# Konrath/Kilborn on HQ Survey



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-harlequin-survey.html

For me the payoff comes at the bottom. The very last lines he writes are where I think this particular story really lies.

The women in my life are strong, loyal, conscientious individuals, and designing a business to string along those types of people is predatory in my eyes.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

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._


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

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._


And as we can see from people who write romance on these forums . . .

Many are doing just fine at it.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

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._


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

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._


If you're so devoted to a brand that you're willing to do this, you're part of the problem, unfortunately. 

They just don't realize it.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

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.

And it kills me because I *know* how much an author can make self-publishing their own romance novels. Dang.


----------



## Kathy Clark Author (Dec 18, 2012)

I read the survey questions and answers and comments with interest.  Having published most of my 23 novels thru harlequin and been an executive officer of RWA in the earlier years the comments were fascinating to me.

Bottom line.  The deals are better with direct publishing but the playing field is very uneven in two different directions actually.  But I figured it out the first time and I will figure it out again.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

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.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

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.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

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.


This is completely valid, and savvy.

Hybrid is an excellent choice.

And Harlequin has some authors they DO treat well, of course. Like any tradpub outfit they have their golden geese, and those tend to get the better treatment.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

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.


----------



## LilianaHart (Jun 20, 2011)

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 authors  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.

And the quality of the HQ brand is sinking fast because all of their good authors are fleeing like crazy and they're desperate to find new authors to fill those spots. I know _severa__l_ authors who two years ago signed those 6, 7 and 8 book contracts with HQ and who are now buying back their advance to get out from under the HQ thumb.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

I can understand why someone might be mad at how their fellow authors are being treated, but... Bob puts it as, "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 tend to agree with Bob. And some must learn these lessons the hard way.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Cookie cutter books. The rules have been set by Traditional publishers, whom most of us want to avoid now that we know we can make it without them. We write the breakout novels, right?


----------



## Ben Mathew (Jan 27, 2013)

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.


Yeah, what was that last bit about?!

Rest of it was great.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

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.


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.

I do think that hybrid offers the "best of both worlds" in many respects. But bottom line...all three can work and the author just needs to be well informed and then decide what's right for "them."


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

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.


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.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

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.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

I love Courtney.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

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 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.

That said, I do think Konrath's publicizing of the Harlequin contracts and of the lawsuit regarding subsidiary rights may have put some good pressure on Harlequin to do better. As someone not much involve in the romance genre, I don't think I would've heard about Harlequin's bad practices if Konrath weren't on the case. He's got a big platform, and he generally uses it (in my opinion) in very positive ways.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2013)

So let me see if I understand. Harlequin sends a survey to its authors asking for feedback, and a person who never published with them takes that survey and uses it as an excuse to blast the company on behalf of all those frail, meek, little women who don't know how to protect themselves from the big bad publisher? 

I know this seems really weird to some people, but lots of authors have no desire to be self published. **gasp!* *Horror!** Why we treat these authors like idiots, or worse, little girls who need protection, is beyond me.

I personally like self publishing. But I'm a project junkie. I like taking a project from inception to completion. I'm a stickler for the process and the details. I enjoy it. Not everyone enjoys it. Not everyone wants to deal with the nuts and bolts end of running a business. Konrath is doing more than insulting publishers. _He's insulting every author that doesn't want to be a business owner_. There is an implication that an author who doesn't want to self publish is lazy or stupid. That's insulting, as neither is the case.

Sure, theoretically, an author can make more money self publishing than going with a publisher. Theoretically, you can make more money opening a restaurant than working for one. Theoretically, you can make more money opening a department store than working in one. But in reality, not everyone wants to be a business owner. Not everyone has the desire, skills, or resources to run a business well. That doesn't make them lazy. It doesn't make them stupid. It doesn't mean they need to "see the light."


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> That said, I do think Konrath's publicizing of the Harlequin contracts and of the lawsuit regarding subsidiary rights may have put some good pressure on Harlequin to do better. As someone not much involve in the romance genre, I don't think I would've heard about Harlequin's bad practices if Konrath weren't on the case. He's got a big platform, and he generally uses it (in my opinion) in very positive ways.


I think that Konrath has done a lot of good in speaking up as he has, and I don't want to discount that.

That being said, I really don't think that the pressure he applied would be worth a doughnut on Sunday if there weren't hundreds of romance authors who were self-publishing successfully, and dozens of Harlequin authors who were not only speaking out, but walking away from contracts and telling Harlequin why. People have been talking smack about Harlequin contracts for decades. The only pressure Harlequin cares about is the pressure on their pocket book, and some dude who has never written for them is irrelevant to their way of thinking.

Konrath has done good stuff. He says important things. But I don't like casting him in the role as savior, and I don't think the role he has played for romance writers is as important as that played by the women of romance. I can count literally a dozen women who outsell him, outnegotiate him, and outperform him, and who are doing an amazing job of educating others within the romance genre.

I'm not trying to say that Konrath isn't important. But I have a really hard time when his is the only name mentioned.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

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 what Harlequin wants its authors to believe--that they're replaceable. It's the party line they give to category authors all the time.

Problem? It's just not true. There aren't that many authors out there that can deliver believable, romantic, emotional stories within a very tight wordcount range without a lot of need for editorial handholding four times a year. They want us to believe that they can replace Susan Napier, Sarah Mayberry, and Maisey Yates with any old person off the street. They want us to believe that India Grey is just doing whatever it is that she's doing and that it isn't special, that all these books are "alike."

They want us to believe that, and yes, there may be legions of wanna-bes who would sign a contract, any contract, just to get a book out on the shelves--but there is not a legion of authors who can do that and deliver a good book in three months, every three months, bang up to spec.

The idea that they can replace their best, their brightest, their most consistent, their most loved authors with just any old body off the street, that Harlequin doesn't need to change their behavior because their authors are nothing special, is just as offensive when it comes from Bob Mayer as it is when it comes from Harlequin.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Courtney Milan said:


> I think that Konrath has done a lot of good in speaking up as he has, and I don't want to discount that.
> 
> That being said, I really don't think that the pressure he applied would be worth a doughnut on Sunday if there weren't hundreds of romance authors who were self-publishing successfully, and dozens of Harlequin authors who were not only speaking out, but walking away from contracts and telling Harlequin why. People have been talking smack about Harlequin contracts for decades. The only pressure Harlequin cares about is the pressure on their pocket book, and some dude who has never written for them is irrelevant to their way of thinking.
> 
> ...


Convincing.


----------



## daynahart (Mar 7, 2013)

I'm going to agree with those people who are frustrated with the "man speaking instead of women" thing...and also add a regretful headshake, because I KNOW that there are going to be people (men and women alike) who are only going to _hear _it because a man said it.

And I'm someone who would like to self-publish, but I'm not sure I have the skill-set to do so. I like to think I can learn it all, but ...



Courtney Milan said:


> The idea that they can replace their best, their brightest, their most consistent, their most loved authors with just any old body off the street, that Harlequin doesn't need to change their behavior because their authors are nothing special, is just as offensive when it comes from Bob Mayer as it is when it comes from Harlequin.


And while I was posting, Courtney wrote this and I want to hold up my zippo and sway.

Even the most formulaic *insert genre* novel needs to have life breathed into it. To think that Guy Gavriel Kay could be replaced is unthinkable to me. I don't laugh like a maniac at many books that aren't Jennie Crusie's. (etc. ad nauseum.) The idea that authors are a dime-a-dozen (literally, it sometimes seems) is just awful.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

daynahart said:


> I'm going to agree with those people who are frustrated with the "man speaking instead of women" thing...and also add a regretful headshake, because I KNOW that there are going to be people (men and women alike) who are only going to _hear _it because a man said it.
> 
> And I'm someone who would like to self-publish, but I'm not sure I have the skill-set to do so. I like to think I can learn it all, but ...


Welcome! You can do it.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> Welcome! You can do it.


Yes, Dayna can! (She's brilliant, a wonderful writer, great editor, and just realyl savvy. Even if she thinks she isn't.)

Glad to see you over here, Dayna!


----------



## MeiLinMiranda (Feb 17, 2011)

My parents told me writers were a dime a dozen. I went into journalism anyway. After 30+ years earning my living writing I can confidently say this:

Writers are a dime a dozen.
Writers who can write a simple, declarative sentence are worth their weight in gold.

And yeah, Konrath is great; mansplaining is not.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-harlequin-survey.html
> 
> For me the payoff comes at the bottom. The very last lines he writes are where I think this particular story really lies.
> 
> The women in my life are strong, loyal, conscientious individuals, and designing a business to string along those types of people is predatory in my eyes.


Yea...not so much for me.

To me, those last few paragraphs came off as, "And now I shall show you how awesome I am, and prove that not only am I a great guy but I am THE ANTISEXIST." Which might be fine, but he did it by spewing out a load of trite BS that comes off as the lowest form of pandering to a group of people who really don't need to be pandered to. I totally cringed, reading that; it made me feel insulted on women's behalf, if that makes any sense. I guess because it just read as fake.

That said, the rest of the piece was great. It's always good to read some Konrath snark.


----------



## daynahart (Mar 7, 2013)

Thanks, Amanda!  
/threadjack

my parents are of the 'writers are a dime a dozen' variety, too. But neither of them has written a book, though Dad started one once. (to me, this was a huge revelation that what I do isn't as stupid-simple as they led me to believe.)

I just don't think it's right to buy into the mindset (as a writer or a publisher) that one writer is as good as any other, that we're so-easily _replaceable_. You can't trade Stephen King for Dr. Seuss, and no one should push the message that you can onto authors.


----------



## Nick Endi Webb (Mar 25, 2012)

Yeah, he went wrong as soon as he said:


> I debated whether or not to play the gender card,


 Any time you need to debate whether or not to play "the gender card", just pause, take a deep breath ...... deeper, AND STOP TALKING.

Btw, Courtney, I've never read a romance novel, but your covers are pure eye candy. I love them. Just those bold, splashy colors ... and I don't even like dresses, I swear .


----------



## WG McCabe (Oct 13, 2012)

I like Konrath and thought it was another good blog post, but the end of it made me think of this:










Just head shakingly bad.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

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.


Using them like that makes sense. Being mindless tied to them doesn't. I love seeing them used as advertising, actually. Sure it costs some money (on the bad contract terms) but it is intelligent.

Not everyone who publishes with them is doing so for bad reasons, but unfortunately I don't think that applies to the majority.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

I have to say I'm relieved others felt the same way I did regarding the gender profiling. When I wrote my post, I thought, damn, I'm the only one who sees it that way.
I find it incredibly sexist for anyone to say that women's strength is in their subservience and emotions.  The inference is that women as a whole make business decisions based on emotions (loyalty, forgiveness, nurturing, wanting to please etc) rather than making business decisions based on strategy.

I'm sure Joe was just trying to make sense of how so many women were writing for Harlequin when it seemed like such a bad deal, and he came up with a hypothesis. I'm sure his post will help shed light and help some making better decisions for their future writing careers.

Courtney - very interesting insight into Harlequin and Harlequin authors.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Konrath knows a lot about publishing and that's why I look forward to his posts, but it was abundantly clear in some earlier exchanges that he (and Eisler) had with Courtney over various points in other posts that they do not have a feminist understanding, so I'm not surprised at that.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Up with Courtney! Down with dumbassery!


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

I wrote something long and detailed with examples from the real world.

But since this thread is now claimed in the name of women being the only people with any right to have an opinion, I'll just say this:

Feminism's problem is that it eats it's natural allies. Namely the men who aren't afraid to stand up and call bullshit when women aren't treated equitably. Struggles are made easier if you don't alienate your friends.

Just sayin' . . .


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I wrote something long and detailed with examples from the real world.
> 
> But since this thread is now claimed in the name of women being the only people with any right to have an opinion, I'll just say this:
> 
> ...


In my eyes, women can be just as oppressive of women as men are. And women can oppress men. And men can oppress men.

It doesn't matter whether it's a man or a women saying it, but when someone says 'women are like this' or 'men are like this' - people are going to get annoyed. Because you can't paint a gender with one brush stroke.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

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."
> 
> ...


Considering the contracts Konrath has signed in the past and the multiple posts about how horrible the terms were/how he was treated, I'm rather surprised he bothered to mansplain the the womanfolk. Sounds like he could have used some mansplaining back in the day, too.

*grumbles*


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2013)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Feminism's problem is that it eats it's natural allies. Namely the men who aren't afraid to stand up and call [bullcrap] when women aren't treated equitably. Struggles are made easier if you don't alienate your friends.


Except Konrath isn't calling bullcrap on women being treated unfairly. He's claiming women are too meek/stupid/emotional to make business decisions.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Feminism's problem is that it eats it's natural allies. Namely the men who aren't afraid to stand up and call [bullcrap] when women aren't treated equitably. Struggles are made easier if you don't alienate your friends.


No. This isn't about these people are targeting women and are predatory. This is about Konrath making a sexist comment about women being unable to make business decisions. No. No. No.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Thanks for proving my point all.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I wrote something long and detailed with examples from the real world.
> 
> But since this thread is now claimed in the name of women being the only people with any right to have an opinion, I'll just say this:
> 
> ...


I think most rights movements have an element of what you're describing. It's a hard line to walk. The heart of it is that people who *think *they're allies of the rights-seekers have always played a big role in creating the problem. Ask any one of those nineteenth-century authors of household governance handbooks, ladies' conduct manuals, etc., and they would've said they were pro-woman, women's allies, just trying to help/protect women, etc. But of course those texts promoted only a certain kind of woman, only certain types of female behavior. So while feminism has certainly had to combat out-and-out misogyny, it's also had to combat "positive" stereotypes that turn out to be restrictive. The question of when stereotyping overshadows the alliance being offered isn't an easy one to answer. I tend to agree with you that Konrath is a good ally, but I also find Courtney's analysis convincing. In this case he misstepped a bit.

If you want to talk about feminism further, let's take it PM. Political stuff is not allowed on the board -- wisely.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Thanks for proving my point all.


Really? So what Courtney said is...us shooting an ally in the foot? Come on. You don't really believe that?


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I wrote something long and detailed with examples from the real world.
> 
> But since this thread is now claimed in the name of women being the only people with any right to have an opinion, I'll just say this:
> 
> ...


I'm okay with alienating Konrath.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Certainly all of you understand that there is no scenario by which I can hope to respond without being torn to pieces, right?

You must have already all noticed that instead of blocks of text, I'm dropping single sentences. That's self-preservation.

Because there's no win for a man here.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm not seeing what you're seeing, Mathew.  But then I'm a woman.  

At any rate, this thread isn't about you  ...and I do think your initial post generated an interesting conversation.

And that people are allowed to agree or disagree with each other here...

Betsy


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'm not seeing what you're seeing, Mathew. But then I'm a woman.
> 
> At any rate, this thread isn't about you  ...and I do think your initial post generated an interesting conversation.
> 
> ...


Trying to determine if this is an attempt to trick me into being torn apart.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

um, yeah, Matthew, if you take a look back at the thread, you'll see lots of men posting the same things that women are. But you're not calling the men on their posts - just the women. I struggle to understand that. 
But as the old saying goes, I may not agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say what you think. (or it goes something like that  )


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

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 think something people who are already in ePublishing forget is that there are quite a lot of new people out there who need help. My girlfriend is currently finishing up her first eBook and it is taking ages to go over KDP Select, borrows, exclusivity, Smashwords, ePub/Mobi/pdf, cover design, blurbs, free runs, reviews, Goodreads, Kboards, the 99 cent price point, 35% vs 70% royalties ...

Just going over various things with her has made me realise the massive amount of knowledge I've acquired over the years!

I still have conversations with traditionally published authors who tell me about the 70 cents per title they get with the trad publisher and say that eBooks aren't worth it -- and then I explain the $2.10 per sale royalty for a $2.99 book. And then I explain "forever". And "infinite bookshelf".

We're down to Indie writers keeping on writing these types of blog posts until when a new person who has just written a romance types in "become a romance author" they find all the great stuff about ePublishing and not HQ at position number 1.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

And yes (off-thread) ... the end of Konrath's post was terrible. Writers have been exploited for as long as publishing has existed. Gender has nothing to do with it. 

I found it a puzzling ending to his piece.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Anya said:


> um, yeah, Matthew, if you take a look back at the thread, you'll see lots of men posting the same things that women are. But you're not calling the men on their posts - just the women. I struggle to understand that.
> But as the old saying goes, I may not agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say what you think. (or it goes something like that )


This thread makes one point of view ok, and another not. The POV legitimized is the one which is primarily supported by female posters. That stance is "ok" for men to have here. As long as they're bothered by ol'Joe's veiled misogyny then they're not to be hassled.

