I don't recall at this late date the exact reason that I didn't write you about the last Rd; I certainly meant to do so. No. 17 burdened our already overworked postman yesterday, and tho I accomplish nothing else tonight, I shall get this off to you.
Starting a letter to the editor with a complaint is contrary to all the wisdom of Mr. Carnegie but; I don't like you new format as well as I do the old. I'm referring to the sectioned contents, and the glue affixed cover, of course. Judging from the appearance of various copies of Other Worlds and some '44-'45 ASF, the cover and the contents of No. 17 are, I fear, apt to soon approach the state of a fool and his money ... I treasure my copies of Rd, and intend to bind them eventually, but...I still like the old format better, tho doubtless there were technical reasons for the change, of which I have no knowledge.
Probably the best item in the issue is the item on the inside front cover re the unfortunate Mr. Ely. "I like to bust a gut."
The Dream Bowl ticket was most clever, and was dreamed up by the Coles, I'll lay odds.
Les' editorial was much appreciated, and well-written. I doubt seriously that you accept the services of the enthusiastic Mr. Schaffer, however. To add my small piece to the already roaring flames, I do not know of a fan, over 21, who reads beyond the Forum and/or Clubhouse in Amazing. And if this be heresy, Mr. Browne, what has happened to the muchly flaunted AS circulation? And why are you so radically departing from Amazing's policies, in the presentation of Fantastic? Maybe Gibraltar has termites?
I gnash my teeth for not being capable of coming up with an article of the caliber of Temple's "HTWASFS" in SFD. This was of especial interest to me because of the large part played by both Temple and Clarke in Willis' "Immortal Teacup." This was superb.
Clarke's piece was professionally written...as is the majority of his work, serious and otherwise. Not being an ardent admirer of Dunsany, more I cannot say.
John Larkin's critique (along with Hayakawa) was perhaps the least prejudiced I have yet read, tho the Dianetician will perhaps not share my opinion. I enjoyed this very much.
"First Little Men's Jolly" engendered warm remembrances (in retrospect) of similar occasions in my own life, and a feeling of closer knowledge of the personal life and habits of the 'little men.'
Most enjoyable review in "On The Newsstands" was Gary Nelson's of the November Galaxy. Maybe because he has very succintly expressed my exact attitude towards GSF. I had a very nice letter from Mr. Gold a few days ago commenting on William Young's article in the current SFD, 'October Observations', which I will reproduce in next SFD a la RD. Various pro editors, as they come and go, may console themselves with possibly false thoughts that since fans are such a minority, their opinions are really immaterial, but between us fmz editors, we shall certainly easily convince them that we are a vociferously vocal minority!
I was enthralled by Mr. Kent-Wentworth's 'Tyrann...etc', and particularly liked the fairness of his closing paragraph. Some night soon I will try to discover a title or two worthy of his attention.
The balance of the issue was of It's-now-come-to-be-expected excellence, all well done, and ably presented. Some few months ago a rather prominent femme fan inquired whether I wished to be considered a member of the same specie "as those supercilious jerks who edit RD" and I fear that thru the current issue, my answer will have to be an emphatic affirmative.
With all good wishes for the continued success of RD, and best personal regards to one and all, I am
TO THE EDITOR:
I read with interest your article in the Rhodomagnetic Digest telling of your experiments with dreams, following the work of James Dunne in his An Experiment with Time - but I shuddered at your narrow escape! Possibly you are not familiar with J. Leslie Mitchell's Gay Hunter, (sequel to "Three Go Back", recently reprinted in Famous Fantastic Mysteries) which points out the grave dangers inherent in Dunne's experiments with time. Mr. Mitchell tells of three people who made just such experiments as yours and proves that the phenomena is far from being just subjective - in fact "that three-dimensional worm in space-time" transported all three into the far future.
This future, as it happens, was a happy period following the complete destruction of civilization, and the few remaining survivors were running around naked (no ice-age had intervened) leading a beautiful Cro-Magnon existence of love, etc. (Boy! Is that a danger? says you. But think a moment. Suppose they (you) had stopped in the period of destruction!)
But there were a few machines undestroyed - one prattled of the past Horrors! And two of the "dreamers" were "authoritarian personalities" (see Rhodomagnetic Digest, same issue) and they started to run things and found a ray that they could work, for a time, and all looked dark until the ray took care of them.
Enough! You surely will experiment no more. If you feel the desire creeping upon you, better far to delve within the pages of that outlawed book, The Necronomicon (Olans Wormius translation) by the mad Arab, Abdul Alhazred - or even the Coles' Big O - though either will drive you mad!
Incidently, I heartily agree with Mr. Johnson's feelings regarding Tiffany Thayer's man-handling of the Fortean Society, as outlined in the Digest. However, on page 6, under Thayer's qualifications, it perhaps should be mentioned that he wrote one very good science fiction-horror novel, Dr. Arnoldi-.
This is just a short note to say that I received Impressions of '52 today, and it is really swell, it was a really pleasant surprise and the first of its kind that I have ever seen, many, many thanks. There must have been a lot of work that went into it, and I want to thank all concerned.
When does the next Rod. Digest come out? I enclose a stamp and if you have time for a reply would appreciate it, if not O.K., I will get it in due time.
L. Ron (Dianetics) Hubbard stews in his own timejuice, according to your article, "Dianetics: Etc." in Rd, Nov.-Dec., '51. You claim that Ron's Dianetics is the same old Hubbardian s-f - "internalized" into a fictional "science". Good.
Good, that is, until you hoist yourself by your own "semantic" petard by basing your good case upon bad quotes from another semanticist, S. I. Hayakawa, piling Luna on Betelgeuse, and Betelgeuse on "Bronson G" - quotes with no page references from a book with no mentioned title if there is any damned book or any S. I. Hayakawa or any John Larkins...
Not calling anybody "space liars" - but let's be "semantical." DID a real S. I. Hayakawa really discuss DIANETICS? Which "S. I. Hayakawa" in what Akhasic Record published when by what gnomes in which nebula? Did your "quotes"!? just come from die Voodvork out, transcribed by "The Other Semanticist, J. Larkin?" Or was the original John Larkin quoting perhaps from Zrpn Qlzxnrb, the renouned biologist on Moklin who maybe stole Hayakawa's earthbody?
It's no use to push Hubbard way Out There - unless you nail him there good and tight. Because if you don't, and if there are any bibliographical vortices in your Semantic Space Swing why this Hubbard will just naturally swing himself back with the equiForce to pre-Time and infra-Space. Lord, we can't have that happen!
Which "semanticist," John, really stated w h a t - expressed how? In what light year? On which cylinder surface?
Data entry by Judy Bemis
Data entry and page scans provided by Judy Bemis
Updated June 28, 2015. If you have a comment about these web pages please send a note to the Fanac Webmaster. Thank you.