My 2008 DIKs
(from debut - June 2005 *)
My January column
My February column
My March column
My April column
My May column
My June column
* Co-authored Oct column
 What was begun as an online journal of the books I read evolved...or maybe it devolved...to also feature behind the scenes goings-on at All About Romance from my perspective (mostly based on my personal feelings - okay, it's a personal pity party); topics I've gone over ad nauseum in commentary at AAR, including the nature of reviews and online behavior; and my non-cyber life (including family and items in pop culture that capture my interest, which is just about everything). Please do not violate my trust. I restricted certain AAR-related and personal entries for a reason...to keep them as private as possible. Now that my blog is read-only, to access restricted entries you must already have a password; if you do, hold onto it so that you can continue to read restricted entries. This blog is not part of All About Romance. I ask that you keep comments or questions regarding restricted blog content off of AAR. |
RWA & the RITAs
I mentioned in a not-so-long-ago-issue of ATBF that there is a firestorm brewing within RWA's membership, and emails I've been receiving from authors in attendance at RWA's national conference last week indicate that it worked itself into this year's RITA presentation in Reno. If you recall, I reported that there is schism within RWA's membership between conservatives and liberals that quite frankly makes no sense when you consider the mission of the organization. Because RWA is a writer's organization that exists to provide, according to RWA's website, "networking and support to individuals seriously pursuing a career in romance fiction." This is not a political lobbying group or even a union...it's a support system for authors.
So what a supposedly politically and religiously motivated montage had to do with the opening of the RITA awards this past Saturday night is somewhat of a mystery. According to what I've been told by some in attendance, the montage was "right-wing" and "pro-Christian" and "would have been offensive" to anyone who wasn't white, Christian, or a Republican. Others did not go so far in their condemnation of the montage, but were astonished nonetheless because it had nothing to do with the RITA's or RWA and did seem to push an agenda. The RITA presentation is the conference's highlight each year - the Oscars of Romance, so to speak, and if RWA's mission is to provide networking and support, than the RITA presentation should be nothing but a celebration.
Nora Roberts, who was set to host the awards, refused to be a party to it and walked out before-hand because, as she writes in this public statement, "Instead of a celebration, a night of fun and anticipation for the nominees, the audience was treated to a history lesson, heavy on disaster, death, politics, war and tragedy--in one memorable moment, Don't Worry, Be Happy was played over those images." She added, "I can't comprehend how such tragic events and images had a place at a ceremony meant to showcase the nominees and the organization."
Much of the offensive material was then removed, but I've been told that some of the politically motivated material remained.
Now, how do we tie this all together with that earlier ATBF discussion? Well, the schism between Romantica authors and those who believe that group of authors is an embarrassment to the membership as a whole can be looked at politically, and as mirroring what we're seeing in the so-called "culture wars" that many believe has at its base religious conservatism. What's deliciously ironic about this whole thing is that the current president of RWA, Tara Taylor Quinn, was elected to office after a previous RWA blow-up, that tangentially also touched on freedom of speech issues, when Leigh Greenwood was president back in 2002.
When I ask authors in the know whether or not RWA itself is moving to the right, I get conflicting responses. Some say that yes, authors who are part of the religious right are flexing their muscle, while others say that Quinn, a talented author (she's only earned good grades at AAR), is the driving religious, conservative force behind the scenes. And yet, it makes no sense to me to insert politics into a celebration of the best in Romance, other than that it might be a prong in a multi-pronged attack...it certainly made an impact, didn't it?
Right after I reported in ATBF the divisions within RWA, a questionnaire was sent out to all 9,000 members asking them to define romance. If I remember correctly, the options were narrowly written and to certain members who were angered as a result, the wording and the questionnaire itself was but another salvo in an attempt to limit the confines of "Romance" in order to exclude both Romantica and Gay/Lesbian Romance, which I imagine might be the next sub-genre we see popping up.
Many authors I know personally have quit RWA in recent months. As for Nora Roberts, prior to the RITA's she walked out because the inappropriate content didn't focus on the nominees. And when she emailed me, Roberts added that Tara Taylor Quinn apparently agreed to read a brief public statement from Roberts at the start of the RITA presentation, but did not. And, according to Roberts, Quinn then agreed to read it after the presentation, but again, did not. That statement reads as follows: "Nora Roberts declines to host tonight's awards ceremony as she feels the content is inappropriate and believes the focus should be on the nominees and the organization."
Roberts, in a letter to RWA, apparently considered resigning from RWA over this incident - and wouldn't that have made a statement! - "But it wasn't RWA that pushed this agenda. It was a handful of individuals. RWA has, as always, my respect, affection and gratitude. The current president has none of those." Ouch!
TTFN, Laurie Likes Books (The day after blogging here, I wrote an article for AAR - here's the link - it's a more complete piece with additional information and since it was written for AAR, it's a more "journalistic" effort.)
I really appreciate your candid commentary - if ever an organization should
be apolitical, you'd think it would be a bunch of writers. I have a lot of
respect for Nora Roberts for the stance she took. Janet
Janet -
I attended the ceremony, and honestly, I did not find the content of the
montages/clips political. However, I did find them pointless and the whole
production cringingly embarrassing. During the retrospective clips, there
was a heavy emphasis on sitcoms from the 80’s and 90’s, disasters and a
maudlin montage of Princess Diana. Perhaps because I was not tipped off
before hand I was not looking for any agenda.
Somebody... Somewhere... is going to try to blame Leigh Greenwood for this
whole fiasco! I just KNOW it!! Guys in romance just don't GET an even
break!! :)
What a mess, although, I don't actually think I'm surprised. Let's hope
they decide to change presidents because it seems to me, she's not very
good at her job. All the power's obviously gone to her panties!
Maybe RWA is lucky that it hasn't entered the cultural wars of our times
before now. Because Romance has some volatile extremely subject matter in
it. Like women's roles, gender relations, sexual behavior, moral choices.
And readers become very invested and write about characters sometimes as
passionately as if they were discussing neighbors or family members, rather
than fictional constructs. The two tendencies together seem to me like fire
and kindling, as far as attracting strong feelings and loyalties. Not
surprising Romance world is seeing some conflict.
Yikes. Wow. I wasn't there, and haven't heard much from authors, except
that the ceremony was HORRIBLE. But from reading various blogs this
morning, I'm APPALLED. Why RWA needs to get involved in politics is beyond
me, and with the current president, they seem to feel it necessary to push
their Stepford Wives, right-wing, Bush-loving, Christian agenda. Aren't
those things outside the scope of an organization that's supposed to
support writers of women's fiction? Doesn't that mean ALL women (and men)
who might be lesbian/gay, anti-religion, and politically opposed to the
current Republican administration? Aren't these things PRIVATE matters?
What the hell do they have to do with 25 great years of writing romance?!
Saying only one thing, and then will shut up. To imply that this is a
right-wing political conspiracy is to massively undermine the actual
PO-quotient of the RWA membership. Speaking from my completely
statistical, always-accurate surveying techniques, this debacle crosses
party lines, religious lines, international lines, and possibly even panty
lines. To indicate that ANY group or possible affiliation was not morbidly
embarassed and angry, well, it would indicate that the script-writers
failed in their ultra-secret mission statement: We Will Not Rest Until All
RWA members are 100% pissed-off.
Was this shotgun approach to offend as much of the audience as possible the
ONLY way the RWA's elected leadership could draw attention away from the
Graphical Standards debacle? Or was it all an underhanded snub to Linda
Howard, an attempt to make everyone walk out before she got her award?
On the whole, I took objection to the RWA efforts to pigeon hole romance
into their own m/f vanilla box. Given the rich variety of stories
available that don't fit into their box, RWA is totally missing the boat.