Transcribe
Translate
Fan-Atic, v. 2, issue 2, whole no. 5, September 1941
Page 12
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
"AS THE WIND LISTETH........" by D. B. Thompson. Editors Beling and Yehudi are in a hurry again. If they are in as big a hurry as they say, you won't even be reading this, because it will not be mailed until the day after they want it. ((The only reason you are reading this is because Ackerman hasn't yet, as this is stencilled, sent his Esperanticolumn, thus delaying Fanny.)) Since reaching Pineville, Louisiana on the 24th of July, just twenty days ago, I've been busier than usual, which means that I've been to busy to read more then 2 prozines in all that time. And still, the No. 1 FAN-ATIC yells at me to jurry! So, I'm hurrying. ((Thompson probably received a letter from us less than 24 hours later than he mailed this. That letter informed him that, since he was so busy, he needn't write 'Listeth' this issue. But we are extremely grateful to him for doing it.)) ----------------------------------------------------- Doc Lowndes' "Hell's Corner" lament in the July FAN-ATIC is one which has been due for a long time. As one who has perpetrated more letters to the editors in the last two years than anyone else, with the notable expection of Charles Hidley, I think I know something about that peculiarly profitless form of "literary" endeavor. Previous to the time when a letter from yours truly was a sort of low-grade feature of the letter section of every prozine that I read, I had written not more than half-a-dozen letters to the magazines. One of these, written to AMAZING about 1928, I mentioned previously in the column. None of the others were published. I started writing letters to the pros largely because I disagreed with the remarks of some of the regular contributors to the letter columns. I also had some very definite opinios concerning what should or should not go into a science fiction story, as many of you know. So, I wrote some letters, expressing my disagreements and dislikes, as well as my likes. None of the first few letters I wrote were published, although I said the same sort of thing in them that I said in later reasonably correct grammar and sentence structure, and with really little effort along that line. Being stubborn by nature, I determined to get some letters in the pros. I experimented with different styles, with different degrees of praise and censure, with different ways of stating my preferences. And I found that, in general, the editors wanted, if possible, not only the readers' likes or dislikes, as the case may be, but also the reasons for those preferences. They seemed, curiously enough, to prefer long letters to short ones, although there are one or two editors who want just the opposite. It it, of course, possible to make a long letter much more interesting, in general, than is possible in a very short one. Also, two or three long letters, especially if they disagree in a dozen short ones. Most of the points to be found in the dozen short will appear in the two or three long ones, in more compact form. So, the editor reads the short letters, and then prints two or three long ones from various contributors; especially, those whose previous letters have aroused comment, either favorable or unfavorable, from other readers. An interesting letter column is bound to bring in more comments than an uninteresting one, and thereby, furnish the editor with more information on what his readers like and dislike. And right there, the writers, in their efforts to present their letters in individualistic style, so as to attract attention, resort to the asinine dodges of which Lowndes complained. Some editors print a few such letters - you have all read them - but it is fairly certain that they don't welcome them, even without Doc's comments as a guide. I have always found them rather infuriating, and wondered why they were printed. I think the only reason was to present a few horrible examples. I think it is evident that all the editors really want to receive letters rating their stories. Okay, then; say which one you like in plain English. If you can, give a reason. If the editor answers your letter in some brief form, you may get a lot of information out of his answer. He can't answer a letter like those Doc mentioned, becuase he can't tell what has been said. (Continued on next page.)
Saving...
prev
next
"AS THE WIND LISTETH........" by D. B. Thompson. Editors Beling and Yehudi are in a hurry again. If they are in as big a hurry as they say, you won't even be reading this, because it will not be mailed until the day after they want it. ((The only reason you are reading this is because Ackerman hasn't yet, as this is stencilled, sent his Esperanticolumn, thus delaying Fanny.)) Since reaching Pineville, Louisiana on the 24th of July, just twenty days ago, I've been busier than usual, which means that I've been to busy to read more then 2 prozines in all that time. And still, the No. 1 FAN-ATIC yells at me to jurry! So, I'm hurrying. ((Thompson probably received a letter from us less than 24 hours later than he mailed this. That letter informed him that, since he was so busy, he needn't write 'Listeth' this issue. But we are extremely grateful to him for doing it.)) ----------------------------------------------------- Doc Lowndes' "Hell's Corner" lament in the July FAN-ATIC is one which has been due for a long time. As one who has perpetrated more letters to the editors in the last two years than anyone else, with the notable expection of Charles Hidley, I think I know something about that peculiarly profitless form of "literary" endeavor. Previous to the time when a letter from yours truly was a sort of low-grade feature of the letter section of every prozine that I read, I had written not more than half-a-dozen letters to the magazines. One of these, written to AMAZING about 1928, I mentioned previously in the column. None of the others were published. I started writing letters to the pros largely because I disagreed with the remarks of some of the regular contributors to the letter columns. I also had some very definite opinios concerning what should or should not go into a science fiction story, as many of you know. So, I wrote some letters, expressing my disagreements and dislikes, as well as my likes. None of the first few letters I wrote were published, although I said the same sort of thing in them that I said in later reasonably correct grammar and sentence structure, and with really little effort along that line. Being stubborn by nature, I determined to get some letters in the pros. I experimented with different styles, with different degrees of praise and censure, with different ways of stating my preferences. And I found that, in general, the editors wanted, if possible, not only the readers' likes or dislikes, as the case may be, but also the reasons for those preferences. They seemed, curiously enough, to prefer long letters to short ones, although there are one or two editors who want just the opposite. It it, of course, possible to make a long letter much more interesting, in general, than is possible in a very short one. Also, two or three long letters, especially if they disagree in a dozen short ones. Most of the points to be found in the dozen short will appear in the two or three long ones, in more compact form. So, the editor reads the short letters, and then prints two or three long ones from various contributors; especially, those whose previous letters have aroused comment, either favorable or unfavorable, from other readers. An interesting letter column is bound to bring in more comments than an uninteresting one, and thereby, furnish the editor with more information on what his readers like and dislike. And right there, the writers, in their efforts to present their letters in individualistic style, so as to attract attention, resort to the asinine dodges of which Lowndes complained. Some editors print a few such letters - you have all read them - but it is fairly certain that they don't welcome them, even without Doc's comments as a guide. I have always found them rather infuriating, and wondered why they were printed. I think the only reason was to present a few horrible examples. I think it is evident that all the editors really want to receive letters rating their stories. Okay, then; say which one you like in plain English. If you can, give a reason. If the editor answers your letter in some brief form, you may get a lot of information out of his answer. He can't answer a letter like those Doc mentioned, becuase he can't tell what has been said. (Continued on next page.)
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
