Grand Balloon

Zine
Title:	Grand Balloon
Publisher:	Lois Newman
Editor(s):	Craig Miller
Date(s):	1973
Frequency:	once
Medium:	print
Fandom:	science fiction, satire
External Links:	Grand Balloon at Fanac.org (pages 6-8 omitted)
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Front cover art by Bjo Trimble

Grand Balloon is a satirical version of the science fiction zine Granfalloon, following an editorial published in Granfalloon Issue #17. Linda Bushyager, the editor of Granfalloon, had decried the increasing commercialisation of Worldcon and the potential for financial mismanagement. In response to perceived slights against John and Bjo Trimble, who had run the Worldcon art show most recently at LA Con, Lois Newman and Craig Miller produced the 8-page zine.

Table of Contents

The Prompting Editorial

In her editorial "Call of the Klutz" in Issue #17, Linda Bushyager expressed concern about what she saw as the increasing commercialisation of fandom:

COMMERCIALISM IN SCIENCE FICTION FANDOM

I've noticed a depressing, increasing trend toward commercialism in fandom — everything from Dick Geis saying he wants to live off the profit from his fanzine, THE ALIEN CRITIC, to Harlan Ellison demanding that pros be paid for appearances at conventions.
Perhaps I find commercialism in fandom so depressing because I am too idealistic. I see fandom as a wonderful group of people joined in a common interest, not as a bunch of separate cliques bickering for control. I see conventions as gatherings sponsored by a local club to provide entertainment, information, education, and socializing for the benefit of the attendees, not as fund-raising promotions for the benefit of the sponsoring group and/or committee chairman. I see fanzines as periodicals designed to further communication between separate fans, not as vehicles for ego-tripping soul-bearers who want fame and/or profit. But perhaps I'm in the minority.

THE WORLDCON

To me, the Worldcon is the culmination of what fandom is about. It should be a time for renewing aquaintances [sic] with old friends and making new ones. It is a lot of interesting panels which give me information and insight regarding the SF I love to read. It is old SF movies to enjoy. And of course, it is the Hugos, which should be meaningful awards presented to fans and pros for the year's best work, voted on by knowledgeable fans and pros.

To me, the people sponsoring the convention should be doing so because they love fandom; they feel they can put on a convention which will be better than anyone else; they want to honor certain well-known fans and pros by choosing guests of honor; they want to give something to the attendees. Ideally, a con committee should present any con (including the Worldcon) to fandom as a gift. Practically, a small membership fee is required to defray expenses. The people who sponsor the convention should be volunteering their time, effort, and sometimes money for unselfish reasons.

The Worldcon should not be put on for the benefit of the con committee and the sponsoring club's treasury.

But is this the way Worldcons are run? No recent Worldcon has printed a proceeding or financial statement. Rumors abound that several conventions made HUGE profits which may or may not have ended up lining someone's pockets. No one seems to know. But I do know that when no financial statement is printed, and when no rules are laid out in the Worldcon rules regarding financial matters, it is possible that someone could divert funds into his own pocket.

It is a question of ethics. I feel that Worldcon committee members should be reimbursed for all legitimate expenses prior to and during the convention, and possibly to a portion of bidding expenses. But I also feel that the remaining profits should be passed on to the succeeding convention or to legitimate fan charities.

L.A.con gave money to three "fan charities" — The Trans-Atlantic Fan Fund (TAFF), the Institute for Specialized Literature, Inc., and the Building Fund of the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc. I agree that TAFF is a very fine fan charity. However, Elliott Shorter said that no money has yet been received. Giving LASFS itself undisclosed amounts of money seems ethically questionable. And does anyone know what the Institute for Specialized Literature even is? I don't — no one I know does. If you do, please tell me. And no one is [sic] LASFS has spread the information. Is a charity few people in fandom have heard about a legitimate fan charity?

To me, L.A.'s refusal to pass on money to Torcon is not legitimate. It gave the money to the Worldcon emergency fund instead. How much money, no one knows, save the L.A.- con committee members and possibly the emergency fund treasurer, Joe Hensley, if he has received the money. The emergency fund already had several hundred dollars in it, and has not been used since its initiation following St. Louiscon. I wonder how much future use will be made of the money. On the other hand, Torcon definitely could have used the money to pay for expenses incurred prior to the actual convention. The money could also have been used to reduce Torcon membership fees or to provide special services at Torcon — such as a big, free party for members on Saturday night. But since the emergency fund has never been used, giving it additional funds is of questionable value.

