Unca Harlan's Art Deco Dining Pavilion

Archive - 08/08/2006 to 09/01/2006

Unca Harlan's Art Deco Dining Pavilion

Oh no. Oh no no no no no.
Nuh-uh. No way.

Harlan, you know (I hope), that I love you and Susan dearly, have since the first time we spent a good deal of real world time together, in the flesh...and that I worry about you two when things like this happens. As much of a boon as this site and board have been to you at times, there are other times I am embarassed and ashamed that it has been the vehicle to bring the ugliness and inconsideration of the world screaming into your home at close to lightspeed.

This is one of those times, natch.

AND.

I want you to be happy. I want to do what I can in that regard. While I have a responsibility to keep this site running, I also consider it my duty, not as your webmaster but as your friend, to offer whatever aid I find possible when you are in need or having troubles.

It's easy for me to confuse those duties. I am as uncomfortable creating debt as you are at being indebted. And it's recently come to the forefront of my mind that perhaps the reason (other than actually having a life these past few years) that I've let the rest of the site languish while focusing on this area is because I dislike wondering if the site is the basis of that friendship and not shared experience. That's not a healthy way to think, and even if it were it's a poor way to handle it, and you have my apologies on that. Having realized it, I am going to take steps in the next few weeks to rectify it.

It's also true that I have owed you and Susan a visit, one that is almost half a year overdue. One that has already been PAID FOR by the wonderful folk here. I plead that my work has been so fucked up (I've had two major realignments/position changes involving myself and two separate sets of people that wound up reporting to me) that the kind of time I'd like to spend has not been possible. But that's an excuse as well. I found time to make it down to Costa Rica for our first family vacation in ten years. I could have chosen LA instead. I will not apologize for choosing family first, but I WILL try to get down there at the first available opportunity.

There are many more things I could say, but like Susan I do not like this medium for conveying them. I do it here because I DO owe those who come here some explanation of where I've been and where I'm at.

BUT.

Just as this is not the place for anyone else to remonstrate about your relationship and current condition of offense or non-offense, beef or non-beef, with Connie Willis, neither is this the place to resolve that state of affairs. I have no desire to see that played out on any larger stage than necessary. I am sorry enough that this place has been part of that folderol getting blown out of proportion and brought under the imbecile light of Internet Public Scrutiny. I suspect that it is that very light which has made it difficult for Connie to respond to you. If I were her I would be damned if I would make some response that would be picked over by jackals and either lauded or harumphed in their usual unempathetic or over-empathetic fashion -- thereby adding to what has already become an unfortunate and embarassing event. I am not going to willingly be part of that.

I also suspect this has been a bad and trying week for you. That you are suffering, as you so often do, from being publicly analyzed and re-analyzed and over-analyzed and still nearly completely misunderstood. I also know how seriously you take assaults made on your friends as a result of their standing in the line of fire, and how it pains you when that occurs. It troubles me that it may be the result of all this that uncharitable feelings and suspicions towards a friend, be they grounded or not, have been displayed here.

I would never tell you what you can or cannot say here, what emotions or misgivings you can and cannot reveal. That is your right. This is your home. But it is MY home as well, and I pay the rent and clean the gutters. I am as responsible for what goes on here as you are. I take that responsibility as seriously as you take yours towards your friends.

I wish I had the time today to make this prettier and more considered, to clean up the run-on sentences and comma splices that litter my prose, to do this perfectly. I wish I could resolve this without resorting to the webderland equivalent of the nuclear football. But this has already taken a hour I did not have last night, and a half hour I did not have today, and I have to do SOMETHING.

THEREFORE.

I'm leaving the latest posts up, rich's response included. And if Ms. Willis wishes to make a public statement about the PUBLIC part of, hell, I dunno what you'd call it, HugoGate?, my e-mail is rick@rickwyatt.com. It's only fair to give her that opportunity, although I hope it is unecessary.

Other than that, nada. I am pushing the big red button. We are going to have a time out over the weekend. Consider me the parent who came in and pulled the plug on the stereo when the party got ouf control and people started pulling each other's hair.

I want everyone, EVERYONE, involved to take a few days to chill the fuck out. Take a walk - outside, not on a treadmill. Sit on a porch and watch a storm blow in. Call an old friend and make sure they know how much you love them. Do whatever kind or ugly things you have time for.

Just don't do them here.

See you on Monday.

Anyone who was there (as I was) who did not already harbor some spiteful feelings towards Harlan could not reasonably interpret the incident as anything but innocent silliness. Reading through some of the comments here and elsewhere is depressing.

Kim Smith:

"I remember a lady in a chair in front of me. A couple three maybe. One was gifted with dark, short hair and a wheeled suitcase. I think another was a long haired Asian lady. I was impressed by the fortitude and courtesy of those in line (though one guy did have that fannish "I know everything about everything and am going to prove it right here right now" sort of attitude going on with his mouth)."

Asian lady! Right here! And I have to think that either the guy in front or in back of me was the guy of which you speak. They seemed perfectly nice, but oy! Non-stop pontificating for 3.5 hours! On the upside, I now know many rationales for why "Titus" is the world's best TV sitcom, and how to alleviate the expensive costs of shipping to Canada.

ON WHATEVER:

I was going to say something about being called a "nutjob" and the dubious wisdom about anyone thinking all women should think one way or the other, as if we were all some sort of Borg-hive mentality. But then, I remembered the kindly R. Silverberg at the panel discussion, who said "when someone comes up to me and starts arguing, I just say 'well, you might be right" and then walk away. It saves a lot of talking.'

Soo..."well, you might be right."

I'm coming late to the party, so forgive me for going backwards. Harlan, Josh, Rick and John-Henri have already plowed these fields, so no vote from me on whether or not Harlan goes to the gallows.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I've been to dinner with Harlan and Susan a couple of times, and I was at the Hugos. And I refuse to speak for Harlan or for Connie Willis. Because seriously. How ludicrous.

But Rich. Dear Rich. You're a mite confused. It's this bit, really:

>So, yes, there may be some question as to the legitimacy of the apology. There also is a very valid question of context, of which HE never brought up. So one can reason that perhaps even HE felt he may have crossed a line. Who knows? Only he and Willis know and neither are talking.So that leaves it to the Flying Blue Monkeys to flit around, ignoring what it means when someone who worked on the ERA does what he did. Ignoring the key fundamental question: Was it right?Of course not. But that doesn't stop the Flying Blue Monkeys, holing up on Webderland like some Alamo, ignoring and disregarding all the chatter going on in the Blogosphere, and defending at all costs the myth that is Ellison.

This is where Rich's psychology rears its distorted, fuzzy head. See, Rich is upset because he thinks that his opinion is just as valid as anyone else's -- on any subject. This is what the bloody internets have wrought. Anyone with (literally) half a brain and a keyboard can spew their drivel out into the "blogosphere." Hell, even the term "blogosphere" is self-important.

There is no vote here. Your opinion on this matter is moot. And so is the opinion of every other member of the vaunted "blogosphere." The apes who pound away at their Dells just have to look at the opening weekend for "Snakes on a Plane." Remember that? The movie driven by the internets? Don't think that for every one of you there are forty more. Just the opposite, my friend. For every thousand message board screeds, there is only one sad Rich, loaded for bear with his big bag of indignation.

You're irrelevant, Rich. You just don't know it.

>Only here, at the Alamo, are there actual comments like there are "more important issues" than this. Of course there are, and no one said, ANYWHERE, that this ranks right up there in the top 10 of "important" issues. But that ignores the very real issue that something happened that was wrong. Only here, at the Alamo, are personal attacks given to those that say HE did wrong. Only here, at the Alamo, are people wondering about "making a big deal" over a "minor incident". Only here, at the Alamo, is someone told to "shut the fuck up".

You know what? Wrong shit happens all the time. Every second, something horribly wrong happens. But still, you rant and bleat and beg for attention. Why have we turned into this country of victims? Why do you feel the need to put yourself into Connie Willis's taffeta gown, primed to be offended?

And apparently, telling you to shut the fuck up has no effect.

Familiarity may breed contempt in the real world but on the internets, it breeds outrage and betrayal. Grab a hold, Rich. Please.

Two Things (Using my Friday post 45 minutes early)

First, I am sick and fucking tired of people tossing the word "syncophant" around if someone disagrees with them and thinks they are overreacting to something that is none of their business. Harlan does not need anyone to jump to his defense, but those of us pointing out the flip side of your argument may actually have valid points of our own, which have nothing to do with cowtowing to anyone. We're as entitled to our opinions as you are to yours. Make that "informed opinions". Yours may not be the only one intelligent, thinking people might hold.

Secondly, taking shots at people on the sidelines who have never, once, raised a word or public comment against you is cheap, cheesy and amateurish. I'm not referring to the above "syncophant" trash, this is directed to the asshole who dragged Susan into this with a broadswipe cheap shot. There have been others. Too many people who hide behind the internet's anonymity are taking nasty swipes against real people -- and have you noticed that virtually all of the attackers are doing so from behind pseudonyms? True courage.

Some on both sides are behaving like adults. If we disagree we disagree, but to be an actual adult acting like a five-year-old bully throwing spitballs on a schoolyard is a sickening thing to read.


And last point: don't take this to the Forums. I'll be deleting any and all personal attacks on this topic, accusations of censorship notwithstanding.

Breasticles
A modest proposal: since everyone is so hepped up about breasts, why not bring the discussion back around to Mr. Ellison’s works, and quote passages in which breasts have appeared, or played a prominent role. Then we can play ‘Name that Breast’.
To wit, name the piece in which the following quote appeared. For extra credit, give the cup and bra size of the real-life inspiration for the titular character. (Yes, this info is available on the web.) (Yes, I am making a guess on whom Mr. Ellison was basing this character.)

“Their naked, fleshy breasts hung on the window ledges like Dali-esque melting casabas, waiting to ripen. [snips] turned and saw the array of deep-brown nipples, and made a strange sound, “Awuhhh!” as if they had been something put on sale at such a startlingly low price she was amazed, confused and repelled out of suspicion.”

I'll send a special prize to the winner!

Leaving Webderland

I always knew this day would come, but I assumed it would be as a result of my own actions. I've had my own ups and downs here, in the five years I've hung around. But in the end, I've decided to leave because this is just not a very good place to be anymore.

It’s not the grope. Frankly, and this may make me look like a cad, I was never that appalled by the Ellison-Willis incident, although obviously many others are. I saw and still see it as a dumb blunder. There have been a lot of different reactions, ranging from sad to supportive to clearly ignorant. What has killed us is how we’ve reacted to each other.

Tonight I was the subject of some truly hostile invective over on the Forums (now censored), and while I knew the source of this bile has his own problems to deal with, it was still a little shocking, this level of hate that I read in his post. Given that I have remained relatively neutral on the groping incident, it was all the more distressing how much fault this person found in me.

Also tonight a friend of mine has been permanently banned from the Pavilion for expressing his own anger and frustration. While his language was coarse and his emotions perhaps too extreme for this board, he was responding to some angry and aggressive and in once case truly offensive postings, that did not restrain their own cursing and opprobrium for those who had some unresolved issues with the Willis matter.

Finally, while I’ve never been one to worry about public opinion, it’s clear from a canvassing of the Internet that Webderland has become a joke. We have not comported ourselves well in this hour of examination; indeed, I think we have really blown it this time. Maybe the site should have been shut down for a week. But it wasn’t, and the damage is done.

This is not a good place to be anymore.

It was an exciting run. I made some good friends, and a devoted handful of detractors, but I enjoyed the gaff and will miss a few of you.

Take care, Eric

Oh, Lord . . . I can't believe all this ruckus
This incident, as I had guessed, was apparently blown WAY out of proportion; I kept clicking on links that purported to show me some kind of "grope," but I never got to see anything of the kind. I think I know what a "GROPE" would look like, and I didn't SEE any naughty patting, touching, squeezing (oops, invoking the Journey song there for a moment.) Nevertheless, a very contrite apology was publicly posted all over the net. But that wasn't enough for the people who want to pursue it.

I don't know whether anyone went over to read my blog entries on this topic, but basically, to those who are raising Cain over this, I said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I mean . . . have we not all made mistakes? Errors in judgment? And sometimes you just can't "fix" whatever it was. Sometimes you just have to let it go.

I know of at least three instances in which an impulsive action or word on my part blew away a friendship of long standing and/or made many people change their opinions of me. I apologized, and the apology was accepted, but the mistake could not be un-made. The word cannot be unspoken. I don't really know what kind of penance these people would like that'd make them happy. If we could turn back time . . . y'know . . . we would correct our mistakes that way. But we haven't figured out how to do that yet without disastrous time paradoxes.

People love to shame others and Make An Example of them. But that isn't always called for. Have none of you made mistakes? Is there no forgiveness in you for someone who has apologized for tomfoolery? (Nothing's permanently scarred, surely, over a momentary event.) Must we always start a crusade over everything?

I have already said that people like to seize on any "impropriety" and then fry the "perp," and it's because they're always looking for something to complain about. Lack of perspective. This was just a momentary tweak, not assault or murder or what-have-you, for goodness' sake. I don't condone sexism or hassling women/men by touching them, but seriously, this isn't some big ponderous Sin. Let's leave it to the two parties to work things out.

Thank you Steve Barber :-)

And Harlan--I've been visiting Mikey Roessner-Herman in Stallion Springs so haven't been home yet but my housesitter told me about your phone call. You're very welcome.

Brian,

Please send Simone my greetings and salutations. It has been many, many years, and it’s lovely to be remembered by good people. I went to college (for all of a year) with her daughter, Rachel. Rodney is one of my very best friends on this planet, a fantastic musician, a truly decent man, and will be doing composing duties on my next film. Getting to work with your true friends is one of the greatest blessings there is.

Now, on to more trivial matters:

Good God, I can't keep a promise for even half a day...

Mark,

Mother of God. Before I unleash on your empty head, let me ask you this - WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT FROM THE MAN?

Seriously. Stop. Take a deep breath. Ponder it.

While you’re doing that, let me respond to your asinine points:

“1. I would expect an adult to be cognizant of the fact that there are children and young people present who would not necessarily understand the context of a boob grab (should an acceptable context exist).”

Fuck The Children. The world does not need to be made safe for The Children. It needs to be made safe from ponderous dickweeds like you who want to sanitize every goddam thing imaginable for those fucking bratss, who - I hate to break it to you - say and do worse on an hourly basis. And thank God for that. I didn’t learn profanity and rudeness and filth from adults when I was six, bubba. I learned ‘em where we ALL learned ‘em- from my six year old peers. Had it not been for those wonderful miscreants, I wouldn’t be half as adept as I am now at verbally eviscerating dung beetles like you.

“2. One does not joke or use purposefully exaggerated hyperbole in a true apology. An apology is contrition, not another poorly thought-out comedy routine.”

One does if that is the way one speaks and writes as a matter of course. To wit- this very response. While my disgust at your poltroonish behavior is very real and very serious, it is still couched in verbiage that is causing some folks here, at least, to chuckle with glee.

“3. If you apology has the phrase "if I offended...", it is not an apology. It's a passive aggressive way of saying "You're offended, but I don't see why."”

It’s also a way of saying, “There are many ways to see this event, and I intended no offense. However, if you took any, I apologize.”

I will not offer such an apology to you. It is my intent to offend you. However, if I don’t offend you, I do, indeed, apologize. But not to you, only to everyone else here who thinks you’re a creep.

“4. Harlan has lots of fans. Lots of people exist who do not read him, know his personality or, most importantly, care about either. They can be offended and not have to take his accomplishments and personality into account to excuse his behavior.”

Well, fuck them, too. The notion that one must take the time to contextualize every individual who might enter the room before engaging in any kind of behavior, for fear of confusing or alienating them is.... well.... moronic.

“5. One's accomplishments and personality are no excuse.”

I haven’t seen anyone making excuses here, except for the dipshits who try to justify beating this mummified corpse for the sake of feeling all righteous and tingly and shit.

“6. One's accomplishments and perosnality are often the very reason some people think they can get away with bad behavior.”

I haven’t seen Harlan - or anyone - cite his accomplishments as justification or excuse. However, the notion that one’s personality has no bearing on one’s behavior is.... gee, that word again... moronic.

“7. One does not lob an apology on his own website to someone he is supposedly good friends with for something that obviously upset the friend and a lot of other people. Good friends call each other in such circumstances. The offender does not passive aggressively put on a public show to effectively embarrass the person further by forcing them to demand an apology.”

I understand that in the midst of all that righteous indignation you may have missed the fact that the apology Harlan posted here was a copy of the one he fucking FED EXED to Ms. Willis. Harlan didn’t make this a big public doo-doo fest. Idiots like you did.

And while the incident may, indeed, have upset Ms. Willis, it is by no means obvious, as she hasn’t commented on it publicly or to Harlan. We do not know she is upset. We DO know you are. But until you posted here, nobody even knew you existed, let alone how to contact you and personally apologize for something that had nothing whatso-fucking-ever to do with you. Genius.

“I could go on, but let me share how I have dealt with guys who grab boobs without permission.”

I’m sure all them helpless, stupid wimmin were thrilled to have such a heroic studmuffin defending their virtue from those Visigoths. Do you do this whilst wearing your Batman costume?

“Four times now I have been witness to "playful" unwanted boob grabs. Each time, I have "playfully" reached over and cupped the guy's crotch. Each and every one--including the one gay guy--were horrified and offended--including two I've known for years. Familiarity has nothing to do with it. It's an invasion.”

Nothing like the one you seem so eager to perpetrate on people. Had Harlan grabbed her cooch in public, that would be a perfectly appropriate come-uppance. But he didn’t. Perhaps the next time you come across someone behaving in this manner you should grab their ass, instead. Breasts are not genitals, and lack of famiarity with same is no excuse.

“All you guys here who think it's no big deal, please stop by so I can hold your balls.”

If you’re so eager, might I recommend you stop wasting your precious internet time here. You will find far more opportunity to indulge your odd but probably harmless little fetish at www.cupmyballs.com

I was going to wrap up by going back to my initial question of what you want from the man, but I find at this point, I truly don't give a crap.

So run along now. It's never too late to get a life.

Now I'm REALLY going to try to ignore this topic for the rest of my natural life.

CLARIFICATION BADLY NEEDED
Please clarify, Mr. Ellison. Are you saying that, due to her "frequently demeaning public jackanapery toward [you] -- including treating [you] with considerable disrespect at the Grand Master Awards Weekend..." that you are, in fact, entitled to touch Ms. Willis' breast in public? She says that's what you did, and she doesn't think it's funny. I believe her. I mean, it's *her* breast, but you seem shocked that "SHE sets the rules for play, and I'm the village idiot, she's cool."

I have news. Yes, indeed, I and most people who are not your sycophantic, frothing fanboys and girls, in your words feel that, "gawd forbid I change the rules and play MY way for a change" if it entails grabbing someone's body parts in front of a large crowd of people. Most people would agree that you are the village idiot, and she is cool in this situation.

Are you angry at Ms. Willis, Mr. Ellison? Has she been, as you claim, publicly humiliating your for years now? Did you want to take her down a peg or two? And what better way to do it than take that lowest of roads that a man can take with a woman, touching her in ways that, if someone touched your wife that way, you'd deck him? All the support for ERA in the world doesn't excuse that. It's irrelevant if it goes right out the window when push comes to grope.

Yes, it sounds like this is more than just friendly playing around, if you are chiding her "to get up off her political correctness and take her pal off the gibbet." Is she letting you twist in the wind? Maybe she's angry, Mr. Ellison. Maybe you went too far. Maybe a big-boy apology would do the trick.

But that's not going to happen, is it? Is that your pride, fucking with you, Mr. Ellison? Is that what has caused you to drop YOUR mask of political correctness, haul off and grope a bitch when bitch had it comin'? Because people all over the place are calling you on your behavior, not accepting half-assed apologies? Don't you think a woman has the right not to want your or anyone to touch her breast, and to be upset if someone does? Isn't that HER CALL, if it's OK or not, not yours, it being HER BREAST? You don't get to decide if it's OK or not. It's not up to you. Sorry.

Basically, Connie Willis had it coming, according to you. She was asking for it by screwing with you. Very nice. What a gentleman. If you had just let Rick & Co silence the rabble and left it at that, you'd have been OK. But your completely horrifying, yep, MISOGYNISTIC response to rich and Ms. Willis leaves no doubt about your character. You, sir, are an appalling, embarrassing, shameless old goat. You need to stay off the Con circuit and hole up in Wonderland with your sainted wife. End of story.

Whatever. You haven't published anything of substance lately, so who cares? I've already spent far more time on you than you deserve.

Loveya still
Comments from a distant shore (although from an inhabitant just back from Los Angeles):
1) Harlan, you are too impulsive sometimes.
2) Regardless of that, all you other guys, of course Harlan is a well-known misogynist and woman hater. Just ask some of his other pals. Likse Susan. Or Joanna Russ. Or Ursula Le Guin.
3) Incidentally, Harlan is also the most generous, steadfast and caring friend you can have. Which view I suppose automatically excludes me from having the right to comment on the Hugo Ceremony idiocy. Though even so
4) No, I did not myself see the Incident. But I did talk to many friends who had. And the only thing anyone said about it was that Harlan and Connie Willis had been funny, keeping up their running shtick of mutual tongue-in-cheek abuse which has been going on for more years than some of the Morally Outraged have been alive.
5) Or, in a more all-encompassing vein, get a life, people. Things are not always what they're made out to be third hand. Nor even what they may look like firsthand if you don't happen to know the people involved.
6) Aside from all that, my love to you both, and warmest thanks for another great visit to Wonderland.
John-Henri

ST: Crucible: McCoy
Just an FYI for Harlan.

The book went on sale as an ebook at ereader.com about 20 minutes ago.

Didn't buy it myself, though. Who can say why?

Bests,

--tr

...AND MARK:

Would you be slightly less self-righteous and chiding if I told you there was

NO grab...

there was

NO grope...

there was

NO fondle...

there was the slightest touch. A shtick, a gag between friends, absolutely NO sexual content.

Would you, and the ten thousand maggots who have blown this up into a cause celebre, be even the least bit abashed to know that I apologized WAY BEYOND what the "crime" required, on the off chance that I HAD offended? Let me ask you, Mark:

1) Were you there?
2) Did you see it?
3) Are you standing on your soapbox to chide me via 3rd/4th-hand reportage by OTHERS who weren't there?
4) Do you also buy the infinite number of other internet brouhahas that turned out to be misreported?

Here it is, Mark; and for any others who fit the shoe:

In the words of that great American philosopher, Tony Isabella,
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved."

Does not anyone READ WHAT I WROTE within fifteen minutes of learning of this? Does not anyone wonder why, if it was such a piggish thing I did, as one of those jerkwad blogs calls it, Connie Willis hasn't, after twenty-five years of "friendship," not returned my call on Monday ... or responded to the Fedex packet of my posting here on Monday, which Fedex advises me she received at 2:20 pm on Tuesday?

Can the voluble and charismatic Connie not even pick up a phone to tell the man whose work she "admires deeply" that he has gone a bridge too far? Is she so wracked by the Awfulness of it that she is incapable of saying to his face, you went too far? No one EVER asked her to "bell the cat." She decided that was her role toward me, long ago. And I've put up with it for years.

How about it, Mark: after playing straight man to Connie's very frequently demeaning public jackanapery toward me -- including treating me with considerable disrespect at the Grand Master Awards Weekend, where she put a chair down in front of her lectern as Master of Ceremonies, and made me sit there like a naughty child throughout her long "roast" of my life and career -- for more than 25 years, without once complaining, whaddays think, Mark, am I even a leetle bit entitled to think that Connie likes to play, and geez ain't it sad that as long as SHE sets the rules for play, and I'm the village idiot, she's cool ... but gawd forbid I change the rules and play MY way for a change ... whaddaya think, Mark, my friend, am I within the parameters of brutish pigginess to suggest if she WAS offended, then I apologize ... even if you and a garbage-scowload of asinine pathetic internet wanks get up on their "affront" and tell me how to behave?

I've sat here for four days, quietly, having done as much forelock-tugging and kneeling as I feel -- as I -- I -- not you -- not fan pinheads in far places who jumped and bayed and went after me in a second -- but I --who is responsible for my behavior -- as I feel is proper. And for four days I've waited for Deeply Outraged and Debased Connie Willis -- an avowed friend and admirer of my work for more than a quarter century --to get up off her political correctness and take her pal off the gibbet.

I spent more hours traveling this benighted country, for eight years, state after state after state, lecturing in defense of women's rights and passage of the ERA than any of you have spent mouthing your sophomoric remonstrances.

As the Great American Philosopher Tony Isabella has said, "Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved."

My last word on this clusterfuck. If Willis wants in, she knows where you all are. She knows where I am.All the rest is silence.

Harlan Ellison

P.S. Including Mark's post that precedes this one, I URGE YOU all to post this everywhichwhere, and let the poison drip where it will. Gloves come off now, onlookers.

Concerning the Grope:

I think everyone here, the defenders and demanders of the most sincere apology since Cain slew Able alike, needs to sit back, kick their shoes off and have themselves a nice, hot cup of Shut the Fuck Up.

Take it to the Forums, guys. This horse is starting to smell.

Chuck

From a source I believe reliable

In my state a building cannot be occupied without a certificate of occupancy signed by an inspector. When one inspector refused to sign, he was told "There's too much money in this building. You'll get killed."

He signed!

TO THE "RICH" WHO POSTED AT 14:28 TODAY

Sir:

You can say whatever you choose about ME, but NO ONE fucks with my friends. Josh Olson, Cindy, and Tim are among my best friends. Your remarks to them are not only addlepated and crude, motherfucker, but they are not permissable in MY house.

You are no longer welcome here.

You will go away. Now.

You will not return. Ever.

Rick, keep an eye out for this dude under other handles. He comes back, let me know, and I'll have the hacker demon dogs track him down as I've tracked down every arrogant internet pirate who thought he could steal my work and hide from me. Them days is gone. This is 2006, and you are free to run me down interminably ...

But NOBODY fucks with my friends.

Harlan

just some thoughts...
You know what bothers me more than What Happened? The reactions here.

As has been stated, how Willis deals with it is her business.

But consider a few things here:

1. I would expect an adult to be cognizant of the fact that there are children and young people present who would not necessarily understand the context of a boob grab (should an acceptable context exist).
2. One does not joke or use purposefully exaggerated hyperbole in a true apology. An apology is contrition, not another poorly thought-out comedy routine.
3. If you apology has the phrase "if I offended...", it is not an apology. It's a passive aggressive way of saying "You're offended, but I don't see why."
4. Harlan has lots of fans. Lots of people exist who do not read him, know his personality or, most importantly, care about either. They can be offended and not have to take his accomplishments and personality into account to excuse his behavior.
5. One's accomplishments and personality are no excuse.
6. One's accomplishments and perosnality are often the very reason some people think they can get away with bad behavior.
7. One does not lob an apology on his own website to someone he is supposedly good friends with for something that obviously upset the friend and a lot of other people. Good friends call each other in such circumstances. The offender does not passive aggressively put on a public show to effectively embarrass the person further by forcing them to demand an apology.

I could go on, but let me share how I have dealt with guys who grab boobs without permission. I'm an out gay man. Four times now I have been witness to "playful" unwanted boob grabs. Each time, I have "playfully" reached over and cupped the guy's crotch. Each and every one--including the one gay guy--were horrified and offended--including two I've known for years. Familiarity has nothing to do with it. It's an invasion. All you guys here who think it's no big deal, please stop by so I can hold your balls. All you women here who think it's blown out of proportion, get some self-respect.

Hey guys...
...I confess. I once did something stupid in public.

Shall I hang myself now or later? Perhaps I should be flayed first? I want to meet community standards!

Geez.

All this nonsense reminds me of a walk through the airport security gates a few years ago, before they changed the rules so that only women could frisk women, and only men could frisk men.

After the male TSA frisked my wife, she innocently said, "Will you promise to molest me on the way back, too?"

I swear, I thought the poor sap was gonna have a heart attack.

On a lighter note, has anyone been reading the new comic FELL by Warren Ellis? It's one of my favorite new titles. I like that each story is self-contained, but there's still a sense of continuity.

Hey Rick,

Were you able make the schlep over to Ellison Wonderland?

Unrelated Shout-Out to Josh Olson
Turns out we have a mutual friend; Simone Allender. She called me up to tell me about Rodney Whittenberg's visit to Ellison Wonderland this week. She sez Hi.

I met Rodney years ago, knew him very slightly. Lucky guy, tho.

closure?


> Man, I hate to play to form and pull the "Rick finally comes in and foams at the mouth" bit, but . . . .


You do that well!

Shut the fuck up? No, how about MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Man, I hate to play to form and pull the "Rick finally comes in and foams at the mouth" bit, but GOD JESUS FUCK GHANDI KHAN CHRIST ALMIGHTY LIZARD KING SHITSTICK SUNDAY:

The question of the spectacle presented by Harlan at the awards is one matter. His personal relationship over many years with Connie Willis and whatever occurs with them as far as conversation, apology, penance, whatever, is quite another.

In the matter of the first, as it occured in a public gathering of interest to fandom, it seems appropriate that there be some discussion of the appropriateness of his actions. Neither does it surprise me that that discussion here falls mostly down the usual divisions of either blind worship or self-righteous indignance. It also seems appropriate that Harlan explain his public actions here, which he's done. If people aren't happy with THAT explanation, well, fire torpedo two.

In the matter of the second, what personally passes between Ellison and Willis is does quite simply not fall within the domain of any dilettante who would comment on it here rather than discuss it with him in person. What Harlan is telling you Rich, and you Jim, and even you Cindy, much as I love you all, is not that he owes or does not owe Connie Willis anything - or that she is or is not offended - but that it's none of your fucking business. He is telling you it's between him and her and kindly butt the fuck out.

Sexual assault? Jesus. Do you people actually listen to what you're saying or does it just spew from the Kneejerk Lobe of the Brain? The ability of people to take outraged offense on behalf of someone they don't even know, or to make sweeping character statements based on some event they heard about second or third or fourth hand, is just plain amazing.

And to try to shellac this up into some bellweather event, some Waterloo, some rallying point for change within the industry? This was just some stupid shit pulled by a septagenarian at a sci-fi convention that probably seemed like a good idea at the time and now seems obviously regrettable to just about everyone involved. It's a footnote. Hell, even if it was bad as the worst recountings, it might not break the top five on the list of rude or stupid crap I've PERSONALLY seen Harlan pull. You are talking about a man who could assrape a nun on the White House lawn during the easter egg roll without doing significant further damage to his lifelong reputation for falling prey to occaisional bouts of rudeness, rage, highly insensitive insouciance, and other types of general dickery pickery and fuckery puckery.

By all means, please blather on about what you find acceptable and unacceptable, and how Harlan's heinous hee-hawings have your panties bunched up through your GI tract all the way to the duodenum. Or how he's beyond reproach because he fought for the ERA and marched in Selma Alabama and was the only person quick enough to give Gerturde Stein the Heimlich when she choked on that fish taco. Because I am SURE he's on the edge of his seat wondering if the INTERNET finds him ACCEPTABLE.

But leave the matter of Connie and Harlan to Connie and Harlan.

Current for HERC?


Susan-

Am I current for the mailings? There have been recent references to the Rabbit Hole but I haven't seen one in a while. Did I let me membership lapse?

Thanks.

--
Ryan Leasher

I'm feeling puckish.

To those that can't get upset about this. To those that can't get worked up over a "simple joke" that fell flat. But, especially to folks like Cindy, Tim Richmond, and Josh Olson...I'll wait while you three get Harlan's dick out of your mouths. By the way, Tim, how's "Fingerprints On The Breast" coming along?

Some have said that the type of behavior exhibited by Harlan is not appropriate, and that one just can't blow it off with the following: "On a more serious note: if, in fact, Connie (or Courtney, or Cordelia) were/are/might in any way be offended by this latest demonstration of give'n'take jackanapery between Connie and Harlan (now in its longest-run on Broadway), you may all rest assured I will apologize vehemently, will crawl to Colorado through broken glass and steaming embers, and beg her (their) forgiveness."

IF she was offended. This right after admitting it was not appropriate and admitting it was offensive to do such a thing. So one can see where some may say that HE never really apologized.

So, yes, there may be some question as to the legitimacy of the apology. There also is a very valid question of context, of which HE never brought up. So one can reason that perhaps even HE felt he may have crossed a line. Who knows? Only he and Willis know and neither are talking.

So that leaves it to the Flying Blue Monkeys to flit around, ignoring what it means when someone who worked on the ERA does what he did. Ignoring the key fundamental question: Was it right?

Of course not. But that doesn't stop the Flying Blue Monkeys, holing up on Webderland like some Alamo, ignoring and disregarding all the chatter going on in the Blogosphere, and defending at all costs the myth that is Ellison.

Only here, at the Alamo, are there actual comments like there are "more important issues" than this. Of course there are, and no one said, ANYWHERE, that this ranks right up there in the top 10 of "important" issues. But that ignores the very real issue that something happened that was wrong. Only here, at the Alamo, are personal attacks given to those that say HE did wrong. Only here, at the Alamo, are people wondering about "making a big deal" over a "minor incident". Only here, at the Alamo, is someone told to "shut the fuck up".

Good job, Monkeys. While the universe rages over this particular tempest, probably to be left behind when the next knucklehead takes a joke a little too far, we here at Webderland are safe in our Alamo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y6BqLr7nLQ

Thought it might be a nice idea to lighten the spirits around here a little...

"People who look for reasons to be offended"

From Mark Evanier, on the subject of the Emmys opening with a skit that contained a plane crash. A plane crash happened that morning.

http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2006_08_30.html#012000

Becoming Peter Lorre
Having attended many of the WorldCon events involving largescreen video monitoring, I'm probably not the only one here who'd like to re-watch the recording of Harlan Ellison Tells Us. While most of the televised subjects took passive roles onstage, Harlan began his talk by approaching to within inches of the camera lens -- even to the point of becoming a screen-filling Peter Lorre character -- with verbal energy issuing wildly forth and onward to its ultimate, inevitable expression: in the midst of Bob Siverberg's ongoing video tease of the Hugo-winning Guest of Honor, a last grasp at the youthful abandon of decades long since passed.

I wonder about an airbrush illustration from Demon With a Glass Hand that had been brought to the Ellison Autograph Table. This was an unused magazine illustration from the seventies or something -- and it seemed less likely to be signed than actually acquired on site. What ever became of that situation, I wonder...

The Glass Teat (And Nothing About The Willis Teat)
As television begins to take it's monthly beating on these boards, I would like to remind everyone that this is not the 60's and 70's. This is not the television days of Harlan's Glass Teat columns.

There is a lot of quality on teevee today. There is bad teevee and good teevee; and there is more good teevee than ever in history. Heck, Harlan himself has offered praise on quite a number of current television shows on this board and in his talks; and this comes from a man who you would never imagine would spend time watching the tube other than to criticize it in Teat columns way back when.

There are good movies, there are bad movies. There are good music albums, there are bad music albums. There are good books, there are bad books. Though we are all intelligent folks who will immediately praise the joy of reading, that does not mean we have to spit on the other media just because it has been a common response in the past.

Hell, give me LOST or THE WIRE or DEADWOOD over any movie that has come out this year or any book sitting on front display at the local Borders!

-TODD

Thanks to Susan
Susan E.,
Thank you so much for the latest Rabbit Holes and the "extras" in with my ordered records and assorted items. That it is, of course, completely unnecessary (a one day's wait is not a 'delay', it's a 'meditative moment'), only goes to show what a splendid job you do, and i proffer my gratitude and much thank yous.
In appreciation,
Paul

Forgive the grammatical gaffes (parallel sentence structure, et al) in an otherwise heartfelt tract; I wrote that in a hurry, as I'm at work.

The Writer's Signature

"Joseph Stefano passed away. I'm not sure what Harlan's relationship was to the Outer Limits producer, but I wanted to mention it here out of respect for our host."

Hey, listen, man, at the end of the day, it JUST doesn’t matter...

Harlan always remained true to his convictions in his writing, his language, his vision, and his signature imagery.

So did Joe Stefano.

Stefano’s writing was most strongly marked by a signature neurosis which invariably pumped layered density into his scripts. Whether it was for Hitchcock’s PSYCHO (he was an up-and-coming talent who'd won instant admiration and empathy from a great director), or the OUTER LIMITS, Stefano invested himself in ways uniquely personal; it is possible, in fact, that as an executive producer, he’d approached his handling of a tv series more as an artist than anyone in CHARGE of a series EVER had in the history of the tube. He invested characters with what he saw in himself and in general human nature. He used tv as art – to the extent few got away with.

Thus, like Harlan, Stefano was a deeply personal writer.

Stefano – and you could see this time and time again in OUTER LIMITS – typically invested his characters with a paradoxical mix of humanism, dream symbolism, and gouging cynicism; he often used a parallel structure in his scripts to elicit human weakness and strength; an enigmatic doom hovered over anyone who could not come to grips with his own inner demons, and the moral rot of human temptation at the expense of the greater numbers. It was the careening between these emotional extremes sans the platitudes that lent a neurotic eccentricity to his shows. Stefano made the oscillascope a symbol of these wavelenghts, where no adage was needed. I connected with these wavelengths, flowed with the ebbs and tides, and remained an OLs fanatic ever since.

I think, given the mélange of lofty ideas, the ambition, and the fact that we, as viewers, were experiencing very personal reflections about the inner self, that Stefano was an acquired taste. Like Kubrick’s narratives since 2001; like Jack Kirby’s approach in comics; like Patrick McGoohan’s wild juggling of dream symbolism in THE PRISONER; or like Fritz Lang’s Expressionistic motifs in the Mabuse films: the viewer might not make sense of it the first time; it was something askew; something so off-center, that only a revisiting – or maybe several revisitings – could find a connection. But once the viewer “gets it”, it becomes like a fine wine that one can’t escape. One becomes immersed, it all becomes a great cohesive whole.

Stefano asked us to join him in therapy to visit our inner demons and, cynically, reminded us how often we neglected our own accountability for those inner demons. THESE were his ongoing motifs that reached from the inner mind to the OUTER LIMITS.

Joe Stefano was a talented craftsman who remained true to himself and brought a unique, eccentric vision to a cutting edge series.

**We also just lost Glenn Ford. Which reminds me of another addiction of mine: Fritz Lang, as I had only recently revisited THE BIG HEAT.

Television makes one a passive spectator; you fear the outside world more, based on the bogus image that is presented from a dumbed down media culture. a culture that sends us sex and violence, pre-packaged and wrapped in gore and vomit. We are the game show contestants and the boob tube is the game show host. All we win is a grope from Cindy.

The less tv you watch the more informed you become. Books are special little devices. Hell, you don't even need batteries.

--------

Susan, we are your friends here. We got your back. The net world may scare ya, but we are as innocent as termites.

Wink wink.

The internet can be very democratizing, too bad the idiots have taken it over.

And thank you as well, Mrs. Ellison.

> My posts are usually limited to informational posts. I don't
> chat. I don't like websites. I don't like the "instant"
> thoughts that are sometimes typed without understanding, most > times without compassion. Friends are made and kept over time. > I am always astonished at the cruelity both "names" and
> strangers inflict on sites. Real people, not "chat" rooms are > worth much more to me.

Thank you.

Susan

Here's the problem with this particular strain of political correctness. In the end, the people who are trying to do good end up doing the most harm. Comparing this incident with actual sexual harassment or assault does an enormous disservice to victims of sexual harassment or assault. It trivializes a real problem, and gives ammo to the people who WANT to trivialize it.

Harlan did a stupid, impulsive thing. There isn't a person here - even the most sanctimonious of us - who hasn't done something equivalent at some point in their life. The difference is, Harlan's a public figure, and his stupid impulsiveness becomes fodder for the world, or at least a large handfull of shut-ins who think the internet is a legitimate podium for their insipid views.

Let me add this - if anyone here can genuinely say they've never done anything at least this dumb and impulsive, we may have just figured out why the few friends you have think you're a fucking stiff. I've done worse in the past. I will again. So will you. It was wrong. Harlan's offered the most sincere apology I've ever read, and Ms. Willis has expressed no desire to have him jailed. Case fucking CLOSED, you simpering house apes.

What Bush did was heinous for many reasons. He didn't have a twenty year relationship with Merkel; he has a long history of being an insensitive, moronic prick; and he can't point to years of being on the frontlines, fighting for tolerance and equality. We know enough about his heart to know where it came from. Equating the two is morally reprehensible, and - again - diminishes what Bush did.

So if you want people to stop giving a crap about abused and battered women, about rape victims, keep on comparing a gag between friends to real crimes. I guarantee you, you do your cause no good whatsoever, and you feed the Limbaughs and the Coulters of the world their favorite meal.

There is only one person who gets to decide if this was assault or harassment, and shockingly, it's not some nitwit on the internet who heard about the incident third hand.

Sometimes I shudder for my species.

I hereby resolve to do my best not to comment again here on this unbelievably trivial, stupid matter, no matter how many more puddles of idiotic sputum I have to wade through.

Joseph Stefano passed away. I'm not sure what Harlan's relationship was to the Outer Limits producer, but I wanted to mention it here out of respect for our host.

Steve Dooner

My thanks to Tony and others who took the time to find the Beaumont story. Strangely enough (or not so strangely, given my memory these days) I have THE HOWLING MAN collection right here on my shelves, so all this time the story THE NEW PEOPLE was right in front of me.

Years ago I got on one of the old bulletin board systems to ask about an sf book I'd read in my youth, a narrative of a future Earth which had me spellbound. Similarly, many years later I could only recall certain parts of the story. Sure enough, someone found what I was looking for (Ted White's THE SPAWN OF THE DEATH MACHINE).

Thanks again for your help.

Gwyn:

My posts are usually limited to informational posts. I don't chat. I don't like websites. I don't like the "instant" thoughts that are sometimes typed without understanding, most times without compassion. Friends are made and kept over time. I am always astonished at the cruelity both "names" and strangers inflict on sites. Real people, not "chat" rooms are worth much more to me.

Thank you.

Susan

Susan

I am astonished by the postings I have been reading. Harlan has apologized profusely. Whether or not that is sufficient for Mr. Rosenbaum is irrelevant. He stated that no one should excuse his behavior and that "iT IS UNCONSCIONABLE FOR A MAN TO GRAB A WOMAN'S BREAST WITHOUT HER EXPLICIT PERMISSION".

What more do you guys want? Harlan admitted he screwed up publicly, has not made any excuses for his behavior, and has attempted to talk with the one party (Ms. Willis) who was most directly affected by this.

Seriously, other than dragging the guy out to the stockade for a public flogging, what more do you want him to do?

Can we all please move on?

Cindy said: "Geeeze, I wish we could lighten up as a gender."

If a woman doesn't appreciate having her breast groped onstage, she needs to lighten up? The entire gender needs to lighten up if women, as a group, object to being fondled publicly? How retrograde. How insulting. How craven of you, as a woman, to say so.

Connie Willis didn't like being groped. That is clear from all accounts. Doesn't matter if YOU personally would have loved every second of it, Cindy, and even if you didn't, Harlan knows better than you, so you would have MADE yourself enjoy it because he's right 99% of the time. SHE DIDN'T LIKE IT. So why don't you take Tim Richmond's advice to Jim Davis? Because your opinion doesn't matter here. Connie Willis' does, and her silence in the face of Harlan's apology is deafening.

How would all you apologists take it if Susan Ellison's breast had been groped, on stage, and she was upset by it? I think Harlan has decked people for less, and would probably be similarly incensed if the shoe were on the other foot. The flying blue monkeys would be howling for blood, the death of vaudeville notwithstanding. But Harlan Ellison did it to some other woman, so it's OK. No, in fact, it's GOOD. Women should learn to stop worrying and love the grope. And anyone who disagrees should SHUT the FUCK UP.

Wow. Astonishing. But classic Webderland. Really. No wonder the only women who post here are nutjobs or don't know where Long Island is.

Pardon the typo thus. "spell it out for you".

Hugo ceremonies
Harlan,

I bet you can appreciate how I felt at the Hugos. I bet if you were in the audience and someone grabbed the breast of your friend and teacher -- and she soldiered on so as not to spoil the coming triumphs of the winners -- and then her assaulter got an award and an ovation and no one said a word...

I'd like to think you wouldn't be one to laugh it off. That you wouldn't be one of the posters now in the SFWA lounge saying "oh please, it was nothing" or "these PC types always overreact, can't we have a little fun" or (a thinly veiled version of)"it's not like she's young and pretty" or "well they kissed later", ie she must have asked for it, or "let's talk about something *important*."

I'd like to think that if it was your friend humilated onstage -- attacked, not as a writer, but as a woman -- you'd also spend the next week or so in a vengeful boil.

Now you've apologized. I appreciate that you did. I appreciate that you aren't trying to villify Connie. And the apology seems to have been mostly accepted, in this forum, among your fans, as sincere.

