DellArte Press (formerly Harlequin Horizons)

IceCreamEmpress said:

Have they done that? By which I mean, are Nelson credits still acceptable where HQ credits aren't? Or were Nelson credits not included in the first place?

I ask these questions because I can't find the list of qualifying publishers on the very-confusing RWA site.

Click to expand...

I believe that RWA took the list of qualifying publishers behind the password wall in 2006. Thomas Nelson was listed as a qualifying publisher in 2005.

Color me confused. I checked the contact info for Harlequin Horizons and the physical address is Author Solutions, the phone numbers are all for Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana. Bloomington is the home base for Author Solutions and they also have offices in Indianapolis--what part is Harlequin really playing other than farming out people they do not wish to publish?

How is this really a Harlequin venture? It seems to me that they (IMHO) foolishly attached their name to this venture. That they, in reality, are just a step above affiliates. AS gets to use their name, use their reject pile, and website for advertisement but all of the work goes through AS.

I think this is what is bothering me--people keep talking about this as if it is purely Harlequin and something Harlequin really has "control" over. It would be one thing if Harlequin was setting up its own vanity publisher or self publishing wing/imprint/branch, but this is not the case.

Harlequin is getting in bed with an existing entity and allowing that entity to wear its clothing. I see the Harlequin people talking about this development as if it is their own venture, when in reality they are little more than pimps and mouthpieces.

Dazzlepuff said:

Color me confused. I checked the contact info for Harlequin Horizons and the physical address is Author Solutions, the phone numbers are all for Bloomington and Indianapolis, Indiana. Bloomington is the home base for Author Solutions and they also have offices in Indianapolis--what part is Harlequin really playing other than farming out people they do not wish to publish?

How is this really a Harlequin venture? It seems to me that they (IMHO) foolishly attached their name to this venture. That they, in reality, are just a step above affiliates. AS gets to use their name, use their reject pile, and website for advertisement but all of the work goes through AS.

I think this is what is bothering me--people keep talking about this as if it is purely Harlequin and something Harlequin really has "control" over. It would be one thing if Harlequin was setting up its own vanity publisher or self publishing wing/imprint/branch, but this is not the case.

Harlequin is getting in bed with an existing entity and allowing that entity to wear its clothing. I see the Harlequin people talking about this development as if it is their own venture, when in reality they are little more than pimps and mouthpieces.

Click to expand...

I think people's take on it is pretty accurate. Harlequin's new venture IS pimping.

They had control. It was their choice. No one twisted their arm and forced them that I've heard.

They don't do the actual printing but who cares? What kind of control is that? It's really irrelevant who answers the phone or puts the check in the bank for Harlequin to take its cut, it seems to me.

There are several disturbing things about this - the deceptive adverstising, lying by omission - but on a personal level, I find the "author facing brand" to be the sleaziest.

How is using the HQ name (and HQ hasn't taken the name off yet) to sell the vanity package, neglecting to mention that you won't really be a HQ author, not deceptive? It's like demanding entrance fee for passing through a facade. The other side is still outside, only without the shiny paint and less the money.

Also, how HQ will stop those authors from calling themselves Harlequin Authors is anybody's guess. And why shouldn't they call themselves that? They have, after all, paid good money for it.

Dazzlepuff said:

How is this really a Harlequin venture? It seems to me that they (IMHO) foolishly attached their name to this venture. That they, in reality, are just a step above affiliates. AS gets to use their name, use their reject pile, and website for advertisement but all of the work goes through AS.

Click to expand...

In its FAQ, Harlequin said the only two things it was doing in this venture was lending its brand -- but author-facing only, so no "Harlequin" name on the actual book -- and promoting it in its rejection letters and on its website. Everything about the venue -- the actual printing and the services offered -- are through Author Solutions.

And now Harlequin will be removing its name from the venue. So I guess the only thing HQ will be doing is steering the unsuspecting toward Horizons. Oh, and endorsing all the checks that it collects from authors who really believe that paying thousands of dollars to get their book printed -- and then to let Harlequin take an additional profit -- is the way to break into publishing.

