Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

“It also looks to me like they are trying to control the outcome of who wins by who they allow in the contest.”

*reads, blinks, reads again*

*falls over laughing*

Actually, now that I’ve quick laughing hysterically, this one other bit stands out for me:

Schwagerl, who has already sent a letter to RWA threatening to seek an injunction forcing the organization to allow Bull’s novel to be entered in the RITA contest (although this year’s deadline has passed, and finalists will be announced March 26), is now consulting an attorney, before making her next step.

Unless Bull’s novel has a copyright date of 2008 (and if it’s Sanctuary, then it was published in September ‘07), she’s going to be SOL for next year’s RITA so why bother seeking an injunction?  One would think Ms. Schwagerl would acquaint herself with the rules with respect to the RITA before she goes throwing words like “injunction” around.

Unless, of course, the PW article has facts wrong AGAIN and the injunction threat letter addressed the contests the author originally wanted to enter. Nowhere in the PW articles or RWA quotes does it say anything about the author already having finaled in the not-RITA contests and getting the ignominous boot thereafter, information that turned up in the prior thread. Hm.

My chapter has a contest.  It’s for unpublished writers.  Does that mean I should sue because I can’t enter?

Give me a frickin’ break.

This publisher and this author need to get over themselves.

Why do I have this image of a crazed stalker woman climbing on a balcony, screaming and banging on the window.

The Poytner contract is also used by New Concepts Publishing and does not include the word “exclusive” when referencing rights.  I suppose I should download the darn thing.  It’s a whole 9.95.

Maybe Tsaba House should have hired a lawyer to look at the contract instead of looking into hiring a lawyer to press for an injunction.  I mean, why spend thousands of dollars (probably in the 5 figures if you are getting anyone any good) to pursue an injunction that is not likely to succeed.

“I feel strongly that they should have no say in what is in my contracts with my authors or to re-define for the industry what a subsidy press is or isn’t,” Schwagerl said.

Which part of Organisation for Writers does she not understand?
Publishers’ Interest Organisation is spelled quite differently.

I held back from commenting during the first discussion, but this as SB Sarah said “really burns my toast”.

Very mature and christian-like reaction Tsaba House. Good job living up to your mission statement. Now why don’t you go sulk like a teenager. “But RWA….they are sooo mean”.

There are RULES for all competition,and they are there for a reason. I cannot compete in certain levels of my chosen sport, because I teach a few lessons and make a grand total of 50 bucks a week. But, guess what, that makes me a pro. The competition org wont let me compete in an Amateur competition… OH NO, They are so mean.

I mean, like it or not, RWA can define vanity and subsidy however the crapping damn they want to. It’s their right. And they don’t have to open their contest to anyone and everyone. Again, that’s their right.

I’m from California.  I love California.  I might move back there someday if I ever get rich and can talk my husband into it.

But unfortunately the belief that everyone should get to play in the sandbox, no matter what sandbox or who owns it or what rules were initially set up, seems to be the prevailing ideology.  “That’s not fair!” is a battle cry often heard.

Anyone else get a kick out of the irony of the woman who is strongly opposed to the RWA telling her what to put into her contracts having no compunction about seeking an injunction to force the RWA to accept her/her author’s submission? Saying, in essence, you can’t tell me how to do my contracts, but I can tell you how to run your contests.

And, really, she’s right.  She in no way has to word her contracts in a way that is acceptable to the RWA.  She just can’t enter submissions into their contests in that case.

David W. Koehser
Member of…
Midwest Independent Publishers Association

Seems the roster includes…

Brown Recluse Books

Would you like to know more?

*smile*

TP, you have to ask?

And just a side question, does PW have a beef with RWA?  Why is it they can’t get someone to write a properly investigated article?  Just curious.

“They are simply using [their policy] as a tactic to keep a small press from submitting contest entries.

So why did I read at least 4 small press books amongst the 11 RITA contest entries I read? (Can I say that much about them?)

Other authors from other small presses can enter because those other small presses have different contracts. That doesn’t make them not small presses.

How can you scream and cry and force your way into making people honor you? Seriously? This is like asking someone on a date, and then when they say they have a girlfriend already, sorry, fire-bombing their house. And then asking them out again. “Oh, i know we got here in a bad, ugly way. But wouldn’t you just like to forget all that and make me a lovely golden statue?”

Dang, Gail, you totally reminded me, I had a small press book too, in my RITA entries.  And Teddy, “Brown Recluse Books?”  For real?  I mean, I know you posted it as a link, but I’m a’skeered to look.

The linky goes to a rather interesting discussion on Absolute Write.

GASP! Imagine that?

I, too, had a small press book among my entries.  And I had a book that was probably NOT a small press book, but came from a relatively new print publisher.

I really like that RWA watches out for writers, by alerting writers to companies that want your writing *and* your money (all or part). 

Seriously, I want to be paid for my writing. If I’m going to pay money to get my writing published, I’d better damn-well own the company.

And I say that having co-owned a small press (back in the day) that paid other writers for *their* writing.  And when we lost money, we lost our OWN money.  And boy did we lose money….

  But the writers?  Nope, they did not give us their writing AND assume the financial expenses, risks, and burdens therein.  Them = writers.  Us = publishers.

So, I see RWA’s list as an alert system.  It doesn’t say NO YOU MAY NEVER PUBLISH WITH THESE PUBLISHERS. It just says that as a writers’ advocate group, we advocate for writers making a living (try not to snort as the fantasy lives on) from their writing.

It’s hard to make a living from your writing if you also have to pay to have it published.

Imagine working for IBM and having to pay part of the costs of the IBM business.  YOU PAID = $50,000/yr   YOU PAY THEM = $49,387/yr for the honor and to defray costs.  (Don’t you just love my specific amount.  I’m inspired.)

Imagine anyone saying yes to this?

Imagine them living with you because they can not afford rent?

Imagine them charging you to read your writing because they are bored while living with you…?

And suddenly, you think it is a good idea to pay this guest.  “Eureka!” you think.  “I shall writer and pay to have others read it.  I am brilliant.”

Somewhere, an angel slaps her forehead.

Cough, cough, sputter.

This woman is a lunatic, and if I were an author who’d signed a contract with her company I would be frantically trying to find a way to sever that relationship. This isn’t a freaking high school dance committee; it’s a professional organization for writers and they have a right to set whatever type of criteria they want. You don’t like it? Go form your own group and start your own contest there.

Oooh stuff like this makes me mad.

There’s a difference between unfair standards and you know, actual standards. There are times when I believe the RWA is unnecessarily narrowminded when it comes to certain things. Not in this case, however.

Contracts with fees for authors are not good for authors no matter the size of the publisher. As a professional organization, it’s the RWA’s responsibility to protect authors with standards like the one defining vanity publishers.

This isn’t about all small publishers at all. It’s about fair contracts and frankly I wish the RWA addressed that issue far more often. If this author wants to enter the RITA, there are plenty of small presses who are RITA eligible.

When I first heard PW was doing an article on RWA definitions I hoped it might be a thoughtful analysis looking at a range of publishers and a range of industry definitions.

It isn’t.  If anything this whole tea-cup tempest just justifies RWA taking a conservative and defensive stance because [rampant over generalisation]small presses are clearly batshit crazy [/rampant over generalisation]

~“They are simply using [their policy] as a tactic to keep a small press from submitting contest entries. It also looks to me like they are trying to control the outcome of who wins by who they allow in the contest.” ~

Comes off as bollocks to me. Arrogant and whiny bollocks.

Read. The. Rules. Sister.

When I first heard PW was doing an article on RWA definitions I hoped it might be a thoughtful analysis

This!

So far this is making RWA decisions look relatively sane. This would be impressive in an awe inspiringly evil move if they actually paid for this article.

When did PW get so sloppy? Bad fact-checking yesterday, and all these typos.

I’m a big fan of PW, and this surprises me.

Yeah, TP, that struck me too.  Anybody else think that Tsaba might be operating under the “any publicity is good publicity” theory of marketing?  I mention that in part because their arguments aren’t making a heck of a lot of sense, and it’s too depressing to think that they might be serious; and also because any small press, whether legit or not, must naturally be looking to expand its customer base.  Pissing off the RWA might be a decent way to do that. 

But I’m just a cynic . . .

This is a really interesting topic, and everyone’s pretty much summed up my reaction/astonishment.

I’m going to the bank for a loan today*. Maybe I’ll throw a wobbling great tantrum and see how it goes. I’ll report back on the results! :-)

Love Ebs

*this is of course complete bollocks.

Adler, I think it likely this is as much for publicity as anything.

Ãœbber off topic…

Apparently I am having a brain fart; the clue that this is indeed the case comes from my inability to get my DA BWAHA picks posted and in the listings. I must be missing a step somewhere (smartness betrays the bitch).

Would one of you good Bitches help supply an, er, blow-by-blow “how to”?

Aaaand the brain fart continues…

please, imagine my request ended with the words “thanks all in advance!”

it’s got to be the brain suck that is finals week…its just gotta….

The thing that got my goat in the article was the response that said that RWA “claims” to be an author advocate, but is not advocating for the contest-entering rights of this particular author.

Because contest entering is what it’s all about, folks. Not making sure authors make money as writers, not making sure writers don’t sign lousy contracts—entering *contests*.

Note to self.

Diana, that ticked me off, too.  What about all the other authors with books in the RITAs that will have to sit through the contest being disrupted? Is RWA okay for not advocating for them in order to please this twit?

There are two kinds of authors, the ones who use it as a job, who write so they can pay their house payment, etc., and those who write a book every now and then, get it published by an unheard of, microscopic or vanity press and set up shop playing important author.  This woman is clearly the latter.

Finally got the PW article to load. Do I understand that it’s now being stated the author never entered the chapter contests at all, and was told upon inquiry that her book was ineligible due to the rules?

If this is so, and I’m not reading the article and the statements incorrectly, then what was all this in yesterday’s thread about the book being entered, even making the finals before the mistake was caught?

And wouldn’t it seem logical for the reporter to perhaps check with some major publishing houses on the clauses in question rather than printing the statement of a lawyer whose involvement is never explained?

What I don’t get, especially reading the comments on the PW site, is why these people care so much about RWA policy. It’s obvious they consider the organization wrong-headed, elitist, unfair and so on. So why invest any time or interest in an organization you have so little respect for? You don’t need it.

RWA doesn’t take out ads in PW citing publishers which their policy defines as subsidy or vanity. Its policies are to inform their membership.

If the organization doesn’t suit you or serve you or satisfy you, there will be another that will.

I’m thinking this author is just seeking publicity.  Maybe she is hoping by making this “big stink” she will draw attention to herself and her e-book and get sales. 

Just a thought.

Oh sweet jesus on a stick.  I think I was four when my mom said “If they don’t want to play with you, find someone who will.  Now quit whining and go play in traffic.” 
Practical woman, my mother. 
Also, this whole scurfluffle is certainly fulfilling one definition of “vanity.”

Nora, I don’t know about the Yellow Rose contest, but with respect to the Gayle Wilson, they announced their finalists last week and Molly Noble Bull’s book is among the finalists for Inspirational.  It’s still up on the website, so I have no idea what set the kerfluffle off, if maybe she was allowed to enter one (and of course, finaled) but not the other and that’s what got her knickers in a twist.

Regardless, it all sounds as if it began with chapter contests which set their own standards for contests—why National got dragged into this is beyond me.  Unless, of course, it’s for one of two reasons: 1) National policies inform how the individual chapters’ policies are set or 2) it’s not quite as newsworthy and PW wouldn’t give a hang if it was just a couple of chapters versus the national organization that’s everyone’s favorite whipping girl these days.

(Spam checker word—deal77 *g*)

Just read some of the comments over at PW.  Love how some of the people who were over here last week trying to get answers are now twisting the information that was given to them, ad infinitum, and better still, ignoring the facts in favor of painting RWA as the bad guy.

Thanks, Barb. I think I’m just confused at this point because the article seemed to give another time line than the one I’d initially understood.

And yes, the commenters there have put a spin on information given and facts cited.

You know I got the impression that the author was trying to figure out why she might be eligible for one chapter contest and not another (I’m totally extrapolating here from what I’ve been reading in the articles) without understanding that each chapter set their contest guidelines independently.

I’m wondering if one of the chapters then said, “Well, we set our eligibility rules in accordance with Nationals’ policies and according to those, you’re not with an eligible publisher,” and then the author/publisher could have contacted National to see why.  That’s when the letter from National might have come into play because they said that according to their policies the press was considered a subsidy press and as such wouldn’t be eligible for RWA programs, including the RITA.

Again, lots of extrapolating, but it’s part of my little Virgo nature to try to put things in some sort of logical order.  It also frosts my little Virgo cookies to see such willful manipulation of facts as what’s going on in the PW comments.  I’ve started to comment over there and stopped, if only because they don’t want to hear anything remotely resembling an actual fact.  Besides, I’m just a tool of those eeeeeevil NY publishers and that eeeeeeevil, elitist RWA. 

*rolling eyes forever*

~It also frosts my little Virgo cookies to see such willful manipulation of facts as what’s going on in the PW comments. ~

It frosts my Libra ones, too. But then, also eeeeevil.

I’m a tool of neither, but the twitchy, thin-lipped distortion over there frosts my Libra cookies too.

First of all,w here is everyone else getting these cookies?

I agree with you Barb, that this is probably the way it went. I was discussing the issue with a non-writing friend the other day who is an executive at a national organization, and she was telling me that these kind of flare ups are extremely common whenever chapters/franchises are allowed to set their own policy.

No matter how many authors came on this thread and the last saying they have no clauses like that in their books, it’s still being repeated as fact.

Pass the cookies.

I was discussing the issue with a non-writing friend the other day who is an executive at a national organization, and she was telling me that these kind of flare ups are extremely common whenever chapters/franchises are allowed to set their own policy.

And this is why I keep sounding the “stick with the national policy position” horn whenever the chapter I’m president of has an issue. It’s just cleaner and easier to toe the party line and not cause everyone headaches by making up your own conflicting rules, IMO.

Oh, and how about I sue all those contests that have residency requirements (like you must live in a Southern state, or be from New Jersey, or be British). Talk about discrimination. *whine whine whine*

In my understanding, RWA national has no say over what chapter contests do, and such an action wouldn’t accomplish much.

Well, the chapter’s contest rules are clearly predicated on RWA’s definition of what constitutes a vanity or subsidy publisher. If RWA changed its opinion regarding Tsaba House’s status as a subsidy publisher, the author’s book would presumably be eligible for the chapter contest.

This is not a defense of Tsaba House by any mean, but it is factually incorrect to state that RWA has no say over the chapter’s contest rules. It was the RWA’s judgment that Tsaba House’s contracts render it a subsidy publisher that made the book ineligible for the chapter contest. And the chapter didn’t make that judgment; RWA National did.

This is not a defense of Tsaba House by any mean, but it is factually incorrect to state that RWA has no say over the chapter’s contest rules.

I don’t think that’s what the poster said, Jackie. I could make rules for “Diana’s contest” saying that I only consider books that are published by Harper Collins.

That doesn’t mean Harper Collins has a say over my contest rules. Same thing here. RWA has no say over whether or not the chapter chooses to use RWA definition in order to determine contest eligibility.

Ok, this is where I get a bit confuzzled. RWA is Mama organization… I have figured that much out :)

Are chapters (aka baby orgs) considered separate but equal entities, but must exist within parameters of mama org (sorta kinda like states)?

Or are they separate and bound in name and mutual interest only (sorta kinda like the EU)?

Just out of curiosity really… but i’m trying to figure out how it all works.

I don’t think that’s what the poster said, Jackie. I could make rules for “Diana’s contest” saying that I only consider books that are published by Harper Collins.

That doesn’t mean Harper Collins has a say over my contest rules. Same thing here. RWA has no say over whether or not the chapter chooses to use RWA definition in order to determine contest eligibility.

Hmmm, I think that’s kinda splitting semantic hairs. It’s true that the chapter has the option to ignore RWA’s criteria for defining which publishers’ books are eligible. But it’s also true that ONLY RWA has the authority to determine Tsaba House’s status, so in seeking redress, going to the chapter makes no sense. The chapter just says, “If RWA says you’re eligible, you’re eligible.” Ergo, the only place for the author/publisher to ask for a change of status is at the national level.

The difference between “Diana’s contest” and this situation is that it’s abundantly clear which books are published by Harper Collins. It’s obviously less clear whether a publisher is a vanity/subsidy press—obviously, Tsaba House didn’t think it was one under its reading of RWA’s policy. I’m not taking a position here on whether it is or isn’t or whose interpretation is right or wrong, only that it’s clearly possible for an author and/or publisher to run afoul of the policy without being aware of it. Whereas I doubt any author published by Pocket or Berkley would be confused as to whether she qualified to enter the Harper Collins contest :D.

Kismet, I’m not sure either of those analogies really match up to how RWA is organized (and both options share many similarities, like some laws that have to be obeyed in ALL member countries/states, and some areas of the law that each member is free to set for themselves; so maybe both work in a way).

Chapters are either geographic or interest based (for example, I’m a member of my “local” chapter, San Francisco Bay Area, and several special interest chapters: The Beau Monde [Regency writers], PASIC [published authors], and The Golden Network [former Golden Heart Contest finalists]).

There are some national rules that all chapters must abide by, and others that function more like guidelines, but have some wiggle room. Who is considered “published” (aka PAN), for example, has some wiggle room in my experience. At the national level, there is a clearly laid out criteria. Being a PAN member at the national level means you can be on the national PAN loops, you get to attend the PAN workshops at the national conference, etc. My chapters each treat the issue in their own way. They do what works for them. Some adhere to the national definition (aka, show us that you’re a PAN member of RWA, and we’ll count you as a PAN member of the chapter), others go the simpler rout of allowing anyone who is published, no matter who their publisher is, to be treated as a PAN member for local purposes (like having a do-hickey on their name badge at meetings, or being able to advertise their book on the chapter website).

This probably doesn’t make things any clearer to you, but it’s not a simple, easy org to understand.

Thank you, Kalen. I know the analogy was bad, but it was the only way I could start to wrap my mind around the whole thing. I appreciate the information, this all makes a little more sense to me now :)

The last comment on the PW site cracked me. I couldn’t help it. The poster state that RWA is using their policies as excuse to bar small press, which is bull as several who judged stated they’d received small press books in their packages.

But what cracked me was the claim that publisher demand near perfect mss—even ‘the big six’ as she termed it. So authors have to hire free-lance editors.

Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks.

A writer is certainly free to hire free-lance, or engage a book doctor, or any outside help she likes. But HAS to? I never have, and I know an awful lot of writers who never have.

Where are these people getting their information? And why do they think it’s gospel?

Aw, Nora, you made me go look again.  :-P

Yeah, these people are definitely getting hold of the funny mushrooms and they’re not sharing.  Perhaps we should sue?

I love the comment that came after yours.  RWA is coming close to slander.  And apology won’t do it, but maybe, if done sweetly and loudly, Tsaba will accept.

WTF??

I keep running into baby writers who think David Poynter is a godlike authority on publishing, and I keep wondering how they get that idea.