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.
I've read it, too, Fay, and there's a sequelish thing called "Naked Once More." Though I'm very often tempted to smack Jaqueline.
Yes! I read
Naked Once More
too. I liked these two books much more than the couple of Vicky Bliss stories I've attempted. Although not quite as much as the Amelia Peabody ones.
I like Vicky more than Jacqueline, because Vicky doesn't strike me as being as arrogant. Plus Vicky's got that sincere "I am so sick of being a six-foot blonde Valkyrie, I want to be tiny!" thing. And, of course, John and Schmidt. "Night Train to Memphis" was fun.
Huh. Thought for a moment there I'd wandered into Literary....
Susan, I thought Crusie's letter about the awards clusterfuck - the tack she took, the points she made - was one of the most perfect things I've seen in years. What a mess.
At a cost of roughly $25,000 in Pentagon research grants, 15 elite scientists from across the country are being taught how to write and sell screenplays. [link]
Tomorrow morning is going to be interesting; I've got a Mystery Writers of America special breakfast for the NorCal membership, and the guest speaker is Lyssa Keusch, Senior Editor at Avon/Morrow HarperCollins.
She's going to be allowing a series of mini-pitches. I've just left Jenn a message: if I get the opportunity, should I pitch the Kinkaid Chronicles?
Then dinner with Sparky and Lee and JohnSweden tomorrow night. It's going to be a fun, fun day.
