EPPIE award categories

[erastes]

I've just fired off a letter of complaint to EPIC about their award categories. I don't know if they have been the same every year, but I only noticed them this year because, for the first time, I was eligible to enter.

However - reading the categorisations, there's no way I could enter as they stand.  They are categorising "romance" as: A story that takes one central, monogamous, romantic relationship between a man and woman from its inception to its happy, satisfying conclusion

Then as you read down the list, one (one being me) finds that one can't put one's gay historical romance into Historical Romance or Erotic Romance or Erotic Romance Historical Fiction because those categories say that they follow: "the basic tenants (sic) of genre romance" - so see above.

There's one - ONE! - GLBT category which lumps everything else together. Not does this not only skew perception that they consider GLBTQ romances can't "actually" BE romances but it's ludicrous. Utterly ludicrous.  So Age of Sail has to compete with shapeshifters and fairies and ghosts and criminals and contemporary and... well - you get the gist. I have suggested, politely, that they might reconsider in light of the way some people might consider it homophobic.  I doubt that it'll make any difference, but it made me feel a little better.

Romance Writers of America attempted to define romance in this way - last year? Year before? And there was an enormous kerfuffle about it - why are we going backwards with this?  I would have thought that ebooks, by their very nature were more liberal? Or am I missing something?

Then may I add "monogamous"? WTF?  Where do people who are writing love triangles go - if they aren't erotic?

Comments

[finneganthepoet.livejournal.com]

Greetz to ya,

Its been awhile, I know. I couldnt help take notice of your entry. I agree with all your critiques--A) that "We@ indeed seem to be going backwards, with a great many things, not just with Romantic Fiction, that B) people cant help think misthought about Queers, with heterosexuality dominating everyone and everything, whether these ones in question are heterosexual or not.

Please hang in there with your efforts, and most importantly, just keep producing your creative material, regardless.

I have an epic, sweeping queer sci fi novelseries under works at present, as we speak, and I am being very careful in it to introduce the sci fi first, the characters second, and then, the sex lives of the characters last, just because it seems more and more interesting, the more you read it. Of course its not perfect, but I am so keen on getting this out of me, I dont care. What I would eventually like is for someone like you to look at this, and make suggestions of where to go with certain storylines...

Most Respectfully,

F i n n e g a n

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Hi Finnegan - long time no hear!

As I said below, as far as I can see - ebooks were spawned by GLBT and erotica publishers, so this marginalisation absolutely staggers me.

Your new project sounds very interesting - I'd be more than happy to have a look at it.

[norton-gale.livejournal.com]

All they'd have to do is remove "between a man and a woman" and perhaps "monogamous" and they'd be all set with genre. Sigh.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Perhaps also "from its inception" also. Why can't a story start with them already in a relationship?

[marquesate.livejournal.com]

You know what almost annoys me the most? The monogamous bit. EXCUSE ME???? What the hell do they know about a lot of gay men? I know those who are, indeed, monogamous in their relationships, and even more who are not, who deeply and truly love "the one" and happily and promiscuously shag around, because - guess what - they manage to separate love and lust.

Were these categories made by GIRLS? Oh, wait, they probably were.

I despair.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

That staggered me too - not only because of the GLBT slur, but because of the limitations it then puts on their conception of romance. Where then does the writer who has written a story about one woman who is torn between two men? Even if there's no sex in it?

I completely - COMPLETELY - agree with your point, but to straight jacket romance with monogamy is ... well, there are no words. What happens to those who are unfaithful? Do they go to hell? There's no category for "dirty filthy cheaters" - after all.

[swncc1701.livejournal.com]

Gag!

Well, you had my support until I read "made by GIRLS?" I'm a girl. I wouldn't have written the categories that way. And Lesbians face the same biases. No, I'm not one, but I SYMPATHIZE with everyone's search for equality as I AM black. But your attitude is much like the people you're maligning. You a closet woman hater? Your earlier comment makes it sound so.

Oh, and guess what? EPIC is an open organization. Anyone can join. If enough alternative lifestylers (that should cover everyone LOL) join, they can take over the organization and write the category definitions that will be fair and even-handed for all. Stop belly-aching and take action.

Yeah, I said it.
Camille Anthony

[auburnimp.livejournal.com]

Homophobic in the extreme!

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I had to tell the organisers that this is how it would be perceived. Not an easy thing to have to say, I admit.

[jessewave.livejournal.com]

I don't know who decides on these award categories and definitions and it makes me angry as a reader that all GLBT categories are lumped together, so I can imagine how much greater your anger is as an author. Who gives them the right to decide that "monogamy" should determine whether a story is a "romance" (LOVE the 'basic "tenants" of a genre romance' -they can't even spell). Do they even know the meaning of the word "tenet"?

But perhaps rather than a single author writing to EPIC, all or a majority of the GLBT authors in the different categories of the genre should write as a group and demand that they change their rules. I have found that one person protesting something is like spitting in the wind but when you band together the results might amaze you. Good luck Erastes

Wave

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Thanks Wave- I hesitate (for about six seconds) from posting a post like this because I know that it's going to cause a reaction - good and bad but this is inconceivable. As I just said to gehayi - ebooks sprung from the loins of GLBT and Erotica - the rest of the world followed suit and now it's just being swept under the carpet.

I did write as "Director of the Erotic Authors Association" (for what that's worth) but I think a petition or mass signed email would be a good idea too.

[lareinenoire.livejournal.com]

A story that takes one central, monogamous, romantic relationship between a man and woman from its inception to its happy, satisfying conclusion.

Seriously? What about the novels that begin with people in a relationship? What about love triangles? I am now baffled by the number of books I have enjoyed that don't fit into this category.

I second your WTF.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I don't even know where a love triangle with closed bedroom door sex would go, to be honest.

[angelabenedetti.livejournal.com]

I remember grouching about that last year. [nod] It's ridiculous. Not that I personally have anything long enough to submit this year, but coming at it from the other end of the genre pool from you, I'm just as annoyed. I write mainly SF, fantasy and paranormal, and my books will be compared with cops and firemen and cowboys and lawyers? And Age of Sail and Regency and medieval and whatever all else? [headdesk]

And yes, their definition of "romance" is stuck somewhere in the seventies, even without the homophobic twist. Mainstream romance is working in a straightjacket -- monogamous only, neither character can have sex with anyone else after they've met The One (whether or not they fancy themselves in love yet), absolutely no adultery or cheating ever, etc. Just try to get even a het romance published if you break any of the rules. Or even the we-really-recommend type guidelines -- virgin heroine (no matter how old she is), or at most, she's had sex but didn't enjoy it at all. [eyeroll] A new relationship is much easier to sell than an established relationship which is having problems and needs to be fixed. No matter what else is going on, the Love is most important and either character will ditch out on anything else to save the romance. Etc. It's ridiculously restrictive to writers.

We were talking about this recently in... I think it was DA. I pointed out that as you make more and more restrictive rules, people who don't like them will wander away from the genre, moving over to Chick Lit or Women's Fiction or SF and Fantasy or whatever, so of course the readers who are left will tend to like the rules. It's like opening a restaurant called The House of Scorching Chili, and then a year later taking a poll of all the customers and asking whether or not they like spicy food. [eyeroll] Of course they do -- no one who doesn't is going to eat there, now are they?

Of course, romance is still fifty-some percent of the fiction market, so they have no incentive to change. I'd like to think, though, that out here on the e-book frontier, we could manage to avoid adopting every single one of the big city laws right off the bat, maybe do some exploring, try some new things, see for ourselves what works and what our readers like. It sounds, though, like the EPIC folks are importing the New York rules and definitions wholesale. Wow, lucky us. :(

Angie

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I wish I taken more notice last year, but I didn't think I'd be in a position to enter. I certainly won't be,not while these draconian definitions exist.

Frankly I think that if they are going to insist on this stupid monogamous rule then they should have a separate category for it. Gehayi and I were trying to think of how many great romances wouldn't fit into the monogamous rule, for example.

My eyes are spinning in my head about the restrictions you mention - I literally had no idea it was that bad. How utterly mad. Why do people want to read the same book over and over again?

[mzcalypso.livejournal.com]

The House of Scorching Chili

what a wonderful title for a spicy romance!

[cbpotts.livejournal.com]

Let's step back for a moment and just ponder this. For I've read Standish, and you've read Gadarene.

Now let's try to figure out how to compare the two to each other.

What criteria would we use? What readership would be the judge? Gadarene certainly has historical aspects to it, but I wouldn't present it as a historical romance. There are moments in Standish that provoke feelings of fear and worry in the reader (I don't want to be spoilerish, forgive me for being vague) but I'd never in a million years present it as a horror novel.

Yet because the pivotal relationship in each is homosexual, we are to compete one against the other?

This is more than not an apple-to-apple comparison.

This is apple to pineapple. Or perhaps more correctly, apple to pineapple grenade. It's ludicrous, at best.

[angelabenedetti.livejournal.com]

Throw in some cucumbers, a potato, various types of lettuce, a chicken leg and a twinkie. [nod/sigh]

Angie

[joyful-molly.livejournal.com]

Monogamous romantic relationship between a man and a woman?

Bush must be one of the judges.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

*snort*

[stacia-seaman.livejournal.com]

Can't help you with the romance category, but as far as Erotic Romance or Erotic Romance Historical Fiction, the rules do say:

GLBT-central books of an erotica nature may enter any Erotica Category, competing against erotic genre books, at the discretion of the author. Please, pick the best fit for your book.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly - In other words, gay stories can ONLY go in either GLBT, or erotica. Hence the problem.

[melspenser.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I noticed that the LGBT stuff was lumped together. I also noticed on the form that you have to warn them if your stuff may be controversial (i.e. language, alternative lifestyles).

I've mentioned in my previous blogs how I didn't think the group was a fit for me, in particular. They seem ultra conservative and close minded, in general. Early on, I pretty much decided not to renew my membership.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

That's probably the best thing to do - voting with the purse. I won't be joining, and won't be putting my books up this year at least. I find it very disappointing that they are proving to be so conservative. I can understand why they might want to know if there's any gay/lesbian/or (- let's be honest) even hetero sex because not everyone wants to read it, but if book judges are mortally offended by bad language then they simply shouldn't be judges!

A correction for this thread

[swncc1701.livejournal.com]

I went to the EPPIE site and copied this: Your concern was misplaced. Your Western can be entered here I think.

Historical/Western Erotic Romance (NEW)

Entries in the Historical/Western Category should include accurate period details and be set at least fifty years in the past, although sometimes twenty-five to thirty years in the past will be acceptable if the entire story is set in the past. Historical and/or Western entries may or may not be set against actual historical events or places, or include actual people of the period.

Historical Fiction may be set in any time-period: from cavewomen to Romans to Egyptian, from beastly savages to graceful Regency to stylish Edwardian…they are all part of our past. This genre will be defined by the historical period, as it is reflected in the work.

Westerns are stories that are usually set in the mid- to late-1800s, generally in the western half of the United States although settings can vary to other countries such as Canada, Mexico, or Australia during those countries' periods of frontier expansion. Stories may be set during a much earlier than the 1800s, but we have found the majority of this genre falls into this timeframe. Westerns typify action, good prevailing over evil, and strong, independent characters, with nature and/or the environment often being an important element.

The story must leave the reader with the feeling that good things are happening for the couple/poly-group after they close the book. There must be a romantic relationship at the center of the story, regardless of anything else happening in the story line. Erotic romance follows the basic tenants of genre romance but may include: frank language, explicit sex or frequent sex of any heat level, sex between more than two people in a single scene (committed groupings or not), any form of BD/SM, and/or a single character having sex with multiple partners in different parts of the book.

Please read the Erotic Category requirements carefully. GLBT-central books of an erotica nature may enter any Erotica Category, competing against erotic genre books, at the discretion of the author. Please, pick the best fit for your book.

Re: A correction for this thread

[erastes.livejournal.com]

What thread did you mean to put the correction on? Who's written a western? If you mean Margaret Leigh, hers isn't a western - neither are either of mine.

[pepperlandgirl4.livejournal.com]

I think the real question is....what worth is there in the EPPIEs? I'd say, "Not much." You have to pay to enter, the judges are random volunteers, neither winners nor losers report any increase in sales, and I have no idea who even won last year. The organization itself doesn't do much--Emily Veinglory is doing more to help authors and keep an eye on bad business practices. I guess people like recognition and like to have awards, but that's ultimately all this is. You could make your own awards site and it'd have just as much worth and cachet as the EPPIEs.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I agree with you 100 percent. I've always commented that they don't do much. They provide a model contract and have a big fat conference. What else?

The awards mean nothing - it's true, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stamp out the obvious homophobia within them.

[mongrelheart.livejournal.com]

Jeez, could that definition of "romance" be any more narrow and puritanical? Even within the constraints of a "one man, one woman" romance, it's rigidly limiting.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Agreed!

[kz-snow.livejournal.com]

Woman here . . . and one who isn't running for anything and can't see either Russia or Bill Clinton's backside from her doorstep. ;-)

The EPPIE categories have always mystified me, and this year is no different. There seem to be a bazillion anthology categories, all thinly populated, yet other overpacked, or potentially overpacked, groupings that definitely require more precise divisions (like GLBT and erotic paranormal/fantasy).

An author would likely have to join the organization and stick with it for some years to make his/her voice heard. It is a damned shame. I'm truly sorry, Erastes, that you can't seem to find the right slot for your book.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I agree - they seem to go for the most categories for their buck - I once added up what they earned from entrance fees and for awards entries and it was a frighteningly huge sum. I'd like to see them being open as to what happens to that money.

It wasn't that I couldn't find a slot - I seem to have given the wrong impression about that (sorry!) - there are several slots I could have put it up for - but I wouldn't (although I may be outvoted by the other 2 antho writers) because of the blatant homophobia.