The (Wannabe) Romance Writers of America

Publishers Weekly has a lengthy article in the current issue about the Romance Writers of America, which has 9500 members, only 1600 of whom are actually published authors.

That can make for some uncomfortable moments at the group's annual conference, says agent Irene Goodman, who maintains that these aspiring authors "often view editors and agents as gatekeepers who are the bad guys barring them from their dream."

The agent, whose clients include bestselling romance writer Debbie Macomber, continues, "They act as if we're all part of some semishady, sub-rosa group." Still, Goodman attends the conferences, wading through "this vast population of the great unwashed masses of inexperienced, unprofessional people trying to break in," in search of "a brilliant newcomer."

And there lies the paradox of RWA's highly democratic (anyone willing to write a $75 dues check is in) admissions policy. On the one hand, it is the group's greatest strength, enabling it to claim the largest membership of any not-for-profit genre writers' association in the world. And it creates an important mission for the group, with a national conference and numerous local conferences each year that make up a kind of finishing school for romance writers. But this inclusiveness may also be the group's biggest weakness, diluting its clout by making it seem amateurish and, as Goodman points out, making it harder for agents and editors to discover the truly motivated writer among the dilettantes.

Still, as the group celebrates its 25-year anniversary, it's a safe bet those unpublished—or, as some prefer to call them, "pre-published"—writers will continue to be welcome in a group that also boasts such big names as Nora Roberts and Jennifer Crusie. Providing networking and support for aspiring authors was, after all, the original mission when 37 charter members founded the association in 1980...

...Crusie, who says everything she knows about the business she learned from another RWA member, is more than happy to share the group with aspirants. "RWA's strength is that it's got unpublished members. That's where all the juice comes from," she says. "I was a wannabe once."

The article makes passing reference to only one of the many embarrassing controversies that have rattled the organization in the past year.

At the annual conference this summer that marked the group's 25-year anniversary, some attendees felt less than celebratory after viewing a video montage with a right-wing bent that was the centerpiece of the awards presentation. It edited together footage of important political events from the last 25 years with a pop-tune soundtrack, so that bouncy music played over sobering images—none of which had anything to do with romance writers. Roberts, who had been scheduled to serve as emcee, opted out. "I could not and would not be a part of a ceremony that, rather than honor the organization and the nominees, took the audience through 25 years of world tragedies," she says in an e-mail. "I felt, and continue to feel, that it was horribly inappropriate and offensive."

Crusie, who served on the RWA board for three years in the late 1990s, says, "there's always upheaval," but adds, "it's the same with any organization."

Yeah, but few do it quite so publicly and over such incredibly stupid stuff.

 

Comments

[Alison Kent]

The newest issue of the RWR magazine has an article about how members who slip into one of the national conference's meals by using another member's unused ticket are part of the reason the conference fees have risen so high. Quoting board member Linda Howard, "The bottom line of this is that for every unpaid attendee who borrows a friend's meal ticket and eats, everyone who did pay to attend the conference had to pay a little more."

She also says "(...)if someone doesn't want to pay the conference fee, just go to schmooze and hang out, that's fine. If you stay with a friend who has paid the conference fee, that, too, is fine . . . so long as it's a single room and you're sharing the bed. If the conference has filled the allotted block of rooms, that's the only way you aren't staying there at the expense of others."

Apparently "At the 2005 RWA National Conference in Reno, five people who had not paid to attend the conference were observed attending conference functions. These people's names were not made public, nor were they threatened; the office simply billed them for the conference fee." And then later rescinded the billing due to misinformation on what was and was not allowed.

Just reporting the facts.

[Julia]

The newest issue of the RWR magazine has an article about how members who slip into one of the national conference's meals by using another member's unused ticket are part of the reason the conference fees have risen so high. Quoting board member Linda Howard, "The bottom line of this is that for every unpaid attendee who borrows a friend's meal ticket and eats, everyone who did pay to attend the conference had to pay a little more."

I'm a little confused. Someone paid for that unused ticket. if 100 tickets were sold, and 100 meals served, how did they lose money?

[jaq]

I was wondering the same thing, Julia. Even the room thing is kinda iffy. You can't get one of the special rate 'blocked' rooms unless you're registered with/for the convention, right? If the person who is registered has a blocked/special rate room but doesn't want to share it with anyone else who is registered, why would this be different than if they *only* wanted to share it with a friend (or spouse/relative) who wasn't registered. How does the convention 'lose' money in this type of scenario? Either the room is paid in full by one (convention)registerd party, or it's paid in full by one registered and one non-registered party. They can't 'force' peeps to share rooms.

[Alison Kent]

The rationale is, "First, historically, only about 80 percent of conference attendees will attend any one luncheon. (...) In an effort to keep conference fees down, the staff figures things as closely as possible, and the number of plates guaranteed is 80 percent of the paid attendees. In recent years, that number has gone up to 85 percent. (...) so RWA has been having to guarantee meals for 100 extra people."

So, because 85 percent of the paid tickets are being used instead of the historical 80 percent, RWA has had to guarantee more meals and raise fees to pay for it.

That logic is totally lost on me.

[Alison Kent]

why would this be different than if they *only* wanted to share it with a friend (or spouse/relative) who wasn't registered.

Exactly, Jaq. My husband has gone with me every year since we've been together. That's a double room at conference rate, but only one of us is a conference attendee. Again, I'm not following any of this logic.

[Angelle Trieste]

Alison,

Not many things made sense recently. Remember the Rita Award Ceremony and the cover controversy and the definition of romance (one man & one woman v. two people)?