DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Mutant, v. 2, issue 2, May 1948

Transcribe
Translate

Mutant, v. 2, issue 2, May 1948

Page 9

WAS FORT A CRACKPOT?

by r-tRapp

THERE exists a strange gap in the tapestry of fantalk-subjects, one which should be woven over with the threads of controversy and speculation. I cannot understand why fandom is so little concerned with the theories of Charles Fort.

Sure, all fen have heard of the guy -- what would AMZ do for filler items if they couldn't round up a few Fortean incidents? Perhaps you've even read H.Allen Smith's "Low Man On A Totem Pole" and the belittling account of Fort and his associates contained therein.

But -- did you ever read Fort's book?

If you haven't, your concept of Charles Fort is probably this: A rather screwballish sort of character, who, miserlike, collected clippings from back-country newspapers to support his unorthodox theories, much as Shaver supported his claims with selected facts & references, many of which needed "reading between the lines."

IF YOU DO have that concept of Fort, dont read his books -- because they are sure to give you one hell of a shock. Might even permanently damage your nervous[[?]] system. As my sister pout it after two pages of The Book of the Damned: "Brrr, this gives me the creeps!"

Perhaps you should be prepared for your reading of Fort. Helpfully, I list some of your notions which will be rudely shattered:

(1) Fort merely gathered together odds and ends, something like a "Believe It Or Not" cartoon. FALSE! Fort begins by explaining his own system of philosophy, based upon the proposition that all "knowledge" is an approximateion of reality, that the ultimate truth about anything can never be learned. To support this theory, he proceeds with irresistable logic to demonstrate that there is no such thing as "exact" science.

(2) "Fortean incidents" are distorted rumor or folktales. FALSE! His sources in the vast majority of cases are the reports and periodicals of scientific organizations. For every item he got from the Podunk Gazette, he has half a dozen from Nature, Scientific American, The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, or other sources of equally "scientific" character. In many cases Fort merely points out the astounding implications or fallacies in orthodox explanations of phenomena. It is almost worth the price of his books (five bucks!) just to learn why meteorites in museums are almost invariably composed of nickel-iron!

Saving...

WAS FORT A CRACKPOT? by r-tRapp THERE exists a strange gap in the tapestry of fantalk-subjects, one which should be woven over with the threads of controversy and speculation. I cannot understand why fandom is so little concerned with the theories of Charles Fort. Sure, all fen have heard of the guy -- what would AMZ do for filler items if they couldn't round up a few Fortean incidents? Perhaps you've even read H.Allen Smith's "Low Man On A Totem Pole" and the belittling account of Fort and his associates contained therein. But -- did you ever read Fort's book? If you haven't, your concept of Charles Fort is probably this: A rather screwballish sort of character, who, miserlike, collected clippings from back-country newspapers to support his unorthodox theories, much as Shaver supported his claims with selected facts & references, many of which needed "reading between the lines." IF YOU DO have that concept of Fort, dont read his books -- because they are sure to give you one hell of a shock. Might even permanently damage your nervous[[?]] system. As my sister pout it after two pages of The Book of the Damned: "Brrr, this gives me the creeps!" Perhaps you should be prepared for your reading of Fort. Helpfully, I list some of your notions which will be rudely shattered: (1) Fort merely gathered together odds and ends, something like a "Believe It Or Not" cartoon. FALSE! Fort begins by explaining his own system of philosophy, based upon the proposition that all "knowledge" is an approximateion of reality, that the ultimate truth about anything can never be learned. To support this theory, he proceeds with irresistable logic to demonstrate that there is no such thing as "exact" science. (2) "Fortean incidents" are distorted rumor or folktales. FALSE! His sources in the vast majority of cases are the reports and periodicals of scientific organizations. For every item he got from the Podunk Gazette, he has half a dozen from Nature, Scientific American, The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, or other sources of equally "scientific" character. In many cases Fort merely points out the astounding implications or fallacies in orthodox explanations of phenomena. It is almost worth the price of his books (five bucks!) just to learn why meteorites in museums are almost invariably composed of nickel-iron!