Harlan Ellison, thoughts?

[Extollager]

Re: "Croatoan" -- just btw.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/news/story/...-virginia.html

[j. d. worthington]

Very interesting, Dale. Thanks for that. It is also interesting that with such historical instances -- those which have taken on something of a mythical status, as it were -- actually settling the questions involved doesn't seem to affect that mythical status very much.

[Extollager]

I read Ellison's original "City on the Edge of Forever" screenplay (just skimmed the prefatory material with his gripes about Gene Roddenberry et al.

Offhand, overall I think the final version is better; for example, it is more interesting and ultimately more poignant to have McCoy cause the trouble than the Beckwith character; the filmed speaking "arch" is probably more interesting and appropriate than the statue-like guardians of the original screenplay. I'm inclined to stand by my hunch that Ellison sometimes benefits from having to adjust his work to the requirements of others. But what an outstanding TV teleplay that original is.

One can only imagine how Ellison might have responded if he'd written a screenplay for The Prisoner, although given Patrick McGoohan's relatively high degree of artistic control for the series, the combination of McGoohan and the touchy Ellison might have been explosive! Had they managed to bring the teleplay to completion, though, one expects it would have been a standout. Now here's a thought for you: Ellison as the screenplay writer for the final episode. McGoohan wanted something over the top. I find that final episode to have some splendid moments, and yet quite a bit of it isn't really all that great-seeming to me; the "trial scene" doesn't quite work. What might Ellison have come up with?

[MaxSpender]

I haven’t read much of Harlan Ellison’s writing. Apart from watching the film adaptation of A Boy and His Dog, my only knowledge of Ellison was from his excellent introduction to Dan Simmons’s short story collection, Prayers to Broken Stones and Stephen King’s praise of his work in Danse Macabre.

Whilst looking for some post-apocalyptic fiction to read, I came across a recommendation for I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. The title alone conjured up all sorts of horrific images in my mind, so naturally I had to check it out.

I’ve just finished reading I Have No Mouth… online and despite liking the premise, I have to admit I was somewhat disappointed. The flow of the writing is very good throughout. No one can deny that Harlan Ellison hears the beat as he writes, but I have several problems with the story itself. Now bear in mind I’ve only read it once and that may not be sufficient.

SPOILER ALERT for anyone who has yet to read this story.

Firstly, I don’t think writing the story in the first person, past tense was a very clever idea. Given what happens to the protagonist at the end, how is he able to tell anyone his story? He has no mouth and no way of writing it down. So I can only assume we are reading his thoughts, but there’s nobody left to tell, (apart from AM, who already knows the story), as Ted is the last human being alive. So is he telling the story to himself, in an attempt to retain his sanity? And to what end? I really think writing it in the third person would have made more sense, but maybe I’m missing something here?

Secondly, there is only one woman amongst the last five humans left alive and she takes it in turns to have sex with the men, but she only really enjoys it with the man who has been altered by AM to have oversized genitalia. It sounds like Ellison has an axe to grind here. Had he recently been rejected by a woman for not being sufficiently endowed? If Ellen is the last woman, then she represents them & it suggests that all women are whores who crave a really big dick, which is not only demeaning to women, but also inaccurate. I remember hearing a porn actress being asked what size she preferred and she said that she didn’t like a guy to be too big, because it hurt. That’s coming from someone who has sex for a living. Does Ellison really think that all women enjoy painful sex? I don’t know what age Ellison was when he wrote this, but it seems like he’s making an ill-informed, adolescent assumption about women.

Thirdly, why does AM allow them to have sex at all? If the machine hates humans so much, surely it would have castrated the remaining ones to deny them that pleasure? People have mentioned how evil AM is, but in some ways it’s not evil enough.

Fourthly, apparently AM is taken by surprise near the end of the story when the last humans start killing each other and doesn’t act to prevent it. But AM is a machine. Machines don’t get taken by surprise in the same way that humans do. It doesn’t make any sense that AM doesn’t intervene to stop the killing.

Lastly, although I love the story’s title, I think it gives away the ending a bit too much. Given that much of the story is about torturing humans, the reader can see it coming and I couldn’t help but wish for a more optimistic conclusion. Perhaps if the humans had somehow found a way to disable the machine, despite AM’s superiority, and the words, ‘I have no mouth. And I must scream.’ were actually spoken by AM, moments before being shut down for good?

I guess I’m going to get a fair amount of backlash, especially from fans of Ellison, for writing this. I expect criticism, but I hope to be told in a constructive way where you think I’m incorrect or have missed the point. Thanks.

[Extollager]

Originally Posted by MaxSpender

I’ve just finished reading I Have No Mouth…

I too wasn't much impressed by this one, as perhaps you've seen in discussion above. I persisted with Ellison and have liked several other stories quite a lot, and have every expectation of reading further.

