In the past weeks, there has been much discussion of the RITA™ awards and the RWA in general. We here at SBTB have certainly done our share of stirring the potte d’poo, most definitely regarding the awards ceremony two years ago and the randomly bizarre efforts of a prior administration’s attempts to define romance and refine the cover content to a truly mindboggling set of limitations. Let it be said, much temper was stirred.
And certainly mine was one of those tempers. It takes a lot to make me lose my cool, but gee WHIZ, back then, that was one “WTF?” after another. But, in my limited experience of five years as a member of the RWA, I have to say, those particular few months of oddity were an anomaly rather than the norm. Now, two years later, and two presidents later, as I read the comments regarding the RWA and the RITA™, I have to wonder if perhaps memories are short, and there’s a suspicion on the part of the members and nonmembers that, maybe, the RWA was always that conservative and batshit crazy, and they merely managed to finally show their behind in public, thus verifying once and for all the degree to which they were backwards and behind the times. Fire up the torches, and let’s get ‘em! They’re big and bad and out to get us! Or they’re slow and antiquated and so behind the times they can’t even FIND their own behinds, because they drag so far in the past they can’t reach!
Now that’s a mental image I’m going to have to build out of silly putty.
Anyway - No, no, no, not so, says I.
I’ve been up front that I’m an RWA member. I’m not trying to defend the RWA merely because I am a member. I think a point has been lost in all the griping about the organization, the award, and what both or either do for the romance community. And while I have to say I do understand the arguments that have been made as to the relevance and accuracy of the RITA™ in representing the “best of” romance in a given year, for the most part I disagree with a good number of the other accusations hurled at the organization as a whole.
First and foremost: the RWA is a writer’s organization, not a reader’s organization. Personally, I think that’s why sites like this one, Mrs. Giggles, All About Romance, Dear Author, Romancing the Blog,et al , are so successful. By and large those sites form communities of readers, and readers of romance, as snidely denigrated as we often are, like to hang out with other readers of romance who think intelligently. I know I do. If I didn’t co-manage this site, I’d be here all the time anyway, hot pink not-work-safe design be damned.
But the RWA doesn’t exist to address readers’ needs. It’s there to advance the cause of much-maligned romance in the professional publishing market, and to educate those who are new to the publishing world how to best go about getting information and marketing themselves and their books. It consistently says “Yay, Romance” and “Here’s how to write, develop, edit, publish and market your own.”
As a writer’s organization, it really can’t say, “Yay, romance! Except for the romance with sheikh’s secret babies and tycoon boardroom mistresses! Because they are stinky!” (That’s our job here at SBTB. And one of these days I’ll put my horror where my eyes are and read one of those. Feel free to nominate one.)
So as a writer’s organization, it’s not supposed to look after readers. Add to that the intangible quality of being a “voice of romance fiction” and there’s a lot of room to request increased clarity - what does “being the voice” mean specifically? It’s hard to quantify what the RWA does until you talk to an author whose contract became more fair and equitable after the RWA addressed discrepancies in royalty payment, for example. That part gets lost in the venting.
What good does the RWA do? I asked a few prominent RWA members why they support the RWA, and received much in the way of the positive regarding RWA’s role as a professional writer’s organization.
Nora Roberts says:
I have a lot of respect and affection for RWA. I can have respect and affection knowing it’s not perfect.
I appreciate that RWA tries to be an organization that offers education for published and unpublished writers, does what it can to provide writers—at all levels of their career—with information, networking opportunities, marketing news. I like that RWA celebrates the genre, and works hard to be a voice for Romance. Whether or not you always agree with that voice, or even like the tune.
RWA’s Literacy Signing at National has raised tons of money for literacy over the years. It matters a lot. That single program weighs very heavy for me.
Nobody really understands us better than we do ourselves. And RWA gives us a venue to be with, talk with, complain to or brag with the people who understand us best.
I’m not a board member (nor do I play one on tv) but I do know a few of them, and here’s what Stephanie Feagan, current RWA Treasurer and creator of Accountant Romance Heroine has to say:
I started to write a long laundry list of all the things RWA does for its membership, but that’s boring, and nobody really gives a shit anyway, so I think I’ll go at this from a more esoteric standpoint.
To begin with, the mission of RWA is to support the professional interests of career focused romance writers through networking and advocacy. Key words are Professional, Career-focused, Networking and Advocacy.
A professional who is career-focused is in business to earn a profit - whether he or she is a hit man, a CPA, a plumber or a writer. RWA wasn’t formed to provide a coffee klatch to writers who dabble, and it wasn’t formed for readers - it was formed as an association of professionals to exchange information via networking, and to collectively provide advocacy within the industry.
Networking - exchange of information - takes place every day, through the RWA list serves. The National conference provides networking possibilities between its members with one another and members and publishing professionals.
As for advocacy, complaints and grievances against agents and publishing houses are looked at on a case by case basis, and when an author is in need of an advocate for her interests, RWA steps in. After several members lodged complaints against a publisher for withheld royalties, RWA funded an audit on behalf of one representative author. When the audit is concluded, the authors may or may not receive compensation, but the light shed on this problem will educate other members who can make a more informed decision before signing a contract.
You know, that’s pretty much it - that’s what RWA is for. It’s an association of professional writers who can share information and collectively go to bat for one another when one of our own gets screwed over. Every program put into place within RWA has to somehow fit into that mission statement. The monthly Romance Writers Report is filled with articles that provide information. The quarterly Romance Sells publication that goes out to book stores and distributors is a tool members can use to advertise their latest releases. Biweekly eNotes are sent via email to keep members abreast of changes in the market and current RWA news. The Golden Heart™ is an opportunity for unpublished writers to showcase their work and bring it to the attention of editors. The RITA™s give authors something to bring to the table during future contract negotiations. I don’t think anyone can put a value on a RITA™ final or win - mileage varies - but there’s no question that it’s a respected award among publishing professionals. So even if certain readers don’t care about it - editors and marketing departments do.
[The RWA] is also a democracy. We have a board of directors that includes two representatives from each of six regions, a President, President-elect, Secretary, Treasurer, and 3 liaisons. The board is elected to represent those 9500+ members, and for the most part, every board member keeps all those members in mind when she comes to the table to make decisions for the organization. I say for the most part because there have been board members in past years who maybe had their own agenda - hey, it happens. But on the whole, and speaking for this year’s stellar board, every single person is there to further the best interests of RWA as a whole.
[The RWA is] not the magic key to publication. Paying dues is not a guarantee that you’ll win an award. Membership doesn’t include entre into the New York Times and USA Today lists. We don’t promise friends, fortune or fame. What we do promise is information, the opportunity to meet other writers, whether online, or at National or Regional conferences, and we promise to stand behind you - all 9500+ members - when your agent or publishing house sticks it to you.
So:nutshell = RWA is about writers.
If the RWA is trying to advance the cause of writers, then it’s not entirely fair to blame the RWA for a horrid horrid book any more than it is fair to entirely blame the writer who penned the dreck in the first place. If I write a review of a terrible book, I’m going to question why the character made cliched or uninformed decisions left and right, but I’m going to be consistently steamed at the publishing company that edited without fixing the egregious crap, then slapped a $9 price tag on it. Somewhere between writer, editor, publisher (and art department - let’s not forget the man-titty) egregious publishing decisions are made and a sweet savage backlist is born.
But when the alleged dreck finals for a RITA™ or even wins the category, then I am treading in weedy water. Subjectivity and contest rules and judging policies of warm fuzzy vs. craft aside, do the RITAs™ serve as a recommendation for readers, or as a celebration for writers? Is the RITA™ meant to be received by readers as a endorsement? On one hand, there’s no real push to advertise RITA™ winners or nominees in bookstores I’ve visited. There’s a lot of chatter and discussion regarding whether one agrees with the finalists - and that’s pretty much the standard on any awards process - books, movies or otherwise. If the RWA means for the RITA™ to showcase the best of their membership to the buying public, and not merely an internal celebration of the submitted romances of a given year, then yes, there are some changes that could be made to make the award itself more clear and easier lent to advertisement and marketing. Off the top of my head: fewer finalists, and merging of categories to create one to encompass “series romance” as a whole.
But RITA™ business aside, some of the accusations regarding the RWA seemed to revolve around a theme that the RWA doesn’t do enough. Enough what? Enough making changes quickly? Enough overhaul with fast and furious response to those 10k members and their varied opinions? It’s not going to be able to make a sweeping change that takes into account all the needs of its membership.
My point in writing all this blather is as follows: there are two ways to make change. You can storm the castle, or you can sneak in the back, see how the castle works, and slowly make changes from within. Depending on the size of the castle and the size of the problem, either method can work. Some changes, for example, need to be addressed by storming the castle and forcing the change, no matter how much it angers and scares the crap out of everyone - desegregation is a good example of stormy change that had to be forced into being. But sometimes, working within for gentle change works better for long-term efficacy, especially when the needs and requests of a crapload of people need to be taken into account. And generally speaking, between the two Smart Bitches, Candy is more likely to storm the castle, while I’m inside sneaking around the back asking lots of annoying questions.
Simply put, the RWA is listening to what we say (*cue ominous music*) and there is no question that they pay as much attention to the RITA™ as we do, and are listening to the issues that we talk about. The genre changes fast, but in some instances, the RWA can’t change as quickly and maintain relevance and effectiveness. It wouldn’t be the least bit of a good thing if they did.
« Was it good for you?
