In the past weeks, there has been much discussion of the RITA® awards and the RWA in general. We here at SBTB have certainly done our share of stirring the potte d’poo, most definitely regarding the awards ceremony two years ago and the randomly bizarre efforts of a prior administration’s attempts to define romance and refine the cover content to a truly mindboggling set of limitations. Let it be said, much temper was stirred.
And certainly mine was one of those tempers. It takes a lot to make me lose my cool, but gee WHIZ, back then, that was one “WTF?” after another. But, in my limited experience of five years as a member of the RWA, I have to say, those particular few months of oddity were an anomaly rather than the norm. Now, two years later, and two presidents later, as I read the comments regarding the RWA and the RITA®, I have to wonder if perhaps memories are short, and there’s a suspicion on the part of the members and nonmembers that, maybe, the RWA was always that conservative and batshit crazy, and they merely managed to finally show their behind in public, thus verifying once and for all the degree to which they were backwards and behind the times. Fire up the torches, and let’s get ‘em! They’re big and bad and out to get us! Or they’re slow and antiquated and so behind the times they can’t even FIND their own behinds, because they drag so far in the past they can’t reach!
Now that’s a mental image I’m going to have to build out of silly putty.
Anyway – No, no, no, not so, says I.
I’ve been up front that I’m an RWA member. I’m not trying to defend the RWA merely because I am a member. I think a point has been lost in all the griping about the organization, the award, and what both or either do for the romance community. And while I have to say I do understand the arguments that have been made as to the relevance and accuracy of the RITA® in representing the “best of” romance in a given year, for the most part I disagree with a good number of the other accusations hurled at the organization as a whole.
First and foremost: the RWA is a writer’s organization, not a reader’s organization. Personally, I think that’s why sites like this one, Mrs. Giggles, All About Romance, Dear Author, Romancing the Blog,et al , are so successful. By and large those sites form communities of readers, and readers of romance, as snidely denigrated as we often are, like to hang out with other readers of romance who think intelligently. I know I do. If I didn’t co-manage this site, I’d be here all the time anyway, hot pink not-work-safe design be damned.
But the RWA doesn’t exist to address readers’ needs. It’s there to advance the cause of much-maligned romance in the professional publishing market, and to educate those who are new to the publishing world how to best go about getting information and marketing themselves and their books. It consistently says “Yay, Romance” and “Here’s how to write, develop, edit, publish and market your own.”
As a writer’s organization, it really can’t say, “Yay, romance! Except for the romance with sheikh’s secret babies and tycoon boardroom mistresses! Because they are stinky!” (That’s our job here at SBTB. And one of these days I’ll put my horror where my eyes are and read one of those. Feel free to nominate one.)
So as a writer’s organization, it’s not supposed to look after readers. Add to that the intangible quality of being a “voice of romance fiction” and there’s a lot of room to request increased clarity – what does “being the voice” mean specifically? It’s hard to quantify what the RWA does until you talk to an author whose contract became more fair and equitable after the RWA addressed discrepancies in royalty payment, for example. That part gets lost in the venting.
What good does the RWA do? I asked a few prominent RWA members why they support the RWA, and received much in the way of the positive regarding RWA’s role as a professional writer’s organization.
Nora Roberts says:
I have a lot of respect and affection for RWA. I can have respect and affection knowing it’s not perfect.
I appreciate that RWA tries to be an organization that offers education for published and unpublished writers, does what it can to provide writers—at all levels of their career—with information, networking opportunities, marketing news. I like that RWA celebrates the genre, and works hard to be a voice for Romance. Whether or not you always agree with that voice, or even like the tune.
RWA’s Literacy Signing at National has raised tons of money for literacy over the years. It matters a lot. That single program weighs very heavy for me.
Nobody really understands us better than we do ourselves. And RWA gives us a venue to be with, talk with, complain to or brag with the people who understand us best.
I’m not a board member (nor do I play one on tv) but I do know a few of them, and here’s what Stephanie Feagan, current RWA Treasurer and creator of Accountant Romance Heroine has to say:
I started to write a long laundry list of all the things RWA does for its membership, but that’s boring, and nobody really gives a shit anyway, so I think I’ll go at this from a more esoteric standpoint.
