Interesting Dalek news

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Sivier

unread,
Oct 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/26/98
to
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:

>The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
>works...

>Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...

Depends who they take on. I wonder if Steve Cole will have anything to
say about it?

--
Mike


Dangermouse

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
works...

Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...

--
"Try some terrorism for hire; we'll blow shit up... It's more fun!"

Dangermouse

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to

Mike Sivier <mi...@wurzzz.demon.co.uk> wrote

> >The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
> >works...
>
> >Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...
>

> Depends who they take on. I wonder if Steve Cole will have anything to
> say about it?

Dunno if he knows yet. Apparently there've been rumours for a little while,
and I'm told they denied it as a late a couple of weeks ago, but it then
happened anyway.

Kafenken

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to

Dangermouse writes:
> The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock
> as the agent for Terry's works...

Thank fuck for that.

Finn Clark.

Jean-Marc Lofficier

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to

Kafenken wrote:

There appears to be a vast number of misconceptions underlying the
above casual remark. (I'm probably reading more into it than I should,
but why miss a good argument.)

1) An Agent's loyalty is to his Client and no one else. Mr. Hancock's
fidiuciary duty was to Mr Nation, not the BBC, not the publishers and
certainly not the fans. It was his job to be tough when negotiating
with these other folks. In fact, in Hollywood, they say, "if they don't
scream, you haven't asked enough." If some of you someday hire a lawyer
or an agent to ngotiate on your behalf, you'll come to appreciate their
dedication on your behalf (while the other party or the bystanders will
no doubt portray your agent as a "mad dog" or something like that). The
more hated an Agent is, often the better he is.

2) An Agent does *NOT* make final decisions, the Client does. I'd bet a
zillion dollars that at the nd of each negotiation Mr. Hancock NEVER
EVER decided on his own to either accept or turn down a deal. Mr.
Nation did that. In every instance. If you want to blame someone, do
not blame the Agent, blame the Client. An Agent can be blamed for many
things: sloppy paperwork, not returning phone calls, slowness in
processing contracts, inefficient operations, but NOT the final decision
to make or turn down a deal.

3) People change Agents all the time (at least in Hollywood, they do)
and it rarely affects the overall business. What I mean is that, even
if it is true that Mrs Nation has decided to dispense with Mr. Hancock's
services (and mind you, I think this is all a rumor and with all due
respect to DangerMouse, I have seen/heard nothing that I would call
evidence to that effect), but EVEN if it's true, I strongly doubt that
it will change an iota in the Nation policies. (Meaning if you suddenly
expect a plethora of Dalek stuff, you're dreaming.)

JM


Bagpuss

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>Mike Sivier <mi...@wurzzz.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> >The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
>> >works...
>> >
>> >Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...
>>
>> Depends who they take on. I wonder if Steve Cole will have anything to
>> say about it?
>
>Dunno if he knows yet. Apparently there've been rumours for a little while,
>and I'm told they denied it as a late a couple of weeks ago, but it then
>happened anyway.

Never believe anything until it's officially denied.
--
Richard Smeltzer

Dangermouse

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to

Jean-Marc Lofficier <jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote


> 1) An Agent's loyalty is to his Client and no one else. Mr. Hancock's
> fidiuciary duty was to Mr Nation, not the BBC, not the publishers and
> certainly not the fans. It was his job to be tough when negotiating
> with these other folks.

The problem is that he *didn't* seem to have loyalty to Nation - had he
been a little more creative in his negotiations, he'd have made sure the
Daleks, B7 etc were used well enough and often enough to keep Nation
rolling in it. Instead it ended up that nobody would use them, so Nation
got nothing.

Will Cameron

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
On 27 Oct 1998 00:50:33 GMT, "Dangermouse"
<mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:

>The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
>works...
>
>Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...

Maybe too much.....
I mean do we really want Daleks hawking Toilet paper, Shampoo,
frozen dinners, soda, laundry soap, etc, etc :-)

- Will.

"All those with Psychokinesis, raise my hand." - The Doctor
----
Will Cameron
wcam...@tiac.net
To Respond Via E-Mail, Please Remove The Word AMSPAY.
from my E-Mail Address.

Mike Sivier

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
wcam...@tiac.AMSPAY.net (Will Cameron) wrote:

>On 27 Oct 1998 00:50:33 GMT, "Dangermouse"
><mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:

>>The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
>>works...
>>
>>Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...

> Maybe too much.....
> I mean do we really want Daleks hawking Toilet paper, Shampoo,
>frozen dinners, soda, laundry soap, etc, etc :-)

What would you say if, as a result, the Daleks (and by association
Doctor Who) suddenly became immensely popular all over again?

... and we got a new series out of it?

--
Mike. :-)


Cliff Bowman

unread,
Oct 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/27/98
to
Mike Sivier wrote:

> "Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
> >The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
> >works...
>
> >Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...
>

> Depends who they take on. I wonder if Steve Cole will have anything to
> say about it?
>

Or, indeed, any of our authors. after all, the percentage that Hancock
wanted for each item of dalekana was a tad high - perhaps if the new
guy/gal/hermaphrodite is a bit more realistic we could see Dalek
stories by some of the more popular authors...?

Cheers,
Cliff Bowman - The meek may well inherit the earth, but probably only because we'll have thrown it in their eyes

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/7855/
ICQ: 16040247
PS change "spamcity" to "geocities" if replying via e-mail

Steve Roberts

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
On 27 Oct 1998 00:50:33 GMT, "Dangermouse"
<mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:

>The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
>works...
>
>Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...

Roll on more 'Gay Daleks' then... Actually, I think Terry would
probably be spinning in his grave if he'd seen that.

Steve

*** Views expressed are my own and do not represent BBC policy
*** Visit the Doctor Who Restoration Team Website
*** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/steveroberts/restorat.htm

Graham Nelson

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
In article <3636cf7d...@news.reith.bbc.co.uk>, Steve Roberts

<URL:mailto:steve....@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> Roll on more 'Gay Daleks' then... Actually, I think Terry would
> probably be spinning in his grave if he'd seen that.

