YAY OR NAY WEDNESDAY

Hi, Yay or Nayers! Last week you were pretty much agreed that it's OK if your partner doesn't read your writing... better than him/her reading it and making lukewarm/disparaging comments, at any rate! (But I think I'd want my boyfriend to read and love my masterpieces - if I had a boyfriend. Or any masterpieces.)

This week, the question is simple, if controversial. (And in several parts...) You may have heard all the outcry about the proposed OJ Simpson book (worst taste idea of the year), which has now thankfully been dropped by the publisher. Found not guilty in criminal court of the murders of his ex-wife and her boyfriend, OJ was nevertheless found guilty in a civil trial. And although he's not in the same league, disgraced ex-politician Jeffrey Archer has a new book deal (oh joy) and indeed released a book from prison. Great! On the other hand, this prison diary is one of the best books I've ever read.

So what I want to know is this: should books by convicted criminals ever be published, and should they receive money for them? Does it depend on whether the book draws on a crime they've been found guilty of? Is it only okay once they've served their time? Should it be taken on a case by case basis (eg. Jeffrey Archer - bad writer but not in bad taste, OJ - bad to the bone *allegedly*?) What do you think?

To answer all or any of that(!), tell us: is it a Yay or a Nay... and Why?

Yay or Nay archives.

[Don't forget it's Yay or Nay day at Hippyshopper, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Catwalk Queen, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny, too!]

Keris

Ooh! Just thought of something. I don&#39t take away his right to write it, but no self-respecting publisher should agree to buy it whether there&#39s a market for it or not! In this case, I think it was instigated by the publisher, which is even worse. Possibly. Gah. The whole thing just makes me shudder with fury.

Keris

"Surely the publishers should be held just as accountable for profiting from crime as the criminals who write the books?" Absolutely. In the case of OJ Simpson the publisher has come out of it looking very bad indeed.

And I take your point about taking away his right to write it. My first thought was "I bloody would!" but I suppose we&#39re drifting into a censorship area there and then where do you draw the line (Peter Andre and Jordan&#39s duets album?).

I suppose the best outcome is what actually did happen - that the public outrage is so strong that it doesn&#39t happen anyway. (Although the fact that he gets to keep the $3million isn&#39t ideal ..)

Ms Mac

Yes, but it&#39s all supply and demand, is it not? Surely the publishers should be held just as accountable for profiting from crime as the criminals who write the books? It&#39s not only the criminal authors who profit from the pain of their victims.

Having said that, I do absolutely agree that the OJ Simpson book idea was disgusting and I would never have read it. I would never take his right to author it away though.

Keris

No, Ms Mac, but they still get their advances (I read $22million for Jeffrey Archer, but surely that was a mistake?), i.e. they&#39re still profiting from their crimes whether people buy their books or not!