(Heh, we got serifs ... or gizmos, depending


on your point of view)

S.Y.

AN ABBREVIATED "SEZ YOU"

TuckeResearch

P. O. Box 702

Bloomington, Ill.

Cheerio Face:

Bloch, Korshak, Eshbach and Evans join me in saying "well done" on the fifteenth issue, just arrived in this snowbound metropolis. Hot cinders, this is the best thing you've published except for the anniversary issue and Science Fiction Five-Yearly!

Over the falls in '52

[Bob]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lee Jacobs

Wilds of Camp Gordon

Augusta, Georgia

Dear Lee,

Quandry 15 is particularly notable for rousing relatively old memories of the long past Nolacon. Ah those smoke-filled rooms. However I noticed in one particular report, a grievous error occurred, an error which must be rectified at all costs.

One Richard Elsberry cleverly remarked: "Jacobs had a pitcher of Seagrams in one hand." This, of course, referring to the beginning of the now infamous Beer-knows-how-many-daze-and-nights-it-lasted party in the now infamous 770. Mr. Elsberry was grossly in error. I did not have a pitcher of Seagrams in one hand.

I had a pitcher of Canadian Club in one hand!

Best of everything in the issue was, as is fitting, Tucker's "How Dull Was My Weekend". But - as admittedly good as Tucker invariably is -- couldn't you get by without a Tucker item for several issues? I greatly fear that you will be accused as merely being a foil for Tucker's wit. ((that's bad?)) And that Q will soon change its title to Le Zombie Jr. or some such thing. Depart from BT. Give us some relief. Give us Hoy Ping Pong, instead!

About this here feud: Leave us be practical, which nobody has been as far as I can see. Gotta question -- HOW can we clean up fandom? Frankly, it's impossible, because no workable method can be devised. Social pressure? Nope, majority of fans are either feelthy minded (in a very intellectually polite way of course) or simply too passive. The fanzine editor could always find a market for improper material. Postal Authorities? Nope, why would an editor have to send his zine through the mails? Why not via Railway Express? Sure, it's a little more expensive but then most editors lose money anyway. Drrrrum offending persons out of fandom? Nope, that's just another form of social pressure. I suggest that before battle lines are to be drawn, Watkins and Company present a completely workable plan for cleaning up fandom.

... And it can't be done!

Lee Jacobs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Riley Joe Sayder

419 S. Bleckley Dr.

Wichita 8, Kansas

Dear Lee,

This was one of the first times I've seen anything on the CCF outside of Dawn. May I state that I am in complete agreement with Mr. Watkins. I am glad to see that you allowed the discussion to be printed. Although there is always two sides to every argument, I believe CCF should be granted a hearing.

Yours Truly,

[Riley Joe Snyder]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Robert Bloch

I have just perused the new issue of QUANDRY


Which contains reading matter which I an sure

Is of interest to all and saundry

Particularly the account of the party in 770

(Those of us who didn't attend certainly

missed something, haven't we?)

And then of course the biograph of Sneary

Whose spelling is weaker in practise than in theary:

In regard to the CRUSADE TO CLEAN UP FANDOM

I have read some of the fanmags in question and do not

quite understand why the Postal Authorities banned 'em.

But I will not take sides in this controversy

Either in the name of Indecency or of Goodness and Mersy.

Your Letter column was good and still is

But I kind of wonder where Walter Willis?

Yes, it was all good, but Tucker's Confession

Why the devil did you print that item, that's my question.

As one might gather from reading the blurb

It was slightly ab and more than a little surd

(Yes, I know that "blurb" and "surd" don't exactly rhyme

But I'm entitled to a few mistakes; after all what with poetic

license and all such a minor error isn't a major cryme.)

It isn't that I object to Tuck's reference to me, but the

guys with which I am bracketed;

He should know that sooner than be associated with such

vile pros and hucksters I would rather be straightjacketed.

And I'm sure he could prove how dull his weekend was

Without raising so much fas.

And with that, having said everything that is to be said,

The South Shall Rise, but I'm going to baid.

ODGEN GNASH

. . . . . . . . . . . .

((In reply to the request to print the above)) ODE TO A GRECIAN YEARN

If you wish to run my verse


You have my blessing, not my cerse:

Get out your ink, get out your stencil,

Do the things you think essential!

When I approach Poetry's Muse

And prod her with a gentle guse

My brimming genius overflows

If I so much as blow my nowse,

And each word from my pen a-rippling

Is worthy of a Keats or Kippling!

So go ahead and print my gem,

I do not really give a dem

Get down to work there in Savannah

And run my stuff in any mannah
,
Shape or form that you deem wise

Whilst I sit back and close my ise.

But when some foul vulgarian

Writes to complain my lines don't scian

Or advocates my poems need quelling

Due to errors in the spuelling,

I'll still sit smugly on my laurels

Though postmasters decry your maurels

And class you with the demi-monde, see,

For running such stuff in your Quondree!

---- Edna St. Vitus Melee

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F.T. Laney

816 Westboro Ave.

Alhambra, Calif

Dear Lee,

A few remarks inspired by the #15 Q: The yakking among Venable, Watkins, and Keasler gives me an excuse to rip into this fantastic movement to regiment fandom, which has been giving Watkins such a fine gob of notoriety. (I realize that he would probably deny that he wants to regiment fandom -- but he wants to censor fanzines, and he wants to limit them to three or four "approved" organs.)

And I think the whole thing is asinine. If Watkins' CCF were not so screamingly funny, it would not even be worth taking up space. Imagine it, this guy wants all fanzine editors to fall in line, under pain of withholding of subscriptions. I'll bet fan editors all over the country are shaking in their boots. I remember how a very VERY big name fan in LA "boycotted" AMAZING. During the whole time of the boycott, he consistently bought two copies, one for himself and one for the Foundation. If I were publishing a subscription fanzine (which of course I'm not), and any person or group of persons boycotted it (that is, by asking for a subscription refund) I'd gleefully send it to them free, both to keep them from cracking their priceless dignity by getting copies via the bootleg method, and because I would know full well that each and every subsequent issue would have something in it that would make them furious.

I'm very curious to know also how Watkins expects to get all fanzines combined into three or four. What if someone else wants to publish? I can just see Watkins ordering some editor to cease and desist and making it stick. I can also see Watkins keeping these magazines published regularly. What happens when the editor gets tired of it all?

And with a horrible clarity, I can see in my mind's eye a copy of one of these "approved" fanzines. It would be characterless, since no material calculated to offend Watkins and his stooges would be accepted. (This is for sure, since Watkins already has gone on record as opposing anti-religious stuff in fanzines as well as what he loosely calls "smut".) Nothing in it would be decently written, because no really good writer would submit anything for free publication knowing that it had to run the gauntlet of a bunch of censors. This is all the more true simply due to the fact that Watkins' obvious ability to rub people the wrong way would lead at least one high-grade editor to publish a non-Watkins fanzine just to spite these frog-puddle Hitlers. This type of magazine would obviously teem with good material, and being readable it would have no difficulty in keeping as big a subscription list as its editor wanted.

I don't want to be too hard on Watkins, though. Certainly no one can reasonably quarrel with his "let's make fandom better" or "clean-up fandom". This matter of cleaning up fandom has been overdue ever since fandom started.

I'd like to issue a public challenge to you, Mr. Watkins. I'm not saying that you can actually do anything about it, but at least you could put yourself and CCF on record in the matter, and by an adroit mixture of publicity and personal boycott perhaps make fandom too hot for a certain element.

What is the Watkins/CCF attitude toward homosexuality in fandom? Do you approve of the idea of known homosexuals attending stf conventions? Being active members, even officers, in local fan clubs? Do you approve of teenaged members of fandom being pulled down into perversion by these people? Do you yourself wish to associate with sexual deviates; do you want them in your home; do you wish your wife to meet them; do you want your other friends to meet them as friends of yours?

Of course the queers for the most part publish very clean fanzines. They are also rather unlikely to stir up too much of a disturbance due to their own extreme vulnerability. In print, at least, they'll usually not make you too uncomfortable.

But it seems to me that you'd do something about homosexuality in fandom if you are really sincere in your cleanup.

ftl

. . . . . . . . . . . .

((We cry cos no space forced out numerous wonderful letters. Write again please as we promise a bigger letter column next ish if possible. Also the fan poll ... yed))


Data entry by Judy Bemis

Updated June 17, 2001. If you have a comment about these web pages please send a note to the Fanac Webmaster. Thank you.