The other one (Konrath's, and the one I originally stated resonated with me) is then deemed unacceptable. We are to alienate people (in specific Joe, but by proxy those who also believe women are strong, nurturing, and enduring) with those thoughts. Those people aren't our allies. They are our oppressors! RAR!

Honestly, I find it hurtful and unworthy of people I assume to be intelligent individuals capable of reason.

I am not the enemy, but this thread says I am. How dumb is that?


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Yes, you are a victim. I weep for you.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

I would love it if we could bring in another side discussion which relates to the reason HQ became the dregs of the publishing world.

We have one line (apparently reviled) line of thought present in the original blog post. What I would think was awesome is if we could get some more people taking a swing at trying to explain what made HQ's terms worse than other publishers. (By this I mean what caused them to develop these terms. Why this company in particular?)

(If you'd like, also take a stab at explaining why it makes good business sense to take worse terms from HQ than to go write for another publisher. It's a common theme in some of the replies which I haven't been able to wrap my head around. I'd love to understand what about HQ makes/made logical business sense even given the poorer terms.)


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

HQ is everywhere. It's a great launching board for many romance authors. They can become household names with HQ and then go off on their own later if they wish. Or branch out. Or have options. You know. MAKE BUSINESS DECISIONS.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Ok, so exposure/marketing.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Ok, so exposure/marketing.


And _sales._

Really, I find this entire post by Konrath unnecessary. Really, it just sounds like he's peeved that Mira rejected him (aka HQ) and he wants to rub their nose in this sales. It's tacky.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Sigh...

Let me more clear than I apparently was earlier.  

Mathew, I didn't see people making you the bad guy here.  But if you keep presenting yourself as a target, our members will take you up on it.  And the thread will continue to be derailed. 

Krista, stop.  EDITED to say that this was about your "I weep for you comment."  Your other comment came while was posting and is fine.

Everyone, let's stay on the initial topic. 

*plays bad ankle card.*
Be nice to me, I just found out I have a hairline fracture in my ankle and have to go to an orthopedist.
<See avatar at left.

Betsy
KBoards Moderator

*limps off*


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Krista, stop. EDITED to say that this was about your "I weep for you comment." Your other comment came while was posting and is fine.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Krista D. Ball said:


> And _sales._


Ok. And sales. But given the disparity in terms you'd need more sales to make the same money, so you're of the opinion that the number of sales one can make with HQ exceeds the number you can make with another publisher by a sufficient amount to (at least partially, if we assume marketing/exposure at better with HQ, which I think was your assertion) make up for the monetary imbalance?



> Really, I find this entire post by Konrath unnecessary. Really, it just sounds like he's peeved that Mira rejected him (aka HQ) and he wants to rub their nose in this sales. It's tacky.


I can't read minds, so I don't know. You may very well be right.

But I do know that it wouldn't be the first time he's tweaked a publisher's/agent's/editor's nose for passing on his (or someone else's) work. As to what his motivations for doing that might be, I can only guess. Generally I come out to advocating for SP and thumbing it at TP.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Ok. And sales. But given the disparity in terms you'd need more sales to make the same money, so you're of the opinion that the number of sales one can make with HQ exceeds the number you can make with another publisher by a sufficient amount to (at least partially, if we assume marketing/exposure at better with HQ, which I think was your assertion) make up for the monetary imbalance?


If someone has no interest in self-publishing, and can't land an agent for whatever reason, HQ really does provide a means for those authors to entire the niche markets of HQ.

Not everyone wants to self-publish. Not everyone wants to go with Samhain or Ellora's Cave. You can choose to sign a contract that isn't great because it is a good option for you at that time.

It is incredibly dismissive to not take any of that into consideration.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> And yes (off-thread) ... the end of Konrath's post was terrible. Writers have been exploited for as long as publishing has existed. Gender has nothing to do with it.
> 
> I found it a puzzling ending to his piece.


The self-proclaimed e-book pirate upset over writers being exploited?  Now that's precious!

This place gets kookier by the day...


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I would love it if we could bring in another side discussion which relates to the reason HQ became the dregs of the publishing world.
> 
> We have one line (apparently reviled) line of thought present in the original blog post. What I would think was awesome is if we could get some more people taking a swing at trying to explain what made HQ's terms worse than other publishers. (By this I mean what caused them to develop these terms. Why this company in particular?)
> 
> (If you'd like, also take a stab at explaining why it makes good business sense to take worse terms from HQ than to go write for another publisher. It's a common theme in some of the replies which I haven't been able to wrap my head around. I'd love to understand what about HQ makes/made logical business sense even given the poorer terms.)


Until very recently, if you wrote category type romance, i.e. short romances between 50000 and 75000 words (HQ authors, please correct me, if I got the word lengths wrong) that fit into a fairly specific framework, then Harlequin/Mills & Boon was your only option of getting those books published. No other publisher would take this sort of book, because all the non-Harlequin category lines folded in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

Besides, Harlequin was more open to new writers than other publishers. They accepted and even encouraged unagented submissions, regularly published new writers, etc... Plus, Harlequin publishes an enormous amount of new titles every month. I actually counted all of Harlequin category romance offerings (i.e. only Harlequin, Silhouette, Steeple Hill, Kimani, etc..., but not Mira, HQN or Luna) once and found that in 2008 Harlequin published 112 category books per month in the North-American market alone, while Mills & Boon published 54 in the British market (there is a lot of overlap though). That's a lot of books and a higher chance than normal for a new author of getting accepted.

Plus, Harlequin was traditionally viewed as a stepping stone to longer so-called single title novels, a chance to get your foot into the door and build a fanbase. And since Harlequin books used to be everywhere, in supermarkets, newsstands, plus sold by subscription, there was a guaranteed readerbase.

So getting published by Harlequin used to be an okay deal for a romance/women's fiction/romantic suspense author, provided you knew what you were letting yourself in for.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

WHDean said:


> The self-proclaimed e-book pirate upset over writers being exploited?  Now that's precious!
> 
> This place gets kookier by the day...


*kissy fingers*


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

I can't even with the other part of this thread.

For the rest:

Harlequin literally had a monopoly on category-length romances, and they have a huge worldwide presence that no other publisher has.

For many years, there was nowhere you could go to publish your 50,000 word romance except Harlequin. There were also very few other houses where they would allow an author to write four books a year. If you were prolific as a romance author, you wrote for Harlequin. I remember going to workshops when I was just starting out (in 2006) where an author who was a major bestseller of her own series said that she still wrote for Harlequin because it gave her consistent royalty checks, and her publishing house only would let her do 2 books a year through them. She said she could always count on Harlequin.

Harlequin was one of the last houses to institute on-publishing portions of the advance (they didn't even try to give me one, even though everyone else did), and they pay their bills on time (or at least they used to). A few years ago, you were hearing of delays of two or three or six months in paying advances from every other house, but when I had a portion of my advance due, I got my money in a couple of weeks.

Today, there's still nowhere you can go to publish your 50,000 word romance and have it translated into every language from Greek to Russian to Polish to Portuguse to Spanish to Thai to Estonian except Harlequin. There are Harlequin authors who make--easily--six figures a year. If you write for the write line--one of the ones that has serious global reach--you really can make bank, even if you're making very little per copy. Harlequin is one of the few houses where if you sell them world language rights, they will use them and use them and use them.

Harlequin is not ALL bad. They're not even a horrible choice in comparison with other publishers. There are legitimate business reasons to choose to publish with Harlequin.

Obviously I have not chosen to do that, but I'm not going to say that other people are making poor choices.

And--honestly--I do talk to Harlequin authors regularly, since I am one of them, and I'm quite certain that they have a good idea what their choices are. They're not choosing to write for Harlequin mindlessly, and the majority of them are very aware of the landscape.

Many of the most successful self-published authors--the ones who can hit the top of the charts on every major venue with each new release--are romance authors of some stripe or another. Those authors are extraordinarily generous with advice and giving back to the community. The romance community is one of the most tightly-knit ones there is. Please do not imagine that there are hordes of romance authors who have no clue but continue to write for Harlequin without question. I've talked to dozens of Harlequin authors (besides being a former one myself) about self-publishing, and every one of them is aware of what is involved. Many are republishing backlist titles where rights have reverted, or they're writing books that are for self-publishing, or they've already put up their own books and are making money. A lot of them are locked into multi-year contracts, and so don't have the space yet to make the decision because they are going to fulfill their contractual obligation and then see what comes up.