Should extra money from a Worldcon be passed on to anyone except to convention goers? And whether or not that money is given back to the fans in some form, and whether the Worldcon is really making a profit or not, shouldn't all money be accounted for?

I think so. But so far fandom has had remarkable apathy regarding this question. Probably this was because up until the last few years Worldcons made very little, if any, profit. But now that Worldcons have about 2000 attendees, tens of thousands of dollars pass through the con committee's hands, and there is a great potential for large profits, losses, and mismanagement of funds. There are lots of expenses involved, such as the program book, the GoHs rooms and possibly meals and airfare, the Hugos, special equipment such as the runway for the masquerade ball, guards, film rental, unionized film projectionists, nametags, and so on. I could believe that Worldcons don't make much profit. But rather than know this on faith, I'd prefer receiving a financial report. And I'd also like to make sure that if a con lost money, no committee members would have to foot the bill; also, if the con made money, no committee members would line their own pockets.

I would like to propose the following rule at TORCON:

Within six months following a World convention, the convention committee shall publish a full financial statement showing itemized expenditures, income, and distribution of any profits. Any operating losses shall be paid for by donations from all attending members of the convention. Any profit shall be passed on to the succeeding convention for use as operating money until the convention and shall then be applied to a reduction of membership fees. ”

This proposal might also include something along the lines that "Up to 50% of the profit over $500 may be given to generally recognized, fan charities such as TAFF or DUFF." Please let me know if you feel that such a rule would be a good idea and if you have any ideas for its wording or content. I believe that whether a convention makes a profit or not, it should be accountable to its supporters.

What I am getting to is the basic concept of conventions. Perhaps conventions really are put on for the benefit of the sponsoring group. Several regionals consistently make profits of over $500/con. The committee plans functions to keep the congoer happy, but the committee's basic aim is to make money. I feel this goes against the basic spirit of fannishness. Conventions should try to break even. Their basic aim should be to provide the best con possible for the congoer. If a con makes a profit of around $100, that’s fine. If it makes more, it should use that extra money for the benefit of the con attendees. A consistently large profit should show the con committee that it is charging excessive fees; the fees could then be lowered.

But maybe that’s only my idea of how a con should be. Maybe the majority of the con attendees disagree with me. If the con attendees feel it is all right that a convention makes a profit while they pay high membership fees and have no free parties, that's fine. But if the attendees assume that the con committee is putting on the convention for that attendees' benefit and that no large profit is being made, and if con attendees object to large profits being retained or wasted by the sponsoring group, isn’t something wrong?

In other words, if LASFS sponsors the Worldcon and almost all the profits go to the LASFS building fund and the attendees don’t care, that’s fine. But if the reason they don’t care is that they don’t know about it, something should be changed.

If conventions are going to be run like businesses, with the profits going to the con committee, this could be a good way to run conventions. Several new conventions have sprung up which seem to be sponsored by individuals or select groups with the aim of making money. There is nothing wrong with this, provided that everyone knows this is how the con is being run.

But is it fair for some people to volunteer their services as auctioneers or helpers when other people receive the profits if any? If a convention is to be run like a business, then everyone should be paid in a business-like manner.

THE WORLDCON ART SHOW

The International Science Fantasy Art Exhibition is held every year in conjunction with the Worldcon. Did you know that whenever it is run by Bjo and John Trimble, they are in complete charge of the show and receive all profits? They also take any loss. The Worldcon committee gives them the hotel room, free, as a service to the convention. The Trimbles pay for all those guards, hangings, and other equipment. The commission (15% of the selling price) of any artwork which is sold and the artists' hanging fees (25c per piece of work for all divisions plus a general registration fee of $2.00 per artist (no fee for juniors)) go to the Trimbles. NONE OF THE MONEY GOES TO THE WORLDCON.

I talked with Torcon committee chairman, John Millard, and he said the Trimbles will be running the artshow at Torcon under this arrangement, as a service to the convention. DISCON chairman Jay Haldeman said that the DISCON artshow in 1974 will be run by the Worldcon committee, so that any profits will go to the Worldcon.

Now in principle, there is nothing wrong with this. Probably several years ago the Trimbles lost money with this arrangement. But at a convention like L.A.CON, where several hundred paintings were sold (I'd guess over 10,000 worth), the Trimbles could make a sizeable profit. Naturally those guards cost money, and shipping the paintings and hangings to a con could cost a bit. Bjo also spends a lot of time and postage corresponding with prospective artists. And, of course, the Trimbles put in a lot of time and effort and do an excellent job.

But I do object that VERY FEW PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS ARRANGEMENT. The specific finances involved are not mentioned in the Worldcon Progress Reports, Program Book, or literature distributed by Bjo. For the most part, everyone naturally assumes that the Worldcon receives the profit, if any.

When I heard about this arrangement at L.A.CON, I asked several artists if they knew about it. None had been informed before the convention, several had heard about it during the convention, secondhand. Since the artists pay a fee for hanging each piece of art (whether it sells or not), a registration fee, and a 15% commission, and since this money, minus expenses, goes to the Trimbles, IT MIGHT BE NICE IF THEY WERE TOLD ABOUT IT!

Furthermore, auctioneers like Jack Chalker and Tony Lewis donate their time to auction off the art. Many other people help out at the information area of the artshow and at the final auction. These people also help set up the show. All these people donate their time. Yet the Trimbles receive the profits, if any.

If the Trimbles want to run the artshow as a business, and if the Worldcon committee which is swamped with work wants to let them run it, fine. But wouldn't it be more equitable if all the people involved were paid something, even just a token amount? If they want to donate their time, ok, but they should be informed that the Trimbles receive the loss or profit. No matter what the financial arrangement is, shouldn't everyone at the convention, especially the artists who are most affected, be told about it? No one should hear about it by hearsay.

"Call of the Kltuz" by Linda Bushyager - Granfalloon Issue #17

Grand Balloon

Grand Balloon 18 was published in response to this editorial in 1973, between May and December.

GRAND BALLOON18 (The i*d*e*a*l*i*s*t*i*c pop fanzine) is being brought to you by Belinda Bushwacker PO BOX 24560 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024. 491/2c per issue (but we're so I*D*E*A*L*I*S*T*I*C that we're giving it away, free!!)

FOREIGN AGENTS: SCOTLAND: Bonnie P. Charlie, 10347 Castle Rd.,

Edinburgh, Scotland. IRELAND: Molly Malone, Wyddenarrow Street, Dublin, Ireland. FRANCE: Nappy Bonaparte, 1 Versailles Court, Paris, France. ARGENTINA: Marty Borrma-n, 45 Taco de Moani, Endrun, Argentina.

Table of Contents/Publishing Details

Contents:

• COMMERCIALISM IN 0Z FANDOM.........BJO TRIMBLE inspiration by Binda Rushwacker

Perhaps I find commercialism in fandom so depressing because I am completely I*D*E*A*L*I*S*T*I*C. I see OZ fandom as a wonderful group of flaming whackos joined in the common interest of quibbling about whose art was better: John R. Neill or W.W, Denslow, or arguing about the make-up of the Deadly Desert , not as a bunch of Power-Mad cliques bickering for control of the OZ Con! I see OZ Cons as gatherings sponsored by a sweet local club, to provide entertainment, information, education and socializing as a benefit—for FREE—for the attendees, not as fund-raising money-grabbers for the benefit of the people who have worked their ass off for over a year to put on something to provide entertainment, information, etc., for a bunch of bitching, ungrateful fans!

THE OZCON : . To me, the OZCon is the acme of what fandom is all about. It should be a time of cavorting around in Scarecrow hats and red sequin shoes. It is a lot of long, dull panels on the villianous aspects of Mombi's cat; It is scratched old OZ films to ehjoy. And, of course, it is the prizes, handed out by Lois to only her personal friends, which makes them meaningful to only a handful of fans!

The OZCon should NOT be put on for the benefit of the OZCon and Lois Newman!

But is this the way OZCons are run? No recent OZCon—in fact NO OZCon— has printed a financial statement! Aha! Rumors abound (at least, they will as soon as I start them!) that several OZCons made HUGE profits which may or may not—but most certainly did—end up lining Lois Newman's pockets! No one seems to know for sure, but we can work it out empirically for we didn't get any of the money (and God knows,, vvetried!) and you didn't get any of the money, so it has to have gone into Lois's pockets, right? Of course! There are no rules laid out in the OZCon rules regarding financial matters, so it is possible that Lois could divert all the funds into her own pocket.

It is a question of ethics. I grudgingly feel that Lois should be reimbursed for all legitimate expenses prior.to and during the OZCon, and possibly to a portion of the bidding expenses—the small fact that the OZCon has no bidding expenses probably gives Lois another reason to line her pockets! But I also feel that the remaining profits should be passed on to the succeeding OZCons— or to legitimate fan Charities. (For instance, the Brenda Bushwacker Charity Fund for Failing Fanzines, or the Society to Buy Brenda Bushwacker a Hugo, of the Welcommittee Fund to Buy Brenda Bushwacker a Drink at Fan Meetings, or the Brenda Bushwacker.Convention Fund to Rescue Indigent Fanzine Editors With the Initials BB..there are many more!).

OZCon gave money to three "fan charities" — TBOF (The Trans-Bakersfield OZfan Fund), the institute to Collect Baum Books, and the Building Fund of the Los Angeles OZ Society, Inc. I agree that TBOF is a very fine fan charity— especially since I am planning to run for it myself next year—however, Phred Dumpah has NOT received the money yet, and he says that last year he set himself up as executor of TBOF. Giving LAOS itself undisclosed- amounts of money- seems -ethically questionable who else will be using that building except LOIS NEWMAN? Who else in Los Angeles is an OZ fan? Nobody else has ever told me about it, and by damn, I'm an actifan and if I_don't know about something in this world, then it. doesn't exist! And does anyone know what the Institute to Collect Baum Books is? I don't. No one I know does. (Of course, no one I know reads, but that is besides the point, in any case; we aren't being bothered by facts, here!) Is a charity few people in OZdom have heard about a legitimate fan charity? I seriously doubt it, especially since none of that money has come my way!

"Commercialism in OZ Fandom" by Bjo Trimble

• OZCON FINANCIAL REPORT............. LOIS NEWMAN with an aid from Ozma

OZ CON FINANCIAL REPORT

(Complete July 23, 1973; Oz Con took place from August 10-12, 1973) INCOME 1. Memberships $4,308.17 2. Program Book Advertising ' 896.43 3. Sales Room Tables 31.42 4. Auction 108.83

EXPENDITURES 1. Payment to Sandy Redcap for procuring Program Book Ads $895.07 2. Yellow Brick Paint (for sprucing up the Yellow Brick Road) 3*. 62.82 3. Straw (for stuffing the Scarecrow) 41.01 4. House Moving (for removing Dorothy's house from Witch) 403.83 5. Steel Wool (for shining up Tin Woodman) .22 6. Dog food (for Toto) 1.56 7. Thread (for sewing new patches on Patchwork Girl) .25 8. Emerald polish (Dept, of Sanitation Requisition #78349-5) 21.00 9. Machine oil (for Tik Tok) 82.00 10. Printing (programs, letterheads), etc., etc. 5,245.83 11. Birthday Cake (to celebrate ylM Ozma's birthday) 8.00 12. Miscellaneous (Bidding expenses, straight pins, etc.) 512.19

Actually we were saved any expense by Ozma. She liked her birthday celebration so much she waved her magic wand and all expenses were automatically paid. This means, of course, someone got away with the $34.21 profit and is probably using it in riotous living; any guess who it is? Mark an X by your choice.

Binda Bushwacker Sandy Redcap Lois Newman The Art Show

The Wizard of Oz

OZCON FINANCIAL REPORT by Louis Newman (with help from Ozma)

• THE PROFITEER'S PROGRESS..........MILT STEVENS as published in the Gall St. Journal

Everyone knows of the profit potential of inventing a better mousetrap, but many people forget that you can have the same effect from a radical increase in the number of mice. It is this latter possibility which has made the science fiction convention field look like an El Dorado from growth fans. While other service industries have been languishing, SF conventions have been attracting more mice than anything since the Pied Piper of Hamlin joined the union.

At the top of this hard charing field, LACon has made a name for itself as the industry leader. Analysts for Merrill, Lunch, White, Rushyager, and Porter have nothing but Bullish consents to make regarding LACon's profit picture. They point out that LACon's go-go management team racked-up unheard of profits in the third quarter of 1972.

In a recent interview, LACon chairman B. Edward Pelz stressed the need for imaginative marketing ideas to ensure continuing success. As an example of the type of thinking which was necessary, Pelz listed some of the innovations-which had created LACon'a success in 1972:

Sale of protection against not being introduced as a notable at the opening session. $ 5.000

Admission, to closed-door "Avoid the Authors" party 1,800

Sale of prophylactics to neofans for use as water balloons. 500.35

Sale of water balloons to swingers for use as prophylactics 2,500

Sale of peanut butter 750.59

Sale of young femme fans to white slavers 8,000.10

Profits frcm "Meet A White Slaver" dating service 16.000

Sale of film rights to the wife swapping party on the sixth floor 100,000

Sleeping bag rentals 1.500

Sale of Zig-Zag paper 725

Sale of mimeograph paper 25

Sale of toilet paper 7,200

Sale of protection against meeting Ted White 7,500

Payment for tapes of what authors in the SFWA Suite had to say about editors 10,000

"THE PROFITEER'S PROGRESS" by Hilton F. Stevens

• IDEALISM IN FANDOM............... B. EDWARD PELZ from the idealist's idealist
• DEBTORS OF COMMENT............... ...THE READERS my public, fandom at large

• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
  • EDITOR IN CHEESE CRAIG MILLER
  • PUBLISTER LOIS NEWMAN
  • OVERT ART BJO TRIMBLE
  • WROTING
    • MILT STEVENS
    • BRUCE PELZ
    • BJO TRIMBLE
    • LOIS NEWMAN
    • CRAIG MILLER
    • SANDY REDCAP
    • "RED" TREIT
    • OZMA
    • NORMAN, A FARMER
    • ARCHIE, A COCKROACH
    • CHAIRMAN MING
    • VULTUPELLA
  • INSPITARATION
    • YAHWEH, MEHITABLE, A CAT, HELEN OF TROY , GODZILLA , BAMBI , K-2 , LEO, MERRILL LYNCH; PIEFFENNER SMITH; BILLINGS, MONTANA; BONDAR BUSHWACKER; DAVID GERROLD; HARLAN ELLISON; TED WHITE; CHARLES ADDAMS; A JUG OF PUNCH; SHEL SILVERSTEIN; OLD KING COLE; JOANNA MCCOY; AND ALL THE REST OF YOU.

Responses and Reactions

The Trimbles also responded to Linda in the letter column of Granfalloon #18:

Frankly, a little research, and a few letters, would have saved you a number of pages in your fanzine. With regard to the Art Show, for instance: the show lost a great deal of money for more than half of the 14 years that it has existed. After the large losses stopped, it began to just barely pay for all the pre- and post con expenses. VERY recently, it has got to the point that it pays all of our expenses. Those expenses include such things as buying all of our helpers judges, etc. meals in return for their help (buying Jack Chalker all the beer he wants, which is the pay he's asked for auctioning for us), standing the freight for the art which is "bought," for which we pay the artists, and for which we are never paid, and like that.

Most of the artists who continue to exhibit in the Art Shows seem to feel that any money we may get is worth it for their not having to babysit their art, go through the hassle of running their own display, etc. We've never made any secret of the workings of the art show, financially or otherwise. Used to publish a financial report too, but there was so little feedback that we stopped (and got less feedback from that). I can see, tho, if we're going to have a lot of crap from the carping set, that we'd better go back to it...to keep the twerps off our backs. Tho, if anyone has the courtesy to ask us about the show set-up, we'd be happy (and always have) to fill them in.

It's more than a little ironic that your fanzine arrived in the same mail with LACON's Final Report, with a financial report. Frankly, if they'd skimmed off all the loot you seem to think they did, you'd think that they'd have given more than a measly $50 to their own local fan club, wouldn't you?

...

Really, try doing a little research, maybe a little back beyond when you came into

fandom, to find out some FACTS before you shoot your mouth/typer off next time, huh?

"Omphallopsychite" - John and Bjo Trimble - Granfalloon Issue #17

In her next editorial (Granfalloon Issue #18), Linda commented on Grand Balloon:

Evidently John and Bjo Trimble and several others took my article to mean that I thought they were doing a bad job with the art show and were raking in huge profits. I'm sorry they had that impression. What I was trying to say, and what many others did understand, is that I think the art show is excellent and the Trimbles do an excellent job. They spend plenty of time and effort to make it the success it is. What I was concerned about is that many people, including some artists, don't realize that the Trimbles do receive the profits, if any (and I did mention they probably lost money for several years). This has been confirmed by the fact that the Philadelphia in '77 committee evidently learned of the arrangement only through my article, and many other long time fans, including Lester del Rey, were as surprised as I initially was. My worry is that the art show has the potential to earn large profits. I'm sure the Trimbles lost money at Torcon, which was a small show encountering difficulties with customs and so on. I'm equally sure they could make a lot of money at the next huge U.S.-held Worldcon. It's fine with me, and it's fine with many of the artists too. After all, the Trimbles have lost money in previous years, and they do an enormous amount of work. But I still feel that people should know what is going on. If everyone knows the facts and then approves, great. My major concern was that many fans (especially fans who’ve only been in fandom for 5 years or less) did not know. Fandom is so huge now one cannot depend on "common knowledge" for communication.

...

It seems to me that two things hamper communication. First, people tend to hear what they want to hear; they listen with only one ear and then open their mouths as loudly as possible to protest. I've been guilty of this on more than one occasion. And several people read my editorial last issue and ignored some of the qualifying statements (like profits, if any). And no doubt several more people will misread what I'm saying here. Secondly, if someone doesn't agree with what's being said, he'll tend to get mad. And in anger say things he may later regret, or make rash statements which further confuse the issue instead of trying to see things logically and objectively and present facts which clear up the issue. An example of this is GRAND BALLOON which some of you may have seen. Obviously some people got mad at my editorial and decided to strike back. But instead of explaining what really had happened at L.A.Con and so on, they chose to fight back with a funny, but sometimes nasty, satire. The satire served to focus their anger, but did nothing to clear up the basic issues my editorial tried to bring out. (GRAND BALLOON may be available from chief perpetrator Lois Newman or Bjo Trimble. The address is listed at Binda Bushwacker, PO Box 24560 Los Angeles, Calif. 90024. I'm not sure if this is Lois's real address or not)

Certainly my editorial left plenty of room for disagreement. In fact, I was very much hoping to receive some good replies from chairmen of past Worldcons (and regionals) explaining why they feel and do as thev do. Lois Newman, for example, gave me a quite convincing argument at Torcon for paying con committee members a salary based on the number of hours they worked; she also explained the discrepancies in the financial report to my satisfaction. Yet instead of writing me a nice, publishable letter explaining this to everybody, she chose satire to present her points. And satire is really a pretty poor method of communication because it can have several interpretations. The only really good replies to my editorial were by Tony Lewis (who disagreed and agreed with some points) and Lester del Rey (who eloquently presents the case for not paying the pros). These appear later in the issue. Unfortunately, the people I criticized the most got mad and wrote angry, uninformative replies, or didn’t bother to write.

I'm sorry to have gotten people mad, but at least it has opened some lines of communication and has gotten people talking about the problem. As I tried to get accross [sic] in last issue’s editorial, I don't believe there have been any gross improprieties in convention running in the past, put [sic] there is the potential in the future. Especially as our Worldcon hits the 3000 attendees mark and as regionals become as large as the Worldcons once were. In fandom as in the mundane, world, where there is the potential for large profits and large sums of money there is also the potential for commercialism at its ugliest and possibly even misuse of funds. Certainly we've already seen some mismangement of money. And I think this is an important question fans must consider now, while we are still in control of the situation. We are at a crossroads where we must consider what we want out of conventions, fanzines, and fandom in general. And we must consider what we are willing to give up money-wise and time-wise and effort-wise for it.

At Torcon it was decided to give my motion requiring that Worldcons publish a financial report to a special committee to investigate changes in the Worldcon rules in general... If you have any suggestions for changes in the Worldcon rules, simplification of rules, or any interest in being on a mailing list of the WSFS Constitution Committee, write to ken Smookler at [address redacted]. I'm not sure how much, if any, we will be able to accomplish consulting by mail, but we can try.

By the way, GRAND BALLOON accuses me of the heinous sin of I*D*E*A*L*I*S*M. I can't think of anything I'd rather plead guilty to.

"Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager, Granfalloon Issue 18

To which John Trimble responded:

You have apparently missed the point of my letter (which was printed in Gfl8); namely, that a little research, and contacting the persons involved directly, would have given you a more informed (and hopefully more balanced) point of view from which to write. Such "legwork" might have saved you from making the implied criticisms unjustly made in Gfl7. Unfortunately, by this time it is too late; many of your readers will have formed their opinions, will be reinforced by opinions like that expressed by Lester del Rey (who says he thinks that the Art Show arrangement "stinks" — I've written him about that), and few of them will bother to re-think their conclusions in light of the qualifying material in Gfl8. Instead, your ill-informed damning in the last issues will be combined with Lester's outrage in thish, and the Trimbles will lose what reputation they had left.

I think that timing had/has a large part to do with the flack you've received from the LACon people, and—possibly—with our reaction(s) to what you said about the Art Show. The LACon was already coming under heavy (and largely unjustified) fire from the professional rumor-monger/carping faction—Andy Porter—and the Art Show was in the midst of the NESFA/Davis thing, when you sound off! To people under attack, even the mildest form of criticism is going to appear to be further fuel heaped on the fire. Especially when it is such ill-informed criticism. We were all hurt by it; the Trimbles and the various and sundry fans in the LA area who had anything to do with LACon. You helped Andy Porter to ruin any fun these people could have had in putting on the 3rd L.A. Worldcon. It’s no wonder that a biting satire like GRANDBALLOON resulted.

I’m sorry that you viewed our letter in reply to Gfl7 as an uninformative reply; we tried to present at least some of our point of view. Timing and communication are problems. Both would be helped by contacting people before going into print. Not to mention cutting down on the amount of pages devoted to the mess...which helps the paper shortage. I've enclosed a copy of our letter to Lester del Rey which may explain a little more of our point of view.

[From the tetter to Lester del Rey:] Out of whatever the Art Shows take in from entry fees, commissions, etc. (there's very little etc.), we pay all of the expenses of the show: replacement of worn-out portions of the hangings, shipping charges (as at Torcon 2, over $250), fees for the guards the con supplies, any room rental which may be charged to the con, plus the expenses set forth in my letter in Gfl8. The net "profit", after all of this, is barely enough to pay for our con expenses. By that, I mean our expenses at the con, not our way to and from. Perhaps even this is too much to us, but without it, we couldn't afford the frequent attendance at Worldcons which running the Art Show demands. We can't charge off our expenses on our income taxes, as professionals can, and running the Art Shows doesn't give us any leeway for running a huckster table, by which many other fans who also attend most Worldcons are able to pay their expenses.

[I agree, I should have written you and found out for sure what the arrangement was and if you made profits. However, my editorial was actually very correct. If you’ll reread it, calmly, you’ll see I did specify that you have to pay all of the costs and take any loss for the Art Show. I mentioned past losses you probably made, the work it takes, and the excellent job you do. My main two points were that with the increased size of the Worldcon, there is a potential for increasing profits, and that very few people knew about the arrangements. In your letters, you really haven’t contridicted [sic] anything I said. I said: "The Trimbles could, make a sizeable profit. " Could is not the same as do, but rather implies, in tine context of the article, that with increasing size of the con, and higher prices of artwork, the artshow increases in income might lead to increased profits. My point was that people should know about the arrangement, and I still maintain that many people didn't, including artists. All the hard work and money you've spent in the past certainly entitles you to some decent artshow profits now, but people ought to know where their money is going, and not think that the profits go to the Worldcon itself. Although you published financial reports in the past, that did not mean that people knew what was going on now - fandom has a pretty big turnover, and is also increasing in size. Thus, most fans who have been active in fandom 5 years or less, did not know.-LeB)]

"Omphallopsychite" - John Trimble - Granfalloon Issue #19, editor's notes in [ ]

Further Reading

• "Omphallopsychite" letter column - Granfalloon - Issues 17, 18, 19 and 20
• "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager - Granfalloon - Issue 18
• "As I See it" by Tony Lewis - Granfalloon - Issue 18