DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Fantasite, v. 1, issue 3, April 1941

Transcribe
Translate

Fantasite, v. 1, issue 3, April 1941

Page 8

tion in which the background is an intrinsic part of the plot. You don't make over old stories into fantasy; not if you want to sell them, you don't."
   If you accept this to be the case -- and I think most every fan will -- why then need there be such a quarrel between the two? Apparently, however, that quarrel is deep-rotted among the fans, as witness the case of Weird Tales and the old Astounding.
   Back in the twenties when Farmsworth Wright was publishing some of the classics of his peculiar field, WT catered to both the science and the weird. Such tales as "Under the N-Ray," and work by Hamilton and Howard fell quite neatly into both classifications. What happened?
   The Eyrie, WT's reader department, began printing letters: "Leave out the science." "So and so's troy might have been okay if it were a true weird, which is wasn't." "We want weird tales not science."
   Then there was the case of the old Astounding.
   When this Clayton book was taken over by S&S, it started out with a general policy of general fantasy, both science and weirds. But Astounding had more science enthusiasts than weird followers on its reader list. The double policy continued for a few issues, but the result is well known. The Weirds departed gracefully.
   And yet, analyzed carefully, there doesn't seem such a great difference between the two types. Fundamentally, both are written to entertain, and whereas some of the modern science fiction stories may be considered in some respects more mature, based as they are on social analogies and thus farther removed from "escape" literature, the true weird tale, on the other hand, lends itself to a tighter technique and perhaps smoother writing. Let me hasten to add that these are generalities of course. Individual stories follow no regular channel.
   I think, perhaps, that one of the chief characteristics of the weird story which so many fans who dislike this type fail to appreciate, is what might be called the intellectual quality of its treatment. This does not mean that all weirds have an intellectual treatment. Far from it. But a neat little tale like Derleth's "Three Gentlemen in Black", for example, does have this quality. In other words the plot concerns a series of supernatural manifestations which no reader, however absorbed he may be, accepts as true or fact. The reader is led to continue, not alone because of the thrills he encounters, but because of the strange academic spell cast over him by a mixture of onomatopoeic diction and congrous background.
   It is this perhaps which explains the success of the Lovecraft, the Smith and the Derleth weirds. I am thinking particularly of "The Sheraton Mirror," "In The Vault," "The Dreams in the Witch-House," and "The Rats in The Walls."
   A similar list of outstanding tales in the field of science fiction could of course also be listed. A story falling into the science classification, however, is more apt to be remembered for its power of thought, its scope of theme. Don Wandrei's science tales would be among these, as for example "Colossus." But Wandrei has been successful in both fields -- and even greater heresy -- is responsible for some rattling good detective heroes -- the astute Ivy Frost and the incomparable Cyrus North.
   Considering all this, the choice of the term fantasy, as a general classification for both types, was a fortunate one. It has done a great deal toward cementing the break between the two.
   At any rate, one thing is certain: some form of fantasy will always be with us. Older than "The Arabian Nights," new than a streamliner, it will remain long after other forms of fiction have fallen by the wayside.

Saving...

tion in which the background is an intrinsic part of the plot. You don't make over old stories into fantasy; not if you want to sell them, you don't." If you accept this to be the case -- and I think most every fan will -- why then need there be such a quarrel between the two? Apparently, however, that quarrel is deep-rotted among the fans, as witness the case of Weird Tales and the old Astounding. Back in the twenties when Farmsworth Wright was publishing some of the classics of his peculiar field, WT catered to both the science and the weird. Such tales as "Under the N-Ray," and work by Hamilton and Howard fell quite neatly into both classifications. What happened? The Eyrie, WT's reader department, began printing letters: "Leave out the science." "So and so's troy might have been okay if it were a true weird, which is wasn't." "We want weird tales not science." Then there was the case of the old Astounding. When this Clayton book was taken over by S&S, it started out with a general policy of general fantasy, both science and weirds. But Astounding had more science enthusiasts than weird followers on its reader list. The double policy continued for a few issues, but the result is well known. The Weirds departed gracefully. And yet, analyzed carefully, there doesn't seem such a great difference between the two types. Fundamentally, both are written to entertain, and whereas some of the modern science fiction stories may be considered in some respects more mature, based as they are on social analogies and thus farther removed from "escape" literature, the true weird tale, on the other hand, lends itself to a tighter technique and perhaps smoother writing. Let me hasten to add that these are generalities of course. Individual stories follow no regular channel. I think, perhaps, that one of the chief characteristics of the weird story which so many fans who dislike this type fail to appreciate, is what might be called the intellectual quality of its treatment. This does not mean that all weirds have an intellectual treatment. Far from it. But a neat little tale like Derleth's "Three Gentlemen in Black", for example, does have this quality. In other words the plot concerns a series of supernatural manifestations which no reader, however absorbed he may be, accepts as true or fact. The reader is led to continue, not alone because of the thrills he encounters, but because of the strange academic spell cast over him by a mixture of onomatopoeic diction and congrous background. It is this perhaps which explains the success of the Lovecraft, the Smith and the Derleth weirds. I am thinking particularly of "The Sheraton Mirror," "In The Vault," "The Dreams in the Witch-House," and "The Rats in The Walls." A similar list of outstanding tales in the field of science fiction could of course also be listed. A story falling into the science classification, however, is more apt to be remembered for its power of thought, its scope of theme. Don Wandrei's science tales would be among these, as for example "Colossus." But Wandrei has been successful in both fields -- and even greater heresy -- is responsible for some rattling good detective heroes -- the astute Ivy Frost and the incomparable Cyrus North. Considering all this, the choice of the term fantasy, as a general classification for both types, was a fortunate one. It has done a great deal toward cementing the break between the two. At any rate, one thing is certain: some form of fantasy will always be with us. Older than "The Arabian Nights," new than a streamliner, it will remain long after other forms of fiction have fallen by the wayside.