In the post Romance Ground Zeroes at Romancing the Blog, Wendy Crutcher discusses the phenomenon of revolutionary books and authors in the romance genre.
Commenter BevBB noted: “nothing compares to the impact that [Christine] Feehan had in terms of opening the minds of readers to vampire romances in general.” That is, Feehan “managed to break through a barrier…”.
BevBB continues: “But she managed to do them in a package that intrigued enough romance readers to create the necessary buzz and that’s what counts because you can definitely see where the formula was no longer so strict after those books.
"That’s a ground zero.” [Emphasis mine]
In Genre: The Root of All Evil?, Jacqueline Lichtenberg of Alien Romances states that “…because of the Web and social networking, publishers no longer have the sole power to identify and name a new genre…By letting genre definitions become so rigid, publishers have fooled themselves into thinking they're making more money than they could without genre requirements.” In the comment section, she clarifies that “genre walls are melting down.”
Lichtenberg then went on to declare that “Romance needs a Gene Roddenberry.”
All of the above got me to thinking:
Does science fiction romance have a ground zero?
I would argue that it does not. At least, not yet.
The success of SFR/futuristic romances is so entwined with the explosive horror-based paranormal trend that it’s easy to misconstrue the success of paranormal romances as significant growth for science fiction romance. Rather, it seems that in the late 80s and nineties, there was a healthy mix of “otherworldly” romances, any one of which could mean a horror based paranormal, a futuristic romance, fantasy romance, or a time-travel. Paranormal romances grew wildly in popularity since that time, while science fiction romance hasn’t paralleled that trajectory.
Yes, there were landmark books such as SWEET STARFIRE by Jayne Ann Krentz and KNIGHT OF A TRILLION STARS by Dara Joy, but were they revolutionary in the way that books by Christine Feehan, Laurel K. Hamilton, and Anne Rice were? Sadly, I don’t think that’s the case.
But what about the efforts of authors like Linnea Sinclair, Jacqueline Lichtenberg, Rowena Cherry, Catherine Asaro, and Susan Grant, not to mention the staff of the former Science Fiction Romance Newsletter? They worked diligently to sustain the genre’s growth and made significant inroads, but the results (i.e., sales) seem almost invisible to those outside of SFR’s core community.
What is the “barrier” which science fiction romance must breach in order to have wider appeal? My feeling is that once we break through that barrier, we’ll reach ground zero.
Given the number of subgenres from which to create stories (space western, superhuman, steampunk, post-apocalyptic, etc.), it seems like it’d be difficult to draw readers based on a common similarity, such as paranormal romance’s pivotal vampire. And no amount of makeovers will be enough to deliver SFR’s version of an alien Lestat. The idea of ugly aliens is too entrenched in various cultures. Even the word “alien” isn’t as sexy as “vampire.” Fer gosh’s sake, they’re not even all humanoid.
Besides, isn’t diversity one of the cornerstones of science fiction romance?
Is the speculative part of the equation the barrier? Do we need to achieve a happy medium across the board between hard and dumbed down speculative elements? Or is it SFR’s gender role boundary pushing that’s holding it back?
Or is it really a matter of a certain breakout author with a specific type of story? Does science fiction romance need a Roddenberry, or a Feehan? Or a “Roddenberry Feehan”?
Lichtenberg poses an excellent question. Got me to thinking (here I go again!). To break that barrier, is it a revolutionary type of book SFR needs, or a revolutionary type of community? Even a great book can disappear into oblivion without sufficient reader buzz.
But how long can we wait for a “Roddenberry Feehan”? It may happen, it may not. I don’t know how long I can hold out. Frankly, I think SFR is plenty buzz-worthy right now (although I still want more books to choose from). Regardless, science fiction romance has a few more foundations to build in order to truly harness the power of The Buzz. They are, in random order, branding, author platforms, and social networking.
Branding
In Mike Shatzkin’s article Why publishers need to understand brand, he states that “The owners of the brands that matter will control access to the audiences that matter in the future. Content creators’ fates will be in the brands’ hands…
“…We all well know that not all brand promises are about content. “Community” (interaction among the interested) and “service” (solving problems or providing help, which is what the content in Dummies books do) are important components of brand as well. My paradigm is to use content as bait to attract eyeballs, but then to use community and service to strengthen the hold of the brand on its adherents.”
In which case (from the comments), “Increasingly, the publishers' skill sets will have to do with leveraging platforms that authors have already created.”
(I would include the platforms of reader-driven sites and aspiring authors as key players as well.)
Shatzkin also noted “But consumers require brands that are consistent as to subject matter…”
That last statement is why it's so important for the SFR community (authors, readers, bloggers) to define itself. We are in the best position to establish consistency for the SFR brand. Only then will publishers know what to do with it.
Author Platform
For authors, it’s all about building an online presence. In The platform vs. the eyeballs, Seth Godin writes “Suddenly the new media comes along and the rules are different. You're not renting an audience, you're building one. You're not exhibiting at a trade show, you're starting your own trade show.
“Two steps: buy a platform and then fill it with people…The smart way to build a brand today is to invest in the elements of the platform...the product, the technology, the websites (plural) and the systems you need to make it easy for people to show up at your very own trade show.”
Note the “plural” when it comes to Web sites. That’s us, folks. Readers and authors alike. I’d take it a step further and say that readers and aspiring authors comprise part of an author’s platform, especially in the case of a niche genre such as science fiction romance.
Social Networking
In Marketing Via Social Networking, Jacqueline Lichtenberg observes that “…stories contain elements of marketing. Only since the invention of the printing press has marketing of stories been subcontracted by writers to publishers. Today, writers are taking back that function.”
She notes that writers are successful in using social networks to sell books because they focus on building relationships with like-minded readers.
Successful marketing entails "targeting readership through community building," between publishers and readers, authors and readers, and among readers themselves.
Branding, author platforms, social networking—it all boils down to the idea that successful marketing is about building relationships. Real relationships.
What does all this mean for science fiction romance?
* We need to explore ways to monetize the relationships we develop. This could take days or it could take years. Not every single one will lead to actual revenue streams for SFR, but alliances should be forged with that concept in mind.
* Authors, be proactive about marketing your books. No amount of marketing can guarantee bestsellerdom, but it certainly helps expand your customer base. Become a social media super hero! Feed news/information about your SFR books to a centralized source, e.g., the SFR online community. Pick a blogger, any blogger! You might be surprised at the kind of exposure you score.
* Own the brand. Small press/digital publishers, here’s an idea: build a science fiction romance brand. Then form a partnership with the SFR online community to connect with the target audience. Right now, I see an opportunity to consolidate your SFR books, say, into an imprint or a specific section on your Web site, and market them to the existing community. Not only that, but you could create a newsletter or blog to make the section more interactive.
I’m throwing down the gauntlet. Who among you is up for that challenge?
* Bloggers, our goal is not only to facilitate the gathering of current SFR readers, but also to perform outreach to new ones. Write an SF or romance blogger and pitch the idea of a blog post exchange today! Take advantage of sites like Romancing The Blog which offers Open Blog Night every Sunday.
* Readers: buy new, and spread word of mouth both in person and online.
* The more formal associations advocating for science fiction romance, the better. One example would be an RWA online chapter exclusively for the genre.
My main point is this: If we had a certain type of author/book to create a ground zero for science fiction romance, terrific, but I don’t think we have to wait around for it, either. Another way of looking at it is to create an organized community that essentially helps launch existing and debut authors into a higher-visibility stratum. So when that special Roddenberry Feehan does come our way, we’ll be ready.
Why can’t we be the ground zero—right here, right now?
Joyfully yours,
Heather
34 comments:
I think we have the start of a cohensive SFR community, but a more formal organization is probably what's needed to create a coalition or "voice" in the industry. The dilemma is that in order to form this sort of association, it requires commitments in the form of financial support (such as dues) and the investment of time to make it work. That seems to be the point where many lose interest because they either don't have or don't want to invest the time or the money to launch something (especially with no guarantee of success).
I wonder how many Skiffy Rommers are already members of the RWA FF&P specialty chapter, and if there are enough of us to form an unofficial subgroup (literally a SFR Brigade) as a starting point?
Oh, I got quoted. :D
Does science fiction romance have a ground zero?
I would argue that it does not. At least, not yet.
Hmm. After witnessing the online buzz that was generated by readers just after Linnea Sinclair's books were published as ebooks I tend to think maybe that was a ground zero for science fiction romances. I know I remember thinking that that was what I'd been looking for and not finding. Other romance readers certainly sat up and took notice.
And now she's in print. ;)
Doesn't mean we don't need more, though.
“genre walls are melting down.”
(Kimber An clasps hand to heart) Is that angels I hear singing?
I've thought about it and thought about it. I can't help but go back to my nanny and mommy roots. When I want to teach my children something new, I start with what they already know and introduce the new thing along with it. Then, I slowly build on that.
We already have a core following, the beloved, passionate Skiffy Rommers, spreading the good news. And I do believe authors are doing their best to do just what I said above and just need to keep up the good work.
Both authors and Skiffy Rommers struggle with the publishing industry cramming us into Paranormal. Like it or not, we have to work with that.
I think it's only a matter of time before something breaks. I don't think we'll take over the world. (Don't they know we have cookies here on the Dark Side?) But, for a while there, Star Trek Next Gen was Number One on regular television, you know. Maybe something like that will happen.
If people love vampires, they can love Vulcans with just a little stretch. Just toss on a little melted cheese...uh, wait, no, that's for getting kids to eat vegetables. Sorry, not enough coffee yet.
I've been so mired in deadlines that I've not had a chance to follow the wonderful Jacqueline's blogs the past few weeks. ::hangs head in shame:: So I'm coming to this without the background I should, but as I have five minutes between crises right now, I figured I'd jump in (since I was mentioned). ;-)
Not to beat a dead grixporgh, but part of the problem is the name: SCIENCE fiction romance. We've had this debate before. We will again. It's simply not palatable across the board AND across the aisles. I know the reactions I get sitting at my signing table at B&N or Borders. "SCIENCE fiction romance?"
RT had a terrific article on the genre and I lurved-bigtime Isabo Kelly's quote, in that "we're like pirate romances but with different ships." (paraphrasing) However, that concept still isn't widely known and it's not totally accurate to all SFR.
So do we need a Gene Roddenberry? Totally, but if you think about it, we had him. He had several romance plot lines in the original Trek. Later versions had Troi and Worf, and Kira and Odo. Firefly had Mal and Inara. The visual media has NOT been romance-deficient. But watchers are not always readers, apparently.
ONE WOULD THINK that SFR would be a natural draw to every female SF reader. I mean, that's how I came to it. I was an SF fan looong before I read romance. But it's not. IF we could get even 75% of all female SF readers to buy SFR, we'd be hot. We're not.
I've talked to a number of industry people about Christine Feehan's success and "how in hell did she do it?" I've heard a number of guesses, one being massive email newsletter campaigns. But life/email is different now than it was fifteen years ago. ONE WOULD THINK with the Internet and bloggers, the SFR message would be out there.
It's not. I can tell you from a sales perspective, it's not. I know my books's sales numbers. I've talked to several other SFR authors recently and numbers are not making us happy.
I can also tell you I easily spend $40K (yes, FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) annually on promoting my books. It gives my husband conniptions.
I'm also an RWA FFP member.
I agree to an extent that, yes, communities can increase exposure. Goodreads is a good example. When I have time, I'm fairly active there. But there's also SO MUCH INTERNET SHHHTTUFFF out there. The "buy my book/read my book" bandwagon overflows and, at times, annoys.
Okay, rambling here. The other part of the problem, as I see it, is that we're an unholy combo. To draw romance fans, we have to be sufficiently romance-y, and that can turn off SF fans. To draw SF fans, we have to be sufficiently SF-y, and that can turn off romance fans.
I don't think--correct me if I'm wrong--Feehan ever tried to draw in horror readers. She went for romance fans. Period.
We're not doing that.
Okay, some authors are. What we in the industry term "futuristics" are often very heavy on the romance and light on the SF. But those books often leave cold those seeking more of an SF experience.
I mean, in cowboy romances, are their cowboy-romance-light? Books where the "cowboy-ness" is downplayed, where the experiences of horses and ranches and the great outdoors is glossed over? I don't know, but that's a bit of the issue we face.
I do know the mystery genre has variations. Police procedurals are far more "tech-specific" than cozies. If the mystery reader can understand and accept that, why can't the SFR/Futuristic/Romance reader?
Okay, enough. I have to finish that deadline then pack up the car and close up the OH house.
Thanks for a terrific blog, Heather! ~Linnea
I think Feehan and LK Hamilton weren't necessarily ground zero as such, but actually breakout authors. I know Hamilton was writing for the horror/mystery genre at first, and having a female protagonist helped bring a more romance-oriented side of her series out.
The seeds are there, I think it'll take the right combination of SF and Romance story to trigger a wide-appeal audience to start noticing the subgenre exists. And it's going to come from the bottom up--the readers are the first (and really, the only ones who count) to get excited about a breakout book or author (and of course, they can only get excited about someone they know about).
It's a challenge, because SF and Romance are two genres who've historically taken a hammering by the Literati, and their readers can be very enamored of their fences.
"I don't think--correct me if I'm wrong--Feehan ever tried to draw in horror readers. She went for romance fans. Period.
We're not doing that."
Linnea, I think you've hit it right on the head. This, plus the fact that Feehan is one helluva writer, explains a lot of her success. She has crafted a marvelously detailed and consistent world with her Carpathian series, she's got terrific characters and indepth relationships, she does everything she's supposed to do as a writer AND she never forgets that she's writing a ROMANCE. Her readers know exactly what to expect from her. You may call it a formula, but it works. Roddenberry followed a formula, too. But it was world-changing.
And, Heather, yet another great blog. Lively discussions three times out!!
Okay, rambling here. The other part of the problem, as I see it, is that we're an unholy combo. To draw romance fans, we have to be sufficiently romance-y, and that can turn off SF fans. To draw SF fans, we have to be sufficiently SF-y, and that can turn off romance fans.
I don't think--correct me if I'm wrong--Feehan ever tried to draw in horror readers. She went for romance fans. Period.
We're not doing that.
It's a good point. The phrase that comes to mind is the one about "serving two masters" and all the ills that come from that. Yeah, I know, no help there. ;)
Ever wonder how romantic suspense gets away with straddling the fence so well? Actualy, scratch that, I know how they do it - by using episodic series.
Which, I'm not sure I want to see science fiction romances go the route of. Seriously. At least, not in terms of long term series anyway. Short-term, same pair character arc trilogies? Maybe, but it's a hesitant maybe with a lot of reservations piled on top of it.
One of the major problems for SFR in big publishing (the major book publisher) is that the only consistent market --Leisure Love Spell-- is a one of the worst paying markets in the business.
It's a good publisher to start up your career, but, if you want to make a living, you have to move elsewhere and that means you start writing something else.
It's impossible to build momentum for a kind of book and a career when you can only produce a few books.
Unless one author can pull a Feehan with just one or two SFR books, or some other publisher decides to get bullish on SFR, I don't know how this problem can be solved.
Linnea made almost every point that I wanted to make!
I'm not so fond of same-pair trilogies. The problem with those, for me, is that it necessarily messes with the Happy Ever After.
My preference is more Star-Wars-with-Sex than Star Trek... probably because James T Kirk was a bit too zipless for my taste. At least Han Solo made linear progress with his girl.
Rowena Cherry
http://www.freado.com/book/3726/IWOFA-Sampler-#1--October-2009
Marilyn,
New Concepts Publishing might be the answer, not the only one, but in my opinion they do a great job.
Electronic Publishers are strong in SFR, and maybe the very readers who embrace ebooks are also most likely to embrace Science Fiction Romance.
The biggest problem with SFR ebooks at the moment is the piracy issue. Hundreds of thousands of (illegal) free downloads mask any clear idea of what sales ought to be.
"James T Kirk was a bit too zipless for my taste. At least Han Solo made linear progress with his girl."
Ha! And three children and one grandchild (so far).
I could never figure out how Kirk only managed to sire one child after putting his boots back on after so many moon princesses across the galaxy.
I figure Kirk kissed a grip of girls but so far he's only really slept with two (Miramanee in The Paradise Syndrome) who actually almost had his child before she was stoned to death and Carol Marcus (since we see David in the movies). I guess pop culture tweaked it to make it seem like he slept with all of them to make him equal to a space stud Lol.
In any event, Marilynn I think you hit it on the head. It's hard to really make a living and find good pubs that publish SF and SFR. Many are still romance focused and don't really bring out the world building and techie elements that SF readers like and the romantic relationships that romance readers like. We need to find a good balance of the two. Heck, tv shows are already ahead of the curve with the Stargates, new BSG and Eureka. Before that we had Firefly, Starhunter 2300, Space Above and Beyond and The X-Files just to name a few. Those shows have a ton of loyal female viewers who love the space elements and the human relationships, especially if there is a couple they can "ship". These shows know how to bring out the best of both worlds so it's definitely possible.
In mainstream publishing, women are still getting a raw deal for writing SF. "It's a boy's game." "Women belong in fantasy." "Women won't GET the science in Sci-Fi." Well, you know what folks, us geek girls love it, do get it and want more of it. It's just a matter of finding that readership and connecting the authors who are writing it to the readers who love it. There are a group of us out there writing it and will continue to do so because we love it and have something to offer. But we are currently where Paranormal was a few decades ago: on the cusp of something that's just waiting to climb outside of the bag. From what I notice, more female authors are coming into the genre and it'll only continue to get bigger until it can't be ignored.
I'm in RWA FF&P. The number of aspiring writers there who are working on either futuristic or SFR seems to be rising. That's a great sign. The number of Fut/SFR titles I see coming from several of the epubs/small presses also seem to be on the rise.
However, what I come back to is something Linnea said. The problem may be that it's "SCIENCE fiction romance." When I first started looking for critique partners/manuscript readers, the most common feedback I got was "I don't read (or like) Science Fiction." What I found interesting about that statement was that sometimes, if I dug further, I discovered that:
1. She's a romance reader.
2. She liked movies like Star Wars.
3. She's never actually read a SF novel.
Several posts ago, Heather asked us what we might call SFR if we didn't call it SFR. I didn't have a good suggestion then & still don't, but it's something I'll be pondering in coming days.
Great discussion.
I think another issue is that - at least for me - one of the big draws for SF and fantasy is the world building. SF has extensive and prolonged world building - think of the detail that goes into the Star Trek or Star Wars universes, into the David Drake or Heinlein or... well, pick your SF author. You can put a big fat ditto on that for fantasy. The problem is that a lot of romance publishers aren't buying authors who make that investment in world building. They want the focus on the relationship, and the world building can take a flying leap. As a result, the SFR that's getting published has too many alien (heh) elements for the average reader and it makes it inaccessible. The world building is absolutely key in SF, and the way the Romance genre works, world building is a distant also ran behind character, plot, sex, tension, and dialogue.
You want my opinion - and, hey, it's the internet, so I always assume people want my opinion - here it is. Christine Feehan, Gene Roddenberry, Laurell K. Hamilton all have something in common. They built a world and populated it with their stories. They created a mythology and an entire universe that is a whole and complete creation. You want to know what makes them gain loyal fans? The writing is part of it, the stories are part of it, but the WORLD - that's the key. People write fanfic because they love the WORLD an author has created. And if we, as SFR writers, can't make that happen, then the fans aren't going to stick.
And there's my little soap-box sermon for the day. Build the Worlds. Fans will come.
Christine Feehan, Gene Roddenberry, Laurell K. Hamilton all have something in common. They built a world and populated it with their stories. They created a mythology and an entire universe that is a whole and complete creation. You want to know what makes them gain loyal fans? The writing is part of it, the stories are part of it, but the WORLD - that's the key.
I agree with this. Even Linnea Sinclair has created a "world" with similar technology and awesome world building. THAT is what sold her.
I'm pretty eclectic in my sci fi romance preferences. I love Denise Rosetti's sci fi erotic romance at Ellora's Cave. I love Linnea's stuff. I love Nalini Singh. I also read Frank Herbert, Asimov and Heinlien.
I still think it's the next best thing.
I want to agree with Elise Logan because I think it’s the worlds built, too. I come from the Star Trek Voyager shipper fandom. Six years ago I didn’t even know that I could put two words together that anyone would care to read, today I am seriously constructing a world and characters of my own.
The very thing that attracted me to the fandom in the first place was that the J/C fan fiction writers attempted to write what I was desperate to read, romance on a star ship. I’ve been waiting for something like “Science Fiction Romance” for years, because I started reading both back around 1960. You can only imagine the genuine joy I felt when I found Susan Kearney’s The Challenge.
I know that there is a readership out there, I talk to them every day on our Voyager message board, Live Journal, IRC chat rooms, and instant messengers. I know because I’ve been recommending Susan Grant, Linnea Sinclair, and everyone else you all have been leading me to, along with blogs like The Galaxy Express, Spacefreighter’s Lounge and Alienromances. My on-line friends live in the US, Germany, England, Canada, South Africa and Australia and we are reading Moonstruck and Gabriel’s Ghost, and others.
Bottom line is that I know “Science Fiction Romance,” no matter what we decide to call it has a readership that is growing and I am seriously hoping that it will be the next big thing, because like I said earlier I’ve wanted it for years and years.
Elorie
I hate to be the pessimist, but...lol. I think the problem is in how you label it. Science fiction romance. SF has a bad rap with a lot of readers for good reason. I've been reading it a lot lately (research) and a lot of what has come to me recommended is badly written, confusing, has little or no emotion to it, is misogynistic, and I could go on. I read a lot over several genres and SF, well, some of those writers are getting away with stuff you'd never get away with in romance or mystery or mainstream fiction.
I have my own critics, believe me lol. Nothing like bad reviews and disappointed fan mail. I try very hard to avoid the disappointed fan mail. I'm much less concerned about the reviews. ;)
Anyway, my e-book erotic futuristics are doing well. Some people would argue that is because I was already reasonably established in paranormal, but I'm not so sure that's the case. There's no way to really know.
I love my futuristic series, but it should be noted my books are written around the culture, not the science, and I think romance readers are more intersted in the people than the science. (And my series sells well so maybe I'm not too far off the mark here?)
I LOVED the new Star Trek for exactly the reason so many people hated it. There is a new depth to it. Much more development in character. SF and Mystery are more about plot. Romance is about character.
As Jacqueline Lichtenberg said in her recent blog about genre, Science Fiction crosses all genre lines, but I think romance does that too in its own way. I also think she is right in that the control of the label is changing hands.
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.
I know that some people react negatively to "Science Fiction" but do not others react just as negatively to "romance?" I don't think that has stopped us yet.
Elorie
Linnea wrote:
ONE WOULD THINK that SFR would be a natural draw to every female SF reader.
{FREEZE}
Whoa there! {raise hand} I think I just spotted another piece of SFR's audience identification problem.
Who said all women like romance? I can't sit thru most romances. I get bored and wander off long before the end. I'm not the only gal I know who feels that way. A lot of the female science fiction and fantasy fans I know feel the same way. "Bored to tears" is not an uncommon phrase when women and girls who are serious about science fiction and fantasy discuss modern romances.
The ones I've chatted with frequently make exceptions for the Bronte sisters, Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer, and the Arthurian legends, so we usually always immune to the charms of a good love story. (I include myself in this group, especially if we can include King Arthur's legends.)
Speaking for myself now, since I'm the example I know best, I gave up on romances when I was a teenager. Until I discovered TGE, I only went down the romance aisle when I needed a present for my mother, and hoped to find a few Heyers to add to/replace old copies in her collection. Now I'll go down there to check on specific names I've found here. {Smile}
(Aside to Linnea: this is why I pretend grocery stores and drug stores don't carry books. In those tiny collections, anything that isn't a romance or murder mystery looks attractive as long as I'm in the store. {lop-sided Smile})
Anyway, what drew me to SFR is the promise of a second storyline. That second storyline can hold my interest to the end of a novel, when pure romance has me wandering off when I've barely begun to read. {smile}
Not every female science fiction fan I know is like me in this, of course. Some love romance as well as science fiction. Others would be harder to drag into the romance aisle than most teenage boys. {amused smile} However, many would be open to more of the subgenre than the pieces found in science fiction if they knew which books weren't just romance. {Smile}
{go back to reading comments} No, I wasn't done yet. {Smile}
Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
Science Fiction Romance may have another problem. Was it in Publishers' Lunch that they reported 50% of Romance readers want more (a lot more) sex in their books?
We'll have even less paper and ink allotted to our world-building!
Anyway, what drew me to SFR is the promise of a second storyline. That second storyline can hold my interest to the end of a novel, when pure romance has me wandering off when I've barely begun to read.
Oh - my - god. I could do an entire post just on the "pure romance" comment alone. Because she's talking about romances only being relationship stories and nothing more.
No action.
No adventure.
No mystery.
No fantasy.
You know, historical romance writers would really love knowing that their books were missing the advertures. Not to mention, how the ones that write about pirates on the high seas would react. Oh, and there's the ones who write the contemporary cop and military stories.
Do I need to go on?
And I didn't even get to the new paranormal craze... (muttering under my breath about how much I hate the RWA definition)
However, what I come back to is something Linnea said. The problem may be that it's "SCIENCE fiction romance." When I first started looking for critique partners/manuscript readers, the most common feedback I got was "I don't read (or like) Science Fiction." What I found interesting about that statement was that sometimes, if I dug further, I discovered that:
1. She's a romance reader.
2. She liked movies like Star Wars.
3. She's never actually read a SF novel.
Several posts ago, Heather asked us what we might call SFR if we didn't call it SFR. I didn't have a good suggestion then & still don't, but it's something I'll be pondering in coming days.
