the first report for dfk from a creeping Jesus this is a SaFari publication, it has not been proofread One hundred twenty-five copies of this symposium were printed in the United States of America and published on April 15, 1960. This symposium is NOT for sale, there are NO copies available. The copies were distributed as follows, The Spectator Amateur Press Society, 40; the contributors, 71; The Library of Congress, 2; friends of the im­ mediate family, science fiction or otherwise, 12. Copyright ©, 1960, by Earl and Nancy Kemp, 2019 North Whipple Street, Chicago 47, Illinois, SPaulding 2-7387. All rights reserved. WHO KILLED Otim# Fustic? an affectionate autep&f, ......... LIKE AN INTRODUCTION I was reading the 48th mailing of The Spectator Amateur Press Society and discovered the following quote: “It is in some ways surprising that much of In Search of Wonder appeared originally in fanzines; there isn’t any criticism of this quality appearing in fanzines today. As a matter of fact, there isn’t any in the prozines either...” The statement was made by Bob Leman in the fourth issue of his SAPSzine, Nematode. I said to myself, “God, he’s right, ” and kept on reading. For about a paragraph... Then I went back and read the quote again. “Why are there no pieces of serious constructive criticism appearing within the field?” Naturally I couldn’t answer this it presupposes a knowledge I don’t possess, even if I do speak to myself with adjectives like “God”. Immediately a self-imposed edict came heralding to the rescue: IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE, DO IT YOURSELF. Move in fast, get the facts, hit hard, splash! Competence, Roman candles, splash! Blanket the field, Quality, splash! Catchy, skyrockets, splash! Splash: WHO KILLED SCIENCE FICTION? ***** For well over two years I had heard far too many people decrying the death of magazine science fiction, and like Bob Leman, mourning the lack of critical soul- searching from within the field. How shall I go about it? I determined first that I would restrict this critical Colossus to the magazine field only and decided on five specific points of enquiry, which were: 1) Do you feel that magazine science fiction is dead? 2) Do you feel that any single person, action, incident, etc. is responsible for the present situation? If not, what is responsible? - 7 - 3) What can we do to correct it? 4) Should we look to the original paperback as a point of salvation? 5) What additional remarks, pertinent to the study would you like to contribute? The next step was to prepare a letter setting forth these five points. The original intent was to abstract the replies to this questionnaire into tabular form, write a small article about the findings and publish them in SaFari, extending the circulation for the issue to cover all those who had responded to the enquiry. Who should I send the questionnaires to? It was essential that the replies come only from within the field, consequently a. rigid control was placed on the questionnaire mailing list, restricting it to (as I said in the questionnaire) “everyone within the sf field who has ever expressed an intelligent critical look at the field. Since most of us have derived some measure of enjoyment, recognition and income from the field over the past many years I feel it is up to us to make a definite step toward understanding (at least) and overcoming (if possible) the threats before us.” In order to assure a greater volume of response, realizing that the people from whom I wanted answers were accustomed to being paid for their verbage, I said that the report would be published, which it is. I said that the report would not be for sale, and it is not. I said that circulation of the report would be restricted to the contribu­ tors and to The Spectator Amateur Press Society, and that it would be published on April 15, 1960. That date is now! As the first few replies to the questionnaire arrived I knew that it would be an impossible task to abstract them and settle for a brief resume in article form. Among the first to arrive was that of Algis Budrys; a report of such nature and quality that the entire article demanded to be included. And more followed it, of such magnitude that only by printing the entire piece could justice be done to the author. Hence, shoot the budget to hell, print everything that comes in. And now you have it, the complete report on WHO KILLED SCIENCE FICTION! The title of the study itself bares little or no relationship to the actual five points under observation. It was merely to serve as splash — fuel to light the fire that would get the five questions answered. Apparently it worked, because there were some “who’s” named. It would have been impossible for me to answer the questions personally once I started reading the replies as they arrived because I found my opinions becoming very highly influenced by others. Reluctantly then, you will find my own answers excluded from this report (but just for the record I will answer only one, point one: I definitely believe that magazine science fiction is dead). There will be no attempt on the part of Nancy, myself or SaFari to conduct a follow-up on this report. Contributors to this symposium of a professional status within the field are encouraged to send any afterthoughts directly to The Institute of Twenty-First Century Studies. The Secretary for the Committee on Publications has authorized me to say that a continuation of this study fits directly into the pattern of research now under way at the Institute and he joins me in encouraging you to send any further material directly to the Institute. ***** And now if you please, the abstract report: - 8 - From an initial 108 questionnaires mailed there were 71 responses. Of this number one was unsolicited (Edmund R, Meskys; included here because he answered the five points) and one additional reply was not counted in the figure of 71 (that of Rodney Palmer, included in the report as an example of a complete outside-the-field view, but excluded from the count of 71 because he did not have a copy of the 5 points under study). Or, a total of 70 solicited answers from the original 108 for a 64.8% return, which anyone can tell you is something like a new world’s record. No attempt was made to tabulate the many references to Dianetics, psionics, quackery, saucerism, Shaverism and/or pseudo-science or references to “Litera- ture”, professionalism and/or “Maturity” (wherein the literature and maturity have respectively a capital L and a capital M, underscored). It is perhaps significant to note that from the authors contributing to this study four have indicated that they are no longer writing for the science fiction magazines and/or are no longer writing science fiction at all. Now, let’s take the specific five points under discussion and examine the results: 1) Do you feel that magazine science fiction is dead? NO: 55 replies, of which 38 qualified their £no’ by following it with “but. „and an alarming percentage of these 38 indicated that the death struggle was already in sight. YES: 11 replies, stating either ‘yes’ or definitely dying already (this figure includes my personal vote). 2) Do you feel that any single person, action, incident, etc. is responsible for the present situation? NO: 24 replies. YES: Several people were specifically named, but in numbers too small to make any tabulation significant, 2a) If not, what is responsible? As contributory causes the following were named in order of frequency: 19, dull, boring and inferior material being published; 18, changing market and/or times and outside interests; 13, television; 12, inexcusable distribution practices; 11 each, comics and paperbacks, Sputnik and/or The Race For Space; 10, incompatible word rates and a narrowing market; 9, “science fiction” movies; 6, rising costs, including magazine cover prices; 5, fans and/or readers and 4 each, “ability to read disappear­ ing, ” “Decay in English literature” and authors. In addition to this, 15 contributions indicated editors as being either responsible for the present poor situation or that they should endeavor to adopt a “hands off” policy in the case of re-writes for item #3. 3) What can we do to correct it? This is untabulatable. The most frequently appearing remedy is the last item mentioned above (at 2a) that editors should endeavor to adopt a “hands off” policy in the case of re-writes (15 responses). Also running, in order of frequency: 9, writers should work harder (each of these 9 -- a professional author), of these one added “for less”; 7, readers and/or fans should adopt a “quality” approach with what is currently appearing within the field (reading studiously, commenting intelligently and in general taking a more active interest) and 5 indicated that we should purchase all the maga­ zines published, regardless . 4) Should we look to the original paperback as a point of salvation? YES: 24 replies. NO: 16 replies. - 9 - 5) What additional remarks, pertinent to the study would you like to contribute? This, of course, is untabulatable, but instead forms the bulk of this symposium -- the entire publication that you are now holding before you. Read on then . Somewhere here are the thoughts of others that confirm your own suspicions -- or random thoughts that will lead you down unsuspected paths to, we hope improvement and most certainly profit.