IN 1937 JOHN W. CAMPBELL became editor of ASTOUNDING SCIENCE-FICTION. Earlier in that year the previous editor, F. Orlin Tremaine, printed an obscure story entitled "The Isolinguals" by a new author named L. Sprague de Camp.

Under Campbell's editorship the name de Camp became a byword with science fiction fans as did a host of new names unearthed by Campbell in the next three years. Lester del Rey, A. E. van Vogt, Theodore Sturgeon, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, Anthony Boucher, Cleve Cartmill, L. Ron Hubbard, Fritz Leiber Jr., Frederic Brown, a collection of names to conjure with; all made their debut under the Campbell auspices during this period. One or two cracked other markets first, like Asimov, or came to science-fiction, like Hubbard and de Camp, after some success in other pulp fields but, despite this, the initial push to fame in every case can be laid to Campbell's door.

These names still tend to dominate the field, but not to the extent they did ten years ago. The men are still skilled writers but the fresh approach seems gone from the works of de Camp, del Rey, and Cartmill. Van Vogt and Hubbard both abandoned writing for the dianetics will-o-the-wisp. Van Vogt will perhaps return, and this writer regards Hubbard as no loss, despite his still vocal coterie of loyal readers.

Sturgeon devotes his time to FORTUNE magazine, and with the sort of salaries Henry Luce is reputed to pay, who can blame him? Even for the top writers, writing as a career tends to be an uncertain poorly-paid business. Others have also found greener pastures. Heinlein's time has been devoted, during the past several years, to writing for the slicks (and most of the result is of undistinguished quality compared with his 1939-1942 output), turning out juveniles on an assembly line basis, and plucking the fruits of the Hollywood vineyard. His two recent stories in GALAXY give rise to the hope that we may get some more of the old Heinlein who wrote "Universe", "Waldo", "Magic, Inc.", and half the other best remembered tales of ten years ago.

Frederick Brown has become the fair-headed boy of the detective field. As a full-time writer, Brown must write what pays the bacon bills best and that is his highly popular series of 'tec novels. His occasional sf and fantasy yarns are labors of love produced while playing hookey from his mystery tasks.

Boucher has become an editor, and perhaps his contribution as editor of one of the top three magazines of the field is more valuable than his output as one of the top twenty writers.

Since winding up his two memorable series, the "Foundation" and "Robotics" series, Asimov's output has been very spotty as to quality. He's attempted another series which presumably bridges between the two, making a future history of almost his entire output. But some of the results, most notably "Tyrann", have been downright distressing, and none are the equal of the finest stories in his first two series.

Of all the men mentioned, only Fritz Leiber (full time editor of a scientific journal) has managed to maintain both the quantity and quality of his old-time output.

But Leiber, with spasmodic help from Sturgeon, Heinlein, etc. cannot maintain the quality of science fiction alone. And yet most fans agree that the general level of science-fiction is slowly rising over the years.

Which is rather a long introduction to the actual subject of this piece, an attempt to identify the Heinleins and van Vogts of today.

Since the advent of the above-mentioned writers only one other important name has been developed; Ray Bradbury, who came up like thunder in the mid-40's. But even Bradbury (the one person who has been able to make writing science-fiction pay off in big money) has more or less deserted us for better paying markets and frequent ventures into non-fantasy writing. Since mid-1950 Bradbury has appeared only in magazines which admittedly pay much higher than average rates and who advertise a willingness to really splurge to get the big names. He has had two stories in GALAXY, one in Marvel, and one in FANTASTIC. (OTHER WORLDS and IMAGINATION also printed one each during that period but these were more in the nature of reprints, appearing simultaneously or a trifle later than book publication.

I think I am safe in saying that we don't have the percentage of truly great stf classics today that were abundant in Campbell's pages ten years ago. The rising level of quality is due primarily to the fact that there are far fewer really poor written stories appearing and a great many more which rate well-above average.

But we are getting some stories which compare favorably with the previous decades and perhaps a few trends can be detected.

If asked to name the most outstanding stories by a new writer in the last five years, three would pop instantly into my mind. And all were written by women. Judith Merril's "That Only a Mother", Wilmar Shiras' "In Hiding", and Katherine MacLean's "Incommunicado". But neither Merril nor Shiras was able to duplicate their original feats, and Miss MacLean produced only one other story of similar power, "Contagion".

But who is writing today's outstanding stories? Leiber gets a nice slice of the credit, as does Damon Knight. Knight is a highly spotty writer who has never developed too strong a following as a result. Some of his stories are the purest hack. He has turned out two unforgettable yarns "Not With a Bang" and "To Serve Man". In between comes the rest of his output. But his average is very very high.

I think it is notable that GALAXY, the highest paying magazine in the field till the arrival of the new FANTASTIC, has printed more stories by Knight and Leiber than any other writers.

However, some writers are not concentrating their production in one market in this fashion.

I think easily the outstanding discovery of 1951 was Walter M. Miller, Jr. (He had one story printed in AMAZING in 1950, but it remains best forgotten). Miller hasn't received much comment from fan circles. Perhaps because initially his stories went half to ASTOUNDING and half to Ziff-Davis; with Z-D, surprisingly enough, getting the better stories. Also the name Miller is quite common (a handicap also suffered by Frederic Brown) and is not so easy to remember as such weird cognomens as van Vogt, Asimov, and Heinlein.

