(Let's look at another aspect of the problem; it is to be hoped, I suppose, that the readers of your list of books will presently graduate to Scribner's trade books for adults. Let us suppose that I manage to keep my readers sealed in cellophane, sterile in vitro-then comes the day when they start reading other Scribner's books. I'll mention a few: Hemingway-with his painful reiteration of the emasculation theme- From Here to Eternity, which needs a glossary of taboo words to explain its taboo situations, Europa and Europa Revisited, which combine communist propaganda with p.o.r.nography in a most curious fashion. I am not panning Scribner's adult list; my point is that the gradient from one list to the other can be ridiculously steep.) STARMANJONES.

March 24, 1953: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein [Scribner's] wants some minor changes in the novel [Starman Jones] and hopes you won't mind making them. These are limited to the first chapter and the last. In the first chapter, [Dalgliesh] says the stepfather sounds like the conventional pulp-paper villain, since he comes in and wants to beat the boy the first night he is married to the boy's mother. ...

For the last chapter, she thinks that some of their readers wouldn't fully understand all that you are saying so briefly in the scene where the hero is back at the farm. How much time-earth time, that is-has elapsed? She also wants a bit more made of the fines, or whatever way the hero pays for the fact that he started out as a liar. It might help here if the powers that be keep the hero as an astrographer (sic) . . . because he had the moral fiber to admit his error and since then acted in every way as a man.

These aren't serious and I hope you won't mind making them.

March 25, 1953: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Now, about .the changes Miss Dalgliesh wants: I think that it is necessary that [she] write directly to me, explaining in detail what changes she wants and why and specifically what she wants done to accomplish those changes. Offhand, she certainly has not asked for much; nevertheless, on the basis of what you have relayed to me, I am not convinced that the changes are either necessary or desirable.

... I don't say that I won't make this change [i.e., the "stepfather" change], but I do say that I am going to need a h.e.l.luva lot of convincing. . . In my opinion it would badly damage the dramatic timing of the story to make this change. What I have now accomplished in six pages would, with the proposed revision, require tacking on a couple of chapters, change the opening from fast to very slow, and in particular (this is what I hate most) change the crisis in the boy's life from a dramatic case of having the rug jerked out from under him in a matter of minutes into a situation in which he simply becomes increasingly annoyed with an unpleasant situation.

The suggested revisions in the ending are not difficult, and the last chapter as I wrote it is certainly open to criticism. But (as usual!) I have comments. I kept that last chapter short because the story actually ends with the next to the last chapter, i.e., the character change is complete.

THE STAR BEAST.

August 27, 1953: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame ... the new boys' book [The Star Beast] is, for the present, going nicely. I've gotten no farther than the first chapter, but that puts me over the worst hump. I had a pretty well worked out story with a juicy new extraterrestrial character but, while I thought it could be written and sold, I was not satisfied with the plot line. Things were in too low key, not enough action and not enough conflict. Ginny came up with a new way to start the story, which I believe has fixed that difficulty. In any case, I am writing it.

December 21, 1953: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein (Sent to Sydney, Australia) Scribner's wants new t.i.tle for book, Lummox (original t.i.tle) still on stands as t.i.tle of another book. Or a subt.i.tle. Hopes this won't interfere with elbow-bending.

March 11, 1954: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein (Sent to Honolulu, Hawaii) In conference with [Scribner's] about new book. Idea that children can divorce parents horrifies her. It would be bad for book club sales. But she loved book, and this is only complaint.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Bla.s.singame allowed changes (see letter of October 8, 1954).

October 8, 1954: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame As soon as I can get the travel book [Tramp Royal] out of the way I will start on a novel. It should be my annual boys'

novel, but I may make it an adult novel instead. I am finding the nonsense connected with juveniles increasingly irksome. The latest is a hoorah over Star Beast which has occupied much too much of my time lately. It was not a business matter, so I did not bother you with it while it was going on-but it has left an extremely bad taste in my mouth and made me quite reluctant to continue the series with Scribner's. I have a full file on it but a brief summary will be enough to show my viewpoint: A Mr. Learned T. Bulman, reviewing it for the Library Journal, wrote Miss Dalgliesh a letter saying that I had "destroyed" the book by including the notion that children might be' 'divorced'' from unsatisfactory parents through court action and placed in the hands of guardians; Mr. Bulman in effect demanded that the book be withdrawn and revised, under pain of being lambasted in the Library Journal.

(The man did not even seem to realize that the procedure referred to in my story was a legal and accepted part of our own social structure; the only new element lay in calling such a court action a "divorce.") You will remember that Miss Dalgliesh had qualms about this point and got permission from you to revise as she saw fit during my absence. The published version is as she revised it. But, instead of answering Mr. Bulman and standing up for the book as she edited and published it, she conceded his whole case and tossed it in my lap-this, from her point of view, const.i.tutes "defending" me.

I concede that she is a nice person in many ways, that she is a good editor and highly respected, and that she sells books to libraries. I readily concede that I might be much worse off with another juveniles editor. But what irks me are the very conditions of writing for kids at the present time. My books do not cause juvenile delinquency; I consider it irrelevant that horror comics and crime television (may possibly) do so. Obviously, the juvenile delinquency in some New York City public schools is disgraceful and dangerous-but to tackle the matter by searching for minute flaws in teenage trade books strikes me as silly and as inappropriate as treating cancer with hair tonic.

Yet this fluff-picking goes on with unhumorous zeal. Mr.

Bulman wrote to me that he did not object to the idea of "divorce" for unfortunate children in itself, but that one of the characters was "flippant." This epitomizes the nature of the objections; these watchful guardians of youthful morals do not want live characters, they want plaster saints who never do anything naughty and who are always respectful toward all the shibboleths and taboos of our present-day, Heaven-ordained tribal customs. I could write such books, of course-but the kids would not read them.

I feel that I am caught in a squeeze between the really difficult job of being more entertaining than a comic book or a TV show and the impossible task of doing the first while pleasing a bunch of carping elders whose whims and prejudices I am unable to antic.i.p.ate. I realize that there is no way to get rid of these pipsqueak arbiters of morals and good taste-but I would prefer to think that I had the backing of my editor once said editor approved the final form of a book. I do not feel that I have it from Miss Dalgliesh.

In the first place, she seems to me to be overpower-ingly anxious to appease these knotheads, and for reasons pragmatic rather than moral, i.e., she has told me repeatedly that she did not herself do this and that [it was done] because of librarians and teachers. I always followed her advice, although often most reluctantly as it seemed to me that the censoring was often trivial and silly-like calling a leg a "limb" so as not to shock dear old Aunt Mamie. I knew that the changes meant nothing at all in re the protecting of the morals of children-but I went along with her in such matters because it was represented as pragmatic economic necessity.

But when appeas.e.m.e.nt goes so far as to disavow me and my works instead of standing up for me, I get really burned up! This Bulman wrote to her, not to me. I think she should have told him politely to go to h.e.l.l, i.e., that we were doing the best we could and that if he didnot like it, it was unfortunate but we could not please everyone all the time. I think, too, that she could have told him that Scribner's published the book, believed in it, and stood behind it. I do not expect from her Olympian aloofness when the fight starts; I expect her to be partisan-on my side. She's my editor-and this attack comes from the outside directed at our joint production.

Instead she seems to follow the policy that "the customer is always right"-she promptly agreed with Bulman in his criticism and claimed (quite incorrectly) that the stuff he objected to had stayed in the book over her protests at my insistence. Then she "defended" me by making a mild plea for freedom of expression.

I do not know as yet whether I will do another juvenile book or not. If I decide to do another one, I do not know that I wish it to be submitted to Scribner's. I have taken great pride in being a Scribner's author, but that pride is all gone now that I have discovered that they are not proud of me.

I've had bids from other editors for my juveniles, one from a major house only two weeks ago. In the past I have given these overtures a polite no. Possibly I could now find an editor who takes a strong stand against this sort of nonsense ... or possibly not. Miss Dalgliesh tells me that I will find that she is more broad-minded than most of the other juveniles editors, and she may well be right. This knuckling under to petty minds may be a common practice in the trade.

I've taken great pride in these juveniles. It seemed to me a worthwhile accomplishment to write wholesome stories which were able to compete with the lurid excitements of comic books. But I am really very weary of being required to wipe my feet and straighten my tie before being allowed in the house by those who stand between me and my juvenile readers. I am rather strongly inclined to let Mr. Bulman and his ilk write their own adventure stories for boys, since they know exactly how it should be done-and Miss Dalgliesh can edit them.

I have neglected adult writing in order never to miss getting my annual boys' books in on time . . . which has possibly been a mistake. But the response to the boys'

series has been so warm that I have given them priority. But right now I am undecided whether to go ahead with them, or to drop them and concentrate on adult novels, where I can say what I think and treat any subject I please without being hara.s.sed by captious chaperones.

October 15, 1954: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein You're not in as much of a squeeze as you think. We'll have to see whether the Library Journal lambastes you, and sales. If sales stay up, the squeeze wasn't tight enough to hurt.

TUNNEL IN THE SKY.

October 25, 1954: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame I am starting a novel [Tunnel in the Sky} as soon as I finish this letter. That is to say, that I start walking up and down and swearing at the cat; I should start the first chapter any time between midnight tonight and two weeks from now.

Look, I did write to [Learned T.] Bulman just once and no more-I have not answered his answer and do not intend to. The thing that made writing to Bulman so extremely difficult and time wasting was that (Scribner's) had written to him also, conceding all of his objections, but telling him that she was writing to me and that I would explain where I stood. That is what made it so d.a.m.n difficult-I have to write to him and refute his nonsense without calling her a prevaricator ... or worse.

So far as I am concerned I have dropped the matter, do not intend to write to him again, and have not answered her last letter about it. But it is not out of my mind, as I feel equally strongly impelled to write another boys' book and not to write one. I like that series, am proud of it, and it has paid well, but I have a very sour taste about my relations with Scribner's. I agree that Miss Dalgliesh must sell books and should stay on as good terms with librarians as possible, but it does not strike me as good business to kowtow to everything that any librarian wants.

December 11, 1954: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Just a quick report- I finished boys' book Tunnel in the Sky at 3 A.M. today Must be cut and retyped; ms. should be in your hands by end of January.

December 31, 1954: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Schoolhouse in the Sky [Tunnel in the Sky] went out to be smooth-typed yesterday. I expect to have it in Miss Dalgliesh's hands by 26 January, as requested.

January 24, 1955: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Herewith are the table of contents and the word count on Schoolhouse in the Sky [Tunnel in the Sky]; they were squeezed out yesterday in catching an air express dispatch in order to put the first copy in Miss Dalgliesh's hands as early as possible. ... It is not exactly a juvenile, although I've kept it cleaned up so that it can pa.s.s as a juvenile. It is not the ordinary run of science fiction, either. I don't know what it is ... well, it's a story.

I hope this reaches you before you have read it, because I want your expert help on one feature. The story has quite a lot of hunting in it. As you know, I know very little about hunting-but I am strongly aware of how easily one can lose the reader through small mistakes that break empathy. If you find anything which you feel does not ring true, will you please point it out to me and I will rewrite as directed to correct the fault.

February 1, 1955: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame I am surprised and pleased to hear that you think Schoolhouse [Tunnel in the Sky] may have slick possibilities. I am still more surprised that you pa.s.sed the hunting scenes without suggesting changes. (I would be most happy to make such changes.) I did not use a central nonhuman character in this book because the book is filled with the killing of animals ... all perfectly legitimate, of course, but I was afraid of questionable empathy if I let this story shift at any point to a nonhuman viewpoint in view of the necessity of showing them killing for meat. In my next one I will no doubt have a successor to Willis, Lummox, etc.

In the meantime, I have been hung up for a solid week on the new adult novel. It is the Man-from-Mars idea that I first talked about several years ago. It is an idea as difficult as it is strong and one I have had trouble with twice before. If I don't break the logjam soon I'll put it aside and write a different novel. I am not especially distressed about it; if I don't whip it this time, I will some other time, and I expect to deliver an adult novel some time early this year, either this one or another one.

TIME FOR THE STARS.

December 13, 1955: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame I have finished the new Scribner's book, Time for the Stars, and it is today being started by the typist. I expect to send you ms. in January, which should be plenty of time to try to sell serial rights.

Please do not tell Miss Dalgliesh I have finished it, or she will want to see it early-and I don't want her to have any more time to second-guess than her schedule requires. If she asks about it, please tell her that you understand I have it in process and that you are sure that I will be on time as usual ... all of which is the literal truth.

March 9, 1956: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Now, about Time for the Stars. I don't feel strongly about it at all. If [Dalgliesh] wants to cut some of the opening, she is welcome to do so. If she prefers to have me cut it, tell her to send the chapters she wants cut back to me with specific instructions as to just what parts she wants eliminated and just how many words she wants taken out. Or she can do it herself, if she prefers.

I don't understand the criticism about age group appeal. She complained that I had lost them the Armed Services market in Rolling Stones by making the twins two years under draft age when the story opened, even though they were eighteen when the story closed. So in this story I very carefully made the boy just graduating from high school with an implied age of eighteen-and he is too old, she tells me.

Is Stover at Yale no good for high school kids just because the hero is old enough to be in college?

I can make my central character any age she wants at the opening of the story. But it can only be one age. If she will tell me what age she thinks is best for the market, I can tailor the central character of my next book to fit. But I can't make him simultaneously of draft age and of junior high school age. Nor can I keep him from growing up as the story progresses without limiting myself to a simple action story spanning not more than a few weeks. This is difficult to do in s.p.a.ce-travel stories-but I can do it if she wants it.

CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY.

December 11, 1956: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame I have completed a draft of the next novel [Citizen of the Galaxy] intended for Scribner's. The present t.i.tle is The Chains and the Stars. It ran considerably too long, so I have two or three weeks of cutting to do on it. I hope to have the chewed- up copy in the hands of a typist by Christmas, which should enable me to place a copy of it for possible serial sale in your hands around the middle of January. The Scribner's copy will meet Miss Dalgliesh's deadline (what date this year?), but I will send it later, as I want to cut and slant the serial (adult) version slightly differently" from the Scribner's (juvenile) version. As usual, it is an ambivalent story, actually adult in nature but concerning a boy and with no s.e.x in it that even Great Aunt Agatha could object to. But I am going to try this time to improve it a little for each market with some changes in emphasis.

February 8, 1957: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein Alice Dalgliesh says Citizen Robert's best story to date.

February 28, 1957: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein No more cutting on Citizen-it's a tight story, more can't be taken out. Miss Dalgliesh wants one very small cut, about organized religion.

May 17, 1957: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Thanks for the suggestion about submitting plots for approval to Miss Dalgliesh, but we tried that once or twice and it just caused trouble; she approved the plots in outline but not when she saw the story, even though I had stuck to the plot line. This caused the biggest ha.s.sles I've had with her, over Red Planet. . . which has merely turned out to be her biggest seller of the list, even though I refused all of the changes she wanted where they differed from the approved plot. No, if I ever submit to her another story, it will be sight unseen till then and take it or leave it. I know I have not made clear why two changes, admittedly easy and unimportant, threw me into a spin and lost me ten days working time, c.u.m much anguish. I don't know that I can explain it, but it is true. Part of the reason lies in that Chicago lecture of mine you read recently: [Mark Reinsberg arranged this as a seminar of four lectures, which were published as The Science Fiction Novel by Advent Publishers]. I necessarily write science fiction by one theory, the theory of extrapolation and change-but once it reaches the editor (in this case) it is tested by an older theory, the notion that this our culture is essentially perfect and I must not tinker with any part of it which is dear to any possible critic who may see the story. These things have now added up to the point where I feel unable to continue. I may write another. I don't know yet. I can't until some of the depression wears off. But I don't know how to tell her that I probably won't deliver the story she is expecting-I've tried six or eight times, wasted many days, and all the ways I can express it either sound rude or inadequate. I know this sounds silly, but it is true.

HAVE s.p.a.cE SUIT-WILL TRAVEL.

November 8, 1957: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Here are three copies of my new novel for Scribner's Have s.p.a.ce Suit-Will Travel. They are intended (I hope) for trade book, American serial, and British serial.

November 19, 1957: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein Have s.p.a.ce Suit-Will Travel is a fine story ... enjoyed all of it.

December 6, 1957: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein Scribner's enthusiastic about the book.

CHAPTER IV.

THE LAST OF THE JUVENILES.

STARSHIP TROOPERS.

November 22, 1958: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame I finished a draft of a novel, working t.i.tle Sky Soldier, at 5:20 this morning; I will start patching its solecisms and such on Monday. It won't have to be cut other than for dramatic reasons, as the draft runs about 60,000 words-proving that I can write a novel without forcing the publisher either to jack up the price or use smaller type ... a point on which you may have entertained legitimate doubts.

You will receive the ms. some time after the first of the year; my typist will do it during her Christmas vacation. Miss Dalgliesh has inquired as to whether I intended to submit a book; I have admitted that I have-but I have not admitted that it has been written. I don't want her to see this until the last possible moment (I have given her only the t.i.tle and theme: a boy serving his military service in the future). I want to give her the least possible time to have nervous-Nellie second thoughts about it ... because I am not going to change it to suit her.

January 10, 1959: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Earlier today we mailed you two copies of Starship Soldier . . . since I antic.i.p.ate that [Dalgliesh] is not going to like parts of this book, I might as well get the row over with ... It is not a juvenile; it is an adult novel about an eighteen-year-old boy. I have so written it, omitting all cleavage and bed games, such that Miss Dal-gliesh can offer it in the same list in which she has my other books, but nevertheless it is not a juvenile adventure story. Instead I have followed my own theory that intelligent youngsters are in fact more interested in weighty matters than their parents usually are.

January 21, 1959: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein Star ship Soldier enjoyed. Except that there were places where action stopped and author went in for lecturing.

EDITOR'S NOTE Starship Soldier, later Starship Troopers, was turned down by the entire Scribner's editorial board.

Lurton called and advised me; Robert was still asleep. I had to tell him.

As a matter of fact, Lurton was certain that he could place the book with another publisher. Walter Minton, president of G. P. Putnam 's Sons, later said that one of his editors told him that there was a Heinlein juvenile available. Walter instructed the editor, ' 'Grab it.''

Miss Dalgliesh made the following suggestions about the book: 1. use it only as an adult serial 2. sell it elsewhere 3. put it away for a while The Scribner's connection had ended; with it, the annual quarrels over what was suitable for juvenile reading. After Starship Troopers was published, Robert wrote only one more juvenile-Podkayne of Mars.

February 19, 1959: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame ... I think I have handed you a less salable item than most in this ms. and I will be happy indeed to place it with Mills [Robert P., editor of F&SF magazine] and with any major trade book house-for which purpose I am willing to rewrite, revise, cut, or expand to any extent necessary. From a story standpoint, I am now convinced that this is not my best work; I intend to sweat and make it so. (But, privately to you, revision will be literary revision; I will not let even the ghost of Horace Greeley order me to revise my ideas to fit popular prejudice-I'll hike up the story but the ideas will remain intact.) "Ep-pur si muove!" I stand by my heresies. But I have no intention of saying this to an editor quite so bluntly; I'll simply improve the story as story until he will pa.s.s it.

March 23, 1959: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Now to the piece de resistance, the Putnam contract for Starship Soldier: First, my very warmest thanks to you for your unsparing efforts on this ms. I know that you thought it was weak (and so do I ... and I intend to try to repair the weaknesses); nevertheless, you sold the serial rights to the leading specialty magazine and trade book right to a major trade house. My morale is greatly bucked up thereby.

I've been rather "shook up" over this ms. . . . The book should be better than it is; I think I can improve it. I certainly will try to, working closely with an editor. Who will be my editor at Putnam?

September 19, 1960: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame . . . However, the Scribner's angle is a special case. Yes, I do know that Miss Dalgliesh is no longer there. But my irk is not alone at her; it includes Mr. Scribner himself. I feel that I was treated in a very shabby fashion, and I regard him as in part responsible and do not wish to place any more stories with his firm. Scribner's had published twelve of my books and every single one of them made a profit for them and each one is still making money for them. At one time Miss Dalgliesh told me that my books had kept her department out of the red.

So I offer a thirteenth book . . . and it is turned down with a brisk little note which might as well have been a , printed rejection slip, for it was just as cold and just as informative.

I then found it necessary to write to [George McC] to find out what the score was. He told me that it had been a joint action, in which several of the editors had read my ms-including Mr. Scribner-and that Scribner himself had joined in rejecting it.

Based on my royalty records I conjecture that my books have netted for Mr. Scribner something between $50,000 and $100,000 (and grossed a great deal more). They have been absolutely certain money-from-home for his firm . . . and still are. Yet after years and years of a highly profitable a.s.sociation, Mr. Scribner let me be "fired" with less ceremony than he would use in firing his office boy . . . not a word out of him, not even a hint that he gave a d.a.m.n whether I stayed with them or not. I submit that this is rudeness, unpardonable in view of the long a.s.sociation.

Writers hear a lot of prattle about how speculative the trade book business is and how prestige houses (such as Scribner's) will publish a book which might lose money because the author should be encouraged-and hope to make it up on the rest of their list. Well, I seem to be part of the "rest of their list," the part that makes up their losses-for I certainly did not appear to be a writer they were willing to take even a little chance on, when it came to scratch. I was simply dumped.

Furthermore, the ms. couldn't have been bad enough to justify dumping me in view of the fact that three other editors bought it... and then it went on to win the Hugo [Award] for [1959]. (Besides that, I notice that, despite ---'s earlier worries, the trade book sold 5,000 copies in the first two and a half months . . . and now he tells us that sales are picking up.) It seems to me that, if the pious c.r.a.p they hand out about "taking a chance" on authors actually meant anything, Mr. Scribner himself would have said to his editorial board: "Maybe this isn't the best book Mr. Heinlein has ever done-possibly it will even flop and we'll lose a little money on him this time. But his books have been steady sellers in the past and we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps with a little revision it will be more acceptable; if you don't want to write to him about revisions, let me look over the ms. again and I will write to him . . . but we can't simply reject the book out of hand. Mr. Heinlein is part of the Scribner's family and has been for years."

Too G.o.dd.a.m.ned much to expect, I suppose. At least that was not the way he handled it.

Lurton, it seems to me that, with any other successful writer on their list, Scribner's would have published that book-perhaps with revisions and perhaps not as a juvenile-but they would have published it. But if Mr. Scribner felt that he simply could not publish it, I think the circ.u.mstances called for a note, a letter, a measure of polite discussion, from the boss to me . ." . a minimum of formal politeness.

I did not receive that minimum. I think Mr. Scribner treated me with extreme rudeness ... so I don't want to work for him. Lurton, I have elaborated this matter because, in several letters lately, you have pointed out that the new juvenile editor at Scribner's is anxious ' 'to welcome me back." So I have explained why I am not going back. I have nothing against the lady who now has that department-but the firm is still Mr. Scribner's. If the action had been taken by Miss Dalgliesh alone- But it was not; when I got tossed out, Mr. Scribner in person had me by the scruff of the neck and took part in the tossing, without even a formal word of regret.

Under the circ.u.mstances I'll take my business farther up the street. Or across the street. But I won't be kicked twice.

PODKAYNE OF MARS.

March 8, 1962: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heiniein Enjoyed all of Podkayne Fries-except ending. She was such a sweet kid that I hated for you to kill her. That is the Heinlein touch-tell Ginny to beware. It's a good story.

March 10, 1962: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Is Poddy a juvenile? I didn't think of it as such and I suggest that it violates numerous taboos for the juvenile market. It seems to me that it is what the Swedes call a "cadet" book-upper teenage, plus such adults and juveniles as may enjoy it-and the American trade book market does not recognize such a category. But possibly it might be well to let [Putnam] have this story at once and see what happens.

Lurton, for several years now I have been writing just stories, with no eye on the market, and have been writing them with no criterion save the fixed belief that a story which interests me, and the solution of which satisfies me, will interest and satisfy a sufficient percentage of readers to make the story commercially usable. Maybe I'm wrong about this-maybe I should study the market and try like h.e.l.l to tailor something which fits the current styles. But it seems to me that, if I am to turn out work of (fairly) permanent value, my own taste (checked by yours and by Ginny's) is what I must follow. Of course, this may result in my losing the market entirely-but I hope that it will result in better stories than if I tried to compound the "mixture as before."

I know that the ending of Poddy comes as rather a shock. However, that is the ending that seemed to fit-to me. The story follows a definite progression: a girl child with no -worries at all and a preposterous ambition . . . then, step by step, she grows up and discovers that the real world is more complex and not nearly as sweet as she had thought . . . and that the only basic standard for an adult is the welfare of the young.

Oh, I could revise that last chapter to a "happy" ending in about two hours-let Poddy live through it, injured but promised a full recovery and with the implication that she will eventually marry this rich and handsome bloke who can take her with him to the stars . . . and still give her brat kid brother a comeuppance and his lumps (and it is possible that I will at least consider doing this if no editor will risk publishing it as it is). But I don't want to do this; I think it would ruin the story-something like revising Romeo and Juliet to let the young lovers "live happily ever after.''

But it took the deaths of Romeo and Juliet to show the families Montague and Capulet what d.a.m.ned fools they were being. Poddy's death (it seems to me) is similarly indispensable to this story. The true tragedy in this story lies in the character of the mother, the highly successful career woman who wouldn't take time to raise her own kids-and thereby let her son grow up an infantile monster, no real part of the human race and indifferent to the wellbeing of others . . . until the death of his sister, under circ.u.mstances which lay on him a guilt he can never shake off, gives some prospect that he is now going to grow up.

I could state that the theme of the story is that death is the only destination for all of us and that the only long-range hope for any adult lies in the young-and that this double realization const.i.tutes growing up, ceasing to be a child and putting away childish things. But I can't say it that baldly, not in fiction, and it seemed to me that I needed Poddy's death to say it at all. If Poddy gets to have her cake and eat it too (both marriage and star-roving), if that little monster, her brother, gets off unscathed to continue his clever but asocial career, if their mother gets away with neglecting her children's rearing without having it backfire on her-then the story is just a series of mildly adventurous incidents, strung together.

March 23, 1962: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame I understand and appreciate, I think, your remarks about Cezanne and his black outlines-but this is an endless problem for me with no easy solution. If I preach overtly, I get complaints from Ginny, you, the editor, and in time the readers . . . and I'm all too p.r.o.ne to preach. In this book, Poddy, I'm limited by what Poddy herself would say-which is perhaps just as well!!!

May 9, 1962: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Please tell Peter Israel of Putnam's that I will tackle the revision he wants very shortly, say about the first of the week. I have one other job to finish first. I still have strong doubts about the artistic and dramatic necessity of a happy ending on this story-but I'll do my d.a.m.ndest.

May 20, 1962: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Bla.s.singame Neither editor liked my t.i.tle and I did not [like] either of their suggestions. I have suggested to Pohl [Frederik Pohl, editor of If Podkayne of Mars, which suits him. If it does not suit Mr. Israel I hope that he will suggest one which all three of us can agree on, as I prefer to have magazine, version and book carry the same t.i.tle if possible.

The new kittens are two weeks old and fat and healthy. A hawk or an owl got Ginny's ducks.

May 25, 1962: Lurton Bla.s.singame to Robert A. Heinlein Beautiful job on the revision.

CHAPTER V.

* '; THE BEST LAID PLANS.