Transcribe
Translate
Fandango, v. 2, issue 3, whole no. 7, Winter 1944
Back cover
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Searles that FAPA should be cleaned up. Out-and-out pornography is probably a bit outside the scope of any APA. But the cleaning up, if any, should be performed by legally elected or appointed officials performing the wishes of a majority of the members. We should not be forced to write our magazines with the whims of one single member (or even a minority group of members) in mind. In this connection, I wish to state that the Official Editor is not properly fitted to act as a censor. (I'm speaking of any OE, as I hope you all realise!) Despite the fact that he is an elected official, he is one person. Being human, he will be prone to error at the best. If we happen to saddle ourselves with a venal editor (as is quite possible) he would be quite capable of throwing out on a pretext any publication which happens to contain something (pornographic or not) which is not to his personal liking. For this reason, if we are to have censorship at all, I feel that a unanimous decision of all the officers be required to ban any item from the mailing, and further, that there be some provision made for the FAPA to reimburse the offending member for his material and other expenses on a banned issue, provided that a majority of the members feel it proper in his given case. In passing, I suppose it is almost unnecessary to point out that Searles' statement "I'm not setting myself up as an authority, but merely passing along questionable material to one who is" is an utterly loathesome bit of rhetoric. He knows good and well that the PMG will tend to ban anything that comes even close to the line, and is banking on our fear of reprisals to keep us from saying anything that may offend his Royal Highness. (He could whack a lot of us by merely sending in one of our previous publications; I personally would not put such a trick past him.) Something should be done about Searles, and it is frustrating to realise that there isn't much that can be done. I'll vote yes on any attempt to oust him, provided that an opporunity of retraction is first given the man--though I'd hate to kick his worthwhile research out of the mailings. What I am doing (and it is a procedure that should be emulated) is to ostracise Searles completely. He has an outstanding sub to The Acolyte; I've not as yet discussed this matter with coeditor Russell (who lives clear across town from me) but if he approves I shall refund Searles' subscription in full. The Koenig-Searles petition I am signing and passing on because I approve the measure, regradless of who proposed it, because I have no quarrel with cosigned Koenig, and because I previously committed myself. Otherwise, I shall have nothing further to do with Searles, other than to receive his FAPA mag in the mailings. This, I hasten to add, is no punishment to Searles; common ordinary people like myself are probably doing him a favor to remove our presences from the sacred man. This action does do a trifle towards keeping my self-respect; dirt is not an accustomed part of my diet, and Searles' dirt is as filthy as anyone elses; regardless of his tendency to look upon it as consecrated wife. ----oo0oo---- VOTE YES ON THE SEARLES-KOENIG AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 5! Too many members of FAPA apply enthusiastically, but after months on the waiting list lose interest. The result is that we have members like Edge or Ludowitz who remain on the rolls for a year as dead-heads, contributing nothing, and keeping a worthwhile applicant from joining. This proposed amendment will obviate this condition, thereby strengthening the association. FAN-DANGO, a personalised publication of Francis T. Laney, circulated in FAPA from 1005 West 35th Place, Los Angeles 7. Stencilled 10/7/44
Saving...
prev
next
Searles that FAPA should be cleaned up. Out-and-out pornography is probably a bit outside the scope of any APA. But the cleaning up, if any, should be performed by legally elected or appointed officials performing the wishes of a majority of the members. We should not be forced to write our magazines with the whims of one single member (or even a minority group of members) in mind. In this connection, I wish to state that the Official Editor is not properly fitted to act as a censor. (I'm speaking of any OE, as I hope you all realise!) Despite the fact that he is an elected official, he is one person. Being human, he will be prone to error at the best. If we happen to saddle ourselves with a venal editor (as is quite possible) he would be quite capable of throwing out on a pretext any publication which happens to contain something (pornographic or not) which is not to his personal liking. For this reason, if we are to have censorship at all, I feel that a unanimous decision of all the officers be required to ban any item from the mailing, and further, that there be some provision made for the FAPA to reimburse the offending member for his material and other expenses on a banned issue, provided that a majority of the members feel it proper in his given case. In passing, I suppose it is almost unnecessary to point out that Searles' statement "I'm not setting myself up as an authority, but merely passing along questionable material to one who is" is an utterly loathesome bit of rhetoric. He knows good and well that the PMG will tend to ban anything that comes even close to the line, and is banking on our fear of reprisals to keep us from saying anything that may offend his Royal Highness. (He could whack a lot of us by merely sending in one of our previous publications; I personally would not put such a trick past him.) Something should be done about Searles, and it is frustrating to realise that there isn't much that can be done. I'll vote yes on any attempt to oust him, provided that an opporunity of retraction is first given the man--though I'd hate to kick his worthwhile research out of the mailings. What I am doing (and it is a procedure that should be emulated) is to ostracise Searles completely. He has an outstanding sub to The Acolyte; I've not as yet discussed this matter with coeditor Russell (who lives clear across town from me) but if he approves I shall refund Searles' subscription in full. The Koenig-Searles petition I am signing and passing on because I approve the measure, regradless of who proposed it, because I have no quarrel with cosigned Koenig, and because I previously committed myself. Otherwise, I shall have nothing further to do with Searles, other than to receive his FAPA mag in the mailings. This, I hasten to add, is no punishment to Searles; common ordinary people like myself are probably doing him a favor to remove our presences from the sacred man. This action does do a trifle towards keeping my self-respect; dirt is not an accustomed part of my diet, and Searles' dirt is as filthy as anyone elses; regardless of his tendency to look upon it as consecrated wife. ----oo0oo---- VOTE YES ON THE SEARLES-KOENIG AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 5! Too many members of FAPA apply enthusiastically, but after months on the waiting list lose interest. The result is that we have members like Edge or Ludowitz who remain on the rolls for a year as dead-heads, contributing nothing, and keeping a worthwhile applicant from joining. This proposed amendment will obviate this condition, thereby strengthening the association. FAN-DANGO, a personalised publication of Francis T. Laney, circulated in FAPA from 1005 West 35th Place, Los Angeles 7. Stencilled 10/7/44
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
