# What do indies want/need from SFWA to consider applying/joining?



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

As has been mentioned here and here, SFWA has created a self-publishing committee. Myself and several other SFWA members (including at least one who frequents these boards but I'll leave it to them to reveal themselves if they so choose) are working on creating recommendations to take to the SFWA board in order to revise the membership qualification criteria to make indies eligible for membership.

We're also working on what SFWA may need to do or services to add to make membership worthwhile and attractive to indies. Current Active membership is $90 annual, and while I've been an Active member of SFWA for about 6 years, I know that SFWA has very little to offer an indie at the moment.

So, all that being said, what services would SFWA need to be able to offer you, as an indie publisher, to make it worthwhile to join the organization?

I know I'm leaving the floodgates wide open, so I'll hope participants and the moderators will try to keep the discussion civil and on-topic. I'm ever the optimist...


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2013)

I know one thing indies NEED but won't ask for: legal services.

Almost every day, someone asks a question about copyright, trademark, or some other legal issue expecting advice. Most of what they get is wishful thinking and conjecture. Affordable legal advice on publishing issues (copyright, trademark, contracting with service providers, bill collection, mailing list compliance, etc) is what indies need.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

I've wondered that myself. Back when I started writing short stories and sending them to SF magazines I was thinking 'I only need to sell a few and then I can join SFWA and be cool and stuff,' but now... I honestly can't think of anything they offer indie writers that I can't get for free elsewhere. They would probably have been a lot more useful in the past, with things like warnings about bad contract provisions with publishers, but I no longer have to worry about that.

I guess the most useful thing would probably be a place to meet more indie SF writers, but there are other forums out there that don't charge $90 a year.

Edit: I see Julie got a response in while I was trying to post. I agree, legal services would probably be of some use. Maybe vetted lists of editors, cover designers, etc with proven track records, or at least an easy way for writers to find them.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

If anyone's confused: SFWA - Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America 
I don't think you need to be American though.

I'd like anything that'll help market my books!


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

A professional organization like SFWA shouldn't be confused with just a forum to meet people... there are some tangible benefits, even for indies. 


My question is would indies be welcome to the same table as the traditional authors, or is there to be a parsed off "self-pubber" section? In other words, is SFWA serious about bringing us into the fold or are they just looking at an untapped cash resource in all the commercially successful indie writers? (That questions probably sounds far more cynical than how I meant it.)

Also, how would the qualification guidelines change? For people like me who move mostly eBooks would it be based on total number of paid sales?


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2013)

Joshua Dalzelle said:


> My question is would indies be welcome to the same table as the traditional authors, or is there to be a parsed off "self-pubber" section? In other words, is SFWA serious about bringing us into the fold or are they just looking at an untapped cash resource in all the commercially successful indie writers? (That questions probably sounds far more cynical than how I meant it.)


I think the fact that they are ACTIVELY asking indies "what do you want/need?" should answer that question. If it was simply a cash grab, they could just start accepting indies with X sales volume and wash their hands of anything else.


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

Well, in theory the label is something you can use during some submissions to make your query standout, but that opens a whole can of worms best debated elsewhere. Either way, since a self-pubber probably isn't actively submitting their fiction, that potential feather in one's cap isn't much use.

So I'll second the Sith Witch. Legal services. We need help with legal questions all the time.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Access to group health insurance. I would say this is one of the biggest reasons anyone joins one of these professional organizations. Not sure how this will be effected by Obamacare implementation.

As a counter question - what does SFWA have to offer for traditionally published authors?


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Gosh, it's always been a dream of mine to join SFWA! It's been a sad-dish thing for me that indies/self-published writers couldn't be members.

Anyway, I agree with the points already made:  legal advice/services and resources or vetted people/services would be good. I'm not sure of what else, but if something comes to me I'll add it in.

Just having the ability to join would be a plus for me (and I know, I can sell enough to qualifying markets and join, but right now it's something that's years away).


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

Well, if my wife hadn't been unemployed for the past year, I'd be willing to pay the membership cost... but there's that annoying requirement that you have to have "traditional" writing credits. The whole point of being indie is you get to dodge the gatekeepers and their slush piles. I don't want a traditional writing credit- although readers would be nice. 

I'm still not clear on what SFWA can do for me as an author. Even if I were selling enough books to make that a full time job.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Help getting on panels at conventions

Affordable group health insurance
"Free" qualified legal advice about trademarks, copyright, foreign rights, movie rights...
Referrals to qualified IP attorneys who are taking on new clients for the purpose of negotiating contracts


----------



## Guest (Sep 18, 2013)

In general, a good guild/association isn't just about "what's in it for me?" Good organizations are looking out for the entire community. For example, SFWA was heavily involved in pushing back Google's rights grab over "orphaned" books. Organizations can throw their collective weight behind legal issues than negatively impact members. 

I'm a member of the International Women's Writing Guild. These days, I use very few of their resources, but I still support the Guild because of the work that they do. Among other things, they are a recognized NGO with consulting status with the United Nations, and often give a voice to women writers in third-world countries who have no other support system. I feel the work is important, even if I don't personal benefit.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Great stuff, folks. Keep the thoughts flowing.



Daniel Knight said:


> As a counter question - what does SFWA have to offer for traditionally published authors?


Quick response--the legal fund, the emergency medical fund, the grievance committee, and (specifically for tradpubbers and folks submitting stories to markets) working to increase the minimum word rate for pro markets. Not all tradpub writers will need these, but they're there.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> In general, a good guild/association isn't just about "what's in it for me?" Good organizations are looking out for the entire community. For example, SFWA was heavily involved in pushing back Google's rights grab over "orphaned" books. Organizations can throw their collective weight behind legal issues than negatively impact members.


Great point, and I think it's also important to add that a volunteer organization like SFWA is only as powerful/useful as its volunteers. SFWA needs more people willing to put in hard work on behalf of the organization and on behalf of other writers, whether they're members or not. Writer Beware is probably one of the more high-profile parts of SFWA and the work they've done for all writers over the years is huge. SFWA will always need volunteers. So it's that weird thing where SFWA wants to make membership possible for self-pubbers, but also needs self-pubbers to volunteer time and effort to make things mo' better for self-pubbers in general.


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

Like others have said, affordable health insurance would be good.


----------



## Aaron Pogue (Feb 18, 2011)

Cherise Kelley said:


> Referrals to qualified IP attorneys who are taking on new clients for the purpose of negotiating contracts


I can see a real advantage in providing a vetted list of all manner of support services. IP attorneys (as Cherise mentioned), editors, cover artists, publicists, etc.

I know some professional organizations help members with contract language, so even providing some standard, sane work-for-hire aggreements for these sorts of freelance services could be beneficial.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Glynn James said:


> I'm actually more interested in what goes on behind the doors, and in the forums. Do members get to chat directly to publishing professionals or is it mostly writers in there? The Nebula awards, conventions, publications and industry news, featured author programs (what are they?), publisher submissions openings, peer networking - that's the stuff that interests me and I suspect you already have all that.


Many publishing pros are members of SFWA, generally Affiliate members. Editors in addition to writers. I'd have to check the latest Directory to see if any agents are members; not sure on that. I know many deceased members have their estates as a form of membership.

Oh, speaking of benefits--the member directory lists all members in SFWA and their agencies where appropriate, so that's a resource for some writers. It's also nice to see what members live close to you. There are a lot of international members too, and I'd love to see that grow. There are internal publications as well as The SFWA Bulletin, all of which the new board (term started in...July?) are working on either improving or fixing.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

***********


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

1) Reasonable entrance requirements.

2) A non-discriminatory member classification, i.e. when you look at a member's profile, you shouldn't be able to tell the indies from the trads.

3) Indie works should be eligible for all awards and contests that trad works are (Hugo, Nebula, etc.).

4) Full participation consistent with existing membership levels - panels, committees, cons, voting, etc. 

For me, specifically, SFWA doesn't need to do anything additional or special to attract me. It just has to let me in and treat me like any other member.


----------



## Sophrosyne (Mar 27, 2011)

That would be great. I'm all for legal advice, attorney referrals, affordable group health insurance (which I believe is getting easier to do now).

I think if all the the things you currently have for members were also open to indies, that would be great. What about having an indie category in the different awards programs? Or making indie books eligible for the awards in the general categories?

What about non-SFWA run, writing-related event & seminar discounts? Like, Sisters in Crime offered that discount to the Writers Police Academy.

But yeah, I like what Kary said about treating indies like any other member.


----------



## RM Prioleau (Mar 18, 2011)

I'm not a member of SFWA, but a few people said I should join. However, I am not sure how I can benefit from being a member, and I'm entirely unsure all of the things the association does as a whole. Do they host their own conferences? Do they have chapters around the country and/or throughout the world? The only thing I have found beneficial to the association is Writer Beware. There are so many questions I feel are unanswered whenever I visit the site, which seems more catered toward best-selling SF&F authors more than indies or anyone who aspires to write in the fantasy genre.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I know one thing indies NEED but won't ask for: legal services.
> 
> Almost every day, someone asks a question about copyright, trademark, or some other legal issue expecting advice. Most of what they get is wishful thinking and conjecture. Affordable legal advice on publishing issues (copyright, trademark, contracting with service providers, bill collection, mailing list compliance, etc) is what indies need.


I agree that indies need this. Whether it is something that SFWA could somehow promote, perhaps with reduced price attorneys who actually KNOW the field, is another problem. It would be something that would tempt me though. Affordable group insurance would be a benefit to all authors, not just indies.


----------



## cheriereich (Feb 12, 2011)

KaryE said:


> 1) Reasonable entrance requirements.
> 
> 2) A non-discriminatory member classification, i.e. when you look at a member's profile, you shouldn't be able to tell the indies from the trads.
> 
> ...


This ^^^^^! Anything that's offered to a trad published author should be offered to an Indie.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Before I can answer that, what do they offer already?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Hey.  I'm one of the people in SFWA on the self-publishing committee.  Thanks for your ideas, guys. They are being heard and considered.

As for entry requirements, I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to share, but I feel that the ones we are discussing right now are very reasonable and in line with SFWA's requirements for the trad published authors (and I am going to keep fighting for that).  No one has suggested that full membership be withheld from indies, so that's one fear you guys can probably put to rest. If SFWA manages to agree on guidelines for letting self-published authors qualify, they would be full active members, in my understanding.

Also, self-published works are already eligible for the Hugo and Nebula.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

I applied for membership consideration years ago when I was already a highly successful Indie author. The SFWA was looking down their noses at Indies back then and the fact that I was a full-time author making a great living as an Indie author of scifi novels made no difference.

What do I want from the SFWA now? Absolutely nothing.


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

I haven't read all of the replies, so this may have already been suggested, but indies are always looking for marketing opportunities, so any group like SFWA or Mystery Writers of America etc that wants to open their doors to indies should (at a minimum) be on the lookout for new marketing opportunities. Perhaps your newsletter could offer suggestions for any new avenues entering the market such as The Fussy Librarian or Find, Read, Love. Maybe reviews of services such as Helix Review or BooksAi. Beyond that, you could run a contest for indie pubbed titles and offer an annual award and accompanying anthology. I'm spit-ballin'. But you get the idea.


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

Help with marketing would be my main concern. Health care would be my second. So far, I have not seen anything that attracts me to the organization because I still have to get beyond the stigma they put forth all those years back towards anyone who was an indie. I'm both indie and trad published, but was turned down years ago because I apparently wasn't successful enough. That leaves a bad taste for many years in one.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

KaryE said:


> 1) Reasonable entrance requirements.
> 
> 2) A non-discriminatory member classification, i.e. when you look at a member's profile, you shouldn't be able to tell the indies from the trads.
> 
> ...


These are really the points that would get me to join: being treated like a real member.

The other points would be nice, but I have to be convinced that I will be treated like just another author.

ETA: In fact access to legal advice and insurance are things that all authors need, not just indie. So again, I think simply treating indie authors like any other author would go a long way.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

JimJohnson said:


> So, all that being said, what services would SFWA need to be able to offer you, as an indie publisher, to make it worthwhile to join the organization?


What services can you provide? Dunno. What services _can_ you provide?

But here's what you can do to at least make yourselves appear somewhat attractive.

1. Stop letting your internal squabbles run out into the public and become flamefests.
2. Stop expelling members because of beliefs that you don't like, but have nothing whatsoever to do with writing and publishing science fiction and fantasy
3. Stop being the PC Though Police of America and go back to being the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America

You know. Behave like professionals and not petulant children. That might be a good start.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Michael Kingswood said:


> What services can you provide? Dunno. What services _can_ you provide?
> 
> But here's what you can do to at least make yourselves appear somewhat attractive.
> 
> ...


If by this one you mean condoning abuse of female members, I can't agree. It is why women have left in the past and would certainly keep me out.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I am a member and have recently renewed because of the controversy. I mightn't have otherwise, because, as Jim says, a self-published writer finds very little value in the organisation. But I believe SFWA should stand for all members, not a select number of them, mostly white male and over 60. Yay for Annie. Maybe I should head over to the forums a bit more often and contribute there.

Problem: the self-pub information on those forums is laughably outdated. Laughably. This forum, with all its warts, is far superior to getting information.

So, if "a depository of information about self-publishing" isn't why we go to SFWA, then what?

What I'd like is a voice of mediation between us and big retailers (aka "Amazon"). I know that Amazon is smart enough not to do anything that's illegal, but there will be times (those times are maybe even already happening) that it pushes back individual writers' rights.

I'd like there to be an organisation that has the acceptance of "the industry" (whatever that means, but SFWA generally has it) that will bat for self-published authors' relationships.

I'll say a dirty word. SFWA is a union. It would be great if it could do union-y things specific to self-published writers (aka kick Amazon's shins when Amazon is being a dick).

ETA: I forgot. What the organisation "needs" is to change the meaning of what the letter A stands for. This is an international world that is no longer defined by national boundaries.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Michael Kingswood said:


> What services can you provide? Dunno. What services _can_ you provide?
> 
> But here's what you can do to at least make yourselves appear somewhat attractive.
> 
> ...


The writer who was expelled used the official SFWA twitter feed to post a link to a racist and sexist screed on his blog, in which attacked and insulted several members. His expulsion had nothing to do with the writer's beliefs, since no one is disputing his right to post crap on his blog, but with the fact that he used an official SFWA channel to distribute hate speech. Plenty of people, including myself, would not feel welcome in an organisation that tolerates hate speech in its official channels.


----------



## kurzon (Feb 26, 2011)

I'm unlikely to want to join while it's "of America", even though it's open to international people.  While I understand there's issues with changing the name, it's still suggests a non-international focus.

I think I'd consider joining just so I could vote on the Norton, but that's because I'm a big Norton fan.   Otherwise, there's not much I can see that I could get from SFWA that I don't already have.


----------



## Eric Zawadzki (Feb 4, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> The writer who was expelled used the official SFWA twitter feed to post a link to a racist and sexist screed on his blog, in which attacked and insulted several members. His expulsion had nothing to do with the writer's beliefs, since no one is disputing his right to post crap on his blog, but with the fact that he used an official SFWA channel to distribute hate speech. Plenty of people, including myself, would not feel welcome in an organisation that tolerates hate speech in its official channels.


Amen. I have long held the organization in high regard because of Writer Beware and my great respect for members like John Scalzi and Jim Hines (just two names on a very long list) who have been vocal feminists and all-around awesome people. It saddens me every time one of these racefail or feministfail incidents give it a black eye.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

What SFWA can do to attract/embrace/serve indie authors:

1) Everything mentioned above, including (especially!) Patty Jensen's comments

2) Recognize that boilerplate contracts with publishers are abysmal for authors and use their influence (like they did with the Digital Only contracts) to push publishers to raise ebook royalties and eliminate non-compete clauses. They can do this by supporting writers with legal aid in negotiating contracts, as well as advocating for a "new boilerplate" that is more competitive with indie publishing.

3) Similarly use their influence to show publishers why print-only contracts are beneficial for publishers (as well as indie authors). Organizations like SFWA can advocate for changes in contracts; they should be doing this already for their trad-pub authors, but once indie authors are in the mix, SFWA will need to broaden their ideas about what the "interests" of their members includes.

4) Help indie authors exercise their non-US rights by facilitating contact with foreign publishers and the film industry. This can be done by providing forums where these contacts can be made or encouraging agents to look at the benefits of representing indie authors just on foreign/film rights.

5) Make a bigger effort to make a non-threatening work/collaboration environment for women.

That last one is (to be honest) the one that gives me a lot of pause, even if SFWA started welcoming indies with open arms. I don't need to be in their club to succeed. Their club needs to give me a reason to spend my time helping them succeed (i.e. show me that they're going to make a positive impact on the publishing world with respect to indies, and that I'm not going to have to take a lot of crap in the process).

p.s. thanks for coming here and asking! That's a great first step.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

I am in agreement with the above, esply treat us like full real members and help deal with companies like Amazon.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> The writer who was expelled used the official SFWA twitter feed to post a link to a racist and sexist screed on his blog, in which attacked and insulted several members. His expulsion had nothing to do with the writer's beliefs, since no one is disputing his right to post crap on his blog, but with the fact that he used an official SFWA channel to distribute hate speech. Plenty of people, including myself, would not feel welcome in an organisation that tolerates hate speech in its official channels.


This. In spades.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

At the moment, indies suffer because librarians/booksellers/other booky professionals don't have the courage to take on our products. Helping indies overcome this problem would be fantastic. 

I've always thought that organisations like SFWA could provide a service similar to what Kirkus does for trad publishers, but without the stupid pricetag. Something that librarians or booksellers could use to alleviate their indie anxiety.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> At the moment, indies suffer because librarians/booksellers/other booky professionals don't have the courage to take on our products. Helping indies overcome this problem would be fantastic.
> 
> I've always thought that organisations like SFWA could provide a service similar to what Kirkus does for trad publishers, but without the stupid pricetag. Something that librarians or booksellers could use to alleviate their indie anxiety.


Offtopic: Netgalley is also good for this (and you can do it right now).


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2013)

scribblr said:


> What do I want from the SFWA now? Absolutely nothing.


Harsh. And yet I cannot disagree with you.



Susan Kaye Quinn said:


> I don't need to be in their club to succeed. Their club needs to give me a reason to spend my time helping them succeed (i.e. show me that they're going to make a positive impact on the publishing world with respect to indies, and that I'm not going to have to take a lot of crap in the process).


Another excellent point. It's not enough for SFWA to open a door and let us sit at the kiddie table. They've got to fully and completely embrace the new indie publishing paradigm and start doing innovative things to help push indies forward, like persuading more booksellers to accept print-on-demand books from CreateSpace, or pressuring Google to change their ridiculous price-slashing practices, or (and this is HUGE!) calling a spade a spade and expelling Random Penguin for getting in bed with Author Solutions and their ilk.

For these reasons, part of me wants to see SFWA die so that something new and completely different can rise from the ashes. I'd say it would be better for us to put together a competing organization that could one day swallow SFWA up, but in the absence of that, I would say that they should put some forward-thinking indies (like Hugh Howie) in the highest positions of leadership and let them turn the organization around. Sort of a rebirth-from-within kind of thing.

But I definitely won't join until I'm confident that they've embraced the indie paradigm, because even if I do go traditional, I'm never going to stop going indie.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

It's not reviews I'm concerned with, it's recognition. 

What a professional association can do for indie authors is to show the world that we are (or on our way to being) professional authors. This is what we do. These are our products. Please put them on your shelves, real or virtual. 

The reason I say this is because my local library has anxiety over ebooks. They can't afford the trad published ebooks and don't trust the indies. What I would want a prof association to do for me if I were a member would be to assure the anxious librarian that my products are worthy of a place in his or her library. If SWFA could do that, then I would join in a heartbeat.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Few things:

1. Hugh Howey is a member of SFWA. One does not "get made" an official, one volunteers. It is frequently a shit job, especially when shit erupts that's outside your control. It takes a lot of time away from your writing. You need to be that kind of personality, too.

2. Again, people are asking "what's in it for ME" rather than "how can SFWA be good for self-published writers in general".

"Recognition" is the reason why the much-maligned and often ridiculed joining rules exist. If "anyone" can join, saying that you're a member carries no particular recognition with people you may wish to impress.

If you wish to get a service, you're better off purchasing a service from a specific provider. You can get a Kirkus review for $400. You can't get more respected than that. Not sure if people who buy self-published writers' books care, but that is another matter.

SFWA is not, and was never intended, to be a service provider. It's a trade organisation. There is, by the way, an independent writer organisation (I forget the name) that seems to do similar things for a similar price. Must hunt that website up now. They're also not a service provider, but a union-style organisation. Legal stuff. Advocacy. That's what we need. The rest, we can buy on a personal case-to-case basis.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

As many others have said, group health insurance would be awesome if possible.  

Also, maybe some kind of pooled information about "standard" contracts, and about the terms of service for sites that I suspect very few people read and think about before signing up, like ACX, Google Play, KDP, etc.  When a company puts up a new TOS that applies to thousands of authors, it would make sense to pool resources to get a lawyer or two to look it over and flag any possible surprises.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> The reason I say this is because my local library has anxiety over ebooks. They can't afford the trad published ebooks and don't trust the indies. What I would want a prof association to do for me if I were a member would be to assure the anxious librarian that my products are worthy of a place in his or her library. If SWFA could do that, then I would join in a heartbeat.


SWFA doesn't do this for trad-pub authors either. Librarians look to journal reviews for "validation" that a book is decent. There's actually quite some stirrings in the library community about how to get indies into the library, how to recognize the quality ones. The reason why I held up NetGalley as an option is because it is a way around having to be reviewed in the School Library Journal - you can reach librarians directly through NetGalley, offering your book for review.

Ok, that's one more thing SFWA could use it's influence on: facilitating a way for the SLJ to accept indies. If being a "card carrying SFWA indie" would open that door, that alone would be worth the price of admission to me.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Patty Jansen said:


> 2. Again, people are asking "what's in it for ME" rather than "how can SFWA be good for self-published writers in general".
> 
> "Recognition" is the reason why the much-maligned and often ridiculed joining rules exist. If "anyone" can join, saying that you're a member carries no particular recognition with people you may wish to impress.


The op said, "We're also working on what SFWA may need to do or services to add to make membership worthwhile and attractive to indies."

He asked, we answered.

The way books make it into the public sphere is changing, which means the support systems around the industry must also change. I am just about to finish an accounting qualification. The accounting prof association will allow me, once I have met their requirements, to put the letter "CPA" after my name. Prospective clients or employers who see those letters know I'm qualified as a counter of beans. SFWA could do something similar for its members, to allow them to deal with other professionals in the publishing industry on an equal footing.

One way they could do it is to highlight the work of its members.

Traditionally, Kirkus has supplied reviews to the publishing industry without payment. Traditionally, librarians have relied upon these Kirkus reviews to help them decide which books to buy for their library (previously through the now defunct Kirkus Review Journal, but now through the digital magazine). Unfortunately, Kirkus charges indies US$450 for these reviews and they don't put them in the magazine, which makes them worthless.

What a prof org like SFWA could do is fill the vacuum left by Kirkus and produce a digital journal of its own that highlights the products of its members. Impartial reviews by ones peers would be an invaluable asset for any author and, if done right, would raise the profile and standing of the professional association.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

Patty Jansen said:


> "Recognition" is the reason why the much-maligned and often ridiculed joining rules exist. If "anyone" can join, saying that you're a member carries no particular recognition with people you may wish to impress.


Professional Independent authors have been part of the writing community for years. The SFWA excluded them because the authors refused to give control of their books, and the majority of their book profits, to the large publishers. Establishing membership criteria that didn't require the writer to sell their soul to the devil was and is possible, without simply opening the doors to anyone who pays the entry fee. I'm not trad published, yet I'm a member of the Author's Guild. They accepted my membership application because several trad houses offered me contracts to write for them. I turned them all down because I didn't like the deals they were offering, but the AG accepted that I was a professional author. The SFWA didn't.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm surprised so many people are wishing for group health insurance. If you're self-employed or don't get health insurance through employment, you'll be able to sign up for the new health exchanges starting October 1.

If your state legislators/governors are thwarting the new law, you can still sign up through a federal exchange.

You can use this calculator to find out what your premiums would be after the subsidies (which most people will qualify for) http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

scribblr said:


> Professional Independent authors have been part of the writing community for years. The SFWA excluded them because the authors refused to give control of their books, and the majority of their book profits, to the large publishers. Establishing membership criteria that didn't require the writer to sell their soul to the devil was and is possible, without simply opening the doors to anyone who pays the entry fee. I'm not trad published, yet I'm a member of the Author's Guild. They accepted my membership application because several trad houses offered me contracts to write for them. I turned them all down because I didn't like the deals they were offering, but the AG accepted that I was a professional author. The SFWA didn't.


I'm leaning towards this end of things too. I can't think of a single thing that would entice me to send them $90 every year. Like, nothing. I might search my brain a little harder if said requirements mentioned above didn't exist, but honestly - professional organizations like this alienated a ton of up and coming writers with their silly exclusion policies. They lack forethought if they didn't see this revolution coming, and when you apply that to SFF writers, that's sorta _sad_.


----------



## jacklusted (Nov 29, 2012)

Michael Kingswood said:


> What services can you provide? Dunno. What services _can_ you provide?
> 
> But here's what you can do to at least make yourselves appear somewhat attractive.
> 
> ...


I'm going to have to completely disagree with oyu and say that the SFWA is an organisation I have no interest in joining unless it takes a more active role in getting rid of members who post racist sexist rants and deals with the recent issues that have happened with the bulletin. I would want no part of an organisation that includes a man who believes white women are better off being raped then working because he fears POC. He should have been kicked out a long time ago and it is frankly ridiculous he wasn't as it makes the organisation unwelcoming to over half the population.

If the SFWA had a better policy on that matter, and also offered legal services and help with foreign publishing rights it would be appealing to join.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2013)

Michael Kingswood said:


> What services can you provide? Dunno. What services _can_ you provide?
> 
> But here's what you can do to at least make yourselves appear somewhat attractive.
> 
> ...


Regarding the specific personalities and circumstances in conjunction with point 2, I think that SFWA was in the right--not because the person's opinions were vile (though I personally believe they are), but because he violated the SFWA charter when he hijacked the organization's social media platform to broadcast them.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "PC Though [sic] Police," but since those are definitely weasel words, I'm not going to take a stance on that point one way or another.

However, I agree wholeheartedly with point 1. SFWA has handled their own internal controversies so incredibly poorly, it's like watching a Jerry Springer marathon. If there's anything that SFWA excels at, it's creating drama--and if that drama isn't directed at publishers (which is good--we all want someone to fight for us on that front), it's directed at other SFWA writers, or at the SFWA organization itself. It's very bizarre, like an elitist crusade, where half the members are fighting each other for the keys to the country club in order to bring about their own personal vision of social justice.

In other words, the current SFWA community seems to be characterized by the worst tropes of science fiction (heavy handed didacticism, a penchant for monarchism and empire, and a counter-intuitive phobia of technology) while, at the same time, completely lacking in the genre's greatest strengths (inspiring and optimistic visions of the future, an incurably curious and innovative spirit, and a deep and empathic understanding of other human beings). It's extremely bizarre, and a massive turnoff, even for a relatively young writer like me who used to have SFWA membership as a major career goal. With all the drama that the organization has kicked up in the past year or so, you couldn't pay me to join--at least, not until the organization completely reinvents itself.


----------



## Joshua Dalzelle (Jun 12, 2013)

Patty Jansen said:


> 2. Again, people are asking "what's in it for ME" rather than "how can SFWA be good for self-published writers in general".


The title of this thread may be why people are asking what's in it for them... that was the question posed to us.

As for some of the requests like healthcare and legal services... I'm not sure what people expect for a $90 a year, but that won't be it. Let's be a bit realistic.

The only time I ever give money for dues to join an advocacy group is when I believe that they can do something for the community, so I don't mind paying my dues to the VFW, etc... but this brings me back to my first point. If we're going to pay in I think more than anything we'd like some tangible assurance that the SFWA would be an advocate for the indie community in equal parts to the trade pub community. The issue I see is that currently some of the main complaints of both sides put the two at odds with each other.


----------



## Indecisive (Jun 17, 2013)

LKRigel said:


> I'm surprised so many people are wishing for group health insurance. If you're self-employed or don't get health insurance through employment, you'll be able to sign up for the new health exchanges starting October 1.


My thoughts exactly. I am fortunate enough to live in Massachusetts where this is already in place.

As for joining the SFWA, it's not important to me at the moment, especially because I'm all over the place in terms of genre, and the politics (and lingering sexism) kind of turn my stomach. I'm sure people are working to make things better, but, yeah, not a priority for me.


----------



## Nathan Elliott (May 29, 2012)

Joshua Dalzelle said:


> As for some of the requests like healthcare and legal services... I'm not sure what people expect for a $90 a year, but that won't be it. Let's be a bit realistic.


Other professional orgs do, for similar fees. Nobody expects coverage for $90, but SFWA might be in a position to organize access to group rates. Since full-time writers are self-employed, this healthcare thing affects many, many people, and since a writer cannot get any relief from bankruptcy after a major medical event without losing all his/her copyrights (and hence probably also losing almost all of her of income as well as assets), it is even more important for writers than for many other professions. I think lots of folks would pay well over $90 for access to group healthcare. If $90 won't do it, consider upping the price. Or charge people some extra fee for the group rates. Something. It would be worth it to many people and would massively increase enrollment. Whether SFWA wants to get into this, I don't know. But it is a huge unfilled need and an opportunity for some org to make lots of friends.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

I'll second what Nathan said above. You don't get the health insurance for $90 - you get access to an organization that is big enough to qualify for group rates. Many professional organizations offer this as their primary perk to attract membership (organizations with similar membership fees). Even with the new health care laws going into effect - it may still be more cost effective to get in on a group rate through an organization than through the health care exchanges (I guess we will find out when it all gets started).


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2013)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> At the moment, indies suffer because librarians/booksellers/other booky professionals don't have the courage to take on our products. Helping indies overcome this problem would be fantastic.


No, it has NOTHING to do with COURAGE. Librarians are a surprisingly brave group. For starters, they are the people on the front line fighting censorship attempts from every crazy fringe group that wants to "protect" children or stop the free exchange of ideas. Librarians are not obligated to worry about the wants of indies. They are obligated to worry about the needs of their patrons. You are talking about people who over the last ten years have had their funding slashed (in some areas of the U.S. by as much as 80%!) and are being pulled on all sides to provide more and more services with less and less support. Please don't pretend they aren't brave just because they won't take your self-published book.

Contrary to popular opinion, the world does not revolve around the dreams and needs of indies. 

I am actually working on a program right now that will be designed, among other things, to connect libraries and booksellers with indie books. And having actually spoken with librarians about this project, they are VERY interested in seeing where it goes. We'll see how much courage indie authors are willing to show insofar as making their work available to libraries.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Daniel Knight said:


> I'll second what Nathan said above. You don't get the health insurance for $90 - you get access to an organization that is big enough to qualify for group rates. Many professional organizations offer this as their primary perk to attract membership (organizations with similar membership fees). Even with the new health care laws going into effect - it may still be more cost effective to get in on a group rate through an organization than through the health care exchanges (I guess we will find out when it all gets started).


Hello? I posted the link above that gives the rates. They've been set. You can find out now. The rates are better than group rates and the coverage is better than most coverage. I realize there is a lot of disinformation out there, but my goodness!


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

The wording of the OP was indicative of what the foundational problem is:

Why should indies be any different than any other author, traditional published or not?

Why is there even a discussion about this?

What is it about the SWFA that warrants an exclusion? Does anyone really think that the unwashed masses will overwhelm the organization with membership dues and participation? Perhaps it is a fear of watering down the perceived quality of the group?

I had a very similar discussion about the Writer's Guild not long ago. Same song, different band. 

The entire affair smells like Apartheid in South Africa.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> Even with the new health care laws going into effect - it may still be more cost effective to get in on a group rate through an organization than through the health care exchanges (I guess we will find out when it all gets started).


I'm another one of those people who live in the future and know how it all turns out. The rates I see here in Massachusetts are comparable to what you'd get from employer based insurance. It's pretty much spot on what I pay if not just a little lower and I work for the government. Plus, you get a lot more choice in the exchanges.

I have not heard very good things about SFWA's health stuff fwiw.

In terms of what I'd like from a professional group, I think the peer exposure is the biggest thing. I have the luck to be part of two incredible communities for my subgenre and the ability to learn from them is fantastic. However, the question comes up whether or not people are going to welcome indies with open arms or snub them, even if the organization itself is open.

Another issue I'd say that irritated me about my own genre's big professional organization, RWA, is that while they recently allowed indies in, their professional class membership requires a minimum sales for membership and the amount set is five times as high for an indie as it is for a trad published author.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

LKRigel said:


> Hello? I posted the link above that gives the rates. They've been set. You can find out now. The rates are better than group rates and the coverage is better than most coverage. I realize there is a lot of disinformation out there, but my goodness!


I missed that post. Thanks for the link. That is encouraging if the "Silver Plan" is comparable to what I get from my employer now. I haven't really dug into the specifics of the new health care laws - though I am a fan in general of making it easier for people to get insurance and to get rid of the pre-existing conditions qualification.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Katie Elle said:


> Another issue I'd say that irritated me about my own genre's big professional organization, RWA, is that while they recently allowed indies in, their professional class membership requires a minimum sales for membership and the amount set is five times as high for an indie as it is for a trad published author.


Did they raise that? For some reason I thought it was 2,000 copies sold of a single title, not a dollar amount.

Frankly, I'm not that interested in joining RWA, but yes, they've definitely made it difficult to get into their "Pro" plan.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

scribblr said:


> Professional Independent authors have been part of the writing community for years. The SFWA excluded them because the authors refused to give control of their books, and the majority of their book profits, to the large publishers. Establishing membership criteria that didn't require the writer to sell their soul to the devil was and is possible, without simply opening the doors to anyone who pays the entry fee. I'm not trad published, yet I'm a member of the Author's Guild. They accepted my membership application because several trad houses offered me contracts to write for them. I turned them all down because I didn't like the deals they were offering, but the AG accepted that I was a professional author. The SFWA didn't.


Huh. And yet from my perspective the AG has done just about anything and everything possible to hurt indie authors. And if it takes an offer from a trad house than the AG isn't really accepting indies are they?

I'm like you are about the SFWA about the AG. There is nothing on earth that would make me give them my money. (Not a criticism, just offering a different PoV)


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

Joshua Dalzelle said:


> The title of this thread may be why people are asking what's in it for them... that was the question posed to us.
> 
> As for some of the requests like healthcare and legal services... I'm not sure what people expect for a $90 a year, but that won't be it. Let's be a bit realistic.


I'm pretty sure people aren't expecting that their $90 membership will include health insurance at no additional cost. I think what folks are suggesting is that SFWA provide access to group insurance for which the member would pay extra.

With the advent of the new exchanges in the US, this one isn't make or break for me.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

KaryE said:


> I'm pretty sure people aren't expecting that their $90 membership will include health insurance at no additional cost. I think what folks are suggesting is that SFWA provide access to group insurance for which the member would pay extra.
> 
> With the advent of the new exchanges in the US, this one isn't make or break for me.


Exactly. There are a number of groups that offer _access_ to group insurance (not including insurance costs of course) for fees in that range.

It isn't make or break but would be a nice bonus. Other issues brought up would be more important to me.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> The entire affair smells like Apartheid in South Africa.


Oh, really? And here I read the OP's post as the SFWA acknowledging that indies have unique needs because of the nature of self-publishing and they were pro-actively looking for information on how they can be useful.

Nothing in the OP's post implied that they were making a 'second class' membership for indies. Nothing in the OP's post reflected anything but sincere interest in understanding what indies were looking for in a professional organization, as they realize that the current membership perks may not be useful for indies.

But folks that are determined to be offended can always find something to be offended about. Even when someone is doing exactly what you claim you want them to do: like take you seriously.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Oh, really? And here I read the OP's post as the SFWA acknowledging that indies have unique needs because of the nature of self-publishing and they were pro-actively looking for information on how they can be useful.
> 
> Nothing in the OP's post implied that they were making a 'second class' membership for indies. Nothing in the OP's post reflected anything but sincere interest in understanding what indies were looking for in a professional organization, as they realize that the current membership perks may not be useful for indies.
> 
> But folks that are determined to be offended can always find something to be offended about. Even when someone is doing exactly what you claim you want them to do: like take you seriously.


First of all, I'm not offended at all... I'm thinking you derived that via a mirrored negative connotation. Is this the way of the Sith? I could care less if they take me seriously.
Secondly, the mere exclusion, or differential treatment of indie's for any reason implies a "second class," or "no class."
Finally, who said indies have unique needs? I can't think of a single difference these days between the average indie and traditional published author. Legal advice, marketing advice, contract review... all of the things mentioned above would apply to both. What's the difference?

The OP asked what the organization could do to make it more attractive to indies. My answer is, phrased simply:

Treat all writers the same. Make no distinction.


----------



## Deke (May 18, 2013)

I would like a successful SF writer to call me up once a week and tell me I'm doing great.  Give me an Atta Boy!


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

I wouldn't join any organization that didn't have a cool convention every year where I could go and get hammered with fellow authors.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Treat all writers the same. Make no distinction.


They don't exactly have a great history of doing this. I'm wondering how much of a challenge it will be to change that culture? Does the committee who is soliciting input and considering criteria for including indies realize that a cultural change will be required to have this really work? Some indication that they understand this would be a positive sign.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> First of all, I'm not offended at all... I'm thinking you derived that via a mirrored negative connotation. Is this the way of the Sith? I could care less if they take me seriously.


I was using "You" as in Imperial You, Not You specifically.

Indies DO have unique needs by virtue of the fact that indies are also PUBLISHERS. There are a host of legal and accounting issues that indies routinely face that trade don't (because these are things traditionally handled by the publisher). Things like navigating fair use, trademark disputes, international VAT, distribution contracts, interstate commerce, wholesale contracts to bookstores, staying on the right side of the FCC and Consumer law regarding mailing lists and advertising. Those are issues unique to indies. Ask ten people in this forum "how do I register my copyright in the U.S." and you can get ten different answers, nine of which will be wrong.

Indies don't need SFWA to push back on *trade publishers* regarding royalties. But they could use an advocate against Amazon in the event Amazon starts playing games (I know, I know...Amazon is a perfect angel and would never screw indies. But let's just humor me for a moment.) Wouldn't it be nice if there was an organization with weight behind it that could push back on Amazon on the behalf of indies? Or push back on Apple?


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> I wouldn't join any organization that didn't have a cool convention every year where I could go and get hammered with fellow authors.


Do you mean something like SFWA's annual NY Reception for the publishing industry?


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Susan Kaye Quinn said:


> They don't exactly have a great history of doing this. I'm wondering how much of a challenge it will be to change that culture? Does the committee who is soliciting input and considering criteria for including indies realize that a cultural change will be required to have this really work? Some indication that they understand this would be a positive sign.


Speaking only for myself, I know it'll be a huge challenge to change the culture, not just of SFWA internally but of the writers externally who've been burned by SFWA in the past. I'm pretty sure the rest of the committee members know it'll be a challenge.

I take it as a positive sign that the committee even exists--it was on the agenda of the new administration when they took office in July, and it's one of the reasons I renewed my membership this year.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2013)

I've got to be honest, Julie, I'm getting really tired of reading your hyper-confrontational tone.  Most of the fights you pick are completely useless and unhelpful, and detract a lot from the substance of what you have to say, which actually is quite useful most of the time.

It's a lot like SFWA, actually.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

SFWA also tends to have reception rooms set up at other major conferences where members can hang out, chat with other members and enjoy nibbles and libations.   It's not uncommon to rub elbows with the greats of one's genre in such places.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Joe, I love you, man, but it's not apartheid. SFWA isn't proposing shooting us in the streets or throwing us in prison for challenging the status quo. If they offer a lower tier membership, we don't have to join. Apartheid wasn't optional. 

As for me, one reason I'm adopting the "stories out, novels in" strategy is to qualify for SFWA membership. Why? Because I'm tired of my trad published peers looking down their noses at me. It may give me a slight edge with some reluctant readers. And I want access to the forums where the really GOOD kerfuffle gossip is; twitter only gives one so much. Ah, drama, no one does it better than writers...


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> Ah, drama, no one does it better than writers...


There are days TNT's got nothing on SFWA. Some of our members do know drama.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JimJohnson said:


> Do you mean something like SFWA's annual NY Reception for the publishing industry?


Yeah, but one just for us. No trad pubbed riffrafff.


----------



## Sebastiene (Dec 15, 2011)

Good promotional opportunities. I would want to get a sense that the $90 fee would be a "bargain" because of how many more books people sell by becoming a member. 

All the other things I've read on here (such as legal advice, health insurance, etc.) would be something we could get on our own if we were just selling more books.  

Help me actually sell books, and I'll become a member for life.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

JimJohnson said:


> Speaking only for myself, I know it'll be a huge challenge to change the culture, not just of SFWA internally but of the writers externally who've been burned by SFWA in the past. I'm pretty sure the rest of the committee members know it'll be a challenge.
> 
> I take it as a positive sign that the committee even exists--it was on the agenda of the new administration when they took office in July, and it's one of the reasons I renewed my membership this year.


Positive, yes. Deterministic, no. It's possible they can open it to indies and that they'll flood in and change the culture. Or it will dissolve into old guard/new guard anarchy. (Probably equally likely.)

Real change happens when there are real forces, from above and below, that are pressing on an organization (or system) to motivate the change. What are the real forces here?

*indies populating SF bestseller lists but not SFWA ranks
*more SFWA trad-pub members indie publishing in the future
*loss of SFWA membership as indies leave or don't join in the first place (when that becomes an option)

Example: I'm letting my SCBWI membership lapse this year. They've had a "committee" for over a year and a half looking at membership requirement changes to allow indies. No forward movement. Meanwhile, I've been invited to present at a big regional SCBWI conference (...wait for it...) on indie publishing. Why? Because half of their membership (when polled) said they wanted to learn more about indie publishing at the conference. I'm willing to spend time and effort to go present in order to get decent information to those authors, not because of the leadership, but in spite of it. So... they lost a member and at the same time, I'm spreading the progressive indie message to half of their other members. (Because I'm subversive that way.) In other words: I don't believe SCBWI is serious about accepting indies any time soon.

Just a thought: if the current membership of SFWA can manage to elect Hugh Howey to a visible office (and you can induce him to volunteer), you'll have a lot of people believing you're serious about this "accepting indies" business.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Contrary to popular opinion, the world does not revolve around the dreams and needs of indies.


In this, a thread asking indies about their dreams and needs, it does 

Smashwords has Library Direct, and has sold several thousand books to a big library somewhere. But the fact is that the publishing world is changing and those involved are going to need to do things differently. Currently, publishers offer extremely unfair rates to libraries for ebooks (I think double or triple shelf price and only 26 borrows before the license expires).

This is where a prof association can step in and offer a service for all authors, trad published or not, to help librarians choose how best to spend the limited dollars they have at their disposal.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Since I already posted quite a bit at TPV's thread, I'll try to make this short (but probably won't succeed):

1. Equal inclusion. Do not separate us 'indies' from 'trads'. Period. We are WRITERS. It doesn't matter whether or not we have a traditional publishing contract or we are working independently and selling via Amazon/iTunes/Kobo/B&N without an agent/publisher. From what I can tell, the SFWA means Science Fiction & Fantasy WRITERS of America. Or did I read that wrong? 

2. Regarding the racist/misogynistic parts: We've all heard about the various dramas that have come up unless we just woke up in our coffins from a thousand years of sleep. I'm not interested in joining any organization that allows this nonsense to go on. If you (anyone who reads this) believes this is censorship or infringes on your right to free speech, then that's what you believe. I believe that having to defend female or minority or LGBT authors from other members' attacks, whether the offender(s) were using the official social media feeds or using personal blogs, is unacceptable. 

We are WRITERS. We are supposed to be a group that stands up for each other, looks out for each other, and while we will all have differences of opinion, we are all supposed to be PROFESSIONALS. True professionals don't have internal fights about one race or gender being inferior or superior to another. True professionals squabble about things like whether or not we should use X or Y company to get group health insurance, or whether a book should have been included in an awards vote, as well as things like helping members keep from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous agents/publishers/vanity presses. We squabble about things within our profession of WRITING. 

3. Is the SFWA prepared for the day when independently published authors have an equal number of members or, and this might soon be the case, more members than traditionally published authors? If not, there won't be any reason for those of us who will never go down the path of traditional publishing to join your organization. We'd be better off starting our own organization and spending a few years making our own mistakes and hashing out our own problems just to have an organization that treats members equally. I don't want to be a second-class member of any group, and I don't want to have to spend my time defending any other member because they are being treated like second-class citizens. 


I'm glad to see the organization finally having real conversations, both internally and externally, about this.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

JimJohnson said:


> There are days TNT's got nothing on SFWA. Some of our members do know drama.


Which is why I doubt I would ever join.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

AngryGames said:


> Since I already posted quite a bit at TPV's thread, I'll try to make this short (but probably won't succeed):
> 
> 1. Equal inclusion. Do not separate us 'indies' from 'trads'. Period. We are WRITERS. It doesn't matter whether or not we have a traditional publishing contract or we are working independently and selling via Amazon/iTunes/Kobo/B&N without an agent/publisher. From what I can tell, the SFWA means Science Fiction & Fantasy WRITERS of America. Or did I read that wrong?
> 
> ...


Well said.

I definitely want to see the sexism/racism/LGBT bias gone, or at least heartily frowned upon.  This is the modern world, and there's no place for that stuff (though people are perfectly welcome to think it in their heads).

I've spent 55+ years fighting an uphill battle, solely because I was born female, and I'm tired of it.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Derailing a bit, but...

I'm finding this whole discussion kinda sad, because there are no sexist/racist people in the executive and there haven't been any for a long time. IMO there have been embarrassing slip-ups because of fandom.

I think that the organisation is going through a change of attitude that goes back to the old structures of fandom. TBH, I think fandom in SFF fiction has done more harm than good to the genre, at least in the past. Behaviour was condoned because certain people were famous. 

The problem comes when "Old Names" are revered to god-like status in a we-kiss-the-ground-that-he-walk-on kind of way. I honestly fail to grasp that sort of reverence, but it's still present in relation to some of the "Old Names" who are still alive. This is a problem, because a younger/newer generation is coming up that's unwilling to kiss the ground where xyz writer walks. 

In short, many people, including myself, enjoy people like John Scalzi's writing, but if John Scalzi is being a dick, we're not afraid to tell him so, therefore nipping any issues in the bud (or should that be the butt?) 

Anyway, this will change, probably sooner rather than later.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Thank you, Patty. That's a good perspective to hear, because I've followed the arguments lately and worried a bit about it all (like several here, I have roots back into SFF.net and the Genie diaspora).

Two important points to me. From Joe Nobody:



> Indies DO have unique needs by virtue of the fact that indies are also PUBLISHERS. There are a host of legal and accounting issues that indies routinely face that trade don't (because these are things traditionally handled by the publisher). Things like navigating fair use, trademark disputes, international VAT, distribution contracts, interstate commerce, wholesale contracts to bookstores, staying on the right side of the FCC and Consumer law regarding mailing lists and advertising. Those are issues unique to indies. Ask ten people in this forum "how do I register my copyright in the U.S." and you can get ten different answers, nine of which will be wrong.


Yes, our difference is that we are both writers and publishers, and that means our interests are different than traditional writers, not entirely but in important ways.

And from AngryGames:



> Is the SFWA prepared for the day when independently published authors have an equal number of members or, and this might soon be the case, more members than traditionally published authors?


At the very least I think there will be a majority of hybrid authors, as more and more writers, even traditionally published ones, also publish additional material by themselves.

So the SFWA, if it wants to face the future (and I think it does), needs to take the combined author-publisher role seriously, and think carefully about how this changes the needs of writers from here on out.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Why would SFWA have to elect Hugh Howey to office to make a point? You realize there are OTHER self-publishing authors in SFWA, right? Right?  And quite a few members like myself and Patty who qualified based on trad stuffs but do a lot of self-publishing as well.  Heck, Scalzi, who was the previous president of SFWA, was self-publishing before it was cool.  

Anyway, it is interesting to hear the feedback, so thank you.  I don't know what changes will come from this committee, but we are active and trying at least and I take that as a good sign so far from SFWA.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

jnfr said:


> So the SFWA, if it wants to face the future (and I think it does), needs to take the combined author-publisher role seriously, and think carefully about how this changes the needs of writers from here on out.


+1



> Why would SFWA have to elect Hugh Howey to office to make a point? You realize there are OTHER self-publishing authors in SFWA, right? Right? And quite a few members like myself and Patty who qualified based on trad stuffs but do a lot of self-publishing as well. Heck, Scalzi, who was the previous president of SFWA, was self-publishing before it was cool. Grin


Yes, but Scalzi was prez and nobody stood up and said,_ Hey, SFWA is welcoming of indies because Scalzi is prez!_ Why? Because 1) Scalzi's comments on indie publishers haven't always been what I would call favorable (yes, even though he self-pubs; it's his side business, not his main one; his career was made on the trad-pub side) and 2) because SFWA may contain indie authors, but _not because they're indie._ It's a rather important distinction. It's why the committee exists to consider allowing indies in on their indie publishing alone.

This isn't a snub to other authors who got into SFWA on their trad-pub merits and also self-pub. It's an attempt to say: _take your most high-profile indie-originally author now in SFWA and raise his influence in the organization. It will send a message._


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

HERE is what the SFWA can do for self-published and small press published authors (I apologize for duplication, but I didn't read the *entire* thread).

1. Health insurance. That's a big one.
2. Access to a network of properly vetted IP lawyers with experience handling movie/TV contracts and foreign/translation rights.
3. Proper standards for membership that include *some form of quality control*.

Before you all back off...SFWA membership should mean something. It should come with a nice little badge we can put on our books that says *we are professionals*. That says that the author, even if they are self published, is taking the time to produce quality work - that will help readers find their way through the morass.

I'm still hoping to sell a couple more stories to Analog and get in that way... .


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

MeiLinMiranda said:


> Joe, I love you, man, but it's not apartheid. SFWA isn't proposing shooting us in the streets or throwing us in prison for challenging the status quo. If they offer a lower tier membership, we don't have to join. Apartheid wasn't optional.


Yes, ma'am, you are correct. Perhaps my comparison was too harsh, and for that I apologize. The point I was trying to make involved the "separate but equal" bologna that has been used far to often to justify anything but total equality within the species.

The world is full of such divisions and it often invokes my passion.


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

Joe, I completely understand.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

I think this is a good thing. I certainly welcome the idea that SFWA is thinking about this.

I think it works both ways, really - because I think SFWA's current members have as much to gain from indies joining as indies might gain from being members. Because as time goes on, a LOT of current SFWA members are going to want to go indie themselves, or go hybrid. And the best teachers are the folks already doing it. 

SFWA retains relevance, too; with about half of the top 100 bestselling SF and fantasy ebook titles being self published for the last year and a half now, indie ebooks now represent a very LARGE percentage of total sales in the genre. Excluding those writers stopped making practical sense some time ago.


But there is much indies can gain from SFWA membership, too. Ideally?

- I'm not against learning the trad pub stuff too; hybrid author is a possibility I won't set aside entirely.
- Ideally, belonging to a community of SF/F writers means that many more people to hang out and chat craft with. 
- Cross pollination of new ideas with old, over a broader range of genre writers, can only strengthen the whole.
- A meeting place for indie writers and hybrid writers to gather and cooperate.


There is basically NOTHING SFWA can do for indie writers that could not be done by indies forming their own group and getting it done that way. But. Why re-invent the wheel? Why toss out the experience of the writers already in SFWA? If the org is willing to take on indie writers as equal members, then I would welcome the move. I think that the energy indies would bring might help SFWA a great deal, and not having to go through all the growing pains of launching our own org would likely save a bunch of indies from nervous breakdowns.


----------



## John H. Carroll (Nov 26, 2010)

KaryE said:


> 3) Indie works should be eligible for all awards and contests that trad works are (Hugo, Nebula, etc.).


This one.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Susan Kaye Quinn said:


> This isn't a snub to other authors who got into SFWA on their trad-pub merits and also self-pub. It's an attempt to say: _take your most high-profile indie-originally author now in SFWA and raise his influence in the organization. It will send a message._


I don't think it's what your suggesting, but I think it's ridiculous to think any writer's group is going to take a successful author and arbitrarily raise them up on high just because of their current level of success.

Hugh Howey's a member of SFWA and can participate as much or as little as he wants to, and can run for office if he wants to. Barring a sudden change in the org's bylaws or a stepping down of most of the board, the earliest he could run for office is I believe 2 years.

Two years is an eternity with the changes that have been happening in publishing lately. Who knows where we'll all be in two years with the whole thing. As it is, I'm thrilled Hugh is a member and I'm grateful to be learning from him from the stuff he's posting here, on the SFWA boards, and elsewhere. His experience and expertise, as is as the experience and expertise of many other hybrid and self-pubbing members. We're working on turning the ship; fortunately SFWA's a much smaller vessel than a BPH; in theory it should be easier to make changes, in spite of the organization's deep roots in the Old Ways.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

kookoo88 said:


> This one.


It was mentioned earlier in the thread that both the Hugos and Nebulas are open to self-pubbed works. Getting people to nominate and vote on them is another matter.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

You can get all worked up about things like this (e.g. they didn't want us before, so %$$&**& them now!), but things should and do often change.  However, I would submit that a rational first step would be for the organization to become sufficiently educated about self-publishing so they could at least keep up with a forum such as this one.  I don't spend much time thinking about SFWA (almost none, in fact), but what I have heard doesn't suggest a group anywhere near the cutting edge of the self-publishing industry.  How can you purport to help a group when you really don't understand what they do?  If they understood self-publishing, they wouldn't have to ask what was important to self-publishers.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Jay Allan said:


> However, I would submit that a rational first step would be for the organization to become sufficiently educated about self-publishing so they could at least keep up with a forum such as this one. I don't spend much time thinking about SFWA (almost none, in fact), but what I have heard doesn't suggest a group anywhere near the cutting edge of the self-publishing industry. How can you purport to help a group when you really don't understand what they do? If they understood self-publishing, they wouldn't have to ask what was important to self-publishers.


That's kind of the point of this thread. Several members of SFWA are very smart about self-pubbing, including our president and the self-pub committee members; the org as a whole isn't as well versed yet. Hence the formation of the committee and the general reaching out to the self-pubbing community for feedback. MCA Hogarth's query hit TPV and I brought it up here. No better place to learn than from the places where people actively self-pubbing congregate and discuss.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Huh. And yet from my perspective the AG has done just about anything and everything possible to hurt indie authors. And if it takes an offer from a trad house than the AG isn't really accepting indies are they?
> 
> I'm like you are about the SFWA about the AG. There is nothing on earth that would make me give them my money. (Not a criticism, just offering a different PoV)


It no longer takes an offer from a trad house. I joined in 2011 and the qualifying membership rules have changed since then, as the publishing scene has changed. Here's a copy-and-paste from the AG site:

_Writers (including self-published writers) earning at least $5,000 in writing income as a book author or freelance writer in the 18 months prior to applying for membership._

So they really are accepting Indies as regular members. It's even possible to join as a Associate Member if you don't qualify under the above rule:

_Writers earning at least $500 in writing income in the 18 months prior to applying for membership may qualify for acceptance as Associate members of the Authors Guild._.

Not being trad published, I get very little career benefit from membership at present, but I'm happy to support the organization's fight in such areas as the _Google Orphaned Works_ law suit. And I enjoy getting the newsletters that keep me informed about industry happenings.

This is not an effort to take over this thread with a recruitment speech for the AG. I'm just responding to a post. But I do want to say that changes like these, in organizations that have until recently kept their doors locked and barred against anyone not trad published, are a positive sign in our industry. Indie publishing has swept through the industry like a tornado, exposing the fallacy that one must be anointed by trad publishers before they could be recognized by readers as professional authors. The organizations who embrace the changes confronting them have a better chance of growing and thriving than those that continue to cling to old values. An organization who won't change will be left behind under a layer of dust and cobwebs.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> I don't spend much time thinking about SFWA (almost none, in fact), but what I have heard doesn't suggest a group anywhere near the cutting edge of the self-publishing industry. How can you purport to help a group when you really don't understand what they do? If they understood self-publishing, they wouldn't have to ask what was important to self-publishers.


Yeah. Almost every "self-publishing" write up or article or instructions or whatever on a mainstream writers site has been just awkward and embarrassing. They all read like Freshman High School term papers, except with a lot of added skepticism.

Example. SFWA has an interesting dissection of the Amazon KDP TOS, but it's like 5 years old (it still refers to the original 35% royalty), and it's from someone who seems to be approaching it entirely as if it were a publishing contract rather than a site terms of service. It's probably useful to have it dissected from that point of view, but what's missing from the discussion just reeks of "we don't get it."

Likewise, I love me some Scalzi, but there were parts of the Hydra/Alibi thing where he just really did seem stuck in an old paradigm. They got rid of the odious notion of authors being charged production costs, but he just could not conceive that doubling your royalty might be a better option than an advance.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Katie Elle said:


> Example. SFWA has an interesting dissection of the Amazon KDP TOS, but it's like 5 years old (it still refers to the original 35% royalty), and it's from someone who seems to be approaching it entirely as if it were a publishing contract rather than a site terms of service. It's probably useful to have it dissected from that point of view, but what's missing from the discussion just reeks of "we don't get it."


It IS a contract. It is a legal, binding contract. If Amazon decided to just stop paying royalties, a judge isn't going to shrug and say "eh, it's a TOS, not a contract, so Amazon doesn't really have to pay for those books it sold."

You grant Amazon very real rights in the KDP agreement. There are significant real world, legal ramifications of that agreement. It doesn't matter than Amazon calls it s TOS instead of a contract. It is a binding contractual agreement.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

JimJohnson said:


> I don't think it's what your suggesting, but I think it's ridiculous to think any writer's group is going to take a successful author and arbitrarily raise them up on high just because of their current level of success.
> 
> Hugh Howey's a member of SFWA and can participate as much or as little as he wants to, and can run for office if he wants to. Barring a sudden change in the org's bylaws or a stepping down of most of the board, the earliest he could run for office is I believe 2 years.
> 
> Two years is an eternity with the changes that have been happening in publishing lately. Who knows where we'll all be in two years with the whole thing. As it is, I'm thrilled Hugh is a member and I'm grateful to be learning from him from the stuff he's posting here, on the SFWA boards, and elsewhere. His experience and expertise, as is as the experience and expertise of many other hybrid and self-pubbing members. We're working on turning the ship; fortunately SFWA's a much smaller vessel than a BPH; in theory it should be easier to make changes, in spite of the organization's deep roots in the Old Ways.


Hmm... thinking outside the box is ridiculous? Okay. I guess that's my answer. This isn't a campaign for a coup - it was a suggestion to _leverage assets you already have_. You could make a new position. You could create an ambassador to the indie community. You could get high profile indies to endorse SFWA. You declare 2014 Year of the Indie and have Hugh be the spokesperson. You could create a blog page on the SFWA website devoted to indie publishing (if you search right now for "self-publishing" or "indie publishing" it's not encouraging). These are just ideas off the top of my head.

To use your analogy, SFWA is indeed the 100m long tanker, whereas indie authors are lightweight skiffs, skipping across waves, innovating like crazy, and yes, not afraid to think outside the box. Indies try and discard new ideas all the time. It's a culture of innovation. When the suggestion of using one of the more innovative, high-profile authors you have gets such push back... it makes me think the deep roots are very deep. And turning the ship... I think it may be sooner taken over by pirates. (I also think this is the unspoken fear that undergirds resistance to change.) You get lots of credit for wanting to try to turn the ship. But your success in actually accomplishing that will lie in really being open to change - a change in culture - as an organization.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I've got to be honest, *****, I'm getting really tired of reading your hyper-confrontational tone. Most of the fights you pick are completely useless and unhelpful, and detract a lot from the substance of what you have to say, which actually is quite useful most of the time.
> 
> It's a lot like SFWA, actually.


And I'll be honest. I am not the one that compared the SFWA to *Apartheid in South Africa*.

Routinely on this site, people attack anything that is not perceived as "pro-indie" with labels of Apartheid, Nazis, and all sorts of nonsense, and nobody bats an eyelash. By the gods, there is another thread on this site right now where a bunch of folks got their panties tied in knots because some trade author dared to imply Jeff Bezos was one of the Four Horsemen, and the justification for attacking him was that you can't take a person seriously who makes those accusations. And yet it is perfectly acceptable for an INDIE to make similar accusations (i.e. apartheid) against the perceived "establishment". But logically, if I am to not take seriously a person who makes a remark about Bezos being one of the Four Horseman, I must also not take seriously a person who compares a trade organization to the systematic murder and abuse of thousands upon thousands of people.

Perhaps the issue is that we have a serious issue with double-standards and hypocrisy within the indie community that we should address. You know, the whole "remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove a speck from someone else's" thing.

If we want to talk about tone, look at the tone of some of the contrary comments in this thread. A member of the SFWA came here asking what the SFWA could do to make itself attractive to indies. *At no point* did anyone imply that indies would get a "second-class" membership, nor was there any evidence presented to even make that a point. And yet people brought up a non-issue and used it as a weapon to insult the SFWA. Yet nobody mentions that "tone." Many offered honest ideas for things that would be helpful. But some decided to simply use this as a platform to attack the SFWA in general and score political points. Yet the accusatory tone of those posts is fine, I guess. Indies spend a great deal of time wringing their hands over what trade publishers and trade authors and trade organizations think about them. Oh, they pretend they don't. But you don't constantly post links and discussions about negative blog posts if you DON'T care what is being said. Too often, the entire tone boils down to "Why don't they like us? They suck." Sometimes the threads read like crazy ex-lovers that don't want to date anymore but don't want you dating anyone else and get jealous if they find out you met someone even as they say they hate you.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

Katie Elle said:


> Yeah. Almost every "self-publishing" write up or article or instructions or whatever on a mainstream writers site has been just awkward and embarrassing. They all read like Freshman High School term papers, except with a lot of added skepticism.
> 
> Example. SFWA has an interesting dissection of the Amazon KDP TOS, but it's like 5 years old (it still refers to the original 35% royalty), and it's from someone who seems to be approaching it entirely as if it were a publishing contract rather than a site terms of service. It's probably useful to have it dissected from that point of view, but what's missing from the discussion just reeks of "we don't get it."
> 
> Likewise, I love me some Scalzi, but there were parts of the Hydra/Alibi thing where he just really did seem stuck in an old paradigm. They got rid of the odious notion of authors being charged production costs, but he just could not conceive that doubling your royalty might be a better option than an advance.


Worse than awkward or embarrassing, traditionally published authors (and of course, publishers and their supporters) seem to only be able to slide back into insults or outright nonsensical lies when it comes to self-published authors and self-published works. I get that there's some elitism to be had from trad pub authors, but wouldn't it feel just as ugly if a self-pub like Hugh Howey made trad pub authors feel small and inferior by gloating how he's sold over a million books and has received anywhere from 35% to 75% royalties, and has an income that is beyond what many trad pub authors have ever made in their entire career (especially if the trad pub authors have sold MORE books in their career than Mr. Howey, but never got but a fraction of what Mr. Howey has made because of his decision to self-pub)?

Traditionally published authors have a right to feel special. They passed the gatekeepers of publishing after submitting anywhere from 1 to 100+ manuscripts. They finally got published. Most probably have had more than one book published. Maybe the publishing house was instrumental in the author becoming a success, or maybe the author had to promote himself to be the success he (or her, I'm all about equality, but I just say 'he' as it's easier for me, and I am *cough* male *cough*) is/was. He wrote good books, good enough to get published. He made a name for himself. He belongs to an elite club of a few compared to the humans around the world that have never published a book through a traditional publisher.

However...

Self-published authors have a right to feel special as well. They bypassed the gatekeepers of traditional publishing, either by rejection or the decision to never bother submitting to traditional publishing. The self-published author that is successful has had to build his brand name all or mostly by himself, using his own money and his own ingenuity. He's had to do the same thing as traditionally published authors have, which is write good books that people want to read, or he wouldn't be a successful self-published author any more than the traditionally published author. Just because there's a gatekeeper and a slush pile doesn't mean traditional publishing has a lock on what is popular, what is successful. What is *good*.

More than that, the self-published author has done everything the traditionally published author has, except has had to do it by himself. He didn't have Penguin or Tor pushing his books to the bookstores and paying to have them on tables or not paying and have them spine-out on shelves. He didn't have the advance to cushion the wait for royalty checks to arrive. However, he didn't give up his rights to his work, and he didn't have to wait but a month or two for royalty checks to begin arriving. Not only that, he didn't have to worry about how his contract structure affected how much he would actually get paid in royalties. Even better, he knew exactly how much his royalty rate was (either 35% or 70%). He could control his pricing, his promotions, his distribution. Again, he's done it all himself (yes, Amazon/Smashwords/D2D/etc. helped, but typically only by giving him a distribution channel).

So traditionally published authors can, and some of them do, still feel like they are on a higher platform, that they play in a more elite league. Even one of my favorite authors, John Scalzi, still tends to play in this elite league, which kind of burns me, but I accept it. Traditionally published authors feel like they've earned it, and in a sense they have.

But my opinion, and it is reinforced more every single day, is that self-published authors that write good books and make a living at it, are the ones that are on the higher platform, as they play in a more elite league. They have to compete with the dregs of self-published work that does tend to plague the literary world now that everyone and anyone can publish a book. They also have to compete with the traditionally published authors who have names that are passed around at places like the New York Times and USA Today. And yet they regularly climb to the top. I would bet there are as many, if not more self-published authors that actually make a decent living than there are traditionally published authors. I'm not talking about the Kings and the Pattersons who make millions or tens of millions per year.

I'm talking about the housewife who writes in her spare time and sells enough books to bring home $32,000 extra per year in income. I'm talking about the guy who was able to quit his $50,000/year job because writing is now earning him $80,000/year. Hell, even the guy who quit his $50,000/year job because he enjoys making $40,000/year writing books instead of whatever wage-slaving he was doing. How about the husband-wife team that writes romances or erotica or children's books that make just enough to pay their $900/month mortgage payment so they don't have to work two jobs each, and can spend more time with their children?

These authors have had to struggle just as much, if not more than traditionally published authors. And from my experience, self-published authors are far less likely to exhibit these...elitist attitudes or disdain towards other authors than those who have been allowed past the monolithic gatekeepers. Instead of traditionally published authors seeing the benefits of self-publishing, even if the trad pub author doesn't believe it is beneficial to him, they end up in awkward blog posts or articles where they sound like broken-down dinosaurs who still think they know more about writing, readers, and how the world isn't evolving into an electronic book coexistence with paper books, and those that do believe such nonsense are foolish and need to be ridiculed or simply ignored.

I guess when those who think they have earned their stripes by being with a traditional publisher finally realize that we've earned just as many, if not more stripes than they have, just in a different fashion, and begin to not only accept what we do, but embrace it as the future of the literary world, a type of hybrid success story that benefits both groups, then I'll be more than willing to be part of such a group.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> If we want to talk about tone, look at the tone of some of the contrary comments in this thread. A member of the SFWA came here asking what the SFWA could do to make itself attractive to indies. *At no point* did anyone imply that indies would get a "second-class" membership, nor was there any evidence presented to even make that a point. And yet people brought up a non-issue and used it as a weapon to insult the SFWA. Yet nobody mentions that "tone." Many offered honest ideas for things that would be helpful. But some decided to simply use this as a platform to attack the SFWA in general and score political points. Yet the accusatory tone of those posts is fine, I guess. Indies spend a great deal of time wringing their hands over what trade publishers and trade authors and trade organizations think about them. Oh, they pretend they don't. But you don't constantly post links and discussions about negative blog posts if you DON'T care what is being said. Too often, the entire tone boils down to "Why don't they like us? They suck." Sometimes the threads read like crazy ex-lovers that don't want to date anymore but don't want you dating anyone else and get jealous if they find out you met someone even as they say they hate you.


Indeed. Haters gonna hate. That being said, I knew without a doubt this thread would go all over the place once I started it. I appreciate everyone who's taken time to reply, no matter the form or tone that reply took.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> Too often, the entire tone boils down to "Why don't they like us? They suck."


No, what the entire tone boils down to is, "They are unwilling to believe that the world around them is changing, and we are proof that it is, and it scares them into making awkward, ignorant comments."

Your tone is just as contrary as anyone else's in this thread, if we are going to look at it in that light.

The majority of us are trying to have a discussion about what we'd like to see in terms of the SFWA evolving to accept self-published authors within their ranks, and what they can offer that would entice us to want to join, should we be allowed to. If the SWFA members are asking, it is imperative that we have a discussion if we wish to be recognized as being on equal footing with those that have been traditionally published. If none of us cared what the SFWA did, this thread would have only six or seven replies.

From the responses I've read, no one has made the claim that we would be treated as second class citizens. You've made the claim that we are saying such a thing, but what I've seen other comments saying is that we want to be on equal footing with members who are traditionally published. Again, this is a discussion. Your antagonistic *tone* has tried to suggest otherwise, but from what I can see, most if not all of us are interested in discussing. Discussion requires that we talk about subjects that are important to us. Discussing subjects that are important to us can be considered contrary, if that is what you wish, but that doesn't make it true.

I think the removing of the plank from your own eye is good advice so we can continue to have a discussion that while sometimes a debate, sometimes a heated debate, is still a discussion about issues that are important to us (and to the SFWA).


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> It IS a contract. It is a legal, binding contract.


Yes, but it's a TOS not a publishing contract and those are two very different beasts and if you read a TOS like a standard publishing contract, you're not really understanding it. If you read the SFWA writeup, you'd never sign with KDP or any other of the indie publishing services at all. It led to things like a Boing Boing article by Cory Doctorow declaring the contract "sucks."

I don't think KDP sucks personally and I think that four years and several indie millionaires after that article it might be time for them to do a bit more annotation if they want to be taken seriously by indies.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

For me, the bottom line is that I think traditionally published writers and indie writers have a LOT in common and a LOT we can teach each other.

So I think it makes a LOT more sense for us to work together than it does for us to have two separate groups.

Sure, we're going to have some trad pub writers who look down their nose at folks who don't go the traditional route. Folks, it's GOING to happen, even if SFWA sets rules for indies to join as equal members. Some writers are going to take a long time to completely accept that. Some may never do so.

Likewise, we're going to see some indie writers make disparaging comments about trad pub writers. It's GOING to happen. Some folks have been hurt too badly by the barbs they've felt themselves to give up their prejudices.

I get that there are harsh words on both sides.

I'm for putting them aside and working together. We have a lot we can learn from each other. SFWA will benefit from indies joining at least as much as indies will benefit from membership, because indie writers have skills that SFWA writers need, and most do not yet have. But indie writers will benefit too, in a variety of ways, ranging from a more powerful collective bargaining position with retailers to contact with long-term career writers to advice when/if we opt to work with a traditional publisher ourselves.

I think this is a good and strong move. There are going to be bugs to work out along the way, and there are going to be some rough spots, but I think the benefits are worth the effort.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

On a related note, I wonder if the MWA would get the same level of spirited discussion if they were to consider self-pubbers.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

KevinMcLaughlin said:


> Sure, we're going to have some trad pub writers who look down their nose at folks who don't go the traditional route. Folks, it's GOING to happen, even if SFWA sets rules for indies to join as equal members. Some writers are going to take a long time to completely accept that. Some may never do so.
> 
> Likewise, we're going to see some indie writers make disparaging comments about trad pub writers. It's GOING to happen. Some folks have been hurt too badly by the barbs they've felt themselves to give up their prejudices


Very good points. While the organization can embrace both tradpub and self-pub, individuals within the org might not. As you say, there are passionate opinions on both sides.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

My guess is that indies are sensitive to the possibility of second class treatment at the membership level not because SFWA has indicated that they _might_ do it but because other organizations have _already_ done it. (I'm looking at you, RWA.) I'm pleased to hear that's not what SFWA has in mind.

Membership requirements are a sticky wicket. I confess that I'm not sure what level of indie publishing would be consistent with three pro sales or one trad novel with an approved publisher. I'll be interested to see what they come up with. I'm already eligible for an Associate membership, and I guess I'm hoping that I might qualify for Active once my indie stuff is factored in.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

KaryE said:


> My guess is that indies are sensitive to the possibility of second class treatment at the membership level not because SFWA has indicated that they _might_ do it but because other organizations have _already_ done it. I'm pleased to hear that's not what SFWA has in mind.


I just found out that SCBWI (Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators), after a 18 mos of their committee considering ways to make indie eligible for PAL (Published and Listed) status, the equivalent of SFWA's Active status, has decided to host a contest just for indies and the winner gets a sticker. And the ability to sell books at conferences. _And still no PAL status_ (i.e. even award-winning indies aren't good enough for the club). I can't imagine SWFA would do this, simply because there are many more indie SF writers than indie YA/children's writers. But, yeah... the possibility of second class treatment is certainly a reasonable concern.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And I'll be honest. I am not the one that compared the SFWA to *Apartheid in South Africa*.
> 
> Routinely on this site, people attack anything that is not perceived as "pro-indie" with labels of Apartheid, Nazis, and all sorts of nonsense, and nobody bats an eyelash. By the gods, there is another thread on this site right now where a bunch of folks got their panties tied in knots because some trade author dared to imply Jeff Bezos was one of the Four Horsemen, and the justification for attacking him was that you can't take a person seriously who makes those accusations. And yet it is perfectly acceptable for an INDIE to make similar accusations (i.e. apartheid) against the perceived "establishment". But logically, if I am to not take seriously a person who makes a remark about Bezos being one of the Four Horseman, I must also not take seriously a person who compares a trade organization to the systematic murder and abuse of thousands upon thousands of people.


Reread the thread. The reference was called out by multiple people, and the author clarified his statements. A rarity for internet message boards.



JimJohnson said:


> As has been mentioned here and here, SFWA has created a self-publishing committee. Myself and several other SFWA members (including at least one who frequents these boards but I'll leave it to them to reveal themselves if they so choose) are working on creating recommendations to take to the SFWA board in order to revise the membership qualification criteria to make indies eligible for membership.


Jim, could you discuss what sorts of qualification criteria are under consideration? Will you accept only high earners or only those who've published in the past X years? What about authors under the age of 18? What about short story and/or ghost writers? The characteristics of the future membership will dictate which features, services, and advocacy efforts that you'll need to focus on.

B.


----------



## donnajherren (Mar 7, 2013)

The previous lack of consideration by the SFWA for anyone who didn't have a traditional publishing contract hasn't only affected indies. Even before we began publishing our own work, my co-writer and I would have been denied membership based on the fact that our publisher--a small, digital-first romance house--wasn't considered a qualifying market. Why? They don't give advances, but pay higher royalty rates.

I would have already joined the SFWA, had I been able. I wasn't. So, for me, this isn't a matter of what the SFWA could do for me as an indie. They could do for me what they do for their members already. The issue is whether they're really fundamentally changing their thinking as an organization, or simply looking for ways to incorporate indies while still clinging to the notion that advance-paying contracts are still the "best" way to do things.

Does that make sense? It may seem like splitting hairs, but to me there's a vast world of difference between "How do we accommodate the indies?" and "Perhaps there *are* valid ways to be compensated that don't include an advance or flat per-word payment."


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Bitterness is largely a pointless exercise, however mistrust is often (usually) warranted.

I'd suggest the first step before courting indie publishers is to change the membership policy first.  I understand they are asking for suggestions on what would make the organization attractive, but have they changed the membership policy yet?  They don't need input from anyone to do that.  Honestly, their credibility is pretty poor if they are out asking what indies would want while still exercising an exclusionary policy.  Here's a first suggestion...put your money where your mouth is...change that.  Do it immediately.  Then come asking for suggestions.

It's time for this absurd distinction between how authors distribute their books to end.  It's ridiculous, and SWFA has been as guilty of it as anyone.  Someone on this thread made an excellent point.  There's just as much ammunition to snipe back.  Should the new indie members taunt the old members on how much more money they make?  Have a nice time at your day jobs, suckers, I'll be out on the deck writing (it's a lovely fall day).  Hey guys, I made that advance you just got in 11 days on my book, and I still own it.  Would any of that be productive?  Would it serve any purpose?  It would be exactly the same nonsense that allowed someone who sold 5,000 books through a publisher to feel superior to someone who sold 50,000 direct.  It's all utter foolishness.

So my suggestion is this.  Change your membership policies now.  Immediately.  Before you go out and pander with inquiries about what indies want that only seem insincere, make the change.  Go out and say, we have changed our policy and welcome indie writers...now what can we do to make ourselves attractive to you.  Isn't that so much better than, "hey, what do you guys want, assuming we do decide one of these days to let you in?"

