( R ) — from RED SHIFT to ROTHNIUM


— Faned: Taral Wayne. Perzine pubbed out of Toronto, Ontario, circa late 1970s & early 1980s. (Detail to be added)

1979 – (#6 – Jan)

1980 – (#7 – Mar)


— Faned: Victoria Vayne & ‘other friends of Taral’. This was a spoofzine in imitation of the OSFiC newsletter SYNAPSE which Taral was editing at the time. As luck would have it, Taral entered hospital for an operation when RELAPSE came out, and Victoria and friends were concerned he might be offended by its unfortunate choice of title. Such was not the case, he was rather amused. Victoria filled in for him as SYNAPSE editor that month.

1975 – (#1 – Mar)



— Clubzine pubbed out of Victoria, B.C., by Region X Trek in the late 1980s. (Detail to be added)

1989 – (#4 – Nov)


–Faned: Norbert Spehner. French language semi-prozine out of Longueill, Quebec. Founded by Spehner in 1974, and still going strong today (with government grant support) under the name SOLARIS. Very fannish at first, with columns like: “Les Indescretions Du Grand Gougou Lubrique’ (Gossip by the Great Lubidinous Gougou) & ‘Les Carnets De Cthulhu’ (The Notebooks of Cthulhu), also conreports, fan news, etc.

REQUIEM is described by Luc Pomerleau as representing the birth of fandom in Quebec. In his first editorial Norbert promised to make of REQUIEM “le LOCUS Quebecois…” (LOCUS a leading semi-pro SF newszine in the States.) By #5 he was accepting advertising, and in 1976 he received a one-year grant from the Canada Council, thus signifying REQUIEM’s role as a culture zine. Eventually he developed it into a strong book/movie/comic review prozine with sercon articles, fiction & comics.

One of the spinoff’s of REQUIEM was ‘Le Prix Dagon’, a literary competition.

Hmmm. Cthulhu? Dagon? Spehner must have been a big fan of H.P. Lovecraft.

#27 was the last issue to be titled REQUIEM SF FANTASTIQUE. With #28 the name was changed to SOLARIS.  (LP) & (RGC)

1974 – (#1 – ? )

1975 – (#2 – Feb) (#3 – Mar) (#4 – May) (#5 – Jul) (#6 – Oct) (#7 -Dec)

1976 – (#8 – Feb) (#9 – Apr) (#10 – Jun) (#11 – Sep) (#12 – Oct)

1977 – (#13 – Jan) (#14 – Mar) (#15 – Apr) (#16 – Jul) (#17 – Oct) (#18 – Dec)

1978 – (#19 – Jan) (#20 – Mar) (#21 – May) (#22 – Aug) (#23 – Oct) (#24 – Dec)

1979 – (#25 – Feb) (#26 – Apr) (#27 – Jul) + = SOLARIS.



— A Quebec fanzine with a great title active circa 1985. (PL) (Info wanted!)


— Faned: Leland Sapiro. Genzine pubbed out of Regina.

1964 – (#1 – Aug) (#2 – Nov)

1965 – (#3 – Feb) (#4 – Jun)

1966 – (#5 – Jan) (#6 – Jun) (#7 – Nov)

1967 – (#8 – Mar) (#9 – Aug)

1968 – (#10 – Mar) (#11 – Aug)

1969 – (#12 – Mar) (#13 – Aug)

1970 – (#14 – Juan) (#15 – Jun)

1971 – (#16 – Mar) (#17 – Jul)

1972 – (#18 – Feb) (#19 – Aug)

1973 – (#20 – Apr) (#21 – Aug)

1974 – (#22 – Apr)

1975 – (#23 – Aug)

1977 – (#24 – Dec)

1980 – (#25 – Mar)


— A Quebec fanzine active circa 1985. (PL) (Info wanted!)


— Faned: David Hull. A genzine pubbed out of Owen Sound, Ontario, in the late 1970s. Articles on fhistory, state of SF and the like. Illos by such as William Rotsler, Alexis Gilliand & also Canadian artists like Ron Sutton & Ron Kasman. Quite huge, varied between 52 and 94 pages per issue. (GS)

1977 – (#1 – ? ) (#2 – Jul)

– (#3 – Dec)“Perhaps I should mention that David is a young, promising fan I met and was impressed with at Summercon, lo these many months ago. His zine, ROTHNIUM, has been improving steadily, although a little pretentiously, and will no doubt reach perfection just in time for David to gafiate or turn it int a faanish personalzine. Copies can be had of number three from David for a buck and a quarter.” (TW)

1978 – (#4 – Mar)“…sort of zine with finer appearance but somewhat inferior content….the editor is quite young & shows great potential that should be encouraged.” – (TW)

– (#5 – Jul)“David seems hell-bent-for-leather to prove my last review…No questions about it, this issue is a physically more attractive product…” Contained articles by John Shirley, Wayne Hooks, and “by far the best piece… was the fanhistory article by Tom Perry. It is one of the best pieces of writing to appear in 1978…Also of note… were Brian Earl Brown’s fanzine reviews. Brian and I don’t see eye-to-eye on all he reviews, but his opinions are valid, and the dying race of zine reviews needs every mote of support it can get… A great deal of the art… was by a discovery of David’s, an artist by the name of Rick Corlett. I don’t think he’s a familiar name in fandom, but with exposure he ought to be.” – (TW)

– (#6 – Oct)“After the steady improvement of ROTHNIUM over the last few issues, it came as somewhat of a disappointment to find that the latest issue was no better than the one before, in fact was only a little better than ROTHNIUM 4….Although enjoyable, the articles by Mary Long, Cy Chauvin & Dean Grennell were comparatively minor… Visually, ROTHNIUM is ambitious… The cover, a sort of art deco treatment of Conan dancing Swan Lake looked wrong to me in a way difficult to describe in a couple of lines, and though I complimented Rick Corlett’s art in the previous issue, his folio work in this issue was very different, almost like wood-cuts, more comic-bookish, so I cannot say I was as impressed as I had been. In spite of my criticisms, I still recognize ROTHNIUM as basically a good zine… he has developed ROTHNIUM to the point where its appearance is a moderate-sized event on the fan calendar.” – (TW)

“At the end of this issue, David apologizes for the ‘rushed nature’ of the zine & it does show. In the past ROTHNIUM has been consistently good, and steadily improving, but this ish brings the average way down.”

“The effort & cost involved in the interior offset art & foldout are hardly worth it. Had he instead used more interior art and improved his layout, the zine might have more visual impact. The use of large type, wide margins and full page block layout are extremely annoying.”

“Nevertheless, this issue offers a good chunk of enjoyable fannish writings including ‘Bud Badmood’s Reply To His Critics’… The remaining offerings by Cy Chauvin (a maudlin piece on recapturing the innocence of childhood) and even Dean Grennell’s superbly written reminiscences of his exploits from his fannish days in the 50s do little to approach the content of previous issues. In fact, the most interesting writing here is the letter column, a great mixture of fannish debates & simulating conversation.” (VF)