My Bad: Lyrical Press Inc.

Amie wrote,

Holy crap! What a way to screw someone over, I def. won’t be buying from them. (I have another thought but it’s mostly cuss words)

Link | August 24th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

kirsten saell wrote,

Dude, that revision clause is almost word for word what’s in Samhain’s boilerplate. And lots of other publishers, from epubs to NY.

Yes, it’s troubling. Yes, it could potentially bite an author in the ass–most clauses that cover the publisher’s butt put the author’s butt in jeopardy. Yes, I think that clause needs to be more specifically worded to reflect its actual meaning and intent–which is not to remove the author’s name from the book, but to credit the revisor alongside the author.

But blanket statements like “red flag! red flag! everyone run for cover!”, over something that’s so common as to almost be industry standard, is kind of silly. Are you going to remove Samhain from your Top Epub list now, simply because they have an almost identical clause?

If an author refuses to revise a work, and the publisher cannot publish it as is, where does that leave the publisher? Contracts are there to spell out expectations and obligations on both sides. The ambiguous wording of the clause (which has led people to assume the author’s name could be removed–which it could, the way it’s worded, though I don’t believe it’s the intent of the clause at all), and the omission of an upper limit on how much the publisher could charge to the author, are more troubling to me than it’s existence.

Link | August 25th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

kirsten saell wrote,

Well, the thing is, the way those clauses are worded, they’re wide open to interpretation–which in a contract is a bad thing. It honestly never occurred to me when I signed that if the clause was invoked my name could be left off the book–which seemed to be the first assumption of many people objecting to the clause.

Perhaps I’m just too trusting a person, but I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which the author’s name would be replaced by the name of the revisor. But yes, the way it’s worded paired with others’ assumptions does leave me with a worse taste in my mouth than I had when I initially signed.

Again, it’s not so much what’s in the contract, but how specifically it’s spelled out and how much you trust your publisher to stick to the spirit of the agreement, rather than using the letter of the law to screw you. Because there’s room in every contract for an author to get cornholed.

Link | August 25th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

kirsten saell wrote,

That’s it, exactly. Why is the clause invoked?

I mean, knowing what I do about the personalities of some authors out there (people with whom you are also acquainted) I can certainly see the potential for a publisher to resort to something like this. I mean, I’ve been given the option of making a substantial change once–and it was made clear that the revision was my choice, and my decision would affect the categorization of the book, not it’s fitness for publication. And I was told this before a contract was offered.

But if they’d asked me to change something serious and could not go forward with publication without said change, and I still refused, I could understand them invoking such a clause. I’m not sure Samhain would do such a thing (or that they ever have). More likely they’d simply cancel the book, but other publishers who’ve made a significant investment in a project might make a different decision.

I think, for example, if the author in question was a certain someone with whom you and I have both had unpleasant experience (whom I won’t name here, heh), our assumptions might be that this situation was unfortunate but unavoidable.

So it really does boil down to the “who” and the “why”. And trust–because even when you have a fair contract, you can still end up feeling like you got the shaft.

Link | August 25th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

kirsten saell wrote,

Sounds to me like they did not think or they did not care. Not good.

Okay, just to give them the benefit of the doubt (which I own, they may not deserve). Say said author is a fairly well-known name whose book will likely do well for the publisher, who is new and drunk on the prospect of making some serious dough. Say said author is the contrary type, or a primadonna. Say said book has already gone through umpteen rounds of edits and revisions, all at the publisher’s expense. Say the publisher has already paid for cover art and all that, and the book is eagerly anticipated by readers.

But there is one element of the book that simply cannot stay as is–for whatever reason (it’s legally obscene, or offensive to Muslims or Asian Americans or whomever, or the hero is fond of giving the heroine “hot Carls”, or perhaps there is a hideous orgy of baby bunny-killing every other chapter, or the hero speaks in a persistently phonetically expressed, annoying as fuck Scottish brogue, whatever).

The publisher has asked the author to remove the element, and the author refuses. The publisher has asked the author to rewrite it. The author refuses. Back and forth it goes, until the publisher is so frustrated they give up. But because the author is a name that will bring in readers, they’re unwilling to simply cancel the book.

Frustration and recalcitrance can lead people and companies to do stupid, hard to countenance things. And I’m not saying that this is the case here, either, just that I can envision some authors practically begging for this clause to be invoked. And the clause is there for a reason–if publishers never foresaw a possible need for it, it wouldn’t be in so many contracts.

Link | August 25th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

kirsten saell wrote,

That does make more sense, but then again, the clause is in enough fiction contracts to make it not as worrisome as perhaps it should be.

I wish I knew the whole story behind this. I mean, I can conceive of a situation where multiple rounds of trying to edit or revise result in the revisions repeatedly returned incomplete or unsatisfactory until the publisher finally throws up their hands. The more editing involved, the greater the expense to the publisher, and if they don’t foresee any chance of getting a satisfactory product from the author, well…

I can’t imagine Samhain would pull anything like this with any of their authors–I think they’d be more likely to simply pull the book (and flushing that investment down the loo isn’t going to break them, either). But I do know that not every author will behave in a rational manner when it comes to being asked to change her own work. In a perfect world, the author should have final say on what the end product will be, and the publisher should have final say on whether they’re going to publish (or not) it in the form the author insists on.

Having the revisions clause AND the kill clause (which they’ve since removed, apparently) seems like Lyrical wanted double cover for their ass. Unfortunately, sometimes two layers just make the ass look all the more lumpy and unattractive…

Link | August 25th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

PiperShia wrote,

Great comments, although none of which apply to this matter (from my understanding knowing the involved parties). This author was one of a few targeted because the publisher got rid of a ton of competent editors and the new editors are screwing up all the books. Now Renee is taking out her anger with the authors complaining and making them pay via enforcing contract clauses like this one (so she can cash out on kill fees) and playing games in the editing room. Many authors have come forth to speak about this with the publishing watch dog companies which is probably why you haven’t heard anything else. Hopefully it reveals how the Roccos really are behind the scenes so authors know what they’re getting into business-wise with these people.

Link | August 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm