Transcribe
Translate
Vanguard Boojum, v. 1, issue 1
33
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Vanguard Boojum #1 page thirty-one macVert (cont.) To say, even before you can foresee the nature of a next war, that you will aid neither side, strikes me as either an unwarranted assumption of prescience or an extremity of escapism rivaling the "retreat-to-the-womb" cases known to abnormal psychologists. Look, womban (pardon the irrelevant pun): Even if both sides are wrong, in any war, one side may still be right. Granted that the North in the Civil War was supported by multitudes of profiteers; that the same was true of the Allies in World War II; that either war would have been far less costly, & perhaps need not have occurred, had it not been for the "wrong" forces supporting the "right" side; still, in each case, there was a right side. If you deny this I'll suspect you of a perverse refusal to accept anything the OWI said, just because the OWI said it. (Hmm - - maybe you should read "Daily Worker" for OWI in that last sentence?) As for the inability of any individual or band of individuals to avert war, who the hell starts & fights wars if not individuals and bands of individuals? All of the foregoing is, of course mere statement of opinion, as was your commented-upon article. If you'd like to fight the thing out, say the word. I leave the lady the privilege of the first shot. ________, a Dirty Word: Is the dirty word, perhaps, "damnightion"?... You quote Channing Pollock: "There is no unbiased evidence to support the contention that the Russians are a freer or happier people than we. On the contrary, every credible witness testifies to the tyranny and hardship in Russia." You then cast doubt on the phrases "unbiased evidence" & "credible witness", & assert that Pollock's statement is sense-free. But you haven't shown that. You've shown only that the statement is primarily about the evidence & the witnesses & only secondarily about Russia; & this was fairly obvious anyhow. ... Good stuff, this. Vanguard Variorum: Van Vogt's reply to Knight is a little inadequate to prove vV's stated thesis that "World of A" is one of the best adult stf stories ever published -- a thesis, incidentally, which vV, as author of the work under discussion, should have had sufficient false modesty to tone down. Most of Knight's criticisms are shaken as little by vV's statement of intentions as they are by the accusation of bias. It's not enuf for an author to say that he's been misinterpreted & that he meant to convey thus & so; he must be able at least to claim that a discerning reader would have grasped his intention. Van Vogt can hardly claim this; everyone (including, I think, the editor who published the novel) seems to have been quite befuddled by "World of A"'s plot, & I met no one without previous acquaintance with A who made any sense out of the story's scientific background. Incidentally, notice the beautiful interpretation which can be put on Van Vogt's final sentence: "Human nature being what it is, I have a very strong hunch that, far from hating my stories, Mr. Knight is actually one of my most ardent admirers." Whose human nature, Van? ... Heh, Says Knight to Blish, "I also like Blish's reply to Laney, though it's marred in places by the venom which he seems unable to repress." Says Knight to the Zissmans, "Leave us. for God's sake, not try to be cute any more." Says Knight, again to the Zissmans, "The bulk of the material /in Science * Fiction/ is made up of amateur work trying to look professional, and professional work not good enough to sell. Neither is good of its kind, and the overall effect
Saving...
prev
next
Vanguard Boojum #1 page thirty-one macVert (cont.) To say, even before you can foresee the nature of a next war, that you will aid neither side, strikes me as either an unwarranted assumption of prescience or an extremity of escapism rivaling the "retreat-to-the-womb" cases known to abnormal psychologists. Look, womban (pardon the irrelevant pun): Even if both sides are wrong, in any war, one side may still be right. Granted that the North in the Civil War was supported by multitudes of profiteers; that the same was true of the Allies in World War II; that either war would have been far less costly, & perhaps need not have occurred, had it not been for the "wrong" forces supporting the "right" side; still, in each case, there was a right side. If you deny this I'll suspect you of a perverse refusal to accept anything the OWI said, just because the OWI said it. (Hmm - - maybe you should read "Daily Worker" for OWI in that last sentence?) As for the inability of any individual or band of individuals to avert war, who the hell starts & fights wars if not individuals and bands of individuals? All of the foregoing is, of course mere statement of opinion, as was your commented-upon article. If you'd like to fight the thing out, say the word. I leave the lady the privilege of the first shot. ________, a Dirty Word: Is the dirty word, perhaps, "damnightion"?... You quote Channing Pollock: "There is no unbiased evidence to support the contention that the Russians are a freer or happier people than we. On the contrary, every credible witness testifies to the tyranny and hardship in Russia." You then cast doubt on the phrases "unbiased evidence" & "credible witness", & assert that Pollock's statement is sense-free. But you haven't shown that. You've shown only that the statement is primarily about the evidence & the witnesses & only secondarily about Russia; & this was fairly obvious anyhow. ... Good stuff, this. Vanguard Variorum: Van Vogt's reply to Knight is a little inadequate to prove vV's stated thesis that "World of A" is one of the best adult stf stories ever published -- a thesis, incidentally, which vV, as author of the work under discussion, should have had sufficient false modesty to tone down. Most of Knight's criticisms are shaken as little by vV's statement of intentions as they are by the accusation of bias. It's not enuf for an author to say that he's been misinterpreted & that he meant to convey thus & so; he must be able at least to claim that a discerning reader would have grasped his intention. Van Vogt can hardly claim this; everyone (including, I think, the editor who published the novel) seems to have been quite befuddled by "World of A"'s plot, & I met no one without previous acquaintance with A who made any sense out of the story's scientific background. Incidentally, notice the beautiful interpretation which can be put on Van Vogt's final sentence: "Human nature being what it is, I have a very strong hunch that, far from hating my stories, Mr. Knight is actually one of my most ardent admirers." Whose human nature, Van? ... Heh, Says Knight to Blish, "I also like Blish's reply to Laney, though it's marred in places by the venom which he seems unable to repress." Says Knight to the Zissmans, "Leave us. for God's sake, not try to be cute any more." Says Knight, again to the Zissmans, "The bulk of the material /in Science * Fiction/ is made up of amateur work trying to look professional, and professional work not good enough to sell. Neither is good of its kind, and the overall effect
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
