I’m mailing Penny’s entry to the RITA contest today. Wish Penny luck! Erotic romance novellas don’t usually final in the RITAs, but a Secrets novella has finaled before, so you never know. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?
Um, not always. Recently, I was rather disappointed to find out that entry qualifications for the RITAs have changed yet again. Last year, for the 2008 contest, for the first time ever that I can recall, micro-press books could be entered in the RITA if the entrant provided copies that were printed and bound by the publisher (IE. entrants could not print off and enter paper copies of their ebooks). Amber Quill Press prints trade paperbacks of all its novel-sized ebooks, so last year I was able to enter RITA for the first time with BORROWING ALEX. I was very excited, as the same opportunity wasn’t available to me with HEAD OVER HEELS. So I entered. That opened up another can of worms, because then I had to decide whether to enter a short novel in the Single Title category to compete against novels up to twice as long, or to enter BORROWING ALEX in the Series Contemporary category, the category descriptions for which included enough language loopholes enabling me to enter it regardless that BORROWING ALEX didn’t have a number (as in numeral) on the cover, like books published by Harlequin and Silhouette do.
I didn’t expect much. With judges not accustomed to reading micro-press books in the RITA, dared I hope I could compete? Well, BORROWING ALEX didn’t final, but it competed just fine, garnering one 9 (the top score in the contest for those not in the know) and an 8 out of the panel of five judges (IE. my peers). Yay, me. I’d hoped that by entering the RITA last year with a micro-press book I’d help pave the way for future entrants in similar circumstances. Alas, this year, anyway, it is not to be. Here is the information from the public pages of the RWA website:
Books entered in the 2009 RITA contest must:
It’s the “be mass-produced” phrase in the third bullet point that bothers me. Why? Because, either: (a) I’m so out of touch that I didn’t realize this pretty darn big change had occurred; or (b) it occurred without a big announcement or fanfare, like that which occurred last year.
Now I’m wondering, what qualifies as “mass-produced”? I know print on demand (POD) technology does not qualify as mass-produced, because publishers who use POD technology, like Amber Quill Press, print the books as they’re ordered. Mass market prints “print runs.” But the 2009 RITA rules do not specify a print run number.
Does this mean micro-press authors can order 10 copies of their book and then submit five copies of that book for entry to the RITA? Does 10 copies qualify as a print run (“mass-produced”)? I’m not trying to be ridiculous, I’m trying to figure it out. I’ve “heard” (IE. as in a rumor) that 500 is the minimum number required for mass-produced, but the 2009 RITA rules do not state the 500 minimum. They just state “mass-produced,” which, to a mind like mine, is open to interpretation.
I don’t know, how do you feel about these changes? Regardless of whether they affect you?
Oh, yeah, these changes also affect which authors can and can not enter the Golden Heart, but that’s another blog post.
It’s confusing. I hope you emailed RWA to find out the magic number. It feels like they can’t make up their mind.
Publishing has changed so much, and I predict it will change even more. RWA needs to change with the market.
Good luck, Penny!
I was quite infuriated with this rule. I only skipped over it when I first saw it in the rules, because I don’t have an eligible book this year, but it came up when friends were trying to figure out what it meant.
I checked the hot sheet from the July board meeting, and it wasn’t mentioned there, which makes it seem like they were trying to hide it. It WAS, of course, in the meeting minutes, but members have to seek those out. I sent a set of questions to the board. Diane Pershing said she’d get back to me when the new board settled in, and it’s been two weeks and she hasn’t yet. I don’t know whether she’s avoiding it or forgot about it.
But in the meantime, I heard that Samhain’s books are being allowed in this year, at least. Kudos to the Samhain management for pushing for that.
About Samhain–really? Maybe I could enter next year, then, though I doubt I’ll spend $50 for an entry until the bias toward huge print runs and equally large advances is cleared up. The road to publishing with a big house is long, and I’ve made a lot of progress there. I don’t believe I’m any less skilled as a writer because I accepted an offer from a reputable smaller pub. I wish RWA would stop implying that. Yes, I want a career as a romance author, but that doesn’t mean sitting on my hands until someone offers me several thousand dollars is the way to go.
Hi Edie,
No, I didn’t email RWA for the magic number, because the only book I’m entering in RITA this year is Penny’s, and it’s not affected by this change. I only recently found out about this change, and it bothers me not for my own purposes this year, but on behalf of others.
I was thinking the other day (after writing this post) that maybe, and I’m only speculating, RWA put this new rule into effect because last year there was a bit of a hue and a cry when some members with ebooks had them printed and bound by their publisher for entry into the RITA – but it was a special printing/binding. Ie. normally the book was only available in ebook form, not also in trade paperback (as is the case with Amber Quill). From what I understand, some publishers went to this expense for their authors and then those books were disqualified because they weren’t *normally* offered as print books, only ebooks.
Natalie, do you recall anything about this? Sure as sunshine, I’m screwing something up.
At any rate, I can see RWA not wanting to get into that situation again this year, and so they used the “mass-produced” terminology, which feels to me like we’re going backward after one year of making some strides.
It’s frustrating because the rules are changing every year.
Natalie, I skipped right over the rule because, like you, I didn’t have a book affected this year, and even if I HAD, I didn’t realize they’d changed the rules again, so I would have happily entered another AQP print release, if I’d had one. And then I would have been disqualified. I must remember to scour the rules every year!!
Good for you for sending questions to the board. The GH deadline has passed, but the RITA entry deadline is early December.
I had heard, as well, that Samhain might have print runs large enough to allow their books to enter the RITA, but I haven’t had that fact substantiated. Not that I’ve been seeking out an answer, because, like I said, I only just found out about all this. It’d be great if Samhain books were allowed in. I’d love to hear for sure if that’s the case.
Avery, when and if you enter the RITA, you’re in for a pleasant surprise – it’s cheaper than entering the GH. It’s $40 per entry (which I’m so glad I paid before the Canadian dollar tanked, LOL).
Last year was my first year entering the RITA, and I entered with one micro-press book and one erotic novella. Erotic romance isn’t known to fare well in the RITA, so I wasn’t surprised that Penny’s first novella in Secrets 21 didn’t get any 9’s. However, I was pleased, I must say, that Borrowing Alex got a 9 and an 8, so while I can’t speak for the rest of my judging panel, who might have given the book lower scores because they thought it sucked or halfway sucked, LOL, at least I do know that the fact the book was published using POD technology didn’t affect those two judges. They judged for the story.
Again, that’s not to say the other 3 judges DIDN’T judge for the story. Borrowing Alex received wildly varying scores as an unpublished manu in contests, and so it didn’t surprise me to see the same thing occur with the RITA.
I hope next year you CAN enter your Samhain novel. That would be fantastic.
I don’t know that it will make it into print before the end of 2009, but that’s okay. Editor says I can submit another ms whenever I want, so maybe I can score two books in one year and double-enter the RITA in two years…
And yay on the $40!
Yeah, it can take several months or even a year for books to make it into print with even the small publishers now. I think the wait time for Borrowing Alex was something like 9 months. That was for the ebook. The print book came a month later. I don’t think that’s the norm, though. Most epubs these days seem to go to print several months after the ebook.
Yeah, this sucks and the change was made without any fanfare. The number I heard bandied about was 1,000 copies, but that’s not official. Sigh. Maybe the micro-press books competed entirely too well. That’s what happened way back in 1999 when Oracle, a LionHearted book finalled in two categories. That’s when the rules became very restrictive.
Linda
Very interesting, Linda. I must say, though, I can’t recall any micro-press books finaling last year. I’m sure there would have been quite a fanfare if one did final.
I haven’t heard 1000 copies. I’ve heard 500 copies, and I’ve heard 5000 copies, but nothing definite – and it’s not in the rules, anyway.
If anyone hears why (IF) Samhain authors CAN enter their books this year, please let me know.
Amber Quill is still on the accepted list for entering the RITA’s this year. In fact, I entered Betrayals and my entry was taken and a confirmation was sent.
What the definition of mass produced could be is another question all together.
If you want to know if your publisher is on the accepted list, go on the RWA site and pull up a contest entry. Then click on publisher. There is quite a list. That is how I found Amber Quill.
Janet, that is excellent news that your entry was accepted. Thanks for dropping by and letting me know. Yes, I knew AQP was on the accepted list of non-Subsidy, non-Vanity publishers. That’s how I entered Borrowing Alex last year. But last year did not have the “mass-produced” requirement for the RITAs. This year does.
This is getting more and more confusing. We can enter a book from an accepted, non-Subsidy, non-Vanity publisher and get a confirmation to send it…but that doesn’t mean it can’t be disqualified if RWA determines that it doesn’t fit their definition of mass-produced. The disqualification process comes after the entering and confirmation email… This is how Golden Heart entries have been disqualified for various reasons in previous years, ie. like the year entries were disqualified because the rules called for double spacing and a few entrants single-spaced date and location information at the top, example:
San Francisco
1906
As single space. And then the story starts in double space. Yes, entries were disqualified one year (I’m not saying THIS year) for that sort of issue.
I sincerely hope that the definition of mass-produced isn’t interfering with the list of accepted non-S/non-V publishers, however I think there might be a few more worms lurking in this particular can.
I didn’t hear anything about that Cindy, sorry. I only knew someone who said she could have had her publisher do it (the binding) but chose not to–never heard of any disqualifications.
I think we have to be careful of separating “RWA” from its membership and even from individual board members. “RWA” is not alive and thinking, and even if the board members or staff members have prejudice against micro-press publishing, that doesn’t mean individual judges do, nor does it mean that they will stoop to underhanded and downright fraudulent behavior.
ANY particular entry has a very high possibility of getting a judge or two that is biased for or against something about it. For example, entry A might get a judge who is a friend who scores the book a 9 because it’s their friend, and entry B might get a judge who thinks the kissing scene in the middle is pornographic, and entry C might get a judge who hates secret baby books or POV changes. So I’d never not enter because of a fear that someone has a bias about a particular thing.
You alluded to the GH rules. I thought that if we were published by a non-V/non-S publisher, we’re ineligible for the GH anyway, right? So whether or not a book can go into the Rita because of the mass produced rule doesn’t matter for the GH. Unless something has changed there, too.
You know, I updated WP on the weekend, and now it won’t keep me logged in. What a pain.
Natalie, I totally and completely agree with you about keeping “RWA” and the board and individual board members separate. I am not disparaging RWA or the board. I DO find the changes in rules every year, as has been occuring lately, confusing, even though I understand that the board is trying to clarify the rules.
I also completely agree with you about any perceived bias, and I would never allow perceived biases to keep me from entering, either. Clearly. Because I entered this year. 🙂
I’m blogging about how the changes might affect the GH tomorrow. Or, rather, affect WRITERS, not the contests themselves. You can come by again and educate me. Please do! I love to examine topics from all angles. I hold no ire toward RWA, and usually I’m quite accepting of the changes to the RITA and GH as they occur. What concerns me now is that a change is made, a writer might choose a publishing path accordingly, and then the following year another change is made, and the writer might find herself unable to enter a contest that, the previous year, she could have entered.
The solution is to choose not to submit to micro-presses at all. Stick with the tried and true, so future possible RITA changes won’t affect you. Or, I guess, submit to micro-presses if you want, but then don’t complain if changes to the RITA contest affect you and you find you can’t enter.
I don’t consider discussing the changes complaining, though. Far from it. I learn every time someone contributes to a conversation of this ilk.
Sorry, Cindy, a lot of what I said was in response to the comments trail and not just your main post, and maybe some other stuff that I’ve encountered elsewhere filtered in.
I think it would be very important for the rules to be provided in such a way that changes are OBVIOUS. As in, called out in their own section. Even the smallest tweaks can get overlooked, especially for someone who has submitted for years, and real injustices can be done when it’s more than tweakish.
Of course, the answer from the other side could be “it was in the rules, you just have to read them.” Generally speaking. 🙂 Being vague is another issue, as is the inability to make changes or exceptions after the contest opens (as in the case of the single-spaced stuff).
However, I have to say, I can’t imagine why someone would place so much importance on this contest that they’d make career choices based on it. People should choose a publishing path because they feel it’s the right one for them, RWA not a factor. But that’s just me, I guess. 🙂
No problem, Natalie. You know I always welcome your input.
It’s a good idea for the changes to be made obvious. However, as you also bring up, um, we’re supposed to READ the rules every year, not assume they haven’t been changed…
I agree with you about choosing a publishing path based on what’s best for you and leaving RWA out of it. That’s what I did. However, based on conversations I witnessed on some author loops I used to belong to, yes, there ARE writers who choose their publication paths based on what they perceive they can get out of it RWA-wise, and then they’re disappointed to discover some sort of loophole or mistaken perception.
I don’t think there’s an easy answer to the dilemma, unfortunately.