“They’re fine with graphic scenes, but if it overwhelms the characterization and/or the plot, they’re going to hate it. They need a reason for sex, not just a place.”
This observation resonated with me because while I’ve enjoyed some pretty wild erotic horror/tentacle erotica/hentai in my time (and still do), I’m actually quite particular when it comes to science fiction romance. My favorite SFR show of all time was downright chaste when it came to the romance, yet I gobbled up hentai manga and erotic fanfiction involving the hero and heroine like there was no tomorrow. But just because I enjoyed seeing them consummating their relationship, I wouldn’t want the original altered in any way. Okay, maybe I'm a study in contrasts. {Grin}
Kimber An’s observation also prompted me to revisit a post I did last year in which I blogged about my preference for less-is-more when it comes to sex scenes in science fiction romance. I’d also recently read MEGAN’S CHOICE by Ellie Marvel, and found the mild level of erotic content intriguing. The interactive novella read more like a steamy traditional romance than erotic romance. Also, as I was compiling a list of publishers who consider SFR, I learned that a few of the erotica publishers release mild erotic romance in a specific category.
All of which said to me that it’s worth exploring whether the market can support sweet/less-is-more science fiction romance (or any type of romance, for that matter. Maybe not erotic romance, but even then, who knows?). I think there is a market…but I can’t offer any hard numbers just yet.
I also reflected further on the topic of sex scenes in SFR—specifically the kind some publishers push for authors to include. When it comes to SFR, I don’t think there’s very much room for sex scenes. Romance, yes. Plot, yes. Worldbuilding, yes. Sexual tension, definitely yes. The genre is about the merging of romance and SF, not sex and SF, and I think that definition applies whether a book is a 50-50 split or veers toward the traditional futuristic romance. (To be clear, I'm not including futuristic erotic romance in this discussion-that genre is *supposed* to be about the sexual journey of the characters).
Authors have many elements to juggle in a hybrid genre without throwing sex scenes they otherwise might not have added into the mix. Unless the word count restrictions lift any time soon, I just don’t see much room. And if it comes down to making hard choices in my science fiction romance, I will choose romance and plot over sex scenes Every. Single. Time.
Take THE EXORCIST for example. It’s a far different experience than horror films today such as those in the SAW franchise. Don’t get me wrong, I love me some good torture porn and I enjoyed the first SAW immensely. Ultimately, though, I crave to re-experience the magic that accompanied THE EXORCIST. In that film, the real terror is what’s not depicted on screen. The most horrific scenes in THE EXORCIST were actually very few, but also powerful and ten times more effective as a result.As in the case with wall-to-wall gore fests like SAW, do romance readers need more and more sex scenes to be satisfied with a romance these days? Or is it that the explosion of graphic sex scenes represents creative freedoms previously denied or suppressed?
I want to believe it’s the latter, because I have a difficult time believing readers—romance readers in particular—are in it just for the sex scenes. Why on earth would X number of sex scenes (one of which might be on, say, page 200), be a main attraction in a non-erotic romance?
Here’s the thing: science fiction romance can’t—I repeat, can’t—compete with paranormal or erotic romance when it comes to graphic sex scenes. It’s already been done. Nor should it try to compete in that arena. I hope authors feel they truly have the freedom to write whatever number or kind of sex scenes that serve the story, and if that means only one sex scene, then so be it.
Science fiction romance has a lot to offer readers who have sated their itch for graphic were-creature sex, or who are simply more invested in the other elements. The challenge is finding those readers—and making them into a force to be reckoned with.
Joyfully yours,
Heather
27 comments:
I've struggled with this. I write Erotic Science Fiction and I love to read the hotter sci fi. BUT I'm well aware that the NY market isn't going for the hotter sci fi.
I've decided I can do both. It's challenging, but I think it's possible.
The Exorcist....*adopting fetal position and sucking thumb*
That movie traumatized me. I was ten, it was on TV as a repeat (in French), my mom had gone out with her friends, so it was just my little brother and me. He fell asleep halfway. I didn`t. I wish I had.
