So what have I been doing since publishing, very early this morning, my extremely rational and objective news article, "Nora Roberts comments on controversy surrounding Harlequin's new self-publishing division"? I've been watching with amazement and amusement the ongoing debate – or possibly debacle – taking place between Nora Roberts and Zoe Winters on the Smart Bitches Trashy Books website.
Carole Mortimer's The Rake's Wicked Proposal got
innocently and erroneously drawn into today's controversy
surrounding Harlequin Horizons.
Who are the participants involved? If you who don't know who Nora Roberts is, you should probably get busy reading any of the ninety plus articles about her here on this website. If you who don't know who Zoe Winters is, well, the line forms on the right.
But, seriously . . . Winters is the author of one publication, KEPT, a paranormal romance that is available in a Kindle edition on Amazon.com for $1.00. But if I read her website correctly, Winters is giving it away for free in PDF format there.
Roberts has achieved her success through long experience with traditional publishing methods. Winters, on the other hand, is a very vocal advocate for self-publishing.
Roberts and Winters could have had a good discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each publishing method. However, the conversation between the two starts off badly and gets worse.
The Gunfight
Winters quickly alienates Roberts by giving her a lecture on the current state of book publishing. "When an author is just starting out," Winters patiently explains to the veteran author, "they aren’t making great money and guaranteed they are spending out more money than they are raking in initially if they want their book to succeed and to continue getting contracts from their publisher."
Note to my readers: You may need to reread that sentence three times before it becomes intelligible. I know I did.
Then Winters shifts from a didactic tone to a patronizing one. "I’m happy that traditional publishing has worked out for you like it has," she congratulates Roberts. Winters then adds, "But this isn’t the story of most people. You are like the hope that keeps everybody running on the same pointless (for most) treadmill."
All this ultimately provokes Roberts to remark, ''I do wish when I participate in these discussions, I wouldn’t see a response along the lines of: Easy for you to say when you’re Nora. It does negate my opinion and my participation. And a word of advice? If you’re serious about ending ‘a pissing contest’ don’t continue to piss."
Meanwhile, back at the Smart Bitches corral . . .
Other Smart Bitches responders keep doing their best to get back on topic. Sarah Wendell is among the participants who receive the news, while this conversation is going on, of the Romance Writers of America's decision to deny Harlequin Enterprises access to RWA-provided conference resources. She then tries to get her group focused on the consequences of that decision.
Wendell comments, "The RWA decision is a huge one, on so many levels, but not entirely unexpected, because according to their rules, it was their only option. My head is spinning as to what this means for the RITAs, and the elected officers on the national and chapter level who are published through Harlequin to say nothing of the underwriting of the conference itself. This is not a small move on RWAs part at all - the ramifications and logistical details will take awhile to sort themselves out. Everything from the conference budget to the number of people signing books requires adjustment. Head spinning. Requires baklava."
During the baklava break, some serious discussion does take place. Commentary on the branding of Harlequin Horizon publications with the "HH" logo, two letters that are also used on the traditionally published Harlequin Historicals, reveals an error that the New Yorker made in the November 18, 2009 article "Harlequin Hacks" by Deirdre Foley-Mendelssohn.
The Foley-Mendelssohn article originally appeared with an illustration of the cover of a Harlequin Historical title, Carole Mortimer's The Rake's Wicked Proposal, which the New Yorker apparently used to demonstrate the new "HH" imprint of Harlequin Horizons. You won't see the cover illustration on the New Yorker website now. The magazine removed it after learning the error of its ways.
Evidently Wendell ran out of baklava fairly quickly, though, for her distraction only briefly worked. Those of us who would appreciate a full discussion of the reasons for – and the consequences of – Harlequin Enterprises' decision to enter the self-publishing arena probably won't see it take center stage today on the Smart Bitches Trashy Books website.
Readers who have asked on Nora Roberts Examiner Facebook Fan Page for more information on the publishing options discussed by Nora Roberts and the other participants in the Smart Bitches Trashy Books conversation will find an excellent summary in the Dear Author blog's article, "Harlequin Horizons, What’s In It For You."
What happened and when: A chronological overview of Harlequin Enterprises' DellArte Press affair
Mystery Writers of America implements proposed sanctions against Harlequin Enterprises
Mystery Writers of America joins with RWA and SFWA in complaints regarding Harlequin Horizons
Comments
Thanks for the summary. I love romance novels, so I've been following this on blogs/twitter/message boards. And wow to Zoe Winters. I read her free novella a while ago and liked it. I was planning on buying her upcoming book, but after reading her comments on SBTB I'm changing my mind.
As a reader, I'm mad at Harlequin. The romance genre doesn't get a lot respect, and Harlequin Horizons isn't going to help. I'm also mad that they're using HH. HH is Harlequin historicals! At least the cover was taken off of the New Yorker.
And I'm confused why Harlequin is branding this vanity publishing venture, but is separating itself from Carina. It would make more sense if the reverse was true, since Hh is pretty much a scam, and Carina looks to be a legitimate epub.
You know, I'd love it if Carol Mortimer saw up a spike in her sales for the name recognition and curiosity factor. Go Carol! LOL
Sorry, but I believe this is something of a misrepresentation of the actual discussion. Perhaps at press time the Roberts/Winters discussion was still ongoing, but even at its full extent it's a very small portion of a discussion which is currently about 600 comments long--and that portion ended yesterday, early afternoon, while the rest of the dicussion continues to grow and stay polite. To imply that nobody was able to stay on-topic or that the comments section is some sort of free-for-all is, I feel, inaccurate.
@Stacia Kane-
You are absolutely right. I actually wrote my follow up story "Smart Bitches Trashy Books discussion regains focus on Harlequin Horizons self-publishing options" before I read your comment. It's the third item under "For More Information."
What's needed here is a discussion on the difference between self-publishing and vanity publishing. Harlequin's new venture is NOT self-pubbing, no matter how they bill it. It's VANITY publishing and predatory practices, and this is why RWA did the right thing and booted them.
I think the cover was chosen because of the title, not the logo. Harlequin Horizons *is* exactly "The Rake's Wicked Proposal."
Suggest you fix the blurb under Mortimer's photo on YOUR article, because it was "erroneously drawn into today's controversy surrounding Harlequin HORIZONS" not "Harlequin HISTORICALS" as is shows at this time. To my knowledge, there's not controversy with the Historicals line at the moment....
See how easy it is to get 'em mixed up? Continues to prove the point.
I wasn't aware I had to be a veteran of decades before I could have an opinion about the state of the publishing industry. You're a blogger and you have one. I have one as well, I shared it.
My views don't come out of my butt. They come from prominent blogging agents. So if what they're saying about publishing and how much harder it is to get published now and how little money is in it is wrong, then that's on them, not me.
Many current midlist authors have spoken at conferences saying the same things I've said. It's not a valid debate tactic to appeal to authority. Just because you all know who Nora Roberts is, and you don't know who I am has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments put forth. (also judging me at my starting point as opposed to Nora's decades later point is a bit unfair.)
What I find REALLY funny in all this is an appeal to Nora's fame is what got her upset in the first place, but here it's being appealed to once again. In this context it seems
Dana,
I'm sorry your perception of me has gotten so negative you can't read anything else I write. I tried explaining to Ms. Roberts and the board that I did not intend to offend anyone, I was merely expressing my views. I felt harassed and attacked on that thread as people piled on to tell me what a no-nothing ninny I am. And how "mean" I was to Nora Roberts. (I NEVER intended to attack her.)
If people continue to get offended no matter how someone tries to apologize/rephrase/or explain themselves, then I don't see much point in continuing the discussion. I'm sorry I lost a reader, but Ms. Roberts isn't the only one with a valid opinion, and it takes two to derail a thread like that. BOTH of us participated. (in fact she kept baited me as I was trying repeatedly to extract myself from the situation.)
So I'm curious if, since we're both equally guilty here, if you'll read Ms. Roberts books or if only I suffer because you don't have as much emotional investment in me.
@Melissa G. and @ Pat S.
It is indeed easy to confuse the two HHs. I thought about letting my caption stand to prove Melissa's point, but I went ahead and changed it. Errors bother me too much, particularly when I make them.
Perhaps the branding issue won't be so strong a concern with Harlequin's decision to rename their division, but that still leaves many other concerns still to be addressed. I have to agree with the remark made here by Pat S. that Harlequin, through their marketing techniques, is advertising an entity that is more akin to a vanity press than to what I would consider self-publishing.
I'm eager to see how Harlequin will respond to the MWA and the SFWA since both organizations seem focused on the way in which Harlequin is promoting its new services.
Dana,
I'm sorry your perception of me has gotten so negative you can't read anything else I write. I tried explaining to Ms. Roberts and the board that I did not intend to offend anyone, I was merely expressing my views. I felt harassed and attacked on that thread as people piled on to tell me what a no-nothing ninny I am. And how "mean" I was to Nora Roberts. (I NEVER intended to attack her.)
If people continue to get offended no matter how someone tries to apologize/rephrase/or explain themselves, then I don't see much point in continuing the discussion. I'm sorry I lost a reader, but Ms. Roberts isn't the only one with a valid opinion, and it takes two to derail a thread like that. BOTH of us participated. (in fact she kept baited me as I was trying repeatedly to extract myself from the situation.)
So I'm curious if, since we're both equally guilty here, if you'll read Ms. Roberts books or if only I suffer because you don't have as much emotional investment in me.
And very sorry something posted twice. I only meant to send it once but I got an error message.
And very sorry something posted twice. I only meant to send it once but I got an error message.
@Zoe: For heaven's sake. "KNOW-NOTHING." Not "no-nothing." You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. You've been making that mistake all over the place, and it's driving me crazy.
Sorry, I don't have anything substantial to add to the conversation other than what's already been said. Kudos to MWA, SFWA, and RWA for the stand they're taking. Hopefully this brouhaha will educate more people as to the difference between vanity publishing and self-publishing, and how predatory vanity publishers are. And I certainly include HarHo in the "predatory" category because, seriously... pointing an author to HarHo in the rejection letter? Dude. Just, dude.
LOL Julie, DOH! hahahahaha. Yeah that one has gotten stuck in my brain. Thanks for the correct! (I don't have an editor or crit reader for my posts.)
And totally agree with you on the Harlequin rejection letter faux pas. My eyes did this when I first heard that: o.O
It's more than a "rejection letter faux pas," it's skeevy and frankly predatory. Harlequin needs to divorce themselves from this completely. It's already bitten them. If they're not careful it's going to EAT them.
@Julie, totally agree. I got into a discussion with someone on SB about how I can't see any publishing company risking their reputation like this if they didn't have serious financial problems, but I was assured by another poster that Harlequin has no financial problems. Since I haven't reviewed their P&L statements I'm not going to dispute that, but... I just don't know what Harlequin was thinking here.
Preditors and Editors have their job cut out for them as it seems more and more longstanding and "reputable" publishers are starting to cross some serious ethical lines.
@Julie, totally agree. I got into a discussion with someone on SB about how I can't see any publishing company risking their reputation like this if they didn't have serious financial problems, but I was assured by another poster that Harlequin has no financial problems. Since I haven't reviewed their P&L statements I'm not going to dispute that, but... I just don't know what Harlequin was thinking here.
Preditors and Editors have their job cut out for them as it seems more and more longstanding and "reputable" publishers are starting to cross some serious ethical lines.
@Carol Thomas -"@Zoe: For heaven's sake. "KNOW-NOTHING." Not "no-nothing." You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. You've been making that mistake all over the place, and it's driving me crazy."
You know what drives me crazy? Your tone. When people corrected YOUR mistakes, did they do it with such an obvious condescending manner or did they treat you like a human being and not attempt to embarrass you in front of an audience?
@Emma Petersen - The comment you are objecting to was made by "Julie" rather than by me. It is the fifth post down after yours.
To the author of this article: Well, you're clearly one-sided.
I have become acquainted with one SF writer who self-pubs older titles, and he NEVER puts anyone down, gets passive-agressive, or belittles anybody because of who he is in the business. he offers advice and even encourages traditonal publishing...but never once does he insult anyone's intelligence, or berate anybody like some of the elitist snobs in the industry.
SO I take it you're a stark raving fan of Nora. Good for you. But that's no reason at all to write an article like this to degrade an innocent person like Ms. Winters and imply that her opinion is invalid because (according to you) nobody knows who she is...and "LYK OMG NORA IZ THE BESTEST" so nobody can disagree
I'm not a fan of nora because her books don't interest me...regardless I have no respect for roberts, or for anyone who belittles somebody just because they disagreed with their favorite author.
Respect is like money. You have to earn it
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!