1 result for (book:tps5 AND heading:"delet session octob 10 1979" AND stemmed:person)
[... 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.
[... 3 paragraphs ...]
(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.
[... 21 paragraphs ...]
There are some reincarnational connections involving Tam, but the overall important point is that in its way, Prentice has attempted to maintain the books’ integrity, and not made any effort to distort the message, to sensationalize it, as for example the Bantam covers, or to personally exploit Ruburt, yourself, or the situation.
[... 17 paragraphs ...]