Transcribe
Translate
Fandango, v. 3, issue 3, whole 11, Spring 1946
Page 6
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
It is extremely difficult to argue with a person like Russ Whitman. Anyone who can say seriously, "America has never lost a war and never will as long as men proud of liberty rally to her defense in time of a crisis," leads a mental life so uncontaminated by facts that no objective argument can hope to reach him. A brief examination of history will show that the United States has never beaten a major power singlehanded. The Revolutionary War was won by us through a combination of sympathetic British generals (cf. Sir Billy Howe by Bellamy Partridge, Longmans, 1932) and an alliance with the French. The War of 1812 was a side-issue to an England whose chief problem was disposing of Napoleon. Mexico could by no stretch of the imagination be called a major opponent. The Civil War was just that and involved no other nations. The Spanish war saw us strain ourselves to defeat a twelth rate power which would have been a pushover for any reasonably powerful nation. In both World Wars, we hid behind our allies for years until we had enough trained and equipped fighting forces to do some actual fighting. Even in the days when the village blacksmith could beat a plowshare into a sword, he was unable to make its owner into a swordsman overnight; and it just isn't possible to convert the family V-8 into a B-29. I got myself into hot water once for speaking my mind in FAPA on the subject of sex, and I hope that I shan't do so again. But I would like to point out that Whitman would do well to cultivate a little tolerance. As long as Army Regulations do not require him personally to partake in sexual life, he should not wish to require others to abstain. And I should also like to point out that despite nearly 2000 years of effort on the part of the Christian church, sex remains one of our basic instincts. The net result of any measure tending to shut off normal sexual outlets is a wave of psychological disturbances, with a very ugly and sordid concommitant of auto-eroticism and homosexuality. Without detracting from Widner's article (with which I find myself in full agreement) I cannot feel that dilettante is the right word. My dictionary (20th Century Unabridged) defines the word: "an admirer or lover of the fine arts; an amateur; one who pursues an art desultorily and for amusement sometimes applied contemptuously to one who affects a taste for, or a degree of acquaintance with, or skill in, art which he does not possess." Unless we are prepared to disregard both the dictionary and a large body of connotations, we should search out some other term. The sense in which HPL used the word "gentleman" would describe Widner, but that too has the wrong connotations for 20th century use. When Everett interpolates in Chauvenet's letter (p. 17) he says man "HAS made a lot of great psychical advances". Can you name them, Everett? In speaking of his new cover, Everett asks us to "study it carefully and note its symbolism. We think it has a very fine message for you." Well, I did. Maybe this isn't what Everett means, but all I can see on the front part of it is a rugged pioneer, scratching his head in perplexity at the lovey-doveying of a pair of Hollywood and Vine fruit Maybe I don't dig symbolism very well. Wiedenbeck did do a nice job, though. ---ooOoo--- WALT'S WRAMBLINGS. My only comment on "Punimal Crackers" is: Don't bacilli! ---ooOoo--- GUTETO. I wish some of you other editors would follow Myrtle's example and publish cumulative indexes of your mags. -- 6 --
Saving...
prev
next
It is extremely difficult to argue with a person like Russ Whitman. Anyone who can say seriously, "America has never lost a war and never will as long as men proud of liberty rally to her defense in time of a crisis," leads a mental life so uncontaminated by facts that no objective argument can hope to reach him. A brief examination of history will show that the United States has never beaten a major power singlehanded. The Revolutionary War was won by us through a combination of sympathetic British generals (cf. Sir Billy Howe by Bellamy Partridge, Longmans, 1932) and an alliance with the French. The War of 1812 was a side-issue to an England whose chief problem was disposing of Napoleon. Mexico could by no stretch of the imagination be called a major opponent. The Civil War was just that and involved no other nations. The Spanish war saw us strain ourselves to defeat a twelth rate power which would have been a pushover for any reasonably powerful nation. In both World Wars, we hid behind our allies for years until we had enough trained and equipped fighting forces to do some actual fighting. Even in the days when the village blacksmith could beat a plowshare into a sword, he was unable to make its owner into a swordsman overnight; and it just isn't possible to convert the family V-8 into a B-29. I got myself into hot water once for speaking my mind in FAPA on the subject of sex, and I hope that I shan't do so again. But I would like to point out that Whitman would do well to cultivate a little tolerance. As long as Army Regulations do not require him personally to partake in sexual life, he should not wish to require others to abstain. And I should also like to point out that despite nearly 2000 years of effort on the part of the Christian church, sex remains one of our basic instincts. The net result of any measure tending to shut off normal sexual outlets is a wave of psychological disturbances, with a very ugly and sordid concommitant of auto-eroticism and homosexuality. Without detracting from Widner's article (with which I find myself in full agreement) I cannot feel that dilettante is the right word. My dictionary (20th Century Unabridged) defines the word: "an admirer or lover of the fine arts; an amateur; one who pursues an art desultorily and for amusement sometimes applied contemptuously to one who affects a taste for, or a degree of acquaintance with, or skill in, art which he does not possess." Unless we are prepared to disregard both the dictionary and a large body of connotations, we should search out some other term. The sense in which HPL used the word "gentleman" would describe Widner, but that too has the wrong connotations for 20th century use. When Everett interpolates in Chauvenet's letter (p. 17) he says man "HAS made a lot of great psychical advances". Can you name them, Everett? In speaking of his new cover, Everett asks us to "study it carefully and note its symbolism. We think it has a very fine message for you." Well, I did. Maybe this isn't what Everett means, but all I can see on the front part of it is a rugged pioneer, scratching his head in perplexity at the lovey-doveying of a pair of Hollywood and Vine fruit Maybe I don't dig symbolism very well. Wiedenbeck did do a nice job, though. ---ooOoo--- WALT'S WRAMBLINGS. My only comment on "Punimal Crackers" is: Don't bacilli! ---ooOoo--- GUTETO. I wish some of you other editors would follow Myrtle's example and publish cumulative indexes of your mags. -- 6 --
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
