DellArte Press (formerly Harlequin Horizons)

DaveKuzminski said:

I'm waiting for the interview where the management claims they invented the term "assisted self-publication" to separate themselves from the vanity publishers. Well, if they're not a vanity publisher, then what are they? Are they commercial where the publisher takes all the risk? Um, no. Are they a university press? Uh, no. Are they true self-publishing where the author takes all the financial risks and keeps all the profit if there is any? Um, nope.

Hmmm, all that's left is vanity. Like they say, a skunk by any other name is still a skunk.

Click to expand...

I'm with you 100% that assisted self-publishing is a horrible choice for an author.

dragonjax said:

Dave, I would have agreed with you even two days ago. But folks here got me to start really thinking about the term "vanity publishing." And it really is pejorative. That's why I'm now referring to such publishers as "assisted self-publishers." It doesn't change what those outfits are doing.

Click to expand...

It's perjorative for good reason (as is "vanity" itself) - it's usually a bad thing. You can't call them any kind of self-publisher until the "self" gets to decide everything from layout to quality standards and has their own "publisher" listed instead of DellArte and owns the ISBN and all rights.

They're charging upfront and still taking a slice (big, huge, lion's share) on the back end. They're a vanity press with a capital vain.

Cyia said:

It's perjorative for good reason (as is "vanity" itself) - it's usually a bad thing. You can't call them any kind of self-publisher until the "self" gets to decide everything from layout to quality standards and has their own "publisher" listed instead of DellArte and owns the ISBN and all rights.

They're charging upfront and still taking a slice (big, huge, lion's share) on the back end. They're a vanity press with a capital vain.

Click to expand...

I agree that it's one of the worst options writers can choose. And I agree that this is not self publishing.

DaveKuzminski said:

Are they true self-publishing where the author takes all the financial risks and keeps all the profit if there is any? Um, nope.

Click to expand...

From what I've been seeing, so far the ONLY true POD out there that lets an author truly self-publish is LightningSource. Everything else, from Lulu all the way to DellArte, is therefore...what?

I agree that "vanity publishing" is a pejorative term. But if "assisted self-publishing" doesn't work either, then what should it be called?

I think I'm going to refer to "assisted self-publishing" as "ASP press." (Like the snake, it's poisonous and can destroy you.)

I don't know why it's a problem to call a sucky deal for an author by a pejorative name. If writers carry all of the risk and get none of the benefit, why should writers feel the need to use a euphemism to describe that?

If you WANT to spend your money that way, fine. But I just think it should all be very, very transparent.

dragonjax said:

From what I've been seeing, so far the ONLY true POD out there that lets an author truly self-publish is LightningSource. Everything else, from Lulu all the way to DellArte, is therefore...what?

I agree that "vanity publishing" is a pejorative term. But if "assisted self-publishing" doesn't work either, then what should it be called?

Click to expand...

You do real self-publishing with Lulu. You buy the ISBN, you handle all the specifics - all they do is serve as your printer.

dragonjax said:

From what I've been seeing, so far the ONLY true POD out there that lets an author truly self-publish is LightningSource. Everything else, from Lulu all the way to DellArte, is therefore...what?

I agree that "vanity publishing" is a pejorative term. But if "assisted self-publishing" doesn't work either, then what should it be called?

Click to expand...

There's the term "subsidy-publishing", although that suggests a collaboration between writer and publisher, rather than the "writer is customer and pays for all" deal HQ offers with DellArte. I'm afraid there's no getting around the fact that DellArte is pure, no-shades-of-gray vanity-publishing and, as such, exceedingly unlikely to benefit writers in any way.

I tried to look at their covers, but the .pdfs aren't working (hey DAP web guys: the uploadedfiles directory still has a Hh subdirectory). I'm hoping they'll be redesigning their stock covers so they don't look exactly like Harlequin covers.

There are still some sneaky things in their FAQs that I don't like. For example, in the Printing & Publishing Style FAQ:

You also retain the rights of your manuscript, unlike a traditional publisher.

Click to expand...

Technically, true, because they don't tell you're their talking about the publishing right you leased them and not the copyright they're implying.

Another place I can't find right now, they mention the publishing house has full control over the text and cover once they buy your rights (and still don't make clear they're talking about publishing rights, not copyright). Cover, yes, but if a publishing house tried to change my text without my approval, you'd hear my wrath from one side of the ocean to the other.

In the end, this is still a terrible deal for anyone, and 99% of their customers are going to lose money. I still find it predatory, because it's simply not set up to make a profit for the writer even if they try really, really hard.

I'm not going to go back and tell my agent I'm cool with Harlequin now, even if the writers' organizations back off their stance (Thomas Nelson was never on the table; they're more likely to offer me an exorcism than a book deal).

(Anyone else find the words "traditional publisher" to be like nails on a chalkboard?)

DeadlyAccurate said:

(Anyone else find the words "traditional publisher" to be like nails on a chalkboard?)

Click to expand...

Is "licensed publisher" a better term to use?

Licensed by who?

"Snookydoodle publisher" is a less grating term than "traditional publisher," and that doesn't even make sense. Licensed, commercial, anything but the word "traditional."

dragonjax said:

Is "licensed publisher" a better term to use?

Click to expand...

I think "commercial publisher" is preferable. The term "traditional publisher" was invented by PublishAmerica principal, Larry Clopper, in order to distinguish PA from other vanity-publishers, as well as its own previous incarnation as a straight up vanity (AmErica Press?).

litgirl said:

I don't know why it's a problem to call a sucky deal for an author by a pejorative name. If writers carry all of the risk and get none of the benefit, why should writers feel the need to use a euphemism to describe that?

If you WANT to spend your money that way, fine. But I just think it should all be very, very transparent.

