Comments on: The things people say to RWA

By: Carolyn Jewel

Carolyn Jewel — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:02:56 +0000

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I’ve been hesitant to enter the opinion fray for many of the reasons you mention. The thing is that, ultimately, I think RWA needs to move from its current position, but I’ve been put off by the near hysteria of some of the RWA must change language. Not necessarily the specific group RWA Change which I too have avoided, rightly or wrongly, because of the language and invective that appeared around the time of it’s formation.

And, even though I do think RWA must sooner or later, change, I also think they are right to be cautious.

Frankly, I don’t feel the issue is legitimate vs. illegitimate, but what is in the best interest of the author and I often feel that’s getting lost in the conversation.

By: SarahT

SarahT — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:20:59 +0000

@Michelle (MG) Braden I don’t live in the US and I’ve never attended the conference, much as I would love to. I was referring to the amount of work which must go into organizing the event – most done by volunteers. I meant it as an example of something positive done by RWA.

Another huge benefit – and the main one for me – are the online chapters. My chapter alone is worth my annual dues.

By: Emma Wayne Porter

Emma Wayne Porter — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:53:09 +0000

I asked the question a while ago: If digital publishing had to become “recognizable” by professional organizations, what would the criteria be?

What makes one legitimate and another illegitimate? I don’t think the digital publishing world can get a foothold in any argument like the one with RWA until our industry clearly defines the publishing house’s role in the new publishing process.

I work in digital publishing, and so far as I can see, with self-publishing becoming a more and more viable option, digital publishing (from a digital publisher’s standpoint) becomes an almost purely service-based (editing, cover art, promotion, production, distribution) prospect. Yes, there are benefits to working with a publisher, but are those benefits worth it when an author could, theoretically, do all those things for themselves?

Self-publishing authors who wish to benefit from RWA are in the same boat, but don’t yet have a voice in this argument. Will RWA ever recognize self-publishing as a legitimate pursuit?

The point I’m trying to make is that changes within the industry are far more sweeping than just publishers who choose to offer primarily digital product…to the point where the RWA kerfluffle becomes almost irrelevant. If a professional organization is needed to aid, protect and educate digital authors, perhaps it’s too much to ask of RWA, who has its hands full enough with authors pursuing the analog route.

I do think we’re asking too much. I really do. I’m saying this not in a “they won’t play with me so I’mma pick up my toys and go home” way, but a “they have their own mission statement; we need one of our own” way.

By: Jill Sorenson

Jill Sorenson — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:37:26 +0000

Great post! Hilarious and informative. Props to you, miss. I try to keep in mind that the abrasive comments do not represent the whole of epubishing, but it IS difficult to not feel insulted by the dinosaur/dead tree/U R stupid and irrelevant stuff.

By: Bev Stephans

Bev Stephans — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:37:59 +0000

As a reader, I applaud all you writers for trying to bring about change in a rational manner. Keep up the good work and hopefully RWA will admit the epubs.
:clap:

By: Shannon

Shannon — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:59:10 +0000

Unfortunately, personal life is kicking my butt right now, but as soon as we get home from the long weekend, I’ll join the RWA Change. :nod:

By: Heather Rae Scott

Heather Rae Scott — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:19:58 +0000

:clap: :clap: :clap:

S’all I’m going to say. You said it for me.

By: Michelle (MG) Braden

Michelle (MG) Braden — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:16:24 +0000

Some of us are trying to make a change in a dignified manner. There will always be people, on both sides of any argument, that will get out of hand. Most of us involved with RWAChange are trying to do so without ranting and raving, but with logical intent and purpose. Some of us will be putting ourselves out there to step up and run for the board when the time comes, some of us won’t. It needs to fit that individual’s lifestyle to run and it doesn’t mean that they don’t care if they don’t.

SarahT – Many of us epublished authors definitely see the positives with RWA and that’s why we stay. That’s why we advocate for change. We want an organization that we believe in to continue to grow in a positive manner. As for attending the annual conference, there are a lot of people that would love to be there that can’t afford to go. I don’t think that should be a reflection on their dedication or passion for RWA and/or its change.

By: SarahT

SarahT — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:20:58 +0000

Yes! Thanks, Shannon, for a thought-provoking post. You make some excellent points, many of which mirror my take on the whole RWA vs. epubs issue. Diplomacy doesn’t mean passivity. So much depends on the way something is said. Credibility is lost when people start to rant, tempting though that might be at times. I’m all for equality but I’d like to know more about the epublishing/no advance model before I know which side of the fence I’m on. And I’d like information from BOTH sides.

The sad thing in all of this is that some people are forgetting all the good RWA does. It’s not perfect. Not by a long shot. The board are 19 volunteers who were elected by RWA’s 10,000 plus members. Anyone can run for a position on the board if they feel things need to be done differently, or persuade a like-minded member to do so and vote for them.

I think many epubbed members must see the positives in RWA, despite its arguably anti-digital stance. Otherwise, why would they remain members? And how many people who are complaining about RWA are attending the annual conference? Can you imagine how much time and effort goes into organizing this event alone, never mind all the other stuff RWA does?

By: Natalie J. Damschroder

Natalie J. Damschroder — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:11:25 +0000

Shannon, this is one of the most well-written, balanced posts I’ve seen on this topic. I’m heartened by the assertions and the evidence that a reasonable, professional, forward-thinking, positive approach is being taken (inaccuracies and misconceptions aside), and I’m attending the AGM to witness it for myself. I decided to stay out of the preliminaries for the same reason you did, and now feel like it’s kinda late to jump on.

Also, some other thoughts, taking off from the comments (but speaking generally, NOT about particular people!):

Being part of change doesn’t only mean running for president or other board service. There are many other things that can be done that take far less time and commitment. Programs don’t appear because they’re demanded–they’re created by people who dig in and create them. I completely understand the need to make choices based on personal need. I made one recently, myself. But I feel doing so affects my right to speak out to an extent. I’m part of the problem now, and can’t task others to be part of the solution when I’m not willing or able to.

This really ISN’T about e-publishing. It never was, though that label is always the one that gets attached. Format is totally irrelevant–that small print publisher that went bankrupt and harmed authors had to meet the very same requirements as any other publisher. Most e-publishers publish novels in print, too, and follow the same “business model.” The risks, benefits, advantages, and disadvantages are similar no matter how the book is produced.