Comments & Publishing Juno Editor/Paula Guran on 13 Jul 2007 12:38 pm
Seriously, Grrls…
I haven’t time to read a lot of blogs right now. What few I’ve seen are whining about excluding e-pubs and small presses. I am sure that was the intent here…
But none of this matters.
If the rule truly says, with no further definition, that the publisher must pay all authors participating in an anthology an advance of at least $500 per story…then there is no way that most major publishers will qualify.
Let me make it simple–
Picking a Rita winner at random: Bet Me by Jennifer Crusie
(St. Martins, $22.95) ISBN 0-312-30346-7
St Martins publishes YEAR’S BEST FANTASY & HORROR.
It does not pay $500 a story.
St Martins publishes YEAR’S BEST SCIENCE FICTION
It does not pay $500 a story.
St Martins publishes other anthologies — probably some of original fiction — that do not pay $500 a story. The also publish anthologies of plays and poetry.
St Martins also publishes anthologies that one might term “romance” with a few novellas. Maybe they pay more than $500.
They are all anthologies. By any definition. It is one publisher. The publisher does not pay $500 for every story in every anthology.
St Martins does not, therefore, qualify. Jennifer Crusie’s novels published by St Martin can no longer win RITAs.
Got that?
The rule as (so far as I know) as publicly stated does NOT say “anthologies of original romance novellas” or “anthologies purchasing the exclusive rights to an orginal story for three years” or anything else. It says “anthologies.” It says “publisher.” It says “pay all authors.”
* * *
7/15/07: As the discussion below in the comments has pointed out, the wording involved probably doesn’t involve the contests. But the point still stands: Major publishers do not publish romance only. So, when you rule mentions something as applying to a publisher, it applies to everything published, not just romance. You can even state it as “romance anthologies” and get into problems.
What RWA *meant* to do was say, in simple terms: In those anthologies that are often seen in romance in which three to six authors write original, never-published novellas of 20,000 words or more and customarily involve the exclusive right to publish those novellas for more than a year, the publisher must pay all authors $500.
Personally I’d make that more formal and more definitional, but that is, I think, exactly what they *meant* to say in clear, simple words with relatively correct grammar.
on 13 Jul 2007 at 5:45 pm 1.Angela James said …
St Martins does not, therefore, qualify. Jennifer Crusie’s novels published by St Martin can no longer win RITAs.
I think that’s not correct, actually, because the RITA rules have been changed, so publisher eligibility is no longer a factor. Even if a publisher isn’t eligible to participate in conference events, the books are eligible so as not to penalize the authors (I believe as long as they’re not from vanity press, though).
So the publisher eligibility has been separated from most things having to do with authors (PAN, RITAs, etc.), and will only affect the publishers themselves in that they won’t be “invited” to attend, no comped conference fees. But you could pay $1000 to participate in those spotlights, editor appointments, etc. Rather strange since they’re trying to protect the authors from those presses, but if they pay, they’re legitimate? That kind of puzzled me…
on 13 Jul 2007 at 6:40 pm 2.Juno Editor/Paula Guran said …
Rather strange since they’re trying to protect the authors from those presses, but if they pay, they’re legitimate? That kind of puzzled me…
I’m not sure there is anything NOT strange about this crew…
As to your other point — it is difficult to tell from the phrasing, Angela. Although you may be right and that may well be what they meant.
[However, the anthology hang-up is still there, even though it doesn’t keep a book from the contests. Our example of St Martin’s would still stand as not Eligible for whatever they want it to be. They do publish anthologies that do not pay the required amount.]
This is the exact passage (which I now have):
By substituting the word Eligible for Recognized, and limiting the scope of the term Eligible Publisher so that it deals solely with RWA’s allocation of its programs and resources, primarily at our national Conference, the term and concept of “Recognized Publisher” no longer factors into PAN and PRO eligibility, the RITA and Golden Heart contests, RWR content, and many other sections of our Policies and Procedures Manual.
I read it as you did at first, however, contests are part of the conference are they not? Therefore I had to think “Eligible Publisher” applies to the contests as part of the conference.
If they wanted to say what you think it says then if should have been phrased (first pass off top of head) something like:
The concept of the term “Recognized Publisher” and the term itself shall no longer be used. A new term, “Eligible Publisher”, is instituted and will be used only in conjunction with RWA’s allocation of programs and resources at our national conference. Neither the concepts nor the terms “Recognized Publisher” or “Eligible Publisher” shall be used (1) to determine or designate rules for PAN and/or PRO, (2) to set requirements for the RITA contest and/or Golden Heart contest, (3) in conjunction with RWA content…
etc.
The term “programs and resources” should actually be defined as well.
* * *
The next section reads:
Commencing with RWA’s 2008 National Conference, for official publisher participation, a romance publisher must verify to RWA that it: (1) is not a Subsidy Publisher or Vanity Publisher; (2) has been releasing romance novels via national distribution for no fewer than three years, with no fewer than two full-length romance novels or novel-length romance anthologies published in each of three consecutive years; (3) provides per book advances of at least $1,000 for all books; and (4) pays all authors participating in an anthology an advance of at least $500.
THIS implies that there is yet another category. That category being “publishers who are designated as ‘official publishers’ at the National Conference.”
If they mean to use the term Eligible Publisher and that the determination thereof allows “official participation” (which — if there is any money involved must be spelled out) it should read something like:
Commencing with RWA’s 2008 National Conference, an Eligible Publisher is deemed to be one that can verify [specify by what acceptable means] that it:
(1) is not a Subsidy Publisher or Vanity Publisher as designated and defined in [cite where] below.
(2) has been releasing romance novels via national distribution [ESSENTIAL that this be defined] for no fewer than three years [and the period from which this is counted should be defined here]
(3) has released no fewer than two full-length [DEFINE this 40K, 50K, here] romance novels or novel-length romance anthologies published in each of three consecutive years;
(4) provides an advance against royalties of at least $1,000US for each book published paid to the author(s] in total no later than 30 after the release date of the book [or whatever, but specified]
(5) provides payment of at least $500 for any original, never-previously-published novella 20,000 [or whatver] words in length or longer.
Now, again, are still saying that EVERY novella published by that publisher has to receive that rate of pay. That is still problematic.
* * *
As for vanity press — oy vey! HOW or WHERE a publisher sells its books has nothing to do with being either a subsidy or vanity press! So “publishers whose primary means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site” is totally out of place.
If they want to ban this it is yet another definitional area that has nothing to do with subsidy or vanity press.
* * *
I understand they paid a lawyer for this? S/he should be disbarred…
* * *
on 15 Jul 2007 at 8:13 am 3.Marie-Nicole Ryan said …
Why would RWA care what any publisher pays for advances to authors of other genres? And while the wording lacks clarity, the intent is clearly aimed the romance genre, at least with regards to publishers and the advances they pay.
on 15 Jul 2007 at 9:25 am 4.Selah March said …
Unfortunately, a court of law doesn’t care as much about “intentions” — “But that’s not how we MEANT it!” — as it does about the literal wording of a contract. Judges are funny that way. Must be all those years sitting on those hard, unforgiving benches.
Paula’s right. The attorney who drafted this is less than competent, which calls into question the Board’s competence. They used member dues to hire shoddy counsel. They didn’t proofread the document, or if they did, they didn’t understand what they were reading.
Not exactly confidence-inspiring.
on 15 Jul 2007 at 9:38 am 5.Terese Ramin said …
Seriously, Paula. As a Juno editor quoting St. Martin’s **alleged** practices with no facts or figures presented to back you up…how can we take you any more at face value than we can take anything else on the I’net these days? Honest-to-John, just because you say a thing is so doesn’t make it so any more than a statement from anyone else out there unless it’s backed up.
And no, I don’t write for St. Martin’s. I’ve simply come out of another indie press debacle where I was told X was so and believed it and…gee, guess what? It was total bald-faced lies.
on 15 Jul 2007 at 10:30 am 6.Juno Editor/Paula Guran said …
Seriously, Terese, if you knew my background you would know I have a real problem with unprofessional behavior by small presses. And I spent seven years trying to be a good souce of information for writers and speaking out on such issues. It won me a decent reputation and some enemies.
But…even if I hadn’t done DarkEcho in a former life…
I think as a genre editor and one-time genre market maven I have some credibility when it comes to knowing what these long-running anthologies pay. I also know Ellen Datlow very well, am acquainted with Kelly and Gavin and know Gardner Dozois at least professionally. I also know many writers included in these volumes.
It is no big secret. Pay rates for short fiction are frequently deiscussed by genre writers. Their writers organizations base membership status on per word rates and try to establish (as does RWA) “professional” payment.
However, I’m sure I can gt at least Ellen to verify this “allegation.” I’m also sure I can find some writers who will attest to what they are paid.
Just how much verification do you need? In what form?
Would you also like testimony from people who will vouch for me personally? Professionally?
I’m really sorry you’ve had a bad experience. You have plenty of company. It might be beneficial for you to learn a lot more about publishing large and small…like, for instance that pay rates for an anthology is not a publisher’s practice.
on 15 Jul 2007 at 10:40 am 7.Juno Editor/Paula Guran said …
And Marie?
No major publisher publishes JUST romance. Even using the term “romance publisher”, as RWA did, is absurd. Further, RWA’s or their attorney’s ignorance of what the VAST MAJORITY of the world considers an anthology to be is a little mind-boggling.
Finally, once past the age of eight when you make up new rules so that you can win every game, most people who make rules learn you have to be careful when wording them. This. is. not. hard.
on 15 Jul 2007 at 11:23 am 8.Mitzi Flyte said …
Paula,
I have to agree with you - and there are many RWA members who do - some are vocal about it, some aren’t.
The definitions for vanity/subsidy press seemed to be so convoluted to me, that I thought they had written them wrong. I keep hearing that there’s to be a “clarification” - but needing a clarification decreases credibility.
At least two epubs had gained RWA “recognition” (now eligibility) in March and now they’re not recognized or eligible. Also a blow to credibility.
To be up front, I do have a reason to be upset - two chapter-members and friends have recently contracted with Ellora’s Cave/Cerridwen - one was to have her first sale announcement in the RWR soon. Not now. And I won a first line contest at Samhain - allowing me to submit a full manuscript to one of their editors - which I immediately did. So I am far from unbiased.
I’ve been a member of RWA for ten years and have learned a lot through my chapter and conferences. I’m not going to give up my membership because of this flap - but I do want my professional organization to BE professional.
But Just My Humble Unbiased Opinion.
(Paula - glad to have found you and your wisdom again - and I will be one of the ones to vouch for your expertise!)
Mitzi Flyte
on 15 Jul 2007 at 1:42 pm 9.Jordan said …
I definitely think the language in the vanity/subsidy area needs to be changed/clarified, but I don’t think it’s quite fair to compare SMP ’short story’ anthologies to ‘novella’ anthologies in pay. They are two different beasts and are separated in RWA. Right now the going rate for a good short story sale is 5 cents a word, which comes out to around $250 per story. A novella sale tends to range from $500 to $5000 and up, if you’re a top seller.
Also, like someone pointed out, RWA is trying to address the epub/small press problem of romance writers–not the short story market. I think it’s important to clarify the difference. (And no, I don’t write for St. Martin’s, but I do think they’re a good publishing company.)
After the language is cleaned up, I believe in the end this will be better for authors (Note: I didn’t say publishers.), which is who RWA is trying to ultimately protect.
on 15 Jul 2007 at 4:18 pm 10.Nonny Morgan said …
I don’t believe that they were taking into consideration short story anthologies as are published in SF/F. Romance anthologies usually contain a few novellas, which pay considerably more than short pieces. Given that, a $500 advance is not totally unreasonable.
That said, the language throughout definitely needs to be clarified. Whatever idiot lawyer drew this up for them should be disbarred.
on 15 Jul 2007 at 4:33 pm 11.Lucynda Storey said …
The entire RWA position is posted word-for-word on my blog (www.lucyndastorey.com/blog). The board simply was not thinking when they set up the parameters.
They did away with “publisher recognition” but then stated if publishers wanted to be at the national convention they had to meet all those requirements. So, in fact, St. Martin would not be able to have a presence at a future RWA convention because they do not pay ALL their authors the minimum advance of $500. Not earnings, but an advance. They did not qualify what sort of anthology, nor take into account not all anthologies are created equal.
It is my understanding they are already backing off some of the document. For instance, they qualified e-publishers as being vanity/subsidy presses because they sell primarily off their web site. Now they are saying that if you sell off Fictionwise you are not a vanity/subsidy press (although this has yet to come out in writing), based on the assumption that Fictionwise will sell more copies of your e-Book than the publishers web site.
All RWA really did, imho, is show they don’t truly have an understanding about other avenues or the future of publishing.
Personally, what I really think happened is someone on the board had an “Oh My God We’ve GOT To Do Something!” moment when they realized how many e-Authors were entering PAN because their publishers got recognized. Then when things blew up with Triskelion, a company that had recently met their requirements and still screwed their authors, they were able to get more of their peers on board.
As someone pointed out on another loop, why do we want and/or perceive we need this recognition? RWA has bent over backward to say that their recognition program wasn’t about approving publishers, much to the misinterpretation of their members. Sure the RITA is a nice recognition and if that award is really important to a writer, they’ll do what they need to get into that contest.
RWA stopped speaking for this writer some time ago when they had issues with what consituted a romance, and what consituted erotica.
Lucynda
on 15 Jul 2007 at 5:19 pm 12.Jordan said …
Actually, I don’t think it had anything to do with PAN. I think the Board’s decision came from all the emails and phone calls they’ve received from epub authors about their publishers. Particularly, the Triskelion and Premium Press (I think that’s their name.) authors.
on 15 Jul 2007 at 5:45 pm 13.Selah March said …
Jordan, I’m perfectly willing to concede that the Boards intentions weren’t “evil” or even necessarily discriminatory. Clearly, the old recognition standards weren’t working.
It’s only the results I question. Honestly? They don’t seem to be able to find their “good intentions” with both hands and a map. Which, if I were still a member and paying dues to fund these efforts, would cause me some dismay.
Seriously.
on 15 Jul 2007 at 6:24 pm 14.Jordan said …
Selah, *ggg*
on 16 Jul 2007 at 2:37 am 15.Stacia Kane/December Quinn said …
*applause*, Selah!
I’ve thought for some time RWA needed to raise its recognition standards, as I was one of those unfortunates who was with Triskelion for a time and knew almost immediately that they were not running a professional company. So I honestly don’t have a problem with most of this, and I really don’t care what RWA thinks of my career–I’d like to be able to enter contests, but that’s really it. I’ve been eligible for PAN for over a year and just never bothered to send in the paperwork.
I do care, though, that they allowed such a shoddily worded document to go out to their membership without even seeing the problems with it. That makes me wonder who these women are and what they actually know about publishing. It doesn’t appear to be much, and since a large part of their job is to advocate for us in the publishing world…
Therese, I believe St. Martin’s has now publicly stated they don’t pay $500 for every story in an antho.