Susan, apparently Ms. Quinn - president, for those who aren't familiar - hasn't bothered to clarify. The take I'm getting from friends who are members is that some members are resentful of "romantica", the more erotic novels out there, and don't want to contaminate their presumably inoffensive heaving bosoms and rosy cheeks by sharing table space at cons with all that nasty stuff.

Personally, I'm thinking a writer who's that put off by someone else mentioning cocksucking in their vicinity probably has never blown anyone in their life, and in that case, what the FUCK are they doing writing stories about human relationships?

N.B.--The Ms. Quinn in question is Tara Taylor Quinn. There's at least one other well-known romance writer who goes by Quinn (Julia), and from my admittedly brief acquaintance with her, I can't imagine she'd pull something like this.

I've heard the "resentful of romantica" thing, also that there's some issue where the group might lose its nonprofit status (which for me would beg the question of why we aren't calling the ACLU and generally making noise rather than kowtowing to the Powers That Be), but that's the problem--no one is clarifying anything. Every board member post I've seen on mailing lists so far has just muddied the waters more.

As for me, I just hope this makes some people run for the board next year who'll clean house and communicate their decisions properly to the membership. For now, the Seattle and Regency chapters mean enough to me that I'll hold my nose and hand over my $75 to National to be able to stay in them. I'll be writing my pissed-off letter today, and then I'm going to get back to writing my book, Jack's cock and all.

Deb, wrod. Another genre drabble, Pelecanos style, because he likes funky, urban, carrots.

“You know, Strange, two guys like us, spending so much time in a closet together, people are bound to talk.”

“Now, Terry, don’t you go starting that mess again... I’m begging you. This is a stakeout and nothing but...you feel me?”

“Dang, I was just kidding...maybe it was a good thing he turned the Pendergrass off, you know...if you’re that insecure.”

“I should have known this guy was into all sorts of dirt. You can never trust a man that would turn off Teddy Pendergrass. He’s got no sense of quality. No sense of what’s right.”

“Lucky thing he didn’t turn off Marvin Gaye,” Quinn replied. “I’m a lousy shot these days.”

“Lucky thing he didn’t turn off Marvin Gaye,” Quinn replied. “I’m a lousy shot these days.”

That is so. damned. tasteless.

And I love it so. very. much.

muHA!

Susan, I'm a member of MWA, and we have nothing - nothing at all - resembling this kind of bullshit going on.

I suggested elsewhere that maybe the actual grownup members of RWA ought to do what we did with HWA and Persephone, and start your own version. You could call it RWAF: Romance Writers Against Fuckwits.

Terry Quinn is kind of a sick motherfucker, Deb. It's part of his Detective With Tortured Past thing. And, you know, Irish ex-cop.

My letter to the RWA President, identifying/contact info deleted:

Tara Taylor Quinn President RWA Board of Directors Via email

Re: Graphical Standards

Dear Ms. Quinn:

I am a member in good standing of RWA. I actively participate in the Greater Seattle and Beau Monde chapters, I regularly enter and judge RWA chapter contests, and I’m serving as editor/agent chair for the Seattle chapter’s 2005 conference. Though I’m only in my second year of RWA membership, I’ve benefited immensely from the advice and support of the talented, generous writers in my chapters. Because RWA has been good to me, I’ve praised the organization and encouraged others to join.

But today I am writing to express my deep disappointment with the new graphical standards and the way they have been communicated to the membership. When I saw the header “Graphical Standards” in the recent eNotes, I assumed it was something regulating the font and color of the RWA logo, and I skimmed past it. I know I wasn’t alone in my conclusion.

I had no suspicion what the graphical standards actually regulated until I encountered discussions on various websites and blogs. I have no idea what to believe, because as far as I can tell the board has done nothing to clarify how the new standards are to be applied or to explain why they were adopted in the first place. Some say the purpose of the standards is to shut out romantica authors, others that the standards were adopted out of fear we’d lose our nonprofit status. If the former, I’m appalled--and not because I write romantica. I don’t. But my understanding is that RWA is meant to advocate for all authors of romance, from sweet inspirationals and traditional Regencies to the steamiest romantica. And if the standards were adopted out of some fear of government restriction or censorship, then we shouldn’t be giving in. We’re writers. We should be fighting for free speech, a free press, and the integrity of the First Amendment.

I also have questions about how the new standards impact my own work. The hero of my novel refers to his penis as a cock. I chose the word deliberately because it seemed more appropriate than any other option for a man of my hero’s personality and background. I understand that RWA doesn’t mean to censor its members’ writing. But what happens if I sell this book and want to write an article for my website or chapter newsletter on terminology for sex scenes and why I made the choices I did? My understanding is that I could not do so, at least not if my chapter had a link to my website. Or what if I wanted to give a talk at a conference about the same topic? Would I be allowed to use the forbidden words from the graphical standards in my course description and handouts, or even in my talk itself? These are the kind of issues many members are wondering about, and no one is answering our questions.

Since this controversy began, rather than telling people how helpful RWA has been for me, I’ve found myself instead forced to respond to criticism of a policy I don’t understand myself. I’m inclined to disagree with it based on what I’ve heard so far--but no one is giving me enough data to make an informed judgment.

Please clarify these issues as soon as possible, for the sake of RWA’s reputation and integrity.

Sincerely, Me

Cc: Gayle Wilson, President-Elect

You could call it RWAF: Romance Writers Against Fuckwits.

Bwah! I am *so* starting this organization...

I don't know what the reasoning behind it is, but the clandestine way this was decided and *not* communicated clearly to members leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can't really believe this was done to discriminate about romantica authors, but no one's proved otherwise yet. And as someone who writes it, for an erotic romance line, I'm pissed.

Also? Authors have next to no say about what goes on their covers, and sometimes not over their copy. But also also? Publishers are not in the business of putting covers on books that wouldn't get sold at Wal*Mart. None of the stuff I've seen described has anything to do with covers from any major publisher. So maybe they're discriminating against e-publishers like Ellora's Cave, which is no better.

The linking thing is a real concern, too, although I don't know if a lot of authors post excerpts with truly graphic scenes on their websites. I know that despite the number of uses of "fuck", "cock," etc., in my books, I'm not posting those scenes online.

But what happens if I sell this book and want to write an article for my website or chapter newsletter on terminology for sex scenes and why I made the choices I did?

Good letter, Susan. I'm not sure the above point is an issue, but you're absolutely right that someone better spell it out just be certain, and soon.

noir?

"I had a promise."
"In writing?"
"He was trying to get it in writing. But you fired him."
"Hourly salaries are against policy. Everyone here is a subcontractor working for profit sharing."
"Profit as defined by you."
"You can see the books."
"I can see your new Hummer."
"Corporate vehicle."
"Your daughter drives it."
"She's an intern here. Are we done?"
"Oh, yeah. We're done."
"--I wasn't to be distur--what do you mean, the SEC is here?"
"Yeah. You're done."

And, I already got a response from Tara Quinn. I'm sure it's form, or formish, but I'm impressed they're actually taking the time to type people's names rather than "Dear Concerned Member."

There will be a letter sent out later tonight that will clarify things. Please hold on! Your perceptions from the loops aren't correct - most of what is being said there isn't correct. This has nothing to do with content of books. This is graphical - and only in conjunction with RWA service marks. I didn't say the things I'm being quoted as saying, and I'm taking time to figure out the best way to respond to that part of this situation. Other things that are being passed around are likewise not true. This whole situation kind of reminds me of the game of telephone we used to hear as kids.

The board is working almost 24/7 this week to rectify the misinformation and to clarify policy as succinctly as possible.

Erin, insent!