Talk:Harlan Ellison/Archive 5

Girlie Mags

Hello, Atomaton - I am really & truly puzzled as to why you have such a strong objection to leaving that short clause in the article. It's no different than any of the other hundreds of bits of "color" that are strewn throughout the article. Your edit summary suggests either that you are literally unfamiliar with the term -- or alternatively, that you object to its use (for some unspecified reason). I was a little doubtful that it was actually unfamiliarity -- I mean, what are the odds that someone has never heard the term, or couldn't at least infer the meaning from the context. So I figured it was time to take a look at your user page to see if there were any clues as to where you were coming from. (Did I say clues? wow, what an understatement! :)

Now, I suppose it's at least theoretically possible that you really have never come across the term -- but given your amazingly wide knowledge of human sexuality, etc. that strikes me as exceedingly unlikely! :) So, that would appear to leave us with some sort of personal objection to the term -- even though it is, in fact, precisely the correct term to use here. In which case your insistence on deleting the "offending passage" would amount to a clear case of POV pushing (or some variant of that phrase). I realize that I'm making a sort of educated guess here, so if there is some other basis for your objection, please fill me in on what that might be. (By the way, I presume you noticed that I didn't take issue with your change from "soft porn" to "erotica". Personally, I think either is acceptable, but if you think erotica is preferable, that's fine with me.)

Just in case you're not entirely clear what "girlie mags" are, here's a short essay (I found it just now thru a google search) which conveys a pretty good sense of the concept:

"Girlie Magazines" A Love Affair, Right or Wrong

In any event, I hope you can see your way to putting aside your objections. There's got to be better things for us both to be putting our energies into! Cgingold 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

HI, thanks for the discussion. I edit a wide variety of sexuality and sexology articles, and so naturally am familiar with the term "girlie magazines". As an editor I try to remain objective, rather than introduce personal issues. I frequently make and support edits that are not directly in line with my personal views on a subject. Here are my editorial opinions on this minor issue:

• The term "girlie magazines" is archaic, and hasn't been used since the sixties. You say that using the term adds "color" to the article. I think that it looks strange, and that most of the young readers of today aren't familiar with the term.
• The manner in which you use the term, I feel would seem to readers, as well as potentially Mr. Ellison himself, as a derogatory reference. The attempt to add color, IMO, colors it to suggest something derogatory. As this is a Biography of a Living Person, we are very aggresive about not having anything in the article that is derogatory or slanderous. If you know the names of the magazines that he wrote for, why not put them down. If you say he wrote for say, "Flame", "Confidential", or "Cabaret", then say so. (if not, why not avoid characterizing it altogether, and let the reader decide) One can't argue with the facts. When you characterize the kinds of magazines that a person wrote for as "girlie magazines", indeed you give it color. Color that could be considered negatively.

I'm interested in a factual representation of Mr. Ellison. Any rumors, innuendo, slander, or "color" are not appropriate in a biography of a living person (BLP). Wikipedias holds articles in that category to a substantially higher standard than other articles. If you say anything that could be considered to be negative, it has to have very concrete citations and references.

As for porn versus erotica. That is minor, but writing about sexuality is usually called "erotica", especially when it is what you term as "soft". "Porn" are usually visual depictions of sexuality, and usually ones that are what most people call "obscene". Given that it is writing about sexuality, and was written and published in the 60's, erotica would be the most appropriate term. I am aware that the term is mis-used, and so frequently used to mean pretty much anything that is "objectionable". I feel that, especially in these jaded times, most editors would evaluate Mr. Ellisons writing to be "erotica". Secondary, of course, is that suggesting that this author wrote "pornography" (besides the mis-use of the term) could be considered to be derogatory. To do so would require solid citations to prove your point. As "girlie magazines" were not pornographic, that might be difficult to do.

Regards, Atom 15:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again -

In reverse order: like I said, I have no problem whatsoever with your change to "erotica", I wasn't arguing it one way or the other. (Just so you know, I didn't write that passage in the first place, so "soft porn" wasn't my term of choice, in any event.)

On the subject of "girlie mags" -- well, of course it's an "archaic" term, in a sense that's the point of using it -- precisely because that IS what they were called back then. It wasn't archaic at the time! :) The person who originally wrote that passage bizarrely used the term "girlie journals", which I thought was rather amusing. I of course changed it to the correct term. As I recall (this was a while back) I checked it out first to be sure they really were "girlie mags" and verified that they were (I don't recall which ones, off the top of my head, though I think Flame was probably one of them).

In any event, the particular names are not terribly important, IMO, and wouldn't mean a thing to most readers -- whereas using the term "girlie mags" actually imparts a tiny bit of info that would otherwise go missing. That's what I meant by adding a bit of "color" -- I'm afraid you misconstrued what I meant by that. I don't see anything in the least derogatory about the fact that he wrote some pieces that were published in "girlie mags" -- and I cannot imagine that Ellison himself would either! In fact, I rather think he would be amazed at the suggestion. I mean, it's not as if he wasn't perfectly aware of what sort of publications they were.

