A few weeks ago Harlequin made a statement about their new publishing line, then called Harlequin Horizons. They’d teamed up with Author Solutions to provide this service, advertising it on their main website and announcing that they would also include it in their rejection letters.

The romance community reacted quite… strongly (see Dear Author or SMTB to get a flavour for it). General reaction was negative, with concerns about brand diulation and new authors being taken advantage of. Not only would authors be paying for Harlequin (Author Solutions) to publish their book, but  large portion of the profit would go to Harlequin/Author Solutions. The sample covers match some of Harlequin’s other lines (the really recognisable ones have gone, though), but the Harlequin name would not be on the Hh (or Hho as they were quickly dubbed) books, they would not receive Harlequin editing, and they would not go through Harlequin’s normal distribution channels. Harlequin further muddied the issue by making suggestions such as sending your Hh novel to agents – because all agents love being offered already published books. Concerns about brand dilution were immediately justified when the New Yorker ran the story with  a Harlequin Historical novel as the image, already confusing HH and Hh.

The reaction from the Writer’s Associations has been prompt (Making Light posts the most of these statements in more detail).

The Romance Writers of American (RWA) made this statement in a letter to its members:

With the launch of Harlequin Horizons, Harlequin Enterprises no longer meets the requirements to be eligible for RWA-provided conference resources. This does not mean that Harlequin Enterprises cannot attend the conference. Like all non-eligible publishers, they are welcome to attend. However, as a non-eligible publisher, they would fund their own conference fees and they would not be provided with conference resources by RWA to publicize or promote the company or its imprints.

Harlequin responded to RWA’s letter:

Harlequin was very surprised and dismayed to receive notice late yesterday that the RWA has decided that Harlequin is no longer eligible for RWA-provided conference resources. We were even more surprised to discover that the RWA sent a notice to its membership announcing this decision, before allowing Harlequin to respond or engage in a discussion about it with the RWA board.

Harlequin has been a significant supporter of the RWA for many years in several ways, including:

• financial sponsorships at the annual conference
• sending editors to the national and regional chapter conferences throughout the year to meet with and advise aspiring authors and participate in panel discussions on writing
• celebrating our authors, most of whom are RWA members, annually with the largest publisher party at the conference.

It is disappointing that the RWA has not recognized that publishing models have and will continue to change. As a leading publisher of women’s fiction in a rapidly changing environment, Harlequin’s intention is to provide authors access to all publishing opportunities, traditional or otherwise.

RWA has not, to my knowledge, directly responded to the response. Nothing stopped the other WAs weighing in, though.

The Science Fiction Writers of America said:

Until such time as Harlequin changes course, and returns to a model of legitimately working with authors instead of charging authors for publishing services, SFWA has no choice but to be absolutely clear that NO titles from ANY Harlequin imprint will be counted as qualifying for membership in SFWA. Further, Harlequin should be on notice that while the rules of our annual Nebula Award do not expressly prohibit self-published titles from winning, it is highly unlikely that our membership would ever nominate or vote for a work that was published in this manner.

The Mystery Writers of America gave Harlequin time to negotiate. Harlequin wrote a long letter to MWA, incuding the following:

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.

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.

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.

MWA’s response to Harlequins response:

That because Harlequin’s for pay publishing business violates MWA’s rules for approved publishers, MWA takes the following action: First, Harlequin shall be removed from MWA’s list of approved publishers upon the adoption of this motion; Second, that all current active status members of MWA whose status is based upon books published by Harlequin shall remain active status members; Third, that MWA decline applications for active membership based upon books published by Harlequin pursuant to contracts entered into after the effective date of this motion; Fourth, that books published by Harlequin pursuant to contracts entered into prior to the adoption of this motion shall be eligible for the Edgar® Awards, except that books published by DellArte Press shall not be eligible for the Edgar® Awards regardless of when such contract was entered into; and Fifth that books published by Harlequin pursuant to contracts entered into after the adoption of this motion shall not be eligible for the Edgar® Awards.

Even the Horror Writers of America has weighed in:

HWA asks that Harlequin acknowledge that the imprint does not represent a genuine opportunity for aspiring authors to hone their skills, because no editors will be vying for or editing the manuscripts. HWA supports the basic principal that writers should be paid for their work, not pay because they aspire to write.

The HWA does not believe that changing the name of the imprint in an attempt to disguise the relationship with Harlequin, changes the intent. We call on Harlequin to discontinue this imprint immediately. If this matter does not find a positive resolution, the HWA will take appropriate action, which may include removing Harlequin from the list of HWA approved publishers, declining future membership applications from authors published by Harlequin and declaring that books published by Harlequin will not be eligible for the Stoker Award.

Novelists Inc condemn Vanity publishing, but choose to exlcude DellArte as a line, rather than all of Harlequin Enterprises:

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.”

ITW, however, continues to recognise Harlequin:

“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.”

What have Harlequin done since this started? Well, they’ve changed the name of the press to Dellarte, and they’ve removed the advertising on the Harlequin website. They’re not removing the advertising in the rejection letters – this is the reason most of the Writer’s Associations won’t acknowledge Harlequin any more. They’re not booting out established members, or revoking already-given awards, but anyone who’s hoping to be published with them is no longer eligible for membership or the appropriate awards.

ITW claims the actions of the other WAs hurts authors. Does it? How many people have bought books on the basis they’ve won a RITA, or a Stoker, or an Edgar? How many people have even heard of those awards? WAs are to help and protect authors and prospective authors. They don’t help sell books. That’s what really hurts an author: not selling any books. Which is exactly what’s going to happen to authors who sign upwith Dellarte – the chances to selling in decent numbers are incredibly low, though the more money you fork out the higher it becomes. On the standard package you’re only searchable on Google or Amazon with the exact name of your book rather than key words, the stange publicity platform doesn’t kick in until you offer them $1200, and if you want full copyright registeration in the US (quite important to defend yourself against plagiarism) you need to pay the full $1600. Channel Distribution means little unless someone is persuading the book shop’s bookbuyer to buy your book, as opposed to all the other books published that month.

Can you make money self publishing? Yes. Can you make a lot more going through someone who isn’t Dellarte? Someone who isn’t going to charge you to publish with them and take a cut of the profits? Yes.

I’m not against self publishing, but I don’t think it’s the best route for a fiction author. One thing I’d like to hold Harlequin Enterprises to task over: though more books were published using self-publishing routes, rather than commerical publishers, fewer sold. With a publisher known for taking unagented submissions, a lot of new authors who don’t know that pay-for-play isn’t how traditional publishing works are going to receive rejection letters telling them it’s perfectly normal and would they like to try it. You search for “Publish” on google.com you get Lulu and Publish America on the first page. If you don’t already know that it’s not normal then all you’re going to find is a lot of websites telling you it is.

If Harlequin Enterprises were more open about what they’re doing I’d be more okay with this. If it was made clear in rejection letters that Dellarte is a very different beast to their other imprints, like Luna or Mira. If they didn’t make misleading statements about distribution. If they didn’t suggest agents like pre-published books. If they didn’t take a cut of the profits until the authors earned back their original investment (or, ideally, not at all). If, basically, they had teamed up with LuLu rather than Author Solutions.

This is why the majority of the WAs are against Dellarte. They’re concerned that if Harlequin is still recognised by them, new authors will assume Dellarte is too. They’ll assume Dellarte is as legitimate as any other Harlequin line. Now, I’ve taken issue with some of RWAs decisions in the past (they don’t reconise ePublishers because they don’t offer advances), and I believe as self-publishing becomes easier and more common more commercial publishers will experiment with it. This is just the first game of what is going to be a very complication match. POD, ePublishing, and self publishing are all on the up and up, while commerical publishers are really struggling. The industry is changing; but is it changing for the best? And who’s best – writers, readers, or publishers?