Harlan Ellison: Some comments about A Boy and His Dog

The following quotations come from HE's introduction to Vic and Blood, a recently published collection of the three Vic and Blood short stories.  The introduction is titled "Latest Breaking News: The Kid and the Pooch." HE wants to set the record straight regarding responsibility for the film.



"The film version of  'A Boy and His Dog' had a more than slightly misogynistic tone.  Not the story, the movie.  I have no trouble placing the blame on that sexist loon Jones (see: "Huck and Tom,   The Bizarre Liaison of Ellison and Jones" in  Outre magazine, issue #309, Fall 2002).  He was brung up in Texas, and as a good ole boy he is pretty much beyond retraining.

But I catch the flak.   I've had to go to universiies where they've screened the movie (it being one of the most popular campus films perennially, and constantly available in one of another unauthorized knock-off video versions)  and I've had to try to explain to Politically Correct nitwits that I didn't write the damned film--which I happen to like a lot, except for the idiotic last line, which I despise--I wrotne the original story; so I won't accept the blame for what they perceive as a 'woman-hating' in the film.

And I say to them READ THE D_____D STORY!  In the story (not to give too much away for those few of you who don't know this material), as in the film.  .  .  VIC NEVER TOUCHES THE MEAT!"

"So here we are,  Vic, Blood, you, me, 34 years after I wrote that first section (which turned out to be the second section, actually).  Twenty-eight years after the film of  'A Boy and His Dog' won me a Hugo at the 34th World Science Fiction Convention.  And I've written the rest of the book, BLOOD'S A ROVER.  The final, longest section is in screenplay form--and they're bidding here in Hollywood, once again, for the feature film aand TV rights --and one  of these days before I go through that final door, I'll translate it into elegant prose, and the full novel will appear."

Well, it's been ten years since he wrote this on "25 March 2003," and I haven't seen anything of the novel or heard anything about the film.  By the way, I've reread this several times and any unusual spelling or punctuation you find belong to HE.  

A Boy and His Dog: an SF film

I must admit that when I first saw the title many years ago, my immediate reaction was another "Lassie Come Home" film, so I ignored it.  Years later I came across comments that suggested it was a post-apocalyptic film and that Harlan Ellison had something to do with it.  Aha, I thought--Harlan Ellison!  Dog comes home and is eagerly welcomed.  That night the dog gets up and rips out the throats of all those in the house or perhaps those welcoming the dog hadn't had any food for days, so Lassie ends up in the pot that night.  That's HE stuff.

So I watched the film, and I was intrigued by it, but still troubled by something.   I would watch it several times over the past decades and never quite resolved my problems with it.  Finally, last week I watched it again, and I think I found out what's troubling me.

The film is really a two-part fantasy, one part above ground and the other down below.  The inhabitants of the two planes of existence are very different, although they do share one common characteristic: both are trapped in a future-less existence.

Above ground, the inhabitants live solely in the present:  they have no past and no future.  They make no plans for the future.  No one seems concerned that the canned goods they scavenge may either run out or turn bad over time.  They want food and they search for it until they find some, eat, and rest.  The same holds true for sex.  They want sex, they search for it until they find a woman, rape her, and also frequently kill her. Today is all there is, and survival and immediate gratification are primary.   The only common meeting ground for the inhabitants appears to be at the patched up film tent where apparently the only films that survived (or at least played) are porno films.

The only voice of sanity is that of Blood, the telepathic dog who hangs with Vic, a young rover or loner (played by a young Don Johnson, in his pre-Miami Vice days).  Blood's sardonic observations provide a common sense point-of-view on the environment and the people about them.  In complete contrast to everyone else, including his partner Vic, Blood alone has a sense of the past, present, and future.

His comments about the behavior of  Vic and the others in the present are brief, ironic, and accurate.  In addition, he attempts to teach Vic some history, which suggests that Blood is aware that unless one understands the past, one cannot comprehend the present, and if one doesn't know where one is, one cannot see where one is going.  Blood alone is one who thinks about a better future or at least a different future.  Now the promised land he frequently tries to persuade Vic to search for may be mythical, but it does show that Blood understands that this may not be all there is and there may be a better future than the one awaiting those who remain in this desolation.

Vic eventually is seduced into going down below and leaving Blood behind.   Down below is far more bizarre than the post-apocalyptic world above.  It's inhabitants occupy a different fantasy world: the past of the  American Golden Age.  It's the small town, the rural heartland of  America, that possibly never existed, the time appears to be the period between WWI and WWII.  The inhabitants wear bibbed overalls and pinafores, with clownish makeup and pigtails.  A high school marching band wanders here and there (reminds me a bit of the band in The Prisoner).  Everyday is a picnic:  every day is the Fourth of July.  The community is run by the Committee whose every dictate is silently obeyed by the rest.   Dissenters are sent to "the farm," an interesting WWII holdover euphemism which stands for death.

We now discover just why Vic has been lured down there.  The Committee has decided that "new blood" is needed, some healthy mongrel genes are necessary for the maintenance of healthy diversity.  He is an imported stud.  Unfortunately for Vic, the world down below has techniques for artificial insemination for humans also, so Vic's initial dream of endless couplings comes to naught.


 I consider this to be the weakest part of the film, for Blood is not there with his brief and sarcastic observations.  Jason Robards, as head of the committee, is the only one down there who is aware of what the real situation is, but he lacks Blood's ability to see beyond the present.  All of Robard's actions are designed to maintain the status quo.  The people down below are trapped in the past, they deny the present, and their future is only an escape to a mythical past.

Vic, and the viewers, need Blood to point out the weaknesses of the down below world.  Perhaps it is impossible for common sense to exist below.  The strange encounter with the dog below makes me wonder about that.  Vic sees a dog similar to Blood, although considerably cleaner.  Vic speaks to the dog but gets no answer.  Robards gets the dog and questions it.  Silence.  This is not a telepathic dog. Robards orders the dog to be sent to "the farm," just in case.  This might be suggestive of what might happen to anyone who might look too closely at their culture.

The film only regains its focal point when Vic escapes the asylum (mental asylum, not safe place asylum) down below and finds Blood.  Blood is the real star of the show.   He provides a basic level of sanity that pokes through the fantasy above ground, but not for the world below.  And, without Blood, I find the world down below somewhat disappointing and less interesting than it should have been.

 As for the ending--that's pure Ellison.  All I can say is encapsulated in two cliches, slightly modified:

Love is a sometime thing, but a dog is man's best friend.

And

Greater love hath no man than to give up his wife for his dog.



 I recently found a copy of  Ellison's short story that was the basis for the film.  It was a bit expensive, but I was curious.  When I received it a few days ago, I discovered that Ellison had written three short stories about Vic and Blood,  "Eggsucker," "A Boy and His Dog" (the basis for the film), and "Run, Spot, Run."  The third one is actually an excerpt from Ellison's projected novel Blood's a Rover (working title).   I can't find any information that the novel was published.  However, there are several graphic novels featuring Vic and Blood, so those may have replaced the projected novel.

Now for the short stories.

Lin Yutang: Human Dignity and the Scamp

The following quotation gives us some idea of Lin Yutang's thinking about two seemingly different concepts: dignity and the scamp. They seem opposed, but as usual with Yutang, he doesn't see things the way most do.


To me, spiritually a child of the East and the West, man's dignity consists in the following facts which distinguish man from the animals. First, that he has a playful curiosity and a natural genius for exploring knowledge; second that he has dreams and a lofty idealism (often vague, or confused, or cocky, it is true, but nevertheless worthwhile); third, and still more important, that he is able to correct his dreams by a sense of humor, and thus restrain his idealism by a more robust and healthy realism; and finally, that he does not react to surroundings mechanically and uniformly as animals do, but possesses the ability and the freedom to determine his own reactions and to change surroundings at his will. This last is the same as saying that human personality is the last thing to be reduced to mechanical laws; somehow the human mind is forever elusive, uncatchable and unpredictable, and manages to wriggle out of mechanistic laws or a materialistic dialectic that crazy psychologists and unmarried economists are trying to impose upon him. Man, therefore, is a curious, dreamy, humorous and wayward creature.

In short, my faith in human dignity consists in the belief that man is the greatest scamp on earth. Human dignity must be associated with the idea of a scamp and not with that of an obedient, disciplined and regimented soldier. The scamp is probably the most glorious type of human being, as the soldier is the lowest type, according to this conception. In in my last book, My Country and My People, the net impression of readers was that I was trying to glorify the "old rogue." It is my hope that the net impression of the present one will be that I am doing my best to glorify the scamp or vagabond. I hope I shall succeed. For things are not so simple as they sometimes seem. In this present age of threats to democracy and individual liberty, probably only the scamp and the spirit of the scamp alone will save us from becoming lost as serially numbered units in the masses of disciplined, obedient, regimented and uniformed coolies. The scamp will be the last and most formidable enemy of dictatorships. He will be the champion of human dignity and individual freedom, and will be the last to be conquered. All modern civilization depends entirely upon him.

. . . . .

Speaking as a Chinese, I do not think that any civilization can be called complete until it has progressed from sophistication to unsophistication, and made a conscious return to simplicity of thinking and living, and I call no man wise until he has made the progress from the wisdom of knowledge to the wisdom of foolishness, and become a laughing philosopher, feeling first life's tragedy and then life's comedy. For we must weep before we can laugh. Out of sadness comes the awakening and out of the awakening comes the laughter of the philosopher, with kindliness and tolerance to boot.



One of the most common characters found in myths and legends and folklore is the Trickster. The following quotations come from the Wikipedia entry on the Trickster, and the Trickster sounds a lot like Yutang's scamp.


"In mythology, and in the study of folklore and religion, a trickster is a god, goddess, spirit, man, woman, or anthropomorphic animal who plays tricks or otherwise disobeys normal rules and conventional behavior."

"In later folklore, the trickster/clown is incarnated as a clever, mischievous man or creature, who tries to survive the dangers and challenges of the world using trickery and deceit as a defense."

"Modern African American literary criticism has turned the trickster figure into one example of how it is possible to overcome a system of oppression from within."


The quotations come from Lin Yutang's The Importance of Living which was first published in 1937. It's almost 75 years later, and his warning still seems relevant today, even though the threats are internal rather than external. For a short story which best exemplifies Yutang's theme, I would recommend Harlan Ellison's "'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman."

Who or what is our best defense against the threats to freedom and civil liberty--the Soldier or the Scamp/Trickster?