Lots of passionate demands here, but no specifics. I have yet to see any concrete example of what you believe the SoA should do in specific situations.
What, specifically, should it have done for JK Rowling?
What, specifically, should it have done for Gillian Philips?
What, specifically, should it have done for Rachel Rooney?
A press release for each? Lots of social media activity? Behind-the-scenes letters to publishers and others? Open letters of support / condemnation (delete as applicable). Perhaps a media appearance or two? An op-ed in the Bookseller. Oh, and of course scripted statements for their new obedient Chair to copy diligently into their social media feeds?
The SoA is not a big organisation, so how much time should they allocate each year for all this essential work? And who should do it? If as you say there is so much of this going on perhaps they need a new department to manage the work. I'm sure members won't mind subsidising the salaries of the extra staff.
You need to be more specific. From the woolly wording of the resolutions, your comments on social media and now this, you honestly have no idea what you're asking for, do you.
Ah Nora I have to say if your reaction to people asking for the SoA to fight against morality clauses, against the compelled code of conduct enacted by the Scottish Book Trust, and to defend writers free speech, is ‘you honestly don’t know what you are asking for do you?’ then you should possibly go back to school and study the English language properly. Your lack of comprehension really isn’t anyone’s fault but yours.
No, Rachel and LoobyLou, my reaction is to ask for specific actions that you believe the SoA should take in order to fight against morality clauses and defend free speech. Don't you think that examples would be useful here? I think that deserves an answer.
Without them it seems unclear (to me and to many other SoA members I have spoken to) what it is you are asking for besides 'do more'. I know from personal experience that SoA advisors regularly (successfully) argue against morality clauses in contracts. Exactly what would you have them do to defend writers' free speech?
And my other point about resources is essential to consider. Their staff team is not vast, so if what you have identified is, as you say, such a huge problem then it will take considerable resources to tackle it. Clearly they will have to do less of something else in order to address this - in which case what do you want them to do less of? - OR they will need to take on more staff to do the work - in which case you, me and other SoA members will all have to subsidise that through higher membership fees.
If they argue against morality clauses then why did they work with the Scottish Book Trust to implement and approve its new compelled code of conduct? And they are compelled - any author who doesn't sign them is struck off from their list. The SoA needs to be working with publishers and agents to make agreement that these awful clauses and all the other awful things described in the letter stop them happening for good. Get them imbedded in contracts if need be. And as for lack of resources... last year it had an income of £1,644,959.00.
One of its commitments at last year's AGM was Freedom of Expression. Now is the time for it to start living up to that commitment and better protecting its authors. If it can't do that then what's the point of it? What incentive is there for authors to stay?
This is our union working on behalf of all authors, and as the Chair has spouted numerous times, the main things it deals with are contracts. It's contracts that matter to each and every one of us because a dud contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. Work to strengthen them so all authors are better protected. You might think that your own morality means you will never suffer the effects of cancer culture, but times evolve – who's to say that one day your livelihood might not be threatened for something you've unwittingly said or a view you've professed has suddenly been deemed beyond the pale?
I didn't say they have no resources, but as a non-profit making organisation I believe they are unlikely to have SPARE resources. They have fewer than 30 members of staff so again, what work will they need to do less of in order to do more on freedom of speech?
Unless of course you are suggesting that their staff are lazing around doing nothing, all at members' expense. Is that what you think?
And where did you get your information about Scottish Book Trust? From what I have seen, the SoA doesn't tend to offer endorsement lightly. If they had I think they would have stated so publicly, but I can find no evidence of that.
And again, as I said, their advisors are already working effectively against morality clauses and have successfully helped me knock back such lines in my last three deals.
I've seen a chain of evidence about the Scottish Book Trust. If you don't believe me, ask any Scottish author involved with them. And my point about their resources is that they can afford to pay for another member of staff if necessary.
Lots of passionate demands here, but no specifics. I have yet to see any concrete example of what you believe the SoA should do in specific situations.
What, specifically, should it have done for JK Rowling?
What, specifically, should it have done for Gillian Philips?
What, specifically, should it have done for Rachel Rooney?
A press release for each? Lots of social media activity? Behind-the-scenes letters to publishers and others? Open letters of support / condemnation (delete as applicable). Perhaps a media appearance or two? An op-ed in the Bookseller. Oh, and of course scripted statements for their new obedient Chair to copy diligently into their social media feeds?
The SoA is not a big organisation, so how much time should they allocate each year for all this essential work? And who should do it? If as you say there is so much of this going on perhaps they need a new department to manage the work. I'm sure members won't mind subsidising the salaries of the extra staff.
You need to be more specific. From the woolly wording of the resolutions, your comments on social media and now this, you honestly have no idea what you're asking for, do you.
NB.
Ah Nora I have to say if your reaction to people asking for the SoA to fight against morality clauses, against the compelled code of conduct enacted by the Scottish Book Trust, and to defend writers free speech, is ‘you honestly don’t know what you are asking for do you?’ then you should possibly go back to school and study the English language properly. Your lack of comprehension really isn’t anyone’s fault but yours.
Thanks Rachel - just what I was about to say.
No, Rachel and LoobyLou, my reaction is to ask for specific actions that you believe the SoA should take in order to fight against morality clauses and defend free speech. Don't you think that examples would be useful here? I think that deserves an answer.
Without them it seems unclear (to me and to many other SoA members I have spoken to) what it is you are asking for besides 'do more'. I know from personal experience that SoA advisors regularly (successfully) argue against morality clauses in contracts. Exactly what would you have them do to defend writers' free speech?
And my other point about resources is essential to consider. Their staff team is not vast, so if what you have identified is, as you say, such a huge problem then it will take considerable resources to tackle it. Clearly they will have to do less of something else in order to address this - in which case what do you want them to do less of? - OR they will need to take on more staff to do the work - in which case you, me and other SoA members will all have to subsidise that through higher membership fees.
Can you provide clarification?
If they argue against morality clauses then why did they work with the Scottish Book Trust to implement and approve its new compelled code of conduct? And they are compelled - any author who doesn't sign them is struck off from their list. The SoA needs to be working with publishers and agents to make agreement that these awful clauses and all the other awful things described in the letter stop them happening for good. Get them imbedded in contracts if need be. And as for lack of resources... last year it had an income of £1,644,959.00.
One of its commitments at last year's AGM was Freedom of Expression. Now is the time for it to start living up to that commitment and better protecting its authors. If it can't do that then what's the point of it? What incentive is there for authors to stay?
This is our union working on behalf of all authors, and as the Chair has spouted numerous times, the main things it deals with are contracts. It's contracts that matter to each and every one of us because a dud contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. Work to strengthen them so all authors are better protected. You might think that your own morality means you will never suffer the effects of cancer culture, but times evolve – who's to say that one day your livelihood might not be threatened for something you've unwittingly said or a view you've professed has suddenly been deemed beyond the pale?
I didn't say they have no resources, but as a non-profit making organisation I believe they are unlikely to have SPARE resources. They have fewer than 30 members of staff so again, what work will they need to do less of in order to do more on freedom of speech?
Unless of course you are suggesting that their staff are lazing around doing nothing, all at members' expense. Is that what you think?
And where did you get your information about Scottish Book Trust? From what I have seen, the SoA doesn't tend to offer endorsement lightly. If they had I think they would have stated so publicly, but I can find no evidence of that.
And again, as I said, their advisors are already working effectively against morality clauses and have successfully helped me knock back such lines in my last three deals.
I've seen a chain of evidence about the Scottish Book Trust. If you don't believe me, ask any Scottish author involved with them. And my point about their resources is that they can afford to pay for another member of staff if necessary.