Ellison apology to CJ
Peter_...@cup.portal.com
Curt Widerhoeft:
I owe you an apology. Pursuant to the webnet "conference" on June 3rd,
emanating from the American Booksellers Association convention in Chicago,
during which interchange you logged on a question to which I went
ballistic, herewith my apology for attributing to you the identity of
someone else. And for dumping on you the vitriol--dearly earned--intended
for some other. I have been sent background information that shows me
you are not, in fact, one of the people I'd thought had snuck into the
conference under an assumed handle.
I am truly regretful for demonstrating how severely these guys have
gotten to me during the past two years. So severely that they've
made me paranoid about people on these bulletin boards (which I
despise for their very anonymity and lack of accountability). Doing
this "conference" was a request by my publisher, and not an endeavor
I would otherwise have undertaken. The tone of your original
question--when you asked for help in phrasing the question in a
neutral manner--was infinitely better than what eventually reached
me, and probably would have drawn a more moderate response. But,
nonetheless, though my reply to the substance of your question
remains unchanged--TLDV is my and my writers' business, and none of
yours--I am deeply sorry to have slammed you with words intended
for others.
I offer the preceding as explanation, not an excuse. I apologize
to you.
Harlan Ellison
7 June 1995
Any typos in the foregoing are mine.
Best,
PAD
Sean Pickett
>Harlan Ellison asked me to post the following public statement to
>Curt Widerhoeft:
<most of post deleted>
>I offer the preceding as explanation, not an excuse. I apologize
>to you.
>
> Harlan Ellison
Having never read anything by Harlan, but having read quite a lot of good
words about him by Peter, Maggie Thompson, Isaac Asimov and others, I had
decided to believe that Harlan was a wonderful friend and good person.
His attack on Curt did make me wonder if I was misguide in my opinion about him.
This public apology has laid that to rest, and I will continue to believe
Harlan is indeed a great person.
--
Sean Pickett
The Bedford Flag: http://www.tiac.net/users/spickett/flag.html
E-mail: spic...@tiac.net
Curt Wiederhoeft
Mr. Ellison,
Since last Saturday, I have learned a lot about why a simple case
of mistaken identity would make you angry. I've also learned that
some "fans" have attacked you groundlessly. Your reaction, given the
circumstances, is understandable. I accept your apology, and would
like to apologize in return for approaching you with a volatile issue
in a manner which did not allow you to confirm my identity.
I do respect the fact that the book is solely the business of you and
your authors, but I pray that you are making an extra special effort
for those among them who have left this world.
Thank you for taking the time to reach me.
--
Curt Wiederhoeft My other acccount is a .gov
cjw...@jetson.uh.edu
Charles Platt
: He's a neat guy. Does have a temper, though.
This is a semantically meaningless statement.
: Incidentally, he was coming down with the flu at the time of the ABA
: conference, which probably didn't help his temper any.
Yeah right. I guess he's been coming down with flu for the past forty or
fifty years.
--
############################################################
Charles Platt c...@panix.com
Peter_...@cup.portal.com
Then I'm sure they'd find something else...
PAD
Lawrence Watt-Evans
: Peter_...@cup.portal.com wrote:
: >Harlan Ellison asked me to post the following public statement to
: >Curt Widerhoeft:
: <most of post deleted>
: >I offer the preceding as explanation, not an excuse. I apologize
: >to you.
: >
: > Harlan Ellison
: Having never read anything by Harlan, but having read quite a lot of good
: words about him by Peter, Maggie Thompson, Isaac Asimov and others, I had
: decided to believe that Harlan was a wonderful friend and good person.
: His attack on Curt did make me wonder if I was misguide in my opinion about him.
: This public apology has laid that to rest, and I will continue to believe
: Harlan is indeed a great person.
He's a neat guy. Does have a temper, though.
Incidentally, he was coming down with the flu at the time of the ABA
Ian McDowell
Re: Curt's public statement to Harlan Ellison
Very gracious and to the point, Curt. It's nice to see something like
this *not* degenerate into a prolonged feud, and to see Harlan realize
that there are decent people out here on the bulletin boards (although I
understand his paranoia on the subject).
Another unasked-for thought on a matter that both Harlan and Charles
Platt would probably agree is not my business. Harlan admits to anger
and paranoia, and from my outsider's perspective, it appears not all his
targets are deserving ones. The issues raised by Priest remain
immensely troubling (to me, at least). *However*, in all my years of
reading the work of Harlan, Gary Groth, and Charles Platt, three men with
very public personas who are all prone to feuds, I've seen Harlan sincerely
and humbly apologize from time to time, and to admit he's been wrong. I
don't remember an instance of Mr. Groth or Mr. Platt doing the same.
After I gave my (very much an outsider's viewpoint) on the Ellison/Platt
feud, somebody asked me in private e-mail how hostilities started between
Ellison and Groth. I don't know. The current issue of GAUNTLET features
a long (allegedly 30,000 word!) article on the subject. Has anyone read
it? Does it seem fair? I ask because Priest's pamphlet was available to
me free on the Net, but (for now at least) I'd have to pay to read the
GAUNTLET article.
Ian McDowell
Chris Krolczyk
>After I gave my (very much an outsider's viewpoint) on the Ellison/Platt
>feud, somebody asked me in private e-mail how hostilities started between
>Ellison and Groth. I don't know. The current issue of GAUNTLET features
>a long (allegedly 30,000 word!) article on the subject. Has anyone read
>it? Does it seem fair?
It seemed so to me. Admittedly, it was highly partisan (after all, this
_is_ GAUNTLET we're talking about) and pro-Ellison in that regard, but
it also touched on the the fact that all this was essentially caused
aby highly opinionated loudmouths doing what highly opinionated loud-
mouths do best. BTW, the guy who wrote it is the same one who did the
piece on Scientology's legal tactics wrt 60 MINUTES in the _previous_
issue, so I'd have to say he's not all that scared of the word
"controversy"...or "lawsuit", for that matter. >:)
--
Chris Krolczyk krol...@mcs.com
Director, Freethinkers United to Offend the Terminally Prudish
"Offend you? Hey, this is Usenet. Take a number like eveyone else."
Christopher Priest
Here is the text of e-mail I have sent to Peter David, concerning the
same Webnet incident on June 3:
-------------
Dear Mr David
Since you appear to be making postings on behalf of Harlan
Ellison, you are presumably the one to approach.
In his webnet 'conference' on June 3rd, Mr Ellison described me
as one of the "pustules who trie to off me a year or so ago when they
formed Enemies of Ellison". As I had nothing to do with the formation of
Enemies of Ellison, what is the basis of this allegation?
He also describes me as the "jumped-up rejected over of TLDV,
Christopher Priest (the U.K, one, not the DC comics one)". This implies a
base motive for my essay. As the only story I ever sent to Mr Ellison was
withdrawn on my instructions by my agent, what is the basis for this
allegation?
While he is publicly withdrawing these untrue allegations, and
apologizing for saying them on this and several other occasions, maybe he
could also explain why he has so far failed to answer the reasonable,
fair and constructive criticism put forward in my essay?
Christopher Priest
--------------------------
Charles Platt
: in all my years of
: reading the work of Harlan, Gary Groth, and Charles Platt, three men with
: very public personas who are all prone to feuds, I've seen Harlan sincerely
: and humbly apologize from time to time, and to admit he's been wrong. I
: don't remember an instance of Mr. Groth or Mr. Platt doing the same.
The only time Mr. Ellison ever apologized to me for anything, it was
mutual, as a way of ending hostilities. We exchanged written apologies
and written pledges. His pledge was that he would never refer to me in
public or denigrate me or my work.
I honored my pledge, but he broke that pledge a few years later
(bigtime!), and declined to apologize. So now we're back where we started.
Stevens R. Miller
>...in all my years of
>reading the work of Harlan, Gary Groth, and Charles Platt, three men with
>very public personas who are all prone to feuds, I've seen Harlan sincerely
>and humbly apologize from time to time, and to admit he's been wrong. I
>don't remember an instance of Mr. Groth or Mr. Platt doing the same.
Ian, which would you prefer: an apology with an admission, or a corrective
act? I've been a lawyer for a few years, and I can tell you that wrongdoers
will serve up apologies and admissions by the bucketload, if they think
judgment will thereby be held off another day. But, actual remedies are hard
to come by.
Ellison's apology is noble, but cheap at the same time. He is a master
craftsman of words, and his apology is mere evidence of that mastery. If he
were true to those words however, his actions would back them up; he'd publish
the works of the authors who have died waiting for him to act.
Now *that* would be the act of a truly noble man.
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Ian McDowell
On Fri, 9 Jun 1995, Stevens R. Miller wrote:
(snip)
> Ellison's apology is noble, but cheap at the same time. He is a master
> craftsman of words, and his apology is mere evidence of that mastery. If he
> were true to those words however, his actions would back them up; he'd publish
> the works of the authors who have died waiting for him to act.
>
> Now *that* would be the act of a truly noble man.
I'm not sure that I'd argue (although I'm also not sure that I *wouldn't*
argue, if that makes any sense). I was more interested in comparing the
public postures of Groth, Platt and Ellison than in addressing the
specific LDV issue (notice that I did't drag Priest into this). The
issues of nobility, or even apologies, aside, I can't remember Platt or
Grotth *ever* admit to being wrong about anything. I may be unfair to
Platt here, as I've not read as much by him, but I have read at least as
mucy by Groth and by Harlan. Harlan wasn't admitting to being wrong about
LDV, but he *was* admitting to be wrong about flaming Curt, and didn't
really have to (or, if he did, he didn't have to do it with as much good
grace).
To repeat an earlier metaphor, I'm not going to deny that Harlan my have
a substantial Mr. Hyde, but I've seen more of his Dr. Jekyll than I've
seen of Platt and Groth's. Now, for the argument as to whose Mr. Hyde is
worse, a case can be made, but I'm going to avoid it, if only because I
still have too much an emotional investment in Harlan's work.
Ian McDowell
Andrew Hackard
>Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
>: He's a neat guy. Does have a temper, though.
>
>This is a semantically meaningless statement.
Far be it for me to interrupt here, but I fail to see where Lawrence's
statement loses semantic meaning. Seems to me that he thinks Harlan is
a person with some redeeming qualities (probably in a fun sense, by the
use of the word "neat"), but that he also has the fault of a hair-trigger
temper. One complements, not negates, the other.
>: Incidentally, he was coming down with the flu at the time of the ABA
>: conference, which probably didn't help his temper any.
>
>Yeah right. I guess he's been coming down with flu for the past forty or
>fifty years.
Well, it's been going around.
--
Andrew Hackard Any sufficiently advanced chaos is
indistinguishable from Usenet.
Charles Platt
: On Fri, 9 Jun 1995, Stevens R. Miller wrote:
: issues of nobility, or even apologies, aside, I can't remember Platt or
: Grotth *ever* admit to being wrong about anything.
I am fairly careful about facts (unlike Harlan Ellison, I write a lot of
nonfiction which requires me to do research) and I have a good memory.
Possibly for this reason, or possibly because I have simply been lucky, I
don't think anyone has ever accused me of saying something untrue with
respect to Ellison. If someone did accuse me of this, and if it seemed
they were right, of course I would apologize.
Ian McDowell
On 10 Jun 1995, Charles Platt wrote:
> I am fairly careful about facts (unlike Harlan Ellison, I write a lot of
> nonfiction which requires me to do research) and I have a good memory.
> Possibly for this reason, or possibly because I have simply been lucky, I
> don't think anyone has ever accused me of saying something untrue with
> respect to Ellison. If someone did accuse me of this, and if it seemed
> they were right, of course I would apologize.
Point taken, but I wasn't limiting myself to your feud with Harlan.
Also, I'm a little bit hobbled here, as I've read less of your nonfiction
than I have of Harlan's or Groth's (although I've liked much of what I've
read). Still, as an oldtime reader of Dick Geis's Science Fiction
Review and Ted White's Amazing and Fantastic, I think I can truthfully
say that you've had your share of feuds. Didn't you once cause a pie to
be flung in Ted White's face? Also, and my memory may well be at fault
here, I seem to remember a particularly amusing exchange in SFR between
you and Darrell Schweitzer, in which you accused each other of being the
most despised figure in Science Fiction (hmm, it would have been more
amusing if you'd each been trying to claim the "honor" for yourselves,
rather than trying to pn it on each other). And I'm sure your "Gabby
Snitch" persona much have engendered all kinds of letter column
squabbles. Indeed, I believe that, along with Harlan, you pioneered the
concept of the "flame war" back in the dear dead days when one actually
had to compose a letter (on a *typewriter*) and mail it to attack one's
literary enemies (yes, I know I exagerate, and that there were fanzine
letter column wars before you could write, but both you and Harlan were among
the few who were as prolific at it as flame-happy Net warriors).
Anyway, my point is this. I'm not saying whether you were right or wrong,
and I've derived much entertainment over the past two decades from your
verbal fisticuffs. *However,* from my own experience in being obnoxious, I
doubt that one can be a gadfly for as long as you and Groth and Ellison
have without being wrong from time to time.
No, I can't cite specific instances, but I do have the impression that
Harlan apologizes every so often for his miscalls (well, for some of them).
I'm less certain about you than I am about Groth, but I don't immediately
recall an instance of either of you doing so.
On the other hand, it really is possible that you've always been right.
Sorry I missed the colored smoke.
Ian McDowell
Stevens R. Miller
>Ian McDowell (ikmc...@hamlet.uncg.edu) wrote:
>: On Fri, 9 Jun 1995, Stevens R. Miller wrote:
>: I can't remember Platt or Grotth *ever* admit to being wrong...
>I am fairly careful about facts...
>If someone did accuse me of this, and if it seemed
>they were right, of course I would apologize.
Just to be clear: Charles made a bit of a mistake in his attributions in this
message. It was Ian McDowell who said Platt has never admitted being wrong,
not me (Stevens R. Miller).
I'm glad Charles has made the response summarized above. After all, one very
good reason to have never admitted a wrong, is to never have done one.
Dan Hoey
> After I gave my (very much an outsider's viewpoint) on the Ellison/Platt
> feud, somebody asked me in private e-mail how hostilities started between
> Ellison and Groth. I don't know. The current issue of GAUNTLET features
> a long (allegedly 30,000 word!) article on the subject. Has anyone read
> me free on the Net, but (for now at least) I'd have to pay to read the
> GAUNTLET article.
Richard Cusick's essay, "Bugfuck!", in _The Gauntlet_ Vol 2 #9, is
indeed a long piece--I would estimate closer to 40,000 words. And I
can't help but think my taste for sensationalism must be tinged with
masochism, for I read the whole thing. It was made more painful by
Cusick's annoying habit of broadcasting his own prejudices all through
the piece. But with those filtered out, I have to say it seems to
pretty scrupulously report everything I know about the affair. I'm
not going to cover the entire article, just a couple of points that
caught my attention.
The parts I most disagree with are Cusick's take on whether Ellison
was being hypocritical in trying to block publication of _The Book on
The Edge of Forever_. I read the series of articles Groth published
in the _Comic Journal_ in 1993-94 about Ellison. They seemed
sensationalist, and portrayed Ellison as a rude bully, but there was
relatively little actual news to back them up. Clearly Groth was
enjoying the opportunity to annoy Ellison. Cusick attacks this:
Under no circumstances does Gary Groth have the right to use the
news and editorial functions of his publication to settle old
scores and private matters. [p. 145]
In his view, it apparently mitigates Ellison's threat of legal action
against the publication of _The Book on The Edge of Forever_:
Harlan Ellison was wrong to attempt to control the publication of
_The Book on The Edge of Forever_. He was not wrong because he
was a hypocrite who gives lip service to free expression only to
muzzle it at the first signs of convenience [sic]. That is the
spin that Gary Groth would like you to believe and it is a
simplistic and inaccurate view.... He should not have sent that
letter, but I don't think we can charge him with attempted
suppression. [p. 131]
Cusick's thinks that Groth's baiting of Ellison, and the fact this
threat of legal action was everything Groth could have hoped for,
means that Ellison wasn't really trying to suppress the book. I think
that's pretty thin.
The main thing I learned from the essay that hadn't come through in
the _Journal_ articles was that Ellison's appearance at the Philadel-
phia Comicfest was not a lecture but a question-and-answer session.
So he didn't tell "the Charles Platt story" on his own initiative, but
in response to an audience request. Not that this means he wasn't
violating his agreement with Platt, but at least it was apparently not
a planned abrogation of the treaty.
The origin of the Groth-Ellison feud forms a coda that is more or less
irrelevant to the rest, though it does provide the essay's title.
What seems fairly certain is that in 1979 Groth published an interview
in which Ellison said that Mike Fleisher must be crazy--"bugfuck"--to
write so well in his dark, violent genre. Fleisher, not appreciating
the compliment, sued Groth and Ellison for libel. Groth and Ellison
mounted a joint defense that was eventually successful in defending
against the suit.
But some disagreements occurred during the trial that began a feud
between them. It is hard to tell just what those disagreements were.
Part of it was a disagreement on who was paying for the legal defense,
but that part seems fairly minor. Groth alleges "lots" of unspecified
"unethical behavior" on Ellison's part. Ellison's lawyer said that
Groth's sensational reporting of the case during the seven years it
took to be settled risked their case. I haven't heard anything
directly attributed to Ellison. So there really isn't a very good
explanation of the origins of the feud.
Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
Dan Hoey
> The only time Mr. Ellison ever apologized to me for anything, it was
> mutual, as a way of ending hostilities. We exchanged written apologies
> and written pledges. His pledge was that he would never refer to me in
> public or denigrate me or my work.
