Wednesday, December 7, 2005

More on Triskelion

According to Lynne Connolly, Triskelion author (and posted with her permission), Triskelion responded to the RWA and objected to the rejection of Bewitched, Bothered, and Bevampyred on the grounds that a Chick Lit book won a Rita last year. RWA then came up with yet another reason to reject the book-- the authors chose not to accept their royalties, donating them to charity instead.

Here are RWA's guidelines for what constitutes a "recognized publisher":

"A RITA-eligible publisher is defined as a royalty-paying publishing house that (1) is not a subsidy or vanity publisher (2) has been releasing books via national distribution for a minimum of one year, and (3) has sold a minimum of 1,500 hardcover or trade paperback copies or 5,000 copies in any other format, including print on demand, of a single romance novel or novella or collection of novellas in book form, in bona fide arms-length transactions, and continues to sell a minimum of 1,500 hardcover or trade paperback copies or 5,000 copies in any other format of a subsequent romance novel each year."

Strange. I don't see a thing in there stating the authors MUST accept their royalties. RWA has a very clear-cut guideline, and Triskelion appears to have met those guidelines. So what exactly is the problem here?


  1. Hmm, very odd that RWA keeps changing the tune to fit them doesn't it? Wonder what they have against Triskelion and I agree a publisher that sells that many books should keep trying.

  2. That's such bullshit. I was willing to buy hte last one (and admit that based on that argument, I should not be eligible for PAN) but this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

  3. Diana, I believe you are eligible for PAN because your publisher is recognized as a publisher of romance. It's a little different.

    I don't trust third-party arguments, so I'm interesting in hearing RWA's explanation directly. It's usually a little different than the complaint.

    I could be wrong, but my understanding of this book (and the new one they are doing) is that these authors were invited to participate and donating their royalties was a condition of participation. Which would mean the authors do not get paid for being part of the book. Which makes it not even a work-for-hire, which is not recognized. Which seems to me a valid argument for denial.

    I mean, Triskelion is really donating the money. I don't know if you can divide the per-book royalty among the huge number of authors involved and have a valid figure for tax purposes, even.

    But I will reserve judgment until I hear something official.

  4. Natalie - if you email me I'll send you the paperwork so you can see for yourself.

    Believe me - Ellen is getting is correct. We're not making this up.

  5. Thanks, Jaynie.

    Given the facts in the info I received, I can revise my comments on the royalty issue--it's much stickier than I'd anticipated, and I'm on Triskelion's side on that one.

    However, I still don't believe the book can be considered a novel. There is no overarching story, no plot connecting the "episodes," and very, VERY little about the supposed "two main characters," overall, in the bulk of the book. In fact, if RWA changed their mind about that, I'd think they agreed to recognize Triskelion just to shut everybody UP. LOL

  6. I'd go along with the idea that the authors are earning money for that book, just chosing to give it away. I haven't read it. Funny thing is that the bit of controversy is making me more interested! Maybe others feel like that and will boost the sales even more! :)