RTB readers….
What’s going on inside the Romance Writers of America organization? Rumors are flying. People are confused, angry. People want answers.
So we, the PTB at Romancing the Blog (all members of RWA,) propose a collective letter to the RWA to ask some questions. Columnists and readers alike are welcome to comment and/or add signatures. Here’s what we have to say:
Dear RWA:
We are writing to you on the behalf of many RWA members who have questions regarding recent announcements. We have no desire to take sides, but we are interested in clarifying the issues at hand:
1) The “graphical standards.” Details on this are fuzzy. Why were these standards instituted? Is this to protect a non-profit status? Is this to prevent violating any government standards? Can you provide documentation and/or links that back up these claims if, indeed, these are the reasons? When will details regarding the reasons behind the creation of the graphical standards be provided? Many view the timing of the new graphical standards implementation as a reaction to the potential forming of a new erotic romance chapter in the RWA, and it would be nice to have this clarified.
2) What, exactly, are the rules for the graphical standards? People are confused about the “linking” factor. The fact that official RWA websites that use the RWA trade and service marks cannot portray anything that would violate the graphical standards is clear, but is it true that official RWA websites cannot LINK to any author or publisher website that may contain covers or excerpts that violate said graphical standards? If this is true, what is the rationale? Would a disclaimer on any official RWA website to the effect of “We are not responsible for the content of any author or publisher websites linked here,” not be sufficient?
3) In addition, there are also new rules given to RWA members concerning specific words, the use of which in website excerpts and/or cover copy also violates the graphical standards, and we’d like some clarification on that. This seems to be an entirely different area that is being broached and goes beyond cover art. Because, if “the graphical standards will help keep the focus on the content of the books rather than the titillation of the covers,” then why would certain words also fall prey to this? Also, why some words and not others? What criteria makes one word taboo and not another?
4) We’re also concerned with the following statement: “In it’s most basic form, the standards allow a young adult author to sit next to an erotic romance author at the literacy signing without worrying there’ll be exposed genitalia on the cover next to her.” It seems that the graphical standards have now gone beyond website linking and have moved into a different territory entirely, i.e. possible discrimination and censorship. Does this mean that authors who have provocative covers will not be allowed at the literacy signing or will not be allowed to display their books?
5) The new rules for graphic material seem extreme to many, and they affect a very large segment of the romance community–to the point of changing the very face of the RWA. People understand that the RWA board consists of elected officials who represent the romance community, and they understand that these board members are trusted to make decisions for the good of the RWA. However, should something that so greatly affects a wide number of members not be brought to the many members for discussion or vote?
6) With so much confusion and so many rumors running wild, especially given the timing of the graphical standards announcement, writers and readers of erotic romance are wondering how the RWA can ignore one of the fastest-growing sub-genres of romance when the big NYC publishing houses are actively seeking the same. Is the issue of the image of RWA and the romance genre more important than the members’ needs and rights? Is there not a way to satisfy both?
Once again, we are not taking sides. We are seeking clarification of several issues so the RWA board and RWA members can find common ground and compromise that is not based on rumors and speculation. The board’s silence when so many have posed open questions is potentially disastrous, and for the sake of the RWA and the romance genre, we respectfully ask for some answers.
****
RTB readers, please feel free to comment, either below as usual or using this form where you can simply leave your name and RWA membership number to be forwarded to the board in support of this letter. (This form ensures your name and membership number will remain private and not be posted in public.) Your comments will be passed along to the BOD, so we’d appreciate if you could keep your comments constructive and professional. Thank you.
*Please note: The columnists at RTB have had no input into this letter, which is intended only to present the RWA with questions floating around the internet.
Related posts:
My biggest concern as a long-time RWA member is whether or not the board is more worried about potentially losing the non-profit status of the group or fulfilling the goal of the group, which is to support and promote the genre of Romance in all its subgenres as well as the careers and potential careers of all its members. If RWA loses its purpose for existing, then it ceases to be the group that has grown and thrived for the last 25 years.
