New RWA recognized publishers!

Cathy C · Mar 16, 2007

Congratulations to authors of Samhain (pronounced sow-ween) and LooseID, which were just granted publisher recognition by Romance Writers of America. For those who have no idea what this means, a "recognized publisher" at RWA is:

An RWA-recognized publisher (1) is not a subsidy or vanity publisher, (2) has been releasing books via national distribution for a minimum of one year, and (3) has sold a minimum of 1,500 hardcover or trade paperback copies or 5,000 copies in any other format, including print on demand, of a single romance novel or novella or collection of novellas in book form, in bona fide arms-length transactions.

Author members of RWA are retroactively (even if they have books published before the official recognition date) granted the ability to join the Published Author Network (PAN) and may enter current year's titles in the RITA awards (although it's too late for 2006 titles)

Congratulations authors! YOU ROCK! :Hug2:

veinglory · Mar 16, 2007

Apparently they had quite a long list of qualifying books too

pepperlandgirl · Mar 16, 2007

What's the perks to joining PAN?

veinglory · Mar 16, 2007

If you are in RWA you get a few extra networking opportunities and go into the published author category on awards etc.

LilaDubois · Mar 16, 2007

Anybody (Cathy?) know what's going on with the vote on the requirements for "Recognized Publisher" that is supposed to take place this supper? Is it going to change everything so that all the e-pubs lose their recognition?

veinglory · Mar 16, 2007

Why would that not surprise me.

Jersey Chick · Mar 16, 2007

I remember hearing that RWA tried to change their criteria for recognition, raising standards so that e-pubs stood almost no chance of gaining recognition. I can't remember when it was exactly, but it was in the last few years. There was such an uproar that they either abandoned the effort or changed it back. I can't help but wonder if they're going to try again since quite a few have managed to attain recognized status in the last year or so.

pepperlandgirl · Mar 16, 2007

Didn't the uproar and proposed changes ostensibly address the definition of <I>romance</I> in such a way that effectively eliminated erotica, and thus made it impossible for e-publishers to gain recognition? They backed down from that stance eventually.

Cathy C · Mar 16, 2007

I haven't heard they're considering anything at the National meeting (or even in exploratory committees) but I'll definitely check around. I'd imagine if this were the case, I'd have seen more about it by now. But still... I'll check.

veinglory · Mar 16, 2007

Ah, rumour, rumours

Jersey Chick · Mar 16, 2007

pepperlandgirl said:
Didn't the uproar and proposed changes ostensibly address the definition of <I>romance</I> in such a way that effectively eliminated erotica, and thus made it impossible for e-publishers to gain recognition? They backed down from that stance eventually.

Y'know, I don't remember exactly - but I do know that there was a huge to-do last summer (or maybe the summer before - I can't remember anything these days) when a woman wrote a letter that was published in the RWR about defining romance as one woman/one man. Seems she didn't like the idea of gay/lesbian romances being considered as such.

I think the erotica issue started over cover art displays being used that some people could find offensive or pornographic because the erotic romance covers tended to be a bit - ahem - racy. I'd have to go through my back issues of RWR to be sure, though. Another thing I can't remember - sigh -

Sonarbabe · Mar 16, 2007

Jersey Chick said:
Y'know, I don't remember exactly - but I do know that there was a huge to-do last summer (or maybe the summer before - I can't remember anything these days) when a woman wrote a letter that was published in the RWR about defining romance as one woman/one man. Seems she didn't like the idea of gay/lesbian romances being considered as such.

OMG! That caused a HUGE uproar not only with RWR, but with us as well. Ever seen the Exorcist? MY head was spinning and I don't even write gay/lesbian romances. She got hers though when several authors retorted in following letters.

All I know is that I nearly blew my Captain's and Diet Coke out my nose when I received my editor's email telling me the good news about Samhain. (Which was not a pretty picture, btw... it kinda hurt) I was ecstatic to have my life-long dream of having a legit publisher accept my work, let alone have it by a company RWA deems "worthy". That's icing and a mighty tasty one at that in my book. But that just might be the newbie in me.

veinglory · Mar 16, 2007

We all need to keep our inner newbies alive, because let's face it, being published is kewl.

Sonarbabe · Mar 16, 2007

Thanks, Veinglory. I was hoping I didn't sound like a romance writing after school special. LOL

pepperlandgirl · Mar 16, 2007

Jersey Chick said:
Y'know, I don't remember exactly - but I do know that there was a huge to-do last summer (or maybe the summer before - I can't remember anything these days) when a woman wrote a letter that was published in the RWR about defining romance as one woman/one man. Seems she didn't like the idea of gay/lesbian romances being considered as such.

I think the erotica issue started over cover art displays being used that some people could find offensive or pornographic because the erotic romance covers tended to be a bit - ahem - racy. I'd have to go through my back issues of RWR to be sure, though. Another thing I can't remember - sigh -

Oh right, it was definitely the cover art. I remember now. The two things combined resulted in a lot of angry protests...

Jersey Chick · Mar 16, 2007

Sonarbabe said:
OMG! That caused a HUGE uproar not only with RWR, but with us as well. Ever seen the Exorcist? MY head was spinning and I don't even write gay/lesbian romances. She got hers though when several authors retorted in following letters.

All I know is that I nearly blew my Captain's and Diet Coke out my nose when I received my editor's email telling me the good news about Samhain. (Which was not a pretty picture, btw... it kinda hurt) I was ecstatic to have my life-long dream of having a legit publisher accept my work, let alone have it by a company RWA deems "worthy". That's icing and a mighty tasty one at that in my book. But that just might be the newbie in me.

My head did the same spinning, and I don't write gay/lesbian either!

It's great to hear about Samhain - my dream is also to be recognized as a published writer, which RWA doesn't consider me (argh). Enjoy it

JulesJones · Mar 16, 2007

Banning naughty cover art in the booth at BEA, banning RWA chapters linking to members' websites that had naughty cover art or any of a list of naughty words, and a proposal to define romance as one man, one woman -- all stuff that the board were trying to put through as official policy in 2005.

As was rapidly pointed out, if the proposed cover art rules were enforced even-handedly, quite a number of the non-erotic romances would get banned as well -- some of them are pretty racy, too. And yet the covers on my no-holds-barred erotic romances would have been fine, because I always ask for ones that aren't too explicitly steamy. :->

And then there was the followup letter from the member who was terribly disappointed that the board had backed down over the LGBT romances...

Jersey Chick · Mar 17, 2007

Well, there's always someone who's going to be unhappy.

Was it really 2005??? Jeez, I think I need some green tea or something to improve my memory...

To be honest, I always though of romance as one couple with a happily ever after (or for now) ending. I never gave a thought to gay or lesbian simply because I don't write it, nor do I read it. I don't think romance standards should be defined by people's hangups or prejudices, so my blood almost boiled when I read the inital letter. It's kind of how I felt about Howard Stern - I like him, but not everyone else does. Don't like him, don't listen, but don't try to prevent me from listening either.

Christine N. · Mar 17, 2007

I dropped by to have a peek, and I want to add my hurrahs for Samhain, for more than one reason.

I've known Sonarbabe for quite awhile now, and she's been reaching for this for a very long time. She had an agent that went belly up. She's been rejected over and again. She's worked her romantic butt off to get here. Now she's got not just one dream, but two all in one fell swoop. I'm so proud of her I could just about burst. (Oh, and by the way, not to brag, but I kind of pointed her in Samhain's direction...)

Now I'm done gushing. I just wish she lived closer so I could celebrate with her. If I could afford EPICon next year in Portland...

And congrats to all you other people too :tongue

veinglory · Mar 17, 2007

LilaDubois said:
Anybody (Cathy?) know what's going on with the vote on the requirements for "Recognized Publisher" that is supposed to take place this supper? Is it going to change everything so that all the e-pubs lose their recognition?

Apparnetly this is exactly what is happening. Apparently is isn't unfair enough to have to sell 5000 ebooks to count the same as 1500 paperbacks. What will it be now, 10,000, 50,000? Way to go RWA.

Jersey Chick · Mar 17, 2007

Ah, but isn't that the goal of any club, to keep others out?

Don't get me wrong, I've been a member of RWA for almost ten years, but things like this make me see red. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a HUGE uproar over it since there are a number of epubs there now.

veinglory · Mar 17, 2007

I really don't feel it reflects the membership. I know RWA members on the whole are a supportive group. But I wonder about the management, I really do. Every time I am on the brink of joining I get another signal that makes me think "my sort" isn't really welcome? Am I over-sensitive? (it wouldn't be the first time).

Jersey Chick · Mar 17, 2007

No - I don't think it reflects the membership - I know a lot of RWA members who are epubbed as well. When my local chapter debated about not allowing new members who were epubbed to join their version of PAN, it caused a ruckus like you wouldn't believe, and the idea was scrapped.

I think it's a case of trying to weed out the good vs bad epubs, which is a great intention, but each time they do this, it does just send out the "not our kind of people" vibe. And it does make me wonder if the board does it because they consider epubs "riffraff."

I wonder if they'd pull current epubs or grandfather them in? I'm thinking the latter, but you never know.

veinglory · Mar 17, 2007

The fact that they keep asking the questions is enough, even if they never pass them. How about we say romance is only between a man an a woman? How about we say no covers with bare butts on them? However about we make ebook authors sell three times as many books, oops, that wasn't enough--the little buggers are selling too many books. I'll shut up now, really. I like that recognition is linked to novel sales but how about picking a number and sticking to it? Why have a higher number for ebooks when they are 1) harder to sell and 2) pay higher royalties. So from the author's point of view each book surely counts the same.

Marlys · Mar 17, 2007

veinglory said:
Apparnetly this is exactly what is happening. Apparently is isn't unfair enough to have to sell 5000 ebooks to count the same as 1500 paperbacks. What will it be now, 10,000, 50,000? Way to go RWA.

To be fair, the requirement is the same 5,000 for e-books or mass-market paperbacks. The 1,500 applies only to trade paperbacks or hard covers.

New RWA recognized publishers!

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

volitare nequeo

American Aquarium Drinker

volitare nequeo

volitare nequeo

Up all night to get Loki

American Aquarium Drinker

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

volitare nequeo

Up all night to get Loki

Working In A Coal Mine...

volitare nequeo

Working In A Coal Mine...

American Aquarium Drinker

Up all night to get Loki

Up all night to get Loki

haz a shiny new book cover

volitare nequeo

Up all night to get Loki

volitare nequeo

Up all night to get Loki

volitare nequeo

Resist. Love. Go outside.