What LAcon
Dr Gafia
In article <1995Jul17.1...@ucl.ac.uk>, ucf...@ucl.ac.uk (Mr John
Bray) writes:
>I have no objection over my mebership money paying for interests like
>filk for which I have no personal concern. What I do object to is the
high
>and mighty attitude that fanzine fans are the Acme of fandom, and can
>demand the right to have a subsidy. If fan programme feel that a TAFF or
>GUFF winner is a worthy guest, let them pay from their budget fot it.
I respectfully disagree. A 40+-year tradition in the microcosm should not
be subject to the whims of a bunch of high and mighty johnny-come-lately
convention committee members. If they cannot abide the traditions of
fandom, they don't deserve to be on such a committee or they don't deserve
to be the convention which benefits from the attendance of the delegate
or possibly both.
At the same time, while I also have no real interest in things like filk,
on the basis of what is and has been done for the other fan funds, the
filkers' fund winner should have their room comped to show that they
are honored guests as well. It's not a matter of how "fanzine fans" or
"filker fans" or "convention fans" are treated, it's a matter of the
courtesy due any honored guest (and no, before some moron comes along and
we wander off on that path again, I'm NOT saying they should be treated
like the committee-chosen Guests of Honor).
--rich brown
Ben Yalow
<stuff deleted>
>I respectfully disagree. A 40+-year tradition in the microcosm should not
>be subject to the whims of a bunch of high and mighty johnny-come-lately
>convention committee members. If they cannot abide the traditions of
>fandom, they don't deserve to be on such a committee or they don't deserve
>to be the convention which benefits from the attendance of the delegate
>or possibly both.
I find myself forced to disagree here.
This does not mean that I feel that Worldcons shouldn't support TAFF, or
that I don't (and I've backed up that opinion in the past, and will
continue to do so). However, a Worldcon committee is chosen by the
voters (about 2000 or so of them), and the voters get to decide if "they
don't deserve to be on such a committee". If you don't feel that such
people should be, feel free to vote for their opposition (or, for that
matter, run against them -- I'll be glad to walk anybody through the
requirements to file a bid). Or, if there is sufficient support, you can
make it a mandatory part of the WSFS Constitution, which all Worldcon
committees are obligated to follow. Again, if you want, I'll be glad to
help you with understanding how to get the amendment proposed to the
Business Meeting (although I would opposed such a motion, I'm more than
willing to walk anyone through the technical hurdles).
But, once they've been selected, they are the Worldcon committee, and
bound only by the Constitution and any promises they've made. (For
example, if they don't warn people about it, they probably shouldn't
cancel the Hugo ceremony, since that's expected by a large fraction of
the voters. If they mention during the campaign that they might, of
course, then they have every right to do so -- note that I said ceremony,
which isn't required, rather than awarding the Hugos, which is required.)
And I don't see that the Worldcon should feel any obligation if the TAFF
administrator doesn't make a formal request. *Everybody* who wants
something from another group should make a request. In cases of the
traditional requests, they should be granted. For example, SF(F)WA, an
organization with as long a history as TAFF, and with many hundreds of
members who actively help by participating in the Worldcon, has always
held meetings at the Worldcon. Every Worldcon committee knows it. But,
every year, the SFWA rep to the Worldcon asks for the space, and gets
it. I don't know what would happen if one year they forgot. I would
hope the Worldcon would remember, and plan for it anyhow. But I,
personally, don't think it should feel obligated to do so, but it should do
so as a courtesy to another organization within fandom with which it has had a
long relationship.
As to the question of whether the TAFF delegate should go to the
Worldcon or elsewhere, I believe that's already been discussed at some
length earlier in this thread.
>--rich brown
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Dr Gafia
In article <3uk47k$r...@panix3.panix.com>, yb...@panix.com (Ben Yalow)
writes in response to my contention that a "40+ year tradition in the
microcosm should not be subject to the whims of a bunch of high and mighty
traditions of fandom, they don't deserve to be on such a committee..."
>I find myself forced to disagree here.
>
>This does not mean that I feel that Worldcons shouldn't support TAFF, or
>that I don't (and I've backed up that opinion in the past, and will
>continue to do so). However, a Worldcon committee is chosen by the
>voters (about 2000 or so of them), and the voters get to decide if "they
>don't deserve to be on such a committee".
Glad you brought that up, Ben--the last time we were discussing this
matter, you said something that left me with the impression that things
had changed so much since the last time I looked that those 2000 voters
cough up $20 (or so) solely for the privilege of casting those votes. I
didn't really BELIEVE it but I didn't think you could say it and get away
with it if it were not so, so I only asked questions about it--and my
questioning was insufficiently tongue-in-cheek to get my disbelief across,
or so a friend of mine told me recently. It turns out that my intuition
was correct and the voters pay the fee to cast their votes, all right, but
then, after the ballots are counted and the winner is decided, they are
able to deduct what they've paid as a voting fee from the cost of an
immediate purchase of a Worldcon membership at the lowest possible rate.
If that's $60, they get the membership for $40 ($60 less the $20 voting
fee). So these fans, no matter how much they are "paying" to vote, are
not as altruistic as the TAFF voters; it's just another smoke screen, a
sophistry, tossed out to confuse the issues. But, hey, I'm digressing
from the discussion HERE...
While you feel yourself "forced" to disagree with me, I don't feel the
least little tug to disagree with you. Isn't that strange? No. Clearly
what you say are the rules governing who gets to choose Worldcon
committees are the rules; I don't dispute them and I don't disagree with
them enough to oppose them, so what I do is accept them. I only dispute
what you seem to think they imply. By way of analogy, it's as if you are
saying that if you've bought a book, you're obliged to like it. I grant
you there's no point in buying a book if you don't EXPECT to like it, but
sometimes books (or conventions) don't live up to your reasonable
expectations of them. You're entitled to express your opinion about
whether or not the book meets reasonable expectations, even if that means
someone else might forego buying it. You could do so even if you'd read
the book in the library and paid not a red cent for it yourself. And just
because the author of the book may have 26 novels in print, it doesn't
follow that you have to have 26 novels, or even one novel, or even a short
story, on the stands in professional print before you can express your
opinion about the book.
>If you don't feel that such people should be [on such a committee], feel
>free to vote for their opposition (or, for that matter, run against them
>I'll be glad to walk anybody through the requirements to file a bid).
As I say, Ben, I fail to see a need for anything of the sort; it even
strikes me as being somewhat irrelevant. Last I heard, while we troofen
have certain Powers the Ancients Possessed, not one of us has (or has ever
claimed to have) tendrils in his/her hair; we don't read minds. If, for
the sake of argument, a bidding committee comes right out and says, before
the vote, "To hell with the pro's, we're tired of being pushed around by
their outrageous demands, they can attend if they want but we're not going
to give them any special treatment and if they don't like it they can
stick it in their ear because we're going to put on a convention for the
FANS,"
Janice Gelb
>
>In article <3uk47k$r...@panix3.panix.com>, yb...@panix.com (Ben Yalow)
>writes in response to my contention that a "40+ year tradition in the
>microcosm should not be subject to the whims of a bunch of high and mighty
>johnny come lately convention committee members. If they cannot abide the
>traditions of fandom, they don't deserve to be on such a committee..."
>
>
>Last I heard, while we troofen
>have certain Powers the Ancients Possessed, not one of us has (or has ever
>claimed to have) tendrils in his/her hair; we don't read minds. If, for
>the sake of argument, a bidding committee comes right out and says, before
>the vote, "To hell with the pro's, we're tired of being pushed around by
>their outrageous demands, they can attend if they want but we're not going
>to give them any special treatment and if they don't like it they can
>stick it in their ear because we're going to put on a convention for the
>FANS,"
>
Nor do convention committees read minds. If a fannish organization
requires something from a committee, it should tell the committee so.
If SFWA requires a suite, it reminds the worldcon committee even though
they get a suite every year. If Jewish fans need a room for Friday
night and Saturday morning services, it reminds the worldcon committee,
even though they need these rooms nearly every year. And if <insert ancient
tradition of fandom> needs <insert requirement> here, they should tell
the committee. That way, no one gets forgotten, no one gets insulted,
and the committee doesn't have to be slans.
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
"Yachting is a sport for people who think golf is too culturally
diverse."
-- Jim Mullen, _Entertainment Weekly_
********************************************************************************
Dr Gafia
In article <3updrv$l...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, jan...@Eng.Sun.COM (Janice
Gelb) writes:
>Nor do convention committees read minds. If a fannish organization
>requires something from a committee, it should tell the committee so.
>If SFWA requires a suite, it reminds the worldcon committee even though
>they get a suite every year. If Jewish fans need a room for Friday
>night and Saturday morning services, it reminds the worldcon committee,
>even though they need these rooms nearly every year. And if <insert
ancient
>tradition of fandom> needs <insert requirement> here, they should tell
>the committee. That way, no one gets forgotten, no one gets insulted,
>and the committee doesn't have to be slans.
I will look forward, Janice, to examining the tendrils in YOUR hair.
Mysteriously, you seem to KNOW that the SF(F)WA will "require" a suite at
future Worldcons, that Jewish fans will need a room for Friday
night/Saturday
morning services at future worldcons, and even that the grey-bearded
tottering tradition of fandom will need what it too has required before.
Since the only way, in your argument, for the convention committee to know
these things is either to "be slans" or "read minds," I infer that it's
the
only way YOU can know them, too. But if it doesn't apply to you, then it
doesn't apply to them. Which is it?
I find it upsetting, to say the least, that it is possible for a Worldcon
committee--which Ben Yalow tells me generally numbers more than the 150 or
so who vote in TAFF--can get elected that does not have ONE member on it
who has enough experience in fandom to be aware of what you are aware of,
Janice. Having said that in a venue where I knew it would be seen by
people involved with
Intersection, I felt that was quite enough reproof--unfortunately, I've
had to repeat it for non-committee pipple who didn't "get it" the first
time, so it shouldn't surprise me if others paying even less attention are
beginning to feel like I'm beating a dead horse. So: Having said what I
thought needed to be said, I'm of the opinion that there's nothing to be
gained by crying over spilt milk. Nor do I think their "ignorance" of
fannish traditions is such a heinous crime that the committee should be
browbeaten about it from now until the next Big Crunch. It was an
accidental, not a deliberate, slight--and the committee is doing
everything it reasonably can to make up for it. I was perfectly
satisified of that back when they were only going to
"try" to make contributions to the fan funds out of profits, if any. I'm
delighted that they're now saying they're trying to do better by both
funds but GUFF in particular.
Your suggestion that fannish organizations which require something from a
Worldcon committee should be required to ask is not unreasonable on its
face,
but it IS less reasonable to the fan funds than it is to the other
organizations.
Those "other" organizations have all the time from the moment the
committee
is named until the convention starts its planning to get their requests to
someone on the committee. It's a matter of timing, Janice.
The truly most recent example is a case in point. Not
Intersection--LACon. The more experienced Worldcon committee (through Dan
Deckert) announced that they will be *comp*ing the rooms of the TAFF and
DUFF delegates--and they made their announcement not all that long back.
A month, maybe two. Indicating,
along with other things that may be heard about LACon, that the committee
is not just sitting around thumb-twiddling but holding meetings, making
preliminary decisions and otherwise using the time alloted them to put on
the best Worldcon they can. In the same time period--the past month or
two--Dan Steffan won the TAFF race. I'm not certain, at this point,
whether Deckert said that the next TAFF Administrator or Dan Steffan
should get in contact with the LACon committee to work out the details, so
I'm not sure whether it was the chicken or the egg which came
Gary Farber
: I find it upsetting, to say the least, that it is possible for a Worldcon
: committee--which Ben Yalow tells me generally numbers more than the 150 or
: so who vote in TAFF--can get elected that does not have ONE member on it
: who has enough experience in fandom to be aware of what you are aware of,
: Janice.
This is the crucial fallacy that has that nuclear-powered bee in your
bonnet, rich: 150 people on the commmittee do not sit around discussing
the details of whose room gets comped.
I understand the source of your upset, and I share some of the base
presumption upon which I think it rests: you see these crucial benchmarks
of fandom slipping away from "us," and are understandably distressed.
That is a valid general discussion.
The specific that you are focused upon so intently here, though, lies in
your, um, less than clear view of how modern worldcon committees function.
They no longer gather around someone's living room and discuss everything.
Can you imagine what would happen if they tried?
Jobs are parceled out, and various structures are organized in an attempt
to make communications among them functional, if not efficient.
The number of people who would be paying attention to room comps would
probably be five or six, possibly a handful more.
Does that make you any less nervous?
As to your point about timing, I don't quite follow. Is it not just as
possible for Dan or Abi to send a note to the relevant person on the next
three worldcon committees tomorrow, and every week thereafter, if they so
desire?
--
-- Gary Farber Brooklyn, New York City
gfa...@panix.com I is another, and I am that other. -- Rimbaud
Dr Gafia
on line ends in mid-sentence about two thirds of the way through what I
wrote (and only thought I sent):
In article <3updrv$l...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, jan...@Eng.Sun.COM (Janice
Gelb) writes:
>Nor do convention committees read minds. If a fannish organization
>requires something from a committee, it should tell the committee so.
>If SFWA requires a suite, it reminds the worldcon committee even though
>they get a suite every year. If Jewish fans need a room for Friday
>night and Saturday morning services, it reminds the worldcon committee,
>even though they need these rooms nearly every year. And if <insert
ancient
>tradition of fandom> needs <insert requirement> here, they should tell
>the committee. That way, no one gets forgotten, no one gets insulted,
>and the committee doesn't have to be slans.
I will look forward, Janice, to examining the tendrils in YOUR hair.
Mysteriously, you seem to KNOW that the SF(F)WA will "require" a suite at
future Worldcons, that Jewish fans will need a room for Friday
night/Saturday
morning services at future worldcons, and even that the grey-bearded
tottering tradition of fandom will need what it too has required before.
Since the only way, in your argument, for the convention committee to know
these things is either to "be slans" or "read minds," I infer that it's
the
only way YOU can know them, too. But if it doesn't apply to you, then it
doesn't apply to them. Which is it?
I find it upsetting, to say the least, that it is possible for a Worldcon
committee--which Ben Yalow tells me generally numbers more than the 150 or
so
who vote in TAFF--can get elected that does not have ONE member on it who
has
enough experience in fandom to be aware of what you are aware of, Janice.
Janice Gelb
>
>In article <3updrv$l...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, jan...@Eng.Sun.COM (Janice
>Gelb) writes:
>
>>Nor do convention committees read minds. If a fannish organization
>>requires something from a committee, it should tell the committee so.
>>If SFWA requires a suite, it reminds the worldcon committee even though
>>they get a suite every year. If Jewish fans need a room for Friday
>>night and Saturday morning services, it reminds the worldcon committee,
>>even though they need these rooms nearly every year. And if <insert
>ancient
>>tradition of fandom> needs <insert requirement> here, they should tell
>>the committee. That way, no one gets forgotten, no one gets insulted,
>>and the committee doesn't have to be slans.
>
>I will look forward, Janice, to examining the tendrils in YOUR hair.
>Mysteriously, you seem to KNOW that the SF(F)WA will "require" a suite at
>future Worldcons, that Jewish fans will need a room for Friday
>night/Saturday
>morning services at future worldcons, and even that the grey-bearded
>tottering tradition of fandom will need what it too has required before.
>Since the only way, in your argument, for the convention committee to know
>these things is either to "be slans" or "read minds," I infer that it's
>the
>only way YOU can know them, too. But if it doesn't apply to you, then it
>doesn't apply to them. Which is it?
>
What in Ghu's name are you talking about? If you read the above, you'll
see that I say that the only way worldcons can know about them is for
them to be told by the interested parties, *not* by mindreading. The
things I mentioned are things that generally happen at a con but not
necessarily, which is why the interested parties need to tell the
committee. That was the whole point of the paragraph above. Try it again.
>
>Your suggestion that fannish organizations which require something from a
>Worldcon committee should be required to ask is not unreasonable on its
>face,
>but it IS less reasonable to the fan funds than it is to the other
>organizations.
>Those "other" organizations have all the time from the moment the
>committee
>is named until the convention starts its planning to get their requests to
>someone on the committee. It's a matter of timing, Janice.
>
The TAFF winner is not the person who necessarily needs to let the
committee know since, as you point out below, they might not have
time. Is there any reason why the administrator couldn't let the
worldcon committee know in plenty of time?
>The truly most recent example is a case in point. Not
>Intersection--LACon. The more experienced Worldcon committee (through Dan
>Deckert) announced that they will be *comp*ing the rooms of the TAFF and
>DUFF delegates--and they made their announcement not all that long back.
>A month, maybe two. Indicating,
>along with other things that may be heard about LACon, that the committee
>is not just sitting around thumb-twiddling but holding meetings, making
>preliminary decisions and otherwise using the time alloted them to put on
>the best Worldcon they can.
I'm sure LACon would have been efficient and magnanimous about this
anyway, but I do feel obligated to point out that Dan made this statement
after the discussion about the fan funds had been going on for some time
on the net...
Sharon L Sbarsky
Yes, LAcon has announced that they will be comping the winners. As Janice
pointed out, Dan did this *after* the current discussion on the net had
taken place.
If ConAdian had inadvertantly forgotten the fan fund winners and there
was a general discussion about it, then, most likely, the Intersection
committee would have been reminded in time to do something about it
without getting egg in their faces.
When a group wants something from the Worldcon, it is the responsibility
of the group to remind the committee. If they remembered, no problem. If
not, then, hopefully there is still time to do something about it.
Sharon
Loren Joseph MacGregor
wrote as follows:
>
> At the same time, while I also have no real interest in things like filk,
> on the basis of what is and has been done for the other fan funds, the
> filkers' fund winner should have their room comped to show that they
> are honored guests as well. It's not a matter of how "fanzine fans" or
> "filker fans" or "convention fans" are treated, it's a matter of the
> courtesy due any honored guest (and no, before some moron comes along and
> we wander off on that path again, I'm NOT saying they should be treated
> like the committee-chosen Guests of Honor).
I have watched the flow of words here, looking for something I could
agree with, and, by golly, I've found it.
I am reminded of the time the American John Berry (John "D" Berry) was
asked to be fan guest of honor at Norwescon, only to find -- or so I
suspect -- that the committee thought that a FGOH was ridiculous and had
only been included to silence the long-time fans who were expected to
attend the convention.
John wasn't given ANYTHING -- not a room, not travel funds (the
expectation being that because he was local he could pay his own bus
fare, and he didn't NEED a room) -- and was very nearly not let into the
banquet to give his GOH speech because the officious Door Dragon
wouldn't let him past without a banquet ticket.
I don't want to wander on the path of "honored guest" vs. "Guest of
Honor" either, but my point is that if a convention DOES decide to
include a guest of honor OR a TAFF candidate OR a filker among its list
of honored guests, then they should be treated with respect and
encouraged to be a part of the convention in a positive way.
Ben Yalow
>I will look forward, Janice, to examining the tendrils in YOUR hair.
>Mysteriously, you seem to KNOW that the SF(F)WA will "require" a suite at
>future Worldcons, that Jewish fans will need a room for Friday
>night/Saturday
>morning services at future worldcons, and even that the grey-bearded
>tottering tradition of fandom will need what it too has required before.
>Since the only way, in your argument, for the convention committee to know
>these things is either to "be slans" or "read minds," I infer that it's
>the
>only way YOU can know them, too. But if it doesn't apply to you, then it
>doesn't apply to them. Which is it?
Actually, it's pretty easy to tell. SFWA has never failed to make their
usual requests, so I can't say what happens when they forget. But Jewish
fandom has, at times, not made any requests for a room.
And, to nobody's surprise, they didn't get one.
But, usually they remember. And when they do, if it's feasible, then
they get such a room. If the con committee doesn't have such a room,
then they won't get it, but those kinds of requests are honored where
possible.
<stuff deleted>
>Your suggestion that fannish organizations which require something from a
>Worldcon committee should be required to ask is not unreasonable on its
>face, but it IS less reasonable to the fan funds than it is to the other
>organizations. Those "other" organizations have all the time from the
>moment the committee is named until the convention starts its planning to
>get their requests to someone on the committee. It's a matter of timing,
>Janice.
To the best of my knowledge, there is always a TAFF administrator in the
side that will be sending the delegate to the Worldcon from the time any
Worldcon is selected. There is no reason that administrator (or the one
on the other side, if that's more convenient) can't ask the Worldcon at
the time the Worldcon is selected. (Or, more practically, wait a few
months for things to settle down, and then ask.)
I won't comment on the LAcon decision, since it was made at a closed
committee meeting. But I will say that almost every Worldcon has managed
to get a request from the TAFF administrator.
This should not be considered a criticism of any particular TAFF
administrator. It's a very tough job, and I've felt nothing but
admiration for the overloaded people who have that responsibility
hanging over their heads. I've seen nothing but joy from each of my
friends who have been in that job whenever they can turn it over to
someone else. But it might be useful if TAFF/DUFF/etc made it a part of
their folklore to remember to have the administrator contact the Worldcon,
if they want something from it.
Dr Gafia
Gelb) writes:
>>>Nor do convention committees read minds
& much &c. Nolo contendre.
Well, yes, I got a bit turned around there, didn't I? I reread my
comments to
you this morning and wondered (as you did, without quite saying it) just
what
it was I was smoking when I wrote that and, more important, where can I
find
any more of it?
The point I was trying to make was that you didn't "read minds" and yet
while
there was no pressing need for any of those fannish organizations to tell
YOU
their needs, you somehow know them anyway. I know perfectly well why this
is
so: You are not a neo, you have been about the microcosm for a while, you
have educated yourself on all of the basics and even some of the fine
points.
Okay?
My initial scree was wondering howcome we have a Worldcon committee, which
Ben Yalow tells me outnumbers the 150+ who vote in TAFF on average, not
ONE
of whom knows what you know? You seem to find that perfectly reasonable
and
I don't; on that point we've agreed to disagree. Gary Farber tries to
help
out by explaining that only five or six or so people on the committee, not
150+, are tasked with determining who gets comped rooms, but presumably
LACon and Intersection are similarly structured, so that only means the
five
or six people on LACon who have that task are doing that job knowledgely
and well, whereas the five or six in the equivalent role on Intersection
are not.
Neither had anyone nudging them from the outside on behalf of the fan
funds.
Intersection made a mistake as a result of ignorance and is doing
everything
it can to make up for it. Further public recriminations are pointless;
I'm
"upset" but I don't want to get dressed up in my Tight Rubber Suit and
flaggelate anyone with wet noodles over it. But I WOULD like to see some
mechanism in place to take care of this, short of hobbling the Worldcon
committee with pettifogging rules and regulations about it.
I suppose you are right that it is something else the fan fund
administrators
CAN do. It just bothers me one two counts. First, the Worldcon committee
generally has a subcommittee which is supposed to take care of comping
rooms
for the usual groups that get comped rooms for whatever reason; I'd just
like
to see the subpanel made up of people who have enough experience in the
microcosm to know what these "usual" groups are. Second, it's laying one
more task on the fan fund delegate who probably isn't going to get much of
their regular fanac done over the next two years because of all the other
things the fund requires them to do--and since it involves liaison with a
committee that will be putting on a Worldcon after the administrator's
term
of office is over, it's the sort of thing that they could easily overlook.
Actually, Janice, I don't lay the fault here with Intersection; I lay it
with
the so-called Smofs. The people who go to Smofcons and talk about the ins
and outs of conrunning. One of the things they SAY they are doing is
keeping
an eye on out Worldcon committees in particular but probably major
regionals
as well, so that this sort of faux paux doesn't happen all that often.
Intersection has a bunch of fairly new and enthusiastic fans doing the
best
they can, but if the Smofs had really been on top of things, none of these
embarrassing happenings would have occurred.
Top of the List: The Smofs should undertake to publish a sf convention
running guide, with particular emphasis on all the "little" things that
are
expected even though they may not be mandatory. Draw on pipple like Ben
Yalow, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Gary Farber to write it up. Publish it at
Worldcon expense, sell it at a profit but keep enough copies in print that
each new Worldcon Chairperson gets one whenever they've won the bid.
Regards,
rich brown
Ben Yalow
>Gary Farber tries to help out by explaining that only five or six or so
>people on the committee, not 150+, are tasked with determining who gets
>comped rooms, but presumably LACon and Intersection are similarly
>structured, so that only means the five or six people on LACon who have
>that task are doing that job knowledgely and well, whereas the five or
>six in the equivalent role on Intersection are not. Neither had anyone
>nudging them from the outside on behalf of the fan funds.
As I indicated earlier, I don't feel it appropriate to comment on LAcon's
internal discussions. However, I don't believe it would violate any
confidences to indicate that the last sentence of that quoted paragraph
may well be incorrect.
Continuing, rich says:
>First, the Worldcon committee generally has a subcommittee which is
>supposed to take care of comping rooms for the usual groups that get
>comped rooms for whatever reason; I'd just like to see the subpanel made
>up of people who have enough experience in the microcosm to know what
>these "usual" groups are.
It's simple - the rule has always been that the convention's guests of
honor get rooms free. Certain other groups are likely to have their
requests dealt with favorably, but nobody but the guests of honor, by
long tradition, gets anything without asking.
Rooms cost money, and "free" rooms are as much of an expense as any
others, since any unused free rooms can be sold to reliable people at the
same price as regular rooms, but with the check going to the con instead
of a hotel, so these represent a substantial source of income (it was a
low five figures income source for many recent Worldcons).
>Second, it's laying one more task on the fan fund delegate who probably
>isn't going to get much of their regular fanac done over the next two
>years because of all the other things the fund requires them to do--and
>since it involves liaison with a committee that will be putting on a
>Worldcon after the administrator's term of office is over, it's the sort
>of thing that they could easily overlook.
Since the value of the whole thing is several hundred dollars, it would
seem not too difficult to spend the half hour or less that it takes in
order to get that much money for the fund.
Perhaps TAFF, where the administrators consult regularly with each other,
may want to make that a part of the TAFF administrator oral history.
Continuing, rich says:
>Actually, Janice, I don't lay the fault here with Intersection; I lay it
>with the so-called Smofs. The people who go to Smofcons and talk about
>the ins and outs of conrunning. One of the things they SAY they are
>doing is keeping an eye on out Worldcon committees in particular but
>probably major regionals as well, so that this sort of faux paux doesn't
>happen all that often.
Actually, I believe this confuses the so-called Smofs with the
Illuminati. I realize that fanzine fandom has the "fanzine control
committee", which ensures that all fanzines are put out on schedule,
without typos, and with layout at least as clever as Dave Langford uses
on ANSIBLE. But, as rich has pointed out, there are only a few hundred
people in fanzine fandom, so they're able to arrange that only the witty
ones are permitted to write, edit, etc., while the less capable ones are
limited to helping with the minor administrative tasks (collating,
stapling, mailing, etc.). But, since convention fandom is so much
larger, the Smofs are forced to allow anyone to run a convention without
being vetted.
Continuing, we see:
>Top of the List: The Smofs should undertake to publish a sf convention
>running guide, with particular emphasis on all the "little" things that
>are expected even though they may not be mandatory. Draw on pipple like Ben
>Yalow, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Gary Farber to write it up. Publish it at
>Worldcon expense, sell it at a profit but keep enough copies in print that
>each new Worldcon Chairperson gets one whenever they've won the bid.
Right now, there are well over a thousand pages of stuff like that,
including past SMOFcon proceedings, the Worldcon runner's guide, etc. I
probably agree with about 2/3 of it, and less than 1% of the advice will
get you into serious trouble if you follow it. But feel free to
contribute; I'll be glad to send you the address for the next SMOFcon if
you want to add your ideas to the mix.
Gary Farber
: Actually, I believe this confuses the so-called Smofs with the
: Illuminati. I realize that fanzine fandom has the "fanzine control
: committee", which ensures that all fanzines are put out on schedule,
: without typos, and with layout at least as clever as Dave Langford uses
: on ANSIBLE. But, as rich has pointed out, there are only a few hundred
: people in fanzine fandom, so they're able to arrange that only the witty
: ones are permitted to write, edit, etc., while the less capable ones are
: limited to helping with the minor administrative tasks (collating,
: stapling, mailing, etc.). But, since convention fandom is so much
: larger, the Smofs are forced to allow anyone to run a convention without
: being vetted.
I don't mean to frighten either of you gentlemen and scholars, but I
think Ben is becoming a rather fannish writer, judging from the above. I
Laughed Out Loud, for one.
May I otherwise shuffle my feat in the ground, stir a little dust with my
toe, and humbly suggest that this Alphonse/Gaston routine over whom
should call whom first when agreeing to date between TAFF administrator
and Worldcon Committe has gone rather past the point of absurdity and
into the Valley of the Dolls, I mean, Inanity?
I think both may call, neither should wait at home by the phone while
doing one's hair, and while kissing on the first date is up to them, they
should always bring a condom to condom.
Meanwhile Madeline L'Engle is on my tv, ooh.
P Nielsen Hayden
>Patrick and I are quite retired [from convention-running]
Actually, Teresa and I ran the program for the 4th Street Fantasy Convention
in Minneapolis just this last weekend. We intend to do it next year, too.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
http://www.interport.net/~pnh : http://www.tor.com
Janice Gelb
>In article <3v0g6g$f...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, jan...@Eng.Sun.COM (Janice
>Gelb) writes:
>
>The point I was trying to make was that you didn't "read minds" and
>organizations to tell YOU their needs, you somehow know them anyway.
>I know perfectly well why this is so: You are not a neo, you have
>been about the microcosm for a while, you have educated yourself on
>all of the basics and even some of the fine points.
>
I imagine I will fall in your regard (assuming I can fall any lower
than I already am) when I tell you that although I've known about TAFF
and DUFF for years, until this discussion on the Internet, I had no
idea that the worldcon was expected to comp rooms for the winners. So,
judging by my experience as a well-seasoned con-running fan, even if a
committee has indeed heard of the funds and is willing to comp a
membership based on the winners participation on panels, it might not
know about the room angle.
>
>My initial scree was wondering howcome we have a Worldcon committee, which
>Ben Yalow tells me outnumbers the 150+ who vote in TAFF on average, not
>ONE of whom knows what you know? You seem to find that perfectly reasonable
>and I don't; on that point we've agreed to disagree.
As I stated above, I didn't know that the winners also got their rooms
comped, so if you're using me as a guide, I guess it *is* reasonable
that the committee wouldn't know :->
>Gary Farber tries to help
>out by explaining that only five or six or so people on the committee, not
>150+, are tasked with determining who gets comped rooms, but presumably
>LACon and Intersection are similarly structured, so that only means the
>five or six people on LACon who have that task are doing that job knowledgely
>and well, whereas the five or six in the equivalent role on Intersection
>are not.
>Neither had anyone nudging them from the outside on behalf of the fan
>funds.
>
As I've pointed out previously, perhaps LACon *would* have known about
this anyway, but they made their generous offer after seeing this
discussion on the net, so I don't think you can claim 100% that they
had "no one nudging them from the outside."
>Second, it's laying one
>more task on the fan fund delegate who probably isn't going to get much of
>their regular fanac done over the next two years because of all the other
>things the fund requires them to do--and since it involves liaison with a
>committee that will be putting on a Worldcon after the administrator's
>term of office is over, it's the sort of thing that they could easily overlook.
>
Worldcons are seated for three years, so they certainly would be around
during the administrator's term of office. And if we're talking about
people being busy with non-fund related fanac so that this is "the
sort of thing they could easily overlook," why can't you apply the
same rule to the worldcon committee, which is by no stretch of the
imagination as intimately concerned with comping the room as the
fan fund is. If you can allow that the fan fund people might overlook
letting the worldcon committee know, why can't you allow that the
committee, which is putting on a worldcon involving Ghu knows how
many aspects, might not remember about the fan funds without a
little nudging?
>Intersection has a bunch of fairly new and enthusiastic fans doing the
>best
>they can, but if the Smofs had really been on top of things, none of these
>embarrassing happenings would have occurred.
>
>Top of the List: The Smofs should undertake to publish a sf convention
>running guide, with particular emphasis on all the "little" things that
>are
>expected even though they may not be mandatory. Draw on pipple like Ben
>Yalow, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Gary Farber to write it up. Publish it at
>Worldcon expense, sell it at a profit but keep enough copies in print that
>each new Worldcon Chairperson gets one whenever they've won the bid.
>
Aside from the fact that we already disagree on whether knowing to
comp the fan funds makes a committee incompetent, even if there
would be such a guide, I can tell you from experience that many
conventions like to do things their own way and might not even
undertake to read one, especially if it comes from some official
"Smof" committee.
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
"Usenet is like Tetris for people who still remember how to read"
********************************************************************************
Gary Farber
: Top of the List: The Smofs should undertake to publish a sf convention
: running guide, with particular emphasis on all the "little" things that
: are
: expected even though they may not be mandatory. Draw on pipple like Ben
: Yalow, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Gary Farber to write it up. Publish it at
: Worldcon expense, sell it at a profit but keep enough copies in print that
: each new Worldcon Chairperson gets one whenever they've won the bid.
Patrick and I are quite retired, I believe, rich, and are now best qualified
only as kibitzers.
However, ahem, Ross, do you have some stamps? I don't think it would be
proper Netiquette for me to print rich's mail address here without asking
him, but in case rich has trouble getting to sleep. . . .
I rather liked the "If I Were Running The Worldcon" game (my copy having
burned up, alas, if anyone has a spare. . .).
My address, incidentally, for this special one-time offer:
Gary Farber
88 Parkville Avenue, Bsmt
Brooklyn, NY 11230-1017
David E Romm
> Actually, Janice, I don't lay the fault here with Intersection; I lay it
> with the so-called Smofs.
Ah, another demonstration of group theory, which states that in every
group, no matter how large or small, there's always the feeling that,
"this group would be perfect if we could just get rid of _that one
person_".
Dave [what do you mean 'so-called?']
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
New! Improved! Now with sound files!
Seth Breidbart
Dr Gafia <drg...@aol.com> wrote:
>The point I was trying to make was that you didn't "read minds" and yet
>while
>there was no pressing need for any of those fannish organizations to tell
>YOU
>their needs, you somehow know them anyway. I know perfectly well why this
>is
>so: You are not a neo, you have been about the microcosm for a while, you
>have educated yourself on all of the basics and even some of the fine
>points.
>Okay?
>
>My initial scree was wondering howcome we have a Worldcon committee, which
>Ben Yalow tells me outnumbers the 150+ who vote in TAFF on average, not
>ONE
>of whom knows what you know? You seem to find that perfectly reasonable
>and
>I don't; on that point we've agreed to disagree.
There are lots of things I know, if asked about directly ("Is it
customary to give a comp room to the TAFF winner?") that I might well
not think of if asked about indirectly ("Is there anybody else we
should give comp rooms to?"). I suspect a lot of people's memories
work like that.
Seth
Pam Wells
> [...] it might be useful if TAFF/DUFF/etc made it a part of
> their folklore to remember to have the administrator contact the Worldcon,
> if they want something from it.
Absolutely! In fact, I assumed it _was_ part of the folklore.... I certainly
thought it was my job to make sure that the convention hosting the American
TAFF winner after me (Jeanne Bowman, who came to the Illumination Eastercon)
knew about her and provided her with a free room and membership, and I also
thought it was my job to make sure that Jeanne had checked those same details
with the Worldcon that would host the European TAFF delegate after me (Abigail
Frost, who attended Confrancisco). Of course, Jeanne didn't need me to remind
her. If each TAFF administrator on both sides checks that this is being done,
there is sufficient cover for one of the administrators 'forgetting'.
Of course, if the Worldcons can also check, that would be excellent. But I
tend to agree that anyone who wants anything from a convention should ask
them for it, regardless of whether the convention already 'knows'.
--
Pam Wells
Gary Farber
: Ah, another demonstration of group theory, which states that in every
: group, no matter how large or small, there's always the feeling that,
: "this group would be perfect if we could just get rid of _that one
: person_".
Yeah, and sometimes your group is a group of one.
Leah Zeldes Smith
>The TAFF winner is not the person who necessarily needs to let the
>committee know since, as you point out below, they might not have
>time. Is there any reason why the administrator couldn't let the
>worldcon committee know in plenty of time?
None at all. In fact, that's the administrator's job.
Rich brown, drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia)> writes:
>>The truly most recent example is a case in point. Not
>>Intersection--LACon. The more experienced Worldcon committee (through Dan
>>Deckert) announced that they will be *comp*ing the rooms of the TAFF and
>>DUFF delegates--and they made their announcement not all that long back.
>>A month, maybe two. Indicating,
>>along with other things that may be heard about LACon, that the committee
>>is not just sitting around thumb-twiddling but holding meetings, making
>>preliminary decisions and otherwise using the time alloted them to put on
>>the best Worldcon they can.
>I'm sure LACon would have been efficient and magnanimous about this
>anyway, but I do feel obligated to point out that Dan made this statement
>after the discussion about the fan funds had been going on for some time
>on the net...
And after at least one fan fund administrator had reminded members of
the concom that they would be hosting delegates.
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Dr Gafia
Gelb) writes:
Several points I've conceded but:
>As I've pointed out previously, perhaps LACon *would* have known about
>this anyway, but they made their generous offer after seeing this
>discussion on the net, so I don't think you can claim 100% that they
>had "no one nudging them from the outside."
Actually, I think I can. Granted, the announcement was made because of
this discussion--and much as I might like to take credit for it (since
some
pipple Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned Right Here have been taking
me to task for it), I don't believe I can. It's a committee decision, and
I just
doubt that a committee meeting in Los Angeles would be called to address
something that had been brought up on the Net only a short while (a week
or a few days) before.
Now, if I'm wrong here, then the fact that I got ticked off publicly here
is
responsible for next year's fan fund winners getting their rooms comped.
I doubt it, but maybe. In that case, I really have to be careful--I could
put
my arm out of joint if I tried to pat myself on the back for it.
8-([:o/]}
--rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Dr Gafia
writes:
>David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
>
>: Ah, another demonstration of group theory, which states that in every
>: group, no matter how large or small, there's always the feeling that,
>: "this group would be perfect if we could just get rid of _that one
>: person_".
>
>Yeah, and sometimes your group is a group of one.
Which means, in any vote, you'll at least get a plurality if not a
majority...
--rich brown
Sharon L Sbarsky
Dr Gafia <drg...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <3v5qi7$i...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>, jan...@Eng.Sun.COM (Janice
>Gelb) writes:
>
>Several points I've conceded but:
>
>>this anyway, but they made their generous offer after seeing this
>>discussion on the net, so I don't think you can claim 100% that they
>>had "no one nudging them from the outside."
>
>this discussion--and much as I might like to take credit for it (since
>some
>pipple Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned Right Here have been taking
>me to task for it), I don't believe I can. It's a committee decision, and
>I just
>doubt that a committee meeting in Los Angeles would be called to address
>something that had been brought up on the Net only a short while (a week
>or a few days) before.
>
>Now, if I'm wrong here, then the fact that I got ticked off publicly here
>is
>responsible for next year's fan fund winners getting their rooms comped.
>I doubt it, but maybe. In that case, I really have to be careful--I could
>put
>my arm out of joint if I tried to pat myself on the back for it.
>8-([:o/]}
>
>--rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
>
There are some decisions that require a full committee vote, and others
that don't.
I suspect that Dan, Chaz, or numerous other lurkers, read this discussion
here and email Mike Glyer (chair) about it (in case Mike wasn't reading
it himself.) At which point, Mike (maybe with consolting Elayne and some
Division Heads) was able to agree to the statement that L.A.con III will
comp the rooms of the TAFF & DUFF winners.
Remember, that in US hotels where comped rooms *are* readily available,
it is easier to make this statement than places where hard cash needs to
be budgeted to *pay* for the rooms.
---Sharon
Gary Farber
: gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
: >David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Ah, another demonstration of group theory, which states that in every
: >: group, no matter how large or small, there's always the feeling that,
: >: "this group would be perfect if we could just get rid of _that one
: >: person_".
: >
: >Yeah, and sometimes your group is a group of one.
: Which means, in any vote, you'll at least get a plurality if not a
: majority...
Not when you've gotten rid of the one. Then you have a division of
zero.
Which somehow seems very fannish, but I can't explain why.
David Dyer-Bennet
>gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
>>Patrick and I are quite retired [from convention-running]
>Actually, Teresa and I ran the program for the 4th Street Fantasy Convention
>in Minneapolis just this last weekend. We intend to do it next year, too.
Aha! Heard and witnessed.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, proprietor, The Terraboard Minneapolis, MN
http://www.ddb.com (sf, photo) d...@network.com, d...@terrabit.mn.org
http://www.ddb.com/{4th-Street,minicon31} (sf conventions)
Mail to <4t...@terrabit.mn.org> for Fourth Street Fantasy Convention info
Dr Gafia
writes:
>There are lots of things I know, if asked about directly ("Is it
>customary to give a comp room to the TAFF winner?") that I might well
>not think of if asked about indirectly ("Is there anybody else we
>should give comp rooms to?"). I suspect a lot of people's memories
>work like that.
*sigh* Mine too, I'm afraid; point taken.
--rich brown
C R Harris
everything that needs to be said about fan-funds.
Ghod bless you, Dr Gafia, sir.
Chuch
C.R.Harris
Gary Farber
: I did not quote it as gospel. I said something to the effect that I thought
: there were only a few hundred people in fanzine fandom. You called me on it
: and I replied that someone on rec.arts.sf.fandom (where there seem to be a
: number of fanzine fen) had given a 200-300 person figure and no one disputed
: it.
Do you realize how much time it would take to refute *everything* rich
brown says? <g>
We wouldn't have time left to refute everyone else, and prove that
none of us actually exists: we are all floating in Bruce Pelz's mind.
Or maybe *yours*.
peg...@fastlane.net
>
> Not when you've gotten rid of the one. Then you have a division of
> zero.
>
Ah, another Intel(TM) employee posting here I see 8)
Scott Merritt | My Opinions are my employers
Pegasus Publishing
http://www.fastlane.net/homepages/pegasus/
Randall Stukey
le...@smith.chi.il.us (Leah Zeldes Smith) wrote:
>Ben Yalow, yb...@panix.com, writes:
>
>>But, as rich has pointed out, there are only a few hundred
>>people in fanzine fandom
>
>GEnie, Randall Stukey is quoting it as gospel.
I did not quote it as gospel. I said something to the effect that I thought
there were only a few hundred people in fanzine fandom. You called me on it
and I replied that someone on rec.arts.sf.fandom (where there seem to be a
number of fanzine fen) had given a 200-300 person figure and no one disputed
it. Perhaps you consider that quoting gospel. I considered it an item of
explanation as to why I had assumed my guess to be in the correct
ballpark...but then I sometimes communicate poorly. Had I been quoting
gospel, I would be calling your figures wrong because the "gospel" says
otherwise. <g>
Gary Farber
It's probably unfair of me to comment, rich, when you've only just begun
to explain yourself, but already I'm, um, not confident that we will agree.
: My numbers are not mere assertions; I hope yours are not either.
: I'll tell you how I come by mine and you can tell me how you come by
: yours. Then we'll see if we're still talking about the same things.
Fair enough.
: My numbers are about 10 years old.
Right here, this certainly should cause you to stop and wonder. I'm sure
you did, and proceeded in good faith that your reasoning was sound, of
course.
<paragraphs snorted>
Every single damn zine you mention, rich, is from the same small cluster
of fanzine fans, more ore less: TRAPDOOR, IZZARD, Stu's zine, etc. BIll
Patterson is as close as you come to an outsider, and he had a tiny list
that he expanded with yours (of course, to you, he's some "fellow").
The fact that you are naming zines that were some of the best of their
times, and that were from some of my best friends doesn't prevent me from
being aware that they are all drawing from the same small cluster of
fanzine fans, more or less, which you seem to persist in believing
defines most of fanzine fandom.
The fact that you can't seem to remember the name of anyone who isn't in
this cluster of our friends, such as Evelyn Leeper, may help you with
this impression of yours.
: I
: offered and was accepted to provide the service for Marty Cantor's
: HOLIER THAN THOU; his list had the most "fringe fans" (which I
: defined, in terms of the overall list, as fans who were ONLY getting
: HTT or getting HTT and perhaps one other fanzine). I believe I
: also provided labels for Linda Blanchard and someone else in
: Seattle fandom--I just c
Wait, my tendrils are trembling: it comes to me -- "I just can't remember."
Right?
You know I think Marty's zine was a poor one. Medicore at best, and
sometimes awful. Marty and I are not pals; at best we're maybe friendly
acquaintances, and I'm not confident he'd go that far. He and I were on
the opposite ends of various disagreements, points of view, and outright
feuds.
None of that, for all of my criticisms of why, to me, HOLIER THAN THOU
was not a good zine, which I sometimes called lousy or awful, and
sometimes was kinder to, will let me agree with you that most of the
people on his list were "fringe fans." I can only say that they were
fringe fans to you.
Hell, I'd call a bunch of them outright fuggheads, but that didn't make
them fringefans.
This is what Leah is talking about, and while I await further explication
from you and all, I'm probably with her on this one. Won't we have fun
finding out?
I think you're very wrong in your belief that most of the people on
Marty's list got only one other zine, and I think that's the kind of
erroneous assumption that leads you astray.
Dr Gafia
writes with a plumb:
>Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com) cribs from Robert's Rules:
>: gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
>: >David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
>: >
>: >: Ah, another demonstration of group theory, which states that in
every
>: >: group, no matter how large or small, there's always the feeling
that,
>: >: "this group would be perfect if we could just get rid of _that one
>: >: person_".
>: >
>: >Yeah, and sometimes your group is a group of one.
>
>: Which means, in any vote, you'll at least get a plurality if not a
>: majority...
>
>Not when you've gotten rid of the one. Then you have a division of
>zero.
>
>Which somehow seems very fannish, but I can't explain why.
Probably because you forgot to carry the bum. However, don't let it
bother you--for my part, I neglected to consider the possibility of
multiple personality disorder. Anyway, trying to decide if a division
of zero is nondivided or undivided gives me a headache.
Think I'll go lie down.
--rich brown
Gary Farber
: In article <3ved79$7...@panix2.panix.com>,
: gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
: >Randall Stukey (len...@crl.com) wrote, speaking to Leah Zeldes Smith:
: >We wouldn't have time left to refute everyone else, and prove that
: >none of us actually exists: we are all floating in Bruce Pelz's mind.
: >
: >Or maybe *yours*.
: No Gary. You are *not* floating in my mind. That'd be pornographic or
: something and would have to be banned from NASFiC dealers rooms.
Um, no offense taken, or meant, but wouldn't it be pornographic only if you
were, like having sex fantasies about me, or at least including me?
Or do you think that my simple existence is pornographic?
Or is it that my sexual magnetism is so overwhelming that to simply think
of me is to be overwhelmed by desire?
Just curious.
Dr Gafia
>Ben Yalow, yb...@panix.com, writes:
>
>>But, as rich has pointed out, there are only a few hundred
>>people in fanzine fandom
>
>Rich said it, and here you are seemingly agreeing with it, so over on
>GEnie, Randall Stukey is quoting it as gospel.
>
>It isn't true. Unless you are only counting rich brown approved fanzine
>fans, there must be upwards of 1,000 people who read, write for, draw
>for, or publish SF fanzines, and that's without including apas, media
>zines, or the people who go to Corflu and ditto even though they haven't
>had anything to do with fanzines in years.
>
>--
>Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
>
Nonsense, Leah. First, whoever said I "approved" of them?
Let's see, you're not counting LOCUS or SCIENCE FICTION
CHRONICLE or any of the other "semi-prozines"--or so I'd like to
hope. Clearly, they have high subscriptions and some news stand
sales that mean they have a couple of thousand readers.
And I did say I was speaking about mainstream fanzine fandom.
That would, by definition, exclude most of the fiction fanzines and
semi-"little" magazines that get published by colleges--stuff like
THE FRACTAL, REFLECTIONS, GALACTIC CITIZEN, SUB-TERRENEA
&c.--and I include in their number fringe photo-offset "fanzines" that
are published in a vacuum to the extent that you could read several
issues without ever getting the impression another fanzine exists
anywhere in the known world.
My numbers are not mere assertions; I hope yours are not either.
I'll tell you how I come by mine and you can tell me how you come by
yours. Then we'll see if we're still talking about the same things.
My numbers are about 10 years old. Nonetheless, you're telling me
that the numbers have doubled and been accommodated by something
that passes the Leah Zeldes definition of fanzine fandom. I'd like to see
some evidence besides mere assertion, however.
For about five years, in the early 1980's through the mid-1980's, I ran a
mailing label service for some fanzine publishers which I called Drudge
Enterprises, a wholly owned Subsidiary of the Vernon McCain Division
of Proxyboo, Ltd. My first "customer" but second client was Richard
Bergeron; I did the WARHOON mailing list and, subsequently, the WIZ
mailing list for him and of course I did the _beardmutterings_ mailing
list for myself. I mention this to explain the reference to Vernon
McCain--his "rival" firm to Proxyboo Ltd. handled only clients whose
initials were "rb". My next client was a fellow named Bill Patterson; he
had been published a small-circulation fanzine and wanted to move it
out into the main stream. Bob Lichtman's TRAP DOOR was my next
customer, followed by the Nielsen Hayden's with IZZARD (I think), then
Stu Shiffman and Larry Carmody with their combined and separate
mailing lists, then Alina Chu and [I forget her coeditor's name, alas]
with another. I started to do the PONG mailing list but it was decided
that it would be easier for Dan's wife Lynn to keep it for them;
nonetheless, we exchanged information regarding CoA's &c. to keep
both our lists current, and I kept up with their additions and kept
them coded just in case Lynn's system should ever break down.
David Bratmon was reviving DEFENISTRATION, and I provided labels
for him. I next offered the service to Avedon; she not only had a gen-
eral circulation personal zine but was administering TAFF; at this late
date I forget if I did both lists or just the genzine list for her. Next
David Langford
writes:
> In article <806851...@bitch.demon.co.uk>, Pam Wells
> <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Absolutely! In fact, I assumed it _was_ part of the
> >folklore.... I certainly thought it was my job to make sure
> >that the convention hosting the American TAFF winner after
> >me (Jeanne Bowman, who came to the Illumination Eastercon)
> >knew about her and provided her with a free room and
> >membership, and I also thought it was my job to make sure
> >that Jeanne had checked those same details with the
> >Worldcon that would host the European TAFF delegate after
> >me (Abigail Frost, who attended Confrancisco). Of course,
> >Jeanne didn't need me to remind her. If each TAFF
> >administrator on both sides checks that this is being
> >done, there is sufficient cover for one of the
> >administrators 'forgetting'.
>
> Then who's "job" was it to check with Intersection regarding
> Dan's trip and why wasn't it done?
rich ... this is awkward.
Just as you are expecting to be told, it was Abigail Frost's "job" to point
out the TAFF situation to Intersection. She did so, more than once. (Since
she lacks a net connection I occasionally sent e-mail to Intersection on her
behalf.) Additionally, Joyce Scrivner -- a good egg and good supporter of
the fan funds -- made the point to Intersection high-ups much earlier, I
think around the time the bid was won.
Somehow, Intersection managed to lose track of these reminders internally,
owing to resignations (I believe it was Tim Illingworth to whom Joyce spoke)
and its general labyrinthine committee structure. Or someone just
plain forgot, and budgets were apparently assigned before anyone remembered
TAFF again. Or they reckoned there was such a shortage of money that despite
TAFF's prodding they got cold feet about allocating the room budget. Or
something.
I feel it's unfortunate that some Intersection postings about the
situation can be read as =implying= that no fan fund administrator ever
mentioned complimentary rooms, and therefore that any blame must lie with
TAFF (and GUFF, whose European administrator Joseph Nicholas was at one
stage complaining bitterly about being unable to get any response to his own
communications ... like both the TAFF administrators, he has no net
connection).
Whatever the background, TAFF and GUFF and Intersection -- that is, Abigail
and Joseph and Martin Easterbrook -- have since talked about these issues
and managed to emerge on good terms. Do we need another argument about all
this? Please let's not.
Dave
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.compulink.co.uk
d...@ansible.demon.co.uk
Dr Gafia
>
>Randall Stukey (len...@crl.com) wrote, speaking to Leah Zeldes Smith:
>
>: I did not quote it as gospel. I said something to the effect that I
>thought
>: there were only a few hundred people in fanzine fandom. You called me
on
>it
>: and I replied that someone on rec.arts.sf.fandom (where there seem to
be a
>: number of fanzine fen) had given a 200-300 person figure and no one
>disputed
>: it.
>
>Do you realize how much time it would take to refute *everything* rich
>brown says? <g>
Not to mention the sheer difficulty...
I THOUGHT the figures I was quoting was for the fans in mainstream
fanzine fandom. But maybe Randall here didn't notice my qualification.
As I see it at present, Leah is talking about fanzine fandom and I am
talking about mainstream fanzine fandom, and the latter is something
that is only part of the former.
>We wouldn't have time left to refute everyone else, and prove that
>none of us actually exists: we are all floating in Bruce Pelz's mind.
>
>Or maybe *yours*.
Psst. Gary. Don't tell him ALL the secrets or we'll have to kill him.
Or you.
--rich brown
Randall Stukey
>Randall Stukey (len...@crl.com) wrote:
>: No Gary. You are *not* floating in my mind. That'd be pornographic or
>: something and would have to be banned from NASFiC dealers rooms.
>
>Um, no offense taken, or meant, but wouldn't it be pornographic only if you
>were, like having sex fantasies about me, or at least including me?
>
>Or do you think that my simple existence is pornographic?
>
>Or is it that my sexual magnetism is so overwhelming that to simply think
>of me is to be overwhelmed by desire?
>
>Just curious.
I see my strange sense of humor has confused things again. <g> Floating in my
mind would be a very intimate experience. More intimate that sex, IMO. Some
folks seem to associate intimate experience with pornography. And if it's
pornographic, it should be banned from NASFiC dealers rooms -- at least
according to some here.
I really need to learn to stop doing this. No one ever gets my strange jokes.
But I just can't stop myself from telling them.
Randall Stukey
len...@crl.com
gray-l...@genie.com
Randall Stukey
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>Randall Stukey (len...@crl.com) wrote, speaking to Leah Zeldes Smith:
>We wouldn't have time left to refute everyone else, and prove that
>none of us actually exists: we are all floating in Bruce Pelz's mind.
>
>Or maybe *yours*.
No Gary. You are *not* floating in my mind. That'd be pornographic or
something and would have to be banned from NASFiC dealers rooms.
Randall Stukey
len...@crl.com
gray-l...@genie.com
Ben Yalow
>Ben Yalow, yb...@panix.com, writes:
>>But, as rich has pointed out, there are only a few hundred
>>people in fanzine fandom
>Rich said it, and here you are seemingly agreeing with it, so over on
>GEnie, Randall Stukey is quoting it as gospel.
>It isn't true. Unless you are only counting rich brown approved fanzine
>fans, there must be upwards of 1,000 people who read, write for, draw
>for, or publish SF fanzines, and that's without including apas, media
>zines, or the people who go to Corflu and ditto even though they haven't
>had anything to do with fanzines in years.
I personally don't use terms like "fanzine fandom" or "convention fandom"
myself, when I try to analyze the dynamicas of fandom. I think it is far
meaningful to measure along the participatory-nonparticipatory axis than
along the fanzine-convention axis. It's more useful for me, since I'm
more likely to enjoy interacting with somebody at the participatory end
of the scale, and less likely to spend time with a nonparticipatory
convention fan, even though I'm probably more on the convention fan end
of the axis.
That's why I liked the Corflu's I've been to, and stayed away from the
Creation-type cons.
But, in order to consider rich's analysis, and decide how meaningful it
is, it seemed more appropriate to concede his definitions, and show how
they still led to results I considered inappropriate. But I don't use
them myself, and don't recommend them to others.
>--
>Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
David E Romm
> I really need to learn to stop doing this. No one ever gets my strange jokes.
> But I just can't stop myself from telling them.
ROFL! That's great!
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
-- Mark Twain
Chris Croughton
>fanzine fandom. But maybe Randall here didn't notice my qualification.
>As I see it at present, Leah is talking about fanzine fandom and I am
>talking about mainstream fanzine fandom, and the latter is something
>that is only part of the former.
I'm getting very confused about this term 'mainstream', and so
(apparently) is Randall Stukey. My dictionary (which is about 10 years
old, the same as Rich's figures) defines it as "prevailing trend of
opinion, fashion etc." - if it's 'prvailing', doesn't that mean that it
should be something like a majority, and not a small minority?
("prevail: be the more usual or prominent, predominate; exist or occur
in general use or experience; be current")
So can someone please explain how Rich Brown's 'mainstream' fanzine
fandom is so much smaller (by an order of magnitude) than the rest of
fanzine fandom? Or has someone redefined the language again?
***********************************************************************
* ch...@keris.demon.co.uk * *
* chr...@cix.compulink.co.uk * FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) *
* 10001...@compuserve.com * *
***********************************************************************
Dr Gafia
>: No Gary. You are *not* floating in my mind. That'd be pornographic or
>: something and would have to be banned from NASFiC dealers rooms.
>
>Um, no offense taken, or meant, but wouldn't it be pornographic only if
you
>were, like having sex fantasies about me, or at least including me?
>Or do you think that my simple existence is pornographic?
>
>Or is it that my sexual magnetism is so overwhelming that to simply think
>of me is to be overwhelmed by desire?
>
>Just curious.
Hmm. Just guess here but maybe it's that the only thing Bruce thinks
about is sex.
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
writes:
>In article <3ved79$7...@panix2.panix.com>,
> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>>Randall Stukey (len...@crl.com) wrote, speaking to Leah Zeldes Smith:
>
>>We wouldn't have time left to refute everyone else, and prove that
>>none of us actually exists: we are all floating in Bruce Pelz's mind.
>>
>>Or maybe *yours*.
>
>No Gary. You are *not* floating in my mind. That'd be pornographic or
>something and would have to be banned from NASFiC dealers rooms.
>
>Randall Stukey
Woops! I just responded to a response to this and misunderstood who it
was from, so stuck in Bruce Pelz's name instead of Randall's here.
So it's Randall who's always thinking about sex.
Meanwhile, my doctors are telling me I have to cut back on my sex life
by about half. I'm trying to decide what I want to give up--thinking
about it or talking about it.
Richard McAllister
David Bratmon was reviving DEFENISTRATION,
Defenestration was edited by David Singer, not David Bratman.
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
Berni Phillips
This is correct. David Bratman just *practices* defenestration (especially
with particular books).
------
Berni Phillips be...@netcom.com
Leah Zeldes Smith
>As I see it at present, Leah is talking about fanzine fandom and I am
>talking about mainstream fanzine fandom, and the latter is something
>that is only part of the former.
Rich, I have no idea what you mean by "mainstream fanzine fandom." Does
that mean the fans of Jerry & Suzle's zine? (Yeah, I s'pose there could
be just a few hundred of them.) Does it mean rich brown approved
fanzine fans? Or what?
Am I part of it?
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
Leah Zeldes Smith
>I personally don't use terms like "fanzine fandom" or "convention fandom"
>myself, when I try to analyze the dynamicas of fandom. I think it is far
>meaningful to measure along the participatory-nonparticipatory axis than
>along the fanzine-convention axis. It's more useful for me, since I'm
>more likely to enjoy interacting with somebody at the participatory end
>of the scale, and less likely to spend time with a nonparticipatory
>convention fan, even though I'm probably more on the convention fan end
>of the axis.
Yes, I agree. Though I fear I'm apt to pronounce the
participatory/nonparticipatory split as the shorter but more
inflammatory "fans" and "tourists."
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
David E Romm
wrote:
Apropos of very little: David Singer has a web page; I don't have the URL
handy, but there's a link to him from my page, below. (Plug!)
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
Links to fannish and faannish sites!
David E Romm
Dyer-Bennet) wrote:
> p...@tor.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>
> >gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
>
> >>Patrick and I are quite retired [from convention-running]
>
> >Actually, Teresa and I ran the program for the 4th Street Fantasy Convention
> >in Minneapolis just this last weekend. We intend to do it next year, too.
>
> Aha! Heard and witnessed.
Whoops! Please take this to the discussion of Christian Fandom.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
New! Improved! Now with sound files!
Dr Gafia
<d...@ansible.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I feel it's unfortunate that some Intersection postings about the
>situation can be read as =implying= that no fan fund administrator ever
>mentioned complimentary rooms, and therefore that any blame must lie with
>TAFF (and GUFF, whose European administrator Joseph Nicholas was at one
>stage complaining bitterly about being unable to get any response to his
own
>communications ... like both the TAFF administrators, he has no net
>connection).
>
>Whatever the background, TAFF and GUFF and Intersection -- that is,
Abigail
>and Joseph and Martin Easterbrook -- have since talked about these issues
>and managed to emerge on good terms. Do we need another argument about
all
>this? Please let's not.
To go back to that old Monty Python reference, a good argument probably
wouldn't hurt as much as you seem to think it might--but what we're more
likely to get here is that stuff from down the hall, Abuse. So let's not;
and if
anyone wonders about it later on, we can always say we did.
I'm tired of beating my head against a stone wall, anyway. I've literally
lost
count of the number of times I've said I see no point in browbeating the
Intersection committee over an error they've acknowledged and expressed
the desire to rectify. Ben Yalow nonetheless suggests, to test the
popularity
of "my" view, that I should seek their impeachment at the business
meeting.
If that's the level of communication I'm achieving, we're all better off
leaving
it alone.
--rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia.
Gary Farber
: To go back to that old Monty Python reference, a good argument probably
: wouldn't hurt as much as you seem to think it might--but what we're more
: likely to get here is that stuff from down the hall, Abuse. So let's not;
: and if anyone wonders about it later on, we can always say we did.
I mean this in the kindest possible way, rich, as I know how very much
you are one of the Good Guys, but in your noble and admirable quest for
fannish Truth and Justice, you occasionally give some people the
erroneous impression that you might occasionally forget that real people
are involved with real personal relationships who may suffer real pain.
I believe that David was very clear that there had been ill will that has
been smoothed over among Abi, members of the Scottish Convention
Committee, and other folk. That should not obscure important questions,
true, but since we seem to agree that there are no visible important
questions remaining in the horizon, letting some things exit stage right
does seem in order. Sometimes the measure of friendship is in trusting
your friends when they ask something of you.
I agree with you.
Avedon Carol
> think
> of me is to be overwhelmed by desire?
>
> Just curious.
I still have a real cute picture of you in a *tie-dyed shirt* when you
were _under 18_!
AC
Gary Farber
: > Or is it that my sexual magnetism is so overwhelming that to simply
: AC
Now, how do I go about framing this post, exactly?
--
-- Gary Farber Brooklyn, New York City
Dr Gafia
Zeldes Smith) writes:
>Rich, I have no idea what you mean by "mainstream fanzine fandom." Does
>that mean the fans of Jerry & Suzle's zine? (Yeah, I s'pose there could
>be just a few hundred of them.) Does it mean rich brown approved
>fanzine fans? Or what?
>
>Am I part of it?
Oh, gad I've only defined it a half a dozen times--you apparently didn't
pay
any attention to it then, so why should you now?
Show me one place--ONE PLACE--where I have ever--EVER--defined an
area of fandom based on all the fans bearing my "approval". That's a
factor
which is just a part of YOUR fevered imagination, Leah. It is entirely
YOUR
hang up, based on YOUR prejudgment. Are you retarded? Or what?
I don't "approve" of all of the fans in mainstream fanzine fandom. My
approval (or lack) is entirely irrelevant. The only relevant factor is
their election to participate or NOT to participate. If they elect to do
so, they do so, if not, not.
No time to deal with this any further, but, gad, it IS annoying...
Dr Gafia
<ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> writes:
>So can someone please explain how Rich Brown's 'mainstream' fanzine
>fandom is so much smaller (by an order of magnitude) than the rest of
>fanzine fandom? Or has someone redefined the language again?
Again, I'm working on a piece off line that will be dealing with this, but
just briefly and for the moment--to be part of the mainstream requires
being in the, ah, main stream. Which is to say, the Big Long River that
stretches Way Back Yonder. To be part of the mainstream is to be
aware of the stream itself, how far it stretches back, what it is
publishing
in 'the tradition of'. It tends toward the fannish but includes a a major
portion of the sercon; it participates and benefits from timebinding. It
is the area of fanzine fandom that is aware of how far back fanzine
fandom goes, what influences different fanzines have had on the course
of fanzine fandom. Whether sercon or fannish, it is a fanzine which is
"fandom aware"--the editors and participants know where they come from,
what has influenced them, and is cognizant that the past is forever
present.
The vast majority of fanzines are wandering around in an ignorant fog,
either unaware of or at the least not acknowleding the existence of other
fanzines, or if acknowledging them still reinventing wheels and ignorant
of what has transpired in the microcosm more than a year before they
got started.
*sigh* Again, more later...
--rich brown
Arthur Hlavaty
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I still have a real cute picture of you in a *tie-dyed shirt* when you
>were _under 18_!
>
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
P Nielsen Hayden
>Show me one place--ONE PLACE--where I have ever--EVER--defined an
>area of fandom based on all the fans bearing my "approval". That's a
>factor which is just a part of YOUR fevered imagination, Leah. It is
>entirely YOUR hang up, based on YOUR prejudgment. Are you retarded?
>Or what?
Rich, this may well be an unfair, unjust, and wrongheaded interpretation of
your position, but for some reason it's one that many people seem to share.
My advice: If three people tell you you're drunk, lie down.
Asking Leah if she's "retarded" doesn't exactly raise the intelligence level
of the discussion, incidentally.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : opinions mine
http://www.interport.net/~pnh : http://www.tor.com
Gary Farber
<expressions of outrage and stormy weather deleted>
: I don't "approve" of all of the fans in mainstream fanzine fandom. My
: their election to participate or NOT to participate. If they elect to do
: so, they do so, if not, not.
: No time to deal with this any further, but, gad, it IS annoying...
Perhaps "traditional" fandom might be a less loaded term? And more
numerically accurate?
Dr Gafia
In article <3vemlk$m...@panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
<<snip to important section>>
>Every single damn zine you mention, rich, is from the same small cluster
>of fanzine fans, more or less: TRAPDOOR, IZZARD, Stu's zine, etc. Bill
>Patterson is as close as you come to an outsider, and he had a tiny list
>that he expanded with yours (of course, to you, he's some "fellow").
That covers only the fanzine that can be counted on one hand and I'll
even grant you that WARHOON and WIZ and the early PONG (which you don't
include) all fall in the same category generally. But in all I listed
close to a dozen, with the possibility of it having actually been more
like 15. (If you're going to totally ignore HOLIER THAN THOU in speaking
of "every damn zine (I) mention" then you should really totally ignore it;
that you wait to bring it up in a subsequent paragraph in which you tell
me that your opinion of HTT's overall quality is essentially no different
than mine makes you appear disingenuous.)
HTT didn't fit, qualitywise or audiencewise, into the same category; I
think it's safe to say that it was the LAN'S LANTERN of its time and it
had a pretty big mailing list (around 300 if I recall). Alina Chu and
Teresa Minembras (thanks for the reminder) had a slightly askew mailing
list for their zine a lot of people from the Midwest who weren't on other
mailing lists or were on very few. Linda Blanchard and David Bratman's
lists also had their share of fans they knew who were just names to me.
If I DIDN'T provide the service to Bill Bowers, then the midwest is
probably largely under represented I DO know I intended to offer it to
him, as I did with Jerry and Suzle for MAINSTREAM, I just can't recall if
I got around to it and, if I did, if the offer was accepted. Anyone else
out there on the net who received the Drudge Enterprise service, speak up.
Bill Patterson is known to you and to Patrick and Avedon and Rob may
remembers later issues of QUIDLOBIT (sp?) or whatever the hell his genzine
was called. He's probably not known to most people here on
rec.arts.sf.fandom, however, so I referred to him as this "fellow" Bill
Patterson. As it happens, however, I enjoyed Bill's argumentative style
so much, in fact, that of the 25 or so issues I saw (some of which were
before he opened up to a larger audience), I had contributions (mostly in
the form of letters, ranging anywhere from two to maybe eight pages in
length) in all but perhaps four or five of them--which, I would point out,
is a substantially higher percentage of personal involvement on my part
than with most of the other fanzines receiving the DE services, and though
Bill and I argued, as even you and I are arguing here, I thought well of
him (as I do of you) and was beginning to think of him as a new found
friend.
He showed up at the first Corflu and we had one good conversation before
things broke up for folks to go to supper; Bill even invited me out to
dinner at his expense but unfortunately Linda Blanchard, to whom I was
then engaged, was at Corflu almost solely to see me and she was suffering
from a really bad toothache. Even if Bill had included her in his
invitation, her toothache would have kept her from enjoying the evening
meal and I didn't feel like I could just leave her and go off on my own
with Bill, howevermuch I was enjoying talking to him. I was in the
process of trying to explain this when he took umbrage, turned on his
heel, stalked off, said loudly over his shoulder that he had NEVER been so
insulted and didn't show up again for the rest of the convention. Hey,
fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
Nonetheless, I believe you should be able to conclude that you have jumped
to an entirely erroneous conclusion about how I may have regarded him.
*sigh*.
Don't worry about it.
It's not the first time.
And you're not alone.
>The fact that you are naming zines that were some of the best of their
>times, and that were from some of my best friends doesn't prevent me from
>being aware that they are all drawing from the same small cluster of
>fanzine fans, more or less, which you seem to persist in believing
>defines most of fanzine fandom.
Either show me where I said that these fanzines "define most of fanzine
fandom" or the tendrils in YOUR hair, Gary. I believe they represent some
--not "all" but "some"--of the best fanzines of mainstream fanzine fandom
of their time. And, yes, like you, I consider them friends.
>The fact that you can't seem to remember the name of anyone who isn't in
>this cluster of our friends, such as Evelyn Leeper, may help you with
this >impression of yours.
The fact of the matter is, Gary, that I have a Real Problem when it comes
to remembering names, aggravated in part by the narcoleptic symptoms of my
apnea which keeps me from writing very much very fast. When I'm writing
something for a fanzine and can't remember someone's name or the name of
their fanzine, I leave a " " and go on, coming back to fill it in when
I can take the time to check it out or ask someone else who might know.
If Evelyn is as offended as you seem to be on her behalf at my inability
to recall her name, I'll invite her to meet 10 of my friends whom I've
known for 10 years or more and in the process of introducing them to her,
no doubt, will not be able to recall at least one of THEIR names. I make
jokes about my cast iron sieve of a memory but they would not be truly
funny if they were not at least in part acknowledgment of the truth.
If any doubt my words, simply consider the listing of the fanzines I did
labels for above, where there are two examples of this. I couldn't recall
that Jerry Kaufman and Suzle's fanzine was called MAINSTREAM, and so I
"fudged" it by saying that as your "tingling tendrils" very nearly let
you know I couldn't recall if I'd done it for some "other" Seattle fans
too. And I didn't mention Jerry and Suzle by name without mentioning the
title of their fanzine because I had ALREADY done that with Stu Shiffman
and Larry Carmody's fanzine, the title of which I still can't recall. It
has nothing whatsoever to do with the regard I have for them; Stu I
nominated several times, for CRYsake, for past president of fwa, even
after he'd once been ELECTED past president of fwa....
So Evelyn is in Good Company; but, that being the case, I think the only
thing you can legitimately infer from my not recalling HER name is that I
don't recall names easily because of this little problem I have at times
and have even tried to acknowledge in an amusing fashion.
Once more, for the record, to be absolutely clear about this, I was kindof
backed into a corner by Evelyn herself, asking me if I thought she was a
"real" fan. This had to do with a discussion Leah and I were having on
the Net which Evelyn admitted she didn't quite understand because there
seemed to be certain "givens" between Leah and I that she (Evelyn) did not
share. I tried to tell her several times that what SHE considered herself
to be was more important than my opinion, and the "givens" between Leah
and I were largely due to the fact that we'd been involved in exchanges on
similar topics in STET. Obviously, I said, she (Evelyn) wasn't involved
in the same section of fanzine fandom that Leah and I shared or she would
have familiarity with it and I would probably know something about her
(Evelyn). When she told me she wrote articles for fmz like LAN'S LANTERN,
I said I guess then she was a fringefan on my understanding that Lan
himself had disavowed any desire to be part of mainstream fanzine fandom.
(In my way of looking at things, no one BUT Lan had the power to make that
kind of declaration about LL; but given that I thought HE had made it, I
felt no qualms about accepting it at face value.) But my "understanding"
was based on things I had heard, and it turned out that Lan had not
actually said that; when I discovered that, I apologized to Evelyn
publicly and am perfectly willing to say that LL is as much a part (but no
more a part) of mainstream fanzine fandom as Lan believes it to be.
Evelyn, at least so I believe, accepted my apology.
<<snip a few negative opinions regarding the quality of HTT>>
>None of that, for all of my criticisms of why, to me, HOLIER THAN THOU
>was not a good zine, which I sometimes called lousy or awful, and
>sometimes was kinder to, will let me agree with you that most of the
>people on his list were "fringe fans." I can only say that they were
>fringe fans to you.
<snip>
>I think you're very wrong in your belief that most of the people on
>Marty's list got only one other zine, and I think that's the kind of
>erroneous assumption that leads you astray.
*sigh* But, Gary, in the context of what I was talking about, it ISN'T an
erroneous assumption. When I said that most of the people on HTT's list
received either no or "only one other" fanzine I meant it, of course,
within the context of what I was writing about the fanzines for which I
produced mailing labels. If their record on my disc looked something like
this:
a:12
v: Joe Fairly-Shirley Fringefan
123 45th St. #678
E. Mashed Potato Falls, ID 84601v
then the only fanzine of the fanzines Drudge Enterprises did labels for
Joe would receive would be HTT (assuming "12" to be the recognition code
for the HTT list only material between the "v:" and the "v" got printed
on the label). If their record looked like this:
a:7/12
v: Joe Sorta-Nearly Fringefan
123 45th St. #678
E. Mashed Potato Falls, ID 84601v
then Joe was receiving, say, TRAP DOOR (recognition code "7") and HTT
(=12). And if it looked like this:
a:1/2/4/5/7/8/10/12/14
v: Joe Defi-Nately Actifan
123 45th St. #678
E. Mashed Potato Falls, ID 84601v
then Joe was getting nine of the zines l did labels for.
How many zines any of the above people received for which I was NOT doing
labels is, of course, anybody's guess; I've never noticed tendrils in my
hair and so doubt I could report it with any degree of accuracy which is
why I don't try. It could be that Joe Actifan receives ONLY the nine
zines I have him down for, whereas Joe Fringefan might get HTT, FILE 770,
LOCUS, SFR and a dozen SFR imitations and fiction fanzines. That,
however, would place Joe Fringefan over in sercon fanzine fandom, which
DOES make him a fringefan to mainstream fanzine fandom. (By the same
token, of course, Joe Actifan is just as much a fringefan from the
perspective of sercon fanzine fandom. Do you have it so far? Or shall I
wait 'til you catch up?) And I have, on at least half a dozen occasions,
stated that the "range" of the number of fans in fanzine fandom depends on
precisely what you are measuring--it could be as few as 100 (those who are
really active at any one time in [or the core group of] mainstream fanzine
fandom) or as many as 2000 if you count apahacks and the subscribers and
sometimes contributors to the wannabe semiprozines of sercon fanzine
fandom--although why I keep on repeating it when no one discussing the
matter seems willing to acknowledge it, I must admit I am beginning to
doubt.
My thesis, Gary, is that if the fan in question at the time did not
receive ANY of "best" mainstream fanzine fandom fanzines I did labels for
AND did not receive any of the sideline mainstream fanzine fandom fanzines
I did labels for AND, on top of this, did not even receive HTT, arguably
the LL of its time, then they are certainly fringefans from the
perspective of mainstream fanzine fandom. If they "only" received HTT,
you'd probably have to consider them fringefans of mainstream fanzine
fandom too. I mean, if they're demonstrably not in the center, then they
are somewhere on the fringes--I know of no other way to define the terms
or make the necessary distinctions.
-- rich brown a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Dr Gafia
(Richard McAllister) writes:
>Defenestration was edited by David Singer, not David Bratman
Ah, yes, the "name thing" again. Mae culpa to both Davids.
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
writes:
>I believe that David was very clear that there had been ill will that has
>been smoothed over among Abi, members of the Scottish Convention
>Committee, and other folk. That should not obscure important questions,
>true, but since we seem to agree that there are no visible important
>questions remaining in the horizon, letting some things exit stage right
>does seem in order. Sometimes the measure of friendship is in trusting
>your friends when they ask something of you.
I'm glad we agree on this. I only want to add that I've never had more
than
a moment's pique at the members of the Intersection committee--which I
said wasn't worth bothering about as soon as one of them said they were
hoping to be able to make up for their error. Everything I have been
pointing my outflang fingerbone of scorn at has been of a "If this goes
on"
variety, all problematical and "iffy," not aimed specifically at
Intersection,
but at Worldcons generally. I said, e.g., if it ever turns out that
we're
really NOT welcome, we could think about sending TAFF/DAFF/GUFF
delegates to some other convention. This immediately led to pipple
jumping on me as if I had offered this as a soluntion to the problem with
Intersection, when as far as I was concerned the "problem with
Intersection"
had already been resolved. So, for perfectly selfish reasons, I'm glad
to be able to set this whole thing aside.
--rich brown a.k.a. Dr.Gafia
David E Romm
> Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com) cribs from Robert's Rules:
> : gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
> : >David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
> : >
> : >: Ah, another demonstration of group theory, which states that in every
> : >: group, no matter how large or small, there's always the feeling that,
> : >: "this group would be perfect if we could just get rid of _that one
> : >: person_".
> : >
> : >Yeah, and sometimes your group is a group of one.
>
> : Which means, in any vote, you'll at least get a plurality if not a
> : majority...
>
> Not when you've gotten rid of the one. Then you have a division of
> zero.
>
> Which somehow seems very fannish, but I can't explain why.
Weren't you off dividing by zero in another thread?
Though, if we're going to be strict about definitions around here (and why
not?), since fanac has been defined as 'anything two or more fans do
together', then dividing by zero is about as unfannish as one can get.
P Nielsen Hayden
>narcoleptic symptoms of my apnea which keeps me from writing very much
>very fast
-- leaving me wondering, goggle-eyed, how much he might write if he didn't
have the symptoms.
That aside, rich: serious sympathies, from this spouse of a narcoleptic.
It's no picnic. I had no idea.
David Emerson
>Avedon Carol (ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
>: I still have a real cute picture of you in a *tie-dyed shirt* when you
>: were _under 18_!
Wait until it doesn't have an alibi, and then trump up charges against it.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
David Emerson Come to ReinCONation!
(one of the Minneapolis Davids) October 13-15 1995, Minneapolis
GoHs: Judith Merril, Andy Hooper
Dr Gafia
writes:
>Perhaps "traditional" fandom might be a less loaded term? And more
>numerically accurate?
Perhaps. But, Golly, Gary, then there are going to be people accusing
you (and me) of denying that fandom even has a tradition of "fringe"
fanzines. Which of course it does. Doesn't it?
I could say "fannish fanzine fandom" except that mainstream fanzine
fandom, while leaning strongly in that direction, also has a lot of
zines in it that most people would consider sercon (SKYHOOK, FANTASY
COMMENTATOR, the first and second [but not third or fouth]
incarnations of SFR...).
Shall we then go for "mainstream traditional fanzine fandom"? Or
should we, to be on the safe side, call it "mainstream traditional sercon
and fannish timebinding fanzine fandom" ["mtsaftff" for short)?
Any comments from the peanut gallery?
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
writes:
>drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) loses his cool with Leah Zeldes Smith:
>
>>Show me one place--ONE PLACE--where I have ever--EVER--defined an
>>area of fandom based on all the fans bearing my "approval". That's a
>>factor which is just a part of YOUR fevered imagination, Leah. It is
>>entirely YOUR hang up, based on YOUR prejudgment.
>
>Rich, this may well be an unfair, unjust, and wrongheaded interpretation
of
>your position, but for some reason it's one that many people seem to
share.
>My advice: If three people tell you you're drunk, lie down.
If I'd had anything to drink--even a sip of beer--I'd take your advice.
As it is, knowing what I know, I'm more inclined to try to find why "many
people seem to share" an unfair, unjust and wrongheaded interpretation
of my position. If I can understand it, maybe I can DO something about
it--certainly sticking my head in the sand and hoping it will go away
won't
help resolve the issue.
If I've been too civil and polite to people who, for all I know, in
casting
these aspersions are only projecting their own sour attitudes onto others,
I should be told--then I might be able to turn this into a Real Learing
Experience.
On the other hand, if any of these aspersions have been cast behind my
back, where I can't respond to them, then at least now folks will know
what I think about it.
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
writes:
>...Linda Blanchard and David Bratman's lists...
Per someone else's earlier correction that should be Linda Blanchard
and David SINGER's lists.
--rb
Gary Farber
: If I've been too civil and polite to people who, for all I know, in
: casting these aspersions are only projecting their own sour attitudes onto
: others, I should be told--then I might be able to turn this into a Real
: Learing Experience.
What is "too civil and polite?"
I don't recall that the subject of discussion is the enslavement of
humans, or early death of infants, or the slaughter in Bosnia.
I think that if we can't manage to hold onto civility and polite discourse
in a bleedin' discussion of bloody sf fanzines, there is little hope for
humankind, and no hope for this charming ideal of "forward-thinking" sf
fans.
Have a little perspective, for criminey's sake, I say to all.
C. Baden
: Top of the List: The Smofs should undertake to publish a sf convention
: running guide, with particular emphasis on all the "little" things that
: are expected even though they may not be mandatory. Draw on pipple like Ben
: Yalow, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Gary Farber to write it up. Publish it at
: Worldcon expense, sell it at a profit but keep enough copies in print that
: each new Worldcon Chairperson gets one whenever they've won the bid.
Worldcon Runner's Guide
The Worldcon Runner's Guide is an ongoing project sponsored by the World
Science Fiction Society. It is an attempt to collect "lessons learned"
and checklists that would be useful to committees running worldcons. It
has items of some interest to those running non-worldcon SF conventions,
but the primary thrust of the guide is to help prevent re-inventing of the
wheel by Worldcon committees.
Contributions are welcome from all interested parties.
The fourth edition will be available at the Worldcon in Glasgow this
August (1995). Cost is expected to be in the $15/copy range (i.e., the
cost of reproducing the guide). If you want to reserve a copy, or have a
contribution you would like to make, please contact the current editor:
Ross Pavlac
PO Box 816
Evanston, IL 60204-0816
[I think he's at rpa...@mcs.com.]
--
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://lacon3.wsfs.org/
* Alternate web page URL = http://sundry.hsc.usc.edu/lacon3/
* Join for $110 * L.A.con III, c/o SCIFI P.O. Box 8442, Van Nuys CA 91409
* Rate goes up to $130 as of 01 Jan 1996; higher at the door. Join early!
Arthur Hlavaty
Dr Gafia <drg...@aol.com> wrote:
>I should be told--then I might be able to turn this into a Real Learing
>Experience.
Go for it, but I've heard that the part where your youngest daughter dies
really sucks.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Dr Gafia <drg...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <3vemlk$m...@panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
> >The fact that you can't seem to remember the name of anyone who isn't in
> >this cluster of our friends, such as Evelyn Leeper, may help you with
> this >impression of yours.
>
> to recall her name, I'll invite her to meet 10 of my friends whom I've
> known for 10 years or more and in the process of introducing them to her,
> no doubt, will not be able to recall at least one of THEIR names. I make
> jokes about my cast iron sieve of a memory but they would not be truly
> funny if they were not at least in part acknowledgment of the truth.
If Evelyn had a dime for every name she has forgotten, she could finance
her trip to Intersection and have money left over.
> [long discussion of whether I am a fan or not deleted]
> Evelyn, at least so I believe, accepted my apology.
I was never particularly offended that you might have thought I wasn't
a fan. I just thought you were wrong. :-) I also thought that
ultimately it didn't really matter either.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 908 957 2070 | Evelyn...@att.com
A good world needs knowledge, kindliness and courage; it does not need a
regretful hankering after the past, or a fettering of the free intelligence
by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. -- Bertrand Russell
Dr Gafia
writes:
>That aside, rich: serious sympathies, from this spouse of a narcoleptic.
It's
>no picnic. I had no idea.
Goodness, I thought you did--I was virtually certain I'd mentioned it to
Teresa
last time we talked as something we had somewhat in common. I don't want
to be
drawing too much sympathy down on my head, though--my episodes are
symptomatic,
and therefore nowhere near as severe as actual narcolepsy. I've never
lost
motor control standing up, e.g. Or riding in a car (although I
voluntarily gave
up driving--one "episode" and there's hamburger all over the highway).
But
sitting down while writing, watching TV, riding a subway or bus and I can
blank
out without warning anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes. Since
it's
symptomatic with my apnea, I "wake" myself up with a loud snore/snort that
sounds like an old boar wallowing in the muck. Embarrassing. But a bit
comic
because of that.
The annoying thing is that I can have half a dozen or so mini-episodes in
a row
before I can get anything done. I find myself waking up and trying to
figure
out what it was that I was writing and about the time I do I find myself
waking
up and trying to figure out what it was that I was writing and about the
time I
do I find myself waking up and trying to figure out what it was that I was
writing and about the time I do....
I'm afraid this really does "show" itself in that sometimes it leads me to
using
malapropisms. Now watch, since I致e said that--all my attempts at clever
wordplay in the future will be viewed in that light....
Dr Gafia
writes:
>Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: If I've been too civil and polite to people who, for all I know, in
>: casting these aspersions are only projecting their own sour attitudes
onto
>: others, I should be told--then I might be able to turn this into a Real
>: Learing Experience.
>
>What is "too civil and polite?"
>
>I don't recall that the subject of discussion is the enslavement of
>humans, or early death of infants, or the slaughter in Bosnia.
>
>I think that if we can't manage to hold onto civility and polite
discourse
>in a bleedin' discussion of bloody sf fanzines, there is little hope for
>humankind, and no hope for this charming ideal of "forward-thinking" sf
>fans.
>
>Have a little perspective, for criminey's sake, I say to all.
>--
>-- Gary Farber Brooklyn, New York City
I mock myself and stand accused of favoring incivility and impolite
discourse. C'est la cotton pickin' vie, as they say in the south of
France.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
as follows:
>
> Actually, Teresa and I ran the program for the 4th Street Fantasy Convention
> in Minneapolis just this last weekend. We intend to do it next year, too.
Can I be a panelist? It'll give me an excuse to go to Minneapolis.
(Of course, the last time I said something like this, it was, "You're
going to do a live Spanish Inquisition in Baltimore? Sure, I'll come.")
-- LJM
Gary Farber
: In article <3v5r9u$8...@interport.net>, p...@tor.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote
: going to do a live Spanish Inquisition in Baltimore?* Sure, I'll come.")
*THE SPANISH INQUISITION was the Hugo-nominated, FAAN Award winning
fanzine of the Seventies edited by Jerry Kaufman and Suzanne (Suzle)
Tompkins. As part of their Guest of Honorship at BALTICON in 1976, they
did the first "Live Fanzine," a concept which has been successfuly copied
several times.
Various writers and columnists, including columnist Loren MacGregor (later
also known for writing one of the last of Terry Carr's Ace Science Fiction
Specials, THE NET), read from their work, while other multi-media efforts
were combined. Youthful fans Gary Farber and Patrick then Hayden helped
out (well, at least was around a lot -- I believe that pnh's first trip to
NY resulted from this, but I can say no more).
Other contributors to the zine included Ace Books Senior Editor (now, not
then) Ginjer Buchanan, David Emerson, and, heck, lots of folks who've
done a lot in the field since then.
This has been an official rasff Footnote by its self-appointed Footnoter
whose feet are not of note.
This is not a contribution to the Christian Fandom thread.
--
-- Gary Farber Brooklyn, New York City
P Nielsen Hayden
4th Street Fantasy Convention in Minneapolis, for which Teresa Nielsen
Hayden and I run programming:
>Can I be a panelist? It'll give me an excuse to go to Minneapolis.
Absolutely, Loren. As ddb would say, heard and witnessed. Watch this space
for an announcement of next year's 4th St date...
Leah Zeldes Smith
particular thread seem to have vanished before reaching my site.
In particular, posts from rich brown and Gary Farber. Possibly I should
just count my blessings ;-} but...if anyone said anything they
particularly wanted me to see, could you please e-mail a copy?
Yours, from the uucp backwaters...
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
David Singer
"Was" is also incorrect; granted, I haven't pubbed an ish in a decade, but I
have not folded the title. I just moved the locs from Df8 into new
furniture yesterday, in fact, though I did decide to discard the set of
Drudge Enterprises mailing labels that I was planning to use for Df9.
David (FIJAGDH) Singer
Dr Gafia
(David Singer) writes:
Good to hear from you again after so long. Granted, with the possible
exception of the labels you might have for Ted White or Harry Warner
Jr., those DE labels are probably just a touch out of date...
...and the adhesive side of the labels for Ted and Harry might hardened
into superglue by this point.
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
if it has been here more than this once...
Inarticle<3uv362$i...@access2.digex.net>, ly...@access2.digex.net
writes:
>Everyone should note that Dave Kyle himself offers a different version
>of why those not at the banquet were not allowed to be in the room to
>hear the speeches: it involved the fire marshall. Dave turned out to be
>an easy target, but before shooting off at the hip on this, rich, I
>think you should spend the time to review *all* what has been written.
>
>BTW, Dave's article on that appeared in an issue of MIMOSA which my
>records show you *did* receive...
I'll second that: Everyone should indeed note that Dave wrote his own
version of these events, some 40 years after the fact, in MIMOSA which
differs from the one I reported as what I remembered having been from the
viewpoint of the balcony insurgents when the event occurred.
FYI, Dick, if I received it, I probably DID read it--I always DO read
MIMOSA, when it comes in--and if it had something of Dave Kyle's, my
certainty goes up by about 25%. Same thing with Forry Ackerman's
material. What I mean is, those are among the FIRST features I read.
Because, like you, one of my fascinations is with fan history.
Without wishing to express the slightest doubt about Dave's veracity,
however, I have to admit that I read a personal memoir a little
differently than I do a history written by an objective third party. No
one, but no one, thinks of themselves as a villain, and if they've done
foolish or self-serving things, they are quite likely to edit them in
their own minds to provide explanations that are not so foolish or
self-serving--without even realizing they're doing it. So I read memoirs
with the proverbial grain of salt.
I'm also coming to realize what a faulty thing "memory" is for me; it
does not seem unreasonable to assume that others can find their memory
playing tricks on them. I have a crystal clear memory of reading the
"ash tray" anecdote in THE HARP STATESIDE, and another memory just as
solid involving a couple of Marines who were talking to each other on the
train that was taking me to San Antonio when I entered the Air Force, and
a memory of my first convention (the Solacon) in which Jack Harness made
a magnificent appearance dressed as a devil...only to discover, at
various times, that they are not true--these things all happened, but not
to me, or not in the way I think. Terry Carr and Arnie Katz are both in
print as having the same memory as I do about the anecdote being in THS--
but it's not only NOT in any version anyone can lay their hands on but
Willis, who verifies that the anecdote HAPPENED, says he didn't write it
up in THS. The Marines I recall so clearly turn out to have been a story
F.M. Busby wrote up in an apazine somewhere, and over the years memory
made me think it had happened to me. And just recently, right here on
the Net, I was describing how the air smelt a little of smoke as Jack got
on the elevator and, when asked if he wanted to go up, replied in a deep
voice, "No, down!" Turned out John Berry had described the same thing in
THE GOON GOES WEST--so I couldn't even claim I may have been there,
because it happened at Detention in '59, and I didn't go to that one.
With things like this in mind, I wonder if what Dave Kyle recalls quite
vividly now might not be in the same category.
If _I_ were the chairman of a convention where I had over guaranteed the
banquet and a bunch of fans showed up in the balcony to hear the
after dinner speeches without having bought a banquet ticket and the fire
marshall had earlier told me (or someone else on the committee) that the
balconies, while not having been posted as posing any threat, were in
fact too dangerous to allow them to be used while people were eating or
talking in the room below, I might have someone on my committee tell the
fans that the FIRE MARSHALL said th
Dr Gafia
>As the guy who invented this gig of a fan programming track in 1977
>(along with a bunch of other things; you're welcome), I thought I'd toss
>a few reactions into the pot. Overall, obviously, you deserve much
>credit for a great deal of work. Thanks for doing the job.
And I'm going to comment on just a few of Gary's comments. It's starting
to sound like an apa, b'gad.
>: Fanzine Reading & Review
>: A fan editor discusses his favourite fanzines: these may include his
>: own, "Lan's Lantern", "FOSFAx" and perhaps a couple of the ones
>: published immediately before Intersection.
>I have opinions. Here's one: hope you can actually find some good
>fanzines to discuss as well as these. With all due respect to Lan, who
>seems to be a very nice and fine fellow, whose feelings I have no desire
>to hurt. As good fanzines go, though, his is very. . .thick. Has lots
>of. . .typing. Nice man, though. Don't suppose you could get Bruce
>Gillespie to come, and read from SF COMMENTARY?
'Twould be a great idea, but Bruce isn't this year's GUFF winner, is he?
But Dan Steffan is almost certain to be there, seeing as how he won TAFF,
and so could be reading from BLAT!
>: Thursday 1800 1900 Hall IV
>: Fandom and the Net
>: Will rec.arts.sf.fandom survive the Invasion of the Fannish Fans?
>: Every day it seems that another fanzine fan goes electronic and these
>: new people bring their own ideas on written communication to an
>: ephemeral medium where speed, convenience and one liners may be more
>: appropriate than long articles on attitudes and feelings.
>Golly, what on earth could this be about? I've gotta work on that
>attitude and feeling stuff. Thanks for the clue, guys!
What you said.
You haven't written any 10- to 15-page essays that I've noted, Gary. But
I have. And here I've been feeling under-appreciated....
>: 17th Century Schizoid Fan
>: Since the definition of fandom is flexible, the study into just how
>: and where it started is open to debate. Here is one possible theory,
>: evolved after careful consideration, which is argued earnestly, but
>: without seriousness.
>Is this the Ray Nelson Panel? In general, without suggested moderators,
>or panelists, it is difficult to have a sense of where these ideas are
>intended to go.
It DOES sound like one of R. Faraday's curious notions, doesn't it?
Fandom is a self-publishing literary movement, therefore any self-
publishing literary movement IS fandom. The sky is blue; therefore
anything that is blue IS the sky.
>: Friday 1300 1400 Jura
>: Fans and Mysteries (could have been a free slot? but see other
>: changes)
>: It could be the insatiable curiosity of fans which drives them to read
>: mysteries: the urge to play games and solve problems (plus hoping that
>: the good guy wins). This item will look at possible reasons for the
>: boom in mystery reading from the viewpoints of the reader, the writer
>: and the bookseller.
>Is there a boom in mystery reading? Among sf fans? When did you note
>this beginning, and on what basis?
Does sound a bit like someone here thinks this is a relatively new
phenomenon. How long have the Bouchercons been going on? Tucker, of
course, has written mysteries in which fans have been, ah, Tuckerized,
but Boucher wrote a mystery that doubles as faaanfiction: ROCKET TO THE
MORGUE. But that was...what, 1949? 1950?
>: Friday 1630 1700 Hall IV
>: Three Fandoms Clubs or Groups
>: Clubs are one major feature of SF gatherings: but they can vary from
>: an informal drinking group where SF is never mentioned to structured
>: meetings with guest speakers. Sometimes there are parties, a
>: negotiated discount on books, club magazines, formal minutes produced
>: and disseminated: this item considers what obligations (if any) a club
>: has towards the members and what the members should contribute to
>: the club.
>Pardon my denseness,
Avedon Carol
rich brown writes:
> Shall we then go for "mainstream traditional fanzine fandom"? Or
> should we, to be on the safe side, call it "mainstream traditional
> sercon
> and fannish timebinding fanzine fandom" ["mtsaftff" for short)?
You mean we can't call it "the one true fandom from which all others
spring, all hail, all hail" anymore? And it had such a nice ring to it,
too.
-Rob
ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Jerry Kaufman
re it;
>
> as I did with Jerry and Suzle for MAINSTREAM, I just can't recall if
> I got around to it and, if I did, if the offer was accepted. Anyone else
> out there on the net who received the Drudge Enterprise service, speak up.
>
<snippage>
> If any doubt my words, simply consider the listing of the fanzines I did
> labels for above, where there are two examples of this. I couldn't recall
> that Jerry Kaufman and Suzle's fanzine was called MAINSTREAM, and so I
We're just coming into the middle of this, but we gather from context
that you, rich brown, once offered a service in which you printed
mailing labels for people publishing fanzines. You may have offered
this service to us, but we never took you up on it. Thanks anyway!
Did you supply all the proper names to send zines to, or did you
work from the lists that the faneds supplied? (From context we guess
the latter.)
Yours,,,,,
Jerry and Suzle
Leah Zeldes Smith
propagated very badly to my site, and I missed a lot of it. Thanks to
Gary Farber, who forwarded me some of the missing messages, I've an idea
that rich brown responded by citing numbers from the days when he was
supply mailing labels to fanzines, a decade ago.
I'm still missing a lot of what rich had to say, in particular his
definition of "mainstream fanzine fandom," which strikes me as a very
odd concept.
So I'll just go on and say what I think a fanzine fan is and where I got
my numbers.
A fanzine fan is anyone who is somehow involved with fanzines, either
publishing, writing, letterhacking, drawing, or even just reading. I'll
go along with rich in saying that if you only get one or two fanzines,
you're probably not part of fanzine fandom. However, this is complicated
by the fact that there are a lot of fake fanzine fans and retired fanzine
fans out there, who like to hang out with fanzine fans and still get a
few zines because they're friends with fanzine fans (Hi, Moshe!) and so
it's kind of hard to draw a clear line at how many zines you must get to
be counted.
I do think that anyone who publishes a fanzine must be counted as a
fanzine fan. I think rich and I would agree pretty much on what a
fanzine is. Certainly if someone publishes something that looks like a
fanzine and they know enough about fandom to send one to Harry
Warner and either me or rich, it's a fanzine.
However, I guessed at around 1,000 based on my experiences pubbing my
own zine, STET. We haven't published for more than a year, so these
numbers aren't absolutely current, but close enough. I was also speaking
internationally. A typical issue of STET goes to about 400 people, half
of them overseas.
But we're fairly rigid about response, so any for given issue I axe from
the list about five or ten percent of the people who got the previous one.
That means that, in the fairly recent past, most of the people
getting STET have either sent me something I recognized as a fanzine
or a contribution of article or artwork or a loc. (STET isn't
available by subscription.)
Where do I get the new people I add? Mostly out of other fanzines.
So the vast majority who get the zine have contributed to at least
one other fanzine, usually more. (Mostly I don't add people unless
I've recognized their names a few times, to avoid the experience I
had once of sending a spec copy of a zine to someone who was a nonfan
buddy of another faned and generally contemptuous of fandom.)
Therefore I'm pretty confident that 90 percent of the people who
receive STET are fanzine fans. Even the people who got an issue or two
and never replied, like Chuch Harris. Since we began publishing in
1990, something like 600 people must have gotten at least one issue. And
I know that I'm reaching only about half of the possible audience, because
there're all those people in the lettercols that I haven't yet got around
to sending one to (RSN, Gary). Not to mention a bunch of people who've
sent me zines for the first time in the last year. And the revenants
who keep rising. Etc.
--
Leah Smith le...@smith.chi.il.us
[who is still having propagation trouble, so send e-mail if you really
want to be sure I see your response]
Dr Gafia
cut me off. But I'd said pretty much what I wanted to say; I'll not post
it again.
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
Zeldes Smith) writes:
>
>For reasons only the Usenet comprehends, a number of posts from this
>particular thread seem to have vanished before reaching my site.
>
>In particular, posts from rich brown and Gary Farber. Possibly I should
>just count my blessings ;-} but...if anyone said anything they
>particularly wanted me to see, could you please e-mail a copy?
>
You joke about it, but it's probably the case--I got angry enough at you
to do a little associative name-calling ("Are you retarded? Or what?")
regarding your penchant for assuming that my definition is what makes a
particular fanzine a part of mainstream fanzine fandom is the
determination of whether the editors are my friends or not. As it
happens, a good number of people I consider friends DO publish fanzines I
would put in that category. But I don't know you well enough to claim
you're a friend--I like to think that I'm generally friendly-disposed
toward you and vice versa, and I certainly admire some of the analogies
you have made to show that our area of fandom can be "separate" without
being "stuck up"--but so does STET. I admit a degree of antipathy toward
LAN'S LANTERN but, to the extent that Lan wishes it to be, it is also a
part of mainstream fanzine fandom--a big, sloppy, not-very-well-edited,
but non-threatening-to-neos sort of fanzine, rather like Marty Cantor's
old HTT. I just get damned TIRED of people telling me that I base my
opinions on the assumption that only I and a few of my special friends are
Right Thinking Fans, when I damn well know I think nothing of the sort....
*sigh* Nonetheless, the name-calling on my part was uncalled for, an
excessive expression of the degree to which I was upset, and I regret it
and apologize for it.
--rich brown
Gary Farber
: Ah, drat, the maximum wordage allowed when I post using my off-line reader
: cut me off. But I'd said pretty much what I wanted to say; I'll not post
: it again.
Keep using that off-line reader, rich. (Big, big <g>.)
Dr Gafia
<JerryK...@medio.net> writes:
>We're just coming into the middle of this, but we gather from context
>that you, rich brown, once offered a service in which you printed
>mailing labels for people publishing fanzines. You may have offered
>this service to us, but we never took you up on it. Thanks anyway!
>Did you supply all the proper names to send zines to, or did you
>work from the lists that the faneds supplied? (From context we guess
>the latter.)
Usually when I offered the service to someone I sent them the master
list with a few "edits" (both Bill Patterson and Stu Shiffman had some
of their relatives on their mailing list) on paper. That way they
would only have to type up the names and addresses of the fans they
were adding (not already on the master list) to their own mailing
lists; they only had to give me the names of those on the master
list, unlesss of course they had received a relatively recent CoA [ah,
I don’t know if that term has been defined on net: CoA = Change of
Address] for them. That was what made the whole thing worthwhile, I
thought--as soon as any one of us utilizing the service got a CoA for
someone and posted it with Drudge Enterprizes, everyone else who had
that person on their mailing list benefitted from it the next time
their lables got printed and sent out.
And I certainly intended to offer the service to MAINSTREAM; I just
don’t specifically recall doing so. (And on the post you are quoting
from, I couldn’t remember MAINSTREAM was the title of your fanzine
because I kept thinking of THE SPANISH INQUISITION, but realizing that
you were no longer publishing it when Drudge Enterprises got started.
Dr Gafia
Oh, I agree of course. Still, except for the "all hail"s, I thought
"mainstream" covered "the one true fandom from which all others
spring" without sounding quite so stuck up about it. Problem is,
fandom has almost always had its share of clueless fanzines--those
published in a vacuum as if they were the only zine being published,
which to their editors and contributors they actually sometimes are.
I mean, you get these photo offset fiction fanzines edited and written
by people you've never heard of ... and probably won't ever hear of
again.
Moshe Feder
<snip>
: A fanzine fan is anyone who is somehow involved with fanzines, either
: publishing, writing, letterhacking, drawing, or even just reading. I'll
: go along with rich in saying that if you only get one or two fanzines,
: you're probably not part of fanzine fandom. However, this is complicated
: by the fact that there are a lot of fake fanzine fans and retired fanzine
: fans out there, who like to hang out with fanzine fans and still get a
: few zines because they're friends with fanzine fans (Hi, Moshe!) and so
: it's kind of hard to draw a clear line at how many zines you must get to
: be counted.
How nice to be mentioned. I can't resist pointing out however, that I did
LoC some fanzines last year and this year, and even had an article appear
in BLAT!, one of the most lauded zines of the age. So I think I'm
semi-retired at most. Guess I'll have to LoC STET to prove it to you.
(And if I do, I'd better not end up i the WAHFs!)
--
Moshe Feder ===> ===> ===> ===> mo...@amanda.dorsai.org
Typos unintentionla >>>FIAWOL<<< 718-461-5302
Chad Childers
>it can to make up for it. Further public recriminations are pointless;
I'm still not sure I'd agree that they made a mistake. They made a judgement
call you happen to disagree with, and are being very nice about it. Still,
it was their decision to make.
--
/* Chad Childers */ http://grimmy.cnidr.org/chad.html
Gary Farber
: Oh, I agree of course. Still, except for the "all hail"s, I thought
: "mainstream" covered "the one true fandom from which all others
: spring" without sounding quite so stuck up about it. Problem is,
: fandom has almost always had its share of clueless fanzines--those
: published in a vacuum as if they were the only zine being published,
: which to their editors and contributors they actually sometimes are.
: I mean, you get these photo offset fiction fanzines edited and written
: by people you've never heard of ... and probably won't ever hear of
: again.
You are perfectly correct about this, sir rich, but you also do not
address the wide range of in-between zines that make up so much of modern
fan-publishing today.
Many zines are published by people who have _some_ sense of the common
catch-phrases, names, and other clues by which we recognize each other,
but are in a wide-ranging continuum of knowledge.
Some identify more or less with "us," others less so. This can be very
tricky, it seems to me. Lots of people spend years in denial -- the "I
Am Not a Fan" Syndrome we've seen so many times from people who are
dealing with their own hang-ups with the self-identification rather than
with any genuine difference in their activity or attitude.
I continue to think that as of a number of years now, it is dangerous to
assume that just because we haven't heard of someone before, they are not
in "mainstream" fandom. So far as I'm concerned, if we put those two
assumptions together (and I'm not saying you are, rich), we are in danger
of defining the contemporary "mainstream" too narrowly.
I keep meeting too many new people who speak the code and know the secret
handshake to think otherwise.
I believe that the time when any one person could know almost everyone in
"the mainstream" passed somewhere in the last decade.
This is what makes the phrase a bit problematic now. We may differ in
our opinion of this.
Dr Gafia
(Chad Childers) writes:
>I'm still not sure I'd agree that they made a mistake. They made a
>judgement call you happen to disagree with, and are being very nice
>about it. Still, it was their decision to make.
To my knowledge, at no point did they say anything resembling, "The
fan funds just aren't worth it any more, so we're damn well not going
to comp the rooms of the delegates." THAT would be a judgment call.
They budgeted before they had any knowledge that there was any
perception that they "should" comp the rooms of the fund delegates.
Most mistakes are made in a similar state of ignorant bliss, whether
they be spelling judgment with two "e"s or picking up a poisonous
snake by the tail. There is no moral judgment implicit in stating
that a mistake was made; no "fault" is found or implied. Nobody did
anything Wrong.
My understanding at this point is that they will comp the room of the
GUFF delegate and, provided they make a reasonable profit, will make
a donation to TAFF covering the cost of the room.
You are correctly only in that they are not "obliged" to be this nice
about it; in that respect, I think, they HAVE made a judgment call and
a good one.
Besides, going back to the "mistake," I cannot help but quote from one
of my favorite sayings: "To err is human--but I forgive you."
8-{}[:o/)
--rich brown, a.k.a. Dr. Gafia
Jerry Kaufman
>
> *THE SPANISH INQUISITION was the Hugo-nominated, FAAN Award winning
> fanzine of the Seventies edited by Jerry Kaufman and Suzanne (Suzle)
> Tompkins. As part of their Guest of Honorship at BALTICON in 1976, they
> did the first "Live Fanzine," a concept which has been successfuly copied
> several times.
<stuff snipped>
> Other contributors to the zine included Ace Books Senior Editor (now, not
> then) Ginjer Buchanan, David Emerson, and, heck, lots of folks who've
> done a lot in the field since then.
Gary, thanks for the explanation. We appreciate the egoboo. One note,
David was not involved in the Live SpanInq. (Perhaps you're thinking
of the Live Mainstream?)
Suzle
David E Romm
> *THE SPANISH INQUISITION was the Hugo-nominated, FAAN Award winning
> fanzine of the Seventies edited by Jerry Kaufman and Suzanne (Suzle)
> Tompkins. As part of their Guest of Honorship at BALTICON in 1976, they
> did the first "Live Fanzine," a concept which has been successfuly copied
And it was at that convention that I produced the one-shot The Spanish
Imposition, started Saturday morning, distributed Sunday early afternoon.
10 pp (I think) two-color mimeo, contributors included cover artist Dan
Steffan and Victoria Vayne. (It's been a while; I think Patrick and Moshe
and others contributed...)
> This has been an official rasff Footnote by its self-appointed Footnoter
> whose feet are not of note.
And this has been a footnote to a footnote.
> This is not a contribution to the Christian Fandom thread.
Damn! Er... Darn!
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact.
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"It's a dead body."
"Yeah, but is it art?" -- Absolutely Fabulous
David Emerson
>gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>> Other contributors to the [live SPAN INQ] included Ace Books Senior Editor
>> who've done a lot in the field since then.
>
Oh, good.
I'm relieved to know I haven't completely lost my memory.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
David Emerson
"Rejoice, rejoice, we have no choice but to carry on." -- CSNY
Pam Wells
> [...] Most mistakes are made in a similar state of ignorant bliss, whether
> they be spelling judgment with two "e"s or picking up a poisonous
> snake by the tail. [...]
But, rich, here in British English land, there _are_ two 'e's in 'judgement'.
(Though thanks to the ever-increasing Americanisation in our language, both
versions are now accepted as correct usage. Grrrr.)
--
Pam Wells
Gary Farber
Both versions are acceptable in American usage according to most
references I'm familiar with (though not all).