Transcribe
Translate
En Garde, whole no. 17, April 1946
Page 13
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
page 13 fully as he could. Finally someone called him a "Christ-killer," to which Mark is said to have retorted: "Honest, fellas, I didn't do it! I was too young!" So Dunk cheerfully spreads to the four winds of fandom a Bok lithograph depicting a sensuous individual who published Le Zombie. And the snowball begins to roll downhill. In all fairness to Dunk a concerted effort should be made to determine who is really responsible for this outrage. Certainly Dunk isn't: he merely distributed a lithograph prepared by a person over whom he had not the slightest control. The trail then leads us to Julius Unger who supposedly financed the lithograph: at one time the Brooklyn gentleman was preparing a series of such lithographed covers of famous fanzines in commemoration of the said famous fanzines. It was his announced intention to do a series of them, paying homage or something of the sort. Supposedly then, this particular litho was one of the series which somehow or other found itself in Dunk's hands. Is Unger the culprit? Should he be condemned? No. Presupposing the above is correct, he merely sponsored the lithograph and had no more control over the actual subject matter than did Dunk. This in turn leads us to Bok. But Bok, in his open letter, absolves himself admirably from all blame. He was merely the artist who presented his interpretation of a character from facts and fancies supplied to him concerning the nature of the character. Had the character under discussion been a confirmed blockhead (we are given to understand), the Bok creation would have faithfully portrayed a blockhead. But where does this strange trail lead us? Right down to the rascal himself, the man who presumably plucks rosebuds along the primrose path to hell. One may argue, and convincingly, that had not the creature under discussion been a low, immoral person unfit to fraternize with decent men, then Bok would not have made such an interpretation, and Unger would not have sponsored so degenerate a portrayal, and Dunk would not have distributed so obscene a lithograph. Apparently that is the end of the trail: the various innocent bystanders involved have been successfully absolved, their reputations have been restored to them at the expense of another slur upon an already-proven cur (quite a minor detail), and FAPA may again hold high its collective head now that the real culprit is unmasked and exposed for the foul fiend that he is. The obvious moral of the story is that Tucker should abandon his hobby. BUT!----- Please note the first sentence in the above paragraph: "Apparently that is the end of the trail . . . " Aha, that slippery word:
Saving...
prev
next
page 13 fully as he could. Finally someone called him a "Christ-killer," to which Mark is said to have retorted: "Honest, fellas, I didn't do it! I was too young!" So Dunk cheerfully spreads to the four winds of fandom a Bok lithograph depicting a sensuous individual who published Le Zombie. And the snowball begins to roll downhill. In all fairness to Dunk a concerted effort should be made to determine who is really responsible for this outrage. Certainly Dunk isn't: he merely distributed a lithograph prepared by a person over whom he had not the slightest control. The trail then leads us to Julius Unger who supposedly financed the lithograph: at one time the Brooklyn gentleman was preparing a series of such lithographed covers of famous fanzines in commemoration of the said famous fanzines. It was his announced intention to do a series of them, paying homage or something of the sort. Supposedly then, this particular litho was one of the series which somehow or other found itself in Dunk's hands. Is Unger the culprit? Should he be condemned? No. Presupposing the above is correct, he merely sponsored the lithograph and had no more control over the actual subject matter than did Dunk. This in turn leads us to Bok. But Bok, in his open letter, absolves himself admirably from all blame. He was merely the artist who presented his interpretation of a character from facts and fancies supplied to him concerning the nature of the character. Had the character under discussion been a confirmed blockhead (we are given to understand), the Bok creation would have faithfully portrayed a blockhead. But where does this strange trail lead us? Right down to the rascal himself, the man who presumably plucks rosebuds along the primrose path to hell. One may argue, and convincingly, that had not the creature under discussion been a low, immoral person unfit to fraternize with decent men, then Bok would not have made such an interpretation, and Unger would not have sponsored so degenerate a portrayal, and Dunk would not have distributed so obscene a lithograph. Apparently that is the end of the trail: the various innocent bystanders involved have been successfully absolved, their reputations have been restored to them at the expense of another slur upon an already-proven cur (quite a minor detail), and FAPA may again hold high its collective head now that the real culprit is unmasked and exposed for the foul fiend that he is. The obvious moral of the story is that Tucker should abandon his hobby. BUT!----- Please note the first sentence in the above paragraph: "Apparently that is the end of the trail . . . " Aha, that slippery word:
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
