SFWA endorses Douglas Preston’s open letter without consulting its membership
July 4, 2014 | 2:43 am
Two “open letters” came out yesterday, one berating Amazon and another praising it. Now it turns out that SFWA has emailed its membership endorsing one of those letters, and it should be pretty easy to guess which one.
Author Don Sakers has posted an essay to his blog complaining that the SFWA has endorsed Douglas Preston’s letter. Sakers, an independent author who makes most of his sales through Amazon, is annoyed that SFWA’s leadership did not make any attempt to consult or discuss the matter with its members before acting, and points out that this comes only a week after SFWA asked its members to comment on a proposal for allowing self-published authors to join.
For years, SFWA has been castigated in the self-publishing community, particularly by authors who support themselves and their families entirely on income from their self-publishing efforts, yet are unable to join an organization of professional writers. The public acknowledgment that SFWA was considering a change helped to smooth some feathers.
So what does SFWA do? It publicly and officially takes the side of traditional publishing, thereby signaling to independent and self-published writers that SFWA doesn’t understand or care to understand their concerns. it’s about as clear a message of "You don’t belong and aren’t welcome" as I’ve ever seen.
Sakers wants to make it clear that SFWA does not speak for him in this matter.
It’s disappointing, but not really surprising I suppose. I’m personally in the awkward position of being friends with a number of trad-published authors I’ve met at cons and such, and they’re more inclined to see reason in Preston’s letter than Howey’s. All they seem to see is that Amazon is doing things that hurt authors, and they don’t seem willing to consider that there aren’t that many things Amazon can do to put pressure on Hachette without also hurting the authors, since after all Hachette pays the authors. (When I asked one such author of my acquaintance what alternative Amazon had, she actually said point blank she didn’t care, and that Amazon and Hachette could send ninja assassins against each other for all she cared. So there you have it.)
For all that SFWA is being overrun by John Scalzi’s “insect army,” it remains at heart an old-school organization full of hidebound traditionally-published authors who see things in very clear shades of black and white. (Amazon is black, and Hachette is white.) That might change if it is able to come to terms for admitting self-publishers, but on the other hand I wonder just how many of its members will see it in their best interest to do so? If the old guard thought Scalzi’s “insect army” was bad, they could be quite overrun (and outnumbered, and outvoted) by successful indie authors if enough such wished to join.
It will be interesting to see if they’re serious about letting self-pubbers in, and how that will change the organization if so. But for now, it’s painfully clear where its leadership’s allegiance lies—even if not all its members necessarily agree.