I hear about that HQ thing a lot, and without taking away from the fact that it was indeed a great thing to do, it seems to be the only example anyone can come up with (and with all due respect, any other writer's organization could have done that just as effectively). And it didn't benefit all romance writers, just all Harlequin writers. Most of what the RWA does seems very bound up with Harlequin; that's one of my issues with them, actually, because I think single-title writers get shunted aside and the organization bends over backwards to keep its relationship with HQ strong to the detriment of other subgenres.
At the time this negotation happened, HQ published about 54% of all Romance paperbacks out there. It was a BIG deal back in the 1990's. Now, HQ has lost a noteable percentage of the market and is still in the process of restructuring to a more single-title based company, IIRC. There were other publishers (again, IIRC) who were beginning to use the HQ boilerplate contracts, so HQ backing off that rather nipped that in the bud.
It might be the only really big noteable thing RWA has done, but getting your genre's major publisher to change the boilerplate contract is a sign of major clout and, frankly, something I've not heard of any other genre writer's group accomplishing.
It's not that I think the RWA is terrible. I just don't think it really does much for anyone, and that it deliberately treats some of its members like second-class citizens simply because they write more sex or same-sex sex.
Just before I left, RWA voted on how the group would define "Romance" in terms of what the group would support. The overwhelming response of the membership was to keep it as heterosexual and not include homosexual romance in the genre. It's not that I think that same-sex writers are second class citizens, it's that they're not writing Genre Romance as recognized by RWA--they're writing a different genre, no different than if they were writing SF/F, Mystery, Westerns, etc. with a strong romantic subplot.
At least, that's how the chapters I belonged to treated them. YMMV.
And I think--through no fault of its own--people build it up to be far more important than it is, like having PRO or PAN status is actually a big deal rather than just a ribbon or badge in an organization, you know?
It's a public acknowledgement of an acheivement. When they established PRO status, my local chapter made a big to-do in those of us who qualified for it. It was very ego-booing to get that public acknowledgement and came at a time when I was thinking about walking away from writing because I was frustrated and tired.
Did becoming PRO make a big deal in the overall of my writing? Only in that I didn't quit and, even though I'm no longer an RWA member, I can still look at that pin and call up that feeling again and keep going for a little while longer, regardless of what I write.
Did it make any difference in my membership? Honestly, not really because all I wanted from the membership was the networking, the monthly updates for contests & industry news and the social aspect it offered. For those who want to climb the ladder and be more involved in the organization, I imagine it would mean more to them than it did to me.
As far as PAN goes, as far as I know or care it's just another chapter in RWA. If they have a snob reputation, then that's their problem. My rights in RWA are the same as theirs and there's more of me (unpublished) then there is of them, so I'm really not concerned about what's gone on with them. Should I ever qualify for PAN membership, it's still just another chapter and I'd make that decision should it ever happen. Until then, *shrug* I could never make a big deal about it.
