13 Comments
Leave a Comment
The Romance Writers of America is the national organization for romance writers. I think the membership is over 9,000 members. Some of you may be members of RWA. All of us Jaunty Quills are members.
Oh, except Jaunty. RWA doesn’t allow porcupines into the ranks–sorry, Jaunty!
Every year RWA sponsors two big contests–the Golden Heart for unpublished writers and the Rita for published writers. I’ve been fortunate to final in both but won neither. This year RWA is proposing a change in the Rita that affects historical romance–a category near and dear to our hearts here.
It used to be that there were two historical romance categories: long historical romance, books over 95,000 words, and short historical romance, books from 40,000 to 95,000 words.
It sounds straightforward enough, but it was actually kind of confusing because no one really knew how to determine the word count. I know that none of my recent historicals were over 95,000 words, but font sizes might mean more printed pages and a judge might concur that I had entered the wrong category. Many of us were worried about this, so we devised convoluted mathematical approaches to solving the word count question.
Now RWA wants to eliminate the word count problem all together, which I applaud. Unfortunately, the way they’re eliminating it is confusing. The new historical categories are Best Historical Romance to 1820 and Best Historical Romance from 1790-1945.
Great! Now I still don’t know what category to enter. My books are set anywhere between 1800 and 1815. They could be entered in either category. So do I enter both (that’s $80, by the way)? RWA says an author should deternmine where the novel fits best. How do I determine that? There are no guidelines given. And why the overlap?
I bet a lot of you read historical romance. What do you think of these proposed changes? Do they make sense to you? What would make sense?
Filed in: Jaunty Post
May 11th
2007
11:14 am
ladydawgfan Said:
Boy, Shana, that IS confusing!! Why would they do it that way?? And if they are going to separate the categories by date, why not up to and including 1820 and then 1821 – 1945 which would clarify the categories?
I highly suspect that you are not the only author who will be questioning this new change. I would ask for direct clarification from the people who made the changes in the first place.
-
May 11th
2007
12:02 pm
AndreaW Said:
I’m totally confused as well. Could it be a misprint on their part? I don’t know . . .
I agree with ladydawgfan and think they should be up to 1820 and then 1821 and later.
-
May 11th
2007
12:41 pm
Shana Said:
Nope! No misprint. And I’ve heard from quite a few authors who are conufsed. Some have even drawn up their own proposals and submitted them because, thankfully, right now is the comment period on the proposed changes. Let’s hope the RWA Board listens!
-
May 11th
2007
12:54 pm
ShirleyKarr Said:
I can’t see their logic, either. I don’t even agree with the 1820 cutoff. That’s the technical cutoff of the Regency period, but we didn’t really transition into the Victorian era until the mid 1830′s, and most stories are considered “Regency era” if they’re set between about 1790 and 1830. Readers (and judges) often have highly different expectations of Regency vs. Victorian set stories.
I think the more appropriate division is by length. You can do very different things in a 100,000 word story that aren’t possible in 75,000 words. They just need to define how to determine the word count. I’d suggest using the word processing software’s count.
-
May 11th
2007
2:39 pm
Stephie Said:
I’m actually really glad you blogged about the Rita/Golden Heart today! I’m having trouble figuring out how to enter these contest…is there a page on the RWA website that lists all the rules, or can I request the guidelines information from RWA directly? I really don’t want to send in my entry late, or have the category I’m entering already be full.
And…yeah…the new rules sound super confusing. I agree with Shirley Karr–I think that word count is a good way to divide it, for all the reasons she described above.
That’s not to say that dividing it by time period is bad, but for it to really work wouldn’t there have be too many subcategories? And you would still have long epics competing with short novels.
-
May 11th
2007
3:37 pm
Shana Said:
Stephie,
It’s past time to enter for this year. I think the contests open up again in October or November. I’d check out the RWA wesbite. It gives lots of information about the rules for entering, which I’m sure will be updated, depending on how the rules are changed.
http://www.rwanational.org
-
May 11th
2007
4:55 pm
Haven Rich Said:
OH man this is indeed one HOT topic!! The entire Beau Monde chapter is all a buzz with it! Needless to say, we aren’t that thrilled with the proposed guidelines.
Of course, on a different board, there are several that aren’t pleased with the possible removal of the novella category or changes made to several others. So truthfully, it’s not only the historical category that has people ruffled.
One commenter (on a different board) even said that she saw that the awards weren’t for readers and booksellers and they should do away with it. You don’t want to know my opinion on that!
In any case, the Beau Monde chapter members have come up with a letter that they intend on sending. But if you do send letters in, please note that it must be by MAY 15! That’s the cut-off date to be heard on these issues.
-
May 11th
2007
4:56 pm
Haven Rich Said:
PS. Sorry I haven’t been around much ladies, I’ve been busy at work getting things ready for my mom’s 50th birthday party and getting things ready for me to go to conference. And writing like there’s no tomorrow (on two WIPs).
-
May 11th
2007
5:30 pm
ShirleyKarr Said:
Stephie, let me put in a shameless plug for the contest sponsored by my chapter, the Golden Rose. Many of our winners and finalists are now published. We designed the contest to be a trial run for the GH, so the entry deadline is in August — just enough time to make changes to your manuscript after learning so much at National, and get your scores and feedback in time to make changes prior to entering it in the GH. Details at http://www.RoseCityRomanceWriters.com
Welcome back, Haven!
-
May 11th
2007
5:47 pm
Shana Said:
Haven,
I’ve been paying attention to the discussion on the Beau Monde loop. I like the proposed recommendations and support them.
-
May 11th
2007
7:09 pm
JackieToo Said:
You’re right. That makes no sense. Why didn’t they just divide them up into sequential years? Things that make you go hmmm…
-
May 11th
2007
11:34 pm
Rainy Said:
Sounds ludicrous! This must have been designed by a committee….Yes, it must have involved some committee in the government concerned with historical data. (In case you don’t know how things are worked out in the government, they throw facts, BS, pork and lots of paperclips in the air, and the result is a lot like the RWA’s new decision.
-
May 16th
2007
9:29 am
Cheryl St.John Said:
What are they smoking? Time period divisions are completely illogical. Where would you enter a time travel? Where would you enter a saga that spanned years? There should be a definitive PAGE COUNT and stick to it. Long and short. Duh.
-