And as we can see from people who write romance on these forums . . .Quiss said:Oh SNAP!
I like this one, which can be said of other publishers, as well:
And the one group that could save you--your authors--has been paid so poorly for so many years that they are eager to pursue other avenues.
If you're so devoted to a brand that you're willing to do this, you're part of the problem, unfortunately.JRTomlin said:Bob Mayer and Joe got into a friendly discussion in the comments (often the best part is the comments) and Bob said this which is unfortunately ALL too true:
The problem is, HQ has a legion of wanna-bes who will sign a contract with HQ with their own arterial blood regardless of what's written in it.
I've seen this.JRTomlin said:Bob Mayer and Joe got into a friendly discussion in the comments (often the best part is the comments) and Bob said this which is unfortunately ALL too true:
The problem is, HQ has a legion of wanna-bes who will sign a contract with HQ with their own arterial blood regardless of what's written in it.
Yep. But ______ jumped all over my case a few months ago for calling this Stockholm Syndrome. That's definitely what it is.JRTomlin said:Bob Mayer and Joe got into a friendly discussion in the comments (often the best part is the comments) and Bob said this which is unfortunately ALL too true:
The problem is, HQ has a legion of wanna-bes who will sign a contract with HQ with their own arterial blood regardless of what's written in it.
This is completely valid, and savvy.Deanna Chase said:I know a very successful author who still publishes with HQ and self-publishes. The distribution through HQ is so vast, every time she puts out a new HQ book her self-pub titles see a spike. She literally uses them as advertising for her self-pub work. Advertising that pays her. She's smart and not in any way shape or form a wannabe.
I just felt I should point that out. Not everyone who pubs with HQ has the blinders on.
Yep! I think we know the same authorsDeanna Chase said:I know a very successful author who still publishes with HQ and self-publishes. The distribution through HQ is so vast, every time she puts out a new HQ book her self-pub titles see a spike. She literally uses them as advertising for her self-pub work. Advertising that pays her. She's smart and not in any way shape or form a wannabe.
I just felt I should point that out. Not everyone who pubs with HQ has the blinders on.
When a contract is signed with HQ knowing that it's purely a business decision to gain wider distribution, then that's one thing. Signing with them because you're desperate to take whatever you can get is another. And sadly, there are a lot of authors who have signed those terrible contracts (they are horrific contracts!) and don't care that they'll only make 2% in royalties and never earn out their meager advance because they didn't even get a big enough print run to do so.
Yeah, what was that last bit about?!Anya said:It's a good spotlight on the business practices of a certain publishing group, but I wish he didn't go the 'poor women - victims of their own femininity' route. Without that bit of speculation, it would have been a much stronger piece.
I agree that some do suffer from SS but I wouldn't say it's universally true. I definitely went into traditional with eyes wide open and knowing what I was giving up and what I was gaining. For me personally it was ABSOLUTELY the right thing and has done amazing things for my career. Does that mean that I'll trad publish all my works? No...each one will be considered separately. And as evidenced by my self-publishing Hollow World I know the value of self.Cherise Kelley said:Yep. But ______ jumped all over my case a few months ago for calling this Stockholm Syndrome. That's definitely what it is.
Yes. Actually, she's a KBoards author. She considers her HQ titles to be "paid advertising" for her self-published titles. Only instead of her paying to advertise, she's paid to do so.Deanna Chase said:I know a very successful author who still publishes with HQ and self-publishes. The distribution through HQ is so vast, every time she puts out a new HQ book her self-pub titles see a spike. She literally uses them as advertising for her self-pub work. Advertising that pays her. She's smart and not in any way shape or form a wannabe.
I just felt I should point that out. Not everyone who pubs with HQ has the blinders on.
I had a similar reaction to the gender talk in that post, Courtney. If some HQ authors have signed bad contracts, I doubt it's because they're nurturing caregivers; they just made bad decisions, as anyone might in that kind of situation. Sometimes an effort to be a helpful advocate can end up propagating stereotypes that are unhelpful. Something intended as praise/support may be quite counterproductive.Courtney Milan said:I found this deeply condescending on Konrath's part.
Talking about Harlequin authors (and I'm a former one!) in stereotypically female ways--referring to what we do as "nurturing" and "caregiving" when we are business people, and we always have been. Referring to them as "battered women." Acting as if the authors who actually received the survey--who, let me point out, actually know the difference between "series" and "single title" since we have a clue about romance--wouldn't be able to tell Harlequin what sucked about what they were doing. I'm on a loop with a bunch of Harlequin authors (like, hundreds), and let me tell you, zero of them were like, "Oh, Harlequin, we just love everything you do, and we're going to suck up to you."
I don't know why a dude who doesn't write for Harlequin and never has, who doesn't know the romance industry well enough to know what is meant by "series", thinks that he can do a better job telling Harlequin where they're screwing up than the women who actually deal with them on a regular basis.
Talking on behalf of people who you're referring to in female terms, when those people are business people with a better understanding of the situation than you have? I'm sorry, talking on behalf of Harlequin authors--we happen to be demonstrably in possession of a keyboard and the ability to express ourselves--evinces a certain amount of disregard for the capabilities of the people you claim to care about.
We can speak for ourselves.
