Echelon Press

*Sigh*

Okay, I can see that this discussion is more about winning than it is understanding. Was I really that unclear?

Of course an agented author has a better chance anywhere--regardless of publishing history. That wasn't part of the equation however. Not all category romance authors have long histories with their publisher--but that is completely beside the point.

Just because someone is published with a smaller house doesn't mean they don't have an agent. In fact--some landed agents BECAUSE they were published with a smaller house. So why the assumption that the category author would have an agent (when many don't) and a small press author wouldn't?

Agent or no agent, history or no history, if an author queries a manuscript the house doesn't want to publish, one that doesn't fit their needs or correctly mold to their parameters, that book will not be published with that house.

And believe it or not, it IS a well known fact that authors previously published within one imprint will often have to 'audition' for another line. Their books aren't accepted sight unseen, storyline unknown.

In the end, I sincerely hope that no one here is suggesting it is better to not be published at all than it is to go with a respected and reputable small publisher. Or that if one has multiple books with a respected and reuptable small publisher it won't do the author any good on their resume.

Jenny

JRTurner said:

In the end, I sincerely hope that no one here is suggesting it is better to not be published at all than it is to go with a respected and reputable small publisher. Or that if one has multiple books with a respected and reuptable small publisher it won't do the author any good on their resume.

Jenny

Click to expand...

I think maybe we're doing a lot of talking, but not necessarily seeing it from the other pov. Or just a case of different viewpoints. Probably the latter

You'll find that no one here is opposed to small presses, at all. But what has seemed to stand out to me since I've been here is that there have been A LOT of small presses that have come and gone throughout the industry. So people tend to be a little more critical of a small press than a medium or large one. It's not so much a matter of being against them as making sure they are one of those small publishers who actually do make it in the industry. That's the impression I've always gotten around here, anyway and the only reason that stands out to me as to why small presses are so questioned. Many folks here have great experience in publishing; they know what to look for in determining what's good and what's bad. Ultimately folks just want to make sure what Echelon's doing is good. And we seem to have gotten sidetracked on the risks of publishers or imprints going under

Of course going with a reputable small press is better than not being published (um, as witness my 15 novellas and three novels all with small presses). But it is equally clear that going with a reputable large press is better (in most measurable ways) than going with a small press. I think both points need to be accepted in full rather than just one or just the other.

JRTurner said:

Harlequin Intrigue folds. A writer with them is now on the hunt for a new imprint/publisher. They target Silhouette Intimate Moments (SIM) as their next imprint/publisher.

Echelon press folds. I target SIM as my next imprint/publisher.

Silhouette Intimate Moments receives both queries on the same day. One of the queries is the exact story they were looking for to round out their fall releases.

Can you tell which one of us got the contract?

Click to expand...

All other things being equal, Harlequin/Mills & Boon editors would give a leg up to an author who had already published with the parent company. Having already had the experience of working with one H/M&B line is considered an advantage when you're submitting to a different line.

Of course, no two queries are equal: if the editor liked the query from the person who had never published with H/M&B before more than the one from the H/M&B author, she'd choose the new author's query.

But having published previously with another H/M&B line gives writers more cred there than having published previously with an unrelated small press. Having published previously with an unrelated small press may give writers more cred than never having published before, but not as much as having published with H/M&B before.

IceCreamEmpress said:

Of course, no two queries are equal: if the editor liked the query from the person who had never published with H/M&B before more than the one from the H/M&B author, she'd choose the new author's query.

Click to expand...

Exactly the point.

Thank you.

All this talk about how worse off someone is if their small publisher folds is useless worry.

The only thing that matters is the author's reputation and having the right book at the right time in the right place.

The rest vascillates so much (agent-no agent, sales record--no sales record, previous history-no previous history, an editor on your side-one that hates your writing-no editor at all) that we can do nothing but speculate here.

My point is still made.

It is better to be published with a small reputable press than with a publisher who is 'black listed' or not at all.

Offering no-brainers like being published with a major house is better doesn't change anything here.

I've agreed with every point made--yet none has contradicted the point I've made at all, but somehow I get the impression there are those who think I'm arguing with them.

I'm not.

I'm saying something completely different than what others are arguing.

For example:

1) I have stated plainly that authors with an agent will have a leg up.

2) I have stated plainly that it's better to be published with a larger house.

3) I have stated plainly that inside connections and a history with a publisher will give that author a leg up.

4) I have stated plainly that those who have published with a larger house will have a stronger resume.

All I've asked for is understanding--not agreement.

At this point, I'm willing to retract my request and simply be finished with this. I don't want my frustrations about failing to be clear to bring negativity to an Echelon thread. The company and the people who are a part of it work too hard for something I say to diminish that effort.

Thank you all for your input.

Jenny

That is where we continue to disagree. People who went with Triskelion (reputable at the time) might have found that kind of worry rather useful--because the problems continue even thought that small press has been closed for months. That and the other 20 small romance publishers that closed int eh last 10 years whilst no large romance press, to my knowledge, folded in the same period.

veinglory said:

That is where we continue to disagree. People who went with Triskelion (reputable at the time) might have found that kind of worry rather useful--because the problems continue even thought that small press has been closed for months. That and the other 20 small romance publishers that closed int eh last 10 years whilst no large romance press, to my knowledge, folded in the same period.

Click to expand...

You're confusing me.

You wrote earlier:

"Of course going with a reputable small press is better than not being published..."

And now you're saying that people shouldn't go with a reputable small press?


Jenny

I think that maybe where we differ is in our definition of a reputable small press--by which I mean not a small press that abides by its contract terms and does not screw its authors, but a small press that is generally recognized as a professional publishing credit. In my opinion--and I truly don't mean to cause offense by saying this--this is an open question with publishers like Echelon, and probably would be decided on a case by case basis (i.e., some big-house editors might feel it was a foot in the door, but others might not).

- Victoria

I followed that with second sentence and said both were equally important. So I see no basis for confusion. i.e. "But it is equally clear that going with a reputable large press is better (in most measurable ways) than going with a small press. "

I have no real opinion about Echelon but I do find it confusing that small and large press would be considered equally safe and equally profitable when they clearly aren't. I feel what is confusing is equating "better than nothing" with "as good as Harlequin" when the lmngevity and earning power of a Harlequin are empirically known and better than Echelon--albeit that Echelon is better than nothing on both counts (and indeed quite impressive on the scale of a small press).

victoriastrauss said:

I think that maybe where we differ is in our definition of a reputable small press--by which I mean not a small press that abides by its contract terms and does not screw its authors, but a small press that is generally recognized as a professional publishing credit. In my opinion--and I truly don't mean to cause offense by saying this--this is an open question with publishers like Echelon, and probably would be decided on a case by case basis (i.e., some big-house editors might feel it was a foot in the door, but others might not).

- Victoria

Click to expand...

Huh?

Now I'm really confused.

You say you disagree with me...

Can you show me where I stated that big-house editors offer small press authors a foot in the door?

Jenny

When you said a small and large/in house press previous publication would be given the same weight.

veinglory said:

I followed that with second sentence and said both were equally important. So I see no basis for confusion. i.e. "But it is equally clear that going with a reputable large press is better (in most measurable ways) than going with a small press. "

I have no real opinion about Echelon but I do find it confusing that small and large press would be considered equally safe and equally profitable when they clearly aren't.

Click to expand...

What?

Is there something missing here?

Can you show me where I said that a small press is equally safe and profitable as a large press?

Did you not see where I stated that a large press is safer and profitable than a small press (at least) twice now?

Jenny

veinglory said:

When you said a small and large/in house press previous publication would be given the same weight.

Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

I never said that.

Please quote me.

Jenny

JRTurner said:

Can you show me where I stated that big-house editors offer small press authors a foot in the door?

Click to expand...

No, I can't. I don't think you did say that. Nor do I think I said you did. I was just pointing out that as far as establishing a professional publishing track record, not all small presses are equal. Which seemed relevant to the issue of whether a big-press author whose imprint folds is in the same position as a small press author whose publisher folds.

- Victoria

victoriastrauss said:

No, I can't. I don't think you did say that. Nor do I think I said you did.

Click to expand...

So when I was confused about what you disagreed with me on and asked for clarification...

You responded with a disagreement about an argument you didn't think I made?

I was just pointing out that as far as establishing a professional publishing track record, not all small presses are equal. Which seemed relevant to the issue of whether a big-press author whose imprint folds is in the same position as a small press author whose publisher folds.

- Victoria

Click to expand...

And you believe I've made statements opposite to the above?

I believe I've mentioned more than once that an author needs to protect their reputation and choose carefully which house(s) they want to be associated with.

Isn't what you're saying above simply a reiteration of a point I already made?

And if it is, then why do you believe we're in disagreement?

Jenny

I think what it is is that some are under the impression that someone who's published by a large house's imprint and someone else who was published by a small house where both have folded are on even playing ground. Victoria is saying that's not necessarily the case, since not all small houses are considered stepping stones and even that differs from agent to agent (and publisher to publisher). On a lot of other points it seems everyone's pretty much in agreement, it's just that everyone says it differently.

M.R.J. Le Blanc said:

I think what it is is that some are under the impression that someone who's published by a large house's imprint and someone else who was published by a small house where both have folded are on even playing ground.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they were on an even playing ground.

I said that they were in the same position in that they both had to find new homes.

I said that whatever book they wrote to gain that new home would be measured on its quality and appropriateness for the house.

I said that no amount of publishing history or lack thereof, or agent or lack thereof, would make the wrong book right for a publisher.

Is there anything in the above you disagree with?

Victoria is saying that's not necessarily the case, since not all small houses are considered stepping stones and even that differs from agent to agent (and publisher to publisher). On a lot of other points it seems everyone's pretty much in agreement, it's just that everyone says it differently.

Click to expand...

Y'know, maybe a lot of confusion would be avoided if people would check to make sure what they're disagreeing with was actually offered up for argument.

If you say, "Dark chocolate is an antioxidant."

And I say, "No, I disagree. Hamburgers are fattening." We're going to get nowhere fast.

Jenny

JRTurner said:

I didn't say they were on an even playing ground.

I said that they were in the same position in that they both had to find new homes.

I said that whatever book they wrote to gain that new home would be measured on its quality and appropriateness for the house.

I said that no amount of publishing history or lack thereof, or agent or lack thereof, would make the wrong book right for a publisher.

Is there anything in the above you disagree with?

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with everything here you're saying. The only thing I don't 100% agree with is your third statement, since what Victoria and others seem to be saying is that in some cases someone published by a company's imprint would have an advantage over someone printed by a small press. I think we can all pretty much agree that in the publishing world, there are few absolutes In a way, I'd say you're both right.

JRTurner said:

Y'know, maybe a lot of confusion would be avoided if people would check to make sure what they're disagreeing with was actually offered up for argument.

If you say, "Dark chocolate is an antioxidant."

And I say, "No, I disagree. Hamburgers are fattening." We're going to get nowhere fast.

Jenny

Click to expand...

Very true. Maybe we're all just getting too hung up on specifics and hypothetical situations. Bottom line, I guess what probably should be pointed out is that one just needs to have a lot more scrutiny with regards to a small house, and perhaps pay a little more attention to their overall standing in the industry. Echelon may very well be a great publisher, there are just some elements that make some of the more seasoned members here a little unsure about its future. That doesn't automatically translate to bad publisher, just that extra caution is needed.

JRTurner said:

And you believe I've made statements opposite to the above?

Click to expand...

No. I wasn't talking about you at all. As before, it's a big leap from what I actually said to this interpretation.

Jenny, it seems to me that you keep changing the ground of the discussion with these personal challenges. Twice now, you've read meanings into my words that I didn't intend, and honestly don't thinnk were there. I think this could be an interesting discussion, but I don't want to have to keep defining my words or explaining that I don't believe what you suspect me of believing.

- Victoria

Except that I don't feel very many people in this discussion are actually confused... except when their words get turned around of selectively quoted.

One question editors will ask, when picking up a previously-published author is, "Does this person have a fan base? If so, how large?"

Unimportant said:

James, how large is large enough?

Click to expand...

That probably changes from day to day, and has a large component of sell-through.

M.R.J. Le Blanc said:

I pretty much agree with everything here you're saying. The only thing I don't 100% agree with is your third statement, since what Victoria and others seem to be saying is that in some cases someone published by a company's imprint would have an advantage over someone printed by a small press. I think we can all pretty much agree that in the publishing world, there are few absolutes In a way, I'd say you're both right.

Click to expand...

*sigh*

Please try to understand my frustration here.

I don't believe that a small press author's resume will be equal to that of a large press author. I do believe that a large press author published by that company's imprint will have a leg up over the small press author.

I have never said any different.

I have been accused of saying different.

And now others are believing that I've said different based on that accusation when I've repeatedly made it clear I am not.

You are disagreeing with me based on something I didn't say.

That is frustrating.

I don't particularly like the position of having to defend myself against false accusations and have tried my best to handle it politely. I expected a simple, enjoyable discussion-not a battle.

How in the world does saying no amount of credentials will make the wrong book right for a publisher suddenly translate into meaning all resumes are equally alike, all writers are exactly equal, or all industry connections are equal?

Very true. Maybe we're all just getting too hung up on specifics and hypothetical situations. Bottom line, I guess what probably should be pointed out is that one just needs to have a lot more scrutiny with regards to a small house, and perhaps pay a little more attention to their overall standing in the industry.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I stated in the beginning. Exactly what I said when an author needs to be careful about who they choose to be affiliated with. Exactly what I meant when I stated authorss need to make informed choices. Exactly why I'm so confused about why people are disagreeing with me by reiterating the same thing I stated.

Echelon may very well be a great publisher, there are just some elements that make some of the more seasoned members here a little unsure about its future. That doesn't automatically translate to bad publisher, just that extra caution is needed.

Click to expand...

Ahhhh, I see. You think because I'm new to Absolute Write that I'm new to the industry. I've been around for 10 years now, so it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about. I too believe that extra caution is needed when deciding to use a company you're unfamiliar with.

We've all agreed that it's better to go with a reputable small press (which Echelon is--I've seen it first hand) than it is to not be published at all.

Personally, I don't believe that we should make choices based on fears about the unknown future but choose based on the realities of the present.

Like buying a house--find out if it's in a floodzone, have it inspected, know the longevity of the heating and cooling system, etc.

No one would refuse to buy a solid home because they feared that one day, a tornado might come along and destroy it. If that were the case, Oklahoma and Kansas would be void of human life.

Which goes back to my point about 'crap happens' --no matter where you're published.

I carry this little saying from a fortune cookie around in my wallet, it reads: Don't be pushed by your problems, be led by your dreams.

So to me, if you've done your homework, if you've dedicated yourself to becoming the best writer you can be and dilligently improve your craft, if you've taken the time to learn the industry and make informed choices today--fearing what may or may not happen years in the future is a useless worry.

Worry about having all your eggs in one basket.

Worry about becoming stale as an author.

Worry about how you can write quality books that are publishable.

Worry about moving upward and strengthening your name.

Those are legitimate worries becuase they are based on what a person has power over--not on whether or not an act of God is going to leave you homeless.

Jenny