Best Comment of The Day Re The Harlequin Press Whoopsy…
Monday, December 7, 2009Posted in: Mrs Giggles pearls of wisdom, RWA needs to get their PR sorted
…Comes courtesy of Mrs Giggles:
At this point, I’m hoping that Harlequin will come out with its own statement – “Yeah, yeah, delist us, whatever, LIKE WE CARE!” – so I can watch the lulz that results and laugh.
Man, I totally feel the same way. I would love for Harlequin to tell RWA, MWA, and all the other WAs to fuck right off.
Giggles is right, HQN will go on with or without the MWA and RWA, because guess what, writers are more desperate to be published, than they are to be accepted into author cliques, and that’s pretty much all that the RWA seems to be. One big fat clique, where if you mind your Ps and Qs, you might get a merit badge, and an invitation to the ball.
I’ll be impressed when authors who insist on bitching about the self-publishing/vanity press ding dong actually start leaving HQN on account of their principles and all.
But I’m guessing that’s not going to happen any time soon. Not unless they’re offered a better contract at least.
As far as I can tell, the RWA needs Harlequin more than Harlequin needs the RWA, and they should just stick to their guns and ride this thing out.
Bullying tactics annoy the shit outta me.
rebyj
December 7
7:21 pm
LOL I totally agree.
Other than a number of active web surfing readers the majority of HQN readership doesn’t have any idea about all the “drama” going on. They just want to pick up this month’s book of their favorite HQN line and get on with the rest of their shopping.
willaful
December 7
10:38 pm
I honestly don’t understand this point of view. To me, the stand by the RWA shows integrity, especially given that you are probably right about them needing Harlequin a lot more than Harlequin needs them. And bullying tactics? How can it be bullying when David stands up to Goliath? What am I missing?
Barbara B.
December 8
12:03 am
Twice at DA I asked about the repercussions to HQN of being delisted by the various writers groups and no one responded. I asked if their good writers would leave or if Harlequin would no longer attract new writers and my questions were ignored. I think HQN is shady but I just can’t see how this is going to hurt them financially, which I imagine is really all they care about.
I’m not unsympathetic to writers but I just don’t know what the writers groups think they’re accomplishing;it seems more symbolic than anything. Although I’m not at all impacted, I’m still a bit fascinated by this whole shebangabang. I feel like I’m missing something. Does HQN stand to lose anything that’s tangible?
Las
December 8
12:57 am
Granted, this whole HQN/RWA thing is the first time any kind of industry news has managed to capture my interest for more that 10 seconds, so I’m pretty much completely ignorant on all this stuff, but from what I’ve managed to understand I have to agree with willaful on this.
I don’t see how this is bullying. RWA and the other WAs are enforcing their rules, which I think is great. The fact that it’s mostly a symbolic gesture because of HQN’s power is, I think, irrelevant. And I’m not saying this because I think HQN is this big evil empire–I had never even heard of vanity publishing until this whole think came out, and not being a writer or someone who can be arsed to give a damn about all this “backstage” stuff I really have no dog in this fight.
I do agree with Mrs. Giggles post when it comes to all the reactions in RomanceLand. After reading analysis after analysis in one blog after another, yeah, I kind of want to see HQN just give everyone the finger to see what happens.
I just want to reiterate that there’s obviously a whole lot I don’t know about this topic, so if I’m completely off-base please let me know.
rebyj
December 8
3:48 am
I too don’t know a lot of what’s going on so my comment is in relation to readers / customers of HQN. Not writers.
Lori
December 8
4:51 am
The NRA has black-listed HQN also because they don’t always sheath their bullets. Gun toting writers are up in arms. Literally.
kirsten saell
December 8
5:20 am
I personally know a man who was taken in by what Writer Beware defines as a “deceptive vanity publisher”. When he found out I was published, he started asking questions about my publisher–stuff about royalties, author copies, cover price policy (whether Samhain adjusted cover price according to how many copies the author was willing to order), etc. I knew from the questions he’d made a big mistake signing with them, but by then it was too late to set him straight. Now he’s stuck with hundreds of copies of a book he can’t move, no distribution, and empty pockets.
And this publisher is not tied to a big name like HQ.
I see two problems with HQ’s venture: 1) it takes advantage of authors, and the temptation to pay to play will likely be a lot greater with a name like theirs. Add in the plug they give with the rejection slip, and it feels scuzzy.
2) since we’re all concerned about the readers–these books were not good enough for a publisher to put their money behind them. What makes anyone think all of them–or even a modest percentage of them–will be fit for public consumption? How many readers are even aware of vanity presses, or of HQ’s forays into the field? Will readers be duped by the “Dellarte Press, a division of Harlequin Enterprises” label? Will they be choked when they find writing that isn’t up to HQ’s (or any trad pub’s) standards?
It’s not just authors they’re taking in with this move. They’ll be pocketing some readers’ money on books they didn’t think were good enough to publish. No one sees anything wrong with that?
Karen Scott
December 8
8:13 am
Kirsten, I think the whole ‘readers will get less quality books’ is a lightweight one. I read badly edited, badly written books on a weekly basis – books that were deemed worthy of publishing. Am I supposed to be less annoyed because ‘golly gosh, at least they weren’t self-published?.
Or am I supposed to be grateful that at least some poor author hadn’t been scammed out of their money? Guess what, I don’t feel less annoyed, because when I read a book that’s crap, I feel like I’ve been cheated out of my precious pounds.
At the beginning of this argument, I was more or less 80/20 re my feelings that HQN were in the wrong, now I’m 99% behind the venture because of the over the top bollocks. HQN is a business, and like all businesses, especially in this current economic climate, they have to look at alternative ways of making money, and quite frankly, if people are impatient enough or dumb enough to want to pump their own money into ‘their dream’, rather than waiting to get published in the more traditional way, then I’m afraid that’s their look out.
I’m kind of sick of excusing people who should know better than to go into any kind of venture without doing their research. It’s akin to me getting an email telling me that I can get rich quick if I just give out my bank account details. Guess who’s at fault if I disclose my bank details to some random stranger that I’ve never met before?
Also, as far as I’m concerned, if any member of the RWA are dumb enough to pay to get published, then surely it means that the RWA aren’t doing their job?
Barbara, when I see action from the naysayers that actually affect HQN’s pocket, then I’ll be prepared to take another look, but writers will still gladly accept publishing contracts from them, and agents will still send them client manuscripts.If I polled every single author who’s blasted HQN about their foray into self-publishing/vanity press, and asked them if they would still accept a contract from HQN, I bet the answers would still be yes, because just as with AmazonFail, people will talk about principles all day long, until it affects them personally.
RWA’s action can be seen as proof of their willingness to tackle the big issues, but I think I’ll wait to be impressed when they tackle all the other far more important issues, like racism and segregation in romance. At least with vanity publishing, people still have the choice whether to go that route or not. When your books are segregated by the colour of your skin, what choice do you have as an author? To not let anybody know that you’re black, and to write books with white chracters?
Until RWA at least start looking at some of these concerns, I’ll be happily blowing raspberries at them in my little corner of the world.
kirsten saell
December 8
4:34 pm
Oh not at all. You should be more annoyed that a traditionally (in the Yog’s law sense) published book was a piece of crap.
There are some publishers (mostly digital) that I simply won’t buy from because the general quality sucks, and that’s a sad thing for the odd book there that might be totally blammo, because I’m not laying my money down for it, either. But honestly? You’re more likely to find crap between the pages of a vanity/self-published book than a traditionally published one. (And I’m not saying every vanity/self pub book is crap, because that’s simply not true. Just that when you remove the quality control element of an industry, average quality tends to take a nosedive.)
The ratio of drivel to decent on shelves will only increase as vanity presses with distribution like HQ has flood the market. And frankly, there are a lot of readers who don’t know what a vanity press is. They’ve been buying HQ for years with a certain expectation of quality. Even if the Dellarte books are well-edited, well, HQ deemed them not good enough for publication, and if readers find HQ is putting out mediocre writing in one of its lines, they may wonder if the whole operation is going south.
Corporations with good reputations shoot themselves in the foot when they associate themselves with products of poorer quality. Does HQ really want its name assiciated with books that do not meet such long-held standards? I think even for HQ, this is a decision that could damage them long-term, in exchange for short term gains. Just not a good move at all, any way you look at it.
Karen Scott
December 8
5:01 pm
But Kirsten, you seem to assume that the Average Reader who picks up a Dellarte Press book is going to automatically know that it’s a vanity venture with Harlequin. I’m pretty sure that when Malle whatsherface was over at Dear Author, the only thing she managed to convey properly was that there would be no HQN reference on the actual books, and let’s face it, how many Average Readers can be arsed googling the publisher unless it’s to look for other books, which they wouldn’t do if the book was crap in the first place.
kirsten saell
December 8
7:13 pm
No, I’m assuming they’re not going to know–and that they might assume that quality in general is simply going downhill with all of HQ. If average readers pick up books that don’t live up to HQ’s previous standards, but have HQ’s name on them, well, they’re not going to know it’s just this one line and just because it’s vanity.
Of course, if HQ isn’t going to put their name on the books, that tells you something right there. They don’t want the association, but they do want the money out of authors’ pockets. Which is…not right.
EC Sheedy
December 9
2:19 am
Karen said: But Kirsten, you seem to assume that the Average Reader who picks up a Dellarte Press book is going to automatically know that it’s a vanity venture with Harlequin
_________________
I’m assuming the “average reader” won’t have many opportunities to read these vanity press editions as most of the books will be gathering dust in writers’ basements. Published writers with big trad publishers moan about distribution. Most of the writers who go the vanity route will probably be doing a lot worse than that! More like brain cramps and serious heart ache? And they will have paid for the privilege. Vanity publishing does have some benefits: is a great way to get a story into print, a great way to spend money, and a great way to get educated about bookselling.
No one can stop Harlequin from doing what it’s doing. You’re right there, Karen. It will be an interesting experiment to watch . . . But, really, Writer Beware!
Shiloh Walker
December 9
6:02 am
Here’s my view on this… might not make much sense, cuz I’m tired.
But anyway…
I couldnt’ care less if HQN decided to dip into self publishing territory. They can make money and they are in the business to make money.
It’s not that they dipped into self publishing. It’s how they did it.
jane
December 9
1:44 pm
You have not read anything really bad until you have read the slush pile, judged a contest or joined a critique group. Have you done any of these? Have you read any self published fiction books? I’ve read some self published books, bought some because I liked the except – but then I got the book and have been disappointed 99% of the time. I really don’t fancy spending my hard earned cash digging through crap looking for a diamond.
Anyway I don’t care that HQ got into the self publishing biz, I have a problem with the sleezy way they got into the self publishing biz. It’s not even true self publishing they are in – it’s assisted self publishing aka vanity. If they had set up a lulu, createaspace or lightening source I personally would not have had a problem.
Roslyn Holcomb
December 9
4:27 pm
Personally I’d rather see Harlequin go to the Big Remainders Bin in the sky than get away with monetizing the slush pile. After all, vanity publishing has always existed and always will. Big woo! But if publishing becomes pay to play, and we all know how they love to play “monkey see/monkey do,” that directly impacts my bottom line. I’m not a Harlequin author so the quality of their books doesn’t impact me one way or another, but I can’t afford to drop $600-1500 to get published. I would never risk my family’s limited assets that way. So, voila, there goes my job.
Do I expect readers to care about this? Not particularly, not any more than I care about the hiring process at your job, but I’m pretty sure YOU DO.
And I have a MAJOR problem with this notion that there’s something wrong with us being concerned about a major employer in our field totally changing the hiring process to pay to play. How would you like it if that happened in your field? I’m thinking you’d be damned concerned, and rightfully so. But somehow writers are supposed to “play nice” because Harlequin’s parent company somehow got themselves into a bind. Not going to happen.
EC Sheedy
December 9
4:59 pm
And, Karen, I meant to ask: that raised middle finger given on your opening? Was that directed at authors? Just wondering . . . and, yes, just a wee bit stunned by it.
kirsten saell
December 9
5:08 pm
There was a restaurant years ago in Toronto (not sure if it’s still around) where service staff either paid to wait tables or worked for free. The difference was that tips were so good it was worth it–they had people competing to work for an employer that paid nothing.
In this case, I see that set-up as being similar to self-publishing–cash outlay but a big slice of whatever pie you get. Vanity publishing is like paying to work, and then giving your employer 90% of the tips you earn.
Regardless, the Labor Board had some very unpleasant things to say about that restaurant.
amousie
December 9
9:10 pm
The issue isn’t stopping authors from getting scammed by vanity or self-publishing although that’s a noble goal. The issue is that publishers are changing their role in the publishing model at the expense of authors.
Increasing annual releases without increasing the customer base, pushing more and more responsibilities which they used to do onto the authors, increasing efficiencies in their in-house production or creating storefronts to generate additional revenue while asking those creators to contribute more, sometimes through decreased advances.
Now traditional publishing is entering into agreements to get revenue from sources that have nothing to do acquiring a product and packaging it to sell to their customer base. And they’re doing it by turning their submissions pile into a customer referral cache without giving those authors any of the rights that an average customer would receive.
Sounds like the social contract between authors and publishers is its final breaking down. Much like the social contract that used to exist between workers and employers in the US.
Harlequin’s entry into this newest revenue stream is just a further symptom of the erosion of the authorial class. If publishers push too hard, they might find themselves no longer relevant to the publishing world. Perhaps not right away. But if I were an author, I’d start looking for ways to make publishers less important since publishers are taking steps to make authors interchangeable and easily replaced. A mass produced book assembly line. It must be okay since many readers seem to be more concerned with the publishers than the authors.
In the current economic climate, HQN is doing quite well. Romance sells during times of economic strife.
HQN controls around 50% of the romance marketplace. Would you eliminate a corporation from your potential client list with those type of odds?
I think RWA could do a better job but exactly who would you have them take on. Romance genre publishers, all publishers, retailers, readers? Sounds like something too big for a single writers organization could tackle by itself. Nevertheless, I agree with you. It’s important. So where would you have them start?
Karen Scott
December 9
10:26 pm
@Kirsten
And I’ll repeat myself, if some dumbass wants to to shell out their hard earned money to publish their dream book, then seriously, that’s their problem. A fool and their money are easily parted, as that old saying goes.
As for it not being right, well, insurance companies rob us blind on a daily basis, and when it comes time to cough up, they um and ahm over the payments, but we still shell out lots of money to them don’t we? If you’re in a desperate situation and you borrow money from a bank, they can charge you anything up to 30% of the original amount borrowed for lending you that money in the first place. There are plenty of ‘not right’ examples I could use where people are legally scammed out of their money everyday, but because it’s what we’re used to, and everybody else does it, we put up with it. At least with self-publishing, you have a choice, and it’s not a matter of life and death.
But that’s precisely my point, why would they assume the book was from Harlequin if there’s no HQN branding on the book?
@Jane
Did you know the books were self-pubbed when you bought them? If so, why did you buy them? If not, how did you find out they were self-pubbed? If they were so bad, why did you keep buying them?
Where would you be digging through crap? I don’t know about you, but when I go to the library, or to the book store, or to the supermarket, I rarely have to “dig through crap”. I tend to go straight to the sections that I’m interested in, and it’s hardly a chore leafing through unknown books in one’s genre of choice, that’s part of the joy of reading, surely?
You may not have had a problem with it, but I guarantee, others would have. It’s the way of the blogosphere.
@Roslyn
I may have misunderstood this whole thing, but I wasn’t aware that Harlequin were going to cease their more traditional publishing routes?
HQN delving into self-pubbing is hardly an apocalyptic occurrence, but the hysteria surrounding their decision, would lead one to believe that it’s the beginning of the end.
So don’t. Seriously, this is not a means to an end that writers have to take. You have a choice in whether or not you part with your money.
Luckily, as I’m the owner of my business, I answer to nobody but the tax man. I understand your point, but prior to setting out on my own, I had a few jobs where I didn’t always like how things were going, so guess what, I left those companies and moved on to better things. When I finally got tired of having a boss, I decided to become my own boss.
I genuinely don’t get why anybody would pay to publish their book, but the fact is, it’s an option for aspiring authors who can’t get published. As long as self-publishing is another route to publishing, rather than the route, you’ll be hard pressed to get me to see this as anything other than unnecessary mass hysteria.
Tell me where I’ve suggested that writers play nice? Part of my point is, all the wailing that’s going on will last two more weeks maximum, then things will carry on, and Dellarte Press will be forgotten until they make another move that garners attention. This is AmazonFail all over again, and HQN, like Amazon, will keep on keeping on.
I still say buyer beware. If somebody offers you the above deal, and you accept, then who’s really to blame for your stupidity, or your lack of common sense?
Did they shut them down or make them start paying the staff properly? Because if they did, then good for them, but if they didn’t, then their talk was very cheap.
kirsten saell
December 9
10:49 pm
Of course they forced them to adhere to employment standards. Sued the owner for backpay for all the servers, too.
I can see all of your points, Karen. But unfortunately, I’m not looking at the right now. I’m looking at where things will be in 5-10 years if this venture is smashingly successful (for HQN’s bottom line–not for readers or authors, neither of whom will benefit) and other publishers start their own vanity wings. Are we going to end up in a publishing climate where instead of the top 3% of manuscripts being published traditionally, it’s now only the very top 3% of that 3% and everyone else gets to pay?
I can see if this catches on, publishers will be funnelling more of their efforts into the sure thing–the author pay-to-play–than the risky proposition that even the no-advance model represents. I’ll always write. But frankly, being in print isn’t worth thousands of my own dollars. I’m pretty sure most bottom-midlist authors would feel the same–and those are the authors who will find their manuscripts most often rejected with nicely worded encouragements to engage in a pay for publish service.
It’s like piracy. Anything that takes the extremely hard and often thankless job of writing and makes it harder or less rewarding discourages those with talent from doing it. I don’t need an advance, or a 20 000 copy print run to make me happy, but I’m not going to self-publish, and I’m not going to pay to publish. And if traditional publishers venturing into vanity makes it twice as hard to get published the regular way, well, I might not even bother trying that, either. I can’t be the only one who feels the submissions game is difficult enough…
kirsten saell
December 9
10:54 pm
And as far as my example with the restaurant goes–I think the restaurant has more of a leg to stand on than HQN. Those servers paid by the night–if it didn’t work out, what had they lost? $50 and 6 or 8 hours of their life. It’s not like they’d signed away $1500 and hundreds of hours of their work on it. Or signed away the right to work in another restaurant for six months.
This is a scuzzy thing, and it is the opposite of good for both authors and readers. Hope you never accidentally buy a vanity published piece of crap with your hard-earned money, Karen. But if HQN has its way, I’m guessing a larger and larger percentage of books released will be exactly that. Unless you’re willing to believe every book they reject is a sparkling diamond…
Karen Scott
December 9
11:05 pm
Hey, welcome to the world. Companies/governments changing goal posts at the expense of their employees/citizens has practically become a full time hobby.
And how is this different to what’s going on in the world right now to the average worker?
Pay being decreased, employees working harder for less money, workers being made redundant, people having to pay for things that used to be free? I’m sorry, but being a writer does not make one bullet proof to change. And like I said in my previous comment, one thing that hasn’t happened yet, if at all, is Harlequin totally abandoning its core publishing principles. They still offer contracts to writers they deem worthy. They may very well offer fewer contracts, but they are still standing, and that’s more than can be said for lots of other companies who have gone by the wayside, and left a pile of shit behind them. If the Dellarte Press venture means they can still keep operating, then I’m afraid that I don’t see that as a bad thing. You of course, like Roslyn, may prefer to see them go tits up, than have a vanity press option. After all, the people who work for HQN aren’t worth considering, right?
See above comment.
I’d be all for that, but seeing as we assume that most authors are too stupid to think for themselves, how the hell are they going to get such a venture off the ground?
And how are their parent company doing?
Lobbying book stores re the practice of segregating romance books by colour would be a start. Speaking to readers re the race divide in romance, is another idea, but let’s face it, the RWA would need bigger balls than they currently have to at least start these difficult conversations.
If there’s something already in the pipeline re any of the above, then I’ll be more than happy to take back my words.
Moriah Jovan
December 9
11:15 pm
Bingo.
As it happens, Torstar is not doing well at all. I *highly* doubt this is a Harlequin-initiated move, but a Harlequin-FRONTED move.
Karen Scott
December 9
11:24 pm
@Kirsten
Well, if this venture is successful, then it’s because the writers who actually paid to play made it so. Nobody else.
You can brand HQN as the evil corporation that took advantage of aspiring writers, but without those writers, this venture will not be a success.
Since the RWA took the step of delisting HQN, they may as well go the whole hog and have a fulsome ‘Vanity Press Is Evil’ programme that informs authors about the pitfalls of going the vanity/self-pubbing route, rather than leaving it to the likes of Writer Beware. Merely delisting HQN is far too much of a passive-aggressive way of tackling this potentially world-altering, humanity-defying problem.
Karen Scott
December 9
11:37 pm
And this is the point where I admit to hardly ever reading HQN books these days, except for maybe the odd Silhouette Desire or Blaze. I mostly think their books/lines suck Great Big Hairy Balls.
kirsten saell
December 9
11:46 pm
Don’t they do that already? Isn’t that what the list is for? To let authors know which publishers can be trusted to deal fairly and which can’t?
I think the confusion as to the purpose of the list derives from the fact that even the best epubs can’t get on it, when in many people’s opinions, the epublishing model, when applied fairly, can benefit authors. But honestly, the list is there to say “Authors, these publishers are safe. Anyone else is either going to take your money or damage your career or both.”
So what if RWA hadn’t delisted HQN? How many authors would say, “Oh boy! I can get into print and it won’t cost me more than my kid’s first semester of tuition, and even RWA isn’t making a stink! And remember the stink they made over epublishers? Heck, these Dellarte guys must be wayyy better than an epublisher! Yay! Let me get my checkbook!”
Honestly, what would you have had RWA do? Nothing? Or do you figure their talk is cheap because they can’t actually compel HQN to put the kibosh on this? They’re a freaking writers’ organization. There’s a limit to what kind of pressure they can apply to publishers.
And as for the segregation/racism in romance issue, not sure how much I care. I mean it doesn’t directly affect me… /sarcasm
I guess we all have our own pet issues, right? Sure would be nice if more people said “this is wrong, therefore I give a shit” rather than “this is wrong but it doesn’t affect me, so whatever…”
An idea for RWA! |
December 10
12:01 am
[...] Giggles and Karen Scott both get it about the DellArte thing: Say somebody wants to pay to [...]
willaful
December 10
12:03 am
“Honestly, what would you have had RWA do? Nothing?”
This is what’s puzzling me. I see your point about the RWA not doing anything about racism in romance publishing and can certainly understand your being pissed at them for not being more proactive. But I don’t quite see how that translates to them being bullies, here.
Karen Scott
December 10
12:31 am
OK, let’s change the word bully, to passive-aggressive then. Equally fucking annoying.
In that case they’ve pretty much failed on that point too, seeing as they’ve seen fit to exclude proven publishers.
I don’t know, how many authors would say that? So far you’re doing a great job of persuading me that authors can’t be trusted to cross the road never mind, make a decision as to what publishing route to take.
And what if RWA hadn’t delisted them? I of course would smugly accuse them of double standards. RWA took this action because they had to, but they need to do more in terms of educating their apparently stupid members on the risks involved with self-pubbing/Vanity Presses.
Yep, but not because of their lack of power when it comes to hurting HQN, rather their lack of proactivity re educating their members. Remember, the success or failure of the Dellarte Press venture is entirely in the hands of writers. Just because Dellarte Press isn’t included in the RWA’s list doesn’t automatically mean that writers will assume that they’re no good. Hence why I think de-listing is mostly a passive-aggressive action.
Karen Scott
December 10
12:50 am
Hey, if I’m honest, this doesn’t really affect me, but at least I’m offering an opposing viewpoint rather than following the hysterical wailing masses. That’s a service in itself.
I’m pretty much a black and white person, but even I can see the shades of grey here.
Yog’s law is the ideal, but it’s not the only way to go.
There is more than one way to skin a cat after all.
Roslyn Holcomb
December 10
12:59 am
If you read their promotional materials they state clearly that they’ll be keeping an eye on their vanity press books, and that it might be a route to being published with Harlequin. Think about it for a minute, how long do you think it will be before they start selecting exclusively from the slush pile, ie the folks who paid to play? Knowing corporations like I do I’d bet a helluva lot less than a New York minute. And once Harlequin monetizing the slush pile everybody else will follow suit.
No, actually that’s not true. If the publishers go to the pay to play model, and there’s no doubt they will, you have only one other option, and that’s self-publishing. And again, I don’t have the money to do that. So yes, that literally leaves me without a writing career. And don’t tell me I can stick with the e-pubs, I doubt very seriously that independent e-pubs are going to be around once all this shakes out. Maybe it’s because I’ve been a romance fan for almost 40 years, but I remember the “Romance Wars” of the early 80s when very few publishers were left standing. I have no doubt this will happen again, and when it does the big boys will do the same thing they did before; eat up the smaller publishers for lunch. Then pay to play will be the only game in town. You either pay them to get out of the slush pile, or you labor on in self-publishing obscurity.
And again, I don’t expect readers to know or care about this. Presumably if other employers began acting this way, though I might not be directly impacted, I wouldn’t stand on the sidelines and point fingers at the workers and call them “bullies.”
Karen Scott
December 10
12:59 am
@EC
The clue to the answer to this question is not-so-hidden in the post.
That pic stunned you? On this blog? Really?
amousie
December 10
1:31 am
No shit. Eventually world power just moves to another location. That hasn’t changed any time in the history of man. It’s scary that our governments are so shortsighted as actively encourage an early drastic world power shift.
Nothing new here. But the HQN situation should be a wakeup call to authors and their organizations to re-evaluate the model to see if it still makes sense. I’m talking about the publishing model not the individual self-publishing vs. traditional pieces.
1. When a worker takes a job they are pretty much guaranteed that they will get income from their efforts at least in the US and UK. In the US, many workers also get health insurance from their employers. And finally they have a social safety net called unemployment.
2. Authors have no real control over the publishing model once they turn their finished product over to the publisher.
It’s not the same type of power balance you’d find in the average workplace. The author is assuming much more of the risk in the publishing model while the publisher is assuming less and less.
An example: Publishers can spread out their risk by increasing the number of releases or minimize it by offering no advances. The average worker never assumes that type of risk with their employer.
That’s true. The economic model embraced by our government is such that wage and earning power has been stagnate for 40 years in the US. Bulletproofing the author from change isn’t the issue.
The issue is that the publishing model is shifting too far to the publisher’s advantage to the point that the author is almost an incidental consideration to the process. How long before the author ceases to matter to the business model? What does that say about the model that creator of the product is so far down the totem pole and that they have so little control/power?
Completely inflammatory and utter bullshit. I said nothing about Harlequin’s right to do business as they see fit. I said that publishers were changing their role at author’s expense. You can infer that I don’t care for what they’re doing but I never said they didn’t have the right to do it.
As devil’s advocate, let me play the potential downside. DellArte is a freaking disaster. It’s making money for Harlequin but its customers aren’t getting what they think they’ve been sold. Let’s go ahead and say the authors are stupid too. Just for fun because that is our starting assumption, isn’t it?
What happens to the HQ brand? How many jobs are lost? What’s that you say, the average reader won’t know the association? Are you so sure about that?
One would assume that most of the authors submitting to DellArte are those who first submitted to HQ and received rejections letters pointing them to DellArte. Those authors won’t go to some piddly-assed nowhereville forum to complain. They’ll hit the romance blogs, the Harlequin forums and twitter with their dissatisfaction. They will tell their friends. They feel betrayed. This was Harlequin. Harlequin. Can you believe it? Yeah, they’re a business get over it.
What happens to the Harlequin brand then?
Harlequin recognized that putting its name on the imprint was too much risk, so they changed the name. That name change doesn’t eliminate the risk, it only minimizes it. Hurt the Harlequin brand bad enough and watch that company go down fast. They rely on their monthly subscription sales so a brand boycott would have a huge impact on their bottomline. Those those jobs you mentioned above would be lost.
Is the risk of this new revenue stream worth it? Obviously you and Harlequin believe that it is. I think it’s short-term cash with minimal thought to long-term viability with the huge potential to get bitch-slapped unless they manage expectations. Of course, managing expectations is not Harlequin’s responsibility. That’s been outsourced.
Well, I don’t assume that authors are stupid, however, an individual author can’t develop a new business model to replace the old one on a large scale. That’s something a group of authors or an author’s professional organization would need to do. I suspect it will be the former that brings it to the latter.
“Their parent company sucks big hairy donkey balls.” This venture won’t be big enough to fill that gaping hole. So your point is what exactly?
It’s not just bigger balls that would be required. What you’re talking about is a massive undertaking that requires concerted effort by the majority of the membership, an investment of resources and strong, well organized leadership. With its loose affiliations to the local chapters, I doubt RWA is geared toward that type of activism.
If RWA did pick up the activism banner, would the racial communities support them or would they be doing it by themselves?
Does RWA speak to readers now?
Karen Scott
December 10
1:33 am
Ifs, ifs, ifs.
If I had been born a boy, I wouldn’t be a girl, If I had set off at 6am instead of 7am this morning, I would have missed the accident.
To many ifs for me, and not enough actuals to warrant the mass wailing.
I’m too much of a business-minded person to say anything other than, ‘then find another career’ to this comment.
If you lost your job, wouldn’t you at least look for another one? The economic climate isn’t ideal, but neither is sitting around waiting for something to happen. Authors are no different to other creative careers, some people make it, some people don’t.
Like I already said, this is happening to other normal people everyday, authors don’t have a divine right to be protected from economic and market influences.
Round and round we go. I’ll tell you what, when it happens, then please feel free to come on here and wag your fingers with a big old dose of ‘I told You So’. Until then, I’ll stick with how things are, rather than fretting over what might be, without any actual proof that the sky is going to fall in.
Oh I don’t know so much about that. If the cap fits and all. Over here our postal workers staged a series of strikes over pay and conditions etc etc. They seem to do this at least once a year.
I was in town one day, and they were trying to drum up support for the strike. That was the same day that a major company had had to make lots of their staff redundant.
I went over to them and told the postal workers that they should be grateful they still had jobs, and asked if they considered the businesses they were harming by striking.
Not all employees who complain deserve sympathy, and I certainly wouldn’t be above calling a co-worker a bully if I thought they were taking the piss. Not that employees would do such a thing. Of course not. Yeah, right.
kirsten saell
December 10
2:38 am
It really isn’t. A proper parallel would be if all employers required a hiring fee from employees, and promised pay for work only if the employee’s productivity generated a certain amount of profit for the company. Know any nurses, computer programmers, bank tellers, telemarketers, janitors or waitresses who are asked to do that? How many are barred by contract from shopping their nursing, computer programming, banking, telemarketing, janitorial or food service skills to another employer if they don’t like the pay at their present one?
A writer is not an employee, and that’s why publishers get away with this stuff. If we were employees, we’d all be protected by labor and wage standards.
I’m not a proponent of the advance model–I think paying an author up front for work that may represent a net loss to the company is doomed to failure in this economy, especially considering the other investments publishers put into the product. I can see publishing as a partnership venture being a good thing–the author supplying the raw goods, the publisher supplying the financial wherewithal to produce and market the product, and both sharing relatively equally in the profits. Oh wait a minute! That’s the epublishing model, and the model for a lot of start up companies requiring venture capital.
But a fee-charging service that pays 50% on net (after production costs, shipping, warehousing and retailer discounts) and also ties up your rights? The service doesn’t even provide the venture capital and pushes all the risk onto the creator, but wants to share equally in the profits? No thanks.
And I think everyone’s living in sparkly unicorn land if they think for one minute that if this venture proves a profitable one HQN WON’T curtail their traditional publishing activities. If they’re at the mercy of their parent company to the point they do something this ill-advised (and they had to know the shit-storm it would create), then they won’t have any choice but to bow to pressure from above to augment the vanity operation at the expense of the traditional one.
Yeah, the doom and gloom predictions might not come true–but they’re a lot less likely to come true when the internet is filled with people crying foul over this, so authors tempted to feed the beast will be more likely to avoid it altogether.
Karen Scott
December 10
2:40 am
What about small business owners? There’s no such guarantee that they will earn an income. They go into their ventures in hopes of making a go of things, but they don’t all have guarantees that the money will come rolling in. The risk for them I would say is much higher than for a writer, because writers can work part-time, whereas lots of business owners have to dedicate every spare minute they have to said business. As for unemployment, that doesn’t always kick in straight away, some places require you to be unemployed for a certian period of time before you can claim any money.
The small business owner assumes all of the risk generally. If they go tits up, then it’s not just a publishing contract at risk, it’s their whole livelihood. This has happened to thousands of businesses. Every Friday I receive the UK activity report, and for a while earlier in the year, company after company were closing down due to the economy. Some of those people lost everything, and suffered mental breakdowns, a few committed suicide, others lost their families. You tell me how the risk to the author is greater than the risk to a sole trader?
Our local DIY store used to have loads of staff, and there was always someone on hand to help you, however, they got in self-service tills, and made some of their staff redundant. They changed their way of working, and some of their employees became surplus to requirement. The company saved lots of money in the long run, benefitting themselves, and resulting in job losses for the workers. Change of working practices/models happens in other industries too.
But with the self-pubbing route, don’t the authors have far greater power? I’m not really sure what the argument is here?
Wait, was there a time when authors had more control? Book titles, cover art decisions have usually been subject to the publisher’s haven’t they?
Ha, you bit!
Well surely if HQN goes tits-up because of their decision to go Vanity, wouldn’t their demise becomes a warning to others who were considering going the same route? Ergo all the worries re self-pubbing and vanity presses taking over the world would come to nought.
Re Average Reader, I have a friend who reads Mills and Boon Tender line, that’s all she reads, how will this affect her reading enjoyment?
And this is something I acknowledged when the news broke. I thought using Harlequin in the Horizons title was a dreadful idea.
Being in business is about taking calculated risks, sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don’t. HQN is no different to any other company with regards to this. And personally, I still think Average Reader wouldn’t link HQN to Dellarte Press, if there were no identifiers in or on the books.
My point was, you stated that HQN were doing well, whilst I knew that their parent company weren’t.
And we’re back to my beef with RWA, no real power, or the desire it would seem to be anything else other than a ladies’ tea & scones group.
Campaigns were created as a way of getting people on side, that’s what RWA would have to do.
No, they don’t – and aint that a shame?
Karen Scott
December 10
2:50 am
I really must go to bed now, however this caught my eye:
I’ve said it a few times now, if Dellarte Press is successful, it’s because writers chose to pay to play. If you guys don’t want that to happen, you (general you) and the RWA better start educating your fellow authors and any newbies straight away. Set up Vanity Press Information groups, cry from the rooftops that HQN is wrong, and try to ensure your colleagues avoid accepting offers of contracts from them in the interim.
kirsten saell
December 10
3:12 am
Um, this is a circular argument. Because if we all followed your advice, no one would be talking about any of this, right? What do you think all these words devoted to Dellarte are doing? When an author googles Dellarte now, they’re going to come up with a hundred or more discussions on what a shitty deal it is for authors, how it’s vanity and not self-pub, how it’s skeezy and unethical. The more posts, the more google hits warning authors to stay away.
Cry from the rooftops? That’s what we’re freaking doing. But don’t tell us to cry from the rooftops, then criticize us for getting all hystrionic and reactionary.
amousie
December 10
5:24 am
The risk to small business owners is a different animal. The small business owner generally doesn’t spend 6-9 months developing one product for a potential revenue stream and you’re presuming a small business owner can’t have another job. Not true. I could own a small business and have a full time job.
In the state I live in there’s a one week waiting period before it kicks in. The safety net is not the same in all states. Regardless it’s a safety net which an author doesn’t have access to all unless they are also employed. A small business owner could have access to it depending on how they setup their business.
I never said it was greater than a sole trader. But you’d changed the argument from worker to small business owner.
But what does this have to do with my position that the publishing model is becoming too skewed to the benefit of the publisher? Why is it necessary to break it down to the individual? All that does is distract us from taking a hard look at the business models and doing something about it as a group.
Corporations love this type of thought process because we blame each other and ourselves saying if only we had more education or if we were better more skilled employees instead of holding the corporation accountable for their business practices at the expense of the common good.
But hey, you want the circular argument. We can go there with you tomorrow.
But those workers aren’t the creator of the product being sold in the publishing model.
Self-publishing is a piece of the publisher model. It’s not the publishing model. Different argument.
These are detail of the publisher packaging process. My comment was about the publishing business model.
Of course, I did. You didn’t give the dark side so I took you up on the taunt to point it out. Part of my fun and I got to call you inflammatory. So ha back!
We basically agree. The difference I think is that I don’t feel the average reader ever needs to know who or what DellArte Press is. The only thing they’ll care about is the Harlequin brand. The bitch-slap to the HQ brand doesn’t come from buying of reading a DellArte book, it comes from dissatisfied authors who tell others of their experience publishing with a Harlequin imprint.
But the implication of your original full comment seemed to be that because of the current economic climate HQN HAD to seek out new revenue streams in order to survive. Torstar didn’t seem to be a part of your commentary at the time so my response didn’t include them.
It’s interesting that you hold this impression but then condemn them for their position on HQN. Perhaps the delisting is only symbolic but what happens if they take no stand or worse reverse their stand?
Think of it in terms of what you just suggested they do for segregating romance. We can argue about the merits of what they do, their definitions, procedures but it’s done now. A public statement was issued. It can’t be taken back.
You’re a business woman, Karen, you know how corporate politics get played. What are the pros and cons? What happens to their credibility among the membership if they back down? Or what should they ask Harlequin for in exchange for reversing the delisting? Of course, that last one would assume that RWA has power to negotiate.
I agree. I was more curious as to whether or not the racial community supported the proposal you suggested. I get mixed messages whenever I hear the topic addressed so I never come away with what the best solution to this problem. And, yes, I’ve read your posts on the subject and agree that it is a problem.
EC Sheedy
December 10
5:39 am
And, Karen, I meant to ask: that raised middle finger given on your opening? Was that directed at authors? Just wondering . . . and, yes, just a wee bit stunned by it.
The clue to the answer to this question is not-so-hidden in the post.
That pic stunned you? On this blog? Really?
Yes, really. Color me Canuck–and too damn (wince) nice to think giving writers and their organizations an “up yours” was warranted. We’re all experiencing some difficult times and trying to figure out how all this market pressure is going to affect us and our families. An up-yours just doesn’t seem to fit the situation.
But, yes, I know, it’s your blog–which I so often enjoy–and you have the absolute right to say what you want to. Tasteless lead photos and all. But, yeah . . . stunned, I am.
Karen Scott
December 10
7:55 am
Kirsten, this argument is going round and round, but basically you already intimated that authors aren’t so good at research, so my point was, a few people sitting around, arguing about it on the net is probably going to do sweet F.A. My version of shouting it from the rooftops is obviously not the same as yours. If you’re all so up in arms, then actually get involved.
And yes, I still feel that there’s been a lot of wailing, with little action, and that as much as anything is tiresome. But this is RomLand, we’re pretty good at getting hysterical without actually achieving anything.
A question Kirsten, if HQN offered you a three book contract (let’s assume they love what you write) with a really good advance, would you say no?
@EC, I’m stunned that you’re stunned. My light side must have been taking over my dark side, and that just won’t do.
@Amousie I think RWA are lightweight, and their symbolic gestures without proactive campaigns just don’t impress me much.
As for the rest of your points,they’ll have to wait till I come back from work.
But I will say this, I think I’ve discovered that a lot of my issue with this whole debate is the expectancy that authors have to be treated differently to the average worker or business owner. Yeah, the publishing model has differences, but an author’s job/6-9 months creative process is no more important than somebody who works in a factory. If the model is no longer satisfactory, then there are choices to be made, take decisive action one way or another and actually put up, or shut up.
amousie
December 10
9:15 am
Karen, I agree in the overall sentiment but reserve the right to disagree about the details.
Look forward to your return!
Karen Scott
December 10
11:36 am
This excellent post from Mrs Giggles sums up my feelings over this whole debate.
Yeah what she said.
Nora Roberts
December 10
1:18 pm
First and again, vanity press is not self-publishing, it’s vanity press. They are not the same thing.
Second, those who go the vanity press route aren’t writers, aren’t authors–and the vast majority of those who will bite on the Delle Arte lure will not be writers. They’ll be people who have the illusion they’re writers, the ones who proclaim commercial publishing is a big scam and editors are conspiring to keep their work out of print.
I am routinely sent vanity press books by people who hope/believe I’ll love them, see the talent and help them find a commercial publisher. I can’t count the number of books like this I’ve been sent. Initially, I’d read the first couple pages, because it seemed the polite thing to do.
Now I don’t because in the dozens people hopefully sent me I found nothing–NOTHING–but awful. Truly, flatly, no wiggle room awful.
And this is the sort vanity presses play to, how they make their money.
I won’t argue the rights and wrongs of that. It’s perfectly legal, and the person who shelled out several thousand dollars for their ego bought what they paid for.
It’ll be too bad for them if they believe the Harlequin hype that this is another way to publication, if they believe the hints that just maybe they’ll be picked up by the actual Harlequin brand, and all the rest.
And it’ll be too bad for us, those who work with commercial publishers–print or e–those who legitimately self-publish, if ventures like this delute or diminish the business of publishing.
RWA did indeed do what it had to do. While this 30 year old organization is not perfect, and does not and cannot please all its members–and certainly can’t please all those who aren’t members–it’s not a clique, there is no ball to be invited to, and at least speaking for myself, I’m not one who indulges in tea and scones.
Shiloh Walker
December 10
1:20 pm
One thing about the whole mess aggravates me? HQN didn’t decide to dip into SELF PUBLISHING. The way I see it, the deal with DellArte Press/Harlequin Horizons is vanity publishing.
Real self-publishing can offer options to writers, and it’s a way the self publishing companies can also make money. It’s legit. It’s aboveboard. It’s honest.
In REAL self publishing, the author can at least pocket whatever profits are made-as they should, since they’ll likely front a few thousands to begin with.
But this isn’t self-publishing (in my opinion)-it’s vanity publishing. HQN would have done far better to partner with a group that actually does SELF PUBLISHING, instead of this ‘assisted self publishing’ crap.
If they’d partnered with a real self-publishing and hadn’t decided to target the writers they’d already rejected, I wouldn’t have such an issue-and while I can’t speak for RWA as a whole, I do know quite a few members wouldn’t have had such a problem with it, either.
EC Sheedy
December 10
2:39 pm
@EC, I’m stunned that you’re stunned. My light side must have been taking over my dark side, and that just won’t do.
Can’t have that now, can we?
kirsten saell
December 10
4:25 pm
Well, I’m not sure. I do know the size of the advance–big or small–wouldn’t sway me that much. It would be the other contract terms and other aspects of the company that would decide the matter for me. If I did accept–and it would be a tough decision right now–it would leave me with a bad taste in my mouth, certainly. As it is, I can avoid the whole matter by never sending them anything.
I will say there are reputable agents out there I wouldn’t work with even if they came courting, writers’ organizations I wouldn’t join even if they offered everything I need, and bigger publishers I wouldn’t touch even though they could possibly earn me a decent chunk of change. I don’t expect every writer to be like that–just like I don’t expect that every person out there will walk back into the store and stand in a long line-up to pay for the candy bar they accidentally walked out with. Other people do what they do. I do what I do.
And like Shiloh, I would not have a problem if HQN were dipping its toes in self-publishing. Self-publishing is honest. Vanity publishing–especially when it’s promoted in rejection letters, OMG–is not honest. It’s skeezy and predatory.
Anon76
December 10
6:37 pm
All of this is such a sticky mess. I’m going to state some things in my meager, blue-collar working-class way. It may sound odd, but it’s a possible future.
Applicants A and B apply for the same job. A has better skills, but B is close behind. Verra close.
The employer decides to interview the applicants at the same time.
E) Thank you both for applying, but as of this moment you are basically tied for the position. What pay are you looking for?
A) The minimum going rate for the position.
B) Same.
E) Okay, what if I were to suggest that we could hire you instantly if you pay a fee first. Nominal, of course.
A) Well…I suppose I could swing that.
B) I’m totally willing if it means a job.
E) And this position requires uniforms. The nominal fee would cover the basics, of which we get a cut, but we have an option where you pay more for a bit flashier uniform and our profit increases. Would you be willing?
A) “looks to B who seems very determined” Yes, I can do that.
B) Done! I’m in.
…cutting this short as I hope you can see where I’m going…
E) And if I were to tell you, after all this, we will only give you 50% net of the pay promised after all the expenses you shelled out but we will claim as overhead, would you still be willing?
A) No, I give up.
B) Sign me on! I’m here, I’m dedicated, and I want it, unlike my colleague A. Go team!!!!!
Tis my take on things, milage varies.
cutting this short cuz I could go on and on…
Karen Scott
December 10
8:48 pm
@Nora
Surely this is conjecture on your part? I’ve no doubt that there will be some who feel this way, but how do we know that these people will be the majority, rather than the exception to the rule?
Like I said, prior to all the hankie-waving and the swooning, I was pretty sure that what Harlequin was doing was foolhardy, but the more the naysayers go on and on, the less and less I empathise with their viewpoint. I honestly feel that a lot of the fear and loathing going on is as much to do with fear of change as anything else.
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but aren’t all writers under the illusion that they can write at the beginning of their career?
I don’t doubt that a lot of vanity press books will be pure crap, but don’t you think that if there was an effort to improve the whole process, rather than just shun them, the overall quality would significantly improve? Or is it that a lot of traditional pubbed authors don’t actually want things to improve?
@Shi
Whilst they may have been better off looking for a less notorious company to partner up with, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the vanity press debate, like I said in a previous comment, there are worse ways that citizens get scammed legally, and with full co-operation from all of us, at least with both self-publishing and vanity publishing, there are things that can be done to make the whole process a more viable option for some aspiring authors. The traditional model may be the ideal, but you can’t tell me that there aren’t books that get rejected by publishing houses everyday, that may actually be worth publishing, because I just don’t buy that.
Shiloh Walker
December 10
9:59 pm
not Nora, but it’s possible she feels that way for the same reasons I do.
Those who are serious about writing, for the most part, are going to do their research. If they decide to go the route of self-publishing, they are going to shop around, research, and find better options-especially considering that this press charges more than double than some pretty well established self pubs.
One thing you see a lot when you’re a writer is those who are looking for a shortcut or an easier road. You get those questions left and right at events, online, email, etc. After a while, it gets a little easier to see who is really serious.
the serious ones research. They learn the market. They equip themselves with knowledge so they can make wise choices. The serious ones, whether they are open to self pub or prefer traditional publishing, are going to research. They take their craft seriously and they want to do what is best for that craft.
Considering this company charges double, keeps half the profits even after the writer fronted all costs, it’s fairly easy for me to feel that those who stumble into DellArte/Author Solutions/HHz are going to be those who think … “oh, short cut…easy way…will cost some money but maybe that’s how the game is played.”
From everything I can see, there is nothing DellArte/Author Solutions/Hhz offers that you can’t find elsewhere, and for a substantial amount less. just a little research is all it takes to see this.
If you’re serious about pursuing something, you’re going to research and learn your options, right?
I posted this info on my blog, but here’s what about twenty minutes of research netted me:
Basic line editing… not for plot issues, just typos, etc.
* At Self Publishing, Inc… this will run you $0.014 per word.
* At DellArte, it will run you more than double, at $0.035 per Word
Content edit:
* At Self Publishing, Inc, a book of 90000 words can get the comprehensive edit, which includes the mechanical edit and the more involved edits, for $0.035 a word. It will run you $3150. (Oddly enough, that’s how much just a basic line edit will run from DelArte.)
* At DellArte, that same service will cost you more than double, at $0.077 a word. Total cost? $6930.
They’ve tried several times to post ‘advertising deals’ they aren’t really privy to-like RWA’s writer publication ROMANCE SELLS, open only to RWA members. Not only did they offer this without having that privilege, they also marked it up about 30%.
i disagree that anything about vanity publishing can be viable…for the author. I do think self publishing can be, and I’m actually thinking about an experiment, just to see what happens.
I do think there should be more education self pubs, and one of the reasons I get involved in these sort of discussions is because that is one way to educate and get educated.
But there is nothing viable about vanity publishers, in my opinion, or this ‘assisted self publishing’ crap-if the author is going to front thousands of dollars, they should keep all the profits and with vanity/assisted self pub, they don’t.
There’s is nothing viable, IMO, for the serious author about a publisher who charges more than double what many self publishers charge-yet they still own the ISBN, they get half the profits, and from some of the info that was originally on the HHz site-SHOULD an author actually have a gem and a traditional press decides to pick them up? HHz was going to ‘act’ as their ‘agent’, which means they get another %15 of the take.
Are there good self-pubbed books? Oh, I absolutely believe that. I believe there are many that would have done rather well in New York but for whatever reason, it didn’t happen.
Are there good books rejected by traditional pubs? Oh, yes…traditional authors get more than a few rejections under their belts and then turn around sell the rejected book to another press and do very well. Good books do get rejected.
And if those with the good books want to find a legit, reputable self-publisher to work with, more power to them. If they go into with their eyes open.
But anybody who submits to a place that charges DOUBLE and keeps HALF of all profits doesn’t have their eyes open.
I don’t want to do a thing to make vanity publishing more viable-I just don’t. Lining the pockets of somebody who doesn’t really give a damn about the craft of writing doesn’t appeal to me and since the vanity publishers are the ones making money hand over fist, I’m not interested in discussing how they can be a viable option.
If a place overcharges and still wants to take half the profits, I don’t feel it’s a place a writer needs to waste her time on.
I don’t mind discussing the ways self publishing can be viable, because the writer is actually getting a fair deal there.
Nora Roberts
December 11
9:44 am
Karen, no it’s not conjecture. It’s conclusion based on literally years and literally countless examples I’ve personally read–or begun to read. It’s both of those applied to more contacts from people looking for–as Shiloh mentioned–the shortcuts, who believe I can or would help them cut through the time, effort, channels and get their book published. People who send me their mss, or send me letters or emails with their synopses–and explain that they can’t find a publisher or agent to accept them.
I can’t think of one single instance when the reason they can’t get accepted, or went to vanity press wasn’t because: They. Can’t. Write. Not just that they need a little more editing or polish. Or even a lot more editing.
Vanity press is a sucker’s game, and there are plenty of suckers. I’m personally disappointed that Harlequin would go into this kind of business, and will certainly tell anyone who asks me what I think about vanity press.
Still, since they’ll be mining their rejection pile, I expect they’ll get plenty of business.
And now honestly, what do I have to be afraid of? I’ve been publishing successfully for 30 years. I’m not afraid of change. In 30 years in this business I’ve dealt with plenty of change.
When a crappy e-pub tries to take advantage, has lousy business practices, etc, this blog is one of the forums for getting the word out, and generating discussions that help point the way to solid e-pubs, gives reasons why potential authors should avoid the crap. When you post a column exposing one of those fly-by-nights that’s not hysteria, it’s not wailing, it’s not hanky-waving.
We now have a major publisher venturing into an area many, many, many writers object to, and which major writers’ groups object to. Whether or not you agree with our reasons for objecting, we have reasons. And we’re laying them out. That’s not hysteria, it’s not wailing, and it’s not hanky-waving.
Certainly there are those who see this as simply a change, or the evolving face of publishing’s future. I think you’re wrong. I certainly hope you’re wrong, but that’s not out of fear. I think my position in the business is pretty solid, and if after 30 years it all went tits up for me, I’d be okay. I’ve had a really good run.
But I love books. I love writing them, I love reading them. I love discovering a new writer and watching her career evolve. With vanity press, my chances of discovering–from my own personal experience with same–are pretty much nil.
Shiloh Walker
December 11
2:38 pm
dear nora
can i send u a book to read?
Anon76
December 11
4:22 pm
Nora said:
“When a crappy e-pub tries to take advantage, has lousy business practices, etc, this blog is one of the forums for getting the word out, and generating discussions that help point the way to solid e-pubs, gives reasons why potential authors should avoid the crap. When you post a column exposing one of those fly-by-nights that’s not hysteria, it’s not wailing, it’s not hanky-waving.”
THIS
Karen Scott
December 11
6:42 pm
But it kinda is hanky waving and mass hysteria, much like AmazonFail was, when people swore they’d never shop there again, but as soon as it became inconvenient, they went back. And that’s how I see this situation.
With every single one of my Publishers behaving Badly post, I’ve done my bit by refusing to buy from them, whether it be NCP or the now defunct Mardi Gras.
RWA did what they had to, but I don’t think they could do anything else, however most of the people who are against HQN’s venture with the vanity press peeps will keep buying their books (if they read them in the first place) and would happily take a contract off them.
It’s like being disgusted with a boyfriend because he’s a Klan member, but still dating him because he has lots of money and a great car.
If it really bothers the naysayers that much, then as a reader, stop buying their books, and as an author refuse their contracts.
But we all know that’s not going to happen don’t we?
And judging by the yeses on today’s dilemma (and thanks to the ones who have been truthful), the outrage doesn’t stretch to not taking money from them for a contract.
And since, the No-Way-Jose peeps will carry on buying HQNs books and submitting to them, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest working towards a way of making Vanity Press less dirty.
Nora Roberts
December 11
7:03 pm
Why, seriously, why, should any of us in the publishing business try to find a way to make vanity publishing more legit? What in the world would that do for us?
Harlequin’s commercial publishing is still what it is–the only game in town for series romance. I certainly wouldn’t advise anyone to give up their livelihood because the publisher has decided to start up a vanity press. And I’d certainly advise everyone NOT to spend their money with that arm of the publisher.
Readers aren’t going to boycott a publisher like Harlequin. Boycott a small, fairly crappy e-press? Sure, why not? There are other venues to purchase good e-books from good publishers. There are no others for purchasing category romance.
It’s just not the same thing.
I don’t like some of Amazon’s practices–and have said so. I’ve never threatened to boycott them mostly because I think that’s a futile gesture. And I continue to shop from them because there are a lot of other things I like about them.
There are probably a lot of companies and businesses that have areas or practices I don’t like. But I’d be unlikely to boycott them–it would completely depend on the circumstances.
RWA did what it had to do–which isn’t bully tactics, and since you agree they had to do it I don’t understand why you’d also consider what they did bullying. But RWA is not banning Harlequin from attending the conference–they just have to pay their way. It is not banning its members from submitting to Harlequin, or to DellArte for that matter. It’s simply following its standards, and informing its membership.
Writers have to make a living, just like everyone else. I imagine there are scores of people who work for companies who have certain interests and practices they don’t like, object to or disapprove of. But you know, you’ve got to put food on the table and pay the bills.
Really, Karen, I think it’s amazingly unfair to basically say don’t complain, don’t express disapproval or even outrage about this specific business venture unless you intend to ban this publisher as a writer looking for a contract or as a reader looking for a book.
EC Sheedy
December 11
7:25 pm
Karen, I think you’re just a teeny bit off base here:
“With every single one of my Publishers behaving Badly post, I’ve done my bit by refusing to buy from them, whether it be NCP or the now defunct Mardi Gras. . . .And judging by the yeses on today’s dilemma (and thanks to the ones who have been truthful), the outrage doesn’t stretch to not taking money from them for a contract.”
There’s a big difference between not buying a book for a few bucks and turning down a contract worth thousands when you have a family to provide for. Come on . .
Call it hanky-waving or histrionics if you will. All RWA, MWA, SFWA, NINK and other writer orgs are trying to do is express their strong disapproval of the vanity press business model. They are not asking their authors to go starve in the streets. Harlequin isn’t out there shooting babies in a back alley for God’s sake! Its history is strong, reputable, and respected in the romance community. Even while we “wave our hankies” as authors, we understand this. Writers are merely expressing their opinion and that opinion is “Writer beware!” of vanity publishing. We don’t want to bring down Harlequin and its writers. Why in heaven’s name would we? I think our reaction as professional writers is in proportion to Harlequins decision to go vanity. And, yes they have every right to do so–we understand that, too.
Nuff said, I guess . . .
Shiloh Walker
December 11
7:48 pm
But that would on the vanity publisher…and they aren’t going to change because they LIKE making the money hand over fist.
I also think there’s a far cry between dating a racist pig because he’s loaded and agreeing to a business agreement with a company that has an arm of business you don’t care for. Now if that arm of business catered to racist pigs, child porn, drug dealers, different story.
Now if HQN stopped paying their authors royalties? Hell, yes, I’d say boycott them. If they started taking rights from their authors? Yes, I’d say boycott them. but that’s not what this is.
Karen Scott
December 11
8:07 pm
So basically EC,HQN are still a great company, and in the great scheme of things, this issue isn’t actually that big a deal? I agree with you.
Karen Scott
December 11
8:17 pm
Nora, Shiloh, all I’m hearing from you guys is, ‘yeah this is bad, but actually it’s not that bad’ and I totally agree with you.
Shiloh Walker
December 11
8:24 pm
I do think it is a big deal. But I don’t think an author should make a decision, or feel pressured into making a decision, that will affect her livelihood.
And again, I suspect HQN kind of had this foisted onto them and they are just having to deal with it.
It sucks that it happened with a company that’s already got what looks like a shoddy rep-a search on Author Solutions or one of their other houses, like Author House, will show a ton of writer sites warning writers away from them. It sucks that when this decision to explore new ground (for them) was done with a company that happily charges double what other places do, without offering any real benefit over those companies (my opinion of course).
Do I like it? No. Do I plan on buying any books from DellArte/Author Solutions? Big FAT no. I have no plans to help line their pockets more. Will I buy from HQN? Sure, if a book appeals to me.
Do I hope HQN will find a better way to do this? Oh, hell yes. Changing the name to Dellarte does help, for me, because they aren’t going to be catching the attention of as many aspiring writers who go to HQN to get submission info. Removing the links to Dellarte from HQN’s website helped.
If they make the decision to stop referring their rejected books to Dellarte, I’d be downright thrilled-AND I’d probably be happy to just dislike Author Solutions/Author House/Dellarte and I’d be a lot less disappointed in HQN. Do I expect it? I dunno.
There are business minds making these decisions and I suspect a number of those minds involved in this decision don’t care about writing, craft, writers…they just care about $$.
But I’ll also continue to discuss this ‘assisted self publishing’ crap, vanity presses, self publishing, author house, author solutions, dellarte press, HHZ as much as I can.
The only way to improve the ‘rep’ of vanity published houses is if we can get them to stop sticking it to their writers. They won’t.
So the next best thing is to inform writers and hopefully, that will keep some writers from falling into that mess. (my opinion). Minimize the impact, so to speak-shrink their pool.
One way writers can accomplish that is by discussing it. Loudly and often.
And it’s working to some extent because when you do a search on Author Solutions, some of the top results are to sites like WRITER BEWARE and the various blogs that have been posted on this.
If any writer worth her salt does some research, she’ll hopefully see that Dellarte/Author Solutions is probably not the best option, even if she’s open to self publishing. So the writers who are discussing this, as a whole, are accomplishing something.
(edited)
Shiloh Walker
December 11
8:55 pm
Damn it, I just had an epiphany. Well, a realization.
Karen, the thing is… to YOU, and to a lot of readers who have no desire to write, this isn’t going to be a big deal. At this point. I do think that if it becomes a ‘pay to play’ game, it will affect readers, because they’ll be looking at decreased quality in their pool of reading choices- vanity presses and self pubbed books don’t insist on editorial work, and that’s where a lot of self pubbed/vanity pubbed writers try to save money-they skip the editing fees.
But right now, no, this isn’t going to be a big deal to you.
For writers, though, it’s a different story. We’ve been in that seat, where we’re struggling to reach our dreams and we know how hungry we are for it.
I started out in this business knowing JACK. I submitted my first book at 19 and it was to HQN. If they had ‘suggested’ this in the rejection letter, dangled this shiny carrot in front of my face when i was struggling, back before I started to learn the ropes, would I have accepted? It’s entirely possible.
I might have taken a stupid bite of that shiny carrot. I might have, and when not much of anything happened, I might have given up.
If I had tried a short cut instead of persevering, would I be where I am now? I don’t think I would. I might have even given up, especially if I dropped a lot of money and then only sold a handful of books.
So if a writer goes this route and it doesn’t work for them, if they give up… those are voices we may never hear. I don’t want that. I don’t want to see a writer get strung along and then left high and dry, with nothing but a big-ass payment to a vanity press and some books she bought herself. It can happen. It has happened and with this press, I believe it will hapen again.
Because I care, it is a big deal to me. Which is why writers are discussing it. You may not see our side of it, but it is there. You may not understand our side of it, but it would be nice if you could respect our concerns…even if you don’t understand why we’re so upset.
EC Sheedy
December 11
8:57 pm
You know it’s a *big deal* to writers, Karen. And by comparing it to shooting babies in a back alley, it was not my intent to minimize HG’s venture into vanity press. It matters to writers everywhere. And again, I think the professional writers’ organizations, who basically believe money should flow *to* the creator, are doing what they can to make this belief known.
And, seriously, I would hope those determined, hard working writers who submit to Harlequin and find a chirpy note on their rejection letter referring them to Dell Arte, where they can pay to play, will read the subtext, “You’re not good enough for us to pay you, but you’re good enough to pay us” and be mad as hell. Because not only is it insulting, it’s a much bigger putdown than a straight, “No, thank you.”
I have no idea why I’m harping on this. I think I’ll go back to my garrett now. One thing for sure, you have stirred things up, so thank you for that! Stirring is a good thing.
Nora Roberts
December 11
8:59 pm
Then, Karen, you’re not hearing–me at least–correctly.
It is that bad, imo. But it’s also legal. I think it’s a very bad venture on many levels, but Harlequin is also the only venue for a certain type of book, and writers who write that type of book need to, and have every right to, publish with them.
Readers have every right to read whatever books they want by whatever authors they enjoy, by whoever publishes them.
Do I think Harlequin sucks? No, I don’t. I think their move into vanity publishing sucks–but they didn’t consult me.
Do I think Harlequin should be beaten to the ground for starting this arm? No, I don’t. But I also believe RWA, MWA, SFW, etc are absolutely correct in no longer recognizing them as a publisher who meets the standards of their organizations.
kirsten saell
December 11
9:08 pm
Why, Nora? So authors can become just like those freaky, anatomically…intriguing guys who post vids on YouPorn where they anally violate themselves. Sounds like a fun time to me–sign me up!
Karen Scott
December 11
11:38 pm
You’re right of course, I am mostly looking at this from a reader’s point of view, but for me the following still stands:
1. This venture wont cause the sky to fall in, HQN will still publish traditionally, and Jane Average Reader will still have a plethora of quality books to choose from.
2. Average Jane Reader wont automatically assume that HQN have started producing crap books, because they wont associate Dellarte Press with Harlequin.
3. Supermarkets generally like to to purchase stuff that sell, so if the books are as crap as you say they are, Walmart will probably not be queuing up to buy them, thus ensuring that ‘real’ books are still front and centre.
4. RWA is a lightweight ladies club – Sorry Nora, that opinion isn’t going to change any time soon.
5. Vanity Publishing is here to stay, especially if as you say, batshit crazy writers with delusions of grandeur have the money to spend.
6. The Vanity Publishing modle has the potential to be improved upon.
7. A fool and their money are easily parted, so those who pay to play have nobody to blame but themselves.
8. This hooha will be old news in two weeks time, and it wont be such a big deal in the future.
amousie
December 12
3:34 am
I don’t shop at Amazon any more. But that’s my choice. There are more people like me who made the same choice even if you don’t know about them.
Burn, baby, burn. Not a great analogy. I expected better.
To you maybe. But it’s a big deal to the publishing business model. We’ll just have to see how it all shakes out and which other publishers follow Harlequin’s lead.
So since the world is supposed to end in December of 2012, maybe we should check before the end of days.
Karen Scott
December 12
6:22 am
@Mousie My analogy was brilliant actually, the principle is the same, pinching one’s nose, with one hand, and holding on tight with the other.
Now you aren’t going to have the last word, I can ensure that, so let’s agree to vehemently disagree and move on. Ok? Good.
amousie
December 12
1:55 pm
I didn’t realize we were playing a game. I thought we were discussing a topic we disagreed on. My mistake.
Your analogy actually wasn’t that good.I was serious about that part.
amousie
December 12
5:12 pm
http://www.ninc.com/blog/index.php/archives/publishing-printing-or-scam
Anon76
December 12
6:05 pm
Posted with permission from the Absolute Write forum dedicated to the DellArte venture, author James Macdonald.
There once was a girl from Nantucket
DA took her book called The Bucket
It sold near and far
From the trunk of her car
But as for the bookstores, Nuntucket.
Karen Scott
December 13
1:01 pm
@Amousie, I was also serious about ensuring you don’t have the last word. The thing about engaging with anons, is that it’s far easier for me to delete you, than commenters with actual identities.
And yes, my analogy was brilliant.
Get the word out-vanity presses, assisted self pub, etc. « Trivial Pursuits
December 13
3:57 pm
[...] Best Comment of The Day Re The Harlequin Press Whoopsy… (I disagree with karen’s view on this, but many of the comments are well worth reading if somebody is trying to investigate self publishing/vanity publishing/ ‘assisted self publishing’. [...]