The Mystery Writers of America posted on its blog the official letter Harlequin sent in response to MWA’s concerns about Harlequin’s DellArte Press venture (then called Harlequin Horizons) and Harlequin’s critique service. First, a huge thanks to MWA for making this letter public.

And now, let’s look at how Harlequin has responded.

Thank you for your letter of November 30 and for the opportunity to address your concerns prior to your board meeting.

Harlequin takes its relationship with the Mystery Writers of America very seriously. In response to your letters, I would like to share our perspective on the changing book publishing industry and Harlequin’s recent moves to keep pace with and lead innovation in our market. It is our hope that sharing our point of view will demonstrate our respect for the MWA and explain our motivation behind the launch of Dellarte Press.

Off to a good start. Non-confrontational, professional and polite.

Publishing models are changing and Harlequin needs to experiment within those models

We are sure you would agree that today’s book publishing industry is undergoing significant transformation. “Mega trends” affecting the industry include, but are not limited to, the questions raised by Google surrounding ownership of copyright, the rise of eBooks as a viable commercial format, and the swell of user-generated content throughout the Internet. Amazon’s growing influence in nearly all aspects of book publishing – from a book’s conception to its ultimate delivery in a reader’s mailbox – can be interpreted as a source of increasing pressure on traditional publishing models.

All true. Book publishing is indeed in the throes of transformation.

In the wake of these changes, self-publishing has emerged as a new force in the publishing industry, providing a forum for thousands of authors who would not secure a contract with traditional publishers.

Okay, stop right there. First, self-publishing is not a forum; it’s a print option. Second, there’s a reason those thousands of authors could not secure a contract with “traditional publishers” — a term, by the way, which was coined by Publish America. (Thank you, Absolute Write.) That reason is either (A) the manuscript wasn’t the right fit for the publisher, either due to the story or because the publisher can’t market it; (B) the author’s sales record is weak, so the publisher doesn’t want to make a potentially risky investment; or (C) the author’s manuscript isn’t good enough for the publisher to make an offer. If you’re a new author, reason (B) isn’t applicable, which leaves you with reason (A) or reason (C). Sure, there’s a chance the manuscript is beautifully written and the story is well told, but the publisher still won’t buy it. More likely, the manuscript isn’t good enough for the publisher to make an offer.

According to Bowker reports, 285,000 new titles and editions were self-published in the US last year, a number that exceeds the 275,000 titles published by traditional houses. Harlequin sees the rapid growth in self-published titles, up 132% since 2007, as validation that writers perceive self-publishing as a viable path to literary fulfillment.

Note the emphasis on the number of titles, and how nothing is said about how many copies these titles actually sold.

In recent weeks, Harlequin has heard from countless writers, either directly or via blogs, that self-publishing played an important, positive role in their writing careers. For example, Naleighna Kai, author of best-selling Every Woman Needs a Wife, posted the following in her November 28 blog entry:

“Self-publishing venues have made it easy for authors to get a book into print and into the hands of avid readers. There are a great deal of authors who started on that path and eventually swept into a lane which put them on the New York Times Best-seller’s list. Case-in-point, the Romancing the Stone series written by Catherine Lanigan writing as Joan Wilder, was on the NY Times for several weeks, then eventually made into a movie. Robert T. Kiyosaki was turned down by several major houses before he published his own book, Rich Dad, Poor Dad, then hit it big on the NY Times list. Louise L. Hay’s self-published book, You Can Heal Your Life, was on the NY Times list for thirteen consecutive weeks. She went on to publish other powerhouses such as Wayne Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Suze Orman, Doreen Virtue, Sandra Brown, Tavis Smiley and many others. And it goes to show that what’s in, what’s popular, what’s perfect to publish with major houses is subjective.

“Self-publish, learn the industry, set some goals, build a name, then spread your wings. The people mentioned in this article inspired me to follow in their footsteps…I’m happy that I self-published first as it allowed me the opportunity to learn and grow.”

There is a place for self-publishing, absolutely. There is nothing wrong with self-publishing. It’s just extremely difficult to do successfully. Of course authors can choose to self-publish first, rather than try and try and try to be paid for their work by commercial/major publishers. One of the things they’re going to learn very quickly is that pay-for-play publishing is very expensive. The second thing they’re going to learn is that if they’re printing a hard-copy book, they better know how they’re going to warehouse, distribute and sell that book.

Harlequin views its participation in Dellarte Press as an opportunity to participate in this space, supporting aspiring authors as they test the publishing waters. We feel compelled to respond to new publishing models and ensure that writers continue to see Harlequin as a leading publisher in the formats most relevant to them and their evolving readers.

To be perfectly fair, it’s a good thing to experiment. But the notion of Harlequin “supporting aspiring authors as they test the publishing waters” is nothing but a hard-sell. The pay-for-play option does not support aspiring authors; it takes their money and gives them a book that is not edited or produced by Harlequin professionals. Period.

