LL Reconsidered?
MaiaCowan
responding to, because there's too much of it.
Actually, it's kind of a relief to read somebody get things wrong. That
means I'm not the only person who occasionally lets the fingers get ahead
of the brain. Sounds like we both learned something here, which we might
not have if we hadn't had this little encounter. I hope the innocent
bystanders will let me know if I should apologize for being louder than I
needed to be to make my point.
At some point I do want to discuss What's Wrong With The Hugos, and Can We
Do Anything About It? In spite of the fact that I have an indirect
personal stake in the outcome, I do recognize that there's something
troubling about the same names appearing year after year, and a lot of
really good stuff having no chance because not enough people see it.
Dr Gafia
I said I had a few quibbles with Maia. Let me start, not by
quibbling, but by explaining (to the extent I'm able) something
with reference to my last posting.
I've agreed with Maia that it makes very little sense to complain
about what other people choose to do in fandom unless it has
some impact on one's personal enjoyment; not merely "senseless"
but a violation of the philosophy of fandom I accept as my own--
that, in its purest form, fanzine fandom is (and should be) an
anarchistic meritocracy.
As Lan doesn't send me LAN'S LANTERN, and nobody could force
me to read it even if he did, on its face it would seem to be sense-
less for me to complain about it. Oh, I guess it would be all right if
I said what I thought about it if I were reviewing it -- that's what a
reviewer is supposed to do, after all, articulate a positive or nega-
tive opinion -- and it would be senseless to complain about that
review for the simple reason that (1) no one could force Lan to
read it and (2) even if he read it, no one has the power to force
him to abide by it. This is how it should be. The bottom line:
We're both free to do what we damn well please, within certain
broad parameters. Uncivilized, mean-spirited, dishonest, literally
crazy behavior over a prolonged period of time CAN result in
fandom collectively branding you "fugghead" and turning their
back -- but it has to be pretty damned extreme, as fandom as a
whole has only done this a few times (Claude Degler and George
Wetzel are all that immediately spring to find).
Maia was right, though. The uproar was over something like LL
being declared Good Enough for a Hugo when it wasn't by some
people's standards. On the one hand, as far as the fanzine Hugo
goes, I have made an open offer -- which I've been making since
19-&-ought-71 or so -- to trade Hugo-winning fanzines, on a
page-for-page basis, for other fanzines of the same period which
were never even nominated for the Hugo. I've never had a sucker--
ah, "taker," I mean. I can't find anyone willing to trade me
INNUENDOs for FANTASY/SCIENCE FICTION TIMES, or VOIDs
for YANDROs, or QUIPs for SFRs. To me, this is hard-to-refute
proof that the Hugo does nothing to enhance the value of a fanzine,
and that other criteria prevail with regard to that value. The quality
and worth of a fanzine can more accurately be determined by how
strongly other fans wish to keep it in their collections.
The award of a Hugo will not turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.
Yet another reason, seemingly, why it shouldn't matter to me who
or what actually "wins" the award.
The problem is with the word "best" and with the illusion that the
award is the opinion of all the members of a given year's worldcon
when it is neither.
Let me try to put it this way. If someone I know at work comes up
to me and asks if I can recommend an sf book for them to read, I
have a shelf full to choose from, so I think I can come up with
something that would provide them with a good sf reading experi-
ence.
But suppose they came to me with five sf paperbacks and asked
me to choose for them? No problem if I've read them all, but I'm
afraid that's unlikely given how my sf reading has fallen off lately.
If I haven't read any of them, of if the one or two that I _have_
read are real stinkers, and one that I haven't read says on the
cover that it's a Hugo-winner, I think I might reasonably
recommend the Hugo-winner. Not that the novel Hugo can't go to
something that's really bad, but surely this remain's the exception
rather than the rule.
For the fanzine Hugo, it has been the rule rather than the exception.
In my opinion, the fanzine Hugo has only two or three times been
awarded to the "best" fanzine published that year--Earl Kemp's
SAFARI, Richard Bergeron's WARHOON and, arguably, Dick
Geis' SFR. (I say "arguably" because SFR wasn't really my kind
of fanzine, but it was always well edited, not to mention highly
popular.) A few other really good fanzines received the Award,
for all that even better fanzines were published at the same
time, but, hey, I guess that's what makes horse racing, and there's
even less point in complaining about that.
The fan Hugos, with rare exception, reflect badly on the critical
integrity of the other Hugos. Alas. When we (I was on the com-
mittee responsbile) codefied the fan Hugos and made them
permanent at NyCon III, we initially intended to call them "Pongs"
after Hoy Ping Pong, an early fannish pen name of Bob Tucker's
--which could have precluded all this. But, no, fans made a real
fuss, insisting that the fan awards had to be Real Hugos-- again,
as though the award were some kind of magic wand capable of
changing the quality of whatever it had been awared to.
This is, essentially, where I have been "coming from"; I don't think
the entity known at any one time as the world science fiction
society is qualified to judge the "best" fanzine (or fan writer or fan
artist) in the same way that it is qualified to judge the best novel,
novellette, short short, editor or even movie. Almost 100% of its
membership is made up of people who call themselves fans of
science fiction and fantasy; I would be willing to make an even-
money bet that less than 5% of them receive more than three
fanzines (not including the semi-prozines) a year.
If Maia hasn't succeeded in changing my critical opinion of LL,
she's at least made me realize that, while I thought LL was one
thing, it was actually another. What it's not is a "reinvention-of-
the-wheel" fanzine distributed primarily to convention fans and neo
fanzine fans. What it is is a fat, sloppy, not-too-well edited genzine
that--particularly for fans who ARE somewhat new to the micro-
cosm--is genuinely fun to participate in. Mind you, that makes it
somewhat like CRY OF THE NAMELESS; I helped vote CRY a
Hugo and it didn't matter to me in the slightest that I realized there
were higher-quality fanzines being published when I cast my vote.
My critical opinion is that CRY was a better-than-average gen-
zine--but the "fun to participate in" factor made it one of the few
fanzines in my collection which I have had bound in buckram.
Let me rest it at that point. I'll be back with some genuine quib-
bles next time. That's a promise.
--rich brown
Chad Childers
Sorry, know how that sort of thing hurts.
>later; then you can all think I'm a jerk all over again.
Nah, you're not a jerk, even in flame mode.
--
/* Chad Childers */ http://grimmy.cnidr.org/chad.html
Chris Croughton
"Dr Gafia" writes:
>Let me give an example of that. Filk-singers. There is a breed of
>filk-singers who come to conventions to filk-sing, either with other
>filk-singers or for people who like to hear filk-singers. Now, the
>truth of the matter is, in any "group sing," I'm the one person
>capable of hitting L-flat or M-sharp,
PLease come to our filk-con! There's a song I've been wanting to hear
for ages written in L-flat with M-sharp accidentals, and none of the
filkers here can sing it properly...
>the one person in any sing-
>ing group smaller than one required to render a rousing verson
>of the Hallelujah Chorus who is asked, please, NOT to sing.
Not the only one, but I suspect most of us (Brits anyway) would be
polite enough to not ask you in public (unless you wanted to sing all
800+ verses of "Real Old-Time Religion", in which case we'd jump on
anyone!)...
>Further, although I can play a few things, I'm really not much
>into music. So do I "object" to these filk-singers? No, not at all;
>I'm free to go do what I want and they're free to do what THEY
>want. (Fact is, however, that they're STILL free to do what
>THEY want, even if I DO "object".)
Thanks for pointing that out. Although if your 'objection' extended to
heavy artillery, we might think twice (or possibly three times) if
perhaps we ought to sing somewhere else...
>But then there's the filker
>who wanders around with a guitar on his/her back, stopping
>off where people are sitting and conversing, waiting only for
>that first 3/10ths-of-a-second pause in the conversation to whip
>the guitar around and break into 21 choruses of "My Rocket's
>Got A Hole In It." Do I object to THIS filker? I do more than
>that; I feel free to walk away, no matter how "rude" s/he may
>think me to be I am exercising my option to do what I please,
Hold on, walking away from where someone forces themselves in like that
is _not_ rude, IMO. Rude would be something like yelling "You %^$&#,
how dare you bring your $&^%* guitar here!", it would include assulting
the filker; it does not, IMO, include walking away from a situation you
find intolerable. The latter is a mature response.
For that matter, even in a 'formal' filksing it is not generally
considered rude for people to go off and start their own groups if they
find the current one not to their liking. It is polite to wait to the
end of the song, but if that's a long one then what else can you do?
>and not to be forced to do something I don't please; I can't
>prevent the filker from doing what s/he does even by voicing
>my objection in any way except subjectively, by removing
>myself from the situation.
IMO, again, if someone broke into a conversation like that you would be
perfectly justified in some comment. Just as I would if someone came
into a filkroom and started talking loudly about fanzines - it's
inappropriate activity.
