Today, I’d like to explore the underbelly of futuristic romances. Eh, no, not the bare, curvy belly of the heroine, oft caressed by the hero’s strong, warm hands. I’m talking about that other underbelly—the unsavory one whispered about in forums and emails whenever the subject of futuristic romances arises.
I know. Scandalous.
Specifically, I’m referring to those (many of which hail from the 80s to the late 90s) that have a reputation for cheesy plots, over reliance on romance genre stereotypes, and subpar—some might even say appallingly subpar—science fictional elements.
With an extraordinary history of science fiction novels dating back (arguably) to Mary Shelley’s FRANKENSTEIN, along with an equally amazing history of romance books extending back to the works of Jane Austen, pairing SF and romance was bound to be nothing short of spectacular. The Big Bang in overdrive, as it were.
So how did they go astray?
You’ve probably heard about futuristic romances being referred to as “historical romances in space.” Meaning that an SF backdrop has been substituted for a typical historical romance one, and little else changed. It’s true that in some—if not many of these tales—the SF elements are often window dressing, a means of lending the romance a sense of the exotic and nothing more.
Ironically, for many readers the “historical in space” aspect is part of the appeal. Renowned science fiction authors Sharon Lee and Steve Miller have a reputation for books with a “Regency in space” feel—and the description is intended as a compliment. And it’s not like a few strictly SF books don’t have a reputation for being a Western set in space. So that factor alone isn’t the problem (unless, perhaps, one is a hardcore hard SF fan).
Another complaint is that even if the SF elements existed to any significant degree, the author/editor sometimes got the science wrong. Or the SF was media derived instead of literary derived. But media tie-in SF novels are not only popular but also big business, so that last criticism is suspect as well.
One major oversight in some (most?) of the early futuristic romances would be the lack of any truly speculative elements. Including will-nilly references to starships, hyperdrives or space stations without delving into “what if?” exploration left the SF half of the stories gasping for breath.
Were these futuristic romance authors under a time crunch so severe that they may not have had the time to acquaint themselves with the then-current SF offerings? If they had, the SF sides of their stories might have read vastly different.
But editors played a role here as well. I’m going to quote author Marilynn Byerly, who commented about the subject during my previous post:
“Most romance editors knew nothing about science fiction so they couldn’t spot the problems, and they were absolutely certain that a romance reader wouldn’t understand most of the tropes of sf or the concept that a romance could be about an idea in the same way as a sf novel can.”
Other perceived flaws actually have nothing to do with the fact that it was a futuristic romance, and everything to do with impoverished craft. For example:
* Purple prose
* Over reliance on romance stereotypes & tropes (Alpha space pirate heroes; bland or naive heroines); forced seduction.
* Poor plotting—the problem in some stories was not the SF-as-backdrop, but the plot is a backdrop or afterthought. Still scratching my head over that one.
* The over dependence on complications instead of honest-to-goodness conflict. I can enjoy MARS ATTACKS scenarios or the heroine’s romance with an otherworldly barbarian, but nothing makes me snooze faster than a series of boring, easily resolved complications that don’t amount to a hill of beans. Without convincing conflict, the various tensions (emotional, sexual, psychological) suffered by a landslide.
Taste is very subjective, but it’s often an unspoken agreement among many readers who draw the line at some point when it comes to quality prose, story structure, and characterization. I mean, some of the aspects we enjoy about these books could also be considered some of the worst offenders when it comes to truly speculative fiction.
Somewhere along the way, futuristic romances jumped the shark. Somehow, they managed to lose not just potential science fiction readers, but loyal romance readers as well. Instead of firing up a bold new trend, futuristic romances almost suffered the fate of the dinosaurs. The reasons may be even more complicated than those I’ve laid out above.
Are there lessons to be learned here? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Joyfully yours,
Heather
23 comments:
Perhaps they lost the storyline itself. I find that if a story is great it doesn't matter how hot the romance is or how scientifically correct the tech is, the story will carry it through. That's what's needed - a story that holds the audience/reader until the end. Believable romance, because come on folks some of the stories seem to have the heroine in peril and then she's getting her gear off? I mean who wants sex when you're fighting for your life? There'll be time later on for the rompy pompy, show me how she gets out of danger first.
Anyway that's just my two bob worth.
I think you are right many of the Futuristics do seem to have a lot in common with early purple prose pulp stuff like Edgar Rice Burroughs. Maybe that was because both the people writing them and their editors were only familiar with that older sort of cheesy Flash Gordon, Conan the barbarian style of SF/F and not with the smoother better written SF/F that was being produced by the 80's and 90's
How it went astray for me--and this is strictly IMHO and IMHE and your mileage may vary--is that the early futuristics surfaced at about the same time the women's lib movement was chugging along. So the initial expectation--at least mine--was that, hmm, science fiction being a male bastion and now here we have worthy female protagonists!
My experience with these books was just the opposite. As noted, sexual coersion (to save the prince, captain, galaxy, universe, whatever) was forefront, the female protagonists were often little more than virginal concubines with royal blood, and their main contribution was via the womb.
This was not reflective "of the times" and if we accept that commercial genre fiction IS entertainment, then it must be applicable "to the times." I switched from reading futuristics, even though my first love was SF, to romantic suspense because at least there I found the gutsy female protagonists I wanted to identify with.
But that's me and my "reading needs" which I fully understand may not be someone else's. Reading fiction is a vicarious experience and we all have different vicarious flavors.
I also turned at that time to writing Trek fan fic because THERE I could control and create the kinds of female protagonists I wanted to read about in futuristics but couldn't find (easily).
Just as a bit of lore, Captain Tasha Sebastian (GAMES OF COMMAND) originally commanded a Federation starship. ;-) ~Linnea
"Are there lessons to be learned here?"
Yes, for the love of Spock!
First and foremost is this, people who read any flavor of Science Fiction do so because they love to explore the glorious possibilities of existance.
Having blood-sucking dead guys in every other Paranormal Romance novel may work for that subgenre, but SFR readers get bored faster.
Forgot to add earlier that I'm a huge Jane Austen fan, and I've wondered what sort of fiction she would be writing if she was around today. Her work held a mirror up to society the way some more serious SF (Butler, LeGuin, Brin, the top shelf Trek Scripts) does, so I could see her writing SF. Only Austien's SF would be far more popularly entertaining that the folks I mentioned above. :-)
In many ways, this discussion is unfair because romance is being damned for being romance. Romance is about two characters and their relationship. It's NOT about plot and worldbuilding. A really good romance has a decent plot and good worldbuilding, though.
During this early period of the first futuristic, romance was in major flux. The early writers of historical romances were following the rape saga pattern of Woodiwiss, and the market expanded so rapidly that many of those with really bad craft were quite successful because they could create the characters and the emotional tropes the readers wanted.
Gradually, Jayne Ann Krentz was able to break the "there most be a rape" mentality, and female editors began to take over from male editors who had perpetuated the rape saga. Better writers began to move in to the market, and the craft gradually became of the highest quality.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the only single title authors who could get a futuristic published were mega-bestsellers, and most of those were early historical writers who brought the rapes and bad writing with them. The books during that period were romances sold to a romance audience so editors only wanted historical romance in space instead of sf with romantic elements.
If they had published what is now sf romance, few of the books would have sold, and the market would have been dead for many years instead of sticking its head out every seven years or so as the futuristic romance to test the audience's interest in the market.
And to romance and romance readers' credit, this mixture of romance and science fiction, poor as it was, did happen. This kind of cross-genre mixture would have never have happened from the science fiction angle.
During that period, the science fiction community of writers, editors and readers were fighting over the idea that science fiction could be about characters as much as it was about ideas, and that contemporary fiction's craft methods had a place in science fiction. The old guard of science fiction, the good ol' geeks, are still fighting the idea that character and plot are important.
Almost two decades after than the introduction of the futuristic romance, romantic elements in science fiction finally crept in through the back door courtesy of Catherine Asaro whose doctorate in hard science gave her respectability in the sf community and Lois McMaster Bujold.
In 2002, I saw good ol' geek Jim Baen of Baen Books almost have a stroke from anger when someone at a con called Bujold's books sf romance.
People like me, courtesy of the freedom of ebooks, were finally able to fully integrate the romance and science fiction by being true and respectful of both genres, and this integration is finally being accepted by more readers from both genres.
I think the real problem for sf romance is not the past market problems, but the expectations of the readers.
Readers of science fiction have certain expectations, and if they aren't met, the sf romance fails. Readers of romance have other expectations, and if they aren't met, the sf romance fails.
Readers from romance/heart and sf/brain bicker like McCoy and Spock over what should be in the books, and few seem happy.
The market is small so, if either side fails to support a book, it fails, and it hurts the market.
Really good writers who understand both genres and their expectations leave the field, and few see a reason to write for it because of the ephemeral market situation. When the market starts rebuilding in small press and ebooks, a few books by big publishers will siphon away the readers and the money, then the big publishers will leave the field, and we're back at zero again.
I imagine the only solution to all this is to build the market enough that the extra numbers will allow sf romance a chance to grow and finally flourish.
Marilynn said: "In many ways, this discussion is unfair because romance is being damned for being romance. Romance is about two characters and their relationship. It's NOT about plot and worldbuilding."
I fully get what you're getting at, Marilynn, but then by your definition, a Regency romance need not be accurate to time/place and a romantic suspense need not be accurate to solving the crime. So we could have the heroine in a Regency riding a Kawasaki motorcyle but as long as the two characters fell in love, it would be okay. (And I know you know that wouldn't fly but I'm just giving an example). ;-)
SFR isn't the only sub-genre that requires dual-citizenship, so to speak. So I don't think asking writers to attempt to address both romance and plot, and romance and setting is asking too much. Actually, there's a bit more wiggle room in SFR than in historical romances, because so much IS pure fiction.
From friends of mine who write historicals, I hear that if you put the wrong kind of button on a character's dress, you get all sorts of nasty emails from readers who DO KNOW what kinds of buttons existed in that time period.
No one really knows what kinds of buttons we'll have in three hundred years. Or what kinds of buttons there are on fictional planets in fictional galaxies.
That doesn't mean there aren't rules in SFR world building. There are. Tons. But we also have more leeway than historical romance authors do. ~Linnea
Marilynn,thanks for the history lesson!
Wouldn't it be great if authors could just tell their stories without all the 'politics.' Maybe then readers would get the wild variety we want.
Linnea, I thought Marilynn referred to the myriad of expectations an author must deal with to get her story from her head to Barnes & Noble. If that's true, I agree. As a reader, I want variety, a lot of wild variety! I don't just want childless kick-butt heroines in dark & sexy space adventures, though I certainly do want some. I also want contemporary soccer moms harboring hunky cyborgs and virginal heroines fighting off intergalactic megalomaniacs who want to impregnate her so she can have babies with the boy she really loves. I want Sweet and Hot and everything in between. I want it all.
Except blood-sucking dead guys.
Linnea, I said romance can't be damned for not having enough plot and worldbuilding detail to suit the science fiction crowd.
I WASN'T saying that the plot and worldbuilding that are there shouldn't be done correctly. It should.
I believe that cross-genre of any kind should respect the tropes and expectations of both genres. That means, in the case of sf romance, that the characters and their emotional relationship should be given an important part of the plot, and the worldbuilding which includes the science should be accurate.
I think the answer lies with writers who have experience writing romance and also have a background in reading science fiction, so they can build those sci-fi worlds and still give us a great romance.
As a reader of SFR, I want both.
Yep,
I'm so over the blood sucking dead guys.
Marilynn,
I know there are old school nuts & bolts SF geeks still out there. I'm married to one. But I have to say that when I go to SF Cons there are as many women there as men if not more.
If you look at the SF that sells, esp the SF being written by writers who's first book was published after say, 1990 of 1995 I think you are going to find that almost all of it is driven by character relationships with the nut's bolts and golly gee whiz sense of wonder stuff as the texture and background to the actual plot.
I'm not saying that it is driven by romantic relationships, although that is there too as often as not, but SF is about the characters these days not about the whiz-bang.
Partly might be because of the larger numbers of women reading SF or the lack of Science Ed in the general public these days (both things that are bitched about to no end by SF old timers at Cons) But I think that it's more a change in reading format. The market for short fiction which was perfect for the whiz-bang puzzle solving SF story is almost completely gone. People these days read novels, and at that length its hard to tell a story that does not at least touch on character's relationships.
I just wanted to offer a fairly complete list of pre-2004 futuristics, if anyone is interested. I got obsessive about collecting those books in the early 2000's when I was editing the Science Fiction Romance Newsletter -- which is also how I met Linnea -- but I had to give that job up. So I'm following this discussion with great interest. The link goes to a blog called "Beyond the Veil".
http://tinyurl.com/apyfls
I hear ya', doll, and I know what you meant but I also picked out your opening comment because it could be construed as saying world building wasn't as critical:
**Romance is about two characters and their relationship. It's NOT about plot and worldbuilding. **
And I think there is an element who subscribe to that. I wasn't saying you, specifically, did. But it's a point that needs to be raised and addressed. ;-)
Better? ;-)
Kimber An - **If that's true, I agree. As a reader, I want variety, a lot of wild variety! I don't just want childless kick-butt heroines in dark & sexy space adventures, though I certainly do want some. I also want contemporary soccer moms harboring hunky cyborgs and virginal heroines fighting off intergalactic megalomaniacs who want to impregnate her so she can have babies with the boy she really loves.**
I totally agree. I want the diversity of storylines--the pregnant captain-mom. the menopausal female admiral ::hint hint nudge nudge::, the kick-butt twenty-something female sergeants... my objection is when the intimacy is forced (rape) or when the intimacy is perceived to be THE reward in and of itself, as if all a woman really needs is to get laid... or if she's merely a womb and NOT a mother and as YOU well know, there are huge differences in that. I'm all for responsible intergalactic mother- and fatherhood. I'm not for breeding as a "solution" as in "any womb (port) in a storm..." Savvy?
~Linnea
Awesome discussion! Jumping right in...
Natalie, you make a good point about ill-timed scenes, whether it be a sex scene or a character explaining how a gadget works. It pulls a reader out of the story. I was reading an SFR a few months ago (pubbed in 2005/6) and the characters were being hunted for a good part of the story.
I did not expect any sex scene to happen until the end, but there it was right on schedule, around page 200 or so. Killed not only the action but also the sexual tension, which was great up to that point.
Mfitz, exactly. There's a danger in mining the same or only a specific source material over and over. How many times have I read advice for writers to read widely, both within and outside the genre in which they are writing? Lots of times.
Linnea, I appreciate your insights. I had one of those "I should have thought of that for the post" moments.
Kimber An, good point--I know I'm always hankering over the next fun science fictional idea/gadget in stories—but I also like fresh twists on the romance, too (I’m looking at you, m/m SFR & shape shifting alien heroes/heroines!). I’ll buy you a coffee/tea/champagne to celebrate the day you and I are both reading a bucket load of stories in this subgenre we enjoy.
I also want to add that not every SFR has to be chock full of speculative aspects. Even if an author takes a single idea and gives it some depth alongside the romance, that's totally great.
Regarding the SF in SFR, I think readers are smarter than some publishers give them credit for and I also think many readers are smarter than they give *themselves* credit for. I can understand misgivings about jumping into a new genre, but sometimes all it takes is the right kind of introduction.
Marilynn, thanks for your thoughts! I agree that reader expectations is an issue here. With each story, SFR authors attempt an integration of elements that have divergent goals at times. And so the focus of the story is both similar and different in SFR than what it would be in SF or romance (I’ve blogged about it before).
I’d wager that authors sometimes struggle with how to tell this kind of story. What I think is great about the various discussions here is the educational aspect occurring, so readers new to the genre can understand what type of story they’re reading.
“romance can't be damned for not having enough plot and worldbuilding detail to suit the science fiction crowd.”
I understand your concern and even anticipated that concern arising. However, what I and I think others are saying is that the science fiction romance books they are reading sometimes lack enough plot and worldbuilding detail to suit the *science fiction romance* crowd. I think this ties into your point about reader expectations.
SFR will not appeal to all romance readers nor all SF readers. Some, yes. But for SFR readers who have adjusted their expectations to connect with what SFR authors write—that’s the main idea behind my post. Linnea’s comment about addressing “both romance and plot, and romance and setting” summed it up nicely. That’s what I meant with this post.
Susan, spot on.
Hi, Writer and Cat! Thanks for that link. Fwiw, I linked to it months ago, but it’s always good to have a reminder that it’s there. Much appreciated.
To me the problem was that most writers of futuristics seemed to base their sf on the movies and TV they grew up rather than sf novels. I love Star Wars and Star Trek but they're just not good examples to follow when it comes to world building and accurate science. They led to so many novels with human-like civilizations all over the universe that we could interbreed with, with no explanation provided. All the characters seemed to have transporters, communicators, and warp drives. It's always been easy to pick out the writers who grew up reading some sf as opposed to just watching it.
As for the uber-alpha male, I think that was a remnant of the 80s and Johanna Lindsey's books. By the mid-90s those kinds of heros had worn out their welcome in contemporaries and so the writers saw JLs books and followed her there. (I think they later moved on to the alpha vampires and demons we have today.)
So many of the earliest futuristic ebooks were thick with rape. Heck it was like reading a Gor novel from the woman's POV, and she was liking it and validating that male fantasy. Yech. I was so glad when other kinds of books started appearing.
You know, there were a few series books that were much quieter sf-romances, but they tended to be time-travel. One that was not TT that I always recommend for people wanting a different flavor of early sf romance is Whispers in the Woods by Helen Myers. It was written in 1994, and is a beauty and the beast tale that's part sf / part folk tale. Another is Anne Stuart's Cinderman.
Okay, I have to confess. Ya'll are scaring me to death. When I wrote Close Encounters, my first SFR novel (April, 2009 release) I wasn't thinking about balancing the SF and romance elements. I wasn't thinking about the genre and its expectations. In truth, I wasn't even thinking about world building beyond putting the heroine in the best possible surroundings. I simply wanted to write this book and character because the subject of genetic engineering fascinates me and I couldn't find a SFR that dealt with the subject. So I wrote it myself. Lucky for me, my editor loved it.
I suspect that if I have to start thinking about all the things mentioned here (except world building) before I write a book, said book would never get written. I much prefer working on a story because I love the subject matter and the characters.
P.S. I've never liked the dead guys either.
Shelly said: **All the characters seemed to have transporters, communicators, and warp drives**
Actually, FTL travel is one of the tropes, the givens usable in SF. Sometimes it's called jumpspace, sometimes hyperspace, Trek called it warp, and sometimes the author makes up a term, but it's all based on FTL travel.
The way most of us learn the tropes is by reading--like Marilynn and others here, I've read SF since I was a wee kidling. But I've also watched a lot of media SF and since I write cross genre, I try to use the tropes of both because that's where I feel my audience is. I don't write to the hard SF contingent. I write to the middle-of-the-roaders, so to speak.
If a writer doesn't have a long backlist of SF reading, there are some really good how-tos out there, kind of crash courses. ;-) Ben Bova has a number of good books that detail SF tropes for writers. I use his stuff as well as The Physics of Star Trek by Krauss and The Science of Star Wars by Dr Cavelos. For starters.
Katherine said: **I suspect that if I have to start thinking about all the things mentioned here (except world building) before I write a book, said book would never get written. I much prefer working on a story because I love the subject matter and the characters.
**
Everyone comes at writing from different angles but we all (should) end up at the same place. For some writers, the research comes first. For others, it's layered in later. But if you're writing good SFR, the research is as necessary as it is if you're writing a good historical. (See my comment above about buttons and Kawasaki motorcycles).
IMHO and IMHE, loving the characters is not enough to satisfy READER expectations in most cases. It's certainly enough to write a story. (And I think it is where most of us start.) But it may not be enough to work with expectations in the SF/SFR crowd. Or the historical crowd. Or the mystery crowd.
Before I was published with Bantam Spectra (and yes, I started out in their hard SF imprint), I spent ten odd years (and dang, was they odd!) as a private detective. So I know that business and much of the law enforcement biz pretty well. That's why I helicopter certain mystery or romantic suspense books, because the writer has failed to do the basic research as to what a PI actually does (or can't do). Or what a cop does (or can't do). The sad thing is, research is SO easy these days with the Internet and all. There's really little excuse for not getting basics right.
Even given what I know about law enforcement, my THE DOWN HOME ZOMBIE BLUES was vetted by two cops before publication. My editor at Bantam has her science degrees but admittedly doesn't know squat about law enforcement. And I didn't want to trust only my memories and my experiences. So all the police procedures in the book were run past a detective and a road patrol sergeant in two different jurisdictions. Additionally, certain scenes were vetted by at least a dozen cops on two law enforcement forums.
It wasn't just procedure I was looking for. It was "cop mindset." Would a homicide detective think and act the way my male protagonist did? That was critical to me.
The same thing with the military mindset for my characters in my other SFR books. I have retired military officers and non-comms as first readers. My fight scenes are vetted by a retired mercenary and karate expert.
And I run my FLIGHT scenes past United airlines pilot, Captain Susan Grant. ;-) Who also writes terrific SFR. (I used to have my pilot's license by it was eons ago, so again, I don't trust my memories on that. Plus Susan flies BIG jets and I just flew those tiny little Cessnas. Big difference.)
Is my stuff perfect? Hell, no. But I try to work with as much information as I can because I know the reader--especially the SF part of the SFR reader--knows this stuff inside out. And EXPECTS it.
I'm also edited by the Spectra side of Bantam and believe me, that keeps me on my toes. I do not have a science background so I research whatever I put in (because my editor asks very pointed questions and isn't shy about saying, "that's stupid.").
I know of one lovely SFR author (who I won't name--she can out herself if she wants to) who had troubles with an editor of her SFR books because her editor was a romance editor and had no SF background. In the reverse of my situation with Spectra, this author's editor didn't "get" the SF stuff and the author--who is also ex-Air Force--had to educate her editor.
And this kinda sorta brings us back to the old futuristics issue. As has been noted by many, they were written by romance authors and edited by romance editors who weren't as familiar with the needs of the SF reader as they perhaps should have been.
It's like, if I want a Reese's peanut butter cup, I want to taste the chocolate AND the peanut butter. I don't want to taste chocolate AND orange because someone didn't bother researching what peanut butter tastes like, or just figured I wouldn't notice the difference...
Natalie said: **Believable romance, because come on folks some of the stories seem to have the heroine in peril and then she's getting her gear off? I mean who wants sex when you're fighting for your life? **
My agent, Kristin Nelson, actually has a scenario like this in her blog list of ten things a writer should NOT do. She uses the scenario of the gal waking up to find a strange man standing in her bedroom, and she immediately lusts after him. Instead of (logically) screaming her head off and chucking a lamp at him. Or calling 911. Falls into the TSTL category, that.
And those poor blood-sucking guys. So unloved. ;-)
Okay, I'll shut up now. ~Linnea
Shelly, hello and thanks for commenting! I appreciate those titles you mentioned. They sound intriguing. Will check them out.
I agree that media based SF/SFR can come across as superficial.
But as far as media based vs. literary based SF, I can enjoy both or a mixture of the two, but regardless of which I have the expectation that the author will wow me with a Great BS Device (trademarked Frances Drake). That's a must, if the science isn't reality based.
Katherine, thanks for visiting! The fact that you mention exploring genetic engineering sounds like worldbuilding/speculation to me! Authors need to write what they want to read and since genetic engineering fascinates *you*, it's likely to fascinate others. Linnea touched on the rest of the issue very thoroughly (!) so there's not much to add.
Basically we need all kinds of stories for different tastes. However, given how far technology and science have come since the 80s and 90s, and given the accessibility to such information via the Web, I think many fans would color themselves surprised to read stories that are duplicates of what was published decades ago. A few here and there, maybe, but across the board?
I respect and salute what has been accomplished in the name of science fiction romance, but I also believe it's a time for stories that are more sensitive to the cultural and technological changes around us.
Linnea, thanks again for your invaluable insights.
Contrived conflicts, particularly of the interpersonal variety (characters being unbelievably unreasonable for no good cause, for example) is a problem in a LOT of romance, and one of the things that turns me off a book instantly.
That said, I have to say that I think that one really has to be a fan of science fiction--be it space opera or the hard stuff--to write it successfully, even if you're merging it with romance.
Without a love of SF, the background becomes a gimmick, and people almost universally loathe shallow gimmickry.
Linnea - Not unloved - outgrown. Like Meatloaf's music, purple hair and black eye shadow.
Sajewilliams - I think your comment
"... one really has to be a fan of science fiction--be it space opera or the hard stuff--to write it successfully, even if you're merging it with romance..."
goes right to the hear of the matter.
I'm an OK writer. I could do a vampire paranormal if I put my mind to it. As a red-head I sunburn looking at travel brochures, so I even have some affinity with a character who sleeps all day to avoid sunlight. But, I don't really get the appeal that a immortal dead guy has as a life partner for any woman who has her head screwed on straight. It is inherently not a relationship of equals, and that seems unhealthy to me. I think that would come out in anything I wrote and people who do get that appeal would be able to tell I'm faking it. I think something like that is what was going on with the early Futuristic Romances. They were seen as a way to stand out in the crowd, and at the same time get on the bandwagon of a possible new hot trend, and people wrote them for those reasons, not because of a love for the sub genre.
Linnea said:
["after Shelly said: All the characters seemed to have transporters, communicators, and warp drives"
Actually, FTL travel is one of the tropes, the givens usable in SF. Sometimes it's called jumpspace, sometimes hyperspace, Trek called it warp, and sometimes the author makes up a term, but it's all based on FTL travel. ]
Yes I know that. But I'm not talking about just the tech. I'm talking about them taking the words and all from Star Trek and using "phasers" and being "beamed down" to planets and traveling at "warp 4", and many of the first futuristic ebook writers did that in spades. They seemed to think that to write sf they had to copy these things, so really all they were doing was creating a form of fan fiction and selling it. They hadn't a clue as to how sf world building was done.
I really like all kinds of sf from space opera to the hard stuff, but I prefer it when writers make up their own universes, regardless of how common some of the tropes they choose might be.
Post a Comment