When I first started to take my writing seriously, my main goal was to achieve RWA recognition. I wanted the organization to recognize me as a writer. Why was this so important? In retrospect, I don’t know. I suppose it was a way for me to measure my skills. At least that’s what I used to believe. Not so sure anymore.
In my last blog, I discussed the RWA (Romance Writer’s of America) and PAN (Published Author’s Network). This latest blog entry is not a bash on those organizations, but I do question the RWA’s latest actions. More information about publisher recognition just came out. These new ‘rules’ will go into effect in June. Brace yourselves boys and girls, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
RWA plans to change the recognition rules for small publishers. (READ: e-publishers) As of June, those who use POD (print on demand) to produce their books rather than standard printers will have to sell 5000 copies of one book in a year to qualify for recognition. POD is cheaper for small publishers to use and is one of the few ways they can compete with the big dogs. I know that number doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is for most small publishing houses.
Publishers who already qualified for RWA recognition/approval are being asked to present evidence to keep their ‘approval’. (ie ImaJinn, Ellora’s Cave, probably Red Sage to name a few.) Can you see a pattern? If you can’t see it, I’m sure you can smell it. 
Hmm…I wonder if they sent a letter to Harlequin? (snicker)
Right about now, you may be asking yourself ‘What’s the big deal’? Well, here’s the problem. There aren’t many small publishers out there who can sell 5000 copies of a single title book in one year. Because of this tiny technicality, most publishers will be removed from the ‘Approval/Recognized’ list. Fingers crossed Ellora’s Cave isn’t one of them, although I’m sure that the PTB would like nothing more than to do so.
With the new guidelines, small publishers probably won’t EVER see RWA approval again. This isn’t good because most small publishers take chances on wonderfully imaginative stories the NY publishers would never touch. To make the situation even stranger, publishers who use standard printers will only have to sell 1500 copies of a single book in a year to be recognized. Hmm… Does this strike anyone else as odd? Unfair? Strange?
I’m all for the RWA looking out for the authors so they don’t sign horrible contracts or work for free, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about singling out a group (IMO a very LARGE group) of authors who’ve chosen to take a different path to reach publication. I guess I just can’t see how this is helping me. Seriously, I’d love to hear your opinions. Maybe, I’m completely off base.
May 18th, 2005
I’ve been hearing rumblings about this, and I’m sorry to see it’s going to happen. Part of me has to wonder if this isn’t the result of things such as the controversy-inspiring letter published in the last RWR.
There are going to be a lot of hurt feelings out there, and a lot of dust is going to fly before it finally settles. I think it’s sad.
by Lynn May 18th, 2005 at 5:49 pmYou know, as someone who has nothing invested in this since I’m “only” a reader, it has seemed to me lately as though RWA has been making an effort to alienate authors and publishers. I would be interested to hear their rationale for the disparity in numbers between POD and those who use standard printers. Rather elitist of them, isn’t it?
by AngieW May 18th, 2005 at 6:52 pmLynn, I worry about the aftermath. It was bad the last time with PAN members getting kicked out. They’ve changed that so if your publisher is removed from the ‘recognized’ list that the author can still remain in PAN. I just don’t know how much that’s going to matter to the individual authors. It is sad.
by Jordan Summers May 18th, 2005 at 6:54 pmAnd all this time I thought the point of publisher recognition status was to set a standard across the board. 1,500 copies sold in a year from Publisher A vs. 5,000 copies in a year from Publisher B is not setting a standard. It’s changing the rules to suit somebody’s whim.
I’m out of the loop because my RWA membership lapsed and I didn’t renew it yet. Maybe I won’t bother. The organization is plagued with problems and this non-level playing field is not going to help.
by Charlene May 18th, 2005 at 8:03 pm‘Only a Reader’…LOL! Okay Angie, I’ll bite.;-) I think the alienation has been going on for a while now. It’s just more apparent than it used to be. I doubt we’ll receive the reasons behind the decisions, but it certainly is something. I’ll refrain from saying what. (evil grin)
by Jordan May 18th, 2005 at 8:04 pmCharlene, I hear you, but you’ll have to define standard, since no one else is. LOL! I think the playing field is the problem. No one cares what it is as long as it’s the same across the board for everyone. I think I’m going to check out NINC. Like I said earlier, I’m going to give RWA one more year to see if things straighten out, if not, then I’m outta there. I’ll definitely miss my local chapter meetings. They’re the main reason I stick around.
by Jordan May 18th, 2005 at 8:07 pmOkay, I’m not a member of RWA (just never been a ‘joiner’–but I’ll just come out & say what I think.
I think this all sucks the big one.
To deliberately favor one group over another for no logical reason has a name, oh ye who deal with words for a living. It’s called ‘discrimination’. And it’s an ugly word.
It’s usually the result of fear. And obviously these people are afraid. Are the e-sales that intimidating? Whose standards are you upholding if it’s 1500 for the folks in this corner, and 5000 for the others?
As a friend & I were discussing the other day—aren’t many of these people the ones who were irate 25 years or so ago at the idea of their fine writing being called ‘bodice rippers’? Such a gross generalization, so unfair, they were being persecuted, and…and…
HELL-OOOOO????????
(oops…where’d that soapbox come from?!! Dream, quietly stepping aside…)
~Dreamweaver
by Dreamweaver May 18th, 2005 at 10:07 pm**stepping on Dream’s soapbox*
I have to admit, I’m very disappointed in RWA. This is an organization that SAYS it’s there to help new writer on their path to publication. Yet, they’re changing things up so that the new and talented voices out there feel as if they are LESS because they don’t publish with a “recognized” publisher.
Industry professionals say it’s harder now to get published in any genrte, and instead of supporting new and talented writer, like it SAYS it does, RWA is making it harder.
I’ve been at this for only 3 years, and I’ve published with 5 different publishers, and NONE of them are RWA recognized. You know what? I’m past the point of caring. I will not join RWA when my membership runs out, no matter who my publisher is.
They are not holding up their part of the bargain, if they are content with the authors they have in their stable, and they obviously don’t need or want new authors, or maybe it’s just “our Kind”…why do we need them?
**climbing off soapbox**
by Sasha May 18th, 2005 at 10:54 pmSpeaking as an outsider ie. a non RWA member and a Brit to boot, these latest moves by the RWA just scream discrimination. And to have two different sets of sales figure requirements for the two different types of printing is just grossly unfair! Over here in the UK, our Romantic Novelists’ Association is much more welcoming and inclusive, and the work of writers with smaller presses is valued as much of that of writers who’re with the big boys!
At one time I was considering joining the RWA, but I’m thinking it’s probably not worth it now.
by Wendywoo May 19th, 2005 at 2:54 amThanks for the kind words, Jordan.
This issue was the main reason I left RWA, back when it first flared up. Although I was published by an “approved” major house, I saw no reason to discriminate against small presses and e-book publishers, who were just coming out of the starting gate in that time. This was not vanity publishing, this was new ground, and they desperately needed RWA support. Which they didn’t get.
I saw both sides get very ugly on this issue, to the point of destroying long-term friendships, writers filing lawsuits and RWA gleefully trashing new writers and their careers before they could get off the ground. All for the sake of who’s a “real” writer and who’s not, which is ridiculous. We’re all writers, for God’s sake. We’re all trying to make it work.
I expect that because more romance writers than ever are pursuing non-traditional avenues, and the few, the proud and the snotty are determined to use this as an excuse to segregate them that it’s going to turn into a war zone this time.
Keep your heads down, ladies, and watch your backs.
by PBW May 19th, 2005 at 6:22 amI’d be curious to know what the RWA’s justification for this is. How do they think this will benefit members? Have these questions been answered?
by Larissa May 19th, 2005 at 6:35 amYep NINC. You and me both. I’m so sick of the bickering. I know we have a new board and once it switches, things will change, but that doesn’t mean it’ll change for the better.
by Sylvia Day May 19th, 2005 at 8:05 amWell if I could sell 5000 copies of a POD book, I’m thinking that I wouldn’t need RWA at all! I’d be doing just fine on my own.
by Emily May 19th, 2005 at 8:27 amI got invited to join NINC before Christmas. (I met Lillian Stewart Carl on a board we both belong to, and when I announced I’d sold to EC she emailed me off the board.) Haven’t done it yet, but I’m planning to. Was actually planning to go that route before the whole brouhaha started up with RWA, because the focus makes more sense to me. Instead of wasting time arguing about the definition of your genre, just embrace people who PUBLISH. I can’t say that everything I ever write will be romance, so it makes more sense for me to be in a broader group.
by Charlene May 19th, 2005 at 8:30 amI think if RWA makes one publisher have to prove they’re making the sales, they should require all publishers to. It’s sheer discrimination otherwise. And don’t worry about EC. They’re doing quite well at selling over 5000 copies of a single title in paperback in a year.
by Cheyenne McCray May 19th, 2005 at 8:43 amI read the messages on the last post before reading this. What a bunch of scared little sheep (to borrow PBW analogy). How sad. I’m really going to miss the friends I made in my local chapter.
by Cece May 19th, 2005 at 9:48 amI think it sucks, Jordan.
by Trace May 19th, 2005 at 1:40 pmDream & Wendy, I’d tend to agree with you guys about the discrimination call. It’s disguised, but it’s there. :-/
by Jordan May 19th, 2005 at 3:28 pmPBW, ‘The proud and the snotty’. LOL! I was there for the last round of uglies. I remember the screaming matches in local meetings. People quit. Like you said, friendships were lost. This one is going to be worse, unless they head it off. I’m giving the organization one more year, but I am also going to join NINC. All this infighting is making me crazy.
by Jordan May 19th, 2005 at 3:32 pmCharlene, That’s wonderful about the invite to NINC. I’m kind of in the same boat. I have some things I’m working on now that definitely don’t fit in the neat package of romance.
by Jordan May 19th, 2005 at 3:34 pmChey, I figured that was the case with EC.
I simply want a level playing field too.
by Jordan May 19th, 2005 at 3:34 pmCece, My local chapters are the main reason I’ve stayed in the organization for so long. I love them. The only reason I go to National is to see my friends.
by Jordan May 19th, 2005 at 3:35 pmTrace, You’re absolutely correct. It does suck.
by Jordan May 19th, 2005 at 3:36 pm