Dear Editor:
Chances are you won't print this, as I am a comparative newcomer to the ranks of fandom, but I feel compelled to write anyway.
You will probably sneer and say that these words represent the vapid outpourings of a green "Neofan" in search of "Egoboo" -- and it is true that I am, to continue the currently stylish phraseology, a :Neofan". However, I would like to point out that I have been reading Science Fiction since the days of Mr Hugo Gernsback's late lamented (and never satisfactorily replaced) Electrical Experimenter. I can also claim some slight knowledge of basic science, being as I am employed in a responsible position in the frozen food industry. I might also point out, albeit with a slight trace of facetiousness, that I am, by your own self-admitted standards, completely sane, since I scored an absolute zero on the "Are YOU Sane?" test in the first issue of Science-Fiction Five-Yearly (having been unable to give an unqualified yes or no answer to any of the questions contained therein.)
But enough on my own qualifications. Suffice it to say that I feel completely competent to criticise there little fanzines that you and others produce so voluminously and, apparently, so thoughtlessly.
I was not, of course, on your original mailing list to receive Science-Fiction Five-Yearly. However, I recently saw a copy at the home of a friend of mine who happens to be a "BNF" and who showed it to me as one of the better examples of what has been done in the "fanzine" field. Perhaps, indeed, it is one of the better examples. If so, I have no desire to see the worst.
I will not go into detail on the puerile contents, since it is fairly obvious that none of the contributors are over 12 years old, and I have no desire to damage their just-awakened and scarcely-dry-behind-the-ears psyches. One conclusion, however, simply cries out to be stated.
I do not think that anyone will dispute that the greatest need in "fandom" today is for more organization: more discipline, more thoughtfully planned and judiciously directed striving towards a common goal, less helter-skelter dashing off in all directions at once, less frivolity -- and less deliberate sabotage of the vital campaign to make science fiction a respected literary field in the eyes of the general public. (Understand, I do not say that you are a deliberate saboteur. I do not know you well enough to judge your motives. But if you are not a deliberate saboteur, I am perfectly willing to give you the opportunity to prove it to me, though of course I doubt that you will be able to do so.)
There are, it is clear, two well-defined factions in "Fandom" today. One is good, right-thinking, constructive. The other does nothing but tear down the good work accomplished by the first. And you, whether deliberately or not, have chosen to cast your lot with the members of the second faction.
Your definition is so blatant that I was able to form this judgement as soon as I read the title of your "fanzine"!
Your title, in case you have forgotten, is Science-Fiction Five-Yearly. I see this as an unforgiveable sin -- only a serious student of these matters could conceivably care enough to make the distinction -- but there is no such word as science-fiction.
There is no hyphen in science fiction!
I repeat, there is NO hyphen in science fiction.
Or, if you prefer, there is no HYPHEN in science fiction.
Inserting a hyphen in science fiction can only be construed as deliberate sabotage of abysmal ignorance.
You may dismiss this as unimportant and trivial. I will only remind you that science fiction, no matter what else it is, is primarily words. To misuse words is to damage science fiction.
In hyphenation lies madness and suicide. De-hyphenate -- or perish!
There can be no middle course!
Sincerely yours,
Walter A. Whistle
Gold Star Home for the Oblique
770 Carrickfungus Road
Moscow, Georgia
*
*
*But a lot of people like this feature, Walt, and
knowing you for what you are, a generous, fair-minded,
all-around good fellow, we're sure you'll go right on
reading SCIENCE-FICTION FIVE-YEARLY,
happy in the knowledge that others are happy, too.
--ED.
Dear Editor;
As a long-time reader of Science-Fiction Five-Yearly, I have always found it in a class by itself as far as scientific accuracy and stimulating speculative thinking are concerned. Therefore, I an somewhat puzzled as to why you have so far completely ignored the greatest development in science since the wire wheel: Hieronymus machines.
That important work is being done in this field is beyond dispute. I myself, for instance, have conducted experiments involving the use of a Hieronymus mimeograph. I cannot go into too much detail about this machine, as the Patent Office has stubbornly refused to issue me a patent on it so far. However, the general effects are startling, and unquestionably Psionic in nature.
What happens is this. I take a manuscript, stencil it, attach it to the machine and start printing it, always using Hammermill Bond paper, 20 lb grade, 8 1/2 x 11. At a certain point in the run, the mimeo ink loses its tackiness entirely, and refuses to flow through the ink pad. By carefully noting how many copies have been run off at that point, I can tell what kind of typewriter the original manuscript was typed on! For instance, if the manuscript was typed on an Underwood Noiseless Office Machine, the ink stops running after 13,146 copies have been run off. If the typewriter was an Olympia portable, the run ends at 43,253 copies, and so on.
This works perfectly for me every time. I have tried it with other people too, but for some reason it only seems to work if the operator of the mimeo is a virgin and over the age of 35.
The most startling discovery of all, perhaps, is that the process works whether or not I crank the mimeograph -- but it does not work if there is no stencil on the machine.
If the results of similar experiments were collated and published, we'd really have something. I await your reply with great impatience.
Sincerely,
Randall Randall
Institute for Scientology, Inc.
Hood River, Oregon
*
*
*But a lot of people don't like this feature, Randy, and
knowing you for what you are, a generous, fair-minded,
all-around good fellow, we're sure you'll go right on
reading SCIENCE-FICTION FIVE-YEARLY,
happy in the knowledge that others are happy, too.
--ED.
Dear Ed:
Your magazine stinks!
Yrs truly,
Edwin Seigler, III
1014 Tuchakoe Rd.
Putney-on-Toast, Ind.
*
*
*But a lot of people like this feature, Ed, and
knowing you for what you are, a generous, fair-minded,
all-around good fellow, we're sure you'll go right on
reading SCIENCE-FICTION FIVE-YEARLY,
happy in the knowledge that others are happy, too.
--ED.
Data entry by Judy Bemis
Hard copy provided by Geri Sullivan
Data entry by Judy Bemis
Updated August 29, 2002. If you have a comment about these web pages please send a note to the Fanac Webmaster. Thank you.