The science fiction community

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:28 pm

This topic was split from Voronwë's thread about his book. This is an edited version of the post that took us off topic.

The last time I was keeping up with events in SF fandom was after Harlan Ellison's disgraceful display at Worldcon, but that must have died away by now.

Post by **Alatar** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:47 pm

What did Harlan Ellison do?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:57 pm

-OT- A short summary with additional links is here.

Essentially, Connie Willis (a highly respected writer) was presenting him a special award and he groped her on stage. This tore the lid off a lot of discussion about the entrenched sexism in SF fandom.

If people want to discuss this, I'll make a new thread and move posts from here. But it was just kind of sad and sordid. -/OT-

Post by **axordil** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:15 pm

Ellison has been making a fool over himself like this for at least 30 years. He was legendary in the 70s for classic botched pickup attempts at cons. As far as entrenched sexism goes: it's the gender imbalance, pure and simple. OK, and the high proportion of guys with no social skills and girls with no self-esteem.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:05 pm

I think there's also an attitude of entitlement among some of the older male BNFs and Grand Master types. And women who complain have sometimes been stepped on for it. That may change with time, now that more and more women are becoming established writers, and more and more women are reading SF, but from what I've read from serious long-time fans and pros, I don't think fandom in general should be taking a Boys Will Be Boys (or even a Harlan Will Be Harlan) attifude about it.

Post by **axordil** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:32 pm

Oh, I don't think it was excusable then, and I don't think it's excusable now. There is if anything rather too much deference paid to pros amongst fandom, as opposed to respect. And the less imbalanced the numbers are of both pros and fans, the better off fandom will be.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:28 pm

I know I'm probably done with buying anything more by Ellison, not just because of what he did but his reaction to it. He has apologized to Connie Willis, but he has also evinced a "C'mon, guys, I was only fooling!" attitude and a fair amount of rudeness to his female critics.

He's always been famous for his personal quirks, but that public demonstration of arrogance really crossed a line for me, and apparently for a number of other people.

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:15 am

This reminds me of the Mel Gibson thing. Why deprive yourself of Ellison's work simply cause the man himself is a jerk?

Post by **Griffon64** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:53 pm

Well, for myself, I do not get any enjoyment out of reading/watching/otherwise consuming the work of people who have views or behaviour that hits me on some level. Therefore I don't deprive myself of anything. I simply don't get any enjoyment out of it anymore. For me, it is Tom Cruise

That's me, of course, and I'm not saying people should be like me, or shouldn't be like me. Just to point out that I don't "deprive" myself ( or can you deprive yourself of something you don't enjoy, too? I always consider the word to mean foregoing some thing that you enjoy or need )

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:42 pm

What Griffy said.

And with Ellison—I've been buying and reading Ellison since I was a teenager, and some of his early short stories were brilliant. In recent decades he's chosen to be more of an essayist, "personality," and general gadfly, and what he has published tends to be his waspish opinions of this or that. I once cared what he thought about things, but I don't any more. So his work has nothing to offer me. As with Griffy and Tom Cruise, I'm not "depriving myself" of anything I would be likely to enjoy. (Though in this case I think I would, as a matter of principle; I don't care to enrich him further.)

I do not insist that artists all agree with my world view or be even marginally nice people. But when their personality problems begin to loom larger in my mind than their art, I enjoy the art less and choose something else. Life is too short anyway; we all have to choose.

Post by **axordil** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:03 pm

Ellison had flashes of brilliance back in the 60s and has been coasting on it every since. Prim's right--he's more a critic and "personality" than a writer, so what he's currently selling is himself. And I can get better at Costco.

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:04 pm

I suppose Griff (and Prim in part) the issue for me is this. Does his work stand apart? Is it good enough to be judged on its own merits and not simply as an extension of the author?

For example, if you saw a movie, thought it was simply amazing and then subsequently found out that the screenplay was by Ellison, would the movie be any less amazing? So, therefore, if you refuse to watch it because Ellison wrote it, surely you are depriving yourself of the opportunity to see an amazing film simply because you dislike the author.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:33 pm

I've moved this topic from the Red Book forum here, at least temporarily; I'm not sure where it actually fits, but not there.

For Ellison I'd probably say no—his work, his essays and such, is entirely imbued with his personality, and I am off his personality. If I liked him I would enjoy that aspect. He contributed to Babylon 5, which I respect, but otherwise has done very little in the last twenty years that I would miss if I didn't experience it.

I doubt he'll ever again write a script that gets produced; he's famously, famously difficult.

Now, see, I'm refusing on grand principle to eat those sour grapes

—but if he didn't have the personality he has, they wouldn't be sour.

Post by **Griffon64** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:00 pm

Now I have to agree with Prim

If the personality of the person is manifest in their work, and I balk at the personality, chances are I will balk at the work too ( because the work then contains elements of something I don't care for ). When Tom Cruise acts in a film, I see Tom Cruise. I don't see a character. His acting style carries the stamp of his personality ( for me ). Hence, I don't see movies with Tom Cruise in the lead, because I don't get enjoyment out of them.

If the artist's work stands apart, then yes, I can enjoy the work on its own merits. Very likely I enjoy some examples of this already - not all of my favourite artists in various genres will be saints with personalities perfectly matching what I might want. But if those aspects of their personalities do not filter through into their work, I enjoy their work.

In the end it is about filtering the inputs we get from the world - everybody runs a filter of some sort, and prefer to gravitate towards what they enjoy or what holds some value to them. People's filters are just different!

Post by **Faramond** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:15 pm

Is Harlan Ellison still alive?

Just kidding ...

I have a whole shelf full of his books, though I haven't read any in awhile. I had no idea he groped Connie Willis!

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:35 pm

You obviously don't read the right gossip.

(I have a whole shelf full, too. Including a copy of one anthology that he signed for me.)

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:04 pm

I'm confused again... If you have a whole shelf of his stuff, you obviously liked it at one time. Now, either his material changed and you dislike it, or you found out about his personality and that skewed your perception of his work. But surely the material you liked remains good? It hasn't changed quantatively since you found out he was a jerk? Just your perception of the work has changed. Or am I missing the point.

Post by **axordil** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:15 pm

Perception of work is all there is, really. If an author goes out of his or her way to snare the spotlight, and then acts like a jerk once in it, it would be naive to suggest that that won't shade the perception people have of that author's work. That's not the same thing as the author just being a semi-pro jerk on the sidelines, though: when your reputation is as much due to your personality as your product, or if really your product IS your personality, then what you do and say makes a difference in terms of people reacting to your work as a whole. That's how your selling it.

At this point in time, Ellison sells Ellison more than he sells actual pieces of writing. That means when his current product sucks, it can't help but refocus attention on past products. The best he could hope for is that people think he's a loud has-been.

edit to add: Fifty years from now, will his personal issues matter as much? In terms of sales, no. In terms of understanding his work, maybe.

Post by **Griffon64** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:16 pm

I think Prim more or less explained her shelf of Ellison here:

Prim wrote:And with Ellison—I've been buying and reading Ellison since I was a teenager, and some of his early short stories were brilliant. In recent decades he's chosen to be more of an essayist, "personality," and general gadfly, and what he has published tends to be his waspish opinions of this or that. I once cared what he thought about things, but I don't any more. So his work has nothing to offer me.

I have some books that I enjoyed at some stage in life and have maybe "grown out of" since, that I still keep on my shelf. Just glancing at the spine of the book present there brings back the memories of that time, and I enjoy that. Also, most of my books, especially the earlier ones, was bought by scraping together every cent, so just from that perspective they are still precious to me as entities, even if my feelings for the contents have changed!

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:25 pm

It's complicated. I thought for a while that he was one of the best writers alive (from when I was twelve until I was fifteen, more or less); and I still consider his earlier work to be excellent. His stories were full of raw emotion and horrific twists and black humor. Though my taste has moved on with age, I think they earned the awards they won.

He was also an influential anthology editor with Dangerous Visions and Again, Dangerous Visions, helping to bring about the "New Wave" in SF (a movement that basically introduced modern fiction techniques to the field and helped it gain some recognition for literary value rather than pulpiness). I have those anthologies and wouldn't be without them.

So, no, I don't suddenly hate his work. But I won't be replacing paperbacks with hardcovers, say, or buying new collections. (I might never have done that anyway, of course.) I also know that I will keep away from him if we're ever at the same convention. It's the Connie Willis thing, and it's also other older incidents that came out as a result of that. He doesn't know me and would never have any reason to care who I am, and I am not young or pretty, but apparently that doesn't matter.