No

No (Nous) is a science fiction zine that was edited by Ruth Berman and Jean Berman for the first four issues and later just by Ruth Berman.
For the philosophical term, see wikipedia::Nous
==Regarding the Title, and Its Change==
The first four issues were published with the name Nous: 
Ruth also commented on this title change in TV Bookshelf Interview with Ruth Berman, where she said it made a lot more sense to take out the "us" part of the title as there was no more "us" (referring to Jean) in the zine's creation.
==Media Fandom==
Some of the earlier issues have some very light media fandom content (issue #8 includes MUNCLE fiction and art), but the letters of comment for this material were not very supportive.
==Some Things of Note==
When Ruth wrote an essay about amateur and professional writing, it sparked a letter of comment by Harlan Ellison, which in turn fanned a lively debate.
Some issues contain some of Connie Faddis's early art.
==Issue 1==
Nous 1 was published in 1967.
==Issue 2==
Nous 2
==Issue 3==
Nous 3
==Issue 4==
Nous 4 was published in 1969.
==Issue 5==
No 5 was published in 1969.
==Issue 6==
No 6
==Issue 7==
No 7 was published in February 1971.
* The Irregular Reviewer: "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes," by Dean Dickensheet (reprinted in The SH-sf Fanthology #2) 3 pages
* other unknown content
==Issue 8==
No 8 was published in July 1971.
* contains some Man from U.N.C.L.E. fanfiction
* other unknown content
==Reactions and Reviews: Issue 8==
==Issue 9==
No 9 was published in December 1971 and contains 23 pages. It has illos by Dick Tatge (cover, interior), Rae Ladore, bonnie Bergstrom Goodnight, Ken Fletcher, and Jim Young.
* Boston and Beyond, con report by Ruth Berman (4) (description of going to Noreascon and chatting with one of the creators of Logan's Run, getting her menstrual period, having a sore foot, visiting with Devra Langsam and Joyce Yasner, seeing Leonard Nimoy as Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof," riding with others in Al Schuster's car, sightseeing at Lousia May Alcott's house, giving Leonard Nimoy copies of fanzines, and visiting Jacqueline Lichtenberg)
* Roman in the Gloaming by John Berry (9) (visiting Hadrian's Wall)
* No and Yes: Letters (17)
* The Saga of Olaf Loudsnore, Chapter CCC by John Boardman (20)
* Casting Director's Lament by Ruth Berman (a filk "a la W.S. Gilbert")
Some comments from Ruth's article:
* "On Wednesday visited a fan (Jacqueline Lichtenberg) who hadn't been able to get up to the con. (This statement may surprise those fans who were at the con. But, as strange as it may seem, the entire universe was not standing in line ahead of you to get into any given function at Boston; only a large proportion of it.)"
* "On Tuesday, Devra and her father and I went to see '1776.' It's a musical of great charm -- it left me feeling patriotic for the first time in years. As, Vietnam drags on, it is difficult to feel any pride in this country; it's it's good to be reminded that the country has had higher ideals in the past and may again."
* "[On] Sunday, Devra, Maureen Wilson, and I met at the Issac Asimov/Clifford Simak talk, which was supposedly going to be on robots, but turned out to be on much they love each other (in a decent, manly way, of course.)."
* "Afterwards, we waited around and saw Nimoy briefly. Devra gave him a copy of Masiform-D (and he did a doubletake at the sight of the cover -- instead of the trekkish drawing you might expect from such a title, possibly a picture of Mr. Spock being sick, the cover is a drawing by Alicia Austin of a sensuous woman wearing black gloves and black stockings). I gave him a copy of a trekkish Songbook I've compiled. He asked us how the convention was going ('A science fiction convention?" said a young man standing behind us. "Gee, where?" So we told him.) and expressed his regret that he couldn't attend it, because he would be busy Saturday with the last performances of the show and would be flying to England Sunday morning to make a made-for-TV movie. (He didn't, you understand, actually sound regretful at not being able to visit the convention—but it was courteous of him to say so, even if he wasn't.)"
