1 result for (book:tps5 AND heading:"delet session octob 10 1979" AND stemmed:contract)

TPS5 Deleted Session October 10, 1979 6/50 (12%) Prentice Dutch Hall contracts publishing
– The Personal Sessions: Book 5 of The Deleted Seth Material
– © 2016 Laurel Davies-Butts
– Deleted Session October 10, 1979 9:17 PM Wednesday.

[... 5 paragraphs ...]

(In my letters I intend to demand that we see the version in manuscript to be published by any foreign press, or the galleys, or whatever. We’ll also want written into our contracts our right to be notified when any deals are made, the payments made, and our right to refuse the deal if we decide we don’t like it. We’ll also want to see a copy of the contract itself, and probably know the names of the foreign editors and publishers so we can contact them personally.

(Jane also discussed with Tam a number of points growing out of our last royalty statements; some of these are quite legitimate gripes that we’ve kept quiet about for some time. Her implications to Tam were clear enough—we hope: that for the first time she was thinking of alternate courses of action to being published by Prentice-Hall, perhaps trying other publishers, Eleanor Friede among them. I was all for that, I told her. During the week after the Dutch edition arrived, we received from Tam the contracts for God of Jane and Mass Events, both of which contain phrases and clauses in an effort to get around Prentice-Hall’s habit of withholding percentages of earnings against returns. She told Tam she wouldn’t sign them, nor do I want her to. Prentice-Hall even wants to apply any losses for God of Jane against Mass Events after 18 months, in an effort to make one book pay for another! As it is, Prentice-Hall is now applying earnings from the paperback Politics against the hardcover losses—a method Tam says is common in the trade, but which I think is ethically dishonest, to say the least. They did the same thing with Adventures; in this case, that action wiped the board clean for the hardcover Adventures, and even showed a small profit from the paperback sales. But still, it costs us. I view such tactics as the publisher’s way of guaranteeing their publishing costs with no risk to themselves. Instead of charging hardcover losses against taxes as a business expense, say, they charge the author for them; this means they do not have to pay the author any royalties on paperback sales, for at least several years. I don’t think Jane yet grasps the implications here.

[... 1 paragraph ...]

(Day before yesterday we received from Tam a copy of his memo to J. Nelson, P. Grenquist, and A. Freemyer; he’s checked the Dutch contract for Seth Speaks, and learned that it contained a clause prohibiting cutting. I’m using the memo as a basis for the letter I intend to start writing Grenquist tomorrow. At the same time I’ll be checking what portions of Seth Speaks were cut, and listing them.

(The upshot of all of this at the moment is that Jane will not be signing any contracts at this time, and that we’ll be informing Prentice-Hall that we won’t be contracting for any work for them until our questions and assurances are amply demonstrated. I see no other way to head off lots of trouble in the future. I’m personally quite willing to let the chips fall where they may, to coin a phrase, but I’m not at all sure that Jane will agree to go along. My thoughts are that she’d be so terrified to find herself without a publisher that she’d stand for a lot more than what has happened, bad as that is. But we’ll see. I for one have to do or say something, or I’d spend my days thinking about what a fool and coward I was not to stand up for my rights. Our meek acceptance of the deal, I’m afraid, would only lead to more of the same. This would surely drive me out of publishing if I let that happen. As it is, my opinion of Prentice-Hall has sunk to a new low, and it was low enough to begin with.

[... 12 paragraphs ...]

There are bound to be distortions—but the distortions themselves are meaningful. You have, again, a definite right to state your objections, and to change your contract accordingly in the future. You have every right to state your clear objections to Prentice about whatever issue you feel unfair. Regardless of all of that, however, and taking all of that for granted, if you will forgive me (whispering), I sometimes feel that you might perhaps both lack a certain trust (loudly) in the nature of your own intents, and in the activity of Framework 2 as far as it concerns you and that publishing house.

[... 16 paragraphs ...]

The entire body is really being worked upon, with resulting looseness of tensions that become more apparent at certain points. Both of you try—try (whispering) to disconnect your creative work from the practical considerations of contracts, and have Ruburt play with his own book. He will find the results of such play excellent.

[... 9 paragraphs ...]

Similar sessions

DEaVF1 Chapter 2: Session 885, October 24, 1979 Ankh Hermes materialists Spreekt Mitzi
TPS5 Deleted Session November 6, 1979 foreign Crowder money Prentice Ariston
NoME Part Four: Chapter 10: Session 869, July 30, 1979 onchocerciasis evolutionary leathery disease Dutch
TMA Session Seven August 28, 1980 intellect charcoal cultural beliefs weather