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

I know that Nora R didn’t want to MC after she saw the presentation. I don’t know if this letter is for real, but here’s a copy.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/corrinalaw/9282.html

The letter’s for real.  The whole thing is for real.  I was there, I can attest to all of it and more.  I haven’t blogged yet because I’m waiting for my blood pressure to come down.  I know she probably won’t get them until next January because of the sheer volume of mail that she gets, but honestly, get thee to Nora’s site and send her an email.  She was concerned people would see her as a diva.

She’s a goddesss and what she did took guts and principles.  I’m proud she’s in RWA.  Other members, including some very, very, very high ranking ones (and take the “rank” part any way you like)-- not so much with the pride that they’re in my organization.

And if you’re a member of RWA-- write letters to RWR and to the Board.  Many of them had no idea what was going to happen until 8:01 PM Saturday night.  And given that Nora herself had no idea what they had in store until Friday afternoon, that really doesn’t come as much of a surprise to me.

Barb

The excrement is hitting the electronic cooling device on the RWA loops moreso than on the blogs, but I imagine it’s just a matter of time.

And the letter, she is real. Can’t prove it, of course, and if the RWR refuses to print it, then ‘twill ever be a matter up for debate...but Nora has MY undying respect for refusing to just shut up and do as she was told “for the good of the organization.”

Hey Barb,

Thanks for speaking up. Hot damn, I still can’t believe that happened.

About that letter: Is there any way we can find out whether Nora REALLY did write it? I mean, is it posted on her website? How did the blogger get ahold of it?

If La Nora really did write that letter, well, she deserves a fucking award, man.

In other news: Sarah and I are now seriously considering attending next year’s conference in Atlanta just for the trainwreck potential. How much are conference fees for a non-member (i.e. me)? I tried looking it up in the RWA but it seems to be a jealously guarded secret.

OK, I didn’t really try to look that hard, either.

Wow..that’s just...well....wow. Wha?

Wha?

HmmmmKayyyyy ...

I had heard rumors—but none were confirmed.  I’m going to sidestep the slams against Republicans since I’m pretty sure the GOP had nothing what-so-ever to do with that presentation, and ask if everyone was allowed to assist in creating the presentation.  If it was an open process and noone else stepped up to contribute, then ya get what ya get—I guess. 

Nora Roberts wanting to 86 the show just hours before the presentation seems to be asking a lot.  They plan that show months in advance. 

What was the theme?  “Romance is the antidote for bad times?”, “A romance novel before dying?”, or perhaps, “Shit happens.  Read a Romance novel and you won’t notice.”

Don’t kill me - someone has to play the devils advocate now and again.

Candy,

Reason you can’t find that info is because they only tend to put it up while registration for Nationals is active and membership is required for registration anyway.  There are a few things non-members can attend, such as the Literacy Signing, which is both free (YAY) and the only RWA Conference event open to the public-- (plus the proceeds from the book sales go to support literacy programs which is way cool) and if you happen to be buds with someone who’s in RWA, you can score meal and guest tickets to the lucheons and the Awards ceremony/reception for an additional fee.  Can’t remember what it was, but obviously, it was considerably lower than the conference fee itself.

I hope I don’t come off as sounding like I’m knocking RWA as a whole.  Like so many other organizations, it’s filled with incredible, dedicated people who are working hard to learn about the craft of writing and working hard to promote the romance genre, then there are couple of boneheads-- and like so many other organizations, the cursed ones tend to rise to the top somehow and end up mucking things up beyond all redemption.  There are many people on the board who are pretty much appalled at how things went down Saturday night and I feel for them, because they’re going to be tarred with this brush for a long time.

As far as the letter’s veracity, I’m on a craft loop with the blogger who posted the letter which was forwarded to the loop on Nora’s behalf by another NY Times Bestselling author.  We’re talking people of integrity here, so please, don’t worry about the letter’s authenticity.  It’s for real.

Barb

If you go to Ms Roberts’ official website, tehre’s a link near the bottom to some forums where you can “chat”. It looks like she herself posted the letter to the forums there. Seems legit to me.

Wow.  I can’t believe that--I know that people’s taste differs, but to find something so heinous appropriate in any venue is mindboggling.

Thanks for the link to the NR letter.  I’m not a fan of her writing (which I think might be heresy), but I’m warming to her for standing up to principle.

And as far as scrapping the plans for the ceremony, I can’t see that it would be too hard to say, “No thanks, we’ll just announce the winners.”

I guess I must have my head up my ass because I was there and I didn’t think anything of it—controversial or otherwise. It simply seemed like a retrospective of the past twenty-five years like you’d get on any awards show. Dunno. It was sort of boring after a while, though…

However, I was *really* tired.

Candy,
Check out NR’s fansite, ADWOFF. She’s got a post about it on the msgboard.

I love the RWA’s PTB. They provide endless entertainment of the painful trainwreck variety. My amazement with their. incompetence and stupidity continues. Just do not get this group at all.

Kudos to RWA for providing yet another entry in the “What Not to Do” list. Thanks ladies, for makin the list so long.

Thanks for the heads up, Beth! For those of you interested, it seems like Nora posted the letter in this thread here.

Holy fucking schlamoly.

I’m going to sidestep the slams against Republicans since I’m pretty sure the GOP had nothing what-so-ever to do with that presentation (...)

I don’t think Republicans per se were being slammed, but any Republican/conservative slant of the awards is certainly fair game for the slammin’.

What was the theme?

My guess is: RWA--Yes, We’re a Fucking Trainwreck!

Man, all this scuttlebutt almost makes me want to join all the author loops.

