Question about contracts

Arcadia Divine

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
940
Reaction score
35
Location
Rapid City, SD
I had an argument with my writing partner the other night. The argument was about if the author had complete control over the novel or not when it comes with traditional publishing.

My writing partner was saying that the author has complete control over the novel and what gets published in it and that is that. After all, it's the author's book not the publisher's

However, I said that the author does NOT have complete control over the novel and the publisher has to ok it. You (the author) are technically working for the publisher (in a sense) and if you don't like the fact that they have the final say-so than don't submit to the publisher in the first place.

Who is right here?
 

Allen R. Brady

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
189
Reaction score
22
Both, kind of. A publisher cannot make changes to a book without the author's consent. However, the publisher is free not to publish a book if the author doesn't make changes.

Ultimately, if you want COMPLETE control over your work, you need to self-publish.
 

Terie

Writer is as Writer does
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
4,151
Reaction score
951
Location
Manchester, UK
Website
www.teriegarrison.com
Content-wise, your writing partner is 99% right. There are house style issues (such as whether to use an Oxford comma and stuff like that) over which the author has no say. But other than that, the publisher can only make suggestions; they can't arbitrarily change the author's work.

As Allen said, though, if they strongly want a change the author refuses to make, they might cancel the book, but that's an extreme measure and happens only very infrequently.

OTOH, the publisher does get control over the title and cover. Even the most influential and best-selling authors get very little say in these (esp the cover).

And authors aren't technically working for the publisher; authors technically are vendors, supplying raw materials subject to agreed contract terms.
 

Stacia Kane

Girl Detective
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
8,142
Reaction score
2,668
Location
In cahoots with the other boo-birds
Website
www.staciakane.com
*sticking my nose in*

The thing is...discussions like this ("Who has control") always seem to me to be viewing the editor/author relationship as an adversarial one. It's not, or at least it shouldn't be. An editor suggests changes, and I can assure you as someone who's now been through the editing process over a dozen times with several different editors/publishers, that 9.9 times out of ten the editor's suggestion will make sense and seem like a good idea. Honest. The editor just wants to help you make the book stronger; they're not out to hurt you or anything.

That one-tenth of a time? Well, that's different. Usually you can just say "Eh, actually, I kind of like that the way it is," or "That relates to something that will happen later" or whatever, and the issue will stop there. I have in the past disagreed with an editor's suggestion and the response I got was "Okay, no problem." I have once in the past disagreed with something the editor felt strongly about, and it took a bit of discussion for us to reach a compromise. But it was NEVER adversarial; it was never angry, it was never an argument, it just required a bit of thinking. I'm certainly happy with the finished product; I don't look back at that book and think how much better it was/would have been if only I'd been allowed to do it MY way or anything; ultimately it was a very small point.

I've never felt that I wasn't "in control." I have no problem telling my editor(s) I don't want to make a particular change for this reason or that; I have no problem STETting copyediting suggestions I feel change my voice. And no one has ever had a problem with me over that.

Editors and authors work TOGETHER to make a book the best it can be. The editing process is generally fun, at least for me and a lot of my friends. Sure, there are moments when you want to roll your eyes or grumble, but for the most part it's genuinely fun, and I enjoy it, and afaik editors do, too.

An editorial letter isn't an edict. It's you and the editor working together to make the book stronger. I have in the past resolved an editorial suggestion not by making the suggested change, but by changing something else, thus making it unnecessary. You the author have complete freedom to do that.

It just kind of bugs me when I see the idea that someone wins or loses in editing. To me the editor/author relationship--much like the agent/author relationship--is a partnership between two people who have experience in different areas. Don't think of it as someone having "control." Think of it as someone helping you make your book better.

Just my 2p.
 

Undercover

I got it covered
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
10,432
Reaction score
2,054
Location
Not here, but there
I agree wholeheartedly with Stacia. It's a working relationship with the agent/editor/publisher. Same goes with the cover artist, you give them ideas as to how you want the cover to look and they work on it from there. I went back and forth for week with my Cover Artist, making her tweak and adjust the color and font and oh wow, you name it...I was so darn picky about it. But she was ever so gracious to me making every little change I had requested. I felt bad about it, but she kept on urging me, don't finalize it until you are completely satisfied.

It should always be a shared agreement, not win or lose like Stacia had mentioned.
 

Toothpaste

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
3,096
Location
Toronto, Canada
Website
www.adriennekress.com
Also agree with Stacia! So wonderfully well put.

I am so utterly exhausted of this strange notion that it's the author against the world. Sure it suits scam artists, and those trying to convince authors not to even bother subbing to a trade publisher and just self-publish instead, but it's a lie. And a really mean one at that.
 

Sheryl Nantus

Holding out for a Superhero...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,196
Reaction score
1,634
Age
59
Location
Brownsville, Pennsylvania. Or New Babbage, Second
Website
www.sherylnantus.com
Also agree with Stacia! So wonderfully well put.

I am so utterly exhausted of this strange notion that it's the author against the world. Sure it suits scam artists, and those trying to convince authors not to even bother subbing to a trade publisher and just self-publish instead, but it's a lie. And a really mean one at that.

I agree as well.

I can only attest to my experiences with small presses, but all of the editors I've worked with have been wonderful people who made my book a much better product at the end of the process. I wasn't harassed, forced or threatened to change anything.

Most of the time the editors found holes that needed to be filled and helped me fill them. I have no problem saying that without these experts my books wouldn't be anywhere NEAR as good or successful.
 

Anne Lyle

Fantastic historian
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
3,469
Reaction score
397
Location
Cambridge, UK. Or 1590s London. Some days it's har
Website
www.annelyle.com
What Stacia said. Once in a blue moon you will hear a horror story about an editor changing a manuscript without consulting the author, but as with all journalism, the other 99.999% of "business as usual" just isn't newsworthy.

As a rule of thumb, you have most control over your text (after all, it's the product you're selling to the publisher) but rather less over the packaging (title, cover, etc) required to sell said text. The exact level of control depends on the publisher, the contract and their style of dealing with their authors, but as Stacia says it's usually about negotiation rather than a dictat by the publisher.

For example: I was asked to change my working title to something more marketable. I made my suggestion and the publisher liked it, so we went with that. If I hadn't been able to come up with something, the publisher might have chosen the title, but it never came to that.

I also got to write my own back cover copy after complaining to the publisher that their original version gave a misleading impression of the themes addressed by the book :)

I've found that if you have rational arguments to back up your disagreements (especially if those problems might adversely affect the saleability of the book), the publishers are far more accommodating than if you just play the prima donna...
 
Last edited:

Anne Lyle

Fantastic historian
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
3,469
Reaction score
397
Location
Cambridge, UK. Or 1590s London. Some days it's har
Website
www.annelyle.com
I've never felt that I wasn't "in control." I have no problem telling my editor(s) I don't want to make a particular change for this reason or that; I have no problem STETting copyediting suggestions I feel change my voice. And no one has ever had a problem with me over that.

What people forget with copyedits (or don't know, if they're new to publishing) is that the comments don't mean "Change this!", they mean "Are you really sure you meant to say this?" - but manuscript markup being necessarily terse, the "tone of voice" is not obvious.

The copyeditor is trying to help you fix what she thinks might have been careless errors, e.g. typing "stationery" when you meant "stationary", or describing your protagonist's eyes as blue in one chapter and brown in another.

Of course once in a blue moon you do get an idiot for a copyeditor:

http://night-bazaar.com/dont-let-then-take-your-reynards.html

in which case you really do need to put your foot down!
 
Last edited:

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
You both have complete control. You do not have to accept any changes an editor asks for. The publisher does not have to buy and publish your book unless they like it.

In truth, other than minor edits no writer should have a problem with, my experience is that 99% of all copy editing falls into two camps. 1. Suggestions that you do not have to take unless you agree with them. 2. Cutting for length. A new writer who turns in a novel that's good, but way too long, will probably face some serious cutting. The writer will likely be asked to try his hand at it first, but if the writer can't do the job, the copy editor will.

Any good editor is on your side, and works with you, not against you. His goal is to help you make the book better. But publishers, not editors, decide length, and this is one area where the publisher is in charge. A new writer seldom wins this fight, except when they write a long book that's so good the publisher wants it just like it is.

You won't have control over cover art or title, but you may get input. Any why would you want control over these things? Your job it everything between the covers, and marketing's job is everything on the cover.
 

Becky Black

Writing my way off the B Ark
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
176
Location
UK
Website
beckyblack.wordpress.com
Stacia describes it so well, that's been exactly my experience on my two so far. The times the editor made a suggestion I didn't agree with it was because she didn't get what I was trying to convey in that bit - because I hadn't conveyed it effectively enough to be clear! Once I told her what I was trying to get across then between us we'd come up with the third option that worked.

I learned a huge amount through working with my editor.