I understand that you may have a level of achievement that is a minimum.  There's nothing wrong with that.  A SF novel sold to a publisher qualifies for membership, right?  What does the average first SF novel with a trad publisher sell?  5,000?  7,500?  10,000?  Whatever the number is, require the same number of indie sales.  Make the numbers count, not the prejudices.  My God, if I had a dime for every piece of garbage I've read that had been "vetted" and published by a traditional publisher I'd never have to write again to pay a bill.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And I'll be honest. I am not the one that compared the SFWA to *Apartheid in South Africa*.
> 
> Routinely on this site, people attack anything that is not perceived as "pro-indie" with labels of Apartheid, Nazis, and all sorts of nonsense, and nobody bats an eyelash. By the gods, there is another thread on this site right now where a bunch of folks got their panties tied in knots because some trade author dared to imply Jeff Bezos was one of the Four Horsemen, and the justification for attacking him was that you can't take a person seriously who makes those accusations. And yet it is perfectly acceptable for an INDIE to make similar accusations (i.e. apartheid) against the perceived "establishment". But logically, if I am to not take seriously a person who makes a remark about Bezos being one of the Four Horseman, I must also not take seriously a person who compares a trade organization to the systematic murder and abuse of thousands upon thousands of people.
> 
> ...




Sorry, I couldn't resist. 

ETA: Seriously, though, I get what you're saying. This is an important topic, so we need to stay on track and not get distracted by Apartheid, Kool Aid, or the Nazis.

A lot of us do act a bit like jilted lovers, but that's probably because a lot of us are, on some level, insecure. Indie or not, that's par for the course for a group of writers.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Jay Allan said:


> I understand that you may have a level of achievement that is a minimum. There's nothing wrong with that. A SF novel sold to a publisher qualifies for membership, right? What does the average first SF novel with a trad publisher sell? 5,000? 7,500? 10,000? Whatever the number is, require the same number of indie sales. Make the numbers count, not the prejudices.


Actually, this is going to be a big problem, because the requirements are not based just on deals sold to a publisher. Only sales to _specific publishers _ at _specific price points_ count. For example, short stories sold for less than 5 cents a word don't count for short story consideration. And only certain TYPES of compensation count. For example, contest prize money is not a consideration unless the sale of rights was required to claim the money.

So here is a scenario for you (and folks who routinely sell to markets will tell you this is fairly common). Jane Doe wins my annual writing contest with her 5000 word story and takes home the grand prize of $300. That $300 doesn't count toward consideration for membership. Jane then sells that 5,000 word story to XYZ Publisher for $20, she then sells reprint rights to ABC Publisher for $30. Now she has made $350 off of this story, but because of how she made that money the story does not qualify for consideration. Meanwhile, Joe Doe sells a 1000 copies of his short story for 99 cents each on Amazon and makes a net of $346.50. Is it OK for SFWA to say Joe's 1000 sales of the short story qualify but Jane's story doesn't, even if they both made approximately the same amount of money over the year?

Or let's look at the novel issue. I believe the minimum payment is $2000 (either advance or royalties paid) before a novel qualifies for inclusion. So let's play Devil's Advocate and say they use 5000 sales as the "cut-off" for allowing indie novels to qualify and that novel is sold for 99 cents (netting the author $1732.50). Is it fair for a self-publisher to get in with 5000 sales that net less than the minimum required for a trade contract?

And I actually think this is the greater point some people are missing. It isn't just a matter of "let indies in" because even for trade authors the criteria are not a simple matter of paid sales. There are minimum revenue restrictions in place and these needs to be addressed. I would assume SFWA needs to completely revamp its requirements, and that is going to be a dangerous balancing act because both sides will scream that the other is getting special treatment.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, this is going to be a big problem, because the requirements are not based just on deals sold to a publisher. Only sales to _specific publishers _ at _specific price points_ count. For example, short stories sold for less than 5 cents a word don't count for short story consideration. And only certain TYPES of compensation count. For example, contest prize money is not a consideration unless the sale of rights was required to claim the money.
> 
> So here is a scenario for you (and folks who routinely sell to markets will tell you this is fairly common). Jane Doe wins my annual writing contest with her 5000 word story and takes home the grand prize of $300. That $300 doesn't count toward consideration for membership. Jane then sells that 5,000 word story to XYZ Publisher for $20, she then sells reprint rights to ABC Publisher for $30. Now she has made $350 off of this story, but because of how she made that money the story does not qualify for consideration. Meanwhile, Joe Doe sells a 1000 copies of his short story for 99 cents each on Amazon and makes a net of $346.50. Is it OK for SFWA to say Joe's 1000 sales of the short story qualify but Jane's story doesn't, even if they both made approximately the same amount of money over the year?
> 
> ...


Actually, the whole thing reeks of them taking themselves too seriously, which is very common with organizations. If it's $2,000 minimum payment for a novel, then make it 5,000 copies AND $2,000 for indies and leave it at that.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Would the world come to an apocalyptic end if they just threw out the membership requirements altogether and let anyone in who could demonstrate that they'd published something and was willing to pay the $90/yr fee?


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, this is going to be a big problem, because the requirements are not based just on deals sold to a publisher. Only sales to _specific publishers _ at _specific price points_ count. For example, short stories sold for less than 5 cents a word don't count for short story consideration. And only certain TYPES of compensation count. For example, contest prize money is not a consideration unless the sale of rights was required to claim the money.
> 
> So here is a scenario for you (and folks who routinely sell to markets will tell you this is fairly common). Jane Doe wins my annual writing contest with her 5000 word story and takes home the grand prize of $300. That $300 doesn't count toward consideration for membership. Jane then sells that 5,000 word story to XYZ Publisher for $20, she then sells reprint rights to ABC Publisher for $30. Now she has made $350 off of this story, but because of how she made that money the story does not qualify for consideration. Meanwhile, Joe Doe sells a 1000 copies of his short story for 99 cents each on Amazon and makes a net of $346.50. Is it OK for SFWA to say Joe's 1000 sales of the short story qualify but Jane's story doesn't, even if they both made approximately the same amount of money over the year?
> 
> ...


Of course, a short story one-time sale is different than novel royalties. And it's widely understood that indies don't get advances. So I think the traditional requirements could remain in place for those going that route. For an indie to gain access, it then becomes a matter of royalties earned within a specific time frame. It could be $2000 a year, or it could be $5000 (which I think is a bit steep). Regardless, there are key differences between trade-published and self-published writers, and the entrance requirements should reflect that. Hybrids might get screwed, as they would have to show enough success on one of the two paths, but there might be a way that could be adjusted.

By the way, I don't think sales volume should be taken into account at all. Simply because someone can sell more copies at a lower price doesn't mean they're more successful. A writer can be making as much or more money, with less sales, at a higher price. Therefore, royalties make for an even playing field.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Would the world come to an apocalyptic end if they just threw out the membership requirements altogether and let anyone in who could demonstrate that they'd published something and was willing to pay the $90/yr fee?


You heretic! 

In all seriousness, I "get" the requirements (even if I think the methodology for determining them is arcane). It is a professional organization, not a social club. Professional organizations generally do have requirements of actually having gainful employment in the profession. You can't just join the NEA because you have an interest in education. You can't join the AMA just because you really like _House_.

But on the other hand, most professional organizations DO have associate memberships for people who are working towards a career in the profession. And it would perhaps not be a bad idea to have a reduced price, associate membership for people who are simply interested in sci-fi and fantasy but have not for various reasons don't qualify for professional membership. Usually, the only difference between associate memberships and full memberships are voting priveledges and holding office. If they had an associate membership for folks that wanted to make use of the benefits but not jump through the hoops of having to qualify normally, I don't think that would be a bad thing (and it would be in line with what most professional organizations actually do).


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Robert E. Keller said:


> By the way, I don't think sales volume should be taken into account at all. Simply because someone can sell more copies at a lower price doesn't mean they're more successful. A writer can be making as much or more money, with less sales, at a higher price. Therefore, royalties make for an even playing field.


That was sort of my point. You would have to just set a blanket dollar value and not get involved in sales quantity because of the number of variables involved. I was responding to Jay's comment that they should set the minimum to whatever the average sales numbers are for a trade book. I was pointing out the problem with that.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You heretic!
> 
> In all seriousness, I "get" the requirements (even if I think the methodology for determining them is arcane). It is a professional organization, not a social club. Professional organizations generally do have requirements of actually having gainful employment in the profession. You can't just join the NEA because you have an interest in education. You can't join the AMA just because you really like _House_.
> 
> But on the other hand, most professional organizations DO have associate memberships for people who are working towards a career in the profession. And it would perhaps not be a bad idea to have a reduced price, associate membership for people who are simply interested in sci-fi and fantasy but have not for various reasons don't qualify for professional membership. Usually, the only difference between associate memberships and full memberships are voting priveledges and holding office. If they had an associate membership for folks that wanted to make use of the benefits but not jump through the hoops of having to qualify normally, I don't think that would be a bad thing (and it would be in line with what most professional organizations actually do).


That brings to mind that the SFWA does allow for associate membership, which allows access to the forums and such, so it would seem it should also apply to indies. Again, royalties within a specific time frame should be the determining factor as to whether or not someone qualifies for associate or full membership.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Jay Allan said:


> ....So my suggestion is this. Change your membership policies now. Immediately. Before you go out and pander with inquiries about what indies want that only seem insincere, make the change. Go out and say, we have changed our policy and welcome indie writers...now what can we do to make ourselves attractive to you[?]..."
> 
> I understand that you may have a level of achievement that is a minimum. There's nothing wrong with that....Make the numbers count, not the prejudices....


This.

However, I love the idea of making the average advance amount the achievement minimum. What's the average advance for a trade published novel these days, $5,000? OK, so admit indies who have made $5,000 from selling books.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Jay Allan said:


> Bitterness is largely a pointless exercise, however mistrust is often (usually) warranted.
> 
> I'd suggest the first step before courting indie publishers is to change the membership policy first. I understand they are asking for suggestions on what would make the organization attractive, but have they changed the membership policy yet? They don't need input from anyone to do that. Honestly, their credibility is pretty poor if they are out asking what indies would want while still exercising an exclusionary policy. Here's a first suggestion...put your money where your mouth is...change that. Do it immediately. Then come asking for suggestions.


I agree. +1000 for you Jay Allen.

Why even bother asking? Make the changes and THEN come ask if this is the right step forward. We'll let you know.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Yeah, I think they need to just across the board go by x earned from writing, and leave out all the picky little qualifiers. I'll let the current members decide what x should be, but yeah, it needs to be the same x for everyone.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Actually, this is going to be a big problem, because the requirements are not based just on deals sold to a publisher. Only sales to _specific publishers _ at _specific price points_ count. For example, short stories sold for less than 5 cents a word don't count for short story consideration. And only certain TYPES of compensation count. For example, contest prize money is not a consideration unless the sale of rights was required to claim the money.
> 
> So here is a scenario for you (and folks who routinely sell to markets will tell you this is fairly common). Jane Doe wins my annual writing contest with her 5000 word story and takes home the grand prize of $300. That $300 doesn't count toward consideration for membership. Jane then sells that 5,000 word story to XYZ Publisher for $20, she then sells reprint rights to ABC Publisher for $30. Now she has made $350 off of this story, but because of how she made that money the story does not qualify for consideration. Meanwhile, Joe Doe sells a 1000 copies of his short story for 99 cents each on Amazon and makes a net of $346.50. Is it OK for SFWA to say Joe's 1000 sales of the short story qualify but Jane's story doesn't, even if they both made approximately the same amount of money over the year?
> 
> ...


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Well, discussions within the SFWA forums have to remain private due to the terms we agree to when using those forums, but I think I can post what *I* have set forward as potential requirements for admission as full, active SFWA members for self-published authors.  Basically I've suggested that the requirement be at least one published and available novel-length work of SF/fantasy/horror (over 40k words being the SFWA novel definition) that has earned at least 2,000 OR four shorter works (between 1k and 39k) of SF/fantasy/horror that have earned at least 500 each.  So if those guidelines or something like them were to be adopted, I think they'd be in line with what SFWA expects from the trad published authors who qualify to join and anyone meeting them would have demonstrated they were professional and serious about writing.

We're asking what people might want because we've been asked to put together a committee and figure out how to open SFWA to self-publishers and what changes can be made to help SFWA come into the new age of doing business as a professional writer.  I don't know what will happen or come of this committee, but I figure it is a good step that they are asking at least.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Doomed Muse said:


> Well, discussions within the SFWA forums have to remain private due to the terms we agree to when using those forums, but I think I can post what *I* have set forward as potential requirements for admission as full, active SFWA members for self-published authors. Basically I've suggested that the requirement be at least one published and available novel-length work of SF/fantasy/horror (over 40k words being the SFWA novel definition) that has earned at least 2,000 OR four shorter works (between 1k and 39k) of SF/fantasy/horror that have earned at least 500 each. So if those guidelines or something like them were to be adopted, I think they'd be in line with what SFWA expects from the trad published authors who qualify to join and anyone meeting them would have demonstrated they were professional and serious about writing.
> 
> We're asking what people might want because we've been asked to put together a committee and figure out how to open SFWA to self-publishers and what changes can be made to help SFWA come into the new age of doing business as a professional writer. I don't know what will happen or come of this committee, but I figure it is a good step that they are asking at least.


How does that work with series where the first is perma-free?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Joe Vasicek said:


> How does that work with series where the first is perma-free?


You'd have to use a different book. If book 2 has earned 2k, then use that. What I'm proposing says it doesn't matter if the book is book 7 of a series that finally earns you the 2k you need to join, it just matters that you have a work of SF/F/H that earned at least 2k on its own (nor does the format matter, you can count audio, paper, ebook, etc,).


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Doomed Muse said:


> Well, discussions within the SFWA forums have to remain private due to the terms we agree to when using those forums, but I think I can post what *I* have set forward as potential requirements for admission as full, active SFWA members for self-published authors. Basically I've suggested that the requirement be at least one published and available novel-length work of SF/fantasy/horror (over 40k words being the SFWA novel definition) that has earned at least 2,000 OR four shorter works (between 1k and 39k) of SF/fantasy/horror that have earned at least 500 each. So if those guidelines or something like them were to be adopted, I think they'd be in line with what SFWA expects from the trad published authors who qualify to join and anyone meeting them would have demonstrated they were professional and serious about writing.
> 
> We're asking what people might want because we've been asked to put together a committee and figure out how to open SFWA to self-publishers and what changes can be made to help SFWA come into the new age of doing business as a professional writer. I don't know what will happen or come of this committee, but I figure it is a good step that they are asking at least.


I have no argument with proposed guidelines, nor with seeking out comments on what would be attractive. My point is just that, for an organization that has deliberately excluded professionals who have cumulatively sold millions of SF books and earned millions of dollars doing it, the burden of credibility is on SFWA if they want to be taken seriously. I just think it would have been better practice, and a more persuasive way to get people to listen, if the exclusionary practices were dropped FIRST. It's kind of hard to take anything seriously until then.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Basically I've suggested that the requirement be at least one published and available novel-length work of SF/fantasy/horror (over 40k words being the SFWA novel definition) that has earned at least 2,000 OR four shorter works (between 1k and 39k) of SF/fantasy/horror that have earned at least 500 each. So if those guidelines or something like them were to be adopted, I think they'd be in line with what SFWA expects from the trad published authors who qualify to join and anyone meeting them would have demonstrated they were professional and serious about writing.


Sounds OK. Surely the same requirements should apply to all writers, regardless of whether they're trade-published or self-published?

That would also require reducing the amount you expect anyone to earn from shorts, since a 4k short sale to a pro SF market is typically only going to make you about $200 (pretty sure the ones I've been submitting to pay about $0.05 a word). Either trade-published writers won't be able to meet that requirement, or you're expecting too much from indies.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I don't think that changing the guidelines for trad-published authors is within the scope of the committee. We're there to suggest guidelines for self-published authors.


----------



## Daniel Knight (Jul 2, 2013)

Doomed Muse said:


> Well, discussions within the SFWA forums have to remain private due to the terms we agree to when using those forums, but I think I can post what *I* have set forward as potential requirements for admission as full, active SFWA members for self-published authors. Basically I've suggested that the requirement be at least one published and available novel-length work of SF/fantasy/horror (over 40k words being the SFWA novel definition) that has earned at least 2,000 OR four shorter works (between 1k and 39k) of SF/fantasy/horror that have earned at least 500 each. So if those guidelines or something like them were to be adopted, I think they'd be in line with what SFWA expects from the trad published authors who qualify to join and anyone meeting them would have demonstrated they were professional and serious about writing.
> 
> We're asking what people might want because we've been asked to put together a committee and figure out how to open SFWA to self-publishers and what changes can be made to help SFWA come into the new age of doing business as a professional writer. I don't know what will happen or come of this committee, but I figure it is a good step that they are asking at least.


Why should the number or length of stories/books matter? Is the person who made $2000 so far selling 10 different short stories less of a professional than one selling a single book who made $2000. By definition, both are professional writers. Both are making money from their writing.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

...


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> I don't think that changing the guidelines for trad-published authors is within the scope of the committee. We're there to suggest guidelines for self-published authors.


Then I'd say change the $500 to whatever you'd make from selling a typical short story to Analog or Asimov's, and the number of shorts to the number of shorts a trade-published writer has to sell to pro markets (it's three, isn't it?I haven't looked for some time)

That way, the requirements would be pretty much the same.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Jay Allan said:


> ...a more persuasive way to get people to listen, if the exclusionary practices were dropped FIRST. It's kind of hard to take anything seriously until then.


I agree. SFWA needs to create a new path to membership FIRST, and then ask new members what they want.

Revamp the old paths to membership so that going forward, *everyone has the same path: indie, trad and hybrid*. The only way I see this working is to drop all the picky qualifiers except the need to prove you made x amount of money from sales of F&SF stories.

I predict this is going to be a crucial element in the org's future relevance.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

Doomed Muse said:


> Well, discussions within the SFWA forums have to remain private due to the terms we agree to when using those forums, but I think I can post what *I* have set forward as potential requirements for admission as full, active SFWA members for self-published authors. Basically I've suggested that the requirement be at least one published and available novel-length work of SF/fantasy/horror (over 40k words being the SFWA novel definition) that has earned at least 2,000 OR four shorter works (between 1k and 39k) of SF/fantasy/horror that have earned at least 500 each. So if those guidelines or something like them were to be adopted, I think they'd be in line with what SFWA expects from the trad published authors who qualify to join and anyone meeting them would have demonstrated they were professional and serious about writing.


Those short story guidelines are more stringent than the current trad pub guidelines.
http://www.sfwa.org/about/join-us/sfwa-membership-requirements/#requirements



> To become an Active member of SFWA, applicants must demonstrate either:
> 
> 1) Three Paid Sales of prose fiction (such as short stories) to Qualifying Professional Markets, with each paid at the rate of 5¢/word or higher (3¢/word before 1/1/2004), for a cumulative total of $250, minimum $50 apiece; or
> 2) One Paid Sale of a prose fiction book to a Qualifying Professional Market, for which the author has been paid $2000 or more; or
> 3) One professionally produced full length dramatic script, with credits acceptable to the Membership Committee.


So yes, one novel sale that made $2000 makes sense - keeps the requirements the same. But for shorter works - the trad pub requirement is three works which earn a TOTAL of $250+, with each of the three works earning at least $50. That's very different from the numbers mentioned above...

I'm just saying... Calling for each indie short story to earn twice as much as the three qualifying trad pub shorts have to make in total seems a little excessive.  Why not just keep the requirements the same?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

PS 

I love the idea of associate memberships (apprentice memberships?), too, who just pay dues and don't have to qualify. Associate members can't vote, hold office, or be on panels, but otherwise can participate in everything the full members do.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Many of the pro magazines pay now between 7 and 10 cents a word. I don't think asking that a short story writer earn at least 500 a story is too out of bounds (frankly, I think it is easier to do that self-publishing than to sell to the top SF markets).  I suggested 4 stories merely because then the total would add up to the 2k novel total and felt reasonable to me. I'd be fine with 3 stories each earning 500 as well.

Anyway, I just posted the prelim guidelines I suggested. There will obviously be changes and discussion about these among the committee members, but I can't post that stuff since it isn't mine to post outside SFWA.

I don't know what the organization's future holds or what will happen. It is tough to make sweeping changes when dealing with a group of people, I know that much. I'm just glad they are asking for our input and I am trying to do my best to make the organization useful and relevant to me and other like me as the professional writing landscape changes.

Also, being a SFWA member doesn't mean you get to be on panels at conventions. I was on panels before I was a member and I've seen no evidence to suggest that being a member has made it easier for me to get on panels (it always just seems to depend on the particular convention and what they want).


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

Having easily already surpassed the "requirements" you mentioned here, my question would then filter down to how that would be verified (or did I miss that somewhere?). I'm still not sold on the usefulness of the organization for someone like me, but at the same time I'm just pushing through how some of the logistics would be handled.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> earned at least 2,000 OR four shorter works (between 1k and 39k) of SF/fantasy/horror that have earned at least 500 each.


The problem I see there is you're requiring shorts to earn ten times more than the current rules do and that points at the big problem with finding criteria that work between indies and trads: We make too much damn money.

I thought the same thing when I looked at RWA/PAN. For a trad author, they need royalties of $1k on a novel. I have short stories that earned that much and I have no business being in PAN.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Many of the pro magazines pay now between 7 and 10 cents a word. I don't think asking that a short story writer earn at least 500 a story is too out of bounds (frankly, I think it is easier to do that self-publishing than to sell to the top SF markets).


I'd say earning $2,000 with an indie SF novel is much easier than earning $500 with an SF short. I hadn't realized the guidelines included specific earning requirements, I'd thought it was just three sales: you're now expecting an indie writer to make _eight times_ as much money from their shorts as a trade-published writer.

I just don't think you're going to get many indie short story writers applying in the next ten years on that basis, because that's about how long most would need to have enough stories that qualify.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Jay Allan said:


> I have no argument with proposed guidelines, nor with seeking out comments on what would be attractive. My point is just that, for an organization that has deliberately excluded professionals who have cumulatively sold millions of SF books and earned millions of dollars doing it, the burden of credibility is on SFWA if they want to be taken seriously. I just think it would have been better practice, and a more persuasive way to get people to listen, if the exclusionary practices were dropped FIRST. It's kind of hard to take anything seriously until then.


I nominate Jay Allen as f-ing president of SFWA.

Oh, wait, I don't get a vote... last time I looked (mind you that was a while ago) I wasn't a "real" author. I think if you say you write SF, that's pretty much all there is to know. If someone writes SF and says:

"Hey, I'd like to be a part of your group. I write SF every weekend, like all the time. I lock myself in my writing cave and just spew that sh*t out like crazy. Maybe I never want to publish my SF, but I'm INTO IT! RIGHT? Totally INTO IT! I'll keep my stuff private and work on it in my own way, and I'll meet other like-minded people like me, because hey - they all like and write SF too, right? So I want in. I think maybe there's a new kind of partnership there that might be useful for all parties involved."

This guy should get in. You know why? Because maybe he has something to offer the group as a whole. Anyone writing SFF needs to have vision - how is it that this organization is so lacking in VISION

Or how about an author who writes in several genres - like for instance, _me_. I have more SF books than I do romances, but SF pays sh*t, so I write NACR to pay bills and SF because it's my passion. How do your rules makes sense to me?

Screw the money rules. Like making $5000 off one book or $500 off four stories makes you a "real writer". Give me a break.

And what if older members stop writing SF or stop writing completely? Are you still a SFF writer? Are there rules as to how often you have to publish? Or is it a one time thing?

I could go on all day long. Most professional groups DO have minimum requirements, but for some reason there is this antiquated notion that you can't be a writer unless you have PROOF that satisfies authors who have gone the traditional route.

I say BS. If you put words on paper, you're a writer. You might not be a good writer, but nonetheless, you're a writer. Now, if SFWA wants to limit it's ranks to only TALENTED writers, then f-ing say so and come up with more arbitrary exclusionary policies to keep the less talented at bay. But don't pretend that this is about "inclusion" because it's not. It's about exclusion to the nth degree.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

The fact that we're having this discussion in late 2013, and the membership guidelines STILL haven't been changed is only pointing out the growing irrelevancy of the organization.  Look, as far as I'm concerned, if a guy printed 10,000 copies of his book in 1990 and sold them all from the trunk of his car, then the market has spoken, and he should have been allowed in then.  The market is the validation...then as now.  As tomorrow.

But 2013?  Almost 2014?  Come on.  Especially in SF.  I wouldn't be surprised if self-pubbed SF isn't close to half the market now.  And SFWA is still dithering around, forming committees, blah, blah, blah.

Every day of this that goes by just reinforces the idea that it is an organization hopelessly rooted in the past, praying to the great god of technology to put things back the way they were.

I don't fault Doomed Muse in any way.  But the thing I would say that indie authors (I'm speculating, not speaking for anyone) want is for them to get their act together and change their guidelines before wasting our time.

As for myself, I really don't care about the past, but I make decisions based on what people do, not what they say.  You want indie support?  Then change the guidelines now.  Have the revised requirements on your website by Sept 30.  Or Oct. 15.  Stop acting like you're the UN and this is some difficult thing to do and JUST DO IT.  And for me, don't waste my time until you do.

And, by the way, I stand by that statement regardless of what traditional deals I may choose to sign.  It's not indie angst.  It's that guidelines like that are indicative of an organization that is unable to provide good guidance to ANY author.  In today's marketplace, any author who doesn't have self-publishing at least on the table is managing their career poorly.  They may not choose to do it, but if they aren't at least able to rationally consider it they are ill-prepared for the present (much less the future).  I don't see that SFWA is in a position to help their existing members self-pub a book.  Why not?  Shouldn't a professional writer have access to every available way to distribute their work?  Why are they so far behind the knowledge readily available on an open forum like this one?  Is that the way a trade group should be to "help" and "support" members.

You cannot be relevant in the marketplace today without understanding all options.  And by perpetuating an outdated and foolish proscription, even as you court those you still don't allow at the table, you are only driving them farther away.  An organization that knows only traditional publishing is going to be as useful as a buggy whip in ten years.

I really don't care what they do, but that's what they have to do to maintain relevancy.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I don't think anyone should use membership in any writing organization as their "validation" that they are a real writer. That seems a little deranged to me. I know tons of well-selling traditionally published sf/f/h writers who aren't in SFWA or any other organization. I doubt they feel less professional because they aren't members.  The decision to join an organization is personal and should be.  Does the stuff the organization offers and advocates for fit with your needs and desires? If yes, then maybe you should consider joining.  If not, well, don't. What the committee is trying to do is find a reasonable way to allow people who could answer yes to that question to join and to also maybe make it so that more sf/f/h pros would answer yes in the first place.

Until I was asked to join the committee, I'd actually let my membership lapse because I wasn't sure SFWA had much to offer me and wasn't sure it was worth the 90 bucks. Did I feel like less of a "real" writer when I wasn't a member? Nope. Not really. If I had, I probably would have used that 90 bucks for therapy to help me get some self-confidence and perspective.  

I'm aware that the guidelines we come up with will 100% piss off someone. It's kind of inevitable when you have an organization that doesn't let everyone who wants to join. My concern is coming up with something reasonable, not coming up with something that makes everyone ever happy.  For every person who feels that the requirements are too strict, there will be someone who feels they are too lenient. 

Anyway, I posted what I suggested because people seemed curious what kind of things were being proposed.  That's not the point of the this thread, however, so I hope we get back to what you guys might want to see from SFWA to make it worth spending your bucks and joining.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Jay Allan said:


> So my suggestion is this. Change your membership policies now. Immediately. Before you go out and pander with inquiries about what indies want that only seem insincere, make the change. Go out and say, we have changed our policy and welcome indie writers...now what can we do to make ourselves attractive to you. Isn't that so much better than, "hey, what do you guys want, assuming we do decide one of these days to let you in?"


I'm not one of the decision makers, but this sounds like a chicken-egg thing. Which comes first, asking for what changes to make to become a viable option, or take a guess and make the changes and then ask if they're good? In my mind it's much more efficient to solicit input first, then deliberate, then make the best informed changes you can make and move forward, incrementally adjusting things if we somehow borked it up the first time around.

Otherwise we're making changes, then soliciting input, then making more changes, then soliciting input on an endless wheel.

The whole point of asking now is because this change is going to happen sooner than later.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Doomed Muse said:


> Anyway, I posted what I suggested because people seemed curious what kind of things were being proposed. That's not the point of the this thread, however, so I hope we get back to what you guys might want to see from SFWA to make it worth spending your bucks and joining.


And we told you. Get rid of the stupid policies, which by the way, the SFWA MADE UP to exclude writers they deem unsuitable, unprofessional, or unworthy. I never said joining an organization makes me feel like a real writer, YOUR organization told ME I was NOT a "real" writer because I didn't fit their "guidelines".

So let's work with the facts here, OK?


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> And we told you. Get rid of the stupid policies, which by the way, the SFWA MADE UP to exclude writers they deem unsuitable, unprofessional, or unworthy. I never said joining an organization makes me feel like a real writer, YOUR organization told ME I was NOT a "real" writer because I didn't fit their "guidelines".
> 
> So let's work with the facts here, OK?


For whatever it's worth, one factoid is that the SFWA membership quals haven't changed in at least 6 years. I'd have to dig up the by-laws to see when the last amendment was, but I'm pretty sure the Kindle came out (and self-pubbing subsequently exploded) after the last set of changes. They will change slightly once the reincorporation process is completed, and they'll be amended once SFWA figures out the self-publishing angle.

Yes, it sucks that the six administrations prior to the current one didn't have the time or means or whatever to make changes, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time in that timeframe that we've had a board both interested in taking this path forward and with the means to actually get it going. So, yeah, again, for whatever it's worth. We're clearly not going to please everyone with the path forward.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

I'm pretty OK with the bar for shorts. I think the higher amount sales-wise is a reasonable proxy for the trad requirement specifying that qualifying shorts must be published in a pro-designated market.  I could see a little wiggle room, maybe, such as $400 each rather than $500 each, or something like 4 shorts, each of which has made at least $250 and the sum of which equals or exceeds $1500. In general, though, I think they're in the right ballpark.

With the trad requirements, not every sale counts. For-the-love doesn't count, penny-per-word semi-pro zines don't count, and flash might not count if the pay is too low even though it's in a qualifying publication. I'm OK with those restrictions. I'm also OK with the idea that not every self-pub short counts, at least not until it exceeds a certain threshold.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

KaryE said:


> I'm pretty OK with the bar for shorts. I think the higher amount sales-wise is a reasonable proxy for the trad requirement specifying that qualifying shorts must be published in a pro-designated market.


How many self-published SF shorts from writers who don't already qualify for SFWA do you think have made more then $500?

Even DWS, when pontificating on making a living from self-published shorts, only expects an average of about five sales a month from each one. That's about $50-100 a year, or 5-10 years to make enough from one short to qualify.

Again, it just seems a pointless qualification, because if you can make $500 on a self-published SF short in a year, you can almost certainly make $2,000 on a self-published SF novel.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Well, discussions within the SFWA forums have to remain private due to the terms we agree to when using those forums, but I think I can post what *I* have set forward as potential requirements for admission as full, active SFWA members for self-published authors. Basically I've suggested that the requirement be at least one published and available novel-length work of SF/fantasy/horror (over 40k words being the SFWA novel definition) that has earned at least 2,000 OR four shorter works (between 1k and 39k) of SF/fantasy/horror that have earned at least 500 each. So if those guidelines or something like them were to be adopted, I think they'd be in line with what SFWA expects from the trad published authors who qualify to join and anyone meeting them would have demonstrated they were professional and serious about writing.
> 
> We're asking what people might want because we've been asked to put together a committee and figure out how to open SFWA to self-publishers and what changes can be made to help SFWA come into the new age of doing business as a professional writer. I don't know what will happen or come of this committee, but I figure it is a good step that they are asking at least.


That's fine for the novels but a bit outrageous for the short stories. Why should indies have to earn substantially more than trad authors in order to qualify? That is quite definitely not treating the two the same.

ETA: I don't write short stories and would qualify (assuming that co-authored novels count) on the basis of my novels. But I think for someone who is mainly a short story writer, that requirement seems unduly harsh and out of line with the trad author requirements.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Doomed Muse said:


> I don't think anyone should use membership in any writing organization as their "validation" that they are a real writer. That seems a little deranged to me. I know tons of well-selling traditionally published sf/f/h writers who aren't in SFWA or any other organization. I doubt they feel less professional because they aren't members. The decision to join an organization is personal and should be. Does the stuff the organization offers and advocates for fit with your needs and desires? If yes, then maybe you should consider joining. If not, well, don't. What the committee is trying to do is find a reasonable way to allow people who could answer yes to that question to join and to also maybe make it so that more sf/f/h pros would answer yes in the first place.
> 
> Until I was asked to join the committee, I'd actually let my membership lapse because I wasn't sure SFWA had much to offer me and wasn't sure it was worth the 90 bucks. Did I feel like less of a "real" writer when I wasn't a member? Nope. Not really. If I had, I probably would have used that 90 bucks for therapy to help me get some self-confidence and perspective.
> 
> ...


If this is a response to what I said, you misunderstood my point. By validation, I meant for the SFWA regarding the status of an individual as a professional writer...in that even the guy selling books from the trunk of his car should qualify if he is able to sell them. The market provides the validation, or at least should.

As for the writers, I would suggest taking no one seriously in terms of validation except for the readers. Certainly not organizations.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I suggested the shorts requirement because not everyone wants to write novels.  My Gryphonpike Chronicles series is novelettes by SFWA word count guidelines, for example. The first three installments of that would meet the guidelines I've suggested.  Even if you sell 5 copies a month, eventually that amount adds up. 

I guess I'm using my own experience. I don't think it is that tough to earn 400 or 500 on a short story or (especially maybe) a novella/novelette. I haven't found it exceedingly hard, anyway, and I have sales no one would envy.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> Even if you sell 5 copies a month, eventually that amount adds up.


In ten years.

I'm guessing you want members to join before then.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

I would agree that the amount for shorts seems a bit high but not insanely out of the park. I do wonder how they would count bundles. Nearly everyone who self-pubs short stories also publishes the stories in collections, or so it seems. And collections can do really well, so it would be good to spell out how and if they would count.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

I am speculating wildly, here, but I would expect a collection, so long as it exceeds 40,000 words, would be counted under the guidelines for a novel. My rationale is that I think that's how SFWA would treat a single-author collection from a trad pub.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

jnfr said:


> I would agree that the amount for shorts seems a bit high but not insanely out of the park.


If they go with the $500 x 4 stories requirement, the reaction from the unwashed masses will be:

'WTF? Indies have to make *EIGHT TIMES* as much as trade-published writers to qualify? This sucks, they're clearly not taking us seriously and will treat us as second-class citizens if we join.'

Just seems pointless to push a requirement that will backfire and not bring in many members.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

With all of this ongoing discussion, I'm truly curious to see how the SFWA handles this. 

If they handle it badly, or don't offer those of us who have always held it up as a goal we would like to achieve one day, maybe we should start our own 'indie author guild' or some such organization, and see if we can build it into something useful for members (the group insurance thing seems to be one of the most requested features, followed by vetted IP lawyers or legal advice an easy second, which to me, are both very, very good reasons to want to be part of a professional organization). 

Truly though, as long as I've kind of dreamed about being accepted into such an organization, I am hopeful that they do enough to make a majority of us satisfied enough to want to join. Not everyone will be pleased, of this there is no doubt. But I'm still hopeful. 

Then again, there might simply be too much 'bad blood' between the two camps to ever see eye to eye. As professionals though, I'm sure we can come to some level of agreement that satisfies the majority. I hope, anyway.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

JimJohnson said:


> I'm not one of the decision makers, but this sounds like a chicken-egg thing. Which comes first, asking for what changes to make to become a viable option, or take a guess and make the changes and then ask if they're good? In my mind it's much more efficient to solicit input first, then deliberate, then make the best informed changes you can make and move forward, incrementally adjusting things if we somehow borked it up the first time around.
> 
> Otherwise we're making changes, then soliciting input, then making more changes, then soliciting input on an endless wheel.
> 
> The whole point of asking now is because this change is going to happen sooner than later.


Two different questions, IMO.

Question A) Under what terms will we accept non-trade published authors?
Question B) Under what terms will non-trade published authors accept us?

Your OP asked about Question B. Some of the indie authors here are telling you that Question B cannot be answered before Question A. The Authors Guild caters to a particular set of authors with a particular set of needs. Dittos for the Romance Writers Association, Writers Guild of America, and the Society for Technical Communication. The SFWA needs to decide which writers they are going to focus on recruiting and then ask only those authors what will motivate them to apply.

Or if you would prefer an analogy, Four Seasons Hotels caters to a different type of clientele than Holiday Inns. As a result, the Four Seasons NYC features a caviar bar while the Holiday Inn Windsor Canada guarantees that all kids eat free. The clientele they chose to serve is guiding the services they decide to provide.

B.


----------



## KaryE (May 12, 2012)

Edward M. Grant said:


> If they go with the $500 x 4 stories requirement, the reaction from the unwashed masses will be:
> 
> 'WTF? Indies have to make *EIGHT TIMES* as much as trade-published writers to qualify? This sucks, they're clearly not taking us seriously and will treat us as second-class citizens if we join.'
> 
> Just seems pointless to push a requirement that will backfire and not bring in many members.


I have no access to hard data on qualifying member sales, but I can tell you from various other groups I belong to that it's rare for someone to qualify with the minimum of three sales, each of which is at least $50 and all of which total $250. It's much more common for people to qualify with three mid-range shorts (+/-5,000 wds) or something like a 4k short, an 8k novelette and a 3k short. It's also common for some of the three sales to be higher than $.05/word.

15,000 words @ $.05 = $750, and that's if the sales are all at minimum spec markets. Someone who qualified with three 17k novellas would have made $2550 or so.

This is why I'm OK with a sales goal for each story, and this is why I think that while they're in the general ballpark, there's probably some wiggle room in the numbers. I guess I'd hope they might examine what an average qualifying profile looks like and adjust from there. $2k seems a bit high, but not outrageously so. I could see a grand, maybe.

Should it take 10 years? That really depends on the writer. I don't think time is a useful metric here. Some traditional members spent years - yes, sometimes more than 10 - working on getting those three sales. Some got all three in less than a calendar year. Time-wise, I think them's the breaks regardless of whether you're trad or indie.

I don't think it should be significantly harder for an indie to qualify, but I don't think it should be significantly easier, either.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> The SFWA needs to decide which writers they are going to focus on recruiting and then ask only those authors what will motivate them to apply.


That's something I was going to say; the discussion about requirements really hinges on why they want to open up to indies and who they want to join them. The answers to those questions aren't clear to me, so I'm not sure they're clear to the SFWA, either.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

KaryE said:


> First off, I have no access to hard data on qualifying member sales, but I can tell you from various other groups I belong to that it's rare for someone to qualify with the minimum of three sales, each of which is $50 and all of which total $250. It's much more common for people to qualify with three mid-range shorts (+/-5,000 wds) or something like a 4k short, an 8k novelette and a 3k short. It's also common for some of the three sales to be higher than $.05/word.


That may be true. But it won't change the reaction from the unwashed masses when they see the massive difference between what they're asking for indies vs trade-published writers. It will look like they're already treating indies as second-rate citizens before they join, and those indies will expect to be treated worse if they join.

Maybe they don't care that it will turn away many people who might otherwise have joined. As I said above, i don't know why they want to bring indies in and which indies they want to bring in.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

KaryE said:


> I am speculating wildly, here, but I would expect a collection, so long as it exceeds 40,000 words, would be counted under the guidelines for a novel. My rationale is that I think that's how SFWA would treat a single-author collection from a trad pub.


It's pretty easy for a bundle not to hit 40,000 words. Some people bundle as few as three stories, but say five at 6,000 words each. That's 30,000. SFWA gets to set their own limits of course. I hope they clarify the issue, that's all.


----------



## Eric Zawadzki (Feb 4, 2011)

Doomed Muse said:


> *snip* Basically I've suggested that the requirement be at least one published and available novel-length work of SF/fantasy/horror (over 40k words being the SFWA novel definition) that has earned at least 2,000 OR four shorter works (between 1k and 39k) of SF/fantasy/horror that have earned at least 500 each. So if those guidelines or something like them were to be adopted, I think they'd be in line with what SFWA expects from the trad published authors who qualify to join and anyone meeting them would have demonstrated they were professional and serious about writing.
> *snip*


$2k worth of fiction revenue in the genre seems like a reasonable bar to me. I see what others are saying about shorts, but perhaps the simplest would be to make the bar $2k worth of revenue in the genre period (or even $5k). Is there a reason to focus on the number and length of the works it takes to reach that threshold? I know some of the folks in WC are extremely prolific, but whether it takes a novel or a short story or twenty novels to hit the bar, the dollars speak for themselves. Someone who makes $2k+ from a single book has shown marketing and writing skill, and someone who takes many long works to hit that minimum has at least proven that they're persistent.

I recognize that modifying the existing qualification standards is outside this committee's mandate. In the long term, finding a more equal way of gauging those requesting membership will be necessary. In the short term, you're trying to create a reasonable path to membership for people who are clearly professional writers but don't have "pro sales" that meet the (outdated) definition SFWA is currently using to determine.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

Eric Zawadzki said:


> $2k worth of fiction revenue in the genre seems like a reasonable bar to me. I see what others are saying about shorts, but perhaps the simplest would be to make the bar $2k worth of revenue in the genre period (or even $5k).


But that's not the requirement for trad pub; the requirement for short fiction/trad pub is three works totaling $250+, each earning $50+.

Requiring four works at $500 each is a MUCH bigger requirement.

OK, this could impact me, because I write shorts. So keep that in mind. 

But most people who SP short fiction sell it for 99 cents. Of which they make 35-60 cents depending upon venue. Average ends up being around 40 cents for most writers, sometimes a bit lower (because most sales are via Amazon). To make $500 requires about 1250 sales, or 5000 sales total for the four stories in the suggestion given above.

That's quite a lot more sales than the 500-1000 for a novel length work. It's also harder because sales don't tend to be even across shorts - you get a few bigger sellers, and some lesser sellers. And shorts don't tend to sell - or earn - as much, either SP or TP. That's why the SFWA requirements for trad pub shorts are so much lower than the requirements for novels: shorts make much less than novels.

I get that there are concerns, like what if someone is selling copies of a novella (25k words, say) for $2.99? They'd reach the $250 fast. But that's where the pro rate (5 cents per word) comes in under the current rules. Those say each short must make at least $50, AND must have made a pro rate (which for a 25k word story is $1250). So to qualify at ALL, a 25k novella would need to have made $1250 from the publisher or magazine. And that requirement would work just fine for SP, too.

Point is, nothing needs to change.

The old requirements work just fine. Just open them to indie sales, too, and I think it'll be a lot less hassle. And a lot less drama. 

$2k from one novel, OR three shorts published, each of which earned a pro rate per word (min $50) and which collectively made $250+.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

Selling stories at professional rates to magazines is an extremely difficult task. I believe it would actually be easier to make $500 each off four self-published stories, especially when running promotions and especially if the stories were 20K or 30K in length.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

There is no doubt that, within the publishing industry, there is resistance to indies. Readers have embraced us, but not our peers. Organisations such as SFWA can help break down that industry resistance, but they can only succeed if there is a genuine desire to do so. 

If SFWA is making a genuine effort to include indie writers, then I'm sure a way will be found that is satisfactory to all. But if this is just a cynical exercise like the reviews Kirkus offers indies, then it is doomed to fail and possibly further divide an already divided community.


----------



## Dolphin (Aug 22, 2013)

KevinMcLaughlin said:


> But that's not the requirement for trad pub; the requirement for short fiction/trad pub is three works totaling $250+, each earning $50+.


LOL

I haven't really been following this thread closely, because frankly, one of the things that I find most attractive about writing is the possibility of drawing an income _without_ having to join a union, corporation, or meat market. Okay, Amazon's sort of a meat market, but _listen:_ it looks really good compared to the other work I've been doing. Post work, make more work, collect bacon if work sells. No middle men, few gatekeepers, and work offered for readers to take or leave. No negotiation. No meetings. No lasting contracts. Pants optional.

Setting that aside, I sort of nodded and shrugged when someone tossed out the $2,000 figure or whatever it was. Seems okay. Not like you're going to live off of $2,000 in lifetime earnings, and most indies will earn that within the first couple of years, so sure. That sounded totally reasonable to me until you pointed out the disparity here.

What a joke. What an absurd joke!

Here's my recommendation to the SFWA: resolve to never again discriminate-even linguistically-on the basis of publishing pedigree. Settle on objective criteria for entry, and apply them across the board. I really don't care whether you set the bar at ten copies or ten thousand copies, $10 or $10,000. I don't care whether you're selling your work as .mobi, paperback, magazine shorts, or clay tablets. If your work sells-if your work is read-you join the same club as everybody else.

Quit asking what indies want. They're humans and authors. They want what other human authors want, so start with equity and common courtesy. That just might get the job done, don't you reckon? I bet you sort that out and the rest follows effortlessly.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Dolphin said:


> LOL
> 
> I haven't really been following this thread closely, because frankly, one of the things that I find most attractive about writing is the possibility of drawing an income _without_ having to join a union, corporation, or meat market. Okay, Amazon's sort of a meat market, but _listen:_ it looks really good compared to the other work I've been doing. Post work, make more work, collect bacon if work sells. No middle men, few gatekeepers, and work offered for readers to take or leave. No negotiation. No meetings. No lasting contracts. Pants optional.
> 
> ...


Really good points.


----------



## Eric Zawadzki (Feb 4, 2011)

KevinMcLaughlin said:


> But that's not the requirement for trad pub; the requirement for short fiction/trad pub is three works totaling $250+, each earning $50+.
> 
> Requiring four works at $500 each is a MUCH bigger requirement. *snip*


I think we actually agree in principle as far as "$500 per short seems a little harsh" goes. It's probably a little easier to earn money self-publishing than by sending stories (much less novels) to a relative handful of editors who receive thousands of submissions per year/quarter/month. We're playing roulette instead of the lottery - smaller individual payouts but a much higher frequency of winning (every pair of eyes on the product page is a potential buyer). But at $0.35 per sale, you're right that it'll take awhile.

(not directed at you but at some of the puzzling responses of others

The funny thing about a democratic organization is that as it takes on voting members from new "demographics" their culture shifts to better-accommodate that new group. The most powerful way to make the SFWA understand and be more accepting of indie authors is to get involved, participate, and work within the organization to educate and make friends with folks on "the other side" (because in the end we're all on the same side). They've f'd up on this issue in the past. They're offering indies an olive branch now and asking us what they can do to make their organization more useful and welcoming to us. I guess I just don't understand all the assumptions that they've come to KBoards in bad faith.


----------

