The Whimper of Whipped Dogs
Robert Whelan
Thoughts on "dating Ray".
My biggest beef with this is the way it seems to insist on showing Beth,
with her "bobby socks" background, the nasty realities of life in the
city, including the nasty realities of dating an asshole. The story
doesn't defend Beth, and she doesn't really defend herself. She doesn't
defend her schooling, when Ray demeans it, and her...and I'm not sure
she denies his insinuations of her sexual corruption either. She says
"stop it", and "why are you like this?" which I presume means denial,
but whether denial of his nasty attitude towards her past sex life, which
he is accurately describing, and she is too dumb to realize the sordidness of,
or denial of having had a sex life...still, we only get the picture of her
past sex life from Ray. And with no counterpoint, we, the reader, cannot
assume, for Beth, or Ellison, an attitude that is any more forgiving.
Did intellectuals from Amherst beg her to save them from "creeping
faggotry by permitting them to stick their carrots in" her "sticky
little slit"? When Beth objects to this, is it because she never saw
it that way? But it's still basically accurate?
Another minor point. After Ray sexually abuses her, she feels like
crying, which seems quite normal after something nasty like that.
But when he decides to have a conversation with her, asking
"Who did you date in college" she answers "I didn't date anyone
very much". followed by the single word "Sullen" describing her manner
of reply. I found merely "sullen" to be quite at variance with the
disgust and unhappiness that seemed to me normal in her reaction to
being sexually degraded, but it is reduced to mere sullen behavior,
probably so Ellison can have the conversation. Had she remained
believably upset, she wouldn't have responded to him at all.
It gives the impression of Beth as being...completely oblivious
to being mistreated. Ray mistreats her, and she is just "sullen", which
is not only inappropriate, but conflicts with her, just one paragraph
previous, being described as wanting to cry, and get away.
R.
Robert Whelan
"He didn't call her again, after the night of the party. And
when they meth in the hall, he pointedly turned away, as though
he had given her some obscure chance and he had refused to
take it. Beth thought she understood: though Ray Gleeson had
not been her first affair, he had been the first to reject her
so completely...."
It continues on describing how completely her rejects her...
What is odd is the way the sentence "Beth thought she understood: "
with a colon, give the impression that the following lines will
tell us what it is Beth understands. But all we get are lines
about Beth's previous affairs (so Ray's characterization of her
appears to be somewhat accurate) and a description of how
completely Ray puts her out of his life. What the obscure chance
he might have given her was, or what she understands about it,
is completely a mystery. Was his abuse of her supposed to
make her into a person like Ray? And since she didn't turn into
one immediately, he rejects her? My normal understanding of
a person like that would be that they were ashamed of their
disgusting behavior, and didn't want to deal with the person
they had harmed by it. It almost seems as if Beth would have
continued seeing him if he hadn't "put her out of his life".
The passivity of Beth in this story is incredible.
moth...@burn.edu
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971018213852.8606B-100000@amanda>,
rwh...@dorsai.org says...
which it was written early-mid seventies. Although the country was going
throught its adolescence of the "sexual revolution," women were still
dealt with as ornaments. There was no such thing as "date rape" and it
was more common that women would be held responsible for their being
raped. Very nearly all women beleived in their own complicity in being
raped. And that is what the story is really about: passive complicity.
Harlan Ellison wrote a lot about a woman, Kitty Geneovese (I'm sure I got
the spelling wrong), who was knifed to death in front of her apartment
complex, crying and screaming. And no one in the complex came to her
aid, called the police, or even so much as yelled out their window to cut
out the racket. All of them were passively complicit in the murder of
the woman. That's what the story is about.
David J. Loftus
Robert Whelan (rwh...@dorsai.org) wrote:
: I agree with you that the way Beth acts in the story seems to be
: complicit in her own abuse by Ray, since she can see it coming a mile
: away, but is too passive, or needy, or stupid (Ellison doesn't
: explore her reasons) to object much, or try to prevent it.
It is not necessarily an author's job to explain or pass judgment upon
his or her characters. The author may merely present them and their
actions, and leave judgments up to readers who care about such things.
: But Beth is the only "passive" character in the Harlan Ellison
: version of the Kitty Genovese slaying. Everyone else is an active
: worshipper, and not "inactive" through horror and stupidity, but
: by deliberately allowing the murder as part of a religious ritual.
You don't regard the worship as passivity, as well? It may be the
"activeness" of the merely fearful and scared ... rather the way a "punk"
in English boarding schools or a weakling in a prison hooks up with a
much stronger and influential person in the pool who both uses and
protects him.
: What bothers me about the story is the way that Beth is portrayed,
: not as innocent and naive, but as stupid, ignorant, vain, shallow.
: A playboy bunny, so to speak. It's a repulsive portrait. If, as you
: say, this attitude was typical of '70's sexual attitudes towards
: woman (an women's attitudes towards themselves) it's pretty nasty.
: But I don't believe Harlan Ellison was making this connection
: between the passivity of Beth and the Kitty Genovese slaying. It's
: more likely he fully participated in this 70's attitude, and
: though Beth was a dopey idiot, who deserved to be mistreated.
: There just isn't much material there that defends Beth, or makes
: her seem much like a real human being.
Keeping in mind that I haven't read the story in many years, I might
hazard a guess that perhaps Beth's passivity was what made her a target
both for human and supernatural abuse. Perhaps there is an implication
that women taught to think and fight for themselves might be less likely
to be gobbled up by the system -- whether human or extra-human?
Although I agree the conflict might have been more interesting if Beth
had been a stronger character to being with....
David Loftus
moth...@burn.edu
In article <slrn650l58....@amanda.dorsai.org>, rwh...@dorsai.org
says...
> In article <MPG.eb98e8a3...@snews.zippo.com>, moth...@burn.edu wrote:
> >In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.971018213852.8606B-100000@amanda>,
> >rwh...@dorsai.org says...
>
> >> continued seeing him if he hadn't "put her out of his life".
> >> The passivity of Beth in this story is incredible.
> >>
> >Actually, not as incredible as you might think. Remember the times in
> >which it was written early-mid seventies. Although the country was going
> >throught its adolescence of the "sexual revolution," women were still
> >dealt with as ornaments. There was no such thing as "date rape" and it
> >was more common that women would be held responsible for their being
> >raped. Very nearly all women beleived in their own complicity in being
> >raped. And that is what the story is really about: passive complicity.
> >Harlan Ellison wrote a lot about a woman, Kitty Geneovese (I'm sure I got
> >the spelling wrong), who was knifed to death in front of her apartment
> >complex, crying and screaming. And no one in the complex came to her
> >aid, called the police, or even so much as yelled out their window to cut
> >out the racket. All of them were passively complicit in the murder of
> >the woman. That's what the story is about.
>
> complicit in her own abuse by Ray, since she can see it coming a mile
> away, but is too passive, or needy, or stupid (Ellison doesn't
> she's just shallow, and cares only for Ray's good looks.
> But Beth is the only "passive" character in the Harlan Ellison
> version of the Kitty Genovese slaying. Everyone else is an active
> worshipper, and not "inactive" through horror and stupidity, but
> by deliberately allowing the murder as part of a religious ritual.
>
> not as innocent and naive, but as stupid, ignorant, vain, shallow.
> A playboy bunny, so to speak. It's a repulsive portrait. If, as you
> say, this attitude was typical of '70's sexual attitudes towards
> woman (an women's attitudes towards themselves) it's pretty nasty.
>
> But I don't believe Harlan Ellison was making this connection
> between the passivity of Beth and the Kitty Genovese slaying. It's
> more likely he fully participated in this 70's attitude, and
> though Beth was a dopey idiot, who deserved to be mistreated.
> There just isn't much material there that defends Beth, or makes
> her seem much like a real human being.
>
>
>
>
Oh yes! Absolutely! The passivity of Beth is precisely the point.
Okay... first of all: the genre of the story is horror. What could be
worse than a secret society that worships at the alter Marquis De Sade?
Uh, how about a bunch of people who are too scared or don't care to get
involved? That's the story of Kitty Genovese. The Whimper of Whipped
Dogs is HE's way of trying to make sense of the apathy that would allow
people to watch and listen to woman dying in the streets like they were
watching The Dick Van Dyke Show... or more to the point, Christian being
fed to the lions in a Roman Circus. The passivity of Beth shows the
acceptance of bloodsport as the "way of the world and you might as well
lie back and enjoy it!"
I'm not going to defend the story much more than that... it's been more
than 15 years since I read it and it has never been one of my favorites
(in fact, there weren't many of his stories that I cared for between "A
Boy and His Dog" and "Jefty is Five"; two that I consider to be his best
works). Umberto Eco did the "Secret Order of the Stonecutters" story
better with Focault's Pendulum but I didn't care for that either.
Robert Whelan
In article <dloftEI...@netcom.com>, David J. Loftus wrote:
>Robert Whelan (rwh...@dorsai.org) wrote:
>
>: But I don't believe Harlan Ellison was making this connection
>: more likely he fully participated in this 70's attitude, and
>: though Beth was a dopey idiot, who deserved to be mistreated.
>: There just isn't much material there that defends Beth, or makes
>: her seem much like a real human being.
>
>hazard a guess that perhaps Beth's passivity was what made her a target
>both for human and supernatural abuse. Perhaps there is an implication
>that women taught to think and fight for themselves might be less likely
>to be gobbled up by the system -- whether human or extra-human?
>
>Although I agree the conflict might have been more interesting if Beth
>had been a stronger character to being with....
