#11 - Valerie: A True Memoir

The SPIDER Symposion: in-depth discussion of specific Ellison stories and works.

Moderators: Moderator, Jan, Duane

User avatar
P.A. Berman
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: *ITHACA*
Contact:

Postby P.A. Berman » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:09 pm

akojen wrote:Eeek, and here I was getting ready to post in favor of Valerie. Um, the essay, not the person. Must be my masochistic nature coming out. I'm guessing that I'm just waaaay tougher to offend.


What makes you think anyone here is offended? We don't like the piece and we said reasons why we think so. To characterize us as offended is a lot like Barney dismissing us all as overly PC. We just think this particular essay is crap and we have texual reasons why. That's called criticism, and most critics aren't offended.

"Our jejune interpretations represent those of the majority of your readers, I'd imagine, which must suck for you."

Uh, five out of two hundred fifteen do not a majority make.


Uh, yourself. (BTW, I really dislike the condescending "uh.") If none of us gets it, and we're serious fans, many of whom actually have met the man and like him as a person (including Barney), then I think it's safe to extrapolate that it's not too likely that a lot of people will "get" it. At least, not the way Harlan wants us to get it, which is to say, we don't all agree with him. That's a ridiculous expectation by an author for his readers and he should get used to disappointment on that score.

No reason to post my li'l essay now. I think Alex and Harlan covered the salient points. So am I one of Harlan's tools now, or just an asskisser? Sheesh.

amy


I hate to say, but if the shoe fits. I'll probably be called a Biccan or get a private message about my overly hostile attitude now. Sheesh.

PAB
I don't know. I don't care. And it doesn't matter anyway. ~Jack Kerouac

User avatar
AlexKrislov
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:59 pm
Location: Shaker Heights, Ohio
Contact:

Postby AlexKrislov » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:46 pm

PAB, I must contest your latest argument, on three different bases.

First, you've no reason to believe that your tiny majority represents the general reader any better than my tinier minority. Yes, we all know Harlan, and we've all read a lot of his work. So what? Should I now argue that I've been reading him longer than you have? We're not representative. The very fact that we're all here shows that we're not typical readers.

Second, let's remember the context of the piece. This was a weekly column. It appeared to one helluvalot of its readers first in that paper. What was the circulation? I've no idea. I do know that Harlan and the paper got a lot of mail in response to the column. Sometimes it got some very negative mail, and Harlan had himself a rum-tiddly-tum of a time answering it with a literary thump to the head. I do not recall any such letters relating to Valerie. Did it get any negative mail? Only Harlan (and the old editors at the L.A. Freep) could know.

Third, bluntly, does Harlan give a rat's ass? Harlan is a man who writes to the best of his ability, and he writes to suit himself, first and foremost. I've talked to hundreds of writers, in my work and outside it, and I've never known any writer who was more focused on his work, doing it his way. Notice what he's arguing here? Not that you guys are poor readers, but that you're reading outside the lines. You're making assumptions about something more being hidden. It's a commonplace in litcrit these days--but I never bought it as valid. Still don't.

User avatar
Jon Stover
Banned
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue May 27, 2003 8:52 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby Jon Stover » Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:56 pm

Oh, please, Amy or akojen or curiously familiar avatar or whoever you are. Speaking only for myself, not liking a particular work by Ellison and, yes, even being called jejune by him makes me like the cranky old fucker even more. Flawed, vindictive, not taking criticism well...all absolutely cool. Despite the occasional irritation, the sock puppets and all the other stuff, I really do have a great fondness for Webderland in part because it got rid of all the crap I (and maybe a lot of other people) carry around inside themselves in terms of pedestalizing a writer or anyone else. It's a tonic, and finding HE to be something of a dick at times doesn't affect my appreciation for his work -- or my belief in all the stories of the kindnesses he's done people over the years.

So Ellison thinks my criticism is jejune and apparently my inability to identify an Aztec sun-tanning disc in a photo is proof of some further problem. Big fucking whoop. The essay still blows, but even though it blows, it doesn't really alter the goodness of the stories or the fact that I believe all the stories of Harlan being a good guy in various situations. Hell, PAB's got a story of Harlan the good egg from her one meeting with him, and when we were discussing (oh, wait, gossiping) about some stuff on Webderland via email she noted that, regardless of her feelings about some of the stuff going on around here, Harlan really is a good egg in his personal conduct, even with a board member he's only interacting with briefly. So before anyone calls PAB a Biccan, note that defense -- she may dislike "Valerie," but she took note of a kindness by HE.

