Sunday, June 26, 2005
One Thing Leads To Another
Y'all are going to have to forgive the appearance of this post, and my html struggles, (hey, I learned how to link.. give me a break!)
Okay, so from being very disturbed the past two days over the seemingly incomprehensible actions of the RWA board, some people have been kind enough to shed some light on the issue and have given me more to ponder than my gut reaction.
First off, this exceprt was posted by Carol Burnside, on Alison Kent's blog:
This was typed out from the April issue of RWR (thanks Carol). A message from the president, and gives some rationale for the current actions and direction of the board.
>>>"The situation before us is three-fold:
1. Where is the industry headed? How are publishers & readers defining romance? How will they be defining it 5 yrs fm now?
2. Where is RWA headed? Will our focus remain on romance writing, or will we segue into other genres w/o a focus on the romance? And if we are to remain w/ a focus on romance, w/the boundaries blurring, how will we define ourselves?
3. RWA needs a rangible, clearly provable, non-subjective method for determining, for application of policies, whether or not a book is a romance. Currently, this definition defines a romance as any work of fiction with ‘romance’ printed on the spine; or that is marketed as a romance (catalogued in the romance section of a nat’l distributor’s catalogue); or the publisher of which states in writing to the RWA nat’l office that the work is a romance. Does this definition still work? And will it continue to do so?"<<<
And then, over at Kate Rothwell's blog, Mary Stella makes some excellent points and takes some of the demonizing out of the actions of board. Mary Stella participated in the board for a time, and was there when they came up with the current definition of romance.
So now that you've gone and read both those posts lets have a cosy chat.
Ultimately it seems that RWA has pots of money and everyone wants to dip into the cookie jar. Decisions need to be made as to how/who gets the money. That doesn't seem at all unreasonable. However, in the very limited time I've been conncected to RWA, everything I've seen on the part of the board, and the members (myself included) is reactionary. The board reacts to a need for clear definitions and paramaters with which to work, the members react to seemingly arbitrary decisions and directions. This is what happens to any organization that doesn't have clear goals.
If you refer back to the excerpt from the RWR above, the board is trying to take steps to setting those clear goals. So that when (I'll use Mary Stella's example), The Horse-Lovers Writers want to dip into the pot, or have an equine category in the Golden Heart contest, the board can say no without getting into a costly legal wrangle defending their decision. BUT...
I do think a more open process needs to be put in place so that the membership can better see and understand the types of concerns they're [the board] having to deal with and respond to. It's all very well to say 'we've received a deluge of emails with regards to this issue or that', but we can't see that, is it a dozen emails? a hundred?. Think of it like a local school board meeting. They're public and if you have concerns you stand up publicly and announce them in front of everyone. Some might moderate their speech, some might not, but it's all out there in the open for everyone to see and mull over--to agree with or come up with a counter argument.
If Suzy Sinless had a problem with sitting beside Debra Debauchery at the book signing this would have been stated out in the open, a discussion would have ensued, legalities and rights would have been pondered and all the excellent arguments we read on the blogs would have come to light, and guess what? I bet the board would have come up with a reasonable compromise/solution.
Meeting Agendas need to be posted in advance, so that if there are items with serious concerns they can be tabled to a later date while a consultation process occurs. This is where RWA Chapters can get more involved, holding open forums for their membership to inform and discuss issues and ramifications with their members.
Maybe I'm making this too simple, or far more complicated, I don't know. I do know that if a better way of communicating whatever concerns the board are facing isn't found, the organisation as whole is doomed to repeating these ugly and embarrassing scenes.
X
Okay, so from being very disturbed the past two days over the seemingly incomprehensible actions of the RWA board, some people have been kind enough to shed some light on the issue and have given me more to ponder than my gut reaction.
First off, this exceprt was posted by Carol Burnside, on Alison Kent's blog:
This was typed out from the April issue of RWR (thanks Carol). A message from the president, and gives some rationale for the current actions and direction of the board.
>>>"The situation before us is three-fold:
1. Where is the industry headed? How are publishers & readers defining romance? How will they be defining it 5 yrs fm now?
2. Where is RWA headed? Will our focus remain on romance writing, or will we segue into other genres w/o a focus on the romance? And if we are to remain w/ a focus on romance, w/the boundaries blurring, how will we define ourselves?
3. RWA needs a rangible, clearly provable, non-subjective method for determining, for application of policies, whether or not a book is a romance. Currently, this definition defines a romance as any work of fiction with ‘romance’ printed on the spine; or that is marketed as a romance (catalogued in the romance section of a nat’l distributor’s catalogue); or the publisher of which states in writing to the RWA nat’l office that the work is a romance. Does this definition still work? And will it continue to do so?"<<<
And then, over at Kate Rothwell's blog, Mary Stella makes some excellent points and takes some of the demonizing out of the actions of board. Mary Stella participated in the board for a time, and was there when they came up with the current definition of romance.
So now that you've gone and read both those posts lets have a cosy chat.
Ultimately it seems that RWA has pots of money and everyone wants to dip into the cookie jar. Decisions need to be made as to how/who gets the money. That doesn't seem at all unreasonable. However, in the very limited time I've been conncected to RWA, everything I've seen on the part of the board, and the members (myself included) is reactionary. The board reacts to a need for clear definitions and paramaters with which to work, the members react to seemingly arbitrary decisions and directions. This is what happens to any organization that doesn't have clear goals.
If you refer back to the excerpt from the RWR above, the board is trying to take steps to setting those clear goals. So that when (I'll use Mary Stella's example), The Horse-Lovers Writers want to dip into the pot, or have an equine category in the Golden Heart contest, the board can say no without getting into a costly legal wrangle defending their decision. BUT...
I do think a more open process needs to be put in place so that the membership can better see and understand the types of concerns they're [the board] having to deal with and respond to. It's all very well to say 'we've received a deluge of emails with regards to this issue or that', but we can't see that, is it a dozen emails? a hundred?. Think of it like a local school board meeting. They're public and if you have concerns you stand up publicly and announce them in front of everyone. Some might moderate their speech, some might not, but it's all out there in the open for everyone to see and mull over--to agree with or come up with a counter argument.
If Suzy Sinless had a problem with sitting beside Debra Debauchery at the book signing this would have been stated out in the open, a discussion would have ensued, legalities and rights would have been pondered and all the excellent arguments we read on the blogs would have come to light, and guess what? I bet the board would have come up with a reasonable compromise/solution.
Meeting Agendas need to be posted in advance, so that if there are items with serious concerns they can be tabled to a later date while a consultation process occurs. This is where RWA Chapters can get more involved, holding open forums for their membership to inform and discuss issues and ramifications with their members.
Maybe I'm making this too simple, or far more complicated, I don't know. I do know that if a better way of communicating whatever concerns the board are facing isn't found, the organisation as whole is doomed to repeating these ugly and embarrassing scenes.
X
Comments:
<< Home
Umm, how is it a non-profit has loads of money? And wasn't this supposed to have been an issue of keeping non-profit status? Has the justification for creating a new definition changed? Is that today's story or was the non-profit angle incorrect?
And they've picked the most exclusionary language possible, quite similar to the political laws defining marriage in order to 'preserve its sanctity', to start their exploration of the future of the RWA? An exclusionary definition that flies in the face of the huge erotica boom, yet they say they want to know where romance is going? It doesn't add up.
Sorry, still not buying what they're selling. I still feel as if they're peeing on our legs and calling it 'rain'.
M
And they've picked the most exclusionary language possible, quite similar to the political laws defining marriage in order to 'preserve its sanctity', to start their exploration of the future of the RWA? An exclusionary definition that flies in the face of the huge erotica boom, yet they say they want to know where romance is going? It doesn't add up.
Sorry, still not buying what they're selling. I still feel as if they're peeing on our legs and calling it 'rain'.
M
Hi Michelle,
Sheer force of numbers makes RWA one of the largest and richest writing organisations. I can think of at least two souces of income: membership dues, and selling advertising in RWR (the organisations monthly magazine). I doubt the money gained by advertising covers the cost of prublication, but regardless, whatever funds RWA has at its disposal it uses to promote, and offer programs for, Romance writers.
I'm not entirely sure what the legal reasons are. Whether it is keeping it's non profit status, or complying with the requirements of being a non-profit organisation.
But let me play devil's advocate for a moment, because this is where I think it get's murky for people. RWA exists to promote and assist ROMANCE writers, yet I've heard many times over members claim they don't write romance. They joined RWA because they wanted access to the resources available to members.
Now for arguments sake, lets say over a period of time mystery writers make up 10% of the membership. They are now a substantial and powerful force within the association. They are unhappy that RWA is not meeting their special needs, they're unhappy with the name of the Ritas and the Golden Heart contest, and the fact that they can't participate in the categories. Does the organisation change its core mandate (that of advocating romance writers), or does it accede to its due paying members and expand its mandate to now cover mystery writers.
A silly example? well in a way it's already happened. RWA's previous definition states (and I'm paraphrasing) a story that has a love story at its core and an emotionally satisfying end. Seems a pretty basic definition, no? covers all sorts of bases including erotica and gay. Except it excluded Chick lit writers ( a huge percentage of the membership), whose stories may not have a love story, nor an emotionally satisfying ending.
So does the organisation twist and turn itself to satisfy every special interest of its membership, or does it clearly define what its mandate is?
Having said all that, I'm not sure I'm buying what they're selling either, and I'm appalled at their lack of communications skills. The manner in which information trickles down to the masses promotes conspiracy theories. But at least now I have lots of different points of view with which to base my decisions on.
X
Sheer force of numbers makes RWA one of the largest and richest writing organisations. I can think of at least two souces of income: membership dues, and selling advertising in RWR (the organisations monthly magazine). I doubt the money gained by advertising covers the cost of prublication, but regardless, whatever funds RWA has at its disposal it uses to promote, and offer programs for, Romance writers.
I'm not entirely sure what the legal reasons are. Whether it is keeping it's non profit status, or complying with the requirements of being a non-profit organisation.
But let me play devil's advocate for a moment, because this is where I think it get's murky for people. RWA exists to promote and assist ROMANCE writers, yet I've heard many times over members claim they don't write romance. They joined RWA because they wanted access to the resources available to members.
Now for arguments sake, lets say over a period of time mystery writers make up 10% of the membership. They are now a substantial and powerful force within the association. They are unhappy that RWA is not meeting their special needs, they're unhappy with the name of the Ritas and the Golden Heart contest, and the fact that they can't participate in the categories. Does the organisation change its core mandate (that of advocating romance writers), or does it accede to its due paying members and expand its mandate to now cover mystery writers.
A silly example? well in a way it's already happened. RWA's previous definition states (and I'm paraphrasing) a story that has a love story at its core and an emotionally satisfying end. Seems a pretty basic definition, no? covers all sorts of bases including erotica and gay. Except it excluded Chick lit writers ( a huge percentage of the membership), whose stories may not have a love story, nor an emotionally satisfying ending.
So does the organisation twist and turn itself to satisfy every special interest of its membership, or does it clearly define what its mandate is?
Having said all that, I'm not sure I'm buying what they're selling either, and I'm appalled at their lack of communications skills. The manner in which information trickles down to the masses promotes conspiracy theories. But at least now I have lots of different points of view with which to base my decisions on.
X
"Suzy Sinless had a problem with sitting beside Debra Debauchery at the book signing this would have been stated out in the open, a discussion would have ensued, legalities and rights would have been pondered and all the excellent arguments we read on the blogs would have come to light, and guess what? I bet the board would have come up with a reasonable compromise/solution."
I don't think this is the case at all. . . I write inspies and know many other inspie authors, and never once has any of us had a problem signing books next to authors of steamier work. I think it's easy to assume Christian authors are putting up a stink about covers and content, but I am totally against the RWA's actions and really doubt any of this was initiated by the inspirational authors. I was Secretary of the RWA's inspy chapter in 2004 and nothing even resembling these topics came up.
I believe the problems arose when an RWA recognized publisher began making their presence known, and the board began to take notice.
I don't think this is the case at all. . . I write inspies and know many other inspie authors, and never once has any of us had a problem signing books next to authors of steamier work. I think it's easy to assume Christian authors are putting up a stink about covers and content, but I am totally against the RWA's actions and really doubt any of this was initiated by the inspirational authors. I was Secretary of the RWA's inspy chapter in 2004 and nothing even resembling these topics came up.
I believe the problems arose when an RWA recognized publisher began making their presence known, and the board began to take notice.
Sorry Robin,
You know I hesitated to use that example (because I was fairly certain that ISN'T where the push came from) but I was in a hurry and it was the fastest thing that came to mind to illustrate my point.
In all my hunting for information I have to admit not a single inspirational writer's blog voiced ANY deragoatory comments toward erotica writers. If anything they were outraged and sympathetic at what was happening. (perhaps due to their own struggles to be recognised by RWA)
And thanks to both you, and Michelle for participating in the discussion.
Post a Comment
You know I hesitated to use that example (because I was fairly certain that ISN'T where the push came from) but I was in a hurry and it was the fastest thing that came to mind to illustrate my point.
In all my hunting for information I have to admit not a single inspirational writer's blog voiced ANY deragoatory comments toward erotica writers. If anything they were outraged and sympathetic at what was happening. (perhaps due to their own struggles to be recognised by RWA)
And thanks to both you, and Michelle for participating in the discussion.
<< Home
