Romance Writer’s Report Columnist Banned From Interviewing Small Presses…
Friday, March 21, 2008Posted in: RWA Loves E-publishers Like A Fat Kid Loves Lettuce
Now this is interesting. I saw this letter over at Bitch Envy’s blog. It’s from a columnist with the Romance Writer’s Report.
Dear Publisher
THE RWR editors will not allow me to interview small presses editors even though their publishing house is “recognized” by RWA. I am only allowed to interview New York publishers.
This is not my decision…obviously since I asked you for an interview…but a decision the RWR editors absolutely insisted I adhere to.
I made several cases on the behalf of the smaller publishers…such as small presses are buying new authors and many New York editors shop the smaller presses when acquiring new talent…but got nowhere.
I am extremely sorry about. I do not understand this decision at all and do not agree with it one bit. However, I am not the editor of the RWR.
I apologize for any inconvenience.
Sincerely,
******
Does “small presses” really mean e-publishers? Interesting.
Rosemary Laurey
March 21
4:12 pm
Nothing new really. Used to be only “recognised’ publishers were allowed interviews in RWR. Now they’ve changed the whole recognition game so it’s author rather than publisher recognition it’s hardly surprising there’s a new limitation.
As Shi and many know, I’ve been in the trenches of the e-pub wars since the 1990s. Heck I even had the distinction of being part of the select group of authors expelled from PAN over the issue .
RWA is a great organisation. I love my local chapters, but the National office really feels compelled to act the nanny on this issue. It’s really bit irritating.
Thing is authors have brains, we can make up our own minds over which publishers to do business with and which to avoid. We really don’t need a nanny.
Karen Scott
March 21
4:22 pm
Now I’m not sure that’s so true. Authors seem to be getting shafted left, right, and centre by a few e-pubs just recently.
Dorothy Mantooth
March 21
4:25 pm
See, on the one hand I appreciate that the RWA is taking steps, however small and/or misguided, to protect its members. On the other hand, behaving as though companies it now admits are legitimate and not vanity presses are still not good enough to be interviewed or featured is frankly crappy.
Personally I think they need to pull their heads out of their butts and start seeing what the industry is today, not twenty years ago.
Dorothy Mantooth
March 21
4:27 pm
Oh, and I agree, Karen. Sadly many authors don’t know the industry well and don’t know how to tell a good agent or a good publishing company from a bad one or one that won’t help their careers.
Which is why RWA should be doing more to highlight the good ones and help guide careers, instead of leaving epub and small press writers to flounder on their own.
Darlene Marshall
March 21
5:26 pm
Last month the RWR featured an extensive interview with the publisher of Amber Quill Press, which is my publisher. AQP is a small, mostly ebook publisher recognized by RWA, so I’m not sure what this letter means.
Teddypig
March 21
5:34 pm
I think we have gone over this before when RWA dumped the ePublishers from the recognition list altogether.
If you are gonna recognize a certain list of Publishers don’t you have to also take responsibility to police that list?
I was fine in the long run with them dumping ePublishers because they made bad choices and were pretty much “fish out of water” when it came time to handle issues.
It just sounds like this is also happening with small traditional publishers on that list but they are not admitting to the fact just setting policy in place.
Teddypig
March 21
5:37 pm
Plus anyone else notice how some people insist there is “no” recognition list but then you see things like this saying “there is” a recognition list?
What is the story on that?
J.C. Wilder
March 21
6:38 pm
National has long outlived their usefulness. I hear SO many writers say, if it weren’t for my local chapters, I’d dump RWA.
Amen
Ally Blue
March 21
6:58 pm
I’ve never even joined RWA (even though I’d qualify for PAN; the numbers add up all nice and purty). For me, it’s a lot of money for very little return. The closest local chapter to me is 2 hours drive away, too far to be useful, and I get all the support and help I need from my critique group and the best editor on the planet **waves at Sasha**. So RWA really has nothing to offer me, as far as I’ve been able to figure from all the poking around I’ve done.
That said, I do think their goal of protecting their authors is a good one. However, they are going about it the wrong way. They should definitely alert authors to known problems (Triskelion, anyone? NCP? yeah…), and they should maybe keep a running list of companies with a solid track record. BUT, they should not assume that small press (or epub, for that mattter) = bad. If they are trying to protect authors by not interviewing small presses, then they are misguided in the extreme.
Maybe an info page a la Piers Anthony? Whatever anyone might think of him personally, the idea is a pretty good one. Authors don’t need to be TOLD who they should or should not go to, but knowledge is power as they say, and information is a good thing. Just a thought.
What is the RWA? « Bitch Envy
March 21
7:20 pm
[…] RWR’s editing staff deciding that small press publishers couldn’t be interviewed and Karen did today… one commenter asked about the AQP interview that did make it last month– […]
Shiloh Walker
March 21
7:38 pm
I’m gonna add on to Rosemary’s comment there, Karen…
A number of us do have brains. Whether or not we’re outnumbered, I dunno, but we exist.
As to the deal with the RWR, unfortunately, it’s not a new story. I think it sucks.
Darlene Marshall
March 21
7:51 pm
Again, I don’t understand this article or the outrage expressed here. RWR published an extensive interview last month with the publisher of Amber Quill Press, a small, mostly e-book publisher not based in NY. Sometimes RWA doesn’t do things I approve of 100%, but they have done interviews with small press publishers in their magazine.
If this is a RWA or RWR policy change, it seems to be a very recent one, and I’d like more background on this story.
Shiloh Walker
March 21
7:57 pm
Darlene, I don’t know if it’s a recent change, but I do know for a fact this isn’t an isolated incidence. I don’t know why ‘some’ would be okay and others not, but it definitely isn’t isolated.
Darlene Marshall
March 21
8:07 pm
Shiloh–there’s a quote at my Facebook site, and it’s one of the first things I learned in journalism school many years ago: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”
So far I’ve seen evidence published in the RWR that they do interviews with small presses not based in NY, and I’ve seen one anonymous letter saying they don’t. I’m not convinced that this is an RWA or RWR policy and would like to see more evidence.
As an RWA member and someone published by a small press, it’s an issue of concern to me so I’m not trying to start a flame war, just trying to get more information.
Candice Gilmer
March 21
8:24 pm
Darlene M mentioned the Amber Quill interview, and I believe a month before that (I’ll have to check my magazines) Wild Rose Press was featured as well in an interview.
Also, they have a “first sales” list in the magazine, and MANY authors listed there are sold to publishers like Samhain, Wild Rose Press, and other e-publishers.
So I can’t help but wonder exactly what this letter is referencing. What RWR is defining as “small press.”
Bernita
March 21
8:29 pm
I dunno, this letter sounds “off” to me.
If someone were writing to apologize for reneging on an interview I’d think they’d open with that.
Shiloh Walker
March 21
8:43 pm
Sad to say, it is something I checked out. I’m also an RWA member and published by a small press, so when I heard this, I checked it out.
Nora Roberts
March 21
8:57 pm
~National has long outlived their usefulness.~
I don’t agree, at all.
I’ve seen interviews with small press authors and publishers in RWR. I’d like to get a few more details on this before I formulate an opinion.
This just sounds a little off.
If it’s not, I’d sure like to hear the reasoning, because it doesn’t seem right. If this is, indeed, RWA policy, why would the ‘reporter’ have to post anonymously?
Darlene Marshall
March 21
9:27 pm
Shiloh–I’m not trying to argue with you or be belligerent, but I’ve got evidence in B&W in the RWR that they published interviews with small presses not based in NY. I know it, because i read the interviews. I have two claims that they don’t. Based on the evidence, I have to go with what I see in the RWR unless someone can show me otherwise, by producing a “smoking gun”–a signed letter saying this is RWA policy, or times and dates of conversations with RWA officials.
That’s all. I’m still trying to check it out.
Jennifer McKenzie
March 21
11:09 pm
I’ve always thought the solution might be to have separate categories for epublished authors and print publishers. After all, the needs for both are very different. But they are both valuable to the genre.
Romance Writers of America (and I’ve said this before too) doesn’t say NY Romance Writers of America. Or Romance Writers who make this much money.
Why not allow a publisher to be recognized for a standard set of rules that are appropriate for each area?
This is a very old argument and, like Darlene, I don’t know if this is new policy or what. I’ve come to the conclusion that the RWA doesn’t know WHAT to do with us. We don’t fit the old criteria.
I do think they’re moving in the right direction. It’s just not perfect yet.
Marissa Scott
March 21
11:35 pm
Only the ones who don’t read the finer details of their contacts. The ones who do or negotiate for better are happy as can be.
CJ England
March 22
12:06 am
That’s a bit of a sweeping statement, Marissa. I’d have to respectfully disagree with you. Authors of MGP, Triskelon or Twilight to name a few houses, were shafted and it hadn’t anything to do with whether they negotiated a decent contract or not. Those publishers chose NOT to honor their word and things fell apart.
In the case of NCP and Ellen Ashe, the problem seemed to start when the publisher didn’t remove the author’s books from various sales sites in a timely fashion when the contract was terminated, saying the staff was too busy. That in itself was a violation of the contract.
So, yes, negotiating the contract is VERY important. I think most of us agree on that point, but it certainly doesn’t always keep you from getting shafted as many unfortunate authors can attest to.
Shiloh Walker
March 22
1:00 am
I understand that, Darlene, seriously.
To be clear, I’ve never really had any major problems with RWA and I do support them. Granted, I’m definitely one of the authors that get more from my local chapter than on the national level, but many of their policies, I understand. Considering the spectacular crash & burn shows we’ve seen from several epubs, I can even understand their desire to tread cautiously.
I don’t get bent out of shape every detail that some perceive as a slight against epubs and many of their stances I do agree with. I just know that the above letter isn’t the first instance such a thing happened, and this isn’t because I heard it from a publisher, but actually from somebody within RWA, somebody in a position to know.
However, I can also say this instance happened at least a year ago. Maybe policy has changed, maybe this is an old letter, I honestly can’t say, but I do believe people are wise to investigate things on their own. I rarely take anything based on one person’s opinions/comments and I don’t expect others to do so either.
I think Triskelion’s problems came about because they bit off more than they could chew, not out of any desire to screw authors over. I know some had serious problems, and may still be having them. But Triskelion at least did start out trying to treat their authors well. I know my parting with them was friendly enough, came about as a mutual decision. I got out about 8 months before they went down and I know others had different experiences, but there wasn’t an issue of not honoring their word in my case.
veinglory
March 22
4:15 am
RWA lost me at ‘hey guys, should we define romance as just between a man and a woman?’ Some of the stuff they come up with is rather more than a perceived slight. But I’ve given up blogging them at all. Cherchez le point…
kirsten saell
March 22
4:48 am
What gets me is that RWA seems to want to make epubs conform to the same standards as print, and there’s just no point in doing that. Flip the issue. What if everyone started demanding a 40% royalty from NY publishers to bring them up to the same standard as epubs? You can’t just point to a bunch of apples and say, “Be oranges, or you don’t get to hang out in our fruit bowl.”
RWA would do better to start figuring out what makes a decent orange, and then applying appropriate standards to protect their members.
I heard about a year ago that they were going to look into doing just that. Glad to see such wonderful progress has been made…
Nora Roberts
March 22
11:29 am
On the man-woman fiasco, I can tell you this was one person’s (in power) mission, not the organization. I can say that, with certainty, because I received a personal e-mail from this person when I wrote a letter protesting the idea. Her reasoning for pushing that agenda was . . . wow.
The organization dropped even the idea of pursuing that narrow and inaccurate definition–and that person is no longer in power.
Should add that my letter, along with many others objecting to the definition, was published in RWR.
Shiloh Walker
March 22
12:46 pm
But that wasn’t RWA, Emily. It was the actions of a few people trying to get others to support their ideas. Others didn’t do it. When it came to a vote, the majority of members rejected the idea.
Teddypig
March 22
1:59 pm
I can fully agree with Emily on that one Shiloh.
Should we pat the RWA on the head for rejecting prejudice in a vote or be bothered on how Hate Speech could be so allowed in forum to the point it becomes a serious vote?
Nora Roberts
March 22
2:19 pm
I wish I felt free to share the ins and out of that nasty little definition deal. Just let me say from having dealt with this person on another of her agendas, I’m fully aware how the system can be undermined and manipulated by someone with power, who finds ways to push her agenda through without full disclosure.
I was ambushed. And I fully believe in the definition business the board and the membership were ambushed also.
SHayne
March 22
4:31 pm
RWA is only relevant to those are published by NY. They are completely useless to those who are epubbed, and they chose to remain that way. It’s their organization, they can do what they want. That’s all there is to that.
And whoever is running the show at RWA can keep running it. I’m not interested in her organization no matter who publishes me.
They just need to stop claiming they are the Romance Writers of America. Clearly they are only the Romance Writers of NYC Publishing Houses.
Lauren Dane
March 22
4:55 pm
When a friend pointed me to the letter early last week my first response was, “Is that real?” Not that I don’t believe the RWA can be capable of such stuff, but because the evidence said otherwise – as others have pointed out, recent issues of the RWR with interviews featuring small presses. So when I see an anonymous letter posted originally on an anonymous blog and then I compare it to contradictory evidence in the magazine – that’s all I have to go on.
I would love it if the RWA would speak to this issue so we can know once and for all if this is a new policy or not.
RWA is a big organization made up of lots of different people. It does not always make decisions I like and I’ve frequently said so in public. Because I’m a member and frankly, the only way things will change is when members who think the way I do are vocal and pushy.
I disagree it’s only for NY published authors. Does it continually frustrate me that people with no idea of what ebpublishing is and does seem to be making decisions about it based on outdated and incomplete information? Yes.
But I’m not leaving. I am a romance writer and I am a member and I will keep pushing until the organization is more accepting at the national level.
Shiloh Walker
March 22
6:23 pm
Teddy, you’re entitled to feel however you wish on it. I just wish people would understand that the viewpoints of a few aren’t indicative of the viewpoints of all. There was a huge outcry against ‘defining’ it and most had nothing to do with any sort of speech.
I respectfully disagree, Shayne. I was epubbed long before I was pubbed in New York. I’ve been a member of RWA since 2003. Admittdly I don’t get as much out of the National level, other than the educational resources. But my local chapters? Different story. I get a huge amount from my local chapter, KYRW. They’ve been nothing but supportive and I’ve never gotten a snide remark from the group. And I couldn’t be in KYRW if I wasn’t a member of RWA.
More, if I put more into it, I’d probably get more from National.
It’s been said many a time~RWA isn’t all things to all writers, but just because it offers nothing to you doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant to other epubbed authors. It most certainly can be.
anonSmallPressPublisher
March 22
7:30 pm
I was one of those small press publishers that was “dumped” from the Editor Spotlight column. When I questioned the fact that there had been several small press publishers already interviewed I was told:
So for all of your evidence to the contrary– the letter she was forced to send dumping us from her column is VERY real and it was a decision by the RWR editoral staff.
It’s not a great situation and I actually feel for the columnist – as she is truly powerless in this situation.
Diana Castilleja
March 22
8:28 pm
I’m torn over RWA. I love the national organization idea. But you have to find the people in that organization that you’re comfortable with. It’s not going to work for some authors, regardless of how they’re published, and for others, they’ll get every chance on the planet. Does either mean it could break or make the author? No.
I’ve been with a few RWA groups, and due to finances this year, couldn’t renew on time. When I do renew, I’m going to look closer for a better suited group of people.
The opportunities that RWA and the conferences provide are only as priceless as you make them to be.
I witnessed their wake up call at RWA last year. I can’t attend this year, so I’m hoping to get a good ring side seat blow by blow replay. As for the small press/e-pub listing being dumped, it’s part of the growing pains, as they figure out how to understand, work with and hopefully support a new entity in the publishing domain. Because I do know this much. It isn’t going away.
Nora Roberts
March 22
11:24 pm
If RWA editorial made this decision, I’d sure like to hear the reasons. I can’t think of any that make real sense to me.
To the small press publisher: Why do you feel you need to post anonymously? Not being snarky, just don’t understand, as certainly nothing you said in your post was inflammatory.
Shiloh Walker
March 22
11:46 pm
Eh, I’m not the small press pub, but I’ve got an idea why. Even when nothing inflammatory is said, there are some who decide to turn calm, logical commentary into an argument. It’s probably just easier to not take that risk. Some also like to target people who try to keep their opinions calm and rational~I’ve seen such directed at you on several occasions, if I’m not mistaken.
Me, I can handle being a target, but it’s annoying as hell. I don’t blame the small press publisher for wanting to avoid that.
Nora Roberts
March 23
11:58 am
Okay, Shiloh, I get that.
And I can see how opinions on this (if it’s true) could get heated. Is it right, is it wrong and why on both ends.
It’s just hard for me to see how being clear about what happened and who it happened to would bring any flak.
If RWA decided to suspend interviews with small presses until they hash out what’s going on in that world–as with New Concepts, etc (this is the only reason I can come up with that makes any sort of sense to me) then I can sort of see the logic.
And I may take flak for having that opinion. But I don’t know that’s the reason for the decision, or even if the decision was made.
Nora Roberts
March 23
12:19 pm
~RWA would do better to start figuring out what makes a decent orange, and then applying appropriate standards to protect their members.~
I can agree with this. I also think it’s really hard to figure out those appropriate standards and protect the members. Whatever the standards are, some will be really unhappy.
RWA has set some standards for the orange. The orange has to earn 1k for a book within 18 months. Lots of people object to that. Publishers can’t charge the author–and suits are threatened over that.
I think e-press and small press are still evolving. This is a view from someone outside both. I don’t think the orange has completely decided what kind of orange it needs to be. I don’t think RWA has figured it out either.
My opinion? I think Angela James should run E-World, and head an E-Standards and Practices committee for RWA. That would solve everything!
Lauren Dane
March 23
5:11 pm
Nora, I think Angie should pretty much run everything. But don’t tell her I said so 😉
I wrote to the editor of the RWR and also to the info addy at RWA to ask for clarification. I’d love to get an answer. I’ll share whatever I hear if I hear back. I’m hoping/guessing other people have also written.
Darlene Marshall
March 23
6:36 pm
Lauren, thanks for running with this one. I’ll be interested in what you hear back from them.
Lauren Dane
March 26
12:59 am
I received a response from Kathleen Adey at RWA National today. I asked if it was true that RWR correspondents were being told they were not allowed to interview small presses so you know what she’s responding to and asked if it was a policy, etc…
She responded:
That is NOT true. I am aware that this has been circulating, and you know how quickly misinformation spreads. Unfortunately, people are eager to believe the worst. I really appreciate you checking the facts on this issue.
The contributor has been told to interview any of the publishers (large & small) on RWA’s eligible list (found on the RWA Web site). Romance books published by non-vanity/non-subsidy presses can qualify the authors for PAN and RITA entries, but eligible publishers have been in business at least three years, publish at least three romances per year, and pay small advances to authors.
So, Lauren, please feel free to set the record straight.
Kathleen
Lauren Dane
March 26
1:09 am
I tried to edit but it wouldn’t let me. Essentially I added to take from the comments what you will. There clearly are some restrictions in place and I’m not sure which epubs would qualify (Samhain pays advances but won’t be 3 years old until January)
But I don’t know about small print publishers like Medallion, etc.
Darlene Marshall
March 26
1:16 am
Lauren–thanks for going the extra yard and checking this out. I appreciate it both as an RWA member and as someone published by a small press.
Nora Roberts
March 26
1:49 pm
So then, not no small press, but no interviews–and exposure in RWR–unless the publisher has met the eligibility requirements for the organization. A writer’s organization.
I think this is not only fair but makes sense.
You may certainly disagree with the eligibility standards, but RWA is being consistent by requiring publishers to meet those standards before they get exposure in their organization’s magazine.
It’s a far, far different story than No Small Press Allowed.
Lauren Dane
March 26
3:58 pm
Nora, that’s what it looks like to me, yes.
Jackie L.
March 26
4:18 pm
Just a reader here. But, boy, I hope I am misunderstanding some of the stuff I am seeing on the net. It seems as if setting a bar that a person has to get paid $1000 for writing an ENTIRE BOOK is considered setting the bar too high. For reals?
I am not a writer (and it shows), but I have written two letters for patients that went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court for review. Both times my patients won (yay!).
I was sweating blood and tears over those letters, trying to explain to lawyers (no offense to all the lovely lawyers around here) very complex medical stuff.
One patient had lung disease that damaged her heart. The lung doctor said her lungs weren’t all that bad and if she had a good heart she’d be fine. The heart doctor said that if she had lungs her heart would be fine. The point was, she has neither. She said the judge told her my letter was the only thing he read that made sense and found in her favor that the job injury caused permanent damage to her lungs which then took out her heart.
I was told the customary fee for such a letter is $500, but I did it for free so the patient had a shot at winning her case. But it was a lot of work and very stressful for me to write that letter. (Trying to sound intelligent stresses me out.)
Are people really writing entire books for less than I could charge for a letter? Please tell me I am mistaken in what I’m reading here. If not, kudos to RWA for only recognizing presses that pay people at least gas money for the effort of writing an entire novel.
Anonymous 3.0
March 26
5:24 pm
Are people really writing entire books for less than I could charge for a letter?
Yes. A lot of epubbed authors write entire books for less than you could have charged for the opening paragraph.
Jackie L.
March 26
6:08 pm
Dang! I guess we all pay our dues when we’re young (I know I used to work 118 hours a week as an intern for less money than I made as a secretary), but at least if I kept going there was a glimpse of a future. My admiration for authors’ intestinal fortitude knows no bounds.
Jody W.
March 26
6:51 pm
From RWA’s site:
For the purposes of Romance Writers of America, “Eligible Publisher” means a romance publisher that has verified to RWA in a form acceptable to RWA, that it: (1) is not a Subsidy Publisher or Vanity Publisher; (2) has been releasing romance novels via national distribution for no fewer than three years, with no fewer than two full-length romance novels or novel-length romance anthologies published in each of three consecutive years; (3) provides advances of at least $1,000 for all books; and (4) pays all authors participating in an anthology an advance of at least $500.
(Policy & Procedure Manual, 1.15)
***
So this is definitely a policy change because Amber Quill and WRP aren’t eligible publishers for that particular list, though they’re on the NV-NS list. The minimum 1K advance knocks out most small presses and epresses.
My apologies if this posts 2x, my internet appears to be wonkified today.
Lauren Dane
March 26
8:18 pm
The thousand dollars is regarding an advance – so the phrase, “made more than” is not accurate. An advance isn’t what you earn for writing a book and ebook authors are paid monthly instead of twice a year like NY authors. I don’t think the two things can be compared actually, the royalty structure is vastly different. I sure as hell don’t make 40% of cover price on my print books, LOL!
More to the point, the RWA isn’t “protecting me” by saying Samhain doesn’t count based on a lack of an advance. I make a very nice living from my ebooks but even if I didn’t the point would be, do I know the sitation up front? Are they honest and fair in their contract? Do they pay me on time and regularly? Do my books come out when they’re supposed to where they’re supposed to?
I write for NY and for epublishers – the money may come differently but I don’t need to be protected simply because I make my royalties monthly instead of getting an advance I need to earn through. It’s different and in some cases it might be worse than, but not in every case. It’s not something I personally believe is comparable on an equal basis. The processes are on vastly different timelines for one – so while I sell a book to Samhain and I know it’ll be out in say six months, the Harlequin book I sold in November of 2006 comes out in May of this year and I won’t see any royalties until the end of this year – if the book earns through the initial advance. I’ll start receiving royalties for my March 4 Samhain release when I get my check in April.
However, when it comes down to it, the RWA has a right to make rules. I simply wish more people with actual experience in epublishing and with small presses would have been consulted before the rules were made. I believe the rules came from a place of good intentions, but I don’t think they achieve what they were meant to.