DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Milty's Mag, March 1942

Transcribe
Translate

Milty's Mag, March 1942

Page 4

Poor Elmer. He still can't understand how I can make more noise on the piano than he can, and yet he can fold empty beer cans and I can't. The answer is simply that Elmer plays piano harpsichord style: with his fingers, while when I want to make noise I play with everything from the shoulders down. The beer cans prove that Elmer has strong fingers; if he used the same system he should make all the noise I do. But then why the hell can't I bend beer cans? My fingers are not weak. It takes some strength to bring your hand down from the height of a couple of feet and strike a chord with outstretched fingers, and I can still chin myself using only the tips of six fingers for support. (I just did it to make sure.) So I guess I haven't learned the system for folding beer cans.

Which leads us to the subject of why gatherings of sf fans invariably end up in demonstrations of sundry strengths and physical skills. It is probably related, psychologically, to the reason the British fans are currently taking up our old game of teasing fans in general for not having the courage or physical strength to do all the things they read about and imagine themselves doing. (i.e., making the first space flight.) And is probably related, more remotely, to the present epidemic of discussions over whether sf fans are normal people or not.

In my opinion, the latter discussion is similar to the one waged by the philosophers concerning the number of teeth in a horse's mouth. It never occurred to them to find a horse and count the teeth. Fans discuss the psychology of fans without (1) knowing anything about psychology and/or (2) without making scientific observations to obtain material with which to argue. Pollcat is an exceedingly valuable step in the right direction. I hope it can be continued. 

From purely casual observation I find fans to be an exceedingly normal group of people. They think they are whacky. I know many other groups who think that they are whacky. I know some science fiction fans whom I consider rather stupid; others are the most intelligent people I have ever met. Fans consider themselves to have much imagination. I know some fans who have as little imagination as a match-box collector. (Note that reading super-science stories without signs of awe does not indicate a highly developed imagination; it probably indicates a deficiency of imagination.) On the other hand I know fans who do have a creative imagination. What I am driving at is to say that until it is proven otherwise to me (by suitable methods) I prefer to consider science fiction fandom as a group possessing normal distribution of traits except for this: they are all interested in science fiction. Whether this interest presupposes certain secondary characteristics is something that has to be determined, not speculated upon.

Concerning physical courage, which the Britishers are discussing in Fantast, that is another situation. Courage is a pattern of responses which the individual makes to dangerous situations. Like most responses, this is a learned pattern. Courage, or lack of it is not necessarily inborn. A person who appears to courageous is probably reacting in response to a situation which is more or less familiar to him, and the answers to which he knows.

Saving...

Poor Elmer. He still can't understand how I can make more noise on the piano than he can, and yet he can fold empty beer cans and I can't. The answer is simply that Elmer plays piano harpsichord style: with his fingers, while when I want to make noise I play with everything from the shoulders down. The beer cans prove that Elmer has strong fingers; if he used the same system he should make all the noise I do. But then why the hell can't I bend beer cans? My fingers are not weak. It takes some strength to bring your hand down from the height of a couple of feet and strike a chord with outstretched fingers, and I can still chin myself using only the tips of six fingers for support. (I just did it to make sure.) So I guess I haven't learned the system for folding beer cans. Which leads us to the subject of why gatherings of sf fans invariably end up in demonstrations of sundry strengths and physical skills. It is probably related, psychologically, to the reason the British fans are currently taking up our old game of teasing fans in general for not having the courage or physical strength to do all the things they read about and imagine themselves doing. (i.e., making the first space flight.) And is probably related, more remotely, to the present epidemic of discussions over whether sf fans are normal people or not. In my opinion, the latter discussion is similar to the one waged by the philosophers concerning the number of teeth in a horse's mouth. It never occurred to them to find a horse and count the teeth. Fans discuss the psychology of fans without (1) knowing anything about psychology and/or (2) without making scientific observations to obtain material with which to argue. Pollcat is an exceedingly valuable step in the right direction. I hope it can be continued. From purely casual observation I find fans to be an exceedingly normal group of people. They think they are whacky. I know many other groups who think that they are whacky. I know some science fiction fans whom I consider rather stupid; others are the most intelligent people I have ever met. Fans consider themselves to have much imagination. I know some fans who have as little imagination as a match-box collector. (Note that reading super-science stories without signs of awe does not indicate a highly developed imagination; it probably indicates a deficiency of imagination.) On the other hand I know fans who do have a creative imagination. What I am driving at is to say that until it is proven otherwise to me (by suitable methods) I prefer to consider science fiction fandom as a group possessing normal distribution of traits except for this: they are all interested in science fiction. Whether this interest presupposes certain secondary characteristics is something that has to be determined, not speculated upon. Concerning physical courage, which the Britishers are discussing in Fantast, that is another situation. Courage is a pattern of responses which the individual makes to dangerous situations. Like most responses, this is a learned pattern. Courage, or lack of it is not necessarily inborn. A person who appears to courageous is probably reacting in response to a situation which is more or less familiar to him, and the answers to which he knows.