"Jenny": Ooh, ducky, get her then. The sweetest little bottom
in the Secret Anti-Dalek Force... Pass the vaseline, would
you, Tarrant?

Dalek: Advance and destroy! Destroy and rejoice! Rejoice and
come back to my place!

--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom


David J. A. Lewis

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
Dangermouse wrote:
>
> The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
> works...
>
> Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...

The good news is they dumped Roger Hancock, and the bad news is they're
appointed Eric Hall.
Monster, Monster, the Dalek's a monster.
Where's me Taxi ?
--
Dai

Disclaimer:
The messages posted are my own views, and are in
no way intended to represent those of my employer.

Dangermouse

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to

Steve Roberts <steve....@bbc.co.uk> wrote

>
> Roll on more 'Gay Daleks' then... Actually, I think Terry would
> probably be spinning in his grave if he'd seen that.

Yeah, it amazes me that Daleks in Who are essentially priced out of the
market, and they never show up on kids' shows, but this was allowed...

Marcus Durham

unread,
Oct 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/28/98
to
In article <363614e5...@news.tiac.net> Will Cameron
<wcam...@tiac.AMSPAY.net> shared the following with us in
rec.arts.drwho:

>On 27 Oct 1998 00:50:33 GMT, "Dangermouse"
><mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>
>>The Nation family has ditched Roger Hancock as the agent for Terry's
>>works...
>>
>>Hm, I wonder if that'll open things up a bit...
>
> Maybe too much.....
> I mean do we really want Daleks hawking Toilet paper, Shampoo,
>frozen dinners, soda, laundry soap, etc, etc :-)
[snip]

BUY WAZZO BLEACH! IF YOU DON'T WE WILL EXTERMINATE YOU!!!!!!
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! etc

--
Marcus Durham
The UMTSDW Homepage. News, reviews, locations and Bates.
http://www.zenn.demon.co.uk/drwho/drwho.htm

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to
In article <3635F636...@starwatcher.org>, Jean-Marc Lofficier
<jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:

Forgive me for compressing your message a bit, Jean-Marc, but I think your
main points are:

1) Roger Hancock's job was to represent the interests of Terry Nation and
his estate/family, and as such it was his job to come up with the absolute
toughest terms possible.

2) Roger Hancock didn't turn deals down himself -- only his client can do that.

3) Clients change agents all the time without changing their policies, so
don't expect this to change the stance on Dalek stories.


I have to disagree somewhat with the relevance of these points. Yes, it's
Hancock's job to represent the interests of the Nation family -- but they
could well feel that their interests would best be served by actually
_closing a deal_ and _getting some money_, rather than continuing to ask
for deal-killing terms.

If I understand correctly, the terms for writing a Dalek novel which Nation
and Hancock established, and which Hancock has continued to dictate since
Terry Nation's death, involves the authors having to give away 50-60% of
their fee. This seems really difficult to justify -- especially now that
the figures for "War" and "Legacy" appear to have shown that the presence
of the Daleks adds a lot less than 50% to the sales.

If Hancock was being inflexible and insisting that these terms should be
maintained, while Rebecca Nation or other family members felt otherwise, I
can easily see that as a reason to change agents.

Point 2) isn't exactly relevant either. What's happening, as I understand
it, isn't that Roger Hancock is rejecting book proposals; it's that after
hearing the extreme terms Hancock is offering, authors are just saying
"Forget it." I know of at least two Dalek proposals which have suffered
this fate. I can say with a good deal of confidence that *the* reason we
don't have a Dalek book on the 1999 schedule is because Marc Platt didn't
want to do a novel for a fraction of his usual fee.

In a nutshell, Hancock's reputation for inflexibility is killing the
market. The Daleks aren't enough of a draw for Steve Cole to feel that he
*has* to commission a Dalek book, and financially it's really unattractive
for the writers. John Peel is the only writer in a _decade_ to accept
Hancock's terms -- skip Ben Aaronovitch's "Remembrance" novelization, and
you're looking at closer to two decades. I suspect it's occurred to the
Nations that, if they'd been asking for 30% rather than 60% all these
years, they could easily have had a Dalek book every year since about 1993,
and made a lot more money in the long term.

As for point 3), if people change agents all the time, then that makes the
Roger Hancock situation even more remarkable -- because if I understand
correctly, he's been the Nations' agent since the early Sixties. Something
significant must have changed for them to sever such a long-standing
relationship. It may have nothing to do with a change in policies -- but
we do have other evidence that the policy on Dalek use is changing. (Most
notably, the infamous "Gay Daleks" sketches making it to the air, when I
have no doubt that Terry would have vetoed it as disrespectful to the
Daleks' reputation.)

> if it is true that Mrs Nation has decided to dispense with Mr. Hancock's
> services (and mind you, I think this is all a rumor and with all due
> respect to DangerMouse, I have seen/heard nothing that I would call
> evidence to that effect)

I don't have "official" confirmation (ie from Steve Cole or the like) that
the Nations have dropped Hancock as their agent -- but I've heard it from a
number of sources now, including at least one who would probably have
reason to know. And if these reports are true, I'll say there's a good
chance that the doors will be opened again for Dalek books.

Regards,
Jon Blum
--
jblum at access.digex.net
"Eep," said an I.

Jean-Marc Lofficier

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to

Jonathan Blum wrote:

>
>
> I have to disagree somewhat with the relevance of these points. Yes, it's
> Hancock's job to represent the interests of the Nation family -- but they
> could well feel that their interests would best be served by actually
> _closing a deal_ and _getting some money_, rather than continuing to ask
> for deal-killing terms.

Not necessarily, Jon. For years, Disney felt that they should not cheapen their
core characters (like Mickey) by turning them into TV series. Eventually, they did
do DUCK TALES, but to this day, they have steadfastly refused to do a Mickey TV
cartoon series, even thought it'd be a huge success. For years JD Salinger has
turned down all requests to do a film of CATCHER IN THE RYE.

Money isn't everything especially when you're already rich (which I gather Terry
Nation was). My point is that agents do not make policy decisions. Hancock
followed (and enforced) Nation's "policies" if you wish. If you want to disagree
with someone, you should disagree with Nation. You're totally and utterly wrong
when you target Hancock.

>
>
> If I understand correctly, the terms for writing a Dalek novel which Nation
> and Hancock established, and which Hancock has continued to dictate since
> Terry Nation's death, involves the authors having to give away 50-60% of
> their fee. This seems really difficult to justify -- especially now that
> the figures for "War" and "Legacy" appear to have shown that the presence
> of the Daleks adds a lot less than 50% to the sales.
>

Again, this was a policy set by Terry Nation. Hancock's presence in the equation is
irrelevant. The Agent is supposed to the bad guy. But take my word for it (both as
someone who's had agents & is an agent himself), the agent never ever makes a
decision that is not wholly (if secretly) endorsed by the client. The agent is the
"bad cop" if you wish, but he only follows orders.

> If Hancock was being inflexible and insisting that these terms should be
> maintained, while Rebecca Nation or other family members felt otherwise, I
> can easily see that as a reason to change agents.

In my experience, people change agents because they want someone younger & more
aggressive, not the opposite, Jon. In fact, I can't think of a single case where
this would have happened.

To be quite honest, based on what I've seen here, this is *precisely* why I'll make
you a bet: this "Hancock is being fired" is a canard. I'll bet you it's utterly
wrong. (If Hancock had been lax, "soft", *then* I'd believe it, not the other way
around.) This reminds me of when I was debunking rumors for Phil Segal. I'll bet
you that in a few days, weeks, whatever, the news will filter down that not only
Hancock is *still* the Nation agent, but that there never was any questions about
him being fired and if we're lucky we'll find that someone (a fan, likely)
misinterpreted something he read or heard.

> Point 2) isn't exactly relevant either. What's happening, as I understand
> it, isn't that Roger Hancock is rejecting book proposals; it's that after
> hearing the extreme terms Hancock is offering, authors are just saying
> "Forget it." I know of at least two Dalek proposals which have suffered
> this fate. I can say with a good deal of confidence that *the* reason we
> don't have a Dalek book on the 1999 schedule is because Marc Platt didn't
> want to do a novel for a fraction of his usual fee.
>

You don't grasp my point: Terry Nation set the policies. Hancock enforces them.
Terry Nation decided how much he should get. Terry Nation decided who should be
permitted to use Daleks and who should not. Not Roger Hancock.

In my experience dealing with the Heirs of deceased writers (or rtists), I've found
them more inflexible than the Deceased. Respecting the Will of the Late Departed
etc etc without really understanding or asking oneself what the Late Departed would
have done etc etc. I'll make another bet: whatever Nation decided, his Estate (his
widow I suppose) will be ten times more inflexible than he was.


> In a nutshell, Hancock's reputation for inflexibility is killing the
> market. The Daleks aren't enough of a draw for Steve Cole to feel that he
> *has* to commission a Dalek book, and financially it's really unattractive
> for the writers. John Peel is the only writer in a _decade_ to accept
> Hancock's terms -- skip Ben Aaronovitch's "Remembrance" novelization, and
> you're looking at closer to two decades. I suspect it's occurred to the
> Nations that, if they'd been asking for 30% rather than 60% all these
> years, they could easily have had a Dalek book every year since about 1993,
> and made a lot more money in the long term.
>

My argument is that this has nothing to do with Roger Hancock. It's a Terry Nation
decision. Do you want me to argue the Terry Nation's side? I'll be happy to.
Representing Moebius, I get lots of people who come to us with more or less the same
type of offers, always "you could make money (more money) if.... [fill in the blank,
usually contributed designs to a film project]"

What it boils down to is: (a) what they REALLY mean is *I*'ll make more money if you
do what I want; and (b) we already have enough money, thank you. Like any good
agent with a famous client I spend more time turning down offers than accepting
them. (And that, BTW, is not *my* decision, I've often described myself as the
High Executioner of Moebius' will.)

Jon, David, you're pros. Look around you. Learn how the real world works. Terry
Nation was happy with the way things worked. He didn't need the money. He didn't
like the way JNT, Aaronovitch, Peter et al used or wished to use the Daleks. He was
perfectly entitled, legally and morally, to hold the line he held.

It pisses you guys off because *you* can't benefit. Well, tough.

(BTW, I'm not particularly "pro-Nation" either creatively, ie: I'm not that fond of
his work as a writer, or business-wise, ie: I think Ray Cusick got really shafted.
But your argument is fanwank at its utter worst.)


> As for point 3), if people change agents all the time, then that makes the
> Roger Hancock situation even more remarkable -- because if I understand
> correctly, he's been the Nations' agent since the early Sixties. Something
> significant must have changed for them to sever such a long-standing
> relationship. It may have nothing to do with a change in policies -- but
> we do have other evidence that the policy on Dalek use is changing. (Most
> notably, the infamous "Gay Daleks" sketches making it to the air, when I
> have no doubt that Terry would have vetoed it as disrespectful to the
> Daleks' reputation.)
>

I strongly doubt that. Again you do not understand how things work, do you. A
Dalek sketch on TV is worth ten times all the books that could be written. It's the
exposure that counts. I'll make you another bet. If Stephen King offered to write
a Dalek book that would sell millions & bring unprecedented publicity, I'll bet you
that you'd see an instant change in the Nation policies. Would you then be
logically entitled to draw the conclusion that it means that next week, you Jon Blum
are going to be given permission to write a Dalek book? Of course not. Apples and
oranges.

> I don't have "official" confirmation (ie from Steve Cole or the like) that
> the Nations have dropped Hancock as their agent -- but I've heard it from a
> number of sources now, including at least one who would probably have
> reason to know. And if these reports are true, I'll say there's a good
> chance that the doors will be opened again for Dalek books.
>

And I'll bet you you and your sources are utterly wrong because all the "reasons"
I've read here are utter rubbish.

JM


Dangermouse

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to

Jonathan Blum <jb...@access.digex.net> wrote

> I have to disagree somewhat with the relevance of these points. Yes,
it's
> Hancock's job to represent the interests of the Nation family -- but they
> could well feel that their interests would best be served by actually
> _closing a deal_ and _getting some money_, rather than continuing to ask
> for deal-killing terms.

Exactly my thoughts, and the reason and I've said some of the things I
have...

> Point 2) isn't exactly relevant either. What's happening, as I
understand
> it, isn't that Roger Hancock is rejecting book proposals; it's that after
> hearing the extreme terms Hancock is offering, authors are just saying
> "Forget it."

Yep.

> In a nutshell, Hancock's reputation for inflexibility is killing the
> market.

Exactly. Though speaking for myself, it's not the Daleks I want to write
for (no they wouldn't even be in the Cushing book if I get doing one) but
Blake's 7...

Jean-Marc Lofficier

unread,
Oct 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/29/98
to

Dangermouse wrote:

> Exactly. Though speaking for myself, it's not the Daleks I want to write
> for (no they wouldn't even be in the Cushing book if I get doing one) but
> Blake's 7...
>
>

Exactly NOT. You seem to miss the point. Let me reiterate: 99.99% of the
time, an agent only expresses the desires of his client. You can blame an
agent for many things (not returning phone calls is at the top of the list,
losing contracts is another beef), but do not blame him for policy decisions.
Blame the client, OK?

Now arguing the Terry Nation (instead of the Roger Hancock) case... Almost
every month I receive calls or letters from people like you who want one or the
other of the artists I work with to take part in a project, do something for
their film, whatever. My clients turn down 90% of these proposals for a
variety of reasons, mostly because they don't want to, they don't feel like it
they don't like the other guy, and they have enough money not to care either
way. (And more often than not, these proposals would benefit the other party
far more than it would benefit my clients.)

I never met Mr Nation nor discussed his policies vis a vis the Daleks with him,
but I certainly recognize them or what they are. "I don't want to, I don't
feel like it, I don't like you, and there isn't enough money for me to care."

Once again, I'm not condoning, I'm telling you folks (or trying to) the way
things are.

You're reacting like a frustrated fanboy, David, instead of a pro writer.
You're not thinking clearly. Someday, I sincerely hope you'll be a
best-selling author, known for this or that series of books, whatever, and
someday, if you get there, you'll react exactly in the same way.

JM


William December Starr

unread,
Oct 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/30/98
to
In article <jblum-ya02408000...@news.zip.com.au>,
jb...@access.digex.net (Jonathan Blum) said:

> but we do have other evidence that the policy on Dalek use is
> changing. (Most notably, the infamous "Gay Daleks" sketches
> making it to the air, when I have no doubt that Terry would
> have vetoed it as disrespectful to the Daleks' reputation.)

Jon, I know you meant that seriously, and I know that it
even makes sense in context, but dear gods, the idea of a
proposal being rejected because it would be "disrespectful
to the Daleks' reputation..." is to *seriously* giggle. :-)

-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>


Cliff Bowman

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
Jean-Marc Lofficier wrote:

[snip]


>
> Jon, David, you're pros. Look around you. Learn how the real world works. Terry
> Nation was happy with the way things worked. He didn't need the money. He didn't
> like the way JNT, Aaronovitch, Peter et al used or wished to use the Daleks. He was
> perfectly entitled, legally and morally, to hold the line he held.
>

Grief JML there was a lot of apparently emotional content in that note
(mostly snipped). You seem, however, to be missing at least some of
the originating thoughts behind Jon;s and Dave's comments (I'll assume
here that I can think vaguely like them because their comments meshed,
on the whole, so easily with what my brain came up with).

I WAS tempted to do my usual and reply on a paragraph-for-paragraph
basis, but I'd have repeated the same comment too often so I'll
docomment instead on the issues I can remember offhand (this should
make the note short too, no bad thing when it comes to my posts).

Terry Nation set the rules, he always did. I doubt anyone would
seriously argue with you that the Nation/Hancock relationship varied
from the norm in that respect. That he did so because he didn't like
this guy, thought that guy was a berk, didn't like the project or just
didn't need the money enough is perfectly logical and reasonable.

However...

He's dead, Jim.

One - and only *ONE* mind you - of the point put forth here about the
lack of Dalek revenue coming in to the Nation household (which was
once rich, but whose state we neither know nor (I suspect) wish to
know) is certainly down *from what it could be*. There are always
going to be cases where a deal could be struck but which would,
however impoverished Nation's estate could have become, still be
vetoed on the same basis that humans vetoe anything. However, Mr.
Hancock and/or his clients have not turned down every possible source
of revenue - one comment I think Jon made clear was that the dalek
deal and Hancock by extension has a *reputation* for being excessive
in comparison to the rest of the industry. Whether that's "ffair" to
the agent or not isn't in my quater, but if the agent feels he's being
judged unfairly and shouldn't be viewed as the bad cop then perhaps
he's in the wrong business. If Hancock was fired, changed his name,
and was re-employed by the Nation estate then just the fact that
there's been an apparent change would quite possibly increase the
chance of proposals being put up for Dalek use.

You're quite right, I'm certain, that TV exposure is immeasurably
better for Daleks than a few tens of thousands of books (in terms of
re-creating awareness of their existance). However, Terry didn't want
them used for comedy IIRC, and only gave Spike Milligan special
dispensation from the "no comedy" clause because of their earlier
history (largely the break Spike gave him at the start of his career).
that the Gay Daleks did come in to being suggests some kind of change
of policy. As you say, that's far more likely to have come from
Nations estate than from Hancock, which strongly suggests that his
wife (or whatever) is NOT taking a harder line than Terry did himself.

Will this result in a slew of dalek material, including books, with
only a 1% rakeoff for the estate? I'd be flabergasted if it did. Will
it result in an impression that there's greater chance for Daleks to
be used under different conditions from those established back in the
dim and distant past - quite possibly creating more opportunities for
the Nation estate to accept or turn down? I'd have thought that this
was inevitable - or if not inevitable, then at least what's being
striven for.

Let me put this another way. Let's assume, for the moment, that
Hancock is out of the picture - by choice or otherwise. Will a
prospective new agent be perceived as being "at least as tough" as
Hancock by default, or *might* it be assumed that he/she *could* be
more "agreeable"? If a change might be seen as resulting in deals
being more likely or more rewarding, might that not result in more
deals reaching the "being profferred" stage? If The Nations were to be
assumed to have been behind such a change in agents then, after such
an unusually long time without changing agents, do you think there
might have been a reason behind changing?

Lastly (in my memory) I'm not sure how valuable quoting statistics of
the industry are when speaking of a specific case where much of the
data is just not in our hands. For example, I could point out that at
least 99.999% of Usenet posts don't disagree with any of David's or
Jon's points. Would the fact that most of them are not only in a
different thread, but a different newsgroup make such a statement a
tad ludicrous?

Daniel Frankham

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to

Dear Ms Lambert,

With regards to your letter of September 18, concerning the
possible use of the Daleks in your television programme. I have
perused the script, and while it was certainly an interesting
piece of fiction (if a little far-fetched), I regret that I am
unable at this time to grant you permission to use the Daleks. I
fear that their portrayal as antagonistic, indeed genocidal,
Nazi-like evil aliens might tend to damage my clients' reputation.

Yours regretfully,

Davros

===========================================================================
"Listen, you miserable, no-talent hack," she hissed. "Transline owns you
from the balls up. If you give us any more trouble we'll have you working
in the Gothic Romance factory under the name Rosemary Titmouse. Now go
home, sober up, and get a work on _Dying Earth X_" - Dan Simmons, Hyperion.

Mike Sivier

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:

>Exactly. Though speaking for myself, it's not the Daleks I want to write
>for (no they wouldn't even be in the Cushing book if I get doing one) but
>Blake's 7...

This is intriguing...

--
Mike


Nick Smale

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to
Jean-Marc Lofficier <jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:

> In my experience, people change agents because they want someone younger &
> more aggressive

Roger Hancock has been Terry Nation's agent for over thirty five years,
since at least the early sixties.

Even assuming that he's much younger than his brother Tony, he *must* be
into his sixties now.

Isn't it most likely that he's simply retired?

--
Nick Smale <http://www.smale.demon.co.uk>
Manchester, UK

Jean-Marc Lofficier

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to

Cliff Bowman wrote:

> Grief JML there was a lot of apparently emotional content in that note
> (mostly snipped). You seem, however, to be missing at least some of
> the originating thoughts behind Jon;s and Dave's comments (I'll assume
> here that I can think vaguely like them because their comments meshed,
> on the whole, so easily with what my brain came up with).

That's very perceptive of you, Cliff. In a nutshell, when I wear my agent's hat (I've got quite a collection of
hats :-)), especially when I handle Moebius' business, I'm very much in a Roger Hancock-sort of position, and I turn
down a lot of folks who sound just like Jon and Dave, and I can't help feeling that they see *their* interests, not
that of my client, and if they were in my shoes, they'd understand. Sigh.

That said, I'm in agreement with virtually everything else you said. For the record, let me restate briefly my
original thoughts, which were:

1) I think people who disagreed with Dalek policies should have been blaming Terry Nation and not Roger Hancock;

2) I *understood* Terry Nation's Dalek policies; in his place, I probably would have done roughly the same thing;

3) Based on what I've seen/heard so far, I very much doubt Roger Hancock has been fired.

Fairly simple.

JM


Jean-Marc Lofficier

unread,
Oct 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/31/98
to

Nick Smale wrote:

> Jean-Marc Lofficier <jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:
>
> > In my experience, people change agents because they want someone younger &

> > more aggressive
>
> Roger Hancock has been Terry Nation's agent for over thirty five years,
> since at least the early sixties.
>
> Even assuming that he's much younger than his brother Tony, he *must* be
> into his sixties now.
>
> Isn't it most likely that he's simply retired?
>
>

Could be. But that wasn't at all what was implied here. It was implied ere
that he'd been fired because in effect he was too tough.
I'm sure you appreciate the difference.

JM


Dangermouse

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to

Mike Sivier <mi...@wurzzz.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<909869360.23958.1...@news.demon.co.uk>...

What? A Dalek-less Cushing story, or the belief that I could do B7 a damn
sight better than Barry Letts does?

Dangermouse

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to

Phil Lancaster <plan...@clara.net> wrote
> "I had proposed from the start a fifty-fifty split of monies from any
Dalek
> books, and Terry was absolutely adamant that this was completely unfair -
to me.
> He insisted on my taking a much larger share than he did because I was
doing the
> writing." - John Peel in a tribute to Terry. Maybe I'm mistaken, but this
> doesn't sound much like Nation telling Hancock to take 50-60%.

But that's Terry's trusted friend, not some new writer that Terry never
heard of.

Jean-Marc Lofficier

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to

Phil Lancaster wrote:

> > Exactly NOT. You seem to miss the point. Let me reiterate: 99.99% of the
> >time, an agent only expresses the desires of his client. You can blame an
> >agent for many things (not returning phone calls is at the top of the list,
> >losing contracts is another beef), but do not blame him for policy decisions.
> >Blame the client, OK?
>

> "I had proposed from the start a fifty-fifty split of monies from any Dalek
> books, and Terry was absolutely adamant that this was completely unfair - to me.
> He insisted on my taking a much larger share than he did because I was doing the
> writing." - John Peel in a tribute to Terry. Maybe I'm mistaken, but this
> doesn't sound much like Nation telling Hancock to take 50-60%.
>

> Nick

Is this supposed to be a reply to my point? I'm afraid if it is, I don't get it.
If anything, it would seem to validate the notion than Nation, not Hancock, made the
final decisions (which of course is generally the case).
JM


Jean-Marc Lofficier

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to

Dangermouse wrote:

>
> But that's Terry's trusted friend, not some new writer that Terry never
> heard of.
>

Which if you recall was my original point, ie: "blame Nation, not Hancock."

