I was finishing the Broken Sleep contracts the other day (just a first draft), and I was looking at the exclusivity clause. You know, 'the Author must offer next publication to the Publisher first.'

I mean, I deleted it, but my word is that such a shit thing to demand.

To have a clause that states you get first refusal on somebody's creative endeavour? Like, what a way to handcuff somebody. Creativity ain't one size fits all. Presses and publishers offer different things. Writers/artists work in different ways.

The audacity to demand ownership over the work that doesn't yet exist is some real gatekeeper vibe.

Besides, it also stunts the industry. Like how do other presses grow if they don't have access to poets who have published with the glossier types.

And say a small press publishes somebody relatively obscure or unknown, it does well, the poet gets sniped up by some bigshot with glossy covers, later the poet would love to do something to help the press that made them, but sorry contract forbids it.

That relationship between the editor and the person being edited should be strong enough that if they make something that'll suit you they'll come back, and if they don't you should be proud to cheer them on at another press. Celebrate success, whether it is with you or elsewhere

It's not a monopoly, we shouldn't be owning people's creative futures. Like, I'm hella proud when poets I publish go on to release elsewhere. And BSB poets will tell you how I put in good words for them at other presses.

It also concerns me that somebody could have a terrible experience with a press but be stuck with them due to exclusivity. No way out. Does that writer stop writing rather than provide for somewhere that left them with a terrible experience?

I dunno, it just seems that if the arts are a community then we shouldn't be trying to lock people away from each other.

And don't get me started on 'no releases 1 year either side of this release.'