DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Science Fiction Collector, v. 4, issue 3, whole no. 21, August 1938

Transcribe
Translate

Science Fiction Collector, v. 4, issue 3, whole no. 21, August 1938

Page 7

--- S - F Collector --- Page Seven

A Better Case Against Michelism
         by Robert W. Lowndes

     A careful perusal into Jack Speer's article in the May issue of the COLLECTOR, shows that he has made considerable improvement in the art of analysis; taking it as a whole, there is only one thing wrong with his "Fairly Complete Case against Michelism:" his basic assumptions are nearly all inaccurate. But, aside from this matter, his article is so written that I can make corrections from paragraph to paragraph. While I suppose fans have read more than they may be interested in reading about Michelism, both exhortations from Michelists and warnings from alert oppositionists like Speer, it is still necessary to do some explaining. The situation has become complex.

     First of all, I am really curious as to why Mr. Speer terms the tactics of Michel "unfair." Is there any reason why a speaker at a convention should let everyone know exactly what he is going to say, or, if he has something different and new to propose, let the cat out of the bag? I ask you, Mr. Speer, just for the sake of the momentary illustration, to assume that Michel's analysis of the stf field in "Mutation or Death" were correct. Would that correctness prevent certain fans from resenting those facts being presented publicly? And, assuming that they were in a position to prevent such a speech being made, would they

Saving...

--- S - F Collector --- Page Seven A Better Case Against Michelism by Robert W. Lowndes A careful perusal into Jack Speer's article in the May issue of the COLLECTOR, shows that he has made considerable improvement in the art of analysis; taking it as a whole, there is only one thing wrong with his "Fairly Complete Case against Michelism:" his basic assumptions are nearly all inaccurate. But, aside from this matter, his article is so written that I can make corrections from paragraph to paragraph. While I suppose fans have read more than they may be interested in reading about Michelism, both exhortations from Michelists and warnings from alert oppositionists like Speer, it is still necessary to do some explaining. The situation has become complex. First of all, I am really curious as to why Mr. Speer terms the tactics of Michel "unfair." Is there any reason why a speaker at a convention should let everyone know exactly what he is going to say, or, if he has something different and new to propose, let the cat out of the bag? I ask you, Mr. Speer, just for the sake of the momentary illustration, to assume that Michel's analysis of the stf field in "Mutation or Death" were correct. Would that correctness prevent certain fans from resenting those facts being presented publicly? And, assuming that they were in a position to prevent such a speech being made, would they