RWA's at it Again

Jersey Chick · Nov 2, 2008

It's that time for entering the Golden Heart or the RITA contests.

Oh, but wait, if you're published by an epress or a small press, you can pretty much forget it. RWA changed the rules (can you hear my gasp of surprise here?) so if you are published, you can only enter if your book is mass produced. I've heard the print run has to be 500 books. I've heard the print run has to be 5,000 books. Don't bother looking at the official RWA RITA rules, because there is no definition of "mass produced."

AFAIK, this is a new rule. Used to be that, in order to be eiligible, your book had to be published by an RWA-approved publisher.

Okay - so I'm not published quite enough to enter the RITA. Annoying, but I guess I can enter the Golden Heart then, right?

WRONG!

I'm contracted with two publishers on RWA's Non-Vanity, Non-Subsidy list. That renders me ineligible for the Golden Heart.

I'm too published for that. Not enough for the RITA, too much for the GH.

Tell me again RWA isn't doing their damndest to make sure e-and-small-press pubbed authors aren't able to reach the same level as print pubbed authors?

So far, I know one of my publisher's higher-ups is trying to get an answer, but I imagine the RWA people are falling all over themselves trying to come up with a good "reason" as to why they are screwing over their e-and-small-press pubbed authors, again. I can't wait to see their reason for this.

Anyone else irked over this?

Erin · Nov 2, 2008

I'm irked. I really wanted to enter the GH with my non-pubbed book, but I can't because I have non-qualifying published eBook. Makes your head spin.

Susan Gable · Nov 2, 2008

Jersey Chick said:
Oh, but wait, if you're published by an epress or a small press, you can pretty much forget it. RWA changed the rules (can you hear my gasp of surprise here?) so if you are published, you can only enter if your book is mass produced. I've heard the print run has to be 500 books. I've heard the print run has to be 5,000 books. Don't bother looking at the official RWA RITA rules, because there is no definition of "mass produced."

?

Here's my GUESS as to an interpretation of this - they're trying to prevent people from entering POD books in the Rita. So you've actually got to have a "print run" in order to qualify. (example - 2 Publish America copies does not a Rita entry make. <G>)

Personally, I think they just made a bigger mess of ALL OF THIS stuff by getting rid of the "RWA Approved Publisher" list. That made life easier.

All they've done now is muddy the waters.

Jersey, I hope you get some straight answers. All RWA members should be eligible to enter ONE or the OTHER as far as I'm concerned.

It's like being " a little bit pregnant." You either are, or you're not. And clear signs (+/- <G>) make life much easier. So you either ARE published, or you're not. If you ARE, you get to enter Rita. If you're NOT, you get to enter GH. See how easy that is? <G>

Sending {{{HUGS}}}, chocolate, and COOKIES. <G> (Or whatever your treat of choice is. <G>)

Susan G.

Jersey Chick · Nov 2, 2008

I can understand the no POD in terms of PA or Lulu, etc. - but they would fall under the vanity press definition, and wouldn't be eligible anyhow. It's been few years since I looked at the RITA eligiblity rules (I was hoping to enter my Samhain book next year, and only found out about this new change on one of my publishers' loops), but as far as I know, both my Wild Rose book and my Samhain book would have been eligible.

I am just looking forward to seeing how they explain this one away. Maybe they need to just go back to the old Approved Publisher list.

Thanks for the hugs and chocolate -

Deb Kinnard · Nov 2, 2008

IMO they've now turned themselves both upside down and inside out trying to ensure that e-pubbed and small press titles aren't allowed to compete with the Big Boys. If a level playing field was truly what irked them, these biases would've gone out a long time ago.

If we get royalty checks, and don't give our small presses or e-presses a dime to publish the book, why can't we play in the sandbox? A couple years ago they went so far as to classify all small presses as "vanity." How much more convoluted can this mess get?

The year they decided I was vanity pubbed, I dropped my membership. I won't be picking it up again 'til I qualify as published...this hopefully will be with pubbed book #6 or #7...

So be it.

Mr Flibble · Nov 2, 2008

If only my book was getting pubbed in the UK first I could go for the RNA - as long as you aren't vanity / self pubbed you can enter

Hmm must try that next time...

job · Nov 2, 2008

Jersey Chick said:
if you're published by an epress or a small press, you can pretty much forget it.

The RITA requires eligible books 'be mass-produced by a non-Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher in print book format.'

It's a print book contest, just as some other contests -- PRISM and the EPPIE, for instance -- are e-press contests.

So far, these RITA requirements seem to represent the consensus of the RWA membership.
If you disagree with the eligibility parameters or you believe they do not represent the majority view, one way to change things is to make your voice heard.

-- Put a letter in RWR.

-- Get directly in touch with your Regional Director. If you're not sure who this is, just p-mail me your state and I'll give you the name and e-mail.

-- Present your arguments to your local Chapter.

A possible solution, ISTM, would be to open a category of RITA specifically for e-pubbed books.

Jersey Chick said:
I'm contracted with two publishers on RWA's Non-Vanity, Non-Subsidy list. That renders me ineligible for the Golden Heart.

This is unfair. I'm not sure how to fix this problem, either.

One possibility would be to leave the Golden Heart contest open to all e-published authors who are not elgible for PAN.

Another solution, as I said above, would be to open a specific category of the RITA for e-books.

Jersey Chick said:
Tell me again RWA isn't doing their damndest to make sure e-and-small-press pubbed authors aren't able to reach the same level as print pubbed authors?

I see this, not as animus toward authors or a method of publication, but as the recognition that most e-pubbed books do not go through a rigorous selection process and do not make significant money.

Until e-pubbed authors themselves draw distinction between e-books pubbed by well-run commercial houses and those posted on the net by 'Fanfics R US', the e-book situation will remained ambiguous.

I suggest the formation of a professional e-pub writers organization -- one that requires substantial income from e-publication for admission.

Jersey Chick said:
I imagine the RWA people are falling all over themselves trying to come up with a good "reason" as to why they are screwing over their e-and-small-press pubbed authors, again.

The person who is managing the RITA this year is Carol Ritter.

If she is falling all over herself to screw you, you should identify her by name. I've found her helpful and reasonable, but our mileage may vary.

Cathy C · Nov 2, 2008

This seems waay too confusing to have been intentional (although there are quite a few lawyers in RWA.

) I hope it works out for you, Jersey, because as the others have said, that ain't right.

In other RWA news, for those of you who are members, what did you think of the President's Message this month? I keep hoping I read it wrong and it's truly meant as a way to be inclusive, not just a pat on the head of the small press authors. Sigh...

Mr Flibble · Nov 2, 2008

The RITA requires eligible books 'be mass-produced by a non-Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher in print book format.'

It's a print book contest, just as some other contests -- PRISM and the EPPIE, for instance -- are e-press contests.

But Samhain does print books. Yet Jersey still can't enter ( we think - still getting the info I think) because the print runs aren't large enough. So it isn't just e-books, but small print publisher's authors who are falling through the cracks.

It does seem rather silly that you can't enter one or the other, when one is for published authors and one isn't. You either are, or you're not. How hard is that?

Jersey Chick · Nov 2, 2008

job said:
The RITA requires eligible books 'be mass-produced by a non-Subsidy, non-Vanity Publisher in print book format.'

I know this. And I am talking about a release in print format

It's a print book contest, just as some other contests -- PRISM and the EPPIE, for instance -- are e-press contests.

see above response.

So far, these RITA requirements seem to represent the consensus of the RWA membership.
If you disagree with the eligibility parameters or you believe they do not represent the majority view, one way to change things is to make your voice heard.

-- Put a letter in RWR.

-- Get directly in touch with your Regional Director. If you're not sure who this is, just p-mail me your state and I'll give you the name and e-mail.

-- Present your arguments to your local Chapter.

I just recently found out about these new rules - as in like 2 days ago. And only because someone else brought it up. As I said in my OP, I wasn't looking to enter this year. But guess I won't be eligible to enter next year with my print book.

A possible solution, ISTM, would be to open a category of RITA specifically for e-pubbed books.

maybe, but I'm not referring to epublished books, as I said in my OP.

This is unfair. I'm not sure how to fix this problem, either.

One possibility would be to leave the Golden Heart contest open to all e-published authors who are not elgible for PAN.

Or just go back to their original Approved Publisher list - would make it easier right across the board.

Another solution, as I said above, would be to open a specific category of the RITA for e-books.

Again, I was not talking about ebooks. I am talking about print books.

I see this, not as animus toward authors or a method of publication, but as the recognition that most e-pubbed books do not go through a rigorous selection process and do not make significant money.

Again, you're misinformed over what my problem with this new rule is - it has nothing to do with entering ebooks. Unless your publisher mass produces your print copies (and again, no one seems to know what the qualifying number is - some have heard 500, some have heard 5000) - you aren't eligible.

Until e-pubbed authors themselves draw distinction between e-books pubbed by well-run commercial houses and those posted on the net by 'Fanfics R US', the e-book situation will remained ambiguous.

I think it's funny that Samhain had drawn a distinction - only to have that distinction yanked right out from under them. And it doesn't help that our own organization doesn't seem to be all that concerned with heping us, either. But that's all another topic since, as I said, my OP had nothing to do with ebooks.

I suggest the formation of a professional e-pub writers organization -- one that requires substantial income from e-publication for admission.

**sigh**

The person who is managing the RITA this year is Carol Ritter.

If she is falling all over herself to screw you, you should identify her by name. I've found her helpful and reasonable, but our mileage may vary.

A - I don't name names until I'm sure, and since I'm not the one contacting her, why would I do that? But, the person I know who did contact her, is still waiting for an answer. And the falling all over themselves was directed at what backpedaling they'll do this time.

I'm sure you don't see it as being screwed over - but then I wouldn't expect you to - in fact, I fully expected the RWA is right and you are wrong answer.

If you think there isn't a problem with the fact that now a small press has to mass produce a print run of possibly 5000 in order to qualify for the RITA, well... I don't know what to say to that. I guess it doesn't matter if it doesn't affect you, huh?

job · Nov 2, 2008

IdiotsRUs said:
But Samhain does print books. Yet Jersey still can't enter ( we think - still getting the info I think) because the print runs aren't large enough. So it isn't just e-books, but small print publisher's authors who are falling through the cracks.

Yep. Talking print books, RWA'll have to make a distinction between POD, which might have a very small print run of just a few books, and commercial print publication that is 'mass-produced'.

If I were doing the computation I'd put minimum commercial 'mass print runs' at 3000-5000 copies. That's author royalties approaching $1000.

veinglory · Nov 2, 2008

How says it represents a consent of the members (let alone of those potential membership)? There wasn't exactly a public vote to deliberately exclude e-POD writers from both the Golden Rose and the RITA.

veinglory · Nov 2, 2008

My royalties from ebooks get to $1000 well before 2000 copies (in specific practise, not just theory). If money is the criterion, why not just use money as the criterion? Format and run versus on demand has only the sketchiest connection to that issue.

Mr Flibble · Nov 2, 2008

If I were doing the computation I'd put minimum commercial 'mass print runs' at 3000-5000 copies. That's author royalties approaching $1000.

If I were doing the comp I'd say if you weren't eligible for RITA you are automatically eligible for Golden Heart.

Because if you're not published, you must be unpublished right?

job · Nov 2, 2008

Jersey Chick said:
I know this. And I am talking about a release in print format?

Oh yes. That's clear.
RITA eligibilty, of course, does not rest upon 'in print format', but upon 'mass-market publication in print.'

The numbers that mean 'mass market' should be spelled out. Definitely.

.
Leaving your own case aside ...

I'd like to see RITA for the e-pubbed.
Or something.
Separating it out would be a bad precedent and will come back to bite us and there are already at least two prestigious e-pub contests out there.
But I'm not coming up with any good ideas.

Maybe ... when an e-pub book fulfills PAN-eligibity requirements, it can be entered in the RITA that year?
I don't know.

It is a great unfairness that a publication not eligible for RITA can nontheless be disqualifying for the Golden Heart.
We don't want Golden Heart folks competing with published authors, but ...

there has to be a way to handle this.

Jersey Chick said:
If you think there isn't a problem with the fact that now a small press has to mass produce a print run of possibly 5000 in order to qualify for the RITA, well... I don't know what to say to that. I guess it doesn't matter if it doesn't affect you, huh?

So long as the RITA is defined as a 'mass-market' and 'in print' contest, the 3000 to 5000 paperback print copies doesn't seem excessive.
(That's going to end up as royalties of maybe $1000 to $1500 for the book --exclusive of secondary rights)

Small presses are wonderful. But presses with print runs that cannot support at leaast $1000 in royalties for a full-length novel are not commercial venues for a professional writer.

RWA is an organization chartered to advance commercial publication opportunities for its members. RWA's legitimate interest is in profitable markets for Romance fiction.

In terms of saying this doesn't matter to me if it doesn't affect me ...

I'm a fairly benevolent soul, and perfectly capable of trying to make stuff better even when I get no benefit from it myself.

But I don't think it does RWA members any particular favor to lower standards for the contests or pretend 600 is a commercial, 'mass-market' print run.

job · Nov 2, 2008

IdiotsRUs said:
If I were doing the comp I'd say if you weren't eligible for RITA you are automatically eligible for Golden Heart.

Because if you're not published, you must be unpublished right?

... and that sounds like a comprehensive, sensible and simple way to go about it.

But it pits the (unpublished) Golden Heart contestants against experienced (and very profitably published) e-writers who are not RITA eligible.

The answer might be to make those accomplished and profitable e-writers RITA eligible ...

job · Nov 2, 2008

veinglory said:
My royalties from ebooks get to $1000 well before 2000 copies (in specific practise, not just theory). If money is the criterion, why not just use money as the criterion? Format and run versus on demand has only the sketchiest connection to that issue.

But you have no returns on your e-books. Most of a dead-tree print run that gets mass-market distribution in the old brick-and-mort will be 'returns'.

With dead trees you need, oh, maybe twice the print run to earn the same royalty. And 50% returns is doing well.
And ... frankly ... your royalties are likely to be a higher percentage of cover price than anybody doing print.

.
The problem with 'money' as the entry criterion is that money comes back at different rates. The advance on a print-book might be fairly immediate. The earn-out on an e-book could take years.

Right now the RITA uses copyright year. Every book is looked at by judges who are thinking '2008' when they
pick up the book.

If books get held till they earn ... say ... $1000,
not only will RWA need an extra step to confirm the money of 12000 entries
(I do not envy them figuring out my royalty statements.)
but some books are going to be three or four years 'stale' before they enter the contest.

For the 2013 RITA, will the oh-so-passe 2009 living gargoyles compete with the trendy velvet androids that are filling the market in 2012?
Maybe. Maybe not.

.
But all this is just saying what I think wouldn't work so well, not coming up with a better idea.

Jersey Chick · Nov 2, 2008

But AFAIK, this is a new standard. Again with the new standards. For the record, I have no problem with standards. I think they should be in place and they should be something worth attaining. But, to say that a book that is given a run of 5k must be of better quality is just ludicrous. And also, I can't say for certain that the number even is 5k, because there are conflicting reports of that as well.

So, if the number is 500 - which is nothing to NY publishers, how can that be "raising the standard"?

It bothers me on behalf of my fellow Samhellions, who were eligible up until now. It doesn't affect me one way or the other, but from what I've seen, I'm certainly not the only one who once again feels slapped down by the very organization that is supposed to promote romances and their authors - both published and unpublished.

I don't know how it was decided - I don't recall receiving anything in regards to a vote, but maybe I did and maybe I tossed it or deleted it. And if I did, that would be my own fault. But again, from what I've seen, it was kind of a blindside (maybe not the most appropriate word, but I can't really think of a word that would fit.)

And as for small presses not being viable means for a professional writing career, let me just pose this - say I write a book and Avon publishes it. It shoots to the top of every bestseller list in the world, and there are thousands of copies in print. And what if I never sell another book? How does that make me more of a professional than if I have a book a year with a small press?

So, if being professional is a criteria, then perhaps RWA needs to go the way of the SFWA, and not allow unpublished authors to join? I don't know. And I don't know I'd have a problem if they were more upfront about it. Take a vote. Fine. I might not like it, but at least it wouldn't feel like they were trying be underhanded about it. Maybe RWA just seems to really mishandle PR when it comes to stuff like this - I can't answer that.

Karen Duvall · Nov 2, 2008

I have a theory that a part of the reason behind the descrimination against POD printed books is that the RITAs would get swamped with entries. The Wild Rose Press, which is my publisher as well, has over 500 authors. I'm not saying everyone would enter their books, but even if 10% entered, that would be a lot of books someone would have to judge. I imagine volunteer judges for the RITA aren't all that easy to come by. Anyway, it's just a theory.

As far as the Golden Heart contest goes, it's truly unfair to bar ebook authors from entering if they can't enter the RITA. I've never done the GH and have no interest in it, but I know of a lot of writers who love entering this contest every year. How sad to take it away from them just because they're epubbed.

veinglory · Nov 2, 2008

Whatever system they use should allow any imterested member to enter one or the other. Beyond that I don't really care how it is divided. The reality is that 'being published' is now (and to some extent always has been) a range not a dichotomy.

The way ebook makes me money and why strikes me as beside the point. However it does strike me as odd that my $1000 in book royalties is worth less in RWA eyes than someone who earns the same amount (or less) by another publishing method.

job · Nov 2, 2008

veinglory said:
How says it represents a consent of the members (let alone of those potential membership)? There wasn't exactly a public vote to deliberately exclude e-POD writers from both the Golden Rose and the RITA.

RWA, like most large organizations, is a representative body. That means you elect Board Members and District Representatives and then make their lives hell by complaining about what they do.

Some stuff gets voted on by the membership as a whole, some doesn't. Mostly the beast that is RWA lurches along between the buffets of incompetence, custom and compromise.

And RWA has done some extremely unpopular stuff. The members have to rein the Board in from time to time. No rotten tomatoes thrown, but it's been close.

If you have a sense that the RWA membership as a whole wants e-POD (what is e-POD?) treated differently, e-mail your District Representative and start getting on her case.
There will certainly be no vote on it if you don't speak up.
Be the change you want to see in the world.

.
As to potential members ...

Just as the Great State of Virginia doesn't have to worry about the opinions of the Family MacReady in Austin, Texas because MacReady might move to Richmond next year ...

anybody who wants a voice in RWA policy should
(a) join and
(b) express their opinion to their elected representatives and
(c) vote.

Jersey Chick · Nov 2, 2008

That only works if you are actually asked to vote on something. Did something go around regarding the new rules and I missed it?

job · Nov 2, 2008

veinglory said:
Whatever system they use should allow any imterested member to enter one or the other..

That seems only fair.
I hope they can come up with a way to manage this.

veinglory said:
The reality is that 'being published' is now (and to some extent always has been) a range not a dichotomy.

You are so correct.

And thus the clumsy compromises and heming and hawing that alternately frustrates and bores thos who must make rules covering this.

veinglory said:
The way ebook makes me money and why strikes me as beside the point. .

It is indeed. I was just discoursing. Didn't mean to bend your ear with stuff that's obvious and familiar to you.

veinglory said:
However it does strike me as odd that my $1000 in book royalties is worth less in RWA eyes than someone who earns the same amount (or less) by another publishing method.

Hmmm ....
in truth, I can't speak to that exactly.

But I do think there's an assumption on the part of a lot of people,
that many writers e-publish and then make very little money from it.

RWA is about folks making money writing, so they tend to look askance at markets that don't seem to be profitable.

veinglory · Nov 2, 2008

Exactly. It seems to me that each of these things (the cover decency rules, the 'what is romance' vote, the defintion of vanity) spring from nowhere--then there is the reaction, then it gets rejigged.

Each time this ws represented as being what the members wanted, but y'know it actually wasn't.

As it happens I gave up being a member because I was tired of having such opinions repesented as something I had anything whatsoever to do with. But RWA positions still get represented as an 'industry standard' whether one is a member or not. So yes, I will complain even though I am not paying for the privilege.

My opinion is based on a lot of information not a guess. They look askance at (i.e. define as vanity, define as not a publisher in term of their competition) publishers that pay me thousands every year, for many years now--I don't see that as being based on protecting author's interests. (Other interests perhaps). I get that RWA has some value for some people. But their pattern of conduct in this area causes widespread frustration for good reason.

I see expressing that publically as just as valid as trying to get a message 'through channels'. (that hasn;t been working to well these last 4-5 years either, but what can one do).

Robin Bayne · Nov 2, 2008

Jersey Chick said:
I

Okay - so I'm not published quite enough to enter the RITA. Annoying, but I guess I can enter the Golden Heart then, right?

WRONG!

I'm contracted with two publishers on RWA's Non-Vanity, Non-Subsidy list. That renders me ineligible for the Golden Heart.

Anyone else irked over this?

Well that's a switch. Back before I quit RWA, the published e-books could be entered in the Golden Heart, which was really unfair to the unpubbed entering that contest.

I am sorry you all have to deal with this. :Hug2:

RWA's at it Again

Up all night to get Loki

Listening to my other selves

Dreamer of dreams, teller of tales

Up all night to get Loki

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Up all night to get Loki

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

volitare nequeo

volitare nequeo

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Up all night to get Loki

Chalice the Hatchet Knight

volitare nequeo

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

Up all night to get Loki

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript

volitare nequeo

~writes for Him~