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

My publisher (Orbit, formerly Warner) can charge me if, for example, I change too much at the page-proofs stage (since resetting the text is expensive).  That’s not “retyping” the manuscript per se, but since I don’t know the exactly contract language Tsaba uses, I can’t say for sure if that’s what it refers to.  I don’t have anything in my contracts about front and back matter.

Not a romance publisher, of course, but at least it’s a data point.  I’ve never heard of those things being boilerplate, though.

Ditto the above, for two different RWA-approved romance publishers.  I’ve never heard of it actually being enforced, but it’s in the contract that I’m liable for the $$ if the cost of my page proof changes exceed X% of the typesetting cost.

Also, I’m pretty sure the ‘approved’ label has now been changed, such that(I think, but could be wrong) an author who has received a certain $$ for a given book is considered ‘published,’ regardless of the publisher.  I’m not sure how that relates to RITA eligibility, though, and I’m not sure whether the ‘published’ label applies to a book for which the author has fronted money (i.e. vanity/subsidy-type presses).  I’m sure someone who knows better than I can correct me and fill in the deets.

When any publisher says anything about “charging the author $”, it sends up a red flag. (see Yog’s Law.)

While it is standard to charge authors for excessive changes to already typeset manuscripts (this is to discourage us from doing things like deciding at the last minute that the hit man named George really should have been an exotic dancer named Fifi), I haven’t heard of the author having to pay for front and back matter, or retyping.

May I ask a dumb question?

What does “boilerplate” mean in regards to this situation?

Security word: money33. Thank goodness I’ve got a bit more than that.

Do publishers call typesetting “typing” now? Because I’m not sure why any manuscript would require “retyping”, unless Tsaba House is a computer-free zone.

And exactly what frontmatter and backmatter are we talking about? Cover blurbs? Indexes?

“boilerplate”

It means you bought some canned forms you don’t really understand from this “self-publishing guru“‘s website (Sorta like Amway) who is selling fly-by-night get-rich-quick schemes and now you are dealing with the fallout of a really questionable business decision.

Quote from the guru…

“It’s virtually impossible to land a publisher unless you can bring an audience with you. They’re publishing only books that’ll sell based on name recognition, which is why they’re publishing great literature like Madonna’s children’s books and the book supposedly written by Paris Hilton’s dog.”

I have never been charged by my publisher for anything. There’s nothing in my contracts, ever, that allows them to except as stated by others here. If the writer makes over a certain number of changes to an already typeset ms.

Speaking with my knowledge as an employee of a university press (but not as an Official Spokesbeing of said press), I agree with Marie; I believe the only author charges that are in our boilerplate (i.e. the standard contract you get unless you/your agent request otherwise—that clear it up, phadem?) are for author’s alterations at page proofs.  (The contract states that the author is also responsible for all permissions fees, but that money isn’t paid to us; it’s paid to the rightsholder, and if the author isn’t using material that would require permission, then of course it doesn’t apply.)

We do occasionally add clauses about certain aspects of the manuscript depending on the author’s getting a subsidy—for example, if the author wants a color section that the editor doesn’t think is necessary for the book.  That’s something specific to dirt-poor scholarly publishing, though, and wouldn’t be something you’d expect in fiction publishing.

I know nothing about fiction manuscripts, but I do know a fair amount about non-fiction contracts and practice over the last 30 years or so from the author’s point of view.  As several people have said, if the author wants to introduce substantial changes at page-proof stage, it has long been normal (both in letterpress days and today, with computer setting) that she will have to pay for them, because major alterations are costly.  This applies to journal articles, too. 
Copyright and reproduction fees for illustrations vary according to contract; in some cases, the author has to research her own pics, get the copyright permissions and pay the reproduction fees.  In others, not.
Front- and endmatter:  these days, even for academic works, most publishers expect the author to do her own index.  If the author wants it done by a professional indexer, then she would have to pay. The author writes the title page and half-title, contents page and any introductions, forewords, and the like as part of her manuscript, but the editor (employed directly or indirectly by the publisher) usually writes the copyright page at the front and obtains the book’s ISBN number.

I once worked as an editor for an educational publisher who did charge authors for typing when, for example, they turned in a handwritten manuscript. I have no idea how common that is, nor do I have any idea how common it is for an author to be so unprofessional as to submit a handwritten manuscript.

I don’t know anything about standard/boilerplate contracts, but I do know that my epublisher had to remove a clause from their contracts that allowed them to charge an author for the “reasonable costs of editing” if that author pulled the rights for his/her book less than six months after its release. Honestly, I didn’t find this clause offensive because it seemed to me that they were only charging in the event of what could only be considered breach of contract, but RWA insisted that so long as that clause remained in their contracts, they would be considered a vanity/subsidy publisher. (And if I misrepresented this history in any way, I’m sure someone from CP will come along and smack me upside the head.)

That said, one of the major “problems” with RWA’s standard vis-a-vis the divide between published and unpublished authors is that there are two different sets of rules. There are author who can enter the RITA because their books are in print (authors whose books are available only in ebook can NOT enter) who are not recognized by RWA as published for PAN (Published Author Network) membership (because they have not met the $1,000 earnings threshold). By the same token, there are plenty of authors who can’t enter the RITA because they are only in ebook who are eligible for PAN membership because they’ve met the earnings threshold.

It’s a complicated and, in my opinion, inconsistent set of rules

It may seem unfair, or inconsistent, or a double standard, but as someone who judges the RITA nearly every year, I’m not going to sit at my computer and read a book, most especially as a volunteer. I’m just not.

This may be part of the problem--I don’t know--because I have no doubt I’m far from the only one who would refuse to judge if required to download and read on my comp.

The logistics of requiring only on e-book writers to print out, bind, send in the printed book seem onerous.

Nora wrote:
It may seem unfair, or inconsistent, or a double standard, but as someone who judges the RITA nearly every year, I’m not going to sit at my computer and read a book, most especially as a volunteer. I’m just not.

I understand that a lot of people don’t like to read books on the computer screen (or on a Kindle or other portable device), but...I strongly believe that’s less and less of an issue simply because we’re all growing more and more accustomed to doing more and more of our reading on the computer. By the time my kids grow up (oldest 10, youngest 6), I expect the vast majority of people’s reading will be done on some sort of screen, rather than on paper.

That doesn’t mean I think print books are going to disappear--I much prefer reading a paperback to an ebook, although I have to admit I prefer an ebook to a hardback!--but that I think that more and more written material will be delivered by electronic rather than print medium as time goes on. And I will also state unequivocally that I *infinitely* prefer to judge and critique unpublished manuscripts in electronic, rather than printed, form.

I do understand the problem with regard to RITA jusdges, however, if epublished authors were permitted to have their ebooks print and bound in some fashion, rather than requiring that the book have been issued by the PUBLISHER in print format, the issue of fairness would be significantly diminished. It would obviously increase an author’s costs for entering the RITA, since it would be done at his/her cost, but at least an author would have the OPTION.

I’m published by Mira, and there is a clause in my contract that I can be charged if I change too much in the proofs stage.  That’s pretty standard.

HOWEVER… if one of the rules of this contest was that you had to be published by an RWA recognized publisher, then waaah.  It might not be fair, but RWA is a private organization.  No one is forced to belong to it.  If she doesn’t like the policies, she needs to either form her own chapter and make her own contest, or just let her membership lapse and move on.

The logistics of requiring only on e-book writers to print out, bind, send in the printed book seem onerous.

The rule used to be that an ebook was eligible for the RITA if it was A) published by an RWA approved publisher and B) said publisher had print copies (ARCs, basically) produced for the contest. Let’s just say that not very many ePubs were willing to do this . . .

I just heard that one of my local chaptermates had her publisher-produced ARCs and RITA fee returned. She was told that only ebooks which are also available for sale in print form are eligible now.

I do think there’s something wrong with taking people’s $, telling them they’re “PAN” and then refusing to allow them access to one of the major PAN programs (the RITA). The best solution I can think of is to have a new category just for eBooks (though I know that won’t please everyone either).

I also wish they’d create subsets of PAN: PAN PRINT and ePAN. The needs of these two groups of published authors simply do not align, at least not from what I’ve seen and heard.

What about the front and back matter? I thought it was standard, esp. for, say, fantasy authors. For example, what if the publisher wants to include a map of your world and you lag and lag and don’t produce one within the timeframe given. Then, according to this, the publisher can charge you for getting that map done by someone else.

I don’t think this is a vanity-press clause.

It looks more like a non-fiction clause to me (in non-fiction the author is usually responsible for creating indexes, etc.). I think the publisher is using a “boilerplate” contract that they don’t understand and that doesn’t suit their business model. Perhaps rather than waste their money suing RWA (who, as a private organization has every right to run their contest any damn way they please), they might spend it consulting someone like Elaine English (who could help them construct a contract that would work for them).

Never been charged by a publisher for anything.  Never had a contract that asked me to cover illustrator, cover arts or editing expenses. 

*Have been yelled at a few times by editors when I go back and make more changes other than what I’ve been asked to revise...but never charged a cent. 

The only time I ever hand over money to a publisher is when I need books to sell for a convention - then I get a deep discount off the cover price.

~I understand that a lot of people don’t like to read books on the computer screen~

I’m not saying I don’t like to. I’m saying I won’t. Absolutely will not.

Whether or not, some time in the future this will be the only choice--or the preferred--is possible, debatable and yet to be seen.

But this is now. I want to read a book in bed, in my cozy chair, in the tub. I don’t want to read one where I work all day.

It’s just a personal preference--and there are a lot of us who have it. Just as there are lots of people who love reading on screen.

I’m delighted there are e-books, delighted people have a choice. Mine is paper.

Jane O:  a handwritten manuscript?  Surely you jest!  I would be very surprised to hear that any serious writer had actually submitted a complete book to a publisher in handwritten form since the 1930s.  People certainly used to write their books and theses in longhand, of course, but they would get them typed before submitting them.  Professional typists made a living from that very process; if the author could not type the text himself, he would have to pay to get it typed - but it would need to be in typewritten form before the publisher would do anything with it.

My publisher paid for the map in Doppelganger and Warrior and Witch.  I provided them with a scan of the one I’d made for my own use, but they took that to an artist to be turned into something pretty.  I’ve never heard of a fantasy author being charged for maps, glossaries, or anything of that sort.  You make it yourself or the publisher does, but either way you don’t pay for it.

This notion that RWA is a “private organization” and can do what it pleases is wrong. RWA is a non-profit, and as such, is required to apply its rules in a consistent fashion and make its benefits uniformly available.

Are they doing that? When one house is labeled “vanity” for a clause which many other houses also use, is this fair? Is it consistent?

Not really.

I’ve seen contracts from all the big three e-pubs and they all have ‘charge the author’ clauses. If you pull the book after edits, if you change too much after proofing, as well as buyout fees should the book draw the interest of a large press. I think that’s kind of standard. Moreover, doesn’t NY do the same thing? If they give you an advance, but you never deliver, can’t they take the advance back? If it’s money in your pocket, that you then have to pay back, how is that not considered a charge?

I do think there’s something wrong with taking people’s $, telling them they’re “PAN” and then refusing to allow them access to one of the major PAN programs (the RITA).

I have to agree. It’s also a little confusing when an author ISN’T PAN, but can participate. The disconnect between the contest programs and the networks bothers me more than anything else.

I can’t say I’m entirely in agreement with the notion of separating epublished from print authors when it comes to PAN membership, though. Maybe because I have a knee-jerk response to the notion of “separate but equal.” But I do see how the needs of the two groups diverge in places. Perhaps subsets of the overarching PAN group, which authors could CHOOSE to join? That would also accommodate those authors who straddle both media.

I’ve seen contracts from all the big three e-pubs and they all have ‘charge the author’ clauses. If you pull the book after edits, if you change too much after proofing, as well as buyout fees should the book draw the interest of a large press. I think that’s kind of standard. Moreover, doesn’t NY do the same thing? If they give you an advance, but you never deliver, can’t they take the advance back? If it’s money in your pocket, that you then have to pay back, how is that not considered a charge?

