Wednesday 1 December 2010

Mr Ellison, you're brilliant, but you really can be an idiot at times.

"Fight the power! Stick it to the man! And git off my lawn you dern kids!"

Harlan Ellison is a fantastic author.  "Jeffty is Five," "The Deathbird," "A Boy And His Dog," "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream," - brilliant tales that can hang with the best of science fiction and horror. He's expanded into the world of television, with Outer Limits and Star Trek episodes to his name (albeit significantly altered in the latter case), as well as video games, as in I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream.  He deserves praise for some of the most iconic pieces of post-apocalyptic science-fiction cinema, be it in inspiration as in The Terminator, or in adaptations like A Boy and his Dog.  I'll always feel tremendously saddened that his adaptation of I, Robot was never filmed, especially considering that other one that came out.

Almost as famous as Ellison's stories is his penchant for controversy. Harlan Ellison is a man clearly unafraid to speak his mind - almost a man afraid not to speak his mind.  He's outspoken, forthright and downright abrasive, and makes no apologies for it.  Whether one agrees or disagrees, one certainly can't fail to take notice of him.

However, like many opinionated authors, he sometimes comes up with stuff that's just plain wrong.  Eh, nobody's perfect.


A while back, I mentioned Ellison being in my bad books for calling Howard insane.  I couldn't find the source for the longest time, but thanks to a little Google-fu, I tracked it down: the following is from an interview in Comics Journal 53. However, it wasn't Ellison that sued anyone for comparison to Howard, but Michael Fleisher.  Yes, that Michael Fleisher.

Here's the relevent part, with profanity starred:

What's interesting is that the thing that makes Fleisher's stuff interesting was the same reason Robert E. Howard was interesting and nobody else can imitate him. Because Howard was crazy as a bed bug. He was insane. This was a man who was a huge bear of a man, what had these great dream fantasies of barbarians and mightily thewed warriors and Celts and Vikings and riding in the Arabian desert and Almuric, Conan, Kull, and all these weird ooky-booky words. He lived in Cross Plains, Texas in the middle of the Depression, and he never went more than 20 or 30 miles from his home. He lived with he mother until his mother died and then he went down and sat in his car and blew his brains out. Now, that's a sick person. This is not a happy, adjusted person. That shows up in Howard's work. You car read a Conan story as opposed to -- I mean, even as good as Fritz Leiber is, Fritz is logical and sane and a nice man. Or take the lesser writers, all the guys who do the Conan rip-offs and imitations, which are such garbage, because all they are are manque. They can't imitate Howard because they're not crazy. They're just writers writing stories because they admired Howard, but they don't understand you have to be bugf*** to write that way. Lovecraft - you can tell a Lovecraft story from a Ramsey Campbell story, from all the rest of those shlobos trying to imitate him, all the nameless yutzes shrieking like Lovecraft, they still have not got the lunatic mentality of Lovecraft. And the same for Fleisher. He really is a derange-o. And as a consequence, he is probably the only one writing who is interesting. The Spectre stuff was f*****' blood-chilling, which it was supposed to be. I mean, he really did the Spectre, man. For the first time since the '40s, that goddamn strip was dynamite. And the first time they looked at what they were publishing, they said, "My God, we have turned loose this lunatic on the world," and they ran him off. And that was a shame because Fleisher should have been kept on the Spectre FOREVER. It was just the most perfectly nauseous ghoulish thing for him.

Well.  All I can say is, I'm sorry Mr Ellison, but...



Let's take it one at a time, shall we?

Howard was crazy as a bed bug. He was insane.

I should point out that Ellison calls people insane about as often as he swears, so don't think he's singling Howard out, by any means. As we see, he also calls Lovecraft a "lunatic," Steve Gerber "insane" in the opening statement of the interview, and Giger he calls "deranged." All I can say is that for a guy who is infamous for his public outbursts and very weird moments, who's written quite possibly the sickest, darkest, cruelest, most dementedly evil story I've ever read, Mr Ellison really should think twice before calling someone else crazy as a bed bug. And I mean that with all respect in the world. Howard and Lovecraft were masters of horror, but even at their darkest, they were never as perverse, oppressive or mean-spirited as Ellison in "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream."  Take note that that particular story was written 12 years before this interview takes place.

I'm also not a fan of the matter-of-fact statement that Howard was insane, as if he's saying The Sky Is Blue or Water Is Wet, but hey, Ellison's a forthright guy.

This was a man who was a huge bear of a man, what had these great dream fantasies of barbarians and mightily thewed warriors and Celts and Vikings and riding in the Arabian desert and Almuric, Conan, Kull, and all these weird ooky-booky words.

... Conan, a common Scottish/Irish name, most famous as Arthur Doyle's middle name, is a "weird ooky-booky word"? There's that "mightily thewed" again, a phrase which occurs once in a single Conan story, not even used to describe Conan. But I can't criticize overmuch, since it's here that I understand Ellison is actually praising Howard, in his own roundabout way. He's saying that crazy is sort of a good thing, at least when it comes to producing action literature. It's kind of striking that all the things to come are from the point of view of a man who might consider himself a fan of Howard. Considering some of the stuff professed fans have said over the years in all sincerity, it's a stark revelation for a modern reader such as myself.

He lived in Cross Plains, Texas in the middle of the Depression, and he never went more than 20 or 30 miles from his home.

Now, The Comics Journal #53 was printed back in January 1980, so we can possibly forgive Ellison for not knowing Howard, in fact, travelled substantially more than 20 or 30 miles from Cross Plains. As in, orders of magnitude further.

Still, let's crunch the numbers:

Cross Plains to Brownwood, Texas = 30 miles
Cross Plains to Peaster, Texas = 91 miles
Cross Plains to Fort Worth, Texas = 115 miles
Cross Plains to Austin, Texas = 153 miles
Cross Plains to San Antonio, Texas = 191 miles
Cross Plains to Carlsbad, New Mexico = 296 miles
Cross Plains to Santa Fe, New Mexico = 306 miles
Cross Plains to Galveston, Texas = 324 miles
Cross Plains to New Orleans = 558 miles

So you can see, even if we consider Howard's occassional trips to Brownwood, Howard traveled more than "20 or 30 miles" from his home, and in fact seems to have traveled not just hundreds, but thousands of miles over the course of his life.  Again, this is a Depression-Era Texan we're talking about.

He lived with he mother until his mother died and then he went down and sat in his car and blew his brains out. Now, that's a sick person. This is not a happy, adjusted person.

Again, it's hard to blame Ellison himself for the grotesque simplification of Howard's suicide, considering that the Howard books being printed include such offensive biographical sketches, and they're supposed to be Howard's greatest defenders and fans!  Likewise, suicide is obviously not something healthy, happy, adjusted people tend to do.  However, I think there's a difference in degree between describing someone as suicidal, and describing someone as "buckf*** crazy."  The latter conjures images of berserk sociopaths, paranoid conspiracy theorists, or deluded souls hallucinating the ghosts of dead warrior kings threatening them in the night.  I also note that Ellison neglected to mention Howard's father, and the economic and social factors of the 1930s meaning that grown men living with their parents was not particularly uncommon, and certainly not grounds to consider mental health issues on its own.

That shows up in Howard's work. You car read a Conan story as opposed to -- I mean, even as good as Fritz Leiber is, Fritz is logical and sane and a nice man. Or take the lesser writers, all the guys who do the Conan rip-offs and imitations, which are such garbage, because all they are are manque. They can't imitate Howard because they're not crazy. They're just writers writing stories because they admired Howard, but they don't understand you have to be bugf*** to write that way.

There's that "you can't write as well as Howard because we're psychologically well-adjusted people."  Strong words from the guy who wrote a detailed and horrific story about the unholy, cruel, systematic torture of the last few individuals on earth by a malevolent artificial intelligence who wants nothing more than to inflict the most depraved, sadistic, inhuman pain and suffering on five human beings to an extent that makes the likes of Ichi the Killer, Hostel, Wolf Creek, Saw, I Spit On Your Grave and other such appallingly shocking films seem like the cosiest episode of Last of the Summer Wine.  (Seriously, if Ellison's going to call Howard "bugf*** insane" for his eccentricities and his stories, then I honestly can't see why I can't call Ellison bugf*** insane for IHNMAIMS and other such tales)

Once again, this can be traced back to the people in charge of Conan, where calling Howard crazy was in the very books that are seeking to use his character to make money.  If those writers are saying they can't do a story because they weren't as "crazy" as Howard, then how can we expect Ellison to say otherwise? No, Mr Ellison, the likes of Nyberg, de Camp, Carter, Jordan et al cannot possibly write Conan stories that can even begin to compare with Howard's.  But maybe - just maybe - that's because Howard wasn't crazier, but just because he knows how to write Conan, and they don't.  Being the creator of the character and all that, you know?

