Comments on: Blurring the lines

By: Carla Swafford

Carla Swafford — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:27:14 +0000

Thanks for the update. I'm glad to hear they're changing the name. But like you said, what about the conflict of interest? Even more of a reason for authors to join organizations like the RWA. Forewarned is forearmed.

By: MaureenHume

MaureenHume — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:45:05 +0000

Please excuse typos in my previous comment…I'm blaming my new keyboard

By: Maureen

Maureen — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:41:54 +0000

Am I missing something (always possible)? Harlequin rejects a book from its traditional publishing then in the rejection letter offers a self publishing option. From an authors point of view that seems extremely manipulative. Unpublished arthors often don't know the real ins an outs of the industry and are likely to be sucked in my the offer. It gives validation to authors who need more skill and puts trash on the market.
Maureen. http://www.thepizzagang.com

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:16:49 +0000

...the books will have their own HH branding.

You know what else has HH branding? Harlequin Historical, one of Harlequin's (for lack of a better word) "legitimate" lines. And this has already caused a problem: a piece in the New Yorker used a Harlequin Historical cover to talk about Harlequin Horizons.

By: Bill Peschel

Bill Peschel — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:04:14 +0000

The reaction from the Romance Writers of America was swift. They delisted Harlequin from their list of approved publishers. That means it can't participate in its conventions as an approved publisher; it'll have to pay its way if it wants.

Their authors, as I understand it, would be grandfathered into the organization, so they should be fine.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:46 +0000

In every business spectrum there are bottom feeders, and from their perspective I completely understand their move and this it's what they had to do. I don't think it's anything good for the writer, but there are chasms now open in publishing-or you may want to call it a growth spurt-that have to be respected. No one thought a car would change the method of transportation and the internet and digital rights are now the car. In a way, it's forcing peolpe to see that this stuff has to be dealt with and there better be a fair shake for the author in it, too. I just hope that when all the dust settles writers can actually get paid what they're worth.

By: Kim Batchelor

Kim Batchelor — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:59:30 +0000

My sister writes for Harlequin and I wonder if there will be any affect on her if, say, her sales drop for a book or two. Would she be "nudged" into the self-publishing side? Her sales are generally healthy and she has an agent, which would probably make this unlikely, but what about other more vulnerable writers?

By: Colette

Colette — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:44:07 +0000

It's interesting to see that there is a lot of reaction from authors and agents. I wonder though if the readers will care (or even notice).

By: DGLM

DGLM — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:25:48 +0000

Andrew - Not sure about the first two questions. I'm very curious myself.

To your point, though, I think the downside is that they're hurting their reputation with this seeming conflict of interest.

Mary - Your point is very well taken.

- Michael

By: Mary Witzl

Mary Witzl — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:15:52 +0000

From the would-be Harlequin authors' point of view, this sounds like insult to injury. They're not good enough to be Harlequins, but their money is good enough to make them confederate Harlequin authors…? The awful truth is that some people will probably be desperate enough to go along with this.