Comments on: Vanity, Thy Name is Harlequin

By: SueG

SueG — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:22:44 +0000

Changing the name really doesn’t change what Harlequin is doing. The name has changed but the song remains the same!!

By: Mary Stella

Mary Stella — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:11:27 +0000

That’s why it’s so wonderful that the writers organizations are saying, “Nope.” Especially RWA because a huge percentage of its membership are HQ authors. That took guts. I am really proud to belong to that organization.

Me, too. I’m really proud of the Board. Jenny, you and I have both been on the RWA Board. We know what it’s like to sit there and have to make tough decisions. I wasn’t published at the time of my service, so I never faced having to make a decision against my own publishing house. Like you said, it took guts!

By the way, Harlequin has already changed the name of the vanity press from Harlequin Horizons to DellArte.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:39:29 +0000

You said something to my QUT masters cohort about the Harlequin morals clause and it made me glad I was rejected by HQN. The Harlequin Horizons debacle make me doubly glad. Cheers to you and RWA.

By: Kay T

Kay T — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:06:27 +0000

Well, I am hoping things may change by next year (i.e., Harlequin will do more than remove their name from the enterprise).

By: Carol Anne

Carol Anne — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:54:38 +0000

Thanks, would not want my favourite books altered. Unfortunately, self-interest and questionable decisions causes distress to the masses. The current state of the economy has left many in very dire straits. Bob’s blog has a lively debate and/or discussion going on. Just emerging as an author, this is all very educational. Education is good. Thanks, again, I appreciate it.

By: Diane (TT)

Diane (TT) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:29:25 +0000

Off-Topic: Congrats on the Cover Art Award to Mara and to you for having it on your excellent book!

By: TerriO

TerriO — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:25:54 +0000

There are a lot of details here about HQ business practices that I’d never heard before, so thanks for sharing. I’ve been following this kerfluffle since last week and admit a fascination with the whole thing. But what I wonder is if this will have any effect on HQ sales. Do readers know or even care about this?

I feel bad for all the authors caught in this mess. I know someone who has been over the moon excited about her debut book hitting shelves in January and looking forward to all the fun of next years RWA National conference. Practically overnight, all that excitement was taking away.

By: Flamingo Cherry

Flamingo Cherry — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:00:04 +0000

My understanding is that for the current contest, writers with a book with Harlequin are still eligible for the RITA, because RWA had already started taking submissions prior to the brou-ha-ha. However, the non-eligible status will be in effect for next year’s RITA unless something changes before they start taking submissions next year.

By: lady t

lady t — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:31:12 +0000

Thanks for the link to Jackie’s blog. You both have really explained the situation very well and I appreciate it. Very sad situation for Harlequin authors. Glad RWA and others are standing up for authors’ rights/protection though.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:58:14 +0000

An artist’s moral right to his or her work has nothing to do with morals, per se. It means that the work cannot be altered and still displayed or published as his or her work. If you paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa, you can’t claim that DaVinci put it there. That violates his moral right to his work. The HG morals rights clause gave the moral right in the work to Harlequin instead of to the writer so that the company could change anything they wanted in the book and still claim it was the author’s work. I said, “No.” Actually what I said was unprintable and ended with something along the lines of “see you in hell first.” They wouldn’t change the contract, I wouldn’t sign, we parted company.

It has nothing to do with the copyright which is mine, I believe, until fifty years after my death. Which means it’ll be Mollie’s for fifty years after I die. What the publisher buys is the right to print the work, and as long as they keep the books in print, the keep that right. Most contracts have a reversion clause in them that says if the publisher doesn’t publish the work within a certain time frame–usually seven years–the printing rights revert back to the author, but that’s not copyright.
I really don’t think publishers want to screw authors. I think they want to negotiate the best deal possible for their bottom line, which is just smart business practice. I’ve never had a publisher, including HQ, that I felt was out to get me. They just get blinded by their own self-interest and make really dumb decisions sometimes.

By: Kay T

Kay T — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:54:50 +0000

This makes my stomach hurt! I only recently realized that to win the RITA you had to be published by an RWA “recognized” publisher. Meaning that ALL Harlequin books and authors are presumably no longer eligible for any RWA contest, etc. Wow. I agree with the decision, but it sure points up the incredible monopoly that Harlequin wields in this industry right now – there is NO OTHER category publisher. Hmmm… No wonder Harlequin thought they could do whatever they wanted.

