by Executive Editor Marsha Zinberg
“Pardon my Body”? “I’ll Bury My Dead”? Such phrases might sound a bit jarring to an ear attuned to the more evocative and romantic titles usually associated with Harlequin. So what are we doing publishing books with such kitschy titles?
The short answer is that they are a small sampling of the type of fare our company began with. And this collection seemed a logical contribution to our 60th anniversary celebrations. Harlequin mounted an art exhibition in May, entitled The Heart of a Woman, which got people from many departments poring over old covers. Soon we had postcards and notepads—not to mention business cards—created that trumpeted our roots in the late 1940s. And folks both within our building and in the broader publishing community seemed completely taken with this vintage art. So why not publish a few of the texts that accompanied them?
The assignment: Go through our publication list (from Day One!) and look at the accompanying covers. Choose six books and reprint them, EXACTLY AS THEY WERE THEN, as a small collection to celebrate our sixty years in business. Let’s do them in October…that should give you guys loads of time!
Well, ok. We don’t need to create new art. We don’t need to edit the text. Should be a walk in the park, yes? Not so much, we discovered.
First roadblock: We did not possess physical copies of the books. In Harlequin’s early days, before people began thinking about “posterity”, it likely didn’t occur to employees that we might actually want to keep one copy of each book! We’ve been doing that for decades now, of course, but apparently we didn’t sixty years ago. So we actually had to make use of the Internet, and hunt down in used book stores the titles we couldn’t locate. It goes without saying that we had no digital files of either the text or the art, so the text had to be painstakingly key-stroked to create new text files, and the cover images had to be digitized as well.
Next: choosing the books. We had a few limitations here. We wanted books whose cover art appealed to us, and we had to be in physical possession of the book, but in some cases, once we started reading the text, we simply couldn’t see publishing the story, for a host of reasons….content, language, political correctness, etc. Several were eliminated, no matter how striking the cover!
Now for the books: Remember, our intention was to publish the stories in their original form. But once we immersed ourselves in the text, our eyes grew wide. Our jaws dropped. Social behavior—such as hitting a woman—that would be considered totally unacceptable now was quite common sixty years ago. Scenes of near rape would not sit well with a contemporary audience, we were quite convinced. We therefore decided to make small adjustments to the text, only in cases where we felt scenes or phrases would be offensive to a 2009 readership. Also, grammar and spelling standards have changed quite a bit in sixty years. But that did entail a text edit, which we had not anticipated. AND, we had to clear those adjustments with the current copyright holders, if we had been able to locate them.
And of course, the covers: Though we used the original covers, they had to be scanned and touched up. In addition, we felt it important to give the potential purchasers some context for our decision to publish the books as well as some cues that this was in fact not standard Harlequin fare at all: i.e. these stories are mostly written by men, and romance is not usually a key element in the plot! So we redesigned the back covers and spines, and reproduced the red dye on the page edges, for added authenticity.
Everyone in house has taken such interest and pride in this project, and we’re delighted that the collection is now out in the marketplace. We hope they will also accomplish what the cover art exhibition attempted to do: “offer a unique insight into the profound changes that have occurred in women’s lives over the past six decades—from shifts in private desires to shifts in the politics of gender”!
To purchase books from the Vintage Collection, visit www.eHarlequin.com.
And PS—keep entering the Susan Wiggs Lakeshore Christmas contest!
Tags: books, collectibles, harlequin 60th anniversary, harlequin vintage collection
Tweets that mention Harlequin Blog -- Topsy.com
October 21st, 2009 at 10:23 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Harlequin Books, piratecakes. piratecakes said: New post @ the Harlequin Blog about the rigors of putting together the Vintage Collection! http://bit.ly/F6LTE [...]
Joanna Terrero
October 21st, 2009 at 11:16 am
Marsha, thanks for sharing with us the epic voyage that carried out the Vintage Collection.
Jeannie Watt
October 21st, 2009 at 11:33 am
Marsha–What a fascinating journey! I have many, many older Harlequins. I started collecting the older titles in the 1980’s, when they were common in used bookstores, primarily for the cover art. I envisioned using the books as a funky wall display someday. Maybe I’ll have to get to work on that.
Amy
October 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I’m curious if anyone has read any of the Vintage books — what did you think?
@Jeannie — I have an old Mills & Boon cover from the 20’s(?) that I had printed and framed on my wall.
~Amy
Michelle Willingham
October 21st, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I’ve been keeping an eye out but I’m not sure where the bookstore is shelving them. I’ll have to ask, next time I’m out.
kirstin
October 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 am
i luv susan wiggs novels!
Jean Brashear
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
Marsha, what a great story! (Easy for me to say, right?;)) My Harlequin 60th anniversary bag with the collection of covers never ceases to draw attention wherever I take it. My local librarians are begging me to help them get their own–has anyone considered selling them?
A whole lot of work, but you’ve sure given an enormous number of people great fun and much to talk about!
Jean
Sue
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Since they are merchandised in Mystery I can’t see sales information however, Love the Covers! Great job!
Sue
Amy from Harlequin
October 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Hi Jean — I believe we’re out of the bags, but we *do* have some more vintage stuff coming soon. We’ll have an announcement on the blog when we have all the details!
Hi Michelle — according to Sue, they could be in mystery (thanks Sue!
). Or you can always order them from eHarlequin in print or eBook.
~Amy
Michelle Willingham
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Thanks, Amy.
David
November 7th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I flipped when I saw the covers on the stand at K-Mart. I purchased 2 books.
Then I get to this website and read:
\Remember, our intention was to publish the stories in their original form….. We therefore decided to make small adjustments to the text, only in cases where we felt scenes or phrases would be offensive to a 2009 readership.\
Why bother publishing them?
Most people who actually read books are adults and realize times were different in the past.
I’m glad you do not publish any classic books. Rewriting Moby Dick or 3 Musketeers could change them a bit. Maybe a bad example but you see my meaning.
These were written at a certain time and should reflect that period as offensive as that would be to the current readership. You could even use this as a selling point.
Would a reader who is easily offended purchase a book with these covers?
Most of the offensive paperbacks from the 40s and 50s were from the covers not the text.
If you continue to publish these books please consider using full unaltered text. Other then above objections great idea.
Thanks,
David
Pardon My Body by Dale Bogard (Harlequin, 1952 and 2009) « Those Sexy Vintage Sleaze Books
November 27th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
[...] their old noir properties as a gimmick for the 60th anniversary. This seemed pretty cool, until I read here that the oh-so-bright editors there did some “fixing” to remove “politcally [...]
Vintage Sleaze Paperbacks
November 27th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
http://vintagesleazepaperbacks.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/pardon-my-body-by-dale-bogard-harlequin-1952-and-2009/
Walker Martin
November 28th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I can’t believe that you decided to edit and censor these books. I certainly have no interest in reading such pc nonsense. Either publish them as they were originally written or leave them unmolested on the the second hand vintage paperback market.
Nigel Algar
November 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Your intention to “offer a unique insight into the profound changes that have occurred in women’s lives over the past six decades—from shifts in private desires to shifts in the politics of gender” is wrecked by your absurd decision to bowdlerise the text of these novels. Granted that these authors may not stand beside Faulkner or Twain – both whom have suffered at the hands of misguided editors over the years – but you’re playing fast and loose with literary history and it’s plain indefensible.
Steve Lewis
November 28th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I’m a collector of old vintage paperbacks, and I have been since I bought them new off the circular racks in drugstores and supermarkets when I was growing up.
This business of sheltering our eyes from things you think might offend us now is absolute nonsense. Who do you think we are, a bunch of weak-kneed sissies? Even if it makes us uneasy every once in a while to look at our past, history IS history, and it’s ridiculous to try to cover it up.
Please do us a favor, and keep publishing your X-rated romance novels, and leave the mystery and noir genres well enough alone. You say you’re delighted to have been able to reprint these books. I think you should be ashamed of yourselves, trampling on the work of others, especially when (as far as I can tell) it’s been done without their permission.
» Censorship and Bowdlerization at Harlequin.
November 28th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
[...] paperbacks that they republished. This really annoys me. See this site for more and a link to the Harlequin site where they cheerfully announce the [...]
Ken McDaniel
November 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
TAMPERING WITH THE PAST: It was an unfortunate decision of current Harlequin management/editors to reprint vintage Harlequin titles with selective censorship of the text, and perhaps cover art also. It is demeaning to current day readers to have some editors who feel they know what is best for customers to revise authors work from 60 years ago. I regret now purchasing the James Hadley Chase title, as I have made it a practice over my 50+ years of reading/collecting to NOT buy abridged fiction works. I understand also that Harlequin advertised these titles with statements that text had not been changed, which, if so, is a major indictment also of poor judgment and lack of coordinated efforts to produce a superior product. And why in the world would Harlequin go to the trouble to ressurect at added cost these old titles unless the attempt was to produce a superior product from their past. A regretable publishing event!!
GB
November 28th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I bought all six titles directly from Harlequin. None of the books said anything about the contents being edited or censored to suit someone’s PC sensibilities. I think this is ludicrous, especially considering none of the titles in question is any more violent or offensive than the Gold Eagle books Harlequin also publishes. I celebrated Harlequin´s decision to reprint vintage paperbacks but now that I know they were censored I wish I could send them back.
Donna
November 29th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
What a shame. It was a great idea but I certainly won’t be buying theses ‘fixed’ watered down versions. I’d rather hunt around for the originals, or buy from publishers who reprint novels in their original form, as the author intended. We readers are not stupid, you know.
Abz
November 29th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
oh, dear. Had been SO hopeful when you announced the “vintage” line! I adore old books, and am a voracious reader, with most of my favorites being from the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. But this smacks of a heavy dose of “Political Correctness” gone awry! Shame on you!! Don’t you think that as adults we’re quite capable of reading and *understanding* the context in which these books were written and published? This is NOT Truth in Advertising imo – these are NOT “vintage”, they’re re-workings of old novels. Not at all the same thing. What a waste of a great opportunity – you MIGHT have made something wonderful – for the *readers*, that is, not for your publicity machine – getting a lot of attention from this, aren’t you? Happy Anniversary to Harlequin, indeed.
Debbi
November 29th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
What you’ve done (censoring old work to meet PC standards) is nothing short of a travesty. I was considering submitting my work to your new e-publishing line, but now have serious reservations about the idea.
LJ
November 29th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
ARE YOU SERIOUS???? You are taking a classic, originally written book and “editing” it to be politically correct for today’s sensibilities??? To me, that’s the same as taking US History and editing out slavery because it is unpleasant. We learn from the past by seeing the past as it really was. Are you going to “edit” “To Kill a Mockingbird” or, hey, how about “Gone With the Wind” next? If I were a descendant of the original author, I’d be talking to a lawyer. As an avid reader, I can guarantee you I will not be adding any of these books to my collection.
Brenda
November 29th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I am almost speechless at your blithe decimation of books! As the post-er named LJ said, “We learn from the past by seeing the past as it really was.” You are preventing anyone from learning or studying the past when they read your versions with no warning of what you have done. I certainly will not be one of your customers. Ever.
Philip Amos
November 30th, 2009 at 10:27 am
This is scarcely believable. The books in question are NOIR crime fiction, as hard-boiled and gritty as it comes. If you edit and bowdlerise in this way, if you turn noir into blanc, who on earth do you think would be interested in buying and reading the resulting travesty? Everyone who buys noir literature knows what it is, so the only people who would be offended are those who might buy it solely in order to be offended, as some people once did in the case of Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Would you censor that now? And take Shylock out of The Merchant of Venice? Bill Sykes and Nancy out of Oliver Twist? Take the Fu Man Chu out of Fu Man Chu? You say “grammar and spelling standards have changed”. Yes, they have, for the worse, so what did you actually do? Render dialect and street language into Harlequin’s idea of modern standard English??? What do you mean you had to clear all this with copyright holders “if we had been able to find them”? That’s a pretty peculiar constuction there, perhaps in need of your editing techniques, but what do you mean — did you find them or not? This is not the same as looking for permission to quote two or three lines from a work. At bottom, you know, bowdlerising on this scale amounts to fraud, for you are pretending these novels as you publish them are something they are not: noir crime fiction.
Karen
November 30th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I am so thankful for small presses that reprint old books just the way the author wrote them. Come on, the vast majority of readers for these books are adults who don’t need you protecting their “sensibilites’. Your site announces the censorship with pride. You should instead be hanging your head in shame. Needless to say, I will not be purchasing any of these butchered books. My “sensibility” and I will buy from the small presses who respect the written word, and give credit to the intelligence of readers.
Jon Jermey
November 30th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
After so many people have worked so hard to preserve and reissue classic books in their original form, it is a real slap in the face — or should that be a knee in the groin? — to have Harlequin blithely announce that they are going to take on the role of Nanny and look after our ’sensibilities’ for us. I am quite capable of looking after my own sensibilities, thanks, and so are the other fans of noir fiction.
What next? Let’s rewrite Casablanca so Peter Lorre hooks up with Yvonne and they all live happily ever after!
M
November 30th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
I agree with the above comments – you should have left the text alone.
Gini
December 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Your “jaws dropped”? Were you all really so ignorant of pop culture as it existed fifty years ago? Hard to believe.
I’m wondering what changes were made – and am hoping that some collector out there will compare Harlequin’s original with your bowdlerized effort.
What a strange way to trumpet your roots.
bowdler
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 am
Ms. Zinberg’s comments are hard to reconcile with your President and CEO’s “Dear Reader” in the books where she clearly says that the “works [are presented with ] their original text and cover art.”
Linda Rader
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
“Updating” a classic is making a new book entirely. Like colorizing Film Noir. I don’t think that the readership for these re-issues are going to be the ones complaining about the lack of PC in them. But I’m glad these are being re-issued at all. Just wish they were intact.
Don Linn
December 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Why did you even bother reissuing? The entire point of vintage is that it reflects its era. Removing the unpleasant aspects defeats the purpose and is insulting to readers.
Harlequin - A Lesson in... bowdlerization
December 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Oh Dear… “small adjustments to the text”
I work for a library consortia, and guess what Marsha, we’re no longer purchasing from your company.
Who the Aich-Ee-double-hockey-sticks do you think you are!
FiledBy | Blog » PW’s Person of the Year + Harlequin’s Woes
December 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
[...] recently. The entry is written by Executive Editor Marsha Zinberg, detailing her experience working on the Vintage Collection as part of the publisher’s 60th anniversary celebrations. It’s an interesting read, but [...]
Muffy St. Bernard
December 25th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Like so many other posters, I was thrilled when I found out you were reprinting classic pulps.
Then I saw that you were censoring them. There is no way that I’m going to buy a rewritten pulp. Absolutely no way.
I understand your intentions, but the joy of these pulps is the way they capture the moods and styles of the time. To have them altered in any way to fit modern culture is totally inappropriate…it would be like going to a museum and finding dresses and pants painted on the people in classical artwork.
If you release more pulps and you don’t modify them, then I am DEFINITELY in line to buy them. Maybe all these comments have served to sway you. The idea is fantastic! Please, however, put a note on them that they are the original uncensored versions so I’ll know whether to buy them.
Mike
January 7th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Agree with all other posters. When early Tom Swift and Hardy Boys were reissued, the publisher added a forward explaining that problematical writing of the time of publication (overt racism for instance) was being left intact but the publisher did not in any way endorse these writings but left them intact as a record of the time. This is what you should have done. I came across your books and bought one out of curiosity which I am now about to read. I’m doubtful of my desire to buy more after finding that the books have been censored. I do not believe in censorship. How could you as a book publisher have thought this was a good idea? Correcting typos if you have to reproduce the text is one thing but bowdlerizing the text is something else again.
Marguerite Hargrove
April 9th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
I think this is a fantastic idea! Why don’t publishers re-print old books?? I recently paid $140 for a book I read as a teenager because it was the only one available.
ALSO, is it possible to have a book re-printed that was published in 1980, since the publisher went bankrupt? Does that suspend the copyright?
thanks for any help
Maggie
Time Synchronisation
April 15th, 2010 at 9:06 am
MySpace…
This post was mentioned on MySpace by Richard Hawkesford….