> I honored my pledge, but he broke that pledge a few years later
> (bigtime!), and declined to apologize. So now we're back where we started.
According to Richard Kusick's _Gauntlet_ article, Ellison's April,
1988 letter included such a pledge conditioned on your "reticence in
private and in public and in print" about him. Kusick also reports
that Roberta Lannes says you discussed Ellison at length at parties,
including one in November, 1988. Are these reports accurate? To what
extent were private, unpublished remarks covered by these pledges? Do
you think this has any bearing on the more wholesale abrogation of the
pledges five years later?
Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
Charles Platt
: Just to be clear: Charles made a bit of a mistake in his attributions in this
: not me (Stevens R. Miller).
It's embarrassing to have misattributed a quoted post, while I'm stating
that so far as I know, I haven't made any misstatements of fact! Sorry
about that; I evidently deleted the wrong line, as happens relatively
often in Usenet exchanges.
Christopher Priest
Does it seem fair?"
I have read it, although only from photocopied pages (so I'm
unable to judge the article within the context of the whole magazine). I
am named in it many times, although not nearly so often as Charles Platt
or Gary Groth.
The article (by one Richard Cusick) is huge and rambling, and
contains several diversions from the main theme, but what it boils down
to is a conspiracy theory. In this Groth, Platt, Andrew Porter, one or
two others and myself are said to have conspired to deny Harlan Ellison
his constitutional rights of free speech. It's patently absurd. Even from
the article itself it's clear that all the legal threats against
publication, the punches thrown at parties, etc., are coming from only
one side.
(I wrote a letter in response. If anyone is in the least
interested, I'll post it here.)
DEADLOSS is described as a 'posturing over-reaching polemic', but
apart from this the article gives no clue that Cusick read what it said.
Certainly, none of the undisputed facts about TLDV contained in DEADLOSS
were reported, and none of the arguments were presented.
Speaking as someone who is most definitely not part of anyone's
conspiracy, it seemed to me Cusick tended to take Mr Ellison's version of
events as true, and therefore treated everyone else's version as untrue.
It's a depressing feeling, seeing yourself presented as dishonest in a
published article.
What I mostly learned from the experience is that if you are
perceived to be a media personality (Ellison) you are given much more
space and credibility than if you are not (me, Groth, Platt, etc). Maybe
it's time to remind Mr Ellison of something he once said himself (In 'The
Deathbird'):
"Provisos of equal time are not served by one viewpoint having
media access to two hundred million people in prime time while opposing
viewpoints are provided with a soapbox on the corner."
Chris Priest
Bill Johnson
...
> (I wrote a letter in response. If anyone is in the least
>interested, I'll post it here.)
I'm interested (and I'm sure others will be, too).
...
> What I mostly learned from the experience is that if you are
>perceived to be a media personality (Ellison) you are given much more
>space and credibility than if you are not (me, Groth, Platt, etc). Maybe
>it's time to remind Mr Ellison of something he once said himself (In 'The
>Deathbird'):
> "Provisos of equal time are not served by one viewpoint having
>media access to two hundred million people in prime time while opposing
>viewpoints are provided with a soapbox on the corner."
Indeed. And if it weren't for the fact that several of the principals
in this discussion/dispute/whatever-you-call-it (including you, obviously)
were posting responses in this newsgroup, the only side I *ever* would
have heard would have been Harlan Ellison's.
I must admit that I find this whole exchange fascinating, in a morbid
sort of way...
---
Bill Johnson 10U-178 w...@mti.sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc. Office:(415) 390-4283
SGI Compilers Fax:(415) 390-6175
Charles Platt
: read). Still, as an oldtime reader of Dick Geis's Science Fiction
: Review and Ted White's Amazing and Fantastic, I think I can truthfully
: say that you've had your share of feuds. Didn't you once cause a pie to
: be flung in Ted White's face? Also, and my memory may well be at fault
: here, I seem to remember a particularly amusing exchange in SFR between
: you and Darrell Schweitzer, in which you accused each other of being the
: most despised figure in Science Fiction (hmm, it would have been more
: amusing if you'd each been trying to claim the "honor" for yourselves,
: rather than trying to pn it on each other).
And so on and so forth. Yes, of course, I have been involved in some
"colorful" episodes in the microcosm of "science fiction fandom," where
flame ways existed long before I ever came on the scene. And I have
certainly made some apologies. In fact I sent one out a couple of weeks
ago to Algis Budrys, with whom I had a strong difference of opinion in the
past re his involvement with the Scientology-backed "Writers of the
Future" contest. A few months earlier I received an apology from David
Drake, who says he tried to "ruin me" in the past, because of a review I
wrote in which I suggested that his militaristic work had a kind of
fascist flavor. I still think it does, but I returned his apology with one
of my own, because I think I went beyond the mandate of a reviewer.
So, yes, I make apologies.
One thing that tends to trigger me is pomposity, and another is hypocrisy.
I feel that our friend Mr. Ellison gets away with a certain amount in
these areas, and it annoys me, so sometimes I talk about it. Also, I know
of cases where he has deliberately and maliciously tried to ruin people's
careers as writers, which I think is indefensible--especially since their
only sin was not taking him seriously enough. I'm sure he would have tried
to ruin my career if I had worked in movies or TV; but I make a living
primarily in book publishing where Ellison's own reputation is so
tarnished (mainly because of pathological nondelivery of promised
projects) that he has little influence on editors these days.
Charles Platt
: According to Richard Kusick's _Gauntlet_ article, Ellison's April,
: 1988 letter included such a pledge conditioned on your "reticence in
: private and in public and in print" about him. Kusick also reports
: that Roberta Lannes says you discussed Ellison at length at parties,
: including one in November, 1988. Are these reports accurate? To what
: extent were private, unpublished remarks covered by these pledges? Do
: you think this has any bearing on the more wholesale abrogation of the
: pledges five years later?
I wonder if the Usenet readership really cares about this, but since you
asked, I will answer. I have no idea which party I was at in November
1988, and I have no idea what was said. I do know that the writer of the
Gauntlet piece began with the preconception that "no writer hits someone
because of something the person wrote about him," and he refused to revise
this preconception, even though I pointed out that Mr. Ellison has himself
stated publicly that he has hit people because of things they wrote about
him. Therefore, I assume the Gauntlet article (which I have not read) may
be to some extent biased. Roberta Lannes, an ex of mine whom I haven't
spoken to in three or four years, has her bias too.
After the "solemn pledge" in a letter to me from Ellison dated April 19
1988, I spent many years basically not thinking about Ellison, whose
writing has never interested me very much, and who lives 3000 miles away.
I certainly wrote nothing about him. At science-fiction parties, where
people swapped gossip about him (as often happens), I may have given some
factual information if I was asked, but I never volunteered anything, and
I remember often asking to change the subject because the topic no longer
interested me.
Mr. Ellison, on the other hand, chose to describe me in terms that were
luridly inflammatory and unflattering, in public speeches before hundreds
of people, on at least four occasions that I know of, and probably many
more. I have transcripts of two of those speeches, in which he
characterized himself as a hero who vanquished a despicable enemy of
society (me). With the usual boastful hyperbole he characterized an event
in which he struck one glancing blow on my jaw (leaving no visible bruise)
in terms that would embarrass a comic-book writer; supposedly, there was
blood, vomit, teeth punched down my throat, etc etc. Again, this
description was made in front of large audiences, mainly to make Ellison
look heroic and get some laughs at my expense. He omitted to mention that
the only three witnesses to the event all contradicted his statements, and
Frederik Pohl, one of the most sober and gentle men one could hope to
meet, told Ellison at the time that he had behaved despcicably. Pohl
subsequently offered to testify on my behalf if I chose to sue for
damages, but when I spoke to an attorney I was told that my lack of
physical injury made the case not worthwhile--especially since Ellison
"isn't famous enough" to attract sufficient publicity for the law firm!
I could go on, and on, and on, but I guess this covers it. I may have
mentioned Ellison in passing during the five years in which I assumed his
"solemn pledge" was in effect, but I didn't ridicule him or lie about
him or say negative things about him, and I certainly didn't talk about
him in public.
One more thing. In an exchange on GEnie, he finally admitted that he had
FORGOTTEN his pledge to refrain from talking about me. This was not an
apology on his part, however; it was along the lines, "So I forgot! So
what?" He also implied that he signed the pledge just to keep me quiet,
and never had any intention of honoring it. I have subsequently learned
that he has signed similar pledges with other people, and has not honored
those documents either.
The relevant paragraphs of his characteristically overwritten letter to me
are as follows:
"And finally, to buttress our agreement, I assure you that if your
reticence in private and in public and in print about me is maintained,
that I will punctiliously refrain from making any comments of any kind
about you.
"This extends to a promise not to review any written works by
you. Hoping this initiates an unending period of calm and quiet and
forebearance between us, I execute this document freely and sincerely."
The word "reticence" is clearly key. You could argue, I suppose, that if I
merely utter the word "Ellison" I am in technical violation. However, this
is clearly not the spirit of the document. And since he has already
admitted that he launched into his repeated public diatribes against me
because he forgot he made a pledge and didn't intend to honor it anyway,
and since I certainly DID honor the spirit of the document by ceasing all
my previous activities of writing about him and making fun of some of his
outrageous behavior, I think the suggestion that I violated it first is
specious and untrue.
Charles Platt
: The main thing I learned from the essay that hadn't come through in
: the _Journal_ articles was that Ellison's appearance at the Philadel-
: phia Comicfest was not a lecture but a question-and-answer session.
: So he didn't tell "the Charles Platt story" on his own initiative, but
: in response to an audience request. Not that this means he wasn't
: violating his agreement with Platt, but at least it was apparently not
: a planned abrogation of the treaty.
This is untrue. It is one of many Ellisonian rewrites of reality, and I'm
disappointed, but not surprised, that it has been presented as fact in
Gauntlet magazine.
Ellison originally accused Gary Groth of PLANTING someone in the audience
to ask questions which would "trick" Ellison into making statements that
would get him into trouble. (Talk about conspiracy theories! The lengths
to which Ellison will go, to make himself look like an innocent victim and
evade responsibility for his outbursts, are really amazing.)
It so happens I have a tape of his rant at the comics convention. There
was some to-and-fro between Ellison and the audience, but no more than
usual. It is *not* possible to hear anyone saying my name, other than
Ellison himself, who says, "You've heard the Charles Platt story, haven't
you?" And when he gets a few "no" responses, he launches in with gusto.
To suggest that Ellison needs to be provoked into maligning people is
absurd; he LOVES maligning people, and much of his schtick is built on
this. During the same speech, for example, without any provocation he
referred to Gene Roddenberry as "a lying sack of shit." (Exact quote.)
The obvious question is ... why would he ask the audience if they have
heard "the Platt anecdote" as if it's already well-known? Evidently
because it *is* a known anecdote. Since no one else has been telling it,
one can only conclude that Ellison himself has been telling it. And
according to reports that I have received from many different people,
indeed Ellison has used "the Platt anecdote" many times, as a staple of
his public repertoire--up to the point where I decided I had had enough of
being slandered and started the "Victims of Ellison" support group to
cause Mr. Ellison as much ridicule and humiliation as possible. Since
then, I believe he has stopped telling "the Platt anecdote," although
since I have no interest in attending comic-book conventions, one can
never be sure.
I am not able to comment on Gary Groth's reasons for feeling that Ellison
lied to him and betrayed to him, and I don't think Groth reads this
group, so this issue must remain unanswered.
Ian McDowell
On 11 Jun 1995, Charles Platt wrote:
(Citing examples of apologies to Budrys and Drake)
> So, yes, I make apologies.
>
> One thing that tends to trigger me is pomposity, and another is hypocrisy.
> I feel that our friend Mr. Ellison gets away with a certain amount in
> these areas, and it annoys me, so sometimes I talk about it. Also, I know
> of cases where he has deliberately and maliciously tried to ruin people's
> careers as writers, which I think is indefensible--especially since their
> only sin was not taking him seriously enough.
I was thinking of public mea culpas rather than private apologies, but
I was unclear on that point (and am unsure from your post which category
your statements to Budrys and Drake fall into). At any rate, it's
certainly less important than your statement above, in which you make
quite extreme allegations. Can you cite examples?
Ian McDowell
Ian McDowell
On 11 Jun 1995, Dan Hoey wrote:
> The origin of the Groth-Ellison feud forms a coda that is more or less
> irrelevant to the rest, though it does provide the essay's title.
> What seems fairly certain is that in 1979 Groth published an interview
> in which Ellison said that Mike Fleisher must be crazy--"bugfuck"--to
> write so well in his dark, violent genre. Fleisher, not appreciating
> the compliment, sued Groth and Ellison for libel. Groth and Ellison
> mounted a joint defense that was eventually successful in defending
> against the suit.
>
> But some disagreements occurred during the trial that began a feud
> between them. It is hard to tell just what those disagreements were.
> Part of it was a disagreement on who was paying for the legal defense,
> but that part seems fairly minor. Groth alleges "lots" of unspecified
> "unethical behavior" on Ellison's part. Ellison's lawyer said that
> Groth's sensational reporting of the case during the seven years it
> took to be settled risked their case. I haven't heard anything
> directly attributed to Ellison. So there really isn't a very good
> explanation of the origins of the feud.
Damn, this is the part I was most interested in. A little more
background for those who don't read comics. In his mammoth interview in
THE COMICS JOURNAL, Harlan did indeed call THE SPECTRE writer Michael
Fleisher "bugfuck." Taken in context, it was *clearly* a compliment.
However, Gary Groth is rather less liked in the comics industry than
either Harlan or Mr. Platt are in sf (I enjoy his magazine, myself, but
all are other comics related publications are such utter stroke jobs for
the industry that his vitriol is refreshing) and has at least as many
"enemies." What neither Groth not Ellison knew was that Fleisher had
indeed spent time in a mental institution (least that's what I heard).
Fleisher's resulting lawsuit was allegedly egged on by some of Groth's
"enemies," not Ellison's. Groth and the JOURNAL were the main targets,
and if they'd had a handy weapon for going after the magazine and its
publisher without involving Harlan, that might have been used instead.
Groth's attitude during those days was fairly fawning towards Ellison, or
at least as fawning as Groth ever gets. He allowed Harlan lengthy
responses in his letter column to almost every letter published
commenting on the interview and more. The suit, as such things do, took
a while before it was dismissed. I was one of Harlan's liaisons during
this time when he spoke at my college. Late night, over greasy burgers,
he expressed hope that Mr. Groth wouldn't testify much, as he was so
obnoxious it might damage their case. As someone who generally likes
Harlan for his "obnoxious" qualities as much of in spite of them, I was
bemused by this description. Later, Groth made one elliptical comment in
the JOURNAL about Harlan having felt that he (Groth) had "misbehaved"
while Groth was his house guest. At the time I wondered, what did he do,
try to steal the china?
This is an issue on which I doubt there will ever be clarification,
considering the personalities involved. I find it more interesting, in
some ways, than the LDV feud, although it is certainly more trivial.
Well, "less disturbing" may be a better term, as I can watch Harlan and
Mr. Groth go at each other without being particularly disturbed by larger
moral issues.
My take on this is of no importance, but here it is:
1) I still like Harlan quite a bit, and revere his best work.
2) Mr. Priest makes some right damning allegations. I don't believe that
LDV will appear in Harlan's lifetime, which makes me much less eager to
see publication than I once was. I do hope I'm wrong about this, and
would like to be proven wrong. If I'm right, I see no way the book can
be published in toto even posthumously.
3) Harlan may indeed be a victim of his own public persona. I don't
think it's all been deliberate on his part, and I do believe that he
really *wants* to publish the book. My previously comments about our
personal blindspots and being in denial still apply. When somebody pisses
us off, it can be too easy to attribute to malice what may be the result
of less willful human failings.
4) Having once hit somebody myself in public (nobody famous, and it
wasn't much of a punch), I can't criticize Harlan for what he did. The
years of boasting about it *do* disturb me.
Ian McDowell
Charles Platt
: I was thinking of public mea culpas rather than private apologies, but
: I was unclear on that point (and am unsure from your post which category
: your statements to Budrys and Drake fall into). At any rate, it's
: certainly less important than your statement above, in which you make
: quite extreme allegations. Can you cite examples?
One thing keeps leading to another. My "allegations" do not seem extreme
to me, because over the years, I have seen many instances of Harlan
Ellison taking revenge on people. Sometimes it can be amusing, as when he
mailed an editor a dead gopher--by parcel post, naturally, so that it was
in an advances state of decomposition when it finally reached its target.
Here's a more serious example from my own experience: I once received a
long call (which I taped) in which Ellison told me that a friend or fan of
his (unnamed) had become so angry with me for something I had written
about Ellison, this friend or fan was seriously planning to inflict on me
grievous bodily harm and might actually kill me. Ellison stressed that he,
personally, had NO desire to see me dead (of course not!) but
unfortunately there was no way he could get in touch with the friend/fan
to call him off. Therefore, Ellison was calling to WARN ME that someone
was going to kill me. He advised me to leave town and rent a motel room
somewhere out in New Jersey, until he could locate the friend/fan and call
him off, which might take several days.
Ellison can be quite plausible, and he does have some obsessive fans who
might conceivably feel a need to "defend his honor." So at the time, I
believed the story--though I certainly wasn't going to leave town. Years
later however I discovered that Ellison has used the exact same story on
other people. It's a neat way to make a death threat while seeming to be
concerned about the victim's safety. And if the victim falls for it,
Ellison can then laugh at him publicly for being such a sap. Here again
the anecdote seems humorous ... yet an impressional person could easily
suffer a week of extreme anxiety as a result of this "joke."
As for revenge calculated to damage someone's career, I have various
testimonials in a fat file that I gathered a year or two ago. I am
reluctant to open that file and start laboriosly typing stuff in here, a)
because it will take a lot of time and b) because I like to have something
in reserve, just in case, for a rainy day, so to speak.
But the case of John Shirley certainly comes to mind. John had an
acrimonious correspondence with Ellison, in which Ellison ultimately
warned John that John was going to have a hard time selling his work in
Hollywood in future. Subsequently, Ellison went far out of his way to
denigrate John's work in public (including at a meeting where John was
pitching ideas). (Ellison was not invited to the meeting, but chose to
attend anyway.) At the end of it, Ellison said to Shirley (I heard this
from Shirley and from Ellison himself!) "I warned you not to mess with me.
I'm like a snake on a hot rock."
For those of us well acquainted with Harlan Ellison, these stories are
plentiful. I think he believes there are some people in the world who are
so reprehensible, they really deserve what they get. And he has a
righteousness that makes him feel good about acting as an agent of
"justice." As he has said in public, "If you are my enemy, you'll go to
your grave with my teeth in your throat." (I think this is an exact
quote.)
In the interests of fairness I should note that Ellison can also be
extremely helpful and kind to people whom he considers friends. He goes
far out of his way to do favors, and is very generous indeed.
But for those who are classified as "enemies" one can only say, watch out.
Nancy Lebovitz
>Ian McDowell (ikmc...@hamlet.uncg.edu) wrote:
>
>: I was thinking of public mea culpas rather than private apologies, but
>: I was unclear on that point (and am unsure from your post which category
>: your statements to Budrys and Drake fall into). At any rate, it's
>: certainly less important than your statement above, in which you make
>: quite extreme allegations. Can you cite examples?
>
>One thing keeps leading to another. My "allegations" do not seem extreme
>to me, because over the years, I have seen many instances of Harlan
>Ellison taking revenge on people. Sometimes it can be amusing, as when he
>mailed an editor a dead gopher--by parcel post, naturally, so that it was
>in an advances state of decomposition when it finally reached its target.
>
the editor had a heart condition--this would make it attempted
murder, imho. He had an auditorium of fans laughing at the story...
which might make him count as a Bad Influence.
On the other hand, I gather that at least one of his stories about
decking someone was much exaggerated, so maybe that gopher was never
even mailed.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
NEW EDITION of the calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
David Carlton
> I am fairly careful about facts (unlike Harlan Ellison, I write a
> lot of nonfiction which requires me to do research) and I have a
> good memory. Possibly for this reason, or possibly because I have
> simply been lucky, I don't think anyone has ever accused me of
> saying something untrue with respect to Ellison.
From another article in this thread:
+ On 8 Jun 1995 10:54:17 -0400, c...@panix.com (Charles Platt) said:
+
+ Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
[ in reference to Harlan Ellison, of course ]
+ : He's a neat guy. Does have a temper, though.
+
+ This is a semantically meaningless statement.
It's simply not a semantically meaningless statement. Therefore, your
statement is untrue, and is in response to something concerning
Ellison. For that matter, while we're talking about untrue
statements, are you claiming that Ellison doesn't write a lot of
nonfiction or that his doesn't require him to do research? He's
certainly had books of nonfiction published and at least one regular
nonfiction column.
Now, you could call me petty, and of course you'd be right. My point
is just that, while Ellison seems undeniably more in the wrong here,
that doesn't make you completely in the right.
david carlton
car...@math.mit.edu
Intellectual property is intellectual theft.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
: This is a semantically meaningless statement.
Well, in the sense that "neat" has no clear and invariant definition, you
may have a point, but I thought it conveyed what I meant it to convey.
: : Incidentally, he was coming down with the flu at the time of the ABA
: : conference, which probably didn't help his temper any.
: Yeah right. I guess he's been coming down with flu for the past forty or
: fifty years.
No. As I said, he's got a temper. However, as it happens, I phoned him
the morning after the ABA event on a minor business matter, and when he
answered the phone I assumed I'd woken him by calling too early, as his
voice was little more than a croak. He assured me that no, he'd been up
for an hour or two, but had the flu.
He sounded convincingly awful throughout the conversation, and throughout
a follow-up on Tuesday.
No mention was made of the incident of CJ's question -- I hadn't yet read
anything about it on Monday, and on Tuesday I didn't see any reason to
bother him about it.
For one thing, he sounded really awful; I don't like bringing up
unpleasant subjects when speaking to sick people.
He seems to have recovered, by the way, as he called me this morning
regarding the Stoker awards and sounded much more himself.
I know that when I'm coming down with something I get irritable. I
thought I'd mention the flu as a possible extenuating circumstance for
this particular contretemps, one that Harlan himself considered something
that rated an apology.
I certainly didn't mean it as a general excuse for anyone's behavior. I
don't think it's my business to excuse or defend anyone, nor do I think
that Harlan is without flaw.
Charles Platt
: On the other hand, I gather that at least one of his stories about
: decking someone was much exaggerated, so maybe that gopher was never
: even mailed.
Good point. But let me relate to you a conversation I had long ago with a
literary agent named Kirby McCauley, who used to represent Stephen King
among other writers. McCauley said to me (in approximately these words):
"You know, I never took the story seriously about Harlan Ellison mailing
the dead gopher, but last week I had lunch with [editor X] and he was
talking to me about the writers he has had to deal with over the years,
and he said, 'Some nut in California even sent me a dead animal through
the mail. It looked like a great big rat.'"
Turned out the "nut" was, in fact, Harlan Ellison. Ellison was having
gopher trouble at the time; they were digging up his lawn, and he used to
lie in wait and shoot them. So it was quite easy for him to wrap one and
mail it.
Whether the editor really had a heart condition, I have no idea.
Ian McDowell
On Sat, 10 Jun 1995, Stevens R. Miller wrote:
> Just to be clear: Charles made a bit of a mistake in his attributions in this
> message. It was Ian McDowell who said Platt has never admitted being wrong,
> not me (Stevens R. Miller).
>
> I'm glad Charles has made the response summarized above. After all, one very
> good reason to have never admitted a wrong, is to never have done one.
Mr. Platt has already addressed this, but due to the way postings get
propogated (something I've yet to understand) in our various newsreaders,
Stevens wouldn't have known that yet. If Mr. Platt was really claiming
never to have been wrong (in all his feuds, not just his one with
Ellison), my wisecrack about having missed the colored smoke would still
apply (i. e., I hadn't realized that he was the new Pope). However, Mr.
Platt listed several examples of his admitting to being wrong and
apologizing, and while he didn't make it clear whether or not those were
public apologies, that's hardly necessary, as I also got private e-mail
which convincingly described a very public apology of Mr. Platt's.
That said, I must add that I wasn't just using a rhetorical hedge when I
said that I was *unaware* of Mr. Platt ever having admitted being in the
wrong in any of his feuds. I tried to make it clear that I was more
familiar with both Groth's and Harlan's public statements than with Mr.
Platt's. That's the problem with having allies, really; you tend to get
lumped together (I know this has happened to me in disputes I was engaged
in). Now maybe someone will even chip in with an example of a public Mea
Culpa from Gary Groth!
Ian McDowell
PS
Another point I really should make, in the interest of fairness. I've
not read many sf fanzines since the mid-eighties. It's quite possible
that Mr. Platt's reputation really has risen among his peers and that
Harlan's has declined accordingly. The Mr. Platt whose letters and
columns I used to read (and enjoy) a decade ago didn't strike me as somebody
likely to apologize for anything. The Mr. Platt who's been posting to
this newsgroup does. His description of how he apologized to Algis Budrys
and David Drake suggests a somewhat different man than the one whose
fanzine persona I thought I was familiar with.
Dan Hoey
the Philadelphia Comicfest was not a lecture but a question-and-answer
session, c...@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes:
> This is untrue. It is one of many Ellisonian rewrites of reality,
> and I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that it has been presented
> as fact in Gauntlet magazine.
The relevant section of Cusick's _Gauntlet_ article is:
The [_Journal_'s] implication that Ellison eagerly volunteered
these stories is obvious and incorrect. A videotape of the event
clearly shows Ellison taking suggestions from the audience.
During a lull in the action, between anecdotes, a member of the
audience throws out a request:
``Tell the Charles Platt story!''
``Jesus! God!'' groaned Ellison. ``Tell the Charles Platt
story! You know the Charles Platt story?!''
``No! No!'' The words rose from the crowd.
Ellison mimicked an old Jewish man: ``Tell the Charles Platt
story!'' and then in a normal voice said, ``There was this guy...
There was this guy named Charles Platt...'' [p. 111]
I didn't notice Cusick claiming to have personally listened to that
videotape, though.
> Ellison originally accused Gary Groth of PLANTING someone in the audience
> to ask questions which would "trick" Ellison into making statements that
> would get him into trouble. (Talk about conspiracy theories! The lengths
> to which Ellison will go, to make himself look like an innocent victim and
> evade responsibility for his outbursts, are really amazing.)
Well, Groth sold a lot of _Comics Journal_s on this story and its
sequelae. It is not inconceivable that he would try to raise its
juiciness level, especially if he considers that Ellison's rudeness is
something that should be better publicized. Though Cusick quotes
Groth's denial of having sponsored a shill.
> It so happens I have a tape of his rant at the comics convention. There
> was some to-and-fro between Ellison and the audience, but no more than
> usual. It is *not* possible to hear anyone saying my name, other than
> Ellison himself, who says, "You've heard the Charles Platt story, haven't
> you?" And when he gets a few "no" responses, he launches in with gusto.
Could it be that there is more than one tape, and that the audience
prompt is audible on some tapes but not others? Can you supply the
precise text of the above exchange from your tape?
> To suggest that Ellison needs to be provoked into maligning people
> is absurd....
That was not my contention. The question is whether he needs to be
prompted to speak on subjects he has pledged to remain silent about.
> The obvious question is ... why would he ask the audience if they
> have heard "the Platt anecdote" as if it's already well-known?
The rhetorical nature of the question is plausible in the _Gauntlet_'s
version.
> Evidently because it *is* a known anecdote. Since no one else has
> been telling it, one can only conclude that Ellison himself has been
> telling it....
I don't know that no one else has been telling the story. It may well
have been repeated by other witnesses, or anyone who heard the story
before the April, 1988 pledge. So the conclusion does not follow from
it being a known anecdote. It does, of course, follow from the
reports you claim to have heard of him using it ``as a staple of his
public repertoire.''
Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
Beth Meacham
condition. Not, of course, as a result of anything any writer might have
done.
Beth
Beth Meacham b...@tor.com
Charles Platt (c...@panix.com) wrote:
: Good point. But let me relate to you a conversation I had long ago with a
: literary agent named Kirby McCauley, who used to represent Stephen King
: among other writers. McCauley said to me (in approximately these words):
: "You know, I never took the story seriously about Harlan Ellison mailing
: the dead gopher, but last week I had lunch with [editor X] and he was
: talking to me about the writers he has had to deal with over the years,
: and he said, 'Some nut in California even sent me a dead animal through
: the mail. It looked like a great big rat.'"
: Turned out the "nut" was, in fact, Harlan Ellison. Ellison was having
: gopher trouble at the time; they were digging up his lawn, and he used to
: lie in wait and shoot them. So it was quite easy for him to wrap one and
: mail it.
: Whether the editor really had a heart condition, I have no idea.
: --
: ############################################################
: Charles Platt c...@panix.com
--
Christian Longshore Claiborn
[Stuff about how Harlan is a weenorhead]
In the interests of fairness I should note that Ellison can also be
extremely helpful and kind to people whom he considers friends. He goes
far out of his way to do favors, and is very generous indeed.
And he's also a pretty good writer, particularly at short lengths.
While I understand that your personal issues with Ellison date back
years and years, would it be possible for us not to pursue it further
in this group? It really isn't about his work, it's about him
personally, and wading through an ever-expanding morass of threads
about how Harlan was nice to someone but mean to someone else probably
isn't of interest to a lot of people reading this.
I respect the work that you've done and the work that Harlan's done,
but could we possibly point this conversation so that it focuses a
little more on that work and a little less on personal vendettas?
I think I speak for a largely silent majority when I make this
request, but of course feel free to ignore it.
best wishes,
christian
--
Christian Longshore Claiborn - opinions my own
"Look at this show-off, Hancock. Pretty flamboyant signature
for an insurance man." -- Ben Franklin (Stan Freberg)
Charles Platt
: + On 8 Jun 1995 10:54:17 -0400, c...@panix.com (Charles Platt) said:
: + Lawrence Watt-Evans (lawr...@clark.net) wrote:
: [ in reference to Harlan Ellison, of course ]
: + : He's a neat guy. Does have a temper, though.
: +
: + This is a semantically meaningless statement.
: It's simply not a semantically meaningless statement. Therefore, your
: statement is untrue
Well, I think it *is* semantically meaningless, else I wouldn't have said
so. "neat guy" is so vague I don't even know what it's supposed to mean
(it's the kind of statement one would expect from a stereotypical airhead
blond in a TV sitcom), and "Does have a temper" could apply to almost
anyone and could be good, bad, or somewhere in between.
: For that matter, while we're talking about untrue
: statements, are you claiming that Ellison doesn't write a lot of
: nonfiction or that his doesn't require him to do research?
Ellison writes a lot of commentary, which is nonfiction, but it requires
minimal research, or no research at all. His frequent columns about TV
(collected in The Glass Teat and The Other Glass Teat) required him to
watch television, but that isn't what I would call digging for verifiable
facts. I know from my own experience that writing opinion columns is
pleasant because you don't have to keep calling sources, cross-checking
their statements, and tracking people down.
: Now, you could call me petty, and of course you'd be right. My point
: is just that, while Ellison seems undeniably more in the wrong here,
: that doesn't make you completely in the right.
Yes, I think you're being a bit petty, but I agree that NO ONE is EVER
completely in the right, and I didn't mean to imply that about myself. I
simply said that I don't remember anyone accusing me of getting my facts
wrong. I could of course have got something wrong, and no one noticed or
bothered to tell me. And I have probably made many statements which are
open to discussion and interpretation.
Okay?
Charles Platt
: I respect the work that you've done and the work that Harlan's done,
: but could we possibly point this conversation so that it focuses a
: little more on that work and a little less on personal vendettas?
I have been responding to posts which either ask questions or make
statements that seem to me to require a reply. I have tried not to
initiate any threads here, for the reasons you describe--it's not the
main purpose of this group.
Dan Hoey
> In article <3rhqtt$k...@panix.com> c...@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes:
> [Stuff about how Harlan is a weenorhead]
That's hardly a fair or accurate summary of the message you were
responding to. Rather the message contained stuff about how Ellison
(1) mailed a dead and decaying gopher to an [unnamed] editor, (2)
delivered a veiled death threat to Platt and others, and (3) invited
himself to a story meeting to sabotage John Shirley's livelihood. I
think these instances go beyond the normal run of abrasiveness we
expect from controversial authors, regardless of the shape of their
head.
> ... While I understand that your personal issues with Ellison date back
> years and years, would it be possible for us not to pursue it further
> in this group? It really isn't about his work, it's about him
> personally, and wading through an ever-expanding morass of threads
> about how Harlan was nice to someone but mean to someone else probably
> isn't of interest to a lot of people reading this.
Well, Charles Platt was responding to someone else's direct question
about "an issue with Ellison", so perhaps your remarks should be
addressed to those of us who are asking questions on the subject. I
am quite interested in these remarks, because they have a bearing on
how much we should believe Ellison's promises to eventually deliver
_The Last Dangerous Visions_, and how much we should believe the
stories of wrongdoing and abuse that give _The Book on The Edge of
Forever_ its whistle-blowing and/or rumor-mongering flavor, and even
how much credit we should give to the accounts in "Xenogenesis". All
of these seem to be well within the charter of rec.arts.sf.written,
which is why I have been asking them here. And I very much appreciate
Charles's willingness to answer them.
As I speak only for the relatively noisy minority (of one), comments
about the appropriateness of this discussion might better be directed
to me in e-mail.
Dan Hoey
Ho...@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
Kevin Maroney
Groth admitted he was in the wrong, and apologized, in the incident of
the forged letter from Peter David which ran in _The Comics Journal_.
Peter David refused the apology and in fact implied in a column that he
felt the apology was insincere and that Groth had deliberately forged the
letter and lied about its source.
There is no evidence to support David's supposition, nor to doubt Groth's
honesty and sincerity in this matter, that I have heard.
--
Kevin J. Maroney|k...@panix.com|Proud to be a Maroney|Proud to be a Yonker
At night, the ice weasels come.
BURN...@news.delphi.com
>While I understand that your personal issues with Ellison date back
>years and years, would it be possible for us not to pursue it further
>in this group? It really isn't about his work, it's about him
>personally, and wading through an ever-expanding morass of threads
>about how Harlan was nice to someone but mean to someone else probably
>isn't of interest to a lot of people reading this.
>I respect the work that you've done and the work that Harlan's done,
>but could we possibly point this conversation so that it focuses a
>little more on that work and a little less on personal vendettas?
>Christian Longshore Claiborn - opinions my own
I am familiar with Ellison's work... could someone please tell me who
Cahrles Platt is? Is he a science fiction writer or is his only claim to
fame being the flame war with Ellison... ?
Kevin Maroney
Ian McDowell <ikmc...@hamlet.uncg.edu> wrote:
>4) Having once hit somebody myself in public (nobody famous, and it
>wasn't much of a punch), I can't criticize Harlan for what he did. The
>years of boasting about it *do* disturb me.
Ian, I'm willing to bet that you didn't travel 3,000 miles for the
express purpose of punching that person, notifying others that was your
purpose, and *then* both boast about the act and deliberately lie about
the severity of the act to make yourself look good.
Ellison did.
Kevin Maroney
>Steven Miale writes: "Well, if he'd publish the bloody book..."
>
>Then I'm sure they'd find something else...
I'm tempted to ask when Harlan plans on punching someone again, but I
won't.
Stevens R. Miller
>I am familiar with Ellison's work... could someone please tell me who
>Cahrles Platt is? Is he a science fiction writer or is his only claim to
>fame being the flame war with Ellison... ?
Why must it be that someone "is" as a result of having a "claim to fame"?
I have no such claims to make, yet I might have something to say. So might
Charles Platt (author of three science fiction novels *and* Ellisonian flame
warrior).
--
Stevens R. Miller http://www.interport.net/~lex/
Arthur Hlavaty
Man*.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
Gareth Rees
> Charles Platt (author of three science fiction novels)
Charles Platt is author of at least ten sf novels: "Soma", "Less than
human", "Plasm", "The gas", "Garbage world", "Planet of the voles",
"Free zone", "The silicon man", "Twilight of the city" and "The city
dwellers", and some pornography too (though I don't know the titles). I
think he edited "New Worlds" at some point. He writes provocative
columns for the magazines "SF Eye" and "Interzone", and has edited a
recent issue of the latter. He has also written a home computer book,
"Micromania".
The science fiction novels are reputed to be awful, though I can only
confirm this in the case of "The gas", which is more dreadful than is
easy to believe (plot: a new chemical weapon, a gas which causes
incurable nymphomania/priapism, is released by accident upon southern
England, and results in the destruction of society as we know it). I
rather like Platt's columns, though I rarely agree with his opinions.
--
Gareth Rees
Joel Rosenberg
He's also, quite clearly, the most gifted interviewer the SF
field has ever had. Read Dream Makers and Dream Makers II --
even in cases where he clearly doesn't care for the interviewee,
he gives them an awfully fair shake. His interview of Ellison,
for example, is quite sympathetic.
As to Platt's novels, like the everybody else's, they can stand
or fall of their own weight or lack thereof.
Joe Brenner
Hm, doesn't sound like such a bad premise to me...
But anyway, I wanted to speak in praise of the novel
"Twilight of the City". Charles Platt has written a number
of light-weight, humorous novels like "Planet of the Voles"
and "Garbage World", that unforutnately have tended to
obscure the fact that he's written some things that deserve
to be taken more seriously. "Twilight of the City" is a
"collapse of civilization" novel with some really nice
characterization going for it, and a lot of touches that
foreshadow the kind of things later done by the "cyberpunk"
writers. It reminded me a bit of Samuel R. Delany when I
first read it.
I still haven't gotten around to reading "Silicon Man", yet,
but I couldn't tell you why.
Charles Platt
: I have no such claims to make, yet I might have something to say. So might
: Charles Platt (author of three science fiction novels *and* Ellisonian flame
: warrior).
Actually, let's see, better make that ten science-fiction novels, about
40 books altogether, though most are now out of print. Next SF book will
be VIRUS due from Avon next year. Mostly these days I write nonfiction
for Wired magazine (about 8 articles per year) plus prehistory novels
under a different name. I'm also working on a nonfiction book about
excesses of law enforcement on the Internet.
Kevin Maroney
>To suggest that Ellison needs to be provoked into maligning people is
>this. During the same speech, for example, without any provocation he
>referred to Gene Roddenberry as "a lying sack of shit." (Exact quote.)
HE also referred to Adrean Samish (the producer-type on VOYAGE TO THE
BOTTOM OF THE SEA, whom Ellison boasts of punching in the throat and
breaking his pelvis) as a "failed homosexual", a most curious insult.
Christian Longshore Claiborn
Christian Longshore Claiborn (c...@ai.mit.edu) wrote:
: I respect the work that you've done and the work that Harlan's done,
: but could we possibly point this conversation so that it focuses a
: little more on that work and a little less on personal vendettas?
I have been responding to posts which either ask questions or make
statements that seem to me to require a reply. I have tried not to
initiate any threads here, for the reasons you describe--it's not the
main purpose of this group.
Is it simply too great a hardship, then, to not reply? Since you
agree with me that the group is not well served by these messages, you
could simply take it to email, or even not respond at all.
I do it all the time. It's pretty simple.
Please do send followups to me, since I don't wish to eat up the
readers of this group's time any further.
best wishes,
christian
--
Christian Longshore Claiborn - opinions my own
Christopher Rouse
>
>Sean Pickett (spic...@tiac.net) wrote:
>: Peter_...@cup.portal.com wrote:
>
>: >Harlan Ellison asked me to post the following public statement to
>: >Curt Widerhoeft:
>: <most of post deleted>
>: >I offer the preceding as explanation, not an excuse. I apologize
>: >to you.
>: >
>: > Harlan Ellison
>
I've been a Harlan Ellison fan since childhood, and that fealty continues despite my
recent reading of -Last Deadloss Visions-. Ellison's mercurial personality seems
to be part of the man's appeal. He sounds like someone who like a good fight, and by God,
a good fight is hard to find these days.
I suspect all this started with a question about that quintessential work of vaporware,
The Last Dangerous Visions. And after reading Priest's piece on the matter, I must
agree that the project's sheer size was too daunting for just about anyone. However,
I have these impertinent opinions to offer of the matter:
a) Let's face it -- the really important anthology was -Dangerous Visions-. I recently
bought a first edition copy of -Again, Dangerous Visions-, and while it's a damn good
collection, it isn't a groundbreaker like Dangerous Visions was. If anything, it's an
encore after a standing ovation. Because of its non-appearance, Last Dagerous Visions
has taken on the aura of the Beach Boys' never-released album -Smile-, which was
rumoured to be as good (or better) than -Sgt. Pepper's- by the Beatles. Nothing
could live up to the hype that fans themselves drum up all on their own in anticipation
of a new work. My experience is that anticipation is never equalled by reality. Think
of your first sexual encounter. See what I mean?
b) Who cares? A lot of antagonists in this debate are draping themselves with a
righteous indignation they haven't earned, and this includes Priest himself.
So what if many of the authors have croaked? Their stories were probabaly good stuff,
but history is not likely to take a new course once they're published. If Again, Dangerous
Visions is any indication, TLDV is likely just another good anthology, nothing more.
Who could top Dick's ``Faith of Our Fathers'', or Farmer's ``Riders of the Purple Wage''?
No one. Everybody should relax, and not feel that they have been deprived of some
birthright as SF fans.
Stevens R. Miller
>In article <3rmlgv$7...@panix.com> c...@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes:
> Christian Longshore Claiborn (c...@ai.mit.edu) wrote:
> : but could we possibly point this conversation so that it focuses a
> : little more on that work and a little less on personal vendettas?
> I have been responding to posts which either ask questions or make
> statements... it's not the
> main purpose of this group.
>Is it simply too great a hardship, then, to not reply? Since you
>agree with me that the group is not well served by these messages...
Charles did not agree with that assertion. He stated that the messages to
which he replied were, "not the main purpose of this group." The main purpose
of this group is to discuss written science fiction. Harlan Ellison's
stunning inability to deliver a single book written by over one hundred other
people is, of course, not an example of written science fiction; it is,
perhaps, the world's foremost example of *un*written science fiction (at
least, in the sense that "written" means "on paper people can buy").
Writing, whether we would like to think so or not, is not just about the act
of recording ideas. It is also about the process of creation, delivery of
what has been created to the purveyors of same, and the acquisition of what
has been both created and delivered to the readership. By symmetry, SF's most
notorious undelivered book is a proper subject for a group that would discuss
the writing of SF.
IMHO, of course.
Stevens R. Miller
>So what if many of the authors have croaked?
So what if one of them were your sister?
You suggest that nothing is lost by the failure of Ellison to release the
works of those who can no longer speak for themselves. Fine. If those works
ever see print, you don't have to read them. The rest of us would like to
base our judgments on the stories themselves. To do that, we have to be able
to read them.
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> >Is it simply too great a hardship, then, to not reply? Since you
> >agree with me that the group is not well served by these messages...
>
> Charles did not agree with that assertion. He stated that the messages to
> which he replied were, "not the main purpose of this group." The main
The funny thing is that this is quite possibly the most on-topic of the
standard set of inflammatory threads :) No harm done, as long as everyone
stays civil and constructive. IMO.
--
Ahasuerus http://www.clark.net/pub/ahasuer/, including:
FAQs: rec.arts.sf.written, alt.fan.heinlein, alt.pulp, the Liaden Universe
Biblios: how to write SF, the Wandering Jew, miscellaneous SF
Kevin Maroney
>works of those who can no longer speak for themselves. Fine. If those works
>ever see print, you don't have to read them. The rest of us would like to
>base our judgments on the stories themselves. To do that, we have to be able
>to read them.