I'm a member of RWA, so I just checked the list of eligible publishers on its members-only portion of the website.

Both Harlequin and Thomas Nelson are no longer mentioned in two of the three places where eligible publishers are listed.

They are both still listed in the third place, however. I just emailed the RWA Board to urge them to correct this oversight immediately.

Reading, reading, reading. Points to be noted as an aspiring writer/author. I would never self-publish or vanity publish a book.

There is success in this venue for genre specific authors, generally non fiction and/or spiritual. The self-published author already has an audience willing to listen to the fine virtues of their "published" material and it is ready to be sold at the end of the meeting/conference/church event.

Several members of my writing group have self-published and their books are not being read or purchased. They did not go through the pitch process to sell their manuscript nor seek out the support of a LA. For me personally this is not a "published" book.

From a retail point of view, being a bookseller since I was 12 and now am 40, self-published and vanity press books do not sell. I promoted them in our shop and the authors would have book signings which did nothing but waste their time. The public for the most part is not interested in a self published novel. I believe the general concept is there is something lacking in the self published book.

Harlequin is the latest publishers to jump on the vanity bandwagon. As long as they are not promoting their vanity press with their rejection letters I say let them eat cake. Promotion of their vanity press from my POV is false advertisting when combined with rejection letters. Other than that, they can throw in with the rest, sink or swim.

I'm not a RWA member, but I have heard that many RWA members have expressed concern that HQ and Thomas Nelson are still listed as eligible on the 2010 Rita awards. The eligibility for the awards was determined back in September and only applies to books already published, so that hasn't been changed.

Dazzlepuff, try comparing the Authorhouse site to the HQHo site. It's obviously a clone. Authorhouse has been offering sleazy publishers and agents a cut of anything referred to them for years, so presumably this is just a bigger cut in exchange for the HQ name. Except that HQ says they're pulling the name. Hmm.

Shamrockgreen said:

As long as they are not promoting their vanity press with their rejection letters I say let them eat cake. Promotion of their vanity press from my POV is false advertisting when combined with rejection letters. Other than that, they can throw in with the rest, sink or swim.

Click to expand...

I wish I could find the link where I saw this letter, but it looks like Harlequin is going to do just that. I believe it was in the letter they sent to their authors, and if anyone else has read that (and remembers where the heck they saw it because I'm failing miserably here) they should post the link.

That was on Jackie Kessler's (dragonjax's) site. I was just reading it and closed the tab when I finished, but I'll try to find it.

Edit: http://www.jackiekessler.com/blog/2009/11/20/the-day-after-harlequin-blinks/

I went ahead and informed my agent that I won't sign any contracts with any Harlequin imprints as long as this vanity mill exists so she doesn't waste her time submitting my book to them.

Sevvy said:

I wish I could find the link where I saw this letter, but it looks like Harlequin is going to do just that. I believe it was in the letter they sent to their authors, and if anyone else has read that (and remembers where the heck they saw it because I'm failing miserably here) they should post the link.

Click to expand...

You may mean this one. So far as I know that's the only one they've sent out.

However, go here and Search for "Malle" to read official Harlequin comments on the rejection letter pitch from Malle Vallik.

Sevvy said:

I wish I could find the link where I saw this letter, but it looks like Harlequin is going to do just that. I believe it was in the letter they sent to their authors, and if anyone else has read that (and remembers where the heck they saw it because I'm failing miserably here) they should post the link.

Click to expand...

Malle (speaking for HQ) stated as much over on Smart Bithches:

Sure! There will be a line about Harlequin Horizons as a self-publishing option on standard rejection letters with an option to opt-in via website.

Click to expand...

You'll have to scroll down to last half of the page.

ChristineR said:

I'm not a RWA member, but I have heard that many RWA members have expressed concern that HQ and Thomas Nelson are still listed as eligible on the 2010 Rita awards. The eligibility for the awards was determined back in September and only applies to books already published, so that hasn't been changed.

Click to expand...

Christine, I confirmed with one of the RWA Board members that yes, Harlequin and Thomas Nelson books are eligible for entry in the 2010 Rita Awards because both publishers were considered eligible when the contest opened.

dragonjax said:

Christine, I confirmed with one of the RWA Board members that yes, Harlequin and Thomas Nelson books are eligible for entry in the 2010 Rita Awards because both publishers were considered eligible when the contest opened.

Click to expand...

That actually makes sense because the books eligible for 2010 would have been published in 2009, and maybe even before, prior to the time the two companies opened up self... vanity wings. (Vanity wings sound like something a conceited faery might wear. Or a conceited angel if we're going to include Thomas Nelson. Although I guess angels shouldn't be conceited, should they?)

I blogged about this on the All About Romance news blog and included links to AW, Writer Beware, etc. I will add updates (in commons or on the blog entry itself) as the worm turns. I hope I didn't make any silly mistakes.

ChristineR said:

Dazzlepuff, try comparing the Authorhouse site to the HQHo site. It's obviously a clone. Authorhouse has been offering sleazy publishers and agents a cut of anything referred to them for years, so presumably this is just a bigger cut in exchange for the HQ name. Except that HQ says they're pulling the name. Hmm.

Click to expand...

Um, I had compared sites. Actually, um I am VERY familiar with AS and their shenanigans at a more personal level. (Not as an author mind you).

To be clear. my confusion was over the number of posts here there and everywhere I had seen on the web by other people missing the point that Harlequin would have little to do with the vanity press itself. Some people actually believe that Harlequin Horizons means that Harlequin will help them publish their book for a fee.

My confusion was over how Harlequin could call this "venture" keeping up with the times as to me, this is clearly not self publishing. Reading between the lines, I read the Harlequin statement about RWA and the name change as basically saying that AS is the wave of the future...which is even more disturbing then the deceptive and unethical partnership itself.

As a historian I find that statement rather problematic and disturbing. I also found it to be rather uneducated (by this I am talking about AS versus self publishing).

If Harlequin truly believes that vanity publishing is the wave of the future, then why didn't they open their own operation?

My person take is this--if Harlequin does decide to keep whoring people to AS then they just lost one customer.

Since yesterday, I haven't see any ads linking to HH in the HQ site, and they were everywhere.

I guess they're waiting for the new name to post the banners again.

Yes that is my cynical thought as well.

What I really don't understand with Harlequin is why didn't they set up something in house? Surely something in-house would earn them way more money than this shotgun marriage with ASI?

Thinking about it if Torstar/Harlequin set up a print on demand company - like LS but also allow individuals to use the service. They could run their backlist through it - I know there are people who pay extortionate prices on ebay and the like just to get a copy of a particular books. So I'm sure some people would be willing to pay more to get a copy of favourite author's book. Also they would get individuals who want like five copies of something to give to friends and family. I'm sure they would get more repeat business than the assisted self publishing outfit. The problem with HQHo & ASI is you constantly need to find new suckers customers because only 20% of your customers use you again.

dragonjax said:

Both Harlequin and Thomas Nelson are no longer mentioned in two of the three places where eligible publishers are listed.

Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for checking.

- Victoria

Dazzlepuff said:

Some people actually believe that Harlequin Horizons means that Harlequin will help them publish their book for a fee.

Click to expand...

And that's exactly what Harlequin wants them to think.

Why else plaster the Harlequin name on this venture but not Carina? Because they want to lure in authors who will not find out until after they've emptied their wallets that Harlequin's involvement goes no further than funneling them into Author Solutions's clutches and raking in their cut.

victoriastrauss said:

I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for checking.

- Victoria

Click to expand...

You're welcome, Victoria. HQ and TN are still listed in one place; however, it was explained to me that the listing there is only because both HQ and TN are eligible for the 2010 Rita awards (which makes sense, since the awards are for books published in 2009, and the two were no longer eligible publishers in 11/09). The Board is aware that the wording needs to be tweaked so that it's very clear HQ and TN are no longer eligible publishers.

