DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Fantascience Digest, v. 2, issue 1, Novermber-December 1938

Transcribe
Translate

Fantascience Digest, v. 2, issue 1, Novermber-December 1938

Page 24

Page 24                     FANTASCIENCE DIGEST 

THE READER COMMENTS

   JACK CHAPMAN MISKE: Received and filed away is FD #6. It wasn't as good as some of the former issues but was yet enjoyable. Rothman's article was quite interesting, since his material is almost invariably quite lucid and well thought-out. He seems to be one of the few rational thinking, really intelligent fans around today. I think both of the stories his article dealt with were awful messes, but the article was really good.

   Neither of Hart's pieces appealed to me tremendously. His stuff seems too hurried, too impertinent, to be good. He could do much better. 

   Reinsberg's short article was timely and was, to me, much better than the first. The main reason being that he stuck to facts and left his own opinions, which can't help but be biased, out of the article.

   I don't know who wrote "You Can't Have Everything"? nor can I guess. But I want to say this unless that fellow's viewpoint has changed a lot since the article was written (in which case he should not have permitted its publication) he is capable of some of the most shallow thinking I've ever come across. Undoubtedly by far the greatest part of the criticism in the mags' readers' depts. is silly, but without it we'd have some awful messes now....even worse - inconceivable as that may seem - than the present-day ones. (Fortunately, everyone doesn't believe the magazines are as horrible as you contend them to be, Miske.--RAM) If you (RAM) can still use an article in connection with this subject - and a damned good one! - for the #7 FD, then let me know immediately and I'll have it in the mail the same night. 

   "Looking Around" continued to maintain its inferior quality. I think it's a singularly uninteresting and uninformative. Every once in a while a good bit of info comes along and it seems to make me like the column. But, it always leaves me with a disappointed feeling. (Teh, teh*RAM)

   Cover was fair; the inside page by MAR was all right, with the exception on the incongruous red fuzz on the jigger's manly chest. The few interior cuts were poor. Nothing to get excited about as far as the poetry is concerned.

   Some of the fellows were good enough to compliment "Ysta", something which surprises me, to be frank. I wrote the poem in an odd fashion, solely to please myself, and, still being frank, I was far from satisfied with the result, tho it was better than I expected. Now then, I don't care who calls me "despicable", or who calls my poetry despicable, but I do under the circumstances Wilson relates. Candidly, sir, I fail to see the relation. (I can't mention Gillespie 'cause I'm making him wait 3 months 'fore I write him, but I'd like to know whatinell is underhanded...and anyhow, "despicable" means contemptible! Me imagine!)

   Russell J Hodgkins: Thanks for the note reminding me of the expiring subscription; the enclosed should take care of things for a short while longer.

Saving...

Page 24 FANTASCIENCE DIGEST THE READER COMMENTS JACK CHAPMAN MISKE: Received and filed away is FD #6. It wasn't as good as some of the former issues but was yet enjoyable. Rothman's article was quite interesting, since his material is almost invariably quite lucid and well thought-out. He seems to be one of the few rational thinking, really intelligent fans around today. I think both of the stories his article dealt with were awful messes, but the article was really good. Neither of Hart's pieces appealed to me tremendously. His stuff seems too hurried, too impertinent, to be good. He could do much better. Reinsberg's short article was timely and was, to me, much better than the first. The main reason being that he stuck to facts and left his own opinions, which can't help but be biased, out of the article. I don't know who wrote "You Can't Have Everything"? nor can I guess. But I want to say this unless that fellow's viewpoint has changed a lot since the article was written (in which case he should not have permitted its publication) he is capable of some of the most shallow thinking I've ever come across. Undoubtedly by far the greatest part of the criticism in the mags' readers' depts. is silly, but without it we'd have some awful messes now....even worse - inconceivable as that may seem - than the present-day ones. (Fortunately, everyone doesn't believe the magazines are as horrible as you contend them to be, Miske.--RAM) If you (RAM) can still use an article in connection with this subject - and a damned good one! - for the #7 FD, then let me know immediately and I'll have it in the mail the same night. "Looking Around" continued to maintain its inferior quality. I think it's a singularly uninteresting and uninformative. Every once in a while a good bit of info comes along and it seems to make me like the column. But, it always leaves me with a disappointed feeling. (Teh, teh*RAM) Cover was fair; the inside page by MAR was all right, with the exception on the incongruous red fuzz on the jigger's manly chest. The few interior cuts were poor. Nothing to get excited about as far as the poetry is concerned. Some of the fellows were good enough to compliment "Ysta", something which surprises me, to be frank. I wrote the poem in an odd fashion, solely to please myself, and, still being frank, I was far from satisfied with the result, tho it was better than I expected. Now then, I don't care who calls me "despicable", or who calls my poetry despicable, but I do under the circumstances Wilson relates. Candidly, sir, I fail to see the relation. (I can't mention Gillespie 'cause I'm making him wait 3 months 'fore I write him, but I'd like to know whatinell is underhanded...and anyhow, "despicable" means contemptible! Me imagine!) Russell J Hodgkins: Thanks for the note reminding me of the expiring subscription; the enclosed should take care of things for a short while longer.