julesjones | RWA says that epublishers are vanity presses by definition

Entry tags:

RWA says that epublishers are vanity presses by definition

Guess what. The hoop's just been raised again. RWA has just put out new definitions for vanity publishing and professional publishing in which epublishers are labelled vanity presses by definition. Here's part of the paragraph listing the criteria which will immediately class a publisher as vanity:

"publishers whose primary means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site;"

In other words, any epublisher is a vanity press in RWA's eyes, even if it isn't a vanity press by any sane definition involving "money flows towards the author". Because this is how epublishing works -- the primary means of offering ebooks for sale is through a publisher-generated website, even where the publisher also uses distributors such as Fictionwise.

Obviously there were far too many of us "vanity"-published authors who were managing to make $2000 in royalties from a single title.

I do not have an issue with RWA deciding to demand that a publisher offer a significant advance to every author as one of the qualifications for being considered a pro publisher. It's what SFWA does, after all, and there's a sound rationale behind that (though I really, really doubt that said rationale is the reason for RWA doing it). I wouldn't have a problem with RWA saying that my publisher is a small press -- there are many highly respected small presses in science fiction.

However, I have a serious problem with RWA declaring my publisher to be a vanity press purely on the grounds that it uses the distribution method that is most appropriate to the format the books are published in.

This is a very clear message to epublished authors, no matter how successful they may be -- the RWA not only doesn't want us, it's prepared to tar us as vanity-published to make sure we get the message that we're riff-raff and not welcome.

And in order to deliver that deliberate insult, RWA has quite thoroughly muddied the definition of vanity press. How on earth is that supposed to protect writers who are trying to understand the warning signs to watch out for? When RWA has such a blatantly stupid criterion that labels legitimate small presses as vanity presses, then authors may start wondering if the other "vanity press" criteria they list are really so bad. And some of us already have enough work trying to explain the difference between legitimate small press and vanity press to new people on the writer forums.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"publishers whose primary means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site;"

Um. that includes many many small presses - even if they publish hard-copy books only, and they just do their "primary" marketing through their website! What then is "primary" 50%+1 of sales generated?

Talk about "screw everyone but the big three"!

Exactly.

It would be perfectly reasonable to use that as a criterion for calling something a small press. But the whole point here is to find a way to exclude the epublishers and their authors without explicitly saying that that's what they're doing.

One of the things that's going on is that when they fiddled with the "pro author" definition a couple of months ago, the way it was done meant that you could be published with a small press and still qualify for the PAN sub-group in your own right if your sales were good enough. So even if Loose Id had been de-recognised and classed as small press, it might still have been possible for me to qualify as pro on the money from Dolphin Dreams.

This labelling of epublishers as vanity presses by definition allows them to exclude the small press authors from PAN -- because you can now only count books from non-vanity press, no matter how good the sales figures are. Ditto entering the two big contests they hold every year, and presumably the contests that individual chapters run.

'Harlequin Writers of North America' wouldn't sound quite as impressive...

The really freaky thing about this is that it may not be that long before one interpretation of that rule would encompass Harlequin, which has a massive direct subscription reader base. A lot of people get their category romances delivered monthly direct from Harlequin, just like a magazine subscription.

If you counted the people who get their fix by direct subscription (these days often set up online) along with the people who buy print books and ebooks directly from the website, as Harlequin's ebooks sales grow *they* may be in the position of their sales being made primarily from the website -- at which point you have to ask if that the same as "publishers whose primary means of offering books for sale is through a publisher-generated Web site;"

That might be an interesting question to throw up at the next RWA conference.

But only if you're prepared to run fast.

It might demonstrate the ridiculous nature of that classification.

Playing devil's advocate ( I was epubbed by Triskelion), not because I agree with RWA...but an awful lot of the epubs got started literally as vanity presses - the publisher had a book she wanted to get out and that was the easiest/fastest/best way to do it.

I'm disgusted by this development.

Oh, quite -- too many of the epubs *are* vanity presses. That's the problem with this nonsense, because if they're merrily labelling all the epubs as vanity press, how on earth do we teach the newer writers that there is an important difference between somewhere like EC or LI or Samhain, and the next tier down, and then the places where they think 3 copies sold in a quarter counts as best-selling?

Call the legitimate epubs small press by all means (though not EC, because you have to be freaking nuts if you think they're not a mid-list press by now, on their payouts). Even point out that sales primarily from the publisher's website can be a warning sign (because it can). But calling an epub a vanity press just because it's an epub?

Exactly. By tarring legitimate e-pubs with this vanity press brush, RWA is doing authors a disservice on a number of levels. Let's hope they fix their definition, and pronto.

Maybe I should be more upset, but I’ve never been much of a joiner and I could never work up the enthusiasm to fork over the dues just so that I could say I was a member. This was especially true in the past when certain personalities used their status in the group to push a particular agenda.

I have to say, though, that my only experience at RWA nationals was pretty positive overall. I found the rank and file members to be generally supportive of those weird chicks who like to write about boys who like boys -- and the indie presses who publish them, too. Apparently the management of the organization feels somewhat differently, however.

Personally I think this whole thing stems from fear. People read that the only things that are selling are hot, hotter and yowza! and they’re scared. They don’t know how to write hot and wouldn’t if they could. They’re afraid there won’t be a place at the table for them much longer, so they circle the wagons and do their best to keep out the invading hordes.

I'll confess to being a little sad in that I was planning on going to San Francisco next year for the big conference. Guess I’ll be saving that money now.

Steph V.
(who can't remember her #$%@ LJ password & is temporarily banned)

Are they fucking kidding me???? I never thought they would stoop quite that low. That's like... not even following the dictionary definitions.

Ugh.

Well, we all knew they'd find some way of keeping us out when too many of us managed to jump through their last hoop -- and I honestly wouldn't have had a problem if they'd gone for something along SFWA lines to divide between pro and small press. But going out of their way to label us not small press, but vanity-published -- that's disgusting.

Vanity presses? I thought the whole definition of a vanity press was that the author payed them, not the other way round. That's just stupid.

Sigh, and I thought that in getting out of fandom I might leave the wank behind...

You get wank everywhere you go, alas. SFWA is just as wanky as RWA; it's merely a style of wank I find easier to ignore.

Oh, that's appalling.

Makes the content wars of Our Own Dear Fandom look quite tame by comparison, doesn't it?

(This is partly about yet another attempt to expel the people who say cock instead of manhood; and worse yet, have more than one cock in the same bed.)

Ah,that strange appendage the manhood.... always gives me a good laugh.

Think you might get a guest column on romancingtheblog.com? Because this treatment is bloody well disgusting. In the current climate, I think it makes lots of sense to start any small press as an e-publisher and offer your most successful titles in print. To call a vanity press any publisher struggling with distribution channels - which are severely fucked up, as any fule knows - will exclude bonafide small publishers (and not just epublishers, I would have thought - anyone who's more successful at marketing to the public than marketing to booksellers.

Pfui.

I'm still too angry to write a coherent column and then deal with the clueless, witless and malicious comments from people who go along with the RWA hierarchy's view of epublishing.

What I gathered was that that is a community that is reasonably open to definitions of romance which don't always match the strict form. I don't think you should take this lieing down. I am sure you are not planning to.

That's absolutely disgraceful.

How very... Orwellian newspeak.

And I say that as someone who has vanity published (but not with a vanity publisher, just an ordinary printer (OTOH, I have made my money back and even a small profit (in the region of ten punds or so))).

I mean, they could just require a certain sale income ($2000 was it?) from print and be done with it, if they want to be traditional.

Come to think of it, it sort of reminds me of the record companies' inability to cope with the brave new digital world.

You are actually self-published, if you're referring to the Tale, and there's a very important distinction between self-publishing and vanity publishing. More here:
http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2003/07/continuing-from-wee-hours-of-this.html

They've got sale income requirements as well, and those would have excluded most of the epublishers from being considered pro by RWA standards. That in itself wouldn't be unreasonable. But they've gone one step further, and defined vanity press in such a way that epublishers are de facto vanity press rather than small press.

The probable reason RWA have done this is that elsewhere in the new regs they have banned books from vanity publishers from being used for PAN qualification or being entered in their contests, even if the books otherwise meet the requirements. Put that together with this covert redefining of epublishers as vanity publishers, and you achieve being able to exclude epublished authors from many of the benefits of membership without admitting that that's what you're doing.

Hit me
Going, going, gone
Now I dialed RWA a long time ago
Don’t you see how late they’re reacting
They don’t wanna come or they come when they wanna
So call the morgue quick and embalm the goner
They don’t care ‘cause they get paid anyway
They teach ya like an ace it’s just writers they betray
I know you like to party with those no use people
If your career is on the line then you’re fucked today
Late comers with the late coming stretcher
That’s a body bag in disguise you betcha
I call ‘em body snatchers quick they come to fetch ya
With an autopsy ambulance just to dissect ya
They are the kings ‘cause they swing the reputation
Lose your arms, lose your legs, to them it’s just a complication
I can prove it to you just watch the celebration
It all adds up with those fixed nominations
So get up get, get get down
RWA is a joke in this town
Get up, get, get, get down
RWA members wear a fool’s crown

RWA is a joke

Everyday they ain’t never coming to protect
You can ask my man right here with the broken contract
He’s a witness to the job not being done
He was just another victim on the Triskelion run
Was all a joke ‘cause they always jokin’
Your career is a token and it’s your own problem when it’s croaking
They need you to be a pawn and pay their dues
RWA is a joke but the jokes on you
I'd call a cab ‘cause a cab will come quicker
The publishers get on the list and call it a flea flicker
The reason that I say that is ‘cause they
Flick you off like fleas
They be laughing at ya while you’re crawling on your knees
And to the strength so goes the pace
Thinking you are first when you really last place
You better wake up and catch that clue tighter
Cause RWA is not for the fucking eBook writer

So get up, get, get get down
RWA is a joke in this town
Get up, get, get, get down
RWA members wear a fool’s crown

RWA is a joke yo

*With much props to Public Enemy*

[grin]

Thanks, Teddy. Needed that.

I've been trying to follow the various implications of this, and I've come across something here (http://dionnegalace.com/wordpress/2007/07/12/news-from-the-rwa/) which suggests that although the move will stop many/most epubbed authors from becoming PAN members:

RITA entries can be from any publisher as long as they fit into one of the categories and are in bound form. Publisher does not matter.

The hero/heroine language has been removed from all definitions of RITA and GH. The language now says “the love story,” thereby opening up all categories to m/m f/f and multi-partner stories, even in the inspirational category

If you read down to comment 16, you'll see a correction -- the publisher doesn't matter, as long as it's not a vanity publisher.

(The other problem is that a while back they explicitly required that for ebooks the judges' copies of the books have to be printed, bound books supplied by the publisher, not the author. Even if they use Loose Id as one of their "see, we'll let a few token epublishers out of the vanity press definition", if I want to enter Dolphin Dreams for the RITAs next year, Loose Id has to produce the copies. And I'm not convinced that RWA would accept Loose Id producing a few ARCs through Lulu.)

We're also being cut out of a lot of the other benefits of membership -- things like having the first sale mentioned in RWR.

I'm glad to see that the language in the category definitions has been made more inclusive, but that's an easy bone to toss when you've already eliminated the majority of gay and poly books by declaring their publishers to be vanity publishers.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

RWA says that epublishers are vanity presses by definition

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

RWA is a joke yo

Re: RWA is a joke yo

no subject

no subject