Chapter 73: Presents
Oliver finally offered me half of the future he had tried to give away.
On Saturday morning, my solicitor projected his complete proposal across her small conference-room wall.
MARIAN CROWE PRESENTS would appear above both independent new projects and selected future titles under licence.
Grace Ellison and Oliver Ellison would divide the proposed confidential licence income equally after stated administration costs.
The figures were confidential, commercially substantial and deliberately easy to imagine spending before I examined the scope.
The proposal described the prominent banner as a harmless bridge between established readers and separate creators.
It also described Pippa as part of the brand's next generation without curing her lack of successor status.
No promotional phrasing or fee could make that sentence compatible with the still-missing second signature.
The shared licence required both of us to approve future use.
It did not become authorised or safe because Oliver had finally included my half of the proposed fee.
PRESENTS would still tell readers that Marian Crowe endorsed the new work.
That paid endorsement would revive the successor story through cover typography instead of another public announcement.
Saltmere had just earned its own contract without the old name.
Larkspur had earned a smaller real route through its own audio performance.
Putting the shared banner above either title would blur achievements the formal process had deliberately separated.
My solicitor asked whether I wanted to negotiate price before scope.
I said no.
A higher fee or better split could not repair a future use I did not want licensed at all.
I instructed her to reject Marian Crowe endorsement on every new work, campaign and future independent proposal.
The written refusal covered PRESENTS, FROM THE CREATORS OF and any equivalent successor or endorsement variation.
It did not demand that the six existing Blackwater editions disappear.
Their current limited name use, publishing contracts and royalty schedules remained a separate documented discussion.
It did not erase Oliver's performance, editing or specific writing contributions.
An accurate contribution statement could still name each verified contribution without transferring control of the future.
The unaccepted optional final volume also needed a proper cancellation route.
Three chapters and a summary could not remain an endless excuse for brand continuation.
I authorised negotiations on those three subjects only.
Existing editions could continue within their current licensed scope.
The optional final volume could be cancelled by a joint written termination.
Public credit could become more precise without calling either of us the sole author.
My solicitor drafted the response while I watched each boundary enter the letter.
She omitted the proposed licence amount from the refusal.
No public statement or reader campaign needed to know what I had declined.
The cost was real even if the number remained private.
Half the proposed future income could have paid my move, promotion and several quiet years.
Accepting it would have made every new success dependent on the name I was trying to retire.
At 12:14, the refusal left my solicitor's account with complete headers and attachments preserved.
Oliver's solicitor acknowledged receipt seven minutes later.
The acknowledgement did not accept cancellation, limited reprints or the contribution process.
It confirmed only that the future-brand offer had been refused.
I signed the scope note for the next settlement draft.
It listed old editions, optional-final-volume cancellation and accurate contribution language.
New-work endorsement appeared beneath DO NOT NEGOTIATE.
My solicitor stored the proposal, reply and scope note in separate rights files.
The financial offer and detailed projections remained protected by confidentiality in both solicitors' files.
Nothing about my refusal stopped Oliver or Pippa using their own names on Larkspur.
At 12:31, a second reply arrived from Oliver's solicitor.
It contained no revised money and no new licence wording.
It asked one question instead.
If the brand could not present her, why should Pippa keep carrying the public blame of a successor?