HEADING:
DIM logo. Oxford University Press
Walton Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Telephone 0865 56767 Cables Clarendon Press Oxford Telex 837330
TEXT
Ref HH/nc
Andrew Malcolm Esq.
7 Southover Street
Brighton BN2 2UA
Dear Andrew
Thank you for ringing to confirm that, in the light of my letter of 25 July, you are going to have a crack at revising your book for resubmission to OUP. Let me now try, as promised, to summarize the changes that seem to us to be required.
The book is too long. I am not saying that there is a magic length within which all books must fall, but there are two good reasons why this particular book would be better if shorter. First, it would be prohibitively expensive at its present length. Secondly, it requires considerable stamina to get through it (or at least into it), and only the committed will be prepared to invest this stamina: this is not a virtue in a book that aspires to be (in part) introductory, and/or to entice waverers into the fold. The cast-off I had done suggested the book would be 500 pages long in all. I would say 400 pages is the maximum manageable length; and if the book were shorter still, so much the better. Your letter of 24 March shows that you can probably achieve this sort of reduction.
The dialogue style clanks occasionally - but you are well aware of this, and maybe I cannot usefully say more. Improvement will be a matter of numerous local alterations - for example (in no special order): reducing the frequency with which the participants call each other by name; perhaps making the timing less implausible (how long would it take to read the book out loud?) and generally cutting down on the need for suspension of disbelief; reducing/eliminating the bracketed asides/alternatives which are a mannerism of philosophical writing that doesn't work in speech; and watching out in general for language and style that don't make for realistic dialogue, such as '(i.e. . . .)'.
All the readers, as you know, have been worried about the play. We have discussed this at length on the phone, so all I will say here is that anything you can do to make its role in your drama more accessible, and its performance of that role more effective, will be worthwhile. Knowing that you regard the play's contribution as central, we are not asking you to remove it - just to make it work (tall order!).
Page 2
The longish slabs of straight science have a clear role to play - at least, this role is clear with hindsight (to start with one is puzzled) - but is there nevertheless scope for some pruning? Your letter of 24 March suggests there is.
The book is hard to get into, both because of the subject matter you start with, and because the first chapter is so long (in absolute and relative terms). Is the sequence of topics immutable? And can the opening chapter be broken up? (There is a case for subdivision throughout, I think: smaller chapters/subheadings/line spaces . . .?)
We have discussed the anonymous reader's report (of which you have seen a copy) on the phone, and so I won't rehearse here the points made in it. You seemed to see the point of the important ones.
In case you are redrafting lengthy passages, you may like to have a note of a couple of points of OUP house style which do not correspond to your own practice. Ellipses should always be three dots . . . thus, not four (or more). And we use single quotation-marks, not double.
Two more trivial points: you often misspell 'discrete' as 'discreet'; and your few references should be given as notes (if not eliminated entirely), rather than being mood-shatteringly inserted into the dialogue.
I don't think this letter adds much to what I've already said (especially in my letter of 18 March, q.v.), but it may help by drawing together a number of comments made at different times. Now, I guess, you just have to get down to it: but let me know if you need anything further before you start. I enclose your typescript herewith, having kept a copy, as you know. It would be good to know that it has arrived safely.
Yours,
Henry Hardy
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.