The writers of Romance Writers of America, one of the country's largest writers' organizations, are in the throes of chaos. In late December, the RWA board made a controversial and controversial decision to accuse, suspend, and prevent author Courtney Milan from ever holding a national position in the organization again – in fact, because he called the 20-year-old book a "conditional evil of racism." RWA only, but the nature of love is perfect. It has been a bizarre civil war, showing a long, competitive history of who appears in love.
The RWA, which is an organization founded almost 40 years ago by a black woman, has been the unfriendly center of underrepresented writers, as well as efforts to change the pushback now threatening to destroy the institution itself. Romance novels, by their most basic level, are about the most obvious and popular antagonists – and this is the story of who is seen and important in the romance genre, and whether it hurts to suffer.
As a history love writer who worked for four years on the board of directors appointed by the RWA, Milan has been one of the key voices in the struggle to make RWA more equitable. (In fact, he just won a service award.) She is also known for her Twitter presence of voice, where she is shy of calling injustice in very different words, whether it is around racism in love or rarely plagiarism saga by #CopyPasteKris. The efforts of Milan and many others have put RWA on the path to help create an inclusive, genre, and publishing organization. As 2019 draws to a close, it seemed like the years of the efforts and sacrifices of many people, especially women of color, to form an alliance and an RWA prepared to fight its disadvantaged members, bore fruit.
But that hope is falling apart. After Milan's accusation, board members resigned en masse; two presidents left under a cloud of controversy. Major publishers, including Harlequin, have come out of the annual RWA national conference. The members are very angry, and the work they will do to restore their trust in the organization is so great that it is undeniable.
"Our efficient organization has taken us down dramatically," said scholar Adriana Herrera and president of the New York City chapter of RWA. All done. ”
A recent RWA statement invites members to participate in "rebuilding an RWA that serves its diverse and talented members in the future," and expresses the belief that "this community deserves to be saved." an organization, not everyone shares that conviction.
Milan revealed the RWA's decision to sue him on December 23, via Twitter's account of his friend and fellow writer Alyssa Cole. "One of the reasons I believed in RWA was because I realized how hard my friend, Cortney Milan, had worked to include the organization's involvement," he wrote Cole. "Today, the day before Christmas Eve, the RWA announced that they were agreeing to the ethical complaints made against him for removing racism." The decision was based on two behavioral complaints, filed by members Suzan Tisdale and Kathryn Lynn Davis.
Tisdale, a historical romance writer, was in the process of opening his own digital publishing house, Glenfinnan Publishing. But one of her founding editors was Sue Grimshaw, who had become controversial in August of 2019, when another indie publisher, Jack & # 39; s House Publishing, introduced her as a new hire. The discussion that took place about the Grimshaw wing is quite typical to be loved on Twitter, including a positive post by Charlie Kirk about the ICE attack in Mississippi; Video from Native American supporters Trump and Silk criticizing the idea of white supremacy as the Democratic hoax "terrorizing black people"; and it is reported that many others, who have since moved away quickly. (Grimshaw has since deleted her Twitter account, and did not respond to Jezebel's request for comment.)
This finding has grown into a broader Twitter discussion about the important institutional role played by Grimshaw as a Border charity buyer, at a time when Border was constantly protecting all African American writers in a specific category together, away from certain forms of love. It raised questions about how he made his most important decisions as gatekeepers, and whether he had given African American writers a good shot at putting them forward. (Or, obviously, the policy was taking place across the Borders — not just in love.) Milan weight in, but he was far from the only person involved.
Jack's house lost Grimshaw, but Glenfinnan didn't. Tisdale posted a lengthy video on her Facebook defending her: “Sue is not racist, and she is not a person. She's a wonderful woman, and I've talked to her many times, ”Tisdale said he insisted. At the time, Milan – also half Chinese – made a Twitter statement Elsewhere You're Lying the Moon, a book written by Kathryn Lynn Davis, one of Tisdale's editors. It was first published in 1999 but republished in 2014, Milan he called it "The ugly stigma of racism" in a way that portrays Chinese women as completely submissive: "Here is our Chinese woman remembering her past, where she was bluntly told that the future is Western, and that for Chinese women, law enforcement," Milan argued in one place; blue-eyed he looked down all the time in China, so much so that his neighbors didn't even know he had blue eyes.