To begin with, the mission of RWA is to support the professional interests of career focused romance writers through networking and advocacy. Key words are Professional, Career-focused, Networking and Advocacy.
A professional who is career-focused is in business to earn a profit – whether he or she is a hit man, a CPA, a plumber or a writer. RWA wasn’t formed to provide a coffee klatch to writers who dabble, and it wasn’t formed for readers – it was formed as an association of professionals to exchange information via networking, and to collectively provide advocacy within the industry.
Networking – exchange of information – takes place every day, through the RWA list serves. The National conference provides networking possibilities between its members with one another and members and publishing professionals.
As for advocacy, complaints and grievances against agents and publishing houses are looked at on a case by case basis, and when an author is in need of an advocate for her interests, RWA steps in. After several members lodged complaints against a publisher for withheld royalties, RWA funded an audit on behalf of one representative author. When the audit is concluded, the authors may or may not receive compensation, but the light shed on this problem will educate other members who can make a more informed decision before signing a contract.
You know, that’s pretty much it – that’s what RWA is for. It’s an association of professional writers who can share information and collectively go to bat for one another when one of our own gets screwed over. Every program put into place within RWA has to somehow fit into that mission statement. The monthly Romance Writers Report is filled with articles that provide information. The quarterly Romance Sells publication that goes out to book stores and distributors is a tool members can use to advertise their latest releases. Biweekly eNotes are sent via email to keep members abreast of changes in the market and current RWA news. The Golden Heart® is an opportunity for unpublished writers to showcase their work and bring it to the attention of editors. The RITA®s give authors something to bring to the table during future contract negotiations. I don’t think anyone can put a value on a RITA® final or win – mileage varies – but there’s no question that it’s a respected award among publishing professionals. So even if certain readers don’t care about it – editors and marketing departments do.
[The RWA] is also a democracy. We have a board of directors that includes two representatives from each of six regions, a President, President-elect, Secretary, Treasurer, and 3 liaisons. The board is elected to represent those 9500+ members, and for the most part, every board member keeps all those members in mind when she comes to the table to make decisions for the organization. I say for the most part because there have been board members in past years who maybe had their own agenda – hey, it happens. But on the whole, and speaking for this year’s stellar board, every single person is there to further the best interests of RWA as a whole.
[The RWA is] not the magic key to publication. Paying dues is not a guarantee that you’ll win an award. Membership doesn’t include entre into the New York Times and USA Today lists. We don’t promise friends, fortune or fame. What we do promise is information, the opportunity to meet other writers, whether online, or at National or Regional conferences, and we promise to stand behind you – all 9500+ members – when your agent or publishing house sticks it to you.
So:nutshell = RWA is about writers.
If the RWA is trying to advance the cause of writers, then it’s not entirely fair to blame the RWA for a horrid horrid book any more than it is fair to entirely blame the writer who penned the dreck in the first place. If I write a review of a terrible book, I’m going to question why the character made cliched or uninformed decisions left and right, but I’m going to be consistently steamed at the publishing company that edited without fixing the egregious crap, then slapped a $9 price tag on it. Somewhere between writer, editor, publisher (and art department – let’s not forget the man-titty) egregious publishing decisions are made and a sweet savage backlist is born.
But when the alleged dreck finals for a RITA® or even wins the category, then I am treading in weedy water. Subjectivity and contest rules and judging policies of warm fuzzy vs. craft aside, do the RITAs® serve as a recommendation for readers, or as a celebration for writers? Is the RITA® meant to be received by readers as a endorsement? On one hand, there’s no real push to advertise RITA® winners or nominees in bookstores I’ve visited. There’s a lot of chatter and discussion regarding whether one agrees with the finalists – and that’s pretty much the standard on any awards process – books, movies or otherwise. If the RWA means for the RITA® to showcase the best of their membership to the buying public, and not merely an internal celebration of the submitted romances of a given year, then yes, there are some changes that could be made to make the award itself more clear and easier lent to advertisement and marketing. Off the top of my head: fewer finalists, and merging of categories to create one to encompass “series romance” as a whole.
But RITA® business aside, some of the accusations regarding the RWA seemed to revolve around a theme that the RWA doesn’t do enough. Enough what? Enough making changes quickly? Enough overhaul with fast and furious response to those 10k members and their varied opinions? It’s not going to be able to make a sweeping change that takes into account all the needs of its membership.
My point in writing all this blather is as follows: there are two ways to make change. You can storm the castle, or you can sneak in the back, see how the castle works, and slowly make changes from within. Depending on the size of the castle and the size of the problem, either method can work. Some changes, for example, need to be addressed by storming the castle and forcing the change, no matter how much it angers and scares the crap out of everyone – desegregation is a good example of stormy change that had to be forced into being. But sometimes, working within for gentle change works better for long-term efficacy, especially when the needs and requests of a crapload of people need to be taken into account. And generally speaking, between the two Smart Bitches, Candy is more likely to storm the castle, while I’m inside sneaking around the back asking lots of annoying questions.
Simply put, the RWA is listening to what we say (*cue ominous music*) and there is no question that they pay as much attention to the RITA® as we do, and are listening to the issues that we talk about. The genre changes fast, but in some instances, the RWA can’t change as quickly and maintain relevance and effectiveness. It wouldn’t be the least bit of a good thing if they did.
Then the problem is with the people like Barbara Samuel who think the RWA is supposed to apply to readers? Because that’s what set off this latest love-fest, IIRC.
If the RWA stuff is only supposed to apply to writers, though, I could give them a tip.
—Challenge your authors to be the first to publish a book with no spelling, grammar, or copyediting errors. I am a voracious reader, and I have yet to find a book without any of the above. (Not a “romance” book, mind you…any book.) Leaving articles (a, the) out seems to be the bane of most romance books I’ve read lately.
Then the problem is with the people like Barbara Samuel who think the RWA is supposed to apply to readers? Because that’s what set off this latest love-fest, IIRC.
Yeah, I’ll admit to being somewhat confused, as well. I know Sarah can’t be saying that readers aren’t entitled to comment on the RWA, especially since authorial interests coincide with reader interests at some point. And I don’t remember anyone blaming bad books on the RWA, although maybe that happened.
I can absolutely appreciate the fact that the RWA is a professional writer’s organization, but yeah, it seems Barbara Samuel’s plea really started that whole discussion, and it was a plea to readers to *care* about the work of the RWA. To me, though, if you request interest, you’re not only going to get praise.
Maybe Sarah’s point is that readers forget the good stuff while harping on the bad stuff. And that’s probably true. OTOH, if we’re NOT writers, and the RWA’s good stuff is mainly connected to what they do for writers, then perhaps it’s about the way in which the points at which the RWA’s writer interests coincide with, overlap with, and depend on reader interests are fraught with more contention and even competitive priorities. At those points, the RWA is clearly *more* than an organization that merely tends to the professional interests of its writers, but perhaps the issue is one of who gets to define the terms of the *more*—the RWA, readers, or both.
I’m certainly not saying that readers aren’t entitled to comment on the RWA – that’s not my point at all. I was trying to point out that there’s a great deal of behind-the-scenes effort that isn’t really addressed because for a multitude of reasons those processes are not readily made available to the public.
It seems to me that the point of overlap between the RWA’s interests for writers and for readers most directly centers on the RITAâ„¢, hence the irritation that there’s so much grey area and a lack of clarity as to how the voting and judgment decisions are made (and why). Within that issue are questions of inclusion of erotica, word count, fuzzy vs. craft, etc.
I disagree that the RWA is supposed to apply to readers, that’s true. For example, even as the Story For U website run by the RWA welcomes readers, most of the content addresses marketing, sales, library and bookstore efforts, and industry, not readers directly (except to tell readers what romance is).
I wasn’t responding to Samuels, per se, as much as I was trying to respond to the comments here regarding the RWA’s lack of efficacy and lack of relevance.
Also, Kassiana, re: copyediting and spelling errors. This may not be true for every book ever published by every publisher, but I do know that often an author’s manuscript is retyped by a publisher’s employee into the correct program and format. The manuscript is not always imported directly. Yes, there’s a galley proof that is supposed to be corrected, but often, and in the example I know of, there are so many errors and so many egregious problems with the transcription that not every error is addressed successfully. So it’s not entirely the author disregarding spelling, grammar, and the like. Often it’s a conglomerate of people on both sides of the publication process making a muck of things.
Often it’s a conglomerate of people on both sides of the publication process making a muck of things.
Yep. Just because I turn in a PERFECT manuscript (and I’m not claiming that I do) does not mean that the result will be a perfect book. And just because I catch something in the copy edit stage or the galley stage and mark it for correction, doesn’t mean that correction always gets made. Human error, as irritating as it can be, is just a part of life.
Romance novels (at least the ones published by NY Houses) do not contain these kinds of errors to a greater extent than any of the other books published by these same houses. I see egregious errors in non-fiction and literary fiction all the time.
I disagree that the RWA is supposed to apply to readers, that’s true. For example, even as the Story For U website run by the RWA welcomes readers, most of the content addresses marketing, sales, library and bookstore efforts, and industry, not readers directly (except to tell readers what romance is).
I wasn’t responding to Samuels, per se, as much as I was trying to respond to the comments here regarding the RWA’s lack of efficacy and lack of relevance.
I think you’re absolutely right, Sarah, that those outside the organization rarely see all the great things that the RWA does for its authors, and that for those writer members, the organization is probably an invaluable advocate.
As for the reader/writer overlap, though, I guess I feel that there’s a little bit of wanting to have it both ways. The RWA depends on reader support for the viability of its authors, but it doesn’t really want reader response to the final effect of their work? If the RWA believes it does not depend on or welcome reader interest or investment in its work, then I think that position is disingenuous, because it’s likely more that the RWA doesn’t welcome *critical* reader interest.
I realize my view of this is probably influenced by the fact that I work at a university that gets feedback from the public all the time. And we don’t just say to them, “Hey, you have no business questioning our efficacy because our job is to produce knowledge and educate students, not to give the public X, Y, and Z.” We can’t say that because it’s not really true—the ultimate effects of our work extend far beyond the limits of the campus. Sure, the RWA isn’t performing a public service, so the situations aren’t perfectly analogous. But if readers are on the receiving end of books that are in some way both the result of the RWA’s efforts, and the efforts of publishers and editors (beyond the raw talent and work of the author, of course), then why are they not implicated in the trends, status, quality, and value of the industry as a whole? And how are readers not automatically an interest there, whether or not they’re actually interested? That we would benefit from understanding better what the RWA does for its member writers, and keep in mind that its efforts are primarily focused on the professional development of authors I can totally dig. But authors don’t write solely for each other, nor seek publication for the benefit of the RWA, either. And when a bunch of us readers scratch our heads over the latest RITA winners, why shouldn’t we turn our questioning attention to the organization that awards those babies, that judges them and creates the criteria and designates them as “the best” of the genre? Because it’s clear to me that the RWA doesn’t hand those things out wanting them to be valuable only to other RWA members. But if they want to disentangle themselves from readers entirely, maybe that’s the direction they need to go.
Romance novels (at least the ones published by NY Houses) do not contain these kinds of errors to a greater extent than any of the other books published by these same houses. I see egregious errors in non-fiction and literary fiction all the time.
I totally agree with you, Kalen, that other types of books contain errors, but I disagree that there’s an equivalence across genres and types of books. I am consistently embarrassed by the level of grammatical, copyediting, and word choice errors in Romance as compared with other genres of fiction and non-fiction books—out of the exact same houses, even!
“First and foremost: the RWA is a writer’s organization”
HUH? WTF?
See, I have to disagree with you in many respects here. They only recently started recognizing on-line publishing and “those writers” etc etc.
That is why other organizations were started to make up for their “lack of commitment” and all out NOT including “all romance writers”.
They still seem to have issues with M/M romance writers also known as “those writers”.
So the RWA is a notoriously useless, conservative organization, with highly questionable management, overwhelmed by a lot of baggage that they created themselves.
Now they want to cry about those understandable public perceptions of non-relevance, laughable politics, and prejudiced reasoning they established by their own actions or inaction or whatever?
If ya play the tune, you have to pay the piper.
Oh and I really am just playing devils advocate. I could care less about the RWA honestly.
I have learned in life to not just join organizations that get on your nerves.
Teddy Pig: I see your point, believe me. And I’m not saying that the RWA doesn’t have some flaws – a seeming reluctance to acknowledge gay romance being one of the flaws that pops up every now and again.
However, I do know Romentics authors Scott Whittier and Scott Pomfret are both members of RWA, and they write gay romance. And there are other gay romance writers who are members of the RWA though I can’t remember names right now. Hell I don’t even know where my car keys are right now. Hanyway, Scott & Scott are also members of the PAN if I recall correctly. So it’s not like gay romance = get the hell off our lawn.
As for epublishers and online publishers, they’re slowing gaining ground at the RWA (and yeah I had to say “slowly”) but consider the flipside. There are marvelous e-pubs out there, and there are some that are shady, pay-to-publish operations that aren’t legit in the least.
RWA is also, in addition to looking closely at the RITA(ALT+0+1+5+3), is looking at their publisher recognition standards for that reason. They let a publisher in who starts screwing over authors? Fire up the torches. They exclude another publisher that doesn’t meet the present requirement out of reluctance to recognize something possibly shady? Fire up the torches. It’s not an easily balanced situation, is all I’m saying.
I never said RWA should apply to readers. I suggested readers might find books they would like among RITA finalists and winners.
I’m not sure what RWA could do for readers, though I’ve always thought it would be great to have some events beyond the Literacy signing that were for readers, so readers could come in and mingle with their favorite writers, and talk books with one another.
As an organization, it has good years and wretched years and spectacular years, as with any organization. It is—often—too conservative for my personal tastes, in many ways, but it is an organiation that represents more than 10000 people, so my voice is just one.
As for allowing publisher recognition, the standards seem smart to me. I’ve known too many writers who were seriously fucked over by bad publishers, bad agents, bad publicists. Better to err on the side of caution.
That bad year….oh, there were some that were worse, trust me.
Right but those are small exceptions to an overwhelming rule.
They needed to be doing their homework a whole lot sooner than that to impress me. You cannot say that these supposed experts cannot review these companies based on their supposed expert knowledge quicker. What benefit would I get from walking into a room that sees me as an exception, a fad, or a new thing?
Listen, I work in an industry that changes rapidly. The internet, banking in particular and a traditionally stodgy industry. You cannot rest on your laurels now and say well, I’m number one and everybody loves me and do nothing else.
You change out your functionality and add new things and re-establish your presence every 6 months. You keep your ear to the ground and make sure you on doing the latest the securest, the most helpful. You help create the cutting edge and you make damn sure your customers know that.
To stagnate, and to assume, and to cling to established tradition and process is to die a slow painful death, hopefully if that.
In the end I do not want to be a member of an organization that represents all that I know is wrong with narrow minded simplistic thinking. I want to be apart of the changes taking place right now and benefit from those changes as they occur.
That is the information I want and need not yesterdays old news. Sounds more like a popularity contest and not a working org.
“First and foremost: the RWA is a writer’s organization†HUH? WTF?
See, I have to disagree with you in many respects here. They only recently started recognizing on-line publishing and “those writers†etc etc.
Why must something be all-inclusive to qualify as a “writer’s organization”? All professional organizations have membership standards, be it a license, degree, etc. Just because you don’t agree with the standard doesn’t make the organization less valid. No other writer’s organization is as inclusive as RWA is, IMO.
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writer’s of America has very strict standards for who is allowed to be a member. I don’t recognize any of the “Qualifying Professional Markets†they allow as ePubs (though I didn’t check them all). Same with International Thriller Writers, and Horror Writers Association.
“Just because you don’t agree with the standard doesn’t make the organization less valid.”
Depends on their sales pitch.
Oh and yes, yes it does.
Ok, I’m calling “troll” on this one.
Whether you think RWA is a valid organization or not, it’s important to note they are not necessary to success in the industry. I’m not a member, and my career seems to be stumbling along pretty well. Just something else to mull over.
That is what I am counting on MaryJanice.
I figured people should know why they suck. And how hard they suck at it.
“Ok, I’m calling “troll†on this one.”
Yeah I figured since actual participation in the conversation was not your strong point.
“Nuh-uh” and “cause I said so” does not cut it.
(This has taken an odd turn.)
All I know is that, as an unpublished writer, I appreciate the educational aspects of the RWA. I have since learned that a lot of it is a strange sort of pyramid scheme (pubbed authors tutoring us wannabes, chapters sponsoring the exhchanges to stay solvent), but that is the case with a lot of business. It IS business. Sometimes writers hang out in chat rooms like we’re all long lost bestest friends. Not always the case.
