Has the RWA gone insane?

That still makes them look like the idiots they have become.

AND

ALL writers know how tetchy the term "vanity publisher" is. This wasn't a little slip-up. The attitude has been getting more and more elitist at RWA. It has caused many authors to seek other support.

MMcC said:

ALL writers know how tetchy the term "vanity publisher" is. This wasn't a little slip-up. The attitude has been getting more and more elitist at RWA.

Click to expand...

The reason I'm inclinde to chalk this snot-upon-the-landscape provision
up to incompetence,
rather than intentional malice,
is that demanding. 'show us the money'
would cut the e-press presence down to ... what ... five, six ... a dozen or so companies?
at least for the next couple or three years.

Having accomplished the goal, why overkill, and challenge ... well .... EC, for instance, which is a well-run company that's getting nearly universal approval for both $$ and management?

While there's no lack of malice at RWA, simple incompetence is even more abundant.

It'd be interesting to know just who is responsible for this particular gem.

pepperlandgirl said:

I think it's far less likely than a deliberate attempt to exclude epublishers. This did not happen in a vacuum job. This didn't come out of nowhere. They began making noises about excluding certain authors and certain publishers around about the time Samhain, Loose ID and Triskelion met their previous requirements. This isn't even the first time RWA transparent attempts to exclude certain authors has been mentioned in this forum.

Click to expand...

This has been a long, long term problem ... goes right back to the very first e-pubs.

Setting a bar to define 'paying markets' can work.
Other organizations have done this, routinely, for years.
It's fair. It's logical. It can be made to work.

Not, however, if artificial barriers are set in place.

Job, I believe you're being deliberately obtuse, although I can't for the life of me understand why.

Your first mistake is in claiming RWA is an organization devoted to professional authors. It isn't. It's an organization devoted largely to unpublished writers, which is why PAN started in the first place.

Your second is in assuming epublishers aren't paying markets. Like you, I believed the standards for recognition needed to be much stricter, but I don't believe that means coloring legitimate small and epresses with the vanity brush. The average EC book earns anywhere from $3k-20k. Does that sound to you like a publisher who should be excluded because they're not a paying market? Honestly? You keep claiming RWA needs to define the paying markets (bolding YOURS) and that's why this is such a good thing. So does it make sense to you that EC is now considered a vanity press?

Okay, and:

And number (or even the $$ of ) sales 'on average' isn't good, because a publisher might have dozens of 'low return' folks on the list -- poetry, literary works.
They 'belong' on an e-publisher's shelf, this is exactly the sort of publisher who can support that good work, but they're going to skew the average.

Click to expand...

WTF? Literary fiction and poetry belong on a romance or erotic romance epublisher's site? EC doesn't publish a single work of poetry or literary fiction. Nor to my knowledge does Samhain or Loose-id. Would you please explain to me what on earth you're talking about here? Do you know who the publishers we're discussing are? I know you said in the beginning that you couldn't be bothered to read the whole proposal, but do you actually have a familiarity with these epublishers at all?


Last:

To talk about 'RWA's opinion' on this, as if it were monolithic, is deceptive and pointless and I have not, at any point, done so.

Click to expand...

No, to talk about RWA's opinion on this is to refer to the board's opinion, which becomes the official position of the entire organization. Are you telling me it's impossible for any professional organization to have an official opinion, that no lobbying group or charity has official opinions about their industry or cause?

It is not deceptive and pointless to discuss a change in policy which could affect thousands of people. It is not deceptive and pointless to discuss how the official position of the organization alienates thousands of dues-paying members. RWA gives its official opinion or position on things all the time; have you never seen any of those papers, updates, or notes?

Setting a bar to define 'paying markets' can work.
Other organizations have done this, routinely, for years.
It's fair. It's logical. It can be made to work.

Not, however, if artificial barriers are set in place.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the setup RWA had, in fact, defining publisher recognition by number of copies sold and hence income level.

Job, what you're not getting is those they are now excluding ARE paying markets. They might not pay as well as big NY pubs (and in the case of EC, I think they pay better)

But now EC, for example, could be considered a vanity press because they don't meet some arbitrary advance amount? Even if most of the authors surpass that amount with their first royalty check, if every e-copy was sold from the publisher's website?

That seems ridiculous to me. Both my publishers, thought they are not considered vanity presses by any. other. definition., would now be considered FREAKING VANITY by RWA, because they sell books from their website???

I'm all for weeding out the scammers and the dead end markets, but they've taken it to an extreme which lumps places like Xlibris, iUniverse and PA in with places like Samahain, and they did it on purpose.

Seems spiteful to me.

The last time I checked (a couple of days ago), Ellora's Cave and Samhain were RWA-recognized and they are participating in the conference.

ETA: For erotic romance, it's all over the conference this year. There are quite a few workshops on how to write it from grammar to technicalities.



I'm just adding my two cents here. But even though Samhain and EC are currently "RWA Recognized" and are in attendance at this year's conference, by definition of the new guidelines, they will not be allowed next year. And the blanket label, "RWA Recognized" no longer applies to anyone. So next year, prepare to see a lot less erotica at the conference, with the exception of the Big Boys in NY. Then again, that's what this is all about. It's more than elitism, it's protecting their turf. Erotica made a huge dent in the romance market (more like a gaping hole), and at one point RWA even considered "re-visiting" their definition of "romance" to exclude Erotica, since some consider it pornographic. But like they say, we're all laughing our asses to the bank.

Job is busy demonstrating why RWA has decided to use a definition of vanity press that includes epublishers simply for being epublishers, rather than straight out saying "epublishers will not be recognised, and RWA members may not use books from those publishers as part of their PAN membership criteria, nor may they enter those books in RWA competitions, no matter how good their advances and sales figures are".

If they were that blatant about their prejudice, a lot of the membership would call them on it, as they have done on the past with things like the attempt to quietly redefine romance to be one man, one woman, and the attempt to exclude erotic romance. Doing it this way allows people like job to claim that it's just an accident that this neatly excludes the epublished authors from both published and unpublished categories.

If you check out RWA's new website, under subgenre, they don't even acknoweldge erotic romance. BTW, the new website is a pain in ass to navigate as well, so be prepared to do a lot of things twice. It's new and I guess all the glitches have yet to be worked out.

Wow, they sure don't...in fact, they don't acknowledge chick lit or romantic elements, either, even though both have chapters in RWA.

Interesting.

Something to note here -- there are other categories of publishing besides "professional" and "vanity". In particular, there is small press.

Qualifying professional market, as used by SFWA, is *not* "anything that isn't a vanity press". It's about a level of sales and distribution that takes it beyond small press. That's why the introduction to the list of non-qualifying markets says "No judgment as to the quality of these markets as publishing venues is in any way expressed or implied by their inclusion on this list" -- because some of the markets on that list of non-qualifying markets are very highly regarded small presses. Their books have critical acclaim, they appear on award shortlists. There is no shame in not being a SFWA qualifying market.

Small press includes good solid markets that are stable, pay decent royalties, and typically have sales numbers running from a few hundred to a few thousand copies. They cater to niche markets that don't have the tens of thousand of readers needed for mass market paperback distribution. They expect to make their money by selling books to readers, not by selling "being published" to authors. They often don't have distribution to major chains -- in sf they may well shift a lot of stock at cons and through mail order (once upon a time through dead tree catalogues and ads, nowadays via online catalogues), although they'll also be stocked by sf bookshops.

They aren't vanity press, in any meaningful sense of the term.

The bigger romance epublishers are serving a similar audience niche in romance. They're publishing material that isn't being published by the major presses, but they pay decent royalties and have a good niche market running from several hundred to several thousand readers.

Labelling them vanity press simply for being epublishers does no service to writers. They are small press by SFWA standards, and that is a very different thing.

That doesn't mean that there aren't any epublishers that aren't vanity presses. Of course there are, just as there are plenty of print publishers who are. And that is the real disservice done by this latest attempt by RWA to exclude epublishers -- it blurs the line between vanity publishing and real small press, to the detriment of writers who may well think that if just being epublished is enough to make you vanity press, then maybe those other things in the list of reasons for vanity status are just as silly.

Here's a great blog about this topic: http://www.ksaugustin.com/?p=50#more-50

I particularly like how the author states that RWA bemoans the fact that it's technologically behind-the-times, yet they turn around and deem all e-pubs vanity presses.

DecemberQuinn said:

Your first mistake is in claiming RWA is an organization devoted to professional authors. It isn't. It's an organization devoted largely to unpublished writers, which is why PAN started in the first place..

Click to expand...

I don't equate 'professional' with 'published.'
Nor do I equate 'professional' with 'paid'
It would never occur to me to do so.

In fact ... I'll have to respectfully disagree with you when you use these two words to mean the same thing.
I know many 'professional' writers' who have not yet been published or who work in fields that do not pay.

'Professionalism' is an attitude, not the amount of money you make.

That said, the professional writers in RWA are interested in paying markets.

If I wanted to say 'It's an organization of published writers' or 'it's an organization of writers who earn a living writing Romance' I would have said that.

DecemberQuinn said:

Your second is in assuming epublishers aren't paying markets...

Click to expand...

On the contrary. I don't assume that and haven't said it.

When the money-based qualifications are put in place (fairly) e-publishers and small press are going to find themselves on the list of paying markets.

Is your comment somehow an objection to the proposed $1000 level?

This does not seem to me to be an insurmountable bar. SFWA levels are double that, and you can hardly say the SF/F market pays better than Romance. I'm not sure of MWA or Author's Guild requirements ... but I imagine they take money into account in setting their standards.

DecemberQuinn said:

Like you, I believed the standards for recognition needed to be much stricter, ...

Click to expand...

Fair and unambiguous. Applicable and useful.
Not stricter for the sake of being stricter.

DecemberQuinn said:

but I don't believe that means coloring legitimate small and epresses with the vanity brush. ...

Click to expand...

Yes.

Agreed.

I've never once said anything else.




Now -- here's the challenge.
Go back and pull up a quote from me where I supported that one-liner about web-based-publishing-sales.

I will cheerfully respond to my quote.



But what you are dealing with here is the pure invention of one guy/gal.

The person has decided that,
because I am in favor of money-based standards
I must necessarily be in favor of every single line in this proposal.

After all -- goes his/her logic -- if one is in favor of the concept of money-based standards
then one must be ebil
and -- y'know -- all ebil people who want to set money-based standards are in favor of ebil things like kicking e-publishers out of RWA.

So he/she makes up
that I expressed admiration for the web-based sales oneliner in the qualification proposal

Makes it up.
Out of thin air.

Never once supports it in any way.

This guy/gal waves hands and
keeps repeating the lie and repeating it.
(cf Hitler -- The Big Lie)

And nobody bothers to go back and find a quote from me that says or implies I support that oneliner stupidity in the qualifying standards.

Jeesh Louis

DecemberQuinn said:

The average EC book earns anywhere from $3k-20k. Does that sound to you like a publisher who should be excluded because they're not a paying market? Honestly? You keep claiming RWA needs to define the paying markets (bolding YOURS) and that's why this is such a good thing. So does it make sense to you that EC is now considered a vanity press? ...

Click to expand...

If I had ever said or implied
that EC was anything like a vanity press
or should be conflated with one
then your argument would convince me totally.

DecemberQuinn said:

WTF? Literary fiction and poetry belong on a romance or erotic romance epublisher's site? ...

Click to expand...

So right. You will not find Literary Fiction or poetry on a Romance e-pub site.

However ... (sighs) ...
are you of the opinion that only e-publishers who spcialize in Romance should be recognized by RWA?

Looking at e-publishing more generally, it is worth noting that e-pub in general is an excellent venue for experimental fiction of all types.
And this has an effect upon overall, per-book profitability.

This is one reason why the overall money-earned-per-average-book figure is not a good gauge of a publisher's place in the market.

So -- if you want to argue that only Romance e-publishers or Romance small presses should be recognized by RWA
or that standards should depend upon the average profitability of the publisher's listing
I will be glad to listen to your arguments.

Is that what you are saying when you object to me talking about e-pubs or small presses that also handle literary works?

DecemberQuinn said:

No, to talk about RWA's opinion on this is to refer to the board's opinion, which becomes the official position of the entire organization. Are you telling me it's impossible for any professional organization to have an official opinion, that no lobbying group or charity has official opinions about their industry or cause? ...

Click to expand...

The Board's opinion, or RWA's opinion, once it is expressed in words, ex cathedra, becomes something one can talk about usefully.

To speak of 'RWA's opinion' on e-pubs does not strick me as useful because members of RWA have many opinions.

DecemberQuinn said:

It is not deceptive and pointless to discuss a change in policy which could affect thousands of people. It is not deceptive and pointless to discuss how the official position of the organization alienates thousands of dues-paying members.

Click to expand...

True. Yes.

DecemberQuinn said:

RWA gives its official opinion or position on things all the time; have you never seen any of those papers, updates, or notes?

Click to expand...

Some. I was an officer in my Chapter at one time and am familiar, to that extent, with the organization. Your own experience, doubtless, is equally, if not, more extensive. So we both speak from some knowledge of the workings of the RWA.

I give up, Job. For a writer, you seem totally incapable of understanding the written word or of accurately expressing yourself through it.

The fact that you're the only one who seems to understand exactly what it is you mean, and the rest of us are all apparently reading all sorts of craziness into what you've said, should give you serious pause.

Dude, no kidding...I can't follow it at all. *shrugs* Oh, well. To each his/her own.

For my part, I'm disappointed in the turn RWA took with these proceedings, and I plan to take action.

How? Is there any course of action an individual can take, short of canceling your membership?

The thing is, it doesn't matter if we agree or not with the new standards. We need to understand the viewpoint from the authors this is happening to. If this was happening to you, you'd be very upset and you can't deny that. Everyone of us knows how hard writing is and we should be supporting each other.

So whether I agree or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that I am very sorry for those thrown out. it sucks and I know you are hurt by this and rightly so.

Jersey Chick said:

How? Is there any course of action an individual can take, short of canceling your membership?

Click to expand...

Even better--we encourage RWA e-pubbed members to run for office positions.

Therefore, e-pubbed members have more of a voice.

lrs said:

So whether I agree or not doesn't matter. What does matter is that I am very sorry for those thrown out. it sucks and I know you are hurt by this and rightly so.

Click to expand...

It really does suck, and you're absolutely right--it hurts not only our current members, but potential members, as well as those publishers who worked hard for RWA recognition, only to have it taken away...and then insultingly, lumped in with vanity publishers.

Absolutely - it sucks big time. I like the idea of running for office, though. Could you imagine turning the tables like that?

You're right JerseyGirl, not much to do aside from letting your membership lapse. That's what I'm doing.

It's like being back in high school and the cheerleaders won't let anyone outside their little circle sit at their lunch table. Ya think after a certain age, we'd all outgrow that.

DecemberQuinn said:

I give up, Job. For a writer, you seem totally incapable of understanding the written word or of accurately expressing yourself through it..

Click to expand...

Certainly there is a failure to communicate.
We will continue, probably, to hold different opinions as to the cause.

kayscribe said:

You're right JerseyGirl, not much to do aside from letting your membership lapse. That's what I'm doing.

It's like being back in high school and the cheerleaders won't let anyone outside their little circle sit at their lunch table. Ya think after a certain age, we'd all outgrow that.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I can't. Like I said, I need to keep it up to keep my NJRW membership and I get a lot from that group. **sighs** I think that might be how RWA knows they won't see a huge mass exodus - I would have to look, but I wouldn't be surprised if a current RWA membership is a requirement for membership in local chapters.

Hey JerseyChic. I'm with NJRWA, too. Is national membership a requirement for local? What if you were national when you signed up, but just let it lapse? Hmmm....is that a Charity or Rayna question?

Jersey Chick said:

Unfortunately, I can't. Like I said, I need to keep it up to keep my NJRW membership and I get a lot from that group. **sighs** I think that might be how RWA knows they won't see a huge mass exodus - I would have to look, but I wouldn't be surprised if a current RWA membership is a requirement for membership in local chapters.

Click to expand...

It is absolutely a requirement, and I believe you're right. I would have given up RWA membership years ago if I didn't enjoy being a member of Passionate Ink and find it helpful. I've seen a whole bunch of authors today saying "I'd quit, but...I love my chapter." I don't like PI enough to stay just because of it at this point, but I am highly intrigued by the idea of running for office one of these days (I can't now as I'm out of the country).


I certainly hope in exchange for this more stringent standard, they'll actually make PAN benefits worth a darn.