|
|
Marion Z. Bradley reports: I saw a lovely shade of bright gory red at your statement that all Ed Cox needs to make him a better fan is a little knowledge about even-edging and slip-sheeting. There is such a thing as too much attention to format and too little to content, and to my knowledge and belief Sky Hook falls into the category of a beautiful job of publishing with nothing in it. I haven't the faintest idea why you go to the trouble of dummying, making double columns and even edges, for the amount of purely personal idiocy which you pack into Sky Hook as being interesting. I'm inclined to be of the opinion that I'd rather read a magazine as snafued as the recent Spaceship, if it had something in it, than a beauty like Sky Hook, which contains almost nothing but a group of personalities and egoboo for yourself and other faps. Sorry, that's an honest opinion. If you'd leave out the mailing reviews and Twippledop, and concentrate on your really excellent selection of articles, such as the one on the Douay Bible (I've lived in Catholic homes and have been mightily amused at those "notes" myself), and your Sky Hook Book Nook, you'd have a Fapazine with something more than ephemeral interest. As it is, I just stick it away with miscellaneous fapazines. In my opinion it's on a par with the recent one-shots -- hardly more than an open letter informing the faps that you are still around to inflict ((!!! Ed.)) your personality on their consciousness. My honest advice would be, forget your dummying, slip-sheeting, forget your hefty editorializing, and start being an EDITOR. (Look up the dictionary definition of that word, why don't you?) # As another comment, your magazine has a cynical cast which, unfortunately, spoils it for me. I'm afraid you'll wind up where Fan-Dango is. # You can publish a good zine; I saw that with Tympani and the much-lamented Chronoscope. But the change from Redlance Press to Gafia Press seems to have indicated a change in your frame of mind. (Box 431, Tahoka, Texas.)
The question is, I think, whether SkHk is dull, not whether it is ephemeral. "Top fanzine today -- cold crud tomorrow" as an almost universal principle. # And here I've been thinking SkHk has been running too many articles and too few "hefty" editorials! For after all this is not a subscription fanzine, but rather an individzine. # I agree with you as to the relative importance of format and material. My remark about Edco was occasioned by his query as to the even-edging and slipsheeting procedures, not by the lack of either in his publications.
R A Bradley admits: I'm not sure that you're entitled to two comments on only one copy of Sky Hook, but here it is: Excellent appearance and makeup. One expects to find a number of interesting items between the covers and is sadly disappointed on reaching the last page without discovering a reason for the expenditure of time and energy. Surely you're not publishing a fanzine for no other reason than one of fulfilling your subscription contracts? # Your article on the Douay Bible, "This You Must Believe," is a case in point. Your facts are straight enough, but why play them up from that particular angle? Why not go to the root of the matter and point out wherein the modern church is following out the pattern set them by the Jews, and are quite apt to wind up in a similar predicament? Wasn't it Moses who took the Ancient Mysteries and personalized them by crediting everything to the name of his God? Doesn't the Douay Version (as well as all other versions) carry out that same pattern by crediting everything to the name of Christ? But this is no reason for discarding the Bible as worthless. If you will dig around in ancient literature you will be able to uncover their true meanings -- and then ask yourself if this would be possible if the apparent errors in the Bible hadn't worked toward keeping the issues alive until they could be restored to their original simplicity. # I suppose there are lots of fans who have a keen interest in the sort of material you use in Sky Hook, but I just don't happen to be one of them. To put Sky Hook on my "must" list you'll just have to give up superficials and get down to fundamentals. (Box 431, Tahoka, Texas)
Perhaps the article "The Melody Lingers On" in this issue is more down your alley; however, not being Erasmus, I'm not primarily or particularly interested in restoring the "true meanings" of biblical literature, but only in pointing out the fallacies of present-day interpretations. Why is this purpose less laudable than the one you suggest? # I don't "discard the Bible as worthless. "
William Berger longhands: Sky Hook (Fall 1949), which arrived today, deserves a few comments. It's a fanzine worth waiting for. # "Lovecraft is 86" was an interesting critique, in spite of its loose strings. If Laney thinks he'll destroy any Lovecraft hobbyist, he's sadly mistaken. Perhaps making his debunking-piece longer could have strengthened it, but as it was, it made me think he would have been wiser to write a sentence like "I detest that H. P. Lovecraft." To mention his flaws and hope to convince anyone on such a foundation shows he is overlooking the fact that most great authors were guilty of some imperfection. Now, I'm not a Lovecraft worshipper, but I consider the personality that hits you on the pages of Lovecraft's tales a fascinating one. Let's not discourage those who want to keep the memory of Lovecraft alive. Maybe he was a psycho; regardless, I repeat, fascinating, and a lot more than the average psycho. Mr. Laney knows the maladjusted are sometimes very fascinating. So, keep Lovecraft alive and keep showing him to everyone through the further ages. # "In My Mind's Eye" asked a highly meaningless question, "What does a year look like?" Writers on general semantics would shake their heads at such a statement. The guy who wrote this article seemed to be taking the reader through a verbal jungle. I was glad to accompany him. # The rest of your fanzine was meaning, in all its overpowering glory. "Eye to the Past" (you love eyes!) was what I like to see in fanmags. Sort of gives you a literary flavor (the critics criticized a critic criticizing a critic, etc., etc. Only they are so serious.) Thanks for such a thought-moving mag. (912 East 140 St., Cleveland 10, Ohio.)
I do not think HPL could be called a "psycho." # Mr. Laney is an authority on the maladjusted, but he has not indicated that as of 1950 he finds they are fascinating. # Write again. And that goes for all SkHk readers. Comments are especially welcome from non-publishing fapates and subscribers. This department will appear regularly, if sufficient mail is received.
-- Ed.
Page scans provided by Judy Bemis
Updated June 19, 2001. If you have a comment about these web pages please send a note to the Fanac Webmaster. Thank you.