File:Masiform1.jpg| This is the zine Ruth Berman mentions, the one that Devra Langsam gave to Nimoy.
File:Startreksongbook1971coversmall.jpg|This is the zine Ruth Berman gave to Nimoy.
==Reactions and Reviews: Issue 9==
==Issue 10==
No 10 was published in June 1972 and contains 27 pages. Illos by Rae Ladore, Ken Fletcher, Grant Canfield (cover and interior), Dick Martin, Jim Young, Sheryl Birkhead, Kees Van Toorn, and Dick Tatge.
* Kosher SF by Ruth Berman (4) (an article/essay about religion in science fiction, includes a lot of examples of books and stories, the title of this article is spelled with a large handwritten "K" in "Kosher.")
* The Saga of Olaf Loudsnore, chapter CXLIX by John Boardman (10)
* Oz Ad Nauseam by Dick Martin (11)
* No and Yes: Letters (14)
* etc. by Ruth Berman (20) (some ads, a con report for a Minicon by Mnstfs April 7–9, 1972 at the Andrews Hotel in Minneapolis, MN)
File:no10-1.jpg|cover of issue #10, Grant Canfield
File:no10-4.jpg|"Kosher" with a big "K"
File:no10-2.jpg|inside issue #10, Ken Fletcher
==Reactions and Reviews: Issue 10==
==Issue 11==
No 11 was published in August 1972 and contains 31 pages. The illos are by Rae Ladore, Jim Young, Ken Fletcher, Sheryl Birkhead, Dick Tatge, Kees Van Torn, Bonnie Goodknight, William Rotsler, and Johnny Chamberlain.
* Kosher SF: A Reaction by Dave Hulan (4) (rebuttal/response much more focused on the Jewish aspect, rather than the more general religious observations of the previous article)
* Avalon by Nan Braude (7) (poem)
* Kenneth Grahame: An Appreciation by Mary Schaub (9)
* A Box in a Box by James Appelbaum (13) (fiction)
* Some Notes on Owen Barfield by Ruth Berman (21)
* No and Yes: Letters (24)
* The Saga of Olaf Loundsnore, Chapter CIC by John Boardman (28)
* a fan in this issue says he "wants to assemble a library of "junk" - the sf crime stories;: pornography nurse novels westerns) etc.; which people buy) read, and throw out; and which libraries don't collect. He asks for donations of junk" books and will repay postage costs."
File:no11-1.jpg|front cover of issue #11, Sheryl Birkhead
File:no11-2.jpg|inside page, issue #11
File:no11-3.jpg|back cover of issue #11, Rae Ladore
==Issue 12==
No 12 was published in January 1973.
==Reactions and Reviews: Issue 12==
==Issue 13==
No 13 was published in March 1973 and contains 33 pages. The illos are by Ken Fletcher, Jim Young, Grant Canfield, Rae Ladore, Jon Wilmunen, Alan Andres, and Sheryl Birkhead.
* How I Spent My Summer Vacation, or, well, anyway by Dorothy Jones Heydt (4) (a very long, entertaining con report for Equicon)
* Like-Seeming Shields by Ruth Berman (12)
* The Saga of Olaf Loudsnore, chapter DC (a) by Ned Brooks (19)
* A Letter in re: "That Only an Amateur" from Harlan Ellison (20) (sent to Ruth Berman, published here with the note: "... if it goes as planned, Harlan Ellison will publish a written version of this letter as essay, along with a reprint of "That Only an Amateur," in Clarion 3")
* Probably Something Things by Tom Digby (23)
* No & Yes: Letters (25)
==Excerpts from Ellison's Letter: Issue 13==
* "Amateurism, I suppose I meant (and probably should have stated more clearly), is a state of mind. In a surreal way I typify it, and identify it with the state of mind of TV viewers who think the actors actually dream up the words they speak or, even more horribly, who think Leonard Nimoy is Mr. Spock or Dan Blocker was Hoss. It could be categorized as a lack of core understanding of the realities of writing and/or selling."
* "Recourse to authority is easily the cheapest way to win an argument and I assure you I won't do it here, but I merely offer as some validity of my position the knowledge I've gained in having read perhaps two thousand manuscripts for the DANGEROUS VISIONS books, hundreds of stories as an instructor in writing workshops, and a vast number of silly letters from people who want to write and ask for advice or instruction or agenting services. It is possible (within proscribed limits, for there are always exceptions) to tell an amateur from a potential professional. Every editor can do it. Silverberg and Terry Carr and I have sat and talked about how it's possible to tell if a story in submitted manuscript form is of interest or simply the work of a dub, by reading the first page and the last. It may seem chill -- to the kind of mind that thinks one should love all members of all minorities simply because they are members of a minority rather than judging each individual on his or her own merits and defects -- but that editorial method is used by every editor live ever talked to about the problem. There are simply people who will never be professional in their writing habits or abilities, and to waste time with them is to steal it from those who have the talent and need the attention."
* "As for searing off those with talent ... it can't be done, Ruth. Ciardi may have made you quiver, but he, made you examine your work and yourself, and he didn't scare you off; you sold to Saturday Review. It didn't scare me off when my college English professor told me I had no talent and should forget writing as a career. It didn't scare off any of the writers who understood that writing is holy chore and they had been touched with the gift.An example of the Toupée Fallacy, an informal logical fallacy regarding silent evidence and the problem of induction: or, "All toupées look fake; I've never seen one that I couldn't tell was fake." It only scares off dilettantes and amateurs whose abilities are tiny or non-existent, or whose lack of ego, and feelings of self-worth would doom them much more quickly than the harshest words a critic could employ."
* "Your sentiments do you honor, Ruth, but as a woman who clearly has writing ability and talent, you should toughen up. To be so all-inclusively Florence Nightingale about the talentless and amateur will serve you ill in years to come. The amateur will descend on you -- as they have on me and Silverberg and all the others who have made some small mark -- "and waste your time," drain your resources, nickel-&-dime you to tears with endless demands, their silly letters, their vague, dreams and desires. The ones who are not amateurs will understand that only they, themselves, can bring those dreams and desires to fulfillment,that there are no magic shortcuts or arcane rituals proffered by writers who have made it. They are realists even if they are dreamers—and they are professional—even if they've never sold and they will find their own paths, as each of us has."
* "Finally, I must thank you for that essay. A great deal of careful work and thought; go into the DV introductions, and far more than as merely snippets of comment or gossip they are (hopefully) intended to stir discussion. Nine times out of nine, reviewers and fan writers see the work as frippery and choose to analyze me rather than the philosophies expressed therein. Yours is the first genuine example I've seen of a reader's perception that there is some substance there to be masticated."
File:no13-1.jpg|front cover of issue #13
File:no13-2.jpg|interior page from issue #13, Alan Andres, also used as the cover of issue #15
File:no13-3.jpg|interior page from issue #13
File:no13-4.jpg|back cover of issue #13
==Issue 14==
No 14 was published in October 1973.
==Reactions and Reviews: Issue 14==
==Issue 15==
No 15 was published in May 1974 and contains 37 pages. The front cover is by Alan Andres (was interior illo in issue #13), back cover by Connie Faddis, interior art by Jim Young, Rae Ladore, Jon Wilmunen, Grant Canfield, Tom Foster, Ken Fletcher, Tom Fletcher, and Sheryl Birkhead.
From the editor: "No comes out irregularly; and it's more like two times a year, although I'd prefer three."
* The Fandoliers, concluded, by Ruth Berman ("Back when No was still Nous, Len Bailes did most of a parody of Gilbert and Sullivan's "Gondoliers." It always seemed a pity to me that he didn't get around to finishing it. So, with apologies to Len, here it is." This filk has a cast of "fannish publishers, fakefans, femmefans, a BNF, the BNF's wife, the BNF's daughter, a Secret Master of Fandom -- the previous TAFF winner, and a chorus of Femmes and Fakefans." ) (4)
* Berry's Baedeker, continued, by John Berry (a travelogue) (15)
* No & Yes: letters (19)
* Showcase review by Louise Valmeras (31)
* chitterchatter by Ruth Berman
File:no15-1.jpg|front cover of issue #15, Alan Andres, was previously used as an interior illo in issue #3, when asked by a fan in an LoC why she did this, Ruth replied she'd simply forgotten she'd already printed the art
File:no15-2.jpg|inside issue #15
File:no15-3.jpg|inside issue #15
File:no15-4.jpg|back cover of issue #15, Connie Faddis
==Excerpts from Harlan's Letter: Issue 15==
* "The discussion on amateurism VS. seems to be going well, and -- happily - - without rancor. To the end of keeping it going (because I think it's an topic for discussion and it's getting discussed nowhere else at the moment) here are a few casual thoughts in to the letters in No 14."
* "E.A. Arnason makes an interesting theoretical supposition, that writers are people who cannot express themselves fluently or self-satisfyingly any other way. She may be correct, but I think "express" is the less operable word when compared with the psychiatric term "communicate." As refutation of the theory, consider the following extremely expressive (successful ) sf writers: Silver-berg, del Rey, McCaffrey, Eester, Asimov, Disch, Spinrad, Sturgeon, Scortia, Ellison, Knight, Blish, Bradbury, Delany, Bova, Campbell, Harrison and Russ. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of writers who have no difficulty whatever in communicating through various means other than writing. As validation of the theory, however, there are writers who are shy and retiring, for any number of reasons ranging from lack of ego-strength to speech impediments. So. I think the theory proves invalid simply because it cancels itself cut over the long consideration of groups. There are many of us who communicate in multifarious ways; verbally, sexually, politically, literarily, artistically, etc. No, I don't think amateurism vs. professionalism comes anywhere near that consideration. As to how I can tell who seems to me to have professional abilities as opposed to those who seem to me to be condemned forever to amateurism, I guess it's a kind of empathy-aum-body language synched in with unconscious clues my mental computer understands that I don't recognize consciously. But many editors have it. Silverberg, Carr, Harrison and Brian Kirby are four I know for certain have it: I've seen it work."
* "Hochberg is dead right. To respond to Harry Warner's belief that writers can be scared off, I contend that is a flaw in the human, not the writer, which is a superimposed persona. If a writer can be seared off that easily, he or she would very likely never have had the staying power to learn what is needed to be learned to become a professional. But I've seen even the most timorous creatures fired with a desire to write, such a fire that not even the White House Plumbers could have scared them off. No, only dilettantes and hobbyists get soared off when the shit comes down."
* "Denis Quane's first paragraph capsulizes my feeling about aiding those with talent and being less charitable with those without. His first question, however, seems to be the draw-sticking point for many of your correspondents: how can you tell one from the other. I submit instinct and valid data based on working In the medium for a long time are the criteria. One simply knows. Oh, yeah, sure, occasionally you can be wrong, but those occasions are few and far between. At least they have been for me. I've come to trust my head and my gut. You could lay ten manuscripts in front of me, minus bylines, and I could tell you with readings of the first and last pages of each which were the pros and which were the amateurs. (That is, if you played straight and didn't try any ringers; simply selected ten scripts, pro and amateur, at random, and let me read them.)"
* "Campbell was hardly unique in his encouragement of new writers. Hell, it's common practice. Done as a matter of course. Dues paying. You just remember the Campbell-Asimov thing because it's a classic, outstanding example. No editor is worth his or her salt without a string of writers' names to the credit sheet. No, we haven't come to any resolution of the question yet. But I suspect the people who have the answers are the ones who won't even bother writing in. They understand already. They are professionals, whether they know it or not.Or they're too shy. Can't have it both ways. Mostly, amateurs are the ones with the furrowed brows. That's another way to spot them."
==Reactions and Reviews: Issue 15==
==Issue 16==
No 16 was published in January 1975 and contains 36 pages. Illos by Connie Faddis (front cover), Bruce Arthur (back cover), Jim Young, Ken Fletcher, Dick Tatge, Dick Schultz, Al Sirois, Sheryl Birkhead, Rae Ladore, Wendy Lindboe, Bruce Townley, and "a filler special for Poul Anderson by anon."
From the editor: "Comes out irregularly, and alas infrequently."
* Wandering Stars review by Ruth Berman (4) (Jewish-centric science fiction)
* Berry's Baedeker, continued by John Berry (10)
* limerick by Ruth Berman (16)
* MabinogiCON Proceedings by J.R. Christopher (17) (A con report for Mythcon V in which the fan tells of his wife accidentally running over their cat in her car the morning he left... and comes home to murder and mayhem by escaped criminals in his neighborhood. The middle part of the con report, thankfully, has much about the actual con. )
* Using Chess in SF by Ruth Berman (23)
* No & Yes: Letters (26)
File:no16-1.jpg|front cover of issue #16, Connie Faddis
File:no16-2.jpg|sample text, issue #16
File:no16-3.jpg|back cover of issue #16, Bruce Arthur
==Reactions and Reviews: Issue 16==
==Issue 17==
No 17 was published in September 1975 and contains 38 pages. The front cover is by Alan Andres. The back cover is by Connie Faddis. The interior art is by Tim Marion, Al Sirois, Jim Young, Connie Faddis, Rae Ladore, Ken Fletcher, Reed Waller, Doug Herring, Dick Tatge, William Rostler (the editor notes: "I think [it is William Rostler], although I have this problem with signiture de-coding, and it might be Johnny Chambers"), Sheryl Birkhead, Bruce Townly, Richard Schultz, and Wendy Lindboe.
The editor writes: 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (differs from actual content):
* Come Back to the Raft, Pooh, Honey: Abnormal Sex and Winnie the Pooh by Deborah Collin (subject: children's interest in sex, the subversive sexual elements of Winnie the Pooh, Christopher Robin as the author's self-insert, and much about the homosexual elements of the book/s) (4)
* Berry's Baedeker, concluded by John Berry (12)
* A Sign for the Pharisees by Greg FitzGerald (20)
* Company by Philip Jeffery Stuart (21)
* A Letter from Jean Berman (27)
* Watch Out for the Termites That Ate New York City by Paula Smith (28)
* No & Yes: Letters of Comment (28)
ACTUAL CONTENT (an addendum to the table of contents is listed at the end of the zine with the note: "or, what to do when you misread your own handwriting typing up the toc"):
* Come Back to the Raft, Pooh, Honey: Abnormal Sex and Winnie the Pooh by Deborah Collin (4)
* two illos/cartoons (un-numbered)
* A Comic Review by Sheila Strickland (12) (a review of "Unknown Worlds of Science Fiction")
* Loui and Viceroy by Steven H. Waller (14)
* Berry's Baedeker, concluded by John Berry (15)
* A Sign for the Pharisees by Greg FitzGerald (20)
* Company by Philip Jeffery Stuart (21)
* Dear Fandom by Jean Berman (titled "A Letter" in the table of contents) (is a long letter about her not producing any fanac for the last eight years, about attending Eastercon in London, more chat than fannish) (22)
* Watch Out for the Termites That Ate New York City ("Cause They Might Come Around and Eat Your Town) by Stephen Foster Bidet (Paula Smith in the table of contents) (28)
* No & Yes: Letters of Comment (29)
File:no17-1.jpg|inside page from issue #17
File:no17-2.jpg|inside page from issue #17
File:no17-3.jpg|inside page from issue #17
File:no17-4.jpg|inside page from issue #17
File:no17-6.jpg|inside page from issue #17
File:no17-5.jpg|inside page from issue #17
==References==
Category:Science Fiction Zines
Category:1960s Zines
Category:1970s Zines
Category:1967 Zines