HEADING:

DIM logo. Oxford University Press
Walton Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Telephone 0865 56767 Cables Clarendon Press Oxford Telex 837330

Dear Richard,

Malcolm: Making Names

In reply to your letter of 18 July:

It is true that I indicated to an author, before a PPF had been signed, that, subject to satisfactory revision, OUP would publish his book. I acknowledge that this was not in accordance with our official procedures. But since exactly this breach of procedure is in practice a frequent occurrence, at least in the General Books Department, for which I was working at the time, you will I think agree that the central issue is my judgment of the book.

The typescript had been read by a Delegate, Alan Ryan, who thought well of it, with reservations. I read it too, and agreed with him. Both he and I had been too hard-pressed to read the long typescript quickly, so that the author was understandably becoming anxious for a decision; and I did not want to keep him in suspense for longer than necessary. The typescript had to be cast off before a PPF could be completed and submitted (so that I had an accurate basis on which to ask for cuts), and I was advised that this process would take a matter of weeks. I did not anticipate any problems at PPF stage.

In these circumstances I decided, with the agreement of Alan Ryan and Will Sulkin (my then head of Department), both of whom I kept fully informed at all stages, to tell the author we wanted to publish his book, so long as he revised it satisfactorily - and I made a point of stressing that this would be an essential condition of publication. The reason I spoke in terms of a contract, rather than simply a willingness to consider a revised typescript, was that the author estimated that the revisions we sought would take six months' solid work, and did not feel able to undertake this work without a provisional commitment on our part. This is understandable, especially since he had already radically rewritten the book once on the basis of informal encouragement from an editor at Penguin, only to have it turned down by a different editor.

The production investment is £5,000. Though of course there would be additional overheads, I do not understand how you arrive at your total of £10,000. I told the author there would be no advance and only modest royalties.

I dispute your assertion that I have shown marked lack of editorial and commercial judgment. It is possible that I am wrong about the book - we all make mistakes. But this is not a case of offering a contract out of the blue for a book that happened to take my unconsidered fancy. It had the support of a Delegate; I had read it all through myself, and as a trained philosopher I am not unqualified to form an opinion of it; it has subsequently been reported on in generally positive terms by another philosopher, Galen Strawson (though he too has reservations similar to Alan Ryan's and mine). The fact that the book has been rejected by Penguin is of very marginal relevance, if any: lists differ.

I have worked for the Press for eight years now - most recently as joint acting head of Department for eighteen months - without reprimand. It is even possible that I have made some positive contribution to OUP's activities - though this is for others to say. Anyone who knows me will confirm that I am a responsible and reasonable person. Neither my temperament, nor my record, nor the gravity of my alleged misjudgment merit such high-handed treatment. It would have been quite sufficient for you to tell me informally that you wished me to observe the procedure more scrupulously in future; I would of course have accepted this, and acted accordingly. Your reaction is quite out of proportion, and I am genuinely at a loss to understand why you consider it appropriate.

I would prefer it if you would obviate the need for a formal appeal by having your warning removed from my file, and confirming that you have done this; but if you are not willing to do this, then you will understand that I cannot allow your letter to go on my record unchallenged, and this reply must constitute an appeal, Please let me know which it is to be.

Yours, Henry Hardy

copies to The Secretary (George Richardson), Clive Moody (personnel), Ivon Asquith, Will Sulkin

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.

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.