Poison Pen Names
March 20, 2008
Oh My God!
I have been reading some interesting blog posts concerning what I have found about Torquere Press and it’s owners and the multiple Pen Names deal.
I honestly don’t know where people got the idea I did not understand the use of a Pen Name. It’s not like I don’t read Gay Romance eBooks.
So let me say I completely understand the use of a Pen Name in the case of an author changing genres or publishers.
So let’s summarize again…
Pen Names used to change genres or publishers = good
Pen Names used to deceive, lie, misrepresent the facts, provide more financial leverage or vanity for that one writer/owner/whoever that is masquerading as four or five other writers writing in the same genre on the same publisher site = bad
Got it?
So when I show Amazon.com showing 99 TOTAL books in print published by Torquere Press
S.A. Clements has 3
Mike Shade has 1
Sean Micheal has 31
B.A. Tortuga has 14
Rough count that makes a total of 49 books out of 99 by an owner.
Add to that fact that Julia Talbot has another 7 books in print by an owner.
That brings the total amount of owner printed books to 56 out of 99 total books in print from Torquere Press.
Do people get what I am talking about here? Am I the only one who questioned this as just a reader before I ever asked anyone writing for Torquere Press because several of those successful Pen Names have no people behind them? There might be even more questionable examples but I can only read so many poorly edited eBooks. I am sorry about that.
Torquere Press is not just starting up like the old Ellora’s Cave was and the owners are not one of their “few writers” anymore so why are all the books representing their total publisher offerings in expensive paperbacks favoring the owners?
Is that an understandable question people?
I am also NOT discussing people who work very hard to be transparent about all this with the owner Pen Name.
Treva Harte is a fine example of the head honcho writing damn good books and running a ePublisher and doing the right thing. The point being I may have read Treva Harte before finding out she ran the place but it did not raise any questions in my mind because it was all above board unlike Torquere’s little nasty comment implied. Like I would need their help to spot all of Jaid Black’s old Pen Names from when EC first started. I am also not sitting there wondering how someone running the show found that much time to write 49 books because every time I read a post from Treva I get the image of her doing 25 things at the same time, but that is probably off topic.
As far as the truth goes from what I have read from Torquere they are not denying a damn thing here. Which is probably a good thing since I won’t have to ask why Shawn Clements was wearing a B.A. Tortuga name tag at RT.
Oh and for a little more proof of why I think my information is closer to true besides the fact that Angelia Sparrow and Naomi Brooks were canned by Torquere Press for being themselves and asking questions… click the picture above to the EPIC membership roll and simply look up Shawn Clements and Lorna Hinson. Go on, I’ll wait right here.
I guess after reading this again… I want to add I think Pen Names are a highly useful tool to a writer but should be used deliberately and also logically. If the information regarding it is divulged, which we all know it will be, I hope for the sake of the writer/owner/whatever it is understandable not only to the reader but more importantly their peers and does not immediately bring up questions about trust.
Tags: eAuthors, ePublishers, eReaders
Thank you for saying this, Teddy because the flood of disingenuous posts on this issue by TQ apologists is making me grind my teeth. Quite a lot of us - me included - write under pen names. A lot of authors use multiple pseudonyms too. There are good career and personal reasons for doing this. No one - but no one - is saying there isn’t.
The only issue that causes concern is when it’s done for concealed or deceptive motives. That’s what is arousing concern at TQ, but they refuse to acknowledge that. No one at TQ can be bothered actually addressing the question as to why one of their owners needs to write under four different names for their own press. No one there wants to explain how an anthology edited by an author using one pen name and including two of their other pen names could possibly be considered to have been properly edited, or fairly selected for. No one wants to explain the disproportionate printing output for the owners’ pen name items. No one will tell new authors the truth about who’s writing what book under what name - they have to find that out through third parties, like you. They heard rumours, half-truths, and if they ask questions they’re frozen out socially and worse.
It’s not about privacy, or branding. It’s about transparency and honesty not just with the public but the people who work for you. If TQ are going to lie and obfuscate to their own authors, let alone to their public, then why should authors and readers have any confidence in them at all?
I’ll add another charge to lack of transparency and dishonesty. Gutlessness. Because no one at the top of TQ will answer these questions, no matter how many times they’re put or who asks them. Instead, they foster an atmosphere of seige, intimidation and antagonism. That’s the tactic of bullies.
I’m going to sound like a flunky here so you’ll just have to take my word for it that I am not. But being offered out of a contract is not be ‘canned’ or ‘expelled’. I didn’t see the email but is it possible it was more like ‘you seem pretty damn unhappy, would you prefer to leave Torquere’?
Offering that too easily is crass and hostile, yes. But compared with places like Chippewa that refused to release me when I asked, it strikes me as the lesser evil. I think there is a distinction between being shown where the door is and being pushed out it?
veinglory’s last blog post..Formatting Manuscripts for E-Publishing (Part 1)
Emily has the right of it.
It was much more “The door is there if you’re unhappy,” and much less the “Be gone!” y’all seem to think.
We asked out of one contract, a novel we expedited the rewrites on (detrimentally) because TQ put out an emergency call. We think everyone would be better served with a few more rounds of rewriting before editing.
Well, now, technically it’s not. But if it’s the very first response to an indication of an unhappy employee, it’s more than hostile, isn’t it? If a boss calls me in and says ‘we’d like you to consider your position with this company’, I know that’s code for ‘leave or be fired’. It was retaliation, pure and simple. There was no attempt at all to address Angelia’s fairly mild discontent, or to ask why she hadn’t raised it personally, or anything. It was a straightforward, oh, you don’t seem happy so why don’t you bugger off?
Not the way to treat a loyal and productive employee or a business asset. So, as I asked on Karen’s blog, why do TQ hang onto authors and ask them to keep writing for them, if they consider them of so little value that they make no attempt to retain them?
Basic Business 101 states that you do not part with assets that make money for you without doing everything possible to prevent losing them. You know you’re in a bad job when the first thing out of your boss’ mouth is “if you don’t like it, you know where the door is” when concerns come up.
It came off condescending and dismissive to me. Is that any better than hostile and aggressive in the long run?
I totally agree with your point, absolutely. But I don’t think a lack of tact and consideration is a reason to ditch a five year business relationship with one of my publishers just yet. If she had been involuntarily tossed, yes, then I would have. That is why I brought up the difference. I think TQ has problems with their culture, consideration and communication. And frankly they rarely contact me at all and only asked me to write something for them on an occassion where I asked them to ask me (if that makes sense). But I think there is a scale of problems (having books held against my will the worst, having book released regardless of what you say bad, being a bit too willing to give you the option, still pretty bad but a different thing). I am talking to them now and waiting to see if there will be any changes. That’s just where I am right now. By the by, I wasn’t thrilled to have one of my anthologies mentioned as evidence of ‘the clique’ which to the extent it does exist, is definitely not something I am in.
veinglory’s last blog post..Formatting Manuscripts for E-Publishing (Part 1)
Emily,
If the first thing out of my bosses mouth is “The door is there if you’re unhappy,” when I have been shocked to find out something from a blog by someone not involved with my company about the way it is being run.
That pretty much not only tells me the information is probably close to accurate but has been intentionally kept quiet even inside the company for the four years I worked there because it is damaging to their reputation in the industry, their standing with their customers and to my business relationship with them.
Maybe you will get somewhere talking with them but I also understand Angelia saying it is not worth the time to have to bring up business ethics to people who you expect to know better.
Someone said to me this week that maintaining trust is the most important thing you can do online.
This whole issue I think focuses on how little Torquere Press can be trusted.
Emily, I am sorry you got snagged in the clique thing.
I had no idea who was in the anthology or its history.
I just took its existence as one more piece of evidence I was out of some information loop.
I’ve settled my current and future status with the editors.
Emily, no one is asking you to leave TQ or suggesting it. This isn’t about you in the slightest. This isn’t even just about Angelia’s situation. I’m looking at it as a consumer, a reader, a reviewer and a critic (and as one of those people Mychael Black wanted to throw under a bus, I take his words very personally indeed.) TQ aren’t being honest, and they’re being cowardly in how they respond to criticism.
It’s great you’re happy, and that you’re secure enough in your personal and business relationships with TQ to ask questions. But even you aren’t getting answers. I say again - TQ aren’t interested in responding to the substantive issues. They would rather deflect onto non-substantive issues, or claim they’re being targeted, than come out and openly state what the facts are.
I know this for a fact. If people had the concerns about Samhain that people have about TQ, Angela James and Christina Brashear would be right there, answering questions, and robustly defending their position. Which is why I’m happy to be signed with them and I wouldn’t touch TQ with John Holme’s pole. (And no, I’m not sucking up to Samhain - my reputation doesn’t rest on my minute number of pro publications in the slightest.)
So…why aren’t Lorna Hinson and the many faces of S A Clements talking to those with concerns? I can’t think of any answer to that which reflects well on them.
First of all, I don’t understand this thing about changing pen-names. I had to do so when I went into e-publishing because the name I had written under her close to 10 years on an erotic stories web site was considered obscene and the publisher asked me to change it. All of my readers, whether of my E books or my stories know about my two pen names because I’ve told them. Many of them also read both my E books and my stories. Because my readers are so loyal, no matter what I write, if I went to another publisher I would still use the same pen name because I would want them to follow me.
Bobby