Dear Jane:
I’m so borrowing your format. What a copycat tool I am!
I think you and I are in agreement that Diane Pershing’s response to Deirdre Knight’s ESPAN letter was a jaw-dropping exercise. I had hoped for a dialogue on digital publishing and the opportunity to see both sides discussing the issue, but wow, did that opportunity get missed. By about ten nautical miles.
However, I disagree with you about RWA. I really hate those falling-on-my-sword pathos-ridden entries that talk about RWA as if it were the most gloriously wonderful group in the world. I like RWA. I give them a LOT of my time. I respect the organization and what it does, and the ways in which it has helped many, many writers become authors. I’m going to try to keep from singing the schmaltzy “Oh, they are so wonnnderful” song, but I do want to defend it. So let me be clear:
My opinion comes from not really belonging there.
I joined RWA a crapload of years ago. It might have been in 1997, but someone from the national office will probably correct me. Back then, I wanted to write romance. I kept trying, too. And holy crap did I suck at it. Writing fiction is so very much harder for me than writing prose, and when I found online journals, and blogging, that was a better outlet for my writing. But I reupped my membership every year. And every year, before I do, I try to write romantic fiction. It occurred to me later that this was a good exercise for me as a reviewer because boy, howdy, damn hell, is that some hard work right there.
Time for that fun disclosure stuff. I started programming the HTML formatting for the eNotes, the bimonthly e-newsletter for the organization, in August 2002. I’m now the editor and have been for about two years. So that’s …holy crap, seven years of volunteering.
Even with that effort, I don’t entirely fit. I do not submit anything I’ve written to editors or agents because, well, I wrote the book I wanted to write. (Didja see the Bosoms?! They’re heaving!) And even though the book is about the romance genre, and features many of the authors signing at the 2009 Literacy Signing, our book, because it is nonfiction, is not eligible for our participation in the Literacy Signing this year (which is why we’re holding a Bitches, Beer and Bosoms signing during happy hour on Thursday of RWA, donating all proceeds to literacy). Based on that alone, you know that I disagree heartily with RWA regularly.
What I want to address are these points of your entry:
Why care what RWA thinks? Why advocate for RWA to change? Why not simply withdraw from the organization. It does nothing but to offer a contents, conventions, and help polishing your first three chapters. I don’t know of one editor who cares whether the submission comes from an RWA member. I don’t know of any reader who cares whether the book is from an RWA member.
In what measurable way does RWA help an author a) sell books or b) become published? There are plenty of ways to meet editors and agents.
I don’t have stats that equate RWA National Conference or Chapter conference attendance with increased sales, and I know that RWA members don’t receive any extra consideration just because they are members. Yes, there are chapters that are stronger than others, and oh, HELL, yes the benefit of membership is often in the chapters and the local or online connections. Yes, there are some bugfuck crazy people. I for one get a hell of an ab workoug when someone forwards me a particularly hilarious bit of bullshit from the PAN loop. Oh, dear God, the BBQ, it is rich with the OMGWTF and a side order of Plotz. Yes, there are moments when I wonder why on earth it’s time once again to figure out who is an author and who isn’t, who is acceptable and who is not, and why it matters so much, why there have to be so many lines of achievement and delineation.
I have no idea why digital publishing is such a tangled issue. Surely there must be a way to educate authors to evaluate a publisher so that legitimate businesses are obvious, and shady, deceitful crazy ones are equally obvious. The present policies and procedures eliminate so many authors and publishers who ought to be considered, just as I know that real business discussions are and have been hampered by ignorant people who advocate for their publisher’s daughter’s Photoshop projects as a good option for all the cover art.
Even with the great and glorious moments of headdeskery over the past few years, there is no other group of writers like RWA, and I’m proud of that. There is no organization I know of wherein multi-bazillion-dollar authors regularly come back to teach, workshop, and aid aspiring authors, particularly not in a genre-specific venue like RWA. There is no bar like the bar at RWA, and no support like the genuine connection between authors who work to help one another to achieve publication. The value of RWA is much like the value of our communities online: the smaller connections between individuals are priceless, even if the larger community is troublesome and fractious sometimes. Both are necessary.
The value of RWA is in those connections – between members, between loop subscribers, between critique partners and between those who’ve done it before decoding the confusing as hell process for those just starting out. It’s in the programs and educational seminars offered by the chapters each month, and in the national assembly of the members – who, thanks to the internet, are more connected than ever. The policies don’t make RWA valuable – and this particular set of policies undermine its value, I think – but the people within RWA do increase its worth. Those connections are immeasurably valuable.
Sitting on my mountain of support for RWA as a national and local organization, I absolutely agree with you: it’s time to change, and more specifically, to include and educate. If that means some writers change their allegiance to another organization, I can understand that entirely. But it’s a long way down my mountain and I’m invested in RWA personally a little too much to stop for now. Seeing such an important issue handled with division and exclusion makes me sad, and angry. Even if there are fears about some of the digital publishers that exist now, digital publishing needs to be included. And members of RWA need to be openly and frankly educated about the business model therein, how it is different, how it works, and how the risk plays out for authors and publishers. Not everything about digital publishing is bad, any more than every part of New York print publishing is good.
I wish I could run for the board, because this year I absolutely would, as Region I Director or Random Pain in the Ass At Large. I think the time has come for digital publishing and their business within the romance genre to be included in RWA. I may not be the best person to represent that opinion, and the book I’ve published does not make me eligible for board candidacy any more than it qualifies me for the Literacy signing. But RWA is too valuable to be without strong digital publishing education and advocacy within it.
If I could, I would. So if someone out there is pissed off, I urge you to run. There’s two ways to make a change: storm the castle or sneak up the stairs. If you’re already in, run up the stairs. I’m right behind you, even if this isn’t exactly the right tower for me.
However, J, I’m pleased to have the discussion with you and everyone else. There has to be a solution somewhere. I bet we can find it.
Yours in Bitchin’,
Sarah
And the Rita awards don’t allow e-entries and never have, so enter the Eppies.
I have print copies of both of my novels, but because they were POD I couldn’t enter regardless. I fit every criteria except “mass-produced”.
What is your argument there? Tough cookies?
Bat cakes… (hands Zoe a slice. Also, Karen, despite the whiff of editorialness about her)
Yes. I’m sorry, but yes, I do say tough cookies to that. Why? Because it’s a contest. It’s not your career and it’s not your value as a writer. It’s a contest. I don’t mind if the rules change. But it’s just a contest with rules for entry like any other contest. (I should’ve said e-books or e-releases as opposed to e-entries.)
I’ve got an e-book out this year. I can’t enter it into the Ritas, so I’ll enter it in the Eppies. Or nothing at all, because my book is my book and a contest doesn’t it make it more of a book.
I do think there’s a problem with RWA saying that the Rita showcases the best of romance fiction when they don’t allow all published romance in. They should either change that assertion or change the contest. But it’s not as if they are pretending to accept e-only books and then screwing people over behind the scenes. RWA may not be what you want it to be, but that doesn’t make it malicious and it doesn’t make e-pubbed writers victims.
But again, all this aside, I’m all for change, but the only way to change it is to work from the inside, imho. I also think the idea of a competing organization is worth exploring.
I have to say that I *do* cry foul when RWA changes the rules to specifically exclude e-published books in the RITAs. I paid the same dues as you, jumped through all the hoops, made the money they said I had to make in order to eat their cake, but I don’t get the opportunity to play in the same sandbox?
That. Is. Wrong.
I’m staying in RWA even though I’m not able to volunteer at the national level because without a Loyal Opposition, they’d continue taking my money and then telling me to go sit in the corner.
And nobody puts Baby in the corner.
(You’ve no idea how many years I’ve waited to be able to work that into a conversation.)
Bat cakes, yum. I always think cake is better with Batman on it. That might just be since Christian Bale as Batman though.
