A Call To Action

If you haven't heard the news about RWA's stoneage stance on digital publishing, it might be because you're not a member of RWA.

If you've been following the conversations going on online, here's one more to add to it: Samhain executive editor, Angela James issues a Call To Action on the ESPAN blog. Not only is she fair and articulate, but she's my editor. Does an author proud, really. *sniff*

Here's Kassia Krozser's (of Booksquare and Quartet Press) take on things: Time for a Change

You may have also heard about the RWA Change group. We're not a pitchfork-wielding bunch of hooligans, we're mostly RWA members-in-good-standing who value RWA and want to save RWA from becoming obsolete by helping to educate members about digital publishing, pushing for more inclusive publisher and published author standards and to somehow once and for all eliminate the no-man's land between the GH and the RITA that epubbed authors fall into. You can join the group yourself right here.

I'm a member, because I believe that there is a chance we can change RWA and I'd rather be part of the change than just give up on an organization that has the potential to be a great tool for advocacy and education.

What do you think?

RWA President Pershing Responds

Remember Monday's fabulous post by Deidre Knight on the ESPAN blog? This one here.

Well, today RWA president Diane Pershing has responded. You can read that here.

I'm guessing a lot of people who were on the fence about leaving just got a big push off that fence.

An agent's response to RWA's Epub stance

If you've read the most recent letter from RWA's president, Diane Pershing, in the June edition of the RWR and it left you steaming, you should probably read THIS incredible essay on the subject by super agent Deidre Knight. Read it even if you haven't read Pershing's letter, but you're just upset over RWA's treatment of epublishers and epublished authors.

Feel free to spread the link to this amazing post far and wide.

For A Non-Confrontational Person...

I certainly have started something. In case you haven't read about the petition I started, here's the deal in a nutshell. Just because you're a PAN member of RWA, doesn't mean you can enter your books in the RITAs. And if you're epubbed, but don't qualify for PAN, you're probably not eligible for the Golden Hearts either.

In this day and age, it seems the time is right for RWA to take a more progressive stance on epublishing, starting with a greater inclusion of those books and those authors.

In the April issue, the RWR will be publishing a shortened version of this letter I sent them (they only publish 350 words):

Recently one of my dear friends, M (as I'm going to refer to her), received a letter from RWA stating the two books she'd submitted for the RITAs had been disqualified due to them being "not mass produced by a non-Subsidy, non-Vanity publisher in print-book format." Last year, she entered the RITA without incident. Her publisher has not changed since last year. M is not the only epubbed author who has received this letter this year, either.

By RWA's definitions: "Subsidy Publisher" means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment or reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs. M's publisher does not do any of this.

"Vanity Publisher" means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books and publishers whose business model and methods of publishing and distribution are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and/or associates. Neither does M's publisher do this.

In fact, her publisher is listed on RWA's Non-Subsidy, Non-Vanity Publisher Chart. (http://www.rwanational.org/cs/publishers_and_agents/nonsubsidy_nonvanity_publisher_chart)

So what's the sticking point? That little hyphenated phrase "mass-produced" which did not exist in last year's rules. When and where exactly was this addition announced? I tried to find it in various hot sheets and alerts, but couldnt. It seems this change merely showed up in some minutes, then in the RITA rules. RWAs take on mass-produced: The phrase mass-produced in print book format 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. Yet many POD books carry these discounts and are returnable. It seems RWA doesn't know enough about the difference between mass produced and print on demand to actually clarify and enforce their own rules.

One of the greatest injustices is that M is not only a member of PAN, but due to her phenomenal sales, could be a member of PAN many times over. So she can be PAN, but not enter the RITA? Where's the equality in that? Wheres the unity so proudly lauded in the January 2009 issue of the RWR? Yes, we recognize you're a published author, but no, you cant enter our published author contest. In a recent letter from the RWA president in the RWR she talks about "If not now, when?" My thoughts exactly. This us vs. them mentality has gone on long enough. Epubs are here to stay. Treating them like a redheaded stepchild isn't going to make them go away. Why is RWA so worried about letting epubbed print books into the RITAs? Shouldn't an award for the best book be based on the writing and not the method of print production? There is already an imposed limit on RITA entries, so saying that adding epubbed print books would tax the system isnt valid.

My friend is out approx. $250 dollars (entry fees, cost of books and shipping) and so far, RWA won't even return her books. (Which she'd be willing to pay for.) M is heartbroken and I'm disappointed in RWA. This organization may claim to be the voice of romantic fiction, but on this issue, they certainly don't speak for me.

This letter was the impetus for me to create this petition: ChangeRWA. And while I realize not everyone will agree with what this petition stands for, that isn't going to stop me. I have a voice, as do those who have already signed the petition, and I intend to be heard.