Tonight as I sit at my little desk trying to compose an eloquent address to you, I find that the head gives way to the heart; so that instead of making ambitious flights into the aether of rhetoric, I may only express my profound gratitude to all you spirited and delightful Fellow-amateurs for the joys of this splendid game. In a reminiscent mood, I am looking over some old amateur papers, and scarcely can I find adequate words of praise for each; they are so full of the joy of living and so vibrant with every emotion–love, laughter, joy, and sorrow, and good-natured humor–therefore so alluring and delightful.

Sonia H. Greene, “Amateurdom of the Editor”, in The Rainbow Vol 2, May 1922, p. 19.

Picking up where I left off in last month’s post, I will continue the thread on Sonia’s contribution to amateur journalism. If you have not yet read part one, I’m linking it here, so you may do so. While “Amateurdom and the Editor” focused primarily on Sonia’s entrance into the amateur journalism world, in this continuation we will learn more of Sonia’s journal The Rainbow, her time as president, and her overall literary input in amateur journals.

Sonia joined the United Amateur Press Association (U.A.P.A.) at some point between July 30 and August 11, 1921. Although it would seem the United suited her much better, she did not fail to pass her appreciation to the National Amateur Press Association (N.A.P.A.):

I feel impelled to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the National Association for introducing me to the United, with its artistic and philosophical atmosphere and highly developed critical facilities.

Sonia H. Greene, “Amateurdom and the Editor”, The Rainbow Vol. 1, October 1921.  

In a letter to Rheinhart Kleiner on August 30, 1921, Lovecraft had by this time already returned to Sonia the proofs for the first volume of The Rainbow. The level of swiftness the first volume was produced is rather impressive when considering Sonia’s life at the time. Sonia was working for Ferle Heller, a high-end millinery shop in New York City, and her job was quite extensive. She not only sold hats in the storefront, but she also sold hats at wholesale, traveling city to city to other millinery shops. She also had “charge of 60 girls in the workroom + 12 saleswomen in the showroom”. (Autobiographical Writings Box 9, Folder 7) Due to the demand in her trade, any schoolwork, when she received it as an adolescent and as an adult, was usually set in the back burner. The first excerpt which follows is when Sonia had moved out at the age of thirteen and had begun her millinery apprenticeship under Mary Bathsheba Hagadorn. The second after it, is when Sonia had enrolled at Columbia University, and took the Cultural Course.  

The following Monday morning Sonia was situated as an apprentice in the very best shop in town. In the daytime she learned her trade; while in the evening she made arrangements with her teacher to give her the lessons she was missing. Once more she studied at night; but could not possibly keep this up. She was obliged to give up her studies.

Sonia H. Davis, Autobiographical Writings Box 9, Folder 6.

I paid for the books and the course, and was to come back one evening a week for examinations. You may be sure I did not come back very many evenings; but I kept reading on my own account; and, believe it or not…. I actually learned.

Sonia H. Davis, Autobiographical Writings Box 9, Folder 2.

(Side Note: Sonia wrote half of her autobiographical writings in third person, and the other in first person.)

While taking these accounts into consideration, and then knowing that she had only met Lovecraft in July yet having proofs of her amateur journal for him to review by the end of August, is nothing short of phenomenal. How interesting to think that while schoolwork, a necessity to pass a class, would be set aside to be completed at her own timeframe because of her busy schedule as a milliner, but the work involved to produce her amateur journal, such as writing and editing it, would remain constant and in the forefront. For the first issue of The Rainbow, Sonia wrote three essays, two of which are short in length, two poems, one book review, and one short letter. Which is not an unreasonable amount of work, but still very impressive. It’s probably for this very reason why it was believed she created the journals in order to impress Lovecraft:

Just previous to his coming to Brooklyn, and no doubt as part of her campaign to impress herself upon Lovecraft, his wife-to-be had issued an elaborate number of an amateur magazine, The Rainbow.

Rheinhart Kleiner, “A Memoir of Lovecraft”, in Something About Cats and Other Pieces, Sauk City: Arkham House, 1949, p. 224.

Whatever the reason, The Rainbow is certainly a beautiful amateur journal. The two volumes are tastefully done with soft textured covers and photographs of each person who contributed to it. Much of its beauty lends proof to the state of her finances. Because of her position in Ferle Heller, Sonia was earning nearly $10,000 a year, which in a field such as amateur journalism which depended heavily on donations to help publish the journals, certainly gave Sonia creative and financial liberties to spend generously on the production of The Rainbow. The first volume contains contributions from Alfred Galpin, James F. Morton Jr., H.P. Lovecraft, Rheinhart Kleiner, and Samuel Loveman. The theme of the volume is primarily philosophical and focuses on Friedrich Nietzsche and his writings.

The second volume is geared more toward art and its misconceptions culturally and occupationally. This issue is slightly larger in comparison to the first, 8 x 11 rather than 7 x 10, yet still possessing the same high-grade quality as its predecessor. It contains additional articles from Alfred Galpin, James F. Morton Jr., Samuel Loveman, and the short story, Celephaïs, by H.P. Lovecraft. Other literary pieces included are by B.C. and W.C. Brightrall, Betty Jane Kendall, Edith Miniter, Lilian Middleton, and Maurice W. Moe. 

The Rainbow was quite a praiseworthy venture. In Rheinhart Kleiner’s amateur paper, The Piper, he wrote:

In Mrs. Sonia H. Greene, of Brooklyn, amateur journalism has gained an ardent recruit. She has already contributed generously to the official organ fund of both associations, and the first issue of her own paper, THE RAINBOW, has just appeared. So practical a demonstration of zeal for the welfare of our hobby is seldom obtained from a new member, and if Mrs. Greene continues as she has begun the republic of amateur letters may well call that day blessed which first saw her induction into the ranks.

“At Random”, The Piper, No. 5, January 1922, p. 2.

In the National Amateur 44, No. 4, Lovecraft wrote:

Easily the foremost of all the current amateur output, and unquestionably the most brilliant first issue of any paper within the present critic’s recollection, is the October Rainbow; edited and published by Mrs. Sonia H. Greene. Mrs. Greene, though a very recent recruit, has absorbed the amateur spirit with amazing speed; and possesses a very high conception of the duty of the individual to the institution. As a result she has become almost at once a leader, and has put forth a publication not only distinguishing her but assisting substantially in the advancement of amateur letters.

Unlike the average amateur paper, The Rainbow is not a haphazard collection of all the available manuscripts of the period, or yet a weary chronicle of trivial gossip and social insipidities. Mechanically dazzling and impeccable with its iridescent cover, numerous illustrations, and pleasing paper and typography, it nevertheless derives its chief claim to notice from its intellectual policy and carefully chosen contents. The Rainbow, in a word, represents a genuinely artistic and intelligent attempt to crystallise homogeneously a definite mood as handled by many writers. The mood is that of enlightened liberalism and civilised honesty and independence of thought; nor is its atmosphere lost even for a moment, despite several agreeable interludes of lighter nature. From the briefest item to the longest article and most ambitious poem there is uniformly sustained a tone of freedom and revolt against the stultifying lies, stupidities, hypocrisies, and mental narcotics of the conventional age which we are only now beginning to shake off.

[…]

Mrs. Greene’s own contributions to The Rainbow are of varied and representative nature. “Mors Omnibus Communis” is a poem vital with the tragedy and mockery of existence. “Amateurdom and the Editor” is a graceful editorial column in which the objects of amateurdom are re-stated with much power and piquancy. “Idle Idyls” and kindred personalities exhibit the editor as a brilliant and fraternal commentator, while the column headed “Philosophia” displays a vision and sense of proportion gratifying in an age as unsettled as this. Mrs. Greene is a thinker with much to say, and with a fast-growing power to say it effectively.”

H.P. Lovecraft, The Collected Essays: Amateur Journalism, ed. S.T. Joshi, New York: Hippocampus Press, 2004, pp. 310-312.

While the praise came in, so did the criticism. Sonia’s piece, “Opinion”, in the second volume of The Rainbow was criticized by Paul Livingston Keil. Keil wrote under the pseusonym “Pauke” and was the editor of Pauke’s Quill. It was in Pauke’s Quill, where Keil published his thoughts on Sonia’s article. Unfortunately, I was unable to find “Opinion Versus Fact”, but I am including Sonia’s original piece, “Opinion”, followed by her rebuttal, “Fact Versus Opinion”.

Transcription:

OPINION

Several of THE RAINBOW’S correspondents have seen fit to take exception to the philosophical views of some of the contributors to the first number, as if there were one stereotyped set of opinions in the world, which everyone should endorse without thinking for himself.

Upon such persons the editor would urge a broader point of view, involving a recognition of the fact that sincerity is the only criterion we may universally apply in such a case. Any attempt to conform opinion to popular prejudice would rob it of this one paramount virtue. It should further be remembered that philosophical opinion has nothing to do with aesthetic quality. To condemn an author because he holds certain views is the height of absurdity. As an author he is not governed by these views at all, but by his artistic imagination. At most, the opinions merely suggest a background; and in the case of the purely aesthetic writer this background is seldom a literal application of any set of beliefs. Often the same author will base different works of art on different theories.

So we judge an artist’s work of imagination only by purely aesthetic criteria. If the work is intense, vivid, simple, and poignant, it is good.

When the writer expresses an opinion he leaves the realm of art and becomes another character. He then deals in intellectual instead of aesthetic matters, and must be judged by an entirely new set of standards. Do not try to find in his plain statements and hypotheses any of the airy stuff from which his dreams are made. If the writing is sincere, analytical, logical, and forcible, it is good.

Readers as well as authors need mental discipline. We must all strive for breadth, discernment, objectivity, and impartiality; so that when we praise or blame we may know why we do so, and may confine our sentiments to regions where they are legitimately applicable.

Transcription:

FACT VERSUS OPINION

It is regrettable to find the possessor of a strong right arm, who could be so potent in advancing art and truth, employing his strength in the obstruction of ideas and the defence of narrow and obsolete notions. Such, however, seems to be the case with the youthful editor of Pauke’s Quill, who in his article “Opinion Versus Fact” takes it upon himself to misunderstand and misinterpret with curious completeness my remarks on “Opinion” in The Rainbow for May, 1922.

Mr. Keil jauntily refutes so much which was entirely absent from the editorial he purports to criticise, that one is somewhat in doubt how to begin a reply! I think, though, that attention ought first to be called to the fact that if our young critic had read the editorial with any amount of care and intelligence, he could not possibly have perpetrated the cumbrous sentence in which he charges me with stating that “there is no or very little connection between the style of an author and what he has to say.” To attribute this view to one with my aesthetic opinions is proof of Mr. Keil’s meagre comprehension of the whole subject.

What I did say, and what I repeat as a basic principle of art, is that an author’s philosophy has nothing to do with the aesthetic quality of his work. Surely this conveys a very different idea from the one which Mr. Keil so ingeniously manufactured. It is a principle which should be obvious to anyone with the least understanding of the nature of art; and few things are more easy to understand than that art is simply depiction and expression, whose merit depends solely and exclusively on the success of the artist in making his medium convey what he wishes to convey. What the artist wishes to convey is absolutely immaterial. He is free to choose, and equally great works of art have arisen from diametrically opposite conceptions of life. The one criterion of art is its perfection—the perfection with which the creator carries out whatever design he has selected.

Mr. Keil’s whole critique, it is to be feared, forms something of a replica of his impoverished and beautifully irrelevant metaphor anent a surface of black paint as a night scene. Like such a night scene, it doesn’t show anything; or at least not anything but darkness, as manifested in the blandly dogmatic pronouncements on the “real purpose of authorship” and the cocksure corollary that “it is logical and obvious that the philosophical opinions of the writer must (the italics are Mr. Keil’s) be considered in judging an author, always.”

The fallacy of Mr. Keil lies in his utter and inextricable confusion of art and intellect. He believes that the artist, like the philosopher, deals in ideas; whereas in truth impressions are the only legitimate materials of art. “Literature,” says Arthur Machen through one of his characters, “is the sensuous art of causing exquisite impressions by means of words.” Facts are excellent things in their place; but they have not the remotest connection with aesthetic expression.

In his violent challenging of this truth—which has certainly been placed by all literary history, emotional experience and psychological investigation upon as firm a basis as any other admitted “fact”—Mr. Keil reveals a bias and bigotry which warn us not to take him too seriously in all his assertions.

Need one cast about for concrete examples? Wilde is always with us—and who seeks to correlate his philosophy with the widely contradictory manifestations of his art? An artist may be defiantly pagan, yet paint in his love of beauty a madonna [sic] and child which all the aesthetic world will acclaimed as perfect; while a pious, conventional and passionate believer may fail in depicting the simplest violet or daisy of whose celestial workmanship and mystical symbolism he is so fervently convinced. A sculptor may reject all philosophy, and refuse to question the universe, yet be able to mould figures of divinely breathing beauty. Nor can literature be classed apart from its sister arts—for the purer it is, the closer it approaches their harmonies and plasticity. Who would seek for Poe’s opinions and beliefs amidst the multicolored ecstacies [sic] of his strange and tortured genius?

Sometimes a writer, like the Russians of a few decades ago, may be by nature a propagandist, and tend to make his dramatis personae mere mouthpieces of opinion. Familiar indeed is the novel of intellectual debate, with the author’s voice but thinly concealed in the tones of his hero or heroine, or of some subtler character. But these things are not primarily works of art at all. They are philosophical tracts, and when they possess art it is not in the central plan, but in occasional touches of coloring and characterization where the author happily forgot his homiletic role. The actual artist does not concern himself with petty human problems and their unravelling, but strives simply to bring to the reader’s imagination beautiful things beautifully created.

Mr. Keil would gain a clearer general perspective by considering the striking contrasts between philosophy and performance, with which life abounds. He should realize how many authors, while viewing the world and its futile struggles with the utmost coldness, sanity and objectivity, paint spirited idyllic pastorals or hectic and glamorous metropolitan scenes with perfect naturalness and success; how many sincere prohibitionists maintain well-stocked cellars; or how many tireless workers for rational motherhood and child welfare are solitary spinsters. I reiterate, and I believe the facts of thought and existence sustain me, that to condemn an author because he holds certain views is the height of absurdity.

The concluding ex cathedra paragraph where Mr. Keil so grandiosely divides ideas into facts and opinions is something which takes us altogether outside the domain of art. It is, nevertheless, worth refuting as philosophy; since it represents so pathetically narrow and obsolete a system of metaphysics. The bald truth is that Mr. Keil has been absolutely untouched by the thought of the last half-century, and that he still accepts the conventional beliefs of former times as unquestioned certainties. He should learn that there are no such things as absolute values or universal facts outside the elemental sphere of chemical and physical action; and that virtually all the standards governing human life and effort are just what he insists they are not—“merely the collective beliefs of the majority” acquired through the interpretation, sometimes sensible and sometimes fallacious, of the race’s experience during its remote formative period. All human beliefs are opinions, and nothing more; valuable only so far as they continue to satisfy us regarding the phenomena forming our visible world.

“Opinion pitched against fact,” far from being worthless, is really the greatest of all forces in the advance of civilization. There is not a barbarous, degrading or fallacious idea of the past whose abolition has not begun with the untiring and concerted efforts of a small minority with strange “opinions” that contradicted the accepted “facts” of the bovine majority. But for “opinion pitched against fact,” witches would still be burned in the market-place, slaves sold on the wharves, and minds fettered with the notions of a flat earth and Ptolemaic universe.

I firmly believe that the opinion of the thoughtful, fearless and cultivated minority is in most cases more likely to be correct than the blindly inherited and clumsily unanalyzed view of the superficial throng. The past too often shows it—and shows how the throng itself will some day accept and enjoy with belated gratitude the “errors” for which its members now chide the struggling minority. But this is very trite.

What must be emphasized as a final word is that Mr. Keil represents both aesthetically and philosophically a degree of unreflective naivete, confusion and dogmatism which argues either extreme youth or deep-seated backwardness. Fortunately the cause in this particular instance seems to be extreme youth; so that we may reasonably expect from our energetic disputer a steady progress in breadth and logic. His zeal for an artistic and intellectual Amateurdom deserves the highest praise; and if we challenge his present utterances, it is only that he may be aroused to new vistas mutually profitable to himself and to amateur letters.

—Sonia H. Greene

It is hard to objectively deconstruct the misunderstanding on Keil’s part when half of the argument is gone. Sonia’s intention in “Opinion” was quite simple, separating the artist from his or her beliefs when creating art. An artist creates solely because they wish to produce beautiful things that go beyond the confinement of one’s philosophy. Art does not exclude, because when an artist creates, he or she is moved by the imagination, by the desire to manifest what is intangible into what is tangible. It is not about going into art with a secret agenda to broadcast one’s beliefs or political stance, although there is a time and place for this kind of theme within art’s creation. Sonia does so well in conveying this point throughout “Fact Versus Opinion”. It’s quite possible due to the length of “Opinion” that Sonia’s point was entirely missed by Keil, and perhaps, if she had elaborated in greater detail like she did in “Fact Versus Opinion”, there might not have been any criticism or rebuttal.

While Wikipedia is obviously not a reliable source, “Fact Versus Opinion” is not an editorial against censoring pornography, as it is stated in Wikipedia. This mistake likely arises from the fact that in the same volume of The Oracle, where Sonia’s “Fact Versus Opinion” appears, Lovecraft wrote “The Omnipresent Philistine”, which was an editorial against censorship. Keil and Lovecraft had a disagreement over this issue, and thus “The Omnipresent Philistine” was written to prove the particular dangers of censorship on art, literature, and the like.

The Oracle is merely one journal in which Sonia contributed, aside from her two issues of The Rainbow, and certainly not the last.

In July 1923, Sonia was unknowingly elected president of the U.A.P.A. Yet, she did not find out until September of that year of her having been elected. No doubt overwhelmed by the sudden responsibility, Sonia sent a note to Lovecraft, “asking to be relieved of the unexpected & cataclysmic presidential burden,” but he wrote back, “urging her to hang on for dear life”.  (Lovecraft to James F. Morton, Letters to James F. Morton, p. 55)

She did just that, and addressed the members of the U.A.P.A. as their president:

Transcription:

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED

Three months ago, out of the chaos of disorganization into which the society had fallen, I received belated notification of my election to the Presidency of the United Amateur Press Association. Prompt visible action was impossible, because of the utter administrative inefficiency and absence of records; but despite all obstacles I have decided to bend every energy towards an intensive restoration during the latter half of the executive year—January 1, 1924 to July, 1924. That period has now arrived, and as the need for universal co-operation becomes more definite, I wish to call attention to what we have been able to do, and to what we still require so urgently.

Our present official board, as elected and appointed, is as follows:

President, Sonia H. Greene; 1st V.P., Harry N. Lehmkuhl; 2nd V.P., Stella V. Kellerman; SECRETARY-TREASURER, EDGAR J. DAVIS, 100 HUNTINGTON AVE., Suite 3, BOSTON, MASS. Official Editor, H.P. Lovecraft; Official Publisher, W. Paul Cook; Historian, Wilfred B. Talman, Laureate Recorder, Arthur F. Ziegfeld; Manuscript Manager, Paul G. Trueblood; Supervisor of Amendments, John Y. Piersol; Directors, Messrs. Conover and Mazurewicz, and Mrs. Moitoret.

Several issues of the UNITED AMATEUR are planned, but their preparation has so far been hindered by delay in obtaining any report of the 1923 Convention, or of the present state of the membership list. There is now in the Official Organ Fund $49.66 in cash, remaining from the year 1921-22. This will ably launch the current UNITED AMATEUR, but for its maintenance till July further contributions will be required. Substantial funds are guaranteed by both President and Official Editor, but such will prove of small permanent value unless backed by generous donations from all members able to make them. As before, the Custodian of the Fund, to whom all remittances should be sent, is H.P. Lovecraft, 598 Angell St., Providence, R.I.

Recruiting machinery is slowly forming, and will be more definitely described in my first regular report. Meanwhile let me urge all members to be particularly prompt and conscientious about their renewals; carefully remitting to Secretary Davis upon expiration of membership, whether or not officially notified. Notifications must necessarily be lax until Mr. Davis can secure the records. Former members who receive this circular are urged to reinstate at once, and any persons willing to serve on the recruiting committees will confer a great favor by writing me to that effect.

Our objects in this work of restoration are very simple. We want, if it is humanly possible, to re-create the United as a purely aesthetic force; a stimulus to literary beginners of real ability, which will give them practical and immediate help in their chosen field without waste of energy in such directions as commercialism, stagnant dabbling, or social frivolity. We want to serve aspirants, crude or advanced, who sincerely desire “to write perfectly of beautiful happenings”; [sic]

My task is to keep things moving until July, when a new fiscal year will bring new leaders. Co-operate by writing, reviewing, publishing, recruiting, and shouldering responsibility. Shall we prove equal to our respective assignments? Let us hope so, for upon us in these months rests the main hope of literary amateur journalism.

Hopefully and Fraternally yours,

SONIA H. GREENE

A month after having been notified about her presidency, Sonia attended the fifteenth anniversary celebration of the Blue Pencil Club.

While “Opinion” in The Rainbow (Vol. 2) was released in May 1922, her article “Fact Versus Opinion” in The Oracle (Vol. 4, No. 3) was released in May 1924. By this time, Sonia was married to Lovecraft, and they were living together. In Lovecraft’s letters, little is mentioned about amateur journalism and/or the work involved in Sonia’s presidency during this period of their marriage. What we do learn through his letters to his aunts, however, is about the hardships that Lovecraft and Sonia went through in 1924.

Whatever the reason for her departure from Ferle Heller, Sonia decided to open her own hat shop at some point between the spring and early summer of 1924. The business venture failed miserably, and since Sonia was the sole financial provider, their household took quite a hit because of it. Then, on October 21, 1924, Sonia was hospitalized for gallbladder pains.

After being released from the hospital on Halloween, Sonia began searching for work, and ultimately finding an opening in Mabley & Carew in Cincinnati, Ohio, Sonia left for the job on December 31, 1924. Sonia returned to New York on February 26, 1925, on the grounds that she “has at last found the hostile & exacting atmosphere of Mabley & Carew’s intolerable”. (Letters to Family and Friends 1.254.) In the midst of all this health and occupational chaos, her presidency in amateurdom was the last thing on her mind, and she reveals as much in the following excerpt.

In July 1925, Sonia addressed the members of the U.A.P.A in the “President’s Message” column of the United Amateur 24, No. 1. Only this time it was to give her resignation.

Transcription:

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

169 Clinton St., Brooklyn, N.Y.

June 16, 1925

Dear Fellow-Amateurs:—

It is once again my fate to address a membership who must be almost sceptical of the continued existence of the United, and to express the profound regret which I feel at this lapse of activity. Last year’s appeal for reconstruction, lacking both the spontaneous co-operation of our personnel as a whole and the endorsement of any leader with requisite health and time for its practical promotion, proved a futile one; though I must here thank most sincerely those few who did respond to my messages and apologise most profoundly to those whose responses seem to have been inadequately acknowledged. Outside responsibilities of unexpected magnitude, together with a failing health which culminated in my autumn sojourn at the Brooklyn Hospital, cut me off hopelessly from amateur work during the summer of 1924; a disastrous interregnum whose effects proved too profound to be shaken off during the balance of the year, especially since my energy and leisure have even since then been but fractional. The main result of this condition has been to make impossible a 1924 election, and thus to effect the holding-over of the present official board another year. Though arising primarily from the inability of the officers, this circumstance throws a sadly illuminating ray on the apathetic state of the general membership.

Possibilities of Revival

We must acknowledge, then, that the one paramount business of the United at present is simply to fight doggedly for its existence if it deems that existence worth preserving. Our society is not alone in its enfeebled state. Others, complaining of the same symptoms in varying degree, have proposed a final consolidation of all surviving amateur bodies; in order that the few remaining active souls in each society may be linked in one combined burst of desperate team-work for the perpetuation of amateurdom as an institution. This may or may not be necessary in the end; but even with such a plan as a goal it is essential that we restore our balance and functioning for the time being, if only for the purposes of intelligent negotiation. I, myself, am not inclined to endorse the idea of union except as a very last resort; since I believe that the aesthetically helpful qualities peculiar to the United would be vitally impaired if mingled with the attributes of more social and frivolous organizations. The United is too unique in its province to sacrifice its identity lightly; rather ought we to investigate closely our causes of decline, and seek to repair them in our own way. My own strangely doubled term, of course, is now at an end; and whatever revival is effected will be the work of the incoming board. I believe that the great necessity is the succession to active leadership of an entirely new generation; youthful, ambitious, unjaded, and possessed of sufficient interest and spare time to work with an intensity which to our present middle-aged leaders must naturally seem almost fabulous and inconceivable. Given one or two young and active spirits, we may reasonably hope for an influx of kindred recruits through their propaganda; and expect in the end a United restored to something like its former freshness and vitality. Our mistake has been in not demanding and enforcing the transfer of power from those whom outside affairs make less and less free to wield it properly, to younger hands eager and well-fitted for its exercise. This mistake we trust to see rectified in a mail election planned with the greatest conscientiousness and saved by energetic action from the fate of last year’s proposed election.

The Election

In the absence of a Convention, I have declared July 15th as the date for a general election by mail; ballots for which are soon to be received by the members. On account of Secretarial difficulties, we are still uncertain as to the status of many whose names appear on our rolls; hence will distribute the ballots as widely as possible, asking that the recipients enclose a dollar to the Secretary for extension of membership when any doubt exists. Duplicate ballots are to be mailed to the Secretary, Edgar J. Davis, 100 Huntington Avenue, Boston, Mass., and originals to the Custodian of Ballots, George W. Kirk, care Martin’s Book Store, 97 Fourth Avenue, New York, N.Y. Both must be mailed in sealed and labelled envelopes in time to reach their recipients by the appointed date, July 15, 1925. Upon the counting and checking up of the votes, the result will be announced in due season; either by special bulletin or in THE UNITED AMATEUR. Every effort will be made by judicious and impartial workers to provide one or more sets of willing and competent candidates; while of course the voters are free to choose any qualified persons whom they may deem suitable for the elective offices. These offices now are President, First and Second Vice-Presidents, Laureate Recorder, Historian, Manuscript, Manager, and three Directors. A 1926 Convention Seat will likewise be chosen.

Past Details

Efforts to obtain records of the 1923 Milwaukee convention having come to nothing, I have decided to let the matter rest; or at least, to leave it for future archaeologists and palaeographers to adjust and embody in whatever chronicles they may wish to keep. Laureate awards for 1924 and 1925, likewise, are out of the question; it being understood that the 1923 winners retain their titles till fresh ones are awarded in 1926.

Secretarial

Members are urged to let nothing interfere with their renewals and reinstatements, or with the recruiting of truly suitable novices; continuing to address applications to Secretary Davis until the appointment of a successor on the new board. Patience is recommended in cases of delayed acknowledgment, for our convalescing Secretary is sorely overburdened with matter accumulating during his long typhoid siege at the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, from which he has only recently emerged.

Official Organ

Lack of cash has circumvented the regular issuance of THE UNITED AMATEUR, so that in view of all conditions it was thought best to delay the present single unmber [sic] until the last, as a herald and auxliiary [sic] in the reconstructive campaign of next year’s board. Vastly more liberal support will be necessary if the coming volume is to be of any size and frequency; and I urge upon everyone a share in the maintenance of a sinking fund for its financing—unofficial if no official arrangement of the sort is formulated by the incoming editor. The official organ is the life of the United, and its preservation is the first requisite to general survival. The fund, which was used wholly up in the printing and mailing of the May, 1924, issue, ($52.00) now stands at $39.50. The following voluntary contributions are to be noted:

J.E. Hoag…………… $5.00

Eugene B. Kuntz……. $1.00

Activity

Of activity during the year there is, of course, little to report; and one must give double commendation to the few who have remained faithful. Mr. Paul Livingston Keil is about to isue [sic] a new number of his attractive journal; and a Liberal from Mr. Paul J. Campbell is expected soon. More publications form the crying need of the time; and it is fervently to be hoped that the new board will be able to devise some means for their endowment or stimulation, in printed, multigraphed, or any other imaginable form. Even the “pass-around” manuscript magazine is by no means to be despised in these lean days, if a sufficient number of carbon copies are set in circulation.

Conclusion

So, regretfully conscious of the amateur hiatus which my extended term was unable to redeem, I take my leave of an office whose duties deserved a more active occupant. My basic views on amateurdom and its province remain unchanged, and I still hope to see the United, under younger and brisker leadership, strengthening its position as a force for the inspiration of the sincere, non-academic literary novice. Enough time has elapsed since the last busy period to sink all factional feelings into one conjoined solicitude for the Association as a whole; and it is my keenest wish that I may witness during the coming year the birth of a new epoch of organisation, development, artistic endeavour, and critical thoroughness.

Sincerely yours,

SONIA H. GREENE LOVECRAFT,

President.

There are a few things worth noting in Sonia’s message.

Sonia’s introductory sentence brings our attention to the fact that this is in all likelihood the second time Sonia addressing the members as a whole. The only other time we have factual evidence of her addressing the members is her letter in late 1923, when she had been recently notified of her election. In comparing her 1923 president letter to her 1925 president’s message, we’re able to see that not much had changed with the U.A.P.A during the span of those two years. While one piece of writing possesses the motivation to accomplish, the other possesses a sense of defeat. In her 1923 letter, Sonia had hoped to achieve a restoration of the U.A.P.A. from January 1, 1924, to July 1924, which was her actual term as president.

However, in her 1925 message, she reveals a sense of failure for not having achieved the restoration, and the reason was because of her health and ultimately her hat shop which failed. It was also these reasons why her term as president was extended into 1925. The failure, however, didn’t just fall entirely on Sonia and her personal hardships. Clearly, due to the disorganization of the U.A.P.A, Sonia was ill-prepared for her position. The U.A.P.A. was heading toward disintegration, and it clearly shows in how Sonia was elected for a responsibility she had not willingly sought to obtain, then let alone to not be notified about it in a timely manner. Yet, Sonia still put on a brave face and sincerely tried to make the best of the hand she was dealt with.

Throughout her term as president, however, the affairs of the U.A.P.A would only keep making matters worse. Stated both in her 1923 letter and then in her 1925 “President’s Message”, she was unable to obtain the necessary report to help with publication, which after nearly two years of trying to acquire and never receiving it is ample proof of the terrible state in which the U.A.P.A really was at that time. Then, there was the fault of the “machinery”. This, too, was another underlying reason for the failed attempt of restoration, which is mentioned both in Sonia’s 1923 letter and then in Lovecraft’s “Editorial” in 1925, which was printed alongside Sonia’s “President’s Message”. Sonia called it “recruiting machinery” while Lovecraft declared “sheer indifference has stalled the replacement machinery”. (“Editorial”, United Amateur 24, No. 1, July 1925, p. 8.)

While it’s not a literal machine, “machinery” in this context is meant to imply the membership of the organization, who were to help bring new members into the group. Since the membership were slow to recruit, there was little funds to secure a printer, and without a printer, volumes wouldn’t be published, and without publications, there wouldn’t be a readership and without a readership, no renewals. It’s easy to see why this system is termed “machinery”, and why its very necessity to thrive is of the utmost importance.

Yet, even with the sad state of her concluding presidency, Sonia still believed a revival for the U.A.P.A. was possible. She had hoped the new board would bring about this change, especially if young members were voted in. Hope is never vain, but in this case, her hope for a revival was indeed futile. Edgar J. Davis would take her place as president for the year 1926-1927. He was the Secretary-Treasurer from 1923 to 1925, and according to Sonia’s message above, he appeared to have been hospitalized for typhoid, which seemed to have caused some delay in things once more.

Nonetheless, Sonia’s resignation as president couldn’t come at a better time.

When she wrote her “President’s Message” on June 16, 1925, Sonia had just returned from Saratoga Springs, N.Y., where she had stayed for a couple of weeks to recover from the lingering gallbladder pains from October 1924. Moreover, by the time the journal was published in July, Sonia was heading back to Ohio to begin her new job in the millinery department at Halle Brothers Co. in Cleveland.

One thing of interest that has been recently brought to my attention by Dave Goudsward and Bobby Derie is that while Sonia had resigned as president from the U.A.P.A. in 1925, it appears that Sonia was part of the new board of 1926-1927. Sonia was a Director alongside Frank Belknap Long and Maurice W. Moe. The general consensus though seems to be that Lovecraft simply put down Sonia as a Director on paper, while not entirely holding her to the position. Although it’s quite a mystery.

The truth is, Sonia would walk away from amateur journalism in 1926. In May 1926, both Lovecraft and Sonia resigned from the Blue Pencil Club, closing yet another chapter in Sonia’s part in amateurdom. In 1927, she did, however, write a heartfelt reminiscence of Hazel Pratt Adams, who passed away on August 6, 1927.

After this, Sonia’s contribution to amateur journalism stopped entirely. It did not mean the end of her allegiance to its mission. While living in Los Angeles, Sonia resumed her friendship with Wheeler Dryden, who was also a fellow amateur, and also who, according to Sonia, was visiting when her husband, Nathaniel A. Davis was rushed to the hospital on the night Nathaniel died. Sonia would return to amateurdom after Nathaniel’s death and remain faithful to it for the rest of her life. She attended the 73rd annual convention of N.A.P.A. in July 1948 at the Hotel Mayfair, Los Angeles. In July 1953, Sonia then attended the Milwaukee convention.

Because of her return to amateurdom and the rising star of Lovecraft, Sonia would have fans, followers, and friends, who would always remember her contribution to amateur journalism. We see this acknowledged in her letter addressed to the old and new members of amateurdom who remembered her on her 81st birthday and even during her hardships with her health. 

Transcription:

A GRATEFUL LETTER FROM SONIA

Dear Members of the United Amateur Press Association:

Although it has been a very long time since I have made a contribution to the “BUNDLE”, I would certainly be delinquent—regardless of my illness—if I did not make one at this time. Very few pages are now to be found in the “Bundle” but every time I receive one it is so welcome!

After almost fifteen months in the Hospital and still under Doctor’s care is hardly an excuse for my silence; especially since I’ve been remembered on my eighty first (81) birthday by so many kind UAPers and many dear friends. GOD BLESS THEM.

If at this time I name but a few I trust that the entire membership will feel included; and a very hearty welcome to all new members. Dr. W.J. Thompson and dear Mrs. Thompson have been particularly generous with their personal visits and his many letters of encouragement and prayers from my recovery; and his wonderful literary contributions to the Bundle each month is something I am sure every reader enjoys.

Grace Moss Weitman is another great and wonderful friend who never forgets my birthdays and all holidays, for which I am very grateful, as I am, also, to the many friends whom I met at several Conventions; the last one having been in Milwaukee in 1953, which I shall always remember.

There are so many more to whom I owe my gratitude; Nona Spath who arranged a wonderful evening for me at her home in 1958 when I visited my late sister; also my very charming friend and UAPer, Dr. Belle S. Mooney, who also arranged a wonderful day for me and our friend, Minnie Mills Neal; Dr. Mooney was so young and chipper that I hardly recognized her as she came stepping down the hall of the hotel where I was waiting for her at the appointed hour. This, too, was in 1958; a cold, nippy morning, when Dr. Mooney invited us both to breakfast and later to a wonderful dinner; and, of course, plenty of reminiscences! This was in Kansas City where I had a day’s stop-over privilege.

Now I pick up at random the rest of my birthday cards; to whom I owe many thanks for remembering my eighty-first birthday. Jolly Bea Dragin, whom I met at Nona’s home. Dear Olive Gilbert, whom I met at the Milwaukee Convention and with whom I have had some pleasant correspondence. Charles and Ione Beers, who came to see me several times while I was very ill, both at home and in the hospital; Marshal Hood, whom I have never had the pleasure of meeting but is a welcome member of UAPA; Mr. and Mrs. William Wallace Ellis who became very good friends of mine and whom I met at the Milwaukee Convention; since then we have had some pleasant correspondence, and whose poems are gems of art. Ella Laufenberg, whom I met at the Milwaukee Convention, visited me in Des Plaines, in 1953. The rains came down in torrents but she would not stay over until the following day although my late sister and I urged profusely; she said she had some special commitments whose presence required that she go back to Milwaukee that night.

Earnest Evans is another gentleman whom I had never met but he was very kind to send me some encouraging poems to get well. If I had left out any UPAers, please forgive me, but I trust you will feel included in my sincere appreciation.

May the good Lord bless all of you with much good.

Sonia H. Davis

This grateful letter from Sonia raises some questions. Why does she address the letter to the members of the U.A.P.A? Especially when we know the U.A.P.A. collapsed not long after her presidency. Is Bundle an amateur journal? And if so, just how much did Sonia contribute to it? Was this letter published in the Bundle? These are questions that don’t have answers to them yet, but worth considering the possibilities.

Because amateur journalism is so vast, especially with it being associated with Lovecraft, Sonia could very well be mentioned in more journals than what I’ve covered. This post, despite its length, is likely only covering the figurative tip of the iceberg, or perhaps I’ve covered all the bases. I doubt it’s the latter. The good thing is the search continues, and with it, we’ll get to learn just a little more about Sonia, and her contribution to amateur journalism.