I don’t have a dog in this fight.
I went to a book signing a couple of weeks ago for a lit-fic author at a mystery/thriller-only independent bookstore.
Almost no one there even know e-books exist beyond a vague understanding of the Kindle. I pulled out my eBookWise and the owner was horrified. She cried, “Please don’t! This is a bookstore!”
Genre romance has done for e-books what SF/F only WISH it’d been able to get done. Why? Because we, among all readers, treat books like crack and we are the addicts. We must have our fix and have a lot of it and have it NOW. We do now and will continue to drive this market expansion.
Then we will watch our children pick it up as easily as picking up an ice cream cone. My daughter is 6. She sees my e-book reader and she wants one. Guess what? When I get my smartphone next month, she’ll get my e-book reader. She has paper books; we read them. But she has no idea that there was a time e-books didn’t exist, when I couldn’t just call up a book to read with the touch of a button. It’s simply something she can’t imagine.
What happens here will blaze the trail for not only romance writers, but for readers and the writers/readers of every genre that only has a vague idea that e-books exist . . . somewhere . . . outside the realm of Star Trek.
It’d sure be nice if the RWA leadership could show some foresight in this and lead the way with deliberate enthusiasm instead of having to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.
Because it’s a contest. It’s not your career and it’s not your value as a writer. It’s a contest.
And, you answered why it does matter on some level no matter how juvenile other’s might think e-press authors are being.
“I do think there’s a problem with RWA saying that the Rita showcases the best of romance fiction when they don’t allow all published romance in. “
If it were just a contest the whole organization wouldn’t be excited about it. It’s more than recognition. This business is as much about writing a good book as getting your name your out there. How many authors have picked up new readers who are writers, because of the constant battering of “Rita Finalist” or “Rita Winner”.
But, on this point I will agree to disagree.
Also, no, I don’t think RWA is being malicious, but they are doing a percentage of their members a disservice. On that we can agree. I also believe it’s short-sighted to argue it’s just a small number and we can’t make everyone happy.
Lastly, just to clarify “RWA may not be what you want it to be…” on this issue it’s not. The downside to speaking out is the misconception that members who are unhappy with how RWA has handled e-published authors are unhappy with the entire organization. No, most just want RWA to stick to their mission statement. I don’t think that’s asking too much from a paying member, which I am.
Ella, I know I wasn’t talking about “dividing” RWA into two different organizations with two different sets of anything when I mentioned an RWA and a ERWA. Of course there would be overlapping interests. What I’m envisioning is more the construction of an internal advisory panel who could let e-published oriented members get the information and support they want from the organization while “traditionally” published members still get the traditional information from it as it stands. There has to be *some* kind of organized approach to help the RWA assess what it needs organize and set up and explore and unless they set up some kind of feedback system for it…. it seems like everything’s just going to go around in circles. You have to start somewhere and it just seems logical to me to set up some kind of internal structure to start somewhere, learn and tweak along the way.
JMHO.
JT
You know, I think that’s a good way to put this. I agree. I think this is the crux of the matter and a great way to boil it down. “We’re paying members and we are not being served by the organization.” I can get behind that.
I just can’t look at the Rita as an outrage A) Because it’s a contest (as I’ve already beaten to death) and B) Because RWA has never pretended to be forward-thinking about e-pubbed books in the Rita. I don’t feel that anyone joined RWA under the misconception that they could enter their e-only book in the Rita.
It just seems like so many years of wheel spinning at this point. RWA does need change, and the way for members to change it is to speak with votes. If only we had more people to vote for! The people pushing for change have got to step forward.
I can’t feel bad about thinking this. There have been so many loud voices upset with RWA over PAN and publsiher recognition and the Ritas and erotica definitions and the board and the president… there are lots of people unhappy with virtually the whole organization. Rightfully so, I’m sure.
The devil is always in the details. It’s sad, but a lot of RWA’s policies are what they are because of the threat of lawsuits, which means RWA as an organization can’t cherry-pick the good e-publishers and give them benefits that aren’t available to all e-publishers, even the ones that started yesterday in some scammer’s kitchen and which will disappear as soon as they’ve screwed some writers out of their money. That’s the big down-side of e-publishing; it’s too easy for unethical publishers to steal from their writers, too unregulated. It’s the wild wild west of publishing, but legally, the good e-publishers have to be treated the same as the bad ones, or lawsuits would destroy RWA.
RWA also can’t do a damn thing about any publisher not paying royalties until the members involved file formal complaints against the publisher, which almost no one is willing to do because they’re afraid they’ll get black-balled in the industry. Catch-22.
The verification word is both55. We are not. Unfortunately.
As a publisher who doesn’t work in the romance genre, I see romance publishing as a leader in digital publishing. In some respects, you girls (and guys) are helping all of us figure it out—that is, you readers are buying those Kindles, Sony Readers, downloading to computers, etc. discussing DRM, and figuring out what works and doesn’t for your needs. The rest of the publishing industry (or at least my little corner of it) is watching what you all have to say and thinking, “hmm, this might or might not work for our market”.
I’m disappointed that the RWA is ghettoizing digital publishing. It’s a direction the entire industry is moving. Offering authors, especially new authors, guidelines and support for navigating the digital publishing world would benefit not just romance writers, but the rest of us, who look to those on the bleeding edge and apply it to our own businesses.
RWA doesn’t recognize every print publisher, does it? No. It has certain standards for who can be on their list of recognized publishers. They have to meet certain criteria in order to be on that list.
So what’s stopping them from coming up with a list of legitimate criteria for e-publishers that acknowledges that e-publishing is a different business model? As long as Harper Collins remains on their list of recognized publishers, there’s a double standard at work.
I can tell you, my jaw dropped when Ms Pershing displayed her complete lack of understanding about e-publishing by suggesting that they change the way they do business in order to be recognized. She, personally, just doesn’t get it and I’m not sure if it’s because she does know that e-publishing isn’t going to change to suit her, so she can keep them locked out, or whether she’s simply willfully blind. I mention her personal stance because it’s documented in her ESPAN post.
The BOD, as always, remains silent and allows her to speak for them. I can only take their silence for assent.
RWA’s most pressing need is education, as evidenced by the sheer ignorance of her statement. It certainly seemed as if she didn’t feel like she had any more to learn about e-publishing until they started doing things her way. Any RWA members, published or aspiring, who might possibly be interested in learning more about digital publishing and their rights will just have to go somewhere else for that knowledge, which is so blatantly against the mission statement that I genuinely cannot believe that those who support the BOD aren’t up in arms going, “Wait! What aren’t you tell me? Why are you purposely keeping me in the dark? Why can’t I depend on my professional organization to be informed about all aspects of publishing?”
Even if I wasn’t e-published, it is glaringly obvious to me that in this instance, RWA is not even doing the bare minimum for their members. Shameful.
Hence the reason I can’t see leaving RWA, despite feeling unsupported at times. I met my best friend through this organization, plus many other friends so dear to me. The smaller connections remain and are even nourished, despite the larger organization’s pitfalls.
Despite it’s periodic insanity, RWA has overall been a huge resource in my writerly education. The personal connections I’ve made through RWA are immeasurable. Writing is hard, and it helps having people in your life who understand that (I’m talking to you, BFF Leslie!)
I hope this latest controversy is just a symptom of growing pains or a changing of the guard. New media are influencing all aspects of our lives and sooner or later RWA will get that. Hopefully it’s sooner before too many more members leave.
If I had read this in the president’s statement it would have made MUCH more sense. This I can understand as a point of where RWA is coming from.
I wish more members who were unhappy would attend board meetings (which is not as much fun as sightseeing in whatever city we happen to be in, and it does mean going in early. But you really can get an idea of how decisions are reached. Legal concerns, member input, resources, endless discussion. :-)), and e-mail board members with good, specific concerns and suggestions. I’m no longer on the board, but when I got a member letter with a good idea, it went straight to the rest of the board. If I got an e-mail that was basically an attack—what was I supposed to do with that?
I really hate the idea of dividing the membership up in any way. No matter who you write for, no matter how your material is put out there for readers, the large majority of concerns are the same. Craft, writers life, contracts, agents, contact with other writers—those needs don’t vary.
When it comes to these details, I could ramble on. But I won’t. IMO, if RWA gives you nothing of value, then move on. But if you see the need for change and can help make it happen, volunteer.
LH—my word verification is looking74. Much worse than both55! And, I hope, not true. 🙂
LJ
{OMG—it’s Linda Howard!!!! I’m a huge fan!!! /end hysterical fan gushing}
As a lawyer, I’m having a hard time understanding what lawsuits RWA might face if they set up guidelines for which e-publishers they were willing to consider as legitimate. The guidelines would have to be neutral of bias, but they could be black & white in industry-specific ways. That could include years in business, number of publications, royalty issues, etc. As long as all e-publishers knew those guidelines, RWA’s defenses to threatened or actual litigation would be strong.
The problem then becomes the administration of such guidelines, which I admit would be pretty obnoxious. But I wonder (as a non-writing, non-published, ex-RWA member) why RWA doesn’t want to deal with the “wild west of publishing”? Wouldn’t that be a tremendous service to romance writers who want e-publication? Wouldn’t it be good to have a centalized list of e-publishers so that writers could know who’s been in business for over two years, say, versus having no track record?
In other words, why doesn’t RWA try to impose some order and regularity to this matter? I can see that it might be the modern day Augean Stables, but I’m pretty sure Hercules wasn’t worried that the horses were going to sue him.
For more info on this topic and a link to both Ms. Knight’s letter and RWA’s response go to http://www.rwachange.com
As an unpublished member it would be nice to have the education that allows me to make a good business decision about epub vs traditional. It is not all cut and dry…and since the organization has stated it is for both published and unpublished writers it should live up to that expectation. I work just as hard as any other writer whether in print or epub’d and it would be nice for the organization to acknowledge that. I am not a second class citizen if I choose to epub vs. print. As some have stated, the reality is that many traditionally published authors need to be educated on their digital rights as much as the unpublished members!
@Linda Howard:
On the threat of lawsuit issue…Couldn’t Samhain go ahead and threaten a lawsuit since they were recognized before but suddenly aren’t now? Not saying they would, but that seems like an unfair business practice to me given the fact that Samhain has in no way changed for the worse here.
And why can’t a print publisher that isn’t recognized threaten legal action? Because there is a specific set of standards print publishers have to reach to be recognized, like the 1k advance.
All people are asking for is that RWA recognize that Epublishing is a different business model and due to that realization that they form a set of standards which would allow them to recognize quality epubs. They don’t have to recognize all or nobody, or they’d have to recognize all or no print publishers.
All they need is a standard and a recognition that epublishing and print publishing are different.
I questioned RWA on this from 2002 until I dropped out in ‘06. No valid answer was given as to why established e-presses needed to be marginalized. Consequently, I got the impression that having dug in their heels, RWA’s leadership would have to face a bulldozer to change their stance.
Witness the constant raising of the bar for e-presses. First it was “recognition”. That year, when an e-press applied for recognition, the number of books it had to document it sold went up by a factor of five. Not after or before recognition, mind you—during the process. If this looks disingenuous, well, maybe there’s a reason.
Then there was the advance criteria. I submit that if all e-presses suddenly decided they could offer advances of $1,001 to every contracted book, RWA would decide the advance must be $5,000. What evidence do I have to the contrary?
The fact that you can be too published to enter the GH, but not published enough for the Rita, is its own piece of idiocy which has already been commented on more cogently than I can do.
I won’t rejoin RWA to be a member of ERWA or any other sideline group. As attractive as it is to reassociate with my local chapter, I simply cannot go there until my multi-published status is recognized as SOMETHING by the organization to which I’d pay dues.