Harlequin Horizons: Want to Self Publish? How about Harlequin?

Browse the Bitches

Bitchin' Blog Posts

by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | November 17, 2009 | Tuesday at 4:10 pm | 848 Comments

Thinking about self-publishing a book? Wondering what a publishing house really has to offer you, if you’re digitally savvy and know your XML from your epub, and already know marketing and promotion are on your shoulders?

To hell with apps: say it with me now. There’s a Harlequin for that.

Harlequin announced today that they’re launching Harlequin Horizons, a self-publishing enterprise in partnership with Author Solutions, Inc.. From the press release:

Harlequin, Book Business Magazine’s 2009 Publishing Innovator of the Year, regards the self-publishing venture as an accessible opportunity for emerging authors to bring themselves to the attention of the reading public….

Through this strategic alliance; all sales, marketing, publishing, distribution, and book-selling services will be fulfilled by ASI; but Harlequin Horizons will exist as a division of Harlequin Enterprises Limited. Harlequin will monitor sales of books published through the self-publisher for possible pickup by its traditional imprints….

Harlequin Horizons is the second such partnership ASI has launched with a leading trade publisher in the last two months. The parent company of industry-leading self-publishing imprints AuthorHouse, iUniverse, Trafford Publishing, and Xlibris, ASI brought to market more than 21,000 new titles in 2008.

The packages offered online range from $599.00 to $1599.00, and can include various services from editorial to copyright registration. The basics includes an ISBN number, softcover, and several other services, but every package includes softcover and ebook formatting for Kindle and Sony Reader.

I’m going to order some custom socks from Etsy with the Harlequin logo on them, because they keep knocking my current socks off. It is November, people, chill already. Seriously, this is some ground-breaking news that makes me think and rethink and rethink again about the viability of self publishing, print on demand services, and the opportunities that exist at present for authors looking to market their work.

Now that Harlequin has entered the self-publishing market, after having gone DRM-free with Carina, what’s next? And does this make you interested in or curious about self publishing?

Filed: Ebooks, General Bitching

Tagged: publishers, iuniverse, harlequin, ebooks, authorhouse,

| |

Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 08:51 PM • [link]

Nadia,

Thank you for clarifying the financial situation of Harlequin. I understand ROI and the shareholder issue but I guess my perspective is that it’s a little seedy for these big name publishers to get into bed financially with author services companies like this, especially when they are marketing such companies so blatantly like Harlequin plans to.

I personally couldn’t grasp why a company like Harlequin would do such a thing if they weren’t “hurting financially.” But if they aren’t, they aren’t. I don’t have their profit and loss statements on file. :P

The ROI argument IMO falls a little flat when a company’s new revenue stream is so offensive that it dilutes the rest of their brand and reputation. So this to me seemed like an act of the desperate. Maybe it was just a stupid choice instead.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.19.09 at 08:52 PM • [link]

@ Zoe http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/want-to-self-publish-how-about-harlequin/#103717
So while it’s true a trad published author “theoretically” doesn’t have to spend all that money to be published, I would bet that a vast majority of authors getting published now have over the years forked out a considerable amount of money learning their craft and beefing up their manuscripts for future public consumption. There is no free ride. It all costs money.

I’ve been published since 2004. At that point, I’d sent out probably 5-7 queries. I’d say, all in all, I spent less than a hundred, probably less than $50, including postage and paper.

In 2004, my first ebook came out from Ellora’s Cave and it didn’t cost me a penny. I paid for no editing. I paid for no cover art. I didn’t even pay for promo. I hadn’t paid for research books.

I’ve never paid for critical evals. Never paid or bought anything in hopes of beefing up my MS.

My biggest expense at the time was the membership to RWA, $75 a year, I didn’t join RWA until after the book came out.

I was an unknown and I sold to an epublisher. I built a readership and caught the attention of an editor at Berkley. I did it through learning the craft.

Luck played into it-hard work played into it.

Spending $$ did not.

I know self pub can work for some.

But if a person has their heart set on earning a living as a writer, self pub isn’t the way to do it. It’s like swimming upstream, weighted down with lead weights and missing a limb to boot.
Theresa Meyers said on 11.19.09 at 08:52 PM • [link]

Whew! Relieved and happy for Carole. She certainly didn’t deserve to have her cover abused in such a fashion by the press.
Nadia Lee said on 11.19.09 at 09:00 PM • [link]

I personally couldn’t grasp why a company like Harlequin would do such a thing if they weren’t “hurting financially.” But if they aren’t, they aren’t. I don’t have their profit and loss statements on file. :P

If you took a minute to google, you would’ve found out that Harlequin is not hurting financially, it’s Torstar, the parent co of Harlequin.

http://www.quillandquire.com/google/article.cfm?article_id=10985

Since Harlequin is owned by Torstar, you cannot authoritatively say that Harlequin Horizons was a Harlequin’s brainchild. It may have been something forced upon them by Torstar.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:01 PM • [link]

Hey Stacia,

Thanks for sharing your perspective! I realize the self-publishing success stories are few and far between but at the same time IF a self-published author can sell a certain number of copies on their own they will attract the attention of a larger publisher. Now the odds of this are not great. And I will be the first to admit that self publishing isn’t right for most people.

After working with several self-publishing authors I’ve learned that it’s just not for everyone.

I think though someone with a good business head and marketing savvy can use many various ways on the internet such as podcasting and free ebooks,and etc. to start to build up a platform. And they can self publish as a part of that process.

Folks like Scott Sigler, JC Hutchins and Seth Harwood all got attractive publishing deals from podcasting and building up audiences.

I think SP or any of it’s variants only really works if you’ve really got “it” and you can’t find out if you’ve got “it” until you get out there and start trying. (and no, I’m not saying I think I’ve got “it.”) I think if Scott, JC, or Seth had just sent in and got their book accepted, the advance they received would have been much smaller with no real guarantee of their contract continuing past a book or two.

But because they built up their audience/platform first, not only did they get picked up by a larger publisher, but they got picked up with a solid advance and therefore a much stronger marketing push because it was less of a risk to the publisher.

But I can’t advise anyone on what the best way for them is. I think for some people SP is absolutely the best business decision “for them.” For most I think trad is the way they should go. This doesn’t mean I think I’m “better,” just that I know that I’m suited to what I’m doing and whatever success or failure I have I’m willing to own it.

I know what I’m doing is “high risk.” Though by the same token, I’d be happy to self publish indefinitely and never have a publisher show any interest because I like what I’m doing. So that’s where it’s a different situation for me. I think someone who definitely WANTS a NY publisher, you’re right, they may be better off going the trad way.

Of course there is no law stating that an author can’t experiment with both methods for different projects and see what works best for them or even what they enjoy more.
Nadia Lee said on 11.19.09 at 09:01 PM • [link]

Ugh. Typos!

Time for bed I guess.
Sheryl Nantus said on 11.19.09 at 09:05 PM • [link]

I think the problem here is that if you go with HQHo, you’re NOT self-publishing. Not in any sense of the word, since you’re not self-sufficient and have to rely on Author Solutions to do all the work for you (and which you pay a hefty fee for).

Honesty is the best policy. If you want to run a vanity press, go ahead and do so - you’ll GET customers who want to publish their family history, their poetry, their cookbooks, their local history stories. But be HONEST about it.

DON’T go around saying Harlequin isn’t going to be part of it and then call the line “Harlequin Horizons”. Because the majority of the public don’t know and don’t CARE about the intricacies of the publishing world. All they know is that Great-Aunt Harriet just paid HQHo ten thousand dollars and now is running around claiming to be in the same league as those authors on the shelves at their local bookstore. And the writing isn’t as good.

jmo.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:07 PM • [link]

Nora:

It was a single statement and you went to terror level orange over it. Let’s drop it. I’ve explained my position to you but I’m not sure what you want short of groveling.

My viewpoint isn’t going to change, and me restating it 700 times only serves to annoy everyone following this thread. I would have been a bit more sympathetic if I’d said something that actually hurt your feelings because I don’t want to hurt anyone. But if you’re just “annoyed,” it’s not worth the continued investment in the discussion.

I don’t think you want to have a discussion with me, you’d rather just keep poking and poking until I capitulate to what you want. Sorry, not happening. My view is my view. If that annoys you, be annoyed.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.19.09 at 09:08 PM • [link]

I wanna say…

Nora, thank you.
Stacia K said on 11.19.09 at 09:08 PM • [link]

Hi again, Zoe!

I realize the self-publishing success stories are few and far between but at the same time IF a self-published author can sell a certain number of copies on their own they will attract the attention of a larger publisher.

And that is true, or at least it can be true, as there’s also a chance the major house will decide the self-pubbed book in question has reached its maximum audience already, and decline to take it on.

But wouldn’t you agree that if they can sell enough copies to attract a major publisher, there’s a good chance they could have attracted that publisher through the normal, much less expensive submissions process?

I’m really glad you’re so happy self-publishing, and I genuinely congratulate you for it and everything you’ve achieved. But as you said, it’s not for everyone, and I don’t agree with the idea that it’s a necessary or even beneficial first step for most.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:14 PM • [link]

Shiloh,

I’m glad that you didn’t spend out a lot of money. I understand that’s the situation for some authors. My point was only that MANY authors spend a lot of money whether they self publish or trad publish, but I understand there are exceptions. (there are also people who self publish for little or no money, start out with ebooks and grassroots marketing, as they bring in some money they invest higher. So it’s just a case of individual mileage varying IMO.)

As for self-pub and making money, I’m not sure that I agree with you there. Within 5-10 years I fully intend to be “making a living” from self publishing. But then I’ll be publishing both fiction and non-fiction, both print and E and I have a very detailed marketing and distribution plan. Now I may fail (just like any small business can), but my plan itself is sound, and I think in the long run I’ll make as much or more money this way as I would if I went the trad way. Nevertheless I do recognize that most people will make more money trad publishing.

At a certain point of success should I get there, I’ll be in the position to sell subsidiary rights as well.

Most people don’t make good money self publishing, but those who treat it as a business and succeed at it do, otherwise most of them wouldn’t do it.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:16 PM • [link]

Nadia:

I wasn’t contradicting you I was saying that I personally could not understand why Harlequin would do that if they weren’t hurting financially since it’s such a braindead business move.

I didn’t say that meant they must be hurting financially. Not once you supplied the information you did.
Nora Roberts said on 11.19.09 at 09:21 PM • [link]

I did not go to terror level orange, and you are consistently insulting and over-stating. You want to drop it, but only after you toss out another insult.

I don’t want you to grovel—again who asked you? But I would appreciate you resisting misquoting me or attributing statements to me, and attitudes to me, that I didn’t make and don’t have.

You can’t answer my last post because you can’t cite where I said anything you claimed there. So you change tacts and accuse me of overreacting to something you said.

For the record, this is my response to that single statement. If you consider this my terror level orange, you must be a
very thin-skinned individual.

~It is perfectly valid for “you” to speak of a writing career~

“Zoe, this just pisses me off as it supposes I didn’t come up through the ranks, sweating my way, going through what every other new writer goes through.

It supposes I really don’t know what I’m talking about in today’s publishing arena because I’m somehow removed from it by success.

So I have to stop all this and go back to my privileged career—which for me, is continuing to sweat over the keyboard to write a book. “
Anon said on 11.19.09 at 09:24 PM • [link]

Any chance Ms. Roberts and Ms. Winters could take their argument elsewhere? Pretty please? So this can return to a discussion about Harlequin Horizon?
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:25 PM • [link]

Hey Stacia,

Oh I’m with you on it not being a necessary or beneficial first step for most, so that’s not actually a point of disagreement for us lol.

On the issue of a publisher declining it because of max audience, in most cases this is only going to happen if the book is very niche (in which case the SP author can find their audience easier than a big pub could anyway), or regional (same situation.) But if it’s got a broad appeal, it’s unlikely an SP author is going to hit that “cap” where a publisher thinks it’s played out. If an SP author SHOULD be that successful, then they’ve made plenty of money on their own.

And it could be argued at that point that they don’t really “need” a publisher.

As for: couldn’t the author who can sell a lot of books SPing on their own attract a publisher toward normal means?

I really don’t know the answer to that. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are plenty of books publishers pass on because they “don’t know how to market it” or else don’t think there is a market for it, that the author takes out on their own and proves otherwise. Of course there are also many cases where the publisher is right and it doesn’t sell.

And then there is the issue of the amount of the advance. An author with an established audience is getting a higher advance and more marketing push in general. This MAY give them a stronger cushion as they build their career instead of them getting stuck in the cycle of good book, little advance, little marketing means fewer of it’s audience finds the book.

It’s all a gamble anyway you go really. For most authors the better gamble is trad publishing. For a very few the better gamble is SP.
Marie said on 11.19.09 at 09:26 PM • [link]

I’m trying to read all the comments, but my eyes are tired already.

The biggest problem I see is that the name “Harlequin” itself is a brand. By attaching the name to this venture makes people think of the Harlequin brand.

Romance already has enough bad press, I’m afraid with Harlequin attaching it’s name to this vanity press venture its only going to give romance a worse name.

I can see the headlines now “You can become a Harlquin Horizons author and publish your trash, boddice ripper romance,” and you get pay for it.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:27 PM • [link]

Anon, if you scroll up a little, I’ve said my last thing on the issue. I’m tired and content now to just let Nora be annoyed. Because at this point we are ALL annoyed.
Reading or Writing said on 11.19.09 at 09:33 PM • [link]

I found this discussion extremely illuminating and civil, up to the point that…well, I need not go there, I’m sure it’s obvious.

I respect all opinions expressed, even ones with which I disagree.

The following remarks are of kindly and constructive intent. I hope they’ll be received that way. It’s not a plea against open discussion, but against giving the appearance of flaming here.

Because…

a whole universe of readers, authors, industry professionals, and media are now visiting this site for information and enlightenment. I can’t help but question the business savvy and PR aptitude of one whose livelihood depends upon self-publishing yet who returns here and repeatedly…again, I need not go there, I’m sure it’s obvious to the followers of a certain recent thread in this discussion.

I also can’t help pointing out that needlessly slagging off (or pissing off) Nora Roberts in full view of this watchful universe is probably not helpful in furthering a career in any publishing arena.
Anon76 said on 11.19.09 at 09:38 PM • [link]

Wow.

Zoe, I’m really not trying to be offensive to you, but reading your posts that keep harping on the same thing, though we’ve said self-publishing is a valid option for some…well, I’m starting to wonder if you didn’t latch on to a few of those self-help books that don’t always have the best info and adopted them as your mantra. “If I just keep doing things this way, my world will light up because I am in charge.”

Again, I’m not trying to be offensive, but you said you were tired of PC type dancing.
Ann K said on 11.19.09 at 09:41 PM • [link]

I can see the headlines now “You can become a Harlquin Horizons author and publish your trash, boddice ripper romance,” and you get pay for it.

It’s already happened. This link has been posted further up, but:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2009/11/harlequin-hacks.html
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:44 PM • [link]

LOL. I don’t come here that often. It’s pretty rare actually. The thing is, I’ve gotten personal emails from people just from this thread who like what I’ve had to say. Any time you express yourself you run the risk of pissing people off but you also attract others of like mind to you.

I never set off to intentionally piss off Nora Roberts, but you know what? We ALL get pissed off and annoyed sometimes. It happens.

I also NEVER meant the kind of offense/pissed offness/whatever that was taken from one or two simple statements. I cannot control how every person who reads my words chooses to interpret them. Nor am I going to feel compelled to grovel endlessly to someone who is intent on reading things I’m neither saying nor meaning.

I also have never stated I wanted a future career in any kind of publishing outside of self-publishing. If I did want such a thing I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume a publisher is going to care about their bottom line more than they will about some random bitchfest on the internet. Especially given that I don’t spend all my time on the internet arguing with people (I’ve wasted a whole day on this nonsense.)

As they say, it takes two to tango.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:45 PM • [link]

Anon76, could you be more specific?
Roslyn Holcomb said on 11.19.09 at 09:46 PM • [link]

First, I have to have a fangirl squee that Beverly Jenkins is on this thread. Now, having got that out of my system I can only say that this situation does not bode well for authors, AT ALL. With HQHO they have now monetized the slush pile, do you really think that other publishers won’t follow suit? Sure Random House doesn’t reference XLibris in it’s rejections NOW, but I doubt that will continue. Eventually publishing will become a pay to play proposition for all except the celebrity writers. A process that was already fraught with difficulty may well soon become darned near impossible. I hope I’m wrong. I really, really hope I’m wrong, but with all the economic uncertainty in the medium these days I can’t imagine that I am.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:49 PM • [link]

Anon76, could you be more specific?

If it’ll hijack the thread further you can email me. (I’ve got a contact form on my website)

I’m confused since you asked me specifically if I would use the Harlequin services if they weren’t branded as such and I explained what I felt was a cogent dollars and sense argument about why not and what I would use instead. So I’m not really sure what you’re referring to or what you’re asking/saying.
Lisa Hendrix said on 11.19.09 at 09:49 PM • [link]

Over at the GraysonAgency.com blog, agent Ashley Grayson gives this grim reality check that pretty much says it all:

While the number of self-published titles may have exceeded the number of “real” book titles in 2008, the number of actual sales of all those titles to readers is virtually zero. Before they all got swept under the Author Solutions rug, Author House and Xlibris reps told me at a Book Expo that “actual sales of titles average fewer than 100 copies, all of which are bought by the author.” The self-publishing industry ranks as a “bestseller” any book that sells over 500 copies. Self-publishing is an expanding sector because those whose sole mission is to suck money have concluded that it is easier to get money from authors wanting to be published than from readers wanting to buy books.

Shame, Harlequin. And bless you, Nora, for standing up for the truth in this situation despite your long-standing relationship with Harlequin/Silhouette. Brava.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:50 PM • [link]

sorry I got an error message and thought my first post didn’t go through.
Nora Roberts said on 11.19.09 at 09:50 PM • [link]

~also NEVER meant the kind of offense/pissed offness/whatever that was taken from one or two simple statements. I cannot control how every person who reads my words chooses to interpret them. Nor am I going to feel compelled to grovel endlessly to someone who is intent on reading things I’m neither saying nor meaning.
~

But she’s said all she’s going to say on it.

Moving on.

Speaking of PR, I think the sort of press this move Harlequin is making will continue to be hard on their decision, but also on the genre. And I do think it’s going to be seen for what it is, vanity press—not self-publication.
Kristina Cook said on 11.19.09 at 09:52 PM • [link]

I can see the headlines now “You can become a Harlquin Horizons author and publish your trash, boddice ripper romance,” and you get pay for it.

In addition to the New Yorker piece, there’s also already a NYTimes piece that leads off with this: “Got a romance novel in your desk drawer? Polish it up and get ready to become a Harlequin author.”

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/the-authors-hearts-beat-faster-publishing-was-so-close-now/?scp=1&sq=harlequin &st=cse
Bob Mayer said on 11.19.09 at 09:54 PM • [link]

Write better books, rather than pay to get published. Put the money into workshops and learning the craft. 99% of vanity books sell less than 100 copies, and those are mostly bought by the author, thinking they can hand sell them. I don’t believe it was ‘easier’ to get published 20 years when my first book came out. I earned over 100 rejections for first three manuscripts. I still earn rejections. So I continue to study the craft of writing in order to improve my skill as an artist. And because this is my career and I love it.

It is wearisome to read comments about traditional publishing from people who have not experienced the trials and tribulations of being part of the business. It was not easy, is not easy, and won’t be easy. And the business will change and adjust. By trial and error. We’ve just seen the latter.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 09:55 PM • [link]

*Wonders in a quiet and somewhat paranoid way if others aren’t posting things to drag her back into a discussion merely to defend herself so original person can harp on her not dropping the discussion she said she was dropping.

Wonders further why original person can’t just be the bigger person and has to commentate on someone else’s desire to defend themselves. Then wonders even further why the original person is being called the person that is being “attacked.” Paranoia is fun.

Laughs as she waits to see if original person will commentate yet again on her thoughts, which really they shouldn’t since no one can really hear another person’s thoughts. Counts down to the commencing of replies to thoughts.*
lucy said on 11.19.09 at 09:56 PM • [link]

Don’t pee on my leg, then tell me it’s raining.

Just saying.
Katie said on 11.19.09 at 10:01 PM • [link]

The people I feel sorry for are the Harlequin authors. I think they might get tarred with the same brush. And as far as not being eligible for a RITA that is harsh. I read on a thread that it is just a prize but that prize means a lot to the winner.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 10:01 PM • [link]

Who peed on your leg? There are laws against that.
EC Sheedy said on 11.19.09 at 10:02 PM • [link]

Wow, Zoe, you can write books, run a business, and find time to write such long posts. I’m in awe. But stop already, I think we all get you’re doing what you love and that it works for you. Fabulous. Carry on.

In a few years (months) who knows how publishing will play out. It may well be if there is a Tsunami of badly-written, badly-produced vanity, self-published whatever kinds of books, a good story—of the kind Nora writes on a regular basis—will be so exhausting to locate, we’ll all quit reading anyway.

Edna who believes in the gatekeeper system, flawed though it might be.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.19.09 at 10:02 PM • [link]

Speaking of PR, I think the sort of press this move Harlequin is making will continue to be hard on their decision, but also on the genre. And I do think it’s going to be seen for what it is, vanity press—not self-publication.

Considering the post in the New Yorker about this… Harlequin Hacks… it’s already ugly PR.
Nora Roberts said on 11.19.09 at 10:02 PM • [link]

Bob, I agree with everything you said, and think sometimes we lose track of all that.

What Harelquin’s doing is setting up a situation that will encourage some—perhaps many—to believe there’s a short-cut, an easy way. And expensive way, but quick and easy.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 10:03 PM • [link]

I agree Katie. But I *think* that Harlequin authors whose books were published before a certain date will still be eligible for the next RITAs but after that, no. Not unless Harlequin drops this idea and becomes eligible again.
Courtney Milan said on 11.19.09 at 10:08 PM • [link]

Bob and Nora, I want to thank you and other authors like you who encouraged me to perfect my craft and work hard on my writing. I read every post on the Crusie-Mayer blog (even though I think I only commented once) and I would never have gotten my first publishing deal were it not for the generosity of writers who had come before, who were willing to help me out—and who talked about the business enough so that when it came time for me to shop my manuscript, I knew what to expect and require.

You made me believe that there was no magic bullet for publication except my own hard work and dedication, and convinced me to put my whole heart in the endeavor.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.19.09 at 10:08 PM • [link]

Bob Mayer said:

I still earn rejections.

that’s one thing that bothers me.

Writers learn to improve THROUGH their rejections. We learn through every book we write.

If people start thinking they can just skip that rejection step-do they also skip the part where they learn to perfect and improve their craft?
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 10:09 PM • [link]

EC please explain to me where I’ve in any way made ANY show of defensiveness for my chosen publishing path. I’m really not sure where you’re reading it.

I’ve responded and discussed self publishing and responded to direct questions and comments to me. I haven’t gone on and on about self publishing outside of the context of the normal discussion.

Nor have I in any way asked for anyone to validate my choice. NOR have I in any way said people shouldn’t trad publish. In fact I’ve said just the opposite, that most people are better off with trad publishing.

So I’m really not sure where some people are reading this and basically telling me to shut up about the topic. I’m responding to the course of the conversation. If people don’t want to discuss self publishing, then why are they even in this thread? In a thread like this, the topic is going to come up. It’s not like I just walk into random discussions and start talking about SP.

As for writing such long posts, I am almost never online in internet discussions like this. All it does is piss me off and waste my entire day. I generally avoid these types of environments now because it always gets catty. Especially on SB and DA. And once this thread dies down, I’m going to remember why I avoid this place in the first place.
lucy said on 11.19.09 at 10:10 PM • [link]

I think the comments following the New Yorker post have pretty well taken care of that little bit of nastiness. The book cover shot has already been removed.

It’s to be hoped that a free market and the First Amendment will address the greed that seems to be the heart of this whole issue with equal dispatch.
Christine_Rose said on 11.19.09 at 10:11 PM • [link]

Zoe, I realize you’re a big advocate of the self-publish, self-promotion web and e-book presence route. Many of your comments make sense. But the truth is, you’re not making money hand over fist doing it that way. Maybe you enjoy it, maybe you have the skills. But right now, in the world we live in, getting an agent and a commercial publisher is far more likely to get you to the level of, oh, say, Nora Roberts, than the way you’re doing it.

Truthfully, the web does not change everything. The web makes many things better and easier, but if self-promotion worked, it would have worked almost as well with television, radio, magazines, the lecture circuit, the old pre-graphic BB services, and telephone calls. The web has shaved a few things down, and padded up a few other things, but truthfully, the same structures and basic forms are around and will probably continue to be. And that means big commercial publishers with the money and clout to put a book, be it handwritten, offset printed, POD, or e-book in front of readers.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 10:11 PM • [link]

Shiloh,

Not if they want to sell books they don’t. For me if I get rejection, I get it from the reader. And so I better make sure I’m not putting out crap or else the entire exercise is pointless.

There is no shortcut to success no matter how someone publishes, it’s all hard work.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 10:17 PM • [link]

Christine,

I would be unlikely to make as much money as a bestselling author on my own through self-publishing, but honestly within 5-10 years, and I’m thinking more like 5, from my various self publishing efforts combined (i.e more than one book out and not just fiction), then yes I can make a “living wage.” Now I live in an area of the country that is pretty cheap to live in, so maybe that makes a difference.

But I can really only commentate on this authoritatively in 5-10 years, so catch me then. Saying what I’m “going to do” will really only illicit eyerolls and naysaying from people who are thinking inside a TOTALLY different box than I am. The time it would take for me to explain HOW my plan is logical, and sound would cause about five other people to harp on me for even taking the time to explain it. So I won’t.

But in 5-10 years, should anyone still be around that wants to discuss it, we can.
EC Sheedy said on 11.19.09 at 10:20 PM • [link]

@Zoe Winter

“EC please explain to me where I’ve in any way made ANY show of defensiveness for my chosen publishing path. I’m really not sure where you’re reading it.”

Well, then damn, I misread you, Zoe. So let us just say, that I—personally—am not enjoying the *sound* of your posts. I will piss but once and be gone. Or should I say, I have put down your book and will not pick it up again.
Nora Roberts said on 11.19.09 at 10:22 PM • [link]

Maybe it needs to be said again:

Harlequin Horizons is not about self-pubbing. It’s about vanity press. It’s about paying fat fees to have your book—that’s very unlikely ready for publication, may have been rejected by Harlequin—printed and bound, and then getting only half of the net on sales.

Most of us know the different between SP and Vanity—or certainly should by now.

This is about Harlequin Horizons, not about the pros and cons of SP or TP which is neither.

Due to this decision, RWA has changed Harleqin’s status, and this impacts scores of writers. The media is already scooping the genre in to the snide remarks—and the stories already generated certainly equate the Harlequin brand with the vanity arm it’s starting.

This is an important issue.
Newest Anon (no more) said on 11.19.09 at 10:27 PM • [link]

@roslyn

With HQHO they have now monetized the slush pile, do you really think that other publishers won’t follow suit? Sure Random House doesn’t reference XLibris in it’s rejections NOW, but I doubt that will continue. Eventually publishing will become a pay to play proposition for all except the celebrity writers.

I’m taking the positive on this - perhaps it will change a lot of behavior among the two primary parties in the reading transaction - the writer and the reader. Writers already have low cost options to get their books out without going the traditional route or paying egregiously high amounts for the “privilege.” There are offsets to the current do-it-all-yourself route, of course, well hashed on this list already (low volume sales are the norm now, self-pubbing is equated with vanity pubbing, etc.). But these are TODAY’s offsets. Readers, if they want something good to read, will have to evolve, just as authors are having to evolve - they will have to lose the “traditional house” bias they hold, they will have to think harder about their purchases, moving beyond the slick cover and blurbs to the content. Gone will be the day of walking into the grocery store, grabbing all 8 of this week’s Harls and checking out.

That, in my opinion, is a good thing - it could very well be this is another, very loud, tolling of the death knell for traditional publishing but, this time, it’s Harl’s hand ringing the bell.
Zoe Winters said on 11.19.09 at 10:29 PM • [link]

EC that’s the risk we all take when we choose to express ourselves. just know it goes both ways.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.19.09 at 10:30 PM • [link]

Curious… has anybody called the toll-free number on the HHz site?
liz m said on 11.19.09 at 10:34 PM • [link]

“Cognative Dissonance”

Y’know, those words apply not only to aspects of this discussion but also to this venture. I really feel for Malle being put in the position of defending this move when the problems with it are so obvious. I didn’t comment on it earlier because I was evaluating why Sarah thought it had awesome potential while I thought it was a train wreck.

And it comes down to the brand. The Harlequin brand obscured the problems with the business model. SBTB are a savvy group - if they wanted to self publish, they’d investigate the pros and cons and price shop. Having spent umpteen years reviewing self and trad pubbed books (back in another life) I can tell you many authors lack that savvy (and a perspective on their own work.)

It’s kinda sad to see HQN turn into the “Can you draw this duck?? You might be an artist!” people instead of the training and discovery ground they’ve been.
Jenni said on 11.19.09 at 10:35 PM • [link]

Bob and Nora, I want to thank you and other authors like you who encouraged me to perfect my craft and work hard on my writing. I read every post on the Crusie-Mayer blog (even though I think I only commented once) and I would never have gotten my first publishing deal were it not for the generosity of writers who had come before, who were willing to help me out—and who talked about the business enough so that when it came time for me to shop my manuscript, I knew what to expect and require.

You made me believe that there was no magic bullet for publication except my own hard work and dedication, and convinced me to put my whole heart in the endeavor.

I had said I would remain quiet while reading all of the posts until I got to Courtney Milan’s comment and it reminded me why I continue to write, submit, get rejected and submit again.

I have heard Nora speak at conferences, I have taken Bob’s workshops and the one thing that has always amazed me about them, and other authors like them, is their willingness to share their experiences, their mistakes, their successes, their publishing ups and downs, what it took them to get where they are, and how hard it is to stay where they are in the ever changing publishing world. They never told me this would be easy. Writing is hard work. Publishing is a hard business. They didn’t sprinkle fairy dust and tell me I would be published. No. They said if I wanted to be published, to get paid for my work, I had to work harder. Write a better book. Learn craft. Learn the business.

To Nora and Bob, and every other author out there who has taken the time to help aspiring writers like me, thank you.
Maria S said on 11.19.09 at 10:37 PM • [link]

“Authors will receive royalties equivalent to 50 percent of net proceeds on each e-book sale. Harlequin and Author Solutions will split the other 50 percent.”

What do they mean by equivalent?

Liz M said:
It’s like modeling, don’t get naked on an empty set with a guy you just met at Piggly Wiggly, it’s not going to take you anywhere you want to go.

Just because you know the pervert (HQ) doesn’t mean the perv isn’t pandering and procuring for the friend (ASI) and apparently aren’t even bringing their own lubricant.

It is clear to the rest of the world from the responses in main stream media that Malle and her crew have whored themselves. And yes, in a capitalistic society we all do to some extent, but when you whore yourself to profit from the pain, dreams and/or gullibility of others, then you are not within acceptable social standards.

It seems that the diminishing of the HQ brand and the further trashing of romance has already begun. Gee, thanks Malle and HQ.

Finally, can we stop referring to this travesty as self-publishing? Self-publishing does not involve me paying for the publishing costs and giving up 50% of my rights to net royalties. Has Malle or anyone else from HQ or ASI explained what costs they bear in this? Net? The author PAID for everything what costs do ASI or hH have? Or do they mean, they get 50% of net royalties AFTER the author earns back all of their costs?
Katherine Allred said on 11.19.09 at 10:58 PM • [link]

You know, I really felt for Malle when all this started. Figured she was being forced to sing the company song in order to keep her job. Then she made the comment about personally submitting to ASI and how pleased she was with them. That’s not just singing the company song, that’s helping write the words and music.

I so sympathize with the *real* HQN authors. This has to be a horrible time for them, and I appreciate the fact that so many of them are with RWA on the issue. What’s that old saying? If we don’t stand together, we fall seperately.
Katherine Allred said on 11.19.09 at 11:12 PM • [link]

From the IndyStar:

Don Seitz, Author Solutions senior vice president, said aspiring authors—especially women who write romance novels—will embrace the arrangement.

Awesome. Here’s the url for the whole story.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20091117/BUSINESS/91117013/1003/BUSINESS/Indiana-self-publisher-to-partner-with-Harlequin
Liz said on 11.19.09 at 11:14 PM • [link]

I don’t think it’s as cut and dry—self-publishing bad, traditional publishing good—as Malle and some others want to believe.

I can only speak for myself, but my main concern isn’t with self-publishing, vanity publishing, or even Author Solutions. It’s with the way Harlequin has chosen to market this service. I strongly believe people will do what they want to do. However, between the Harlequin Horizons website, and what Malle has said here and on Dear Author, there is a lot that isn’t being told to the writer consumer.

The service has Harlequin’s name, is advertised on Harlequin’s website, and will be offered on Harlequin’s rejection letters. Therefore, it is a Harlequin product, and any talk from a Harlequin representative of it being a separate entity goes out the window. Either it’s Harlequin, or it’s not. Right now, it is. Harlequin either needs to own that, and deal with the fallout, or rethink it’s branding and marketing endeavors. Which brings me to . . .

Nowhere on the Harlequin Horizons site is Author Solutions mentioned. In fact, nowhere on the Harlequin Horizons site is it made clear that the writer consumer is buying an Author Solutions service endorsed by Harlequin, and not a Harlequin product. If Harlequin Horizons will not be listed as the publisher, if Harlequin does not want to dilute its brand with self-published or vanity-published works, it needs to make the clear to its target customers. This goes for the “additional features” that can be added on, as well. From Malle’s earlier post, in which she talks about her pleasant editing experience with Author Solutions, she implied the editing would be done by Author Solutions, and not Harlequin editors. This information needs to be stated upfront on the Harlequin Horizons site, and not implied on a Smart Bitches/Dear Author comment forum. Customers have a right to know just who, exactly, they will be in business with.

50% of the net earnings sound good, if you don’t know what net earnings are. While I will never agree that 50% of net is good for deal for any self-published author, I would be more at ease with it if an explanation of what deductions would be coming out of the retail price before the author got her cut.

And last, but not least, Harlequin’s dream-selling tactics disgust me. No company can fulfill dreams, people. That’s left up to you and your work ethic. Malle’s iUniverse success story is a fine one, indeed. But what does it have to do with Harlequin Horizons? Was that book picked up by Harlequin? Was it printed by Harlequin Horizons? There are a lot of self-publishing success stories out there, and they’re all legitimate and inspirational. But none of them are Harlequin Horizons success stories, are they? No. Because the company has no success stories as of yet. So when I see comments on the Harlequin Horizons website about how they’ll monitor sales for “potential” gems, or when Kevin Weiss spouts off about cultivating an “author farm”, I can’t help but call it bullshit. It would be different if Harlequin had actually found a cash cow in their author farm, brought it to a traditional imprint, and used that story as a testimonial. At least then they’d have some validation behind them. But this “could” and “maybe” bullshit is just that: bullshit. Having a bound copy to send to an agent is bullshit. Selling the hopes of being picked up by a traditional publisher, when most traditional publishers won’t accept previously published work, or if they do, will buy it at a lesser price, is also bullshit. If this new venture is as great as Harlequin insists it is, why be so evasive about it?

Now, I will never endorse vanity publishing (self-publishing is a different matter). It’s not for me. I would strongly dissuade any of my friends who came to me wanting my opinion on the matter from doing it. But just as I believe it’s too risky to take a chance on, there will be those who think the risk is worth taking. If this information were made available to Harlequin Horizons’ potential customers, I would sit back and not say a word in regards to writers choosing this option over a less risky one, because at least they had the information needed to do their research and make an informed decision.
SB Sarah said on 11.19.09 at 11:16 PM • [link]

A long way up the thread Ros wrote:

SB Sarah, in your original post you indicated that you thought this was a great step for Harlequin to be taking. Can you explain to me why you thought this was a good thing from the perspective of romance readers?

I’m sorry it’s taken me this long to respond.

Looking solely at this issue from a reader’s perspective, well, first, let me answer your question with a few initial caveats. While I understand and am gaining a HELL of an education as to why this is beyond troublesome for authors, and now why it has long-reaching effects for RWA and its membership, I’m deliberately looking solely at the advantage for readers.

I’m looking at the following facts: publishing is an industry in severe financial decline. Digital books are up in sales while other books, including some of the megasellers, are declining. There is opportunity for digital publishing and in streamlined publication while everything else is contracting.

Offering writers the opportunity to publish in digital form, and print if they want, and bypassing the hurdles of figuring out which format and how to do it etc is a logical business opportunity. Aside from the name branding issues in this specific example(which are considerable!) and from the manner in which the brand is being advertised (dreams and a chance of kittens!) the opportunity to connect writers directly to publication is a logical move. Obviously, the defined difference between self-publication and vanity publication is key here.

Consider the following hypothetical example: midlist author Bernadette Rose has a series in progress. She has a good reader base, and her fans like her books. She’s a good author who publishes fiction interesting to a specific group, and her publishers have had problems grasping the best way to market her books effectively.

She may do research into the costs of various options and decide that she stands to make more of a profit from her work if she self publishes, offering her books in digital format and contracting with print on demand services to offer print copies. Her readers, among whom I might be, are happy, and she’s earning a greater percentage.

More than anything else, I think self publishing and services like editing and cover design will be available to writers on an a la carte basis because online distribution may exceed physical on-site distribution. At the very least online distribution of fiction will command a larger market share, even if readers are using online sources to order print books. The distribution channels offered by publishing houses now may not be so profitable for authors in the near future simply because they are at the end of a long line of other hurdles: selling your book to an editor… then conveying it to the art department, marketing, etc etc etc, to make sure the book, and by extension the author, are promoted effectively to maximize collective profit.

Self publishing (not the HQ Horizons model but the concept itself) is also going to become a more common option, I think, especially as publishing reinvents itself in the contracting market and unstable economy of bookselling. It wouldn’t surprise me if other houses began to offer similar services.

Self publishing as a concept is a viable option in the market ahead, and I do think it was wise for Harlequin to consider it now because of the changes operating in the publishing world right now.

That said, if you’re going to be a pioneer in something, do you want to be Dara Joy, or do you want to be Jen Turner?

Harlequin at this point I think is making a solid financial and business choice but the manner in which it’s been executed has flaws on multiple levels. I’ve often said that I don’t care what publisher an author is from (and barely remember who publishes with whom half the time) but Harlequin romances are distinct and identifiable at 20 paces. Their brand affiliation with the Horizons line seems like a good will impairment at this point, not just to their own brand but to romance in general.

Moreover, the linking of rejection and the funneling of rejected slush to the Horizons line further damages both the brand and the good will across the board. The extent remains to be seen.

I still think self publication is a good idea, a solid business opportunity, and a good thing for readers, especially if they can connect with authors they love and the books/series they want. It’s a mix of DIY and direct-to-consumer sales - and that is a good thing for readers who follow authors and are part of an audience that’s loyal and eager, but not quite big enough to catch the continued attention of New York. But self publishing and vanity publication are not the same thing, and obviously, this is a whole other can of ploot, and again we have to define and redefine and worst of all defend.

Also: Sherry Thomas’ entry on this subject is an amazing read.
Toni Andrews said on 11.19.09 at 11:22 PM • [link]

For those of you who are worried that Harlequin is too big to care about RWA’s announcement, let me remind you of something.

Like all vanity presses, Harlequin Horizons has just one customer base: aspiring WRITERS.

To illustrate:

1. When the marketing department at a Vanity Press has a meeting, they don’t sit around trying to figure out how to attract more READERS. They want to attract more WRITERS.

2. The Vanity Press business model does not even include book sales in the bottom line. Their revenue stream starts and ends with the WRITERS. Any money made from actual book sales is so negligible that it likely is not even included in ROI figures.

Now, with that in mind, because Harlequins has chosen to make Horizon a business arm, and thus under the big, romancey, Harlequin umbrella, AND to openly market it to authors who have been rejected, most of their target market are, not only WRITERS, they are ASPIRING ROMANCE WRITERS.

And, a very high percentage of ASPIRING ROMANCE WRITERS are members of RWA.

Therefore, RWA might have a bit more influence that some of you think.

Toni (Yup. I’m a Harlequin author)

P.S. Plus, Nora says RWA is important, and I always listen to Nora. I can’t help myself. At my first Romantic Times convention, I went to the Ellora’s Cave “come as your fantasy” party wearing a Tee-Shirt that says “Hello, My Name is Nora Roberts.”
Jess Granger said on 11.19.09 at 11:34 PM • [link]

I agree, the self publishing card has been played and is on the table for all to see in this discussion. Though I do think the McJob comment was out of line.

It implies the work is brainless and has no worth, that someone doing it is only doing it to make some easy money until something better comes along.

I don’t see how you can say that and not intend it as an insult. I hardly think anyone sitting around writing, pubbed, pre-pubbed, unpubbed, selfpubbed, or epubbed would consider what they do without worth.

Now if you would like to defend that comment by saying “most” traditionally published authors in the midlist don’t make much money, then you should have said that instead of throwing a term out there that is so demeaning.

We have to deal with enough snide terms in this industry. There were enough to fill a bucket in the first paragraph of the New Yorker article alone. I don’t think we should add McJob to the list.

As I said before, self publishing can be a valid business model for some people. But self publishing isn’t the problem here, nor the solution. We’re talking about Harlequin Horizons.

Let’s get back to the task at hand and talk about the implications of Harlequin making this venture in the current publishing industry.
Melissa Blue said on 11.19.09 at 11:39 PM • [link]

Just had to say this needs to be put on a shirt:

“Note: I didn’t start out in this business as La Nora.”
Cheryl said on 11.19.09 at 11:49 PM • [link]

Jumping in. I agree with Nora. I have been writing for 16 years with the intention of making this a CAREER. Not to pay to have my book published so I can see my name on a cover, sell a few copies to family and friends and not to spend days/weeks/months working my fingers into claws to make no money. My focus from day ONE was to be NY published, and I busted my butt, buried in rejection letters, to earn my FIRST SALE this past summer. And for anyone to say NORA didn’t earn everything she’s busted her butt for is WRONG. Anyone who works hard and finally breaks in, and stays in, deserves their success. And though I have not intention of ever working as hard as Nora does *G* I hope to spend the next 20, 30 years of my life writing the best books I can and hopefully finding my own manner of success like she has!
Dave Kuzminski said on 11.19.09 at 11:51 PM • [link]

Well stated, Toni “Nora” Andrews. That is exactly the bottomline that vanity publishers work upon. If the Horizons experiment was truly self-publishing then all the profit would go to the author. Just the admission that the author will receive only 50% of net is enough to prove that it’s vanity.

As an aside, RWA is the kind of organization I’d be proud to belong to. Except for the minimum sales of my one romance/fantasy/SF book Protectors of Seaswams put out by Double Dragon Publishing (gasp, P&E’s editor wrote one?) not being enough, I’d be very tempted to join.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.19.09 at 11:51 PM • [link]

Self publishing as a concept is a viable option in the market ahead, and I do think it was wise for Harlequin to consider it now because of the changes operating in the publishing world right now.

But Sarah? This doesn’t seem like true self pub. Seems like vanity. That’s a huge difference.

Seriously HIGH costs that the author has to front, but instead of keeping all the profits, minus book costs, etc, she has to share the net. But she’s already paid, and paid thru the nose, she shouldn’t have to pay more.
DeadlyAccurate said on 11.19.09 at 11:52 PM • [link]

Sarah, while the idea that connecting writers more directly with readers sounds good on the surface, how many versions of Atlanta Nights* do readers have to buy before they start to wonder why someone won’t vet the books that get put out? The simple fact is that most of the stuff in the slushpile is closer in quality to that than to even the worst commercially published book out there.

*I don’t want to name any truly awful vanity books that were written sincerely, but—though written by professionals to be deliberately bad—Atlanta Nights is indicative of the quality of many vanity books.
SB Sarah said on 11.20.09 at 12:02 AM • [link]

Shiloh: Agreed. I meant the concept, not the actual execution of this one.

DeadlyAccurate: I say the same thing about romance from any print pub, and often. There are some god awful books out there with fully edited manuscripts and lovely covers. The romance genre, even with the reductions recently, publishes a TON of books every month, and it’s difficult to navigate to find quality.

In the example I’m thinking of, bearing in mind that this is with a much larger distribution to readers online vs. in stores, something that isn’t happening now but will eventually, an author may be able to realize more profit by going into production on her own. This particular endeavor, as more of it is discussed and compared, is not one I would choose, though.

However, now I want to read Atlanta Nights. Dang.

And in other more breaking news from my inbox, as has been forwarded to me by many, the Mystery Writers of America have also announced that they are concerned about conflicts-of-interest with the new Harlequin Horizons. From their announcement:

It is common for disreputable publishers to try to profit from aspiring writers by steering them to their own for-pay editorial, marketing, and publishing services. The implication is that by paying for those services, the writer is more likely to sell his manuscript to the publisher. Harlequin recommends the “eHarlequin Manuscript Critique Service” in the text of its manuscript submission guidelines for all of its imprints and include a link to “Harlequin Horizons,” its new self-publishing arm, without any indication that these are advertisements.

That, coupled with the fact that these businesses share the Harlequin name, may mislead writers into believing they can enhance their chances of being published by Harlequin by paying for these services. Offering these services violates long-standing MWA rules for inclusion on our Approved Publishers List.

On November 9, Mystery Writers of America sent a letter to Harlequin about the “eHarlequin Manuscript Critique Service,” notifying Harlequin that it is in violation of our rules and suggesting steps that Harlequin could take to remain on our Approved Publishers list. The steps outlined at that time included removing mention of this for-pay service entirely from its manuscript submission guidelines, clearly identifying any mention of this program as paid advertisement, and, adding prominent disclaimers that this venture was totally unaffiliated with the editorial side of Harlequin, and that paying for this service is not a factor in the consideration of manuscripts. Since that letter went out, Harlequin has launched “Harlequin Horizons,” a self-publishing program.

MWA’s November 9 letter asks that Harlequin respond to our concerns and recommendations by December 15. We look forward to receiving their response and working with them to protect the interests of aspiring writers. If MWA and Harlequin are unable to reach an agreement, MWA will take appropriate action which may include removing Harlequin from the list of MWA approved publishers, declining future membership applications from authors published by Harlequin and declaring that books published by Harlequin will not be eligible for the Edgar Awards.

How many other writing organizations will address this? I’m curious how Harlequin will respond to their letter.
Cara said on 11.20.09 at 12:07 AM • [link]

Yes, it can be difficult to find quality among published books, but believe me, they’re the top 1% of what’s being submitted. Once you’ve read through a slush pile, you’ll thank Goddess that there are filters and gatekeepers via traditional publishing.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 12:09 AM • [link]

Shiloh: Agreed. I meant the concept, not the actual execution of this one.

Ah….gotcha. Sorry. My brain is on overload from all of this.

And if you really wanna know more about Atlanta Nights, go do a google for Mrs. Giggle’s review. It sounds like each author wrote a chapter, without knowing what the other was doing and then mashed them together into a doc file, and viola.

‘published’ book.
Jeannie said on 11.20.09 at 12:10 AM • [link]

Harlequin Horizons is not about self-pubbing. It’s about vanity press. It’s about paying fat fees to have your book—that’s very unlikely ready for publication, may have been rejected by Harlequin—printed and bound, and then getting only half of the net on sales.

If Harlequin Horizons retains some of the other rights regarding setup and creation, as most vanity presses do, this is definitely not self-publishing. Everything the author will PAY (ridiculous amounts) to have done through Harlequin Horizons – The ISBN, the native file for printing, and the cover—might be unusable once they take their book elsewhere.

If HQHo gets the author an ISBN under their publisher distinction, the ISBN belongs to them and is usable as long as the book remains with them. If the author chooses to take this “self-published” book elsewhere, they will have to get a new ISBN, even though they paid to have that ISBN secured.

Same thing applies to the native file formatted to print that book. With 99% of vanity presses, the vanity press retains rights to that file—NOT the author. I don’t know what HQHo’s agreement states, but iUniverse—another Author Solutions partner—clearly states that the file will not be given to the author and may not be used elsewhere.

And the cover. If Harlequin creates the cover for the book, who owns the rights to that? The cover the author paid to have created might be useless if they leave. They will have nothing but the word document they started with.

I have a self-published non-fiction workbook. I did the work - I set up the native file, I designed the cover, prepped the book for printing and paid to have it printed and set up as an e-book. Yes, I put out money to do this, but all the money that comes back from sales is mine. And I’ve sold over 1000 copies, so it’s done reasonably well by the standards listed here. Self-publishing is a viable option in certain situations, but if you are going that route, it’s important to retain the rights on every aspect of the book’s production, not just printing rights.

If an author goes to HQHo or any other vanity press, they need to be very aware of what rights they are NOT keeping. If HQHo is working the same way other ASI partners are, the rules that apply are clearly vanity—as long as your book remains with HQHo, you get the benefits that you paid ridiculous fees for. But the minute you leave, some of the rights any self-published author would make certain they retain are gone.

In my opinion, that is one big distinction between a self-publishing option and a vanity press. What you take with you when you leave.
Jody W. said on 11.20.09 at 12:12 AM • [link]

Hey Dave K—you can still join RWA if you think it would benefit your career. You just wouldn’t be able to join the subgroup in RWA known as PAN. That’s one of the things that makes RWA different from many other professional writer’s organizations; unpublished or not-published-by-“eligible”-publishers authors can still take advantage of it. Some think that’s great and some think that’s not so great, but it is what it is.
Cara said on 11.20.09 at 12:13 AM • [link]

Ah, Atlanta Nights! Don’t drink a beverage while reading this book. Some parts made me laugh so hard I got hiccups.
Jody W. said on 11.20.09 at 12:21 AM • [link]

Is anyone in any other pro writer’s organizations to give us any updates on how they might be responding to the HO situation? Or was HQN never part of their eligibles list anyway due to the smex cooties?
Zoe Winters said on 11.20.09 at 12:31 AM • [link]

Jess,

I apologize for those connotations of “McJob.” Be assured I was in NO way judging the worth of the actual writing or the work that went into it, but was merely complaining about the paycheck often attached to that work.
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 12:33 AM • [link]

Is anyone in any other pro writer’s organizations to give us any updates on how they might be responding to the HO situation? Or was HQN never part of their eligibles list anyway due to the smex cooties?

Lol, Harlequin wasn’t on the list of qualifying markets for SFWA (Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America), but I think that’s just a genre thing more than smex cooties, since I writes the sex and am a happy SFWA member. :-)

SFWA’s Writer Beware (which is also part-sponsored by MWA now) has blogged about this (http://accrispin.blogspot.com/) but no “official” statement has been made, I assume because SFWA didn’t have any association with HQN to begin with. As a member, though, I’d like to see them make a statement, and will contact them.
Eirin said on 11.20.09 at 12:34 AM • [link]

Jody W.

Mystery Writers of America weights in:

http://www.ereads.com/richard_curtis/2009/11/mystery-writers-of-america-steps-into.html
Kimberly Van Meter said on 11.20.09 at 12:35 AM • [link]

Lurking.
Ann K said on 11.20.09 at 12:38 AM • [link]

Lol, Harlequin wasn’t on the list of qualifying markets for SFWA (Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America)

Actually, I believe MIRA and Luna books qualify as markets for SFWA under this:

# Other large independent publishers and US imprints of large conglomerates such as Bertelsmann, Penguin Putnam, von Holtzbrinck, Time Warner, etc. (thus, Harcourt, Vintage, Farrar Strous & Giroux, Random House, Scholastic, Viking, Doubleday/Nan Talese, Houghton Mifflin/Clarion, Luna, etc.)

From http://www.sfwa.org/join-us/sfwa-membership-requirements/#novel
Elaine said on 11.20.09 at 12:39 AM • [link]

Commenting to get updates via email.
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 12:46 AM • [link]

You’re right, Ann K., I saw “Luna” at the bottom of the list but it simply didn’t register.

Either way, my guess is they’re not really focused on genre romance as a whole or Harlequin in particular (and that’s why they haven’t yet addressed this), but I have emailed them to ask them to make a statement.
Selah March said on 11.20.09 at 12:48 AM • [link]

I say the same thing about romance from any print pub, and often. There are some god awful books out there with fully edited manuscripts and lovely covers. The romance genre, even with the reductions recently, publishes a TON of books every month, and it’s difficult to navigate to find quality.

Sarah, I agree, and I know you believe you’ve seen how bad it get when not enough attention is paid to editing for content, clarity and readability. But I beg you to believe me when I say that until you’ve judged a contest or been allowed to sift through a slushpile, you don’t know how bad it can get. The vast majority of unedited manuscripts by amateur authors make the worst of the epubbed and trad-pubbed dreck look like nuggets of shiny, shiny gold.

Consider this: Even the epublisher/small press currently most reviled for its badly-written books rejects a high percentage of submissions. Now imagine those books offered for sale with the “HH” logo on the cover.

For the past year or so, there’s been a distinct rise in the number of reader complaints regarding the quality of romance. I put most of it down to these readers finally having a forum to vent their perfectly reasonable criticisms. They despise paying money for a book only to discover it sucks. Fair enough.

Therefore, as much as I support the idea of self-publishing for certain kinds of projects, I’m not sure the self-publishing of romance fiction on a large scale is going help readers. I’m afraid it’s only going to flood the market with substandard product, and make it harder for less-savvy readers to figure out where to find the good stuff. And I’m absolutely certain that the large scale vanity publishing of romance can only lead to higher levels of reader dissatisfaction.

I’m a reader, too. A reader first and foremost, in fact, and because I’ve seen scores of unedited manuscripts through the contests I’ve judged, the idea scares the livin’ lollipops outta me.

Oh, well. Looks like it’s inevitable. On the bright side, it will certainly provide more fodder for #romfail.
Cara said on 11.20.09 at 12:53 AM • [link]

Selah March said what I tried to say, only better.

Sarah, I agree, and I know you believe you’ve seen how bad it get when not enough attention is paid to editing for content, clarity and readability. But I beg you to believe me when I say that until you’ve judged a contest or been allowed to sift through a slushpile, you don’t know how bad it can get. The vast majority of unedited manuscripts by amateur authors make the worst of the epubbed and trad-pubbed dreck look like nuggets of shiny, shiny gold.
Lynne Connolly said on 11.20.09 at 01:00 AM • [link]

Is anyone in any other pro writer’s organizations to give us any updates on how they might be responding to the HO situation?

I’m a member of the RNA (Romantic Novelists’ Association), and we’re based in the UK.
http://www.rna-uk.org/
Only writers are allowed to become Full Members and have voting rights, and it’s done on a per author basis.
“Full Membership of the Association is open to all published writers of romantic novels and full length serials, with either contemporary or historical backgrounds (minimum length 30,000 words). [Vanity and self-publishing do not qualify.]” (to quote from the site).
For that reason it’s unlikely that the RNA will weigh in, though I’m not on the committee, and so I’m not sure about that.
But because we’re based in the UK, we have many authors as members who are writing for the Modern/Presents and Historical lines, as well as many of the other Harlequin/Mills and Boon category lines. Many of them are deeply distressed at this move. Some of them feel insulted. I really can’t say too much but I haven’t yet come across one Harlequin author who is overjoyed by this move, or even a slightly chuffed.
As I understand it, the Harlequin email loops are awash today with distressed and angry authors.
Ann K said on 11.20.09 at 01:03 AM • [link]

@Stacia K
Either way, my guess is they’re not really focused on genre romance as a whole or Harlequin in particular (and that’s why they haven’t yet addressed this), but I have emailed them to ask them to make a statement.

Agreed. And I don’t think fantasy/science-fiction readers and aspiring authors necessarily think Harlequin when they pick up a Luna or a Mira book, since the branding isn’t as obvious.

Thanks for asking SFWA. I’ve been curious, since I *am* one of those aspiring F/SF authors… and had been looking at Luna/Mira since I know authors published under those imprints.
hapalochlaena said on 11.20.09 at 01:07 AM • [link]

If you really, really want to punish yourself with Atlanta Nights, you can buy it from lulu.com.

It’s all in a good cause! As the lulu page says: all proceeds from this book go to the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America Emergency Medical Fund.
Jody said on 11.20.09 at 01:09 AM • [link]

Harlequin claims it is not an issue of paying for the Harlequin brand, but isn’t it?

Harlequin claims:

....Readers will not be confused. Harlequin is the gold standard for romance. (really?) Readers purchase Harlequin because they trust Harlequin to provide a great story. There will be no ‘dilution’ of quality. Horizons is a separate imprint with no Harlequin branding.

But then they say…

....is a partnership with Author Solutions (they provide self-publishing services)...we provide our brand name and we make authors we
have rejected aware of this service.”

Uh? about as clear as mud. Seems like branding to me. This service that Harlequin admits to being in partnership with smacks to me as a vanity press and not a really self-publishing, they do the work you pay for it. An author certainly has less expensive avenues to pursue if self publishing is their desire, such as Amazon’s CreateSpace, a self publishing service which offers both ebook and print on demand services with far less fees than the starting $500 you will pay at Harlequin/Author Solutions and you are assured of selling on Amazon.