Click to expand...

Why should they walk around with a moral insult as a category name? People do use Createspeace and Lulu to publish good books that sell fairly well. A few people have even got iUniverse to work for them rather profitably.

I don't see why a person who write designs and releases a book through Lulu cannot call themselves a self-publisher if they want to. It's what they call themselves as a producer, its what I call them as a customer, i don't see it doing any harm. I generally call Lulu et al a self-publishing service provider.

Eirin said:

I think "commercial publisher" is preferable. The term "traditional publisher" was invented by PublishAmerica principal, Larry Clopper, in order to distinguish PA from other vanity-publishers, as well as its own previous incarnation as a straight up vanity (AmErica Press?).

Click to expand...

I'm happy to call them "commercial publishers," if that works.

DaveKuzminski said:

Licensed by who?

Click to expand...

Why do I have an image stuck in my head of John Cleese walking into a Post Office:

"I would like to license my publisher, please."

Maybe this will help: http://www.bookjobs.com/page.php?prmID=8

Also, trade publishing and commercial publishing are often considered synonymous to each other just as are subsidy and vanity.

veinglory said:

Why should they walk around with a moral insult as a category name? People do use Createspeace and Lulu to published good books that sell fairly well. A few people have even got iUniverse to work for them rather profitably.

I don't see why a person who write designs and releases a book through Lulu cannot call themselves a self-publisher if they want to. It's what they call themselves as a producer, its what I call them as a customer, i don't see it doing any harm. I generally call Lulu et al a self-publishing service provider.

Click to expand...

Veinglory, I'm referring to vanity publishing, not self-publishing. I see Lulu as an entirely different thing than whatever Harlequin's thing is calling itself now. I have no problem with Lulu, etc. because that operation is pretty transparent.

Oi. I don't want to bog us down in a discussion of terms, but I see I was unclear above.

PublishAmerica, the mother of author-mills, came up with the term "traditional publisher" to make themselves look legitimate. It's especially grating that this term has become synonymous with regular, advance-paying and bookstore-presence publishing. That's why I'd rather call regular publishing for commercial publishing or trade publishing; publishing that aims to place books in the regular stream of commerce.

I haven't heard the term "licensed publisher" before, and I'm not sure what it refers to. Are you suggesting it as an alternative to vanity-publishing?

Eirin said:

I haven't heard the term "licensed publisher" before, and I'm not sure what it refers to. Are you suggesting it as an alternative to vanity-publishing?

Click to expand...

Another author had suggested the term to me via twitter. So I was asking about it here.

Why give them a "pretty" term to give the publisher another buffer to hide behind? Call them what they are. Let people know what to expect. Don't give them an easy out to make people with no experience believe they're being commercially published or that commercial publishing requires pay-to-play.

I think it might be helpful to distinguish between the kind of self publishing where you pay an upfront fee for however many books, and sell them yourself, and the kind where you pay nothing but the publisher takes a cut of every sale. In both cases, the customer takes on all of the risk, and retains all of the right. Both (IMHO) are self-publishing, though I can see why if you're used to one model the other could look supicious, whichever model you start with.

It's when publishers combine the two models it stops being self publishing and moves into vanity, I think. The customer still takes all of the risk, but they're paying at both ends of the transaction for the priviledge and they usually give up some of their rights to do so.

Subsidiary publishing is used by some apparently legitimate companies when the risk is split equally between the customer and the publisher. A friend of mine published with BookGuild (who've actually changed their description to "partnership publishing" since I last looked); I don't know what they charged her, but I know they didn't charge extra for editting, cover art or advertising, and her book can be found in brick-and-mortar bookshops. To be honest, it dented my cynicism quite a bit! I still wouldn't use them myself, but she's certainly more than happy with their service.

While this topic probably should be spun off from the Vanity-operation being run under the titile of DellArte Press, I do want to chime in here:

Licensed publishing currenly takes place by commercial publishers when they license properties from movie companies, comics, video games, etc. As a media tie-in writer and a member of the Internation Associate of Media Tie-in Writers, I would really NOT want my work to be associated with a vanity press.

Everything I've written, whether for Midway Entertainment, Paramount, BBC or Marvel Comics, has been with a commercial publisher, has been edited, has been vetted and has come with an advance high enough to qualify me for SFWA membership.

Let's not muddy the waters more.

Calling Vanity publishing "Licensed publishing" (and who is doing the licensing?) is like calling a garbageman a "sanitation engineer". It does nothing but obsfucate what's really going on.

Going a little off-topic, I just want to share a laugh (all right my sense of humor is weird).
I thought this was a joke, it isn’t, I found this link on HarlequinBooks’s Twitter is to Harlequin’s blog Their Harlequin Fantasy: $3 million. Which links to the Victoria’s Secret Harlequin Fantasy bra.

What else could they do with a brand name? Perfumes, make up, chocolates, condoms? Just some possibilities.

[FONT=&quot]Harlequin Enterprises needs cash, no doubt about it. BTW, did you noticed? The writer of the blog referred as they, just like that. In the past, all they said/wrote was Harlequin. [/FONT]

The issue is not whether we should use a pejorative term for AuthorHo and it's guises. The issue is whether we should use the same pejorative term for Lulu. If we don't call them by the same name, we have to come up with a relevant reason why Lulu is X and AuthorHo is Y, otherwise AuthorHo will just start calling themselves X.

The only real differences I see is that Lulu is fairly priced, and is honest and upfront about what their services can do for you. So I prefer to call Lulu "honest vanity." That's just me though. It's not a standard term by any means.

I don't like subsidy because it implies that both the author and publisher are investing funds and/or time and the publisher is taking a risk as well as the author, which is not the case for Lulu.