Big brother, babysitter, mother and sometimes morality police…is that what you—as a consumer, reader, author—expect from a publisher? When I entered the business of publishing, it wasn’t something I ever suspected I’d be called on to do, but emails, blog posts and other online discussions have since made me think otherwise.
Recently there was a bit on GalleyCat announcing the UK division of Random House was purportedly asking authors of young adult books to sign a morality clause in their contract. “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 [sic] we may (at our option) take any of the following actions: Delay publication / Renegotiate advance / Terminate the agreement.”
That got me to thinking back to a few years ago, when we signed an author. A reader blog wrote an “exposé” about this author and stated they would never buy her book because she was allegedly involved in a relationship with a married man. This sparked a campaign by some readers to boycott both the author and…the publisher. Unbelievably to me at the time, we got letters from a small handful of readers and authors stating they would never buy from us/submit to us as long as we refused to cancel this author’s contract. We did not do so (it should be noted that those same authors apparently had a change of heart if the fact that they sent submissions to us is any indication).
I was further led to think about this topic when I read a post on Karen Scott’s blog by Azteclady where she asks if authors can switch publishers, and this caught my attention: “Then there are the publishers with an apparently higher-than-their-share percentage of vocal-and-out-of-control authors who go on ranting all over the place. *coughnotnamingnamescough* Nothing will drive me away from a smaller epub quicker and more decidedly than the crazy.”
While writing this I went back to that post on Karen’s blog and read the comments, ended up on this post, and in those comments found that Karen Scott had said: “But the thing is, I personally would boycott publishers who had their fair amount of assholic authors.”
All of these things led me here. It’s not the first time I’ve seen suggestions on blogs that publishers should rein in authors’ behavior, or are somehow held accountable for an author’s behavior so it’s also not the first time I’ve wondered…what is it exactly the publisher is supposed to do? To start, let’s just put it out there: neither the author nor the publisher gets to give the other a test. There’s no multiple choice form sent out with the contract that will give the publisher an indication of an author’s personality: in person, online or in correspondence. Neither the author nor the publisher has any guarantees of the other’s personality, professional façade, or interactions with others.
But at the same time, how responsible is a publisher for an author’s behavior? I think it’s both necessary and acceptable for an author to expect many things from a publisher. But should it work both ways? A publisher is not, as I said at the beginning, big brother, a babysitter, their mother, the morality police or otherwise. Of course there are things a publisher would not want to see an author do, but should those things include adultery, having an abrasive personality, swearing in public forums or having an unpopular political opinion that might offend someone?
I don’t particularly relish the idea of sending an email or making a phone call to an author telling them to mind their p’s and q’s any more than I think most authors would appreciate receiving one.
At the same time, I wonder if it’s not something more of an issue in the epublishing community, even more so than traditional print publishers (despite the bit from Galley Cat). Maybe because we’re an online business and more visible there to readers, and also because readers identify more strongly with individual epublishers than often happens in print (Ie, more readers will say, I only buy from this and this and this epublisher than they do with any particular print publisher except perhaps Harlequin).
And yet, I also wonder what both readers and authors would say were epublishers to come forth with their own version of a morality clause in future contracts, restricting authors from commenting on blogs in an inflammatory manner, writing potentially offensive blog posts or disagreeing with readers or other authors in a public manner. I can’t think of too many people who would find such a clause acceptable, and I believe the publisher would probably be held up for public shaming and ridicule, and yet publishers still seem to be held partially accountable for an author’s behavior. But should they be?
What do you think? As readers, do you boycott a publisher or just stop buying from them because of an author or authors whose online or in person presence you don’t like? And as authors, how would you react to a publisher trying to moderate—whether through contract clauses, emails or phone calls—how you comport yourself?
Interesting topic. As a reader, before I started writing for publication, I confess I never paid much attention to publishers. If I liked a book, liked an author, it didn’t matter to me who the publisher was. Now it does mostly because I’m always interested in knowing who publishes the books I like.
As far as boycotting a publisher – I can’t imagine doing so as a reader or as an author based on something one of their AUTHORS does. There are certainly publishers I won’t deal with based on their own actions, inactions, and attitudes, but that doesn’t mean I won’t follow favorite authors to other publishers. If an author turns me off, either through their subject matter or their personal or public behavior, that wouldn’t stop me from reading other books by their publisher or even from submitting to that publisher.
Should publishers become big brother for their authors? I’d say that’s a 90% no. Actions that one person might find objectionable, such as an author having an affair, or supporting a particular political candidate or even having a sordid past, are no one’s business, certainly not their publisher’s, and readers who are shocked and appalled by certain behaviors are more than welcome not to buy books by those authors. I do believe in the case where an author’s public actions are actually criminal – that could be a different story. I might look askance at a publisher who refused to pull a contract on a book that was plagiarized, or who continued to publish the work of a convicted serial killer, let’s say. Beyond that, as far as I’m concerned, all that matters is what’s on the page.
by Bernadette Gardner October 14th, 2008 at 7:04 amNine times out of ten, I have no idea which publishing house a writer is signed to, so an author behaving badly might influence my purchases of that specific author but wouldn’t go beyond her/him.
Barring extreme behavior (like an author wigging out on a publisher-sponsored book tour), I don’t think it’s the publisher’s job to police an author. We’re all grown ups, responsible for our own actions.
by jmc October 14th, 2008 at 7:57 amIndividuals are responsible for their own actions and I don’t believe it is up to a publisher to police the behavior of the authors who write for them. Nor would I as a reader boycott an entire publisher for the actions of one author.
However, I can see that there would be some exceptions - as Bernadette said, that a publisher might have more of an interest if one of their authors had committed a high profile crime (or some such thing) which might reflect badly on the publisher’s reputation and / or their sales. Then all bets are off and any action a publisher took would be a natural consequence of the author’s behavior. It’s a business after all.
by Jenyfer Matthews October 14th, 2008 at 8:01 amAs a reader, in general I don’t pay a bit of attention to what the author is doing in real life. I read for the story. No matter what the author has done or said in public, if he or she writes a good tale and makes me believe it for the duration of the read, it matters not to me what they do. But then I’m speaking as an adult. I can see how the issue might get a bit sticky when it comes to children’s fiction, as authors might be considered more of an example for them than they might for adults. But the idea that publishers are meant to be Big Brother or the morality police is strictly ludicrous. Authors as individuals are responsible for their own behavior just like people in any other occupation. To suggest that it is somehow the publisher or agent’s responsibility to “rein them in” because they’ve made the choice to break a moral code, express an unpopular political opinion, or said something inflammatory online is ridiculous. And while I can see how such actions might turn readers off, it is the right of the author to make his or her own decisions. We live in a country that prides itself on the right of free speech, but far too often, I think that people allow the line to blur between what’s legal and what’s moral. The two are not one and the same (though they aren’t always mutually exclusive either). I personally find the idea of adultery offensive and horrifying. But the government has no right to legislate it. Neither does a publisher have a duty to police the behavior of its authors unless it goes beyond the bounds of what’s legal or ethical for the field.
by Kait Nolan October 14th, 2008 at 8:26 amWhile I think authors of children’s books ought to be held to the highest standards on everything and that parents ought to be empowered in every possible way to oversee what their children read, I couldn’t care less what authors’ of adult books do in their personal lives. Two big HOWEVERS-
1) If I happen to learn a Romance novelist abandoned her six children to run off with a man, I’m not going to be able to stomach her novels any longer. Whether that’s fair or not, I don’t know. But, I just could not even look at a book, much less enjoy a book, knowing the person who wrote it placed a child in danger for any reason. That’s the very human reader in me.
2) I’m a blogging book reviewer. If an author is unpleasant to me, I’m not going to read or review her book. Life’s too short and there are too many well-mannered authors out there to put up with it.
It doesn’t matter how good her book was.
by Kimber An October 14th, 2008 at 8:49 amI don’t think readers pay much attention to what publishers an author writes for. I do, however, think readers have a skewed idea as to the relationship between an author and publisher. I believe readers think that a publisher is like an author’s employer in that the publisher/employer has more influence over their authors’ behavior. After all, an employer would never tolerate an employee mouthing off or flaming during the course of a business day and I think readers believe that’s what’s happening.
Of course we all know that’s not how the publishing industry works. Basically, as authors, we’re independent contractors and therefore the publisher has no say in how we act except to not offer another contract.
As for boycotting a publisher because of the way one of its authors acted, I would never do that. I would, however, boycott that author.
Writers need to remember that our names are intricately tied to our books–intertwined until they’re one and the same. To act badly in public will affect our sales.
by Sharon Cullen October 14th, 2008 at 8:49 amIf I happen to learn a Romance novelist abandoned her six children to run off with a man, I’m not going to be able to stomach her novels any longer. Whether that’s fair or not, I don’t know. But, I just could not even look at a book, much less enjoy a book, knowing the person who wrote it placed a child in danger for any reason. That’s the very human reader in me.
I wondered if someone would bring that up because it was very much on my mind. So my follow up question is, how would you feel about the publisher who offered her another contract even after all that was made public?
by Angela James October 14th, 2008 at 8:57 amI think you’re right that epubs get hit with the boycott threat more than traditional publishers do, because one goes to the Samhain or Ellora’s Cave website to find an author, so the publisher is front and center, but one goes to Barnes & Noble to find books by all traditional publishers. So that’s part of it.
I very much like you calling people’s bluff here. I think you’re absolutely right: when DOES author behavior reflect on the publisher? Now, I won’t buy NCP b/c the PUBLISHER behavior is so egregious, but it’s not like I won’t buy more from publisher X b/c author Y is being an asshat. Or at least, I don’t think I’m like that.
Thanks for a fabulous post. Gotta go save crying baby now.
by Sarah S. G. Frantz October 14th, 2008 at 9:01 amWell, then there’s also publishers continuing to publish, say, Janet Dailey or Cassie Edwards after they’ve been caught red-handed at plagiarism. What about that? There were certainly calls at the time not to boycott other authors just because the publisher’s an asshat. Tricky situations.
by Sarah S. G. Frantz October 14th, 2008 at 9:03 amI SO don’t notice publishers
(unless that publisher is known
for a specific genre or style).
As for writer behavior,
good writing is good writing.
Look at Edgar Allan Poe.
He married his 13 year old cousin,
was addicted to drugs and alcohol,
and fought with every living (or dead)
writer out there.
Yet ‘The Raven’ rocked
and remains my fave poem ever.
I don’t care what’s in the secret sauce.
by Kimber Chin October 14th, 2008 at 9:07 amI just want the burger to taste good.
You know why publishers continue
publishing authors like
Janet Dailey and Cassie Edwards?
Because most readers don’t care.
They are purists.
They only care about the story.
My mom happily buys Janet Dailey
because she loves her stories
whether they are original or not.
I know if my novels don’t rock,
by Kimber Chin October 14th, 2008 at 9:16 amit doesn’t matter
if I’m a nice person,
readers won’t buy them.
If somebody’s running around conducting themselves in an unprofessional manner it should reflect squarely on the parties responsible: themselves. Blaming the publishers? Sorry, doesn’t wash. My publishers own my WORK. They don’t own me. (That would be slavery, which is illegal.) It’s up to me to act like a responsible adult. And I truly can’t believe that any author who doesn’t conduct themselves professionally is going to last long in this business. They’ll either shape up or vanish. Self-solving problem.
by Charlene Teglia October 14th, 2008 at 9:24 amHonestly, the thought of publisher as morality police scares me. I am bisexual, kinky, in an open polyamorous relationship, and pagan. All things that someone, somewhere, might find objectionable. (I have been told by certain people that I am “cheating” on my husband even though everyone involved is a consenting adult.)
That I could someday be told by my publisher that I have to change my lifestyle or they’ll revoke my contract? Um. Hell no!
A publisher’s focus should be on the quality of the work and the author as a professional. There are authors who can’t behave professionally, period, (or cases of abject plagiarism like Cassie Edwards) and obviously that’s reason not to offer them a contract. A handful of readers with their nose out of joint that the author has done something they don’t approve of? Is not.
There are authors I won’t buy because they’re assholes. There are publishers I won’t buy because they mistreat their authors and readers. But, I won’t boycott a publisher because I don’t agree with an author’s viewpoint or actions (with extreme exception, involving harm coming to someone), and I think it is highly unfair and manipulative for readers to do such.
by Nonny Morgan October 14th, 2008 at 9:28 amI don’t see how the personal life of an author has any bearing on his/her professional relationship with a publisher, or with the readers. If the author were doing something to the publisher (posting slander or writing about items covered by a nondisclosure or something), then sure, the publisher could refuse future contracts.
But when the author is “off the clock” in their own life, and not representing their publisher, then their bad decisions are their own. An employer is not a parent, and for the author-publisher relationship, “employer” is probably too strong of a term.
