DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Science Fiction Fan, v. 3, issue 12, whole no. 36, July 1939

Transcribe
Translate

Science Fiction Fan, v. 3, issue 12, whole no. 36, July 1939

Page 4

managed to bring the subject up mention of the names was greeted by prolonged applause by the overwhelming majority of those present.  But it was to no avail. The convention has come and gone.  Many fans came to New York, a good time was definitely had by those who did in spite of the New Fandom infamies.  The Futurians rallied magnificently and helped make the visit one to be remembered.  On July 4th, there was an open meeting of the Futurian Society at which many out-of-towners attended.  This was the only open forum held at the convention period.  On the floor of the Futurians were threshed out such problems as the question of future fan organization, the next convention (it was decided to back the convention offer of the Chicagoans for July 1940), the question of michelism.  Decisions reached at this Futurian meeting will in the long run outweigh anything that had gone before at the Convention proper (remembering that NO decisions or resolutions of any sort had come up before that body),— About the only things worth really recording at the convention was the showing of the motion picture Metropolis and the auction held in the evenings.— In afterthought, there can be no possible doubt that the convention could have been two or three times as big, could have been a rousing  success in every way, could have rallied England, could have made lasting and permanent contributions to science-fiction had it been run democratically, in the open, and on the level. The failure to handle the affair openly cost it plenty.  Many fans did not turn up because of the secrecy concerning the meeting place and the times.  Others received no answers to their queries.  Others received answers poorly written on poor mimeography that would discourage any but the hardiest.  The whole difficulty in every case can be laid to the incompetance, [sic] self-seeking, and dishonorability of the trio who had

[NEW COLUMN]

usurped and twisted the convention.  Practically every one who did attend is determined that it shall not happen that way again.
——————
IPO 
by Jack Speer

It would seem that I was mistaken in supposing that those who OK'd sociological discussions in fandom would OK fan feuds, and vice-versa. Since Le Vombiteur wouldn't print it, let me say here that I combined the two because I thot [sic] it would be a waste of needed space to present them separately, and taking up most of the card with them would have discouraged replies by those not interested in such things.  However, as it turns out, little damage was done by listing the two under one question, a close check of the phrasing in which the answers were given, etc, showing only three cases where a blanket "no" vote might otherwise have OK'd sociology. Of the 27 replying, 10 split their votes, "yes" on sociology, thumbs down on fan feuds.  The remaining 17 votes were about evenly divided, 9 yes on both, 9 no, leaving a clear majority for sociological discussions and a clear disapproval of fan feuding.

Plenty of our infra-violet friends took occasion to call me down on the phrasing of the question, the most stirring denunciation being, "Yes no, you Foul Fascist, you." (Tho latter are fun-at 1st.)"  Of the blanket "Yes" answers, several expressed disapproval of such things, but willingness to those who wish run on. Frinstance: [sic] "It's up to the individuals. But, my opinion is: FOOEY ON sociology."  Fan feuds add spice to field; but the bitterness the cause condemn it." On the other hand, a vote I counted as "No" ran thus: "NIX—or else very much soft pedalled. [sic]" Other remarks were, "Sociology, yes—but not FFs.  Prac. anything else is ok." and "Pose so—seems silly."—

Saving...

managed to bring the subject up mention of the names was greeted by prolonged applause by the overwhelming majority of those present. But it was to no avail. The convention has come and gone. Many fans came to New York, a good time was definitely had by those who did in spite of the New Fandom infamies. The Futurians rallied magnificently and helped make the visit one to be remembered. On July 4th, there was an open meeting of the Futurian Society at which many out-of-towners attended. This was the only open forum held at the convention period. On the floor of the Futurians were threshed out such problems as the question of future fan organization, the next convention (it was decided to back the convention offer of the Chicagoans for July 1940), the question of michelism. Decisions reached at this Futurian meeting will in the long run outweigh anything that had gone before at the Convention proper (remembering that NO decisions or resolutions of any sort had come up before that body),— About the only things worth really recording at the convention was the showing of the motion picture Metropolis and the auction held in the evenings.— In afterthought, there can be no possible doubt that the convention could have been two or three times as big, could have been a rousing success in every way, could have rallied England, could have made lasting and permanent contributions to science-fiction had it been run democratically, in the open, and on the level. The failure to handle the affair openly cost it plenty. Many fans did not turn up because of the secrecy concerning the meeting place and the times. Others received no answers to their queries. Others received answers poorly written on poor mimeography that would discourage any but the hardiest. The whole difficulty in every case can be laid to the incompetance, [sic] self-seeking, and dishonorability of the trio who had [NEW COLUMN] usurped and twisted the convention. Practically every one who did attend is determined that it shall not happen that way again. —————— IPO by Jack Speer It would seem that I was mistaken in supposing that those who OK'd sociological discussions in fandom would OK fan feuds, and vice-versa. Since Le Vombiteur wouldn't print it, let me say here that I combined the two because I thot [sic] it would be a waste of needed space to present them separately, and taking up most of the card with them would have discouraged replies by those not interested in such things. However, as it turns out, little damage was done by listing the two under one question, a close check of the phrasing in which the answers were given, etc, showing only three cases where a blanket "no" vote might otherwise have OK'd sociology. Of the 27 replying, 10 split their votes, "yes" on sociology, thumbs down on fan feuds. The remaining 17 votes were about evenly divided, 9 yes on both, 9 no, leaving a clear majority for sociological discussions and a clear disapproval of fan feuding. Plenty of our infra-violet friends took occasion to call me down on the phrasing of the question, the most stirring denunciation being, "Yes no, you Foul Fascist, you." (Tho latter are fun-at 1st.)" Of the blanket "Yes" answers, several expressed disapproval of such things, but willingness to those who wish run on. Frinstance: [sic] "It's up to the individuals. But, my opinion is: FOOEY ON sociology." Fan feuds add spice to field; but the bitterness the cause condemn it." On the other hand, a vote I counted as "No" ran thus: "NIX—or else very much soft pedalled. [sic]" Other remarks were, "Sociology, yes—but not FFs. Prac. anything else is ok." and "Pose so—seems silly."—