Hey! Stop! Please!

Meta
Title:	Hey! Stop! Please!
Creator:	Sam Moskowitz
Date(s):	May 1939
Medium:	Print
Fandom:	Science Fiction
Topic:	History of science fiction fandom
External Links:	Hosted online by fanac.org. Spaceways #5 pg. 12-13. May 1939.
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

Hey! Stop! Please was written by Sam Moskowitz in response to criticism of his article The World Changes, especially those made by Robert A. Madle and by Bob Tucker, who'd written a parody called The Moon Changes, Too. Some of Madle's criticisms that he addresses weren't printed in the letter that appeared in Spaceways #4, and may have been part of a longer letter in private correspondence.

Moskowitz insisted that he was misinterpreted, or occasionally joking, and that he entered the fan field in 1935, not in 1937 as Madle had said. He also said that even before then, he'd been very familiar with fandom through the readers' corners in pro science fiction magazines, and that he knew more about the history of fandom than either Tucker or Madle. He closed by reassuring everyone that no one involved in the debate was really upset about anything.

Text

I've just dusted myself off after the hiding accorded me by various gents in the latest SPACEWAYS. Mostly, Messrs. Madle and Tucker with a few accomplices thrown in for good measure. It seems the boys are determined to add still another fan era to my already too-numerous versions. That era might be titled "THE BELITTLE MOSKOWITZ ERA", ushered in the February and March of 1939 by Mr. Tucker, and immediately followed by compatriot Madle. This effusion is an attempt to end such an embarressing era (embarressing ain't the word) before it gains too much headway.

First let's analyse the case scientifically. The boys must have a motive. That seems obvious. We'll start with Madle. What motive could Bob possibly have? I've been like a step-father (the good kind) to that particular gent. Ah! I've got it! The utter, scathing horror of it! I ACCIDENTALLY LEFT MADLE'S NAME OUT WHEN SUMMING UP THE REMNANTS OF THE OLD FAN WORLD! Such a crime, I know, is inexcusable. I hang my head in abject shame, if not misery. What more can I say than beg, most humbly, for forgiveness, and to say that Robert A. Madle and his excellent FANTASCIENCE DIGEST, are unquestionably one of the old-guard, and will, I have no doubt, remain with us for a long time to come. Lest Ackerman also bear grudge I hastily mention that I left his name out because he seemed a virtual fixture, everybody expects him to be around, and it's silly to remind them of it.

Now that I have lowered myself to asking for forgiveness I will do an about face and rid my fair name of some of the ignomy it now bears. You are, Mr. Madle, quite all wet. If your Philly bunch doesn't take a course in reading shortly, and quit misinterpreting statements of mine written in precise, understandable English, I don't know what is to be done. I did not call myself, Taurasi or Marconette an old-timer in the pure sense. I quote: "The Old-Timers (comparatively speaking) that appear will be around for quite a while yet are Taurasi, Marconette, Speer, Moskowitz." I admit I should have added Madle. "Yet it is significant that three of the above four were the newest in the old field". Now aren't you ashamed you spoke so hastily, Mr. Madle? You knew damn well when I referred to the old field, I was referring to the "Hektographing era in science-fiction". I think I made that very clear.

As to my not having a right to write about the old days of science-fiction fandom, I might pertinently ask just how did you get that way? Because H. G. Wells did not live in prehistoric times does that mean that he has no right to write about it in his book "Outline of History"? The only requirement being of course that everyone regard Mr. Wells as an authority on the subject, which I believe they do. I also believe that I can speak as an authority on science-fiction. Because I was not a fan in 1930 does not mean I don't possess any knowledge of that time. I wasn't alive during American's revolt against England, but I can tell you plenty about it. And you, of all people, should know, that I possess considerably more than a casual knowledge of all phases and events of science-fiction. Your contention that the fans were not "jealous" of FANTASY MAGAZINE and the group it represents might be consigned to the role of opinion, but it can't be. It can't be because it was an actual fact! You, in honorable antiquity, should possess knowledge of the numerous fan battles against FANTASY MAGAZINE, culminating when the groups shook hands at the second science-fiction convention.

Finally, "The World Changes" was certainly not too similar in idea to any of my previous articles. In "The World Changes" I attempted to show as best as I could every distinct era science-fiction had passed through. I also attempted to show that we were passing into a new era of science-fiction (at the time I wrote the article, last week in November, 1938). I never attempted that in any previous article I have written, though I have gone into detail a number of times over one specific era. I guess that's all, as far as Madle is concerned, and I'm not peeved as you evidently were when I left your name out of "The World Changes." It shall never happen henceforth, see "One to a City", probably next issue of FANTASY DIGEST.

I laughed like blazed over "The Moon Changes, Too", it was really funny, in parts. However, knowing Tucker's views from previous occastions, I must search for the Tuckerian motive. Found! Loki's second article in NEW FANDOM! It seems that Loki was not quite polite enough in his views contained in that article (which, incidentally, were certainly). If Tucker remembers, I wrote him, warning him, that such an effusion was to see print. In advance, that is. In my postal I inferred that were he peeved enough, beforehand, I would withdraw the reply. I got neither so I assume Tucker was peeved, but didn't want any one to know it. My belief on this point is exemplified by that fact that Tucker seems to have picked Mr. Moskowitz for the leading role in too-many of his burlesques. Now I don't really care about that, as long as the burlesques are funny, and they usually are---I ought to know since I laugh at them myself. However, I think Tucker is making too concientious an effort to run me down. His main argument seems to be, "what right has young whippersnapper Moskowitz to write articles about the old days---'vas you dare sharlie', and we old timers don't want to read them anyway."

Who in blazes is writing articles about the old days for the old timers anyway! There's only a half-dozen of "real" old timers active today anyway. The rest are mostly younger fans, who don't know a thing about "the elder days", but would like to learn. These are the fellows I write the articles for, not you. Paradoxically enough, few of the old timers could write an article on the old-times yourself. You don't know enough about it, and that's a fact! Who was there in the old days who attempted to encompass the entire fan and professional field the way fans do today? Very, very few, and they've retired. These old-timers haven't taken an interest in more than certain small portions of events that happened about them. Tucker for example could tell you damn little of what happened between 1934 and 1938 in the fan field yet he has the audacity to take the know-it-all attitude and reprimand yours truly for trying to inform newcomers of past events, AND STILL NO ONE HAS PROVED ANY OF MY STATEMENTS AS BASICALLY INACCURATE! The chief idea being that I've one helluva nerve writing about the old days when I'm a comparitive newcomer (vintage of 1935, to be exact). But in four years, a very active fan can learn one heck of a lot, and especially if he has a passionate desire to learn of events in his field. I had a darn good working knowledge of the fan field even before I entered it. Any concientious reader of the fan departments in pro mags couldn't help but have. Finally turning to Tucker's caricaturing the fact that I claimed to be writing for a new audience. Well, since when have the names as Dikty, Mason, Boyer, Willhelm, Hamling, Sell, Bristol, Byers, Castellari, Chauvenet, Pauley, Lee, etc., etc., been nauseatingly common in the readers' departments of fan mags? How many subscription lists of past fan mags boasted similar names? State facts please.

I hope this bit doesn't exclude me from future humeresques on Tucker's part. I wasn't attempting to do more than change erroneous impressions some of those pieces may have furthered among the newer clientele. I never tried to pose as an old-timer of 1930 vintage intentionally. I might have pretended for the sake of the article, that I was, but the inference was clear that I was not. Remember, boys, I didn't start this! You did! And you know darn well everything said here is said good naturedly, as I believe your statements were. To clear up doubts, I might publicly state that I consider Tucker and Madle two of the finest fans extant today, and damn good fellows, so there.