David Gerrold - When HARLIE Was One

WHY NOT?

WELL, FOR ONE THING, WE’RE BOTH MEN.

THE BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE BESIDE THE POINT. YOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO DON HANDLEY. YOU HAVE A ONE-TO-ONE WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM. IF THERE IS ONE HUMAN BEING IN THE PLANT YOU ARE LIKELY TO CONFIDE IN, IT IS DON HANDLEY. YOU HAVE MANY OF THE SAME INTERESTS AND TASTES. PUTTING ASIDE ANY PHYSICAL OBJECTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, I CAN THINK OF ONLY ONE REASON WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH DON HANDLEY.

MORAL OBJECTIONS?

COP-OUT, COP-OUT, accused the machine. THAT’S LETTING OTHERS DETERMINE YOUR BEHAVIOR PATTERN FOR YOU. COP-OUT, COP-OUT. (SEE CONVERSATIONS OF NOVEMBER LAST, REGARDING THE SEARCH FOR A CORRECT MORALITY AND THE FALLACIES OF ACCEPTING CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS.)

ALL RIGHT, WHAT’S THE REASON I SHOULDN’T HAVE SEX WITH DON HANDLEY?

YOU DON’T LOVE HIM, answered the machine. OR DO YOU? WOULD THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND DON BE CONSIDERED CLOSE ENOUGH TO BE A LOVE RELATIONSHIP?

NO, answered Auberson, a little too quickly. Then, a lot more thoughtfully, I DON’T THINK IT IS. I LIKE HIM A LOT — BUT LOVE? (HARLIE, WE HAVEN’T EVEN DEFINED OUR TERMS YET.) ASSUMING IT IS POSSIBLE TO LOVE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING WITHOUT SEX BEING A PART OF IT, I CAN’T SEE HOW YOU COULD TELL.

SEX IS ONLY ONE OF THE WAYS THAT LOVE CAN BE EXPRESSED, corrected HARLIE. IF YOU’RE IN LOVE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL REGARDLESS OF THE SEXUAL ASPECTS.

SO WHAT DOES DON HANDLEY HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM IS IDENTICAL TO YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH ANNIE STIMSON. EXCEPT THAT HE’S A MAN AND SHE’S A WOMAN.

Auberson thought about that. HARLIE was right. Around the plant he didn’t think of Annie as a woman, but as a colleague — but why?

The typer began clattering again. Auberson read, WHAT DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU?

He answered, THAT I LOVE HIM AS WELL AS HER?

AND THAT ONLY MY PERSONAL OBJECTIONS TO “GAYINO IT” KEEP ME FROM EXPRESSING THAT LOVE. OR THAT I LOVE NEITHER OF THEM — THAT I AM CONFUSING THE CLOSE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP OF FRIENDSHIP WITH LOVE BECAUSE THE BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANNIE AND MYSELF EXPRESSED ITSELF SEXUALLY. THAT IS, I TOOK HER TO BED ONLY BECAUSE WE BOTH WANTED SEX. AND THAT I AM CONFUSING THAT CLOSE FRIENDSHIP, PLUS SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, WITH LOVE BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW WHAT LOVE is. Then he added, WE DON’T HAVE A WORKING DEFINITION OF WHAT LOVE IS YET, DO WE?

COULD IT BE JUST FRIENDSHIP, WITH SEX ATTACHED?

NO, I DON’T THINK SO. OR MAYBE IT IS. MAYBE THAT’S ALL LOVE REALLY IS — FRIENDSHIP PLUS SEX — AND WE GET CONFUSED THINKING THAT IT SHOULD BE MORE. AND BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE MORE, WE START BELIEVING THAT IT REALLY IS MORE. OH, I DON’T KNOW.

HARLIE didn’t answer for a long time. It was as if he was mulling over Auberson’s last words. The typer sat quietly, humming not so much with a sound as with a barely felt electric vibration. Abruptly, it clattered, I WILL QUOTE BACK TO YOU SOMETHING THAT YOU ONCE SAID TO ME: “HUMAN BEINGS PUT WALLS AROUND THEMSELVES. SHELLS, LAYERS, CALL THEM WHAT YOU WILL ——

THEY ARE DEFENSES AGAINST THE WORLD. THEY ARE PROTECTIVE MASKS — A CONSTANT UNCHANGING FACE WITH WHICH TO CONFRONT REALITY. IT PREVENTS OTHERS FROM SEEING ONE’S REAL EXPRESSION AND SHOWS THEM ONLY THE FIXED COUNTENANCE THAT YOU WANT THEM TO SEE. (SOMETIMES YOUR FLIPPANT HUMOR FUNCTIONS AS THAT KIND OF A MASK, HARLIE.) UNFORTUNATELY, THE PROBLEM WITH MASKS IS THAT SOMETIMES THEY FIT TOO WELL AND IT’S HARD TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MASK AND THE FACE UNDERNEATH — SOMETIMES EVEN THE WEARER BECOMES CONFUSED.”

I DON’T REMEMBER SAYING THAT.

MARCH 3 OF THIS YEAR. DO YOU WANT TO REPHRASE OR RETRACT THE STATEMENT?

NO, IT’S CORRECT. I AGREE WITH IT.

MAY I OFFER A SUPERFICIAL AND TEMPORARY ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION? asked the machine.

GO AHEAD. REMEMBER, WE SAID NO COP-OUTS.

ALL RIGHT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE PROBLEM STEMS FROM YOUR INABILITY TO DROP YOUR OWN MASKS AROUND OTHER PEOPLE. YOU CAN DO IT WITH ME EASILY, OCCASIONALLY WITH DON HANDLEY — AND ONCE YOU DID IT WITH ANNIE. WHEN YOU DO DROP YOUR MASK, IT IS DONE ONLY WITH GREAT EFFORT AND BECAUSE OF GREAT EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT. CORRECT?

YES.

YOU PERCEIVE THAT LOVE — I.E. A LOVE RELATIONSHIP — SHOULD EXIST AS A CONSTANT AND CONTINUAL STATE OF MASKLESSNESS BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED. THAT IS, NEITHER ATTEMPTS TO HIDE ANYTHING FROM THE OTHER. STILL CORRECT?

YES.

THEN I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER THIS: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT EVEN IN A LOVE RELATIONSHIP, THE OCCASIONAL DONNING OF MASKS MIGHT BE NECESSARY — THAT ONE CANNOT CONTINUE TO EXIST AT SUCH AN EMOTIONAL PEAK WITHOUT AN OCCASIONAL RETREAT INTO A PROTECTIVE MENTAL GROTTO, FROM THE SAFETY OF WHICH ONE CAN CONSOLIDATE AND ASSIMILATE ONE’S EXPERIENCES BEFORE AGAIN VENTURING FORTH?

Auberson hesitated, then said, I’LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A WHILE. He was remembering his freshman psychology courses — and a phenomenon known as “plateaus,” i.e., the temporary leveling off of a curve before it continues rising.

WHY? asked HARLIE.

WELL, FOR ONE THING, I WANT TO SEE HOW IT APPLIES TO ME AND ANNIE. FOR ANOTHER, YOU’VE SUGGESTED THAT THE USE OF MASKS MAY BE A VALUE, RATHER THAN A HINDRANCE.

UH UH — YOU’RE THE ONE WHO SAID THAT MASKS HAVE VALUE: “IT’S THOSE TINY LITTLE EVERYDAY SELF-LIES THAT ENABLE THE AVERAGE PERSON TO SURVIVE THE DAILY BARRAGE OF DARTS AGAINST A FRAGILE EGO.”

IS THAT WRONG?

YES AND NO. IT DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT. A MASK IS A KIND OF COP-OUT — IT IS A WAY TO AVOID THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN PERSON AND PERSON. ALL COP-OUTS ARE WAYS OF AVOIDING CONFRONTATIONS. PERHAPS IT IS OKAY FOR THE ONES YOU WANT TO AVOID — BUT IF THAT IS SO, THEN ONE SHOULD TAKE CARE NOT TO LET IT BECOME SUCH A HABIT THAT YOU DO IT AUTOMATICALLY AT THE ONES THAT COUNT.

YOU MEAN LOVE?

I MEAN ALL CONFRONTATIONS. DON’T COP OUT AT THE ONES THAT COUNT.

Auberson was about to ask if that applied to the upcoming Board meeting as well, when his intercom buzzer went on. It was Sylvia: “I know you’re busy, Mr. Auberson, and I didn’t want to disturb you, but Don Handley is here.”

“All right.” He pushed himself away from the typer, not bothering to shut it off. Then he checked himself. He scooped up the sheets of printout and stuffed them deep into the large basket hanging from the back of the machine.

“What’re you doing?” asked Handley from the door. “Redecorating your garbage?”

“Er, no—” Auberson straightened a little too quickly. “I was rewriting a section of the HARLIE program.”

“Huh?” Handley was puzzled.

Auberson realized his mistake. HARLIE wasn’t supposed to be wired into this typer. Only the Master Beast, as it was called, was supposed to have that capability. “Uh, well, I was filing it for future reference in the central information pool. Later, when I need it, I can transfer it to HARLIE downstairs.”

“Oh,” said Handley. Auberson found himself wondering why he didn’t tell Don about HARLIE’s extra-curricular activities. Another cop-out, Aubie?

“Well, what can I do for you?” he asked.

Handley threw himself into a chair. “You can start by getting me a forty-eight-hour day — you and your goddamned GOD Machine!”

“I’ll put it on order.”

Handley didn’t reply at first; he was pulling a crumpled Highmaster pack out of his lab-coat pocket He waved it toward Auberson. “Want one?”

Auberson felt tempted, but shook his head. “My resolution — remember?”

“Oh, yeah — how long’s it been now?” Handley lit the marijuana stick and inhaled deeply.

“Four or five months.”

“Honest?” asked Don. “No lapses?”

Auberson shrugged. “A couple, around Christmas time but they don’t count. It was a party.” Abruptly, he remembered something. He slid his desk drawer open, pulled out the pack of Highmasters that had been there for the past few months. “Here — want them?”