Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

Tabetha, I didn’t post it because it took an unfair potshot at someone’s body of work. I guess I should have been more upfront about the reason I didn’t post it. Words are power, after all.

For the sake of transparency just in case anybody wanted to know - and for the record - yes, I am a Harlequin author. And I truly hope this all works itself out because Harlequin has done a lot to support romance writers and romance readers.

Tabetha, I didn’t post it because it took an unfair potshot at someone’s body of work. I guess I should have been more upfront about the reason I didn’t post it. Words are power, after all.

Ah.  Thanks for sharing your reason, Anon76.  I guess it’s no big surprise I didn’t see it that way? lol

Either or your post and that article are a good reminder that people are reading this thread and to keep it on topic and relevant.

I think it would be a different matter if Torstar wanted to own a vanity press, and did, but there where no links directly to the press from Harlequin.  That’s my understanding of the relationship between Random House and Xlibris.

Would people probably get taken in by Torstar’s vanity press at some point?  Yes.  Will Torstar make money off of them, yes.  Will Harlequin take them by the hand and lead them there?  That’s what I’m fighting against.

I don’t want to see a reputable and distinguished publisher like Harlequin leading authors to a company and a product that is a vanity press.  It’s not even a good deal for a vanity press.

So while scrubbing Horizon of the HQ name is the first step, scrubbing the links so new authors aren’t directed to the service through Harlequin in any way is the next one.

Scrubbing the “stars in your eyes, your dreams will come true, and what you perceive as the reality of your favorite author’s experience will become your reality if you buy this product…” off the website will help as well.

I don’t know if there’s a way to connect a traditional publishing house to some sort of valid, here are the services we offer, and here’s what you get when you pay for them… model of self publishing.  Clearly the writer’s communities are suspicious of this sort of change and should be to a certain extent.

If the writer’s organizations exist to help protect and foster authors’ professional writing careers, and as I said before, we don’t abandon or eat our young, then the writing organizations should stand up against business models that are misleading, and exploit new writers who don’t know the ropes yet.  Essentially, that is part of their mission.  So they have a mission to give people information to make an informed choice about risky publishing ventures, and they do that through their approval of publishers they deem “safer bets” for writers.  Yes, the writer’s organizations will have to deal with the fact that it seems many epublishing models are proving themselves reliable and profitable means of publication for their authors.  That change will come.

Back to what would make an unscrupulous self-publisher scrupulous.  It starts and ends with information.  The self-publisher should be in the business of having the best resources in terms of their service that they can, they should be fairly priced, but then the key is transparency, transparency, transparency.  Everything needs to be up front about rights the author loses, rights they keep if they choose to leave, products that they keep if they choose to leave, hidden fees, and the truth about distribution.  Anything I’m missing?

I think what Harlequin might have been aiming for with this is saying to authors, “If you choose this path, you’ll have a Harlequin quality (in everything but the actual writing) product you can keep, (a nice romance cover, nice printing, good binding, etc).  But that is very different from a “Harlequin product” you can sell.

I agree that the conference fee is probably going to go up year after next.  They have 10K members, fees are $85 which is $850,000. a year. How much is their wage bill? I think they must have something left after they pay all their expenses. The RWA seems to have money in their reserves, they bought an office building a while back. So, I don’t think they are completely reliant on Harlequin for money. Conference next year sure will be interesting. I imagine a lot of things will be scaled back.

Totally agree with Sarah that spelling out what RWA and SFWA would require to reinstate Harlequin would go a long way in speeding up this process. However, I think since both have boards, it make take some time for them to be able to formulate a proper response.

Theresa, good analysis there. I think what’s appalling to me is while Tylenol was blindsided by the tamper case (someone else did the tampering), Harlequin must have been planning this for months. And they never thought it might cause trouble? They sure didn’t have anything planned in response.  Is it possible—and I can’t believe it, but maybe you could explain—that all this was calculated to get a lot of press to the new venture?

I remember that agents can get in serious trouble by referring their rejectees to such places, especially if they get a kickback for the referral, and it’s hard to believe HQN doesn’t know how that little scam has been regarded by writers and writer groups and the major agent groups too.

Hey, has anyone heard a response from AAR about this? (The agent group.)

And that “RWA is biting the hand that feeds it” is infuriating. If Harlequin thought it owned RWA, I sure hope that it’s thinking different now.
Jell

Sorry for some of the twisted sentences above.  I’ve been up until two in the morning every night watching these threads, and I’m allergic to caffeine.

I need a nap.

Very good post, Jess.

Plus, why do they have to say, hey we’ll be watching sales and just might pick you up for contract? Westbow does this too, though they are more upfront about not actually providing editors from the parent company. An icky vanity-publishing venture, but not taken to the level HQN took it.

And though I’m not an ebook author, I didn’t say anything when Carina was added, though I probably should have. Not against HQN, but for them. Voicing my opinion that RWA needs to rethink their stance on the epublishing model and what constitutes a reliable, and therefore eligible, epublisher.

Anon76:
I think you’re right. Carina Press is viable and brilliant and a great move by Harlequin to move into the growing digital publishing market, which I believe RWA should accept (once Harlequin takes care of Horizons). I’m kind of sad Carina got entirely overshadowed by this whole vanity publishing thing.

Anon76

Yeah, hinting that they’ll pick up authors this way is not good either.  I don’t think it would be bad to actually do it every once in a while, but to promise a “win the lottery” kind of promise like that (actually your lottery chances seem a little more likely) strikes me as unscrupulous.

Jell:
Could it have been a twisted method of getting press? Yeah. Possibly. But given what I’ve seen Malle say and now Stacy Boyd (editor), I really think they were convinced this would provide opportunities to all those writers they have to reject every year who either don’t fit the lines specifically or who just “aren’t there yet”.

Problem is you have to think of the perceptions first. And nobody did that. Equating the Harlequin brand with vanity publishing was just a bad, bad branding mistake. Because it’ll take ten positive impressions to wipe out ever one negative impressions. That’s a lot of ground to make up.

I thought Stacy Boyd’s blog was interesting and I actually agree with a lot of what she’s saying and her reactions were similar to mine.  I don’t see anything wrong with the HQHo (love that) sales pitch they’re using on the website.  I don’t see anything misleading about them saying if you sell enough copies of your book we’ll notice.  And I don’t care that they were going to put their name on it.  Slap your brand on it and charge 20K for a video?  Great—more power to you.  But she loses me here:

Those watching the industry closely cannot help but see these kinds of services as a part of publishing’s future. (As a consumer, I find this very exciting. No longer are the books I want to read hemmed in by marketing guidelines. If I want it, I can probably find it published by someone.) Beyond the obvious differences in money (author advance vs. author fee), there is a huge rights difference. Authors keep all or most of the rights in self-publishing, which can offer unlimited opportunities for the right person. (The kinds of unlimited opportunities that might not happen in traditional publishing.)—Stacy Boyd

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

As a reader I’m excited about the changes in publishing too.  I love that HQ is entering the e-publishing market with Carina Press.  Samhain is total awesome sauce—their books are reasonably priced and I’ve never bought one that wasn’t edited.  Sure they’re not all great but they’re not a steaming pile of crap like you’ll find at say Siren or an overpriced mixed bag from Ellora’s Cave.  So to hear there’s going to be another e-publisher that actually seems to have some standards regarding what they will and won’t publish is great news to me.

So when I read the announcement that HQ was offering a self publishing service I was equally excited.  I’ve bought a few self published books and frankly they’ve been pretty aweful but I still see the potential.  I’d love to see self publishing become a real alternative for writers and I mistakenly thought HQ was seeing the changes in the marketplace and responding to that in a legitimate, above board manner.  But they’re NOT.  What kind of BS business model charges HUGE fees to print your book and then keeps 50% of the sales of that book?  That’s outrageous. 

So what I thought was going to help produce a higher quality of self published product (hello editing packages) and a good thing is actually pretty revolting.  Like finding out your spiffy new sneakers were made in a sweat shop or they killed baby seals so I can have my tuna sandwhich—ok, that’s probably an exageration but not by much.  It’s still wrong and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  I don’t want to feel that way if I happen to buy a book a Harlequin. 

I buy romances to feel good—not to feel bad that I’m supporting something I think is disgusting. So even if I don’t set out to purposely avoid Harlequin books it’s going to happen if I think there’s anything shady or exploitive about their business practices.

Those watching the industry closely cannot help but see these kinds of services as a part of publishing’s future. (As a consumer, I find this very exciting. No longer are the books I want to read hemmed in by marketing guidelines. If I want it, I can probably find it published by someone.) Beyond the obvious differences in money (author advance vs. author fee), there is a huge rights difference. Authors keep all or most of the rights in self-publishing, which can offer unlimited opportunities for the right person. (The kinds of unlimited opportunities that might not happen in traditional publishing.)—Stacy Boyd

Okay, what I don’t get is… why aren’t they publishing those books that aren’t “hemmed in by market guidelines”? I mean, she’s an editor. It’s rather disingenuous to act like she has nothing to do with that, that her only role here is as an underserved reader.

And I do wonder at this insistence that this is “self-publishing” and “retain all rights” and all that. If in fact the author retains all rights with this HH contract, then why on earth does HQN get 50% of net on top of the fees already charged? That does NOT happen in self-publishing, because the author really does retain all rights. Any contract that gives part of the net to the publisher means, uh, that the publishers has acquired some right.

You know, really, they don’t even PAY for that right. I wonder if it would even stand up in court—where is HQN’s payment that secures that cut of the fee? When a publisher gets, say, half of the option fee if your book gets optioned for a film, it’s because they’ve paid to put out a book and have paid you royalties, and presumably there wouldn’t be a film option without the publication, etc. But it sounds like in this contract:
1) Author pays all expenses of publication AND the markup (excessive) that gives HQN its profit.
2) Author does all the work of marketing and selling (or pays excessively for HQN to do some of it).
3) Author then gets only half the net from selling a book she has paid handsomely for.
4) HQN gets the other half for the consideration of… what? Taking all the money beforehand?  What exactly have they done for that half?
ANd now the one major selling point is gone—the Harlequin logo on your book.

I think the lack of candor and downright deception we’re seeing in all these info-sheets and editor-posts indicate something. Either no one there actually understands what they’re doing, or they know they can’t actually be honest or they’d have even a bigger firestorm.

Whenever a business has to pretend they’re not doing what they’re doing, it makes for corruption. Of course, we expect some spin, but based on truth. If there’s value here, and there should be—a business like Harlequin should be proud of providing something people want—they shouldn’t have to pretend. If they actually set up a real self-publishing division, with a new name and a reasonable markup for services (10%?), I don’t think we’d be so upset. But they’re pretending that they don’t even know the difference between self-publishing and vanity publishing, which, duh, has been established for a couple CENTURIES.

Testing comment process after database wheeze. Don’t mind me.

I can haz fixed feed now?

Will it embarrass you if I beg?

RE: “traditional publishing has changed so that authors can’t make it to the bigtime any more.”

This is simply not true.  WARNING THIS IS AN ANECDOTE AND NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENTATIVE OF A TREND OKAY?

A friend of mine spent two years writing the “book of her heart”.  She sent it out over the transom to agents.  She got nibbles from two of them, one of whom wanted to sell it into exactly the market she wanted.

She just signed the contract for a $200,000 advance.

Yes, I hate her a lot.  But in a nice way.  *g*

So.  Unpublished author, over the transom, big money.

This probably won’t happen to you, or to me.  But don’t tell me that you simply can’t make it in trad publishing any more.

My captcha is “why35”.  Why, indeed.

When you factor in the national conference, there has to be substantial corporate sponsorship (read: money) to keep the cost of attendance beneath $500 - which it is, and compared to some other conferences I’ve attended that were shorter in length, that fee is really a bargain.

RWA posts its financials in its Member Resource section. We can see how much they bring in from advertising, how much they collect in member fees for the National conference, and what their outlays are. I wish I had a better idea of the breakdown in some of those numbers—and I suspect some numbers are kept out entirely (e.g., if someone else pays for the tote bags, that line item simply won’t show up on the RWA budget and the figure will be smaller than total conference expenditures), but I don’t think it’s as hugely dire as that.

I don’t think anyone’s hand is really feeding anyone else here. It has, up until this point, been a symbiotic relationship—Harlequin needs authors, authors need Harlequin, authors may not need RWA but generally appreciate it, Harlequin has supported RWA in part because RWA helps train the next generation of authors so that they don’t have to and helps connect authors and editors, RWA gets financial support from Harlequin, and is mindful of the fact that Harlequin provides great opportunities to many of its writers…

Nothing is easy, but I would never say that the relationship is like a master feeding a dog for any of those parties. Harlequin pays, but they’ve been getting back in return; RWA accepts, but they do deliver benefits. By virtue of its long-standing nature, I think we can conclude that the relationship has been good for both Harlequin and RWA.

While Harlequin should know this, that entire Harlequin Horizons site is nothing but purple prose.

From wikipedia definition:

“Purple prose is a term of literary criticism used to describe passages, or sometimes entire literary works, written in prose so overly extravagant, ornate, or flowery as to break the flow and draw attention to itself. Purple prose is sensually evocative beyond the requirements of its context. It also refers to writing that employs certain rhetorical effects such as exaggerated sentiment or pathos in an attempt to manipulate a reader’s response.”

The manipulated response in this case is forking over dough.

I don’t see anything misleading about them saying if you sell enough copies of your book we’ll notice.  And I don’t care that they were going to put their name on it.  Slap your brand on it and charge 20K for a video?  Great—more power to you.

But what they aren’t making clear is that selling enough copies of a vanity pubbed book?  Do they offer any stats on how many self pubbed or vanity press books are sold by an author?

They make wondrous claims on the booming business of selfpublishing but the money in self pubbing isn’t being made by the authors, for the most part, it’s being made by the pubs who are paid by the authors.  They make their money selling dreams to writers…not by selling books to readers. 

That’s one thing they aren’t clear about.

Most vanity and self-pubbed books only sell a hundred copies.  A self-pubbed or vanity press book that sells more than that?  Awesome.

But it’s going to take more than 100, probably more than 1000, to make them notice.

I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it again… HHz is selling stardust to desperate writers and those desperate writers who buy into it are going to so blinded by the stars and dreamed HHz slyly offers, they aren’t going to see past the stardust to the reality.

Now… is it HQN’s responsibility, if people don’t investigate?  Of course not.

But they are capitalizing on HQN’s name, and they are banking on the dreams of aspiring writers—it’s exploitation and IMO, it’s repugnant.

There are deep dark thoughts that each of us keeps hidden but that each of us suspects might be true of others.

For instance, would the editors receive a bonus for each rejection that led to a sale in a vanity press operation? Even if they didn’t, wouldn’t it be likely that writers might think that, especially those who took the suggestion, paid the money, found out their books were going nowhere because there was no support or true distribution, and then decided to sue making certain to include the rejecting editor’s name as one of the defendants? Sure the company’s lawyers would likely defend the editor, too, but what would that do for the editor’s reputation, especially if the plaintiff prevailed?

Or would writers suspect the purpose of the vanity suggestion was to sidetrack them and discourage them with the cost from becoming real pro writers thus decreasing the slush pile and maintaining the status quo for those already published while at the same time even earning some funds for the main company?

You don’t think these are true thoughts? They are. I receive correspondence from frustrated writers quite often with these exact feelings about the publishing business and they need only one fan in their hometown to help spread those feelings that the publishing industry is rigged because that fan believes the rejected writer, usually a close friend, is a good writer. After all, we’ve heard or read many of the misinformation and rumors about the publishing induster that get repeated and wonder how those came about. But it’s no mystery. Those come about because the rejected writer has a fan so it can’t be the story or the writing is bad. It’s a matter of connections or wealth that sets them apart from those who are actually commercially published. Anyone who says differently must be in on the conspiracy.

In the end, for a company with the status of Harlequin to have even a remote association with a vanity operation is nothing less than confirmation of those rumors and whatever else might be alleged by those seeking publication.

Dave Kuzminski, Editor
Preditors & Editors (tm)

On the plus side, if HQ withdraws its “support” of RWA and RWA crashes and burns (NOT THAT I THINK IT WILL), there won’t be as many educated, industry-savvy authors in the slushpile and a higher percentage will sucker into the HHz pitch.

I still want to know if they’re going to offer HHz discounts to current authors whose sales flag or whose lines close as an economical (*snort!*) way to prove they’ve still got what it takes to be a HQ author. Maybe you can get a 20% off Hollywood style video coupon with each option book rejection!

I mean, seriously. Why stop at charging new authors?

The Hh banners are gone off the eHarlequin website. 

Thank you, Harlequin, for reluctantly doing what was right after being reminded several times.

Dang, anyone here linked on Twitter to Publishers Lunch? Heard a rumor from another writer, but want someone to confirm.

And no, I’m not telling the rumor, lol, because it may be totally without fact. Words are power.

More media coverage of SBTB commenter’s reactions at Fandom Wank: 

http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1226613.html

One of Nora’s posts apparently made the author of the Fandom Wank post feel the same way he did when he heard Morgan Freeman say “motherfucker” in the movie “Wanted.”

“So awesome.”

I can haz fixed feed now?

In Google Reader, I just unsubbed from the feed, then put http://smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php in the add sub box and it seems to be fixed.

Dang, anyone here linked on Twitter to Publishers Lunch? Heard a rumor from another writer, but want someone to confirm.

http://twitter.com/Publisherslunch

Here’s the Publishers Lunch Twitter feed: http://twitter.com/publisherslunch

You don’t need an account to see it.

But what they aren’t making clear is that selling enough copies of a vanity pubbed book?  Do they offer any stats on how many self pubbed or vanity press books are sold by an author?

They make wondrous claims on the booming business of selfpublishing but the money in self pubbing isn’t being made by the authors, for the most part, it’s being made by the pubs who are paid by the authors.  They make their money selling dreams to writers…not by selling books to readers. 

That’s one thing they aren’t clear about.

Most vanity and self-pubbed books only sell a hundred copies.  A self-pubbed or vanity press book that sells more than that?  Awesome.

But it’s going to take more than 100, probably more than 1000, to make them notice.

I agree that self publishing is a risky business venture and I think the vanity press model is almost criminal.  But I don’t think it’s their responsibility legally or morally to educate their customers as to the pit falls of the business.  I just don’t. 

I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it again… HHz is selling stardust to desperate writers and those desperate writers who buy into it are going to so blinded by the stars and dreamed HHz slyly offers, they aren’t going to see past the stardust to the reality.

I don’t think you’re giving people enough credit but I’m glad vetran authors take this seriously and form groups and organizations to arm aspiring writers with information to help them evaluate any contracts they might be considering.  I know the mentoring I’ve received over the years has helped me tremendously in my career. 

Now… is it HQN’s responsibility, if people don’t investigate?  Of course not.

Agreed!

But they are capitalizing on HQN’s name, and they are banking on the dreams of aspiring writers—it’s exploitation and IMO, it’s repugnant.

I do agree this newest business venture is repugnant but that’s because the vanity press model, to my mind, offers nothing of value in return for a huge investment.  In other words it’s a rip-off.  Feeding into peoples hopes and dreams just seems like effective advertising to me.

Publishers Launch twitter says that:
Harlequin Drops Brand from Self-Publishing Line, As Criticism Continues
http://twitter.com/Publisherslunch
There is a link to the story. Who’s got a subscription to Publishers Marketplace and can read the story and report back?
Pretty please?

Interesting news linked on Publishers Launch about Torstar’s new President & CEO previously beancounter in chief (not much of a beancounter if your company is in that much debt but I digress)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/David-Holland-Named-Torstar-iw-2066892335.html?x=0&.v=1

Thanks all. My friend read it as the line was dropped, but it appears just the branding was dropped. I was hoping for the whole enchilada. Hahahaha

I have a paid subscription.  The story doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been fully discussed here and elsewhere.  It provides links to organizations’ statements that have been linked to and discussed here.  No new information so far as I could tell, and no rumors, only the facts, ma’am.

I don’t think you’re giving people enough credit but I’m glad vetran authors take this seriously and form groups and organizations to arm aspiring writers with information to help them evaluate any contracts they might be considering.  I know the mentoring I’ve received over the years has helped me tremendously in my career.

It’s not about giving people credit.  It’s about being realistic.

I subbed my first book to HQN when I was 19.  It was rejected.

Now if I’d gotten a little note, “This isn’t right for our line but perhaos if you’d like to consider Harlequin Horizons…”

If a writer doesn’t know how the publishing world works?  That’s going to sound very enticing, especially to one who is still reeling from the rejection.

Now a web-savvy writer, one who researches, learns the ropes, etc…they’ll figure it out, more than likely.

But it’s not about THEM.  It’s about those who aren’t as savvy. 

And there are plenty of them.  Those are the ones the vanity pub venture will target.  Is it effective advertising?  Perhaps.

But if you’re going to sell hopes and dreams, even knowing only a percent of a percent will actually make profit?  It’s unethical, IMO.

Thanks, Rae, for the link.

And while not wanting to offend anyone, I’ve found engineers to be as tunnel-visioned as bean-counters. Based on my experiences, of course.

Thanks to you, too, Reading and Writing.

Don’t mind me, just subscribing to give my refresh key a rest…

But if you’re going to sell hopes and dreams, even knowing only a percent of a percent will actually make profit?  It’s unethical, IMO.

I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this point. 

I have to say this is pretty disasterous for HQ from a PR standpoint because even though we’re miles apart on some of the issues we agree HQ is repugnant.  It takes some doing to piss everyone off. lol

To start of with I really disagree with Harlequin associating its name with this venture at all. If they really wanted to do it without causing such a ruckus they could have. Has anyone thought maybe this attention was what they were going for?

Another point I’d like to make is in an job or career you have to pay your dues and work your way up the ranks.
For examlpe: My husband drives trucks for a living. He had to pay for schooling, license, DOT physical and things like that out of his/our pocket.

I’m a newly published writer and I did a lot of research before submitting to the publishers I chose. I have paid a little for promo items. I did attend the Romantic Times Convention last year, and had a fabulous time. I’m the member of an organization where romance writing is the main discussion daily. I write everyday and love doing it. If I didn’t I’d quit and do somehting else.
Before reading any of the post I knew everyone has their own opinion and is welcome to it. I did find that some post irked me, because they weren’t focused on problem at hand. Rather they were focused on someones broad generalizations about authors.
Another example: Not all writers are poor money managers.
I for one handle all the money in my househald and do it damn well.

Just following the thread.

As far as HQN and Torstar goes.  I used to work for a well-known telecommunications company that was in the communications business and doing fairly well for itself.  It was bought by a well-known company that was in the financial pyramid schemes business.  It did not end well for either company.

HQN was in the book publishing and doing fairly well for itself.  Torstar, I am afraid, is in the gutting the golden goose business, and it will not end well.

I’m a newly published writer and I did a lot of research before submitting to the publishers I chose.

Another example: Not all writers are poor money managers.
I for one handle all the money in my househald and do it damn well.

I’m so happy to hear a women stand up and say she’s competent to take charge of her writing career and make informed decisions.  I know you’re in the majority but it was getting a little disheartening hearing over and over how easy it is to take advantage of romance writers.

If it were easy to pull one over on romance authors, this discussion wouldn’t be happening.  The presence of the discussion will be enough to give those looking for information all the information they need to make their own choices with eyes wide open.  Everyone has a right to make a decision with their eyes wide open.

Anyone has the right to open whatever business scheme they want so long as it is legal.  More power to them, but having the right to do business doesn’t give you the privilege to do business without the free voices questioning your business practices.

This is just an open market, very loudly questioning some business practices.  And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Check this out:

http://www.authorsolutions.com/News.aspx?id=356

I mean seriously, even this author solutions site was a bit more upfront about the whole thing.

And read the testimonial to the left. The guy had a book signing and sold 100 copies of his book…but granted, to mostly friends and family.

Wendy said:

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.

Thank you! That means a lot to me.  It was never meant to be “that kind” of discussion or about “who” to listen to. It was a discussion that got off topic and into a cat fight for no reason. And that wasn’t ever my intention.

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.

So this is basically a vanity press for e-publishing. Get more bewildering with every story I read. LOL

Not just the ebooks, Rita.  It’s the ebooks and the print books, 50% of net.

Yeah, Shiloh, but that could have been a Freudian slip. They know their biz, and in doing so, may expect that your major market (if there is one) is in ebook form.

And read the testimonial to the left. The guy had a book signing and sold 100 copies of his book…but granted, to mostly friends and family.

An googling the guy, his website doesn’t seem to have been updated since 2007… book appears to have been printed in 2005…
You’d think they’d be able to get some new testimonials with all those happy customers…

One of my favorite authors, Allison Brennan, discussed this on the Murder She Writes blog. 

I know the odds are against me ever being published traditionally.  It is my dream and I’m not giving up but that is reality. 

For a company that readers & writers trust to go into this kind of deal is IMO wrong.  To prey on writer’s emotions and desperation isn’t a crime but it sure isn’t right. 

I feel bad for the people that hand over their hard earned money and don’t see the kind of success that they’re dreaming about. 

Oh, and if the Nora Roberts commenting really is THE Nora Roberts, this isn’t the place but tough, I love your books.
Your writing rocks and you deserve your success.

I always thought women were more supportive of each other than men.  It seems some people’s comments are more interested in tearing others down.  That’s too bad.

Jonquil:  if your comments are directed at me (and I recognize they may not be, but as there are over 500 posts here it’s hard to know who you’re talking to), I never said people couldn’t make it big in trad publishing anymore.

I just stated the obvious that it’s really really hard.  And a lot of luck is involved.  Given that, I’d rather do my own thing. Other people’s mileage varies and that’s fine.  I don’t care how people choose to publish.  I don’t have a stake in anyone else’s publishing path but my own.

I’ve had a few e-books published and I have one coming out soon that will be available in e-book but also POD.  I’m not a bestselling author—at the moment—I’m not on any of the lists, I would say that at least 99% of the reading public have never heard of me or read any of my books.  I am not self-published and I have certainly NEVER gone to a vanity press.  I’m a nobody in the land of the published.  However, using the term “McJob” to describe what I do in relation to Nora, The God-dess of romance is just plain insulting.  When I read that word I couldn’t help but picture a writer standing in front of a greasy grill flipping burgers and wrapping them up in her manuscript pages.  It demeans and demoralizes my books and my writing and me as an author simply because I’m not Nora.  Well, hell, nobody is except Nora!  So what!  It doesn’t mean she didn’t work her ass off to get where she is.  And she deserves her success—every damn dollar.  And any success I have in my writing career I will deserve as well and it won’t be because of my “McJob.”  For those who have never met Nora in person you’re missing a treat. 

As to Harlequin Horizons, if you go to their web site they really talk the talk.  They are all charm and beauty luring the unsuspecting author into their world.  Only behind the door is quicksand.  I must admit my naivety when I first heard of Harlequin’s new venture.  But I have since been educated in the differences between SP and Vanity Publishing.  This new venture is definitely vanity publishing at its most flagrant.  For those new writers out there, beware.

Cher

As a reader, a fiction reader first and foremost, I’m interested in more diverse gatekeepers on different platforms. I want books that someone paid for, implying a vote of confidence, a belief in its appeal (whether right in my case or not). I have a huge prejudice against books whose only vote-of-confidence comes from the author. There are too many writers out there who think they’re the next Nora Vladimir Hemingway to….just no.

I am already a discerning reader. Mostly because of bookblogs I’m more familiar with particular imprints and have a general idea of what I’ll get from Riverhead/Norton/Viking vs the sick indies like Moby, Akashic, Softskull (I’m ignoring its bought, bear with me). This is even easier to do in romance publishing because it’s an industry that believes in branding even with big publisher imprints; therefore the different lines have an even stronger identity.

I’m totally stoked about different platforms. I tried Ellora’s Cave before it became a blip on most big blogs’ radars and dipped my toe into Samhain, Loose-ID etc. before figuring which others I enjoyed and sticking to ‘em.

I don’t want to be forced to be more discerning because someone’s churning out paid-for slush pile. Brand me an elitist, close-minded bitch.

Cher:

Several have taken offense at my McJob comment.  In the context of the original statement I was talking PURELY about economics. I was not in any way speaking about anyone’s talent or skill or anything else, just the level of money “most” midlist authors can expect to be paid for the hours they put in. (The advance is generally still in the $5,000 -$10,000 range for many right? Or has there been some giant leap in advances I wasn’t aware of?)

And while some midlist authors here have stated that they are happy with the money they make, others at conferences all over the country and in their blogs take great pains to make sure we know how very LITTLE money they net from all the hours and work they put in.

That was the only thing “McJob” was referencing. The compensation.  Again, I’m sorry if it offended or hurt people or if they thought I was putting THEM and their work down. I wasn’t.

Cher, I’d love to meet Nora in real life, but I can’t even find the courage to address her directly on blogs.

Color me silly. I know she doesn’t bite, however it’s not only her books, but her work ethics that astound me. She walks the walk in putting in the hours at the keyboard. True, she no longer needs to worry about certain monetary issues that many of us labor over at the beginning of our careers, but she also hasn’t stepped from the path that got her there.

And that was a “glomming on Nora” moment that I have refrained from voicing in the number of years I’ve seen her posting on sites like this.

Oh, geez. Is Harlequin handing out a vanity-press-phrasebook to all of their editors? Seriously.

This:

Beyond the obvious differences in money (author advance vs. author fee), there is a huge rights difference. Authors keep all or most of the rights in self-publishing, which can offer unlimited opportunities for the right person. (The kinds of unlimited opportunities that might not happen in traditional publishing.)—Stacy Boyd

is a slight riff on an extremely common vanity-press lie: That authors with commercial publishers do not get to keep their copyright, or control the rights granted therein. It is incorrect. Completely. There is absolutely zero “huge rights difference” between vanity press and commercially published books, save who actually pays for the use of those rights.

Now, granted, I’m not familiar with HQN’s contracts; it may well be that they take rights publishers do not ordinarily take (at least not if the author in question has an agent or a halfway decent knowledge of publishing). So it may be that HQN’s editors believe that all commercial publishers take every single right the author owns.

(Of course, even if that is the case—and I know some epubs take lots of rights—they still pay the writer, and not the other way around.)

I control all of my rights in commercial publishing. As do most writers who are commercially published. I sold first publication rights. I kept everything else. I’ve sold a few foreign rights, and audiobook rights. I got paid for those separately.

I own my copyright. My publishers register it for me (at their expense, not mine) but it belongs to me, not them. This is the case in all commercial publishing ventures.

What HQN is trying to tell writers, in trotting out that falsehood, is that commercially published authors do not control the rights to their work, and that the way to keep what you’ve created is to vanity publish. Not true. They are trying to tell potential customers that said customers retain all rights, which is true to a point, but not really. As has been pointed out, the act of printing the book with an ISBN uses First Publication rights. Those are gone.

My published books also represents the use of my FP rights. But, see, I got paid for those. Whereas with HQHo’s vanity press, I would be asked to pay them to take those rights from me, and in addition would be expected to give them 50% of the net proceeds of the rights I"M paying THEM to take. This is (excuse the analogy, it’s the most evocative I can think of) roughly equivalent to a prostitute paying a client to sleep with her, then letting him film the event and earn money from the video proceeds, and being grateful if he kicks her a few nickels after he’s doubled the money she gave him to start with.

Authors who publish through the HQHo/AS vanity press do not retain control of their first rights. They pay someone to take them.

Yes, they retain the other rights, which are essentially useless to them; the odds that someone will not only somehow find said vanity-press book, but want to make an audiobook, or translate it into Russian, or whatever, are so slim as to be microscopic. But in retaining all rights save first rights, they are no different at all from commercially published authors.

The “huge rights difference” is solely in who pays for those rights, and that is all. To imply otherwise is a statement I’m frankly shocked any editor for a commercial publishing house would make.

The house of Harlequin shall be forever sullied by this disgraceful elopement

From a software engineer named Jim.

Way to go, Jim!

I’m happier with this whole thing today now that Harlequin has done the right thing and dropped the ads for Horizons from the pages for aspiring writers on eHarlequin.

My issue wasn’t with Harlequin settiing up a self-publishing option, but with the ickiness of the way it was marketed.

Thanks eHarl! Maybe ethics have prevailed over profit. Certainly the voices of so many angry writers may have made them see what the romance community feels about the issue.

Now I’m waiting for my next rejection to see if it plugs Horizons!

I was up until 1:30 last night reading as many of the 550+ posts as I could before hubby “politely” (read grumble :) ) asked me to turn out the light.  Came back today to finish what I started and had about 100 more new posts to read on top of where I’d left off.  I’ve spent this entire afternoon catching up, and I want to say to all:  thank you.

Every opinion, no matter how controversial, is appreciated.  It’s refreshing to see everyone’s passions for what they love in black and white, though like everyone else, I could do without some.

I started seriously writing a year ago, and the first thing I did was learn as much of the industry as possible, including the difference between types of publishing.  Though I received my first rejection last week, doesn’t mean I’m going to stop going the traditional route.  It’s where I want to be and how I want to be known.  :)

So, Hq’s venture into vanity is seriously disheartening.  I love the HQN and Mira lines (though not immediately recognized as a part of Hq) and hope to see something with my name on it from those places…perhaps no longer.

I have to give RWA credit for educating me and props for standing up for themselves.  They truly had no choice in the matter, but standing up to the “giant” required balls of steel.

I applaud you all, most especially those pubbed authors from the house I hope to one day join.  Good luck during these rough times and keep up posted.

(Back to reading the (no doubt) twenty new responses since I took ten minutes to write this)

Has anyone checked Harlequin’s stock prices since this all began?

Katiebabs,

Never even thought of doing that, but good point. Have you checked?

Anon76: Torstar is at around $6 a share. I couldn’t find Harlequin. Is Harlequin on the Dow or Nasdaq?

Not a clue, katiebabs. I can never figure out which company is which if I don’t know their odd acronyms. (Correct word, dunno, been at this for days now. Thank heavens hubster understands the importance of this. Good man.)

Since the company is Canadian I don’t think they’d be listed on the New York exchange?  There’s been quite a few announcements so I think it would be hard say for certain that any fluctuation in their stock price is a result of the negative response to HQHo.  Anyway, here’s Torstar’s activity for the week—which is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange for what it’s worth. 

http://torontostar.morningstar.ca/globalhome/StockQuickTake/quote.asp?aspredirect=true&ticker=TS.B&ExchangeID=TSE&flagP=P

In looking on the NASDAQ site Torstar must be the only listing for the company.  I can’t find a separate listing for HQ.

You can read about Torstar, Harlequin’s parent, here.

http://www.torstar.com/inv_relations.php

This will link you to a page which will give you stock quotes.  It is traded on the Toronto stock exchange.  The stock was barely up earlier this week (after the announcement) and now it’s back where it was, but I think I can summarize it by saying there’s been no meaningful change this week.

Overall, the stock has been doing poorly, even taking into account that a lot of things economic are doing poorly.

Sarah, thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking.

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.

The really sad part about Carina, is not only does the wonderful thing HQN did in starting them get lost in the explosion, but now if a writer sells to them and is an RWA member, their status as published (at 1k in sales) won’t be acknowledged within RWA unless HQN drops Horizons.

Theresa said:

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.

You know, I was thinking this morning that this is where they might have intended to go, but were using AS as a stepping stone to build up sales in that area before they officialy opened thier own self publishing services. That way they got to test the waters and build up clientele first.

I’m not opposed to self publishing, and I wish they would have just made the jump if that was thier intention.

And that was a great comment.

Tabetha qutoes Sarah as saying:

After all, they made concessions to the romance community and removed the Harlequin name, RWA should let the Carina situation just slide.

I couldn’t find the original quoted post but I’m not sure what this means.  “Made concessions to the romance community”?  Huh? 

By “romance community,” do you mean the 3 major genre trade organizations out there, from mystery writers to romance writers to science fiction?  How is that the ‘romance community”? 

The response ran the gamut from outrage to disgust in places like the New York Times, the New Yorker,  Preditors & Editors, and so on. You know, all facets of the publishing world. 

(Tangentially, many of these places already held a murky view of the romance genre, and this move has tarnished it even further, which makes me angry.)

HQ’s actions violated the spirit of so many professional ethoses ( I cannot figure out how to make ‘ethos’ plural)  that almost *everyone* in the publishing world was appalled. 

And ‘concessions’?  That makes it sound like they were willing to go the extra mile and give a little.  But in truth, the Horizons package is vanity press, and has misrepresented itself from start to finish.  Who gives a rip if it’s illegal—it’s rotten, and people have said so.

Any ‘concession’ HQ made was not to be a nice guy.  It was about fear that people / organizations /authors would turn their backs on HQ, and that would affect cashflow.  It was self-interest, not ‘concession’ in any amiable, collaborative way.  Implying otherwise misrepresents the situation. The entire publishing world viewed this as a slimy move, and said so.

Are any writers here going to pull their submissions from HQ?

I was going to submit to Carina, and perhaps Harlequin Historical, but now I am in wait and see mode.

verification word: might 53. I thought perhaps they might take me on as an author, but now I’m not sure I might take them on as my publisher

Are any writers here going to pull their submissions from HQ?

No.

But if it gets rejected I won’t be mortgaging my life to take advantage of their Horizons program, that’s for damn sure.

If Harlequin Enterprises is wholly owned by Torstar, Harlequin wouldn’t have its shares listed. Torstar’s share prices are a reflection of its value, to include all its holdings (so that a high value (gain) asset like Harlequin was before this fiasco offsets a low value (loss) asset like the newspaper arm).

I don’t currently have any submissions with any Harlequin line that I’m aware of, but I will request that my agent not submit my next books to any of their lines as long as they maintain this vanity imprint.

Tabetha qutoes Sarah as saying:

After all, they made concessions to the romance community and removed the Harlequin name, RWA should let the Carina situation just slide.

I couldn’t find the original quoted post but I’m not sure what this means.

Kris, 
Eve Gale actually posted that quote, not me.  She was quoting a part of Just a thought’s post on page two—here’s that post in its entirety.

Just a thought said on…
11.20.09 at 04:50 AM
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.

As long as Harlequin is willing to pay me to write, I’m willing and happy to write. Because this is my job as a writer.

The moment any publisher suggests that I pay for seeing my name in print is when I no longer submit to that publisher, because I am a professional. Professionals get paid.

Harlequin still has the best distribution in the world for Romance, bar none. They pay well. Do I want to see the vanity press gone? Ideally yes. Would I be happy if they simply didn’t pimp it out in rejection letters, pulled it from the site and called it something else so it doesn’t impact the brand I’m writing under, yes.

Unfortunately, the brand has already been been sullied. And it’s going to take a lot of work to disassociate the brand name with pay-for-publishing in the eyes of the general public, especially with the kind of negative press this has been getting. And, no, I’m not the type of publicist who believes that any publicity is good publicity. Not when it messed with the brand.

Tabetha~
  Whoops!  My bad—I misattributed the quote within a quote.  LOL Sorry!  And since I was looking for ‘Sarah,’ I couldn’t find the original message, or see its intent.  Thanks for fixing me up.

Actually, I kind of see it as a PR mistake that both were annouced the same week. There’s nothing wrong with Carina Press. That was a brilliant move. Digital publishing is going to become a critical part of publishing in the near future.

I believe it’s unfortunate that Horizons took away the shine from announcing Carina Press, because Carina Press is following an established business model where money flows to the author. It’s a positive thing that’s now being overlooked because of the negative thing. (See what I mean about ten positives to undo one negative?)

Anon said “I don’t currently have any submissions with any Harlequin line that I’m aware of, but I will request that my agent not submit my next books to any of their lines as long as they maintain this vanity imprint.”

Ditto, except for the agent part. I don’t have one. *g*

And I won’t be buying any Harlequin books either. I know that punishes the authors too, and it’s not their fault. I’m sure I will miss out on some great stuff. But I refuse to give my money to a company who has no compunction about f****** people face down.

Like so many have said, it’s predatory. It’s not that romance authors specifically are easy to screw over, it’s that anyone with a dream can be a mark.

I am so glad to see such an outpouring of voices, to see us standing up for each other.

I think it’s “funny” that HQN seems to forget that their own authors and their authors friends and writing comrades are also HQN readers. Maybe not so much any more.

Anon76,

Nora is a kick, no doubt about it.  She’s smart, savvy and funny as hell.  She is a publishing phenom no doubt about it.
I asked her once if after publishing so many books if she still got a thrill each time a new book was released.  And she said absolutely. 

Hope you get to meet her one day,

Cher

No problem.  It did get a bit confusing there.  lol

I also thought this part of your post was spot on but I do give them credit for responding to the situation no matter what their motivation is.  Unfortunatly, it doesn’t fix what I personally find distasteful about this situation.

Kris said on…
11.20.09 at 02:13 PM
Any ‘concession’ HQ made was not to be a nice guy.  It was about fear that people / organizations /authors would turn their backs on HQ, and that would affect cashflow.  It was self-interest, not ‘concession’ in any amiable, collaborative way.  Implying otherwise misrepresents the situation.

Wow, another link breaking it down to brass tacks.

http://www.falconesse.com/2009/11/19/repent-harlequin/

Tabeth said:

Kris, 
Eve Gale actually posted that quote, not me.  She was quoting a part of Just a thought’s post on page two—here’s that post in its entirety.

Thanks for the fix, Tabetha.

Theresa Meyers said:

Actually, I kind of see it as a PR mistake that both were annouced the same week. There’s nothing wrong with Carina Press. That was a brilliant move. Digital publishing is going to become a critical part of publishing in the near future.

I believe it’s unfortunate that Horizons took away the shine from announcing Carina Press, because Carina Press is following an established business model where money flows to the author. It’s a positive thing that’s now being overlooked because of the negative thing. (See what I mean about ten positives to undo one negative?)

I 100% agree.

anaysis52-and I’m done with my analysis of this for the day. I have 3 little girl’s nails to polish and decorate (they picked skulls and kittens o_0 ) ;-)

I think it’s “funny” that HQN seems to forget that their own authors and their authors friends and writing comrades are also HQN readers. Maybe not so much any more.

This is the same slippery slope that ebay went down. They angered a lot of their sellers by hiking fees, making it very easy for buyers to scam sellers and now, if you look at ebay, the luster is gone. IT’s not what IT was. Sure, many factors went into this, but hanging out on the Seller Central board, must of us agree that it was forgetting the fact that sellers also equal buyers that started the decline. Mess with one, you’re going to screw with the other.

Now I’m not predicting the decline or fall of HQ. Hardly. But it’s worth remembering that authors are readers too. We feed each other. Readers listen to authors. Authors listen to readers.  I received the most lovely personalized rejection from Harlequin Historical Undone’s line. Will I be polishing and trying again? Not now. Will that affect much? Probably not. But little ripples do change courses.

What I find the most troubling in this is that many of the people talking (such as the HQ editor and those who should be soothing the waters, not rocking the boat) are confusing self-publishing and vanity publishing. I’m sorry, but when you do not, or choose not, to understand the differences in your business model, you’ve become irrelevent in your field. Isn’t that what the media has been telling us because of this recession? Get educated. Stay at the top of your game. I think any professional will tell you that you have to keep learning and growing and keeping up with the changes. Little worries in a big, troublesome whole. I think the ramifications of this will play out for a while yet.

So, I am confused (nothing new there).

Is Harlequin already back on the RWA list of eligible publishers?  The list on their website states it was updated Nov 20, 2009 and Harlequin is listed with a notation “(Books published by this company are eligible for the 2010 RITA Contest)”

The Thomas Nelson entry on the list has the same notation.
Does this mean they are eligible publishers again?  Or just that they were at the time the RITA submissions for 2010 were being accepted?

Any word on if writer organizations will be taking a closer look at other publishers with vanity presses due to all of this?

My name is Deb and I’m a bookaholic. I read to the exclusion of tv (although I do watch Craig Ferguson on the interwebs as he puts it). I am blessed with both living elderly parents who need increasingly more of a share of my free time. I have found that balancing my discretionary income and time requires making choices to get the best bang for my buck in both areas.

I made a decision to go digital as the books are a wee bit cheaper in most cases and I save time from driving around to bookstores to feed my addiction. Due to this, I have rediscovered Harlequin, as the first books I downloaded to the my ereader, were the free gifts celebrating Harlequin’s anniversary. Since then, I have discovered new authors available within several of Harlequin’s imprints. I have purchased the backlists on several of the new (to me) authors. I had prior to this, mainly purchased the single titles from Harlequin as well as most “big name” midlist authors and Best Selling authors.

My concern/rhetorical question with the new direction is this, Why should I invest my money and as importantly, time, in the offerings of the Horizon books if Harlequin wasn’t willing to invest in them? I have to balance my purchases like every one else. The Horizon books would naturally have to be priced higher due to the authors own investment. I feel saddened to a certain extent. I really do like support new authors, musicians, etc. But I also have to draw a line somewhere to balance my own needs to that of anyone else. 

As a graphic designer, I run into a similar situation in my office, in which my colleagues (my customers) choose to play at designer on occasion. The output is less than stellar, but they can hold something in their hands and say I did this. The time and expense I put into education, equipment, software licenses for work at home, etc. is cheapened and more, I fear for my job as well. I feel your pain.

@library addict: That’s interesting. Harlequin appears as an eligible publisher on the Publisher List at the RWA site, but is not on the Eligible Publisher Chart. In the absence of an announcement from RWA, I think the eligible publisher chart reflects their current position, but who knows!

@Tasha

Thanks. I didn’t realize there was more than one list/chart.

Is Harlequin already back on the RWA list of eligible publishers?  The list on their website states it was updated Nov 20, 2009 and Harlequin is listed with a notation “(Books published by this company are eligible for the 2010 RITA Contest)”

This has been explained on the RWA list. The 2010 RITA contest is the contest for books published in 2009. The eligibility for the 2009 RITA contest was determined on the day the contest opened for entries, which was sometime in September. As Harlequin was an eligible publisher on that date in September, Harlequin books are eligible for the 2010 RITA contest.

I think there were many, many inquiries to the board on this question. The point is, the change in eligibility doesn’t have an effect on the RITA contest that is already open for entries.

No word on the contest for the year after.

“(Books published by this company are eligible for the 2010 RITA Contest)”

It doesn’t mean they are eligible. It means they won’t pull any of the RITA submissions for next year’s conference. You submit in the year ahead. What this eligibility thing has changed are the 2011 RITAs.

and attractive women staring into a misty distance while chewing on pens,

Chewing on a pen and looking freakin’ pensive at mists? Is this Harlequin’s image of “the writer”?

Seriously?

Cause I just spent two days holed up in a room with 3 other brilliant women authors plotting, character building, and otherwise honing my craft, working my a** off and the only mists came when someone looked groggily at the clock and said “2 AM? We still have a couple of more hours to go”. There was nail biting, head pounding, shouts of eureka and lamentations that we’d run out of chocolate cake but no pensive pen chewing.

There were also 6 books plotted that I have no doubt will find their way to publication where I expect fair compensation.

It was hard work and I LOVED it!

PS I too appreciate you Nora. Your support of the genre is appreciated and recognized. You tell it like it is. “Write the book” and never back down from the truth of the effort it takes.

Here…have some chocolate cake.

I’m slow to seeing this post and commenting and I must say there have been some great comments and some…well, ludicrous ones. What Harlequin is doing, in my opinion is bad news and I wonder if they’re slapping their foreheads right now saying, “Doh!” Their bad.

But mostly I wanted to comment to Jell’s post about Nora. It was incredibly moving and I must say, Nora is the reason I found courage to finally seek publication for the over 50 novels I have accumulated over the years. (No, not all fifty have been published. I wish LOL) Reading her books inspired me to step out of my fear and take the bitter with the sweet and find a publisher.

So Kudos’s to you, Nora and to you, Jell for your post.

“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.”

Ten years ago I wrote 3 romance novels, belonged to a writer’s critique group that met weekly, attended state and regional conferences and workshops, and acquired a well known New York agent. My first book did not sell, but it was well received by editors, whose main comments were that while my novel was funny, the story wasn’t original enough. Fair assessment. Then my life took an abrupt turn and my focus went elsewhere. I cringed when I recently read that first effort. I have polished it up and placed it online for free. It will never sell, but I’ve discovered that others are enjoying it immensely.

Will I go to a vanity publisher and pay to see this book in print? Never. Would I ever consider the self publishing route? I doubt it. Authors whose books are published by traditional publishing methods had to jump through a number of tough hoops. The reader can expect a certain standard of quality when purchasing a book from a traditional publishing house. This is not necessarily the case with self published books.  I receive unsolicited books to review for my blog weekly, and have reached a point where I will no longer review the self-published book. Not that all of them are bad, but many are, and I prefer to spend my time reading books that have already been vetted.

I fear Harlequin’s new self-publishing division because will give budding writers false hope. They will also be deprived of the editors and proof readers who do such a fine job getting a book in shape. In addition, Harlequin’s price list is ridiculous. They are charging enormous costs for services that can be found more cheaply elsewhere.

Just finished reading the Falconesse post, which breaks down HQHo’s pricing/services in more detail than anything I’d yet read.

“Sweet baby zombie crying Jesus this is bullshit” indeed. Who the frick will be able to afford even a portion of what they’re “offering?” I mean, even if we weren’t in the middle of a recession these prices would be way beyond the means of most people.  Is HQ betting that lots of bored rich folk will be doing this?

I’m really pissed that HQ stole Carina’s thunder. Won’t stop me from subbing to Carina since I’m an Angie James groupie, but still.

doubt26: I doubt 26 was as fabulous as I remember it but as I careen head on into 46, I find myself missing it.

I fear Harlequin’s new self-publishing division because will give budding writers false hope.

Ah, speaking of editing. So sorry. I meant to say: I fear Harlequin’s new self-publishing division will give budding writers false hope.

My bad.

If it is expected of new writers to do their research before jumping in bed with a publisher, shouldn’t the same hold true for publishers who have been in business for 60 years? Or was the profit projection so spectacular that it just didn’t matter?

http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2009/01/victoria-strauss-author-solutions.html

http://www.hoovers.com/company/Author_Solutions_Inc/rhshhyi-1.html

Read that first line verra closely.

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Author-Solutions-Reviews-E43343.htm

My oh my!

http://onthegonews.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/author-solutions-launches-initiative-to-become-the-worlds-largest-publisher-of-original-digital-content/

Ah, see now the third link makes more sense. Digital focused. But wait, doesn’t this last link show that Author Solutions is in direct competition with Carina. Oops, I forgot, Carina pays to publish their authors, not the other way around.