Update! Sylvia Day posts Debra Dixon’s rebuttal, and based on other evidence, concludes that Medallion dropped the ball. The comments have some interesting reading material, too. Found the link on Alison’s blog.
A couple of days ago, Kate Rothwell posted a letter from the CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Medallion Press about how their status as RWA-approved publisher has been yanked.
OK, I can see the value of vetting a publisher and giving it an organization’s Stamp of Approval so that aspiring authors who sell to small presses can be assured that they’re legit operations, not scam jobs.
But this part of the letter struck me as very, very strange:
Several months prior to Book Expo America 2005, we received a call from your [the RWA] office alerting us to the fact that you would be sending out a letter asking us to re-qualify for RWA approval. We were also told at that time that we had done nothing to warrant the re-qualification, but that your organization was having trouble with a particular publisher and chose not to single them out.
How weird does THAT sound? One iffy publisher was under investigation, but all the other small presses had to go through the re-qualifying process so that the iffy publisher’s feelings weren’t hurt?
Weird, weird, weird. I don’t get it. Can someone enlighten me on why this would be necessary?
Also, how often in the past has the RWA cleaned house for its list of approved small presses? Or is this the first time it has made presses that previously qualified go through the qualification process AGAIN with no evidence of malfeasance (e.g. opening up a vanity press division)?
I’m genuinely curious. Anyone care to educate me?