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!

Small space drabble. It started as verbal bloodletting, and ended up sort-of thrillerish. Or really vague, I'm not sure. (eta: This is terrible, and I was going to delete it, but I'll leave it up for posterity.)

"It’s because you’re useless, you know."

The voice booms in the tiny space. She draws inward, defense her only weapon. "I am not useless. It’s not because of me. It’s all circum—"

The laugh is sharp, like shards of glass. “You’re more pathetic than I thought. Even deluding yourself out of your responsibility. All of this is your fault, and no amount of sniveling will change that. You’re so weak. So predictable.”

If she were able, she would run. If she were stronger, she would attack. But she is neither, and she knows here is where she will die.

Susan, I find myself completely unimpressed with Ms. Quinn's quick response. If she had an ounce of nous, she'd have been upfront six weeks ago; failing that, instead of gasping and telling everyone concerned that it's lies! Lies, I tell you!, she ought to be issuing the clarification she and her board member buddies presumably have had in place since deciding they didn't want to offend anyone with real live human body parts and/or actions.

I'd thought about joining RWA, since the new book - hopefully to be a series, if my soul can take the weight - is absolutely a love story. But now I'm damned if I'll give these people my money or my time. Pass-a-dena.

Oh, I'm definitely not satisfied as it stands now, but since I'm far from alone in my dissatisfaction, I'm standing back to see how the dust settles. I'm very frustrated with the national organization, but I'm getting enough help, support, and all-around writerly fellowship from the Seattle and Regency chapters that it's worth it to me to stick with it for now. (You have to be a member of National to belong to local and special interest chapters.)

I'd thought about joining RWA, since the new book - hopefully to be a series, if my soul can take the weight - is absolutely a love story.

The thing is, you don't have to be a member of RWA to submit the book to Romantic Times for review. Or any of the romance review sites out there. There's plenty of overlap between romance and mystery already (my book certainly was), and mystery sites took it for review. So I don't see why romance sites wouldn't take the rock mystery. And a lot of those sites generate really decent traffic. Getting it into Romantic Times could really increase readership, too.