DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Nucleus, v. 3, issue 1, Septermber 1941

Transcribe
Translate

Nucleus, v. 3, issue 1, Septermber 1941

31858063105039_004

THAT SINGULAR ANOMALY - THE FEMALE FAN

A well-known fan made an exceedingly foolish statement some time ago. No woman could ever be a true fan said this sage, who apparently believes that he is thoroly acquainted with womankind. However, we shall deal with him accordingly.

In the first place, his statement that no girl can be a fan is refuted instantly by the fact that I am one. If my status as a fan is challenged, I have a perfect right to challenge his, for I have done the identical things which he has done in order to be termed a fan -- namely, I have subscribe to fanzines, published two of my own, written fan pieces, corresponded with other fans, attended conventions, joined fan clubs, and what is more, read the two Campbell magazines regularly -- and that is something which he openly claims not to do -- and in addition, I have been in fandom several years longer than he. And yet he says I am not a fan, or, at least, a "true" fan. Which brings us to the definition of fan. What exactly is one? And does it of necessity exclude the girls? And if so, why?

All these, and more I asked him, and he has not replied. I am beginning to wonder if his silence is an admission of defeat.

No, he said, a girl cannot be a true fan. She is constituted differently. She is more concerned with reality. -- Ah, indeed now is she. Very interesting. Very. But how, I should very much like to know, can he possibly generalize like that??!! It would be the same thing were I to say that no man can b a true fan because he is more concerned with mechanics. Does an interest in mechanics necessarily imply that the man has no imagination? Because every mechanic he knows shows more interest in a monkey wrench and a ham sandwich, does that mean that every mechanic the world round is also confined to the same narrow limits?

In the same way, because all the women he has ever known have always been concerned with reality -- meaning, I suppose, manhunting, for such is the conceit of the American Male -- does that prove that there can be no women who are different (to use a trite phrase), who can "take" their men or leave them, and who do not require what our sage terms "substitute careers"? For the characters of women vary as widely as do the characters of men, and generalizations simply will not stand up! If there is such a thing as being a true fan, then most certainly a girl can be one! And if not, will someone please tell me why?

A true fan, our sage believes, is one who is fanatically interested in fandom, who looks upon it -- not as a singularly fascinating hobby -- but rather a high, celestial calling to which one should dedicate one's entire life, filled with humility and awe. A lauged at that, remarking that fandom was too petty, too inconsequential for such a lofty dedication, that fans themselves were incapable of it, and that such an idea would lead absolutely nowhere. but I did not press that point for such things are purely relative. And being so, and since I do not tolerate the belief that science-fiction is essentially great, he said that I could never be a true fan. Is a true fan then, one who blinds himself to fandom's limitations, who firmly believes that fandom is the ultimate in ambition, or is he the one who, fully realizing that as things go fandom is nothing, nevertheless devotes himself enthusiastically to it? Who is the fan -- the mad fanatic or the true hobbyist. Does anyone know? And if the former is the true fan, why cannot the latter be one too?

A true fan, our sage goes on, is identified by the volume of

(continued on next page)

Saving...

THAT SINGULAR ANOMALY - THE FEMALE FAN A well-known fan made an exceedingly foolish statement some time ago. No woman could ever be a true fan said this sage, who apparently believes that he is thoroly acquainted with womankind. However, we shall deal with him accordingly. In the first place, his statement that no girl can be a fan is refuted instantly by the fact that I am one. If my status as a fan is challenged, I have a perfect right to challenge his, for I have done the identical things which he has done in order to be termed a fan -- namely, I have subscribe to fanzines, published two of my own, written fan pieces, corresponded with other fans, attended conventions, joined fan clubs, and what is more, read the two Campbell magazines regularly -- and that is something which he openly claims not to do -- and in addition, I have been in fandom several years longer than he. And yet he says I am not a fan, or, at least, a "true" fan. Which brings us to the definition of fan. What exactly is one? And does it of necessity exclude the girls? And if so, why? All these, and more I asked him, and he has not replied. I am beginning to wonder if his silence is an admission of defeat. No, he said, a girl cannot be a true fan. She is constituted differently. She is more concerned with reality. -- Ah, indeed now is she. Very interesting. Very. But how, I should very much like to know, can he possibly generalize like that??!! It would be the same thing were I to say that no man can b a true fan because he is more concerned with mechanics. Does an interest in mechanics necessarily imply that the man has no imagination? Because every mechanic he knows shows more interest in a monkey wrench and a ham sandwich, does that mean that every mechanic the world round is also confined to the same narrow limits? In the same way, because all the women he has ever known have always been concerned with reality -- meaning, I suppose, manhunting, for such is the conceit of the American Male -- does that prove that there can be no women who are different (to use a trite phrase), who can "take" their men or leave them, and who do not require what our sage terms "substitute careers"? For the characters of women vary as widely as do the characters of men, and generalizations simply will not stand up! If there is such a thing as being a true fan, then most certainly a girl can be one! And if not, will someone please tell me why? A true fan, our sage believes, is one who is fanatically interested in fandom, who looks upon it -- not as a singularly fascinating hobby -- but rather a high, celestial calling to which one should dedicate one's entire life, filled with humility and awe. A lauged at that, remarking that fandom was too petty, too inconsequential for such a lofty dedication, that fans themselves were incapable of it, and that such an idea would lead absolutely nowhere. but I did not press that point for such things are purely relative. And being so, and since I do not tolerate the belief that science-fiction is essentially great, he said that I could never be a true fan. Is a true fan then, one who blinds himself to fandom's limitations, who firmly believes that fandom is the ultimate in ambition, or is he the one who, fully realizing that as things go fandom is nothing, nevertheless devotes himself enthusiastically to it? Who is the fan -- the mad fanatic or the true hobbyist. Does anyone know? And if the former is the true fan, why cannot the latter be one too? A true fan, our sage goes on, is identified by the volume of (continued on next page)