Transcribe
Translate
Fandango, v. 2, issue 3, whole no. 7, Winter 1944
Page 11
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Speer's complete inability to use his otherwise passable, if not brilliant, mind whenever he is confronted with the race problem is a source of never failing wonder to me. How did he get into the brain trust? Through his discussions on the negro question? The same gentleman's remarks on the liquor question show not only a complete misapprehension of the problems confronting a local club, but further indicate the mental make-up of a typical, ignorant, hard-shell Baptist. Liquor can be used; it can also be abused. Speer makes the typical prohibitionist's error in assuming that use and abuse are synonymous. As to his apparent intention and wish to keep women perched uncomfortably on their Victorian pedestals, I suggest that he might sound somewhat more sensible if he consulted the women's wishes on the matter. Or does Speer know that many women drink, smoke, and tell dirty jokes? I have been castigated severely for using personalities and emotionalism instead of calm, mental analysis. I should like to pass part of this back to Speer for calling some unnamed person a "confirmed skunk". At least, when I call names I name them, and can hardly feel that any person laying the least claim to the title of "gentleman", particularly of the old Southern school, would toss off insults without naming the person insulted. Much more worthy of comment is Raymond Washington's rebuttal to my article, "The Ideals of Fandom", which appeared in the June 1944 issue of Shangri-L'Affaires. Before I discuss any of these points, I should like to mention that this article had no business in Banshee. It is customary, I believe, for a rebuttal to appear in the same magazine which published the original article; and I know that Burbee would have been very glad to use Washington's carefully worked out essay. There is not too much point in my attempting to bat down Washington's arguments. He and I look at this problem from such radically different viewpoints that there is not much common ground on which we can meet. He misapprehends much of my article simply because I failed to make it clear enough that I approve of most things that fans do, but merely feel that they are not fandom. In other words, a fan should not feel impelled to call everything he likes to do "fandom" and at the same time the things that really are fandom (reading, writing, collecting, publishing, illustrating, and/or discussing stf-weird fantasy) are likely to be outgrown by many if not most of their followers. I personally am interested in the "sacred literature" from a literary and journalistic standpoint; such an interest is likely to be far more permanent than this frantic mouthing of mad creeds and inane shibboleths such as (I'm quoting Washington) "Science fiction is not a worthless escape, but a dynamic philosophy, a creed...." The starry eyed adolescent (and I mean adolescent in mental and emotional age, not necessarily physical age) who is steamed up about all this junk about slaying the dragon, remaking the world, idealism, and the like is likely to change overnight from fandom into some other crackpot minority group. This type of individual is not basically interested in a pleasant hobby; he is out to crusade, to tilt at windmills. He is equally likely to find his kicks out of any fanatic religious sect, out of being a sucker in something like Psychiana or Rosicrucianism, or (as one local fan did) out of wrangling with the homosexuals and bums in Pershing Square. To me, this stuff is all revolting. Fandom is a hobby, a recreation, a pleasure. Anytime it quits being one (and it surely would if I had to take pride in the noisome regurgitations of such a Cosmic nature) I shall stop my participation without hesitation. -- 11 --
Saving...
prev
next
Speer's complete inability to use his otherwise passable, if not brilliant, mind whenever he is confronted with the race problem is a source of never failing wonder to me. How did he get into the brain trust? Through his discussions on the negro question? The same gentleman's remarks on the liquor question show not only a complete misapprehension of the problems confronting a local club, but further indicate the mental make-up of a typical, ignorant, hard-shell Baptist. Liquor can be used; it can also be abused. Speer makes the typical prohibitionist's error in assuming that use and abuse are synonymous. As to his apparent intention and wish to keep women perched uncomfortably on their Victorian pedestals, I suggest that he might sound somewhat more sensible if he consulted the women's wishes on the matter. Or does Speer know that many women drink, smoke, and tell dirty jokes? I have been castigated severely for using personalities and emotionalism instead of calm, mental analysis. I should like to pass part of this back to Speer for calling some unnamed person a "confirmed skunk". At least, when I call names I name them, and can hardly feel that any person laying the least claim to the title of "gentleman", particularly of the old Southern school, would toss off insults without naming the person insulted. Much more worthy of comment is Raymond Washington's rebuttal to my article, "The Ideals of Fandom", which appeared in the June 1944 issue of Shangri-L'Affaires. Before I discuss any of these points, I should like to mention that this article had no business in Banshee. It is customary, I believe, for a rebuttal to appear in the same magazine which published the original article; and I know that Burbee would have been very glad to use Washington's carefully worked out essay. There is not too much point in my attempting to bat down Washington's arguments. He and I look at this problem from such radically different viewpoints that there is not much common ground on which we can meet. He misapprehends much of my article simply because I failed to make it clear enough that I approve of most things that fans do, but merely feel that they are not fandom. In other words, a fan should not feel impelled to call everything he likes to do "fandom" and at the same time the things that really are fandom (reading, writing, collecting, publishing, illustrating, and/or discussing stf-weird fantasy) are likely to be outgrown by many if not most of their followers. I personally am interested in the "sacred literature" from a literary and journalistic standpoint; such an interest is likely to be far more permanent than this frantic mouthing of mad creeds and inane shibboleths such as (I'm quoting Washington) "Science fiction is not a worthless escape, but a dynamic philosophy, a creed...." The starry eyed adolescent (and I mean adolescent in mental and emotional age, not necessarily physical age) who is steamed up about all this junk about slaying the dragon, remaking the world, idealism, and the like is likely to change overnight from fandom into some other crackpot minority group. This type of individual is not basically interested in a pleasant hobby; he is out to crusade, to tilt at windmills. He is equally likely to find his kicks out of any fanatic religious sect, out of being a sucker in something like Psychiana or Rosicrucianism, or (as one local fan did) out of wrangling with the homosexuals and bums in Pershing Square. To me, this stuff is all revolting. Fandom is a hobby, a recreation, a pleasure. Anytime it quits being one (and it surely would if I had to take pride in the noisome regurgitations of such a Cosmic nature) I shall stop my participation without hesitation. -- 11 --
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
