Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

My publisher (Orbit, formerly Warner) can charge me if, for example, I change too much at the page-proofs stage (since resetting the text is expensive).  That’s not “retyping” the manuscript per se, but since I don’t know the exactly contract language Tsaba uses, I can’t say for sure if that’s what it refers to.  I don’t have anything in my contracts about front and back matter.

Not a romance publisher, of course, but at least it’s a data point.  I’ve never heard of those things being boilerplate, though.

Ditto the above, for two different RWA-approved romance publishers.  I’ve never heard of it actually being enforced, but it’s in the contract that I’m liable for the $$ if the cost of my page proof changes exceed X% of the typesetting cost.

Also, I’m pretty sure the ‘approved’ label has now been changed, such that(I think, but could be wrong) an author who has received a certain $$ for a given book is considered ‘published,’ regardless of the publisher.  I’m not sure how that relates to RITA eligibility, though, and I’m not sure whether the ‘published’ label applies to a book for which the author has fronted money (i.e. vanity/subsidy-type presses).  I’m sure someone who knows better than I can correct me and fill in the deets.

When any publisher says anything about “charging the author $”, it sends up a red flag. (see Yog’s Law.) 

While it is standard to charge authors for excessive changes to already typeset manuscripts (this is to discourage us from doing things like deciding at the last minute that the hit man named George really should have been an exotic dancer named Fifi), I haven’t heard of the author having to pay for front and back matter, or retyping.

May I ask a dumb question?

What does “boilerplate” mean in regards to this situation?

Security word: money33. Thank goodness I’ve got a bit more than that.

Do publishers call typesetting “typing” now? Because I’m not sure why any manuscript would require “retyping”, unless Tsaba House is a computer-free zone.

And exactly what frontmatter and backmatter are we talking about? Cover blurbs? Indexes?

“boilerplate”

It means you bought some canned forms you don’t really understand from this “self-publishing guru”‘s website (Sorta like Amway) who is selling fly-by-night get-rich-quick schemes and now you are dealing with the fallout of a really questionable business decision.

Quote from the guru…

“It’s virtually impossible to land a publisher unless you can bring an audience with you. They’re publishing only books that’ll sell based on name recognition, which is why they’re publishing great literature like Madonna’s children’s books and the book supposedly written by Paris Hilton’s dog.”

I have never been charged by my publisher for anything. There’s nothing in my contracts, ever, that allows them to except as stated by others here. If the writer makes over a certain number of changes to an already typeset ms.

Speaking with my knowledge as an employee of a university press (but not as an Official Spokesbeing of said press), I agree with Marie; I believe the only author charges that are in our boilerplate (i.e. the standard contract you get unless you/your agent request otherwise—that clear it up, phadem?) are for author’s alterations at page proofs.  (The contract states that the author is also responsible for all permissions fees, but that money isn’t paid to us; it’s paid to the rightsholder, and if the author isn’t using material that would require permission, then of course it doesn’t apply.)

We do occasionally add clauses about certain aspects of the manuscript depending on the author’s getting a subsidy—for example, if the author wants a color section that the editor doesn’t think is necessary for the book.  That’s something specific to dirt-poor scholarly publishing, though, and wouldn’t be something you’d expect in fiction publishing.

I know nothing about fiction manuscripts, but I do know a fair amount about non-fiction contracts and practice over the last 30 years or so from the author’s point of view.  As several people have said, if the author wants to introduce substantial changes at page-proof stage, it has long been normal (both in letterpress days and today, with computer setting) that she will have to pay for them, because major alterations are costly.  This applies to journal articles, too. 
Copyright and reproduction fees for illustrations vary according to contract;  in some cases, the author has to research her own pics, get the copyright permissions and pay the reproduction fees.  In others, not.
Front- and endmatter:  these days, even for academic works, most publishers expect the author to do her own index.  If the author wants it done by a professional indexer, then she would have to pay. The author writes the title page and half-title, contents page and any introductions, forewords,  and the like as part of her manuscript, but the editor (employed directly or indirectly by the publisher) usually writes the copyright page at the front and obtains the book’s ISBN number.

I once worked as an editor for an educational publisher who did charge authors for typing when, for example, they turned in a handwritten manuscript. I have no idea how common that is, nor do I have any idea how common it is for an author to be so unprofessional as to submit a handwritten manuscript.

I don’t know anything about standard/boilerplate contracts, but I do know that my epublisher had to remove a clause from their contracts that allowed them to charge an author for the “reasonable costs of editing” if that author pulled the rights for his/her book less than six months after its release. Honestly, I didn’t find this clause offensive because it seemed to me that they were only charging in the event of what could only be considered breach of contract, but RWA insisted that so long as that clause remained in their contracts, they would be considered a vanity/subsidy publisher. (And if I misrepresented this history in any way, I’m sure someone from CP will come along and smack me upside the head.)

That said, one of the major “problems” with RWA’s standard vis-a-vis the divide between published and unpublished authors is that there are two different sets of rules. There are author who can enter the RITA because their books are in print (authors whose books are available only in ebook can NOT enter) who are not recognized by RWA as published for PAN (Published Author Network) membership (because they have not met the $1,000 earnings threshold). By the same token, there are plenty of authors who can’t enter the RITA because they are only in ebook who are eligible for PAN membership because they’ve met the earnings threshold.

It’s a complicated and, in my opinion, inconsistent set of rules

It may seem unfair, or inconsistent, or a double standard, but as someone who judges the RITA nearly every year, I’m not going to sit at my computer and read a book, most especially as a volunteer. I’m just not.

This may be part of the problem—I don’t know—because I have no doubt I’m far from the only one who would refuse to judge if required to download and read on my comp.

The logistics of requiring only on e-book writers to print out, bind, send in the printed book seem onerous.

Nora wrote:
It may seem unfair, or inconsistent, or a double standard, but as someone who judges the RITA nearly every year, I’m not going to sit at my computer and read a book, most especially as a volunteer. I’m just not.

I understand that a lot of people don’t like to read books on the computer screen (or on a Kindle or other portable device), but…I strongly believe that’s less and less of an issue simply because we’re all growing more and more accustomed to doing more and more of our reading on the computer. By the time my kids grow up (oldest 10, youngest 6), I expect the vast majority of people’s reading will be done on some sort of screen, rather than on paper.

That doesn’t mean I think print books are going to disappear—I much prefer reading a paperback to an ebook, although I have to admit I prefer an ebook to a hardback!—but that I think that more and more written material will be delivered by electronic rather than print medium as time goes on. And I will also state unequivocally that I *infinitely* prefer to judge and critique unpublished manuscripts in electronic, rather than printed, form.

I do understand the problem with regard to RITA jusdges, however, if epublished authors were permitted to have their ebooks print and bound in some fashion, rather than requiring that the book have been issued by the PUBLISHER in print format, the issue of fairness would be significantly diminished. It would obviously increase an author’s costs for entering the RITA, since it would be done at his/her cost, but at least an author would have the OPTION.

I’m published by Mira, and there is a clause in my contract that I can be charged if I change too much in the proofs stage.  That’s pretty standard.

HOWEVER… if one of the rules of this contest was that you had to be published by an RWA recognized publisher, then waaah.  It might not be fair, but RWA is a private organization.  No one is forced to belong to it.  If she doesn’t like the policies, she needs to either form her own chapter and make her own contest, or just let her membership lapse and move on.

The logistics of requiring only on e-book writers to print out, bind, send in the printed book seem onerous.

The rule used to be that an ebook was eligible for the RITA if it was A) published by an RWA approved publisher and B) said publisher had print copies (ARCs, basically) produced for the contest. Let’s just say that not very many ePubs were willing to do this . . .

I just heard that one of my local chaptermates had her publisher-produced ARCs and RITA fee returned. She was told that only ebooks which are also available for sale in print form are eligible now.

I do think there’s something wrong with taking people’s $, telling them they’re “PAN” and then refusing to allow them access to one of the major PAN programs (the RITA). The best solution I can think of is to have a new category just for eBooks (though I know that won’t please everyone either).

I also wish they’d create subsets of PAN: PAN PRINT and ePAN. The needs of these two groups of published authors simply do not align, at least not from what I’ve seen and heard.

What about the front and back matter? I thought it was standard, esp. for, say, fantasy authors. For example, what if the publisher wants to include a map of your world and you lag and lag and don’t produce one within the timeframe given. Then, according to this, the publisher can charge you for getting that map done by someone else.

I don’t think this is a vanity-press clause.

It looks more like a non-fiction clause to me (in non-fiction the author is usually responsible for creating indexes, etc.). I think the publisher is using a “boilerplate” contract that they don’t understand and that doesn’t suit their business model. Perhaps rather than waste their money suing RWA (who, as a private organization has every right to run their contest any damn way they please), they might spend it consulting someone like Elaine English (who could help them construct a contract that would work for them).

Never been charged by a publisher for anything.  Never had a contract that asked me to cover illustrator, cover arts or editing expenses. 

*Have been yelled at a few times by editors when I go back and make more changes other than what I’ve been asked to revise…but never charged a cent. 

The only time I ever hand over money to a publisher is when I need books to sell for a convention - then I get a deep discount off the cover price.

~I understand that a lot of people don’t like to read books on the computer screen~

I’m not saying I don’t like to. I’m saying I won’t. Absolutely will not.

Whether or not, some time in the future this will be the only choice—or the preferred—is possible, debatable and yet to be seen.

But this is now. I want to read a book in bed, in my cozy chair, in the tub. I don’t want to read one where I work all day.

It’s just a personal preference—and there are a lot of us who have it. Just as there are lots of people who love reading on screen.

I’m delighted there are e-books, delighted people have a choice. Mine is paper.

Jane O:  a handwritten manuscript?  Surely you jest!  I would be very surprised to hear that any serious writer had actually submitted a complete book to a publisher in handwritten form since the 1930s.  People certainly used to write their books and theses in longhand, of course, but they would get them typed before submitting them.  Professional typists made a living from that very process;  if the author could not type the text himself, he would have to pay to get it typed - but it would need to be in typewritten form before the publisher would do anything with it.

My publisher paid for the map in Doppelganger and Warrior and Witch.  I provided them with a scan of the one I’d made for my own use, but they took that to an artist to be turned into something pretty.  I’ve never heard of a fantasy author being charged for maps, glossaries, or anything of that sort.  You make it yourself or the publisher does, but either way you don’t pay for it.

This notion that RWA is a “private organization” and can do what it pleases is wrong. RWA is a non-profit, and as such, is required to apply its rules in a consistent fashion and make its benefits uniformly available.

Are they doing that? When one house is labeled “vanity” for a clause which many other houses also use, is this fair? Is it consistent?

Not really.

I’ve seen contracts from all the big three e-pubs and they all have ‘charge the author’ clauses. If you pull the book after edits, if you change too much after proofing, as well as buyout fees should the book draw the interest of a large press. I think that’s kind of standard. Moreover, doesn’t NY do the same thing? If they give you an advance, but you never deliver, can’t they take the advance back? If it’s money in your pocket, that you then have to pay back, how is that not considered a charge?

I do think there’s something wrong with taking people’s $, telling them they’re “PAN” and then refusing to allow them access to one of the major PAN programs (the RITA).

I have to agree. It’s also a little confusing when an author ISN’T PAN, but can participate. The disconnect between the contest programs and the networks bothers me more than anything else.

I can’t say I’m entirely in agreement with the notion of separating epublished from print authors when it comes to PAN membership, though. Maybe because I have a knee-jerk response to the notion of “separate but equal.” But I do see how the needs of the two groups diverge in places. Perhaps subsets of the overarching PAN group, which authors could CHOOSE to join? That would also accommodate those authors who straddle both media.

I’ve seen contracts from all the big three e-pubs and they all have ‘charge the author’ clauses. If you pull the book after edits, if you change too much after proofing, as well as buyout fees should the book draw the interest of a large press. I think that’s kind of standard. Moreover, doesn’t NY do the same thing? If they give you an advance, but you never deliver, can’t they take the advance back? If it’s money in your pocket, that you then have to pay back, how is that not considered a charge?

There’s a difference between charges to the author, and outright breach of contract on the author’s part.  If I never give them my manuscript, I’m failing to uphold my end of what we signed, and am legally liable for the money they gave me.  Agreeing to charges as part of the publication process is not the same thing.

AgTigress- I kid you not. Well, it was a revised edition, so it was only about 20% of the text, but it was all handwritten with arrows all over the place to show what went where. Then there was one new manuscript that was typed but so badly that the first comment from the evaluator I sent it to was:“I can’t believe anyone had the nerve to turn in a manuscript that looks like this.”
thus69? close, but not quite

Hard to say without seeing the actual contract.  But like Carrie said up above, the general rule is that money flows from publisher to author, not the other way around.  I’ve got three in print with a major fantasy house, and three more under contract.  They day they send me a bill is the day I look for a new publisher.

I’ve seen contracts from all the big three e-pubs and they all have ‘charge the author’ clauses. If you pull the book after edits, if you change too much after proofing, as well as buyout fees should the book draw the interest of a large press. I think that’s kind of standard.

As I understand it, all of the epublishers who want RWA status as non-subsidy/non-vanity have removed those clauses from their contracts. So, it may have been standard in the past, but as of the change in the rules last year, I believe all the major players in the epub market have removed those clauses.

The fees that make for a vanity or subsidy press, as defined by RWA, are the fees where the author PAYS to have his or her book published. If the author pulls their book from publication, then they are not paying to have their book published. Ditto with being “bought out” by a big pub. (Not that I necessarily agree with either of those fees.)

I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal that PAN and Rita guidelines are different. There are many people who are members of PAN who are not eligible for the RITA—because they didn’t have books out that year. Now, I do wish that the RITA guidelines allowed for e-published-only books to be entered. If judges can “opt out” (or is it in?) of categories, they can opt out (or in) for e-books as well.

As far as separating out PAN between epubbed and print pub, I think it’s a slippery slope? The needs of a freshly published category writer with a one book deal and no agent (or a writer who had one category in print ten years ago, but has been out of contract ever since) are VERY different from the needs of a multipublished, agented writer of single titles for three different publishers. And an epublished author can be more similar to either of these print authors than they are to one another.

I agree with the poster who said take what you need from RWA and leave the rest. I am a member of RWA and three chapters, and a board member of one of my chapters. If they changed the rules tomorrow and said that I wasn’t considered “published” by them because of (insert arbitrary guidelines here—say, because *I don’t write romances for my two RWA recognized publishers, Random House and Harper Collins*) I would STILL be a member of RWA, because the support from my local chapters is fabulous, and I enjoy the meetings and the loops.

Then I guess it’s about what’s considered a charge. I’m pretty sure EC and Samhain both charge for frontmatter and backmatter, as well as extra materials like maps and the like. Furthermore, the pre and post items are to be determined by publisher - with no mention in the contract of allowing the author to provide them - but paid at the author’s cost.

I know there was a bruhaha over the whole vanity press thing, but to be honest, as an outsider looking in it all seemed to me that RWA was trying to keep the small, but reputable, e-published writers from getting into their oh-so-precious club. Which is funny, because like the previous poster said RWA is supposedly non-profit, so I kind of wondered about the legality of that, but again, I’m just an outsider.

I’m with Nora!  I will not read an e-book at my computer.  I much prefer a paperback that I can throw in my purse, read in the bathtub while taking a nice bubble bath, or read ANYWHERE!  That’s the great thing about a paperback, you can take it anywhere and read it anytime or anywhere you want. 

I am definitely against a paperless society. 

I also refuse invitations that are sent by e-mail.  Call me old-fashioned, but if you want me there you had better send that invitation in the snail mail to me.

And don’t even think about sending me a thank you note by e-mail.  How rude!

And I’m not some old lady either.  I’m 39 years old (just for the record).

Sure, Sarah. You’re right, there are some bad companies - really, really bad! And absolutely, all guilds have to have standards. No argument there. I guess I’m thinking more along the lines of the good presses that don’t offer an advance, I’m sure there are some. Or good presses that say they won’t edit a book for free - if you pull it after edits but before publication. I’m am looking in, but it seems fair enough.

Or how about the switch-a-roo with PAN qualifying? Really, it seems like a lot of RWA’s rules were changed exactly to exclude e-pubbed writers. Unrelated to e-pub, or rather related but OT, I’ve even heard that in RWA’s member only newsletter, they’ve taken to allowing folks to write letters in trashing erotica writers. Doesn’t exactly sound like a guild that’s trying to be fair and impartial and apply itself equally across the board to me, that’s all I was saying.

I’ve even heard that in RWA’s member only newsletter, they’ve taken to allowing folks to write letters in trashing erotica writers. Doesn’t exactly sound like a guild that’s trying to be fair and impartial and apply itself equally across the board to me, that’s all I was saying.

And yet, the first sales column in the Romance Writers Report, which is the member magazine is probably 80-90% e-pub sales reported. 

Just sayin’...

Someday, I’d love to have a discussion about the merits and/or pitfalls of RWA’s policies when it comes to the issues of RITA eligibility, PAN eligibility, the criteria used to determine if a publisher is considered non-vanity/non-subsidy, and the policy about advances, which determines a publisher’s eligibility to be invited to the national conference.

But that never, ever happens.  Why?  Because by the time I’ve corrected completely wrong information, set the record straight, and we’re all on the same page - the actual, this is how it is page - I’m too tired to discuss anything.

It’s easy in the cheap seats.  And it’s even easier when one can make up the rules as one sees fit, to support one’s current soapbox.

Hey, I’ve got no problem with people grousing and grinching and saying they feel something is unfair, or unjust.  But it rankles when accusations and judgments are made based on misinformation.

If you are a member of RWA, the current Policy and Procedure manual is posted in the Members Only section of the website under Governance.  I urge you to look over those sections you find relevant, and before you gripe about the delineation between e-pubs and print pubs as candidates for PAN, understand that there isn’t any.  PAN is strictly based upon earnings from any publisher that is non-vanity/non-subsidy.  Have you seen the list recently?  It is holy shit long.  In other words, most publishers who ask to be included, are.  Earn a thousand bucks from any one of those publishers, and you’re in PAN.  How, exactly, does this ‘keep e-pubs out of PAN’?  Last I looked, there were a number of e-pubs posting on the PAN loops - so I have to believe this complaint isn’t based on fact - but perhaps old, tired history.

When we have a new President in the White House, and he/she makes changes to policy, would it be fair to bitch and moan about George W’s policies, and how unfair and heinous they are?  No, it wouldn’t be fair at all - and kind of pointless, actually, because the policy no longer exists. It’s Different.  Tilting at windmills is a waste of time.

Ah, and I see that I have blathered on and tilted at a few myself.  Thanks for listening, and I hope all know that I mean no offense.  I’m simply moved sometimes to speak up and say bullshit.

You guys do realize that every time one author signs a lousy contract, e-pub or print, it creates pressure on every other author to accept the same lousy contract, right?  That each weak link contributes to the downward spiral? 

If RWA is trying to protect its membership and encourage fair publishing contracts by taking a strong stand on what is vanity publishing (by not allowing contest entries, gasp!) then more power to ‘em.  A small enough stand at that, and even this gets some publisher’s panties all in a twist.

If a small press wants its books to be in RWA contests, then let this small press offer its authors a contract that is acceptable to RWA—ie, to the AUTHORS who sponsor the contest, get it?  If the publisher has the money to pay some lawyer to sue RWA, then they have the money to pay for editing the frikken manuscript they bought.  Or at least a contract they didn’t download off the internet from a VANITY PUBLISHER for effin lordy’s sake.

And uhh….“‘I really feel that this is an affront to independent publishers to try and once again group us in the category of subsidy presses and try to take away the advances the small publishers have made in the industry,’ said Schwegerl.

Guess what, Schwegerl, RWA is not in the business of consolidating “the advances the small publishers have made in the industry.”  We’re authors, jeez.  We’re not a publisher support organization.  If our interests in fair contracts conflict with their interest in cheapo legal documents, gee—who should we support? 

Little Red Riding Author, you’re lost in the deep dark woods if you think RWA is the enemy here.  You won’t even see the enemy until you’re all tied up and hefted into the man-eating trees to be fed on by lawyers who work for international media conglomerates and roast e-pub authors like marshmallows in their spare time.

Find out what a fair publishing contract is. (Guess who to ask.  And it’s not your small press publisher.) Don’t sign things you don’t understand with any publisher, digital or print. Somebody waving a contract at you?  Get an agent before you sign it.  Can’t get an agent interested even if you’ve been offered a contract?  Then wonder about the contract AND the publisher.

You owe it to yourself.  You owe it to your fellow authors.  This is the way authors make a living; if you want to make a living at it too, then take seriously the effort that RWA makes to get you a square deal.

Ms. Kinsale, will you marry me?  I’ll have to get divorced, first, but wait for me.
I love you, true!

Aw, what the hell - I’m feisty tonight.  Ms. Kinsale’s post had me nodding hard and saying “Word,” aloud.

It also brought to mind something that bugs the crap out of me.  There are SO many areas we could be looking at, working on, researching - battles we could be fighting, author’s interests we could be supporting, and we do all of these things, but not nearly so much as I wish we could.  Why?  Because we spend an unholy amount of time responding to things like a PW reporter calling up, asking what’s up with this publisher’s accusations?  We answer, and guess what?  She writes what she wants - not what we said.  Then we get to spend more time putting out the fires her inaccurate information caused - and oh, there’s RWA, looking like a schmuck again.

In all that time, we might have done something constructive for the members.

We have other issues before us at the moment, things that have come up because of new policy, and while it’s to be expected that ironing things out, getting everyone on board with how it works, will take some time, there are issues to be addressed that aren’t because of misunderstanding - they’re because someone doesn’t like the policy, or believes it shouldn’t apply to them, so we’re forced to argue about it.  Man, the stories I could tell, except that I can’t.

I’d love to see blog posts about the good things RWA does, or even blog posts that suggest things RWA could do to advocate for authors.  But it rarely happens.

I give mad props to Sarah for giving RWA the opportunity to respond to weird stuff that pops up.  She always gives the organization the benefit of the doubt, and from my standpoint, that makes her like the Most Fabulous One.

I think I’m done.

~I’ve even heard that in RWA’s member only newsletter, they’ve taken to allowing folks to write letters in trashing erotica writers.~

I’m not sure what newsletter this is, but people can write letters about anything—there are letters to the editor published in the RWA Report I often disagree with. It’s called freedom of speech. Which is why I’m allowed to write in with my dissenting opinion.

Just why is something like this a flaw re RWA?

~If a small press wants its books to be in RWA contests, then let this small press offer its authors a contract that is acceptable to RWA—ie, to the AUTHORS who sponsor the contest, get it?~

And there it is. Simple.

I’m in agreement with Laura and Stef on this, right down the line.

RWA represents its members—its authors. It has published its standards. These standards may flex and evolve, but this is what they are now.

People join or don’t join RWA for a variety of reasons. The problem, imo, comes from those who get twisted when the organization can’t or won’t align with their specific and individualized needs or wants or views.

In a comment section on one of the blogs covering the New Concepts clusterfuck, someone complained that the publisher was on the RWA approved list. They should’ve warned us!!

Yet when RWA took a stand against Trisklion last year, (shortly before they imploded) there were cries of Unfair! And the usual claims that RWA is trying to exclude e-pubs.

Whatever decisions, whatever policies, somebody’s going to be unhappy, somebody’s going to claim that RWA’s unfair.

People join or don’t join RWA for a variety of reasons. The problem, imo, comes from those who get twisted when the organization can’t or won’t align with their specific and individualized needs or wants or views.

See, this is what I don’t get.  If people are so convinced that RWA is the debbil, then why are they so up in arms about not being able to compete in the contests or become members?

I was a member of the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators for a year. In theory, it should’ve been a good organization for me to belong to since it incorporates young adult.  In theory.  In practice, I found they catered far more to those who wrote picture books, children’s chapter books and middle grade books.  It didn’t have anything to offer me.  So I let my membership lapse, especially since I can get answers to my YA questions from the yahoo group I belong to that’s specifically for teen literature or from Live Journal, where I’m in contact with a huge number of YA authors.  From the romance side of things, RWA fulfills any other needs I may have.

Another YA author may have a different opinion.  But I’m not going to go trashing SCWBI just because it didn’t meet my specific needs.  I just get my needs fulfilled elsewhere.

TeddyPig, thank you for answering my question.

Sarah, I think part of the problem was that one of the “oh noooooes” letters was reprinted twice, once in January and again in February. (Gotta love having the RWR online these days) Then there was another follow up letter by a different author in the March issue.  So I can see where people might think it’s a pileon, especially with the reprinting mistake—and for the record, I think it was a simple error, not some conspiracy.

Otherwise, totally agree with everything you said about not buying books with said objectionable language.  Catch my eyes if they happen to roll past you, wouldja?

Oh, and this?

ong horned trouser schmeckie

I’m SO bogarting that in some way, shape, or form.

RWA is a not for profit org.

Not a non profit.

RWA Chapters are not for profit as well.

Not non profits.

I suspect if a concerned RWA member were to send a well-written letter in defense of variety in romance publishing (ie a rebuttal of the c*ck-haters, tee hee), it has as much chance of getting published as the original texts. If you look through RWR archives, which admittedly a non-member cannot do so you’ll have to take my word for it, you’ll see a wide range of opinions in that particular column. 

As for authors being able to submit books in the RITAs in electronic form, RWA first would have to do a survey to see how many PAN members are equipped and willing to read electronic entries in the RITAs.  As we have seen, many are not :).  And yes, I have suggested this survey!  But consider this—if authors from houses like Samhain, whose books release in print eventually, are allowed to submit ebooks, can authors from traditional houses like H/S submit ebooks as well to spare themselves the expense?  Is it fair if ONLY authors from small presses get to submit ebooks?  Would RITA end up being a mostly electronic contest?  While greenies like myself wouldn’t mind that at all, I don’t think it would be fair at this particular juncture to volunteer judges who DO NOT WANT to read on the computer. 

With allowing e-authors to print their own copies for the RITAs, it brings into question how difficult it would be to verify that every author-printed text is EXACTLY like the original publisher-issued text with no tweaks whatsoever.  A signed document from the author promising she hasn’t done so might be insufficent for legal reasons.  There may be other legalities I don’t even know about, but this is the most obvious one that occurs to me.  I’m not saying I think many authors would tweak their books, but it does reveal a vulnerable area in the proposal.  Which is, as I understand it, why publishers are required to issue the printed copies of the ebooks.  They have more to lose than a single author if they choose to “tweak” a book prior to submission.

Now, I personally don’t like the word “cock.” Not my favorite word for the male sexual appendage. I prefer “long horned trouser schmeckie.”

And yet, you liked my book, which has “cock” allover the place, LOL!

word: him36 (only if he’s John Holmes)

as an outsider looking in it all seemed to me that RWA was trying to keep the small, but reputable, e-published writers from getting into their oh-so-precious club.

See, this is the crux of the problem for me. It’s not a club. It’s not a family. It’s not a sorority or a club for popular girls. RWA is a professional organization. Use it for what it brings you. If it doesn’t meet any needs for you, then don’t join it. Don’t look to it for something it can’t provide. If it’s not geared toward e-pubbed writers then join an organization that is. If you need to be in RWA to join a local chapter, then use it for exactly that purpose. If the contest isn’t geared toward your writing, enter another contest. AND if you want things changed, then get active and work toward it. Nothing wrong with that either.

And by “get active” I don’t mean kvetching on the Internet, just to be clear. I mean the kind of hard work that people like Nora Roberts have invested.

Got to ask—because I’ve signed contracts with big print NY houses that had clauses requiring some payments (like if the author wanted too many changes in the galley stage, or if the publisher got sued for libel, or if the author pulled the book after work was done)—those of you who have also signed big publisher contracts, could you go back and look at them?  Of course, they might not be boilerplate, but I’m a “siltsucker,” as we say (on the very bottom of the ladder) and boilerplate is about all I get, and my contracts ALWAYS have dire clauses warning that in certain circumstances (which never happen), I’ll have to pay money.  I don’t like it, but it does keep me from pulling the book after the publisher’s paid for editing and cover, and I make sure not to change much in the galley stage.

So if clauses like that make a publisher a “vanity press,” does that make Random House a vanity press?

I have no problem excluding vanity presses… however, I think RWA is defining a lot of terms in a non-standard way, and if the policy were applied equally, virtually no publisher would qualify.  So if they’re not applying the policy equally, what does that mean?

Stephanie said: “When we have a new President in the White House, and he/she makes changes to policy, would it be fair to bitch and moan about George W’s policies, and how unfair and heinous they are?  No, it wouldn’t be fair at all - and kind of pointless, actually, because the policy no longer exists. It’s Different.  Tilting at windmills is a waste of time.”

Stephanie, Congress makes policy, as I’m sure you know. And there are rules about how they make policy—they have to do it in open session, in published bills, by vote, etc.  The RWA board theoretically operates the same way, right? You guys hammer out proposed policy at a meeting and then vote on it, and it’s all aboveboard and everyone’s in agreement to what it means? And policy can’t be changed without another vote?

So policy can’t be defined or reinterpreted by the office, right? If they see something wrong with the policy and want to apply it differently than the board voted, isn’t the board the one who changes the policy with another discussion and another vote?

See, the problem is, RWA’s office seems to be defining certain terms differently than they’ve conventionally been defined, and then applied the new definitions unequally—and none of this seems to be happening with the board re-examining policy and putting the new definition in there so all members can see.

You’ve been told by any number of NY-published authors here that their contracts contained the very same sort of clause that supposedly branded this small press as “vanity”.  Well, think this through.  If just having that clause in a contract (not all contracts) is enough to get the “vanity” label applied, doesn’t that mean, for RWA purposes, all publishers with that clause are vanity presses? Sure, it’s ridiculous to say that RH is a vanity press, but that just shows that interpreting the policy to say that ANY clause that could conceivably mean that the author might have to pay something is ridiculous. MOST publishers would make the author pay for certain things (like indexing) and that doesn’t mean it’s vanity (or else, most university presses are vanity) or for making too many changes at the galley stage—and note, they seldom actually CHARGE them; the purpose of the clause is to, duh, encourage authors to make the changes before that stage so the book doesn’t have to be re-edited and re-set. 

So… has the board voted to say that the definition of “vanity press” has been redefined to say that ANY such clause (which is what the office says) makes a press a vanity press?  Or did the office make that decision on its own?  If so, is that what the board wants?  If the policy is such that it requires interpretation beyond the normal definition of terms, could be that the policy wasn’t written well in the first place.  At any rate, if the board is NOT re-voting to reinterpret, but rather just letting the office change policy, what exactly is the board for?

And is this policy being equally applied? Have you all looked at the boilerplate of the big NY publishers to see if they too have what you call a vanity press marker?  What is hard to understand it… you have published writers on the board. The president must be multi-published. Do you read your own contracts? I suspect at least one of you has one of those clauses in their major-press contract, and yet I’m sure that boardmember doesn’t consider herself “vanity published”.

So can the RWA board now look into the boilerplate contracts of all publishers currently designated “non-subsidy” and see how this supposed policy applies to them?  Or is that something only the office does?  And has it been done recently?

There are certain common CYA clauses that all publishers include in their boilerplate contract.  Industry standards are set and all tend to follow.  Occasionally, a publisher attempts to change the standard, slip something in, always in their favor - and generally, that’s when an author starts yelling, along with her agent, and everyone hops to and says Hell no, we won’t go.

It isn’t industry standard for a publisher to state in a contract that they may charge the author for paper, shipping, promotion, typesetting, copying, etc. - in other words costs that are considered by industry standard to be costs borne by the publisher.  When a contract stipulates that an author may be asked to pay any of those costs - the ones that are considered industry standard for the publisher to pay - that’s when a contract loses any merit of an arms length deal between a buyer and a seller.  The line blurs.

This isn’t a hard concept.  Only under bizarre and unusual circumstances, typically a circumstance caused by the author, should money be going from the author to the publisher.

You’ll have to forgive me for being testy - I’ve been beaten over the head with semantics the past few days and should probably stay out of this.

Those are some pretty hefty allegations, petra.  I don’t feel at all comfortable discussing RWA business of this scope in a public blog.

I hoped to shed some light, and I am always a champion of RWA, but I’m not going to argue a point that essentially comes down to a question of integrity - my own, the board and the hardworking, dedicated staff.

You’ve been told by any number of NY-published authors here that their contracts contained the very same sort of clause that supposedly branded this small press as vanity”.

Er, where did this happen?

What I’ve seen is a number of NY-published authors outlining the clauses that would cause them to have to pay/refund money to their publishers, and they are NOT the same as the ones listed for Tsaba.  Or, to detail each clause separately: we don’t know what the hell they mean by “retyping” a manuscript (is that the same as resetting during proofs?), and we don’t get charged for frontmatter and backmatter, though occasionally (e.g. indexing for nonfiction) we’re expected to create it ourselves.  What we are liable for is breaches of contract, legal ramifications (e.g. libel suits), and egregious resetting costs if we failed to make our manuscripts not suck during the eighteen steps that precede typesetting.  That last one may or may not be the same as what Tsaba’s doing with the “retyping” clause; without seeing the actual contract language, we can’t tell.

As for most university presses being vanity—by the standards of commercial publishing, yeah, sometimes.  But university presses are cricket, and this is rugby.  I could list a bunch of other differences in procedure and contracts for you, but they aren’t relevant to a discussion of fiction publishing.  So let’s leave things like indices out of this.

I don’t know that I’d agree the lines in Tsaba’s contracts make it a vanity press in the classical sense of the term—I presume they still pay their authors something for the books?—but whether the RWA could find a better way to draft that rule, and whether Tsaba’s practices are SOP for commercial publishing, are two different questions.

I agree with Marie.  Unless we see the actual contract for the publishing house in question, we should not assume RWA is arbitrarily reinterpreting things to suit the mood of the day or that they inconsistently apply their own rules.  According to Allison Kelley’s own email to the SBs, the PW article had definite factual errors, so taking the rest of it at face value is probably a mistake.

~You’ve been told by any number of NY-published authors here that their contracts contained the very same sort of clause that supposedly branded this small press as “vanity”. ~

I suggest you read the comments again, because this isn’t what I said, nor what I read from others.

You may be asked to pay for typesetting IF you make extraordinary changes at galley stage. That’s it. You would have had chances to make changes at line and copy ed, so why would you suddenly need to change a huge chunk? If so, you pay for it, as you have made the choice AFTER editing, AFTER typesetting, to substantially change the ms.

I’ve never once had to do this. I don’t know of anyone who has, but regardless this standard clause doesn’t equal vanity press by anyone terms.

If you are charged for editing, for production, for binding, for distribution for ANY step in the process of producing your book, it’s a big, bright red flag. The publisher pays. The writer does not.

I know of no one published by a major print house who has a clause in their contract which would require them to pay—and if they signed one that did, they probably need a new agent.

It’s been a long time since I signed a boilerplate, but when I did, nothing but the major changes at galley stage required payment by the author. Nothing.

Where has RWA defined terms differently than convention?

It’s [RWA] not a club. It’s not a family. It’s not a sorority or a club for popular girls. RWA is a professional organization. Use it for what it brings you. If it doesn’t meet any needs for you, then don’t join it. Don’t look to it for something it can’t provide. If it’s not geared toward e-pubbed writers then join an organization that is.

Vikki, you’re still my queen.

And no, petra, none of the NY published authors has said that what’s in our contracts equals what’s reportedly in Tsaba’s contracts (I say reportedly, since as far as I know no one on this blog as seen said contract). In fact, we’ve gone out of our way to demonstrate the exact opposite.

According to Pam Schwagerl, Tsaba House publisher, Molly Noble Bull was barred from submitting her latest release, Sanctuary, for a Rita Award, because Tsaba House is not an “RWA approved” publisher.

:
Contest Rules Specific to the RITA:

Books must be published by a publisher that is a non–Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher. An eligible entry must meet these criteria:

• Have an original copyright date (printed on the copyright page) or a first printing date or a first North American printing date in the year prior to the current contest year.

• Be in print book format, complete with copyright page, produced by the publisher, with perfect or case binding and printing on both sides of the page.

• Match at least one of the category descriptions.

• Be a work of original fictional narrative prose that is offered for sale to the general public through print media. The author must not participate financially in the production and/or distribution of the work.

• Be an English-language edition that has not been previously entered.

Note that nowhere in there does is say jackshit about the publisher being “RWA approved” or “RWA recognized”. All it says is “non–Subsidy, non-Vanity”. And because I knew you’d ask:

At the request of members, the Board has re-visited the definitions of “Subsidy Publisher” and “Vanity Publisher.” After considering the advice of legal and industry professionals, along with suggestions by our Publisher Recognition Task Force, the Board . . . redefined the terms “Subsidy Publisher” and “Vanity Publisher” as follows: 

“Subsidy Publisher” means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment or reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs.

“Vanity Publisher” means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books and publishers whose business model and methods of publishing and distribution are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and/or associates.

RWA subsequently told Schwagerl that the organization considers Tsaba House to be a subsidy or vanity press, because its boilerplate contract contains such clauses as charging authors if manuscripts have to be retyped or if the press considers it necessary to add frontmatter and backmatter to the manuscript that the author didn’t provide.

Emphasis added is mine. These are two charges which are not industry standard for fiction. Rather than puling and threatening to sue, Tsaba House would be better off spending their money creating a contract which doesn’t, to quote SB Sarah, suck donkey-balls. If they choose not to do so, that’s their business, but I don’t see where RWA is required to make their standards conform to any and every contract out there. If they want to play in our pool, they can damn well wear the approved swimwear or they can go swim somewhere else.
End of story.

If you paid Random House to have your book edited, bound, printed, or distributed, then I’d like to see proof of that.

At this point, I don’t know how much more arguments can be made that say standard publishers don’t charge their authors for the books to appear in book form, on a shelf at a bookstore.

I have no idea what “retyped” means—whether the PW write meant typeset or made the same mistakes as she did elsewhere in the article.

Regarding charges for changes made to the book AFTER typesetting: these are AUTHOR’S CHOICE changes that can be liable for charges (I say “can be” because I have yet to hear of any author charged for them). If I look at my typeset manuscript and realize that they left out commas that are in the copyedited version, even if it’s every single comma in the book, i don’t pay for that, because it’s the typesetting error. Their problem. But, if I decide, after the book has been typeset, that I want to change the ending, that’s MY choice. the book can go to press as the publisher and I formerly agreed upon it. No one is charging me to get my book into print.

And comparing vanity publishing to being told, in a contract, that you and not the publisher are liable if something you wrote about turns into a law suit is just silly. Ditto about having to pay back the advance that the publisher paid you if you don’t ever give them a book to publish. 

there is a HUGE HUGE distinction between being charged to publish your book, and the following: 1) being held responsible financially for what you’ve written in that book should a lawsuit arise, 2) being held responsible, financially,f or delivering the work you’ve been paid to produce, and 3) being held financially responsible for, at the last minute, introducing huge, editorially unnecessary changes to a manuscript that was approved by the publisher to go into print AS IS and which are not required to be made before the book reaches publication.

There’s nothing even remotely similar. No one is requiring an author to make that change. No one is saying to the author: If you want to see this in print, you have to pay for THIS.

Kalen, I think we’re looking at the very same thing. You quote RWA here:
>>  “Vanity Publisher” means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books and publishers whose business model and methods of publishing and distribution are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and/or associates.

  RWA subsequently told Schwagerl that the organization considers Tsaba House to be a subsidy or vanity press, because its boilerplate contract contains such clauses as charging authors if manuscripts have to be retyped or if the press considers it necessary to add frontmatter and backmatter to the manuscript that the author didn’t provide. >>>

In other words, RWA first defined Vanity press one way (“Vanity Publisher” means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote…) and THEN defined it as any publisher that has a clause in any contract that requires any payment at all from the author in any contingency at all.  That is, RWA changed the definition. You don’t seem to think this change in definition is a problem?

And, as I said, I have signed several major publisher contracts with clauses that required author payment NOT to print or distribute the book (the standard def for subsidy press) but rather to compensate the publisher if I went out of the standard way and incurred costs—and yes, the very same sort of wording as Tsaba’s contract, because that IS the boilerplate of many publishing contracts.  Maybe you haven’t ever had to sign such contracts, but as I said, I’m a “siltsucker” without an agent, and I tend to get the boilerplate… and that is, after all, what RWA is judging here, the boilerplate contract.

So my question is:  If it’s true that major publishers do have in some of their boilerplate contracts clauses that might, in some contingencies, require a payment by the author (even if this actually almost never has to be paid, as one writer mentioned), then should those major publishers also be told that they’re “subsidy presses” solely on the basis of those boilerplate clauses?

Now of course, not ALL publishers or all of their contracts will have these clauses… but some do.  So if we’re going to be absolutist, as the RWA office apparently was, and redefine the term “Vanity or subsidy press” to include any publisher having any contract clause in any contract which allows the pub to claim money from the author in certain circumstances, then any publisher that has those clauses is “vanity,” right?

I’m sorry to belabor the point, because it’s REALLY boring to everyone but me, I’m sure. But I just want to get it clear that I’M not the one defining those clauses as “vanity” clauses—I think they are conventional.  So… if one publisher is dinged for that, shouldn’t all publishers who do that get dinged?

Now, I personally don’t like the word “cock.” Not my favorite word for the male sexual appendage. I prefer “long horned trouser schmeckie.”

I like the word “cock”—it’s nice and visceral, and implies a state of readiness.

But, then I’ve always had a fondness for the term “one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater”, too.

Diana said: If you paid Random House to have your book edited, bound, printed, or distributed, then I’d like to see proof of that.>>>

I didn’t say that, did I? I said a RH contract I signed required me to pay them back if I got sued for libel or if I made too many changes at the galley stage so that they had to re-edit and re-set.

I am NOT saying RH is a subsidy press. Exactly the opposite. I am saying that minor compensation clauses like those that almost never come into play (I’ve never known any writer to have to ante up on any of them, though I have known one who feared that would happen when someone threatened a libel suit) are NOT the signs of a vanity publisher, and so no publisher should be defined as “subsidy” just because they have those clauses.

I am trying to be clear, but I think I’m not accomplishing it! :)

I didn’t say that, did I? I said a RH contract I signed required me to pay them back if I got sued for libel or if I made too many changes at the galley stage so that they had to re-edit and re-set.

These are industry standard and are NOT what Tsaba House has in their contract (from what I can tell from PW). I can’t tell if you really just don’t understand the difference or if you’re being willfully obstreperous, but either way, this horse is so dead.

>>These are industry standard and are NOT what Tsaba House has in their contract (from what I can tell from PW). I can’t tell if you really just don’t understand the difference or if you’re being willfully obstreperous, but either way, this horse is so dead.>>

No need to get personal, hon. I’m with ya! I think those ARE industry standard, and thus I don’t think that a blanket prohibition against clauses that theoretically could result in author payment makes much sense.  But here’s what RWA has on its website in response to the article:
>>
At RWA’s request, Ms. Schwagerl supplied a copy of the company’s boilerplate contract which listed several instances in which costs could be charged to the author. It therefore failed to meet RWA’s standards.

>>

Don’t the clauses in contracts I have signed also constitute:
“several instances in which costs could be charged to the author.”?

Maybe they’re not the same clauses, I don’t know. But maybe that’s why we need a definition IN POLICY (not ad hoc) that defines which clauses constitute vanity press action and which don’t.  That’s all I’m asking for, really, terms defined clearly in policy, voted on by the board, and published so that everyone knows what they are and they can be applied equally.  And this will allow presses that are branded as “vanity” for clauses they don’t actually use (most of these types of clauses never come into play, I bet) can have a chance to rewrite their contracts.  And that’s good for everyone, right?  Clear definition and equal application?

That’s all. We can bury the horse now, if you want!

~I didn’t say that, did I? I said a RH contract I signed required me to pay them back if I got sued for libel or if I made too many changes at the galley stage so that they had to re-edit and re-set~

Petra, I really think you’re confused. The above is industry standard. I don’t have boilerplate contracts, but I would have both these requirements in mine.

This is NOT what RWA defines as vanity or subsidary. It’s just not. The above is not payment for pubication, for editing, for publishing expenses. RWA does not say payment for ANY contingency. 

have you actually seen Tsaba’s contract? Because I honestly don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.

~At RWA’s request, Ms. Schwagerl supplied a copy of the company’s boilerplate contract which listed several instances in which costs could be charged to the author. It therefore failed to meet RWA’s standards.~

Honey, read the word COSTS. It is not cost when the author turns in plagiarized or fraudulant material and then she and the publisher are sued. The author has signed off that it’s original work. If she lied, the publisher is then protected from the suit that may be brought against her.

Industry standard.

If the author decides after editing, after typesetting, after months of work to then make enormous changes, she can be required to pay for those changes—her choice. This is not cost.

Industry standard.

A publisher can’t charge an author for the costs of publishing the book. If so, this does not meet industry standards. It becomes subsidary or vanity press. And therefore, is not RWA recognized.

That’s all there is to it.

Stephanie wrote:Earn a thousand bucks from any one of those publishers, and you’re in PAN.

I hate to disagree, but this isn’t QUITE accurate. You must earn $1K on ONE published work within 18 months of release.

Not to beat a dead horse, but it’s the question of WHEN a charge to an author should be deemed a “cost of publication” that seems open to interpretation.

“Subsidy Publisher” means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment or reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs.

So far, so good. I don’t see any problems with that. But if the book is never published because the author breaches the contract, should the publisher be able to charge the author for the costs incurred in editing, typesetting, artwork, etc. up to that point? To me, this doesn’t sound like a “subsidy” of the publisher, but a reasonable clause to protect the publisher in the event of breach. Yet I know for a fact that epublishers have been forced to remove clauses of this sort because RWA deemed them “subsidy” publishers as a result of their inclusion.

I also have to respond to the contention that having a contract offer means an author should find it easy to gain agent representation. I know a fair number of authors who have gone “agentless” in negotiations (and not just with small presses and epublishers, but with large publishing houses) because, even with an offer in their hot little hands, they were unable to find a reputable agent willing to represent them. They figured no agent at all was better than a shyster, and they were probably right.

>>>>“In other words, RWA first defined Vanity press one way (“Vanity Publisher” means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote…) and THEN defined it as any publisher that has a clause in any contract that requires any payment at all from the author in any contingency at all.” 

Too bad the “other words” used here don’t accurately represent what was said by RWA’s representative or what was written on RWA’s website.  Ironic, that, considering much of this blog thread is about reinterpretations. 

Allison Kelley was quoted in the PW article (that we know has factual errors) as saying, “if, in its boilerplate contract, a press can charge an author for anything, the organization considers that company to be a subsidy or vanity press”. 

Granted, I can see how the phrase “if…a press can charge an author for anything” can be (willfully) misinterpreted; I’m sure for that reason, as well as others, RWA issued a clarification on its website, which I consider to be a more accurate summation of their position, especially considering the existence of factual errors in the PW article.  The official RWA statement reads:

“in which costs could be charged to the author”

But that’s not as ambiguous as it may seem taken out of context.  Why?  Because prior to this sentence the word ‘costs’ appeared in the phrase “costs of production” when vanity/subsidy press was being defined.  Thus, when the word ‘costs’ is used shortly thereafter in the same article, it is clear it means “costs of production” and not “any payment at all from the author in any contingency at all”. 

And as (nearly) everyone has pointed out, since we cannot see the actual contract RWA had issues with, we cannot know what clauses they objected to. If the publisher had confirmed they had clauses that were clearly vanity/subsidy instead of…oh, I don’t know, reinterpreting things to suit their case, would we all be having this argument? 

Well, maybe :).

[Schwagerl] founded Tsaba House in 2002 and uses a boilerplate contract she bought from self-publishing guru Dan Poynter’s Web site.

How much does one of these contracts cost?  I mean, that would be the surest way of seeing the contract in question, no?  Or is there perhaps a cached version floating around on the web?

>>>This is NOT what RWA defines as vanity or subsidary. It’s just not. The above is not payment for pubication, for editing, for publishing expenses. RWA does not say payment for ANY contingency. >>>

Well, how DOES RWA define vanity press? You tell me. That’s all I’m asking for, a comprehensive definition that fits industry standards and is voted on by the board and published in policy.  That way both authors and publishers can read a contract and decide whether this makes them “vanity” by RWA definition. But without a definition that is voted on by the board and published in policy, how do we know? It shouldn’t be a secret, after all.  It shouldn’t be a matter of guesswork. And it shouldn’t be open to misinterpretation or reinterpretation.

Is that okay? Is there some benefit to members not to know what RWA considers vanity press? So what’s the problem of putting the definition into policy so members can know ahead of time?

More information is better information, right?

Didn’t Kalen already post that here? I don’t understand.

Kalen already posted this in the thread. It’s pretty clear. It’s defined. It is RWA’s position. I really don’t know what else you could possibly want.

~At the request of members, the Board has re-visited the definitions of “Subsidy Publisher” and “Vanity Publisher.” After considering the advice of legal and industry professionals, along with suggestions by our Publisher Recognition Task Force, the Board . . . redefined the terms “Subsidy Publisher” and “Vanity Publisher” as follows: 

“Subsidy Publisher” means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment or reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs.

“Vanity Publisher” means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books and publishers whose business model and methods of publishing and distribution are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and/or associates.~

My first book was published by Tsaba House in 2004. Since then, I have had four more novels published, the last debuted at #18 in the CBA market. I have never been asked for one dime from Tsaba House for any type of production or promotion costs. I even paid for my contract from Tsaba House to be examined before I signed it. According to the negotiator I hired, the contract was completely standard. This person found nothing out of the ordinary that needed attention or raised any red flags.

I have also submitted my books to other contests like the ones coordinated by RWA. These contests only allow books by recognized CBA publishers. My books have never been turned down for acceptance into these contests. I don’‘t understand why RWA doesn’‘t want to recognize Tsaba House as a traditional publisher when no other organizations have these concerns.

I promise to shut up now. :) But one more thought—the definition you quote below does NOT say what the office just said, that any publisher who has a clause in the contract that COULD result in the author paying something is a subsidy/vanity publisher.  Would you have any problem with the board defining the term more precisely to include that, so that publishers and authors would know that the mere presence of such a clause = subsidy/vanity?  I suspect that the publisher and its authors never have considered that such a clause would “ding” them, and so maybe a clear definition of which clauses constitute vanity/subsidy would help publishers and authors understand better and maybe even result in better contracts.

So would it be okay to have a clear definition in policy for all to read of what is and is not a “vanity or subsidy” clause?

The definition is clear to me. It’s policy. What was quoted in the PW article was in response to a question, and could easily have been misquoted or out of context or misspoken. The response in the article is not policy. It’s a response by an individual member in an interview.

RWA HAS defined its policy, clearly.

I really, really have to believe the vast majority of its members understand that policy. Agreeing with it may be a different matter, but it’s just not that hard to understand.

<

>

What RWA fails to understand is what is contained in an author’s contract. According the Authors Guild, the clause in dispute IS standard among publishing contracts. I suggest those who just take the word of the RWA go and take a look at their own contracts.

This is an award contest, presumably awards go to the best books. What ever happened to letting a book stand on its own merit? or is there something that the RWA is worried about?

A very sad day that a presumed honorable organization such as the RWA can now be considered classist. I do hope that their insults towards Tsaba House and author Molly Noble Bull will be retracted. I have to wonder how much damage, monetarily or professionally, has been done to this small publisher and one of her authors.

~I have to wonder how much damage, monetarily or professionally, has been done to this small publisher and one of her authors~

I have to wonder why a publisher or author would be damaged monetarily or professionally from being denied entry in an RWA chapter contest.

I haven’t read the contract in question, have no idea whether the clauses in it are standard or not, but it’s really reaching to speculate there would be any sort of damage because a chapter affiliated with RWA deemed the book ineligible for a contest.

The more I read about this , the less I understand it.
On what grounds would this publisher launch suit against RWA?
Sounds like a publicity ploy to me.

Would you have any problem with the board defining the term more precisely to include that, so that publishers and authors would know that the mere presence of such a clause = subsidy/vanity?  I suspect that the publisher and its authors never have considered that such a clause would “ding” them, and so maybe a clear definition of which clauses constitute vanity/subsidy would help publishers and authors understand better and maybe even result in better contracts.

Sorry, I’m going to have to laugh here at the idea that Random House would waive all legal rights for breach of contract or libel cases in their contracts under threat that RWA “ding” them for being “a vanity publisher.”

Or the idea that losing the RWA “stamp of approval”—should the mob force RWA to be so ridiculous as to define contractual protection in that manner—would stop authors from publishing there.

It’s pretty obvious what vanity and subsidy publishing is. It’s obvious (and distinct from these contractual protection clauses) in the language of the official policy, and it’s obvious in practice.

In the instance Jackie is talking about, where a non-advance paying publisher requires authors to pay them for editing should they choose to pull their book from publication after editing but before publication, I wonder if those clauses arose because of authors who would “sell” to these small epubs with larger acceptance rates in order to get free editing work, then pull the book to sub to larger presses. I bet after a few of those, the epubs would get wary! And yet, that is still NOT “cost of production.” The book’s not being published. It’s almost like a reverse kill fee. Subsidy would be being charged for those costs IN ORDER TO SEE THE BOOK PUBLISHED.

And thank you, Teresa Slack, for sharing your experience with Tsaba House. I wonder if this whole thing is not a big misunderstanding with the wording of the contract. (I.e. “retyped” vs. “retypeset”, etc.) Does Tsaba also publish non fiction?

In the instance Jackie is talking about, where a non-advance paying publisher requires authors to pay them for editing should they choose to pull their book from publication after editing but before publication, I wonder if those clauses arose because of authors who would “sell” to these small epubs with larger acceptance rates in order to get free editing work, then pull the book to sub to larger presses. I bet after a few of those, the epubs would get wary! And yet, that is still NOT “cost of production.” The book’s not being published. It’s almost like a reverse kill fee. Subsidy would be being charged for those costs IN ORDER TO SEE THE BOOK PUBLISHED.

Exactly so, Diana. Yet RWA required the epublishers to remove these clauses from their contracts to avoid being labeled subsidy publishers.

Just sayin’...

This is an award contest, presumably awards go to the best books. What ever happened to letting a book stand on its own merit? or is there something that the RWA is worried about?

I am seriously biting my tongue here. Seriously. Your proposal is, what? That there should be no rules in a contest? If so, I think I’ll go dig out my old family videos, release them for sale on Amazon, and then enter them in the Academy Awards. Why wouldn’t they accept my entry? Are they afraid I’ll WIN? Bastards.

Look, there have to be standards, and we can disagree about what they are, but it’s a contest. With rules. Like every other contest out there. Even the ones that are only open to CBA authors, huh?

And if it is that dang important to this publisher then they’ll have to evaluate whether or not to take that line out of their boilerplate contract.

Could one of you Tsaba writers give us the paragraph, btw?

haven’t read the contract in question

I have and I would post it for people to read except that I don’t think Mr. Poyntner and his lawyer authors would appreciate me making it freely available on the internet. But, by all means go to his website and see what you can find.

have no idea whether the clauses in it are standard or not,
As I said above, according to the Writers Guild, it is a standard clause/ contract.

but it’s really reaching to speculate there would be any sort of damage because a chapter affiliated with RWA deemed the book ineligible for a contest.

Remember this isn’t Random House, it is a small independent press. Things deemed an annoyance by big houses, are a big deal to the little guy. Being called a subsidy or vanity ‘publisher’ is a big blow to a small publisher. With a label like that, agents will be reluctant to approach. Books will not be toured by the blog tour groups. Getting Library of Congress data will be impossible to attain except by paying a fee, large publications will not review the books, and on and on.

Really, it does matter.

But very few would have known about this incident of alleged “vanity press” designation, if the publisher hadn’t so generously made it public.
Seems to me they are the author of their own opprobrium.

I don’t get it. I thought after reading the PW aricle and this blog that the issue was whether Tsaba House had a legitimate standard industry contract. And I believe the process of legitimizing this will bear them out as such. However, I’m not sure that speculation from others who aren’t qualifed to judge is really helping matters.

Speculate all you want but if their contract isn’t industry standard, it’ll come out in the wash or perhaps on PW. :)

As someone published by an Indpendent publisher, I’m looking forward to that.

>>It’s pretty obvious what vanity and subsidy publishing is. It’s obvious (and distinct from these contractual protection clauses) in the language of the official policy, and it’s obvious in practice.>>

Well, yeah, and so do you think the clause that “dinged” Tsaba is actually evidence of vanity-presshood?  And if it’s not, should RWA be labelling a press as “vanity” because of this clause?

If RWA’s definition of vanity press could include even ONE press that isn’t vanity if it’s equally applied, doesn’t that suggest that the definition could be modified?

Not trying to be, uh, “obstreperous” here, but I really can’t see any harm in a full and complete definition in policy of what a vanity press is, and sticking with that definition until something changes—and then the board can decide if there needs to be a change in definition voted on.  Do you see a problem with a clear definition in policy, voted on by the board?  Or how would you prefer it done if that doesn’t work for you?

Okay, I just went a read the article closely. I was struck by this line:

Describing Tsaba’s contract as appearing to her to be one intended for a textbook or nonfiction publisher that Tsaba “is trying to apply to fiction,”

Isn’t it just possible that the publisher “uses a boilerplate contract she bought from self-publishing guru Dan Poynter’s Web site” and that it’s just not the best contract in the world? Isn’t it possible that the contract could, perhaps, be refined? I mean, no contract is perfect. Some of the language in contracts from big houses is strangely worded and ambiguous at best. So I have to assume that a contract written by a self-publishing guru could use some refinement as well. So refine it.

Also, what about the problem of the discrepencies? Was this really about the Rita award or was it about another contest?

~Really, it does matter.~

Okay. Someone wanted to enter a book in a contest. The contest committee—or rules or policies—said it wasn’t eligible.

Who then went to PW. Who made it public? The RWA chapter? I doubt it. So if this is considered a stigma, why publisize that a chapter of RWA deemed this book/contract/publisher ineligible for its contest?

Added to thatr RWA’s policies are not law in publishing. They’re RWA’s policies. They may very well consider this publisher subsidy. But, if as you say, the AG considers their contracts standard, where’s the damage?

~I really can’t see any harm in a full and complete definition in policy of what a vanity press is, and sticking with that definition until something changes~

How many times do you have to read the full and complete definition? It’s been copied here twice. They’ve done exactly what you’re saying. Not agreeing with it is one thing, but they’re defined and stated their policy.

I suppose haveing rules for contest AND following them doesn’t matter. But then why are the rules there to begin with?

Tsaba House enters a book in a contest they understand they qualify for. The contest says, nope, you clearly misunderstood. Tsaba House says really and the runners of the contest say, “Yes, really. You don’t qualify.”

I agree. Tsaba House should have just smiled and said, “okay.” After all this is America. Why not run a contest, make rules but then not pay any attention to them.

It’s about Tsaba House’s contract and whether it’s industry standard not about whether those who run a contest want to do things the way they said they would or maybe I’m missing something.

How many times do you have to read the full and complete definition? It’s been copied here twice. They’ve done exactly what you’re saying. Not agreeing with it is one thing, but they’re defined and stated their policy.

So, by this logic, if another publisher, say Harlequin or Penguin, has this same clause in their author contracts, then their novels would not qualify. 

With rules. Like every other contest out there. Even the ones that are only open to CBA authors, huh?

Don’t even get me started on the CBA and ECPA! But since you brought up the Christian book industry . . . all will be happy to learn that the American Christian Fiction Writers (ACFW) have now adopted the same rules as RWA.

Oops, that doesn’t sound very logical when I included the bit about reading the rules as posted here. I should have left that part out as I was addressing the policy itself, not whether or not I’ve read it!

~So, by this logic, if another publisher, say Harlequin or Penguin, has this same clause in their author contracts, then their novels would not qualify.~

Yes. If the author pays for anything but what several of us have outlined in this thread as industry standard—substantial changes at galley stage, libel suits—then it’s not industry standard, according to everything I know.

Nora

When it comes out that this contract is standard in the industry, what will RWA do then?

Change the rules again?

I understand that Random House uses this identical contract with the same clause in it.

Now that’s interesting.

~I understand that Random House uses this identical contract with the same clause in it.~

Maybe this is so. I don’t have a boilerplate from RH. But I signed my first contract in 1980, and have signed many since—and some of those in the mid-80’s to early 90’s were for Bantam. I’ve never signed or been asked to sign a contract that obligated me to pay for front or back matter, or for typesetting or ‘typing’ other than contingent on my choice of making huge changes at galley stage.

Several other authors have stated the same on this thread. Maybe it’s a matter of interpretation. I don’t know as I haven’t seen the contract in question, nor do I have a RH contract to compare it to.

I understand that Random House uses this identical contract with the same clause in it.

Now that’s interesting.

No, what’s interesting is the persistent desire to make statements about a clause we have yet to see quoted directly.

We don’t know whether this clause is in other contracts, because we don’t know what the Tsaba contract says.  We know what a badly-written article said about it, and on that basis, most of us with major NY print publishers are saying it doesn’t sound standard.  But unless I missed it somewhere in these ninety-six comments, nobody has quoted the exact contractual language for us, which means we can’t actually declare whether it’s the same as what’s in our contracts or anybody else’s.

At this point, any further debate about the standard-ness or lack thereof is so much hot air.  We need actual data, or we need to drop it.

(Security word: provide32.  See, even the captcha wants somebody to provide data!)

From the beginning of these responses, RWA has contended, (badly written article or not) that ONE clause from this contract got Tsaba House booted as a vanity press.

Those who are qualifed to determine whether that contract is industry standard will speak. RWA need not have to see the contract.

The contest will be run according to RWA rules. So I ask again, what happens when Tsaba House’s contract is legitimized as industry standard? Will RWA claim they still have to see it?

My guess is, yes!

Is it right for them to ask? I don’t think so.

No publisher or author is obligated to show their contract and why should they once it’s been determined by those qualified to judge, that it in fact meets the industry standard.

Again, like you said, it’s your contest. You can do anything you want and ask for anything you want despite the rules.

Those who are qualifed to determine whether that contract is industry standard will speak. RWA need not have to see the contract.

Who would this be?

~RWA need not have to see the contract. ~

So the organization that sponsers the contest, has made the rules for same need not actually see the publisher’s contract in order to determine if said publisher meets their requirements for THEIR contest?

There’s a break-down in logic in there, imo.

To Victoria: a literary lawyer or Authors Guild

To Nora: twist it any way you want, it’s one clause that brought Tsaba House under scurtiny by the contest. RWA never said anything about the rest of the contract. I’m assuming they saw it otherwise how could they get the clause and I believe it was mentioned in the article that Tsaba House sent the contract.

And as far as saying that Random House uses Dan’s contract, I meant to say they have the clause in question in their contract. Sorry about the misunderstanding. :)

To Victoria: a literary lawyer or Authors Guild

I don’t think RWA would depend upon a literary lawyer to decide what the contract should or should not say. In case you haven’t noticed, any one lawyer will often argue a different stance than the lawyer standing next to her. In fact, they are paid to do this in court. RWA has its own lawyers to advise them.

As to the Authors Guild… Why in the world would RWA ask another industry organization to decide what RWA should think about RWA’s recognition of a certain publisher? It’s RWA’s contest. It’s their decision. And it’s Tsaba’s option to provide the contract to RWA if they want to negotiate and/or argue the language.

And one last time… no one here has been willing to provide the exact language. If you really want to argue whether it’s standard, tell us what it says. Otherwise, leave it to RWA to hash out with Tsaba.

Oh yeah. I forgot it’s RWA’s contest. It wouldn’t hold water what anyone else says no matter how qualified they are. Sorry I forgot that.

Well, at least RWA has the contract since Tsaba House sent it to them. :)

Oh yeah. I forgot it’s RWA’s contest.

I’m afraid you’ve totally lost me here. It is RWA’s contest so, YES, they decide what the rules are. I can’t imagine why they would depend upon ANYBODY ELSE to tell them. It’s a bizarre argument.

Writer Beware is looking for a recent copy of the Tsaba House contract, so we can see what it actually says. All information and documentation shared with Writer Beware is held in confidence—your name and contact information will not be shared. Contact us at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Thanks!

That would be a bizzare arguement. :o

Why would RWA listen to anyone else? It’s their contest. :)

Oh, sorry, I think we crossed wires there!!!

And as far as saying that Random House uses Dan’s contract, I meant to say they have the clause in question in their contract. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

No, I got you the first time; there was no misunderstanding.  I’m saying that you cannot state that Random House has that clause in their contract unless you’ve seen the actual wording of the Tsaba contract—which I don’t think any of us have.  Without that, there’s no way to tell if “retyping the manuscript” is bad-article-speak for “resetting due to authorial alteration during page proofs” (which is standard) or something else entirely (which probably isn’t).

Sue, I haven’t twisted anything. When I read: “Those who are qualifed to determine whether that contract is industry standard will speak. RWA need not have to see the contract.” it says to me someone outside the organization will decide, and RWA will abide by that without needing to see the document in question.  That doesn’t make sense to me.

Myabe that’s not what you meant.

I understand you’re angry, and you feel RWA has been unfair. It’s simply impossible for those of us who haven’t seen the contract to know if we’d agree or not. But the statement from RWA on why the contract makes the publisher ineligible for the orgaization’s approved list indicates a clause that isn’t industry standard.

Maybe they’re wrong, maybe the clause isn’t there or isn’t what it appears to be.

If, however, it is, imo RWA has a right to enforce its own rules and policies.

I’m published with Random House. Nothing that sounds even remotely like that appears in any of my contracts with them. Nor my contract with Harper Collins, nor the small publisher for which I’ve written non-fiction. (BenBella). So this isn’t the realm of small pubs, nor is this something that the “big pubs” do as well.

As Nora pointed out, the exact, clear, specific definition of what RWA considers a vanity and/or subsidy publisher has already been posted a dozen times, I’m not even going to argue the issue again.

RWA, a private organization, can set their own standards. They can set standards saying I’m not published in their eyes, because I don’t write romance. They can set standards saying you aren’t considered published until you’ve made a million dollars on a book. Or they can set standards that say if I head down to the corner Kinkos and bind my grocery list, it counts as a book. They can do anything they want.

The publishing industry will continue on apace, regardless of the standards RWA chooses to accept. Just as RWA does not have to listen to an AG literary lawyer to form a basis for its standards, the other people in publishing don’t have to listen to RWA. The Library of Congress does NOT make its decision about what books to register based on the guidelines of a private genre writing group!

Back when RWA had “publisher recognition,” there were RWA-recognized publishers that my agent would not submit to, and NON-RWA recognized publishers she would. (Again, Hyperion.) So any agent who knows her industry, and doesn’t get her info solely out of the RWR doesn’t care what RWA has to say either. They decide what would be a good publisher for their client and submit there.

Having said that, when I was a PRO Liaison of one of my RWA chapters, and was in charge of processing PRO applications for our members, we had a situation wherein the member’s OTHER chapter claimed that the National org denied her PRO application. I called the National org to discuss their policy of admitting PROs, and it was resolved. The other chapter had misrepresented the nature of the member’s manuscript.

This issue will similarly be resolved, either by an adjustment to the contract language, a clarification of the contract language (we can all agree that contracts are sometimes incredibly confusing!), a correction on the part of this article that seems to have everyone up in arms, or the acknowledgment by the publisher that they do not meet the RWA guidelines, and do not wish to change to do so.

Diana laid it out as clearly as it can be, I think.

I’ll add that I pulled out an old Putnam contract, read it, and nothing in there comes anywhere near the clause in question. Neither do my (really old) Silhouette contracts.

Specifically on the front and back matter, I’ve had those added to my books, from both of these publishers. Maps, family trees, an index. I did not pay, was never asked to pay. It was never suggested that I was contractually obligated to pay—nor is there any wording in any contract I’ve ever signed that would so oblige me.

You did misunderstand if you thought I said Random House had that clause in their contract. I should’ve added, “or at least I’ve heard.” It really doesn’t matter who has this clause in their contract, Dan Poynter’s contracts are widely used by publihser’s who meet the industry standard.

I just got caught up trying to help RWA see Tsaba House might meet industry standard. LOL But apparently they don’t need my help. It’s their contest. They have their own lawyers. It’s whatever they decide.

So it’s quite possible that a publisher whose contract meets the industry standard can’t participate in the RWA’s contest. Okay, so it takes me a while to get things. LOL

I’ll now move on.

Specifically on the front and back matter, I’ve had those added to my books, from both of these publishers. Maps, family trees, an index. I did not pay, was never asked to pay. It was never suggested that I was contractually obligated to pay—nor is there any wording in any contract I’ve ever signed that would so oblige me.

Your maps and family trees probably (I am making an educated guess here) would be under the category of Additional Materials.

This is the language from Poynter’s contract. Please be aware that it could have been altered. However, the quote in PW, I believe, stated that it seemed that a stock contract was used without modification:

If the Author fails to deliver Additional Materials, in cases where any of these have been deemed by Publisher as necessary for the Work, the Publisher shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to cause the same to be acquired or prepared and to charge the cost of such acquisition or preparation to the Author.

Index is included under front and back matter. Again, this is from Poynter’s contract:

If, the Author has not so provided and if, in the reasonable judgment of the publisher, the Publisher feels that an index, bibliography, table of contents, foreword, introduction, preface (hereinafter referred to as “frontmatter and backmatter”) for the Work is necessary, the Publisher shall engage a skilled person to prepare such frontmatter and backmatter and the cost of such preparation shall be charged to the Author.

The other issue was re-typing. Here is that language:

A. The Author agrees to deliver to the Publisher, not later than       , 20   , two (2) complete typewritten or computer generated (or on computer disk in a format acceptable to Publisher) manuscripts of the Work in the English language, approximately       words in length, acceptable to the Publisher in form and substance and ready to set into type. If retyping is necessary, expense shall be charged to the Author. The Author agrees that the Author shall have retained copies of the manuscript as delivered to the Publisher.

Perhaps the term “typing” is archaic in contract language. All I know is I still refer to the act as typing! As in, “dang! I have to re-type my article.”

I hope this helps. Again, I caution that this is not copied from the actual contract of the Tsaba House author, but I have reason to believe that it is the text in question.

Do remember that companies like Tsaba House do not have the operating capital as a big house would. But, I don’t think it makes them any less a publisher. In the Christian market, they offer a valuable alternative to the Evangelical Christian Publisher Association (ECPA) houses. Fiction that won’t be touched by the ECPA members because of its “edginess” (read: may contain the word “darn” or may include a mention of drinking, smoking, marital sex, divorce, violence that is realistic and necessary to the plot—and I am not being facetious) is in demand from Christians who want their fiction “real,” and not contrived. The only way readers get this fiction is through independent houses, such as Tsaba House, who serve the greater Christian fiction market (not the demographics of the CBA). Small presses do what they have to do to survive and publish good fiction.

“They can do anything they want.”

Actually, I don’t think they can. I think that as a corporation, they have to abide by the law, and antitrust law is always a factor,  I think.  And as a not-for-profit designated so by the IRS, there are other rules an organization has to meet to keep its tax status.  It’s not just an ad hoc group like our local critique groups. Whether we like it or not, there are laws to be factored in—the libel law, or whatever it is called when it’s a corporation being termed something defamatory.

So yes, it does matter how RWA defines things (remember last year, when they were defining vanity press as a press that sells most copies off its own website? That didn’t last), and whether it applies its decisions equally. Is the term “vanity press” pejorative? And is it fairly applied to this press on the basis of that clause? 

Thanks for ferreting out that Poynter contract, Cynthia!  That does sound like an archaic clause, but I think we can still use the term “typing”—we’re still applying fingers to keyboard (unless, I suppose, if we use Dragon :).  I find myself still saying I have “dialed” that number, and THAT I don’t think is still true!

Sue Dent said:  “I just got caught up trying to help RWA see Tsaba House might meet industry standard.”

If you want to “help RWA,” you’re probably going to have to, um, yanno, contact RWA, rather than post about it here.  The Smart Bitches, while being smart and all, aren’t official representatives of Romance Writers of America. 

And a

Ha!  Actual data!  Cynthia wins.

And you know what happens when we get actual data?  We’re able to make definitive statements!

Paragraph 6.b.ii of my very first novel contract:

“If the Author fails to make timely delivery of the Related Materials [all photographs, illustrations, drawings, charts, footnotes, source notes, bibliography and any other materials as mutually agreed upon—6.b.i], any permissions or releases, satisfactory to the Publisher in form and content, the Publisher shall have the right, but not the obligation, to continue this Agreement and obtain on behalf of the Author any such Related Materials, permissions or releases and charge the cost thereof to the Author and shall also have the right to withhold sums to cover such actual or estimated costs from any payments due to the Author hereunder.”

In other words, they can take it out of my advance or royalties, or charge me to pay it back; it comes to the same thing.

So that?  Appears to be normal, save on one count: it’s “mutually agreed upon” in my contract, but in Tsaba’s the Publisher gets to decide what’s necessary.  Potentially sketchy, but not awful.

Next, there is nothing in my contract about retyping.  I have to provide a MS and computer disk copy (yeah, right—I e-mail it to my editor, that’s all), and it has to be acceptable to them, but that’s where the contract clause stops.  Nothing about retyping whatsoever.  (Except in 6.e, where it says that if the Publisher leaves my Related Materials in a taxi or drops them in the spaghetti sauce, it’s THEIR responsibility to replace them, at THEIR cost.)

So.  Having done that, let’s revisit the RWA rules:

“Subsidy Publisher” means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment or reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs.

(“Subsidy” and not “vanity” is the actual accusation here, I think.)

Okay.  It all comes down to what you define as a cost for editing and/or distribution, and what you don’t.  Does “editing” mean “getting the MS into usable shape (i.e. retyping) if the Author failed to provide it in that form”?  By the terms of my contract, I have to go fix it myself, and the Publisher doesn’t have to pay me until I deliver what I promised.  By the terms of Tsaba’s contract, the Publisher can take care of it themselves, and charge the Author for it.  The former is pretty standard contractual operations in any field; the latter . . . .?

This is where I bow out, because I really don’t have a dog in this fight.  But certainly it doesn’t work to have a blanket rule of “no money flowing from Author to Publisher,” because there ARE conditions under which the Author has to pay the Publisher money, probably in any novel contract.  “Costs of editing and/or distribution” is better, but still not precise, even with the clarification later in the rule.  I think the RWA could use to tighten up their language a bit, to distinguish between industry SOP and sketchy attempts to sneak in author charges.

I know it’s hard out there for small presses (and now my brain’s playing “Hard Out There for a Pimp”).  But if you have to sock authors with costs to keep yourself afloat, then you’re asking authors to subsidize your business—hence “subsidy press.”  That’s what the RWA is trying to prevent.  There’s some dubious ambiguity in Tsaba’s clauses, that might be abused.  Fixing that shouldn’t be hard at all.  And in the meantime, the RWA could possibly reword their ruling to make the line just a bit clearer.

-The Smart Bitches, while being smart and all, aren’t official representatives of Romance Writers of America.-

Yeah, that’s why I decided to stop posting. LOL

But look, you made me go and post again! :)

Interesting note- (since you made me post again. :)) The Tsaba House author never entered the RITA award. They entered a chapter of RWA and actually finaled with their novel!

Makes one wonder how this all got started in the first place.

There’s some dubious ambiguity in Tsaba’s clauses, that might be abused.  Fixing that shouldn’t be hard at all.

I agree, Marie! Which goes back to my argument that if you buy a contract from a self-publishing guru, you just might need to tweak it a bit before it’s perfect. I’m not exactly sure why Tsaba is so married to this wording if the Rita is some sort of Holy Grail for them, except as a matter of “You can’t tell me what to do to participate in YOUR contest!!!”

But one thing I’d like to point out, in regards to “RWA is mean and they don’t want me in their club!”. RWA is providing a basic line in the sand about what is acceptable, in their opinion, in a boilerplate contract. Who signs boilerplate contracts? Authors who have little choice. Authors who are just starting out, authors who have no advocate, authors who are just trying to get their foot in that very first, very heavy door.

Now, I’m no veteran. My first book was out THIS YEAR. But I have moved beyond that first contract and actually signed three more in the past few months. Each negotiation has moved to a slightly different level as far as what leverage I have. I’m no longer working from boilerplate. Each time I fight for a change, it shows up in the NEXT contract automatically. (Not that I don’t check very closely, mind you.)

RWA doesn’t give a damn what my agent and I hash out with the publisher. They are trying to keep their pre-published members from signing contracts that will tie up their rights for years with no benefit to the author. So if you step back and look at their motive with a less jaundiced eye, it might calm things down a bit.

And now I’d like to turn the question back to this: Was this really about the Rita or was it about another contest? That’s not clear to me.

Look, Sue! We’re on the same page! *g*

Yeah! I finally did something useful.

Keep in mind that RWA would not have received the private contract between publisher and author that was modified, they would have received the generic (spaces left unfilled) contract.

I wonder if a redacted version of the contract would have made any difference? However, who am I to comment, right?

Petra, you’re really going to have to prove it to me that by defining their own standards for publisher approval—re THEIR organization, RWA violates any laws.

I don’t believe the term “subsidy press’ is defamatory.

The additional matter I referenced in my own work was provided by the publisher—they did the maps, the family trees, the index. At their expense. It was never a question of otherwise. And they needed my approval in order to include them. It was not their decision, but mine.

And it’s my personal opinion that a publisher doesn’t have the right to make such a decision without the author’s approval, and certainly not to bill the author for it. Nor to charge for retyping, reformatting or whatever term we’d want to use—to put the ms into publishable form—without the author’s agreement.

If these are industry standards, I’ve never had them included in any of the contracts I’ve signed—for three publishers—since 1980 to date.

So I’d agree with RWA’s assessment on this. Maybe we’re both wrong, but that’s how I’d read it.

The arrticle on RWA’s site states that they saw: “a copy of the company’s boilerplate contract which listed several instances in which costs could be charged to the author.”

Assuming these are nonstandard costs and not the typical things found in, say, Random House’s contract, it appears there is more than one clause in question, not just the soon to be infamous typing clause.  And again, without seeing the **entire contract** RWA was given, it is presumptive to assume they are being unfair.  They have included a good number of publishers on their non-vanity, non-subsidy list and even more publishers on their Eligible Publishers list, and they would have applied the same guidelines to the contracts of these publishers as part of their listing process.  I have no idea how many publishers have tried to list with RWA and failed—because normally they don’t threaten to sue.  A few might choose to tweak their boilerplate because they feel there is sufficient value to them or their authors to be listed with RWA.  Most probably don’t.  However, tons of publishers get by just fine without listing with RWA.

*peeking out from behind very large chair to avoid being seen since she said she wouldn’t post anymore*

Word on the street is that no one has actually seen the “real” Tsaba House contract to be able to debate it.

Apparently the chapter of RWA whose contest they entered had no problems accepting them as an industry standard publisher. So why is it an issue now?

Correct me if you know for a fact that I’m wrong, but Tsaba House didn’t enter the RITA contest therefore they could never be turned down, right?

Tsaba House entered an award contest for a chapter of RWA; they were accepted and then finaled only to be told, (and I’m assuming here) that they can’t participate in the RWA chapter contest because they don’t meet industry standards.

If RWA chapters operate pretty much on their own, as has been noted here, why did RWA get involved?

If the chapter accepted them and they finaled why was their contract questioned? Is it standard practice for contest put on by RWA chapters to do this? Do they randomly decide to scrutinize contracts of authors who final?

Tsaba House had apparently already met the requirements for the chapter contest they entered. They were in the contest.

According to everything I’ve read here in the original post and at PW, Tsaba House never entered the RITA but entered an award contest put on by a chapter of RWA and was accepted in and finaled.

If they’d entered the RITA, I suppose RWA could ask to see their contract. Other than that, it’s not really a question of why won’t Tsaba House provide it it’s more a question of why would RWA ask for it?

And because it is hard to set tone when posting, I’m confused, not angry.

Sue, you should be asking a board member of RWA, as most of us who aren’t or have never been wouldn’t know the fine details of this sort of thing. But chapters of RWA would, I believe, have to follow the rules and standards of the national organization—otherwise they wouldn’t BE chapters of the national organization.

And word on the street really needs to be verified before it can be taken as fact.

No, I don’t believe RWA scrutinizes contracts from contest entrants—but they would question an entrant whose book is for a non-approved pubisher. Therefore, if the publisher seeks to be listed among those approved by RWA,  they’d have to submit their boilerplate contract for review. Boilerplate would be what they offer to any new author before any negotiations ensue.

This is how I understand it, but I’ve never served on the board.

Yes, “word on the streets” does need to be verified, that’s why I said it that way. 

Yes, talking to a board member of RWA would more than likely answer the confusing questions I have but I doubt I’ll be contacting one anytime soon as I don’t “have a dog in the hunt.”

Assuming the scenario that an RWA chapter has to be verified by the National RWA orginization, then it stands to reason they know the rules and guidelines they have to follow. Doesn’t mean they’ll get it right all the time but the assumption is they do know.

So an RWA Chapter let Tsaba House into their contest. They later realize, though we’re not sure how, that Tsaba House might not be an RWA approved publisher. The only conclusion I can draw is that the chapter was at a loss with how to deal with this and went straight to the National Orginization for help.

RWA then asks for more proof? *this is in fact all assumptions*

The contest in question is the Gayle Wilson Award of Excellence by the Southern Magic chapter of RWA.  The contest rules state the following:

Eligibility: Participation is open to all published authors of novel length romance fiction published by an RWA-eligible publisher.

My guess is that someone questioned if Tsaba House was RWA-eligible and the matter was taken to National.

Call it a hunch, but I bet the chapter, and ALL RWA chapters with published novel contests, will change the language of future contests to read “published by RWA-recognized publisher.”

Sarah,

Okay, you’re right.  RWA did do away with “RWA-recognized” and we have that “non-vanity/subsidy” language.  (And I totally knew that but, hey, it’s Sunday afternoon and, um, the brain is on vacation till Monday.)

I do feel sorry for the RWA chapters with published author contests, though - we have a lot of them, and they are all fundraisers for the chapters.  (We all know that, right?)

-I do feel sorry for the RWA chapters with published author contests-

I feel worse for the authors who enter and are deemed eligible and even final and then are told they’re not eligible. :(

“Petra, you’re really going to have to prove it to me that by defining their own standards for publisher approval—re THEIR organization, RWA violates any laws.”

We could hire an antitrust lawyer. :) I think they’re only about $500 an hour!

But RWA has said they have had to change policy to stay on the right side of that law—for example, I remember at one time, only RWA members could come to the conference, and that was considered a possible antitrust problem, and so an option for non-members to attend was added (but cleverly RWA raised the conference fee for non-members, I think, to the fee + membership amount, so they might as well join :).  I think the more successful RWA becomes, the more the GH and RITA are seen as helpful in a career sense, say, the more careful RWA has to become with anything that might be seen as “restraint of trade”. 

Of course, in an industry where so much consolidation has taken place, and there are so few real markets left, it seems sort of like displacement to see RWA as the monopolistic force and not the huge media companies!  But then, RWA doesn’t have the huge resources that the media companies have—better to avoid such issues by defining standards clearly and applying them equally.

~for example, I remember at one time, only RWA members could come to the conference, and that was considered a possible antitrust problem, and so an option for non-members to attend was added~

But this is an entirely different matter than a contest, or an organization’s standards for publisher-eligibility or approval—or whatever the term may be.

And I’m not at all sure you’re correct in the above, as NINC—another writer’s organization—initially held its conference for published authors only (and those had to meet THEIR requirements), and did not allow other publishing professionals to attend. They opened it for editors, etc, only after members requested it. Not because they were avoiding anti-trust trouble.

Only members or invited guests can attend Novelist Inc’s conference. An unpubbed cannot. I can’t as I let my membership lapse this year. Therefore, I can’t see how requiring membership to attend is anti-trust.

If so, somebody better tell Ninc.

And please, why shouldn’t RWA charge more to non-members for attending their conference?

Answers.com

Antitrust - adj.

Opposing or intended to regulate business monopolies, such as trusts or cartels, especially in the interest of promoting competition

Don’t see what antitrust has to do with an organization such as the RWA, unless they have been not “promoting competition”.  Is RT complaining that RWA is monopolizing romance? 

To this non-writer, it sounds as if RWA are trying to prevent publishers from taking advantage of their members.  After all the problems with e-publishers disappearing, I think that members would appreciate that.

As to conference attendance fees, any conference is going to charge non-members a higher fee to attend.  An organization of which I am a member, charges non-members $500 more to attend.  I did a google search of conference and it appears to be a conference “standard” to do this.

Back to lurking.

From what I can shovel out of this mess: 

1) Somebody at a local chapter made a mistake and allowed a non-eligible book into a contest. This would have been a non-paid VOLUNTEER who is only human.  She made a mistake.

2) Tsaba Press obviously had never tried for eligibility in RWA prior to this, or they could have resolved the problem prior to this.

3) Very few people would have been aware of this whole thing if Tsaba hadn’t gone to Publisher’s Weekly, threatening a lawsuit.

I think it would be better if Tsaba spent the money that a lawsuit (or even just talking to their lawyers) would cost to update their contracts.

Secondly I think it would behoove them to verify exactly how much or little a winner at a local chapter is worth (there’s been debates as to the monetary worth of a RITA).

And most importantly, I think it this whole thing could be resolved if Tsaba and the writers of Christian fiction who have posted here would take it upon themselves to just forgive the chapter for the error and resolve to get their ducks in a row so it doesn’t happen again.

Finally, I can’t resist the snark.  No offense to the author, but how long do you think it will take for Cassie Edwards to appropriate “Molly Noble Bull” as one of her heroines.

1) Somebody at a local chapter made a mistake and allowed a non-eligible book into a contest. This would have been a non-paid VOLUNTEER who is only human.  She made a mistake.

Perhaps she made an error or perhaps the chapter made an error, I don’t know if the chapters abide by the same rules. There was more than one chapter involved in this “mess,” however.

2) Tsaba Press obviously had never tried for eligibility in RWA prior to this, or they could have resolved the problem prior to this.

And, where on the RWA website does it state that a publisher must “try” for eligibility? If it did state this at the time (and made the information easily accessible), then I agree. 

The only information I could find was ambiguous:

“Books must be published by a publisher that is a non–Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher.”

Consider it this way: if a publisher knows that they are not a subsidy nor a vanity press, then why would they not enter the contests? Do you see what I mean?

3) Very few people would have been aware of this whole thing if Tsaba hadn’t gone to Publisher’s Weekly, threatening a lawsuit.

Where in the article does it state they are threatening a lawsuit?

I think it would be better if Tsaba spent the money that a lawsuit (or even just talking to their lawyers) would cost to update their contracts.

See above. Not applicable

And most importantly, I think it this whole thing could be resolved if Tsaba and the writers of Christian fiction who have posted here would take it upon themselves to just forgive the chapter for the error and resolve to get their ducks in a row so it doesn’t happen again.

The problem is that the publisher is not a subsidy nor a vanity press.

This is what they are trying to establish without having to change their operating methods to be in line with each contest or organization they belong to! 

There was more than one chapter involved as well as the national organization.

Forgiveness is appropriate, so is an apology.

P.S. I am not a Christian author :)

~Where in the article does it state they are threatening a lawsuit?~

Cut and pasted directly feom the article:

“Tsaba House Press, a Christian publisher of fiction and nonfiction titles, is considering taking legal action against the Romance Writers of America for refusing to consider one of the small California press’s authors for a Rita Award, which honors inspirational romances.”

While I wouldn’t say a publisher has to ‘try’ for RWA eligibility, I would say that when entering a contest, one should acquaint themselves with the rules of the contest. RWA’s policy and definition of what it considers subsidy is pretty clear.

I can, absolutely, understand that the author and the publisher simply didn’t consider they might not be eligible because of certain clauses. There’s a mistake, just as it’s possible the contest committee made a mistake.

Depending on the clauses in the contract, Tsaba House may be considered subsidy by RWA policy. By THEIR policy for their organization, for their contests.

But Tsaba House went to PW, Tsaba house told PW they were considering taking legal action over this policy.

“Threating a lawsuit” and “considering taking legal action” are two different things IMO. Perhaps that’s what the poster was referring to.

And the part pasted about Tsaba House entering a RITA and so forth was negated here on this blog, added on at the bottom under corrections.

—The Tsaba House author referenced in the article was not trying to enter RWA’s RITA contest. She was interested in entering a contest sponsored by an RWA chapter.—

Tsaba House entered a contest given by an RWA chapter. They were eligible at the time and even finaled. They were then told they weren’t eligible at all.

Perhaps they could’ve studied the guidelines for eligibility a little more closely but why would they after the contest accepted them as eligible?

The whole RITA arguement is over and never should’ve been an issue according to RWA. I’m not sure how PW got that messed up but hey, we all make mistakes. :)

They were eligible at the time and even finaled… Perhaps they could’ve studied the guidelines for eligibility a little more closely but why would they after the contest accepted them as eligible?

Every contest I’ve entered includes an entry form that I’VE signed stating that I’m eligible. No one ever told me I was eligible. I asserted it.

I’m sure it was all unintended and there could have been mistakes made on either side.

I’ve only been in one and that was the Bram Stoker Award. I had to join the Horror Writer’s Association for that and had to provide proof that my publisher was traditional, industry standard whatever you want to call it. LOL

But I know there are contest out there where it probably happens like you say as well. But I guess that falls in to the assumption category.

No one really knows what RWA chapters require. Going to PW with concerns might seem rash to some but who knows what dialogue did or didn’t happen before Tsaba House decided this was their only option.

But debating why a publisher goes to PW with complaints is a far cry from debating whether are not they should cough up their contract to see if their actually eligible for a contest they were in fact able to enter.

~Threating a lawsuit” and “considering taking legal action” are two different things IMO. Perhaps that’s what the poster was referring to.~

I’m afraid when I read ‘considering taking legal action’, I think considering a law suit. I’d wager most people would interpret this the same way. What would your interpretation be?

I also believe a publisher who—for whatever reason—wants or seeks to be RWA approved would have to ‘cough up’ their boilerplate. This is how RWA determines if the publisher meets their standards and policies. Just how else would you expect the organization to assess? The contract is key.

I’m confused further by you’re stating that in a contest you entered you had to provide proof that your publisher met traditional, industry standards. I get that—but can’t follow that to you objecting to RWA requiring documentation of the same for its contest.

~No one really knows what RWA chapters require~

I would think the individual chapters and RWA national would know what the chapters require.

My chapter also holds an annual contest. I think I know what the requirements are—but if I wasn’t sure, all I’d need do would be ask the committee chair or a member of the board.

Nora

I’ve never posted before, but I’m a frequent lurker.  Gotta love the rockin’ Bitches, y’all.

I’m on RWA’s national board of directors.  So is Stef Feagan.  But this is a chapter matter, and all chapters are individually incorporated, so they can set their own rules when it comes to contests, etc.

This whole teacup-tempest came about because the author (not the publisher) entered her book in a chapter contest.  Through oversight or whatever, the chapter contest coordinator didn’t notice that Tsaba isn’t on RWA’s list of non-subsidy/non-vanity publishers, which is something completely separate from RWA-eligible publishers (those are publishers who are invited to participate in the conference, allocated space and meeting rooms for editor appointments). 

When the chapter finally caught the error and the author was contacted, she must have contacted Tsaba, which took umbrage that they’d be considered a subsidy publisher (not vanity publisher, but subsidy publisher) and contacted PW.  PW contacted RWA’s executive director for comments, but either Tsaba had gotten things mixed up and said “RITA contest” when the RITA wasn’t involved at all, or the reporter thought she knew more than she did.  She may have heard of the RITA and just assumed that was the contest involved. 

RWA national isn’t involved in this at all, except through PW’s reporter and Tsaba’s threat of legal action.  Allison Kelley, RWA’s executive director, is a consummate professional, and she bends over backwards to evenly apply all rules, across the board.  If she saw some things in Tsaba’s contract wording that, in her opinion, run counter to RWA’s own standards for inclusion on the non-subsidy/non-vanity publisher list, then I trust her judgment.  If Tsaba’s policy doesn’t follow the wording of said contract, perhaps they’d be better off spending the money amending the contract to better reflect their policy, instead of wasting it on a dead-end lawsuit.

So—a mistake on a chapter contest level, possibly a mistake on Tsaba’s part in thinking this involved a RITA, or possibly the same mistake by PW’s reporter in assuming the same thing.  I would say that’s it in a nutshell, but it’d have to be a fairly large nutshell :-).

Other items raised:  Non-RWA members who attend the conference are charged the conference fee plus the membership fee because it wouldn’t be right to allow them to attend the conference for less money than the members can.  I know there are arguments   both pro and con, but that’s the reasoning.

As board members don’t individually speak for the board (the president does that), I’m speaking only as a member of RWA who can answer some of the questions that have been raised here.

Linda Howard

record 71.
I swear, that thing is psychic.

-I get that—but can’t follow that to you objecting to RWA requiring documentation of the same for its contest.-

I have no objection to RWA requiring anything. This matter doesn’t involve RWA as such. At first I thought it did now I know different (or rather assume since I’ve not talked to a board member.) This matter involves a chapter of RWA who let an author into a contest and then said they weren’t eligible.

There’s no need to mention a Tsaba House contract at all or even whether Tsaba House is a vanity or subisdy press according to RWA.

They aren’t entering the RITA or anything else that require they show a contract. An author entered a chapter award contest and was deemed eligible. That author was later deemed ineligible.

Several have kindly said that it was perhaps a mistake and well things like this just happen sometimes.

Okay.

But no, I don’t object to the way RWA chooses to run things for the RITA or anything else. I’m not qualified to debate their polices and guidelines nor do I want to. But I’ve already said that before.

“Tsaba House Press, a Christian publisher of fiction and nonfiction titles, is considering taking legal action against the Romance Writers of America . . . “

Well, why the heck couldn’t I see that. I went through it especially to locate the sentence.

I do apologize for emphatically stating that it wasn’t so. Perhaps I was only seeing what I wanted to see.

Ooh, Linda Howard!!!  Fans self and then ruthlessly chokes back RFG. 

Man, the internet seems to be around just to bash the RWA.  (And I thought it was for porn.)

Way upstream, somebody asked why there should be rules for competitions.  Lemme see, I wanna enter an inspirational writers contest.

But you can’t write, you twit, the organizers might say.  (Well, if they’re gonna focus on tiny details.)

And you haven’t been to church in 40 years.  (Them pesky details again.)

Shouldn’t you know at least a little something about religion?  (Uhhh. . .)

Apparently there is language in the boilerplate contract of the Tsaba publishers that makes it seem as if they could require authors to subsidize the press.  How could the RWA use that against Tsaba and call them a subsidy press?

Instead of suing RWA (which is the ONLY interpretation of “pursuing legal action” that exists in the fine state of California), the effort could be better spent in changing the potentially offending statements.

Sue Dent said: “There’s no need to mention a Tsaba House contract at all or even whether Tsaba House is a vanity or subisdy press according to RWA.”

Ah, but there is a need to mention it.  As has already been posted in the comments, the rules of the contest is question state that to be eligible, the author must be published with an RWA eligible publisher.  To determine is the publisher is RWA eligible, the contract needs to be perused.

Yeah, I’m here to bash RWA! Only now I found out they don’t even have a dog in the hunt. How sad?

So let’s bash one of their chapters instead. Good Grief!

Why are we still talking about contract? That’s only for the RITA thingy which we now know, or assume for lack of a better word, a contest Tsaba House’s never entered. How many times can we repeat that.

And furthermore, *looking around in dismay* why am I even here?

I don’t even like bashing . . . but I’m starting to. :)

Liv, the contest the Tsaba House author entered, she was eligible for. The lawyer friend above clarifed this but that’s only heresay since he/she is not acutally involved and says that too. Apparently we have to ask a board member to get clarification on this.

What we don’t need clarification on is whether Tsaba House should have to provide a contract. They entered a contest handled by an RWA chapter. This may or may not require a contract to be shown. Either way, they were deemed eligible. They were later deemed ineligible after finaling. RWA National who claims they have no hold over what RWA Chapters do, asked for the contract.

Sue,

I guess I’m having a hard time deciphering what stance you are advocating here.  You seem to be arguing many things, not all of which seem very relevant.  For instance, you talk alot about whether the Tsaba contract is “industry standard,”

Quote: “I thought after reading the PW aricle and this blog that the issue was whether Tsaba House had a legitimate standard industry contract”

and

“It’s about Tsaba House’s contract and whether it’s industry standard not about whether those who run a contest want to do things the way they said they would or maybe I’m missing something.”

and

“When it comes out that this contract is standard in the industry, what will RWA do then?”

Yet the issue has never been whether the contract is industry standard.  The issue is whether Tsaba is a subsidy or vanity press.  Part of determining whether a publisher is subsidy or not is looking at their contract to see if they charge unfair or inappropriate fees.

Then you say thinks like:

Quote: “I understand that Random House uses this identical contract with the same clause in it.”

But backtrack and say:

“You did misunderstand if you thought I said Random House had that clause in their contract. I should’ve added, “or at least I’ve heard.””

Now you argue that the contract only comes into play in regards to the RITAs. But as has been pointed out several times (this will be the third) the RWA chapter in question states that only those authors published by RWA eligible publishers can enter the contest.  So Tsaba’s contract and the RWA’s policies are absolutely relevant here.

From what I can gather, Tsaba is not RWA eligible, so the Tsaba author was NEVER, in fact, eligible to enter the contest.  Even if someone at the RWA chapter made a mistake, and initially let the author enter, it was never a case of she was eligible and then she wasn’t.

Are you saying the RWA doesn’t have a right to set guidelines in their own contests? Or that the RWA has that right, but not its chapters? Or that the RWA doesn’t have the right to confirm eligibility (by checking the contract to ensure the publisher isn’t a subsidy or vanity press)?

Well, Liv, if you go back and read everything in it’s entirety and in context, (which might take even longer than the time you’ve spent quoting me) you’ll find many have said one thing, then with new information they’ve said something applicable.

I’ve been on here too long today. There’s nothing I’ve posted that shouldn’t make sense. The facts are all here.

And I’m tired so I’m sure you’ll all be glad to know, I’m out of here.

Keep an eye on PW Daily this week. Maybe they’ll get it right this time.

Bitch on! :)

~Liv, the contest the Tsaba House author entered, she was eligible for. The lawyer friend above clarifed this but that’s only heresay since he/she is not acutally involved and says that too. Apparently we have to ask a board member to get clarification on this.~

No, she wasn’t. As has been made clear countless times. She was mistakenly allowed to enter, as she was never eligible. The mistake was caught, and she was notified.

A board member—speaking as a member—has explained that as well. (Hi, Linda!)

The matter of the contract is NOT irrelevent. It is the crux.

It’s a shame a mistake was made—and the correction of that mistake has nothing to do with the book finaling in the contest. I understand the author would be upset and disappointed. Anyone would be. But the publisher contacting PW and ‘considering taking legal action’ feels extreme to me.

Yes Nora.

I’m obviously out of my league here with all you big authors. I’ll let y’all get back to the normal program of this blog. Excuse the interruption.

Cynthia, nobody said anything about leagues, and I don’t think anyone indicated anyone else was out of hers. In any case, my last comment was in response to Sue Dent’s remarks, not yours.