[dismiss]

On Fanlore, users with accounts can edit pages including user pages, can create pages, and more. Any information you publish on a page or an edit summary will be accessible by the public and to Fanlore personnel. Because Fanlore is a wiki, information published on Fanlore will be publicly available forever, even if edited later. Be mindful when sharing personal information, including your religious or political views, health, racial background, country of origin, sexual identity and/or personal relationships. To learn more, check out our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Select "dismiss" to agree to these terms.

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, non-fiction, reviews and art
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. The zine included articles on various aspects of science fiction fandom, personal columns, original science fiction, book, music, zine and film reviews, convention reports, art portfolios, plus interior art and cartoons and a lively letter column. At least one issue contains Star Trek: TOS material; unlike other science fiction zines of the time, Granfalloon did not gatekeep and while there were serious discussions (either as articles or LOCs), it was not considered a "sercon zine". It also published much commentary on Worldcon and The Hugo Award.

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. Linda and Suzanne were new to fandom at the time they started the zine, and they were often condescended to by even their supporters as "two girls publishing a fanzine". Unlike some other zine eds, they always accepted their errors and tried to improve. As a result, 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, Harry Warner, Jr., Don D'Ammassa, Tim Kirk, Stephen Fabian and Damon Knight.

As the zine continued, the publishing schedule became more and more erratic. Issue 20 would prove, despite Linda's assertion in her editorial that she wanted to try to publish at least one more issue to mark the zine's 10th anniversary in February 1978, to be the final Granfalloon.

Granfalloon 1

Issue #1 front cover by Adrienne Fein

Published in February 1968, Vol 1, No. 1. 20 pages. Published and edited by Linda G Eyster and Suzanne Tompkins.

Contents:

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 egoboo!-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".

Contents:

  • 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 crusade 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

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

Contents:

  • 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! O 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. Vol. 1, no. 4. 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.

Contents:

  • 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. Vol. 1 no. 5. 46 pages. Editor: Linda Eyster; Assistant Editor & Publisher: Suzanne Tompkins; Resident Artist: Connie Reich; Coolie: Dale Steranka.

Contents:

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 (Harry Harrison) 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.

Contents:

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

Howard Green has issues with certain types of fanart:

One thing I as an artist must take issue with is that you nominated Vaughan Bode for the Hugo Award for Best Fan Artist. HOW DARE YOUI Shame on you Woman!!


SF has always been sort of laughed at by mainstream people and it’s halfbaked artists like Vaughan Bode who promote this kind of put down. For years people like Jack Gaughan, John Schonherr, Paul Lehr, and recently Mike Gilbert have tried to bring SF artwork up to a level that could be respected by anybody in any field. Then along come 3rd rate comic book artists like Kelly (Mad Magazine) Freas, and Vaughan Bode and bring the quality of SF art down to comic book level. Comic book art has no place in serious Science Fiction.

But as long as people like Bode keep getting nominated for Hugo’s, SF fan artists will never occupy a place of respect in anyones mind. Only by bringing SF artwork up to the competitive level of Milton Glaser, Bob Peake, Daniel Schwartz, Mark English,..etc., will SF artwork be respected.

Thanks for listening to me mouth off, but I get very sick of hearing people put down SF because all they’ve seen is a cheap *B’ movie or an old comic SF magazine.

"Omphallopsychite" - Howard Green - Granfalloon Issue #7

Granfalloon 7

cover of issue #7, Richard Delap
table of contents, art by Tim Kirk

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

Contents:

  • 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

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!

Editor's note

Reactions and Responses - Issue 7

In defence of Vaughn Bodē:

As self-proclaimed leader of Vaughan Bode fandom, I should on Howard Green’s complaint. I’m positive that he can’t support his claim Bode is a 3rd rate comic book artist: If Bode is a comic book artist he is one of the very 1st rank, infinitely superior to almost all the others who work in that field. It’s almost as doubtful if Howard can back up his implication that '’comic book art" shouldn’t get involved with serious SF. This establishment of artificial commandments oh wnat artists may and may not do has been tried -over the centuries and has never withstood the evolution of great art. There was a time when a great artist was not supposed to create masterpieces of portraiture unless he was using the aristocracy as his subjects. I’m sure that Howard Green would have criticized Van Gogh in a past era for drawing in the style of fourth graders.


Bode’s work obviously has some things in common with some comic strip art, just as some elements of comic art can be traced ail the way back to people like Hogarth. The point is that Bode has taken influences from here and there and has added to them some completely personal to himself, and the result has been an outpouring of art that is unlike anything anyone-has produced before. It’s quite understandable if some people are turned off by the way Bode looks at the world and the manner in which he interprets his outlook. It’s wrong to imagine, that an anti reaction to Bode will cause anyone to reject other good SF artists or SF itself. Has the existence of Harlan Ellison, his personality, and his activities cause anyone to feel differently toward the stories of Tolkien?

Meanwhile, I am vastly impressed by the covers of this GRANFALOON, even though they’re quite different in nature from Bode, I get the impression that fanzine art has been making a definite breakaway in the past year or so from the old, womout basic themes and it has been showing major advances in composition over the ancient tradition of simple illustration. I can’t imagine the Bowers back cover with any of its elements removed or shifted around; each curve and circle seems to be absolutely essential as a balance to something else and the extreme contrast of shading techniques and positioning of black areas creates an extra third dimension impression in the right places. The Delap front cover is also quite advanced, compared with most fanzine art of the past.

"Omphallopsychite" - Harry Warner, Jr. - Granfalloon #8

Enjoyed Gf7 very much, especially the beautiful cover and Gilbert folio, Howard Green’s letter particularly interested me, I agree with him on some of his points, but I certainly don’t consider Bode a "half-baked artist." There’s really no sense in comparing Bode’s quality to Schonherr, Gaughan, Gilbert, or even mainstream artists like Peake or English; Bode’s style is intensely personal, but it’s not 3rd rate. Within the bounds he’s set for himself, he’s reached a high degree of sophistication; there seems, to me, to be no trace of amateurishness or uncertainty.


You’re correct, Linda, in saying that Bode utilizes comic book style in a new and exciting way. Perhaps Mr. Green disapproves of the comic approach period. I’m no partisan of comic books as a group (though I’m a staunch supporter of Carl Barks, one-time artist for the Disney magazines); the average quality is deplorable. But Bode is in a class by himself.

"Omphallopsychite" - Tim Kirk - Granfalloon #8

Granfalloon 8

Issue #8 front cover by Stephen Fabian (1970)

Published in January 1970. Vol. 3, no. 1. 58 pages. Edited and published by Linda E. Bushyager, with "assistance, encouragement, proofreading, and complaints" from Ron Bushyager.

Contents:

The recent Philcon, however, is the best example to date of a rotten job of convention committee planning. In a large city like Philly it should be easy to find at least one hotel with free ice, parking, and cheap restraunt [sic] — or at least one of the items. But the Warwick had nothing — not even a friendly management (they sent for the police instead of the house dick when several parties got too noisy). But the worst was the poor planning for the program and parties.


People generally go to the con for either the parties or the program, and sometimew both. On Friday some 200 persons had arrived; most just wandered around the hotel lobby because no registration had been set up. At 8pm some finally left for the open ESFA meeting (the local SF club) held 5 blocks away. Few cared to venture from the hotel’s warmth into the freezing, snowy, darkened streets of Philly. Later we learned that this year’s GoH, Joanna Russ had given her speech at the ESFA meeting.

Saturday’s panels were dull, and the wonderful con committee held Anne McCaffrey's GoH speech for Sunday, after most fen had left. Results only about a third of the con heard either of the Guest of Honor speeches, and I doubt that many heard both.

The committee used rather poor judgement (shades of Hal 9000) in planning the parties as well. On Friday (after the ESFA meeting) they eventually had an open party --furnished with $40.00 worth of booze, coke, and cups —— as you can guess, these ran out before midnight. On Saturday the committee sponsored a paid bar in a huge meeting room (only 50# a drink because several publishers chipped in). There were really no other open parties, and after 1pm this closed down.

In a year when no one is bidding open parties are few. The con committee has an obligation to provide a good, free, party for fen who paid $2.00 registration. Many fen come to a con to attend parties and meet people, and a con without a friendly open party is not much fun (especially if you can’t get into a closed one).

Moreover, the committee invited newsmen and a TV station. The latter set up its equipment in the hucksters room, right outside the program. It soon became impossible to leave or enter the hucksters room (and thus the program) without a 20 minute push through a group of similarly minded fans. (A side notes The Philcon collected over $700 from the 350 or so attendees. $200 was spent renting the meeting room, $40 went for booze, and some was paid for suites and publicity. Undoubtedly this left a tidy profit.)

Well, if you plan to put on a con, I hope the above is helpful. Good gosh! I hope we don’t run into such problems putting on the PgHLANGE!

"Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager

(This is an article of advice collected and propagated by an inveterate con-man, one whose experiences in the field of sex have been truly catholic universal. Of course, Mr. C. does not wish this article to appear under his real name, as that would give his little strategems away, but he is willing to share a few of the until-now carefully guarded secrets.


Installment No. 1, written for the sake of femmefans- on the make and femmefans with virginal delusions, is a collaboration with Sally A. Phann, whose feminine commentary and advice were most valuable to the author. Installment No. 2, for all you sex-starved fellow fans of the other gender out there, will be printed in the next GRANFALLOON.)

"Sex At The Cons" by Jesus Cumming

Reactions and Responses - Issue 8

The Cummings piece was singularly deficient in taste, but then all his contributions have been tasteless. I bow to no one in my appreciation of sophisticated ribaldry — I could hardly be a medievalist otherwise — but his pieces are offensive. Not to mention unfunny.

"Omphallopsychite" - Sandra Miesel - Granfalloon #9

Connie's Einstein series is a stunner, both in basic concept and in performance. It's too bad that fanzines aren't yet ready to publish movies, I can imagine this hitting even harder if Gf suddenly darkened the room lights as you turned to the portfolio pages, and then threw 3 pictures onto the nearest patch of blank wall, fading into one another for perhaps 15 seconds or so, then vanishing and leaving the entire room dark long enough to. let you think unhappy thoughts for a little while before the lights came back on and you read the rest of the issue. I enjoyed the Zelazny story, but I might as well come right out and say the truth; the illustrations were more impressive than the story. The fiction was professional level, the kind you can find in any issue of a prozine, The art was also professional, but I can’t think of any place except a fanzine where I would have much chance of seeing it.

"Omphallopsychite" - Harry Warner Jr - Granfalloon #9

Everyone seems to be publishing something concerning Hugos. Between Buck Coulson (Hugos are bad because they have become a national award) and Jerry Lapidus (Hugos are bad because they aren't a national award) and "Paul Hazlett" (This is the Huckstar Generation! Hugos are bought!) I feel like destroying the next fanzine I see in which there is a long, drawn out, badly edited (Coulson being the exception as his was short and well-written) poorly written batch of congrotches [sic]. Let Lapidus bitch elsewhere -- all his column did for me was go over old ground in an unoriginal way.

"Omphallopsychite" - Dave Lewton (editor of Infinitum) - Granfalloon #9

Jerry Lapidus expresses many points which have crossed my mind in recent years, but I still cannot see that rules really will guide anybody out of the mess. This year’s Hugos are the most reasonable list ever, I think, but mainly because they comprised the votes of the largest number of people ever. When you get up into a fairly high number of votes, concerted efforts by interest groups are ruled out. It seems to me that these groups may have swung the odder results in past Hugo bal l ots. Now we have the only real problem of any democratic process.,.if the rabble want Barabbas, they’ll get him! Hugo voters probably vote for personalities like Ellison and Heinlein — on the other hand, STAND ON ZANZIBAR was an outsider to American fandom, I presume it won just because it was a good book.

"Omphallopsychite" - Bruce Gillespie - Granfalloon #9

Granfalloon 9

Issue #9, front cover by Connie Reich Faddis
Issue #9, back cover by Connie Reich Faddis

Published in July 1970. Vol. 3, no. 2. 46 pages. Edited and published by Linda E. Bushyager, assisted by Dale DiNucci, Dennis DiNucci, and Ronald Bushyager.

Contents:

This issue honors the 40th Anniversary of Fanzines. Special thanks go to Tucker, Silverbob, Fabian, and Kirk.


According to Bob Tucker's witty NEO FAN’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE FICTION FANDOM, the first fanzine came out in May, 1930. Entitled "The Comet", it managed to last 17 issues and a name change (to "Cosmology"). Then came "The Planet", also mimeographed. After them came hundreds, then thousands of zines. One estimate is 7000 titles published since the beginning.

Thisish contains an article dealing with the best fanzines of 1969. Obviously, many changes have occurred since the first zines; there are simply more fans, and therefore more sources for artwork and articles. Several zines look and read better than the professional mags, take TRUMPET or SF REVIEW as examples.

But I found the most interesting thing about today*s fanzines is the incredible volume. Each month LOCUS reviews between 20 and 60 fanzines, and it generally never gets around to the myriad apas, comic zines, and horror-film mags. Add all these fanzines together and you get one hell of a pile. (Not to' mention all the foreign zines!)

"Call of the Klutz"

In 1949, when John Campbell edited a magazine called ASTOUNDING, all other science fiction magazines had shaggy edges, and the DowJones Industrial Average was about 122, I started publishing a fanzine, in collaboration with a schoolmate named Saul Diskin. The leading fanzine of the era was called SPACEWARP, so we called ours SPACESHIP. It wasn’t very good. We were barely into our teens and had had little contact with the primitive fandom of that remote era; we also didn’t know how to run a mimeograph very well.


Perseverance pays. Saul Diskin dropped out, but I continued to publish SPACESHIP; I learned how to crank the handle properly, developed some skills an an editor and writer, and by 1952, had transformed SPACESHIP into a Top .10 Fanzine. It was more serious than most others of its era, full of essays on the Purpose of SF and like that; it also ran amateur fiction and poetry, and a lot of other things that wouldn’t be found in a modern fanzine, but for its day it was something pretty special. People like Terry Carr and Roger Dard and Redd Boggs and Hal Shapiro wrote for it. Harlan Ellison didn’t; he hadn’t entered fandom yet, believe it or not. It came out quarterly, usually had 24 pages, and sold for a dime, three for a quarter, the standard price in those days, A lot of people subscribed. All the other top fanmags of the time were on the exchange list.

...

About this time, too, I was going to college, beginning my pro career, and thinking about getting married to that girl in my astronomy class, along with various other things. What with all these distractions, publishing a zine began to seem like a dispensable activity. I kept SPACESHIP going in a grim, dogged way, not really wanting to. It had served its purpose in my life, and I wanted to kill it, but a lot of other fans felt kindly about it.

Then came a blast from Peter Vorzimer.

"Why I Stopped Publishing a Fanzine"

"Sensies" by Sandra Miesel
"Sensies" by Sandra Miesel

Reactions and Responses - Issue 9

I did enjoy letters from Jeff Smith and Mike Glicksohn, both writing in a reasoned, well-thought-out manner that I enjoy. Tucker is only mildly funny here, but he got off a few good lines. Tim Kirk’s cartoons are just lovely, especially the one of the giant infernal mimeo. Silverberg’s article only makes me wish he had gone on for 5 more pages, in greater detail. Sandra Miesel’s "Sensies” somehow really do seem to communicate something about the person described, in almost every case. Fabian’s portfolio seemed mediocre for Fabian; He’s not among my favorite artists, but I’m coming to appreciate him more as time goes on. Covers enjoyed, especially the Butch Cassidy take-off.


[/John, I very much appreciated your letter. I think you’ve stated very well several fallacies in my complaints about the EGOBOO poll, I also appreciate the fact that you managed to disagree with my opinions and still be nice. Some fans take criticism as a personal insult and shoot back insulting criticism, which I guess, makes them feel better. I think most of our differences are simply a matter of taste. You like ODD more than LOCUS, that’s your prerogative. But I still feel that quality has to be considered with quantity and vice versa. Both the EGOBOO poll and Hugo awards are for the best overall effort. These honors are not just for one piece of artwork, but for best artist, which to me indicates best total output by an artist. Same for fanzine production, or any other award. Perhaps someone should give a poll for best single issue of a fanzine, best LoC, or best illo. But endurance, stamina, and hard work have got to count for something. And as long as honors are supposed to cover a certain period of time, I’ve got to consider a: person’s total work.

But again, my quirk about insisting on considering quantity as one criterion is merely personal taste. And, of course, I still consider quality of top importance. I objected to Jay Kinney’s win as Best New Fan of 1969 because, as you say, he has been active for several years. There really weren’t too many good choices in this category. I think I may have voted for Dave Burton or no award, I can’t remember.

As for Terry Carr being #1 Fan Face — when I mentioned Charlie Brown, Andy Porter, etc, I could have been mentioning any one of many fans. Add Elliot, Shorter, Rotsler, Bruce Pelz, John Berry, Bill Bowers or any other actifan you can think of. Pick whoever you like best, but at least pick someone who was truly active in the last year.

After all the controversy this has invoked I’ve really thought about it, and I guess the main thing I objected to was that many EGOBOO winners are not now actifans, and I think the poll was intended to honor people who are currently really active, not just the occasional letter writer or sometime fanzine.

John, you’re right, I was pretentious regarding Gf’s artwork, and wrong too. Sinful pride, I guess. And as for all the above on the EGOBOO poll, I may sound a bit fuggheaded or pretentious, but I think what it really is is sheer stubbornness. I believe in my opinions and want to at least make them clear, if not convincing. And I hope no one is further outraged by them. They’re just my personal preferences, and we're all entitled to that. - LeB/]

"Omphallopsychite" - John D. Berry - Granfalloon Issue #10 notes in [ ] by the editor

Lately I have found myself more interested in the editors than in the contributions of a specific fanzine. That is, I look for their editing, personality, wisdom, maturity, sense of humor...and fair play, as related to fandom and their zine.


Somehow, the contributions in zines are generally predictable after you are around for awhile. They have a pattern of similarity based on the food source they share: the providers of material. And so I find the real difference in zines comes from the editors — those guys and gals who pick out bits and pieces to make what is going to be ’’them”... and I look to their arrangement and the music that comes out of it. THAT is where a zine either does or does not make it with me.

[What you say is true, within limits. Sometimes an editor can’t get suitable material, no matter how he tries. For instance, with the 40th Anniversary issue, I wrote many people asking for special articles and only Silverberg and Tucker responded. Yet I had a terrific amount of artwork, and happily had two folios. You can do a lot with the material you have, but it is hard when you have very little material to work with. -LB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Steven Fabian - Granfalloon Issue #10 notes in [ ] by the editor

I like to think that fanzines are published because they give fans a chance to get their reasoned thoughts into a permanent form where quite a few other people will see them, free from almost all types of censorship and restraint. This is the first era since the invention of printing when it’s almost impossible to get your thoughts published without distortion or drastic consequences in any other way. Printing costs have gone so high that hardly anyone can afford to pay a printer to publish the books that no publisher will purchase. You’ve got to write to editors' requirements to get your stuff in print in magazines and paperbacks. If you write for a school magazine, you have faculty problems. Even the underground press has its taboos and special requirements. Fanzines are different. I can rave about anything I want and have the remarks circulated at a price I can afford or send them to other fanzines. Some people are satisfied to express themselves in conversation to a handful of people. But fans like to speak in a form that can be reviewed and returned to later for the eyes of somewhat more people. Therefore, fanzines.

"Omphallopsychite" - Harry Warner Jr. - Granfalloon Issue #10

Granfalloon 10

Issue #10 front cover by Derek Carter
Issue #10 back cover by Derek Carter

Published in November 1970. 48 pages. Vol. 3, no. 3. Published and edited by Linda Bushyager. Chief Assistant: Dale DiNucci. Proofreader: Dennis DiNucci. Helper: Suzanne Tompkins. Financier: Ronald Bushyager. Collators: Western Pa. SF Assoc. SUPPORT BOB SHAW! SUPPORT TAFF!

Contents

  • Front cover and bacover by Derek Carter.
  • Table of Contents (1)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager - editorial (2)
Also apologies to any of you who took my advice on fanzine production as unbreakable rules as Dave Lewton and Arnie Katz did. I did not intend them as strict rules, only as hints. Nor did I intend to imply that Granfalloon is a sterling example, obviously it isn’t. I sometimes type over mistakes instead of correcting each one, sometimes I print poorer artwork or articles, I’m not immune to mistakes, as these apologies prove. But I do try to put out as good a zine as I can - and it can be no better than the material I receive and the amount of money I can afford to spend. I hope that most of you enjoy Gf.

"Call of the Klutz"

Long before The Prisoner started people to claim themselves not to be numbers, fans were dashing about in all directions claiming that their fandoms had numbers. Half in jest, half seriously, the phenomenon known as Seventh Fandom grew out of this concept of numbered fandoms. 7th Fandom either destroyed or made permanent the concept of numbered fandoms, according to who is talking about it. Some of today* s fans who weren't even old enough to study Modern Sandpile in kindergarten when Seventh Fandom was in its glory are talking nostalgically about it.


The historical facts about the start of Seventh Fandom are fairly well established. In October, 1952 Bob Silverberg predicted the start of 7th Fandom by the end of 1953 in Quandry. Less than a year later, a group of fans decided to make sure his prophecy came true. For the first time, a numbered fandom was proclaimed as it was alleged to be starting. There seems to have been a mixture of earnest and jesting people in the group that made most of the noise about their status as 7th Fandom pioneers, and it’s quite probable that not all of them were fully aware of how seriously the others took it.

...

The movement’s first important event seems to have been a meeting in Harlan Ellison’s Cleveland apartment some time before the 1953 Mdwescon, On hand at this HEcon were a group of youthful fans, many of them still in the neofan status: Dave Ish, Karl Olsen, Norm Browne, Jack Harness, Bill Dignin, John Magnus, Sally Dunn, and Ray Schaffer. Fandom seemed to have come into dark days just then: Quandry had just folded, an event whose magnitude can’t be exaggerated, and many people who later became faanish legends had temporarily or permanently begun to gafiate: Shelby Vick, Max Keasler, Ian Macauley, and others. Browne later insisted that the HEcon decision was to create 7th Fandom as a hoax. Ellison remembered it somewhat differently: the movement, he said, "started half in jest, half in folly, with a sort of subconscious eye cocked to the possibility that in it we might establish reputations of lasting worth."

"Groin Pains"

"Sensies II" by Sandra Miesel
"Sensies II" by Sandra Miesel; art by Ron Miller
In a way, this is a con report, because Harlan Ellison was not just GoH at PgHLANGE II, he was PgHLANGE II. His personality pervaded the con, he was its focal point. He and the students from Clarion set the atmosphere for the weekend.


This was Harlan’s farewell address to the troops. After 20 years he’s leaving fandom, as of this con. Although he seemed to enjoy himself during this weekend, he made it very plain in his GoH speech that he’s had it with fandom, with being the whipping boy of the more loudmouthed segment of fandom, with being the victim of childish practical jokes, with "wasting time on foolishness while the world is dying"; he’ll keep in touch with his personal friends in fandom, and of course he’ll continue writing — more, and better, he says — but no more cons, no more open communication with insular fandom.

"Pghlange 2: Harlen on My Mind"

  • ART PORTFOLIO by Ron Miller
  • "The Fittest" by Janet Fox - fiction (19)
  • "The Alien Rat Fink" by Richard Delap - book reviews of the Ace specials (22)
  • "Onphallopsychite" - letters of comment by John D. Berry, Jerry Lapidus, Richard Geis, Steven Fabian, Harry Warner Jr, Ruth Berman, David WM Hulvey, Jeff Smith, Mike Glicksohn, Richard Delap, Ken Budka. Also heard from: Jeff Schalles, Lisa Tuttle, Frank Johnson. "Ed Cagle, Ron Miller, Felice Rolfe, Sylvia Wendell, Robert Furr, and others wrote. Piers Anthony and Hal Davis sent postcard Iocs." Sandra Miesel, Florence Jenkins, Jeff Soyer, Bill von der Linden, Dimitrii Razwald, Bill Tredinnick, Roy Tackett, Mike Kring, and Jerry Kaufman. "Grant Canfield, Paj, and John Ingham sent drawings and I hope to hear and see more from these talented guys." (30)
  • "The Klutz Returns" by Linda Bushyager (43)
As for all the controversy lastish invoked — I hope it will have died down. I had hoped to refrain from mentioning it at all, but I couldn't resist a few comments, apologies, and explanations throughout this issue. I didn’t intend to insult anyone and I hope I really haven't. I made several mistakes and am,of course, willing to admit them. And I don't believe all my opinions are necessarily . ’’correct” ones — they are just opinions. And I believe and hope that most of you feel that GRANFALLOON is a decent zine. I put it out for the fun of it and for the delight of seeing a tangible work I can be proud of. I guess I’m really just a little depressed that several people feel that Gf is not merely klutzy or average, but downright bad — "fandom’s horrible example." I know it is not a great fanzine, but is it really that bad?


Sigh.

"Return of the Klutz"

Reactions and Responses - Issue 10

You are to be congratulated for producing this good 10th issue without showing any printed evidence of hysteria or rancor for the beating you've been taking. Some of your remarks in the previous issue were a trifle unwarranted and some of the comment they attracted was considerably unwarranted. You've emerged in good condition from the turmoil and I hope you won't hesitate to express opinions of unpopular nature again in the future, even though I fear you've chosen a safer topic for attack this time. Heinlein is the only person involved with SF who has raised as many eyebrows as you did during 1970. Incidentally, I appreciate greatly the highly appropriate illustration that leads off my article. Even if it wasn't done Specifically as a commentary on 7th Fandom, it fits beautifully.

...

Nancy Lambert's analysis of the Harlan-fandom thing is quite interesting. Some of it may be superfluous pretty soon, since Harlan seems to be recanting already. Maybe he'll just repeat the excellent example set by Patti, the great opera star, whose farewells to the stage became an annual tradition for several decades. Of course, Harlan has over-reacted to fandom's calmness toward his Clarion activities. It's the first time he's ever been a teacher and it's a big thing to him. If Clarion produces a real genius-type SF writer, Harlan will be justified; if all that emerge from his efforts are dozens of mediocre authors who join the hundreds already in existence, fandom will be justified in refusal to be awed by the whole project.

[Now that Harlan has shown up as GoH of Mondocon, we in Pittsburgh fandom who got to know and like him at PgHLANGE, find ourselves filled with disappointment that his resolve dissolved so easily. On the other hand, we hope that Harlan will remain active in fandom. He is a fascinating, witty, and nice person. I hope he remains in fandom this time around. But it's a man's prerogative to change his mind. And Harlan often does just that. As for the Clarion Workshop, I feel that Harlan has every reason to be proud. It looks as if the students are indeed turning out excellent work. After the short 6-Week course, about half of the kids produced selling stories. And that seems to be an outstanding amount of success.-LeB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Harry Warner Jr. - Granfalloon Issue #11, notes in [ ] by the editor

I have to admit to a feeling of guilt when I read the back page where you checkmarked that line about "Have you noticed how many feuds..." etc. . In all truth I thought Gf9.was both fuggheaded and pretentious, and I believe I shared that opinion with a few people, but I'm happy to see, in your answer to John Berry, that you are capable of admitting your mistakes and limitations. What more can anyone ask? Unlike some, I don't think Gf is the "worst" fanzine in recent years; it's definitely not the kind of fanzine I'd ever publish, and I don't find much to read in it outside of the letter section, but for what it is, I think it's very well done. I think your layout and use of artwork are much improved in this issue, and while it's nothing to get a swelled head-about...I think you could consider yourself competent in this regard.


I don't want to get any further into this "controversy"— if indeed it is one — over what constitutes a good fanzine and all the rest. You're quite correct in telling John that we're all entitled to our personal preferences. You represent a sizeable portion of fandom with your tastes; in my first 2 years in fandom I'm sure I would have read GRANFALLOON faithfully and had little contact with zines like EGOBOO.

"Omphallopsychite" - Greg Shaw - Granfalloon #11

Ron Miller's article reiterates one of my old and oft repeated beefs -- that there should be more reflection of contemporary art. I have no complaint but one about the admirable article (more! more!) and that is something I find hard to avoid — the use of technical jargon. I have found the pursuit of pure form as interesting but as useless as the pursuit of objectivity (as opposed to subjectivity). An amusing intellectual game which serves to segregate the artist from his audience. But that is my opinion as "For anyone to look beyond significance for worldly emotions is a weakness..." is his opinion.


The "aesthetic emotion" breaks down into "I like that — I don't like that" and is embellished or orchestrated or varied by the ability, background or culture of the speaker/observer. Well, I could go on for pages — just let me qualify all my opinions with this, my belief, "The work of an artist is incomplete without an audience". When I was 16/20 years old I’d have spit in your eye if you told me that. The difficulty is to work while aware of an audience without catering to it. I too often cater. And that sir, without going into finances, etc. is the weakness of SF art. It is also what makes SF SF. One statement does not exclude the other.

"Omphallopsychite" - Jack Gaughan - Granfalloon #11

Gf remains a highly enjoyable fanzine, no matter what anyone says, from its superb Carter cover through its intelligent and informative articles to its literate and amusing lettered. On top of all that, it includes my name three times; what more could anyone ask of a definitely superior fanzine?


The tremendous increase in the size of fandom has its drawbacks and has led recently to what I consider to be some invalid conclusions. Your own example is a case in point. Because you didn’t receive some fanzines in 1969 you were led to some conclusions that got you into some pretty hot water. This is really to be expected: with very few exceptions, I doubt that most faneds receive even a sizeable proportion of the fannish output for any given period. (But tsk, tsk, for not knowing about ANALOG and Freas — I haven't bought ANALOG for two years but the damn thing is so widely distributed one can't help but see each issue, and Freas has a unique and easily recognizeable style). Therefore, about any conclusion you want to draw about the state of fandom is almost bound to be based on an incomplete sampling of current material, and one must be very careful in making generalizations. (I'm hedging my bets here by repeating "almost" because probably the very rare individual such as Charlie Brown does get a sizeable percentage of current zines, but he's an anomaly, statistically insignificant.)

The other widespread and, I feel, invalid generalization that has become popular lately, is that there are very few good writers in fandom nowadays. The way I see it, is that the writers we do have appear in a smaller % of the zines than did the giants of the past. Hence, there do not appear to be as many good writers as in distant days when fandom was small enough for one man to write for nearly all the better zines. There are just too many fanzines being published nowadays for a small group of talented writers to dominate the field. Thus, each zine is inclined to develop its own stable of writers who perhaps are not seen in too many other fanzines, I feel it is this diversification of our writers which has become noticeable rather than a particular decline in the writing ability of fans. And of course, there has been a definite change in the emphasis of fannish writing which a lot of older fans equate with a decline in talent. This is nonsense. Change is change and you can accept it or reject it but there's no call to accuse someone of being a poor writer just because he writes articles about science fiction rather than about fans.

[I think you have a valid point. I'm one of those people who has wondered: "Where are all the fan writers?" For some reason we have plenty of great fan artists, who appear in many different zines. Yet I have a hard time coming up with fan writers who appear in more than one or two zines. I can think of several excellent writers who might deserve Hugo recognition, if they were more active, Rosemary Ullyot, Dick Geis, Juanita Coulson, Sandra Miesel, Ginjer Buchanan, and others. It is really a shame that these talented people don't appear more frequently. -LeB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Mike Glicksohn - Granfalloon #11

Granfalloon 11

Issue #11 front cover by Stephen Fabian
Issue #11 back cover by Stephen Fabian

Published in February 1971. Vol. 4, no. 1. 60 pages. Edited and published by Linda E. Bushyager. Assisted by Dale & Dennis DiNucci, with moral support from Ron Bushyager, and collated by the Western Pennsylvania Science Fiction Association. "Help, the paranoids are after us!"

Contents:

  • Front cover by Steven Fabian
  • Table of Contents (1)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager - editorial, including note re the Hugo Award nomination form (2)
It is funny to look over the first issue of Gf — run on one side of the page, dittoed, a true 1st issue crudzine. And it is interesting to note that in 1968 Suzanne Tompkins and I published 5 issues, in 1969: only 2 (one jointly and one on my own), in 1970: 3. My special favorites of the first 2 years: ”My Life at Nycon or Memoirs of a Shy Young Thing” by Dale Steranka (now DiNucci); ”An Interview with Alexei Panshin” by Sunday Jordane; "A Space Oddity” by Leo Vale; ”I’ve had No Sleep and I Must Giggle" Ginjer Buchanan’s outstanding Baycon report; Bob Tucker’s 1st Faan Poll; Piers Anthony’s story; Jerry Kaufman’s poem, "Nova Expressive"; "Ravished" by Piers Anthony; Bill Bower’s cover; color artwork; Gaughan and Connie Faddis artwork.


Last year’s highlights seemed to me to be: Gf8's Fabian cover and Kirk bacover; Einstein Portfolio (Faddis); "My Lady of the Diodes" by Zelazny; Connie Faddis*s photographic covers for Gf9; Tim Kirk folio; "Why I Stopped Publishing a Fanzine" by Bob Silverberg; "Groin Pains" by Harry Warner Jr.; Delap’s reviews of the Ace Specials; artwork by Delap, Miller, Carter, Rotsler, and Faddis.

"Call of the Klutz"

  • "The Web of a Cool Clear Spider is Rougher Than a Cob" by Jack Gaughan - article about his work with GALAXY (6)
  • "It Almost Began with Deglar" by Lee Lavell - article about Indianapolis fandom (10)
In the nineteen forties there arose, for the first time, notable fanac in Indiana. It was notable in the lowest sense. Notorious is a better word. Claude Degler. He made his mark on fandom and then, fortunately, disappeared. The only other Indiana fans pre-fifties were the ’’Decker Dillies" and Joe Hensley. I knew nothing personally about any of these at the time. I entered fandom at the end of 1950... when the first ISFA was born. It was organized by Ray Beam and the initials stood for Indiana Science Fantasy Association. Among its early members were Jim Lavell, Jerry Hunder, and myself. Also meeting at ISFA for the first time were Juanita Wellons (who promptly formed her own club, centered around Muncie, and called FISFA ("The Cooool SF Club), and started pubbing a clubzine named after the club), Buck Coulson (who married Juanita and converted the clubzine to YANDRO), and Gene DeWeese (who teamed with Buck to become "Thomas Stratton"). There were also three high school students who soon became known as the "Three Bems."

"It Almost Began with Deglar"

Although five months ago I attended my fourth Worldcon, I still feel, in many ways, that I am a newcomer to fandom. Although I know lots of fans personally, read fanzines, attend as many conventions as feasible, helped to start an SF club and run two regionals, and really enjoy fandom and many fannish activities, there always seems to be a new and exciting (so to speak) aspect to be dealt with. During these past few months, several fannish feuds have developed and hit very close to home. I simply must say — I don’t like them, not one little bit. Of course, fannish feuding is quite traditional and there have been many famous feuds with marvelously slanderous comments flung back and forth between fans in "timely" fanzines. But never before have I been exposed to the inner workings of such a thing. Until now, that is. And I don’t like it. At all. One little bit. Even a teensy.


This decision was made after watching Linda Bushyager and GRANFALLOON being attacked from many sides — unfairly — ridiculously — because she has had the "gall" to express her opinion within the fannish circle. I do sometimes disagree with Linda (I know it will be difficult for some minds to grasp the concept that people really can be friends without copying each other’s opinions down to the letter...), not in this instance however, and I am offended by the high-handed, crude manner in which some fans have handled a difference of opinion with her.

...

...When she did this, she apologized. Several times. These apologies were obviously not accepted, since all they brought down was another rush of denunciations. I couldn’t even begin to imagine why, until I realized that there was a major lack of communication going on. This shows itself in two ways:

First is a real example of misreading of one’s comments: In Gf9, Linda made publishing and printing suggestions for fanzines, especially aimed at novice faneds. Obviously, she was simply listing a few of the methods she uses, or attempts to use, in Gf. Of course, everyone has their own style and way of doing their fanzine; one is not right and the other wrong. In no way did she even imply that hers was the only way of doing things. It seems incredible that anyone could find fault with these helpful hints (but, to quote a tag line from BEYOND THE FRINGE) — People did! Cries of "How dare you try to tell anyone how to do their fanzine!" and "You are wrong — how could you know what’s right!" came flying in. As a person who by accident of birth rather than undue interest happens to know a great deal more about different methods of duplication and operation of machines than probably most fans (I am not being egotistical, truly -- my parents own an A.B. Dick distributorship), I feel Linda's suggestions were valid. Not for everyone, every time. But my opinion is as valid as any experienced fan in this area, and there was simply nothing wrong with what she said. And what some people mis-read ("her superior attitude") was not there.

The second example is more or less hypothetical, because using a real example is rather confusing and would take two pages of narrative to explain. Basically it is the attempt to discuss any disagreement logically, on friendly terms, as it constantly turns out...

"Suzlecol Revisited"

There are, just in fandom itself, a large number of artists: only a handful of whom have made any considerable reputations beyond the immediate environs of their home fanzine. Preeminent among these are Steve Fabian and Mike Gilbert, the former having gained a reputation out of proportion to his contribution to SF art. Nor do I mean quantitative contribution, as his prolificness is in no way indicative of any artistic improvement of the condition of SF art. Quite the contrary, in fact. What, if anything, has he done to make SF art as up-to-date or as hyper-contemporary as the literature it illustrates? Nothing. He evokes and tries to recreate the art of the 1930 pulps. Whether he is successful or not is beside the point now what is important is that his coquill board and grease pencil drawings do nothing but anchor SF to a decade as remote to us as it was from Jules Verne. Nothing is wrong with that art — but it is past tense: it has already been done, forty years ago, and Fabian’s pastiches of it do nothing but mimic it. He ought to have used it as a jumping-off point, a point of departure. As has been done, for example, so successfully and creatively with the animated cartoon art of the 30's and 40’s, recently. As it is, he is an anachronistic artist and SF has no place for anachronisms.


I am not picking on Fabian, or using a unique example— he stands among a large group, from Foster and Barr in fandom to Emsh and Freas in prodom.

"First Point of Aries"

  • "Mike Gilbert Answers Back" by Mike Gilbert - "(The following article is in reply to Ron Miller's column in the last issue. After this issue's installment, we may find Ron and Mike locking horns for next issue. How about a cartoon battle, guys?-LeB)" (34)
Nostalgia and the fact that many artists who are talented move on to much greener pastures is why SF illustration lingers in its own past. One cannot have an. evolving force when in a sense its members really "die" off (leave the field). A continuing influence is needed and the only one who provides any forward movement is Jack Gaughan, who at the very least, as anyone will grant, is experimenting in new directions.


No, dammit, — I am fed up with musclemen and cutesy fantasy artwork. Likewise, I will not be turned into a trend follower. Let's try at least to keep SF illustration clean, even if we are "behind." Hell, take a look at some of the modern stuff being done today and ask yourself, do I want that? All we can do is try, but you, dear audience, your nostalgic roots run deep....

"Mike Gilbert Answers Back"

Reactions and Responses - Issue 11

Austin is fantastic! One of the best stylists in fandom and I really fail to understand the rejection of her work by one national magazine. I read that she also has some work coming up in an Ace book, to which I look forward as a breakthrough for a very much deserving artist. Linda, your own article on Heicon was without a doubt the best I’ve read on the European convention, and Tim Kirk’s hilarious illustrations beautifully captured the marvelous humor of your writing. Congratulations to you both!

"Omphallopsychite" - Richard Delap - Granfalloon #12

I don't think fan art is at all inferior to available amateur art. Compare what's displayed at the Worldcon with exhibits at shopping centers, churches, fairs, etc. Would any of the combatants care to discuss the use of SF and fantasy elements by current "mainstream" artists? For instance, the satiric cartoons of Ronald Searle are usually fantastic. His latest print: a butterfly-winged, business-suited Icarus tumbling down the concrete canyons of a city.

"Omphallopsychite" - Sandra Miesel - Granfalloon #12

As usual, your artwork is superb. It seems that OUTWORLDS, ENERGUMEN and GRANFALLOON have been consistently producing the finest artwork to be seen in fandom since TRUMPET folded, and there I think it was the slick repro and the gorgeous Barr covers I remember most of all. Grant Canfield is a Major Find. Don't let him sneak off or gafiate or anything like that. Of course, my tastes in art are strange and I've been raked across the coals for being an "artistic philistine" and all that, but when you manage to have all my favorites (save Barr) printed, what can I say?

"Omphallopsychite" - Bob Vardeman - Granfalloon #12

I’m glad Jack Gaughan wrote his article. I’d been hearing stories to this effect — the impossibility, or improbability of his deadlines — for months. I know Jack has wanted to be able to design those magazines for years, and I think that if given the time and opportunity he could do an unparalleled job. It's a shame that he isn't given the time to go with the opportunity.


[More bad news — rumors have it that Jack is now out at GALAXY and will no longer be editing the artwork. Hey, Jack, would you like to write another article on your troubles with GALAXY? Hey, Ted, have you ever thought of hiring a new art editor for AMAZING?]

...

Lee Lavell raises an interesting point about clubs in her article — what function do clubs really serve? As a gathering place for starry-eyed fans? As a gung-ho sercon club with Important Programs each meeting? I suspect most fans who belong to clubs have never really thought it out: they know that clubs are part of fandom and they either join one already in existence or form their own. But then they're not quite sure what should be done with the club. This problem is aggravated by the nature of most clubs — they support a very small fandom. Only L.A., N.Y.C., and the Bay Area have enough fans for several clubs in the area — and thus one club must serve for. all the fans in the area. This throws rather diverse types into a single, small arena and almost inevitably produces a personality conflict — or "feud; and this.often breaks up the club (or schisms into two clubs, one of which rarely has more than three or four members, and dies — sometimes both die). In New York, fans of like mind — whatever their interest — could usually find enough of their kind to form their own club. The Fanoclasts is over ten years old now, and seems destined to go on forever, because it is based on the notion that the members should enjoy each other's company.

"Omphallopsychite" - Ted White - Granfalloon #12, editor comments in [ ]

Granfalloon 12

Issue #12 front cover - "Circe" by Alicia Austin
Issue #12 back cover - "Lohengrin - The Swan Prince" by Alicia Austin

Published in May 1971. Vol. 4, No.2. 54 pages. Edited and published by; Linda E. Bushyager. Proofreader: Ron Bushyager. Mimeo: Johann Sebastian Bach Smith ("Smitty"). Electronic Stencils; Alpajpuri.

Contents:

  • Front cover "Circe" by Alicia Austin
  • Table of Contents (1)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda E. Bushyager - editorial (2)
I'm very pleased to print the first half of John Berry's fanzine article. I hope John will write me another paragraph for inclusion nextish regarding GRANFALLOON's future (Hey, John?) in the conclusion. Arnie Katz and Mike Glicksohn have promised future, if irregular installments of their columns. And nextish will include an article about Ted White's latest book TROUBLE ON PROJECT CERES. This is primarily because Ted had some trouble with the book — the editor eliminated the first two chapters, and merely began the story rather arbitrarily in chapter three. The chapters will also be printed in Gf, so if you are a Ted White fan (or even if you are not), you should be sure and get. the next two issues of Gf, for TROUBLE promises to be one of Ted's best books.

"Call of the Klutz"

  • "Remembrances of 31 January 1971" by Andy Offut - article on Apollo 14. (4)
  • "Splinters: The Education of Bruce Tazler, Neofan, At The Hands of Two Jaded Trufen" by Arnie Katz - fannish adventures [Editor's Note: This installment of SPLINTERS, like all of Arnie's future columns, is based on material which originally appeared in his personalzine, LOG.(6)
  • "I Have Seen the Future and It ls Scruffy" by John D. Berry - article on fanzine history from the 1960s (8)
  • "Winds Light to Variable" by Mike Glicksohn - article on buying artwork (12)
Well, in the months that followed, I came to understand my affliction. It is not an uncommon one. We are easily spotted at every con; eyes glazed, we stagger around the Art Show, trembling hands clutching towards the paintings, sniffing canvasses and peering frenziedly at bidding slips. Our cracked voices hoarsely puncture the air at bid-offs and regularly, when our wallets prove inadequate to the task of obtaining a particularly choice "fix," we may be found, poor pathetic creatures that we are, quivering and moaning in a corner, a process we in the business call "cold tempera." And of course, the habit is becoming more and more expensive every year. Back at that Nycon auction, I scored two Gaughans for only $65, a hit that lasted me until BayCon. But nowadays a black and white Furd doodle will bring $25 and the color covers, when a new shipment is imported from the Ace warehouses of the mysterious East, will run well into the three figure range. Is it any wonder that there has been such an increase in mimeo-napping, locing of neos, and assault with intent to collate?


Though my degradation was soon complete, and I began picking up Carters, Barrs and even Bodes, I still retained a love for those two original Gaughans, the causes of my downfall. After the initial rushes had subsided, I continued to get a feeling of complete euphoria, and when they were cut with a frame, my joy was even greater. And strangely, though they started me on the road to ruin, they are also offering me a possible- salvation. For I'm in danger of losing them! My father, an uncommonly selfish and cruel person, seems to feel that since they've been on his wall for nearly 2 and a half years, they are now his property. (In this respect, his gall's worthy of Soames Forsythe.) But my acrylic-sodden brain has devised a plan! Susan, Rosemary and I are talking him into driving us down to Lunacon and attending the con with us. And Jack Gaughan is bound to be there. And my Dad has much more money than I do and he really wants to get some Gaughan paintings...Maybe I'll finally get this monkey off my back after all!!

"Winds Light to Variable"

  • "Living on Borrowed Plots" by Don D'Ammassa - article SF plot similarities (16)
  • "Mike Gilbert Answers Back" by Mike Gilbert - an artist articulates artfully about art (18)
I must say that Ron Miller made many valid remarks in his last article that were quite informative and showed considerable insight. However, when one fires a broadside the size of the one he delivered much of one’s fire goes astray.


I agree that SF shouldn’t be so ridden with art that reflects "the glory of its past," but I think that Ron misses a very important point in dismissing Fabian as an anachronism. On one hand, he dismisses Fabian as a past page while lauding the (as I consider) insipid, boring, and uninspiring copies of 30's and 40’s style comic art as modern. Both of the above are evidence of the nostalgia trend that has infected all walks of life for the past few years. There is a national craze for nostalgia and art is one place where it is most easily noticed.

And the fact that Fabian is doing what he does with a good reception makes what he does valid. No amount of dismissing him as an anachronism will make-him disappear. There is a market for nostalgia today and that market promotes the continued existence of nostalgia-related items.

"Mike Gilbert Answers Back"

  • "The Mastermind" by Ron Miller - a play (21)
  • "Imagination Bookshelf" by Cy Chauvin, Ted Pauls, Rick Stooker and Linda Bushyager - various book reviews (25)
  • "The Alien Rat Fink" by Richard Delap - book reviews (32)
  • "Omphallopsychite" - letters of comment from Mike Glicksohn, David L. Emerson, Grant Canfield, Jerry Kaufman, Ted White, Bill Rotsler, Jeff Smith, Sandra Miesel, Bob Vardeman, Ken Scher, Harry Warner Jr, Eli Cohen, Alpajpuri, Richard Delap, Dave Hulvey. (38)
A large number of people. Unfortunately there's no room to print the rest of the letters, but I thank you all for sending them. . They do help. We also got lots of fanzines. I'm sorry not to have a fanzine review column, but let me mention a few recommended zines: ALGOL (Andy Porter), OUTWORLDS (Bill Bowers), EMBELYON (Lee and Jim Lovell), ENERGUMEN (Mike Glicksohn), THE ESSENCE (Jay Zaremba), FOCAL POINT (see page 7), LOCUS (Charlie and Dena Brown), SPECULATION (Pete Weston) and a new one which is different and interesting, WILD FENNEL (P.W. Frames).

"We Also Heard From" - editor's notes

Reactions and Responses - Issue 12

The obvious difference between Gf 11 and 12 is the difference in layout and reproduction. While 11 tends to be rather loose in both areas, 12 is one of the best issues graphicwise you've put out yet. The layout and choice of illos is generally more logical and pleasing to the eye — less clashing of styles in the use of single artists in two-page spreads. One of the biggest problems I've seen in fanzine layout recently is a seeming inability to view layout in terms of two-page spreads, which is how the magazine appears to the reader. With the single exceptions of the front and back covers, you're always looking at two pages in the normal reading of the magazine. It seems as if most fan editors don't really consider this, don’t balance pages. So where single-page layout might be very good, the magazines don’t usually hold together in terms of layout and design. Thankfully, you seem to have recognized this situation, in at least many cases, and the results show it.

"Omphallopsychite" - Jerry Lupidus - Granfalloon #14

Alicia's front cover is most appealing but the lettering for the title is quite distracting because of its sloppy irregularity. Am I correct that you added the title after the drawing had come? The position of the lettering is fine: if a title was needed, that’s a good place for it, since it leads the eye nicely into the cover. But the differing slants of the letters and the different baseline they appear to be on spoil things. Considering the difficulty in laying out square set letters on a smoothly curved baseline, I think it would have been more impressive if you'd had the title hand-lettered by some local talent.

[I plead guilty. But what local talent? -LeB]

Andy Offut most likely felt the shock waves at the Apollo launch (ground and atmospheric) not the sound waves, but his is a moving piece with an eloquent message. I think I liked it more than Jodie's report in OUTWORLDS.

"Omphallopsychite" - Mike Glicksohn - Granfalloon #14, editor's notes in italics and [ ]

You said you would definately [sic] classify me as a cartoonist in any artist/cartoonist category split. I thought that was interesting. I don’t know if I agree with you or not. I am certainly as intrigued with the cartoon medium (in its contemporary sense) as I am with "serious" art, as practiced by those you classify as "solid artists." But I certainly don’t think of the cartoon medium, as you apparantly [sic] do, as a "lower" artform. You say, "I’m afraid you guys/cartoonists, specifically Rotsler, Ingham, Kinney, and Canfield, just can't stand up against the competition from solid artists like Austin, Fabian, Gilbert, Barr, etc." I guess that depends on what we’re competing for. I presume you are referring to Hugo competition, in which case you may be right. In other, perhaps less backwater, competitive arenas, however, I don’t think you will find the cartoonist held in such low esteem.

"Omphallopsychite" - Grant Canfield - Granfalloon #14

Granfalloon 13

Issue #13 front cover by Mark Gelotte
Issue #13 back cover by C. Lee Healy

Published in August 1971. Vol. 4, No. 3. 62 pages. Edited and published by Linda E. Bushyager. Chief Assistant: Ronald Bushyager. Proofreader: Jolie Brink. Electronic Stencils: Alpajpuri.

Contents:

  • Front cover by Mark Gelotte.
  • Table of Contents (1)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager - editorial (2)
FAN CARTOONIST AWARD


In the last two issues I discussed the possibilities of having a Fan Cartoonist Hugo category. Mike Glicksohn, Grant Canfield, and several others expressed interest, but also doubt about the feasibility of dividing the category. Then Alex Eisenstein wrote a compelling argument against this award, which appears as part of his "To Hell with Ron Miller" article this issue. After looking over the arguments I decided that they were right — not only is a fan cartoonist category not really needed, but also it would be impossible to divide the award when several artists would fit into both categories.

TROUBLE WITH PROJECT CERES

This issue also includes the first chapter of Ted White’s new juvenile novel. This chapter and chapter two (appearing nextish) were deleted by the editor. I just read the novel as published by Westminster Press and recommend it highly. With or without the deleted chapters, it is one of Ted's best books. The story concerns several college students who spend their summer working on Project Ceres, a desert reclamation project. The hero, Larry McCombs, is black. And here is where Ted excells [sic] -- he depicts Larry as a human being and yet convincingly shows the problems of racial prejudice. Thus, a typical juvenile adventure story becomes a novel of deep meaning; yet the themes are handled subtly and add to the excitement of the plot.

"Call of the Klutx"

  • "To Hell With Ron Miller" by Alex Eisenstein - article response to Ron Miller's articles (6)
Actually, little evidence exists to show that fan cartoonists have been slighted. The nominations of Steve Stiles, Arthur Thompson, Bjo Trimble, Doug Lovenstein, and Bill Rotsler certainly indicates the opposite; and two out of the four awards have gone to Vaughn Bode and Tim Kirk, each of whom exercises a very cartoonish approach to all his work, serves to confirm the notion that cartoonists are not being snubbed.


Furthermore, I’m not convinced that fan cartoonist is fundamentally different from other fan art: creative visual fantasy concepts are often featured in cartoonish, as well as in "serious" or "realistic" works of art. Shall the cartoonist be excluded from the regular fan artist award? No matter what the theoretical intent, exclusion from the regular award would be the major practical effect; fans would tend to pigenhole all the cartoonists, and fine creative artists like Tim Kirk and Grant Canfield would suffer. Some cartoons, like Rotsler's, embody stronger literary elements than graphic; this is especially true of those cartoons depending on captions to convey their humor. On this basis, one might differentiate "literary" from "graphic" cartooning, yet, bow would this be standardized? But no criteria could be applied, since this is purely a subjective judgment. Also, no cartoonist is strictly literary or graphic.

"To Hell with Ron Miller"

  • "I’ve Seen the Future and it is Scruffy - Part II" by John Berry - article on what might happen in fandom in the next five years (11)
  • "The Sweetheartists" by Jodie Offutt - reflections on fan artists and art criticism (16)
  • "The Heart in Hartford City" by Bob Tucker - satirical article on why Buck Coulson should receive the 1971 Big Heart Award. (19)
  • "The Trouble with Trouble" by Ted White - article on the issues with publishing "Trouble on Project Ceres" (24)
I agonized, and my stomach churned. At issue was not only the book but a relationship with an editor I had trusted — and her betrayal of that trust.


And finally, I copped out. I stipulated that if certain pieces of information — such as those necessary to justify the book’s resolution — were added in, I would let the book be published without the first two chapters.

I am not proud of myself. I compromised: again. What I felt was a really good book is now not a book in which I can take genuine pride. It has been castrated, to fit the editor's idea of’ how long a book should be, and an anonymous librarian's notion of where it should begin. Its structural integrity has been weakened, and its characterization thinned.

There is only one thing left I can do, and that is to see these first two chapters appear in print -- here, if no where else. So here they are: put them together with the rest of the book and allow for a few duplications and you'll have the whole book.

"The Trouble with Trouble"

  • "Trouble on Project Ceres" by Ted White - Chapter 1 of the original opening of his novel (28)
  • "Jefferson Starship: The Woodstock Nation in Outer Space" by David Emerson - music reviews (35)
  • "Chatelaine" by Sandra Miesel - personal column
  • Coddled Eggs by Rosemary Ullyot - personal column (42)
  • "The Alien Rat Fink" by Richard Delap - book reviews (45)
  • Cannonfodder by Jeff Glencannon - fanzine reviews: Interplanetary Corn Chips #6; Potlatch; Energunem #8; Aspidistra #2; Phantasmicon #6; Alpha and Omega #3; (52)
  • Why You Got This and editorial afterword (58)
It ls July-22nd, and the last stencil is typed. I hope to finish everything by PgHLAHGE, but if I don't get the electronic stencils soon, the issue may not be ready for several weeks.


And if you are one of those people who is now wondering where the lettercolumn is, it isn't. The reason is that here it is, a week or two from PgHLANGE, and the zine is already 58 pages. A 10 or 15 page lettercolumn would just be too much. However, I appreciate all the letters received, and the lettercolumn will be back nextish. In fact, I'm going to try and print this issue's column nextish, or some of the letters. Besides, if I hadn't said anything, I bet you wouldn’t have missed it.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 13

I read Ron Miller's initial article, and can only agree with most of Alex's rebuttal. I came to the conclusion that, if Ron Miller exists at all, and is not a hoax created to say the things that some older fan daren't put under his own name, (or merely to stir up controversy and make for an interesting lettercol) he is: (a) presently attending or recently graduated from, a standard college course in Art Appreciation, and is mouthing the catch phrases and cliches learned therein, and (b) one of the more courageous (and/or foolish) young men in the world for allowing his own adequate, but hardly memorable, illos to be published even in the same zine with his damning critique of everyone else. By the rules he himself sets out, his own work suffers incurably.

"Omphallopsychite" - George Barr - Granfalloon #14

I enjoyed the Tucker article, though I do tend to feel that the "Editor's note" at the end was a wee bit of a cop-out. After all, I should think the editor was the one person in fandom whose opinion the article did reflect. Your letter that came with the fanzine did reassure me, however, since you say you don't feel the article is completely justified; thus I assume this means that you feel it's mostly justified.


I would like to point out one rather obvious error in the article, however. My review of SPACE AND TIME, while listed under "Big-hearted Buck on fanzines:" quite obviously has little to do with my opinion of fanzines and rather exhibits the vast regard in which I hold comic books and comics fandom. (As I've said many times, some of my best friends are comics fans, but....) I do think Tucker should have recognized this, especially since he didn't mention my regard for comicdom elsewhere in the article. However, the man is 70 years old (or so it was stated on his recent TV appearance; personally I'd never have guessed that he was a day over 65) and I suppose these minor errors will begin to creep in. Overall, I have to admit that he has captured the essence of my personality in a way that no other fan writer has achieved.

[The reason for the editorial note was two-fold: first as a satiric note of my own in giving a TV-editorial type :,the opinions stated are not necessarily... " and to protect myself in case anyone took the article as a serious put-down of Buck and wanted to argue (I'd rather they argue with Bob Tucker). What I didn't know

then was that Buck would take no offense and instead thoroughly enjoy the article: he and Bob are good friends and often kid one another with satiric put-downs. -LeB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Buck Coulson - Granfalloon #14, editor's comments in [ ]

Jodie Offutt writes a beautiful article. She writes much better than her husband. The crayons were described in a very evocative manner. I could feel/see the whole scene as if I were there. Her effort contrasts painfully with the Alex Eisenstein piece. Jodie Offutt says her argument without resorting to verbal barbs. I'm simply carried away by her gentle, humorous style. Eisenstein turns me off with his know-it-all, ram-it-down-your-throat lectures. Jodie, on the other hand, kindly tells us all what fools we've been to hassle so much about the lack of art comments; but so nicely that I end up thanking her for the education. Fandom needs more like you, Jodie.


Sandra Miesel should write more goodtime fannish stuff. She is such a good critical authoress that half the time I don't understand what she is stabbing at, and the rest of the time I'm vaguely suspicious that she is putting us all on. I mean that my intellectual powers don't quite extend themselves in her scholarly direction. She's excellent as a critic, no doubt, but she only manages to leave me in awe. For example, I wouldn't dare disagree with her, why, I can see the rebuttal now; either a crisp, two sentence smasher or a three page barrage — each guaranteed to send me scurrying to the nearest gopher hole. I'm just afraid, is all, or was. Now that she’s written this piece in your zine, Linda, I know her Achilles Heel. Yes, Sandra, you too have done strange things to ladders on the painting detail.

"Omphallopsychite" - Dave Hulvey - Granfalloon #14

Physically this issue maintains the high production standards you've established lately. The mimeography is excellent, with sharp clear printing and superb art repro of which I'm entirely envious! The only fault I find is in using the blue ink for illos with large solid areas. The blue is most effective for titles and line drawings, but the solid blue areas have little visual impact for me. Your interior artwork is mostly excellent with the two DiFate’s impressing me the most, but doubtless some critics will accuse you of using too much"useless filler art." Oh well, you can’t » please all the Jerrys people.... However, the Faddis portfolio is without a doubt the best justification for folios I have ever seen, and the strongest evidence of all for the oft-heard claim that Connie is one of the few artists in fandom. That last drawing alone is well worth the price of the fanzine!

"Omphallopsychite" - Mike Glicksohn - Granfalloon #14

Alex Eisenstein, who at times shows classic symptoms of fuggheadedness, has cleared the air with his interesting and knowledgeable attack on Ron Miller’s aesthetic principles. He provides a cogent and clear-headed response to the call for a separation of fan cartoonist from fan artist; no need to add anything to his article. I find I agree with Alex on much, if not all of his article. He is certainly accurate in regard to Kelly Freas’ work, though I would tend to quibble with his attitude towards the Dillons. And,of course, he is dead on target with regard to Richard Powers, who has, by his own estimate, done over a thousand covers for SF and other paperbacks in the last 20 years. I collect Powers' artwork, and his full mastery will be on display at Noreascon. I urge you to rush in, checkbook in hand after I've gone through the exhibit.

"Omphallopsychite" - Andy Porter - Granfalloon #14

Granfalloon 14

Issue #14 front cover by Grant Canfield
Issue #14 back cover by Grant Canfield

Published in November 1971. Vol. 4, No. 4. 56 pages. Edited and published by Linda and Ron Bushyager. Electronic Stencils Courtesy of: Alpajpuri. Coolies: Ginjer Buchanan, Eli Cohen, Jeannie DiModica, Ted Greenstone, Jerry Kaufmann.

Contents:

  • Front Cover by Grant Canfield
  • Table of Contents (1)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager (2)
Recently I finally had the pleasure of reading The Enchanted Duplicator, the classic fannish allegory written by Walt Willis and Bob Shaw in 1954. I was overwhelmed. It is funny, whimsical, charming, witty, poignant — a true delight — and if you consider yourself, in any sense, a fan, it is your duty, no your privilege, to stop reading this fanzine, cram a dollar bill into an envelope, and write Arnie Katz for a copy. Compliments go to Arnie for reprinting Duplicator. This is one publication that should never go out of print ... Duplicator is enchantingly illustrated by Ross Chamberlain.

"Call of the Klutz"

  • "Learning to Live in Lawton" by Don D'Ammassa - personal column (4)
  • "Splinters" by Amie Katz - article on old fanzines (10)
  • Cannonfodder by Jeff Glencannon - fanzine reviews: Beabohema #17; Schamoob #10; Lizard Inn #1; Godless #1; Rats #10; Phantasmicon #7; Energumen #9. Plus an additional review by Linda for Graphic Illusions. (12)
  • "Trouble on Project Ceres" by Ted White - Chapter 2 of the original opening of his novel (19)
  • "Omphallopsychite" - letters of comment from Rick Stooker, Jerry Lapidus, Hank Davis, Norman Hochberg, David Hulvey, Mike Glicksohn, Grant Canfield, Audrey Walton, Richard Geis, George Barr, Jerry Kaufman, Jeff Glencannon, John Kessel, Buck Coulson, Dave Hulvey (again), Mike Glicksohn (again), Greg Benford, Harry Warner Jr, Andy Porter. (28)
As you'll recall, last issue I decided to eliminate the lettercolumn, because I was typing page 58 and was exhausted. I thought no one would really mind. Boy, was I wrong! Every letter I received asked "where's the lettercolumn?" Well, gang, you brought it on yourselves. Since you all wanted to read those letters, here they are: first the letters from last issue (discussing Gfl2) and then the LoCs on Gfl3.


This seems a good chance to add a few comments I neglected to make in my editorial. First, I want to thank Alpajpuri for generously doing the electronic stencils and for lots and lots of advice on layout, mimeography, and artwork. Pag has been a real doll. I'd also like to recommend his fanzine, CARANDAITH. A giant, multicolored happening. You’ll enjoy it. Copies are available for 75$, 4/$2.00 from Paj [address redacted].

Another zine you'll enjoy is THE ESSENCE. Editor Jay Zaremba is attempting to use innovative layout with solid written material emphasizing graphics. The latest ish, number four, is lovely to look at. But the layout fails when you try to read the text: double columns are interspersed with single columns, and it becomes very hard to determine where the letters and articles are continued. Still, with a little effort you'll figure it out, and enjoy some meaty ideas on artwork, layout, and graphics. Send 50$ to Jay Zaremba, [letter redacted].

I'm trying a bit of new layout in the lettercolumn, influenced by Paj's ideas and the spectacular layout in THE ESSENCE and OUTWORLDS. I hope it works well. I also hope you'll enjoy the artwork specifically drawn for articles. — LeB.

"Omphallopsychite" - editor's note

  • "The Last Word" by Linda Bushyager - a note to artists and why you got this (52)
It is now November 4 and I find myself running behind schedule, as usual. Wr luck, copies should be in the mail by the end of the month. Nextish will be out in late January.


Artists: Recently I received a drawing which I accepted. By chance I happened to see a matchbook — that had the same drawing. And in the past I’ve received and printed work which, I was later told, was "copied" from somewhere else. I realize such cases are rare, but let me emphasize, in case you were wondering, Gf uses original artwork only. If you have used an idea you’ve seen elsewhere, let me know (and if possible send the original) since I don’t want to break copyright laws, and I also don’t want to print copies.

"The Last Word and Note to Artists"

Reactions and Responses - Issue 14

Alex Eisenstein is affronted by response to his article about Ron Miller's piece on art:

So Jerry Kaufman thinks I’m "pretty nasty?" I wonder what that makes Ron Miller, by comparison? Hardly an angel, I wager. All the negative response to my rebuttal of Miller seems to ignore the fact that it was a rebuttal, not an unprovoked attack. Dave Hulvey is the prime example —if I’m a know-it-all, what the hell does that make Ron Miller? Hulvey’s comparison of my effort with Jodie Offutt's piece may involve a painful contrast, but not for the reasons he supposes. Jodie was dealing in doting grannyism, while I was indulging in a form of serious art-criticism (criticism of criticism, at any rate). And Jodie had no such spur: she was not answering prior assertions; not directly at Ieast. It's too bad Hulvey (and some others) believe that only one side of a question should be allowed expression — I think that view is implicit in his supercilious slander and arrogant dismissal of my arguments and presentation. (The same might be said of Jerry's remark, though he has coyly limited his comment to a single, vague epithet.)


Mike Glicksohn, who otherwise lavishes the most fulsome praise on my article, also accuses me of 'substituting insult for argument" in my title and opening paragraph. Of course, the title and introductory statement are hardly places for argument, so feel duly self-exonerated of any charge of substituting base rhetoric for cogent analysis — no substitution was involved. In as much as I justified every one of my initial declarations, I fail to see where I overstepped the bounds of propriety — unless it was my use of the word "hell." Indeed, my subtitle and first paragraph — as published — said nothing that has not been reiterated by George Barr in his Loc in Gf 14.

"Omphallopsychite" - Alex Eisenstein - Granfalloon Issue #15

At least one fan liked Eisenstein's article:

Eisenstein on art was interesting. As for Steve Fabian's art...well, I for one would be extremely happy to produce material of his high standard...and to be as nice a guy as he is too. I agree with Alex that Browne, Bergey, "Lawrence" Paul, and Rogers were just so-so...but Schneeman — as a black and white artist he was superb. His illos not only fit the story and characters perfectly, but they also set the exact mood of a tale in a few quick strokes. Schneeman was THE neglected artist. He never got the credit he deserved, yet the fans drooled over Rogers, whose favorite gimmick was to draw a crummy head and shoulders; then letter the character's name beneath it (even he knew you wouldn’t recognize anyone without a clue).

"Omphallopsychite" - Terry Jeeves - Granfalloon Issue #15

Jeff Glencannon's fanzine reviews have raised some hackles:

At Philcon I had the dubious distinction of meeting and talking with the "Jeff Glencannon ' who wrote the fanzine non-reviews in the last couple issues of your magazine. One of the more interesting facts he revealed to me was the fact that he has not read any of the stories, poems, and articles of mine he has condemned so strongly in his non-review column. How, pray tell, is anyone expected to take the poor fool seriously? I should think that it is obvious even to him that the first thing a reviewer is supposed to do is to read the material in question. As things stand, his column simply isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, and it drags the otherwise fine GRANFALLOON down to a new low.


...

I’ll consider the matter closed after this letter. The best way to deal with this type is to ignore him completely, to the extent of denying his existence, at which point he will find himself unable to obtain the gratification he thrives on and will either straighten out or do us all a favor and gafiate. Maybe I should be flattered that Glencannon holds my work in such low regard. If I can raise that kind of person up in fury against me, I must be doing something right.

[I'm sorry to hear that Jeff did not read all of the work he criticized. He should have! Indeedhis criticisms can't be valid unless he reads the work he talks about. Jeff, I hope in the future you will comment only on things you actually read, and if you haven't read something say so. However, I do know that Jeff read most (I thought it was all) of what he reviewed. If his work is opinionated, that does not necessarily make it invalid. All readers and fan editors should realize that any reviewers comments are his opinions alone and should evaluate them as such. One man's opinions are not the be all and end all judgment. - LeB~]

"Omphallopsychite" - Darrell Schweitzer - Granfalloon Issue #15 notes in [ ] by the editor

Another fan had a different view of the Philcon meeting:

Jeff Glencannon does a fine, though opinionated, fanzine review col. He's already alienated Darrell Schweitzer, if the scene they had at the Philcon is any indication. Schweitzer, to my mind, is no great shakes as a writer and faned, and he attacked Jeff's dislike for his work on the most superficial grounds: saying that he would find no use for any further reviews that Jeff would do, solely on the grounds of Jeff's negative attitude toward his work. Incredible. Schweitzer's egotism is appalling. It's bad enough he writes reams of crud to fill any zine foolish enough to pub it, but he brags about it! At Philcon he literally beamed as he chortled over all the neos he managed to fleece of their money for PROCRASTINATION, simply because he had judiciously printed the magic word, a pro's name, on the cover. Thanks to Darrell, I almost like Mike Glyer's and Leon Taylor's work in comparison. One more depressing fact, Schweitzer gets all manner of freebies for the "reviews" he does. See Rick Stooker's article in the latest ENERGUMEN.

"Omphallopsychite" - Dave Hulvey - Granfalloon Issue #15

Plus some light is shed on Bob Tucker's "attack" on Buck Coulson:

You touched on the intent of Tucker’s article a bit in your answer to Buck's letter that followed John Kessel's, but I doubt if he'll really notice. Certainly the Coulsons need no one to leap to thier [sic] defense, and most assuredly, there are those more capable than I to do so. But anyone who would misread Buck’s personality so completely needs help.


Buck has spent years in cultivating his Old Grouch facade. And, in many ways, it is a true representation. He IS opinionated, he dislikes farce and mediocrity and those who Pretend To Be What They Are Not. He is disdainful and he does scorn many people, places, and things. And he’s quite willing to express his opinions openly and forthrightly . BUT... he does not expect everyone to agree with him, nor does he make any attempt to fit into a "For Me or Agin Me" mold. He has helped countless neofans find their groping ways through the Mysteries of Fandom and stands ready to aid any fan who has fafiated or gafiated and wants to return to the fold. He does not set himself up as Guru to anyone. And, contrary to Kessel's opinion, he has not fostered fueds [sic] in the pages of YANDRO or anywhere else. Buck states his likes and dislikes and that's it, as far as he's concerned. I prefer it to the wishy-washiness of some people. Coulson has a character you can latch onto. In many ways he reminds me of W. C. Fields.

I think Tucker will be amused at reading John's letter. That a fan could consider his comments as a put-down of his long-time friend is ludicrous indeed. The writings of both of those men should always read the way they are intended..with a mini-mountain of salt and a wry grin. Particularly when their "nastiness" is directed at their own cronies. While both have their serious side, it doesn't take an Einstein to separate the satire from the straight. I’d advise a careful re-reading of all those YANDROs with that viewpoint. Perhaps when John will see what so many others already have. Buck is the of the Nicest and most Decent fans around...if not THE... YANDRO is beginning its nineteenth year of publication in 72...and there is a reason for that longevity. Seek it.

[All of this has given me a new perspective on Buck, and I think I misread some of the things he's said in YANDRO. Buck, if I’ve offended you, please forgive me, I apologize. Let’s be friends again, eh? Want to trade for Granny? - LeB~]

"Omphallopsychite" - Jackie Franke - Granfalloon Issue #15, notes in [ ] by the editor

Granfalloon 15

Issue #15 front cover by Elman Brown
Issue #15 back cover by Elman Brown

Published in January 1972. vol. 5, no. 1. 62 pages. Edited and published by: Linda and Ron Bushyager. Electronic Stencils: Alpajpuri. Australian Agent: Paul Anderson. Two special flyers were also included:

Contents:

  • Front cover by Elman Brown
  • Table of Contents (1)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager - editorial (2)
[Linda's Hugo choices for the fan categories]


BEST PROFESSIONAL ARTIST: Kelly Freas had a very good year and Jeff Jones and Mike Hinge also did some impressive work. I don’t think Jack Gaughan's work was nearly as good as it has been in past years, and I'm not certain that the Dillons' work appeared on any Ace specials. Szafran had some great covers.

...

BEST AMATEUR MAGAZINE: I’m probably much better informed in what's happening in the fan world than the pro world, and as a result, I find myself faced with all too many good choices. ENERGUMEN maintained its high standard of excellence, and thus is my Hugo choice. I also feel GRANFALLOON is worthy of a nomination this year The four issues which appeared in 1971 were about the best I've done. FOCAL POINT had an extremely good year, with the best fannish writing around, and some really excellent cartoons by Kinney, Stiles, and Chamberlain. Unfortunately, OUTWORLDS and SPECULATION had fewer issues in 1971 than in 1970; although the issues which did appear were good, I don't feel either deserves a nomination. SPEC's place as the best sercon/SF discussion magazine was taken by SF COMMENTARY. This Australian zine should also make the ballot. LOCUS continues to do a fine job as a newszine, but I don't feel it should win the award two years in a row. But with its huge circulation, I feel certain that LOCUS will again make the ballot, and may very well win. I'd rate the top zines as Nerg, SFC, FP, and Gf. Honorable mentions go to TOMORROW AND... for all-around excellence, PHANTASMICOM for fine book reviews and writing (but downgrading for lack of layout and artwork), and to POTLATCH for fine writing and Joyce Katz's editorials. One brownie point to THE ESSENCE for the year's best failure — Jay Zaremba tries a lot, but doesn't always succeed.

...

BEST FAN WRITER: The embarrassment of choice! Last year seemed to lack fan writers, but this year is chock full. Rosemary Ullyot, Terry Carr, Sandra Miesel, and Arnie Katz are the definite top choices. They all write so well, I really can’t choose between them for top place. They should all win. Second place seems to be a tie between Joyce Katz, Jerry Lapidus, Bruce Gillespie, and Mike Glicksohn. I know the nomination ballot is limited to 5, but can’t we squeeze a few more in? And what about Harry Warner Jr.? All those fan history columns? Those letters? Wow! As Harry mentions in his LoC, he hasn't withdrawn his name.

Last year I was really mad to discover that Dick Geis won as best fan writer. Dick wrote very funny editorials, it’s true, but one little editorial in each ish of SFR doesn’t really qualify him as a fan WRITER. Dick was an editor, and possibly deserved an award for best fanzine, but not for fan writer. If Charlie Brown gets nominated as a fan writer this year, over talent as specified above, I'll be mad again. Charlie is a good editor, but how much writing does it take to churn out a newszine? Charlie merely takes the news items he receives and prints them. He works hard at it, he gets it out on time, but he basically only has to edit the material he receives. Also, Dena Brown probably does more work than Charlie on the zine now. And as per last year, Liz Fishman and Tom Digby may write beautifully, but I still haven't seen much of their work. We come to that old quality versus quantity item again, but I can't help but feel that the "best" award should go to someone whose work has appeared in general fandom, not just in an. apa or one fanzine. I know I’m a bit stubborn on this. But that is my opinion, and I know that many of you feel I'm wrong. Still, damn it, there are only five places on that nomination ballot, and I’d rather see the votes go to Rosemary, Terry, Sandra, Arnie, Joyce, Jerry, or Harry, who write just as well as Liz or Tom, but who spread their work around to many fanzines, and who do twice as much of it!

BEST FAN ARTIST: Good Grief! Who do I choose? Grant Canfield has done the most impressive work of the year. But Bill Rotsler, Steve Fabian, Tim Kirk, Mike Gilbert, and Alicia Austin were all in there again. Jay Kinney did lots of wonderful cartoons. And Steve Stiles draws beautifully too. The top five? (hear me grind my teeth) Grant, Bill, Steve, Tim, and Jay. Kind of arbitrary, but definite.

"Call of the Klutz"

  • "Pardon Me, Madam — Your Rejection Slip is Showing" by Grant Canfield - article about the trials of getting cartoons published commercially. (6)
Bringing us finally to the point of this otherwise pointless essay — namely, the commercial.


John Berry and Calvin Demmon tell me that the hardest part of writing fiction is Getting the Idea. Likewise, to me, the hardest part of gag cartooning is Coming Up with -the Gags. I can do the drawings well enough, and I believe I’m even getting better in that department. But it’s damned hard for one person to keep coming up with one funny gag after another. Most professional cartoonists use professional gagwriters, which is where You come in.

It strikes me that fandom is full of funny people — let me rephrase that: Fandom is full of people with good senses of humor. Therefore, I take it upon myself to enlist all you funny fans as My Gagwriters. If you think of a funny idea for a cartoon, send it to me. If I use your idea, and if the cartoon sells, I’ll pay you the standard gagwriter’s commission, which is 25% of the sale price of the cartoon. You can write your gag idea in a letter to me, or on a 3x5 card, or on an old hockey puck you have lying around, I don't care. I’ll do all the bookkeeping.

And I assure you, I Can Be Trusted (heh heh heh).

"Pardon Me, Madam — Your Rejection Slip is Showing"

Interior for "Chatelaine" by Sandra Miesel; art by Ross Chamberlain

Reactions and Responses - Issue 15

I think it might be interesting to give a general overview on the letters we received this time. First, as usual there were lots of letters — approximately 60-70. Secondly, most of them were of the "I liked this, I didn't like that" variety, gust a few sentences on each article or on the artwork and layout. I also received a few LoCs on Gfl4, or Gfl4 and 15 combined.


Most of the letter-writers said they enjoyed Gfl5. A few thought it was better than 14, a few felt it wasn't as good an issue. The Simonson folio was the most-praised artwork, but the consensus was that it should not have been separated from the main body of the fanzine. So from now on the folios will be back inside the issue. A few people loved the Elman covers, but most people made no comment on them whatsoever, which probably means that they weren't too impressed. Jim Schull received the most praise for interior illos.

Everyone seemed to enjoy Grant Canfield’s article on the trials and tribulations of selling cartoons professionally. But unfortunately, not too many people responded to his plea for gags for cartoons. If you do think of any good gags, write Grant at [address redacted]. Sandra Miesel, Jeff Glenncannon, and Arnie Katz received about equal praise, but Jeff's column evoked the most lengthy discussion. Surprisingly, very few people mentioned the book reviews at all. A few people thought I was cruel to put the cooking column next to Amie's story about dieting. I thought it was humorous, I still do. And as I've mentioned, everyone sent recipes.

"Omphallopsychite" foreword by Linda Bushyager, Granfalloon Issue #16

I understand that you wish to support the Washington bid, but I feel you should have accurate information, and not spread inaccurate semi-slander. Al Schuster did not run the Lunacon in 1971 that con was run by Frank Dietz, President of the Lunarians. Al was one of the managing committee, but he was by no means the major force. If you wish to condemn all involved (as you seem to be doing) then you must also condemn me and Brian Burley, who were also on the committee. Al also assisted in running THIS year's Lunacon (chaired by Don Lundry) which was widely acclaimed as the best ever. Al Chaired the STAR TREKcon, which successfully coped with 3000 attendees, a greater number than any Worldcon has ever had.


I think that the smoothness of STcon testifies to Al's ability to choose good supporting committee people to deal with all sorts of unexpected problems (such as an extra 1,000 people). I think he would do a fine worldcon.

I hope next time you will check on the facts before you jump on someone.

[I'm very sorry about the misinformation. Al is also chairing another STAR TREKcon in New York this year, and expects possibly 6000 poeple! Unfortunately, it looks like NBC still refuses to bring back STAR TREK, but Gene Rodennberry has a couple of series planned for the fall. As you may know, Washington D. C. did win the 1974 bid.-LeB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Devra Langsam - Granfalloon Issue #16; notes in [ ] by the editor

This issue's letter column was by far the best edited collection that I've encountered in I-don't-know-how-long. It's good to see an editor who realized that the way

etters are thrown together is important. The long ones weren't boring, and the sequence followed beautifully. At least four or five times I ended a letter thinking to myself, 'Geez, I wonder what _____ would have to say about that” and zammo, there was the slob I was thinking about. Very nice job. Pretty good bunch of characters you have there, too. Schweitzer once again emerges as the pinhead that he is — dumping all Glencannon's reviews strictly on the basis of his very understandable bias against poor victimized Darrell. He should take lessons from Dave Emerson who accomplishes exactly what Schweitzer attempted with a calmness that is very impressive. Eisenstein is nasty; no argument about that. Ted White is very business-like and quite logical. The overpriced convention registration fees are beginning to discourage a good bit of my convention going. Lapidus is again parading his graphics business around. I liked it, and agreed with him the first time I read it, but it's getting very tiring and seems to pop up everywhere I read. Fanzine editors should become more aware of the flexibility of the printed medium, but not to the extent that all zines would end up looking the same (a fear that I have, that is growing more and more real). All editors are not suited to graphic experimentation and those who realize it should construct their zines to their own tastes, not playing with the layout for its own sake.
...

The cooking column was pointless, boring, and a waste of space — but don't you dare dump it. Keep it because it's different and there might actually be some weird types who like it. It wasn't a bad idea, and adds something more to the individuality of GRANFALLOON.

My feelings about Jeff Glencannon are so mixed that it's impossible for me to figure out if I like him or not. Sometimes he pisses me off completely; then in the next paragraph tie says something so true that I immediately stop hating his rotten guts and jump to his defense. His in-depth reviews are long, exactly the way I like them. He gives a detailed rundown of the contents of the zine in question and grumbles something about each of them. He also seems to enjoy despising certain people — most notably Justin St. John and Darrell Schweitzer. That's where he goes overboard. Sure its fun to rip apart meatheads like St. John and Schweitzer, but is a fanzine review column really the place for such frivolity?

...

I wish that he would make more of an effort to review some of the lesser-known fanzines though. The ones he's been working on are, for the most part, zines which don't really need the publicity. There are plenty of small ones that could use his help more. May I suggest Harry Morris Jr.'s NYCTALOPS, Mike Glyer's PREHENSILE, Lapidus's TOMORROW AND..., and Donn Brazier's TITLE. I realize that he's limited to what he receives, but these are deserving fanzines that are practically unnoticed.

[I hope the editors of these zines will send copies to Jeff. I'd like to see reviews of MOBIUS TRIP, PLACEBO, and STARLING, which I find consistently enjoyable. - LeB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Lou Stathis - Granfalloon Issue #16, notes in [ ] by the editor

The most interesting phenomenon of the issue seems to be the Corflu Cookery piece — After having sat through the fabulous meals served at the Katz establishment courtesy of FOCAL POINT and POTLATCH, I'm beginning to feel that there’s a new generation arising, or at least a whole new way of looking at things if there are food fen. I can imagine food fandom — whole regiments of foodzines, dedicated as much to stomach expanding as the current crop seems to be to mind expanding. You could scent the pages with the Flavor of the Month.

"Omphallopsychite" - Roger Waddingham - Granfalloon Issue #16

Andy Offutt's book review is a model of the breed: it entertains even if the reader has never read and has no intention of ever reading the volume under consideration, and yet it provides useful information about that book instead of being so concerned about entertainment value that it forgets its basic purpose. The reviewer seems intensely interested in what he's writing about. Leon Taylor is the only fan who has the knack of making virtually all his reviews hold attention in these ways, and I'd like to see the other people who do a lot of reviewing relax a little, throw away all the reviews of the books that didn't interest them particularly, and spend as much space as necessary on the volumes that really struck home for better or for worse.


If I hadn't met Sandra Miesel at Boston I would have hollered fake about "Chatelain" because up to then I considered her nothing but an enormous intellect devoid of a body. Even if this article is totally out of her usual character, it's absolutely splendid and causes me to hope that even Sam Moskowitz will start to write good fanzine-type material after he matures a little.

"Omphallopsychite" - Harry Warner Jr. - Granfalloon Issue #16

I have not contributed anything since early last spring to what one of your correspondents quaintly calls "the Ron Miller controversy." I have been very pleased to find that such a minimal effort seems to be providing me with apparently endless amusement. Contrary to the hopes of Mr. Barr, I do exist - now and again - and have meant every word I’ve written. It is unfortunate that I have let so much be published without comment or counter-rebuttal; to make up for this I’d like to make a general comment.


I am afraid that any of your readers who have fallen into agreement with Messrs Eisenstein, Gilbert, and Barr are beyond any hope of recovery, and those who have not do not require anything further from my quarter. After all, remarks like the following from Gilbert — that McCall and Calle cannot be regarded as SF artists since they work for NASA and NASA has nothing to do with SF -- are so patently ridiculous as to scarely [sic]warrant thought, let alone comment. I should think that such an exclusion would eliminate every SF writer whose major occupation is not the writing of SF. We're sorry, Dr. Asimov, but biochemistry has nothing to do with SF. I should think that an artist would enjoy some of the rights of an author: that his work can stand as a work of SF on its own. Why is it a prerequisite that his efforts must always be an embellishment of some story or novel?

"Omphallopsychite" - Ron Miller - Granfalloon Issue #16

Jerry Lapidus, you live in an ivory tower. Of course it would be nice if every fan had access to sophisticated reproduction techniques. But most editors either don't own or have access to the talents, time, money, or even knowledge of basic tools and techniques to produce really fine printing. It's all they can do to type a stencil straight, and more power to them. Also, many fans aren’t ready to appreciate a fanzine that looks more like a slick magazine than a friend. Okay, so some editors can do it, and some fans do appreciate it; let them be happy together, but also let the crudzines and the neos lapse [sic] rhapsodic about their smeared magazines; they are, after all, culminations of a proportionate amount of time, love, and labor.

"Omphallopsychite" - Steve Hashimoto - Granfalloon Issue #16

Granfalloon 16

Issue #16 front cover by Jim McLeod
Issue #16 back cover by Jim McLeod

Published in December 1972. Vol. 5, no. 2. 48 pages. Editors Linda and Ron Bushyager. AUSTRALIAN AGENT: Paul Anderson. BRITISH AGENT: Philip Payne.

Special thanks go to Eli Cohen for running the. stencils, to Ginger Buchanan, Joelle Brink, Jeannze DiModica, Jerry Kaufman, Nancy Lambert, Suzie Tompkins, Ted Greenstone, Linda Lounsberry, and most especially Bill Wagner for assorted servies [sic], and to Mr. and Mrs. William Eyster for abundant help in all things.

Acknowledgements - Table of Contents

Contents:

  • Front and Back Covers by Jim McLeod.
  • Publication credits (i)
  • Table of Contents (ii)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda E. Bushyager - editorial (2)
We have been watching the British serial, Dr. Who, on TV here and have been quite impressed. Although some of the sets and costumes are hokey, the overall plotline and acting are enough to sustain suspense and suspend disbelief. Unfortunately, Dr. Who has gone off the air in Philadelphia, but hopefully some of you will be able to view it in other parts of the country. I don’t know if it is eligible for a Hugo this year, but Dr. Who is the best SF drama I’ve seen this year.


On the other hand, we’ve also seen several episodes of U.F.O., another British import. The futuristic sets are first class, but the actors look more like robots or animated wood carvings than people, and sound the same way, too. The plots are unbelievable — I think they have the writers from VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA. Basically, each week the UFOs try to invade the Earth by some trick, and the heros, who work for an undercover military organization to fight the UFOs, succeed in foiling their plot. It’s got to be the worst SF I've seen this year.

"Call of the Klutz"

  • "Metamorphosis on a Theme by Burgess" by Joelle Brink - article on metamorphosis, religionous themes and Burgess and Kubrick's versions of A Clockwork Orange. (6)
  • "Granny's Cookbook by Nancy Lambert - cooking column (14)
  • "Untitled" by Sunday Yorkdale - poem (18)
  • "Winds Light to Variable" by Mike Glicksohn - article on the joys of travelling to the States as a sf fan. (20)
"Winds Light to Variable" by Mike Glicksohn; art by Steve Stiles
I could tell you more. I could tell you about the official who valued our 11 color Gaughan covers at one dollar each. Or about Rosemary and the customs man. ("But officer, I tell you my friend Bjo makes it and it's just tea and she puts rosehips and things in it, and sure it's rolled up in a little plastic bag, but it’s tea, really...") Or about the time they waved us through, and I told Susan to pull~over and went in and asked them some questions. I know my rights! But I think you've gotten the picture by now. Customs men are dull people, unimaginative people, with blinkered mentalities and narrow mental horizons.


But just when you think you've finally found a working generalizition, someone comes along to ruin everything. We have met one customs official who had a decent sense of values, who may even have been a potential fan, in fact. Susan, Richard, and I and another fellow were crossing over to Clinton, N.Y. for a small non-con last summer. We looked quite neat, but had bunches of sleeping bags and so approached the border with some trepidation. (Remember those buses of Canadians who’d only just been refused entry to the land of the free.) The official looked us over, checked the IDs and wandered around to the back of the car. "What's in there?" he demanded, pointing at a brown paper bag in the back of the car. "Tuna fish sandwiches!" said Susan brightly, "my fiancee is famous for them!’’ "With mayonnaise?" said the customs man. "Of course! And finely chopped green onions!" "Well, okay. Pass on through" said our soul-brother. Which proves, I guess, that when you cross the border to attend a con, it pays to be in tuna with the older generation!

"WINDS LIGHT TO VARIABLE"

This installment I’m going to hold the reviews, since I have a number of general comments to make and a few points to clear up. They'll be back in the next issue so please send your zines to Jeff Glencannon, [address redact]. But I want to explain a few points which were mangled in my last column due to a combination of illness and procrastination, and I'd also like to explain a few things that have popped up since then. With any luck at all, I might be able to synthesize the various comments into some general picture which might give you an idea of what I see when I pick up a fanzine for review.


First, I'd like to explain Darrell Schweitzer's statement [in the last issue] that I don't read his articles. That's not true, but I did say something of the sort to Darrell. At the last Philcon I was cornered by Darrell. He ranted and raved and told me that pro editors were interested in his stuff, and he wanted to know exactly what I found wrong with his material. He carried on as much as he did in his letter to Linda, except that in person he doesn't shut up as quickly. He went on interminably as I was trying to get away and lead Dave Hulvey out to the house where my wife, Lori, had supper waiting for us. It had been a rough con anyway, with my son falling on the escalator and being taken to the hospital, with the house filled with fans (enjoyable but exhausting), and with my having just recovered from a bout with flu and having just been fired. After the harangue had gone on for 20 minutes by my watch (if you've ever been harangued in a bar by an exceptionally drunk Archie Bunker who won't let you go, you'll know what it was like,and Darrell was sober), I muttered something like '’You don't think I read your stuff, do you?" hoping to shock him into sufficient silence to make my escape. Darrell took me literally. Let me repeat. I do read his stuff, almost all of the time. There are times when I'm just not up to it, but then I don't comment. In some cases I can't finish it. But in general I've read every one I’ve mentioned in my columns.

...

There are other rich fans, of course. The difference is that you started like this, and it has colored your outlook. When I started in fandom, about ten years ago, nobody started like that. Neofans were usually high school students, or college students, or guys who worked in bookstores. When they first got the urge to publish, they scraped up enough money to buy a cheap second-hand mimeo, or found a friendly church or school, dusted off their grandfather's old typewriter and removed the rust of years, and scraped up whatever money they could by begging, going without lunch, or something. And they published. Usually crudzines, something like the issue of ALPHA AND OMEGA that I blasted in my first column. And like that issue, their crudzines usually had a few worthwhile things in it. And they learned, dodging flak and all. Maybe they joined an apa (N'APA isn't much now, but when I joined fandom it had a surprisingly large number of promising neofans, some of whom, like Arnie Katz and Len Bailes, later made quite a name for themselves as pubbers.) And finally the fan got a good mimeo, access to a good typewriter, and started to publish a good zine, sometimes an excellent zine. But in the meantime, every cent and every spare minute went into that crudzine. And the neofan learned and grew. He produced some good material. If he was lucky he had a friend who could draw some stuff on stencil, and the zine started to look better. Eventually he learned how to stencil art, and eventually maybe he electrostenciled some of it, but usually all he did was get a good lightbox. (You may have started that way too, Linda, I didn't see the early GRANFALLOONS, but you made the quantum jump much faster, and your financial situation helped.)

...

The professional approach (not, please, the mercenary approach) which you and Mike, especially Mike, put forth certainly has helped your zines, but if too many people think that the only way to produce a fanzine is the ENERGUMEN way, there’s going to be trouble. Maybe that's why I like PHANTASMICOM as much as I do.

...

Now somebody out there, especially somebody who has just walked in on the discussion, is going to to think that I am writing a piece in praise of sloppiness, in praise of spontaneity when it results in speedily-written crap. I'm not. I want every fanzine to be the best thing the author-editor can put out, but I want it to be his zine. I don't want to see a Dan Steffan trying totally unsuccessfully to imitate TOMORROW AND... when he did such a good job in his first issue being Dan Steffan.

"Cannonfodder"

  • "Jam Today" by Ginger Buchanan - article on Ginger's "plans" to win a Hugo. (30)
  • "Omphallopsychite" - by the readers. Letters of comment from: Devra Langsam; Lou Stathis; Cy Chauvin; Roger Waddington; Richard Wadholm; Mark Mumper; Harry Warner, Jr.; Shelia D'Ammassa; Norman Hochberg; Ron Miller; Mike Gilbert; Steve Hashimoto. (33)

Reactions and Responses - Issue 16

At last somebody — and how fortunate that it happens to be the fmz reviewer for a zine like Gf — is discussing whether expensive repro is the best always, and whether it is even worthwhile. Glencannon talks about it from the vantage of the expenses' result on the fanzine, I'd like to take up the expensiveness' effect on the fannish behavior of the editor. Through gradually acquired experience with editors of several of the most expensively reproduced zines, I've come to believe that high expenditures on individual issues of a fanzine distorts the judgment of the editor — makes him believe that he has produced something of intrinsic worth merely from having spent the money. The two most blatant examples each printed two issues of their genzines in 1972. One in an editorial asked for a Hugo nomination in terms that just about boil down to "I've spent all this loot on the package, how can you screw me out of a nomination now?" The other has in two printed sources that I've seen to date expended a lot of energy trying to rationalize LOCUS out of competition. The possibility that the Browns' fanzine has won two Hugos, and will probably take its third this year, because it is the best fanzine has not even occurred to him.


A fanzine is an extension of fannish activity — rather than an ornamental and expensive written monument to the interests of an editor. Sponteneity is lost when you reject what interests/amuses you today because it might not be cost-effective. Something else is lost when an editor treats the concept of service as an alien idea. SFR and LOCUS were/are service zines down to the core, they gathered votes for the same reason they gathered large circulations: they presented detailed discussion of SF. They came out comparatively often. Their editors were good at discussing pertinent developments in the field as they came up. Until Donn Brazier started TITLE, they were also the closest and quickest ties a fan could use for published discussion, outside of apas. Not that either tried very hard, but when most fanzines are published two or three times a year, interaction time is nine months to a year; whereas you can get a note into LOCUS and have response to your scheme in a week.

"Omphallopsychite" - Mike Glyer - Granfalloon #17

Jeff Glencannon has some valid observations in his column, as usual, but I disagree with some of the conclusions he seems to draw. He's right that anything beyond basic legibility and good material is gravy, but I'm damned if I'll feel guilty because I'm willing to provide that gravy with each issue. As for being rich, well, I suppose by some standards we are. I have a relatively good-paying job, but it's still a battle to get from one paycheck to the next. When I published NERG #2, it reduced my total cash assets from about $120 to $40 and immediately thereafter I applied for welfare. (I didn't get it, since I had the $40, and before that ran out I'd found a job and was able to pub #3.) But I disagree strongly with Jeff that I've been a rich fan from the beginning. I simply felt then, as I do now, that if I was going to publish a fanzine, then I'd publish the best damn fanzine I could, even if that meant spending more money.


[Ron nearly flipped at being called a "rich" fan. But I suppose that since both Hon and I work, we are better off than most fans. I suppose to fandom, having a middle class income is "rich." Like Mike, I want to put out the best fanzine I can, and if I can spend a little extra money, I will. But when I was in college publishing Granny with minimal money, I didn't let that fact stop me from trying to publish the best-looking fanzine I could afford. Even when I had to trace illos because I couldn't afford electrostencils, I always tried to do a good job and to use only those illos which traced decently. I tried to use illos which matched the text, leave white space around illos, and in general use the most-pleasing layout I knew how to do. Just because I wasn't "rich" then did not mean that I ignored graphics. And just because I have more money to spend now doesn’t mean that I'm going to ignore the written text.-LeB)


I also disagree with Jeff as to Granny and Nerg discouraging would-be faneds by their obviously expensive format. In a recent letter, Dick Geis wrote me: "Actually, you know, beginning faneds will be scared off in droves, after having seen a run of ENERGUMEN...You may have inhibited a whole generation of fans...I hope. But more likely the young upstarts will think it is easy and will rush into print with disasterous [sic] imitations.” The point that neofaneds will continue their own way regardless of what I, or you, may do is not only reasonable, but demonstratable. Have you noticed any decrease in the amount of new fanzines appearing lately, Jeff? I sure haven't! They are there in the usual droves — badly reproduced, poorly written, and full of the goshwowism that is the future of fandom. Linda and I may be anomalies, Jeff, but we're scarcely the villians [sic] you'd paint us as being.

I can't buy that fandom is becoming more formal either. I cannot think of a single fanzine that is trying to imitate what we've done with NERG, or one that is spending the sort of money we spend on our fanzine.

"Omphallopsychite" - Mike Glicksohn - Granfalloon #17 notes in [ ] by the editor

I enjoyed Cannonfodder this time around, and I tend to agree with those who th.’ ik Glencannon is on his way to becoming the best fanzine critic around. I am sad to see ENERGUMEN folding, of course, as it has been my favorite fanzine ever since its 3rd issue. But at least there's still GRANFALLOON. Or is there? I keep hearing these rumors you are going to fold GRANFALLOON, but say it ain't so, Joe. Where are all the fanzines of yestermonth? Everybody seems to be dropping into apas


[No, GRANNY is not folding, although it does seem to be coming out with less frequency now that I’m working full-time. I don’t know how these rumors spread, but this one is false. It is amazing that general fanzines are on a definite decrease, but it does seem that everyone is folding and going into apas. And it looks like new fans are doing apa fanzines rather than genzines as their first fanzines.-LeB]

I’ve gotten quite a bit of response from aspiring gagwriters on your mailing list. Terry Hughes and Ray Nelson began sending me copious quantities of good gags, as have such stalwarts as Alexis Gilliland, Morris Keesan, and Jay Cornell. I’ve also recieved [sic] gags from Ted Pauls, Doug Carroll, David Travis, Greg Benford, Greg Burton, Alpajpuri, Arnie Katz, Brad Balfour, Sheryl Birkhead, Calvin Demmon, Terry Ballard, and others. I’ve finally sold one cartoon based on a gag suggestion from Ray Nelson.

"Omphallopsychite" - Grant Canfield - Granfalloon Issue #16 notes in [ ] by the editor

Granfalloon 17

Issue #17 front cover by Mark Gelotte
Issue #17 back cover by C. Lee Healy

Published in May 1973. Vol. 6, No. 1. 60 pages. Edited and published by: Linda and Ron Bushyager. Australian Agent: Paul Anderson. British Agent: Philip Payne

Content:

  • Front cover by Mark Gelotte ("The klutz strikes again. Last issue, as many of you noticed, had one cover by C. Lee Healy, but the front cover was by Mark Gelotte. I'm very sorry Mark. "Call of the Klutz", Issue #18)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager - editorial on the commercialisation of fandom, including WorldCon, art shows and fanzines:
This.issue departs from past issues in its heavy emphasis on fiction and serious critical articles. Ideally, GRANFALLOON is a more balanced fanzine, with humorous articles, fanzine-oriented reviews and articles, sercon articles, book and movie reviews, and only a rare piece of fan fiction. But since I wanted to empty my files of articles (some of them submitted four years ago), this issue is very sercon. Since I have now wiped out my backlog of material, I hope some of you will submit some good sercon and humorous articles (no fiction or poetry, however) for future balanced issues.


Fittingly, my editorial is along the same, serious vein. Its subject is one that has been troubling me for a long time. What I’m saying is my opinion of how things are, and the picture may not be as bad as I've painted, or it may be worse, but it is a subject which needs to be discussed. Please let me know what you think.

"Call of the Klutz" - Linda Bushyager

THE STORY BEHIND THE STORY THAT TELLS THE REAL STORY BEHIND THE STORY


It all began many years ago in Woodlawn High School -- and if my memory is correct, in the library either before or after classes. Don Keller and I were talking about science fiction.

(And while neither of us match the people who wore our names back then, one thing that has not changed is our infinite discussion of science fiction).

"You know," said Don, "I've been thinking about science fantasy adventure novels."

"Ummm," I replied.

"You know how they go?"

"How?" I asked, as it was obviously a rhetorical question.

"The Earthman here gets mysteriously transported to another planet, and he is attacked by someone or something, which he kills. The people on the other world then greatly respect him, and don't kill him as they had planned, and by the end of the story he's the ruler of the whole planet."

"Umm," I commented. It was about as close a summary as could be generalized out of 753 such novels.

"You want to know what I'd like to see7" he asked.

"What?" I responded, just chockful of enthusiasm. (It had to be either a Monday morning or a Friday afternoon.)

And he told me. And I chuckled. And I went home and wrote the story. I called it "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse," and here it is. I beg of you: Read the story (It's short and painless) before picking up the commentary which follows.

"A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" foreword by Jeff Smith

  • "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith, art by Mark Gelotte

    "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith, art by Mark Gelotte

  • "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith, art by Mark Gelotte

    "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith, art by Mark Gelotte

  • "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith, art by Mark Gelotte

    "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith, art by Mark Gelotte

  • "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith

    "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith

  • "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith, art by Mark Gelotte

    "A Tale from a Crowded Alehouse" by Jeff Smith, art by Mark Gelotte

(Editor's Note: As I expected, most of the letters discussed Joelle Brink’s analysis of CLOCKWORK ORANGE and Jeff Glencamon's fanzine column. Most people enjoyed Mike Glicksohn's column and my tale of house-hunting. Everyone also seemed to enjoy Ginjer Buchanan’s humorous article, so much so in fact, that many people actually nominated her for Best Dramatic Presentation. Although 90% of the readers loved McLeod’s portfolio, the remaining 10% hated it! Most people felt the back cover was superior to the front cover and should have been used as the front cover. Vincent DiFate and Steve Stiles also received extra praise for their illos. Surprisingly, several of you thought the picture of the house on page 1 was our house, but actually, it was not a picture of our new home.


Many of you disliked the black binding tape, so I guess it was one experiment which failed. In case you are wondering why I used it, the reason is simple — the covers were printed on paper which was slightly smaller than 8 1/2 by 11. ‘ This combined with the use of 1/2 page frontispiece made about 1/4 inch of the paper stick out from the cover. I sought to hide this fact with the black tape. Now we’ll see how well you like the paper sticking out, since I’m not using any tape this issue and since these covers are also too small. Thanks everyone for the Iocs. - LeB)

"Omphallopsychite" foreword by Linda Bushyager

There are a few final comments, notices, and so on I'd like to make. Ron and I would like to thank those of you who nominated us for a Hugo — we appreciate it. But as I said last year, I hope you will vote for ENERGUMEN this year in the final ballot, it deserves to win. We also support Australia's bid for the 1975 convention. In fact, we are hoping to go to the con. I would like to explore the possibilities of having a charter to Australia. If you are interested, please contact me.

...

I need written material for next issue (deadline end of July) including humorous articles, sercon articles, history of fandom articles, movie reviews, and the like, but no poetry or fiction. Several suggestions for articles I’d like to print: 1) History of Filksinging — including lyrics for several songs; 2) Review of SOYLENT GREEN comparing it to Harry Harrison's novel, on which it was based, MAKE ROOM, MAKE ROOM; 3) Reviews of made-for-TV movies and the STAR TREK cartoon when it comes on in the fall; 4) Torcon convention report; 5) Comprehensive review/critical piece on the three Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld novels. I hope someone submits some good articles, or next issue will consist of only a great Canfield/Kinney collaboration portfolio, some cooking columns, and a long lettercol.

"Potpourri" by Linda Bushyager

Reactions and Responses - Issue 17

Frankly, I wasn't aware of the situation on the Worldcon Art Show. That stinks, in my opinion. I don't think it’s fair to the artists, to those who buy the art, nor to the con and hence to the members of the con. Okay, maybe the con can't be responsible for the art show (though smaller cons manage, somehow), but they are still responsible for some of the costs—the room they use isn't free, but is figured into the price the hotel quotes the con. And if the con (that is actually, the members who pay for it) has to bear any part of the cost and responsibility, I can't see why anyone should draw all the potential profit.


I also object to cons making money for a few of those who put them on. If we're going pro about cons, then let us hire ourselves someone who will undertake the full time job.of running our worldcons. If not, then let's give the cons to those who are willing to put them on because they want to do it. And if there is a profit, I'd like to see it first set aside to build up a reserve—to be handed from con to con --up to $10,000 before the money goes for other things. That way, early expenses are no problem. Of course, in such a setup, a full financial report, CPA treated, should be mailed to every member. And if we can't find real fans who want the cons in the proper area rotation,then to hell with rotation!

[Another reason for having a CPA-certified financial- report is the Internal Revenue. With the size of cons we may soon have to face the problem of arranging for non-profit incorporation of every major convention and filing of an income tax return.-LeB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Lester Del Rey - Granfalloon 18, notes in [ ] by the editor

Having some experience with the pros and cons (if you'll excuse the expression) I find myself in basic agreement with your views. I also agree with your remarks about the GoH. In 1948 I was GoH at the Worldcon in Toronto. As I recall, I paid for everything - room, meals, transportation, even my own banquet ticket. But in those far off days, cons were attended by around 200, and there was no profit. Last year, in contrast, 1 was GoH at a regional con in Dallas. My wife and I had transportation, a suite, banquet tickets, and much courtesy from the committee. But attendance was 1200, and I assume a profit was made. I do know that as one of the only three pros in attendance, I worked like a dog during my stay — gave speeches, panelized, did TV and press, tape-interviews, made myself available to fans, cooperated completely. I do not feel I was "paid," but I do feel that had I been required to to all this and foot the expenses, I wouldn't have been "honored" to any extent. The same certainly holds true for Worldcons today.


While there may be some pros who feel that they can ad-lib four-letter words for a speech," I know most of us spend considerable time in preparation, and time is a writer’s sole stock in trade. I generally allow about a week of work for GoH or Toastmaster stints - and glad to so so. But it's heartening to see responsible fen like yourselves who can establish a distinction between honor and "honorarium."

"Omphallopsychite" - Robert Bloch - Granfalloon #18

So you think committees should put on conventions just because they love fandom.

Do you often fall in love with groups of 2000 or more people? Maybe you develop mad affections for entire Army divisions and small European countries. I think you’ll find that most convention committees aren't that expansive. Underlying your writings seems to be the feeling that convention committees owe you something above and beyond providing a product at a stated price. If you don't like the price, your wisest course is not to pay it. If you don't like the quality of the product, you will make every effort to blacken the committee's reputation and drive them out of fandom, because that's the trufannish way. But the convention committee is certainly not converted into a national resource just because it's agreed to stage a convention.

With LACon, we calculated that anything which would be a deductable business expense in the normal course of business would be a reimbursable item. This agrees with my personal thinking that I don't owe anyone in fandom a bloody thing. If I care to donate my time towards running a convention, it's for my own personal amusement and no other purpose. I don't contract to give anything other than my time. Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to hang it in their ear. Even at that, there are people who don't believe our financial report. OK, we made $250,000 on LAcon and spent it all on riotous living. If that makes you jealous, go stage your own damn convention.


[Its unfortunate you feel a convention is a commercial property made by the con committee and bought by the attendees, I've always felt SF conventions were an integral part of fandom and that fandom was something different and special from the outside world. I like fandom because it is free from the commercialism that the mundane world is filled with. I like fandom because the people are friendly - everyone puts aside the conventions of society and talks to one another. If fandom becomes no different from the mundane world, I’ll go back to reading my SF books in lonely silence. And if you do buy a registration to a convention for a stated price and don't like the product, what do you do? Contact the better Business Bureau? If a con committee states before a convention that the convention is to be run as a business venture and does so, I can't complain. But some conventions seem to be run as such without letting the convention attendees know. Before one buys a product, one is entitled to know whether it is from a non-profit organisation or a commercial business. I wonder whether the reimbursable items were listed as income on tax returns (I'm thinking here of Bruce Pelz’s and Fred Patten's trips to Reicon). If so will the IRS possibly investigate the SF con as a whole? If not, would they be guilty of tax evasion? Finally, Milt, I realize that you have some legitimate reasons to be angry at all the flack the LACON committee has received. But I don't think an angry statement or wild remarks like your last will do anything bat further aggravate the situation.

"Omphallopsychite" - Milton Stevens - Granfalloon 18, notes in [ ] by the editors

There was no reason for Elliot to receive TAFF money from the LACon in January or March as he was no longer American TAFF administrator by then. June and I were and are. TAFF received $100 (as listed in the LACon's Final Report). We were surprised (but of course pleased on TAFF's behalf) to receive the money as soon as we did. This is because we understand that the Noreascon set aside money for TAFF but did not turn it over and stated it would not turn it over until the Recent TAFF winners wrote and published trip reports. We thought LACon had adopted the same policy. We are currently working on such a report (THE MOFFATT HOUSE ABROAD), so we can only assume that the LACon Committee have faith that we will actually write and publish a report so didn't wait until we had done it. The money is now safely in a local savings account that we set up for TAFF. And hopefully, TAFF will get more money from the Noreascon as well as from Torcon and other Worldcons to come — once our report (and perhaps others) appears. (Eddie Jones is illustrating his, which is why it is taking so long.)


[My apologies to the Moffatt’s, TAFF, and especially LACON. I'm very glad to hear that TAFF now has the money money and I hope that Noreascon will pay over its reserved TAFF funds once the Moffatt’s report appears.-LeB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Len Moffatt - Granfalloon #18, notes in [ ] by the editor

Granfalloon 18

Issue #18 front cover by Joe Pearson
Issue #18 front cover by Joe Pearson
"Whither Fandom?" cartoon by Bill Rotsler

Published in December 1973. Vol. 6, No. 2. 62 pages. Edited and published by Linda and Ron Bushyager. Proofreaders: Linda Lounsbury, Steve Raskind, Ron Bushyager. Australian Agent: Paul Anderson. British Agent: Philip Payne.

Contents:

  • Front and back covers by Joe Pearson.
  • Table of Contents/Publication Credits.
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager - editorial discussing responses to her previous thoughts on commercialization, including "Grand Balloon", a satirical spoof zine released by Lois Newman and/or Bjo Trimble. (2)
  • "A Smile is a Frown Upside-Down" by Susan Glicksohn - article/rant on the "have a nice day" smiley face culture. (8)
  • "As I See it" by Tony Lewis (13)
The following was sent in reply to my editorial of last issue. Its points are so interesting I felt it deserved treatment as a separate article. Other comment on the editorial can be found in the lettercol. Tony Lewis was chairman of NOREASCON and of several Boskones.

"As I See It" foreword by Linda Bushyager

I'm going to jump about a bit and not take the points in the order you have considered them. I’m going to talk first about the art show since my name was mentioned there (0! egoboo). Speaking as the chairman of a worldcon (Noreascon in 1971) my feelings (and the feelings of almost all of the committee) were that the Art Show is a positive benefit to the convention, it contributes greatly to the enjoyment of the attendees. For this reason the convention did not charge the Art Show for its room (we did not charge Jeff Jones for his room nor Powers). We did this since we did not have to pay for these rooms nor for the set up. However, we did expect these people to contribute proportionately to help defray the cost of security guards to prevent thefts in these art exhibition areas. (Much of the huckster room money also goes to pay for security guards).


The fact that the Art Show makes a profit should not be considered a prima facie reason for the Worldcon to run it rather than having it run by the Trimbles (or some other independent group). It has been suggested that the profits from the show could be used to cut registration fees, but this would mean that the artists would be subsidizing, through the commissions, a large portion of the convention expenses which is not fair to the artists (nor to the fans who want to buy original artwork; although we tend only to remember the prominent works sold at high fees , we should remember that many items are sold at under $30 and that almost every fan I know has some sort of original SF artwork hanging on the wall)

Hangings obtained professionally are expensive - extremely so. I would estimate (based on my discussions with professional display companies in Boston that I contacted before Noreascon) that the amount of hangings used at Noreascon would have cost in excess of $2000 if obtained professionally (remember that the rental fee includes set up and dues for unions; you can't rent without set up - this may be different in other cities). At Noreascon NESFA bought and constructed hangings, with the feeling that they would be used at future Boskones (as has been the case) and rented them to the Art Show at the Noreascon for $100. Actual cost of construction and material was in excess of $300. Still, this was the cheapest way.

I guess I was naive but I thought that everyone knew that the Trimbles ran the Art Show and received part of the profits. However, if someone who has been as active in fandom as yourself just found out and if many of the artists don't know, I suppose that perhaps a majority of the fans don't. I see no reason why this should not be mentioned |in the Art Show information sheets and the Worldcon program books as you suggested. If it had occurred to me at the time it would have gone into the Noreascon Program Book. That's spilt milk under the bridge.

One thing you might also consider is the competition between the Art Show auction and the worldcon auction. With the decrease in manuscripts, books, etc., much of the worldcon auction material is also artwork and there is a direct competition there. It was particularly noticeable at L.A.Con where the art show auctions where held at the same time as the worldcon auction (that was on Monday, I believe). At least the scheduling should be such that both potential buyers and sellers can get a fair break.

"As I See It" by Tony Lewis

Unfortunately, Jeff Glencannon seems to have returned to the Glades of Gafia, so I’ve returned to the tiring, but rewarding job of reviewing the myriad fanzines which clog my mailbox and give the mailman a hernia.


While giant genzine production has dropped to a mere handful of titles, lately it seems as though twice as many personalzines and small sercon and general fanzines are now being produced. With NERG gone, ALGOL buying stories and aiming for a mass readership of over 2000 (and thus ineligible for the fanzine Hugo in my opinion), Bruce Gillespie touring the U.S. and thus unlikely to put out too many fanzines for awhile, GRANNY fading into once a year and even LOCUS succumbing to a more infrequent pubbing schedule, I am beginning to wonder if there will still be any Hugo-quality zines next year.

"Fanzine Reviews" by Linda Bushyager

  • "Imagination Bookshelf" by John Curlovich, Cy Chauvin, Angus Taylor, and Don D'Amanasso - book reviews (26)
  • "Corflu Cookery" by Sandra Miesel - fannish recipes (43)
Cartoon by Bill Rotsler illustrating the "value" of particular BNF contributions to a fanzine.

Reactions and Responses - Issue 18

I was glad to see that Michael G. Coney felt compelled to respond to my article, but disappointed that he chose to be whimsical. His point is apparently that I chose only those quotes which supported my premise, ignoring, for instance, those which were critical of men. He exaggerates his point by quoting other derogatory references to women which I did not use. Careful reading, however, shows that Coney is actually proving me right.


The remarks that he quotes all refer to specific individuals. I would never dream of criticizing an author for portraying a female character unsympathetically. But the references that I cited refer to women as a class, not as individuals. This is a fundamental difference, and if Coney is unable to recognize this, he will never understand the point I was trying to make.

...

Coney apparently views my criticism as a personal attack, as he also does the Feminist movement. I am sorry he feels this way, because it probably polarized him further and made useful dialogue less possible. I think I should point out, however, that my article was largely complimentary [sic]. Coney has excellent grasp of setting and movement. But so long as he peoples his stories with women who are caricatures rather than characters, his writing will suffer.

"Omphallopsychite" - Don D'Ammassa - Granfalloon Issue #19

As an avowed supporter of equal rights, treatment, and opportunity for women (and minority ethnic groups) I find it saddening that the militant nitpicking of a few is obscuring the major issues. My organization 'The Foes of Bondage' (a novel dealing with this dreadful society is to be published early next year, provisional title, VENUS FALLING...) does not satirize the Feminist movement. It is designed to point out the pitfalls which any minority group should avoid, in order to get serious attention. Many of the incidents therein, in fact, are drawn from the experiences of Black Power and student demonstrations.

It is quite clear in THE HOOK, THE EYE, AND THE WHIP that the target is the militant extremists of any group.

...


And to put the whole thing in perspective, let us remember that the character who said: "Miss Jones doesn’t know that. She can’t. She’s a woman," was a convicted rapist. This brings me right back to my original standpoint:

I will not allow the considerations of a few would-be censors stand in the way of accurate characterization. As in this example, such people skim the surface of a story, picking little juicy bits out of context and hold them up for their friends to see. They're so busy formulating their own interpretations that they never look for the author's meaning.

Yes, I take this criticism as a personal attack — because that is what it is stated to be. It is a criticism of me, not my writing (which is 'more than competent'). It is an incompetent attack because I know my own faults — and our critic hasn't found one of them.

"Omphallopsychite" - Michael G. Coney replies to Don D'Ammassa - Granfalloon Issue #19

You got quite a few nasty letters over the possibility of commercialism hitting the cons. Some letters you could tell were derogatory without you even breathing a word. It's become common practice now to attack another's ideas and thoughts by attacking him personally and not his generalities. People have a vile habit of becoming disagreeable over certain subjects, and I should know. At times I get that way and I try to avoid getting that way. It isn't easy.


People do tend to hear only what they want to hear. And they also protest the loudest. Tony Lewis and Lester del Rey had the only two letters which weren't put downs at all. Both were very reasonable and well thought out. If the Trimbles' letter is any indication of what they are like as persons, I'd rather avoid them. Manners do account for something.


It seems to me that you were getting at some kind of balance between profit and and amateurism. Or rather profit and commercialism. I agree with you that the big danger in all this is the grim spectre of commercialism. I got into fandom last year because I was lonely and since I was homebound and jobless I wanted to communicate with other people who shared my interests. Things are better now — I joined NESFA not long ago and attended my first NESFA meeting. I also contributed to APANESFA and I hope to keep it up. I agree that cons shouldn't be put on just for profits. If they are, then fandom is brought to the level of the Black C - commercialism. The legitimate expenses involved should be provided for, but beyond that there shouldn't be much to profits - or you can kiss the true meaning of fandom goodbye.


I agree with Mr. Lewis and Mr. del Rey regarding paying guests of honor. Paying their accomodations and being extra respectful with the GoH is far better. Otherwise it would be like paying your relatives when they come to call for doing so. It destroys the family feeling and turns it into a money making venture.

"Omphallopsychite" - Raymond J. Bowie, Jr. - Granfalloon Issue #19

Once again, you made a few boo-boos, judging from the snarls and squawks on your commercialism editorial. Is it worth a few bruised friendships to keep up your klutz rating? In all fairness though, I think you’ve done an excellent job of presenting the various points of view and the reactions thereto. Certainly you have demonstrated the breakdown in communications. Fandom seems to have grown to the point where "everybody knows that" just isn’t true anymore, if it ever was. If anyone accuses you of being an alarmist on the subject of finances, I’d like to point out that it seems to be true that wherever an opportunity for corruption exists, someone will eventually rise sink to the occasion. I hope that the discussions you have provoked generate some light as well as heat, and that you will never have the dubious pleasure of saying "I told you so."


I particularly enjoyed the pieces by Lester del Ray and Tony Lewis. Susan Glicksohn’s article was worth some thought. I’v very sorry to read of the gafiation of Jeff Glencannon. I don't think you have it in you, Linda, to really shread the crudzines. The bit on Cogswell was nice. I've always liked his stuff and wished he wrote more.

"Omphallopsychite" - John Preniss - Granfalloon #19

Granfalloon 19

Issue #19 front cover by Richard Delap
Issue #19 back cover by Joe Pearson

Published in December 1974. Vol. 7, No. 1. 48 pages. Edited and published by Linda E. Bushyager.

Contents:

  • Front Cover by Richard Delap
  • Table of Contents/Publishing Details (1)
  • "Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager - editorial
I told you GRANFALLOON would be coming out on a yearly basis or so, and here it is, just about a year later. It is a relief to be typing the last few stencils. Issue 20 may take another year to produce or less, depending on whether I receive material. Right now I have just about nothing in the way of book reviews, humorous articles, fan history articles, or other material. I do have a number of cooking columns, evidently the way to a fan’s heart is through his stomach. So I hope some of you will send written contributions. I can also use filler artwork and covers for KARASS. Please type all contributions. Artwork should be in black pen and ink or black felt tip pen on white paper; no larger than 8 by 10 1/2". It should be drawn the size it will be printed and without large black areas. Artwork will be electrostenciled for mimeograph reproduction and returned when used. Artists, please put your name or initials on each drawing to identify it and send me any special instructions .

...

I’ve had my ego boost for the year — Ron and I will be the Fan Guests of Honor at Byobcon in Kansas City, July 18-20, 1975. Wow! When I entered fandom a little over 7 years ago, fandom immediately seemed like home to me and I jumped into fanac with publication of the first GRANFALLOON (co-edited by Suzanne Tompkins) in Jan. 1968. Naturally, my goal in fandom was to become a BNF. I had three fannish dreams — to win a Hugo, to appear on a panel at a Worldcon and to be a Guest of Honor at some convention. Now my fannish dreams have come true — GRANNY has been nominated twice for a Hugo (and I consider that just as great an honor as actually winning), I’ve been on two Worldcon fan panels, and now I’ll be a GoH. Goshowowoboyoboy! Neofannish dreams do come true, if one continues fanacing. I've already started formulating other fannish dreams though. If you'd like information on BYOBCON, write [address redacted]

Also, I guess I really am a Big Name Fan (BNF) now. Some neofan came up the Worldcon and asked for my autograph.

"Call of the Klutz"

Reactions and Responses - Issue 19

...Please note that I said that Worldcon committees are USUALLY guided by what will be best for fandom in general. I had to—and have to— state it that way as there have been committees who ignored the Rules. True, the Rules are not legally binding, but I'm sure that most committees have felt morally obligated to be guided by them. They are needed — not only to remind the committee of its obligations — but also as a guide or a procedure to follow in organizing and running the convetnion [sic], conducting the business meeting, site selection voting, Hugo balloting, etc.


Changes are made in the Worldcon Rules every year. I [sic] would be nice to be able to look into the future and learn what the Rules will be in '78. As you know, June and I are chairing the bidding committee for Pacificon III - LA in '78. Considering the problems and work that a Worldcon committee must expect to face and to deal with, we gave the matter a good deal of thought and discussion before we decided to head up the bidding committee. We decided that yes, we would like the opportunity to run a convention that the majority of the attendees would enjoy. (We do not pretend that we can please everybody; there never has been—and never will be—a convention where there are no bitchers and gripers. That would be humanly impossible and fans are the most human type people I know.) It seems to me that much of the griping is done by those who have no appreciation of the work that goes into organizing and putting on a convention. Coming up with ideas that create more work for the committee is not exactly the ideal way to get more fans interested in forming bidding committees. Fortunately, committees consisting of experienced fans (such as ours) know how to deal with possibly well-meant but impractical suggestions, but why turn off those who would like to bid for a convention, but because of the "problems" and minor hassles they hear about are afraid to try?


[Worldcons are becoming so large and complex that fandom is coming face to face with the real possibility that the only practical way to run such conventions may be by a professional con committee in a municipal auditorium or convention center. Such a solution is one most trufans dread, but when running a Worldcon requires the committee to put as much effort into it as a full-time job, such a solution may be the only realistic answer. I sometimes wonder though if the alternative to professional con committees might not be to simply simplify the Worldcon to the point where it is manageable by an amateur, volunteer committee as tradition and fannishness demand. A move back to the simpler, last minute programming of the 50's and 60's might be drastic, but it might have pleasant results. Items which require extensive planning such as elaborate multiprogramming, all day/all night film programs, light shows, rock bands, presentations based on 2001, and even concerts (originally promised by MidAmeriCon, but now ruled out because of expense and replaced by an original drama) could, be eliminated. But which is the direction the fans want the Worldcon to go in? The advantages and disadvantages of each will have to be thoroughly discussed by fans through fanzine and con vention communication to determine the future evolution of the Worldcon in an organized manner. KARASS and GRANFALLOON will continue to present comments on the future of the Worldcon and on commercial conventions. I hope other fanzines will also discuss these matters. - LeB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Len Moffatt - Granfalloon Issue #20 notes in [ ] by the editor

From an artwork standpoint, honors for GRANFALLOON 19 have to go to all the fine robots therein. As something of a self-proclaimed robotic expert (design aspects), I can speak with a fiar [sic] amount of authority here. And I say that the best illos in Gfl9 were the robots, led by the uncredited beauty on page 31 by "L.L." Who is "L.L." please? That is really an excellent robot there, very ingenious in design and very striking in graphic impact.

[I wish I knew who L.L. was. As sometimes happens I hold onto a piece of artwork for months or years and forget who drew it. L.L. had but a single piece in my files, that robot, from over 2 years ago, and I wasn't able to determine the artist from my files or friends. So if anyone out there has any idea who L.L. is (and it isn't Linda Lounsbury) PLEASE let me know-LeB)

Second-best robot in the issue was Jim McLeod's dandy cycloptic mono-tentacled runner on p. 32, one of the finest robots of recent years. In any other issue of any other fanzine, that would definitely be the Boss Robot. It is only the spectacular L.L. robot that prevents it. It is amazing, possibly even fantastic, to consider a marvelous robot like Terry Austin's, which leads off his portfolio, as only the third-best robot in the issue. Well, third and fourth, actually, since Terry has two pretty swell robots in that illustration. But that's just a mark of how fine an issue Gfl9 was from a robotic-art standpoint. So, as an afficianado [sic], purveyor, entrepreneur, devotee, and fan of robotic art, I thank you for a superlative contribution to the body of Great Fanzine Robots. Enclosed are two recent robots of my own in a cartoonistic vernacular.

[They appear on the next two pages]

"Omphallopsychite" - Grant Canfield - Granfalloon #20, editor comments in [ ]

Gf19 certainly is a nice looking fanzine, and it reads very well too. I guess faneding is like ridiig [sic] that proverbial bicycle. No matter how infrequently you may do it, you never forget the basic techniques. Delap's cover is most impressive and easily the best piece of his artwork I’ve seen. Too bad he seems to have gafiated.

[Richard hasn’t gafiated, really, but is now busy trying his hand at professional writing. For some unknown reason he never felt his artwork was that good, but I think it is, and. I wish he would do more. Richard is still occasionally doing book reviews, and much of his work appears in WSFS JOURNAL and Son of WSFS JOURNAL. If you enjoy very good book reviews, you'll enjoy Richard Delap’s new professional book review zine, DELAP’S FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION REVIEW. Richard hopes to sell subscriptions mainly to libraries to provide a place for them to determine if a book is worth buying. Library subs are $12. Individuals can also subscribe to the monthly publication for $9. Richard probably could use book reviews too. If you'd like to subscribe or want any information on the zine, write Richard Delap at [address redacted] - LeB]

With GRANNY appearing so infrequently, I’m sorry you didn’t write more of an editorial. All that dull factual stuff about publishing schedules and requirements belongs on an informational flyer like Bowers uses. Put more of yourself into Gf in the future. (A bit more about the achievement of and reformulation of your fannish goals would have been much more interesting and revealing, for example. You’ve piqued my curiosity by saying you’ve got new fannish dreams now, and I’m wondering what they might be? Run a Worldcon? Introduce a new set of awards? Raise a new generation of fans? Could be anything. My new fannish goal, for example, is to get another letter published in GRANNY...A man’s reach should exceed his grasp...)

[Glad to make your dream come true. I really don’t have any current fannish goals - LeB]

Randy's illo of a Rotsler character donning a Canfield disguise should be voted into the Fannish Cartoon Hall of Fame and if there isn't such a thing someone should start one just for that cartoon! What a beautiful and brilliant ideal!

Mae writes one of the most completely fascinating articles of anyone in fandom. That word gets a lot of over-use, but it really applies to her writing. There is so much in everything she writes. Nostalgia, beauty, insight, humor, scholarship, truth, mysticism. She's truly a marvel. I seldom agree with all she says, perhaps due to an inherent pragmaticism, but I always enjoy her writing, and I admire and envy the spirit that shines through her words and the truly beautiful way she views the world and the people in it. I count myself richer for having known Mae, and that debt is increased each time I read a fanzine contribution from her.

[I love what Bill Bowers said: "If there was not a Mae Strelkov, it would be necessary to invent her."-LeB]

"Omphallopsychite" - Mike Glicksohn - Granfalloon #20, editor comments in [ ]

...John Curlovich wrote the best review I've seen yet of THE JOHN W. CAMPBELL MEMORIAL ANTHOLOGY. But I think fandom and prodom both need some revision of their habits. Why should an individual's death touch off an epidemic of tributes to him? Wouldn't it make better sense to provide this homage while he's alive, able to enjoy the egoboo and capable of providing assistance with this and that problem which may arise? There are a couple dozen important figures in prodom who are at or near the age when death becomes an ever stronger possibility, and none except Heinlein has received what’s due him. Simultaneously I don’t like the way a few people wait until a pro is safely dead to write a violent debunking or derogatory article about him. Any claim that this is done in such a manner so it won’t cause him pain becomes insignificant beside the fact the the subject is unable to refute inaccuracies which only he could recognize or reveal reasons why he did things in such a way. Come to think of it, there must be quite a few youngsters in fandom today who don’t realize how much the attitude toward Campbell changed after his death, because they weren't reading fanzines when it was hard to find downright praise for him in them.

"Omphallopsychite" - Harry Warner, Jr. - Granfalloon #20

I must take exception to the conclusions reached by John Curlovich in his review of the John Campbell anthology. True, most SF writers aren't good as literary practitioners, altho there's some question whether SF writers should be required to be so or whether SF can be judged, criticized, etc., on its own terms and not by the standards of literaryness applied to mainstream fiction. Once an SF writer gets a reputation as a good writer, readers tend to follow him everywhere and don't criticize him. But that doesn't mean that some of these as well as others are not good writers. There are many good writers in SF, and most of those who began writing prior to 1950 got their start as Campbell writers. Okay, the praise of Campbell in the memorial anthology was full of hyperbole, rooted no doubt in sentimentalism, nostalgia, and a possibly perverse kind of reverence. But this doesn't change the fact of Campbell's very real contribution to modern SF.

"Omphallopsychite" - Lester Boutillier - Granfalloon #20

There's something that bothers me about GRANFALLOON 19. it's a beautiful zine, all right, with perfect rep^o, excellent and fannish artwork and layout, etc. But as I read it, I had a sense of unease, of incompleteness; it seemed humorless and fretful. Even the usually jolly Mae tells a tale of terror. I had to laugh, tho, because when I was & kid, I used to be dragged off to Woodberry-like houses by my aunts; I recognized the types instantly.

"The Author" was a delight, both for the story and for the highly fannish Steffan- illos. I got the idea that I was missing something tho; is it one of a series of connected stories? [Not that I know of - LeB] The Terry Austin portfolio was also well done.

John Curlovich's article puzzled me. I've not read the anthology, so I can't take issue with him on what he says; but the way he says it bothers me. He could have told us why he didn't like the anthology in half the space he took, and without rancor. Did I detect malice in the 'anti' tone of the review? Is John a victim of his own reaction? The unfriendly tone of the piece seemed out of place in GRANNY, and the carelessness in the writing made me wonder about the validity of the conclusions John drew. For example, he says "most science fiction writers are not good in any objective sense; they are merely deft." That's a good phrase, and it has a certain amount of truth in it, perhaps a great deal. The phrase is worth an essay itself; it's just waiting to be enlarged upon. But John changes the subject from writers to readers, and leaves the phrase standing in mid-air, so to speak.

"Omphallopsychite" - Sam Long - Granfalloon #20, notes in [ ] by the editor

Granfalloon 20

Issue #20 front cover by Richard Delap
Issue #20 front cover by Tim Zell

Published in July 1976. Vol. 8, No. 1. 54 pages. Edited and published by Linda E. Bushyager. Mimeo assistance: Ron Bushyager; electrostencils: Bruce McCarthy.

Contents:

You may wonder what it is like to be a Fan Guest of Honor. Well, Ron and I had the opportunity to find out this past July, when we were the Fan Guests of Honor at Byobcon, held in Kansas City. Well fellow fans, it was great!

It all began when KC fan Bill "The Galactic" Fesselmeyer mentioned, almost in passing, during a 2-hour phone conversation, that Ron and I had been chosen to be GoHs, if we "wanted to be the GoHs...that is..." For about 10 seconds, poor Bill heard silence, followed by 10 minutes of hysterical goshowowoboyboying, interspersed with gasps groans, yeses, and the words Guh and GoH.

Soon afterward we began receiving official and semi-official letters from Byobcon chairman Jim Loehr, Bill, Ken Keller, and other KC people. We also began receiving advice from friends as to how to act and what to say at the obligatory banquet speeches. But when the friends heard that our speeches would be juxtaposed to those of Pro Guest of Honor Robert Bloch and Toastmaster Bob Tucker, their advice suddenly stopped, or was on the order of: "Give a resounding smooothhh to the audience, and shut up quick."

...

Clutched in my hand was the "Cranky Award" which the Byobcon committee had kindly presented to Ron and myself. It is a lovely award — a mimeograph handle mounted on a walnut base with an inscribed metal plate. The committee also gave awards to Tucker ("The Horny" — a pair of cattle horns), Bloch ("The Block" — a granite block with a cigarette holder and smoking cigarette), and special Fan Guest Tim Kirk (a HUGE, stuffed dragon — believe me, it was bigger than Tim).

Really, we had a delightful time at KC, due in no small part to the efforts of all the Byobcon committee members, KC peopke [sic], and our many friends. Ron and I would like to thank everyone for honoring us.

"Call of the Klutz" by Linda Bushyager

Fred Patten is rewriting the past. He is revising the error-prone accounts of past world conventions, and you hate begun to see the fruits of his labors in the first progress report distributed by the Kansas City worldcon committee.

A whole new history of Worldcons is being compiled, one that is sorely needed to erase the errors of commission and omission. (Did you know that two fan guests- of-honor have been lost to history?) One of the many innovations planned by the 1976 committee for their coming bash, is a history of past worldcons that will be more accurate, more truthful, and less subject to provincial exaggeration than any other compilation now available. The fanzine forests are filled with con reports written by men who believed a thing happened, or who exaggerated an event to make others believe it happened. (Did you know that one official deliberately kited the attendance figure to fulfill his own prophecy of "the biggest convention ever"?) Inevitably, this accumulation of honest error and shabby deception crept into the annual Program Books, and were then repeated each succeeding year by new committees who copied the records of the last.

Ken Keller wanted a fresh history, an accurate history if such was possible, and Fred Patten began the task of rewriting the past. Their history is being published serially in the progress reports and, if present plans jell and finances permit, will be reprinted in full in the 1976 hardcover Program Book. This first installment of the serial appeared in the report issued in February (PR-2) and covers the first three worldcons: 1939, 1940, 1941. I hope and trust Patten will continue to beard the lions.

Attendance figures have alwars [sic] been open to question because they are the most difficult to ascertain with pinpoint accuracy; and too, different committees counted heads in different ways which added to the confusion. Some included gate crashers, some did not; some included indecipherable signatures on a registration record, some did not. I am convinced that some committees merely guessed at their total attendance and that total is now taken as gospel. I am equally convinced that some committees rounded off the figures to the next highest 10 or 20 for convenience, or for the skae [sic] of pride in their work. It is also possible that accurate counts were lost, and the figures now assigned to a particular convention are those later found in some fanzine.

...

Fred Patten's task is a formidable one. He has all the worldcon program books at hand, plus the fanzine collections of Bruce Pelz and Forry Ackerman, but fan zines are not always reliable and so he is double-checking with those convention committees who can be found and who will respond, & with those ancient bearded ones who attended some or all of the early cons: Ackerman, Wollheim, Millard, Moskowitz, Moffatt, myself, and others. His history should be sufficient until another revision is desired in a decade or so. Men may want to believe something else happened.

Ken Keller: you damned well better not announce six thousand at Kansas City if the figure only reaches 5,867.

"The Clean Capitalist Revisionist" by Bob Tucker

The first rule for finding fannish trends is: forget it. It’s almost impossible to be sure about trends while they’re happening. Ten years later, it’s easier to look back and decide if there really was a trend a decade ago or an iso lated episode or two created a false impression of a trend. Still, I think it’s safe to make a couple of generalizations about apas in the mid 1970's. There are a lot of changes involving apas and the traditional kind of apa which started the whole thing, like FAPA, SAPS, and OMPA, no longer possess the prestige and importance in fandom that they once enjoyed.

"APAthy or APAnage" by Harry Warner Jr.

  • "The Club That Never Was" by Alan Stewart describes the creation of the "Royal High School Science Fiction Society". (16)
We followed John’s suggestion and founded a little library of SF, which attracted the interest of other pupils too. But before anybody else joined our club, we elected a committee to run it, a committee of six. Well, you don’t want anyone else telling you what to do in your own club, do you? You’ve got to be one jump ahead. We were all so young and enthusiastic — and inexperienced. We wanted to do more than just run a tiny library, so we decided to organize a short story competition with prizes of &1 [i pound], 10/- [10 shillings], and 5/- [shillings], which is hardly anything in these inflationary times, but in these days was a lot of money.

...

[My girlfriend] introduced me to the chariman [sic] of the ESFA - as the secretary of the RHSSFS. Of course, he asked what the initials stood for. Well, I just told him as if it has been the most exclusive club in the world.

They judged our stories for us, all right, which may not have been such a good idea after all. The winner was me with something called 'The Alien Invaders.' Richard Hogg came second, and John Anderson third. Secretary, vice-chairman, and chairman. Of course, as soon as the results were announced, they were all screaming 'fiddle.' That was the beginning of the end for us.

The school was brought into the matter when someone complained to our form-master, who got the English Department to look at the stories. Hector McIver, the head English teacher, and Sandy Forsyth assessed our efforts and of course came to a completely different result from the ESFA. The whole fiasco ended in everyone getting his money back.

Then to our dismay, the Rector announced that our little club was now an official school society which would be supervised by one of the teachers to make sure that things were run properly. Well, the club just splintered. Some stayed in the new society, others formed a new 'underground' club, while yet another group (including myself? joined the ESFA and forgot about the school club(s).

"The Club That Never Was" by Alan Stewart

  • "Byobcon Introductions" by Bob Tucker blasts Bloch and the Bushyagers in the notes for his toastmaster speech at BYOBCon. (20)
That is a sacred tradition in fandom. The toastmaster is expected, nay encouraged, to make a speech that is much longer, and infinitely more boring, than any of the claptrap that will be offered by the guests of honor who follow him. (And believe me, friends — some of the people who will appear on this platform this weekend can really deliver deadly dull dillies!)

My subject matter today is the abolishment of office. These conventions are cluttered with useless offices, with useless honors and awards, with useless dignitaries. I call for their elimination!

1. Hucksters and their tables should be abolished! Hucksters are here only to rob innocent fans.

2. Fan guests of honor should be abolished! They take up valuable time we could be spending in room parties.

3. Pro guests of honor should be abolished! They are here only to line their pockets at your expense.

4. Toastmasters and masters of ceremonies should, be abolished! They are a damned nuisance. and finally,

5. Convention committees should be abolished! They only manage to screw up everything.

"BYOBCon Introductions" by Bob Tucker

  • "Book Reviews" by a number of people including Sunday Yorkdale; Brian Earl Brown; Wayne Hooks; Ken Mayo. (24)
  • "Yesterday’s Maddness Revisited" by Mike Gorra - fan poll history (32)
Bob Tucker claims that fan polls are pernicious and dangerous. I couldn't agree more. Fanpolls cause one to think about the good things of the year before, and spread a lot of unnecessary egoboo. Furthermore, they make fans who chance upon the results years later speculate and muse upon the past. And finally, fan polls lead to more fan polls which lead to more... Pernicious indeed. And I love them

"Yesterday's Madness Revisited" by Mike Gorra

I’m now typing the last stencil in June 1976, about a year and a half after I typed the first stencil. The last Granny appeared in Dec. 1974, so you can see why I want to suspend publication, it’s just too long between issues. On the other hand, I hate the thought of actually folding it, so I won’t, I just won’t say when the next issue will be coming out. If nothing else, I’m planning an issue for Jan. 1978, the 10th year anniversary of Granny which would contain reprints of the best of Gf, guest editorial by Granny's former co-editor, Suzanne Tompkins, etc. I'd like to put out another issue before then, but who knows — I may break my right arm next time. Meanwhile, all long-term subscribers to Granfalloon will be getting Karass instead. This issue of Granny and future issues will go to all Karass subscribers, contributors, etc., and will count as 2 issues of Karass. I hope this will be satisfactory to everyone, if not, write and I'll refund any money left on your subscription.

"Call of the Klutz (continued)" by Linda Bushyager

References

Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Granfalloon&oldid=2732694"