Toner - Fannish con 1 week prior Worldcon
Linda
Just wanted to remind everyone about "Toner" the fannish pre-LACon fannish
gathering in Las Vegas. Aug. 23-26, Four Queens Hotel (downtown Vegas);
membership $20. This will be a fannish/fanzine oriented con with a great
hospitality suite full of hospitable Vegas fans and some fannish
programming.
The interesting thing is that from the East Coast, it is cheaper to fly
round trip to Vegas and pay round trip Vegas-LA, than to pay for a flight
to Los Angeles. (I don't know if this is also true from other locales
but it might be.)
More info write Tom Springer, 2255 E. Sunset #2030, Las Vegas, NV 89119.
-- See you there, Linda (Bushyager)
Dr Gafia
I've already made my flight reservations and reserved my hotel room. Just
wanted to repeat what you said above, for those who still might want to go
but who don't have the information.
--rich brown
Gary Farber
Linda (li...@netaxs.com) wrote:
: Just wanted to remind everyone about "Toner" the fannish pre-LACon fannish
: membership $20. This will be a fannish/fanzine oriented con with a great
: hospitality suite full of hospitable Vegas fans and some fannish
: programming.
: The interesting thing is that from the East Coast, it is cheaper to fly
: round trip to Vegas and pay round trip Vegas-LA, than to pay for a flight
: to Los Angeles. (I don't know if this is also true from other locales
: but it might be.)
: More info write Tom Springer, 2255 E. Sunset #2030, Las Vegas, NV 89119.
: -- See you there, Linda (Bushyager)
I can't help muttering that when I asked Arnie and Joyce to post this
here, and for a flyer in e-form which Mr. Baden thoughtfully offered to
put up a Web page for, they outright refused on the basis that they
wanted to attract fanzine fans, and felt that making this info available
here and on the Web was a Bad Thing (my paraphrase).
This is not my outlook, but it's their con. I regret they came to this
conclusion.
Thanks for finally dropping your anonymnity for this post, Linda. :-)
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright (c) 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Gary Farber
Daniel Goodman (dsg...@winternet.com) wrote:
: At some point during the '60's, I figured out that there were more apas
: founded or co-founded by Arnie Katz than had existed before he'd entered
: fandom.
Let's see: off the top of my head, the previously-extant apas were: FAPA,
SAPS, SFPA, OMPA, ROMPA, the Cult, and probably a few others I'm
forgetting (but not many). Dead ones included VAPA, the "theme" one that
I have a complete run of, but whose name is slipping my tiny brain at this
moment, and doubtless a handful of others.
Arnie founded TAPS, and SECRET APA. He was Present At The Creation of
Apa-F, and, I think Apa-L, which was direct derivation of Apa-F, in any
case. He was a member of several other private apas, though I dunno if he
founded any others. Which others am I not thinking of? I know he was
*in* a bunch of others at various times, including FAPA, SAPS, SFPA, the
Cult, and possibly OMPA briefly (?).
: I have the (perhaps mistaken) impression that later on he decided that
: apahackers weren't real fanzine fans.
One of those traditional religious questions: *I'd* say that apahackers
are "real fanzine fans," but if they are *only* involved with apas (or an
apa), that it is a particularly limited form of activity. Of course,
there are/were plenty of folks who were only active in writing for a
single fanzine or a handful of specific fanzines only, as well.
: I'd be interested in knowing what definition of "fanzine fans" Arnie and
: Joyce are currently using.
One could examine "The Trufan's Advisor" and make some deducations. Or
we could ask.
But let's make up an answer for them, since they don't want to play
here. :-)
Daniel Goodman
In article <4rf77b$n...@panix2.panix.com>,
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>I can't help muttering that when I asked Arnie and Joyce to post this
>here, and for a flyer in e-form which Mr. Baden thoughtfully offered to
>put up a Web page for, they outright refused on the basis that they
>wanted to attract fanzine fans, and felt that making this info available
>here and on the Web was a Bad Thing (my paraphrase).
>
>This is not my outlook, but it's their con. I regret they came to this
>conclusion.
founded or co-founded by Arnie Katz than had existed before he'd entered
fandom.
I have the (perhaps mistaken) impression that later on he decided that
apahackers weren't real fanzine fans.
I'd be interested in knowing what definition of "fanzine fans" Arnie and
Joyce are currently using.
Dan Goodman
Daniel Goodman
In article <4rfcsi$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>Daniel Goodman (dsg...@winternet.com) wrote:
>: At some point during the '60's, I figured out that there were more apas
>: fandom.
>
>SAPS, SFPA, OMPA, ROMPA, the Cult, and probably a few others I'm
>forgetting (but not many). Dead ones included VAPA, the "theme" one that
>I have a complete run of, but whose name is slipping my tiny brain at this
>moment, and doubtless a handful of others.
>
>Arnie founded TAPS, and SECRET APA. He was Present At The Creation of
>Apa-F, and, I think Apa-L, which was direct derivation of Apa-F, in any
>case. He was a member of several other private apas, though I dunno if he
>founded any others. Which others am I not thinking of? I know he was
>*in* a bunch of others at various times, including FAPA, SAPS, SFPA, the
>Cult, and possibly OMPA briefly (?).
It's quite possible that I was wrong about Arnie having founded or
co-founded more apas than had previously existed in sf fandom. "A
beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact."
Dan Goodman
William Bridget
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>
>I can't help muttering that when I asked Arnie and Joyce to post this
>here, and for a flyer in e-form which Mr. Baden thoughtfully offered to
>put up a Web page for, they outright refused on the basis that they
>wanted to attract fanzine fans, and felt that making this info available
>here and on the Web was a Bad Thing (my paraphrase).
It should be perfectly obvious now that they were absolutely right.
Bill Bridget UFQ...@prodigy.com
Dr Gafia
In article <4rf77b$n...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber)
writes:
>I can't help muttering that when I asked Arnie and Joyce to
>post this here, and for a flyer in e-form which Mr. Baden
>thoughtfully offered to put up a Web page for, they outright
>refused on the basis that they wanted to attract fanzine fans,
>and felt that making this info available here and on the Web
>was a Bad Thing (my paraphrase).
>
>This is not my outlook, but it's their con. I regret they
>came to this conclusion.
And I feel compelled, for some reason, to mutter in my beard
that, while there is a good deal of "overlap" between the two,
fanzine fandom and internet/sf-related fandom are _not_ the
same thing. Somewhat similar things with somewhat similar (and
often many mutual) interests, but not the same thing.
Toner is definitely a "fanzine" fan convention and _not_ a
"net" ("web" or "news group") fan convention; their con = their
call. I applaud their refusal to actively promote themselves
on-line as I would their refusal to actively promote themselves
to comics fans or Star Trek fans.
Yes, I caused Linda Bushyager's posting (with details of the
convention) to be repeated here: ANY Star Trek fan, comics
fan or net fan who would be interested in attending a
convention aimed at participants in mainstream fannish fanzine
fandom IS welcome to attend--as long as they realize that Star
Trek and comics and net fandom will probably not be much
discussed, if at all. I mean, IF Toner should decide to have a
few panels or discussions, there *might* (but also might not)
be _one_ in which internet fandom would be discussed. <sigh> But of
course if we *do* have a discussion of internet fandom, and such Defenders
of the Faith as Gary Farber and Patrick Nielsen Hayden are not on hand to
defend it, why, we're liable to say any number of pernicious, persnickety
and permutable things about it.
You Have Been Warned.
In any event, if this puts anyone's nose out of joint, they can
always console themselves by telling themselves what snobs
these fanzine fans are because they hang out with other fanzine
fans and don't specifically invite non-fanzine fans to their
conventions. Foo knows dozens of other subgroups have done
precisely that; why should net fandom be any more adult or
less paranoid?
As far as I can see, there's nothing preventing net fandom from
setting up their own convention(s). After all, as I believe the
saying has it, you don't have to be a rocket scientist.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Dr Gafia
In article <4rff79$5...@blackice.winternet.com>, dsg...@winternet.com
(Daniel Goodman) writes:
>It's quite possible that I was wrong about Arnie having founded or
>co-founded more apas than had previously existed in sf fandom. "A
>beautiful theory slain by an ugly fact."
Well said.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Daniel Goodman
In article <4rkfp2$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Dr Gafia <drg...@aol.com> wrote:
>As far as I can see, there's nothing preventing net fandom from
>setting up their own convention(s). After all, as I believe the
>saying has it, you don't have to be a rocket scientist.
apparent interest in the idea. "There's already conventions for people
on Usenet/Internet" -- which, of course, means that a con for net _sf_
fans is superfluous. "We're having that convention right here" -- a
reasonable answer, but then it would seem that fanzine fan conventions
aren't really needed either.
Maybe I should announce that I'm setting up such a con -- and then wait
for people to decide "I should do it, to make sure it's done right." But
I might have the bad luck to actually wind up chairing it.
Dan Goodman
William Bridget
Hi, Dan, ...a convention for netfans!?? The only ones who could make it
would be the ones who were in a position to take their laptops (i.e.,
sitting down and squirming, eating chocolate and stroking themselves, etc.
) See my remarks elsewhere for a complete description.
-
Bill Bridget UFQ...@prodigy.com
Whatever does not kill us makes us strangers.
P Nielsen Hayden
Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com) wrote:
: Toner is definitely a "fanzine" fan convention and _not_ a
: "net" ("web" or "news group") fan convention; their con = their
: call. I applaud their refusal to actively promote themselves
: on-line as I would their refusal to actively promote themselves
: to comics fans or Star Trek fans.
: Yes, I caused Linda Bushyager's posting (with details of the
: convention) to be repeated here: ANY Star Trek fan, comics
: fan or net fan who would be interested in attending a
: convention aimed at participants in mainstream fannish fanzine
: fandom IS welcome to attend--as long as they realize that Star
: Trek and comics and net fandom will probably not be much
: discussed, if at all. I mean, IF Toner should decide to have a
: few panels or discussions, there *might* (but also might not)
: be _one_ in which internet fandom would be discussed. <sigh> But of
: course if we *do* have a discussion of internet fandom, and such Defenders
: of the Faith as Gary Farber and Patrick Nielsen Hayden are not on hand to
: defend it, why, we're liable to say any number of pernicious, persnickety
: and permutable things about it.
: You Have Been Warned.
I decline the title "defender of the faith." You think I'm always defending
the online world to you, because every tenth time you make one of your
lengthily ill-informed assertions about it, I proffer some facts in
response. (Gary does this every fifth time, which is why you have more
arguments with him.) Actually, I have very little use for Usenet; the only
groups I read are this one and alt.fandom.cons, plus two SF-related groups
which I periodically skim for reasons related to my job.
However, it's been very interesting to be on the receiving end of high
church fannish-fandom snottiness from luminaries such as yourself. Life
does hold out its many surprises, and the owl was once the baker's daughter.
What's really going on here in this dream war, however, is that for some of
us, the net is just one of the media via which we are participants in
fandom, same as we ever were -- while to you the net is the site of "net
fandom," which you place on the same level of Otherness as Star Trek or
comics fandom. The fact that you participate and declare your tolerance for
it doesn't really change the fact that you clearly regard it as Other, as
something separate from the community of fannish fandom, and separate from
what a con like Toner should be about.
Well, it's not my con. Thanks for admirably clarifying matters.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Gary Farber
Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com) wrote:
<snip>
: Toner is definitely a "fanzine" fan convention and _not_ a
: "net" ("web" or "news group") fan convention; their con = their
: call. I applaud their refusal to actively promote themselves
: on-line as I would their refusal to actively promote themselves
: to comics fans or Star Trek fans.
: Yes, I caused Linda Bushyager's posting (with details of the
: convention) to be repeated here: ANY Star Trek fan, comics
: fan or net fan who would be interested in attending a
: convention aimed at participants in mainstream fannish fanzine
: fandom IS welcome to attend--as long as they realize that Star
: Trek and comics and net fandom will probably not be much
: discussed, if at all.
<snip>
I'll likely have more to say about this later, but let me see if I
understand you correctly: if *I* request info from Arnie and Joyce for
posting here or on a Web page, it's a Bad Thing and you "applaud their
refusal." If *you* post or stimulate the posting of the info, it's a Good
Thing because anyone "who would be interested in attending a convention
aimed at participants in mainstream fannish fanzine fandom IS welcome to
attend." Do I have this right?
No wonder my hair is thinning, with all this head scratching I'm doing.
Kate Schaefer
In a previous article, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) says:
[everything edifying snipped]
>
>I decline the title "defender of the faith." ... the owl was once the
>baker's daughter ... same as we ever were ... Thanks for admirably
>clarifying matters.
[Here there should be a witty remark explaining why I whittled Patrick's
post down to the elements which amused me, but I had no greater purpose
than amusement.]
--
Kate Schaefer
ka...@scn.org
P Nielsen Hayden
Kate Schaefer (ka...@scn.org) wrote:
Not only that, but you can sing it to "Smoke on the Water."
Okay, not really.
Dr Gafia
In article <4rlm5u$q...@panix2.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P
Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>I decline the title "defender of the faith." You think I'm
>always defending the online world to you, because every tenth
>time you make one of your lengthily ill-informed assertions
>about it, I proffer some facts in response. (Gary does this
>every fifth time, which is why you have more arguments with
>him.)
If my assertion in this case was "ill-informed," then your
response must be equally so--since they said essentially the
same things. That--and not the fact that you offer "facts" in
place of some goofy assertion of mine--is the basis for my
complaint. And that's _still_ the problem; your contortions
here--trying to pat yourself on the back without putting your
arm out of joint in celebration of your forbearance in the face
of my numerous "ill-informed assertions"--sidesteps rather
than addresses it. Your choice, of course.
>Actually, I have very little use for Usenet; the only groups I
>read are this one and alt.fandom.cons, plus two SF-related
>groups which I periodically skim for reasons related to my
>job.
>
>However, it's been very interesting to be on the receiving end
>of high church fannish-fandom snottiness from luminaries such
>as yourself. Life does hold out its many surprises, and the
>owl was once the baker's daughter.
Indeed. And "up" is usually 180 degrees opposite to the pull
of gravity.
>What's really going on here in this dream war, however, is
>that for some of us, the net is just one of the media via
>which we are participants in fandom, same as we ever were --
>while to you the net is the site of "net fandom," which you
>place on the same level of Otherness as Star Trek or comics
>fandom. The fact that you participate and declare your
>tolerance for it doesn't really change the fact that you
>clearly regard it as Other, as something separate from the
>community of fannish fandom, and separate from what a con
>like Toner should be about.
You're right.
But you already knew that.
I'm tempted to try to temper your remarks about my views, if
only because I realize they're not likely to find favor here.
But I don't suppose it would do any good to say that I feel
there are trufans participating in net fandom, in ajay, in
Star Trek fandom, in comics fandom too. And there are
"trufannish types" participating in net fandom, Star Trek
fandom and/or comics fandom who have never participated in
fanzine fandom (for all that I might like them to).
The reason it wouldn't do me any is good is that, yes, I _do_
consider mainstream fannish fanzine fandom to be trufandom.
That makes me a kind of snob in quite a few people's book--
that I find a great deal more of value in the activities of one
segment of the microcosm over the activities of other segments.
I think virtually any given essay by Walt Willis is better than
all the MCs in 1,000 mailings of Apa-L. That there _is_ such a
thing as quality, however unegalitarian it may be to say so.
It's how I happen to see things.
I think the view you present of fandom is deliberately myopic--
and, partly as a result, you're a "snit" waiting to happen.
That's what's *really* going on in this dream war as seen from
the other side of the lens, Patrick. Your view of fandom as a
continuum isn't as elegantly articulated as Jack Speer's
Numbered Fandoms theory, but it does share one of its major
flaws--namely, facts sometimes need to be totally bent out of
shape, or even ignored entirely, if they are perceived as being
disruptive to your One True Unopposable View of Fandom. You're
ready to reassert it at the slightest hint, from anyone looking
at things head on, that the emperor is not wearing any clothes.
You and Gary and others have a perfect right, if you wish, to
view the net as "just one of the media via which we are
participants in fandom". What bothers me about it here is that
it is only via an exercise in circumlocution that you avoid
acknowledging that if it is "just one of the media" it is, in
fact, another--or, to spell it out, an Other--medium. It
carefully sweeps under the rug the fact that you are changing
audiences (with about as much "overlap" as you would find in
early comics and Star Trek fandom), and that in moving from one
audience to another, you have moved to an Other fandom. It
does not share the ideals, traditions or aspirations of fanzine
fandom. It doesn't encourage the same basic artforms. Old
(former?) friends of yours who are still participating back in
fanzine fandom haven't seen much of your fanac in recent years,
because most of it has been appearing in this "other" medium
that is inaccessible to them. Sorry to have to tell you this,
but the emperor really is naked, you know.
>Well, it's not my con. Thanks for admirably clarifying
>matters.
Which brings us to the "snit about to happen".
You know as well as anyone that fanzine fandom has raised
fancestor worship to a high art form--we not only appreciate
"what's happenin' now, baby" but the quality of individual acts
of fanac within our past. So you know you would be welcome at
a fanzine fan convention on the basis of what you did in the
microcosm 10 or 15 years ago. I quite frankly doubt very
seriously that I've provided you with any information that is
at all new to you by pointing out that Toner, being a fanzine
fan convention, is more likely to have panels (if it has
panels) on "Devaluing 'The Usual'" or "Sex and Fanac in Las
Vegas Fandom" than it is on "Are Fans Psheep?" or "The
'Mancini' Troll on Harlan Ellison". But it helps to pretend
that I did if you're looking to use it as a Handy Excuse for
not being there.
On the off chance that I really have "admirably" clarified
matters, however, I am always happy to perform a service for
friends.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
P Nielsen Hayden
Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com) wrote:
[etc, etc]
I'm reminded, and not for the first time, of La Rochefoucauld's ever-useful
observation that we can forgive those who bore us, but we cannot forgive
those whom we bore.
I'm also reminded not to argue theology with monks.
Daniel Goodman
1) I don't consider you a snob, either by the current loose definition of
by the stricter definition which corresponds to the Yiddish touchas lecher.
2) If there's a mainstream of fandom today, it's convention fandom -- the
people who run them, and the people who attend them heavily.
3) What you call "mainstream fannish fandom" is a backwater, like the N3F.
Dan Goodman
Dave Locke
On Jul 09, 1996 14:47:18 in article <Re: Toner - Fannish con 1 week prior
Worldcon>, 'dsg...@parka.winternet.com (Daniel Goodman)' wrote [presumably
to Dr. Gafia]:
>3) What you call "mainstream fannish fandom" is a backwater, like the N3F.
Ouch. Did you hear that, rich? It was the sound of about 200 rectums
pinching shut. Yours and mine included...
Should we resent the truth in this remark ["backwater"], go after the
inaccuracy ["like the N3F"], or book tickets to the LArea and beat Dan up
just for the hell of it? I'm game. We'll make it your call... ;-)
Dave
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children smart." -- H. L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bernard Peek
> The reason it wouldn't do me any is good is that, yes, I _do_
> consider mainstream fannish fanzine fandom to be trufandom.
[...]
> You and Gary and others have a perfect right, if you wish, to
> view the net as "just one of the media via which we are
> participants in fandom". What bothers me about it here is that
> it is only via an exercise in circumlocution that you avoid
> acknowledging that if it is "just one of the media" it is, in
> fact, another--or, to spell it out, an Other--medium.
Given your definition of trufandom then, by definition, activities
that don't involve fanzine fans cannot ever be truly fannish. OK, I
find the logic behind that unassailable.
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Bernard Peek
In article <4rtrdm$g...@blackice.winternet.com>
dsg...@parka.winternet.com "Daniel Goodman" writes:
> 2) If there's a mainstream of fandom today, it's convention fandom -- the
> people who run them, and the people who attend them heavily.
There are more people involved, in some way, with conventions than
with fanzines.
> 3) What you call "mainstream fannish fandom" is a backwater, like the N3F.
"Backwater" is a loaded word, it implies stagnation. The fanzine
stream may be smaller but I'd want some additional justification
before considering it to be stagnant. Are there any innovations
*within* fanzine fandom? If so then the implications of the term
"backwater" may be misleading.
Ulrika O'Brien
Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Are there any innovations *within* fanzine fandom? If so
>then the implications of the term "backwater" may be misleading.
Good point; good question. Anybody who's really active in
fanzines want to answer that or expand on it? What's
really new and exciting in fanzines? Or does it ever seem
like it's the Same Old Stuff?
--
"Zeno be damned; sooner or later you gotta get laid."
Ulrika O'Brien *** ulr...@aol.com
Daniel Goodman
In article <836939...@intersec.demon.co.uk>,
Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4rtrdm$g...@blackice.winternet.com>
> dsg...@parka.winternet.com "Daniel Goodman" writes:
>> 3) What you call "mainstream fannish fandom" is a backwater, like the N3F.
>
>"Backwater" is a loaded word, it implies stagnation. The fanzine
>stream may be smaller but I'd want some additional justification
>*within* fanzine fandom? If so then the implications of the term
>"backwater" may be misleading.
"mainstream fanzine fandom" is relatively slow. And there's more respect
for tradition than in most other areas of fandom. There's more
admiration for Charles Burbee's writings of a few decades ago than there
is of con-runners or local-club officials of the same vintage.
Dan Goodman
Gary Farber
Ulrika O'Brien (Ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
: Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >Are there any innovations *within* fanzine fandom? If so
: >then the implications of the term "backwater" may be misleading.
: Good point; good question. Anybody who's really active in
: fanzines want to answer that or expand on it? What's
: really new and exciting in fanzines? Or does it ever seem
: like it's the Same Old Stuff?
This question presupposes the assumption that "innovations" are necessary
for fanzines and "fanzine fandom" to be Good and Relevant (and not a
"backwater"). I think this a questionable assumption.
Geri Sullivan
Dave Locke wrote:
>
> On Jul 09, 1996 14:47:18 in article <Re: Toner - Fannish con 1 week prior
> Worldcon>, 'dsg...@parka.winternet.com (Daniel Goodman)' wrote [presumably
> to Dr. Gafia]:
>
>
>
>
>
> pinching shut. Yours and mine included...
>
> Should we resent the truth in this remark ["backwater"], go after the
> inaccuracy ["like the N3F"], or book tickets to the LArea and beat Dan up
> just for the hell of it? I'm game. We'll make it your call... ;-)
I don't know what Dan's Worldcon plans might be, but you'll probably
have more luck catching up with him if you book tickets to
Minneapolis, where he lives these days. If you do, please be sure to
stop by Toad Hall; I'd like to meet you, and rich knows he's always
welcome.
Not that I'm promoting the worthiness of your proposal, mind you.
;-)
Geri
================ Geri Sullivan <g...@toad-hall.com> ================
Curly locks! Curly locks! Wilt thou be mine? Thou shalt not wash
dishes Nor yet feed the swine. But sit on a cushion, And sew a
fine seam, And feed upon strawberries, Sugar and cream.
Chris Croughton
In article <836939...@intersec.demon.co.uk>
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk "Bernard Peek" wrote:
>> 3) What you call "mainstream fannish fandom" is a backwater, like the N3F.
>
>"Backwater" is a loaded word, it implies stagnation. The fanzine
>stream may be smaller but I'd want some additional justification
>before considering it to be stagnant. Are there any innovations
>*within* fanzine fandom? If so then the implications of the term
>"backwater" may be misleading.
I prefer the term "fringe fandom" - elsewhere I recently referred to
fanzine fandom as being a fringe fandom like filking, in that the
majority of mainstream cons suffer our presence only if we make enough
fuss. Of course, having "trufandom" compared to the "feelthy feelkers"
will probably enrage rich enough that we can resume our flamewar on the
subject, it's been boring recently...
.-------------------------------.-------------------------------------.
| ch...@keris.demon.co.uk | FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life) |
`-------------------------------^-------------------------------------'
Ulrika O'Brien
gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
>Ulrika O'Brien (Ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>: fanzines want to answer that or expand on it? What's
>: really new and exciting in fanzines? Or does it ever seem
>: like it's the Same Old Stuff?
>
>This question presupposes the assumption that "innovations" are necessary
>for fanzines and "fanzine fandom" to be Good and Relevant (and not a
>"backwater"). I think this a questionable assumption.
So the answer would be "nothing" to the former question, and
"yes" to the latter, then, I take it? :)
Geez, Gary, relax. I actually just thought it was a good and
interesting question, all on its oddy nocky, and I was interested
to see if it would draw out some illuminating answers. I wasn't
particularly lying in wait for an excuse to declare fanzines a
backwater -- you know I'm happy to dis fanzines without any
excuse at all! :)
Avedon Carol
ROB HANSEN HERE:
Patrick Nielsen Hayden writes:
> Actually, I have very little use for Usenet; the only
> groups I read are this one and alt.fandom.cons, plus two SF-related
> groups which I periodically skim for reasons related to my job.
Yeah, this one and a single comics-related group are the only two I read.
I've no doubt I could find others that would interest me but, as Jon
Singer said, this stuff can eat your life.
> What's really going on here in this dream war, however, is that for
> some of
> us, the net is just one of the media via which we are participants
> in fandom, same as we ever were --
No argument here. But I still won't use smileys, just as I won't use
fillos in my print fanzines. We are all still entitled to our personal
preferences, after all.
David E Romm
> The reason it wouldn't do me any is good is that, yes, I _do_
> consider mainstream fannish fanzine fandom to be trufandom.
> That makes me a kind of snob in quite a few people's book--
> that I find a great deal more of value in the activities of one
> segment of the microcosm over the activities of other segments.
> I think virtually any given essay by Walt Willis is better than
> all the MCs in 1,000 mailings of Apa-L. That there _is_ such a
> thing as quality, however unegalitarian it may be to say so.
> It's how I happen to see things.
Most editors, if you ask them, will take the 1000 words over a picture.
What you're not allowing for is experience. Time. FIAWOL. Said essay by
Walt Willis may indeed by 'better than' a kilo-apa, but those mailings
will mean more to the people who participated in them than the essay
will. If fandom is what two or more fans do together, apas (even mediocre
apas) are more fannish than any one essay, or any one fanzine.
> You and Gary and others have a perfect right, if you wish, to
> view the net as "just one of the media via which we are
> participants in fandom".
Hey, don't leave me out!
> It
> does not share the ideals, traditions or aspirations of fanzine fandom.
What ideals &c do fanzines have that the net doesn't?
> It doesn't encourage the same basic artforms.
And thank Ghu for that. You keep forgetting that the reason mimeography
(for example) was such a fannishly binding experience was that it is
difficult, messy, expensive and time consuming. Most mimeo'd fanzines
were printed on cheap paper which then suffered the indignities of the
post office. The reason many fannish traditions developed is that few
else were d/e/s/p/e/r/a/t/e/ stubborn enough to do it that way. Ghettos
are fun to hang out in, if you have the time, and a great deal of fun to
reminisce about, after you've left.
Take this from someone who has been publishing fanzines for two decades,
and still considers himself a fanzine fan: My life will not suffer If I
never have to use stencil cement ever again.
Fandom, to me, is more about the interaction of fans than the
implimentation details. To quote you back at yourself, "Sorry to have to
tell you this, but the emperor really is naked, you know."
As you say in a different post:
> No "fuss". A "difference". And a slight one, as people keep pointing
> out. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, probably pretty much
> offsetting--but I never claimed otherwise.
> I just claimed that they were different. And they are.
And they are. Also different from each other are mimeo and ditto and
poctsards and locs and meetings and conventions. So?
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"You're the ruler of the galaxy. Show a little taste!"
-- Ed Wood, giving direction
Bernard Peek
In article <Snews.960709.22...@keris.demon.co.uk>
ch...@keris.demon.co.uk "Chris Croughton" writes:
> In article <836939...@intersec.demon.co.uk>
> b...@intersec.demon.co.uk "Bernard Peek" wrote:
>
> >> 3) What you call "mainstream fannish fandom" is a backwater, like the N3F.
> >
> >"Backwater" is a loaded word, it implies stagnation. The fanzine
> >stream may be smaller but I'd want some additional justification
> >before considering it to be stagnant. Are there any innovations
> >*within* fanzine fandom? If so then the implications of the term
> >"backwater" may be misleading.
>
> I prefer the term "fringe fandom" - elsewhere I recently referred to
> fanzine fandom as being a fringe fandom like filking, in that the
> majority of mainstream cons suffer our presence only if we make enough
> fuss. Of course, having "trufandom" compared to the "feelthy feelkers"
> will probably enrage rich enough that we can resume our flamewar on the
> subject, it's been boring recently...
I don't think that "fringe fandom" is any less of a loaded phrase. It
implies that there is a definite centre, and this isn't it.
There are two possible arguments against that idea (but they are
mutually contradictory).
The first is that fandom doesn't have a centre, so it can't have a
fringe. It's easy to draw a two-dimensional venn diagram that shows a
centre where all of the groups overlap (which would presumably be
convention fandom). You really need n-dimensional paper to draw the
real relationship. Every possible permutations of sub-fandoms has a
few members. There are still pbm games fanzines run by people who have
no contact with the rest of fandom.
The second argument is that fanzine fandom *is* the centre, around
which all of the others orbit and that conventions are for
fringe-fandom. This is an argument based on the fact that fanzine
fandom predates everything else. That's as good an argument as any for
defining a centre.
Dr Gafia
In article <4rtrdm$g...@blackice.winternet.com>,
dsg...@parka.winternet.com (Daniel Goodman) writes:
>2) If there's a mainstream of fandom today, it's convention
>fandom -- the people who run them, and the people who attend
>them heavily.
>
>3) What you call "mainstream fannish fandom" is a backwater,
>like the N3F.
If you're talking about sheer numbers, then "2" is incorrect if
by "conventions" you mean things like the Worldcon (tm) and
smaller national/regional conventions put on for and by sf
fans; large Trek conventions have routinely surpassed the
Worldcon in size for a number of years. The Worldcon and
regional sf reader conventions are the backwater--stumbling
along and appealing only to pear-shaped, pretentious, snobbish
quasi-intellectuals whose aspirations for their self-ghettoized
genre are and always have been laughable.
Out of a population of some 340 million (including US, UK and
Australia/New Zealand), it attracts less than 10,000 people to
attend its largest annual event--and probably could not pull in
that number if it did not, simultaneously at their convention,
offer a minimal "appeal" to Trekkers and Other Media fans via
all-night movies and/or relevant program items.
If numbers are (forgive the pun) what really count, then
Trekdom is free at any time to look down their collective nose
at you and to proclaim, with a logic you'll surely enjoy, that
henceforth you should stop calling your hobby "fandom," since
after all you're a minority--and they, the majority, should
rule. It's democratic; it's egalitarian; it's simple
acknowledgment that written sf will always appeal only to an
intellectual elite, whereas sf in other media can be and often
is appreciated by The Man In The Street, common folk, a.k.a.
the proletariat, depending on your frame of mind.
Rah.
Rah.
& Rah.
If you can imagine how your average convention fan might react
to what I outline above, you can surely wriggle the tendrils in
your hair just a little harder--but using the same basic
vibrations--to determine how I feel about any declaration that
convention fandom is "mainstream" fandom.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Dr Gafia
In article <4rlclv$o...@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>,
UFQ...@prodigy.com (William Bridget) writes:
>Hi, Dan, ...a convention for netfans!?? The only ones who
>could make it would be the ones who were in a position to take
>their laptops (i.e., sitting down and squirming, eating
>chocolate and stroking themselves, etc.) See my remarks
>elsewhere for a complete description.
Think before you write, Bill. You remind me of a Ray Nelson
cartoon in which a politician is standing beside a soldier,
holding the soldier in front of a full-length mirror, and
pointing into the mirror as he says, "There, THAT's the Enemy!
Kill him!"
I have yet to see any information to indicate that there is a
great deal of difference between "them" and "us". In fact,
many of them ARE fanzine fans as well as internet fans or at
least know as much and more about fanzine fandom as we do.
Fans are generally pear-shaped people who can't dance, but so
what? Netfans could as easily describe us as not being
suitable for going to conventions unless we could take our
mimeos and typers, drinking bheer and "smooooothing" hard
liquor while engaging in mutual back-patting, and thereby be
just as truthful in some respects but as pointless and
irrelevant in others as is your indictment of them.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Dr Gafia
Getting back to what this thread started out to be, I forwarded
Gary Farber's comments about Arnie and Joyce rejecting the
offer to put an ad for Toner out on a WWW page, since Arnie and
Joyce don't spend a lot of time monitoring these news groups,
and since a few of Arnie's points in reply are worth passing
on, I take the liberty of doing so and trust Arnie will
forgive me if he would otherwise have any objection:
"The post you forwarded is puzzling. Perhaps JOYCE and GARY had
a conversation about Toner and publicizing it on the internet,
but I don't recall participating in that discussion.
"That's moot, of course. I would've politely declined the offer
of publicity anyway. Toner is aimed at fanzine fans, and just
about all of them have received a flyer through the mail. I
suppose if I had a failing list that was just fanzine fans, I'd
use electronic means to supplement the snailmail distribution,
but you are correct when you say that we are not aggressively
seeking all fans to come to Toner. We want fanzine fans.
"The Bubonicon in Albuquerque is the same weekend as Toner.
Those fans who want a more mainstream fan convention, with
lotsa programming, pro authors and catering to special fandoms
are likely to enjoy that event much more than they would Toner.
"We'd feel bad if Toner publicity misdirected someone to our
tribal rite who would have a better time at Bubonicon.
Therefore, we've been a bit circumspect in reaching out to
potential attendees.
"I think it is only fair to mention that neither Joyce nor I
have any official standing with Toner. Tom Springer is the
Ringleader (as he calls himself) with Ben WiIlson second-in-
command. Joyce and I support Toner enthusiastically and will
host a gala kick off party on Friday night, but Tom's in
charge."
===
So I was even "righter" than I thought. I guess this is just
one more instance in which faulty reading comprehension
undermines good intention. Or something.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Janice Gelb
In article <4rsum4$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) wrote:
>
> The reason it wouldn't do me any is good is that, yes, I _do_
> consider mainstream fannish fanzine fandom to be trufandom.
> That makes me a kind of snob in quite a few people's book--
> that I find a great deal more of value in the activities of one
> segment of the microcosm over the activities of other segments.
> I think virtually any given essay by Walt Willis is better than
> all the MCs in 1,000 mailings of Apa-L. That there _is_ such a
> thing as quality, however unegalitarian it may be to say so.
> It's how I happen to see things.
>
First of all, I'm confused over why apazines don't count as being
"fanzine fandom." I've used mimeo and written fannish essays just
like a "real" fanzine editor, and I pub my 16-to-20 page ish every
other month (for 10 straight years this last go-round in SFPA, btw).
Second of all, I've read plenty of essays in crudzines that were worse
than all the mailings of Apa-L put together. Just because something's
in a fanzine doesn't make it inherently good and vice versa: just
because something is in a mailing comment in Apa-L doesn't mean
it's inherently shallow. So I'm not sure I understand your point here.
********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
http://www.tripod.com/~janiceg/index.html
"Politics is show business for ugly people"
-- James Carville
********************************************************************************
P Nielsen Hayden
Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com) wrote (quoting Arnie Katz):
: "The Bubonicon in Albuquerque is the same weekend as Toner.
: Those fans who want a more mainstream fan convention, with
: lotsa programming, pro authors and catering to special fandoms
: are likely to enjoy that event much more than they would Toner.
This is about the only context in which I can imagine Bubonicon as being
portrayed as a con with "lots of programming" and "catering to special
fandoms." By and large Bubonicon is a pretty low-key, old-fashioned, funky
sf con.
I'm not disagreeing with Arnie, just being amused at the perspective shift.
John_Da...@cup.portal.com
> Are there any innovations *within* fanzine fandom? ...
Sure! A few publishers have actually advanced beyond those awful unreadable
purple mimeo machines! (It's amazing how some SF fans can be such Luddites...)
:) :) :)
Ulrika O'Brien
You misspelled "most"...:)
Jailbait
Rob Hansen said:
"I still refuse to use smileys"
Which brought up the concept for a final exam question for Fanzine
Fandom 201:
Compare and contrast the use of 'smileys' in electronic discussion
with the use of 'slashouts' in print 'zines.
Extra Credit: Discuss why the other^H^H^H^H^Hbetter^H^H^H^H^H^H
um...alternate? form of slashouts never really caught on outside geek
circles.
As well, discussing how humanity got along without any of the above
for many many years BEZ (Before the Era of Zines).
JB
Mark Bernstein
Eminent Usenetter Ulrika O'Brien (Ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
: John_Da...@cup.portal.com wrote:
: >> Are there any innovations *within* fanzine fandom? ...
: >
: >Sure! A few publishers have actually advanced beyond those awful
: >unreadable purple mimeo machines! (It's amazing how some SF fans
: >can be such Luddites...)
: You misspelled "most"...:)
I'm confused. Did he misspell it as "A few" or "some"? :)
--
Mark Bernstein
m...@arbortext.com
Pam Wells
In article <romm-10079...@ppp-66-87.dialup.winternet.com>
ro...@winternet.com "David E Romm" writes:
> What ideals &c do fanzines have that the net doesn't?
Editing? Sending one's work to a limited and largely known audience?
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk
Pam Wells
In article <4s0j76$d...@news.service.uci.edu>
Ulr...@aol.com "Ulrika O'Brien" writes:
> gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:
> >Ulrika O'Brien (Ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
> >: Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >: >Are there any innovations *within* fanzine fandom? If so
> >: >then the implications of the term "backwater" may be misleading.
> >
> >: Good point; good question. Anybody who's really active in
> >: fanzines want to answer that or expand on it? What's
> >: really new and exciting in fanzines? Or does it ever seem
> >: like it's the Same Old Stuff?
> >
> >This question presupposes the assumption that "innovations" are necessary
> >for fanzines and "fanzine fandom" to be Good and Relevant (and not a
> >"backwater"). I think this a questionable assumption.
>
> So the answer would be "nothing" to the former question, and
> "yes" to the latter, then, I take it? :)
Some recent innovations in fanzines have included the Attitude project
(combining a limited run fanzine with a one-off con as a single project),
Zorn (a monthly fanzine -- well it was for a while -- produced by a fan
formerly known only for his conrunning, available in both mail and e-mail
versions), PLOKTA (a fanzine which includes pictures taken with an
electronic camera). These are all British examples. And doubtless there
are many more which aren't springing to mind right now. Innovations are
cool, done well, but I'd still find the prospect of a new issue of Rastus
Johnson's Cakewalk to be more exciting than any of the above. But that's
just me; thankfully, mileage varies on this point.
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk
David E Romm
In article <837112...@bitch.demon.co.uk>,
Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <romm-10079...@ppp-66-87.dialup.winternet.com>
> ro...@winternet.com "David E Romm" writes:
>
> > What ideals &c do fanzines have that the net doesn't?
>
> Editing? Sending one's work to a limited and largely known audience?
The latter is handled by e-zines (as opposed to web pages). As to the
former, what did you think of the Science Fiction and Ethics issue of The
Ethical Spectacle I edited?
http://www.spectacle.org, the March issue, so you might save yourself some
digging and try http://www.spectacle.org/0396
I didn't do much editing, as in copyediting, but it was very much like
producing a fanzine.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"It's just like you to take something serious and high-minded and leave it that way." -- Gonzo the Great
Dave Locke
On Jul 11, 1996 13:25:48 in article <Smileys (Was Re: Toner - Fannish con 1
week prior Worldcon_>, 'jail...@asylum.apocalypse.org (Jailbait)' wrote:
>a final exam question for Fanzine Fandom 201:
>
>Compare and contrast the use of 'smileys' in electronic discussion
>with the use of 'slashouts' in print 'zines.
>Extra Credit: Discuss why the other^H^H^H^H^Hbetter^H^H^H^H^H^H
>um...alternate? form of slashouts never really caught on outside geek
>circles.
>
>As well, discussing how humanity got along without any of the above
>for many many years BEZ (Before the Era of Zines).
>
>JB
Dave
William Bridget
jan...@Eng.Sun.COM (Janice Gelb) wrote:
> I'm confused over why apazines don't count as being
>"fanzine fandom."
our common language, full of characters and allusions and the occasional
plot. It is what prevents fandom from being assimilated into cyberfandom
and losing its special identity. If fandom is assimilated into the
larger net population, then who is going to buy copies of ALL OUR
YESTERDAYS or Dick Lynch's new forthcoming book about 60's fandom? I do
not want anything to hinder the publication of these books of fan history.
That translates into opposing the importation of a large non-fannish
population into our ethnic events.
-
Bill Bridget UFQ...@prodigy.com
MUTAN MION was right.
William Bridget
ave...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Avedon Carol") wrote:
>
>ROB HANSEN HERE:
I still won't use smileys, just as I won't use
>fillos in my print fanzines. We are all still entitled to our personal
>preferences, after all.
I was telling Doctor Gafia (rich brown) in a WIRELESS MESSAGE that
smilefaces do get a little booring afterawhile. So, if you choose to not
use them, I can respect that. I, on the other hand, wonder about what
programs might be available to convert scanned lineart to something more
challenging using the ASCII character set. The first illo I ever did on
a stencil was typed with my old Underwood desktop. It was a crude
drawing of a house with smoke coming out of the chimney and a path to the
door.
Dr Gafia
In article <31E31A...@toad-hall.com>, Geri Sullivan
<g...@toad-hall.com> writes:
>Dave Locke wrote:
>> On Jul 09, 1996 14:47:18 in article <Re: Toner - Fannish con
>>1 week prior Worldcon>, 'dsg...@parka.winternet.com (Daniel
>>Goodman)' wrote [presumably to Dr. Gafia]:
>>
>> >3) What you call "mainstream fannish fandom" is a
>> >backwater, like the N3F.
>>
>> Ouch. Did you hear that, rich? It was the sound of about
>> 200 rectums pinching shut. Yours and mine included...
>>
>> Should we resent the truth in this remark ["backwater"], go
>> after the inaccuracy ["like the N3F"], or book tickets to
>> the LArea and beat Dan up just for the hell of it? I'm
>> game. We'll make it your call... ;-)
>I don't know what Dan's Worldcon plans might be, but you'll
>probably have more luck catching up with him if you book
>tickets to Minneapolis, where he lives these days. If you do,
>please be sure to stop by Toad Hall; I'd like to meet you, and
>rich knows he's always welcome.
>
>Not that I'm promoting the worthiness of your proposal, mind
>you. ;-)
Dan's safe from me; I think I understand where he's coming
from. The N3F felt that it WAS fandom, but that was largely
ignorance of the existence of fandom outside itself. Thus, for
example, when Harry Warner Jr. joined the N3F so as to be able
to get into the N3F's apa, N'APA, in the early '60s as I
recall, members of the N3F Welcoming Committee "welcomed" Harry
to fandom, being entirely unaware that he had published the
focal point fanzine of Third Fandom, SPACEWAYS, not to mention
his continuous activity in FAPA since the 1930's. ("FAPA?
What's that?")
I'm making a claim for fannish fanzine fandom that, from the
outside looking in, appears to be the same thing. The
distinction Dan conveniently overlooks is that fannish fanzine
fandom is perfectly aware of all these Other fandoms.
Besides which, some 30+ years ago, Dan was instrumental in my
meeting Colleen Woo. Although Colleen and I have been divorced
now for longer than we were together, the 14 years we were
together were the best of my life; I still get invited to
Christmas dinner & the like with her and our daughter, and I
still love Colleen a whole bunch although she's remarried.
Thus, as I see it, I'm forever in Dan's debt.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Loren MacGregor
slow...@usa.pipeline.com(Dave Locke) wrote:
>On Jul 11, 1996 13:25:48 in article <Smileys (Was Re: Toner - Fannish con 1
>week prior Worldcon_>, 'jail...@asylum.apocalypse.org (Jailbait)' wrote:
>>Extra Credit: Discuss why the other^H^H^H^H^Hbetter^H^H^H^H^H^H
>>um...alternate? form of slashouts never really caught on outside geek
>>circles.
>What /t/h/e/ /h/e/l/l/ is ^H^H^H^H^Hbetter^H^H^H^H^H^H? :-) ;-) :-)
(Dons "Erudite Net Nerd" Hat)
"Why, Dave, you should have known that the ^H glyph is recognized far
and wide as the symbol used in certain software packages as a
"backspace and erase" command. As a test, type a word, hold your CTRL
key down, and press the letter H repeatedly. See what happens? This
is your Nerd Lesson for this week. There will be a test. And it will
be written in Pascal."
-- LJM
P Nielsen Hayden
Pam Wells (Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <romm-10079...@ppp-66-87.dialup.winternet.com>
: ro...@winternet.com "David E Romm" writes:
: > What ideals &c do fanzines have that the net doesn't?
: Editing? Sending one's work to a limited and largely known audience?
I imagine it's probably a little late to point out to either of you that
neither fanzines nor "the net" have ideals.
Chris Croughton
In article <4s4639$d...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
slow...@usa.pipeline.com(Dave "Dave Locke" wrote:
>What /t/h/e/ /h/e/l/l/ is ^H^H^H^H^Hbetter^H^H^H^H^H^H? :-) ;-) :-)
Do you really not know, or is this a windup?
W/h/a/t/ /t/h/e/ /h/e/l/l/,/ I'll answer anyway.
It's a geek thing, a computer-nerd thing. Back in the good old days of
"glass teletypes" the ^H (hold down the 'CTRL' key and press 'H')
character meant 'backspace' - on a real (paper) teletype that just moved
the carriage back one, just like on a typewriter, so the characters
overwrote each other and you got a horrible splodge, on the 'glass
teletypes' (VDUs) it meant that the character was actually replaced so
you could see what you were typing. Wow, this was wonderful! Well,
yes, except that some systems didn't echo back the actual character,
they replied with a caret and a capital H, which didn't look so good.
Anyway, the net.writers, not knowing about the indefinitely superior
print method of slashouts, came up with the idea of actually putting in
what they used to see on the screen to achieve the same effect. Thus
"better^H^H^H^H^H^H" is intended to imply that you typed "better" and
then backspaced over it, thus trying (but failing) to get rid of the
evidence.
(There is also an ongoing battle as to whether, in online messages where
the slash can't be put over the character, the slash should come before
or after the character it's erasing. Personal taste, of course, but
it's as much fun as arguing over anything else...)
You may get the impression that I prefer slashouts. You'd be right, I
find them much more readable. The ^H system of marking them was fun, it
was an in-joke, but I prefer readability any time. People like rich
brown may think that means I'm a secret fanzine fan, but that's all
right, I'm rude about them as well...
(I was rude about geeks and computer-nerds above. I'm part of that
group, I can be rude about them if I like. If you're not part of that
group, you can't with impunity. If you are, I greet you as a
brother...)
(Oh yes, the term VDU says nothing useful. "Visual Display Unit"? It
could mean the speedometer of a car, or the hands of a watch. "Monitor"
is almost as bad. "CRT" is more descriptive, except that the term
"Cathode Ray" was obsolete by about 1920. "Glass teletype" is
descriptive, it's a glass screen which emulates (poorly) a real
teletype. More of my antiquated prejudices, no doubt, but we could
argue this one as well if anyone wants to...)
Ulrika O'Brien
p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>I imagine it's probably a little late to point out to either of you that
>neither fanzines nor "the net" have ideals.
Funny, you're not usually so literal about metaphors. Presumably,
what's intended is that the cultures associated with fanzines,
or Usenet, or you name it, do (or can) have ideals. The
White House doesn't talk, either, you know. :)
Daniel Goodman
In article <4s4rte$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Dr Gafia <drg...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dan's safe from me; I think I understand where he's coming
>from. The N3F felt that it WAS fandom, but that was largely
>ignorance of the existence of fandom outside itself. Thus, for
>example, when Harry Warner Jr. joined the N3F so as to be able
>to get into the N3F's apa, N'APA, in the early '60s as I
>recall, members of the N3F Welcoming Committee "welcomed" Harry
>to fandom, being entirely unaware that he had published the
>focal point fanzine of Third Fandom, SPACEWAYS, not to mention
>his continuous activity in FAPA since the 1930's. ("FAPA?
>What's that?")
>
>I'm making a claim for fannish fanzine fandom that, from the
>outside looking in, appears to be the same thing. The
>distinction Dan conveniently overlooks is that fannish fanzine
>fandom is perfectly aware of all these Other fandoms.
than the N3F is of fandom outside N3F -- though some N3F members are also
involved in various other fandoms.
However -- I recall the fuss _some_ fanzine fans made in 1971/72(?) when
someone whose fanwriting was almost all in apas was nominated for Best
Fan Writer Hugo.
>
>Besides which, some 30+ years ago, Dan was instrumental in my
>meeting Colleen Woo. Although Colleen and I have been divorced
>now for longer than we were together, the 14 years we were
>together were the best of my life; I still get invited to
>Christmas dinner & the like with her and our daughter, and I
>still love Colleen a whole bunch although she's remarried.
>Thus, as I see it, I'm forever in Dan's debt.
Ah -- I wasn't sure whether you counted that for or against me....
Dan Goodman
Rich McAllister
>As a test, type a word, hold your CTRL
>key down, and press the letter H repeatedly. See what happens?
The help file for Emacs comes up.
--
Rich McAllister (r...@eng.sun.com)
David G. Bell
In article <Snews.960712.07...@keris.demon.co.uk>
ch...@keris.demon.co.uk "Chris Croughton" writes:
> (Oh yes, the term VDU says nothing useful. "Visual Display Unit"? It
> could mean the speedometer of a car, or the hands of a watch. "Monitor"
> is almost as bad. "CRT" is more descriptive, except that the term
> "Cathode Ray" was obsolete by about 1920. "Glass teletype" is
> descriptive, it's a glass screen which emulates (poorly) a real
> teletype. More of my antiquated prejudices, no doubt, but we could
> argue this one as well if anyone wants to...)
How about 'Raster Scan Image Display Device'?
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Antony J. Shepherd (Dop)
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>What ideals &c do fanzines have that the net doesn't?
You can put them in your pocket and read them on the train. You can
read them in the bath. You can hold them in your hand, you can keep
them forever. The net is ephemera - a fleeting thing that is here and
then gone. Even with a portable computer and cellular modem link you
can't just read it anywhere!
>Take this from someone who has been publishing fanzines for two decades,
>and still considers himself a fanzine fan: My life will not suffer If I
>never have to use stencil cement ever again.
Stencil cement? What? Wake up and smell the toner - this is 1996! You
don't _have_ to use obsolete technology - it's not in the rules. At
least if it _is_, this is a rule I gladly break and damn the
torpedoes.
Antony J. "Doppelganger" Shepherd - d...@carcosa.demon.co.uk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - I've been to see the beavers at B E A V E R W O R L D ! ! ! - - -
Antony J. Shepherd (Dop)
jail...@asylum.apocalypse.org (Jailbait) wrote:
>Rob Hansen said:
>"I still refuse to use smileys"
Good for him!
David E Romm
In article <4s5i38$4...@panix2.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
wrote:
> Pam Wells (Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : In article <romm-10079...@ppp-66-87.dialup.winternet.com>
> : ro...@winternet.com "David E Romm" writes:
>
> : > What ideals &c do fanzines have that the net doesn't?
>
> : Editing? Sending one's work to a limited and largely known audience?
>
> I imagine it's probably a little late to point out to either of you that
> neither fanzines nor "the net" have ideals.
Hmm... Sounds like this would make a good article for Rune.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation."
-- H. H. Munro (Saki)
Loren MacGregor
r...@urth.eng.sun.com (Rich McAllister) wrote:
>In article <4s4jlt$6...@clark.zippo.com> lmac...@greenheart.com (Loren MacGregor) writes:
>>As a test, type a word, hold your CTRL
>>key down, and press the letter H repeatedly. See what happens?
>The help file for Emacs comes up.
Not on Dave Locke's software, it doesn't. <G>
Now, if I were to go over to the Unix side of this machine...
-- LJM
Gary Farber
David E Romm (ro...@winternet.com) wrote:
: In article <4s5i38$4...@panix2.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden)
: wrote:
: > Pam Wells (Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : In article <romm-10079...@ppp-66-87.dialup.winternet.com>
: > : ro...@winternet.com "David E Romm" writes:
: >
: > : > What ideals &c do fanzines have that the net doesn't?
: >
: > : Editing? Sending one's work to a limited and largely known audience?
: >
: > I imagine it's probably a little late to point out to either of you that
: > neither fanzines nor "the net" have ideals.
: Hmm... Sounds like this would make a good article for Rune.
It seems a bit short to me. But perhaps the illos will make it seem
longer.
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright (c) 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
Arthur Hlavaty
: Which brought up the concept for a final exam question for Fanzine
: Fandom 201:
: Compare and contrast the use of 'smileys' in electronic discussion
: with the use of 'slashouts' in print 'zines.
: Extra Credit: Discuss why the other^H^H^H^H^Hbetter^H^H^H^H^H^H
: um...alternate? form of slashouts never really caught on outside geek
: circles.
The trouble with the ^H method is that it is by no means obvious what is
being slashed out. I use the simple <begin slashout> <end slashout>
method <begin slashout> and anyone who doesn't sucks <end slashout>
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///
Steve Glover
"David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>How about 'Raster Scan Image Display Device'?
Nope. I used to read news on a PS300 (Evans and Sutherland vector graphic
thingy for modelling molecules on: had to do something while running leas
squares refinement on the position of inhibitors in a 20,000 or so atom
system)
Why not "screen"?
Steve
-- Steve Glover, employed again (sort of)
Dr Gafia
In article <4s3q0m$o...@condor.ic.net>, m...@aspen.arbortext.com
(Mark Bernstein) writes:
Both.
--rich brown
Dr Gafia
>I imagine it's probably a little late to point out to either
> of you that neither fanzines nor "the net" have ideals.
I take your point. But I think you're using "have" here in the
sense of "to hold"--being, essentially, inanimate things
(however much they may at the same time be "animated" in
another sense), they can't have/hold ideals in the same way
that they can't have "thoughts" or "feelings".
In a metaphorical sense, however, they both have/reflect, for
their particular devotees, underlying ideals that they
generally promote. Those of fanzine fandom are, I think, pretty
much spelled out in the allegory of THE ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR.
Those of "the internet" are things like, oh, say, matters like
the free and open exchange of information.
Please, once again, let me emphasize that I am not making
claims that one is necessarily superior to the other; I'm just
stating that they are, if you'll pardon the expression,
"different". They are truly BOTH superior--for different
purposes. Which means, oddly enough, that NEITHER is
"inferior" for THEIR OWN purposes.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Dr Gafia
In article <83720148...@carcosa.demon.co.uk>, d...@carcosa.demon.co.uk
(Antony J. Shepherd (Dop)) writes:
>ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>
>>What ideals &c do fanzines have that the net doesn't?
>
>You can put them in your pocket and read them on the train. You can
>read them in the bath. You can hold them in your hand, you can keep
>them forever. The net is ephemera - a fleeting thing that is here and
>then gone. Even with a portable computer and cellular modem link you
>can't just read it anywhere!
Well said. But Dave will no doubt tell you that if you run out hard
copy of what you get on the net, you can do the same thing.
The distinction is that, in a *real* fanzine, the editor has chosen and
effectively Set In Stone the "look" of that fanzine. The editor
determines whether there are many, few or no illustrations; where there
ARE illustrations, s/he picks and places them on the page,
determines how much "white space" the page should have in
combining illustrations with written material, and chooses the style of
paragraphing, the number of columns (one, two or three) and
the typefaces used. On the net, depending on your server and software,
these things come in different forms.
>>Take this from someone who has been publishing fanzines for two decades,
>>and still considers himself a fanzine fan: My life will not suffer If I
>>never have to use stencil cement ever again.
>
>Stencil cement? What? Wake up and smell the toner - this is 1996! You
>don't _have_ to use obsolete technology - it's not in the rules. At
>least if it _is_, this is a rule I gladly break and damn the
>torpedoes.
And I come from a fannish era that sneers at stencil cement, since it
implies Gestafaxed illustrations--it drove out the lovely craft of hand
stencilling (although a few fan artists--Rotsler, Steve Stiles, Ross
Chamberlain, Dan Steffan--can still do it as well as they ever
did). Gestafax got darker all-black areas than hand stencilling ever
could, and was of course an exact rendering of other peoples'
illustrations, but for the same reason it didn't get the egoboo; it was a
better high wire/trapeze act, but it was also performed with (rather than
without) a net.
Moot points, as I'm in agreement--mimeo's fine if you've got it,
like it and can easily use it, otherwise there's nothing wrong with
using less traditional photo copiers.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Loren MacGregor
drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) wrote:
>Please, once again, let me emphasize that I am not making
>claims that one is necessarily superior to the other; I'm just
>stating that they are, if you'll pardon the expression,
>"different".
"One of these twins is different."
-- LJM
David E Romm
> In article <83720148...@carcosa.demon.co.uk>, d...@carcosa.demon.co.uk
> (Antony J. Shepherd (Dop)) writes:
>
> >ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
> >
> >>What ideals &c do fanzines have that the net doesn't?
> >
> >You can put them in your pocket and read them on the train. You can
> >read them in the bath. You can hold them in your hand, you can keep
> >them forever. The net is ephemera - a fleeting thing that is here and
> >then gone. Even with a portable computer and cellular modem link you
> >can't just read it anywhere!
>
> Well said. But Dave will no doubt tell you that if you run out hard
> copy of what you get on the net, you can do the same thing.
Yup. And if someone on the train expresses an interest, you can hand them
your copy and run off another later.
> The distinction is that, in a *real* fanzine, the editor has chosen and
> effectively Set In Stone the "look" of that fanzine. The editor
> determines whether there are many, few or no illustrations; where there
> ARE illustrations, s/he picks and places them on the page,
> determines how much "white space" the page should have in
> combining illustrations with written material, and chooses the style of
> paragraphing, the number of columns (one, two or three) and
> the typefaces used. On the net, depending on your server and software,
> these things come in different forms.
Oh, so you're REALLY in favor of Web Sites, then, where all that layout is
determined for you. Or RTF or Acrobat formats, that let your Desktop
Publishing shine through. Much better than mimeo or ditto, where each
page may be different since registration is a problem.
> >>Take this from someone who has been publishing fanzines for two decades,
> >>and still considers himself a fanzine fan: My life will not suffer If I
> >>never have to use stencil cement ever again.
> >
> >Stencil cement? What? Wake up and smell the toner - this is 1996! You
> >don't _have_ to use obsolete technology - it's not in the rules. At
> >least if it _is_, this is a rule I gladly break and damn the
> >torpedoes.
I'll just let that phrase hang in the air: "obsolete technology".
> And I come from a fannish era that sneers at stencil cement, since it
> implies Gestafaxed illustrations--it drove out the lovely craft of hand
> stencilling (although a few fan artists--Rotsler, Steve Stiles, Ross
> Chamberlain, Dan Steffan--can still do it as well as they ever
> did). Gestafax got darker all-black areas than hand stencilling ever
> could, and was of course an exact rendering of other peoples'
> illustrations, but for the same reason it didn't get the egoboo; it was a
> better high wire/trapeze act, but it was also performed with (rather than
> without) a net.
You seem to have made my point: Cognative Dissonance rules! The reason
you like hand-stenciling is that it was difficult and few people were good
at it. This is much to the credit of Rostler, Stiles, Chamberlain,
Steffan at al.
But then there were scores of people who weren't very good at it. You're
implying that the 'elite fanzine fandom' is defined by the best, not the
average. A defendable point, perhaps, but then you must use the same
criterion for on-line fandom: Look at the best, not the average.
> Moot points, as I'm in agreement--mimeo's fine if you've got it,
> like it and can easily use it, otherwise there's nothing wrong with
> using less traditional photo copiers.
And someone in 1940 would disagree with you. Already, you're advocating
advanced technology.
I agree that publishing fanzines and generating on-line documents are not
at odds with each other; and that one is not better than the other, but
that they are different media.
However, where we disagree is the thread of fandom. I see fandom as using
'appropriate technology'. Whatever was around, we used. Whether carbon
paper, hecto, ditto, mimeo, lithograph, e-mail or web sites. Fans
communicate with each other, and as communication technology advances,
fans (slans that we are) delight in playing with the new toys.
You see a Golden Age of Fandom that is very narrowly bound between the
common use of mimeo but before electrostencils. You're defining 'fanzine
fandom' as within those bounds, and that earlier technology is important
historically and later technology is to be sneered at. I disagree,
strongly. Fandom is not a museum, it is a thriving culture with a strong
sense of history and an eye faunching the future.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Is this the present?"
"Not any more." -- You're Riding The Shockwave, 1995
William Bridget
drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) wrote:
>And I come from a fannish era that sneers at stencil cement, since it
>implies Gestafaxed illustrations--it drove out the lovely craft of hand
>stencilling (although a few fan artists--Rotsler, Steve Stiles, Ross
>Chamberlain, Dan Steffan--can still do it as well as they ever
>did).
which a serious collector of fanzines might pays hundreds of dollars
today.
P Nielsen Hayden
Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4s5i38$4...@panix2.panix.com>, p...@panix.com (P
: Nielsen Hayden) writes:
: >I imagine it's probably a little late to point out to either
: > of you that neither fanzines nor "the net" have ideals.
: I take your point. But I think you're using "have" here in the
: sense of "to hold"--being, essentially, inanimate things
: (however much they may at the same time be "animated" in
: another sense), they can't have/hold ideals in the same way
: that they can't have "thoughts" or "feelings".
: In a metaphorical sense, however, they both have/reflect, for
: their particular devotees, underlying ideals that they
: generally promote. Those of fanzine fandom are, I think, pretty
: much spelled out in the allegory of THE ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR.
: Those of "the internet" are things like, oh, say, matters like
: the free and open exchange of information.
Perhaps. Maybe not. I think you're generalizing beyond the usefulness of
generalizations. I like THE ENCHANTED DUPLICATOR, too, but I don't see, in
modern fannish fanzines, much aspiration toward its model of its humane
civility. And I think you overstate your case about "the net", and muddy it
by periodically failing to distinguish between open forums like Usenet and
less completely public spaces like, say, the Well, or the GEnie SFRT before
its recent round of troubles -- to say nothing a basic distinctions like
Usenet versus the Web.
In this argument, you have consistently defined "net fandom" and "fanzine
fandom" as separate things; I have said that the net and fanzines are just
tools that can be used by the same people. Do you really want to argue that
my ideals change because I use a different tool? That's what it seems to me
you verge on doing.
Loren MacGregor
drg...@aol.com (Dr Gafia) wrote:
>The distinction is that, in a *real* fanzine, the editor has chosen and
>effectively Set In Stone the "look" of that fanzine. The editor
>determines whether there are many, few or no illustrations; where there
>ARE illustrations, s/he picks and places them on the page,
>determines how much "white space" the page should have in
>combining illustrations with written material, and chooses the style of
>paragraphing, the number of columns (one, two or three) and
>the typefaces used. On the net, depending on your server and software,
>these things come in different forms.
Just one comment:
http://www.metacentre.com/cworks/
Note that this is an apazine recast in fanzine form and posted on the
net, also available to anyone who requests a hard copy. (The
apa-specific comments are not included, making this a different entity
than the apazine.)
Also, because Dave Locke and Jackie Causgrove made yeo[person]
efforts, the apazine was submitted electronically first, and then
formatted by Jackie on the other end for its first appearance.
-- LJM
William Bridget
ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
>
>You seem to have made my point: Cognative Dissonance rules! The
reason
>you like hand-stenciling is that it was difficult and few people were
good
>at it. This is much to the credit of Rostler, Stiles, Chamberlain,
>Steffan at al.
>
>But then there were scores of people who weren't very good at it.
You're
>implying that the 'elite fanzine fandom' is defined by the best, not
the
>average. A defendable point, perhaps, but then you must use the same
>criterion for on-line fandom: Look at the best, not the average.
>
unsigned copy of Under the Moons of Mars, hardbound, in vg. condition.
Twenty five years ago it cost me about five dollars. If the computer
were around twenty five years ago and if it had been digitized, what
would that copy of ERB be worth today? (FYI, I am donating the book to
the Lilly Library at Wabash College, where I studied creative writing
under the tutilage of Bert Stern, the same teacher who instructed the
author of the HUGO winning HYPERION).
David G. Bell
> >> (Oh yes, the term VDU says nothing useful. "Visual Display Unit"? It
> >> could mean the speedometer of a car, or the hands of a watch. "Monitor"
> >> is almost as bad. "CRT" is more descriptive, except that the term
> >> "Cathode Ray" was obsolete by about 1920. "Glass teletype" is
> >> descriptive, it's a glass screen which emulates (poorly) a real
> >> teletype. More of my antiquated prejudices, no doubt, but we could
> >> argue this one as well if anyone wants to...)
>
> > How about 'Raster Scan Image Display Device'?
>
> What's wrong with "computer screen"?
It only allows a two-letter acronym.
David E Romm
In article <4seime$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fanma...@aol.com
(FanmailAPH) wrote:
> Plus, another series of
> exchanges in the ongoing personality conflict between rich brown and
> Farber, Nielsen Hayden, Goodman, Bridget, Romm, O'Brien, Godzilla, Gamera
> and Mothra, et al.
Gosh, me and Godzilla in the same sentence. Who'd a thunk it? *kvell*
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
Speech is silence with something wrong with it. -- DavE
David E Romm
In article <4sc5j3$q...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, UFQ...@prodigy.com
(William Bridget) wrote:
> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) wrote:
> > A defendable point, perhaps, but then you must use the same
> >criterion for on-line fandom: Look at the best, not the average.
> >
> Dave, I respectfully disagree. I own, hidden away in a safe place, an
> unsigned copy of Under the Moons of Mars, hardbound, in vg. condition.
> Twenty five years ago it cost me about five dollars. If the computer
> were around twenty five years ago and if it had been digitized, what
> would that copy of ERB be worth today?
I don't know what your copy would be worth digitized; that's not the
point. I quite agree with you (and rich) that the printed word is a magic
thing, and that books and fanzines are not merely good, but important.
Where we seem to be splitting off is what fandom should make of the new
electronic media of communication. I think on-line fandom is very much in
the tradition of The Enchanted Duplicator, and rich doesn't. Fans have
always used the communication technology at hand to best use, whether that
was hecto or web pages.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
Yngvi violates netiquette.
John_Da...@cup.portal.com
Dr Gafia
In article <4s1j9m$m...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
jan...@Eng.Sun.COM (Janice Gelb) writes:
>In article <4rsum4$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, drg...@aol.com
>(Dr Gafia) wrote:
>>
>> The reason it wouldn't do me any is good is that, yes, I
>> _do_ consider mainstream fannish fanzine fandom to be
>> trufandom. That makes me a kind of snob in quite a few
>> people's book--that I find a great deal more of value in the
>> activities of one segment of the microcosm over the
>> activities of other segments. I think virtually any given
>> essay by Walt Willis is better than all the MCs in 1,000
>> mailings of Apa-L. That there _is_ such a thing as quality,
>> however unegalitarian it may be to say so. It's how I
>> happen to see things.
>>
>First of all, I'm confused over why apazines don't count as
>being "fanzine fandom." I've used mimeo and written fannish
>essays just like a "real" fanzine editor, and I pub my 16-to-
>20 page ish every other month (for 10 straight years this last
>go-round in SFPA, btw).
>
>Second of all, I've read plenty of essays in crudzines that
>were worse than all the mailings of Apa-L put together. Just
>because something's in a fanzine doesn't make it inherently
>good and vice versa: just because something is in a mailing
>comment in Apa-L doesn't mean it's inherently shallow. So I'm
>not sure I understand your point here.
At least you admit being confused. Your confusion here is
the result of taking specific things I said and trying to apply
them as generalities. I didn't say that apazines "don't count
as being fanzine fandom"; I did not and do not claim that all
the essays written in crudzines are superior to all the
mailings of Apa-L put together. You go find someone who holds
those views, Janice, and debate him--I'll be happy to chime in
on your "side".
What I actually said remains perfectly true. Although you
quoted it, for some reason it seems not to have penetrated, so
I take the liberty of requoting it for emphasis here: "I think
virtually any given essay by Walt Willis is better than all the
MCs in 1,000 mailings of Apa-L." This is, I admit shyly, a bit
sweeping of me, as in fact I believe I've only read perhaps 60
or so complete Apa-L mailings; that may not be representative
enough to make such a general statement, particularly as Apa-L
has had more like 2,000 distributions. However, Apa-L is an
Apa more closely tied to a fanclub, LASFS, than it is to
mainstream fanzine fandom, so I'll wait and see if anyone takes
me up on the challenge and cares to quote an MC from an Apa-L
distribution that they think is superior to any given essay
by Walter A. Willis. I don't think I have to worry much.
Since you misperceived what I wrote, I don't know if it's
worthwhile to point out that I don't believe that either cruddy
MCs or crappy essays "don't count" as being part of fanzine
fandom; what I _am_ saying is that neither represents fanzine
fandom at its best. Agreed?
The "ideal" MC is a mini-essay, yes, but there are not a lot of
us who write "ideal" MCs, and I have to include your humble
obed't servant in this indictment. Mind, MCs were *invented*
by fans, but they tend to be written in conversational mode.
This is better than it might be because fandom has its fair
share of good conversationalists. And there is certainly
nothing *wrong* with a good conversation.
But the actual personal essay, which is the backbone of general
fanzine fandom, is something that at least _strives_ to be more
polished than casual conversation--and where it succeeds, by
virtue of being more polished, more precise, more formal, more
focused than conversation, it is superior to conversation.
In making comparisons between what takes places in sf-related
news groups such as this one and what gets written for
fanzines, the greatest similarity is generally shown to be
between apa mailing comments and the kind of exchange that you
and I are engaging in at this very moment as I'm writing (and
you're reading) these remarks. On the net, it's all done much
quicker--not to mention less expensively (avoiding postage
costs pretty much entirely). So before all these net-heads
start thinking themselves and their hobby superior, I would
point out that while I agree with their specific conclusions
about speed and expense, at the same time I don't accept
"mailing comments" as being the best part of fanzine fandom,
and thus hold their conclusion to be specious.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
Avedon Carol
> m...@aspen.arbortext.com (Mark Bernstein) wrote:
> Eminent Usenetter Ulrika O'Brien (Ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
> : John_Da...@cup.portal.com wrote:
> : >> Are there any innovations *within* fanzine fandom? ...
> : >
> : >Sure! A few publishers have actually advanced beyond those
> awful : >unreadable purple mimeo machines! (It's amazing how some
> SF fans : >can be such Luddites...)
>
> : You misspelled "most"...:)
>
> I'm confused. Did he misspell it as "A few" or "some"? :)
Gee, and here I was wondering how "such Luddites" got in there instead of
"so cheap".
FanmailAPH
The one thing most clearly illuminated by this thread is how smart the
Vegrants were not to actually post their con notice here -- seeing as how
such a comparatively harmless thing like a relaxicon prior to the Worldcon
becomes an occasion for major idealogical debate on the insularity and
overall political unreliability of fanzine fandom. Plus, another series of
exchanges in the ongoing personality conflict between rich brown and
Farber, Nielsen Hayden, Goodman, Bridget, Romm, O'Brien, Godzilla, Gamera
group in fandom is gifted with massive Worldcon programming tracks,
newsgroups, slickly-produced magazines and bulletins, elaborate and
indulgent specialty conventions, badges, posters, stickers and t-shirts
and stories on the cover of Time magazine, fanzine fandom's efforts to
define some small corner of the fannish world as their own are always
greeted with such wounded howls of elitism and exclusionsim?
Folks, fanzine fandom has NOTHING. It has no means to make significant
amounts of money, no over-arcing corporate structure to help legitimize
its activities, no sexy and compelling hooks with which to make inroads
into mainstream culture. It's about 500 total people, worldwide, who like
to hang out together and send each other silly little vanity-press
projects. Regardless of what greater political agenda rich brown may wish
to pursue vis-a-vis its position in fandom as a whole, it has no power,
virtually no popular support, and no chance whatever of disenfranchising
apa-hackers, drobes, media-fen, con-runners, book dealers, filk-singers,
or valet parkers from their rightful place in the fannish firmament.
Isn't there some other menace more worth fighting?
Oh, and the person who wrote in decrying fanzine fandom's devotion to
"purple" mimeography was clearly talking about ditto, not mimeo. I'm
surprised this got by everyone.
Yours in Roscoe, A.P. Hooper
FanmailAPH
Hmm. More debate over subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the
thread title.
What we are really discussing here is neatly summarized by the net-speak
term "bandwidth." It seems to me that the superiority of writing in
fanzines, if such a nebulous concept can be defended, derives from it
being neither too general - as is the stuff one finds on-line, for the
most part -- nor too specific, as is most apa-hacking. Essaysts writing
for fanzines have to consider a reasonably wide audience of two to four
hundred, but do not really spend a lot of time worrying about netheads in
Botswana and their impressions of the work. At the same time, unless
they're obsessed with creating inscrutable interlineations as I am, the
fanzine writer is unlikely to make references and comments which will be
of inportance to only one or two fans. And from this "just right"
approach, writing in fanzines seems to have the greatest potential to be
of the most interest to the most people. But of course, it all arises from
the perceptions of the reader, which smart writers know are seldom
"wrong."
Yrs in Roscoe, A.P. Hooper
William Bridget
Here, Godzilla! Me wanna play!
William Bridget
Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>Usenet *is* a culture, fanzine fandom is a separate
>culture. Each happens to associate with a (somewhat)
>different technology. But the two cultures are merely
>partially overlapping in membership, not identical.
Usenet is an "ethnic" group, but rarely produces an artifact. Fanzine
fandom produces artifacts in the form of fanzines, which are limited
edition prints, often of dubious worth but nevertheless valuable because
they were produced in an extremely perishable medium. Persons who
disrespect fanzine fandom may have a hidden agenda involving the
devaluing of the artifacts in order to lower the cost of cornering a
supply of, for example, Townley art.
Andre Bridget
:::UFQ...@prodigy.com (William Bridget) wrote:
>
}<omitted material>
>
>Persons who
>disrespect fanzine fandom may have a hidden agenda involving the
>devaluing of the artifacts in order to lower the cost of cornering a
>supply of, for example, Townley art.
>
Please!
Fanzines have piled up around here and taken over my dinningroom and
Linda's closet. Now you tell us you are collecting art? Dah!
-AJ Bridget UFQ...@prodigy.com
William Bridget
fanma...@aol.com (FanmailAPH) wrote:
>exchanges in the ongoing personality conflict between rich brown and
>Farber, Nielsen Hayden, Goodman, Bridget, Romm, O'Brien, Godzilla,
Gamera>and Mothra, et al.
(Reuters)Manila P.I.---
Round One: Godzilla 1 Bridget 0
Round Two: Godzilla 0 Bridget 0
Round Three: Bridget by TKD
Contest declared a draw. Neither contestant expressed desire for rematch.
Avedon Carol
Chris Croughton <ch...@keris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> It's a geek thing, a computer-nerd thing. Back in the good old
> days of "glass teletypes" the ^H (hold down the 'CTRL' key and press
> 'H') character meant 'backspace' - on a real (paper) teletype that
> just moved the carriage back one, just like on a typewriter, so the
> characters overwrote each other and you got a horrible splodge, on
> the 'glass teletypes' (VDUs) it meant that the character was
> actually replaced so you could see what you were typing. Wow, this
> was wonderful! Well, yes, except that some systems didn't echo back
> the actual character, they replied with a caret and a capital H,
> which didn't look so good.
Gosh, and here I thought it only went as far back as the fact that ^H is
the _overstrike_ command in various line editors and word processors or
related software of the Wordstar and pre-wordstar variety. I still think
just alternating the letters with the slash is neater and easier to deal
with than /s/t/u/p/i/d/ /t/h/i/n/g/s/ /l/i/k/e/ ^H.
Anne B. Nonie Rider
Ulrika O'Brien <Ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
> Without getting into the specifics of the Venn diagrams
> here, surely it is plausible to suppose that fanzine fandom
> and "net fandom" are two partially overlapping groups.
Thank you! A note of sanity at last! However, I'd hate to
interrupt the guys in mid-fight...
--Nonie
Loren J. MacGregor
William Bridget wrote:
>
> p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
> Do you really want to argue that my ideals change because I use
> a different tool? That's what it seems to me you verge on doing.
> I have a wonderful way of settling this: Patrick, you change tools
> and we can see absolutely for ourselves that your ideals will not
> change in the slightest.
Actually, Patrick has changed tools, and as far as I can tell, his ideals
remain unchanged; certainly if there ARE changes, I do not see them as
changes relating to the tools. Same is true (IMHO) of Gary. Same is
true of me. Same is true (AKAIK) of rich brown.
Can I write QED, or shall we continue on in the same vein for a bit?
--
Loren J. MacGregor -- lmac...@greenheart.com
--Technical & Fictional Writing and Editing--
Dr Gafia
In article <romm-14079...@ppp-66-163.dialup.winternet.com>,
Maybe. Or, as Calvin W. "Biff" Demmon was forever quoted as saying,
*Maybe Not*. Can Web Sites be "downloaded" and turned into hard copy?
How much, at $3/hour, would that cost--and do you maintain that this is
cost-effective compared to a traditional fanzine? A crimped stencil can
be straightened out; isn't it a touch more difficult to deal with
scanned-in photographs of fanzine pages that may appear on a given Web
site?
--rich brown
Pam Wells
In article <4semsn$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
fanma...@aol.com "FanmailAPH" writes:
> Hmm. More debate over subjects that have nothing whatsoever to do with the
> thread title.
Yeah, and some of us around here kinda like it that way. Wanna make
something of it? (Oh, you do....)
<big snip>
> But of course, it all arises from
> the perceptions of the reader, which smart writers know are seldom
> "wrong."
Indeed; if only we could all be such smart writers, all of the time.
(Sometimes it's hell, being a perfectionist.)
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk
Gary Farber
William Bridget (UFQ...@prodigy.com) wrote:
<snip>
: And let's not forget the bizaroo Bruce Townley's incredible dittos, for
: today.
At risk of venturing somewhere near reality, "fives of dollars" would be
beaming in somewhere closer. Or, much as I personally like Bruce, absent
some major retrospective articles to call his talents closer to the
awareness of the modern fanzine collector, "ones of dollars."
--
-- Gary Farber gfa...@panix.com
Copyright (c) 1996 Brooklyn, NY, USA
William Bridget
>my ideals change because I use a different tool? That's what it seems
to me
>you verge on doing.
>
I have a wonderful way of settling this: Patrick, you change tools and we
can see absolutely for ourselves that your ideals will not change in the
slightest.
Herman Ellingsen
"David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Snews.960712.07...@keris.demon.co.uk>
> ch...@keris.demon.co.uk "Chris Croughton" writes:
All too modern. We're talking old text-only screens here...
Herman
Dr Gafia
In article <4sb07r$9...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
UFQ...@prodigy.com (William Bridget) writes:
>And let's not forget the bizaroo Bruce Townley's incredible
>dittos, for which a serious collector of fanzines might pay
>hundreds of dollars today.
I don't know that I've previously seen or heard of anyone
paying that much for a Bruce Townley fanzine, but I could
certainly imagine it happening in the case of Bill Pearson and
Dan Adkin's SATA and SATA ILLUSTRATED, or the issues of TWIG
ILLUSTRATED on which Adkins was listed as art editor. It would
depend, I suppose, on how well the ditto stood up over 35-40
years. I recall two-page spreads in five or more colors,
including a few pastels. Alas, I believe masters are only made
in purple, black and red these days.
--rich brown a.k.a. DrGafia
David E Romm
> In article <romm-14079...@ppp-66-163.dialup.winternet.com>,
> ro...@winternet.com (David E Romm) writes:
> >Oh, so you're REALLY in favor of Web Sites, then, where all that layout
> is
> >determined for you. Or RTF or Acrobat formats, that let your Desktop
> >Publishing shine through. Much better than mimeo or ditto, where each
> >page may be different since registration is a problem.
>
> Maybe. Or, as Calvin W. "Biff" Demmon was forever quoted as saying,
> *Maybe Not*. Can Web Sites be "downloaded" and turned into hard copy?
Yes.
> How much, at $3/hour, would that cost--and do you maintain that this is
> cost-effective compared to a traditional fanzine?
I didn't say it was cost effective... it's TIME effective. While it's
probably just as cheap as typing, printing, and mailing a zine, the main
thing it saves is time and distribution. I can create a web page, upload
it to my server, and have thousands (if not millions) of fans download it
withing minutes of publication. I can get e-mail locs before you could
walk to the post office.
Further, if the cat shreds the print-out, you can simply run off another.
> A crimped stencil can
> be straightened out; isn't it a touch more difficult to deal with
> scanned-in photographs of fanzine pages that may appear on a given Web
> site?
As we both agree, fanzines and web pages are separate yet equal. I have
no desire to scan in photos of fanzine pages. On the other hand, I have
no desire to put web pages on Twiltone.
Where we differ is how fannish is the use to which fans put the new
telecommuncations media. The shift from ditto to mimeo was a big one;
from photocopying to virtual zines may be a biffer one. But they are all
part of how sf fans have adapted technology to their needs. I see a
continuous and continual thread from carbon paper to web sites; you think
electrostencils are unfannish.
You're a bit behind the times, and were before the internet came around.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
"Wisdom is to be crazy when circumstances warrant it."
-- Jean Cocteau
Gary Farber
FanmailAPH (fanma...@aol.com) wrote:
<snip>
: I find myself wondering why, when every other interest
: group in fandom is gifted with massive Worldcon programming tracks,
: newsgroups, slickly-produced magazines and bulletins, elaborate and
: indulgent specialty conventions, badges, posters, stickers and t-shirts
: and stories on the cover of Time magazine, fanzine fandom's efforts to
: define some small corner of the fannish world as their own are always
: greeted with such wounded howls of elitism and exclusionsim?
Andy, what on earth are you blithering on about? This seems to be a
piece of boilerplate utterly unrelated to the discussion. What are you
responding to?
: Folks, fanzine fandom has NOTHING. It has no means to make significant
: amounts of money, no over-arcing corporate structure to help legitimize
: its activities, no sexy and compelling hooks with which to make inroads
: into mainstream culture. It's about 500 total people, worldwide, who like
: to hang out together and send each other silly little vanity-press
: projects. Regardless of what greater political agenda rich brown may wish
: to pursue vis-a-vis its position in fandom as a whole, it has no power,
: virtually no popular support, and no chance whatever of disenfranchising
: apa-hackers, drobes, media-fen, con-runners, book dealers, filk-singers,
: or valet parkers from their rightful place in the fannish firmament.
: Isn't there some other menace more worth fighting?
Who is fighting a menace? What are you responding to, and what are you
talking about?
: Oh, and the person who wrote in decrying fanzine fandom's devotion to
: "purple" mimeography was clearly talking about ditto, not mimeo. I'm
: surprised this got by everyone.
Andy, if we corrected every error in a Bridget post, we'd all follow-up
each of their posts, and matters would be considerably worse.
David E Romm
> William Bridget (UFQ...@prodigy.com) wrote:
> <snip>
> : And let's not forget the bizaroo Bruce Townley's incredible dittos, for
> : which a serious collector of fanzines might pays hundreds of dollars
> : today.
>
> At risk of venturing somewhere near reality, "fives of dollars" would be
> beaming in somewhere closer. Or, much as I personally like Bruce, absent
> some major retrospective articles to call his talents closer to the
> awareness of the modern fanzine collector, "ones of dollars."
If I recall correctly (and I may not), I've had three pieces of art
published in fanzines, and two of them were in Bruce Townley's zines. For
which a serious collector of fanzines might pay quarters of dollars.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact
http://www.winternet.com/~romm
The other was in Gery Sullivan's "Dare To Be Stupid"
William Bridget
>What's wrong with "computer screen"?
Nothing wrong with computer screen. We are controlling horizontal. We
are controlling vertical. We are controlling your ATM card, Loren.
Pam Wells
In article <4shcim$k...@panix2.panix.com> gfa...@panix.com "Gary Farber" writes:
> FanmailAPH (fanma...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> : Oh, and the person who wrote in decrying fanzine fandom's devotion to
> : "purple" mimeography was clearly talking about ditto, not mimeo. I'm
> : surprised this got by everyone.
Good job you set us all straight, then, Andy!
> Andy, if we corrected every error in a Bridget post, we'd all follow-up
> each of their posts, and matters would be considerably worse.
Point of order: this error was not in a Bridget post. I believe the poster
in question was John David Galt.
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk
Elspeth Kovar Burgess
> : Oh, and the person who wrote in decrying fanzine fandom's devotion to
> : "purple" mimeography was clearly talking about ditto, not mimeo. I'm
> : surprised this got by everyone.
> Andy, if we corrected every error in a Bridget post, we'd all follow-up
> each of their posts, and matters would be considerably worse.
Just to clear this up.
I said something about people being scorned because they *didn't* have
purple fingers. The choice of color came from a recollection of the
ditto machines in grade school or junior high, no doubt. Andre corrected
my misapprehension quickly, so it was unnecessary for anyone else to do
so.
It may be worth noting that I said *nothing* about "fanzine fandom's
devotion to "purple" mimeography".
Elspeth
Andre Bridget
:::"Loren J. MacGregor" <churn...@metacentre.com> wrote:
>
}<W.G. babble snipped>
>
>Can I write QED, or shall we continue on in the same vein for a bit?
>
QED.
I don't think changing forums really changes ideas or ideals. I find
that on the Usenet it just looks neater and more uniform.
-AJ Bridget UFQ...@prodigy.com
P Nielsen Hayden
Dr Gafia (drg...@aol.com) wrote:
: Can Web Sites be "downloaded" and turned into hard copy?
: How much, at $3/hour, would that cost--and do you maintain that this is
: cost-effective compared to a traditional fanzine?
Who on earth pays $3/hour to access Web sites?
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@tor.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Pam Wells
In article <31ec7cae...@news.demon.co.uk>
mi...@moose.demon.co.uk "Mike Scott" writes:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 96 01:52:24 GMT, Pam Wells
> <Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Point of order: this error was not in a Bridget post. I believe the poster
> >in question was John David Galt.
>
> Point of information: that's not a point of order, it's a point of
> informaion.
Damn, with people like you around, I'll *never* get to pass my Pedantry
exam! (But at least I can spell 'information' correctly twice in one post,
she claims, weakly.) (Information. That was the second. See, I can count,
too.) Wibble.
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk
Ben Yalow
In <4sjb82$g...@panix3.panix.com> se...@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <31ec7cae...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Mike Scott <mi...@moose.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Wed, 17 Jul 96 01:52:24 GMT, Pam Wells
>><Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Point of order: this error was not in a Bridget post. I believe the poster
>>>in question was John David Galt.
>>
>>Point of information: that's not a point of order, it's a point of
>>informaion.
>Point of order: there's no such thing as a point of information in
>Roberts.
Parliamentary Inquiry: I would like to ask the chair if, in fact, the
description of "point of Information" in RRONR, Section 32, Pg 285 ("A
point of information is a request directed to the chair, or through the
chair to another officer or member, for information relevant to the
business at hand but not related to parliamentary procedure.") is a
correct description of the term "point of information" as used in this
newsgroup. In short, is it a request for information, not an attempt to
make a statement, or does it allow statements that impart information to
be made?
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody