After five months, the Smith-Ackerman debate is still waxing hot.
We open this month's column with another rebuttal from Ackerman:
"Since the pros and cons on my Boiling Point article have changed
around to discussions of character, I wish to state that I do not like
H. P. Lovecraft's attitude. I was interested in his closing sentence
in the second issue, and also in Mr. Derleth's. They were both
interesting to analyze. But I resent Mr. Lovecraft's further uncalled
for remarks. If I am not qualified to judge any weird tales, he is not
qualified to call names. It seems to me of late that his palsy-walsy
Clark Ashton Smith has been turning out an over-abundant amount of
literature--but goodness! I don't think the man egotistic and
attempting to draw attention to himself! The man likes to write, and
so do I. Yet Mr. Lovecraft says of me 'peculiarly ridiculous', because
I make absurd comments to focus people's eyes on me; and write
voluminously for the same reason, I take it. But I don't keep a
scrap-book. That's not vary consistent with the nature described,
is it? And ask Mr. Hornig what my answer was when he proposed a
'Forrest J. Ackerman' issue of _The Fantasy Fan_. What a puffing up
I should have gotten had I been _that_ sort of person: You tell 'em
Charles--what I said: 'No!' Not that I see what difference it makes
who writes articles and how many of them there are in one issue, as
long as they're good--which I hope mine are. But people _will_ talk.
And so I am not obliging with an autobiography of myself for the
'Famous Fantasy Fans' feature either.
"Furthermore, Mr. Lovecraft, you seem to have forgotten something. I
keep my letters from famous writers. You say I once wrote you a very
childish attack on your work. But your answer to that letter was: 'I
was very pleased to get your bright and candid letter this morning.'
That is a different story.
"I write these paragraphs in my behalf, because, being more of a weird
fans' magazine, I can't expect many voices on my side from _The
Fantasy Fan_ readers. If you will see the third paragraph in the
letter of C. Ferry and B. Rogers in the December _Wonder Stories_,
however, you will find that the gentlemen are three times over as
vehement and acidic as I. You might call them unknowing supporters.
"To Robert Nelson, who says I must be daft or an imbecile or a
notoriety-seeking clown and knave (and does it in one breath), I can
only answer that I thought it was a foregone conclusion that fantasy
fans were 'daft' anyway, and that examination of the ratings of the
members of my alma mater graduating class might prove differently
about the second statement, and that I think I have cleared of the
third already.
"Richard E. Morse's letter has impressed me as the one that really
'says something.' His thought had not occurred to me before, and it is
worthwhile considering. _Weird Tales_ allows science fiction; why
not _Wonder Stories_ weird tales? As the science fiction fan I am
always eager to see stf in _Weird Tales_ and any other magazine. I see
that the process can easily be reversed. So Mr. Morse 'has' me. The
argument is settled.
"Numerous Eyrie letters knock stf in _Weird_: I only did the same, but
from the other side of the fence."
H. P. Lovecraft also retaliates:
"Glad you are giving the vociferous Master Ackerman a hearing--it's
always well to let both sides of a debate have an equal chance. But I
fear that Effjay the Terrible and his allies don't make out a very
strong case. The tirade to which exception was taken was not merely an
assertion that Smith's 'Dweller in Martian Depths' is unsuited for a
science fiction magazine. It was a wholly gratuitous and intemperate
attack on the story itself, written with a slap-dash extravagance and
obviously sadistic gusto which plainly showed either a complete lack
of analytical understanding and imaginative sensitiveness, or (as it
was probable) a mere boyish desire to show off and attract notice.
However, Ackerman is young, as proved by his tendency to regard
ordinary civilized language as alien and incomprehensible. Now that
he's had a good barrage from the general public, it would be just as
well to leave him in peace. Five years from now he'll go beyond any of
us in laughing at his explosions of today."
William H. Dellenback also has something to say:
"I am not a Weird Man; indeed, I have read _very_ few weird stories
that I have considered really good. Therefore, this is not so much a
defense of Smith (who, I believe, is absolutely wrong in trying to
link weird fiction with science fiction), as a rebuttal to Ackerman.
However, first let me say that I think you are making a mistake,
Editor, in publishing, and readers, in writing, letters which make too
personal remarks. Aside from the fact that they are not true, the
Boiling Point is for arguing about principles and not for calling
antagonists names.
"But on with the dance--Forrest says that 'Dweller in Martian Depths'
and 'The Light From Beyond' should not have been published in _Wonder
Stories_. He also calls 'The Time Stream' doubtful material for a stf
publication.
"Point 1--In regard to Forrest's dislike of Smith's excessive
vocabulary, I will say this is purely a matter of personal opinion.
And I respect his opinion (which is more than do Messrs. Lovecraft,
Barlow, and Nelson) even though I don't agree with him. As a change
from the average run of stf stories, I enjoy Smith's wonderful
language; I believe I have read very few stories as beautifully told
as 'The Light From Beyond'. And though I don't like his weird stories,
nevertheless, his manner of telling seems to me admirably fitted to
weird fiction.
"Point 2--I agree heartily with Mr. Crawford; science fiction would
indeed be dull, if it consisted of nothing but the ideas Mr. Barlow
lists. Fantasy is an integral part of stf; and while the three above
mentioned stories were, for a large part, fantasy, they also contained
the elements of strict stf.
"Point 3--Finally, if no other explaining will suffice, I can only
offer this last fact: Such stories provide variety, and there are many
who will like them. So, if you don't, Forrest, just forget about it.
Stf can not be composed of all interplanetar yarns, or all medical,
or all of any other type."
We hereby give notice that the Smith-Ackerman debate will be concluded
in the February issue. It has just about run its course. If you have
anything to say, you'd better say it now. It's your last chance. In
next month's column, Clark Ashton Smith presents a rebuttal to the
vociferous letter of D. Alexander's in our December issue. Mr. Smith
is glad to know that Ackerman is being given an even break. We hope
that this friendly argument has been well-taken by all concerned and
will cause no hard feelings.