personal choice. It's *your* choice to believe in God and Jesus, it's *your* choice to conciously change your behavior, it's *your* choice to forgive, etc. Similar to what my other post says, the Bible does suggest that there are INFLUENCES on each of us be they physical, mental, emotional, spiritual; but in the end it is our choice how we respond to those influences. The Bible may suggest avenues to deal with those influences that you don't agree with or believe in (such as prayer, spiritual intervention, etc.) but to the point - the onus is on you to make the choice and take the action. The same distinction exists in concept of salvation. You may be forgiven for your sins (actions) but you are not relieved of their consequences (the responsibility). -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If God steps in and fixes everything, makes it all better, stops suffering, ends world hunger, He eliminates our choices (along with eliminating chances for us to experience growth, but that's a different subject). We need to CHOOSE to grow and mature, learn to live together in love, to be responsible for our brother, to take our own action to ease the suffering of others regardless of who they are; otherwise it is meaningless and devoid of motive and intent and love. Unfortunately, in our world, many people choose to effect their fellow people in a negative manner. I'm not claiming I have all the answers to all the questions about God and such, but I believe that the God I believe in, my faith, is consistent with taking responsibility for our own actions while understanding the potential for influence on those choices. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, I'll leave you all alone now.... The Pegster

Shaz: since I may have added fuel to your misconcieved fire, let me elaborate on something. The Ellison afterword I quote from was much longer (I did say I was using excerpts). I didn't want to use the entire thing, because of copyright infringement, etc. But maybe another excerpt from that afterword will shed some light: "...There is no god, or even upper-case God, wasting his, or her, or its time mucking about in our daily affairs. There is only random chance and the cupidity of the uncaring cosmos. Whic is EXACTLY what "The Man Who Rowed Christopher Columbus Ashore" is about..." If Ellison meant Levendis to symbolize anything (and I say if, cause only he would know for sure), then it seems more likely that Levendis is entropy -- which, at on level, is best difined ast chaos, disorganization, randomness. Levendis wasn't a Crusader for Good, like Superman, fighting for truth, justice and the American way. He was simple random energy doing his job the best he could. When he perceived himself as good, it was no different than a dog perceiving itself as good when it runs a squirrel (which has wandered into that "dog's" yard) to the ground, killing it in the process. It's in the dog's nature. And the nature of entropy is well...chaos. Now, as for Rick's comments about Ellison (as a writer) being a product of his times, I believe Rick was specifically referring to the '60's era stories -- not selections from SLIPPAGE. Regarding the increasingly popular view that various media and arts are responsible for growing amount of violence among children: codswallop. I know you said that it's not a "one-one thing," but I don't think it's a thing at all. Violence is simply a part of the human condition. We're all susceptible to its pull at various times in our lives. Some more than others. Men (for physical as well as psychological reasons) more often than women. But to say a television show, or movie or book is responsible is to abdicate personal responsibility. I've a daughter who watches cartoons regularly. On Saturday or Sunday mornings, she watches "Animaniacs," "Batman & Superman Adventures," old "Looney Tunes" shows (where characters hit each other over the head, or Elmer Fudd takes pot shots at Bugs), and a host of others. And I watch them with her. I've done so as since she was old enough (four or five) to be interested in watching those shows (we even went through a Power Rangers stage). If she had questions or concerns, we talked about them (especially since young kids don't separate fantasy and reality very well). If I couldn't be with her, I did the sensible thing: turned off the boob tube and had her with me (in the kitchen while cooking; or cleaning house; working in the yard; whereever). The point is, I AM RESPONSIBLE for what my daughter watchs on TV, sees at the cinema, or reads between book covers. And I actually talk to her about what she experiences. I do so because it is my RESPONSIBILITY and because I enjoy talking with her. Many folks from my parents generation and back, didn't do that sort of thing. They never saw being a friend to your child and taking an interest in their world as part of parenting (which, by the way, if done properly is one of the world's toughest jobs -- I never thought so when I was young, ignorant and childless -- I know better now). And A LOT of their children have followed in thier footsteps. Worse, many parents use the TV as a babysitter, or something to distract the kids while they get work around the house completed (or simply do their own thing). But it's not the repsonsibility of the writers, producers, directors and such of television to make everything kid safe. THAT"S THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY. Same goes for movies and books. Parent's are ultimately responsible. Unfortunately, due to laziness and self-interest, most parents drop the ball in this area. And when some children grow up all screwed up, because their parents were never there for them, the parents point fingers at everyone else. Granted, as Ann Rule (a noted crime fiction writer) once told me, there are "bad seeds." Kids so screwed up (phsyiologically), that only chemical treatments and close monitoring will help them. But, for the most part, we are still a species marked by shitty parenting. As for adults like yourself who find something (like Ellison's dislike of cats, which he harmlessly difuses in his writing) offensive -- avoid it. There are very few people in this world who don't have some fault or other that wont offend someone. If it bothers you, close the book (or turn off the TV, or walk out of the theater). But don't try to lay the blame for societies ills on the doorstep of one meager book (or movie or telvision show). Now: go forth, and do no more wrong. It's Christmas time. Time for goodwill toward all men, women, children, dogs, cats and other furry creatures. (fill in the blank) bless us, everyone! Merry X-mas, DTS.

Wow, I leave for a weekend and all hell breaks loose. Or maybe not. But to throw my two cents in; I believe that the most fundamental mistake made in interpreting TMWRCCA (I think I've got the acronym right) is that Ellison is Levandis. Or that The actions performed on and by people, and even the character of levendis himself were all constructs of Ellison's own personality and beliefs. We're confusing the man with his work in essence. Does he hate cats? Yes. Would he torture a cat? I don't believe so. Just because a man writes something in a story doesn't mean that it necessarily is part of his value system. Sure, his hatred of cats comes out in that story. But isn't that just like how his hatred of religion comes out in KADAK? If every story ever written was a literal representation of the author's psyche then we'd have to lock up most people who put pen to paper. Do we believe that Jonathan Swift wanted to eat poor Irish children? What about Nabokov? Did he want to sexually assault twelve year olds? I don't believe so. Just because something is disturbing doesn't make it true. I think an author has a responsibilty to present disturbing ideas because otherwise they wouldn't be discussed as they have been on this board. The man of his time argument is crap, because he is also a man of this time. I believe that a man of his time argument can only excuse dead people. Otherwise we shirk personal responsibility. But as for a writer and his work. If we confuse the two we lose sight of what's really important. The work and the discussion it brings forth. And Shaz? I'd hate to use this to score points on our other debate, but it is this type of discussion that aiming high in terms of difficulty in language and literature can produce. I enjoy reading a good book. I enjoy discussing one even more. ---Peter

