_HENRY HASSE_
THERE! If "Foo E. Onya", in the last issue, could use a pseudonym so can
I. I read his article, I'M THROUGH, with varying degrees of interest. If
an answer were really necessary, it could be found more appropriately in
the two words of my title above, than in any words that might follow.
And that brings up my first point in my rebuttal--
Why is it that people, including the lowly science-fiction fan, (to
paraphrase Mr. Onya) always feel it necessary to hide behind a pseudonym
when they have something to say which they think will displease someone?
I've seen this happen so many times! And, coincidently, why SHOULD Mr.
Onya take such pains to be unpleasent in print? Why should he feel it
necessary to make one final, grand broadcast to the effect that he will
no longer read paltry science-fiction? Does he think that any real lover
of sci-fic gives a damn whether there is one less reader, especially a
reader who crawls behind such a silly pseudonym as "Onya"? I've seen
other broadcasts such as Mr. Onya's, and they always puzzled me. It
surely can be nothing else but the egotistical urge.
But I'm convinced that Onya isn't half so bitter really against
sci-fiction as he tries to pretend. He's not really through. Because
anyone really bitter against and through with sci-fic would simply stop
reading it, not start deriding it! And I doubt if any person, once a
fan, has ever completely broken away from sci-fic, THEY ALWAYS COME
BACK.
And right here I'd like to say that a good deal of my doubt as to Onya's
sincerity is because I'm fairly certain of the fellow's real identity.
The general tone of his article, and several clues he divulged, convince
me I'm right. And if I AM right, I can assure you, Brad, and any other
readers who nay have been picqued at Onya's tone, that he shouldn't be
taken seriously, and the less attention paid to his rantings, the
better. I'm sure Onya would feel flattered if he thot someone took his
article so seriously as to answer it. Yet here I am answering it, and
damned if I know why, except that I think I took some of Mr. Onya's
phrasing personally, almost. I don't think he should have gone to the
extent of calling names and using words such as "moronic", "arrogant",
etc.
Aside from this his piece seemed to me a conglomeration of
contradictions, inconsistencies, praises here, derisions there, pats on
the back, exaggerations, sneers and scorn, and, oh yes, a book review.
Yes, I liked and appreciated and mostly agreed with Onya's comments on
BRAVE NEW WORLD. It's a book which I'm sure sure many of the _moronic_
sci-fic fans appreciated as well as Mr, Onya. But here's where Mr.
Onya's and my tastes differ slightly, for I _also_ liked PLANET OF THE
KNOB HEADS in the Dec. issue of SCIENCE FICTION, whereas Mr. Onya
probably wouldn't deign to read it because it's in one of the pulp mags.
that he so deplores; thereby Mr. Onya would be missing a really
entertaining and meaningful piece of writing, but that's all right,
since Mr. Onya's own words said: "There is so much else of importance
that has been written--".
You know, somehow I cannot bring myself to be as vitriolic against Mr.
Onya as he was against sfn at moments. He tried hard to work up a case
against sfn, poor fellow, and became (to me at least) amusing instead of
convincing. Do you know what I saw? I saw a person who is temporarily
_satiated_, as he said, with sfn,--but more than that, a person who is
merely trying to persuade _himself_, more than other people, that sfn is
as bad as he painted it! Naturally every fan has his likes and dislikes
of the various stories, authors and magazines. Some have more _dislikes_
than likes. I think even I do. But it must be admitted that every once
in a while, usually unexpectedly, there pops up a story which is a
delectable gem and a masterpiece, either of ingenuity or writing or
both. Then one is exultant, and one continues reading sfn, even some
trite and bad sfn, knowing that regularly he will encounter one of the
gems which he wouldn't have missed reading for the world! Meanwhile we
have with us Clark Ashton Smith, C. L. Moore, Stanton Coblentz
(delightful sometimes, not always), A. Merritt, and an occasional few
others, whose work I doubt if even Mr. Onya could glibly pronounce as
ordinary pulp. And we did have Lovecraft, Weinbaum, Howard, and others
of whom the same thing can be said.
Naturally, too, a lot of criticism can be directed against sfn and sfn
readers. A lot of criticism can be directed against _everything_, and
usually is, by certain people who take an unholy delight in it. I myself
have sometimes snorted in wrath at the gross egotism and, yes, stupidity
and childishness, of certain fans. I would have taken great delight in
kicking their blooming teeth down their bloody well bally throats. But
did I do this? Did I succumb to this desire? No, I did not. I never got
close enough. A more important reason is that I had the patience to
realize this type of fan is a minority (_not_ a majority, Mr. Onya, by
any means!). But what I did _not_ do was write bitter articles about it.
Here is only one of Mr. Onya's inconsistencies: he makes such
statements as "fans are arrogant, blind, critically moronic", etc.--and
"editors and writers as well cannot see anything beyond their own
perverted models." In virtually the next breath he admires P. Schuyler
Miller's intellectuality. Yet P. Schuyler Miller continues to write
sfn, reads it, and is one of the active fans.
Furthermore, I disagree outright and violently with Onya's statement,
"When literature becomes possessed of _ideas as such_, it is no longer
literature." And I'd like to challenge Onya to a further debate on this,
if he _dares_. Also his statement about Wells' early stories. It so
happens (what a coincidence!) that I also read Wells' EXPERIMENT IN
AUTOBIOGRAPHY--and yes, while Wells did admit his early sfn stories were
a preparation for his later and more serious writing, he did _not_
disclaim them as not being literature of their own type. The trouble
with Mr. Onya, I'm afraid, is that he has (deliberately?) lost sight of
the fact that there is literature _and_ literature. Instead, he wants
everything to conform precisely to his own rather peculiar conception of
literature. I'll make a statement right here that will undoubtedly shock
Mr. Onya: I'll go so far as to say that pulp fiction, even the pulpiest
of pulp fiction, is really and truly LITERATURE, insofar as it has its
own special niche, its own certain purpose for being. There, I've said
it! I'll admit, Mr. Onya, that it took a little courage to say it. But I
ask all who read this, isn't it true when you come to think of it?
I have not dealt with Onya's article nearly to the extent that I might,
but I don't think it's really necessary, mainly because, as I said, I
have a very strong idea who Foo E. Onya is. I wish I could hazard my
suspicion right here, but I'm so sure I'm right, and both the editor and
Onya seem so determined to keep it secret, that I cannot be otherwise
than silent. I will merely conclude by reiterating my doubt that you,
"Foo E. Onya", are really disclaiming sfn. At least I hope you will
continue both reading and writing it. But I swear, if I ever hear of you
doing so, I shall feel sorely tempted to broadcast what a hypocrite you
were with that article!