The Authors Guild reports an increase in publishers' demands for a
"morals clause" in writers' contracts. Vague terms for our
punishable sins include "publicly condemned behavior."
Let's be honest: under the back-breaking yoke of the "influencer"
era, every time you write a Facebook post in opposition to the
majority of your followers, you will be "publicly condemned."
So... should you have to repay your royalties because a
friend-of-a-friend's cousin-in-law finds your position on hemp
farming "offensive?"
Should you be forced to return your advance if your comments in
support of a family member someone simply dislikes create a Twitter
backlash?
Should you lose your book contract if your old college roomie
posts a picture of you sleeping with both arms wrapped around your
beer bong?
In my view, this trend toward "morals clauses" is one
more way that writers - or, as I like to call us, the income
generator that finances the publishers' yachts - are trivialized.
It's not bad enough that the vast majority of publishers do
NOTHING to assist with the marketing of our books. That they
apparently regard the words "book launch party" as vestiges
of a dead language. That their business model seems to be "quantity
over quality," resulting in a stable of writers so large that
providing sales and promotional support is impossible. That their
royalty statements are written with the sole purpose of confusing the
author.
Nope. All that's just not enough. Now they want to base our
(dwindling) income on our level of "morality."
That, my friends, is TRULY worthy of "public condemnation."
