“Their passion burned like a vanity press…”
Last week, much of the industry was talking about Harlequin’s decision to offer vanity publication to authors whom they’ve rejected. While my views on self-publishing are slowly changing (more on this in a week or two, or whenever I get a chance to write about it), this is an insulting way for any mainstream publisher to conduct business. In a nutshell, Harlequin is telling authors, “Your book wasn’t good enough for us to pay you money to publish it, but if you want to pay us some money, we’ll reconsider.”
Nick Kaufmann did a good job of following the story: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4. Special bonus commentary by Nick Mamatas and John Scalzi here and here.
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
It’s a disgusting practice. I had a publisher offer me a contract once that required me to give ALL rights to my next four books for perpetuity for a measly 10% profit. I told him NFW. Too many in the publishing field are trying to take advantage of aspiring writers. I never expected it from one of the big names, though.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I don’t know diddly about the publishing industry, but this seems like a good way to stunt a writers craft. If every joe blow with some saved up cash can basically give out money to have their book published then what’s the point of honing your skills? I think the people who want to be good writers won’t fall for this, and those who merely want the label of being published are going to very disappointed. Like I said, I know about as much about the publishing industry (aside from what Brian posts for us) as I do about ancient martial arts, so this is just my thoughts on the subject.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Being the self-publishing enthusiast that I am (as everyone knows), this news irked me in the worst way. It’s not even self-publishing to begin with, but subsidy publishing.
It just seemed to me to be an almost trap where writers, though rejected, could still have the name of the publisher on their books but under a different division. If you’re a newbie writer who doesn’t know any better, you don’t care if you paid to have your work printed or not. If you got that publisher’s name on your book, Joe or Jane Reader isn’t going to know it wasn’t traditionally published and would probably gobble it up. That kind of difference would be only be known to booksellers and wholesalers and others in the biz and that’s about it.
I was happy to learn they were changing the name of the subsidy side of things so “Harlequin” wasn’t on the books being put forth under that banner.
Hope you’re having a good weekend, Brian. Cheers!
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Kudos to the orgs for their solidarity and for making a stand. I’m curious if any Harlequin authors have publicly distanced themselves.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 am
I wouldn’t even bundle this under the ’self-publishing’ label, actually. Warren Ellis has a new collection of essays, put together by himself and an assistant, available through Lulu. His time invested, and the only money involved is paid by the customer to Lulu and from Lulu to Mr. Ellis. This is self-publishing.
This, as Brian said, is vanity publishing, a particularly foul beast. Self-publishing, under very specific circumstances, is useful and possibly even profitable, and while it’s often a poor decision, it takes advantage of no one. Brian could probably self-publish a book and make some money, if he wanted to. Vanity publishing, however, is completely inexcusable, predatory, and such publishers should be punished by anal rape with a rabid weasel.
Hope this clears things up for some of y’all.