The threads to the mondo-discussion in the previous entry that have caught my attention are: how would you revamp the RITA to solve your problems with it, and is there room for a reader-determined award, either from RWA or from another entity?
If readers are interested enough in the RITA and in the question of awarding the “best of” a year’s romance to titles they enjoyed, how do you accurately measure that? It seems to be as impossible as peer-judged awards.
Speaking solely on reader awards, we tried that last year with the BWAHA, a reader-nominated and reader-voted award. And based on our teeny-tiny sample, I have a feeling that word went out to more than one author’s rather rabid fanbase because two books got far and away more votes, and those votes were coming from email addresses and names I did not recognize as regular participants on our site. Plus, our referrals revealed more than a few links from those fanbase discussion boards. Coincidence? Hmm. And I don’t have a problem with fans awarding their favorite author. I just noticed the pattern.
If, for example, the SBTB BWAHA award (and really, I’m not proposing Candy and I start taking ourselves too seriously, here. I’m speaking purely in the hypothetical situation of trying to build a reader-determined award) voting was restricted to only SBTB members, then we’d be excluding those who participate regularly (and at length) but have not registered themselves with our site for whatever reason.
But if we leave it open, we run the risk of an author with an organized fanbase peppering the voting tally once the call goes out that Their Author is up for An Award. It becomes less of a competition between books and more of a competition between organized voter fanbases surrounding a particular author. And thus the judging process comes into question.
So really, how do we do it? And for that matter, how would the RWA do it, if a reader-driven award were to be added to the annual ceremony? Would that address the difference in opinions revealed in our comments? I don’t think so. I think it would create more problems than solutions. Moreover, there’s plenty of venues from which to gauge what readers think.
As for addressing changes to the RITA, first and foremost: there needs to be an erotica/romantica award, and there needs to be a gay/lesbian award. Period. I’ll volunteer right now to do whatever needs to be done, and to judge it, too, though I’m not a published writer (except for every time I hit “SUBMIT” on this here site). I’ll put my available time where my (big) mouth is.
But beyond that, how does one address the apparent disconnect between the RITA and the readers? Altering the categories? Changing the voting pool to include booksellers and others involved in the publication and marketing of a book, much like the Oscars® solicit consideration from various professions involved in the process of making and delivering a movie?
(I think it’s time for the comparison to the Oscars to stop, though the RWA makes the comparison on the page that describes the RITA so I doubt it will end soon.)
I’m looking for a logical place to start addressing why there are audibly dissatisfied readers grumbling about the quality of those books winning the RITA each year. There are enough of the grumbling folks, even here, that it seems a large issue. Add to that the fact that, as many have pointed out, the RITA does not garner the same attention or respect that other awards receive, from cover stickers to prominent bookseller reshelving, and it seems that there is room to ask, in practical terms, what to do? Certainly I’m not the first to ask that question.
My first preference would be for the criterion, or the judging rubric in general, to be made public. What are the guidelines used for judging the categories? Is it up to each judge, and is each judge expected to know what constitutes a good romance in that category? Is that a reasonable expectation? Apparently not.
Candy is right in her statement that readers, though not published authors, do understand the genre’s expectations and requirements and aren’t necessarily “outsiders.”
If readers’ understanding of those genre standards is markedly different the standards revealed by the RITA-winning books, then then somewhere inside the chasm between them is a potential answer to a good many of our questions. Perhaps revealing the judging rules and standards is a good place to start finding out how to at least narrow the divide.
I second Janine’s opinion. Bring back the Romance of the Year award.
I haven’t read all those that won but of those that I have, the Kinsale and the Phillips, I would have no problem showing them off to people as a best romance of the year.
Having a more detailed scoresheet might also be helpful. Perhaps have one section for fuzzy feelings inspired, and the other for crafty concerns? Am not sure how practical this would be.
Well with fuzzy feelings judging eroticas may be a little more precarious. What would those parameters of a good read be? Actually I was thinking more along the lines of conflict resolution, character motivation, setting, historical accuracy. You know. Crap like that.
All of which can make up that warm fuzzy panties on fire feeling.
I’m so exhausted I may have missed a comment like this, so I’m sorry if I’m duplicating someone else’s point. But as a reader who is curious enough to check out different blogs, Romance sites, and author web pages, I’d love to see more author sites that aren’t as oriented toward the Romance “fan” and are more oriented (or just as oriented) to the Romance “reader” (or prospective reader). By “reader” I mean the person who may or may not be a fan of a particular author, but who is prompted to check out an author site, when, say, she clicks on her name from one of the comments on this here blog. I find a lot of author sites that seem to be geared toward the reader who is already a fan of said author’s work, and I find that sort of alienating rather than inviting. OTOH, I love it when an author’s site provides me with information that actually enriches my understanding or exposure to new things in the genre. I’m not that into the pretty pictures of book signings, but I do love historical background (like on Jo Beverly’s site) or essays on the genre (like on Jennifer Crusie’s site), or even comments on books (like on Jo Goodman’s site, which has FINALLY caught up to the 21st century!). I don’t mind the pretty pictures of book signings and conventions, but I’ll usually go for the meatier stuff first. I wouldn’t overlook a serious presentation on why the RITAs are important to particular authors.
I think more author sites are moving in this direction, but one thing that would help a skeptical reader like me become more aware of the RITAs is if authors talked about them on their sites and blogs as more than gushing prose and pictures of the dress and the party and the champagne, etc. I understand that the celebration is important and fun, but I don’t take that at all seriously when it comes to checking out a RITA winning book. Of course it depends on whom authors want to direct their sites to, and what their core readership expects.
As for the discussion on judging criteria, it seems from what I’ve read that the problem isn’t lack of written guidelines *per se*—because the Pulitzer juries don’t have a list of criteria, either. But I get the sense that there’s already a shared vocabulary in the Pulitzer judging about what makes a work outstanding that doesn’t uniformly exist in the RITA process. So maybe enumerated criteria would help create that common vocabulary? Or maybe not.
I don’t know, honestly, about more specific judging instructions. I read the book, I judge it on story, on craft, on character, on how it worked for me. I’m the judge, so it has to be how it worked for me. Another judge might judge it differently. That’s why there are five for each round.
So the rules could be: Five points for craft, two for character, blah blah, whatever. It would STILL be how it worked for the individual judge.
Personally, I’d get so wrapped up in points given, deducted during the process of reading, I’d hate the book before it was over.
Do any of the major book competitions—Edgar, Nebula, Agatha, have judging instructions like that? I don’t know. Maybe they do.
If the problem people are having with the Oscars or the Ritas or any award is that a crappy book wins on occasion, well, then someone will always have that problem. Taste is subjective. There’s no way that every book that wins a Rita is going to deserve it in everyone’s eyes. I can say that the Rita winners I’ve read, I’ve understood why they’ve won, even if they weren’t my cup of tea. And there have been some books brought to my attention because of the Rita that I’ve loved, and probably wouldn’t have read otherwise. (Evelyn Vaughn’s AKA GODDESS comes to mind.)
My problem with the Ritas are two-fold; categories that make no sense and the weird word-count requirements. I’ll start with categories. We’ve got three historical categories:
Best Long Historical Romance
Best Short Historical Romance
Best Regency Romance
Which should be filtered down to:
Best Historical Romance
Three contemporary categories:
Best Contemporary Single Title Romance
Best Long Contemporary Romance
Best Short Contemporary Romance
Which should be filtered down to:
Best Contemporary Romance
Then you’ve got the rest, which are okay…
Best Inspirational Romance
Best Novel with Strong Romantic Elements
Best Paranormal Romance
Best Romantic Suspense
Best Traditional Romance
Best Young Adult Romance
Best Romantic Novella
Best First Book
And nothing for sci-fi/futuristic (which are always entered in paranormal, and can’t compete, because apples-oranges); nothing for romantic comedy, which do okay in standard contemporary, but still, apples-oranges; nothing for erotica, which again, apples-oranges, can’t compete.
Also… word count. 80k for Strong Romantic Elements. 95k for long historical. 40k for Inspirational and Paranormal. Huh? What? I know someone who could have competed this year, except her novel was only 60k for a category that required 70k. And, truth be told, had she used the 250/wrd/page standard issue of counting rather than the MS Word count, by that standard, she would have made it, because that standard fluctuates a great deal. But if she was Inspirational, she would have flown in on a cloud. That, my friends, is crap. It was a great, full-length book but she was thrown out on a stupid, arbitrary technicality.
So, that’s what I think is wrong with the Ritas. A more detailed score-sheet wouldn’t be bad, but the reality is, it all comes down to the particular taste of that particular judge, and there’s no way those tastes are going to speak to everyone. By and large, I think the vast majority of Rita winners have earned it. There might have been a couple of stinkers that slipped in, and popularity undoubtedly affects the outcome because it’s impossible for it not to. These aren’t anonymous. But there’s no way to fix that, no way to control it. My problems are categories and word count, and if something’s done about those, and if maybe they write up a more detailed score sheet, then I think the Ritas will be as good as it’s possible to get them. It’s an industry award, where people are given recognition by their peers. Go to the NRCA for a reader’s award, but you’ll have the same problem with stinkers, because readers are just as subjective as authors.
And SBTBs – I’ve got my fangirl posse all ready for the next BWAHAs! 🙂 And they’re gonna send in their votes in ALL CAPS! Enjoy!
Thanks to the people advocating a gay/lesbian category, but I see two difficulties in creating one.
First, only a tiny handful of books would be eligible, because most glbt romances are published by presses not recognized by the RWA. For instance, only 4 of the most recent 20 finalists in the Romance category of Lambda Literary Awards were published by RWA-recognized publishers. Until large presses print more gblt romances and/or more small presses get recognition, there’s little point in having a category.
Second, even if created, a glbt category would pit apples against oranges. There are gay & lesbian contemporary romances, paranormals, historicals—even Regencies, ferchrissakes. My instinct is that they should be competing not against each other, but against other contemporaries, paranormals, etc. If we had a separate glbt category, my sense is that there would be reluctance to accept nominations into the other categories—“No, no, dear—you belong over there.” If we want inclusion, I think we should be competing in the already-existing categories.
