It had to happen, of course.
There are apparently rumblings and murmurings about how the RITA awards ceremony fiasco shouldn’t have been publicized. That it shouldn’t have been discussed outside RWA loops, and that there’s no point in determining who wrote the script, and who gave it the greenlight so proper blame can be assigned.
My first thought was: y’know, this was a big ceremony with hundreds and hundreds of attendees, not all of whom were RWA members. Get a grip.
My second thought was: it’s almost always best to have things out in the open and publicly discussed. A lot of shit gets flung this way, but when it’s in the open, you can at least see the shit coming and duck. Or toss the shit back. Or whatever. Hot damn, this metaphor is HORRIBLE, but I hope y’all get what I’m trying to say.
Ah well. For Selah, who broke the story on Tuesday, massive props to you, lady.
For those of you who are curious, here’s the original discussion of the topic—the comments are where all the real juicy bits are.
“That it shouldn’t have been discussed outside RWA loops, and that there’s no point in determining who wrote the script, and who gave it the greenlight so proper blame can be assigned.”
Now’s when my cynical side shows up. Exactly who is so disturbed about the fiasco becoming more widely known and thus, justifiably, criticized? And for what purpose would she/they want this knowledge swept under the carpet? I’ll just say I have my suspicions and leave it at that.
Exactly who is so disturbed about the fiasco becoming more widely known and thus, justifiably, criticized?
Heg-zackly.
*raises brow meaningfully*
If they hadn’t done something tactless and awful, they wouldn’t care about it being discussed in the open, now would they? This just tells me that they know they f&*$ed up, but they don’t want to take responsibility for it.
And here’s something else: there are certain things about the RWA that the organization justly should keep to itself to protect its members. A public awards ceremony and efforts to censor romances that don’t fit in the BOD’s white-picket-fence view of the world do not fall into that category.
If the RWA wants to try to dictate what romance should be, they need to be able to stand up to public scrutiny. Hell, even if they don’t want to try to dictate what romance should be, the BOD and the organization itself are responsible for standing up to public scrutiny to retain the confidence of the members, whether dues-paying or potential members.
Last but not least, the damage has already been done, and all this frantic buck-passing and lack of taking responsibility is only damaging the RWA’s credibility more. (As if that was possible.)
*steps down off soapbox* Ah, excuse me. Don’t know what came over me there. Must have been a sudden attack of choler.
Thought you might be interested in Jennifer Crusie’s comments about writers organizations over on her Blog
Has anyone ever noticed the irony inherent in the way women deal with each other in group situations? We talk about how cooperative and naturally nurturing and group-oriented women are, but in certain circumstances, I think we’re uglier to each other than men are in general, let alone toward women.
Crusie talks in her blog about women wanting to be seen as “nice girls,” and refusing to rock the boat, which is certainly true. Yet there are also situations in which that moniker can be used like a pole-axe to keep other women in line. And that’s just not nice. And as Selah March and many others have made clear, sometimes nice girls DO tell.
Anyway, I’m just wondering what’s being said to Nora Roberts, who, as far as I can tell, was one of the first people to make a public statement about the awards ceremony. Or how about the Bravo crew filming the event?
If I weren’t a Crusie fangirl already, I would be after reading this.
Note to self: remember to post Crusie blog link to sidebar and pray pray pray she updates regularly because NO NEW BOOK UNTIL SPRING? Waaaaaaah.
Yep. I’m with the rest of you. This complaint doesn’t pass the bullshit meter.
The folks who planned that show and let it happen in front of TV cameras?
They deserve whatever spotlight we can put them in now, and every bit of our anger and disgust.
Now they need to own up, apologize, show exactly how they’re gonna make sure this can’t ever happen again, and then apologize some more. And then resign.
I’m too angry about this blatent, political showcase of *somebody*s right-wing religious, republican, bigoted, misogynistic views pushed down the throat of the RWA.
Plus, we PAID for the thing.
Yep, I’m FURIOUS. I’m looking for public apologies and resignations here, what about the rest of you?
Screw being a Nice Girl. They don’t have any fun. You can be polite and critical *ahem* and still be termed a Raging Bitch. *double ahem* So I embrace my bitchiness and continue being critical.
I wanted a resignation after the Graphical Standards affair. At the very least, I wanted apologies. I wanted a little blushing and some shame-facedness and a little “You know, we messed up, we’ll try our best not to do it again.”
Maybe accompanied by a Payless shoe-clad toe pushing some dirt around with maybe a hint of sincerity.
What we got was an arrogant “You just don’t understand how hard this is and what our position is.”
Yeah? Well, I’ve got multiple degrees, an IQ higher than a cabbage, and I’m in a field where a little something known as communication is paramount. I’m also known as a pretty snappy dresser, so explain it to me.
Never got it. And got two more hellacious scandals to boot presented with even more defiance and arrogance. How ‘bout them apples?
But again, I give the President-elect credit. She’s the one who had the gumption to stand up and say, “We screwed up. We want you to help us figure out how we can keep that from happening again.”
I’ve already volunteered.
Barb
All hail the Goddess Ferrer. No kidding, people—she’s the SHIT. Talks the talk, then walks the walk in STILETTOS.
BARB FERRER FOR RWA PRESIDENT IN 2007!
*ducks incoming Manolo*
Ignore the crazy woman behind the curtain.
*Keeps Manolos firmly on feet*
Honey, I’m nuts, but not that nuts. I hugely respect anyone who takes that job on with the best of intentions towards serving the needs of the organization. Me? I’d wind up getting mad at someone and wind up in orange with side seam pockets and you know me and orange… not such a good color combo. 😛
Discussing it makes sure that it won’t happen again. The majority of people who wouldn’t want it discussed, I’d think, would be those people who had some stake in the proceedings and are resenting having their (or a friend’s) feet held to the fire.
Yeah, it makes us look dumb, but I’d rather look dumb and have the organization survive. Because it’s a good organization and does a lot for its members. We just need to be sure nothing like this happens again.
Really, though, you’d think after the first two fiascos of this regime, “they” would have learned their lesson. I guess some people enjoy getting hammered, publicly, repeatedly.
And ya know, really, this is like the elephant in the dining room. Really hard to ignore and impossible to keep under wraps.
Okay, gotta be devil’s advocate here. I believe the attempt to squash discussion about what happened with the awards ceremony wasn’t designed to stop it within RWA – just in public venues, with non-RWA members. Yeah, the whole damn thing is a train wreck – and just as the cops do at a train wreck, trying to keep the general public from hanging around and watching the aftermath, I think the RWA members who’re trying to figure out what happened would like to keep it within the organization. It’s a shame that 9400 members and a great organization that’s done awesome things for the romance genre is now reduced to a bunch of blithering idiots.
Not true – not at all. But that’s the way it looks. It’s all about the image, and some people feel that public venues like blogs aren’t the place to hash it out.
But it’s a free country, and if people wanna talk, they’re gonna talk. It’s too late to stop it – and now the only thing to do is weather the storm.
Me, I threw my name in the hat to run for the board next year. I actually did that last year, and lost to a woman who just resigned. It’s official – I’m into masochism.
Stef
Whaa?? Okay, it was definitley inappropriate, distasteful, stupid, and boring, to say the least.
But now it’s a bunch of evil-racist-christian republicans trying to push propoganda??
Is this a slight overreaction? Perhaps when we post we should not *assume* that everyone here is on board with flame-throwing and bashing christians and republicans.
YIKES.
Jeez, don’t you read the blogs?? The truth is all over! RWA’s the wellspring of right-wing, religious, republican, bigoted, misogynistic racists with an agenda to get rid of anybody like they are, especially anybody with the temerity to include curse words and explicit sex in their books. They have been for a while now.
Unless, of course, you take stuff you see in blogs with a grain of salt. Or a shaker. And considering the blogosphere lately, a shot of tequila. And a lemon. And then you can chase your tequila with cheap beer. And more tequila, because cheap beer is nasty, people. And by the time you’re done with that, you really don’t care because you can’t focus on the words in the blogs anyway.
Ok, ok, generalize much, me? Yeah. Fun, though.
There’s a statement out there from the board that I don’t know how much it can get forwarded—it may mean just forwarded to RWA lists, but give it a minute and it will be all over anyway. The statement I got, though, is a whole lot of the board saying in essence, “None of this was our idea and we’re going to keep digging until we find out, definitively, whose it was. And then it will never happen again.”
You know, at the end of the day RWA is a really good organization. And a lot of people are coming out of all differnt parts of the woodwork, fire extinguishers in hand, ready to get to work. Get popcorn, too, because I think there’s going to be some fireworks before this is all over.
my goodness girls, don’t you know you’re not supposed to air your dirty laundry in public?
: )
….but seriously though, whether the actual ceremony was private or not, it was an awards ceremony for awards that the organisation itself loves to advertise.
It’s not like this was just the keynote speaker that kicked off the conference or something, this was the way in which they presented awards that are meant to be very public. Whether the actual ceremony was open to the public or not, at best they can argue that it was a semi-private presentation of very public awards.
I’m not a member of the RWA, but I read Romance, and while one (or two) screw ups aren’t going to make me pay any less attention to their reviews, I the overall goals and tone of the organisation are and should.
I don’t think that the situation is anything like police at a train wreck. No one’s trying to save lives or protect evidence here, and lack of transparency in any governing body is suspicious.
I agree, lack of transperancy is suspicious, but to whom? To me, it’s only relevant to the dues paying members of RWA. Why, to be perfectly blunt, is this anyone’s business who isn’t a member of RWA? Okay, the awards ceremony is public – whale away at that. But the administrative questions being asked within the organization – how does that affect anyone who isn’t a member?
And you’re absolutely right – this isn’t anything like a train wreck. What it’s like is a very bad public relations fiasco for RWA, and whatever went wrong needs to be addressed. But why would we want to do that in a public venue? I think that’s what the people who requested the bloggers to lighten up a bit were getting at.
Stef
Whaa?? Okay, it was definitley inappropriate, distasteful, stupid, and boring, to say the least.
But now it’s a bunch of evil-racist-christian republicans trying to push propoganda??
OK, I’m going to pipe up here:
Wasn’t there, so I can’t say for sure what happened. But based on descriptions of what went on (the few women to be showcased prominently were Lorena Bobbit, Monica Lewinsky and Princess Di, OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson were the only two black people given significant airtime, the mockery of Clinton while not making a peep about scandals related to Republican administrations like Iran-Contra, Enron, etc.) there was a definite lean towards Republican, white-racist and misogynist values.
Was everything intentional in that video? Frankly, I doubt the racist and misogynist undertones were intentional; it sounded like they went for sensationalistic, and unfortunately it turned out that way. The somewhat preferential treatment towards Republican presidents, though? Hmm.
Now, am I saying ALL Republicans are misogynist and racist?
Not even close. People of all stripes and from all political leanings can be these things. I’ve met black Muslim Democrats, white atheist Libertarians, and just about every other combination of color, religion and political party you can think of who were either or both.
“RWA Member” is saying that it’s a specific person’s Republican, racist, misogynist, bigoted agenda (not sure where she got the Christian overtones from, because from what I heard there’s nothing to indicate religious bias during the ceremony). And that I think is a more-or-less acceptable statement to make.
If she said “Those damn Republicans are taking over our party with their misogynist propaganda!”—now THAT I would take issue with.
I’d also take issue with people who make statements like “White Christian Republicans must’ve liked that ceremony!” because it also assumes a buncha things about a large, diverse group of people.
Her statement, as it stands, is a reasonable, if somewhat charged, argument because it focuses on the individual.
Jeez, don’t you read the blogs?? The truth is all over! RWA’s the wellspring of right-wing, religious, republican, bigoted, misogynistic racists with an agenda to get rid of anybody like they are, especially anybody with the temerity to include curse words and explicit sex in their books. They have been for a while now.
Oh, please. Few people are making this claim; most of the beefs I’ve seen have to do with the current BoD. Unfortunately, people have been using “RWA” as shorthand for “current RWA BoD.” I was one of them, and now I’m constantly catching myself.
To me, it’s only relevant to the dues paying members of RWA. Why, to be perfectly blunt, is this anyone’s business who isn’t a member of RWA? Okay, the awards ceremony is public – whale away at that. But the administrative questions being asked within the organization – how does that affect anyone who isn’t a member?
Because at some point, some stories become public interest stories. OK, not PUBLIC public interest like, say, the US Savings & Loan scandal, which involved taxpayer dollars. But this affected a lot of different people, and at some point it’ll become of interest to those who aren’t in the RWA.
I also believe in the salubrious effects of shame for organizations and corporations. If something egregiously bad happens, having all of us perform a collective Nelson Muntz by pointing and going “HA-HAA!” lets the organization know that a) they’re being watched, and b) if they’re going to be fucktards AGAIN, then a whole lot more than just the members of the organization are going to be pointing and ha-ha’ing.
Does that make any sense to you?
For me, I’ll cheerfully admit it boils down to this: I’m a gossip whore. I’ve been out of the loop for quite a few years, and the year I choose to jump back into the on-line Romance community, a whole buncha delicious scandals erupt. Am I sorry there have been so many cock-ups? Yeah. But hot damn, it makes for some really interesting blogging.
As for the Republican thing—this has been mentioned, but for reinforcement: not many in house Republicans were happy, either. A woman at my table is a conservative individual, and while the Bush highlights didn’t bother her, the “Life is So Tragic” theme really, really did.
Y’all. Y’ALL. I’m going to prenatal yoga to meditate on the divine magnificence that is Jenny Crusie. She totally called it: we need to stop playing nice, and start playing smart and fair. And being able to say, “No, that’s not best for the group” when someone has their head in the sand and refuses to accept that other people disagree with her reality, is key to making sure crap like this doesn’t insult the membership.
What do you think voter turnout will be in the next RWA election?
Oh, and the “this never should have been discussed outside RWA loops?”
Bullshit. First off, smarten up. If you didn’t know that anything you write in an email or otherwise could be forwarded hither and yon, and aren’t prepared to stand by your statement, private venue or otherwise, then don’t write it down.
Second, if it was a public event and people are talking about it, why the hell not should we discuss it openly? It’s the only way to combat the “Oh, it’s only a few members who are upset; most people liked it” response. No, it’s a lot of people, and no, most people hated it, and dang it, that ought not happen again, capice?
And third, who does it hurt if suddenly people know that there is dissention within the RWA? Do we have to appear as a 9000+ strong membership that is constantly united in all opinions? Please! How is it harmful for people to be discussing their disappointment and anger within the RWA?
Here’s the statement from part of the board—click on my name. It’s officially out on the loops, so you’ll be seeing this again everywhere.
>>If you didn’t know that anything you write in an email or otherwise could be forwarded hither and yon, and aren’t prepared to stand by your statement, private venue or otherwise, then don’t write it down.
The problem with this is, people don’t just forward and post without permission. They paraphrase. Spin. Slant. Which changes things.
For example, there’s no huge movement of people leaning on anybody who dares to post displeasure about the RWA ceremony or RWA in general on their blogs, at least not on the private RWA loops I have access to. There are a *couple* folks—and certainly not anybody speaking for the Board—who, like StefF says, “requested the bloggers to lighten up a bit”. Not shut up. One or two said they wished it had been kept inside RWA and dealt with therein, but they weren’t speaking for anybody but themselves. So things that begin one way get exaggerated, then the exaggerations get repeated, and eventually the exaggerations are the “truth”. There are aspects of the graphical standards poo-ness that reflect this, but I so am not getting back into that overflowing outhouse right now.
Is this unavoidable, even beneficial, because it’s human nature to create shirtstorms and shirtstorms get things done? Human nature to whip ourselves into a frenzy like a double mocha cappuchino, which I love, but frenzies rather leave me with a headache, unless they’re the “Oh My God Can You Believe This Sale” type frenzy. And frankly, I get a headache after those, too, but look at this bag of shoes!
Does my preference to avoid frenzy whipping mean I don’t get things done, don’t research the facts before believing everything I read on blogs, don’t volunteer, don’t attempt to right wrongs when I see them, both in and out of RWA?
Hell no. Bitch, those shoes were mine. In a very calm way, my pulse not even close to racing, I swiped them as soon as that other gal put them down.
I’ve posted the apology on my site this morning. Signed by what appears to be the full board minus the Prez.
“I agree, lack of transperancy is suspicious, but to whom? To me, it’s only relevant to the dues paying members of RWA. Why, to be perfectly blunt, is this anyone’s business who isn’t a member of RWA? Okay, the awards ceremony is public – whale away at that. But the administrative questions being asked within the organization – how does that affect anyone who isn’t a member?”
Well, if authors represent the primary membership and focus for the RWA, and Nora Roberts, an author and RWA member, makes a public statement about the ceremony, taking straight aim at the current RWA president, what does that mean?
I think that in the strictest and most literal sense you’ve got a strong point, Stef. But I also think that RWA and the Romance industry in general tries to cultivate a very close relationship (an imitation of friendship in some circumstances) between authors and readers. But if you cultivate this relationship in good times—to foster consumption of novels, to promote Romance, to breed author or genre loyalty—it’s very hard to erect certain partitions later on when things may not be as rosy. The fact that it was authors who issued the earliest statements about the debacle illustrates the powerful links from RWA to author and author to reader that IMO the RWA wants to exploit (and I’m not using this term negatively) when it serves certain purposes.
As a Romance reader, I may have no investment, or even “business” in determining how RWA should be governed, but I would like to think that the major organization established to promote Romance as a genre has the interests of the genre—of authors and readers, since our relationship is fundamentally symbiotic—at heart. At a core level, it makes me feel that the industry does have some self-consciousness and integrity. While I don’t choose the books I read based on the political views or affilitations of an author, it makes me feel kind of proud of Romance that so many authors have stood up and expressed their discomfort with what happened. And I’ve taken in the views of many different commentators, some of whom disagree vehemently. I may be alone in this, but I like it when those involved in an industry I patronize with my dollars and time actually discuss the nature and purpose of the genre and the structures in place to support it (and facilitate its monetary and artistic success). Because I may not have a primary or immediate interest in RWA, but indirectly, the RWA is always trying to cultivate my support as a reader and consumer, and as long as that’s the case, I’m an interested party, albeit somewhat removed.
And at the very least, the RWA has gotten some publicity over this, and not all of it is bad, especially when the president-elect signs a letter of apology along with BOD members. And maybe some people have been educated about what the RWA is, how it’s governed, and the difference between the RWA membership and individuals in charge of a certain event.
For example, there’s no huge movement of people leaning on anybody who dares to post displeasure about the RWA ceremony or RWA in general on their blogs, at least not on the private RWA loops I have access to.
Didn’t say there was. “Rumblings and murmurings” hardly qualifies as “huge movement”—unless my English is faulty, in which case, feel free to correct my usage.
The link I provided to Selah’s post also contains this sentence: “Lest I leave the impression that I’m being persecuted, my mail and blog comments are running about fifty to one in the “you go, girl” category.”
But maybe you’re talking about another website who’s blowing the dissension out of proportion?
At any rate, Robin articulated quite wonderfully why I think it’s a good idea to have issues out in the open. I need to shut up and just let her speak on my behalf 🙂 .
Yes, I just wanted to add to Candy’s remarks that I have not read on a single blog any implication that there was a wide-spread, co-ordinated movement to squash any dissention. If any spinning and slanting is being done, it is by those who came up with that in the first place.
Unless of course this and Selah’s blogs are not the one you’re referring to. Please, feel free to provide links.
I had this awesome post in mind where I was both witty and careful and had several links, but then I realized—frack it. I wanna go watch my TiVo’d Battlestar Galactica!
What it boils down to is I thought Selah’s entry, despite her denial of persecution, implied a statistically significant number of RWAites were actively chiding and name-calling her and bloggers like her. I said “widespread” and I should have said “large enough percentage to warrant likening RWA’s membership to child molesters”. Mea culpa, I wasn’t specific enough. I saw the original RWA loops and disagreed with Selah her reaction was warranted, unless she’s on loops I’m not privy to.
As for RWA being rightwing et al, it’s been all over the blogs for months, starting with the graphical standards and erotic romance debate. Don’t have to look hard to find those comments, but pizza calls me much more strongly than surfing blogs.
“At any rate, Robin articulated quite wonderfully why I think it’s a good idea to have issues out in the open. I need to shut up and just let her speak on my behalf.”
Oh, you’ve gotta know how dangerous a statement like that is!
This whole thing makes me very glad I didn’t spend the $$ and hours to travel to Reno. (Is there anywhere more than 200 miles from the place with a frickin’ direct flight???)
What escapes me is why anyone even attempted to work with what the hired firm had produced. That’s like fixing shitty code, which is a Bad Idea. I’m sure there would have been grumbling if the PTB had ditched the multimedia show, scripted presentation of the awards, handed them out without fanfare or cute-ass jokes/songs/video and called it a night—but far less grumbling than there is now. What a concept, placing the focus of the show squarely on the award recipients!
Of course, I am convinced and no one will talk me out of it that, had the BoD not had to spend so much time dealing with the fallout of their Graphical Standards sneak-edict, someone would have had time to review the program and headed it off before it reached Reno.
I swear, there is some kind of radioactive shit given to incoming RWA BoD members that, like that stuff that destroys thyroids, homes in on common sense and eradicates it with a barely-discernable POUF! Leaving them paranoid and prone to initiating bizarre crackdowns on anything that catches their eye. No way would I ever run for the BoD—but if I did, I’d damned sure have a taster check out all food and drink from when I first agreed to run through my entire term.
What I don’t get is why a Writer’s Association hires out such a presentation in the first place. We’re creative, dangit. I bet there would have been someone among the members able to write a speech, someone to check any archives for interesting and fun RWA tidbits, someone skilled in making a video out of pics from former meetings, movies and stuff, a lawyer to make sure none of the movie clips was copyright infringement, and someone to mix or even compose some good music. Heck, the Creative Arts class of my 14 year old nephew could have done something that would have been more fun than what was shown. 🙂
What it boils down to is I thought Selah’s entry, despite her denial of persecution, implied a statistically significant number of RWAites were actively chiding and name-calling her and bloggers like her. I said “widespread†and I should have said “large enough percentage to warrant likening RWA’s membership to child molestersâ€.
I suppose I should take comfort in the fact that you’re the first person to (openly) accuse me of comparing certain members of the RWA leadership with pedophiles.
I also suppose I shouldn’t bother to explain that I referenced that particular life experience to illustrate why I no longer play like a “nice” girl (head down, mouth shut, hands folded neatly in lap), and in no way meant to liken ANYONE to a child molester. Having survived such an experience, you can pretty much bet your ass I know the difference.
Either you don’t understand the subtle distinction, or you don’t care enough to try.
So I’ll simply say this: Pppppbbbbbbbbbbbbfffffffffffffffttttt.
*gasp* Not share with non-RWA members? But then what would I do for entertainment in my otherwise boring life, if not watching the train-wreck that’s been perpetuated this past year.
I’d have to pretend that it’s my dream to write a book and actually pay RWA dues or something. Of course, I do pay for movie channels that I don’t watch so I guess I could give those up and join the RWA instead.
Oh, and I’ll apologize now for my irreverant sense of humor because someone is sure to take offense. But honestly, one reason I think that it SHOULD be shared outside the RWA (besides my love of good gossip) is that there are still writers and authors out there who don’t belong to the RWA. Don’t they deserve to know how an organization that clearly represents their industry is…well…representing their industry? And what about those who wonder if it’s worth it to pay the dues and join? Shouldn’t they know the good and the bad?
I can already foresee someone answering me with the answer that only “the bad” has been publicized lately. And that’s true, probably because people eat this shit up (as I’ve already admitted). But I guess I haven’t really noticed a lot of RWA members jumping up to blog and post about the positives of the association. It could be I’m just missing those blogs, since bad news travels faster.
Gah.
I said “widespread†and I should have said “large enough percentage to warrant likening RWA’s membership to child molestersâ€.
Jesus fucking… Ellie, for someone who keeps making noise about spin and distortion, you’re doing more than your fair share of both.
Either that, or remedial reading comprehension courses are called for.
Oh, you’ve gotta know how dangerous a statement like that is!
Oh, I love to live on the edge, Robin.
No one blogs about the good things RWA does because good news is boring. It’s the same reason CNN doesn’t report feel good stuff. Bombings and murders and disappearing people are so much more interesting.
The conference was one of the best I’ve ever been to. And I’ve been to 7 of them. The awards was the worst I’ve ever seen, but those 4 hours were a small part of a three day conference.
I didn’t go for the awards ceremony. I went to see old friends, and learn more about my craft and schmooze with publishing people. I also went to have some down time without my family, have some cocktails and talk about romance and sex and general bullshit with like-minded women.
It was fun. The food was good. I actually put on make-up and heels.
I had lunch with my editor. And I did mucho schmoozing. Made some new, awesome friends.
Don’t let this keep anyone from going in the future. Trust me – the conference isn’t about the awards. That’s icing on the cake (unless you’re a finalist, in which case it’s the whole focus because it’s nerve-wracking). This year, the icing was laced with something foul, but that’s not the usual fare.
Stef
I dunno about that, Stef. I may be Critical Girl, but I do blog about the good stuff RWA and RWA members do to support their own. Like the Literary Chicks organzing the fund-raising efforts for Marianne Mancusi. All three of those ladies are RWA members and most everyone donating and helping out with the auction is involved with RWA in some way.
Thing is, Stef, this was the last impression most of us went away with from the conference. Yes, it was a fantastic conference. Personally and professionally, it was something I’ll never forget. But as much as first impressions count, so do last impressions. And this one just flat-out sucked. Especially when you take into account the hoopla surrounding the whole “Twenty-fifth Anniversary” and “black tie” commentary in the weeks preceding the conference.
When expectations are raised that high and not only are they not met, but are completely bitchslapped, it’s not surprising that the backlash would be even greater.
Or maybe it’s just me.
No, Barb, it’s definitely not just you. (I woulda italicized ‘definitely’, but I’m techno-challenged and have no clue how to do that.) I’d guess at least 99.99% of every man and woman who walked out of that theatre felt the same way. That .01% was my husband, who thought it was, “Okay. But it was kinda long, wasn’t it?” First one for him, so he had nothing to compare it to. I finaled 3 times in the GH and he never came – this one, he did. Bummer, because this one was so long, boring, and well, just icky.
Anyway, I totally get your point, and I’m not one to say what’s on blogs because other than this one, and once or twice a week, Romancing the Blog, I don’t read blogs. Too addictive – and I don’t have time for another addiction. Hell, I’ve got a blog, and there are a total of 3 entries on it – and 2 of those are just photos. I was only responding to another post somewhere up the line that said something about RWA never getting any good things said about it.
Good on you for talking about Marianne on your blog. God, what a nightmare for her, and how lucky she is to have such good friends who’re trying to help her out.
I’m really not good at comments. never can say exactly what I mean – wonder what that says about me as a writer? Ha!
But I’m real good at lurking.
Which I shall now return to doing.
Later-
Stef