That RWA beleives Harlequin has stepped over the line to align itself with this type of venture that has the potential to harm its members is in my mind commendable. Had Harlequin not gone into partnership with this Author’s Solutions but meerly told those it rejected of the service this wouldn’t be an issue with most RWA members. The fact that through this partnership Harlequin recieves monetary gain on works they authors pay them thru Author’s Solution to edit and polish is really suspect and they deserve to be removed from RWA’s approved publishers. Taking these fees make them a subsidy press if only under the table through their partnership. They are naive if they think that naming the imprint ” Harlequin Horizon- isn’t branding them they are naive. Sadly it is the Harlequin authors who stand to suffer.
Jess Granger said on 11.20.09 at 01:11 AM • [link]

Thank you, Zoe.
Tasha said on 11.20.09 at 01:11 AM • [link]

Yes, it can be difficult to find quality among published books, but believe me, they’re the top 1% of what’s being submitted. Once you’ve read through a slush pile, you’ll thank Goddess that there are filters and gatekeepers via traditional publishing.

QFT. Anyone who’s read slush pile knows just how bad these books can really be. HQN isn’t necessarily doing anyone any favors by making them commercially available.

The other question that’s not being asked here is, how qualified are ASI’s editors, and what all is included in these “editing packages”? Because a properly spelled, properly punctuated, grammatically pristine piece of crap book is still a piece of crap, and I doubt the ASI editors will get compensated—or, frankly, be encouraged—to suggest any substantive changes.
Kristina Cook said on 11.20.09 at 01:15 AM • [link]

Therefore, as much as I support the idea of self-publishing for certain kinds of projects, I’m not sure the self-publishing of romance fiction on a large scale is going help readers. I’m afraid it’s only going to flood the market with substandard product, and make it harder for less-savvy readers to figure out where to find the good stuff. And I’m absolutely certain that the large scale vanity publishing of romance can only lead to higher levels of reader dissatisfaction.

Can I just say how much I agree with this?! We’re not talking about general self-publishing, we’re talking about vanity publishing targeting romance writers.

And if we’re talking romance writers, I can’t see any reason to go with this super-expensive model (especially considering it won’t even get you into bookstores) unless the book has been thoroughly rejected by both NY print houses and small press/e-publishers and there’s simply no other way to see your work in print. So, HH is basically going to publish manuscripts that even the least selective, most inclusive small houses have rejected.

And like Selah, I’ve been judging unpublished contests for years now, and can attest to the fact that there’s a lot of aspiring romance writers out there who haven’t learned the craft well enough to make a manuscript readable, much less anything approaching enjoyable.

How in the world is the publishing of such manuscripts (and under the misleading HH logo, at that!) going to benefit readers??
mulberry said on 11.20.09 at 01:21 AM • [link]

Hoo boy, so many comments!
Some people will always choose the vanity press route to holding their own book in their hands over the slower and harder route of choosing to learn the craft of writing.
That’s really the “dream” Hh is selling.
It’s a very different thing to the genuine self-publishing of the writer with a niche but non-commercial market.
My main concern, and when I will definitely feel angry about this, is if rejection letters from Harlequin in future bear some message about considering using Horizons. That’s plain unethical. Until then, as a writer who has researched the publishing industry and is working on getting published by Harlequin via traditional methods (aka slush pile), I’m not getting upset about this.
Verification word: Hell29- what anyone expecting to get rich through vanity publishing will find themselves in?
DeadlyAccurate said on 11.20.09 at 01:26 AM • [link]

mulberry, their representative has already stated that they plan to steer rejected writers toward their vanity printing service.
Reading or Writing said on 11.20.09 at 01:33 AM • [link]

Spouse brings in today’s mail. On top is current issue of Publishers Weekly. The 3-page fold-out front cover (paid corporate advertising) was placed by Harlequin. (They have the back cover, too, for the Harlequin Teen imprint.)

Cover image: row of shoes, half of woman in dress with bare legs and feet.

Caption: You can never have enough. HARLEQUIN.

The rest of the copy is all about CHOICE. (And includes Courtney Milan’s cover image, btw—nice—among other fiction and nonfic titles.)

My response: Harlequin, believe me, I’ve definitely had enough of you this week.
rae said on 11.20.09 at 01:37 AM • [link]

My main concern, and when I will definitely feel angry about this, is if rejection letters from Harlequin in future bear some message about considering using Horizons. That’s plain unethical. Until then, as a writer who has researched the publishing industry and is working on getting published by Harlequin via traditional methods (aka slush pile), I’m not getting upset about this.

From Malle’s reply over on DA
Malle: A writer receiving a standard reject letter will find a line included about self publishing. The writer, if she wants, can then contact HH. The writer will never be cold-called or contacted unless she has opted in.

http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2009/11/18/malle-vallik-harlequins-digital-director-answers-questions-on-harlequin-horizons/#comment-223050

Also if you go over to the eharlequin website there is a big link on the writing guidelines page (where aspiring authors will go)
http://www.eharlequin.com/store.html?cid=535
And on every single page of the writing guidelines there is a image link to the HQHo site (here’s an example)
http://www.eharlequin.com/articlepage.html?articleId=1403&chapter=0
Cara said on 11.20.09 at 01:37 AM • [link]

@mulberry:

The FAQs Harlequin sent to its authors says this:

ØAll standard/form/template rejection letters will include a short note about Harlequin Horizons as a self-publishing option for the aspiring author.

So yes, rejection letters will suggest HQHo as an option.
Elysa Hendricks said on 11.20.09 at 01:38 AM • [link]

I’ve just spent the last couple of hours reading all the posts here. Lots of great insights and information, most logically and calmly laid out.

To say I’m appalled by Harlequin’s new business venture is an understatement. Though I’m not published through Harlequin over the years I’ve considered them the “gold” standard of romance publishers. Now, not so much.

There’s not much I can add to the discussion, but I did want to speak up to agree with those who’ve spoken out about how sleazy they find this whole situation. Though I agree, in part, with RWA’s stance on Harlequin, my heart goes out those authors now impacted by RWA’s decision.

To the other Elysa who posted earlier - though we seem to disagree about the benefit of Harlequin Horizons to aspiring authors and the publishing scene, it’s neat to find someone who shares my unusual name.

Another Elysa
Eva Gale said on 11.20.09 at 01:50 AM • [link]

Well, I agree completely with Sarah, and I agree with Selah in that yeah, it is bad out there in contest land, sometimes.

But I think this is where I think HH will come and say, “Gee, we’ve read throught this and would you like to purchase our editorial services? This is really much worse than you think it is and you want the best for your customers.” Cha-ching.

I don’t think that HQ has gone though all this trouble to impale itself with horrific self pubs. They have a plan. An upselling, devious plan.
Lynne Connolly said on 11.20.09 at 02:00 AM • [link]

I think I’m out and then they draaag me back in!

I don’t read slush pile, though I did once. Now I do a fair number of critiques and try to help authors who are nearly there. I’ve made some good friends that way.
What worries me are the authors who are nearly there, who have tried so hard to improve their work. Will they get to a certain level and then no further? Will they never fulfill the potential of what they could be, what they could do, because they went the self-publishing route?
That to me would be sad. Especially as a reader. I want to read the work of an author at her best, not as a nearly-there.
Selah March said on 11.20.09 at 02:05 AM • [link]

I don’t think that HQ has gone though all this trouble to impale itself with horrific self pubs.

Time will tell. But if the author refuses the editorial services, why should ASI—the ones really “publishing” the book—care? They’ve already made the bulk of their profit on the author’s fees. Anything else is just gravy. They’ll publish that book anyway, lack of quality be damned, because otherwise they’d have to give back the money.

Here’s a quote from Ashley Grayson’s blog on this very topic:

“While the number of self-published titles may have exceeded the number of ‘real’ book titles in 2008, the number of actual sales of all those titles to readers is virtually zero. Before they all got swept under the Author Solutions rug, Author House and Xlibris reps told me at a Book Expo that ‘actual sales of titles average fewer than 100 copies, all of which are bought by the author.’ The self-publishing industry ranks as a ‘bestseller’ any book that sells over 500 copies. Self-publishing is an expanding sector because those whose sole mission is to suck money have concluded that it is easier to get money from authors wanting to be published than from readers wanting to buy books.”

Link to Ms. Grayson’s blog post:
http://graysonagency.com/blog/publishing/harlequin-horizons-a-mugs-game/

They aren’t going to care about quality. They care about selling packages to authors. That’s where their profit lies.
Anon76 said on 11.20.09 at 02:09 AM • [link]

SB Sarah,

Thanks so much for responding on the question of how you viewed this as a reader. And also, for being open enough to not stick your fingers in your ears and go blah-blah-blah as the author community expressed their concerns.
mulberry said on 11.20.09 at 02:17 AM • [link]

Serves me right for not reading all the comments before posting.
Harlequin do plan to directly market Horizons in rejection letters.
That makes me very very sad.
Barb Ferrer said on 11.20.09 at 02:19 AM • [link]

Psst.. Selah. My darling. Ashley Grayson is a man. Which is an understandable mistake, but still, a man.
XandraG said on 11.20.09 at 02:34 AM • [link]

@MarciaCollette

Most local chapter boards do not have board eligibilty requirements beyond being a general member in good standing. It’s only the national board that requires publication. At its heart, RWA is still a volunteer organization.

I applaud RWA for taking this stance. They didn’t really have a choice to do otherwise, and yes, the ramifications will be huge. But the sooner we remove this particular camel’s nose from under the tent flap, the better the industry will be.

MarciaCollette writes:
Perhaps it’s too early to tell, but what I wonder what will happen to Harlequin’s authors who aren’t making the sales numbers. Does this mean that they’ll get their contracts cancelled and “suggested” that they take their next book to Horizons to see how it does there before they decide to invest in them again? Scary thought.

This right here. I’d be interested to understand what kind of sales, among the traditional lines, are considered “too low” and how they match up with sales from this vanity venture of theirs that would be considered “noticeable.”

And I also stand with others like @ZoeWinters in calling this Harlequin Horizons stuff vanity publishing. Trying to muddy the waters with self- and vanity- publishing (and in some cases, tying it up with e-publishing, too) will most emphatically not help Harlequin’s case.
Yay said on 11.20.09 at 02:35 AM • [link]

They’re changing the name.

I feel a little better now.

Thanks everyone, for all the discussion. I’m getting back to work now.
an HQ author
Tara L said on 11.20.09 at 02:36 AM • [link]

Just heard it from a HQ author:

http://www.cherryforums.com/index.php?topic=3178.30

Harlequin is backing off of Horizons. Check your email everyone.
Katherine Allred said on 11.20.09 at 02:39 AM • [link]

Just heard on Twitter that HQ is removing their name from business. Not sure if that’s all that they’re doing yet. They were NOT happy about RWAs actions.
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 02:42 AM • [link]

Taking the name off is a nice first step, and an encouraging one, but I personally won’t be comfortable until they quit soliciting rejected authors and promising them things they can’t deliver.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 02:49 AM • [link]

Taking the name off is a nice first step, and an encouraging one, but I personally won’t be comfortable until they quit soliciting rejected authors and promising them things they can’t deliver.

DITTO!
rae said on 11.20.09 at 02:50 AM • [link]

They were NOT happy about RWAs actions.

I wonder if this will reflect on the future HQN publishing careers of the BOD…

Just changing the name is not enough. Its a start. People can’t slack off complaining now the name has gone. They need to remove those links from every single page of the writers guidelines. Also stop with the link in the rejection stuff. And they could do with rewriting the blurb for the vanity press and being much more straight forward (well I can dream can’t I?)

verification turn84
Anon76 said on 11.20.09 at 02:51 AM • [link]

Yeah, but we are getting there, Stacia. If they scrub that site of any reference to HQ, that’s one step forward. (And I do hope they mean scrub that site of the HQ name.)
Nora Roberts said on 11.20.09 at 02:51 AM • [link]

~Taking the name off is a nice first step, and an encouraging one, but I personally won’t be comfortable until they quit soliciting rejected authors and promising them things they can’t deliver. ~

Exactly so. Taking the Harlequin name off is important, but it doesn’t address what Horizons is, or all those links on their website, or directing rejected authors to Horizons as another channel to publication, and so on.

Call it what it is—vanity press, remove the links that connect it to Harlequin, and for God’s sake don’t hype it to rejected authors as a way to make their dreams come true—for a fee.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 02:53 AM • [link]

Call it what it is—vanity press, remove the links that connect it to Harlequin, and for God’s sake don’t hype it to rejected authors as a way to make their dreams come true—for a fee.

And ditto again.
Dana H said on 11.20.09 at 02:53 AM • [link]

The entire letter from Donna Hayes, CEO of Harlequin, is posted posted here.
Rob Gordon said on 11.20.09 at 02:54 AM • [link]

To date, I’ve had one novel published. Received a $4000 advance for US rights and had really hoped for more. (I was more innocent, then.) When it’s discovered that I write, I’m frequently told of a friend of a friend has just published their book. In every instance, so far, that friend of a friend has been “published” by PublishAmerica or one of the other vanity houses.

As I read it, HH = PublishAmerica with one big difference—Publish America costs less. If I was one of Harlequin’s legitimate authors, I’d be dismayed. Worried, too, that my work would soon be lumped with the HH slush that’s about to follow.
Boone Brux said on 11.20.09 at 03:06 AM • [link]

I might have missed this on one of the kagillion posts, but why did HQ do this? Was it strictly money?
Selah March said on 11.20.09 at 03:10 AM • [link]

Psst.. Selah. My darling. Ashley Grayson is a man. Which is an understandable mistake, but still, a man.

Oopsie. My bad.

My apologies to undoubtedly masculine Mr. Grayson, wherever you are.
rae said on 11.20.09 at 03:20 AM • [link]

I might have missed this on one of the kagillion posts, but why did HQ do this? Was it strictly money?

There is some discussion that HQ probably didn’t actually do this. Torstar their debt ridden parent company probably forced this upon them. Harlequin is the only part of Torstar making money and increasing profits. The rest of Torstar lost over $200 million last year.
Eva Gale said on 11.20.09 at 03:23 AM • [link]

Time will tell. But if the author refuses the editorial services, why should ASI—the ones really “publishing” the book—care?

That first book will probably be it’s best seller with people wanting to find out.

As for HQs response, on thier points I think they were right. RWA hasn’t been dealing with the changes in the publishing lanscape well, if at ALL. I know they’ll be rejoicing in Mudville thinking that this is a win for RWA, but there’s miles to go here as far as dealing with author recognition and what published actually means these days.

I thought it was interesting that on http://writerunboxed.com/2009/11/19/what’s-a-writer-to-do/

Writer Unboxed, a writer is blogging about his choice to pursue self publication and how he’s going to do it. Sounds like a great book he has there-one that just won’t fit into an easily packaged box.
Jenni said on 11.20.09 at 03:28 AM • [link]

Taking the Harlequin name off of Horizons addresses the issue of the Harlequin Brand name, but does not change the fact that Harlequin is now a Vanity Press. The idea that Harlequin has stated they are disappointed with RWA has not recognized that publishing models have and will continue to change disturbs me. Vanity presses are not new and are predatory. And RWA is not there for the publishers but there for its members—the aspiring writers and the published authors. Also in the statement by Harlequin dismayed and surprised that RWA made the decision to remove Harlequin as an Eligible Publisher without discussing it with them. RWA has gone under fire in the last few years about it’s decisions regarding who is a published author and the standards by which a publisher is eligible. Certainly, Harlequin does not live in a bubble and did not know RWA’s policies and how what they chose to do affected that relationship.

Take the name off of, call it whatever you want, but Harlequin is now seeking writers to pay them to publish their books.
Boone Brux said on 11.20.09 at 03:28 AM • [link]

$200 million, YIKES. Somebody needs a good spanking! Personally, I applaud RWA for taking this initial stand. HQ is huge, and sometimes it’s easier to fold under the pressure of big business to keep your interests in place. If we continue to support bad behavior, people will continue to do it. I think this is bad behavior, or at least how HQ is marketing it. That’s my humble opinion, for what it’s worth.
Nora Roberts said on 11.20.09 at 03:30 AM • [link]

I’m not in Mudville, but I do consider this a win for RWA, and for authors. RWA took the stand it had to take, but it couldn’t have been easy to do this with an industry giant.

Authors stood up, said what had to be said—and that’s not easy either when dealing with one of the leading publishers in the business.

It made a difference. So that’s a win in my book.

Whether or not one feels RWA is dealing with the changes in publishing, it dealt with this—swiftly and correctly according to their rules of standard. It didn’t fudge or try to wheedle around it. It acted, and decisively.

Once again, this is NOT about self-publication. It’s about a very shady angle of vanity press desiguised as something else.
Tabetha said on 11.20.09 at 03:38 AM • [link]

As a reader/customer I never had a problem with Harlequin using their brand to hawk an overpriced product. That actually made sense to me—like buying a name brand bottled water—stupid, but if that’s what you want go for it. *shrugs*

My issue with this endevour is that it’s NOT an overpriced self publisher cashing in on a brand name it’s an almost criminal vanity press. It’s SUCH a shitty deal for the customer that I can’t help but think less of Harlequin for offering it. Take the Harlequin name off of it and call it kosher if you want to but it’s not. Offer real self publishing products and services that benefit both you and the customer or shut it down. These half measures don’t cut it if you’re concerned about your reputation—it actually makes it worse.

Call it what it is—vanity press, remove the links that connect it to Harlequin, and for God’s sake don’t hype it to rejected authors as a way to make their dreams come true—for a fee.

Agreed.
Karen H said on 11.20.09 at 03:43 AM • [link]

Rae said:

There is some discussion that HQ probably didn’t actually do this. Torstar their debt ridden parent company probably forced this upon them. Harlequin is the only part of Torstar making money and increasing profits. The rest of Torstar lost over $200 million last year.

Rather like a vampire sucking off a fresh young thang. Makes me wonder if Harlequin would be better off splitting from Torstar. If this is the case, seems to me that Harlequin knows what it’s doing (not the vanity press, of course) and Torstar doesn’t.
Christine W said on 11.20.09 at 03:44 AM • [link]

Nora Roberts wrote:

“Call it what it is—vanity press, remove the links that connect it to Harlequin, and for God’s sake don’t hype it to rejected authors as a way to make their dreams come true—for a fee.”

In other words, dissolve the deal altogether because if they do all those things, what does Harlequin bring to the table at all? As I see it, the value Harlequin contributes to this enterprise is in branding and marketing the publishing service to *writers*, ie getting punters through the door.

Clearly, Harlequin does not want to be associated with the end product in any way. The ‘branding’ with the Hh symbol on the spine is a point they’ll use to market the publishing service to writers but they don’t want the readers to know what is stands for, probably out of concerns many authors have expressed about diluting the brand. They’re using the Harlequin welcome mat to bring people in, then whipping it out from under them once they’ve paid their money.
Boone Brux said on 11.20.09 at 03:49 AM • [link]

I think the fact that they are marketing to rejected writers is one of the most disturbing things to me. I remember how little I knew until I joined RWA. I would have never understook what I was getting into, but I would have been excited about the HQ name, even though it would cost me an arm and a leg. Exactly right, the flesh of the young, excited writer.
Seeley deBorn said on 11.20.09 at 03:52 AM • [link]

Changing the name doesn’t change the business structure. It also doesn’t remove referrals from rejection letters or links from the main website.

The tone of their backpedaling letter came across as “We fund the RWA, they should let us do what we want”. And if they really wanted to acknowledge changes in publishing, they’d tack that pretty little H on Carina, and argue for epublishing.

As long as the public outcry keeps up, Harlequin will be forced to look at what they’ve done to themselves and to romance. I’m concerned that too many people will see this tiny step backwards as enough. It’s not.
Jodie W said on 11.20.09 at 03:54 AM • [link]

lurking…
jellicoe said on 11.20.09 at 03:56 AM • [link]

Off topic, but I was just remembering (with rue) that my first book came out the same year as Nora’s first book. We all know what happened to her. Me, well, you’ve never heard of, believe me.

What was the difference. It wasn’t that getting published was easier then and we had an easier time selling books. It’s never been easy to sell a book, and it’s NEVER been easy to get a lot of readers. But really, the difference between me and Nora is… several. She was always more talented, I think, and most important, more dedicated—to writing constantly, to staying in contact with readers, to changing genres and publishers when that made sense. (Me, I just sort of moped along and complained a lot that the world didn’t buy my vision.)

But with every book, she got new readers. She realized, I think, that while men don’t make up the bulk of customers, they are key to getting best-seller status. So she had books that incorporated adventure and thriller aspects, and of course the whole JD Robb series, and she’s ended up with a lot of male readers along with gathering new women readers with every book. Now the young women I know tend to mention one of Nora’s as the first romance they ever read, and they go searching for earlier books. This helps keep the backlist selling, and also gets them buying her new stuff for years to come. New readers are the way, all along, I think she’s managed to sell more with every book.

But anyway, I’m not aiming at brownnosing here—we don’t know each other, and my dominant emotion over the years towards Nora have been envy and resentment. :) I know, having done everything wrong all along, how much she’s done right, and I know, pace the younger writers here, that it was just as hard back then—harder, in a lot of ways, because there weren’t many slots open. (What can I say? I am hardly the only one published that year you never heard of—I think Nora and I are probably the only ones still writing, she for slightly better terms than I.
) She’s written in several genres for several publishers, signed all sorts of different types of contracts, dealt with many editors. She wasn’t always a best-seller, so she’s actually had a broader range of experience than any of us, from the beginner to the journeywoman to the star.

And the funniest criticism I’ve heard here is that she’s hypersensitive—that is just silly. She’s not. As the most widely known romance writer, she’s had to take decades of criticism, much of it unfair and sexist, from outside. And she’s had to deal with jealousy and unfairness from within, fortunately not from the vast bulk of romance writers, but she has definitely had negative experiences that we haven’t had to endure. And she’s not over-sensitive—she’s still going to the RWA conferences, still connecting with readers, still participating in forums like this, approachable in the extreme.

So, Nora, I resent and envy you, and I still wonder if maybe you got the career I was supposed to have, since we started the same year. (Obviously, it was a zero-sum game that year. :) And if you hadn’t worked twenty times harder than I ever did, and kept experimenting and growing, I might be justified in the envy and resentment. But what the hell. You deserve it.

And you certainly don’t deserve to be lectured to by a couple writers who seem to think you were born a best-seller and can’t speak to the journey. You made the journey, and unlike most who started then, you stuck it out. And unlike me, who has sort of stuck it out, you never stopped trying and changing and taking chances and improving. So please don’t listen to them. Most of us really do think that you know more about this business and this genre than just about anyone, and you gained that from long, painful experience, and you are generous enough to share it. And even those of us who resent and envy you kind of love you too. :)
Jell
Nora Roberts said on 11.20.09 at 03:58 AM • [link]

~They’re using the Harlequin welcome mat to bring people in, then whipping it out from under them once they’ve paid their money. ~

Sure reads that way, doesn’t it?
Melissa Blue said on 11.20.09 at 04:00 AM • [link]

I know they’ll be rejoicing in Mudville thinking that this is a win for RWA, but there’s miles to go here as far as dealing with author recognition and what published actually means these days.

I’ll admit I’m taking this statement the wrong way, which means I shouldn’t leave a comment. But I am.

Yes, miles to go.

Yes, the publishing landscape is changing.

But, you need to remember RWA is made up with the majority of authors. Authors who may not always agree, especially if you look at the past summer. But these same authors pretty much said, this isn’t right for a publisher to do. Not to forget most of those authors are PUBLISHED by said publisher. In an environment that isn’t always transparent, in one where many people are made to believe they can’t speak out or else, because things wouldn’t change anyway…How can you say this isn’t a win? Even if it’s a small one?

RWA had to choose to between their stand or bending. That would hurt a lot of it’s members. That would probably hurt the organization financially. But they did it anyway. What really confuses me is that this step is probably going to bring them closer to deciding how to deal with those miles/changing landscapes.

So, again, how is it not a win?
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 04:00 AM • [link]

SFWA has just Tweeted:
President Russell Davis and the board of SFWA will issue a formal statement against the Harlequin Horizons venture, shortly.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 04:02 AM • [link]

Damn, Jell. that was awesome to read. Thank you for sharing.
Nora Roberts said on 11.20.09 at 04:02 AM • [link]

Golly, Jell, thank you so much. After that I kind of love you, too.
Nora Roberts said on 11.20.09 at 04:05 AM • [link]

Melissa blue, perfectly said.
Eirin said on 11.20.09 at 04:05 AM • [link]

Eva Gale:

Writer Unboxed, a writer is blogging about his choice to pursue self publication and how he’s going to do it. Sounds like a great book he has there-one that just won’t fit into an easily packaged box.

Why bring up self-publishing? It’s utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and merely serves to confuse the issue.

Hopefully, HQN will have to do a lot more than just change the name to regain their status with RWA. It’s a good start, but all attempts to funnel writers into their vanity arm through recommendations in rejection letters and links galore on their website should stop, too.

Also, the verbiage on the HQHo site could do with a good scrubbing. Less with the stardust hard-sell and more of what one can realistically expect in terms of sales with a vanity-published book.

Of course, as others have said, excepting the HQN brand and funneling, it’s hard to see what else HQN brings to the table in their deal with ASI.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 04:07 AM • [link]

I know they’ll be rejoicing in Mudville thinking that this is a win for RWA, but there’s miles to go here as far as dealing with author recognition and what published actually means these days.

Whether you see it or not, it was a win. HQN backed down. On everything?

No.

But just because they backed down on ONE thing doesn’t meant that’s the only thing that will change.

All changes start small. I don’t think anybody expected HQN to backtrack completely.

I think quite a few of us are surprised that they even made this small change.

is it enough?

No. But it’s a damn sight better than doing nothing.
Lynne Connolly said on 11.20.09 at 04:09 AM • [link]

Okay, someone on an author loop I belong to came up with a new name for HQN Ho.

Unreachable Horizons

Perfect!
Barb Ferrer said on 11.20.09 at 04:18 AM • [link]

Dude, Jell… that was freakin’ beautiful.
Marcia Colette said on 11.20.09 at 04:18 AM • [link]

@ XandraG
Good point. I had forgotten that about the BOD on the national level. Again, they definitely didn’t make this decision lightly and I applaud them for it, too.

@ Stacia K
Well said. Striking the Harlequin name from Horizons is a start, but it’s not enough. Just because a card shark changes their name doesn’t make them any less sneaky and underhanded when given the chance. Author House—er uh—Author Solutions knows this all too well.
JenTurner said on 11.20.09 at 04:19 AM • [link]

If nothing else, I hope Harlequin removing their name from the venture will lessen, if not completely reverse the damage done to their authors over the last few days. I’m just wondering what RWA will do now, and if Harlequin’s reputation will ever be the same.

Oh, and a quick OT question: NOT being Dara Joy is a good thing, right?
rae said on 11.20.09 at 04:28 AM • [link]

Oh, and a quick OT question: NOT being Dara Joy is a good thing, right?

Yes. Very, very, very good.

http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2006/07/03/authors-behaving-badly-episode-1-dara-joy/
http://mayareynoldswriter.blogspot.com/2007/04/another-cautionary-tale.html
http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/02/01/dara-joy-has-some-chutzpah-says-new-books-forthcoming/
Enjoy!
Poison Ivy said on 11.20.09 at 04:30 AM • [link]

Others have commented that they know little about publishing but have learned a lot from this thread. I know more than I want to about many aspects of publishing, but have learned from this thread that attitudes have clearly changed on a generational basis about what is ethical and what is not. I’m surprised, but I guess I shouldn’t be. After all, many years ago, publishing was a handshake business. None of us trust publishers to that extent today, nor do they trust writers all that much, either. Hence the complex liability clauses in contracts with legitimate publishers.

What I don’t see changing is the reader’s desire to be entertained by a well-written, professionally produced romance novel. Readers are not clamoring to read worse-written, worse-edited, or worse-printed books.
Anonymoussssss said on 11.20.09 at 04:31 AM • [link]

Too bad, too. I really enjoyed Dara Joy’s early books; I thought they were great rollicking fun.
JenTurner said on 11.20.09 at 04:35 AM • [link]

Thanks, Rae! Kept trying to Google her but my phone wouldn’t cooperate. In an effort not to throw the topic off kilter, no one else need answer. My heart has returned to its rightful place. :)
Roxanne St. Claire said on 11.20.09 at 04:35 AM • [link]

Almost five hundred comments and I’ve managed to do nothing but read until Jell posted. Now that was a master class in publishing, an homage to all that Nora Roberts stands for (hard work is key to success) and worth the price of admission…which has been steep in terms of lost pages this week. I don’t know why we wouldn’t know your name, Jellicoe, because you sure know how to elicit an emotional response from *this* reader. Thanks for writing that.
Tick Tock Man said on 11.20.09 at 04:40 AM • [link]

REPENT, HARLEQUIN!!
Bonnie said on 11.20.09 at 04:44 AM • [link]

Jell, my hat is off to you.

Beautifully and honestly written.
Melissa Blue said on 11.20.09 at 04:51 AM • [link]

Jell, that is an awesome post.

Huh, spam word is truth…
Starr Ambrose said on 11.20.09 at 04:56 AM • [link]

Jell beat me to it, in style, but I have to add my thanks to Nora for getting into this conversation. At her level of success, she doesn’t have to dip into the fray to be noticed. I’m thankful that Nora allows us newer authors to learn from her experiences.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 05:06 AM • [link]

Off topic. WAY off topic, but still, posting anyway.

At her level of success, she doesn’t have to dip into the fray to be noticed.

one thing I’ve noticed that when Nora does dip into the fray? She often gets dumped on or attacked. Often for saying the same things others said without any consequence.

She gets attacked for dipping into various frays, and I believe it’s because she IS Nora. not for her opinions, but for who she is. Like some people feel taking potshots at her score them…I don’t know… SOMETHING. Anti-brownie points… cool mean kid points. I don’t know.

But in just about every controversial or heated debate I’ve seen her speak up about? She gets slammed by somebody, usually more than one somebody and usually repeatedly.

She doesn’t need to do speak up. I suspect she knows she’ll get attacked. But she continues to speak up. Which is just another reason so many of us respect the hell out of her.

And yep, I openly admit, I’m a Nora fan-girl. I’m also perfectly cool with that.
Bonnie said on 11.20.09 at 05:17 AM • [link]

Yep, I agree, Shiloh. Anytime she gets involved in any rather controversial subject, she gets jumped on by someone. And it’s usually jealousy at its core.

What the hell fun is that? I like hearing from her. I WANT to hear from her. She’s been around, ya know?! Hey, I learn from her.

And, I’m a fangirl and am proud of it. :P

spamword: used68… heh. :D
liz m said on 11.20.09 at 05:24 AM • [link]

Now I want to check out jellicoe’s books. I might have heard of her, who knows? But that was classy. And not with a K at all.

Jellicoe! Out thyself!
Eva Gale said on 11.20.09 at 06:05 AM • [link]

So, again, how is it not a win?

Because they did it in the first place.
Jody W. said on 11.20.09 at 06:15 AM • [link]

SFWA just popped HQN off their eligibles list: http://tinyurl.com/yf8z6xs
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 06:27 AM • [link]

SFWA just popped HQN off their eligibles list: http://tinyurl.com/yf8z6xs

I’m not at all familiar with SFWA or MWA, but I’m glad to see this. It’s a united front.

Wonder if MWA will be doing something similar?
Zoe Winters said on 11.20.09 at 06:31 AM • [link]

@ Jenni, good point about vanity publishing being old and predatory. I’m all for the idea of people embracing different publishing models as valid but yes, vanity press isn’t a “valid publishing model.”

Also someone else upthread mentioned something about how taking the name off is a good first step and hey hoped they don’t continue to solicit rejected authors. Same here. My question is… if they keep their name off it but are still soliciting rejected authors, will they still be ineligible publishers with RWA?

I would hope so, but I don’t know the exact parameters of the rules RWA has set for this.
Eirin said on 11.20.09 at 06:39 AM • [link]

Oh man, HQN is taking a trashing all over the field.

I don’t think anyone could have predicted quite this level of outrage. Good going for all who have spoken up.
Wendy said on 11.20.09 at 06:54 AM • [link]

Lynne Connolly said on…

What worries me are the authors who are nearly there, who have tried so hard to improve their work. Will they get to a certain level and then no further? Will they never fulfill the potential of what they could be, what they could do, because they went the self-publishing route?

That to me would be sad. Especially as a reader. I want to read the work of an author at her best, not as a nearly-there.

Part of me sees your point, absolutely. But your ‘nearly-there’ writer might be ‘perfect-match-for-me’ writer for other readers. Perhaps self-publishing will allow a match-up that otherwise would not have happened - and also give that writer the self-confidence to keep writing and improving.

As a reader, I am becoming incredibly disillusioned with the books I find in the bookstore. What if all those nearly-there writers being turned down by mainstream publishers are the ones who would speak to me in that magic way that less than 10% of the books I read now do?

And as a writer, my third book (which I will be self-publishing) is a far cry better than my first (published by a small ebook publisher). But if my first had never been published, the third may never have been written. Traditionally published writers continue to improve across the course of their career, why wouldn’t writers taking other options?
Wendy said on 11.20.09 at 06:57 AM • [link]

Sorry, I know this issue is not about self-pub vs trad pub, but about HQHo’s vanity venture. But it is also partly about the gatekeeper system, and frankly, those gatekeepers have different tastes to me…
M said on 11.20.09 at 06:57 AM • [link]

can scroll no more, can’t not read.
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 07:13 AM • [link]

SFWA Statement (I’m only quoting part of it):

Until such time as Harlequin changes course, and returns to a model of legitimately working with authors instead of charging authors for publishing services, SFWA has no choice but to be absolutely clear that NO titles from ANY Harlequin imprint will be counted as qualifying for membership in SFWA. Further, Harlequin should be on notice that while the rules of our annual Nebula Award do not expressly prohibit self-published titles from winning, it is highly unlikely that our membership would ever nominate or vote for a work that was published in this manner.

and (bolding mine; go SFWA!!):

SFWA does not believe that changing the name of the imprint, or in some other way attempting to disguise the relationship to Harlequin, changes the intention, and calls on Harlequin to do the right thing by immediately discontinuing this imprint and returning to doing business as an advance and royalty paying publisher.

For the Board of Directors,
Russell Davis
President
SFWA, Inc.

Full statement here:

http://www.sfwa.org/2009/11/sfwa-statement-on-harlequins-self-publishing-imprint/

This is so worth my membership fees.
DeadlyAccurate said on 11.20.09 at 07:16 AM • [link]

The SFWA’s stance: http://www.sfwa.org/2009/11/sfwa-statement-on-harlequins-self-publishing-imprint/
JaniceG said on 11.20.09 at 07:32 AM • [link]

I see that Jackie Kessler posted on this topic earlier but possibly due to modesty (or perhaps she hadn’t written it yet), she did not include a link to her blog post on the issue, which I think clearly walks through why many people here have such a huge problem with HH. It’s at http://www.jackiekessler.com/blog/2009/11/19/harlequin-horizons-versus-rwa/
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 07:34 AM • [link]

Damn. I’m going to sit down and write a flat out fantasy and try to sell it in the hopes of getting into the SFWA.

That statement made me damn proud of writers and writer organizations. I’ve had my own issues with them, but well done. Oh, man, well done.
Liz said on 11.20.09 at 07:42 AM • [link]

SFWA does not believe that changing the name of the imprint, or in some other way attempting to disguise the relationship to Harlequin, changes the intention, and calls on Harlequin to do the right thing by immediately discontinuing this imprint and returning to doing business as an advance and royalty paying publisher.

WORD.
Melissa Blue said on 11.20.09 at 07:52 AM • [link]

That statement made me damn proud of writers and writer organizations. I’ve had my own issues with them, but well done. Oh, man, well done.

I know! If RWA’s statement was the uppercut, SFWA’s had to be the kidney shot.
Ann K said on 11.20.09 at 07:53 AM • [link]

If I ever qualify, I’ll gladly throw dues at the feet of SWFA. Well done, indeed.

(study32—as in hone my craft and learn all I can!)
Alesia Holliday / Alyssa Day said on 11.20.09 at 07:56 AM • [link]

Just a few things, so much has been said so well:

1. I am shocked by this on so many levels, but here’s the one that I can’t quite get past: How did Harlequin, a company that is absolutely brilliant at building and expanding a brand, not understand the adverse impact of this decision?

When I was a practicing trial lawyer, we would “focus group” our opening and closing arguments before a mock jury in any case with over X monetary value at stake, because we had sense enough to consider the impact of our planned action. How did Harlequin not run this by, at the very least, focus groups of, perhaps, ACTUAL ROMANCE AUTHORS?

2. Of course vanity publishing is an acceptable business model, just like vanity video making. I have a lovely and very funny video of my then 3-year-old son having a birthday party with that purple dinosaur Barney. However, I did not work hard at my film-making craft, submit that film I’d made to MGM, and have them reject me while saying “but if you pay us a FAT LOT of money, we’ll put it on *real* film for you and you’ll have a good shot at reaching your dreams of becoming a filmmaker. There are thousands of theaters nationwide that may be thrilled to show your film.”

Yes, as various people have repeatedly pointed out, we have no paternalistic right to protect aspiring authors from vanity presses. But we do have the right and even the duty to stand up to predatory publishing practices.

3. Regarding the *now it’s Harlequin, now it’s not* tactic, here’s a personal anecdote that may illustrate why I have a problem with the idea that people who pay thousands of dollars to be part of Harlequin’s publishing umbrella will be content to never let the secret H word cross their lips:

When I first sold to Berkley publishing, I told my grandmother how excited I was. (This is the woman who, till the day I died, saved all my poetry I’d written since I was four). Grandma, who’d quit school at age 13 to work in the fields and support her family and wasn’t much of a reader, said, “Who?”

I said, “The same company that publishes Nora Roberts, Gran.”

She was so tickled and told everyone she knew, up to the nurses in the hospital where she died, that her granddaughter was an author “with” Nora Roberts.

Do you think if, as an aspiring author, I paid thousands to “publish” with Harlequin Horizons, I wouldn’t be shouting my Harlequin status from the rooftops? Damn straight I would.

Well. Guess this has been building up in me over the past couple of days. :) Also, my verification code is 21, and it’s 21 days till my Navy fly boy husband comes home from deployment, so sending out my thanks to any military folks/families on this thread.
Katherine Allred said on 11.20.09 at 08:01 AM • [link]

SFWA does not believe that changing the name of the imprint, or in some other way attempting to disguise the relationship to Harlequin, changes the intention, and calls on Harlequin to do the right thing by immediately discontinuing this imprint and returning to doing business as an advance and royalty paying publisher.

This made me so happy that I just went and shelled out $ to join SFWA. And if I wrote mysteries, I’d be joining MWA
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 08:10 AM • [link]

This made me so happy that I just went and shelled out $ to join SFWA. And if I wrote mysteries, I’d be joining MWA.

Hee, I’ve been watching the SFWA announcements of new members since the link was posted. Welcome!

I’m actually considering MWA too. I write UF, but they have mystery plots and generally a mystery structure (and murders, and red herrings, and all that good stuff) and I know a few UF authors who belong. So I might go for it.
library addict said on 11.20.09 at 08:27 AM • [link]

I’m just curious if RWA and SFWA are also making the other publishers with vanity presses ineligible/delisted.

I realize the connection between their traditional and vanity press arms aren’t as blatent (just links on their websites and the same publishing with us may get you noticed by the “parent” company type “promises”), but if the vanity press part is the issue aren’t these other publishers also guilty?
beverly jenkins said on 11.20.09 at 08:27 AM • [link]

This coming together of writers across the board is blowing me away, and they are probably being blown away that we are joining them in response/support/tribute. I say we invite them all to National in Nashville and buy them a drink. I’ve been following the thread on and off for a couple of days, so maybe I missed this - but did we hear anything from the Author’s Guild of the Writers Guild on HQ HO?? Kudos to Michelle and the RWA board for having the testicular fortitude to take a stand. You all have won yourselves, the organization, and your members a lot of cred today. Bitch on, Bitches! Bitch on!
library addict said on 11.20.09 at 08:29 AM • [link]

blatant not blatent (though I am sure that’s not my only typo)

control87 Yes, I should control my fingers from clicking submit before proofreading
beverly jenkins said on 11.20.09 at 08:29 AM • [link]

typo OR guild not of. sorry.
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 08:34 AM • [link]

@ Beverly Jenkins

Bitch on, Bitches! Bitch on!

I believe this is one of the best rallying cries I have ever heard.

Stop me before I start quoting “The Charge of the Light Brigade” again.

Also, @ library addict

Jane from DA pointed out earlier that Thomas Nelson, another publisher who’s made a sleazy AuthorHouse deal with similar (and worse) tactics, is still on RWA’s list. This should NOT be, and RWA members should make sure it doesn’t continue to be.

No vanity/subsidy presses are approved/eligible by SFWA. Not sure about MWA but I’m guesing it’s the same, as both of those organizations require a professional sale for membership.
beverly jenkins said on 11.20.09 at 08:42 AM • [link]

@ Stacia.
Glad you liked it. Wish I had a copy of Miles Davis’s Bitches Brew. Would be a perfect soundtrack for this evening.
Deborah Brent said on 11.20.09 at 08:43 AM • [link]

You know, as far as I can tell Nora hasn’t found a secret formula where her books write themselves. She still writes them one word at a time, just like the rest of us.

As for what HQ is doing, I’m appalled and saddened that this great company is stooping so low as to become a VANITY press. They are taking advantage of writers who will do anything to have their name on the cover of a book.

These type of vultures aren’t new. They’ve been around since the printing press. I’ve been around writing for a long time, and I’ve seen them come and go. There are one or two of these companies who’ve survived for years. But, generally they don’t last long, usually due to lawsuits. And, Hh will get sued at some point as misrepresenting themselves as a HQ imprint when the writer wants to know what HQ is going to do to help them sell their book. The writer will be in for a shock when HQ tells them their baby is not an HQ imprint.

Zoe, I would rather take advice from Nora than you. I know her reputation and how hard she has worked to get where she is. You I don’t know, but from reading your posts I’d say you are a lot like my uncle, he’s may not always be right, but he is never wrong.
veronica said on 11.20.09 at 08:43 AM • [link]

I confess I haven’t read the entire blog since yesterday, although I did notice Nora Freaking Roberts was here. Sorry. I just had a moment. I think my first romance novel was a paperback I stole from my mom called “Once More With Feeling” about a singer and a musician. Gah. I wonder if that’s why I always go for the musicians. I blame Nora!

Can anyone tell me if Harlequin informed their contract writers about this? Or were they blind sighted? Just curious.
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 08:52 AM • [link]

Incidentally, everyone, I’ve been invited to discuss this topic, along with several other authors, tomorrow night on the Book Chatter podcast show at 11 pm EST.

You can watch it live online (although I think you’ll only see the host, but you can listen too) here:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bookchatter

I hope I’m not derailing the thread and I don’t mean to plug myself here, I just thought those who’ve followed the discussion thus far might be interested.
Wendy said on 11.20.09 at 09:35 AM • [link]

Zoe, I would rather take advice from Nora than you. I know her reputation and how hard she has worked to get where she is.

And those of us not seeking commercial publication or the NY bestseller list also find Zoe a valuable voice and do not believe she is working any less hard. There’s no need for this.
JenTurner said on 11.20.09 at 09:54 AM • [link]

Pssssssst…Hey, SB Sarah - I know I’ll probably sound like a dork, but even though I didn’t know who Dara Joy was at first and in turn wasn’t sure how to take your comment, now that I’m educated, I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate the mention. It’s pretty cool to be thought of as a pioneer, and I thank you very much for the compliment. :)
Beth Yarnall said on 11.20.09 at 10:19 AM • [link]

Jell, Jell, Jell, Jell, Jell… nicely put. Authors like Nora, Roxanne, Theresa & Bob don’t have to care about these issues, but they do. And I thank them for it.
I’m also glad to see orgazinations like RWA, MWA & SFWA taking a stand on this issue. I’d join all 3 if I could.
Well done.
Me said on 11.20.09 at 10:32 AM • [link]

Tabitha,

Admit it. You’re an AS shill. AND a sock puppet!
Eirin said on 11.20.09 at 11:25 AM • [link]

Tabitha,

Admit it. You’re an AS shill. AND a sock puppet!

This is useless and inflammatory. Unless your intention is to derail the thread into a flamefest, I suggest a more moderate approach. And perhaps reading the second page of comments as well.
Eirin said on 11.20.09 at 11:49 AM • [link]

And I should take my own advice. The above wasn’t moderate in the least. I can only plead pre-coffee grumpiness. I’m sorry.
Nora Roberts said on 11.20.09 at 02:03 PM • [link]

Boy, SFWA nailed the issue, the actions and the problem.

Really well done.
Just a thought said on 11.20.09 at 03:50 PM • [link]

Could it be misdirection? Harlequin was taking flack for the introduction of Carina. Introducing Horizons changed the entire conversation. Now Carina is yesterdays news when it shouldn’t be. Harlequin might be very clever, unveiling Horizons, taking back the name, and then letting Carina pass under the radar. After all, they made concessions to the romance community and removed the Harlequin name, RWA should let the Carina situation just slide. And they would change the negative press from Carina into something less damaging.

It wouldn’t be the first time a company used this marketing strategy. Remember NEW COKE? It got COKE’s name in the press and created a customer stir. Just a thought.
Anon76 said on 11.20.09 at 04:12 PM • [link]

Wow! SFWA just knocked my socks off.

And Stacia, I don’t think it’s bad to make mention of that broadcast. You’ve been here and elsewhere plugging away at this. I know because I’ve been blog hopping so much I can’t remember what day this all started. LOL
Curious said on 11.20.09 at 04:36 PM • [link]

I’m pleased with the Harlequin Enterprises decisions to drop their Harlequin name from the new venture. As I’m not a writer nor do I aspire to be one, the idea of “self-publishing” or “vanity publishing” really doesn’t bother me. Though Harlequin sharing it’s name with a company that publishes romance works that do not go through the vigorous channels from submission to publication, that does concern me as a reader. The name Harlequin, to me, has always exemplified excellence in romance. So I’m very relieved on that front.

I am curious though, as I’m not a writer, I’m not in the “know”—Does the removal of the Harlequin name from the new venture now make things good for it’s authors with the various writing associations? Will Harlequin authors be accepted again and eligible for the various awards that recognize their efforts?

If not, is it because Harlequin is still (even should it be an arms length way as this is not yet clear) a part of a “self-publishing” or “vanity” venture? Because if this is the case, have the other publishers also been handed the same boot, so to speak, that also support these types of ventures?

In an earlier comment above, someone mentioned Random House and Xlibris, I’m not sure if Random retained any part of ownership after Author Solutions bought out Xlibris at the beginning of this year, but what of the years prior? Did the RWA reject Random House and their authors during the eight or so years that they had invested in Xlibris? And what of Thomas Nelson? On the Westbow site it clearly states that they are a “Division” of Thomas Nelson and that they are partnered with Author Solutions? Does this mean that Thomas Nelson and their authors will also receive the boot? http://www.westbowpress.com/aboutus/history.aspx

As mentioned above, I’m not a writer nor an aspiring writer, however I’m a very loyal Harlequin reader. I’m just trying to understand how the various Writer’s Associations fit in with this ruling on Harlequin and if they’ve also extended this same ruling to other publishers.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 04:43 PM • [link]

Does the removal of the Harlequin name from the new venture now make things good for it’s authors with the various writing associations? Will Harlequin authors be accepted again and eligible for the various awards that recognize their efforts?

To my knowledge? no.

Because the renamed Horizons will still be an arm of HQN. If HQN had stock in the company, or had formed a partnership with them, I think it would be different, but this venture is owned by HQN and that’s the key.

About Thomas Nelson and Westbow, up until recently, I wasn’t even aware of this, but if HQN took this stand against HQN, I don’t see them not taking it with Thomas Nelson. But that’s just my opinion on that matter.
Shiloh Walker said on 11.20.09 at 04:49 PM • [link]

Could it be misdirection? Harlequin was taking flack for the introduction of Carina. Introducing Horizons changed the entire conversation. Now Carina is yesterdays news when it shouldn’t be

To me, that doesn’t seem likely. Really, I haven’t noticed Carina getting much negative press, nor do I think it’s deserving of it.

A new venture that opens real doors for authors is awesome. Carina can do that.

Horizons? The only doors that would is the door to making money hand and fist over aspiring writers who think the HQN brand means they’ve got a better shot at being one of the very few self pubbed/vanity pubbed authors who become a major hit.

RWA, I think, is still trying to get a better grasp on digital publishing. Many of the members are still resistant to the ideas that make digital publishing work. So I don’t know if they know what to make of Carina.
Curious said on 11.20.09 at 04:53 PM • [link]

Thanks Shiloh ...

I’m not sure what this means, but it sounds like Harlequin is not the sole owner?

In November 2009, Harlequin joined with Author Solutions, a world leader in self-publishing, to create Harlequin Horizons.

http://www.harlequinhorizons.com/AboutUs/History.aspx

Call me curious and confused ;)
SB Sarah said on 11.20.09 at 05:08 PM • [link]

JenTurner: I’m so sorry you didn’t immediately understand my comparison. Dara Joy self-pubbed her work and it was a multilayered exercise in disaster. From shoddy work to poor customer service to allegations of unfulfilled orders, she’s a What Not To Do example of self publication.

Your comments on the first page of this thread were cogent and explained a lot I didn’t know about you and your career. I was impressed enough to check out your website and sent the samples of your chapters to my reading device. I meant absolutely that in terms of pioneering, you were doing it right. I’m sorry if for a moment you thought I was insulting you.

Also: Beverly Jenkins saying “testcular fortitude” made me hoerk my coffee. OW.

Question Re the SFWA:

[The SFWA] calls on Harlequin to do the right thing by immediately discontinuing this imprint and returning to doing business as an advance and royalty paying publisher.

Are they specifically referring to Harlequin, as in, “Harlequin should go back to its established business model of advance/royalty publishing and get rid of that vanity thing asap?” Or are they stating that publishers achieve approval from the SFWA only if they are following the advance/royalty model, and Harlequin should return to its established model?

Finally: ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE from my pink box (HAHAHA) (Sorry)

The comment thread is amazing. Turgid! Civil! and I’m amazed and thankful for the discussion!

I’m also trying to monitor our database and am talking to the support department for our host (Esosoft, and you should name a hero after them, srsly). If they think it’s getting too big, I’ll start a new one in a new entry and close this one, mostly to prevent massive database firestorms.

But as usual, thank you, you, you, and you for all 500+ of your comments. I appreciate it like you have no idea.

One more thing: I was talking about this situation with Hubby last night, and remembered something I meant to say yesterday. We’re talking about Harlequin, here. A company that long prior to the Carina and Horizons announcement was known for actively listening and soliciting opinions from its readers. So there is no doubt that they’re listening and reading what you say. This situation will continue to evolve, I think, for awhile.
Anon76 said on 11.20.09 at 05:22 PM • [link]

Just a note to everyone. Discussions like these are being followed by a wide variety of people, not just those interested in the Harlequin line. Meaning online newspapers and such. Keeping the discussion on topic and civil is in all of our best interests.

I say this because I stumbled upon one such newspaper in a search for Harlequin Horizons. I will not post it here, but suffice it to say that, as reporters are want to do, they honed in on a conversation between some of the individuals here. I wouldn’t call it flattering in the least.
Virginia Kantra said on 11.20.09 at 05:24 PM • [link]

Update from the HQ website. The hH link is still prominently displayed on all the “Writing” pages at eHarlequin. However, instead of taking you to glossy pages of price lists, promises, and attractive women staring into a misty distance while chewing on pens, now the links all go to a “contact” page.

Less advertising, but also less transparency.

http://www.harlequinhorizons.com/harlequin.aspx

It’s just so wrong.
C said on 11.20.09 at 05:30 PM • [link]

@Victoria
attractive women staring into a misty distance while chewing on pens

LMAO. I’ve been absolute riveted by the header slideshow on the first page. Misty authors are superhot, yo. It’s like a category plot in and of itself….The Hot Stock!Author Vanity Press Honeytrap!
C said on 11.20.09 at 05:32 PM • [link]

Sorry, that was meant for Virginia ;)

The Hot Stock!Author’s misted my brain….
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 05:40 PM • [link]

Anon76, would you be willing to email me that link? I’d appreciate it, if you would.

@Sarah:

Are they specifically referring to Harlequin, as in, “Harlequin should go back to its established business model of advance/royalty publishing and get rid of that vanity thing asap?” Or are they stating that publishers achieve approval from the SFWA only if they are following the advance/royalty model, and Harlequin should return to its established model?

As I understand it, both. They’re basically saying, “This makes you a vanity press, and we don’t recognize vanity presses, and what you’re doing is wrong, so cut it out and if you do we’ll recognize you again.”

CHANGING THE IMPRINT NAME IS NOT ENOUGH.
Christine_Rose said on 11.20.09 at 05:48 PM • [link]

Curious, Author Solutions is a huge conglomerate that owns many of the worst of the vanities, including AuthorHouse. In the past, AuthorHouse has paid various referral fees to corrupt agents and a few small presses in exchange for sending unwanted authors their way.

Based on the HQNHo website, AuthorHouse is going to do all the work and the real HQN will have nothing to do with it. You can compare the HQNHo site and AuthorHouse’s own site and see that it’s basically a clone, except all the pictures are of women and the prices are higher.

The exact nature of their deal with HQN is unknown. I think it’s safe to say HQN “owns” the name Harlequin Horizons though.
Tabetha said on 11.20.09 at 05:50 PM • [link]

Just a note to everyone. Discussions like these are being followed by a wide variety of people, not just those interested in the Harlequin line. Meaning online newspapers and such. Keeping the discussion on topic and civil is in all of our best interests.

I say this because I stumbled upon one such newspaper in a search for Harlequin Horizons. I will not post it here, but suffice it to say that, as reporters are want to do, they honed in on a conversation between some of the individuals here. I wouldn’t call it flattering in the least.

Thanks for letting us know it’s out there. I’m not sure why you don’t want to post it but I don’t see the big deal so here’s the link for anyone else that’s curious like I was:

http://www.examiner.com/x-15200-Nora-Roberts-Examiner~y2009m11d19-From-my-viewpoint-Gunfight-at-the-Smart-Bitches-Corral-continues

Tabitha,

Admit it. You’re an AS shill. AND a sock puppet!

Why would you think that? I agree that my opinion is different than the majority of people who’ve posted here (or my reasons at least) but I chalk that up to being a reader and not a writer—these changes don’t impact the way I make my living. Surely, that’s a more reasonable assumption than I’m a shill or a sock?
Stacia K said on 11.20.09 at 05:51 PM • [link]

Oh, this is interesting. A HQN editor has blogged about this:

http://stacyboyd.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/omg-rwa/

In the post she refers to the RWA’s decision as “biting off the hand that feeds it.”

Um…no.

HQN is NOT the hand that feeds RWA. WRITERS are the hand that feeds RWA. They are the ones RWA is supposed to serve, and they have done so in this case very well (now they just need to do the same re Thomas Nelson).
Anonymous said on 11.20.09 at 05:57 PM • [link]

I’ve had my major disagreements on here with Tabetha and she’s for real. She is neither a shill nor a sock puppet—just someone voicing her opinion, in a fairly calm, intelligent, and rational manner.

I value that even if I don’t agree with what she says.
Anon76 said on 11.20.09 at 05:58 PM • [link]

Stacia, I emailed you, but I guess it doesn’t matter now.
Theresa Meyers said on 11.20.09 at 05:59 PM • [link]

I’m glad Harlequin is changing the name. That’s step one. I posted this on several private author loops regarding Horizons and the potential fallout early yesterday before Harlequin’s name change announcement but it still points out there is a lot of work left to do as evidenced by SFWA’s stand on the matter.

Brands are fragile things. You screw with the confidence your customers have in your brand, you’ve screwed your profits - plain and simple. They taught us this in a second year PR class in college via the Tylenol/cyanide debacle from the 80s.

It took nearly a decade for Tylenol to earn back people’s trust and they did it very methodically by:
1. Admitting they made a mistake, apologize and state what they were going to do to fix it.
2. Pulling all their product (tainted or not) from the shelves immediately to show they were serious about doing something and taking action.
3. Introduced the tamper-proof packaging that is now standard in the industry for over the shelf medications.

Honestly, right now Harlequin should be looking at something similar, in my opinion.
1. Admit you made a mistake. Pointing fingers or acting offended won’t put you in a better light. Just suck it up.

2. Pull down the Harlequin Horizons website to show you’re serious. Renegotiate with ASI and see if you can restructure it into another entirely different entity if you must keep it to appease your parent company Torstar. Remove reference from eharlequin.com and strike using it in your rejection letters. Remove the Harlequin name from it entirely and just call it Romance Horizons, or New Horizons, or whatever, just disassociate Harlequin with it (which you’ve already said you’ll do). Send out a notice to your authors explaining what you plan to do to remedy the situation. Stop spouting platitudes. Have someone vet your FAQ before you send it out so you aren’t contradicting yourself in multiple places.

3. Show how you are going to make it an option in true self-publishing not vanity publishing. Show how you are concerned about bringing the best work to market, not just any work for a buck. Show that you care about your readers and your authors and truly are the gold standard for romance.

All of the above is, of course, just my opinion, but an opinion after having spent way too long in corporate public relations. No company is big enough to screw with its branding and not take the hit.

If you have SFWA, RWA and MWA all saying, this is not legitmate, stop trying to make it sound like it’s all part of the new wave of publishing and we just don’t get it. Writers should not have to PAY to get their writing published. It’s easy, it’s simple, it’s ethical.

Ha - spaminator is evidence45 - if the huge public outcry and media coverage isn’t enough to convince you vanity publishing is NOT the wave of the future (and totally not equitable to self-publishing where the author takes home 100% of the profits after paying for the risk up front) I’m not sure what is.