>But, hey, right, I DO remember the Program Book ad urging
>people to vote No Award--I think I was one of the signers. My
>only doubt about it is that I might not have supported it because I
>really think the only thing we should try to "do" about the fan
>Hugos is to abolish them. Failing that, they should redesignate
>"Best" with "Most Popular" for the three fan categories of
>"Fanzine," "Fan Writer" and "Fan Artist". But I first gave voice to
>this outrageous opinion in 1971, long before there
>was a LAN'S LANTERN. At some point or other I suppose I will
>have to try to reexplain my reasoning--but not now, not here,
>since it's not directly relevant.
Not to me - I happen to agree with you, but extend it to all the Hugos.
From what I've seen and heard (here among other places), I get the
impression that none of them fulfil the original purpose, and with so
many different groups of people all over the world I suspect that they
will all become more of a "popularity poll" than anything that reflects
real knowledge.
Thanks for admitting your error, anyway, I admire you for it (and ISTR
it's not the first time). We may still think you're a jerk, if you try
to prove it to us, but you're an honourable jerk unlike some of the rest
of us...
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Dr Gafia
lI have yet to offer a real quibble. Well, let me start with that notion
I had that LL was distributed primarily to convention fans and neo
fanzine fans (with the implication that this was done deliberately in
that such a group would have no, or few, other fanzines to com-
pare LL to).
I accept what Maia says in part because there are other people
saying it, too--LAN'S LANTERN is sent in trade to more fanzines
and more people in mainstream fanzine fandom than I was led to
believe.
(As an aside and in defense of myself for having looked for the
lowest possible motivation, let me say that I HAVE seen more
cynical things done in an effort to get a fanzine Hugo. LOCUS
had a lock on the award until the "Semi-Prozine" category was
invented in the belief that if LOCUS had a category of its own,
real fanzines might have a chance--but it came very close to
"buying" its first Hugo at Noreastcon with sample copies.
That is, as people joined Noreastcon, they received a sample
copy of LOCUS if they were not already on the mailing list.
Ostensibly any of the editors whose zines were up for the
award would have been sent the list, had they but known that
it was available and had they but sent for it, but even so you
can see how this would be more advantageous to a 4pp bi-weekly
mimeod newszine [which is what LOCUS was in those days]
than to the editors of considerably less frequent and large
or publications. But I digress.)
Anyway, Maia does say at one point, "Many of the readers of
LL haven't joined 'real' fanzine fandom because they've never
\been invited." So the truth is actually somewhere in between,
and I'm partly right that these people may not have everything
they need to make a qualified qualitative judgment.
Then too, at one point--I believe this may have been in a note
she emailed to me, but I can't imagine that she'd object to my
mentioning it here--she was talking about opening up the
discussion to see if we could discover just why the zines I seem
to think of as "quality" fanzines seldom (if ever) get nominated
or win.
No need for that--I already know. Most of the fanzine fans in the
"fanzine fandom" I'm aware of (the one I arguably call
"manstream") attend worldcons sporadically at best and seldom
obtain memberships far enough in advance to vote. (We're just
great when it comes to complaining about the outcome, though.)
So in part Lan IS kindof "reinventing" his own area of fanzine
fandom as he goes along. I make this only a quibble and not a
point of strong contention because Maia has convinced me that
it is something done unconsciously, either because it's the
leasiest course or perhaps the only course Lan feels is open to
him; that "many" of his readers haven't joined 'real' fanzine
fandom (but rather attend worldcons and do so early enough
to vote) isn't anything Lan can be blamed for, or at least I see
the absurdity of trying to maintain that it's a Machiavellian plot
to "steal" the Hugo from More Worthy Fanzines.
Now sometimes, when the worldcon leaves the continental U.S.,
miracles do happen. I note that two excellent fanzines from the
area I call mainstream fanzine fandom have been nominated this
year--TRAP DOOR and HABAKKUK. (But the winner of this
year's FAAN Award, BLAT!, is conspicuously absent.) I strongly
suspect that there are not enough fannish fans attending the
worldcon this year to give them a chance, and even if they were
I think it likely that the vote would be split, since as I say they are
both excellent fanzines.
Maia put "real" in quotes for a reason. She wonders if perhaps I
could be mistaken in judging that the area of fanzine fandom I
participate in is "mainstream" and in doing so makes a few
excellent points: "[then there] is your use of the term "mainstream"
fanzine fandom. Based on the people I've encountered who call
themselves "real" fanzine fans, and the fanzines I've seen by
these people, I conclude that "fannish" fanzines are published by
a specific group of people exclusively for each other, and have
as their exclusive subject the doings and thoughts of these people.
I've seldom read anything in a "fannish" fanzine that was
intelligible, much less interesting, to anyone not already part of the
group. The impression is that these "fannish" fans deliberately
discourage "outsiders". They maintain their sense of being
mainstream by declaring the rest of us marginal. Odd that the
"marginal" people vastly outnumber the "mainstream". Is it possible
you have it backwards--"we" are mainstream, and *you* have
marginalized yourself?"
Yes, you outnumber us. But think about it. If numbers mean that
much, we're both out of it and Star Trek fandom is the mainstream.
I don't believe that; I don't believe you do, either.
I would be happy to recommend certain things for Maia's (or
anyone else's) reading pleasure that have appeared in fannish
fanzines that require no special "in-group" or fannish knowledge
to be appreciated.
I'll get around to Maia's "impressions" of these people in a
separate quibble, no doubt, but for the moment I want to
concentrate on at least considering the notion that Maia put
forward--that the "LL crowd" might be mainstream and we (the
traditional fanzine fandom in which I am involved) are marginal.
I hate to be simplistic, but I see no other course for it: To be in the
mainstream, it seems to me, is to be aware of yourself in the
mainstream. The "mainstream" is, of course, not just the place in
the stream where you happen to be at the moment--it is the
entirety of the stream itself, which not only surrounds you and the
little boat you're in but stretches out in front of you as well as
behind you. To be more than just part of it, to be mainstream,
you must be (or at least a significant portion of your group must
be) aware of where it is, where it has been and where it is going--
and where you are in relation to all that. When I look back over
my shoulder from where I am right now, I see WARHOON,
PONG, IZZARD, TAPPEN, RUDE BITCH, TRAP DOOR, FAST &
LOOSE, and literally scores of other fanzines; I see other
batches of fanzines behind them, and more yet behind them,
stretching back through all the really great fanzines, all the way
back to Ray Palmer's THE COMET. Throught trends and fads
and changes and insurgencies, via the timebinding from one fan
generation to the next, I see strings and threads that tie all these
fanzines together, into a stream of fanzines, the mainstream.
And no, before you ask, they're not all "fannish"--fannishness
goes back to First Fandom and Bob Tucker, but it was a trend that
didn't really become popular until...
Oops. Excuse me. At the drop of a beanie, I wander off into a
self-inflicted (or self-indulgent, more likely) discussion of obscure
fanhistorical concerns. And you're probably not much into
fanhistory--I infer that's why fannish fanzines seem to you to be
"published by a specific group of people exclusively for each
other, and have as their exclusive subject the doings and thoughts
of these people"--you (and, by extension, probably others in the
LL crowd) are not much interested in fanhistory, the folk tales and
jokes of the microcosm that are bound up in what happened in
fandom before you (that's "you" as a group, not "you" personally,
Maia) arrived on the fan scene yourself.
So if you WERE the mainstream, you'd be in serious trouble.
"Deep shit," I believe, is the phrase. Because without knowing
where you were coming from, you'd be like a boat without a
rudder--you wouldn't know left from right or front from back. Or,
to take a metaphor of Walt Willis's, you'd be like that genderless
hybrid, the mule. A mule is the sterile offspring of a jackass and
a mare--an animal, as Willis said, "without pride of parentage or
hope of posterity". If you don't want to be bothered with remem-
bering details of the past, the folk-tales and folk-wisdom of our
community, particularly the good and/or humorous things other
people have done in and for fandom in its past, then with the
passage of time and the onset of new groups of fans coming on
the scene, you probably won't be rememebered for the good
things you have done in and for fandom either.
lllllllllnnnnnnnnnnllllllllllnnnnnnnnnnllllllllllnnnnnnnnnnllllllllllnnnnn
nnnnn
But fortunately, Maia, it's not that bad. This whole discussion
presumes to try to validate something we've both agreed doesn't
really apply--namely, we're not an "us" vs. "them". LL isn't, as I
thought, a convention fan's "reinvention" of the fanzine. Having
been a fanzine fan since 1956, I guess I can legitimately claim
a degree of expertice on fanzines--but I don't have the "power"
to arbitrarily declare LL a non-fanzine. In making that
declaration, I thought I was only agreeing with the one person who
DOES have the power to arbitrarily declare LL a non-fanzines--
Lan himself. You assure me he made no such declaration,
expressed no desire for the separation. LL is, as I said in an
earlier posting, a fat, sloppy, not-too-well-edited genzine that a
lot of people really enjoy, which isn't at all a new thing; there've
been others and they have been "part" of mainstream fanzine
fandom. Doesn't matter that fanhistory isn't Your Thing; we'll
be glad to remember it all for you, wholesale. That's cool. If you
develop an interest in it later, that's cool too--but by no means
necessary.
-o0o-
Now I think I'm going to be able to finish up in one more try....but
later, of course.
Regards,
rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
ly...@access5.digex.net
rich brown's comments alluding to the FAAn Awards makes this seem a good
opportunity to make an inquiry about this year's awards. First of all, I
have never seen any voting statistics, only that BLAT was the winner. Is
any breakdown available? These awards were originally scheduled for
reintroduction at last year's Corflu, but the very low turnout of
nominating ballots (only 6 were received) caused them to be cancelled
(then) for lack of interest.
So how many votes were received this year? Also, *WAS* there a
nominating ballot? I sure didn't see one, and I was surprised to see
MIMOSA on the final ballot for an award I didn't even know existed.
RWL
Chad Childers
>"marginal" people vastly outnumber the "mainstream". Is it possible
>you have it backwards--"we" are mainstream, and *you* have
>marginalized yourself?"
I rather tend to agree with this.
>Yes, you outnumber us. But think about it. If numbers mean that
>much, we're both out of it and Star Trek fandom is the mainstream.
Hrmm... to me, that means that a "mainstream" fanzine would be a genzine,
and would almost HAVE to include something about Trek, along with a
lettercolumn, and a little bit of input on a lot of different interests,
from a lot of different people. Wouldn't it seem logical that the more people
who contribute to it, the more mainstream it's likely to get? Gosh knows a
lot of perzines are somewhere way off in left field.
It seems like what Dr.Gafia is talking about as "mainstream" is in danger
of becoming a stagnant pool off to the side somewhere unless really active,
outgoing fanzine fans like Lan get involved in it.
>mainstream. The "mainstream" is, of course, not just the place in
>the stream where you happen to be at the moment--it is the
>entirety of the stream itself, which not only surrounds you and the
Right. Trufandom isn't really in the middle, it's off to one extreme.
So's media fandom. I guess what I'm trying to say is: let's aim for a
happy medium. Hmm, not real sure I'm happy with what I said as a definition
of trufan, maybe someone could say that better.
>earlier posting, a fat, sloppy, not-too-well-edited genzine that a
Whoever said this first, I agree, it's a genzine. Grin... and okay, it's
a little overweight!
Chad Childers
year's Hugos, I've still got it up on my web server, at
http://grimmy.cnidr.org/cons/hugo.info.html, or click on hugos, then ballot
info, off the con list.
Basically, there were 491 valid ballots received, 451 voted for best Dramatic
Presentation, with Best Novel second at 408, and best Fanzine second to last
at 259 votes. Best Fan Artist got two less.
David Dyer-Bennet
>year's FAAN Award, BLAT!, is conspicuously absent.) I strongly
>suspect that there are not enough fannish fans attending the
>worldcon this year to give them a chance, and even if they were
>I think it likely that the vote would be split, since as I say they are
>both excellent fanzines.
Pause to explain "Australian ballot" as used for the Hugo awards. If
there are three fanzines on the ballot, F1 and F2 being wonderful
faannish fanzines and LL being, you guessed it; and if about half of
the voters rank them in the order "F1, F2, LL" and the other half rank
them "F2, F1, LL", one of F1 and F2 will win (which one depends on the
fine details; I'm using "half" as a rough approximation, and the
departures from exact symmetry will determine which wins). Splitting
the vote is not something that happens in an "Australian ballot"
system. Since everybody prefers F2 to LL, and everybody prefers F1 to
LL, LL will not win.
(It *is* possible to construct perverse cases, especially involving
small numbers of votes relative to the number of nominees, in an
Australian ballot system.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, proprietor, The Terraboard Minneapolis, MN
http://gw.ddb.com (sf, photo) ddb@{network.com,terrabit.mn.org,gw.ddb.com}
http://gw.ddb.com/{4th-Street,minicon31} (sf conventions)
Mail to <4t...@terrabit.mn.org> for Fourth Street Fantasy Convention info
Dr Gafia
almost full essay sized--so you might want to save it and read it
off-line, if you're paying by the hour. But also you should be
made aware that this is Part IV of the series & also, hopefully,
the last.
Maia has come away with some lousy impressions of the area of
fandom I choose to participate in. For just one example: "...I can
confirm something Avedon touches on; the 'LL crowd' wouldn't
touch 'real' fanzine fandom with the proverbial pole. You've man-
aged to convince them that you're a bunch of insufferable snobs
with an attitude problem and no manners at all. Is this what you
wanted to do? It certainly isn't the way to get them to agree with
anything else you say!"
This is not the first time this question of whether or not fanzine
fans are a bunch of insufferable snobs has been posed and it's
not even that it has always been posed by people, like Maia, who
are on the outside looking in; Leah Zeldes Smith was tossing that
one in my directlon only just recently. (Leah's charge was ulti-
mately ignorable; I popped it off my chest like so much popcorn.
But I digress.)
Well, there are those who say that where there's smoke, there
must be fire--and while I'm not absolutely certain if that's the case
here, perhaps we should grant the possibility, if only for the sake
of discussion.
Before I try to apply this obvious insult to the obscure branch of
fanzine fandom which I still happen to refer to, in my usual gleeful
manner, as "mainstream fanzine fandom," I'd first like to pose it
more generally:
Are fans snobs?
Well, you know, in a surprising number of ways, the answer is:
Yes, they (we) are.
Do we believe we're "superior"? Not in any really serious way that
I've observed--the sole charm of the notion of a world under the
domination of skiffy fans is that it's such an absurd picture. We
have laughed for more than half a century now at the notion that "
fans are slans"; we admit we may have Cosmic Minds but claim
we don't know what to do with them.
But deep down, perhaps, in a subtle way, I think many if not
actually most of us may actually believe that fans, as a group, are
at least "slightly" superior to mundanes. At a minimum, fans are
readers which means, as a subgroup, we're closer to being 100%
literate than the total population. That probably gives us at least a
10% "edge" with regard to taking IQ tests; on top of which, the
fact that our choice of reading matter contains a fairly high pro-
portion of "cutting edge" science compared to what most regular
people encounter as a matter of course could make it so that, as
a group, our average IQ might be 25 or more points higher than
theirs. As I recall, fans did rather well the last time MENSA came
through looking for recruits.
Of course, if that's what we do believe, we find ourselves open to
that age-old question, "If you're so smart, how come you're not
rich?" (Or, the rest of your are, since I AM rich. Alas, I'm just
not wealthy...) Naturally enough we, in traditional snobbish
fashion, can always refuse to dignify that one with an answer....
There are things in our fannish culture which point toward this
underlying belief. When I was a neofan, I opted for FooFooism
as my fannish religion, but since I didn't really know anything
about traditional FooFooism (the one started by Jack Speer as a
respose to Donald A. Wollheim's GhuGhuism), I started the
Revised, Edited and Blue-Pencilled Church of Melvin (the BEM of
BEMs), so I could "wing it". The R.C.E.B.-P. of M. holds that
FooFoo created fandom in the twinkling of an eye (we Melvinite
FooFooists are so enamoured of that phrase and everything it
seems to imply that I'm going to repeat it for you: FooFoo
created fandom in the twinkling of an eye), but then, as an
afterthought, FooFoo created the mundane world--just so that we
would have something to laugh at.
For something less obscure, THE ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR,
the Pilgrim's Progress of fandom, mentions that the land of
Mundane is surrounded by the Forest of Stupidity, which
"protects [Mundane] from the searching winds that sometimes blow
in out of fandom."
Well, perhaps because we ARE above average in intelligence, as
a general rule we realize we are NOT the race that's destined to
rule the sevegram. In my opinion, it's not the fact that power
corrupts (or that absolute power corrupts absolutely) which stops
us from Just Taking Over so much as it is the intelligent realization
that, once you allow yourself to get involved in Running Things
on a Global Scale, it's just work, work, work, and hardly any fun
at all. Whereas, at base, we fans are just simple pleasure
seekers, seeking our simple pleasures. Right? Right.
Nonetheless, it can be shown that we behave in a Very Snobbish
Manner. Oh, we probably all have at least a few mundane friends
--just to show how "liberal" we can be--but, really, would you want
your daughter to marry one? Then too, when we go to a conven-
tion, attend a club meeting or put out a fanzine, we are, by impli-
cation, expressing our preference for the company (in person or
on paper) of other fans--to the exclusion of mundanes.
Then there is the matter of how different subgroups of fans treat
each other. Do I even have to ask if reading fans feel superior to
Star Warriors and Trekkers? No, I don't. I'll leave unanswered
(since it's not germaine to this discussion) whether or not this is
common sense, snobbery or bigotry; but just acknowledge that
cases could be made for all three.
Maia, after bringing the matter up for discussion in the first place,
subsequently admits that "...convention fandom can be pretty in
groupish, too, which is a pity." No doubt her "devil we know"/-
"devil we don't know" theory helps explain why it happens, when
it does happen, in other areas, too. Neither of us, I think, would
claim that explaining why it happens entirely excuses it from hap-
pening.
I could go on, but I think/hope I've made a point here--to a degree,
a kindof bemused snobbery is accepted, or at least tolerated, in
fandom. As long as it's not "too serious". My daughter, as it
happens, IS marrying a someone who has only a passing
acquaintance with sf; I have mundane friends; I like and respect
any number of people who have confessed a liking for Star Trek,
and/or who are convention fans, filkers, costumers and/or any of
the other subdesignations I don't choose to apply to myself.
So with that in mind, let me go forward and try to respond to some
of Maia's specific points:
"I do get the sense, alas, that the self proclaimed 'real' fanzine fans
are indignant because they smugly believe fandom is THEIR party
and they don't want the Lantern crowd to join, and they're the only
ones who have a right to decide who joins."
Maybe some of what Maia "senses" here actually exists; I have no
idea who--whether me and people I regard as friends or some
other group entirely--Maia may have in mind. I can only speak
for myself and maybe, guardedly and with qualifications, for a
few of my friends. And what I'd say first in response to Maia's
feelings is that most of us are very much aware of--and approve
of--the fact that general fanzine fandom is, and should remain, an
anarchistic meritocracy. It's an anarchy: No one runs things.
There's no membership dues, membership committees, member-
ship cards or badges ("...we don' need no Steenking badges....").
To join, you simply elect to participate. And what you do, you do
on your own hook; not only can no one prevent you from doing
what you want to do, no one WANTS to prevent you from doing
what you want to do, because they're too busy doing what THEY
want to do. It's a meritocracy: Those who demonstrate merit
garner egoboo, the coin of the realm. The merits include talent,
wisdom and genuine kindness--sometimes just one, more often
all three--and the ultimate reward is a title, BNF, Big Name Fan.
You can't just take the title for your own--fandom, as a whole,
must decide you deserve it. But fanzine fandom remains
anarchistic, because it's a title without real power. A BNF may
be heard first on any given question, but when a BNF is wrong
and a neo is right, fanzine fandom will go with the neo--every
time out.
Now there is an old sf club known as the N3F--the National Fan-
tasy Fan Federation. It is everything that fanzine fandom is not--
organized, purposeful, extremely serious. They have officers and
dues and committees filled by member/volunteers. One of the
committees is the "Welcoming Committee" (I honestly can't recall
if it's called the "WelCommittee" for short). Whenever anyone
joins the N3F, they get a letter from everyone on the W.C., wel-
coming them to fandom. When the N3F started its own apa and
Harry Warner joined to be able to get into the apa, Harry
received letters from everyone on the W.C. welcoming him to
fandom. An amusing sidelight is that while these committee
members have a "duty" to welcome people to the N3F (i.e.,
fandom, as the N3F recognizes it), they don't have time to get
into any more meaningful correspondence with those they
welcome--because they always have a new group to be wel-
comed, month in and month out. (I'm talking about things as
they existed 20 years ago; with a good word processor today,
the matter might be different.)
My point here is that, even without a word processor, this sort of
"welcome" is something that is ground out, like so much product,
and as a result is at some points inaccurate and at all points
insincere. Still, if it's the sort of thing that turns you on, by all
means, join the N3F....
Maia also opined at one point that "many" of LL's readers
"...wouldn't be all that interested in 'fannish' fanzines because they
don't know the people, the culture, etc., and there just aren't
many attempts made by those people to make that culture more
widely appealing. I suspect that the members of that culture
wouldn't want to make it more widely appealing; it would change
it too much from what they're perfectly happy with."
I must admit I'm intrigued; I wonder what Maia means by
attempting to make fanzine fandom's culture "more widely
appealing". I think fanzine fandom is always open to suggestions
about how this might be done. I find her belief that it's not being
done a bit saddening, because I think of all the fanhistories, the
Fancyclopedias, fan dictionaries, fan anthologies (from the now
annual "Best of the Year" to collections of individual fans' writ-
ings), the keeping of things like THE ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR
in print, even putting it on as a play at conventions, and I think of
all the articles in currently appearing fanzines that Maia has
already dismissed out of hand because they're essentially about
this fannish culture and not about sf; and I think about all those
fanzines that, for the most part, are available free for the asking
(which costs you a 32-cent stamp) and I wonder what more
Maia and the LL crowd feel we should be doing, given that our
society is not controlled and must therefore always "make do"
with what fanzine fans are willing to do on their own hook.
I have to admit that I'm reminded, at least in part, of a scene that
occurs early in THE ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR. Jophan is on
his journey, going over the Mountains of Inertia, when stones
and rocks start tumbling down the path and Jophan looks up to
see an angry little man swearing and pulling the reins atop "the
highest horse Jophan had ever seen". When he reaches
Jophan's level, the little man introduces himself as Disillusion
"--THE Disillusion, y'know" and when Jophan tells him he should
be more careful, as he might have hurt some pilgrim on the way
to Trufandom, Disillusion just says it would serve 'em right--only
a fool would want to go there. Jophan takes this to be a
criticism of Fandom and asks what's wrong with it. I take the
liberty of quoting the pertinent section:
"What's wrong with it?" repeated Disillusion incredulously.
"Why, EVERYTHING's wrong with it! They're either stupid or
mad, every one of them. Why, they didn't even come out to
greet me when I arrived -- ME, mind you! At first they even
pretended not to see me until I got down off my horse, and when
they did speak to me I couldn't understand a word they were
saying. And their customs! I've never seen anything like them!"
"Well, after all," said Jophan, "it is a different country. Maybe
if you had tried to learn their language . . ."
"Nonsense!" snapped Disillusion. "They were just trying to keep
things from me and laughing behind my back. Well, they can have
their secrets. I don't want to have anything to do with them. They
were all against me, I tell you. Imagine, not even thanking me for
entering Fandom, after all I tried to teach
them . . ."
Disillusion goes on down the mountain and Jophan, upon reflec-
tion, feels "refreshed" by the experience--deciding the dislike of
such a person might actually be a recommendation of Fandom.
Let me hasten to add that while I think there may be ELEMENTS
of this is Maia's response, I don't think it blankets her argument
entirely. It occurs to me that sometimes the "snobbish behavior"
associated with fanzine fans is that they tend not to be too
accessible even when they go to conventions. It is true that,
when I do go to a con, I tend to hang out with the people I have
gotten to know over the 39 years I've been involved in the micro-
cosm. I do meet new people from time to time, but for some
reason that isn't held in my favor.
So I have to presume that people in the LL crowd behave differ-
ently. They may have made friends in fandom over the years,
but when they go to conventions, they ignore their friends, or at
least don't hang out with them--because that, after all, would be
snobbish. Instead, they go around making people, absolute and
total strangers, who seem to be alone and/or new and/or not hav-
ing too good a time all feel appreciated and welcome. (Some-
times this can be accomplished by a simple laying-on of hands...)
==
Okay, I'm back from satiric mode. But the satire makes my point.
And if Lan and Maia can come to a convention, meet up with the
people they have met and grown to like over the years, and
spend most of their time partying with those people, without run-
ning around making sure that all the people they don't know are
having a good time too, and escape being called snobs, then the
fanzine fandom I am part of should be able to do the same.
Oh, and while I'm on it, there are a lot of perfectly good, non-
snobbish reasons for having closed-door by-invitation-only
parties at conventions. The major one is having a small room/small
supply of party goods. But it could also be a party at which
people are getting sercon--to which people who don't approve of
that sort of thing should not be invited. Or it could be a nice
friendly orgy--to which people who don't approve of that sort of
thing should not be invited.
I tend to think of fanzine fandom as the loose equivalent of an
open-door party. All you have to do is come up to the door and
knock politely, and someone will let you in. If you're new and t
hings confuse you, feel free to ask--stupidity is unforgiveable but
ignorance is no crime. If you like what you see, feel free to parti-
cipate, to the extent that you desire; if you don't like what you see,
feel free to go elsewhere and do something more to your liking--
no questions asked. But it's also true that we don't glad-hand
people at the door, force them into attending the party and
Preach the Way like a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses or religious
deprogrammers. We DO think, if our area of fandom is really
"worth it," that people will come and participate of their own free will.
If it dies out because not enough people are willing to exert that
minimum amount of effort, then sobeit.
Thing is, Maia has convinced me I was wrong in one important
respect--LL is a legitimate part of fanzine fandom. I only denied it
because I thought it was Lan who'd flang down the guantlet,
saying that he didn't want to be a part of it. I was saying that, per
the above, if he didn't want to be part of it, he didn't have to be--
no one could (or would want to, that I know of) force him.
But now it gets difficult. As a part of our fanzine fandom, she and
Lan can show us how we can avoid these charges of snobbery.
As always, the only power anyone has is over their own actions.
I'll be watching to see what they do that's any different, and if the
results impress me as being reasonably beneficial, why, I'm willing
to change my own mode of behavior.
But I want to see the results first. And since it IS a matter of con-
cern to Maia, at least, I expect to hear what she has in mind, either
soon or Soon (as we used to say in SAPS).
--rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Arthur Hlavaty
into a two-valued battle of opposites: Either we go out and recruit, at
best like the N3F with a lot of formal stuff or at worst like the
Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses ringing doorbells, or we sit around doing
our own thing and let others join if they're willing to do the work of
learning about us.
The real situation has struck me as more like a continuum. At a con, I'm
not going to go out and welcome strangers (that's at least as
much from being as socially challenged as the stereotypical fan as it is a
matter of principle), and I'm going to seek out old friends from the
printed page (or, now, screen) like rich and Maia, but I also carry
copies of my zine, and if I do meet new people who seem interested in
fanzines, or the topic comes up at a panel.
One problem in all of this is that fanzine fandom, liek any community,
develops its own language, to the point where outsiders fail to
understand through idnorance, rather than stupidity. For instance, it
might be possible to guess from context that "getting sercon," in rich's
latest post, refers to communal use of unlawful substances, but I imagine
a lot of people just said, "Huh?"
I tend to consider the use of in-group references a surrender to my own
laziness (one of the most powerful known forces in my universe), and I
find it so tempting that I sometimes attack it in others. I'm trying not
to do that, just to recognize that the use of fanspeak is a
tradeoff--greater ease of communication with oone's own group versus loss
of contact with those outside.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
Evelyn C. Leeper
> The discussion of attracting newcomers to fanzine fandom is breaking down
> into a two-valued battle of opposites: Either we go out and recruit, at
> best like the N3F with a lot of formal stuff or at worst like the
> Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses ringing doorbells,
Of course, there's Mark's and my style of recruiting whenever we meet
someone at AT&T who reads science fiction: "Would you like to be on the
SF club mailing list?" The next thing you know they're reading about
conventions, and fandom, and who knows what else. (At this point,
several posters will claim they're getting all the wrong information
from such as myself, not to mention an onslaught of book reviews and
film reviews of apparently questionable quality but, hey, you get what
you pay for.)
Then again, Mark and I were the ones who introduced Lan to fandom (in
the form of the Wayne Third Foundation), so Ghod knows we have a lot to
answer for. This entire interminable thread, for example....
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
"I don't care what may be his politics. I don't care what may be his
religion. I don't care what may be his color. I don't care who he is.
So long as he is honest, he shall be served by me." --Theodore Roosevelt
Chad Childers
jargon, cliqueishness that you accuse it of. Certainly, a part of the reason
for a special jargon amoung doctors, computer experts, etc, is to keep power
amoung the high priesthood and not let outsiders understand. I think I read
a paper about that sometime.
Did you see the thread here lately where Leah was discussing with shock how
mundanes knew more about television SF than she did, and someone jokingly
replied that we'd have to concentrate on something more obscure in order to
keep our trufannish purity? The comment about Jay Leno and Ferengi? There
is certainly a large grain of truth in there... we want to all know obscure
things that we can share, that make us special... in the SF club I started
out in, it sometimes involved large chunks of Buckaroo Banzai and Hitchhikers
Guide... the same thing certainly happens in fanzine fandom. I've never read
ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR, but much like learning catchphrases from Buckaroo Banzai
from my friends before I'd actually seen it, I've picked up bits and pieces of
it from random comments over the years. The same sort of thing is going on -
not saying that it's bad, just that it's typical... it's got to be a textbook
example of some phase of group dynamics (anybody got a good group dyn. text
handy?).
Chad Childers
>develops its own language, to the point where outsiders fail to
See my previous post about jargon - it may not be conscious, but it tends to
keep newcomers out.
>might be possible to guess from context that "getting sercon," in rich's
>latest post, refers to communal use of unlawful substances, but I imagine
Huh??? Grin, didn't know that. Seriously, I once used the word sercon in
a concom meeting and had about half of the people confused - I suggested
making so-and-so responsible for the sercon track programming, and we had to
stop and someone explained what I meant.
>I tend to consider the use of in-group references a surrender to my own
>laziness (one of the most powerful known forces in my universe), and I
>find it so tempting that I sometimes attack it in others. I'm trying not
I don't think it's laziness, but it is fun, and tempting. I'm not going to
stop using jargon, but I think we need to realize that it can be off-putting,
and make allowances. It isn't enough to say "well, they can read the
FanCyclopedia", that's a rather Vogonic attitude.
>to do that, just to recognize that the use of fanspeak is a
>tradeoff--greater ease of communication with one's own group versus loss
>of contact with those outside.
Precisely, you're right.
Dr Gafia
hla...@panix.com (Arthur Hlavaty) offers
in <3q9t3d$7...@panix.com>:
>The discussion of attracting newcomers to fanzine fandom is
>breaking down into a two valued battle of opposites: Either
>we go out and recruit, at best like the N3F with a lot of
>formal stuff or at worst like the Mormons or Jehovah's
>Witnesses ringing doorbells, or we sit around doing our own
>thing and let others join if they're willing to do the work
>of learning about us.
Just wanted to break in at this point and say what an excellent summation
that is. But to continue with _your_ point:
>The real situation has struck me as more like a continuum. At
>a con, I'm not going to go out and welcome strangers (that's at >least as
much from being as socially challenged as the >stereotypical fan as it is
a matter of principle)...
Just interrupting briefly again to say: Likewise! I can talk on a panel
but I can't give a speech. I'm still socially inept; I get in a group of
people I "know" but forget half their names if I try to introduce them to
anyone else. It isn't even forgiven when I tell them I'm hard-pressed,
sometimes, to remember my own name ("It's . . . ah, it's . . . damn! And
I know it as well as I know my own . . . ah . . . name!"). I'm terrible
when it comes talking to people I've not met before.
>...and I'm going to seek out old friends from the printed page
>(or, now, screen) like rich and Maia, but I also carry copies
>of my zine, and if I do meet new people who seem interested in
>fanzines, or the topic comes up at a panel.
Hmm. You didn't quite finish the thought there, but I think I can follow
it anyway--you have copies to give to people who strike you as
proto-fanzine fans or who at least show some interest during a discussion
of the topic. Point taken, and I think it an excellent one. I'm not
certain my FAPAzine--the only thing I publish at the moment--would be a
good example to be showing newcomers, since it is not typical of genzines
(it tends mostly to mailing comments). On the other hand, Geri Sullivan
lets me take a little credit for things she's done in the microcosm since
I gave her a copy of THE ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR at Corflu III. At that
point I had about 20 copies of the edition that had been published by
Constellation which had been given to me. But I'm down to my last two or
three now.
>One problem in all of this is that fanzine fandom, like any
>community, develops its own language, to the point where
>outsiders fail to understand through ignorance, rather than >stupidity.
For instance, it might be possible to guess from >context that "getting
sercon," in rich's latest post, refers
>to communal use of unlawful substances, but I imagine a lot of >people
just said, "Huh?"
Could be. It was defined that way on a different thread on
rec.arts.sf.fandom not all that long back but some people--you,
at least, by implication, and no doubt others--may have missed it.
>I tend to consider the use of in group references a surrender
>to my own laziness (one of the most powerful known forces in
>my universe), and I find it so tempting that I sometimes
>attack it in others. I'm trying not to do that, just to
>recognize that the use of fanspeak is a tradeoff greater
>ease of communication with one's own group versus loss
>of contact with those outside.
I guess I see it somewhat differently. While it was never its real
purpose to be so, in one respect I think these in-group references act as
a kind of "test". As you say, Arthur, it is perfectly natural for any
community to develop its own special terms. In any such case, a small
handful of these terms might be inferable, but most are not going to be
immediately understood by newcomers. Still, all anyone has to do is ask
and someone will usually explain, politely and non-condescendingly, what
these terms mean. So right there we show a willingness to bring neos into
our "inner mysteries" (such as they are). On the other hand, if the
newcomer doesn't bother to ask but takes immediate umbrage at the use of
terms s/he doesn't understand, jumps to the conclusion that they're an
attempt to "keep secrets" hidden from them, then I feel (as in the THE
ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR) they should be allowed to leave on the high horse
they rode in on.
At base, though, our fannish "language" and its associated mysteries make
up part of the wealth of fable our microcosm has to play with. It is part
of our uniqueness. Further, as sf readers, it is part of a process we
have all been through before--to properly enjoy the genre, we have had to
learn about spacewarps and BEMs and lightyears and cold sleep and time
travel paradoxes and alternate dimensions and hyperspace and robots and
androids and parallel universes; the difference between stl and ftl ships,
planets and stars (and that the morning star is actually a planet), our
galaxy and the universe. Arguably we COULD write sf without utilizing any
of these factors, but we shouldn't think that we HAVE TO write sf without
them to "dumb down" the genre and make it more accessible.
C. Baden
: might be possible to guess from context that "getting sercon," in rich's
Huh? rich, did you mean that? I've been living in a bubble - I've
never heard this use of the term. Puts a new light on those
sercon-oriented cons I've heard about.
--
ha...@netcom.com - Home of Margarita Jell-O, an alcoholic use for lime
jello. Email me w/ "request margarita" as subject or message for recipe.
* L.A.con III * World Science Fiction Convention * lacon...@netcom.com
* Aug29-Sep02 '96, Anaheim CA * Ftp = ftp.netcom.com:/pub/la/lacon3-info/
**> L.A.Con III web page = http://sundry.hsc.usc.edu/lacon3/
* Alternate = ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/la/lacon3-info/index.html
* Join for $90 * L.A.con III, c/o SCIFI P.O. Box 8442, Van Nuys CA 91409
* Rate goes up to $110 as of July 1, 1995; even more at the door. Join early!
C. Baden
: Guide... the same thing certainly happens in fanzine fandom. I've never read
: ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR, but much like learning catchphrases from Buckaroo Banzai
FWIW: it's on sflovers.rutgers.edu
Dr Gafia
ha...@netcom.com (C. Baden) questions
in article <hazelD9...@netcom.com>:
>Arthur Hlavaty (hla...@panix.com) wrote:
>: might be possible to guess from context that "getting sercon," in
rich's
>: latest post, refers to communal use of unlawful substances, but I
imagine
>Huh? rich, did you mean that? I've been living in a bubble
>- I've never heard this use of the term. Puts a new light on
>those sercon-oriented cons I've heard about.
Yes, that's what I meant, but the verb "getting" is important to that
meaning.
Being sercon is being serious and constructive (or serious and
conscientious)
and does not have the negative connotations of OVERLY serious these days.
My guess is those "sercon-oriented cons" you've heard about are devoted
in large part to serious discussion of that crazy Buck Rogers stuff and
any usage of unlawful substances there is probably rare.
mark
drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) wrote:
> hla...@panix.com (Arthur Hlavaty) offers
> in <3q9t3d$7...@panix.com>:
>
> >The discussion of attracting newcomers to fanzine fandom is
> >breaking down into a two valued battle of opposites: Either
> >we go out and recruit, at best like the N3F with a lot of
> >formal stuff or at worst like the Mormons or Jehovah's
> >Witnesses ringing doorbells, or we sit around doing our own
> >thing and let others join if they're willing to do the work
> >of learning about us.
<ding-dong>
Hello, there, I represent the *happy* people who have discovered
->Science Fiction Fandom<-, and I've rung your doorbell to try to
bring this happiness to *your* (shuttered and insulated) life! All
it takes to join Fandom is an open mind (and some bills, of any
denomination), and an enjoyment of fantasy, science fiction, or
even *St*r Tr*k*, and as we know, *anyone*, even (hopeless,
pusillanimous, egregious idiots like) former Vice President Dan
Quayle can be included in the latter!
Now, I don't want to take up too much of your time (I, too, have
to pay for downloading, thanks to $print-owned Centel), so may
I just leave a copy of an APA with you (here, try TAPS, we're
always looking for flame-proof, opinionated new members)? Thank
you *so* much for inviting me into your home this evening....
<*slam!*>
<*phew*> (There, 10k folks on one newsgroup, only another 175k
readers to go....)
(Theme music picks up in background)
SPAMspamspamspamSPAMspamspamspamSPAMspamspamspamSPAMspamspamspam
Wonderful SPAM, Marvelous SPAM! Wonderful SPAM, Marvelous SPAM!......
mark, ringing *your* bell next!
David Langford
ch...@keris.demon.co.uk realized in sudden horror:
> At this point, I suddently realise that I have been getting Arthur's
> "Derogatory Reference" and enjoying it (albeit by email and not in
> printed form) - does this make me a "fanzine fan"?
Heh heh. One day you will accidentally enjoy an issue of =Ansible=, and
then you will be lost forever.
---------
David Langford
ans...@cix.compulink.co.uk
P Nielsen Hayden
>My theory has long been that people of immature years and/or minds were
>drawn to stf because of their gosh-wow-o-boy-o-boy mindset and the worlds
>of wonder that was stf. When NASA finally launched a manned missle that
>worked, much of the "wonder" went out of the world
[stuff deleted]
>The sense of wonder is gone. The sense of fun is gone. The sense of
>whimsy is gone. So why would anyone want to join "fandom?"
With all due respect, this is largely nonsense. The sense of wonder is
fine; the sense of whimsy is alive and well; and people keep joining fandom
all the time. (At any rate, _someone_ is sending me hundreds of
interesting-looking fanzines every year, and it isn't just Arnie Katz.) The
belief that something magical has passed out of the world, never to return,
commonly comes to us as we age -- I'm 36 and I find myself feeling it more
than occasionally -- but it makes a lousy basis for serious insights into
those younger than us. It's we who change, not the balance of wonder and
whimsy in the world. (In fact the entire delusional syndrome has a name:
"pejorism.")
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden: p...@tor.com : opinions mine
http://www.panix.com/~pnh : http://www.tor.com
Ben Zuhl
<SNIF>
>I guess I see it somewhat differently. While it was never its real
>purpose to be so, in one respect I think these in-group references act as
>a kind of "test". As you say, Arthur, it is perfectly natural for any
>community to develop its own special terms. In any such case, a small
>handful of these terms might be inferable, but most are not going to be
>immediately understood by newcomers. Still, all anyone has to do is ask
>and someone will usually explain, politely and non-condescendingly, what
>these terms mean. So right there we show a willingness to bring neos into
>our "inner mysteries" (such as they are). On the other hand, if the
>newcomer doesn't bother to ask but takes immediate umbrage at the use of
>terms s/he doesn't understand, jumps to the conclusion that they're an
>attempt to "keep secrets" hidden from them, then I feel (as in the THE
>ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR) they should be allowed to leave on the high
horse
>they rode in on.
rich, I find this not quite consistant with your, and several other
fans comments about being 'socially challenged'. If you and they find
it difficult to work and play well with others then why expect
protofanzine fans to be any different. They may well have a burning
desire to know what egoboo is, or how to saw Courtney's boat, but don't
have the social skills necessary to extract this info at a con or club
meeting. I think this is more often the case with newcomers than the
conclusion jumpers you cite in your post. (I do love that passage in
TED, tho. Um, is TED fanspeak? I suppose it is since the original use
of the full title above was not followed with the parenthetical
abrieviation.)
How to reach these people is a quandry for others to contribute to
solving as I find myself stumped, void of ideas, and needing a new
slant on the subject.
--BenZ
Chris Croughton
"Dr Gafia" writes:
>Hmm. You didn't quite finish the thought there, but I think I can follow
>it anyway--you have copies to give to people who strike you as
>proto-fanzine fans or who at least show some interest during a discussion
>of the topic.
At this point, I suddently realise that I have been getting Arthur's
"Derogatory Reference" and enjoying it (albeit by email and not in
printed form) - does this make me a "fanzine fan"? Help! Panic! I
might even write a LoC sometime - I'm a traitor to my own ideals!
>Could be. It was defined that way on a different thread on
>rec.arts.sf.fandom not all that long back but some people--you,
>at least, by implication, and no doubt others--may have missed it.
I did, certainly...
> On the other hand, if the
>newcomer doesn't bother to ask but takes immediate umbrage at the use of
>terms s/he doesn't understand, jumps to the conclusion that they're an
>attempt to "keep secrets" hidden from them, then I feel (as in the THE
>ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR) they should be allowed to leave on the high horse
>they rode in on.
I'm afraid I agree with you a bit on that one, although not totally
(that's a relief, I thought I was slipping!). As I'm involved in
another field with lots of jargon (computer programming), I find that my
attitude is often "If you don't understand, and haven't the intelligence
to ask, then you don't need to know", and it's often an essential
attitude to have, I can't afford to waste time asking "do you understand
that?" every few seconds. However, referring back to the "lack of
social skills" part of the thread, there are lots of neos who, like most
of the rest of the fans, don't have the courage to ask. Hell, I'm one
of them - I remember standing at the 'Ton for about half an hour trying
to get up the nerve to ask if it was the right place! In many cases,
it's an excess of conditioning about "not interrupting" - the other
people are involved in their conversations, and often there's no
noticable gap to fit in a question...
> Arguably we COULD write sf without utilizing any
>of these factors, but we shouldn't think that we HAVE TO write sf without
>them to "dumb down" the genre and make it more accessible.
There I have to agree with you totally. Certain TV shows have made the
attempt to "dumb down" the genre, and have earned the dislike of the
fans for it (in contrast to early SF films, where they frequently
stopped the action so the 'scientist' could explain the differnce
between a start and a planet).
GAR...@delphi.com
In an earlier post rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia says:
> >The discussion of attracting newcomers to fanzine fandom is
> >breaking down into a two valued battle of opposites: Either
> >we go out and recruit, at best like the N3F with a lot of
> >formal stuff or at worst like the Mormons or Jehovah's
> >Witnesses ringing doorbells, or we sit around doing our own
> >thing and let others join if they're willing to do the work
> >of learning about us.
drawn to stf because of their gosh-wow-o-boy-o-boy mindset and the worlds
of wonder that was stf. When NASA finally launched a manned missle that
for the stuck-in-the-mud accountant types. Science fiction, sci fi, and
other abominations of that ilk (rather than stf) became "acceptable" and
a general genre. So people don't have to lump together via an N3F or a
FAPA to discuss stf and spill over into fannish persuits -- they just
discuss last night's news/shows/movies from TV with their water cooler
buddies. So entry into "fandom" isn't necessary to get a stf fix. Thus,
fewer people seeking out fandom.
I took my daughter (about age 13) to a Star Trek convention in New York
and was mightily turned off by the Trekkies. They truly thought they had
discovered science fiction! There was no longer a need for them to band
together and hide out from reading that "trash" with the triangle covers
(Oh, no, one of those mystery terms!).
> >One problem in all of this is that fanzine fandom, like any
> >community, develops its own language, to the point where
> >outsiders fail to understand through ignorance, rather than
>>stupidity.
> Still, all anyone
>has to do is ask and someone will usually explain, politely and
>non-condescendingly, what these terms mean.
And any group will develop its own jargon (more properly, an argot). When
I got involved, I didn't understand a lot of terms, but as you say one
asks and another answers. Then there were a few publications that were
dictionaries of fan terms, and much of what was meant was eked out by
living with it. (Like "triangle cover": the lurid covers of the pulps
often had three-points of interest; 1) a scantily glad female of the species
(or wearing a painted-on space suit); 2) a hero, muscles and ray gun ready;
and 3) a BEM. Egad! another mystery term.)
Anyway, a lot of people who "like" science fiction today got that taste
as adults (or more so than before) and don't even need to bond with other
gosh-wow-o-boy types, wouldn't even consider wearing a propeller beanie,
and don't have the need to communicate so badly that they would learn
hecto, spirit dupe, mimeo, offset, or typesetting so they could "publish"
anything. (I omit carbon paper as a publishing medium, for which all one
needed was the ability to type and LOTS of time.)
The sense of wonder is gone. The sense of fun is gone. The sense of
whimsy is gone. So why would anyone want to join "fandom?"
Which leads me to ask: Where in hell do those 5000+ members of a Worldcon
come from? Star Trek? X-files? Old Wolf-man movies?
Keep smiling,
ghl
Rainbow V 1.17.5 for Delphi - Test Drive
Richard Newsome
>often had three-points of interest; 1) a scantily glad female of the species
>(or wearing a painted-on space suit); 2) a hero, muscles and ray gun ready;
>and 3) a BEM. Egad! another mystery term.)
Also known as "a BEM, a bum, and a broad".
David E Romm
> I took my daughter (about age 13) to a Star Trek convention in New York
> and was mightily turned off by the Trekkies.
Well, then don't go to ST cons in NYC. There, that was easy.
> Anyway, a lot of people who "like" science fiction today got that taste
> as adults (or more so than before) and don't even need to bond with other
> gosh-wow-o-boy types, wouldn't even consider wearing a propeller beanie,
> and don't have the need to communicate so badly that they would learn
> hecto, spirit dupe, mimeo, offset, or typesetting so they could "publish"
> anything. (I omit carbon paper as a publishing medium, for which all one
> needed was the ability to type and LOTS of time.)
So? College kids today don't wear racoon coats, swallow goldfish or go
streaking (well, mostly not), and they still manage to have what would be
recognizable fun to those who participated in the former.
> The sense of wonder is gone. The sense of fun is gone. The sense of
> whimsy is gone. So why would anyone want to join "fandom?"
Scurrulous answer: To poke fun at the trekkies.
Metaphysical answer: You don't join fandom. It joins you.
Personal answer: I keep inventing convention departments, and am allowed
(and sometimes encouraged) to do weird things. Join me! Be my groupie!
Old Fan And Tired answer: By golly, you're right. Avoid fandom at all
costs. Perhaps you should try AA.
Neofan answer: Thpbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbp.
> Which leads me to ask: Where in hell do those 5000+ members of a Worldcon
> come from? Star Trek? X-files? Old Wolf-man movies?
The future.
--
Shockwave: Science Fiction/Science Fact. The only tactile radio program in
the galaxy. Tapes available.
"An intellectual snob is someone who can listen to the William Tell
Overture and not think of The Lone Ranger." -- Dan Rather
Arthur Hlavaty
Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3qo5v6$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> drg...@aol.com
> "Dr Gafia" writes:
>
>>it anyway--you have copies to give to people who strike you as
>>proto-fanzine fans or who at least show some interest during a discussion
>>of the topic.
>
>"Derogatory Reference" and enjoying it (albeit by email and not in
>printed form) - does this make me a "fanzine fan"? Help! Panic! I
>might even write a LoC sometime - I'm a traitor to my own ideals!
>
*nyeh*heh*heh* It's working.
Glenn Battis
where all the cool fen hang out.
Glenn :-)
sf moderator, BIX and
one of the many Bixen that attended the 52nd WorldCon in Winnipeg last year.
lm...@bbs.tatertot.com
Dave Langford chuckles evilly:
> ch...@keris.demon.co.uk realized in sudden horror:
>
> > At this point, I suddently realise that I have been getting
> > Arthur's "Derogatory Reference" and enjoying it (albeit by
> > email and not in printed form) - does this make me a "fanzine
> > fan"?
>
> Heh heh. One day you will accidentally enjoy an issue of =Ansible=,
> and then you will be lost forever.
Speaking of, I was meandering through a mailing list of writers for writers the
other day, and discovered that one of the other folks on the Road Trip was
recommending Ansible. This world is getting far too small; I hardly feel
exclusive at all any more.
-- LJM
Eugenia Horne
[Editing...]
>My theory has long been that people of immature years and/or minds were
>drawn to stf because of their gosh-wow-o-boy-o-boy mindset and the worlds
>of wonder that was stf. When NASA finally launched a manned missle that
>worked, much of the "wonder" went out of the world -- it became real even
>for the stuck-in-the-mud accountant types.
Uh, coming from a "stuck-in-the-mud accountant type",
the neatest thing about living in Palmdale was watching
the VERY REAL blackbirds (SR-71s) flying over the house,
just like that opening shot in Star Wars...Never seemed
to lose any "wonder" for me.
[Editing...]
>The sense of wonder is gone. The sense of fun is gone. The sense of
>whimsy is gone. So why would anyone want to join "fandom?"
Quick, go find a copy of Brian Daley's Floyt and
Fitzhugh trilogy. If THAT doesn't bring about a
sense of wonder, fun, and whimsy, then it's too late.
>Which leads me to ask: Where in hell do those 5000+ members of a Worldcon
>come from? Star Trek? X-files? Old Wolf-man movies?
From "stuck-in-the-mud accountant types" who like Science
Fiction and like to experience a "sense of wonder, whimsy,
and fun" from time to time with people who have the capacity
to do so.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Feelings of admiration and even love are not sinful - nor can you
prevent the impulses of one's nature - but it is your duty to avoid
the temptation in every way. - Prince Albert [via Queen Victoria]
Dr Gafia
new...@panix.com (Richard Newsome) offers a
line in <3qucmt$g...@panix2.panix.com>:
But better known a a him, a femme and a BEM.
Debbie Notkin
> I was meandering through a mailing list of writers for writers the
> other day, and discovered that one of the other folks on the Road Trip was
> recommending Ansible. This world is getting far too small; I hardly feel
> exclusive at all any more.
Have no fear, Loren. You'll always be exclusive. <smirk>
Debbie
--
"I have the opinion that longing to be blue-eyed and golden-haired like
the maidens in songs profits me nothing. Easier, I think, to change the
songs than my face."
Karen Cushman, CATHERINE, CALLED BIRDY
Dr Gafia
ben...@ix.netcom.com (Ben Zuhl) in
<3qv9lr$d...@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com> finds
drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) inconsistent:
<SNIF>
Dr Gafia:
>...On the other hand, if the newcomer doesn't bother to ask but takes
> immediate umbrage at the use of terms s/he doesn't understand,
>jumps to the conclusion that they're an attempt to "keep secrets"
>hidden from them, then I feel (as in the THE ENCHANTED
>DUPLICATOR) they should be allowed to leave on the high horse
>they rode in on.
Ben sez:
>...find this not quite consistant with your, and several other
>fans, comments about being 'socially challenged'. If you and
>they find it difficult to work and play well with others then why
>expect protofanzine fans to be any different. They may well
>have a burning desire to know what egoboo is, or how to saw
>Courtney's boat, but don't have the social skills necessary
>to extract this info at a con or club meeting.
To a degree, Ben, I see your point--and to a degree, not. The
protofans have alternatives to "asking" about these things if they
are socially challenged--dozens of works (and occasional listings
on the Net) explain the terms IN WRITING for those too shy to
ask.
In any event, while I may not have the social skills to give a speech
on the topic and to mix with ease with people I don't know, I'm not
jumping to paranoid conclusions about the people I don't know.
Am I being any clearer?
GAR...@delphi.com
Quoting romm from a message in rec.arts.sf.fandom
> Well, then don't go to ST cons in NYC. There, that was easy.
> streaking (well, mostly not), and they still manage to have what
>would be recognizable fun to those who participated in the former.
Oh, ghod, a sercon reply to my fannish post. It just keeps going, and
going, and going ...
The Star Trek convention was, I think, the first, so how was I to know?
(My daughter is currently 36.) ((And should I have bought some of the
stuff they were selling there? Did I goof??))
Dr Gafia
Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> offers
up in <802306...@keris.demon.co.uk>:
>...referring back to the "lack of social skills" part of the thread,
there
>are lots of neos who, like most of the rest of the fans, don't have the
>courage to ask. Hell, I'm one of them - I remember standing at the
>'Ton for about half an hour trying to get up the nerve to ask if it was
>the right place!
You're the second person making this point, so let's grant it. For the
newcomer who lacks social skills and is a bit afraid to ask, there ARE
alternatives. Not always that easy to find, I'll grant, but there are
entire fanzines (from the Fancyclopediae to generic and literal Neofan's
Guides which attempt to explain things. And here on the Net, there's a
guide that gets published from time to time covering fan jargon.
>>... Arguably we COULD write sf without utilizing any of these factors,
>>but we shouldn't think that we HAVE TO write sf without
>>them to "dumb down" the genre and make it more accessible.
>There I have to agree with you totally. Certain TV shows have made
>the attempt to "dumb down" the genre, and have earned the dislike of
>the fans for it (in contrast to early SF films, where they frequently
>stopped the action so the 'scientist' could explain the differnce
>between a start and a planet).
I'll not make fun of your typos (someone else is sure to do the job). But
I actually agree that certain TV shows have done their share to dumb
down the genre, if the contrast is between those shows and most written
sf, although your other point is take too -- the TV shows brighten up the
genre when compared to most early sf movies. There was a time when
it was possible to point to some bit of stupidity in a so-called sf movie
--
meteors glowing red and whooshing by a spaceship as it travels in inter-
planetary space ("Rocket Ship XM") -- and get a belly laugh from most
sf fans. Lucas makes precisely the same error in his STAR WARS tri-
logy and people just talk about how "good" the special effects were...
--rich brown
Chris Croughton
ans...@cix.compulink.co.uk "David Langford" writes:
>Heh heh. One day you will accidentally enjoy an issue of =Ansible=, and
>then you will be lost forever.
Oh, I do enjoy Ansible as well <grovel>. However, I wasn't sure that
was a True Fanzine (tm) - after all, it's read by (shock, horror) media
fans, filkers, and other such fringefen. It also uses Modern
Technology, not Traditional Ways Of Producing Fanzines (not that the
email version of DR is exactly traditional either!)...
Chris Croughton
>You're the second person making this point, so let's grant it. For the
>newcomer who lacks social skills and is a bit afraid to ask, there ARE
>alternatives. Not always that easy to find, I'll grant, but there are
>entire fanzines (from the Fancyclopediae to generic and literal Neofan's
>Guides which attempt to explain things. And here on the Net, there's a
>guide that gets published from time to time covering fan jargon.
Not to mention the perennial (at least) threads asking the same thing,
and the f/l/a/m/e/w/a/r/s/ discussions which follow them...
Although I've never seen any of the Fancyclopediae, only heard of them.
Fanzines, of the single-sheet variety like Ansible, are certainly
available freely, although they can seem rather obscure if one doesn't
know what it's all about in the first place. Not their fault, I hasten
to add (hoping that Dave Langford isn't reading this!)...
Me:
>>There I have to agree with you totally. Certain TV shows have made
>>the attempt to "dumb down" the genre, and have earned the dislike of
>>the fans for it (in contrast to early SF films, where they frequently
>>stopped the action so the 'scientist' could explain the differnce
>>between a start and a planet).
>
>I'll not make fun of your typos (someone else is sure to do the job). But
I saw 'differnce' when I saw my own post come back, but I confess I
missed 'start' completely (and it gives me a chuckle in that context as
well). Another proof (if any were needed) that the author should not be
the one to do the proofreading - it's too easy to read what _should_ be
there...
>I actually agree that certain TV shows have done their share to dumb
>down the genre, if the contrast is between those shows and most written
>sf, although your other point is take too -- the TV shows brighten up the
>genre when compared to most early sf movies. There was a time when
>it was possible to point to some bit of stupidity in a so-called sf movie --
>meteors glowing red and whooshing by a spaceship as it travels in inter-
>planetary space ("Rocket Ship XM") -- and get a belly laugh from most
>sf fans. Lucas makes precisely the same error in his STAR WARS tri-
>logy and people just talk about how "good" the special effects were...
Oh, _everyone_ makes those errors (well, not the glowing meteors
perhaps) so it's not funny any more. It's just a feature of the medium,
like the music (did they _really_ have 300-piece string orchestras out
in the Wild West during fights? Why?) or the 'chorus' in Greek theatre.
As pointed out in another thread (no, not here, it was on FIDOnet) on
the rare occasions when a director has silence for space battles even
the fans think that it's in some way 'unreal', in spite of knowing
better.
The one which threw me in Star Wars was the recoil from lasers! Those
must have been _really_ powerful beams of light they were projecting...
On the early SF movies - at the time, the explanations were necessary to
make them at all understandable to the public. Much the same happened
in a lot of early SF stories as well for the same reason. Now, when
people are more familiar with the subjects (not saying that Joe Public
is an expert, of course, but he's probably at least heard of NASA!) it
seems very clumsy and contrived. For that matter, although I still like
re-reading Clarke's 2001, I can't watch the film through without getting
bored. Things which were new and interesting nearly 30 years ago (like
running round the inside of the hull for exercise) are now 'old hat',
and I don't want to see them for minutes on end any more than I want to
see people running round a track for ages on sports programmes.
C. Baden
: The one which threw me in Star Wars was the recoil from lasers! Those
: must have been _really_ powerful beams of light they were projecting...
(Tediously literalist alert): Do you know the real-life reason for the
recoil? They were actual projectile weapons, firing blanks; the noise
made thereby gave the special effects guys a cue to know when(where) to
paint in the beams. (Watch for Leia wincing...)
Chris Croughton
>Chris Croughton (ch...@keris.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: The one which threw me in Star Wars was the recoil from lasers! Those
>: must have been _really_ powerful beams of light they were projecting...
>
>(Tediously literalist alert): Do you know the real-life reason for the
>recoil? They were actual projectile weapons, firing blanks; the noise
>made thereby gave the special effects guys a cue to know when(where) to
>paint in the beams. (Watch for Leia wincing...)
How much recoil do guns produce when firing blanks? Common sene would
say "not much", but I'm quite willing to accept that may be wrong as I
know almost nothing about firearms.
Actually, I was thinking more of the recoil on the big ship-mounted
weapons, they looked and acted like WW-2 battleship ones, but I'm pretty
sure they we just models not really firing anything...
MaiaCowan
Maia
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -R. W. Emerson
"But it's the passion of editors." - M. E. Cowan
Dr Gafia
<3s59qr$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>:
Right; I don't think anything has been relevant since the first couple of
postings. Such is the Way of the Net.
--rwb aka Gafia,phd
Sturgeon's Law: 90 percent of everything is crud.
rich brown corollary: The 10 percent left over isn't necessarilly any
good--it's
just not crud.
Karen Cooper
>maia...@aol.com (MaiaCowan) in
><3s59qr$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>:
>>Isn't it time to change the subject line for this drift?
>Right; I don't think anything has been relevant since the first couple of
>postings. Such is the Way of the Net.
Here ya go, folks.
Karen. [trying to fight down the unpleasant suspicion that aol software
*can't* change the subject line]
Dr Gafia
JJSchalles
least a curiosity:
> Karen. [trying to fight down the unpleasant suspicion that aol software
> *can't* change the subject line]
Reference: Dr Gafia & Maia Cowan discussing subject lines
So, if it works, here you go again. I'm on AOL and it _looks_ like
changing the subject is incredibly easy.
Geri Sullivan
(wasting bandwidth on Jeff's account exploring Truth the quick way rather
than searching through thousands of AOL messages on the topic)