Do you think this might come down to ePubbed authors seeing something (intentions) there that the rest of us don't? Clearly you (and many others) feel that RWA was out to get the ePubs, that there was some kind of agenda to boot ePublishers and ePubed authors, but from what the board said, what their clarified intent was, and what the end result is, I just don't see it. Maybe I'm more gullible than most, but I believe the board when they said that wasn't their intent.

Perhaps it wasn’t the Board’s intent. I’m perfectly willing to accept that. Unfortunately, I’m not the only one who was at the AGM when the president — and I hold her solely responsible, not the Board at large — told us that because our advances weren’t high enough, we hadn’t written a book.

You can see where e-published authors might get a little tetchy.

I'd rather do something proactive and work to change the system from the inside, but that's me . . .

And that’s why I’m still a member…of the Loyal Opposition. It’s nothing personal when I say that I don’t like some of RWAs work. I want RWA to succeed in their mission:

Romance Writers of America is dedicated to advancing the professional interests of career-focused romance writers through networking and advocacy.

So I’m willing to stick with them until they find a way to accept that as an e-published author, I’m a professional, career-focused romance writer, too.

Peace out-
Stef

Stef

In most cases, that's how change works best, from within

I think the RWA has it’s good/great points but it’s not everything for everyone. There are things I would like to do, chapter wise and have ideas of one I would like to start (unless someone-else beats me to it before I can rejoin).

Candy, one thing I figured out early on is that I can't let others ‘define' what I am. I started out in epublishing and I still put out books with my epubs. I've had to face slights from a few fronts, but not all the members are like that. Most of the chapters are wonderful and welcome epublished authors as easily as they do print pubbed.

That’s good advice. I’m still “new” and learning and that’s a lesson that I’m glad I learned. I’ve experienced a mix of both while in RWA – about 60/40 or 65/35 maybe as a best estimate with the higher number being more positive. And then there’s the ones whose just completely disregarded me, those I ignore.

I think that's a shame if some are saying that to you. There are multitudes of serious writers who don't belong to any organization. The organization doesn't make them serious writers. Writing does.

My sentiments exactly. I’ve learned or am learning to let my writing speak for itself. But again, I balk at the idea that I “have to” do anything, which is why I resisted the re-join (finances not withstanding). And the attitude surprised me and put me on the defensive I guess. But the ones I’ve met in the blogosphere and on-line world have (mostly) been great. And support amazing.

It’s why I write to reach people, to maybe help, to show someone like me can make a change in their life for the positive and so girls who grew up like me who devoured romance books, any books they could get their hands on would see similar characters reflected back at them (which was sadly missing while I grew up). It’s the only thing I’ve ever wanted to be – a pubbed author. And I am, whether it’s “recognized” by anyone else. I put the time and effort into creating my novellas. And have the product to show for it.

It’s a great feeling.

I think there is a point where it doesn't matter if this multi-year long pattern of behavior is based on not liking e-,small press,non-hereosexual,erotic etc types of romance, or just neither knowing nor caring about them (which is rather more likely).

What does it serve to make it personal? You don’t know me from Adam, have no idea of what I like and don’t like, or what my motivation was in voting yes to the changes in how members qualify to be in RWA’s Published Author’s Network. You also have no clue what I’ve done in the past year in an effort to educate myself so that I can help other writers learn more about e-publishing, to help them make more informed decisions. You don’t know mine or my family’s sexual leanings. In short, you know nothing at all about me as a human being.

You’re entitled to your opinion, but I take offense to you proclaiming in a public venue that I don’t like certain subgenres of romance, certain methods of publishing books, or that I choose not to know about them.

I'd rather do something proactive and work to change the system from the inside, but that's me . . .

In most cases, that’s how change works best, from within.

The feeling of being disdained and ignored is not strikingly different from the feeling of being actively disliked, for me anyway.

The whole world of ePubs is still in its infancy, and it's going to take time for the world (and RWA) to adapt and figure out just how to incorporate this new aspect of publishing into a system that simply isn't set up to mesh with it. The way I see it, you can either be part of the solution, or you can grouse in the corner about being excluded. I'd rather do something proactive and work to change the system from the inside, but that's me . . .

I’ll repeat: ONE former president’s agenda–and imo–bias.

ONE person. Not a pattern of behavior.

Poorly worded–no question. Quickly clarified.

I don’t think anyone was silly for interpreting the initial statement the way most did. But I also think it was refined very fast.

I think it’s fair to call somebody on a mistake–and fair to credit them when that mistake is rectified.

