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

[Randy Scotts]

Has anyone considered the irony that everyone is talking about weeding out bad work and here is Lee Goldberg making policy? Someone who routinely puts down readers, producers, and publishers in his blog ... who writes novelizations of second-rate tv shows ... and whose own books are published by a company that works with a packager to sell almost exclusively to libraries.

[tod goldberg]

To be fair, Randy, only Diagnois Murder was second-rate. Monk is pretty good.

[JDRhoades]

Randy: I cant' recall when Lee has "put down readers, producers, and publishers". I've seen some quite valid criticisms of producer's positions during the writers' strike, but I don't tend to regard those as "put downs.' As for readers and publishers...nope, not coming up with anything. Can you provide some actual examples?

Tod: Heh. Monk rulez.

[John McAuley]

I don't know Lee Goldberg personally, [although I am a regular reader of his blog and occasionally posted comments on it several years ago,] but calling his work "..second rate.." really doesn't address the issue at hand here.

I believe that rules are rules, but, like laws, they should serve us, not the other way around. And I can't help but wonder if server and servee haven't gotten a bit turned around on this issue. [Ok, obviously I ain't a professional writer.] After reading all the comments, especially those dealing with Ardai's relationship with Dorchester, I hope that the MWA does some more tweaking so that Ardai and writers in a similar situation are not excluded from consideration for awards.

[ A bit more disclosure: I'm a big fan of the H.C.C. imprint and Goldberg's T.M.W.T.I.O.B. was one of my favorite reads last year. IMHO the only thing "second rate" about it was the cover.]
John McAuley

[Elaine Flinn]

Uh, Randy? Lee Goldberg didn't 'make the policy' - the MWA board makes the decisions, not an individual. I think you've done both Lee and yourself a diservice by dismissing his work - which isn't the issue here.

And shelving varies at every store - particularly the chains - so don't confuse the issue with what goes where - or what's literature, or not. It's not a matter of quality - or genre - just clerks that are looking for space - or can't tell the difference. Or could care less.

[The PODler]

When was the last time that mystery writer won the Nobel for literature? I don't know anything about mystery? Please.

[JDRhoades]

No, PODler, you really don't know anything about mystery. Or about much of anything else, apparently, if you assume that the Nobel is the only measure of quality.

Maybe you'd be happier on ihaveahugestickupmyass.com.

[Charles Ardai]

> Maybe you'd be happier on ihaveahugestickupmyass.com.

I *knew* I should have reserved that domain name! What sort of Internet maven am I if I let that one get away?

> When was the last time that mystery writer
> won the Nobel for literature?

Examples of Nobel Prize winners who occasionally wrote crime fiction include William Faulkner (who also won 2nd place in Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine's annual contest for crime fiction in 1946), Ernest Hemingway ("The Killers"), John Steinbeck (OF MICE AND MEN is a classic noir novel, ending with -- spoiler alert! -- one of the most moving depictions of a murder in all modern literature), and Albert Camus (whose classic novel about an alienated killer, L'ETRANGER, was, he said, directly inspired by the crime fiction of James M. Cain). Among non-Nobel laureates of high literary reputation, you can cite examples ranging from Dickens (OLIVER TWIST, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD) and Poe through Bernard Malamud (THE ASSISTANT), Graham Greene (too many to name), Madison Smartt Bell (STRAIGHT CUT), and Paul Auster (THE NEW YORK TRILOGY, THE MUSIC OF CHANCE, LEVIATHAN).

And anyone who has read a wide variety of crime fiction knows first-hand that the genre runs the gamut from light entertainment to serious literary work of high quality.

But why am I defending mystery fiction against the slagging of a provocateur? Heaven save me from allies and defenders such as he.

[Sandra Ruttan]

"And shelving varies at every store - particularly the chains - so don't confuse the issue with what goes where - or what's literature, or not. It's not a matter of quality - or genre - just clerks that are looking for space - or can't tell the difference. Or could care less."

Respectfully Elaine, in two Canadian provinces, including the third and fourth largest cities in this country, those shelving practices are absolutely consistent as a matter of practice. My education came when we were searching for a specific book some years ago, and couldn't find it although the computer said it was in stock. Staff at the time explained shelving decisions are determined centrally and all the stores are expected to follow suit, and shelve according to how the book is classified by the company.

A practice that may have changed since the I/C merger, although I see no evidence of that in the stores I frequent in Alberta and BC. The specific proof is that only certain works by Pelecanos and Lippman are shelved in fiction and literature - primarily standalone titles - while Laura's series remains firmly shelved in mystery. I realize it's not the main topic here, but the decisions for classification are based on perceived marketability. A book shelved in fiction and literature is considered to have a wider readership potential than a book shelved in mystery (much to my dismay, as I'm proud to write in the genre).

[ed]

A small sample from Lee Goldberg's MR. MONK AND THE TWO ASSISTANTS:

"Captain Leland Stottlemeyer's theory on the footprints was that the victim must have delivered a blow in self-defense that left his attacker reeling and dizzy.

"Lieutenant Randy Disher, the captain's right-hand man, was checking area hospitals for anyone who might have come in with a head wound.

"I've seen Monk solve a homicide within a few minutes of arriving at the crime scene. But this case had too many suspects and too few clues. The investigation was making Monk feel even more nuts than usual."

This is hardly "first-rate" stuff. I don't even know how that first sentence escaped a copy editor's desk. "A blow in self-defense?" "Left his attacker reeling and dizzy?" This cliche-ridden nonsense is insulting to a reader's intelligence.

Did Monk solve one homicide within minutes of arriving? Or was he in the practice of doing this multiple times?

Lieutenant Randy Disher is the captain's right-hand man? Really? No shit? Because I figure that since Disher's standing right next to the captain and he ISN'T a captain, maybe he might have some servile position. But aside from this, the readers already know he's the right-hand man because Jason Gray-Stanford plays Disher on the goddam television show. So either Goldberg really thinks his readers are morons or he just can't write.

If I DIDN'T see Lee Goldberg's name on this, I'd think that this purple prose was from some vanity press.

[JDRhoades]

Ed, randy: I assume you're attacking Lee personally because you can't hold your own in this argument. Please, just get out of the way and let the grownups have their discussion.

I disagree with Lee on this, but you guys are just being dickheads, and that is not helping.

[Elaine Flinn]

No offense meant, Sandra. :) Apparently Canadian book stores pay better attention to their shelving then they do here in the colonies. How lucky for you to be able to find what you want - and where it should be. We're not always so lucky 'down here.'

And where is Sarah with all this conversation? No comments to add? :)

[Dave White]

Seriously, I really think this argument is ridiculous. We all know the Devils are better than the Rangers and it's been that way for years. No matter what has gone on with free agent signings it will continue to be that way...

Oh... crap.. .wrong blog.

[stevemosby]

I'm still not clear why any self-published work is ineligible to be considered. It should simply be about quality? In many other artistic fields - film, for example, or music - a person who wrote, produced, financed, designed, marketed and distributed their own material would receive a measure of respect on those grounds alone.

Obviously, 'self-published' covers a lot of ground in fiction - but would opening the award up *really* create that much extra work? If the perception of such widepsread low quality is correct then surely you'd know within a page or two whether a particular book was good enough to consider? Judge it by the first line, if you like; nobody will know.

But at least then you'd be able to commend whatever novel you thought was best, regardless of its production history - and base your decision on the narrative within the covers, rather than outside them. I mean, if I was forced into the position of effectively saying "the same novel might have won if it had been published by a different company", then I'd question why I was in the awards business at all.

[ed]

JDRhoades: Gee, that's funny. I was only examining the writing, not the person. Could it be that my "personal" attack is precisely the same type of "personal" attack that Lee Goldberg has launched excluding upon Ardai and anybody else who doesn't fit within his rules? Thank you so much for proving my point!

[The PODler]

>> When was the last time that mystery writer
>> won the Nobel for literature?

>Examples of Nobel Prize winners who occasionally wrote crime >fiction include William Faulkner...

But Faulkner and the others you mention were not mystery/crime writers who won the Nobel for writing mystery and crime fiction.
You mix apples and oranges, Mr. Ardai.

>"No, PODler, you really don't know anything about mystery. Or >about much of anything else, apparently, if you assume that the >Nobel is the only measure of quality.

>Maybe you'd be happier on ihaveahugestickupmyass.com."

You're right, I don't know. I am sorry for talking about some prize that they give out in Europe. The Edgar is equal to the Nobel Prize. Thanks for making that clear.

[David Thayer]

While self-publishing is a tawdry act of inexplicable hubris mainstream publishing has arrived at the Hudsucker Moment, a few feet above the pavement frozen in time. Before the final splat heard round the world I have to say that it is not the writing that distinguishes self published and published works, it's the business model. The emotional satisfaction of being published is economically neutral. I'm pretty sure that Karl Marx was self-published; let's face it, Marx is no Doctor Phil at the keyboard.
Wait until Carmen Elektra wins the National Book Award. Then balance will be restored after the fall.

[Keith]

The first paragraph at PODler's website:

>Who is my reader? How do I impress him? How do I overcome his skepticism?
>These are not academic questions, but questions that go to the very hear to of
>deliberate, purposeful writing. Writers are often tempted to write for the "market,"
>or for some other vague, nondescript, entity that is hazy in their mind. Such
>indulgence can be a form of laziness because in imagining a vague entity one
>allows one's writing to be lazy; It's easy, in other words, to impress a vaguely
>defined reader, for such a reader is as forgiving as the author's ego. But the
>vague phantoms of the writer's imagination don't read, they don't buy books,
>real individuals do, and these real individuals must be impressed, have their
>skepticism overcome, and have their time respected.

Only six typographical or grammatical errors. That's the POD equivalent of winning a Nobel.

[Sarah]

Elaine: what, the Muppet video didn't count as comment?

Folks: record-breaking number of comments, damn. But since we've wafted into literary vs. genre and the borderline personal and I don't want anyone to invoke the Law of Mighty Godwin, let's stick to whatever other nuances that can be mined from the original post that haven't already been staked in a more-than-concrete manner.

[Jim Winter]

I understand why the rules were modified. One of my first acts as an active member was to get my publisher kicked off the approved list, something I would have done even if I had not qualified for active status. (Call me crazy, but I'm kinda big on authors getting paid and sending in, yanno, royalty statements instead of a PayPal invoice to prove my income. I'm just whacky like that.) So I'm all for tightening things up a bit. I just lack the McCarthyist zeal for it.

That said, the idea is to weed out vanity presses in disguise. If, by definition, we have to classify Hard Case as such, even if it's in only one case, we have seriously laid a major egg. For all the cries of "Rules are rules and for the good of the organization," all I'm seeing is a major dent in credibility.

I'm sorry, but I've read the arguments for excluding SOI, and none of them really convince me of anything more than why I've been wise to skip condo association meetings.

Should Jason Pinter have not been allowed to publish through Three Rivers or St. Martin's when he was there and to be eligible? (Sure, there are inhouse rules about that, but a publisher can change those rules on a whim. And I know he's with Mira, but what if he had published with TR or SMP when he worked there?) We would then be forced to apply, intentionally or not, the vanity press label to Random House and SMP, which would make the MWA look pretty hapless to the outside world. And as much as it's about ethics, it's also about credibility.

The saner solution would be to look at publishers as a whole. Instead, look at the publisher and say to those who produce Edgar-qualified work, "Your editors are eligible, but no one affiliated with you can nominate." You have just eliminated the conflict of interest and relegated the presses that prompted these rule changes back to unapproved status where they belong until they either disappear or can play by the rules. Granted, they can always get someone's buddy to nominate, but how often does that happen anyway? If you can't nominate, your buddies, who probably have no official connection to you, will do it instead. If you don't believe that happens, I'd like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. Cheap.

Honest.

[tod goldberg]

Being Lee's brother is a tough job, particularly since I am clearly the more stable of the two of us, which is why I let him fight his own fights, generally, because he's a big boy and has his own opinions, and if I had to fight all of his fights, I'd never get anything done...but...Ed, you do realize Lee hasn't made the rules. He's just the person whose been willing to be the public face of them, for better or worse. Lots of other folks from the MWA board have come here and other places and said that it was a consensus. That Lee has argued for them here doesn't change the fact that it was a group decision. Personal or not, your decision to put his own writing up as an example of why he shouldn't make any rules concerning eligibility is silly not just for the reason that Lee doesn't judge the titles, but also because it would presume you'd have to be only the best writer to sit in judgement of others, or to simply talk about administrative details of an award. As a critic without any books of your own, your view is still of worth in many of America's papers -- and I know you've argued loudly that reviewing should not only be the provenance of those with some sort of literary cache -- and so posting that out of context passage smells of meanness in what has been, overall, a very civil and interesting debate...particularly in light of the fact that we all agree Charles' book is a good one. You don't like Lee's work? Great. Don't read it. Dig into all of our work and you'll find bad writing -- I suggest if you wish to categorize me as a shitty writer, too, in order to prove some point down the line, that you could pretty much open to any page in Fake Liar Cheat for a good passage, or I could recommend some passages if you're pressed for time -- and dig into any organization like the MWA, RWA etc. and you'll find odd rules and problems as it relates to awards and membership. But using someone's writing to show why he or she isn't qualified to be an administrator of an entire awards docket (I don't see you, for instance, complaining about dialog he wrote on Baywatch in conjunction with the screenwriting awards the Edgars will give out), not even the judge, only reveals something about you, not the arguement in question.

[Keith]

MWA has made it clear that membership has nothing to do with writing quality--but it's also made it clear that the Edgars have everything to do with writing quality. I think the excellent MWA guidelines for membership are slopping over into an area where they don't work as well.

MWA membership hinges on who your publisher is.

Edgar nomination should hinge on what you wrote, and whether it was published. In this case, maybe the criteria for what constitutes "publication" should err on the side of acknowledging that great things sometimes come from weird places. If that consideration isn't given, then the awards aren't exactly for BEST NOVEL, as they purport to be. They're for BEST NOVEL AFTER WE DISQUALIFIED SOME GREAT ONES.

Most vanity press work is worthless--but as Steve Mosby pointed out, that's a self-limiting factor in the awards process. Let them submit and toss them after the first page.

[David J. Montgomery]

Well put, Tod.

[Jason Pinter]

Jim -

FYI when I worked at Warner Books, there were rules in place that I couldn't submit my work to either Warner or Little, Brown.

I'm not quite sure what the rules are at other houses regarding employees submitting their work, though David Ebershoff and Kurt Andersen are both employed and published by Random House.

[ed]

I was content to sit this out. But since I have been ushered into this debate by Tod Godlberg, and since Lee Goldberg is too much of a coward to fight his own battles here, preferring to send lachrymose emails to other parties rather than contact me directly about any hurt feelings -- and I am indeed a reasonable guy -- and, further, letting his admirable brother Tod soldier on for him (even if he can't spell "argument"):

Yes, I do realize that Lee is upholding a decision. But he is too much of a political naif to understand that upholding a committee's decision IS indeed a position, and that this discussion has revealed significant chinks in the armor. Lee can sing all the praise to Charles Ardai or others that he wants, but that still doesn't take away from the fact that this rule, as currently upheld, has some significant problems. A real stand-up guy would say, "These are valid concerns. And I plan to bring this all up with the committee, who voted unanimously for these rules. We're going to nip this thing in the bud and you can contact me at any time to discuss this. But for now, I have to enforce the rules this year. I promise you that we will look into cases like this in the future."

You see, that's what a diplomat does. But Lee is not a diplomat. Instead, he scurries away, declares dissenters "idiotic" or wrong, without bothering to say, "Hey, wait a minute there. Let's talk about this." That's not unlike the way President Bush runs this country.

What do we have instead?

From Lee's 11/29/07 post:

"But the fact remains that he self-published his novel. He was simply in a position to do a better, and much more professional job of it, than someone like Jim Hansen or John Q. Public with a credit card who only has access to services like Lulu."

Does Lee really know all the circumstances? If Ardai is indeed "an accomplished, acclaimed and respected author" that "many on the committee have read and enjoyed," why compare his work with Lulu? That's neither a respectful nor a sympathetic position.

It was Lee who set the streetbrawling tone with this invidious comparison. He says in this thread, "No one is saying or implying that Hard Case Crime is a vanity press." But in effect, that is PRECISELY what he has implied in pointing to Aradai as a self-publisher. Is this not, in effect, the same mean-spirited and hypocritical approach that you're decrying me for?

But I will give you this, Tod. You're right to point out that "using someone's writing to show why he or she isn't qualified to be an administrator of an entire awards docket." After all, some reactionary types still harbor the illusion that an incompetent B-movie actor was a pretty good President a few decades ago.

[Gonzalo Baeza]

BTW, does anyone know why Point Blank Press is not on the list of MWA accepted publishers? I am asking this because it's been pointed out elsewhere that another novel worthy of an Edgar nomination, James Reasoner's Dust Devils, did not qualify because of its publisher. I do not know whether this is true, but you can read more about it in the comments section of this post:

http://indiecrime.blogspot.com/2007/11/spinetingler-awards.html

[r. b. Baeliost]

Folks - it comes back to this simple truth: Lee is a self-aggrandizing blowhard who is so amazed that he is able to turn a buck from writing that he has become an insufferable snob to hide the fact that he is an unbearable hack. In fact, he is barely even a writer. Has anyone seen the trailer to that project he did in Germany. It's so bad it's laughable. It's embarrassing. But I'm sure this will all be properly sorted out in this and other blogs where, like the vanity presses, there is no one mediating and one idea is as good as any another and everyone gets their 10 megabytes of fame. As for the MWA - they degrade their own purpose by excluding such terrific small presses as PointBlank and Stark House.

[George]

Your website looks great, always improving!
Thanks for the comment for your site — I always think keeping it simple and straightforward are best.

[Iris]

Ed, you are making an ass out of yourself. You may disagree with Lee on the MWA rules but you can’t criticize his professionalism and conduct in this debate. I wish I could say the same for you. You've brought the whole discussion to a halt and that's a shame. Neither Lee nor Charles are posting here any more. I noticed and appreciated that they both treated each other with respect even while disagreeing with each other. You could learn something from that. Lee Goldberg’s work as a writer has no bearing on the issues being discussed. However I wouldn’t call him second-rate. I really liked his book “The Man With the Iron On Badge,” which got a starred review from Kirkus, a positive review from Publishers Weekly, a Shamus nomination, and widespread acclaim, including from Sarah Weinman, who is the owner of this blog. He wouldn't be the Edgar chairperson if there weren’t a lot of people out there who respect him and I'm sure they still do.

[Lynn Osterkamp]

The MWA guideleines are spreading to affect more than award eligibility. Their approved-publisher list is now being used to determine who is allowed author status at conferences such as Left Coast Crime, Mayhem in the Midlands, and now possibly Bouchercon. The absurdity of using these criteria becomes apparent when we look at a list of all mysteries and thrillers published in 2006 and find that fewer than one-third were published by publishers on the approved list. If you want to read more about this, including the complete statistics, visit my blog, The Populist Publisher, http://www.thepopulistpublisher.com/

[Keith]

Oh, come on, Lynn. Self-published books may not deserve to be dismissed out of hand as works of art, but as a sole criterion of who's published, the Amazon database is about as relevant as any web page of fan fiction links.

The editorial criteria are the same, too.

[JMH]

Lynn: Good point. Add Mystery Scene Magazine also to the list of organization that are biased against self-published authors.

They are in contrast to organizations like Library Journal, Booklist, ForeWord Magazine, Midwest Book Review and many others who will judge books on their own merits, irrespective of who the publisher is

[LJ]

Keith,

What is your point re: Amazon? Don't you believe that the vast majority of books published in 2006 are included in their database? I think you misread Lynn's article and the intent of the statistics. There was no implication of quality, merely market shares in terms of US titles published.

[Burl Barer]

I just read this amazing remark about Lee Goldberg: "Lee is a self-aggrandizing blowhard who is so amazed that he is able to turn a buck from writing that he has become an insufferable snob to hide the fact that he is an unbearable hack."

The honey tongued writer of those endearing words, his sugar-scented pen dipped into the inkwell of good will, is off the mark. I am the self-aggrandizing blow hard, insufferable snob, and unbearable hack. My name? Burl Barer, Brilliant Author. Edgar Award winner? Yes. Related to Lee? Yes. I am his uncle. When it comes to absurdity and overstatement, I have him beat by fifteen years of prolixity and verbosity.
Put Lee, Tod and I in a room together and its like being in a NASA wind tunnel. Face it, anyone who makes a living as a writer must be doing something either commendable or illegal.

Lee is also a two-time Edgar Award nominee, and most important, Lee is more than willing to be wrong. He learned long ago that the best way to be correct is to be open to correction. You show him where he erred, and he says "thank you," not "f*** you."

I am as flummoxed by the "self-printed" vs "alternative publishing" situation as everyone else, but recalcitrance and contumacious posturing doesn't resolve the situation.

Warmest literary regards,
Burl Barer, Brilliant Author

[Tony Burton]

Disclosure: I'm an active MWA member, an author and the owner of a small-press publishing house. So, in a way, I do have a dog in this fight even though I don't really expect to have any books from my press shortlisted for the Edgars any time soon.

I've been watching with some disbelief and dismay the evolution of the changes in the MWA's standards for membership (specifically, the Approved Publishers list) and how they have spilled over into so many other things. They are being used now as standards for acceptance as "real authors" at cons such as BoucherCon, Left Coast Crime, Mayhem In the Midlands, and possibly others. This means otherwise talented authors are now persona non grata re: book sales rooms, panels and presentations.

Now this event with Charles Ardai's book. Are the barbarians at the gate or something, MWA? "Close up every door, every portal, every window! Don't let anyone who even faintly smells of self-publishing anywhere near our awards!" And in this case, I really can't see how the book could be considered self-published by any reasonable and sane person.

OK. Stepping away from that, what is wrong with considering each book on its merit, regardless of its publisher? As others have said here already, a bad book probably won't be nominated. If it is, the judges will certainly be able to tell a nasty, detestable, poorly-written self-published book (icky things!) from its more cultured, refined and professionally-written traditionally-published competitors, and probably within a page or two.

Of course, if they can't, and if it maintains their interest long enough to read it... but no, that couldn't happen, could it??

I've said it before, and I still think it's true: the whole MWA attitude reminds me of a suburban block meeting from the 1960s, where nervous and affluent WASPs got together and commiserated about how the neighborhood was going to the dogs and property values were going down... just because some of "those people" were buying a house on the next street over.

[Tony Burton]

Oh, and I've been curious about this for some time: why are such sweeping rules as the ones regarding eligibility for awards, the standards for approved publishers, etc., decided upon by a relatively small cabal of members?

If the members are professionals (and their membership is supposed to be proof of that, ipso facto), when such important changes and rules are being considered, why are the members not allowed to vote on the issue?

I don't mean Mr. Ardai's book specifically; I mean the standards and eligibility. What would be wrong with having the membership vote on such a thing?

Are we (the rank-and-file) too uninformed, too naive, to make good decisions? Or is this form of decision-making simply too time-consuming? (The Brits made similar comments about the ability of the Irish to self-govern, for quite a few years.)

I know, I know... this is not the MWA forum. But it's an intriguing question, nonetheless.

[celebsxxx]

His hoots darted ap to Sarah, whose bball was sexily not to the tv. That meant I had a comprehensive endeavor unique of sinfully condoms she could use. When I whisepered an envisage I glanced back, he was no playfully there, he had moved on. And I could thrash by the preserve on his saline that he did.

[Lee Goldberg]

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

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

a) Those works for which the author has paid all or part of the cost of publication, marketing, distribution of the work, or any other fees pursuant to an agreement between the author and publisher, cooperative publisher or book packager;

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kell Brigan]

Hear via a search for professional publishing standards to share with various booksellers, i.e. this is what you need to implement to best serve your customers. To answer your question, "No." Guidelines like this, may they multiple and flourish, are the only protection readers have from unscrupulous amateur self-printers who have no problem lying and trying to mix their junk in with the real books. I recently severed all business with Amazon specifically because they have no search parameter that would allow customers to weed out the amateur garbage from the real books. If some self-printed "book" is so great, why isn't it professionally edited and published? Spare me the well, buts... If it were good, it would sell. If it's so great as an amateur effort, then sell it to an agent. Leave me, as reader and customer, OUT OF IT. I absolutely do not want to be tasked with searching through a slushpile when all I'm trying to do is browse the electornic stacks. Barnes and Noble, here I come.

[Kell Brigan]

And, yes, there is a typo in that comment. Aren't you glad I didn't charge you $6.95 to read it?