Surrender Dorothy
Published July 31, 2007 | 
(If you’ve had it up to here with the recent war of words between certain authors and certain bloggers, try looking at this instead: Another excellent review of ADIOS TO MY OLD LIFE.)
For those of you still hanging around, the rest of my post was inspired by this conversation.
Rather than hijack that poor woman’s blog, I moved my final response here:
~To anyone who has ever bought a book of mine, considered buying a book of mine, or may sometime in the distant future consider buying a book of mine:
What you see is what you get. If you don’t like my opinions, if you’re appalled by how I present myself in public? I implore you not to waste your money on my work because you’ll find many of my characters to be just as abrasive and challenging as their creator. Sometimes they get slapped upside the head for it. Sometimes I do, too. We muddle onward.
~To the various online blogger/reviewers with whom I’ve recently crossed swords:
This ain’t my first rodeo. I spent years working in retail, business, and academia. I learned early that cowering in fear of other people’s opinions or harsh words is the fast track to nowhere. If I lose readers because I choose to speak my mind…well, them’s the breaks. I won’t be bullied because some folks think they have less to lose than I do, nor will dire warnings of career disaster make me sit down and shut up.
Review my books if you’ve a mind to. Give them lousy grades, good grades, and anything in between. You’ll receive a thank you from me for your effort.
Engage me in a debate, comment on my online persona, attack me for not holding my tongue when you think I should, and I’ll meet you halfway every time. With luck, we’ll part with a better understanding of one another. If not, so be it. I am at peace with either outcome. But don’t kid yourself into believing I fear you. Not on my worst day, or your best.
To quote Glinda the Good Witch of the North, who was one badass mofo bitch:
“You have no power here! Now begone, before somebody drops a house on you!”
I can has a cookie??
Published July 28, 2007 | Somebody on the RWA Board took the time to do a little research on how epublishing works and as a result, the Board has revised its definitions. Because no matter how many folks SAY the RWA has the power to redefine the terms “vanity publisher” and “subsidy publisher” and the word “primarily”….honest and truly, people, not so much.
From the RWA National Offices:
“At the request of members, the Board has re-visited the definitions of ‘Subsidy Publisher’ and ‘Vanity Publisher.’ After considering the advice of legal and industry professionals, along with suggestions by our Publisher Recognition Task Force, the board met in a telephonic board meeting on July 25th and redefined the terms ‘Subsidy Publisher’ and ‘Vanity Publisher’ as follows:
‘Subsidy Publisher’ means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment or reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs.
‘Vanity Publisher’ means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books and publishers whose business model and methods of publishing and distribution are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and/or associates.
RWA’s mission is to promote the professional interests of career-focused romance authors through networking and advocacy. Advocacy is one of the main reasons RWA exists, and since advocacy is included in RWA’s core purpose, mandated by the Bylaws, the Board cannot simply decide to stop advocating for the fair treatment of RWA’s members.
Though we know some RWA members disagree, when determining whether a publisher is a Vanity Publisher, RWA believes it is important to look at distribution of books. When a publisher does not pay an advance and does not become involved with marketing and distribution, it is, in reality, acting as nothing more than a consignment dealer for the book. Providing this kind of service requires little or nothing of the publisher, and the responsibility to market the product and drive traffic to single distribution point falls upon the author. There is nothing two-sided about this kind of arrangement, no give and take where both sides involved incur risk and both stand to gain. In this situation the author incurs all of the financial risk in attempting to market a product.
On the other hand, if a publisher doesn’t pay an advance, but is investing time, energy, and money to provide alternate means of distribution, the publisher is at least somewhat invested in the product. This investment moves this relationship away from a consignment arrangement and closer to a two sided publishing agreement where the author and publisher are crucial to one another. Some of the methods of national distribution that benefit an author are: Advertising in national trade or consumer magazines, wholesaler agreements, Amazon.com-type internet bookstore agreements, or national chain bookstore agreements to carry a publisher’s titles. Also included are exhibiting at national and/or regional tradeshows and book fairs as well as advertising to readers.
Right now, publishing is changing daily. Companies are rising and falling with alarming speed, but it is the writers who are being hurt when a company goes under or fails to live up to promises. There are, of course, many stable and viable publishing companies who have become established in the past few years, but even with those companies RWA must continue to advocate for the fair and ethical treatment of its authors, as it has always done with long established publishers. RWA welcomes the addition of strong, viable publishers because any increase in reliable, reputable avenues of publishing is good for writers in general.
There will never come a time, however, when a writer can afford to assume any contract is good. It will always be the author’s responsibility to read all the clauses, question the ones he/she doesn’t understand, find out what the industry standard is, and only then, with full knowledge, make the decision to sign or not to sign. The hard truth is that a Vanity Publisher or Subsidy Publisher is not, in general, as favorable to the writer as an advance-paying non-Vanity Publisher or non-Subsidy Publisher. RWA is not here to determine who should sign or not sign any specific contract. That decision remains solely with the author. But in its role as advocate for its members, RWA must take a stand.”
***
So we’re all legitimately published again. I feel so much better now. */sarcasm*
Review: THE UNFORTUNATE MISS FORTUNES
Published July 26, 2007 | The theory behind THE UNFORTUNATE MISS FORTUNES — three well-known authors (Jenny Crusie, Eileen Dreyer, Anne Stuart) combine talents to create a single novel — is like opening a menu and finding your three favorite desserts combined into one. (In my case, it would be a honkin’ slice of sour cream lemon meringue-hot fudge sundae-cheesecake, but you’re not here to find out how I flirt with diabetic coma on a weekly basis, so never mind.)
You think, “Wow. All three at once. I wonder how that’ll taste…” And so you order it and you dig in and lo and behold…it ain’t bad. In fact, parts of it are downright tasty.
I’ve read a little Dreyer and a little more Stuart, and liked them both. I’m an inveterate Crusie fan, though, so I expected to love the Crusie contribution best. I wasn’t wrong. The characters she created in Mare Fortune, Crash (Mare’s one true love), and a cast of wacky supporting actors are the sour cream lemon meringue pie my grandmother made for every birthday I celebrated between ages five and twenty.
My next favorite was Anne Stuart’s contribution in the character of Lizzie. I guess she’d be the hot fudge sundae with homemade vanilla ice cream drowned in fudge made from real dark chocolate. Maybe some coconut flakes for texture. I found Lizzie loveable, if a little more dim than I generally like my heroines. Her soulmate, Elric, tended toward the typical paranormal alpha male — inscrutable, arrogant and more than a little annoying at times, but I forgave him eventually. All in all, a solid effort.
Finally, Dreyer’s eldest sister, Dee, was my least favorite of the trio, which is not to say I didn’t like her…because hello? Cheesecake? The really good kind, straight from New York? But she’s a frustrating character for me, forever trapped by her own sense of responsibility and guilt, and carrying secrets alone, and I dunno…cardigan sweaters and her hair in a bun? Really? It made me want to rebel in solidarity with eldest sisters everywhere. Plus, her interactions with her one true love tended to be a little on the repetitive side. But hey…even when every bite of cheesecake is the same as the last, who’s complaining?
Together the three sisters were a delight. With a villainess, Xantippe, who is the perfect cup of espresso — dark, bitter, and cleansing to the palate between bites of confection — this book can’t miss. If I were a real reviewer giving it a real grade…hmmm…four and a half maraschino cherries out of five.
I highly recommend THE UNFORTUNATE MISS FORTUNES.
Upcoming review: THE UNFORTUNATE MISS FORTUNES
Published July 23, 2007 | I generally don’t review fiction here unless it’s to give recommendations. I just don’t possess whatever special skills it takes to criticize — in the formal sense — the work of others.
But I took a chance on a free ARC of the Jenny Crusie/Eileen Dreyer/Anne Stuart collaboration, THE UNFORTUNATE MISS FORTUNES, which Ms. Crusie offered up in sort of a “viral blogging review fest,” much like that of Alison Kent’s COMPLETE IDIOT’S GUIDE TO WRITING EROTIC ROMANCE last year. So if anyone’s interested, my review should be up tomorrow.
In other news…yeah, it got pretty ugly out there for a little bit, and I contributed to some of it. I stand by every word I’ve said, however, and will not attempt to excuse my fit of bad temper by saying I was provoked or moved to verbal violence by the words of others. That would be tacky. And while I may be a bitch of the first order, I do try to avoid the tacky.
Unless we’re talking Swan Hats, because I’m ALL OVER that shit.
Moving on.
My GOD, look what she's doing to that poor bird.
Published July 20, 2007 | Moving this conversation from the comments section because it deserves its own damn post. And then? I’m done with this issue. Two days of writing time and 6K words lost to this nonsense. I’m not a happy camper, and have no one to blame but myself.
First, the inimitable Ferfe:
“*vbg* At this point I’ll take a decent rant from either of you but I’m not sure I can make it that long between “rant fixes” so Selah needs to schedule something in alternating months. I would rant myself but …well … my pilot light must have gone out or something. If I were going to rant, though, it would probably be about how annoying manufactured dramas in the blog-o-sphere are, and how one or two people saying something cranky in a private email is not worthy of 400 comments about a fucking swan hat. Or … how everytime someone blindly agrees with Nora Roberts or apologizes profusely for “kind of” disagreeing with her, promising to buy more of her books in penance, I feel IQ points being sucked out of my head in much the same way a bot fly gets tweezed from it’s nest under human skin while still in the maggot stage.
It’s my own fault, of course. If I spent more time writing and less time reading the blogs … sigh … It’s just … They’re like the four horsemen or something and we are missing the obvious end of days right there in front of us on our computer screens. But for a single, worldwide EMP event, we could have evolved. Now? All we can do is hope the great firewall of China will spread across the Web and save us from madness. 
But you guys can rant on anything and I’d be happy.”
My reply:
“Ferfe-o’-my-heart, I’m sorry. My Ranty McRantypants hat is in the shop this week, and I used up all the juice in the spare over at YOUR blog.
The sad thing is, I don’t doubt Nora would agree with you. She seems a level-headed sort, and likely wouldn’t mind someone saying, “Respectfully, I think you’re fulla shit on this particular point,” without then feeling the need to apologize. Only nicer, of course, and without the vulgar language.
The more I read on this particular issue, the more I really think it’s never been about the costumes at all. I’m not absolutely certain what it IS about, you understand. But one Dead Poultry Chapeau and a couple of grown women in thigh-highs simply do not make for this much drama all by themselves.
And if it really IS about the costumes and whether or not we should wear them at certain events and what that will do to the level of respect we engender as professionals? Then truly, as a group we don’t deserve to garner the level of professional respect we desire, simply because we want it so badly we’re willing to savage our own to get it. Poor Marianne, Liz and Sherri. Sacrificed on the altar of Won’t You Pleeeeeeeease Respect Us?
And as I said before — on your blog, I believe — I just don’t care that much what total strangers think of me. And I still don’t know if that makes my self-esteem too low or too high.
But I will say that I’m very tempted to show up at the RWA signing some year — not as a member, you understand, just as a reader and rabble-rouser — RIDING a swan and wearing thigh highs on every part of my body but the naughty bits. And won’t everybody be sorry THEN.
Mostly the swan.”
Mr. Eastwood is ready for his close-up.
Published July 18, 2007 | AKA: RWA Nationals Round-up: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
The Good:
~ Barb/Caridad Ferrer’s RITA win. However you may feel about the contest itself and the process by which the categories shook themselves out this year, the bottom line is this — the book RAWKS, and deserves a RITA. The judges thought so, bless their brilliant and insightful hearts, and so do I and a slew of other readers.
Or to quote Jenny Crusie’s comment:
“I haven’t read the other comments (sorry!) but these are the same kind of idiots who made the NYT start a children’s book list because Harry Potter was screwing up the NYT bestseller list.
A good book is a good book is a good book. The fact that Barb’s book won in a field of “adult” single titles tells you that it was head and shoulders above the others because there must have been some innate prejudice at work there–look at the prejudice in the comments against it–and yet it made it through to the finals and the win.”
Yeah. What she said.
~ Bloggers, reviewers and fans at the conference. Apparently, some folks are uncomfy with this phenomenon, but the general consensus appears to range from “bring it, Bitches,” to “meh, whatev.” As far as I’m concerned, it’s all good, since it makes for entertaining blog hoppage.
~ Candy’s rack. ‘Nuff said.
The Bad:
~ Bitter shrews who post anonymously. Yeah, we get it. You’re miffed. But there are plenty of folks who disagreed with Ferrer’s RITA win who managed to say so in a calm, non-insulting — if not always coherent — manner and weren’t cowardly about expressing their opinions on the record. Have the ovaries to sign your name or STFU.
~ Organizational arrogance and/or incompetence. At first, it seemed like the RWA Board was attempting to redefine the term “vanity/subsidy press” to include any company that sold most of its books from its own website. Now it turns out they’re only trying to redefine the word “primarily” to mean “exclusively.” (They’re allowed to do that — they’re the RWA.) Christ on a cracker, people. You want to be taken seriously? Admit you made a mistake. Or at least that expensive lawyer — the one you hired with membership dues? — made a mistake. Said it before, will say it again because I love the sound of my own self-righteousness in the morning: Accountability. It’s a good thing.
~ Book “snatch and flippers.” Although I’m still waiting for those folks who so vehemently defended selling ARCs on eBay to tell us how THAT is different from THIS.
The Ugly?
I understand there were costumes. And some pronouncements of “how unprofessional” to said costumes. Hey, I get that. If romance writers want respect, we should probably avoid the hats made of overstuffed poultry. On the other hand? At the moment, the RWA is looking (again) an awful lot like the Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight, with or without the Dead Swan Chapeau in the pages of the Dallas Morning News.
Maybe the costumes are the least of their problems?
***
Oh, look. I did a couple of interviews. Here’s one from a few weeks ago, and a brand-spanking new one with Cindy Cruciger (REVENGE GIFTS, Tor, 2005). Enjoy. 
Sssssssssssweaty goodness.
Published July 15, 2007 | 7810 words since Tuesday, which is somewhat below my goal of 2K per day. But still, not bad.
This week’s gonna be killer, though, because I’ll be breaking in my first pair of bi-focals.
Yes. It’s true. I am an aged hag. Gloom, despair and agony on me.
Joy in Mudville.
Published July 15, 2007 | 2007 RITA for Best Contemporary Single Title: ADIOS TO MY OLD LIFE, by Barbara Caridad Ferrer.
Can I get an amen, people? Truly, good things can happen to good people and their brilliant, beautiful books.
*crickets*
Published July 14, 2007 | There reaches a point where the leadership of an organization becomes so self-destructive in its stupidity that those watching move beyond anger, beyond pointing and laughing, and on into pity. Now they’re insisting they never, ever, not in a million YEARS meant to exclude epubs like EC, Samhain or Loose Id. We MISUNDERSTOOD their INTENTIONS. *insert wide-eyed pout*
Maybe because their intentions were couched in a shittily worded document that isn’t worth the pixels it’s transmitted in?
Juno Books editor Paula Guran makes excellent point about just how thoroughly the RWA has shot itself in the foot with this latest boneheaded move. Make sure you read the comments.
Is the lawyer they hired to draft the language in their latest policy change the ne’re-do-well nephew of a board member? I’m askin’.
In other news, after cooking right along for the first four days of the Seventy Days of Sweat, I hit a spawn-shaped roadblock (my son is having issues with a bully at summer day-camp) and I now find myself 1800 words in the hole. But I’m pretty sure I can climb out again if I can convince my family to leave me the @#$% alone for a few hours.
Tonight is the Rita Awards ceremony. Every limb and digit on my body is crossed in hopes that my brilliant and ever-stylish crit partner, Barbara Caridad Ferrer, will win at least one of the categories in which she has finaled. God knows she deserves it, and so does her book.
And that’s about it. You may have noticed that I’m trying to blog more often. That’s in response to people who email me and say, “Why don’t you blog more often?” Well, you see where that gets us. BORING. All I can do is hope the Rita ceremony provides fodder for more interesting posts. Who knows? Maybe they’ve planned an extravaganza of fuckery to rival Reno. One can only hope.
It's Thursday, and I'm still a "vanity-pubbed" author.
Published July 12, 2007 | I thought maybe I would’ve cooled down a little by now.
Not so much.
Rather than rant, I’m just going to link to what some other smart people have to say on the subject.
This one is is a few years old, but I love it. “Tree Forts for Grown-ups.”
Here’s the perspective from soon-to-be-NY-pubbed author Maya Reynolds.
And here’s what author Lynne Simpson has to say.
Finally, author Emily Veinglory destroys the EREC blog’s G rating with her potty mouth. See? The RWA turns even the most mild-mannered of us into loud-mouthed little shrews.
Not that Emily is a loud-mouthed little shrew. That’s all me, baby.