The very fact that Harlequin sent a survey out that basically asked what it needed to do to keep its author is the proof you need that their authors know what is going on. They are bargaining, and when Harlequin won't budge, they're leaving.

This is not a case of poor women not knowing much and just accepting things. This is a case of women sticking to their guns and, piece by piece, bringing a huge company to its knees.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Courtney Milan said:


> This is not a case of poor women not knowing much and just accepting things. This is a case of women sticking to their guns and, piece by piece, bringing a huge company to its knees.


^^ that.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Krista D. Ball said:


> If someone has no interest in self-publishing, and can't land an agent for whatever reason, HQ really does provide a means for those authors to entire the niche markets of HQ.


There are other publishers that offer routes into the market without an agent. There's a lot of publishers out there.



> Not everyone wants to self-publish. Not everyone wants to go with Samhain or Ellora's Cave. You can choose to sign a contract that isn't great because it is a good option for you at that time.
> 
> It is incredibly dismissive to not take any of that into consideration.


Ok, but you're talking here about "wants" . . . "wanting" something doesn't make it a good business decision. We're trying to take this from the standpoint which has been put out that decisions are being made because of logical business decisions.

Those are needs predicated on a business plan.

In order to be a success:

I need to get into print.
I need to get an advance of $X.
I need to have a book tour of X cities.
I need to have no more than a 3 book contract.

Any time you WANT to do something it's an emotional decision. Not a logical one.

Maybe we're just running into semantics, but I honestly think that there is a huge component of "I *want*" involved with HQ.

NOT that there isn't with other publishers! A big part of tradpub is want. It's ego. That's understandable.



CoraBuhlert said:


> Until very recently, if you wrote category type romance, i.e. short romances between 50000 and 75000 words (HQ authors, please correct me, if I got the word lengths wrong) that fit into a fairly specific framework, then Harlequin/Mills & Boon was your only option of getting those books published. No other publisher would take this sort of book, because all the non-Harlequin category lines folded in the late 1980s/early 1990s.


I will no doubt be crucified for mentioning it but romance is not the only genre one can write in. From a business perspective (and again, this is where I am trying to be because this is what was found offensive by so many) it makes no sense to produce one kind of product when you can produce another and make more money.

I will freely admit that in certain sub genres HQ was probably the only game in town.



> Besides, Harlequin was more open to new writers than other publishers. They accepted and even encouraged unagented submissions, regularly published new writers, etc... Plus, Harlequin publishes an enormous amount of new titles every month. I actually counted all of Harlequin category romance offerings (i.e. only Harlequin, Silhouette, Steeple Hill, Kimani, etc..., but not Mira, HQN or Luna) once and found that in 2008 Harlequin published 112 category books per month in the North-American market alone, while Mills & Boon published 54 in the British market (there is a lot of overlap though). That's a lot of books and a higher chance than normal for a new author of getting accepted.


So would you say that this churn and new-author appeal allowed them to drop terms much lower?



> Plus, Harlequin was traditionally viewed as a stepping stone to longer so-called single title novels, a chance to get your foot into the door and build a fanbase. And since Harlequin books used to be everywhere, in supermarkets, newsstands, plus sold by subscription, there was a guaranteed readerbase.


But for the series, not the individual author, right?



> So getting published by Harlequin used to be an okay deal for a romance/women's fiction/romantic suspense author, provided you knew what you were letting yourself in for.


Which really is the case with all publishers, of course. Just a bit worse with HQ.



Courtney Milan said:


> Harlequin literally had a monopoly on category-length romances, and they have a huge worldwide presence that no other publisher has.


You would think that would mean they could offer their writers more, not less.



> For many years, there was nowhere you could go to publish your 50,000 word romance except Harlequin. There were also very few other houses where they would allow an author to write four books a year. If you were prolific as a romance author, you wrote for Harlequin. I remember going to workshops when I was just starting out (in 2006) where an author who was a major bestseller of her own series said that she still wrote for Harlequin because it gave her consistent royalty checks, and her publishing house only would let her do 2 books a year through them. She said she could always count on Harlequin.


Again, see above for what I said about writing in a genre you're making less in. The same writer could have published in another genre and had better terms. She could have published a different format of romance and had a different publisher.



> Harlequin was one of the last houses to institute on-publishing portions of the advance (they didn't even try to give me one, even though everyone else did), and they pay their bills on time (or at least they used to). A few years ago, you were hearing of delays of two or three or six months in paying advances from every other house, but when I had a portion of my advance due, I got my money in a couple of weeks.


Can't argue with getting paid on time.



> Today, there's still nowhere you can go to publish your 50,000 word romance and have it translated into every language from Greek to Russian to Polish to Portuguse to Spanish to Thai to Estonian except Harlequin. There are Harlequin authors who make--easily--six figures a year. If you write for the write line--one of the ones that has serious global reach--you really can make bank, even if you're making very little per copy. Harlequin is one of the few houses where if you sell them world language rights, they will use them and use them and use them.


There's people everywhere doing very well. Look at you. (I've got one of yours on my Kindle right now.) But that doesn't mean that the people at the bottom aren't getting crushed.



> Harlequin is not ALL bad. They're not even a horrible choice in comparison with other publishers. There are legitimate business reasons to choose to publish with Harlequin.


Not all bad at all, and I certainly get some of the reasons. I just see a big part of the going with HQ to be based on wants and not needs.

And certainly I am not going to say that's UNIQUE to writers going with any one publisher, because it's not.



> Obviously I have not chosen to do that, but I'm not going to say that other people are making poor choices.
> 
> And--honestly--I do talk to Harlequin authors regularly, since I am one of them, and I'm quite certain that they have a good idea what their choices are. They're not choosing to write for Harlequin mindlessly, and the majority of them are very aware of the landscape.


I suspect most of the top do know this. I wonder if the newer ones do, however.



> Many of the most successful self-published authors--the ones who can hit the top of the charts on every major venue with each new release--are romance authors of some stripe or another. Those authors are extraordinarily generous with advice and giving back to the community. The romance community is one of the most tightly-knit ones there is. Please do not imagine that there are hordes of romance authors who have no clue but continue to write for Harlequin without question. I've talked to dozens of Harlequin authors (besides being a former one myself) about self-publishing, and every one of them is aware of what is involved. Many are republishing backlist titles where rights have reverted, or they're writing books that are for self-publishing, or they've already put up their own books and are making money. A lot of them are locked into multi-year contracts, and so don't have the space yet to make the decision because they are going to fulfill their contractual obligation and then see what comes up.


I see the trends here and on the sales sites. I know there's plenty of romance authors doing well. Which really just solidifies in my mind that HQ is taking too much. Because if it is (and I do not know this for sure), just for the hell of it, easier to make money as a midlist writer of Crime fiction publishing through a traditional outlet than it is to as a Romance author but easier to make money as a romance author self-pubbed than as a crime writer, then there's a problem in how HQ is handling things. Which leads into:



> The very fact that Harlequin sent a survey out that basically asked what it needed to do to keep its author is the proof you need that their authors know what is going on. They are bargaining, and when Harlequin won't budge, they're leaving.


I agree. Right now this is happening. But the terms have been bad for more than a week. And they got there somehow. Everyone says it has everything to do with business. I'm just not so convinced, that's all.



> This is not a case of poor women not knowing much and just accepting things. This is a case of women sticking to their guns and, piece by piece, bringing a huge company to its knees.


Now, yes, but the balance of power got this bad somehow, and that's really what I'm trying to get at.

Thanks for the awesome replies all. This is exactly what I wanted to know.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Ok, but you're talking here about "wants" . . . "wanting" something doesn't make it a good business decision. We're trying to take this from the standpoint which has been put out that decisions are being made because of logical business decisions.
> 
> Those are needs predicated on a business plan.
> 
> ...


Um, seriously? That's what you got from my posts?

Walking away now.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

WHDean said:


> The self-proclaimed e-book pirate upset over writers being exploited?  Now that's precious!
> 
> This place gets kookier by the day...


What are you talking about?


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Um, seriously? That's what you got from my posts?
> 
> Walking away now.


