Cross Posted from Speak Its Name

[erastes]

Thanks to T J Pennington for the heads up on this one: Spotted on Diane Duane’s LJ and the Guardian- Random House are inserting a morality clause into their contracts for children’s and YA authors:

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.

Apparently Random House will remove the clause if asked, which is the old “negative effect” thing which was made illegal in contracts and junk mail here a while back. The old “to take advantage of this offer you need do nothing” sort of malarkey.

I can’t believe that it is a direct reaction to William Mayne, as that was four years ago, they should have done this immediately if so. This - as the Grauniad rightly says - should affect all sort of “authors” such as Madonna, Jordan and even Sarah Ferguson - as I don’t think that being photographed sucking a man’s toes whilst topless is a great role-model for those tender young minds who love Budgie the Helicopter.

What’s next? A police check on all children’s authors in the same way that any person working with children is checked for employment?

And who is the moral arbiter here?  What standard are they using? Who, exactly, gets to say what is suitable? Are gays suitable? Adulterers? What behaviour will get you a bad name? How high is that bar?

It’s a nonsense, a dangerous precedent, a step backwards to the old days of Hollywood where the actors had such morality clauses in their contracts. Didn’t work then, won’t work now. Boo, Random House, boo.

 

Comments

[smurasaki.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's not good. I'm thinking a letter to Random House is in order. If they really only mean cases of child abuse or similar, they should say that specifically. (And that would be far more understandable. "Oh, sorry, I can't do a signing for my latest kid's book. I'm not allowed to be within 50 yards of children." wouldn't go over well.) This, though is frighteningly vague.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

It's appalling. So, if you break the law - does that count? Which laws? speeding? shoplifting? throwing a phone at your cleaner?

Bah.

[asphodeline.livejournal.com]

Eek, that is definitely NOT good. If it *is* general bad behaviour then most traditional children's authors would be banned anyway.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Too right. *glares at them*

[essayel.livejournal.com]

That's just ridiculous.

And who is the moral arbiter here? What standard are they using? Who, exactly, gets to say what is suitable? Are gays suitable? Adulterers? What behaviour will get you a bad name? How high is that bar?

Exactly. One man's high spirits is another's blatant immorality.

*shudders* do you think this is another flick of the Puritan backlash?

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I do hope not. We don't want any bloody puritans over here! (again) I thought we'd shipped 'em all off to the New World.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

You shouldn't have. Really.

[essayel.livejournal.com]

Where they are doing fine from what I've heard.

I'd sooner be Wrong but Wromantic any day.

[megleigh.livejournal.com]

ye gods! Where do they come up with this tripe?

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Unbelievable isn't it. It's the complainers that run the world, I think.

[megleigh.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my dad always said it is the squeaky wheel that gets the oil. The silent majority need to speak up more often.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

That's ridiculous. Even if the author does something utterly reprehensible, how does that affect whether her books are worth reading? The kiddies are buying the stories, not opening up a long term personal relationship with the writer. A writer should be evaluated by her work, not by whether she gets her toes sucked topless.

When I was a child, I had no idea what the personal lives of the authors I enjoyed were like and I couldn't have possibly cared less. If someone told me that C.S. Lewis was a mass-murdering rapist who ate babies for breakfast, I'd still have loved Narnia.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I suppose part of it is the instant access you can get to authors online but sheesh, does that mean that they can't express their opnions and must all live in Sunnybrook farm all the time?

[ggymeta.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

Sadly, I've been confronted by this sort of contract before-- telling me what I can and cannot say on the internet, how I can act and what I'm not allowed to do with my blog or in forums.

Needless to say, I didn't sign it.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Good for you!

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

It probably took 4 years to appear because it was sent to a committee and they were squabbling over the precise wording.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

*sporfle * You are probably sadly right

[marquesate.livejournal.com]

BZUH????!!! I am speechless.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Idiocy. Random House seem to be fond of idiocy.

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

WHAT.

What the bloody buggering hell do they think they're up to?

I'm already in violation, or I would be if I had a contract with them. Somehow, that makes me more proud than ashamed. :-)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Well me too, but I have little intention of writing kid's books. Let's hope it doesn't spread.

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

I've got YA stuff in progress. Figures.

[haydenthorne.livejournal.com]

Thank God I'm not published by them. :P

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Are you evil!!? :D

Hence this?

[dubaiyan.livejournal.com]

Random House remove swearing from Jacqueline Wilson book after three complaints
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7575095.stm

Re: Hence this?

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Good LORD. THREE????

[dubaiyan.livejournal.com]

"The decision to alter the text came after supermarket chain Asda announced it would stop selling the book. [Asda's] move followed a complaint from one shopper..."

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

[suryaofvulcan.livejournal.com]

... a person suitable to work with or be associated with children

This is the same wording used in child protection policies - the ones that require CRB checks before a person is cleared to work with children.

and consequently the market for or value of the work is seriously diminished...

This seems to imply they'll only consider action if your sales are affected - so it's not about morality, it's about money. But it could be worded more clearly.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Oh, I have no doubt it's all about the money...