DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Fanfare, v. 1, issue 5, December 1940

Transcribe
Translate

Fanfare, v. 1, issue 5, December 1940

Page 8

8                                                  FANFARE

            EAT IT--STRANGERS!

   Well, I'm done with my bit. All I have to say to the pickle barrel snorters is, Eat It! And keep eating it until the day comes when you can show half as much enthusiasm and sacrifice as I have for the sake of fandom. I am a fan, now, and forever. I hope you wake up and become one too......
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

             BEAT IT--HAMLING
                    by
              Earl Singleton

   Once again, this time to hammer the fact into Hamling's head, it is necessary to explain that the editorial How About It, Hamling? was written not by the Strangers, but by a Stranger--as was definitely stated by the editors of Fanfare at the head of the editorial; and if Hamling's ill health hasn't settled in his eyes, he'll find, upon examination, that the editorial is signed by its writer. Fanfare does not publish only material with which the entire Stranger Club agrees--observe the article to which this note is a reply. Accordingly, the most Hamling could with reason conclude from the editorial is that it represents one fan's opinion. But Hamling, n his hysteria, has nothing to do with reason: he concludes that we all condemn Stardust. Could it be that his conscience bothers him? But no, --there is evidence that Hamling has no conscience. He must have been expecting something like he found in Fanfare:--one's circulation before a flop, like rheumatism before a rain, will "give one furiously to think."
   There is necessity to dwell on detail in replying to Hamling. In a fit of despair at the death of Stardust he has cut his throat on the nearest weapon--my editorial. One by one he attacks the points brought out in the editorial--and one by one, in his overzealousness, he verifies them. Let's quote Hamling: "pickle barrel, pickel barrel"--no, that's not it--here it is: "...I never intended Stardust to have 3/4 of the magazine devoted to idle chatter and gossip..." Thus Hamling characterizes fan material. Woe betide! Ah well, check point two (in Hamling's list). Again: "Most of the stories I have printed have been rejected by some professional house." Check points one and three. A third quotation: "My 1,000 subs, if the MIT wizard can multiply, are equal to about $75.00 per issue." Indeed? Since when does Stardust sell for seven and a half cents? That takes care of point four. And finally: "4/5 of the big names aren't even on the sub lists!" What a damning admission! (All the big names are on Fanfare's sub lists--- heh, heh.) By Bill's own admission, four-fifths of the important fans --the fans who make fandom--don't even subscribe to Stardust. The statement is hardly credible; but if it is true, it bears out my assertion that Stardust does not deserve the support of fandom; according to Bill, four-fifths of the fans agree with me, and they arrived at the same conclusion before I did--they didn't even subscribe. That checks point five. And the final overwhelming fact that Stardust has flopped is a cross-check on the editorial's entire indictment.
   In spite of all Hamling has said in behalf of my arguments, he left a few words for me to say. His stupid screaming of "I AM A FAN, I AM A FAN" makes me wonder. No one had said he wasn't a fan...but...he lives  in Chicago...and it shouldn't have been difficult for a Chicago fan to attend the Chicon. There were fans from all over the nation--

Saving...

8 FANFARE EAT IT--STRANGERS! Well, I'm done with my bit. All I have to say to the pickle barrel snorters is, Eat It! And keep eating it until the day comes when you can show half as much enthusiasm and sacrifice as I have for the sake of fandom. I am a fan, now, and forever. I hope you wake up and become one too...... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BEAT IT--HAMLING by Earl Singleton Once again, this time to hammer the fact into Hamling's head, it is necessary to explain that the editorial How About It, Hamling? was written not by the Strangers, but by a Stranger--as was definitely stated by the editors of Fanfare at the head of the editorial; and if Hamling's ill health hasn't settled in his eyes, he'll find, upon examination, that the editorial is signed by its writer. Fanfare does not publish only material with which the entire Stranger Club agrees--observe the article to which this note is a reply. Accordingly, the most Hamling could with reason conclude from the editorial is that it represents one fan's opinion. But Hamling, n his hysteria, has nothing to do with reason: he concludes that we all condemn Stardust. Could it be that his conscience bothers him? But no, --there is evidence that Hamling has no conscience. He must have been expecting something like he found in Fanfare:--one's circulation before a flop, like rheumatism before a rain, will "give one furiously to think." There is necessity to dwell on detail in replying to Hamling. In a fit of despair at the death of Stardust he has cut his throat on the nearest weapon--my editorial. One by one he attacks the points brought out in the editorial--and one by one, in his overzealousness, he verifies them. Let's quote Hamling: "pickle barrel, pickel barrel"--no, that's not it--here it is: "...I never intended Stardust to have 3/4 of the magazine devoted to idle chatter and gossip..." Thus Hamling characterizes fan material. Woe betide! Ah well, check point two (in Hamling's list). Again: "Most of the stories I have printed have been rejected by some professional house." Check points one and three. A third quotation: "My 1,000 subs, if the MIT wizard can multiply, are equal to about $75.00 per issue." Indeed? Since when does Stardust sell for seven and a half cents? That takes care of point four. And finally: "4/5 of the big names aren't even on the sub lists!" What a damning admission! (All the big names are on Fanfare's sub lists--- heh, heh.) By Bill's own admission, four-fifths of the important fans --the fans who make fandom--don't even subscribe to Stardust. The statement is hardly credible; but if it is true, it bears out my assertion that Stardust does not deserve the support of fandom; according to Bill, four-fifths of the fans agree with me, and they arrived at the same conclusion before I did--they didn't even subscribe. That checks point five. And the final overwhelming fact that Stardust has flopped is a cross-check on the editorial's entire indictment. In spite of all Hamling has said in behalf of my arguments, he left a few words for me to say. His stupid screaming of "I AM A FAN, I AM A FAN" makes me wonder. No one had said he wasn't a fan...but...he lives in Chicago...and it shouldn't have been difficult for a Chicago fan to attend the Chicon. There were fans from all over the nation--