In response to Milan's criticism, Davis filed a complaint with RWA, as did Tisdale, who wrote that Davis "immersed himself in the Chinese culture for six years before he began writing the above novel."
Tinkdale wrote: "I believe that Ms. Milan refers to Kathryn Lynn Davis, because Ms. Davis is one of the editors of my purchase and Ms. Davis is white. I have no other reason to attack Ms. Davis in this way; there is absolutely nothing based on factual evidence." Davis says Milan's tweets have lost him to a three-book deal; He told Jezebel in a statement that he was in the final stages of issuing a three-letter deal when Milan tweeted and the offer was withdrawn.
Tisdale focused on Milan's Twitter presence and that at the time, Milan was chairman of the RWA ethics committee. He called Milan a bully, and wrote, "This is like putting neo-Nazi in charge of the UN human rights committee." The complaint also includes a threat: "If the board does not want Ms. Milan to immediately stop and end this abuse online, with hateful tweets against me, my company, my writers, and editorial staff, I will not remain silent and will move forward with the law."
Davis, in a statement to Jezebel, protested that Milan had not read the entire book and that his dissent was not submissive, but rather "strong and determined." He further said: "You can understand how serious, abusive and attacking public allegations are. The discrimination based on such information released out of context will hurt me deeply. As a result of this accusation, I suffered financially and personally." So, he turned to RWA, and was told that the only decision his was a legitimate complaint.
In response to the complaint, Milan defended his right to criticize Davis' book with the powerful words: “The unpleasant conditions of Chinese women have affected my life, the health of my mother, my sisters and my friends. They perpetuate violence and abuse of women just like me, ”writes Milan, adding that these disrespectful situations undermine the memory of women from their own backgrounds. “I have strong feelings for these situations, and when I talk about them, I use strong language. It's hard not to be angry about something that has hurt me and my loved ones. ”
In the end, however, the board ruled that Milan violated the RWA member category code of conduct– "Repeatedly or willfully engaged in harmful behavior in the RWA or its purposes" – and was banned, suspended from RWA for a year, and banned for the rest of his life from holding a national position in the organization.
Crying was fast and difficult; while many are upset over Milan's reaction, the reaction goes beyond a certain incident. "As a person of color, you're wandering around this world feeling like something is being directed at you," explains author LaQuette, who recently spent two years as president of the New York City chapter of RWA. “You know that from a perspective. But until something like this happens, wait, that guess is not a theory, that it can actually be concrete, depending on who you are and what their motives are … It was only a matter of time before I fell in with someone who felt I shouldn't speak what I heard, and that it would eventually be me. ”
News of Milan's suspension came at a disastrous time for anyone who wanted him to leave quickly and peacefully: During the holidays, people had time to protest on Twitter, and the community exploded. It did not take long for questions about the collection of events that led to Milan's ban, and whether the proper procedure was followed. (Romance is packed with lawyers and former lawyers, including Milan, a former Supreme Court secretary.) And when it comes indeed it is unclean.
Romance Writers of America was founded in 1980 by editor Vivian Stephens, an American American from Houston, working with a small group of local writers, including interim president Rita Clay Estrada. Like any other single person, Stephens helped launch a modern romance novel during her appointment at Dell & # 39; s Candlelight, in which she launched the Ecstasy line that featured American-focused book sales, modern looks in the works and sexuality, and is a clearer secret than anything in the novel. low-based elsewhere.
RWA was created right in front of a big 1980s charity convention that would introduce the works of many writers, including Nora Roberts. The purpose of the organization, in principle, was to “advance the challenges of the charity-focused business through the use of social networking and to inform and inform the public of the nature of love. ”It became one of the largest correspondents between authors and publishers, and is now one of the largest literary organizations in the world, larger than Mystery Writers of America and its closest size For the Writers' Group. "When we have these RWA events, like every summer, every publisher is there," explains LaQuette. “They want new writers. They are looking for new people. They want to contact established authors. ”
But since its inception, there has been a certain amount of tension in RWA's priorities. Was it a social club? A social networking expert? What was called “experts,” anyway? (See: large swan hat controversy 2007.) Was it for unpublished authors, or unpublished authors? Was it a balancing act between writers and publishers? Or was it a body of collective action, including publishers? Equally important but less obvious was the question of how a good woman should behave, even in an organization made up of mostly women, and how important it is to be beautiful and harmonious, not to raise serious, disturbing controversy — or, or perhaps especially, over issues of racial and queer representation.
"Romance works a lot under custom & # 39; good & # 39 ;, and it always has been," said Sarah Wendell of the Smart Bitches Trashy Book, a popular blog that faced a particular issue for her willingness to write negative reviews when it first appeared in the mid-to-mid. 2000s. "If there is nothing good to say, do not say anything." In 2009, RWA told another blogger, Jane Litte Dear Author, that she would not be able to renew her membership, because the critical pieces she did not write. and his joke about the bad books on Twitter “shows that you don't support RWA writers or romance lovers.” (Litte immediately published book.)
But the advent of the internet has made it difficult and difficult to keep up the gap within the RWA's standards and standards. Originally, it was created by lists; then it was blogs like Dear Author and Smart Bitches Trashy Books. The findings of previous combat have spread online at various stages of commentation similar to radioactive isotopes. But further, these debates take place in full view of the general public on Twitter; even battles that begin elsewhere, such as Goodreads or Facebook or even private online loops, often end up being moved to Twitter somehow. It is a popular platform that balances the playing field: It is too close to diminishing dissenting voices on Twitter.
Online, too, challenged RWA's position within the charity program. RWA conferences abound on panels in various print media, but none requirements RWA to put their book on Amazon. They are not a collective bargaining agent; they cannot, they say, negotiate better terms of publishing with Amazon. But romance writers need a fiery advocate more than ever, as they are increasingly prolific in the form of powerful technology forums, as the big news paper channels such as Dalton, Waldbooks, and Borders have disappeared. The existence of RWA at least means that it exists someone Writers can call if they need an institutional voice to listen to them. "If you're an incoming member, who says, & # 39; Facebook for some reason closed my writer's site, and I had 40,000 followers, & # 39; we have Facebook and Amazon and Barnes and Noble contacts that we can touch on a little to help our members right away," said former president Helen Kay Dimon following
But in recent years, perhaps the most controversial issue in the industry has been about inclusion and integration. While there has always been a string of women in romance, the genre has been dominated by straight white women in much of their history. Although Stephen's central role in shaping modern dating, he was frustrated with the feet of management, as he gained separately. The most widespread investment in the history of romance until the 1990s, as did books featuring new images of Native Americans by the word "misery" circulated around. Black writers have been allowed to use "racist" texts and have them stored elsewhere in bookstores. And often, that "good" culture has defended efforts to counter any of it.
In 2005, RWA submitted a survey to a member's magazine, Romance Author Report, asking whether love should be defined between two people – or one man and one woman. In posts Commenting on the current dispute, store clerk Nora Roberts (a member of the RWA) revealed that she had written a protest letter about the interview. "I received an email from the president urging me to keep quiet, in fact, explaining to me — and not ending — not understanding that the attackers would take over RWA," Roberts wrote. "Jeez, those awesome people!" The interview ended up being out of place, due to public unrest, but in fact it was a move to intensify discrimination in the organization's rules.
In 2015, I sat in the audience at RITA – an award-winning trade association event, nominated for the organization's first president – as the award for Best Inspirational Romance went to a story about a concentration camp manager crossing a Jewish prisoner. Earlier that week, the editor asked if her editor would go for her multicultural destination, she told a room full of writers in a recording session that "whenever we find something solid like this, in an article or from a multicultural writer, we can say that my sister can be included who specializes in informing those topics, marketing those articles, and stores. ”(RWA will eventually post a strong book.)
