Actually, I'd trust RWA members to know the difference. And the entry rules for PAN can't be predicated upon the possibility that somebody might fail to recognize this distinction.
I trust that they do as well, but that really isn't the point. The point is whether or not their words were intentionally or unintentionally misleading. Did they backpedal because they really didn't mean the changes to come across as they did, or did they do it because they hadn't counted on anyone calling them out?
I know some of it had to do with the Trisk mess - but one can't help but wonder if there wasn't a hint of "Oh, good - now we have a
legitimate reason.
My own take on this is that RWA, faced with new technology and new business models, took a fair long while to think and argue and dither and disagree and seek consensus and test the winds before coming up with final guidelines.
Maybe, maybe not. Only those in the know can say yea or nay.
PAN eligibility is now ...
"Any General or Honorary member who has earned at least $1,000 in the form of royalties or a combination of advance plus royalties on a single published romance novel or novella published by a non-subsidy, non-vanity publisher may join PAN as a full member ..."
This marks out a division between commercial and non-commercial publication, but does not discriminate between forms of publishing. E-publication, small press, POD, Kindle, huge New York print runs, or some model of publication as yet undreamed of, all operate under the same $$$ requirement.
Of course not - could you imagine the uproar if it
did? But take a look at the epubs who had RWA Approved Recognition - the advances are small, if any. So RWA already knows the chances are small that those authors will qualify on that.
Okay, now, see how many epub books make it onto store shelves? Not many. Okay - RWA knows there is one outlet where author sales are most likely not going to compete with, say, an Avon author.
So, when you take it apart, it does look a little like RWA used Trisk as an excuse to make it more difficult - but not impossible, because that would be too easily determined - for epubs.
Only my opinion here ...
My guess is that at least some RWA members came to believe e-publication was easier to attain than print publication. It was thought that new writers who sought print publication were being unfairly discriminated against.
And depending on the epublisher, they were absolutely correct. But, the ones who were already okay in RWA's eyes? What happened to make RWA suddnenly question them?
The $1000 floor seemed an equitable way to level the playing field.
Sure - if all epub offered advances and had bookstore placement, it would be level. But when those avenues are not necessarily so (though a few epubs are attaining store placement now, so that's likely to change in a relatively short time)
Entry to PAN no longer depends upon,
'Can you get published by a company that also publishes commercial books?'
but
'Can you, yourself, get published with a book that makes money?'
I get what RWA claims was the reasoning behind the change - and I don't doubt that it's
part of it. However, I still doubt very much that it's the
only reason as well.
It's unfortunate that any change in the rules may exclude folks who would formerly have been eligible.
Still ... sometimes rules should be changed.
Yes, they should. But for the right reason and not necessarily to keep the "unfavorables" out - which is kind of how epublishing is seen.
Again ... this is only my own take on this --
but I'd think setting a single, simple, monetary standard for entry into PAN would establish the equality of PAN members, e-pub and print.
Anyone in PAN will be assumed to have 'earned her way in'.
Wasn't that already the assumption, though?
I'd expect the $1000 amount will rise with inflation.
Probably
And I'd expect the RWA-PAN standards to change with new technology and remain roughly in line with other writers organizations.
As something of an RWA veteran, I am almost certain backpeddling, dithering, confusion, self-contradiction and general running-about-like-chickens-without-heads will remain standard operating procedure in all phases of RWA.
I'd be surprised if it didn't. I've been a member for a long time as well.
Anyway, this is all stuff for another thread. But for anyone who is up in the air about whether or not to join, it's important that they know that the organization that they support might not entirely support them back. That's all. Hey, I'm still a member, even though I have my reservations about their motives...