Read more… or Read more right here… »

Below is my response to your action, and I request that this letter be
published in its entirety in your next RWR so that your membership may
understand where we stand on this issue. As you are aware, I requested exemption from this “audit” as you called it in your original letter. Since much of the information you request is what I consider confidential business information, I objected to supplying it to RWA a second time. I made this same objection when I first applied for recognition. At that time I was assured by the existing Board members that once ImaJinn was recognized, we would be recognized forever and would never have to provide this information to RWA again. Because of that promise, and because several of our authors wanted to join PAN, I went ahead and supplied RWA that confidential business information.

When you sent me your letter a few months ago telling me ImaJinn Books had to reapply for recognition, I asked you to grandfather me based upon the above promise. I also asked you to supply me with the industry standards you were using to set your requirements for recognition. You did neither. All you did was send a letter in which you discussed publisher actions that had nothing to do with ImaJinn Books and told me that your requirements for recognition and re-recognition were to ensure that your members can make a living at writing.

I have two comments about that statement. The first is that I personally know several authors who have not had the sales, or even the print runs, through the large publishing houses that you require for small publisher recognition. Yet these same publishers have “automatic” recognition because at least one of their authors made the USA Bestsellers list, New York Times Bestsellers list, etc. I agree that an author has a better chance to “make a living” writing for the large publishing houses. However, I cannot see how you can claim that the standards you’re using for small publishers will help your members “make a living,” when several of your members are unable to do so through the large publishing houses. Even your own members, who are speakers at writing conferences, frequently tell conference attendees that they should not expect to make a living writing books, and they’re referring to all publishers, both large and small. It’s a simple fact of life. Some books sell well and some don’t, regardless of who the publisher is. And where did you obtain the standards you’re using for small publishers? I think you at least owe your membership, and particularly the small publisher authors who are not accorded published status within RWA, an explanation as to how you developed these standards.

Secondly, if you are truly concerned about your members “making a
living,” why is it that you deprive those dues paying members published
through “unrecognized” publishers the right to compete in the RITA? You
publicize the RITA as an award that will further an author’s career, yet you are denying a fairly large group of authors the chance to further their career by keeping them out of the competition. If you truly want the RITA to mean something, it should represent the best written book of the year by an RWA member, regardless of who published it. The same goes for PAN membership. If you deprive your small publisher authors the right to be a member of PAN because they are published by an “unrecognized” small press, aren’t you again depriving them access to the very information and contacts they need to further their career and “make a living” at writing? Additionally, we have books we’ve published that have been in print for 4-5 years. This gives our authors a much greater chance to “make a living” than if their book is in print for only a few months.

How many mid-list authors with large publishing houses have books in
print that long? Did you even consider this type of distribution when
developing your standards?

RWA seems to have a skewed idea of just what the small publisher’s
purpose is in the literary world. A small press publishes books that for several different reasons are not published by the larger presses. It also often serves as a stepping stone for an author to a large publishing house. Several of our authors got their first break with us, and after going through the process of editing, revision, and publication, they learned how to fine-tune their craft and have gone on to publish with large publishing houses. Yes, the authors’ talents provided them with these opportunities, but many of them were able to grow as writers by writing for us. And from all appearances, some of these authors will be able to “make a living” through their current contracts with the large publishing houses. I feel that part of the reason they were able to advance their career like this is because ImaJinn Books helped them fine-tune their craft. Even if we’re not recognized by RWA, our authors will continue to sell to large publishers because they are great authors.

Indeed, we feel that we have some of the best authors in the business
when it comes to the paranormal genre, and we’re proud to see those
authors recognized for their talent by moving upward.

The main reason I declined to fill out the paperwork for RWA is because
you, the current board, refused to live up to the promises made by your
previous board and the second reason is because you did not supply me
with the industry standards you were using to establish your guidelines. It is extraordinarily time consuming and costly for us to provide you with the myriad documents and information you require. And as I said previously, I feel that much of the material you ask for is confidential business information. I’m sure if you asked the large publishing houses for this same material, they would refuse because of confidentiality. Would you then un-recognize them? Of course not.
Your attitude toward legitimate small publishers and their authors is
discriminatory and condescending. I have been informed that the reason
you insisted on all small publishers re-qualifying for recognition was
because you had a problem with one publisher, and you were doing this so that publisher would not be singled out. I find it disturbing that you would have several small publishers go through a costly and
time-consuming process because you did not want to confront one
publisher. If indeed you did make everyone reapply because of one
publisher, I submit that you should reimburse every publisher who went
through the process for their time and expense, regardless of whether or not they were recognized.

I also submit that RWA, as an organization, should require that the
current board uphold the promises of previous boards and that each new
board not be permitted to indiscriminately change the rules. I was told
that you would not uphold this promise because it wasn’t in the minutes, but a simple phone call to the board members at that time would have confirmed their promise to me. Until RWA does uphold the promises made by previous boards and also accords the same respect to small publishers and its authors that it does to the larger publishing houses, I will not be reapplying for publisher recognition. Sadly, the only people this really hurts are our authors, your dues paying members. The very people you claim you want to “help make a living.”
If, as you so strongly propound, you are doing this for your members to
ensure that they make a living with their writing, then I strongly
suggest that you start allowing all your dues paying, published authors
the rights in RWA that will help them make such a living regardless of
their publisher. You have stated that RWA is an organization whose
purpose is to help romance writers further their career. I hope you can
soon show the small publishing industry that this is your foremost goal
instead of forcing us to reapply for recognition because you’re having a problem with one publisher and don’t want them to feel singled out. That action had nothing to do with helping your members “make a living.” It had to do with your inability to handle a problem in an appropriate fashion.

Again, I’m asking that this letter be published in its entirety in your
next RWR. I am also giving a copy of this letter to ImaJinn’s authors and telling them that they may distribute this letter to any RWA member they feel would benefit from seeing our stand on RWA’s small publisher
recognition policies. I also assure you that we will continue to work
with great authors and help them fine-tune their skills so that they can move up to the large publishing houses regardless of our standing with RWA.

Sincerely yours,
Linda Kichline
Owner & Publisher

« Hide it