By: Carol Anne

Carol Anne — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:24:43 +0000

Question: Moral Rights clause? You had to write within moral parameters? Similar to the movie censors who mandate what could and could not be intimated, written, or filmed? Could they have associated your name to a work which would not have had the integrity of the work you wrote or, perhaps, sliced and diced your work, putting your name to it, without your consent? I assumed your work would be your work until the copyright runs out. Would they not have to renegotiate with you at the end of a copyright? EG: 10 / 12 / 15 yrs. If you say no to renegotiations, doesn’t the copyright revert back to you if you state your request in writing? (Guess this is not on subject of vanity press, but, it caught my eye. And, Bob stated on his blog, the publishers do nothing to help first time authors become best sellers. From the blogs and comments around NA, it sounds like the publisher wants to screw the authors and there will be no smile on the author’s face.)

By: Jackie

Jackie — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:23:26 +0000

My thought exactly. I can’t wait until those authors find better publishers so we can actually read their work – and they can get paid for it as well.

By: London Mabel

London Mabel — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:16:08 +0000

(That being said… what they’re doing is just awful. Blehhh!)

By: SueG

SueG — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:50:14 +0000

I don’t work for a large corporation, so this isn’t a personal axe I’m grinding. I work for a small business and have a great boss.

By: SueG

SueG — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:48:02 +0000

The parent company, share holders argument is part of what I was talking about in my earlier post. Companies are in the business of making money, we all get that. Jobs exist because companies make money & need workers, we get that too, my point is that we have let ourselves (the American worker) be used and abused for the bottom line. When did that happen? Companies used to treat their employees as valuable to the company, now it’s the “you do it or I’ve got 10 others waiting to take your job” mentality. It seems to me the backbone of our economy, the employees, get treated shabbily, while the top dogs and the share holders act like royalty. When did this become ok? I have a friend who is from Europe and when he and his American wife moved back here, he was stunned to learn that paid vacation time is not granted during the first year of employment and that it is not a month like in Europe. He thinks we’re insane to put up with it and at his first job here in the states, he negotiated 4 weeks paid vacation in his first year. Until we stop putting up with the corporate big wigs acting like despots it won’t stop.

Again, Bravo the RWA for standing up to Harlequin. I feel bad for the authors, but in the long run this benefits them too. The longer we let businesses get away with shabby treatment the harder it is to force change.

By: London Mabel

London Mabel — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:21:28 +0000

Well to be fair… the first Crusie I ever read was from Harl’s old Love and Laughter line.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:37:02 +0000

Harlequin started in 1949 and it really didn’t evolve much under its very paternalistic CEO who I think also owned the company. In the fifties and sixties very few women had a chance to fight back in any job, let alone romance writing. After that, a lot of writers were making pretty good money in HQ’s heyday, and everybody knew there was somebody waiting behind them to replace them, so they pretty much took the money and shut up. By the time I started writing for HQ in the 90′s, the money was not good but for a lot of people it was their entire living, the job that put food on the table and paid for their kids’ shoes. Plus most of us weren’t exactly business savvy and it wouldn’t have helped if we had been; even agents couldn’t change the terms of the HQ contracts. If you didn’t sign, HQ just signed somebody else. I hit that wall when they added the moral rights clause to the contracts in the mid-nineties. I refused to sign it, my editor did everything in her power to get them to bend on it, they refused, and I left Harlequin. I think I’m the only one who refused to sign it, but I can understand why. People don’t fight them because there’s no fight. You either sign or leave. That’s why it’s so wonderful that the writers organizations are saying, “Nope.” Especially RWA because a huge percentage of its membership are HQ authors. That took guts. I am really proud to belong to that organization.

By: Jackie Kessler

Jackie Kessler — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:29:20 +0000

Thanks so much for linking, Jenny!

I am very proud of RWA, MWA and SFWA for taking a stand and supporting professional and aspiring authors. And my heart goes out to HQ authors and editors, who have nothing to do with the vanity press decision but are still feeling the heat.

@ Deb, I have to wonder whether the Horizons venue was initiated by the HE board or if they were given their marching orders by HE’s parent company, Torstar — which has been hurting for money.

And you know, the thing is, it’s not like traditional publishers don’t have vanity press options. (Xlibris, anyone?) But other publishers* (A) don’t link their name to the vanity press, (B) don’t encourage authors to use the vanity press by promoting it in rejection letters and on their website, and (C) don’t offer false hope that by using the vanity press to print their previously rejected book, they may one day actually be published by the traditional publisher.

For the life of me, I will never understand why any author who chooses to self-publish would use a vanity press for it — ensuring that they not only pay astronomical service fees up front but also sacrifice a majority of their profits and don’t control their own ISBN.

* Not including Thomas Nelson, which was also declared an ineligible publisher by RWA.

By: toni

toni — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:10:54 +0000

Jackie, as always, was brilliant in that post. Loved seeing it linked here and I second both reactions, yours and hers.