A question for Mr. Moorcock, if he has the time and feels inclined to comment.
Perdix and I were discussing the historical role of editors in the sf magazines of the past. I find myself wondering to what extent you "worked" with submitters of work to New Worlds, and to what extent you simply filtered submissions to find good work.
If anecdotal evidence is to be believed, editors such as H. L. Gold and to a lesser extent Boucher and Pohl could be very demanding about asking for revisions if they felt there were technical flaws or omissions in a potentially-publishable story. I've heard similar stories about Silverberg for New Dimensions and Terry Carr for Universe. I've heard a LOT of things about Alice K. Turner, formerly at Playboy fiction desk.
The question of detail: did you often engage in such give-and-take / requests for revision with prospective submissions to New Worlds? Or did you have sufficient "flawless" material at all times to be permitted the luxury of rejecting "almost" acceptable work?
Just curious. I read New Worlds back in the '60s and (in the quarterly format) the early '70s, and the work was consistently of high quality, but I heard little about your editorial practices when it came to these matters. It goes without saying that you rejected work you found unsuitable for the purposes of your magazine.
Thanks for any illumination.
LSN
Perdix and I were discussing the historical role of editors in the sf magazines of the past. I find myself wondering to what extent you "worked" with submitters of work to New Worlds, and to what extent you simply filtered submissions to find good work.
If anecdotal evidence is to be believed, editors such as H. L. Gold and to a lesser extent Boucher and Pohl could be very demanding about asking for revisions if they felt there were technical flaws or omissions in a potentially-publishable story. I've heard similar stories about Silverberg for New Dimensions and Terry Carr for Universe. I've heard a LOT of things about Alice K. Turner, formerly at Playboy fiction desk.
The question of detail: did you often engage in such give-and-take / requests for revision with prospective submissions to New Worlds? Or did you have sufficient "flawless" material at all times to be permitted the luxury of rejecting "almost" acceptable work?
Just curious. I read New Worlds back in the '60s and (in the quarterly format) the early '70s, and the work was consistently of high quality, but I heard little about your editorial practices when it came to these matters. It goes without saying that you rejected work you found unsuitable for the purposes of your magazine.
Thanks for any illumination.
LSN
Comment