Malcolm vs.Oxford University, 1986 Chancery Division Ch M. 7710

xB064.gif scan of photocopy

Evidence (Red) File page 64 Letter from Alan Ryan to Henry Hardy, 18th July 1985

TEXT:

From Alan Ryan, New College, Oxford, OX1 3BN
telephone (0865) (Int:44-865) 248451

Dear Henry,

Andrew Malcolm

I've had a word with Richard Charkin and things don't seem too bad at all. As you know, I should have been pretty irritated if I had thought he was second-guessing my view of the intellectual merits of the book, but he was emphatic that he wasn't doing that, and said that he thought there was every chance of its being perfectly publishable when it came back. He said that he was going to write to Malcolm in those terms himself - I don't know if he'll send me a copy of his letter?

As you know, my feeling about the book is that it is well worth doing, both because it is interesting in itself, and because it's a bold attempt to do philosophy in an unusual literary format - most dialogues fall terribly flat, but his seems to me to stand up very well for long stretches, and to need only a small amount of tinkering to be wholly readable throughout. I do think it belongs among general books rather than academic philosophy partly because it ought to appeal to people with a general interest in science on the one hand and literature on the other, and partly because its dialogue form would get in the way of an academic reviewer's appreciation of it, but would very likely count in its favour with an Encounter-ish sort of reviewer.

I can quite imagine that the sales people were anxious about it, but that, after all, is because the Press is generally so geared to predictable categories of book that anything slightly hard to place is bound to cause anxiety. Of course it might do badly, but every so often books like Colin Wilson's The Outsider or Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach (which I don't like at all, to tell you the truth) do exceedingly well, so a bit of boldness is in order.

So, I hope Richard Charkin is as cheerful as he sounded on the phone, and that we can gallop ahead as he suggested we could. It would be nice to take a chance and win, and the so-called 'downside risk' isn't too drastic if we don't.

best wishes Alan

Go to the next item or the previous item in the Evidence (red) file. Go to Ryan's next contribution (3/5/86). Return to Making Names reviewed.

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.

Return to the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index or to the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index or to the SITE INDEX.