Comments on: Defining Romance

By: Alison

Alison — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:36:46 +0000

Anna – Thanks for that. I’ve heard forever that RWA’s lawyer is big on the side of caution, so it’s interesting to hear from others. I have no idea how he invokes the anti-trust issue, and now, of course, I’m dying to hear about your RWA experience!!!

By: Anna

Anna — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:30:35 +0000

OK, that whole anti-trust rationale from RWA looks purely fictional (yes, I’m a lawyer). For an antitrust primer, check out this site: Antitrust primer. None of these activities even come close to applying to RWA. They’re not a publisher, they’re not a monopoly, they don’t control pricing of romance novels, and their proposed restriction on defining what romance is does to address antitrust law issues. If anything, what they’re doing looks anti-competitive and makes their position with respect to antitrust law (assuming that it’s even applies) look worse, not better. But whenever you tell people “ooooh, we’re doing this because we’re worried about legal issues,” people freak out, making them easier to manipulate to whatever agenda you have.

Unreal. I’m reminded why I didn’t join RWA after I had attended my first local meeting.

By: Alison

Alison — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:10:09 +0000

Janie – I agree. My problem with the whole thing, however, is that the membership is treated like children with parents who won’t give explanations but just a pat on the head and a “Because I said so” response. They need to make this information readily accessible. Yes, we can read minutes of the board meetings online, but are all members online? I think not! They also use the loops to keep us informed. Are all members part of the loops? I know not! So, yes. There is probably a very real and logical reason. But since they don’t disseminate the information in a timely manner and to all involved, we’re left to wonder what they’ve been smoking!

By: Janie

Janie — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 07:20:11 +0000

Ladies, I still believe the situation is more complex than we understand. I am not defending RWA at all. But I have a weird feeling about all this. I’ve been around a long, long time, and this may be about more than we know.

By: MJ Pearson

MJ Pearson — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 04:28:22 +0000

I just joined the RWA–this issue of RWR is my first ever. So I eagerly open it up, and find the dread Survey…

Did I mention I write gay romance? Dang–such a welcome! I’ll be up all night emailing Board Members.

By: Aimless

Aimless — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 04:09:16 +0000

[quote] Currently, this definition defines a romance as any work of fiction with �romance� printed on the spine [/quote]

Oh. My. Freaking. God.

Tell me TTQ did not actually write this. Please tell me that RWA’s PRESIDENT didn’t actually put this bit of totally incorrect propaganda in her President’s Pen letter. I can forgive ignorance on the part of RWA general members who might not have known that the organization already has a perfectly good definition of romance–I cannot forgive it from our president. This is NOT the current definition of romance! To my mind, this is deliberate misinformation, distributed with the purpose of clouding the issue and steering the vote in a certain direction.

Maybe I’m paranoid. Maybe I learned how to be by watching the RWA board. Shame on you, TTQ.

By: Kate R

Kate R — Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:10:22 +0000

People who are entitled, angry and have access to a lawyer(a dangerous combination)are not going to be stopped by a definition of romance, no matter how carefully it’s worded.

When has a legitimate publisher ever been pushed out of the conference schedule because a bunch of inappropriate types have jumped into the slots? Except for EC, I’ve never heard of this happening. And EC is powerful enough and interested enough that the company is willing to show up at RWA anyway.

It is a real question, actually. I haven’t paid much attention in the past. . . now I will.

By: Mary Stella

Mary Stella — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:09:54 +0000

I happen to like the current definition, too. Probably because I was part of the committee that came up with it. I think it passed the year that I was on the Board.

As far as the editors attending the conference… it may come down to budgets. The budget isn’t limitless to comp editors who take appointments. Without a clear definition (again, I thought the current was clear enough), then, yes, the organization can run into problems if it refuses to comp non-romance editors.

By: Carol Burnside

Carol Burnside — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:05:07 +0000

I do fear that the Board of Directors are seeing monsters under their beds.

Actually, TTQ does state that “We are getting repeated requests from vastly varying sources asking for our sponsorship and/or for the right to participate in RWA-sponsored programs and events.”

She goes on to say that if they let everyone in our RWA funds will be swallowed up quickly – and did you get the part about “could be NO slots available for romance editors and romance industry professionals”?

Seems like a bit of a problem to me. Thousands of romance writers coming to a convention that has few or no opportunities for them to sell? Don’t know about you, but if I shell out those kinds of bucks on flight and a conference, I’d better find it worth my while.

Apparently, the problem being

By: SandyO

SandyO — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:26:03 +0000

“We could also end up with a conference filled w/ publishers of other genres & there could be no slots avail for romance editors & romance industry professionals.”

Good God Almighty! You mean that there would be more PUBLISHERS and EDITORS and this would be a bad thing for authors?

Why would publishers not looking for romance authors and romance oriented books pay money to attend a Romance Writers Conference. Do the standard romance editors/publishers attend SciFi writers conferences? Are they excluded? What about mystery writers conferences?

I do fear that the Board of Directors are seeing monsters under their beds.