I'm amazed that I got so many comments on the Harlequin post.
First off, I apologize for offending the romance writers and readers. Schlock, after all, is in the eye of the beholder. One woman's art is another woman's trash.
I don't like Harlequin for a few reasons in regard to what they publish:
- The covers do show a heavy preponderance of heaving bosoms and bare chests. One word: Fabio.
- Harlequin has a strict formula on how a plot goes from start to finish. Do not waver from the formula as a writer or you'll be getting the "Gee, you could be vanity published by AuthorHouse; we'll put in a good word for you."
Harlequin has shown a deep cynicism and contempt for both its readers and writers. Yet some of you defend them as book publishers. Most of you recognize the contempt they have for you and don't like it one bit. Hence, RWA and other orgs dumping them.
My point, however, is that they made a magnificently brilliant business move. They'll make money from the slushpile.
Will readers keep buying Harlequin products? Will writers continue to submit to them?
Yes. And being mad at me for admiring their audacity still won't get you published.
I also contend that many HQ readers still buy by brand name. If "Harlequin" or "HQ" is anywhere on the cover, readers will buy it. Do they stop to discern whether they might like the plot? Why bother? They already know what the plot is and don't care. If they like the historicals, they'll buy them because the cover has a bare-chest pirate holding a pretty woman on the deck of a ship. If they like a western theme, they'll have a bare-chested cowboy holding a pretty woman on a horse.
Does that mean the writing is bad? Absolutely not. And if you out there as a reader or author decide not to do business with them, that's great. Will enough go that way for HQ to realize they've made a mistake? If so, that's also great. Will they continue to make money after this move like they had a leprechaun's pot of gold. In my opinion, they will.
I hope I'm proved wrong.