Thanks Alec anyway. I perused through my 2000ad files that I have and progs 1754 and 1837 which I think are the one you recommended (scripts done by Si Spurrier and David Baillie). I see now what you meant by doing a successful metaphysical Future Shock. But I have another question for you; have you ever made adjustments to the rejected …
Thanks Alec anyway. I perused through my 2000ad files that I have and progs 1754 and 1837 which I think are the one you recommended (scripts done by Si Spurrier and David Baillie). I see now what you meant by doing a successful metaphysical Future Shock. But I have another question for you; have you ever made adjustments to the rejected Future Shocks proposal, once you got the horrible little letter from the editor and then re-send again?
Ah, yes!! I remember the one you mean! The Last Future Shock, right…? As for the other thing, I wouldn’t make adjustments and resend unless the editor has specifically asked you to do it. No means no, in that case. But I’ve reworked rejected pitches for other publishers plenty of times. A good idea is a good idea. It just might not be for that publisher. Hope this helps, Milo.
Thanks Alec anyway. I perused through my 2000ad files that I have and progs 1754 and 1837 which I think are the one you recommended (scripts done by Si Spurrier and David Baillie). I see now what you meant by doing a successful metaphysical Future Shock. But I have another question for you; have you ever made adjustments to the rejected Future Shocks proposal, once you got the horrible little letter from the editor and then re-send again?
Ah, yes!! I remember the one you mean! The Last Future Shock, right…? As for the other thing, I wouldn’t make adjustments and resend unless the editor has specifically asked you to do it. No means no, in that case. But I’ve reworked rejected pitches for other publishers plenty of times. A good idea is a good idea. It just might not be for that publisher. Hope this helps, Milo.