More on personal responsibility and cats... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part of bearing personal responsibility, though, is understanding that your actions *CAN and usually DOES* influence others. Which is not about attaching blame (such as it's the TV stations fault for airing the material) as much as it is to eliminate that excuse (such as, it's not our fault kids watch those violent cartoons). In this example, point blank, the kids would NOT watch that material if the station didn't air it. While the TV station may have a right to air those shows, they still must recognize and admit the responsibility for their participation in the chain. BUT - those aren't the TV stations kids, they are the responsibility of the parents. Who has (or should have) more direct influence and therefore more responsibility? So, to draw an analogy, the writer is not excused from having influenced his audience. He/she must admit and accept that by definition they can and sometimes will influence. But in the end they do not make the final decision - the individual does. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On the cats - okay, more pet peeve buttons. Two parts to this. As I said above, people are not excused from admitting that their actions and words can influence others, even if the ultimate responsibility for the actions doesn't rest with them. But, frankly, if something offends you and is pretty easily avoidable, then avoid it! Don't like the cat stories - don't read 'em. Think sushi is disgusting? Don't eat it. Find your office colleagues' dirty jokes offensive? Walk away. And if you think it's a bad influence, take it to the source or produce some influence of your own. I believe we all have free will. It's up to YOU to walk away or to try and have a different influence on others, to provide a different viewpoint or consideration. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh boy, lots to go here.....I actually had to open two copies so I could reference all the entries! I'll split this up like Shaz did otherwise it'll be HUGE. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have to agree a bit with Shaz on personal responsibility. YES, we are all responsible for our own actions and choices. I'm totally on the bandwagon of there's too much responsibility avoidance in our society/culture/values today. However, I believe our values and beliefs and tendencies can be influenced by other sources in such a repetitive and gradual way that we are unaware that the influence is happening. People, esp. kids, can be influenced by their environment long before they are capable of understanding the mechanism itself and that it does occur. However, it doesn't absolve us of responsibility *once we are capable of making that judgement*. If your Mom and Dad and teachers and relatives and friends all tell you black people are stupid and 2nd class citizens from the day you were born, you grow up believing that. But there does come a point where, when presented with evidence to the contrary, you are capable of using your mind, your brain and judgement, to decide that what you were taught was incorrect, that the influence was a bad one, and that you must conciously work to change your behavior. Most of the time, only much later - typically after the behaviors and believes are rooted - is there any realization that we were influenced at all, and often that comes from the attempts of others to show us that influence. That is the difference between an immature personality or mind which needs guidance and sheltering, and a mature individual who is capable of making decisions for themselves. I believe that although gradual this change begins to take place much earlier than many people would advocate. We move from small decisions like what to have for lunch, to more abstract philosophical decisions such as whether nuclear weapons are an acceptable form of defense. At some point in that continuum, we begin to bear a much greater share of responsibility for our actions. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NICOLE: Unfortunately, Nicole, people do not live in a vacuum. They may be able to think for themselves, but we are all, to whatever degree, susceptible to bombardment of ideas by the media. I myself didn't realize how affected I was--I who was considered too liberal and radical to be from Texas...I was a feminist, pro-gay/lesbian rights, and anti-racism as well as a heterosexual white woman...most people in my home state couldn't deal with that--by US media until I moved to Holland and had the "umbilical cord" broken. Psychological studies have shown that children who are exposed to repeated violence in cartoons, as opposed to control groups who are exposed to non-violent cartoons, then go out on the playground and act more violently. It's not a 1-1 thing, but it has an impact. There's an old saying "tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." People's perceptions and beliefs can be influenced. Any of you who have read Ellison's newspaper column (printed in AN EDGE IN MY VOICE) knows that the people who read Ellison's work are not all enlightened--take the case of Mr. West in point. Senseless voilence, be it on an interracial couple or a cat, is just that: senseless. The more you're exposed to it, the more numbed you become to it. My point is that Mr. Ellison has always voiced his opinions because he was concerned with injustices...perhaps he should keep some of his wrongheaded ideas (like homosexuals being "converted" when they find the "RIGHT WOMAN" and cats being tortured because they are not dogs) out of his short stories for the good of his readers. ------SHAZ

Regarding, "The Man Who Rowed Christopher Columbus Ashore," the problem "getting" it I had had to do with the issues I have been discussing. As for Levendis and morality, MOST of the things he does in the story have to do with fighting injustices, mixed in with some hijinks and animal torture (which I am sure Ellison considered part of the hijinks--boys will be boys--element). Thus, I would say that Levendis is meant as a moral character--after all he says himself that he is "good" when asked if he is good or evil. I don't think Levendis is Ellison's god, rather he is Ellison himself made superhuman. Seeing little pet peeves like the "in a moment" and "momentarily" episode SCREAM Ellison's identity. I think if Levendis was a cover for"God," we'd see a LOT LESS intervention in social injustices. ------Shaz

RICK: That "a man of his times" excuse just doesn't cut it. The story was written in the 1990's. With such an excuse we can excuse many Southerners of the Jim Crow era because they were products of their times--talk about avoiding responsibility! As for the cat comment, just because you run a web site on Ellison doesn't qualify you to address me in a patronizing manner. Maybe I'm too "sensitive", because I now live in a country where prosecution for animal cruelty (along with rascist verbal attacks made directly and domestic violence/rape) is a GIVEN. Fine, he doesn't like cats. Doesn't mean he has to TORTURE them in his stories. I find the homophobia and the cat torture--and I have always said I don't really trust any man who hates cats but loves dogs...brings up issues of needing to be in control and having something very dependent and totally obedient in your life--disappointing to say the least. I've read a lot of Harlan's work, from short stories to essays, and for a man who can be so intelligent when it comes to social injustices, he can have total blind spots. Let's just say that I was expecting a little more enlightenment from the man. ---------Shaz

Is Levendis' behavior any different from God's behavior? Is moral behavior a meaningful term when speaking of a character like Levendis? Feel free to speak on God's behalf here folks. Remember, the author has often said that "if I believed in God - that is, an all powerful, omnipresent, omniscience - I would go to bed angry every night and wake up angrier each and every morning." That is where a character like Levendis comes from. People mention the Shirley Jackson influence but there is some Isaac Bashevis Singer going on here as well. I think it's more usefull to go through life believing everybody is responsible for EVERYTHING than to go through life assuming situations have shades of responsibility inherent in them or that God is responsible for anything. But after 20 years of Twain and Ellison, what would you expect...

BARNEY - Talked to HE today about THE JUVIES, he says it will be coming out (under the preferred title) later in the EDGEWORKS series, along with some other never-before-collected stories. He also mentioned that one of the main things that pissed him off about the retitling of ELLISON WONDERLAND as EARTHMAN, GO HOME was that the latter title is a ripoff of the first book in James Blish's CITIES IN FLIGHT series. He didn't even call the publisher, he went straight to his attorneys and ripped them a new one -- they immediately re-issued the title with the proper name. Finally, HE reminds you that while one of his cars *is* a Packard (and a fuckin' gorgeous one, I might add), his other car is a Geo Metro....that's a *GEO*, not a *NEON*. The sucker gets 52 miles to the gallon in the city - my wife and I drove it all over LA for 5 days and only used up about half a tank of gas. I'd get one if it didn't have all the pickup of a cart pulled by a syphillitic donkey. OTHER NEWS - work on EDGEWORKS 5 continues, but no dates as of yet...the EW order has been changed slighty, EW 6 will contain PAINGOD and other delusions and MEMOS FROM PURGATORY (with a "Memo 99"). ON THE SUBJECT OF "TMWRCCetc"... the general idea I get from Harlan on this is it's in the same vein of SCARTARIS in portraying a somewhat benevolent but also bumbling, inconsistent and random diety, which is HE's way of mirroring the world today. I would say that rather than being homophobic Harlan is instead in that one regard pretty much a man of his times...I won't apologize for the latest writings but one has to consider the year in which PUNKY was written. I've never known Harlan to utter any phrase or epithet I would consider homophobic or anti-gay, even given many adequate opportunities to demonstrate such proclivities. As for cats...he hates the little furry fuckers, and makes no beans about it. If you've got a problem with that, you'll probably want to spend less time reading SLIPPAGE and more time reading books in that cat series (THE CAT WHO SOLVED SOME STUPID MYSTERY, THE CAT WHO SHOT ROBERT KENNEDY, THE CAT WHO OPERATED HEAVY MACHINERY UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF CODEINE, etc, etc)....

::laughs and covers her face:: Well, he *is* awesome! Of course, I'll probably get something about that when I (finally) get my review done and talk to him. Then again, he might be wondering who paid me to say that. Barney- I'm pretty sure it was the Packard. It was going the opposite direction, so I couldn't see all that clear, but that what I think it was. TMWRCCA is my favorite short story by him, save IHNMAIMS. I think the random violence is to show that yes, we are responsible, but not all our actions are benevolent. Sort of highlighting the human cruel streak, a part of ourselves we don't like to recognize, but is there all the same. It gives the character a realism. In the previous comment, I forget who put it, but they mentioned something about kids imitatating TV characters. Did you read the story and the comments about responsibility? TV and book characters can't make kids do something. Terms like "peer pressure" and the American tradition of putting blame for people's actions on the media is stupid. It implies that people, especially kids and teenagers, are too stupid to think for themselves. It's personal responsibility, people. TV and books and other forms of media do not force people to do things. If they act on what they see, they use their own judgement. ::pants:: Sorry. Hit a pet peeve of mine, and it seemed to fit into the whole responsibility bit.

DTS: Speaking of responsibility, what about the responsibility of the author? I wouldn't call the things I discussed in the previous post as being very socially responsible. ------Shaz

Otto: Yeah, that "passivity" when the situation involved an interracial couple leaving a late show getting attacked bothered me too. If, as DTS maintains, the theme is that you're responsible for your own life, then this smacks of the couple being responsible for being attacked because they should have KNOWN BETTER than to go to a late show...apparently only non-interracial couples can do this without being responsible for beatings. This thread is followed through a bit when Levendis assassinates a potential Lousiana politician (former head of the KKK), which results in the choice being left between a child mutilator and a pig mutilator. The inference seems to be that the KKK member might have been just as qualified for office as his two opponents. Another thing that REALLY pissed me off was the episodes involving the homosexual and the cat. The episode where a homosexual and a "old-maid" (hadn't been able to find an escort to the prom and hadn't had any since, so she needs to find a man--yeah right!) are thrown together by Levendis, to find their "attraction" to each other, was sophomoric. It is simply a watered-down version of the homophobia Ellison exhibited earlier in his story "Punky and the Yale Men." As for the scene where he tortures and violently murders a cat--a cat minding its own business...apparently responsible for its being a cat in the same place as Levendis, which seems a thin cover for Ellison who has earlier quite emphatically expressed his hatred for cats in an essay..yeah, the cat ASKED for it--that was just plain vicious. His murdering the cat and trying to make it humorous with the mention of "cat in tree bookends" is the "high culture" literary equivalent of the Beavis and Butthead stunt of setting a cat on fire (which resulted shortly after in some kids doing the same thing in real life, inspired by the sanction of their "role models"). I really needed to get that off my chest. ------Shaz

Otto: the point (or message) of the story is that YOU are responsible for your own life. So the only significance to Levendis' passive reaction to one attack and agressive reaction to the next is that entropy rules, there is no point in counting on a deity or fate to intervene. Perhaps it would be better to use the words of the writer of the story. These excerpts are from the afterword included in "Best AMerican Short Stories 93": "The story is about nothing more difficult or loftier than the admonition that YOU are responsible, that posterity is a snare, that memory is short, and that life is an absolutely unriggable crap shoot, with the stickman a civil servant who works for some department as inept as you are...Even if you're standing all alon in the middle of the Gobi Desert at high noon, and a Mosler safe falls out of the baggage compartment of a Concorde zipping by overhead at 33,000 feet, and the great heavy thing falls right on top of you and sqaushes you to guava jelly...it was your fault. You're responsible. It was, after all, you who chose to tand in that spot, at that moment." There you have it. The whole moral and theme behind the story. Repsonsibility. Something sadly lacking nowadays -- in quite a few people. Out here, DTS.

All right, I've got a textual question that's been driving me bezonkers. I realize that this is mostly personal interpretation, but here goes: In "The Man Who Rowed Christopher Columbus Ashore," Levendis twice sees some skinheads attacking an interracial couple. The first time, he merely watches. Now, he does a lot of tangental things, but this is the only time in the story, other than the day of rest, where he takes a passive role in the deed for that day. What's the significance of this? Any takers?

Return to the Harlan Ellison Home Page

Return to the Ellison Webderland entry point