Letter of Intent

16 October 2018

Emma,

After the recent meeting in Boulder, we just wanted to write up some quick notes to begin informal discussions with respect to the project proposed. We acknowledge your desire, due to low in-flows over the past two quarters, to perform some of the work in kind (barter system), for at least six months. These gigs often work fine that way, if that’s your preference. We will therefore cover the carrying costs; but we would probably need background checks, and to negotiate the specific terms with Murphy & Davis, given that they will be putting up about 10% of the resources in play. After the initial period, all parties may (and should) reassess terms. To be clear, we don’t care about the backgrounds, but Murphy & Davis are “exacting,” shall we say.

We are probably looking at something domestic-only to start, with room, board, and related benefits also covered. Later on, we could look at i18n efforts, but it will depend somewhat on the economic and (obviously) political conditions in the affected location(s).

Four or more works created jointly—or else based on, or inspired by one party and realised by the other(s)—will be considered sufficient bona fides to continue. There is no precedent for this quantity of work having been completed at this stage (excepting one vaguely similar example in the 1990s), which is why we are waiving the usual requirement of ten completed works.

Whilst there appears to be no common approach in this situation, there is apparently a common purpose. These are distinct points, but either one is usually sufficient. With enough glue, you can make particle board, OSB, plywood—all of these are actually stronger than the materials used to make them. Not to speak of laminates! It’s very much the same here, by way of an admittedly awkward, but apt, metaphor.

Naturally, we will need to determine the monetary value of the planned work; most likely, the value to be traded in return already exceeds that of the planned work on your part, so in this initial instance my partners and I will agree to eat the difference. After six to twelve months, provided there is still a clear way forward, we can determine whether the initial arrangement still makes sense. Probably, it will not; but by that point we will have more information about the viability of the longer-term project, especially with respect to production location(s).

During this initial phase, it will be imperative to keep the utmost discretion with respect to Gerard, Francisco, and Julia. If they were to become aware of the seed project, they could very well back out prematurely. This would likely stall the entire series, or at least cause serious disruption, possibly delaying it by anywhere from two to five years—maybe more. This could ultimately cause the entire venture to fail completely. This cannot be chanced! The upside potential is far too great to make the risking it worthwhile in any reasonable sense. That said, we would nevertheless need to cultivate alliances with them (mainly, with Gerard and Francisco; but Julia may also be able to assist us in wrangling the two of them, given their peculiarities, ha ha) to support the initial attempts, given the magnitude of effort required to keep everyone on the same page.

All involved parties should consider undertaking a thorough reassessment of their respective goals (artistically, financially, logistically, personally; we need to cover all angles). It is conceivable—maybe even necessary—that some divergence from individual perspectives may occur. As an obvious example, the current focus on which catering provider should be used is one area where one party (L) clearly has more at stake. In this example, one of the other parties (D) may be able and willing to change direction, essentially ceding most control to the others, provided only that a reasonable ceiling on costs is implemented. In other areas, notably the entanglement clause, it seems that all parties are already on the same page, if not the same paragraph! We choose these examples deliberately, because the catering is usually a no-brainer, whilst the entanglement clause often takes months to iron out (as opposed to the mere weeks it took here), irrespective of the fact that the success or failure of the escalated entanglement stipulations remains to be seen.

Another way to look at this proposal is that, were we to do nothing, the opportunity would likely slip away at once, perhaps irrevocably, primarily due to the strong emotional content of what would become the completed work, as well as its timeliness relative to current events. Obviously, this is only one among other reasons; but that, my partners and I believe, is the most strongly asserted claim. Thus, from an “opportunity cost” perspective, time is of the essence (literally, and in the legal sense, too, ha ha). The only opposing argument is that, all things being equal, one could pursue similar opportunities with other parties in future, once production location(s) and other logistical issues are firmed up. But when was the last time you ran into “all things being equal”? It’s almost an argument of false equivalence, somewhat like suggesting that buying a McMansion would be the same as buying an old country estate. No doubt they are both expensive money pits, but one has at least some value, whilst the other is not just a net loss but a tragic one at that! No, really. It’s that grave, so let’s consider all the repercussions here if we fail to make a deal in the next month or two.

We can quibble all that you and Johnson want over the nitty-gritty details; that is to be expected. But we’re talking big-picture here…the details are largely going to take care of themselves. You have to get the system in place, which clearly includes casting. Without the proper people in the proper roles, what is the point of doing it at all, right? Really, think this part through. There is enough evidence that you’ve already selected the right people; probably more than enough evidence. Nevertheless, this should still be verified independently by all the parties involved, and corroborated by those who are mainly external to the situation, albeit some with vested interests. As you may have noticed, the corroborating parties include some which are typically antithetical to all project ideas of this kind, yet they are already firmly on board with this one!! That alone should give you pause. Further, the two principals in this case (L&D) are, to varying degrees, known to be somewhat cynical as to the likely success of such a project, especially one involving themselves, such that the shared optimism ought to tell you something, loudly. Hell, you have seen at least two or three cases already during the pre-planning where one or more parties described the experience as almost mystical, or as having a sense of ongoing surprise, or some such nonsense. A bit of mysticism, but wrapped in logic, is a big part of the goal with this project, and the abundant existence of that stuff during the early stages of work should feel somewhat akin to being soundly boxed about the ears.

For this type of amorphous project to thrive (not just merely to “succeed”), you need to have the philosophical underpinnings in place first, somewhat as Jorgensen suggests in much of his work. You need the arc, the myths, the axioms and constants; as he famously wrote: “just like the Universe, only smaller.” (That is probably one of the finest lines he ever wrote, but let us not digress!) Once these points have been firmly established, the rest can be fleshed out over the skeleton. It’s not rocket surgery, as the saying almost goes. Just simple steps, in the right order. As [c]ummings told us, since feeling is first, you can use these early, if small, indications as a firm-ish foundation for the rest. Don’t be swayed by the idea that only some complicated, logical reasoning-out is going to suffice, because that’s never, ever true—even with God and maths—as we know from the other discussion on the similar project which we had last year. (And let us not forget how that one ended, ha!)

Well, I think that’s enough of my prattling for now. Olivia or I will be in touch with you before long. If you have any further concerns or ideas before the formal negotiations begin, please don’t hesitate contact one of us!

Best Regards,

Kenny

P.S. And, by Jove, by jingo, if someone asks me “what’s the frequency, Kenneth” one more heckin’ time, I am going to strangle them. Figuratively, of course.