WOULD you refuse to buy your child a book because it was written by, say, George Bush? Or ... Pol Pot? How about if someone found a brilliant picture book written and illustrated by the "exotic dancer" Rose Chan? Would the fact that she removed her clothes for a living stop you from allowing your kids to enjoy a book by her? Or what if it suddenly came to light that Enid Blyton was a cocaine addict? Would this cause you to confiscate your children's complete set of Famous Five mysteries?
Earlier this month, one of The Guardian's literary bloggers wrote about how publisher Random House has decided to add a clause to their standard contract for children's books that allows the company to "delay publication/ renegotiate advance/ terminate the agreement" if the author behaves in a way deemed unsuitable for someone who works with or is "associated with" children.
The blogger, author, illustrator and journalist Sian Pattenden, apparently received an email from the Society of Author's Children's Writers and Illustrators Group about the said clause. Reading Patenden's post I am reminded how, very occasionally, when I swear or tell a filthy joke (very often indeed), I am reminded by whomever I'm with that I write a children's book column and have, in fact, written four picture books and so, should behave accordingly. My response in these instances is, "What the f***?"
No, really. I don't see (and fail to see how anyone could see) what a writer's personal life (although for some, personal and public are one and the same) has to do with the work he/she produces. If a writer is responsible for stories that inspire and excite, intrigue and provoke, touch and move, it can hardly matter what his hobbies are, how many wives he has, or what he likes to stick up his nose (or other body parts, for that matter).
Of course I realise that as mere humans its not easy for us to be totally objective. If I found out that my favourite children's writer, the late Antonia Forest, enjoyed torturing cats, I would probably find it difficult to read a book of hers without thinking of the poor felines that had suffered at her hands (I stress that Antonia Forest did not actually torture cats!). I don't believe I would stop wanting to read her books or that I would enjoy them less, but who knows, perhaps visions of skinned-alive kittens would so overcome my thoughts that it would become impossible to read Forest any longer.
However, I know I continue to enjoy William Mayne's books although he was convicted of child sexual abuse in 2004 and placed on the British sex offenders' register for life.
The only thing writers should really be judged on is their writing. Good, bad or middling? Worth the money or should you spend the RM60 on a new PS3 game instead? You're paying for a story and you should get a good, well-told one. If the writer is mean to orphans or a part-time pole dancer, if these details do not affect his work in bad ways, what is it to you?
I would far rather publishers introduce the following clause: "If your plots are boring, characters wooden, and writing hackneyed; if it comes to light that you really should stick to singing and/or acting and leave the writing to someone who can actually write; if it becomes obvious that you've hired a great team of illustrators in the hopes that they will distract readers from your weak story; we may opt to delay publication/ renegotiate advance/ terminate the agreement."
It would be lovely to think of publishers foregoing the huge sales associated with celebrity authors rather than promote talentless divas, with or without pet ghost writers in attendance. However, profits before integrity every time, eh?
Come to think of it, Random House, if it retains that clause, would surely have to leave it out if it signed up someone like, say, Lindsay Lohan! The clause makes it clear that what the publisher is concerned about is the diminished market value of the work, but in the case of celebrity authors, the more the controversy, the better for business!
[Left] Pop star-cum-children's author Madonna indulging in some decidedly un-English rose behaviour.
Recent Comments