Showing posts with label MWA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MWA. Show all posts

Sunday, April 3, 2011

How not to behave as an author or a publisher. . .

and I am paying very close attention so I never, ever follow in these folks' footsteps.

First, you've probably heard about the author behaving badly this past week. If not, you can read what I had to say about it here. Basically what happened is a review was posted that the author took exception to. Mind you, it wasn't anywhere close to a scathing review. In fact, the only real negative the reviewer pointed out was that he had problems with the formatting and other technical issues -- nothing with regard to the writing itself. The author decided to argue with the reviewer, accusing the reviewer of not downloading a new edition she told him to (okay, rule number one. Don't tell the reviewer to download a new version. Send it to them.) Then she accused him of not understanding or not liking her writing because she's British. HUH?!? When some of the blog readers started telling her she was not helping her cause, she went off the deep end and told them, multiple times, to f***k off. Yep, that's right. She found the plank, put it over the side of the ship and took a long walk off of it.

Then there's the ongoing Dorchester Publishing brouhaha. I first became aware of it when I read Brian Keene's blog post requesting authors, reviewers, readers, booksellers, etc., boycott Dorchester. The basic facts, according to Keene, are that he negotiated with Dorchester for the reversion of his print and electronic rights, effective January, in return for releasing them from all financial claims he might have. Seems that he hadn't received any royalty statements, much less royalties, in a very long time (you can see the specifics in his post). Then, to his surprise, after the reversion took place, Dorchester continued to digitally publish his titles, always blaming others when he contacted them.

It turns out that he's not the only one this is happening to. If you follow the links in his post, you will find a number of other authors willing to share their horror stories as well.

As word of the boycott spread, fans started posting on the Dorchester facebook page about the situation. It didn't take long for those posts to disappear. Not exactly the way to respond. Dorchester would be better served by simply answering the questions. Instead, they posted a question to their followers asking what titles the readers would like to see in digital format.

Now, being the overly suspicious sort and rarely finding a conspiracy theory I didn't like, I don't see this as an innocent question. This is, in my opinion, Dorchester's way of seizing rights that have already reverted. And I'm not alone in wondering if this isn't exactly what's happening. That supposition is strengthened by the news that Dorchester even changed its Amazon listings from Dorchester to DP. Gee, one would think they are trying to hide who they are....hmmmm.

What we need to remember is that this isn't a new state of affairs for Dorchester. Last year, the Mystery Writers of America delisted the publisher. From GalleyCat: eReads has a quote from the official memo from Richard Curtis: “[T]he publisher must not wrongfully withhold or delay royalty payments to authors. We have been hearing an unusually high number of reports from our members of unpaid advances and withheld royalties on their Dorchester books … The board made it clear to Dorchester that it is welcome to re-apply once these problems have been cleared up.”

After that happened, Dorchester went to strictly digital and POD. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think we are going to see more and more of it in the future. However, they have yet to put their house in order. In fact, comparing Keene's and his fellow boycotters' tales with this one from Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, it looks like Dorchester is simply continuing the course that got them de-listed with MWA.

Horror Writers of America have also issued an open letter to Dorchester. It notes that Dorchester has been removed from the list of approved publishers. It goes on to list a number of grievances against the publisher. If, by the end of this month, Dorchester addresses these concerns, HWA will reconsider Dorchester's status.

What are the answers? Well, one is quite simple. Amazon and other e-tailers need to hold these so-called major publishers to the same standards they hold small publishers and self-published authors to. When Naked Reader Press submits a title for publication that has already been published in one format or another, we have to present proof that the rights have reverted to the author and that the author has contracted with us for publication. It's a headache, but one we are more than happy to bear to protect the rights of our authors.

While I am not asking you to boycott Dorchester, I am asking you to look over the list of authors who have joined Keene's boycott and consider what they are losing through Dorchester's actions. Someone asked on facebook yesterday how the authors would be paid if the publisher is boycotted. That might be a valid point if Dorchester had shown any indication it planned on paying these authors. Instead, its track record speaks for itself, imo. For me, I am going to have to think two and three times before buying anything from Dorchester right now.

Cross-posted here.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Sunday Morning Mish-Mash

Last night I was lamenting the fact I had no idea what to blog about today. I've spent this week butting heads with a short story that doesn't want to be short. It wants to be a novel. Worse, it is dictating itself to me and refused to be corralled into anything manageable. I finally gave up and wrote about 5k on it and then did a general outline. Hopefully it will now murmur quietly in the back of my head while I finish the current projects on the front 50 burners. The problem, though, is the story kept me from figuring out what to do for MGC.

Thank goodness -- in oh so many ways -- for the internet. I got up this morning and began surfing the blogs I generally follow and found topic overload. So, with your indulgence, I'll link to a few, comment on a few and, hopefully, make a bit of sense.

On the Harlequin/Harlequin Horizon/DellArte Press ongoing debacle, agent Kristen Nelson comments not only on Mystery Writers of America (MWA) issuing a statement regarding the removal of Harlequin from its list of approved publishers, but also on her own thoughts and comments to Harlequin editors about this new venture of theirs. Check out her blog for MWA's full comment.

By now, you've probably figured out that one of my favorite blogs is Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. Friday's post entitled HuffPo Disses Romance, Stupid-to-Solar-Power Conversion to Come was guaranteed to grab my caffeine deprived attention this morning. Basically, Alan Eisner's column for the Huffington Post dissing the romance genre for taking the romance out of, well, romance, had the Bitches up in arms. It seems Eisner went to his local library, checked out 10 romance novels and decided "The true disservice that the "romance" genre does is that it sucks all the oxygen out of the room." There's more, but you get the drift...he doesn't like it or what it does to literature, real life, etc., etc., etc. SB Sarah, on the other hand, doesn't mince words about her feelings for his column or his method of coming to his conclusion: "I had higher hopes for HuffPo’s book section but wow, they were dashed against the rocky shores of sweeping generalization and people who don’t know diddly squat talking out their asses. I mean, how else am I to judge the entire offering of a diverse selection of writers discussing all things book except by judging the whole on a limited and asinine sample, right? Right! Of course!"

Marjorie M. Liu has a great post about how writers need a routine. Check it out.

As for the future of publishing, a nail was hammered into the coffin with the closure of Borders UK. The reading public is changing how it wants to buy books -- both dead tree versions and e-versions. It's time the publishers and booksellers quit trying to hold onto old models and adapt to new technologies and new marketing plans. If not, we're going to see more and more headlines announcing failures such as Borders UK.

J. A. Konrath announced his 2010 Ebook Predictions on Tuesday. Among them are Amazon adopting Epub standard format, more publishers getting savvy to e-publishing, print versions packaged with e-versions of books and author exclusivity contracts. If he is right on even half his predictions, I think we'll see the industry start to claw its way out of the hole it's in now. At least I hope so.

Finally, the most eye-catching headline this week, for me at least, was from Dr. Syntax -- What Publishing Needs More Of: Failure. Admit it, that would make you read on. It did me. Basically, the post was about the "failure" of Rick Moody's experiment to write and post in Twitter-sized snippets a story over a three day period. The project apparently brought out a lot of negative comments and brought up the issue of whether or not Twitter can be an effective tool for book promotion. Dr. Syntax comments:

Maybe the Moody project was a failure. If so, my reaction is: HOORAY! What we need in publishing today is much more failure. The one thing people in the industry can agree on is that the current methods of doing business are showing diminishing returns. The only way we're going to arrive at new methods is by trying dozens, scores, hundreds of new ways of reaching readers, building awareness, and ultimately selling content. Of course, some, probably most of these won't work, but it's through large-scale, repeated failure that we're going to find out what succeeds. As Clay Shirky puts it, "Failure is free, high-quality research, offering direct evidence of what works and what doesn't."

So, what do you think? Does the industry need to try out new, possibly strange, methods and have a few failures along the way? What about the e-publishing predictions? Agree or disagree. Do you have a writing routine and, if so, what is it?

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Your Next Stop: The Twilight Zone

This past week in publishing has reminded me of the Twilight Zone. I kept expecting to see Rod Serling standing there, telling me I've just entered that new dimension "not of sight and sound but of mind." The only problem is I don't think a mind was involved in this sudden detour we've taken, at least not a sound mind. In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm talking about the latest debacle to rock publishing -- Harlequin Horizons.

A little background first. Earlier this month, Harlequin announced the formation of Carina Press, a digital only publisher that will not offer advances but will pay royalties. This surprised me -- and I wasn't the only one. Just check some of the other blogs -- in that RWA doesn't recognize publishers that don't offer advances of at least $1,000 as "eligible publishers". Because this disqualifies almost all ebook publishers, it has raised the question of whether or not RWA needs to re-examines their criteria. The fact Harlequin was starting an e-book imprint raised more than a few eyebrows and had a number of people wondering if this might force RWA to revisit the issue of whether or not ebook publishers should be considered "eligible" or not.

Then the shoe dropped and boy did it land with a thud. A very big and a very loud thud. Harlequin announced it would be teaming up with Author Solutions to form Harlequin Horizons, their self-publication imprint. According to Publishers Weekly, [t]he imprint will recruit writers in two ways: authors whose manuscripts have been rejected by Harlequin will be made aware of the Harlequin Horizons option and authors who sign with Author Solutions will be given the opportunity to be published under the Harlequin Horizons imprint. According to an Author Solutions spokesperson, the imprint will offer special services aimed at the romance market, including unique marketing and distribution services. All services are on a pay-for-service basis.

The response has been fast and definitive. RWA has, at least for the moment, revoked Harlequin's "eligible" status. SFWA, calling Harlequin Horizons (now known by the initials of HH which will be on the spine of any book printed by them. Gee, that won't be confusing will it, since Harlequin Historicals have been nicknamed HHs for quite a while.) a vanity press, said the following: "Under normal circumstances, the addition of a new imprint by a major house would be cause for celebration in the professional writing community. Unfortunately, these are not normal circumstances. . . Until such time as Harlequin changes course, and returns to a model of legitimately working with authors instead of charging authors for publishing services, SFWA has no choice but to be absolutely clear that NO titles from ANY Harlequin imprint will be counted as qualifying for membership in SFWA."

Publishers Weekly reports that Mystery Writers of America (MWA) also responded to the news with a threat of sanctions. "An e-bulletin prepared by Margery Flax on behalf of Mystery Writers of America’s National Board of Directors said MWA was “deeply concerned about the troubling conflict-of-interest issues created by these ventures, particularly the potentially misleading way they are marketed to aspiring writers.” The MWA was refering to both Harlequin Horizons and the eHarlequin Manuscript Critique service, also aimed at aspiring writers. MWA said it would consider removing Harlequin from its list of approved publishers, declining membership applications from Harlequin authors, and barring Harlequin books from entering the Edgar Awards unless Harlequin agreed to discuss changing these ventures by December 15."

There are a number of other blogs commenting on HH. I recommend you check out the following for more information:


Read them. Think about them. Then decide for yourself if this latest move by Harlequin is in the best interest of writers and readers or is just another ill-conceived method of raising revenue for the publisher.

Why, you ask, does the creation of HH bother me so much? It comes down to trust. Trust between Harlequin and the authors submitting to it and trust between Harlequin and its readers. The books "published" by HH won't be edited or proofed the way a mainline Harlequin book will be. Nor will they be distributed the same or marketed. There is no guarantee they will find their way to any bookstore. All that is there is a carrot for any author willing to pay the money -- and it isn't cheap -- to be published by HH that their book might be picked up by Harlequin if it sells enough...the same promise they make about the ebooks published by Carina Press. Sorry, but I can put my book up on my website and Amazon and sell it myself, without having to pay the money to Harlequin.

But there's another breach of trust between Harlequin and its current authors and this, too, has been mentioned in some of the other blogs. It is my understanding that Harlequin requires its authors to do nothing that might dilute the brand. Isn't that exactly what Harlequin has done with HH? And doesn't that, in turn, constitute a breach in their agreement with the authors?

As for the readers, they've come to expect a certain product from Harlequin. Using the HH logo instead of the Harlequin name isn't going to keep them from identifying books published by Harlequin Horizons with the Harlequin brand. The same quality isn't going to be there. I guarantee it. If it were, the book wouldn't be rejected by Harlequin and referred to HH in the first time. Unless, of course, the whole purpose of this is to make money and screw the authors and reading public.

It is going to be interesting to see where this goes over the next few weeks and months. For those of you out there considering submitting to Harlequin, I recommend you keep you eyes open and your ear to the ground. There is no telling where this might end. I leave you with the introduction to the fourth season of The Twilight Zone: "You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas; you've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone."