Comments on: Money Money Money Money

By: Writing Roundup, June 19 « Jen’s Writing Journey

Writing Roundup, June 19 « Jen’s Writing Journey — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:35:20 +0000

[...] Money, Money, Money, Money Author Lauren Dane shares her thoughts on the RWA president’s position on e-publishing. It is a well-thought-out argument that asks the RWA to put the focus back on writers and their needs rather than on the publishing medium. Also read parts 2 and 3 of this series to find out more about the nuts and bolts of book deals. [...]

By: Leslie Dicken

Leslie Dicken — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:42:05 +0000

You Rock!

That is all.

By: Lauren Dane On RWA & ePublishing | The Naughty Bits

Lauren Dane On RWA & ePublishing | The Naughty Bits — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:02:47 +0000

[...] Paths, There Are More Than One (Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb) Money Money Money Money Money Part II – How Things Work Part III How Things Work – Digital Tags: [...]

By: Eva

Eva — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 02:02:17 +0000

I hope you print this out and send it in.

By: Evangeline Collins

Evangeline Collins — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:57:48 +0000

Excellent post, Lauren! And I totally agree with your point about how everyone has their own plans and goals, and it isn’t RWA’s job to tell its members that one path is just so much better than another.

My personal opinion is that the mysterious & magical $1k mark was set so that it wouldn’t exclude any of the main NY print pubs. $1k is the very low end for debut author advances at at least one NY pub that I’m aware of. If RWA were to raise the requirement, then – oh no! – they might run the risk of excluding a NY pub from spotlights or editor appointments at nationals. Because honestly, $1k isn’t that much money in the grand scheme of things and as you pointed out, it is way below the poverty limit. If RWA was truly concerned about their ‘career minded’ authors earning a decent wage, then one would think that RWA would raise the $1k minimum, and thereby use it as a means to pressure publishers to also raise their minimum advances.

Looking forward to post #2!

By: Fiona Vance

Fiona Vance — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:15:30 +0000

Hear, hear! :-)

By: Roscoe James

Roscoe James — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:23:12 +0000

RWA seems like the uncaring parent we all want approval from. I hope that some industrious e-authors put together the E-RWA and pull all the other orphaned e-authors into the fold leaving the RWA stripped of funds and warm bodies. As an author I do not require validation from an organization that doesn’t even understand my readership. I need a group that cares about my publishers and my readers. I need a group that sees me as more than the bastard child. I need a group with at least as much vision as the old-guard industry they cling to that is scrambling to get into the e-pub business before they are left behind.

So…what has the RWA done for you recently? What have you received for all those dues you’ve paid?

By: Kira Daniels

Kira Daniels — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 04:27:31 +0000

Love this post and agree whole heartedly with it.
Very well stated, Lauren.

By: azteclady

azteclady — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:43:22 +0000

Yes, the money thing!

Looking in from the outside, it seems that the whole thing is such a secretive, mysterious thing. No wonder people get fleeced by unscrupulous agents (there are some) and unscrupulous so-called publishers (there are some–both print and e) all the time!

Where is the “educational” component of RWA if they don’t provide accurate, factual, up to date information on the money side of publishing?

*ahem*

Sorry, got a tad carried away here.

By: laurendane

laurendane — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:29:59 +0000

No, Jackie, I get your point and it’s well taken. Yes, an author can be PAN eligible if she earns the equivalent (unless she writes with another person as a team, in that case, they have to earn twice that, but still)

However, I do believe not being allowed to have a spotlight or take appointments IS a big deal. I think it essentially takes publishers who were recognized and removes it without saying so and I find that underhanded.

I DO think the RWA has to have a way to label which pubs are and are not legitimate, I’d just prefer it be done above board and based on logical and clearly articulated criteria.