But beyond this forum, its tone has worked against it. You express doubt -- maybe even incredulity -- that Connie could have been offended. You talk about "political correctness" (as if you were Rush Limbaugh, for God's sake), which reads like you think people are overreacting. You characterize the apology as "puckish". You are "glad to have transcended our expectations". And you seem to imply that, as a holy fool, childish and irreverent, you are beyond the rules -- that if Connie was offended, you are sorry, but that having offended her is an anomalous, surprising, and bewildering occurence.

And nowhere do you say "I will never do anything like this again". It reads like you reserve the right, as a politically incorrect creature, to trespass and then apologize.

To those who don't know and trust you already, the apology comes across as either mocking and defiant, or simply not taking the matter seriously, like, "hee hee, what's the big deal?"

Here's the context: it seems that a lot of men -- particularly, to hell women my age tell it, older, powerful men -- in science fiction feel like women's bodies are fair game. Whether it's for a gag, a thrill, or a "sit down and shut the fuck up, bitch", this kind of thing goes on beyond the Hugo stage. A lot.

As it does in the wider world. A friend of mine who attended the Hugos had just been tit-grabbed by a stranger riding by on a bicycle in the street outside the Hugos the night before. Just for a minute of fun, because she was a woman, he brought her to tears of rage. For her, you grabbing Connie -- and Connie's first horrified reaction before she covered beautifully and went on with the show -- was the same damn thing, and the message was: you're not safe anywhere.

As long as the sincerity of your apology is in question outside the circle of your fans, it aids and abets the guys who think women just can't take a joke.

Here's the other thing. Nobody thinks it was about sex. Nobody thinks you did it for a cheap thrill. But there exists a very plausible interpretation that it was vengeful. Connie had just made fun of you about The Last Dangerous Visions, which got a horrified, gleeful "oooo" from the audience. You grumbled that she'd gotten the title of "Jefty" wrong. The duct tape, the hammer, swallowing the microphone... sure, it was comedy, but it also reads like an escalating duel. We couldn't tell how well you were taking the joke.

And since we know that Connie was furious; and we know you know her and should understand her reactions; and I for one honestly can't imnagine Connie reacting to the proposal of "hey, Connie, I know, then I'll grab your tit!" with "Great idea, Harlan, that'll slay 'em!" ... the interpretation that it was an angry joke is hard to shake off.

Not that it wasn't *also* tomfoolery gone too far. But that it had a kernel of "ok, shut the fuck up already."

That's how it played. And that's an abuse of power. It's far *worse* than Bush's massage of Merkel. That you were being Bush -- operating under a goofy, smug assumption that grabbing a woman is all in good fun -- is the best-case scenario. That you were trying to punish and silence Connie is the worst.

I mean, I don't know you. If you didn't know the guy in question, what would you think?

In some sense, I don't care about your motive. The public perception is what fills abusers with vindication and pride, and pisses me off. I don't care if you say "yes, there was some of that, and I am ashamed" or "God, I know it could look like that, but..." I just care that you take a stand.

Am I saying you can't be funny? I don't know. Connie, pissed off as she was, was pretty damn funny about it at breakfast. Maybe you can be funny.

But the current level of apology is not cutting it for me. Mind, I'm not worried about Connie. For one thing, Connie's no victim, and for another, that's between you and her.

No, I'm talking about the atmosphere in science fiction. We applauded a sexual assault at the Hugos, and now the web is full of folks saying "what's the big deal? get over it". I don't think I need to tell you that that is fucked up.

I wonder what Octavia Butler would say.

Take a stand, Harlan. Apologize for real.

Ben

I usually lay low, but I've had it. Jim Davis : Were you there? There are mitigating circumstances in EVERY situation. To CONTINUE to even REMOTELY suggest sexual offending IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE is appalling and POTENTIALLY harmful to EVERYONE concerned (Having worked as a counselor with a sex offender/victim population for 14yrs. I'm prepared to spell out the for you). It is out of context, i.e. a situation as well as a complex relationship that you are not privy to. Your long winded masturbatory sermons followed by "I'm not trying to rub salt in the wound or make you feel worse about this, so I'm going to restrict all my future comments on this to the Forum" doesn't jive. Just a thought. On your way down Mt. Sinai today how's about spending YOUR time doing something nice like brush your teeth, share a tuna sandwich with a homeless person, let CONNIE & HARLAN handle their own laundry, and shut the fuck up. Sincerely, Tim Richmond

reflection/refraction - Susan?
re: reflection/refraction
For all the times I've seen REAR WINDOW at home on VHS, it wasn't until I saw it at the local theater that I truly appreciated the craft of the cinematography and the lighting.
In the scene where Jimmy Stewart realizes that he has been spotted by Raymond Burr from across the courtyard, the light from the screen is reflected back upon the audience, bathing us in the same exposed glare as Stewart. And then, as he rolls his wheelchair back into the shadows, we too are shadowed, hidden once again in the darkness of the movie palace. Just brilliant! I wonder how many moments like that are planned by directors, cinematographers, art directors, and are now lost on the viewing public who only see their films in well-lit living rooms with DVDs or on fast-forward TIVOs.
Also, (pet peeve) have you (and this is a question for the group, not rhetorical) noticed that more and more films seem to be shot in close up and for transmutation down to the small screen for video release? The attention to detail that once was there for the big screen is lost. Perhaps that is just my persnickety perception.
One final question: as I sit here sipping my own version of Cafe Ellison Diabolique -- Scharffen Berger cacao nibs ground directly into moka java beans -- I wonder if Susan ever visits this forum to say hello? I would like to pass on a friendly hello to her, since she has always been so incredibly kind at signings and cons.
Sincerely,
Gwyn

Last Chance

I'm going to be taking down the LACon galleries at my site this weekend (got a cool new gallery going up that I require some bandwidth to accomplish).

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7n0zi/id19.html

http://mysite.verizon.net/res7n0zi/id20.html
_________________________________________________

I asked this at the convention but no one had an answer: where has Bud Webster gone?
_________________________________________________

Ms. Datlow, welcome to Webderland. I've been an admirer of your work for years.

Re: The Grope
I think that a lot of Harlan's supporter's are missing the real point of why people are upset about the incident with Willis. The message that most women in particular are walking away with is that this is the way our community treats and views women. It says that no matter what accomplishments they achieve, this is what we are going to always reduce them to. And that's just sad.

Harlan,

Apologies if I misunderstood. When you told me watching TV makes one passive, while viewing a film in the theater has a different effect on one’s brain, I thought you were _also_ saying the passiveness of TV watching comes, in part, from just sitting there; while you have to take _active_ steps to go to a movie and be among other people, who are sharing a common experience. I didn’t put those assumptions in the article, however. They were just _my_ assumptions. Had I intended to include them in the article, I would have called you back to ask if I was on the right track. You may recall that I did call back to clarify whether the reflective/refractive terms were McLuhan’s or your own.

As to the lack of direct bearing, I meant that particular anecdote about “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, which doesn’t appear in the article. If I had decided to include it (and again it wasn’t even in my consciousness when we spoke), I definitely would have called you back to ask specific questions.

Actually, even if I had thought of my recent viewing of that film while we spoke, I still might not have brought it up. You were very generous with your time on the phone, and I didn’t want to overstay my welcome. It’s one thing to post questions here, where you can respond at your leisure; but a live phone call is something different.

Thank you again for taking the time to talk with me.

Rick

God bless Cindy, who seems as sane and wise as anyone else on this forum.

The incident occurred between two friends who have known each other for years. By this point, Ellison knows what's permissible. If he offended Ms. Willis, I'm sure it was unintentional, and I'm sure amends will be made.

Jim Davis' suggestion that this constitutes sexual assault is frankly galling.

As a PS, my girlfriend said she would've cracked up in Willis' place.

And, finally, anyone who's dealt with Harlan during his 100 years on earth can speak to his essential decency.

ELLEN DATLOW wrote: "Cmon people. Please put this into perspective. It was NOT sexual assault. It was a joke/schtick gone a bit over the top."

That may have been how it started, but once Harlan grabbed Willis's breast, it became something else entirely. Sexual assault is defined as being, among other things, the forcible touching of an intimate part of another person; if Willis didn't want Harlan to grab her breast, then he broke the law, end of story. Now, I'm not saying that Willis should've pressed charges against Harlan, but she COULD HAVE, and that's something we all have to face, whether we like it or not. I'm also not claiming Harlan wanted to rape or hurt Willis, or that his grope was anywhere near the same level; that doesn't, however, change the fact that it could have been prosecuted as a crime under California law.

KEITH CRAMER wrote: "We need to support Harlan, not pillory him with our pronouncements of opprobrium."

Connie Willis, who was the victim in this, needs our support. Harlan Ellison, who was the offender, needs our honesty.

CINDY wrote . . . Jesus, I can't believe what she wrote: "I suspect nobody's heard from Ms. Willis because she thought it was typically Harlan-- clever and funny enough to make you smile even weeks or months later. I'd wager his instincts were on the right on the mark. He knew he could play with her in such an outrageous fashion and she wouldn't take it the wrong way."

Oh, wow.

Oh, WOW.

Cindy, are you honestly trying to spin this into something POSITIVE? Are you insane? Harlan isn't an infant or a horny adolescent, he's a 72-year old adult who's been working in his chosen field for 50 years, and who's received virtually every honor his fellow professionals can award, including the title of Grand Master. Don't make excuses for him! To quote the man, AGAIN: "I am 100% guilty as charged, and NO ONE should attempt to cobble up mitigating excuses for my behavior."

HARLAN: I hope you realize that I'm directing these posts at a few of your so-called "defenders" (who are doing you more harm than good), and not at you. I"m not trying to rub salt in the wound or make you feel worse about this, so I'm going to restrict all my future comments on this to the Forum. Take care.

EXACTLY what Eric said.

The New People

The story was also adapted for the 1968 UK TV supernatural series JOURNEY TO THE UNKNOWN, produced by Hammer Films with US backing. One of the best episodes of the series - sadly not commercially available, but well worth tracking down if you know a Brit who recorded it from its 80s repeat on UK television *cough*......

thanks
Rob

Cindy sez:

"From my observations he's got a keener sense of what is right and appropriate than 99% of the rest of us."

So we've steadily moved from "Harlan made a mistake" to "Harlan didn't do anything wrong" to "Harlan behaves better than any of us."

Guys, I think we should let this go now. The world is checking in on this one, and let's not live down to all their expectations, hmm?

Dave Clarke -- re: story title
Yep, it was "The New People," by Charles Beaumont. It's included in the Selected Stories volume that Roger Anker edited for Dark Harvest some years back, and if memory serves it was also included in the Bantam pbk Best of Charles Beaumont.

Bests,

--tr

Quite a cross-section of reactions -- Neil Gaiman, Michael Moorcock, Lisa Tuttle, various others -- to the Incident here:

www.edrants.com/?p=4188

Seems to me that this was comedy that wasn't comic and never was going to be comic, an Ellison Bad Judgment Moment (TM) that doesn't merit silence, over-reaction or defense. Not sure what it warrants other than a 'Jesus Fuck, Harlan!' and an eyeball wash.

Cheers, Jon

Much Ado
Seems to me two friends who go way back can do shocking things for the sake of humor. It is of no consequence that other people don't "get it". Everyone puts his or her spin on the incident. I might say, "That fucking Becky Rippy" ( my best friend these past 37 years) and Becky would know I was saying it with affection. Joe Blow might think I hated her or was put out with her for something awful but she'd know and I'd know my saying, " That fucking Becky Rippy" was akin to sayin' I love that girl, she's my life long pal and she makes me laugh my ass off".

I've had my tit grabbed under many such unusual circumstances. Becky's younger brother Arliegh O'Reilly once reached over while we were sitting on the floor watching Happy Days and grabbed my right breast and said ( very sincerely) "Honk!" then went back to watching the show as if nothing had happened at all. My son Beau was about 18 months old when I weaned him and at that time he liked to knead one ( like a kitten does) as he would go to sleep-- I know it's strange but he was my baby. Anyway I didn't think anything about it until he was nearly three. One day at the bank a pretty young teller wanted to hold him and he went right to her. He looked into her green eyes and smiled then stuck his chubby little hand right down the front of her dress and grabbed one of her breasts. Her face was one of utter surprise and shock mingled with amusment..the CHEEK of the little devil! In any case it was done in innocence and she took it that way. If one of my old pals that I've known for years and years did what Harlan did--with a similar verbal exchange preceeding it; I'd laugh my ass off. I might do exactly as it sounds like Miss Willis did which was to play it up-- it was a lively and funny gesture. Now if Harlan had just met Pamela Lee Anderson-- uh Rock, whatevuh-- and had grabbed her gi-normous dirigibles it would have seemed something altogether different... but I'd have to figure I didn't know the back story because Harlan wouldn't do something so unguarded without being absolutely certain that it would not be misinterpreted. I don't think he'd play with somebody that way unless he knew in his bones they would get it. From my observations he's got a keener sense of what is right and appropriate than 99% of the rest of us.

I suspect nobody's heard from Ms. Willis because she thought it was typically Harlan-- clever and funny enough to make you smile even weeks or months later. I'd wager his instincts were on the right on the mark. He knew he could play with her in such an outrageous fashion and she wouldn't take it the wrong way. Not ONLY that but Susan was there and Harlan would die before he would offend or embarass her in any manner. He just wouldn't do that--ever. He was just being his own adorable, irreverent self with somebody he knew would catch the wit and intended humor behind the gesture.

Geeeze, I wish we could lighten up as a gender.

Cindy

Harlan, the book is on the way...
I sent the "City on the Edge" book from White Wolf. I mailed it to the Recording Collection P.O. box. I hope it fits! Thanks once again!

About Connie Willis: With your apology, both here and to Ms. Willis, you have done all you can do. The people who've been putting you down online only see (or pretend to see) only one side of you. At least you *did* apologize, unlike those media cornholios (Tom Leykis, Glenn Beck, ad nauseam) whose misogyny and misanthropy is far more extreme.

REPLY TO RICH KEATING

"Reflective." "Refractive."

You misunderstood. I was not speaking of these terms either metaphorically or as subjective philosophy.

They were meant as pure visual definitions of manner of delivery:

Reflection -- as in a mirror.

Refraction -- as of artifical delivery system.

A tv image and an image on a movie screen are delivered differently. One engages but does not hypnotize, does not induce an alpha state. The other does.

It had EVERYTHING to do with what I was saying about the subject. Sorry you didn't ask, rather than glissanding past when you wrote your piece.

But ... not my problem.

Yr. Pal, Harlan

Attention Harlan
Give us your pick for the single greatest short story ever written.

Mine is "An Incident at Owl Creek," by Ambrose Bierce. It's original, you've got to give it that.

Further Startling Revelations
Although perhaps categorizable as "fan" for over thirty years, it was only this morning -- while studying the introduction to Revolt on Alpha-C -- that I learned a strange truth. Robert Silverberg and Harlan Ellison dwelt as New York neighbors during an early writing phase.

I'm wondering if any other peculiar manifestations can be recalled from that locale and era; ball lightning, phantom apparitions, disc sightings, etc.

LACONIV
I'm not sure I can add anything to what has already been posted, but Worldcon was great. Apologies to Steve Barber and Keith and Duane and longungirl and all other webderlanders that I missed. I'm sorry.
The panel on science fiction of the 50's and 60's was great, with Harlan and Robert Silverberg doing most of the talking. Harlan's panel by himself was fantastic! I was sitting about half way back, and I have to admit that when he called people to come down to the first 2 rows, I chickened out and stayed where I was. Sometimes I suffer from terminal shyness. I did take pictures at both panels, and if they come out, I would be happy to scan and email them to someone who could post them. I don't have a webpage.
I did go to the Hugo awards. When Connie came out to introduce Harlan, she was carrying a hammer and a roll of duct tape. I have no idea why. So I just assumed that everything between them was a bit of comedy.
On Sunday, I went to hear Ray Bradbury speak. He is a glorious storyteller, and I'm glad I was able to hear him.
On the whole, I heard writers that I wanted to hear, got some of the books autographed that I wanted, spent way too much money buying books (3 boxes of magazines and books being mailed to me), and as a bonus, spent 2 days in Disneyland. It was a good Worldcon. My only regret being that I didn't get to meet y'all.

debbie

I, too, always wondered about the Pynchon story re: Dangerous Visions. Harlan, have you told that story anywhere?

You got any staples?

Can you tell us the Pynchon story?

MW

HARLAN ELLISON RUINED TELEVISION

Harlan Ellison wrote The Glass Teat. After reading it, television was ruined for me. For which I can only say Thank You.

I wasted hours every week watching tripe. Glass opened my eyes to the poor quality of most television. This also bled into the rest of my life, and he ruined many movies and books for me, too.

I exult in the hours of my life that have been spared from tedium, and have been put toward greater use.

Thanks, Chief!

why, yes, I have an opinion, allow me to excrete it for you.


I was not present at the award ceremony at which Harlan touched Connie Willis' breast, and yet I do have an opinion on it.

I l-o-v-e Harlan and Susan (separately, and packaged together), and I respect them a great deal. Maybe that's why I can't get upset about this. Harlan has already come out and said he did it, and also that he's prepared to face the consequences. I think the show of moral rectitude on the board of late speaks highly for those who post horrified and absolutist statements, but I think those posts miss the point.

And that would be?

We need to support Harlan, not pillory him with our pronouncements of opprobrium. This is his web place, and he's probably harder on himself than any of us can be. (Picture yourself in a "typical," encounter with Harlan Ellison, like some of those described here of late, and then picture yourself AS Harlan Ellison, and having to live with THAT for 24 hours or more....uh, huh.)

Anyone here read “The Tell Tale Heart”?

Harlan: I hope you weren’t serious about this being your last con, but if you were…I’m glad I got to see you one last time. Take it easy and don’t let the moralists in the duck blind shoot you down.

-Keith

The Younger Generation, and Wellman
I do agree that fandom is getting older, at least the sections of fandom that frequents non-Creation-esque conventions. While I'm a relative newcomer to the fannish scene (actively participating in conventions over the past 18 years), I have been a fan of science fiction/speculative fiction/fantasy fiction/murder mystery fiction/*insert type of fiction here* for more years than I will admit to. NorWesCon is the largest of the conventions in Washington state (I can't vouch for being the largest in the northwest because WesterCon covers more area); though the majority of the attendees are 30+ in age, we do have a healthy crowd of younger fen lurking in the halls. Most manage to pull off passable impressions of goth babies or anime wannabees.

What I have noticed convention fandom is that conventions are becoming more expensive and there-by less accessible to up-and-coming fans. I had no intention of attending LACon, but my wallet whimpered and curled into a fetal position when I browsed cost information for the event. Even the "taster's special" was above and beyond my range. My husband and I budget for one convention a year (NorWesCon); any additional convention attendance has to be on par with the second coming of Christ to get me to shell out the money. Um...so Mr. Ellison attending Foolscap VII wasn't the second coming of Christ, but he did talk about the dead Jew over the door at Notre Dame.

Most conventioneers can't afford the rising prices, or they must be very selective about the conventions they do attend. I may not be happy about the cost of attending a convention, but I can't begrudge the convention committees for those times when they do raise the rates or make decisions that the crowds may not appreciate. NorWesCon gave up "KidCon" last year; it was a form of childcare with special activities for children 12 and younger. The hotel found out that the convention did not have insurance coverage for that service and had to make an unpopular decision to discontinue the childcare portion (they still have a wonderful series of kid-friendly panels and events scheduled throughout the convention, but parents must now attend with their children). The convention could not get insurance coverage for childcare for the convention, and even if they could, they were not willing to nearly double registration fees to cover the cost. As much as I hated the thought of losing KidCon, I would have rather lost that service than watched the convention fold.

******

Mention was made of Manly Wade Wellman. I'll allow myself a moment of silence to savor the memory of a selection of his Silver John short stories that I had years ago. Another one of those books I gave up during my spineless first marriage. If you haven't had the opportunity to read any of his works, grab up a few and enjoy the ride!

Larry Forrest

"Those two have always DESPISED each other--at least dating back to the Iraqi-Iranian War"

Saddam (and Bin Laden) is SUNI-ARAB and Iranians SHI'A-PERSIAN and these two have DESPISED each other for at least 1200 years. Thus, the prospect of Bin Laden and Saddam teaming up against a mutual enemy - i.e., the U.S. - is not entirely far-fetched. Certainly no connection exists between 9/11 and Saddam but he did provide Zarqawi sanctuary in Iraq pre-invasion in order to receive medical treatment in Baghdad.

By far the truest maxim in the Middle East is the ENEMY of my ENEMY is my FRIEND.

first post
I've just found out about this board, so, first post.

A couple of points of gratitude for Harlan and a question.

First -- it was in various asides, footnotes, and allusions in your works that I first read the names Salinger, Camus, Kafka, and Pynchon, and got the first reminder that Nabokov's _other_ books were worth reading too. "Thanks" doesn't begin to cover my gratitude for the world you clued me into, even though that led me mostly away from SF.

Second -- I read your "Glass Teat" collections when I was fifteen or so, and haven't been quite right in the head ever since. It taught me to do crazy things, such as mistrusting duplicitous Presidents. Good thing that skill was no longer necessary after Nixon quit. (I've got, incidentally, the pre-Agnew edition of _Glass Teat_. If I ever get a chance to bump into you, I'll ask you to autograph it, "Sorry for ruining your life with this book. No refunds.")

So here's my question. In the forward to -- I think -- _Again, Dangerous Visions_, you mention that you've run out the clock and that there therefore wasn't going to be enough space to go into, among other things, the Thomas Pynchon anecdote. So, here's the question I've wanted to ask for about 25 years now: _what_ Thomas Pynchon anecdote? (Although if you'd prefer to protect TP's privacy, well, I wouldn't want to fuck up anyone's Pynchon karma.)

"going to a movie is reflective, while watching TV is refractive"

Couldn't specifically selecting, say, a DVD to watch on one's television be seen as reflective? I've pretty much given up viewing films in theatres, mainly because of the astonishingly poor behaviour I've come to expect from audiences (even at art-house cinemas). The movie-going experience usually seems to me quite the opposite of reflective.

DAVE CLARKE,

I think Tony Rabig has it right. The plot you're describing definitely sounds like Charles Beaumont's "The New People."

Steve J.

The Bewildered Herd
Shalanna, I enjoyed and agreed with your recent post. But no, the Larry Forrest you knew in Richardson must've been an impostor, as I've never lived in that city. Or perhaps I'M the impostor. Will the REAL Larry Forrest please stand up!?

You're absolutely right about the sex angle. This nation goes ga ga whenever sex is involved in a scandal, but when it involves the chronic degradation of our civil rights, or going to war for no good reason, well, everyone yawns and plugs in their iPods.

Noam Chomsky quoted Walter Lippman as referring to Americans as the "Bewildered Herd." I think that pretty well sums us up. How sad, then, that our "shepard" is a functionally illiterate former frat rat, whose intellect, if converted to electricity, would be hard pressed to cause a flicker in even the smallest Christmas tree light.

I'm reminded of the novel "Being There" by Jerzy Kosinski, in which a mentally challenged fellow, Chauncey Gardiner, comes to be regarded as a purveyor of grand wisdom--albeit obscure. In the here and now, fact is stranger than fiction, as OUR Chauncey is presently occupying the Oval Office. Worse, he's a Christian fundamentalist who daily chats with GOD.

Bush: "Lord, should we invade Iraq?"
GOD: "Whatever."

I'm also reminded of a Bob Dylan song, circa 1965, "The Ballad of the Thin Man," part of which is quoted below:

You raise up your head
And you ask, "Is this where it is?"
And somebody points to you and says
"It's his"
And you say, "What's mine?"
And somebody else says, "Where what is?"
And you say, "Oh my God
Am I here all alone?"

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. Jones?

THAT'S the problem: too many people DON'T know what's happening here--or there, for that matter.

Remember, you "Animal House" fans: Knowledge is Good.

Dave -- re: story
Don't have the stuff in front of me here at the office, but I think that may have been a Charles Beaumont. "The New People," if memory serves. Will double check tonight & post in the morning if nobody else comes up with it.

Bests to all,

--tr

Harlan is not some guy who cooks the skulls of small children?
This is how rumors get started.

In support of the esteemed Mr. Ellison intend to go out and grab a breast. Sadly, it'll be my own.

I read this story years ago, yet I can't seem to recall who wrote it. I'm thinking Richard Matheson or Robert Bloch, but I may be wrong.

PLOT:

A man and his wife move into a small town, get invited to a party, then the man's wife ends up missing. He searches for her, looking through the basement window (I think) of a house, and finds that she is about to be the victim of a ritual sacrifice.

Does this sound familiar? I need the author and story title, please.

young people and SF
Although I wasn't at the WorldCon, I think that the new Doctor Who has brought SF into the homes of many more people, at least in Britain. It seems to have increased the demographic of young people watching and talking about science fiction (Doctor Who specifically). One hopes that this will transfer into them reading some of the classic works (Asimov, Ellison, Bradbury, etc.). At the Gallifrey convention, there was a nice mix of ages.

a context-free comment
I've been reading Ellison for more than 30 years. Not because he aspires to be some sort of masonite saint. In fact, because he doesn't, & because he refuses it on a regular basis when the mantle's waved enticingly at him -- in fact, he's likely to uncivilly embarrass the mantle-waver.

But at every step of the way, missteps included, he's a mensch.

Come on now guys and gals. Harlan is not some guy who cooks the skulls of small children at the bottom of a dank well. What happened happened, Harlan did his soft shoe, now we wait for the repast of dear Connie. Harlan has been nicer to me then I deserve sometimes, so just for that I give the man the benefit of the doubt.

Alex, the ERA, not NRA, unless you mean when Harlan shoots off his mouth. har har. Got a million of em.

Thanks, Harlan!
LoneGunGirl: Thinking, thinking - I remember a lady in a chair in front of me. A couple three maybe. One was gifted with dark, short hair and a wheeled suitcase. I think another was a long haired Asian lady. I was impressed by the fortitude and courtesy of those in line (though one guy did have that fannish "I know everything about everything and am going to prove it right here right now" sort of attitude going on with his mouth).

Harlan: I truly appreciate your offer of the phone number and a chat. I'd enjoy talking with you sometime, but as I've had the pleasure once before (when I tried to book you for a school I taught at, and they wouldn't pony up your pittance of a fee), I feel kind of weird about taking you away from writing and kicking Paramount's ass, even if only for even a moment.

I've all too often fallen prey to that fannish enthusiasm/conceit that "if only I could grab a moment with (fill in name of SF writer) we'd become bestest bouddies and hang together" sort of thing.

Then one day I ran into a lady who had actually -seen- the one movie I had produced. She was actually attractive, moderately well groomed, and was absoutely fucking lead pipe cinch convinced I wrote the lead female character for her. I suddenly was on the other end of the "Creator/Receiver" telescope, perspective shifted, and "shoe on the other foot" abashed.

Anent la brouhaha: We all have a moral bank account. We make deposits, and we make withdrawals. Harlan Ellison has a balance in his moral bank account sufficent to swamp the combined balance s of the myriad gnats that currently swarm about him.

I cannot wait to see "The Discarded". My dream is to write for such a series as it is part of.

Harlan, you opened my eyes when i was 14 and found "Dangerous Visions" in an Alabama small town library(!) You owe me nothing, but I'll take your work as long as you can put it all down on paper.

Kim Owen Smith

Popular culture article
Harlan,

My article on popular culture ran today, and per your request, two tearsheets are on the way to you now. Thanks again for your participation.

A question concerning your statement that going to a movie is reflective, while watching TV is refractive. A friend and I saw “The Day the Earth Stood Still” in the theater earlier this summer. I also own it on DVD. Had my friend come over to watch it at my place, would it have been reflective for him (because he would have left his home and traveled to mine) and refractive for me (because I would have remained at home), or would it still have been refractive for both of us? I can see how the experience of being in a theater among many people would be reflective; but is it the fact of being with many people that makes it so, or is the act of leaving one’s home and journeying to another place enough to qualify?

I didn’t think to ask the questions when we were on the phone- and it didn’t have any direct bearing on the article itself- but I remain curious.


Thanks.

Rick Keating

People like to make big deals
I've linked to HE's apology on my LiveJournal (shalanna.livejournal.com) and have also written an entry about the big hoo-ha/brouhaha that the world is making out of this minor incident at WorldCon . . . basically, asking people, "Who here has NOT made a mistake?" However, most people don't want to hear rational reasoning. They don't like logic; they want to use their emotions. They love to seize upon some excuse to have a "cause" and start crusading against somebody. Whoever that may be.

As Larry Forrest said (hey, I used to work for a fellow by that name who also went to the same church I did, right here in Richardson--is that you?), "Where's the Outrage?" Well, it's misplaced. It's all going to the wrong thing. People are not outraged about the continual erosion of our civil rights . . . about the phone wiretapping stuff . . . about how they constantly manipulate people with fear, but really aren't making us any safer, just more cowed-down. People get outraged about . . . hey! That guy over there winked at me! It's an outrage!! "At that restaurant my piece of pie was smaller than the guy's at the next table, so I'm going to sue!" Or they get outraged that LiveJournal says "no icons of nursing mothers or other bare nipples" and they treat it as if it's censorship, when it's basically just a business decision on the part of the people who own the servers and who were trying to make *another* set of people (the ones who fear nipples) happy. They get all up in arms about trivial, silly matters, and waste all their energy. Then they are too tired to take up worthy causes.

Larry writes: "I share the befuddlement [...] about why the American public isn't frothing-at-the-mouth angry with the Bushites and their deceitful ways. [...] We the People were neoconned [...] [W]e live in the United States of Amnesia, and when it comes to historical perspective we suffer from myopia. So Bill Clinton gets a blow job or two in the Oval Office and the sky falls and he's impeached by the House; but George W. Bush leads the US into a quagmire in Iraq under bogus circumstances and his approval rating drops to the thirties."

Exactly! If there's a whiff of SEX to a scandal, then people go nuts! OMG, Bill Clinton did a Sin! (One that was between him, his wife, and God, and not really anyone else's business, by the way.) But they "GOT" him for it, saying that he lied (he should not have been required to answer such a question in the first place, but that's how they knew they could Make A Big Deal.) And that's like what's happening to Unca Harlan, IMHO, unfortunately. His error was obviously just a lapse in judgment and not some Sinister Plot To Degrade All Women (and he'd been cutting up and joking already, reportedly, so people should have had a bit of perspective.) But it's something people can latch on to and make a big deal about, so they DO.

Recently, when the author of that chick lit novel which contained 50+ plagiarized passages from three other novels was caught, I said on my LJ that she should not have thought she'd get away with it and that I thought the recall of the book was the right response. I was immediately "corrected" by many people who said it had to have been innocent, just an accident, and that I was just "jealous of her success." I replied that I had trouble believing that SO MANY "steals" were inadvertent or total coincidences. But tons of fellow writers didn't want to make a Big Deal over that Poor Innocent Young Writer. This scandal didn't have any sex in it, I suppose, so they said, "Give her a break."

It's silly to have double standards. But then people are like that. It'll all blow over as soon as some other Awful Thing happens and they're all Scandalized. I'm not saying that people should feel free to pinch, slap, kick, grope, or do whatever to other people--I'm a little standoffish myself, and I never touch people without permission--but I *am* saying that sometimes mistakes are made, and we ought to have some perspective and look at events in context. (Of course, that would be too logical.)

Ellen; the interview between Connie and Charles was not, as you're thinking, a private interview for Locus, but a program item open to all where he interviewed her in front of an audience. I wasn't there, so I can't say what she said during it, but I do know that it was a program item where people other than the two of them would be able to relate what she said.

I can confirm that she did reference the incident during Closing Ceremonies with an initial comment something like "If anyone wants to start a petition to have Harlan Ellison get his fucking hands off me, I'll sign it". That was the only mention or reference made that I caught. But then again, I managed to miss the grope completely (as did the female friend sitting next to me at a distance where we were dependent on the monitor screens) and didn't pick up on the baby schtick as a coherent routine, so I might easily have missed something.

Steve; thanks for your kind comments on the Superman panel. It's easy to do a good panel with someone like Marv on it, who's both worked on the character and actively thought and been involved with making significant revisions. It does make for a somewhat unbalanced one, since one panelist has more relevant things to say and is likely the person the audience thus wants to hear more from, but sometimes that's just how it goes (I once moderated a panel on webcomics that included Scott McCloud. I started by saying this was the easiest panel I'd ever moderated. I was just going to wake up about every 10 minutes and say "So what do you think of X Scott?" and then recover from a late night by resting my eyes while Scott would discourse excellently on that subtopic. I was semi-joking, but that was close to how the panel ended up since Scott does have so much that's both interesting and relevant to say about the topic).

Connie Willis
She was wonderful, and her GoH speech made me cry.

As for the Hugos, I missed them, as I had to see the sunset on the ocean, which I'd never seen before, and then it was late and I really needed a shower (tmi?). Got back in time to see Harlan heading to his room (presumably) and for the Hugos to end when I arrived. Wish I'd seen the Hugos, but I'm sure I would have laughed, and I would never think Harlan capable of ill-intent in ANY way toward a woman. I feel extremely lucky to have been at what Harlan said would be his final convention appearance. I thoroughly enjoyed myself at my first WorldCon.

Thanks to Harlan (and all the other guests and participants).

That said, I made my comments outside this area on this random blog I found the information about the incident on: http://www.edrants.com/ if anyone is interested in seeing it outside this forum.

-Salome

Meanwhile...back in the real world...

Naguib Mahfouz (1911 - 2006)

Joseph Stefano (1922 - 2006)

Where's the Outrage?
I share the befuddlement of DTS about why the American public isn't frothing-at-the-mouth angry with the Bushites and their deceitful ways. The October issue of Mother Jones shows, lie by lie, how We the People were neoconned into believing that Iraq was a dire threat to our national security.

