Robin B., Diana Holquist and a few other folks have sent me the link to this article from early August in the UK Guardian about a clause in some Random House contracts for children’s book writers that attempts to dictate behavior. From the article:
If you act or behave in a way which damages your reputation as a person suitable to work with or be associated with children, and consequently the market for or value of the work is seriously diminished, and we may (at our option) take any of the following actions: Delay publication / Renegotiate advance / Terminate the agreement.”
Oh, come on now, and I mean it. What defines acts or behavior that damages value of the work? And what’s up with casting childrens authors as role models for all? The Society of Author’s Children’s Writers and Illustrators Group has advised authors who receive that clause in their contract to ask for its removal, but the idea that its in there in the first place makes my jaw drop for a host of reasons.
The degree to which authors in many genres are asked to serve as spokespeople for their books, marketing themselves as much as the book itself, is profoundly, in my opinion, bizarre to the point of being fucked up. But in the latter part of the last century, the romance novel authors who received the lion’s share of press were also those who lived to some degree that opulent fantasy lifestyle – or appeared to, anyway. Barbara Cartland and Danielle Steel come to mind. One dripping with pink and pearls, the other pictured in jewels and couture in her posh flat with art in the background.
So if authors are called upon to market themselves as well as the work, is it such a jump for a publisher to have a preference in conduct for that author? I’m not saying it’s appropriate or that it’s not profoundly insulting, but in the current marketing atmosphere, it doesn’t seem like this clause is coming out of nowhere.
But on the other hand, shouldn’t a publisher know better than the cast all its authors according to a stereotypical mold according to genre? Do the mystery writers have to wear trenchcoats and carry magnifying glasses when they go on tour? Are the romance writers going to get upper east side apartments or at the least a big string of pearls (literally, not figuratively!)? What about erotica writers? A no clothing clause? Holquist mentioned the same in her email to me, and I shudder to ponder the erotica author clause.
The Guardian article mocks the entire concept of the clause based on the number of titty-licious stars whose fame has led to contracts for children’s books, from Jordan to Madonna. But the part that really caught my eye:
Publishers often flirt with the idea that sanitisation equals success, presumably copying an American business model, and this is utterly, utterly wrong.
Agreed, ma’am. Utterly agreed. Meet you at the pub.
Ah, come on now folks! Don’t be so naive that romance writers and others DON’T dress the part for public appearences & book covers. How many author pics for supernatural romances show the author in black, in a cape, etc. Even La Nora—I hate to say this—has a new picture for her “in Blood” series that fits the character more than her other author photos. It has her in a long black leather coat, jeans, on a bridge, determined expression on her face, very much like you believe her heroine Eve Dallas might appear. Publishers spend big bucks on covers. They HAVE to care about the author pic in the back.
YES. Maybe we could get away from the “only the Brits here” and “only the Americans here” rhetoric? Remember, it’s the British Society of Authors that’s protesting this clause – people who are, yes, aware of the current pedophilia scare here in England, but who are also rightfully alarmed by the use of intentionally vague legal wording that can be used by the publishers in any of a number of worrying ways in the future, many of them really awful for writers and completely unconnected to the pedophilia question. Whether we each personally think it’s likely that the publishers would use it in ways we happen to disagree with or not doesn’t actually matter – the main point is, this is wording that would make it legal and possible for them to use it that way at any point in the future, which is why writers (especially writers trying to build a real career) can’t afford to sign such vague clauses.
I immediately jumped to the paedophilia connection also.
However, my next thought was a great big WTF? As a clause in a contract, that’s legally unenforceable in its current form, or at least unenforceable without a courtcase, with attendant extremely expensive lawyer’s fees, ruinously negative publicity and potentially punitive damages.
It’s actually worse than the age banding thing that came up and was promptly discarded.
Sure, I totally understand publishers wishing to protect themselves, in the event of having taken on a author writing for children who is subsequently convicted of being a paedophile rendering themselves unmarketable, and the books unsaleable – although one might argue that that’s a business risk, as any other in publishing!
I suspect too most authors would be willing to allow a clause to that effect – the operative word being “convicted”.
As it stands, whose definition will be used in judging actions / reputation / salablity / behaviour / suitability?
Far too nebulous and in my opinion a transparently unfair attempt on the part of the publishing house in question to manage / transfer a risk which is properly theirs to bear as the publisher potentially making the majority of the profits in question.
Susan Elizabeth Phillips’ book “This Heart of Mine” actually has her character Molly Summerville experience this type of author censorship due to her not yet published children’s book being perceived as gay-friendly and picketed by a conservative national organization.
A very interesting idea plot point for a romance novel!
My colleague calls language like this in a contract a ” one-sided stealth breaker” because it’s so vaguely worded it means one side of the contract can break it at any time with minimal excuse – the vagueness is sufficient that they can twist a whole range of the author’s behaviours into an excuse to break or alter the contract or threaten the author with doing so.
Now I’m sure the maker of this contract will probably mention paedophilia or pass it off as an anti-paedophilia clause, but when it’s a year down the line and the publisher wants to cut off the author/coerce the author or otherwise slap the author around you can guarantee they’ll wheel out this little clause and casually mention that hen night the author went to and the unfortunate incident with the cream doughnuts and the 3 strippers…
FD:
Sadly the threat of such a court case may be enough to poke people into line