Kate:

As usual, I think your reaction is dead on. I've got to get off my complacent butt, too, and make a noise about all this. If it weren't for my on- and off-line chapters, I might forego membership. But since I'm staying, I should make sure I articulate what I feel.

Right there with ya, Kate. I am beyond puzzled how/why this whole thing is occurring. And more frustrated than I can say that I can't find this info on the site.

X

A lurker just wanted to drop in. I don't understand why this is happening, and no I'm not a member of the RWA at the moment, but this whole situation has been watched carefully by me because I had planned to join up. I write erotic romance and I also write gay romance, so seeing them try to leave that out of their definition bothers me. I'm hoping things settle down.

Hi, Kate -- I haven't been blog-hopping as much this week because of tons of stuff going on at the day job. I'm not by nature an argumentative person anyway. I tend to not jump into the topics when people are steaming because many then deal from emotion and nobody listens -- on either side.

I'll try to address some of what was said here. Many RWA members don't know that there have been many times that members have threatened to sue, or instituted suits for all manner of things. Even if the suits never make it to court, the organization still has to spend money on legal advice, case preparation, etc. Big whopping waste of time and money on what amounts to be frivolous lawsuits.

However, the definition need isn't, I believe, so closely tied to romance writing members who may sue as it is to non-romance writers. RWA is the biggest organization with the most money. That makes our organization very attractive. So, if we are going to be known as Romance Writers of America, then we have to define what constitutes a romance. Otherwise, Horse-Lovers Fiction Writers of America can come and say, "Well, you can't block me from the RITAs or GH" or "Cookbook Authors of America" want a piece of that advertising or advocacy budget. That's what I meant, in this oversimplified explanation, about protecting assets of the organization. Sure, a number of people will say, "That's ridiculous! That would never happen!" I would have said the same had I never sat on the National Board or been a category coordinator for the GH. You know how everyone hated the format guidelines and the fact that people could be disqualified if their margins were 3/4 of an inch instead of 1 inch? Thank the person or persons who sued RWA. See, if the rule says one inch and you let in someone who had 3/4 inch margins... then the person with 1/4 inch margins pitches a fit and threatens to sue because RWA ruined their shot at publication.

Does it sound ridiculous? Probably. (So did th

Sorry to be a blog-hog, but you did ask. *vbg*

Anyway -- Does it sound ridiculous? Probably. (So did the woman who argued nastily that the GH coordinator was ruining her life because she wouldn't send someone to the airport to pick up the woman's entry.)

The board does not sit around looking for ways to upset the membership. Many of the actions taken are instituted at the urging of members. That was the case with publisher recognition standards with the majority of members saying that they wanted them. There are also some actions that must be taken because of association law. The man who was the RWA attorney when I was on the Board (He may still be.) was one of the top association attorneys in the country. When he brings something that could put the organization at risk to the attention of the Board, the Board has to have damn solid reasons for not acting on it. I'm amazed at all the things I learned in that year. Not all of it comfortable.

I don't think any Board is perfect. I think the ad hoc committee should have been formed to study graphical standards before any were instituted instead of the other way around.

That said, the two definition choices puzzle me. I like the current definition, but I'm biased. I was on the committee that worked on that definition and I think it passed the year that I was on the Board.

Oddly, what bothers me the most is that 'gay romances' are offered as the B option, instead of being included in Option A. In my friend's wonderful trilogy, the secondary romance is the developing relationship (with trials and tribulations) of two gay men. It's beautifully done. What shocks me the most is that so many people are appalled that it was even offered as an option at all! Some of the appalled people railed that a graphical standard against beastiality was censorship. So, sex with a horse is okay, but a love relationship between two people of the same sex shouldn't be considered a romance?

I want a definitio

I want a definition where the love relationship can be between man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, human-alien/demon/vampire/supernatural being. I don't want a definition that doesn't emphasize the importance of romance.

I draw the line at relationships between people and house pets. (Unless the family dog is a were-creature working undercover.)

Excellent and informative, Mary Stella, thank you, it's amazing what having information can do for a person.

I'm so annoyed, disgusted, disturbed at the entire process. It seems to me, that it isn't until people are whipped into a frenzy of outrage that solid information is brought forth. RWA has a website that is being woefully under-utilised. The Survey section of the, members only page, is an inactive link. Why? when they have a current survey... and no, I'm not advocating the survey be held online, but to my mind it would be the ideal place to post a copy of the survey so those of us who haven't yet received our copy of, RWR, can inform ourselves on the issue. Likewise, the online hot sheet. A perfect place to list and inform the membership on the regulatory requirements, intent behind policies, as well as the current Presidents response to members concerns, if there are any. All of these things would be a start toward calming the raging torrent (at least for me).

I can't make an informed decision if I'm not informed. It's all very well to say it's in the RWR, but some of us don't receive our copy until much later. I just received my June copy this week for goodness sake.

X

The only reason I can see for rewriting the definition is to exclude certain members who are currently included. Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't yet seen anything that makes me believe otherwise. The current definition fits the man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, human/alien/demon/vampire/supernatural being thing perfectly. Why change it?

I've heard from more than one person that the board screwed up again.
Is anyone surprised? No.
BUT PLEASE VOTE! Even if it means writing in your very own C at least the board will know how you feel. COMPLACENCY KILLS.

What's funny about this is if the RWA wasn't in such a ridiculous prudish stage right now, they could set their definition to exclude cookbooks and mysteries and charming tales of friendship without having to make such a mess with definitions, by simply defining romance as "a central love relationship that either is or will be sexual in nature with an emotionally satisfying ending". Even if, as in an inspirational romance where it ends at the church door, a sexual relationship is only implied, we still know it's there and that's what makes it a love story and not a good-friendship story.

Kate, why haven't you come over to The Passionate Ink? We're setting up an online RWA chapter for erotic romance writers. It's http://www.thenovellink.com/forum/

Come join!

I have heard from several sources that RWA wants more feedback. The options in the survey were two suggestions. It's a survey, not a ballot. I'm returning my ballot without marketing either A or B and then writing an email with positive, thoughtful suggestions (not accusations or rants) to the board members on what I would like to see considered.

I've been a public school teacher long enough to know that what Mary Stella says about lawsuits by irrational lunatics is absolutely true. We need a definition. Like the rest of you, though, I'm baffled by why we need a NEW one. The current definition is perfect. I really think this is a symptom of the polarization sweeping America right now. An "are you a blue RWA member or red" kind of thing.

Excellent points Mary Stella. You're absolutely right about our litigious society and the importance of protecting our organization from expensive lawsuits. I'm an attorney--I know this is true.
I also agree with your conclusion, that ultimately we need a very broad definition that encompasses the creativity of our membership. Not a definition that excludes large portions of our membership. A romance between one man and one woman? Never mind the gay romances (which I happen to think we should embrace) this definition excludes Susan Elizabeth Phillip's wonderful books Hot Shot and Honey Moon. These happen to be two of my favorite books. The old definition fits them--neither of the new definitions accomplish that.

Amadeus

hard porn svinger sex movies @x@ svinger sex movies hard porn @x@ hard porn tampabukkake @x@ tampabukkake hard porn @x@ hard porn tanja hansen naken imea arja ruotsalainen @x@ arja ruotsalainen imea @x@ imea armeija kauppa @x@ armeija kauppa imea @x@ imea armeija kuvat amigas alemanas jpg @x@ lefa g www @x@ culiando menores @x@ mepg @x@ comix porno erotikken bigcockmovies @x@ bigcockmovies erotikken @x@ erotikken bikinibilder strand @x@ bikinibilder strand erotikken @x@ erotikken bilde av meg naken

cellular ringtones phones for us mp3 treo ringtone to convert ringtone 700p mp3 ringtone into converting mp3 samsung ringtones mobile my an mp3 ringtone make bark ringtone dog creating for samsung ringtones mp3 to maker ringtone wav ringtones into files blackjack mp3 ringtone on upload as songs ringtones cars ringtones movie treo ringtone 700w mp3 chocolate mp3 to ringtone ringtone q siren with wavepad ringtones get text to ringtone message ringtone send text via on 680 mp3 ringtone treo a mp

Friday, December 28th 2007 @ 2:34 AM

700p mp3 ringtones absolutely free realtones alltel realtone audio to ringtones audiovox ringtone best ringtones club music ringtones college ring tones convert mp3 into ringtone convert music to ringtones free country ringtones for free crazy frog ring tones download free nextel ringtones download ringtones download t mobile ringtones downloadable mp3 ringtones edit mp3 ringtones free 24 ring tone free bluetooth ringtone free cell phone ring tone downloads<

Friday, January 18th 2008 @ 12:39 AM

accidentally in love ringtone acdc back in black ringtone are you my daddy ringtone are you there ringtone beatles real ringtones bluetooth ringtones for us cellular bollywood real ringtones can i make my own ringtone cellular one real ringtones convert audio files to ringtones create real music ringtones custom ringtone samsung d2c us ringtones dancin in the moonlight ringtone dave matthews band real ringtones ding fries are done ringtone disturbia ringtone in movie Tuesday, January 22nd 2008 @ 3:58 PM