Heinlein buffs: a question about pseudonyms

Cafe Society
1

In 1940 and 1941, Heinlein was pumping out so many stories that half of them appeared under pseudonyms. Some of them were stories now considered classics, and examples of purest Heinleinesque writing.

The question I have is, how open a secret was it that Anson MacDonald (and to a lesser extent Caleb Saunders, and Lyle Monroe, and John Riverside) was Heinlein? If no one (or only a tiny coterie) knew it then, when did it become common knowledge?

Patterson doesn’t do more than mention pseudonyms. So I researched the known chronology.

Two MacDonald stories were run under that name in 1946 anthologies, alongside stories credited to Heinlein. But in 1948 Fantasy Press published Beyond That Horizon under the Heinlein name and in 1949 Gnome Press published Sixth Column as by Heinlein. Did heads explode, or did fans just nod and say, it’s about time?

While I’m looking at it, can anyone explain Campbell’s strategy in doing this? I get that Lyle Monroe was used for low-end stories for lesser markets. I sorta get using a pseudonym for Unknown - keep the sf persona for Astounding - which explains running “The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag” as by John Riverside. But that makes publishing “Waldo” under the MacDonald name weird. “Elsewhere” supposedly was so different that it required the Caleb Saunders pseudonym.

Still doesn’t explain 1941. Heinlein stories appeared 14 times, seven as Heinlein, six as MacDonald, once as Saunders. Heinlein had already appeared six times with five stories in 1940; he was a rising star. So why not promote his name incessantly? Campbell didn’t have to bury Heinlein because of lack of space - those fourteen appearances were in only eight issues. Nothing under any name was published in April, June, November, or December. Even odder: The Heinlein name never appeared again in Astounding until 1949 (except for a review). Yet three Anson MacDonald stories appeared in four 1942 issues, March, May, June, and August. That meant four months in a row with nothing by Heinlein at the peak of his introductory splash. I don’t get it.

Why? I know the prejudice against running more than one story by a given name was endemic in magazines generally. Campbell might have thought the well would never run dry, except that in his letters Heinlein was always complaining of not having new ideas. He wasn’t running other authors under pseudonyms to any extent - maybe not at all - from looking at the 1940-1942 contents pages. Doing this for Heinlein seems counterproductive at best.

2

The main reason was that it was considered bad form to have an author appear twice in one issue of a magazine.

The February Astounding, for instance had both Sixth Column (serialized) by Macdonald and “…And He Built a Crooked House” by Heinlein. The May issue had “Universe” (Heinlein) and “Solution Unsatisfactory” (MacDonald). July had “Methuselah’s Children” (serialized) (Heinlein) and “We Also Walk Dogs” (Macdonald).*

This also had the advantage is that you could put the names of two popular authors on the cover. The reader can say “Oh, look. Something by Heinlein and Macdonald!”

As for the exact reason for one name over the other, it probably depended on Heinlein’s and Campbell’s whims. It also may depend on if the story was connected to an earlier one by Macdonald (quite possible in the future history).

The pseudonym was probably well known in SF circles, but not in the general SF readership.

*Theordore Sturgeon had two stories in the June issue, one under his name and another as by E. Waldo Hunter.

3

According to this:
site: Robert A. Heinlein - Archives - The RAH FAQ Campbell once announced that an upcoming story would be by Heinlein and later published it under McDonald.

In addition “Gulf” was published in the “Predicted” issue of Analog under the Heinlein name - but the prediction had been that there would be a story called “Gulf” by McDonald Science Fiction Prophecy

4

I know. I’m asking why they thought that.

Except that Astounding ran exactly one name per cover in 1941.

This probably had weight, although the Future History stories were all credited to Heinlein. It doesn’t explain why Campbell couldn’t have spread the stories out over more issues and assign them all to Heinlein, some being series and some not. He did that for Asimov with “Nightfall” and the Foundation and Robot series. Building up MacDonald was obviously a short-term strategy that probably hurt both sides.

I’m been trying to find fan writing on this period, and Sam Moskowitz says “this was one of the poorest kept secrets in science fiction.” But he also says that general readers thought it was a new name.

That site also says that Campbell generally referred to Heinlein and MacDonald as separate writers, but slipped up once. Hard to say what fans would make of that.

The prediction issue was 1949, after the name had been revealed. But the letter was 1948 and didn’t know about the pseudonym. That’s one of the confounding factors I keep running into.

5

Here’s a fanzine from 1942 which states the Heinlein was McDonald http://www.fiawol.org.uk/fanstuff/THEN%20Archive/Sands/SOT3.htm - other archived fanzines might have earlier announcements of this

6

A few months earlier this FUTURIAN WAR DIGEST #16 (Jan 1942) mentions that Monroe is Heinlein

7

This fanzine says McDonald is Heinlein in Jun 41 FUTURIAN WAR DIGEST #9 (June 1941). That’s the earliest I can find at the moment - I’m loving reading the first reactions to various classic stories and authors in these old fanzines.

8

Mystery writer’s short stories in magazines like Ellery Queen and Alfred Hitchcock did the same thing when I read them. In the editions I saw the story was usually a reprint with a note about the author’s actual (or best known) name.

Sounds like basic marketing and competition to claim the widest set of authors published.

9

AndyL, many thanks! Fantastic finds. So the in crowd knew almost immediately, all the way over to Britain. That likely means that when Heinlein was Guest of Honor for the 1941 Worldcon, most of the attendees would have known his entire body of work.

That’s majorly helpful and will save me much embarrassment.

10

Glad to help. As I said, these old fanzines are fascinating - full of con reports from the early worldcons, etc. Well worth a read for any fan with an interest in fanhistory