Their contract apparently includes a "first look" clause. If that's what I think it is, it gives them the right to look at your next story before you submit it anywhere else. I don't know that I'd want to give up the right to choose where I submit my stories.

Also, their call outright states that a woman who has survived incest has no sex appeal. "You need Jesus" is the response to another potential plot device, and they refer to MTF transgendered people as "fellas. Or ladies. Whatever."

Is it possible to be more unprofessional and offensive? Maybe, but I haven't seen it in a call for submission lately.
 

This post has been removed by the author.
 

I just got the call this new press is putting out. I thought it was excellent that a new press with a multiracial bent was getting into the game. However, I have just finished reading their call and I've got to say it's simply appallingly in bad taste.

The general lack of professionalism ("You need Jesus." regarding incestuous storylines and "What the fuck is wrong with you?" regarding raunch storylines) aside, the call is incredibly offensive to incest survivors and transgendered persons.

Regarding incest survivor characters:
"There are too many stories out there about the female lead and her piece of shit father, or uncle, or whatever - and honestly, it kills any sex appeal the female character has, and we're sick of reading about it."

Regarding transgendered characters:
"Man has encounter with a 'woman' who turns out to be a man. Um…yeah. Not our style, fellas. Or ladies. Whatever."

Because incest survivors should know that the abuse they survived kills their sex appeal, and that it's impossible to tell 'what' a transgender person is. The lack of tact in this call about blew my head off. There is no humour here. It's not funny, it's not edgy, and it's really not what I expected in my inbox. The call also threatens to "report your sorry ass to the local authorities" if they find the content of your story too troubling.

Personally, I'm disappointed. I support their right to publish anything they see fit and to set whatever guidelines they feel are necessary, but to do so in this manner is very disheartening. It's possible to be stringent about what one will consider and not (and, necessary, if one values one's time) without offending people or being vulgar.
 

My general adivice is that publishers should really stick to 'we are not seeking xyz fiction at this time'.

One person's funny or glib is another persons dis. Especially in areas of personal experience and sexual identity.
 

Emily -- Absolutely. Guidelines are really important things, for everyone, but elaboration that ventures into the vulgar and disrespectful is bad not just for that press in particular, but for the business as a whole. (Also, it makes the writers who get dissed feel lousy.)

I was quite excited to see new press like this coming up and to get that call was just such a let-down. Maybe I've been sheltered in that this kind of unprofessional material doesn't seem to be a trend, for which I'm grateful if that's the case.
 

I was really hoping that they would be worthwhile and perhaps they might be, but as a black female who does NOT use "Jesus" and who is not wholly religious, there really is no excitement on my part.

I used to want to submit to some of the urban romance markets, but sometimes they can be narrow...I don't see a book about Gay Gansta WereWolves coming out any time soon from an Urban romance markets...but anyway...I will be looking out for the next press as every week there arises, two or three new ones. Maybe one day there will be Black Erotica that doesn't have anything to do with high roads, religions and judgements on alternative sexuality.

I can await that day.
 

Mya -- I would definitely read that! Wow. Yummy. I am quite sure there are at least a couple romance/erotica e-presses that would be interested in that kind of story. (I can think of two immediately off the top of my head.)

I'm really hoping that maybe WWC will revamp their calls and reassess their level of professionalism and that this is a case of stumbling at the start line, nothing more. It would be exciting to see the kind of press you're talking about enter the scene.
 

I see lots of women of color reading trashy books, but they seem to adhere to the old standbys despite being 'hawt' or 'spicy.' They seem to center around a moral and religious base that I do not necessarily abide by. The only reason why I was interested in them is because there are a lot of them in print and they seem to sell a lot. I don't know about the various other groups under the multi-cultural banner, but at the moment, the freedom of non-color specific e publishing is where its at. I can write Afro-pagan books all I want.

P.S. Nobody has to worry about me starting a press, EVER. I can't count, need to take remedial grammar and punctuation and can't remember deadlines.
 

How nice for those brave and persevering women out there who have survived childhood sexual abuse to hear that they have no sex appeal...

And it may surprise the owners of WWC that for many perfectly decent people, "Jesus" is only a mild epithet, not a meaningful part of their lives.
 

I'm an avid reader and reviewer. I surf alot of blogs and read the comments. And I see the same thing all the time ( bad mouthing). WWC hasn't even start yet and you have already given them bad press, I mean can they get their feet wet first before everybody jump the gun. That's my 2 cents.
 

Oh horror, I gave a start-up some free publicity and people with opinions made comments.
 

Tonni, I would say that WWC have given themselves their own bad press with their first call for submissions.

Offending the authors your trying to target doesn't seem the best practice to get your business off the ground.

It would also give the author cause to question the companies professionalism - as the authors above did.
 

This post has been removed by the author.
 

"If you have a thin skin, take life too seriously, or find personal attacks and/or conspiracies in everything - you don't belong with Wicked Women Press."

Quoted for irony.
 

Actually, Emily, you just proved our point FOR us...
 

Emily - Thank you.

Allmine - I suspect you've missed the point entirely. Being "rude, offensive, and vulgar" (Allmine's words, not mine) in a call for submissions isn't humorous, it's unprofessional. Publishing, small or large press, is a business, and I'd prefer to work with a company that understands how to present itself to the public.
 

Dianne - Apparently we are missing each others' point.

What you find unprofessional, others have found humorous, truthful, and an exciting new business venture.
Doesn't make you right or wrong; neither does it makes us wrong or right.

If you are too offended to work with us, then obviously it is our loss.

Best of luck to you.
 

I'd like to clarify that I found the general substance of the guidelines to be reasonable. I realize that there are stories out there that are badly told, over-told, or best not told at all (at least in some venues). No one has the time or money to sort through material that won't sell, and the joy of having your own company is that you don't have to read what you don't want to read. If how the owners of WWC feel is reflected in the wording of that call for submissions, I can hardly criticize anyone for having strong feelings on those subjects.

A professional release is not the same as a casual email or a personal statement, though. Whether or not that's the way things are inside a company, how a company interacts with the outside world often determines its level of success. The lack of professionalism and offensiveness of the word choices in the call for submissions was significant enough to inspire concern, and now I can see that it was not simply a single instance of poor judgment but is a deliberate choice reflecting the kind of business that WWC envisions itself to be. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your choices for those who were concerned and baffled by your call for submissions.

Best of luck in your endeavors.