I mentioned the RITA kerfuffle briefly last week.  There’s been some discussion on the rwa-org listserv (ha ha, “some” discussion) about it, and one of the things that has come up is a not-quite verified comment that “mass produced” means “listed in the Ingram’s catalog as returnable to the publisher.”

To which I have to say. . . wha?

Let’s see if I got this one right.  RWA’s goal is to advocate for authors and to advance romance publishing.  Got it–fine, I understand that.  Good.  Publishing is in turmoil.  I won’t say “in crisis” although surely it is a crisis for the editors who were fired, the imprints that were closed, and the authors who were abandoned in the dust-ups that are still ongoing.

And one of the major issues–one that I have seen listed far and wide from industry professionals on nearly every side of the fence–is the somewhat byzantine system of returns.

I understand this might not be the actual criterion used by RWA for defining “mass-produced” since I did not see an official proclamation.  I also understand that it probably was not chosen with great forethought–just that when push came to shove, someone had to come up with a definition and that was it.  But if you’re going to advocate for authors, can you not use as a criterion of minimum professionalism something that people believe is killing the publishing industry?