It is rather like my feeling about the American Kennel Clubs half-hearted new program for mixed-breed owners (e.g. we want your money but not your mutts).

No, the problem wasn't getting rid of publisher recognition, it was because the original definition of vanity publisher they put out as part of the revised rules included the clause “publishers whose primary means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site;” which would cover any epublisher, simply because of the way epublishers do business.

And the way I remember this going down was that the idea that this was aimed at legitimate ePubs was a misinterpretation (and not the intent), so the board clarified their intention. The sticking point was the word “primarily”. And I totally agree that it was badly worded. As most legitimate ePubs also sell their books on places like Fictionwise, Amazon, etc. the board thought it was clear that they were not included.

I had a really long discussion about his with several of the board members and one of the Loose-Id publishers over drinks right when the kafuffle happened.

One of the special interest chapters I mentioned above requires print copies along with one copy of the publisher’s issue version of the ebook, to make life easier for judges who don’t get on well with ebooks (which I have every sympathy with, because, oh irony, *I* don’t get on with ebooks). But they simply require bound galleys/ARCs and a signed statement from the author, i.e. things that are easy for the author to provide without having to go back to the publisher.

the change in rules earlier this year had a decidedly strange definition of vanity press that included any publisher that was primarily an epublisher. Yes, they've fixed it. But only after a *lot* of shouting. That's the latest in a long string of unfortunate occurrences.

I don't remember that.

Here you are, Kalen, some links about the redefining of vanity press:

The original change to vanity press definition:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/07/11/rwa-change-for-publisher-recognition/

The follow-up change after member complaints:
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2007/07/28/rwa-redefines-publisher-definitions/

(What I *do* object to is a rule that in practice excludes a book that has only been published in ebook format and doesn't have a print edition.)

I’m with you on this one. I’ve never even heard the thing about an author rewriting the book as a reason for an ARC not being accepted. Seems to me that something SIMPLE could be put into place (like maybe saying the ARCS sent have to be printed directly from a pdf of the ebook and an electronic copy has to be included for verification; or the ARCs have to have a signed statement from the editor & author that the ARC is identical to the eBook?). This is the sort of thing that I think people should be lobbying the board about (and I believe they are). EBooks are a whole new deal, and it's a shame that it's going to take time for people to figure out how to best address them, but the issue is being given serious thought as far as I know (and since I have friends who own an ePub I do try and stay up on this).

the change in rules earlier this year had a decidedly strange definition of vanity press that included any publisher that was primarily an epublisher. Yes, they've fixed it. But only after a *lot* of shouting. That's the latest in a long string of unfortunate occurrences.

I don't remember that. I remember that there was a LOT of grousing about the $2K requirement, and that it was quickly dialed back to $1K. And I remember there being a lot of confusion about the whole concept of RWA “approved” publishers going away (as well as the idea that any sale to such a pub = PAN membership). Some people thought this meant that all ePubs were being lumped in with the vanity presses, but that was not the case (though it is true that ePubs that don't pay the $1K advance aren't eligible to take appts and hold panels and such at RWA's national conference; I'm curious to see if this rule holds though, in the face of the overwhelming number of members who have published with houses such as Ellora's Cave, Loose-Id, etc.).

And some wonder why board members stay out of discussions.

Stephanie, no matter what, you’re going to be fighting a losing battle with some. It’s impossible to please all members and be everything for all writers.

But I don’t think you wasted your breath speaking up. At least people can actually see a ‘name’ and not just some nefarious, faceless “board.”

that I will be considered “published” as if all my other efforts didn't and don't count.

Candy, one thing I figured out early on is that I can’t let others ‘define’ what I am. I started out in epublishing and I still put out books with my epubs. I’ve had to face slights from a few fronts, but not all the members are like that. Most of the chapters are wonderful and welcome epublished authors as easily as they do print pubbed.

But the guidelines are there for a reason. They serve as a ‘guide’ for authors looking to submit. If every publisher that claimed to be a romance publisher got accepted just at request, RWA really isn’t looking out for the members they represent. How many epubs have gone belly up in under a year? A couple of them have caused serious issues for their authors.

I think RWA’s perfectly entitled to set guidelines for who is to be recognized and who isn’t as far as publishers go. I won’t say I agree with the current guidelines, but I do understand the need. My opinion is that they need to take more time and make sure they understand all issues, including the epubs, before making the final decision…and yes, I don’t believe epubs are always afforded the respect a print pub does. But this whole ‘RWA is against epubs’ mindset, I don’t see it. Yes, there are some.

But just because some are doesn’t mean everybody feels as they do.