“All”

(I’m going to go ahead and define my usage of “All” here. I mean “All” writers, in particular writers who are members of RWA. If you aren’t a writer, I’m sorry, today it probably doesn’t mean you. I offer the non-writer this link to Fabulous Lorraine, a heart-tugging post about kittens that is written by a wonderful someone who spends a lot of her time rescuing them.)

So now it’s just us writers here, I’m going to talk industry. And it’s June, which if you’re an organization-inclined romance writer you know means there must be some kerfluffle in the works between RWA and it’s membership. As the digital web does such a great job of connecting us, it doesn’t take more than the google skills of a second grader to find evidence of this year’s outcry.

It is hard to pick a starting point for it, but a heavy finger lands on the June issue of the RWR, RWA’s monthly member publication. In her monthly column “From The President”, current pres Diane Pershing went to great lengths to snub her nose at the electronically published segment of the membership, while patting herself on the back for leading an organization that looks out for “all” its members.

In a nutshell, RWA does not consider any writer who does not demand an advance of at least $1000 for their work to be a career focused professional. These writers may join the organization, but do not receive the same privileges of the advance-demanding authors.

Likewise RWA does not consider any publisher that does not pay an advance to be an “Eligible” publisher. Not eligible to speak at national conference workshops or take appointments there with authors are technically the big negatives for these non-Eligible publishers, but there’s also a very damaging stigma that comes with being lumped in with the Publish America and Triskelion’s of the publishing world to be considered.

Some of these “All” members that Ms Pershing declares she is looking out for disagree with her views and opinions. Some loudly, on the web and in letters to the board. Some quietly, simply by leaving the organization. Some members who disagree remain with RWA, hoping that they can eventually help educate the board, and that with education will come the realization that digital publishing is not a threat to authors, but instead a very positive alternative. Many, many more stay only because they feel suffering through membership on the national level is worth it for the support and friendships they have at their local chapter / online chapter, which they can not be a part of without also joining the national organization.

Earlier this week Deidre Knight, agent and author, added her eloquent voice to the discussion in an article entitled The Digital Age and RWA : A Call for Change. There is a lot of well thought out, rational information in there, and if Ms Knight were not made ineligible for national office due to her position as an agent, I would be leading the call for her to run for office on the board.

Today Ms. Pershing has published her response, RWA President Pershing Responds. Reading that made me realize that Ms Pershing and I have two very different opinions on how the board looks out for “All” it’s members.

To Ms. Pershing, to look out for “All” means to divide the “All” into little groups, much like a grade school teacher will divide her class into groups. One of these groups need remedial reading help. These students will get the very helpful support of teachers, and some guidance from their more learned peers, with the hopes that they can eventually move up to more advanced groups. One group is humming along, having mastered enough skills that they can consider themselves good at what they do. One of these groups are the students at the top of the class, and can go to the library to read unsupervised. And one of the groups is made of students that will have to go out and stand in the hallway until class is over, punished for insisting they belong in the second or third group when Ms Pershing believes they belong in the first group, or in no group at all.

I question RWA’s need to divide the membership into groups at all. We are all writers “seriously pursuing a romance fiction writing career.” What is gained by the creation of PAN (the authors RWA considers published) and PRO (the authors that have proven to RWA’s satisfaction that they are seriously pursing a career by providing very specific evidence of this pursuit to RWA)? What super secret information is dispensed behind the closed groups that could not be shared with the organization as a whole, benefiting “ALL” members in the process?

RWA can’t even consider accepting serious digitally published authors into it’s midst, so I do not see my opinion that PAN and PRO are part of the problem being a popular one. But if RWA truly wants to be an organization dedicated to supporting “All” its membership, then it needs to stop creating divisions, and work on unifying the talented people it has in its folds.