Polling a Boner
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Polling a Boner |
| Creator: | Anonymous |
| Date(s): | July 1940 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Science Fiction |
| Topic: | Famous fans |
| External Links: | Hosted online by fanac.org. The Science Fiction Fan #48 pp. 43-. July 1940. |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Polling a Boner was a 1940 response to the early results of Art Widner's Poll. The anonymous author felt that some fans didn't deserve to be polling in the top 20, while other prominent fans were being ignored. Many of the fans named in the article did in fact appear in the final results, printed in April 1941.
The writing style is a very close match to Eat It--Strangers!, a rant written six months later by William L. Hamling.
Text
Art Widner is now conducting a poll to determine the ten top fans. According to first published results, two inhabitants of "Shangri-La" and three members of the Strangers Club, are included. A percentage of 50% gentlemen.
I contend that only Ackerman, definitely, and Swisher, possibly, have any place in that five; that the first results must be mainly made up of Massachusetts and California club votes; and that if Chauvenet and Hodgkins long remain in the list, the poll is proved worthless. Worse than worthless, misleading. I, for one, would flatly refuse to deem it worthy of recognition, FOR IT WOULD not be representative; and I expect to convince you of the same feeling. There are now about three things I would like to say at once: The poll-fault (no pun intended) is not Widner's; who am I, I am a name to be found in any list of famous fans that contains twenty names; and I am writing this anonymously (and altering clues to my identity only sufficiently - I hope! - to maintain my anonymity without affecting the underlying truth of any statements) because I have no desire to incur any ill-feeling from those who are presently enjoying what I believe to be underserved recognition (while others are being unfairly slighted), who conceivably could resent my attitude. I wish to stress throughou this article that I am not belittling Hamling, for instance, or Hodgkins or Chauvenet, but only wish to wake up those who blindly -- I maintain -- have placed them in the position they have.
If fans are going to let their hearts rule rather than their heads such a poll as this one is useless; worse than useless, misinformative. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for Hodgkins and Chauvenet's names ever to have appeared in this poll. Perhaps they are as embarrassed about it as anybody. But because they have a big club out there in Los Angeles, where R.J.M. was Director two or three times, all the members boost the local favorite then more returns are in from L.A., - unless this appears in time to make them, stop and think, which I am hoping--, I look to see Yerke, Morojo, Freehafer, and even possibly this Walt Daugherty, making a show on the list. With twenty-five or thirty votes out there, they could do it. Unless these are counteracted by a similar large (emotional) vote from the Queens, for Moskowitz, Taurasi, Sykora, Racic, and Van Houten. For Moskowitz and "Javity" there is justification, just as for the "J" [(Forrest J Ackerman)] and Morojo. But if the Futurians (biased) are going to poll hard (pun intended!) for Robins and Kornbluth, let us say, for 9th or 10th place; and L.A. is hot for Hodgkins and Yerke getting in there; and the New Fandom group determined that Mario [Racic] and "Says" should show ana we already see how the Mass. Movement has pushed Chauvenet, Widner, and ”Checker" in; why — what the hell! guys, what the hell!
There are a dozen fans who obviously stand head and shoulders above the two or three objectionables on the list at the present. Not even mentioned have been Reinsberg, WOLLHEIM, MARCONETTE, ROTHMAN, BALTADONIS, TRAIN, CARNELL, MOROJO, LOWNDES, Hart, Kuslan, SPEER! I may still be forgetting a few, for the moment; but, my Ghod! cany any of you illustrate how Louius [Chauvenet] or Russ [Hodgkins], or W. Lawrence [Hamling] surpass these in activity, popularity, importance--any of the accomplishements that one takes into consideration when selecting a top fan???
There is another important aspect from an entirely different angle, which I will dwell on but briefly, as my space is limited, but it is this: Do not fail to vote for a fan because of personal dislike. Because a fan has been linked with communism ( and you don’t care for communism), or one is an advocate of Esperanto (and you dislike any language but English), or accusations of dictatorial tactics have been levelled at another, or a fourth simplifies his spelling to a degree that you find irritating; do not, out of dislike, be blinded to the fact that this fellow was a founder of the fanmag ten years ago that you can’t get a copy of now for love or money; that this one's letters are to be found in the back issue pro's that you are buying now at premium prices and reading for the first time; that this one has been a stager of conventions; this, active as reader, writer, editor, publisher, and collector, for ages, etc.
Anybody who regards this article as sour grapes on my part because I have, in racing parley not "placed or showed" in the poll to date, is badly mistaken. You've got another think coming, thank you! If such is the case, the whole point of this article has been lost on you. Quit acting like a human being and exercise some of that giant BRAIN you boast about having as a science-fiction fan, consider carefully and vote intelligently! - If it's too late now, then NEXT TIME!
The fan known for being linked with Communism could be any of the Michelists but most likely Donald A. Wollheim; the one accused of dictatorial tactics would be William S. Sykora, and the simplified spelling Forrest J Ackerman.