Issue #67, September 19th, 1996

Don't Twink or you'll miss it
by Victor M. Gonzalez
Staff Writer

The latest issue of Twink is a study in learning to walk.

Twink is a small, roughly quarterly, zine by E.B. Frohvet, a fan who refuses to identify himself and hasn't previously been a fanzine fan. The third issue looks a lot like the first two, but the zine has improved.

The cover, for example, is quite nice, with a cute pig and some nice lettering. By Sheryl Birkhead, it shows one stage of a fan's growth -- getting material from other fans. And when it comes to things visual, Frovet needs a lot of help. While Frohvet can write, his ability to draw appears limited to rough squid and bats. Forgive me; he'll probably win a Hugo. But dare he show up to get it?

The letter column is pretty good, and Frohvet even does capsule fanzine reviews, as well as reviews of science fiction and fantasy novels. Although I found his views on Chip Delany to be a little backward ("Dhalgren does not really contain any SF/Fantasy elements."), if not anti-intellectual, the reviews aren't badly done.

I would be the last to tell Frohvet that he doesn't belong in fandom. But it is interesting to see the steps a new fan can take -- those that propel him forward and those after which (we hope) he catches himself before he bops his nose.

What is badly done is the layout, which still has thick black lines down both sides of each column that Frohvet insists are needed to keep his typed copy straight on the page. Has he ever heard of a pencil (type the text, then erase the lines)? Or how about blue pencil, which need not be erased because most photocopiers won't show it? How about setting the margins on his typewriter? Unfortunately, my comments will probably elicit a detailed description of the process he actually uses, which no doubt rules out those options. God help us. Anyway, it's his right to let Twink look as bad as he wants, but it is a definite distraction from what is otherwise a decent zine.

The other thing that jumped out at me was a line inserted in what is supposed to be a space that had been left for art: "Editor's note: To the two artists whom we separately asked to illustrate this article, both of whom stiffed us (one at least condescended to respond), we say: Thanks a lot, and we'll remember you next spring when we fill out our Hugo nominating ballots." The message continues, and later in the main text (a forensic mental evaluation of what seems to be a character in a string of fantasy novels I haven't read) is a blank spot, presumably meant to hold another undelivered illo.

"A bird in the hand" is a credo most editors learn through experience, but I was very surprised to see threats of this nature. What we get from our contributors is a gift. Plans are plans, and I also get uptight when the copy flow is stopped up. But I've got no one to fire, and little reason to make a ruckus. Fannish commitments are mostly built on love, not money or prestige; a person has to want to contribute, for motives unusual in other areas of life.

On the other hand, his measured response to Joseph Nicholas is a credit to Frohvet's abilities. The Maryland faneditor's pseudonym is not so much a problem right now (Joseph's subject: criticism of Apak's reaction), but in a time of discontent it will become more important. One reason everyone -- I suspect -- distrusts those who have hidden their identity is that reputation is based upon the past. We know nothing of that. Frohvet is a little different, too; rather than simply fooling us (which would have created far less comment in Apak, until the truth was revealed), he chose to let us know straight off that he wasn't who he said. More honest, I'd say, but a little strange.

And another good note (about Mimosa 18): "How does one get nostalgic about people you've never heard of and events decades before you got into fandom?" Here's an obstacle that must confront every prospective fan. While some, like the Vegrants, have met many of those who've created fandom's rich history, most new fans know none. To all new fans, I hope, the main goal of their fanac is to make something new, not study something old. It is particularly nice to hear this sentiment echoed by a neo.

Twink needs a little more heft. There's nothing here that made me sit up straight. But we must give it some grace: though Twink is kind of cute, wobbling on his hind hooves, three issues does not make a five-mile hike.

Issue #67, September 19th, 1996

Return to the table of contents.

Previous article: Refugees in the Magic Kingdom, by Andy Hooper.

Next article: Worldcon Snapshots, by Randy Byers.