Specifically, there was a Cordwainer Smith story tied up in TLDV for over
twenty years. It has only seen print in English in the last
year-and-a-half.
Christopher Priest's story "An Infinite Summer" was tied up for many
year; when finally Priest managed to extract it from TLDV and publish it,
it became his most-acclaimed story.
Michael Bishop finally removed his story from TLDV and published it to
great acclaim as well, though my falible memory cannot remember either
the title of the story nor the major award it won.
A friend of mine has had a story tied up in TLDV for nearly half his life
(and he is by no means a young man). His writing career was short, and his
story is almost certain to go unpublished forever unless TLDV sees print.
It's a train-wreck of an anthology, n unsolved mystery, a lost valley, a
fill-in-the-blank of most monumental proportions.
Christopher Priest
Kevin J. Maroney said: "Christopher Priest's story "An Infinite Summer"
was tied up for many year [in TLDV]".
Not true.
Having demanded of me immense secrecy and great speed of
delivery, Ellison, on receipt of my story, sat idly, silently and
uselessly on it for about four months. Since one act of promptness
expects another, I decided four months of this was enough. I instructed
my (then) agent Virginia Kidd to withdraw the story, and she did. I
resold the story in the UK soon afterwards. Damage limitation was
therefore quickly arranged.
Incidentally, since Ellison is fond of claiming credit, and as
Kevin Maroney has described 'An Infinite Summer' as my "most acclaimed
story", let me stress that if my story is indeed wonderful, the fact that
Ellison sat on it impotently for four months had nothing to do with it.
His editorial input was nil.
Chris Priest
Tom Galloway
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.950610155544.5481A-100000@hamlet>,
>Groth admitted he was in the wrong, and apologized, in the incident of
>the forged letter from Peter David which ran in _The Comics Journal_.
Not quite. Groth wrote under his solo byline the original polemic slamming
Peter and others. However, the apology was signed by "The Editors".
>Peter David refused the apology and in fact implied in a column that he
>felt the apology was insincere and that Groth had deliberately forged the
>letter and lied about its source.
Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I believe Peter's column positing that Groth
might have forged the letter appeared before the apology appeared. And
frankly, the apology did come off as quite insincere. This was because Groth
used the letter as a springboard to attack much, much, more than just the
letter's contents. The apology tried to be inclusive of the non-letter aspects
of the original piece, which had no reason to change due to finding out that
the letter was a forgery. This struck me as pretty insincere.
Kevin Maroney
Christopher Priest <cpr...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney said: "Christopher Priest's story "An Infinite Summer"
>was tied up for many year [in TLDV]".
>
> Not true.
My apologies. It has been some time since I read _Last Deadloss_ and I
had misremembered the times involved.
Incidentally, I doubt _anyone_ think that Ellison is the type of editor
who actively encourages his authors to rewrite. He might do so, but it
seems so unlike his own (well-publicized) approach to editors that it
would certainly not be anyone's assumption.
Charles Platt
: Incidentally, I doubt _anyone_ think that Ellison is the type of editor
: who actively encourages his authors to rewrite. He might do so, but it
: seems so unlike his own (well-publicized) approach to editors that it
: would certainly not be anyone's assumption.
On the contrary, my memory of Ellison's interaction with writers re the
Dangerous Visions series tells me that he required many of them to do
rewrites (including me, to the benefit of my story). I doubt he would
ever change a word of someone's story himself, but he was quite demanding
about getting people to rewrite their own work.
Kevin Maroney
Tom Galloway <t...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I believe Peter's column positing that Groth
>might have forged the letter appeared before the apology appeared.
Since my memory is that it dealt with the question of who actually wrote
the letter, and addressed Groth's comments on who _did_ write the letter,
I had thought it appeared after the printed apology. It certainly would
have had to have appeared after Groth acknowledged that the letter was a
forgery.
> And
>frankly, the apology did come off as quite insincere. This was because Groth
>used the letter as a springboard to attack much, much, more than just the
>letter's contents. The apology tried to be inclusive of the non-letter aspects
>of the original piece, which had no reason to change due to finding out that
>the letter was a forgery. This struck me as pretty insincere.
I will re-read the apology and see if I agree. I know that Groth used the
letter as a springboard to attack David's writing and character, and the
mere fact that this particular letter was not from David should in no
way have undercut anything Groth had to say about that.
I will point out that I was either explicitly or implicitly contrasting
this situation with the Ellison-Porter situation, where Ellison launched
a gigantic and inexcusable personal attack on Porter based on a forged
letter from Porter to the magazine "Short Form". Ellison never delivered
the apology he promised; Porter is still waiting, and we "Short Form"
subscribers and contributors are still waiting for the final issue of
that magazine, which cannot be published without Ellison's apology.
Unlike Groth's attack on David-- which, while virulent, at least
addressed issues of David's professional conduct-- Ellison's attack on
Porter was _completely_ ad hominem. Or did I miss the part in Groth's
piece where he insulted Peter David's penis size?
Tom Galloway
>In article <3s5cif$1...@zip.eecs.umich.edu>,
>Tom Galloway <t...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>>Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I believe Peter's column positing that Groth
>>might have forged the letter appeared before the apology appeared.
>Since my memory is that it dealt with the question of who actually wrote
>the letter, and addressed Groth's comments on who _did_ write the letter,
>I had thought it appeared after the printed apology. It certainly would
>have had to have appeared after Groth acknowledged that the letter was a
>forgery.
As I recall, the chronology was something like:
1) Letter and Groth's response appears in Comics Journal
2) Someone communicates with Peter saying something like "Did you actually
write that letter to TCJ? Sure didn't sound like you"
3) Peter tracks down an issue of TCJ.
4) Peter phones TCJ, discussing the matter with them and pointing out
that the letter was a forgery, including later receiving a copy of
the letter and TCJ's rolodex entry, both of which have the same typo
in his address.
5) Peter's Comics Buyer's Guide (a weekly with quicker publication than
the monthly or less often TCJ) column discusses the matter, including
comments from the phone call.
6) The TCJ response appears.
So the column could've discussed things that came up in the phone call and
were also used in the TCJ response. I believe there was also a column after
the TCJ response.
Stevens R. Miller
>Steven Miale writes: "Well, if he'd publish the bloody book..."
>Then I'm sure they'd find something else...
That's an easy claim to make, since it seems likely never to be tested.
Rob Furr
> Steven Miale writes: "Well, if he'd publish the bloody book..."
>
> Then I'm sure they'd find something else...
Which, of course, Harlan being Harlan, can be taken two ways:
a: that the people who don't like him would simply start attacking him
on some other front, or
b: that Harlan would quickly provide something else worthy of attack.
--
Rob Furr's HTMLized .SIG is at http://www.groucho.com/
Steve Simmons
>Steven Miale writes: "Well, if he'd publish the bloody book..."
>Then I'm sure they'd find something else...
It'd be hard to find something as consistantly damning, tho.
Peter_...@cup.portal.com
I have no idea why the posting regarding Harlan just now surfaced. All over
the place, months-old postings of mine suddenly popped into existence. I
have zero clue as to why it happened.
I beg you all--please don't start responding to this, or any other
Ellison-related postings that may aburptly materialize over the next
day or so. Because sooner or later it'll be another flamefest, I just
know it, and everyone will turn around and blame me for starting it.
PAD
wolf_359
On 4 Aug 1995 08:40:07 -0700
Peter_...@cup.portal.com wrote:
> Jeez Louise...
>
> I have no idea why the posting regarding Harlan just now surfaced. All over
> the place, months-old postings of mine suddenly popped into existence. I
> have zero clue as to why it happened.
months ago with other dead postings. Annoyed, I contacted my
provider thinking the reader they provide us with was at fault.
They said it is a Unix problem which no one has been able to
track down. Maybe they were blowing smoke at a disgruntled
customer, but it doesn't seem so. Some of you real Unixers
probably know more about it.
> I beg you all--please don't start responding to this, or any other
> Ellison-related postings that may aburptly materialize over the next
I think most folks have seen this kind of thing before.
Your perhaps inadvertant coinage of the marvelous word "aburptly"
seems to best describe the situation. I think you can rest easy.
But hey! I've been wrong before! :)
--------------------------------->o<-------------------------------------
Michael Weholt >{-o-}< ...the only relief is in
wolf...@delphi.com {---o---} making up other worlds...
Kevin B. O'Brien
>In article <140...@cup.portal.com>, Peter_...@cup.portal.com wrote:
>> Steven Miale writes: "Well, if he'd publish the bloody book..."
>>
>> Then I'm sure they'd find something else...
>Which, of course, Harlan being Harlan, can be taken two ways:
> a: that the people who don't like him would simply start attacking him
>on some other front, or
> b: that Harlan would quickly provide something else worthy of attack.
OK. Call it in the air....
Kevin B. O'Brien
ko...@ix.netcom.com
Paid for by the Tirebiter for Political Solutions
Committee, Sector R