Transcribe
Translate
Vanguard Boojum, v. 1, issue 1
31
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Vanguard Boojum page 29 Controversy (cont.) fans, as well as some members who still consider themselves "fans", is true. But "fannishness" has not been the base either for inviting members, or accepting or rejecting applications for membership. The differences between FAPA and Vanguard are primarily those of intent and organization; the similarities are as unimportant as the similarities between FAPA and NAPA in relation to FAPA's intentions. Had you bothered to read the constitution, you would see that the "assumption of dictatorial powers" by the Manager is precisely what the office requires. (Rather curious, after all your feverish defense of "fan" that you decided not to read what you determined -- by clairvoyance, no doubt? -- to be a "fan constitution". Could it be that you really feel a certain amount of contempt for "fandom"? I suspect you do: your protestations are too loud to be convincing.) You would see that this association is not a parliamentary debating society, or an amateur lawyers' club, or a practical study-course in "democracy", but a cooperative of amateur publishers. No other adjective except a degree of "quality" which the Advisors seek to maintain by retaining members who put reasonably good amateur publications in the mailings, and dropping those who do not. If you, Member Davis, wish to plead the cause of "fandom" in your publications, that is your right and no one is going to deny it to you. But you must take the risks of arousing the wrath of those members who want none of such material. Fit the 6th macVert Davis This is macVert talking, but the words are those of Chandler Davis. I introduce macVert only by way of warning Vanguard that a fanmag by that name is forthcoming as soon as Favis can come it forth. For now I can give you macVertually nothing but a review column. & the first thing I'm going to do is to flout Lowndes. What gall! Before I even stick around the tyrant's domain long enuf to learn fear of his iron whim, I brave it -- put my head on the chopping block! I have, in fact, already done so. In the paragraf immediately above I have used the dread word "fanmag". & now, on to the 8th mailing. Lay on, macVert, & let who will be clever. The Muse: Not received. Agenbite of Inwit: "Outlines of a No-Value Orientation" was valuable for its negations, but staggered every time it tried to make positive statements. I'll give a couple of examples, probably not the best that could be selected. (1) "We see as outstanding non-rationalities the pursuit of Stability, and the search for the single 'Value' (or 'Thr Truth')." This is good in that it negates something that needs negating, the idea of eternal & infinite absolutes. As a positive statement it's not so hot, since it seems to plead unending flux & chaos, & to scoff at seekers for semi-permanent, widely valid near-absolutes. (2) "Much of our difficulty springs from the tendency to regard 'infinity' and 'eternity' as things, rather than merely terms to denote the limitations of our abilities." This says accurately what infinity & eternity are not, but is seriously in error in its statement as to what they are. Ask any mathematician.
Saving...
prev
next
Vanguard Boojum page 29 Controversy (cont.) fans, as well as some members who still consider themselves "fans", is true. But "fannishness" has not been the base either for inviting members, or accepting or rejecting applications for membership. The differences between FAPA and Vanguard are primarily those of intent and organization; the similarities are as unimportant as the similarities between FAPA and NAPA in relation to FAPA's intentions. Had you bothered to read the constitution, you would see that the "assumption of dictatorial powers" by the Manager is precisely what the office requires. (Rather curious, after all your feverish defense of "fan" that you decided not to read what you determined -- by clairvoyance, no doubt? -- to be a "fan constitution". Could it be that you really feel a certain amount of contempt for "fandom"? I suspect you do: your protestations are too loud to be convincing.) You would see that this association is not a parliamentary debating society, or an amateur lawyers' club, or a practical study-course in "democracy", but a cooperative of amateur publishers. No other adjective except a degree of "quality" which the Advisors seek to maintain by retaining members who put reasonably good amateur publications in the mailings, and dropping those who do not. If you, Member Davis, wish to plead the cause of "fandom" in your publications, that is your right and no one is going to deny it to you. But you must take the risks of arousing the wrath of those members who want none of such material. Fit the 6th macVert Davis This is macVert talking, but the words are those of Chandler Davis. I introduce macVert only by way of warning Vanguard that a fanmag by that name is forthcoming as soon as Favis can come it forth. For now I can give you macVertually nothing but a review column. & the first thing I'm going to do is to flout Lowndes. What gall! Before I even stick around the tyrant's domain long enuf to learn fear of his iron whim, I brave it -- put my head on the chopping block! I have, in fact, already done so. In the paragraf immediately above I have used the dread word "fanmag". & now, on to the 8th mailing. Lay on, macVert, & let who will be clever. The Muse: Not received. Agenbite of Inwit: "Outlines of a No-Value Orientation" was valuable for its negations, but staggered every time it tried to make positive statements. I'll give a couple of examples, probably not the best that could be selected. (1) "We see as outstanding non-rationalities the pursuit of Stability, and the search for the single 'Value' (or 'Thr Truth')." This is good in that it negates something that needs negating, the idea of eternal & infinite absolutes. As a positive statement it's not so hot, since it seems to plead unending flux & chaos, & to scoff at seekers for semi-permanent, widely valid near-absolutes. (2) "Much of our difficulty springs from the tendency to regard 'infinity' and 'eternity' as things, rather than merely terms to denote the limitations of our abilities." This says accurately what infinity & eternity are not, but is seriously in error in its statement as to what they are. Ask any mathematician.
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
