From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Fannish Inquisition
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 22:43:36 -0500
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elspeth Kovar" <ekovar at worldnet.att.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 9:59 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Re: Re: Re: The Fannish Inquisition

> At 06:04 PM 3/8/04, Ted White wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Barry L. Newton" <bnewton at ashcomp.com>
> >To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
> >Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 1:10 PM
> >Subject: [WSFA] Re: Re: The Fannish Inquisition
> >
> > > Interestingly, Ted White said:
> > >
> > > >As I thought.  You know nothing about the main tradition in
fanzines.
> > > >
> > > >--Ted White
> > >
> > > Ted, this is unnecessary and unappreciated by anybody save (perhaps)
> > > yourself.  Get a life.
> >
> >It's a shame that WSFA, once founded by fanzine fans and long a force in
> >fanzine fandom, is now populated mostly by people who think the current
> >WSFA JOURNAL epitomizes fanzines and remain ignorant of what fanzines
are
> >actually about.   For nearly three years I supplied a fanzine review
column
> >to the WSFA JOURNAL in hopes of opening a few eyes.   It was an entirely
> >futile task.  *Not one* WSFAn ever requested a copy of any of the
fanzines
> >I reviewed as a consequence of reading those reviews.  (A possible
> >exception might be MIMOSA -- but I think Rich made them available at
> >meetings himself.)
> >
> >That Lee Strong speaks in nearly total ignorance when he speaks of
fanzines
> >(he thinks they're clubzines and exist to print book and movie reviews),
is
> >a fact that I observe.  It's a shame if you feel the need to see this
> >ignorance perpetuated, but I'll live with it quite easily.   WSFA
figures
> >minimally in my life.
>
> Ted, no one has said or, most likely, even thinks that the WSFA Journal
> epitomizes fanzines.  Indeed and as you mention, we have for some years
had
> a Hugo-winning fanzine regularly available to read as a counter
> example.  Some of us who aren't fanzine fans have made an effort to learn
> about fanzine fandom despite the often more-Smoffish-than-thou attitude
of
> many of the practitioners.  And, personally, I've read your reviews and
> have been interested in some but I know better than to ask for copies
> because I know that I can't keep up with my reading as it is -- Ansible,
> which I get via email, and Mimosa are enough although I sometimes glance
at
> Emerald City to see what the author is saying these days.  (Locus doesn't
> qualify anymore, and by your negative definition I don't think that you'd
> consider Emerald City a fanzine.)
>
> Perhaps rather than attacking people and making sweeping generalizations
> you might try saying what you think fanzines are and why they exist.
Being
> aggressively rude -- directly to Lee, to many of us by your
> generalizations, and to all of us on this list by the process --
certainly
> doesn't advance your cause.  You've long made it clear that you don't
like
> or respect Lee which is entirely between the two of you.  Would you
kindly
> keep it that way?
>
> And maybe next time you could respond in a way which is actually
> useful.  Many of us may, as you claim, be ignorant but most of us,
> including Lee, enjoy learning things.  Rather difficult to do so from
> someone who's frothing.

I spent almost three years "saying what [I] think fanzines are and why they
exist."   There was utterly no frothing.   There was also utterly no
response.   I tend to suspect that many WSFAns either don't read the WSFA
JOURNAL or didn't read my column.   But I don't know that.  What I do know
is that I polled the editors of the fanzines I reviewed to find out what
the response was.  And they told me: zero.    After a while that wore me
down.

--Ted White