Welcome to the Official "Hole" of Contracts
An author should never click “Accept
Terms and Conditions,” or sign any traditional contract without knowing exactly
what those terms mean. Authors should also never assume all contracts are equal
and fair. Signing a contract could have long-term consequences if the language
is misinterpreted. This confusion is largely due to the language used in
contracts. Unfortunately, this style of language has become the “norm” in the
publishing business. It’s great that everyone can use language. So why can’t we
always understand it?
The Official style is the culprit
behind endless paragraphs that create headaches and frustration. These small
differences in sentence structure and word choice create a lengthy and
confusing document. Thus, the characteristics utilized in the Official style
include extra stuff added on that complicates the reading as well as obscure
the message conveyed. The Official style uses the past tense and is extremely
impersonal and wordy. The sentences—even the titles for goodness sake! —used in
the Official style tend to be unnecessarily long and complex. The word choice
is also above ordinary day-to-day language. This results in extremely lengthy
prose that no one understands nor wants to read. If language is meant for
communication, these strategies within the Official prose do the opposite,
resulting in poor communication. Furthermore, if the majority of society today
in the United States has an average reading level equivalent to that of a
seventh-grader, why hasn’t the language of contracts changed to shorter,
understandable passages? This is because the Official style is also used to
invoke authority, prove the credentials of the document’s author, and sometimes
to avoid blame by deceiving the reader.
The following passages from “The
Traps in Publishing Contracts” <http://savvybookwriters.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/the-traps-in-publishing-contracts/>
illustrate
the complications in attempting to decipher the Official style. These exerts
from real publishing contracts are riddled with Official language and presented
to authors as if ready to be signed right there and then, no negotiations. Many
writers sign without understanding the full extent of the contract. In many
cases, the authors give up countless rights for their creative work.
Shockingly, some of the passages shown in “The Traps in Publishing Contracts”
deceive authors into giving publishers all the rights to the manuscript and
binding them to the contract for life. In the following exert of a contract,
the publisher can end the deal for any reason or for no reason at all, stating
that the manuscript is not satisfactory.
“If
the manuscript for a book is not, in the publisher’s sole judgment,
satisfactory in all respects, the publisher may terminate this agreement upon
written notice.”
This is
unfair! This is also extremely unclear as to the specific terms concerning what
conditions are deemed “satisfactory” or not. As “The Traps in Publishing
Contracts” points out in the interpretation of this part of the contract, the
author has no equal power to end the contract if the final book is not
satisfactory. The passage is not only unfair, but also muddied by Official
language. It is entirely one sentence, making it complex to read. The language
is in passive voice and the diction used is unnecessarily dense. The passage
could have simply stated, “If the publisher is not pleased, the contract will
end.” This proves that publishing contracts intentionally obscure the terms
with Official language. Contracts can also be extremely vague. This is due to
the publisher’s want to sell as many books as possible. It is all about the
money! Many writers have fallen into this trap because of the excitement of
publishing a book, seeing the excessive fine print, and just signing on anyway
because of the situation and confusion.
The language used in contracts makes
the terms impossible to understand to the average reader, but are the contracts
geared toward random readers? No, the people involved are not random, but even
the authors, lawyers, and advisors should not have to be well versed in the
language publishers throw at them. If all the jargon, syntax, and excessive
wordiness could end, less time and effort would be spent on translation and
more time on creating a fair document for the authors. This next exert further
explains the publisher’s drive to invoke confusion upon the readers involved.
“Books one, two, and three will be held in a joint and open account, and the publisher shall not pay the author’s share of royalties
and subsidiary rights income on any book of the work until the author’s share
of royalties and subsidiary rights income for all books exceeds the total
advance.”
Many
people would have to read this passage more than once to understand the
meaning. This is why plain English should be used. All people would be able to
understand the terms and therefore be free to negotiate the conditions easier
and faster instead of fussing over solving the puzzle of Official language in
the first place. This ties into the fact that our society uses fast-paced
communication and thus our writing should be so as well. This exert from a
publishing contract has a Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score of 31.4 and an
average grade level of 18.4—that’s equivalent to a student attending Graduate
School for their second year after attending four years of college. The passage
is not only difficult to read, but deceives the readers by using passive voice,
a complex sentence structure, and advanced diction and jargon. Coordination is
used due to the use of the ‘and,’ as well as a few participial phrases such as
‘held.’ This single sentence is dense and adds to the fact that Official
language should be used less.
Though publishing contracts do seem
to deceive and confuse in order to make money and sell as many books as
possible, there are also certain aspects of writing to consider within this
context. First of all, contracts are official documents, and thus should use
formal language. These contracts are just “talking the talk” in order to follow
the format of an official contract. The use of Official language also has a connotation
that the writer of the contract actually knows something. This contributes to
the idea of ethos, or credibility. In order to sound credible, some Official
language should be used in order to fulfill the need to sound like a
knowledgeable authority figure. This is also a legal document, and therefore
should sound “legal” and have everything spelled out so no one can interpret it
differently in a court of law. Because of all these strategies and formalities,
however, the document is barely understandable—especially to an outsider. This
also does not follow the Plain Writing Act of 2010. Though publishing contracts
are not a form of government communication or from federal agencies, documents
such as contracts should be included so that the language is easy to understand
for everyone and no one is cheated into falling into a hole they cannot escape
from later.
Alyssa B.
