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

No. The intellectual property in those contracts belongs to my firm and it is not appropriate for me to be posting extracts on the internet.

they lack of logic and contradictions in this thread, to me, have come from the side arguing that it is [censorship]

Could you point out where I've been illogical or contradictory in my argument? Genuinely, I would like to make my argument stronger. Thank you!

This is what I wrote to another poster, and will share here as an example of the illogical and internal contradictions I was talking about:

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.

Neither of us are neutral readers of the thread.

Definitely! I agree with you there, but I am genuinely trying to understand your side.

‘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.’

Ask is not expect or make. They can ask her to dance the Tarantella with a flatulent raccoon up her jumper but she doesn’t have to.

Most writers use agents, not lawyers, and whichever agent they consult the agent will say “this is a standard contract and very few writers have any power, I might be able to get you power of cover feedback but not veto on your audio book or something equally minor”. You don’t just wander off and get your lawyer on the case when signing a book deal.

‘The intellectual property in those contracts belongs to my firm and it is not appropriate for me to be posting extracts on the internet.’

You’re right. I’ll continue to dispute your wording then.

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.

But she wasn't "required to revise texts" was she? That didn't actually happen.
Not sure why you're so wedded to a hypothetical that provably did not actually happen.

But as you ask: as someone who is pretty familiar with publishing contracts, publishers do have control over the content of the book and changes. My current publisher asked me to make a major edit as a result of something that happened in the news, which the publisher feared might influence how readers perceive parts of the book.

It's also not uncommon for contracts to include clauses for things like "don't bring the company into disrepute" and any lawyer worth their salt could make a very good argument in court that Kate Clanchy's repeated lies and attempts to censor and attack her own readers simply for stating an opinion Kate found offensive, brought the publisher into disrepute.

A decent lawyer could certainly make the argument that the racist, ableism and misogynistic language in the book breached the parts of UK law that outlaws "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress [...] language that is deemed to incite racial and religious hatred [and] hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" and argue that the publisher had a duty to act when informed of the numerous complaints made over that language.

‘But she wasn't "required to revise texts" was she? That didn't actually happen.’

She was required to revise her work extensively as a condition of them continuing to fulfil their contract with her. I don’t think that would have been contractually sound.

But plenty of people who work in contracts disagree with your assessment.

‘A decent lawyer could certainly make the argument that the racist, ableism and misogynistic language in the book breached the parts of UK law that outlaws "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress [...] language that is deemed to incite racial and religious hatred [and] hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" and argue that the publisher had a duty to act when informed of the numerous complaints made over that language.’

Lawyers will argue until Clanchy and everyone else on this thread are long gone. The question is whether they can win that argument. I’ve read the excerpts that are deemed to be offensive and they are nowhere near this threshold, and if they were, her publisher would have a lot of explaining to do!

‘But plenty of people who work in contracts disagree with your assessment.’

People who say they work in contracts say they disagree. Let’s be accurate first and foremost?

A decent lawyer could certainly make the argument that the racist, ableism and misogynistic language in the book breached the parts of UK law that outlaws "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviours that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress [...] language that is deemed to incite racial and religious hatred [and] hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation" and argue that the publisher had a duty to act when informed of the numerous complaints made over that language.

Okay, I get it now. You think her book broke the law, and you feel that in that case, there can't be a free speech defence. I think it would be exceptionally difficult to find a lawyer willing to make such an argument, and if they did, it would be very worrying indeed. Works of art need to be protected in this regard - what books would survive if the authors/publishers could be taken to court over causing a reader alarm or distress? There'd be no more Stephen King novels, for a start. Threatening, abusive or insulting words? Takes out virtually everyone else.

Beastly - and her publisher would also be in the dock!

I think it would be terrifying to live in a society where an author can be taken to court for something they write in a memoir, novel, or work of poetry.

I don't know why anyone would want that. Why would you want that? Are you really so sure that you're never going to offend anyone with your words?

‘Most writers use agents, not lawyers, and whichever agent they consult the agent will say “this is a standard contract and very few writers have any power, I might be able to get you power of cover feedback but not veto on your audio book or something equally minor”.’

How many agents have you had?

Do you think a contractual clause that ties you into a state of indentured labour, having to revise your work to this level on demand, would stand up in court? That’s laughable.

This. I mean, frankly I am offended by Jemima's words on this thread.

There has to be protection for artists. Art doesn't have to be nice. It doesn't have to be inoffensive.

You… don’t want to live in a society where we have libel and defamation laws?

Presumably you could do the printers, typesetters, designers and editors while you're at it. The beautiful cultural revolution.

‘I don't know why anyone would want that. Why would you want that? Are you really so sure that you're never going to offend anyone with your words?’

It’s because it doesn’t occur to them that laws can be used against people they agree with as well as people they disagree with.

You… don’t want to live in a society where we have libel and defamation laws?

Lol. Way to miss the point.

Just the one, as she’s particularly good and I plan to never part from her. She would find the idea that my contracts are “indentured labour” laughable, might send her this thread for a lol.

‘You… don’t want to live in a society where we have libel and defamation laws?’

They’re not offence laws.

@stuntbubbles It's quite a leap from libel and defamation to trying to suppress something just because it's been deemed offensive.

‘She would find the idea that my contracts are “indentured labour” laughable, might send her this thread for a lol.’

She made you sign something that said you have to revise your published work on demand? Sack her.

It’s because it doesn’t occur to them that laws can be used against people they agree with as well as people they disagree with.

I think that's exactly what it comes down to.

@Innocenta It was in response to the idea of a society where authors can end up in court: I’m simply pointing out that we already live in that society. Wasn’t actually equating the two.