Chapter 64: Booksellers at the Table
The first bookseller asked about my marriage; the twelve orders depended on how I refused.
The question reached the live table before North Quay finished displaying my independent title card.
“When did you know about Oliver and Pippa?” the bookseller asked.
Twelve numbered shop windows waited along the side of my screen, each still marked CONDITIONAL until the session ended.
The approved session rules allowed questions about the work, credit and contract status.
They did not turn private history, messages or relationships into retail copy.
“I won't discuss private details to sell this book,” I said.
Nobody cut the recorded stream, softened the refusal or replaced it with a prepared anecdote.
I moved the first prepared rights card into view without repeating or denying the private allegation.
It separated the shared pen-name licence from the six existing books.
The second card showed that six existing editions and their royalty schedules continued unchanged.
The third explained accurate public credit without converting performance into ownership.
The fourth identified Saltmere as my independently sourced and separately stored manuscript.
The fifth acknowledged Oliver's real recorded performance, editing and specific writing contributions to earlier work.
The sixth showed the unaccepted optional final volume still required both signatures.
The seventh limited what private, financial and unpublished information could be made public.
Seven precise rights lines replaced the personal answer the first question had invited.
I showed the dated clean-room starting record for Saltmere without exposing the manuscript itself.
The source list identified dated harbour notices, licensed tables, authorised references and my version sequence.
It did not claim those records awarded every conceivable right, remedy or royalty.
They established this project's independent formation and custody.
A shop in Bath asked whether Pippa had written the old series.
“No,” I said. “She has her own recorded role on a separate new project.”
The distinction kept one accurate old-project fact from becoming a weapon against another piece of work.
A Bristol bookseller asked whether Marian Crowe could appear on Saltmere later.
I read the approved sentence already used in shops.
“Any future use requires both creators' written approval; none has been given.”
The moderator pinned that approved sentence beside the seven cards for the remaining questions.
No one displayed private messages, addresses, unpublished text or financial schedules during the stream.
The first bookseller returned to the allocation form.
Its row changed from CONDITIONAL to CONFIRMED.
Eleven more rows followed, one at a time.
Each confirmation retained the separate payment or commitment evidence filed and checked the day before.
The recorded session satisfied the information condition; it did not manufacture, dispatch or invoice stock.
All 300 provisional copies remained distributed among the twelve independent shops.
Their confirmations entered the later print-run model as transparent provisional sell-in evidence.
The national chain did not return.
I kept twelve smaller counters, twelve separate relationships and the additional delivery cost.
Before the moderator closed, an Irish distributor requested the floor.
Its original capped interest covered 600 future copies subject to the agreed returns limit and date.
The distributor increased its provisional intention to 900 after hearing the source explanation.
The same proportional returns ceiling, March deadline and distributor freight responsibility remained attached without exception.
The additional 300 created no current inventory, dispatch obligation, invoice or press instruction.
Distribution recorded the amendment as conditional demand for the committee model.
At 11:52, the session archive closed with all twelve shop confirmations.
The recording archive retained the opening question, but approved promotional extracts excluded it completely.
My refusal remained in the compliance record, where its context could be checked.
Then my editor placed two authorised ending samples on the shared screen.
One exposed every name in Carys's accident ledger; the other protected an uninvolved family.
By Monday, I had to decide which truth the finished book would publish.