Is the MWA Going Too Far With Its Self-Published Definitions?

Back in 2006, Mystery Writers of America added an extra codicil for potential Edgar Award submissions. In order to be considered, "all works submitted for consideration must meet the requirements for active membership status as described in the membership guidelines." Also, the new guidelines state that "all publishers submitting work must be on MWA's approved publisher list or otherwise qualify to be added to that list." At face value, the changes make sense - streamlining the submission requirements so that only those meeting the active membership requirement status qualify cuts down on judges' workload, reduces a lot of the so-called chaff and concentrates MWA's efforts on properly published books.

But for the 2008 Edgar Awards, it looks as if these rules will be enforced more rigidly than ever before - and in doing so, takes out of the running books and short stories that should, at least, have a chance to be considered.

The belt-tightening was first brought to my attention when I heard (and which the author confirmed by email) that SONGS OF INNOCENCE by Richard Aleas, the open pseudonym of Charles Ardai, did not qualify for consideration for the Best Paperback Original category. Ardai won the Best Short Story Edgar Award last year for "The Home Front," published in the anthology TILL DEATH DO US PART. His previous novel, LITTLE GIRL LOST (whose first edition was published by Five Star in hardcover), was nominated in the Best First Novel category. And Ardai's co-owned imprint (with Max Phillips) and the books' publisher, Hard Case Crime, has had other titles nominated for various Edgar Awards, and is deemed by MWA to be an approved publisher whose 2007 original titles may be considered for various awards categories.

But SONGS OF INNOCENCE is ineligible because it runs afoul of current interpretations as set forth by MWA:

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

Since Hard Case Crime clearly states that "the line is published as a collaboration between Winterfall LLC and Dorchester Publishing" - the latter which is Ardai's company - then any books it publishes by its owners, which includes SONGS OF INNOCENCE, can't qualify. "This decision is no reflection whatsoever on the quality of the book, which many of us on the committee have read and enjoyed," said MWA Awards Chair Lee Goldberg when I contacted him about Ardai's qualification status by email. "In fact, the point of our guidelines is to assure that decisions about Edgar eligibility are made regardless of a work's perceived quality (or lack thereof) or the popularity (or lack thereof) of the author."

Had this interpretation been in place a few years ago, then K.J.A. Wishnia's debut novel 23 SHADES OF BLACK, which was self-published before being picked up by St. Martin's Press, would never have been nominated for an Edgar Award. Other self-published books picked up by major houses would never have a chance for the Edgar because their first (self) publication makes them ineligible, and second ("legitimate") publication makes them ineligible on the grounds that this is a reprint.

Of course, one might argue, so few self-published novels have any literary merit that refusing them entry into award consideration doesn't matter much, and disqualifications such as Ardai's are lamentable exceptions. Except that there's another, potentially more troubling extension of MWA's qualification policy: anthologies containing stories by those who edit them.

If Ardai is disqualified because his novel, which garnered him an advance against royalties, was published by an imprint he co-owns (in cooperation with an approved publisher paying out advances against royalties to several authors other than Ardai) then so too are any anthology editors who made the decision to include one of their stories in said anthology. In other words, every "City Noir" anthology published by Akashic in 2007 cannot submit stories written by said anthologies' editors for consideration in the Short Story category. Which knocks out the following stories:

Olsen, E.J., "SNOW ANGEL" - DETROIT NOIR (edited by Olsen and John Hacking)

Obejas, Achy, "ZENZIZENZIC" - HAVANA NOIR (edited by Obejas)

Rozan, S.J., "HOTHOUSE" - BRONX NOIR (edited by Rozan)

Hamilton, Denise, "MIDNIGHT IN SILICON VALLEY" - LA NOIR (edited by Hamilton)

Spiegelman, Peter, "FIVE DAYS AT THE SUNSET" - WALL STREET NOIR (edited by Spiegelman)

Smith, Julie, "LOOT" - NEW ORLEANS NOIR (edited by Smith)

Not to mention that these other stories are now disqualified from consideration:

Hellmann, Libby Fischer, "YOUR SWEET MAN" - CHICAGO BLUES (edited by Hellmann)

Paretsky, Sara, "A FAMILY SUNDAY IN THE PARK" - SISTERS ON THE CASE (edited by Paretsky)

Even though each and every story I've listed currently appears on the submission list for the Short Story category, though they may not by the time the November 30 deadline hits. Now, Edgar Award consideration is likely not high on the list of priorities for anthology editors, but it might make them, and potential publishers, take pause - especially if having said editors write a story was one of the selling points.

Ultimately, the qualification rules and reinterpretations is a way for MWA to stem the ever-increasing flow of submissions. But I can't help but wonder if there's an alternate solution out there, a way for the peer-reviewing judges to assert some means of control over the categories they judge. Why not, like the Booker Prize, have books that can qualify under a "judges' choice" category where the books are called in or specifically requested? Why not have a quota that allows books of "exceptional literary merit" - whatever that is deemed to be - to qualify? Or why not try an idea I haven't thought of yet? Because in the end, the Edgar Awards are about the best books of a given year, and there should be a way to make sure every book that merits inclusion is, in fact, included for consideration.

UPDATE: With regards to the extended comparison I made between Ardai's situation and anthologies of editors published by MWA-approved houses such as Akashic, a clarification is in order: these are considered to be "guest-edited," and so are, in fact, eligible for Edgar consideration.

Comments

[Jim Winter]

I wouldn't have so much trouble with the new guidelines if there wasn't so much blatant hysteria behind them. (Sounds like both sides of the fanfic debate.) And Charles Ardai's exclusion is just monumentally absurd.

[Levi Stahl]

That's too bad, since Songs of Innocence was one of the best crime novels I read this year.

[David J. Montgomery]

No matter what criteria you set, you're going to eliminate some number of books -- and that opens up the possibility that you will eliminate books of merit.

It seems to me that the question isn't whether or not Ardai's book is any good. (I think Charles is a fine writer.) It's whether or not the criteria are reasonable.

They strike me as being a good set of rules, even if they inevitably exclude a handful of good books.

[Lee Goldberg]

You wrote: "But LITTLE GIRL LOST is ineligible because it runs afoul of current interpretations as set forth by MWA"

I think you mean SONGS OF INNOCENCE.

LITTLE GIRL LOST was eligible then, and would be now, because it was originally published by Five Star, not Hard Case Crime, which did the paperback reprint.

Your quote from me, while accurate, doesn't do much to explain our decision. So here is the entire response I gave to your question:
-----------------
Sarah,

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

>

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

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

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

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

If you have any more questions, please let me know.

Lee

[I.J.Parker]

It seems to me that the choice lies in the hands of the authors. If inclusion in the Edgars matters to them, then they should not self-publish those works they wish submitted for judging.

[ed]

Whatever the intentions, in effect, Lee, you ARE suggesting that Hard Case Crime is a vanity press by holding them up to this draconian standard. As a professional critic who frequently receives all manner of self-published dreck in the mail, I can understand the efforts to filter out the wheat from the chaff -- a process as readily applied to the books from "legitimate" publishers. To prohibit self-published titles from the Edgars is tantamount to telling Walt Whitman, L. Frank Baum, Alexander Dumas, Thomas Hardy and James Joyce (and that's just off the top of my head) to go fuck themselves. It does emerging talent a disservice. And when applied to venerable figures like Charles Ardai, who you fail to note also has a vested LITERARY interest in what he publishes, it demonstrates that the MWA is about as flexible to publishing realities as a humorless schoolmarm's ruler.

This is the kind of disastrous enforcement of the law that I expect from staid government officials, not an organization that is -- I quote from the MWA's About page -- dedicated to "promoting higher regard for crime writing and recognition and respect for those who write within the genre." I guess that the "recognition and respect" only applies to those writers who don't fall within these prohibitive austerity.

[Charles Ardai]

I appreciate your covering this issue, Sarah -- I think the discussion of MWA's decision is healthy for the organization, whatever the outcome.

Also, for the record, I want everyone to know that I am not trying to change MWA's mind about its decision. As I've told Lee, I consider the matter closed. MWA is free to establish any rules it wishes for its awards, and to enforce them in any way it wishes.

But for the benefit of all authors (not just my own benefit), I would prefer that the organization establish better rather than worse rules and enforce them in more rather than less sensible ways. And I question the value of this particular rule and the suitability of its enforcement in this particular case.

I understand completely why self-published books (however you might define "self published") shouldn't be accepted as qualification for becoming an active member of MWA; if they were, anyone could buy himself an active membership for the cost of a self-publishing contract, because membership applications are not evaluated for quality by a panel of judges. But submissions for the Edgar Awards *are* evaluated for quality -- so there is no danger of someone "buying himself" an Edgar Award.

Given that there is no danger of a bad self-published title winning an Edgar, the question I'd pose is what benefit there is to the organization from categorically banning self-published titles from consideration for the award. Yes, I suppose it saves the judges some time, but only a modest amount; I've been an Edgar judge myself, we did receive some self-published submissions at the time (this was back in '98, before the new rule), and it took precious little time to determine that a bad self-published book was nowhere near award caliber and set it aside. Similarly, it took precious little time to determine that a bad *non*-self-published book was nowhere near award caliber, and in fact most submissions from legitimate publishers fell into this category. This left a small handful of really exceptional books to read carefully and consider seriously, and if that handful had been expanded by one or two really exceptional self-published books I -- speaking then as an Edgar judge and now as an active MWA member for half my life -- would have been delighted to discover and consider them. If you can find a diamond in a coal heap, isn't that a good thing? Why should a judge be forced to ignore the diamond simply because it's surrounded by such a vast quantity of coal?

I can't help the feeling that the reason for banning all self-published titles from consideration has less to do with a rational decision to save the judges' time or to prevent some hypothetical risk of a bad book somehow winning the Edgar than with a knee-jerk emotional reaction spurred by a sense that self-published books are not just generally of poor quality (which is true) but somehow inherently inferior, contemptible, and in some way threatening to the established order. I can't prove that this feeling is correct -- and Lee can tell us it's not if he believes it's not -- but as I say, I can't help having that feeling. And it's not a feeling I like. That's not the sort of attitude I'd be proud for an organization of which I am a member to hold. There are bad self-published books and (very rarely) excellent ones; there are bad non-self-published books and (not quite as rarely, but still pretty rarely) excellent ones; and I believe the purpose of the Edgar Awards should be to recognize excellence in the field of crime writing, period -- not to establish artificial barriers that result in judges being forbidden to recognize some works in spite of their merit.

As for the application of the "no self-published books" rule in this particular case, I'd only point out that the relationship between Dorchester Publishing and my company, Winterfall LLC, is not anything like the relationship between an author who goes to iUniverse or Lulu and such enterprises. Dorchester is a legitimate and respected publisher which pays advances and royalties in the customary fashion; never charges any author any amount of money for printing, distribution, sales, marketing, or anything else; prints tens of thousands of copies of each book and distributes them to hundreds (possibly more than a thousand, I'm not sure) retail stores; and in every way carries out its business in the manner of a conventional publishing company. And everything I just described is as true of every Hard Case Crime book Dorchester publishes as it is for the other 200+ titles they publish under other imprints each year. Similarly, it was as true for SONGS OF INNOCENCE as for every other Hard Case Crime title. I never paid (and my company never paid), one penny to Dorchester (or anyone else) for publishing, marketing or distributing this book; Dorchester paid an advance and once the book has earned out will pay royalties; Dorchester even has approval rights over every book I select for the line, which means that I am not free to just publish whatever I want (and they reviewed and approved SONGS OF INNOCENCE prior to publication in exactly the same way they review and approve all our other titles). And for the record, I don't own any piece of Dorchester Publishing, am not employed by Dorchester Publishing, am not related to anyone at Dorchester Publishing, and have no financial interest in Dorchester Publishing. Dorchester is simply one of the dozen or so publishers to whom I pitched my series of books back in 2003; they made an offer and I accepted it, as any author might.

It would be foolish, of course, for me to argue that I am not, in the public's eye, the "publisher" of Hard Case Crime (and the editor of the line and the face and voice of the line -- I'm proud to play these roles). But I think there is a clear and meaningful difference between the facts of this case and the case of someone who goes to iUniverse and pays $1000 to print up 100 copies of his book, which then sit in his closet unless he takes it on himself to peddle them to bookstores or give them to friends and family. Lee talks about being accused of favoritism if MWA were to allow this book to be the only "self-published" book to be eligible -- but what of the opposite complaint, given that it is (I believe) the only book to be published by a publisher on MWA's approved list, in the conventional advance-and-royalties fashion, with the author paying no part of printing or distribution or sales/marketing costs, to be deemed *ineligible*?

Why does this matter to anyone other than me? Sarah correctly identified the similarity between my relationship with Dorchester (author of one original novel in a series of novels I sold them) and the relationship the editor of an anthology has to his or her publisher (if he or she has written one of the stories in the book and solicited, chosen, purchased, and edited the rest). Is it fair that all the stories Sarah lists be banned from consideration for the Edgar? I say no. But based on what Lee has told me in the course of our discussions, they will be. (And if they're not, then I *really* don't understand how MWA can justify deeming SONGS OF INNOCENCE ineligible, since it's no more "self published" than those stories are.)

My recommendation (and I apologize to one and all for taking so long to arrive at it) is simple: Let the Edgar judges do what they're chosen to do -- judge. Look at the entire range of material published in the genre over the course of the year and pick the examples they feel are the most accomplished and meritorious. Any rule that forces a judge to say, "I loved this story, it's the best one I read all year, but I'm prevented from giving it the award it deserves because of this rule that says I can't" is a bad rule and deserves to be changed.

All that being said, I want to make it clear that I am not saying I think SONGS OF INNOCENCE deserved to win the Edgar -- I'm only saying that it deserved to be considered. If I were on the panel myself, I'd be voting for Megan Abbott's QUEENPIN.

[dick adler]

If I were an actual dues-paying MWA member, I'd resign in a minute. SONGS OF INNOCENCE is one of the five best mysteries of 2007.

[JDRhoades]

David: can any rule that "inevitably excludes good books" be a "good rule"?

[David J. Montgomery]

But won't any rule exclude some books? And if you're excluding something, you're accepting the possibility that you're excluding something good.

Maybe the way to go is to be totally inclusive. But that seems like going too far in the other direction. It would be strange to accept the possibility of having an Edgar winner for Best Novel whose author wasn't eligible to join the MWA.

[Charles Ardai]

> It would be strange to accept
> the possibility of having an
> Edgar winner for Best Novel
> whose author wasn't eligible
> to join the MWA.

I don't see why, given that being a member of MWA is not a requirement for the Edgar.

And of course that possibility would be meaningless in the case of an author who already was a member of the MWA.

For example, let's say that Lawrence Block or Donald Westlake decided to self-publish his next book, for whatever reason. And let's imagine that it was an outstanding book. What good reason could there possibly be for saying that that book, written not only by an MWA member but by an MWA grandmaster and 3- or 4-time Edgar winner, should not be eligible for the Edgar? I'm not saying that MWA doesn't have the right to establish such a rule -- but what possible purpose could it serve? Or to think about it another way, if it's necessary to have a rule at all, shouldn't it be possible to design one that doesn't needlessly and clumsily rule out cases most reasonable people would agree it's absurd to rule out?

[JDRhoades]

"if you're excluding something, you're accepting the possibility that you're excluding something good."

But when the rule makes it, as you put it, "inevitable" then maybe the rule needs tweaking.

[Jon Jordan]

I don't understand the logic of Anthology editors not being able to be nominated. They do work for hire basically for the publisher and are not an owner or employee of the publisher.
Since they are not th epublisher they are not self publishing, so all those stories would in fact be allowed.

[Charles Ardai]

I can't speak for MWA, of course, but my understanding is that any editor who is seen as having selected his or her own material to be published is deemed to be "self publishing," and that this a) applies to short stories as well as to novels and b) doesn't distinguish between cases where the editor is employed by the publishing company and cases where he or she merely has a contractual relationship with the publishing company. (By way of example, Lee responded to some thought experiments I posed by stating that "If Otto Penzler wrote a book of his own and published it under his imprint at Harcourt, it would be ineligible for Edgar consideration" and "If the editor of Ellery Queen published her own short stories in the magazine, they would be ineligible for Edgar consideration." The editor of Ellery Queen is employed by the company that publishes Ellery Queen; Otto Penzler is not employed by Harcourt, he merely (I believe) has a contractual relationship with them, much as I do with Dorchester, and much as an anthologist does with the company that publishes his or her anthology.)

I agree with you that it's wrong for an anthology editor to be disqualified because she published her own story, but then I also feel it's wrong for a magazine editor to be disqualified for the same reason, or for the editor of an imprint (whether Otto, me, or someone else, and whether acting as employee or independent "packager") to be disqualified for that reason. The work is what it is and should be judged on merit alone. Unfortunately, that is not the position MWA is taking. The key element in MWA's analysis, as far as I can tell, appears to be whether the author of a work and the person who selects the work for publication (and edits it, etc.) is the same person -- and in the case of an anthologist choosing to publish his or her own story, the answer is yes.

[Lee Goldberg]

Speaking only for myself, and not the MWA, I think Sarah's suggestions would turn the Edgars into a popularity contest. In her view, whoever gets the best reviews, or is the genre darling of the moment, deserves special attention...others don't.

Charles' hypothetical example about Block or Westlake self-publishing, and why he believes it would be wrong for those titles not to be eligible, only underscores my point. A turn in that direction would, I believe, be a mistake for the MWA and the Edgars.

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

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

Contrary to Charles, I don't think there is anything "needlessly clumsy" about the rules at all. They are straight-forward and clear. To anyone reading those rules, Charles' obviously meets the MWA's definition of a self-published author.

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

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

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

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

Lee

[Lee Goldberg]

Jon,

You are correct and I was mistaken in the emails I traded with Sarah on the subject. The anthologies you are talking about are guest-edited which is very different than, say, if you decided to include a story of your own in a Crimespree anthology. Your story would be ineligible. The same would apply to, say, Janet Hutchings if she put together an EQMM anthology and included a story of her own.

Historically, since the self-pubbed rule went into effect in 2006, those stories by guest editors in anthologies like the ones Sarah mentions have always been eligible because the writers did not work for the company in any capacity. They were invited to create the edition. It’s the same as the MWA anthologies, where the publications committee and the board choose the guest editors and they in turn, pick 10 people and the rest are by blind submission. The editors are hired with the expectation that they will also provide a story. They are hired as writer and editor. They don't have any connection to the publishing company unlike, say, Charles Ardai, who is editor, publisher and co-owner of the imprint that published his book.

Lee

[Charles Ardai]

Thanks for the clarifications, Lee -- I find them helpful, and I'm sure others will as well. For what it's worth, though, I think that the fact that clarifications are needed is an indication that the rules are not, in fact, "straightforward and clear." Of course, to be fair, rules always tend to be clearer in the minds of the people who come up with them than in the minds of the people who are subject to them.

Note also that a rule can be objective and even-handed but still a bad rule -- pointing out that I and Donald Westlake and Lawrence Block could all equally be denied recognition no matter how good the books we write is a pretty perverse way of demonstrating "fairness."

And saying (here I paraphrase) "The only reason Sarah is upset is because we declared a good book ineligible; if we'd declared a bad one ineligible she wouldn't mind," is a bit like saying "The only reason people called our trial a miscarriage of justice is because we jailed an innocent man; if we'd jailed a guilty one, this wouldn't be an issue for them."

[Lee Goldberg]

Charles,

Speaking for myself and not the MWA, I agree with you that the rule needs some clarification in regards to how it applies to editors of short story anthologies. But I don't think there's any lack of clarity as to how the rule applies to publishers and authors like you.

The rule state, in part:

"Among (but not all of) the situations defined as "self-published or cooperatively published" are [...] those published by privately held publishing companies with whom the writer has a familial or personal relationship beyond simply author and publisher; those published by companies or imprints that do not publish other authors; those published by publishing companies in which the writer has a financial interest"

You created Hard Case Crime with Max Phillips.
You are the editor and publisher of Hard Case Crime.
You select and edit the books published by Hard Case Crime.
You publish the books, through your company Winterfall LLC, "in collaboration with Dorchester."
You wrote a book.
You edited and published your book through Hard Case Crime, a company you created, own, and manage.

Given those undisputed facts, I think it's clear to anyone reading our rules that you meet the MWA's definition of a self-published author. I know you to be a very smart man, so I believe it's just as clear to you as well. We may disagree about whether or not the rule is necessary, but it's hardly "clumsy" or confusing in regards to how it applies to you and your book.

On a seperate note, I find it revealing that you immediately assume that the book in my hypothetic situation sucks because it came from PublishAmerica or Lulu.

What I wrote was:

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

You interpreted that to mean:

"The only reason Sarah is upset is because we declared a good book ineligible; if we'd declared a bad one ineligible she wouldn't mind."

You will note that *I* didn't make any value judgment about the PublishAmerica book simply because it was from PublishAmerica. But you did.

I simply said that I believe that Sarah wouldn't be upset if we were talking about book being ruled ineligible if it was from a PublishAmerica author as opposed to you. I stand by that.

Her anger, and that of others here, isn't so much about our rule. It's about you, an admired author and respected publisher. They like you and your book. So do I.

They are upset that your book won't have a chance to compete for our genre's highest honor. I think it's a shame, too.

But your book doesn't meet the MWA's criteria for eligibility. There are some movies I really liked that I think deserve to be considered for an Oscar, but they don't meet the Academy's criteria. Those are the breaks. The self-publishing rule has been in effect since 2006. It's not a secret. My suggestion is that next time you write a book, submit the manuscript to a publishing company don't own and you won't have this problem ever again.

I think each of your posts, and the arguments in them, prove my point about the slippery slope we'd create if we allowed exceptions to our self-published rule.

The alternative you suggest, to allow books like yours in, is to scrap the self-published restriction altogether. We will have to agree to disagree on that point. I think the self-published rule is a good one for the MWA and for the Edgars.

Lee

[Brian Thornton]

I'm not only a proud member of MWA, I'm on the national board. And I have to say for the record that Lee Goldberg and I have disagreed frequently and publicly over any number of questions put to the national board during our mutual tenure on same.

However, he absolutely represents not just my take, but that of a solid majority of the national board with regard to this matter. Furthermore he has artfully and tactfully defended this position in the face of some pretty emotional criticism. I commend him for that.

I also join him in praising Charles Ardai for the many terrific things he's done in and for mystery publishing, including having the good sense to publish guys like Al Guthrie (talk about a no-brainer!), and giving so many classic works by authors such as Lawrence Block back to us. Personally, I just wish he'd shopped SONGS OF INNOCENCE to some other publisher so that the organization could, in good conscience, consider it.

Charles, I wish you continued success both with your own writing and in your helming of HCC. And I heartily agree with your comment about Megan Abbott.

All the Best-

Brian

[tod goldberg]

The Booker Prize wouldn't allow for Charles' book either, Sarah -- it says so in it's rules: "d. Self published books are not eligible where the author is the publisher or where a company which has been specifically setup to publish that book." (http://www.themanbookerprize.com/prize/about/rules-and-entry). Even by judges choice, it wouldn't qualify.

And while Lee clarified the point about the anthologies, I'm of the belief that if you include yourself in an anthology that you're editing, the right thing to do would be to not nominate yourself (though in the case of the Akashic books, I'd guess that the publisher nominated the works, though of course anyone can nominate themselves for an Edgar simply by filling out the form and sending it in...and in full disclosure, I'm in the upcoming Las Vegas Noir and expect that I'll be hoping to be nominated by somebody). I doubt the rules the MWA has set out will give any major publisher any pause at all in terms of anthologies because it's not as if an edgar winning story in an anthology suddenly makes the anthology skyrocket to the top of the bestseller lists. In fact, by the time the awards are given out, most of the books are already off the shelves. The edgar doesn't sell books retroactively as well as many of the major prizes, though it certainly helps with the next book.

But I think the biggest thing that has surprised me by this debate and continues to -- and of course I'm Lee's brother, so I'm used to being surprised by the debates he's in -- is how few traditionally published authors have complained about this exclusion of self-published works, apart from the book Charles published. It's true that Charles is in an odd and particular position -- and really, who knows if his book would have been a finalist anyway? it's a presumption that is hard to take in light of many curious picks over the years -- but then what about every single other author who founds his own press who is in the same boat but who doesn't have the reputation Charles has? i don't see people standing up and announcing they'd renounce their mythical mwa memberships because Brian Rouff, a fine crime writer I know in Las Vegas who has self-published three of his own books on his own press isn't eligible. You make a special case for one person because you like his work, you have to make that case for everyone or else you risk turning the Edgars into one of those convention awards given out to the author who bought the most drinks at the bar.

[Sarah]

Thanks for the clarifications, Lee - and for the record, while Ardai's situation is what got my attention, I was more concerned on the anthology front, which struck me as more a blanket case that needed further addressing.

But here's another hypothetical: in the music industry we're starting to see so-called "360" deals where the artist cedes control of all facets of his or her album/merch/touring to one company. If such a situation were to be feasible on the books front, would that pose a problem under current MWA rules?

[ed]

The Booker Prize also won't allow for Dave Eggers's WHAT IS THE WHAT -- in which the author was also the publisher. But that didn't stop the National Book Critics Circle from nominating it last year for Best Fiction.

[Gerald So]

As I'm not an MWA member, I won't go into whether the self-published rule is good or bad, but no one can deny that rules are necessary and that any rule excludes some cases.

As an outsider, it seems to me one of the issues the organization is tackling is the appearance of impropriety. Reading the self-published rule as outlined by Lee, it does appear to apply to Charles. As Charles wrote, he is the public face of Hard Case Crime as well as the editor of the line.

Like many others here, I enjoyed SONGS OF INNOCENCE. Whatever its rules, there will always be questions as to whether an organization is recognizing the true best of a field. At least in Charles's case I'm gratified the MWA recognized his writing talent with his Edgar win for "The Home Front".

[Richard S. Wheeler]

This has been a thoughtful and valuable discussion. I wish to add this cautionary comment. Western Writers of America, once a solidly professional guild almost as old as MWA, is now largely unmoored from American publishing, and its Spur Award winners are not even noted by the trade journals. What happened? Years ago, WWA began skirting its own bylaws regarding professional qualifications for membership, and the result is a largely amateur organization best described as a western hobbyist society. That is the slippery slope that MWA needs to avoid at all costs, in all ways, at all times.

[JDRhoades]

Stating that the rule would exclude Charles Ardai's book begs the question of whether the rule *as written* is reasonable. So does the argument that "if you don't like the rule, follow it next time."
Pointing out that other organizations also exclude good books or movies begs the question of whether their rules are reasonable as well.
It's not necessary to accept "all self published books for consideration" to mitigate the unfairness here. All it would take would be an acknowledgment that there is a difference between someone who pays a third party to publish their book through PublishAmerica or some outfit like that and someone like Charles Ardai who founded their own company, publishes other authors, and who has written a book that that company publishes as well. Troy Cook's company would be eligible under this rule as well, so long as it published more than must Cook's work. Once you got over the hurdle of eligibility, of course, the books would still have to be considered on their merits.

Charles Ardai is an innovator. He didn't see the books he liked being published by the big houses, so he went out and made his own publishing company to publish the books he wanted to read and wanted others to read. More importantly, he made a success of it. The old punk rocker in me can't help but be impressed by the DIY spirit of that. We need more diversity in publishing. More and more publishing decisions are being consolidated into the hands of fewer and fewer people, and that is not a good thing for any of us. New, small outfits like Hard Case and Bleak House are one way to break the jam.

I just hate to see Charles' excellent work penalized because he's published by a company that everyone acknowledges puts out great work, but which he founded, so "tough beans, Charlie. You're a vanity publisher as far as we're concerned."

Again, there is a distinction between that type of publishing and PublishAmerica or whatever. It's an easy distinction to make, and the MWA is excluding excellent work by lumping Ardai and people like him in with the POD crowd. I submit that a rule that excludes excellent work from Award consideration is a rule that needs to be re-examined.

And yes, I'm an MWA member. My only "agenda" is recognition of good books.