Transcribe
Translate
Spaceways, v. 3 issue 3, whole no. 19, March 1941
Page 6
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
6 S P A C E W A Y S BEACON LIGHT by S F CYNIC First of all, a brief explanation of our heading and moniker. We use the term "cynic" in its original meaning: "one who takes a questioning attitude toward everything". The Cynic just doesn't take things for granted; like Helen's baby, he wants to see the wheels go around, and like Baby Snooks, he always wants to know why, daddy? In these days the term has come, generally speaking, to mean: "one who adopts a disparaging attitude toward everything". A more or less natural evolution of meaning, we think. Naturally, our Cynic would not immediately swallow everything that came along, and, to one already convinced, or one emotionally converted, his questions might seem very sarcastic and his criticisms destructive. Thus to be cynical today is, according to popular usage, to lack faith, to lack ideals, and so on. However, we feel Quixotish; thus we tilt at the wind-mill of etymological progress (heheh) and insist that people take us at our definition of the term "cynic". Before we get off this (boring, perhaps) subject, may we add one more bit of opinion? A cynic (our variety) is not a liberal. He is capable of taking a stand or "line" and sticking to it, come what may. It may. It may take him a long time to come to a decision, but, once arrived, he doesn't hesitate to state the fact. Now (what space-wasters we are!) we find one more thing incumbent before really starting in. That is this: whatever we may say in this column is to be regarded as nothing more than our opinion. If we wish to state that we consider a thing fact, we'll give references; otherwise, you can take it or leave it. And we are really trying not to offend anyone unmeaningly. No matter what we may say about you, therefore, reader, we do not hate you (unless we say as much, and, in that event, Harrill will undoubtedly grab the editorial shears and censor the item anyway), so rest assured. Might add that, while we do not like it very much, thinking of choice items which (written at some later date around circumstances we wot not now) may be cut, we grant the editor right to cut anything he chooses; after all, it's his magazine; he puts up the money, does the work, and pays the deficit (or do you break even at times?); true, the whole has to be to the readers' satisfaction, but it's still the editor's magazine. Enough of this: let's go! A note on our predecessor, the Star-Treader. We can truthfully say that we are sorry to see him go. Many times his remarks annoyed, infuriated, saddened, or disgusted us; but the column was one we always looked forward to, always read thoroughly, and always remembered, while other items slid into oblivion. And the one we most frequently reread upon poring over the back issues. It, more than anything else, has made this fanzine important, in our opinion; it was one of the strongest character-points. We hope that our questionable efforts can take its place to a reasonable degree. One thing on which the Star-Treader and I nearly always agreed was the general little worth of the majority of titles in the fantasy and science fiction field. More and more I find myself thinking of these things as "pseudo-science" stories, as Ray Cummings always calls them, rather than science fiction. (At one time, I rebelled heartily against the application of the term "pseudo-scientific stores" to my favorite reading matter, too.) Today we see more titles than ever before. Yet, consider: Astounding Science Fiction--this is still the outpost of maturity in the type of fiction; yet, it too, seems to be suffering from trends, both in the world and in the field. Editor Campbell complains that he does not get nearly enough worthwhile material from which to pick; I can well believe him. Yet, the magazine is publishing more and more stories which cannot be called science fiction. They are not the abominable "pseudo-scientifics"; no, they are straight stories which have been just slightly injected with futuristic or "different" treatment. Take, for example, "Fog" in a recent issue. The only reason for calling this stf, in any sense of the word, is that since it has not happened yet, it obviously takes place in the future. It is not especially outstanding, yet a story worth reading; it protrays very well the viewpoing of a by-stander in such circumstances; technically many items in it are
Saving...
prev
next
6 S P A C E W A Y S BEACON LIGHT by S F CYNIC First of all, a brief explanation of our heading and moniker. We use the term "cynic" in its original meaning: "one who takes a questioning attitude toward everything". The Cynic just doesn't take things for granted; like Helen's baby, he wants to see the wheels go around, and like Baby Snooks, he always wants to know why, daddy? In these days the term has come, generally speaking, to mean: "one who adopts a disparaging attitude toward everything". A more or less natural evolution of meaning, we think. Naturally, our Cynic would not immediately swallow everything that came along, and, to one already convinced, or one emotionally converted, his questions might seem very sarcastic and his criticisms destructive. Thus to be cynical today is, according to popular usage, to lack faith, to lack ideals, and so on. However, we feel Quixotish; thus we tilt at the wind-mill of etymological progress (heheh) and insist that people take us at our definition of the term "cynic". Before we get off this (boring, perhaps) subject, may we add one more bit of opinion? A cynic (our variety) is not a liberal. He is capable of taking a stand or "line" and sticking to it, come what may. It may. It may take him a long time to come to a decision, but, once arrived, he doesn't hesitate to state the fact. Now (what space-wasters we are!) we find one more thing incumbent before really starting in. That is this: whatever we may say in this column is to be regarded as nothing more than our opinion. If we wish to state that we consider a thing fact, we'll give references; otherwise, you can take it or leave it. And we are really trying not to offend anyone unmeaningly. No matter what we may say about you, therefore, reader, we do not hate you (unless we say as much, and, in that event, Harrill will undoubtedly grab the editorial shears and censor the item anyway), so rest assured. Might add that, while we do not like it very much, thinking of choice items which (written at some later date around circumstances we wot not now) may be cut, we grant the editor right to cut anything he chooses; after all, it's his magazine; he puts up the money, does the work, and pays the deficit (or do you break even at times?); true, the whole has to be to the readers' satisfaction, but it's still the editor's magazine. Enough of this: let's go! A note on our predecessor, the Star-Treader. We can truthfully say that we are sorry to see him go. Many times his remarks annoyed, infuriated, saddened, or disgusted us; but the column was one we always looked forward to, always read thoroughly, and always remembered, while other items slid into oblivion. And the one we most frequently reread upon poring over the back issues. It, more than anything else, has made this fanzine important, in our opinion; it was one of the strongest character-points. We hope that our questionable efforts can take its place to a reasonable degree. One thing on which the Star-Treader and I nearly always agreed was the general little worth of the majority of titles in the fantasy and science fiction field. More and more I find myself thinking of these things as "pseudo-science" stories, as Ray Cummings always calls them, rather than science fiction. (At one time, I rebelled heartily against the application of the term "pseudo-scientific stores" to my favorite reading matter, too.) Today we see more titles than ever before. Yet, consider: Astounding Science Fiction--this is still the outpost of maturity in the type of fiction; yet, it too, seems to be suffering from trends, both in the world and in the field. Editor Campbell complains that he does not get nearly enough worthwhile material from which to pick; I can well believe him. Yet, the magazine is publishing more and more stories which cannot be called science fiction. They are not the abominable "pseudo-scientifics"; no, they are straight stories which have been just slightly injected with futuristic or "different" treatment. Take, for example, "Fog" in a recent issue. The only reason for calling this stf, in any sense of the word, is that since it has not happened yet, it obviously takes place in the future. It is not especially outstanding, yet a story worth reading; it protrays very well the viewpoing of a by-stander in such circumstances; technically many items in it are
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
