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

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.”

Lee