Talk:Richard Shaver

O rly?

"reportedly, one New York-based group of writers complained to the Society of the Suppression of Vice that the Shaver stories endangered the sanity of their readers" - oh yes? Which group? What documentation is there for this? This sounds like implausible contemporary hype - who made this claim? - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I got it from Childress' book, which in turn took the claim from something called Shaver: The Early Years by Jim Probst; I thought it sounded a bit fishy too, hence why I added "reportedly". I'm guessing that, if it's true, they were acting with their tongues firmly in their cheeks.

For what it's worth the group responsible was supposedly called the Queens Science Fiction League of New York, although I notice Google turns up nothing on them besides quotations from Childress' book. Balaam (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Which I see is co-credited to Shaver. It's like claiming "William Burroughs made the Church of Scientology move offices twice in six months by using tape recorders" and putting Burroughs as the references. (That's something he did claim, but is completely whacked out and unrelated to why CoS offices actually move.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It's co-credited to Shaver because it reprints some of his stories from Amazing - the biographical chapter was written by Childress twenty-odd years after Shaver died. Balaam (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hummmm. It smells like something an author would say about themselves. (Burroughs' claim about the CoS is repeated as if fact in many works about Burroughs, even though it's obviously transparent bollocks to any knowledgeable critic of Scientology.) That the organisation who objected is not found elsewhere is particularly odd. I'd still suggest crediting the claim to Shaver unless it can actually be traced to any other source, or about an organisation found to exist elsewhere. Are there any other books on Shaver of note? - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is possible I'm jumping to a conclusion here. I'll have a look myself as well - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned things up a little. I've attributed the questionable claims to Pobst (not "Probst" - turns out Childress misspelt his name) rather than Shaver - for one thing, if the stories were fabricated, it could just as easily have been Palmer's doing. I've taken out your comment that there is no other source for the Queens group's existence, since as far as we know there could, somewhere, be some mention of it in a newsletter or fanzine or whatever, but I have noted that it is very obscure and seems to have been otherwise forgotten. Balaam (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that SF fans really did hate this Lemuria shit so much they actually organised letter writing campaigns to stop this bilge. Knowing what SF fans are like in groups, particularly in the '40s, this suddenly makes the claim much more believable - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Queens Science Ficition League did indeed vote (unanimously) to submit issues of Amazing carrying Shaver's stories to the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. The meeting where this was discussed is recounted in the fanzine Fantasy Times, no. 21, Oct. 27, 1946, online here: http://fanac.org/fanzines/Fantasy_Times/Fantasy_Times46104-02.html? . It's also discussed (basically summarizing the original coverage in Fantasy Times) in "All Our Yesterdays" by Harry Warner Jr. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Our_Yesterdays_(book) ). The motion was put forward by James V. Taurasi (editor of Fantasy Times) and seconded by Alvin Brown. They formed a committee to carry out the motion consisting of Taurasi, Rickey Slavin, Joe Gross, and Lee Budoff. There was also a motion at the Philcon in 1946 to have Amazing banned by the post office-- there was lively discussion but the motion was tabled and AFAIK never voted on. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.112.239.144 / talk / contribs}