But I don't see that anyone should be less upset over Thomas Nelson. It's the exact same thing. I'd like to see the indignation focused on this phenomenon (commercial publishers starting vanity divisions) wherever it occurs--not selectively, as seems to be happening now. And you have to admit it would be inconsistent for RWA to de-list Harlequin for opening a vanity division, and let Nelson slide. (Agreed Victoria)


As soon as it was pointed out to me, I was as angry at TN as HQ. Both deserve the flack they are now getting and TN needs the same things smacked on it's head as HQ had with writer organizations. Unless I mis-read the blog - http://ow.ly/EdK4
for the TN thing they are doing the EXACT same thing with referrals and the whole shebang. They just were more deceptive with the name. And in some ways I find it worse for TN because they are a "Christian" publisher they should to some extent have more values and ethics in their business practices than secular models. (Yes, folks will disagree but that's just my opinion on that)

As to scam argument - I had this debate 9 years ago shortly after I made the horrible decision to sign with PA. I don't like what PA did for me but I made that choice. I don't for one second agree with PA nor would I send them my current WIP. But if your going to brand PA a scam then you have to see the Ponzi scam of HQ and TN. Because what they are doing is the EXACT same business practices only charging you an arm and a leg for the novel. So if your going to excuse them because they have a name then head on over to the PA thread and start excusing them as well. If you sanction one you are in essence, sanctioning all. Perhaps PA was just too ahead of it's time for people's comfort. (No I don't agree, I think PA is a scam to a new author. And I will gladly shout from the rooftops that these companies are joining that end of the pond!) All I'm saying is you can't condemn one and then applaud others for same thing. And on another side note, there was less information years ago than there is today. So I want to believe in my heart that less people go to PA now than did 5 years ago before all the talk.

The proof with this entire logic is in the pudding so to speak. Look at the referenced blog by TN and look at the lady who says, I used West and I want to know if I use them again what is worth 80% and the answer she was given was "fielded" off as he wasn't involved in that part of the business and couldn't give her an answer. That is the biggest problem of this entire situation. I found the same deceptiveness and vague answers when I read the representative's answers on Dear Author and Smart Bitches. Certain questions are completely ignored. Others are given half answers. Or deflected completely.

-Made my account here finally after lurking on boards on occassion because when it comes to this entire mess I can't seem to shut up. Perhaps it is because I DID sign with PA and even though my contract is long expired, I was shocked to find I'm in hardcover now and still sold. So my experience with them - that cost me NOTHING - has me reeling to see the direction traditional, reputable publishers are going due to "evolution".

Katybug273 said:

-Made my account here finally after lurking on boards on occassion because when it comes to this entire mess I can't seem to shut up. Perhaps it is because I DID sign with PA and even though my contract is long expired, I was shocked to find I'm in hardcover now and still sold. So my experience with them - that cost me NOTHING - has me reeling to see the direction traditional, reputable publishers are going due to "evolution".

Click to expand...

If your contract expired and PA is selling your book, you probably have a case against them that can gain you punitive damages since PA's early contracts required that authors register their copyrights. You should check over the contract and see if it's truly expired or that rights were reverted. If so, take them to court.

Does anyone know if rejectees from the e-lines and Carina Press will also be getting shunted to the vanity division?

para said:

What I really don't understand with Harlequin is why didn't they set up something in house? Surely something in-house would earn them way more money than this shotgun marriage with ASI?

Click to expand...

I'm certain that it was sold to them as a turn-key operation, new revenue stream, profits begin on the first day, no impact on personnel or operations, monetize the slushpile. Just add one line to your standard rejection letter and we do the rest. Wave of the future, win-win, ground floor, market leader, world's largest!

I need to do that then because I haven't received any communication from them in almost 5 years and the contract expired a year and a half ago. I didn't go through any of the nightmare to pull the contract early because I figured it was a lesson learned the hard way but it burns my britches that it's still for sale and they can't even contact me with royalty information. And in hardcover no less! Especially since I know that there have been a handful of sales since they quit contacting.