The first communication for 2013 GRL 2013 was just issued, and it’s a bright light in the dark days of winter. Atlanta can’t come soon enough for 
M/M enthusiasts. Here’s a link to the newsletter if you haven’t seen it:
The organizers are working very hard on our behalf but have made it clear that they need the participation and financial backing of publishers in order to keep the cost to a reasonable level for everyone. We all appreciate this objective as no one has any spare cash and we (authors, readers and publishers) will have to dig deep once more, but it will be worth it. The publishers did a great job last year and I for one appreciate all of the events they sponsored!! 
Everything seems to be proceeding as expected. The major change from last year is that the number of authors will be capped at 100 which seems to me about right if the number of registrants for the Retreat is going to remain at around 400. However, there was one sentence in the newsletter that surprised and concerned me and here it is:
“We’ve also taken the list of must-have authors that you the readers have given us and are doing our best to pre-register them before the general author registration begins.”
A select list of authors who will be allowed to pre-register? 
This seems to be elitist and I’m sure that the organizers didn’t mean to give that impression. I’m just wondering what message they are sending to those authors who are not on the “approved” pre-registration list? One of the benefits I loved about GRL 2012 was meeting authors at all levels of our genre – well known and well respected to those who had only one book released. I think the newbies were as thrilled as the readers and their enthusiasm showed. I loved meeting them, yes even those authors whose books I had reviewed 
and said that I thought they needed to do a lot more work before their next release.
I know that the organizers have a lot of tough decisions to make which must be balanced between the needs of the readers who are looking forward to meeting their favourite authors and keeping costs in balance. However, I’m not sure that allowing the heavy hitters in our genre to pre-register is the right way to go as I think it will send the wrong message to those up-and-coming newbie writers as well as those not considered to be a “draw”. This is not a criticism, just an observation and I’m just one reader. I’m sure that many of you in GRL land may have a different opinion.
I would like to thank the organizers of GRL 2012 once again for the fantabulous job they did in Albuquerque, New Mexico and I’m sure the 2013 event in Atlanta, Georgia will at least equal if not exceed last year’s event. I don’t believe that the organizers intended to create two classes of authors.
Where is that drink I was promised Ethan? 
Wave, there are special slots reserved for up and coming authors. All the info is on their web site now. Heidi also did a live chat earlier discussing it.
Thanks Jay for the update. I was out all day and this was supposed to post this morning.
However, why did it take an outcry from everyone before this policy was changed? I think it will take some time before the bad taste goes away. BTW they are still inviting some authors to pre-register before anyone else, so that decision has not changed.
I don’t think the policy on up and coming authors was changed. I think it was always the policy, it is just that the first email didn’t go into detail.
They have now posted an update on the 2013 new policy. Despite the clarifications in that update, I feel like the excerpted quote from the newsletter was so poorly phrased that it’s going to take a bit of effort for them to come back from that.
So there are still some authors who will be invited to preregister before “author registration” is open. This seems to be discriminatory. Who are these authors that are getting preferential treatment?
BFF’s of the con committee, no doubt.
Nope. I am one of those who voted on the list. Blame me if you’d like.
They are still sending out the 30 invites to authors and no one is allowed to know who they are, except JR Ward, which was mentioned in the updated newsletter release. I think that non-transparency is what made me decide not to go. (I was at the UStream chat).
So, still only 70 author slots open (40 for featured and 30 for supporting). While that is better for newer authors, I still think the overflow of authors who don’t get those 70 slots will flow into the Reader/General membership as some authors try to go under the reader banner.
I was looking forward to GRL as a reader, but after the way they handled the mess today, I made the decision to pass on GRL and spend my reader dollars at another smaller con.
Maybe you’ll come to Tampa next March, Wave?
Why JR Ward? Is she now an M/M author with an, as yet, unreleased book?
I may be in Europe at the same time as GRL 2013, but if I’m here in North America I was hoping to attend so that I could meet other readers and those authors I met last time.
I think this decision to invite some authors to pre-register before anyone else has left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth. There are always imbalances at these conferences/retreats however, this decision makes it seem that one type of author is more equal than another.
Thank you Wave, for posting this. I too was shocked by the verbiage in the newsletter and was appalled by the pre-selection process. Yes, they’ve subsequently released a clarification of the new policies, but they still are hand-picking a group of “must have” authors.
I agree that the reader-to-author ratio should be a concern; however, is capping the number of authors the answer? Wouldn’t it make more sense to try to increase the number of readers attending?
With these new policies, though, I think they will have accomplished their goal because there are a lot of authors who’ve now decided not to attend at all.
I don’t know yet what I am going to do. I have looked forward to the event, saved for it, etc. But it feels very discriminatory to me, as if a select few are being given special treatment while the rest have to worry about whether they will even have a place at the table.
I’m not an author, but I did feel that this policy was discriminatory. Guess some of you guys don’t get an invitation to the “cool authors” party. Many authors have now indicated that they will not be attending either as an author or as a reader, so the objective of limiting the number of authors will have been achieved but not in the way intended.
Coming back to your question of why not increase the overall numbers, this may have something to do with hotel capacity but I have no way of confirming this.
It’s too bad that this major event that everyone looked forward to, is now embroiled in this type of brouhaha. This could have been avoided if the committee had looked at their decision from the perspective of optics.
I came in late on Heidi’s live chat but based on what I caught, I believe overall numbers are directly related to the size of the hotel which directly affects price. Meaning bigger con means bigger hotels which means higher prices per person. But again, maybe someone who heard her entire explanation can weigh in.
Large hotels have other benefits. Frex., it’s much easier to comp out your function space at a large hotel than at a smaller one. What that means is that for every X number of room-nights (if a guest rents a room for four nights, that’s four room-nights) you get a $$ credit off the cost of your function space, which is the meeting rooms, ballrooms, that sort of thing. You can also get free room-nights for the con’s use as a percentage of room-nights sold to attendees. An SF con I worked for about 25 years completely comped out its function space, AND got a nice chunk of free hotel rooms (which we used for guests of honor and staff) pretty much every year. You’re much less likely to do that (I want to say you just can’t, but it depends on what the hotel charges and how your contract reads) if you limit your guest/attendee roster to 400 while still using a lot of function space.
Letting more people come gives you economies of scale to play with, that you don’t have if you keep attendance capped small.
Angie
I will attend GRL as an author or not all, simply because that is who I am. I don’t mean that makes me more important than readers — far from it. I am also a reader, editor, reviewer, interviewer, ranter, etc. under different aliases. But those are WHAT I am, not who. When I discuss or think about books, whether my own or some other author’s or books in general, I do so as an author, someone who looks on the writing itself as a craft, not a story. I don’t attend these meetings to sell my books or myself; I go to meet people and talk about M/M with fellow authors, fellow readers, etc. But my approach is always that of someone who writes. I can’t help it, which is what I meant when I made the distinction between what I am and who.
I guess if you’re not quick off the mark you won’t be there, because all of the “author” spots will be taken. That would be too bad if I am able to attend and you’re not there as I enjoyed our chats at GRL 2012.
I won’t attend as a reader either, but for a different reason. Money! It costs a lot to travel from Iceland to Atlanta. I can’t justify that cost if I’m not there to promote with SWAG and all the niceties. I’d love to just hang out as a reader, so that’s not my problem, but unless the GRL will be held in Iceland some year it just isn’t an option.
About JR Ward. Her next book, to be released later in March, will be M/M. Her readers are salivating over the release, and it will introduce many a new reader to M/M. I for one hope to see an increase in M/M interest after those newbies realize how awesome to hot men together can be
Nadja
I’m aware that her next book will be M/M but I’m waiting to find out if she does what other mainstream authors have been doing when they write their version of M/M – fade to black – before I put out $18.44 for the Kindle version of this book. So far I’m not impressed by mainstream authors writing M/M romances, although Suze Brockmann did a good job on All Through the Night, except for the off page sex.
She has stated publicly, and several times, that there will be no fade to black. That the characters, the story and the sex scenes will be treated exactly the same as all the other couples she’s written.
So she’s cashing in on the m/m genre and getting a premiere invite to boot? That’s kinda gross.
Yep. Looks that way. Hope she’s worth it.
I highly doubt she needs to cash in on m/m she is a NYT best selling author, many times over. If she is a key note speaker at GRL – the that is one helluva major coup by the organisers. and let me tell you -I will be salivating with the best of them
“The List” came from the survey attendees filled out following the last event. They asked us what authors we’d like to see at future events. I was one who asked for JR Ward…sort of as a joke but mostly seriously, because I notice that the majority of my readers came to m/m through her books. As such, she’s had a significant influence on our genre.
So yeah, if she were to show I’d be in line, my copy of “Lover, At Last” in hand.
As to pre-invited reader favorites, most events do this…they bring in headliners. Even now, the hugely popular Lori Foster event has a list of attending authors, but they haven’t opened for registration yet. Lora Leigh is by invitation only. So it happens and knowing the organizers, I’m sure it wasn’t their intention to do hurt or alienate anyone.
I think it was the way this was handled that upset the authors who aren’t on “The List.” Sometimes perception is reality and optics trump everything else.
As for JR Ward, I won’t be in line. I know she’s popular and I read Dark Lover way back when but it was too long ago to remember. I have read a couple of fan fics though with Butch and V so I’m not that hungry for Lover at Last.
As for Lori Foster, she did a horrible job on What Chris Wants.
Yes, but you do a few not 30, especially when you’re limiting authors to 100…that’s close to a third of the slots.
I am so disgusted by this elitism, that I’m not even interested in going now. It was my plan to go as a reader, but now I feel like I couldn’t even wear a Finn Marlowe name tag because OMG! Unauthorized author! And not a good one either, so bolt the doors! And yay, JR Ward has one m/m book so we should all kiss her ass. No thanks GRL. I really wanted to meet all my wonderful online friends this year, too.
Anyone want to do a get together in the Pacific Northwest instead?
As I said to Belinda McBride, sometimes optics trump everything else. When the decision was made to have a pre-registered list of authors for GRL 2013, not enough thought was given regarding how to communicate this effectively to other authors. That’s unfortunate, and now a number of authors are pissed at the decision.
Hopefully the planning committee will be able to rectify this soon, as feelings are still raw.
Whoever dreamed up the phrase (and the concept of) must-have authors needs to take a Dale Carnegie course. Seriously.
What an ugly and so-easily-avoidable mess!
Hey KZ
What an ugly and so-easily-avoidable mess!
I can’t add anything to this.
.. well a “titter” speaks a thousand words IMO and yes maybe the handling was clumsy by describing certain authors as being must haves but all conferences have their favourites. No getting away from that. I think that maybe the original newsletter had a feeling of being focussed on the readers – and who we would salivate over meeting. And it just forgot that authors subscribe to the newsletter too. Have egos too. And get hurt.
As someone who lives in Seattle, I think that’s a pretty cool idea.
Aside from the fact that, so long as GRL continues to limit its membership to 400 people (I was frankly shocked by that) there’s clearly room here for another con or three. There are almost ten thousand members of the M/M Romance group on Goodreads alone; one tiny little conference that doesn’t seem to want to get any bigger clearly can’t serve the whole M/M community, much less the whole GLBT romance community. Just as there are dozens of SF cons every year in North America, there could be multiple M/M or GLBT romance conventions, without the different events hurting one another or being rivals.
Note that I’m not saying this vindictively, or trying to take a jab at GRL. I honestly think there’s room and then some for more M/M or GLBT gatherings. Having several conventions of different sizes and with different focuses and business models would be a benefit to everyone in this community. Variety always benefits the consumer, letting each person choose a product that suits them best. And some people will attend multiples, just as many people attend multiple SF cons each year, or buy two or more types of soda or car or game system.
Angie
Angie
I think the difficulty in sponsoring multiple M/M cons will be that you need a team of volunteers who will dedicate the time and effort and have the management skills to pull them off. Doing what the GRL committee has done and is doing takes a lot of time and involves a great deal of effort and expertise. Not that another team can’t do it, but it would be whether they are willing to put in the time and have the necessary skills to manage the process.
Wave — of course, it’s a given that a second (third, fourth) convention would need staff willing and able to put in the work to pull it off. That’s not insurmountable, though. There’s a science fiction convention somewhere in North America on pretty much every weekend of the year, and some weekends have two or more. M/M is a relatively small community, and a new convention could start out just as small as GRL, with limited complexity, and the senior staff could learn as they went. And that’s not even considering the many thousands of SF/F fans on this continent who have a lot of experience running conventions and would be happy to have their brains picked, even assuming none of those people are M/M fans themselves.
I’ve worked many conventions, both fan-run SF conventions and professional conferences. I know how much time and effort it takes. But I also know that it’s doable, and learnable. The only question is whether another group of people are willing to serve the community by putting in the work. Maybe yes, maybe no, we’ll see. If no now, maybe yes in a year or three or five.
I’d honestly be surprised if there weren’t at least one or two other M/M conventions out there by, say, five years from now. Props to the GRL committee for taking the plunge and doing the work to serve the M/M community, absolutely. I was in New Orleans and had a blast. But the way they’re going about it isn’t the only way, and I’d be surprised if it turned out they were the only members of our community willing to step up and do something like this, in time if not necessarily right now.
We’ll see.
Angie
From the information today. There will be 100 author cap and 300 reader cap because 400 is the amount they are allowing for this year. They reduced the authors by 30 people because apparently the biggest gripe from GRLers last year was too many authors. 70 featured author slots. They are holding 30 spots for newer or less established authors who get to do swag and a meet and greet but no panels. Yeah, the wording “must haves” wasn’t the best and people’s feelings got hurt. I get it. However, I was really turned off by some of the hateful comments resulting from these hurt feelings today. Sadly that’s going to be my first thought when I see a book I may want to read by these authors. I may pass it by. If they don’t go to GRL then I won’t get to meet them along with 300 other readers but that’s their decision. Not being labelled a must have shouldn’t stop them. I love so many authors but only have a few faves. There isn’t space for everyone. That’s just how it is. I went last year and had a blast! I plan to go again this year. It has to be a lot of work to put these things together and I really really appreciate Ethan and the coordinators for doing it.
I see your point Whitney – it would probably get boring if there were so many authors you couldn’t take a step without someone promo-ing their books at you (if that happens?). But I find authors also tend to be huge readers – that’s why I wanted to go, so I could also (hopefully) meet the writers of those awesome books I love – but it would just be ridiculous to have to lie about who I am so I could go.
Why would you have to lie? I haven’t seen it stated anywhere that authors could not go under a reader registration. You just wouldn’t be entitled to the author benefits such as a table at the signing or swag room, panels, that kind of thing, because you haven’t paid for them. You would still be meeting other authors and readers.
What I loved about the first two GRL’s was their friendly, everybody’s welcome attitude. It was a refreshing change from huge cons like RT and RWA, where there are a handful of superstar authors and everyone else gets lost in the shuffle.
It couldn’t last forever, I suppose.
I had already decided not to go. When you do a reading on your cons for the year and pull The Tower, the 5 of Pentacles and the 10 of Swords, it’s a good indicator that you really shouldn’t go to that con.
I’m better at events with actual programming. I’m terrible at just hanging out and socializing.
I’ll stick to the events that comp me a badge and might even pay me a travel stipend.
Oh, doing a card reading on the con. That’s a great idea.
It’s more a way for me to sort through my mixed emotions. I love conventions. I hate conventions. If I don’t get enough downtime, I’m utterly psychotic by Sunday. I’m GREAT at a single day event, pretty good for a 2 day. Three days wears me out and by four days, my people-timer is not only up, but has exploded, probably all over someone.
So, at the beginning of the year, I do a three card spread for each convention I’m slated for, kind of to work through how I’m feeling about them. I knew I was dreading GRL, but the cards just clinched it.
I just don’t understand the fuss. To me it looks as though they’re being pro-active in seeking out certain authors who they know will be very popular (authors are busy people and may have accidentally overlooked the timetable and missed the chance to register, and it would be the readers who would be sad if that happened). Where’s the harm and discrimination in that? It doesn’t preclude the other authors from registering. It would be nonsense to pretend that all authors are equally popular.
As to overall numbers – they’re listening and reacting to readers’ comments from last year in balancing the ratio of authors to readers. Should they be criticised for that?
Hi HJ
From my perspective the 1/3 ratio is a good balance but what most people find offensive is the way that the message about limiting the number of authors while at the same time granting others special pre registration status was conveyed. The wording wasn’t designed to win friends; a message like this needed to be communicated effectively and sympathetically, especially knowing the shit storm that this would cause. As I said in response to a few people on this thread, sometimes optics trumps everything else.
Sorry, but authors are no busier than anyone else and I see no reason why they should be granted special privileges. I am very busy but I’ll make a note on my calendar about when the registrations are open. Any author who really wants to attend GRL 2013 can make the same effort. If those authors not on The List register as readers because they came in over the 100 author cap, they will take up some of the spaces assigned to readers, leading to a few readers being upset. However authors are also readers so if they want to attend as readers no one should get their knickers (or shorts) in a twist. Also there are no numbers released as to the number of authors who will be pre invited to register.
As an incredibly new author and one who didn’t necessarily know if she was going to even attempt to attend GRL (and still isn’t sure), I saw one comment that made a lot of sense to me. An author named Daniel suggested that if they’d wanted to give those 30 authors the readers requested a heads-up, they could have sent them all personal messages saying, “We’ve been alerted that readers very much want you at this con. This is the day and time registration opens, it’s first come, first serve, but we and your readers would really love to see you there!” I thought that was a decent comment on a possible solution to this situation.
From the outside looking in, the main problem seemed to be the communication of the changes. The newsletter was so poorly worded that it’s kind of amazing. The clarification was worded much, much better and it probably would have gone over better as an initial communication about the topic. It is kind of a shame that they didn’t release that the wording of the first was so…problematic. (Although, the bit in the clarification post about how important it is to keep the stress levels of the better known authors–who have most likely attended plenty of cons–at a low level is kind of hilariously off-putting, too. I mean, newbie authors are super busy people as well, probably holding down a day job still, running a family, and trying to write/market; not to mention they are also probably a whole lot more stressed about attending a con situation for the first time–much more stressed than a well-known author who has been to many.)
I think they knew quite well that a kerfuffle was going to come of it, otherwise their original newsletter probably wouldn’t have needed a multi-paragraph reminder that they are all volunteers and do this for the love of it and please, for the love of God, don’t crucify us.
I, for one, am not upset or angry. I feel like I’m watching it from a bird’s eye view because I didn’t have a dog in the fight, so to speak. From the outside looking in, they just really bungled the communication side of things, imho. This could have been avoided by seriously thinking through how to present this whole thing. I wonder if the person who penned the “must-have author” line spent the day in bed with covers over their heads yesterday, because I’m quite sure the hurt feelings that came out of that were something he/she never intended.
Anyway, it’s an interesting mess. I’m curious how it will play out. I haven’t decided if I will attempt to attend or not. It’s in driving distance for me which makes it appealing, but as a newbie author who is already a socially anxious person, this kerfuffle has made it look like a pretty scary thing to attempt. Maybe since I’m so stressed about it they could give me a pre-registration time and hold my hand through all the steps of the process?
Just kidding.
*realize
Ugh. Typos.
Communication! communication! communication! The first lesson every author should learn, and obviously this failure to communicate effectively resulted in the current major PR disaster.
Hopefully whoever crafted the first newsletter will learn from this.
Yikes! I was laughing at the comments about J.R. Ward going to GayRomLit. She probably hasn’t even got the invite in the mail yet and there are already some very unwelcoming comments being written about her. For those not familiar with her series (the Black Dagger Brotherhood) the relationship between Quinn and Blay (soon appearing in their own novel ‘Lover At Last’) started back in ‘Lover Enshrined’ in 2008. Prior to that there was Vishous (who is bisexual) and his bromance BFF, Butch. The author had several UST scenes between the two of them going back to ‘Dark Lover’ which was published in 2005. So she’s not ‘cashing in’ in the M/M genre. Her published books with gay characters and relationships predate many of the m/m authors who will be attending Gay Rom Lit. It would be a great thing for our genre if she attended because she has 10′s of 1000′s of fans who follow her appearances. Obviously I’m one of them.
Like many m/m fans I discovered this genre through J.R. Ward’s novels.
Hi Mandy
I think we all know who JR Ward is and many M/M readers have read all of her books. Even I read Dark Lover a long time ago, and I don’t read het romance.
The issue is that JR is being profiled and promoted as an M/M author when her new book about Qhuinn and Blay hasn’t even been released and no one knows what’s in it. Also, a lot of fans feel that this book is LONG overdue and can’t understand why she didn’t write it years ago. Maybe she didn’t feel that the ground was fertile enough for readers to accept a gay romance between her two characters. More to the point, is she going to write a gay romance starring Butch and V who are in love with each other?
Wave — exactly. Also, what happens if she accepts, and posts to her web site or newsletter or whatever that hey, she’s going to be in Atlanta on blah-blah date, here’s the sign-up link! and 300 of her biggest fans sign up the first day? That’s, what, like one one-hundredth of one percent of her fanbase? [wry smile]
I wouldn’t bet a cookie that she’ll come, but if she does, it’s very possible that some significant number of GRL reader slots will be taken by people who are JR Ward fans, but not necessarily M/M Romance fans. Wouldn’t that be fun…? :/
Angie
and how easy is it for anyone to sound elitist? and exclusive?
Since you replied to me, I’ll say that my concern above has absolutely nothing to do with elitism or exclusivity, and everything to do with the very real possibility that the (extremely scarce) reader slots at GRL could end up being taken by people who are fans of Ms. Ward, but who aren’t particularly interested in M/M Romance as a subgenre. What happens if 300, or 200, or even 100 of her fans sign up, come to hear her speak and get an autograph, then leave? Will it make the M/M romance fans were were told “Memberships were all gone, sorry, try again next year” feel any better to know that hey, at least we weren’t being elitist? :/ Somehow I doubt it.
Ms. Ward is a big enough name that she’ll draw many fans all on her own, fans who ARE all hers, and don’t necessarily have any interest in M/M. Depending on how often she makes public appearances (anyone know?) I could easily imagine people who strongly disapprove of M/M still coming to see her and have her autograph some of her het books.
That’d be fine if GRL had open memberships, but they don’t. This is like… like a bunch of apple lovers buying bags of oranges just to get the plastic bag, and throwing the oranges away, while there are orange lovers who want the oranges and aren’t allowed to eat the fruit being wasted.
I get that a lot of Ms. Ward’s fans have been waiting for her upcoming M/M book. That’s great. I get that the fans waiting for this book have been very publicly enthusiastic, and that’s great too. But what percentage of all her fans are they, seriously? What percentage of Ms. Ward’s fans would be honestly interested in Marie Sexton’s books, or Abigail Roux’s, or Kim Dare’s? If she hardly ever appears at events where Jane Doe could come in and get her autograph, I could easily see a lot of her fans who have no interest in M/M or our writers coming to GRL just for Ms. Ward, crowding out readers from our community who should be there.
In all seriousness, I’ll be shocked if she accepts the invitation. She’s not just a big fish, she’s a whale
and I doubt it’d be worth it to her to come splash in our tiny puddle. If she does, though, there could be problems, and it has absolutely nothing to do with elitism.
Angie
I would love it if she went. I am flying over from Australia and would LOVE to meet her! I have been hanging out for the Qhuay books for years now; in fact it was the Butch and V relationship (that never happened) that really got me interested in reading m/m. (In fact I think that it was a gateway for a lot of new m/m readers) Up to that point I never even knew there was an m/m genre. I fully take on board what you mean; but you know what I trust Ethan and co to make sure that that scenario couldn’t play out. She does not often make public appearances. And if the venue is not driving distance she won’t be there. I am pretty certain she doesn’t fly. (I refer to planes.. of course. She is a great author.. but Superwoman she ain’t)
Barb — right, I got that you’re a fan. [grin] And that’s cool, I completely understand that you’d love to meet her, especially since you’re from Australia and would likely have no other opportunities.
And… okay, I just thought of something. If she does come, they could rent the largest ballroom space the hotel has (or I’ve heard it’s a small hotel, so maybe get space in a larger hotel, or even a theater, if there’s one nearby) and do a special JR Ward event. Have her make a speech, then stick around for however long she’s willing signing autographs. Make it one per person, to accommodate as many people as possible. And charge, like, $25 just for that event. So Ms. Ward’s fans who aren’t into M/M as a genre could come to that one thing, see her, hear her speak, get an autograph, and would only get full GRL memberships if they’re into M/M romance (as opposed to being only into Ms. Ward).
That could work. WorldCon did something similar one year when Patrick Stewart showed up at the last minute.
Ethan, if you’re still here, feel free to steal this idea.
Angie
There’s always the Georgia Dome.
LOL! Probably a bit out of their price range [cough] but in all seriousness, this is doable, without having to charge the folks attending a ridiculous price.
Angie
Tossing gay and bi characters in your story doesn’t make you a m/m romance author, otherwise why aren’t spots being saved on the sooper sekrit author list for Lynn Flewelling and Ellen Kushner? Who have been around even longer and probably have even larger followings?
And there’s UST in everything. Heck, watch Ocean’s 11 for the Rusty/Danny UST. That doesn’t make them gay characters.
Hi Wave,
I was beginning to think maybe I was the only reader who was a bit tweaked by the unfortunate choice of wording in this newsletter. I understand it was not the intent of the author of the email to in any way alienate or offend anyone–that’d be counterproductive to the event, after all–and I’m sure s/he would love a do-over at this point! But it happened nonetheless, proving that often it’s not what you say but how you say it that matters. For someone who makes a living at, or at least supplements an income with wordsmithing, it was a doubly unfortunate situation.
I can’t even begin to appreciate the level of stress or number of man hours it takes to organize and event of this magnitude. It has to be astronomical, and I’m sure often feels as though it’s a thankless labor of love. Well, to give credit where credit is due, it’s the only fan event I’ve ever attended, and from the outside looking in last year, I thought it went off without a hitch.:cool: The organizing committee is obviously doing its best to ensure another successful event this year, and more power to them, but with that visibility also comes a measure of responsibility, and as of yet–and please correct me if I’m wrong–I’ve not seen a single mea culpa from any of the event’s organizers over this.
There’s a right way and a wrong way to smooth all these ruffled feathers and hurt feelings. The wrong way is to imply: “We’re sorry you misunderstood what we clearly said and then blew it all out of proportion.” So far, that’s about all I’ve seen.
So, I’m going to sit back and wait to see who these “must haves” are before I register. If that list isn’t available before reader spots are filled, oh well, it’ll be my loss.
P.S. I loved having the chance to chat with you in Albuquerque last year.:smile:
Hi Lisa
First of all it was awesome meeting you at GRL 2012. Readers don’t know what fun they’re missing when they stay away.
This meltdown would not have happened if whoever prepared the newsletter had learned the basic principles of communication. When you give bad news you have to put yourself in the shoes of the people who would be impacted and look at the communication from their perspective.
No one has owned up to writing the newsletter – that’s kind of gutless,
so I guess we’ll have to blame everyone.
Um, don’t hold back or anything. Tell us how you really feel. LOL. Preach!
Unfortunately, the whole situation was exacerbated on Facebook when an unnamed organizer made a whole batch of less-than-diplomatic statements (okay, they were actually rather offensive). Her/his posts included words like “fabrications,” “supposition,” “hysteria,” and this phrase: “MOST of what has been happening focuses on RAGE that some authors sell more books and have more fans.” [The CAPS are NOT mine.]
Um, yeah. That’s the way to win friends and influence people — insult them into submission.
Where on FB exactly? Can you provide a link, please? Thanks.
I am really NOT upset that there are some authors readers want to see more than me. I’m just getting started as a M/M author and I’m still building my readership. I’m aware of that. Last year, I sat next to some very popular authors and watched them sign autographs while readers largely smiled and walked past my table, so it would be impossible for me to pretend otherwise. But everyone was still gracious and I did meet some people who liked my work, which was great. I had a good time. But one of the reasons I had a good time was that I was treated respectfully. I’m a published author and I was allowed to put my books out and chat people up about them, just like the more established authors. Nobody told me, “Readers feel that you’re kind of taking a space away from someone they’d rather see,” which is EXACTLY what I’m being told now. And that makes a huge difference to how comfortable I’d be if I went this year.
Jamie, lemme share now; I was all, Snap! I got to hang with Jamie Fessenden at GRL.
And I still think you’re way cooler than Willie Nelson. 
Thanks!
The amount of misinformation that is STILL being tossed about within many of these comments, despite the wealth of information now available is disturbing to me. Yes, we unfortunately used the wrong wordage in that initial newsletter as we rushed to get information out there since so many had begun contacting us for details – that is regrettable and we have apologized. It was never our intent to ruffle feathers or hurt anyone’s feelings.
GRL attendance has ALWAYS been capped, as has the number of authors allowed to attend as authors – the only change has been to the number of authors allowed to register as such. In ABQ, Clare London came as a reader because all of the author spots were filled by the time she decided she could come. This was the case for several authors in ABQ, so I’m at a complete loss why all of a sudden everyone is up in arms about it this time around. And like it or not, understand it or not, a substantial number of the attendees who took our survey – authors and readers alike – complained of the author to reader ratio. It was the number one complaint – that there were too many authors.
If we had closed author registration and gone invitation-only for all 100, I would totally understand this sort of outcry. That is not what we have done. We have set aside a small number for authors that previous ATTENDEES have stated they want to see and the rest are open to ANYONE. Not me and only the people I like, but first come, first serve. It’s what some people might call a compromise. We’re doing our best to try and cater to everyone’s wants, yet for some reason many would prefer that we ignore a large percentage of our attendees?
It is easy to sit back and say that we should simply increase the number of attendees allowed to attend, but the sad truth is, that each attendee brings an added cost per person for each event, driving the prices that our publishers now pay, higher and higher. And the only way to pay for those increases, since publishers can only afford to help out so much, considering no one’s pockets are infinitely deep, would be for GRL to raise the registration cost for the readers in order to cover those costs, or cut down on the amount of events we can have – once again, punishing the many in order to allow more authors to register as authors?
It would be great to sit back and not have to work within any sort of parameters for GRL, unfortunately, as an organizer I do not have that luxury. The bottom line is, we have limits on the number of attendees because the retreat would cost too much money otherwise. The only other option would be raising the prices for readers substantially and I personally, would rather not have a retreat as opposed to soaking the readers…who already spend their money on our books…ALL so we can do away with capping the authors. How is that fair?
Did we unfortunately make a bad wording decision when rushing to get some information out there, yes – and we have apologized repeatedly for anyone we may have inadvertently insulted in doing so. I will not however, apologize for the decision we made in trying to make a large portion of attendees happy by offering a small number of author spots to people they told us they wanted to see at GRL. What baffles me is that so many authors believe we should ignore an entire group of readers in favor of doing what they want us to do. I’m completely and utterly astounded that so many of you refuse to turn this topic around and look at it from that perspective. We’ve tried to come up with a system that allows GRL to give a little something to all, and all I’m hearing is complaints that we bothered attempting to please the other guys. We are not now, nor were we at any time, planning to prevent anyone from being able to register as an author.
Ethan,
I have yet to read anywhere a comment by an author who opposes capping attendance or inviting a limited number or authors to preregister or that attending readers’ preferences should be ignored. Ambiguous or misleading wording in the initial announcement can be and has been dismissed as unfortunate. Other statements have been that were simply insulting. See K.Z.’s post in 14.1 above. Whoever made the statement should apologize; the first explanation of the new policy required no apology, merely a correction. That is not the only tactless response I have seen, though it is by far the worst.
What irks me is so many people seem not to have grasped what has upset some authors. We are not children who need to be put in our place. So far the only truly gracious responses I have seen were from Carole and one sent by J.P. Bowie to a group I belong to. I wouldn’t call your response here offensive, but yours are clearly the words of a person on the defensive. Neither side should be looking at this as a fight.
There are comments within this very thread that conflict this statement you just made, “I have yet to read anywhere a comment by an author who opposes capping attendance or inviting a limited number or authors to preregister or that attending readers’ preferences should be ignored.”
Those saying that pre-inviting a limited number of authors is unfair and that we should do away with that policy are, in fact, stating we should ignore reader preferences.
I do not have a problem with anyone disagreeing with a change we’ve made in policy. I do however take issue with being villainized for doing so, and whether you’ve read such statements or not, as part of that organizing committee, it has occurred. I also take issue with blatantly false statements as to what we’re doing – something else that can be found within this very comment thread – which is the only reason I commented on this particular post to begin with. If you choose to not agree with what we’re doing, so be it. To be false about what those policies are is not okay and to make us out to be horrible people for taking into account a large portion of the people attending the conference is equally not okay.
That is the final word I will utter about any of it. Again – if I offended anyone it was not my intention to do so. I’ll choose to assume the same about all the other comments I’ve read over the past 48 hours.
Much Love
Ethan, I have re-read the posts here and the FB diatribes and cannot find one person who opposes putting a cap on the TOTAL number of author slots. Many (including myself)have agreed with having a some preferred authors whom readers have asked for, at the same time suggesting more tactful ways for doing so. 1/3 of the available slots is not a LIMITED number.
I’ve read a comment where Carole told you specifically the invite was less than a third of the allowable registered authors. So again, your 1/3 comment is sending out false information. This is how rumors get started and spread.
The third of allotted spots is for newer or less established authors. I’ve read it in the letter. I don’t know why this 30 or 1/3 stuff keeps being thrown around with the invites.
Less than 1/3 is more than 1/3. I meant 1/3 as a round number. (I can already hear the mathematicians objecting.) I think 10 out of 70 would be reasonable. That’s 1/7. (I can already see the mathematicians nodding their approval.)
And I’m baffled that you still don’t get what the authors have been saying. This isn’t about the fact that some authors are more popular. This isn’t about the fact that you had to reduce the number of slots to 100. Every author I’ve been hearing from has conceded those points, so I’m not sure why they keep being brought up as if we’re being unreasonable about them.
This is about the fact that you publicly announced that popular authors would be invited first and less popular authors would have to fight over what was left over. Don’t you understand how humiliating that is for everyone who isn’t on the A-list? Yes, we could choose to ignore that, but frankly I don’t know why I should. GRL is fun, but there are other events I can go to without having to swallow my pride.
And what apology? I’ve seen “apologies” for people misunderstanding what you’ve said (which isn’t an apology) and I’ve seen “apologies” for bad wording, but you clearly don’t understand or care why authors are upset.
What you SHOULD have done is sent out the invites to popular authors in advance without blabbing it all over the Internet and then just opened up registration for everyone else a couple weeks later. Then anyone who didn’t get a slot wouldn’t have been made to feel it was because they weren’t popular. We KNOW how big or small our readership is. You don’t have to broadcast it.
The must have list was chosen by last years attendees. Not the GRL committee. We voted on it. I have no idea what the results were but they’re aren’t buddies of the Con organizers like somebody said above. Not you.(2.1 ish) That’s just a bitter comment IMO. Also, if they invited 10 or 15 people that have never been to GRL, how many do you think will actually register? This entire thing is out of hand. I don’t think any of the committee need to apologize. They have taken a lot of crap the last two days because they were trying to do what was asked of them. They shouldn’t have to bow to hurt feelings when their feelings have also been hurt. They aren’t asking for apologies. They have been all over the net trying to answer questions and diffuse rumors. Must have is just a phrase. Maybe that’s even how they phrased it in the survey they gave us last year?
First off, Ethan, I know this week has sucked hard for you in a really bad way, and I’m saddened to see what’s become of this whole situation. It’s hard to be the public face of something like this, I know. Just hang in there.
Obviously, I’m one of those readers who thought the author/reader ratio at last year’s event was fine, but that’s just me. I also thought there was a great mix of authors in every stage of their careers, from those with a single book to their names, to those with an entire backlist. But again, that’s just me. Of course when I registered to go last year, I had a certain few authors I wanted to meet. But you know what? I ended up becoming a bigger fan of a lot of authors who maybe weren’t as “in demand” as some others, and you know why? Because they took the time to talk to me when I took the time to stop and chat with them rather than passing them over to get to someone else, and you know what else? I thought that was pretty damn special. JR Boyd sent me a handmade bookmark, for crying out loud! He didn’t have to do it, but I think it’s pretty terrific that he did. It made a great memory.
I don’t enjoy at all the fact that others were influential enough to effect such broad and sweeping decisions in so short a time, meaning from last year to this, but I’ll accept it because that’s democracy at work. And for the record, that Clare London is totes adorbs, but that’s another matter altogether.
I’m standing on the outside looking in, as a reader and not an author, but I can only assume it’s no fun feeling like a small fish in a big pond. But I imagine it’s even less fun to feel like an amoeba in that pond, which, let’s face it, is kind of what’s happened here. Were feelings hurt? Obviously. Were egos nicked? Yep. Do I side with the “little guys” on this one? Yeah, I pretty much do. It’s hard not to when so many of those “little guys” are my personal “must haves”.
Hi Ethan
Thank you for stopping by to comment on this post. That was very gracious of you and I sincerely appreciate it. As I said before, you and the other members of the organizing committee have done an outstanding job the past two years and I know this must be at a personal sacrifice in terms of your writing schedule.
Hindsight is 20/20 and I think it’s now recognized that the wording in the original news release which caused the furor, was unfortunate. I’m not an author but I can see that they would be upset to think there were two levels of treatment meted out to them and that the author spots were not being handed out on a first come, first served basis. Your comment here clarifies the rationale behind your decision and I only wish that part of this explanation was inserted in the original newsletter; this would have tempered the criticism.
As I said in my post and my comments, the author/reader ratio of 1/3 makes a lot of sense and I also mentioned in response to someone else’s comment, that not increasing the numbers of attendees might have something to do with cost.
The problem with the original communique from GRL was the wording and I’m not sure that the correction helped. Anyway you guys are doing a great job overall and this is the first misstep. Mistakes in communication occur and this is definitely one. What you mentioned about the readers demanding that certain authors be pre invited could have been stressed more as the reason for this new pre-registration policy.
Your comments here have clarified that, and I don’t see how anyone could have a problem with your decision now that it’s been explained. Optics are sometimes reality and we all agree that the original communication was the problem.
Thanks again Ethan for all the hard work you and members of the committee put into this annual event – I for one appreciate it.
A third of the authors being invite-only is not “a small number” as your repeatedly try to convince people.
Not to wade into the fray or anything. But seeing how ugly this whole thing has become makes me sad. I don’t know all of the organizers, but I do know some of them and count them as friends, and I feel very confident that they did not ever intend for anyone to feel excluded, or for the new policy to become divisive. However, that’s exactly what has happened. I think those feelings of being excluded are valid, even though I don’t believe for a second that that was the intent. I truly hope we can all get past this and come back together as a community again.
For my own part, I’m still planning to attend, if my bank account supports it and if I can get a spot. It’s a great deal for authors financially speaking no matter how you slice it; I just need to wait for my next royalty check to see whether or not I’ll be able to swing it along with my other current expenses. Life, what’re you gonna do? I’ll have to compete for one of the 40 non-up-and-comer, non-preferred slots. I’ll admit the “pre-invite” thing did not sit well with me. But there it is. I’m not going to let it keep me from attending the best conference I’ve ever been to, provided I can get in. I want to see the other authors, I want to hang with other readers who understand me like no one else, and I want to have a FABULOUS time like I did in Albuquerque. And I don’t doubt for one single second that this year will be every bit as fun and amazing as last year. I hope that if I get a spot, I’ll see a whole bunch of you there. Including you, Wave, since I didn’t get to hang out with you nearly as much as I wanted last time
I look forward to seeing you again if I (we) get in, Ally.
Me too, Anel! I loved getting to talk with you
Hey Ally
Including you, Wave, since I didn’t get to hang out with you nearly as much as I wanted last time
If I do manage to make it to GRL this year and you’re there I will definitely drag you away so that you can buy me a drink. Seriously, last year was so packed I missed a lot of people. However, I’m going to Italy and Croatia just before GRL and I don’t know if I can afford both.
I’ve said all I have to say on the subject. There’s no point rehashing and that will just make things uglier. I apologize if I was abrasive.
I’m a reader and am completely for all the changes. After two days of whining I really don’t care if the whiners show up at all at this point. More cozy fun and games for the rest of us. Although, one thing that does insult me is how disdainful some authors find registering as a reader. What’s wrong with readers? Is it that important you have a special name tag and a table that is your very very own as opposed to standing behind your publisher’s table? Seriously? That’s what it takes to make some authors valid? I can promise you if you are unable to register as an author but still go as a reader, the other lowly reader readers will still want your attention. Unless you continue to insult us. We read this stuff too. We can see when you continue to spread rumors and make the catty comments. Is that what you really want to be judged by? Please, seriously ask yourself if you want to be judged by the behavior you’ve had on social media sites the past few days. ‘Cause I’m certainly judging you by the behavior you’ve had on social media the past few days.
“Although, one thing that does insult me is how disdainful some authors find registering as a reader. What’s wrong with readers? Is it that important you have a special name tag and a table that is your very very own as opposed to standing behind your publisher’s table?”
A retreat like this is considered a part of an author’s job. They are there to have fun BUT also promote themselves, so yea, it is a big deal if they can’t have access to the perks of being listed as “author.” That special tag and table is not available to them as readers. Just FYI.
Of course they want it. I doubt anybody is saying they shouldn’t. However, if for some reason they don’t get in, then they CAN go as a reader and socialize. I seriously hunted down Claire London last year once I heard she was there.
If I want to see you, I will find you!
Readers read name badges. Especially if we know anyone could be an author! Would working the room be harder? Sure. Can you work a room you’re not in? No! Although I truly feel no matter what some people just want to be pissed. Some of the authors claiming this was a big inclusive experience gave me the cold shoulder when I wanted to thank them for writing. This is so blown out of proportion as to be truly comical.
And I think the publisher tables would LOVE to have the writers hanging around. That would be a huge draw. Seriously! There are ways around the emotional trauma if people walk away from their ego. Yes, it’s ego and I find the attitude revolting. I will absolutely be altering my book buying habits as a result of this thread and others I’ve seen online. I don’t begrudge the opinions, we all have them. It’s the public airing of them for multiple days.
And yes, this is business so lets all stop acting like it’s High School. Business is exactly why the GRL organizers need to keep it afloat. I imagine if you asked privately how these changes help that they would tell you.
Once again, I’ll say these changes are just what I want as a reader and conference attendee. It’s what I voted for. At this point I really don’t care who is hurt by that. I definitely prefer specific authors, both because of their product and their personality. People who are telling me they don’t respect my choices don’t respect me. And you’re trying to sell me something! Really! Get over yourselves. There are so many authors. So many.
Look, I lost my job this year. So now it’s writing or nothing.
That means this is now a big PERSONAL expense. I can’t write it off my taxes if I don’t OFFICIALLY go to promote. Hanging around is not advertising dollars.
And if I can’t sit down to sell books at the signing, then the advertising dollar is not justified. It’d be paying for a superbowl ad and then listed at the end of the game instead of playing at half time.
We write because we love it, but at the end of the day, it is a business. I have to at least anticipate concrete outcomes from what I do or I can’t spend the money on it.
At this point, just going to hang out with folks…I can’t spend the money…and there are a ton of authors in that predicament.
Aside from what James said, which is very true, both about needing to see some return on the investment and on needing to be officially present as an author in order to write the (very large) expense of the trip off on our taxes, there’s another consideration.
According to the note posted on the GRL site, one of the things the official, registered writers are paying for is the right to promo at the conference. In other words, if you’re not paying for a writer membership, you do not have the right to do promo. You can talk to people, yes. And someone said that quietly giving out business cards would be okay. But that’s frankly not enough.
You can’t just hang out at the signing and sign books, or sell books. You can’t go to the parties and give out swag. At the events where readers expect to see and interact with authors as authors, the authors with reader badges are not allowed to do any significant promotional activities, even if they’re discreet about it. The publishers at their tables might well love to have their authors who’ve come with reader badges hang out at their table and talk to readers and sign autographs, but will the committee let them? It doesn’t look like it. At least, that’s how I interpret that part of the announcement. If I’m interpreting it wrongly, then maybe it needs to be reworded.
Angie
Or perhaps you could just ask the organisers directly instead of stating assumptions in public forums.
I’m not going to check how I interpret every line of a very long statement with the organizers. I can only imagine how annoying that would be, especially if everyone who’s been asking questions did that.
Here’s what they said, copied from the GRL web site, as a benefit of buying either level of author membership:
Recognition as an author at the retreat with an official “GRL author” lanyard and the right to promo your work during the weekend
I’m going by the most logical interpretation — that if an author membership specifically buys you the right to do promo at the event, then a reader membership must not buy that right. If both author and reader memberships buy the right to do promo, then they wouldn’t have listed it as a benefit of an author membership. It’s like saying, “Oh, and if you buy an author membership, we’ll let you come to the event!” Well, yes. Everyone gets to do that.
It’s nothing special for authors only, and therefore shouldn’t be listed as an author benefit. Same with the right to promo; if it’s listed as an author benefit, then it must not be a reader benefit.
I really don’t think I’m misinterpreting this; in all honesty I said that above mainly to be polite. [wry smile]
Angie
Quite frankly, in all this debate I haven’t seen anyone on the author or organizer side acting so idiotic that I’d have to add them to my ABB list. YMMV. I think most people are voicing concerns and that’s it.
Believe me, like Angie, having spent 20+ years going to sci-fi conventions, I’ve seen all sorts of knock-down kerfluffles about con memberships, so the GRL wank hardly registers a 2 on my richter scale. *g*
Plus, I don’t think any authors would find registering as a reader “disdainful.” But the perks for registering as a featured author over a readers are vast, esp. an author looking to market/promote themselves, which cannot be done if you are under a “reader’s” badge.
I have, Lasha, authors, organizers, and readers, but not on this Jessewave thread. To be called a whiner when all you’ve expressed is disappointment that many of the people you were looking forward to seeing is insulting. To be told that the authors who feel slighted are in a jealous rage because their sales are low is insulting. To read that you were taking away the place of someone an author wanted to meet is insulting. Things like these raised my hackles, not a perfectly justifiable policy change. The exchange on this site registers lower on the Richter scale than a minor fender bender, and I am full of admiration for it.
Hi Anel
The exchange on this site registers lower on the Richter scale than a minor fender bender, and I am full of admiration for it.
The reason for this is because I don’t allow public floggings here.
Seriously, anyone who frequents this site knows that he or she can voice his/her opinions, but must do so in a manner that’s not considered insulting. I believe in healthy debates (just check out some of the more controversial posts) but they must be done in a polite manner.
Mrs. Manners would be proud of you guys.
Please forgive my ignorance, because I admittedly know nothing about convention planning and am certainly not a mathematician. But I do not follow the logic here. If the issue is that having more authors will translate to higher costs, therefore lets force them to register instead as readers, how is this at all beneficial? Isn’t the registration fee for a reader about a third of what it is for an author? With more authors registered, wouldn’t that mean more revenue?
Okay, I will admit it, I disagree with having a cap of 100 authors. I totally respect the right of the conference committee to make this decision, but I personally do not see how 100 slots can be enough? When the conference last year had 130 authors, and the goal here is to make this year’s conference bigger and better, how can we have fewer author slots?
I’ve stated publicly, both in my blogs and social network, that I have nothing but high praise for the organizers. They did an amazing job the past two years, they were always kind and gracious and helpful, and they made the event spectacular. When I voice my opinion about a policy decision that was made, the criticism is about the policy, not the people!
No matter how this plays out, I want to state that my heart is with GRL. I loved the first two years and have every intention of coming again this year. And I have no ill feelings toward anyone. I do disagree with the “must have” list and the 100-slot cap. But I also recognize that business decisions have to be made, and sometimes they are unpopular.
I’m saddened that I won’t see many of the faces I’ve seen in past years. I hope that those who were upset over the past couple days will rethink their decision to not attend in 2013, because I do believe we are a tribe and we can get through this, even with differences of opinion.
I write to eat. My royalties are my only income. If I choose to go to GRL then something else is sacrificed. GRL is a huge expense but last year, as a writer, it was worth every single penny.
I’m not ‘whining’ but looking at cold, hard facts. Meeting readers, publishers and other authors (and reviewers, hi Wave) is an experience I will not forget, but it was business. Plus a lot of fun.
I don’t go to a fan convention and expect to be treated a member of the cast. I do expect to go to my genre convention and be able to act as a writer, and not hang about like a third wheel.
I’d like to say this will be my final word on GRL, but I promise nothing. Someone may make a point I can’t resist responding to. I’m like that. Aren’t we all?
Marie Sexton spelled out the decisions on her blog with far greater clarity and less pussyfooting than the newsletters. She says she got her straight answers directly from one of the organizers, and since she’s co-authored 3 books with Heidi, I’m sure the info is accurate.
30 slots saved for new authors, 30 pre-invites. That’s 60 out of 100 slots. I approve of the 30 reserved for newbies and think a limited number of “celebrity” (a better word than must-haves) spots reasonable, 1/2 dozen or even 10. IMO, the proportions the organizers have settled on commercialize the event and change the nature of the 2 previous GRLs, most of all the 1st in NOLA. It was always a venue for readers and authors to meet, but more of a gathering than a hoopla sales convention.
So 30 preinvites number is correct after all. That means that assuming that people will use all preinvites and 30 spots reserved for new authors it would have left 40 spots for the authors who would be allowed to register during the times regular registration begins? 40 as opposed to 130 authors who all had to register during regular registration last year? That feels to me as a very drastic change, not a slight one. For the record – I am a reader who has nothing to do with any authors who may have been contemplating going. Meaning, I have no personal connection, etc, no dog in that fight. But I feel bad that so many authors that may have wanted to go as authors would not be able to do so (if only calculating differences between previous year and this one) and certainly understand why they may have been upset. Maybe I have not read enough – only this thread and couple blogs, I am not on twitter, not on facebook, but I personally have not seen a whining and temper tantrums. I only saw people voicing which I see as legit concerns. JMO.
Everyone seems to be assuming that the 30 “pre-invites” will all accept. It’s pretty likely they won’t. I can’t imagine JR Ward showing up at a 400-person mini-con.
Like James and Sue, I make my living writing – which means I have to weigh every penny I spend on promotion and business travel. Factor in the membership fee, airline tickets, hotel, meals and swag, and going to GRL this year will cost around $2-3K.
Attending as a reader is not an option. If I can’t do active promo, I’m not going – period.
I must ask this, because it’s been sticking in my craw.
Has any GRL organizer yet copped to the extraordinarily offensive comments s/he made on Facebook? (I mean the ones made under the GRL logo without a specific name attached.) ‘Cause I’ll tell ya, it was that degree of cowardice combined with that degree of denigration that made me see red. Nobody else in that thread hid behind a flippin’ logo.
At the very least, a sincere apology is in order. But I’ve yet to see one. Geez, people, if you want to be treated like professionals, act like professionals!
Here I go again, after saying I’d said my last word.
K.Z., the place to ask that question, is not here, where the comments were neither made nor have been allowed to be made, but on Facebook. And of course the answer is no. The other organizers themselves may not know, since it is possible they can use the GRL identity independently. I know 2 of the organizers well enough to eliminate them from MY suspicions, and I will not speculate on the others. What’s the point? However, it will be hard if I go to GRL not to wonder which of the people run the show vented them. I may not go because of it, the way I feel now. But who knows how I’ll feel next week?
Anel Viz (not my real name, but not a logo, either)
Wow! I had to go back and reread the initial grl announcement. I guess I skipped over the controversial part or skimmed it too quickly. I commend the grl organizing committee for their hard work. I sincerely hope that this error in wording won’t ruin grl for too many.
Personally I’ve enjoyed the last 2 years and am definitely looking forward to Atlanta. If my favorite authors aren’t there, I’ll be sad. I was sad in Albuquerque cause M.L. Rhodes wasn’t able to attend, but the book signing was a blast and I found lots more authors to read.
And who the HELL is J.R. Ward? Excuse me, but I DON’T read m/f romance. So what if she’s ABOUT to release a m/m book. It might not be any good. Btw, don’t tell me who she is, I’ve read the previous comments and did google her.
Maybe the retreat organizers should have a preferred list of READERS to invite first, at discounted rates. That would add some fuel to this firestorm. I’ve got my tongue firmly implanted in my cheek here. lol
Big hug for Wave!!
JOHN
Thanks for moderating this forum, Wave. I have no issue with attendance caps. I do worry about the ‘popularity contest’ aspects underscored by the last several days. As a new e-pub author, I should figure out a way to attend as a supporting author. Many of my friends attended the last two retreats, and still rave about them. But 2K to 3K is a huge expense for a social gathering, if I cannot do much active promotion. If I have the finances while registration is still open, I might consider it.
Wow. I just noticed on the GRL website that they say it’s where “the tribe comes together.” As if people who don’t go, aren’t part of the “tribe”, the community? Really? I thought they would have learned from their last communication fiasco, but I guess not. This is even more offensive to me. For writers, they’re horrible with words.