Transcribe
Translate
Vanguard Boojum, v. 1, issue 1
10
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Vanguard Boojum page eight (... continued) the writings of music critics, for instance, you will find most of them looking rather askance at Rachmaninoff, as a composer who "left music exactly where he found it" (Leslie) On this basis I make objection to jazz as an important musical idiom because it deliberately confines itself to a very small range of already-familiar musical devices, and has exhausted years ago the very small contribution it had to make to the understanding and extension of these symbols. As I say, this is only a sectional answer to your cavil, but it may help to make clear the type of judgment which I apply in such matters. If I ever make "Music the Hard Way" into print I'll send you a copy, and you can see the total framework; in the meantime, Prall's book "Aesthetic Judgment" is a very fine review of the basis involved. Now then ... That is, indeed, the exact reason why I find the issue ridiculous. The fact that the question is a psychological one does not impress me in the least. I do not find the investigation of the psychology of the mathematician funny, because that seems to me to be a problem worth investigating; and it is also true that works of art which deal with predominantly fantastic material do play a part in the world-in-general, as Fraser and Freud and others have demonstarted -- but do you propose that analysis of why Moskowitz and Evans and other fans gravitate toward the rubbery Wellsian and/or Lovecraftian margins of this question will add anything to our knowledge of psychology worth bothering with at this stage in science's development? I'm sorry, Norm, but I think it's funny. I met the bunch of young fen fan conventions and have corresponded extensively with fans; I put out na entirely callow fanzine much praised by those fans of the time who were supposed to be mature and above the 16-yr-old demos; and I think I have good reason to regard fan activity as essentially immature, regardless of how satisfactorily this judgment may have been repudiated for the fan microcosmos. I do not think the psychology of Lilliput is any more important than its politics, so long as we continue to live in a world where most people are five foot tall and some of them much taller. ... Incidentally, I consider Vanguard activity essentially immature, too, and I wrote "FAPA and the Pamphleteers" in the hope that we might succees in making it somewhat less so. Yop, Dr. Merlin pinched the compurion, but he did not know from where until the latest Efty; I am also informed that he hacked islamic from a story by Carl H. Claudy, "Brain-Eaters of Mars", published in a boys' magazine a decase or so ago. It's fun to come up against one's hidden sources by surprise in this fashion. I suspected neither of the two terms were mine but couldn't for the life of me recall whose they were. Credit damon for the Claudy discovery. ... I am tickled by the scurllious turn this virus proposition has taken; it puts me in the delightful position of having to maintain that Harry Warner is not more alive than a clam, or may even less alive than a clam. Harry is assuredly more intelligent, but not nearly so tasty or as well adapted to his enviroment. And on the right, ladies and gentlemen, is Gutzon Borglum's might memorial group showing N. Stanley at the last proof. "Don't disturb my circles," he squeaked rustily. ... Seriously I supposed conditionable reflec activity is important; such characteristics as this and intelligence are generally lumped under "irritabilit" or "adaptability", depending on who the theorist is. Adaptability seems to me to be a more likely classification, though it does not allow for the difference between Warner's brains and the virus mutability -- suggestive enough in itself, since there may very well be no meaningful ecological preference between the two.
Saving...
prev
next
Vanguard Boojum page eight (... continued) the writings of music critics, for instance, you will find most of them looking rather askance at Rachmaninoff, as a composer who "left music exactly where he found it" (Leslie) On this basis I make objection to jazz as an important musical idiom because it deliberately confines itself to a very small range of already-familiar musical devices, and has exhausted years ago the very small contribution it had to make to the understanding and extension of these symbols. As I say, this is only a sectional answer to your cavil, but it may help to make clear the type of judgment which I apply in such matters. If I ever make "Music the Hard Way" into print I'll send you a copy, and you can see the total framework; in the meantime, Prall's book "Aesthetic Judgment" is a very fine review of the basis involved. Now then ... That is, indeed, the exact reason why I find the issue ridiculous. The fact that the question is a psychological one does not impress me in the least. I do not find the investigation of the psychology of the mathematician funny, because that seems to me to be a problem worth investigating; and it is also true that works of art which deal with predominantly fantastic material do play a part in the world-in-general, as Fraser and Freud and others have demonstarted -- but do you propose that analysis of why Moskowitz and Evans and other fans gravitate toward the rubbery Wellsian and/or Lovecraftian margins of this question will add anything to our knowledge of psychology worth bothering with at this stage in science's development? I'm sorry, Norm, but I think it's funny. I met the bunch of young fen fan conventions and have corresponded extensively with fans; I put out na entirely callow fanzine much praised by those fans of the time who were supposed to be mature and above the 16-yr-old demos; and I think I have good reason to regard fan activity as essentially immature, regardless of how satisfactorily this judgment may have been repudiated for the fan microcosmos. I do not think the psychology of Lilliput is any more important than its politics, so long as we continue to live in a world where most people are five foot tall and some of them much taller. ... Incidentally, I consider Vanguard activity essentially immature, too, and I wrote "FAPA and the Pamphleteers" in the hope that we might succees in making it somewhat less so. Yop, Dr. Merlin pinched the compurion, but he did not know from where until the latest Efty; I am also informed that he hacked islamic from a story by Carl H. Claudy, "Brain-Eaters of Mars", published in a boys' magazine a decase or so ago. It's fun to come up against one's hidden sources by surprise in this fashion. I suspected neither of the two terms were mine but couldn't for the life of me recall whose they were. Credit damon for the Claudy discovery. ... I am tickled by the scurllious turn this virus proposition has taken; it puts me in the delightful position of having to maintain that Harry Warner is not more alive than a clam, or may even less alive than a clam. Harry is assuredly more intelligent, but not nearly so tasty or as well adapted to his enviroment. And on the right, ladies and gentlemen, is Gutzon Borglum's might memorial group showing N. Stanley at the last proof. "Don't disturb my circles," he squeaked rustily. ... Seriously I supposed conditionable reflec activity is important; such characteristics as this and intelligence are generally lumped under "irritabilit" or "adaptability", depending on who the theorist is. Adaptability seems to me to be a more likely classification, though it does not allow for the difference between Warner's brains and the virus mutability -- suggestive enough in itself, since there may very well be no meaningful ecological preference between the two.
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
