The Behemoth Blinks
Published November 20, 2009 | 
As has been noted pretty much everywhere on the publishing blogosphere, Harlequin has caved in the face of general censure and sanctions from the RWA, SFWA and MWA.
Also, my crit partner — the ever-stylish and fabulously talented Barb Caridad Ferrer — answers Harlequin editor Stacy Boyd’s personal — and not associated with Harlequin in any way (see comment below) — blog on the topic of RWA/Harlequin relations in the wake of the HQN Horizons debacle here.
Questions remain. Will Harlequin further distance itself from this vanity press hot mess by removing all references to it from the eHarlequin site? Will they forbear from including solicitations for the vanity operation in rejection letters? Will they scrub the Horizons site clean of all “be a Harlequin author!” propaganda? Will any of this be enough to restore their standing with the various professional organizations they’ve managed to antagonize, not to mention the scores of authors — the legendary Nora Roberts among them — whom they’ve disappointed and disgusted?
And will the RWA — specifically those members who are also Harl authors — pay a price for their tough stance on this issue?
Tune in next week/month/year to find out, I guess. Same batshit crazy time, same batshit crazy channel.
My disillusionment, let me show you it.
Published November 19, 2009 | My first romance novel was a Betty Neels-penned Harlequin titled BRITANNIA ALL AT SEA. My second, also by revered Harl author Neels, was called RING IN A TEACUP. I don’t remember a lot of titles after that, but I do recall buying Harlequin romances like bags of corn chips and enjoying them with just as much gusto.
As I matured into a snotty adolescent pursuing a degree in English Lit and an elitist attitude, I considered my own addiction to romance novels a sort of guilty secret. My friends read Angelou and Cather and Atwood. I snuck Harlequin novels under the covers in my dorm room.
In the last several years, I’ve made plenty of jokes — here and elsewhere — about the ludicrous titles to be found in the Harlequin Presents line, as well as the antiquated and misogynistic values they too often represent (particularly the fetishizing of female virginity).
But never — no, not EVER — did I disparage the IDEA of the largest, most respected publisher of romance in the world. A company run primarily by women, for women, catering to the reading needs of the average woman who wants to lose herself in the fantasy of love conquering all, in all its many flavors.
Indeed, there abides on my hard drive even today a half-finished manuscript I’d planned to submit to Harlequin (Blaze? Superromance, maybe?) sometime in the near future, plus another intended for Spice Briefs. I observed the opening of Carina Press with interest and anticipation, and wondered how big the slushpile would grow before I felt comfortable subbing a manuscript to an untested publisher (especially in the wake of the crash and burn of Quartet Press, the revolutionary new epub that never was).
Unless I can figure out how to restructure that unfinished manuscript to single title length, it will likely never see the light of day. The story meant for Spice Briefs will go elsewhere. I will delete my links to the eHarlequin site, where I shopped at least a few times a year and frequented the boards as a lurker.
Apparently, the RWA feels much the same — and hallelujah for that. Yes, their removal of Harlequin from the list of eligible publishers and their branding of the company as a vanity press has the potential to hurt their members who are also Harlequin authors, but rumor has it that most Harl authors have come down squarely on the side of RWA’s decision. This action alone has restored a chunk of my faith in RWA. They’ve done nothing more or less than told the truth, and then acted according to their own, much debated bylaws. If I were a member, I’d be proud.
There are those who say the confusion over this new venture of Harlequin’s will not dilute their brand. To them I say, “Have you seen The New Yorker today?” Oh, it’s elitist? An organ of East Coast snobbery, and never supportive of genre fiction anyway? And therefore doesn’t matter? Was it also elitist several months ago when it did that glowing piece on Nora Roberts? Can’t have it both ways, folks. The brand dilution has begun, and with it another round of ghettoizing romance as a genre.
How did Harlequin/Torstar fail to see see this coming? The loss of stature, the loss of respect? The derision flung by those both in the industry and outside of it? The reader confusion, the author betrayal? The rejection by the largest professional literary organization in the world?
Were they truly so blinded by the prospect of making money by selling a vanity press option to rejected authors? And through the owners of Author House, no less — one of the very least respected vanity press operations in business? How lamentably short-sighted.
It will be interesting to see if they continue to send their mouthpiece around to the blogs to defend this shameful endeavor. She’s been called a liar and worse. (Offering bound copies of vanity-pubbed books to authors for delivery to agents? ARE YOU KIDDING?? Way to completely discredit yourself as a knowledgable industry insider. Agents are pointing and laughing as we speak.) Will she show up again to try to sell this original sow’s ear as a silk purse of inestimable value?
Only The Shadow knows, and he ain’t talkin’.
In the meantime, here’s a fresh and growing list of links on the topic:
Agent Ashley Grayson (He’s a MAN, baby! /austin powers)
The Ballad of Pay-to-Play
Published November 17, 2009 | Most, if not all, vanity presses make the vast majority of their profits on fees collected from writers.
(Money flows to the author.)
Very few writers end up recouping their investment on vanity-press published projects.
(Money flows to the author.)
No matter what they tell you, if you pay up front to hold a copy of your book in your hand, you’re not published — you’re PRINTED. “Publishing” implies a vetting process and some sort of editing FOR WHICH YOU DO NOT PAY.
(Money flows to the author.)
Yes, even if you are traditionally published by a major house, you may pay to promote your book beyond whatever promotional support your publisher offers. That’s not the same thing as paying to have your book copy edited, printed and offered for sale. You can say, “Yes it is,” as many times as you like, but… it’s not. It’s really, really not.
And so my power ballad becomes a dirge. Hum along if the spirit moves you.
(MONEY FLOWS TO THE AUTHOR.)
Coda:
As to the issue of the RWA in this brand, spanking new venture of Harlequin’s… Well. I’m not a member. No dog in that particular fight. But given that approximately 70% of the RWA membership is comprised of unpublished authors, I think the organization has a responsibility to make sure its members know the difference between being “published” and paying to be “printed,” and to take a strong position in this matter according to their own, much touted, standards. It will be fascinating to see if this Board of Directors has the balls to put their money — and their relationship with the largest publisher of romance — where their mouths are.
Other blogs on this subject:
TeddyPig, EREC, SmartBitches (scroll thru comments for the good stuff)
Community building: Ur doin it rong.
Published October 25, 2009 | When I call e-pirates thieves? I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about sites like Asatalk and Demonoid that upload ebooks to file-sharing sites by the thousands. That’s not sharing a book with a few friends. That’s not “building community.” That’s ripping off authors, and making it harder for us to get compensated for our work. Reasonable people can agree on this topic, yes? One would hope so.
But then I stumble across readers making comments like, “Why should I care if authors make any money on their writing? It’s not my problem. I don’t care if their books are being pirated. I don’t care if Amazon rips them off. I don’t want to hear about it.”
And I begin to wonder about this whole “community building” thing. Especially when I’ve seen some of these same readers (in the comments of the same blog, too) say, “Where are all the new and interesting books? Why isn’t there anything good to read? I’m so bored. Everything sucks.”
Take those two statements together, and you’ve got something that smells an awful like entitlement. And I start to feel as if authors are being asked to do all the heavy lifting in this “community building” enterprise.
Here’s the thing: After you pay for my book, I don’t believe you owe me anything. Not a fan letter. Not a good review on a blog or elsewhere. Not a recommendation. Nada. As far as I’m concerned, our transaction is complete. Which is not to say I don’t love to hear from readers in all the ways I’ve listed. I just don’t expect it. I don’t feel ENTITLED to it, in other words.
But if you’re going to start bandying about the idea of building a community of readers and writers, then there has to be give and take on both sides. If I can get behind Kindle users sharing a book with five or six other buddies, surely readers can get behind denouncing the true pirates.
As far as I’m concerned, if you don’t care whether we are compensated for our work, you are not a member of any community I’d ever want to join.
(X-posted to Dubious_Virtue)
A little less heat, a little more light.
Published October 2, 2009 | Weary of the “Lamdba Lit versus Breeders” controversy? Willing to read one final post on the subject?
Make it this one: http://wedschilde.livejournal.com/1312665.html
To paraphrase my brilliant and ever fabulously stylish crit partner, Barbara Caridad Ferrer, you can’t ever really know who you’re talking to on the Internet, so check your assumptions at the door and watch your friggin’ mouth lest you have cause to discover it’s just the right size for your big fat foot.
More re: Lambda Lit versus The Breeders
Published September 29, 2009 | Updated to add a link to this amazing post by former Lambda Award winner Lee Thomas: http://leethomas.livejournal.com/157333.html
I’m especially enamored of this bit:
“I think this is a terrible move on the part of the LLF. Narrowing the field does nothing to improve the award’s credibility and it’s something of a slap in the face to gay writers as it suggests we can’t compete with the straight folks.
Particularly disturbing to me is this passage:
‘We also took into consideration the despair of our own writers when a heterosexual writer, who has written a fine book about us, wins a Lambda Award, when one or more of our own LGBT writers may have as a Finalist a book that may be the only chance in a career at a Lambda Literary Award.’
Okay, I despair over not having my work taken seriously, so give me one of them Pulitzers or maybe a National Book Award. Whatever. I’m not picky. Being a gay writer should not entitle you to an award, any award, particularly when that award was once considered a literary honor, not a giftie for sexual orientation.”
Teddy Pig says this: http://www.teddypig.com/2009/09/shame-on-me-shame-on-you/
And this: http://www.teddypig.com/2009/09/lambda-literary-foundation-we-cant-hack-a-level-playing-field-so/
And this! http://www.teddypig.com/2009/09/because-someone-asked/
Victor J. Banis says this: http://www.mlrpressauthors.com/2009/09/the-little-lost-lambdas-some-thoughts-by-victor-j-banis/
Erastes says this: http://erastes.livejournal.com/449814.html
Emmyjag says this: http://emmyjag.livejournal.com/146174.html
On the good news front, I received an email from noted reviewer Elisa Rolle about her plan to create the “Rainbow Awards” for excellence in LGBT fiction and non-fiction. (Link to informational post: http://elisa-rolle.livejournal.com/799266.html .)
I’m excited about the prospect of an award for LGBT fiction that’s open to writers of all genders and sexual orientations. It will be fascinating to see whether a grassroots effort to acknowledge the story over its author gets any traction in the current climate. Given the groundswell of initial support, I’m hopeful.
A lynching in the making.
Published September 23, 2009 | Reactions to this range from outrage to meh, with a few “those straight girls should just come up with their own reward for the gay buttsecks writing.”
Yeah, that’ll go over like a lead-filled condom. Straight women creating an award for writing gay fiction that gay people aren’t allowed to enter.
THEY WOULD COME FOR US WITH TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS.
And they’d be right.
* * *
PS ~ If you followed the link to this post from The Angry Black Woman, I have a couple questions for you.
Can reasonable people disagree? If my opinions don’t match your opinions perfectly, does that instantly make me a homphobe/loser exercising straight white privilege/racist?
I do know the meaning and history behind the word “lynch.” Yes, I am aware that it’s a trigger word and highly inflammatory. I’m a writer. Words are my stock-in-trade. I used the word to make a point — a point apparently lost on a whole host of folks who can’t see beyond the language to the meaning of my post, which is simply this: While exclusionary behavior on the part of a disenfranchised group is understandable from the point of view of creating a “safe space,” it does not promote the larger, oft-stated agenda of a color-blind/sexuality-and-gender-identity blind society. And in this case, it’s turned what used to be a credible award into a bit of a joke, and is not even supported by the guy who founded the damned award in the first place.
This is my opinion. It’s the same opinion held by a bunch of other folks who are a lot smarter, better published and queerer than I, but my post gets a lot of heat because I used a verboten word in the title. Tough titty says this kitty. You’re not going to change my mind or my use of this particular inflammatory word by sending me poorly spelled and ungrammatical hate mail, though you’re welcome to keep trying if it makes you feel better. Which, apparently, it does. Go figure.
In which I am long-winded, caustic, and foul-mouthed, but mostly foul-mouthed.
Published June 22, 2009 | So I got an email over the weekend from an acquaintance asking me why I hadn’t blogged about the current farcockteh mishuggenah between epubbed authors and the RWA.
Meh. I don’t have much to say. It’s not my fight. Epubbed I am (and epubbed I will likely always be, whether I sell to New York next week or not, because I’m always going to write some stuff that’s too outré for NY) but RWA quit being relevant to my career a long while before I finally let my membership lapse. While I sympathize with my epubbed friends and colleagues who are members and who want to see change in how the BoD approaches different modes of publishing, I just can’t work up a head of steam about an organization that lags further behind the industry with every passing year.
There are those who are organizing under the battle cry, “Change comes from within!” and to them I say, “You go, grrrrrrrls!” I wish you much luck. I discovered early that I have neither the time nor the patience for windmill-tilting at this level. Bone-deep resistance to change is one of the most difficult human characteristics to overcome, and the RWA is nothing if not hidebound at the highest levels. (And I’m not necessarily talking about the president or the board of directors. Make of that what you will.)
The best argument I’ve heard for membership in the RWA is that the “amazing” networking opportunities will help an otherwise unpublished writer transform herself into a published author. And that’s fine…except the thing I keep hearing over and over again from editors and agents is, “It’s not who you know, or even how well you write, but the salability of your current project.”
In other words, no matter how many Sooper Sekrit Squirrel email loops and retreats the RWA holds for those members who’ve attained the holy grail of earning $1000 for a single publication, and no matter how many ribbons and pins and badges and charms the RWA gives out to its unpubbed members indicating various accomplishments on the road to being published* the bottom line will always be, “What have you written lately, and is it good enough to convince the editor of your choice that readers will buy it?”
