COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\\M1BASL30\M2BASB30\M3NGR25\M4NGR20\M5BASI30
C00011 ENDMK
C⊗;
\\M1BASL30;\M2BASB30;\M3NGR25;\M4NGR20;\M5BASI30;




\F1\CFeb 16, 1979





Mr. Alexander Burke, President
McGraw-Hill Book Company
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020



Dear Mr. Burke:

\JI'm sorry to report the result, but I received a negative response
from Charles Stewart last week. The disappointment was doubled
since Mr. Stewart totally misunderstood the content of my proposal.
I would hope that you could take a few moments to review my proposal
and Mr. Stewart's response; I would really like to determine the source
of the misconception.

In my proposal I addressed three issues: \F21.\F1 the creation of a 
book, \F22.\F1 the creation of a system, and \F23.\F1 the consolidation
of the information developed  in the first two ventures. I feel that
I proposed the  venture in a most generous fashion, requesting a
"manuscript preparation grant" to cover the production cost of the
book. Estimates for such preparation costs run about $25-$35 per page;
therefore the $10,000 request seemed quite in order, regardless of any
other benefits which might appear from the development of the system.
I feel that my performance during the \F5Anatomy\F1 fiasco demonstrated that 
I could indeed produce what I promised; essentially, I worked eighteen months
for your company for free, doing what your personnel had promised they would
perform, only to be stymied by the ineptitude of the compositor. If you would
like a detailed chronology of the events I can oblige. 

I ignored that
bad experience
 only because I am anxious to develop a high quality LISP programming text
to bridge the gap between \F5Anatomy\F1 and the implementations of LISP.
I want the book, and a demonstration
of how it \F2should be\F1, produced. 
Regardless of the past, McGraw-Hill was my logical first choice for this venture.
If Mr. Stewart is a true
reading of your policies I shall take my offer elsewhere.

Mr. Stewart's letter consistently refers to the preparation
grant as an "advance". I really don't understand how he came to that 
interpretation. To me, the preparation cost is a fixed expense; assuming that
your company wanted the text, that money is committed. Whether it is
spent with me or with a secretary, keyboarder, and compositor, it is still
spent. Clearly, an "advance"  is money spent over and above that cost.
I neither requested nor would accept such an advance.

The confusion continues in Peter Nalle's Jan 23, 1979 letter;
 there he equates John Wakerly's system with a $800 PET;
all three John's --Wakerly, Wiley, and Allen-- have a quite different system 
in mind. I expect appropriate document production systems to be available
in that price  range within five years, but a PET is not it.




These problems are symptomatic of a more general ill: a lack of 
meaningful communication with your staff.
It is small consolation to hear that other
McGraw-Hill authors (in particular, Bob Sproull
and Ed Feigenbaum) have similar concerns. From the beginning (Jan 1977)  of the
"computer experiment" on \F5Anatomy\F1 in which McGraw-Hill personnel
were to convert my text, through the realization in late May 1977 that
nothing had been done (no conversion, and not even copy editing), to the
final frustrations with Holmes Typography, I have received less than
professional service from your staff.  The notable exception has been Annette
Hall; I have been consistently impressed with her.

The final ignominy was to hear from Peter Nalle that the production costs
on \F5Anatomy\F1 were higher than if  the book had been done traditionally.
I would like to see those figures. The only justification for such expense
could be if Holmes Typography were paid for their work. I was told that
Holmes was \F2not\F1 being paid, but was doing it as an experiment
with the hopes of composing the series. If I had even suspected that Holmes
was on the payroll I would have insisted that the experiment be terminated
long before I did; they performed abominably.

Recently I received a copy of \F5Hands-On Basic with a PET\F1 in an
unadorned McGraw-Hill envelop. I was somewhat bemused until I got
the cover letter (Peter Nalle, Jan 23), 
which was mistakenly sent to the author of that book.
In subsequent conversations with Ed Feigenbaum I  discovered that this type of book
is coming into vogue at McGraw-Hill. I am sorry to hear that. 
I would
hope that it was not sent to me as an indication of the kind of text
which Mr. Stewart expected from me as a LISP "programming manual". 
It is
a hobbist's programming text, not a computer science programming text; 
it deals with language mechanics, not development of thought.

I am sorry to write this. I felt quite proud and excited to be chosen as
a McGraw-Hill author in the CS/AI series. I am afraid that the
last few years experience have dampened my enthusiasm.
There is vast misunderstanding in McGraw-Hill's   dealings 
with  technically oriented authors. Unless some careful analysis
is done  that "senario"  described in the proposal, 
about the disaffected  authors could
take place quite soon.
\.
\←L\→S\←R\-L\/'2;\+L\→L

Yours sincerely,



John R. Allen
18215 Bayview Dr.
Los Gatos Ca, 95030

\←S\→L