This was Ryan's first ever statement in the whole 6-year case, for which he was chiefly responsible. In his letter of 19/9/1986 to my solicitor, he had stated that "he could no longer give a dispassionate assessment of Making Names" (see paragraph 17 below). Because this eventual dispassionate rubbishing was filed by him from Princeton, USA, he could not be cross-examined on it. Shortly after the damages hearing he returned to Oxford. - A. M.
I, ALAN RYAN, of the Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 0544, in the United States of America hereby MAKE OATH AND SAY as follows:-
1. I am presently a Professor of Politics at the Department of Politics at Princeton University. In 1984, I was a Fellow of Politics of New College, Oxford, a Reader in Politics of the University of Oxford, and a Delegate of the Oxford University Press ("the Press").
2. My expertise in philosophy is evidenced by my twenty eight years teaching the subject at both undergraduate and graduate level in universities in Britain and the United States, by the six books I have written on philosophical subjects and the six others I have edited either singly or jointly. I have been involved in the business of publishing for some twenty five years, as a reader of manuscripts for the university presses in Britain and the United States, as a Delegate of the Press for five years from 1982 to 1987 and since then as Adviser to OUP, New York.
3. In about October 1984, Henry Hardy, who was then Senior Editor of the General Books Department of the Press, sent me a copy of the typescript of a work by the Plaintiff, Andrew Malcolm, entitled "Making Names", which he asked me to read and comment on. I completed reading the typescript in early February 1985, and on 11 February 1985, I wrote a letter to Henry Hardy setting out my comments. That letter is page one of a bundle of correspondence which is now produced and shown to me marked "AR 1".
4. I had certain reservations about the book: the literary style was to say the least eccentric, I believe that the characters featured in the intellectual dialogue were sufficiently boorish to alienate many potential readers. The structure of the argument was very unclear, and many readers would have stopped reading before they had fathomed it. The book was also too long for the kind of book it could be made into. I was, in particular, certain that the play at the end would be heavily criticised. I thought, however that the work might be a plausible General Book, providing a quite engaging introduction to the subject or alternatively as something which would appeal to people who wanted a thoroughly unacademic essay on the meaning of life.
5. I was of the opinion that it would be a gamble to publish "Making Names" and that the Plaintiff's work belonged to the category of a quirky book which an editor tries on the public, more in hope than in expectation. I believed that it might well be panned by the reviewers, but that it was worth the relatively small financial risk to the Press.
6. I did not think then, and do not believe now, that it could have been a book for any academic course whatsoever. I believe that it might have had a chance of being mentioned by teachers of elementary courses as something quirky and entertaining that students could start off with. This is what I meant when I said that it "might do well as a sort of introduction to philosophy for people doing 'A' Level philosophy under the new dispensation and people doing Open University courses". However, I do not believe that it could ever have been accepted as an academic text.
7. The procedure at the Press was that Academic Books were submitted to the Delegates for approval, together with supporting documentation and readers' papers considering the merits of each work. Commercial considerations were not of primary relevance in relation to Academic Books.
8. If "Making Names" had been submitted to the Delegates as an academic work (and to my knowledge it was not), then I am certain it would have been rejected for the following reasons:
(1) the dialogue approach, which I personally rather liked, would immediately take it out of the realm of consideration as a serious academic work;
(2) no single subject was addressed and therefore the work would not have been perceived as making a contribution to a specific academic area; and
(3) the matters which the Plaintiff included to liven the book up (such as characterising the hero as a sexist/voyeur) would have lead to the book's rejection on academic grounds.
9. General Books were submitted to the Editorial Committee for approval, and if approved, then reported on to the Delegates. The Delegates did not have the same role in their approval, because the intellectual name of the Press was not at risk: such books were aimed at the general reader rather than the scholar, and do not carry the academic imprint of the Press.
10. In my opinion, as a trade or General Book, "Making Names" was not a plausible commercial proposition; nor would it have been a plausible academic work. It would essentially have been a gamble both financially and intellectually.
