Transcribe
Translate
Fan-Atic, v. 2, issue 2, whole no. 5, September 1941
Page 16
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
COMPLIMENTS AND OTHERWISE by You. Philip A. Schuman. 2767 N. 41st St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Dear Chucky: I just revd #4 Fanny today. It's getting better, and I'm not kidding. It even smells nice this time. No fooling, where did you get that lovely scent on the mimeo paper? ((Fanny uses only the most expensive perfume mixed with the ink.)) Your editorial is no better, no worse, than the current round of editorials. It's about all one car ask these days - it's all right. ((That's the third time you said that.)) ***** I laugh. I glee. Yes, Bloomer Bobby rolls me in the aisle as usual. He mentioned here. ((Would you kindly elucidate that, Phil?)) Fanzane review ok. Ackerman's series up to par. "As the Wind Listeth....." Dammit, here we go again. Everybody is under the impression that everybodys else knows about the Denvention already, and so nobody repeats. I STILL DON'T KNOW A (CENSORED) ((by PS)) THING ABOUT IT. ((Well, read FFF for the news.)) Lowndes 'Interference' very good. Why fans seldom appreciate these science articles is beyond me. One thing I could say:perhaps the method of writing is too dry. I never saw any of ASTOUNDING's articless hammed, or called dull. Did you? ((Lord, yes! Come to a Solaroid meeting and you'll see A-SF moidered.)) Your letter section, and who realizes it better than you, is too small. But I Like Fanny, and I'm surprised you never helped improve the old SUN SPOTS much. ((Hawww!)) More of this stuff, Chucky, more, more....... (We'll try.)) Harry Warner, Jr. 303 Bryan Place, Hagerstown, Maryland. Dear Charles: About the July FAN-ATIC: a wholly excellent issue. Not quite as good as the preceding one, I believe, but the material, rather than the format or editorial doings, seems to blame for that. But you just couldn't have kept up the rate of improvement the second and third issues produces. As 'tis, FAN-ATIC is by far the best nickel magazine, and better than quite a few dime ones. ((Thanks a lot, Harry.)) Material, as I said, seems a slight let-down. Tucker's article I think best, though expansion of it to include more detail would probably have made it better. Lowndes is next; first half of it couldn't soak through my marihuana-befuddled brain, but the latter half struck home. ((Marihuana? When there are such easily obtainable drugs as thionite and bentlam! Oh, Harry you disapoint me.)) Letters swell. I agree with Lowndes about keeping the department at a reasonable length - or more important, not including those which merely list material in order of preference or say "I think your last issue is swell. Here's a quarter for six more." Positively don't bother about evening up the right-hand margins if it hurts some other aspect of the magazine. ((This department is also cont'd on next pg))) PACIFICON IN 1942 DIXIECON IN 1943
Saving...
prev
next
COMPLIMENTS AND OTHERWISE by You. Philip A. Schuman. 2767 N. 41st St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Dear Chucky: I just revd #4 Fanny today. It's getting better, and I'm not kidding. It even smells nice this time. No fooling, where did you get that lovely scent on the mimeo paper? ((Fanny uses only the most expensive perfume mixed with the ink.)) Your editorial is no better, no worse, than the current round of editorials. It's about all one car ask these days - it's all right. ((That's the third time you said that.)) ***** I laugh. I glee. Yes, Bloomer Bobby rolls me in the aisle as usual. He mentioned here. ((Would you kindly elucidate that, Phil?)) Fanzane review ok. Ackerman's series up to par. "As the Wind Listeth....." Dammit, here we go again. Everybody is under the impression that everybodys else knows about the Denvention already, and so nobody repeats. I STILL DON'T KNOW A (CENSORED) ((by PS)) THING ABOUT IT. ((Well, read FFF for the news.)) Lowndes 'Interference' very good. Why fans seldom appreciate these science articles is beyond me. One thing I could say:perhaps the method of writing is too dry. I never saw any of ASTOUNDING's articless hammed, or called dull. Did you? ((Lord, yes! Come to a Solaroid meeting and you'll see A-SF moidered.)) Your letter section, and who realizes it better than you, is too small. But I Like Fanny, and I'm surprised you never helped improve the old SUN SPOTS much. ((Hawww!)) More of this stuff, Chucky, more, more....... (We'll try.)) Harry Warner, Jr. 303 Bryan Place, Hagerstown, Maryland. Dear Charles: About the July FAN-ATIC: a wholly excellent issue. Not quite as good as the preceding one, I believe, but the material, rather than the format or editorial doings, seems to blame for that. But you just couldn't have kept up the rate of improvement the second and third issues produces. As 'tis, FAN-ATIC is by far the best nickel magazine, and better than quite a few dime ones. ((Thanks a lot, Harry.)) Material, as I said, seems a slight let-down. Tucker's article I think best, though expansion of it to include more detail would probably have made it better. Lowndes is next; first half of it couldn't soak through my marihuana-befuddled brain, but the latter half struck home. ((Marihuana? When there are such easily obtainable drugs as thionite and bentlam! Oh, Harry you disapoint me.)) Letters swell. I agree with Lowndes about keeping the department at a reasonable length - or more important, not including those which merely list material in order of preference or say "I think your last issue is swell. Here's a quarter for six more." Positively don't bother about evening up the right-hand margins if it hurts some other aspect of the magazine. ((This department is also cont'd on next pg))) PACIFICON IN 1942 DIXIECON IN 1943
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
