Writing

The Mystery Writers of America has revised the language of their definition of "self-publication" for membership application, publisher approval, and Edgar eligibility. The changes were made for greater clarity and specificity. 

“Self-published”
or “cooperatively published” works include, but are not limited to:

 a) Those works for 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;

b) Works printed and
bound by a company that does not sell or distribute the work to
brick-and-mortar bookstores;

c) Those works published
by a privately held publisher or in collaboration with a book packager wherein the
writer has a familial relationship with the publisher, editor, or any
managerial employee, officer, director or owner of the publisher or book
packager;

d) Those works published
by companies or imprints that do not publish other authors;

e) Those works published
by a publisher or in collaboration with a book packager in which the author has
a direct or indirect financial interest;

f) Those works published
in an anthology or magazine in which the author is also an editor, except an
anthology or magazine for which the author is a guest editor.

g) Those works published
in an anthology or magazine wherein the author has a familial relationship with
the editor or publisher.

Lately, Hard Case Crime editor and publisher Charles Ardai has gone to great pains to claim he’s not really an editor and publisher…and that his book SONGS OF INNOCENCE, which was published under his imprint, isn’t self-published and therefore should be eligible for Edgar consideration.
I guess he forgot about the interview he gave for this month’s issue of Mystery News about the evolution  of Hard Case Crime:

…and [Max Phillips] went off and mocked up some dummy covers to show me what it might look like if we did publish our own books in the old style. I’d worked as an editor of mystery anthologies for years, so it was simple for me to go to my bookshelves and compile a list of some great and undeservedly forgotten novels it would be fun for us to reprint. And Max and I are both writers ourselves, so we agreed we’d each write a book of our own for the line, guaranteeing that we’d have at least two original novels along with all the reprints.

Perry Middlemiss clued me in to this interview with Garry Disher, the author of the Wyatt novels. I’m a huge fan of the Wyatt books, which I read in one week after novelist Scott Phillips made me buy them all when we were browsing in a bookstore together. Although there are six Wyatt novels and they read like one, big continuous story, so you really must read them in order…if you can find them. They have been out-of-print for years.

Wyatt is an Australian version of Donald Westlake’s Parker, which was Disher’s inspiration. Disher says:

Yes, Wyatt was inspired by the 1960s
Parker novels of Donald Westlake (writing as Richard Stark). I’ve
acknowledged this several times in interviews. In fact, I think we
crime writers build on the traditions and authors who have come before
us — not copying or stealing, but adapting and building on. I liked the
cool, focussed, meticulous air of Parker, and I liked the
crime-from-the-inside nature of the books, and started with that kind
of character and approach when I set out to write crime fiction (I’d
already had “literary” novels and stories published). I didn’t want to
create another kind of private eye or cop, it had been done before. I
know I write about a cop in the Challis novels, but they differ from
other types of cop novels in several senses: a regional rather than a
city setting; a main cop, but also an ensemble cast of other cops; a
main crime, but also several minor crimes; the public, workplace and
private lives of the characters; an interest in the sociology of a
region.

[…]we never learn much about him (and nor should
we), but I think he’s a more rounded and complex character that Parker.
Also, the Wyatt novels are longer than, and structured differently
from, the Parker novels. Ultimately, Wyatt and his capers are
inventions, my inventions, not mere copies. Yes, they’re a tribute, and
I had fun with the Parker model, but I worked hard at the writing and
ensured they succeeded on their own terms.

The best news in the interview is that Disher is finally working on a new Wyatt novel after a long foray into police procedurals (with the Inspector Challis novels). I can’t wait.

NOW AND THEN isn’t the worst book Robert B. Parker has ever written (that award would go to the latest Sunny Randall novel), but it may be the laziest.  It’s definitely one of the weakest Spenser novels. Susan’s Harvard education was mentioned six times before I stopped keeping track. At one point, there’s a big shootout at Susan’s house involving Uzis and shotguns and not  a single neighbor calls the cops. Sadly, Susan survives.

I’m a Robert B. Parker fan, but he hasn’t written a good book since APPALOOSA. I hope the upcoming sequel is as good because this is one fan who is loosing his faith.

Today, Sarah Weinman wrote about the MWA’s decision that Charles Ardai’s book SONG OF INNOCENCE is ineligible for Edgar consideration because it’s a self-published title. Charles is the editor and publisher of Hard Case Crime, which also published his novel.  She asked me about it before she wrote her piece because I am the Edgar Chair this year and, therefore, the one who had to deliver the bad news to Charles. Here’s is how I explained the situation to her:

The decision on SONGS OF INNOCENCE was not a reflection of our "new
active membership status rules." The rule about self-published books
being ineligible for Edgar consideration has been in effect for several
years and is clearly stated on our website. (LITTLE GIRL LOST, for
example, was originally published by Five Star before the Hard Case
Crime paperback reprint or it would not have been eligible). Our
guidelines state:

"Among (but not all of) the situations defined as "self-published or
cooperatively published" are works by those who have paid all or part of the
cost of publication or distribution of the work; works printed and bound by
a company that does not place the work in physical (aka brick-and-mortar)
bookstores; those works for which the authors were required by the publisher
to pay any monies whatsoever before or during publication; those published
by "cooperative" publishing or others which require authors to pay for
marketing; those published by privately held publishing companies with whom
the writer has a familial or personal relationship beyond simply author and
publisher; those published by companies or imprints that do not publish
other authors; those published by publishing companies in which the writer
has a financial interest."

Charles Ardai obviously has a considerable financial interest in
Hard Case Crime. Not only is he the founder and te publisher, he is
also the primary editor. He has said so in countless published
interviews. In fact, he states it outright on the copyright page of SONGS OF INNOCENCE. The page states that the book
was published in collaboration with Winterfall, LLC, which is his
company. It also definitively states that "Hard Case Crime books are
selected and edited by Charles Ardai," who is also the author of the
book. On the Hard Case Crime webpage, it states:"Hard Case Crime was
created by Charles Ardai and Max Phillips; the line is published as a
collaboration between Winterfall LLC and Dorchester Publishing."

No one is saying or implying that Hard Case Crime is a vanity press.
It is a respected and legitimate publisher that I, and all the members
of Edgar Ad-Hoc Committee, admire. However, as unfair as it may seem to
Charles, his book unquestionably meets our definition of a
self-published title under the rules we adopted in 2006….which is why
the committee unanimously voted that it is ineligible for Edgar
consideration. If the book had been published by another publisher,
like St. Martins or Penguin for example, it would have been eligible.

This decision is no reflection whatsoever on the quality of the
book, which many of us on the committee have read and enjoyed. In fact,
the point of our guidelines is to assure that decisions about Edgar
eligibility are made regardless of a work’s perceived quality (or lack
thereof) or the popularity (or lack thereof) of the author.

If we allow Charles’ book to be considered for an Edgar, then we
would have to accept *all* self-published titles for consideration,
otherwise we would guilty of blatant favoritism. Charles has my respect
and my sympathy but the MWA is not prepared at this time to accept
self-published titles simply to allow SONGS OF INNOCENCE to be
considered for an Edgar.

Sarah basically argues that this is wrong because his book is well-reviewed, he’s an award-winning author, and Hard Case Crime is a highly respected publisher. She believes, and so does Charles, that we should either make exceptions for critically-acclaimed works, and those written by highly respected authors, or simply allow all self-published titles to be eligible.

I disagree. Speaking only for myself, and not the MWA, I think those suggestions would turn the Edgars into a popularity contest. In their view, and one folks like Jim Hansen share, is that whoever gets the best reviews, or is the genre darling of the moment, deserves special attention…others don’t.

The only reason Sarah is peeved about this situation is because Charles is a remarkably talented, award-winning writer and a highly respected publisher. If we were talking about someone else — a writer with a book from PublishAmerica or even Jim Hansen — this wouldn’t be an issue for her.

Personally, I think the MWA rule is a good one. I don’t think we should allow self-published books to be eligible for Edgar consideration. The fact that the self-published rule applies equally to Charles Ardai as it does to someone less well-known and well-reviewed speaks to the inherent fairness and objectivity of the rule. We have created a level playing field.  All self-published authors are treated the same, whether they are poorly reviewed or former Edgar-winners, complete unknowns or highly respected.

If his book was published by St. Martin’s or Random House, instead of under his own imprint, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But he chose not to do that. For whatever reason, he chose to publish it through his own company. My guess — and it’s purely that — would be so he could exercise more control over how his novel was packaged and marketed. And, I assume, out of pride in his work and in his imprint. To say that his book is not self-published because he didn’t go to iUniverse or lulu, or doesn’t own Dorchester, is disingenuous.

Should the MWA consider every mystery or crime novel that’s published in the U.S., regardless of how it was published?

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doesn’t allow every single movie released in the U.S. to be eligible and considered for Oscars…nor should they. The MWA doesn’t consider every single mystery novel published for Edgars, either. Nor do I believe they should.

I’m sure there are lots of Oscar-quality movies that are being over-looked because they don’t meet the Academy’s criteria, which I’m sure some people think are draconian and unfair. Like the Academy, the MWA has criteria. Not including self-published work is one of them. It’s inevitable that some good books, like Charles Ardai’s, will not be considered. I don’t blame him for  being hurt and angry, but that said, I don’t think this indicates any a flaw in our rules.

When the Mystery Writers of America announced their revised criteria for active membership and publisher-approval, there were some people stomping their feet and declaring that the organization would see a huge drop in membership.

Well, I am pleased and not at all surprised to say that the exact OPPOSITE has occurred. We have seen a huge DECREASE in non-renewals…from 300 this time last year to 200 this year. We also have INCREASED our membership by nearly 100 members.

These numbers show our organization has actually been strengthened by the new rules. New members have joined and more existing members have renewed. This should tell you a lot about exactly who was decrying our tighter regulations and what their agendas were….

Reed Coleman writes in the October issue of Crimespree that he’s "burnt, seriously burnt, toasty, toasted, fried, and spent" from the grind of book promotion. He was in the midst of the BEA in New York when he finally had enough:

It was also the accumulation of the petty indignities: the tour dates when no one came, my name misspelled on book covers, press releases, and promotional posters. It was the blank stares from people who’d ask me if they’d ever heard of me […]It was all the dumb questions about when I’d be on Oprah, the dreadful panels, bad moderators, all the same old jokes. […]It was the thousands of dollars spent on rented cars, motels, bad meals, cab fare, air fare, and poured into the abyss of PR.

It’s a very honest article, one I am sure that a lot of authors can relate to. I certainly can. When I first started out, I scheduled as many signing as I could get up-and-down the West Coast and in key bookstores nationwide. I attended Bouchercon and Left Coast Crime every year and accepted just about every invitation to speak that came along. That has changed, not because I have become a bestselling author (I haven’t, not by a long shot), or because I have been traveling a lot for work lately, but because it’s not a productive use of my time or money.

I have books coming out so often, that it hardly makes sense to do more than two or three local signings for each of them – and even then, I don’t think it has any real impact on sales. Most of my novels now are tie-ins, and as much as I like to believe I have a following, I am realistic enough to know that the sales are driven by the success and promotion of the beloved TV shows they are based on. It’s the actor’s face on the cover, not my name, that is selling most of the books. But even for THE MAN WITH THE IRON-ON BADGE, I didn’t set up a big book-signing schedule or attend a lot of conventions.

There are some authors I know who are at every single convention, year after year. I don’t know how they do it…or how they avoid the boredom of hearing the same advice and anecdotes over and over again (from themselves and from others). When I go to conventions now, the only panels I attend are the ones I am on…or that feature first-time authors. That’s because I know the majority of the authors at these events and I have heard them speak dozens and dozens of times at conventions, signings, seminars, etc. As clever, funny, and intelligent as they are, I have heard it all before. Some writers have become more known for their promotional efforts and panel appearances than the books they write. (It must be equally boring for the attendees. If they get bored and overly familiar with you at conventions, does that translate into boredom and over-familiarity with you as a writer? My guess is that it does).

I end up spending most of my time at conventions these days in the dealers room, at the bar, or the hallways talking to readers, booksellers, and authors. That’s fun but is it the best way to be spending my time? Probably not. With the exception of Bouchercon, where I get a chance to see my agent and editors, I can’t really justify the time and expense from a business point of view.

So I’ve skipped a lot of conventions and I have been turning down far more invitations to attend events than I have been accepting. This way, when I do show up some place, I think it’s more fun, productive, interesting and fresh for both me and the readers who are there. I can’t wait for Left Coast Crime in Hawaii in 2009. Would I be as eager to go if I’d also attended Left Coast Crime in Bristol, Seattle, and Denver, Bouchercon in Alaska and Thrillerfest in NY? I don’t think so. Reed says:

I had let myself get farther and farther away from being a writer. It had happened by the inch, in tiny, almost imperceptible, increments. Whether I’d done it gladly with eyes wide open or had it foisted upon me was beside the point. I was no longer where I wanted to be, not even close.

He’s back at the keyboard, focusing more of his energy on the writing and less on the selling. I am, too.