DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Timebinder, v. 1, issue 4, 1945

Transcribe
Translate

Timebinder, v. 1, issue 4, 1945

Page 16

CPL. PAUL H. SPENCER, U. S. ARMY OVERSEAS.

I've received your letter, and also the second issue of THE TIME-BINDER. I still haven't received No. 1, though it may yet show up, such being the vagaries of mail service out here.

In format and general appearance the mag is neat and dignified. In subject matter it is highly stimulating. Such thoughtful discussion-mags are among Fandom's most attractive facets. While they are, in a way, outside the strict limits of fantasy fandom, the thoughts expressed in them are of fan-interest, being derived from the "Time-binding", fan-type mentality. I do think there is more to it than time-binding, though -- there is space-binding as well.

It is not intelligence, exactly, but that odd quirk of seeing things in the large, of considering and weighing things beyond, but including, daily life. I hardly need say this type of mentality is not restricted to fans, though perhaps all fans do have it to some degree.

Congratulations on your "citations". Hardly out of childhood myself, I incline to admire your ideas on the training of children. Much can be done with children, for good or evil, and sometimes I get terrified rather at the probable incompetence of most parents in such a difficult and delicate task. There should be a more scientific -- though still warm and humane -- attitude toward the raising of children, both in home and in school.

Parents should have training; teachers should have better training. Slip-shod moral and mental education is, I suspect, the root of many of the world's evils.

The article on Conscientious Objectors is fine, and in general I agree with its premises. That is, I am not a C.O., but I see the point of view and think that those who hold it should be treated with decency and understanding.

One point not discussed is that, theoretically, at least, conscientious objection is considered valid only on religious grounds. Often this is waived, I gather, but there is a great opportunity for injustice. Witness the recent case of the chap condemned to death for refusing to drill. He wasn't allowed any such privileges as are given conscientious objectors because his objections were based on political rather than religious grounds.

The ideas on security and freedom are fine -- i.e., in line with my own! As for denying one's self luxuries because others lack necessities, it may be a noble gesture, but I don't see how it accomplishes any concrete good. If giving to the poor is involved, this criticism of course is invalid.

I believe many people are afraid of being king and sentimental and virtuous, although sentimentality can, I admit, become an evil if over-indulged. We put up facades of selfishness and callousness lest we seem soft. I say this, because I see, very often, ostensibly "hard" people doing unselfish things in a way

16

Saving...

CPL. PAUL H. SPENCER, U. S. ARMY OVERSEAS. I've received your letter, and also the second issue of THE TIME-BINDER. I still haven't received No. 1, though it may yet show up, such being the vagaries of mail service out here. In format and general appearance the mag is neat and dignified. In subject matter it is highly stimulating. Such thoughtful discussion-mags are among Fandom's most attractive facets. While they are, in a way, outside the strict limits of fantasy fandom, the thoughts expressed in them are of fan-interest, being derived from the "Time-binding", fan-type mentality. I do think there is more to it than time-binding, though -- there is space-binding as well. It is not intelligence, exactly, but that odd quirk of seeing things in the large, of considering and weighing things beyond, but including, daily life. I hardly need say this type of mentality is not restricted to fans, though perhaps all fans do have it to some degree. Congratulations on your "citations". Hardly out of childhood myself, I incline to admire your ideas on the training of children. Much can be done with children, for good or evil, and sometimes I get terrified rather at the probable incompetence of most parents in such a difficult and delicate task. There should be a more scientific -- though still warm and humane -- attitude toward the raising of children, both in home and in school. Parents should have training; teachers should have better training. Slip-shod moral and mental education is, I suspect, the root of many of the world's evils. The article on Conscientious Objectors is fine, and in general I agree with its premises. That is, I am not a C.O., but I see the point of view and think that those who hold it should be treated with decency and understanding. One point not discussed is that, theoretically, at least, conscientious objection is considered valid only on religious grounds. Often this is waived, I gather, but there is a great opportunity for injustice. Witness the recent case of the chap condemned to death for refusing to drill. He wasn't allowed any such privileges as are given conscientious objectors because his objections were based on political rather than religious grounds. The ideas on security and freedom are fine -- i.e., in line with my own! As for denying one's self luxuries because others lack necessities, it may be a noble gesture, but I don't see how it accomplishes any concrete good. If giving to the poor is involved, this criticism of course is invalid. I believe many people are afraid of being king and sentimental and virtuous, although sentimentality can, I admit, become an evil if over-indulged. We put up facades of selfishness and callousness lest we seem soft. I say this, because I see, very often, ostensibly "hard" people doing unselfish things in a way 16