Taking all of that with a grain of salt has made me a more savvy writer, not necessarily with regard to what I create, but certainly with regard to how I approach the industry. I think agent Kristin Nelson mentioned this just this week about her experience at a conference. She said RWA members tend to be very prepared for pitches, etc.—the business side of writing. We’re an educated group.
Whether that means we’re flexible and accepting depends first on individuals, which is how most RWA members interact, in rather personal chapter-sized groups. At the national level, it depends on the charisma and vision of its foremost writers/leaders. Some years and some leadership has proven better than others.
Just a fan, not a writer. But I am a dues paying member of a very effective professional group, the AAFP—American Academy of Family Practice. When I finished my FP residency, family med doctors were so low on the totem pole of MD’s that we were buried several feet in the ground. The advocacy of the AAFP over the years has changed our image a lot, at least with the public. Specialist colleagues still try to pretend that we family docs are beneath notice, but they never try twice with me, at least. But the public is much more receptive to family docs than they were twenty years ago.
Do I always agree with the AAFP? Not. 2 years ago their keynote speaker was some nutcase from Focus on the Family who was “teaching” us how to help our gay patients become straight. Like smokers who want to quit: set a quit date, make a commitment, avoid triggers. I just about blew a gasket. And I delay sending my dues in about 6 months every year, because I am still pissed about that one.
What I hoped for from the RWA was improvement in the image of romance writers, so that romance readers could bask in the reflected glow. Or at least avoid brown paper covers on our skanky looking books. I’ve actually read 4 of the RITA nominees this year, personal record.
But if the RITA was respected enough to garner interest outside of the romance community, then people who win them—oh phooey, I don’t know where I’m going with this. I just think if romance readers don’t care much about the RITA, how is it gonna improve the image of writers and by extension readers of romance? That is my only beef with the RITA. Oh, and too many categories. (Short attention span.) Oh, and Teddy Pig, boy could I have used you at the AAFP convention a coupla years back.
I’m with Kalen on this one. I find RWA to be so much more flexible than, say, SFWA. (I’ve even written to SFWA asking—respectfully but—specifically about e-pub credits. That is, what’s the difference between word manifestation via electrons and word manifestation via dyes on dead trees? Haven’t received an answer yet. If I do, I’ll let you guys know.)
I remember in the RWA magazine, RWR, recently, one member wanted romance to be specifically defined as between one man and one woman. I was curious about the feedback on this and was gratified to see so many members come out against such a narrow definition of romance. So there’s hope for the organisation yet.
Verification word: forward47. Indeed!
I pay my RWA dues every year because I get great benefits from my special chapters—Beaumonde, RWA Online and a couple others. But it does gripe my butt that I’ve got three award winning historical romance novels published, but my publishing record doesn’t count at RWA ‘cause my publisher isn’t recognized by them.
I do understand why there have to be some standards for publisher recognition, but I have a feeling that the organization can’t respond in a timely manner to the changes in the publishing industry.
Hmm. Not being part of the RWA, I can safely say that my only knowledge of it comes from the bits I’ve read over on their website, and the extensive post-offs they inspire here. If it is a democracy, and the members do elect all the top people, then doesn’t it follow that in order to change the organization, the best way to do it would be to become a member, and a voting member at that? If you elect someone who has the same vision for the organization of you, then you help create the changes you want to see made. But just sitting around saying, “I’m not a member and would never want to be one because they don’t do what I want?” Nothing will change.
After all, if you don’t exercise your right, then you lose your right to bitch. And here, we are all about the bitching!
I remember in the RWA magazine, RWR, recently, one member wanted romance to be specifically defined as between one man and one woman. I was curious about the feedback on this and was gratified to see so many members come out against such a narrow definition of romance. So there’s hope for the organisation yet.
You’re referring to Jan Butler’s argument here, I think. Although previous to her more recent salvo, there was significant suspicion that the former board was after a similar codification.
And assuming any authority over the definitional aspects of the genre is where I think RWA is more than just a writers organization. Isn’t there a difference between a genre and an industry? Or maybe that difference isn’t always recognized in Romance? I hadn’t really thought about it that way before, but hmmm, that might explain some things. Although I guess the RWA could ultimately be a writers organization that only represents a certain type of Romance. But then again, there are those who feel this is already the case. But certainly, the type of authors they recognize is only a writers’ issue—or is it? It’s all very muddled to me, because when you have an organization that seems as much about the promotion of the genre to the public(all those statistics and press packages they compile), as the definitional boundaries of the genre (which comes through via the RITA and their published definition), and advocating on behalf of and educating and providing a network for Romance writers, well, there are some diverse interests there, that go well beyond the professional development of authors. I wonder if this has to do with the fact that there really only has been one “official” organization within the industry, and it’s sort of become a catchall of different aspects of the genre AND the industry such that there no longer seems much distinction between the two.
Darlene, THANK YOU!
That is EXACTLY the issue I clearly see here. How are you supporting a “writer” by not reviewing their publisher?
How are you honestly earning your keep by not being on top of at least that aspect of a writers bread and butter. Showing responsibility to them (I am not saying accepting that publisher) but at least showing you did something to check them out.
Is that a scam or what? To me it is and the excuses given are weak and lame and about as useless as they are.
just my 2 cents –
“After all, if you don’t exercise your right, then you lose your right to bitch. And here, we are all about the bitching!”
I do not want to be a part of a circus either. Does that mean I cannot point out the clowns?
Of course you can point out the clowns. But if you are going to criticize the size of their shoes, you might try walking in them first.
All I am saying is this. Obviously, the RWA, for right or wrong, is never going to change because non-members, such as myself, post complaints on other websites. But they might respond to change from within, if their members demand such change.
I’m not saying you are right or wrong, either. I am merely pointing out that if one would like to see change, one must help create that change. And certain methods work, while others don’t.
From what I know of the RWA, some of their policies are flawed. And the non-recognition of certain publishers is a prime example. To draw a parallel, a lot of the GOP’s policies are flawed. That’s why we have another party. (And in other countries, there are many other options of parties to join.) You pick which one suits you best, and work to change the things you don’t like about it.
So if you don’t like the party’s plan, either work to create change from within, or help create a new party. All I’m saying is, if you want it to change, here are some suggestions how.
You are right on many things (Just my two cents) I agree with what you say but they still are the ten ton elephant sitting in the room. So many people feel the intense need to associate the good people and companies who associate with them as being somehow the RWA and this force for good.
I for one do not feel welcome and I am not going to sit there being a member because they are the biggest game in town. I will not.
I am a gay man who ‘maybe’ will take a chance at being a writer (good or bad) but I am not impressed with the ten ton elephant nor do I feel NOT one iota of affection, NOT one little smidgen of need to kiss their fat fucked up conservative ass.
Great they have a nice promo pamphlet and great parties. They are still exactly what I said they are. They have not once proved me wrong. I will not be their token fuck. They can kiss my ass first.
Teddy Pig:
Such a double edged sword, no?
On one hand, I say: bravo. You absolutely should not take part in an organization you do not feel welcome in.
On the other, the rebel bitch in me says, Fuck’em. Join them, shape them, and make them reform. 🙂
When it comes down to it, there really is no one organization that “is a force for good.” At the end of the day, an organization will go with the majority, because the majority is the source of its influence.
Which leaves so many people (like you and me and many others) in a bind. Do we join up and attempt a coup from within? Do we undertake the huge task of creating an organization that better represents our individual ideals? Or do we remain an outsider, protesting with a huge glittery sign? Where will we do the most good, and where will be become the most impotent? And no matter which choice we make, at what point do we become their bitch? There is no clear line.
Regardless, I do want you to know that I do respect your ballsy approach to the subject. No matter where you plant your flag, it takes a hell of a lot of gumption to plant one at all. (Owch. There’s the other side of that sword. Because here is where the RWA has planted theirs. Any org. has to set their limits…do we tolerate or seek to change them? The question could spin into oblivion.)
Cheers!
Point of information—SFWA recognises several electronic markets, though primarily in the magazine sector. There was much angst a few years ago as to how to measure circulation figures on free access electronic zines in a comparable way to print magazines, but criteria were eventually agreed.
“Do I always agree with the AAFP? Not. 2 years ago their keynote speaker was some nutcase from Focus on the Family who was “teaching†us how to help our gay patients become straight. Like smokers who want to quit: set a quit date, make a commitment, avoid triggers. I just about blew a gasket. And I delay sending my dues in about 6 months every year, because I am still pissed about that one.”
