Ooooh, Controversy!

The Romance Writers of America's RITA Awards have the romance writing community all a'twitter again. The finalists were announced a couple weeks ago and apparently that was all the impetus needed to spark up the old debate.

I have to say, I'm pretty psyched about going to my first ever National RWA Conference this year. Partially cuz I get to see it all as a Golden Heart finalist (woop!), but also because I love a good controversy and I think the general meeting this year is gonna be a doosie.

Here's the sitch: Many erotic romance (FYI: not erotica, but romance with erotic elements) and ebook authors feel marginalized and discriminated against by this national organization that purports to advocate for and support career-oriented romance writers. Not just mainstream romance writers. Not just plain-vanilla, euphemistic, married-sex-behind-closed-doors romance writers. Not just Dame Nora, in her noble quest for the longest Lifetime movie marathon of all time. All of us.

Now, you may be wondering, why do these authors feel marginalized and discriminated against? It boils down to three RWA policies which, for various reasons, many erotic romance & ebook authors find discriminatory.

Thing Number One - The Tortoise & the Hare. PAN is RWA's Published Author Network. It's the Big Girl's Table. In order to get into PAN you have to receive $1000 or more from the sale of a single novel or novella either as an advance or in royalties. Frankly, I agree that there should be standards for PAN, a financial benchmark seems as logical as any other, and I don't think $1000 is an unreasonable amount. HOWEVER, let's look at a hypothetical. Suppose Jane Truelove sells her masterpiece to a NY pub for an advance of $5,000. She's insta-PAN. But then she gets sophomore-itis, or has triplets, or decides to join the peace corp, and doesn't sell another word for four years. Her masterpiece was not a rousing success and never earned out the advance (so she doesn't get another penny). At the same time, Sally Sexitup sells four novels, novellas or short stories every year to a bitty itty e-press, making royalties of $800 on each one, but never crossing that $1000 threshold. No PAN. In those four years, Sally has made over twelve grand to Jane's five, but Jane is the one who gets to go to the PAN retreat at the National conference. Is Sally any less published or "career-oriented" than Jane? What do you think? Fair? Unfair? I definitely think there should be standards, but the deck does seem to be stacked toward those who achieve a certain kind of success. It's a tricksy quesiton.

Thing Number Two - Categorically Unfair. The RITAs are RWA's version of the Oscars for Romance Novels. The controversy is this: There is no category for erotic romance. There are two different categories of historical (regency & regular). There are two different categories for series romances (adventure/suspense & regular). Also Paranormal, Single Title, Novel with Romantic Elements, Inspirational, Young Adult and Best First Book. And the categories are revised often in an attempt to maintain relevance to the current romance market. But no erotic. Erotic romances get tossed into whichever other category is the closest fit. Now, I read across several different genres and heat levels and I'm pretty hard to offend, but not everyone is comfortable with all levels of sexuality. RITA judges who are offended by the heat level may score well-written erotic romances poorly or even mark them as "Not Romance" - a classification which can disqualify an entry if used by three judges. Some erotic romance authors feel that their books are not given a fair shake in the RITAs. While that may be true (judging is subjective so how would you even determine whether or not judges were treating them fairly?), I feel they also need to acknowledge the luck of the draw involved in any contest of this kind. Even with a specialized erotic romance category, there will still be judges who react in unexpected ways to your books. Maybe you gave your hero her ex-husband's name. Or maybe your villain's name is the same as her cute little cuddly puppy. You can't predict what will resonate with a reader. Even if you are positive you won't offend her heat-level sensibilities. (For more on this debate, you can check out Dear Author's discussion on the topic: http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2009/03/31/dear-rwa-members-dont-be-a-hater-of-the-hot/ )

Thing Number Three: Mass-Produced Hysteria. This debate was more violent a few months ago when authors were submitting their RITA entries, but I have a feeling it's gonna be a hot topic at National this year. It's nice and incendiary. Very polarizing. Ahhhh, doncha just love controversy? Anyway, the issue is this: a new rule was added to the RITA qualifications this year, stating that all entries had to be "mass-produced." To the best of my knowledge, no definition of mass-produced was ever provided, but the implied exclusion of small presses & epresses incapable of running mass-market print runs set spark to an explosive debate. (For more check out this entry of the Beyond the Book Blog: http://www.publishersweekly.com/blog/880000288/post/470039447.html ). RWA explained that they had to limit the number of entries somehow and in order to promote romance novels as a whole they were best served by focusing on the mass-produced books. In this, I must say I disagree. I think that quality whether it comes from a micropress or the biggest print publisher is what will best promote romance novels as a whole. You have to limit entries? First come, first served. Or a mix of first-come, first-served and a willingness to judge - which is exactly how they cut off entries for the unpubbed contest that runs alongside the RITA, the Golden Heart. The judges can see the imprint on the book, so small presses may still not get a completely unbiased read, but I would like to see them being allowed to enter the race. Quality not quantity of copies produced should determine who is honored, in my opinion.


I have my own biases on these issues, as you can see in what I've written above, but I want to be very clear that I am not attacking or blaming anyone. I like RWA and I think I have benefited a great deal from being a member. I think, like any large organization, that RWA is rather slow to adapt to change and things are changing mighty fast in epublishing right now. There will always be those who resist change, but attacking them or their beliefs is not generally a very effective way of changing their minds. I tend to think cooler heads will eventually prevail... provided all the ebook & erotic romance authors don't march off in a huff and leave RWA feeling justified in running the upstarts off. This year's explosive debates will lend themselves to next year's (or, perhaps more likely, the year after's) plodding changes. RWA is, in many ways, a political body. And, as we are all learning as we watch our country make the slow turn under the heading of a new administration, political bodies are notoriously slow to react to change.

But in the mean time, the controversy sure is fun to watch.

Irony in Action

In case you're wondering what you're looking at, this is a big ole overstock bin at Target filled to the ever-lovin' brim with pamphlets entitled Green Living for DUMMIES. Let's just take a moment to appreciate that, shall we?

Ain't No Second Chances: A DABWAHA Post Mortem

The 2009 Dear Author/Bitchery Writing Awards for Hellagood Authors have drawn to a close and Iron Kissed by Patricia Briggs has emerged victorious, edging out The Spymaster's Lady by Joanna Bourne. Which means I'm gonna be road-tripping it out to my nearest Borders to do some shopping in the very near future, because, tragically, I have yet to read either of these Hellagood Books. Oh, the shame! How can I call myself an avid reader?

I'm sure you're all dying to know how I did in the brackets. (Or not, but I'm gonna tell you anyway. Cuz it's my blog and I can cry if I want to.) My DABWAHA Brackets = Epic Fail. I think I ranked somewhere around 230th place in the regular brackets. Unfortunately, I also saw they were having second chance brackets about midway through the melee, and I thought, "Hells yeah, baby! Second chance at fame and glory!" Unfortunately, I did not trust my instincts when filling out said Second Chance Brackets. I tried to predict how people would vote, tried to guess at popularity rather than just going with my gut. And ya know what happened? Dead last. (Okay, slight exaggeration. I came in tied for second to last place.) Yeah, go ahead, point and laugh. I can take it.

So the moral of the story is... go with your gut cuz there ain't no second chances. Or use the force, Luke. Or something like that. Life lessons can be tricky to pin down when you're basing them on the bibliophile's version of online gambling.

One last sigh for my epic failure and a big congrats to Patricia Briggs. I can't wait to read the official Hellagood Book o' 2009.

Free Stuff!

Harlequin is celebrating 60 years by giving away free downloads of 16 of their books! Click here to download yours: http://www.harlequincelebrates.com.

For the Record

I know some people prefer a certain level of formality. All Toms are Thomases and all Nicks are Nicholases. However, I recommend that when you go formal, you make sure you have the name right. I have an Aunt Kris. If you called her Kristine, she probably wouldn't be terribly offended, but I bet she'd laugh. You see, her name is Kristan. Very different name.

So, just to clear up any confusion, my name is not short for Vivian, or Vivien, or Vivienne. Or any varietal thereof. Yes, it is short for something. No, I'm not going to tell you what it's short for. No, you will never guess. So just a nice casual Vivi, please. No formality required.

Hint, Hint...

Long & Short Reviews is celebrating National Humor Month! And I'm a sponsor, cuz it's all about the funny, baby. Today, I'm giving away a free download of The Ghost Shrink, the Accidental Gigolo & the Poltergeist Accountant as part of their every-day-a-new-prize month-long Scavenger Hunt through romantic comedy authors' websites! Click for details: http://www.longandshortreviews.com/humormonth.htm

Want to know the answer to the scavenger hunt question? Go to the BOOKSHELF page and scroll down about halfway. And don't say I never did nuthin fer ya.

Cornelia Funke is a Goddess

I'm a sucker for all stories that bend the boundaries of reality, and I've always felt there was something particularly intriguing about books that blur the line between this world of ours and the world of words. To literally crawl inside the world of a book! To truly, physically be there! What a concept! This is why I was so captivated by Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series and this is why I loved the Inkheart Trilogy by Cornelia Funke.

The first book of Cornelia Funke's series, Inkheart, has now been made into a movie with Brendan Fraiser, Paul Bettany & Helen Mirren. I thought the film was fairly faithful to the book, but lost some of its magic in the retelling. The basic premise is that there are Readers with voices so beautiful they have the power to read people in and out of books by speaking the words aloud. In the first book of the trilogy, one such Reader, a bookbinder named Mo, inadvertently reads a pack of villains out of a book called Inkheart, trapping his own wife between the pages in the process. He and his daughter, who has inherited his gift, must find a way to set the story to rights again, putting fiction and reality back into a proper balance. In the second book, Inkspell, Mo, his family, and the author of Inkheart, Fenoglio, are themselves read into the Inkworld, where they find themselves much more a part of this story - and in much less control of it - than they could have imagined. It is in the last book, Inkdeath, that the lines between fiction and reality become haziest. The writer is blocked, Mo is becoming more and more lost inside the character he was set to play, and the story seems to be writing itself in a new and unexpected direction.

Cornelia Funke weaves an ensemble of dynamic real characters into a plot rich with causal ripples. Her style is fluid, lyrical and wraps the story around you. But what prevents Inkdeath from being just another well-written fantasy trilogy is its quiet philosophy. When does a person become real? Once they shake your hand, can you never again think of them as merely words on a page? Once you have seen them breathing, laughing, and talking, can you take yourself out of the story again, knowing that if you do they will suffer from your absence? Even if there is a danger to you in the Inkworld, do you stay because its cares have become more real to you than those of your own world? Your own story? Can that translate to our world? Our stories? If people from foreign cultures were more to us than just a soundbite on the six o'clock news, would we care more about their stories? Would they be real to us?

The philosophic parallels are many, but Ms. Funke deftly prevents them from drowning the rich story. Our frustration at the writer, Fenoglio, who is too busy feeling sorry for himself to write a happily-ever-after, subtly parallels the all-too-human frustration with a God who has created this beautiful world and then left it to tumble into war and hardship. Because in the Inkworld, writers are gods, their wills creating worlds. And Cornelia Funke is a goddess without compare.

Bunnies!

Mrs. Giggles is reformed! Only love and cuddles from here on out. http://mrsgiggles.com/



Fluffy Bunny Lovin. Yeah, baby. Best April Fools Joke Ever? (Well, maybe not ever but definitely on the list.) Hysterical. LOL. Happy April, y'all.

And if that one didn't do it for you, how about the Guardian Goes Twitter? http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/apr/01/guardian-twitter-media-technology

Or Dear Author's New Literary Venture? http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2009/04/01/big-changes-to-dear-author-goodbye-for-now/

Or maybe CADIE's love for Pandas? http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/cadie/index.html

April Fool's jokes may be the best use of the internet to date. You know, aside from all that "globalization" nonsense.