Malcolm v. Oxford: Evidence pages 122, 123
- ️Wed Mar 14 1990
Evidence (Red) File pages 122 & 123, Letter from Nicola Bion to Andrew Malcolm, 9th May 1986
New in 2021: click for full-size scan of the original document |
HEADING:
DIM logo. Oxford University Press
Walton Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Telephone 0865 56767 telex 837330
TEXT:
Reference NCB/PAR
Dear Andrew,
Making Names
I've now had the reports on your revised typescript and discussed them with colleagues. The news is not good, I'm afraid.
Despite the fact that the cuts and amendments you have made are undoubtedly an improvement, we still don't feel that it works. There are a number of reasons for this. First, it's still too long: I know that you've made substantial cuts, but it's not so much a question of the actual extent as the feel of the thing. And it feels too long. You have to be particularly careful about this when writing for a lay audience.
Secondly, there are quite a lot of places where it would need to be made brisker and livelier (and I have to say that I don't like the sexist aspects either). Something could, of course, be done about that, but it would require a great deal of editorial input from OUP. We do unfortunately have to take into account the overhead costs of every book we sign up, and in this case we feel that the editorial work would be disproportionately expensive.
Another problem, from our point of view, is what we perceive to be a gradual change of climate in trade publishing. It was already worrying us when the proposal failed to gain the support of our sales and marketing people in July last year. Since then it has become more marked, and OUP in particular is moving away from what we see as the more 'peripheral' areas of publishing. Trade philosophy books have always been dlfficult to market (with a few notable exceptions that have, for a variety of reasons, broken through the barriers), and they are becoming more so. Perhaps, as you said in your letter of 22 July last year, OUP is too respectable and 'safe', but it's a problem we can't disregard.
Having weighed up all these factors we have decided, extremely reluctantly, that we cannot make you an offer of publication. I hardly need say how sorry I am. It hasn't been an easy decision - which explains the length of time it's taken. We didn't want to raise your hopes too high when Richard Charkin wrote to you last July, so I hope that this decision won't come completely as a bolt from the blue - however, I doubt that the advance warning makes the news any easier to bear.
We did feel that there was the seed of a book there otherwise we obviously wouldn't have been able to encourage you at all - and that you might have been able to develop it satisfactorily. It hasn't really come together, though, and it would be very unwise - and unfair - of us to encourage you to continue the time-consuming and agonizing business of further revision without any firm prospect of publication.
I wish I could suggest a positive way forward, but I believe that you have tried a number of other publishers already. Henry couldn't remember whether you'd approached Harvester: if you haven't (and if you still have the energy) it would certainly be worth doing so.
I would be happy to send the typescript to Harvester with a covering note, if you would like; otherwise I'11 return it direct to you. Let me know which you would prefer.
Yours sincerely,
Nicola Bion
Andrew Malcolm Esq.
Brighton
Go to the next item or the previous item in the Evidence (red) file.
Go to Malcolm's Statement of Claim, to the Case History, to the Affidavits: Ivon Asquith (1), Asquith (2), Henry Hardy, William Shaw (solicitor) (1), Sir Roger Elliott (1), Margaret Goodall, to the Witness Statements: Elliott, Hardy, Richard Charkin, Nicola Bion, Goodall, to the courtroom testimony of the Oxford Six, 14/3/1990: Elliott, Goodall, Bion, Asquith, Charkin, Hardy, to the testimony of Andrew Malcolm 13/3/1990, to the Chancery Court Judgment, the Appeal Court Judgment, the Damages assessment, the Settlement agreement.
CLICK FOR:
THE MALCOLM vs. OXFORD UNIVERSITY CASE INDEXES: I (1984-92) AND II (2001-02)
THE OXBRIDGE COLLEGE ACCOUNTS INDEX OR OUP ACCOUNTS INDEX
THE SURPRISING TRUTH ABOUT OUP'S 'CHARITABLE STATUS'
THE HISTORY OF AKME AND OF THIS WEBSITE
THE AKME OXFORD CUTTINGS LIBRARY
e-mail: akme@btinternet.com