Sunday, October 11, 2009


What Is Your Excitement Threshold?


I’m a big believer in high stakes and lots of story tension. I enjoy action and adventure in my science fiction romance, but I can just as easily appreciate the high stakes and tension in an emotionally heated verbal exchange. Not only that, but I rejoice when authors torture their heroes and heroines. Yeah, give it to ‘em! You know they want it.

Reader taste is subjective, of course, and I’m the first to admit that for romance in general, we should have varying levels of story intensity to meet the needs of different readers. In the case of SFR, however, there’s a preponderance of elements that lend themselves to high-octane stories. For the audience seeking such tales (as well as those who would enjoy them but just don’t realize it yet), I wish authors would exploit these elements more than they currently do.

Unfortunately, there are science fiction romance stories wherein authors think they’ve put their characters through the wringer when in fact it’s more like a light rub with a soft sponge. Or a premise promises high stakes, but the execution doesn’t deliver.

Heartfelt romance and high stakes are not mutually exclusive. In fact, for me the romance provides solace and an amelioration of any suffering undergone by the hero and heroine. But I wonder if there’s a belief or unspoken rule that because a romance is involved, the other plot elements or the interpersonal dynamics of the h/h shouldn’t go beyond a certain level of intensity, which perplexes me as far as a hybrid genre such as SFR goes.

One shortcut device that undermines the development of high stakes is telling. More than I’d like, for example, I’m told how tough the heroine is without actually reading about her in action. The same goes for action/combat/gritty scenes. I’m not calling for gratuitous, NC-17 violence, but rather for less sugarcoating. As far as action scenes are concerned, I’d like to encounter more realism, less cutting away, less telling, and more showing. (And a few more buckets of blood might be nice).

Sometimes it’s a matter of word choices—like the difference between a character rising from a chair and leaping from a chair. Occasionally, I read passages thinking, why am I not feeling a visceral response here? Then there have been times when I read a sentence or even just a phrase and I get the strange sensation that the author thinks the scene in question is a lot more exciting than it actually is. Downright spooky, I tell you. And a real bummer, because I love it when it seems as though the author has read my mind and I are on the same wavelength.

Other times, the hero and heroine don’t seem to have to work very diligently to achieve their Happily Ever After. Usually this is a result of the story having little conflict to begin with (whether external or interpersonal, or both). Or maybe the conflict is there, but an author’s word choices have muted it. I try to avoid guessing plot twists because I like being surprised, but when I have no doubt the hero/heroine will escape unscathed from any given danger then for me, that’s a red flag. I should be experiencing all kinds of doubts and anxieties about the couple’s ability to succeed in the mission as well as the security of their HEA.

When I think of high-octane, I think of stories like Lois McMaster Bujold’s CORDELIA’S HONOR, Catherine Asaro’s ALPHA, C.J. Barry’s UNMASKED, Ann Somerville’s INTERSTITIAL, and Nathalie Gray’s AGENT PROVOCATEUR.

It’s important to note that not every book by these authors is high-octane, at least by my definition. Nor do they need to be. My goal was simply to point out examples of stories that don’t flinch from high stakes and high levels of tension when such entertainment is promised from the beginning. It doesn’t mean that stories outside of this mold are of less quality—far from it. But there are some that could have used a boost of octane given what the authors initially promised to deliver.

I understand why digital/small presses have more freedom to experiment with high-octane stories, but as the above examples demonstrate, it can be accomplished in the realm of mainstream print publishers as well. Perhaps it takes achieving the level of a Bujold or Asaro to gain such creative freedom, but still, it can be done.

Now to revisit my question: What’s your threshold? Do you think science fiction romance has sufficiently exploited its potential for high-octane stories, or is there room to expand?

Joyfully yours,

Heather


9 comments:

Rebecca @ DSB said...

Woohoo! I'm looking forward to reading "Unmasked" this month, and hearing that it falls in the 'high-octane' category only fuels my own desire. Personally, I like action with my sci-fi. I consider it a PB&J combo, but I have read stuff where the science is cold and analytical. It's not bad, just different, but it's also not my preference. I want my sci-fi to read like an action/adventure flick. Buckets of blood are good too.


Kimber An said...

I say bring it on and more variety please. And I wish authors, agents, and editors could believe we readers will accept a wide range of heroes and heroines as likeable. Like I always say, we're in this genre because we enjoy exploring the endless possibilities of existance! For example, a newbie could never have pulled off Admiral Brit in MOONSTRUCK, but Susan Grant did because of her skill and sales records, I think.
;)
Sometimes it seems like the only boundaries which get pushed in Romance is sex. (((sigh & roll the eyes)))

I think my excitement threshold is high just because I love variety and because I hate fluff. By 'fluff' I mean extra stuff not pertinent to the story. I love Tribbles, but it's annoying when the author chases every Tribble Trail that comes along.

I definitely believe there must be a balance between the elements and that can be so hard to achieve.