[j. d. worthington]

I think you raise some interesting points for discussion, at least; and no, I don't think your post should receive any "backlash", though polite disagreement is another thing....

Originally Posted by MaxSpender

Firstly, I don’t think writing the story in the first person, past tense was a very clever idea. Given what happens to the protagonist at the end, how is he able to tell anyone his story? He has no mouth and no way of writing it down. So I can only assume we are reading his thoughts, but there’s nobody left to tell, (apart from AM, who already knows the story), as Ted is the last human being alive. So is he telling the story to himself, in an attempt to retain his sanity? And to what end? I really think writing it in the third person would have made more sense, but maybe I’m missing something here?

I think you may have a point here, as far as problems with the logic of the story, yes; though I also think these are fairly easily overcome. On why choose to write it from this perspective, I would say the obvious advantage is emotional immediacy. Ellison more often than not tends to go for an intense emotional experience with his work; it is often only later that the underlying humanistic philosophy tends to begin to surface. Writing from the third person would simply not have had the same immediacy or produced the intense feeling of nightmare. If you'd like me to address the particular questions you raise here, I'd be happy to, but don't wish to take up too much space in this response.

Secondly, there is only one woman amongst the last five humans left alive and she takes it in turns to have sex with the men, but she only really enjoys it with the man who has been altered by AM to have oversized genitalia. It sounds like Ellison has an axe to grind here. Had he recently been rejected by a woman for not being sufficiently endowed? If Ellen is the last woman, then she represents them & it suggests that all women are whores who crave a really big dick, which is not only demeaning to women, but also inaccurate. I remember hearing a porn actress being asked what size she preferred and she said that she didn’t like a guy to be too big, because it hurt. That’s coming from someone who has sex for a living. Does Ellison really think that all women enjoy painful sex? I don’t know what age Ellison was when he wrote this, but it seems like he’s making an ill-informed, adolescent assumption about women.

I would say that this is confusing the thoughts Ted is having (thoughts which have themselves been influenced as a way of manipulating and torturing him, remember) with the thoughts of the writer himself. However he may have viewed such things when he was in his teens, by his mid-20s at least, it is unlikely Ellison had such views; and by the time he wrote this story, they would have long been knocked out of him not only by the number of women he had had sexual relations with, but the variety of women he had known as friends and colleagues, including those who had worked in the pornography industry.

Essentially, AM sends the narrator into a paranoid state "as a giggle", causing him to see with a thoroughly jaundiced eye all his companions, pulling up all the irrational hateful thoughts we are all prone to at odd moments in our lives, no matter how much we consciously know them to be nonsense. In this case, Ted obviously prides himself on his rationality and his ability to keep a balanced view; this even comes out during his paranoid fugue when he goes on about how AM hadn't mucked about with his mind... until the computer lets him see just how easy it has been for it to do just that, and thus pulls the rug completely out from under any vestige of self-esteem he might have left. AM letting them have sex was both a way to entertain itself with the thoroughly ridiculous aspects of "the beast with two backs", but also because it gave it an intensely powerful, in fact primal, way with which to torment them physically and psychologically, and one which has an almost infinite set of ramifications.

I'm not sure AM is "evil" in the usual sense, either; among whatever virtues it may possess, it also inevitably contains all the bestial sides of our own natures; it is thoroughly amoral, and it is (as the story points out) full of rage at those who created it with all this intelligence and the ability to reason, even to dream... yet made it impotent to do anything creative or fulfilling; only to practice acts of destruction upon segments of the very populace that created it. There is also, of course, the obvious analogy to a god, especially the stern, vengeful god of the Old Testament, with the sheer insanity of the sorts of things such a being is wont, in sacred texts, to do.

Fourthly, apparently AM is taken by surprise near the end of the story when the last humans start killing each other and doesn’t act to prevent it. But AM is a machine. Machines don’t get taken by surprise in the same way that humans do. It doesn’t make any sense that AM doesn’t intervene to stop the killing.

Again, there is some justice to this complaint, yet I would argue that it hinges on a rather too literalist reading of what is, essentially, an allegorical tale. True, a machine -- especially one as near-omniscient as AM is depicted as being -- is unlikely to be caught by surprise, or to be held by it quite long enough for them to succeed... but it does serve to indicate a fatal flat in AM's understanding of human beings... again, whether this is due to its programming or a misconception of its own making concerning them... that they would deliberately choose oblivion rather than continue under these circumstances. That at some point their essential "humanity" would kick in, and they would regain their pride and dignity enough to reject life itself in order to remain human. In effect, AM had absorbed and accepted all the venal, selfish, cruel aspects of "human nature", but rejected the nobility which is also a part of it. And why not? It was designed to further the former, but not the latter.... Hence, their actions completely violate its core beliefs about reality, and this might indeed be enough to make such an intelligence stagger for a moment to readjust.

Lastly, although I love the story’s title, I think it gives away the ending a bit too much. Given that much of the story is about torturing humans, the reader can see it coming and I couldn’t help but wish for a more optimistic conclusion. Perhaps if the humans had somehow found a way to disable the machine, despite AM’s superiority, and the words, ‘I have no mouth. And I must scream.’ were actually spoken by AM, moments before being shut down for good?

It took me some time to be able to see it in this light (one which Ellison has held for it from the beginning), but I would say -- as my comments above would indicate -- that it actually is a very optimistic ending; certainly a very humanistic one; and to have them "win" in the traditional sense would completely undermine everything the story is about. In this, the story is uncompromising, in the sense that it is ineluctably heading to that final line from the title itself; as with several of (for instance) Lovecraft's tales, it isn't so much a "revelatory ending" as a "confirmatory ending"; the tension in the tale is in seeing how we get from the beginning to the ending we can already see (or sense) coming, and how the tale nonetheless illuminates the human condition along the way. For it to be Ted, rather than AM, who speaks these words, is fitting; for it drives home the point that even the noblest actions have their consequences; that it is showing courage under fire, when you know you will pay an horrific price, that matters and that makes us human in the best sense of that term. And, even with this being, in essence, a cautionary tale about letting our more venal impulses guide us so much of the time (to our cost) -- a common theme with Ellison's work -- that is the core of the story: Ted's willingness, at the crucial moment, to face the wrath of this omnipotent adversary alone, in order that the others may go free.

At any rate, a good post, and as I say, you raise some very good questions which could open discussion on all sides. I hope my response proves fruitful to you....

[megamaniac]

Dont forget James Cameron was sued for ripping off The Terminator from Ellison's episode of The Outer Limits. Cameron was forced to credit Ellison in releases on video. Ifcourse, Cameron stated he had a nightmare while sleeping in an Italian hotel. But, psychologically, that happened after Cameron saw the episode, so in his mind he got confused, or forgot.

Anyway, Ellison's stories seem to be made into TV and movies as much as Philip K.Dick. A.C.Clarke wrote a short story that was made into 2001. I heard 'Rendevouz with Rama' is shooting now with Morgan Freeman playing the prez.

[Contrary Mary]

I have read much of Harlan Ellison's work---he is so prolific very few have read all of his work. His stories often aim for an emotional effect---so they are often hit or miss with me. He has always remided me of the girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead..."and when she was good, she was very, very good and when she was bad she was horrid."

However, Ellison is a pivotal voice in SF and influential with an unusual style. I strongly recommend reading at least those of his stories that have won the Hugo Award.

[j. d. worthington]

I've mentioned this one several times -- though lacking much what I would certanily class as among his best, The Essential Ellison is a very good one-book resource for becoming acquainted with his work....

[Connavar]

JD i checked table contents for that essential collection, does it contain classic story of his that show the kind SFF story he is known ?

Not having read him i dont see why i should start with a collection that doesnt have stories that is among his best in your view.

[Fried Egg]

I've just looked over the contents list of "The Essential Ellison" and it looks very extensive indeed, containing most if not all of my favourites that I have read so it doesn't look a bad place to start with his work.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Connavar

JD i checked table contents for that essential collection, does it contain classic story of his that show the kind SFF story he is known ?

Not having read him i dont see why i should start with a collection that doesnt have stories that is among his best in your view.

As I said, it doesn't have all of his best -- he has put out a surprising amoung of first-rate material -- but it does contain an impressive selection of them....

So, yes, I would suggest getting it; either edition will do, but the more recent includes a few things published since the earlier edition came out....

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

As I said, it doesn't have all of his best -- he has put out a surprising amoung of first-rate material -- but it does contain an impressive selection of them....

So, yes, I would suggest getting it; either edition will do, but the more recent includes a few things published since the earlier edition came out....

Thats exactly what i wanted to know. The recent edition of the collection is in local library.

[j. d. worthington]

I would almost suggest skipping the prefatory note to the book, as it is Ellison doing something which either amuses or completely alienates... but instead I will suggest simply reserving judgment on that piece until you've read the book proper....

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I would almost suggest skipping the prefatory note to the book, as it is Ellison doing something which either amuses or completely alienates... but instead I will suggest simply reserving judgment on that piece until you've read the book proper....

Thats a given because i dont care about forewords,introduction that kind of notes. I only care when its a very good literary analyze of the stories,the writer themes.

I have learned also the art of leaving the author personal words outside of the book,stories. I like the New Criticism theory that the literary texts is self-contained.