Breaking news! Molly Wins RWA chapter contest!

[Frank Creed]

According to the Romance Magicians Blogspot, Molly Nobel Bull won one of the awards disputed by the RWA national!

This announcement was followed by Teresa Slack's post at Shoutlife:

SANCTUARY, the latest book by Molly Noble Bull, bestselling author of The Rogue's Daughter and The Winter Pearl, was awarded the 2008 Gayle Wilson Award of Excellence in the Inspirational category at an awards dinner on April 12th in Florida. The contest was sponsored by the Southern Magic chapter of Romance Writers of America in Burmingham, Alabama.

Along with the winners in the other categories, the cover of SANCTUARY will appear in a full page ad in the August issue of the RWR, the national magazine of Romance Writers of America.

Hey, I thought she didn't qualify!

[Deb Kinnard]

To answer your question would take some delving into the schizoid thought processes of the RWA. Not a pretty trip. That's part (not all) of the reason I no longer belong.

"Eligibility" for contests is two-pronged. To participate in the RWA national contests (there are two), you must be published by a publisher the RWA likes, or uncontracted altogether. Molly's book was not considered eligible for the published author "Rita" award, nor did she try to enter it.

The local chapter contests' eligibility is totally up to the chapter who runs them. The contest SANCTUARY won is a local contest. The entry didn't have to be published by one of the select few pubs, and she didn't have to qualify by being totally unpublished. The chapters' contests are free to invent any qualification they like, regardless of whether the national organization considers you pubbed, unpubbed, or some vast unnoticed and unnoticeable wasteland between the two.

Do I feel rather strongly about this? Yes.

I'm thrilled that Molly's novel won. But when you talk RWA you have to realize that they have some rules and mindsets that most writers' organizations would not touch.

[cyn]

Sue Dent and I discovered some things about the RWA . . . the hard way.

I became all fired up about the Molly Noble Bull and Tsaba House incident but had to keep mum because I my information came from a private group to which I belong. I followed the updates from February on until the PW Daily report. Then I looked for discussion on the subject.

The first blog post that came up was at "Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books" or something to that effect. And oh boy, did I take a hit right between the eyes, mostly from Norah R. I should have seen that the tone of the entire blog was one of gleeful speculation and gossip. Should have left it alone.

In amongst the speculative and nasty comments every once in a while I'd see one that reminded people about past deeds of the RWA. I knew enough to do some more searching and indeed found other blogs were the RWA wasn't exalted. Of course, the good Ms R. was over there spreading the good word as well, but this time she was in the minority and the other commentors were clearly not so in awe of her presence.

I felt sorry that Molly was caught in the middle of everything. She is such a sweet soul. However, as a small publisher myself, I was highly interested in the Tsaba House aspect of the issue. I've come across this sort of discrimination time and time again and I was proud of Pam Schwageral for standing up for herself. She isn't someone to take things lightly.

Left a bad taste in my mouth for the RWA and I would never enter one of my books in their contest because of their actions -- not that I publish romance, but it did teach me a big lesson.

Recently I checked out the ACFW's award system and new guidelines for qualification for the BOTY. Very suspicious that they read, this year, like that of the RITA.

The interesting thing is that the big dogs in the ACFW act in a very similar fashion to Norah R et al. Very un-christian behavior.

[Deb Kinnard]

What you say about ACFW is true. Let me offer some background. In 2003, I think it was, my small-press published book POWERLINE was nominated for book-of-the-year with ACFW. I was thrilled, naturally...

When I wanted to nominate a small-press book this year, I was told I need not apply. Small-press books were not permitted unless the title had sold some high number of copies, I think it was 1500. When I went back and checked my old RWA file, their criteria were the same.

I took the issue up with the president, noting that my own s.p. book had been eligible not so many years before. She replied that they'd changed the criteria, and since the change had been done "thoughtfully and prayerfully," I really shouldn't ask any more questions (this last was not literally what she said, but she did close the communication in this tenor of phrasing).

The change was made by the board, in private, without notifying the membership or allowing their input. This much I learned in subsequent conversations with other board members.

I think it's a shame that ACFW would descend to RWA's exclusionary thinking, and more so, that they would do so without ascertaining the membership's feelings on the issue. And just because a group prays or thinks over an issue, does not in itself make it a good decision.

My take only.

[Frank Creed]

She replied that they'd changed the criteria, and since the change had been done "thoughtfully and prayerfully," I really shouldn't ask any more questions

Believe me, I know all too well what this means. Same kind of response, different issue.

I challenged some responses on their forums. Several people questioned the tactics of the Genesis contest and they were summarily quashed by the bi-wigs. I felt that gagging these people was totally inappropriate and said so.

They brought out the big guns and gave me what-for; deleted all my comments and then lectured me in email. Noteable was their use of 'loving Christianese' to defend their positions and attempts to shut me up/ make me feel guilty.

Oh yes, I see too many similarities between the RWA and the ACFW for my taste.

Do you have any idea why the two organizations are so similar? Why does the ACFW seem to follow the lead of the RWA?

Faith,
f

[Deb Kinnard]

One of my writing buddies & I have tossed this question back and forth since we met (at RWA) in 2000. She's currently an ACFW member, as am I, and at first we were taken aback by all the similarities under the differences between the organization.

She calls it "high school girl syndrome." I call it "small group dynamics." Basically I think we're making the same points in differing terminology.

The RWA has its demigoddesses. So does the ACFW. There seems to be a mindset amongst women in organizational situations that these folks are necessary to the group's healthy function. Bear in mind that ACFW started life as ACRW (romance writers, therefore 99% female). Women-dominated small groups seem to anoint certain people and treat their actions and mores as normative. If you join one of these groups and have followed a different path, or admire different attributes, you are not quite accepted as part of the group.

I have a daughter who's in junior high. This syndrome in her school life mirrors mine in these writers' organizations.

At least, this is how my buddy & I have figured it out over slices of pie.

[Frank Creed]

The RWA has its demigoddesses. So does the ACFW.

Cyn and Sue Dent got hit over the head by Norah Roberts at the RWA just as I was put in my place by Colleen Cobble at the ACFW.

I don't think it is a female thing so much as a romance writer thing. I wonder if the romance writers have had to take so much flakk over the years because of the "Harlequin Romance" connotation that they feel the need to be defensive at all times.

Hey, they've got a lot more going for them than I have; they've a huge market share in the fiction industry while my Christian cyberpunk has a fraction of a fraction.

Faith,
f

[debkinnard]

Your assessment may be closer to spot-on than mine. I only know that some of what I've seen over the years would make junior high girls blush.

The defensive stance is still there. Nowadays, when romance writers feel the need to explain their genre of choice, they're up against both the Harlequin syndrome and now Ellora's Cave and the like.

I heard a story long ago where a mainstream (not X rated) romance writer was quoted as saying her son introduced her to friends as, "This's Mom, the family pornographer."

If we're a tad tetchy, maybe this sort of mindset forms part of the reason.

[Frank Creed]

Nowadays, when romance writers feel the need to explain their genre of choice, they're up against both the Harlequin syndrome and now Ellora's Cave and the like

Yup, the mindset is understandable.

Gotta tell you, one of the best Christian novels I've read in recent years is MaryLu Tyndall's The Redemption (and the others in the series). Boy, that woman can write. I read it to review for the CFBA so it wasn't my choice at all. I don't read romance cuz I'm a real man . But I learned an important lesson: never judge a book by its genre!

[cathikin]

Going back to the beginning of this thread, I just wanted to say how happy I am for Molly. Especially with the way the national org. acted. I'm happy for Tsaba House as well. Score one for the underdogs!