You are viewing [info]stacia_kane's journal

Previous Entry | Next Entry

newme
Our old friends, the RWA.

Well, to be fair, it's not the entire RWA by any stretch. Just the ones who make the rules.

These women; the RWA board. (Although to be fair I don't know if the President-Elect or the District Heads have any say or not.)


Published romance authors all of them--in other words, people who depend upon YOU for their living--who have nothing but contempt for readers who enjoy reading ebooks, particularly erotic romance ebooks. They think your tastes are too lowbrow; they think the books you enjoy reading are garbage; they think the fact that you prefer (often [but not always] less expensive) environmentally sound and convenient ebooks means you aren't really reading books. They think what you like is low quality. Beneath them. They think you are obviously not capable of recognizing good writing or good stories. They think you're rabid, filthy onanists who spend all your free time slavering over porn and wearing out batteries or giving yourself carpal tunnel.

And they are determined--DETERMINED--to see that the books you enjoy will never gain any sort of respect, because such books are no-good crap. And your opinion matters not one bit to them. They are going to make absolutely goddamned sure that you realize how nasty and gross they think you and your tastes are. The fact that you might enjoy them? The fact that you might find it difficult to read books because the print is small and you can make it larger on your ereader? The fact that you live in a small house and don't have much room to store books, so you buy ebooks instead? Perhaps you're an environmentalist. Perhaps you simply are a fan of certain ebook authors. Or maybe you just enjoy reading really hot explicit romances.

The RWA board has one thing to say to you: Fuck off. The books you like are shit. (Okay, that's two things. But still.)

Do you wonder what's brought this on? How I know that the RWA board--people who sure want you to buy their books--thinks this way of you?

I'll tell you why (like you thought maybe I wouldn't.) I might have mentioned this before, I don't recall exactly. But there was a new rule added to the RITA contest this year. This rule was NOT given to the general membership for voting; it wasn't even mentioned to the general membership. No one was warned it would be in there. It was simply sneaked in under the wire, because the RWA board didn't want to openly discuss it--they didn't want to take any chances that RWA members might hear about it and point out what a disgusting and contemptuous way this is to treat paying members of an organization, and the fans of those paying members, or readers who simply like ebooks.

These are the RITA-specific rules:

"Books entered in the 2009 RITA contest must:

Have an original copyright date (printed on the copyright page) or a first printing date or a first North American printing date of 2008.

Not have been previously entered.

Be mass-produced by a non-Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher in print book format.

Meet the requirements for the category in which it was entered.

Be a work of original fictional narrative prose."


On other words, no ebooks allowed. Only mass-produced books, books with print runs, are good enough to enter the RITA.

The purpose of these rules, in general, is to ensure the contest is fair; but more than that, rules about non-vanity, non-subsidy publishers are there to make sure RITA judges don't get snowed under by a flood of self- or vanity-published, unedited books. In other words--deliberately inflammatory ones--to make sure they don't get snowed under by a bunch of crappy, poorly edited books.

And apparently ebooks qualify, in the eyes of the RWA board, as crap.

That's right, readers? That ebook you read that touched your heart and made you happy? That kept you on the edge of your seat? That made a long train journey more enjoyable?

The RWA board thinks it's garbage, and you're a dipshit for enjoying it.

It's possible right now that you're thinking, "But that just means the RWA board doesn't consider epublished books really published, right? Isn't there another contest for unpublished authors? Maybe this is ebook discrimination, but in a different way; maybe they're not saying ebooks are crap, just that they don't consider that 'real' publishing. Which is bad, but, y'know, not quite as bad as telling a whole bunch of readers that the RWA board thinks the books they like are shitty."

And that might be a fair assumption, except epublished books are not eligible for the Golden Heart contest for unpublished writers.

See here:

"The Golden Heart contest is open to writers who have not accepted a publishing offer from a non-Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher for a work of original fictional narrative prose of 20,000 words or more by the contest entry deadline."

See? It doesn't say anything there about a book not being considered "published" if it's an ebook.

And to further clarify, RWA's President, Diane Pershing--a woman who wants you to buy and read her books, remember--had this to say:

"The phrase "mass-produced" as it pertains to the RITA contest, is intended to define eligible books as those that are produced in sufficient quantity by the publisher to be offered for sale to the trade (booksellers and librarians) at standard discount rates and returnable."

So there you go. The RWA thinks its dues-paying members who write ebooks should not sully their precious fucking RITA with their dirty, substandard books. And because those books are dirty and substandard it stands to reason, then, that people who LIKE those books are somehow themselves dirty or substandard. Ms. Pershing thinks you're an idiot, in other words, with bad taste in books. You don't know what romance really is, according to her; you wouldn't know a good story if it bit you on the ass (although, don't say "ass" around her because that's one of those filthy words.) Your tastes are crap; you are incapable of judging the quality of a book or story, and she wants nothing to do with you (oh, except, of course, hopefully buying one of her books! Because you need her help to learn what a real book is, you see; hopefully one day you'll wise up and learn that what you like isn't good enough.)

This is bullshit. This is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever seen in my life.

Why is anyone standing for this? Why the hell are epublished writers still paying dues to this organization that clearly thinks they're a bunch of useless hacks? And why the hell would romance writers, women who spend so much of their time feeling forced to defend their genre to snobs of every other genre, turning around and being such insufferable, unapologetic, discriminatory snobs themselves?

And seriously, why does anyone bother being an RWA member? As I've said before on numerous occasions, aside from the local chapter meetings (which I gather some people enjoy, but I still think you could organize a good writing group without the RWA sticking their lousy noses into it), the RWA offers NOTHING. It does NOTHING. I can quite honestly say that being a member did not advance my career one iota. Not one bit. It did nothing for me, at all. The RWA provides not one bit of information that cannot be had online anywhere else for free.

As it is? It seems to me paying dues to the RWA is like having a store tell you they won't hire you to work the register because you're (too short/too fat/blonde/black/a woman/a man/Asian/insert some other offensively discriminatory adjective here) and then continuing to do all your shopping there.

Any other market or group or whatever in the world would react to this type of discrimination with outrage. Any other market or group or whatever in the world would not countenance this type of discrimination, period. "Some are more equal than others" isn't permissable anymore, not in this day and age.

Now, I know I've said before that readers don't need to care about the RITA. And I still feel that way, to a large degree. But this isn't about the RITA itself. It's about the books you love, and how a group of writers of other books has gotten together to tell you they don't consider those books to be worthy of their time or their awards, and that as writers in the genre you read, they think you ought to be toeing their line and reading what they want you to. They think your judgment is bad; they think you and your favorite books suck, and you can all fuck off.

I am hugely, HUGELY offended by this, and you should be too. Because what the RWA board is saying, very clearly, is that they do not want members who write ebooks, and they do not consider readers who enjoy ebooks to be readers they are interested in. They don't want to give the books you love awards; they barely tolerate authors you love as members. They do not want to invite the writers you love to signings or events. They don't think the writers and stories you enjoy are worth their time or effort; they think you have bad taste and are not particularly smart.

And what's particularly funny about that is, this is the same group of writers who not only have never bothered to learn anything about epublishing, but who STILL cannot figure out how to define "erotic romance". WRITERS. WHO DON'T KNOW THE MEANING OF BASIC WORDS. Who after three or four YEARS still haven't figured it out. They don't want to have to give awards to erotic romance, because remember, they don't think books with sex in them are "real" romance; they think you erotic romance fans are just dirty, filthy consumers of dirty, filthy porn, and they want nothing to do with you. (Wow, that definition thing inspires a lot of confidence in their ability. Is that like a professional violinist who can't find F-sharp?)

Oooh, this pisses me off. I am so glad I let my membership lapse. I had actually considered entering the RITA this year, but I'm glad I didn't, because I will never, ever give the RWA another penny of my money until they change this shameful policy.

Comments

( 67 people said — Say something )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[info]tmthomas wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2008 07:27 pm (UTC)
I got so busy writing the list of answers to the question in the title that I didn't get around to reading the rest of the post.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:07 pm (UTC)
LOL! :-)

I hope you didn't put me on the list.
[info]inkbabies wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2008 07:32 pm (UTC)
oh wow!
protest anyone?
Something similar to International Pixel-stained-techno-peasantry ?

[info]alchemuse wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2008 07:37 pm (UTC)
Inneresting idea.
(no subject) - [info]inkbabies - Dec. 11th, 2008 08:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]stacia_kane - Dec. 12th, 2008 11:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]alchemuse wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2008 07:40 pm (UTC)
Backlash anyone?? Arrogant and ignorant if you ask me. But they didn't.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:09 pm (UTC)
No, they didn't ask anyone, actually.
[info]psynde wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2008 07:52 pm (UTC)
Eloquent Post Stacia.. I too am offended.especially because I am working towards an e book pub myself. RWA you are dipshits..
I say we send um a petition..what say you??? WHAT SAY YOU???
ok I am a nerd..thanks...
[info]inkbabies wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2008 08:23 pm (UTC)
I say petition and protest! ::grins:: (I am spoiling for a fight these days, lol)
(no subject) - [info]stacia_kane - Dec. 12th, 2008 11:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]mdhenry wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2008 08:28 pm (UTC)
Yes, but are you angry?

It does seem like the only way to effect any change there is for all ebook writers to withdraw their membership dues. And make it clear to the RWA exactly why they're doing it.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:12 pm (UTC)
I agree. I know when this came up a year or two ago, everyone was like "Stay in the organization, and change it from within by voting against these measures etc." But I don't think that's going to work. The only way to do it is to take your money away from them.
[info]selestial_owg wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2008 11:11 pm (UTC)
Wow, sound like High School much?

I agree with mdhenry, the e-published members need to vacate en masse.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:12 pm (UTC)
Yep, I agree.
[info]stephanielynch wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 05:09 am (UTC)
I believe letters from readers and writers are called for. The RWA has long taken the unspoken stance that e=publication is the red-headed step child of the publishing world. Epubs are only one slight, very debatable step above vanity and POD presses like LuLu.

I just reupped my membership. I will continue as a member of RWA because I do believe in what they do. I will work and speak out for epubs though.

As an epub author myself (I'm half of Marilu Mann), it burns my ass to see others put me down because I'm not "real" yet.

I'm not the freaking Velveteen Rabbit, thanks.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:15 pm (UTC)
*nods* Especially letters from readers. The board has made it clear they don't give a shit what members of the organization think or want. Oh sure, they want your money; they just don't want to have to give you anything in return.
(no subject) - [info]micheleis - Dec. 14th, 2008 06:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
[info]adriannebrennan wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 05:28 am (UTC)
Yeah...more reasons to let my RWA membership lapse. Far too many of them at this point, actually.

*sighs*

Friended you, hope you don't mind. I like your rants--brutally honest and to the point. :D
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:16 pm (UTC)
Of course I don't mind! Thanks!

I let my membership lapse last year. I kind of wish I hadn't now, so I could resign with a very pointed letter.
[info]micheleis wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 05:49 am (UTC)
This is exactly why I haven't joined a pro writing group yet. HWA and SFWA also have their problems. But RWA's complete disrespect of epublishing and erotic romance is horrible!
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:18 pm (UTC)
But at least SFWA actually DO something for their members--at least that's what I gather, I haven't joined yet although I'm eligible. The RWA is outrageously expensive and does absolutely nothing for its membership save the contests and a convention once a year. Aside from that...nothing. I just...you want to be discriminatory, fine. But don't take my money and then tell me I'm not worthy, you know?
(Anonymous) wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 01:16 pm (UTC)
RWA and its elitist attitude toward ebooks
Sales of print books are down. Bookstores are closing. Publishers are dropping lines, consolidating, and making it difficult for all but the top-selling print book authors to survive. A lot of these authors (and definitely the members of RWA's inner circle) diss erotic ebooks and their authors because the ebook authors are making money. And they aren't.

I've been a member of RWA for 16 years, and the only reason I keep renewing is so I can belong to my local chapter. I probably won't renew after this year.

IMHO, the powers that be at RWA aren't movers and shakers in the business. Some are *not* even published at all. (Only the president and president-elect have to be published for a certain number of years.) They're writers or wannabe writers of mostly vapid trash designed for the post-Victorian woman. They love "romance" and won't accept that sex is a big part of it.

My feeling is that it's not the ebook itself, although they've established it as a lesser form of publication. It's their resentment that erotic romance authors with the established epublishers are making more money writing what they feel is worthless porn.

Never mind that many ebooks not only sell well but also win awards that mean something, since the RWA board has made the RITA a joke. I'm proud of the quality of my Ellora's Cave books, thrilled that readers seem to enjoy them better than they did my "mainstream" and "category" books that were published by conventional publishers.

I've pretty much given up on the organization--the local chapter doesn't give me enough (and I don't give back enough to it) to justify me paying dues to the national organization.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:31 pm (UTC)
Re: RWA and its elitist attitude toward ebooks
Oh, that's very, very true. I posted about the unimportance of the RWA board a while ago--can't remember the post, but I remember making the point that I didn't think anyone could remember the last time the RWA had a president of whom anyone had even heard. Again, I mean no disrespect to Harlequin as a company or its authors on the whole, but most RWA board members seem to be HQ authors who have no agents and little knowledge of publishing or the romance industry outside Harlequin. They're incredibly provincial. And really, to be fair, how can we expect them not to be? Authors with actual successful careers don't tend to have the time to sit around judging others and finding ways to make them feel small and excluded.

But YES, you're exactly right. It's not the format, it's the dirty, dirty sex. Only bad, horrible women write such filth, and only bad, horrible women read it.

The thing is, RWA has the right to discriminate against anyone they want. SFWA does; ebook authors aren't permitted to join. And that's fine. I totally respect that. What gets me about RWA is that they take ebook authors' money and then refuse them membership benefits, and that's WRONG. Personally I think some members should consider a lawsuit.

And yes, I too am proud of the quality of my EC books. :-)

I never joined a local chapter; perhaps if I had I would have felt that membership was worth a damn, but as it was, I never did. I joined thinking membership would give me access to information I wouldn't otherwise get, only to find out that wasn't remotely the case. And there's still a lot of peple perpetuating the "You must join RWA if your goal is publication" lie, which bothers me and is one reason why I'm so vocal about it being worth nothing to me at all.

Thanks for the comment!
[info]macbeaner wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 01:24 pm (UTC)
I'm not quite sure where to start. As a reader, I admit, I far prefer print books over e-books. I kind of like the idea of having something physical for my money. However, I can also see the lure of an e-book. I have a laptop and can travel with just the laptop and not 5 print books (which I tend to do on vacations. I had to limit myself in the University Bookstore in Seattle because of the 50 pound weight limit).

However, as a reviewer, I've seen that we rarely get in print books and most of the books we review are e-books. Okay and yes, there is a lot of erotica in them. But, some of the books are well written and the story is as enjoyable as a print book might be. And, I've found that I can read a lot more books because they tend to be shorter. We even get a few self-published books electronically. While self-published is not my favorite because of the editing(if you're self publishing-PLEASE get someone other than yourself to edit it), I can understand how it is an inexpensive way to try and market your work.

I think that the RWA people need to get with the times. One of the questions on a bittenbybooks interview is about e-publishing and almost every author has been in favor of it. Its the way the industry is going. And while most readers have a preference towards a print book, there are a lot of readers out there who are heading towards an electronic reader and enjoying ordering books in their PJs at 2 am and being able to read it right then and there.

I think there should be some type of backlash to the RWA people-through readers and reviewers or through the authors letting their voices be heard.

What a very informative post.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:36 pm (UTC)
See, I'm a total print book fan. I rarely read ebooks; I don't have a reader and since I spend so much time on the computer already... I just don't read a lot of ebooks.

But yeah, what bugs me is the idea that the format somehow automatically makes the book inferior. The fact that I don't tend to read ebooks doesn't have anything at all to do with the quality of books available in that format so much as that reading is what I do when I'm taking a break from the computer. So to say an entire format is worthless for no real reason...ugh.

As the Anonymous commenter and I discussed above, the fact is that most of the RWA board members don't know much about the publishing industry as a whole...which begs the question of why they're running a writer's organization. They took something of a stance a while back against Esnips but I don't believe anything ever came of it, and ebook writers are pirated every day. Why didn't the RWA do anything about it until some big names got involved? Why did they step in to protect Nora Roberts and Julia Quinn (both of whom are lovely people, again, I'm just grabbing their names from the air) but not their epublished members who pay the same amount of dues as everyone else?
(no subject) - [info]macbeaner - Dec. 13th, 2008 04:04 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]stacia_kane - Dec. 13th, 2008 11:42 am (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous) wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 03:55 pm (UTC)
Excellent Post
I also had a membership in RWA and let it lapse. Too bloody expensive for the minimal return. I wasn't getting enough out of the closest chapter. Not their fault, just at that point much of the info was too basic.
I'm epubbed and happy...
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:41 pm (UTC)
Re: Excellent Post
I never joined my local chapter--it was too far away and the thought of being in a room with a bunch of women frankly made me queasy. :-)

But yes, the info they offer *is* too basic. The board do not tend to be writers with knowledge of the industry as a whole, outside Harlequin; they don't have agents, they don't pay much attention to any other houses or trends.

I joined RWA in 2002 thinking--as I'd been told by so many people--that RWA membership was like a fast track to publication; not that they would do it for me, of course, but that members were privy to information it was difficult to get elsewhere and that there was a lot of info there about writing as a craft and the industry. But...there wasn't, and there's not. I learned a hell of a lot more from Miss Snark than the RWA *ever* taught me, and as far as I know the only Industry Info I ever got from them was the same lists of agents I can get at any number of websites like AgentQuery or LitMatch.net.
[info]cais wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 04:47 pm (UTC)
Interesting...
I completely agree with your point that RWA is an elitist organization - that was made painfully clear to me last year with the 'standardization of the by-laws' for all chapters to conform with the National organization.

Because of that I was invited and then un-invited to join the PAN loop of my (then) local chapter. The authors in the PAN loop welcomed me with no disdain - at least not that I could detect. Hey, I didn't even get to learn the 'secret handshake' before I was informed that my invitation to join the PAN group was premature in light of the new by-laws.

Sorry - got off on a tangent - ANYWAY...Though I do agree with you that RWA is elitist, I hold out hope that those of us who DO renew our membership and DO remain active in our local (and on-line) chapters can affect a change in the mindset - eventually. In this society where instant gratification is expected, that's not a popular idea, but change does take time.

It may not happen in the next five years, it may not happen in the next ten years, but EVENTUALLY the "old guard" will step back, take a look at the age and demographics of not only their READERS but the WRITERS in their ranks and give in.

They will accept erotica as a valid genre with well-written stories and talented PROFESSIONAL writers, and they will accept E-Publication as a valid contribution to their vaunted ranks. After all, with some of the NY pubbed authors adding more and more sex to their books and even alluding/hinting at sexual acts that wouldn't even have been thought about a few years ago, they're going to have to deal with more erotic story lines. Now that some of the big publishing houses have added erotica lines AND have started their own electronic publishing lines, RWA will have to recognize them or alienate some of their own old guard authors.

Cai - the other half of e-pubbed Marilu Mann,a PROUD author of erotica for Ellora's Cave and Amber Quill Press, and a member of RWA.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:57 pm (UTC)
Re: Interesting...
See, this is the thing, though. While I really do understand and appreciate where you're coming from as far as remaining a member and Changing From Within, I have to disagree with you that it's going to work. Or rather, I don't disagree, but I think rather than stay a member and maybe force them to change their ways in ten years, if people resign their memberships right now in large numbers, the RWA will be forced to change *now*.

I am so sorry to hear you were uninvited. I'd heard that happened to a few people and cannot believe how lousy that is.

It just infuriates me that they offer their members nothing and then get all elitist and shitty.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 06:10 pm (UTC)
Amen
Well said. This is why my entire RWA chapter seceded from the RWA. We are now merely a writer's group, but ironically we've gotten a ton of new members who wanted nothing to do with the RWA.
The RWA has turned into an elitist organization that supports its own interests and its own interests only. They fail to realize that they're nothing without the very people they're alienating.
Even discounting the RITA crap, every year, the ratio of membership cost to benefit return is more and more skewed. There is no benefit. There's just a very expensive magazine which has also become a joke.
~~Brynn Paulin
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 13th, 2008 12:10 am (UTC)
Re: Amen
SEE? And that's what I've been saying for AGES (sorry, I don't mean to shout, lol, I'm just so excited to have my thoughts on this confirmed!) I said quite a long time ago--back at the end of March is the one I remember, but I know I've said it before that as well--that you could put up a notice at a local bookstore or Craigslist or a community message board or library or whatever, that you were starting a romance writing group, and you would probably get just as much value from it as you would the RWA--with the added benefit that instead of paying outrageous dues to National AND a local chapter, you could spend that money on bourbon instead, which is in my opinion a much better use of funds.

Of course, I know at least one published author--whom I've never found remotely likable anywhere I've seen her--who insists there's no way this would work (without, of course, any valid arguments to support that claim). As if spreading the RWA mantle over a writing group automatically makes it somehow better than the sum of its parts. What bullshit.

And what pisses me off about that, and her insistence that RWA is shiny and great, is that it's because of that crap I joined to begin with. Once you start writing romance you hear about how you MUST join RWA, ther's just sooooo much info they give you and they're sooooo helpful, and it's a total lie. They don't offer any info you can't get elsewhere online for free. They do nothing. Sure, local chapters are great if you happen to have a good one--I've heard too many stories about chapter members being total cunts to ebook authors or prospective members who don't write what they consider appropriate or whatever to even come close to thinking all local chapters are great--but that doesn't have anything to do with RWA. It's just about a good mix of people, and you do not need RWA to bring those people together.

As for the RWR...gee. One article, a couple of Q&As, and pages and pages of ads and contest listings designed to get you to hand more money over to the RWA and get nothing in return. (I had a hysterical laughing fit once when I saw a writer brag about a contest win--it was some small chapter contest, the Moonlight and Sunshine Pretty Happy First Chapter of Love contest or some such shit--by saying "That's no small potatoes!" Because, um, yes, it totally is small potatoes. It's a tiny chapter contest that only wants a tiny part of your ms; you probably competed against seven other writers, tops. It means *nothing*, you know?

Ugh.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 08:26 pm (UTC)
RWA
The is one answer to all of your questions. Maybe it is because a majority of the members agree with the board. E-books and most erotica have always seemed not quite legit. Kind of not ready for real publishing. Face it even erotica will eventually find a home if it is good enough.

I'm not saying there isn't some awful stuff reaching print because there is. But by far more crap is in the e-world.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 13th, 2008 12:19 am (UTC)
Re: RWA
Okay, well, I'm going to assume you didn't intend to be as deliberately insulting to me personally as you were in your comment, and simply take your words at face value.

I don't think at all that the majority of the members agree with the board. I suppose it is possible, yes; but we'll never know, as this rule was not voted on or revealed to the membership at large before being instituted. That makes me think the board was afraid their rule would not go through, but I could be wrong.

But if that is the case, it's all the more reason why ebook and erotica authors should tell the RWA to go fuck itself.

I also, of course, strongly disagree that erotica is "not ready for real publishing", and it seems the NYT and USA Today bestseller lists--and the readers who put erotic romances on those lists regularly, and the writers on those lists who also epublish books in addition to their print books--also disagree.

I do agree with you that there seems to be far more crap in the ebook world. I have always said that, and I've always been of the opinion--and publicly--that little startup epublishers are not particularly legitimate, do not count as professional writing credits, and are not as picky as they should be when it comes to signing books. I have also always been of the opinion that the RWA should draw a strong, definite line between legit epubs and tiny illegitimate ones--or rather, between those houses that count as credits and where a writer can earn decent money, and some new place that sells a dozen copies a month--mostly to their own authors.

So yes, there's a lot of epublished crap out there. But that's no real justification for disqualifying ALL ebooks across the board, not when they've been eligible for several years already.
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Dec. 13th, 2008 03:16 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]stacia_kane - Dec. 13th, 2008 11:24 am (UTC) - Expand
(Anonymous) wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 08:28 pm (UTC)
Just wait and watch, Stacia
because the e-pub world is here to stay. And it might have grown slowly - as technology advanced, got more convenient and cheaper and as traditional publishers realized the benefits (no returns for example, no printing or shipping costs) of following in the trail-blazing footsteps of the e-pubs (who have thrived I read in a PW story, thanks primarily to ROMANCE).

BUT, along came the "economic downturn" (or as those of us without the rose colored glasses referred to it "A depression"). Borders announced they'd be withholding payment from their distributors for a couple of months. Trad. publishers are laying off droves of employees. Bookstores are cutting back on the titles they purchase (and are going to stick with the sure-fire winners so any mid-list authors are going to be few and far between on the shelves). Publishers are cutting back on the titles they are going to purchase and publish. And they'll be printing fewer copies (and that's fewer opportunities to sell-through your advance and start earning royalties).

What they ARE going to start doing - and many of the biggest houses already have - is start moving to e-published titles. Random House has already announced that upcoming titles will be available simultaneously in print and electronic forms. The Google-Authors' Guild settlement, once finalized, will make e-published books even MORE wide-spread and available and the more books there are out there, the more converts will be made to the format (for space saving, for Planet Earth saving, etc.).

The e-publishing industry is not just going to grow, it is going to BOOM. Starting - well, right NOW.

And as for the erotic romance - since erotic e-publishers are cropping up right and left; since traditional publishers, including the old Grand Dame of Romance, Harlequin, are all stepping up with erotic romance imprints - AND since e-publishing thrived and flourished BECAUSE of romance, well, I think that those who look down upon e-publishing and those who look upon erotic romance as smut,I have this warning:

You'll be sorry.

And Stacia, I think you'll be able to get a nice heaping of satisfaction when you watch some of those authors get published in SHUDDER e-book format.

And I'll be chuckling right along with you.

Fellow author of erotic romance and fan of reading material no matter the form it takes.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 13th, 2008 12:33 am (UTC)
Re: Just wait and watch, Stacia
Oh, I absolutely agree that the epublishing world is going to boom. What bothers me about that, though, is that when RWA members are looking to their board for guidance and leadership, those women will still be stubbornly insisting that their way is the only way--just as they are now. They'll be offering lessto their members than they already do, which is saying something indeed.

But as has been pointed out in the comments thread above, this really isn't about ebooks so much as it is about those dirty erotic romances and how awful people who read them and people who write them are, and how a book with sex in it is not romance.

I will laugh, absolutely. But I'll also be sad, because the RWA could have been leading its members, instead of refusing to offer them anything at all. Sigh.

Thanks for the comment! Raise our ebooks high! :-)
(Anonymous) wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 08:40 pm (UTC)
So I take it you're a tad pissed off? As a writer I am not offended by RWA ideas. They are simply not important to me. There are always going to be exclusive clubs...whatever...let 'em be in their own world. As for contests? Someone wins, someone loses. If someone wants to read my books they will regardless of whom I am affiliated with or if a particular organization like me. Opinion in a blog? Always good.

No, I'm not in the RWA or anything initials...too hard to spell. Life is too short to be dealing with the rules of others.

Amarinda Jones
www.amarindajones.com
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 13th, 2008 12:41 am (UTC)
See, I'm not necessarily offended by the RWA's ideas. What I am offended by is underhanded discrimination against paying members who deserve the same benefits as other paying members. They can think whatever they want, but to bait-and-switch people and essentially steal their money is just plain wrong.

I'm no longer a member myself and have found them to be of absolutely no benefit at all when it comes to my career. And yes, life is far too short. But it makes me angry that this situation is really hurting a lot of people who DO care, you know?
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Dec. 13th, 2008 02:55 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]stacia_kane - Dec. 13th, 2008 11:27 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - (Anonymous) - Dec. 13th, 2008 03:21 am (UTC) - Expand
[info]ficchica wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2008 11:03 pm (UTC)
I haven't seen anything to suggest the RWA thinks that readers are stupid, tacky and unimportant. Obviously the RWA and this contest is very important to you. Personally if I see the words award winning author I run a mile. I have noticed that some of the most unreadable books I have ever come across seem to win awards. The RITA (which I've never heard of & I've been buying romance for over twenty years btw) or whatever it is isn't going to make me buy your book. I will buy a book because it sounds interesting.

As for the RWA being exclusive - so what? SFWA is even more exclusive. There will always be exclusive clubs, let them get on with it. If there are ebook authors in RWA I suppose it is because they are getting something out of it. Everyone is different, what you didn't find useful they probably do.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 13th, 2008 01:04 am (UTC)
Well, what suggests the RWA thinks readers are stupid, tacky, and unimportant is that they believe that the books those readers like are not worthy of inclusion into their contest--or anything else. This is simply the latest in a long line of policy decisions by the RWA calculated specifically to exclude erotic romance. They believe the subgenre isn't "real" romance; that it's disgusting; that it's nothing but porn; that those who write it aren't "real" romance writers.

Following that to its logical conclusion, they are telling readers who are fans of the subgenre that those readers are simply consumers of porn and therefore not worthy of the RWA's notice. They spend a lot of time trying to attract new readers to the romance genre, but snub the two things that have done exactly that in recent years, because those readers aren't the kind they want. So if you are a fan of erotic romance, the RWA is making it clear they don't value your opinion or your money.

The RWA and this contest mean very little to me, actually; in terms of my career, especially, the RWA and this contest are supremely unimportant. I'm not clear why you think that just because I chose to point out an issue of discrimination--one that matters to a lot of people, if not me--and just because that discrimination angers me, you would decide it's "obvious" that the RWA and the RITA are "very important" to me. They're not.

Perhaps you haven't heard of the RITA because it's an American award, and you are not American? RITA awards are mentioned on book covers and ads in the States, but I haven't seen them mentioned here at all.

I do agree that awards don't sell books, and I do agree that an award doesn't mean a book is good. I was given a Booker shortlist book to read for a debate at my local library--which didn't end up happening--and found it so dull that when the event was cancelled I put it down, 50 pages or so from the end, and never picked it back up. But again, to some people the RITA is important--financially it's important for a lot of authors, because winning one does tend to increase advances. Romance as a genre is already discriminated against by so many people, and the RITA is romance writers' only chance to have their work recognized, and for some people that matters on a personal level and not just a financial one.

There's nothing at all wrong with exclusivity. I support exclusivity. I have long urged the RWA to be more exclusive, and stop trying to be all things to all people, thus actually serving none of them. Being nonexclusive is part of what makes the RWA so useless.

But it's one thing--the right thing--to be exclusive as far as who qualifies for membership. It's one thing--the right thing--to set standards for membership in a Published Author's Group and to claim that only those who meet those standards are permitted to enter the RITA.

But it's another thing entirely to turn to those people who meet the criteria for PAN, and have joined PAN specifically so they can enter the RITA--and in some cases have joined RWA specifically so they can enter the RITA, or have entered the RITA in prevous years--and tell them, without alerting anyone or allowing the membership on the whole to vote, that they are no longer qualified to enter the RITA because of the format in which their book was published, and no other reason.

PAN membership is decided by money. An RWA member must have earned at least $1000 on a single title to qualify. So what we have here is a situation where RWA has declared financial success is what separates amateurs from professionals--fair enough--and yet will allow a small press author, who perhaps barely scraped that $1k together to qualify, to enter their book in the RITA but will not allow an ebook author who possibly earned four of five times that 1k with their title.

That's not exclusivity. It's discrimination. It is creating policies simply to keep one class of person--in this case, writers of erotic romance--OUT of a contest they qualify for and are eligible for in every other respect. And it's wrong.
(no subject) - [info]ficchica - Dec. 13th, 2008 12:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - [info]stacia_kane - Dec. 14th, 2008 12:27 am (UTC) - Expand
[info]coffeeisgod wrote:
Dec. 13th, 2008 02:54 am (UTC)
Erotica not profitable??
Who the hell even CONSIDERED thinking that e-books shouldn't be considered for the RITAs? I'm not understanding how that thought even processed. Look at Christine Warren--she started out in the e-book world, and now they're reprinting her books to reach a wider audience. It's not because they're not selling, it's because people LIKE THEM!

I've lost the ability to argue. I just get mad and want to scream and yell profanities, but this is just ridiculous. A bunch of old biddies who probably haven't gotten laid since the turn of the century (not this one, people) are lashing out. Ridiculous. Ri-dick-u-lous.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 13th, 2008 11:36 am (UTC)
Re: Erotica not profitable??
Ha, you answered your own question. A bunch of old biddies who think sex is dirty decided ebooks shouldn't be considered for the RITAs.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Dec. 13th, 2008 04:35 pm (UTC)
RWA board members are elected
Perhaps it is time for e-book authors to run for office?
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 14th, 2008 12:30 am (UTC)
Re: RWA board members are elected
I believe an attempt was made to do this last year. But the problem is, when running for the board it's not like people give speeches or anything; there are no debates or position letters or anything. A couple of people throw their names in the ring and you pick one, without really knowing anything about them. So it's a total crapshoot.

I'm sure some ebook authors will attempt again this year. But frankly I think they'd be much better served to simply resign from the organization. If it wants so desperately to be exclusively for the benefit of Harlequin authors, let it. Who the fuck needs it?
[info]barbaram wrote:
Dec. 14th, 2008 01:20 am (UTC)
Perhaps the RWA hasn't considered that some of the print publishers will be putting their romance authors' books into ebooks at a later date. What then? Makes them look very foolish, indeed.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 14th, 2008 01:20 pm (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure they haven't considered anything.

And you know, this is what makes me so angry. Why the hell does it matter if they let erotic romance or ebooks into their contests? Why do they CARE so much, you know? It's no skin off their nose to create an erorom RITA category.

Imagine if, instead of ebooks being chiefly erotic romance, they were predominantly interracial or AA romances...would the RWA still be doing this?
(Anonymous) wrote:
Dec. 14th, 2008 01:22 am (UTC)
Perhaps the RWA hasn't considered that some of the print publishers will be putting their romance authors' books into ebooks at a later date. What then? Makes them look very foolish, indeed.

BarbaraM.
(Deleted comment)
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 14th, 2008 01:26 pm (UTC)
Lol, I totally agree. I've a few times had one particular author's books recommended to me as examples of REAL romance, beautiful sweet love stories that don't have to rely on that dirty, horrible sex stuff to tell a story, and are hilarious besides. And I read one of her books, and found it rather dull. Not particularly funny--I'm not a fan of farting animals, and the "humor" in the books seemed to rely heavily on such things, so it wasn't for me at all.

The difference is, I can look at that book and that author and say, "Yeah, her books aren't for me." But the people recommending her refuse to do the same, instead huffing and sniping and insisting that erotic romance isn't real romance and it's crap and those who write it are just "relying on" sex because they can't write REAL books and...ugh. Bitches.

As I said back in my strumpet series, there's a reason why they call it "making love". The physical act of expressing love is a /beautiful/ thing; it is literally a life-affirming and sometimes life-creating act. What exactly is so bad about it in books? Urgh.

I think I'm going to talk about this more tomorrow.
[info]micheleis wrote:
Dec. 14th, 2008 06:36 pm (UTC)
Yes, they do. They offer mediation for authors dealing with nonpaying editors, mentoring, the SFWA has a newsletter, the HWA is working on member anthologies, both give "insider" access to markets and agents... HWA is $60 a year and SFWA is $90. Both have minimum publication requirements. Does the RWA?

I can't imagine why someone would join if it didn't offer anything other than a membership card and an elitist attitude.
[info]micheleis wrote:
Dec. 14th, 2008 07:31 pm (UTC)
I agree, the fact that they did not put it up for a vote and didn't even tell anyone until they had passed it stinks of "We know we're doing something not-right". I'm not a published romance or erotica writer (and I only have a single novella sitting in Samhain's slush that fits the romance genre, so it's not something I'm trying terribly hard for at the moment) but I am actively trying to read more romance. I simply do not understand this attitude.

Most of my published stories are horror, which isn't considered "real" writing by lots of other genres, like some SF/F and Romance folks. Recently I've sold a few SF stories, yet SF/F isn't considered "real writing" by mainstream and literary folks.

So WTF is "real" writing? Am I playing with Scrabble tiles here? Or copying what my alphabet soup churns up? Just because I through in a love story or a murderer or a space ship does that mean it's not still hard work? And when the hell did I become accountable for what some douche is doing three states away? Why do authors who bust their butts like Stacia and Ann Aguirre, Anya Bast and Lynne Connolley, and all the other great people who have turned me from someone who dismissed the romance genre to loving it any less wonderful as writers because some idiot started their own epublisher to try to get some legitimacy as an author??

You know the SFWA stamps certain markets that pay pro rates and have established themselves as quality markets and honest payers with the SFWA approval. You can find a list of them on their web site. So how are these short story markets that much different from all the ebook markets? Sure there are people who start up a magazine with no clue what it takes and only pay in "exposure". They're dark spots on the genre. They publish crap that's not ready to be published and attract amateur writers who either don't know better or can't get published elsewhere. But they don't keep the genre from being filled with amazing, fantastic fiction because the writers (the same ones that are in charge of the organization) don't let the muck define them.

Why can't RWA do the same thing? EC has proven itself as a quality, dependably paying press. Samhain, I believe is there. I've never read a crappy Loose ID book and Liquid Silver has always been quality as well. Why can't RWA step up for their members and say "Hey, instead of dissing this whole format, let us point out which publishers have a long, admirable history?"

And not being RWA approved wouldn't have to mean the press sucks, just that it hasn't proven itself yet. Obviously the leadership is more than willing to draw lines and disapprove of people.
[info]stacia_kane wrote:
Dec. 21st, 2008 04:29 pm (UTC)
And that is exactly--but exactly--what my position has been, for years. Make your membership requirements more stringent. Actually BEHAVE like a professional organization, and not some fucking sorority. You want to know why people dismiss the romance genre? Yes, part of it is because they consider books about love with happy endings are silly or whatever. But I'd be willing to bet that at least part of it is the way the RWA insists on presenting itself as an unprofessional organization full of bitchy women who cannot agree on the simplest things. They're like the fucking Keystone Kops of publishing.

And they do not provide ANY services for their members. Even their stance on copyright theft is half-assed. The music industry started cracking down, got together and began prosecuting thieves; the RWA offers a form letter on its website. Woo-fucking-hoo. It's ridiculous, and they are a ridiculous organization.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 67 people said — Say something )

Latest Month

March 2012
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by [info]chasethestars