There’s a difference between charges to the author, and outright breach of contract on the author’s part.  If I never give them my manuscript, I’m failing to uphold my end of what we signed, and am legally liable for the money they gave me.  Agreeing to charges as part of the publication process is not the same thing.

AgTigress- I kid you not. Well, it was a revised edition, so it was only about 20% of the text, but it was all handwritten with arrows all over the place to show what went where. Then there was one new manuscript that was typed but so badly that the first comment from the evaluator I sent it to was:"I can’t believe anyone had the nerve to turn in a manuscript that looks like this.”
thus69? close, but not quite

Hard to say without seeing the actual contract.  But like Carrie said up above, the general rule is that money flows from publisher to author, not the other way around.  I’ve got three in print with a major fantasy house, and three more under contract.  They day they send me a bill is the day I look for a new publisher.

I’ve seen contracts from all the big three e-pubs and they all have ‘charge the author’ clauses. If you pull the book after edits, if you change too much after proofing, as well as buyout fees should the book draw the interest of a large press. I think that’s kind of standard.

As I understand it, all of the epublishers who want RWA status as non-subsidy/non-vanity have removed those clauses from their contracts. So, it may have been standard in the past, but as of the change in the rules last year, I believe all the major players in the epub market have removed those clauses.

The fees that make for a vanity or subsidy press, as defined by RWA, are the fees where the author PAYS to have his or her book published. If the author pulls their book from publication, then they are not paying to have their book published. Ditto with being “bought out” by a big pub. (Not that I necessarily agree with either of those fees.)

I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal that PAN and Rita guidelines are different. There are many people who are members of PAN who are not eligible for the RITA—because they didn’t have books out that year. Now, I do wish that the RITA guidelines allowed for e-published-only books to be entered. If judges can “opt out” (or is it in?) of categories, they can opt out (or in) for e-books as well.

As far as separating out PAN between epubbed and print pub, I think it’s a slippery slope? The needs of a freshly published category writer with a one book deal and no agent (or a writer who had one category in print ten years ago, but has been out of contract ever since) are VERY different from the needs of a multipublished, agented writer of single titles for three different publishers. And an epublished author can be more similar to either of these print authors than they are to one another.

I agree with the poster who said take what you need from RWA and leave the rest. I am a member of RWA and three chapters, and a board member of one of my chapters. If they changed the rules tomorrow and said that I wasn’t considered “published” by them because of (insert arbitrary guidelines here—say, because *I don’t write romances for my two RWA recognized publishers, Random House and Harper Collins*) I would STILL be a member of RWA, because the support from my local chapters is fabulous, and I enjoy the meetings and the loops.

Then I guess it’s about what’s considered a charge. I’m pretty sure EC and Samhain both charge for frontmatter and backmatter, as well as extra materials like maps and the like. Furthermore, the pre and post items are to be determined by publisher - with no mention in the contract of allowing the author to provide them - but paid at the author’s cost.

I know there was a bruhaha over the whole vanity press thing, but to be honest, as an outsider looking in it all seemed to me that RWA was trying to keep the small, but reputable, e-published writers from getting into their oh-so-precious club. Which is funny, because like the previous poster said RWA is supposedly non-profit, so I kind of wondered about the legality of that, but again, I’m just an outsider.

I’m with Nora!  I will not read an e-book at my computer.  I much prefer a paperback that I can throw in my purse, read in the bathtub while taking a nice bubble bath, or read ANYWHERE!  That’s the great thing about a paperback, you can take it anywhere and read it anytime or anywhere you want. 

I am definitely against a paperless society. 

I also refuse invitations that are sent by e-mail.  Call me old-fashioned, but if you want me there you had better send that invitation in the snail mail to me.

And don’t even think about sending me a thank you note by e-mail.  How rude!

And I’m not some old lady either.  I’m 39 years old (just for the record).

Sure, Sarah. You’re right, there are some bad companies - really, really bad! And absolutely, all guilds have to have standards. No argument there. I guess I’m thinking more along the lines of the good presses that don’t offer an advance, I’m sure there are some. Or good presses that say they won’t edit a book for free - if you pull it after edits but before publication. I’m am looking in, but it seems fair enough.

Or how about the switch-a-roo with PAN qualifying? Really, it seems like a lot of RWA’s rules were changed exactly to exclude e-pubbed writers. Unrelated to e-pub, or rather related but OT, I’ve even heard that in RWA’s member only newsletter, they’ve taken to allowing folks to write letters in trashing erotica writers. Doesn’t exactly sound like a guild that’s trying to be fair and impartial and apply itself equally across the board to me, that’s all I was saying.

I’ve even heard that in RWA’s member only newsletter, they’ve taken to allowing folks to write letters in trashing erotica writers. Doesn’t exactly sound like a guild that’s trying to be fair and impartial and apply itself equally across the board to me, that’s all I was saying.

And yet, the first sales column in the Romance Writers Report, which is the member magazine is probably 80-90% e-pub sales reported. 

Just sayin’…

Someday, I’d love to have a discussion about the merits and/or pitfalls of RWA’s policies when it comes to the issues of RITA eligibility, PAN eligibility, the criteria used to determine if a publisher is considered non-vanity/non-subsidy, and the policy about advances, which determines a publisher’s eligibility to be invited to the national conference.

But that never, ever happens.  Why?  Because by the time I’ve corrected completely wrong information, set the record straight, and we’re all on the same page - the actual, this is how it is page - I’m too tired to discuss anything.

It’s easy in the cheap seats.  And it’s even easier when one can make up the rules as one sees fit, to support one’s current soapbox.

Hey, I’ve got no problem with people grousing and grinching and saying they feel something is unfair, or unjust.  But it rankles when accusations and judgments are made based on misinformation.

If you are a member of RWA, the current Policy and Procedure manual is posted in the Members Only section of the website under Governance.  I urge you to look over those sections you find relevant, and before you gripe about the delineation between e-pubs and print pubs as candidates for PAN, understand that there isn’t any.  PAN is strictly based upon earnings from any publisher that is non-vanity/non-subsidy.  Have you seen the list recently?  It is holy shit long.  In other words, most publishers who ask to be included, are.  Earn a thousand bucks from any one of those publishers, and you’re in PAN.  How, exactly, does this ‘keep e-pubs out of PAN’?  Last I looked, there were a number of e-pubs posting on the PAN loops - so I have to believe this complaint isn’t based on fact - but perhaps old, tired history.

When we have a new President in the White House, and he/she makes changes to policy, would it be fair to bitch and moan about George W’s policies, and how unfair and heinous they are?  No, it wouldn’t be fair at all - and kind of pointless, actually, because the policy no longer exists. It’s Different.  Tilting at windmills is a waste of time.

Ah, and I see that I have blathered on and tilted at a few myself.  Thanks for listening, and I hope all know that I mean no offense.  I’m simply moved sometimes to speak up and say bullshit.

You guys do realize that every time one author signs a lousy contract, e-pub or print, it creates pressure on every other author to accept the same lousy contract, right?  That each weak link contributes to the downward spiral? 

If RWA is trying to protect its membership and encourage fair publishing contracts by taking a strong stand on what is vanity publishing (by not allowing contest entries, gasp!) then more power to ‘em.  A small enough stand at that, and even this gets some publisher’s panties all in a twist.

If a small press wants its books to be in RWA contests, then let this small press offer its authors a contract that is acceptable to RWA--ie, to the AUTHORS who sponsor the contest, get it?  If the publisher has the money to pay some lawyer to sue RWA, then they have the money to pay for editing the frikken manuscript they bought.  Or at least a contract they didn’t download off the internet from a VANITY PUBLISHER for effin lordy’s sake.

And uhh....“‘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.

Guess what, Schwegerl, RWA is not in the business of consolidating “the advances the small publishers have made in the industry.” We’re authors, jeez.  We’re not a publisher support organization.  If our interests in fair contracts conflict with their interest in cheapo legal documents, gee--who should we support? 

Little Red Riding Author, you’re lost in the deep dark woods if you think RWA is the enemy here.  You won’t even see the enemy until you’re all tied up and hefted into the man-eating trees to be fed on by lawyers who work for international media conglomerates and roast e-pub authors like marshmallows in their spare time.

Find out what a fair publishing contract is. (Guess who to ask.  And it’s not your small press publisher.) Don’t sign things you don’t understand with any publisher, digital or print. Somebody waving a contract at you?  Get an agent before you sign it.  Can’t get an agent interested even if you’ve been offered a contract?  Then wonder about the contract AND the publisher.

You owe it to yourself.  You owe it to your fellow authors.  This is the way authors make a living; if you want to make a living at it too, then take seriously the effort that RWA makes to get you a square deal.

Ms. Kinsale, will you marry me?  I’ll have to get divorced, first, but wait for me.
I love you, true!

Aw, what the hell - I’m feisty tonight.  Ms. Kinsale’s post had me nodding hard and saying “Word,” aloud.

It also brought to mind something that bugs the crap out of me.  There are SO many areas we could be looking at, working on, researching - battles we could be fighting, author’s interests we could be supporting, and we do all of these things, but not nearly so much as I wish we could.  Why?  Because we spend an unholy amount of time responding to things like a PW reporter calling up, asking what’s up with this publisher’s accusations?  We answer, and guess what?  She writes what she wants - not what we said.  Then we get to spend more time putting out the fires her inaccurate information caused - and oh, there’s RWA, looking like a schmuck again.

In all that time, we might have done something constructive for the members.

We have other issues before us at the moment, things that have come up because of new policy, and while it’s to be expected that ironing things out, getting everyone on board with how it works, will take some time, there are issues to be addressed that aren’t because of misunderstanding - they’re because someone doesn’t like the policy, or believes it shouldn’t apply to them, so we’re forced to argue about it.  Man, the stories I could tell, except that I can’t.

I’d love to see blog posts about the good things RWA does, or even blog posts that suggest things RWA could do to advocate for authors.  But it rarely happens.

I give mad props to Sarah for giving RWA the opportunity to respond to weird stuff that pops up.  She always gives the organization the benefit of the doubt, and from my standpoint, that makes her like the Most Fabulous One.

I think I’m done.

~I’ve even heard that in RWA’s member only newsletter, they’ve taken to allowing folks to write letters in trashing erotica writers.~

I’m not sure what newsletter this is, but people can write letters about anything--there are letters to the editor published in the RWA Report I often disagree with. It’s called freedom of speech. Which is why I’m allowed to write in with my dissenting opinion.

Just why is something like this a flaw re RWA?

~If a small press wants its books to be in RWA contests, then let this small press offer its authors a contract that is acceptable to RWA--ie, to the AUTHORS who sponsor the contest, get it?~

And there it is. Simple.

I’m in agreement with Laura and Stef on this, right down the line.

RWA represents its members--its authors. It has published its standards. These standards may flex and evolve, but this is what they are now.

People join or don’t join RWA for a variety of reasons. The problem, imo, comes from those who get twisted when the organization can’t or won’t align with their specific and individualized needs or wants or views.

In a comment section on one of the blogs covering the New Concepts clusterfuck, someone complained that the publisher was on the RWA approved list. They should’ve warned us!!

Yet when RWA took a stand against Trisklion last year, (shortly before they imploded) there were cries of Unfair! And the usual claims that RWA is trying to exclude e-pubs.

Whatever decisions, whatever policies, somebody’s going to be unhappy, somebody’s going to claim that RWA’s unfair.

People join or don’t join RWA for a variety of reasons. The problem, imo, comes from those who get twisted when the organization can’t or won’t align with their specific and individualized needs or wants or views.

See, this is what I don’t get.  If people are so convinced that RWA is the debbil, then why are they so up in arms about not being able to compete in the contests or become members?

