I was working the Times Sunday crossword puzzle last night and was surprised to see that these two words, Liberal Minded, were — spoiler alert! — the answer to 29 Down: Tolerant of other opinions. The word “liberal” has been twisted so in modern rhetoric that I actually wondered if Fox News would complain, or at least cite 29 Down as proof of the paper’s lefty bias.
The clue struck me because I’ve been working, off and on for several days, on a piece about the MWA and Harlequin. Here’s the <a href=”http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writers_life/2009/12/mwa-delists-harlequin.html”>story</a> in a nutshell.
As the incoming MWA president, I have no voting rights, no role in policy-making. I am the happiest little figurehead you ever did see. But I served two terms on the board and I know how much work board members put into the organization. I also feel genuinely sad that so many self-published writers feel slighted by MWA’s policies.No, it’s not about merit. It’s about professionalism. And while being paid for one’s work isn’t the only way to be professional, it’s an awfully good way to start.
But as I tried to put that into words, I decided it was moot. Because the fact is, most people don’t want to change their minds, about anything. Including me. Or, to quote THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO* — don’t snicker, it is a very good movie and I would love to own the Criterion Collection edition, if you’re listening, Santa — no one likes to be criticized, they just don’t. Furthermore, when you disagree with someone’s opinion, it often lands like criticism.
This same idea occurred to me this week when I read a piece by a wonderful journalist, a friend of a friend, in which she said some pretty horrible things about a woman I know. I thought: “Oh, I should write so-and-so and tell her that this person she’s excoriated is actually a pretty nice person and that this was a low blow verging on a cheap shot.” But who wants to hear that, unsolicited? I know it would put me on the defensive if I received such a note. And being on the defensive doesn’t make one inclined to rethink anything.
I mentioned once that an imaginary sign hangs above my desk: Nobody Needs to Know What You Think About Anything. In the flesh, where I feel people can engage one another, I’m still pretty free with my opinions. And capable of tolerating others’ opinions. At the Murder and Mayhem in Muskego conference, I had a chance to speak at length with Brian Azzarello. We happened to have very different takes on MAD MEN and while his take didn’t make me warm to the show — I fall into that strange group of people who hate it so much we can’t stop watching it** — it did make me think about the show differently.
But I don’t see many people online who are interested in true debate, or even being better informed. I can’t persuade people that MWA’s policies are not the equivalent of censorship, that MWA isn’t trying to prevent anyone from publishing, much less trying to block their right to self-expression. I’m not sure I can even persuade folks inclined to think differently that self-publishing is not synonymous with vanity publishing. No matter what I say, there are going to be some self-published writers — differently published? — who insist that I belong to MWA because I’m scared of a true free market, in which I would have to compete with all writers, not just those chosen by the — take your pick of adjectives — insular, out-of-touch, arrogant mainstream publishing industry.
This much I can say: MWA didn’t change the game. Harlequin did. All the organization did was apply its existing policies to Harlequin’s changing business model. And if you can’t see how Harlequin’s pay-to-publish program is designed to prey on writers and their dreams — well, then I’m not really sure that you’re cynical enough to write crime fiction.
*This being The Memory Project, I’m nowhere near getting that quote right, but I’m pretty sure Kate Beckinsale said it to Chloe Sevigny.
**John Powers of Vogue wrote the definitive article on those of us who can’t stop watching Mad Men, even though we don’t like it.
This piece is, if nothing else, a stirring argument for why everyone needs a copyeditor. I’ve fixed three typos since posting it and I bet I’ll find more. Meanwhile, hat tip to Nancy Nall, who inspired me to take a different take on this subject.
Even though I worked for McCann-Erickson Advertising in the early 60′s, and know the era well, I had a hard time getting into Mad Men until I realized it was because there were no characters I admire or like or identify with. Although there is a lot they have right, there is some that’s off. I definitely remember a well accepted woman copywriter as well as a woman account executive. On the whole, the men were decent guys. Sure there were affairs and only some drinking. When did that ever end?
On the whole, the attitude toward women is right on. Surely, even young people are aware of how African Americans were treated then. Gays still have a long way to go before full acceptance. Having moved on through these 40-plus years,the program makes me realize how much I had forgotten about those times and how there has been progress.
June,
What a great perspective.
Meanwhile, for those who care, I finally finished the puzzle. (The lower left-hand corner gave me fits, which in hindsight seems silly. But I find with the Sunday puzzle that wandering away from it gives me the perspective I need to finish it.)
If I liked even one of the characters on MAD MEN it would be unbearable to watch. Their despair would take us with down with them. The distance that my dislike allows me is liberating since each of them seems less real than the products they promote.
Again, an interesting take, Patti. I do give full props to Jon Hamm for not trying to make Don Draper a nice guy. He plays the vicious notes with relish.
i don’t have cable, so i have to wonder what the buzz is about. i’ll ck it out on netflix at some point and see, probably after it’s not on anymore. this is what happened with That Show [although it was readily apparent what *that* buzz was about, and i believe i remember that it was more of a sleeper show until later in its running--more of a cult show].
at any rate, i think that there are plenty of tools available for the sucking of dreams of the writer. i do not fault mwa: it’s their organisation and thus they get to make the rules; it’s easy to damage folks’ delicate sensibilities on nearly any topic–all you need to do is disagree with them aloud.
i follow the blogs of several agents when i can, and it is often very easy to see why so many people never get published, since they can’t even figure out how the agent wants to get queried, even though they have spelled it out carefully, in many cases, on their websites. multiply it out and that makes for a lot of people off the bat who will claim that they aren’t ‘lucky’enough to get published, et cetera. there’s a pot for every lid and an ass for every seat, as an english professor once told me, and i often think that the heartburn associated with not ‘knowing the right people’ or ‘having an inside track’ to getting published is a direct result of broken dreams secondary to not being able to follow simple instructions.
i am emphasising this because i have seen so much of it in the last few weeks (due more to an opportunity to look than a true increase in incidence)and it has left me shaking my head. i know those people are mad, and possibly/probably not putting the blame in the right part of their experience.
congrats, laura. sure you’ll do a bang-up job.
//karen
Laura, congratulations! You will do great as president!
If you could do one thing as president of MWA, I would so love to see movement to support self-published authors. I think it would be such a great move to see an Edgar for Best Independently Published Novel.
Something like that could go such a long way to help give someone a break, a chance, to get to the next level in our business.
Let me know if there’s any way that I can help.
I like your idea. As a finalist for the SMP/PWA contest myself, I can attest how much just a simple recognition like that means… and how much it sustains you through lean times.
If there’s any way I can help get off the ground the idea of a sponsored contest to get the best self-pubbed or un-published novel a contract, let me know.
I think it’s a fabulous idea, Laura.
Now if we could get that book an HBO contract for a TV series, that would really help jump-start a career:)
MWA already has a contest for unpublished writers and it is sponsored by Minotaur Books. It is called the Best First Crime Novel Competition and information may be found here:
http://www.mysterywriters.org/?q=Contests-Writers
“I had a hard time getting into Mad Men until I realized it was because there were no characters I admire or like or identify with.”
I had the same experience with BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES. There wasn’t a character in there that I wouldn’t have been happy to see die in a fire. Yet, couldn’t put it down. It was a strange reading experience. I haven’t been following Mad Men, more out of time constraints than anything else, and I doubt now that I will.
Welcome, Madame President! May your rule be peaceful and prosperous, but given the recent kerfluffle, I’m not betting on the first one.
Stacey,
How would we define “independently” published? Aren’t Akashic books, for example, independently published?
To reiterate, I can’t do anything as MWA president, although I, like any MWA member, can request board members to consider certain ideas. And I’m all about mentoring. But I think MWA, relative to, say, Sisters in Crime, expends more of its efforts on behalf of those in the business as opposed to those trying to break in. At the same time, it does sponsor an annual symposium, which usually features at least one panel on breaking in, often with top editors and agents.