I got that you used the word "want" an awful lot when "want" is not a business consideration. Again, I said, if this is semantics, we can move past it, but the fact remains that I reject "want" as a BUSINESS reason.

It's a perfectly valid personally, of course.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Did HQ ever have a practice of paying a one-time lump sum with no royalty? This would have been in the Eighties.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Did HQ ever have a practice of paying a one-time lump sum with no royalty? This would have been in the Eighties.


I've heard of people making lump sums for the various niche lines (i.e. millionaire with babies), but I don't actually know for certain either way b/c I don't know anyone from that era/HQ.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "I got that you used the word "want" an awful lot when "want" is not a business consideration."


A want is a very valid business consideration. Often it's the guiding vision behind everything else. People start businesses all the time and tailor them around what they want. Often the choice of business is a function of an emotional want.



> "I want this for two nickles up to 0.70, 5000 lot. Play it out all day.
> 
> I want you to move 2000 as long as the hedge doesn't go above 9.
> 
> I want to do this against rbob, what do you have?"


"I know that thing is gonna close higher. I can feel it in my guts. Besides, Jones is short and he's a shithead. Gimme a ten lot at a half."


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

I was a Mira (HQ) author. I signed with them because my agent negotiated a good contract, with terms acceptable to me at that time. It was a business decision. Our parting was also a business decision, done after some serious talking with my agent and editor. Would I sign with Mira again? Yes, if the terms in their contract with me are right. Sure, their boiler plate contracts have always been a sore point among us romance authors, but if one has a good agent and a solid career plan, one can get a pretty good paycheck.

Times are changing. Authors, especially members of RWA, are slowly but surely realizing there are other venues and options. Some started earlier, but many are following. I sometimes find it amusing that slots are being replaced by once self-pubbed authors, LOL. And kudos to them too, because they negotiated and got the terms and $$$  they wanted. Who's to say the once trad-turned-selfpubbed won't get courted to be a trad again?   Oh, these are great days to be an author.

But back to Mira (HQ). I still love them and their brand. I cut my romantic teeth on Mills & Boons at a very young age decades ago. Maybe that was why I wanted to write for them from the very beginning, and maybe, that could be one reason some writers sign on with HQ today, bad contracts or not.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I will no doubt be crucified for mentioning it but romance is not the only genre one can write in. From a business perspective (and again, this is where I am trying to be because this is what was found offensive by so many) it makes no sense to produce one kind of product when you can produce another and make more money.
> 
> I will freely admit that in certain sub genres HQ was probably the only game in town.


No, romance is not the only genre you can write in, but for many writers it was the genre they wanted to write in. And if you write romance, Harlequin used to be the best way into the genre. Plus, Harlequin offers an incredible variety of romance lines, sweet contemporary, hot contemporary, historical, romantic suspense, paranormal, medical, Christian, African-American, small town romance, dominating billionaire and innocent virgin tales, romantic comedy, chick lit type romance. They even have a Nascar romance lines.



> But for the series, not the individual author, right?


A lot of category romance readers buy mainly by series, e.g. they only buy Harlequin Presents or Superromance or Desire or Blaze or whatever, because they know that a book published under this or that series banner will give them a certain reading experience. When I'm looking for a category romance to read on the train or in a doctor's waiting room, I give certain lines a closer look (Romantic Suspense, Intrigue, Nocturne, sometimes Superromance and Riva), while ignoring others completely (e.g. I can't stand Presents or Desire).

However, category romance authors develop a following as well, once readers begin to realize that this author usually offers a good story or simply a story that resonates with the readers. This is how Nora Roberts, Jayne Ann Krentz, Linda Howard, Tess Gerritsen, Jennifer Crusie and Suzanne Brockmann got their start. Readers realized that these particular Harlequin/Silhouette authors offered particularly good stories and so they could develop a fanbase. Currently, Sarah Mayberry and Karina Bliss are names that are often mentioned as category romance authors to check out.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

CoraBuhlert said:


> No, romance is not the only genre you can write in, but for many writers it was the genre they wanted to write in.


Of course, and I'm certainly not discounting it.



> A lot of category romance readers buy mainly by series, e.g. they only buy Harlequin Presents or Superromance or Desire or Blaze or whatever, because they know that a book published under this or that series banner will give them a certain reading experience.


Just as an aside I have hear off and on that romance folks buy by series a lot, even with an author. Would any of you say that's true or not in your opinion? My spec-fic background is much more author oriented. An author's new book is the draw, and not so much which series that new book is in.

I'm curious to know if this is perhaps related to the way romance lines are set up. Any ideas?


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

I'm attempting to not escalate in deference to Harvey, honestly. The way in which you ended the question wasn't giving me much faith that answering it would end well.

But I'll try. Please just remember: nothing I'm saying has to do with gender. It has to do with making business decisions.

I just believe (from experience working with various startups, with entrepreneurs, etc.) that a lot of what gets people into trouble and makes them delusional about how good they are at business is the fact that they jumble their desires (and I am not saying that drive/passion are bad, because they are essential) with their requirements.

You do not need to write a hist-fic regency romance. You need to earn $X writing something.

That's as simply as I can put it. Some things are immaterial to success in business. They may tie into personal satisfaction, but what we've been discussing is the business aspect, and whether or not there are good business-oriented decisions being made.

There have been some good, salient points made which point to the fulfilment of needs. Not all of them have been solely (or best) fulfilled by HQ, but at least they've been there, and that's useful to the dialogue.

Now, I'm ok with you not agreeing with me, but please don't come back at me with this having to do with sexism. Ok?

(ETA: FWIW, I am sorry that I did not respond to you. I never like it when that happens to me, either.  I got a few "WAIT, MORE POSTS" and a couple messages from Harvey on the subject, and it just seemed better to leave it for the moment. Hopefully even if what I am saying doesn't work for you, you can at least see what I'm driving at.)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "You do not need to write a hist-fic regency romance. You need to earn $X writing something."


Need? You don't need to write anything. There are lots of other ways to make money.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I got that you used the word "want" an awful lot when "want" is not a business consideration. Again, I said, if this is semantics, we can move past it, but the fact remains that I reject "want" as a BUSINESS reason.
> 
> It's a perfectly valid personally, of course.


Want is absolutely a business consideration. When I'm figuring out what to do, I consider not only how much money I take in, but what I'm going to have to do to get it. The more onerous something sounds, the less I want to do it, the more money you have to pay me to do it. For instance, I do not want to call people on the phone. I hate it. I also hate asking people for money. If you were to offer me a job as a telemarketer, you'd have to pay me in the millions of dollars to make me do it, and I still would probably quit after a week. Because I don't want to do it. For things that are mildly onerous, I demand less money.

Ignoring the personal cost that you pay when you do things in exchange for money is not good business sense. Any formulation of a business plan that does not take into account the toll that you pay to do things is inherently flawed, and I have never, ever seen any actual business person say, "do whatever it is that will maximize revenue while ignoring long term impacts."

To say otherwise means that we're all poor businesspeople for arguing on with each other on Kindleboards. This makes me no money at all, when heck, I could be working at McDonalds for minimum wage instead. The fact that I don't want to be working at McDonald's, and that I enjoy arguing with people who will never change their minds is, under your formulation, irrelevant. I'm making a poor business choice.

So, for that matter, are you--wanting to not work at McDonald's right now, choosing instead to use your time in a way that makes you absolutely no money at all, arguing with someone who is utterly recalcitrant. And yet you continue to do it! Even when there are absolutely no dividends in sight.

If we're going that route, my choosing to write at all was a poor business decision--as I suspect it was for most people on the board. I should have gone to a large law firm. I would have made more in two years working there than I've earned in my 7 years of writing. So there's another poor business choice, on my part.

Or, maybe, back when I was in college--hey, I got straight As in my chemistry and pure math background. There was a dude who studied with me who argued with me, vociferously, that I should go to medical school. If I'd done that right out of undergrad, I would have started in private practice post-residency...sometime in 2007. I'd be making 200,000+ a year, from 2007 to present day. That's close to a million bucks I've given up, all because I don't like touching people.

I've really screwed the pooch on this one, taking my foolish wants into account.

And my guess is that you have, too.

Congratulations to both of us. This is how you win at life.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> You don't need to write anything. There are lots of ways to make money.


That's true.

I was more looking at the "things I am good at" thing for some people being narrowed down to "writing words" . . . there's certainly plenty of scope within this, as well. Journalism. Copywriting.

Loads of options. But when deciding on a path to take it's not enough to just go with your desires.

This is something that hit journalists hard when papers collapsed and the internet surged. Suddenly the call for people who went out, did interviews, and wrote stories was diminished, and the salaries many of the new journalists could command went in the toilet.

Some of them made decisions to stick with it. That worked out more or less well depending on who you talk to.

Others shifted their writing to other outlets and found success.

A few are no doubt plumbers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "I was more looking at the "things I am good at" thing for some people being narrowed down to "writing words" . . . "


And some people narrow it down to writing hist-fic regency romance because that's what they are good at.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Excuse me while I go out back and have Courtney's babies.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Of course, and I'm certainly not discounting it.
> 
> Just as an aside I have hear off and on that romance folks buy by series a lot, even with an author. Would any of you say that's true or not in your opinion? My spec-fic background is much more author oriented. An author's new book is the draw, and not so much which series that new book is in.
> 
> I'm curious to know if this is perhaps related to the way romance lines are set up. Any ideas?


Some people simply subscribe to a certain Harlequin line and get all books in that line delivered by mail every month (There's probably an electronic option available by now, too). Some people go into a store and buy up all Harlequin books in a certain line. Some have certain line preferences, but don't buy every book sight unseen, but go by author and blurb. Some follow certain category authors only. The thing to remember is that hardcore romance readers are extremely voracious and can go through several books per week.

The appeal of the various Harlequin lines is that you know exactly what you're getting. Harlequin Presents is extremely rich, domineering and usually "exotic" men (Greek tycoons, sheikhs, French billionaires) paired with poorer and sexually less experienced women. "Exotic" locations, secret babies, forced marriages and revenge feature prominently. Harlequin American Romance is family focussed stories set in small US town. Harlequin Blaze is sexy contemporary romance in urban settings. Nocturne is paranormal. Intrigue and Romantic Suspense is thriller/suspense/romance hybrids. Medical Romance is stories about doctors, nurses, midwives, etc... falling in love. So if you prefer a certain type of story, you know where you can get it.

And some category readers are very vocal about reading only their chosen line and nothing else. Harlequin Presents, the line with the Greek tycoon's virgin bride's secret baby books, published books from a UK-only line called Riva under the Harlequin Presents banner in North America and got a lot of flak from regular Presents readers, because the Riva books did not match their expectations, mainly because the heroes weren't jerky enough and the heroines actually had spines and some of them - gasp - even were not virgins. Harlequin eventually reacted and published the UK Riva books under a different banner.



> You do not need to write a hist-fic regency romance. You need to earn $X writing something.


Seconding what Courtney said. Writing is not generally the best or the quickest way to make money, that's why many writers have day jobs both under the old and the new system. But if people are compelled to write, they usually write whatever genre they happen to enjoy or at least write a compromise between "what I want to write" and "what stands a chance of making me money".

You'd probably sell far better if you wrote erotica or new adult college virgin falls for tattooed bad boy romances. Yet you choose to write fantasy.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Excuse me while I go out back and have Courtney's babies.


Krista, I think we need to have "the talk" as you don't seem to understand how it works...

*apologizes for thread derail*

Betsy


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Courtney Milan said:


> Want is absolutely a business consideration. When I'm figuring out what to do, I consider not only how much money I take in, but what I'm going to have to do to get it. The more onerous something sounds, the less I want to do it, the more money you have to pay me to do it.


Absolutely. But it's a sliding scale.



> For instance, I do not want to call people on the phone. I hate it. I also hate asking people for money. If you were to offer me a job as a telemarketer, you'd have to pay me in the millions of dollars to make me do it, and I still would probably quit after a week.


I've done it because I needed money. I suspect I hate it less than you do, but I hardly love it. 



> Ignoring the personal cost that you pay when you do things in exchange for money is not good business sense. Any formulation of a business plan that does not take into account the toll that you pay to do things is inherently flawed, and I have never, ever seen any actual business person say, "do whatever it is that will maximize revenue while ignoring long term impacts."


Certainly. But how big is the long term impact of writing novels for more money that are cozy mysteries rather than romantic suspense? That will differ by individual.



> To say otherwise means that we're all poor businesspeople for arguing on with each other on Kindleboards. This makes me no money at all, when heck, I could be working at McDonalds for minimum wage instead. The fact that I don't want to be working at McDonald's, and that I enjoy arguing with people who will never change their minds is, under your formulation, irrelevant. I'm making a poor business choice.


So, for that matter, are you--wanting to not work at McDonald's right now, choosing instead to use your time in a way that makes you absolutely no money at all, arguing with someone who is utterly recalcitrant. And yet you continue to do it! Even when there are absolutely no dividends in sight.[/quote]

I just like your pretty words.



> If we're going that route, my choosing to write at all was a poor business decision--as I suspect it was for most people on the board. I should have gone to a large law firm. I would have made more in two years working there than I've earned in my 7 years of writing. So there's another poor business choice, on my part.


It seems likely that for a significant number of writers this is the case. I'm not going to judge anyone individually, of course, because that would require intimate knowledge of how they are doing, what they otherwise could have done, etc. Of course it's also true that some people are very successful. But others have been led by their passions down the road to a dearth of success, and to actually talk about HQ just once in this whole thing: some of them have struggled at the bottom of the pile at that specific publisher, were terms have not been as good as they could have been. (As we see now with authors pushing back.)



> Or, maybe, back when I was in college--hey, I got straight As in my chemistry and pure math background. There was a dude who studied with me who argued with me, vociferously, that I should go to medical school. If I'd done that right out of undergrad, I would have started in private practice post-residency...sometime in 2007. I'd be making 200,000+ a year, from 2007 to present day. That's close to a million bucks I've given up, all because I don't like touching people.


We're assuming you'd have been any good at it, but stipulating that, yeah, you could have. Of course most of the doctors I know don't make 200k/year. They make six figures, yeah, but not 200k. I think you got off easy. Cadavers. Only in my fiction, thanks. The reality I've had has put me off them.



> I've really screwed the pooch on this one, taking my foolish wants into account.


You're doing well, yeah.



> And my guess is that you have, too.


Remains to be seen. If I never succeed beyond a high five figure income (roughly where I would be at in various paths if I'd stuck with them) then yeah, I've probably made a bad choice. Currently my sales have just broken into the three figure range. I hope to grow them the old fashioned way: writing more things that people find they want to read. But that could take a while. Or it could be immediate. Or never.



> Congratulations to both of us. This is how you win at life.


Here's hoping your words propel the universe to driving some sales. 

You know, secretly, I want to steal the dresses off of your covers. I don't know why. Too much pretty.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

CoraBuhlert said:


> You'd probably sell far better if you wrote erotica or new adult college virgin falls for tattooed bad boy romances. Yet you choose to write fantasy.


I actually chose my subject matter based on the lack of competition yet similarity to top performers.

So mercenary.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

genevieveaclark said:


> Betsy, have you...
> 
> Do you not...
> 
> You might need a refresher on "the talk", updated with science. I would tell you to watch the L Word, but I wouldn't want to inflict that on anyone who wasn't orientatedly-obligated. (Just...awful.)


Well, I was thinking more along the lines that one couldn't conceive and then deliver in the time between Courtney's post and Krista's....sorry for any confusion.  Perhaps there's been a long-standing er, arrangement that I wasn't aware of...


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> If I never succeed beyond a high five figure income (roughly where I would be at in various paths if I'd stuck with them) then yeah, I've probably made a bad choice. Currently my sales have just broken into the three figure range. I hope to grow them the old fashioned way: writing more things that people find they want to read. But that could take a while. Or it could be immediate. Or never.


I want to say this as gently as possible, but...when every author you're saying is making a poor business decision is making more money than you, I think you have no call to judge.

Right now, you're choosing to prioritize your dream of breaking out big in self-publishing--your want--over the cold hard cash of an advance from a place like Harlequin.

It's okay for you to do that. I absolutely support your right to do it, and wouldn't call it a poor business choice. But I don't see how this squares with your rhetoric.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Dear romance authors,

please continue to want to write romance. I will continue to want to read it. 

Thanks, 
romance reader. 