This is an interesting observation because to be quite honest I don't read science fiction. I watch science fiction. OTOH, I read romances but I don't watch romances. There are very few romances in movies or on TV I can stand. Cause the media just doesn't know how to do them.
So, there is a conflict there.
And I'm trying to remember back to when the paranormal romance reader movement started all those years ago and how they settled on the "label". I can't drag it out of the dregs of my memory but I tend to think they wanted to go with something more like fantasy romance or even speculative romance but decided to be a little roundabout. I do remember they tossed around a lot of ideas before settling on paranormal romances.
What I can't remember is what the actual reasons were for why the chose it, except that it described the books that they were trying to promote.
So, yeah, I say all that to say, yeah, it's definitely possible that the entire concept of using science fiction romance as the label might not be in the best interest of promoting the books to either audience. The problem will still be coming up with a term that will mean something positive to the entire audience, though.
Would it help if some of us older Science Fiction readers point out the stories that had romantic undertones, because there has long been the few wonderful stories that were character driven, and were about people falling in love even thought they were "aliens."
Zenna Henderson published "Ararat" in 1952, and you can't tell me that it isn't romance, but it's also science fiction. I named my Live Journal "Ingathering" to honor her. Is there some way we can choose a label that honors someone in this way? My two cents for whatever it's worth.
Elorie
Would it help if some of us older Science Fiction readers point out the stories that had romantic undertones, because there has long been the few wonderful stories that were character driven, and were about people falling in love even thought they were "aliens."
Not sure if this was meant for me or not but I'm going to respond because I have a thought related to it. Personally, I don't think it would help and here's why basically.
I'm not a real big fan of trying to "convert" readers. They either do that themselves or they don't. Also, for myself I simply don't want to read science fiction for the most part. I do however want to read a well-balanced blend of science fiction and romance, just not full out science fiction.
And there is the rub.
Basically don't try to sell me science fiction because I won't bite. I ain't gonna happen. Been there, done that, don't like it. Even when dressed up with "romantic" overtones it doesn't work for me. I want it to meet me as a reader halfway or forget it.
So, that's my problem in a nutshell but I don't know if I'm unique or not. And I also don't know if it's a problem that's reflected back the other way or if there are completely different issues on that end.
I wrote a romance. I set out to write a romance. I used Science Fiction as the frame for the conflict of that romance, and I worked Damn hard to make everything solid, plausible, and grounded in a sense of reality.
Every book I'm writing for this series is a romance. I hope it will appeal to those who like science fiction, but to be completely and totally honest, I didn't want to write science fiction.
I wanted to write a romance that wasn't boring. Science fiction as a framework for a classic romance storyline of self-discovery, sacrifice, and loss, with explosions and space travel sounded awful fun to me.
So that's what I wrote.
Paranormal romance is confining for me as an author because I have to build my world within the framework of existing myth, and then I'm dealing with one two, maybe five tops different types of magical cultures. That's not enough for me.
So I'll continue to write romances. I'll continue to structure them as Space Operas. I'll continue to take great pride in my world building, but my main goal is to have people bond with my characters so much that they start to ask questions like, "Where's so-n-so's book?"
That's what Christine, and now Nalini have done so well.
"Paranormal romance is confining for me as an author because I have to build my world within the framework of existing myth, and then I'm dealing with one two, maybe five tops different types of magical cultures."
Says who? Seriously though, that's me, but I've set out to twist it all around to suit my buffet tastes. Whether anyone will buy it, I don't know. It still needs a lot of work.
;)
Thanks so much to each and every one of you for your thoughtful & insightful comments. There's such a wealth of information here I'm taking notes and developing another post on the issues you've all addressed which I'll run next week.
@elorie Imho, it's more effective to use romantic SF to attract SF readers to SFR, in other words, those who already gravitate to character-driven stories (like how Anne described). Romance readers need at least a 50-50 split to find SFR appealing.
On the terms paranormal, etc., in the Eighties when all this started in romance, paranormal became the catch all term for any romance with weird stuff, be that ghosts, time travel, or space aliens.
A futuristic had a science fiction element but was at heart a historical romance in the future. Substitute the spaceship captain for the pirate captain, etc.
The sf romance was similar to the futuristic, but the science fiction elements couldn't be removed because the book would be totally different.
