for
me, I guess, just like the guy in the story) and the idea
came to me to slap the old "we are fodder" angle into the
thing as it happened and write it up.

But it's still an old plot. And one angle is left
unexplained: how is the narrator able to know all about the
_slizzers_ and write about them after Joe gives him the
_deja vu_ treatment?

Well, maybe the readers won't mind. I've gotten away with
bigger holes than that. Try it on Bob Lowndes ... I still
owe him on that advance. It's up his alley, hope-a-hope.

Jerry

Oct. 22, 1952

Jerome Bixby

862 Union Street

Brooklyn, N. Y.

Dear Jerry,

I don't go for "The Slizzers." It just ain't convincing. As
you say, it's an old idea ... and besides--again as you
say--how does the narrator know what happened?

The manuscript looks good in my wastebasket. Forget about
it.

Sympathies.

Fred

Oct. 23, 1952

Frederik Boles, Author's Agent

2200 Fifth Avenue

New York, N. Y.

Dear Wet Blanket (and aren't you a little old for that?)

Respectfully nuts to you. After proper browbeating I think
I'll try the yarn on Lowndes ... it's no masterpiece, but I
think it's got a chance; he likes an off trail bit, now and
then. I made a carbon, natch, so your ditching of the
original comes to naught.

Funny thing ... every time I read it over I get the
doggonedest _deja vu_ feeling. Real dynamic thing ... almost
lifts my hair. Hope it does the same for the readers, them
as can read. Maybe Joe didn't quite do the job of making me
forget what happened that night, ha, ha. Say! ... maybe that
could explain the _narrator's_ remembering what happened ...
or maybe--hey! A _real_ idea!

Remember Joe's kidding us about monsters?--remember, you got
a little sore because he was holding up the game, you
money-hungry son? I think I'll rewrite the ending to include
that! ... which oughta take care of the narrator's
remembering: Joe can be sort of a dopey _slizzer_, a
blat-mouth, and his screwy theory (which is _true_ in the
story, or will be when I write it in--sa