Well, I didn't and I won't-but that is how I feel and it is the literal truth; Gold is turning out a good magazine, but as a writer he was never anything but a run-of-the-mill hack. This whole matter no doubt sounds like a tempest in a teapot, particularly as Gold did not change the story line but merely monkeyed with dialog, rephrased sentences and such-in short, edited the style. Look, Lurton, my plots are never novel, I am not an originator of brand-new and wonderful ideas the way H. G. Wells was; my reputation rests almost solely on how I tell a story...my individual style. It is almost my entire stock in trade.
Without changing the plot in the least, without changing the manuscript in any fashion that could be detected by someone else without side-by-side comparison, Gold has restyled the copy in hundreds of places from my style to his style. It would be very difficult to show how he has damaged the story, but in my opinion he has changed a story-with-a-moth-eaten-plot amusingly told into a story-with-a-moth-eaten-plot poorly told. This is my first serial appearance in a long time; his changes will not make it easier to get top rates for my next such appearance. The cash customers won't know what is wrong, but they will have the feeling of being let down-not quite "first-rate Heinlein."
I'll cite just one example out of hundreds: At one point I have a nurse say, "Eat it, or I'll rub it in your hair."
Gold changes this to, "Eat it, or you'll get it through a tube."
See the difference? My phrasing is mildly (very mildly) humorous. It conjures up a picture of a nurse who maintains discipline by cajolery, by the light touch, the joking remark. Gold's phrasing is as flatfooted and unsmiling as an order from a hard-boiled top sergeant.
There are both sorts of nurses, admitted. But the entire characterization of this nurse (Doris Marden) had been consistent as the sort of a person who kidded her patients into cooperation (modeled after a nurse who attended me at Jefferson Medical); with one phrase Gold louses up the characterization and turns her into the top-sergeant type.
In another place I describe the heroine as "lean"; Gold changes it to "slender" -- good Lord, heroines have always been "slender"; it's a cliche". I used "lean" on purpose, to give her some reality, make her a touch different.
You see? All little things, but hundreds of them. I can't prove that the story is spoiled. Maybe it isn't, but I know that it is filled with stylisms that never would have come out of my typewriter. You might try the magazine version yourself without checking for the changes, but simply checking to see if it tastes the way it did the first time you read it.
All this is spilt milk except (a) the last installment may not yet be set in type, (b) it may be possible to prevent it from happening in the future. On the first point, the reader's impression of the story depends largely on how he feels when he finishes the story; if Gold can be pushed into returning to the version he bought for the third installment, the louse-up of the first and second installments won't matter too much. Could you talk tough to him, point out that it has been repeatedly adjudicated that mere purchase of the right to publish does not give to him the right to change copy under my byline and that he must print as written, or run the risk of a lawsuit? Or could you kid him out of it, convince him that he should do it to cater to my prima-donna feelings? On point (b) you can either reach an understanding now, or take it up whenever we again submit copy to him, but he must clearly understand and (I think) agree in writing that all changes must be made before the sale is completed; once sold the entire ms. is "stet" and must remain so.
Hell's bells, I don't mind the few little changes that most editors make and I don't mind a reasonable amount of revising done by me to editorial order, but this guy has monkeyed with every page.
This is not artistic temperament talking, Lurton-had it been I would simply have blasted at him in person. I am seriously concerned with the business aspects-a strong belief that the property has been damaged commercially and that it will affect the market value of future properties.
I've started fiddling with a new story.
September 24, 1951: Lurton Blassingame to Robert A. Heinlein
Gold tells me that he has written you a letter of apology for his heavy hand on your story, and promises that, though he edits all material which comes his way, from now on yours will be inviolate.
THE DOOR INTO SUMMER
February 2, 1956: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Blassingame
I am 104 ms. pp. into a new novel, hopefully intended for the so-called adult trade. It is giving me chronic headaches and chronic insomnia and I wonder why I ever entered the silly business-but if I hold up physically, The Door into Summer should be finished in draft this month and finished in smooth around the end of March. Maybe.
We have a foot of snow on the ground, pheasants all over the place, and Pixie hates it. He blames Ginny.
May 31, 1956: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Blassingame
Re synopses for Door into Summer. I write my own synopses only when the editor twists my arm and demands it-which is usually. If Boucher [the editor of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction] is willing to do them himself, I'll be delighted; he's more literate than I am anyhow.
DOUBLE STAR
March 23, 1955: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Blassingame
I am aware that I should have written to you several days ago, but I trust you will forgive me when I say that I have completed the novel I was working on. Its present title is Star Role {Double Star], it runs about 55,000 words, and is intended for an adult audience. (No sexy scenes, however, and no taboo monosyllables-just an occasional damn or hell, and I may even take those out. The book should be suitable for the kids who will read it anyway.)
I held down the length in the belief that serial sale would be easier; I hope that this one will finally crack Colliers, the Post, or some other adult and not-SF-specialized market. I figure that, costs being what they are, a short length will make it more attractive for both trade book and pocket books as well.
I don't know whether you should advise Doubleday or not. I like [Walter] Bradbury but I do not like the screwy "Science
Fiction Book Club" aspect of their contract; they sold a lot of copies of my books with them and I got very little out of it -- I do not regard two and a half cents per copy as a good royalty on a hardcover edition put close on the heels of the trade book. Since Bradbury turned down the travel book, we are no longer under option to Doubleday; perhaps this would be a good time to look into the Ballantine deal if it is still being offered.
In any case, I have an adult novel available for book and serial.
April 21, 1955: Lurton Blassingame to Robert A. Heinlein
Congratulations on a good novel. Enjoyed all of Double Star; wished it longer. No slow spots.
June 3, 1955: Lurton Blassingame to Robert A. Heinlein
The Post thought your novel was excellent and the only reason they did not buy it as a serial was that they do not want to devote that much space to science fiction. Campbell is buying it, to run in February, March, and April issues. Doubleday to bring it out in March.
GLORY ROAD
May 9, 1962: Robert A. Heinlein to Lurton Blassingame
I have not written for some time because I have been writing that new novel, now completed: Glory Road, 409 ms. pages, about 105,000 words. I am now revising it for my typist and will cut it a little but not much. You will have it not sooner than two months from now as my typist does my work as "moonlighting," as she has a daytime job. This is an adult market story with enough sex in it to give heart failure to those who complained about Stranger. It is fantasy verging on SF.