Recently, the futuristic and sfr are no longer jumbled in with the paranormal, primarily because the paranormal romance is wildly popular, but the sfr/futuristic isn't.
I've been trolling agents recently, and they make a big deal of saying they want PNR, but don't send them any sfr/futuristic. This genre has finally gained an identity because so many don't want it.
On Zenna Henderson, fans will be pleased to know that a collection of all her People stories is being reprinted. I believe it's called INGATHERING.
I've been trolling agents recently, and they make a big deal of saying they want PNR, but don't send them any sfr/futuristic.
All the more reason for SFR to go digital, eh?
Great point about the identity issue, Marilynn.
Encouraging news, though: The blog Alpha Heroes recently linked to TGE in a recent Thursday Thirteen post. TGE was described as delivering "The scoop on the hot Science Fiction Romance subgenre"
Plus, in the past six months I've been contacted by other romance bloggers interested in learning about SFR. To me, that says interest is growing, even if by baby steps. Readers know what's what even if agents/mainstream print publishers can't take a chance right now.
Romance readers need at least a 50-50 split to find SFR appealing.
Well, I'm not entirely sure that's an absolutely rule ;) but what most romance readers do get doggone frustrated with - and this applies to just about any other genre crossovers with romance - is when the romance (and there I am speaking of relationship development) gets short-changed and completely overshadowed by any other plot. That's what romance readers want to avoid at all cost. Call it 50-50 or simply call it giving romance what they feel is it's due.
And why do I suddenly feel like I'm writing fan fiction again with all this A-plot and B-plot business? ;-p It's part of the problem, though, because most people do tend to separate romance plotlines from other plots in stories. It's both a good thing and a bad thing.
I even sort of poked fun at it today on my blog. Oddly enough in a post completely unrelated to this topic. ;)
I didn't see a trackback so I thought I'd give you a heads-up that I linked here in a post I put up just for fun: http://bevsbooks.com/notes/?p=402
Ya'll should get a kick out of it. :D
I'm sorry, BevBB. I didn't realize that what I was saying would be so offensive. I just wanted to share a personal revelation. I realized that other people with my preferences might have trouble finding a book in the romance section. That's unfortunate if they want to check out a book they spotted a nicely-targeted ad that plays up the action storyline in science fiction romances (like an ad for Linnea's Hope's Folly that I spotted in the recent re-start of Realms of Fantasy). I checked afterwards, and I felt that the one thing that would help me if I was wondering if I wanted to get the book would be a note that it might be shelved in the science fiction section of some bookstores. Because I would never have thought to look there, and neither would some of my friends.
{Sigh} I'll try to word it better next time. I truly didn't mean to offend. {small smile}
Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
I'm sorry, BevBB. I didn't realize that what I was saying would be so offensive. I just wanted to share a personal revelation. I realized that other people with my preferences might have trouble finding a book in the romance section.
Oh, you didn't offend. I was more venting my frustration over how romances are viewed as only relationship stories by so many, even so many romance readers. Probably not unlike the frustration felt by science fiction readers when people say that science fiction novels are only a bunch of science mumbo-jumbo.
See what I mean?
Sure, it's impossible to take the relationships out of the modern romance but that doesn't mean that's all the books are about any more than science is all science fiction novels are about. Plus, too, romance is the largest genre published with the most sub-genres and people, inside and out of, still cling to them being only relationship stories.
It boggles the mind.
Still that's also part of the marketing, and shelving, problem that any crossover with romance faces. So, I should probably apologize if you felt I came down a little too hard in your direction when that wasn't my intention, Anne.
BevBB: OK, I hear you about "science fiction" -- and you're right, so much of it is one-dimensional and very cold.
I grew up rewriting those novels in my head, because they were just all wrong. Then I wrote some of my own.
I wrote a SCIENCE FICTION trilogy inspired by Andre Norton but focused on the mystery of an alien character in a relationship with a human that Norton would never condone (she loved the book, though).
It won the first (so old it's not on the website) Romantic Times Award for Best Science Fiction. You can still get the mass market paperback on Amazon, but now it's on Kindle, too.
I'll send you an e-copy, and if you like it, you can review it. If not, you can use it as an example of what's wrong with SF.
You can read 3 free chapters of the award winner at
http://www.simegen.com/jl/dushau/
BTW: thanks folks for the news about the Zenna Henderson reprint. Absolute all time favorite stuff in there.
Oh, and Heather - thanks for the mention! You've got a great blog going here.
Post a Comment