2008 - Dreams with Sharp Teeth (movie)

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

Moderators: Moderator, Jan, Duane

rich

2008 - Dreams with Sharp Teeth (movie)

Postby rich » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:12 am

Image

DREAMS WITH SHARP TEETH
A Film about Harlan Ellison

Image

"Mr. Ellison’s written achievement largely takes second stage to his volcanic verbal attitude, of which there’s more than enough to overflow an entire outlandish mini-series." -- Nathan Lee, New York Times

"In between all the writing, he feuded with Frank Sinatra, sang alongside Barbra Streisand in a Village cafe, and marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. If that's not a life worthy of a film, we're not sure what is" - New York Magazine

"...imagine watching an episode of Jerry Springer with really smart, literate people. That's what this movie feels like..." - Katherine Monk, Canwest News Service

"In words often spiked with arsenic or at least acidity, writer Ellison talks more eloquently than most writers write. I know of few movies of any kind that are better at showing how entertaining cranky rants (against mostly deserving targets) can be." -- USA Today

Written and directed by Erik Nelson. Produced by Nelson and Randall M. Boyd. Edited by Boyd. Camera by Wes Dorman. Music by Richard Thompson.
People in the film: Harlan Ellison, Robin Williams, Neil Gaiman, Dan Simmons, Peter David, Ron Moore, Josh Olson, Tom Snyder, Susan Ellison and others.

Official Website by Creative Differences - (Trailer, Outtakes, Featurette)
Trailer on YouTube
Pay the Writer | On God - Clips from the film released on YouTube

The film premiered in the US and Europe in June 2008. DVD was released May 26, 2009.
DeepDiscount.com has the DVD for $16.71 incl. US shipping. Also available at iTunes, Netflix and as Video on Demand from Amazon.

IMDB | David Loftus on the world premiere of the original cut for Documentary Films.net | Moriarty also on the original cut for Ain't It Cool News | Paul Martin for twitch at SWSX festival | Jette Kernion and Nick Schager for Cinematical | Ethan Alter for Film Journal | Leo Goldsmith for indieWIRE | Paul Brenner for Filmcritic.com | Noel Murray for A.V. Club | Matthew Sorrento for identitytheory.com | Ken Fox for TV Guide | Steve Dollar for The New York Sun | John P. McCarthy for Boxoffice | Gordon Van Gelder for SF Site | DVD: Roy Frumkes for Films in Review | Mark Tiedemann | Katarina Gligorijevic on exclaim.ca | Jim Thomas for DVD Verdict | Please let me know if something important is missing or links are broken | Christopher Long for DVDTown.com | James Enge for Black Gate | Jamie S. Rich for DVD Talk (also talks about the film in this interview) | Bill Gibron for PopMatters | Chosen as one of the ten best DVDs of 2009 by Bill Gibron at PopMatters and Stuart Galbraith IV at DVD Beaver|

Elizabeth Bachner for Film-Forward.com - "The review closest to my heart, about the film I tried to make" (Erik Nelson)

Interviews with Erik: eFilmCritic | Variety (video) | hotDOCS | IMDB-Filmography: here |
Interviews with Harlan: Billboard (video) | Studio 360 (audio) | A.V. Club | WCPN Cleveland Sep.2007 (audio) | Salon (mp3 audio) | The last one used to be a video interview - I think they removed the video, unless you can find it |

Harlan's statement about the film and the reviews:

HARLAN ELLISON - Friday, June 6 2008 11:11:47 - wrote:Mark this: I think it is a wonderful film. I love Richard Thompson's dear music, I love Randy Boyd's adroit (and seemingly endless) editing, I nod my head with pleasure at Doug Martin's sly graphics. I laugh every time I see DREAMS, laugh big-time. I think the subject of the film is a funny weird old guy, and he makes me laugh. I tear up every time I see the part of the film in which Louis LaVerne "Doc" Ellison appears. I tear up big-time. I like this film. Mr. Nelson has given me an extraordinary gift; one I could never have dreamed would become an actuality. But...

The reviews are not about me.

They are reviewing, commenting on, surmising narrowly or broadly or wholly incorrrectly or dead-on accurately about only two things:

1) A film BY Erik Nelson. That is to say, a film of Erik Nelson's interpretation of the subject, laid out with carefully excluded or included instants of an ongoing story. It is HIS view of the subject; it is the film HE chose to tell.

and, more importantly,

2) It is about a mythical creature named "Harlan Ellison."
That creature may or may not, in reality, actually, exist. And even if it does, it is a cobbled-up creature of published snippets, odd moments of circumstantial evidence, rumors, gossip, tall and short tales, and the Aesopian morals each tale imparts.

It is not about me. So I am content with ALL the reviews, each and every. I cannot help but snicker at some of the impertinent and purposely cobbled-up whole-cloth "carps." (Such as "Why doesn't Susan Ellison have more to say, more onscreen time, if she's so important in his life?" Well, how about "She doesn't like being on camera, moron!" or "Why didn't Nelson go see his sister, even if Ellison didn't want him to Go There?" Well, how about she's 82 years old, not at all well, and what the hell would Nelson have asked a woman whose memory is shot?" And etcetera.)

My answer to the questions you've asked, and that others may ask of you, here or elsewhere, is simple. It is an Erik Nelson film about a creature named Harlan Ellison they are reviewing.

I have no dog in that hunt. So I'm down with it, I'm cool with it, ALL of it.

Yr. Pal, Harlan

Note: Please keep the discussion mostly film-related. The opening post by rich was in reaction to a review by Daniel Oppenheimer. Harlan's reaction to the review had been: Dear "Clipping Service": Kindly spare me; do not, please, ever again put up the likes of the Oppenheimer piece. If I want to sample Jewish anti-Semitism, I can always read Celine. (Aug 21, 2008)

-- Moderator out --

___________________



DREAMS WITH SHARP TEETH, or "The Irritable Man"

Daniel Oppenheimer wrote, I thought, a pretty good piece on Ellison, prompted by Oppenheimer's viewing of Dreams with Sharp Teeth. The link was posted on the Pavvy, but Ellison himself had unkind words to say about the article without, I'm assuming, ever actually reading it.

But I thought it was a good article, and I think Oppenheimer's comments in the comments section were exactly right:

DANIEL OPPENHEIMER: It's funny, with Ellison, dealing with the good vs. great thing. If he weren't so obsessed with his own literary stature, I wouldn't have found it necessary to point out so often, in the piece, that he's not a writer for the ages. At the same time, if he weren't such a self-promoter, no one would have made a documentary about him, and he wouldn't have the Neil Gaimans of the world overselling his talent, and I probably wouldn't have written an article about him.


One could argue about "a writer for the ages", but I think the main point is valid: that Ellison is such a self-promoter.

David Loftus brings up a question, though, and one I'm surprised to actually see when discussing Ellison and his work.

David Loftus wrote:How does Ellison's character overshadow his stories if you have to search -- actively -- for information about his antics, as well as for fairly isolated references to Jews and Judaism in his writing?


Stephen King said it was hard to separate Ellison from his work in Danse Macabre, and I think it's fairly obvious that Ellison's character does overshadow his work. At times. And maybe that's the caveat. But for a man who routinely goads and prods and offends just to offend, Ellison's character DOES overshadow his work, especially when the work is few and far between lately.

Harlan Ellison has made no secret that he is performing, and his stories and his essays, and his introductions and afterwords are testament to a man that wants the reader to know about Ellison the Writer and Man, as opposed to just letting the story speak for itself. Look at some of the threads in the SPIDER commentaries, when Ellison was making his own judgements on the criticisms. He WANTS to be involved, not just letting his own work speak for itself, but he wants to needs to let the reader know that there was someone behind that typewriter, that the words didn't just magically appear. He wants YOU to understand what he was doing, where he was emotionally/physically at the time, and why you, the reader, were right or wrong about a particular story.

David, you're more aware, professionally and personally, of Ellison's work than anyone on these boards so to see the question from you struck me as a defense of something that doesn't need to be defended: Ellison himself, in numerous intros to his work, indicates that he does the intros as a way to let his readers know about him. And it's precisely those "talks" that have so galvanized his readers, more so than his fiction, I think.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:17 am

I feel Oppenheimer just doesn't like Harlan, so he did this hit piece on him for kicks.

Harlan does self promote: that's not his fault, since his books are so hard to find in bookstores, even libaries.

Ellison has an ego, we know that. Most artists have too, for their art to be good. Humble artists tend to make crappy art. Artists of note are basically saying--"look at me, aint I hot shit?"

Ellison is overshadowed because that's the nature of our culture. The cult of personality lives in this country, sometimes in muddy ways.

Chomsky can't walk ten feet without some idiot asking him for an autograph. The unwashed don't seem to understand, it is about the ideas, not the person.

Avoiding Harlan is very easy, since you rarely see or hear of him in the popular media.

Harlan is merely honest about his life, this is why he mentions things like the amount of women he has slept with. He should be proud.

Harlan never said he wasn't an asshole. You either accept it or not.

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Postby David Loftus » Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:23 am

rich wrote:One could argue about "a writer for the ages", but I think the main point is valid: that Ellison is such a self-promoter.


You say that like there's something wrong with that. Study the careers of painters such as Gauguin and Picasso, and you'll find they did a lot of funky stuff to promote and sell their work; to some extent, they had to.


rich wrote:David Loftus brings up a question, though, and one I'm surprised to actually see when discussing Ellison and his work.

David Loftus wrote:How does Ellison's character overshadow his stories if you have to search -- actively -- for information about his antics, as well as for fairly isolated references to Jews and Judaism in his writing?


David, you're more aware, professionally and personally, of Ellison's work than anyone on these boards so to see the question from you struck me as a defense of something that doesn't need to be defended: Ellison himself, in numerous intros to his work, indicates that he does the intros as a way to let his readers know about him. And it's precisely those "talks" that have so galvanized his readers, more so than his fiction, I think.


Okay, but there's a difference -- a pertinent one, it seems to me -- between the introductions inside book covers, which accompany the stories, and the "self-promotion" to which I believe Oppenheimer and most non-fans and former fans of Ellison are referring: that is to say, the endless myths and legends about fans being tossed down elevators, producers being punched out, tits being grabbed, etc., etc. The introductions are serious commentaries on the nature of creativity, the process of writing, and how an author's life "might" relate to the production of tales. The other stuff is flack, gossip, white noise . . . and I don't think you could accuse Ellison of spreading it and keeping it alive in the interest of selling his books.

Furthermore, as I said a little later in my comment to the Oppenheimer page, I was rather surprised when I went back and reviewed my Ellison collection and found how many books did NOT have story introductions. Some don't even have general introductions. In memory, one thinks of them as being ubiquitous.

And that's why I contend the stories -- the best of them, for their are plenty of pedestrian and mediocre ones -- are not overwhelmed by the legends, and will stay in memory and keep being read.

rich

Postby rich » Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:00 pm

I'll skip Frank's comments 'cause they're basically worthless, other than to note that they're basically worthless.

David,
I don't think there's anything wrong with being a self-promoter, and I didn't mean to imply that there was. Unless your name is John Grisham, J.K. Rowling, Stephen King, or a handful of other "brand name" writers you HAVE to be a self-promoter.

To the meat of the piece...

I'd have to go back and check, but every single one of my Ellison books has introductions. Granted I don't have the number you have, but even if we just look at the last 20 years or so, with the reprints, there are introductions and essays accompanying the fiction. One could argue that some don't say anything about the man or his personal life, but the majority of them do. Hell, he does introductions to the introductions, and he is probably the ONLY science fiction writer that could've written an entire book on how Roddenberry fucked up his script.

I don't think Oppenheimer's essay was an attack on Ellison, whereas everyone else here seems to think it is. The point of the piece was that Ellison's work is inseparable from his life (like most writers), but he's made that symbiosis part of his performance: writing in bookshop windows, or staying in an RV for a cause, or suing AOL. I don't think that's a good or bad thing, I just think it *is*. However, in Ellison's case, I think it has hurt him, and I think even the best of his stories DO get overwhelmed by Ellison the Performer. I DO accuse Ellison of keeping the stories alive 'cause that's what got him on talk shows, and gets him into the conventions at this stage of his career. Plus, for right or wrong, he's got a big mouth and he doesn't let things go, and it helped his career. I think it's a double-edged sword, though: It has hurt his literary status; writing in bookshop windows, as opposed to hunkering down and writing a novel.

I'm not judging anything other than the output. If he wants to write for television or in bookshop windows, that's his business. I just agree with Oppenheimer that Ellison DOES want the literary kudos and he is concerned about his literary stature, and I think it's relevant to say that being Harlan Ellison, Witty Lecturer and Comedian, has impacted his career as Harlan Ellison, Writer.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:40 pm

Grrrrrrrrrrr

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:55 pm

I both agree and disagree with Rich on this one.

I agree with him that the Oppenheimer piece did not read like an Ellison attack. He clearly is not enamored with Ellison the person or the writer but the point he was trying to make about the intersection between an artist and his work is separate from his feelings.

Where I disagree with Rich is on Ellison the Performer overwhelming the stories. Nowhere in Pretty Maggie Moneyeyes, DeathBird, Whimper of Whipped Dogs, On the Slab, Grail, or many other of his stories is Ellison the Performer present.

Harlan unquestionably pours himself into his work. This is one of his strengths as a writer and that conviction translates into a strength of character as a person.

I am also uncertain how Ellison the Performer has hurt his literary status. Stunts such as writing in a bookstore window are known to a comparatively limited audience and have not hurt his acceptance in the mainstream. Can you provide any example or more detailed rationale why Harlan's shtick, for lack of a better term, has affected his literary stature?

The output stands on its own. Repent Harlequin remains one of the most reprinted stories, the film version of Vic and Blood is a cult classic; I think Harlan will stay in the memory of science fiction fans and as a passionate critic for several generations

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:37 pm

The awards speak for themselves.

Oppenheimer is accusing Harlan of being a self hating Jew.

rich

Postby rich » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:30 pm

It's extremely difficult to keep this conversation civil when Frank says stuff like, "Oppenheimer is accusing Harlan of being a self-hating Jew."

Please point out the text, Frank, if you can find it, or if you've even bothered to read the entire article.

markabaddon wrote:Where I disagree with Rich is on Ellison the Performer overwhelming the stories. Nowhere in Pretty Maggie Moneyeyes, DeathBird, Whimper of Whipped Dogs, On the Slab, Grail, or many other of his stories is Ellison the Performer present.

That's a valid point, and the only argument I would gather (if any, quite frankly) is that when all's said and done, when he's gone, and you and I are gone, then are any of those stories going to outweigh his own personal "performances"? (Deathbird should last, by the way, but the others I think mileage may vary.)

And maybe that's really where I'm coming from: it's not what we're discussing here now, but, as Oppenheimer said in a later comment: "Unquestionably, his persona is over-the-top, self-promoting, charismatic, etc., but if his writing were really great, then it will, in time, overshadow the personality -- if not, then it won't." So maybe all this is just masturbation.

However, one final note. Earl Wells posted some good comments after the article, but comments on the Pavvy and those by KOS (on Oppenheimer's site), are one of the main reasons why it's even hard to bring up any kind of criticism. It's not enough that some Webderlanders have to disagree with someone, but to belittle and insult is why it's hard to even take some of the valid points from these Webderlanders seriously.

rich

Postby rich » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:46 pm

Shit. I forgot. I did want to address one of Earl's statements:

"I don't think it's true that when Ellison went to Hollywood "he substituted a 'literary career' for something that paid better." Most of his literary reputation is based on the work he did after he went to Hollywood in 1962; the work was, in a sense, subsidized by Hollywood money."

You're right, Earl, that Ellison's work was subsidized by Hollywood money, but, and I think this is important, Ellison refused to let go of Hollywood and devote his time to writing novels. He's never met a deadline he liked so it's possible that short stories were all he was ever going to do, but I think he short-changed himself when he didn't sit his ass down and write a few novels. THAT is what his Hollywood money should have been subsidizing.

Without the novels he's an accomplished short story writer who MIGHT have a shot at a literary legacy. One of the main flaws in DREAMS WITH SHARP TEETH is that NONE of Ellison's peers were interviewed. NONE. So we're left with a celebrity and various authors who grew up reading Ellison, but we don't know what Ellison's peers think.

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

Postby Earl Wells » Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:20 am

I was going to make a few notes on the subject of how writers who started out in genre magazines acquire literary respectability but instead I'll limit myself to agreeing with Rich on the importance of novels.

