OK, I really don’t know enough about the facts here (and the terms of the respective contracts) to determine whether or not this is equitable, but I can’t help smiling nonetheless. I really (really, really) despise Haberman. She is not so much a journalist as a celebrity stenographer and she’s a nepotism (or legacy to use a college admissions term) hire at the NYT, even though a stint at the NY Post really should be disqualifying on multiple grounds for a job at the NYT. Worst of all, she is an infuriating and thin skinned presence on social media and positively Trumpian in her refusal to admit even the possibility that she or the NYT have ever made a mistake.
But she did have the lead in a third grade production of Annie. And WTF stuck that on her Wikipedia entry?
Yes - it looks like lousy inequitable treatment …
but not exactly bizarre beyond belief … isn’t the situation something like
(1.) Thrush was dropped (by Random House) from the book deal in 2017 as he faced sexual misconduct allegations - so it was Random House’s choice to remove him - and to do so because the allegations were viewed as something that Random did not wish to be associated with - nor did they wish to stay associated until there was an outcome - assuming that the contract that they had did not simply permit them to walk away for “allegations” - this severing of the contract was going to cost Random House. Random House ate the $$$ of the advance for the privilege of being free of this dirtball.
(2) Random House made Haberman give back her advance when she pulled out of the project after struggling to find a new partner to write the book. So Haberman - chose to walk away … Random House did not cancel the project - Random House was expecting a manuscript … and had paid the advance with the expectation that a product would be delivered.
Big picture - yes, this appears to stink … but the mechanics of the individual pieces are not irrational
Nah, per the story, the publisher dropped Thrush. Haberman, still attached to the project after they canned Thrush, decided not to go through with writing the book. Since she backed out on her own accord, she had to pay back her share of the advance.
I agree, but Random House could just as easily let her keep the advance and avoid whatever this uproar turns into. What lawyer worth their salt wouldn’t have put a morals clause in the contract. That lawyer needs taken to the woodshed.
This scenario could make sense if the contract was written in such a way that each of the authors (or at least Haberman) was fully responsible for completion of the project regardless of the actions by the second author and/or by Random House. By severing the contract with Thrush, Random House significantly affected Haberman’s ability to complete the contract and it would seem that from contract point of view she should be held blameless for the withdrawal. Unless she continued to receive advance funds after Thrush was fired and/or there was an update to the contract where she assured Random House in her ability to complete it.
This is all without considering other issues people have with Haberman’s reporting.
OTOH, if Haberman wasn’t in dire need of the money, she might want to stay in good graces with Random House for any future deals. Returning an advance that she didn’t already spend might make sense in that context.
Under terms of the contract with Haberman and Thrush, Random House’s unilateral decision to deep-six Thrush meant he was free to keep the cash he had received for agreeing to write the book.
