Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Ellison on Dhalgren
Message-ID: <396@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 12:53:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.396
Posted: Fri Sep  6 12:53:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Sep-85 16:36:24 EDT
References: <3524@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 71
Summary: 

In article <3524@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Hoffman.ES@Xerox.ARPA writes:

>   For "Dhalgren" is a tragic failure.  An unrelenting bore of a
>literary exercise afflicted with elephantiasis, anemia of ideas and
>malnutrition of plot and character development.  It is a master talent
>run amuck, suiciding endlessly for chapter after chapter of turgid,
>impenetrable prose.

I find it amusing that Harlan Ellison, the master of the bloated
essay, is here accusing someone else of turgidity. Ah, well, perhaps
it's a form of projection... ;-)

>   I must be honest:  I gave up after 361 pages.  I could not permit
>myself to be gulled or bored any further.  

Well, I still have "Dhalgren" by my bed and still intend to finish it
one of these days. I certainly hope I don't feel after 800+ pages that
I've been "gulled" and "bored," but after all the nasty things I've
been reading about this novel in this group lately I suppose I should
prepare myself for the worst.

>Realizing from the git-go
>that the opening lines of the novel would tie into the closing lines,
>forming one of Laocoonian Moebius gimmicks considered too hoary for use
>30 years ago, the travels of the nameless hero with one sandal did not
>seem sufficiently enriching to permit my engaging in the reading of the
>book as a career.  

Unfortunately, Mr. Ellison is right about this particular plot device.
When I became suspicious about the fragmentary sentence that opens
"Dhalgren" I snuck at peek at the end. Sure enough, it wraps around
shamelessly. How embarrassing. Judging from other reviews I've read
that were authored by Big Harlan, however, I think he has a tendency
to overstate his case. Consider his review in the Magazine of F & SF 
of the repulsive little film "Gremlins" which he seems to see as 
one of the most totally evil things ever put on celluloid. Come on, 
Harlan.

>Others who leaped on the first available copies of
>the novel, as I did, who began reading it avidly, as I did, who began
>breathing raggedly and faltered in the sprint, as I did, have assured me
>the book goes nowhere, does nothing, says nothing, and is sunk to its
>binding in mythological symbolism that is both flagrant and
>embarrassing.  Three hundred and sixty-one pages had delivered me of the
>same conclusions.

I find it hard to respect the opinions of a reviewer who can't force
himself to stick through a bad movie, bad book or whatever and insists
on telling me that even though he quit the task in disgust he found a
few suckers who were willing to reassure him that his half-formed
opinions are correct. And he won't even tell us who these "others"
are. In fact, I find it hard to believe that someone would PAY him 
for half a review (but maybe he only got half a paycheck :-).

And in reading this review I can't see where Mr. Ellison really says
anything concrete about what's wrong with Dhalgren. As usual, he seems
to be saying a lot because he uses a LOT of big words. But look
closely: what exactly has he said about Dhalgren's failure other than
that it IS a failure in his opinion?
    
>...  I continue to be a strong fan
>of Delany's writing, both fiction and criticism.  I still "leap on the
>first available copy" of his every new work and I've enjoyed much of it.
>And, yes, I still await the "breakthrough novel" I think he can produce.

I agree. My favorite Delany novel is still "Nova," which I intend rereading
after I finish "Dhalgren." "Stars In My Pocket etc." was also a hell
of a good read for me, and I'm looking forward to other half of the
diptych (or is it dilogy?)

                         -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly