Photo by Pickled Cupid
And I don’t wanna go on with you like that
Don’t wanna be a feather in your cap
I just wanna tell you honey I aint mad
But I don’t wanna go on with you like that
No I don’t wanna go on with you like that
One more set of boots on your welcome mat
You’ll just have to quit them if you want me back
Because I don’t wanna go on with you like that
Elton John ~ I Don’t Wanna Go On With You Like That
So Diane (Spank me Lauren!) Pershing lays out her defense which seems to be castigating Deidre Knight for self interest because she was OMG! using Samhain (One of the TOP ePublishers) as her example of a successful, money making, author friendly, ePublisher that should be promoted by RWA.
How dare she do that! She wants us to make an “exception” for these successful ePublishers how dare she that bitch!…
She is arguing for an exception to be made for these two publishers, one of which happens to be hers.
Then she goes on repeating over and over again that she represents everyone. Which is obviously not the case if you are ePublished since she is not representing you… you fucking loser!
10,000 members, all with different, subjective points of view. RWA represents them all.
Diane goes on to show her total lack of knowledge about ePublishing because it is obvious she does not realize that literary agents are not needed or used for this type of publishing. What the hell is she even bringing this up for?…
Deidre is also speaking as an agent, a successful agent who has taken on some digitally-published authors and negotiated nice contracts with print publishers for them, precisely because of the following and name recognition they achieved through digital publishing. I went to the Knight Agency Web site where recent sales and great deals for their clients are rightly trumpeted. These deals were with a number of publishers, but I didn’t see one primarily digital publisher on that list. Does she represent any authors who are remaining in the digital format and not moving over to print?
Last but not least Diane seems to think she can stem this tide of new fancy shmancy business models she does not understand or even want to by demanding that viable ePublishers stop doing what they are doing, like being successful and all that, and follow the NY publishing state of decline by handing out $1000.00 to any author they sign. She’s all about spending other people’s money despite what financial harm might ensue. Much like her beloved RWA…
RWA issues a challenge to Ellora’s Cave and Samhain: Pay your authors a minimum $1000 advance against royalties. If they’re already doing so well, you will lose nothing. You will be showing good faith in the authors you sign that you believe in them and their potential.
I just knew this was gonna be entertaining. OK fess up, who voted for her?
Update!: Lauren Dane has been dutifully posting away about Diane Pershing’s view on ePublishing. See below. Here’s her response to today’s post.
Tags: eBook Commentary, RWA
Diana Castilleja wrote,
Woof! Uh, not me. I was only in for a year. Money has kept me from actively renewing.
Their elitist attitude has guaranteed it.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 7:37 am
katiebabs wrote,
Why is a $1000 advance so important? I really don’t understand.
Love the comment Pershing made about supporting print pubs because boo-hoo they need our support more than epubs.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Amie Stuart wrote,
LOVE the pic. LOVE IT!
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 8:04 am
J.C. Wilder wrote,
Oh Teddy – I so adore you. SMOOCH!
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Susanne Saville wrote,
I love you, too, Teddy! I must go tweet this. :)
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Jody W. wrote,
Wasn’t Ms. Pershing the only candidate? Hardly anyone ever steps up for RWA board positions. I gather they’re pretty damn thankless, which doesn’t mean I appreciate being condescended to on such a regular basis. It’s a difficult situation all around.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Deidre Knight wrote,
Oh, I’m loving you. I am looooving you. Can I post the pic on my blog??? :)
Thanks a million. Even if I’m only in it for myself, my wished for RITA, and Samhain…ya know, I still appreciate schmucks like you. SNORT! :)
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:10 am
TeddyPig wrote,
Hey Deidre!
My buddy the ever so e’bil Tuscan Capo did the picture over on Pickled Cupid.
He loves to share just ask him for a copy.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:13 am
peachfuzy wrote,
All writers are created equal but some are more equal than others
-Diane Pershing’s new motto
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Leslie Dicken wrote,
Aw shit, I was supposed to vote? Damn.
Love your picture…although I think the ePublished Authors sink should be lower, closer to the floor and have filth and crap all over it.
Sorry, did I say that out loud? ;-)
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Robin L. Rotham wrote,
Oh God, I need a cigarette after that! You’re the best.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Gem Sivad wrote,
From the lips of the gods~Teddy you summarized very nicely…
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Robin L. Rotham wrote,
But ya know, that picture isn’t quite accurate. The top sign should be for NY published RWA members, the lower sign should be for unpublished RWA members, and the e-published sign should be over the toilet.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Robin L. Rotham wrote,
ROFL, Leslie! Great minds…
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Seeley deBorn wrote,
I don’t think Pershing’s ignorant on the matter of epublishing at all. I think she’s quite aware of it, how it works and what it’s about.
I suspect she just doesn’t like it, or the content that drives the industry. And right now, she’s the boss.
And yes, most of the members are unpubbed. I suspect a good portion of the 10K who give them $$ every year have a number of unfinished, never to be submitted manuscripts, that are being written for sh*ts and giggles but look there’s a club I can join that means I’m a real writer. Very career minded.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Annmarie McKenna wrote,
Love the pic. Maybe the little toddler potty to go with it? It’s obvious we can’t handle the big girl/boy issues on our own. They’re only looking out for our best interests right…
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Lauren wrote,
I feel like I’m shrooming sometimes when I read the stuff that gets said. I’m used to condescension and this sort of flippant dismissal of my POV and all, but it still gives me many WTF moments.
Every day someone tries to marginalize me and what I do and pretty much every day I gotta tell em to fuck off while I do my own thing. But sometimes it gets old. Sometimes having people who are supposed to know better act like morons makes me want to just get back in bed and pull the covers up over my head.
But my parents raised me better than that, so I get up and go about my business.
The fact is: I sold every single of of my books without the help of the RWA. I’ve made my own connections, I’ve made my own successes and every single person who has helped me has done so outside of the RWA. I don’t NEED the RWA, but they need me and others like me. They may not know it, they may not want to admit it, but they do. They need new energy and more voices and perspectives.
The face of publishing is changing. Even tried and true proven models like NY are changing and in ten years all the dinosaurs who have pretended to not understand will be looking around and wondering why their organization just drank the kool aid instead of dealing with reality.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
kirsten saell wrote,
I almost feel the greatest danger to authors right now is not epublishers, but NY’s handling of digital rights, and many agents’ ignorance of what should be industry standards.
Things like geographic restrictions on ebooks is ludicrous, but you see them. Never from an epublisher, though.
And the long tail of epublishing can be wonderful, but there are rocking chairs all over the place.
I can’t say I’m an expert at stuff like this, but if reversion of rights depends on a book being out of print, and digital allows for books to remain “in print” indefinitely, how happy are NY authors earning 10% on those older titles going to be in ten years? I can safely say I’ll be more than happy earning my cool 40%, but I honestly don’t think a thousand bucks up front can make up for the 75% print authors are losing on the long tail.
So I think RWA needs to not only educate authors on epublishing, but on digital rights in general, and the many and varied ways traditional publishers are screwing the whole thing up.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ally Blue wrote,
I hear you, Lauren. I sold my first book (to Loose Id) before I knew RWA existed O_O
And since I just joined a few months ago, I guess I pretty much built my career — a pretty decent one, if I say so myself — without the help of RWA. I joined because I’m hoping I can learn enough to leverage myself up into some higher earnings, so I can cut back to part time on the EDJ before it drives me batshit. What I do NOT expect, really, is to learn anything useful from Ms. Pershing or the Nat’l board. We shall see if I learn what I need from RWA at all…
Teddy, as per usual you cut right to the heart of things. Which is why I <3 you so :)
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Jacqueline Roth wrote,
Excellently put. Eleanor Roosevelt said, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” Still, I have to say RWA sure does one heck of a job trying to make me feel like so much sludge because I publish electronically.
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Caslin Banks wrote,
Great Blog! I love the pic – it made me laugh! I have a question and hope someone can answer it :) Why do RWA members have to show proof of advance/royalties anyway? Shouldn’t authors only be showing those statements to the IRS? Why is it any of their business how much an author makes? If you’re not self-published or published with a vanity press, why can’t they just accept you as published? I’m very confused. I would never ask anyone how much they made. It seems rude.
If every member has to pay the same amount of dues, why does it appear only some have certain rights or are considered better than the other paying members?
Thank you!
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Lee Rowan wrote,
You could do “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” for an encore.
The mainstream boy-meets-girl romance writers probably don’t realize that the “mass-produced” line was slipped into the RWA requirements within days of some epublishers qualifying for full membership.
Epublishers who publish both LGBT and erotic books. And who had at least one gay romance that hit the ‘professional’ earning level. I know this for a fact because at Linden Bay, “Ransom” was one of them.
It’ll be really interesting to see how RWA tries to contort the rules to exclude Running Press’s M/M Romance series. NY publisher, over $1K advance, mass marketing … how *will* we keep those dreadful queers out of the main ballroom?
Link | June 19th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Liane Gentry Skye wrote,
This post should come with popcorn.Most entertaining reading I’ve come across in a long time. :) And Lee, you just made me snort my orange juice out my nose! LOL!
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Belinda McBride wrote,
I also noticed that whole weird comment about the Knight Agency not selling their e-pubbed authors to e-publishers. Why should an author pay an agent to sell a book to a house they already have an established relationship with? And since when do we need an agent to be e-pubbed?
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Amie Stuart wrote,
I suspect a good portion of the 10K who give them $$ every year have a number of unfinished, never to be submitted manuscripts, that are being written for sh*ts and giggles but look there’s a club I can join that means I’m a real writer.
Seely that was like half of my RWA chapter. But they have NO PROBLEM denigrating those of us who are e-published, write erotica or write erotic romance (whatever the “bad genre” du jour is).
Why should an author pay an agent to sell a book to a house they already have an established relationship with?
Belinda you don’t. And Ms. Knight could be like my agent who has no problem with me epublishing and offered to look over any E contracts without taking her 15%. :D I don’t know for sure, because I’ve never seen one, but I’ve heard EC’s contracts can be tricky (and I don’ t mean that in a bad way). The contracts I sighed w/LSB and Cobblestone were pretty straighforward but if it was something i needed help on, I’d have no problem asking her.
how *will* we keep those dreadful queers out of the main ballroom?
Lee you made me laugh–if there’s one thing RWA is obviously good at, it’s being exclusionary (The haves and the have nots as my crit partner likes to say). I’ll be honest, I’m VERY surprised they sanctioned a GLBT chapter!
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 5:29 am
Amie Stuart wrote,
PS Lee….a few years ago they DID try to say a romance was “between a man and a woman” and there was QUITE the hue and cry from the rank and file.
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Rayna Vause wrote,
Love this post and the picture!
Honestly, I’m hardly surprised by Diane’s response. I’ve been hearing this same kind of party line drivel and a whole heap more for years in my former local chapter. For that and a plethora of other reasons a large portion of us left and started a new non-RWA affiliated group.
I’m not surprised that they approved the Rainbow Romance Writers. I really don’t think they had any choice. As long as you fulfill the minimum requirements for affiliation it becomes discriminatory to turn the chapter down based on the content of the books that that particular chapter advocates. Approving RRW, IMO, was less about being open minded and more about not to get sued. However, I’m willing to be wrong.
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Ashlyn Chase wrote,
Re: RWA
Wow, somehow I missed all the drama.
I’ll have to go to the ESPAN blog and catch up. This is one of my favorite bits
of nonsense (it makes me laugh) and I don’t hesitate to voice my
opinion–especially if big brother is watching. And I’m a chapter president!
You might think I should be walking a fine line, but for the most part, I don’t.
I’m honest. I speak a language I don’t think RWA understands but should. It’s
called common sense. My chapter members elected me knowing full well I’m
e-pubbed and proud of it. I don’t argue with anyone re: it’s merits or
drawbacks. If they want my opinion I’ll give it–truthfully. If not, that’s fine
too. We have other things to talk about, like the craft.
I don’t tell people where to submit since I don’t know what their experience will be. I can only speak to my own and it’s been much more positive than negative.
I’ve seen my style and voice grow and garner fans. That was a bargaining chip
when landing an agent and negotiating a contract with a mass market publisher.
That couldn’t have happened without epublishing and input from someone other
than my friends and family.
I just want to reassure any of you RWA members who might be afraid to speak up that there’s absolutley no reason not to. If you paid your $75.00 renewal fee you bought your right to tactfully speak your mind.
What can RWA do about my honesty? Kick me out? Fire me as a chapter president?
Nope.
I almost quit 2 years ago, but that’s when I got mad. How dare they deprive me
of the friendships that have become so important to me? Why should I have to
agree with them to gain the benefits of our wonderful fellowship? They say
‘Don’t get mad, get even.’ I’m not the vengeful sort, but I don’t believe it
walking away with my thumb in my mouth. I’d like to reword that saying in a
more positive way. Don’t get mad–get stronger!
NEC-RWA President and proud of ALL our members!!!
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Amie Stuart wrote,
Rayna very good point–and I agree.
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Ally Blue wrote,
RRW’s board was VERY careful to do everything right when filling out the paperwork for the chapter. No one wanted to give the national board any reason to turn us down. Not that they necessarily would have. I don’t know anyone on the national board and I don’t want to assign prejudice unless I have a damn good reason. They didn’t give us any trouble at all over the chapter, after all.
And I have to tell you, it felt damn good to qualify for PAN using a very smokin’ hot gay ebook *ggg*
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Rayna Vause wrote,
It think it’s fabulous that there is a chapter that celebrates and advocates GLBT romance. I’ve read a great many of them, including your own Ally, and I’ve enjoyed everyone one so much so that I was inspired to try to write one of my own. :)
That being said, I do know people on the National Board and … well, I’ll leave it at that.
I’ll bet it was a really great feeling to qualify for PAN in that manner!
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Ally Blue wrote,
Thank you, Rayna! I’m glad we could inspire you :D Good luck with your book!!
As for this:
“That being said, I do know people on the National Board and … well, I’ll leave it at that.”
That’s… very interesting. Hmmm…
**strokes imaginary beard**
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 8:38 am
KA Mitchell wrote,
Hi Rayna!
I know those board people too. :D
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Jules Jones wrote,
I qualified for PAN with Dolphin Dreams, which has the following content warning:
“m/m/m male ménage, D/s, sex while in shifted form.”
I didn’t do it on purpose — it was pure coincidence that this was the first book of mine that came out after they changed the PAN rules to go by the book’s earnings. But I was sufficiently annoyed by the goalpost moving of the previous years to take a certain amount of malicious pleasure in qualifying with a book that was both pure character-driven genre romance, and liable to make heads explode in RWA on several grounds. Unfortunately I couldn’t enter it for the RITAs, as it was ebook only.
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
SarahT wrote,
That picture is brilliant! Well played.
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
TeddyPig wrote,
You all need to go over to Pickled Cupid and thank Tuscan Capo. Big TC did that picture.
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Emilie wrote,
Jules Jones said: “I qualified for PAN with Dolphin Dreams…”
OMG. *curled up laughing* I had read the warnings, and it still just about made my head explode. Okay, it really was a pure genre romance, and it certainly made a deep impression on me. I liked the characters and **mild spoiler** Patrick’s thing for chocolate was just too funny. I’m just picturing trying to explain what it’s about to a writer or reader of more, er, traditional romances. But good for you. Oh, and I really liked the Spindrift books and Buildup: Mindscan.
Link | June 20th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Chrissy wrote,
Thing is, what if newer members started marginalizing certain NY pubs with a bad reputation because they no longer fit with the new, broader markets and models?
Like… I dunno… Silhouette?
I swear to gawd I’m torn between KNOWING the people willing to stay and slug it out are heroes… like the Catholics who stood up to molesting priests and held fast to their faith… and thinking “you’ll only get through if you hit them in the pocket book and keep your fees.”
Thanks Teddy, for kicking them.
Link | June 21st, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Jules Jones wrote,
Thanks, Emilie. :-)
One of the things which struck me about Pershing’s post on the ESPAN blog was the bit about there can’t be many epubbed authors qualifying for PAN, because hardly any of them are applying”. Well, that might just be because I’m not the only epubbed author who qualifies for PAN (with multiple books) but can’t see any reason to join RWA’s National organisation. Every June since I’ve had any reason to be interested in joining RWA, there’s been another kerfuffle in which some of the board show their disdain for epublishing and/or the romance sub-genres that do well in epub. You can practically set your watch by it. I’ve a lot less reason to join now that I’m back in the UK, but when I was living in the US I would have joined my local chapter like a shot if I could have done so without having to join National first.
Link | June 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Zetta Brown wrote,
OMG…this photo has me LOL and it sums it up quite eloquently.
You could join EPIC – http://www.epicauthors.com/ – a place that encourages all epub authors and genres.
I’ve been a member for a year, and while things can get heated, it’s been worth the $30/yr fee.
Link | June 21st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Brenna Lyons wrote,
Thanks for the good word, Zetta.
To be honest, I’d really like to see RWA resolve their issues. RWA, in educating and protecting their author members, has something of a duty to provide education about e-publishing. Whether the authors are pre-published (and will soon sign a contract) or published (in NY or indie), they are going to be dealing with e-rights issues and contracts that contain them. The ONLY way to protect the authors is to send them in knowing what the standard is and what the red flags are.
In the meantime, in order to get a feel for the pulse for what writers and aspiring writers really want from contracts, please consider filling out this survey. Completely anonymous, but I’d LOVE to get more RWA members (published or unpublished) answering it. So far, 2/3 or so of the respondents are not RWA members.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=clBnWWRUTlZRNmVoaG92eER2RjFrbFE6MA
Brenna
Link | June 29th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Delle Jacobs wrote,
Thank you for your carefully worded statements. My mother taught me not to use those words, so I’m glad somebody is saying them.
Oh, and since I’m probably a century or so older than you, I have to say the image that came to my mind was not of drinking fountains, but of White and Colored waiting rooms in a train station in the Deep South. A very vivid memory of mine.
Link | June 29th, 2009 at 11:42 am