RWA special board meeting: Harlequin off the hook?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dragonjax

I write stuff and break boards.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
3,421
Reaction score
370
Age
53
Location
New Yawk
Website
www.jackiekessler.com
From the latest RWA Hot Sheet:

Dear Members,
RWA’s strategic plan, as amended in March 2009, identifies the need to incorporate a uniform, objective application method to be used for conference space allocation. Many of you are aware that RWA’s Board of Directors and staff participated in a special-issue board meeting in Houston this past weekend. The agenda encompassed the findings and recommendations of a task force that was charged with reviewing the publisher evaluation system and recommending changes to RWA’s policy. Taking into account emerging trends in publishing that may offer opportunities to writers, the task force recommended that RWA adopt methods used by other trade shows and conventions and to shift its method of evaluating publishers as a whole to evaluating publishers by divisions, imprints, or lines.

Under this revised method, RWA will extend invitations to a wide pool of publishers. Invitees may only represent their non-subsidy/non-vanity publishing programs (imprints, divisions, or lines) at RWA’s conference. Space for spotlights, workshops, and booksignings will be allocated to lines, imprints, or divisions that best meet the requirements for “Qualifying Markets.” This new process of evaluation will likely increase opportunities for small presses and e-presses that previously have been excluded.

The potentially broader array of publishing companies present at RWA’s national conference in no way signals a change in our mission or core values. RWA has no intent to tell publishers how to conduct their business, but as a professional writers’ association, RWA stands firmly against any attempts to directly solicit RWA members to pursue vanity/subsidy publishing or other author-financed forms of publication. Members can be assured that publishers and agents allowed to participate at our national conference will have met this criterion.

Michelle Monkou
RWA President

Stop me if I'm wrong, but this sure sounds like a nifty way for RWA to let Harlequin Enterprises off the hook. Or am I completely misreading this?
 
Last edited:

DeleyanLee

Writing Anarchist
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
31,661
Reaction score
11,407
Location
lost among the words
That's the way it reads to me too.

I was wondering how long that banning would last.
 

Brindle Chase

Dancing on the edge
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
189
Location
Pacific Northwest
Website
www.forlorn-hope.net
Stop me if I'm wrong, but this sure sounds like a nifty way for RWA to let Harlequin Enterprises off the hook. Or am I completely misreading this?


No, you're right on the money. It takes the RWA awhile to get with the times... but eventually they do. Just like how they were adamant against ePublishers... they finally woke up and realized it's another turn in the highway that is the publishing industry.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
I haven't noticed RWA meaningfully change their position on epublishers--but then most of this stuff is behind the member wall. As far as I know no advance paying presses who sell mainly from their own website are still "vanity" in their books?
 

jennontheisland

the world is at my command
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
7,270
Reaction score
2,125
Location
down by the bay
RWA, pwned by Harlequin.



ETA:

Wait, does this mean that Carina, Harlequin's completely anonymously owned (not an H to be found on the website) epublishing-only imprint is now going to ....

I'm sorry, I can't even finish that sentence, I'm laughing too hard.
 
Last edited:

Jersey Chick

Up all night to get Loki
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
12,320
Reaction score
4,278
Location
in the state of carefully controlled chaos
Website
www.kimberlynee.com
Speaking as someone who's been openly critical of RWA, I'm giving them a chance to prove (or not prove) themselves. This might be a good change. It's hard to make a judgment just yet.

If they shoot themselves in foot (again), I'll roll my eyes, but for now I'm hoping for the best.
 

dragonjax

I write stuff and break boards.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
3,421
Reaction score
370
Age
53
Location
New Yawk
Website
www.jackiekessler.com
Quite frankly, as long as Harlequin rejections no longer encourage submission to the vanity arm, I really have no problem with other Harlequin lines returning.

If they still add that line on their rejection letters though, I'd feel different.

Last I'd heard (going back to November), the damning line was going to remain in the rejection letters.
 

Deb Kinnard

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
2,382
Reaction score
311
Location
Casa Chaos
Website
www.debkinnard.com
I, too, have been critical of RWA, but I have an axe to grind: I've been e-published since 2002 and as such, the recipient of their 'tude against digital books. Pah.

I sort of expected them to find some wiggle room. If it means opening up to e-publishers and smaller ("you don't pay an advance and your authors don't earn enough, so you can't play here!") presses, I suppose RWA will simply have to swallow that as part of the HQ cave-in.
 

brainstorm77

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
14,627
Reaction score
2,057
Quite frankly, as long as Harlequin rejections no longer encourage submission to the vanity arm, I really have no problem with other Harlequin lines returning.

If they still add that line on their rejection letters though, I'd feel different.

They don't add that link. I've gotten a rejection email. No where in it do they mention their option for vanity pubbing.
 

brainstorm77

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
14,627
Reaction score
2,057
Really? Now **that's** encouraging. Would you mind posting the entire rejection letter?

I deleted the email. It was from their I heart Presents contest, which was announced back in Dec. But I was making sure I would take note if they included the link, since all this broke open around the same time.
I think after all the commotion, they decided against it. Which was a smart move.
I was pretty pissed off with the contest results... So yeah, I deleted the email.
 

brainstorm77

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
14,627
Reaction score
2,057
The fact is, HQ is a big deal and I knew the RWA would bow down in the end. This is just a round about way of doing it.
 

dragonjax

I write stuff and break boards.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
3,421
Reaction score
370
Age
53
Location
New Yawk
Website
www.jackiekessler.com
I would have deleted it too. **hugs**

See, here's my thing: if Harlequin is **not** referring its rejected authors to its DellArte option via its rejection letters, I'd be OK with everything. No, I'm not thrilled that HE has a "vanity" option -- but as long as its commercial imprints are not steering rejected authors toward that option, I would just hold my nose and look the other way. As much as I think "assisted self-publishing" is not in the best interest of the author, I respect that publishers are looking to try different business models. The problem, for me, is with Harlequin encouraging rejected authors to go that route via its rejection letters.

So...if Harlequin is **not** referring rejected authors to DAP, that's a sea change.

Anyone else hear whether Harlequin is nudging rejected authors toward DAP via rejection letters -- other than for the Presents contest?
 

dragonjax

I write stuff and break boards.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
3,421
Reaction score
370
Age
53
Location
New Yawk
Website
www.jackiekessler.com
The fact is, HQ is a big deal and I knew the RWA would bow down in the end. This is just a round about way of doing it.

That's my take too -- I hope I jumped the gun and that I'm wrong.

It could be that RWA announced this new change in qualifying markets...AND that Harlequin (assuming HE is still steering rejected authors toward DAP) is **not** a qualifying market, in any of its imprints (again, because those imprints would be referring rejected authors toward DAP).

Without clarification, we don't know. But I can't think of any other reason why RWA would make such a change if it weren't to step around the fact that HE has a "vanity" arm.

Please prove me wrong, RWA!
 

brainstorm77

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2006
Messages
14,627
Reaction score
2,057
I would have deleted it too. **hugs**

See, here's my thing: if Harlequin is **not** referring its rejected authors to its DellArte option via its rejection letters, I'd be OK with everything. No, I'm not thrilled that HE has a "vanity" option -- but as long as its commercial imprints are not steering rejected authors toward that option, I would just hold my nose and look the other way. As much as I think "assisted self-publishing" is not in the best interest of the author, I respect that publishers are looking to try different business models. The problem, for me, is with Harlequin encouraging rejected authors to go that route via its rejection letters.

So...if Harlequin is **not** referring rejected authors to DAP, that's a sea change.

Anyone else hear whether Harlequin is nudging rejected authors toward DAP via rejection letters -- other than for the Presents contest?

Then they had the whole thing with the contest see the I Hearts Blog for details. Talk about missinformation and drama.

link http://www.iheartpresents.com/2009/12/harlequin-presents-writing-competition-2009-the-winners/
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
If they shoot themselves in foot (again), I'll roll my eyes, but for now I'm hoping for the best.

It's a wonder they have any toes left ;). They could surprise me by bringing in simple requirements that legit POD and e-presses can meet (not specifically designed to exclude them), but I must say I am not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:

job

In the end, it's just you and the manuscript
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
3,459
Reaction score
653
Website
www.joannabourne.com
They could surprise me by bringing in simple requirements that legit POD and e-presses can meet (not specifically designed to exclude them), but I must say I am not holding my breath.

I'll admit this is what I'm hoping for.

The common sense, not you holding your breath. <g>
 

Gillhoughly

Grumpy writer and editor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
5,363
Reaction score
1,761
Location
Getting blitzed at Gillhoughly's Reef, Haleakaloha
The problem, for me, is with Harlequin encouraging rejected authors to go that route via its rejection letters.

Ditto for me. That is despicable.

I mentioned elsewhere about a pal hearing from would-be HQ writers asking her if DellArte was a good "sideways" move for them, thinking it's only a short step to a real sale.

They were also thinking paying to publish with DellArte meant that their books would BE IN STORES NEXT TO THE REGULAR HQ TITLES.

You have to carefully read between the lines of the website's sales pitch to figure out your book would only be on the DA website and that of the writer, same as any subsidy title.

Many newbies are clueless about the business end of writing and too trusting. They trust the HQ name and think DA is the same. That the DA site looks like the HQ site in design and color choice just adds to the illusion.

If HQ is behind it, then maybe it's WORTH spending thousands to get a book printed with DA--the sales will be the same as any HQ category, right???
 

para

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
442
Reaction score
29
There was another message from the Board as everyone is asking about HQ. It basically says that if HQ are not using their rejection letters to forward people to DA then they can apply for consideration for conference space. If you want to know if they are doing that you should ask your editor.
 

dragonjax

I write stuff and break boards.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
3,421
Reaction score
370
Age
53
Location
New Yawk
Website
www.jackiekessler.com
There was another message from the Board as everyone is asking about HQ. It basically says that if HQ are not using their rejection letters to forward people to DA then they can apply for consideration for conference space. If you want to know if they are doing that you should ask your editor.

Frankly, this isn't good enough for me. Harlequin publicly said, on December 4, 2009, in the open letter to MWA, that it intends to refer authors to DAP via its form-letter (i.e., "template") rejection letters.

Harlequin needs to publicly come out and say whether this is changing. Because as of right now, it's still out there. Until it officially takes this off the table, this is the direction of things to come.

And when that happens -- that is, when Harlequin says it won't refer rejected authors to DAP -- I promise to stand up and cheer. Loudly.

As for RWA, I hugely hope this won't lapse into a publishing version of Don't Ask Don't Tell. RWA needs to find out which imprints are using the referrals in its form-letter rejections and take the necessary action.

Come on, RWA. I'm rooting for you. You, too, Harlequin. Do the right thing. Please.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.