Very well put.

I’ve judged far too many contest entries where the mechanics were so bad as to virtually drown whatever story might have been there — waaaay worse than anything I’ve ever seen in print by my own or any other publisher. And with the advent of the personal computer, publishers are more flooded with sub-par submissions than ever. But delusion runs rampant in all the arts — as you and others have pointed out, look at the hopefuls auditioning for any of the talent shows, some of whom actually get pissed when told they’re basically not any good.

Encouraging someone with minimal talent to keep working at their craft is one thing; feeding her delusions by dangling the vanity publishing carrot in front of her, with its specious “mights” and “coulds” and “maybes” is something else. That my own publisher — long known and respected for the first type of encouragement — is now in the carrot-dangling business makes me very sad.

nothing more than hard work

Probably apropos of nothing, but I daresay this may be the case with *some* thing in everybody’s life. I remember that when I was a child I was fascinated by martial arts. I thought it was this mystical magical power that was conferred upon one the minute she put on a little uniform and a white belt.

Well, fast forward a few years and I quickly learned there was nothing mystical or magical about it. It’s a skill (requiring a certain amount of baseline talent) acquired through hard work and repetition. Nothing more.

It’s just that they usually don’t show that part in movies and if they do, they romanticize the hell out of it. Sometimes it’s not the hard work that gets to you. It’s the tedium of it. Romantic? Hardly.

I feel so sorry for talentless dreamers.

There is also one other factor at work here, and that’s money/fame. One can aspire to be a psychologist, may have talent for it or not, but there’s not much money/fame in it. (Same with law, medicine, etc.) Nobody cares about “Celebrity Psychologists, Season Four, now on DVD!”

However, when it comes to creative talent, for some reason, people see that “spark” of … whatever, and they want it because it might lead to money/fame, name in lights/in print. Or so they think. Problem is, only the top maybe 5% — at most — get that high on the scale. But then, “It might be YOU!” Hence, American Idol, et al.

A lot of people think there is some mystical “place” an author gets to when he/she is finally published. Some years ago, RWA ran into a big fiasco when they established PAN — Published Author Network — a sub-set of RWA for pubbed authors, and whether e-pubbed authors could join (huge fiasco, there). There was this mystical thing about PAN. It was like some secret club. All you heard about at the conferences was PAN and who couldn’t go to the workshops. Non-published writers wanted something for themselves and so RWA created PRO, another sub-set, for writers who had written a full manuscript, had received a rejected letter by an editor or agent, but still hadn’t received “the call” and thus, weren’t quite ready for PAN.

The point is, being an author is like being a celebrity to the aspiring author. She wants it, whatever “it” is. I remember my first editor telling me she went to a workshop in the mid-90s given by Nora Roberts and her editor, and some woman stood up and said, “Nora, I want to be you.” Someone, either Nora or her editor said something like, “You mean you want to write books like Nora’s.” The woman replied, “No, I mean I want to BE you.” Weird, but not surprising when those unpubbed writers are so desperate to publish because they want the celebrity — the money and fame they think comes with the job.

And from the outside, how many clueless people think authors make a shit-load of money? While it’s true a few do (very few), and even some mid-list authors can make a decent living writing romances, most of us aren’t rich, and technically aren’t famous, except to the most avid readers. But there is always a Molly Author-Wannabe out there just dying to take one of our places for the chance at some notion at fame/fortune that’s just mostly an illusion, or nothing more than hard work. HQ is playing on this.

Beautifully put. I’m not getting this whole Harlequin as a previously class act who’s stumbled.

That part about talentless yet persistent people in all professions resonated with me. I majored in psychology. When I took a personality assessment I tested as aloof and reserved. Not a person sensitive and empathetic enough to others to work in the psychology fiield. It was even suggested that I become an undertaker! I finished my degree in psychology because by then I was a senior and broke. I didn’t pursue graduate work in the field because I knew that the assessment was on the money. I understood the theories but I’m never at ease with people. I’m decidedly not a people person. Really, I was only in college because I got a scholarship and it got me out of the house. My only dream was to live by myself and not have to hear my parents nag. Not very aspirational. For me a check is a check. I eventually went to work in a bank where I discovered that I really should have majored in accounting.

I feel so sorry for talentless dreamers. I have a relative who thinks he can sing but he sounds like a cat with sinus issues. It’s at once sad and hilarious. He’s still pretty bitter that his parents didn’t support his dreams.

Yes, you’re right, I did leave out the mediocre author. It falls between the the good/talented author and the terrible writer, and there are a lot of them that get pubbed. IMHO, these authors get published because they have the right book done at the right time and nothing more. They simply get lucky. I know a few authors who have published two books under one contract and then have gone years without ever signing again. I have to wonder if these are just writers whose books are so-so at best, never sold well, didn’t have editor or publisher support because they weren’t very good to begin with, and their luck ran out. And, like you and many of us, I’ve read some pretty awful fiction in my day, romance and otherwise.

I've seen “authors” who were essentially functional illiterates get all lofty and mystical about how they don't just want to write but HAVE to write. This has puzzled me for years. How can it be that the these people have such a burning desire to write when they don't have an iota of natural writing talent ?

I’ve never understood this either, and yet from an author’s perspective, I can tell you that it happened to me. I absolutely could. not. imagine. doing anything else, and getting published was my only desire for about three years until it happened.

I think part of it is that these are people who love to read romances and want to put their own story into words. And keep in mind that there is a total difference between knowing the mechanics of writing and being a storyteller. Lots of people can have flawless grammar and sentence technique, but can’t tell a story to save a life. And although sentence structure, grammar, and technique can be learned, the gift of storytelling — for the most part — cannot. It’s much, much easier for an editor to take a natural storyteller who’s not very up on her grammar skills and work with her to make her better, than to take someone who knows the mechanics of writing and make her a storyteller. That’s almost impossible.

The main problem as relates to Harlequin is that Harlequin knows this and is taking advantage of women who don’t, and by using their brand name to make the writer think that by giving them money they might eventually become a HQ author. That’s unethical. Molly Author-Wannabe might have an Economics degree from Harvard, so she can masterfully write a technical paper for IBM, and this makes her think she’s totally capable of writing the next Romance Bestseller because she’s an avid romance reader and has been dying to write one for years. But these are two different things.

While it’s true that if Molly wants to put out the money, hey, it’s her money. She’s a smart woman, and if she’d rather spend it on getting her book printed than on, say, a cruise, so be it. But what’s so despicable from HQ’s angle is that they know there are a hundred other Mollys out there who have this burning desire, have absolutely no storytelling talent, don’t know anything about the ins and outs of publishing, and HQ is counting on making money off their ignorance. It stinks and it’s wrong.

Is there something in the DSM-V(not sure this is the latest edition) about talentless people who just gotta dance! or sing, act, paint, or write?

I don’t think it is just would-be authors who are chasing soap bubbles. I have known several people who clearly did not have the native ability to engage in a certain profession– law, psychology, medicine– but who went into debt to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, maybe even over a hundred thousand dollars, to pay for professional school and then found they couldn’t pass the state exam– or they squeaked through and then found they could not find/keep a job in the field. Every step along the way from the LSAT to school acceptance to bar exams they were told that they didn’t quite make the grade but they continued to throw money at it by paying for test review courses, going to unaccredited schools, etc.

These people are assumed to be competent and allowed to go on with learning expensive lessons.

What makes writers any different?

My first thought when Horizons cropped up was that Harlequin basically sells a fantasy to their readers so its just a little step on to selling another fantasy to readers who also want to be authors. While the writers organizations must follow their bylaws, I really don’t think any different about Harlequin than I did before.

@DS
“When did Harlequin become all shiny and new?”

I’ve been wondering the same thing. I know that they have a large market share but beyond that they’re the literary equivalent to a puppy mill to me. What they’re doing now is very cynical but not exactly shocking to my mind. I say this will all the arrogant assurance of one who’s never written a book, nor submitted to Harlequin.

You know, Anon author left out the fourth category of author. Mediocre. This is by far the largest group of authors and indeed people in general. I know these are perilous times and many authors (who unbeknownst to them fall in this category) must be scared spitless that their manuscripts are going to be funnelled over to that vanity press. But that’s their challenge. But as for the Molly Wannabe- Authors, I say let these dreamers kiss the metaphorical hem of Harlequin’s gown in any way they can. Exhorbitant price or not. For some reason many would-be authors aspire to Harlequin. Harlequin’s vanity press may be the closest they’ll ever get. I think it’s pretty silly but I’m certainly no killer of dreams. Have at it Harlequin! But really, who’s got that kind of money these days? I see this as a dream deferred for most aspirants, no matter how desperate to be published. And if they do have that kind of money to throw away what’s the harm?

Not being a creative type there’s something I just don’t understand. I’m the typical drone;an ordinary worker bee. I just want a check in exchange for the work I do. I don’t really care about what the job is as long as it’s legal and indoors and allows me to LIVE indoors. Why are so many people so desperate to be published author’s? Do they think that just because they can speak it naturally follows that they can write as well?

I’ve seen “authors” who were essentially functional illiterates get all lofty and mystical about how they don’t just want to write but HAVE to write. This has puzzled me for years. How can it be that the these people have such a burning desire to write when they don’t have an iota of natural writing talent ? Have in no way prepared be writers, and quite often don’t even know the basic mechanics of writing a coherent sentence. It baffles me. I KNOW I’m not qualified to write anything more literary or taxing than a grocery list. What’s with these other people? Is there something in the DSM-V(not sure this is the latest edition) about talentless people who just gotta dance! or sing, act, paint, or write?

I'm one of those readers who don't write at all and never will. I'm awestruck and fascinated by what those Molly Author-Wannabes must be submitting because over the years I've read hundreds of HQ published books and a lot of THEM were total crap.
Quite frankly I'm now looking forward to trying a couple of those HQ vanity press books by way of comparison.

You made me laugh. A similar thought has been in my head.

That and I can remember a decade or so ago when Harlequin was, if not the villain, at least not the author’s friend! They own my pen name and I can’t use it anywhere else! The advantage of writing under your own name was that Harlequin couldn’t refuse you the right to publish under it elsewhere. Then there was the not filing for copyright on books issue that affected potential damages in plagiarism cases.

When did Harlequin become all shiny and new?

I’m one of those readers who don’t write at all and never will. I’m awestruck and fascinated by what those Molly Author-Wannabes must be submitting because over the years I’ve read hundreds of HQ published books and a lot of THEM were total crap.
Quite frankly I’m now looking forward to trying a couple of those HQ vanity press books by way of comparison.

I agree that what HQ is doing is very shady but what I’d love to know is what are the possible repercussions for them for their actions? If they’re no longer approved by RWA will “good” authors no longer submit to them? Will they lose their best writers?
I’m just wondering what HQ stands to lose.

I think this explains a lot:

@Jackie Kessler: I don't know why you would be offended by the statement.

I think this is pretty fundamental; and as long as you don’t understand why authors, published or not, would be offended by that statement, I don’t think it will be possible for you to understand why authors are so aghast that Harlequin embarked upon something so predatory as a vanity press.

I believe you when you say you don’t understand. I don’t think you were making a snarky comment. It’s always amazing when someone you admire sees something basic in a completely different light — like finding out Bruce Willis is a Republican!

But there it is.

While I would never direct a writer to an “assisted” self-publishing house, if the person was insistent, I’d advise them to check with all the other ASI houses and price compare. Find the best value, because the services will be the same. A cover artist working on an Author House cover may end up being the same person working on your Dellarte cover. They will do whatever you wish without providing editorial or content review unless you up your package choice. After all, they don’t want to enforce their voice on your work.

Case in point:

http://causticcovercritic.blogspot.com/2009/11/god-blessing-me-to-beast-feed-my-babies.html

my point, which was to highlight the inherit pecking order of what is “real” publication

As I pointed out in a recent post at TMT the publishing model for academic books and articles is really, really different from that for commercial fiction. In academic publishing it’s not at all unusual to have to pay to have an article published (in a respected peer-reviewed paper and e-version journal) and it’s very likely you’ll have to sign over copyright to that journal/its publisher too. The new Journal of Popular Romance studies is going to be exist in e-form only, and I’ve submitted to it.

So, I’m unlikely to make blanket statements about royalties, money flowing towards authors, or paper, having anything to do with the “reality” of a publication.

So let me ask you this: Is someone who self-publishes any less “real” than anybody else? I mean, I'm looking at my shelves of books on them and my sales numbers and wondering what's ephemeral about it.

As a reader, what matters to me is the quality of the product, not the method by which it was produced. I’m a medievalist by training, and printing only reached the Iberian peninsula at the end of the period I studied. A poem which survives thanks to one hand-written manuscript is no more or less “real” than a text which survives in multiple printed copies.

I suppose that certain things are generally assumed to guarantee a minimum level of quality e.g. the academic peer review process should ensure that articles published in an academic journal are of an acceptable quality. This doesn’t mean that the same article would be of lower quality if the author had just put it up on her/his own website. But someone who wasn’t an expert in the field might feel they didn’t have the necessary qualifications to judge whether it was of high quality or not. Of course, the quality of articles in peer-reviewed journals is still variable, and some journals are more respected than others.

For all you non-fiction writers/authors out there and those who don’t write at all and never will or want to, keep in mind that there is a LOT of total crap that is sent in by Molly Author-Wannabe. There are — in general — three kinds of writers:

1. The kind who are gifted. They have “it.” They just write and it’s wonderful. Most of these authors don’t even know how they do it, it just happens and the books just flow from their fingertips (that’s not to say they don’t struggle or work, only that they don’t need the outside help). They don’t need workshops or much in the way of revisions. Editors love having a manuscript by these writers — however rare — fall into their laps. Call these the top — maybe — 2% of all authors.

2. Writers who are either talented and/or technically good. These authors/writers write probably about half of the manuscripts (mss) editors see. These mss or authors, with a lot of work, can be made better. These are the writers who go to workshops, hone their craft, work with an editor or two or five to make their mss better year after year. If they’re not very good at writing one kind of book, they’re astute enough to move to another type (from historical to Desire, for example). These writers/authors persist and, usually, after a lot of work and effort, listening to professionals and making changes, trying different techniques for style, craft, storytelling, succeed to varying degrees. Most published authors fall into this category, though it might take them years to get published.

3. These are writers who will never be published by a major NY publisher because they’re terrible writers. This is where Molly Author-Wannabe comes in. She has a dream to be a HQ author, has just joined RWA, and knows in her heart of hearts that one day soon she’ll see her HQ Blaze book that she’s rewritten seven time printed by HQ. Finally, she submits it to HQ, gets a rejection letter (because it’s AWFUL) but the rejection letter doesn’t say, “Hey lady, stick to you day job…” because it’s a professional form letter. Now, what used to just say, “I’m sorry but your manuscript isn’t right for our line, blah, blah…” now says, “…but you might want to consider DellArte Press to see your book in print!”

Here’s the main problem: Molly Author-Wannabe doesn’t know she SUCKS as a writer. She thinks she’s grand. Before this HQ venture, she might have gone on for years getting rejection letters that hurt, but she wouldn’t have gotten rejection letters that imply that — wow, if you sell enough copies by paying US, we might take another look at your SUCK–ASS MSS! Remember, Molly thinks she’s the next Nora Roberts, but really, the only people who love her books are her mom and sister.

So she puts down thousands of dollars, gets her name in print, and sells maybe, what, fifty books to her friends, girls in the office, family? And all the while she’s thinking HQ might take another real peek at the mss they rejected because her mom and sister love her printed book!

This is the most egregious, misleading, foul-smelling thing a professional publisher can do. HQ knows so much of what’s submitted is lousy, and they’re actually IMPLYING to these “suckers” who don’t know better that they might “take another look” at a rejected mss just because an ignorant person paid to have it printed — and they’re taking the money for it! It’s downright fucking disgusting.

However, I don't understand why Harlequin should not be considered one of the “REAL publishers. In New York.” Harlequin has editorial offices in New York as well as in Don Mills, Ontario and London. It has single-title lines (such as MIRA and LUNA) as well as category romance lines.

While you may not like the Harlequin lines which feature stories of the “billionaire tycoon mistress types,” these are certainly not the only kinds of romances published by Harlequin. Is there anything about Harlequin Historicals, for example, which makes them less “real” than Signet's trad Regencies were? And did the Kimani lines suddenly cease to be real once Harlequin bought “the Arabesque, Sepia and New Spirit imprints from BET Books”?

I knew that would get jumped on and it made my point, which was to highlight the inherit pecking order of what is “real” publication. How about the glass ceiling of category writers who want to move into single title and mainstream? Category writers get sneered at constantly, even though they got published through hard work and perseverance, just like authors who write other types of books.

There are a lot of authors who don’t think category authors are “real.” So is someone who self-publishes any less “real” than anybody else? I mean, I’m looking at my shelves of books on them and my sales numbers and wondering what’s ephemeral about it.

Writers who self-publish with an eye toward getting a contract from a publisher want something more than what Harlequin could give them, because Harlequin has nothing more to give.

Bigger (notice I didn’t say “real” this time) publishers can give them more. For us, it’s about the bottom line, not about “real” or “not real.” We’ve made those choices and we already knew we weren’t “real” when we started out, and that our “reality” would begin and end with our bank accounts.

ETA: In re-reading the thread, I realized my argument about self-publishing is tangential, and since I have nothing substantial to say about DellArte, I’ll bow out of the discussion.

We know that in 2002 Harlequin published 1,113 romance novels or approximately 50% of the romance marketplace.* If we accept the 1,113 number, without trying to shift out reprints from new releases and assign it a value of 4% of the slush pile and then say that in the first year DellArte could sell 1,113 basic service packages to the Harlequin rejection pool or approx 4% of the slush pile.

1,113 X $600 = $667,800 in total sales (NOT PROFIT) from BASIC service packages in the first year

———-
Obviously our starting point is using numbers from 2002 and and we’re not taking into account any additional services purchased or other packages (my sense is that most would take a package from the middle of the choices offered or even from the top if they were bothering with this model of publishing).

And just because: the NY Times reported in the same article linked below that in 2003 Harlequin “$585 million worth of books, for gross profits of $124 million, for a profit margin of 21 percent.”

——
The numbers I’ve provided aren’t meant to replace solid research and analytical modeling, they are just provided to give us a sense of scope. Once real data became available, if it became available, we’d need to make adjustments to our model and our testing criteria before we could come to any conclusions.

—-
* NY Times article

** In 2002, IF 1,113 equal 4% of the slush pile then the slush pile = 27,825 manuscripts

So is Harlequin saying that they will “offer some successful DellArte authors a regular contract” a misleading-to-deceitful? statement?

I’m sorry, but I’ve lost the thread of your argument.

As for whether it’s deceitful or shady or unethical… It’s irrelevant to me so I’m not going to bother trying to make a judgment call. I don’t feel the need to police DellArte or attempt to save writers from themselves. I don’t feel a need to dissect the language until it’s all but meaningless. People are responsible for researching for themselves, and that’s why P&E and AbsoluteWrite were established—to help them do that.

Up until last week, self-publishing and vanity publishing were being deliberately conflated and the terms used interchangeably—and some people are still doing it even though the specific definitions have been farther broadcast now, and more people are aware of the differences.

So I’m coming at this from the point of view of someone who has had people try to save me from myself in various ways, including humiliating me both privately and publicly, pointedly and vaguely, to get me to change my mind. People charge into self-publishers’ forums to castigate us collectively and individually, both for our hubris and gullibility, to shame us for our choices.

Honestly, it’s not appreciated, and I’m certainly not going to do it to someone else, either by saying Harlequin’s deceitful or that a person exploring that option is too ignorant to know better.

they'd be looking at, you know, REAL publishers. In New York. Not those nasty little billionaire tycoon mistress types. And let's talk about turnover: Harlequin makes its money on a subscription format and a high shelf turnover rate.

I’m well aware that there are many romance authors whose works are longer than the books typically acquired by Harlequin and/or are in sub-genres that Harlequin would not be interested in acquiring.

However, I don’t understand why Harlequin should not be considered one of the “REAL publishers. In New York.” Harlequin has editorial offices in New York as well as in Don Mills, Ontario and London. It has single-title lines (such as MIRA and LUNA) as well as category romance lines.

While you may not like the Harlequin lines which feature stories of the “billionaire tycoon mistress types,” these are certainly not the only kinds of romances published by Harlequin. Is there anything about Harlequin Historicals, for example, which makes them less “real” than Signet’s trad Regencies were? And did the Kimani lines suddenly cease to be real once Harlequin bought “the Arabesque, Sepia and New Spirit imprints from BET Books”?

As far as turnover is concerned, it’s perhaps worth noting that the books in many of Harlequin’s lines appear on sale in a wide range of international markets. In addition, Harlequin sometimes reprints certain titles, and it’s now offering many books in ebook format, so they’re available for more than one month.

Here’s a small selection of figures from Brenda Hiatt’s “Show Me the Money” page

Avon/HC: Average earn-out: $23,000 Median: $26,500 Range: $12,000 – $35,000
B’kley/J: Average earn-out: $16,400 Median: $10,000 Range: $5000 – $50,000
D’chester/L: Average earn-out: $5500 Median: $4600 Range: $2,000 – $16,000
Grand CP: Average earn-out: $38,500 Median: $31,500 Range: $8300 – $100,000
Kensington/Z: Average earn-out: $6200 Median: $3800 Range: $2500 – $17,800

Some Harlequin lines are lower than others:

American: Average earn-out: $8150 Median: $7600 Range: $7300 – $10,100
Blaze: Average earn-out: $12,500 Median: $12,300 Range: $10,500 – $15,000
Intrigue: Average earn-out: $14,500 Median: $12,600 Range: $10,000 – $26,000
Superrom: Average earn-out: $16,200 Median: $15,500 Range: $10,000 – $28,000
Sil Desire: Average earn-out: $17,000 Median: $16,500 Range: $12,000 – $23,000

If Brenda Hiatt’s figures are correct, does this mean that the average Harlequin book in all these lines is more real than the average Dorchester or Kensington Zebra book? Or that the average Silhouette Desire romance is more real than the average Berkeley/Jove book?