DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Voice of the Imaination, whole no. 29, January 1944

Transcribe
Translate

Voice of the Imaination, whole no. 29, January 1944

Page 7

[Drawing of a melting, abused, zombie face with a bat flying out of its skull]
IMAGI-NATION (underlined)
MR GHYPHTH LOUGH of Los Angeles, in what might be termd (underlined)
"Complexified English", complains (underlined):
Ynn polooughtest tou psymplighyd psptelynng whea'v deeveloughpphth auyrrh oamn deyeawlecquephth wooh mneigh olouvauloughtinaighse fownephthyque pspuelynnge....tiooyrrhlee piepuhl wreedyn almphyghyde wryghtyng chauzes maughyrrh chaumnghyougeon ynn ptolosign 2 ondyrhhstaughnd zeimn. 
     Psow phtaighoque phtaghphth, aughmnd imn ptha ghoochougholo pyrrhahpz u gholl bhee mnoolo lodgeyqual ahmnd komnoystahmnphth ymn iougholo (underlined) youghz ahv ahd psptelynng, phthough ahvoyd ghyrrhphtholo oloikoorhemns ove phtyps psorphth of phthynnge.
[the letters jfs handwritten underneath the paragraph]
(JACK SPEER) of 3633 Jenifer, Wn/15/DC, comments exhaustively on #27: Cartoons generally pretty good. As you know, dislike the return of the Vomaidens. Incidentally, Tom Wright says the Gibson girl is definitely illegal. 
     Haw! Yleft out Syd Beach on the TableCon. 
     Jimke says "What makes a thing good or evil?" My answer is, what is contra human survival is evil, but the question's a very tough one. Re the schools' liking the three fathers of stf and none of their descendants, my own hi school English teacher thought Wells had some good stuff, but said he used imaginations more than any other author has a right to, or words to that effect. My defense that  he had a pretty good scientific  explanation (we were discussing The Invisible Man) didn't faze her. Well, how would you answer that objection of too much imagination in stf--or would you just deny it? Mundane fiction (by mundane I mean non-fantasy) ordinarily submits to the test of degree of imagination, and that which is too improbable, or departs too far from known reality, is condemned. 
     Moffatt: "thinketh I". Ugh. Better read your King James more thoroly, Christinanfen: you'll never find an -eth end used with the first person there. Moffatt advises Shaw to tell his parents about his religious unbelief, saying he'll feel better for it. Isn't that a rather selfish attitude to take? How would Len's mother feel if she thot her son was heading toward Hell? Wouldn't the Christian thing be to spare her that mental anguish? Incidentally, there are some Christians who don't accept Len's second article of faith. From earliest times there have been those who denied Christ's divinity, and this is one of the characteristic beliefs of the modern Unitarian Church. Yet they are Christians, and believe in the teachings of the Jefferson Bible. You've made an understandable error in your note to Len's letter: in the English of King James's time, "charity" meant love, not almsgiving. I think the word "love" is substituted in the Revised Version. 
     You'd better rend some more Middle English, too. You say Laney "didst writo", but -st is the second person ending only. 
     Foo, still talking about the Bible. Is the Hebrew word for which we translate "sin" roally "mistakes" all the way thru? I had a theory that in the modern world the two were truly anonymous. So far as the modern man is concerned, the only thing he would consider a sin is a mistake, if we assume his will to be directed toward obtaining happiness, and sin always resulting in unhappiness in the long run. Re Ericop's last remarks, I mite disagree that atheism is impossible for most people. Unless you accept my dietum that only a fool is certain of anything, I think you can be certain that there is no God, at least as certain as you can be of the validity of a syllogism. For my part, I suppose I'm an agnostic, but I prefer not to call myself by the word, since it has some connection of wishy-washiness and maybe playing safe on your deathbed just in case you're wrong. I don't think I'll play safe on my deathbed (perish the picture--let's keep on hoping for immortality!) I get a kick out of these guys that every so often talk about the re-awakening of fun interest in vital subjects. Look: The Michelists temporarily gave up in 1938, but Lowndes and

Saving...

[Drawing of a melting, abused, zombie face with a bat flying out of its skull] IMAGI-NATION (underlined) MR GHYPHTH LOUGH of Los Angeles, in what might be termd (underlined) "Complexified English", complains (underlined): Ynn polooughtest tou psymplighyd psptelynng whea'v deeveloughpphth auyrrh oamn deyeawlecquephth wooh mneigh olouvauloughtinaighse fownephthyque pspuelynnge....tiooyrrhlee piepuhl wreedyn almphyghyde wryghtyng chauzes maughyrrh chaumnghyougeon ynn ptolosign 2 ondyrhhstaughnd zeimn. Psow phtaighoque phtaghphth, aughmnd imn ptha ghoochougholo pyrrhahpz u gholl bhee mnoolo lodgeyqual ahmnd komnoystahmnphth ymn iougholo (underlined) youghz ahv ahd psptelynng, phthough ahvoyd ghyrrhphtholo oloikoorhemns ove phtyps psorphth of phthynnge. [the letters jfs handwritten underneath the paragraph] (JACK SPEER) of 3633 Jenifer, Wn/15/DC, comments exhaustively on #27: Cartoons generally pretty good. As you know, dislike the return of the Vomaidens. Incidentally, Tom Wright says the Gibson girl is definitely illegal. Haw! Yleft out Syd Beach on the TableCon. Jimke says "What makes a thing good or evil?" My answer is, what is contra human survival is evil, but the question's a very tough one. Re the schools' liking the three fathers of stf and none of their descendants, my own hi school English teacher thought Wells had some good stuff, but said he used imaginations more than any other author has a right to, or words to that effect. My defense that he had a pretty good scientific explanation (we were discussing The Invisible Man) didn't faze her. Well, how would you answer that objection of too much imagination in stf--or would you just deny it? Mundane fiction (by mundane I mean non-fantasy) ordinarily submits to the test of degree of imagination, and that which is too improbable, or departs too far from known reality, is condemned. Moffatt: "thinketh I". Ugh. Better read your King James more thoroly, Christinanfen: you'll never find an -eth end used with the first person there. Moffatt advises Shaw to tell his parents about his religious unbelief, saying he'll feel better for it. Isn't that a rather selfish attitude to take? How would Len's mother feel if she thot her son was heading toward Hell? Wouldn't the Christian thing be to spare her that mental anguish? Incidentally, there are some Christians who don't accept Len's second article of faith. From earliest times there have been those who denied Christ's divinity, and this is one of the characteristic beliefs of the modern Unitarian Church. Yet they are Christians, and believe in the teachings of the Jefferson Bible. You've made an understandable error in your note to Len's letter: in the English of King James's time, "charity" meant love, not almsgiving. I think the word "love" is substituted in the Revised Version. You'd better rend some more Middle English, too. You say Laney "didst writo", but -st is the second person ending only. Foo, still talking about the Bible. Is the Hebrew word for which we translate "sin" roally "mistakes" all the way thru? I had a theory that in the modern world the two were truly anonymous. So far as the modern man is concerned, the only thing he would consider a sin is a mistake, if we assume his will to be directed toward obtaining happiness, and sin always resulting in unhappiness in the long run. Re Ericop's last remarks, I mite disagree that atheism is impossible for most people. Unless you accept my dietum that only a fool is certain of anything, I think you can be certain that there is no God, at least as certain as you can be of the validity of a syllogism. For my part, I suppose I'm an agnostic, but I prefer not to call myself by the word, since it has some connection of wishy-washiness and maybe playing safe on your deathbed just in case you're wrong. I don't think I'll play safe on my deathbed (perish the picture--let's keep on hoping for immortality!) I get a kick out of these guys that every so often talk about the re-awakening of fun interest in vital subjects. Look: The Michelists temporarily gave up in 1938, but Lowndes and