I was a member of the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators for a year. In theory, it should’ve been a good organization for me to belong to since it incorporates young adult.  In theory.  In practice, I found they catered far more to those who wrote picture books, children’s chapter books and middle grade books.  It didn’t have anything to offer me.  So I let my membership lapse, especially since I can get answers to my YA questions from the yahoo group I belong to that’s specifically for teen literature or from Live Journal, where I’m in contact with a huge number of YA authors.  From the romance side of things, RWA fulfills any other needs I may have.

Another YA author may have a different opinion.  But I’m not going to go trashing SCWBI just because it didn’t meet my specific needs.  I just get my needs fulfilled elsewhere.

TeddyPig, thank you for answering my question.

Sarah, I think part of the problem was that one of the “oh noooooes” letters was reprinted twice, once in January and again in February. (Gotta love having the RWR online these days) Then there was another follow up letter by a different author in the March issue.  So I can see where people might think it’s a pileon, especially with the reprinting mistake—and for the record, I think it was a simple error, not some conspiracy.

Otherwise, totally agree with everything you said about not buying books with said objectionable language.  Catch my eyes if they happen to roll past you, wouldja?

Oh, and this?

ong horned trouser schmeckie

I’m SO bogarting that in some way, shape, or form.

RWA is a not for profit org.

Not a non profit.

RWA Chapters are not for profit as well.

Not non profits.

I suspect if a concerned RWA member were to send a well-written letter in defense of variety in romance publishing (ie a rebuttal of the c*ck-haters, tee hee), it has as much chance of getting published as the original texts. If you look through RWR archives, which admittedly a non-member cannot do so you’ll have to take my word for it, you’ll see a wide range of opinions in that particular column. 

As for authors being able to submit books in the RITAs in electronic form, RWA first would have to do a survey to see how many PAN members are equipped and willing to read electronic entries in the RITAs.  As we have seen, many are not :).  And yes, I have suggested this survey!  But consider this—if authors from houses like Samhain, whose books release in print eventually, are allowed to submit ebooks, can authors from traditional houses like H/S submit ebooks as well to spare themselves the expense?  Is it fair if ONLY authors from small presses get to submit ebooks?  Would RITA end up being a mostly electronic contest?  While greenies like myself wouldn’t mind that at all, I don’t think it would be fair at this particular juncture to volunteer judges who DO NOT WANT to read on the computer. 

With allowing e-authors to print their own copies for the RITAs, it brings into question how difficult it would be to verify that every author-printed text is EXACTLY like the original publisher-issued text with no tweaks whatsoever.  A signed document from the author promising she hasn’t done so might be insufficent for legal reasons.  There may be other legalities I don’t even know about, but this is the most obvious one that occurs to me.  I’m not saying I think many authors would tweak their books, but it does reveal a vulnerable area in the proposal.  Which is, as I understand it, why publishers are required to issue the printed copies of the ebooks.  They have more to lose than a single author if they choose to “tweak” a book prior to submission.

Now, I personally don’t like the word “cock.” Not my favorite word for the male sexual appendage. I prefer “long horned trouser schmeckie.”

And yet, you liked my book, which has “cock” allover the place, LOL!

word: him36 (only if he’s John Holmes)

as an outsider looking in it all seemed to me that RWA was trying to keep the small, but reputable, e-published writers from getting into their oh-so-precious club.

See, this is the crux of the problem for me. It’s not a club. It’s not a family. It’s not a sorority or a club for popular girls. RWA is a professional organization. Use it for what it brings you. If it doesn’t meet any needs for you, then don’t join it. Don’t look to it for something it can’t provide. If it’s not geared toward e-pubbed writers then join an organization that is. If you need to be in RWA to join a local chapter, then use it for exactly that purpose. If the contest isn’t geared toward your writing, enter another contest. AND if you want things changed, then get active and work toward it. Nothing wrong with that either.

And by “get active” I don’t mean kvetching on the Internet, just to be clear. I mean the kind of hard work that people like Nora Roberts have invested.

Got to ask-- because I’ve signed contracts with big print NY houses that had clauses requiring some payments (like if the author wanted too many changes in the galley stage, or if the publisher got sued for libel, or if the author pulled the book after work was done)-- those of you who have also signed big publisher contracts, could you go back and look at them?  Of course, they might not be boilerplate, but I’m a “siltsucker,” as we say (on the very bottom of the ladder) and boilerplate is about all I get, and my contracts ALWAYS have dire clauses warning that in certain circumstances (which never happen), I’ll have to pay money.  I don’t like it, but it does keep me from pulling the book after the publisher’s paid for editing and cover, and I make sure not to change much in the galley stage.

So if clauses like that make a publisher a “vanity press,” does that make Random House a vanity press?

I have no problem excluding vanity presses… however, I think RWA is defining a lot of terms in a non-standard way, and if the policy were applied equally, virtually no publisher would qualify.  So if they’re not applying the policy equally, what does that mean?

Stephanie said: “When we have a new President in the White House, and he/she makes changes to policy, would it be fair to bitch and moan about George W’s policies, and how unfair and heinous they are?  No, it wouldn’t be fair at all - and kind of pointless, actually, because the policy no longer exists. It’s Different.  Tilting at windmills is a waste of time.”

Stephanie, Congress makes policy, as I’m sure you know. And there are rules about how they make policy-- they have to do it in open session, in published bills, by vote, etc.  The RWA board theoretically operates the same way, right? You guys hammer out proposed policy at a meeting and then vote on it, and it’s all aboveboard and everyone’s in agreement to what it means? And policy can’t be changed without another vote?

So policy can’t be defined or reinterpreted by the office, right? If they see something wrong with the policy and want to apply it differently than the board voted, isn’t the board the one who changes the policy with another discussion and another vote?

See, the problem is, RWA’s office seems to be defining certain terms differently than they’ve conventionally been defined, and then applied the new definitions unequally-- and none of this seems to be happening with the board re-examining policy and putting the new definition in there so all members can see.