Those of us who are eligible, that is.
I think we may be nitpicking some of this to death. I was a judge in this year’s Eppie awards. I can tell a good book from a bad one. A bad book has continuity errors, poor plotting, skewed grammar, cardboard characters, inane dialog and just leaves you feeling abused and unsatisfied as a reader. A good book has none of the above, and also entertains, enlightens and leaves you feeling like your time wasn’t wasted reading it.
So that’s the first round. It’s not brain surgery, it’s putting to work what we know as educated readers and/or writing professionals.
And for the record, I would never judge in the category I’m entered in, or one where I might miss the nuances of the sub-genre (what makes an Inspirational an Inspirational, what makes a Regency a Regency).
Finally, my complaint with the Ritas, and I say this as a dues paying member of RWA for some years, is that only books by RWA recognized publishers can enter. I finaled in the Lories for best single title (published), and won the Eppies (two) in best historical romance, but to RWA I’m still officially unpublished with three books on sale.
Marlys wrote:
Second, even if created, a glbt category would pit apples against oranges. There are gay & lesbian contemporary romances, paranormals, historicals—even Regencies, ferchrissakes.
And again, we’re back to the apples and oranges thing. The problem with GLBT is that, like erotica, it’s on the fringe. There are eroticas that are in all these categories as well, but since the big thing that defines it as a genre is the erotica part, I think in these cases, you kind of have to lump them all together, because too many of your mainstream readers will judge erotica and GLBT based on simply that content, and you won’t get a fair evaluation of the book. It stinks, but it’s the truth.
The start is to get a GLBT and erotica category, then get enough people to enter (YA AUTHORS LISSEN UP). The current categories were appropriate ten or fifteen years ago, but now they need revamping. If you can get your foot in the door now, in ten years the landscape might change, and we’ll be having the same conversation… again. But hopefully with more flexible results.
~Best Contemporary Single Title Romance
Best Long Contemporary Romance
Best Short Contemporary Romance
Which should be filtered down to:
Best Contemporary Romance~
This would be my only real disagreement. I could agree with Best Series (category Romance) and Best Contempory Romance.
I think the category romance deserves its spot.
I think the word counts once served a purpose—when category spanned more lines then it currently does. Now, it’s time to toss them.
The start is to get a GLBT and erotica category, then get enough people to enter (YA AUTHORS LISSEN UP).
Lani, my darling, outside of physically flogging people, and believe me, if I’d been within reach, I would’ve given that a shot, I don’t know what else we could’ve done. Marianne and I encouraged, cajoled, nagged, and did everything short of offer bribes to get people to enter. It’s as I told Sarah in an email, I suspect (AND THIS IS JUST PERSONAL OPINION, PEOPLE) that some people who write both adult and Young Adult fiction tend to think of their YA as less important somehow.
Some other people were dissuaded from entering because of the wording of the YA category rules, that follow the line of thinking that there must be a romance storyline that comprises the majority of the story—no YA should have the romance as the main storyline. YA would be better served with a definition closer to the Mainstream with Strong Romantic Elements category definition.
But simple fact of the matter is, there are several of us who TRIED to get our fellow writers to enter—they didn’t.
Academic professional associations have a lot of awards, all peer-reviewed (best books, best dissertations, best articles, best conference papers). They’re all judged, and I’ve been on panels for each type. I agree that the problem isn’t usually the lack of explicit criteria, but the extent to which the criteria are agreed upon across the judges and the audience. I’ve had no problem voting for an entry that *I* wouldn’t necessarily write, but that clearly succeeds on its own terms. The disagreements and public grumblings come when the judges and the winner line up ideologically or methodologically and exclude books that are further from the judges’ own approaches. But that doesn’t happen as often as you’d think, or at least the skewing isn’t as sharp as it might be. A well-executed book/paper is pretty easy to tell from a badly executed one. And these are not big panels; usually 3 or at most 5 judges.
Of course, this is social science, so there are no points awarded or deducted for warm fuzzies. Warm fuzzies have been beaten out of any successful entrant.
I also agree that you need to decide whether you are having a judged award or a poll. It is very very hard to have a poll that is an accurate (in the statistical sense) reflection of tastes. AAR’s reader poll may be a relatively good approximation of its readers (overemphasis on historicals, no one reads categories, etc.), but there’s no way of knowing, because the voters are self-selected and we can’t tell whether they represent the AAR readers as a whole. 7500 respondents means a lot more than post regularly, but a lot less than visit in a year. And the extent to which the results diverge from sales reminds us that this is a poll of AAR readers, not a more generally representative group of romance readers.
If you used your registered commenters, then you would at least be starting from a universe that you could identify (although you wouldn’t know much about them, except you have a lot of smart commenters). I think that’s why the Hugo works, for all its flaws. You can game any poll, but with Worldcon attendance you at least know where you start.
The SF Site used to have a great category: Big Fat Read of the year (mostly fantasy, naturally).
(was16; um, yes, I was. A long time ago.)
Lani wrote: “And again, we’re back to the apples and oranges thing. The problem with GLBT is that, like erotica, it’s on the fringe.â€
Which brings us back to the publishers of such (and epublishers in general)—few are recognized by RWA. It may be my stubborn, rebellious streak, but right now, I totally fail to see why any publisher on that “fringe†would scramble to jump through RWA’s shifting hoops.
Already, with the recent recognition of Loose Id and Samhain, we’re seeing RWA “rethink†its criteria for recognition. *shrug* Speaks volumes to me.
RWA recognition itself falls into the same trap as some of the awards discussed here.
The start is to get a GLBT and erotica category, then get enough people to enter
As already mentioned, a lot of the GLBT and erotica is published by non-recognised publishers—and even the ones that are are caught by the rule that excludes ebooks unless they are also available in a print edition. (Maybe that’s not what the rule means—but that’s what it *says*.) My publisher has just been recognised by RWA, but according to the published rules for the RITA I still can’t enter my book that’s just come out or the one scheduled for release later. Lord and Master is only available in ebook format, Dolphin Dreams will only be released in ebook format, and I’m not aware of any plans to release either in print. Even there were, it’s conceivable that the print edition would only appear next year—at which point I’d probably find they were excluded on the grounds they were first published this year.
Must quote Willow, Bored Now.
The start is to get a GLBT and erotica category, then get enough people to enter
Or, just get an erotica category and allow the gay/lesbian stories to enter them.
In fact, is there an actual rule that you can’t enter a gay romance in the contemporary romance category? I know there was that whole “between one man and one woman” wording in the “let’s define romance” survey, but is there anything like that in the RITA rules now that would make gay romances inelligible for the major categories?
I missed out on my shot at “Best First Book” as well, thanks to RITA’s refusal to accept books in e-format and insistence they be bound and sent by a publisher.
I recently judged a contest with, I think, a very good scoring system. Entires are scored out of 5 on about 20 different things: characterization, technical writing, pacing, etc.
The scores are then added. Simple.
Yes, opinions vary, but this seems a little less subjective to me than a simple score, 1-9, for an entire book.
In one of the books I judged I found the hero truly sleazy (if I told you what he did, you would too, trust me). I gave the author a low score for the “How heroic/loveable was the hero” space, but was able to give the rest of the book objective scores, as they did not relate specifically to liking the hero. Make sense?
If I had to give the whole book one score, the objectionable behavior of the hero would ahve made the score much lower, although there were things I liked about the book. But as an overall love story, I wouldn’t have been able to—I did not want this man to have a happy ending and felt very bad for the heroine ending up with someone who would use her in such a careless fashion. Because there were lots of technical scores etc., I believe the book got a much fairer score from me.
Jump all over me if you want for not being objective, but that’s my point. Judging is personal opinion. The techincal scores and the breakdown helped me to stay that way.
Jennifer Armintrout wrote:
“In fact, is there an actual rule that you can’t enter a gay romance in the contemporary romance category? I know there was that whole “between one man and one woman†wording in the “let’s define romance†survey, but is there anything like that in the RITA rules now that would make gay romances inelligible for the major categories?”
I’m not sure, but even if they were eligible, I think it’d be a tough fight for that book. Every book has a “reader” and I think that a majority of the people who love man-woman romances wouldn’t be able to relate to the alternative romance and might have trouble scoring it fairly. Is it right? No. Is it the way it is? I kinda think so. Considering we’re dealing with an organization that even tried to distinguish romance as solely man-woman, I’m not sure all minds are as open as they could be. With a specialized category, judges can choose what categories they’re willing to judge, which makes each book more likely to find someone inclined toward that subject matter. For fringe stuff like erotica and GLBT, I think they need their own category in order to get in the game. It’s a shame, but there it is.
Anonymous wrote:
I recently judged a contest with, I think, a very good scoring system. Entires are scored out of 5 on about 20 different things: characterization, technical writing, pacing, etc.
The scores are then added. Simple.
Yes, opinions vary, but this seems a little less subjective to me than a simple score, 1-9, for an entire book.
I actually like this. It’s still simple, but makes each judge really think about all these different things.
Kalen Hughes wrote:
Must quote Willow, Bored Now.
Geez, Kalen, sorry. I just hate it when people hold a gun to my head and make me read commentary when I’m not interested. Here’s hoping you get your freedom back soon, and can just click away when you’re not interested in the conversation anymore. Poor thing.
Jennifer Armintrout wrote:
Or, just get an erotica category and allow the gay/lesbian stories to enter them.
Not all gay/lesbian romance is erotica. You knew that, right?
In fact, is there an actual rule that you can’t enter a gay romance in the contemporary romance category?
No. And we’ll continue to be on the fringes unless we get into the standing categories. Judges should know that since the RWA maintains “any definition of romance should be broad and inclusive,” they might have to read something outside their comfort zone and judge it fairly. If they don’t think they can do that, they shouldn’t be judging.
People, RWA is a big organization, and big organizations move SLOWLY. Sorry girls, it’s the way of the world. I rarely see RWA getting credit for the changes it’s made. (THAT ATTEMPT TO DEFINE ROMANCE WAS REJECTED BY THE MAJORITY! Give credit where it’s due.) More and more epubs are being recognized because of changes adopted by the board. More changes are under consideration and will come. Hell, look how long it’s taken trad. pubs to start releasing books in e-format.
The RITAs are a HUGE contest. Over a thousand entries, multiplied by five copies of each book, and that’s just the first round. So you want to allow e-format? How many more entries would that be? How many more judges? How would the people in the office deal with the different media? What about judges who don’t WANT to read something in e-format or in manuscript form? Would they be allowed to opt out of judging those? HUGE changes would have to be made! Is it possible? I’d imagine so. Would it take time? HELL YEAH! Time and manpower and big fucking mistakes made and years of bitching from epubbed people and traditionally pubbed people and oh my god the drama!
So take a deep breath. If you want to help the changes along, stay in RWA and work at it. It will take time. Maybe a long time. If you’re just done with it, then that’s cool too.
For fringe stuff like erotica
Do you mean erotica or erotic Romance? Because erotic Romance seems pretty hot (couldn’t resist) in a sort of mainstream way, and I’m not sure Romantic erotica is far behind (they’re hard to avoid, aren’t they?). Or is it just fringe in terms of the RITA judging?
If I had to give the whole book one score, the objectionable behavior of the hero would ahve made the score much lower, although there were things I liked about the book. But as an overall love story, I wouldn’t have been able to—I did not want this man to have a happy ending and felt very bad for the heroine ending up with someone who would use her in such a careless fashion. Because there were lots of technical scores etc., I believe the book got a much fairer score from me.
It seems to me that the system you’re talking about here is actually much *more objective* than what’s currently in place, in that is acknowledges and embraces both the emotional and craft elements in the judging process. Wow, compromise—what a concept.
People, RWA is a big organization, and big organizations move SLOWLY. Sorry girls, it’s the way of the world. I rarely see RWA getting credit for the changes it’s made. (THAT ATTEMPT TO DEFINE ROMANCE WAS REJECTED BY THE MAJORITY! Give credit where it’s due.)
Good point, Victoria; that was a big victory for the genre as a whole, IMO. I tend to see change as inevitable but shaped by those active enough to remain engaged in the process, including hard-core activists and casual observers.
Also, is it true that the contest closes at 1000 entries and that it’s on a first-come, first-served basis?
Victoria: So you want to allow e-format? How many more entries would that be? How many more judges? How would the people in the office deal with the different media? What about judges who don’t WANT to read something in e-format or in manuscript form?
I’m not asking to be allowed to send in eformat copies of my ebooks. I am entirely in sympathy with those who don’t want to read electronic copies of books—I’m epublished and I don’t like reading ebooks, because I have a combination of medical problems that make them significantly harder work to read than dead tree books. (Manuscript is another matter, so long as it’s 12 point double-spaced Courier, yadda yadda.) But right now, what that rule effectively says is that I am not allowed to create and send in a properly printed and bound copy of my ebook. (Easy enough to do, by putting the pdf through Lulu.) My publisher has to produce the print book and send it in.
If there are too many entries as it is, perhaps the way to trim the number of entries is to impose the same rule on the print-published authors. They have to get their publishers to send in the reading copies. Fair, yes?
Marlys wrote:
No. And we’ll continue to be on the fringes unless we get into the standing categories. Judges should know that since the RWA maintains “any definition of romance should be broad and inclusive,†they might have to read something outside their comfort zone and judge it fairly. If they don’t think they can do that, they shouldn’t be judging.
Well… yeah. But for some, probably a lot of these people, their definition of “broad and inclusive” might allow for whipped cream, not alternative lifestyles. Which is why I think GLBT should have its own category, so that judges who can be open-minded can select it. Then, eventually, maybe there won’t be a need to separate it out like that. But in order to get your shot at the Rita, you have to be sure you’re getting judges who are open to what you write. Otherwise, you’re sunk before you begin. Baby steps.
Robin wrote:
Do you mean erotica or erotic Romance? Because erotic Romance seems pretty hot (couldn’t resist) in a sort of mainstream way, and I’m not sure Romantic erotica is far behind (they’re hard to avoid, aren’t they?). Or is it just fringe in terms of the RITA judging?
Is there a difference between erotica and erotic romance? I’m not saying that to be snarky, I really don’t know. I mean, there’s a lot of very hot yet mainstream stuff out there that could qualify as erotic romance. When I say fringe, I mean stuff that you don’t find in the regular romance section at Barnes and Noble, the stuff that’s not published by the big NYC publishers. Harlequin’s got the Spice line out now which I think is starting to bridge that gap, but I’m talking about the underdogs who don’t have the big publishing names behind them.
Also, is it true that the contest closes at 1000 entries and that it’s on a first-come, first-served basis?
That’s my understanding. If you go to rwanational.org, all the contest rules and regs are up there.
I’m not asking to be allowed to send in eformat copies of my ebooks. I am entirely in sympathy with those who don’t want to read electronic copies of books—I’m epublished and I don’t like reading ebooks, because I have a combination of medical problems that make them significantly harder work to read than dead tree books. (Manuscript is another matter, so long as it’s 12 point double-spaced Courier, yadda yadda.) But right now, what that rule effectively says is that I am not allowed to create and send in a properly printed and bound copy of my ebook. (Easy enough to do, by putting the pdf through Lulu.) My publisher has to produce the print book and send it in.
If there are too many entries as it is, perhaps the way to trim the number of entries is to impose the same rule on the print-published authors. They have to get their publishers to send in the reading copies. Fair, yes?
Exactly. My complaint isn’t solely that I can’t send in an ebook, but that the contest guidelines won’t accept my book’s format or give me a good alternative. Effectively I am told that even though my book was published by a recognized publisher, is within the word count, and fits all the guidelines, it isn’t good enough to enter the RITA with.
And by the way…
So you want to allow e-format? How many more entries would that be? How many more judges?
Ummm…why would it have to be more? When a new publisher gets RWA recognition, do the numbers of allowable entries automatically increase by a certain number to accomodate them?
Or is it just that RWA doesn’t think any print-pubbed books should have to take a chance at giving up their slot because some epubbed upstart got there first?
It’s discrimination, pure and simple, and it’s wrong. Nobody’s asking for additional slots, just that we be allowed the chance to have a slot at all.
Good point, Victoria; that was a big victory for the genre as a whole, IMO
Yes, I was very, very proud of RWA at that moment. I think if you looked at the demographics of the whole organization, you wouldn’t have any reason to think that the majority of members would be even comfortable with stories of polyamory or homosexuality, much less supportive of them. That was a good moment for me as a member.
Ummm…why would it have to be more? When a new publisher gets RWA recognition, do the numbers of allowable entries automatically increase by a certain number to accomodate them?
There is a limit because the staff can’t handle more right now and it’s very difficult to get enough judges (is my understanding) and people get shut out and are already very upset by it. One would have to assume that hundreds and hundreds more would be shut out and it would create more problems. Which is why I said that changes will come slowly (assuming they come. I’m not on the board.) and after all that stuff could be effectively hashed out. Time. Time, time, time.
Is there an e-published member on the board? If not, why?
Nobody’s changed the rules on anyone. The rules were there when every member joined and when every member signed a contract to be e-published. Is it a happy circumstance? Maybe not, but there’s been no bait and switch. Frustrating yes, but not underhanded or evil.
Lani wrote:
Well… yeah. But for some, probably a lot of these people, their definition of “broad and inclusive†might allow for whipped cream, not alternative lifestyles. Which is why I think GLBT should have its own category, so that judges who can be open-minded can select it. Then, eventually, maybe there won’t be a need to separate it out like that. But in order to get your shot at the Rita, you have to be sure you’re getting judges who are open to what you write. Otherwise, you’re sunk before you begin. Baby steps.
I think you’re underestimating people. So far, I’ve entered exactly one RWA chapter contest, the Utah chapter’s Great Beginnings. I entered in the Published category, as they didn’t require official recognition.
Nobody said “We don’t take gay romance,” and if any of the judges objected, it must have been resolved quietly behind the scenes, because I never heard anything about it.
How’d I do? I won.
Baby steps, huh? 😉
My first comment as an RSB (Registered Smart Bitch—how did I not notice that tiny little link all these years?)!
While readers’ polls (or the Nebulas or Hugos) seem more democratic, I put less stock in them as far as quality than I do a judged contest like the Rita and chapter awards like the NRCA.
In a judged contest, at least I know all the books have actually been read. In theory, they’re judged equally regardless of:
* the author’s reputation (or lack thereof in the case of a new author)
* month of release (how many December books have you actually read by January 1 when the calls go out for favorite book of the year?)
*price (trade PBs and HC’S sell fewer copies than mass-markets)
*distribution (small press and e-books have considerably less)
*publishers’ promotional budgets
*the author’s ability/willingness to campaign/grovel for votes
Yes, it’s a subjective crapshoot, but we recognize that when we plop down our $15-$50 entry fees. If we don’t like the odds, no one’s forcing us to enter.
I’m so glad to see John Scalzi’s running for SFWA prez. I’m now dashing to my PO Box to retrieve previously pointless ballot.
FWIW, the Rita entries are first-come/first-serve, but your entry gets priority if you agree to judge the Ritas or Golden Hearts. No matter how early you submit, if you don’t agree to judge, you might not be entered. It’s the only way they can assure a sufficient # of judges.
I judged the GH this year and would happily do so again. Less work (50pp and synopsis vs. an entire novel), and no one else wants to do it, I guess because the prestige of being a Rita judge (??) is higher (plus you get free books).
I’m not sure, but even if they were eligible, I think it’d be a tough fight for that book. Every book has a “reader†and I think that a majority of the people who love man-woman romances wouldn’t be able to relate to the alternative romance and might have trouble scoring it fairly. Is it right? No. Is it the way it is? I kinda think so.
It seems unfair to presume that just because someone reads a certain type of book, they’re not going to be able to recognize the merits of a different kind of book. I don’t neccessarily care for Greek Tycoon type books or contemporaries with a twenty-seven-year-old virgin heroine, but I can read one and still recognize good things about them.
People, RWA is a big organization, and big organizations move SLOWLY. Sorry girls, it’s the way of the world. I rarely see RWA getting credit for the changes it’s made. (THAT ATTEMPT TO DEFINE ROMANCE WAS REJECTED BY THE MAJORITY! Give credit where it’s due.)
They got credit from me. I renewed my membership. I wouldn’t have if the “definitions” presented had been embraced by the majority, and I’m sure there are other people who felt the same.
***I’m not sure, but even if they were eligible, I think it’d be a tough fight for that book. Every book has a “reader†and I think that a majority of the people who love man-woman romances wouldn’t be able to relate to the alternative romance and might have trouble scoring it fairly. Is it right? No. Is it the way it is? I kinda think so.***
Despite what has been said in response to this, you’re right. That’s why EPPIE has a separate GLBT category that includes romance, though GLBT EROTICA and EROTIC ROMANCE can compete with books of like type, whether they include M/F, M/M, F/F or any multi-matching. Look at it this way, you’re already likely to see same sex pairings and more in erotica and erotic romance books.
Why was it done that way? Specifically BECAUSE we found that getting “romance” judges to judge a same-sex pairing romance on the merits and not on the plumbing was problematic. We have found that erotic romance/erotica judges are much more open to it…and we’ve found that judges who sign on specifically to judge GLBT content books are not adverse to it. It’s the idea of getting “romance” judges accustomed to M/F to fairly…whatever fair is anymore…judge M/M or F/F romance…that is our sticking point. In this case, the only way we could deliver unbiased judging of GLBT content in romance was in a separate but equal situation.
However, you’re going to find that a LOT of people who read M/F also read M/M or F/F books. I’m not saying they don’t overlap readership. I personally read and write all three, and I’m not alone in crossing lines as a reader…or an author.
I AM saying that, in a judging situation, it isn’t always as cut and dried as: “They know good writing. That’s enough.” No, if they have a biased (I won’t deny it’s biased) idea that romance can only be M/F, you aren’t going to get the majority of judges with that bias to judge the book on the merit of the writing alone. The plumbing will influence them adversely.
Brenna
To anonymous contest judge:
Lemme guess what the sleazy hero did. He dissed the heroine big time, didn’t he? I’m thinking something along these lines:
“She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me; I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men.”
What a jerk. I’ll never forgive him.
Re: hardcopies of ebooks in the RITAS. It is my understanding that the hardcopies have to be publisher-issued to ensure the book is exactly as it was when it was initially released, ie, that changes and revisions haven’t been made. I’m not commenting on whether or not I think authors would DO this, if given the chance [or whether a publisher would do this], just explaining what I understand is the logic behind that decision.
Marlys wrote:
I think you’re underestimating people. So far, I’ve entered exactly one RWA chapter contest, the Utah chapter’s Great Beginnings. I entered in the Published category, as they didn’t require official recognition.
Nobody said “We don’t take gay romance,†and if any of the judges objected, it must have been resolved quietly behind the scenes, because I never heard anything about it.
How’d I do? I won.
Baby steps, huh?
Oh, you just gave me the biggest warm fuzzy of the day! I would so love to be wrong on this one, trust me.
Jennifer wrote:
It seems unfair to presume that just because someone reads a certain type of book, they’re not going to be able to recognize the merits of a different kind of book.
It may be unfair, and I’ll grant you that. But you only get five readers for the Rita, and if two of them aren’t open enough, declare it “not a romance” or give it a bad grade because they can’t relate, then the book’s starting out at a clear disadvantage. By giving it its own category which the judges can opt-in or opt-out of, it increases the chances of that book finding its reader. S’all I’m saying. We’re a country that’s still in a tizzy over gay marriage, which burns me up beyond the telling of it. I just don’t have the faith in people that you guys do. Like I said, I’d love to be wrong. I’m gonna be watching Marlys; I have a feeling she’ll be the one to show me up but good. And I’ll be cheering like mad when it happens.
You go, girl.
Re: ebooks. There’s a cap on entries, right? So how does allowing an RWA-recognized author to send in bound copies of her book makes more work for anyone? Maybe I don’t understand all of it, but I’m at a loss as how that makes more work for anyone aside from the author. If the publisher jumped through hoops to be RWA-recognized, their authors should have a crack at the award. As to adding hundreds of additional entries to the pot… I’m not sure I buy that. How hot is YA right now, and they didn’t even get the requisite 25 entries for that? Not every e-published member is going to enter, but every one who pays her dues and is with an RWA-recognized publisher should have the chance. It’s simply unfair.
By giving [gay/lesbian] its own category which the judges can opt-in or opt-out of, it increases the chances of that book finding its reader.
Only if you make an alternate category for every category that already exists. Otherwise, you’re just running up against the same problems. You might enter your lesbian werewolves story into the general paranormal romance category and end up with two judges who don’t like the sexual pairing, but you could enter the same story into the “Gay/Lesbian Romance” category and end up with two judges who hate paranormals. And then, if you’ve got two of every category (one for gay and lesbian, one for hetero romance), is it still the same award?
For that matter, if you’re entering every gay/lesbian story out there into one big lump category, you’re going to end up with judges that like one pairing and not the other. In that case, do we need three seperate sets of categories? Then we’re back to the argument that too many categories make the award mean less.
There is probably not an easy answer. Maybe they could have an “opt-out” option on gay/lesbian books all together. An option to say, “I will judge this category but I will not judge gay/lesbian entries in this category.” And then still have those books included in the general categories, without needing categories of their own.
And I win the RITA in the “Most Uses Of The Word ‘Category’” Category.
Whoever posted earlier about the books needing to come from publishers. . . I never really thought of it that way, but I kind of get it. Whether I send in my traditionally pubbed books myself or not, the books are AS IS from the publisher. If I were printing out my own books and sending them in, how does anyone know that’s the original book AS IS? And no I don’t know anyone I think would do something underhanded like that, e-pubbed or otherwise, but I also don’t know anyone who cheats on their taxes, ya know?
Listen, I’ve never thought much about this issue until today. I don’t honestly have an opinion about what format should be okay, etc., and I was (perhaps incorrectly) referring to hundreds of entries in e-format, ‘cause shit that would be easier and open up a flood of entries!
I absolutely think all this should be debated and voted on. That’s only fair. But i DO think the issue of capping the contest should be addressed regardless, because ideally no one should be excluded. Group hug!
I’m not sure how the EPPIEs actually handled it last year, when there wasn’t yet a separate category for GLBT—but I entered my m/m silkie romance in the “erotic romance with paranormal elements” category, and put a note about it being m/m in the space provided on the entry form to note any content that judges might find objectionable. Presumably they managed to find enough judges willing to read it in the preliminary round, because Spindrift was a finalist in its category.
Whether it would be feasible to do this in the RITAs is another matter—I could see it being a problem with too many of the judges opting out to get a fair judging panel for the GLBT and polyamory romances.
To anonymous contest judge:
Lemme guess what the sleazy hero did. He dissed the heroine big time, didn’t he? I’m thinking something along these lines:
“She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me; I am in no humour at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men.â€
What a jerk. I’ll never forgive him.
Lol, actually, no. I’m changing the situation to protect the author, but basically, he arranged for the heroine to be broke so he could force her to agree to have sex with him for money. Because he’d always wanted her but wasn’t sure he wanted to be in a relationship with her.
As for what EPPIE does…and it did have GLBT category for the judging that just passed…
If the book is erotica or erotic romance, a GLBT can compete in the erotic categories instead of GLBT. Such a book can certainly warn that it’s M/M or F/F or some same sex content in a poly grouping, though erotic judges are used to that. It might be a good idea to note it, just because some erotic readers STILL want M/F in the mix, and the content warnings help us avoid such problems. We don’t run ourselves short on judges with them, since few erotic judges are going to squirm there, from my experience.
If the book is GLBT-central and not erotic, we ask that it compete in the GLBT category, because we WILL run ourselves out of judges in romance categories, trying to keep GLBT out of the hands of those who won’t read it. That worked well this past year.
When we assign judges, we try to mix it up, so that the same two judges are NOT handling a lot of books together. That allows us to get a feel for judges…what ones universally score lower than other judges…what ones never seem to score high or low but always in the middle…or always high…or across the board in what appears to be a fair representation of the books. I can say that we can see most judges agreeing fairly closely on a score, most of the time. We don’t have a high incidence of needing a variance judge, from my POV. When they don’t agree, there’s always variance judging. When we run ourselves out of judges with something like GLBT, we can’t mix it up…and we might have to recruit someone from another category not adverse to GLBT to give a variance judging. I don’t think either really serves giving an unbiased judging, so the category is necessary.
To the person who said you’d have to have a GLBT category for every non-GLBT equivalent… Yes, when the numbers are there to split it into those. Every category grows slowly. When we started with erotic romance/erotica, we had a single category the first year. The second year, we had two…erotic romance/erotica SF/F/P and erotic romance/erotica contemp/suspense/historical/mystery…so real world and not. When it was still growing well the second year, we split that into erotica, erotic romance contemp/suspense/mystery, erotic romance historical, erotic romance SF/futuristic and erotic romance fantasy/para. It’s probably going to stay right there for at least another year, before we consider splitting off (for instance) suspense/mystery from contemp. GLBT is the same way. We need to figure out what categroies are actually being entered and see what has the NUMBERS to split off.
Given a choice of having a category to compete in that is mixed vs. one that doesn’t exist at all… To be blunt, I’ve judged apples against oranges, and I can do it. You just get judges on board who are capable of distinguishing if the paranormal romance book fits ITS genre and the contemp romance entered fits ITS. As I said earlier about M/F and M/M, there are those of us who read more than one thing. We’re perfectly capable of this, when the situation calls for it.
Bren