I’ve appeared at a lot of writers’ conferences in the past 6 months (Romantic Times, Las Vegas, San Diego, Florida, ) and am set to do a bunch more (Writer’s Digest, Lori Foster’s, Necon, Killercon). I usually end up on an editors’ panel where I try to explain where Ravenous Romance is coming from editorially, and what sets us apart.
I got a phone call today from a major trade publisher, who is buying a number of our titles for reprint. He gushed about how much fun our books were to read, and how he thought he knew what to expect and yet was pleasantly surprised. He also said that the sex in the books was as good as any erotica he’d ever read, and he’s been reading erotica for decades.
Whenever I do one of these panels, I always tell people that I have wanted to start an erotica company for women since I was a teenager coming of age in the 70s. I was completely blown away by Anais Nin and her Delta of Venus and Little Birds (and later read her diaries, twice), as well as Nancy Friday’s various sexual fantasy collections. Erica Jong and Marilyn French didn’t grab me as hard, but I was fascinated by the burgeoning genre of “clit lit.†The Anne Rice Beauty books came out when I was in college, and I was sure feminist erotica would soon rival that of the bad boys of American letters – John Updike, Philip Roth, Henry Miller.
But then there was nothing. Or more of the same male erotica, but nothing more by women, for women. Where was the feminist “smutâ€? I kept on reading the New York Times Book Review, but couldn’t find a thing.
And then, out of left field (or, more accurately, Ohio) emerged Ellora’s Cave. As a reader, I was thrilled to find this empowering online bookstore of erotic stories for women.
I was also looking for the thread that would link this new erotic readership to the not-so-distant literary tradition of erotica, but this new material was more about opening the bedroom door in the romance novels of my teens, which I also endorsed.
At Ravenous, we want to merge these two powerful (and commercial) erotic sensibilities, widening the readership of this female-pleasing (even if they’re M/M stories) entertainment. We are reaching the readers of explicitly erotic romance, as well as the erotica reader, offering a guaranteed Happy Ending (which is what both these forms of fiction demand).
And I firmly believe that if Anais Nin were writing today, she’s be writing for Ravenous and other digital erotic romance publishers, and making a small fortune
No related posts.
“And I firmly believe that if Anais Nin were writing today, she’s be writing for Ravenous and other digital erotic romance publishers, and making a small fortune”
Oh puhlease. Just because you have females writing frankly amateurish porn, doesn’t make it ‘feminist smut’. The grandiose claims made by RR are amusing, in an irritating kind of way, but to quote Barack Obama, you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. And you might be able to polish crap, but it’s still crap. Put all the polish and lipstick you want on RR’s books and you still end up with pig manure.
Readers aren’t idiots. Ravenous Romance isn’t producing erotica unless ‘erotica’ means ‘writing about sex in a way that makes women clamp their legs together and sell their dildos to needy nuns’ and it’s not producing romance. The thing that sets it apart is the chutzpah of the people promoting the company far exceeding the quality of the products of the company.
Ann Somerville worte:
“Oh puhlease. Just because you have females writing frankly amateurish porn, doesn’t make it ‘feminist smut’.”
Do you have any arguments to back this up? More importantly, do you have any arguments supported by literary theory or feminist thought? It’s hard to take your criticism seriously unless you provide something other than ad hominum attacks.
“ad hominum attacks”
Ad hominem, dear.
If someone claims they’re publishing feminist smut, it’s for them to provide evidence they are. Since RR’s PR team are on record as saying web literate, savvy, critical women do not form their core demographic, I’m going to make a whacky guess and assume they think that only stupid women will like their output. Which is not a profoundly feminist action.
I stand by the assertion I make and made my others – being written by women != feminist. If you can find any ‘literary theory or feminist thought’ which defines feminism that way, I’ll eat my literature degree AND my ovaries. There is nothing liberating or empowering about being offered substandard writing and lackadaisical editing at inflated prices – or of female authors being signed to quite outrageously unfavourable contracts which only pay out after an unrealistic high threshold on net income.
So Thomas, how about you come up with some proof that RR is doing what they claim?
I’m sorry but you have you logic backwards. The onus is on you to show that they aren’t. Think of an analogy with a criminal court case. If a prosecutor claims a defendant committed a crime, then it’s up to the prosecutor to offer proof of the crime. We don’t consider a defendant guilty unless she can prove that she didn’t commit the crime. Likewise, accusing a company of being misleading, then placing the onus on them to prove that they aren’t is not rational.
I’m not even sure what you mean by “being written by women != feminist.†Are you asserting that Ms. Perkins draws this equivalence in the above post? If so, perhaps you should re-read it.
Although I’m not familiar with the entirety of RR’s PR efforts, I believe the demographic they target is precisely the one you claim they avoid. Even if they did claim, “web literate, savvy, critical women do not form their core demographic,†it does not logically follow that “they think that only stupid women will like their output.â€
It is nice that you have a literature degree. Many people have degrees. Unfortunately, having a degree in literature doesn’t automatically mean that people should listen to your trolling uncritically.
Someone’s trolling, but it sure isn’t me. Have a nice day, Thomas. Don’t cut yourself on your wit now.
Yeah, someone’s trying to practice Internet law. My suggestion, Thomas, is to try to make sure that your successive statements regarding the law don’t completely contradict one another.
If the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty then it cannot also be the defendant’s burden to prove that she is not guilty. As an internet lawyer, you should know that in a criminal case, the defendant has no burden of proof.
Any more internet law theories you want to espouse?
“But then there was nothing. Or more of the same male erotica, but nothing more by women, for women. Where was the feminist “smutâ€?”
Oh, let’s see… How about Black Lace? As in “Black Lace Books: Erotic Fiction For Women By Women.”
Easily available at online bookstores and brick bookstores. It has the US imprint line (Cheeks), too. It’s been available since early 1990s.
At least Virgin publisher has the sense not to label their books “Erotic Romance”. They can tell the difference, which you apparently can’t.
“And then, out of left field (or, more accurately, Ohio) emerged Ellora’s Cave. As a reader, I was thrilled to find this empowering online bookstore of erotic stories for women.”
It’s not erotic stories Ellora’s Cave are selling. It’s erotic romance (or romantica as it was once known). Please recognise the difference.
“this new material was more about opening the bedroom door in the romance novels of my teens, which I also endorsed.”
No offence, but it seems painfully obvious that you haven’t read any from the romance genre lately. Not since early 1990s, by the sound of it.
But I wish you the best of luck with selling the idea of RR to romance readers because I suspect you’re in for a rough ride.
As a writer who came from the small press trenches of erotica and feminist smut, I’m glad I’ve been able to stretch my wings with Ravenous Romance. Much of my later erotica had begun to shift away from straight-up hot fiction to focus more on the relationship within erotic action. But 2,000 to 3,500 words were enough.
Now, I can explore relationships under an erotic umbrella at length. I can examine how they grow, change, and expand when love and loyalty face the challenges of life. Yes, the sexual context and content are still there.
But there’s something more. I’d like to think that’s where the romance lies.
Sadly, I think that if Anais Nin was writing today, a lot of her work would not get published. She dealt with a numbers of issues that publishers no longer feel they can publish for fear of lawsuits. Underage sex, sex and violence, incest…
Nope, I doubt very much ANYONE would publish her. Which is a grave comment on publishers and how much braver we have become about tackling difficult issues.
That last little bit was sarcasm, just in case anyone missed it.
I’m really grateful to be a part of the RR group, not only because it’s provided a community of friendly folks, but because they’re committed to sharing romance that doesn’t leave out the sex. I know there are a lot of romance readers who do genuinely see sex as a bad thing that must be hidden behind euphemisms and ellipses, but there are also a gratifying number of readers who enjoy sex unashamedly and want to see it develop as part of a relationship.
There’s always a good element of fantasy involved in romance. The day to day struggle of real relationships seldom make for good reading, so it’s delightful to be able to explore scenarios we might not want to pursue in our own lives, but find titillating to consider.
And often our partners are very happy that we find ways to get our motors racing
Well said Lori. Great Post! I am also proud to be in the RR family. I have been treated with respect and support.
I just read this blog, exact words, elsewhere.
The main thing that irritates me about RR is that they have “romance” in the name of the company. They do not publish romance, or at least, the blurbs, extracts and reviews don’t seem to be depicting a romantic relationship.
I write erotic romance, but I don’t write erotica or porn – my choice, not any down on either erotica or porn. Jasmine Jade, my publisher, has two imprints for work of an erotic nature – Ellora’s Cave, where erotic romance goes, and Exotika, where erotica goes. Many authors write for both lines, but when they submit, their editor will tell them where the book will go and why. Exotika doesn’t have to have a committed relationship with a happy ending, like the EC books do.
It’s hard enough explaining the difference to other writers, without an erotica publisher claiming it publishes romance and not appearing to know the difference between the two genres.
Why is it important? Reader expectation. Many readers know what they want to read and when they don’t get it, they’re not happy.
“The main thing that irritates me about RR is that they have “romance†in the name of the company. They do not publish romance, or at least, the blurbs, extracts and reviews don’t seem to be depicting a romantic relationship.”
I don’t think you have a valid criticism. Generally romantic relationships, at least in the way you seem you be using the term, is not a defining characteristic of the romantic genre. I think you are confusing the sub-genre of contemporary pulp romance with romance as a whole. Furthermore, romance can and often include elements of horror, fantasy, and yes, even erotica.
I believe if you thought a little more carefully about the nature of the literary tradition, you will see that the name “Ravenous Romance” is quite appropriate and descriptive.
At Ravenous, we want to merge these two powerful (and commercial) erotic sensibilities, widening the readership of this female-pleasing (even if they’re M/M stories) entertainment. We are reaching the readers of explicitly erotic romance, as well as the erotica reader, offering a guaranteed Happy Ending (which is what both these forms of fiction demand).
Of the RR books with which I’m familiar, I have not seen either a literary sensibility or a focus on Romance, and these are books promoted by RR, not dug from the annals of the site.
I am tempted to make a comparison between the feminist values of these books and the literary legacy of Norman Mailer, but that’s really a side point to my main issue regarding genre Romance and RR.
As someone who a) reads all across the erotic spectrum, from straight erotica to erotic Romance to Romance where there is no explicit sex, and b) reads and studies a boatload of popular and literary fiction/non-fiction, I am certainly on board with the efforts to reduce the judgments about women and sex that now make so much taboo that should be naturally accepted, embraced, and celebrated. If RR were simply about that, it would be one thing.
But RR comes across to me as yet ANOTHER publisher that wants to capitalize on the Romance market without taking the time and effort to actually deliver genre Romance to its readership. Romance, by its generic definition, does not merely “guarantee a happy ending;” otherwise, any book that offered a happy ending and included sex would comply.
Romance constitutes the focus on a romantic relationship (and more specifically on the emotional development of that relationship), and in the case of erotic Romance, that relationship, its emotional development and romantic progress, is primarily translated and communicated through sex. Thus in erotic Romance, the sex is primary and central, but it’s in service of the development of the romantic attachment. The happy ending is merely a function of the romantic success of the couple, although it’s true that many readers refuse to compromise on the full HEA.
I am what would probably be considered a very liberal reader of the genre, in that I do not demand the EA part of the HEA, and I don’t have that many boundaries or rules in what I consider Romance. I even thought an argument could have been made for the last Press who tried to enter the Romance market, namely Juno Press with their Paranormal Romance anthologies (which I understand are no longer called that), even though not all the stories ended happily for the protags. But here, with RR, I don’t see the Romance part of it at all, and the comments of Perkins, Hughes, and others have done nothing to convince me otherwise. Nor has the copyediting, which is downright embarrassing and casts yet another shadow over the Romance genre.
Romance readers are profoundly genre loyal and generally quite willing to spend on Romance books. Who wouldn’t want a slice of that market? But I just find it insulting that RR is being so aggressive in its marketing under a Romance name without seeming to have any interest in the genre itself.
As I mention in the comment above, romance doesn’t always revolve around “romantic” relationships.
Your comment is disapointing. You hint at a potential literary analysis, but instead you choose to complain about the name of the company and the copy editing. In addition, you make the claim that RR isn’t romance because it doesn’t conform with your particular ideas of what should be representative of that genre.
If you are going to split hairs about what should or should not be included in a particular genre, perhaps you should actually learn a little about that genre.
Thomas, I’m sorry to say this, but–you seem to be confused about what genre romance is. Before telling other people they need to learn about the genre, perhaps you should do some investigating on your own.
But I just find it insulting that RR is being so aggressive in its marketing under a Romance name without seeming to have any interest in the genre itself.
I can understand how many women despise aggressiveness in their own gender, but I’m a bit surprised by this because I’ve seen just the opposite. My novel, Chastity Flame, is about a woman who has always avoided relationships and suddenly finds herself not only getting attached to one person, but also finding that in doing so she begins to heal a lot of the damage that made her so reluctant to forge relationships.
Right now I’m reading fellow RR author Inara Lavey’s Ripping the Bodice, an hilarious book that both sends up the excesses of romance and gives a satisfying build of a romantic story (midway, so I can’t tell you how it comes out, but I suspect I know — which doesn’t spoil my reading in the least).
It’s not the aggressiveness, Ms Kempe. I don’t speak for Robin, but for myself, when I say that it’s the utter lack of understanding of the differences between romance, erotic romance, erotica, and porn that the company calling itself Ravenous Romance displays so openly, that I find offensive.
Hmmm — I guess I can only go by what I have written and the RR writers I have read, all of whom seem to have found a nice balance between the smoulder and the sighs, which is to say between hot sex and carefully built relationships.
The tough distinction between erotica and porn is also an issue. I’m writing a conference paper on Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie’s Lost Girls which they defiantly label “porn” while to me it’s “erotica” — but those labels have a lot of power. Some times it can be a matter of personal tastes and what one doesn’t like gets labeled differently than what one does.
I’m sure there’s more I can say, but now I’m off to lunch…
This is laughable. Am I the only one that sees the irony? It seems that the flamers who are hijacking this blog are the ones who show an utter lack of understanding of the distinctions within this genre.
Please enlighten us. What are the differences between romance, erotic romance, erotica, and porn?
Are you truly interested to know?
Because there is roughly 60 years’ worth of scholar works, discussions and articles about the definiton of ‘romance novel’ and possibly a decade’s worth for ‘erotic romance’.
If you’re still interested, I would be very happy to give you links, bibliography and such.
That said, please don’t assume that romance authors and readers including Robin don’t know what they are talking about.
I’m not assuming anything. I am basing my criticisms entirely of the comments made on this blog.
I would be happy to read any peer reviewed work demonstrating that erotic romance and contemporary romance novels are the only sub-genres within the romance genre. I’m sure that will be a very short list.
I’m primarily concerned, however, with how people on this board are using the terms. I’m particularly interested in the operational definitions of ‘porn’ and ‘erotica’ that lead people here to classify RR as the former and not the latter.
I do not assume the ignorance of anybody here. I will ask everyone to show me the same respect. That being said, I give everyone here fair warning. I am not the sort of person that is easily baffled with BS.
I have no problem with people who criticize the quality of a particular writers work, or even the quality of production. People are entitled to their opinions on these matters. I will, however, call people on pseudo-academic bashing based solely on personal bias against this company.
I am a busy person so I may not respond to any post here immediately, but I will respond to any serious comments when I have the opportunity.
Fer realz?
I guess I’ll just have to wait, with bated breath, to see what a person of your discernment considers serious comments.
Or not.
“I’m primarily concerned, however, with how people on this board are using the terms. I’m particularly interested in the operational definitions of ‘porn’ and ‘erotica’ that lead people here to classify RR as the former and not the latter.”
Well, the publisher of Ravenous Romance, Holly Schmidt, is on record as saying that the only difference between soft pornography and what she publishes as erotica is that her books have “a better vocabulary.” You can find that quote here: http://tinyurl.com/dkd52q
That is just one quote of several that I have read from people affiliated with the company equating their “erotica” with “porn.” This does not mean that all of the books from authors who write for RR are porn, but those labels initially came from the company itself. Therefore, they should take their concerns up with the publisher and those who speak for the company.
Yeah, and you could start with Pamela Regis’s Natural History of the Romance novel, which IIRC does a very nice job of explaining the differences between Medieval Romance (which is what Thomas is, I think, referring to) and genre Romance novels, which is what we’re talking about here, and which is descriptive of the genre and market of which RR is trying to be a significant part.
And is that the problem here? Is RR functioning under the wrong definition of Romance (the one that includes Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, for example, an adventure story that actually has a bit in common with Fantasy vis a vis the quest)? Although the erotica thing doesn’t comport with the Medieval Romance category, so I’m not sure. But in any case, it’s Thomas who has mixed up the definitions, not I.
He also has mixed up the notion of criminal guilt and innocence in this sentence: “We don’t consider a defendant guilty unless she can prove that she didn’t commit the crime.” Actually, it’s the opposite.
But then, I don’t have a lot of patience for pseudo-academic OR pseudo legal BS. And I don’t like it when people advertise quotes in favor of free speech and then tell others to stop talking and go away. As Justice William O. Douglas said, “[t]he function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.â€
For some reason my comment did not go where I replied, which was to Maili’s post above.
These threaded comments are REALLY inconvenient, especially in long threads, and especially email, where you get a comment and have NO IDEA where it belongs in the thread. Plus there’s no way to filter them here to see only new replies.
I can understand how many women despise aggressiveness in their own gender,
And the insults keep on coming. . .
My frustration with RR has nothing to do with gender, outside, that is, of the general insult it is to women to advertise one thing and sell another by suggesting that anyone who doesn’t like it is prudish, etc.
If RR sells *some* books that can be classified as Romance, if *some* of its authors are writing Romance for the press, then they should be called “Ravenous Books” or any other name that reflects the primacy of the erotic. The Romance part of their moniker is misleading, and that’s not even addressing the massive editing issues. I’m not even going to address the question of what constitutes good erotica, because that’s such a personal judgment.
But I’d have so much more respect for RR if they showed even minimal respect for genre Romance, including and especially erotic Romance, which is already marginalized enough, frankly, and columns like this are not going to help that, IMO.
And the insults keep on coming. . .
Robin, I certainly did not mean to insult you and I’m sorry if you felt that I was attacking you.
I have noticed over the years (I’m a middle-aged woman) that many women do feel quite uncomfortable about other women who are aggressive or assertive. As a quietly assertive woman, I have faced it many times. And it did seem that part of your dislike of RR stems from the style with which they work as well as the content. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I often think that a lot of on-line arguments would not happen were people actually facing one another and seeing all the body language and actual tone with which words are spoken.
Please don’t take this as an insult, but you are not the arbiter of what counts as romance. RR is clearly putting out romance of various types. Simply because you don’t happen to care for the type of romance they publish, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be called “romance”. That would be like me saying “Seinfeld” isn’t a comedy because I didn’t think it was funny. Can’t you see the error in your reasoning?
I write for Virgin Cheek, Virgin Black Lace, and Ravenous ROmance. My current release for Virgin Cheek is labeled “An Erotic Romance” on its cover and it received a four-star review from the Romantic Times. One of my RR titles received a Four Cup (Star) Review from Coffee Time Romance, and I’ve gotten raves from several other respected _romance_ review sites for my erotic writing as well, including Two Lips Reviews, Bookwenches, and others.
Ravenous Romance publishes erotic romance. The sexual element is there and is very hot, but the relationship between the characters and a happy ending is equally important. The sexual content of RR’s books might not appeal to everyone, but I think our sales and reviews (especially the huge sales numbers RR books are pulling in from sites like AllRomanceEbooks, speak for themselves. We are getting professional respect and press coverage from the most important people in the industry, including Kathryn Falk at the Romantic Times, The New Yorker, The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, and Galleycat. And RR’s staff are bona-fide New York publishing professionals with decades of experience between them.
Ravenous’ staff treats its writers like the professionals that we are. Our audience is devoted and growing by leaps and bounds, and major trade publishers are making deals to buy reprint rights to RR books.
I think all the above naysayers are just not part of our readership. That’s fine. The romance genre is very large and varied, and there are plenty of readers to gou around. As Ravenous continues to be successful and to aggressively grow by leaps and bounds, the rest of the industry will have no choice but to sit up and take notice. Meanwhile, I continue to benefit from the strong professional support and mentoring I’ve received from Ravenous and its staff.
Jamaica Layne
http://www.jamaicalayne.com
“We are getting professional respect and press coverage from the most important people in the industry”
Really? Well after that Amos n’ Andy dialogue in your whopper of a bad novel “Knight Moves”, your skills as a Romance/erotic writer were already questionable, but as a humorist, it’s downright sadly pathetic.
“I continue to benefit from the strong professional support and mentoring I’ve received from Ravenous and its staff.”
Then you just confirmed that someone was asleep at the wheel at the head of RR, to let your “Gangbanger” Philly dialogue which harkens back to Stepin’ Fetchit type call and response and infers dim witted intellect, get published. I wouldn’t read or recommend any more of your novels, and might I suggest you and that “professional support” that let you publish “Knight Moves” take a seriously intensive course on diversity.
There is definitely romance at Ravenous.
I am both a Ravenous author and reader and I can say that all the books I’ve chosen to read from Ravenous (including Hungry Heart and Grace on Fire) are romances – the story is focused on the central relationship, everything builds from that, and there are happy endings.
In addition the books I’ve written and the anthologies I’ve edited have all had the relationship as the central point of the story and the ends happy (ever after or for now).
Yes, there are a few books that I think are more in the erotic genre, where the main character’s sexual growth, rather then the relationship’s, is more central to the story, but by in large I’ve found I can tell from the synopsis’ what the focus of the story is.
I hope more readers will continue to find Ravenous and that they will be thrilled by what they choose.
-Rachel
Margery, I agree complete re: “I often think that a lot of on-line arguments would not happen were people actually facing one another and seeing all the body language and actual tone with which words are spoken.”
As much as I love email and online forums as a means of communication, I prefer to have a lot of discussions face to face for that very reason.
Personal RR experience – my book RIPPING THE BODICE is most definitely romance with (one reviewer said it was more romance than erotica; it does have explicit sex in there) and I went through a round of edits with the copy-editor that was very thorough. I then went through the manuscript again – when my murder mystery came out from a small press last year, I caught an error on the second page, somehow missed through numerous rounds of edits. Grrrr…
Careful editing is important – I’ve noticed a lot less of it in the books I buy in print and it takes me out of the story. The errors mentioned by readers re: RR titles and those from other publishers are definitely worth mentioning so authors and editors alike take more care with it.
Regardless of anything to do with RR, Lori, I very much enjoyed your article!
“Regardless of anything to do with RR, Lori, I very much enjoyed your article!”
That sounded bad, so let me clarify so you don’t think I just insulted you, Lori::-) I enjoyed reading your article regardless of publishing affiliations. Yeah…that’s the ticket!
And it did seem that part of your dislike of RR stems from the style with which they work as well as the content. Perhaps I misunderstood.
I looked back through my comment, and the one sentence in which I used the term “aggressive” was this:
“But I just find it insulting that RR is being so aggressive in its marketing under a Romance name without seeming to have any interest in the genre itself.”
If you cut the sentence off after “marketing,” then I agree it would be problematic. But without even a comma indicating a change i clause, I continued with “under a Romance name . . . .” That is, I resent the aggressive marketing *as Romance* without what I think is intention to sell *Romance,* even super spicy erotic Romance. And the reason I used the term “aggressive,” is because RR is working quite hard to be a public spokesperson for Romance, when IMO they are not a Romance press. That doesn’t mean they have no claim to legitimacy as an erotic press, but that’s a different thing.
As an assertive woman myself, I am on record many, many times that IMO women in the online Romance community would do better to be more comfortable with forthright disagreement, so I’m definitely not an advocate for the “if you can’t say anything nice . . . say it passive-aggressively” theory. But I also don’t think it makes me an enemy of my gender to resent RR’s marketing as I see it. Although I cannot stop someone from interpreting my statements that way.
One of the things I find really problematic about RR’s marketing is that on the one hand Perkins keeps saying that women’s sexuality should be celebrated and that the shame around erotica diminished (all of which I agree with heartily), but then there are all these attempts to IMO legitimize something she’s saying already should be legitimate by connecting it to literary history, genre Romance, and the like. So despite all the insistence that RR is proud to be publishing “feminist smut,” I see a concurrent need to defend and legitimize by hooking the press to more mainstream genres/traditions, including erotic (but still definitively genre) Romance. IMO it betrays a definite lack of confidence in what RR *is* selling.
Female-written erotica is not the same thing as feminist erotica. It’s perfectly possible to be female, or for a work to be female-written, and yet not support feminist ideals.
I don’t think anyone is making this claim.
You don’t seem to be reading very carefully, then.
Just re-read it. Ms. Perkins does not make this equivalence.
Having read through the various comments I’m left wondering what is prompting such a volley of harsh comments. I’m not published with RR but I’ve read their releases as well as many other publishers. I as a purchaser of books embrace the forward thoughts of RR and the “romance” factor in their releases. I’m not left wanting or dissappointed. Each release I’ve read reflects some very simple facts that are experienced in a relationship. Attraction, tension of will we or won’t we and the follow up emotions to the decision of saying yes. In all honesty erotic romance regardless of who publishes does the same thing. Swing’s open the door to the internal/external conflict and the happenings in the bedroom. I for one am pleased to see that the industry has left the innuendo’s behind and plunged into giving readers the details they are looking for in their romance reads regardless of the publisher. When I choose a book, I choose the story or author not the publisher. With that said, in my view, if you don’t like the books coming from RR, buy somewhere else.
“Swing’s open the door to the internal/external conflict and the happenings in the bedroom. I for one am pleased to see that the industry has left the innuendo’s behind and plunged into giving readers the details they are looking for in their romance reads regardless of the publisher.”
That’s something Ellora’s Cave has been doing for nearly 9 years, and Black Lace even longer, nearly 20 I think. if you missed out, check out the backlists!
Do I sense a “rally the troops” call here? Maybe I’m just paranoid. Probably, but I’ve been there, and to my regret, done that.
I didn’t miss Ellora’s Cave or Black Lace in the backlist. My point was…I appreciate any publisher that continues to make it available for those readers who want that type of read. I hope that helps make my thoughts a bit clearer.
I’ll just repeat what I said at Dear Author:
I don’t read feminist smut. I read romances. And if they are labeling their stuff as smut, I don’t have any desire to learn anything else about them. I’ll spend my money and my time on publishers that understand the difference between smut and romance.
But I do want to add, I don’t if the ’smut’ comment is tongue in cheek or not. The romance genre takes a lot of hits by people outside the genre-they don’t get it. They call it smut. We shouldn’t have to hear it from people who claim to be romance publsihers as well.
To quote Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”
I’m a “liberal” read of romance like Robin, but perhaps even more so, because I don’t care all that much whether a book is labeled romance, or whether Romance is part of the press’ name. From my perspective, almost anyone’s welcome to stick a toe in the romance sandbox; that doesn’t mean I’ll like it, but maybe I’ll like more of it than I expect. (I’m thinking of paranormal romance/urban fantasy here.)
I like what you say above about your intent for RR. At the same time I’ve read a couple of RR stories, and haven’t found them particularly erotic or romantic. But then I’m picky. Fortunately I haven’t yet run into bad copyediting–that’s a real peeve with me. So based on limited experience, RR isn’t a name I actively look for, but I’m open to trying more. I don’t love every Ellora’s Cave novel either, so it’s possible I just haven’t hit a Ravenous story that resonates with me.
I’d say you are probably right, since I’m feeling similarly and I’m nothing more than a reader.
“Do I sense a “rally the troops†call here? Maybe I’m just paranoid. Probably, but I’ve been there, and to my regret, done that.”
Lynne, Lori is one of my editors and I try to read her posts and comment on all of them. I’m also not sure why the comments of the RR authors should automatically be construed as ‘rallying troops’ rather than us sharing our experiences and thoughts. There have been some good points and thoughtful comments on both sides – this isn’t a range war. Although I’m having visions of the News Team war in ANCHOR MAN about now.
“I killed someone with a trident.”
Just watch out for the PBS guys…they’re deadly!
HAH! “These are the rules: don’t touch the face and the hair.”
“Of course!”
I may not love Will Farrell, but damn, that was a funny scene…
Having never read a book published by RR, I’m not going to say anything regarding them. What I’m curious about is why several commenters feel the need to glorify RR’s very public desire to open the bedroom door and not hide behind euphamisms and ellipses when it comes to protagonists having sex. Have these commenters not been reading much in the mainstream romance genre in the last ten or fifteen years? That’s how long I’ve been reading romance and, with the exception of certain Harlequin lines and inspirationals that are deliberately nonexplicit, I haven’t noticed many closed bedroom doors.
I read erotic romance from publishers like Samhain, Ellora’s Cave, Loose Id, etc, as well as mass market romance from several major NY houses and I’ve never heard any of them touting their desire to open the bedroom door, probably because it’s been open for a long time. My gut reaction to anyone, be it publisher, author, or reader, saying that it’s time for sex to be explicit and not treated as taboo in romance fiction is to think that the speaker doesn’t know much about what has been happening in romance fiction in the last decade.
That doesn’t bode well for RR’s chances of getting a piece of my book budget.
Thanks for all the comments and the IMHO’s. Although I disagree with most who offered “insight” into what constitutes erotica, erotic, porn and romance. Here the lines blur and are not to be cast in concrete by authors, pubs, RWA or anyone else. Who instituted these boundaries and labels?What’s more, with whom are you arguing? Specifically RR and its authors because you’ve decided they write “smut”?
They jury is still in “lockdown” about this and for those who yearn to define erotica vs. erotic, they have not reached a verdict. You can define it anyway you want for your own personal reasons, but please, do not define it for us OR for readers. Unless of course, you coined one of the terms and hold a patent on it. What may be erotic to one could be erotica to another (if there is such a thing as labels to begin with). So, please, stop with the definitions of what erotic means, what porn means, what erotica means and what romance means.
Maybe RR, like most publishers, publishes a mix of all the above depending upon the author’s personal style.
I take offense at being put in a box by fellow authors and their personal definitions. Keta writes erotica. Keta writes erotic and at times Keta writes porn. All of the above is true according to your “IMHO” definitions. And Keta also writes for numerous e-pubs, one whose owner recently said (and NO it was not RR). The lines blur when we push the envelope, don’t they, Keta? The truth is, our very best-sellers are from authors who deliver over-the-top plots, characters and sex.”
Hmm, now I must stop and think. Did I just write porn for that publisher or erotica? Or then again, was it erotic or will it be considered a romance? Some might view it as porn, others romance. It’s an individual thing, is it not?
I have one book with RR, Land of Falling Stars, and again, I resent that you have now delivered me into the annals of history as writing “smut.” LOFS is written by the same pen, with the same theories, and with the same elements that go into all of my ROMANCE books, including my gay fiction stories (except we have two heroes here).
Wow! Imagine that. The stories include external conflict, internal conflict, a hero, a heroine, sex (“not” behind closed doors) and wonder of wonders, a HEA. For you to determine that the way I write sex would be considered “porn” or “smut” — if you consult YOUR list of innocuous labels — offends me.
Aggressive marketing? Let’s cut to the chase. You aren’t offended about “aggressive” marketing. Who would be? All publishers and authors market aggressively. And all authors and publishers should, in doing so, give something back to the industry, which I do often, whether that comes in the form of helping my fellow authors promote their dreams or give free books away (about 200 a year) to readers.
The real issue here is someone from RR offended peeps last fall. I don’t know what came down, and I don’t care. This ongoing diatribe of hatred is unproductive, unhealthy and frankly, doing no one any good.
No matter what we don’t agree on, we need to come to a point where we agree to disagree RESPECTFULLY.
Stop with hate, stop with the labels, stop trying to put RR (or any other publisher) and its authors in a box, stop trying to label ALL RR books as “smut” or “porn” — unless of course, you’ve read them all, including Land of Falling Stars.
Hugs, Keta
Lori Perkins seems to be the one labelling RR’s book as smut, in the title of this article and in the body. Is she not the publisher of RR, or in some other way affiliated with the company? If she used that label for her own publishing house, how is it hating or labeling or boxing for other commenters to reply using the same word?
The labels of “smut” and “porn” are coming directly from Lori Perkins and others affiliated with RR. The website Dear Author has an interesting article up today featuring quotes from those involved with the company. As a reader, it is hard for me to take a publisher seriously when they label their own products as smut.
Well, since Lori Perkins who is with RR terms it ’smut’, that’s probably what a lot of people are displeased with. She calls it smut, but claims RR publishes romance.
Romance and smut aren’t synonymous. Erotic romance and smut aren’t synonymous. I’d even say that erotica and smut aren’t synonymous.
As long as she’s using titles like “in praise of feminist smut”, it’s going to be very hard for the average romance reader (and writer) to take RR seriously. Yep, that’s my opinion, but I’d imagine the majority are going to agree with me.
Romance readers and writers get frustrated when people call what we read, what we write smut. It’s that plain. It’s that simple.
If a publisher, or somebody affiliated with them can’t see that, then it’s pretty clear that publisher doesn’t understand romance.
bleh-headache is killing thought processes. I should have phrased it… since Lori Perkins is the one who used the term smut…
This will be my last post. I bet you’re all saying, “Oh, good, we’ve stirred up another bee in the nest.” No, you haven’t, I just don’t have time for this silly “baleing” controversy.”
Now someone has tossed a new “label” into the melee. Oh, no the derogative word “cunt.” And she said it connotates degradation. Again isn’t that a matter of personal interpretation, moral codes, and such? I happen to believe the word “prick” is no less or more degrading than the word “cunt”. This comment seems to originate from a remarkably shallow mindset, and is in and of itself chauvanistic.
You missed my point entirely. Whether the words “smut” or “porn” or “cunt” or “prick” or any of the other labels the IMHO’s peeps are tossing around, I don’t like LABELS, and that includes stamping books, publishers, authors or any other entity on earth with them.
I don’t care if Lori Perkins calls RR books books “smut” or you do — which you all have at times.
As for your broad-based comment, “Romance readers and writers get frustrated when people call what we read and what we write “smut”, I’m assuming that you’ve taken a widespread poll from these peeps or are you merely speaking for everyone because you have some innate sense of empowerment we lack?
How do you know that readers and writers are frustrated? Again, this is indicative of the opinions and positions many of you have taken regarding the “labels” you so carelessly flind around. You do not speak for anyone but yourself, or you should not be. Plain and simple.
As for RR or any other publisher not understanding what romance means, please, by all means, share your great sense of knowledge and backup data with us.
Like I said, I have only one book with RR, and I respect THEM as I do ALL the publishers I contract with or I wouldn’t write for them.
Do not label me or my books according to what you think a publisher brands themselves as.
And one final comment . . . no, you shouldn’t “imagine” that the public agrees with you. No one is gifted with such comprehension, unless you’re God of course and I don’t think she has an opinion on this.
Keta
…I don’t like LABELS, and that includes stamping books, publishers, authors or any other entity on earth with them.
You may not like labels, but they’re a practical necessity. How else will you let readers know what type of story the book is, so that they can then decide if they’d like to read it? This isn’t about what the authors like/dislike or about their freedom to “follow their muse,” but rather this is about ignoring the expectations of paying customers.
I’m sorry, but it seems that the RR author commentators on this thread are confusing what is essentially a marketing problem. It’s not a writing problem (okay, the editing mistakes are but that’s a different issue) and it’s not a creative problem, it’s a marketing problem. Let’s say I stop at a place called “The Ice Cream Shop” and order from the list of flavors, only to find out when I’m handed my dish that it’s frozen yogurt. I complain, and am told either that “it’s cold and sweet, so close enough” or “we don’t like to limit ourselves so we produce a range, but there should be some regular ice cream in that list of flavors somewhere”…is it any wonder I’d take my business down the road to the shop that has everything clearly and correctly labeled?
Will every single persona agree on what constitutes romance or erotic romance or erotica or porn? No, probably not. But it is up to the publisher to figure out what the general consensus is among the readership and label accordingly, so that the publisher is best prepared to connect readers with the type of stories they are looking for. Otherwise you end up marketing something (erotica) to people who are looking for something different (romance) and end up with unhappy customers. That to me is pure marketing fail.
It shouldn’t be up to me as a reader to figure out what a publisher is really selling. If I have to work for that information or think I might not be getting what I think I’m buying, I’m just as happy to take my hard earned money to a publisher that cares enough to make it easy to find the stories I want to read. I’d be shocked to find out that the majority of paying customers do not feel the same way.
Oh woops, almost forgot: IMHO.
This will be my last post. I bet you’re all saying, “Oh, good, we’ve stirred up another bee in the nest.” No, you haven’t, I just don’t have time for this silly “labeling” controversy.”
Now someone has tossed a new “label” into the melee. Oh, no the derogative word “cunt.” And she said it connotates degradation. Again isn’t that a matter of personal interpretation, moral codes, and such? I happen to believe the word “prick” is no less or more degrading than the word “cunt”. This comment seems to originate from a remarkably shallow mindset, and is in and of itself chauvanistic.
You missed my point entirely. Whether the words “smut” or “porn” or “cunt” or “prick” or any of the other labels the IMHO’s peeps are tossing around, I don’t like LABELS, and that includes stamping books, publishers, authors or any other entity on earth with them.
I don’t care if Lori Perkins calls RR books books “smut” or you do — which you all have at times.
As for your broad-based comment, “Romance readers and writers get frustrated when people call what we read and what we write “smut”, I’m assuming that you’ve taken a widespread poll from these peeps or are you merely speaking for everyone because you have some innate sense of empowerment we lack?
How do you know that readers and writers are frustrated? Again, this is indicative of the opinions and positions many of you have taken regarding the “labels” you so carelessly flind around. You do not speak for anyone but yourself, or you should not be. Plain and simple.
As for RR or any other publisher not understanding what romance means, please, by all means, share your great sense of knowledge and backup data with us.
Like I said, I have only one book with RR, and I respect THEM as I do ALL the publishers I contract with or I wouldn’t write for them.
Do not label me or my books according to what you think a publisher brands themselves as.
And one final comment . . . no, you shouldn’t “imagine” that the public agrees with you. No one is gifted with such comprehension, unless you’re God of course and I don’t think she has an opinion on this.
Keta
No, I’m speaking for what I’ve seen over the past few years since I’ve been published, my ability to observe and read various reader and writer blogs where writers and readers get tired of romance being labeled as smut, glorified porn, etc. I can say that based on my own experiences as a reader who interacts with other readers and has for quite some time.
Some readers aren’t going to care romance is called. Some authors aren’t.
BUT I can tell you that there’s a very sizable population that DOES care, as evidenced by the fact that you’ve got a number of people commenting on that very issue just in this thread.
And no, I’m not God, and I doubt he cares, but I’ve also noticed that quite a few of the commenters here seem to kinda…well, feel the same way I do.
Strangely enough, the ones who seem to disagree are the ones who write with RR.
For the record, I never branded you as anything. I’ve never heard of you or your books, so how can I?
Now correct me if I’m wrong, Lori Perkins IS one of the editors at RR. So, again, correct me if I’m wrong, she is kind of the position to talk about what RR publishes, what they are looking for?
She commented, and her exact words:
She’s the one who’s given the general impression that she’s on the hunt for feminist smut.
If you take issue with that, then take it up with her.
Shilow Walker said: “BUT I can tell you that there’s a very sizable population that DOES care, as evidenced by the fact that you’ve got a number of people commenting on that very issue just in this thread. I’ve also noticed that quite a few of the commenters here seem to kinda…well, feel the same way I do. Strangely enough, the ones who seem to disagree are the ones who write with RR.”
Keta replies: And again, I would respectfully ask what DATA you have to back up the statments you casually whip out there? You don’t. This is just your IMHO after writing for fifty years and communicating on an ongoing basis with at LEAST 10 percent of world readers, right? Because there are millions and millions out there. Makes me wonder how you have time to write after spending most of your time asking readers and authors their opinions on what consitutes porn, smut, etc.
The “sizeable people” commenting on this thread came en-masse from another site with one goal in mind — trash a publisher and its owners. And there have been a few who have found the IMHO’s diatribe offensive, biased and its real purpose hidden behind a screen of smoke and mirrors.
This is what I mean when I say this hatred has a fire of its own. As soon as someone posts a valid, legitimate response (that the IMHO’s peeps seem unable to defend) you start tossing out unsubstantiated statements about “most readers” and offering opinions as if you’ve taken a 3-page poll on what “most readers” like, don’t like, say and don’t say. So far, you’ve haven’t been able to offer any data on this — but continue to make blanket statements (unfounded) about what the general public likes, and it just so happens to agree with what you think. Could have knocked me over with a feather.
If the prior argruments against RR and its authors seems to lose some of its punch, we launch off to other subjects to keep fueling that old “fire of hatred”, i.e.,
“I went to your web site and you should really think about using a different color text.”
Is that all you have to defend this hate-train now — a btw, you should get with the real world and use “white” text on your web site.
Not that it matters one iota whether you dislike or adore the color turquoise, but perhaps if you’d spent enough time at my web site, you would have seen the comments from readers ABOUT the design. layout of the site. And for the record, before I switched domain servers, there were over 20,000 readers who visited my web site in two years. And that, my author friends (I say that sincerely) is recorded DATA. From among those 20,000 readers, not one mentioned the color of the text being hard to read. But I’ll change it tomorrow since you peeps seem to have the inside scoop on everything from “smut” to “text color”.
Shiloh, I’ve never heard of you either or your books, so that is at least one thing we have in common. So can we be friends now that we share at least one commonality?
Keta
Wow, keta… I’m going to break a personal rule here. I don’t get into name calling, but man, you’re a snot. You’re also a snot who likes to blow her own horn.
Pretty much every pubbed writer here can whip out some glowing reviews, ranging from Goodreads right up on Publisher’s Weekly.
My ‘data’ comes in part from the plain and simple fact that aside for the RR authors, most of the commenters HERE seem to disagree with you.
My ‘data’ comes in part from observing various blow-ups like this, and how it usually boils down to ‘you say mean things about me and my publisher because you don’t like me/you’re jealous/you’re petty/you’re hateful’ whatever crap.
Criticism doesn’t equal hate.
A lot of your latest rant seems to be aimed at me and Jackie-at least I think, because Jackie is the one who commented about the colors, if I recall.
While I’m not particularly concerned if you turn away readers, you might want to consider it from a medical perspective.
Doctors and nurses will tell you that looking a tv screen and/or computer for too long can cause migraines, eystrain and headaches. If you want proof, you can google it.
I know this because I’m a nurse, since you want ‘data’.
Eyestrain can trigger headaches. You can google that as well, there’s plenty of proof out there.
One thing that triggers eyestrain is trying to read anything in low contrast.
Higher contrast makes reading easier-wouldn’t be very easy to read ivory font on a white background, or dark gray font on a light background. The higher the contrast, the easier it is to read.
Your website doesn’t have high contrast. You have a bright font on a dark background. If the turquoise was lighter, it would be easier to read in general.
Without high contrast, people have to work harder to read it.
Plus, the bright colors against dark colors can also trigger migraines, and my data from that came from the neurologist who treated my migraines.
A pretty site doesn’t mean much of anything if your visitors can’t read it.
Now this is just the viewpoint of somebody who has headaches, migraines and spends a lot of time on a computer-if I’m at a website, no matter how pretty, that’s stressing my eyes, I’m not going to linger long enough to look for a contact link just to let the site owner/author know.
I’ll just leave.
So it’s entirely possible (unless of course you polled every last visitor) there are the people who do have a hard time with your site but didn’t hang around to comment about it.
oops, that should be…
dark gray font on a dark background. The higher the contrast, the easier it is to read.
“The real issue here is someone from RR offended peeps last fall. ”
No. Several someones, over and over again, not to mention in this post and comments. But all that would have been forgiven if the promised blowing the opposition out of the water had actually happened, instead of the equivalent of a baby’s fart in a bird bath.
This isn’t personal, Keta. It’s not just because a few people think Jamaica Layne is unpleasant or talentless and a singularly poor spokesperson for RR. It’s because Ravenous Romance is not delivering on its promise of ‘erotic romance’, its products are or poor quality, and now Lori Perkins is trying to cloak herself in feminist respectability to hide the fact that the company is in fact offering badly written, badly edited, overpriced, non-erotic junk, while continuing to claim this makes them special, better and innovative. It really, really doesn’t.
Ann,
Whatever happened way back when, please do not throw everyone into the same pot. I have never made a claim that RR or any other publisher will blow others out of the water. I’m far too busy to worry about what publisher is doing what. Why aren’t you?
I wouldn’t think of chastising, degrading or engaging in name-calling and hate when it comes to my fellow authors, and I do consider eery single one of you fellow authors, no matter who you write for. We are all, or have at one time taken the same journey along the the path of loving the written word.
This is silly. And you can all end it. Stop singling out a publisher because of comments that were made in poor taste or in blowing one’s horn.
Please, Keta
“Stop singling out a publisher because of comments that were made in poor taste or in blowing one’s horn.”
I’m singling out RR because the post is about RR. And sorry, not all publishers are alike. Some are worse than others, just as some authors are. Pretending otherwise is an insult to those who strive for excellence.
“I wouldn’t think of chastising, degrading or engaging in name-calling and hate when it comes to my fellow authors”
Good for you. No one else is doing that here either. Unless you think criticising someone’s words, writing or business practices is the same thing as hate.
“I’m far too busy to worry about what publisher is doing what. Why aren’t you?”
Frankly, because I’m still drinking my breakfast cuppa and trying to wake up and reading the comments here is about my speed right now. It’s my day off, and yes, I have a full programme of writing and reviewing and housework ahead of me. But first, I’m responding to some misrespresentations of reality.
If the convo is upsetting to you, then you’re doing the right thing by taking yourself off to do something more productive. I certainly plan to.
Ann, I’ve had a chance to look over a range of what RR publishes, thanks to their recent blog tour – some of it’s great, some of it not so. Certainly the best stuff is worthy of praise, and if you want to critique the not-so-good, fine. What I don’t get is why you’ve embarked on a crusade that has you (and your “troops”) coming to other peoples’ blogs to continue the battle. Is this what you consider “productive”?
Just to be clear, I am not a RR author, nor do I plan on becoming one. I just find this kind of obsessive behavior puzzling.
Would you like to list these other publishers who pissed you off, just as you are flaming about this one?
We have all had our issues with various publishers–would you air the rest of yours?
@ Lisa —
I don’t want to put you on the spot here . . .
You’ve read and enjoyed RR titles. Could you list a few RR titles that you found well-written?
Would you, as a reader, call these ‘Romance’?
Hi, Ann,
I followed the DA threads and tried to keep up on the talk regarding RR before they opened for business and the only reference I found to blowing the opposition out of the water by anyone involved with RR was the afore-mentioned thread with Jamaica. Dalen, Holly and Lori have not, to my knowledge, ever made that claim.
The reason this seems personal to those of us writing for RR is that you’re making a blanket statement about the quality of all of our writing without having read more than one or two examples.
I agree that sloppy editing needs to be addressed and hope that the comments made re: problems with editing will be taken very seriously by the RR staff.
My question to you now is which news anchor team do you want to represent?
Howdy @Job,
Several disclaimers: I hadn’t read much romance, especially in recent years, but because of RL and writers’ group connections, I’ve suddenly been reading it (among my writers’ group connections are four romance authors, all of whom just got agents and/or publishing deals, 1 is a past RITA winner). So while I’m not the expert, I’m also not unfamiliar with the form.
Disclaimer #2, one of those writers is Inara, which is what led me to her book and to RR in general.
I can objectively say that Inara’s book is: A. a Romance, with a HEA, and B. a hoot! It’s really funny and well-written to boot. The fantasy sequences made me laugh out-loud, and that’s rare for me.
I also am really enjoying C. Margery Kempe’s book – crisp, good writing and a lot of fun. I’ll let you know about the HEA when I get to it.
Otherwise, I tagged along on their blog tour and read the excerpts and have put a couple other books on my “to read” list (Savannah’s and Neve’s to name 2).
The thing is, peoples’ tastes are really different (I’m an agented writer myself, and if there’s one thing I’ve learned in my recent Adventures in Publishing, it’s that this is an extremely subjective business). I would suggest that you check out the RR blog tour and have a look at the excerpts and judge for yourself. It’s easy to do and won’t cost you anything.
I’ve only cursorily followed this whole controversy, so I don’t claim to understand what has prompted all the Blogospheric vitriol, but I really dislike it when entire groups of authors are tarred with the same brush, particularly when I know from personal experience that this group includes some talented writers who deserve a broader readership.
Hope this helps.
“It’s not just because a few people think Jamaica Layne is unpleasant or talentless”
Did someone say there has been no name-calling here on another hate-based thread (which I refuse to visit? See above. “unpleasant” and “talentless” is not only name-calling, it’s singling out a particular author. Remember what I said about the one thing all authors have in common — their love of the written word? How those words are put to paper should not launch a venomous hatred against any particular author by not only using words to describe her/him but by posting their name on a public forum. I don’t care who the author is, THIS is disgrceful.
For the record, I’m not asking for forgiveness. Forgiveness from whom? And for what? The day I do ask for forgiveness for all my past sins, it won’t be from a person who seems to think she/he has the earthly capacity to grant it.
Keta
I can’t wait to read your book. I hope it is everything that your reviews say it is. Will be tweet reading it this weekend. Hope that it doesn’t have too many more grammar errors and that it doesn’t sound as racially stereotypical as the excerpt. Don’t know how many “massah” references I can take before my head blows off. We’ll see though.
Jane says:
“Will be tweet reading it this weekend.”
Aww, SWEET. Note to self: figure out how twitter works by weekend.
Man you can tell this got my goat. Normally I’m mellow to the point of being semi-comatose.
@ Courtney Lee
>>What I’m curious about is why several commenters feel the need to glorify RR’s very public desire to open the bedroom door and not hide behind euphamisms and ellipses when it comes to protagonists having sex. Have these commenters not been reading much in the mainstream romance genre in the last ten or fifteen years? <<
Actually, Courtney, I’ve read romance over that same time period. I may not read as well as a bone fide fan does, but that’s because a) I read across a lot of genres, including literary fiction and b) was busy writing. But I was aware of the new directions romance was taking and kept an eye on it, especially in this decade.
If I had lingering hesitation in moving into romance, it was because I’m old enough to remember what Sarah and Candy of SBTB, in their new book, called Old Skool romance. Their descriptions of Old Skool encapsulate exactly why I didn’t come to Romance until I was over 50. Romance didn’t resonate with me back then. Now, it does.
I’m unsure as to what you mean by “bona fide fan” because what’s great about romance is that it’s readership is so varied as to be indefinable. Since you pointed out that you also read across genres and were busy writing (both things I, myself, do) as reasons you didn’t see yourself as a “bona fide fan” of romance, then I suppose I’m not one, either. Candy and Sarah themselves make a great point in describing what society’s “bona fide” romance fan is, then delightfully blow it out of the water. I’m truly glad that the direction romance has taken in the last decade resonates with you.
The point I was trying to make is that I found it odd that a brand-new erotic romance publisher would make a point of saying that one of their goals was to bring the protag’s sex life to the forefront. The impression I’ve gotten over and over again is that RR thinks this a new thing. If they do think that, it makes me wonder how well they know what has been going on with other epublishers of erotic romance–their competition–for a long time.
Things like that are basic market research. I’m wary of any company that doesn’t appear to me, a consumer of their product, to have done their homework. I’m not saying they didn’t, I’m just saying that it doesn’t look like it to me. With so many solidly established epubs out there, places where I know I can find steamy-hot, high-quality romance I’m looking for, I’m probably not going to take a chance with a company who hasn’t inspired my confidence.
Courtney,
I was thinking of the “bona fide” reader as a binge consumer of the genre and, by default, has a greater expertise than me. It wasn’t meant as a stereotype but as a compliment. I hope did better this time around by way of elaboration.
I surmising here, but the “sex life in the forefront” may or may not be a new thing to RR, but their enthusiasm for it is. So what you’re hearing here might be a bit of over-excitement on their part. I probably shouldn’t draw this parallel, but my son has Tourette’s and when he’s over-excited all kinds of things come out of his mouth. I’ve become pretty good at spotting where he is emotionally by virtue of what tic he’s exhibiting.
Remember, the principals were busy elsewhere in the publishing industry and when they immersed themselves in erotic romance, every find was like a mother lode to them.
But I’m not suggesting they’re Tourette-ic. Just exceptionally enthusiastic.
No kidding. It’s not like every possible sexual kink and sexual gender combination hasn’t been and isn’t currently being explored by existing publishers.
@Tracy
>>Female-written erotica is not the same thing as feminist erotica. It’s perfectly possible to be female, or for a work to be female-written, and yet not support feminist ideals.<<
I get what you say and appreciate it. But I would like to comment that feminist smut was not solely a reflection of feminist ideals. In fact, feminist smut was born because one school of feminism wanted no recognition of sex. They wanted us to remain silent, effectively neutering our sexual voice.
Feminist smut was born as a reaction to that unexpected prudery. And part of its aim was to allow avenue for women to be sexual self-aware and self-determinant, and to embrace their sexual appetites as a form of feminist freedoms.
I do find your delineations a good point and hope you don’t mind me elaborating a little bit.
Personally, I don’t like the word “smut.” Or rather, I don’t like the connotations. It sounds like the speaker is throwing in the towel: “Yes, you’re right, my stories are valueless filth.”
People talk a lot about “reclaiming” words. That never made any sense to me, because words have good or bad connotations regardless of the speaker’s meaning. I know a few women who want to reclaim the word “cunt,” but the fact is, one person calling another a cunt is an insult, and the insult is what someone is going to hear.
It’s the same with smut. You can’t call your work smut in all seriousness and not be using an implicit put-down, whether you intend to do so or not. Also, like blacks using the N-word, it’s confusing to opponents of erotica: “Well, if YOU admit that it’s smut, why can’t WE call it that? How come it’s bad when we do it?”
Second, I’ve been aware of feminism since the second wave, and I’m not aware of any school of feminism that wanted no recognition of sex. There were and are some radical feminists who were opposed to marriage and childbearing on political principles, certainly. But that’s hardly a requirement of feminism. There are a lot of beliefs and schools under the umbrella of one term.
Nor have I seen any references to “feminist smut” anywhere but here. Women’s erotica, yes. Porn for women, certainly. But nowhere else have I seen the term “feminist smut” or the claim that feminism wanted women to remain silent about sex.
I’m puzzled by this, in fact. I can remember the inception of nude male centerfolds (the first one in a magazine run by a noted feminist, Helen Gurley Brown) and Playgirl in the 1970s. The first porn film for women was made in 1985. Black Lace began in 1992. Women’s erotica has been around for a while.
Would you please tell me what school of feminism you’re referring to?
Tracy,
One prone of the history: the lesbian sex wars of the early 1980s. Books were written about it, probably out of print already but likely available in libraries.
NOW did have anti-sex language in its platform for many years and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom did a lot of work with NOW to soften its language and acknowledge that women had a choice in their sexual expression, even if it meant BDSM. I think that happened in the mid- to late 1990s.
I’d have to look into where the original split occurred; I was busy finishing college and getting into the workforce at the time.
And, yes, I know women’s erotica has been around for a long time. I’ve been writing short stories ala women’s erotica for a good decade.
Prone = prong
Sorry.
Sadly, cultural memory has not been very kind to the women’s movement, and the popular treatment of — to take a notable example — Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon’s anti-porn stance continues to be skewed.
Dworkin is pretty much known as having said that all hetero sex is rape, but the thing is, she DIDN’T say that! Yet that’s what people so often talk about when her name comes up. And they forget about all the incredible work she did on behalf of women in prison, work pursuant to her own arrest and a cavity search that left her bleeding. Dworkin worked to raise awareness (the jail closed several years later IIRC) and advocated for secure humane treatment of women in many environments.
When she and Catherine McKinnon made the push in Minneapolis for the anti-porn ordinance, it was on the heels of Linda Lovelace’s claims that she was a virtual sex slave in Deep Throat, and while the proposed ordinance — declaring porn a violation of women’s civil rights — was IMO rightly found by the US Supreme Court to be a violation of the 1st Amendment, the issue behind it is hardly trivial in regard to the treatment of women in sex-related fields.
Anyway, much of this history has been reduced to charges of ‘man-hating’ or ’sex-hating,’ and certainly there were feminists on that fringe, so to speak. But every movement has its extremists, and yet do we define every movement by those on the ends, or those in the middle? Like any social movement, the women’s movement was incredibly diverse, and even many of those we might see as extremist (e.g. Dworkin) stood on the front lines and took a lot of hits so that all of us could travel a little bit lighter.
Consequently, it’s tough for me to see all that reduced to an anti-sex characterization, since so much of it came from the incredibly harsh rules under which women had to work in fighting rape, sexual abuse, economic exploitation, and gender discrimination. It wasn’t until the 80s that marital rape was recognized and criminalized in US states (CA was the first in 1979 IIRC), and still, today, more than half of the states categorize marital rape as a less serious criminal act. And that doesn’t even address all the ways in which women have had to “qualify” as a legitimate victim of rape in the eyes of the law and of society.
So yeah, I do think it’s important that women reclaim those things that can be used to denigrate us, but a lot of blood and pain lay behind us on that path, and I don’t think those of us (and by “us” I mean “me”) who didn’t have to fight those battles are always cognizant of that.
Robin,
I wasn’t thinking of Dworkin or McKinnon, but what I am thinking of? I’d have to research it, it’s so lost in my memory. Heck, my mother’s struggle for autonomy when I was a teen constituted my real lessons in feminism, not what was happening on the national horizon.
I’m sorry I can’t be more thorough in what I’m articulating here, but the priorities of the day have been to restrictive.
Debra, the system won’t let me reply to your comment below, and I am definitely interested to know what you’re thinking of, but I was going more for the general anti-sex issue through one example of it. IMO we sometimes lose the context of those moments and they reverberate in a different way than initially intended.
Personally, I am ambivalent about reclamation of so-called “bad” words, because I think it’s a real trick to successfully rehabilitate a word that has been used derogatorily. Especially when, as Shiloh Walker pointed out somewhere in this thread, it’s been used against Romance itself. Heck, I’m not even sure Candy and Sarah have completely pulled it off, as much as they’ve helped broaden smart online discourse on Romance in a big way. I think one of the issues here, though, is whether “feminist” is being used to legitimate or describe the “smut.” Because the difference is crucial in determining whether the word smut can be reclaimed and for what purpose.
Gah – system isn’t letting me reply either – thanks, Robin, for the great and informative post.
I happen to be very fond of the word “smut.” However, I’m a big fan of reclaiming “negative” labels in a positive, tongue-in-cheek way and I think that’s what Ms. Perkins is doing here.
So don’t get your knickers in a twist about that part of the post.
FWIW, I haven’t read enough RR titles to comment on them being romantic or feminist or even well-edited. (Although I know a few editors they have working for them and they’re wonderful. Of course I’m biased, as those editors have bought my work in the past.).
Smut – Benny Hill
Erotica – Dita von Teese
If nothing else, Lori Perkins is belatedly instituting a little truth in RR advertising if she considers their output ’smut’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_CSrsALUek
The anchorman news station fight. Just substitute erotica and romance pubs and websites and we’re there!
I have to make a confession.
My name is Sandra Cormier, and I wrote The Toast Bitches, a Ravenous Romance novel. I also wrote a short story for their first anthology, Sex and Shoes.
Because Lori liked my story (If The Shoe Fits), I was invited to present ideas for upcoming books. I offered my take on a group of women working for a media company. I pitched The Bitches, and Holly liked it. After submitting three chapters based on my idea, I was offered a contract.
I had set out to write this story along the vein of ‘Sex in the City meets 30 Rock’ but it ended up more like ‘Sex in the City meets Steel Magnolias’.
It wasn’t on purpose. While writing to deadline, my family experienced a devastating crisis involving the disappearance and ultimate death of my nephew. I won’t offer excuses except to say that I couldn’t bring myself to write hot, sexy, explicit scenes while trying to meet an extended deadline. They were certainly more explicit than my former published works, but not as spicy as those of my wonderful critique partners Cherise Sinclair and Amber Green.
Perhaps the result can be defined as false advertising by some, or perhaps readers can determine for themselves whether The Toast Bitches is erotic romance or simply hot Women’s Fiction.
After hearing that RR books were ‘badly edited’, I went over TTB with a fine tooth comb. I detected three instances where the wording was awkward or repetitive. I found one omission of a comma. Oh, and I also found two Franks so I changed one to Fred. Nothing over which to get my pantyhose in a knot.
I took a second look at the ‘food references’ and concluded they weren’t particularly offensive. I added the word ‘fruit’ to ‘kiwi’ to lessen confusion.
I received one 3 star review so far, likely because the reviewer expected something more hawt. To future reviewers, I apologize in advance for any misconceptions and I hope they’ll read The Toast Bitches and accept my girls as four individuals who definitely find a Happily Ever After. And a little sex, too!
Hi. I’m another Ravenous Romance author. All of my work with Ravenous Romance is erotica, with romantic elements. Call it what you will: smut, erotic romance, horror, print porn literature, or sci-fi; I’m eclectic, I’m decently educated in literature, and I have active, creative muses. Writing has been my passion and obsession since I was a young kid, and I write numerous genres.
My relationship with Lori Perkins began when I sent in my short story, “My Two Size 10’s” for the SEX AND SHOES anthology, and then “Coffee Break” (which just got a raving review at Coffee Time Romance) and “Until Next Week” for the MEN IN SHORTS anthology.
I sent in my dark, erotic trilogy THE DARKNESS AND THE NIGHT, and agreed to write a romantic, erotic space trek, which we agreed to title LUST IN SPACE. All of them have received professional reviews that span from two stars to five stars.
You can have your opinions about “smut,” but don’t base those opinions on one person’s reviews. Read a work or two, yourself, one that has received good reviews elsewhere, from another reviewer you deem reputable, and have an informed opinion.
Peace!
You can have your opinions about “smut,†but don’t base those opinions on one person’s reviews. Read a work or two, yourself, one that has received good reviews elsewhere, from another reviewer you deem reputable, and have an informed opinion.
I have read a number of RR offerings, most of them offered for free by the publisher. Presumably, they are putting those books up as free reads in the hope of enticing me to actually plunk down real money for other titles. That means, I assume, that they think the books they are offering for free are a representative sample of the types of books I’d be likely to be purchasing were I to pay my honest coin for them.
Now, granting that I have not made any effort to decide which RR books to spend my time on by reading reviews, I think I have read enough of what they have to offer to offer an informed opinion about whether or not I like the sorts of books they deem worthy of publication.
The short answer: I do not. For me, every one of the books I have read (or tried to read–I freely admit the majority of them have been DNF for me) has failed to meet my expectations for one or more of the following reasons:
1) The book was so poorly edited, I winced repeatedly at the wrong words, incorrect (and often inexplicable) punctuation, and lazy/lousy grammar. In some cases, I would be surprised to learn that an editor had actually even OPENED the file prior to deeming it worthy of publication.
2) The story was boring and full of scenes that suffer from a malady my critique partners and I refer to as WTFITPOTS–what the f*ck is the point of this scene? Every scene in a story must have purpose, a reason for existing. Filling the page with meandering prose and “time of day” conversations is not reason enough to exist, yet I find these types of scenes repeatedly in RR’s offerings.
3) The sex is either not a turn-on or a downright turn-off. Personally, the sine qua non of erotica (and heck, even porn) for me is that it’s actually arousing. I’ve yet to read a single sex scene in an RR book that came within a city block of that. Of course, that’s a matter of personal taste, but when a publisher of supposedly erotic content fails to meet that basic criterion on an ongoing basis, it’s pretty likely that their books are going to be more hit than miss for me.
In other words, it’s not that I object to smut, per se. In fact, I’d say I’m rather fond of it. The problem is, I like my smut to come with decent copy editing, an interesting story, and sexual content that turns me on rather than turning my stomach. So far, I haven’t found that in the books Ravenous itself has offered up, and I’m fond enough of both my time and my dollars not to want to waste either at Ravenous when there are plenty of other publishers (both digital and traditional) whose books more regularly meet my expectations.
Well, so not only do you slam the RR authors, their books and the owners, but I think it’s fair to say, you hold a much higher intellectual capacity when reading and reviewing books. That is, you know what “arouses” peeps and what what erotic content fails to meet the “basic criterion” and what is considered “decent copy editing” and an “interesting story” and “satisfying sexual content” and blech . . . blech . . . blah. MORE SO than many of the top review sites and blogs. Hmm, what publisher or professional web site do you edit or review for then, since you are more learned?
Here are the snippets from reviews for Land of Falling Stars. I’m so sorry I’ll have to inform these people that they best shut down because they’re not meeting the criteria you laid out above. Before they review, they should know more about romance, and erotica and porn and erotic . . . like you do.
I didn’t read anything about the poor editing content, failure to arouse, failure to meet basic criterion, or hit and miss words in any of these, but maybe I need glasses.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE FREE ADVERTISING HERE,
Keta Diablo
Here, check them out.
Jennifer’s Randum Musings. (4.5 stars)
I found Land of Falling Stars to be an interesting read filled with heartache and passion. I really enjoyed the volatile relationship between these two strong-headed individuals who face a great deal on their way to a happy ending.
Whipped Cream Erotic Reviews. 4.5 stars and Book of the Week
Shootings, rapes, burnings and blood all combine to make Land of Falling Stars not your mother’s Gone With the Wind. The story is set in Civil War times, has Rebels and Yankees and plantations burning down but that is about all that it has in common with my rose-colored glasses view of the time period.
The Book Wenches. 4.5 Stars
A story that has the ups and downs of a roller coaster and keeps the reader hanging on with bated breath, Land of Falling Stars is captivating.
Crave More Romance – five stars
The Land Of The Falling Stars is a five star time warp back to civil war era. From the first few pages of her novel I knew that her heroine was one I was going to enjoy following. Sophia reminded me of Scarlett O’Hara in all the right ways. I loved watching her fight for what was important to her and learning the depth of her feelings for Gavin as she learned them herself.
You Gotta Read Reviews (A NEED to read Review)
The author pens a story that is unlike any other. The characters are introduced as childhood friends who become adults with very complicated life experiences to deal with. The story takes place right after the Civil War when tensions run high on both sides. Emotions are tenuous at best and even more so when old relationships become new relationships. I was torn during the reunion scenes and breathless during the chase scenes. I loved all the substories and the minor characters that were such an integral part of the author’s vision. Land of Falling Stars makes you believe in the possibility of retribution and the hope of finding your brass ring in the last place you look.
Talk About My Fave Authors (Five stars)
This is one steamy hot erotic historical e-book that I devoured as soon as I got a couple of pages in. I recommend all erotic ROMANCE readers buy this Book. It’s a keeper.
8 out of 10 Stars
I felt well connected to the characters and I was rooting for Gavin. Luckily for me when you read one of these books you are guaranteed the happy ending. This is a book that’s great for a quick read.
Alaine, The Queen of Happy Endings, Royal Reviews theroyalreviews.blogspot.com/
I have to get Keta’s other books that I know will be keepers too. Phoebe Jordan, 5 stars!
Your book Land of Falling Stars” was reviewed by us this week and is up for Best Book honor this weekend (voting runs from Saturday, 3/14, through Sunday, 3/15). We thought you might like to know. You can find the information here on Saturday
ELLIE FROM GOODREADS
RATES LOFS FIVE STARS
Heather from GOODREADS RATES LOFS Five Stars
KARENSA From GOODREADS Rates LOFS Five Stars
Night Owl Romance Rates LOFS 4.5 stars
Ellie from Goodreads Rates LOFS FIVE Stars
ELLE From Goodreads Rates Land of Falling Stars FIVE STARS
Man, defensive much?
Look, RR is doing you no favors by presenting the “freebies” on their site as representative of their offerings. If they can’t properly edit the freebies they give away to get people interested in RR, they alienate a large number of readers (like myself) who insist on decent editing in books they purchase. I also want good (believable) sex scenes and romance, neither of which I’ve found in the freebies offered. That doesn’t make me want to take a chance on paying for YOUR books, which may very well be great and have good reviews, but are coming from a publisher that doesn’t impress me much.
I have no axe to grind with RR, but I have a limited amount of discretionary money, and if I’m going to buy an unknown (to me) author, I’d rather buy from a publishing house that I know and whose work I generally enjoy and also find error free (Loose Id, Samhain, etc.)
LOFS has never been offered as a “freebie” by RR. And I’m not defensive at all, if that comment was directed at me. The above list of my reviews was in response to Ms. Walker who claims to be on a BFF status with a major portion of “world readers”. Not only do her comments infringe on the rights of those who aren’t here to speak for themselves, but they are egotistical and irrefutably unsubstantiated. But then, so are most of the comments flung around by the hate-train.
Notice I did not call Ms. Walker names, but rather pointed out her lack of data to back up a single one of her comments/opinions.
Jackie B. – Half-ass apology accepted about your efforts to extend a hand in friendship over the text on my web site rather than “slamming” it. I’d love to see more of this from all of us.
Keta
Well, so not only do you slam the RR authors, their books and the owners, but I think it’s fair to say, you hold a much higher intellectual capacity when reading and reviewing books.
I don’t know where I slammed all RR authors and their books (as you imply). I did say I was not favorably impressed with the quality of the ones I’d read.
No, I’m not going to tell you which ones because that would be slamming individual authors and I won’t do that. And yes, I am making a judgment about the owners’ taste in erotic books and whether it matches my own based on the content of those books? How else should I make my judgments about whether a publishers other books are likely to appeal to me? And if you think the average reader has either the time or inclination to look through a publisher’s entire catalog of books and then seek out/read reviews of every one to determine which ones to bother with…well, I think you’re living in a dream world. If I spent that much time finding and reading reviews, I’d have no time to read actual books!
That is, you know what “arouses†peeps and what what erotic content fails to meet the “basic criterion†and what is considered “decent copy editing†and an “interesting story†and “satisfying sexual content†and blech . . . blech . . . blah.
Oh honey, I never said my tastes were shared by the entire population. I was very clear that I was speaking of MY tastes and MY expectations. No one else’s.
MORE SO than many of the top review sites and blogs. Hmm, what publisher or professional web site do you edit or review for then, since you are more learned?
Again, I never said I was more qualified to make judgments than anyone else, but I know what I like and what I don’t. And I didn’t like the books RR offered as samples.
I didn’t say your book sucked, I didn’t say your book was poorly edited, I didn’t say the folks who reviewed your book and liked it were wrong, and I didn’t say it would be functionally impossible for RR to publish a book I’d actually enjoy. I did say that the publisher’s poor track record in providing content that met my standards/desires have put me off any interest in spending my money there.
Your book may be a shining example of the Anais Nin-like quality Ms. Perkins claims to be striving for. I haven’t read it, so I wouldn’t know. That said, I did read the excerpt on Ravenous’s site and found (without much effort) an editing error on page 11:
That should be “The rag’s in place, Ms. Diablo.
I’m reasonably forgiving about minor editing errors like this if they are a few and far between. But my experience with RR’s books is that these types of mistakes abound. If I can easily find this kind of slip in the first nine pages of text, chances are pretty good that I’m going to KEEP finding them, and yes, that irritates me.
I want you to realize that I’m not pointing out this error to diss you as a writer. Writers make mistakes. Even the most careful and conscientious author will not submit a book to her publisher that is perfectly free from typos and grammatical errors. And that’s why good editing is so critical. The fact that these sorts of errors slip through RR’s editing process in not just a few, but many of their publications, doesn’t make them look good.
As an author myself, I want my publisher to CARE that my book is well-edited and professionally-presented. I also want them to care that the OTHER books they offer are similarly well-edited and professionally presented. You can’t say “But MY book is different from all the other books you’ve read from my publisher. MINE is good!” and expect much sympathy. The company you keep says a lot about you. Lie down dogs, come up with fleas and all that.
Again, I’m not saying your book isn’t wonderful. It may well be. That one editing error I found could well be a fluke. But yes, as a consumer, I am going to judge your product based on my experience with similar products from the same manufacturer. And my experience with RR’s products has not been good.
Does that mean NO ONE will like your book or any of RR’s offerings? Not at all. Taste is an odd and slippery thing. I happen to love liver and onions, but I realize most people think it’s disgusting. By the same token, the vast majority of people I know love watermelon. I can’t stand it. When it comes to books, I don’t universally love all books that get high marks from reviewers, either. I don’t universally hate all books that get low marks, either. (I’ve never been able to slog through a Harry Potter book, for example. Does that mean all the people and professional reviewers who loved them are wrong? ‘Course not!)
So, we’re talking about my tastes and my opinions. No one else’s.
What offended me in the post I responded to was the contention that the people posting to say they were unimpressed by RR’s books must have formed their opinions without having read them. I’m here to say I HAVE read books published by Ravenous and, frankly, I’m not impressed.
By the way, a friendly suggestion…
You might think about changing the text color you use on your website. I went to your site in an attempt to learn more about you and your work and found it very difficult to read the blue text against the black background.
Please, please get off the hate-train caboose. You admit you didn’t read LOFS. So you dug and dug until you found what you THOUGHT might be a typo.
“The rags in place.”
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it isn’t a typo, but rather the sentence was cherry-picked by you from a 350 page book, and is meant to read like this? No, probably not, since the IMHO’s are so very quick to grasp at straws — any straw within reach.
If you’d read the book (like you did my web site – very meticulously), maybe you’d be surprised to find out who said it like this and why.
I’m sure there are errros in LOFS, as there are in EVERY book, mass market NY books included. Maybe even yours. Care to put them out there for us to scrutinize?
Remember what I said about labels? I dislike them. Please don’t call me honey. My name is Keta.
Can you at least be respecful enough to honor that?
“You can have your opinions about “smut,†but don’t base those opinions on one person’s reviews. Read a work or two, yourself, one that has received good reviews elsewhere, from another reviewer you deem reputable, and have an informed opinion.”
Yes, this would be my request too. I would also be happy to send a copy of my book upon request – if you find a ‘your’ where it should be ‘you’re’, I’ll buy you a drink! zhadi@aol.com
Now I must go kill someone else with a trident.
“This is Ron Burgundy saying goodnight. Stay classy, Romance authors and readers!”
Dunno about a your/you’re error but I’m on page 38 and I’ve already found four line-editing errors. Exactly the kind of thing that a good editor would have found on the second or third pass, though an author would probably miss in a reread.
Well, crap! I went over that thing multiple times -I should have caught ‘em on the final read through. The copy editor caught quite a few of my errors. Let me know what they are, please – via email, if you don’t mind!
And definitely alert me if I owe you that drink. I’ll pay up, although I’ll be mad ’cause my mother will kick my butt if I missed a ‘your’ for ‘you’re.’
I’d be amazed to find that kind of error – you clearly understand the difference, which all too many writers do not. The stuff I’m finding is the kind of thing I do because I write fast, and I would bet you’re a speed reader like me too.
will do.
Robin and Debra, I have to say I’m enjoying your conversation. It’s interesting, informative and non-contentious.
I also admit I’m so tired right now that the only thing I could offer by way of intelligent comment would be “My cat’s name is Mittens!” a la Ralph Wiggins in The Simpsons.
Me too!
Er, I’m enjoying the conversation, not that my cat’s name is Mittens.
The whole problem, Inara, is that people aren’t basing it on reviews, what we perceive, etc.
It’s coming from Lori Perkins’ own commentary:
“in defense of feminist smut” and other bits like:
She implies she was looking for ‘feminist smut’ and decided it could be found if she merged erotica and romance.
If she was trying for a tongue in cheek tone, it didn’t come across very well.
Shiloh, thank you for your clarification. I do think Lori’s use of the word ’smut’ was tongue-in-cheek, but not everyone is going to have the same take on it.
I do stand by my comparison to the news crew fight at in ANCHORMAN, especially the line at the end, ‘Man, that sure escalated quickly!’ What I would really like is for this conversation to reconvene after a year when Ravenous has its chance to go through its first year of start-up, including all the glitches, mistakes, and problems that all start-ups have, regardless of the type of business.
Btw, I enjoyed your Dragon’s Warrior. I read it back when I was doing research on erotica/erotic romance.
Research: as in reading books and stories from the various publications to see what was out there and how it was categorized on the publishing sites.
Did I mention ‘really tired?’ Plus I just got back from visiting a friend who is fostering 5 kittens, not quite weaned from the bottle. Brains. Sucked. Out. By. Kittens.
The definition of romance is different for everyone. In the mainstreem publishing world it’s pretty straight-forward – a book that focuses on a relationship that explores the growth of the characters with marriage or a committed relationship at the end of the book. If you go into publishing and you use ‘romance’ as part of your name, then the assumption is that you’re publishing the traditional concept of a romance novel.
Using the term smut is probably an attempt at being cute and trendy, but its unprofessional, IMO. I’ve never heard any reputable publisher of romance or erotica call their titles smut feminist or otherwise and if they did I wouldn’t consider publishing with them. It shows a tremendous amount of disrespect for the genre and its readership.
As women, our passions are constantly denigrated – especially romance – by society and to have a publisher using the term is just ridiculous. It doesn’t matter what context the speaker is using for the term ’smut’ as the common perception is negative. You can talk about reclaiming words all you want but just because you don’t view something as negative doesn’t mean society is going to jump on your bandwagon and embrace it.
The romance readership – at large – is very aware of the negative remarks made and Ms. Perkins is dissing her target market. It appears RR not only failed to research the the genre but they also neglected to take the readership into account as well.
PS – in my house, smut is what you find smeared on the kitchen table after the kids are done eating.
“What I don’t get is why you’ve embarked on a crusade that has you (and your “troopsâ€)”
‘My’ troops. Snort. As if.
“coming to other peoples’ blogs to continue the battle.”
The whole Web 2.0 thing just went right over your head, didn’t it, Lisa.
Yes, Ann, I guess it did. Because I had this notion that Web 2.0 was about collaboration and building communities, and, you know, engaging in respectful dialog and exchange of views.
Not so much, huh?
Not if building a community means not criticising RR when it soundly deserves it, no.
See my “engaging in respectful dialog and exchange of views.” Particularly when you come to someone else’s “house” as it were, to criticize.
It seems to me that you are defining the “Romance Community” as a single, monolithic entity requiring a certain conformity of opinion, rather than a collection of communities with different opinions and tastes.
Obviously not everyone feels the same about the issues raised here. I’ve found some of the discussion interesting and enlightening.
To me, the way you criticize comes across as personalized, bitter and nasty. That clouds any merits that your arguments might have, so whatever you are trying to accomplish here (and to be honest, I’m still not sure), you might want to reconsider your approach.
“you might want to reconsider your approach.”
What, and disappoint all my fans?
What’s interesting is the way you’ve singled me out among all the people criticising RR in very strong terms. Do you have an agenda or something? Anyway, you’re the one making this personal, and I have no interest in that. Good day.
Wow. Words can’t describe how horribly disappointed I am with RTB. Just how much money did RR pay you for this thinly disguised advertisement?
Antonella,
I’m surprised no one told you about RR’s mind-control weapon. Or that not everyone holds the company or Lori in low esteem and thought readers might find her article interesting as opposed to offensive.
We are working on the mind control ray, though.
So you’re horribly disappointed in RTB?? Look up the word “priority.” I don’t believe RR or their authors paid anything for this great advertising opportunity. We offered, but since our book sales have been so poor and we haven’t received any royalties or advances, even when we pooled our money together, we came up short. (lol)
Since the hate train is expounding on all the wonderfully close like-minded relationships they hold with readers, I can’t help but wonder how they REALLY fell about their beloved readers.
I visit author web sites too, and I can’t imagine that anyone with a brain cell in their head would post such commentary about a reader on a public forum (much less think it) — after all, they are BFF’s with most “world readers” arent’ they.
Here’s the post on the web site. All together now, CAN WE SAY “HATE”. Perhaps Antonella, you should be “disappointed” in this post directed at a READER and written by a member of the caboose:
“You suck, I hate you, and if I ever find out who you are, I will kick you in the gonads so hard you´ll be able to masturbate by cleaning your teeth.
I worked fucking hard on that story, and it´s worth the measly amount of money I´m charging for it. Worth every fucking cent. You are nothing but a lazy, talentless, greedy leech on humanity.
Knowing that there are only two ways this person got this – and the chances are it could even be a friend who´s done this
to me – makes me sick to my stomach. Good job, you fucking rancid goat penis.”
Wow. That bitch of an author. How dare she get mad that people were illegally filesharing work she slaved over????? She doesn’t care about readers at all!!!
I don’t know her from Bob, don’t read her blog, and I’ve seen enough to know she can defend herself, still I’m a bit appalled you pulled that snippet out of context like that. Here’s what she went on to say, which you left out:
“I would gladly give a copy to anyone truly without means to obtain it another way. I would hate it if someone was desperate to read any of the pay books but couldn’t afford it/couldn’t work the payment system, but I doubt any of these downloaders ever attempt to pay for anything.”
You ever been pirated Keta? I really doubt you would take it with a smile, especially after seeing your over the top reactions to everything everyone says.
In fairness, I believe the above was directed towards someone who pirated the author’s story and is not relevant to their dislike of RR.
Yes, it was
http://logophilos.net/blather/?p=1540
And Keta has shown that there is very little she won’t do to try and defend her indefensible position. So between her and Jamaica Layne, RR have shown that they employ *tremendously* talented and ethical authors.
But always remember, I’m the bitch and Keta’s the nice one. That means she can do whatever she wants.
Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors. Nothing was taken out of context. Read again. That’s a direct quote from a public posting.
Yes, I don’t like piracy either and it has happened to me. But there is a VAST difference in getting mad at people and spewing “hatred.” Anyone reading this, reader, author, joe-blow on the street, a dysfunctional deviant even, would agree this is hate. Plainly. Clearly.
And mirrors the inside workings of one’s mind.
What’s with all the backlash?
I mean, for people who are not happy with Ravenous, why are so many of you posting here? I do not know much about RR, but this particular blogs content doesn’t seem offensive–so why the outcry?
I myself have only read two short titles from Ravenous and found them each to be what Lori has said.
@Robin
Thanks for the clarification, Robin. The context came through this time!
I understand your reluctance, re: reclaiming words. However, I’m at the other end of the spectrum (but *not* antagonistically). Coming from the women’s erotica “underground,” I’ve lived with those words already reclaimed and, having published in queer fiction as well, I’ve seen the power they give people.
I’m not suggesting Romance go the same way, but I am saying that my comfort level with those words is long established. Hell, some of my predecessors freely threw around words like pornographer and smut writer because, even though they wrote erotica, they began their writing careers at a time when your book could be singled out and hauled into court, however unmeritoriously.
That comfort level doesn’t prevent me from seeing Romance readers’ and writers’ sensitivities. I know you’re still chaffing against the low-brow labels that Romance has long suffered under. In that way, we kind of parallel one another. When I wrote straight-up erotic, my peers routinely called our marginalized place in publishing “the sex ghetto.” Hell, our “bodice ripper” equivalent was “porn.” Or, worse, obscenity. I think what pulled us through was our own faith in our stories and in each other. Plus, we didn’t care what people said. We simply kept writing.
I can’t say we ever really rose out of that ghetto. Maybe we did by virtue of migrating to e-book publishing. Or maybe Romance came in and regentrified the neighborhood! Hard to say.
What I’d like to suggest is that Romance readers and writers at least consider the loose (bad word choice, I know) history of women’s erotica, especially in small press, as a parallel to Romance in terms of marginalization from the high brow. In return, I’ll defend Romance as a writer and consumer, largely by telling the naysayers to F-off. (I also promise to find a more eloquent and diplomatically way to do so.)
I appreciate the point you are trying to make, Debra, as well as your offer to defend Romance, but you also make a critical and relevant distinction in your comment between the way a community defines terms for itself (i.e. erotica “underground” writers) and the way outsiders define terms for another community.
For me, and some other readers, obviously, RR is in the position of the *outsider* in this analogy, a company in business for less than half a fiscal year (!), that is not primarily publishing Romance despite its name, but who insists on speaking *for* the Romance community — and calling what it publishes — under the moniker of Romance — something that has for eons been used against the genre.
I’m sorry, but I think this is a big problem, and, in addition to the way some RR authors have and continue to make certain statements that have me hanging my head and groaning into my hands, in addition to the editing issues, etc., RR is not standing out, IMO, as a business *interested in Romance* as much as it seems *interested in making money off Romance.* I can’t remember who made the comment about seeing the “mother lode” in Romance, but right away, I thought, YES, as in “paydirt.” That’s how it appears to me.
And that perception is amplified by things like
a) in the back of the book “Maestro’s Apprentice,” there is a page indicating that the “total editing time” for the book is 3 minutes. Yes, you read that correctly.
b) Lori Perkins has not once responded here, even though virtually ALL of the skeptical comments here have been directed at RR’s management, NOT at its authors (when authors offend, *coughketadiablojamaicalaynecough* that changes things a bit, but overall, frustration has been aimed at the way the house is run and publicizes itself). Besides being an enormous red flag to those of us who have seen many epress implosions, the author-defending-the-publisher model is yet another disappointment. Especially if/when it happens pursuant to a general ‘call to arms’ on other loops.
c) although this has not, surprisingly, been widely commented on, Jane at Dear Author points out that Holly Schmidt was represented in a TimesUK article this way:
Schmidt , who says the tales do not reflect her own taste – “I’m a nice girl who married her high school sweetheart. . .â€
So, RR is publishing work women should be proud of, but its co-owner makes a public distinction between herself as a “nice girl” who doesn’t read ‘that stuff’ and what RR is publishing? I find it quite troubling when one of the co-owners goes out of her way to indicate that she’s not in step with what her company is publishing and tying it to that wonderful (not) age-old distinction between “nice girls” and “bad girls.”
Can you not see why some of us are frustrated that RR is out there claiming spokesperson status for genre Romance? Because most of what we are complaining about has come from the RR publicity machine itself. So while some RR authors may see themselves as writing Romance, I honestly believe that it’s too soon to convince Romance readers that RR as a publisher *knows Romance* and has the experience, sensitivity, knowledge, and respect for the genre to get away with calling it “feminist smut” as part of an insider’s reclamation campaign. IMO, and in the opinion of other readers who have commented here and elsewhere, RR as a *company* (i.e. separate from its individual authors) has done little to portray any interest in Romance outside of its market share.
Had Perkins et al approached the readership differently (and there are more examples than what I and others have posted here), I have no doubt RR’s reception would have been different. I’m not sure there are genre fiction readers more loyal and intent on sharing a good read than Romance readers, even when those reads are not specifically in the Romance genre. And I say that as someone who has come late to the genre from academic study of popular fiction (including SF) and who reads widely across genres. What amazed me about the Romance community right off the bat is how much they want a good read, no matter the publisher, no matter the genre, even (although there are certainly Romance readers who want specifically to read within the genre).
In any case, respect Romance readers, and you have the most loyal readers in your corner. Treat us with disdain, and we *will* speak out. Any publishing company that does not know that about the Romance readership has not, IMO, paid much attention to the genre and its communities to begin with. Which is really the crux of what I and some others are trying to express here.
Robin,
I’ll do my best to answer this in full tomorrow, but I’m a tight schedule today that really hampers me. But a couple of quick comments:
The 3 minutes: This might very well reflect the amount of time the last pass through the manuscript took. Plenty of computer programs mislabel data fields — I use to see it all the time as a technical writer in the field — and it could be the case here. It might not reflect an aggregation. Heck, maybe they were just inputting the meta data for the book.
Lori’s absence: Something critically personal overtook her weekend.
I’ll do my best to return tomorrow.
And I also want to add that on the epublishing front, many of us who want to see that part of the market expand are counting on epresses to publish truly professional work, which includes copyediting. So it’s really a multi-layered issue, although I’d argue that the theme of respect is relevant generally.
Oh, and one thing I keep forgetting to comment on is the point made yesterday about euphemistic prose in RR v. Romance. As others have pointed out, Romance, especially erotic Romance, has been quite explicit for a good while now. That doesn’t mean euphemisms don’t still exist, but they also exist in erotica and in RR books specifically, as well. I doubt we’re going to get away from symbolic language in any genre, especially genres inclusive of sex, because people always seem to be looking for new ways of describing what’s basically the same thing (with a few variations). So yes, some of the old euphemisms in Romance are horrifying, but not, I would suggest, any more so than comparing a man’s cock to a roll of paper towels or a baby in need of burping, or describing it as his “codpiece.”
“That is, you know what “arouses†peeps and what what erotic content fails to meet the “basic criterion†and what is considered “decent copy editing†and an “interesting story†and “satisfying sexual content†and blech . . . blech . . . blah”
I really wasn’t going to comment, but since this made me burst out laughing, I can’t help myself.
Alright, I’ll give you that some people have varied definitions of romance and tantalizing sexual content. But good copy editing? Seriously? That’s a subjective thing? I don’t know, the word page break inserted randomly or a main character’s name spelled two different ways throughout a novel would declare poor editing for me, but I guess some people would see it different.
I don’t think all RR novels are as badly edited as this. However, if these are the novels that RR is touting as the best, and giving them away as freebies, that is going to be the impression that sticks with a lot of readers.
Since we have so many RR authors commenting in one place, I was wondering how royalties are coming along. I understand there’s a minimal advance; has anyone received a royalty payment yet, amongst those speaking in favor?
We’ve seen quite a few opinions on the quality from a reader’s perspective, from a potential author-submission perspective, I’m wondering about the bottom line…
Thanks much,
-TaA
Hi, Tasha,
I received royalties on my short story, SUCCUBUSTED, but not on my book RIPPING THE BODICE yet, but sales from affiliates such as Fictionwise and Amazon won’t show until the next statement. My book came out the second week in February, so I’m optimistic for the next quarterly statement.
Chastity Flame (Margery’s book) just came out, so she won’t have a statement yet.
I meant to add that several other authors I know with RR have received royalties already – I am trying not to seethe with envy.
Why the outcry?
Probably because some of us find the content of this particular guest post offensive.
Or perhaps we feel personally insulted when told that we are “afraid of aggressiveness” or some such, implying that our sensibilities are oh so delicate we can’t stand the impact of Ms Perkins and RR’s marketing tactics.
Or it could be that some of us have witnessed similar train wrecks before and can’t really keep away this time either.
What exactly makes this feminist smut? The fact that women are writing it? That doesn’t make it feminist, it simply makes it smut. Women have been writing smut for eons.
If the books were to celebrate women being strong and successful, that would be feminist. However, the books I’ve read from Ravenous Romance don’t seem to do that. I’ve not read everything from Ravenous Romance (sorry, that quality is not going to get any more of my money). One good example is “Knight Moves” which featured a woman going into a harem and loving it. She loves being kidnapped to be subjugated and dominated and have sex with multiple partners when she’s ordered.
Leaving the poor writing aside, this is not feminist. This is celebrating the patriarchal and historical interpretation of sexuality – women are supposed to love being dominated by men simply because it pleases the man.
Just because it’s filthy, raunchy, poorly-written smut does not make it feminist. It makes it filthy, raunchy, poorly-written smut.
Keta,
I can’t respond directly to your post, but if you thought my suggestion that you consider changing the font color on your website was an example of hatred…I really don’t know what to say. I went to your site to read more about you and your work. Not to trash you, but to be fair and give you the benefit of the doubt.
Now, my eyes aren’t as young as they used to be, and I have no shame in saying the contrast on websites is important for me. I could NOT read your website because there was not sufficient contrast between the black background and the turquoise text. Was it PRETTY? Yeah. LEGIBLE? Not so much.
Of course, if the only people you’re interested in having read your work are those who don’t have any trouble with the contrast on your site, then you have nothing to worry about. But if it were me, I would want my website to be readable to the highest proportion of potential visitors possible, and if that means changing the text color, I would at least consider it.
My suggestion was motivated purely by a “do unto others” philosophy. If you (or any other readers) find my site hard to read, I want to know about it. Even if a hundred other people have raved about how lovely it is, that one reader’s opinion would matter to me.
Your mileage may vary.
Please, please get off the hate-train caboose. You admit you didn’t read LOFS. So you dug and dug
I didn’t dig…I read the excerpt offered on Ravenous’s site of a book you assured us was well-edited since it’s your book. It took me exactly 9 pages to come across a clear editing error.
By the way, your writing is a cut well above the content of the free books I’ve read. Too bad RR hasn’t offered your book up as a free read or I might hold a more favorable opinion of the publisher.
Yeah, such a hate caboose, I know.
until you found what you THOUGHT might be a typo.
“The rags in place.â€
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it isn’t a typo, but rather the sentence was cherry-picked by you from a 350 page book, and is meant to read like this? No, probably not, since the IMHO’s are so very quick to grasp at straws — any straw within reach.
That sentence, as written, does not make sense. PERIOD.
Here, in context, is the sentence in question:
Brister entered the room with the molasses rum and clean rags. “Ol’ Nap rustlin’ up some food. Turn your back, Miss Sophia, an’ don’t peek ’til I say so.â€
With an exasperated sigh, Sophia spun around and faced the wall. Her heart thrummed and lurid images surfaced—bare flesh against bare flesh, Gavin’s erotic mouth devouring hers, the member between his thighs no longer flaccid, but engorged and inside her.
“The rags in place,†Brister said. “He’s covered now.â€
There is only one possible interpretation of what is meant here. The speaker means “the rag IS in place.” The rags are not plural; if they were, the verb would be “are” not “is.” And this means an apostrophe is required before the “s.”
This isn’t a debatable point of grammar, and it is one you can purposely choose to defy (though to what purpose you would want to, I cannot begin to fathom). So I’m quite honestly stunned that you would rather claim you wrote it that way on PURPOSE than to simply admit that it’s a typo that slipped through the editing process.
Look, my books have been known to have a typo or two in them. I don’t suppose there’s any book in print that’s 100% free of errors. We’re human, after all, and no matter how many sets of eyes go over a book, a few odds and ends will slip through. Still, the number of typos that slip through should be very, very small.
In my experience of RR’s book, the number is not small–it is significant. And that means that when I read YOUR book and find an editing error within the first few pages, I am going to be more ciritical than I would be if RR had a reputation for high quality copy editing. So yeah, you’re suffering from guilt by association.
Except, of course, according to you, it’s not even a mistake. Frankly, I’d have a lot more respect for you and your work if you’d simply admitted a typo got by you and your editor. It does happen, and it’s not a crime. But when your publisher is known for letting a LOT of those kinds of errors “get by,” a single error in your book is the exception that proves the rule.
This isn’t a debatable point of grammar, and it isN’T one you can purposely choose to defy (though to what purpose you would want to, I cannot begin to fathom).
Yep, typos slip through. Especially without a good copy editor.
Reading Keta Diablo’s comments brings to mind this quote: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt
Keta, you want to defend your publisher? Fine, but at least do it intelligently because, good g*d, every time you comment, you get stupider and stupider.
As a writer, you should want to turn out the best book you can. If finding one typo is considered a nitpick then maybe you should get out of the proverbial writing kitchen.
Lew, Maybe you should come out of the cave or adjust your rose-colored glasses. I wasn’t defending ANY publisher. And RR is not MY only publisher. Why would I defend them? HELLO????
I was asking the caboose to stop putting labels on peeps and stop trying to categorize writers in these little boxes you have set out in the “proverbial writing kitchen.”
Get with the program, or at least the commentary.
Keta
Keta, you know when you said you had made your last comment on this post? You’d have really been better off to have stuck by that. You’re not doing yourself any favours, let alone RR.
if you have a problem with labels, go back to the original post here and read it again. Then address Lori Perkins. She’s the one starting it by mislabelling the goods.
And defending an out and out error as ’style’? Come on, Keta, that one wouldn’t fly in primary school, let alone in pro writing.
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
I so agree, Lew, so can you and I be friends now too? Read below thoroughly. I think it fits your above quote to a tee — straight off the hate-train.
“You suck, I hate you, and if I ever find out who you are, I will kick you in the gonads so hard you´ll be able to masturbate by cleaning your teeth.
I worked fucking hard on that story, and it´s worth the measly amount of money I´m charging for it. Worth every fucking cent. You are nothing but a lazy, talentless, greedy leech on humanity.
Knowing that there are only two ways this person got this – and the chances are it could even be a friend who´s done this
to me – makes me sick to my stomach. Good job, you fucking rancid goat penis.â€
Keta, are you equating someone who points out a typo in your pro work with people who steal ebooks – and money out of my pocket?
Because if you do, then I suggest you wait until you find your books on a file sharing site and see how happy it makes you.
That quote isn’t aimed at any decent human being, and you are being utterly dishonest by using it in support of your flimsy arguments.
For those interested in honesty, Keta is kindly quoting – without attribution or permission, mind you – from this post:
http://logophilos.net/blather/?p=1540
And has left off the crucial first paragraph which puts the entire rant in contest:
“That’s right, you. The person who bought a copy of Somatesthesia – or worse, the person who got a free copy out of the goodness of my heart – and who then stuck up a link to download it on a Belarusian hosted file sharing site. 94 people have stolen a copy of that book. 94 lost sales. That’s money I really need right now.”
Keta – I’m going to apply a label to you now for what you just did. You’re pathetic. Dishonest, stupid and pathetic.
Woops, that’s three labels, honey. Suck it up.
And to think I felt vaguely sorry for you. Just goes to show I shouldn’t bother.
The level of judgment and alienation that is going on here is appalling. People can think whatever they want, but Lori Perkins and Ravenous Romance offered me a toe in the door, right when the market was at its tightest–and my last check from RR came just in time for me to be able to pay, in cash, a full panel of diagnostics for my sick cat.
I met Lori Perkins during the writer’s conference near my home in Vegas. I did not go to the conference, because I’m attending college, but Ms. Perkins was nice enough to take me out to lunch and drinks that weekend. She is a charming woman, with a passion for both romance and erotica, as well as literature, science fiction, and horror. We talked about the classics–Anais Nin, Henry Miller, John Updike–and she really knew her stuff.
I understand that businesses start and fail all of the time, some of them legit and some of them just looking to make a quick buck, but the level of aggression certain people have extended to RR is nothing short of vicious. I don’t know what outside problems some of the ringleaders have with Lori Perkins (not my agent) and the few others who appear to be regular targets, but those gripes have nothing to do with the numerous talented authors publishing through Ravenous Romance. Give them–us–a break, please. I think it’s safe to say that most of us understand the risks involved; some risks are worth chancing, and so far the payoff has been promising.
Just my take on it all. I don’t want to argue.
Lisa Lane
THE DARKNESS AND THE NIGHT: BLOOD AND COFFEE
THE DARKNESS AND THE NIGHT II: COSMIC ORGASM
THE DARKNESS AND THE NIGHT III: TBA
LUST IN SPACE
“Two Turtle Doves” – THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS
“Coffee Break,” and “Until Next Week,” – MEN IN SHORTS
“My Two Size 10’s” – SEX AND SHOES
“Blood and Money” and “Time Well Spent” – SEX AND TAXES
People can think whatever they want, but Lori Perkins and Ravenous Romance offered me a toe in the door, right when the market was at its tightest…
I’m curious what you mean by a “toe in the door?” AFAIK most epublishers take agentless submissions, so unpublished writers generally start on a level playing field (slush) in that respect. Also, many literary agents consider e-publishing along the same vein as they look on self-publishing, so it’s not a credential that will impress if you’re looking for an agent (at least, I’ve never heard an agent answer that question any other way, although some say that a successful epublishing career can’t hurt and is worth mentioning). In that respect, it doesn’t matter what epub you choose.
So although I’m sure it depends on your goals, I’m trying to think of what advantages you get from publishing with an epublisher that is less than a year old and is on the receiving end of some bad press for it’s shoddy editing (not to mention what I believe is a valid concern about widespread incorrect genre labeling). Honestly, I’m not trying to be a jerk, I’m just really curious about what doors RR has opened for you that a better established, more reputable epub couldn’t have?
Shiloh wrote:
You’re also a snot who likes to blow her own horn.
Now I’m disappointed, Shiloh. I was just SURE the last word in that sentence was going to be “nose.”