There are some fantastic writers at HQ. I read a lot of historical romance, so I lean more towards that line when I do read HQ. I first found Courtney with her harlequin titles. I followed her when she self published. This has been the way with many other authors for me. 

There are readers of HQ titles all over the world. I didn't grow up in the US, but I knew Harlequin. Readers of those lines are everywhere in the world. The books are also affordable and many still read the paper versions. 

Only in recent times have other publishers come up for category romance. Loveswept even resurrected their line and I get to read backlist stuff for 2.99. 
New publishers are Crimson Romance and Entangled. Those are all I can think off right now. 

I want to read books by authors that want to write what they want to write. Not write what they think sells at the moment only. 

Not being a writer, I can't really comment on the other side here.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

genevieveaclark said:


> Ok, contrary to all evidence, I actually do like you. I know! Don't tell anyone.


I'm adorable. In that Gremlin fed after midnight kind of way.



> Ok, here is where we get into really tricky territory. This is not the first time I've had these kinds of conversations. (Surprise! No, I kid. I didn't mean that to be condescending, just setting context.) Nor do I expect it will be the last. And here is the best I can do: I believe that you didn't intend anything remotely approaching sexism. I believe that you genuinely try to be a really good guy, and actually *think* about your place in the world and how it might relate to others. And further, I think that's more than most people do, male, female, white, black, straight, gay, cisgendered, not, whatever. I don't know that that's enough, is the thing. Like, there are still times when you're gonna get it wrong, because human. (Ditto me, ditto anyone.) And doing so on the internet isn't the best, because, you know, FLAME. I definitely flamed at you, but that's also because it was a giant epic pile of BS. Doesn't mean flame was the most productive way to go about it.


I was seriously just avoiding inciting a riot when I didn't reply immediately. Sword of Damocles and all.



> The thing is, projecting weak emotions as the motivations behind decisions when the actors are women is a tried and true sexist thing to do. You can't go there without bringing all that up. You just can't. And, in this particular instance, you also happened to be really, really wrong.


The thing that I'm getting hit with here is the assumption that I'm picking these thoughts out of thin air. I can't speak for Joe, but the women in my life HAVE sacrificed to keep working. They HAVE made business decisions based on the things he referred to.

So if I am terribly wrong it's because I've experienced an odd confluence of events in which my mother, my grandmother, and women that I have been involved with and been friends with, have all made these kinds of decisions. Decisions based upon the need for stability. Decisions based on the assumption that things would eventually get better. Decisions to tough things out.

If I'm wrong, the world is wrong. (Which, hey, it IS.)

It's not because I think women are weak. Not because I think they are dumb. It is literally that I have more admiration for the women in my life than I do for myself, certainly, and more than I have for most of the men. I'm not lying when I refer to Bridgette as my better half. She is.



> I think it's unwise to make generalizations, particularly when we're talking about something that is gendered.


I certainly think that he could have said something different. I don't know that he deserves to be dipped in tar and chased with feathers for it. Particularly because as I've said: his words mesh with my life.

(And to be fair YES I know some men who have made the exact same decisions. But on the balance I know more men who have gotten fed up sooner, and more men who have said "screw that I'm better than that" . . . and yeah, sometimes they ate a lot of ramen noodles.)



Courtney Milan said:


> I want to say this as gently as possible, but...when every author you're saying is making a poor business decision is making more money than you, I think you have no call to judge.


How many authors on the rolls at HQ wrote the first word of their available works in 2013? The answer is zero.



> Right now, you're choosing to prioritize your dream of breaking out big in self-publishing--your want--over the cold hard cash of an advance from a place like Harlequin.


See above.



> It's okay for you to do that. I absolutely support your right to do it, and wouldn't call it a poor business choice. But I don't see how this squares with your rhetoric.


I am not saying writing for HQ is always a bad decision always. I am saying that making a business decision based on your desire to be an HQ romance novelist isn't good. Taking bad terms isn't good.

That's all.

(ETA: FWIW, that was perfectly gentle.)


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

genevieveaclark said:


> I really just...
> 
> I don't understand how this is not obvious.


I feel that way a lot. I chalk it up to me being weird. You should too.



> Romance is by far the most competitive genre. Just look at the Amazon lists, and think about what you have to do to remain visible in the romance genres. Seriously. Think about how many books you have to sell.


Right, so is the assumption that it you don't do the HQ route and don't take the terms and don;t claw through the series to the standalones that you can't succeed? Historically, I mean. Obviously self-pub is all wonky now.



> It is very clearly, on the basis of numbers alone, the NFL of self-publishing.


Which doesn't make it any easier for people in the NBA, MLB, MLS, or NHL . . . they also have to get fans, have to perform, etc.

So why do we not lecture the Giants when they don't have as good of terms for their players as the Yankees?



> Me, personally, I would be hesitant to lecture the Giants on how they're doing it wrong. Obviously there are plenty of people who do that, all the time, for fun. But usually not to the Giants' faces.


Sure. But he did. *shrug*



> Also, my belief that Joe Konrath is a self-serving *$^@( who is less than wholly honest predates this particular post, TRUST.


That's fair.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Right, so is the assumption that it you don't do the HQ route and don't take the terms and don;t claw through the series to the standalones that you can't succeed? Historically, I mean. Obviously self-pub is all wonky now.


For a long time, yes, that's what it was like for many, many, many authors.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Sure. But he did. *shrug*


Chances are, he's back selling well. I've noticed that he only does these attacking posts when his books are doing well. People are less likely to fly at him when his books are on the lull.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Krista D. Ball said:


> For a long time, yes, that's what it was like for many, many, many authors.


So, not that this is any different than any other publisher, of course, HQ had a really good hold on the market. It allowed them to brand themselves to readers. Readers sometimes become writers. (Remember the questions in the survey about "belonging" as well as the observation that HQ has legions of readers who will fancy a stab at writing, even if the terms are bad. Self pub will only bleed some of those off.)

And, I note, that part of what is being talked about is their preference for new authors. Now, the only way they have room for new authors is because someone is so successful they come off the top, or people fall out with burnout. The worse the terms are, the more likely the latter is to happen.



Krista D. Ball said:


> Chances are, he's back selling well. I've noticed that he only does these attacking posts when his books are doing well. People are less likely to fly at him when his books are on the lull.


He seems to have taken a net hiatus for recovering his rights and the like.

Though HQ only just sent out the survey, so no telling what would have happened had they sent it 3 months ago.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Romance has room for new authors all of the time because that genre's readers are by far read/purchase the most.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Krista D. Ball said:


> Romance has room for new authors all of the time because that genre's readers are by far read/purchase the most.


That only accounts for some new authors.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

*decloaking*



Courtney Milan said:


> ...If I'd done that right out of undergrad, I would have started in private practice post-residency...sometime in 2007. I'd be making 200,000+ a year, from 2007 to present day. That's close to a million bucks I've given up, all because I don't like touching people...


Hold da phone.

The average doctor sees 35% of their salary go to overhead fees, and the average group expects a buy-in payment which can be stratospheric in a great market. If you try to start your own, you have to buy a ton of equipment, live off medicare payments for a few years, and avoid being driven out of the market (or absorbed) by your older and more connected competitors.

If you want to earn 200K in a non-surgical specialty, you'll be doing a 2-3 year fellowship after residency and/or be moonlighting on top of your night and day job. There are a few paths that are exceptions to this, but you'll be expected to graduate near the top of a medical school class that all got straight As in chemistry while curing kittens of rabies in the Sudan. (I'm not saying that you can't; I'm just saying you are going to have to assassinate your social life.)

And assuming you weren't writing during medical school *grins* this is the kind of debt you'll be carrying:

Annual cost of tuition: $48,000
Annual cost of attendance: $67,500 (Includes costs of books/supplies, loan fees, health insurance, licensure fees, living expenses, and transportation allowance)

Total balance after medical school: $270,000
Amount subsidized: $34,000
Amount unsubsidized: $236,000

Interest incurred during 3 years of residency: $100,000 [add more for each fellowship year]
Total balance after residency: $370,000*

That means a minimum payment of 3.3K monthly, but you'll want to pay 4K monthly, or about 50K per year.

This is assuming that you don't have any carry over debt from undergrad.
This is assuming you incurred no start-up debt and were handed a practice.
This is assuming you aren't already paying alimony.
And this is assuming that you are willing to put off having kids (if you want them).

