Revisiting Romance Definitions--veinglory

Monday, September 22, 2008

It had escaped my attention that the EPPIES now define "contemporary romance" as "one central, monogamous, romantic relationship between a man and woman". Yee gods and little fishes, this one is back. More info here.

I truly understand that EPIC will get their ass bitten either way -- that goes with the territory in membership organisations. GLBT writers range pretty widely and those basically writing a fetish and those writing about pretty much their own lives sharing what is ostensibly the same theme/genre/box-with-a-bow-on-top. But I think that definition alone should give pause to anyone after the RWA fiasco.

Remember folks, get out there and volunteer to judge regardless. Not just the EPPIES but any contest. Its one of those ways to give back and we all ought to do that from time to time.

p.s. the latest twitter from ravenousromance: "In 5 yrs, only bestsellers will be printed.Authors and pubs will make a lot more $, and bookstores will die. Distribution is a commodity."

14 comments:

Teddy Pig 9:19 AM  

Well it's not like EPIC has sunk any lower in my regards.

Why can't we have a professional and respectable eBook Writer oriented organization instead of that freak show?

December/Stacia 10:03 AM  

I am speechless. About both items.

JD,  2:47 PM  

And now they're dissing their writers (2 entries later).

Can't decide if they're truly this clueless about the market & internet & business generally, or if they're trolling their own postings to generate controversy as a marketing tool.

Anonymous,  3:56 PM  

Ravenous is probably right about the bookstores dying/only bestsellers being in print statement. Print sales are dropping every month, and both the big US bookstore chains are teetering near bankruptcy. Books are going the way of records, tapes, and CDs in the iPod age.

And I don't see how recommending that all writers read Strunk & Write is "dissing" writers. It's good advice.

JD,  4:50 PM  

I've been hearing "the end of books/bookstores/poublishing as we know it is around the corner" for fifteen years now.

Anonymous,  5:13 PM  

I haven't yet decided if I'm stupid for it, but I'm seriously just about gleeful at the thought of these people failing. The way they're behaving, it's a given. Not so gleeful about the authors who will go down with them, but IMO if you haven't done your research and learned by now that a start-up epublisher is no place to bank your career, I can only have so much sympathy. Especially with the amount of bad press RR has generated since flitting on the scene to announce they're going to show us all how it's done.

Any author who doesn't take the amount of negative response to this publisher before they even open seriously, who cover their ears and LaLaLa their way to a contract with RR...well, sorry but they deserve what they get when it all goes up in a fiery ball visible from space.

Tuscan Capo 5:17 PM  

Veinglory, you are one of the most dignified, intelligent writers around. Even as our reading tastes probably couldn't be more dissimilar, I like your style and envy the way you can make your views succinctly and without feeling some obsessive need to revise and re-broadcast it throughout Blog Land. But when it comes to an organization like EPIC I'm of the opinion to feed the dragon is just pointing it in the direction of the peasants. Just my two pennies rubbed together, my lady. You have a great day now :)

Anonymous,  5:57 PM  

I have it on good authority (from RR's own editors and staffers, no less) that most of the "highly negative" response online has been from authors whose work was REJECTED by RR and/or its staffers (past and present), and they are now just bitter. Most of us who have been following that nasty dreck have seen right though the naysayers' bitterness and sour grapes and read it with the appropriate grain of salt.

And those bitter persons are not going to be making up the RR readership, anyway. So it hardly matters.

Emily Veinglory 6:19 PM  

For the record the five people I know to have been most skeptical I also know for a fact never submitted to RR--three are not even authors. The 'just bitter' rebuttal may be familar to some of you from the commentary surrounding several other epublishers, most of them no longer with us.

Emily Veinglory 6:24 PM  

I have been hearing of the end of bookstores within a few years for all of ten years and still live in bicycle distance of two bookstores the size of airports and several smaller outlets (and a library). All may not be well in the state of Penmark--but the reports of its demise strike me as not becoming more convincing with repetition (in fact, less so). Those that utter them also, in my experience, tend towards the naive end of the spectrum. This may be the exception that proves the rule, but I think not.

Ad for twitter in general, I think blogs are dangerous enough and people tend to twit more than they tweet.

Anonymous,  11:10 PM  

See what I mean? How do you feel sorry for authors like Anonymous up there who hear the negativity, hear the skepticism and questions and such but ignore it because "They said they're just jealous!!"

Jealous? That you've signed with an epublisher that has almost 4 months before they even open? Pumpkin, please. I've never submitted anything to RR or Ms. Perkins, nor would I at this point. But it's nice to know their disdainful behavior hasn't changed and are now infecting from within with "Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain, anyone who says he's there is just jealous of you!"

Believe me, your good authority doesn't know jack when it comes to *this* critic. :)

You know what that "Sour grapes" line RR is using reminds me of, though? Publish America. Don't they mix that in with the kool-aid liberally over there?

December/Stacia 1:46 PM  

I have it on good authority (from RR's own editors and staffers, no less) that most of the "highly negative" response online has been from authors whose work was REJECTED by RR and/or its staffers (past and present), and they are now just bitter. Most of us who have been following that nasty dreck have seen right though the naysayers' bitterness and sour grapes and read it with the appropriate grain of salt.


Well, I don't consider my reactions to any of the RR business "highly negative" ("cautious and logical" would be the words I would use), but I have certainly never submitted to them. Or to Ms. Perkins, for that matter. Or (to my knowledge) to anyone else involved with the company. I find it extremely offensive that they're implying I have, and that my caution stems from jealousy and bitterness rather than years of experience in epublishing and seeing dozens of startups come and go without ever earning their writers more money than the price of a large pizza.

How exactly do they explain the skepticism that met the original Dear Author post, then, when no one had heard of them and no one had submitted anything at all?

Yes. "They're just jelus haterz" is an old, old, old song. And by the way? "Those bitter people" most likely would have made up a percentage of RR's readers--had RR not gone out of its way to treat them like garbage.

I'm going to stop now because the more I think about that statement the more furious I become. The implication that I am only capable of thinking/behaving based on petty emotions, that my reaction is based solely on envy, that my concerns are not real but are instead simply a desire to "burn" a company that rejected me, is offensive in the extreme.

December/Stacia 5:52 PM  

That is, of course, assuming the Anon was telling the truth. Which I admit it's possible they're not.

Angie 7:06 AM  

Another data point for someone who's criticized RR and has never submitted to them, nor to Ms. Perkins. [raises hand] "They're just jealous" is a common counter-attack used by people who've had holes poked in their spray-painted stage curtain.

Their debut in the awareness of their potential pool of both readers and writers was a classic crash-and-burn, and they're trying to figure out how to save face. Fine, whatever. The proof will be in the health of their business six months or a year from now. I'm willing to wait and see. I still won't submit anything to them, though.

Angie

Post a Comment

  © Blogger template The Professional Template II by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP