Transcribe
Translate
Scientifictionist, v. 2, issue 2, whole no. 8, March-April 1947
Page 9
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
to go soon, why give over any efforts toward improving its living place, if it is all going boom anyway? Well, I'd answer something like this. Utopias are of two kinds. One is the logical -- objective -- idea of the perfect world, a world which will do the most good for its inhabitants, no matter who they are. The other is the subjective idea -- the individual's own idea of what HE -- HIMSELF -- would like most to see, and to hell with the other guy -- and to hell with the race. And the first -- the objective -- Utopia will naturally differ with the individual too. No matter how objective you will try to make it, the Utopia still remains the individual's own idea of paradise. What is paradise to one man will be hell for another. If you are a Buddhist, nothingness is paradise, and the ultimate goal toward which the individual should strive. If you are the type of person who likes to be converted by every evangelist on the street corner, then a world of Hallelujah-praise-the-Lord would be the best state. And so on. Your idea of the perfect world, state, or what-have-you depends on a gillion factors, Your religious beliefs, your situation in life -- poor, rich, etc. -- your occupation, heredity, race, environment, schooling, and so on forever. We can't ever have the perfect state, because there would always be those who would be unsatisfied. If we have ultimate luxury, there would be the Horatio-Alger persons, who would hate every second of it. If we had the system where hard work was necessary, the naturally lazy person would consider his life one continuous torture. As long as there are humans in the world, we cannot have Utopia. It just is not possible. There is NOTHING that can be "perfect" or "good" enough--I am handicapped for lack of a word here -- to make any type of Utopia. There's no definition of Utopia but this -- "One person's idea of a good time." I will pass over 4e's book review by saying that I am only interested in book reviews if (1) I am in doubt and am wondering whether the book is worthwhile, and (2) if I've already read the book and am looking for an argument. In this case, the review has convinced me that I don't want the book, so we will stop here. You are mean in running "Among the Classics". Review of this kind serve only to tantalize. You know darn well we can't get those old Amazings, so why review stories that we will 10 to 1 never read? On the other hand, if you have access to the old issues and cash to spare, the thing is definitely worthwhile. The review of Astonishing is interesting to me, because I've read all the issues and this comes under the heading of "looking for an argument". I'd just like to make one comment -- where he says "anyone that didn't like this story should see a doctor", I don't think this type of statement is too wise. He is setting himself as a greater-than-God critic. Because he liked the story, anybody that didn't is crazy. Well, I liked it, all but the ending, which I thot stank. Another comment I'd like to make on Astonishing, by the way...I think Pohl was about the best blurb-writer in pro history, and Norton about the worst. "Weinbaum and Semantics" starts out leading you to believe that you are going to read a variable-constants article on words. Then he leaves the subject entirely. Watsa big idea, anyway? Russ Hidgkins' letter naturally meant nothing here, because I didn't read the snide comment made on Tech by Speer, etc., and I know less than nothing about the ism in the first place. However, it sounds suspiciously like Marxism. It sounds swell in the blueprint, the theory of it. But try to put it into practice, and along will come somebody like Stalin and use it as his private means to a rise to power and dictatorship. Okay, we shall skip on to the comments on Gerry de la Ree and his review of Agharti and the comments on't. Of course I didn't read Gerrry's review in Stfist, but I presume it read something like that letter in Amz Aug. 46 ish in which he said: "AGHARTI IS WONDERFUL ADULT APPEAL WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE SCIENTIFIC HODGE PODGE PREVALENT IN A CERTAIN OTHER STF PUBLICATION." Now that remark is almost pitifully imbecilic, and sounds like the rantings of Palmer himself. (If you want a sample of pure Rap, see next Vampire.) But that's off the subject, as I am so fond of going. I didn't think A was a classic. I didn't like the story at all. It suffered from a dirty-sex complex, somewhat like Shaver. As a sociological study it might have suc- page 9
Saving...
prev
next
to go soon, why give over any efforts toward improving its living place, if it is all going boom anyway? Well, I'd answer something like this. Utopias are of two kinds. One is the logical -- objective -- idea of the perfect world, a world which will do the most good for its inhabitants, no matter who they are. The other is the subjective idea -- the individual's own idea of what HE -- HIMSELF -- would like most to see, and to hell with the other guy -- and to hell with the race. And the first -- the objective -- Utopia will naturally differ with the individual too. No matter how objective you will try to make it, the Utopia still remains the individual's own idea of paradise. What is paradise to one man will be hell for another. If you are a Buddhist, nothingness is paradise, and the ultimate goal toward which the individual should strive. If you are the type of person who likes to be converted by every evangelist on the street corner, then a world of Hallelujah-praise-the-Lord would be the best state. And so on. Your idea of the perfect world, state, or what-have-you depends on a gillion factors, Your religious beliefs, your situation in life -- poor, rich, etc. -- your occupation, heredity, race, environment, schooling, and so on forever. We can't ever have the perfect state, because there would always be those who would be unsatisfied. If we have ultimate luxury, there would be the Horatio-Alger persons, who would hate every second of it. If we had the system where hard work was necessary, the naturally lazy person would consider his life one continuous torture. As long as there are humans in the world, we cannot have Utopia. It just is not possible. There is NOTHING that can be "perfect" or "good" enough--I am handicapped for lack of a word here -- to make any type of Utopia. There's no definition of Utopia but this -- "One person's idea of a good time." I will pass over 4e's book review by saying that I am only interested in book reviews if (1) I am in doubt and am wondering whether the book is worthwhile, and (2) if I've already read the book and am looking for an argument. In this case, the review has convinced me that I don't want the book, so we will stop here. You are mean in running "Among the Classics". Review of this kind serve only to tantalize. You know darn well we can't get those old Amazings, so why review stories that we will 10 to 1 never read? On the other hand, if you have access to the old issues and cash to spare, the thing is definitely worthwhile. The review of Astonishing is interesting to me, because I've read all the issues and this comes under the heading of "looking for an argument". I'd just like to make one comment -- where he says "anyone that didn't like this story should see a doctor", I don't think this type of statement is too wise. He is setting himself as a greater-than-God critic. Because he liked the story, anybody that didn't is crazy. Well, I liked it, all but the ending, which I thot stank. Another comment I'd like to make on Astonishing, by the way...I think Pohl was about the best blurb-writer in pro history, and Norton about the worst. "Weinbaum and Semantics" starts out leading you to believe that you are going to read a variable-constants article on words. Then he leaves the subject entirely. Watsa big idea, anyway? Russ Hidgkins' letter naturally meant nothing here, because I didn't read the snide comment made on Tech by Speer, etc., and I know less than nothing about the ism in the first place. However, it sounds suspiciously like Marxism. It sounds swell in the blueprint, the theory of it. But try to put it into practice, and along will come somebody like Stalin and use it as his private means to a rise to power and dictatorship. Okay, we shall skip on to the comments on Gerry de la Ree and his review of Agharti and the comments on't. Of course I didn't read Gerrry's review in Stfist, but I presume it read something like that letter in Amz Aug. 46 ish in which he said: "AGHARTI IS WONDERFUL ADULT APPEAL WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE SCIENTIFIC HODGE PODGE PREVALENT IN A CERTAIN OTHER STF PUBLICATION." Now that remark is almost pitifully imbecilic, and sounds like the rantings of Palmer himself. (If you want a sample of pure Rap, see next Vampire.) But that's off the subject, as I am so fond of going. I didn't think A was a classic. I didn't like the story at all. It suffered from a dirty-sex complex, somewhat like Shaver. As a sociological study it might have suc- page 9
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