Other publishers and writers associations are experimenting with self-publishing

Our competitors’ recent moves into self-publishing (e.g., Harper Collins via Authonomy and Random House’s past investment in Xlibris), encouraged us to look beyond our traditional publishing footprint. Given that Harlequin is a very small player relative to others in the Top 6 publisher ranks, doing otherwise would be foolish on our part. Fortunately, a number of writers’ associations have been supportive of these experiments.

Let’s spell this out more clearly: Authonomy is HarperCollins’ free social networking site, in which authors upload their manuscripts and forum participants can share, rate, and critique those manuscripts. There is the conceit that HarperCollins editors will read the top five or so rated manuscripts at certain times. And yes, on Authonomy, there are ads for printing those manuscripts on CreateSpace, Amazon’s pay-for-play publishing option. This is not the same thing as HarperCollins having its own pay-for-play imprint. And it wasn’t Random House that had purchased Xlibris but rather its parent, Bertelsmann. Random House itself was completely separate from Xlibris and had nothing to do with it. Again, this is very different than what Harlequin did.

We are not alone in our acceptance of self-publishing, as evidenced by the following statement from the American Christian Fiction Writers we received on November 22, 2009 with respect to our Steeple Hill imprint.

“So many of the large publishing houses are extending self-publishing imprints that the boards of the ACFW have been forward-thinkers regarding our ever-changing industry. Because of this, I’m happy to say that I’ve been assured that ACFW has rewritten their Book of the Year contest guidelines so that authors of Steeple Hill books will continue to be able to enter the contest. In addition, as ACFW Conference Director, I’m pleased to tell you that we welcome the Steeple Hill editors at our conference, and hope that all of you will be able to attend.”

That’s good news for Harlequin and its Steeple Hill authors. Steeple Hill, by the way, is not a pay-for-play imprint; it actually pays its authors, actually has Harlequin editors work with those authors, etc.

We are pleased that the International Thriller Writers association has also taken this view, as communicated to its members in the following recent statement:

“Although we don’t plan to make a formal statement at this time, our position is that ITW doesn’t intend to get involved in Harlequin’s business. In addition, our members who are Harlequin/MIRA authors remain honored and valued ITW members with all the privileges and rights of membership. No ITW members are going to be expelled or denied awards because of actions taken by their publisher beyond their control–that would be contrary to our charter.”

Again, good news for Harlequin. ITW is choosing to remain mum over the notion of pay-for-play/ASP press publishing. If ITW is not concerned with the way a major publisher is promoting its new business model to authors — a business model that hurts authors while lining the publisher’s pockets — that’s up to ITW. (I wonder how many romance writers are members of ITW.)

Amid the reaction from a small, but vocal, group of authors, it is easy to forget that Dellarte Press represents a small experiment relative to the size of the greater Harlequin organization. It may be worth noting that Ninc has elected to apply its membership criteria to specific publishing programs, not a publishing corporation as a whole. Specifically, Ninc informed us of the following change on November 24, 2009:

“As our Bylaws remain constant, we have amended the more detailed qualifications for membership, listed in the P&PM. These qualifications are now concerned not with the publishing corporation as a whole, but concentrated on the particular program within the corporate for which the current or prospective member writes novel length fiction.”

Amid the reaction from a major, but vocal, publisher, it is easy to forget that DellArte Press is an actual imprint of Harlequin, one that other imprints are encouraging authors to use. It may be worth noting that when Harlequin promotes this pay-for-play option in its rejection letters, it generates a conflict of interest. Specifically, why should Harlequin pay authors when instead Harlequin could be paid by authors?

Harlequin believes that its standing within writers’ associations should reflect the 1,200 titles that we publish under traditional models each year and not a separate and distinct publishing arm that represents a very small portion of our activity.

And those writers’ associations believe that they should support their members–published (and, in the case of RWA, also aspiring) authors and not the business interests of a publisher.

We believe in informed choice for writers

We believe that writers are best served when they make informed choices. As such, Harlequin’s rejection letter templates will soon be modified to encourage the author to consider the wide range of publishing options now available to aspiring authors including submitting to another house, resubmitting to Harlequin, ePublishing, self-publishing, or working with Dellarte Press.

Full stop. It’s right there: Harlequin will steer rejected authors toward DellArte Press. (Which, at least, it is keeping separate from “self-publishing.”) This is a deal-breaker for me. (See the above, about the conflict of interest.)

In her November 18, 2009 article, Maddie James of the Romance Novel Examiner took the view that self-publishing rounds out a writer’s available choices:

Whether an author chooses traditional print publishing, a digital publishing press, or self-publishing, is totally up to the author. The author knows where they are in their career, how they want to move their career forward, and what steps to take to do so. It would be unwise to omit exploring all of the options.

Harlequin wishes to help expand this range of options, alternatives about which writers must be well informed before making decisions. We think that your membership would benefit from improved understanding of these options, in large part because they are not going away.

Okay, first of all, the aspiring author doesn’t have a career yet. Second of all, DellArte Press is not a self-publishing option; it is a pay-for-play option, one in which (A) the author gets raked over the coals in terms of fees, (B) the publisher controls the ISBN, brands the book, and takes a hefty portion of any profit, and (C) the author will not have any decent chance of getting those books into bookstores. Third, the only one who is helped by this option is Harlequin itself.

Harlequin has made substantial modifications to our Manuscript Critique Service and self-publishing programs

On November 9, 2009, Lee Goldberg, chair of your Membership Committee, expressed concerns about the Manuscript Critique Service referenced within eHarlequin.com’s writing guidelines content. As of November 30, 2009, our Manuscript Critique Service is no longer available and does not appear alongside the writing guidelines featured on our website.

**clap clap clap** Thank you, Harlequin. This was a Good Move.

On the matter of our self-publishing program, we have responded to our authors’ concerns by changing the program name so that it is clearly a separate business from Harlequin’s traditional publishing programs.

But Harlequin, all you’ve done is removed your name. Yes, this is a good step, because now you are not branding this pay-for-play option the way you brand your other (read: commercial) imprints. But you didn’t go far enough. DellArte Press is still a Harlequin imprint — one that **Harlequin is steering rejected authors toward**. You are still telling these rejected authors that even though their manuscripts are not good enough for you to pay them, they are good enough for them to pay you.

This just isn’t good enough, Harlequin.

Our request of the Mystery Writers of America

When your board meets to discuss Harlequin’s standing with the Mystery Writers of America, we ask that you consider the following:

(a) the inevitable change sweeping through the book publishing industry

(b) the prevalence of self-publishing, a business model already pursued by our competitors, and the growing acceptance of its role on the part of several mainstream writers associations

(c ) the fact that Harlequin publishes 1200 titles per year under our traditional publishing programs, including many writers who are members of your association, and that we do not believe they should be excluded from full status because of a small, separate business line with which we are experimenting

(d) the opportunity for writers to make informed decisions about their publishing options

(e) the modifications that we have made recently to our publishing programs.

Harlequin, I respectfully ask that you consider the following: (a) yes, there is change sweeping across the industry, and it’s good that Harlequin is trying to figure out how to ride the wave, but it’s bad when you take advantage of authors in the process; (b) assisted self-publishing/ASP press/pay-for-play publishing is **not** self-publishing, so please stop saying that DellArte Press is a self-publishing option; (c) if you don’t want to see your published authors get burned by your actions, perhaps you should rethink those actions a little more; (d) steering rejected authors toward a pay-for-play option helps you, not those authors; and (e) dismantling the critique service and changing Harlequin Horizons to DellArte Press are good starts, but they are not enough.

With this context in mind, we ask that Harlequin remain on the MWA list of approved publishers. If the MWA decides it cannot recognize Harlequin as an approved publisher at this time, we strongly encourage the MWA to retain Harlequin authors’ eligibility for the 2010 awards while we continue this discussion, particularly because their books were published on a traditional platform before Dellarte Press launched. The Romance Writers of America has taken this position, a source of great relief to our writers. In addition, it may be helpful for you to know that the RWA board will discuss this matter in late January and you may wish to consider similar timing.

Okay, arguments have been made, and now the request for consolation prizes have also been made.

Thank you for the opportunity to share our view of the evolving book publishing industry and Harlequin’s place within it. We hope to have provided useful insight into the innovations driving publishing forward and growing the presence of writers in the marketplace. While self-publishing represents a small experiment within Harlequin’s much larger business, we are excited to offer talented writers a range of alternate paths to commercial success and personal fulfillment. I truly believe that we share a common goal of accelerating the careers of mystery writers, today and for many years to come.

Harlequin, thank you for sharing your views. I sincerely hope that you will continue to hear the arguments against how you are handling your DellArte Press venue and that you will consider making further changes. If you want to show you are truly supporting aspiring authors, then:

1. Stop calling DellArte Press a self-publishing option; it is an assisted self-publishing option.

2. Stop referring authors to this ASP press option in your rejection letters.

Should you wish to hear more from Harlequin on this or any other matter, we would be pleased to cooperate in any way possible. Please let us know if you would find additional information on our publishing activities useful or if you would like me to speak with the Board and/or executive.

Sincerely,

Donna Hayes
Publisher and Chief Executive Officer, Harlequin Enterprises Ltd.

Harlequin, I respect your editors and other staff very highly, and I am truly sorry that they and your authors have gotten caught in the middle of this fallout. And I am hopeful that you will still do the right thing.

Up next: Harlequin versus MWA, Part 2