Well, except I don't think it would. She seems very much the type to lie back, close her eyes and think of England/the Queen/GWB

"Think unsexy thoughts. Think unsexy thoughts. Think unsexy thoughts."

---

RWA kerfuffle? I have heard whispers of such a thing, but know not what it is about.

---

Anne, go here: [link]

It describes what happened and links to several different blogs with their own takes.

Incidentally, RWA has just accepted its first authors of gay romance as members:

[link]

(As far as I know they're the first who've applied, though I'm guessing there are probably others already members who aren't published yet or haven't published with an RWA-recognized publisher, which would exclude most small press and e-published authors--recognition is based on print runs and sales figures, IIRC. Really, until you're published, RWA doesn't *know* what you write.) This has led some of us to speculate that one of the OTHER big summer kerfuffles was because the person(s) causing these problems heard that this author team had made a sale to an RWA-recognized publisher and intended to join, and was trying to block them.

---

Susan, thanks!

reads link

OMGWTF!!!

---

Word.

---

This has led some of us to speculate that one of the OTHER big summer kerfuffles was because the person(s) causing these problems heard that this author team had made a sale to an RWA-recognized publisher and intended to join, and was trying to block them.

Wait--are you saying the person tried to block the authors who wrote a now published romance, in which the characters are gay? *sputter* Doesn't RWA even accept non-published writers?

---

Wait--are you saying the person tried to block the authors who wrote a now published romance, in which the characters are gay?

It's all speculation at this point. In the July Romance Writers Report, there was a survey saying they wanted member input on a basic definition of romance, and the options were, essentially, "a love story about a man and a woman," or, "a love story about two people."

Major kerfuffle ensued, since most of us thought we HAD a perfectly good definition of romance--something like, "a work of fiction in which a love story forms a major portion of the plot, with an emotionally satisfying conclusion." (paraphrased) Our current president was all, "No, no, that's a marketing definition. We need a legal definition. The lawyers made me do it! The lawyers! We're not trying to exclude anyone! How could you even think that!"

(Incidentally, she's also claiming not to have seen the script for the awards show last weekend because she was too busy dealing with all the outraged emails and phone calls from the survey and the graphical standards brouhahas. What did she EXPECT being president of a 9,000+ member organization to be like?)

And yeah, RWA totally accepts non-published writers, or I wouldn't be a member yet. You're supposed to be "seriously pursuing a career in romantic fiction" to qualify, but it's not like anyone audits what or how much you're writing before they cash your check.

---

I'm glad they were accepted. I think it's sad/disgusting if there was a chance they wouldn't be. A romance is a romance. Not all readers are going to be drawn to any given sub-genre. Besides? I'm really sort of charmed by the name Romentics. That's just too cute.

---

Wow.

...incidentally, anyone read the Elizabeth Peters whodunnit about a Romance Writers' Convention? With, iirc, Jacqueline Kirby? I thoroughly enjoyed it. I forget the title, though.

---

I did! It's Die for Love.

---