It was the first national conference of author Nana Malone. Although it was nice in one way, he told me, "there were times when I would go back to my hotel room and be like, oh, that wasn't good." For example, he would go to the table and introduce himself and try to initiate a conversation. “You're just trying to do something. And the part of the table type wakes up and leaves? And it's not a one-time thing. It's not like, oh, they all had to go to the same panel. No, it happens often. I'm not the only one to see that. ”
But it was also a turning point, when a critical mass of people began to realize that there were problems with the genre and within the organization that needed to be addressed. First a book of various books appeared, followed by one of the books containing his "words." In other words, it is not enough for white women to add African American characters, or for straight women to write rom / m romance for straight male-dominated audiences. The kind needed to work diligently to support line writers and color writers themselves. It has been a process of equality and originality, disclosed by Lois Beckett in a long piece at Guardian. The core of member commitment, however, has consistently worked to change this state of affairs, operating within RWA structures and, often, using Twitter, a tool that was readily available even to those who were previously confined to the institutions' institutions.
Milan has always been one of the most vocal, the brightest, and the most fearless of the struggle, relentless when he speaks on behalf of writers who had previously been inconsistent with this kind of behavior that has made love an unfriendly place for them. In 2015, he had just started his four-year term on the board of directors and made a change for the fore, serving as chairman of the various task force presenting the issues they faced and recommending measures to address them. "I feel like there is an industry organization that supports romance writers, and they should do everything in their power to support all romance writers," he objected to the way he encouraged me. “Right now, I look at it and think I'm not doing well, but it's the answer. It seemed like the right thing to do, and you should try to do the right thing. ”
Milan's efforts and position made him a lightning rod, a "diva of diversity," as he put it. In Tisdale's complaint, he pointed out, "these are pages and screenshots for all these people who are not me."
Often, the RWA itself was the site of those wars. Following the pattern set by #OscarsSoWhite, romance fans and writers on Twitter have started following the trend of disgraceful diversity. The claim on the nomination of winners, issued in March 2019 and ruled by white writers, is so important that the RWA board issued a statement: “The board apologizes to our colored members and LGBTQ + members for putting them in a position where they feel unwanted and unheard. ”The board acknowledged that there is a significant problem with student discrimination in the RITA judgment.
Changes were already in the works at the time, Dimon told me; The process of adjudicating for the second round is to win the winners before the 2019 prizes, so that judges in each category should include more people of color and more queens, and should include people other than RWA authors, such as booksellers or librarians. Finally, at the 2019 event, RITA was awarded to M. Malone and Kennedy Ryan, the first black women to benefit from the history of nearly a decade, and Nisha Sharma became the first South Asian woman to win.
It was clear that the war was not over, but the RWA board that took over in September 2019 advocated for diversity. "I was very happy when I left, because I felt that the board that was chosen was a good board," Dimon said. "It was very different, it was a mix of people who have been here for a while, so they had an institutional and historical experience and they understood how we did things and why, and they had new people, new ideas, new energy."
It didn't take long for that to be revealed, visually.
In 2018, at the annual RWA conference, I watched author Suzanne Brockmann receive the prize of a lifetime in a fiery speech that clearly laid the industry's long history of blocking efforts and diversity. He blamed: “RWA, I have watched you fight as you try to deal with homosexuality, white racism used in our country and the publishing industry. A long time ago for that to change. But I have heard, O scribes, that it is not so, but we are not and fucking good. ”
The result of Brockmann's speech was electric. He gained applause after being hit over the shoulder and, finally, at a standing height – A room full of women standing on his feet, attacking with Brockmann's encouragement to shake the boat. It was like I was seeing a piece of the history of the genre. But I also watched a group of white women in front of me sit tight. I wondered who would eventually get RWA, and what would be left of it.
Almost immediately, there have been problems with the handling of the RWA complaint of conduct against Milan. In some cases, social media accounts are not explicitly assigned to the organization code of conduct, we had to say that the complaints about Milan's tweets were incorrect. Alternatively, the findings of the ethics committees were presented to the board by president-elect Damon Suede — who serves as the board's coordinator — despite the fact that, as Dimon has informed, no ethics committee was present at the time. time. "The RWA recognizes that there has been a serious lack of respect for the ethics and the manner in which this latest ethical issue has been addressed," an RWA spokesperson said. They have already announced a process audit by an independent company.
The appeal comes to the leadership of the RWA in the late Helen Kay Dimon, just before the money was changed to everyone elected by President Carolyn Jewel. The process for the RWA's handling of ethics complaints is that they will first go to the chief executive, a long-paid staff position held by RWA employee Allison Kelley, and then to a panel selected by a large pool of ethics committee members. At the time of the complaint, Milan was still chairman of the organization's ethics committee.
"I was told by the executive director that the RWA lawyer believed that Courtney should resign, that there was a problem," Dimon told me, so he contacted Milan and asked him to step down. Milan – stuck during a road trip, near his broken car in Wyoming – agreed. Allison Kelley also resigned, addressing the issue as deputy director Carol Ritter. On the final day of Dimon's tenure, he told me, he turned the matter over to future president Carolyn Jewel, telling him "I have a problem with this being a moral offense, and now unfortunately I have to turn it over to him," because Dimon's time was up.
At that time, RWA seemed to have called a completely different panel to the existing ethics committee to hear the appeal. In an email, former ethics committee member Ruby Lang (appointed by Milan and resigned on December 24) told me that he was told by former president Carolyn Jewel that a second panel was overthrown by the first committee to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. So, Lang didn't even hear of the complaint until Alyssa Cole posted it on Twitter; he thought Milan had given up on other reasons. Other members of the ethics committee Rachel Grant, K.M. Jackson, J. Kenner, and Mia Sosa They also told the media that they only received a complaint when it hit Twitter. Sometime in October, Allison Kelley also stepped down as executive director and Ritter took on the role of high-paid staff.
On December 17, in his capacity as board coordinator, Suede presented the findings of the ethics committee report to the board. Because the administration times are private and everyone involved is legally bound, we do not know that what was said at that meeting, only the number of votes had been given to Milan: Ten have, two no, two disallows.
What we do know is that as soon as Milan posted all of his documents online (reports, complaints from Tisdale and Davis, and his responses), board members began to withdraw. First Chanta Reid – then after a vote to overturn the decision against Milan – eight more members, more than half of the board, resigned. It is forbidden for them to talk about what happens in the management system, which is private, they include statement, saying they resigned because, "we no longer trust or trust the leadership of the RWA," and added, "We believe this was inappropriate for members of the Ethics Committee. We extend our sincere apologies to Courtney Milan and the charity community."
By then, almost all women of color had left the board.
As if the problems with the handling of ethics complaints were insufficient, questions quickly arose about whether Damon Suede — the nominee for president — was elected president while Carolyn Jewel left office just these days? of the original RWA.
Suede, who stands out in the world of love & # 39; as his words & # 39; a prolific love writer, he quickly became a critical critic of the board's decision, contributing to his role as a liaison committee and everything that followed when he joined the president. That is one of the key elements of the story – he was widely regarded as a person to work for diversity and inclusion. "I considered him to be a non-conformist," said Adriana Herrera.
But there were other issues, too. Publisher Dreamspinner Press recently announced After months of writers complaining about late payment they had hired a financial restructuring company that would allow "fixed payments for all previous payments." Four community community leaders – Adrianna Herrara and LaQuette of RWA NYC, Xio Axelrod of the Philadelphia Romance Authors, and Anna Zabo of the Rainbow Romance chapter – wrote a a joint letter in the RWA, asking for guidance from the authors on how they want legal representation and more clarification on how RWA plans to fund. But Herrera revealed on Twitter that the authors received a disappointing response, "stating that RWA advisers told them not to make public statements, that they could not provide legal advice and that if people felt they needed a lawyer they should find another one."
Suede – who did not respond to Jezebel's requests for comment – is a senior author of Dreamspinner. Just a few days before Milan's story broke, he, in fact, wrote on his Facebook page mentioning the cakes in space that the editor of Dreampinner found. Suedee had withdrawn from the Dreampinner board discussions. But by a secret call reviewed by Jezebel, Suede assured two different people that Dreampinner was right.
The authors immediately plan to pressure Suede and CEO Carol Ritter to step down from their involvement in handling the complaint and all that follows. The sharpest efforts have been a memorable request organized by members of CIMRWA, the Society's “Culture, Interracial, and Multicultural” category. According to city bylaws, if 10 percent of party members sign a memorandum, the president should be removed immediately.
Then there is the question of Stud Planet.
The rules seek that the president must be the author or co-author of at least five published, relevant romance novels, meaning they were to be commercially available and have more than 40,000 words in length. RWA confirmed it with me list wezincwadi ezinhlanu uSuede wasebenzisa ukuthola umongameli, ezibandakanya ukukhishwa okulinganiselwe kuka-2016: I-Stud Planet. Kepha ubufakazi be I-Stud PlanetUbukhona abumangazi ngendlela emangalisayo – akukho bukhona beGoodReads, akukho lutho kuwebhusayithi kaSuede. Le ncwadi ibhalwe ku-Books on Phrinta, "database ohamba phambili wokushicilelwa kwabashicileli, abathengisi kanye nemitapo yolwazi emhlabeni wonke." Njengoba uMilan asho ngokushesha, lokho ukungena bekugcina ihlelwe Janawari 8.
Ngenkathi ngixhumana nabakwaDreamspinner Press, isikhulu esiphezulu u-Elizabeth North sangitshela lokho I-Stud Planet kwakuyimpendulo yomsebenzi owedlule, Amadoda Akhulile. "Ngemuva kokuthi inkontileka iphelelwe yisikhathi nomshicileli wayo wokuqala, izicelo zabafundi beziqinile, ngakho-ke sashicilela uhlelo olusha olwenziwe kabusha," kuchaza North. Unamathise isithombe-skrini sale ncwadi kwiwebhusayithi yabo, kanye namafayela e-PDF ne-ePub; lawo mafayela aqukethe Amadoda Akhulile, ihamba ngamagama acishe abe ngu-30,000, kanye ne-prequel eyake yashicilelwa ngaphambili, ihlanganiswe ekugcineni. Ukuqinisekisile ukuthi ubuyekeze i-Book on Phrinta ukungena – ukukhombisa ukuthi ayiprintiwe. When I asked if she could forward correspondence that confirmed publication from April 2016, she told me that correspondence was confidential, but that Dreamspinner “didn’t promote it as a general release. It was done as a limited edition for the fans of the universe, but the book doesn’t match Damon’s brand so he didn’t want it available wide.” When I asked how it was made available to those fans, she told me that I should direct any future questions to Suede—who did not respond to Jezebel’s request for more information.
Stud Planet, in other words, likely did not meet RWA guidelines on length alone, meaning Suede never qualified for the position of president in the first place. “We believe that Mr. Suede made his submission in good faith, and that Ms. Ritter verified the book’s eligibility in the standard RWA manner,” which did not involve actually viewing the contents of the books in question, just checking the word count, according to an RWA spokesperson via email. “We now recognize that there are questions as to the eligibility of this book. These questions likely will prompt an examination of RWA’s verification procedures and eligibility policies, but as Mr. Suede is no longer in office, we do not plan on further investigating STUD PLANET specifically.”
Even Chuck Tingle—author of high-concept erotica who has been warmly embraced by the online romance community—felt obliged to log on Twitter and publicly deny Suede’s one-time claim that he knew who Tingle was: “it has brought to my attention that there is scoundrel name of damons that likes attention and is saying he knows chuck for attention. i do not know him he is lying.” Tingle further declared his allegiances by releasing a special new story about the conflict: Not Pounded By Romance Wranglers Of America Because Their New Leadership Is From The Depths Of The Endless Cosmic Void.
Finally, on January 9—more than two weeks after this trainwreck was set into motion—president Damon Suede and executive director Carol Ritter resigned. C. Chilove, one of the CIMRWA leaders who organized the recall petition, said on Twitter that RWA had confirmed they’d collected enough verified signatures to force a recall election.
The events of the last two weeks have been disastrous for the once-mighty Romance Writers of America. Members are angry, trust in the group’s leadership has been shredded, and the entire controversy has dragged the name of the organization and the genre straight through the mud. The road back for RWA will be long, hard, and far from certain.
RWA’s authority has taken a critical hit. Dozens of agents have signed a public letter saying they won’t work with RWA until the organization gets its house in order. Harlequin and Avon, two of the biggest brands in the genre, who typically have an absolutely massive presence at the annual RWA conference, announced on January 9 that they were pulling out of the 2020 meeting, citing their commitment to diversity and inclusion. Other publishers followed suit.
Nor is this simply a matter of reputation—there’s likely to be significant financial fallout. “Publishers like Avon & Harlequin are big sponsors (for the conference)—tens of thousands of dollars worth,” HelenKay Dimon explained via email. Losing publishers loses RWA both money and attendees, which jeopardizes the conference itself and puts RWA in an even worse position: as Dimon explained, cancellation of the conference would result in “significant” penalties from the hotel where it is booked.
“I don’t know that we can come back from this”
One of RWA’s fiercest roles has been as the guardian of the public perception of romance. They hand out grants to academics studying romance. Conferences going back decades featured panels on dealing with unfriendly and dismissive members of the media. Every year they hand out a “Veritas” award for media coverage they see as particularly fair—an award that I won in 2016, for an article about the history of Harlequin. And now, the story of their rapid, incredibly public meltdown has been covered in gory detail by the New York Times, the Associated Press, the Guardian, and many other outlets, reaching people who don’t typically think about romance novels with a vastly different image than the one RWA prefers to project.
Most importantly, members are seriously reevaluating their ties to the organization. “A lot of people don’t really need RWA anymore,” C. Chilove pointed out. “They are advanced in their career, they have their agent, they have their books, they’re working on those deals.” Sarah Wendell told me something similar, that the people leaving RWA “are more of an asset to RWA than RWA is an asset to their careers.”
“I don’t know that we can come back from this,” LaQuette told me. “I don’t know that my faith in RWA—or what I believed it could represent if it ever got its act together—remains.” RWA has announced “a thorough audit” of their ethics process, promising to share findings and recommendations with the membership when it’s done, but trust in the institution has reached such a low point it’s hard to see that mending fences. The latest communication from the organization says that they won’t even fill the positions of president and secretary until the annual election in August, when all of the board seats will be open.
Whatever comes out of the controversy, whether a reborn RWA or a replacement, Malone said it’s clear what the central tenet needs to be: “Love for all, point blank. If that’s not what you’re here for, you probably shouldn’t sign up or pay dues or do any of that stuff because it’s not for you.” It’s not simply a matter of principle, either. One of the most commercially promising developments for the genre in an era when hardworking writers have to compete in an economically brutal landscape is the breakout success of diverse authors like Jasmine Guillory and Helen Huong in trade paperback, reaching mainstream audiences who’ve never cracked open a Harlequin Presents. One of the most popular romance novels of the last year was Red White and Royal Blue, a gay romance. Many younger readers have grown up reading diverse YA. RWA could have been part of pushing for that future, but now, it’s hard to see how.
In the midst of the tumult, Bowling Green State University’s Popular Culture Library, which has an impressive collection of archival material related to the history of romance, tweeted out a picture of the first board of RWA. That board included two black women (Vivian Stephens and her sister) as well as a Latina author, Celina Rios Mullan. “The issue in RWA is not, per se, that we didn’t have diversity. Because we have diversity. Our issue was inclusion and access,” C. Chilove told me. That has been the case for a very, very long time. The photo testifies to a long history of missed opportunities to do better, in RWA and in the genre more broadly. For a while, it looked like the organization was finally getting it right, after years of chances that were thrown away. Then they blew it all up.
