HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

Quartet Press Are Dead?

Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Posted in: Uncategorized

It’s been a busy old day today, so I’m probably the last person to find out that Quartet Press are disbanding

Is that the quickest e-press death in history? I wouldn’t mind, but they had a much nicer welcome than most new e-presses get.

I wonder what happened? Anybody?

And what about Angela James?

Yep, nothing wrong with taking the wait and see approach at all.


I just thought I’d add the link to the post I wrote re the initial fanfare that greeted Quartet Press when they arrived.

Mrs Giggles called it right wouldn’t you say?

Hey, I did say I wouldn’t be slow in shining a torch on them if they went tits up. I pride myself on my consistency, dontcha know. *g*


Second update–azteclady here. Found in the comments at Dear Author, a link to the Publishers’ Weekly piece on this.


  • Melissa
    September 13
    11:25 pm

    Glad to hear you have no second thoughts, Angela, and I’m sorry if by bringing up your name I caused any distress. I did enjoy your articles and had hoped you would contribute more, seeing as e-publishing seems to be the way erotica is going since print publishers are accepting less and less submissions.

    The point I’m trying to make is that everyone’s definition of smut differs. I doubt that Harlequin, EC, Samhain, etc. would put themselves into the same slot as Hustler and other explicitly pornographic publisher, but when you get right down to it the two are diverging. Just as Playboy/Playgirl wouldn’t want to be painted with the same brush as Hustler, I can see why romance publishers would want to avoid being painted with the same brush as erotica.

    However, there’s no getting away from it and there’s no denying that much of the content you find in erotica is the same content that you’d find in erotic romance and no single publisher can legitimately make the claim that they’re not dipping their toe into the same pool. I’ve gotten into heated debates with authors who tell me that what they write is romance and not erotica – and since the theme of the day seems to be to cite RR, the most lengthy discussion I had was with an RR author who loathed the smut/erotica label – and it’s too easy to cite publications from publishers who bill themselves as erotic romance yet manage to “out-smut” with their content. RR is not alone in publishing explicit material – they’re just the most referenced because they are so hated.

    I’m one of the authors who comes from the “smut” side of the fence. After successfully publishing “smut” it was suggested to me that I start looking at romance publishers and when I did I found little difference between the two. With very few adjustments and by tacking on a HEA I was able to submit a manuscript to one of the bigger-named romance e-publishers and get published on the first try. From where I sit the grass is the same shade of green on both sides.


  • No distress, but I felt that your point was that my articles appearing there meant that I was endorsing whatever the site may say. If that were true, no author, editor or publisher would ever be able to guest blog or have articles anywhere (magazines, websites, newspapers, etc), because we’d be considered…liable? Not sure if that’s the word I’m looking for, but we’ll use it for argument’s sake. We’d be considered liable for any opinion or statement ever expressed on said blog or in said publication. Giving a series of articles about digital publishing doesn’t mean anyone should or can extrapolate from that my feelings on the word smut, or on any other subject.


  • On a different note, I don’t think anyone is going to argue with you about the fact that everyone’s definition of “smut” differs, but I don’t believe that’s the issue at hand. The issue seems to be more about what we call it, or label it. And at any point in our life, labels matter. What I see the authors and readers here arguing is not even so much about content, but respecting the product by respecting what you label it. Sure, you can write some very hardcore erotic romance, but it’s not something to be ashamed of. I think (and I’m not trying to speak for anyone, just stating what I’ve gotten from the conversation) is that by using a label that many consider negative, it gives the appearance of not having respect for what you’ve written, or published, as the case may be.


  • Melissa
    September 14
    12:02 am

    Thanks for your response, Angela.

    I have to admit that when I think of the word “smut” I immediately go to my great-aunt and her mountains of Harlequin romances back in the early 80s. She’d read one a day and as she did so she would grumble about the amount of “smut” in them, yet she would keep reading. The word gives me the giggles and when I see it inspiring such heated debate I can’t help but chuckle.


  • Woah! Shiloh, do you realize that romance publishers & editors are actively courting people who write “smut”?

    Melissa, I think I made it pretty clear that I don’t consider romance “smut”. Nor do I consider erotic romance “smut”. I view the term “smut” as something that has little or no value, and that is certainly not how I view romance or erotic romance.

    please note, I very clearly said:

    However, I see smut as a far different cry from good romance or good erotic romance.

    If I choose to get irritated over the term “smut”, it isn’t because I view “smut” as the same as erotic romance.

    It isn’t. For me, the term “smut” is interchangeable with “trash.” And for me, the term “smut” is NOT interchangeable with “erotic romance HIM” or “romance”.

    Don’t like smut? Don’t write for folks who ask for it and publish it.

    I’ll write for whom I choose, thank you.

    If EC, Samhain, Berkley and Ballnatine suddenly start putting out a call for “smut” versus “romance” or “erotic romance”, I may well reconsider who I write for. But they ask for romance or erotic romance, and that’s what I deliver.

    If you view “smut” the same as “erotic romance”, that’s perfectly fine-I’m not say you have to see it the same way I do. But likewise, you also can’t tell me that I’m not entitled to view the issue exactly as I choose to.


  • Anon76
    September 14
    6:39 pm

    Okay, Melissa, I do have to call you on your post about AJ supporting your visions of “smut or not smut”. That because she posted articles on that one site she is then in your camp, but a hypocrite because she won’t say so.

    This is copied from the second weblink you provided, and it states:

    Links in the left sidebar lead to an eclectic mix of articles offering advice, insightful commentary, interviews, and information about erotica in the news and in society. Links in the right sidebar lead to a variety of book and movie reviews.

    AJ is in the left sidebar and the posts are all about digital technology. And many of the articles on the left sidebar have nothing to do with erotica, per se. They are indeed an “eclectic mix” of articles dealing with a number of topics in the publishing world.

    Now, I’m not an AJ cheerleader, but I certainly give her the right to squawk on this account. I call “bullshit”.


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment