Must writers be moral? In the #MeToo moment, their contracts may require it

'No way. I'm not signing that,' a New Yorker writer said when she saw the terms.

When you see publishers and authors chatting chummily at book parties, you’re likely to think that they’re on the same side — the side of great literature and the free flow of ideas.

In reality, their interests are at odds. Publishers are marketers. They don’t like scandals that might threaten their bottom line — or the bottom lines of the multinational media conglomerates of which most form a small part. Authors are people, often flawed. 

Sometimes they behave badly. How, for instance, should publishers deal with the #MeToo era, when accusations of sexual impropriety can lead to books being pulled from shelves and syllabuses, as happened last year with the novelists Junot Díaz and Sherman Alexie?(Business Standard)

One answer is the increasingly widespread “morality clause.” Over the past few years, Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins and Penguin Random House have added such clauses to their standard book contracts. I’ve heard that Hachette Book Group is debating putting one in its trade book contracts, though the publisher wouldn’t confirm it. These clauses release a company from the obligation to publish a book if, in the words of Penguin Random House, “past or future conduct of the author inconsistent with the author’s reputation at the time this agreement is executed comes to light and results in sustained, widespread public condemnation of the author that materially diminishes the sales potential of the work.”

That’s reasonable, I guess. Penguin, to its credit, doesn’t ask authors to return their advances. But other publishers do, and some are even more hard-nosed.

This past year, regular contributors to Condé Nast magazines started spotting a new paragraph in their yearly contracts. It’s a doozy. If, in the company’s “sole judgment,” the clause states, the writer “becomes the subject of public disrepute, contempt, complaints or scandals,” Condé Nast can terminate the agreement. In other words, a writer need not have done anything wrong; she need only become scandalous. In the age of the Twitter mob, that could mean simply writing or saying something that offends some group of strident tweeters.

Agents hate morality clauses because terms like “public condemnation” are vague and open to abuse, especially if a publisher is looking for an excuse to back out of its contractual obligations. When I asked writers about morality clauses, on the other hand, most of them had no idea what I was talking about. You’d be surprised at how many don’t read the small print... Read More

What the women's movement today can learn from 19th-century social reforms

How Raja Rammohun Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar helped abolish the sati system and 'permanent widowhood'.

Business Standard : Indian society is witnessing the commission of abusive, discriminatory and violent acts, both verbal and physical, against women from different strata and walks of life. What is abhorrent is that these acts of sexual predation have received wide social approval and acceptance, reflected through the deep apathy existing within institutions, irresponsible and insensitive remarks of community leaders, and tacit support by those in powerful positions. Although the recent opposition to these acts and the society’s acceptance of them has been quite loud, these reactions are partisan and piecemeal, often ignoring the crucial issues that are central to the discussion of the ‘women’s question’ in India.

At this crucial juncture, it is pertinent to analyse, first, how social reformers like Raja Rammohun Roy and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar understood and raised the women’s question in 19th century India; second, what legal and educative mechanisms they employed to tackle social evils like sati and ‘permanent widowhood’; third, lessons learnt from their initiatives that may be relevant today and applied to address contemporary issues reflected through the #MeToo movement.

Roy and Vidyasagar understood the women’s question through their own family experiences, acquired knowledge and inherent personal convictions about differentiating the right from the wrong. They studied the socio-religious, economic and political factors that gave impetus to cruel practices like the sati and the harsh rules of widowhood. For instance, Roy is said to have been shattered when he witnessed his sister-in-law burn herself alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. This experience made him realise the adverse impacts of such practices on the society, particularly women, in the long run.

First, women were stereotyped as servile and submissive beings wholly incapable of having an individual identity, independent existence and autonomy. 

Second, males in the Indian society had understood that religion was a very important tool that had enabled them to keep their women’s social and economic position intact, thereby limiting chances of a potential challenge to male superiority. Third, the male patriarchs had realised that making education inaccessible and unavailable to the Indian women was the best way to prevent an awakening among the women folk, thereby continuing with male dominance in the society. As such, the dominating Indian male would never let the balance of power tilt in favour of the women folk. To that extent, they vociferously resisted the blooming of the seeds of social transformation in the Indian society.

Roy and Vidyasagar adopted a technique of gradualism, taking one step at a time. They designed and raised the women’s question with extreme care and caution. The reformers did not seek to offend and oust the Indian patriarchy in the process of uprooting practices like sati and widowhood. Rather, they sought to make them active participants in the social movements for the upliftment of Indian women... Read More

Will continue to back #MeToo: Nandita Das on allegations against father

I have maintained from the very start that this is the time we all need to listen, so that women (and men) feel safe to speak up, said Nandita Das.

Actress-filmmaker Nandita Das, whose father -- artist Jatin Das -- has been accused of sexually harassing a woman, says while she will continue to add voice to the #MeToo movement, she believes the truth will prevail in the "disturbing allegations" against the Padma Bhushan recipient.

"As a strong supporter of the #MeToo movement, I want to reiterate that I will continue to add my voice to it, despite the disturbing allegations made against my father, which he has categorically denied," Nandita posted on Facebook.

"I have maintained from the very start that this is the time we all need to listen, so that women (and men) feel safe to speak up. At the same time, it is also important to be sure about allegations so as not to dilute the movement.

I am touched by the number of people - friends and strangers - who are concerned and are trusting my integrity. I do believe truth will prevail. And that is all I have to say on this matter," she added.

Conservationist Nisha Bora on Tuesday accused Jatin Das of sexually harassing her at his Khidki village studio in 2004. Das refuted the allegation as "ridiculous and vulgar".

The #MeToo movement in India has been on a rise with victims of sexual harassment from all walks of life voicing their stories. Nandita has been vocal about urging women to speak up against any such unsavoury experiences that they have faced at their work place.

Business Standard