It simply seemed like a retrospective of the past twenty-five years like you’d get on any awards show.

I’ll admit it’s been years and years since I’ve bothered to watch any awards show. I have seen my fair share of the Oscars, however, and seen my fair share of Academy Award retrospectives.

They always, always, always had to do with movies.

Has this policy changed? Are the Oscars, the Grammies, the Emmies, the Golden Globes, the Independent Spirit Awards--are these shows now showing massive retrospectives of general history instead of focusing on major events in their industry?

I can understand the Grammies covering, say, the killings of John Lennon, Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls. However, as a viewer, I’d be puzzled if they started showing footage of Rwanda or Bosnia.

The long and the short of it is: Da FUCK do OJ Simpson and Tianenmen Square have to do with romance novels?

Well, Ladies, I was there. And it was hilariously innapropriate. In the beginning it had a retrospective early 80’s and I swear to god, they showed all the footage of Challenger until the nanosecond before it exploded. The audience was dead quiet.

The Tiananmen Square thing? Exactly as described. The endless (at least 5 times longer than anything else) Princess Di story? Including the Elton John tribute song? Totally there. I was literally holding my breath waiting for 9/11 references. It actually seemed pretty lame, after highlighting tragedy after tragedy to NOT mention it in the slightest.

Each presenter in the awards represented a year, so it would have been simple for that year to say “and Americans learned the heartbreaking cost of terrorism on their own front door” or something like that. Leaving it out completely after including other traumas? Totally weird.

There were many pics of Bush, which garnered the equivalent sound of three halfhearted claps, I was happy to note. They also showed all the other pres’s—Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton (who got plenty of applause) and Lil’ Bush. What they had to do with romance, I have no clue.

It was long, it was agonizing, it was a mountainous mess. And hey, those of you non-authors, who want RWA membership to attend the con? RWA has an auxilary membership—way cheaper—for booksellers, librarians, editors, etc. You will not have access to all of the benefits, but you can go to the con at member rate, etc.

What in the world were they thinking? And what does that have to do with romance? I could see a cover or movie retrospective...but world leaders and tragedies? Diana as a fairy tale?

Whatever the planners were smoking...I want some. Must have been some good stuff to fry your brain into thinking that would be a good idea!

I heard from someone very much in the know that 9/11 footage WAS there and removed as one of the few concessions made to Nora who pointed out that it would hardly be appropriate in a room full of New York editors. 

The concessions weren’t enough and Nora spent the evening in her suite in her pajamas.

You’ve gotta love that.

Saddam Hussein writes romance.  Given the political theme coupled with the grim overtones of disasters, I can’t fathom why they left him out of the restrospective.  It could even help with the slumping sales.  “Read romance or die!” Good theme.  Use it if you like.

You guys are wanting to have a serious discussion ... I can tell.

::hanging head and departing::

Awww...FerfeLaBat. Don’t worry. Be happy. :)

It was the cover, Candy. Ruins lotsa good books’ sales.

*shakes head at RWA officials’ antics*

When I joined the World of Blogs in May, I came across those antics almost on the first day via all those links, despite the fact that I don’t write Romance. It’s quite a negative popularity the RWA thus creates.

The good part is that I found out that Romance writers are an intelligent and fun bunch to hang out with in the World of Blogs.  :-) I don’t think that without all the RWA fuss I’d have found Romance-related blogs so soon.

Man. It’s not even worth working up the juice to be mad at them.

Story Time:

When my son was a widdle baby, his favorite thing to do when we changed his diaper was to reach down and-you guessed it-play with that fascinating piece of flesh that gets wiped first. (Bear with me, this does have a point.)

Unfortunately, babies tend to grab things and yank. So if we weren’t careful in finding something else to distract him with, the poor tyke would reach down, grab himself, and pull.

Then he would look up at the person changing his diaper with tear-filled eyes, like, “Why are you DOING this to me?”

My husband and I call this, “The Cosmic Nut-Pull”, and it happens all the time (at least metaphorically) in organizations as well as in the workplace. The RWA is yanking on itself and then getting upset because everyone else is laughing at them, and it hurts. I don’t claim to know WHY they’re doing it, but I do feel happy understanding the dynamic that’s going on.

It’s just a cosmic nut-pullin’ trainwreck, and I’m so glad I’m not a part of it…

How many of the editors there lived through 9/11?  Nora makes that point quite thoughtfully in her letter - which she says she will be taking out an ad in the RWR to publish.

One presenter I know left out things she was supposted to say - about who shot JR and who shot John Lennon.

Then the RWA president, I understand, left the stage in a convertible at the end of the show.

What happened to honoring the TWENTY-FIFTH year of the organization by celebrating its purpose?  I’ve sat through previous awards ceremonies and teared up (over romantic movie clips) and laughed (over live skits) - but always, ALWAYS, it was appropriate to the organization.

Permission was granted to forward this.

To the board:

By now you’ve probably heard in great detail from many members about
what an outrage the awards ceremony was, so I’ll try a different
approach, speculating on what an outsider (say, the documentary
people from Bravo who were there) might conclude from that ceremony.

1. RWA is anti-woman, dwelling on women like Monica Lewinsky, Lorena
Bobbit, and Donna Rice while tossing off mentions Sally Ride, Ruth
Bader Ginsberg, and Oprah Winfrey.

2. RWA is racist showing only one person of color for any extended
time--O. J. Simpson--while ignoring anyone else who wasn’t white.

3. RWA is so far to the right politcally that it’s falling off the
map, spending an extended amount of time including voiceovers on the
Clinton/Lewinsky affair while making Reagan and the Bushes look like
gods.

4. RWA is insensitive, juxtaposing tragedy with upbeat music and
lighthearted segues into the nominations.

5. RWA doesn’t care about its members, its fiction, or its past,
sidelining all of that to showcase a general history lesson that did
nothing to illuminate or celebrate the organization or the people
within it.

At this point, I don’t care who was responsible for that truly
wretched script; I don’t care who was responsible for forcing it
through, even though Nora Roberts, one of the smartest people I know
when it comes to gauging audience reaction and public relations, was
ignored when she tried to stop the train wreck that ceremony became. 
I just want to know that whoever was involved in this will never
again be allowed near any public statement, that there will be a
committee that reads the script ahead of time fthat has both taste
and veto power, and that the next time a very smart woman says, “You
cannot do this, it’s horrible,” SOMEBODY will listen.

And please, for the love of God, next year remember that it’s a party
not a political platform; that we’re there to feel good about
ourselves, not be ashamed that we’re women; to feel like we’re one
happy family, not the White Girls’ Club; that we want to leave
uplifted and confident and happy and laughing, that we want to
CELEBRATE on that night.  Get somebody who understands happiness
and celebration and humor and light, somebody who loves women and
RWA, somebody who doesn’t have an ax to grind or a personal stake in
the script.  Get an entertainer with brains.  We have a LOT of them
in RWA; in fact, Eileen Dreyer comes immediately to mind.  You know
Eileen, the one who looked at her script, saw more disasters and then
said, “And a lot of bad things happened that year but we’re not going
to talk about them” and got an ovation?  Eileen would be good.

Saturday night was the worst Rita awards show in history; let’s make
sure it’s the worst one of all time by never going that low again.

Jenny Crusie

although come to think of it, I’m not sure “permission to forward” at the top means I’m allowed to since it came within an RWA group, maybe it was supposed to stay in an RWA group? Ah well. I hope it’s okay.

I’m sorry… I’m still imagining the RWA president doing a “Cosmic Nut-Pull”. Excuse me while I go change my pants…

These RWA stories just get better and better.

Can the president of an organization be impeached?

The following statement is from Alicia Rasley (forwarded):

This is what happened. I was there. :) Please feel free to forward. When
she (Nora Roberts) objected to the script, several of us stepped forward and spent longhours trying to fix it. It still wasn’t good enough to meet her expectations. More fixing. Finally, hours from the ceremony, still refusal. Another MC stepped in, fortunately.
Everything proceeded pretty well.

People laughed. Tears from winners, and
the audience too--it’s wonderful watching someone achieve a great dream. The ceremony went too long, as always. There was plenty about the history of RWA and the history of the times. Maybe too much history of the times, and some
unfortunately tragic video pics, some political material in it that I (a
Clinton fan :) didn’t like but probably those of other political stripes
thought fine. The sort of thing that strikes some as offensive and other
as not, but was mostly just in the videos. Funny fashions. Some music.
Lots of people left with RITAs or GHs and lots of editors clutched
plaques. Many thank yous.

In other words, this was a pretty normal awards ceremony. Some liked it,
some didn’t. No one read a letter expressing an opinion either way, because everyone is equally entitled to express an opinion… but does any one person deserve a big forum that no one else gets to express it?

You don’t have to like this ceremony. Those of us who helped out at the
end did our best to make it better, but some people had trouble with it.
I understand-- I had problems too, problems we tried to fix but didn’t
have time. What I don’t understand is why this letter is such a huge
deal. She has an opinion. So do I. So do you. Is any one opinion so important it takes precedence over yours? Are you
going to change your mind about what you experienced because of what someone else thought?

Probably not. And no one got hurt, and no one is going to sue, and no
one cheated, and those who won won, and those who finalled still finalled, and explain to me why this is such a huge
deal?????

Alicia

I was there too. It was awful, although I wondered if I wasn’t just being Ms. Softy Liberal-Pants for thinking so. One of the worst moments was when they showed Clinton and Monica footage with EMF’s “Unbelievable” as the acccompanying music. And the woman in back of me clapped like a toy monkey every time Junior Bush came on screen. My seatmate and I were about ready to pop her.

Megan

“I think I have ferreted out why the awards ceremony turned out the way they did. Are you ready for my theory?

It’s all in line with the redefining romance/getting people to take the romance genre seriously attempts.

“Look! We’re talking about serious issues! We’re not some fluffy genre that’s all about kittens and ponies and red throbbing hearts! (We won’t think about or even mention the other red throbbing bits.) Take us seriously! We know our current events, especially the grisly, doom-and-gloom bits.”

Just a theory, though.”

I’d be stunned down to my cotton french-cut panties if they had an agenda one one-hundredth that thought out.  I’d wager it was part of the whole “retrospective” idea, and more focused on the prestige of the awards ceremony (and the RITA/GH’s 25 years) than on the seriousness of Romance.  As for the ultimate message of the “seriousness” of Romance, you’re probably right that some people took that away from the presentation.  Frankly, I think such a presentation is the extension of traditional, nationalistic, and conservative “family values” that are totally unquestioned and unexamined.  You know, like the psychology of the administration, who constantly warn us of the next potential terrorist attack, creating an environment in which political protest can easily be labeled unpatriotic.  In other words, it’s an unarticulated call to refrain from rocking the boat with all that new-fangled erotic and otherwise untraditional Romance—instead, let’s keep on celebrating god, country, and family the old-fashioned way.

Well. Someone needs to turn this whole year of RWA antics into a book- the ridiculous cockups & finger pointing will sell tons.

Can la presidenta TTQ be impeached?

Can la presidenta TTQ be impeached?

Unfortunately, the only way that could have happened was if we had met quorum at the Annual General Meeting.

We didn’t.  Not enough people attended/sent in proxies.  If we had met quorum, I’m fully convinced that someone would have brought a vote of “no confidence” from the floor.

I think TTQ knew it too-- she looked inordinately relieved when she announced the numbers and that we hadn’t made quorum.

More’s the pity.

Barb

Well, thank you Lord for restoring my faith in Jenny Crusie at least.

And Candy, is that an animated gif that I’m seeing?  WAHHAHHAHH

“I think what Alicia isn’t getting is that Nora Roberts’ letter is a big deal because she’s expressing what a lot of other people are feeling but didn’t speak out loud.”

One of the things that makes it a big deal to me is that I’ve never had the impression that Roberts has been active in weighing in on bigger issues in the industry, or in using her influence to stand behind certain causes (I still remember her comments on how Amazon advertises used books alongside new ones and cringe, thinking about how such a practice impacts smaller authors far more than it does her).  So the fact that she stood up on this one and wrote such a letter makes what she did stand out to me, even if (in a cynical construction) she did it because she didn’t want to be personally associated with such a travesty.  I mean, can you imagine what it was like before the edits??

“Robin, I agree that it was probably never an articulated goal, but that sounds very much like their unstated, perhaps even unconscious goal: romance is apple pie, not anal sex.”

Ah, exactly—you found the perfect sound byte that eluded me!

I wasn’t there, but from what I’ve read here and elsewhere, the whole situation sounds ghastly at worst and inappropriate at best. My only explanation - not that I think these people deserve one - is that perhaps when TPTB directed the creative team to come up with a retrospective, that group immediately began listing the big events of each year that everyone would remember. Unfortunately, tragic events last longer in the memory than pleasant ones, so my guess is that they ended up with a string of disasters and felt very proud of themselves.

I have no idea, however, what they were thinking with the pairing of things such as Don’t Worry, Be Happy with Tiananman Square. That’s just pure incompetence.

And I have no way of explaning the bashing of Clinton and glorifying the Republican presidents except to say that it’s clear which side of the political seesaw these people sit.

Even with giving these people this sliver of a benefit of a doubt that their creative team just totally dropped the ball, I’m with Candy in asking WTF any of it had to do with Romance novels? Where was Fabio in all of this? Lord knows there has to be enough footage of him for quite a long montage.

What’s really sad, I think, is that attention has been so completely divereted away from the winners who so much deserve their moments in the spotlight. Instead all of the focus is on how, once again, RWA has managed to irritate it’s very own constituents.

And my regrets about not attending continue to move into complete non-existence…

I mean, can you imagine what it was like before the edits??

Well, if it was anyhting like the letters my late boss used to dictate when he was pissed, it was fun. I loved to type them though he always edited the stuff out.

OK, I haven’t read the comments here yet, but I will. First off. Yes, it’s all true.

This was my first RWA conference, and my first awards show...and I said more than once that if they were all like that I would never go again because I couldn’t stop crying!  I’m not from NY, Hell, I’m Canadian . .  and I found it upsetting! 

I’ll hop over to Nora’s website and tell her to go for it! I love that she, and Jennifer Cruisie and anyone and everyone are willing to speak up and be heard. Hopefully the baord will pay attention.

As for blogging about it myself. I won’t.  Not because I support what happeend, but because I want to forget it. I prefer to remember the GOOD things.

I don’t want to remember how utterly rediculous the cars were, what a fuss was made of the presenters (PAST winner) when it was really this years nominees that deserved the fuss. 

I prefer to remember that I saw some of my fave authors nominated and that a friend actually won a Golden Heart Pendant!

“Romance is apple pie, not anal sex.”

Priceless.

SmartBitches, puuuhhh-LEEZE come to Atlanta next year!

Oh, and I enjoyed the openign skit abotu how RWA was formed! It looked great. In fact, if thay had just stiuck with RWA historyit ould’ve ben great! 

In my opinion, the whole ceremony would’ve been made immensly better if they had just cut the videos’ and stuck with the awards.

> Finally, hours from the ceremony, still refusal.

I was there.  After two days of editing, what remained was still deeply offensive.  The Tienanmen Square moment is justly infamous; the showcase on the O.J. Simpson trial and the Monica Lewinsky affair were equally tasteless.  And where, I ask, were the Iran-Contra scandal, the Enron affair, or Halliburton? 

It was politically biased.  It was tasteless.  It was, as Jenny Crusie said, anti-female and anti-black.  I spent the ceremony with my friends, and we ran out of gin in the hip flasks half an hour in.  There wouldn’t be enough gin in the world.

I’m glad somebody tried to make the presentation less appalling, but what they finally put on stage was still disgraceful.

I was there, as well, and I can tell you - it was a trainwreck. I watched it with the same awed expression and half-giggly horror which I usually reserve for particularly appalling episodes of COPS. I think the reason most people aren’t blogging about it is because we’re all writing to the board - which is exactly where these comments should go first. Then, if there’s any excess venom, blog it. But the board needs to hear these things first.

And Candy, you can just crash next year’s conference. Just have someone who registered purchase a guest pass for the RITAs, then go to the hotel and hang. All the interesting stuff happens in the bar, anyway. That’s where I first heard about this mess.

Oh - and the letters posted here are absolutely legit, both Nora’s and Jenny’s. And God love ‘em both.

Lani

I’m an unpublished writer in my second year of RWA membership.  I joined, as I expect most people in my position do, in hopes of learning useful craft tips and industry know-how and developing contacts to help me get published and stay that way.  What I didn’t sign up for was to see the cultural battles I’m all too familiar with from the 2000 and ‘04 elections re-enacted in miniature.  So I’m thoroughly disgusted with the three big kerfuffles of Summer ‘05.

Can someone who’s been around the organization longer than I have tell me what I as an ordinary member can do about it?  Should I write the Board?  All of them, or just my region’s rep?  And when it comes time to vote for new officers, how will I know which ones want to change direction before this slow-motion trainwreck gets any worse?

Hey, Susan. Just grab a recent RWR, and your region rep will be listed. Write to them, and request that they forward it to the board. Then you’ve done your part, and it’s an important part.

And for everyone else, one thing I forgot to mention above - please don’t confuse this mess with the value of RWA. It’s a great organization filled with wonderful and brilliant people. Those people just didn’t happen to be involved in producing this year’s RITA ceremony.

L.

Thanks, Lani!  Will do.

Wow, and an attendee actually offered me her ticket to the awards because she was leaving early. Unfortuately, so was I. Still I’m not sure it would have been a blessing to be there and sit through this mess.

Kudos to Nora and Jennifer Crusie for their public positions on the matter.

hmm, okay I was there. Honestly, it semed no better nor worse than the other two ceremonies I’ve attended. Re the political montages: I found myself more puzzled at their inclusion than anything else. To be fair, they also showcased the growth of RWA over the 25 yrs.  I did find myself annoyed that the strides made by women were given as a one line beat with no accompanying footage. Also highlighted (I can’t remember if every presenter did this) was a line from the many works of Linda Howard over the years. (she was this yrs honoree).
The music was fabu and I have to admit to utter insensitiveness to be bopping along to many tunes whilst some scene of horror was played (such is my shallowness).

In my favour though, I couldn’t stomach it past the GH portion of the show (about an hour). I spent the rest of the evening saying farewell to dear friends and CPs… much better way to spend your final evening at conference.

Candy and Sarah, yes you can attend RWA without being a member because I did it last year. Essentially you pay the conf fee plus (what amounts to the membership dues) I think the total was approx $450.

And the letter from Cruisie posted by Kate… as I was reading (and she mentioned Eileen dreyer) I mentally added ‘or Jenny Cruisie’. Imagine my delight when I got to the end.

X

oh crap… why do I always spell her name wrong. Just shoot me. shoot me now.

Jenny, if you’re out there. My most humblest, grovelling, toadying apologies.

Now I’m even questioning if it WAS Linda Howard they were citing/honouring…

X

Going back to her own little world where everything revolves around moi.

Okay, I’m surfing the net contributing my sedition for next year, in light of this year’s disaster.  Three words:

Pull.  The.  Plug.

It’s really that simple.  Takes electricity to run a projector.

And may I say, “GO, NORA!”

I find it all hugely hilarious!!  It’s made my day anyway!! 

Lots of kudos to Nora, I may start reading her books again now!!

As for Tara Taylor Quinn (or whatever her name is), as we say in England, she dropped a f*cking bollock!

“I have no idea, however, what they were thinking with the pairing of things such as Don’t Worry, Be Happy with Tiananman Square. That’s just pure incompetence.”

I’m not in any way defending the ceremony, but I just wanted to say that the above didn’t happen—at least not at the same time. It was “dramatic” music for the clips montage, and the pop song for the presenter making her way to the podium. Although, during the Clinton/Lewinsky scenes they played that oh-so-catchy song: “A little bit of Monica in my life...”

Michelle—

They also paired pop songs as well. I remember the “don’t worry, be happy” above the Tiananmen Square montage (maybe not all of the video, but definitely on the end) as well as the complete montage of all of CLinton’s supposed mistresses to the “A little bit of Monica” song as well as the rehashing of the Lewinsky scandal to the “you’re so unbelievable” song. In fact, as I recall, most of the accompanying music to the videos was definitely pop. (Michael Jackson’s Beat It, etc.)

Maybe where we are getting confused is that some images were shown twice. Tiananmen and the Challenger thing were both in the show’s opening montage as brief clips, and then shown later as longer pieces accompanied by jazzy, upbeat pop songs.

Until I read all of this, I was disappointed that I didn’t attend due to lack of funds.  Now, well, I’m rather glad.  It sounds like the awards show was so tasteless ti was embarassing.  I really feel for the winners.  To have your bright moment defined by such a fiasco as that must have been a real let-down.

“Robin, I agree that it was probably never an articulated goal, but that sounds very much like their unstated, perhaps even unconscious goal: romance is apple pie, not anal sex.”

This was my thought when I first read the report of the RITA ceremony - only not so well articulated.  RWA seems to want to redefine itself so that its morals and goals are more closely aligned with those of the Red States.  Isn’t that the traditional demographic of the romance reader anyway? 

What I don’t understand, exactly, is why writers like Nora Roberts and Jennifer Crusie, etc. remain within the organization.

What I don’t understand, exactly, is why writers like Nora Roberts and Jennifer Crusie, etc. remain within the organization.

I would guess it’s because they want to give to the writers in a way that they were given to when they were starting out.

Jenny wasn’t always Jenny, Nora wasn’t always Nora, at least, not in the way we see them.  Jenny, in particular, is first and foremost a teacher and she genuinely digs hanging out with other writers.

Remember-- 20 (approx) board members, 9200 general members.  Many, many more general members than board members.

