By the way, my "enlarge" in the second paragraph means in thickness (amount of reading matter), not shape.
Wesso has always been good, and he seems to be improving, though he and others might be still better if they would carefully read the descriptions of persons and animals of other planets before picturing them. I don't wish to make this blurb too long, so will not be specific, but you and others probably have seen the same as I, where the illustration has not been true to the description.
It might interest you to know that I have been instrumental in getting several new readers for Astounding Stories. Long live "our" new mag.—Robert J Hyatt, 1353 Kenyon St., N. W., Washington, D. C.
Ow! Ow! Ow!
Dear Editor:
I have just looked at "The Reader's Corner" in the October issue of Astounding Stories. It disgusted me. What you print there—only letters praising your magazine to the skies?—or do you occasionally print a brickbat?
I've bought your magazine each time since it was first printed. And many times I've felt like quitting. Why? There are a number of reasons.
First, you print stories that have nothing to do with science, such as "The Soul Master." Second, your illustrations are poor. They would look better if they were full page ones. Wesso is the best artist you have. Gould and Sabo are just plain cartoonists, and mighty poor ones at that. Third, you print stories that give a weak and implausible scientific basis. Diffin, Gee, Leinster and several others err in this respect. Fourth, rotten paper—it goes to pieces after being handled. Fifth, no editorial or science questionnaire.
Your authors will not starve if you print reprints. Rousseau and a lot of others write for other magazines. And reprints would occupy such a measly space that they could hardly be called down for being printed.
Your magazine has some good features: a good cover; good authors like Breuer, Vincent, Meek, Ernst and Starzl; clear type; and handy size.