[Off-topic part of content moved here - Mod.]

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:41 am

Rich, you have let your hate for Harlan go to your head.


[Note from Mod: I think Frank and Rich have made clear where they stand and we definitely don't need to see more taunting. The discussion must stay subject-related for the readers' sake.]

rich

Postby rich » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:42 am

Frank, I deliberately started the thread over here precisely to keep it off the Pavvy. The Pavvy seems to be more about trying to get Ellison's attention, and figuring out new ways to insult people, as opposed to actively discussing what Oppenheimer wrote.

[Off-topic part of content moved here - Mod.]
[Insult to Mod. removed. - Mod. 05/28/09]

User avatar
Harlan Ellison
Harlan Fucking Ellison
Posts: 847
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 10:24 am

Postby Harlan Ellison » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:00 pm

POSITION PAPER BY HARLAN RE: RICH&oppenheimer

I have done what I almost never do. I have gone over to a S.P.I.D.E.R. site and read the entries by Rich from North Carolina, and Earl Wells, and Frank Church, and several others.

It was my intention to post a reply, but ONCE AGAIN the password Rick cobbled up for me refuses to permit access.

To Earl, and all others, but mostly and heartfeltedly to Frank, you weird fuck, I am humbled by your friendship. When the shit hits the fan, that's when you know who your friends are. As for Rich ... who has been lolling about here for years ... well...

I will say to Rich here, what I would have said there. You are all welcome to listen in.

Sir:

You have not-so-cleverly tried to box me in by making it an a priori assumption that if I keep silent, and ignore BOTH you and Oppenheimer (which is my gut preference), then I am either a cowardly a hypocrite and guilty as charged...or I am a whining little self-serving media-whore mountebank apologizing for being a Jew-boy, so flawed and insecure about my work, my worth, my legacy, that I cannot bear to be criticized.

Neither is what I am.

Like other reviewers who are reporting in their impressions of a construct called "Harlan Ellison," constructed by Erik Nelson to fit the viewpoint of a piece of documentary artifact Mr. Nelson sees in his artists' way, Oppenheimer can, and has, put a slant on not only the film, but pieces from my work he colors in an ad hominem denigration to fit whatever it is he believes about ME, the real me, the as-complex-as-any-person me, as opposed to that construct, that simulacrum Harlan, who is both me and not-me. Fair game; and I haven't responded to any one of the more than a hundred reviews that've had their turn at bat about the SimulacrumHarlan. Fair game. Fair comment.

But...if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, sheds water like a duck, and makes love to ducks...

Wheedling, weaseling pretences at fair comment--I think there have been only four in toto, out of a hundred--are quite another matter. And our good "Rich" is a fellow traveler to Oppenheimer's twisted brokenbacked tirade pretending to be critical evaluation. It is no moreso anything but a loatheful screed than Gary Westfahl's in Locus, or the sniggering piece in The Village Voice. (The 4th of this group is a somewhat different duck because it was done by a friend; yet it is kin to the other three because it uses the same m.o.; and thus, in my view, it is a stupid analysis. It is the editorial "review" of me and the film, by my longtime editor, Gordon Van Gelder, in F&SF. I respect Gordon enormously. I think his sensibilities may be a bit too Above the Salt sometimes, but I've never before had occasion to refer to something he's said or done as "stupid." And I am forbidden to speak any more publicly than here, this once, about it. I've been turned away from reply because of the very same "How long has it been since you ceased beating your wife?" paradox I cited at the outset of this post. It is no-win for me. Gordon has reviewed not the film-as-it-is, taken as a piece of art...he has (like the fan-boy academic Westfahl) pined for the film HE would've made.

As every good critic knows: Not An Option.

At best, bad criticism of Art.

At worst, stupid.
Such as rhetorically devaluing what is THERE, by woolgathering about what HE WOULD'VE PUT THERE. Well, gee, Gordon and Gary, there's oodles of stuff I'D'VE put in, if I had been the creator. But I wasn't. And neither were either one of you. So, Gordon, stupid is asking why none of my ex-wives were interviewed (one is dead, one has vanished, one has remarried and wants to be left alone, and one is not well, seriously not well); or why there isn't more onscreen comment by Susan (she is camera-shy and had to be duped to get her in the film AT ALL); or why Moorcock or Silverberg--among my many cadres of acquaintances and friends and foes--weren't interviewed (because Gaiman covered that territory perfectly and adroitly, and having an endless repetition of more talking heads served no artful purpose); and, oh, by the way, Silverberg adamantly refused to be included in any way. He was sought out, Gordon, and he said Go Away.

So there are four out of a hundred or so, and Gordon's is different from the other three, because the other three Simply Don't Like Me ... and I have no problem, and no response, to ANY of that. It may make me sniffle, but it's fair game.

The sulphur smell on the other three is the Scent of Mendacity.

There are things that are clear and evident and matters of easily-checked fact, and there are things one can assume, and there are things that--like Rich's assertion that I wrote an entire book about the manner in which a piece of my work was recast by other hands (CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER)--are clearly a purposeful twisting of the verifiable facts. To promote the slant. To enhance the spin. To set someone up.

To construct an ad hominem that cannot be unraveled or turned away without sounding like a)a crybaby unable to take ANY criticism or b)guilty as charged.

Rich is lying when he says I wrote an entire book about CITY.
The book, available to all, has an introduction and explanation about thirty-some years' worth of misinformation, behind-the-scenes documentation to establish the Truth as I Know It...and that essay is about 30,000 words in length, that of a novelette. Far from a full-length book, even a novella-length novel. The bulk of the book is first drafts of the teleplay, the final Ellison-version, and a bunch of Afterwords by other ST notables.

Now Rich can assert till he's blue in the face that it's a "whole book," but the duplicity of that slanted comment is just the first of a series of missstatements, misremembrances, and special pleading spinning. Let me give you a few more. Not from Oppenheimer, whose anti-Semitic view is uglier than a gentile's, but from "Rich," who has been hanging around this site devoted to a "writer who isn't one for the ages," when he might more productively be poking his nose into Colette's or Steinbeck's or even Sholom Aleichem's site.

He says he didn't post his denigrations on the Pavilion, for rather hazy reason.

He didn't post here because, after all these years of his lounging around on our sofa and drinking our coffee, he knows I (almost never ever) wander over there; so he had the same kind of pusilanimous "anonymity" that all internet trolls think will save them from retribution.

Oh, fuck. This is exactly what his attention-seeking sought to elicit: a blow-by-blow recitation of his snake-oil dishonesty.

Just look at the first sentence of his initial post, over on the Forum. Where he praises Oppenheimer as being right-on-target-correct: Harlan Ellison is a self-hating Jew. And he tries to give you the okeydoke on WHY he isn't going upfront to the Art Deco Pavilion BECAUSE Harlan has unkind words to say about Oppenheimer's piece, i.e., Harlan Ellison is repelled by the anti-Semitic analysis that Harlan Ellison is a self-hating Jew. Gee, y'think that's an unwarranted stance for Harlan Ellison to take? Is that the "unkind words" Harlan fulminated?

He then ASSUMES, and barks on thereafter for days with his idiot assumption as the core of his validation of opinion, he ASSUMES I never even read the Oppenheimer review.

When it is abundantly clear from my one and only, single and reserved post, only three days ago (Thursday 21 August 20 pm), only a few hours after a posting from "clipping service" (about which revelation there will be more in a moment) brought this bit of offal to my--and YOUR--attention right here in the Pavilion. Go back. Find it. Sans salutation and signature, it is a total of 28 words, 29 if you consider the hyphenated "anti-semitism" as two. Hardly "unkind words." I am capable of VERY unkind words. THIS was a simple request not to trouble my aspect with such bigoted, ugly stuff, to--in essence--leave me alone. But Rich lies and ASSUMES I did not read Oppenheimer's review. Read my post: could anyone NOT wanting to validate a bogus argument, even ASSUME I had not read every loathesome word of Oppenheimer's billingsgate? But Rich ASSUMES for me, because he wants to spin the weaseling mien of someone being evenhanded, not one who would go all the way out of his way to reinterpret EVERYTHING to support an already-held supposition of accuracy voiced by one who is inimical to the subject himself.

Rich is a weasel.

And he has the chutzpah--a word all of us "self-hating Jews" use with shame shame shame, only because all the goyim now use it--to thump Frank Church for not being sap enough to let Rich's mask of equanimity fool him. Or, to quote Rich exactly: "Frank, I deliberately started the thread over here precisely to keep it off the (sic) Pavvy. The (sic) Pavvy seems to be more about trying to attract Ellison's attention, and figuring out new ways to insult people, as opposed to actively (split infinitive--he) discussing what Oppenheimer wrote."

Yeah, and Bush/Cheney were only scaring the shit out of us because Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Insult: you are a liar, Rich. A weasel and a liar. I can prove it, and have, right here, right now; and could keep on for days, as opposed to you and Oppenheimer, who could not--with a backhoe, sweating buckets, for a fortnight--prove that I am a self-hating Jew.

And for those who haven't been paying attention, here's the Great Revelation of interlocking directorates, of cabal-level fifth-columnism, of fox in the henhouse:

That which was posted pointing out the Oppenheimer Offal, which I would never have seen, which none of you would've paid much attention to, was done under the monicker "clipping service."

But the perfectly legitimate (and known-to-me) source who often appears here as "Clipping Service" --

Hold it. See the difference?

"Clipping Service" is legit; "clipping service," accidentally or sloppily misentered WITHOUT INITIAL CAPS, is someone misappropriating another's welcome and frequent advisories, to plant a stink-bomb in our living room. I spoke to "Clipping Service," soon after reading the "clipping service" post, and was assured it had NOT emanated from the original C.S.

Now I'm ONLY assuming here, I'm assuming that which I could not without a shadow know, but I feel I am entitled to ASSUME that the lower-case-"c.s." is ... wait for it ... great big bushwah revelation ... Holmes did NOT die at the Reichenbach Falls ... Alberto and Monica Goodling and the rest of the pack were ...NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ... I believe "clipping service" was our boy Rich, setting us up trollwise, to feed his self-hating inferiority and get him another moment of attention from The Great Author, whose feet he isn't good enough to lave.

And so I, being the little petty teensy insecure trembling self-hating crucifier-of-Your-Lord that I am (via the Gospel of Offalheimer), I herewith banish your skeevy ass from this website, you weasel. Rick will see this when he comes home from his day out on the town, tonight, and he will--I hope--somehow post this over on the appropriate S.P.I.D.E.R. Forum (the one for DREAMS, Rick) and that will be that for you, Rick sweetie. You're outta here, chum. Rail all you want; it is STILL my living room, in MY house, and I don't open my door for trash like you.

Did you REALLY think you could have at me in my own Duchy, and get away with it? And if you ever come back, son, I will go the extra few steps I've gone to track down and bring to justice the more than 200 pirates who, each, unfailingly, assured everyone they could never be traced. Yeah. Right. Yo momma.

Further, deponent sayeth not.

As always, through the holy grace of Saint Steven Augustine, Yr. Placid Pal, Harlan

(For 74 Years, at this Same Location, a Proud Jew)

User avatar
Jan
Posts: 1817
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Köln

Postby Jan » Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:31 am

My Pavilion comments about this aren't really relevant for this thread, except perhaps this: In the Pavilion Rich repeated his claim that Harlan has never met a deadline. That's a ludicrous thing to say about a professional writer of reputation. Like the majority of writers who take their work seriously, he missed a number of deadlines, but he could never have become (and stayed) the respected writer he is if those cases hadn't been exceptions.

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

Postby Jim Davis » Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:38 am

For everyone who's dogpiling on Rich right now, let me make this clear: Rich has posted here, and only here, specifically because Rick asked him to, pursuant to HE's orders. For HE to suddenly act like Rich was trying to be a pusillanimous sneak when he was only observing the rules is either (a) disingenuous or (b) signs of incipient dementia. And no matter how childish or nasty Rich's sign-off may have been, it was no worse than HE's opening salvo, an attack that was completely unprovoked. For HE to proclaim for years that the Forum is a hands-off area that he's uninterested in reading, and then to flip out arbitrarily and blast someone over what they wrote here, while denying them any chance to respond (no matter that it didn't work), is utter nonsense.


Return to “Literary Symposium”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest