RWAChange-Challenging Perspectives
A recent debate has spawned over the inadequacies of the Romance Writers of America in regard to their stance on e-publishing. It can be found at various blogs and a few articles around the web now (not going to link all, but I'm sure Google will help you out here). This debate is not new. It has been brought to the attention of RWA's leadership more than once in the past, and inevitably, the message is the same. Unless publishers offer a minimum advance of $1000 dollars, they are not considered legitimate in the eyes of RWA. Legitmacy has its perks, not a requirement obviously, but recognition by the largest group of romance writers in the country doesn't hurt either.
At its core, RWA's belief is pretty basic. Writers deserve to be paid for their work upon signing that contract. If the publisher is not willing to put up financial risk when acquiring an author's work, then they don't deserve recognition. There is some merit to the argument. Writers do like and desire to get paid upfront for their work. It's seen as an investment by the publisher. If a publisher isn't willing to invest, what's the motivation to worry about things like adequate distribution, marketing, publicity? It's not too difficult to earn back on a small print run, and if the book doesn't take off, oh well, no loss to us. RWA goes beyond this however. Their stance is, both explicitly and implicity implied that digital publishing is not a worthwhile avenue to pursue a writing career. I've heard numerous stories from epubbed authors where their work is not only considered less legitimate as a book, but inferior in quality. Odd I think, coming from a group whose foundation is supporting its member's pursuit of a writing career.
Getting published is ridiculously hard, even in the world of digital publishing. The percentage of writers out there who achieve publication that offers royalties for their sales, and doesn't require them to invest their own money in publication is low, like 1 in 100 low. RWA has about 10,000 members. While admittedly, a certain number of its members don't intend to ever attempt publication, most are there out of an interest in writing romance. If the odds are around 1%, this means that a lot of those people are paying dues, attending conferences, and working their butts off to achieve the dream of publishing, who will never make it. Along comes digital publishing, which has exploded over the past couple of years, and will continue to grow as technology advances to support it. It has opened up a new avenue for publishing for many writers, yet RWA is not currently pursuing an active role in incorporating this model into its publication worldview.
I will say, it's not entirely exclusive. Epubbed authors can receive some recognition if they have received over $1000 in royalties. Many though are relegated to a secondary status anyway because they have not been mass produced in print format as well. The current rules do not support legitmizing digitally published books. The organization favors traditional publication as the method for pursuing a writing career, at the expense of many of its members dreams of publishing. I find it a disservice, and a bit of a slap in the face to the membership (of which I am one), that the leadership has decided for me how to best pursue my writing career. If I desire to pursue digital publishing, I should be supported in this endeavor, since this is really the core mission of RWA. Their job is to educate me on the realities of publishing, help me to hone my craft, and support the pursuit of my goal to get published. Educate, support, and advise. Don't make decisions for me. This is however, what their policies have effectively done.
A lot of this has to do with not recognizing the validity of the digital publishing business model. Digital publishing does not have the capital to invest like traditional publishers. It's a simple fact that they cannot afford to offer advances. They aren't in business to bilk money from susceptible authors (though there are folks/business who have attempted this and still do in both digital and traditional models). They want to make money and see good books made available to the reader just like tradtional publishers. You don't get into this business without a tremendous love for the written word. It's not worth all of the effort otherwise. Rejecting this business model, not so subtley implies that they do not have the best interests of the writer at heart, and are thus not worth pursuing. RWA continues to harp on this business model as detrimental to writers, despite the fact than many make pretty decent money at it. In the end though, it is the writer's choice to make, not RWA's, and their policy effectively says, "your decision is bad, therefore we aren't going to support you." Again, RWA, wtf? Your role is not to limit my choices, but to support the ones I make, and encourage me to make smart ones. Digital publishing obviously works for a great many writers, and your members have a dream to publish.
Do you really want to squash member's dreams on the technicality of whether authors get paid on the front or tail end of things? Seriously? Changing policies to incorporate epubbing will take some work to make everything run smoothly. You have a responsiblity to do it however, in my opinion, to support the efforts of all your members. Because we want to get published, and I pay you money to support me, not limit.
