RWA - Same old song and dance...

Recently the Romance Writers of America (www.rwanational.org) announced rule changes for their most coveted award...the RITA. The rule change is this, all books entered must be published by a non-vanity (author didn't self-publish), non-subsidy (author did not financially assist in said publishing) and the book must be mass-produced.

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of mass-produced is: to produce in quantity usually by machinery.

Personally I don't care that they threw in the 'mass-produced' qualification - my issue is that once again, RWA is using non-quantitative terms for a rule that clearly has an undisclosed quantity attached. What is RWA's definition of mass-produced?

I've heard the random sum of a minimum print run of 500 books being bandied about. Okay - if that is the rule they are using, why not just fess up? Print it and there can be No Question as to the number of books produced at one time (ie mass-produced) rather then forcing the publishers to 'hope' they meet the mark?

After this declaration came out I spoke to management of some of the small presses, the same publishing houses that would possibly be excluded with this ruling, and this is what they told me:

- RWA has requested copies of distribution agreements - distribution agreements are the contracts between publishing houses and distributors like Ingrams and Baker & Taylor. In most cases, these contracts are confidential.

- They have also requested sales records - once again, proprietary information.

- They have also requested copies of discount schedules - I believe these are the discount levels given for either purchase amounts (meaning if Ingrams purchases 1000 copies they receive X amount off or if they purchase 5000 copies they receive xy) once again, this information is confidential and different for every publisher.

WTF?

For those of us old broads, doesn't this smack of the nonsense that went on in 2000 and 2001? Back then it was the discussion of what constituted a published book - the first number was 1500 copies sold (in which RWA requested sales records and distribution agreements - see above) and then it was magically changed to 5000 copies sold.

What is it with RWA that they feel they should be privy to information that no publisher would ever think of turning over to them? If a publisher were to give them a copy of the distribution agreement (which is negotiated with each publisher) it is well within the distributors right to either sue or negate the contract. So basically RWA is asking the small presses to put their professional relationships on the line in order to enter a contest that most readers don't know about anyway.

Uh...how about no?

A message to RWA:

When are you going to become inclusive rather than exclusive? Over the years the board has wasted a great deal of time (and money) coming up with rules that are ultimately thrown out or altered later when they realize the error of their ways.

If 500 mass-produced books is the magical, unwritten target - what is to stop a POD publisher from ordering 500 copies of each title for authors who want to enter the RITA?

If the publishers buy a super-fancy copier that can bind books and they create 500 books at one time - don't they qualify?

I am so deathly sick and tired, tired and sick, weak and weary of all the crap the board comes up with to try and keep 'those books' out of the reindeer games. At this point I honestly have to ask myself - what are they afraid of? Are they scared that a small press title will win the RITA and then (gasp) all sorts of small press authors will want to enter?

I've got news for you - a small press book already finaled in the RITAs years ago - Oracle from Lionhearted Publishing - a publisher that would not be allowed to enter today...

RWA's attitude toward small presses is so 1970's - are they ever going to see the error of their ways and quit trying to disenfranchise a growing segment of their membership.

Or maybe the bigger question is, when are the small press authors going to wise up and tell RWA to piss off instead of getting their panties in a twist over a ruling that will have no impact on their careers?

As the stomach churns...

The latest controversy in the romance world has been a hot topic on the internet for the past week or so. It would seem that some upstart authors decided to dress in costume for the Romance Writers of America Literacy Signing.

The Shock...
The Horror...
How DARE they have fun...

First noted at the Smart Bitches site, it would seem that three authors dared to darken the RWA signing wearing costumes to promote themselves and their work. The interesting thing is one author, Sherrilyn Kenyon, has been wearing fabulous and outrageous clothing for years - she wears it everyday - that is how she dresses.

The other two authors wore manga inspired clothing to promote their manga-esque works from the new Dorchester Shomi line. Wow, sure glad they didn't show up dressed in period clothing, that would've really screwed up the readers.

The most amusing aspect, to me at least, is that Big-Wig authors like Nora Roberts, Jenny Crusie and a few others have actually spoken out against the costumes.

JC - I just don’t know how else to say, “This is not a good decision professionally,” when the counter argument seems to be “Lighten up.”

Hmm, maybe it isn't a good decision professionally for you Jenny, but I like it just fine. When did you become the voice of romance authors anyway? I remember you sending out an email to the Board of RWA with an extremely hostile reaction to a statement made by an epublisher back in 2002. Seeing that note caused you to have to step down from the PAN Chair position at RWA - I guess “This is not a good decision professionally,” for you but you did it anyway.

NR - If I’m a brand like Coke (and how could I object to the comparison?) it’s not because I wore costumes or lived something that came out of my books. This is NOT how you become a brand-name author.

Pray tell then Nora, what is the magic key? To write a hundred trilogies about magical sisters over and over again?

In short, I don't get it.

Both ladies along with many others have their panties in a bunch while they scream about a lack of professionalism. Because Sherrilyn Kenyon decided to wear a fabulously HUGE hat to a signing, that makes her unprofessional?? Wait, I'll alert the media...

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. The reason this gets my bra in a twist is since when did someone else set the bar of professionalism for writers?

In my opinion, being a professional means:
- turning in manuscripts on time
- working hard to improve your craft
- be courteious at all times
- maintain a good working relationship with your editor, agent etc
- don't talk badly about editors, agents and publishers...(and other writers)
- show up early for appointments / events
- Don't get drunk & shoot yourself in public

I could go on for days but I won't. I think ya'll get the picture here. I am a writer, I am creative and I like to have fun. If I dress in costume then I'm doing just that, having a good time. Would I show up in costume for a television interview? Probably not but I can also guarantee that I wouldn't be sporting a suit either. Writing is about expressing yourself and so is how you dress.

If writers want to get their skirts in a twirl, maybe they should take a stand on something that is really important like affordable health care for artists or the shrinking fiction market.