And the sad fact is, there just isn’t another professional (using the term loosely in the wake of the debacle) organization that supports romance the way RWA is meant to.  For all its issues, it’s ours.  We just need to reclaim it from those who have hijacked it for their own personal purposes.

Barb

I didn’t mean to be critical of those two authors.  It just seems to me that RWA is not an organization that seems to be fostering writers these days.

One more comment and then I have to go.  Is anyone else disturbed by the lack of commentary on certain authors blogs/boards on this issue?  Do we make the assumption that those who are silent on it are supportive of it?  Or is that unfair?

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda. 

As someone said on LiveJournal (a post which has now mysteriously disappeared), the real problem with RWA is Allison Kelley. Look deeper people.  DEEPER.

Not to mention that a percentage of the current board has the maturity of 6th graders.

Say what you like about Quinn, but with a board like this, who needs enemies? 

As for the women who stepped in to fix the script, kudos to them for caring enough about RWA to try to make the best of a bad-ass situation.

Pick on the people responsible for picking the crappy script and crappier film content, not the people who tried to fix it or the people who refused to let Nora rain on the finalists’ parade.

And Nora is NOT a goddess.  She puts her panties on the same way we do--one leg at a time.

Annie

I understand-- I had problems too, problems we tried to fix but didn’t
have time. -Alicia Rasley

My thought: How much freakin time does it take to pop the tape out of the player? Or as Zaza said, to pull the plug?

I’m sure the audience would have been greatly relieved to have had the ceremony over with and spent the rest having a great time celebrating and spending time with friends.

It sounds like Nora was trying to stop the RWA PTB from raining on the finalists’ parade, from the montage scenes, to the politics, to the attention paid to presenters over winners.

About Allison Kelley, the ED - the ED is a hired position, right? Retained by the board of directors? If so, AK might be a problem, might not be - I don’t know and it depende more on whether she works on fundraising/development or internal relations/external PR.

For all its issues, it’s ours.  We just need to reclaim it from those who have hijacked it for their own personal purposes.

This is all well and good and I don’t disagree, but neither do I see it happening.  There are 9200 members and there was not a quorum at the AGM.  Meaning there aren’t even 920 (10% right?) members who care enough to send in their proxies.

Yep, Alison, you’re right-- on both the ten percent required and on the fact we didn’t make quorum.  And I was highly disappointed.  Almost as disappointed as I’m sure TTQ was relieved that they hadn’t made quorum.

As a chapter president, I tried.  I tried my best to encourage all my members who weren’t attending to send proxies and I’m grateful to those who did.  I’m grateful to the members of my chapters who cared enough to attend.

It was… illuminating, to say the least.  Someone got up to ask about possible future inclusion of an erotic romance category in the Ritas and GH and was shot down so harshly and coldly by Ms. Quinn, that I think they were still scraping the ice off walls some time later.

I don’t write within that particular genre, but I’ll be damned if I want one individual saying that our organization will not consider including it as part of its most prestigious contest.

What kind of message does that send?  It’s okay to include the numbers for our percentage and marketing purposes?  It’s okay to take their money for ads, but hey, when it comes to showcasing your ability… uh, no, sorry, go to the back of the bus and don’t dare speak up again.

I think the reason most people aren’t blogging about it is because we’re all writing to the board - which is exactly where these comments should go first. Then, if there’s any excess venom, blog it. But the board needs to hear these things first.

Excellent point, Lani.

Someone got up to ask about possible future inclusion of an erotic romance category in the Ritas and GH and was shot down so harshly and coldly by Ms. Quinn, that I think they were still scraping the ice off walls some time later.

Haaa.

Just.

Haaaaaa.

Those graphical standards? They’re to IMPROVE the image of romance, see.

And that survey about what romance means to you? That’s just to comply with anti-trust laws.

This? Well, aren’t there ENOUGH categories in the RITAs? Sheesh.

I’m completely stunned by the insensitivity.  Images of tragedies like Tienanmen Square don’t belong in a ceremony of celebration.  How could anyone, anyone have thought it was appropriate?

And yes, people did try to repair the damage, but the fact is, the whole thing should have been scrapped once the nature of the images was discovered.
They could have just focused on the awards.

I can’t wrap my head around this at all.  Are there any responses from the board?  I’ve looked and can’t find them.  Miss Quinn’s message board on her website isn’t working either.

>One more comment and then I have to go.  Is >anyone else disturbed by the lack of commentary >on certain authors blogs/boards on this issue?  >Do we make the assumption that those who are >silent on it are supportive of it?  Or is that unfair?

Oh, please don’t make assumptions.  Lots of us are appalled--we just aren’t blogging about it.  We’re writing the board.  Or just writing--so many things are more important than RWA’s latest self-sabotage.  Like deadlines.

Someone said that maybe RWA wants to align itself with the Red State values.  Please skip that assumption, too.  RWA isn’t exactly a monolithic organization--there are Red Staters, Blue Staters, and Blue-minded folks like me who live in Red States.  No doubt there are Red-minded folks who live in the Blue Zone, too . . . which is a discussion that shouldn’t even come up, dammit, in relation to our awards ceremony.  (Or the definition of romance, for that matter, but that’s a whole ‘nother controversy.)

Eileen

Perhaps we need to change our masthead

Dunno ‘bout that, ladies… is “masthead” a graphically approved term?  It could be taken the wrong way, y’know.  If you’re lucky.

;-P

Barb

No one who worked on fixing the script had the authority to pull the tape. It is my understanding that pulling the video was suggested, but that suggestion was not taken.
While Nora may have been the first to suggest pulling the tape, she wasn’t the only one. That is no slam to Nora, btw! ;)
So while Alicia is trying to get the focus back on the GH and Rita winners and off the controversy, neither Alicia nor anyone else involved in script doctoring had the authority to pull the tape.

You have two issues here. The tape and the script.

I was told some edits were able to be made on the tape, but don’t know who did them.

[[[[About Allison Kelley, the ED - the ED is a hired position, right? Retained by the board of directors? If so, AK might be a problem, might not be - I don’t know and it depende more on whether she works on fundraising/development or internal relations/external PR. ]]]]

Are the RWA board member Lisa Kamps?

“RWA seems to want to redefine itself so that its morals and goals are more closely aligned with those of the Red States.  Isn’t that the traditional demographic of the romance reader anyway?”

Keeping Eileen Wilks’ important caveat about judging the whole of RWA from this presentation in mind, I do think that the presentation itself reveals a genuine anxiety that this is no longer the whole demographic picture of Romance readers. And I think the overt political messages of this presentation are defensive in the true sense of the word—they reveal a fear that the genre is diversifying too much, that “traditional” Romance values are changing, and that the audience is changing, to the extent that a counter-response was required.  And while the response might have been a very bad thing, I think the anxiety speaks well for the future of the genre as more diverse and more inclusive.  So TTQ quashed the erotic Romance GH; as I kept having to tell people I met at an international higher ed conference in England last month, the current president does not represent the views of the entire nation (or in RWA’s case, membership), and no elected president is forever.  And let’s face it; sometimes it takes someone in power going too far before those in the middle (the majority, usually) catch on and say enough.  When people are that harsh, that defensive, they’re anxious and worried.  Look at the sales of historicals (which apparently attract the most conservative Romance readers); look at Candice Proctor’s rant and RWR’s refusal to print it; look at the blogs popping up on Romance; look at the expansion of erotic Romance and e-publishing—I think that the signs of change are arriving, even if they’re a bit early to the awards ceremony (this makes me think of Demi Moore’s character in GI Jane for some reason).  I only hope that the forces that speak to change in the industry continue to grow, are willing to ally for greater cache, and keep pushing for broadening, rather than narrowing in the industry.

TTQ’s message board crashed. Heee......

“And I think the overt political messages of this presentation are defensive in the true sense of the word—they reveal a fear that the genre is diversifying too much, that “traditional” Romance values are changing, and that the audience is changing”

Good point, Robin.  Yes, I think we’re seeing a lot of anxiety about the way the genre’s growing/changing--and a corresponding need on the part of some to try to squish it back within its traditional boundaries.  They can’t do it, of course.  Just like I can’t make it grow in the particular direction I want--contemporary fantasy along the lines of LKH & Kelley Armstrong.  (Happily for me, some of the market seems to be heading that way all on its own.)

Eileen

This is tangental to the issue at hand - mostly because everyone else is much more eloquent on the subject than I could ever be - but this brings to mind something that’s been discussed here at smartbitches a little bit before: it’s offputting to me to know the political leanings of the authors I read.  Once I saw the name of TTQ I had a vague idea that she was the perpetrator of some books I’ve seen on the shelves that I would never willingly choose; I checked out her site and found she didn’t write the ones I was thinking of, but instead seems to specialize in the baby stories.  (In the midst of all this, though, I had to laugh at the title of one of her books, “Shotgun Baby”, because it brought an image to mind that was pretty far off of what was intended, I’m reasonaly certain.) The end result of this is that even if I did usually go for the kind of thing she appears to write, I would never ever buy them now that I can surmise her political leanings.  The same holds true for other authors, too. 

This is akin, to me, of knowing the political leanings of my newscasters: this engenders an immediate loss of trust on my part that the information being broadcast is complete and truthful.  In books, it means my perceptions of why characters are acting as they are become tainted - I can’t take them as they are written without attempting to glean whether the author was trying to preach at me on some pet issue or other.  I accept that we all have political leanings, so that means authors and newscasters do as well and thus there’s always a likelihood that they leak into their work, but there are certain places where I need to be free of knowing what those leanings are in order to put my trust there and allow that person to impart information to me.

I suppose this whole fiasco - if not all of the events of 2005 that have been so very bizarre - can have a silver lining if it means that the people who believe in the mission of the RWA and that the mission can’t include political partisanship if its to (re)gain the trust of both the members and the public who buy the books of the members become vocal and take the group back to the heart of what it’s meant to do.

This seems to be a critical moment for the RWA. Recent events have allowed focus to shift away from supporting and assisting and honoring writers to other things.  If it can open its arms a little wider and allow more sub-genres in, recognizing that there will always be cultural and societal changes that are bewildering and maybe even offputting to some but embraced by others, if it can find a way to support those who find a classy manner in which to navigate the difficult ground where art and freedom of expression meets commerce, if it can allow that moving forward when afraid is the brave thing people look up to, it seems the RWA will have the ability to remain useful and relevant and necessary to its core membership.  If it can’t do these things, it seems a more permanent schism is on the way and authors may be in the difficult position of having to think politically when all they want to do is think creatively.

Personally, I’m hoping writers will be allowed to spend their time and energy writing some great stories instead of lots of letters to Board Members and blog entries.  It seems to me that would be the best thing for everyone - the authors, the publishers, the reading public - but only time will tell and I, for one, am very interested to see what the next few months will bring.

I for one take great exception to the statements like, “The only people not offended were white conservative Christian Republicans.” I do not doubt your take on the political leaning of the montage, but please! I happen to BE white, conservative, Christian, and Republican. While I wasn’t there, I have read all the entries above and I was appalled. It seems to have been at best, tasteless and insensitive, and at worst, hurtful and divisive.

I live near Oklahoma City. Even though the bombing was ten years ago, the memories are still fresh. If I’d been a presenter or a nominee and had to relive it, complete with inane script and senseless pop song before my name was called, I would have walked out. Even as an audience member, I would’ve walked out.

Pick on the people responsible for picking the crappy script and crappier film content, not the people who tried to fix it or the people who refused to let Nora rain on the finalists’ parade.

And Nora is NOT a goddess.  She puts her panties on the same way we do--one leg at a time.

Someone who spent that afternoon with Nora just posted to my blog that Nora herself spent hours on a rewrite in order to KEEP the program from one that would rain on the finalists’ parade.  Her efforts were refused, and the focus went on to be on the presenters and on historical events rather than the winners and finalists.

I live near Oklahoma City myself and have a fifteen-year-old cousin who still wears the scars from the bombing.  I will never forget the terror of her mother not being able to get through to see if her daughter was alive.  Hell, I can’t even go to the Memorial.  And though I’m considered an oddity in Oklahoma—a Democrat --I have to agree.  Political affiliation aside, it had to have been offensive to all.

Ditto, Robyn.
I’m one of those dastardly “white christian republicans”, and i think the whole thing stinks, too.
Someone made the comment that historical romances are read by mostly conservatives...is that true? And is it true that historicals’ sales are flagging??

I read (and aspire to write) historical romances, and I’m a yellow-dog Democrat happily resident in Seattle, the blue heart of a blue state.  I know plenty of other liberals who enjoy a good historical, too.  We may be a minority, but we’re there.

First I am not a current member of the RWA and therefore my comments should be taken in that context. Second, as a full-time romantic mystery writer living in the UK I was considering joining the organisation, since I may sell into the US.
Not any more.
Thank you bloggers and authors for giving an outsider your opinions on the event. Yes I do realise that this was a one-off, and the majority of members are professionals, but the Romantic Novelists Association in the UK is so very different, and open, that I am appalled at the right-wing attitudes which seem to prevail in this management team. We LOVE erotica, we LOVE gay romance, we LOVE and welcome any new aspect of the genre which will entertain a new audience of readers. I came from business, as I am sure many of you do. I know the effect of leadership.
Thanks again for saving me a few dollars.

“I happen to BE white, conservative, Christian, and Republican. While I wasn’t there, I have read all the entries above and I was appalled. It seems to have been at best, tasteless and insensitive, and at worst, hurtful and divisive.”

“Tasteless and insensitive” know no political boundaries.

The line between those who are disgusted with the presentation and those who are defending it--or defending its creators--with their last breaths isn’t falling between the Blue Staters and the Red Staters, by any means.

It’s falling between those who can step into another’s shoes for a moment and see things from another’s perspective, and those who can’t--or refuse to try.

Empathy. It does a body good.

“Second, as a full-time romantic mystery writer living in the UK I was considering joining the organisation, since I may sell into the US.
Not any more.
Thank you bloggers and authors for giving an outsider your opinions on the event. Yes I do realise that this was a one-off, and the majority of members are professionals, but the Romantic Novelists Association in the UK is so very different, and open...”

You may very well have no need to join RWA - although I believe it is an invaluable networking tool - but RWA is NOT the ceremony.  Nor is it TTQ, Allison Kelley or any other single individual. 

Yes, the ceremony was a travesty. Thank God my table drank from flasks throughout the whole thing (well, at least until the flasks ran out). It was ill-conceived, ill-executed, ill-produced (time wasted as the limo drove on and off the stage, needless five minute walks for the presenters from limo to podium that, if cut, could have gotten us out and there - and into the bar - an hour earlier).  It hurt to sit through, mentally and physically.

But.

This was a one-off event, by an organization that has given me many personal and professional friends, contacts, help and encouragement.  And unlike a business, the management changes over regularly, with a yearly membership vote. 

No, TTQ and her pals are not my kind of people.  But she’s gone as of 1 November, and the President-elect is reportedly a much more reasonable sort. 

And I learned a valuable lesson.  I skipped the AGM.  I could have given my proxy to Barb, since I belong to her chapter, but didn’t.  I could have gone to the meeting, which I meant to do, but when the friend I was with couldn’t find her entrance ticket for the meeting we both ducked out and went to the gym.  That was a mistake.  I won’t miss the AGM again and I’m sure there are others who feel the same way.

I’m disappointed this is giving some a skewed idea of RWA.  I’m a liberal blue-stater who currently lives in the UK and I’m perfectly happy belonging to RWA.  I don’t find it exclusionary - to the contrary, I found the membership at this past conference, ceremony aside, to be nothing but inclusive.  The sneaky attempts by certain board members to make RWA exclusionary aren’t moving forward from what I know - at least not as their originators intended.

It’s no skin off my nose if people join RWA or not.  I would just hate for the bad of the ceremony to overshadow the good of the organization.  In fact, this was my fourth national conference and easily the most enjoyable and most applicable to my writing goals - excluding the ceremony, of course.

Chandra

Why did no one send Nora Roberts - the MC - a copy of the script weeks in advance?  This would have given plenty of time for negotiating changes to the script.  This smacks of disorganization and unprofessionalism.

As for TTQ: she’s the PRESIDENT of RWA, for goodness sake!  It’s her job to know the content of the 25th Anniversary Awards Ceremony.  Saying she didn’t have time to read the script just doesn’t cut it with me.

Like the whole graphic standards fiasco, this should never have happened.

Sarah