Yippee!!!

My website is OPEN and ready for visitors. It's kind of like my house: if you drop in unexpectedly, you'll find it isn't in perfect shape but...

I'm proud. Hope you'll visit. It's almost (but not quite) as exciting as birthing a book. The book's a whole lot more work. But the website is also creative though it uses a different kind of smarts, smarts I wasn't sure I had. It was fun proving I did.

Alfie

RWA's Cover Art Controversy

http://www.booksquare.com/archives/2005/06/06/1384/

Since several people have asked if they could quote me about something I posted on a private link, I guess I'll post those comments here. Check the links above if you have no idea what this is about and really want to.

Okay, I have to admit, I was rather irritated when someone from RWA 'banned' a member's participation at BEA.  I was further incensed when I looked at her cover
and saw that the cover didn't (to me anyway) fall under the guidelines the board passed.  But I still don't have a problem with RWA creating 'graphical standards.'  I DO have a problem with the fact that they  #1.  Didn't handle dissemination of the policy in a manner that would have avoided all this controversy.  And #2. That obviously, someone one was a little overly enthusiastic in trying to 'uphold' the
standards.  It makes me believe that the board probably didn't go far enough in their efforts.  Instead of just creating the policy, they should also have  put together some type of "this is how it works in the practical world" procedure.  Either they didn't, or someone forgot to follow it.

That aside, I called the Post Office this afternoon after I'd searched the Internet* (and couldn't find info but got directed to a _bunch_ of porn sites) to see what triggered brown paper mailing packages.  Funny thing, it was pretty much what the board said couldn't be graphically displayed.  (The postal standards also included sadism and masochism and a few other more explicit things than RWA's new 'graphical standards' address.)  And I also found that even if you put something in the brown wrapping, you then have to go through your mailing list and compare it to the PO's "Do Not Send" list to make sure no one who has asked not to have that sort of thing mailed to them isn't on your list.  (I don't know about you, but that sounds like a pain.  That's why I think it is important that this be addressed before we're face with the problem.)

But ultimately, this is what is really bugging me about this whole thing.  This is so logical to manage.   The members of RWA, for the most part, are smart and savvy.  And we authors know our covers better than anyone else ever will, except maybe the artist.  (Don't tell me you haven't spent more time than is logical or appropriate, examining every detail because I won't believe you since I and every other author I know has.  We call each other and obsess about the tiniest freckle.) And again, for the most part, we try playing by the rules.  So if you set the standards, you simply make them self policing.  In other words, you include the graphical standards at the bottom on the form you fill out to participate in the literacy autographing and add a box to check if your cover doesn't comply with the standards.  Then, if the box is
checked, you ask that author to say how she will make her cover 'acceptable.'  In the vast majority of cases, it will amount to where she chooses to place her 'autographed copy' stickers.  Then you say the author must arrive at least fifteen minutes early to the signing to take care of the problem.   (If it was an ad in the RWR, the author could add a "great read" banner across the questionable parts.)  My point is this, it should be self-policing. None of us have any control over our
covers.  But we sure know when they don't meet our (or RWA's) standards.

Then, if there is ever any disagreement between the author and the powers-that-be, we should have a procedure in place to address it.  My way of handling it would be to have a random four RWA member panel who goes down some form that has every item of the 'standards' on it and puts a check mark by anything on that list that is on the cover.  If three out of four people see something, it is probably there.  (Just like getting critiques.)  Then either the author has the choice of covering the 'problem' with a sticker (or something,) or NOT participating.  How tough is that???  In the meantime, RWA would be protected from running into problems with the Post Office's 39USC3010D regulations.  (Good luck finding that on the Internet but if someone does, I'd appreciate the link.)   It also gives us something official to address anyone who personally has a problem and gripes.   "Our standards match the Post Offices description for sexually explicit material." 

As far as non-profit rules, I don't know what RWA would be violating.  It sounds to me like various members of the board are interpreting their reasons for addressing the controversy based on their own particular ideas of why it was necessary instead of addressing the issue as a board.  THAT's a problem.  And they haven't exactly done a spectacular job handling it so far.  These people work hard and in the best of times, it's a pretty thankless job.  When there is a controversy such as this one, it is hell and I'll bet none of them would be upset right now if we just kicked them all off so they didn't have to think about this any longer.  I'll almost bet that no one made the decision to vote for this based on their personal agenda or any desire to censor any particular person or book.  (The qualifier is there because I don't know everyone on the board personally and there are always one or two who do EVERYTHING based on their own private agenda.)  I will say the majority truly believed it was something that would protect the organization or the subject wouldn't have come up and received an almost unanimous vote.

*http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/usc18/

Thank heavens, this kind of stuff isn't our life.

Alfie