Since you sort of started this (at least yours was the first msg I read), have
you -- has anyone -- actually found out what the actua truth is regarding the
current status of Roger Hancock?

Someone threw the idea that he might be retiring, in which case of course the
Nation family would have to look for another agent, which may have been
misconstrued as them firing Hancock. (My contention is that clients rarely (if
ever) fire an agent for being too tough.)

After all this brouhaha, I'm sort of curious to find out the truth myself.

JM


Mike Sivier

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:

>Mike Sivier <mi...@wurzzz.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><909869360.23958.1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>> "Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:
>>
>> >Exactly. Though speaking for myself, it's not the Daleks I want to write
>> >for (no they wouldn't even be in the Cushing book if I get doing one)
>but
>> >Blake's 7...
>>
>> This is intriguing...

>What? A Dalek-less Cushing story, or the belief that I could do B7 a damn
>sight better than Barry Letts does?

The thought that you'd even want to do B7.

--
Mike


Gareth Thomas

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
In article <01be059d$3a7800e0$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>, Dangermouse
<mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> writes

>What? A Dalek-less Cushing story, or the belief that I could do B7 a damn
>sight better than Barry Letts does?

Would you be including the title character played, IIRC, by an actor
with the world's finest name?

In other words, would this be B7 "New Adventure" or a B7 "Missing
Adventure"?

--
Gareth Thomas

Jean-Marc Lofficier

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to

Dangermouse wrote:

> Let's try to break it down simply.
>
> AN Author says " I want to write a Dalek book". Roger says "Give us 60%"
> Author says "bugger off." Result= the Nations get 60% of nothing.

Which may be exactly what Nation wanted.


>
>
> AN Author now goes to whoever takes over from Roger. New agent says "Give
> us 20%" (I'm just choosing an arbitary figure here - I've no idea what
> they'd ask) Author thinks, then says "Yeah, OK I can stand that" Result=
> Nations get a fifth of whatever the fee is.
>

The basic mistake in your reasoning that you fail to see is that -- IF there
is a change in the policies (which is not proven) -- it is not the agent's
decision, but the client's. So in this case, it would be the result of Mrs.
Nation having a change of mind, not Mr Hancock.

JM


Helen Fayle

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to

Dangermouse wrote in message <01be059d$3a7800e0$LocalHost@lgwujvnl>...
>>
>> This is intriguing...

>
>What? A Dalek-less Cushing story, or the belief that I could do B7 a damn
>sight better than Barry Letts does?


That last bit goes without saying... <g>

I'd LOVE to see what you could do with Avon!!

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
In article <363891E0...@starwatcher.org>, Jean-Marc Lofficier
<jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:

A brief recap rather than quoting at length: I said it was possible that
the Nation family might now feel that their interests would best be served
by an agent who took a stance which made it easier to close deals, as
opposed to the position Terry and Roger Hancock took for years. Jean-Marc
disagreed, and said that money was not necessarily everything. I don't
dispute that; there could be other explanations. I'll explain why I think
this is the likely reason, though.

Jean-Marc also reiterated that agents do not make policy decisions, clients
do. I don't dispute that either.

However, it appears the clients have made a policy decision to drop
Hancock, and I think it's worth wondering why.

It's worth bearing in mind that Roger Hancock wasn't just their agent, but
apparently an old friend of Terry's as well. He's the agent who originally
negotiated Terry part ownership of the Daleks, he's the brother of Terry's
old partner in comedy Tony Hancock, he was working with Terry on the
question of Dalek rights since the glory days of Dalekmania. As such,
having a personal connection as well as a legal one to Terry, I suspect
what you suggest is true about Terry's heirs is probably at least as true
about Roger himself:

> In my experience dealing with the Heirs of deceased writers (or rtists), I've
> found them more inflexible than the Deceased. Respecting the Will of the
Late
> Departed etc etc without really understanding or asking oneself what the Late
> Departed would have done etc etc.

Roger Hancock may well have felt that, when it came to policy decisions
which were technically the clients' to make, he had at least as good an
idea as they did about what Terry would have wanted.

> I'll make another bet: whatever Nation decided, his Estate (his
> widow I suppose) will be ten times more inflexible than he was.

I'm afraid that bet's already lost. As Cliff Bowman and I mentioned, since
Terry's death the Nation estate has authorized a series of sketches on a
comedy show featuring the "Gay Daleks". You argued that this gets the
Daleks valuable exposure, and that may be the case -- but nevertheless, it
was widely known that Terry refused to let the Daleks be used for comedy
sketches, believing that doing so would cheapen the Daleks' reputation.
(The only exception I'm aware of was a Spike Milligan sketch in the '70s,
which Terry supposedly allowed as a personal favor for Spike.)

It seems pretty clear that Terry was keen to avoid the Daleks being played
for camp value (and thus having their credibility suffer in the way
Godzilla's did for years before the recent movie, for example). But in the
past year, the Nation estate has authorized at least two comic uses of the
Daleks -- the other that I know of was the clip from Red Dwarf's 10th
Anniversary night -- and I doubt that they can get much more camp than the
Gay Daleks.

Assuming that it's not Hancock's decision, but rather the estate's, that
indicates the estate is willing to make deals which the Late Departed would
not have approved. And *if* Hancock, because of his long association and
friendship with Terry, is certain that he has a better grasp of the Will of
the Late Departed than the family members do... well, I can see that
leading to the kind of conflict which could cause the family to take their
business elsewhere.

You said that:

> In my experience, people change agents because they want someone younger &
> more aggressive, not the opposite, Jon.

... and I think that this may actually be the case. The Nation estate
seems to want to focus more aggressively on closing deals that benefit
them, rather than on blocking them because It's Not What Terry Would Have
Wanted.

As I think I said a message or two ago, this is all conjecture -- but if
it's true that the Nation family has dropped Hancock, which Steve Cole now
appears to have confirmed through another author, then it's the best
hypothesis I can come up with. (The only other possibility that comes to
mind is that Hancock has simply retired, but I've heard nothing to indicate
that that's the case.)


One other thing I'd like to take issue with:

> Jon, David, you're pros. Look around you. Learn how the real world works.
> Terry Nation was happy with the way things worked. He didn't need the
money.
> He didn't like the way JNT, Aaronovitch, Peter et al used or wished to
use the
> Daleks. He was perfectly entitled, legally and morally, to hold the line he
> held.

> It pisses you guys off because *you* can't benefit. Well, tough.

I think you've jumped to a big conclusion here. I'm not out to write a
Dalek book. I'm not out to do a deal with the Nation estate. I don't have
any personal or financial interest in the matter, except as a reader --
someone who'd like to see what some of my favorite authors would do with a
Dalek story. That's the only "benefit" I'd get out of a less extortionate
Dalek-book rate.

(The closest I'd get to a Dalek story, as I once said, is that I've got a
short-story idea I've been kicking around that involves them. But if I
ever do it, I'm pretty much resigned to it being a freebie anyway -- the
Beeb's short-story rates are ridiculously low even if the Nation estate
*isn't* taking a cut.)

And when it comes to your comment that Terry didn't like the way "...Peter
et al used or wished to use the Daleks", we know that bit at least is just
not correct -- as John Peel himself said, Terry approved the outlines for
"War" and "Legacy", which were the ones PDE wanted to publish. The
negotiations apparently broke down solely over issues of money.

In any case, I haven't been talking about whether Terry's position was
defensible from _my_ (fan) point of view. All I've been discussing is the
logic from _their_ point of view -- Terry's and his estate's.

I've never once said Terry Nation wasn't "entitled" to his desires on the
use of the Daleks. Legally and morally, he has the right to ask for 50% of
the take on a Dalek book. But he can be "entitled" to do it, and still be
foolish and short-sighted in doing so. Especially since it's now *ten
years* since the Daleks last appeared in a TV story, public consciousness
of the Daleks continues to slip with no exposure, and sales figures have
now shown that the Daleks add 5-10% to book sales rather than 50%. Their
negotiating position isn't nearly as strong as when Terry was alive -- and
even if you're already wealthy, you don't want your cash cow to die from
neglect.

Now the Nation estate has shown that they're willing to dispense with some
of Terry's usage guidelines (about the comedy sketches), and indeed with
the agent who determined those terms with Terry in the first place. I
don't think it's unreasonable to consider the possibility that they might
be willing to change the terms themselves as well.

Jonathan Blum

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
In article <363BBED7...@starwatcher.org>, Jean-Marc Lofficier

<jean...@starwatcher.org> wrote:
> That said, I'm in agreement with virtually everything else you said. For
the record, let me restate briefly my
> original thoughts, which were:

> 1) I think people who disagreed with Dalek policies should have been
blaming Terry Nation and not Roger Hancock;

I don't think we can say how much responsibility Hancock had for the
policies. Certainly Nation approved them, but then Kate and I have been
known to approve policies which were originally our agent's idea. And as
the policies are only now changing, around the time of Hancock's reported
departure, it's worth considering how responsible he was for wanting to
keep them in place.

> 2) I *understood* Terry Nation's Dalek policies; in his place, I probably
would have done roughly the same thing;

I understand them too. I just don't think the conditions that existed at
the time Terry made them still hold. Five years ago, Terry didn't feel
that the Daleks needed the high-profile exposure on Children In Need via
"Dimensions In Time". This year, his estate apparently feels they could
use the more intensive but much less sympathetic (and somewhat
lower-rating) exposure of the Gay Daleks sketches.

> 3) Based on what I've seen/heard so far, I very much doubt Roger Hancock
has been fired.

Well, I've got confirmation now -- not directly from Steve Cole, because I
haven't had reason to talk to him lately, but from another author who says
he just talked to Steve. He said Roger Hancock is off the case.

Now that we've got that out of the way, the only question is why...

Dangermouse

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to

Mike Sivier <mi...@wurzzz.demon.co.uk> wrote

> >> This is intriguing...
>
> >What? A Dalek-less Cushing story, or the belief that I could do B7 a
damn
> >sight better than Barry Letts does?
>

> The thought that you'd even want to do B7.

Why? Avon is great! I mean, a cast of sarky outlaws led by a total
psycho... That's exactly my sort of thing.

Dangermouse

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to

Gareth Thomas <Gar...@shaggaz.demon.co.uk> wrote

> >What? A Dalek-less Cushing story, or the belief that I could do B7 a
damn
> >sight better than Barry Letts does?
>

> Would you be including the title character played, IIRC, by an actor
> with the world's finest name?
>
> In other words, would this be B7 "New Adventure" or a B7 "Missing
> Adventure"?

I may yet finish that B7 "NA" for Judith Proctor in time for Redemption...

But if it was an officially-licenced BBC book, it'd be set somewhere in the
run-up to Star One, to try to sort out the problems with the timescale of
how and when Travis contacted the the Andromedans...

And you're damn right I'd make the Andromedans the Kelvans from By Any
Other Name...

Dangermouse

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to

Jonathan Blum <jb...@access.digex.net> wrote

> > Jon, David, you're pros. Look around you. Learn how the real world
works.
> > Terry Nation was happy with the way things worked. He didn't need the
> money.
> > He didn't like the way JNT, Aaronovitch, Peter et al used or wished to
> use the
> > Daleks. He was perfectly entitled, legally and morally, to hold the
line he
> > held.
>
> > It pisses you guys off because *you* can't benefit. Well, tough.
>
> I think you've jumped to a big conclusion here. I'm not out to write a
> Dalek book. I'm not out to do a deal with the Nation estate. I don't
have
> any personal or financial interest in the matter, except as a reader --
> someone who'd like to see what some of my favorite authors would do with
a
> Dalek story. That's the only "benefit" I'd get out of a less
extortionate
> Dalek-book rate.

And nor do I have any desire to do a Dalek book (If I was making a WHo
show, I know how I'd love to use them, but not in a book)

Let's try to break it down simply.

AN Author says " I want to write a Dalek book". Roger says "Give us 60%"
Author says "bugger off." Result= the Nations get 60% of nothing.

AN Author now goes to whoever takes over from Roger. New agent says "Give


us 20%" (I'm just choosing an arbitary figure here - I've no idea what
they'd ask) Author thinks, then says "Yeah, OK I can stand that" Result=
Nations get a fifth of whatever the fee is.

And that's what it boils down to.

Daniel Gooley

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
Jean-Marc Lofficier

> > AN Author now goes to whoever takes over from Roger. New agent says
"Give
> > us 20%" (I'm just choosing an arbitary figure here - I've no idea what
> > they'd ask) Author thinks, then says "Yeah, OK I can stand that"
Result=
> > Nations get a fifth of whatever the fee is.

> The basic mistake in your reasoning that you fail to see is that -- IF
there
> is a change in the policies (which is not proven) -- it is not the
agent's
> decision, but the client's. So in this case, it would be the result of
Mrs.
> Nation having a change of mind, not Mr Hancock.

Isn't that what everyone has been thinking since word of the change? In
fact, I think that's the whole point of what people like DM and Jon have
been saying.

If Mrs. Nation (or the Nation estate) have decided to change policies,
finding an agent who doesn't feel obliged to honour Terry's policy is a
good first step towards a more negotiable situation which can take
advantage of the potential offered by the Daleks.

Which is still, of course, conjecture.

Danny

L J Parkin

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
Jon said

>Assuming that it's not Hancock's decision, but rather the estate's ...

... Which is apparently confirmed by the on-screen credit.

Lance

L J Parkin

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
>Now the Nation estate has shown that they're willing to dispense with some
>of Terry's usage guidelines (about the comedy sketches), and indeed with
>the agent who determined those terms with Terry in the first place. I
>don't think it's unreasonable to consider the possibility that they might
>be willing to change the terms themselves as well.

I have no idea why Hancock is no longer dealing with the Daleks, and
wouldn't want to speculate, but this does seem to be the case. There also
seems to have been a loosening of policy regarding the Daleks and B7
recently, and this - from what I gather - has been instigated by Nation's
children: as recently as two years ago, the Gay Daleks and Logic of
Empire would have been stamped on, now they have been actively
approved by the Nation Estate. Again, I'm not going to ascribe motives
to people I don't know, but the policy seems to have shifted.

Lance

Adam Richards

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On 2 Nov 1998 07:05:35 GMT, ljpa...@aol.com (L J Parkin) wrote:

>>Now the Nation estate has shown that they're willing to dispense with some
>>of Terry's usage guidelines (about the comedy sketches), and indeed with
>>the agent who determined those terms with Terry in the first place. I
>>don't think it's unreasonable to consider the possibility that they might
>>be willing to change the terms themselves as well.
>

>I have no idea why Hancock is no longer dealing with the Daleks, and
>wouldn't want to speculate, but this does seem to be the case. There also
>seems to have been a loosening of policy regarding the Daleks and B7
>recently, and this - from what I gather - has been instigated by Nation's
>children: as recently as two years ago, the Gay Daleks and Logic of
>Empire would have been stamped on, now they have been actively
>approved by the Nation Estate. Again, I'm not going to ascribe motives
>to people I don't know, but the policy seems to have shifted.

The Gay Daleks were fab. Much more lively than the 'straight' ones in
Dr.Who at any rate.

Ad...@roblang.demon.co.uk

================================================
THATCHER & PINOCHET SITTING IN A TREE - KAY-EYE-ESS-ESS
EYE-ENN-GEE! READ ALL ABOUT THEIR FORBIDDEN LOVE AT:
http://www.roblang.demon.co.uk/fangrok/Current.html

Dangermouse

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to

> Jean-Marc Lofficier
>
> > The basic mistake in your reasoning that you fail to see is that -- IF
> there
> > is a change in the policies (which is not proven) -- it is not the
> agent's
> > decision, but the client's. So in this case, it would be the result of
> Mrs.
> > Nation having a change of mind, not Mr Hancock.

How many times...?

What we're saying is that Roger, being a longtime pal of Terry, most likely
thought he knew Terry's wishes about terms better than his widow and kids
did. End result, they fire him so that they can be more reasonable.

Dangermouse

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to

Helen Fayle <hfa...@innotts.co.uk> wrote

> I'd LOVE to see what you could do with Avon!!

If ever I finish "The First Casualty" fanfic - maybe in time for
Redemption - you can!

FWIW in Lords, I basically decided to write Turlough as "young Avon at
school..."

Mike Sivier

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
"Dangermouse" <mas...@sol.co.ukDEATH-TO-SPAMMERS> wrote:

>Mike Sivier <mi...@wurzzz.demon.co.uk> wrote
>> >> This is intriguing...
>>

>> >What? A Dalek-less Cushing story, or the belief that I could do B7 a
>damn
>> >sight better than Barry Letts does?
>>

>> The thought that you'd even want to do B7.

>Why? Avon is great! I mean, a cast of sarky outlaws led by a total
>psycho... That's exactly my sort of thing.

Avon wasn't a psycho.

</controversy>

--
Mike :)


Brett O'Callaghan

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98