Transcribe
Translate
Vanguard Boojum, v. 1, issue 1
30
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Vanguard Boojum page 28 ************* Controversy (cont.) Let me amplify. What differences would would you claim between the 2 organizations? Quality? the best of FAPA is no whit worse that the best of Vanguard, & tho it's somewhat more diluted by crud still there is just as much of it. Stefantasy slant? There's really not too much difference there, except for Vanguard's lack of book-review publications. Silly fan politics and feuds? But the lack of membership responsibility implied by Lowndes' assumption of dictatorial powers is, if actual, more serious than the juvenility occasionally displaying in FAPA by (among others) the self-same Lowndes. Crankish humoring of own eccentricities? In FAPA, Ackerman, Widner & Davis use simplified spelling: in Vanguard, Knight writes his name without capitals & still berates Doc for his "wd/-shd/-cd/" habit. Let's be honest, fellows. If the shoe fits, wear it. If the particular shoe, "scientifiction fan", doesn't fit, in you opinion, don't wear it; But don't thro up your hands in horror at a slight tightness across the ball of the foot. I don't intend to say anything else in Vanguard on this particular subject. Lowndes: Apparently, along with it's other collective delusions, the "fan" world subscribes to the dictum that every individual who has ever been a "fan" will remain a "fan" up to and including the day of his death. And that he has nothing to say about it, see! the peanut-brains--and a number of higher-level brains who insist upon thinking along the same lines--are so imbued with their defense mechanisms it is unthinkable to them that a person cold have been a "fan", could continue to enjoy Astounding Science Fiction in later years, but finally would no longer have any interest in the "fan" microcosm as such, and show a certain amount of annoyance when "fans" insisted that, by golly, he was still one of them. In his holy zeal to defend the sacred collective against the jibes I make when confronted by this insolence, Brother Davis seems to have misplaced, momentarily, his customary carefulness in examining facts before drawing conclusions. He has started with the conclusion and tried to tailor the facts to fit. He seems to overlook that, for example, I have never tried to pretend I wasn't a "fan" at one time, or that I did not enjoy participation in the "fan world" at one time (I have stated the opposite in no uncertain terms before). The fact that I am no longer concerned with such interests, nor enjoy being lumped together with such interests in the manner of Rankin lumping all non-Rankinites into the general meaningless noise "communist", has not penetrated. Yes: I was a fan once; I'm not ashamed of it. I could look upon today's "fans" with much of the mellow pleasure with which I look back upon my own "fan activities" if the "fans" of today (new and old) would show the simple courtesy of taking me at my word and including me out, please. I have long since passed the stage where I am willing to tolerate, let alone welcome, any Jo Fann from Potlatch who bans upon my door without advance notice, simply because he has heard yhat I used to read all the science fiction magazines, once edited some, was once an internationally known "fan", and still keep up with Astounding Science Fiction. Or, who expects to be welcomed with true "fan hospitality" upon calling me up. (I try to be more polite, at least, to these latter specimens because such civilized behavior is rare in the "fan" world and deserves encouragement.) What the "outside observer" may think of Vanguard doesn't meet a hoot in hell unless he is potential Vanguardif, in relation to Vanguard's intentions. That this association is largely composed of ex-
Saving...
prev
next
Vanguard Boojum page 28 ************* Controversy (cont.) Let me amplify. What differences would would you claim between the 2 organizations? Quality? the best of FAPA is no whit worse that the best of Vanguard, & tho it's somewhat more diluted by crud still there is just as much of it. Stefantasy slant? There's really not too much difference there, except for Vanguard's lack of book-review publications. Silly fan politics and feuds? But the lack of membership responsibility implied by Lowndes' assumption of dictatorial powers is, if actual, more serious than the juvenility occasionally displaying in FAPA by (among others) the self-same Lowndes. Crankish humoring of own eccentricities? In FAPA, Ackerman, Widner & Davis use simplified spelling: in Vanguard, Knight writes his name without capitals & still berates Doc for his "wd/-shd/-cd/" habit. Let's be honest, fellows. If the shoe fits, wear it. If the particular shoe, "scientifiction fan", doesn't fit, in you opinion, don't wear it; But don't thro up your hands in horror at a slight tightness across the ball of the foot. I don't intend to say anything else in Vanguard on this particular subject. Lowndes: Apparently, along with it's other collective delusions, the "fan" world subscribes to the dictum that every individual who has ever been a "fan" will remain a "fan" up to and including the day of his death. And that he has nothing to say about it, see! the peanut-brains--and a number of higher-level brains who insist upon thinking along the same lines--are so imbued with their defense mechanisms it is unthinkable to them that a person cold have been a "fan", could continue to enjoy Astounding Science Fiction in later years, but finally would no longer have any interest in the "fan" microcosm as such, and show a certain amount of annoyance when "fans" insisted that, by golly, he was still one of them. In his holy zeal to defend the sacred collective against the jibes I make when confronted by this insolence, Brother Davis seems to have misplaced, momentarily, his customary carefulness in examining facts before drawing conclusions. He has started with the conclusion and tried to tailor the facts to fit. He seems to overlook that, for example, I have never tried to pretend I wasn't a "fan" at one time, or that I did not enjoy participation in the "fan world" at one time (I have stated the opposite in no uncertain terms before). The fact that I am no longer concerned with such interests, nor enjoy being lumped together with such interests in the manner of Rankin lumping all non-Rankinites into the general meaningless noise "communist", has not penetrated. Yes: I was a fan once; I'm not ashamed of it. I could look upon today's "fans" with much of the mellow pleasure with which I look back upon my own "fan activities" if the "fans" of today (new and old) would show the simple courtesy of taking me at my word and including me out, please. I have long since passed the stage where I am willing to tolerate, let alone welcome, any Jo Fann from Potlatch who bans upon my door without advance notice, simply because he has heard yhat I used to read all the science fiction magazines, once edited some, was once an internationally known "fan", and still keep up with Astounding Science Fiction. Or, who expects to be welcomed with true "fan hospitality" upon calling me up. (I try to be more polite, at least, to these latter specimens because such civilized behavior is rare in the "fan" world and deserves encouragement.) What the "outside observer" may think of Vanguard doesn't meet a hoot in hell unless he is potential Vanguardif, in relation to Vanguard's intentions. That this association is largely composed of ex-
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