Oh, jeezus! I've heard him on the radio so many times (years ago) that I can hear him (in my head) laughing his ass off about this discussion, in his uniquely Ellisonian way. :) Really, I am sure he would be quite amused!

Okay, on a more serious note! If you're concerned that younger readers may not be familiar with the term, I'm sure that can be remedied with either an explanatory footnote or an external link (or both). I really don't see that as an issue.

At this point, I honestly think I've addressed your concerns. So, unless you've got something else...

Regards, Cgingold 16:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly I'm sure that Mr. Ellison would laugh at the discussion, and may even have used the term himself. The term is archaic, and as you say, does add color. If this weren't a biography of a living person, I'd agree with you. The problem is, as I said previously, BLP's have a higher standard to meet. It isn'important whether you or I view the term as favorable or not favorable, but how it might be viewed as derogatory and possibly slander by others. You are right that the names of the magazines might not be recognizable, but that's what should go there. By saying "Ellison wrote a number of erotica stories... which were later reprinted in Los Angeles-based girlie mags." is a characterization. You admit it is to add "color". Where saying "Ellison wrote a number of erotica stories... which were later reprinted in Los Angeles-based Bachelor and Carnival magazines." The first can be (and will be) intepreted by some as suggesting something derogatory. The second is factual. (well, if it had the right magazines there).

Why the hypersensitivity? Well, nothing specific to Mr. Ellison, or course. Although the article points out that he is litigous, and settled with AOL on a large sum of money just a few years ago aregarding his work reproduced on the Internet. Wikipedia has an offical policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons specifically to avoid problems, and to remain ethical and not take a chance at slandering people. Wikipedia takes it very seriously. Read the policy to see what I mean, it is too large to reproduce here. But, take for example

Did Mr. Ellison ever STOP having sex with male strangers?

"

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion.

In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule.

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages.

As I participate in the Wikipedia:Living People Patrol, I take a conservative approach, as you have seen here. If it could be views as derogatory, if information is unsourced, it should be removed immediately. Atom 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have jacked it many times to Mr. Ellison's fine story, "A Boy and His Dog" which was turned into an equally splendid movie starring the young Don "yes, it's just about like a coke can in circumference" Johnson, and I still get wood when I think about the protagonist describing the way the girl's breastisses move about as she brushes her hair. In fact I savaged myself just now. Wikipedia editors need to get treatment for their Asperger's and stop focussing on minutiae. Wait, I've got another rod!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.57 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

City on the Edge of Forever

For some reason, this article lacks any mention of what is considered the most widely known Ellison controversy - his feud with Gene Roddenberry over the treatment of his Star Trek script. A full book has been published on the topic. I have added a short section about this, but it could certainly stand to be expanded. For example, my understanding is the unfilmed version of the script won a Writer's Guild award, while the filmed version received the Hugo. That has to be notable. But I need to do more research to get sources for that. 23skidoo 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to mention that Ellison discovered, in the course of writing his "City" book, that it was actually D. C. Fontana who wrote the final version of TCOTEOF. Sir Rhosis 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I need to reread the book. I found my copy (and snagged the "fatally inept" quote from the jacket) but it's been years since I read the complete essay. 23skidoo 23:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw Ellison at WorldCon in Chicago address a large general audience on his Star Trek episode. After lambasting the innocent who had cried out "Your show's on tonight Harlan!" into a puddle of shivering jelly, the wacky genius disowned it, explaining that "the most important part" of the story (concerning drug addiction) had been purged entirely. After that he attempted to further disillusion the disappointed throng with other mundane self-disclosures, apparently in an effort to "wise up" the adoring fans. Part of this was a rant, apropos of nothing that I recall, about how wonderful it was to be a millionaire, and "eat steak" every day. (This was in the early years of the Republican rollback of the welfare state, so we listened dumbly but politely without understanding whose envangel he was preaching.) The only part that seemed on topic to me was his dislike of Star Wars. I guess his general message was that most fans were idiots, in his humble (ahem) opinion. But it was his tawdry taunting demeanor and directionless rage that disappointed most of all.Vendrov 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreams with Sharp Teeth

I added a blurb about Erik Nelson's Harlan Ellison documentary. I don't know how to add the references, but Harlan himself was heard describing the film in an interview on Cleveland's WCPL IdeaStream on 9/21, on their show "Around Noon". Also, the April 19th 2007 screening of the film is referenced here: http://www.documentaryfilms.net/index.php/dreams-with-sharp-teeth/

I apologize for my lack of completeness in this addition, but I have not the skill or time to finish it right now. Suitmonster 21:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have since completed the above reference. Suitmonster (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

categories

The categories Category:Science fiction short story collections by Harlan Ellison and Category:Fantasy short story collections by Harlan Ellison only had a few items in them so I moved them to more general Category:Short story collections by Harlan Ellison (which is in no danger of overpopulation as he appears to be putting out less than a book a decade these days.) If anyone objects then please discuss here. Otherwise I plan on taking the two categories to CfD in a couple of weeks. Sbacle 18:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A character representing 'Harlan' in popular fiction

In the recent SF movie 'War of the Worlds' there's a character, who speaks as if he may be a writer of some kind, who's named 'Harlan'. I think there's a strong possibility this character is based at least in part on Harlan Ellison.

Magicsinglez (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal defense training

As I recall (don't have a cite for this handy), Isaac Asimov says in one or two places that Ellison is quite competent at martial arts/hand-to-hand/personal defense/however you want to say this. Any sources on this? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Civil Rights

Is there a reason that "Civil Rights" is under the controversy section? If not, I'd like to merge the content into the biography section. --24.191.102.63 (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a science fiction author

I've known Harlan for about thirty years and while I've heard the rumors about his irrasible character, this is one fan and collague who wants to be put on the record as saying I've always know Harlan to be a gentleman. I first approached him in order to put some of his books in the Blair House, Guest House of the President, where I was the Librarian. We then ran across each other from year to year in science fiction conventions and shared thoughts on current politics and literature. To be honest, I've never thought of him as a science fiction author. That's too limiting. He is just a great American Author. Larry Roeder, formerly Policy Adviser on Disaster Management, US Department of State. www.artbyroeder.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.100.99 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference in fiction

Section 10, "Parodies and Pastiches of Ellison" contains this paragraph:

Robert Silverberg's 1955 novel, Revolt on Alpha C, a thinly-disguised retelling of the American Revolution set on a distant planet, features a character named "Harl Ellison," who is the first cadet (of a group that has been sent to restore order) to switch sides and join the revolutionaries.

I'd have thought that there's a problem with that being a pastiche of Harlan Ellison, as his first major publications were in 1958, and were teenage-gang related rather than sci-fi.

I could be wrong; Silverberg and Ellison both lived in New York in 1955, though Ellison moved there in that year, according to the article.

If there is evidence that this is an actual pastiche of Ellison, perhaps it could be cited; if there is a possibility or probability that the name is coincidental, this could be stated, if only to help those like me who were confused as to how Ellison could be parodied before he'd published a book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.112.209 (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, and have added the appropriate tag to the article. Hopefully, someone will come up with a citation for that someday (definitely interesting if true). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No one's thought of the obvious "gay lovers" angle? Come on, people!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.57 (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

This article is totally unbalanced... I'm not an expert on Ellison but I know enough that we can do a lot better than an article 3/4ths of which consists of a list of quarrels he's had with people. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is totally balanced - he's at least as well known for his quarrels as he is for his writing. In fact, much of his non-fiction writing is about his quarrels. There isn't even any mention in the article of the infamous gopher incident:

DID HARLAN REALLY MAIL A DEAD GOPHER TO AN EDITOR?

Nope. It was the comptroller of a certain publishing house that bound

a cigarette ad into one of Harlan's paperbacks, breaking a stipulation in

Harlan's contract. Although better related in Harlan's essay "Driving in

the Spikes", suffice to say that after trying nicely to get the book

rights reverted back to him, as per his contract, and getting blown off,

Harlan mailed 213 bricks postage due to the man (this was back when the US

Postal Service would mail anything postage-free, making the recipient

pay up), had a Luthuanian hit man friend of his have a talk with him, and

then mailed the dead gopher, along with Ted Cogswell's recipe for braised

gopher stew, fourth class mail, where it stank up the mailing room for quite

a while.

(from http://harlanellison.com/text/newsfaq.txt ) Enon (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire "gopher incident" is told in great detail by Ellison himself on the CD On the Road with Ellison Volume 1 --Powerofshark (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

who is this guy, anyway?

...Is this the same guy whose mother was mown down by gunfire from some random punk, whilst he was still a nipper...? Or have I confused him with someone else? It explains why he's so fucked up, I suppose. I guess I would be in his shoes. Mind you, that's no excuse for inflicting it on the rest of us. We all have "problems" of one kind or another, my friend. Most of us have the good taste and discretion to keep them to ourselves, however, rather than vomit them out onto a blank page and call it "literature". Time to Neutralise those Negatives by Channeling them into Art, eh? I'd rather you'd channelled them into something worthwhile. Refuse collection, for example.

Just as an aside to "Cgingold": there's an old adage that springs to mind: "...the bigger the opinion, the smaller the cock....". Right now, your opinion's looking pretty large....

Wow! I've just realised that I've incriminated myself rather badly, regarding opinions and small cocks! Thank God this is only Wikipedia, as opposed to some actual credible source of knowledge!

82.5.68.95 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)