Things on My Mind

Whoa... it is possible? Two blog posts in as many days? Lately, if I'm lucky, I manage two blog posts in a month.

Then again, who am I to argue with inspiration?

I've started this post three times already, and each time, it just didn't seem right. Hopefully the fourth time is the charm. Mostly, what's been on my mind is BookEnds LLC's announcement this week that they are opening an Self-epublishing company. That set off a firestorm of discussion about whether this is a good thing or not, or if it's a conflict of interest to have an agent with a financial stake in a publisher.


Now, there's been a ton of discussion over at Absolute Write (you have to start on page 13) about BookEnds' self-epublishing company, Beyond the Page. And historical romance author Courtney Milan has done two blog posts about about agents acting as publishers (not specifically BookEnds/Beyond the Page, but agents acting as publishers in general. Just for clarification purposes) - the first one is here and the second half is here.

Frankly, I think it's a terrible idea. An agent is supposed to watch out for his/her clients' best interest. How am I supposed to trust that this is actually happening, if the agent stands to make (possibly) more money by steering me toward his/her publishing company instead of a commercial publisher?

Now, remember, I don't have an agent, so I really have no dog in this fight. I've done all right without one (but that's not to say I won't ever try for one, but for now, it's non-issue for me.) That said, I still don't agree with the practice. It seems unethical to me, even if there is nothing legally wrong with it. I don't know that I would be comfortable with it querying that agent (although to be fair, I have no evidence to suggest rejected manuscripts are being steered toward the self-publishing arm. If they were, then that would be wrong. Just. Wrong. Kind of like the Harlequin Horizons/DellArte Press fracas during the winter of 2010.) And if I was one of that agent's authors, I think I'd be equally uncomfortable with the situation as well.

And that leads me to my next rambling. Please, please, please, don't confuse self-publishing with epublishing. They are not the same thing. Not even close. Those authors with well-respected epublishers (such as Samhain) have had enough trouble being seen as "real" writers with "real" publishers. Attitudes regarding epublishing have come a long way, but there is still a bit of a divide amongst authors and associations where epubs are concerned. Self publishing is a completely different animal.

ETA - I just wanted to clarify that epublishing is a method of publishing (like print or POD). You can be commercially published through an epub.And you can be self-published through an epub. But being epubbed does not automatically make you self-published. Yikes, I hope that makes sense. :D

/lecture.

I promise my next post will be on the lighter side. It might even have an LOLcat or two. But even if it doesn't, it won't be a rant.

Promise. :D

Goodbye Harlequin Horizons, Hello... DellArte Press???

Okay, so Harlequin Horizons has been renamed. It's now, as the post title says, DellArte Press. Gone is the HH logo that reminded just about everybody of the Harlequin Historicals imprint. Gone are the links from (every single one of ) eHarlequin's pages to Harlequin Horizons. However, I don't know that they have also done the right thing and removed their reference to submitting to DellArte from their rejection letters. I hope so, but I don't know and as far as I know, no one in the general public knows either. If that's wrong and someone does know, please correct me, or steer me to where I might find it. I'm up to my eyes in projects right now, not to mention I've a house to clean since I'm doing Thanksgiving. I'll try to find something to confirm or correct, but in the meantime...

Now, the question becomes, does it really matter that Harlequin took these steps? Does it change the fact that it is in partnership with Author Solutions on a vanity publishing venture? Will it matter where RWA, SFWA, and MWA are concerned?

I don't know, as I've yet to see any indication that it changes Harlequin's standings within these organizations. I'm sure the various boards are discussing it - or soon will be, considering it's Thanksgiving week - and decisions are most likely forthcoming in the near future.

As for me, I don't really know just how I feel about it. A lot hinges on that line in Harlequin's rejection letter. You know, the one referring the rejected manuscript to the vanity line. That is just sleazy, as far as I'm concerned. If I were on the receiving end of that letter, I'd submit it anywhere but DellArte, just on principle.

But if that line is removed, it makes it a little less clear to me. True, it is still a vanity press, but... If Harlequin isn't steering rejected manuscripts toward DellArte, that removes some of the conflict of interest, in my opinion. If Harlequin is truly distancing themselves, then it really is no different than when Random House owned 49% of Xlibris (and made certain to distance themselves from Xlibris at the same time. But it's moot now, as RH no longer owns that 49%, either.)

So, it's time to hurry up and wait, to sit back and watch as it continues to unfold. I should be returning to my usual posts after the holiday - but I will definitely keep as much on top of this as possible. I don't envy RWA, SFWA, or MWA's boards having to muddle through all of this.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! Don't OD on the turkey!

Still Sifting Through...

Thanks PG and Aston for those links regarding MWA (Mystery Writers of America) and their response to Harlequin Enterprises planned launch of Harlequin Horizons - their vanity imprint. It seems MWA had already expressed their concerns over Harlequin's "Manuscript Critique Service", which is basically what says. )For a fee, Harlequin will critique a manuscript - I'd look up the fees, but as far as I know, Harlequin has discontinued this service in order to move forward with HQHO - a name I LOVE by the way.)

Anyway, MWA was already unhappy with Harlequin over this -

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

And since that letter went out, Harlequin announced the plans for HQHO. So, basically, MWA is taking a wait and see attitude regarding HQHO, but has this to say in the meanwhile:

If MWA and Harlequin are unable to reach an agreement, MWA will take appropriate action which may include removing Harlequin from the list of MWA approved publishers, declining future membership applications from authors published by Harlequin and declaring that books published by Harlequin will not be eligible for the Edgar Awards.

So, there you have it, Harlequin - another professional writers organization will also consider you a vanity publisher. And I don't know how many other organizations (if any) responded over the weekend. Unfortunately, between a death in the family, and my birthday - I was away from my computer and the internets most of the weekend, so I've a bit of catching up to do regarding this mess. Hopefully I'll be able to slog away through some of it - but if anyone else has anything to add, let me know! =)

One of the things I did learn (through an email I received yesterday on one of the NJRW loops) is that, as things stand now with Harlequin, any book published by any Harlequin imprint will be ineligible for the RITA in the coming years and any current PAN applications from Harlequin authors have been on hold, pending resolution.

There's still a lot of information to sift through, and more coming out day by day - I'll do my best to keep on top of it! =)

Harlequin Horizons - SFWA Speaks Out

It just keeps getting worse for Harlequin Enterprises, now that Science Fiction Writers of America (SFWA) have also responded to the news that Harlequin is opening their vanity publishing arm. Yesterday, SFWA released this statement regarding Harlequin's announcement. And here is that statement, in part:

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

And Harlequin is apparently shocked at the responses they've received. It seems to me they pretty much figured that, as the giant of the romance writing industry, they could do pretty much whatever they damn well pleased, and no one would call them out.

Guess they were wrong, huh?

See, it's not just that they are opening a new imprint, and it's not to say that vanity press automatically equals sleaze (there are instances when vanity publishing and/or self publishing are warranted and perfectly legitimate - just generally not for fiction.)

But one of the things that's really gotten so many people twisted into knots is how Harlequin is going about running this show. They play up to the hope and dreams of writers - pay x amount, and you, too, are a Published Author. Maybe your book will catch the attention of an editor. And maybe, just maybe it would happen, but not for the majority of "published" Harlequin Horizons books. To be honest, most of the works found in the slush pile are unpublishable. Basically, Harlequin will make money off said slush pile by encouraging writers who may have very little knowledge of how publishing works, and who may think nothing of writing that check because, hey, I'll be able to say I'm a Harlequin author.

And what's worse? They plan to include, as part of their standard rejection letter, a suggestion to try Harlequin Horizons. Basically, they are going to say, "We think this is too crappy to publish, but it's perfectly publishable if you pay us to publish it."

Imagine that - you're a new author, have waited three (or more) months for a response and not only is it a rejection, but includes a suggestion that, if you pay, they'll in effect, publish it. How crappy is that to do to someone? How sleazy?

And of course, there is the fact that they keep calling it self-publishing, which it isn't. It's vanity publishing. You pay to play, and Harlequin Horizons continues to take a cut in the form of half the royalties (and that's royalties on the net, mind you, not on the cover price.) With true self-publishing, the author pays to have the books printed - after that, all monies go to the author. So Harlequin's trying to pretty up that aspect as well.

I thought I saw somewhere about the Mystery Writers of America releasing a statement as well, but when I went to verify it, I haven't been able to just yet. I don't know that I'll get to it today, as I've got an uber busy schedule, but when and if I can, I will. In the meanwhile, if anyone else has a link, please send it to me so I can keep this updated.

For now, I'll just sit back and watch to see how/if Harlequin manages to fix this mess.

Harlequin Horizons

I'm a little late to the game, as I only heard about this yesterday and wanted to do a little more research before I wrote anything, but yes - it's true. Harlequin has opened an imprint that is, basically, a vanity publisher.

Harlequin Horizons is a pay-to-play vanity arm of Harlequin Enterprises, Unlimited. That's right, for the low, low amount of $599, (packages start at $599 and go up to $1599) -  you can call yourself a Harlequin author. Forget honing your craft and polishing your work! Forget those endless months of waiting on a query/partial submission! Forget worrying about rejection. If you've got the money, you can be a Published Author.

Personally, if I was a Harlequin author, I'd be seething right about now. As a romance writer and lover of romance novels in general, I think it's a horrible idea on Harlequin's part because they are basically enforcing the negative stereotype that anyone can write a romance novel and have it published.

Harlequin has always been a premier name in the romance novel industry - even if you're one of those people who makes fun of romance novels (you know, dismisses them as 'bodice rippers' and 'porn for women'), chances are you know the Harlequin name. And now, in my opinion, that name has been sullied.

 True, there is a niche for self-publishing, which often works well for non-fiction that has a small, but existing platform (author Stacia Kane summed it up perfectly by using model train collecting as an analogy. There would be a market for a self-published book on model trains, but it would be a limited market.) But generally speaking, self-publishing is not the way to go for fiction.

But this isn't even self-publishing. It's vanity. And it is a slap in the face to those HQ authors who've worked so hard, paid their dues, waited months on end, only to have Harlequin basically say now, if you've got the money, you too can be a Published Author.

But we encourage you to indulge in your passion for writing and begin the next chapter of your life as a published author.

And that is taken from the Harlequin website. Their words.

Published

Author

I'm sorry, but buying a book package doesn't make a published author any more than my buying the entire run of ER on DVD makes me a doctor.

This cheapens the Harlequin brand. And it should be interesting to see how RWA responds to this, if they respond at all, since they are pretty clear in what they consider a publisher. And since Harlequin isn't marketing this line under another name, will Harlequin, by RWA's own definition, no longer be considered a non-vanity/non-subsidy publisher? I don't see how it could go any other way.

And what about the authors who buy these packages? Will they be eligible for RWA-PAN (Published Author Network)? Will their books be on the shelves next to the other Harlequin novels? And what happens when, if these books do find their way onto bookstore and grocery store shelves (my local Wegman's has two banks of shelves dedicated to Harlequin novels alone), and people do pick them up, only to find they are reading what is, essentially, slush? Books that haven't been edited (in the basic package, this is a separate charge. It doesn't become included in the price until you hit the $999 package), that possibly aren't even worthy of publication, what happens when those books end up in a reader's hand? It might be the last Harlequin title a reader ever picks up.

Of course, I don't know that any of the Harlequin Horizons books will ever end up on a shelf anywhere other that the author's own house. But what if? Because basically, what this line targets amounts to the slush pile. Not that the manuscripts are automatically unworthy of publication, there are bound to be gems hidden in that pile somewhere . But the purpose of most submission policies are designed to weed out the unpublishable dreck. And that's the truth. Just because someone writes a book, doesn't make it automatically worthy of publication.

I think it's a bad idea. A terrible idea, actually. And I think it's awful that Harlequin is doing this. Romance novels, and those who write them have enough negative stereotypes to deal with as it is, why make it worse? Why make the Anyone can write one of those books stereotype true? It's a slap in the face to romance writers, and especially those who write for Harlequin.

There's discussions going on at Smart Bitches and at Dear Author showing both sides of the argument.