ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN FAN MAGAZINES
by Stephen E. Pickering
1.
That phenomenon in fannish fandom which we call "anti-intellectualism" began in
concrete form in 1937, when Julius Schwartz's Fantasy Magazine folded and, in
its place, Science Fantasy Correspondent began publishing an ostentatious
column devoted to stamps and coins, while simultaneously delivering acrimonious
remarks about the sociological propensities of science fiction in the form of
juvenile material. As an "unwelcome phenomenon," anti-intellectualism was
coerced into concretized forms during the Forties (with the Laney-Ackerman
feuds of 1943, 1943, and 1944), and, with the advent of the McCarthy era of the
Fifties, anti-intellectualism suddenly became the essential philosophy of most
of fannish fandom. That is, as noted by Leland Sapiro, the science fiction fan
became the focalization of altercations and similar naive remarks.
Despite these beginnings of anti-intellectualism, the phenomenon is not
particularly new; in fact, as can be seen in Richard Hofstadter's case-study,
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (Knopf, 1963), anti-intellectualism is
the entire basis for our culture. And in a letter to the present author,
Leland Sapiro -- fandom's most perceptive intellectual -- noted that
anti-intellectualism is "a product of our pioneer days when the real he-man was
supposed to be chopping down forests or shooting Indians, and reading was
supposedly the province of women and children." And, Mr. Sapiro further
stressed, "Contemporary fanzines are... the most vigorous exponents of
Philistinism in the United States. Of course these magazines do not explicitly
state their anti-intellectual attitudes, but such statement is hardly
necessary: the editors' attitudes are expressed quite adequately by the
contents of their magazines."
One would think that the intellectual's position is on the wane in fandom. In
fannish fandom's atrocious APA mailings, etc., hardly more decipherable than a
telephone directory, such is the case. But such resentment is not because of
any delineation of position; rather the intellectual is important to the
future of science fiction, and the ethnocentrism of "fannish" fans nothing more
than a manifestation of their anti-intellectual sentiments. Be that as it may,
save for Mr. Sapiro's current analysis of anti-intellectualism as manifested in
fandom in Riverside Quarterly, no historical study has been done on it in
fandom's entire history; no present magazine has yet actually studied the
phenomenon objectively, with the intent of actually defining
anti-intellectualism.
Hence, because of the ostensible ambiguity of the word anti-intellectualism,
one finds that it is subject to scores of definitions, scores of arguments, and
scores of burned ears. Richard Hofstadter, the social historian, has stressed
that anti-intellectualism, "As an idea, it is not a single proposition but a
complex of related propositions. As an attitude, it is not usually found in a
pure form but in ambivalence -- a pure and unalloyed dislike of intellect or
intellectuals is uncommon." And, Mr. Hofstadter further elucidates: "As a
historical subject, anti-intellectualism is not a constant thread, but a force
fluctuating in strength from time to time and drawing its motive power from
varying sources." Thus, with the characteristics outlined, Professor
Hofstadter gives his brilliant definition, and the premise present in this
article: "The common strain that binds together the attitudes and ideas which
I call anti-intellectual is a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind,
and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly
to minimize the value of that life."
2.
Fan magazines have varied from audaciously pompous editorial policies among APA
editors, to the subtle, yet brilliant manifestations of superb talent.
Nevertheless, this same variety, as it were, prevents any fan critic from
delineating specific magazines as being representative of any total
propensity towards anti-intellectualism. And, in outlining the history, e.g.,
of Fantasy Commentator, it would be equally difficult to outline any
"history" of anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism is often not published
material, but as Mr. Sapiro implies earlier, the milieu is the implicit guide.
However, it is equally pernicious for one to confuse the endless feuds between
"intellectuals" of fannish fandom and those of "sercon" fandom as being
particularly representative of anti-intellectualism. The sercon intellectual,
being the science fiction fan and critic, is under constant social pressure
from contemporary "fandom"; he will feel somewhat (understandably) uneasy in
writing in a magazine which is predominantly "fannish" or equally frivolous.
And the situation is exemplified when ignorant, blithering fannish fans present
acidulous and acrimonious comments about sercon fans; such ignorance, to this
writer, is not excusable. But, inadvertently, through their altercations, the
fannish fan makes it easier for the perceptive intellectual to analyse his
"enemies'" thoughts, although it is not our concern.
Thus, we are led to state, upon examination of most fan magazines from 1948 -
1953 (The "Golden Age" Of American Fan Magazines) that intellectualism, per se,
was the predominant trend. Correlations between mature science fiction and,
analogously, mature erudition among the sercon fans enabled fandom to enjoy a
brief period of productivity which, needless to say, is only occasionally
produced now. However, fandom being loosely organised, is often subject to
making gaping generalisations, leaving vast areas of knowledge untouched, and
emanating considerable ignorance. And, the fannish fan finds it relatively
easy to label another fan as being an "insider" or an "outsider." And,
moreover, a double-standard exists within fannish fandom about criticism from
sercon intellectuals (like this writer). A fannish fan who shows intellectual
propensities, and who indulges in criticism while within the group, is
considered benign and his writing judged on its "merits," if any. However,
criticism from the sercon fan, though constructive, is violently rejected and,
paradoxically, stigmatized as "anti-intellectual"!
For example, during the past decade, we have heard many contemporary fans
expostulate over the lack of science fictional discussion and/or criticism, and
were critical of magazines (rightly) which published little more than trash.
However, when a fan (e.g., Kingsley Amis, Prince of Folly and Stupidity) does
publish such material (although we hardly consider the conglomerated New Maps
of Hell "criticism"), many fans were disturbed because, at least, Amis made an
attempt at discussion. It is not that sercon fans had ceased to be interested
in science fiction -- on the contrary, we just did not particularly appreciate
New Maps of Hell's source.
And, taken further, this is applicable more readily to fannish circles and
their intrinsic rubbish, an excellent example of what we sociologists call
"subcultural manifestations." The fannish fans have a carefully nurtured
standard of "criticism," Janus-faced and directly relative to whether the
criticism is from an "outsider" or an "insider." According to one historian,
"There is some justification for such double standards [among criticism among
various groups], in historical fact if not in logic, because the intent which
lies behind criticism unfortunately becomes an ingredient in its
applicability." And often when a fan criticizes a group for lack of science
fiction discussion, he may often destroy any possibility for such material to
appear.
3.
Having to wade through much rubbish in fan magazines is often intolerably
depressing. Supposedly, the fannish fans and more audacious spirits assert,
fandom is the last refuge for "free-thought," for unmitigated examination of
the problems of our age. But, this is sheer myth, for fannish fandom is not
a predominantly free-thinking social structure, and neither is it particularly
the center of science fiction; it is the last stronghold of militant
anti-intellectualism, and as a sociologist I challenge any fannish fan to
"prove" that my data and statistics are wrong. Be that as it may,
anti-intellectualism in any absolutely pure form is rare.
Often, in attacking what Robert Coulson has called "Intellectual pomposity"
(which does not exist; Mr. Coulson should say "Intellectualism's automatic
defense mechanisms"), the fannish fan is mixing hate with fear, fear with
respect, and respect with unadulterated jealousy. Moreover, the source of
anti-intellectualism in fandom lies not in rejection of ideas per se; often
those most anti-intellectual are those most involved with ideas, values,
folkways and mores; and the spokesmen of anti-intellectualism in fandom have
been somewhat articulate (e.g., Francis Laney, Bob Tucker, etc.). Richard
Hofstadter has described these type of anti-intellectuals as "marginal
intellectuals, would-be intellectuals, unfrocked or embittered intellectuals,
the literate leaders of the semi-literates, full of seriousness and high
purpose about the causes that bring them to the attention of the world." The
anti-intellectual fans, in rejecting sociological connections with modern
science fiction, will often use intellectuals' ideas but usually have
acrimonious contempt for their interests.
It is clearly ostensible that, at times, various fan organizations carry the
banner of anti-intellectualism as if they were on a Holy Crusade to expunge
Those Dangerous Intellectuals. Of course, it would be absurd for us to assume
that the fannish fan arises in the morning, expostulating: "Forsooth, today I
shalt persecute ten intellectuals in fandom!" But, through the medium of
restriction of policies, of invading one's perogative to write mature material
-- all of these constitute innumerable mediums for anti-intellectualism. The
fannish fan reminds this reader of a blithering, emasculated, white-faced
priest singing his pagan litanies for the world's greatest hoaxes. However, we
should not label. As a sociologist, we realize that historical and cultural
trends render many ideas impotent, but, unfortunately, anti-intellectualism is
still a banner. And the individuals who carry this banner are inconsistent:
i.e., one moment they are Great Righteous Americans, and then, temporarily,
they are Frightened Insecure Human Beings in a socially stratified environment.
Banners flutter in the winds of fannish fandom, but likewise, such banners are
useless: labels are a quality most individuals like. In this day of mass
hysteria and social immobility, we turn anxiously to each drop of a word, a new
label, with which to suddenly construct a Wonderful Picture of What Those Fools
Really Think in Sercon Circles. But, even anti-intellectualism, in being
anti-intellectual, is a contrast; without bad, one could not appreciate good,
without ugliness how know we beauty? Only in this manner of allocations, can
the sercon critic form a rational balance; complete destruction of an "evil"
can be more dangerous than even its existence.
[pp. 35 - 41, 50, NO-EYED MONSTER #9, Fall 1966]
Updated April 12, 2001. If you have a comment about these web pages please send a note to the Fanac Webmaster. Thank you.