Apparently I Didn't Get The Memo

WARNING: SOAPBOX AND FOAMING AT THE MOUTH IS BELOW THIS LINE.

****************************************

My rants are far and few. I'm pretty much the same in real life. Not many things irritate me. If they do I work through them and move on. But they are times when things just creep under my skin and it takes a lot more effort to get past them. And they are other times when things are not meant to get past. I have to make hard decisions. I have to use the words I love so much, get on my soapbox and see if I can make some changes.


What has this snarky nerd choosing her words very, very carefully?

"Career focused. Career, meaning earning money through this thing we do. Being paid for our work. If we're not being paid a minimal amount for our work--for now, at least--it is not a career."


For the person who wrote these words I take offense that you can say what I do is not a career. What others do if they are not being paid a minimal amount is not a career. I would very much like you to define minimal amount so that you can complete your job of insulting a good percentage of your members.

Here is my definition of career that Miriam-Webster agrees with:

Career: a profession for which one trains and which is undertaken as a permanent calling.

I also find it interesting you no longer want an attitude of Us vs. Them, but the words you've written (the opinion you are trying to stuff down my throat through your presidency) contradicts what you hope to change for your organization. It amazes me how you take offense to the term bodice ripper, but being seen as an author who isn't career focused isn't supposed to annoy me. *This is me smiling sweetly*

I'm also supposed to support and get behind you after you've just insulted my work as a whole, due to who I'm published with and my undefined minimal amount. Isn't that the same mind set you poo-pooed publishers for having--thinking of the money. As a member who wants to be a part of the THEM crowd how am I supposed to get behind ideas that stray away from your internal purpose of ensuring that author's talents are nurtured and valued on their work product.

So what do you want? Authors to understand this is a business and the mighty dollar rules all or do you want to nurture?

Frankly, I'll pass on any hug you want to give me.

I will also like to point out the business model you've built your argument on has very shoddy foundation.


"We get letters from those who explain their royalty rate is so much higher that an advance is unnecessary. And that may work for the tiny percentage who benefit from that set-up. Who benefits most from this equation, however, is the publisher who is taking no financial risk, and, therefore, has very little incentive, to promote the author."

I know you were trying your hardest not to say e-presses, but all your little "quotations" insinuated who you were talking about. Kind of like Sarah Palin's winks that were not very affective when trying to get a point across. You're "different path" and "different business model" fools no one.


If I am wrong, correct me. What publishers are you lumping together that don't lead a path full of career-focus?

Now, if I didn't take offense to all of the above, this would have sent me into a conniption.


"No one is saying if you do sell to them you are not published."

Really? Are we reading the same guidelines? The same contest rules? For one contest I am in fact published. For another I'm not published enough. Do your words have to be blatant for it to be construed that you are saying don't publisher with "different path" presses.

If I'd known back in January* before I paid my $75 hard earned money* that I would be told I wasn't career-focused, I might have made a different decision. Is this the kind of Presidency us members should look forward to? It feels like the Bush Administration. And, boy there were a lot of folks happy at the end of his rein of terror.

/rant

Agree? Disagree? I'm an idiot and my career is over? Wait a minute--I really don't have one.