Fanarchists
(Did you mean a New York club or a David Grigg fanzine?)
Fanarchist is defined below as one who opposes the existence of fan organisations, believing that fans can accomplish more as individuals.
Zenith #5 (April 1942) contains what is presumably an editorial comment by either Marion Eadie or Harry Turner:
TO HELL with mutual admiration societies for the glorification of science fiction – with cliques insisting that science fiction is anything more than entertainment – with the recently formed British Fantasy Fan Federation! WE support FANARCHY – a free association of fans who reserve the right to heave half-bricks at the ju-ju of Science Fiction and refuse to heed the dictates of any insane societies. Further developments in the July Fantast and the next Zenith
The term 'fanarchist' is first used in The Fantast #14 (July 1942) where Douglas Webster wrote:
Recently malicious rumours in Fido have besmirched our good reputation, but we must state we are most definitely Fanarchist.
In defiance of his fanarchist position, Webster would later accept a position as liaison officer for British Fantasy Society as well as coordinating their advisory board, although he did so without going so far as to join the group.
In Futurian War Digest #22 (August 1942), Harry Turner wrote:
LongliveFanarchy!Downwithallfanorganisations!Arise ye Fanarchists from your slumborsthedayofreckoningisnearathand!Woo-hooghublessU!
| From Fancyclopedia 2, ca. 1959 |
| (1) Genuine anarchists who are also fans; New Yorkers, mostly.
(2) Those who oppose the existence of general, or even regional, fan organizations on the ground that people are congenitally unable to form an organization that does not involve the abuse of power... not in the sense of an individual's lust for power but in a different way which results from group action itself and vitiates the most enlightened decisions, with the viciousness of any fan group tending to be proportional to its size. Fully articulated this doctrine is a species of rugged individualism which asserts that fans acting singly or in small natural groups of a few fen linked by common interests can achieve more, for a given amount of work, than thru a large and cumbersome organization. Their attitude is mainly a reaction against the uncritical organizing instinct of young fen who say we gotta organize to get things done and in organization there is strength and an organization will help coordinate us, without having any but the vaguest idea of the referents behind their words, and often trusting in false analogies. |
| From Fancyclopedia 1, ca. 1944 |
| Those who oppose the existence of a general or even regional fan organization on the grounds that it has insufficient functions to justify the work involved. They accept the desirability of locals. Fully articulated, the theory is a species of rugged individualism which asserts that fen acting singly or in small natural groups can accomplish more with the same amount of work than they can thru a super-organization. Their attitude is mainly a reaction against the uncritical organizing instinct of young fen who say we gotta organize to get anything done and in organization there is strength and an organization will help coordinate us, without having any but the vaguest idea of the referents behind their word, and often trusting in false analogies. |
| Fanspeak |
| This is a fanspeak page. Please extend it by adding information about when and by whom it was coined, whether it’s still in use, etc. |
