We here at Smart Bitch headquarters, which I will tell you is uber-cool but I won’t tell you where it is because then we’d have to kill you, received the following press release this afternoon:
ROMANCE WRITERS OF AMERICA ACCEPTS GAY AUTHOR
Co-writer of Romentics Becomes Member of Premier Professional AssociationThe Romance Writers of America (RWA) has accepted openly gay novelist Scott Pomfret as a full-fledged member. The RWA is the premier professional association for writers and aspiring writers of Harlequin-style romance novels. Together with his real-life romantic partner Scott Whittier, Pomfret is co-author of the Romentics series of romance novels for gay men. In June 2005 Warner Books published the latest Romentics novel, Hot Sauce.
Commenting on his welcome to the organization, Pomfret said, “It’s nice to see that an organization like the RWA is open to recognizing that romance is not a ‘hetero-only’ institution and that gay men have romantic lives—and needs—as strong as any Harlequin heroine.” Pomfret noted that romance novels comprise 48 percent of all mass-market paperback fiction sold in the United States and are read by 41 million Americans. He added, “Hot Sauce taps into that popularity by giving an option to a few million gay men and the people that love them.”
Whittier admitted, “Because the RWA has traditionally focused on straight romance for women, is conservative, and is based in Texas, we were apprehensive about Scott’s application, so we were pleasantly surprised to find there was room at the table for Romentics, too.”
Focused on straight romance? Conservative? Where did you get that idea, the video presentation at the RITA/Golden Heart Award ceremony?
I think it’s damn awesome that RWA accepts a gay romance author whose books are attracting a great deal of attention even as their board tries to limit the definition of romance and what constitues an appropriate cover. However, the membership guidelines that RWA itself requires allow plenty of room for romance writers of any genre: “General membership shall be open to all persons seriously pursuing a romance fiction writing career.”
Well, now, that leaves plenty of room for gays, lesbians, transsexuals, bisexuals, transgendered individuals, sheepherders, chupacabras, centaurs, aliens, shape shifters… pretty much anyone. So on one hand you have a board ostensibly trying to restrict the graphic design, content, and definition of romance; on the other hand, you have an admissions requirement that broadly invites anyone who writes romantic fiction to join an organization that was created to compensate for romance writers’ frustration “with writing conferences that seemed to ignore romance writers, and [remaining] individually voiceless against daunting New York publishers.”
However, I do take one exception to Scott’s press release: not all romances are of the Harlequin variety, and to describe heroines in those terms limits the range of heroines that exist in other romantic genres, from erotica to historical to futuristic. RWA members don’t write only “Harlequin-style” romances, though that is often the response when non-romance readers are asked what a romance novel is.
But as a member of that wild wooly organization, I do have to say, “Welcome Scott!” and I SO hope I see you and other gay romance authors in Atlanta in 2006.
RWA already had at least one out gay member; he’s a friend of mine. And our beloved Board tried to write a resolution that explicitly excluded gay relationships: watch them back-pedal now.
Have you read Hot Sauce? It’s really, really fantastic, and I would recommend it to all fans of romance out there.
And I’m happy that I’m not the only hetero girl out there who thinks that gay romance writers belong right up there with anyone else writing romance.
Thanks for sharing this. Positive news today is sooooo welcome!
Rinda, humming All You Need is Love
the penny drops
Ohhhhhh. Our beloved board wrote that survey and shoved it into the mail lickety-split in order to justify keeping the Scotts out. Didn’t they? What…. nice ladies.
I do indeed have a copy of Hot Sauce thoughtfully provided by Scott and Scott. My review is in progress and will appear shortly.
But yeah, the short review: kickass.
I’m not gonna blame that sucker solely on the board. The more I learn, the more I’m willing to blame one individual in particular. The one who keeps claiming she didn’t say anything… that nothing is ever her fault… she wasn’t there that day…
Kinda reminds of Watergate that way…
> The one who keeps claiming she didn’t say anything… that nothing is ever her fault… she wasn’t there that day
Good point. And who was so surprised that the survey could be read as exclusionary, because it wasn’t intended that way, the lawyer said they had to do it, they were just asking…..
Oh riiight. The old “blame the attorneys” defense. Next up that person will say the behavior stemmed from eating too many Twinkies on an empty stomach.
She was….KIDNAPPED! Yeah!
By a….COWBOY…looking for his…SECRET BABY! Yeah!
And then she got knocked the head and got…AMNESIA!
Yeah! Amnesia! That’s the ticket!
And don’t forget. There was a nobleman disguised as a pirate. He had something to do with it, too. Maybe he was the secret baby.
Oh riiight. The old “blame the attorneys†defense. Next up that person will say the behavior stemmed from eating too many Twinkies on an empty stomach.
You haven’t seen any pics lately, have you? She’s got that whole Mary Kate look going. tres scary
I do believe the year has taken a toll on her. I’d feel sorry for her and worry for her health if I hadn’t lost so many writing hours trying to deal with her cock-ups.
‘Cause I’m selfish and self-centered that way.
Oh riiight. The old “blame the attorneys†defense.
Here’s the thing: I don’t see the SFWA trying to send out questionnaires with the following question for fear of The Lawyers:
Choose on of the two options: Science fiction is a piece of speculative fiction that features:
1. Faster-than-light space travel.
2. Space travel.
I’ve always viewed the “But ve need to define Romance to comply vith ze anti-trust laws!” argument with a lot of skepticism. A LOT.
We always knew the “my lawyer made me do it” part was a lie. Now we know what truth it was attempting to conceal.
Pretty much anyone can *join* RWA, can’t they? They’re generally perfectly happy to take people’s dues. This doesn’t mean they approve of what every member writes or that they will recognize every publisher, though, nor does it imply that there’s likely to be a “Best Gay Romance” RITA category any time soon…
Now we know what truth it was attempting to conceal.
Y’know, the more I think about this, the more unlikely it seems to me.
Because first of all, membership to the RWA is hardly a closely-vetted thing, right? I mean, you don’t even have to be published. You just need to be “seriously pursuing” (how does one gauge seriousness?) a writing career in Romance.
And second of all, TTQ (from what I’ve heard, she’s the one who’s the Prez of the Fags Are Icky club, though as with any other population, I’m sure there are chartered members of this club within the RWA too) isn’t the one approving the memberships; I’m assuming some administrative assistant somewhere is the one who’s saddled with the delightful job of sorting through the applications.
And third of all, this sort of discrimination violates Federal laws, don’t it? (This part gets rrreaaal fuzzy because I know squat about anti-discrimination/equal opportunity laws.)
Now, what the RWA BOD CAN do is define the genre in such a way that it’s narrow and disinclusive, so that even if it had LGBT members, these members would have to toe the line and write about monogamous, heterosexual love stories—which seems to be the point of the questionnaire, which I view as an opening salvo of sorts.
Just some thoughts.
I am willing to guess that there will be a “Best Gay/Lesbian Romance” award before there will be open acceptance of erotica/romantica, but only because of growing public acceptance of homosexuality. It ain’t like swingers and open marriages are suddenly gaining the same level of acceptance (I am using them as an example; I’m aware erotica/romantica is not about swinging or open marriages).
It is marginally harder to discriminate against homosexuals and retain your public credibility than it is to discriminate against erotica/sexuality. There are enough people who would throw down the big stink if someone busted out the gay-hate, but it’s more difficult to find ground to stand on when you are trying to defend someone’s right to boink whomever they want, within or without the bonds of matrimony. Thus I bet there will be some kind of acknowledgement of gay/lesbian romance, particularly if it takes off the way erotica/romantica has, before there’s an award for erotica/romantica. Not under the current administration, of course.
“And third of all, this sort of discrimination violates Federal laws, don’t it?”
Don’t think so. A professional organization has the right to define its standards for qualification. It wasn’t that RWA was trying to keep gay people out—it was that RWA was trying to keep gay *novels* out.
Because Romentics is a new publishing line, RWA had to decide if Romentics publication counted as romance publication for RWA purposes. This is no different than deciding whether Luna qualified. That decision would have had to have been made at a pretty high level.
A professional organization has the right to define its standards for qualification.
Ahhh, thanks for the clarification.
Because Romentics is a new publishing line, RWA had to decide if Romentics publication counted as romance publication for RWA purposes.
The new Romentics book was published by Warner Books, which is an RWA-approved publisher. But good point about RWA still having to decide if the novel itself counted as a romance.
Question: Scott was accepted as a “full-fledged” member. I’m assuming this doesn’t mean PAN, because aren’t the requirements for becoming a PAN member quite rigorous? At any rate, I’m not sure what “full-fledged” signifies. I know there’s the Associate membership, which is for publishers, editors, etc., and then there’s the Affliliate membership for librarians and booksellers. The General Membership doesn’t seem to differentiate between pubbed and unpubbed, at least until you get to PAN level.
So here’s my thinking: I’m sure a published mystery author can join RWA even if they haven’t written a romance yet, aas long as they’re “seriously pursuing” a career in Romance writing. But would this author be considered published or unpublished for RWA membership purposes? They’re published, yes, but not in romance. So…. I’m confused. Gah.
From the RWA website:
PAN Qualifications
Romance Writers of America defines a novel as a work of fictional narrative prose not less than 40,000 words, which is offered for sale to the general public by a royalty-paying publisher through readable format by print media or electronic means, for which the author receives payment as stipulated in a written contract, and in which the author does not participate financially in the production and distribution of the work. The definition does not extend to nor include novels, novellas or stories in magazines, on audio tapes or other such means.
Romance Writers of America officially defines a publisher as one who does not offer subsidy or vanity contracts to RWA members, has been releasing books on a regular basis via national distribution for a minimum of one year, and can prove to RWA that it has sold a minimum of 1,500 hardcover or trade paperback copies or 5,000 copies of any other format of a romance/romantic novel.
General PAN Membership
Any RWA General member in good standing who has published a romance novel, or a novel with a strong romantic theme, written for adults or young adults, shall be eligible for membership in PAN.
Provisional PAN Membership
Any RWA General member in good standing who has contracted with a publisher for the publication of a romance novel, or a novel with a strong romantic theme, for adults or young adults shall be eligible for provisional membership. Provisional members may not hold PAN office. PAN Provisional must contact PAN within 18 months of initial application to update book status.
I’m in line for a copy of Hot Sauce. The buzz is good.
I just can’t wrap my mind around What has been happening within RWA. “NO EROTICA” on the one hand. Yet- gay roomance is now ok.
Personally, I don’t care who the romance is between, just as long as it’s well done.
Wasn’t there an episode of the Little Rascals with the “all fags are icky” club? Now I’m imagining TTQ as Darla and really dating myself in the bargain…Sigh.
Well good for Scott and really, good for romance in general to be recognizing that there’s more than one love story to be told.
Oh and gays are not a protected class so you can ban them from the clubhouse all you want, public or private club.
Is this damage control by a President and Board under fire???
Why the Scotts’ entrance is so hot is because they DO fit the PAN requirements. They wrote a romance story under the current definition (written in part by Crusie) and they’re published by an RWA recognized publisher. Which was why that survey went out to quick change the rules, or so it seems.
Skanky, but there it is.
RWA and anyone else in a position to promote gay romance novels would be foolish to ignore or overlook them, considering the huge popularity of the slash fic on the ‘net. It’s hot, it’s gorgeous, and it’s everywhere. A lot of women read it and write it (including old, straight, marriedw/children chicks like me). I suspect the market for novels is even bigger than I imagine.