God knows he's done a better job of humanizing himself here with his blow-ups and his answers to questions and his mournings of departed friends and his calls to action in the service of Asimov's memory and the times he's been conned or blistered by various fake and/or nasty Webderland personalities and a whole host of other actions good, bad and indifferent over the years here than he ever did in "Valerie," and that's as sincere a compliment to both the man and the site I can come up with at this time. "Valerie" sucks. Ellison contains multitudes, like pretty much everyone else bouncing around here.

And God save me from ass-kissers.

Cheers, Jon

User avatar
P.A. Berman
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: *ITHACA*
Contact:

Postby P.A. Berman » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:07 pm

AlexKrislov wrote:PAB, I must contest your latest argument, on three different bases.


Shocking, that.

First, you've no reason to believe that your tiny majority represents the general reader any better than my tinier minority. Yes, we all know Harlan, and we've all read a lot of his work. So what? Should I now argue that I've been reading him longer than you have? We're not representative. The very fact that we're all here shows that we're not typical readers.


No, we're not. If I may toot our collective horn for a second, we're his core fans, and we're smart, educated, eloquent people who are highly literate and have a positive predisposition towards HE. If anything, we're the audience most likely to "get" it, to read it as HE wishes us to. The fact that we, his friends, acquaintances, and fans, don't "get" it, bodes ill for others getting it.

There are people I could see getting it. People who'd say, "yeah, that evil bitch, she sure manipulated him. Good for him for publishing a nudie picture of her. She deserved it. Fuck her." Those are not the people I'd want getting my stuff.

Second, let's remember the context of the piece.


Well, on this score you're dead wrong, Alex. My first exposure to this essay, and that of most if not all of his current and future fans, will be in one of the Essential Ellisons, and if context must count, then that's the context you must address. In that context, it sticks out like a sore thumb as a nasty piece of work. That half-nude picture especially seems out of place.

Third, bluntly, does Harlan give a rat's ass?


From his responses here and on the Pavilion, Alex, he sure as shit seems to, more than he ought. It seems like he can't take criticism, is what it seems like. I love his work and like and respect him as a person (I shouldn't even HAVE to attach that disclaimer), but I don't like this essay and I think I have good reasons why, and that my reading and opinion should be respected too. Why does he get so pissed off? It's just readers criticizing his work, and it's going to happen as long as he HAS readers, so taking it all so very personally serves to do nothing but make him look petulant.

Notice what he's arguing here? Not that you guys are poor readers, but that you're reading outside the lines. You're making assumptions about something more being hidden. It's a commonplace in litcrit these days--but I never bought it as valid. Still don't.


It's not hidden. It's right there. It's as obvious as the tits on Valerie. Yes, it requires some deeper reading, but I personally choose to delve in and not remain solely on the surface when I'm reading something meaningful from a writer I respect. I would make the exact same criticisms if I knew nothing about HE, or if it were a work of fiction.

I'm of that school of thought that the author does not get to come down from up on high and tell the reader exactly how to read the story. Writing is a lot like channeling-- stuff comes out of you that you may not aniticipate, realize, recognize, or admit. The reader may see things in the story that you wish he didn't or that you don't wish to see, and more than one interpretation is possible and probable. I bet it's happened to every writer, and it's sure happened to me. If the reader can support his reading with the text, then that reading is valid. I don't see how anyone can claim otherwise, since most readers are sans Ellison to hold their hands or rap their knuckles to be sure they read it 'correctly.'

I think there's ample textual evidence to support my, rich, or Jon's reading of this essay. We're not making our interpretations up out of whole cloth, Alex, just because you and HE don't like it. And we're not offended either. We just think it's a dishonest and mean-spirited essay written by a talented and well-loved writer. We're entitled to that amply supported opinion, and that's really that, no matter who that pisses off.

PAB
I don't know. I don't care. And it doesn't matter anyway. ~Jack Kerouac

User avatar
Duane
Posts: 1579
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Postby Duane » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:34 pm

I just finished reading Valerie over for the second time. The fact that I obviously don't know what a trampoline looks like should permanently ban me from ever having an opinion on anything ever again.

By the way, I remember someone asking Harlan over on the other board whatever happened to her. I believe his response was something like "she was released from jail and got in the wind." But considering my track record for remembering details, including those that are staring me right in the face, well, don't take my word for it.

User avatar
akojen
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:06 pm
Location: TX

Postby akojen » Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:56 pm

P.A. Berman wrote:What makes you think anyone here is offended?

I probably wouldn't have gotten that impression if people mentioned that the picture bothered them, rather than focusing on the tits. You were an exception. Harlan made it clear why he included the picture. It's much like including a photograph on a child molester site. Avoid this face, and remember that beauty doesn't imply good character.
We don't like the piece and we said reasons why we think so.

Yes, there were some specific criticisms. But there was also a hell of a lot of "he shouldn't have reacted like that" and "how dare he put all this blame on women" and "god, this was written so many years ago; why doesn't he get over it?"
To characterize us as offended is a lot like Barney dismissing us all as overly PC. We just think this particular essay is crap and we have texual reasons why.

There's a writing habit I hate. Plurals. You speak for the small group here as you speak for all Ellison readers. Perhaps there are other "serious fans" who do not participate here. Yes, Harlan's certainly met and befriended plenty of people, here and elsewhere.
That's called criticism, and most critics aren't offended.

The posts were moving far beyond criticism of the written word. You, specifically, were addressing his character; a "him" that hasn't existed for many years now, and you were also applying thoughts from decades ago to the way he currently feels.
Let it go, man, lest you seem like a bitter, vindictive crank who grinds an axe until it's a scalpel and continues to hack away. ... it makes Harlan look like a person who holds a grudge for ever and ever, beyond the point of reason. ...It makes me want to shake him and say, "Snap out of it already! You trusted a bad egg, but you opened yourself up to it. Time to let it go."

Do you really remember the pain of when YOU were fucked over, remember how it felt when it was fresh? It's easy to say it was an ordinary situation, and he should just let it go--NOW. My impression was that in writing these columns, (as he noted earlier, while this was all new and raw) he was trying to do just that.

I've certainly done it before (though in an electronic forum, not print), and I have no right to expect a greater amount of decorum from anyone else. I guess rapists just piss me off. But then, I allowed myself to be put in the situation, so I guess it's really my fault.
Uh, yourself. (BTW, I really dislike the condescending "uh.")

For that, I do apologize. It's a bad habit.
If none of us gets it, and we're serious fans, many of whom actually have met the man and like him as a person (including Barney), then I think it's safe to extrapolate that it's not too likely that a lot of people will "get" it. At least, not the way Harlan wants us to get it, which is to say, we don't all agree with him.

He doesn't seem to particularly care whether you "get" it or not (well, beyond one slightly snarky sentence). And there's not a whole lot to "get," unless you choose to delve into the mind of a young stranger from the sixties/seventies and try to figure out why he wrote this in the first place.
I'll probably be called a Biccan or get a private message about my overly hostile attitude now. Sheesh.

Not from me. I'm from New York.
"Now give me some inner peace or I'll mop the floor with ya!" -- Homer Simpson

User avatar
akojen
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:06 pm
Location: TX

Smoochin keisters

Postby akojen » Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:20 pm

Jon Stover: Amy or akojen or curiously familiar avatar or whoever you are.


I didn't realize Gir carried a stigma. I use my real name. Akojen is a truncated version. Up until today, I also used my real photograph.

And I agree with roughly 95 percent of your post. I assumed PAB met Harlan from an earlier post, and unless you're a complete asshole, he seems to almost always be nice. Did I challenge that somewhere?

But of course Harlan's feet touch the ground (he taught me that himself), and I don't view all of his work as the Greatest Prose Known to Man. I'm not spitting on all the people who dislike the work "Valerie." I don't happen to BE one, but big fuckin deal.

As for ass-kissing...everyone has their perversion.

Amy Kostyn-Jenkins
"Now give me some inner peace or I'll mop the floor with ya!" -- Homer Simpson

User avatar
Jim Davis
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri May 23, 2003 9:27 am

Postby Jim Davis » Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:36 am

Well, shit--I guess it's my turn in the batting cage. (So much for finishing Poppy Z. Brite's superginchy new novel, PRIME, tonight . . .)

Harlan Ellison wrote:The photos are hardly porn. They are barely cheesecake. They were (and remain) no more prurient than any photo study of a nude by Andre de Dienes or Bunny Yeager or Helmut Newton. Your "shock" and revulsion ring as falsely as Claude Rains's protestations in "Casablanca" when he avers that he is "shocked, shocked I tell you, that there is gambling here at Rick's Place." Your fulminations sound like the whited sepulcher bleats of rural boobs, stuck in the '50s, those whose minds are perpetually in the gutter. There are any number of photos in THE ESSENTIAL ELLISON, including photos of me as a child, my mother, my father, others. These were the only photos I had of Valerie, they are absolutely appropriate and, despite all your 35-year-later bullshit assumptions as to why this, and why that, and how could he this or that...the simple reason I included them was so the reader could see what she looked like.