You’ve been told by any number of NY-published authors here that their contracts contained the very same sort of clause that supposedly branded this small press as “vanity”.  Well, think this through.  If just having that clause in a contract (not all contracts) is enough to get the “vanity” label applied, doesn’t that mean, for RWA purposes, all publishers with that clause are vanity presses? Sure, it’s ridiculous to say that RH is a vanity press, but that just shows that interpreting the policy to say that ANY clause that could conceivably mean that the author might have to pay something is ridiculous. MOST publishers would make the author pay for certain things (like indexing) and that doesn’t mean it’s vanity (or else, most university presses are vanity) or for making too many changes at the galley stage—and note, they seldom actually CHARGE them; the purpose of the clause is to, duh, encourage authors to make the changes before that stage so the book doesn’t have to be re-edited and re-set. 

So… has the board voted to say that the definition of “vanity press” has been redefined to say that ANY such clause (which is what the office says) makes a press a vanity press?  Or did the office make that decision on its own?  If so, is that what the board wants?  If the policy is such that it requires interpretation beyond the normal definition of terms, could be that the policy wasn’t written well in the first place.  At any rate, if the board is NOT re-voting to reinterpret, but rather just letting the office change policy, what exactly is the board for?

And is this policy being equally applied? Have you all looked at the boilerplate of the big NY publishers to see if they too have what you call a vanity press marker?  What is hard to understand it… you have published writers on the board. The president must be multi-published. Do you read your own contracts? I suspect at least one of you has one of those clauses in their major-press contract, and yet I’m sure that boardmember doesn’t consider herself “vanity published”.

So can the RWA board now look into the boilerplate contracts of all publishers currently designated “non-subsidy” and see how this supposed policy applies to them?  Or is that something only the office does?  And has it been done recently?

There are certain common CYA clauses that all publishers include in their boilerplate contract.  Industry standards are set and all tend to follow.  Occasionally, a publisher attempts to change the standard, slip something in, always in their favor - and generally, that’s when an author starts yelling, along with her agent, and everyone hops to and says Hell no, we won’t go.

It isn’t industry standard for a publisher to state in a contract that they may charge the author for paper, shipping, promotion, typesetting, copying, etc. - in other words costs that are considered by industry standard to be costs borne by the publisher.  When a contract stipulates that an author may be asked to pay any of those costs - the ones that are considered industry standard for the publisher to pay - that’s when a contract loses any merit of an arms length deal between a buyer and a seller.  The line blurs.

This isn’t a hard concept.  Only under bizarre and unusual circumstances, typically a circumstance caused by the author, should money be going from the author to the publisher.

You’ll have to forgive me for being testy - I’ve been beaten over the head with semantics the past few days and should probably stay out of this.

Those are some pretty hefty allegations, petra.  I don’t feel at all comfortable discussing RWA business of this scope in a public blog.

I hoped to shed some light, and I am always a champion of RWA, but I’m not going to argue a point that essentially comes down to a question of integrity - my own, the board and the hardworking, dedicated staff.

You’ve been told by any number of NY-published authors here that their contracts contained the very same sort of clause that supposedly branded this small press as vanity”.

Er, where did this happen?

What I’ve seen is a number of NY-published authors outlining the clauses that would cause them to have to pay/refund money to their publishers, and they are NOT the same as the ones listed for Tsaba.  Or, to detail each clause separately: we don’t know what the hell they mean by “retyping” a manuscript (is that the same as resetting during proofs?), and we don’t get charged for frontmatter and backmatter, though occasionally (e.g. indexing for nonfiction) we’re expected to create it ourselves.  What we are liable for is breaches of contract, legal ramifications (e.g. libel suits), and egregious resetting costs if we failed to make our manuscripts not suck during the eighteen steps that precede typesetting.  That last one may or may not be the same as what Tsaba’s doing with the “retyping” clause; without seeing the actual contract language, we can’t tell.

As for most university presses being vanity—by the standards of commercial publishing, yeah, sometimes.  But university presses are cricket, and this is rugby.  I could list a bunch of other differences in procedure and contracts for you, but they aren’t relevant to a discussion of fiction publishing.  So let’s leave things like indices out of this.

I don’t know that I’d agree the lines in Tsaba’s contracts make it a vanity press in the classical sense of the term—I presume they still pay their authors something for the books?—but whether the RWA could find a better way to draft that rule, and whether Tsaba’s practices are SOP for commercial publishing, are two different questions.

I agree with Marie.  Unless we see the actual contract for the publishing house in question, we should not assume RWA is arbitrarily reinterpreting things to suit the mood of the day or that they inconsistently apply their own rules.  According to Allison Kelley’s own email to the SBs, the PW article had definite factual errors, so taking the rest of it at face value is probably a mistake.

~You’ve been told by any number of NY-published authors here that their contracts contained the very same sort of clause that supposedly branded this small press as “vanity”. ~

I suggest you read the comments again, because this isn’t what I said, nor what I read from others.

You may be asked to pay for typesetting IF you make extraordinary changes at galley stage. That’s it. You would have had chances to make changes at line and copy ed, so why would you suddenly need to change a huge chunk? If so, you pay for it, as you have made the choice AFTER editing, AFTER typesetting, to substantially change the ms.

I’ve never once had to do this. I don’t know of anyone who has, but regardless this standard clause doesn’t equal vanity press by anyone terms.

If you are charged for editing, for production, for binding, for distribution for ANY step in the process of producing your book, it’s a big, bright red flag. The publisher pays. The writer does not.

I know of no one published by a major print house who has a clause in their contract which would require them to pay--and if they signed one that did, they probably need a new agent.

It’s been a long time since I signed a boilerplate, but when I did, nothing but the major changes at galley stage required payment by the author. Nothing.

Where has RWA defined terms differently than convention?

It’s [RWA] not a club. It’s not a family. It’s not a sorority or a club for popular girls. RWA is a professional organization. Use it for what it brings you. If it doesn’t meet any needs for you, then don’t join it. Don’t look to it for something it can’t provide. If it’s not geared toward e-pubbed writers then join an organization that is.

Vikki, you’re still my queen.

And no, petra, none of the NY published authors has said that what’s in our contracts equals what’s reportedly in Tsaba’s contracts (I say reportedly, since as far as I know no one on this blog as seen said contract). In fact, we’ve gone out of our way to demonstrate the exact opposite.

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.

:
Contest Rules Specific to the RITA:

Books must be published by a publisher that is a non–Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher. An eligible entry must meet these criteria:

• Have an original copyright date (printed on the copyright page) or a first printing date or a first North American printing date in the year prior to the current contest year.

• Be in print book format, complete with copyright page, produced by the publisher, with perfect or case binding and printing on both sides of the page.

• Match at least one of the category descriptions.

• Be a work of original fictional narrative prose that is offered for sale to the general public through print media. The author must not participate financially in the production and/or distribution of the work.

• Be an English-language edition that has not been previously entered.

Note that nowhere in there does is say jackshit about the publisher being “RWA approved” or “RWA recognized”. All it says is “non–Subsidy, non-Vanity”. And because I knew you’d ask:

At the request of members, the Board has re-visited the definitions of “Subsidy Publisher” and “Vanity Publisher.” After considering the advice of legal and industry professionals, along with suggestions by our Publisher Recognition Task Force, the Board . . . redefined the terms “Subsidy Publisher” and “Vanity Publisher” as follows: 

“Subsidy Publisher” means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment or reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs.

“Vanity Publisher” means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books and publishers whose business model and methods of publishing and distribution are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and/or associates.

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.

Emphasis added is mine. These are two charges which are not industry standard for fiction. Rather than puling and threatening to sue, Tsaba House would be better off spending their money creating a contract which doesn’t, to quote SB Sarah, suck donkey-balls. If they choose not to do so, that’s their business, but I don’t see where RWA is required to make their standards conform to any and every contract out there. If they want to play in our pool, they can damn well wear the approved swimwear or they can go swim somewhere else.
End of story.

If you paid Random House to have your book edited, bound, printed, or distributed, then I’d like to see proof of that.

At this point, I don’t know how much more arguments can be made that say standard publishers don’t charge their authors for the books to appear in book form, on a shelf at a bookstore.

I have no idea what “retyped” means—whether the PW write meant typeset or made the same mistakes as she did elsewhere in the article.

Regarding charges for changes made to the book AFTER typesetting: these are AUTHOR’S CHOICE changes that can be liable for charges (I say “can be” because I have yet to hear of any author charged for them). If I look at my typeset manuscript and realize that they left out commas that are in the copyedited version, even if it’s every single comma in the book, i don’t pay for that, because it’s the typesetting error. Their problem. But, if I decide, after the book has been typeset, that I want to change the ending, that’s MY choice. the book can go to press as the publisher and I formerly agreed upon it. No one is charging me to get my book into print.

And comparing vanity publishing to being told, in a contract, that you and not the publisher are liable if something you wrote about turns into a law suit is just silly. Ditto about having to pay back the advance that the publisher paid you if you don’t ever give them a book to publish. 

there is a HUGE HUGE distinction between being charged to publish your book, and the following: 1) being held responsible financially for what you’ve written in that book should a lawsuit arise, 2) being held responsible, financially,f or delivering the work you’ve been paid to produce, and 3) being held financially responsible for, at the last minute, introducing huge, editorially unnecessary changes to a manuscript that was approved by the publisher to go into print AS IS and which are not required to be made before the book reaches publication.

There’s nothing even remotely similar. No one is requiring an author to make that change. No one is saying to the author: If you want to see this in print, you have to pay for THIS.

Kalen, I think we’re looking at the very same thing. You quote RWA here:
>> “Vanity Publisher” means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books and publishers whose business model and methods of publishing and distribution are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and/or associates.

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. >>>

In other words, RWA first defined Vanity press one way (“Vanity Publisher” means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote...) and THEN defined it as any publisher that has a clause in any contract that requires any payment at all from the author in any contingency at all.  That is, RWA changed the definition. You don’t seem to think this change in definition is a problem?

And, as I said, I have signed several major publisher contracts with clauses that required author payment NOT to print or distribute the book (the standard def for subsidy press) but rather to compensate the publisher if I went out of the standard way and incurred costs-- and yes, the very same sort of wording as Tsaba’s contract, because that IS the boilerplate of many publishing contracts.  Maybe you haven’t ever had to sign such contracts, but as I said, I’m a “siltsucker” without an agent, and I tend to get the boilerplate… and that is, after all, what RWA is judging here, the boilerplate contract.

So my question is:  If it’s true that major publishers do have in some of their boilerplate contracts clauses that might, in some contingencies, require a payment by the author (even if this actually almost never has to be paid, as one writer mentioned), then should those major publishers also be told that they’re “subsidy presses” solely on the basis of those boilerplate clauses?

Now of course, not ALL publishers or all of their contracts will have these clauses… but some do.  So if we’re going to be absolutist, as the RWA office apparently was, and redefine the term “Vanity or subsidy press” to include any publisher having any contract clause in any contract which allows the pub to claim money from the author in certain circumstances, then any publisher that has those clauses is “vanity,” right?

I’m sorry to belabor the point, because it’s REALLY boring to everyone but me, I’m sure. But I just want to get it clear that I’M not the one defining those clauses as “vanity” clauses-- I think they are conventional.  So… if one publisher is dinged for that, shouldn’t all publishers who do that get dinged?

Now, I personally don’t like the word “cock.” Not my favorite word for the male sexual appendage. I prefer “long horned trouser schmeckie.”

I like the word “cock”—it’s nice and visceral, and implies a state of readiness.

But, then I’ve always had a fondness for the term “one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater”, too.

Diana said: If you paid Random House to have your book edited, bound, printed, or distributed, then I’d like to see proof of that.>>>

I didn’t say that, did I? I said a RH contract I signed required me to pay them back if I got sued for libel or if I made too many changes at the galley stage so that they had to re-edit and re-set.

I am NOT saying RH is a subsidy press. Exactly the opposite. I am saying that minor compensation clauses like those that almost never come into play (I’ve never known any writer to have to ante up on any of them, though I have known one who feared that would happen when someone threatened a libel suit) are NOT the signs of a vanity publisher, and so no publisher should be defined as “subsidy” just because they have those clauses.

I am trying to be clear, but I think I’m not accomplishing it! :)

I didn’t say that, did I? I said a RH contract I signed required me to pay them back if I got sued for libel or if I made too many changes at the galley stage so that they had to re-edit and re-set.

These are industry standard and are NOT what Tsaba House has in their contract (from what I can tell from PW). I can’t tell if you really just don’t understand the difference or if you’re being willfully obstreperous, but either way, this horse is so dead.

>>These are industry standard and are NOT what Tsaba House has in their contract (from what I can tell from PW). I can’t tell if you really just don’t understand the difference or if you’re being willfully obstreperous, but either way, this horse is so dead.>>

No need to get personal, hon. I’m with ya! I think those ARE industry standard, and thus I don’t think that a blanket prohibition against clauses that theoretically could result in author payment makes much sense.  But here’s what RWA has on its website in response to the article:
>>
At RWA’s request, Ms. Schwagerl supplied a copy of the company’s boilerplate contract which listed several instances in which costs could be charged to the author. It therefore failed to meet RWA’s standards.

>>

Don’t the clauses in contracts I have signed also constitute:
“several instances in which costs could be charged to the author.”?

Maybe they’re not the same clauses, I don’t know. But maybe that’s why we need a definition IN POLICY (not ad hoc) that defines which clauses constitute vanity press action and which don’t.  That’s all I’m asking for, really, terms defined clearly in policy, voted on by the board, and published so that everyone knows what they are and they can be applied equally.  And this will allow presses that are branded as “vanity” for clauses they don’t actually use (most of these types of clauses never come into play, I bet) can have a chance to rewrite their contracts.  And that’s good for everyone, right?  Clear definition and equal application?

That’s all. We can bury the horse now, if you want!

~I didn’t say that, did I? I said a RH contract I signed required me to pay them back if I got sued for libel or if I made too many changes at the galley stage so that they had to re-edit and re-set~

Petra, I really think you’re confused. The above is industry standard. I don’t have boilerplate contracts, but I would have both these requirements in mine.

This is NOT what RWA defines as vanity or subsidary. It’s just not. The above is not payment for pubication, for editing, for publishing expenses. RWA does not say payment for ANY contingency. 

have you actually seen Tsaba’s contract? Because I honestly don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.

~At RWA’s request, Ms. Schwagerl supplied a copy of the company’s boilerplate contract which listed several instances in which costs could be charged to the author. It therefore failed to meet RWA’s standards.~

Honey, read the word COSTS. It is not cost when the author turns in plagiarized or fraudulant material and then she and the publisher are sued. The author has signed off that it’s original work. If she lied, the publisher is then protected from the suit that may be brought against her.

Industry standard.

If the author decides after editing, after typesetting, after months of work to then make enormous changes, she can be required to pay for those changes--her choice. This is not cost.

Industry standard.

A publisher can’t charge an author for the costs of publishing the book. If so, this does not meet industry standards. It becomes subsidary or vanity press. And therefore, is not RWA recognized.

That’s all there is to it.

Stephanie wrote:Earn a thousand bucks from any one of those publishers, and you’re in PAN.

I hate to disagree, but this isn’t QUITE accurate. You must earn $1K on ONE published work within 18 months of release.

Not to beat a dead horse, but it’s the question of WHEN a charge to an author should be deemed a “cost of publication” that seems open to interpretation.

“Subsidy Publisher” means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment or reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs.

So far, so good. I don’t see any problems with that. But if the book is never published because the author breaches the contract, should the publisher be able to charge the author for the costs incurred in editing, typesetting, artwork, etc. up to that point? To me, this doesn’t sound like a “subsidy” of the publisher, but a reasonable clause to protect the publisher in the event of breach. Yet I know for a fact that epublishers have been forced to remove clauses of this sort because RWA deemed them “subsidy” publishers as a result of their inclusion.

I also have to respond to the contention that having a contract offer means an author should find it easy to gain agent representation. I know a fair number of authors who have gone “agentless” in negotiations (and not just with small presses and epublishers, but with large publishing houses) because, even with an offer in their hot little hands, they were unable to find a reputable agent willing to represent them. They figured no agent at all was better than a shyster, and they were probably right.

>>>>“In other words, RWA first defined Vanity press one way (“Vanity Publisher” means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote...) and THEN defined it as any publisher that has a clause in any contract that requires any payment at all from the author in any contingency at all.”

Too bad the “other words” used here don’t accurately represent what was said by RWA’s representative or what was written on RWA’s website.  Ironic, that, considering much of this blog thread is about reinterpretations. 

Allison Kelley was quoted in the PW article (that we know has factual errors) as saying, “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”. 

Granted, I can see how the phrase “if...a press can charge an author for anything” can be (willfully) misinterpreted; I’m sure for that reason, as well as others, RWA issued a clarification on its website, which I consider to be a more accurate summation of their position, especially considering the existence of factual errors in the PW article.  The official RWA statement reads:

“in which costs could be charged to the author”

But that’s not as ambiguous as it may seem taken out of context.  Why?  Because prior to this sentence the word ‘costs’ appeared in the phrase “costs of production” when vanity/subsidy press was being defined.  Thus, when the word ‘costs’ is used shortly thereafter in the same article, it is clear it means “costs of production” and not “any payment at all from the author in any contingency at all”. 

And as (nearly) everyone has pointed out, since we cannot see the actual contract RWA had issues with, we cannot know what clauses they objected to. If the publisher had confirmed they had clauses that were clearly vanity/subsidy instead of...oh, I don’t know, reinterpreting things to suit their case, would we all be having this argument? 

Well, maybe :).

[Schwagerl] founded Tsaba House in 2002 and uses a boilerplate contract she bought from self-publishing guru Dan Poynter’s Web site.

How much does one of these contracts cost?  I mean, that would be the surest way of seeing the contract in question, no?  Or is there perhaps a cached version floating arou