Becoming a doctor can be a great long term financial decision. If you don't run out and buy a pair of matching yachts, you can get the debt under control in a decade and enjoy a great middle age. And if you are willing to work in a hospital, a lot of the overhead issues are addressed, but then you aren't your own boss, which is what most of us type-A maniacs want. 

B.

*recloaking*


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "I am saying that making a business decision based on your desire to be an HQ romance novelist isn't good."


Why not? Wouldn't that depend on the specific decision and the environment in which it is made? How can we judge a decision like that if we don't know the strategy it is supporting?



> "The average doctor sees 35% of their salary go to overhead fees, and the average group expects a buy-in payment which can be stratospheric in a great market."


Ball park range for the buy-in cost?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Total balance after residency: $370,000*
> 
> That means a minimum payment of 3.3K monthly, but you'll want to pay 4K monthly, or about 50K per year.


Wow.

I'm suddenly glad I became the silly kind of doctor. My loan payments are a gnat bite compared to that.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Ball park range for the buy-in cost?


Highly variable. I've seen 50K for some rural practices, and I once watched a surgical derm slot go for over a million. This all may be mute, however, as there is a newish trend of hospitals buying up small private practices to ensure a steady funnel of patients into their healthcare systems. Corporate medicine here we come!



Becca Mills said:


> Wow.
> 
> I'm suddenly glad I became the silly kind of doctor. My loan payments are a gnat bite compared to that.


You have to find a deep, otherwise unsated, pleasure in draining large purulent abscesses before you even consider entering this field.

B.

*supercloaking*


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> *decloaking*
> 
> Hold da phone.
> 
> ...


I am married to a doctor. I went to law school. I know a LOT about higher education, and I do our taxes and handle all our finances. I have a very good idea what student loans look like and what doctors make.

So take note:

1. I would have gone to medical school (had I gone) in 2000, which would have made the tuition about 25-30% less in real dollars. It also means that I could have consolidated my loans at around 3%, because this would have been before the 2006 student loan reform which put a floor on student interest rates. (These numbers are not guesses: I did get a bunch of student loans within exactly that time frame. I know exactly what my interest rates are, and I also spent a good portion of the year before this charting out tuition increases in real dollars for law school v. med school v. undergrad for my day job, so I have a pretty good handle on precisely how hyperinflationary tuition has been. If anything, I'm underestimating, because I would have gone to a state school, and state tuition rates have increased far more rapidly than private tuition rates over the same timeframe.) (Also note that your calculations are wrong if you're talking about going to medical school today: Subsidized loans for graduate students were abolished for the current school year, so someone going today is even more screwed than you present.)

2. Without getting into too many details, my husband is in a non-surgical specialty for which he did no fellowship (although he does do procedures). He works ten eight hour shifts a month, and makes six figures. If he wanted to work 14 shifts a month, he'd easily break 200K. He does work in a hospital, but then, that's a given for the specialty.

I know people in family practice won't make 200K, but what I describe is certainly not impossible, and the number wasn't based on random conjecture about how awesome it is to be a doctor who makes lots of money.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

B. Justin Shier said:


> You have to find a deep, otherwise unsated, pleasure in draining large purulent abscesses before you even consider entering this field.


Hope you find the abscess that lays the golden egg, B. Those numbers suck.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Courtney Milan said:


> (Also note that your calculations are wrong if you're talking about going to medical school today: Subsidized loans for graduate students were abolished for the current school year, so someone going today is even more screwed than you present.)


Flee! Flee, young med students! 

(It's way aside, but something needs doing about higher education costs. At this rate only successful romance novelists will be sending their kids to school.  )


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> (It's way aside, but something needs doing about higher education costs. )


LOOK! We agree on something!


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Courtney Milan said:


> LOOK! We agree on something!


Quick, someone lock the thread!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

You called?

Betsy


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> You called?
> 
> Betsy


LLOL


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Are there any popular romance writers that are men? If a man writes romance, should he use a female pen name? Just wondering.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Alan Petersen said:


> Are there any popular romance writers that are men? If a man writes romance, should he use a female pen name? Just wondering.


Conventional wisdom says yes, if you are male, you write using a female or gender neutral name.

So you might be Alana Petersen or A. Petersen, were you to stick close to your own name. Or you might go with something completely manufactured.

There are supposedly a very few bold souls who write romance under a masculine name though, so it's not absolutely unheard of.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I will no doubt be crucified for mentioning it but romance is not the only genre one can write in. From a business perspective (and again, this is where I am trying to be because this is what was found offensive by so many) it makes no sense to produce one kind of product when you can produce another and make more money.


From a business perspective, it also makes no sense for me to work for the federal government when I could go to a large law firm and make two or three times what I currently make. (I laugh when I read about politicians railing about how much money government employees earn -- really? Mr. Brice and I actually took ginormous pay cuts when we left our law firms.)

I write the genre I write because it's what I read and what I enjoy. Sure, I might earn more if I wrote a more popular genre, but I'd also hate writing. And once I hate writing, I'm done. I write because I enjoy it. And if I can earn from it, all the better. There are much easier ways for me to earn a living than writing, so I'm certainly not going to force myself to write in some other genre just because it's higher paying.

Same goes for writers of category romance. You wonder why they took those Harlequin deals with bad terms? Because for many years, Harlequin was literally the ONLY game in town for cateogry romance. And if category romance is what you write, well, sure, maybe they could write something different. But I don't know about you, but I can tell when an author is writing a grnre she doesn't love. It SHOWS.


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

Off to have Courtney's baby too.


----------



## Brenda Coulter (Aug 18, 2012)

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."
> 
> ...


THANK you.

I'm another former Harlequin author who is doing just fine without Mr. Konrath donning his cape and stepping in front of me to face down the Evil Harlequin Empire. Sheesh. Why does all of this even matter to the guy?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I laugh when I read about politicians railing about how much money government employees earn -- really? Mr. Brice and I actually took ginormous pay cuts when we left our law firms.


On the margin, a single government lawyer might be able to move to a private firm at a hefty salary increase. But that's certainly not the case with all government lawyers. How many government lawyers are there? There isn't a place for all of them in private practice making three times their government salary. Many private lawyers make less than government lawyers. Are law firms on an expansion now? Where would all those government lawyers go?

So I don't laugh at the idea of government people making more. It's more reasonable to look at averages of segments than the margin when comparing aggregates. Yes, really.



> "Why does all of this even matter to the guy?"


It matters to me because I take an interest in what publishers do and how their behavior indicates shifts in the market. At the same time, we see the Hydra situation. I take an interest in both Hydra and HQ for that same reason. It's reasonable for anyone to share that interest.


----------



## Cheryl Douglas (Dec 7, 2011)

I have to agree with Konrath on this one. That's the reason I never even considered trad publishing. That, and I'm way too impatient to wait around for a year to find out whether they like me. I'm much happier letting the readers decide... even when they don't. Like me that is.


----------



## scottmarmorstein (Feb 27, 2013)

I've been reading Konrath's blog for well over a year and a half, fully inspired by his 'coaching' as it were. I usually check him.

Does anyone else do something like this when they first get on the 'net? It looks something like this: A visit to jakonrath.blogspot.com, then a visit to hughhowey.com, then to kboards.com, then facebook...fucking facebook sucks, so off you go, reading whatever you can find and then...a drop back into the story you're currently writing.

It's not necessarily in that order (nor is it actually daily) but, that is often my surfing routine. 

No? No one else? Just me. Oh well.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Not I. I'm too busy writing training manuals


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> It matters to me because I take an interest in what publishers do and how their behavior indicates shifts in the market. At the same time, we see the Hydra situation. I take an interest in both Hydra and HQ for that same reason. It's reasonable for anyone to share that interest.


This.

These things may not be directly related to someone's current genre (many writers switch genres multiple times during their careers though) but they are related to the industry as a whole.

So from that standpoint any professional has a reasonable interest. Professionals who have made it a part of their platform to take an interest are doubly on the hook. Part of his platform is as an SP advocate, and not just an author.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Mathew Reuther said:


> This.
> 
> These things may not be directly related to someone's current genre (many writers switch genres multiple times during their careers though) but they are related to the industry as a whole.
> 
> So from that standpoint any professional has a reasonable interest. Professionals who have made it a part of their platform to take an interest are doubly on the hook. Part of his platform is as an SP advocate, and not just an author.


I'm not a professional, yet I still have a reasonable interest.


----------