Well, as my ongoing analysis seems to show, hazarding a guess is about
all that we can do, since Ellison doesn't make it clear that it *is*
her passivity that brings these things upon Beth. It's more likely that
Beth's passivity is a device that Ellison uses to walk Beth through
a pile of repellent scenes, including the first murder and the abuse
by Ray. This "passivity" that I'm talking about is unlikely to be
deliberate character development, but the vaccuum that is
left over when a character is used as a mindless puppet to take the
reader to the different Horrorshows that Ellison is interested in
displaying.
The problem that Ellison would have had, had he developed Beth
as a clear character type, is that he would have been constrained by
her character to showing, from her POV, only things that were
consistent with her character. Instead, he only adds to her character
when it is necessary to use her as a device to get to another
part of his show. Thus, Beth is so upset by the murder that she
throws up all day, and then goes out shopping for jewelry so
that Ellison can have her meet Ray in the elevator. She is
capable of memorizing the faces of all the watchers of the woman's
murder, but incapable of remembering that Ray stopped the elevator.
She likes Ray, in spite of the fact that he was a sinister watcher
at the murder, and was staring at her, but she is horrified that
she is at a party with other watchers...and yet lets Ray have
sex with her afterwards. She is abused by Ray, and in one
paragraph wants to cry and get away, the next, feels "pity and
affection" for Ray, and when he's done speaking, lies there
"trembling" presumably *not* with pity and affection. Ellison
seems to conveniently forget, or ignore, his own story construction from
paragraph to paragraph. All that can result is a formless character.
And as I have pointed out, the only definite statement about her
is made by Ellison at the beginning (and it's still vague, but
slightly condemnatory) where he says "and like them, she did nothing
to stop it", and by the character Ray, who puts down her schooling
as being devoid of valuable education. Since Ray is male, my guess is
Ellison feels more comfortable letting him speak...he says more about
Beth, whether we are supposed to believe it or not, than is said about her
thoughout the entire story, even though she is the main character.
I cannot help seeing Ellison in the role of Ray. I just instinctively
identify Ray as the voice of the author, simply because he is the
first person to actually Speak in the story, and is allowed to speak
FOR Beth, without rebuttal, and explain the moral of the story, as
confused and vague as it is.
Robert Whelan
In article <MPG.ebb27f6a...@snews.zippo.com>, moth...@burn.edu wrote:
>In article <slrn650l58....@amanda.dorsai.org>, rwh...@dorsai.org
>says...
<my own stuff snipped>
>> What bothers me about the story is the way that Beth is portrayed,
>> not as innocent and naive, but as stupid, ignorant, vain, shallow.
>> A playboy bunny, so to speak. It's a repulsive portrait. If, as you
>> say, this attitude was typical of '70's sexual attitudes towards
>> woman (an women's attitudes towards themselves) it's pretty nasty.
>>
>> But I don't believe Harlan Ellison was making this connection
>> between the passivity of Beth and the Kitty Genovese slaying. It's
>> more likely he fully participated in this 70's attitude, and
>> though Beth was a dopey idiot, who deserved to be mistreated.
>> There just isn't much material there that defends Beth, or makes
>> her seem much like a real human being.
>>
>> R.
>>
>>
>>
>Oh yes! Absolutely! The passivity of Beth is precisely the point.
>Okay... first of all: the genre of the story is horror. What could be
>worse than a secret society that worships at the alter Marquis De Sade?
>Uh, how about a bunch of people who are too scared or don't care to get
>involved? That's the story of Kitty Genovese. The Whimper of Whipped
>Dogs is HE's way of trying to make sense of the apathy that would allow
>people to watch and listen to woman dying in the streets like they were
>watching The Dick Van Dyke Show... or more to the point, Christian being
>fed to the lions in a Roman Circus. The passivity of Beth shows the
>acceptance of bloodsport as the "way of the world and you might as well
>lie back and enjoy it!"
No, Beth is portrayed (in a confusing and clumsy manner) as being frozen
with horror at the scene, not "passively" watching in the manner of
a voyeur, even though this is what she effectively seems to be doing,
through Ellison's clumsy use of her POV to observe practically every
detail of the scene, in spite of her supposed mental anguish.
>I'm not going to defend the story much more than that... it's been more
>than 15 years since I read it and it has never been one of my favorites
>(in fact, there weren't many of his stories that I cared for between "A
>Boy and His Dog" and "Jefty is Five"; two that I consider to be his best
>works). Umberto Eco did the "Secret Order of the Stonecutters" story
>better with Focault's Pendulum but I didn't care for that either.
You need to reread the story. If you go to Dejanews, and do a
search for the Whimper of Whipped Dogs thread, my critique of the
material, with extensive quotes, makes my point more clear.
My analyses can be seperated from the other comments in the thread
by the fact that I posted them without the "Re:" in the front.
They should all be just plain "The Whimper of Whipped Dogs".