DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Fantasite, v. 2, issue 2, May-June 1942

Transcribe
Translate

Fantasite, v. 2, issue 2, May-June 1942

Page 25

THE FANTASITE 25

of unorganized fandom? With the first inception of this committee, fandom's first annual for fandom, first history, first introduction booklet for new fans, and many other firsts have been put into action after countless hours of deliberation, consideration and painstaking toil. Squanchfoot? Always, always interesting, and he's a nice guy too. I don't know who's writing this now, but I do know the original and am breathlessly awaiting the revelation to the public. (And no corny crackers from you animals about "better not hold your breath too long".) Simak's "Critique" presented something old, yet something news as goes realization, though he is wrong in some ways. Many of the fans, most of the active ones, are not readers but writers. In short, they are awaiting their turn to replace the oldies. ((We disagree, Joe. It appears to us that too much fuss is made over these supposed "non-reader" fans. To our knowledge, there aren't any of the fans who stay away from stf for more than a short while, and then, only because of outside activities which take up the necessary time.)) Johnny Chapman is an interesting writer; do keep him on "M. F. S. Notes". Then to Basil Wells: well, frankly now-- It may be prejudice, but this failed to go over. No it did not stink, but it did have an odor, one that wasn't pleasing. Roy Hunt's section is okay, but all this talk about the films themselves doesn't go over with me. I prefer something about possibilities, etc., and if there must be a review section, I like it short, blunt, to the point...Tucker can't refrain from entertaining this chappie, but man! what a space was wasted on the book as I halt to think of priorities. (No fair to crack, "That ain't the way I heard it, Johnny.") In "Why Scientifilms Failed" the type of article I like, Chapman gave a fair review, finally broached the question of future films, then failed to live up to expectations as one read the article by not explaining his belief that the future films would be all right. I'll admit the article managed to live up to the title, but the trite ending about "only time will tell" is a cliche that curdles the chills before they manage to make a complete circuit of my spine in unmitigated horror at such a breach of writing. Blakely has managed to be one of the most interesting guys I've ever met. He manages to be one of these fellows writing just as entertainingly as he talks. In short, "Aye, Lads" was well-liked. As goes "Science-Fiction Book Reviews", you know I've never cared for this sort of thing, and you know that's why I always refrain from commenting very much. However, despite that "prodigious vocabulary", Samuel D. Russell is as boring as they come in this department. ((From your above comments, we concluded that you were interested in good writing, Joe.)) "Among the Hams and Pros" is as good as they come, and it's equally entertaining. John Chapman, however, has a strange taste in stories. Gilbert is the fellow who manages to come up with good judgment (in this writer's opinion), but Joe becomes distasteful in his habit of "healthy criticism"; a little of that goes a long way, and here he spreads it on rather thickly. The reason that Cartmill so resembled Heinlein is because of the fact that he lived only a block from Bob before the latter went to war. Frequently Cleve would run down for a tete-a-tete with the master to discuss this story. It was Anson's idea in the first place, as far as this most recent novel goes. No use tangling with Harry here, as our tastes in fanmags differ like watermelons from eggs, but there is one comment: the mentioned "Nasty and uncalled for crack at the Futurians" could be taken as such only by one looking for an argument, which that group is forever desiring with anyone remotely related to the "SaMob", to which Madle might be considered as related. Frankly, if it's that remark about a "Harlem Embassy", it's not derogatory if one is thinking truthfully and objectively; the Foos self-term their dwelling an Embassy, as I recently pointed out to Rusty, and with the place in Harlem..Well, after all--- Let's hope this doesn't spring into an actual new feud. Such things are all indicative of a nasty frame of mind and a means of tearing down one's self (if that person is a true

Saving...

THE FANTASITE 25 of unorganized fandom? With the first inception of this committee, fandom's first annual for fandom, first history, first introduction booklet for new fans, and many other firsts have been put into action after countless hours of deliberation, consideration and painstaking toil. Squanchfoot? Always, always interesting, and he's a nice guy too. I don't know who's writing this now, but I do know the original and am breathlessly awaiting the revelation to the public. (And no corny crackers from you animals about "better not hold your breath too long".) Simak's "Critique" presented something old, yet something news as goes realization, though he is wrong in some ways. Many of the fans, most of the active ones, are not readers but writers. In short, they are awaiting their turn to replace the oldies. ((We disagree, Joe. It appears to us that too much fuss is made over these supposed "non-reader" fans. To our knowledge, there aren't any of the fans who stay away from stf for more than a short while, and then, only because of outside activities which take up the necessary time.)) Johnny Chapman is an interesting writer; do keep him on "M. F. S. Notes". Then to Basil Wells: well, frankly now-- It may be prejudice, but this failed to go over. No it did not stink, but it did have an odor, one that wasn't pleasing. Roy Hunt's section is okay, but all this talk about the films themselves doesn't go over with me. I prefer something about possibilities, etc., and if there must be a review section, I like it short, blunt, to the point...Tucker can't refrain from entertaining this chappie, but man! what a space was wasted on the book as I halt to think of priorities. (No fair to crack, "That ain't the way I heard it, Johnny.") In "Why Scientifilms Failed" the type of article I like, Chapman gave a fair review, finally broached the question of future films, then failed to live up to expectations as one read the article by not explaining his belief that the future films would be all right. I'll admit the article managed to live up to the title, but the trite ending about "only time will tell" is a cliche that curdles the chills before they manage to make a complete circuit of my spine in unmitigated horror at such a breach of writing. Blakely has managed to be one of the most interesting guys I've ever met. He manages to be one of these fellows writing just as entertainingly as he talks. In short, "Aye, Lads" was well-liked. As goes "Science-Fiction Book Reviews", you know I've never cared for this sort of thing, and you know that's why I always refrain from commenting very much. However, despite that "prodigious vocabulary", Samuel D. Russell is as boring as they come in this department. ((From your above comments, we concluded that you were interested in good writing, Joe.)) "Among the Hams and Pros" is as good as they come, and it's equally entertaining. John Chapman, however, has a strange taste in stories. Gilbert is the fellow who manages to come up with good judgment (in this writer's opinion), but Joe becomes distasteful in his habit of "healthy criticism"; a little of that goes a long way, and here he spreads it on rather thickly. The reason that Cartmill so resembled Heinlein is because of the fact that he lived only a block from Bob before the latter went to war. Frequently Cleve would run down for a tete-a-tete with the master to discuss this story. It was Anson's idea in the first place, as far as this most recent novel goes. No use tangling with Harry here, as our tastes in fanmags differ like watermelons from eggs, but there is one comment: the mentioned "Nasty and uncalled for crack at the Futurians" could be taken as such only by one looking for an argument, which that group is forever desiring with anyone remotely related to the "SaMob", to which Madle might be considered as related. Frankly, if it's that remark about a "Harlem Embassy", it's not derogatory if one is thinking truthfully and objectively; the Foos self-term their dwelling an Embassy, as I recently pointed out to Rusty, and with the place in Harlem..Well, after all--- Let's hope this doesn't spring into an actual new feud. Such things are all indicative of a nasty frame of mind and a means of tearing down one's self (if that person is a true