Comments on: Medallion’s response to RWA & Rebuttal http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/ Weblog of National Bestselling, Award-Winning Novelist Sylvia Day Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:08:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Terry Spear http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/comment-page-1/#comment-3453 Terry Spear Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:05:00 +0000 http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/#comment-3453 Medallion has been reinstated, and RWA did make the mistake. :yay: Medallion has been reinstated, and RWA did make the mistake. :yay:

]]> By: Sienna http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/comment-page-1/#comment-3393 Sienna Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:10:52 +0000 http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/#comment-3393 I agree with Angelle and with the RWA. I am all for choosing multiple avenues in which to become published, BUT, the RWA was founded for writers pursuing publication with the intent on making a living at it--which firstly means selling to a major publisher. Even though in todays market, an author writing for Elloras Cave can make more than an author published by an NY publisher, selling to NY is considered to be a better stone to step on in terms of making a living. And as Angelle picked up, Medallion did have an ample deadline that they didn't meet. But since we're not in the offices of Medallion Press or the RWA, we aren't privy to the intricate details that went into this dispute. :neutral: I agree with Angelle and with the RWA. I am all for choosing multiple avenues in which to become published, BUT, the RWA was founded for writers pursuing publication with the intent on making a living at it–which firstly means selling to a major publisher. Even though in todays market, an author writing for Elloras Cave can make more than an author published by an NY publisher, selling to NY is considered to be a better stone to step on in terms of making a living. And as Angelle picked up, Medallion did have an ample deadline that they didn’t meet. But since we’re not in the offices of Medallion Press or the RWA, we aren’t privy to the intricate details that went into this dispute. :neutral:

]]> By: Angelle http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/comment-page-1/#comment-3392 Angelle Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:08:45 +0000 http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/#comment-3392 It looks like Medallion dropped the ball here. They had a lot of time to respond. The original deadline was May, but was extended to June. That's extra two months. Since Medallion has to prepare royalty statements for its authors, it's odd to say that it cannot somehow produce the necessary documentation to prove that it sold 5K copies of one romance title. To protest RWA's decision after refusing to respond to RWA's request seems odd and self-serving. (whether or not RWA's request was a witch hunt is something we'll never know since we don't know what kind of communication was sent out -- at this point, Medallion has every reason to discredit RWA and make it look bad) <blockquote>However, we urge you to reconsider the penalties you impose on our authors simply because we choose not to belong to ANY writers’ organizations.</blockquote> Belonging or not belonging to RWA or any other writers' org has nothing to do with getting RWA recognition. Medallion's muddying the key issue here: it failed to respond to RWA's request despite the ample time it had. <blockquote>You know we are a legitimate publisher and <strong>know the lengths we go to for our authors.</strong></blockquote> (emphasis mine) The last part is a bit ironic given that Medallion couldn't bother to respond to RWA's request in the first place. This letter was written only after Medallion received many concerned inquiries from its RWA member writers. Call me a cynic. It looks like Medallion dropped the ball here.

They had a lot of time to respond. The original deadline was May, but was extended to June. That’s extra two months.

Since Medallion has to prepare royalty statements for its authors, it’s odd to say that it cannot somehow produce the necessary documentation to prove that it sold 5K copies of one romance title.

To protest RWA’s decision after refusing to respond to RWA’s request seems odd and self-serving. (whether or not RWA’s request was a witch hunt is something we’ll never know since we don’t know what kind of communication was sent out — at this point, Medallion has every reason to discredit RWA and make it look bad)

However, we urge you to reconsider the penalties you impose on our authors simply because we choose not to belong to ANY writers’ organizations.

Belonging or not belonging to RWA or any other writers’ org has nothing to do with getting RWA recognition. Medallion’s muddying the key issue here: it failed to respond to RWA’s request despite the ample time it had.

You know we are a legitimate publisher and know the lengths we go to for our authors.

(emphasis mine)

The last part is a bit ironic given that Medallion couldn’t bother to respond to RWA’s request in the first place. This letter was written only after Medallion received many concerned inquiries from its RWA member writers.

Call me a cynic.

]]> By: Carol http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/comment-page-1/#comment-3391 Carol Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:23:56 +0000 http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/#comment-3391 Sounds like an overall witch hunt to me. Sounds like an overall witch hunt to me.

]]> By: Robin Bayne http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/comment-page-1/#comment-3390 Robin Bayne Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:35:17 +0000 http://www.sylviaday.com/blog/2005/08/14/596/#comment-3390 Good for Medallion! And they are right, the qualfications are arbitrary. When my former publisher, New Concepts, met the criteria and submitted their application, they were told by RWA that although they'd met the sales figures, their trade paperback "size" was not quite large enough. There were no written (or implied) standards regarding book size, prior to this. RWA acted in an abitrary and capricious matter on this decision. NCP chose not to respond with a formal letter as Medallion has, unfortunately, and my (and other authors) letters to the RWA board members proved fruitless. They really could not defend their decision, but neither did they reconsider it. I am no longer a member. Good for Medallion! And they are right, the qualfications are arbitrary. When my former publisher, New Concepts, met the criteria and submitted their application, they were told by RWA that although they’d met the sales figures, their trade paperback “size” was not quite large enough.

There were no written (or implied) standards regarding book size, prior to this. RWA acted in an abitrary and capricious matter on this decision. NCP chose not to respond with a formal letter as Medallion has, unfortunately, and my (and other authors) letters to the RWA board members proved fruitless. They really could not defend their decision, but neither did they reconsider it.

I am no longer a member.

]]>