This thread triggered by Prof's comments over in the 'Top Ten' Thread.
Oh Boy!
Harlan Ellison! Can't ever talk about that guy without controversy.
Harlan Ellison's an ASSHOLE! And he has personal reasons for continuously bad-mouthing ST for decades, taken to the point of a campaign to prevent established science-fiction writers from ever contributing to it.
Ellison was always a polarizing character, very deliberately so. But! perspective always provides a clearer picture. And Physical Violence is always unacceptable. Do we have actual verifiable evidence that he did physical violence? It's irrefutable that he threatened it, on more than one occasion. He was an expert at Verbal Aggression. He had to be,because he was only a short man. He also became fascinated by Gang Culture, got involved in it to some extent and wrote books and stories about it under the non-de-plume
Hal Ellson. But he was not fan of gang culture and wrote about it to publicize it but not to promote it.
Appropriate to discuss him here because he had a love of, an interest in an involvement in and a knowledge of comics which is highly significant. That said, I'm no fan of much of his comics works.
I devoured his fiction at one point. And I have also read at lot of his TV and movie criticism. He once had a regular column.
But his background is what we call "Hard Science Fiction' . I devoured Science Fiction in my early teen days. I read
Asimov, Van Vogt, Bradbury, Fred Pohl, Sturgeon (Who I revere] and Ellison to name a few. I read
Judith Merrill's yearly anthologies and was aware of the debates about what Science Fiction is and do you call it Science Fiction or SF and why. The Hard Science Fiction community [ and you notice I'm not using SF] invented fandom and their fanaticism puts Star Trek or Dr Who fandom to shame. That's Ellison?s background. Many [I was going to write most] Hard Science Fiction Fans share his opinion on Star Trek.
Yes,
Roddenberry was a pioneer and introduced a lot of things to the US mass audience [including the first interracial kiss] but always in a very watered-down way. And Hard Science Fiction fans had a lot of hope for it. But when all is said and done Trek is Space Opera and if you look at Star Trek and Star Wars from a logical point of view ? and having read a lot of Hard Science Fiction before watching those shows, I can?t help myself - they are full of holes, unbelievable silly nonsense. But if you look at them as fantasy, as story-telling and you don't care about the overall logic, you can enjoy them for what they are. Some of
Twilight Zone is much closer to true Science Fiction.
Outer Limits not so much.
Ellison should have had more sense that to be working for
Irwin Allen?s series. His writing is very intellectual and speculative. He likes to stimulate thought, to come at things out of left field. Which is why he edited the '
Dangerous Visions' anthologies. You could argue that he was ill-suited to write for US TV in the 60?s and 70?s.
The British had less censorship and network interference to contend with, so they produced
Journey into Space for Radio and
Quatermass and A for Andromeda to name a few, which are Science Fiction.
In movies,
Ridley Scott?s films are Hard Science Fiction. And if you feel inclined to argue, feel free. As I have pointed out, that argument has been raging for 80 years now. Probably always will.
Dr Who I would call a hybrid. These properties are essentially story-telling medium. Logic is an optional extra. The term '
Willing suspension of Disbelief' explains what as a writer or producer you need to inculcate in your audience for your property to work. For Hollywood, its all entertainment, for Ellison, Hard Science Fiction was a religion.
Ellison saw himself as a man on a mission to bring true Science Fiction to the masses. He also perceived himself as a highly ethical and principled man, Which is a problem because it breeds self-righteousness. And can repulse others.
Personally I can say I was equally attracted and repulsed by the man. Attracted by his creative work and vision, less so by his behaviour.
He should have read his
Robert Burns,
O, wad some Power the giftie gie us, To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.
Cheers!
