10 Responses to “Harlequin versus MWA, Part 2”

1. I’m afraid the first paragraph of your post might lead to some confusion. What you have reposted is the MWA’s response, **not mine**. It’s the official statement from Frankie Bailey, MWA’s executive vice president, which was sent out to all MWA members today.

   Lee

   by Lee Goldberg on December 4th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
   
   

2. I have a partial at HQ now and will be so outraged should I receive one of these lovely letters.

   I’m really looking forward to seeing what comes from the Jan. board meeting.

   Communication overall is changing by the speed of light - I see this in my day job as a technical writer, too, and it’s all merging as “information” or “information overload.”

   by Kathy Holmes on December 4th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
   
   

3. Thanks, Lee. I’ve clarified the first paragraph. Sorry about that.

   Kathy, good luck with your submission! And yes, communication happens quickly…but that’s no excuse not to get it right. (Case in point, me editing the first paragraph to make it clear that this response is from MWA, not just Lee.)

   by Jackie on December 4th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
   
   

4. Thanks for another excellent overview, Jackie.

   I used to go to the rodeo, where you could buy a desk set with a pen holder made out of a real cow patty. I think Donna Hayes must have one of those on her desk, and used the pen out of it to write her reply to MWA.

   HQ/ASI must have been searching madly through the self-publishing blogs to find the right terms to polish this cow chip of an explanation and make it all shiny.

   “best-served when they make informed choices”, “encourage the wide range of publishing options now available,” “Self-publishing emerging as a new force!” “Mega-trends!” “Rapid Growth!” “Literary Fulfillment! “GOOGLE!” (Wait a minute, Google?)

   HQ’s excuse–er, explanation–is one long piece of desperate PR lifted from blogs in an attempt to make a sow’s ear look like a silk purse.

   When they start draggin’ in Google in the first couple of paragraphs, you know you’re in for a ride through the bullshit.

   by Laura Kinsale on December 4th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
   
   

5. This is ridiculous. Publishing’s changing, self-publishing is becoming more a part of it. Certainly, it’s difficult to self-publish effectively, as you acknowledge in part one, but banishing it from the landscape by making the publisher illegitimate makes no sense.

   How do these two things co-exist:

   The publisher, within the past five years, may not have charged a fee to consider, read, submit, or comment on manuscripts; nor may the publisher, or any of the executives or editors under its employ, have offered authors self-publishing services, literary representation, paid editorial services, or paid promotional services.

   and

   MWA does not object to Harlequin operating a pay-to-publish program or other for-pay services. The problem is HOW those pay-to-publish programs and other for-pay services are integrated into Harlequin’s traditional publishing business.

   Harlequin is not charging a fee to read, only offering an alternative if it’s rejected. I think Author Solutions is a poor alternative, but this is an overreaction.

   by Henry Baum on December 4th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
   
   

6. *This* is an overreaction? Seriously?

   Nobody is trying to “banish” self-publishing, and to imply that (much less make an outright accusation to that effect) is nothing more than hysterical arm-flapping. Talk about overreacting. As Jackie said in this very post, there’s nothing wrong with self-publishing and in some cases (rarely fiction, I imagine) it’s a much better option. Also, what HQ is offering ISN’T SELF-PUBLISHING. It’s - yes, I’ll say it - vanity. Not self-publishing. VANITY.

   RWA, MWA, and SFWA aren’t trying to get rid of self-publishing. They’re trying to protect their authors from predatory tactics.

   When you look at how Harlequin is mining its rejection pile for cash, not to mention dangling a vague promise to *really* publish the true gems of DellArte, it’s hard to label it anything but predatory.

   I love Harlequin. I planned to make it part of my career path. I’m extremely bummed at this decision by HQ and so sorry for HQ-published friends who are now being asked by intelligent writer-wannabes how much they paid to get their books pubbed.

   Even if the writing organizations had rolled over and played bottom to HQ’s top, I still would label these business tactics unethical and predatory. I’m absolutely certain I wouldn’t be alone.

   But thank goodness we have our writing organizations to stand up and call BS when they see their authors and potential members getting the shaft.

   Oh, and here’s how MWA’s statements “co-exist.” Harlequin must move DellArte away from the traditional lines. It cannot pimp DA to rejected authors of the traditional pub, and it cannot share “editors” (you know, the ones participating in the $342 skimming critique of a first chapter or $.077/word editing pass for a whole book) between DA and HQ. DA must be a completely separate unit. This *might* even mean they can’t promise to dedicate a HQ editor to comb through the better selling titles for *carrot dangle* real publication. If HQ can manage to extract itself from whatever contractual obligation it made to prey on and then screw over authors, they’ll be welcomed back into the fold.

   by KL Grady on December 4th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
   
   

7. […] “battle” this week. And there shouldn’t even be a battle. The move by the MWA to drop Harlequin from its roster is particularly infuriating.  It’s like they see the creeping influence of […]

   by Once Again: Vanity Publishing Doesn’t Matter | Self-Publishing Review on December 5th, 2009 at 2:55 am
   
   

8. While I think the revoking of Harlequin’s standing in RWA and MWA is warranted, due to the circumstances, MWA’s statement does leave for some confusion:

   “MWA does not object to Harlequin operating a pay-to-publish program or other for-pay services. The problem is HOW those pay-to-publish programs and other for-pay services are integrated into Harlequin’s traditional publishing business.”

   Now compare to this part of the statement:

   “The publisher, within the past five years, may not have charged a fee to consider, read, submit, or comment on manuscripts; nor may the publisher, or any of the executives or editors under its employ, have offered authors self-publishing services, literary representation, paid editorial services, or paid promotional services.”

   Is it really “how” the publisher is offering these services, or simply that Harlequin is offering them, period? I don’t judge anyone who has gone the self-publishing route, as some people (although not many) do find success through self-publishing. I am confused, however, as to why such a successful print house would feel the need to do this. Has the economy hurt them that badly, that would they feel the need to increase their profits by offering a “venue” for the authors they reject? I had considered querying Harlequin in the past; they had seemed very reputable. I hope the company is able to regain its lost clout.

   by Lisa Lane on December 5th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
   
   

9. I proposed to the directors of Western Writers of America that they examine Harlequin’s conduct, but its president, Johnny Boggs, told me that probably nothing would result. WWA, alone among the genre literature guilds, abandoned its professional membership requirements some years ago and is now largely nonprofessional. I doubt that even ten percent of members have significant professional credentials.

   WWA is actually doing well, with a large membership and an excellent magazine. But it still calls itself a professional writing organization, which is a stretch, to put it mildly.

   Back in the early 80s, when I joined, editors and agents looking for clients would flock to WWA conventions and buy books and cut deals because there were high standards for membership. All gone now. It’s probably been seven or eight years since a WWA member cut a book deal with a New York editor at a convention.

   Don’t expect WWA to join MWA, SFFW, RWA, or any other professional writers guild on this one.

   by Richard S. Wheeler on December 5th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
   
   

10. I’ve been reading your posts on the Harlequin debacle since the beginning, Jackie, and I’m really grateful to you for doing this. Your posts cut straight to the heart of why Harlequin’s move is ten shades of wrong.

    I hope the RWA Board continues to hold Harlequin’s feet to the fire when they have their special session next month.

    by Dana Sherwood on December 6th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
    
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website