Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

the smaller connections between individuals are priceless,

WORD!  I found two of my CP’s via RWA (in some form or fashion).  And while I let my membership lapse this year, that doesn’t mean I don’t care (I actually care very VERY much) or that I’m not cheering for those who choose to fight the good fight because I most definitely am.

Sarah - the fact you can’t sign your Bosoms at the Literacy Signing is too stupid for color tv. The LS isn’t about RWA, its about raising money for literacy. I’ve always said that RWA takes itself way too seriously.

As for running for the BoD - There’ve been several people who have run for the Region Director positions who have epub background but they didn’t win. In many ways the hijinks over the past ten years or so has tainted epublishing in the mind of many members.

You are right. This is not an issue to bail on RWA for. I’ve written a suspense and a fantasy novel, but I joined because of the reasons you stated for why it is so good. Great bunch of people. Mostly. It’s when you hear stories about small press/epub authors getting marginalized against traditionaly pubbed authors that one realizes there is a likely strong minority within RWA that really doesn’t want epub in the picture, that doesn’t feel they are as legitimate, or is just plained annoyed with the fact that some epub authors are making more money than they have. People just need to be informed and educated on this stuff. A lot of RWA folks just aren’t clued in, and they are smart enough to get it with all of the information, like how requiring epubs to give $1000 advances doesn’t work. Digital publishing does not function that way. It can’t and they won’t. Listening to Pershing challenge them to join the ‘big boys’ and pay up is the sort of understanding RWA can do without. I joined RWA because it was a community oriented toward helping romance writers get published and maintaining a career once it started. At least that’s my impression of what it is/should be. It’s not their business to enforce publishing standards. They can obviously, but it’s just time to realize that the current standards are hurting members and it isn’t going to hurt the majority to make a change.

Thanks for this post, Sarah. I think both you and Jane have valid points, and yes there are things about RWA that are *very* frustrating. But. I’ve been a member for five years (yes, a short-timer) and will continue to be a member of RWA. I’ve found the resources, the RWR, the local and on-line chapters, the connections, the contests, the conferences (the alliteration!) to be invaluable.

Too, to address JC above, there are reasons for things like “no non-fiction” at the Lit signing. I mean, imagine how messy it would get. Yes, there are obviously books (and bosoms) that SHOULD be there, but just extrapolate a bit. Where do you draw the line?

Is any organization perfect? No, but I get a lot from RWA and am not shy about making my opinion known. So pass the black face-paint. There are a lot of us here, coming up the back stairs of this castle.

>>there is no other group of writers like RWA, and I’m proud of that. There is no organization I know of wherein multi-bazillion-dollar authors regularly come back to teach, workshop, and aid aspiring authors, particularly not in a genre-specific venue like RWA<

<

>

>The value of RWA is in those connections - between members, between loop subscribers, between critique partners and between those who’ve done it before decoding the confusing as hell process for those just starting out<<

Amen.  There is no other organization (and I’ve joined most of them) that puts members in close contact with such a large part of the publishing world (for our genre, and beyond).  The connections are magnificent and most of my best friends in the world are writer friends I’ve met through RWA -people who really, really GET what it means to have voices in my head nad not need a rubber room. 

I have worked in volunteer positions from, literally, the day I joined RWA:  on committees, both local and national, on many, many boards, and just volunteering wherever needed.  This year the kids and I will be helping to set up the literacy signing. When the kids are older and I have more time, I hope to run for the national board.

My point, rambling though it may be, is this:  no organization is going to serve every need of every member all at once.  But don’t LEAVEbecause you disagree - PLEASE DON’T LEAVE!!  Instead stay and work for change.  RWA is an all volunteer organization - let’s make it what we want it to be.

Something has to change. I still can’t understand why RWA won’t let you and other authors like Laura Baumbach sign books at the literacy signing event at the conference? It is for charity!

RWA has so much to offer, but lately the powers the be of RWA feel they are above others with their, “it is my way or the highway mumbo jumbo.”

Time for that fun disclosure stuff. I started programming the HTML formatting for the eNotes, the bimonthly e-newsletter for the organization, in August 2002. I’m now the editor and have been for about two years. So that’s ...holy crap, seven years of volunteering.

Even with that effort, I don’t entirely fit.

That, right there, is indication that something needs to change.

I am less optimistic than many about RWA’s capacity to embrace the validity of BOTH advance-based (i.e. print) and epublishing models, in part because I think there’s a prejudice toward ebooks that might be tied up with similar feelings toward erotic Romance—in large part because the two seem to be persistently conflated (despite the inaccuracy) and problematized within the RWA.  But also because I really wonder whether RWA is *already* way over-extended in what they can realistically offer its members.

Information about craft and publication involves some level of focus on different publishers, but maybe it’s time for RWA to step back and figure out what its real strengths are, what members like most about it, and what members want more/less of. That kind of self-evaluation is difficult and it can be expensive/time-consuming, but it might also yield some useful information for the organization itself, especially in a time of such growth and change w/in the genre and the publishing industry in general.  Obviously RWA has value or it would have faded away by now, but perhaps its real strengths are not being maximized, and the gaps left not filled in by other organizations. As I said on Twitter the other day, I don’t see how a genre/industry as large and diverse as Romance can remain current, vibrant, and relevant with basically ONE umbrella organization.

I love RWA. Love doesn’t blind me to flaws in RWA any more than it does my husband.

Unlike with my husband, however (since you aren’t supposed to try to change your partner…right?) I am willing to advocate for change in RWA so that it can be useful to a greater proportion of its membership. I understand a lot of people feel like throwing up their hands at this point, like belonging isn’t worth the stress, and I appreciate that, but like Alyssa Day I wish they wouldn’t. I want those people in RWA learning beside me, teaching beside me, volunteering beside me, advocating beside me, getting published in all sorts of formats beside me, having a career beside me. It’s total self-interest :)

I find membership in RWA to be both valuable and frustrating.  I was a founding member of the RWAOnline chapter, and it’s still my “home” chapter.  I’m not going to drop out of National, but I am following the call to change with a great deal of interest.  Change is in the air, and our organization needs to seriously address the issues of 21st century media.

Hit the nail on the head. I’m not leaving, because despite this one issue I still reap a lot of other benefits that is worth the 85 bucks and bullshit.

There needs to be education regarding e-presses. They are the bad, just pure-dee-bad pubs. They are the nice ones you probably won’t make enough to fill your gas thank up with. Then there are the ones that you can plan vacations with and still have plenty left over.

Depending on the experience this can be one e-pub.

I’ll even go out on a limb and say this can be a NY pub.

Education. Education. Education is priceless. I could have sworn that was their mission.

“Tank”

Yes, I am the typo queen.

I have a super stupid suggestion to settle this whole thing as someone who has been e-published (twice), someone who is writing to get “traditionally” published in romance, a Golden Heart Finalist, and current RWA member.  Why doesn’t the RWA form a sister section or (for lack of a better phrase) subforum with its own committee that reports to Big Sister called ERWA with a specific emphasis, focus on, and perhaps even monthly magazine of its own targeted on e-publishing?  Charge the members the same, have them choose either traditional RWA or ERWA memberships and go from there. 

Like I said…. stupid solution to the whole mess, but I think it would benefit everybody involved and let everyone - from the writer to the publisher to the organization - move forward to explore, advise, learn, network and grow together to meet the changing technology.  Hell, they could even hold their own ERWA conventions every year (simultaneously as RWA nationals or at another time of the year) and even have their own awards if they want until the RWA can figure out where they fit in.

JT

Sarah, I just checked and as long as you maintain a general membership rather than affiliate membership, you are eligible to run for Regional Director. It’s only the President-Elect position which has the added stipulations of at least one more year of membership + publication credits.

I do agree with Robin that RWA needs to do a deep survey of its membership and their wants and needs. The thing that sticks in my craw right now, and I would *love* to be proven wrong on this point, is that there appears to be no directional document, namely a long-range or strategic plan, for the organization. Part of the process in developing one would include an analysis of the membership. I’m another one who has a lot of personal desire as a long-term member in seeing RWA coming through this challenge in a way that strengthens the organization.  We complain routinely about seeing a lot of rehashing of old arguments. I’m sick of them myself because there seems to be no forward momentum of the discussion. I feel like we start over every single year when the president-elect takes up her position as president. Why does this happen? No directional document. Despite the pres-elect serving on the board for a year by the time she takes office, I never get a sense of continuity. We are an organization of 10,000 people. We can only grow stronger if we know what our core needs are. We will survive and thrive through the years if we make an effort to look to our future and create a roadmap to that future. And an ad hoc position of “Strategic Plan Champion” in no way addresses this need. This should be a full, standing committee in order to be able to respond to the ever-changing world of the publishing industry.

I have had it with people bagging on RWA over the ePublishing issue. Or, more to the point, I’ve had it with them bagging ONLY on RWA, as if their stance is substantially different from that of any other professional writers org (and this is the heart of the matter, which I’ll get to down below). I’ve looked at the membership requirements for other professional writing groups (such as Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and Mystery Writers of America) and guess what? They have very similar requirements to those of RWA (they might even be more stringent)!

What’s the key difference, and the reason that I don’t think they get tarred and feathered to the same extent at RWA? Easy, they don’t allow unpublished members!!! RWA put itself in an untenable position, trying to serve two masters with radically different needs by accepting both published and unpublished members. The fact that the unpublished members outnumber the published ones only intensifies the problems. Add in the new pressure of ePublishing, which is still finding its feet and its place in the world, and the struggle of ePublished authors for recognition and—yes—acceptance, and you have clusterfuck of epic proportions in which there is simply no way to accommodate everyone in the way they need (or want).

