Transcribe
Translate
Fanfare, v. 1, issue 3, August 1940
Page 10
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
10 FANFARE as is, well and good. If you don't think that's the best thing to do -- then go ahead and edit, and don't print everything woodenly. I have several reasons for thinking this to be the best idea. For one thing, I know I blasted the pro editors several times for their editing and cutting tactics. Ordinarily, I think a professional magazine should print material as received. Why then my change of face on the fan mag angle? Simply this: the professional magazines are being written mainly by men who make their living, or a large part of it, by the typewriter. They should know how to write and usuallt do. What makes it bad is when an editor who thinks he knows more than his authors tries to do a lot of "improving". I think that today, John W. Campbell, Jr. isthe only pro editor who knows more about writing than most of his contributors. But there's the difference: fan writers, for the most part, don't know a gosh-darned thing about writing. Many times, the very first thing a new fan writes with intention for publication, he'll submit and have accepted. Perhaps it'll be fairly good, but you can bet your boots that it's not going to be an epic. No fan editor can make it an epic, either, but there's no sense in letting it remain in its completely rough and crude state just because he doesn't feel like touching it up a bit. There are other angles. Most fans, besides not knowing much about writing know even less about the difference between fanmag writing and writing for almost any other pro or amateur publication. It doesn't require genius to realize, for instance, that the style used by most contributers to high-school and college newspapers and publications would be laughed out of a fan magazine. (And please understand, I mean the new fans when I say they don't know the angle to aim for in the fanmags!) I recently was told of a case like this. The editor of one of the very finest fanmags today, had an article submitted him by a fan who's been active in the fan world, on a small scale, for about nine months, and has had published, to date, in fan publications, two stories and one poem. He submitted this article of his to the fan, and told him to print it, warning him that he should not edit or change the article in the slightest particular. That, I think, is the height of folly. But to go back to what I started out to say: why not edit material for the better as much as you can? Change the most obvious errors in grammar and spelling, cut out repetitions even if it means sacrificing hundreds of words, amputate or append adjectives and adverbs on over-written or under-written stuff, remember the paragraph rules, and above all, proof-read it after you've finished stenciling it, to make sure you've not made an error in typing which throws the whole thing out of whack. Many fan articles are turned out at top-rate speed. The original of a Tucker or a Moskowitz article is usually something wondrous to behold. BT and SaM know it and take it for granted that the fan to whom it's submitted will fix it up. They're just so busy that they haven't time to take pains, that's all. What earthly sense would there be in letting all the obvious errors stand? The same goes to a limited or greater extent, for all other fan writers. I have a letter from Jack Chapman Miske, in which he typed "it's" for "its" twice in a single sentence. That would seem to prove that the most careful of us can sometimes be human. So: edit to the best of your ability. If you haven't the ability to edit enough so that the readers complain vociferously--get a co-editor!
Saving...
prev
next
10 FANFARE as is, well and good. If you don't think that's the best thing to do -- then go ahead and edit, and don't print everything woodenly. I have several reasons for thinking this to be the best idea. For one thing, I know I blasted the pro editors several times for their editing and cutting tactics. Ordinarily, I think a professional magazine should print material as received. Why then my change of face on the fan mag angle? Simply this: the professional magazines are being written mainly by men who make their living, or a large part of it, by the typewriter. They should know how to write and usuallt do. What makes it bad is when an editor who thinks he knows more than his authors tries to do a lot of "improving". I think that today, John W. Campbell, Jr. isthe only pro editor who knows more about writing than most of his contributors. But there's the difference: fan writers, for the most part, don't know a gosh-darned thing about writing. Many times, the very first thing a new fan writes with intention for publication, he'll submit and have accepted. Perhaps it'll be fairly good, but you can bet your boots that it's not going to be an epic. No fan editor can make it an epic, either, but there's no sense in letting it remain in its completely rough and crude state just because he doesn't feel like touching it up a bit. There are other angles. Most fans, besides not knowing much about writing know even less about the difference between fanmag writing and writing for almost any other pro or amateur publication. It doesn't require genius to realize, for instance, that the style used by most contributers to high-school and college newspapers and publications would be laughed out of a fan magazine. (And please understand, I mean the new fans when I say they don't know the angle to aim for in the fanmags!) I recently was told of a case like this. The editor of one of the very finest fanmags today, had an article submitted him by a fan who's been active in the fan world, on a small scale, for about nine months, and has had published, to date, in fan publications, two stories and one poem. He submitted this article of his to the fan, and told him to print it, warning him that he should not edit or change the article in the slightest particular. That, I think, is the height of folly. But to go back to what I started out to say: why not edit material for the better as much as you can? Change the most obvious errors in grammar and spelling, cut out repetitions even if it means sacrificing hundreds of words, amputate or append adjectives and adverbs on over-written or under-written stuff, remember the paragraph rules, and above all, proof-read it after you've finished stenciling it, to make sure you've not made an error in typing which throws the whole thing out of whack. Many fan articles are turned out at top-rate speed. The original of a Tucker or a Moskowitz article is usually something wondrous to behold. BT and SaM know it and take it for granted that the fan to whom it's submitted will fix it up. They're just so busy that they haven't time to take pains, that's all. What earthly sense would there be in letting all the obvious errors stand? The same goes to a limited or greater extent, for all other fan writers. I have a letter from Jack Chapman Miske, in which he typed "it's" for "its" twice in a single sentence. That would seem to prove that the most careful of us can sometimes be human. So: edit to the best of your ability. If you haven't the ability to edit enough so that the readers complain vociferously--get a co-editor!
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