At one time, prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, seven out of ten Americans thought that Saddam Hussein was somehow allied with Osama bin Laden, and that the former had conspired with the latter to pull off 9/11. Now we all know (as
many of us knew then) that such accusations were the veriest bullshit. Those two have always DESPISED each other--at least dating back to the Iraqi-Iranian War of the eighties, where largely secular Iraq sought to destroy the fundamentalist Muslim Iran of the Ayatollah Khomeini. But then we live in the United States of Amnesia, and when it comes to historical perspective we suffer from myopia.

So Bill Clinton gets a blow job or two in the Oval Office and the sky falls and he's impeached by the House; but George W. Bush leads the US into a quagmire in Iraq under bogus circumstances and his approval rating drops to the thirties. In a perfect world, he would be trimming brush at a federal prison, rather than his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Alas, this world is far from perfect.

I'm reminded of a lyric from a Bruce Springsteen song ("Badlands" if I recall correctly): "Poor man want to be rich / Rich man want to be king / And the king ain't satisfied till he rules everything." I can't think of a better way to describe our current "king": Doofus Maximus himself, George W. Bush.

Once more, with feeling: Where's the OUTRAGE!?

T
I was offline for a day or two after the con and then when I got back I discovered this whole brouhaha over Harlan's baby schtick -and that's what it was. A schtick of Harlan acting like a baby. Thus, he went up to the mike when Connie called him up--he put the mike (a round one) into his mouth, swallowing it like a lollipop, Connie took it gently out of his mouth and wiped it off. He gurgled --like a baby-- and then grabbed her breast like a baby and she smacked his hand off. A few seconds later she kissed him....Cmon people. Please put this into perspective. It was NOT sexual assault. It was a joke/schtick gone a bit over the top. I was not offended as a woman watching this. I thought it was silly (but yes, I admit I personally thoughth the schtick funny). I also know that Connie and Harlan have a history of ribbing each other. I've seen it in the past. So please keep the incident in context and calm down.

Now if Connie was upset by it then it is right and correct for Harlan to apologize to HER. Not to the field. Not to the audience. So far the only evidence I have heard that Connie was upset is third hand. "Someone" claims she cursed Harlan during an interview with Charlie Brown the next day. Well, since it was a private interview, I would like to know who supposedly witnessed this--as presumably the only people AT the interview were CHarlie and COnnie. I have further heard rumors that she referenced the incident in the closing ceremonies --again, this is rumor not fact.

For the record

Harlan has been misquoted on his own web site. Somebody fabricated his comments at the auction for the widow of Manly Wade Wellman. Here's what really happened: A TV camera was shoved in his face. Harlan said "Do you have permission to be here?" Answer: "No" Harlan: "Then get out." A guy then ran up to Harlan and Harlan said "I haven't got time to fuck with you sir, I've got an auction to run."

More Important Issues
JOSH OLSON (and ANY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES): On the subject of more important issues -- and until Tom and Katie show off their rugrat - check out the MotherJones.com website (they capitalize the first letters). Under the "Blog" portion (near the top, righthand side) you'll find an "interactive timeline" which ties into the coverstory of their October issue, "Chronicle of a War Foretold." The folks at Mother Jones will keep updating the online portion of this "lie by lie" accounting of how Government leaders (more than a few Democrats were involved -- but, as usual, Republicans are in the majority) played the fear and bullshit cards to get their peers, the American public, and the Fourth Estate to generally rollover and accept the chicanery and poison currently flowing out of Washinton D.C. at a higher rate than ever before.

Maybe it was apathy, maybe it was willful ignorance (what else could explain so many people using Dubya's stance on religion as an excuse), but I still can't fathom how so many people could have voted this gang of white-collar criminals (Dubya, Cheney, etc., who value corporations more than people and enjoy undermining what little Democracy we have left) back into office in 2004.

Although I don't expect that same majority of supernaturally-inclined, intellectually deprived conservatives to wise-up and vote for leaders who will at least try to get us out of the mess that these one-time, high school nerds and geeks (Dubya, Cheney, etc.) got us into, I'm enough of a Pollyanna to remain hopeful.

In any case, read that timeline -- or check out the magazine -- and after looking over the litany of lies and crimes that came about IN ONLY THE FIRST THREE YEARS of this filthy-handed administration, ask yourselves: why aren't we more outraged at these lawbreakers and/or useless politicos?
--DTS

What Josh wrote. My thoughts exactly.


___________________________________________________


Harlan - Sending the pictures from my website to you today, along with a buncha others I had no room for.

___________________________________________________

Fun stuff: Susan K. Perry, a very good friend of mine who has published six non-fiction books including the well-known "Writing in Flow", has just completed her first novel. I've got her final draft (barring editor suggestions and proofreader corrections) and am reading it now. Just sharing some cool news amongst people who can identify with the feeling.

Boob

I have to admit I've publically gropped a both male and female friends.

When it was clearly an offense I've appologised immediately, been called, correctly, a prick, then let off for it a few days later.

If Connie is a friend, and can't imagine why she wouldn't still be, she'll return the gesture the next time HE and She meet and make some joke about the size of his rivialing the size of hers and Harlan will feel a lot better about being an ass.

That when the true test comes. The urge to comment on the facts discovered by the grope is almost too much to bear.

Harlan hasn't issued a rote apology. He's written a thoughtful, intelligent, good-natured and genuinely understanding mea culpa of the most honest sort. He's done it publicly (here) and privately (he mailed the same essay to Ms. Willis.)

I, myself, have never in my life done anything impulsive, stupid, or thoughtless, so this is all pure conjecture for me, but if I ever do, I'd sure rather live in a world where we're allowed to make amends for our mistakes than one where we're pilloried endlessly on the fucking internet by poltroons who have nothing better to do than engage in endless recriminations and attacks on our character for a moment's good-natured stupidity.

And, by the way, let's make this clear - it was a MOMENT. A one second flash of goofy, ill-considered, line-crossing pranksterism with a close, personal friend of many, many years is hardly the same as, say, going on a drunken rant about the evils of the Jews when the Malibu police have pulled you over for, oh, I dunno, drunk driving, say. Christ, it's not even as bad as calling a police officer you've never met "Sugar tits." (Which reminds me - my band, Sugar Tits & The Fucking Jews, will be playing at Adolf's House of Flapjacks in Orange County next Wednesday.)

Really, people - aren't there more important issues to discuss? I mean, we STILL haven't seen Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' love-spawn, and what about JonBenet?

A quick thought on why there weren’t as many young people at the WorldCon. My son (18) has wanted to hear Harlan for quite a while. I tried to talk him into going to the Nebulas (I went) or WorldCon (I didn’t go) with me. His and his sister’s (20) responses were pretty much the same. They didn’t want to be associated with those Start Trek dress up geeks. My kids aren’t cheerleader/quarterback snobs – closer to that second-to-lowest tier of band geeks and theater wackos.

So, the question; how much of the younger set are lost to these conventions because of the bad rap associated with the cliché?

Mike

"Sexual assault" is a pretty strong term, and I'm not sure it applies here. On paper, perhaps, but there are a lot of mitigating circumstances that make the issue fuzzy.

So this is Harlan's Gibsongate. I don't approve of what he did (and were I Connie's husband, HE would know that in stronger terms). But Harlan fucks up like the rest of us, and if he can recognize that and be genuinely sorry for it, then it's time for Ms. Willis to make a statement for the community and end this.

It should be noted (and this is not a qualifier to the act in question) that the science fiction community has for a long time tolerated much idiocy, poor manners, sloppy dress and rude behavior at their gatherings, all supposedly in the pursuit of that special individuality that they hope characterizes them as a group. Well, a little decorum and propriety go a long way, and maybe now these major awards ceremonies can stop being industry yuk-fests, and start treating literary achievement with the respect it deserves.

Lonegungirl wrote, "One thing I noticed, that a few panels mentioned, is that there was a general lack of young people there. I can think of a few reasons for this: WorldCon is mainly a literary convention, and no one under 30 reads anymore; modern SF is of a poorer quality now than it was previously, and engenders less fervor; younger fans now can communicate via the internet and no longer have to rely on physical meetings for comradeship; and with the passing of a lot of the giants of SF, a major impetus for attending is gone. Whichever reason you favor, I wonder what the attendance is going to look like in 10-20 years, given that the median age there this year looked, by unscientific observation, to be around 40."

We deal with this a lot here in Philly, too: fandom is aging, and fandom existed because we geeks'n'fans didn't _have_ cool networking stuff like the Intrawebs. The older ones relied on hektographed 'zines and correspondence, and could meet up only at cons. by the time I came around, the culture'd been well-established, and cons were plentiful.

At Philcon last year, the anime and gaming tracks brought in a lot of young people. Which was great. But some of the older members were bugged by this shift from literary SF (which is funny, because some of them have terribly limited literary taste). Bugged or not, you've noticed a very real phenomenon, and it begs an interesting question: in a time when we can meet people from around the world with instantaneous ease 24-7, are cons a necessary part of being an SF fan anymore?



Okay, the Connie Willis incident. I didn't see it, which means I can't evaluate it on its most important point-- how did it _play_? By most accounts, not real well. Harlan's apologizing to Connie Willis, he's being public about his regret, and I hope they can patch things up and move this into the harmless past.

But all the chatter got me thinking about something. A few years ago, a friend told me about how he'd introduced his girlfriend to a Famous Writer who was a friend of the family. The Famous Writer was, by all accounts, witty, charming, delightful, kind, intelligent, and a gentleman, and also prone to puckish jokes. So, when the girlfriend presented her hand for a shake, he reached out and shook her breast instead. Goofy story, and given the writer's rep as a sterling person and a great guy, it was amusing, but uncomfortable-making, too. (I will not spill the name. The story's secondhand anyway, so just trust me that he was a genuinely good guy by all accounts, and leave it at that.)

This may sound callous here, but I don't buy that "it's never acceptable to do that" argument. We've all been in social situations where someone, through dint of charisma, playfulness, or some unquantifiable social alchemy, _can_ make a playful grope or backrub and make it delightful. Some people can do this. Others can't; I certainly can't. (It's also not something I want to do. It's just not _me.)

Let me put it this way. Some of us can get in front of an audience, spit out some choice jokes and insults, and have'em hemorrhaging with laughter. Some of us try the same thing and come off like sullen cranks with a really uncomfortable audience. There isn't a _rule_ that determines who can "get away" with it with style and panache. Even those who are gifted with The Performance Knack might misread a situation and commit a dreadful, appalling _faux pas_.

And yes, such things do require apologies. Not because it's "never acceptable," because we all know that under the right social alchemy, it's not only acceptable, but can make for a funny social spectacle. But in this case, it didn't. Connie Willis was offended, for good reason, and it's up to Harlan to set things right.

I have to say, I'm kind of fucking amazed at some of the reactions here and in other places. "You can't become indignant for other people." "It was just good-natured tomfoolery." "We haven't heard from Connie Willis yet, so maybe she was okay with it." "It's really not any of our business." And so on and so forth.

Folks, let me explain it to you, since some of you are clearly NOT GETTING IT:

What Harlan did was not just presumptuous, or risque, or a wee bit over the line; it was flat-out SEXUAL ASSAULT. Do you people understand that? If Willis had decided to run from the stage, call the cops, and have Harlan thrown in jail, she would've been completely in her rights. This kind of shit may have been cool in 1600 or 1850 or even 1950, but it doesn't fly any more in 2006, and that some of you are trying to claim it does amazes me. To put it another way: if Harlan had slap