Yes, RWA needs to figure out how to meet the needs of their ePublished members, and I personally believe that they will do so. Will it happen as quickly as the ePublished authors would like? Clearly not, and yeah, waiting blows. Watching any group, org, or society in the midst of change is always painful and ugly and rage inspiring. So if you think RWA has something to offer you, great. If not, stop giving them your money and find some other group (such as EPIC) that does.

I agree with you Kalen. I think RWA should strip its membership down to print published only authors.  It would be more focused and more responsive to authors’ needs.

It should, ideally, be only “In Print” authors only as well as authors who had one contract and can’t sell another won’t have the same needs as the authors who are currently under contract.

Yet, RWA loves the dues from these other members, no?

Will it happen as quickly as the ePublished authors would like?

Ten years is not quickly and the clock is still clicking.

But, I would agree that RWA should take one stance. It would cut out a lot of the angst of not being able to please all 10,000 members. They would also have to define what is “ony in print”, because despite what many believe the “only in print” is misleading. Harlequin offers all their titles in e-format. Those authors are not exclusively in print and would no longer be members to RWA.

I would like to see that uproar, but, maybe those same authors would finally understand the other side’s argument.

To Kalen & Jane:

As an unpublished member of RWA, I vehemently disagree that membership should be restricted to published authors. RWA has helped countless unpublished members on their road to publication. If I recall correctly, Kalen was one of them.

There are at least as many unpublished members as published ones who volunteer their time to help RWA National and its many chapters. I’ve volunteered for The Beau Monde chapter for 5 years, first as a newsletter columnist, then as editor. SB Sarah is - in the eyes of RWA at least - an unpubbed member who has also volunteered her time. Think of all the people who help out at the annual conference. Are they all published members?

So what do you want RWA to do? Kick us out?

Nicely said, Sarah.

One thing addressed to the strip RWA to published only:

RWA was formed as an organization for writers, pubbed and unpubbed. It is what it is, and for many good reasons I’m not going to take the time to list—I’m on vacation.

If someone wants a published-only org, there is Ninc.

As a newer member of RWA, I am not familiar with the politics behind the current debate.  RWA’s perception of epublishing seems to be outdated but RWA offers its members other benefits, pariticularly within the local chapters.  RWA is no different than other volunteer groups and even the US government - its members will disagree about its vision and implementation.  But it is only the members who can change it.  I agree with Sarah’s comment about storming the castle - members can do it over the walls or up the staircase.  As a frequent tourist to crumbling castles, I prefer the staircase.

I also am in disagreement with RWA changing things so only published writers/authors can be a part of RWA.

Karen Scott also brings up this issue and this is what I said at her blog:
What is RWA’s definition of being a writer? Also, what is a definition of an author? What if you sell one book in your lifetime to whatever great NY publisher? So now you are a published author, correct? What if someone else has published non-stop over the years with an epub that is not considered one under the rules that RWA has laid out? That does mean that writer is truly not an author?
Someone is a writer regardless if they are published or not. If you have someone who has been working years on their craft but has never been published, they shouldn’t be welcome in an organization like RWA? Unpublished and published authors pay the dues so should be treated equally. And one shouldn’t be treated different than the other just because they have been cut a check from a publisher electronic or print.

I love RWA and value it’s role in my life. But I do agree with Jane in this way. If you are an e-published author & that’s your career, then I don’t know what RWA does for you. They don’t offer advice or give insight or support connections with many of your publishers. So there are a couple of good options for you in regards to RWA membership. Help change the organization or don’t bother with it.

The constant curses that e-pubbed writers can’t get into PAN and can’t enter the Rita… they wear me down. If RWA hurts you or drives you insane or damages your esteem, don’t join. PAN isn’t a secret grotto filled with editors and cake. There’s nothing going on in here. And the Rita awards don’t allow e-entries and never have, so enter the Eppies. If RWA does nothing to advance your chosen career, then what’s the allure? Use it as a tool to get you into your local chapter, if that’s what you like, and view RWA as nothing more than that.

Because it is a tool. It’s not affirmation. It’s not a social club. It’s not a fraternity. It’s a professional organization that doesn’t have a vote in determining whether you’re a writer or not. You don’t stomp away from a tool that doesn’t fit the job. You just hang it up and move on.

OR… Or you could make it in to what you want it to be. You could run for office or organize a campaign for an e-supporter who wants to run for office. It shouldn’t be hard. There is ZERO campaigning as far as I can tell, and there are MANY internet-savvy women among us. You know how you can win against another candidate? Have about 5% name recognition, because the other candidate probably has zero. Work to bring about the change I’ve heard about on the loops for seven years. The president-elect ran unopposed this year. I’m betting a lot of the board members did too.

Kalen wrote:

RWA put itself in an untenable position, trying to serve two masters with radically different needs by accepting both published and unpublished members.

I disagree. Without the unpublished members RWA would be 1/3 of what it is today. In my local chapter it is the unpubs who do the majority of the work and without them my local chapter probably wouldn’t exist.

As Nora said, if you want a pubbed only organization then go join Ninc.

I’ve looked at the membership requirements for other professional writing groups (such as Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America ...They have very similar requirements to those of RWA

Yes and SF&FW; are having the same issues.

This issue isn’t about having unpublished members of RWA. It’s about you and I paying the dues yet I’m not permitted to take advantage of the same resources. If you and I went to the store to buy bread, wouldn’t you be annoyed if my loaf had two more slices than yours?

The other issue is the digital age is upon us and RWA is still lagging in the ninties. Authors are being taken advantage of left and right because they don’t know the first thing about the epublishing model. It’s not the same as traditional publishing and RWA keeps trying to shove it into the same mold. This is not educating authors, this is not ensuring fair pay for their work, either.

If RWA is all fired up to ensure fair pay, why haven’t they spoken out about a certain NY pub who hasn’t been paying their authors? They are perfectly happy to insinuate that small presses are ‘author mills’ yet they’ve certainly been mum on the tens of thousands of dollars that haven’t been paid out in royalties from this NY publisher.

I don’t aspire to e-publish, but I can also understand that excluding any group of authors in RWA is cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

I clearly remember a heated discussion during the business meeting at National a couple of years back re: what constituted “erotica”, and why it was not recognized by RWA. It was most interesting to watch the body language of board members as a member gave thoughtful and logical reasons why they needed to rethink their stance. It’s an easy way to marginalize erotica, isn’t it?

There is a lot of education, mentoring and networking within RWA. There is also a lot of things that increasingly annoy. I value my local chapter. I do not value dealing with a dues increase on the national level, especially when the board made what had to be a very expensive trip to San Diego for “strategic meetings” shortly afterwards, for instance. Those of us stupid enough to inquire into the expenses involved in producing the annual conference, or inquiring why that conference is now scheduled to be held in a city that is not served by direct flights (San Antonio,) are met with derision or silence.

Here’s the choice. Run for the board, and be one person advocating for change, or pay attention to your career, shut up and write the yearly check. It’s not much of a choice, is it?

-S

I’ve been a member off and on for quite a few years.  I was disappointed to find out recently that my work as an editor for The Wild Rose Press means I can’t vote or hold office.  I still belong to two of my local chapters.

I can still work on the committee for the Emerald City Writers Conference and I’m hosting the unofficial summer social for one of my chapters.

Unfortunately, a lot of epubbed writers are also epub editors.  We can’t vote.  I’m really sad about that.

RWA was formed for romance writers to help other romance writers.  That’s its strength.  That’s the value that every member takes away from their experience.  It is not an exclusive, elitist organization set up to serve only those who demonstrate certain success.  Never has been, never will be.  Yes, some of their policies/awards/benchmarks are narrowly defined by industry standards.  But here’s the thing – RWA does not –regardless of how you view their policies – dictate YOUR achievements.  You define your steps on that ladder.  You control what you write, who you submit to, which contracts you sign, your five-year plan, your ultimate goals. 

I’ve been writing for twenty years.  I’ve been a member of RWA for ten years and will remain one for all the reasons listed in others’ posts.  I’m an e-published author, concerned by attitudes and perceptions, but certainly not running away from the dialogue – and yes, I’m right behind Sarah on the stairs.

And the only definition of my success comes not from RWA, but from my readers.

I have been a member of the National Writers Union for 25 years—since I turned 19 and began writing professionally while still in college. 

There has never been a kurfuffle, a snit, or exclusionism.  I got health insurance when I needed it years ago.  I have access to free lawyers.

I QUIT RWA because everything it offers worth having (the convention in my area) doesn’t require membership. 

It’s expensive and what I want is available for a small surcharge.  It has yet to show me anything approaching professionalism.

I hope change comes, but the constant “we aren’t perfect but” nonsense has been going on for the five years I have been watching with absolutely no change worth mentioning.

I’m sorry if this sounds cold, but I’m completely unsympathetic to e-editors who feel unfairly excluded from RWA general membership. Editors at traditional publishers aren’t allowed to be general RWA members either. They’re not allowed on the loops even if they are also published authors. They are not allowed to vote. This is a writers’ organization and letting editors vote is a conflict of interest.

The fact that there are now many writers working for e-pubs while they are writing doesn’t change the reason for the rule. It’s just one factor of many to weigh in your career decisions.

Victoria Dahl said: I’m sorry if this sounds cold, but I’m completely unsympathetic to e-editors who feel unfairly excluded from RWA general membership.

Well, Victoria, thanks for sharing your opinion.  I think it’s wonderful that Sarah and Candy provide this forum for it and I appreciate their support for writers and readers of romance.  As on many other things in life, we may disagree.

I am sad.  I was a writer before I was an editor and I will continue to write, even though I’m not able to participate fully as a writer in my chosen writers’ organization.  I’m sorry you can’t at least feel some empathy for me, but that’s the breaks.  There are a lot of us in RWA and I’m sure there’s some feeling of comraderie we can still share.  I joined RWA because of its inclusive culture and I hope it evolves to include more support for epubs.

I’m sorry for having stated that so emotionlessly, so let me clarify. Of course I feel empathy for you. I understand that it must be a tough choice and that you give up something you love about RWA in order to work for a publisher.

But I don’t feel sympathy, meaning I don’t feel anything bad happened. I don’t feel RWA has wronged you (and not implying that you do either) and I don’t see anything unfair about it. (Going back to my original statement about e-editors who feel unfairly excluded from general membership.)

*Stalks Victoria Dahl*

I had thought that there was cake in PAN.  I think once everybody finds out there is no cake there, they won’t care at all. :P There will probably be a mass exodus because of that no-cake thing.  More people really do show up if they think there will be punch and pie.

On the Rita issue: It seems unfair that those who are e-pubbed fall through the cracks for both the Rita and the Golden Heart, just saying.  It’s like “You’re too published for the Golden Heart published” but.. “you’re not published enough for a Rita.”

I dunno, I don’t have a horse in the race, I just want to debate it because I’m supposed to be editing or at least getting groceries, but I can’t resist arguing about stuff.

Yes and SF&FW; are having the same issues.

And I’m not even sure it works to primarily compare across genres. First, I think, you need to look within your genre to see how many authors are being published where. A significant digital presence in the genre deserves better, IMO.  Especially given the number of RWA members and the number of available and potential NY contracts.

What’s the key difference, and the reason that I don’t think they get tarred and feathered to the same extent at RWA?

Honestly I always assumed this was at least in part due to the fact that all statistics seem to indicate romance outsells every other genre online by a vast quantity. Are there a lot of mystery or speculative fiction writers who can make the same sort of living working in epublishing as someone can by writing popular books for EC?  (I’m not asking sarcastically, I really don’t know the answer.)

Oh, something I’m wondering, is there anywhere online where someone has reposted the June President letter that caused all this outcry in the first place?  I’d love to read the original letter.

I don’t see anything unfair about it. (

It’s just the way it is.  I don’t see anything unfair about it, either.  I don’t feel that I was excluded from general membership unfairly.  I made the choice to work for an epub, for now.  But I miss feeling like part of the crowd, yanno?  Especially since I’d still like to work toward publication myself.  I’m not writing lately, since I spend almost all of my available time working on helping to make other people’s work better, but at some point I’ll decide to make it my priority.  It’s just frustrating to be in the position of having no voice in the RWA process concerning the issue of epubs, especially since my work has been published by an epub (and I’m a big believer in epubs, which is why I work for one).

Karen,

If in the future you stopped editing and were only writing, would you then be allowed to vote and such? (Curious.)

That’s my understanding.  I was a general member for years, I’ve only been an editor for the past 18 months.  But if there’s some period of time which must pass to cleanse me of my editorialness, I don’t know about it…

Hmm…I think I’m with Victoria Dahl on this one. I think Victoria’s approach is smart and pragmatic. I’m a reader and an editor with no authorial aspirations, so I don’t really have anything else to add to the conversation. But I’m not much of a follower or group-thinker anyway, so I don’t think I could see myself being too concerned or personally offended over this ordeal even if I were trying to get published.

Something to consider, for those suggesting dividing RWA—

Choosing to publish a book with a small press or e-pub does not mean an author isn’t on the same track as everyone else in learning the business.  Some epub authors also pursue contracts with traditional print publishers.  Deciding to publish only in e-pub doesn’t mean an author shouldn’t be informed of every avenue or opportunity available, including how the print world works, etc.

Creating different organizations or different rules for e-published authors is a disservice not only to people who would like to pursue both, but also because it limits education and sharing for everyone.

There are also many things a multi-published print author might have to learn about digital publishing.  Does a print author deserve to learn how to market an ebook?  What kind of royalties should an ebook get?  Can an ebook allow an established print author another outlet to explore new genres?

The opportunities aren’t just for unpublished or digitally published authors.  Education is a wonderful thing. 
That’s why I love RWA.

For the record, I’m not complaining.  I’m career focused and determined.  RWA has helped me be that way.  I’m optimistic that one day I’ll be eligible for PAN.  But I’m not actively seeking to be in PAN or be eligible for a RITA.  I value my RWA membership as it is.  I would value it a little more if the rules were consistent and fair.  Not necessarily for me but for everyone.

But if there’s some period of time which must pass to cleanse me of my editorialness,

I *think* you just have to send a letter stating that you’re no longer working in the position. That’s what I saw happen in one case, at least.

Btw, your note about losing general membership triggered my thoughts about the e-pub/RWA discussion. I should’ve made clear that I was speaking to general issues of e-editors being RWA members. It seems to have come to a head in the past year and has been played out on several of my loops. I wasn’t accusing you of crying foul, so I apologize that it seemed i was pointing fingers at you.

I think she (Karen) will have to be baptized in a special pool at the secret RWA bat cave. Only then will she be cleansed of editorialness.

