DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Science Fiction Forward, v. 1, issue 1, September 1940

Transcribe
Translate

Science Fiction Forward, v. 1, issue 1, September 1940

Page 9

SCIENCE FICTION FORWARD    Page 9.

tems were generally identical, and both neededthe same things in order to exist. The result of this structural similarity was the aforesaid war.
     In connexion with the general overhauling of values which is now goingon among science-fiction fans, it is advisable to keep these facts in mind. There has been much movement---perhaps a little too much, if that be possible---in science-fiction since it started back in the last twenties, and unless one is the possessor of a remarkably unbiased and clear-headed viewpoint, most of this movement is not only unmotivated, but also incomprehensible. Apparently it is a succession of personal geniuses who has Ideas. Darrow, Ackerman, Tucker, Schwartz, Wollheim, and so on. They pop in the front door and out the back, howling briefly, and disappear for a while. It is all very confusing.
     Or, at least, it was all very confusing at one time. Today, things are beginning to shape themselves into a recognizable pattern. Today we look at the history of fandom methodically, from the standpoint of PRO-SCIENCE. And this viewpoint gives us eyes to see with and ears to hear with. What was once inchoate and uncertain takes on substance and meaning. For example, take the important period, 1937-39.
     In 1937, science-fiction felt two distinct shocks. One of these emanated from the SCIENCE FICTION CRITIC in the form of an article called "Apostasy". This article was written by myself. It was not a short article, but it was very much to the point, as the following quotation will attest:
     "But, nevertheless and despite the fact that I am fully aware of the horrendous penalties awaiting the errant heretic, I hereby propose to do that very thing; to boot the sacrosanct fan in his doubly sacrosanct rump; to do a little stamping, if you please, on his consecrated toes. For the science-fiction fan is no god, no intellectual Colossus, and no paragon. He is, as a matter of fact, no kind of superior being at all, but merely a stupid imbecile and buffoon, an ignoramus jackass unworthy of anything save scorn and contumely. The very fact that he believes all the buncombe that is editorialized about him (reference is made here to the editorials which were such an indispensable part of the Gernsback-Tremaine policy. I mean day-dreaming. P.D.) is sufficient to revel him as a gullible simpleton ready to lap up any flatulant metaphor just so long as it intumesces his already overgrown cranium."
     The remainder was written in the same hysteric---and histrionic---manner. After an evolved and wordy conversation with myself, I discovered that science-fiction fans were ".....very stupid and very dull....." and that ".....their minds were mere mush.....", and further bolstered up my arguments with the announcement that I, Peter Duncan, was THROUGH with science-fiction. Forever and ever.
     I gave three reasons for this "apostasy". 1.) that all science-fiction fans were dumb; 2.) that all science-fiction authors were hacks; and 3.) that all science-fiction editors were money-grubbing scum. Science-fiction, laboring under this triple curse, was "obviously" helpless and unable to do anything about it; so why have science-fiction at all? Why not just admit that it is trash and discard it in favor of something else more satisfying? This I proceeded to do, thru several pages of highly spiced phraseology. The aesthetic inadequacies which today have become platitudes among s-f critics I emphasized and re-emphasized by the display of many examples from the pages of ASTOUNDING, AMAZING, and WONDER STORIES. Nat Schachner was my chief enemy, and I must say that I let him have it with both barrels, to coin an under-

Saving...

SCIENCE FICTION FORWARD Page 9. tems were generally identical, and both neededthe same things in order to exist. The result of this structural similarity was the aforesaid war. In connexion with the general overhauling of values which is now goingon among science-fiction fans, it is advisable to keep these facts in mind. There has been much movement---perhaps a little too much, if that be possible---in science-fiction since it started back in the last twenties, and unless one is the possessor of a remarkably unbiased and clear-headed viewpoint, most of this movement is not only unmotivated, but also incomprehensible. Apparently it is a succession of personal geniuses who has Ideas. Darrow, Ackerman, Tucker, Schwartz, Wollheim, and so on. They pop in the front door and out the back, howling briefly, and disappear for a while. It is all very confusing. Or, at least, it was all very confusing at one time. Today, things are beginning to shape themselves into a recognizable pattern. Today we look at the history of fandom methodically, from the standpoint of PRO-SCIENCE. And this viewpoint gives us eyes to see with and ears to hear with. What was once inchoate and uncertain takes on substance and meaning. For example, take the important period, 1937-39. In 1937, science-fiction felt two distinct shocks. One of these emanated from the SCIENCE FICTION CRITIC in the form of an article called "Apostasy". This article was written by myself. It was not a short article, but it was very much to the point, as the following quotation will attest: "But, nevertheless and despite the fact that I am fully aware of the horrendous penalties awaiting the errant heretic, I hereby propose to do that very thing; to boot the sacrosanct fan in his doubly sacrosanct rump; to do a little stamping, if you please, on his consecrated toes. For the science-fiction fan is no god, no intellectual Colossus, and no paragon. He is, as a matter of fact, no kind of superior being at all, but merely a stupid imbecile and buffoon, an ignoramus jackass unworthy of anything save scorn and contumely. The very fact that he believes all the buncombe that is editorialized about him (reference is made here to the editorials which were such an indispensable part of the Gernsback-Tremaine policy. I mean day-dreaming. P.D.) is sufficient to revel him as a gullible simpleton ready to lap up any flatulant metaphor just so long as it intumesces his already overgrown cranium." The remainder was written in the same hysteric---and histrionic---manner. After an evolved and wordy conversation with myself, I discovered that science-fiction fans were ".....very stupid and very dull....." and that ".....their minds were mere mush.....", and further bolstered up my arguments with the announcement that I, Peter Duncan, was THROUGH with science-fiction. Forever and ever. I gave three reasons for this "apostasy". 1.) that all science-fiction fans were dumb; 2.) that all science-fiction authors were hacks; and 3.) that all science-fiction editors were money-grubbing scum. Science-fiction, laboring under this triple curse, was "obviously" helpless and unable to do anything about it; so why have science-fiction at all? Why not just admit that it is trash and discard it in favor of something else more satisfying? This I proceeded to do, thru several pages of highly spiced phraseology. The aesthetic inadequacies which today have become platitudes among s-f critics I emphasized and re-emphasized by the display of many examples from the pages of ASTOUNDING, AMAZING, and WONDER STORIES. Nat Schachner was my chief enemy, and I must say that I let him have it with both barrels, to coin an under-