From Publisher’s Weekly: Tsaba House Press is considering legal action against the RWA after one of its authors was barred from entering the RITA because Tsaba House is not an RWA -approved publisher.
Tsaba House Press, a Christian publisher of fiction and nonfiction titles, is considering taking legal action against the Romance Writers of America for refusing to consider one of the small California press’s authors for a Rita Award, which honors inspirational romances. According to Pam Schwagerl, Tsaba House publisher, Molly Noble Bull was barred from submitting her latest release, Sanctuary, for a Rita Award, because Tsaba House is not an “RWA approved†publisher. RWA subsequently told Schwagerl that the organization considers Tsaba House to be a subsidy or vanity press, because its boilerplate contract contains such clauses as charging authors if manuscripts have to be retyped or if the press considers it necessary to add frontmatter and backmatter to the manuscript that the author didn’t provide.
Schwagerl was quoted in the article “‘I really feel that this is an affront to independent publishers to try and once again group us in the category of subsidy presses and try to take away the advances the small publishers have made in the industry,’ said Schwegerl. She founded Tsaba House in 2002 and uses a boilerplate contract she bought from self-publishing guru Dan Poynter’s Web site.”
According to the article, RWA president Allison Kelly responded that “if, in its boilerplate contract, a press can charge an author for anything, the organization considers that company to be a subsidy or vanity press, and will not consider its titles for RWA’s award program…. RWA ‘didn’t do anything but apply [our] standards. We limit what we do to non-subsidy, non-vanity’ publishers.”
The feedback to the article on the PW site is full of exclamation points, to say the least. Marion Gropen’s comment stated in part, “The RWA seems to be trying to thin out the field, so that they can handle the number of submissions. That makes sense. It looks like they are assuming that most submissions from vanity or subsidy presses will have very little chance of winning, and can safely be excluded. That makes sense. But what does NOT make sense is their failure to recognize standard language in boilerplate, and their failure to reverse themselves when the error was brought to their attention.”
So let me ask – because I actually don’t know – is it standard in a contract that fees are charged when a publisher faces retyping a manuscript or adding content? The RWA took a lot of heat for defining non-vanity/non-subsidy publishers, and in the wake of Triskelion’s folding – along with the folding of several other e-pubs, from Venus to Aphrodite’s Apples – it’s not difficult to see why those lines were drawn to begin with (especially after authors faced a long wait through legal and financial filings to find out if they could get their manuscripts back).
Graceful curtsey to Em for the link.
CORRECTIONS – UPDATES – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – WHY IS MY WIRELESS ACTING UP NOW?!
Allison Kelley, RWA Executive Director, contacted me to set the record straight about a few pieces of misinformation in the PW article.
The article regarding Tsaba House and Romance Writers of America contained a factual error. The Tsaba House author referenced in the article was not trying to enter RWA’s RITA contest. She was interested in entering a contest sponsored by an RWA chapter. The rules governing RWA chapter contests are independently determined by each chapter. At no time did the author mention the RITA award when communicating with the RWA office. According to RWA records, the office was not contacted by the author or publisher until February 2008, several months after the RITA entry deadline, which was November 30, 2007.
Well, now that’s a whole other kettle of different! Holy misinformation, there, Batmonkey. What’s up with that?
Yeah! I finally did something useful.
Keep in mind that RWA would not have received the private contract between publisher and author that was modified, they would have received the generic (spaces left unfilled) contract.
I wonder if a redacted version of the contract would have made any difference? However, who am I to comment, right?
Petra, you’re really going to have to prove it to me that by defining their own standards for publisher approval—re THEIR organization, RWA violates any laws.
I don’t believe the term “subsidy press’ is defamatory.
The additional matter I referenced in my own work was provided by the publisher—they did the maps, the family trees, the index. At their expense. It was never a question of otherwise. And they needed my approval in order to include them. It was not their decision, but mine.
And it’s my personal opinion that a publisher doesn’t have the right to make such a decision without the author’s approval, and certainly not to bill the author for it. Nor to charge for retyping, reformatting or whatever term we’d want to use—to put the ms into publishable form—without the author’s agreement.
If these are industry standards, I’ve never had them included in any of the contracts I’ve signed—for three publishers—since 1980 to date.
So I’d agree with RWA’s assessment on this. Maybe we’re both wrong, but that’s how I’d read it.
The arrticle on RWA’s site states that they saw: “a copy of the company’s boilerplate contract which listed several instances in which costs could be charged to the author.”
Assuming these are nonstandard costs and not the typical things found in, say, Random House’s contract, it appears there is more than one clause in question, not just the soon to be infamous typing clause. And again, without seeing the **entire contract** RWA was given, it is presumptive to assume they are being unfair. They have included a good number of publishers on their non-vanity, non-subsidy list and even more publishers on their Eligible Publishers list, and they would have applied the same guidelines to the contracts of these publishers as part of their listing process. I have no idea how many publishers have tried to list with RWA and failed—because normally they don’t threaten to sue. A few might choose to tweak their boilerplate because they feel there is sufficient value to them or their authors to be listed with RWA. Most probably don’t. However, tons of publishers get by just fine without listing with RWA.
*peeking out from behind very large chair to avoid being seen since she said she wouldn’t post anymore*
Word on the street is that no one has actually seen the “real” Tsaba House contract to be able to debate it.
Apparently the chapter of RWA whose contest they entered had no problems accepting them as an industry standard publisher. So why is it an issue now?
Correct me if you know for a fact that I’m wrong, but Tsaba House didn’t enter the RITA contest therefore they could never be turned down, right?
Tsaba House entered an award contest for a chapter of RWA; they were accepted and then finaled only to be told, (and I’m assuming here) that they can’t participate in the RWA chapter contest because they don’t meet industry standards.
If RWA chapters operate pretty much on their own, as has been noted here, why did RWA get involved?
If the chapter accepted them and they finaled why was their contract questioned? Is it standard practice for contest put on by RWA chapters to do this? Do they randomly decide to scrutinize contracts of authors who final?
Tsaba House had apparently already met the requirements for the chapter contest they entered. They were in the contest.
According to everything I’ve read here in the original post and at PW, Tsaba House never entered the RITA but entered an award contest put on by a chapter of RWA and was accepted in and finaled.
If they’d entered the RITA, I suppose RWA could ask to see their contract. Other than that, it’s not really a question of why won’t Tsaba House provide it it’s more a question of why would RWA ask for it?
And because it is hard to set tone when posting, I’m confused, not angry.
Sue, you should be asking a board member of RWA, as most of us who aren’t or have never been wouldn’t know the fine details of this sort of thing. But chapters of RWA would, I believe, have to follow the rules and standards of the national organization—otherwise they wouldn’t BE chapters of the national organization.
And word on the street really needs to be verified before it can be taken as fact.
No, I don’t believe RWA scrutinizes contracts from contest entrants—but they would question an entrant whose book is for a non-approved pubisher. Therefore, if the publisher seeks to be listed among those approved by RWA, they’d have to submit their boilerplate contract for review. Boilerplate would be what they offer to any new author before any negotiations ensue.
This is how I understand it, but I’ve never served on the board.
Yes, “word on the streets” does need to be verified, that’s why I said it that way.
Yes, talking to a board member of RWA would more than likely answer the confusing questions I have but I doubt I’ll be contacting one anytime soon as I don’t “have a dog in the hunt.”
Assuming the scenario that an RWA chapter has to be verified by the National RWA orginization, then it stands to reason they know the rules and guidelines they have to follow. Doesn’t mean they’ll get it right all the time but the assumption is they do know.
So an RWA Chapter let Tsaba House into their contest. They later realize, though we’re not sure how, that Tsaba House might not be an RWA approved publisher. The only conclusion I can draw is that the chapter was at a loss with how to deal with this and went straight to the National Orginization for help.
RWA then asks for more proof? *this is in fact all assumptions*
The contest in question is the Gayle Wilson Award of Excellence by the Southern Magic chapter of RWA. The contest rules state the following:
Eligibility: Participation is open to all published authors of novel length romance fiction published by an RWA-eligible publisher.
My guess is that someone questioned if Tsaba House was RWA-eligible and the matter was taken to National.
Call it a hunch, but I bet the chapter, and ALL RWA chapters with published novel contests, will change the language of future contests to read “published by RWA-recognized publisher.”
“Call it a hunch, but I bet the chapter, and ALL RWA chapters with published novel contests, will change the language of future contests to read “published by RWA-recognized publisher.”“
But RWA doesn’t really recognize publishers. They identify a list of publishers that match their definition of non-vanity/non-subsidy, but they don’t use, last time I checked, language that recognizes or bestows any specific seal of approval on one publishing house vs. another.
“RWA-eligible” is sort of vague to my reading, though I’m familiar enough with what they mean to fill in the blanks (and of course I’m always right, right? Right!). If anything, chapter contest rules and requirements will change to acknowledge, if they want, the n-v/n-s list.
Sarah,
Okay, you’re right. RWA did do away with “RWA-recognized” and we have that “non-vanity/subsidy” language. (And I totally knew that but, hey, it’s Sunday afternoon and, um, the brain is on vacation till Monday.)
I do feel sorry for the RWA chapters with published author contests, though – we have a lot of them, and they are all fundraisers for the chapters. (We all know that, right?)
-I do feel sorry for the RWA chapters with published author contests-
I feel worse for the authors who enter and are deemed eligible and even final and then are told they’re not eligible. 🙁
“Petra, you’re really going to have to prove it to me that by defining their own standards for publisher approval—re THEIR organization, RWA violates any laws.”
We could hire an antitrust lawyer. 🙂 I think they’re only about $500 an hour!
But RWA has said they have had to change policy to stay on the right side of that law—for example, I remember at one time, only RWA members could come to the conference, and that was considered a possible antitrust problem, and so an option for non-members to attend was added (but cleverly RWA raised the conference fee for non-members, I think, to the fee + membership amount, so they might as well join :). I think the more successful RWA becomes, the more the GH and RITA are seen as helpful in a career sense, say, the more careful RWA has to become with anything that might be seen as “restraint of trade”.
Of course, in an industry where so much consolidation has taken place, and there are so few real markets left, it seems sort of like displacement to see RWA as the monopolistic force and not the huge media companies! But then, RWA doesn’t have the huge resources that the media companies have—better to avoid such issues by defining standards clearly and applying them equally.
~for example, I remember at one time, only RWA members could come to the conference, and that was considered a possible antitrust problem, and so an option for non-members to attend was added~
But this is an entirely different matter than a contest, or an organization’s standards for publisher-eligibility or approval—or whatever the term may be.
And I’m not at all sure you’re correct in the above, as NINC—another writer’s organization—initially held its conference for published authors only (and those had to meet THEIR requirements), and did not allow other publishing professionals to attend. They opened it for editors, etc, only after members requested it. Not because they were avoiding anti-trust trouble.
Only members or invited guests can attend Novelist Inc’s conference. An unpubbed cannot. I can’t as I let my membership lapse this year. Therefore, I can’t see how requiring membership to attend is anti-trust.
If so, somebody better tell Ninc.
And please, why shouldn’t RWA charge more to non-members for attending their conference?
Answers.com
Don’t see what antitrust has to do with an organization such as the RWA, unless they have been not “promoting competition”. Is RT complaining that RWA is monopolizing romance?
To this non-writer, it sounds as if RWA are trying to prevent publishers from taking advantage of their members. After all the problems with e-publishers disappearing, I think that members would appreciate that.
As to conference attendance fees, any conference is going to charge non-members a higher fee to attend. An organization of which I am a member, charges non-members $500 more to attend. I did a google search of conference and it appears to be a conference “standard” to do this.
Back to lurking.
From what I can shovel out of this mess:
1) Somebody at a local chapter made a mistake and allowed a non-eligible book into a contest. This would have been a non-paid VOLUNTEER who is only human. She made a mistake.
2) Tsaba Press obviously had never tried for eligibility in RWA prior to this, or they could have resolved the problem prior to this.
3) Very few people would have been aware of this whole thing if Tsaba hadn’t gone to Publisher’s Weekly, threatening a lawsuit.
I think it would be better if Tsaba spent the money that a lawsuit (or even just talking to their lawyers) would cost to update their contracts.
Secondly I think it would behoove them to verify exactly how much or little a winner at a local chapter is worth (there’s been debates as to the monetary worth of a RITA).
And most importantly, I think it this whole thing could be resolved if Tsaba and the writers of Christian fiction who have posted here would take it upon themselves to just forgive the chapter for the error and resolve to get their ducks in a row so it doesn’t happen again.
Finally, I can’t resist the snark. No offense to the author, but how long do you think it will take for Cassie Edwards to appropriate “Molly Noble Bull” as one of her heroines.
1) Somebody at a local chapter made a mistake and allowed a non-eligible book into a contest. This would have been a non-paid VOLUNTEER who is only human. She made a mistake.
Perhaps she made an error or perhaps the chapter made an error, I don’t know if the chapters abide by the same rules. There was more than one chapter involved in this “mess,” however.
2) Tsaba Press obviously had never tried for eligibility in RWA prior to this, or they could have resolved the problem prior to this.
And, where on the RWA website does it state that a publisher must “try” for eligibility? If it did state this at the time (and made the information easily accessible), then I agree.
The only information I could find was ambiguous:
“Books must be published by a publisher that is a non–Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher.”
Consider it this way: if a publisher knows that they are not a subsidy nor a vanity press, then why would they not enter the contests? Do you see what I mean?
3) Very few people would have been aware of this whole thing if Tsaba hadn’t gone to Publisher’s Weekly, threatening a lawsuit.
Where in the article does it state they are threatening a lawsuit?
I think it would be better if Tsaba spent the money that a lawsuit (or even just talking to their lawyers) would cost to update their contracts.
See above. Not applicable
And most importantly, I think it this whole thing could be resolved if Tsaba and the writers of Christian fiction who have posted here would take it upon themselves to just forgive the chapter for the error and resolve to get their ducks in a row so it doesn’t happen again.
The problem is that the publisher is not a subsidy nor a vanity press.
This is what they are trying to establish without having to change their operating methods to be in line with each contest or organization they belong to!
There was more than one chapter involved as well as the national organization.
Forgiveness is appropriate, so is an apology.
P.S. I am not a Christian author 🙂
~Where in the article does it state they are threatening a lawsuit?~
Cut and pasted directly feom the article:
“Tsaba House Press, a Christian publisher of fiction and nonfiction titles, is considering taking legal action against the Romance Writers of America for refusing to consider one of the small California press’s authors for a Rita Award, which honors inspirational romances.”
While I wouldn’t say a publisher has to ‘try’ for RWA eligibility, I would say that when entering a contest, one should acquaint themselves with the rules of the contest. RWA’s policy and definition of what it considers subsidy is pretty clear.
I can, absolutely, understand that the author and the publisher simply didn’t consider they might not be eligible because of certain clauses. There’s a mistake, just as it’s possible the contest committee made a mistake.
Depending on the clauses in the contract, Tsaba House may be considered subsidy by RWA policy. By THEIR policy for their organization, for their contests.
But Tsaba House went to PW, Tsaba house told PW they were considering taking legal action over this policy.
“Threating a lawsuit” and “considering taking legal action” are two different things IMO. Perhaps that’s what the poster was referring to.
And the part pasted about Tsaba House entering a RITA and so forth was negated here on this blog, added on at the bottom under corrections.
—The Tsaba House author referenced in the article was not trying to enter RWA’s RITA contest. She was interested in entering a contest sponsored by an RWA chapter.—
Tsaba House entered a contest given by an RWA chapter. They were eligible at the time and even finaled. They were then told they weren’t eligible at all.
Perhaps they could’ve studied the guidelines for eligibility a little more closely but why would they after the contest accepted them as eligible?
The whole RITA arguement is over and never should’ve been an issue according to RWA. I’m not sure how PW got that messed up but hey, we all make mistakes. 🙂
They were eligible at the time and even finaled… Perhaps they could’ve studied the guidelines for eligibility a little more closely but why would they after the contest accepted them as eligible?
Every contest I’ve entered includes an entry form that I’VE signed stating that I’m eligible. No one ever told me I was eligible. I asserted it.
I’m sure it was all unintended and there could have been mistakes made on either side.
I’ve only been in one and that was the Bram Stoker Award. I had to join the Horror Writer’s Association for that and had to provide proof that my publisher was traditional, industry standard whatever you want to call it. LOL
But I know there are contest out there where it probably happens like you say as well. But I guess that falls in to the assumption category.
No one really knows what RWA chapters require. Going to PW with concerns might seem rash to some but who knows what dialogue did or didn’t happen before Tsaba House decided this was their only option.
But debating why a publisher goes to PW with complaints is a far cry from debating whether are not they should cough up their contract to see if their actually eligible for a contest they were in fact able to enter.
~Threating a lawsuit†and “considering taking legal action†are two different things IMO. Perhaps that’s what the poster was referring to.~
I’m afraid when I read ‘considering taking legal action’, I think considering a law suit. I’d wager most people would interpret this the same way. What would your interpretation be?
I also believe a publisher who—for whatever reason—wants or seeks to be RWA approved would have to ‘cough up’ their boilerplate. This is how RWA determines if the publisher meets their standards and policies. Just how else would you expect the organization to assess? The contract is key.
I’m confused further by you’re stating that in a contest you entered you had to provide proof that your publisher met traditional, industry standards. I get that—but can’t follow that to you objecting to RWA requiring documentation of the same for its contest.
~No one really knows what RWA chapters require~
I would think the individual chapters and RWA national would know what the chapters require.
My chapter also holds an annual contest. I think I know what the requirements are—but if I wasn’t sure, all I’d need do would be ask the committee chair or a member of the board.
Nora
I’ve never posted before, but I’m a frequent lurker. Gotta love the rockin’ Bitches, y’all.
I’m on RWA’s national board of directors. So is Stef Feagan. But this is a chapter matter, and all chapters are individually incorporated, so they can set their own rules when it comes to contests, etc.
This whole teacup-tempest came about because the author (not the publisher) entered her book in a chapter contest. Through oversight or whatever, the chapter contest coordinator didn’t notice that Tsaba isn’t on RWA’s list of non-subsidy/non-vanity publishers, which is something completely separate from RWA-eligible publishers (those are publishers who are invited to participate in the conference, allocated space and meeting rooms for editor appointments).
When the chapter finally caught the error and the author was contacted, she must have contacted Tsaba, which took umbrage that they’d be considered a subsidy publisher (not vanity publisher, but subsidy publisher) and contacted PW. PW contacted RWA’s executive director for comments, but either Tsaba had gotten things mixed up and said “RITA contest” when the RITA wasn’t involved at all, or the reporter thought she knew more than she did. She may have heard of the RITA and just assumed that was the contest involved.
RWA national isn’t involved in this at all, except through PW’s reporter and Tsaba’s threat of legal action. Allison Kelley, RWA’s executive director, is a consummate professional, and she bends over backwards to evenly apply all rules, across the board. If she saw some things in Tsaba’s contract wording that, in her opinion, run counter to RWA’s own standards for inclusion on the non-subsidy/non-vanity publisher list, then I trust her judgment. If Tsaba’s policy doesn’t follow the wording of said contract, perhaps they’d be better off spending the money amending the contract to better reflect their policy, instead of wasting it on a dead-end lawsuit.
So—a mistake on a chapter contest level, possibly a mistake on Tsaba’s part in thinking this involved a RITA, or possibly the same mistake by PW’s reporter in assuming the same thing. I would say that’s it in a nutshell, but it’d have to be a fairly large nutshell :-).
Other items raised: Non-RWA members who attend the conference are charged the conference fee plus the membership fee because it wouldn’t be right to allow them to attend the conference for less money than the members can. I know there are arguments both pro and con, but that’s the reasoning.
As board members don’t individually speak for the board (the president does that), I’m speaking only as a member of RWA who can answer some of the questions that have been raised here.
Linda Howard
record 71.
I swear, that thing is psychic.
-I get that—but can’t follow that to you objecting to RWA requiring documentation of the same for its contest.-
I have no objection to RWA requiring anything. This matter doesn’t involve RWA as such. At first I thought it did now I know different (or rather assume since I’ve not talked to a board member.) This matter involves a chapter of RWA who let an author into a contest and then said they weren’t eligible.
There’s no need to mention a Tsaba House contract at all or even whether Tsaba House is a vanity or subisdy press according to RWA.
They aren’t entering the RITA or anything else that require they show a contract. An author entered a chapter award contest and was deemed eligible. That author was later deemed ineligible.
Several have kindly said that it was perhaps a mistake and well things like this just happen sometimes.
Okay.
But no, I don’t object to the way RWA chooses to run things for the RITA or anything else. I’m not qualified to debate their polices and guidelines nor do I want to. But I’ve already said that before.
“Tsaba House Press, a Christian publisher of fiction and nonfiction titles, is considering taking legal action against the Romance Writers of America . . . “
Well, why the heck couldn’t I see that. I went through it especially to locate the sentence.
I do apologize for emphatically stating that it wasn’t so. Perhaps I was only seeing what I wanted to see.
Ooh, Linda Howard!!! Fans self and then ruthlessly chokes back RFG.
Man, the internet seems to be around just to bash the RWA. (And I thought it was for porn.)
Way upstream, somebody asked why there should be rules for competitions. Lemme see, I wanna enter an inspirational writers contest.
But you can’t write, you twit, the organizers might say. (Well, if they’re gonna focus on tiny details.)
And you haven’t been to church in 40 years. (Them pesky details again.)
Shouldn’t you know at least a little something about religion? (Uhhh. . .)
Apparently there is language in the boilerplate contract of the Tsaba publishers that makes it seem as if they could require authors to subsidize the press. How could the RWA use that against Tsaba and call them a subsidy press?
Instead of suing RWA (which is the ONLY interpretation of “pursuing legal action” that exists in the fine state of California), the effort could be better spent in changing the potentially offending statements.
Sue Dent said: “There’s no need to mention a Tsaba House contract at all or even whether Tsaba House is a vanity or subisdy press according to RWA.”
Ah, but there is a need to mention it. As has already been posted in the comments, the rules of the contest is question state that to be eligible, the author must be published with an RWA eligible publisher. To determine is the publisher is RWA eligible, the contract needs to be perused.
Yeah, I’m here to bash RWA! Only now I found out they don’t even have a dog in the hunt. How sad?
So let’s bash one of their chapters instead. Good Grief!
Why are we still talking about contract? That’s only for the RITA thingy which we now know, or assume for lack of a better word, a contest Tsaba House’s never entered. How many times can we repeat that.
And furthermore, *looking around in dismay* why am I even here?