One thing about which I have genuine confusion: What do self-published writers want? Is the group too diverse to have a general agenda? If the goal of self-published writers is to move toward more traditional publishing deals, I think MWA could be helpful. Heck, simply networking as an associate — attending chapter meetings, if possible, reading the newsletter — would be worthwhile.
But for writers who prefer to self-publish — is MWA really the best organization?
I was shocked at the Words and Music conference to hear a well-known writer speak approvingly of how Steve Almond was selling a self-published book out of his car at a recent event. Wherever we’re going, I hope we can all agree that’s NOT the business model anyone’s hoping for. For one thing, it’s not very green! <g> I don’t want to sell my own books. Some writers might. I admire their pluck and enterprise, but I’m not sure MWA can be all things to all writers.
As for the way technology is changing . . . that’s too big a topic for this comment box. If I knew the future of publishing, I would be reinventing myself as a consultant. I’m just another writer, with my head down over my latest manuscript. Speaking of which . . . back to work! I’ve got to get this revision back to my publisher before Christmas.
“I had the same experience with BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES. There wasn’t a character in there that I wouldn’t have been happy to see die in a fire. Yet, couldn’t put it down.”
JD, I had precisely the same reaction to that book.
Fiction isn’t usually what I read, but (apparently) fiction written by journalists – or ex-journalists (or ‘new’ journalists!) DOES appeal to me. Maybe it has something to do with a narrative that accentuates what’s important, in an engaging way, as a good newspaper would.
Anyway, and whether caused by or despite having a very pro-LL bias, I’d conservatively estimate that Ms Lippman is indeed liberal-minded
Thanks for the reply, Laura. I can imagine how busy you are this time of year.
By “Independently” Published, I mean self-published. By the author him/herself.
It’s become such a widely adopted vehicle for so many crime and mystery writers, particularly now with e-books… from Konrath, to Allan Guthrie, John Rector, Lee Goldberg, Boyd Morrison and countless others. Self-published e-books are now operating much as cheap pulp paperbacks from the 50s, 60s, and 70s in helping to find and establish a readership for some authors. I just think it would be very forward-thinking for MWA to establish a “Best Self-Published Novel” category at the Edgars (or however y’all might prefer to word it) to recognize the changing landscape and to help some of the up-and-coming authors in the genre who are relying more and more on self-publishing to build their careers.
Whatever happens, I’m sure you will do a fabulous job as president of MWA, Laura.
Okay, but asking the MWA to have a best self-published category is a little like asking Miss America to have Canadian contestants. There are gorgeous women in Canada, but Miss America isn’t set up to recognize that. MWA’s mission is not, as currently defined, about encouraging self-publishing. One could argue that it’s antithetical to MWA’s mission. We want you to get paid. By a third party who also shoulders the burden of editing, marketing, printing and distribution.
It’s also worth noting that J.A. Konrath, Allan Guthrie and Lee Goldberg, in selling their books on Kindle, are not finding and establishing readership via eBooks, they are building on a brand that came from, yep, traditional publishing.
Here’s the paradox I see: Almost every self-publishing success IN FICTION ends with a traditional publishing deal. Brian Wiprud, M.J. Rose, Ken Wishnia. So aren’t we all on the same side? Don’t we really want the same things?
I think it would be interesting if an avant garde publisher and MWA partnered to sponsor a contest, in which the best self-published or unpublished book was given a contract, much as St. Martin’s has done with PWA and Malice Domestic. But, no, I wouldn’t create an Edgar category for self-publishing. For one thing, I don’t think Poe would appreciate it. (Poe tried to make a living as a writer, which is why he was frequently broke.)
Stacey wrote “By “Independently” Published, I mean self-published. By the author him/herself. It’s become such a widely adopted vehicle for so many crime and mystery writers, particularly now with e-books… from Konrath, to Allan Guthrie, John Rector, Lee Goldberg, Boyd Morrison and countless others.”