I didn't find them shocking at all. My only objection was, why include photos of her, two of them semi-nude, while taking care to omit her last name "out of deference to her family and what comes later in the saga"? That didn't entirely make sense to me, though it's hardly a federal offense.

And, of course, not one of you savants even considered that I didn't pick the items to go into the ESSENTIAL, though you pillory me as if I had. The contents for all three editions were selected free of my input by those who edited the book, all the way back to the late Richard Delap (who was gay, and not misogynist).


Not true. In my last post, I asked if you had anything to do with "Valerie"'s inclusion in The Essential Ellison, which indicates I had considered the possibility that you hadn't selected the contents.

You don't like the memoir, peachykeen. I did not know you when I wrote it, I barely know you now, and your opinion of the piece is your own business.

MY part of the business is slapping back at you when you seek to go beyond the written word and try to analyze my motivations from a three decade-plus blind where you squat waiting for ducks to bumble into your gunsights.

It is not duck season.


I don't like it when readers go beyond the written word, either. The problem is, my criticism of "Valerie" (and rich's and Jon's and Paula's) didn't rely so much on speculation about your personal history, but, rather, focused on what was in the text itself. For instance, I quoted a passage where you talked about how irresponsible Valerie was; rich included another where you named several women who'd, apparently, broken your heart as severely as Valerie had. Even without those two examples, the essay as a whole has a sense of incompleteness, as if you were giving us this stormy coda without any of the music that had led up to it. In the end, my problem with "Valerie" isn't that it's misogynistic (a tag I never agreed with), or spiteful (maybe a little, but that's understandable), or sexist (who knows?)--it's simply that it could have been so much more. And that's why, I think, so many people here feel it's just a bitter screed. Without the full backstory, it's hard to get a sense of what the emotional stakes were, and how deep the level of betrayal involved actually was. Yes, we know what Valerie looks like, but we don't really know who she was, or why you were so willing to share your life with her. Without that vital information, it's easy to think that the essay is nothing more than a cheap form of payback towards an ex-girlfriend. I believe you when you say that wasn't your intention, but can you now see how it's at least reasonable that others may not agree?

As for it being "duck season": Harlan--and I'm speaking as honestly as I know how--in writing my posts, I wasn't trying to "get" you in any way, or excoriate you for your actions in what must have been an extremely painful time in your life (and neither, I'll guarantee, was anyone else). I know what it's like to find out that your emotions, your trust, your love have been wasted on someone who is completely undeserving of them. It feels like Hell, and I'll wager that no other form of emotional pain could ever hurt as much; so believe me when I say I don't judge you for any failings I perceive on your part in "Valerie," whether as a man or as a writer. (As a matter of fact, in many ways, you came off pretty well. As I'd pointed out before, I would've sicced the cops on Valerie as soon as possible, and enjoyed every second of it. In that respect, you're a better man than I.) Trust me: I'm not getting some kind of weird kicks out of criticizing this one work, no matter how far I think it falls short of being "essential."

Frequently retroanalytical, but only occasionally jejune,
Jim Davis

P.S. Pearl Bailey says hello:

Image
"I don't care if you hate me, honey. Pearl thinks Angry Candy is the greatest!"
--
"His plan therefore was not to refuse admission to the idea, but to keep it at bay until his mind was ready to receive it. Then let it in and pulverise it. Obliterate the bastard."--Samuel Beckett

rich

Postby rich » Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:25 am

What Jim said. Exactly what Jim said.

Adam-Troy Castro

Valerie

Postby Adam-Troy Castro » Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:04 am

Sayeth little, except that in my discussions of Harlan's work, which includes both stories that awe me and others that make me say, "Well, that wasn't very good at all," there are only two pieces that I don't touch with a ten-foot pole.

Two pieces.

Out of a great number. Admitting that there's a small percentage among that number I don't mind picking apart.

Two pieces I don't even wanna talk about.

This is one of them.

Take your conclusions as you will.

User avatar
P.A. Berman
Banned
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 5:04 pm
Location: *ITHACA*
Contact:

Postby P.A. Berman » Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:15 am

akojen wrote:Harlan made it clear why he included the picture. It's much like including a photograph on a child molester site.


They don't publish nude pictures on those sites, Amy. And why claim to be protecting her family by excluding her last name and then publish a topless photo? It seemed like spite to me, much like the phenomenon of angry ex-boyfriends posting nude pictures of their exes on the internet for the purposes of humiliation, not mere identification (a disingenuous reason at best).

Yes, there were some specific criticisms. But there was also a hell of a lot of "he shouldn't have reacted like that" and "how dare he put all this blame on women" and "god, this was written so many years ago; why doesn't he get over it?"


The criticism about his attitude towards women does not emanate solely from this essay, surely you got that bit. I think Harlan has a good deal of anxiety and ambivalence about women, which is obvious to me through his writing, though I would not call him a misogynist. As for him not getting over it, that sentiment would come from the fact that the essay is in his 30 and 50 year retrospectives. If it were written and published close to the time of the event, it might have some resonance; now it just reads like an old grudge. That may not not have been within Harlan's control, which is unfortunate, but there it is nontheless.

There's a writing habit I hate. Plurals. You speak for the small group here as you speak for all Ellison readers.


That is not true. When I said "we," I meant rich, Jon, Jim, and myself. Those of us who seem to agree about this essay. I do think most readers wouldn't get out of it what Harlan seems to want us to, but I only speak for the we who I know agree. I certainly wasn't trying to speak for YOU.

Do you really remember the pain of when YOU were fucked over, remember how it felt when it was fresh? It's easy to say it was an ordinary situation, and he should just let it go--NOW. My impression was that in writing these columns, (as he noted earlier, while this was all new and raw) he was trying to do just that.


The fact that I read it in the 1990's, 20+ years after the incident, makes it seem fresh and current. It's in the retrospectives, whose purpose is to give current readers an overview of his writings. The piece's presence in those anthologies could lead one to think it still had some relevance for him, no?

I've certainly done it before (though in an electronic forum, not print), and I have no right to expect a greater amount of decorum from anyone else. I guess rapists just piss me off. But then, I allowed myself to be put in the situation, so I guess it's really my fault.


If you're just blowing off steam, that's fine. But when you publish, it's more than just ranting to your friends or on a message board. It's the bully pulpit. Also, comparing Valerie to a rapist is completely specious and yes, kind of offensive. Valerie did NOT RAPE Harlan. She stole his credit cards, which makes her a thief, and used him, which makes her a jerk, but she didn't rape him. So don't mix apples and oranges, because rape does not lend itself to analogies very well, OK?

The narrator knew what Valerie was when he picked her up. He allowed himself to be led around by the dick and he got what he should have seen coming. He also mentions a checkered past with women that indicates a pervasive lack of judgement in this area, so it's pretty safe to say that he put himself in these situations quite often, because you can't blame everyone else when you keep making the same mistakes. You have to look in the mirror and figure out WHY it keeps happening, right? Now that would have made an interesting read.

He doesn't seem to particularly care whether you "get" it or not (well, beyond one slightly snarky sentence).


I think he does care, a lot. I think he's taking it personally. The problem is, when you publish what you write, people are going to form opinions that might deviate from yours. They might hate your stuff, or get you totally wrong, or impute motives to you that upset you, or overanalyze you. Isn't that the nature of the beast? You can't scold or name call or correct them all. Why must we all fall into lockstep behind the One True Reading of the text?

And there's not a whole lot to "get," unless you choose to delve into the mind of a young stranger from the sixties/seventies and try to figure out why he wrote this in the first place.


There IS a lot to get, Amy. There's quite a bit of subtext. The narrator tells us a story about a fuck-over, which seemed largely financial to me, since he didn't indicate even once that he loved her, only thought she was beautiful and liked having sex with her. He trusted her and his trust was betrayed, and he'd have us believe that the moral of the story is "watch what box you open" (nice double entrendre, btw). He prints her topless picture to show us how pretty the box was, to warn us off. However, as Jim Davis so incisively points out, the essay lacks reflection and true depth. HE could have done so much more in that piece, really contemplated the reasons for the fuck-over and what it indicates about him. He does not. He blames Valerie and never considers his own role. Thus, the essay fails as a memoir and reads like the narrator is just bitching about an ex.

I say the above not as a criticism of HE as a person; this all comes from the narrator's voice and words in the story. Please let me be clear about that. I don't know Harlan and he don't know me. All I know is what the narrator of the story says and how he comes off. Let's not make this personal.

Also, Amy, thanks for not getting all ad hominem with me when we disagree. I can enjoy debating you because you seem to have this in perspective, which I respect.

Not from me. I'm from New York.


Me too. Staten Island, actually. I appreciate that. :wink:

PAB

Earl Wells
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 5:32 pm

Postby Earl Wells » Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:28 am

The narrator tells us a story about a fuck-over, which seemed largely financial to me, since he didn't indicate even once that he loved her, only thought she was beautiful and liked having sex with her.

I'm going by memory here, because the text isn't handy for me to check, but if I remember right, there's some kind of qualified statement about being in love with her.

BrianSiano
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 3:42 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Postby BrianSiano » Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:40 am

I wish I'd posted this before Harlan came in to clarify.

I really just can't see what so many others are seeing in the "Valerie" essay. I read it-- knowing it was a personal memoir-- as an account of how love and desire brought Harlan some grief. It happens to a lot of us, and some of us have been unlucky enough to get involved with someone who, behind the pretty face and winsome demeanor, has some seriously bad shit streaming through their souls. (I haven't been that unlucky, personally. speaking.)

And Harlan's publishing of her photo-- and a lovely photo it is-- was a solid coda to the piece. It shows that bad pennies can be bright and shiny... and like a "Wanted" poster, it does let us know that _this person_ should be avoided for the sake of one's finances and sanity.

Does this article have much to say about Harlan's attitudes towards women? Well, yes and no. No, I do not see a hint of misogyny in the article. There's no claim that all women are like Valerie, and Valerie's failing is _hers_, and not some kind of uterine Original Sin.

I do see it as a kind of period piece. It was written in the late Sixties or very early Seventies. This was a time when most men had to come to terms with the feminist movement and women's rights-- and this did require a lot of adjustment to the ways in which men saw woman, met women, dated and fell in love with women. (Shit, just paying attention to them was a novelty to a lot of men.) So Harlan's attitudes were subject to revision at the time-- especially since he seems to like strong, assertive, and dynamic women. (Hi, Susan!)

And look at the times. Harlan was a young screenwriter with a surging career, both succeeding in the Industry while reporting on it. And Harlan's nonfiction from the period has a kind of hipster flavor to it. This was when _Playboy_ and _Esquire_ had a lot of cachet, and a lot of magazines were influenced by this energetic, sharp, media-savvy sense behind the words. It's not that Harlan was _trying_ to write in that style-- it's that the style was influential in those days. So there's a hint of the times in the very style of the piece, and it reflects some of the sensibilities of the times. (It's a bit like reading Victorian era prose. It can be as fine as Dickens or as ironic as Thackeray, but we pick up on the style, and sense Colonel Teddy Jingo in there.)

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Postby FinderDoug » Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:00 am

I say the above not as a criticism of HE as a person; this all comes from the narrator's voice and words in the story. Please let me be clear about that. I don't know Harlan and he don't know me. All I know is what the narrator of the story says and how he comes off. Let's not make this personal.

Our jejune interpretations represent those of the majority of your readers, I'd imagine, which must suck for you. Is your writing so obtuse that none of us can get the correct interpretation? If all your readers are the obtuse ones, then why publish at all, doomed to misinterpretation as your writing is?

Hmm.

To quote Clarabelle, "Goodbye, kids."

User avatar
AlexKrislov
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 4:59 pm
Location: Shaker Heights, Ohio
Contact:

Postby AlexKrislov » Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:16 am

PAB, I see we're coming up against a major difference in the way you and I read a piece of writing. You said
"Well, on this score you're dead wrong, Alex. My first exposure to this essay, and that of most if not all of his current and future fans, will be in one of the Essential Ellisons, and if context must count, then that's the context you must address,

I reject that. I reject it firmly, absolutely, completely. I think it's addlepated. It's like reading Oliver Twist and shrieking at Dickens for the anti-semitism implied by Fagin. Can we look back at Fagin and note that the portrayal is questionable? Sure. Do we condemn Dickens as a writer for that? No. No more than we condemn Lincoln as a racist. The overall effect of a work--or a life!--within the context of its times is what we consider. We don't say, "This doesn't fit today's realpolitik" and junk it.

And, with that as my bedrock, I still say that you're condemning Valerie not for what it is, but for what it isn't.

Like Valerie or hate it, it's a work of its time. Its appearance in an anthology 30 years later no more changes its original context than the new edition of the Complete Dickens changes the context in which Dickens created Fagin.


Return to “Literary Symposium”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests