I realize that this article is old (1989,) but it’s new to me, and besides, now it’s on the web.
It’s a scathing critique of an article Ellison wrote for Playboy on comic books, but an author who has clearly had just about enough of Ellison’s crap. About 90% of the way through the article, I thought to myself, “You know something? This guy has successfully articulated a lot of the things that really bother me about Ellison.” Then, when I finished the article, I thought “okay- now he’s articulated everything about Ellision that ticks me off.”
A few thoughts:
1.) Ellison’s attitude towards The Comics Journal is remarkably like his attitude towards Star Trek. I remember the intros he wrote to the Dr. Who novels that were released in the U.S. He made a big point of saying that Star Trek was utter shit (specifically, it will “turn your brains into a puree of bat guano,”) compared to the brilliance of Dr. Who. And yet… if Star Trek is so bad, why did he write for it? Poor, poor Harlan. Unable to pay the bills, he must slave away on the lowest rung of the writing ladder: Star Trek. One step above the porno paperback industry, he must labor aside other wretched, hopeless souls like Robert Bloch and David Gerrold who are unable to find any redeeming work. The reality of the matter, of course, is that Ellison thought Trek was great- until he had a personal falling-out with Roddenberry. Then he did the same thing to TCJ- he gave it his highest praise (particularly Ellisonian praise, describing TCJ as being in the finest muckraking tradition,) but after he got involved in a personal dispute, he decided that it was no better than the National Enquirer.
2.) I wonder what would happen if Ellison’s attitude towards TV and comics were applied to science fiction? Given his bizarre declarations that anyone using the term “sci-fi” is a drooling ignoramous who thinks that SF is all Buck Rogers stuff, how do you think he would react to someone who enthusiastically declared Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, and ID4 to be the best SF ever produced, just as Ellison declares The Incredible Hulk and “The Banana Splits” to be works of genius?
Thank God he can write so well, eh? As far as I’m concerned, the guy who wrote The Deathbird pretty much has a universal pass to be as much of a jerk as he wants, short of felony assault. I mean, shit, it’s not like I have to hang out with guy in real life or anything.
Instrumental in the creation and publications of Dangerous Visions. If you unfamiliar with this towering acheivement, you are beneath conversation, science fiction wise. Much can be forgiven. And if you think he’s an insufferable asshole, you never saw Isaac Asimov. Lord!
And if we’re gonna pit authors now, let’s pit Robert Heinlein (who I otherwise like) for writing the single worst sci-fi novel of all time. I’d do it, but surely nobody actually made it through all ~300 pages of that ugly, ugly crap trying to stumble through that terrible nonsense language every other page.
As for Ellison, anyone who bashes Star Trek as being unintellectual…that’s just plain wrong. Trek has always used the sci-fi genre to explore contemporary issues with the freedom that advanced technologies give their plots. Sometimes they succeeded, sometimes they didn’t, but they were more intellectual than alot of other sci-fi. That goes for both classic Trek and TNG.
Geez, and here I was saying pretty much the same thing about Richard Wagner over in Cafe Society.
Luci: I know Ellison (edited one of his books), and I had a passing acquaintance with Asimov while he still trod this earth. I know Harl is an insufferable asshole, but I always thought Isaac had a certain self-mocking thing going that diffused the IA quotient. Was I wrong?
[sub](Actually, neither of these guys’ failings bugged me half as much as meeting Ray Bradbury and finding out he is Ed Meese in horn-rims.)[/sub]
Indeed. People seem to forget that Star Trek was never about science. It was an excuse to put interesting characters in interesting situations. I mean, where else can you write about what happens to an omnipotent childlike god who gets his powers taken away? Or a sentient machine having a conversation with its creator? Or what it would be like to live an entire lifetime in a short dream?
Of course, then they end up doing a Lwaxana episode and fuck up the groove, but that’s life.
Maybe, maybe not. Did you by chance see Asimov when he was on Dick Cavett, flogging his book, the Sensous Dirty Old Man? But what the hell, read every word from years 9 to 14, so sure, give him a pass. I’m easy.
But shit! Dangerous Visions and Ursula LeGuinn and early Larry Niven and Stand on Zanzibar and Phillip Jose Farmer all about the same time frame…
And Star Trek is science fiction!? My soul cringes and shrivels like a worm on a griddle.
Insufferable asshole? I’m fairly certain he is. However, as Miller pointed out, I don’t have to go out drinking with him or anything. And many of his short stories have kept me good company on lonely nights when hubby was working out of town. . .Oh, what the hell. I forgive him (I’m sure he’ll be comforted to hear that!:))
You have to admit, the original Star Trek had an enormous cheese factor, and even TNG was rather sloppy with the actual science. I could go into all the technical implausibilities with the Star Trek universe, but that’s been done before, many times. The fiction part of ST was great, but let’s face it, the “science” was on a par with Lost in Space.
I like Harlan, even if he is a cranky bastard. In fact, that’s why I like him! Yeah, he and I are both from Ohio, but, damnit, it’s nice to hear someone who has something to say other than, “Gee, isn’t it all wonderful?” One of the thing’s that I hate about the SciFi Channel now, is that they’ve done away with Harlan’s “I’m Pissed Off About ‘X’ This Week!” rants.
Oh, DtC, I assumed the Op’er was talking about The Moon is a Harsh Mistress which has the narrator speaking a bit of a hodge-podge language.
Ah, yes, Moon. I couldn’t get past the second chapter. Not one of his better efforts.Time Enough for Love is my favorite Heinlein but even that can get a little pretentious in parts.
I also think Harlan does great rants. I think he’d be a great radio talk show host.