Writer and Cat said...

There's definitely room for more. Not enough SFR is published, period, for any particular stamp of SFR to have glutted the market. But I agree with Kimber An; I'd like to see more variety. IMO it seems most SFR at least attempts to be high octane, whether or not it succeeds. I'd be equally interested to pick up a "small town romance" in an SFR setting.

Speculative romances of all types invariably seem to have a larger than life canvas, with the H/h (or whatever combination you prefer) always saving the world, the galaxy, the demon dimension, (or the city's innocents from a serial killer) or what have you. I've read some humorous spec romances where worlds didn't need saving, but not many. I'm not knocking saving the world, just wishing for all types of stories in speculative settings, since they're my favorite.


Heather Massey said...

Rebecca, I really think you'll enjoy UNMASKED. I loved how the h/h really went at it (same goes for Gray's AGENT PROVOCATEUR). Their conflict was full of action without going over the top. Not saying this type of physical conflict needs to be in every book, but if it's there please don't hold back, authors, lol!

seems like the only boundaries which get pushed in Romance is sex

Exactly.

By 'fluff' I mean extra stuff not pertinent to the story.

Funny you should say this. I've been reading a book (SFR, natch) where there was a scene involving an emergency situation and it had *nothing* to do with the overall story arc. Turns out a character unimportant to the plot caused a complication for the heroine. Drives me nuts because I'm emotionally invested at this point and the situation went nowhere.

I'd be equally interested to pick up a "small town romance" in an SFR setting.

Oh, me too! Bring on the near-future and Mundane SF. There was a cable SF show about some scientist manipulating the weather and while that may be a bit dramatic, it made me think I'd like to see something similar in an SFR with a contemporary setting, a story exploring the implications of current technology.


Kimber An said...

I've never read C.J. Barry because every time I pick up one of her books it sounds like something I've already read. This is sad because she probably wrote it first and was copied just because it sold well. Harlequin can spin a sheik romance a dozen ways and keep publishing it over and over, but this tactic does not work with SFR readers. To increase the readership, we need variety! And don't mean just in sex! Although that's appreciated.
;)


Donna S. Frelick said...

Well, I sure am glad to hear there's an audience out there for mundane and/or "small scope" SFR,cuz that's my thang. At least UNCHAINED MEMORY, the novel I'm trying to sell right now, features a smaller love story set on Earth that's a piece of a larger galactic whole. (shameless plug #512) On the question of fuel injection, I couldn't agree more. Bring it on. But I will say as a writer it's not so easy to pump up the volume as we might believe. I recently took an online course with paranormal writer Angela Knight covering that very thing and learned VAST amounts about the language, pacing and choreography required to give the readers the thrill ride they want and deserve.


XandraG said...

I don't think it's a question of limiting the octane-ness so much as setting the primacy of the romantic storyline. In any romance, whether it's SFR or historical or contemporary romantic suspense, if it's a romance, there's a tacit understanding that the most critical crisis points in the story will have to do with the romance between the main characters. So naturally, when you're on the edge of your seat wondering if the main characters will be able to overcome their emotional challenges and pair up, the exploding spaceships naturally seem just a little less significant in the order of importance to you the reader's relationship to the characters.

But to answer the question--I don't think SFR has reached even a tenth of its potential overall as a genre. I think we need about a hundred and fifty percent more SFR on the shelves for it to start. :)


Heather Massey said...

@Donna It definitely takes a lot of work, no doubt about it. There are stories where an author has nailed it, and I can tell how much work they put into the execution. Other times I get the feeling the author didn't ask the question, "have I really tortured my characters enough?" and the execution of the high-octane scenes feels slap-dashery to me.

I read two books back-to-back recently that represented both ends of the spectrum and I found the differences interesting. You'd think action/adventure couldn't be bland, but it can.

when you're on the edge of your seat wondering if the main characters will be able to overcome their emotional challenges and pair up, the exploding spaceships naturally seem just a little less significant

XandraG, thanks for commenting, and I'd be inclined to agree if I hadn't already read stories wherein the author integrated the high stakes of both the romance and the action very well. One story didn't involve exploding spaceships--the plot was much more down to earth (well, it was set *on* Earth which might explain it, lol!), so maybe that translated to action/adventure that seemed much more immediate and real.

Part of it has to do with what kind of story is being told, and in one instance I came across, both the external plot and the romance were tied closely to the hero/heroine, and so both were significant. Sorry, not sure if I'm explaining this well but I want to avoid spoilers.


XandraG said...

I think I get where you're coming from. :) SFR can be such a broad-spectrum subgenre that there's a world of difference between the SFR story of a handful of survivors on an alien planet and the SFR story of a pair of star-crossed lovers set in an intergalactic environment of political treachery.


Post a Comment


 

All original content © Heather M., 2009. All rights reserved. Blog hosted by Blogger.com using the ButterflyMagic Template.