Miller has been branching out recently with one story in GALAXY and another in one of the Standard trio. He is the writer of the memorable "Izzard and the Membrane" in aSF, and what I consider the finest novelet of 1951, "Dark Benediction" which appeared in FANTASTIC ADVENTURES. (For some inexplicable reason, FA, which I consider the worst magazine on the stands except for OTHER WORLDS and AMAZING, manages to pull down one or two of my best story selections every year.) His recent story, "Dumb Waiter", in the April 1952 aSF entitles him to the title of today's Heinlein. It is well worthy to be placed alongside the Heinlein tales of ten years ago, and is even reminiscent of Heinlein's style, and far surpasses any postwar Heinlein work with the possible exception of "Gulf" and "It's Great to be Back!"

Who is the van Vogt of today? Well, there is no one on the horizon, today, who can weave the twisted strands with the ingenuity long displayed by A. E. Closest contender would be J. T. M'Intosh.

That, incidentally, is a name no one should have trouble remembering. But M'Intosh is a British writer. And many of his stories do not appear in the United States. Easily the finest story ever printed by NEW WORLDS, one of the four best short stories of 1951, and a yarn which did not appear in the United States is "Machine Made", a M'Intosh yarn. (You might find it disappointing now. One or two more poorly written stories with highly similar plots have appeared in the U.S.). M'Intosh's great virtue is not that, like Heinlein, van Vogt, or Sturgeon, he has produced so many classics of the genre, but that (and in this he is almost unique) he doesn't seem capable of writing a poor story. (As yet, perhaps I should add. I only found two poor stories in the first sixteen years of Sturgeon's writing, but have come across four more in the last eighteen months, and Heinlein had nearly as good an average in his early years). One interesting thing is that M'Intosh has had two of his stories in the fanzine OPERATION FANTAST. One is as poor as anything he's written. But the other is quite fine. And I've heard rumors that there are more to come.

With all the new writers who have entered the field, it would seem the law of averages would give us twice as many new outstanding writers as in the fourties, but it doesn't work that way. The radical new Bradbury style would seem a fertile row to hoe but only two new writers have had any success at this sort of off-trail thing. The better of the two is Richard Matheson, a welcome addition of talent to the ranks, though a minor one. Matheson writes well, and originally. But he is not, and shows no signs of developing into, another Bradbury nor a writer of the stature necessary to lure new readers into the field.

His stories will remain interesting tidbits and appetizers for the jaded tastes of the confirmed science-fiction fan and the occasional dabbling in the field by literary snobs, but a Matheson experiment could hardly be extended into the main course of our literary fare.

Less successful, but perhaps potentially more valuable, is Kris Neville. When imitating Bradbury, Neville goes all-out and does so slavishly as to at times cause the reader embarrassment. And some of Neville's other stories can only be described as amateurish. But about one out of five is of a calibre to make the reader lean back in his easy chair and cheer lustily after completing it. The first, last, and only fine story I've read in IMAGINATION was Neville's "Special Delivery". How this escaped the big three I don't know. (Coincidentally, another good story with the same plot, written by Walter Miller appeared a couple of months later in the first issue of IF). And Neville's "Bettyann", which I have not yet read, caused something of a sensation among book reviewers.

One other writer deserves our attention. One time fan Frank Robinson Jr. appeared on the scene simultaneously with Miller. He produced some very attention-worthy material, although I would place only "The Hunting Season" (which appeared in ASTOUNDING) in the category of stories of permanent worth. Robinson displayed immense talent which has not yet matured. Unfortunately, he was called back into the Navy, shortly after his stories started appearing, suspending his blossoming career. When last heard of he was in Africa and its hoped he'll resume writing on his return.

I feel that, with the present-day boom in sf, there is a vacuum where new writers are concerned. It cannot be filled by the old timers no matter how fine. The one shot boys and girls cannot even be considered for it. Miller and M'Intosh have made the grade (even though they haven't as yet received public acknowledgment) and Neville and Robinson are prospects. But there is still room for 10 to 35 more prolific writers with a consistently high quality to their work. They must be around somewhere. Campbell seemed to have little trouble finding them in 1940. Ideally, under the new multi-magazine setup, each magazine should have a pool of writers from whom they would buy perhaps 75% of their material, and who would only occasionally sell to other magazines. These writers in conjunction with the editor would set the policy of the magazine, making it individualistic and catering to a certain section of the public taste.

But is this being done? GALAXY is absorbing most of the Knight and Leiber output. But for the rest they seem frantically shopping from one new writer to another, seldom accepting more than one story from each.

ASTOUNDING has Fyfe. The rest of the one time powerful ASTOUNDING stable has gone.

The pulpier magazines seem to rely on the leavings of the big three or print reams of stuff by such dated writers as Pratt and Smith.

The Ziff-Davis magazines and OW and IMAGINATION have their stables. But they have chosen the worst writers in the field as their standbys.

Only Boucher and McComas seem to follow the above plan, and it seems to me the plan is weakened in their case since they print no long stories. It is difficult to build up a following for a writer without an occasional novel or long novelet which will stick more securely in the public's memory. At any rate, the best MOF&SF has been able to do so far is Matheson; the rest of their frequent repeaters seem to be nonentities with a talent for blending intellectual snobbism with slapstick. The result is not too tasty, to this palate at least.

(Data entered by Judy Bemis)