Harlequin Horizons is now known as DellArte Press. While I haven’t had time to fully explore either the DellArte website or eHarlequin for evidence, apparently there is no longer any mention of Harlequin on the DellArte website, and there is no mention of DellArte on the Harlequin website. Excellent!
I haven’t heard any news about whether Harlequin form rejection letters will still steer rejected writers to DellArte, as was the original intention with Horizons… Let’s hope not.
How did the corporation arrive at the new name for their vanity publishing venture? Obviously, I can’t speak for HQ/TorStar, but if you search DellArte on the ‘Net, you’ll find references to “Commedia dell’arte,” Italian improvisational theater stretching from the 16th century later referred to as the Harlequinade. The Harlequin (or Arlechinno) is listed as a comic servant character in this form of theater. A graphic of the harlequin is also a Harlequin logo and appears on every Harlequin category romance (just the Harlequins, not the Silhouettes). He’s the little jester guy in the white diamond on the cover and spine.
The DellArte website still refers to their services as “self-publishing.” In another area, they call it “assisted self-publishing.” Granted, “vanity publishing” doesn’t sound very good. “Predator publishing” (which authors on some loops have suggested would make a better fit) sounds worse (for HQ).
Frankly, if HQ decides against referring heartbroken writers to DellArt in Harlequin/Silhouette rejection letters, I’ll be happy. Predator/vanity/assisted self-publishing has been around for decades (centuries?). Contrary to what some vanity publishing websites would have browsers believe, it is not a new concept. I first heard of vanity publishing back in 1979 (I know, hard to believe I could learn such things while still in the womb, but that’s what brilliance will get you). I think the “new” in the concept is that clever websites can appeal to a writer’s ego and reinforce the myth that most writers pay to have their work published, which is not the case. Back in 1979, it wasn’t anywhere near as easy to obtain information on how to get published as it is now. Therefore, there wasn’t as much misinformation floating around, either.
Not that I wish for pre-Internet days…
I admit that during this whole debacle I couldn’t help but wonder if including the Harlequin name in the “assisted self-publishing” venture wasn’t a clever P.R. move to obtain lots and lots and lotsa press. With a back-up plan that if the crud hit the windmill they could do just what they have—remove the Harlequin name from the venture. Meanwhile, all the publicity is still out there, and “the only bad publicity is no publicity,” as they say.
Thoughts?