![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
erastesSo I finally had a look at the finalists for the RITAs.
Good Lord.
Just as well they allowed Harlequin/Mills & Boon back in, after threatening to dump them as an official publisher, or they’d have about three books on the short list.
And no surprise that there’s not one GLBTQ title on the entire list. Not that i can see, anyway – if I’m wrong, I’ll be happy to be corrected. However, I didn’t see the nominations, so I don’t even know if there were any GLBT books even put forward.
Another year goes by and I feel that – with RWA – we are going backwards. At least last year there was discussion about it, complaints raised etc etc – this year, RWA once again ignores a huge proportion of their readers, and a smallish chunk of their membership – including an ENTIRE chapter – and no-one says anything? Or have I missed where it’s been discussed? How are these people getting away with this discrimination? It just wouldn’t be allowed in the UK. What is the motivation, the REASON for the exclusion? I’m baffled.
What strikes me is that it seems to be that the RWA are thinking – oh well, we’ve let THEM have a chapter of their own and have graciously accepted them into the mothership, and we’ve even allowed them to have their own awards, so that should be good enough. This may not be the case, but it really looks that way from the outside.
However, it’s good to see Ellora’s Cave there, at least.
HOWEVER – the Rainbow Chapter has an award for any book with an ISBN published in 2009, and the details are here – you don’t need to be a member of RWA, either.
- 
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 03:28 pm (UTC)I love and hate RWA. I love the spirit and the idea, and I want that network and support for LGBT romances. But I hate the politics. It really is a good organization, and I belonged for a decade. I want desperately for there to be a place at that table for LGBT books, and I think it would be good for both RWA and LGBT romances. But right now I selfishly do not have interest in giving money and time for something I think will be dead in the water no matter how it's brought up. Sadly, what it needs is a bunch of us getting in there and rounding up troops. But I don't have the energy. I really, really don't.
It'd be nice if our sales were acknowledged too, but first we have to start getting $2000 advances. ALL authors at our houses. ALL. Because everything else is predatory/vanity publishing to RWA. Which was true--in 1999. And even 2003, maybe. Most of the time. Now? No.
Sorry. I could rant all day about RWA. It's still an open wound.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 04:38 pm (UTC)Or not. I honestly don't know. I tend towards being too idealistic anyway. All I know is that I have better things to do with $100 than rejoin right now.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 02:36 am (UTC)The same cadre of church ladies did that RT survey on whether people were interested in reading m/m ... expecting that their members would tell them what they wanted to hear ... and then threw out the poll when it showed about 65+% in favor of m/m.
As long as the gang who wraps itself in the flag and waves the cross to prove how "American" it is has control over these organizations, they're not likely to change. And 95% of the media are owned by right-wing corporations.
It's very useful to them to be protecting "Purity." It gives them thousands of religionist footsoldiers to go complain in, for example, B&N if anything transgresses the pristine stereotype of One Man One Woman. When you get real hard-core bigotry operating, no amount of logic or sanity can get through.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 03:42 pm (UTC)I'd spit on RWA but I don't want to waste the DNA. And I WISH to hell that the people who oppose this discrimination would withhold their dues for six months.
Actually, I wish they'd just form a new organization, it's past time. But the answer is always "Oh, but my LOCAL group is so NICE..."
Inertia is appallingly powerful.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 04:40 pm (UTC)I want this new organization too. As soon as it forms, I'm right there in it. I just don't have the strength/will/spare brain cells to help form it. But if I find out somebody's put up a rainbow flag outside of RWA, I'm THERE. Or if there's a serious challenge to take them on and try to get this changed. But. Oh well.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 06:13 pm (UTC)Like gay marriage, it's a matter of time. Eventually the younger writers who don't think love is solely a matter of reproductive viability WILL outlive the fossils.
I wonder if the UK group would consider starting chapters in North America?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 05:42 pm (UTC)Yes, this. It seems to be the local groups that are holding many of the members to the larger organization. And last I heard, any local group that wants to split off has to give its entire official bank account "back" to RWA National. Nice set of golden handcuffs there.
[If it were me, if I were dictator of a local group that was great in and of itself but didn't want to be tied to a bunch of fossilized bigots anymore, I'd throw a big conference or something, or have a contest with lavish prizes, and spend every damn cent of the official group treasury, then send in our official secession letter. Start over with a new fundraiser and take it from there. But that's me.]
I understand all the people who are excited about the special GLBT chapter, and the e-pub chapter too. But seriously, they're ghettos. Having their own chapters hasn't brought any of them any closer to being recognized at the national level, which essentially means having a ghost of a chance with the RITAs, or having their publishers granted official status. That's National policy and that's how it is, and probably how it will be for a while, brand new ghetto chapters or not.
If other people want to get excited then that's great, and I wish them well. I hope they're right and it can be changed from the inside. For myself, I'll be damned if I give money to an organization that spits on me twice -- once for what I write and then again for how it's published.
Angie
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 06:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 09:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 02:37 am (UTC)