Maybe it’s hubris – and it’s certainly not ladylike by the standards of RWA to say so out loud, in front of God and everyone – but I can do that. By myself. Without paying hundreds of dollars for face-to-face pitches at conferences or a cheerleading section beyond what I’ve got in my current crit partners, heaven bless their patient souls. I can write the book, build the synopsis, craft the query, get the agent and sell the project using my brain and my own two hands, just like many, many other authors have done and continue to do. And I’ll do it without paying dues to be condescended to or told my books aren’t “romance” or that the industry model I choose to distribute my work is an “author mill.” **
So, yeah. I guess I had more to say than I thought I did. ~iz sheepish~
* The first time I attended a chapter meeting and the president pulled out a Ziploc baggie full of little brass charms and pins and started handing them out for “finishing your first manuscript” or “sending your first query” or “receiving your first rejection” or “just showing up and looking pretty” I almost fell off my chair. What the hell, people? Is this an organization for professional writers or the fucking Girls Scouts? Name one pro organization run by men that would indulge in this kind of trivial hand-patting and cheek-pinching for every small accomplishment. On second thought, don’t, because I’m sure they exist. It’s bad enough that grown women need to play these bogus self-esteem-bolstering games with each other. Leave me my illusions about the menfolk, if you please. In the words of the inestimable Dean Winchester, “Participation trophies suck ass.”
** Note to President Pershing: You really screwed the pooch with that one, honey. That’s right up there with “Mission Accomplished!” and “Heckuva job, Brownie.” Seriously. Rescind that comment and apologize profusely. Claim temporary insanity or possession by reptile alien demons or something. But take it back and say you’re sorry, because that was not only beneath you and the board you claim to speak for, it was so far over the line, the line is a DOT to you. And while you’re at it? Educate yourself on the reality of “author mills” – for they do exist – and why reputable, royalty-paying epubs and small presses are NOT. THAT.
~~~
And because I’m on a ranty kind of roll and should probably get it out of my system while I can, what is UP with middle-school parents who dawdle in the drop-off circle, choosing that moment to strike up conversations with their children while cars line up behind them and block traffic all the way back to the main road? Shit or get off the pot, people. Are you really so fucking busy you can’t find the time for a face-to-face with your twelve-year-old that doesn’t involve inconveniencing twenty other families? And if you are, may I suggest a shift in priorities? Because I know how much that shiny new Expedition cost, and maybe if you didn’t have to pay for the full sports package, you’d have that ten extra minutes to discover why Junior’s lacrosse practice is running late tonight without fucking with everybody else’s morning schedule, hmmm? Get the FUCK outta my way.
~satisfied sigh~
I feel SO much better.
Making friends and influencing people: Ur doin it rong
Published May 26, 2009 | I’ve been avoiding the Romancelandia blogs in favor of writing, so I almost missed the “Avon editors diss online romance reviewers” kerfluffle. But while it doesn’t surprise me that mainstream NY print publishing isn’t 100% caught up on the marvels of the online reading/reviewing community and how it can be used to further sales and build reader enthusiasm, I have to wonder at the vitriolic tone in response to what seem to be rather innocuous and well-intended — if possibly ill-informed — comments.
Yeah, it makes sense to say, “Dude, you might be a tad behind the curve on this,” and provide data to support your point. Less with the sense-making is the whole, “OMG, you took a piss in my Wheaties ON PURPOSE and I’m TOTALLY GOING TO CUT YOU,” thing.
I thought the intent was to educate the industry on the joys of the online community, not score Imaginary Intraweb points by launching attacks and fomenting bad feelings. Doesn’t look like those Avon editors will be standing in line for any “education” anytime soon. Counter-productive, much?
But what the hell do I know? I live in jeans and dirty sneakers, and my style-quotient is WAY below the norm. Maybe sporting a massive a chip on your shoulder is the new black?
Amazonfail/Amazon Rank + review of YotC
Published April 12, 2009 | UPDATE II: The LA Times weighs in.
UPDATE: Smart Bitches attempt Google bomb = Amazon rank.
So, how long do you think the Taliban-esque branch of the conservative right wing has had Jeff Bezos’ balls in their pocket? Check here for bits and pieces of the sad tale. Outrage is rampant, petitions are circulating, the media has been alerted. We’ll see if it does any good.
And incidentally, if the stated goal is to protect the kiddies, then WTF is up with some of the titles that still have rankings and searchability? Check this list. Talk about lame. Seriously…if you’re gonna cave to the wing-nuts, at least be efficient about it. Nobody respects a half-assed effort at pandering and cowardice.
Also, Twitter is abuzz with the news. Or atweet. Whatever.
Happy Easter to those who celebrate. We’re Orthodox Christian, so our fast begins today and our Easter is a week from today. Less crowded grocery aisles! Cheaper legs o’ lamb! Rabbit-shaped chocolate on clearance! It’s a good thing.
I got an early gift from Teh Bunny in the form of a thoughtful, amazingly insightful review from Kassa for Year of the Cat. Just what I needed to warm me on a chilly, gray day.