Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Re: RWA's recent decision
In 1851 a great women's rights advocate called Sojourner Truth said the following:
...they talk about this thing in the head ... [intellect] ... What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?
For too long the debate has been mired in the issue whether epublishing is 'as good as' print publishing. You know what, I'd guess that on average it sure isn't--if you define 'good' as mainly an issue of money. I guess the average ebook by a reputable press earns much less than half the amount of the average book from a reputable print press.
But that isn't the point. Ebook writers are writers, our checks cash the same as anyone else's. Epublishers are real publishers, some good and some bad like in any industry. Back in March I said "I give the RWA their due, but the fears of ebook authors that being "aligned definitionally" may be an experience akin to defenestration is not entirely irrational given RWA's history." And lo, it has come to pass.
By effectively defining epublishers as vanity presses RWA shows clearly that they are not about protecting writers' interests and being fair, they are about attacking the kinds of publishing they deem innately inferior. My response? I mean to keep my little half measure full, so my opinion of RWA can be summarised in one and a half inelegant words.
(There goes the blog's G rating, I guess)