Transcribe
Translate
Scientifictionist, v. 2, issue 1, November 1946-January 1947
Page 19
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
quate flow of solid stuff with the passage of time. De la Ree's piece on "Agharti" was generally sound. The Hauser story had a definite literary tone that is rare indeed in pulp s-f, and I found nothing politically objectionable about it. However I doubt that it will ever rate as a top classic in general esteem. I don't know exactly what was lacking in it, but it didn't seem to have sufficient vital and direct concern for the ordinary American reader, nor enough narrative power nor novelty of idea to last without it. The Boggs thing on Ripley was all right, but it was worth only about a fourth the space it took. Stanley's literary retrospections are unusually good. This one seemed rather too drawn out for the importance of its subject, but it was quite readable. (At that, though, it was no wordier than the usual FC essay, and noticeably less stuffy and pretentious.) Coslet's contribution was a total loss as far as I could see, aside from incidental fragments of literary data, including the identification of a nom or two I hadn't known about. No significant information about pictorial art can be conveyed without a prohibitive amount of wordage, and the dissertation would be meaningless to anyone who doesn't have the file of magazines for reference. For those who have, it is pointless. R. Evans' howl about Skylard was on the beam; the book is of historical interest only. To a reader accustomed to modern s-f standards encountering it for the first time, the popularity of the work and the sensation it caused in 1928 at seq. is more than a trifle baffling. Evans covered its faults fairly well; it is also dated by a general tone and treatment quite of a sort with the typical fiction of the current scene in the twenties. Moreover, there is a strong suggestion of Tom Swift in it; one wonders why it wasn't called "Dick Seaton and His Giant Space Ship". Incidentally, DuQuesne is not, as commonly inferred, an aristotelian villain. He is not black-hearted, 'sinful', and depraced, but simply cold-bloodedly amoral -- an inhumanly pragmatic-minded egoist. However, Hadley is not to be blamed for selecting Skylark as his first publishing venture; it was the one work most in demand. Times change, and s-f writers, editors, and readers change, but too many of the readers fail to modernize their evaluations of stories they originally enjoyed. Probably other disillusionments are in the cards for the time when other alleged classics are reprinted. I can still remember vividly the terrific wallop I got out of the two Balmer-Wylie "Worlds" in the early thirties when they appeared, but re-reading them today I am at an utter loss to account for my original reaction -- they seem incredibly dull and uninspired. Still I don't believe any of the later Smith serials is quite so weak as Skylark I, though none of his novelettes are very remarkable. Thomassen's pro reviews are one of the brighter spots in this issue. He is right about the excellence of "Call Him Demon". It likewise reminded me of "Mimsy", and also for some odd reason of Collier's "Thus I Refute Beelzy". I see how point in giving more than a couple of lines to a definitely bad story, while the better ones merit fairly extended treatment. How come Thomassen credits Padgett with O'Donnell's "Vintage Season"? Don't tell me O'Donnell is another Kuttner nom -- that would be too much. Anyway, there's no resemblance of style. But who is O'Donnell -- is that his real name? [Yep. O'Donnell is Kuttner. One report says that the O'Donnell nom is used for collaborations between Kuttner and his wife, C.L. Moore.] And Incidentally, has Campbell used any other nom since Don Stuart retired? Your letter section this time is hardly comparable with that of #5, but still probably the strongest single feature of the issue. The reactions to Schumann's dithyramb amused me. The essence of it is that the guy thinks of himself as a poet and writes accordingly. Such writers are all right on some subjects, but their stuff does prove rather bewildering to the prosaic-minded...Kennedy's letter displays his usual shrewd judgment. I especially liked his pointed comments on that (concluded on bottom of page 20) page 19
Saving...
prev
next
quate flow of solid stuff with the passage of time. De la Ree's piece on "Agharti" was generally sound. The Hauser story had a definite literary tone that is rare indeed in pulp s-f, and I found nothing politically objectionable about it. However I doubt that it will ever rate as a top classic in general esteem. I don't know exactly what was lacking in it, but it didn't seem to have sufficient vital and direct concern for the ordinary American reader, nor enough narrative power nor novelty of idea to last without it. The Boggs thing on Ripley was all right, but it was worth only about a fourth the space it took. Stanley's literary retrospections are unusually good. This one seemed rather too drawn out for the importance of its subject, but it was quite readable. (At that, though, it was no wordier than the usual FC essay, and noticeably less stuffy and pretentious.) Coslet's contribution was a total loss as far as I could see, aside from incidental fragments of literary data, including the identification of a nom or two I hadn't known about. No significant information about pictorial art can be conveyed without a prohibitive amount of wordage, and the dissertation would be meaningless to anyone who doesn't have the file of magazines for reference. For those who have, it is pointless. R. Evans' howl about Skylard was on the beam; the book is of historical interest only. To a reader accustomed to modern s-f standards encountering it for the first time, the popularity of the work and the sensation it caused in 1928 at seq. is more than a trifle baffling. Evans covered its faults fairly well; it is also dated by a general tone and treatment quite of a sort with the typical fiction of the current scene in the twenties. Moreover, there is a strong suggestion of Tom Swift in it; one wonders why it wasn't called "Dick Seaton and His Giant Space Ship". Incidentally, DuQuesne is not, as commonly inferred, an aristotelian villain. He is not black-hearted, 'sinful', and depraced, but simply cold-bloodedly amoral -- an inhumanly pragmatic-minded egoist. However, Hadley is not to be blamed for selecting Skylark as his first publishing venture; it was the one work most in demand. Times change, and s-f writers, editors, and readers change, but too many of the readers fail to modernize their evaluations of stories they originally enjoyed. Probably other disillusionments are in the cards for the time when other alleged classics are reprinted. I can still remember vividly the terrific wallop I got out of the two Balmer-Wylie "Worlds" in the early thirties when they appeared, but re-reading them today I am at an utter loss to account for my original reaction -- they seem incredibly dull and uninspired. Still I don't believe any of the later Smith serials is quite so weak as Skylark I, though none of his novelettes are very remarkable. Thomassen's pro reviews are one of the brighter spots in this issue. He is right about the excellence of "Call Him Demon". It likewise reminded me of "Mimsy", and also for some odd reason of Collier's "Thus I Refute Beelzy". I see how point in giving more than a couple of lines to a definitely bad story, while the better ones merit fairly extended treatment. How come Thomassen credits Padgett with O'Donnell's "Vintage Season"? Don't tell me O'Donnell is another Kuttner nom -- that would be too much. Anyway, there's no resemblance of style. But who is O'Donnell -- is that his real name? [Yep. O'Donnell is Kuttner. One report says that the O'Donnell nom is used for collaborations between Kuttner and his wife, C.L. Moore.] And Incidentally, has Campbell used any other nom since Don Stuart retired? Your letter section this time is hardly comparable with that of #5, but still probably the strongest single feature of the issue. The reactions to Schumann's dithyramb amused me. The essence of it is that the guy thinks of himself as a poet and writes accordingly. Such writers are all right on some subjects, but their stuff does prove rather bewildering to the prosaic-minded...Kennedy's letter displays his usual shrewd judgment. I especially liked his pointed comments on that (concluded on bottom of page 20) page 19
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
