For RWA members only

I thought I was finished talking about the RWA Conference, but three people have asked what I thought of the RITA/Golden Heart awards ceremony last Saturday evening. Yes, I was there, but it isn't that I "glossed over the debacle," as one e-mailer accused; rather, I didn't see it as as a debacle but merely a series of unfortunate calls by the organizers and a program that was best forgiven and forgotten.

Silly me. I should have known the blogosphere would be abuzz with this subject because that's what RWA members do when they're not writing books -- complain about the current RWA leadership and what those volunteers are doing to ruin the lives of romance writers and screw up the entire romance industry.

At the risk of sounding as self-absorbed as I actually am, I will reiterate that this blog is about things that interest me. And you know, I'm just not all that fascinated by the RWA dust-ups du jour. But I figure if three people go to the trouble of asking, a bunch of others must be interested in what I think about this. So here you go:

My Impressions of the Awards Ceremony and the Ensuing Outrage, Including My Dismay that even the Redoubtable Ron Hogan Saw Fit to Mention the Contretemps on His Otherwise Excellent Blog

The program was too long. The theatre was too crowded and too hot. And every ten minutes or so, the spotlights would play over the crowd and hit us right in the eyes. I was shocked that a bunch of romance writers couldn't write a better script. The jokes weren't funny and the segues were clunky--yet all were conceived by people who write wonderful books. Go figure. And while I understand that the video montages were meant to show how the world has changed in the 25 years since RWA's inception, the program would have been more appropriate and entertaining if it had focused on the history of RWA and the romance industry rather than the events that have shaped our nation and the world. (What did mention of the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment, the appointment of the first woman Supreme Court Justice, clips of President Clinton saying, "I did not have sex with that woman," and shots of the Space Shuttle Challenger--although not its subsequent explosion--have to do with writing romance?)

To those who are snarking throughout the blogosphere that the program was a heavy-handed political statement meant to appeal to right-wingers and Christians, I say, hogwash. I'm an evangelical Christian who (mostly) votes conservative, but I wasn't moved to cheer or applaud any of the video clips. Feel better now?

As for the big stink about Nora Roberts refusing at the last minute to emcee the program because she objected to its content, I understand why she bowed out, but she should have stuck with her original statement. That last bit about supporting RWA but not the current president didn't come off as particularly classy.

Friends, we're talking about a one-time show put on by volunteers for an audience of 2,100. It wasn't filmed or taped. I figured the blogosphere brouhaha would die down in another couple of days, at least I hoped it would, and then this morning I saw a post about it on Beatrice and felt trapped into answering the challenge of the three individuals who had e-mailed me yesterday.

If you non-RWA members don't understand any of this, don't worry; this is not about curing cancer or lowering the price of oil. It's not even about--as it should be--writing romance. It's just another day at RWA. We creative types must always have something to argue about.