Harlequin Gets Two Out of Four
Harlequin has been making changes.
First, the as-promised name change to its venue with AuthorSolutons: adieu, Harlequin Horizons, and hello, DellArte Press.
Second, I can’t see a push for or link to DellArte Press anywhere on the eHarlequin website (although its press release section still touts the Harlequin Horizons venue. Hey, can’t change history, right?) — maybe I’m missing it, but I think Harlequin has scrubbed all Horizons/DellArte references and links.
Third, effective December 1, 2009, Harlequin is discontinuing its manuscript critiquing service.
You know what, folks? Harlequin is taking the outcry seriously. That’s good news.
Now, on my personal checklist for How Harlequin Can Fix Its Not-Really-Self-Publishing Mess, two out of four items are now checked, with major bonus points for the discontinuation of the critique service. (And wow, how had that not been flagged before the MWA slapped HQ for it? Come on, talk about conflict of interest! But no, water under the bridge, let bygones be bygones, and other cliches here — Harlequin is discontinuing the service, so there you go.)
What else does Harlequin need to do — again, according to me?
1. Stop including Horizons/DellArte buzz in its rejection letters. This is the biggie. Why? Well, to sum up, this would be Harlequin saying “Your manuscript isn’t good enough for us to pay you, but it sure is good enough for you to pay us.” This, bluntly, is Very Bad — it’s a conflict of interest, and it encourages authors to pay to print their not-good-enough manuscripts instead of encourages them to write a better book. Including a promo for Horizons/DellArte is simply predatory. I hope Harlequin takes it out.
2. Stop dangling the carrot that Harlequin will keep its eye on Horizons/DellArte titles for possible new talent for Harlequin. Really, stop. There’s already a mechanism in place for Harlequin to find new talent. It’s called the slush pile.
Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that Harlequin Enterprises has a what-had-been-called vanity press (which as of last night, I’ve started calling “assisted self-publishing” presses, because the term “vanity publishing” is pejorative, and this shouldn’t be about the semantics but the business) as one of its imprints.
So — again, assuming Harlequin takes out the rejection letter push and the “really, you could be a Harlequin author if you print with DellArte” pseudo promise — does Harlequin having such an imprint — completely separate from its licensed publishing imprints — merit equal outcry?
In my opinion…no.
Now, I’ll be the first one to ask why any author would choose to go the assisted self-publishing route. (Which, I have just decided, I’m going to call ASP press. And hey, look, an asp is also a poisonous snake. Wow, what a coincidence.) I will continue to shout from the rooftops that money should flow toward the author. While I think self-publishing (TRUE self publishing, where the author keeps 100% of the profit, owns the ISBN and brands the books) makes sense in certain situations, I believe it is a huge mistake for authors to blindly go this route. I believe too many authors — especially newer authors or frustrated authors who have never been published by a licensed [read: commercial/trade] publisher — are easily swayed into thinking that ASP press will let them succeed where they have only met with rejection before. I believe that outfits like AuthorSolutions (which, among other things, partnered with Harlequin to form DellArte) rake authors over the coals while shredding authors’ dreams.
But that doesn’t answer the question of “Why shouldn’t commercial publishers like Harlequin have an ASP press like DellArte?”
Just as writer organizations like RWA, MWA and SFWA are looking out for the benefit of authors, not publishers, publishers are looking out for the benefit of publishers, not authors. In that regard, if a licensed publisher has a POD imprint or partners with an ASP press, that’s just another business model for the publisher.
Now, I think it’s a terrible business model for authors. I think authors who use such services are at risk of damaging their career. But again, a publisher isn’t doing this for the authors. It’s doing it for its shareholders. It’s doing this to make money.
Publishing, at the end of the day, is a business.
I believe the best thing we can do is continue to educate authors as best we can about the perils of self-publishing and ASP presses. And when publishers cross the line and are unethical in their promotion of their own ASP presses, we should cry “FOUL” as loud as possible.
But if after all that, if authors still choose to pay an ASP press to print their books…well, that’s their choice. (A poor, yucky, God Please Don’t choice, but still theirs to make.)
That being said (er, typed), until Harlequin stops promoting its ASP press in its rejection letters and stops making the pseudo-promise of ASP press customers maybe one day getting signed by Harlequin based on their ASP books, it doesn’t matter, because these two things are still unethical.
