Transcribe
Translate
Vanguard Boojum, v. 1, issue 1
20
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Vanguard Boojum page eighteen (En Passant - continued) c) Knight: The dictionary wherein first I looked it up, gives the word as "cerif"; Webster's Columbia Concise edition says "ceriph". "Serif" is given only as a pronunciation guide. Which reminds me about Emden and her experience with my poem "Anchoret"; I wrote the poem at Fort Wit, and grabbed Emden's dictionary to see if the word I'd remembered as "anchorite" was really spelled that way. Lo and behold, I found "anchoret", with "anchorite" listed way down at the bottom as another possibility. All this being out of the way: it remains "Cerifs", chums! I cannot see any distortion in translating "political/[blanked out] as relevant to and dependent upon "political force", unless you consider political discussions strictly in an academic sense, taking place in vacuo, and having no traceable result. And if they dynamic interpretation of the article is wrong, and the matter of "weight", "traceable result", and/or "political force" is divested, then of what informative value is the sentence in question? In such a frame, might not Blish just as well have said "No political discussion has meaning"? yet to see any grounds for calling him an artist -- same for Philip Wylie. In regard to Tom Benton, I must confess total ignorance. Who is (or was) he? You realize, of course, that you have distorted my "It reeks of fan [underlined]. Ugh!" in relating it to my use of cd/, shd/, and wd/. There are no sizeable points of similarity between a fantasy/stf fan and an admirer of Ezra Pound -- at least, not ipso facto. And it is from Pound that this practice comes. d) Emden: The parallelism in "Sachs" is: emotion of helpless dread in face of the inevitable. I set up the fear of war, in this frame, as comparable to a lovely woman's fear of old age, the von Hofmannstahl lines being the focal point. The relation os "Sachs" to the poem as a whole requires only that the reader have something of an aquaintance with Meistersinger [underlined]. If "silken cruelty" is all you got out of "Desire", I hope you'll try again on iy, without stopping at connotations rising out of formal meaning. The final line was not intended as a "punch-line" (I don't go in for effects-for-their-own-sake and more.) but the inevitable summation. Any other conclusion would have been like an MGM version of "truth crushed to earth, rising again, phony as a glass eye". I'll admit a bit of bias in the "apa history" but where, pray, is it misleading? Don't forget I was in on FAPA from the beginning. thatman [underlined], #2 The May 4, 1946 issue of The Nation [underlined] carries an article by Stuart Chase, entitled: "Calling All Social Scientists". It was a most interesting article. However, F. A. Hayek, in a letter appearing in the May 25th issue, shows that Chase "proved" the economist Ricardo "inscientific" by the simple process of presenting a half-truth which distorted the facts of Ricardo's life to fit Chase's judgements. When one of the best-known (popular) writers of semantics is shown to be quilty of such "low tricks", you can hardly blame otherwise uninformed persons from assuming that semantics is nothing more than a scientific methodology for deceit. (Another trick I recall -- dunno if by Chase or not -- was the practice of showing that anti-
Saving...
prev
next
Vanguard Boojum page eighteen (En Passant - continued) c) Knight: The dictionary wherein first I looked it up, gives the word as "cerif"; Webster's Columbia Concise edition says "ceriph". "Serif" is given only as a pronunciation guide. Which reminds me about Emden and her experience with my poem "Anchoret"; I wrote the poem at Fort Wit, and grabbed Emden's dictionary to see if the word I'd remembered as "anchorite" was really spelled that way. Lo and behold, I found "anchoret", with "anchorite" listed way down at the bottom as another possibility. All this being out of the way: it remains "Cerifs", chums! I cannot see any distortion in translating "political/[blanked out] as relevant to and dependent upon "political force", unless you consider political discussions strictly in an academic sense, taking place in vacuo, and having no traceable result. And if they dynamic interpretation of the article is wrong, and the matter of "weight", "traceable result", and/or "political force" is divested, then of what informative value is the sentence in question? In such a frame, might not Blish just as well have said "No political discussion has meaning"? yet to see any grounds for calling him an artist -- same for Philip Wylie. In regard to Tom Benton, I must confess total ignorance. Who is (or was) he? You realize, of course, that you have distorted my "It reeks of fan [underlined]. Ugh!" in relating it to my use of cd/, shd/, and wd/. There are no sizeable points of similarity between a fantasy/stf fan and an admirer of Ezra Pound -- at least, not ipso facto. And it is from Pound that this practice comes. d) Emden: The parallelism in "Sachs" is: emotion of helpless dread in face of the inevitable. I set up the fear of war, in this frame, as comparable to a lovely woman's fear of old age, the von Hofmannstahl lines being the focal point. The relation os "Sachs" to the poem as a whole requires only that the reader have something of an aquaintance with Meistersinger [underlined]. If "silken cruelty" is all you got out of "Desire", I hope you'll try again on iy, without stopping at connotations rising out of formal meaning. The final line was not intended as a "punch-line" (I don't go in for effects-for-their-own-sake and more.) but the inevitable summation. Any other conclusion would have been like an MGM version of "truth crushed to earth, rising again, phony as a glass eye". I'll admit a bit of bias in the "apa history" but where, pray, is it misleading? Don't forget I was in on FAPA from the beginning. thatman [underlined], #2 The May 4, 1946 issue of The Nation [underlined] carries an article by Stuart Chase, entitled: "Calling All Social Scientists". It was a most interesting article. However, F. A. Hayek, in a letter appearing in the May 25th issue, shows that Chase "proved" the economist Ricardo "inscientific" by the simple process of presenting a half-truth which distorted the facts of Ricardo's life to fit Chase's judgements. When one of the best-known (popular) writers of semantics is shown to be quilty of such "low tricks", you can hardly blame otherwise uninformed persons from assuming that semantics is nothing more than a scientific methodology for deceit. (Another trick I recall -- dunno if by Chase or not -- was the practice of showing that anti-
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