That’s not accurate. I have taken my previously published, out-of-print titles and made them available on the Kindle. That’s very, very different than what you are implying. I didn’t write an original novel for the Kindle…nor would I. Nor do I think writing books for the Kindle is the path to success. Boyd is the one-in-a-million exception.
On top of that, all the authors you mentioned (except Boyd) are selling their ebooks on the basis of reputations, recognition, and followings they built by being published by real publishers… the ones who pay authors as opposed to the other way around.
You’re also using “self-published”/”independently published” in a very broad way. There’s true self-publishing, and then there’s going to a vanity press. They are very different things.
Creating an MWA award to “honor” such titles would only be tacitly legitimizing the unethical and predatory publishing practices used by vanity presses….and empowering them with a new incentive to swindle desperate, and gullible, aspiring authors out of their money.
Also, I think that asking a group of authors to slog through hundreds of POD books from the likes of Authorhouse, PublishAmerica, etc. would be considered cruel and inhuman punishment by most civilized societies.
Lee
Today I made a formal request to the MWA to permit qualified, self-published authors to apply for associate membership. My email to MWA states in full as follows:
“Dear MWA:
Currently the MWA automatically excludes all self-published authors from applying for associate membership. (See Approved Publisher criteria, paragraph 7: “The publisher is not a �self-publishing� or �subsidy publishing� firm in which the author has paid all or part of the cost of publication, marketing, distribution of the work, or any other fees pursuant to an agreement between the author and publisher, cooperative publisher or book packager.”). This exclusion exists irrespective of the qualifications, success and professionalism of the author at issue. I would submit that it is time for MWA to make a philosophical change that recognizes the ability of many contemporary authors to self-publish and still maintain the high degree of standards and professionalism that have historically been employed by traditional publishers.
I am making a formal request that MWA drop its blanket exclusion of all self-published authors and instead adopt the standards which are currently being used by the International Thriller Writers (ITW), as follows:
“With particular regard to self-published books, where there is no publisher beyond the author, any determination of the author being a qualified publisher shall be on a case-by-case basis and such factors as the work itself, the breadth of its marketing, the extent of its distribution, the editorial process, its sales, the author’s personal history, reviews in recognized publications, and any other factor relevant to the particular situation may be considered in making such determination. Self published writers are not automatically excluded from being a qualified publisher, but they bear a higher burden to demonstrate their status.”
I request that a copy of this email be sent to each officer, director, and chapter president of MWA so that they are aware that this very important proposal has been submitted. I would also appreciate a formal response to my request.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Thank you, Jim M. Hansen (www.jimhansenbooks.blogspot.com).”
Jim,
Don’t you mean active status? Not nit-picking, just want to be clear on what you want.
I honestly don’t know how ITW evaluates self-published writers on a case-by-case basis. My hat’s off to them for doing it, but I actually think it might create more problems in the long run because of one phrase: “the work itself.”
MWA’s guidelines for active membership, whatever one thinks of them, are objective. Neither your personality nor your prose will keep you out of MWA. You can also cuss and kill cats (in your fiction) and believe me, there are people who would like to form a group where those things are not permitted. A membership policy that cites the “work itself” or “qualified self-published writers,” to repeat the phrase that you used above — well, I wouldn’t want to be the volunteer who reads all submissions and, as a member of MWA, I don’t want Margery Flax doing it as part of her job. I don’t think that’s a good use of her time.
Jim, I admit I don’t know much about you or your work. But I am sincerely curious: Do you want to be an active member of MWA? Does traditional publishing interest you? What do you feel you might gain through MWA membership?
I know some people believe that being able to qualify for an Edgar award — and then being nominated — is something that could make or break their careers. I’ll be honest: I think I benefitted enormously from an Edgar award early in my career. But upon winning, I promptly studied a list of all Edgar award winners and nominees at that time, and the award is clearly not a guarantee of anything. Don’t get me wrong: I do believe it is the highest honor in American mystery publishing, although I have friends who will argue that. (Take it away, Andi, if you’re reading this.) But it’s no guarantee of staying in print or even being able to work fulltime as a writer.
Meanwhile, just to be clear: I value any award I’ve been given. But the Edgar(r) is the only one that shows up in the New York Times crossword puzzle. And it bums me out that I’m never, ever going to qualify for the Mary Higgins Clark Award, because I admire the hell out of that woman, but my potty mouth is clearly going to keep me out of the running.
Laura, the email was directed towards ACTIVE status.
Currently, MWA excludes any and all authors who set up their own publishing company, irrespective of success or professionalism, and irrespective of whether those publishing companies operate in the same manner as the “traditional” ones (e.g. quality control, distribution, book reviews, marketing, etc.) ITW evaluates those “publishers” (who are also the authors) on a case-by-case basis, using objective factors. Case by case evaluation is a workable concept, and in fact is the backbone of american jurisprudence. True, it takes a little more time, but it can be done.
Of course, one factor that must be considered is the “work itself,” i.e., the book the author/publisher wrote.
MWA doesn’t necessarily have to use the same criteria employed by the ITW. It can use any criteria that it deems relevant to show that the publisher/author at issue meet the requisite standards and professionalism that the organization is striving for as to its active members.
To answer a few more of your questions, I have no desire to join MWA and will not apply even after the criteria is changed. I am proposing the change because the current system of automatic exclusion is prejudical and insulting to individuals who have chosen to take a path other than the traditional one.
I would encourage you, as the incoming president of MWA, to talk to the directors and officers of the organization about this issue so that it can be resolved after a meaninful analysis and input from a variety of people.
Not everyone is aligned with Lee Goldberg on this issue. I think, if you ask around, you will find a number of MWA members, officers and directors who would support what I have proposed.
Jim (www.jimhansenbooks.blogspot.com)
Jim wrote: “MWA doesn’t necessarily have to use the same criteria employed by the ITW. It can use any criteria that it deems relevant to show that the publisher/author at issue meet the requisite standards and professionalism that the organization is striving for as to its active members.”
Jim, that is exactly what the MWA is doing — you just don’t agree with what those “requisite standards” happen to be.
What you really mean is that the MWA can follow any criteria it wants just as long as it includes making you eligible as an Active Status member and your books eligible for Edgar consideration.
The criteria for Active Status membership, inclusion on the Approved Publishers list, and Edgar eligibility were crafted and adopted by the MWA’s Board of Directors, of which I am just one member and one voice among many.
Lee
Brian,
The value of MWA membership is a subject that’s always open for discussion and the opinion will change from writer to writer. Some writers don’t join even if they qualify. However, their books (assuming they meet certain requirements) can still be submitted for the Edgar.
I can say only why I joined: Because I was really grateful to MWA. My second book was nominated (and won) the Edgar. That created a sense of momentum at the beginning of my career. I wanted to put time and energy back into the organization that had helped me out, so others might be helped. And, as I became active on the board, I decided that I wanted the Edgar to remain a prestigious award.
Over my time as a member of MWA, I have:
Chaired two Edgar committees and served on a third.
Edited the annual, a real honor as it was in our anniversary year and I persuaded Gahan Wilson to produce the cover art. (Oh, shout-out here to Sandi Wilson, another MWA member, because I would not have survived that adventure without her.)
Served two terms on the board.
Chaired the Operations and Personnel Committee, which is notable only because I was the person who officially hired (with board approval) Margery Flax.
Spoken to the Maryland and New York chapters.
I think associate membership status could be valuable to those who want to move into traditional publishing, largely because of the networking opportunities. But, to be fair, people also can network at annual conferences. They can join ITW, which charges no membership fee and does accept self-published writers on a case-by-case basis.
I haven’t been active since I edited the annual, which I think was in 2006. One of the interesting things I learned that year was how many greats — Ross MacDonald, for example — had never won the Edgar. But one nice thing about the MWA is the annual grandmaster selection, which does allow us to honor incredibly accomplished writers. Donald Westlake, Lawrence Block, Marcia Muller, Sue Grafton, Ed McBain/Evan Hunter, James Lee Burke, Elizabeth Peters . . . mainstream literary organizations are not going to recognize these writers. I’m proud that MWA has.
Jim,
As a lawyer, do you support non-lawyers being able to join the ABA? I have successfully represented myself in small claims court and I used to enter into smaller contracts without involving my agent, although I stopped doing that after I made a whopper of an error that caused a lot of headaches, although everyone was well-intentioned and kind. And if I were accused of a crime, I believe I would be allowed to represent myself in court. But, best I can determine, the ABA requires that active members be lawyers and even associate members need some sort of connection to the practice/study of law.
I’m not trying to be provocative, just pointing out that many professional organizations have standards similar to MWA’s. And while you want the MWA to come up with a case-by-case system for evaluating all self-published writers, you don’t seem bothered by the fact that the organization also limits active membership to citizens or legal residents of the United States. And best first novel is limited to American writers. Should writers outside the U.S. infer that we think their work is less worthy?
I was on the MWA board in the early aughts, when we first voted on the iUniverse contract. I voted for it — and came to regret it. That’s a long story and I prefer not to revisit it here. If MWA has ever made an official statement about the quality of self-published books, I’m not aware of it. But the _vast majority_ (not all) of self-published books sell in the double digits, IIRC. They don’t make money for the writers, when all costs are figured in.
The MWA board has struggled for years with how to deal with professional writers we admire who, for whatever reason, fall outside our definitions of active membership. There was, for example, Connie Shelton, who owned Intrigue Press. (I’m not sure she still owns it, but she did at one point.) There was no doubt in anyone’s mind that Intrigue Press met MWA standards and Connie’s other writers could qualify for active membership, IIRC. But Connie couldn’t, not under the guidelines as they were written at the time. My memory could be faulty on this — note the name of this blog and its usual preoccupation — and if I’ve screwed anything up, I’d be happy to be corrected.
If there are members, chapter presidents and board members who are open to changing this policy, I’d love to hear from them. And love to hear their ideas for how an organization with one paid employee can create a way to evaluate self-published writers on a case-by-case basis. But, to reiterate, I’m a figurehead. I speak only for myself, not for MWA.
As a totally disinterested party, I find this discussion fascinating.
Any number of odd analogies might be drawn, such as home-schooling parents versus certified teachers.
The thing I honestly haven’t yet caught from the discussion is the answer to LL’s question – what do self-published writers want from MWA?
Frankly, maybe another question is – what would it be worth (in terms of paying dues) to a self-published author to join the MWA on an associate basis?
Great post, glad I finally found it. I really like the comparison to lawyers and the bar – getting published is passing the bar exam for writers.
But I just wanted to say that Harlequin didn’t really change the game – technology changed the game and Harlequin chose how to react to that change.
It may have been the wrong choice, it may be too early to tell, but we can be sure there will be a lot more changes to the game and there will be a lot more reactions to those changes.
John,
I wrote a reply yesterday in the airport and it was swallowed somehow. At any rate, it’s true that the technology is changing, but it’s the response to the change that matters. I’m not one to pick things to death over word choices, so let’s just say that I think Harlequin has several options, whereas MWA’s only option is to enforce its own rules or rewrite them every time a major publisher comes into violation of them. Nancy Martin mentioned in another forum that it bothered her to see such a female-centric publisher get delisted, but I’m thankful that it’s a large one. I think it would be much worse if MWA and other writers organizations said, “Oh, it’s a big publisher? We certainly don’t want to alienate them.”
Over the past couple of days, there have been some big stories about eBook rights — the fight over Styron’s ebook rights, Covey moving his eBooks to a company that will publish them exclusively through Amazon. Things are going to get stranger and stranger, I’m afraid.
“If there are members, chapter presidents and board members who are open to changing this policy, I’d love to hear from them.”
Laura, that’s a great comment. Would you mind forwarding my email to those people so they are aware the request has been made and thus give their input, if they so desire. Thanks, Jim.