The Synopsis Treasury Read online

  —CSH

  October 23, 1940

  Dear Mr. Pohl,

  I have delayed ten days in answering your letter because I was engaged in finishing a novelette, and wished to give your letter a careful, thorough answer when I did so. I find it very [difficult] to write letters when I have a story on the fire.

  …

  Now to business—I was a bit surprised at the controversy started by “Let There Be Light.” It contained controversial matters, but the objection seemed to be entirely to the language used by the characters. Apparently some readers believe that scientists are different from ordinary vulgar human beings. Well—I know that they aren’t.

  I am sorry to say that I am unable to offer manuscripts under my own name at the cent-a-word rate. Sheer economic determinism, you will understand. For the same reason I would be unable to undertake to write stories by arrangement with you under pen names and at a lower rate.

  However I have five stories which for one reason or another did not sell when they were written. You may have any of those under the name of Lyle Monroe for half a cent per word.

  Let me make one point quite clear: Stories written under the name Lyle Monroe will receive every bit as careful attention from me as stories written under my own name. I will not be offering shoddy hack work for a lower rate. “Let There Be Light” was one of my favorite stories, written honestly and carefully. I will continue to be just as jealous of the reputation of Lyle Monroe as I am of the name with the higher rate.

  Now as to these five stories—each of them will probably need rewriting and I am willing to do any necessary amount of rewriting in order to get them in shape for market. In a way that will cost me money, for I am now selling every word that I write at a higher rate than they will bring and have been doing so for a year. But I am anxious to see these published for my own morale. These five manuscripts are the only things I have ever written which were not immediately sold. They sit here and shame me. You will appreciate, I believe, that I would labor mightily to dispose of them.

  It seems best to me that you see them unrevised, with all the mistakes I made while learning still in them. If I were to rewrite them without waiting for your advice I might greatly improve them, since I believe I know more about writing now than I did a year ago when they were written. But I think it would help a lot for you to indicate how you wish them changed. You may want more adventure, less adventure, more science, less science, a love interest introduced, or taken out, a grim treatment, or addition of humor. In fact I can do with a story almost anything that you want done, with the exception that the social evaluations expressed in a story must be my own.

  What I am trying to say is this: Where the writer speaks through the mouth of a protagonist, or speaks in the third person by a straight exposition, the views expressed must be my views, not the views of the publisher. For example, I believe that I could have sold “Let There Be Light” at a higher rate than I received from you had I dropped from it the attack on privately owned public utilities. I left it in.

  I do not anticipate that you would ask me to express a different viewpoint from my own; I simply wished to make my position explicit.

  The stories—”Patterns of Possibility”, 10,051 words. Time travel story, containing a new time theory with five-dimensional continua. Adventure story with love interest. Too verbose and not well knit, but could be a good story.

  “Beyond Doubt,” 4,309 words. Fantastic satire on politics, laid in ancient Mu. I think it’s funny; my usual publisher didn’t.

  “Lost Legacy,” 35,000 words. This one is my pet. I would rather see this published than any story I have ever written. It needs some work done it, the opening speeded up and the ending expanded with perhaps 5,000 words of additional action. For your purposes you may want more action and less exposition throughout—we’ll see. It is a story which contends that the present human race are the degenerate descendants of a great race. Nothing new in that perhaps, but I did extensive research on this story and believe that I have made the theme credible.

  “Pied Piper,” 5,053 words. You have seen this once and may recall it. It might be very timely just now, and I will revise it to suit your needs. It is a story of a ware which is won by the “great scientist” who then uses his temporary advantage to insure a permanent peace. Satire on the Versailles treaty. It probably needs more action and less talk.

  “My Object All Sublime,” 7,715 words. You have seen this also. It is a slap-happy yarn about a little professor who conducts a crusade against reckless driving with synthetic skunk juice. The ending is not particularly novel and may need to be changed. Perhaps the whole story should be shortened.

  You made no comment on either of the above stories when you returned them before. Possibly, in view of the fact that I am willing to rewrite to order, you may see in them possibilities.

  If you wish me to do so, I will send all or any of these stories to you for your consideration and suggestions as to revisions. It seems to me that, if you will work with me on these stories, giving me a clear picture of what it is that you want, the name Lyle Monroe can be quite as useful in attracting the cash customers as my own name. I am honestly interested in improving these stories and in seeing them published, just as a matter of personal satisfaction in having a clean sweep of 100% sales, even though—believe it, or not—it will cost me money to do so.

  I hope to hear your wishes in the near future.

  Kindest regards,

  Robert A. Heinlein

  23 October 1940

  Dear Mr. Heinlein:

  Thanks for your long and explicit letter. While I’d prefer using your real name on your stories, Lyle Monroe is a fairly good substitute now, and ought to prove to be a very good one.

  Your terms are perfectly satisfactory to me. 1/2¢ per word, to be published under the pseudonym. And you can trust me not to alter “the social evaluations expressed in your stories.” Particularly so in your own case, since I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said in “Let There Be Light”, to name the story with which I’m most familiar.

  I recall “My Object All Sublime” pretty well, and don’t think it will be necessary for you to let me see it again. I didn’t like it. “Pied Piper” I recall only vaguely, but I suggest that you let it wait for a while. I am most interested in the other three you mention, particularly “Lost Legacy”. I’m instituting a change in Super Science Stories, so that in future it will publish at least one fairly long story—up to 40,000 words—in each issue. I plan to make the standard rather high. Much higher, certainly, than would ordinarily be expected at a cut-rate magazine. I’ve got two very good novels already on hand; I hope yours will make a third.

  Therefore, please let me see “Lost Legacy”, as well as “Patterns of Possibility” and “Beyond Doubt”, as soon as possible. Each of them, according to the brief synopses you gave, should be a good story; I’m sure that I hope they are in fact.

  Cordially,

  Frederik Pohl

  November 1, 1940

  Dear Mr. Pohl,

  I refer you at this time to my letter of October 23. Then, assuming that you have that letter at hand, I will add a little to the remarks there in:

  “Lost Legacy.” This story will undoubtedly need some revision. It needs speeding up in spots and amplifying in others. On the other hand it is not and can not be the adventure story with pseudo-science background which most of the contemporary long stories in the science fiction field are. I can’t turn it into a cops-and-robbers of the usual interplanetary type, nor the usual war story type. The field of the story is psychology and metapsychology and does not lend itself readily to violent action. Still—I think the ideas expressed are interesting in themselves to reasonably mature readers. Incident can be added; the hook can be speeded up; the ending can be changed.

  I suggest that you read it, then go over it with editorial pencil in hand, noting on the face of the manuscript exposition or discussion which you wish to cut down, i
ncidents which you want added, etc. Or, if you prefer, take it as it is and make your own changes.

  I would like to see this story published. It was an attempt on my part, only partially successful, to do something as “Odd John”. To my way of thinking, science-fictionists have become gadget crazy, and are perfectly willing to accept any improbability as long as the author postulates some sketchily-explained “invention” in the sphere of physics. (I’ve done it myself!) Here is a story with no gadgets, in which the author has hooked together a lot of the erratic data which orthodox theory rejects, and tried to fit it into a single comprehensive philosophy and history.

  By the way, as I did the research for this story (the data cited pp. 15-26 and circa p. 49 are all factual) I became convinced that, although my story was fiction, the basic idea, or something very like it, was true. Or, at least, closer to the truth than orthodox theory. In particular I came to believe that modern anthropology and modern psychology were mutually contradictory—irreconcilable.

  “Patterns of Possibility”. I suggest that you mark this one up in the same fashion as “Lost Legacy”. It is probably too long, especially in some of the discussions between Frost and Howard Jenkins. The episode about the “angel” might be cut entirely, although personally I think it is needed to round out the theory.

  “Beyond Doubt”. This manuscript is in the hands of Julius Schwartz. I could write to him and ask him to send it to me, then forward it to you, but it seems simpler to leave him in the status of agent. May I ask that you telephone him, FO 5-0965, and say that I said for him to give it to you, that we had agreed on terms, and that, if you take it, he will receive the usual commission.

  This story is hardly science-fiction at all in a serious sense. Rather, it is intended as a double satire on politics and on dogmatic science. I think the prologue and epilogue are a bit heavy-handed and should be shortened, or eliminated. This story is intended simply to amuse. It amused me to write it; if it amuses you—fine; the readers will probably be amused likewise. If it does not amuse you, let’s forget it.

  It probably bears the names of Caleb Saunders and Elma Wentz. That should be changed to Lyle Monroe and Elma Wentz. I own the story, but the double credit line is necessary.

  You will find herewith a stamped, self-addressed envelope for return of these manuscripts. That will be necessary in any case, for revision—unless you prefer to make your own revisions.

  Kindest regards,

  Robert A. Heinlein

  19 November 1940

  Dear Mr. Heinlein:

  Enclosed herewith are your two manuscripts, “Patterns of Possibility” and “Lost Legacy”.

  Julie Schwartz has given me “Beyond Doubt”, which I have read, and am accepting as it stands. I shall have the check for it in about a week, and shall give it to Julie.

  “Patterns of Possibility” I did not much like, and I will not devote much space to it, as I am considerably more interested in “Lost Legacy”. The story was inconclusive, and I don’t think any amount of rewriting could correct that, unless the whole present plot and setting were discarded, and a new story built around the time theory.

  As for “Lost Legacy”, I should like you to rewrite it according to the following suggestions:

  Chapters I-V. From a literary and dramatic point of view, these are satisfactory as is. However, they do not definitely enough set the period of the story—which is hinted to be in the future, at some time between this year and a dozen years from now. I would like you to definitely “date” it at, say, 1950; to show what material changes have taken place in the life of the nation in the way of new means of transportation, communications, amusements, and so forth. This would mean bringing in some of the “gadgets” which you appear to have intentionally eliminated. I think, though, that it will improve the story; certainly it will make it more palatable to a science fiction audience.

  The hook, as you say, could well be speeded up, but the manner of speeding it can be left up to you.

  Chapter VI, I think, should be excised entirely, if you can present the story told in it in any other way. Under any circumstances, it should be told as briefly as possible—and should not be in diary form. Chapters VII and VIII, being principally exposition, should be cut drastically also.

  What I said of Chapters I to IV applies also to IX and X. Chapter XI need not be changed at all.

  The two final chapters, XII and XIII, need considerable more action and development. This is particularly true of the fight with Brinckley. In the preceding sections of the story, you have hinted at a wide-spread conspiracy of people of Brinckley’s type; would it not have been necessary for Huxley and the others to fight the others, as well as Brinckley?

  My error—I confused Chapter XIII with the latter half of Chapter XII. Only chapter XII requires rewriting; the other makes a very good ending as it stands.

  I hope that the rather condensed suggestions above will be sufficient for you to work on. It seems unwise to be more explicit, though, since a full exposition of my opinions for improving the story could scarcely be achieved by correspondence and a fragmentary one would be sure to be misleading. About all I can do is to give directives as broad as those above, and trust to your ability as an author to fill in the missing detail.

  If you have or encounter in the course of the rewriting any specific questions which you think I might be able to answer, I of course will be glad to try to clear them up.

  Although I should like to see your revised version of “Lost Legacy” as soon as possible, my schedule on long novels is full up to the July issue. I’ll be wanting copy for that around the end of February; that gives you more than three months in which to complete the job.

  Cordially yours,

  Frederik Pohl

  November 25, 1940

  Dear Mr. Pohl,

  Thank you for your courteous and detailed letter of November 19th.

  I am very pleased that you decided to take “Beyond Doubt”, not so much on my own account as for my collaborator. It is going to do her good to see her name in print. I agree with you on “Patterns of Possibility”. I was learning to write at the time; it is not well plotted. Perhaps someday I will make better use of that time theory.

  I am glad that you are able to give me a little more time in revising “Lost Legacy” than I had anticipated. I could turn it out as a rush job right now; since you are in no pressing hurry for it, I shall wait about a month, completing work that I have on hand, then tackle it slowly and leisurely, giving it the loving care that I want to give it.

  I find myself in complete agreement with you on most points as to how to make it take hold properly. In the few cases where your opinions and mine do not agree exactly there is so little difference of opinion that I shall have no trouble in following your wishes. For example I don’t think the story needs gadgets from a dramatic standpoint, but they won’t hurt the story, so gadgets there shall be. As you know from my other work, I can think of gadgets if I need to. Anyhow the readers expect them.

  Let me say that you are the kind of an editor I like to work with—and there are some in the business for whom I can not say that! Not being financially dependent on writing I can permit myself the luxury of having nothing to do with editors whose manner in dealing with writers I do not like. I appreciate very much the serious effort and good taste that you bring to the task of working on a story with a writer.

  Cordially yours,

  Robert A. Heinlein

  January 11th, 1941

  Dear Mr. Pohl,

  Herewith is the baby—”Lost Legacy”.

  I think you will find that I have complied with your editorial instructions as to re-writing it to the letter. However, I am getting it in at this early date in order that additional changes may be made, if you wish them. I wish to turn out an entirely satisfactory piece of work. I have not enclosed postage for return as there is no need to send the manuscript back for such additional changes as may be needed. I can work from the carbon co
py, and your instructions.

  The manuscript is not very pretty now; many of the changes were made on the face of the original manuscript. I had two reasons for that. In the first place I wanted you to be able to see how much had been cut from the overly verbose and tedious chapters, and to see what had been added in the way of action, plot complication, dialogue—and gadgets. I added all the gadgets I thought the story would stand from a literary standpoint, but I can add them indefinitely, if you still want more of them.

  The second reason is that I am a slow typist. Re-copying simply to improve the appearance of an untidy but perfectly legible script is tedious and rather expensive in time wasted.