Transcribe
Translate
Fandango, v. 2, issue 1, whole no. 5, Summer 1944
Page 3
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
welcome any other fan into their homes. Some misguided persons even have the brazen effrontery to discuss in print whether or not some other fan is within his rights when he refuses some fan admission to his home, as in the recent Ashley disposal of Degler. Also, it apparently is impossible to expell any fan from membership in any fan organization. Why should this be? Why should there be this frantic pawing through constitutions, this desperate effort to avoid offending someone simply because he is a fan? Should not fan clubs--being no more than hobby clubs--use the same realistic approach to their membership problems as would any lodge or fraternal society? Must we resign ourselves to continued association with unworthy persons simply because they are fans? The Querkians have a word for it: TYFE ! It may be argued by some that to set a precedent of arbitrary expulsion might conceivably lead to dictatorship, to ruthless elimination of disliked persons by those who happen to be in control at the moment. Such a naive concept would be laughable, were it not so unforgivably stupid. Fan clubs are merely hobby clubs; the expulsion of any one member or group of members should not prove completely fatal to either party. As far as that goes, I fail to see why any fan or anyone else would care to remain in an organization where he was unwanted. Dictatorship? So what? After all, a rational view of the importance of a hobby club should prevent any fatalities here either. If fandom is nothing more than a hobby to the powers that be in FAPA, they are not likely to attempt dictatorship; if they do, the discriminated-against members can always resign and pursue their interests unmolested. Of course, if fandom is life itself, something without which we cannot exist, I can see some slight basis for the hot and bothered attitude. But I hope a majority of the members of FAPA are not such moronic fools as to take so intense a iew of their hobby. There is little point in my continuing to rave in this vein. My views of fan ethics (or any other kind of ethics for that matter) may be summed up in a nice, selfish nutshell: look out for yourself, I'll look out for myself. If we find mutual pleasure in each other's company, let's be friends; if we cannot let us not feel obliged to tolerate each other to such an extent that we lose all sense of moral righteousness, but at the same time, let us try not to be so small and petty as to feud over it. Repay good with good, and evil with evil--both on a rather grandiose scale. Rather simple, isn't it? In muy own case, this plan of life, system of ethics, or whatever else you may wish to call it, worked without a hitch for over eight years. I'll admit it didn't work so well with certain Los Angeles total-fans, but then, such a program is designed for dealing with normally balanced, intelligent, human beings. Think it over. ********* FANS vs. FEN. An about-face on Fan-Dango's Editorial Policy. -oOo- I quote T. Bruce Yerke, writing in #2 Knave: "One particularly irksome habit of the new regime on Bixel Street is the plural for the word fan, I.E., fen. We imagine this is taking use of the germanic method of forming the plural of "man". (Der Mann. . . Die Manner) These clever word mongers have knocked off the "m" and substituted an "f". "We imagine this basic change eliminates the word "man" from their vocabulary. These fen aren't men at all; they are poor, helpless, sexless things excommunicated from their race and origin. Scientifiction fandom is their reality. . . they ain't guys at all; they're fen, and fen doesn't mean men at all; it precludes membership in species Hom Sapiens. "So, fans (guys what like stf. some of the time), be careful -- 3 --
Saving...
prev
next
welcome any other fan into their homes. Some misguided persons even have the brazen effrontery to discuss in print whether or not some other fan is within his rights when he refuses some fan admission to his home, as in the recent Ashley disposal of Degler. Also, it apparently is impossible to expell any fan from membership in any fan organization. Why should this be? Why should there be this frantic pawing through constitutions, this desperate effort to avoid offending someone simply because he is a fan? Should not fan clubs--being no more than hobby clubs--use the same realistic approach to their membership problems as would any lodge or fraternal society? Must we resign ourselves to continued association with unworthy persons simply because they are fans? The Querkians have a word for it: TYFE ! It may be argued by some that to set a precedent of arbitrary expulsion might conceivably lead to dictatorship, to ruthless elimination of disliked persons by those who happen to be in control at the moment. Such a naive concept would be laughable, were it not so unforgivably stupid. Fan clubs are merely hobby clubs; the expulsion of any one member or group of members should not prove completely fatal to either party. As far as that goes, I fail to see why any fan or anyone else would care to remain in an organization where he was unwanted. Dictatorship? So what? After all, a rational view of the importance of a hobby club should prevent any fatalities here either. If fandom is nothing more than a hobby to the powers that be in FAPA, they are not likely to attempt dictatorship; if they do, the discriminated-against members can always resign and pursue their interests unmolested. Of course, if fandom is life itself, something without which we cannot exist, I can see some slight basis for the hot and bothered attitude. But I hope a majority of the members of FAPA are not such moronic fools as to take so intense a iew of their hobby. There is little point in my continuing to rave in this vein. My views of fan ethics (or any other kind of ethics for that matter) may be summed up in a nice, selfish nutshell: look out for yourself, I'll look out for myself. If we find mutual pleasure in each other's company, let's be friends; if we cannot let us not feel obliged to tolerate each other to such an extent that we lose all sense of moral righteousness, but at the same time, let us try not to be so small and petty as to feud over it. Repay good with good, and evil with evil--both on a rather grandiose scale. Rather simple, isn't it? In muy own case, this plan of life, system of ethics, or whatever else you may wish to call it, worked without a hitch for over eight years. I'll admit it didn't work so well with certain Los Angeles total-fans, but then, such a program is designed for dealing with normally balanced, intelligent, human beings. Think it over. ********* FANS vs. FEN. An about-face on Fan-Dango's Editorial Policy. -oOo- I quote T. Bruce Yerke, writing in #2 Knave: "One particularly irksome habit of the new regime on Bixel Street is the plural for the word fan, I.E., fen. We imagine this is taking use of the germanic method of forming the plural of "man". (Der Mann. . . Die Manner) These clever word mongers have knocked off the "m" and substituted an "f". "We imagine this basic change eliminates the word "man" from their vocabulary. These fen aren't men at all; they are poor, helpless, sexless things excommunicated from their race and origin. Scientifiction fandom is their reality. . . they ain't guys at all; they're fen, and fen doesn't mean men at all; it precludes membership in species Hom Sapiens. "So, fans (guys what like stf. some of the time), be careful -- 3 --
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
