I think what is really aggravating people is that rule 5 has been broken
and the other runner up for the Presents comp appears to have just dashed off her entry on a whim. She doesn't seem to be a reader of the line or anything - researching the editor? I don't think the grumbling would be so bad if it wasn't for the obvious rule breaking and the second runner ups talk about how easy it was.
Do HQ authors have better access to editors of other lines than someone outside? Could Carr have asked her Spice/Spice Briefs Editor if she would read something for Presents and pass it on?
I feel that it was wrong of her to enter and wrong of them to give her the prize. I assume next year we'll have a free for all with Harlequin author's from other lines entering this contest.
The good in this is that we are learning a lot. Many of us didn’t have a clue how things really work. I think we, the aspiring writers, should thanks the published ones for taking the time to give us comfort and advice. Being as busy as they are working in their current projects.
there is a chance she didn’t have an HQ editor who could just recommend her to the London staff.
However, she should had read the rules, everybody did it, right?
Susan, I wasn’t being sarcastic, I really appreciate everything you, and any published writer said. In the announcement thread there are many stepping in to give their opinions, and their posts are really wise.
A new theory is surfacing, that Susanna Carr is being published as part of an anthology. Which means her HQ contract is done. She didn't have a current contract at the time of the contest.
Susan, is that possible? I mean, if she finished her last commission with HQ, and no new contract was offered to her. Would that make her eligible? Eventhough, she would still receive royalties.
"Can partners of contracted authors enter or are they excluded under the family rule?
JG: Sorry, yes – as a partner of a contracted author you cannot enter. However, as with the age restriction, this doesn’t stop you submitting a partial to us in the regular way."
Once we had decided on our winners and contacted them (it was so exciting to call them all up to break the good news!), we discovered that both of our Presents/Modern winners were North American and have some recent publishing experience, whereas both of our Modern Heat winners are from the UK and are unpublished. It is so great to think that through our competition we have found talent from both sides of the pond with such different levels of experience.
Is it just me or does this make you go "Hmmm...???"
The bold part especially. They discovered that the winner has some publishing experience... um.... yeah - with YOU!
This sounds like a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing...
I just thought this was kind of funny.
The problem with revoking Susanna's win is that it would make Maggie Marr the winner by default. I don't know if that won't be even worse after her comments. HQ really seems to be stepping in the dog business these past couple of months.
I did see (here? There?) speculation that HQ knew they effed it, and that's why there were two winners selected.
Actually, if Ms Carr knows she is ineligible, I think she should step aside and publicly explain why. That would make her look very gracious, IMHO.
No, it wouldn't. They originally said one winner and two runners up, so that's what we'd have.
I'm honestly not sure how they would define contracted, but there's no doubt that she had a valid contract with Harlequin which would pay her some sort of royalty for her books had you purchased them on the day she entered the contest.
Joanne Grant
Dec 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am
I just wanted to stop by and clarify a couple of points because I can see that has been a lot of discussion regarding the announcement of our competition winners.
This particular contest was aimed at finding new authors for the Harlequin Presents and Modern Heat series and was open to unpublished and published authors. Those who were not eligible for entry included authors who were currently contracted with Harlequin. One of our winners had previously been contracted with Harlequin for a different series and she completed her contractual obligations in 2008. We checked with our legal department and they reassured us that she was both eligible to enter the contest and to win because she is not currently a contracted author with Harlequin.
We read each and every entry and judged them on their own merit. All four of our winners deserve recognition for standing out from the crowd of 544 entries and we would like to once again extend our congratulations to Susanna, Maggie, Gill and Joanne.
We hope this clears up any misunderstanding and we will take the concerns raised here into consideration for any future competitions.
Frankly, Harlequin did nothing wrong. That being said, the publisher came across appearing to be unfair.
And that's the key. Harlequin seems to be forgetting that "perception is reality," judging by the way they've been stepping in it lately.