55 Responses to “News from the RWA”

1. Arin Rhys Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 5:05 pm

   1 I think the RWA needs to figure out exactly what sort of organization it is. It allows unpublished writers in, but gives them contrary info about epublishing which makes EC and PublishAmerica seem on the same level. They say they are a professional writers association, but they seem to do precious little for published authors. I’m not sure if they are stretching themselves out to much or if they need to find a new focus, but their reputation has been taking a beating in the last few years.

2. Lynne Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

   2 Wow. I hoped and hoped the Board would come up with a correction to this asinine policy. I’m impressed yet again with Samhain’s professionalism in their response to this. As for RWA, I’m disgusted. They’ve seen the last cent they’re ever getting from me.

3. kate r Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

   3 That’s what I put in my blog and so if we both said it, we must have gotten it right. Or they got it wrong. Heh. I’m sorry about Samhain and EC. All that work they did and they get shut out? Blah. The ebook world will change everything fast, as always, and this’ll get reexamined all the time. (reminder to self: never ever volunteer for RWA board. Never.) Considering where the board started, this is pretty good. It does seem to be about the RWA members and it does seem more inclusive than the previous standards.

4. raine Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:25 pm

   4 Board Prez said that no author should “settle” for receiving less than $1000 for her work. Wtf?? I didn’t know it was a matter of “settling”. I thought it was a matter of usually needing to build a career one step at a time. I thought it was about writing the books of your heart, even if they don’t initially bring in $1000 advances. I thought it was about choosing the best publisher for your work, who might not necessarily be the one offering the most money. E-pubs and small presses often appeal to readers because they offer more variety to the audience, and more freedom for the authors. If they had to hand out those kind of advances, they’d quickly become more limited, making offers only to writers with that kind of proven track record. Waiting for the backlash on this one. As long as erotica and e-publishing continue to be snubbed, whether directly or indirectly, this organization will continue to lose more and more of its validity.

5. Seressia Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:31 pm

   5 Let’s see if I’ve got this right. Samhain, EC and others won’t get to take appointments at National because they don’t pay advances. Yet their authors who earn more than a grand can have all the benefits of being a published author (whatever those are. Hey, I’m in PAN and I don’t know). There’s nothing on the member site about this free/not free stuff. I definitely want more clarification about this. “We really don’t want you here, but if you give us money, we’ll let you in.” WTF? So not only do they donate books, they have to pay to for the privilege? I’d like to know who the literary attorney was. No one else has this “primary sales on website” definition of vanity/subsidy press. Not SFWA. Not MWA. Not the Association of American Publishers. Just RWA, being exclusive again.

6. bam Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

   6 Author Comment According to Wikipedia: A vanity press or vanity publisher is a book printer which, while claiming to be a publisher, charges writers a fee in return for publishing their books or otherwise makes most of its money from the author rather than from the public. Johnathon Clifford claims to have coined the term in 1959. In its very simplest terms, while a commercial publisher’s intended market is the general public, a vanity publisher’s intended market are the authors themselves. Many authorities consider an author mill to be a kind of vanity publisher. A vanity press is distinguished from a small press publisher in that the small press acts as its larger cousins do, performing the traditional roles of editorial selection, binding and review, and marketing at its own expense, rather than at the expense of the author. The vanity companies often refer to themselves as joint-venture or subsidy publishers, because the author “subsidizes” (or finances) the publication. A vanity press will generally agree to print and bind any author’s work if the author is willing to pay for the service; these fees typically form a vanity press’s profits. Commercial publishers, on the other hand, derive their profit from sales of the book, and must therefore be cautious and deliberate in choosing to publish works that will sell, particularly as they must recoup their investment in the book (such as an advance payment and royalties to the author, editorial guidance, promotion, marketing, or advertising). To better help sell their books, commercial publishers may also be selective in order to cultivate a reputation for high-quality work, or to specialize in a particular genre. Because vanity presses are not as selective, publication by a vanity press is typically not seen as conferring the same recognition or prestige as commercial publication. Vanity presses do offer more independence for the author than does the mainstream publishing industry; however, their fees are often higher than the fees normally charged for similar printing services, and sometimes restrictive contracts are required. Not one word about “at least 50% of sales must be made through a means other than a publisher’s own website or links to the authors’ websites” and that’s the main reason RWA is calling Samhain, EC, and LI “vanity/subsidy” pubs. That’s just bullcrap. Therefore, I call “shenanigans!” on the RWA. SHENANIGANS! Oh, I’m all verr-klempt. I want to kick something. I want to cry a little bit. I need my Dean-Bear. There he is! Hold me, Dean. Make it all better! Why do I feel like singing “we shall overcome” all of a sudden? Still, shenanigans! ETA: ’cause I’m a total jerk.

7. Bettie Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:43 pm

   7 Thanks for the wrap-up, Carrie. I’ve been reading bits and pieces here and there, and it’s helpful to see all the bad news in one place. RWA bickered and brouhaha-ed over erotic romance, and then over gay-themed romance, but eventually came around. Readers vote with their dollars. If RWA really is “an advocacy group for professional writers” they will have to bow to the market on the ePub issue the same way they’ve bowed to market demands for erotic romance and gay-themed romance.

8. Lynne Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

   8 Shenanigans! I’m in!

9. Angela Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

   9 Well Raine I beg to differ about e-pubs. I’ve visited many of the biggies and they all offer a hefty serving of erotica and erotic romance, while the variety in non-erotic titles in the genre I primarily read is nil(a lot of Westerns and Regency Historicals–which the NY pubs already put out). This new policy sucks for successful and respected publishes like Samhain and EC, but I see where the RWA is trying to go with the organization after so many years of what seems to be over-catering to the unpublished authors of the organization. We’re always crying about wanting respect from outsiders, but the main organization is practically a country club in comparison to MWA, SFWA, NINC, etc. I for one think authors need to worry more about writing quality works of romance fiction and less about an organization most readers know absolutely nothing about. And as for the whole “shutting erotica out”: aren’t readers still going to purchase the books and writers still submit to the publishers regardless of what the RWA thinks? Especially now that EC signed another deal with Pocket and Samhain inked with Kensington. I’m just saying…*shrug*

10. Jackie Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    10 Thanks so much for this, Carrie. The other point the Board was quick to make was that RWA is not in the business of serving as an advocate for newbie writers. Kathleen Eagle went on the record as saying that RWA is an advocacy group for professional writers, that the Board should be asking “How can we best advocate for people trying to make a living as a writer?” and that the author should not be asking How do I get published, but “How do I make a living as a publisher writer?” For the longest time, I dreamed of becoming a SFWA member (Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America). The membership requirements were pretty steep — three short story sales to SFWA-accepted markets (five cents per word — holy crap, that’s high), or a novel sale to a SFWA-accepted market (clearly listed). When I finally earned my membership, I celebrated. (Haven’t done a damn thing with my membership, yet. But I got it.) When I joined RWA, I was stunned to learn that it was open to unpublished authors. I actually didn’t take it that seriously because I didn’t know what I could get out of it. (Since then, I’ve become active in my local chapter — terrific people, the lot of them — and have met wonderful RWA authors. I’m not active nationally, but locally? Yeah. Terrific for networking and support.) If RWA is serious about being an advocacy group for professional romance authors and NOT being an advocate for “newbie writers,” then RWA has to stop accepting unpublished authors as members. Period. It can’t be both ways — having unpublished members (including members published by non-RWA-recognized publishers) and then dinging those members for daring to get published by non-RWA-recognized publishers. If RWA takes your money, RWA should support you — no matter who publishes your work.

11. bam Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    11 Author Comment Shenanigans! I’m in! Oh, my call for shenanigans has been seconded! For that, Lynn, you get to hold my Dean-Bear. But only for a second. And you can’t lick him.

12. Lynne Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    12 No licking? ::sigh:: Okay.

13. Lynne Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    13 RWA makes a ton of money from its 7,000 unpublished and small press published members. If all of us left, they’d be down to collecting dues and conference fees from the remaining 2,000. Which is sounding more and more like a good thing to me. I don’t know why I’m still a member, anyway. I write SF&F with romantic elements.

14. Seressia Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 7:21 pm

    14 Bam, you had me until the “We shall overcome” comment. Sorry. Call me oversensitive if you like. Though yes, I do think this should be protested, and those in RWA should pointedly question those who are (crazy enough) willing to run for Board positions this year. Change can only come if the board votes for change, we vote a new board, or we introduce a floor motion at next year’s AGM. I’m not exactly sure if this qualifies as a floor motion option, but definitely voting for a progressive board is the way to go.

15. bam Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    15 Author Comment Bam, you had me until the “We shall overcome” comment. Sorry. Call me oversensitive if you like. No, Seressia, you’re right. I’m the insensitive boob. Mea culpa.

16. Carrie Lofty Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

    16 Small correction to my notes: RITA entries can be from any publisher as long as they fit into one of the categories and are in bound form. Publisher does not matter. Not true. It’s that the pub doesn’t matter as long as it’s not defined as vanity/subsidy by RWA’s standards. Same for First Sale notices in RWR. They’ll post any first sale to any ole’ body, as long as the pub meets this new definition. And yes, they kept promising to release the entire definition from the literary attourney they quoted. Apparently he’s in NY and is on the board representing a union of small presses.

17. Ann Bruce Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    17 You mean I finally gave in and joined RWA for nothing? WTF? Do you think they’d give me a refund?

18. Angela Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    18 Anyone see what Kate Rothwell linked to what the RNA is doing for their organization?–And over there the romance genre isn’t even as popular nor receives at least a modicum of respect as in the US. I’ve got to play the devil’s advocate, but it seems to me that people need to put their money where their mouth is and not continue to be members just to have people to hang out with.

19. Caroline Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    19 Romance as a genre is already having enough problems getting younger readers to actually, you know, read. It seems counterproductive to shut out the technology most younger readers are migrating to–ebooks. I can’t remember the last time I read an actual paper book. With PDAs, ebook readers, smart phones–not to mention the growing green movement–the number of people who read electronically is only going to grow. The last time I checked, electronic sales were climbing and brick-and-mortar sales were dropping off. If RWA really wanted to advocate for its professional authors, they would educate and prepare their members to the realities of the electronic marketplace.

20. raine Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    20 I was probably being unclear (I often am, lol…) My reference to the snubbing of erotica had less to do with erotic work now being sold by the biggies and more to do with the proposal for an erotic romance category for the RITAS being rejected once again–another decision made this year. But I completely agree that an author’s primary focus has to be on their work. These decisions mean little to me personally. I simply think the standards they’ve established are unreasonable.

21. Jenna Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 9:18 pm

    21 I’d thought of joining RWA this year because they (the ‘theys’ that know everything) say the org. helps authors a lot. Well, I’m glad I didn’t now because it would have been a waste of some of that $1000 advance I’m not gonna get.

22. Angela Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 9:25 pm

    22 I’m what could be considered a “younger reader” at 23 and I haven’t seen a significant number of people my age desiring to read books electronically–if they even want to read at all. When they’re on the phone they’re using it and when they’re on the internet, they’re on myspace and facebook. Electronic sales are growing, but the median age of avid readers(meaning, the type who purchase 5+ books regularly) and have the extra income to purchase PDA’s and Palm Readers is not the coveted 18-34 age demographic. The reason the romance genre is not attracting the younger demographic is because their needs are being met by YA fiction. When I was an adolescent and a teenager(despite that age not being so far in the past), all I and my peers had to read were Sweet Valley Twins, BSB, and other lines most pre-teens and teens today would see as “kid stuff”. Nowadays teens have Jackie Collins-esque books in the Gossip Girl and A-List Series’, Paranormal with Stephanie Meyers et al, Historical “romances”, Fantasy, Mysteries, etc (and all mostly done in a lot less cliched and trend-hopping way than in the romance genre). Why would those coveted younger readers need to advance into “adult” fiction when they get all they need in the rapidly expanding YA genre?

23. Caroline Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 10:07 pm

    23 23 isn’t old (I’m 26, so…), but you’re not exactly the age group I was referring to, either. I’m talking next generation. My ten-year-old nephew downloads ebooks to his cell phone on a regular basis. Many of the kids in my English classes read on their laptops or PDAs instead of hauling paperbacks of our required reading around. About a third to half, I’d say, opt to buy their books electronically through our school’s e-discount program. I regularly have to confiscate people’s PDAs because they’re reading on them in class instead of paying attention.

24. Bettie Posted: Jul 12th, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    24 If RWA takes your money, RWA should support you — no matter who publishes your work. Amen, Jackie. Is the Romance genre unique in that so many readers aspire to be authors? It seems that publishers do a lot to encourage readers. Harlequin has a ton of resources on their web site, and many Romance editors still claim to read the slush pile. I can’t think of another genre that encourages its readers to the same extent. If it’s in the publishers’ best interests to encourage readers to dream of writing (doesn’t Harlequin say the best way to learn to write romance is to buy and read romance?), and if, per Lynne’s post, small press and aspiring writers make up more than 70 percent of RWA’s membership, then perhaps the organization ought to wake up and realize that the dues-paying small press and aspiring authors they’re snubbing are probably also some of the genre’s best customers.

25. Seressia Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 4:30 am

    25 According to someone over on SBTB, Board Member Diane Pershing said they didn’t mean that most epublishers are vanity presses, only those whose ONLY means of selling is through their websites. Let’s hope they change that part of the letter IMMEDIATELY. Oh, and Bam, it’s all good!

26. Mrs G Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 5:16 am

    26 But they still have to define what other means of selling is acceptable, no? Is Fictionwise okay? How about that Mobipocket book place? Or are they talking about print books? Some epublishers, especially those based outside US like Total-e-bound and StarDust Press, won’t most likely be doing print editions of their books while other epublishers prefer not to produce books in print. I find it odd that ELECTRONIC BOOKS must somehow be available for sale in other places other than the publisher’s website. I mean, I buy my ebooks directly from the publisher and to a lesser extent at Fictionwise. A part of me understands why RWA wants to impose such standards, but the more I see what they are doing, the more I am starting to believe that they are doing things wrong. It’s like burning an entire field of corn just to weed out a few diseased plants.

27. Carrie Lofty Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 5:21 am

    27 Electronic is not the issue; it’s third party. So Fictionwise and other online sources are eligible as part of their non-pub-website sales figures. The Board indicated at the AGM that a deep level of sales scrutiny would be given to the larger epubs such as Samhain, Loose, and EC to determine how much was print, how much was online third party, etc. This is the only reason the vocal crowd at the back of the room settled down at the AGM, because the Board did not close the door entirely. They also agreed to post examples on the RWA website of who made the cut, who did not, and why, all on an individual basis.

28. Bonnie Dee Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 6:16 am

    28 Does this mean Red Sage Publishing is now un-recognized, too? Were they ever recognized to begin with? Really it seems like e-pub and/or small press writers need their own club, an anti-RWA group within which to interact, socialize, have conventions, etc. I know there’s EPIC, but that’s for more than just romance books. But imagine all the publishers and authors of small press withdrawing en masse from the RWA table. No more dues. No more convention attendance. Starting their own separate, new and edgier group with its own convention designed to entice romance and erotica readers. Imagine EC, for example, which has hosted so much entertainment at RT, taking their dollars and making the new romance convention THE place to be. Could such a thing happen? What kind of organization would it take?

29. Mrs G Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 6:32 am

    29 So Fictionwise and other online sources are eligible as part of their non-pub-website sales figures. Ouch, and Fictionwise takes a considerable chunk out of the publisher’s profit, I hear. What is the rationale for this, though? An established epublisher site, like Ellora’s Cave, does not need a third-party online seller for their books since their brand name is such that people know where to find their books. I find the “third party” clause bizarre because chances are, the more established and successful you are as an epublisher, the more people will come to your website and buy things there rather than shopping for them at a third-party place. Conversely, since Samhain sells its books through MBAM, does this mean that even if it’s affiliated with Samhain, MBAM is considered a third party seller? Why oh why can’t RWA establish a fair but separate rules for epublishers to play with them instead of trying to force them to conform to the NY publisher business model? Why not make some kind of more realistic and fair set of requirements, like a sales per title requirement scaled down to current epublishing numbers, instead of imposing impossible rules for epublishers? That will make everyone’s lives easier, no? That way, epublishers are happy, their authors are happy, and RWA is happy. Unless, of course, the RWA just want to shut out the e-people. If that is the case, they should come out in the open and just say “No epublished cretins allowed in our hollowed hall!” instead of trying to hedge around the issue.

30. April Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am

    30 Mrs. G beat me to it. I was going to mention that the more successful e-pubs actually sell more on their own site than they do at sites like Fictionwise, so that particular clause doesn’t make much sense.

31. Maria S. Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am

    31 I am wondering why Samhain got the boot, since they technically sell their ebooks thru MBAM, as Mrs. G pointed out…doesn’t this count as third-party and therefore leave them eligible? or is MBAM still condsidered a “publisher created site”?? i am confused, sorry!

32. bam Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 9:04 am

    32 Author Comment Maria, what kicks out most of the smaller presses and e-pubs… would be the ridiculous “must pay at least $1000 in advance”. Even if Samhain qualified for the other stuff, it doesn’t pay an advance that big ($100 at most, I think).

33. Maria S. Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 9:38 am

    33 yeah, from what i gather (sorry i am learning the rules as fast as i can, guys!) the e-publishing “model” is such that e-pub’d writers don’t get advances, but instead get paid royalties. that makes sense. now, this is i guess totally different from the “NY publisher model,” which typically pays advances plus royalties later on, correct?? as for Samhain, and the “distribution” debate…they are just opening up the door for more ebook vendor sites…maybe it’s the legal-secretary coming out in me, but if I was an e-publisher, the first thing i would do is set up a corporation separate from the publishing house and start selling the books from there. if you do it right, it’s considered a separate legal entity and couldn’t qualify as a “publisher-owned” sale site. and i though this is what Samhain was essentially doing with MBAM….all sneaky-sneaky-like! anyways. screw the RWA. but then again, i wouldn’t have nearly as much to say without all this drama, would i??

34. Trish Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 10:38 am

    34 Red Sage is listed on rwanational as a sponser of nationals this year…bet it’s pretty strange to be un recognized ..if this in fact did happen!

35. Dee Tenorio Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 10:45 am

    35 I’m with Bonnie. Actually, my hubby and I were discussing what it would take to make our own convention. I mean, if I’m no longer a professional and they no longer care about unpubs (which I would be, since my publisher is a vanity pub), I have no business in RWA or at Nationals. I want a convention that will service my needs as both a contemporary author and as an erotica author. But what would we call it? Where would we have it? Would anyone else come? Dee

36. Seressia Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 10:46 am

    36 If Red Sage pays the authors in its anthologies a minimum of $500, then they are still eligible to attend events at National. Their authors can be in PAN if their story makes $1000 over its life, and their books can enter the novella category of the Ritas right now. Since they have distribution through bookstores, they aren’t vanity or subsidy, so they are safe.

37. Dee Tenorio Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 11:32 am

    37 I know what I wanted to add. It’s not just that our pubs are being relegated to ineligibility or that we can’t sit at a freaking charity sale table or even that we’re now ineligible for a Rita–which has been a career dream of mine for over ten years–it’s the principle of the thing—RWA is, with a sweeping, dismissive club, telling us we’re not professionals. They are relegating us, the epublished and small press published authors, to a permanent second-class citizenship in the Romance community. It’s wrong and we truly should not stand for it. Dee

38. Gail Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 11:34 am

    38 Dee, love the idea. The convention really should be in Vagas, considering how naughty all us bad girls are. Convention name should be interesting.

39. Maria S. Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 11:41 am

    39 Vegas, baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! can we make it at the Hard Rock?? it’s uber-hot-guy-fest there every night…..

40. Dee Tenorio Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 11:54 am

    40 I rather like that idea! There’s a plane leaving to Vegas from everywhere every hour and there’s tons to do there. We could call ourselves the “Digital Ink Association”. (Then we could have the tagline, “It’s A Brand New DIA!”…oh, giggle for the Mexican in me.) The best part is that when we make our own award, she won’t have to look like she’s writing while sitting on the pot! Dee

41. BevL(QB) Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 11:54 am

    41 Angela said “And as for the whole “shutting erotica out”: aren’t readers still going to purchase the books and writers still submit to the publishers regardless of what the RWA thinks? Especially now that EC signed another deal with Pocket and Samhain inked with Kensington. I’m just saying…*shrug* ” You know, the announcements and fallout are jaw-dropping, HOWEVER, as Angela said, in the grand scheme of things, who cares? Okay, I know the author’s care, but does membership in RWA REALLY benefit you as far as sales and publicity? As a Reader, I don’t give a rat’s ass if you are a member of RWA, in fact it means less than nothing to me. Just give me stories I enjoy, that’s what is REALLY important.

42. Dee Tenorio Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    42 Bev–It’s true, from the reader’s perspective, not much will change. You’ll still find the books you love because you know where to look or that they’re out there if you’re looking for them. From the author’s perspective though, it really is a big deal. It’s about how our work is viewed by our own peers and the larger organizations out there. If RWA is able to completely remove ePubs from it’s list, other sites might just do the same because we’re now “vanity press”, thus limiting where ePubs can market. As it is, we the epubs get snickered at—occasionally right to our faces—because we’re not “really” published. It’s a slippery slope thing and RWA seems to be heading the line for kamikaze diving. In the long run, it DOES become a reader’s problem as well. Once we start disappearing from places where new writers are attempting to join the market, their options are limited as to where and what they can write. Established pubs tighten their focus on what sells and the market becomes even more flooded with steady staples of stories you’ve already read. The risk takers will disappear. There’s still time for them to undo this. The question is…will they?

43. Bettie Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    43 The best part is that when we make our own award, she won’t have to look like she’s writing while sitting on the pot! Hee! Count me in, Dee. Our award statuette could be a wear, stilettos, pants and a sleek leather jacket. Instead of a feathery pen, she’d have a sleek little laptop. We could call it the National Online Romance Award, or NORA for short.

44. Bettie Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    44 Ugh. Post-Lunch Typos. Here’s what I meant to type: Our award statuette could be a woman wearing stilettos, pants and a chic leather jacket. Instead of a feathery pen, she’d have a sleek little laptop. We could call it the National Online Romance Award, or NORA for short.

45. Dee Tenorio Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    45 OMG, I Love it! Geez, I actually want to do this!

46. Emily Veinglory Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    46 RWA are clueless. You can be non-settling but make all the monet in royalties not up front. Besides, what gives them the right to tell authors Ellora’s Cave et al aren’t worth their time? That it would be better to bin their book? pffft Give it a little more time and I won’t care enough about what they say to react. Surely habituation should be setting in by now?

47. Angie Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    47 I just want to point out that the RITAs have been separated from publisher eligibility, so regardless of whether your publisher is eligible, you can still enter the RITAs. In fact, the rules changed quite in favor of epublishing in that regard, because they heard us when we asked for a change to the rule about copyright dates, which had previously made most epublishers ineligible. The reason being, the requirements stated that it needed to be a print copy (not printed, but print copy, so no bound copies) of the book, that had a copyright date of the previous year. The language has now changed to allow for first printing date instead, so epublished books with a copyright of 2006 (in ebook in 2006), but a first print in 2007, can enter the contest for 2008. Did that make sense? So that change is actually, in my opinion, favorable, because it’s tied to neither publisher (as long as it’s not a vanity press, I think, lol) nor copyright date. That’s a good thing!

48. bam Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 2:52 pm

    48 Author Comment a first print in 2007, can enter the contest for 2008. Did that make sense? So that change is actually, in my opinion, favorable, because it’s tied to neither publisher (as long as it’s not a vanity press, I think, lol) nor copyright date. That’s a good thing! Awesome. Thanks, Angie! (hope you guys are having fun, anyway)

49. Ann Bruce Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    49 Our award statuette could be a wear, stilettos, pants and a sleek leather jacket. Instead of a feathery pen, she’d have a sleek little laptop. I vote for a stylized martini glass. Slick, functional–and you can use it right away when you hit the bar to celebrate the win.

50. Ann Bruce Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 2:59 pm

    50 RITAs have been separated from publisher eligibility But doesn’t the book have to be published by a non-vanity publisher? If so, then the RITAs are still tied to publisher.

51. Trish Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

    51 Thanks, Serissa. I was told Red Sage didn’t meet the 500 per anthology story..but that could be old stats.

52. Dee Tenorio Posted: Jul 13th, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    52 Hey Angie! I’d feel better about that working in our favor if they’d define Samhain as a non-vanity press. Until we have their official clarifications, we’d have to assume we won’t be eligible and that the epub allowances on the copywrite dates are sadly only lip service. I’d be angry if I wasn’t so disappointed. Dee

53. Angie Posted: Jul 14th, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    53 We’re not a vanity press according to their definition, Dee, so time to start feeling better

54. Angela Posted: Jul 15th, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    54 Ah ha Dee! Now I see! (sorry for the rhyme *g*) This now gives me a vested interest in the outcome of the RWA’s new policy. Thanks for the break-down.

55. Judi Posted: Jul 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am

    55 IMO this elegibility business is all about the so-called NY authors somehow being threatened by small press authors. There’s always been that subtext in these discussions. “I didn’t want to, but if you choose to take your career in that [e-pub] direction . . .” with the implication being that dire things will happen to your career, and you’ve made a really stupid choice. There are always the comments that e-pubs will accept anything (guess they haven’t read my rejection letters). There’s always a tone in their voices that imply I (and my e-pubbed cohorts) are second citizens. I would love to quit RWA, but I would then be forced to quit the chapters I belong to and unfortunately I’m not ready to do that. Yet. I love the idea of starting a ERWA organization. I’d join that in a minute, because we could form local chapters under that umbrella, have a rockin’ national conference (sort of a cross between RWA and RT) and hand out NORAs and Stilettos (for the unpubbeds). And there’d be nobody around to stick their noses in the air because we write outside-the-book stories.