I don’t even like bashing . . . but I’m starting to. 🙂
Liv, the contest the Tsaba House author entered, she was eligible for. The lawyer friend above clarifed this but that’s only heresay since he/she is not acutally involved and says that too. Apparently we have to ask a board member to get clarification on this.
What we don’t need clarification on is whether Tsaba House should have to provide a contract. They entered a contest handled by an RWA chapter. This may or may not require a contract to be shown. Either way, they were deemed eligible. They were later deemed ineligible after finaling. RWA National who claims they have no hold over what RWA Chapters do, asked for the contract.
Sue,
I guess I’m having a hard time deciphering what stance you are advocating here. You seem to be arguing many things, not all of which seem very relevant. For instance, you talk alot about whether the Tsaba contract is “industry standard,”
Quote: “I thought after reading the PW aricle and this blog that the issue was whether Tsaba House had a legitimate standard industry contract”
and
“It’s about Tsaba House’s contract and whether it’s industry standard not about whether those who run a contest want to do things the way they said they would or maybe I’m missing something.”
and
“When it comes out that this contract is standard in the industry, what will RWA do then?”
Yet the issue has never been whether the contract is industry standard. The issue is whether Tsaba is a subsidy or vanity press. Part of determining whether a publisher is subsidy or not is looking at their contract to see if they charge unfair or inappropriate fees.
Then you say thinks like:
Quote: “I understand that Random House uses this identical contract with the same clause in it.”
But backtrack and say:
“You did misunderstand if you thought I said Random House had that clause in their contract. I should’ve added, “or at least I’ve heard.—
Now you argue that the contract only comes into play in regards to the RITAs. But as has been pointed out several times (this will be the third) the RWA chapter in question states that only those authors published by RWA eligible publishers can enter the contest. So Tsaba’s contract and the RWA’s policies are absolutely relevant here.
From what I can gather, Tsaba is not RWA eligible, so the Tsaba author was NEVER, in fact, eligible to enter the contest. Even if someone at the RWA chapter made a mistake, and initially let the author enter, it was never a case of she was eligible and then she wasn’t.
Are you saying the RWA doesn’t have a right to set guidelines in their own contests? Or that the RWA has that right, but not its chapters? Or that the RWA doesn’t have the right to confirm eligibility (by checking the contract to ensure the publisher isn’t a subsidy or vanity press)?
Well, Liv, if you go back and read everything in it’s entirety and in context, (which might take even longer than the time you’ve spent quoting me) you’ll find many have said one thing, then with new information they’ve said something applicable.
I’ve been on here too long today. There’s nothing I’ve posted that shouldn’t make sense. The facts are all here.
And I’m tired so I’m sure you’ll all be glad to know, I’m out of here.
Keep an eye on PW Daily this week. Maybe they’ll get it right this time.
Bitch on! 🙂
~Liv, the contest the Tsaba House author entered, she was eligible for. The lawyer friend above clarifed this but that’s only heresay since he/she is not acutally involved and says that too. Apparently we have to ask a board member to get clarification on this.~
No, she wasn’t. As has been made clear countless times. She was mistakenly allowed to enter, as she was never eligible. The mistake was caught, and she was notified.
A board member—speaking as a member—has explained that as well. (Hi, Linda!)
The matter of the contract is NOT irrelevent. It is the crux.
It’s a shame a mistake was made—and the correction of that mistake has nothing to do with the book finaling in the contest. I understand the author would be upset and disappointed. Anyone would be. But the publisher contacting PW and ‘considering taking legal action’ feels extreme to me.
Yes Nora.
I’m obviously out of my league here with all you big authors. I’ll let y’all get back to the normal program of this blog. Excuse the interruption.
Cynthia, nobody said anything about leagues, and I don’t think anyone indicated anyone else was out of hers. In any case, my last comment was in response to Sue Dent’s remarks, not yours.