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?
A thing that entertains me today, from the HarHor website:
“Harlequin Horizons, a division Harlequin, is a publishing company that offers aspiring romance writers the opportunity to self-publish their work and achieve their goals.”
Bolding mine, because bahaha.
@Nora Roberts
Absolutely. And publishers are looking out for their own interests, same as authors.
There are many things I think readers have a strong investment in around the publisher-author relationship. But I think the predicted harm to readers in this situation is exaggerated, in part because more revenue coming into the parent publisher should ultimately benefit readers in editing quality, production quality, more diversity of books produced *by the parent company publisher* (since the economic deprivation has created the opposite effect). I’m NOT defending Horizons here, simply saying that I don’t think reader interests are being violated in the way some others do. Author interests, however, those might be conceived and perceived, are another matter.
Robin, please read the Horizons’ criteria for what they’re offering to the writer for money. If I recall correctly, they’re offering to edit only a set number of chapters. I’ve heard one and three. So, ask yourself, who’s editing the rest? If it’s solely the writer, how will that affect readers who might believe it’s a Harlequin product? Wouldn’t that violate reader interests?
Now keep in mind that readers spead their opinions by word of mouth and the Internet has magnified that power tremendously. So, if a vanity book sells an average of 75 copies, then that’s 75 reader opinions that Harlequin will have to contend with should a Horizons’ book turn out to be an utter turkey. Multiply that by how many other vanity books Horizons publishes that are also turkeys and then tell me that reader opinion won’t harm Harlequin even though the Harlequin name won’t be on the spine because you and I know that the authors will make it know that Harlequin backed it. In the short run, Harlequin stands to bring in some chump change. In the long run, Harlequin stands to lose a lot of money along with its reputation.
Quite amazing.
Would-be authors should simply get a decent editor, produce the book in HTML and try it on Kindle to see if any sales are made, before buying ‘publishing packages’.
I’ve changed my own small press methods to suit; these days I am going to produce and publish the EBook version first, rather than later as was traditional. Typesetting now in HTML!
– Clive
Citiria Books
Well, I wish that were true, but what has generally happened is that a parent company starts “milking” the publishing company, squeezing expenses and laying off staff and trying to increase profit margins (not even necessarily revenues!). Many editors were laid off in the last couple year, and the books that come out show it. Oh, well. Publishers are doing their damnedest to make themselves dispensable, and Harlequin (or the parent company) is saying right out that they don’t believe there’s any real need for a publisher, that gatekeeping throttles creativity, that the only real role for a publisher is to get money from writers.
Pretty sad, that the publisher is saying this. I think there’s a role for publishers, or used to be, but since they’ve been pushing more and more of the publicity, marketing, selling functions (and cost) to the author, and now editing is pretty minimal, I’m not sure what that role is. “Legitimacy,” I guess. And payment. Almost no one is going to make $100K a year writing without a big publisher there to get the books into the stores. Problem is, the publisher might only make that effort for a few books in a line.
But the answer isn’t vanity publishing, which pretends that the whole point is “getting published” and not “pleasing readers.” Readers do count, and one of the problems with this vanity publishing is a publisher is smiling and waving goodbye to that notion—readers count. That’s what we’re here for. We’re not here to “fulfill our dream” or “get published” and publishers aren’t here to “help writers fulfill their dream of getting published”. It’s all about the reader, or it should be. And making the money come from the author means… it’s not about the reader.
The answer, I think, is probably a return to the start of commercial publishing in the 19th century, when authors banded together and formed consortiums that later became publishing companies. They could share resources, but also make some choices about whom to associate with, who gets to publish under this umbrella and get the reflected glory. The internet will change distribution and delivery, yes, but the reader should still be the key, and I hope readers will always like a good story well told.
But if the current publishers want to be a part of that, they have to start thinking about what they really offer to readers and how they can make that more compelling—not “who can we exploit to make next quarter’s revenue figures?”
Good story. Well told.
I bet it will work in the future too.
One thing about Harlequin Horizons that disturbs me greatly is that when I first heard about it I thought it was a good thing. BECAUSE I was thinking “self-publishing” like Lightning Source and not vanity publishing. If I’m not mistaken, HH doesn’t use the word “vanity” on their web site. It says “self-publishing” which is very misleading especially for a new, very green author. I think they refer to it as “assisted self-publishing.” Which translated means “We will assist you in parting with your money.” I’m not new or green but they still fooled me. As a result, I felt stupid and thoughtless and ashamed. Thankfully, a multi-published author with Harlequin showed me the error in my thinking.
Lightning Source really only makes sense if you are producing multiple books. That is why people end up going to places like Lulu and paying through the nose for printing costs.
There are lots of places that offer editing for an affordable price and will publish and print also at a reasonable price. Problem is people don’t seem to have the patience and so end up paying silly prices for books with ‘template’ covers and so forth.
SBSarah:
Nah. It was just a link, same aas Anon76 posted.
No harm 🙂
@jellicoe
I actually recommended something like this to someone recently and also think there is much potential here. Authors of like mind and loosely related books can basically form a cooperative, wherein they share work, expenses, publicity, and, ideally, profits. For authors who are willing to become educated about how to self-publish, I think this may eventually become an attractive alternative for some authors currently NOT benefiting greatly from trad publishing or even digital.
As for what Horizons will mean for Harlequin, for the authors who choose vanity publishing (in ignorance or informed consent), for the market, for authors in trad and digital and self-pub situations, only time will tell. I believe that many of the doomsday predictions are substantially and substantively overstated, but I understand that people are shocked and outraged. And that for many, this feels like it going to have gigantic negative consequences.
I don’t think anyone can deny that the world of publishing has been changing for quite a while now, and publishers have been doing all sorts of horrible things in the face of the economic downturn, some of which have hardly been forward-thinking or beneficial to anyone involved. I see authors complaining often about the disrespectful way they are treated by publishers, the lack of opportunities for value and profit for their work, and the increasing amounts of money and time they have to put into their own career successes. I am NOT suggesting that Horizons/vanity publishing is the answer to ANYTHING, although I do believe that unless authors, publishers, RWA, etc. become more willing to consider different paradigms, the biggest crisis authors will face is the end of the one they’re already facing. And that is the further deterioration of traditional publishing and its extremely deleterious effects on the quality of books, author success, and author opportunity.
And I absolutely believe that readers will always appreciate a good story well told (and well edited, well published/priced/marketed).
What Jellicoe says makes good sense. In a time when romance are seeing a definite upswing in sales and increased profits, they’re laying off romance editors? This tells me the parent company is siphoning off money from romance sales into other, failing areas.
But that’s typical. Romance has always been the bread-and-butter of the rest of the publishing world. I wonder if it’s going to feed on romance profits to the point where it’ll take down romance, too.
Romance has always been sort of the rich but vulgar relative in publishing. The aristocrats will visit if they’re in need of funds, but the relative certainly won’t be given vouchers to Almack’s. 😀
I think RWA stinks. A few years ago, when they tried to marginalize epubs and erotic romance, I let my membership lapse because I couldn’t stand all the infighting and “holier than thou” attitude of the RWA board.
I also took issue with their main agenda—over the years, many romance authors have been laughed at because they write romances. So they spend a lot of effort and money trying to force the general public to “respect” the romance genre. This is a complete waste of time, in my opinion. Romance novels are formulaic and plot-driven. Readers either enjoy reading them, or they don’t. No amount of posturing about the genre being great literature is going to change anybody’s mind. But RWA persists, and this Harlequin brouhaha is just more of the same.
RWA takes a condescending attitude toward authors. They’re not being duped! Of course, they know they have to pay up front! Duh! At least, these rejected authors will have a chance to get editing, self-publishing, and a new venue for their books. It’s the author’s choice, and many will be more than willing to pay.
RWA has also not taken into account the thousands of Harlequin authors who pay to belong to RWA. Now they will be marginalized, too. A friend of mine thinks this will cause a schism in RWA, where the Harlequin authors defect and form a new group. If that happens, RWA will be dead in the water, because Harlequin IS romance to most of the reading world.
Well, it will be interesting to see what happens, huh?
Do you really think $1K advances represent meaningful investment by publishers in the author’s success?
It’s meaningful to the author—-if it’s not meaningful to you, lucky you for being so rich that $1,000 is a bagatelle, but let me inform you that most of humanity is not in your boat—-and it’s certainly meaningful to most small presses.
And it’s a buttload more “meaningful” than making the author pay $3,000 or more, plus per-item printing or electronic reproduction costs, for a book that will never be distributed to bookstores.
Advances are only part of a trade publisher’s investment in a book. There’s developmental editing, copy editing, book design, cover design, distribution, marketing, and publicity. These things cost publishers money.
Essentially dittoing Julia. But I also believe that $1,000 is set as the minimum in order to allow legitimate small presses to qualify. $1,000 may be peanuts from Random House, but it’s a lot from a very small house, and small indie houses are still legitimate and deserve recognition.
The big NY houses aren’t the only games in town; it’s not a “There or nowhere” situation.
~Romance novels are formulaic and plot-driven.~
Thank you very much for that dismissive opinion of an entire genre from one of the many ‘formula’ writers.
@Julia Sullivan: Did you read the entirety of my comment? Because I was referring to the trad print v. digital model. Nothing about vanity publishing there. And my overall question was whether a 1K NY-style advance was really more legitimate than a digital model of no advance and 3X the royalty rate of that NY contract. Especially when the vast majority of RWA members will not statistically see those revered NY contracts. And when so many authors do not have the overall financial compensation from their writing to make it a full-time occupation.
I get that authors are pissed about Harlequin, but I’m really tired of being insulted because I refuse to surrender my opinion to the rising tide of author outrage. You have valid reasons to be angry, I know. But what’s ironic about your slap at me is that my comment comes from a perception that trad pubbed authors are NOT being adequately compensated/valued by publishers for their work, even though RWA persists in holding out the NY contract as the industry gold standard.
~even though RWA persists in holding out the NY contract as the industry gold standard.~
Not slapping in any way, merely pointing out that RWA is far from alone in considering the NY contract as the gold standard. Or, more accurately, the advance and royalty based contract. Writer advocacy organizations, and what appears to be the majority of writers with the goal of a career in fiction continue to consider this.
It may very well change. It may already be changing—I don’t know, and I’m not trying to debate that issue. But it’s certainly not one writer’s group holding advance and royalty based contracts as the ‘gold standard’ in the industry.
@Robin
I read your original comment that Julie referenced. Here’s my reply to viewpoint on RWA’s stand on the advance model.
Concentrating on the $1,000 advance minimum completely misses the point of its use as criteria to determine publisher eligibility. If memory serves, the original criteria used was the ability to prove via receipts that a publisher could sell 5,000 units of a given book. That criteria proved inadequate for the membership as proved by digital press Triskelton.
Given what happened, RWA isn’t persisting in some NY contract gold standard. It’s using one of two methods available to it to minimize the likelihood of another Triskelton happening to its membership.
More legitimate to a writers organization? Hell, yes. There’s not even a comparison when you look at it from the “many” perspective as opposed to “few” or an individual author’s perspective.
~Romance novels are formulaic and plot-driven.~
~Thank you very much for that dismissive opinion of an entire genre from one of the many ‘formula’ writers.~
Nora, you made my point exactly. Touchy, touchy! I was not being “dismissive,” only realistic. Are you saying your romance novels are not written to a formula? Please, get real. Romance novels have an outline and a formula, just as mystery novels and western novels do. That’s why they’re called “genres.” As I said, plenty of readers enjoy reading romance novels, partly because they want that formula of “happy ever after.”
RWA would get more “respect” if they didn’t try to pull the wool over readers’ eyes with their delusions of grandeur. They would also get more “respect” if they cut out the infighting and squabbling.
I’m an epublished author who likes the epublishing model, and even I agree with this statement.
The standard, advance-paying model used by traditional NY publishing may have its warts—long lag time between contract signing and payment, reserves against returns, ridiculously high advances to celebrity “authors” that will never earn out and thereby hobble the mid-list’s earning potential—but it allows authors the security of knowing they will be paid for their investments of time and effort.
The beef I have with the RWA has been this whole “we represent the career-focused author” and their insistence that “career-focused” has to equal “those who receive advances.” This insistence brands as hobbyists all writers not writing to what NY considers a worthwhile market.
In other words, “Oh, you’re writing to a niche market? Like, for example, what erotic romance used to be? Well, until NY jumps on that bandwagon, you’re just dabbling. Begone, peasant. You reek of the fields.” (Okay, I’m kidding with that last bit.)
This stance is somewhat ameliorated by allowing an author to join PAN if one of her epubbed books earns $1000. Frankly, its an arbitrary number, but as arbitrary numbers go, I don’t have a problem with it.
It comes down to this: I can keep my “niche” manuscripts under my bed on the hope NY wakes up to my particular readership, or I can sell them—for actual money—to a quality epublisher or small, non-advance paying press and reach those readers who already want them, and are already there, looking for them. No, I’m not a hobbyist because I choose a royalty-only model. I’m a writer who wants to sell her work. Today, already.
What I won’t do is buy the chance to publish my books. Why would I, when I can see it professionally edited and published without spending a penny?
To bring this back around to the point, would I like NY to pick up on my particular niche market and start paying advances for what I write? I’d be a fool not to. Because receiving X dollars when I sign a contract is better than POSSIBLY receiving X dollars when the book is released— depending on how well it sells, or on whether another book with the same theme by a better-known author is released the same day, or on whether the stock market takes a dump, or on the price of peas in Poughkeepsie.
Publishing is a crapshoot. The only constant is that writers tend to get the “crap” end of the shoot too often. The advance-paying model offers a modicum of protection. That’s why it was invented back when publishing was run by writers.
Elizabeth, would this be considered a formula: a beginning, a middle, and an end? Because if so, than that’s the formula of every work of fiction. I don’t believe any one genre has more of a ‘formula’ than another.
And as for delusions of grandeur being foisted on aspiring authors by RWA: as a 12-year member of RWA I have never had any delusions of grandeur from RWA leadership. In fact, RWA is where I’ve gotten the most up-to-date and in-depth information on being a published author, including that most published authors may never earn enough from their writing to do it full-time unless they have additional sources of income to support their full-time writing. I don’t always agree with everything RWA leadership has said and done but I do believe that they are determined to be the best source of information and also the strongest advocate for romance authors.
And as for the infighting and squabbling in RWA? I think you have that in any group situation and though it’s not ideal, I think it shows people are passionate and willing to work to improve the group as a whole. Yes, it can go too far but I’d rather have a ton of discussion and opinon flying around than a group of individuals who had no opinion and/or passion to begin with.
And yes, romance novels do deserve respect. No other genre is more derided than this one and with no good reason. Whether or not a book is good is a matter of opinion but the books themselves are the hard work and dreams of an individual who took a huge gamble on putting their work out there for the whole world to see.
And finally, in my not-so-humble opinion the Harlequin Horizons venture is creating delusions of grandeur. And that’s why everyone is up in arms about it and rightfully so. I know that my dream of being a published author is a difficult one to have but then nothing is easy in this life. Including becoming a published author.
This could get really messy for Harlequin. The romance genre has so many sub-genres that it’s head-spinning at times.
If it weren’t for the fact that I don’t want to deal with the constant hard-sell phone calls I’d receive from Author Solutions forever more, I’d call up and test the waters. Because I’d love to know if the ASI staff has a list of subgenres that HQ never has and never will bring into the mother fold. Such as M/M. Yes, they’ll do it for Carina, but they’ve made every attempt to distance themselves from C.
And please, let’s not get into a debate over whether that subgenre is “romance”. For every person who shouts it isn’t, there will be an equally vocal person who will shout it is. And HQ has already validated in a back-handed way with C.
But what if even one of those M/Ms slips through the cracks and is published by HHz? And what if that one title does sell like hotcakes. It could happen, especially if the author had a point to prove. An agenda to get high sales just to hear HQ try to stutter their way out of picking it up for the mother ship.
True, HQ doesn’t guarantee they’ll date the top sellers, but they certainly imply it. And if they take a pass, and this author has an agenda, he/she could stir up a shitstorm of bad publicity in certain activist circles who would probably delight in taking up the rallying call.
Seem like a lot of ifs? Sure. But…stranger things have happened.
Thanks to all for the entertaining, insightful, occasionally astounding view into the world of genre publishing in paradigm shift—particularly to jellicoe, Stacia K, Anon76, Selah March, Lynne Connolly, KarenH, Eirin, and of course Norah Roberts (whose protestations of having better things to do, though notably absent, are most easily verified, from where us plebes, the uninitiated, sit).
“…ridiculously high advances to celebrity ‘authors’ that will never earn out and thereby hobble the mid-list’s earning potential…”—Selah March 11.23.09 at 01:25 PM
NHL salary cap! (Have those in American sports, too?)
Sigh. Restraint of trade.
Anyhow, celebrity authors are a function of our culture. Same story in the recording industry today. Something to do with the pervasive nature of mass media. All you Oprah fans!
The cooperative idea as the Napster of the the world of [insert genre here] writers? What about the necessity of a gatekeeper? That’s one issue with a part of Robin’s occasionally valid argument. Also an issue: How to monetize the co-op model as an effective method of ensuring that the “mid-list” isn’t made to suffer for market inefficiencies, as appears to be the case in the current sales and distribution model? Particularly in the world of mass media, mega corporation dominance. Perhaps it’s something of an infowar.
Following from that, and *not* slinging arrows, but stating the obvious: the “giant of the genre” aspiration is a lotto, too. That straw man stands in place of the real issue. Do we reward people based on quality of effort, as judged by the marketplace, or do we let them buy their way into a certain category of success known as “published writer,” thereby diminishing the value of the effort expended by people like qualified members of certain professional organizations? The unregulated and always imperfect market will allow anything. From an outsider’s vantage point, RWA appears to be playing something of a gatekeeper role not only for writers, but for readers. Venturing further into that territory, in the future, might be one way to push back at the ten ton elephant in the room. “Seal of Approval” Program, anyone (i.e. Publisher X, Publisher Y…)?
(more33…that just *looks* beautiful)
Well, you know, the ones probably most directly hurt by this HH thing are… Harlequin authors. So I really don’t think Harlequin authors are likely to take it out on RWA, because that would be beside the point. To me—and I’ve been in publishing in all sorts of capacities, and do print and electronic, and to me, those are just modes of delivery, not religions—the point isn’t “to be legitimate” or “to get to go to the Harlequin party” or “to say I’m published.” If the book doesn’t get to a bunch of readers, well, it’s like that tree in the vacant forest. Of course, I’m hoping those readers all pay for the privilege of hearing my tree fall so I can make a decent living (and that’s very hard without the traditional publishers… but it’s becoming hard even with them!).
But so much of the anti-RWA angst sounds like hurt feelings (not yours—I mean, over the years). RWA recognizing a publisher or allowing some author into PAN or whatever OR NOT—how important is that, compared to selling books to readers? RWA’s function is as a trade organization, and it would not be doing its job if it didn’t say, “Making money matters. Selling books matters.” The issue isn’t really whether RWA recognizes the power of the Net (I suspect if a publisher sells enough copies or earns enough money for the authors, it qualifies, whatever the “printing mode”) but that the traditional publishing model is moving backwards, so that authors are making less and less money for printed books, and the print runs have gotten so small. And poor RWA is trying to hold the line and say, “There has to be a minimum level of income for a book to be a selling concern. There has to be a minimum number of sales for a publisher to be worth calling a publisher. There has to be some standard publishers won’t violate in an attempt to make profits—(NOT sell books—make profits).” And publishers keep shoving that line further and further into the red. And yes, there’s getting to be a convergence between traditional publication compensation and non, but that’s sad, because part of what that means is, the “standard advance” of, say, $5k has become the “standard advance” of $1K and will, if most publishers have their way, become “what do you mean, standard? What’s this word you keep saying, advance?”
So here we have authors actually arguing that advances are not good or not important. That’s a line RWA has tried to hold (and the other writing orgs too)—that advances ARE good. (And I’ve done books both ways, and my experience is: Advances. Good. The more the publisher invests in your book’s success, the more likely it’ll be successful.) Some might think Harlequin’s foray into scamming excuse me subsidy publishing is an innovative way to prop up the publishing section. Some might think it’s unimportant. But some of us—and RWA too, and the other writing orgs—think that this is a line that should never have been crossed, that it’s a BIG line, that it’s one of those scary huge lines that when you cross, you can’t get back, because you’ve lost the map, or some other mixed metaphor.
This has always—and I mean for a century or more—been the line between a legitimate company and a scam. Legit publishers make their money by selling books to readers. Scams make their money by selling “Dreams”. It’s not just RWA or other writing orgs, but agent groups and publisher groups that regarded this as the big wide line that you didn’t cross without—I’ll go ahead and say it—being unethical.
If an agent refers a rejected submitter to a vanity publishing, that is against the code of ethics for agency groups. In fact, if they get a kickback from the vanity press, it could be illegal (I know NY has some law about this). This has always been regarded as unethical, as crossing the line, as a violation of a standard that can’t be rebuilt. And yet this is what Harlequin is planning to do—something that has always been regarded as unethical. That is NOT RWA’s fault (or the Harlequin authors’ fault).
This isn’t at all about epublishing, and it’s only peripherally about RWA. I’m all for innovations in publishing and new ways to make writers money and entertain readers. So are we all. But I’m concerned about standards just falling. This decade really seems to be the tipping point, that these eternal verities prove less than eternal, and here’s another that affects all of us—particularly Harlequin authors, who frankly have the right to think that their editors and publisher are investing time and money trying hard to help them sell books to readers, not to scam other writers.
I sound like my grandmother. But really. These are not trivial or irrelevant standards. This is how we distinguish between what’s real and what’s fake, what’s valuable and what’s destructive. Granted, the writing orgs are clinging (mixed met again) to a single spar of wood when they say, “But writers are supposed to make money from their work! But publishers are supposed to sell books!” But they see themselves as trying to maintain—against a tide of troubles—a standard of author compensation and publisher-purpose that is pretty important.
Things are changing rapidly. But they can change in a positive way or a negative way. Change in and of itself isn’t either, and when a writing org says, “This is negative,” I don’t assume they’re just against change. Maybe this change is actually negative. (HH is.)
But it’s not about “mode of delivery”. Books are delivered in all sorts of ways (and the HH books were going to be the old-fashioned way). I am, in fact, cogitating how to make a book of a website (hard to explain, well, hard to do, because I can’t figure out how to make a linear story “spread” coherently). It’s all there to come. But I really hope that whatever the mode of delivery, authors always say, “Hey, what matters is that someone reads this. And what matters is that we get paid for our skill and imagination.” And I really hope that’s always important to publishers and writing organizations!
@az: the thing about a gatekeeper, though, is that said keeper not only vets for “quality,” but also for type. RIght now I’m not feeling overwhelmed with love at the quality gatekeeping, but I’m especially frustrated with the persistent homogeneity in the genre. Oh, sure, there are still some really good books being trad pubbed (especially in historical Romance right now). But the publisher’s instinct to follow up a big sale with more of the same, the belief that one can really see two years or more into the future, the invocation of “readers” as a relatively abstract group (i.e. not considering that readers buy books they don’t like or love all the damn time), can all be impediments to greater diversity and risk taking on the story level. So the gatekeeper is—from my reader’s perspective—a dual-natured protector of the genre—caretaker or tyrant, depending on the situation and perspective.
So one thing about self-publishing (and I’m not talking about vanity pubbing here) that does interest me is the prospect of having more generic diversity. Will it pan out? I don’t know, but I want *something* to happen to challenge the status quo.
Did you read the entirety of my comment? Because I was referring to the trad print v. digital model.
Oh! Well, thanks for clarifying that, because I obviously didn’t follow your argument correctly.
So one thing about self-publishing (and I’m not talking about vanity pubbing here) that does interest me is the prospect of having more generic diversity.
There are hundreds of thousands of self-published books out there right now for you to enjoy, so your wish is already granted without any help from Harlequin (or underhanded bait-and-switch techniques from Harlequin, for that matter).
Elizabeth, your friend is wrong (and if you took a bet, she’s out of pocket. MAJORLY). I am a Harlequin author and we already have our own Harlequin/Silhouette loop (in addition to the wonderful PAN and PASIC loops) and the MASSIVE AND OVERWHELMING response to RWA’s decision is that we do not feel punished – we feel our *publisher* has been punished, which is a BIG difference. I’m not a ‘vanity’ author nor has RWA labeled me as such. I get an advance and royalties for my work and that has not changed. In fact, this decision has not personally inconvenienced me much (don’t enter the RITAs, won’t get kicked off from the pubbed loops) but I know it will affect others. And you know what? They’re still proud and thankful RWA took this stance and the support we’re getting from non-HQN authors has been awesome.
And as for formulaic? So is everything – a football game, a mystery, a movie. It’s called ‘genre conventions’ or even better, ‘‘reader expectations.’ In a romance you have two characters who have individual goals, something stops them from achieving them, there’s conflict, there’s getting over emotional hurdles, growth of character and a happy-ever and/or uplifting ending. READER EXPECTATIONS. Just like any other genre.
so – if there are all these good self-pub’d books out there, how does one find them amidst all the dross?
~Are you saying your romance novels are not written to a formula? Please, get real~
No—and this is the last time I’ll address you as you’re deliberately insulting—my books are not written to formula.
I do not, in fact, write to outline. My own or anyone else’s. That’s just my particular process. Now you can squeeze your very bitter and sour grapes all you like, but that’s all the attention I’m willing to pay to them.
in fact. one of the things I love about Nora’s writing is that it’s strongly character-driven as opposed to plot-driven.
-becca
Becca, the fact is most Romance is much more character- driven than plot-driven, simply because it focuses on people and relationships.
I think someone who commented upthread may not actually understand the genre or the terms.
Polly, I’ve been seeing/hearing the same as you report from Harelquin authors. It’s a tough situation, and anyone who takes any lumps due to Harlequin’s choices certainly has my full support.
Not really clear on why plot-driven fiction would be a bad thing, but maybe that’s just me…
I just want to say to any Harlequin authors reading this that I am total support of all of you. I just hope that Powers-That-Be at Harlequin really listen to the feedback and make the right decisions not only for the company, but for all of their authors and readers.
The same way you find a good traditionally published book amidst all the bad ones. Read the sample if there is one, check out the author’s website, or read any reviews you can find. Since online bookstores are pretty much the only place you’ll find self-published and traditionally published books sharing “shelf space”, you could also look at the publisher’s name and see if it’s one you recognize. I wish there was an easy answer to your question, I really do. But with the way self-published books enter the market now, and depending on how good the cover design is, it’s getting progressively harder to distinguish self-published books from traditionally published ones.
I usually start by reading the sample, and if the online retailer doesn’t offer one, I Google the author and see if they have a few chapters posted on their blog or website. I won’t buy a book from any author, no matter how they’re published, unless I can read at least a few pages of the story first.
maybe we’re using the terms differently (and maybe this issue deserves a thread of it’s own?) but to me, when something is character-driven, the plot naturally flows from the characters being who they are. Plot driven stories (like many hard-SF stories and some mystery stories) tend to have people behaving the way they need to in order to advance the plot, sometimes behaving out of character in order to do so.
About a year and a half ago I decided to get serious about my writing. I’ve joined critique groups, read editor & agent blogs, and taken helpful suggestions from traditionally published author friends of mine. Next year I will really start sending out queries.
If two years ago I had received a letter from Harlequin offering this I may have fallen for it, convinced that they knew this was my only option. Now, I’m informed and would not allow a company to use me like Harlequin is doing. Preying on a person’s dreams is an awful way to make money.
All genres follow certain expectations but if you truly believe that they are formulaic then I think you may be reading a genre you aren’t really comfortable with or don’t understand.
I love romance books and I’m not ashamed to admit it. I’m the wife of a soldier and a mother of 5. A good book, in any genre, is my vacation from the day to day stresses of being a stay at home mom.
Author bashing is either sour grapes or just plain immaturity. Grow up, buy another book, and move the hell on with your life.
In the interest of alternate perspectives, here’s a piece by Jane Friedman, of Writers Digest/Writer’s Market, etc.
Author bashing is either sour grapes or just plain immaturity. Grow up, buy another book, and move the hell on with your life.
Violet, I love that! That’s one of the best things I’ve heard in a long time.
Wow. Although I’ve been kept in the loop by one of our fabulous chapter members, this is my first time come and read all the comments. (Work in 24/7 TV is crazy right now).
What HQ has done makes me sick to my stomach. Publication is hard and it can sometimes take a lot of no’s before you get that yes, ‘the call’. Yes, there are moments as an unpublished author that we (or at least me) wonder if and when it will happen. But this is wrong. This is taking that person who’s just lost their dream and saying, wait you can have it, you just have to pay lots of money for it, and oh wait…you won’t really get your dream, but you’ll get just a nano drop of what it might have been like had you continued on the journey you were on. Because vanity will do that to you.
Nora, you ROCK!! Plain and simple. You’ve worked hard to get to where you are and yes, there are many of us who perhaps look to you as a place we’d like to be. And to get there it means working those long hours, pouring over the words, sending out the queries, getting the rejections, and learning more of our craft.
I for one and thankful for your responses. What some people don’t seem to understand is that you truly do care about the future of the unpublished writer, when infact you don’t have to care. Yes, you’ve made your mark, people know who you are and you have a huge readership. Still you take the time to talk with us at nationals (or enter any other conference in which you attend) and you’re interested in us and what our future will hold as we work toward the goal of a career in a sometimes shaky world of publication.
I’ve read your books forever and I remember the first time I met you in Dallas. You walked up and said hi, I’m Nora Roberts. We talked for a moment, you asked if this was my first conference (I wouldn’t wear the first timers ribbon) 🙂 and then asked what I wrote.
Now I never thought we’d become cp’s or that I’d email you and say, hey, what do you think about this plot, but I did know that you genuinely do want to see others succeed in this business.
Sorry for the long post and for going off the main topic, but I just felt it had to be said.
I doubt anyone can change HQ’s endeavor in this. Though I wish if they’d wanted to try something new, they’d have not only put their name on it, but their personnel.
Because while I will not switch my position and tell new writers this type of model is the way to go, I will have to tell them, if you insist on going with it, don’t use Harlequin Horizons.
Something along the lines of:
In this list of names, which would you consider a self-publishing model versus a vanity- sorry- assisted self-publishing model? Word Clay, Trafford, Author House, Xlibris, IUniverse, Westbow or Harlequin Horizons?
I ask, because they are all the same, except the pricing. Pricing for the EXACT same services. Why do I question the difference in pricing? Because you get the services from the EXACT same parent company, AUTHOR SOLUTIONS. That guy making your cover for IUniverse could be the same guy working on your Harlequin Horizons cover, only for a different price charged to you.
Legal, sure. But don’t expect to get better quality just because of the moniker. Auto mechanics have known this little trick for years. The same replacement part will fit two different models, but one car has a sticker price of 15K while the other a sticker price of 30K. The smart mechanic always names the lower value car when requesting the item. Why? Because it’s half the cost doing it that way. For the SAME darn part.
So by Anon76’s reasoning, Horizons is the Lexus of vanity publishing? 😛