I don’t even get how an author of children’s books should be held to some special standard of behavior. As a mother of two small children, who are both book lovers, I can honestly say that I know exactly diddly squat about any of the authors of any of the hundreds of books that we own. Why on earth would we? The authors aren’t pictured on the books, they’re not involved with my children in anyway.
I treat books like I treat any of the other toys that I buy my children. I wouldn’t care if the designer of the latest Elmo toy is a pedophile, why should I care if the author of a book committed a crime?
Books don’t spread criminal cooties, you know.
by Kristi October 14th, 2008 at 9:37 amI would agree that this appears to be more of an issue in the eCommunity than anywhere else.
The line between author and reader has narrowed considerably in the internet age - at least between those authors and readers who are intimate with technology.
Previously, an author would have to have done something huge that made national news to have any impact on their career. Now, call something ‘gay’ or disagree with another author and you’re being raked over the coals by your readers/potential readers and other authors alike.
While I think both readers and authors benefit from the greater transparency, I don’t know that it is always a good thing. Why should an author be held to be any more morally responsible than their readers?
A convicted felon could just as easily write a great story that people like to read, just as I’m sure many felons, abusers, thieves are happy to read stories by highly moral authors. But that’s another thing entirely.
Do I think publishers should have the right to reprimand their authors? This is a tough one for me, because frankly if I was a publisher and I had an author behaving like an ass and it reflected on my publishing company badly, I wouldn’t have a problem in the least ‘firing’ them. After all I have my company and my other ‘employees’ to protect. As an author I think it would be a fine line to tread as to what constitutes strong opinion and what is flagrant disrespect, and as Charlene said, I’m an adult, and I’m marketing myself, and I should act accordingly.
by Anne Douglas October 14th, 2008 at 9:45 amDo I think publishers should have the right to reprimand their authors? This is a tough one for me, because frankly if I was a publisher and I had an author behaving like an ass and it reflected on my publishing company badly, I wouldn’t have a problem in the least ‘firing’ them.
But as an author, what if your publisher, when it came time to offer you the next contract said “sorry, your work is fine, but we don’t like your online personality so we’re not going to contract any more work from you?”
Of course, the publisher could choose not to offer any explanations and just say “thanks, but no thanks, not interested”.
by Angela James October 14th, 2008 at 9:49 amWe can all say that in any profession you can’t arbitrate behavior. Although a writer of children’s books who would be realistically meeting and interacting with children and/or parents, I guess a morality clause is understandable on the part of the publisher just to protect their investment and allow them to cut someone lose who can damage their brand.
However having said that I don’t think it’s possible to arbitrate by contract a person’s behavior. I’ve met authors whose work I love that I wish I hadn’t met. A case of TMI. Meeting them DID diminish my appreciation for their work. It didn’t stop me from buying their next work. I just had to have some time and distance from them to get perspective again.
In order for me to boycott a publisher for an author’s behavior the behavior would have to be pretty extreme. Even then I would be uneasy with casting stones. Who is the voice and arbiter of the behavior? Who gets to say what’s outside the lines. We all have different limits and opinions on what is appropriate.
by Rosie October 14th, 2008 at 9:49 amAside from things that affect the publisher like plagerism, or criminal behavior (rape, murder, etc where the publisher might rightly deal with fallout from public response) - I feel quite strongly that it’s none of the publisher’s business when it comes to author personal behavior.
Morals clauses in general make me very uncomfortable. I write the books, I turn them in, I do my edits, I promote and the rest is my biz. What I do in the voting booth, in the privacy of my home, in the hours of the day when I’m not Lauren Dane, author, is my business. If my books are bad, people won’t read them, but it’s not up to my publisher to slap my wrist if I’m a democrat and they’re republican or even if I’m a horrible person who abandoned my kids.
I don’t buy books from people who are human turds. The woman who abandoned her kids? I’d never buy a book from her. The UF author who routinely writes about how writing romance makes her feel stupid?People who act like utter monkeyf*ckers online? I have enough to read without patronizing them. BUT, that’s MY choice as a reader.
In the end, it’s in my best interest as an author and a human being not to be a human turd. It’s not up to my publisher or my agent to police my behavior and I prefer it that way. Also? I think in many ways, publishers DO deal with most of those problem authors by not giving new contracts to them, quietly. Certainly the Janet Dailey’s continue to publish, but I doubt you’ll see the woman who abandoned those kids writing for a big house any time soon.
by Lauren Dane October 14th, 2008 at 9:51 amLauren, I once had an author get into a tizzy about a comment I made on a writing forum and berate me that I “should be a better feminist”, going into a loooong rant on the matter. Incidentally, this was a NY published author whose book was releasing the same week.
Guess whose book I didn’t buy? Kind of a pity, because the premise was cool and I’d been looking forward to it, but I’m not going to support asshattery.
by Nonny Morgan October 14th, 2008 at 9:58 amI didn’t interpret that publisher’s clause as a means to control the author’s behaviour. I saw it as a legal way to give them an out from the contract should the author turn out to be someone parents wouldn’t bring their kids to booksignings to meet. If that author does turn out to be a pedophile, I’m sorry, but as a parent, I’m NOT buying that book.
Would I go after the publisher? Nope. I just would stop buying that author. Do I care if the author is having an affair? Nope. Who the heck am I to judge them? I have no idea what their personal life is like. Or if the information is correct in the first place.
And ranting online? Go for it. (Within limits of course, advocating pedophilia or violence against specific groups would be different)
But if someone has a different opinion on a matter I feel strongly about? Bring on the debate. I’ll grant them their right to their opinion as long as they respect my right to my differing opinion. It reminds me of that speech Michael Douglas gives in American President where he challenges people to stand up and defend someone who espouses a view completely different from their own. It’s called free speech. My grandfathers fought for it, one spent five years in a Nazi POW camp for that right.
Besides, haven’t we all seen examples where sales jumped because of bad publicity?
by Leah Braemel October 14th, 2008 at 10:15 amI saw it as a legal way to give them an out from the contract should the author turn out to be someone parents wouldn’t bring their kids to booksignings to meet. If that author does turn out to be a pedophile, I’m sorry, but as a parent, I’m NOT buying that book.
Leah, I completely agree on both counts. That said, I think it was worded too loosely and thus is open to abuse.
Nobody’s going to jerk away J.K. Rowling’s contracts because some very vocal people think she is encouraging witchcraft, but what about a new author who is actually pagan? I hate to say it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened.
It’s why I’m of the opinion that “morality clauses”, if they are in existence to protect children from predators, should be more strictly worded.
by Nonny Morgan October 14th, 2008 at 10:21 amNonny, I agree, it was loosely worded.
Groups that circulate petitions for book banning and boycotts always make me shudder. I’d rather have the personal choice. Unfortunately, there are those who think they should have the power to dictate to others … *sigh*
by Leah Braemel October 14th, 2008 at 10:26 amI’m a cynic I guess. I believe, sincerely, that if there were such clauses, they would be enforced unevenly and unfairly, most often through no conscious mechanism. To be blunt, I think women would be more prone to be found in violation of someone’s morality standard. Just open your history book for examples of the unequal application of morality penalties. (Sexually active men are rakes, sexually active women are whores. Witch trials, chastity belts, divorce laws prior to no-fault – and those are just off the top of my head.) It’s important to note as well the chilling effect of such actions; the exclusion of voices from the conversation. Look to the areas of silence if you want to see the effects of bias.
How many male authors of the 20th century were profligate adulterers? One could argue as well that Ezra Pound had some rather distasteful beliefs and the sort of personal life that would not pass scrutiny under such a clause today. Are we to stop reading his poetry because of that? Oh, but the question becomes, would we have his poetry to read at all?
If you’re going to go down the morally worthy to publish road, then why just insert the clause in the contract? Why not include a background check along with the synopsis and sample chapters and refuse to publish authors who don’t meet the morals clause from the outset?
Given my belief that such clauses cannot and will not be fairly enforced, it follows as well that someone will be looking to the courts for redress when she is punished and someone else is not. And rightly so, in my opinion.
I would prefer that publishers stay out of that mess. If an author is being a jerk in his or her “real” life, then let consumers act according to their own set of standards.
The real issue is this, and that’s the one that should send a chill down our collective spines: whose morals are you going to enforce?
by Carolyn Jewel October 14th, 2008 at 10:38 amBut as an author, what if your publisher, when it came time to offer you the next contract said “sorry, your work is fine, but we don’t like your online personality so we’re not going to contract any more work from you?”
Of course, the publisher could choose not to offer any explanations and just say “thanks, but no thanks, not interested”.
I would think that would be a swift kick in the pants to look twice at how you’re being perceived by the public, because obviously it’s not good. And by this I’m not talking about the fact that you’re black, blue, wiccan, catholic or any of that, but your actual actions. If those actions are loud enough that your publisher chooses not to publish you, you’ve just shot your career in the foot. Of course, those actions could be what makes your books popular…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I’m for morality clauses, because like Lauren my private business is my business. The reader doesn’t need to know if I’ve got money worries, that I’m shagging the neighbor (I’m not btw). But I don’t think that negates the authors need, or the publishers need for their authors to act in a professional manner.
Maybe a better term would be an Asshattery Clause
. Because frankly I would not like to see the opportunity being given for racial, religious etc prejudice.
What is wrong with wanting to present yourself as the best you can be in public - being polite, responsible and adult - and save the asshattery for swearing at your screen?
It smacks entirely of a double standard, but as an author I’m supposed to be winning voters…err readers, not alienating them. Maybe that being the case, Authors should be more closed mouth about certain things? (I’m asking that, not stating as a person view point.)
Maybe the electronic age has made the author too transparent? Do readers need us to be so?
As a reader, I don’t think so.
(Although every time I walk past the book stand in the supermarket and see the 3,4,5 lines of CE books I do feel like writing a post-it and leaving it for the book rep asking them to please stop stocking those books as it offends my sensibilities. Strangely I don’t give a damn who you sleep with or what church you go to, but plagiarise damn it, and you’re out the door.)
by Anne Douglas October 14th, 2008 at 10:43 amoops. mucked up the tag
by Anne Douglas October 14th, 2008 at 10:46 amLeah, groups like that infuriate me to no end. But there will always be people that think they have the right to dictate what others should and should not read, how others should behave, and so forth. They largely get ignored. I’d hate to see what would happen if publishers started listening to them.
by Nonny Morgan October 14th, 2008 at 10:48 amAs a reader, I would never stop buying from a publisher based on an authors actions. I might stop buying the author’s work, but I don’t believe it’s the publishers place to monitor an author and it wouldn’t affect my buying from the publisher.
Actually, having clauses like a morals clause might stop me from buying from a particular publisher.
Maybe for NY houses and other big publishers it’s a concern because they make the initial investment in the author and want a return on that investment. So I can see where they would be uptight about an author causing a lack of sales due to unacceptable behavior.
However, with epubs I think it’s different because the author gets paid as it goes.
If there would be a new epub with very few authors available and a few of those authors would be asshats, then I might stay away from that epub.
by MB (Leah) October 14th, 2008 at 10:53 amAngela James said, “I wondered if someone would bring that up because it was very much on my mind. So my follow up question is, how would you feel about the publisher who offered her another contract even after all that was made public?”
Personally, I would avoid buying anything from that author, but I would continue to buy from the publisher if their books were good and sold at a reasonable price. I’m not sure how regular readers of similar opinion would react. As an aspiring author, I understand the publishers are most concerned with the bottom line, so I wouldn’t hold it against them. However, from a marketing point-of-view, I think it would depend on how much of a backlash there was, how quickly it blew over, and if the author was willing to get a new pen name (which would mean starting over building her brand). As a blogging book reviewer (a free marketing venue, minus the cost of ARCs) I would not knowingly review a book by such an author.
by Kimber An October 14th, 2008 at 11:05 amNo, no, no. Not your job. If you choose to guide one of your authors out of the goodness of your heart (”hey, hun, you just dissed x,y,z important person”), that’s all good. If an author has screwed up so badly you think it reflects poorly on the company, well, it probably hasn’t.
The contract. It details the business relationship, your responsibilities, and that of the authors. When companies start dictating the behavior of the authors…well, we’ve seen where that leads. You always have the option of not picking up a second title from a “bad” author, as they have the option of not submitting again. I think that’s good enough.
As a reader (let’s say of something I pick up in paper in a bricks and mortar store, because I do know a lot of epubbed authors), I have no idea, nor do I want to, about their religion, politics, whether or not they beat their children, yell at their editor, etc.
by Ciar Cullen October 14th, 2008 at 11:13 amI guess I would say never say never… but most publisher I wouldn’t buy from ::thinks:: it would be because of the publisher.
Hell I commented on the adultery thread that I couldn’t see what that matters to me as a reader. I have to say anytime I see a you better behave or else… I have commented I don’t think that is fair.
At the same time fair and true and or right, well that isn’t always the same thing. It wouldn’t shock me if someone DIDN’T get a contract because someone was pissed off.
Personally if an author annoys me enough to where I am not going to buy anything - it would be the author not the publisher.
Then again I don’t even get the morality clause for children book authors so what the hell do I know.
by Sybil October 14th, 2008 at 12:14 pmGenerally speaking, a “morality” clause makes me shudder, because I agree with everyone else — an author’s personal business is just that. Where things get dicey is when we start talking about an author’s public persona, and how that MIGHT reflect on the publisher…if it does at all.
For instance, an author who merely states a political view on her blog might turn off some readers, but I don’t feel it’s the publisher’s place to monitor or influence their authors’ publicly expressed opinions. Even hate-mongering — while definitely a reason for readers to boycott that author — has nothing to do with the publisher, (unless the publisher has a record of publishing books that promote that mindset, which is a whole ‘nother issue entirely).
IOW, while I’m not a big fan of morality clauses, nor do I feel the publisher should play mommy for their authors as a general rule, I also think publishers should look at these things on a case-by-case basis, and then take whatever action — or not — they deem necessary. If an author’s actions could result in the publisher being slapped with a lawsuit, then, yeah, they should probably not let things ride.
Other than that, a hands-off attitude is probably best, IMO. If an author’s actions are so egregious as to turn off a LOT of readers — as in, enough to negatively impact her sales figures — the “problem” will eventually take care of itself — sales will drop to the point where she’s simply not offered another contract.
But with rare exception, readers’ boycotts aren’t really going to affect a publisher’s bottom line, especially since there are so many freakin’ hot buttons these days it’s the rare author who doesn’t piss SOMEBODY off, even if she never makes a peep in public. Readers decide to “boycott” this or that author’s books all the time, based on the books themselves. One reader declared she’d never buy one of my books again because I had the blond heroine make an offhand comment about having a “blond moment;” another chewed me out — and stopped reading at page 17 — because my character took a mild swipe at a well-known political pundit.
IOW — there are as many reasons for taking offense as there are readers, and no publisher can, or should be, responsible for watchdogging every possible incidence that might cause offense — barring, say, publishing a convicted pedophile who writes children’s books. That might tip the tolerance scales a wee bit.
Other than that, it’s up to readers to decide if an author’s transgressions merit their being crossed off the TBB list. Boycotting the publisher, however, only hurts authors who have nothing to do with — and in all likelihood don’t even know — the offending author.
And anyway, if one took that tack, it would seem to me before long there wouldn’t be a single “approved” publisher — or author! — left!
by Karen Templeton October 14th, 2008 at 12:32 pmAnne Douglas made the two points I often come back to:
“While I think both readers and authors benefit from the greater transparency, I don’t know that it is always a good thing. Why should an author be held to be any more morally responsible than their readers?
A convicted felon could just as easily write a great story that people like to read, just as I’m sure many felons, abusers, thieves are happy to read stories by highly moral authors. But that’s another thing entirely.”
Yes. I strongly believe that great art can come from awful people, and awful art from great people.
by RfP October 14th, 2008 at 12:48 pmAs a reader, I tend to follow authors–not publishers, so it wouldn’t matter to me who published a vocal author. I don’t tend to do the guilt by association thing. It’s rather silly if you think about it, since just about everyone on the planet has someone in their family who’d be considered opinion-challenged.
As an author, I wouldn’t sign any contract that attempts to control my behavior. It sounds as if they’re trying to apply ‘office’ behaviors to home-based writers.
by Jordan October 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pmI don’t understand why
the morality clause
for authors dealing with kids
is a big deal.
I’m an accountant
and if I get caught breaking the law
(including drinking and driving)
or otherwise embarrassing the profession,
I can and likely will get my certification pulled.
That’s my livelihood gone
and I’m dealing with dollars,
not children.
My sister is a teacher
and has similar restrictions.
She’s scared of getting speeding tickets.
I hear Disney has tight, tight restrictions
on what their stars can and can not do.
McD’s frowns on visible tats and piercings.
How is this any different?
by Kimber Chin October 14th,