[dadioflex]

Okay. So you're saying she shouldn't have written those books? It takes two parties to make a bad contract valid. If a writer signs the contract put in front of her, and neither she, nor her agent if she has one, pipes up about improving the terms, then whose fault is that?

Let's say that Harlequin aren't prepared to negotiate on contract terms (unusual - the first contract you see is rarely the best one. Particularly after ten years working with them.) and adopt a take it or leave it attitude. She loses out on the work because she's priced herself out of the job. Somebody else comes along and accepts the same contract. How much of your anger are you going to direct at the second author? Capitalism is not a meritocracy. God knows, it is not.

Two people are potentially competing for the same contract (obviously it'll be many more than two people) and Harlequin has to decide who they'd rather have. All things being equal the better writer gets the job. If their first choice won't accept the terms, they move to the next writer. If neither of them sign then Harlequin changes their terms until somebody bites. The terms change to reflect the market rate. There is no obligation upon Harlequin to pay more than people are willing to work for. There isn't even the concept of a minimum wage under these circumstances.

Do you typically pay more than the asking price when going to the mall?

When a business makes a decision out of self-interest, it is demonized. When the little man does the same he is lionized. Both are taking what they consider to be the rational, logical decision. Business is never going to win that popularity contest.

She did the sensible thing. Stuck with the company that was paying her more than anyone else was offering until she had enough of a name to strike out on her own.

I don't really understand how the old publishing model is doing anything whatsoever to get in the way of the new publishing model. They barely intersect, and typically only when an old, moneyed, publisher decides to heap fame and riches upon a previously self-published author. Old publishing is only doing harm to itself. Nothing Harlequin does can stop you writing a romance and putting it out as an e-book, but if their own terms are unacceptable to their existing writers, they're clearly going to lose more talent. I suspect they'll take another look at their standard terms and make them more attractive to counteract both this and whatever negative publicity may be generated. They won't be doing it because their former terms were evil or reprehensible, they'll be doing it because market forces have determined that they have to in order to remain competitive.

EDIT: Something I was hoping someone might pick up on, was the similarity between writing romances for the likes of Harlequin and franchise novels like Star Wars etc. As I understand it they also suffer from lower royalties (split with the franchise owner I imagine) leading to many NYT bestsellers probably making a good deal less than you would imagine.