It should be noted, that all ranting aside, RWA as a whole is a really great organization. The sense of community (for the most part) among writers is invaluable. The efforts it makes to educate writers, and make them better at their craft is about second to none compared to other similar organizations. In a lot of ways, my money is well spent, but this issue is a real problem that needs to be addressed.
At its core, RWA's belief is pretty basic. Writers deserve to be paid for their work upon signing that contract. If the publisher is not willing to put up financial risk when acquiring an author's work, then they don't deserve recognition. There is some merit to the argument. Writers do like and desire to get paid upfront for their work. It's seen as an investment by the publisher. If a publisher isn't willing to invest, what's the motivation to worry about things like adequate distribution, marketing, publicity? It's not too difficult to earn back on a small print run, and if the book doesn't take off, oh well, no loss to us. RWA goes beyond this however. Their stance is, both explicitly and implicity implied that digital publishing is not a worthwhile avenue to pursue a writing career. I've heard numerous stories from epubbed authors where their work is not only considered less legitimate as a book, but inferior in quality. Odd I think, coming from a group whose foundation is supporting its member's pursuit of a writing career.
Getting published is ridiculously hard, even in the world of digital publishing. The percentage of writers out there who achieve publication that offers royalties for their sales, and doesn't require them to invest their own money in publication is low, like 1 in 100 low. RWA has about 10,000 members. While admittedly, a certain number of its members don't intend to ever attempt publication, most are there out of an interest in writing romance. If the odds are around 1%, this means that a lot of those people are paying dues, attending conferences, and working their butts off to achieve the dream of publishing, who will never make it. Along comes digital publishing, which has exploded over the past couple of years, and will continue to grow as technology advances to support it. It has opened up a new avenue for publishing for many writers, yet RWA is not currently pursuing an active role in incorporating this model into its publication worldview.
I will say, it's not entirely exclusive. Epubbed authors can receive some recognition if they have received over $1000 in royalties. Many though are relegated to a secondary status anyway because they have not been mass produced in print format as well. The current rules do not support legitmizing digitally published books. The organization favors traditional publication as the method for pursuing a writing career, at the expense of many of its members dreams of publishing. I find it a disservice, and a bit of a slap in the face to the membership (of which I am one), that the leadership has decided for me how to best pursue my writing career. If I desire to pursue digital publishing, I should be supported in this endeavor, since this is really the core mission of RWA. Their job is to educate me on the realities of publishing, help me to hone my craft, and support the pursuit of my goal to get published. Educate, support, and advise. Don't make decisions for me. This is however, what their policies have effectively done.
A lot of this has to do with not recognizing the validity of the digital publishing business model. Digital publishing does not have the capital to invest like traditional publishers. It's a simple fact that they cannot afford to offer advances. They aren't in business to bilk money from susceptible authors (though there are folks/business who have attempted this and still do in both digital and traditional models). They want to make money and see good books made available to the reader just like tradtional publishers. You don't get into this business without a tremendous love for the written word. It's not worth all of the effort otherwise. Rejecting this business model, not so subtley implies that they do not have the best interests of the writer at heart, and are thus not worth pursuing. RWA continues to harp on this business model as detrimental to writers, despite the fact than many make pretty decent money at it. In the end though, it is the writer's choice to make, not RWA's, and their policy effectively says, "your decision is bad, therefore we aren't going to support you." Again, RWA, wtf? Your role is not to limit my choices, but to support the ones I make, and encourage me to make smart ones. Digital publishing obviously works for a great many writers, and your members have a dream to publish.
Do you really want to squash member's dreams on the technicality of whether authors get paid on the front or tail end of things? Seriously? Changing policies to incorporate epubbing will take some work to make everything run smoothly. You have a responsiblity to do it however, in my opinion, to support the efforts of all your members. Because we want to get published, and I pay you money to support me, not limit.
It should be noted, that all ranting aside, RWA as a whole is a really great organization. The sense of community (for the most part) among writers is invaluable. The efforts it makes to educate writers, and make them better at their craft is about second to none compared to other similar organizations. In a lot of ways, my money is well spent, but this issue is a real problem that needs to be addressed.