DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Southern Star, v. 1, issue 4, December 1941

Transcribe
Translate

Southern Star, v. 1, issue 4, December 1941

Page 19

Mumblings     SOUTHERN STAR    Page 10

taboo. previously they had turned thumbs down on religion, sex, feuds, and politics. This pun fitted none of those; they were forced to lay down the law: "Naughty, naughty, Tucker. No double-entendre jokes!"

The second item edited out was sex, but not the sort of sex thing that would instantly leap to your mind upon reading this. The paragraph concerned some fans in Philadelphia and what they found in a restaurant. (Several readers will immediately know what I am talking about. The item would be tame stuff in SWEETNESS AND LIGHT, would call for a giggle in LoZ, (which, apparently, is where it will have to appear). Now personally, we are as broadminded as a four-lane highway and mentally worldly-minded. We saw nothing extraordinary in the situation because what they enountered is almost as common today as having a baby. (Ever had one? It's fascinating!) But perhaps that is our fault. Perhaps we too easily overlook things like that. At any rate, the dear editors frowned -- and zip! -- out went our two lovely items. [[underline]]Therefore I have a mission in life. I shall devote the rest of my days to putting something sexy over on the editors, in this column. Something so sophisticated or subtle their eagle eyes will never detect it, until the readers, you, dear people, chortling in glee, write in and tell them about. you will chortle, won't you, please?

I just finished reading "Short-Circuited Probability" in the Sept. [[underline]]Astounding[[end underline]], a time-travelling yarn which we thought very neat and extremely humorous. What excites us about the story, however, is not the story itself, but a very startling by-product it produced. A new line of thought in regard to time travel. At least, it is new to us. We can't recall in any time travel story we have ever read (altho we make no claim to reading them all), of the thing even being [[underlined]]mentioned[[end underline]] before, much less brought up as a problem. Could it be that it has never occured to the authors themselves?

First, some background: recall seeing in the newsreels the living (?) proof of one of our natural laws at work? Bombers, bombing a city on the [[underline]]other[[end underline][ side of a river release their bombs while the plane is still on this side of the river. The high forward speed of the plane causes the bombs to fall forward as well as downward. The bombardiers you know must calculate the speed and the altitude and the wind velocity and all that sort of thing, then release their bombs well ahead of the target in order to cause them to fall on that target. From a fast moving machine, an object will "drift forward".

Very well. In this story mentioned above, the hero and his time-travelling friend are stranded back in the ice age. Suddenly out of the the thin air over their head falls a load of garbage. The wise friend explains that 'twas merely another time-ship dropping its garbage. Now the ship was travelling at a smart clip -- so fast indeed that the two men didn't see it at all, for all the minutes they stood there. The question is: if that garbage was dumped in one particular year, relative to that speeding ship, would it fall to the ground in that same year, or would it "drift" forward thru the years in the [[underline]]same direction[[end underline]] as the hurtling ship, before king gravity smacked it down?

That is what bothers us! Suppose, for example, a time-travelling ship hurtled thru 1941, going forward at a very fast clip. Suppose they
(Concluded on page 37)

Saving...

Mumblings SOUTHERN STAR Page 10 taboo. previously they had turned thumbs down on religion, sex, feuds, and politics. This pun fitted none of those; they were forced to lay down the law: "Naughty, naughty, Tucker. No double-entendre jokes!" The second item edited out was sex, but not the sort of sex thing that would instantly leap to your mind upon reading this. The paragraph concerned some fans in Philadelphia and what they found in a restaurant. (Several readers will immediately know what I am talking about. The item would be tame stuff in SWEETNESS AND LIGHT, would call for a giggle in LoZ, (which, apparently, is where it will have to appear). Now personally, we are as broadminded as a four-lane highway and mentally worldly-minded. We saw nothing extraordinary in the situation because what they enountered is almost as common today as having a baby. (Ever had one? It's fascinating!) But perhaps that is our fault. Perhaps we too easily overlook things like that. At any rate, the dear editors frowned -- and zip! -- out went our two lovely items. [[underline]]Therefore I have a mission in life. I shall devote the rest of my days to putting something sexy over on the editors, in this column. Something so sophisticated or subtle their eagle eyes will never detect it, until the readers, you, dear people, chortling in glee, write in and tell them about. you will chortle, won't you, please? I just finished reading "Short-Circuited Probability" in the Sept. [[underline]]Astounding[[end underline]], a time-travelling yarn which we thought very neat and extremely humorous. What excites us about the story, however, is not the story itself, but a very startling by-product it produced. A new line of thought in regard to time travel. At least, it is new to us. We can't recall in any time travel story we have ever read (altho we make no claim to reading them all), of the thing even being [[underlined]]mentioned[[end underline]] before, much less brought up as a problem. Could it be that it has never occured to the authors themselves? First, some background: recall seeing in the newsreels the living (?) proof of one of our natural laws at work? Bombers, bombing a city on the [[underline]]other[[end underline][ side of a river release their bombs while the plane is still on this side of the river. The high forward speed of the plane causes the bombs to fall forward as well as downward. The bombardiers you know must calculate the speed and the altitude and the wind velocity and all that sort of thing, then release their bombs well ahead of the target in order to cause them to fall on that target. From a fast moving machine, an object will "drift forward". Very well. In this story mentioned above, the hero and his time-travelling friend are stranded back in the ice age. Suddenly out of the the thin air over their head falls a load of garbage. The wise friend explains that 'twas merely another time-ship dropping its garbage. Now the ship was travelling at a smart clip -- so fast indeed that the two men didn't see it at all, for all the minutes they stood there. The question is: if that garbage was dumped in one particular year, relative to that speeding ship, would it fall to the ground in that same year, or would it "drift" forward thru the years in the [[underline]]same direction[[end underline]] as the hurtling ship, before king gravity smacked it down? That is what bothers us! Suppose, for example, a time-travelling ship hurtled thru 1941, going forward at a very fast clip. Suppose they (Concluded on page 37)