Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: annoyed

Morals Clause for Children's Authors

According to this article, Random House is attempting to control the lives of some authors. This is disturbing because 1) it's terribly broad, and 2) not all authors can negotiate dire clauses out of their contracts.

I'm also seriously annoyed because Random House publishes many terrific books. I don't want to do without them, and I don't want to support this nonsense. Generally speaking, I don't care what an author does with their personal life as long as their writing is entertaining and/or useful. As a consumer I may choose not to buy someone's books if they do something I consider utterly unsupportable, but I want to make that decision myself thank you, not have some publisher make it for me.
Tags: reading, writing
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 18 comments
dianavilliers

dianavilliers

September 15 2008, 06:35:24 UTC 12 years ago

Heh
I wonder if they'll be withdrawing this one.
fayanora

fayanora

September 15 2008, 12:07:17 UTC 12 years ago

*Giggles*
seticat

seticat

September 15 2008, 06:45:32 UTC 12 years ago

Sounds really similar to early children's TV. You enver saw a pregnant Miss Elaine in Romper Room. What I do in the privacy of my own home should have no impact on my abilty to write.
glitteringlynx

glitteringlynx

September 15 2008, 10:24:26 UTC 12 years ago

If readers were that sensitive, then Orson Scott Card wouldn't do nearly as well as he does.

This is a disturbing trend that has begun in media, where suddenly it's not good enough that you can do your job. You have to have been a perfect person your entire bloody life and your conduct in your personal life is something considered when taking into account your qualifications. Besides, who is to say what is or is not "acceptable" if it's not against the law? What if a writer is homosexual or in a polyamorous relationship? What if a writer likes to wear crummy looking clothing? What about adultery (which is not illegal, so far as I'm aware)?

To a certain extent what you do with your life does matter to an employer (e.g., criminal record). Most of it does not.

Do you think reality TV has had any influence on this new paradigm?
fayanora

fayanora

September 15 2008, 12:06:14 UTC 12 years ago

Seems to me this stupidity stems from the pedophile panic.

Deleted comment

ysabetwordsmith

ysabetwordsmith

September 15 2008, 16:01:12 UTC 12 years ago

If they restricted it to convicted child molesters and/or specified the part about contact with children, that would be at least marginally defensible.

But what they're doing allows them to wreck someone's career based on opinion rather than fact. I think that's wrong. Not only is nobody perfect, but some people get away with insane amounts of immoral behavior while others are cruelly punished for minor infractions. That's an ugly setup, it does not make for a sane healthy society, and people should fight against it.

Deleted comment

ysabetwordsmith

ysabetwordsmith

12 years ago

  • New comment
wrathchylde

wrathchylde

September 15 2008, 14:42:03 UTC 12 years ago

I can *sort of* seeing this making sense in a situation where a writer is charged with child molestation or something like that. In that case, future books would be a liability, probably not sell much, and I can see why they would want to cancel contracts for further books. But that's the only scenario I would see; they have no business saying what an author may or may not do.

ysabetwordsmith

ysabetwordsmith

September 15 2008, 16:22:57 UTC 12 years ago

The problem with that is, there's a huge difference between charged with and convicted of ... but people don't behave that way anymore. The accusation alone is commonly treated as if it were a conviction, and people have been fired because of it. So to wreck someone's life, a false accusation is very effective. That's the kind of mentality that leads to clauses like this, and makes this situation extremely dangerous.
wrathchylde

wrathchylde

September 15 2008, 22:08:07 UTC 12 years ago

Very true. The whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is no longer even pretended at anymore, if ever it was.
talithakalago

talithakalago

September 16 2008, 03:48:38 UTC 12 years ago

I think it's up to the authors to say 'this is a deal breaker' and not sign the contract. I can't think of any situation where someone couldn't do that, as no one is going to hold a gun to their head.

If EVERY author refuses to sign a contract with that clause, the problem is going to solve itself.
ysabetwordsmith

ysabetwordsmith

September 16 2008, 06:26:54 UTC 12 years ago

The thing is, you have to be willing and able to walk away from the contract. Many people want a book contract so badly, they'll do damaging things to get it. Others simply need the money so badly, they'll do just about anything to get it -- especially if they have a family to support. There's always someone who'll sign, and the publishers are often willing to lower their standards to whomever will sign.

Anonymous

12 years ago

  • New comment
talithakalago

talithakalago

12 years ago

  • New comment
ysabetwordsmith

ysabetwordsmith

12 years ago

  • New comment
talithakalago

talithakalago

12 years ago

  • New comment
ideealisme

ideealisme

September 16 2008, 10:57:37 UTC 12 years ago

If the person who drafted that up is a middle-aged-female Paddy, then we're all screwed.

As someone whose personal life has been judged by people and found wanting, the whole thing has a chill of alarm running down my spine.
ysabetwordsmith

ysabetwordsmith

September 16 2008, 16:30:34 UTC 12 years ago

The problem is that you can't please everyone, and you shouldn't have to. The whole point of having laws is to formalize agreement about which things people are obliged to do (or not do). The clause as written simply gives the publisher an excuse to walk away from any contract whenever they feel like it, by cobbling up some rickshack nonsense about how they don't like what the author is doing.