Small Publisher rejected for Award Contest

[cyn]

The hot topic on blogs this weekend was Tsaba House (a small independent Christian publisher from California) and the RWA book awards.

On Friday an article appeared at [a href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6540507.html[Publishers Weekly "]http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6540507.html[Publishers Weekly [/a]stating that Tsaba House author Molly Noble Bull was rejected as a contestant (for one of the RWA chapter awards) because the RWA deemed her publisher "subsidy."

The RWA responded to the article on their website rwanational.org.

I have a vested interest in this situation, not because I have any romance writers, but because it is just one more case of books published by indies been kept out of the promotional venues for the big dogs.

Swap out RWA and insert ACFW or Christian Fiction Blog Alliance and voila! same situation. In fact, the ACFW book of the year award guidelines contains exactly the criteria for entry into their contest.

I spent a lot of time, over the weekend, getting reprimanded and corrected by the likes of Nora Roberts and Victoria Dahl for my support of Molly Noble Bull and Tsaba House. Oh, forgot to mention, the name of the blog? "Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books."

Of course contests and book tour organizations can set their own rules -- to an extent. I don't imagine they can deny an author because s/he is Buddhist or Hispanic or . . . ? But, they can deny an author if the RWA "feels" their publisher is subsidy or vanity, even when the rest of the industry does not agree.

What do you think?

[Frank Creed]

Pregnant Doges?
LOL!

Faith,
f

[cyn]

Not any longer!

[Sue Dent]

I too rallied with Cyn on the "Bitch's" blog only to be shunned for my stupidity and lack of information. Go figure! Ironically, I just kept repeating the facts that they themselves brought light.

But one has to remember, this isn't an official RWA blog. Keep that in mind if you're searching for the truth. The turth is often distorted to their POV.

That's okay. It's their blog. ;D

But since this is not their blog and thus not their yard, I'll repeat what I've learned and Cyn can back me up if she wants to and so can Molly Noble Bull!

Molly entered three RWA Chapter contest in November with her book Sanctuary. She hasn't heard back on one, another she finaled. The third chapter contest allowed her to enter as well, then three months later told her she wasn't eligible.

In February the day she received the e-mail from RWA chapter, Molly went to Tsaba House.

*Important note-RWA National and RWA chapters do not work hand in hand as such. RWA chapters run their own contest in accordance to RWA national bylaws and guidelines. It is my understanding, and it's been repeated several times on the "bitche's" blog that RWA chapters handle their own problems and issues. Apparently this one was too big for them but that doesn't negate that fact that RWA National should've never gotten involved.*

Confused, (who wouldn't be) Molly went to Tsaba House and told them what happened. In February Tsaba House went to RWA National.

RWA National said we need to see your (and here's where it gets murky for those who don't know for sure) boilerplate contract or Molly's contract specifically. Tsaba House sent a boilerplate.

RWA National would only need to see this if Tsaba House was entering the RWA National RITA award. Tsaba House wasn't.

*Important note - a boilerplate contract is a generic contract that a publisher uses before modifying. Many boilerplates have clauses that don't apply and are usually taken out. Needless to say that's what RWA National asked for. But why? She was already deemed ineligiable. It was as if they needed an excuse and they didn't have one. And why are they inovled anyway. They are RWA National. This is a chapter contest?*

RWA National, we think in March, contacted Tsaba House to let them know that not only was Molly not eligible to enter a chapter RWA contest, but they were now considered a subsidy press based on wording in a boilerplate contract that should've never been asked for because Molly wasn't trying to enter the RITA.

The next thing anyone knew was PW published an article outlining the fiascao to the best of their knowledge. They interviewed both RWA National and Tsaba House. The article was ambiguious in many ways.

After the ambiguous article, attention was drawn from the fact that Molly was deemed ineligible for a contest, two of which she'd already entered and one of which she'd finaled. The emphasis now was on Tsaba House being a subsidy press and not turning over Molly's contract instead of the broilerplate.

Here are the important things to remember.

The RWA chapter that deemed Molly ineligible, went to RWA National.

Why?

RWA National got involved.

Why?

The RWA chapter contacted Molly to question her eligibility.
Why?
(remember RWA National maintains that chapters do whatever they want and take care of their own problems.)

RWA National asked to see a Tsaba House broiler plate or Molly's contract.
Why?

RWA National then deemed Tsaba House a subsidy press based on a boilerplate contract when they shouldn't have even been involved.
Why?

So Molly, is that pretty much accurate.

Are you having fun yet!

Good Grief!

[Caprice]

Why is it so darn hard to define "subsidy"? Does Tsaba charge ANY of their authors to publish? What in that boilerplate was so damning? Are they like Cold Tree Press that does both? How ridiculous would it be to say every book has to get individually approved based on each book's specific contract?

I feel so badly for Molly and I agree that small presses are getting the shaft here. It's too bad there isn't some kind of independent certification agency that could give out a "seal of approval" which all the guilds and associations would recognize and accept.

[Frank Creed]

The pedestal of pride is coming down as genre fans learn where to buy what they want to read. Times-they-are-a-changin, and we're in the right place.

[Deb Kinnard]

Of course small presses are getting the short end of this. This is part of what RWA DOES.

Years ago, when I first considered joining RWA, I consulted an editor I cyber-knew. She said, "Do join if you want to be a member of a group that's incestuous with Harlequin. If you don't wanna hear about Harlequin all the time, save your money."

I thought, "Naw, she's gotta be wrong. Why would an author's group limit themselves this way?" and I joined.

Four years later I bailed out. I had seen such shenanigans, at both the national and the local level, aimed at keeping small presses and their authors in their places. I've judged in the local contest, bludgeoned my brain against the rules for that contest, and it's clear as mud. You're either eligible, not eligible, or maybe eligible.

Dig this: it's possible to qualify, in RWA terms, neither for the Golden Heart contest (unpublished) AND the Rita (published). This is an issue the articles never presented. If you're "contracted" in any way, you're published. But if you're contracted to a small press, you're unpublished. Technically I was eligible to enter one or the other--but not.

Then came this "all small presses are vanity/subsidy presses" thing, and I'd had enough.

RWA's interests are the vested interests of the publishing world Piers Anthony calls Parnassus. They've been appealed to many times to change, to become more inclusive, and their response has been exactly the opposite.

Now I see ACFW treading toward that path, and it irks me more than I can say.

[cyn]

You don't want to mess with Nora Roberts and the "Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books" crowd . . . Check the article below.


Signet drops Cassie Edwards after Nora Roberts alleges plagiarism

Publisher Signet said on April 18 that it had "conducted an extensive review of all its Cassie Edwards novels, and due to irreconcilable editorial differences, she and Signet have agreed to part ways. Edwards novels will no longer be published by Signet. All rights to her previously published Signet books have reverted to the author.”

The investigation was initiated after the smartbitchestrashybooks.com Web site posted numerous instances of passages they said were copied directly from historical works without attribution.

Edwards began writing romances in 1982 and released her 100th novel, Savage Skies, in 2007.

Although her earlier books were classic historical romances, the vast majority of her novels involve Native American tribes. Her grandmother was a full-blooded Cheyenne.

Edwards’ first 99 books sold a combined 10 million copies through 2007, with her more recent novels averaging sales of 250,000–350,000 copies.

She has won the Romantic Times Lifetime Achievement Award and the Romantic Times Reviewer's Choice Award. She has a reputation for meticulously researching the proper anthropological backgrounds of each tribe she writes about.

Edwards and her husband Charles, a retired high school biology teacher, have been married for over 50 years.

Smart Bitches, Trashy Books found multiple passages in her novels that appeared to be directly taken from various works by other authors, including novels, poems, reference books and websites about Native American history and culture.

At first, Penguin, which publishes Signet titles, said Edwards had "done nothing wrong" and that any use of other texts was protected by "fair-use doctrine."

In a January interview, Edwards admitted that she "takes" material from other works, but said she didn't know she was supposed to credit her sources. Her husband stated that Edwards gained ideas from her reference works but did not "lift passages.”

But Penguin Group author Nora Roberts, one of the world’s most prolific and respected writers of romance novels, joined the chorus of critics: "By my definition, copying another's work and passing it as your own equals plagiarism. As a writer, a reader and a victim of plagiarism, I feel very strongly on this issue. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see it as fair use, or fair anything when one writer takes another's work."

On the Dear Author blog, Roberts said she hoped that Edwards' other publishers will also take action.

[Sue Dent]

"I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see it as fair use, or fair anything when one writer takes another's work."

LOL No. She's not a lawyer but she's already passed judgement that the author in question in fact quoted material in her books that wasn't legally quotable. Good one Nora! Of course it isn't fair or legal when one writer takes another's work and neither is it true that it's happened just because YOU and your "trashy bitches" said so. But more power to you! Rah! Rah! Rah!

[cyn]

"I'm not a lawyer but . . . " what? I am shocked! She seems to pretty much have a handle on everything under the sun or at least thinks she does

Guess we're lucky we came out unscathed, at least so far.

[debkinnard]

These blogs do have their idols. LaNora (they even refer to her this way) is one of them. Her statements are <ahem> taken uncritically -- that's the mildest thing I can say about them.