WOOHOO! Do they make a patch yet?
Nah, I like my twisted self too much.
After what I hear from the poor straight guys my sex life rocks.
“Which leaves so many people (like you and me and many others) in a bind. Do we join up and attempt a coup from within? Do we undertake the huge task of creating an organization that better represents our individual ideals? Or do we remain an outsider, protesting with a huge glittery sign?”
I get together online with a group of authors that write some of the best damn M/M romances in eBook format. In my opinion.
We look at things that matter to us like the sales stats from Amazon.com (I really want those categorized RSS feeds on my website now… you can pipe in searches for top 20 romance or top 20 gay romance or paranormal romance GOOD STUFF) or talk about who has a new book out or critique someones latest.
I mean are the sales stats not enough of a popularity vote as it is? Do you really need a yearly pageant?
Ooh, this ties in perfectly with the last post in my RWA series this week.
Personally, I think the standards should be stricter. Writers should be guaranteed some level of professional treatment, and some level of financial success. When is the last time Harlequin or Leisure released a title that sold copies in the single digits? Because it happens at some of the smaller recognized publishers, and it shouldn’t.
That doesn’t mean there couldn’t be a compromise (perhaps a difference between “recognized” and “approved” or something), but do you really want RWA recognition to have no standards at all? Do you want the conventions flooded with PublishAmerica authors and their bookmarks, buttons, lollipop trees, booksigning tablecloths, magnets, cookies, and flyers?
I am a member of RWA, but the only reason I continue to be one is for Passionate Ink and the fifteen minutes of distraction provided by the RWR every month. I haven’t even remembered to put it on my queries lately.
But you’re right in saying it should focus less on the readers. That is what sites like this are about.
And at the risk of putting my entire blog post here in the comments, I’m going to stop now.
Point of information—SFWA recognises several electronic markets, though primarily in the magazine sector.
Yes, you’re right, Jules. But how is it that an electronic **short story** from a magazine is worth so much more than an electronic **novel** from a small press? This is something that I believe SFWA has to explain…clearly and definitively.
* sigh * It’s difficult to change the world from within when you’re not allowed into it in the first place.
KS: If an electronic press can meet the same requirements as a dead tree press, it qualifies. That’s the same whether it’s a magazine market or a book market. But a lot more of the electronic magazine markets have managed to do that.
Whether three short stories should be equivalent to a novel—that’s a separate issue.
I already said that the typo thing applies to “any book.” And when I typed it, I was thinking of the compendium of three Dorothy Sayers novels I was reading (that the publishers have had over seventy years to correct errors in, but still has obvious bad typos).
“So it’s not entirely the author disregarding spelling, grammar, and the like. Often it’s a conglomerate of people on both sides of the publication process making a muck of things.”
—Was it the publisher or author who screwed up Incubus Dreams? Or was it a vengeful employee at the publishing company who couldn’t stand what Hamilton had done to Anita?
And the latest Christine Feehan has the heroine referring to herself as a “solider.” Wow. Must be made out of diamond or something.
But how is it that an electronic **short story** from a magazine is worth so much more than an electronic **novel** from a small press?
I believe that SFWA’s standards have to do with the amount of money paid. A short fiction pub has to pay a certain number of cents per word to qualify as a SFWA market. There are several e-mags who pay really well for short fiction (e.g., Baen’s Universe), often better than paper magazines.
Novel markets have to pay an advance to qualify for SFWA. E-publishers pay no advances. (If there are any who do, someone please correct me.)
Right or wrong, an advance is SFWA’s definition of a publisher treating a novelist in a professional and fair way. It’s a guarantee of income regardless of the level of sales.
Nit-pick:
You do not need to (nor should) include the trademark symbol, unless you are the trademark holder, and are making it clear that that mark is the one that you are defending.
Also, a trademark is so defined because the word, logo, appearance, colour combination and so on has been registered as the trademark, not because of any dinky ™ symbol. Check it out here
Question: How can the RWA have a registered trademark on the RITA, since trademarks exist to protect *commercial products*—to blunt the possibility of consumer confusion by protecting a commercial entity (trade dress, service mark, etc.) from dilution, lack of integrity, etc. How is the RITA in commerce, exactly?