I think if a bunch of renegades ever got together and made a competing organization to RWA what would improve things is having a bat cave. 

I automatically want to sign up when there’s a bat cave.

And the Rita awards don’t allow e-entries and never have, so enter the Eppies. 

I have print copies of both of my novels, but because they were POD I couldn’t enter regardless. I fit every criteria except “mass-produced”.

What is your argument there? Tough cookies?

Bat cakes... (hands Zoe a slice. Also, Karen, despite the whiff of editorialness about her)

What is your argument there? Tough cookies?

Yes. I’m sorry, but yes, I do say tough cookies to that. Why? Because it’s a contest. It’s not your career and it’s not your value as a writer. It’s a contest. I don’t mind if the rules change. But it’s just a contest with rules for entry like any other contest. (I should’ve said e-books or e-releases as opposed to e-entries.)

I’ve got an e-book out this year. I can’t enter it into the Ritas, so I’ll enter it in the Eppies. Or nothing at all, because my book is my book and a contest doesn’t it make it more of a book.

I do think there’s a problem with RWA saying that the Rita showcases the best of romance fiction when they don’t allow all published romance in. They should either change that assertion or change the contest.  But it’s not as if they are pretending to accept e-only books and then screwing people over behind the scenes. RWA may not be what you want it to be, but that doesn’t make it malicious and it doesn’t make e-pubbed writers victims.

But again, all this aside, I’m all for change, but the only way to change it is to work from the inside, imho.  I also think the idea of a competing organization is worth exploring.

I have to say that I *do* cry foul when RWA changes the rules to specifically exclude e-published books in the RITAs. I paid the same dues as you, jumped through all the hoops, made the money they said I had to make in order to eat their cake, but I don’t get the opportunity to play in the same sandbox?

That. Is. Wrong.

I’m staying in RWA even though I’m not able to volunteer at the national level because without a Loyal Opposition, they’d continue taking my money and then telling me to go sit in the corner.

And nobody puts Baby in the corner.

(You’ve no idea how many years I’ve waited to be able to work that into a conversation.)

Bat cakes, yum.  I always think cake is better with Batman on it. That might just be since Christian Bale as Batman though.

I don’t have a dog in this fight.

I went to a book signing a couple of weeks ago for a lit-fic author at a mystery/thriller-only independent bookstore.

Almost no one there even know e-books exist beyond a vague understanding of the Kindle. I pulled out my eBookWise and the owner was horrified. She cried, “Please don’t! This is a bookstore!”

Genre romance has done for e-books what SF/F only WISH it’d been able to get done. Why? Because we, among all readers, treat books like crack and we are the addicts. We must have our fix and have a lot of it and have it NOW. We do now and will continue to drive this market expansion.

Then we will watch our children pick it up as easily as picking up an ice cream cone. My daughter is 6. She sees my e-book reader and she wants one. Guess what? When I get my smartphone next month, she’ll get my e-book reader. She has paper books; we read them.  But she has no idea that there was a time e-books didn’t exist, when I couldn’t just call up a book to read with the touch of a button. It’s simply something she can’t imagine.

What happens here will blaze the trail for not only romance writers, but for readers and the writers/readers of every genre that only has a vague idea that e-books exist . . . somewhere . . . outside the realm of Star Trek.

It’d sure be nice if the RWA leadership could show some foresight in this and lead the way with deliberate enthusiasm instead of having to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.

Because it’s a contest. It’s not your career and it’s not your value as a writer. It’s a contest.

And, you answered why it does matter on some level no matter how juvenile other’s might think e-press authors are being.

“I do think there’s a problem with RWA saying that the Rita showcases the best of romance fiction when they don’t allow all published romance in. “

If it were just a contest the whole organization wouldn’t be excited about it. It’s more than recognition. This business is as much about writing a good book as getting your name your out there. How many authors have picked up new readers who are writers, because of the constant battering of “Rita Finalist” or “Rita Winner”.

But, on this point I will agree to disagree.

Also, no, I don’t think RWA is being malicious, but they are doing a percentage of their members a disservice. On that we can agree. I also believe it’s short-sighted to argue it’s just a small number and we can’t make everyone happy.

Lastly, just to clarify “RWA may not be what you want it to be…” on this issue it’s not. The downside to speaking out is the misconception that members who are unhappy with how RWA has handled e-published authors are unhappy with the entire organization. No, most just want RWA to stick to their mission statement. I don’t think that’s asking too much from a paying member, which I am.

Ella, I know I wasn’t talking about “dividing” RWA into two different organizations with two different sets of anything when I mentioned an RWA and a ERWA.  Of course there would be overlapping interests.  What I’m envisioning is more the construction of an internal advisory panel who could let e-published oriented members get the information and support they want from the organization while “traditionally” published members still get the traditional information from it as it stands.  There has to be *some* kind of organized approach to help the RWA assess what it needs organize and set up and explore and unless they set up some kind of feedback system for it….  it seems like everything’s just going to go around in circles.  You have to start somewhere and it just seems logical to me to set up some kind of internal structure to start somewhere, learn and tweak along the way.

JMHO.

JT

I don’t think that’s asking too much from a paying member, which I am.

You know, I think that’s a good way to put this. I agree. I think this is the crux of the matter and a great way to boil it down. “We’re paying members and we are not being served by the organization.” I can get behind that.

I just can’t look at the Rita as an outrage A) Because it’s a contest (as I’ve already beaten to death) and B) Because RWA has never pretended to be forward-thinking about e-pubbed books in the Rita. I don’t feel that anyone joined RWA under the misconception that they could enter their e-only book in the Rita.
It just seems like so many years of wheel spinning at this point. RWA does need change, and the way for members to change it is to speak with votes. If only we had more people to vote for! The people pushing for change have got to step forward.

The downside to speaking out is the misconception that members who are unhappy with how RWA has handled e-published authors are unhappy with the entire organization. No, most just want RWA to stick to their mission statement.

I can’t feel bad about thinking this. There have been so many loud voices upset with RWA over PAN and publsiher recognition and the Ritas and erotica definitions and the board and the president… there are lots of people unhappy with virtually the whole organization. Rightfully so, I’m sure.

The devil is always in the details.  It’s sad, but a lot of RWA’s policies are what they are because of the threat of lawsuits, which means RWA as an organization can’t cherry-pick the good e-publishers and give them benefits that aren’t available to all e-publishers, even the ones that started yesterday in some scammer’s kitchen and which will disappear as soon as they’ve screwed some writers out of their money.  That’s the big down-side of e-publishing; it’s too easy for unethical publishers to steal from their writers, too unregulated.  It’s the wild wild west of publishing, but legally, the good e-publishers have to be treated the same as the bad ones, or lawsuits would destroy RWA.

RWA also can’t do a damn thing about any publisher not paying royalties until the members involved file formal complaints against the publisher, which almost no one is willing to do because they’re afraid they’ll get black-balled in the industry.  Catch-22. 

The verification word is both55.  We are not.  Unfortunately.

As a publisher who doesn’t work in the romance genre, I see romance publishing as a leader in digital publishing. In some respects, you girls (and guys) are helping all of us figure it out—that is, you readers are buying those Kindles, Sony Readers, downloading to computers, etc. discussing DRM, and figuring out what works and doesn’t for your needs. The rest of the publishing industry (or at least my little corner of it) is watching what you all have to say and thinking, “hmm, this might or might not work for our market”.

I’m disappointed that the RWA is ghettoizing digital publishing. It’s a direction the entire industry is moving. Offering authors, especially new authors, guidelines and support for navigating the digital publishing world would benefit not just romance writers, but the rest of us, who look to those on the bleeding edge and apply it to our own businesses.

RWA doesn’t recognize every print publisher, does it? No. It has certain standards for who can be on their list of recognized publishers. They have to meet certain criteria in order to be on that list.

So what’s stopping them from coming up with a list of legitimate criteria for e-publishers that acknowledges that e-publishing is a different business model? As long as Harper Collins remains on their list of recognized publishers, there’s a double standard at work.

I can tell you, my jaw dropped when Ms Pershing displayed her complete lack of understanding about e-publishing by suggesting that they change the way they do business in order to be recognized. She, personally, just doesn’t get it and I’m not sure if it’s because she does know that e-publishing isn’t going to change to suit her, so she can keep them locked out, or whether she’s simply willfully blind. I mention her personal stance because it’s documented in her ESPAN post.

The BOD, as always, remains silent and allows her to speak for them. I can only take their silence for assent.

RWA’s most pressing need is education, as evidenced by the sheer ignorance of her statement. It certainly seemed as if she didn’t feel like she had any more to learn about e-publishing until they started doing things her way. Any RWA members, published or aspiring, who might possibly be interested in learning more about digital publishing and their rights will just have to go somewhere else for that knowledge, which is so blatantly against the mission statement that I genuinely cannot believe that those who support the BOD aren’t up in arms going, “Wait! What aren’t you tell me? Why are you purposely keeping me in the dark? Why can’t I depend on my professional organization to be informed about all aspects of publishing?”

Even if I wasn’t e-published, it is glaringly obvious to me that in this instance, RWA is not even doing the bare minimum for their members. Shameful.

The value of RWA is much like the value of our communities online: the smaller connections between individuals are priceless, even if the larger community is troublesome and fractious sometimes. Both are necessary.

Hence the reason I can’t see leaving RWA, despite feeling unsupported at times. I met my best friend through this organization, plus many other friends so dear to me.  The smaller connections remain and are even nourished, despite the larger organization’s pitfalls.

Despite it’s periodic insanity, RWA has overall been a huge resource in my writerly education. The personal connections I’ve made through RWA are immeasurable. Writing is hard, and it helps having people in your life who understand that (I’m talking to you, BFF Leslie!)

I hope this latest controversy is just a symptom of growing pains or a changing of the guard. New media are influencing all aspects of our lives and sooner or later RWA will get that. Hopefully it’s sooner before too many more members leave.

RWA’s policies are what they are because of the threat of lawsuits

If I had read this in the president’s statement it would have made MUCH more sense. This I can understand as a point of where RWA is coming from.

I wish more members who were unhappy would attend board meetings (which is not as much fun as sightseeing in whatever city we happen to be in, and it does mean going in early. But you really can get an idea of how decisions are reached. Legal concerns, member input, resources, endless discussion. :-)), and e-mail board members with good, specific concerns and suggestions. I’m no longer on the board, but when I got a member letter with a good idea, it went straight to the rest of the board. If I got an e-mail that was basically an attack—what was I supposed to do with that?

I really hate the idea of dividing the membership up in any way. No matter who you write for, no matter how your material is put out there for readers, the large majority of concerns are the same. Craft, writers life, contracts, agents, contact with other writers—those needs don’t vary.

When it comes to these details, I could ramble on. But I won’t. IMO, if RWA gives you nothing of value, then move on. But if you see the need for change and can help make it happen, volunteer.

LH—my word verification is looking74. Much worse than both55! And, I hope, not true. :-)

LJ

That’s the big down-side of e-publishing; it’s too easy for unethical publishers to steal from their writers, too unregulated.  It’s the wild wild west of publishing, but legally, the good e-publishers have to be treated the same as the bad ones, or lawsuits would destroy RWA.

{OMG—it’s Linda Howard!!!!  I’m a huge fan!!!  /end hysterical fan gushing}

As a lawyer, I’m having a hard time understanding what lawsuits RWA might face if they set up guidelines for which e-publishers they were willing to consider as legitimate.  The guidelines would have to be neutral of bias, but they could be black & white in industry-specific ways.  That could include years in business, number of publications, royalty issues, etc.  As long as all e-publishers knew those guidelines, RWA’s defenses to threatened or actual litigation would be strong.

The problem then becomes the administration of such guidelines, which I admit would be pretty obnoxious.  But I wonder (as a non-writing, non-published, ex-RWA member) why RWA doesn’t want to deal with the “wild west of publishing”?  Wouldn’t that be a tremendous service to romance writers who want e-publication?  Wouldn’t it be good to have a centalized list of e-publishers so that writers could know who’s been in business for over two years, say, versus having no track record?

In other words, why doesn’t RWA try to impose some order and regularity to this matter?  I can see that it might be the modern day Augean Stables, but I’m pretty sure Hercules wasn’t worried that the horses were going to sue him.

For more info on this topic and a link to both Ms. Knight’s letter and RWA’s response go to http://www.rwachange.com

As an unpublished member it would be nice to have the education that allows me to make a good business decision about epub vs traditional. It is not all cut and dry…and since the organization has stated it is for both published and unpublished writers it should live up to that expectation. I work just as hard as any other writer whether in print or epub’d and it would be nice for the organization to acknowledge that. I am not a second class citizen if I choose to epub vs. print. As some have stated, the reality is that many traditionally published authors need to be educated on their digital rights as much as the unpublished members!

@Linda Howard:

On the threat of lawsuit issue…Couldn’t Samhain go ahead and threaten a lawsuit since they were recognized before but suddenly aren’t now?  Not saying they would, but that seems like an unfair business practice to me given the fact that Samhain has in no way changed for the worse here.

And why can’t a print publisher that isn’t recognized threaten legal action? Because there is a specific set of standards print publishers have to reach to be recognized, like the 1k advance.

All people are asking for is that RWA recognize that Epublishing is a different business model and due to that realization that they form a set of standards which would allow them to recognize quality epubs.  They don’t have to recognize all or nobody, or they’d have to recognize all or no print publishers.

All they need is a standard and a recognition that epublishing and print publishing are different.

I questioned RWA on this from 2002 until I dropped out in ‘06. No valid answer was given as to why established e-presses needed to be marginalized. Consequently, I got the impression that having dug in their heels, RWA’s leadership would have to face a bulldozer to change their stance.

Witness the constant raising of the bar for e-presses. First it was “recognition”. That year, when an e-press applied for recognition, the number of books it had to document it sold went up by a factor of five. Not after or before recognition, mind you—during the process. If this looks disingenuous, well, maybe there’s a reason.

Then there was the advance criteria. I submit that if all e-presses suddenly decided they could offer advances of $1,001 to every contracted book, RWA would decide the advance must be $5,000. What evidence do I have to the contrary?

The fact that you can be too published to enter the GH, but not published enough for the Rita, is its own piece of idiocy which has already been commented on more cogently than I can do.

I won’t rejoin RWA to be a member of ERWA or any other sideline group. As attractive as it is to reassociate with my local chapter, I simply cannot go there until my multi-published status is recognized as SOMETHING by the organization to which I’d pay dues.