So I had a response from Gordon Van Gelder at F&SF in the mailbox when I got home last night. It went something like this:
I've had a chance to read "Timesink" now and I think the idea for it is great—thank you for trying to do something different with Schrödinger's cat!—but the execution doesn't work for me. . . . If you can think of reworking the story idea from another direction (possibly from a different point of view? Is it really the narrator's story?), I'll be happy to give it another look.
Actually, that advice rings true. I had the nagging feeling as I was writing the story that I shouldn't use a narrator who was only an observer, not actually a participant, and the folks like █████ who've read the story find the scientist's plight far more moving than his friend the narrator's.
So, yeah, absolutely, I'll give this idea another whack! On the one hand, when an editor gives you a big nudge like this, you're probably stupid if you don't listen. On the next hand, I haven't managed to sell anything to Gordon yet (though I sold three stories to his predecessor at F&SF), and I'm pretty much slavering to do so. And on the third hand (hey, this is science fiction), I've been feeling lately that I haven't come up with any truly orginal ideas, and this would seem to confirm that I have, at least this once.
"Timesink v2.0," here I come.