I write inspirational (Christian) romance, and have shared book signing tables with authors of very steamy novels. This hasn’t bothered me a bit–I’m glad for the chance to have a variety of readers pass by my books. I have even sold my books to some of them in passing. I have more comments on why I believe this policy is wrong on my blog http://www.writtenbetweensundays.blogspot.com
So we, the PTB at Romancing the Blog (all members of RWA,) propose a collective letter to the RWA to ask some questions.
I am a columnist at Romancing the Blog and it is not clear to me who, exactly, is meant by “the PTB at Romancing the Blog.” Who is the “Kate” that authored this post, and who is she including in her “we”? I hope nobody reading this blog assumes that all of the columnists have put their seals of approval on this post. This columnist has not–and won’t.
First of all, I don’t believe Romancing the Blog is an appropriate forum for presenting letters to the RWA leadership. Not everyone who reads this blog is a romance writer. Not all of the columnists are romance writers. And not all romance writers are members of RWA.
But since this issue has been addressed here, I will acknowledge that as an RWA member, I am as confused as the author of this post about RWA’s new “graphical standards”. As they exist right now, I do not support them. My feeling is that all “standards” issues should be discussed by the membership, not decided by fiat at board meetings, and I believe this RWA board has quite a bit of explaining to do.
But here’s why I don’t support this letter: The RWA board members cannot be unaware of the waves of confusion and speculation that have pounded the romance-writing community during the past few days. The board members read blogs and e-mail loops just like the rest of us; they know we’re concerned. Shouldn’t we give them time to formally address our questions before we start whipping up all this outrage? We’re talking about a volunteer board, for crying out loud. We don’t pay these people to provide service 24/7. If they were to keep us hanging for, say, another week, I’d have a huge problem with that. But those people are just getting home from BEA; can’t we at least let them unpack and say hello to their families before they start answering our questions?
Kate is the collective voice of the authors (all RWA members) responsible for running RTB. We have added a caveat should anyone else not understand that the “powers that be” are the behind the scenes staff. This is why we asked “columnists” along with “readers” to submit comments. In our tag line we state that RTB is the place to find “what’s now” in the romance world. It is the unanimous opinion of the staff that the issues at hand are far-reaching and have the possibility to impact more than the organization’s members.
Normally, I would agree with Brenda’s comments about the RWA board, but…this ruling happened in March. The specific point that brought this to the surface was enacted in the last week of May, but this has been a rule for almost three months. That’s what bothers me the most.
There were discussions held with selected chapter(s) in the past week or so. And BEA was a working event for the board members who attended. When I leave town (unless I leave the country after sufficient notice and ensuring someone is in place to handle fires), I travel with laptop. That’s how I work with my clients. The timing of this is akin to government agencies (of all ilk) releasing news after business hours on a Friday. We are talking about smart people here — they had to know that this would erupt once they made certain aspects of this issue public.
Do I think this letter needs to be written? I’m not sure. Truly, I am on the fence, despite my (well-publicized) opinions on the matter. My experience is that the board doesn’t respond to direct questions like this. My belief is that before this rule was made (it’s not a policy, it’s a rule, and I don’t know enough about these things to grasp the difference), it should have been thoroughly discussed. In public.
I also understand that many of the authors involved with RTB are affected (it’s my belief that the “represented” aspect of the new rule is open to interpretation; this is the hazard of working contracts in Hollywood…everythign is open to interpretation). Though I’m not published, I am (or will be) affected. I don’t censor my language (though I rarely use profanities…call it the by-product of having a mother who’s a librarian), but I also don’t *not* censor my language. My characters do and say things I wouldn’t.
I do think noise matters. There are many interested parties here — authors, readers, agents, publishers. We — every single site listed on the left column — are potentially affected by this rule. As sad as I find it, many members don’t read the minutes. In this case, many RWA members assumed the new rule related to something else entirely. Maybe RTB isn’t the right place to send a letter — again, I don’t know — but I think voices on all sides of an issue need to be heard.
Also, though I don’t know the distinction, I believe RWA is not-for-profit, not non-profit.
Yes, Kassia. The board members would be unpacking and saying hello to their families in peace right now if they had addressed this openly with the membership when the rule was established at the March board meeting. (Minutes in the members only section of the RWA site.) Also from the website: Romance Writers of America is a national non-profit genre writers’ association
Kassia, you are ever wise and wonderful, but I feel compelled to point out that while this “rule” was indeed created in March, most of the membership was unaware of it (and its potential consequences) until now, when it was first applied. So it’s not quite accurate to say the board has had three months to respond to our questions. We weren’t asking questions until just a couple of days ago. Yes, it looks as though the board might have acted unwisely in this case. But why weren’t we paying closer attention?
To the RTB administrators: Many thanks for the clarification.
In it’s most basic form, the standards allow a young adult author to sit next to an erotic romance author at the literacy signing without worrying there’ll be exposed genitalia on the cover next to her.”
Seriously, are there covers out there with exposed genitalia? Boy, and we all thought those clinch covers were embarassing.
I’m not sure about others but, I always thought that erotica had it’s own kind of reputation in the publishing world. There always seemed to be this idea that it was a higher form of art and thus, was not nearly as discriminated against as romance was as a genre. I don’t know that erotic authors need the support of the RWA. There already feels like a level of respect with authors like Anne Rice, an author with a huge mainstream following, writing erotica.
I’m not sure Nora Roberts gets the respect she deserves because she writes under the label of romance. If the RWA is looking at it like this, then I understand why they may not want to have an erotica chapter. Not only that, but straight erotica is not romance. If we are talking about romantica – a story involving a romantic attachment as well as sexual desire, then I can see these authors having a concern.
I am only a reader and not a member of the RWA but, when I think of the RWA I think of an organization that is there for advancement of the romance genre and yes, I think romantica may be part of this genre. Straight erotica, not so much. As a romance reader I am invested in a HEA.
Anyways, just some thoughts.
CindyS
Just a quick comment from a reader. This is the first I’ve heard of this controversy, but I’m glad it was brought up on Romancing the Blog. As a reader, I don’t always hear about these kinds of issues, since I don’t belong to the writing loops and writing blogs where they’re discussed. But I go to book signings and buy books, so these issues affect me too, even though I’m not a member of RWA and don’t have a direct voice in them. So I appreciate it being mentioned on RTB, where both readers and authors can hear about it.
KarenW
This is the first time I’ve seen anything about this, I know nothing about the issues involved, and as a reader don’t suppose it makes any difference to me what the organisation decides. My one comment would be that the letter as drafted reads to me, as a complete outsider, as clearly taking a side. If it’s meant to appear neutral, I’d rethink the tone of the piece – when the subtext is so clearly ‘this is all barking mad, isn’t it?’ the double disclaimer that the authors have no point of view on the matter looks a bit disingenuous.
To get the facts straight, I contacted author Ann Jacobs, whom RWA refused to allow to sign her books at their BEA booth, and asked her to tell me what happened. Her response, along with a .jpg of her controversial cover, are posted over at my place here.
Wherever you are on this issue, I think you should read her account of how it affected her.
Brenda, we weren’t paying attention in March because, due to an administrative oversight which had to do with moving from the executive session, the actual language wasn’t published until late May. Many members, when they saw the line item on the hot sheet, thought it had to do with use of the RWA logo. That, in my mind, doesn’t change the facts. They knew this was on the rule books. They knew before the motion was made and discussed.
This is why I’m not as forgiving as some about the lack of communication. We all make mistakes (I’m especially good at them!), but this is a clear lack of communication and/or understanding of the ramifications of the issue.
Since all of this began, I’ve been of the mind that the reaction to the graphical standards has been blown out of proportion. I suspect that the linkage thing may have been misinterpreted, and that the reasons behind the graphical standards are sound, at least in the eyes of the board, and once explained, may not be as bad as people thought.
However, I have heard that some authors have been removed from their chapter links because the individual authors’ sites contained “questionable material,” so maybe the link thing IS true. I have no idea.
And I have no idea because the RWA dropped this news with only vague explanations. This is a HUGE announcement–one that deserved to be announced along with detailed explanations so that rumors, speculation, and anger could be averted. As it is, the underground rumblings are serious, so serious that this could potentially tear apart the RWA.
As I said, I do think that things may have been blown out of proportion (though understandably, due to lack of information,) and it may only get worse if the board doesn’t address the concerns above, and quickly. I don’t want to see the RWA mired in internal conflict over this–I hate conflict. As an unpublished writer, I’ve enjoyed the benefits of membership, and for the most part, I have good things to say about the RWA.
I just wish they were a little more open and accessible to its members, and I wish they’d explain why they dropped the graphical standards bomb without doing their best to prevent the fallout.
Right now, giving answers to its members could go a long ways toward smoothing out the ruffled feathers.
I agree with what Larissa said. And I might add that I think this entire situation could have been handled better. Even so, I’ll wait for a DETAILED explanation from the Board before I form any opinions. With any luck, the explanation won’t take another three months.
[Kassia wrote] This is why I’m not as forgiving as some about the lack of communication. We all make mistakes (I’m especially good at them!), but this is a clear lack of communication and/or understanding of the ramifications of the issue.
Did the board fail to communicate adequately with the membership? Yes. But I think their failure to explain and defend their actions shows they simply never imagined this could blow up in their faces. Implying that the board has had “plenty of time” to address this issue misses the point that they apparently didn’t think it would need addressing.
Shortsighted? Absolutely. But these demands that our questions be answered right now because the board has had three months to clarify its position implies that our leadership has been stonewalling. We have no evidence of that. This appears to have been a gross miscalculation rather than an instance of a sneaky board trying to pull a fast one on the membership. That’s all I’m saying.
I’m especially confused by the Young Adult rational. Several years back, RWA instituted a rule that chapters couldn’t have members or guests at their functions under 18 years of age. And I’ve never seen young adults at the national literacy signings which are open to the public.
I’m wondering if “young adult author” is really misleading, and what they mean is inspirational romance authors object to sitting next to authors with clinch covers…
I was on the fence, trying to think of all sides of the matter and being fair — that is until I saw Ann’s cover at PBW. Yowch. I fell off the fence. No matter what the intention or plan, RWA’s gone too far.
Check it out, now.
[Pretend it's art, okay? Like done a coupla hundred years ago? in a museum?]
I’m wondering if “young adult author” is really misleading, and what they mean is inspirational romance authors object to sitting next to authors with clinch covers…
Jane, you must have missed Comment #2 from inspirational romance writer Robin Bayne. You must have missed my comments, too.
I am an inspirational romance writer, but if you think I support either the current graphical standards or the way in which they were adopted, you are very much mistaken. Like Robin, I don’t object to sitting next to erotic-romance writers, and I can prove that if you’d care to step over to my blog, which links to the blogs of several erotic-romance writers.
Larissa said: Since all of this began, I’ve been of the mind that the reaction to the graphical standards has been blown out of proportion. I suspect that the linkage thing may have been misinterpreted, and that the reasons behind the graphical standards are sound, at least in the eyes of the board, and once explained, may not be as bad as people thought.
However, I have heard that some authors have been removed from their chapter links because the individual authors’ sites contained “questionable material,” so maybe the link thing IS true. I have no idea.
Jordan Summers addresses this very issue, and Tara Taylor Quinn’s response, in her blog, since it was at her chapter meeting that this initially came to light.
Kassia said: Many members, when they saw the line item on the hot sheet, thought it had to do with use of the RWA logo.
Not only that, it was presented in such a throwaway manner, as bullet point #23 out of soemthing like 25 points from that meeting, that it’s no wonder it got lost in the shuffle. After all, “23. RWA Graphical Standards were formally adopted and are on file in the RWA Office.”
Yeah, that sure raised the hackles on the back of my neck when I read it.
There were many members present at a meeting last year in Dallas when it was suggested that genres such as Romantic Suspense and Chick Lit (Or Mainstream with Strong Romantic Elements) did not belong in the RWA; that they did not belong in as categories for the Ritas. But they are there.
When asked about it, Tara Taylor Quinn responded by stating (and it is something I have in writing, NOT hearsay) that: “In a recent summit
meeting with Harlequin, we posed the question to them, not because they
in any way make our decisions, but because we want to know how other
members of the industry are defining our growing and changing market.
Of course, the bottom line is not the market, but what the majority of
RWA members want RWA to be for them. It’s interesting to see how many
people who write other than romance still want RWA to remain an only
romance place. It surprises me. And there are others, like you, who
feel differently.”
This is from last year. August of last year.
I’m a member of RWA. I’m the chapter president for the Chick Lit Writers with 300 members who are all members of RWA. Who write books that very often don’t have very much romance, if any at all. Yet at the same time, write not only straight Chick Lit, but Chick Lit with a great deal of romance; traditional romance and erotic romance and paranormal and romantic suspense and inspirational and pretty much everything under the sun. And probably over 90 percent of our membership would be affected by these standards.
Surely, we can’t be the only chapter to be so affected.
I, too, am eagerly waiting for a more thorough explanation.
Barb
With all due respect to the PTB of ‘Romancing the Blog’, I would be more inclined to sign your petition if I actually knew who you were. Why would I sign my name to a letter written by anonymous authors?
I agree with Kassia so I won’t repeat everything.
I think the key here is this issue should have been discussed in public; the board should have issued a statement and explanation as soon as the standards were publicized; and had this been done, there would not have been as much contention. They could have — and should have — nipped this in the bud.
The way it was handled is wrong. I don’t necessarily oppose the standard (there is a compelling argument), but I don’t support them, either. I want an explanation and a discussion.
I am, however, opposed to censoring specific words. I found the list strange … why those and not others? Why words at all?
I’ll be writing my own letter to the RWA board in my own words.
You know, I don’t write erotica and I read a limited amount of it. But erotic romance is a growing sub-genre of romance and as such, I support the authors and the publishers meeting a need of readers. To have RWA specifically exclude certain covers which overwhelmingly (but not exclusively) impact one sub-genre is ridiculous.
I would be just as offended if RWA decided to ban covers that had a crucifix or cross on the front because that might be offense to Jewish people. Or banning violent covers because that might encourage someone to take a knife and slit someone’s throat.
It’s a slippery slope and must be addressed. But, frankly, I’ve been very disappointed with this board ever since they axed the ARTemis on the grounds that the contest didn’t “Further the interests of career-focused romance writers.” If the ARTemis (the RWA cover contest) doesn’t benefit writers, why is RWA concerned AT ALL about cover art?
Barb said: Jordan Summers addresses this very issue, and Tara Taylor Quinn’s response, in her blog, since it was at her chapter meeting that this initially came to light.
I did read Jordan’s blog, and while I absolutely do not believe anyone is making things up, I also know people who have seen “official” emails that indicate that the link thing isn’t true.
Whether it is or not, my point is that there is SO much conflicting information and rumors roaming around that it seems a little early to get too upset about anything until the board answers some questions, though the incident with Ann Jacobs clearly happened, and is really disturbing.
I agree that this could have been handled better. Much better. How could RWA have released such ambiguous language for the policy and not anticipated the firestorm of outrage, questions and confusion that followed?
That said, clarification has been promised, and I’m waiting for official word on how this will affect me, my writing friends, the RWA chapters I belong to, and the membership of RWA in general.
Not only this, but the RWA is making it harder for small independent presses and their authors to reap the benefits of RWA membership. It seems the RWA is doing two things: seeking to enforce morality standards on what its members write, and also seeking to throw its weight behind the larger mainstream presses. The two seem to go hand-in hand.
I find it incredibly odd that the RWA board could read the same blogs and messageboards that I do, and not come to conclusion that such a rule would be met with just such a reaction. Such short-sightedness enters the realm of the fantastical.
As a reader, I find this very interesting. It seems to smack of censorship to me, which I deplore. I frequent the Republic of Pemberley website, which is very very G rated. They keep their site that way because many young people, even as young as the age of 8 or 9, visit the website regularly. There is also a mention of an association the site is affiliated with (name escapes me) that would not recommend RoP if it were anything but G rated. This does not seem to be the case at RWA. Very odd siutation!
I still adhere to the bigger issue being, why would we as authors allow a board which we put into office to dictate what we can or cannot put on our sites if we wish to remain affliated with RWA. And dear God in heaven, why did they feel the need to come up with a graphical standard, which is just another word for censorship. If you are a member of RWA don’t leave the organization, that’s just giving into to the board. Let’s work to undo the standard and get it off the national website. Let’s work to refocus our attention to what’s really important, the business of publishing our books. Let’s work to have this group put thier attention back to the needs of the whole membership, not just a few who are offended by erotica, sex, and romance!
I don’t know everythhing about this, but I believe RWA’s actions came directly from interpretation of federal law.
I’ve never linked to an author’s site from RWA or from a chapter website. If I want an author’s site I Google them and find them that way. Write what you want to write, but RWA has to protect their status as a non-profit organization.
I don’t want RWA censoring author content, but I’m not sure it’s censorship to say an erotic romance author, or any author really, with full frontal nudity or excerpts from books including language deemed obscene by federal standards can’t link to RWA or an RWA chapter’s website. Have the site however you want it. It just can’t be linked to non-profit sites. At least that’s how I’ve interpreted the rule so far. If there’s more to this that’s leading to true censorship, please let me know.
Thanks!
I figure I should include that I’m a first amendment freak. Every one of my hundreds of students learns to say and write it from memory. Without it, 1984 or Brave New World are right around the corner. I’m just not seeing where enforcing law that dictates standards non-profits must abide by is truly censorship.
I don’t know what federal regulations people are referring to when they say that this policy has to do with RWA worrying about complying with federal laws. COPA applies to information on the internet for COMMERCIAL purposes, which wouldn’t apply to RWA, and CIPA applies to access to the internet in libraries and schools, neither of which RWA is. So my question would be, what ACTUAL laws is RWA supposedly trying to comply with? And if it is, why isn’t it fighting them, as they would be de facto censorship, and therefore RWA’s responsiblity to protect its members from?
The last I heard, on an author’s list, is that this never had anything to do with complying with law.
We will just have to wait and hear what it actually *is* about.
I like the letter. I think it’s tactful and states the issues clearly. I think one of the problems I’m having is that the covers of certain books of erotic writers are being banned while covers of books of well-known romance writers are not. There is a new paperback out right now by Linda Howard, Kiss Me While I Sleep(and it does look like an awesome book, btw) in which the man’s hands are covering the herione’s naked breasts. I believe this is a no-no according to the new graphical standards of RWA. Is that book banned as well? I don’t even know if ‘banned’ is the right word. But is there favoritism involved here?
I just feel that the rules should apply to everyone, no matter who they are.
Sorry, correction. On Linda Howard’s book cover for Kiss Me While I Sleep, it’s the heroine’s hands covering her own naked breasts.
Damn, it looks good. I’m gonna go out and buy this book.
I’m a writer and a member of RWA, but that last thing at least, I can change. This passing reference to protecting their non-profit status is an absolute deliberate fabrication and misinterpretation of some non-applicable law. Museums are Non-profit and they have full nudes on display of every size shape and color…bless them. No one is pursuing them for having the audacity to *gasp* have a bare shoulder or thigh visible!
Romance was always the genre where women could find freedom, could express themselves and have no boundaries. It liberates and empowers women and I for one, will not be a part of anything that limits that creative freedom. Suddenly RWA has decided to determine what is and is not acceptable??? Do they even read romance? Much less ‘erotica’?
I look forward to the unraveling of all the mysteries of recent events. But too much is already clear for me to sit back with a smile or spend a single dime on their convention in Reno. I’m cancelling my registration and hotel reservations as of today! And as for membership, the card is in the trash. I’m done.
Okay, fury easing off…sorry for the rant.
I’m sure the board means well, but they’re not representing my opinion. I don’t write erotica, but as Allison and others have pointed out, it’s a romance sub-genre. Why alienate so many members? And publishing houses too. It doesn’t make sense.
Gee, it couldn’t be about money could it? Some of the EC authors are making six figures and being offered big NY contracts (NY approached THEM, and not the other way around). Just a thought.:roll:
Just wanted to “read this into the record”:
It has just been announced via the RWA-Alert mailing list that the RWA board will teleconference this evening (Thursday). There are two items on the agenda: suspension of the Graphical Standards and the creation of an ad-hoc Graphical Standards committee.
Will this news spread as quickly as our outrage did? Somehow I doubt it.
free slots
Take your time to check out some relevant pages about roulette
pharmacy
In your free time, visit some relevant pages dedicated to diet pills online pharmacy
Very exceptional pieces of information. Very nice webpage though. I applaud
prozac
Take your time to check some relevant information about wellbutrin zoloft