Guardian article about Kate Clanchy "The book that tore publishing apart: ‘Harm has been done, and now everyone’s afraid’"

[miri1985]

www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jun/18/the-book-that-tore-publishing-apart-harm-has-been-done-and-now-everyones-afraid

Interesting article but Sarah Ditum said it on twitter better than I could "I think it's a major flaw that this article broadly assumes good faith on the part of cancel-culture agitators. A lot of them are perfectly self-interested and borderline sociopathic" twitter.com/sarahditum/status/1538144622643494912?cxt=HHwWgIC-3dCYy9gqAAAA

'"That’s the point, though, Jemima. As it turned out, they couldn’t make her do it. It doesn’t mean they didn’t try, and if they did try to coerce her (there are types of coercion and one is economic) then in my view they risked breaking the law, because sometimes freedom of expression is freedom from some consequences."

This is really not the case. Publishers are able to decline or refuse to publish even books they have already accepted provided they return the rights to the original writer if they can't reach agreement in the text (as in this case). Freedom of expression doesn't really come into it - it is all about the contract.

No, Jemima, it’s not. I might say something that offends you. You might decide the appropriate consequence is to throw bricks at me. That is you trying to enforce a consequence that the law does actually grant me freedom from.

‘Publishers are able to decline or refuse to publish even books they have already accepted provided they return the rights to the original writer if they can't reach agreement in the text (as in this case). Freedom of expression doesn't really come into it - it is all about the contract.’

But they did reach agreement, and published it. Unless you’re saying standard contracts grant publishers the right to require writers to revise texts whenever they want them to, this doesn’t apply.

I'm not offended and I'm sorry if you are. I just don't get it. You were making a big deal about how anti-censorship/pro-free speech you are, but when faced with an example, you'll say anything to avoid acknowledging that there was a censorship attempt in this case?

You claim that it's nothing to do with the book, that it's the publishers dropping KC because they don't like her behaviour - but can't answer why they raised a problem with her book. Then you say it's a financial decision by the publisher - but don't explain why the publisher would choose to take a financial hit on a book that's selling fine. You say that it's normal for books to be edited, but you can't answer why that would happen after the fact of its publication when the edition is still current. You say no one has the right to be published, but you don't explain why her existing contract with a publisher should be abandoned.

No one’s denying reality. You obviously strongly believe it’s censorship, and you seem to think your belief = fact. I strongly believe it’s not censorship, and nothing I’ve seen on this thread will convince me otherwise. But people’s difference of opinion or interpretation of the law is not gaslighting, or stupidity, or denial of reality, or an inability to connect facts (??), or even weird: surely it’s perfectly normal that some people think it’s censorship and some people don’t. What’s weird is such slavish devotion to your own opinion that you think anyone disagreeing with you is denying reality or failing to connect facts together, when the simpler explanation is they just disagree.

please stick to discussing the book

The discussion isn't about the book. It's about the effect of censorship and cancellation attempts in publishing.

Most standard contracts do grant that right, yeah.

Yes they do. Always.

‘Most standard contracts do grant that right, yeah.’

No. They don’t.

IAAL and all the ones I have dealt with cover exactly that.

What’s weird is such slavish devotion to your own opinion that you think anyone disagreeing with you is denying reality or failing to connect facts together, when the simpler explanation is they just disagree.

No, I get that. Obviously everyone thinks they're right. It's the lack of internal logic and the contradictions in what they're saying that I'm referring to. That's what confuses me. If you want to persuade me I'm wrong, show how this case does not meet the definition of censorship. The whole thing of changing the subject, changing the goalposts, saying one thing then contradicting it... doesn't persuade me and does make me think my argument is superior, yes. But you're right, maybe I'm missing something.

‘IAAL and all the ones I have dealt with cover exactly that.’

Then be a better lawyer. That is a wholly unreasonable demand and no sensible person would agree to it.

It’s standard boilerplate to include revised edition clauses.

It's censorship because it's an attempt to suppress her speech.

You have to show that it's NOT an attempt to suppress her speech in order to show it's not censorship. That's all I'm trying to say.

I'm an excellent lawyer. I don't work for writers, I work for a firm which advises a number of publishers and this is exactly what they require.

If you don't like it, self publish on Amazon and stop being rude to strangers on the internet who point out when you're wrong.

please stick to discussing the book, and not making personal attacks or barely veiled troll-hunting on posters whose opinions you happen to disagree with.

The discussion isn't about the book. It's about the effect of censorship and cancellation attempts in publishing.

Don't be disingenuous, and stop selectively editing other people's quotes.

In context it's pretty clear that "stick to discussing the book and not attacking other posters" meant "stick to discussing the debate around the book."

It’s standard boilerplate to include revised edition clauses.

It's quite something to claim this falls under such a clause!

Maybe I’m missing something too because I’m genuinely not seeing what you’re seeing, or reading what you’re reading. I’ve never thought this was censorship and the Graun’s article didn’t change my mind on that; equally they lack of logic and contradictions in this thread, to me, have come from the side arguing that it is. I suspect it’s that thing of seeing what you want to see: eg the BBC complaints department gets 50/50 complaints about bias to the left and bias to the right, with each side convinced they’re seeing the bias. But it can’t both be true.

In the same way, I think it’s not censorship so I’m inclined to nod along to the views agreeing with me and dismiss the others; you think it’s not and vice versa. Neither of us are neutral readers of the thread.

Don't be disingenuous, and stop selectively editing other people's quotes.

I don't know what you mean by 'selectively editing' - I just quoted a part of what you said. Are you saying I censored you :)

In context it's pretty clear that "stick to discussing the book and not attacking other posters" meant "stick to discussing the debate around the book."

Okay. It wasn't clear to me. I did think, oh maybe we're actually discussing two different topics. Would explain a lot.

‘It’s standard boilerplate to include revised edition clauses.’

And the standard language is?

Because this ain’t that. If you are committing clients to revising their work on demand in perpetuity, they should consider a different lawyer.

That just means that it will be in every contract issued by the publisher. It won't have been something they drafted specifically.

I neither attacked you nor engaged in troll hunting, Jemima. I was curious as to the strength of feeling you've repeatedly expressed, which (to me) seems out of step with what Kate has actually done.

It isn't some wild, troll hunting type accusation to ask if you know her - UK writing is a small world. I wouldn't call myself a friend but I know her a little myself.

‘I'm an excellent lawyer. I don't work for writers, I work for a firm which advises a number of publishers and this is exactly what they require.’

Show me an example of the language and I will look at it. In the meantime I don’t need to accept that extensive changes to a text that change its meaning within two years of publication would ever be caught in such a clause, and a writer would be very silly if they signed it.

The irony 🤣

? It’s really not. The original post I was replying to re this said “Unless you’re saying standard contracts grant publishers the right to require writers to revise texts whenever they want them to.” And most standard contracts do grant that right, and it applies exactly to Kate Clanchy’s book. The publisher was made aware of material in the text and they wanted it changed, and it was (probably) contractually within their right to ask her to do so. I say “probably” because I haven’t read her specific contract.