okay I think I understand RWA

**PAN (published authors) will be open to any writer who's made 1K on a book. Publisher doesn't matter. Us already joined types don't have to prove our income.

**All of PAN writers' print books will be eligible for the RITA

**The new standards for publishers will toss out EC and Samhain and anyone else who doesn't pay advances: 500 for a novella and 1000 for a novella. "Tossed out" means that they won't get appointments or spotlights at the conference for free.

It's fair, seems to be as inclusive as possible, and I think the board deserves a bottle of wine, dammit. I bet they're deep in some of those blue cowboy drinks I've been hearing about.

I also bet this means the number of entries to the RITA (it's limited to the first thou? 500?) will be reached within the first day the contest opens.

Did I get any of this wrong? Tell me! Or don't bother, after tomorrow morning [cue jaws or maybe psycho music] I'll be on the road. Whinging. Did I mention we're back on Sunday? That this isn't a big deal? Not to you, maybe.

UPDATE: Carrie at RWA explains it all. GO see her at Bam's place.


  1. I'm still going next year. If only to meet some folks. And get drunk with some crazy bitches.

    ... even though I totally call "shenanigans" on this whole thing!

  2. PAN is open to anyone who makes the sale of $1K advances or equiv royalties over 18 months -- but only to a non-vanity/non-subsidy press, which includes that tricky clause about web publishing.

    All printed & bound books are open to RITA as long as they are pubbed by the same non-vanity types.

    The advances issue excludes pubs from conference but has nothing to do with PAN eligibility, because PAN can stilled be earned through royalties.

  3. It's scary to admit it, but I'm more or less with you, Kate. Assuming they change "primarily" to "exclusively" as they say they meant, there's not a whole lot to be frothing at the mouth over.

    Between allowing authors to join PAN regardless of their publisher's status and changing the copyright issue that's screwed over so many e-pubbed authors for the RITAs, I'm not sure why people are screaming.

    I mean, yes. Some authors won't make the $1000 earnings, in which case they should need to be giving their career plans a hard look. And it all hinges on their changing that word in the subsidy/vanity definition.

    But I've been keeping my mouth shut because the amount of outrage being spewed makes me wonder if I'm missing something.

  4. What you're missing is that the epublishers have been defined as vanity presses simply for being epublishers, and as a result books from epublishers cannot be entered in the RITAs, used for PAN status, be listed as a first sale in RWR, etc, etc.

    It's nice to hear that there's backtracking as a result of the outrage they encountered. But if they'd really meant "entirely" rather than primarily, they'd have written it that way in the first place. If there hadn't been the outrage, do you think they'd have backtracked?

    As for why it matters: my last novel earned that $1000 in royalties in its first month. My publisher meets none of the other criteria for being considered a vanity press, the criteria that match what other writers' organisations use. But I can't use the book for PAN status nor can I enter it in the RITAs, because my publisher has just been redefined as a vanity press simply for using a distribution method appropriate to the format of the books its produces.

    I think I *do* have something to be irritated about.

  5. Anonymous8:31 PM

    What about Red Sage?

    Some info indicates they don't pay 500 per author in an anthology..and they were one of the sponsors of this years conference.

    Will this missing leg on the proposed tripod leglislation leave Red Sage out?

  6. Carrie H11:46 PM

    I read somewhere that they couldn't use exclusively or only because sometimes there are other means of distribution even at true vanity pubs, like Amazon or authors selling them out of the back of cars.... I can't remember where I saw that!!!

    Carrie H.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

what I'm talking about above--the letter in RWR

My Writing Day with an Unproductive Brain