11. At that time, I was hoping to encourage the Press to take the occasional gamble in respect of General Books, and it was for this reason that I gave the encouragement set out in my letter of 11 February 1985.
12. After Richard Charkin vetoed the proposal to publish "Making Names" in July 1985, I spoke to Richard Charkin, and then wrote a letter to Henry Hardy on 18 July 1985, a copy of which is page 2 of "AR 1".
13. I understood the concern expressed by the Editorial Committee in relation to the likely sales of the book. I thought it was worth a gamble, even though it seemed to me very likely to sell only four or five hundred copies and vanish from sight. The odds against it selling even as many as 3,000 copies seemed to me to be at least ten to one; I mentioned works like "The Outsider" and "Godel, Escher, Bach" simply to indicate that such books sometimes, although very rarely, do very well indeed. But such books come along no more than once in ten years, and I certainly had no thought in my mind that Malcolm's book might have anything like that kind of success. The odds against something as marginal as "Making Names" selling more than 10,000 copies would have struck me as astronomical. I do not myself like either "The Outsider" or "Godel, Escher, Bach", but the latter in particular is very obviously an infinitely better constructed book, and calculated to reassure professional philosophers in just the way "Making Names" was not.
14. I am able to state that I was present at the meeting of Delegates on 23 July 1985, by reference to the minutes of that meeting, a copy of which is produced and shown to me marked "AR 2".
15. I can categorically state that I was not present at any meeting of Delegates which considered "Making Names" either as a General Book, or as an Academic Book.
16. Once the Plaintiff had completed his initial revision in 1986, I read the revised work and was disappointed. I believed that the amendments had weakened its appeal to a general audience. I am of the opinion that if the book had been published in that form, it would have sunk without trace. The basis for this view is recorded in my letter of 3 May 1986, a copy of which is page 3 of "AR 1". The point about the obtrusive boorishness of the protagonists and the jeering quality of some of the argument was one I hesitated to make to the author, but was, to my mind, quite decisive. It not only weakened the work intellectually and from a literary point of view; it would have made it a commercial impossibility by the time it was published.
17. I received a letter from the Plaintiff's solicitor dated 19 September 1986 requesting an interview, and asking me to review a third draft of Chapter 9 of the typescript. On 22 September 1986, I wrote a letter and declined to be interviewed, I also indicated that I did not feel I could give a dispassionate assessment of the Plaintiff's further revisions. Copies of these letters are pages 4 and 5 of "AR 1"
18. The opinions to which I have referred in paragraphs 3 to 5, 8 and 16 of this affidavit were formed dispassionately and at a time when my assessment was impartial and objective. I have not altered those opinions by virtue of subsequent events.
19. In early May 1990, I received a brief letter from Andrew Malcolm which enclosed a copy of Deputy Judge Lightman's judgment. On 11 May I wrote to Andrew Malcolm in response to his letter again setting out my views in relation to the book. A copy of my letter is page 6 of "AR 1".
sworn at Princeton University, New Jersey, 14th June 1991
Go to Ryan's original favourable reports of 11/2/1985 and 18/7/1985 on Making Names' first draft, the reports that "got the ball rolling". Then go to Ryan's THES letter of 13th April 2001 which got the ball rolling again.
Students of Psychopolitics may also wish to leaf through a linked series of some of Ryan's other public contributions, starting with Give us the Money, The Guardian 19/11/97. For his latest, go to the site index panel.
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, to the Cambridge package and the Adrasteia package, to the publishing contract affidavits: Giles Gordon (1); Mark Le Fanu, to the APPEAL COURT JUDGMENT, to the damages affidavits: Alan Ryan; Asquith (3); Jeremy Mynott; Giles Gordon (2); Fred Nolan; Roy Edgley, to McGregor on Royalties (transcript), to the DAMAGES FINDINGS, and to the Settlement agreement.
Return to the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index, to the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index, to the blurb for Making Names, to its reviews, to The Remedy, or to the SITE INDEX.