Lest you think I'm just going to leap to Howard's defense, regardless of those naysayers who think trying to disprove myths and correct inaccuracies is somehow counterproductive to Howard's legacy, I have to note Ellison isn't that complementary to Lovecraft either:

Lovecraft - you can tell a Lovecraft story from a Ramsey Campbell story, from all the rest of those shlobos trying to imitate him, all the nameless yutzes shrieking like Lovecraft, they still have not got the lunatic mentality of Lovecraft.

Again, the man who wrote passages like this:

No, AM had given her pleasure, even if she said it wasn't nice to do. I was the only one still sane and whole. Really! AM had not tampered with my mind. Not at all. I only had to suffer what he visited down on us. All the delusions, all the nightmares, the torments. But those scum, all four of them, they were lined and arrayed against me. If I hadn't had to stand them off all the time, be on my guard against them all the time, I might have found it easier to combat AM. At which point it passed, and I began crying. Oh, Jesus sweet Jesus, if there ever was a Jesus and if there is a God, please please please let us out of here, or kill us. Because at that moment I think I realized completely, so that I was able to verbalize it: AM was intent on keeping us in his belly forever, twisting and torturing us forever. The machine hated us as no sentient creature had ever hated before. And we were helpless. It also became hideously clear: If there was a sweet Jesus and if there was a God, the God was AM.

Is calling Lovecraft the lunatic?  I'm also uncomfortable lumping Ramsey Campbell in with the likes of Derleth and other Lovecraft pasticheurs, the same way I wouldn't dream of comparing Karl Edward Wagner to Steve Perry.

Anyway, the result of all this is that Fleisher was so distraught about the things Ellison said that he decided to sue him for libel.  I note that one of the things that offended him was the comparison to Robert E. Howard:

The case sounded ridiculous. Harlan Ellison, interviewed by Gary Groth for The Comics Journal in 1979, had made a few offhand comments about the work of Michael Fleisher, author of the notoriously violent DC Comics Spectre series. Ellison said the series was "bugfuck"; you had to be crazy like Robert E. Howard or H.P. Lovecraft to write like that. Fleisher said he was "devastated and appalled" by Ellison's remarks, and decided to sue for libel. 

Just a few short years later, Fleisher, who was absolutely appalled and outraged to be compared in "madness" to Robert E. Howard... went to work on the Conan the Barbarian comic. There he produced such peerless masterpieces as "Tower of Flame," where Conan wanders into an episode of Star Trek; "The Dark Blade of Jergal Zadh" featuring Conan getting addicted to an energy-draining magic sword that's not anything like Stormbringer, whatever makes you say such a thing; and "The Bird Men of Akah-Ma'at," a tale so silly and ludicrous that when Roy Thomas returned, he had no option but to turn it into a dream.  You know, this lawsuit actually explains an awful lot about Fleisher's run, come to think of it.

Now, you wanna talk "Bugf*** crazy"...

Fleisher's returns showed an increase in gross writing income from about $27,000 in 1979 to $50,000 in 1983. In at least one instance he seemed to benefit from notoriety: after Ellison's interview compared his craziness to that of Robert E. Howard, Fleisher was commissioned to script a Conan comic...

Predictably, Mr Platt doesn't mention that Howard's perceived insanity may have been cause for libel in itself, but who cares about a long-dead author's reputation?

Now, it occurs to me that everything could just be hyperbole, that Ellison isn't actually trying to suggest that they, or Fleisher, are certifiable madmen who ought to be locked up for the good of humanity.  That seems to have been the defense.  At the same time, though, he must've known calling Fleisher a "derange-o" would've come back to bite him, especially considering - again, I hate to beat an immortal jelly-man - Ellison himself could be described as just as "crazy" as any of the authors he speaks of.  And you know what?  He might well agree, and take it as a compliment.  Frankly, I might even mean it as a compliment.

Ellison's interview with The Comic Journal may have bothered me, but I find myself agreeing with the author who straddles the line between Angry Young Man and Curmodgeonly Old Fogey.  There's this piece on the right for dead authors to have their work destroyed:

Now, I suppose someone who enjoys reading, who loves Miller's work, or Robert E . Howard's work, or even--on a warm day--Harlan Ellison's work, presumes to believe s/he is justified in assuaging his/her selfish need to have a moment more's enjoyment by championing the "right" of some parvenu ghoul of a literary grave-robber to misappropriate the efforts of a dead man or woman, for the self-gratification of a faceless, nameless audience. I tell you this from the heart: whoever it might be stoking that position on Usenet... you are wrong. You are smartass, and insolent, and offensive; you are wrongheaded, and lack even the vaguest understanding of the proprietary and primary interest of literary creations by the Author; you are selfish, and mingy, and have the soul of either a ribbon clerk, or a poltroon. You ought to be a high school corrections officer, or some narrow-eyed public official who spends all day stamping DENIED on applications for something-or-other. You are just simply, finally, full of rhino-turds, and I urge you to shut the f--- up and NEVER EVER AGAIN venture a moronic opinion such as this, in public or in private, lest a Real Writer overhear, and pound you into flinders.

I could point out the vague hypocrisy of the man who wrote a screenplay adaptation of I, Robot in accusing people of monkeying about with others' creations, but obviously screenplay adaptations are a different animal from literary continuations.  I could also point out that Ellison need not worry about future hands messing with his work, because there's no way Robert Silverberg or whoever could match his writings.  Why?  "Because they're not as bugf*** crazy as Ellison is."  I kid, I kid...

I both agree, and disagree.  I disagree in the idea that nothing should ever be done with the literary works of great authors, or that they should never be completed: as experiments, explorations and oddities, they can be illuminating and interesting.  However, under absolutely no circumstances should they ever be put on the same level as the author's original works.  For most authors, this is pretty clear: you won't find Drood next to Charles Dickens in most shelves.  With those authors whose creations hae been franchised, however, you might well find the works of Carpenter, Moore and Turtledove right next to Howard on a Conan shelf, or Salvatore, Farmer and Werper next to Burroughs on a Tarzan shelf.  It's not always a good thing, and I'm eternally grateful the Tolkien estate have shown such mettle in resisting the call of officially sanctioned fan-fiction, considering it could end up as dire as the storylines in the many Lord of the Rings video games.  Or Born of Hope.

Creating new stories and novels with the characters is also fine by me: look at A Study in Emerald and "The Problem of Susan," neither of which are, or should be, considered canon for the Cthulhu or Holmes mythoses, or Narnia. Just don't presume to put it in the same collection as the real deal, or place it on equal footing.  That's the purist position: not that pastiches shouldn't exist, but that they shouldn't be considered any more "official" or "canon" than a story you wrote yourself.  And, of course, Ellison's perfectly within his rights to have his fragments destroyed: it's his stuff, after all, and he can do what he likes with it.

Anyway, this turned into a bit of a rant. Suffice to say that although I disagree with Ellison's appraisal of Howard in this interview, I think it's actually, in a weird way, meant to be complimentary.  It just kinda backfired, as such things are wont to do, like the time he groped Connie Willis at the Hugo Awards.  "Well jeez, I thought you wouldn't understood that I didn't mean to grab you in a sexual way!"

A strange, strange man, but then again, strange men often come up with some great things.  I suddenly want to read "Jeffty is Five" again.  In addition to giving a lovely little shout-out to Howard, in the form of a never-never Conan novel called The Isle of the Black Ones (a sequel to "The Pool of the Black One," mayhap, or a revamped version of the infamous "Isle of the Eons" fragments?), it's a wonderful tale that's joyful and bittersweet in equal measure.  Again, I could criticize the idea of the Conan stories being in any way suitable for five-year-olds, even precocious and intelligent ones like Jeffty, but I suppose it's no worse than when I watched Aliens. Just because it wasn't meant for children doesn't mean children can't enjoy it.

A weird note to end on, perhaps, but such is the nature of the very weird, and very wonderful, Harlan Ellison.

17 comments:

  1. You know, I am usually first up to defend Ellison but in this case I have to say you have him fair and square. I'm sure that Ellison means well when he implies that someone is "bug**** crazy", that it is, in fact, a complement of the highest order.

    I'd like to think so, anyway, because I bought him dinner many years ago and spent a fun evening with him and at the end of the night he told me I was weird. I think he liked me, so I took that as a complement.

    I find it funny that Fleisher got all up in litigious arms over what was so obviously a complement to the man's talent.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd like to think that too, M.D.: from the context of what he's saying, it does seem like he's actually complimenting him. Harlan does seem like a fun chap: under that angry, crotchety shell beats the heart of a decent human being.

    I think it's rather damning that Fleisher got upset over what Harlan Ellison, a man infamous for outspoken and outrageous comments, said about him to the point where he'd pursue legal actions. That's like getting upset at South Park parodying you. Hell, the mere fact that Ellison was putting Fleisher in the same company as Lovecraft and Howard should've been pretty awesome to him. But of course, when the time came for Fleisher to give his take on Conan...

    I really need to find more Ellison, any recommendations?

    ReplyDelete
  3. You do the ooky-booky then you turn yourself around, that's what it's all about!

    Harlan sounds about as crazy as he claims R.E.H. was. It's hard to hear a respected sci-fi writer spout this amateur nonsense. He does look like Ming the Merciless in his picture though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Harlan is a great guy. Despite the bad press he has received at many hands he is, in person, polite, gracious and very classy. He is argumentative, but at heart he wishes no one any ill. He's a fun guy to hang out with.

    Find a copy of The Essential Ellison,or any of his collections. Angry Candy is one of my favourites. His introductions are sometimes more entertaining than the stories themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Will do! I wish more authors had essential collections...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think you're reading too much into Ellison's comments. He speaks in hyperbole and it's part of the Ellison show. I think, when he talks about Howard or Lovecraft being crazy, he's talking about them having a different mindset from ordinary mortals. I don't believe he's using it as a pejorative; rather he's complimenting them in his own outlandish way.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The problem, Anon, is that unless one is familiar with Ellison's brand of swaggering hyperbole, one might take everything at face value. For instance, the statement where he claims Howard never went more than 20 or 30 miles from home. While it can easily be argued - and I agree - that Ellison was using crazy as a compliment, it's hard to discern that statement as anything other than incorrect.

    Besides, Ellison is a hugely respected SF author, and his words carry weight regardless of his infamous way with words. It's important to separate hyperbole from inaccuracies.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the only person who claimed that Ellison never made mistakes was Ellison. He got the part about Howard's travels wrong. On the other hand, this could just be another instance of exaggeration - Ellison's way of saying that Howard preferred to stay in familiar surroundings. Again, I don't think it's that important since it doesn't change the quality of Howard's work or Ellison's praise of it.

    In one of Ellison's many introductions he talks about seeing his first movie. He claims the movie was something famous (I don't remember the title). Later he's called on it because the movie hadn't been released at the time he claimed to have seen it. In a different introduction he brings this up and says, "yes, I know that movie hadn't been released, but I swear I saw it." I'm paraphrasing horribly, of course.

    The point? You're getting a glimpse of Ellison's current mindset when he spouts these things. I'm not sure total accuracy is what is required (in the same way that absolute accuracy in historical novels isn't always required and usually doesn't affect the story when it's missing).

    Remember, Ellison is the guy who got into a shouting match at a 1976 convention in Chicago with an audience member who suggested that comic books were at the same literary level as novels. Ellison told the audience that comic books were just entertainment, had no intellectual worth, and that he read The Incredible Hulk using Ronald Coleman's voice as the Hulk. "Hulk smash. Hulk kill." (Imagine Coleman saying those lines).

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think the only person who claimed that Ellison never made mistakes was Ellison. He got the part about Howard's travels wrong. On the other hand, this could just be another instance of exaggeration - Ellison's way of saying that Howard preferred to stay in familiar surroundings. Again, I don't think it's that important since it doesn't change the quality of Howard's work or Ellison's praise of it.

    Whether Ellison was attempting to be precise, or simply another exaggeration, the fact remains that people who are unfamiliar with Ellison might get a mistaken impression. As such, I feel it important to comment on it.

    And again, saying a man never travelled more than a few dozen miles from his home town when he in fact travelled two orders of magnitude further just doesn't bear out, whether Ellison was exaggerating or not.

    ReplyDelete
  10. i think you guys are all in the right ball park. I dont take mr ellisons comments seriously at all and I think in his mind ( in the same way ' crazy') he's complimenting their imagination and vision ( howard and lovecraft).I am not sure how backhanded they are but I dont think he means harm in this case.In fact i'd think he wants to been seen as part of the same 'crazy club', and what scifi/ fantasy writer wouldnt? Howards work like you have stated Al, has endured for 80 yrs and may enjoy another resurgance in the coming years, Lovecraft as well. Will Ellison to the same degree?I'm also gonna guess, like many who havent directly looked and studied into Howards life he is old school and his presumptions on the facts are wrong , i think thats just a case of where he got his info from the old school myths of howard. _Mario.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you have a chance, check out the Elder Signs Press blog entry about a Harlan Ellison experience at a recent convention. Classic. Classic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am not sure how backhanded they are but I dont think he means harm in this case.In fact i'd think he wants to been seen as part of the same 'crazy club', and what scifi/ fantasy writer wouldnt?

    I'm definitely starting to see it that way the more I think about it. "Well if being crazy means writing great stories, then I don't wanna be sane!" sort of thing.

    If you have a chance, check out the Elder Signs Press blog entry about a Harlan Ellison experience at a recent convention. Classic. Classic.

    Groovy!

    ReplyDelete
  13. he isn't a very translated author in Spain, some tales in anthologies and Dangerous visions, by the way in Deathbird stories he has a story about the neighbours of a building looking at the rape of a girl without doing nothing
    in Cthulhu 2000 he has a story about Prometheus that is excellent, try it
    Francisco

    ReplyDelete
  14. Not going to defend Ellison on his musings of other writers. Not my place.
    However, I'd suggest that before anyone jumps off that cliff, they watch the documentary "Dreams With Sharp Teeth".
    I was never able to relate to him as a person, even after meeting him at Dragon Con in 2004 and talking for about a half hour with him.
    I like his style of writing. I'd like to know the man, personally.
    I would, in fact, love it if he called me an "insane bug**ck".
    He explained that he was complimentary about that turn of phrase. When a writer excites another writer so much that his love of out of the mainstream writing makes him howl like a mad man, that does seem to me to be a compliment.
    Howard may have been unstable. He did wound a friend in a sword fight (I may have read that in the Glen Lord book.) He did care for his sick mother to the exclusion of any kind of personal life. Admirable.
    But, when he heard that she wouldn't last the night he killed himself. That's just odd to me. She lived longer than he did by a few hours, I believe.
    I have been to the R.E. Howard Museum in Cross Plains, Texas and got a very interesting tour that lasted three hours.
    Not many people, I was informed, felt that close to "Bob". His father was the one people knew well and called on.
    There is no doubt that Lovecraft, Howard and Ellison belong in the same league, but Ellison's estimation of a writer who lived and died so long ago can only be as informed as what is known of the man.
    Who can know his heart?
    Even Novalyne Price Ellis, who may have been the only woman besides his mother to get close to Howard was a bit put off by him. But, he made a lasting impression on her as she wrote in her book,"One Who Walked Alone".
    In fifty years, someone may wonder what the hell was wrong with this Ellison guy. He wrote some weird stuff and lived in a strange house that looked like a cross between an Egyptian temple and the High Chapparal.
    Surely, he must have been 'insane'.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So I'm reading THE ESSENTIAL ELLISON (I'll 2nd the recommendation for that one, as well as the rec for DREAMS WITH SHARP TEETH) and I finish "Jeffty Is Five" and I think, "Hey - I wonder if Al mentioned the Howard reference in that story in his blog." Sure enough...

    I agree with the folks that took "bugf***" as sort of a weird Ellisonian compliment. It reminds me of something S.T. Joshi wrote about Lovecraft: "To be sure, he was not 'normal'; but no person of intellect or creative imagination ever is."

    Finally, I have to agree that anyone who has written stories as disturbed/disturbing as "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" and "The Deathbird" should be casting aspersions on anyone else's sanity; those stories are as paralyzingly horrifying as any I've ever read, REH's and HPl's included.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So I'm reading THE ESSENTIAL ELLISON (I'll 2nd the recommendation for that one, as well as the rec for DREAMS WITH SHARP TEETH) and I finish "Jeffty Is Five" and I think, "Hey - I wonder if Al mentioned the Howard reference in that story in his blog." Sure enough...

    I'd love to say nothing gets by me, but there you go. I wonder if anyone's catalogued all the references to Howard in other stories? You never know, there might be more in "The Essential Ellison."

    The more I think about it, the more I like Ellison just for being such a strange, fascinating guy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. PS There's another REH reference in Ellison's novella ALL THE LIES THAT ARE MY LIFE:

    http://www.islets.net/novels/allthelies.html

    ReplyDelete