Since we SB’s haven’t had the wherewithal (or, in my case, enough sleep!) to arrange our attendance at the RWA National Conference, we’ve had to rely on second-hand reports of what happens at this monster romance event. This year, we heard nothing but fabulous reports and raves about everything, from the RITA ceremony to some of the sessions.
This is quite a contrast from last year, when the scandal was blog-fodder for a good long time, and, to be honest, surprised a lot of people, including me. I’m an RWA member and have been for years (I volunteer for them, in fact) and have never encountered before the visible shift to the far-far-right that occured during the term of the last president.
Seems Laurie Likes Books had a fantastic conference experience, AND got some detailed information about what went on behind the already behind-the-scenes stories from last year.
Her writeup of the conference is very interesting, and well worth reading if you’re interested in attending RWA National – but particularly of note are these last paragraphs:
I had several impromptu get-togethers during RWA with authors who saw me wandering around, and one was entirely on background, with an RWA board member who felt the need to give her side of the story as regards last summer’s graphical standards/Romantica and RITA issues. Both are related to the stormy RWA presidency of Tara Taylor Quinn. According to my source, Quinn was asked to resign by every single board member for lying and trying to force a personal agenda on the organization. The un-named board member indicated that Quinn lied to them about the advice given to her from RWA’s lawyers on the graphical standards issue, which should only have applied to the RWA newsletter, and not to anything else. As for going to the general membership for input on how broadly or narrowly to define “romance novel,” this board member assured me that censorship was never the goal; instead it was leverage to be used against any narrowing of the definition by Quinn. Another complaint by this board member – also apparently shared by others on the board, who cannot speak as a group against Quinn under threat of a lawsuit – is that last year’s RITA ceremony debacle was entirely out of their control. According to my source, Quinn hijacked control of the ceremony’s script even though another RWA member had been given that responsibility, and refused to share with the board the script until the whole thing blew up in all their faces the night of the RITAs.
All that said, I did not go to Tara Taylor Quinn for comment, so the allegations of this RWA board member are just that. I include them because there was, is, and continues to be – particularly on blog sites – the view that RWA acts as a conservative monolith. This board member went out of her way to talk to me about this so that authors and readers alike would understand that the actions during Quinn’s presidency did not represent the board as a whole and that they were embarrassed and frustrated by her deceit, but could not speak out against her not only because of RWA guidelines, but because she threatened to sue them if they did.
Always telling in the aftermath when the interests of a powerful few overpower the disparate interests of the larger majority. From the recent demands from Jan Butler that ask RWA to amend its standards to align with her homophobic discriminatory view to the bizarre evening that was the 2005 RITA awards, certainly the claim could be made that the RWA is publicly rife with many, many conservatives. And perhaps that claim continues because of trends such as the rift between the erotica and the inspirationals writers, (although I can’t understand why, because both invoke the name of God at crucial moments). But bottom line, I’ve rarely ever encountered RWA as a whole, or the authors therein, agreeing with these exclusionary statements from the loud but few. Judging by the comments here and on other sites regarding both events, most people disagree, and disagree vehemently.
So it’s a relief to know that while it seemed to be heading to a more conservative definition of romance, RWA isn’t really. It might have looked that way for a moment, but thankfully, level heads are behind the wheel, and in the membership.
>>. It might have looked that way for a moment, but thankfully, level heads are behind the wheel, and in the membership. <<
I’ve always suspected that was the case, based on the RWA members and officers I’ve known over the past 10 years. I wasn’t at this year’s nationals, but I’m glad to see word is getting out about the true goals and attitudes of the organization and its membership.
The important thing to remember is, the reign of terror that was TTQ’s presidency is o-VAH! Hey, if the RWA board managed to convince Nora to come back again, they must have done something right. (Preparation H for lip gloss, anybody?)
I am always a little taken aback by how readily people give in if they are threatened with a lawsuit. Especially one like this.
If the board members are really united in their memory of what happened, and they have documentation, they have nothing to fear from Quinn. She cannot sue them for speaking the truth, no matter how detrimental those truths might be to herself, her reputation and career.
And perhaps that claim continues because of trends such as the rift between the erotica and the inspirationals writers, (although I can’t understand why, because both invoke the name of God at crucial moments).
I don’t get it either, but it certainly exists. And it’s not just the erotica/romantica writers the inspies don’t like. They don’t seem too fond of us middle of the road single title gals either.
At the first lunch in Atlanta I arrived late and had to squeeze in to a table where I knew no one. One of the women glanced at my badge, saw my FIRST SALE ribbon, and cooed, “Oh, what did you sell?†I said, “A sexy Georgian historical to Zebra.†A wall of ice erupted around the table like Superman’s secret fortress. Frostbite city. They pointedly ignored me for the rest of the meal. Talk about unchristian behavior.
And I had almost this exact experience in Reno, too (though luckily I had a friend with me that day so it was two of us getting the cold shoulder).
I’ve asked several Inspirational writers I know personally what’s up with that and they have no idea. But then one of them says she catches flack from her own crowd for not being “godly enough†in her plots. *roll eyes* And she’s a freaken RITA winner.
Correction: she can try to sue them. She can file a lawsuit, but if she’s got a decent lawyer s/he will make it clear that it’s a no win proposition if the defendants can back up their claims.
If she pushes it far enough and hard enough, she might even end up paying the defendants’ court costs. All assuming (1) the statements the defedants are being sued about are true; and (2) the law functions the way it should.
I am always a little taken aback by how readily people give in if they are threatened with a lawsuit. Especially one like this.
If the board members are really united in their memory of what happened, and they have documentation, they have nothing to fear from Quinn. She cannot sue them for speaking the truth, no matter how detrimental those truths might be to herself, her reputation and career.
Although I have also found that it’s difficult to get people to speak out, even when they ARE speaking the truth, about a controversial subject that might bring them into direct conflict with someone else. So whether or not a lawsuit has really been threatened, such a comment can serve as an effective demurrer, and also allows for some information to be dropped but not enough for the speaker to drop into the fying pan. Since I don’t know the true circumstances in this case, I don’t know what Quinn does or doesn’t have by way of litigious ambitions, but regardless, it’s certainly a drag to have to defend yourself even against an apparently unmeritorious suit.
In general, though, I think there’s a reluctance to engage in direct controversial conversation in the Romance community. I know a lot of us were offended by what Jan Butler had to say, but damn, at least she said it out loud and direct instead of just whispering behind someone’s back. That whole fiasco with J. Wallace and co. a few weeks ago made (to me, at least) certain aspects of the authorial/editing community sound like a high school lunch room.
Thank you for posting this, Bitches.
I’m occasionally asked why, if I hold such a low opinion of the RWA, I continue to re-up my membership every year. I answer the same way I answer people who ask me why, if I’m such a Godless, pinko-Commie, queer-loving, patriot-baiting terrorist sympathizer (read: liberal Democrat), I don’t just pack my bags and find a another country to call home.
It’s not the organization/nation that I have a problem with, it’s the people running it, and I can’t make a damned bit of difference about that from the outside looking in.
Selah, from one moderate Democrat to a liberal one, I glad you stay with it—and you’re right about not being to change things from the outside looking in. That’s why I sent my renewal in today.
After being a member for most of the last 14 years, I have to say that most of the members I have had contact with have been supportive and pleasant. There’s been your ordinary garden-variety bitches, of course, but there are those in any group. The ones that truly drive me crazy and make me despair for the over-all intelligence of the human race has been amazingly small, no matter which end of the spectrum they’re on.
Just wanted to add…though I’m not sure why…that I had a friend many moons ago who wrote category romance and historical romance. She was a wonderful, supportive published author to this newbie. Then she found religion, so to speak. She’d moved away, but I was happy for her success as an inspirational writer. Different strokes, you know? However, I have to say that since I sold to Temptation and Blaze, this once good friend completely ignores me. I’ve emailed her several times with no reply. We haven’t met up in person since then, but I’m glad because I really don’t feel like being snubbed.
I do know some wonderful Inspirational writers who aren’t so wrapped up in their own personal beliefs that they feel they have to lord over others. I also know one Inspirational writer who also writes for Blaze under a different name (LOVE her.) But this one situation with the former friend really smarted and frankly, has only widens a gulf that in my opinion, doesn’t need to exist at all.
I can’t understand the table of inspirational writers giving the cold shoulder to Tonda at RWA because they’ve got to expect that most writers at National write sexier than they do. If they’re not prepared to deal with that, they should stick with Christian writers conferences.
FWIW, I’m a practicing Christian myself, though one who’d doubtless be condemned by those writers for writing stories with explicit sex scenes, many of them premarital. And I don’t make a habit of going around announcing my Christianity wherever I go, but every once in awhile I feel like I should speak up so people will know not all of us are like that!
Susanw, I feel the same way. Of course, as a Catholic, I know that I’m not considered “Christian” by a lot of people…to which I say a rousing pfffft. Anyway, I’m with you—if you can’t take the heat, go build your own kitchen. I don’t begrudge anyone else what they choose to write. Or read, for that matter.
The vast majority of romances have premarital sex and/or little-to-no direct mention of Christianity, so why do Inspirationals authors who seem to want nothing to do with ungodliness or premarital s-e-x stay in RWA?
Could it be that, as much as some ultra-conservative Inspie authors may disdain the worldly concerns of most RWA subject matter, they still need the power, resources and support of an organization that is larger than the one they could form on their own?
As they continue to enjoy the advantages conferred by membership in a nationwide organization, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that these authors show a little respect for the larger community of writers and readers that makes RWA possible.
Some of you may remember the brohaha at AAR about 4 years ago over comments past RWA president Robin Lee Hatcher, now an Inspirational author, made. In an article in her local newspaper (which happens to be mine as well) she was quoted as saying “women can develop addictions to the sexual fantasies in romance fiction, and that writing them seemed to her almost like serving a drink to an alcoholic.”
I wish the article was still available free on line (I’m not going to pay for it). IMHO it was a complete disvowing of her romance roots. But it also gives a view of at least how one Inspirational author feels.
I know after the whole thing became a big deal on AAR, Ms. Hatcher claimed she was misquoted. No retraction was ever made. And for my part, I read the article, not on the web, but in my morning paper. I was ballastic the rest of the day. (And no, I didn’t email Laurie at AAR with the article, only because someone else beat me to it).
<——always a rabble rouser
Ms. Hatcher is certainly within her rights to believe that, and to say it in public. Hell, she might even be right—there may well be a small percentage of the romance-reading population that DOES develop a psychological dependency on the sexual fantasies we cook up.
I don’t think it follows that we should quit writing them, any more than it follows that the alcohol industry should shut down because a percentage of the population is alcoholic, or that Haagen Daazs should go out of business because I have no willpower whatsoever.
Why is it that religious conservatives (and I’m making a HUGE generality here—not ALL conservatives think this way, but a lot seem to) are all for pushing “individual responsibility” when it comes to stuff like Welfare and other social programs designed to help the less advantaged, but don’t ever seem to trust the average woman to monitor her own sex life, even within the confines of her own head?
It’s interesting, Selah. But you’d be surprised at how many conservative Republicans are really social democrats. I was just chatting with some friends on the net. None of us had mentioned our politics. It came up today, all four of us, had the same views. Pro choice, pro gay rights Republicans. We’re out there, we just don’t get the press. 😉
Sandy
You’re right, Sandy. There are quite a few of us out there who are very embarrassed when the others get their say. No one ever asks us.
Sandy, I think its because the Fundies get all the press and money thrown at them.
Whenever anyone is surprised by my politics I just say I’m a Goldwater Republican. Always have been. Always will be. What the radical right seems to forget is that Barry Goldwater was an active supporter of the Civil Rights Movement, was in favor of Gay Rights and as for abortion. His wife was very active in Arizona Planned Parenthood.
As far as I can tell, it’s the loonies on both sides that get the press. All the rest of us sit there and wonder why nobody sane is on TV.
Bottom line for me is, why in bloody hell does anybody bother to join RWA in the first place? What exactly has it done to further your careers? My biggest concern right now is finding a recent (and affordable) copy of MS Word to replace the apparently useless WordPerfect program that came pre-installed on my computer. Why all this bullpucky infighting matters is WAY beyond me. Guess I’m just not a joiner.
Wry, first off—there is no infighting right now. RWA has been pleasantly peaceful and calm since the new board took over and hopefully, it will stay that way. This recent kerfuffle with Jan Butler has been pretty much on the blogosphere only—and she’s bringing up something that happened so long ago, most people probably don’t even remember what she’s talking about. From what I gather, the masses are resisting her call to controversy. So yeah!
As for what has RWA done to further my career? Quite a bit. I majored in Creative Writing at a large university, but frankly, I learned squat about most of the important craft issues. I learned the most in RWA workshops. I’ve learned amazing things about the business and most importantly, have made the most important friends in my life through RWA, either nationally or in my local chapter, which is the most amazing group of serious-minded, jealousy-free writers I’ve ever met. These women know what I’m going through on a daily basis and without them, I’d crumble into a heap.
The controversies that come up from time to time in RWA are par for the course when you have a huge group with often divergent ideas. When I weigh the positive against the negative, RWA wins every time. However, when the negative starts getting to me, I just put more time into NINC. (Novelists, Inc.) This group is much smaller and I’ve been a member for going on five years without a single controversy.
I belong to RWA and to its Midwest Fiction Writers chapter in Minnesota. I’ve found membership to be extremely useful. Perhaps the best thing of all is the camaraderie between the local writers—we are all very supportive of one another and those who’ve done very well often act as mentors for the rest of us. This group includes such authors as Lois Greiman, Susan Johnson, Kathleen Eagle, Michele Hauf, Christina Dodd, Connie Brockway, Tate Halloway, Betina Krahn and many others. We have all kinds of authors in our group, from Inspirational to Erotica. I have learned much valuable information and tips for dealing with editors and agents, plus insights into what the bigger publishing houses are looking for.
Considering all the crap that went on at the 2005 RWA, please know that I as a romantica author have never been treated with anything but the utmost respect. I write for Ellora’s Cave, which is very explicit and eyes open, everyone in MFW has welcomed me not only with open arms, but in also asking me to present a JOAN (Journey of a Novel) for one of my EC books.
What happened at RWA in 2006 was much more in tune with what the organization is about as a whole. What happened in 2005 was truly an aberration and not indicative of any of the experiences I’ve had with RWA. The fact that they had problems in 2005 was a measure of their naiveté in dealing with the sort of person who’d highjack an organization to push her own agenda. What happened in 2006 is a measure of how fast this organization can recover from such nonsense and its strength in its overall belief that it is vital they support a diverse membership.
I highly recommend RWA to any author who is serious about pursuing a career in writing romance.
“I don’t get it either, but it certainly exists. And it’s not just the erotica/romantica writers the inspies don’t like. They don’t seem too fond of us middle of the road single title gals either.”
I left RWA last year for a different reason, but when I was a member and inspie writer I completely supported the rights of my fellow writers to write vampire, erotica, whatever type of romance they liked.
I’ve signed books sitting next to these writers, with their steamy books displayed next to my “sweet” ones. Never bothered me a bit—every signing like this is an opportunity for me to get a new reader. One never knows : )
I’ll just second what Julie and Cynthia said re RWA. Last year was difficult on several levels, primarily due to a personal agenda. This agenda didn’t go over well with the majority of the membership.
I’ve been a member of RWA for 26 years. I expect I’d likely have my career without it, but I would have missed key and vital friendships, contacts, information, and a rather nice sense of community.
I’ve got my completed application on my desk, getting ready to fax it. Guess I’ll find out about this stuff for myself.
I’ve been an RWA member for going on 5 years. I find the support, camaraderie, friendships, and industry advice invaluable. I will remain a member even though I’m not currently writing romance.
I recently held a launch party for my book and there were many many of my friends from my local chapter there to support me. Some of them were women I’d never met in person (I’m now a ‘distance’ member.)
What happened last year was annoying, but it was small potatoes. Didn’t color my overall conference experience. People made a bigger deal out of it afterwards, IMO. Reno was one of the best conferences I went to.
I just heard about the current blogosphere “scandal” from a woman OUTSIDE the industry who wanted to know what was going on. A raving letter to the editor? Please. Who cares. Aren’t Letters to the Editor columns in newsletters just so folks who can’t make their point in any established forums have a place to rant about the moon being made of green cheese? It says right on the column that opinions in the letters don’t reflect the newsletter staff or the organization as a whole. LttE in every local paper in teh country are filled with rants and raves and long-held debates.
RWA is great. I love being a part of it, warts and all.
Hmm.
Unnamed source “Betty” briefing reputable, and well respected source on romance on ‘deep background” concerning board issues—issues that supposedly can’t see the light of day or the board would be ‘sued”.
Yeah. Right.
Normally, you would take this respected person at her reporting..but suspecting “Betty” is trading on this reporter’s reputation..you might try something else.
Actually calling deep “Betty’s” bluff and asking actual boardmembers if they voted to ask the National president of RWA to resign.
Hmm.
Guess what? This “deep background” event didn’t happen.
It’s not nice to burn respected romance board owners…“Betty” should know better.
Methinks there is problem with this deep “Betty” source.
Right, Susie Q. This “Deep Betty” has her own axe to grind, and her dark mutterings about some nefarious Svengali-like ability of an expresident somehow forcing the entire board (minus 1) to vote for that conservative graphical standards standard? Ha! We need to ask—“If you didn’t want those standards, why did you vote for them? Didn’t you discuss this at the board table and hammer out the whole policy? Didn’t you do this without consulting the membership? Are you really saying that your vote means nothing?”
The truth is, some on the board want to blame someone they don’t personally like (the former president) for their own votes—and that’s when the president can’t even vote (the pres does NOT get a vote in most RWA board decisions… so when the board votes 14-1 for conservative graphical standards, there are 14 people who aren’t the president who voted for that policy). Any boardmember who doesn’t think through a policy before voting, who doesn’t consider RWA’s benefit, who lets anyone else influence her to vote a way she disagrees with—frankly, she shouldn’t be on the board, and she sure shouldn’t be bragging about supposedly being “led” to a vote a whole year later.
I think the truth very likely is that this bomem voted the way she and the rest of the board thought right. Then when the membership protested, they changed their mind. What’s so terrible about that? Sure, they should’ve asked the membership first. But they responded to their constituents eventually. So why blame someone else? Is it so this bomem, for some PERSONAL AGENDA, can continue to vilify a woman who would like to return to private life? What’s up with that—bringing up a long-dead feud a year later? Maybe we need to ask the motives of this boardmember in secretly and anonymously slandering another RWA member. I personally know that she spoke untruths in that conversation (for one thing, the whole board did NOT ask for anyone’s resignation). Why would anyone give her any credibility at all?
And really, what do you think is her motive? Just to stir up trouble? To put the spotlight back on herself, however anonymously? You tell me. But that’s a question we should ask about any anonymous vilifier—why is she doing this? Most of us really do let go of grudges within a year.
According to LLB’s source, Quinn had apparently lied to the board about the legal implications of the graphical standards—which would certainly explain to me how so many were led to vote the way they did. Of course, LLB’s source could’ve been lying. But as explained, there’s no Svengali-like power at work, just good-old fashioned threat of litigation, which, let’s face it, is some powerful juju.
Also, I’m chuckling at how a couple of people posting under pseudonyms are impugning the integrity of an anonymous source. Let’s face it: nobody here has the balls to ‘fess up with their real names, and I can’t say as I’d blame them. However, until we know real names, I’m not sure we can assess true motives. You say nobody tried to force anybody to resign. Someobody else says otherwise. Who in the fuck knows? Nobody is more credible than the other at this point, from where I’m standing.
>You say nobody tried to force anybody to resign. Someobody else says otherwise. Who in the fuck knows? >>
Actually, I said: “(for one thing, the whole board did NOT ask for anyone’s resignation).”
That is true. The whole board did NOT ask for this. At least two boardmembers refused to do that. I would not dispute that SOME, or even MOST, boardmembers tried to force a resignation. But the boardmember said the entire board had done so, and that is demonstrably false.
>Nobody is more credible than the other at this point, from where I’m standing. >>
I agree. So why on earth is this boardmember’s version being presented without any attempt to get the other version? I’d just as soon see NO version as a one-sided and non-credible version. That’s why I say, consider the motivation here. Why is this boardmember after so long bringing this up again? The absolute truth, if it exists at all, can’t be known, especially after so long. So why present one version again? Not to get at the truth, because the truth can’t be ascertained. So what other reason could she have, given that the other person involved is NOT gossiping or insisting on broadcasting her own version?
That’s some tricksy wordplay, there, and I wish you’d provided that clarification up front.
I don’t know. Maybe because LLB couldn’t find anyone else to speak on the record to her about it, anonymously or otherwise? I have no idea. However, you’ve made your comments here, and that perspective is certainly welcome. If you feel super-strongly about it, you can certainly try posting at the messageboards at AAR, where there’s even more exposure, and where you can probably get an answer from LLB herself as to why other perspectives weren’t offered.
According to LLB’s source, Quinn had apparently lied to the board about the legal implications of the graphical standards—which would certainly explain to me how so many were led to vote the way they did.
**************************************
This is the part of “anon. board members” tale that just may amuse me the most.
Have you met the former President of RWA? This isn’t her style. If anything she’s too blunt. 🙂
When I asked my board rep at the time of the vote…why she,, the board rep, voted for the graphical standards issue…she didn’t blame the former National President. She blamed a poor explanation of legal facts by a staff member.
It’s interesting to me that this story is making the rounds now…so long after the actual fact.
What I don’t get is the need to blame their votes on someone who doesn’t have a vote.
When members of RWA were told graphic standards were need so that the RWR could continue to be availabe by regular us postal mail…they did research. (By going to the us postal service and asking.) And they found out graphic standards weren’t needed to deliver the RWR.
This is something any board member could do.
My question remains…why the need to vilify the former president of RWA at this late date?
What would be gained by this?
Wny not move foreward and concentrate on the new industry issues before the board?
Maybe national politics have made me cynical..;)…but when spin like this occurs it makes me wonder why.
Thanks for letting me post…even anonymously.
There’s always interesting discussion on this board.