DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Fantascience Digest, v. 2, issue 5, July-September, 1939

Transcribe
Translate

Fantascience Digest, v. 2, issue 5, July-September, 1939

Page 28

FANTASCIENCE DIGEST         Page 28

other fan magazines and have each thing rated according to number. It helps a lot, I've found. (NOT A BAD IDEA AT ALL, HARRY. WELL, BOYS, IT'S UP TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO GO TO THE TROUBLE TO LIST THE ARTICLES AND STORIES ALONG WITH WHAT YOU RATE THEM, I'LL APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. RATE THE MATERIAL FROM 1 (VERY POOR) to 10 (VERY EXCELLENT).)

Anyhow, I'll do it this time just for the fun of the thing. Cover, I say, would get about three--it could be worse, but not much so. For the umpeenth time, if Giunta would omit about half of what he uses on a cover, it would be about ten times better. This one is entirely too crowded, as usual. Potentially, Johnny is one of the finest fan artists, but as it is now ---! Agnew's illustration for Boyer's story not so hot either, unless it didn't mimeo well.

The story itself is about the best fan fiction you're published--equalled only by "The Mother", I should say. Give it an eight, with very strong leanings to nine. Fred W. Fischer's article also gets eight. A good many fans won't like this, just because they dislike this type of article altogether. But I do. Though I don't see how it's possible for anyone to like "Red River Valley"! Farley get's (PARDON THE APOSTROPHE--ED) seven. But isn't there a slight typographical error somewhere? If Bloch should write an 80,000 word novel in eight hours, not taking any time for rests, revision, ore retyping, he'd still have set a new all--time record for speedy typing--well overone hundred words a minute! You must have meant eight days. Even at that he must be about the fastest writer in captivity. That means writing 2000 words a day, the equivalent of sixty-some typed double-space pages, not to mention revisions.

Science-Fiction Spotlight gets a seven. It would be much higher had it been fresher--but I can understand the trouble you've been having, so you aren't too much to blame. Glad to see Reinsberg and you combine, anyhow. It was too uneven with one column devoted to one or two magazines, and the other to all of the fantasy world. Rothman not so good as usual. Only five. And I fear that he's not practicing what he preaches here--in his Science Fiction Debater he condemns fans who sprinkle on adjectives by the million, and then lookie!

No comment on the answers to the questions. Fischer's second article should drag down about five. Not much originality. Letters receive seven. Very interesting for the most part, but if I were you, I'd try to get everyone printed to say something. I know it's hard, but Brazier, Watson, Brown, Saunders, and myself say nothing at all.

All in all, I'd say it was very nearly your best issue to date. Two improvements that would help a log: colored cover and not spacing between paragraphs. The contents page cut was okay, by the way.

MISS MARY GNAEDINGER, Editor of FAMOUS FANTASTIC MYSTERIES, writes: Thank you for the copy of your journal for May and June, and also mentioning us so often. 

The article on the old classics will do us a lot of good.

Your comments on our stories of the past are very instructive, and may change my order of publication somewhat. A readers' vote shows other titles leading with these, but everyone agrees on "The Blind Spot", "Darkness and Dawn", "The Moon Pool", and "The Golden Atom" series.

LEE BLATT writes: Received FANTASCIENCE DIGEST. Much improved over the last issue I saw which was Vol. 1, No. 4. Have enclosed 215 [cents] for a subscription. (MR. BLATT, INCIDENTALLY? wishes to buy back=date fan magazines. His add-

Saving...

FANTASCIENCE DIGEST Page 28 other fan magazines and have each thing rated according to number. It helps a lot, I've found. (NOT A BAD IDEA AT ALL, HARRY. WELL, BOYS, IT'S UP TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO GO TO THE TROUBLE TO LIST THE ARTICLES AND STORIES ALONG WITH WHAT YOU RATE THEM, I'LL APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. RATE THE MATERIAL FROM 1 (VERY POOR) to 10 (VERY EXCELLENT).) Anyhow, I'll do it this time just for the fun of the thing. Cover, I say, would get about three--it could be worse, but not much so. For the umpeenth time, if Giunta would omit about half of what he uses on a cover, it would be about ten times better. This one is entirely too crowded, as usual. Potentially, Johnny is one of the finest fan artists, but as it is now ---! Agnew's illustration for Boyer's story not so hot either, unless it didn't mimeo well. The story itself is about the best fan fiction you're published--equalled only by "The Mother", I should say. Give it an eight, with very strong leanings to nine. Fred W. Fischer's article also gets eight. A good many fans won't like this, just because they dislike this type of article altogether. But I do. Though I don't see how it's possible for anyone to like "Red River Valley"! Farley get's (PARDON THE APOSTROPHE--ED) seven. But isn't there a slight typographical error somewhere? If Bloch should write an 80,000 word novel in eight hours, not taking any time for rests, revision, ore retyping, he'd still have set a new all--time record for speedy typing--well overone hundred words a minute! You must have meant eight days. Even at that he must be about the fastest writer in captivity. That means writing 2000 words a day, the equivalent of sixty-some typed double-space pages, not to mention revisions. Science-Fiction Spotlight gets a seven. It would be much higher had it been fresher--but I can understand the trouble you've been having, so you aren't too much to blame. Glad to see Reinsberg and you combine, anyhow. It was too uneven with one column devoted to one or two magazines, and the other to all of the fantasy world. Rothman not so good as usual. Only five. And I fear that he's not practicing what he preaches here--in his Science Fiction Debater he condemns fans who sprinkle on adjectives by the million, and then lookie! No comment on the answers to the questions. Fischer's second article should drag down about five. Not much originality. Letters receive seven. Very interesting for the most part, but if I were you, I'd try to get everyone printed to say something. I know it's hard, but Brazier, Watson, Brown, Saunders, and myself say nothing at all. All in all, I'd say it was very nearly your best issue to date. Two improvements that would help a log: colored cover and not spacing between paragraphs. The contents page cut was okay, by the way. MISS MARY GNAEDINGER, Editor of FAMOUS FANTASTIC MYSTERIES, writes: Thank you for the copy of your journal for May and June, and also mentioning us so often. The article on the old classics will do us a lot of good. Your comments on our stories of the past are very instructive, and may change my order of publication somewhat. A readers' vote shows other titles leading with these, but everyone agrees on "The Blind Spot", "Darkness and Dawn", "The Moon Pool", and "The Golden Atom" series. LEE BLATT writes: Received FANTASCIENCE DIGEST. Much improved over the last issue I saw which was Vol. 1, No. 4. Have enclosed 215 [cents] for a subscription. (MR. BLATT, INCIDENTALLY? wishes to buy back=date fan magazines. His add-