[Gwen Ed.: Due to a miscommunication on our part, this post went live after Lynne asked us not to post it. So, our apologies to Lynne – even if I said, “Right on, sistah!” after I read it. May the repercussions be mild.]
I’ve tried not to comment, I really have, but the RITAs have been a constant in my writer life, and it’s sad to see the way they are going.
I’m not a member of the RWA, so I have no vested interest in the RITAs, but friends are, and they care a great deal about the organisation and the way it is going. I just watch, and sometimes I’m confused by the events that have unfolded in the last few years.
When the list came out yesterday, writers waited feverishly for the results. It was telling that I didn’t see any reader interest, except for the occasional mild one, but maybe the RITAs were always more for the writer than for the reader. I really don’t know. Some of my friends made it, and I’m delighted for them.
It’s still a great thing, to make the list. Many of my favourite writers aren’t in the lists because they didn’t enter (you don’t get nominated – in the RITAs you have to enter to win). But the list of entrants isn’t made public, so you don’t really know who has been passed over and who decided not to enter.
But what must be obvious is that the finals list no longer reflects the whole of the romance writing industry. It reflects a sector that is becoming easier to define. Print published, mainstream writers, with the odd (to this Brit) inclusion of Inspirational Romance. If such a category were to be mooted in Britain, it would be shot down in flames as far too restrictive. Christian only, and even that is limited to non-denominational Christianity. But, their choice.
By a convoluted interpretation of the rules, which gives me a headache to even try to understand, several sectors are excluded from the awards. These happen to be the areas of greatest growth in romance today, so the separation is becoming more obvious. And sadly, making the RITAs less relevant.
First, the erotic romance. While there are a couple of erotic romances that have made the list, like Pam Rosenthal’s book, it is in no way representative of the sales figures. Many of the members of the RWA refuse to judge erotic romances. That is fair enough. But many others don’t consider the erotic romance to be a romance. That’s partly because of the confusion between erotica (no happy ending required) and erotic romance, which follows the guidelines for romance, and uses sex as one of the ways of showing the developing relationship. Publishers of erotic romance are smart enough to know what the readers expect from each and that readers can tell the difference. So Ellora’s Cave has its Exotika line and the main EC lines, because there are different expectations from each. Harlequin expects its Blaze books to follow the lines for romance. But many judges don’t regard the erotic romance as a romance, so even if one has been entered, it may get the “Not a romance” comment from more than one judge, which will exclude it.
The epublished book isn’t allowed into the RITAs either. Neither is it allowed into the Golden Heart. It’s published, so it’s not eligible for a Golden Heart. Fair enough. But it’s not published, so it’s not allowed into the RITAs. Huh? I don’t even want to go there. But the epublished romance is excluded. And these days, when the epublished author can earn as much, if not more, than the print published it seems nonsensical to the uninvolved author. And even these terms are misleading, because the epublished author often sees her work in print, and the print published books are coming out in electronic format.
Since the biggest growth in the market is in the epublished and erotic romance arenas, the RITA competition is excluding more and more writers.
To me, it’s very odd that fantasy romance, SF romance and paranormal romance are all lumped into the same category, but the historical romance gets two categories all to itself. I write in both genres, and while I love both, I have to admit that it’s the erotic that’s getting the bulk of the sales these days.
I think the awards reflect the old guard and that way of thinking. Sex as ‘dirty,’ romance as somehow purer than that. That if you take the sex out of a book, there should be a story left, when much erotic romance uses sex to express the romance and the developing relationship. These days, when e-published authors can earn as much as print published, when most review sites don’t distinguish between the manner of publication, it seems common sense that they should be judged similarly.
And the same-sex romance, particularly m/m which is the biggest growth area this year. I’ve never understood why m/m romance is considered erotic, because sometimes it can be as sweet as the gentlest Inspie, as non-explicit as any mainstream romance. But you won’t find one of them in the RITA list.
The RWA is harking back to the past, fighting tooth and nail to remain in the twentieth century.
Some of my friends have been savaged by other writers in the organisation, by suggesting that epublished authors have a right to enter contests on an equal basis or trying to get erotic romance a fair shake. Many, tired of fighting, have left the organisation. Having seen the way they were treated, I can’t blame them, but it makes me very sad to see it.
This year I decided not to enter any contests, because I’m feeling increasingly uncomfortable at competing against writers I like and respect. Seeing all this kerfuffle go down makes me even more glad I made the decision. I know excellent writers like Lynn Viehl refuse to enter, or be nominated, and maybe that’s the right way to go. I don’t know. While it’s lovely to win, there’s also a degree of embarrassment when you see the great writers you ‘beat’ to get there.
As a result, the RITAs are no longer representative of all of romantic fiction. That’s not to say that the books that have made it to the shortlists aren’t well-written, excellent examples of the genre. Just that they don’t represent the whole of the genre.
But having said all that, the best of luck to all the finalists and may the judging from now on be open handed and generous.
Very well said, Lynne.
It was my understanding that the Regency historical category was created because Regency books dominated the single historical category to the exclusion of any other type of historical romance, though it doesn’t seem to have made a difference… I’m not a member of RWA, though, so I could be completely wrong.
As a reader, I was never even aware of the RITAs until just a couple of years ago. I have found the commentary that emerges each year at this time rather fascinating. I really appreciate your comments, Lynne, especially as they remind me that there’s all kinds of excellent work out there besides what is represented by the RITAs.
I wish this problem could be solved. I think the RITAs could be an excellent marketing tool for the whole genre if they were far more inclusive and if the process was more transparent. I’ve noticed that each year Fictionwise does a big promotion around the Nebula and Hugo awards. Wouldn’t it be great to see something similar for romance? That’s just one example and I’m sure there are many more missed opportunities.
Nicely stated.
Well said!
***If such a category were to be mooted in Britain, it would be shot down in flames as far too restrictive. Christian only, and even that is limited to non-denominational Christianity. But, their choice.***
That’s why I love the UK book sites…very open, and lots of choices.
I have to say that the categories are really defined-and not always correctly (although, I guess that’s subjective).
On all the sites I frequent, I haven’t seen much enthusiasm. Most of the readers are scratching their heads asking why these specific books have been nominated. I didn’t know that you had to enter your own book to get a nomination….that kind of defeats the purpose of an award IMO.
In the end, I’m seeing the RITA award going the same way the Academy Award has gone. Picked by a select group of people that varies widely from the public’s view.
I thought it might be useful to have a commenter who is involved in the market, but isn’t involved in the RWA. Non members can enter if they qualify, but after a year’s membership of the RWA, I joined the British RNA instead. That’s because of the local chapters and the networking.
But the RWA is a huge organisation, with thousands of published and unpublished members, although that membership is in decline. A lot of epublished writers have left, as have erotic romance writers because of what they perceive as discrimination.
I have to say, if you compare the RITA categories with the Eppies (the awards run by the electronically published organisation, Epic), the comparisons are startling.
http://www.epicauthors.com/eppiewinners2009.html
The erotics are separated out, partly so that they get a fair reading from judges prepared to give them a fair shake. I’ve judged in this competition, and when you get the judging form, you tick the categories you’re prepared to judge. You’re not allowed to judge in a category where you have an entry.
I guess there have to be guidelines of some sort, or any ol’ thing gets entered. Nevertheless, I don’t understand the guidelines they selected. Instead of limiting for the purpose of making the elephant slightly smaller to eat, they’ve instead completely excluded certain parts of the elephant. And to that I say, “But what if I LIKE the ears, or the tail? How are you going to reward good ears or tails unless you include them?”
Enough analogy?
Hmm. I suddenly have a hankering for some grilled elephant.
*heads off to the freezer to see what I can find*
The vast majority of entrants also judge. That’s 1200 judges, each judging a packet of 6-9 books — hardly a “select” group.
Besides that, our tastes are as hugely varied as any segment of the readership. Simply because we’re published, and belong to RWA, doesn’t mean we think alike. Which is why getting five random judges to give any one book high enough scores to final is no small thing.
Not to say it’s not flawed, even though nothing’s perfect. However, I, too, would like to see the categories adjusted, with a separate ER category. I definitely feel the org needs to get its ducks in a row about what constitutes published, and then be consistent. There needs to be some accommodation for e-authors, bearing in mind you’d need a sufficient number of judges who either had e-readers or were willing to read on computer. So there’s work to do, granted.
But I do get tired of the accusations of insularity that come up every single year. I had nine books to judge this year — I’d never even heard of any of the authors in my packet. My scores ranged from mediocre to pretty dang good. In years past, I’ve given so-so scores to Big Names because the book didn’t wow me, and top scores to relative unknowns…and I’m hardly the only author to do that. Since we can’t judge in our own category (a very good thing, IMO), it’s doubtful many of my judges knew ME from Eve. I entered three books, so that’s fifteen different judges looking at just this author’s work! How is that “select”?
Look, I see books on the lists I wouldn’t put there, either, because they’re not to my taste. Even so, I know plenty of readers who’d definitely agree with the choices, so perhaps the organization isn’t completely out of touch. 🙂
Besides which, if readers can’t agree about what’s “best,” why are judges expected to? 😉
“Besides which, if readers can’t agree about what’s “best,” why are judges expected to? ;-)”
They could always try increasing the pool a little. Or qualify exactly what “best” means. Best of books published first in the USA in print of the people who entered. Kind of thing.
While perfection is unnattainable, it’s better to keep striving to attain it.
There is actually no requirement for the book to be published first in the USA. Susanna Kearsley’s The Winter Sea has not yet been published in the US and yet she finaled in the Strong Romantic Elements category.
Having been a long time RWA member, I was ecstatic to be able to enter the RITAs this year…only to find out that being e-published effectively bans me from either contest.
I’m considered published by the “GOLDEN HEART” rules so I can’t enter my novel there. And I’m considered not published by the “RITA” rules so I can’t enter there. Mind you, I have faithfully paid my dues, quietly watched the erotic/erotica debate, and generally been a good lil member… until I naively tried to enter the contest and then was brusquely told, “No.”
Funny, they’ll take my dues monies but they don’t want my contest money…and I wasn’t even trying to enter an erotic romance, just a fantasy romance. I read all genres, ebook and print. As soon as I found out ebooks were banned, the words “Golden Heart Finalist” and “Rita Award Winning” ceased to mean anything to me in terms of identifying the best of the best. I’ll pick a reputable blog recommended book over these now.
I read a review this morning that talked about the lack on inclusiveness in certain sectors. It amazes me that people don’t see the potential of the ebook and want to get in their on the ground floor. Seems a little crazy to me!
As for the whole m/m being classified as erotica, I have to agree wholeheartedly with your comments about it. Excellent piece Lynne and incredibly thought provoking.