Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5
From: hoey@aic.nrl.navy.mil (Dan Hoey)
Date: 1995/07/05
Subject: Re: ATTN JMS:Harlan Ellison o

I will give Brian Siano the benefit of the doubt, and suppose that he
really didn't understand what I was talking about.  And I will try
once more to explain the main point.

Part of the fault is certainly mine:  when I said

> : * Ellison courted the adulation of fans by saying he had turned in
> :   the stories to his editor, and he hadn't.

I meant to say "to his publisher".  But that's not the main point.

si...@cceb.med.upenn.edu (Brian Siano) writes:

> I think that Ellison's decision to threaten legal action was a
> wrong, and as far as I know, I've never said anything to the contrary.

> But your insistence that this is some kind of "defining
> moment" for Ellison is wrong, for the simple fact that _none_ of his
> critics here has ever made any reference to the campaign of abuse
> heaped upon him by Charles Platt and Gary Groth....

If Siano counts me as a critic, then he is ignoring the words he
quoted from my article, in which I spoke of Groth's "campaign of
continual criticism of Ellison."  I used the term "criticism" where
Siano uses "abuse", because I do not agree that the campaign was
abusive.  As an example of the distinction, consider Groth's report of
Ellison's claim that Roddenberry would have gladly engaged in public
bestiality.  I would say that Ellison's statement is _abuse_ and
Groth's report of it is _criticism_.  But that's not the main point.

No matter _what_ Groth has written about Ellison, I fail to see why we
should not treat Ellison's attempt to suppress the publication of a
book as "a defining moment" (which were not my words, for all that
Siano writes them in quotes).  The moment is an example of a case in
which Ellison's commitment to free speech is in conflict with his
commitment to his ego, and Ellison defines himself by protecting one
at the expense of the other.

For all Siano's claims of all the critics ignoring or denying the
"campaign of abuse", I haven't seen anyone ignore or deny it.  No
one is ignoring the fact that Groth pushed Ellison's buttons.  But
censorship is censorship, and it doesn't stop being censorship when
you do it to someone who says bad things about you.  And when Cusick
tries to say it's not censorship, I have to wonder what censorship is
like on whatever planet he comes from.  "The freedom of the press
shall not be abridged--unless you make me very, very angry."

Now, when I discussed Cusick's piece, saying

> : ... It's an incredibly long article, partly because of
> : having verbose, biased commentary interspersed with the apparently
> : factual reporting.

Siano replied

> It's a thorough article, admittedly very long for such a
> relatively small matter, but the article is critical of Ellison on
> many points. It's hardly what I'd call "biased." It's probably the
> fairest account of the whole mess.

I said the _commentary_ was biased, and I can't see how anyone could
read the piece and deny it.  The commentary repeatedly decries Groth's
base motives and Platt's sordid reflexes.  Siano quotes Groth's desire
for "a visceral reaction from Ellison in the person of his attorney."
But the article never demonstrates that those are their motives, and
of course it _can't_.  It is certainly plausible that they honestly
believe that Ellison deserves to be criticized for what he has done.
If the article had suggested _possible_ motives, it might manage to
remain unbiased.  But when it repeatedly, unsupportably, and
unconditionally describes the critics as "vicious" and "churlish", its
bias is inescapable.  But I mentioned the bias only in passing, as it
makes it less convenient to read for the apparently factual reporting.
It's still not the main point.

Siano quotes a lot of Cusick's article, finally

> "Harlan Ellison was wrong to attempt to control the
> publication of _The Book on the Edge of Forever_. He was not wrong
> because [he (omitted by Siano)] is a hypocrite who gives lip service
> to free expression only to muzzle it at the first signs of
> convenience [sic in _The Gauntlet_, though I think he means
> "inconvenience"].... Let's say it again.  Harlan Ellison was wrong
> to have his lawyer send that letter. No doubt he reacted viscerally
> to a situation few people were aware of. Groth had been using every
> advantage at his disposal... to annoy, cajole, incite, and otherwise
> inflame Harlan Ellison. Gary Groth went gunning for Ellison and when
> Ellison sent that lawyer's letter he may as well have said, "Shoot
> me now! Shoot me now!" And Gary Groth, sort of a vicious Elmer Fudd,
> took aim and fired."

and Siano concludes:

> Seems pretty clear to me: the article condemns Ellison for
> having sent the letter, but fairly and accurately tells the _whole_
> story. Unlike his critics.

It seems pretty clear to me that Siano has fairly and accurately
omitted my conclusions about the article, which explain just what is
wrong with the "_whole_ story" quoted above.

1. Gary Groth _does_ have a right to criticize and report on Ellison's
   public behavior in the _Comics Journal_, even if he does so "to
   settle old scores and private matters", even if it annoys and
   inflames Ellison, and Cusick is wrong to deny that right.

2. An attempt to suppress a publication by legal threats _is_
   attempted censorship, even in the face of annoyance, cajoling,
   incitement, inflammation, or any other provocation, and Cusick
   is wrong to deny that it is attempted censorship.

And _that_ is the main point of what is wrong with Cusick's article.
Not that it is biased (though it is, and though careless readers seem
to swallow the bias without noticing it), but that its conclusions
are nonsense.

Dan Hoey
Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil