In Does Science Fiction Romance Need a Gene Roddenberry?, we discussed many crucial elements regarding both the nature of science fiction romance as well as its historical journey in the world of publishing. Perhaps I should have titled this post “Does Science Fiction Romance Need a Christine Feehan?” since so many of you contributed valuable information on her impact in paranormal romance, and how it could potentially benefit SFR.
For this post and the two that follow, I loosely organized the feedback in an attempt to further lay the foundation for what needs to happen in order for SFR to gain in popularity within the romance community. However, “popularity” can be defined in several ways and except for sales can be difficult to measure. Regardless of whether we seek to attract five new readers or five hundred thousand, it seems there are a number of key factors to address.
Here is the first:
The GREEN EGGS AND HAM conundrum
Regarding the “science” in science fiction romance: Hoo boy, this is a biggie.
What are our choices? Either we sell readers on the appeal of the (accessible) speculative elements and keep science fiction romance, or we change the name to obscure/dress up the nature of the content. Paranormal romance lucked out because paranormal is a “softer” term than “horror.” Yet it also describes the stories in the genre pretty accurately. What is the separate-but-equal alternative for SFR?
This issue reminds me of the SyFy Channel name change. The head honchos reconfigured the channel’s name for a reason. It’s an attempt to gain new viewers outside of SF fandom. They already had SF fans, so the name change reflects an attempt to widen the net. SF fans were not the target audience for this change.
And in last week’s discussion, Linnea Sinclair observed that Christine Feehan “went for romance fans. Period.”
As we discussed recently, there’s an underlying issue tied into the name. A significant one is the idea that science fiction is a “boy’s game” (to borrow passenger Rae Lori’s description). As a result of this propaganda, female readers have shied away as a result. Thus, my concern that one of the reasons romance readers avert their gaze from “science” anything is because voices of the past have convinced them that women can’t understand science or won’t enjoy it. The belief is perpetuated in art despite the fact that speculative elements in an SFR are for entertainment purposes.
I’ll admit I’m bothered by the implication that (generally) romance readers will happily try SFR as long as it’s called something else. It seems so…transparent. I’m dismayed to think that a mere label contains so much power it will make them more amenable, regardless of whether the content matches their tastes.
What’s the more realistic goal, then? Do we demonstrate the appeal of speculative elements for romance readers, or cast out “science” from the name once and for all? I’m even going to assume for the moment that we’re not factoring SF readers into this equation. We also should take into consideration that publishers are continuing to use the label “futuristic romance” no matter how enamored fans are of a particular term.
What label other than “science fiction romance” could both accurately describe the sub-genre and make it appealing to romance readers at the same time?
* “SFR” or “Sci-Fi Romance or SF Romance: All shorten the “science fiction romance” label and obscure the science angle somewhat. Would that be enough?
* Futuristic Romance: It’s familiar, short, and publishers both print and digital alike are still using it. If it’s the most effective way to appeal to romance readers, then we should all do a 180 and start using this term again. Period.
* Speculative Romance: Could this be the new “futuristic romance,” or is “speculative” as threatening (not just to readers but also to booksellers) as the word “science?” Some may not consider it as sexy as “futuristic.”
* Awesomesauce Romance: Uh…you think that’s overstating the case? Really?
A Spoonful of Sugar
Remember Herb Alpert’s Tijuana Brass’ album Whipped Cream and Other Delights? Yeah, I thought you might. Well, that jazz album sold over six million copies in the United States, and let me tell ya, the main reason had nothing to do with Herb’s trumpet skills (although his memorable tunes ensured the product lived up to the packaging).
Transparent marketing or not, it was the whipped cream goddess that attracted the majority of those sales and started the popularity ball rolling. Once enough people actually listened to the music—a genre the majority of buyers would probably never have sampled without said cover—they discovered they actually liked it. This never would have happened unless the marketing department chose this photo over the typical group shot of several middle-aged guys. You see where I'm going with this....
Do we need to spruce this sub-genre up with a dollop of whipped cream? Is that what it would take? Does the label “futuristic romance” sweeten it up enough?
Or do we keep using the term “science fiction romance” and send the message that readers are missing out if they focus too much on the label? In other words, as Eloriealton noted, “We may very well be stuck with the label “Science Fiction Romance,” but that doesn't mean we can't take that label and redefine it, if we have to.”
What say you?
Joyfully yours,
Heather
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Branding Science Fiction Romance, Part I
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
The main problem with "Speculative Romance" is that it's technical. I don't hear it among fans much; I mainly find it among writers, usually when they're talking to each other as much or more than to fans. If it weren't for that, I'd like it. It lumps in with fantasy, but there's enough cross-over with both readers and writers, that may be an asset. {smile}
I'm wondering if there's some way to emphasize social science somewhat. I keep thinking about Jess's novel, Beyond the Rain. She keeps calling it a Futuristic; I don't agree. True, most of her natural science and technology is mood and setting, but her sociology, cultural anthropology, cultural geography, and behavioral biology are integral to the plot. I think that novel would be very different without a decent grounding in those. {smile}
Moreover, when folks talk about women being "scared away from science," what they're being put off from is engineering, math, and natural science. What they're being scared towards is the arts, humanities, and social sciences. I suspect that if we could make it clear that social science is included, the objections to the science in Science Fiction Romance would be muted. {Smile}
Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
I vote for 'Speculative Romance.'
I agree about the 'all boys' club feel of Science Fiction. I'd like to call SF what it is, but there's more to a word than literal definition.
Okay, number one, can I just say that I hate the label "futuristic romance" with a passion probably unequalled by most of my pet peeves related to romance novel publishing and I don't get into publishing discussions all that often. Why? Because it's mislabeling and always has been since they first starting using it. Futuristic is a time period. For every five books originally given that label, three would invariably be fantasies set on contemporary Earth.
'Nuff said. GRRRRR.
Deep breath. ;)
That off my chest, personally, I have to take issue somewhat with the idea that romance readers don't like science fiction romance because of the science because I honestly don't believe that's the whole story. Sure, some of them may use that as the excuse but I'd bet that if one dug a little deeper it would come back to that old balance thing about the science overpowering the romance (read relationship there). That is absolutely crucial. I cannot stress this enough. To sell the books to romance readers, they have to be reassured that the romance relationship remains sacred, front and center -- and then they will accept the science and all the other bells and whistles.
What I guess I'm saying is that I'm not sure many of you realize just how many times some of us have been burned by being reassured that "oh, this book has a great romance in it" only to find we were wading into what amounts to a hard-core science fiction novel. That's what makes science fiction equal a negative in our minds, not the science itself. The lack of actual truth about what's in the books. Stop trying to sell us science fiction novels with romances tucked into them and actually give us science fiction romances and then maybe we'll pay attention.
We certainly paid attention when Linnea's books showed up and most of them were called science fiction romances even as ebooks. And the reason is because they actually delivered what they promised - romance & science fiction. Not all science fiction with a tad bit of romance. Nor mostly romance with half-hearted science fiction.
Believe in your audience.
Although that doesn't mean that you shouldn't keep playing with terms, either, just in case.
Thanks Anne! You're awesome. For the record, I don't like the term "Futuristic". In fact, my website is labeled that way, because my web designer thought that's what I was going for, and now it's stuck that way.
Linnea put me in that camp as well on her website, because she has very specific criteria for each of her labels, and according to her rules, I'm a futuristic writer.
That's fine, but when I think futuristic romance, I think "Barbarian man-culture in space must abduct Earth women to repopulate their planet... Yes he carries a big sword... Wait a minute, this is a harem story in disguise!" Is that fair? I don't know, but that's the first thing that runs through my mind when I think futuristic.
I prefer Space Opera Romance, because that's what I really feel I write.
But all that doesn't matter. Here's a little secret. I was a Feehan fangirl. I cut my teeth writing Feehan fan fic. Oh, I'm so not kidding. I know exactly what Christine meant when she said I wrote a romance. I took what I learned from the emotional intensity of her books, and I'm trying my darndest to emulate that. Deep, raw, soul-cutting emotional rip your heart out intensity. I want to make people weep because their heart is broken, then feel elated when it all really does work out.
That's what I'm seeking above all with my novels. I don't know if I've done it, but darn it, I'm trying my hardest.
So I'm writing a romance novel, but here's the kicker. I don't want to half-heart the SF element. I whole-heart the SF element, but it is never going to be more important to me than the gut-wrench love story.
It seems more genres now have sub-genres. Look at romance, fantasy, suspense. They are have sub-genres, so why not science fiction?
I think I'm leaning toward sticking with Science Fiction Romance on this one. First of all, it seems the tag has just started to gain more notice and recognition of late with the RT Book Reviews article, discussions on popular blogs, submission calls, etc. so why change starships in the middle of the asteroid belt? (yeah, okay, genre spin on the old cliche).
Futuristic Romance, in my mind anyway, is a sub-subgenre of SFR where the romance is predominant and the science is sketchy to non-existant, at best. Speculative Romance is just plain confusing. What exactly is "speculative?" Isn't all fiction speculative? Paranormal Romance...okay, don't even go there. You've heard my rants about being dumped into the same Oort Cloud as vampires and werewolves. Though I don't mind Space Opera--too much--it just sounds a shade overdramatic or cartoonish to me.
So I'm going to stick to my paracannons and say let's keep Science Fiction Romance. If readers don't pick it up because it has "Science" in the name (oooh, boy cooties!) then they probably aren't among the target readership we're looking for anyway. :)
I'm with you, Laurie. Anytime anyone asks, I say I write a mix of Science Fiction and Romance, and they always perk up and say, "Really?" Like they never thought that was possible.
I like SFR, it is simple, short, and easy. It is also all encompassing of the subgenre the way Paranormal Romance encompasses Shape shifter romance, Vampire romance, Witch romance, Reincarnation romance, Psychic powers romance, etc.
If we split too many hairs, it's going to be hard to gather a crowd.
Which reminds me of part of the former post that niggled my brain a little. It was the "I don't like this element in my SF" problem when people talk about SFR. We've got to decide we're going to be inclusive to gather any amount of clout.
(I like that we're claiming the Steampunk people, for example)
We can't say, well I write Military SF with Romance, but she writes Romance with a Space Opera setting, and she writes classic Futuristic erotica.
We have to all write something. My vote is for SFR.
I’m ok with “Speculative Fiction,” but “Futuristic” to me is fantasy. I’ve enjoyed the heck out of some of that, but it’s Linnea Sinclair’s books that come closest to what my heart wants to read. And as a reminder I was drawn into this because someone did call it “Science Fiction Romance.”
I come from the “Star Trek” fandom, but more exactly I’ve written Janeway/Chakotay fan fiction. I move in a circle of about 500 active J/Cers. Have you any idea what it meant to pick up Susan Grant’s “Moonstruck” and know that was the book we wanted Pocket Books to publish for us but they will not because of the ridiculous notion that girls and women don’t read “Star Trek” novels. I found “Moonstruck” because of the Science Fiction Romance label not in spite of it. I posted a recommendation on our board and I know of some fans as far away as Germany ordering “Moonstruck” from the US because they couldn’t find it in their country.
My point is and always was the label isn’t as important as the person that picks the book up to read and then says to another, “Here read this, you are going to love it.” I’ve personally seen this happen in my little corner of the internet.
Will “Science Fiction Romance” put some people off, well yes it will for a while, but then didn’t the label ‘Paranormal” put some people off. It still does because some people don’t want to read vampire romance. Labeling a book “Science Fiction isn’t any different, but the other side of the coin is that that the label also attracts readers and those are the ones that say “Here read this.”
Elorie
Which brings me to another thought I've been thinking for a while. How do we introduce ourselves to people who do write Star Wars/Star Trek romantic fan fiction. Fan fiction writers are awesome readers, and they're connected.
How do we get our names in Fan Fiction circles? How do we invite them to the party? Should we have a special Fan Fic appreciation day or something? I don't know.
Jess, I don't know too much about the Star Wars fic writers, but I do know something about the Trek ones.
The one thing I can tell you is that we all write some form of Science Fiction Romance, we just use existing characters. For some the fan fiction is enough, but there are a few that want to spread out with their own characters.
Some of us like me, were fans from the very beginning of Trek, and others are fans of Voyager only because they were Kate Mulgrew fans first. Most of us stay away from the big Trek boards because they are mostly young males. We are Janeway/Chakotay shippers or Picard/Crusher shippers and even Janeway/Seven shippers, but just get to the bottom line and we are all readers and writers of romance.
I think the most interesting thing is that most of the fan fiction no matter it's source is written by females, the male fans may moan about it all being romance (and I have seen that accusation), but it's romance because that's what the fic writers want to read. We couldn't find it anywhere else so we wrote it ourselves.
My progression into this was first through Star Trek and in the 70's Jacqueline Lichtenberg and fanzines. My daughter pulled me back into Voyager, I started writing down some of the stories that I had always written in my head.
I picked up Susan Kearney's "The Challenge" at the book store because the blurb said "time travel and aliens". I googled her and found Alienromances and my hero Jacqueline and that led me here and to Spacefreighter's Lounge, and to "Moonstruck" and Linnea Sinclair...
I am passing the word, and just like everywhere else some are interested and some are not. The fact that there are first chapters available on the internet helps gain someone’s interest, because with "Moonstruck" I could recommend the story and point to the web site.
I am Elorie Alton in the Trek Fandom, I am one of the Mods on the private Voyagerangel message board, I operate a couple of mIRC chat rooms and I have a Live Journal.
Like I said I don't know about the Star Wars fandom but in the Voyager circles some of your names are already there.
Elorie
Bwa ha ha ha ha! Let just call it Spock Fiction Romance. Keeps the SF initials and evokes the image of that sexy but repressed alien man that all women secretly want. Yep, Spock Fiction Romance--that's the way to go.
(Kidding, just kidding, ladies, don't kill me, please.)
I don't have a clue how to define the SFR genre (I'm calling my project a skiffy-rom-goth-com out of desperation) but I HAD to say I grew up listening that album! My g-pa had it and I adored Love Potion #9. It's too hilarious about the cover story!
I think the most interesting thing is that most of the fan fiction no matter it's source is written by females, the male fans may moan about it all being romance (and I have seen that accusation), but it's romance because that's what the fic writers want to read. We couldn't find it anywhere else so we wrote it ourselves.
I'm not sure I've ever actually seen fan fiction inspired because there's already a great romance in a product - whatever that product is. :D
No, seriously, I think that is the real hook here. Or--could be, when you think about it. Classic example. I have no desire to be a writer. I'm a reader. Plain and simple.
Yet I have written fan fiction. I have fan fiction posted online for the Lois & Clark fandom, which at a stretch might be considered within the sci-fi/SF arena - depending on which side of the "is Superman fantasy or is he science fiction?" argument someone woke up on any give morning. ;)
But the thing I've never told anyone, even the L&C fans when I was actively writing within that fandom, is that those stories weren't my first attempts at writing fan fiction. No, the TV series that first hooked my romance reader imagination as needing severe attention was Star Trek: The Next Generation.
And the couple was Riker and Troi. Such potential. Wasted. Over and over again. You know, it's the over and over again that's as much of an insult as anything else.
So, you know, a campaign that focused on the fact that these books counter-acted that frustration felt by probably legions of female science fiction fans and actually got characters together "happily ever after" romance style while still inside those science fiction settings and situations... very well could be a winner.
Focus on the positives. These books don't simple temporarily correct a problem with products we have no control over. They present new stories and new characters. New possibilities.
With familiar themes and settings.
Just the same as the rest of the romance genre does. We just have to get the readers to see that what they "watch" so avidly can be what they read, too.
The main problem with "Speculative Romance" is that it's technical.
That was my thought as well.
make it clear that social science is included
Good point. Books that include such science could be great starting places when recommending SFR to readers new to the genre (and especially new to SF).
@ BevBB I had no idea futuristic was used so willy-nilly. Hmm, sensing the same pattern as with “paranormal”—that publishers will use whatever label they think will best sell books. Well, all the more reason to go with SFR. Clear as crystal.
it would come back to that old balance thing about the science overpowering the romance (read relationship there). That is absolutely crucial…some of us have been burned
Excellent point. While blogging, I hope I’ve been consistent in distinguishing romantic SF from SFR on this blog, but if not, your comment has made me realize I need to be vigilant about that—especially since I like to blog about romantic SF both in books and film/TV. Sometimes the romance in a romantic SF story seems very significant to me and I interpret it as being more prevalent than it is. So I can see how recommendations can get tricky. But if you’ve read enough romance, it’s easier to make the distinctions.
Ah…so many former fanfiction writers, so little time! (I’ve got some in my past as well, although mine is anime based). You make a terrific point about the wasted potential. See, this is why I’m convinced the fans are out there. But they might not think to look in the romance section, and with publishers labeling these stories as “paranormal romance,” who can blame them? Well, we can change that.
Barbarian man-culture in space
Jess, you rightly pointed to the less than stellar reputation of the term “futuristic.” I know that quite a few authors aren’t enamored of it and now BevBB pointed out it’s been a frustration for readers as well.
Linnea put me in that camp as well on her website, because she has very specific criteria for each of her labels, and according to her rules, I'm a futuristic writer.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been interpreting “science fiction romance” as a replacement term for “futuristic.” “Science fiction romance” goes back to the days of the SFR Newsletter, yes? I think the use of “science fiction romance” is an attempt to distance good quality books from poor quality books in the genre, because otherwise, short of romantic SF, you can have any blend of SF and romance and it can all be good regardless of the ratio. Like you stated, to promote the genre effectively we can’t be splitting hairs. The main reason we would split anything is when we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of recommending specific books.
Now, publishers may throw around futuristic this and paranormal that, but since they have opted to be fluid, we can choose to be consistent. Hence, it’s the authors and readers that would own the brand.
@Katiebabs Exactly!
@Elorie I kiss you!
@Atroll You saved the day!
@Bella I couldn’t *not* include the reference, lol!
make it clear that social science is included
Good point. Books that include such science could be great starting places when recommending SFR to readers new to the genre (and especially new to SF).
Actually, I'm not so sure about this. At least not if you're talking about romance readers and you're talking about the politics and "world-building" found in science fiction. Let me see if I explain.
Until I started listening to the science fiction geekettes within the romance community I don't even think I realized how much politics or what you're calling social science played a part in hard-core science fiction. Once I did see that, I realized part of the reason why I really don't like to read those books... which is part of the reason I say it isn't the science turning off romance readers.
Just to prove my point, here's the question I'd ask, how many romances have you seen get promoted on the basis on the politics and social science in them? I'm thinking zero. 'Cause it ain't happening. It ain't gonna happen.
I'm not saying that there aren't social issues or even politics in romances but they will never be a selling point for the readers. Maybe for science fiction readers or others genres but not romance readers.
I like the SFR label. Personally, I think all of the stories I've read that were called Futuristic were too sf-lite for me. Just a personal preference, I'm sure. I grew up on hard SF--Asimov and such. First really long book I remember reading was Dune. I was about ten. Got all the way through too. LOL. Actually understood a lot of it too.
"Speculative" doesn't bother me, but I don't think of the types of SF I enjoy when I hear that. I grew up with "science fiction". The Romance, for me, grew out of a love of shippy fanfic stories. Actually, none of the labels bother me.
For me, SFR works best. It's the most half/half blend I've found, even if I still find most of the stories leaning either one way or the other. Starting over with a new label now might do away with all the work SFR promoters have done for years. I see "SFR" all over now.
When I write I freely admit I'm still writing RSF or stories than lean more toward the sf than the R. My first drafts just come out that way. Eventually I plan to tweak that to a more half/half ratio.
I can't think of a term that works better than SFR. I'm in the camp that loaths "futuristic" But I grew up reading SF and didn't read my first Romance until I was out of college.
I'm oddly attracted to the term Space Opera Romance becasue Space Opera is my fave form of SF. Trek, Star Wars are both Space Opera and also both titulated fans with hints of Romance which is part of what made them such big cultural phenonena. Girls went to see SW because Han Solo was hunky and women watched Trek becasue of Spock's repressed sexiness.
In my experience that fiction that best combines Romance and SF is almost always Space Opera. I think maybe the trops of Space Opera lead to blending with Romance more than any other sub-genre of SF. When I think of Romantic SF I'm hard pressed to thing of a single book with a strong Romance sub-plot that isn't Space Opera.
The only SFR on TV I can think of that isn't Space Opera is X-Files, and 90% of what made that show work was cast chemisty.
BevBB, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say politics, and I did not mean politics. Political science is a social science too, but it wasn't one I was thinking of, and it wasn't one I meant to discuss. {Sigh} I'm sorry. I try to be easy going, but I've learned to be careful about the words I pick.
Anyway, I was talking about Jess Granger's Beyond the Rain. There's poltics in there, including a war with allies, enemies, and people straddling the fence, and more. However, the politics is a minority of the social science in the book. There's more sociology and cultural anthropology than politics in there, and more psychology than the rest put together.
This book isn't just about a warrior nun, a sex slave, and the nun's brother. It's about Cyani and her brother Cyn, and who they are. It looks at how their world's geography shaped their culture, and how their culture, and a couple of particularly dramatic experiences shaped their current personalities in unexpected ways. This does include their culture's politics, but the main importance of that world's politics seems to be how the politics shaped Cyani's and Cyn's personalities in rather dramatic ways.
This book is also about Soren, and who he is. It looks at how his biology shaped both his culture and himself. It looks at how a dramatic set of experiences also shaped the man he has become.
This book is about how Cyani and Soren meet. It's about how they build a relationship. It's about how the cultures and people they encounter shortly after meeting shape their relationship into what it becomes.
To me, it looks like social geography, social psychology, social biology, and personal psychology are essential to three questions about Beyond the Rain: "Who is she?" "Who is he?" and "How do they develop a relationship?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that most romance readers were interested in those questions. {smile}
Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
BevBB, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say politics, and I did not mean politics.
Actually, when I mentioned politics in science fiction before I wasn't simply thinking of your comment, Anne, but of several that I've seen recently both here and on other forums. It has more to do with the emphasis on world-building within science fiction if I'm not mistaken and that's not a bad thing. It's part of the character of the genre. Just like a lack of emphasis on world-building is part of the character of the romance genre.
Of course, that creates a definite problem for anyone who attempts a crossover novel of the two, I would think.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that most romance readers were interested in those questions. {smile}
Well, of course, they are but while romance readers might like to know "Who is she?" "Who is he?" and "How do they develop a relationship?" just how far that curiosity extends past the relationship is something fairly routinely hotly debated within the romance reading community online. Call it a laser focus on the relationship or call it a lack of focus on world-building but, in the end, it amounts to the same thing.
And the same problem for crossover novels.
Romance readers do not like to be distracted from the relationship for very long. A generalization but one based on lots and lots of sales. Which this sub-genre is trying to attract a percentage of. Think about it.
I'm not saying that there aren't social issues or even politics in romances but they will never be a selling point for the readers.
What I utterly failed to communicate was that for *some* readers new to SF/SFR, my feeling is that it would ease the learning curve if they started with books involving social sciences rather than books involving hard speculative elements. I should have stated more clearly that the recommendation would definitely be about the romance as well. In other words, depending on where a reader is starting from, I would take the speculative elements into consideration unless I was told otherwise.
I agree the romance can’t be shortchanged (because then it veers into romantic SF territory), but on the other hand I’m assuming readers are interested in a hybrid genre for a reason. I know I am—I like a few fireworks going off in the plot as well as the romance *grin*.
Anne points out one way SFR can have its cake and eat it, too—by making the hero or heroine a speculative element. Soren from BEYOND THE RAIN is one example. So are Branden Kel-Paten from Linnea Sinclair’s GAMES OF COMMAND and the character Alpha from Catherine Asaro’s ALPHA. Those are ways authors can explore the impact of science on human relationships. Therefore, imho, we are showing the appeal of SFR in one shiny happy package.
Mfitz, thanks for weighing in. I’m kinda digging Space Opera Romance, too, but as a few here have pointed out, it doesn’t have the same breadth of coverage as SFR. But it makes for a good sub-sub-genre label (as opposed to post-apocalyptic romance, steampunk romance, etc.)
just how far that curiosity extends past the relationship is something fairly routinely hotly debated within the romance reading community online.
I'd wager SF has been going through a similar evolution with concomitant debates and I find both processes fascinating. Could just be me seeing this, though.
You do routinely here folk at SF cons say that if resolution of the conflict in a story does not hinge on nuts and bolts science it's not SF it's Fantasy and the bluring of the two has "ruined" the genre.
Now I don't agree, but that is one vocal faction of SF readers.
As far as Romance goes I don't care at all about folks who I could meet in line at Krogers, no matter how committed and sexy their relationship is. Real world people are just a yawn. I live in the real world I read to go someplace else, which is why I've always loved SF. For me it is interesting folks in interesting situation that also happen to be falling in love that gets me hooked on a story which is my good SFR is like crack to me :-)
Just out of curiosity, Heather, have you done any posts that focus on defining what speculative means in the SF genre? I ask because I'm not at all sure I understand it. I mean that was one that they almost stuck on paranormal romances way back in the beginning. I've also heard it used in mystery circles. At times it almost sounds like people are talking about anything that isn't "normal" in some way and at others it sounds like something fairly specific so I'm sort of at a loss as to how to view it in my head.
Coming in late to these two great discussions...
I'd nix speculative. For one thing, it's vague and can have various meanings, and SFR is scary enough to the non-SF camp without taking on 'speculative.' Are we speculating there's a romance? What are we speculating? What's a speculate? Remember, I'm the one who sits behind the stack on books at the signing table. I get these questions.
Futuristics appears to be a more widely known and palatabe term. I have a knee-jerk reaction to it because of the bad press garnered by the original "futuristics," which were (for the most part) historicals in space which ignored the tenets of basic SF. But it's come to mean--to readers and many reviewers--SF with a romance plot. RT calls my books "futuristic" so I'm learning to grin and bear it.
But I don't favor the futuristic term for one other reason: it implies the plot is future Earth. That's not always true--I'd hazard it's not true for over 70% of the books. My FINDERS KEEPERS isn't future Earth. It's not anything Earth and it's Trilby Elliot's present day. JD Robb's IN DEATH series--yes, they could be futuristic. They're future NYC. Characters can talk about Coca-Cola or San Juan or an SUV without needing narrative explanation. The reader "gets it" because it's the reader's present moved forward.
A lot of SFR isn't. A writer can mention Chicago or Tokyo in a book and the reader gets an immediate picture. When I mention Port Rumor or Dock Five, I have to take the reader there. There's no commonly accepted 'visual' for Dock Five. It's not future Miami.
So in some ways, to me, futuristic is an inaccurate label. I've had a few (blessedly few) reviewers who've never read SF let alone SFR comment that they get lost in the terms in my books. You know: durohard, jumpspace, sanifac. Never having read SF, they can't make that intuitive leap needed to make an unfamilar word work. (I don't know why, since most must know things like microwaves and cellphone and iPods... but they can't.) So there is an element of readers who only want their SF+romance to be written in familiar words and concepts: Pepsi, TIVO, laptop, twin-set, Gucci. Or whatever. They see futuristic and assume they'll also see Future-Pepsi and Future-Gucci. When that doesn't happen, they're not happy.
Space Opera Romance I also like but I'm in the genre. When I use the term space opera at book signings, people ask me if there's music. Or they say they're really more into Broadway than opera...
~Linnea
LOL, that is awesome. Can we adopt Space Broadway?
As for the Beyond the Rain discussion. You guys are right, I wrote the story of two people and how they fell in love. That said, I put one heck of a social/political foundation beneath them. I figured the only way I can do a personal story, and some epic world building is to try to sustain a series, where the ongoing element is the world building, with a new set of characters as the protagonists.
That way, romance fans get their solid love story in one book with a HEA at the end, but hopefully as the series progresses, the SF fans (and everyone else) will be drawn into the complexities of the worlds I've created.
Beyond the Shadows is going right back to the political problems with Azra, and how to find a solution to them, but even after the end of that book, which will have a HEA, there will still be enough problems open with Azra I could find myself back there for a third or fourth book on that planet alone, while the third book of the series will return to Soren's planet, Byra, and delve deeper into the biological/social problems of his culture and try to find some solutions.
While my characters will always find personal solutions that allow them a sense of security in their personal future, it will take the collective efforts of all my characters to solve the universe's ills hopefully over many many (Oh please God) many books.
That's what I'm shooting for anyway. I guess we'll see what happens.
Speculative Romance is just plain confusing. What exactly is "speculative?" Isn't all fiction speculative?
I like the term speculative in that it implies something is possible. To me SF is the great "what if".
Perhaps comparing it with what's it's not may help.
It's not contemporary. It's not tied down to the harsh facts and prejudices of our current world.
It's not historical, we're not going to be screaming because of anachronistic terminology or wrong facts.
It's not fantasy. In most books, features like magic and other things which haven't been witnessed and proven so far aren't included. Of course, aliens may have these abilities so this line becomes blurred.
It's not paranormal, ie again including elements that as far as we know don't exist.
Science Fiction Romance when it works well involves a world where only a little jump of the imagination makes things possible. The reason things aren't done now is that the way to do them hasn't been invented yet but to be successful scifi you should always feel they could be one day if not by us then by another race.
So, to me, speculative is a good word.
Is speculative the word that will attract people scared off by the thought of too much "science". Only marketing reviews would tells us that.
I don't like the term "Space Opera" as it seems melodramatic to me for some reason, and not all SF is melodramatic.
If the term "what if" could be turned into a marketing term, I'd support that.
that is one vocal faction of SF readers.
Ain't that the truth. We'll just shop SFR to a more receptive audience.
defining what speculative means in the SF genre
I've not done a post on that, no. At its core, it basically equates with the term "science fiction." Robert A. Heinlein used it first (according to the Wikipedia entry) in that sense, and as Ozambersand pointed out, it's the "What if...?" question behind SF stories.
Later on, people began using it for other genres (fantasy, supernatural, post-apocalyptic, etc.), so I can see where it can be confusing. Currently it's both an umbrella term and a genre label, but I always associate it first and foremost with SF.
Linnea, thanks for your insights. There's definitely pros and cons to both futuristic and SFR. But the more I hear about publishers going back and forth between marketing labels, the more it seems to me that the other camps (readers, authors, reviewers, bloggers, etc.) would benefit from one term being used. I think it's unfortunate that our beloved sub-genre is in this predicament, but that's why I felt it was important to have this discussion again, and with a tighter focus.
The momentum behind SFR predates this blog considerably, so that's an important factor as well. Plus, SFR (like it's parent genres) has multiple sub-genres, and futuristic doesn't seem to cover them all anymore. It may have outlived its usefulness--perhaps not for book spines, but certainly as far as the stories being told.
Jess, what you said, lol! Good worldbuilding is when characters really seem like they came organically from their setting vs. being plunked on a stage with cardboard backdrops.
I like the term speculative in that it implies something is possible. To me SF is the great "what if".
The problem I see with this is that the same could easily be said about romance--and has many times. In many different ways and stories.
What are the fan fiction writers who delve into relationships that aren't happening within the properties they love saying except "what if" the romance could happen this way? Sure the new Star Trek movie gave us a Spock and Uhura relationship but there's no guarantee it'll be long-lasting or even permanent. That's up to the fan fiction writers. Or it's up to fiction writers to create alternative similar scenarios to prove but "what if" it really could happen.
What are paranormal romances but a way to challenge the old myths about the monsters that creep about in the night eternally can't find love? So, instead these stories ask "what if" those monsters walk among us, found love and get to live happily ever after just like every one else? Not that there aren't bumps along the road.
But even before the paranormal boom, romance was asking "what if" about simple male/female relationships dynamics. How they worked, why they worked. Challenging the power dynamics between the sexes. And doing it in a bunch of different time periods.
Frankly, I think most popular fiction asks what if and is speculative if that's the definition.
I can see your point about "What if" applying to many genres, Bev.
My point was more that in science fiction, the "what if" applies mainly to the setting and the world and thus almost becomes a character in the book.
"What if" we had a world where there was only one religion, or a world where telepaths ruled. How would this affect basic human (or whatever species ruled there) interactions.
Because underlying every setting, there is a "story" which is about conflict set up by the character themselves and the character of the setting.
The "science" part of the fiction allows for these differences to incorporate technology (which is governed by science) rather than fantasy or paranormal elements that aren't.
Yes, but that doesn't change the rest of them from being speculative, does it? It only means they each have their own unique "what if" characteristics?
Otherwise, what's the point of having genres?
Historical romances have fixed setting constraints unless you go for alternative history.
Regency romance settings are so well documented it takes a brave or foolish author to play with changing it. So no "what if" there as far as setting goes.
Paranormal have such fixed "rules" as to what vampires and werewolves can do, again it's pretty fixed. No "what if".
Contemporary novels are constrained by current knowledge of geography and cultures again restricts the setting.
Yes, the romance part can have the "what if", but the setting constraints of the others limit them.
That's the point I'm making. The setting of scifi itself is speculative. That's what sets it apart. It's a double "what if" if you like.
You do realize that if what you're saying is taken at face value, ozambersand, that SFR couldn't even exist because, gasp, the speculative settings from science fiction couldn't function in a romance novel? That the crossover we're talking about couldn't even exist because romance readers wouldn't buy it?
And yet they do.
Odd that.
Just a thought as I was reading this excellent conversation. You might play with: romance science fiction. I agree with BevBB about romance readers having been burned trying to find the "romance" in supposed SFR.
Or SFR could be the genre and rsf the sub ...
"the speculative settings from science fiction couldn't function in a romance novel?"
Sorry, can't see the logic here? Why can't it?
To me "romance" can happen in any genre, any setting. It's the interaction between two people and often emotional arcs are the same no matter what the setting.
Are you saying people won't buy "science fiction" because the "what if" has some basis in science/technology as distinct from paranormal or fantasy? Because apart from historical or contemporary they are the only three setting options left (speaking in broad brush terms).
Fantasy is another "what if" speculative setting, but the difference there is (so far) there is no proof any current technology would ever produce "magic" no matter how much it evolves/improves.
The attraction of using scifi as a speculative "what if" setting is to put the whole story into a framework where current (or past) precepts don't apply, yet allows the reader to think that it is not totally impossible.
Maybe, I've misunderstood what you're trying to say.
romance readers having been burned trying to find the "romance" in supposed SFR.
Perhaps it's the fault of writers who let the world building swamp the "story".
To me "romance" can happen in any genre, any setting. It's the interaction between two people and often emotional arcs are the same no matter what the setting.
Um, yeah, but then again, can't science fiction happens in just about any setting, too? Or are you limiting it to only a setting, a background upon which the story happens?
Maybe I'm the one who's misunderstanding what's being said here. Because it sure sounds like science fiction is being limited to only a setting when things like this are said The attraction of using scifi as a speculative "what if" setting and that can't be right.
Can it? It has to much more than that, just like romance is much more than just about about the relationship.
Labels have tremendous power! Consider if your bf bought you a ring from Tiffany's....or one from WalMart. Um.....yeah.
Besides you made the point quite clear with the whip cream goddess sales argument.
But science fiction isn't a dirty word. The questions is, it is still sellable when paired with the word romance? What is the real focus of the genre? Is it romantic scifi or scifi romance? Which one is the horse and which is the cart?
One is a delivery system for the other is how I see it.
The term 'speculative' is too ambiguous as it can encompass a host of genres and styles including SFR. Futuristic always had Fantasy lumped into it. Paranormal itself can be broad ranged (taking in psychic, horror, witchcraft and SFR elements). There is always an area where genres overlap/blur.
Perhaps it is the hang-over from the past of 'science' where it indeed was seen as the male domain and the odd brainiac female as an intruder into this arena.
Do we need a newly minted term to attract the everyday reader to this genre? or do we educate and hope in time the acceptance of Science fiction romance name is the norm? The term speculative just does not sit well with me. All I can think of is theterm AVANT-GARDE ROMANCE (but then someone will think this is erotica terminology). Again, it is all a case of concerted marketing to get the word out there and identifiable for what it is - SFR.
@Yvette "WalMart"--lol, good one!
I consider romantic scifi to be a sub-genre of SF, so anything with a greater romantic focus becomes SFR. Romance readers are more likely to enjoy it in greater numbers, but it will have cross-genre appeal for SF fans who enjoy character-driven stories.
What I'd like to see is a continued emphasis on more sophisticated science fictional elements (or at least great BS Devices), even if they constitute a smaller ratio of the plot. And there's no reason they can't be accessible as well. (Hm, could I be any greedier, lol?!)
Anon, good point about speculative being awfully broad. I like the economy of the term but it's also doubtful publishers will adapt it. Like you and others have noted, concerted marketing is the key regardless of the label.
Post a Comment