Transcribe
Translate
Scientifictionist, issue 2, after 1945
Page 10
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
EXPLAINING X, continued from page 3) non-aristotlianism to scientifiction readers, it stands that Van Vogt has followed the text of Korzybski's work amazingly closely. The quotations sprinkled in the story are mostly from SAS, from which they have been requoted. They represent the statements relative to general semantics made by Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, Cassius J. Keyser, Korzybski, Henri Pieron, Hermann Weyl, Charles M. Child, Albert Einstein, William Morton Wheeler, and our friend Eric Temple Bell, in that order. I haven't bothered to count the number of passages which practically quote from the text of SAS, but there are many. For example, take the occurance in the classroom where Gosseyn is conducted in underground Venus, the phone call Gosseyn makes (in the 3rd installment) from his hotel room to the library, to get null-A training, and the many other brief interwoven statements in the first installment. And much of these are the straight dope! Van Vogt often conceals them well within the fabric of the story. I didn't experience a delayed reaction to the story; was I supposed to? Perhaps Campbell didn't have the background of SCIENCE AND SANITY when he read the manuscript. I read SAS in between installments of the serial. Perhaps I still don't understand the plot of the story; it was involved enough, and there seem to be loose ends by the handful. But that doesn't matter; I benefitted from the story in the way which Van Vogt desires -- I was moved to read SAS. That was more than just compensation. A new field and of extreme interest to me, SAS seemed a thousand times more entertaining than WNA! I can't agree with the fans who dub the story "the stinker of the year." And although Campbell blurbed it as "one of the truly great stories of science fiction", I wonder whether he, as scientifically competent as he is, really knows the true significance of his offering? ------------------------------------ The above article was reprinted from VOM, by permission of editor 4e Ackerman. ------------------------------------ WHAT MAKES A CLASSIC by Henry Elsner Jr. In letters with other scientifictionists, the subject of "classics", among other things has been discussed. It is surprising to note how many different stories are called classics by one stfist or another. In these days of stinkeroos, we are apt to call any story worth reading a classic. But I am not concerned here with definition. In evaluating any story, some thought should be given to what makes a true classic. Some have said that it is the writing that determines a classic. Others have said that it is characterization, or plot, or original ideas that make a story a classic. The general opinion seems to be that it is a happy combination of all these that makes a classic of a story. However, if this is true, why is it that the nearly faultlessly constructed Lensman stories failed to be regarded as classics by some scientifictionists, myself among them? Why is it that there is such a diversified opinion as to what is a classic and what is not? Why do some persons regard certain little known tales as greater stories than those by the "masters"? The answer, I think, to the question, "What makes a classic?" is, emotional impact. I think that the basic reason why any person rates a story as a classic is the emotional impact he received when he first read the story. This explains why different persons regard different stories as classics. For instance, I received a greater emotional impact from Williamson's AFTER WORLD'S END and Gallun's GODSON OF ALMARLU than I did from most of HPL's works, which are probably written. Mass psychology is as yet very little developed, but when it becomes more advanced, we'll know why certain stories are accepted as classics almost unanimously, in spite of the emotional differences of the individual readers. The answer, I believe, is the reaction of the mass mind to certain stimuli. What are your views on the subject? page 10
Saving...
prev
next
EXPLAINING X, continued from page 3) non-aristotlianism to scientifiction readers, it stands that Van Vogt has followed the text of Korzybski's work amazingly closely. The quotations sprinkled in the story are mostly from SAS, from which they have been requoted. They represent the statements relative to general semantics made by Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, Cassius J. Keyser, Korzybski, Henri Pieron, Hermann Weyl, Charles M. Child, Albert Einstein, William Morton Wheeler, and our friend Eric Temple Bell, in that order. I haven't bothered to count the number of passages which practically quote from the text of SAS, but there are many. For example, take the occurance in the classroom where Gosseyn is conducted in underground Venus, the phone call Gosseyn makes (in the 3rd installment) from his hotel room to the library, to get null-A training, and the many other brief interwoven statements in the first installment. And much of these are the straight dope! Van Vogt often conceals them well within the fabric of the story. I didn't experience a delayed reaction to the story; was I supposed to? Perhaps Campbell didn't have the background of SCIENCE AND SANITY when he read the manuscript. I read SAS in between installments of the serial. Perhaps I still don't understand the plot of the story; it was involved enough, and there seem to be loose ends by the handful. But that doesn't matter; I benefitted from the story in the way which Van Vogt desires -- I was moved to read SAS. That was more than just compensation. A new field and of extreme interest to me, SAS seemed a thousand times more entertaining than WNA! I can't agree with the fans who dub the story "the stinker of the year." And although Campbell blurbed it as "one of the truly great stories of science fiction", I wonder whether he, as scientifically competent as he is, really knows the true significance of his offering? ------------------------------------ The above article was reprinted from VOM, by permission of editor 4e Ackerman. ------------------------------------ WHAT MAKES A CLASSIC by Henry Elsner Jr. In letters with other scientifictionists, the subject of "classics", among other things has been discussed. It is surprising to note how many different stories are called classics by one stfist or another. In these days of stinkeroos, we are apt to call any story worth reading a classic. But I am not concerned here with definition. In evaluating any story, some thought should be given to what makes a true classic. Some have said that it is the writing that determines a classic. Others have said that it is characterization, or plot, or original ideas that make a story a classic. The general opinion seems to be that it is a happy combination of all these that makes a classic of a story. However, if this is true, why is it that the nearly faultlessly constructed Lensman stories failed to be regarded as classics by some scientifictionists, myself among them? Why is it that there is such a diversified opinion as to what is a classic and what is not? Why do some persons regard certain little known tales as greater stories than those by the "masters"? The answer, I think, to the question, "What makes a classic?" is, emotional impact. I think that the basic reason why any person rates a story as a classic is the emotional impact he received when he first read the story. This explains why different persons regard different stories as classics. For instance, I received a greater emotional impact from Williamson's AFTER WORLD'S END and Gallun's GODSON OF ALMARLU than I did from most of HPL's works, which are probably written. Mass psychology is as yet very little developed, but when it becomes more advanced, we'll know why certain stories are accepted as classics almost unanimously, in spite of the emotional differences of the individual readers. The answer, I believe, is the reaction of the mass mind to certain stimuli. What are your views on the subject? page 10
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
