Granfalloon

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Zine
Title: Granfalloon
Publisher: Linda Bushyager
Editor(s): Linda Bushyager and Suzanne Tompkins (1-6); Linda Bushyager and Ron Bushyager (7-20).
Date(s): 1968-1976
Series?: No
Medium: print
Size:
Genre: fiction and non-fiction
Fandom: science fiction fandom
Language: English
External Links: Fancyclopedia 3, Wikipedia
pdf copies available at Fanac.org
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Granfalloon is a science fiction zine that ran twenty issues. At least one issue contains Star Trek: TOS material.

Possible origin of this zine's title: "A granfalloon, in the fictional religion of Bokononism (created by Kurt Vonnegut in his 1963 novel Cat's Cradle), is defined as a "false karass." That is, it is a group of people who outwardly choose or claim to have a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless."Wikipedia.

The zine was published by Linda Bushyager under her maiden name of Linda G. Eyster; issues 1-6 were edited by Bushyager and Suzanne Tompkins and some subsequent issues co-edited with husband Ron Bushyager. Granfalloon was nominated for the Hugo Best Fanzine Award in 1972 and 1973, although it did not win.

Many of the contributors were either professional writers or artists at the time, or became so later, or were fandom BNFs, including Connie Reich Faddis, Jack Gaughan, Bob Tucker, and Damon Knight.

Granfalloon 1

Issue #1 front cover by Adrienne Fein

Published in February 1968, Vol 1, No. 1. 21 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 1

For some inexplicable reason, today my mailbox was stuffed with Granfalloons. Having pulled them from my combination (guaranteed thief-proof and unpickable) mailbox, I looked heavenward and asked, "What heinous crime have I committed now, to be inundated with more than one copy of the the same ish of some unknown, lowly fanzine?" And then I saw that they were both first ishes! Some days... However, curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to read one — mostly to find out what "granfalloon" meant. (Incidentally. I never did-find out. Answer, Gentle Editors?)

[/See page 3, Gentle and Bewildered readers-SVT/]

Upon the first leafing-through, an excellent likeness of Star Trek’s (come on gals, it’s not all that great, is it? ST I mean) Bones was encountered,

[/Well, it’s not all that great, but its the only thing we’ve got on TV. Now some people do overdo it a little, see Connie’s ST mania satire page and the fanzine reviews-LgE/]

as well as some of Gaughan’s 2-second sketches. (It’s always nice to see his work.) Other miscellania that stuck in my mind (like a 6/stamp) included a good review of Babel-17 (good because I agreed with it), a bad review of Earthblood (guess why it was bad), two fiction pieces about gods (the first was good, but — oh, heck, no buts -- it was good; the second had more to say, but didn't say it too well), an Incomprehensible lettercol (mostly because it was unreadable), an incomprehensible poem (mostly because I'm stupid), and 2 page 14s.

[/And reversed page 14s at that! Your luck is fantastic!/]

Q: Why was the repro on some pages so good, and on others so BAD?

[/Because the spirit masters were typed directly on the good pages, while most of the fuzzy pages were so because of the electric-master maker, used incorrectly-SVT/]

Q: Was the part about subscriptions supposed to be funny? One more Q; Are you going to continue to send me Gfs? (I hope so, I liked your prose.)

[/Yes, if you subscribe/]

Since you push your favorites, I’m going to push one of mine: READ Flowers for Algernon!!! And for those of you who have read Ann McCaffrey's "Weyr Search” and "Dragonrider" (Oct, Dec, Jan, ANALOG), you will be happy to know she has a Ballantine pb, Restoree (U6108, 75c) which may be a Hugo contender — and that is not_just my opinion; other notables liked it, too.

[/See Hither and Yon/]

Omphallopsychite - Robert Willingham - Granfalloon vol. 1 no. 2, notes in [ ] by the editors


To begin with, Granfalloon surprised me greatly. The idea of two girls, new to fandom, with no publishing experience, was a little on the side of improbability. But the end product amply demonstrates that talent, not experience, is what counts.

[/Perhaps this discovery spured [sic] Bob on, he’s now in the process of compiling the first ish of his own zine, Icent. Send inquiries, contributions, etc. to Bob-LgE/]

...

The cover was very nice. Although I haven’t the faintest idea of what it is (no offense, Adrienne), it is striking. (No offense, Adrienne), it is striking.

[/Editor’s perogative to turn a tree sideways to fit/]

It grabs the reader’s attention and makes him wonder what the heck is inside, (in slightly different language, of course) While I m on the subject of Gf ’ s art, I’ll comment on the rest of it. How enterprising of you to get some Gaughan art for your first issue. Another indication of what is to come. The portrait of Dr. McCoy was very good. The rest of the artwork was up to good standards, too.

Your editorial, Linda: I have noticed that the British are usually more serious than Hollywood when making SF or Horror films. Hammer Films, who I think made CHILDREN OF THE DAMNED, has made some pretty good movies. I saw the remake by Hammer of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA on TV a few weeks ago. While the horror aspect had dwindled to almost nil, the technical and human side of the story was greatly improved from the earlier versions.

Suzanne, I suppose you overoverjoyed to see U.N.C.L.E. #14 on the stands. May it be an indication of many more to come. Ace is a good publisher the editors should be able to recognize a good thing when they see it. The fact that the show has been cancelled ought to affect the bookbuying public very little.

[/After all, everyone knows people who watch TV can t read-LgE/]

Just think: now that they can’t watch the show, more people will be buying the books. There’s probably a fault in my reasoning somewhere, but I’m certainly not going to look for it.

[/My reasoning too. Evidently also Ace books, see my editorial-SVT/]

"The Box” was one of the most shocking (no, that’s not the word I want. Maybe it is.) stories that I have seen in a fanzine. Nay, a prozine even. Added in length a little, it could very well have qualified for Dangerous Visions. (And I’m only halfway kidding there. ) There Is so much bad SF published in the prozines, that "The Box" seemed to me, perhaps in comparison, very good indeed.

[/Love that egoboo1-LgE/]

Hmm, just read ’’The Young God,” completely this time, as the last paragraph was blurred in my copy. Another good story. Is Granfalloon competing with Harlan Ellison or something? If are, you are winning...

[/Harlan Ellison? What the hell is that?/]

Omphallopsychite - Bob Roehm - Granfalloon vol. 1 no. 2, notes in [ ] by the editors

Granfalloon 2

Issue #2 cover by Connie Reich

Published in April 1968. 40 pages. Vol 1, No. 2. Editor: Linda Eyster: Co-Editor: Suzanne Tompkins; Resident Artist: Connie Reich. "Our Motto: WE CAN BE BRIBED".

  • Table of Contents (2)
  • Notices: "What Is A Granfalloon?"; Nebula Awards nominees (3)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Eyster - editorial (4)
Now Suzanne and I would like to make some apologies for GfL.

1. Jack Gaughan - sorry we mistyped your name.

2. Steve Compton - for reversing the page 14s so that his excellent review of The Past Through Tomorrow was split up and it looked as though he had written the reviews of Earthblood and Why Call Them Back From Heaven. Actually I take the blame credit for those two reviews.

3. To everyone for having 2 page 14s in the first place and for reversing them. (Have you ever collated at four in the morning?)

4. To everyone for having bad repro on some pages; we had to spirit and discovered too late we were using the electronic stencil maker incorrectly.

5. To Robert Willingham for being beseiged with Gf, and Frank Lunney for having quite a few pages mixed up.

6. To Connie Reich and Jack Gaughan for badly reproducing their fine artwork.

...

We are sorry to charge postage (10c) to contributors, but we are but poor students. I realize a lot of people hate to subscribe or actually (God forbid the thought) PAY for a fanzine, but unfortunately mimeoing and mailing one is not cheap. Eventually, we want to get out of the red enough to give contributors free copies but until then, we hope the following system will work. Everytime you contribute material send a dime or stamps and we will send you the next ish of Granfalloon. If we reject your material we will probably send you a copy anyway. Some of you are receiving this as a sample copy, or because you contributed and even though you didn't send us postage, we are kindhearted. But, you won’t be able to get the nextish unless we see a contribution and postage, a trade, or a subscription! Some of you are friends or relatives of Suzanne and I, but this includes you, Too! We just can't afford to send you all free copies. Only Mr. and Mrs. Tompkins have a free subscription.

"Call of the Klutz" by Linda Eyster, Granfalloon Vol 1, No. 2

Reactions and Responses - Issue 2

A young man dropped around a while ago and handed me Granfalloon #2. I read it and was promptly underwhelmed by the rich fantasy life of the Shy Young Thing who turned out the NYCon report. I’m sure that had she read less into what everyone said, she would have been nearer the truth.

"Omphallopsychite" - Isaac Asimov - Granfalloon Vol 1, No. 3

I hope Dale Steranka was exaggerating her fear of Harlan Ellison and Isaac Asimov. If not, a word of advice: be afraid of no male at an SF con. You (feminine you) may be propositioned and probably will be, but the expected answer to the proposition is "No." Most would be happy if they got a "Yes," of course, but I suspect that Isaac Asimov isn’t even that serious (I think he would be even unhappy at a "Yes"); he just wants to express his appreciation of a pleasant face or manner as noisily as possible. Isaac Asimov is a clown and a good writer and I love him dearly.

"Omphallopsychite" - Ruth Berman - Granfalloon Vol. 1 No. 3

I was a little put off by the Heinlein article by Nancy Lambert, for under her explanation of Heinlein's personality how does she explain his story "The Long Watch." You see, Miss Lambert, no really good author will put so much of himself into his writing that the protagonist’s philosophy will necessarily mirror his own.

"Omphallopsychite" - David Malone - Granfalloon Vol 1. No. 3

One of your readers in mentioning that you seem to cru sade for the serious critical acceptance fo SF touches upon a thought which has been rattling around in my head for some time. It seems to me that we have a vague (or perhaps less than vague) analogy between TV and radio, readers' feelings towards SF are so personal and subjective that there always seems to be this great gap between what the reader feels is SF (and is unable to put into words) and what appears as SF in the very hard and fast world of visual media. Thus one's reading of a story and even the finest film production of that story will ever be in variance. The radio analogy being that the listener sometimes brought more in his interpretation of the sounds to the story than any camera could convey in a TV or film production. I too am vastly dissatisfied (as I have viewing the first, blakeyeballed-supervillain preview) with Star Trek, And, all commercial considerations aside, that's perhaps because no one will ever do on a screen what I see in my skull. I have more than a tough time transcribing my vision to paper. As often as not what comes out is a watered down compromise between what I see and what I can do. I have just heard from somebody who went to see the preview of 2001. The word was, "Forget it!" Well, I shall wait and see it myself but I'm not surprised. I believe that SF has become so subjective that no one can live up to the readers' images and imaginations which, even if half-formed and somewhat shapeless, must always be more enchanting than a firmly fixed film-image.

And that is why, at least up until now, SF and showbiz have not ever really hit it off except in a few instances and even then one must hedge by saying that the special effects or an actor's cheek-bones were saving factor. Those few instances having among them FORBIDDEN PLANET and THE DAY THE EARTH THE STOOD STILL.

[/Add INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and you have my three favorite SF movies. While eyeball special effects are important, these three have good plots as well.-SVT/ ]

"Omphallopsychite" - Jack Gaughan - Granfalloon Vol 1. No. 3, notes in [ ] by the editors

Granfalloon 3

Issue #3 cover by Richard Delap

Vol 1. no. 3. Published in June 1968. 44 pages. Editor: Linda Eyster: Co-Editor: Suzanne Tompkins; Resident Artist: Connie Reich.

  • Cover by Richard Delap
  • Table of Contents (2)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Eyster - editorial (3)
Now special note to OSFAn reviewer, Chris Couch. (OSFAN is available for 6/$1.00 from Hank Luttrell...) It’s true that Suzanne and I have not been in fandom long, just 10 months or so. But I think that pubbing a zine, heading the Western Pa. SF Assoc, (see Suzlecol), and attending several cons has; pulled us out of the ranks of neos. 'Of course we realized that most zines give contributors free copies, but we saw we were losing money and decided to try something new. Is this something-to condemn us for, judge us by, and spend most of a review on? Well, possibly, but if nn one ever tried anything new we'd never have had fandom, and I'm sure we wouldn’t have such a thing as SF. So we experimented, and failed, I might add. Charging postage only pulls in about 2 or 3 more dollars. We’ve always felt that contributors should be given free copies, but we balanced this against that fact that we were losing money. But obviously 2 or 3 dollars more per ish is not worth all the trouble. We’d rather lose a few dollars and give contributors free ishs.

So, from now on, Gf is available for sub, trade, contribution, or printed Loes. But we URGE everyone to subscribe if they can. Anyone who subscribes now and later contributes will have his sub extended 1 ish. Is one dollar so much to spend? Help keep Gf going with the same quality. Help keep Gf in en velopes. Help the Tompkins stay in business. Don’t pray, send money.

I thought it was interesting that a lot of people felt that charging postage would eliminate good material. Well, let me tell you this, this is completely untrue, and did not affect our decision. Richard Delap, Gene Turbull, and almost everybody else sent us a dime, and look at their stuff. Fantastic’ In fact, Gene sent us a whole §1.00 for 10 issues. (Consider yourself entitled to a 10 ish sub, Gene). Thanks everyone who did send a dime!

"Call of the Klutz" by Linda G. Eyster

  • "Suzelcol" by Suzanne Tompkins - editorial (5)
Well, to drop a morbid subject, -- W.P.S.F.A. has arrived.’ Linda and I expanded the club from just Carnegie Mellon because most of our newly attained members are from [Pittsburgh]. and the surrounding area. (I live in Johnstown, about 70 miles away.) So we changed the name to Western PA S.F. Assoc. Art Vaughan is taking the club for us during the summer and he and some of our very enthusiatic [sic] members are thinking of pubbing a zine! 0 Ghod! What a difference! Pgh. is beginning to change its apathetic self. The fourteen we took to Disclave was our first real accomplishment. Apparently, Pgh. Fandom, like Love in the Monkees* song, was only sleeping. The things my co-editor does - or, in the words of Joanne Worley on Laugh IN, ’Dumb, Dumb!' Who else but LgE would say, “It’s not too late,to return to Pgh.” as we arrived in Columbus? The entire trip had been filled with such apprehensive comments. Who else would take a helium-filled balloon on a bus downtown and then, after trying to make me hold it, release it in the middle of a crowd because I wouldn’t let her take it into the Movie theatre with us? I will refrain from mentioning the yo-yo she took to Disclave and pulled out in the middle of the Friday night party. Well, she certainly makes life interesting. Besides, we’re easy to find at a con. Just follow the line of Gfs that she has begged, cajoled, and forced people to buy, to the tallish brunette (me) and the tallish blond (L.) with the balloon flying over our heads and the yo-yo bouncing around at our feet.

"Suzlecol" by Suzanne Tompkins

Reactions and Responses - Issue 3

[/I originally intended to print the following in its entirity, exactly as we recleved it, but I

just can't force myself to retype it again In Its complete letter-for-letter form, because it is just too much. But I think you'll get Dopekin's Drapkln's message. I will instead reprint the first half exactly as written, including mispellings and the author's paranthetical remarks. If anyone would like to read the rest, send a self-addressed, stamped-envelope and I’ll send you the last half. So not without | further comment, except the following Is sic, sic, sIc.-LgE/]

The quality of GRANFALLOON has been steadily decreasing since the 1st ish. The 1st ish wasn't bad, if you were able to read it. However, the 2nd ish was ruined by placing that equally stupid stupid pciture by that stupid article, the one on RAH, of course. Before she opens her mouth she should at least have some idea of what her tongue is waging about. She has obviously not read all RAH has written and mlslnterpets most of what she has. Anyway, she has been adaquatly put down by thouse who know something about RAH in ish #3.

The dlsquesting (mlspel) cuteness. It Is slcklning to the point of boredom (oh Suzie, you all are a little daling). This childish clowning about sex is characteristic of kids who have just learned about sex, Now why not cut the shit and do a straight fanzine, or turn It into a humor zine. You can't keep this present format of stupid cuteness without alienating the Intire male readership.

"Omphallopsychite" - Joe B. Drapkin - Granfalloon 4, notes in [ ] by the editors

Thankee kindly for Gf3. I much admire your clear and crisp mlmeography, Ginjer’s admirable summary of my rambling GoH talk at DC, the book reviews, the letter column, and all that other stuff. And I was altogether demolished by the interlineation — misplaced, but still an interlineation -- at the bottom of page 38. The one about Harlan being so tall, I mean. Who spawned that gem?

{/When Dirce Archer remarked that "I knew Harlan when he was so tall." What else could Suzanne and I reply, simeltaneously [sic] of course, but "He's still so tall."?-LgE/]

I never did explain why I turned down your kind invitation at Disclave to subscribe. It was only to keep your career as a fanzine editor from premature interruption. On and off, over the last 15 years or so since I stopped publishing a fanzine myself, I've subscribed to all kinds of fanmags, and not one has survied [sic] my subscription by more than 2 issues. Ask Lee Hoffman. Ask Bruce Pelz, Ask....well, lots. I didn't want to kill off Gf so fast.

Tell you what, though. I agree to become a subscriber at next year's DIsclave...provided you sign me up in the sauna. A deal?

"Omphallopsychite" - Robert Silverberg - Granfalloon Vol 1. No. 4, notes in [ ] by the editors

Jack Gaughan: I’m not sure if I should agree with you or disagree on the matter of movies not doing justice to books. There are indeed very many books that I would hate to see put into the movies, such as THE LORD OF THE RINGS, obviously, because no show can do justice to a book with that much imaginary content. However, I do think that there is much SF that can be put into a picture and lose nothing from the change. The most recent example of this is 2001. You must admit that no matter how bad the plot was, it was a visual masterpiece, and the whole idea of movies is to create something visual. Now that directors are finally learning how to produce SF movies, I think they will so on be reaching a very high calibar [sic] in entertainment. Movies are still a pretty new thing, whereas books have been with us since recorded history began.


[/I would like to see more movies made from SF novels, just to see what would be done with them. But really, more scripts could be written from original ideas with more ease than translating an already written book to the screen.-LgE/]

"Omphallopsychite" - Seth Dogramajian - Granfalloon Vol 1. No. 4, notes in [ ] by the editors

Granfalloon 4

Issue #4 cover by Richard Delap

Published in September 1968. 58 pages. Circulation is stated as "about 300." Editor: Linda Eyster: Co-Editor: Suzanne Tompkins; Resident Artist: Connie Reich; Collators: Ginjer Buchanan, Dale Steranka, Nancy Lambert, Linda Eyster, Suzanne Tompkins.

  • Front cover by Richard Delap
  • Table of Contents (2)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Eyster - editorial (3)
My father works for NASA, an organization which should be near and dear to every SF fan. Being thusly better informed of what happens there than most fen, I'd like to impart what may be surprising information. NASA, our one and only space adminlsteration [sic] Is laying off people due-to lack of appropriations. It even seems that the Apollo moon mission is somehow being tacked on to the Air Force. If SF fans would and could save a TV show, maybe we can get something going to save something of much greater importance, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If we don't do something now we may find our first man on the moon In 2001, we have the capability to get a man to the moon and beyond right now, instead our money is being tied up in defense programs and other rather stupid areas. Write your congressman, the President, and anyone else you can think of, before it's too late. Lets make our cry SAVE NASA, and do it.

"Call of the Klutz" by Linda Eyster

Amongst the various LoCs we received thisish was one from R^n Smith. It included one of the most interesting comments on fandom I have seen. First let me quote it to you:

"And you probably never again will see anything like SF fans. I think we're unique, you know, we were so damned awful they broke the mold. But I think the reason that fans are so curious is obvious, if you put a little thought to it. The average fan is an introvert, in other words, he’s the type who usually would rather stay home and read a book than play football, or any damn thing like that. We tend toward the shy, quiet, unassuming type, at least in mundane life, ususally [sic] fans are considered a bit wierd [sic] by their classmates and friends and are not class leaders or anything. Fans do not tend to make friends easily in the mundane existence. This is one of the reasons fandom developed. Here is an opportunity to be aggressive, a big shot, make friends, and have your name recognized by others. And it works since most fans are better at the typer than in public. It's kind of a dual personality thing. Fans kind of cling to fandom, it's their high pie in the sky existence that helps them bear the drabness of much of their mundane existence."

This startled me because it was so true from what I had seen, and especially from what I had experienced of myself. I fit the above "definition" of a fan to a T. I'm basically shy, yet when you see me in fandom I am anything but shy and retiring. I've noticed that being boisterous in fandom helps me to be boisterous in public, but I'm never so much at home as when talking about SF or fandom. Suzanne is also a shy and retiring girl, even more so than me, yet in fandom she becomes much more active. I have a pet theory that the above observations are almost universally true. For instance, I wrote Buck Coulson that I was sorry I hadn't come over at Midwestcon to talk to him, but I was too shy to introduce himself. He wrote back that he had done much the same! Is this a true observation: I hope many of you who write LoCs will tell me what you think, and if you have any more to add.

"Call of the Klutz" by Linda G. Eyster

  • "Suzelcol" by Suzanne Tompkins - editorial (7)
FANEDS: If you want to get new readers, send a bunch of your zines to Seth A. Johnson, [address redacted] and he will distribute them to new fans. The Fanzine Clearinghouse is one of the few ways new fans find fandom. Support this by sending Seth your fanzines.

2001_AD: file is being collected by Jerry Lapidus, send him any clippings you see on 2001 please ([address redacted]).

ISAAC ASIMOV: David Malone [address redacted] is starting a petition to get Isaac Asimov to write a third robot novel. To sign, send him your name and address on a 3x5 card (address so the untrusting Dr A can check up on him).

BOB ROEHM: is definitely one of the heads of a new Heinlein club, send him $2.00 to [address redacted]

NEOFAN: if you have just found fandom I suggest that you join the National Fantasy Fan Federation (N3F) the only national club, it has many services which should help you, send $1.75 to Janie Lamb at [address redacted].

  • "OmphalIopsychite" - Letters from Joe B. Trapkin, Bob Tucker, Robert Silverberg, Bill Linden, Fred Haskell, Kay Anderson, Seth Dogramajian, Bob L. Hillis, Terry Carr, Seth A. Johnson, and Piers A. Jacob (aka Piers Anthony), Harry Warner, Jr., Neal A.Goldfarb, W.G. Bliss, Mike Montgomery, Richard Delap, Dick Byers, Rick Brooks. Also heard from Ken Scher, Bob Gernsman, Ed Smith, Ray Ridenour, Judy Walter, Steve Compton, Robert Willingham, Rick Seward, Jerry Lapidus, Bob Stahl, Shirley Meech, Keith Kramer, Jerry Kaufman, Eli Cohen, Lisa Tuttle, Ron Smith, Mike Gilbert, Arnie Katz, Mike Weber, Buck Coulson, David Malone, Ed Reed and Bob Roehm.
  • "Why Are You Getting Thisish?" aka "Thank god it's the last page" (57)
  • LAST MINUTE SPECIAL IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENTS PLEASE READ FIRST (57)

Reactions and Responses - Issue 4

Since you dragged my name into this fan shyness business I suppose the least I can do is comment. As to Ron Smith, I know quite a few fans who are in fandom to 'be aggressive, a big shot.,,and have your name recognised by others.” I avoid all of them whenever possible; if every one of them dropped dead tomorrow I wouldn’t miss them. (I have deliberately omitted Smith’s other reason; to "make friends.” If you want to stretch a point, that’s what I’m in fandom for.) '

The problem is not really "making friends." I can make friends in the big wide world, if I want to; after all, I was 24 years old before I discovered fandom, and I was as popular as I cared to be. The problem is in the kind of friends available. It might not be so bad in college, or even in a community with a reasonable number of engineers and other educated types; I don’t know. But in a small town, there are damned few people within reach that I have any desire to become friends with. (Friendly, yes; friends, no.) The type of people I like are more concentrated in fandom than anyplace else I’ve found. There may be only one fan out of a hundred whose friendship I desire—but outside fandom it’s moie like one out of a thousand. (And I think perhaps the ratio in fandom is rising, while the ratio outside isn’t.)

This sort of selectivity, incidentally, breeds a certain wariness; and encounters with nuisances who are "only trying to be friendly" reinforces it, and adds the realization that the person who believes that he is welcome everywhere just because he is a fan—or even because he is a Big Name Fan—is quite often a pest.

"OmphalIopsychite" - Buck Coulson - Granfalloon Issue #5


...Finally I made up a list of the fanzines that interest me sufficiently to subscribe to, Loc or contribute to, and I believe I will hold it down to this in future; others will take their chances, probably with diminishing likelihood of ever a postcard reply from me.

...

Granfalloon, as you may have guessed by this time, is not listed. That doesn’t mean I think you’re a bad fanzine; matter of fact, I find you sort of cute. But, along with such as Aroich, Beabohema, SF Opinion, Warhoon and others I don’t recollect at the moment, I have to relegate you to limbo, so that I can return to my writing. (Actually, I have contributed to a couple of those, but chances are it’s a one-shot deal. If something happens to strike me, I write, is all. Pick up more bruises that way...) So please don’t feel obligated to print this letter or to send me future copies; probably you’ll succeed in making me feel guilty for ignoring a fine fanzine if you do, but that still won’t likely elicit another reply.

"OmphalIopsychite" - Piers A. Jacob (aka Piers Anthony) - Granfalloon Issue #5

[/Steve asked me to send him Joe B. Drapkin’s complete letter to read, and he asked me to print the following to show someone dislikes Drapkin’s attitude. Unfortunately, Steve, Drapkin won’t see this, as I refuse to waste postage by sending him a Granfalloon-LgE/]

Personal note to the conceited, obnoxious, illiterate Joe B. Drapkin: I have read the complete letter which you sent Linda for Gf4. My reaction: disgust at you and your fellow snobs S.O.B.’s. Why did you write that type of letter? Does it give you a sense of ultimate power to insult and swear at a frail female who lives several hundred miles away from "The Mighty J.B.D."??? You make me sick.

Being critical of some of the work is fine; often it helps the editors. But your type of letter helps no one, except, perhaps, you. In that case you don’t belong in fandom, your calling is television; there you can become a professional creep.

[/On second thought, I think I will send a copy of this page, at least, to Mr. Drapkin..//]

"Omphallopsychite" - Steve Parker - Granfalloon Issue #5 notes in [ ] by the editors

Be careful , Linda, least thou become overconfident. I realize you’ve gone from neofandom to a known mag in a relatively short period of time, and I wouldn’t bother doing this if I didn’t feel it worth while. But reading things (from the editor) like: "I think this ish is very good.,.." is very disquieting if you don’t personally know the people involved. It really sounds like a little too much ’hubris*; now I know- this isn’t the case — but how many of your readers know it? There’s a large difference between being sarcastic about how great a particular ish is and actually coming out and saying it (whether true or not).


[/You are right, Jerry, so thisish, no praise from ourselves, we’ll get our egoboo from letters....seriously, really, I shouldn’t have come out in praise, but lastish was so much work, typing, editing, proofing, and the whole thing did seem good, the best I’d done, so I had to say what I really thought of it... ]

...

Sunday, dammit, had a perfect opportunity to do a really INTERESTING article about a pro, an article really telling something about the way he thinks; the way he acts — and what happens: you tauld have discovered virtually all the information contained in about 10 minutes of conversation with Alexei.

"Omphallopsychite" - Jerry Lapudis - Granfalloon Issue #5 notes in [ ] by the editors

Granfalloon 5

Issue #5 cover by Genevieve DiModica and Connie Reich

Published in November 1968. 46 pages. Editor: Linda Eyster; Assistant Editor & Publisher: Suzanne Tompkins; Resident Artist: Connie Reich; Coolie: Dale Steranka.

The hurried process has also led. to some innovations in layout. Although I have laid out most of the pages as well as possible, at times I’ve resulted to a new layout method (place paper on floor, stand back 4 feet, toss illo on to paper * layout) As a result of all of this, here I stand, suddenly editor supreme, whip in hand, as my coolies surround me doing the work. (Dale’s finger’s fly over the leys, though her head lies on the typewriter itself from pure exhustion [sic]; Connie Reich crouches over some artwork and lettering, muttering obscene curses; Jeannie DiModica proofreads and mews , she’s been proofreading the same page for 2 hours; Suzie crys [sic] out from the closet where she’s been locked up with the fanzine reviews,..) So here am I, writing my editorial in unhurried ease. But, you want to know something? It was more fun to do it all myself. More work, but more fun.

...

According to Connie Reich, there is one solution to the world’s problems. It is stated as Rubensteins Law.

First law: 90% of the world’s problems are caused by people who aren’t getting any. Second Law: and the other 10% are caused by those who are, but don’t know what to do with it.

"Call of the Klutz" by Lisa Eyster

  • "Suzicol" by Suzanne Tompkins (4)
Speaking of Baycon, and it certainly was, I must say I was very impressed. Lack of food and sleep notwithstanding, its non-linearity was fascinating. It was the first of a new breed of conventions, I think. And they are rather better than the old ones. At least they’re more varied.

Jeannie (GenD) and I went to Octocon in Sandusky, Ohio, smallest convention I’ve ever been to - 45 people, most whom I knew. It was quiet, rather relaxing, and fun. Most of Ohio fandom and a few people from Detriot [sic] were there. Jerry Kaufman kept trying to declare 9th fandom, but no one would listen.

...

I’ve been reading an enormous lot of SF in few months, i reading first William Tenn. Even in the midst of fanac, I the past try to put his I can get my hands on, Most recently, I’ve discovered I really want to read everything of and I haven’t that much time. Curses.

"Suzlecol" by Suzanne Tompkins

In THE BUGLE OF DINGLY DELL (June *66), Hoy Ping Pong, alias Bob Tucker, reprinted an interesting little oldie under the title of "A fanmag Is Born", Stimulated by this unlikely occurance [sic] and the militant conditions under which I then existed, I wrote the following derivative offering.

Prologue to "APA BIRTH PANGS" by Bill Bowers

  • "Imagination Bookshelf" by Richard Delap - book reviews (23)
  • "Hither Minus Yon" by Earl Whitson (28)
  • "Omphallopsychite" - letters of comment from Rick Brooks, Richard Labonte, Richard Delap, Bob Tucker, Buck Coulson, Jeremy A. Barry, Jerry Kaufman, Neal Goldfarb, Piers Jacob, Steve Parker, Judy Walter, Jerry Lapidus (including Worldcon news), Lisa Tuttle, Donald D. Markstein, Mike O’Brien. Also heard from Ken Maul, Leigh Edmonds, Ed Reed, Don Cardoza, Bill Danner, Hank Davis, Mike Montgomery, Mike Weber, Leland Sapiro, Bob Stahl and Stan Woolston ("who sent us an unbelieve-able [sic] 11 page LoC: Due to space limitations I’ve edited this amazing letter down to the following 3/4 of a page. Sorry, poor Stan, sorry readers") (29)
  • "Agggh!" by Suzanne Tompkins - fanzine reviews: (41)
  • "Please?" by Clifford W. Shaw (45)
  • "Why You Get This—Coming Nextish" by Linda Eyster (45)
  • Art by Genevieve DiModica (cover, pages 11, 32); Glenn Palmer (20); Richard Delap (23, 41); George Foster (26); Alex Gilliland (31); Jack Gaughan (15, 35, 45); Barbi Marczak (38); Connie Reich (cover and 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 27, 23, 29, 32, 34, 37, 33, 40, 43, 44)
  • Download here

Reactions and Responses - Issue 5

On "Editing or Censorship?" by Steve Lewis, the author of the "censored" work discussed speaks:

...This is where the strange part comes in. Dell, who had asked for the rewrite of the last scene, did not use it. ANALOG, which was satisfied with the original version, used the sexier rewrite without turning a hair.


I blame myself for the Dell version slip-up. I read the galleys in an immense hurry, and did not have the original to compare with. So I goofed on the last scene. Faber will publish February ~ I wonder what theirs will look like. As to your last conclusion that I may have censored a version of the story for ANALOG —this is pure horse apples...

...

But — I do appreciate what you are doing. Too many editors do cut out things they find offensive. Too many SF editors. Brian Aldiss wrote a book that used the word "shit" a good many times, because the book was about the impact of the word shit, as well as the excrement itself, upon people. That is what the book was about, yet the word appears only in the English book edition. The magazine readers of this fine piece never saw it — although they could read it in a dozen books from fee same newsstand, see it written on every toilet wall, and hear it spoken aloud to the point of boredom.

I wish you would keep reading, keep noticing where editors have cut out things, and publicly bring this fact to the attention of the editors. This is a worthwhile thing to do and you will receive encouragement and aid from all of the writers. I suggest that you query the writer next time before publishing, so you can face the editor with different printed versions — plus the writer’s original version. Then sit back and wait for answers. There should be some honeys,,,

"Omphallopsychite" - Harry Harrison - Granfalloon Issue #6

And John W. Campbell has another point to add:

I didn’t comment on Steve Lewis’ remarks on HORSE BARBARIANS barbarity, violence and bloodshed because I misunderstood, I thought he’d answered it himself when he commented that "What do you expect in a barbarian world?"

What indeed?

But ha very evidently misunderstood when he again refers to the barbarity of barbarism; he still hasn’t caught on to some of the facts of life.

Look; not only are the facts of sexual reproduction, and erotic stimulation facts of Life.

In a barbarian world, it’s done in the direct, simple, small-scale, sudden way of one-man-one-murder. Utgroth chops Sixtus’ brains out. Only with the coming of civilization do we have one-man-one-million-murders. It takes high order sophistication to achieve H-bombs, and the luxury of observing results via television, in safety, with cool objectivity. This makes the act far less barbaric and bloody.

"Omphallopsychite" - John W. Campbell - Granfalloon Issue #6

And some more on Campbell's views on sex in fiction:

Everyone in the whole world has been up and down with JWGod Jr, on the subject of censorship and sex. He points out Freud’s agoraphobia, but doesn’t mention his own strange preoccupations with psi, Dianetics and Wallace, He claims that the Oddysey [sic] and the works of Shakespeare have no eroticism in them, when the issue isn’t eroticism but sex, and the Oddysey and the works of Shakespeare both have sex in them. JWGod Jr. might change that ten-year stay on Calypso’s island to ten minutes, and Shakespearean bawds like Falstaff would have to go. As for real sexy writers, how about Aristophanes and Geoffrey Chaucer? I’d say they were read as much as, if not more than, Homer and Shakespeare. JWGod Jr, continues his "obfuscation" policy by answering the question, "Why don’t you publish detailed sex scenes?” instead of the real question,"Why don’t you allow sex to be mentioned ?” His second reason for not printing sex scenes is that "detailed description,..serves only to delay the action of the story. ” Description of the "exact construction of the heroine” that is, as if sex scenes could only be descriptions of breasts and thighs. There is action in sex scenes, and there can be insight into the characters, and there even can be enjoyment of the sex itself, though this could be left to the pens of those like Dick Geis, who are experts at the art of good, clean smut.

"Omphallopsychite" - Jerry Kaufman - Granfalloon Issue #6

And Buck Coulson has his own response to the accusations of censorship:

I am truly croggled by Steve Lewis, He gets this theory (the one that’s been floating around for years) that Campbell censors the sex out of ANALOG stories. He writes Campbell (accusing him, as near as I can make out, of censoring IF and ANALOG both, which is a neat trick) and inquires why Harry Harrison story appeared one way in the magazine and another way ih the book, Campbell replies (surprising me; he must be mellowing in his old age) that it’s because Harrison wrote it that way. Steve then assumes that of the two possibilities he mentions (there are others, such as Harrison deciding he could improve the manuscript after seeing it in cold print in ANALOG), that the logical one is that Harrison censored his own manuscript before submitting it to ANALOG because he knew it would be edited. WHY THE HELL DIDN’T LEWIS WRITE HARRISON AND ASK HIM FOR AN EXPLANATION? (This leaves two possibilities. One, that he didn’t think of it; or two, he was afraid Harrison’s answer would blow a hole in his theory, I think the first unlikely, myself, since if he thought of writing to Campbell he should be intellectually equipped to make the next step nd [sic] write to Harrison, The second only implies what is surely common knowledge, that fans don’t like to have their theories scuttled before they get an article out of them.)

"OmphalIopsychite" - Buck Coulson - Granfalloon Issue #6

Granfalloon 6

Issue #6 front cover by Bill Bowers
Interior foldout art by Jack Gaughan

Published in January 1969 as Vol 2 no. 1. 66 pages. Edited by Linda G. Eyster. Last issue co-edited by Suzanne Tompkins. Resident Artist: Connie Reich; "coolies" Ron Bushyager, Dale Steranka, Dennis DiNucci, Keith Kramer,and assorted WSFA members. Includes:

Reactions and Responses - Issue 6

I thank you for all the mentions and egoboo in G6. The striking Bowers cover was obviously symbolic as hell, but what does it mean? I'm a sucker for scratchboard stuff.

[So am I. Please Bill, more!]

Piers played an interesting but transparent game of having his cake and eating it too, with his story and postscript. I can see why the story was rejected 17 times. YOU should have made it 18. It was a credible idea and scene for the display of the idea but poorly written...poor poetic-and arti-ness. Some of the dialog, especially the girl's, was incredible. It must have been an early Anthony story. The Gaughan illo was lovely though.

"Omphallopsychite" - Richard E. Geis - Granfalloon Issue #7 notes in [ ] by the editor

Piers Anthony has some things to say about Richard Delap's review of his work:

Now for Delap: I find his reviews of 2 of my novels, and though I feel he overrated SOS THE ROPE, I'm sure he'll be pleased to learn there will be a sequel soon since the British publisher (FABER & FABER) has made an offer based on my summary, entitled VAR THE STICK, and you can make of that combination the same kind of confusions some (not Delap) have made of SOS.

...

OMNIVORE is another matter. Let's tackle the general commentary first, then get on to Delap's little quibbles...

"Omphallopsychite" - Piers Anthony - Granfalloon Issue #7

(What follows is four pages of Anthony dissecting the review and justifying his choices as a writer.)

Richard Delap responds, having been sent a copy of the letter by Anthony directly:

Just a few remarks re Piers Anthony’s comments on my reviews of his books in Gf6.


First, Pier’s comments are of vital interest to me as a reviewer (or to anyone interested in the author and his works and opinions thereof), I may see what Piers has tried to say in his fiction, as well as gaining understanding into why he failed to come across with his intentions (to me, anyway). I have never said I was faultless or exceptionally perceptive as a reviewer; I write to the best of my ability my impressions of a piece of fiction, and if I fail in the author’s opinion to see the true worth of his results I can’t help but wonder if the fault is entirely mine.

If a book is intended specifically for the intelligentsia, the erudite connoisseurship of the specialist, or whatever, shouldn’t the author and publisher be compelled to state this fact and thus prevent mass misinterpretation? Does the reader and reviewer still have the right to make his own value judgments and express them publicly (as long as he also states that these opinions are his own)? And does the author have the right to voice his opinion that a reviewer has made an incorrect value assessment? May the reviewer use rebuttal against the author’s rebuttal against the reviewer’s...ad infinitum? Yes, yes, yes, and yes! (if you can get it all published, that is).

"Omphallopsychite" - Richard Delap - Granfalloon Issue #7


Granfalloon 7

cover of issue #7, Richard Delap

Published in October 1969 as Vol 2 no. 1. 52 pages, edited and published by Linda Eyster Bushyager. Slave Assistant: Ron Bushyager.

  • Front cover art by Richard Delap
  • Table of Contents (2)
  • Call of the Klutz by Linda Bushyager - editorial (3)
I'm running thisish off on my brand new 1940 A.B. Dick mimeo. I hope it comes out well. Granny was delayed by several factors -- graduation, job hunting, job finding, job losing, job hunting... but I did get the Technical Writing job at U.S. Steel (although my title is Engineering Technician... I haven't figured that out yet)...

...

As you can see from the title page I will be (or am, by the time you get this) married to Pittsburgh fan, Ron Bushyager. A Carnegie-Mallon graduate and Computer Programmer for Westinghouse, Ron was dragged into a WPSFA meeting by ConR several months ago. We plan to wed August 23rd and honeymoon in St. Louis for Worldcon.

...

As for Suzie, she is alive and well and working with the Red Cross for the summer. Plans for her zine Imyrr are coming along well and she plans to have it out by St. Louiscon.

"Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager

  • Ravished by Piers Anthony - review of Richard E. Geis's sex novel Ravished (6)
  • Chewing Gum by Dennis DiNucci - article (10)
  • The Brotherhood by Mike Gilbert - poem (11)
  • The Alien Rat Fink by Richard Delap - book reviews (13)
  • Star Trek - Last Word by Linda Bushyager (18)
  • Gunky by Jesus Cummings - parody fanzine reviews (19)
  • SF Mag Review '68 by Richard Delap - overview of the year in prozines (21)
  • The Klutz Cries by Linda Bushyager - update editorial, including Hugo results, St. Louiscon con report and zine reviews (37)
    • Aleph Null; Akos #1 & 2; ID; Beabohema; Iceni #5; Crossroads; The Third Foundation; Double Bill.
  • Why You Got This (in October) (39)
  • Mike Gilbert Strikes Again - art portfolio
  • "Omphallopsychite" - letters of comment from Richard E. Geis; Robert Silverberg; Piers Anthony; Richard Delap; Howard Green; and Harry Warner Jr.
l bet you are surprised. You were waiting for the rest of Harry’s letter, I’ll bet. But here it is October 4th, almost the 5th, and I’ve decided, rather aprubtly [sic], I admit, to end the issue. (It’s too damn long already,) Sorry, Harry, to cut your letter in half. And sorry too, George Senda, Pauline Palmer, Bill Linden, R. Willingham, Bruce Gillespie, Ken Scher, Mike Deckinger, Mike O’Brien, Jerry Lapidus, Louis Fallert, Don Markstein, Bill Kunkel, Mike Weber, Mike Montgomery, Neal Goldfarb, Richard Labonte, and others whose letters don’t appear. Please keep writing, I enjoy_and need your comments. The lettered will be longer next time, though!

Reactions and Responses - Issue 7

Granfalloon 8

Published in January 1970. 58 pages

Reactions and Responses - Issue 8

Granfalloon 9

cover of issue #9, Connie Reich Faddis

Published in July 1970. 48 pages. It includes:

Reactions and Responses - Issue 9

Granfalloon 10

was published in November 1970. 48 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 10

Granfalloon 11

was published in February 1971. 60 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 11

Granfalloon 12

cover of issue #12

was published in May 1971. 54 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 12

Granfalloon 13

was published in August 1971. 62 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 13

Granfalloon 14

was published in November 1971. 56 pages

Reactions and Responses - Issue 14

Granfalloon 15

was published in January 1972 and contains 62 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 15

Granfalloon 16

was published in December 1972. 48 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 16

Granfalloon 17

cover of issue #17, C. Lee Healy

was published in May 1973. 60 pages. Includes:

Reactions and Responses - Issue 17

Granfalloon 18

was published in December 1973. 62 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 18

Granfalloon 19

was published in December 1974. 48 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 19

Granfalloon 20

was published in July 1976. 54 pages.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 20

Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Granfalloon&oldid=2719392"