For $30/yr dues at EPIC, I personally find the concept of lawyering up the organization and trying to police the industry pretty laughable. But not because I’m disagreeing with you on the point of WHAT exactly does EPIC do, I have indeed asked myself the same question, but because the organisation to my eye is just plain not capable to do as Jane suggests it should do as it stands currently.

Now, if EPIC dues were the equivalent of the RWA dues (a rough calculation by going to the RWA site this afternoon is $190 for me to join the organization and the chapters appropriate for me, although to be fair and compare like to like as $100 as EPIC doesn’t offer separate chapters), and they had the volume of authors/aspiring authors attached to EPIC(666 *eek*) as what the RWA (9500+)does then, yeah, would I be expecting more bang for my buck, but even then, RWA’s $100/year won’t go far. There is also the RWA’s 30? years (I can’t find an exact amount of time on their website and am just going by the above comments of people saying they were RWA members in ’80/’81) to EPICs 10 (although I’d hazard that only the last 4-5 years would be of most relevance as author membership grew and technology became more obviously available.)

Now, when my husband was a Chartered Accountant he had to pay thousands in fees to be a part of that organization, with the expectation that indeed, the organisation had a certain amount of sway in the industry, was involved in policing said industry, were there for clients shafted by one of their members and there for those members shafted by their clients.

Can anyone expect any organisation to offer that kind of expectation for $30 or even RWA’s $100? Personally, no – and it wasn’t an expectation I had when I initially joined EPIC. I also cannot understand how anyone primary author organisation can police an industry that has very little regulatory guidance to begin with. Even the mighty RWA can only ‘police’ those authors and publishers that agree to perform to their stated guidelines for admittance to the organisation, and even then only as it pertains to ‘Romance’ publishers. EPIC is not a Romance only organisation, and from what I see (and I am firmly in the romance sector of the industry, I have little to no exposure to other genre of ePublishing) the recent closures have mainly been to do with Romance – which makes sense considering that is primarily what I understand Dear Author to be all about. (And why I read everyday :) )

I’m not a rabid EPIC fangurl, although I am currently a member. I’m also not a member of the RWA, so any comparisons I’ve made have only been garnered from looking through their websites. But I am an eAuthor who has mulled over this post for the last two days, cringing at another blog brouhaha over ePublishing. Logically, I know Jane’s opinion isn’t an attack on ePublishing in general, but still I cringe at how many readers (not authors) have yet again been turned from the market, when indeed there are many stable publishers functioning no differently – ie very successfully – than their traditional publishing counterparts in NY.

And, although I have no personal experience of it, I’m sure there are many ‘traditional’ publishers who have done all the same things as the recent rash of ePublishers, where authors have been left hung out to dry, and having to use the same advice my mother gave me to find their way out of it.

Ps – and because I have no idea, does the RWA – or any other author organisation not related to romance – offer an available to the public listing of good/bad/so-so publishers? (Serious question, I want to bookmark them if they exist).

I was reacting to the recent flap about “author chargebacks” in the Tsaba contract. That felt like the same kneejerk reaction we had at Nationals last year when the definition of a subsidy or vanity publisher was rewritten to include “publishers whose primary means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site.”

Stephanie: Come back and talk to us. We’ll play nice with other children. Promise.

Angela, I agree with you-and thanks once again for being so fair and balanced.

I'll add that I recently read a blog where the RWA membership was described as old white women who were sexual prudes and homophobic. As a charter member, I was really offended. It's very hard to take that sort of insult. I wish some wouldn't go to such extremes because it automatically raises the defenses and blurs-sometimes buries-the issue.

Oh shoot, I hope no one thought I was actually calling the board old women. That’s why I had it in quotes, because I saw that same comment and that’s what I was thinking of.

it’s fine to say that a budding author should network and connect and do all the paperwork before signing a contract, but as we’ve seen – you can have a company that’s been around for years suddenly turn around and be so nasty that the mind doth boggles…

some organizaton needs to step up to the plate and stand for those authors who don’t have the inside information or the connections to avoid bad publishers. RWA may not be the best at the moment but it’s sure a heck of a lot better than EPIC which seems to be nothing more than a group of publishers shaking each other’s hand while putting the free one into the pocket of the author and getting out the wallet.

as Dr. Phil would say – who’s gonna be the hero?

kinda obvious that EPIC ain’t even in the room…

:(

I don’t really believe organizations can help all that much except with the aftermath of what to do. RWA recognized the problem and decided not to deal with epubs. Smart move actually.

I really don’t believe there is much EPIC can do. Other than post an occasional warning about this, that or the other. And tell authors flat out that no matter how confident you are in your publisher, tomorrow might be a different story so guard your ass if you can and expect it.

Coming down on either RWA or EPIC is simply a waste of time unless you are in those organizations.

I’ll add that I recently read a blog where the RWA membership was described as old white women who were sexual prudes and homophobic. As a charter member, I was really offended. It’s very hard to take that sort of insult. I wish some wouldn’t go to such extremes because it automatically raises the defenses and blurs–sometimes buries–the issue.

Actually the AMA would be quite fine since they recognized doctors graduating from a multitude of colleges. Not doctors who graduate from only one college. A distinguishing difference, but again the comment was made tongue in cheek. I really don’t give a damn what RWA or EPIC calls themselves or says or does.

I personally think that RWA needs to think about developing a strategy for educating itself and its membership on e-publishing: whether that be workshops, or a designated board member or something . . . anything.

I think RWA has made steps to do this by forming a task force about epublishing, as well as accepting workshops about epublishing for Nationals. Stefanie Feagan could probably speak much more intelligently on this than I, but I think she’s felt run off from these conversations before because of the hostility towards RWA and the “old woman” board.

Sadly, I can’t say that I blame her because saying anything positive about RWA in posts like this often seems the same as setting yourself up as a punching bag. In a way, it would be no wonder if RWA was feeling disinclined towards epublishing because, as a whole, we have not always represented ourselves well in the face of our frustration, anger, disappointment. We cannot demand respect, we must earn it.

However, I do believe they’re trying to understand about epublishing, but I don’t think huge changes occur overnight or even in a year.

Most of the commentary made on issues like these are no more than comments. They do no good to the primary problem. Which would be my point.

I would personally prefer to see RWA stay out of epublishing, and remain what they are. But that is just my opinion.

It aggravates me no end that my mother refuses to check her e-mail for pictures of grandchildren, etc.

It also aggravates me that RWA is not taking more proactive steps to educate itself and its members about e-publishing. They are doing themselves and their constituency a disservice–at the same time they make pronouncements about an industry they do not fully comprehend.

There are tons of knowledgeable people in e-publishing whom I’m sure would be willing to answer questions and help raise the level of awareness–Raelene Gorlinsky, Angela James, Alisa McKnight along with lots of other smart e-pubbed authors.

I personally think that RWA needs to think about developing a strategy for educating itself and its membership on e-publishing: whether that be a workshop for the board, or a designated board member or something . . . anything.

As soon as RWA stops insisting they are the Romance Writers of America is the time EPIC should stop claiming to be the voice of epublishing. Both make claims they have no right to. Live with it.

By this logic the American Medical Association has no has no right to their name, nor does any other professional organization.

RWA is most certainly an organization comprised of professional peers, working for the betterment of said members and the genre in general. If the RWA “vision” doesn't tabulate with your own, then find-’or found-’another organization.

I had thought that his was what EPIC was, but clearly my understanding of EPIC's purpose was erroneous.

Please.

I have disagree that RWA has no right to its name.

As soon as RWA stops insisting they are the Romance Writers of America is the time EPIC should stop claiming to be the voice of epublishing. Both make claims they have no right to. Live with it.