fashionista_35

*Disclaimer: I'm not saying any of this as a chapter officer or representative I'm just observing and commenting on them as I would if I were a normal (quit laughing) member of the writing community. That's all.*

Well, bravo RWA National Board. (Look Ma, no service marks or links) In one fell swoop and in less than a week, you've managed to set the romance genre back almost thirty years. Thanks to your unbelievable short-sightedness, impulsiveness, and total disregard for membership input, we are now the laughingstock of the writing community. Again. Or maybe still. Because whatever inroads some of us may have made in earning some respect from other genre or mainstream writers have been bulldozed over by the complete insensitivity and lack of respect the National Board showed towards the membership.

For those of you unaware, and I don't feel as if I'm violating anything, since it's on any number of blogs-- ( waaaaaaay too many to link to right now-- to quote a great song, Everybody's Talkin') of non-RWA members and I'm feeling like exercising a little freedom of speech anyway, this is what the brouhaha is about:


'With respect to all RWA programs and services, the following shall not be depicted or represented: exposed male and female genitalia, exposed female nipples, cunnilingus and fellatio, hands or mouth covering naked female breasts, naked or g-string-clad buttocks, and bestiality. The following words: cock, cocksucker, cunt, fuck, motherfucker, shit, and tit, will not be displayed.' (Look Ma, no service marks or links)

Don't even ask me what the frell they mean, precisely, by all this, since the members have yet to get a clear answer from the National Officers and honestly, it's not the point. The point is, they enacted this arbitrary, batshit ruling with no input from the membership, in some Double Secret Probation meeting and announced it as a one-line throwaway bullet point that was only recently released to the membership.

And as I already said, how flippin' arbitrary could they have been? I mean, why cunt and not twat? Why cock (which is a word unto itself as is tit, and not simply a euphemism) and not dick or prick? Why wasn't bitch or goddammit included? (Oops, now I'm giving them ideas?) When was the last time you saw cunnilingus and/or fellatio displayed on a cover that wasn't the Kama Sutra (or any books of its ilk). And to add to the hilarity, "bestiality" was initially misspelled in the release. Way to prove this is a professional writer's organization. This is like a really unfunny version of George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say on Television.

Look, all I, and I suspect most others, want is a clear, cogent answer as to why the hell this stupid thing was even implemented in the first place. Not some vaguely worded, couched in poor, secondhand lawyerese, bordering on a whine, nonsense that leaves one with more questions and a bad aftertaste.

The conspiracy theorist in me sees a lot of suspicious maneuvering going on here. Romance, as a genre, is broadening and the sub-genres that appear to be bringing in the most money are the more non-traditional types of romance novels. On the other hand, the types of books that have been typically considered as romance are taking a hit. Harlequin/Silhouette is closing down some of their short contemporary lines, consolidating others and historicals have been cut back a great deal. They're also starting a line of more explicit love stories (as are most other publishers.)

At the same time, a group of writers is attempting to establish a chapter of Erotic Romance writers. To say that the above just might affect them would be putting it mildly. It already has. An RWA member was denied permission to sign her award-winning book at the RWA booth at BEA this weekend because her cover violated these guidelines. Good thing her publisher also had a booth at BEA. Otherwise, she'd have been out a lot of money in travel expenses.

Frankly, this all smacks of the RWA narrowing their scope and becoming less inclusive. You know what? Fine. You want it to be your sandbox and don't want the rest of us to come play, freakin' groovy. There are other sandboxes, or perhaps a bigger sandbox can be built. However, don't sit there with a Revlon Fire and Ice smile on your face and say that you're trying to protect and do what's best for all the members when the members weren't even part of this decision making process. If you don't want us to play, just tell us. We'll take our $75.00 in annual dues and put them to use elsewhere.

Honestly, I might walk. I know plenty of people who are already doing so. However, at the same time, given the aforementioned sandbox analogy, I hate to make it that easy for them. Because again, in that conspiracy theory vein, I can't help but feel that's exactly what they want to have happen. They want the "undesirables" to leave of their own accord so the manicures can stay fresh.

The worst part of this, is those of us who write romance, but don't consider ourselves to be traditional romance writers are stuck between that proverbial rock and hard place. Yeah, there are other writing organizations out there, but romance writers are given very little, if any, consideration. We're mocked (wonder why?), treated as second-class citizens by other genre and/or mainstream writers. There's this image of us as overweight, bon-bon eating, conservative, narrow-minded housewives. *Looks up at stoopid graphical standard*

Right.

Anyhow, to any members of the general writing community out there. We're not all like that. I swear. We know how to use Roget's for more than just colorful euphemisms for penis and vagina. We want to write vibrant, beautiful stories about real people that may or may not have a happy ending, but that do have a lot of romance and love in them. Which is no less a legitimate form of storytelling than a mystery or horror or paranormal. Different strokes for different folks.

I just want a community of like-minded, supportive writers with which to share the highs and lows of this crazy industry. I thought I'd found it.

Clearly-- not. At least, not as things stand.