It is a fine balance, sex and SF. Sex and anything, really. For example, I have a serious fangirl lurrve for Albator (Captain Harlock) but would never be able to watch episodes, or read fanfiction, about him having sex with his beloved. I much prefer the less is more approach. But sometimes, you have to include more, for various reasons.
Very à propos, your post, Heather. Some dude with testosterone fever thinks we females are killing science fiction. Yeah, I know, he`s a twit on many levels. I don`t know how to do the fancy links, so here`s the whole thing:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/09/the-war-on-science-fiction-and-marvin-minsky/
Here we are flailing our arms around, jumping up and down and yelling, even flashing our cash and publishers are still trying to window-dress SFR as Paranormal. It's all about the sales numbers, but how can we show sales numbers if we're never provided with the books to buy?
As a blogging book reviewer who actually interacts with the readers behind the sales numbers, I say, yes, there's plenty of room for 'Sweet' SFR. It would be ideal if there was a variety of Heat Levels, in fact, instead of just Highly Sensual and Erotic. Most of the SFR readers I talk to coming over from regular SF prefer less graphic sex scenes. And there are a LOT of teenagers who love SF and would love SFR if there was anything at all for them. They get just a smattering, thanks to books like SKINNED by Robin Wasserman which I just reviewed last month.
http://enduringromance.blogspot.com/2009/09/skinned-by-robin-wasserman.html
I've dedicated one review each month to Science Fiction which appeals to young people, whether it's labeled or marketed to them or not. Unfortunately, publishers fear the SF label turns off teens. It doesn't. It, uh, helps them find what they're looking for.
See, the sad irony in all this is that in an effort to pull in new readers, publishers have confused or turned off existing readers or readers who are already searching for the very books the publishers are trying to sell.
Here's another post which might be helpful-
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/09/marketing-via-social-networking.html
P.S. If you or someone you know has a Science Fiction Romance novel which is Sweet, Mildly Sensual, or even Sensual and/or which appeals to young people, I'm the Reviewer to email! I never can find enough SF for teens, especially. Extra points for unusual heroines in non-traditional roles.
As an example of unusual heroines in non-traditional roles, MOLLY FYDE AND THE PARSONA RESCUE by Hugh Howey had a Kick-Butt Heroine-in-Training chasing across the galaxy to find her believed-deceased dad's old starship.
http://enduringromance.blogspot.com/2009/10/molly-fyde-and-parsona-rescue-by-hugh.html
No matter where a particular story falls on the SF<->R and Sweet<->Erotic spectra, ultimately love/sex scenes, like any other scene, have to either (1) move the plot forward, or (2) build character. If a scene involving sex does neither, it doesn't belong in the story.
Having said that, I definitely struggled with what level of heat to write into the book I'm pitching now (The Kinship). I settled on mild sensuality because I thought that level would appeal to both SF and Romance readers.
Unless a Romance is tagged from the get-go as "sweet" I think Romance readers expect at least mildly sensual love scenes that build character. The hero and heroine have be changed as a result of the love scene(s) because the main message of a Romance is that love is transformative and that emotional intimacy is OK. The love scene is just a tool to show that character change and so if the majority of the, ahem, "action" happens off the page the reader doesn't get to see that transformation happen.
As SF has moved more towards character-driven stories there is more often space for Romance and explicitness, but since the focus is not on the transformative aspect of love there isn't the need for quite the same level of detail.
Thanks for your thoughts, everyone!
@Nathalie *Ten*?! Not good. I was traumatized in my 20's, so I can't imagine the impact of that film on a child. Oy.
I did hear about all that Marvin drama. John Scalzi and Smart Bitches blogged about it, too.
I wasn't going to address it because the man is just too pitiful for words, but I'll mull over a possible post, because you're right, it does speak to a lot of issues we discuss here.
What Lisa said regarding love scenes as the vehicle to transform one or both of the MCs. If there is no plot or character development resulting from even the mildest of scenes or from the most graphic depiction of hot space monkey sex, can it be called a romance? I think not. Whether on the page or off, full blown graphic or the chastest of kisses, there needs to be a believable connection between the characters, some sort of impact on them and the story. I don't see why sweeter SFR can't be successful if that is the case. Hmmm....Amish SFR anyone? Or is that an oxymoron?
The ms I'm peddling totally falls under your Page 200 Rule, Heather. Well, the scene starts about there. The actual consumation is a few pages later, and it's the only one in the book. For a 290 page ms, am I getting my gals together too late for the current market? Probably, but any sooner would not fit the characters or the story, and that's what's important to me.
I might agree with you, Heather, if we were talking about "pure" SF or even SF with romantic elements. But if we are talking science fiction ROMANCE then the relationship between the lovers MUST be given equal weight in the story. That means the writer has to take the time to explore all the emotional nuances between them--the transformations that Lisa mentions, for example. Inevitably, if you're telling an adult story, those nuances are going to include sex. That doesn't mean the sex has to be graphic or gratuitous. When used, it should match the style of the novel over all and, as Lisa says, it should contribute to the story in every way possible. Sex scenes done right contribute to plot, pacing, character, setting, world building--you name it.
As for the marketing aspects, the "sweet traditional" romance hasn't been seen in romance anywhere but the Inspirational or Young Adult genres for a long time. I suspect it's because the women reading romance today expect their heroines to be fully dimensional in every aspect of the story. As both a reader and a writer I'm used to seeing my starship captain operate in (at least) three dimensions as she navigates space and conducts delicate interplanetary diplomacy and makes first contact with strange new cultures and fights off enemies of the Consortium. Why would I expect her to make love in only one?
If we hope to attract readers from other subgenres of romance, then this is one area where we have to meet them at least halfway. They are not used to having the hatch door shut just as things are getting good. Important stuff--emotionally, not just physically--happens behind that cabin door. And if we truly are writing romance, we need to have the courage to explore it.
Kimber An, Laurie and I have been co-authoring a YA science fiction romance novel this year. If you know Laurie's work, you know her science is the bomb, so I have very high hopes for this novel. Hoping to finish it up and shop in the near future. Funny thing, it started as a couple of chapters for an 8th grade writing class I volunteered to come in and help with. (I take karate with the teacher and she was also my son's teacher when he was in the eighth grade.) During a chat with the kids about science fiction, I learned that they'd love to see more science fiction that has YA characters they can relate to. So I decided to expand and we've been picking away at it ever since. It's a little here and little there right now, as I'm working on edits for one of my soon to be published novels. I guess what I wanted to say, is don't give up, there are writers out there working on YA SFR and sweeter SFR.
Donna, as for having the courage to explore all levels of heat. Yes and no. Don't be afraid to write the sex, but be honest when you're writing it. Does it belong in the book you're writing or is it something you're throwing in to make it "Marketable"? If it's the second, don't go there. The readers will see it for what it is, sex without meaning. If the story requires the sex to complete it, if it moves it forward, it belongs. It needs to feel like it's natural and not contrived. I know a writer who was pressured to include more "sex" in her writing and it wasn't that she didn't have the courage to explore, it was that writing sex just wasn't her thing and she knew it would come across that way. It also takes courage to write SFR that doesn't include it. It also depends on who your audience is. I'm not putting hot and heavy sex in my YA, and yes I can write sex, but I chose not to in this case.
I write both erotic romance and YA. To be honest, the YA has been much harder to write. YA voice takes work, keeping it clean without being obvious and not having it look like a 50's tv show, takes work.(Golly Beaver, did you, you know, kiss her.) After writing erotica, I find it challenging to build the heat in a relationship and create a love story without making consumation a goal and I'm enjoying the challenge. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy writing the sex, but I also enjoy writing a sweeter romance and the challenges that go with it. I guess it boils down to writing for your audience. Who are they and is it natural to do it?
Dawn
relationship between the lovers MUST be given equal weight in the story.
Donna, er, I think we are in agreement here as far as the *relationship* being given equal weight--that which constitutes all aspects including the sexual one. It's the "contrived" sex scenes, as DL put it, that detracts from a story for me.
One of my pet peeves is the obvious "rest" scene where the plot is structured so the h/h can have sex again. I don't mind two or three sex scenes at all as long as the author makes those maneuvers invisible.
I think the scope and length of a story also plays a part. In full length novels, there is obviously more room for well-integrated sex scenes. But novellas can vary.
I read an early draft of a forthcoming SFR novella which had no sex scene--but I didn't miss it one bit. The scope of the story didn't allow for it. I also didn't think character development suffered for it at all. Assuming this aspect doesn't change upon release day, I'm looking forward to blogging about it. I'd be interested in hearing about other readers' impressions of it.
@ DL "Golly Beaver" ROFL!
What Donna, DJ, and Lisa said about Romance including sex if it's about adults, and sex scenes being part of the story. The only thing I can add is that I remember back in the Dark Ages when I was a youngling devouring SF, before I discovered romance, some of the raciest stuff I read (and even after I discovered romance) was in the SF section. I still remember reading an SF where the perfect marriage was a six-some. I can't remember the title or author, or even the plot, but I remember that the premise had a lot to do with this idea of group marriage, and the tone of the book was pure, elemental, sci-fi for me--it's about exploring that "weird" possibility and playing it out to see its effect on humanity overall, as well as the characters in the story.
I am not sure the shoehorned sex scenes issue is limited to SFR or any more egregious when it happens in an SFR. Well, maybe a tetch, since SFR arguably requires the most worldbuilding of any romance subgenre. Paranormal usually takes place in a setting readers know (some version of Earth), historical ditto, contemp clearly -- maybe fantasy romance if the fantastical dimension is extremely different from the Earth readers are accustomed to? But in an SFR, if it's not a near-future or pseudo historical, you've got scary science stuff (!!) and entirely different PLANETS to depict in addition to anything else you may want to hurl in there. I myself have no objection to magic and advanced science coexisting in an imagined world, though I know many readers consider that a travesty.
It really makes me giggle when I get a comment from someone akin to "I really thought your book was going to be erotic, but it's not. There's hardly any sex in it at all!"
I don't know what my point is. It just makes me smile.
I still remember reading an SF where the perfect marriage was a six-some. I can't remember the title or author, or even the plot, but I remember that the premise had a lot to do with this idea of group marriage, and the tone of the book was pure, elemental, sci-fi for me--it's about exploring that "weird" possibility and playing it out to see its effect on humanity overall, as well as the characters in the story.
Um, yeah. Can someone please explain that one to me? How come the same people who squeak out over racy romance sex don't squeak out over weirdness or oddities found in science fiction/fantasies?
And don't tell me some of them aren't graphic either... ;)
XandraG, Yeah, definitely some graphic stuff in the SF arena--Stephen R. Donaldson's THE REAL STORY has some graphic sex, but it's about the violence and control issues, not romance. Although one could argue that the issue with SF is in poorly executed/clunky sex scenes vs. too many, lol!
Writer and Cat, good point. In some ways, the difference is negligable. When it happens in SFR, though, sometimes I find myself wishing the space had been devoted to more relationship conflict, plot, or perhaps a little more buildup to the consummation. That's just me, though.
Jess, I do understand your point, but I can't quite articulate why! Maybe you refreshingly foiled reader expectation?
BevBB, wow, really? I would have thought those not interested in racy romances wouldn't be reading those graphic SF oddities. My assumption was way off, then.
The main answer I can think of is that perhaps because the SF content is couched in a speculative context, that provides more of a reader-conceived justification for the presence of graphic material. Not saying it's right, but maybe that particular context colors perception. Does that make sense?
BevBB, wow, really? I would have thought those not interested in racy romances wouldn't be reading those graphic SF oddities. My assumption was way off, then.
The main answer I can think of is that perhaps because the SF content is couched in a speculative context, that provides more of a reader-conceived justification for the presence of graphic material. Not saying it's right, but maybe that particular context colors perception. Does that make sense?
0.o
Isn't that a bit like saying that if it's abnormal it's okay for imagination & fantasies but if it's perfectly normal human behavior it's not? Sex, by definition, is perfectly normal human behavior.
Now, how it's written, I'll grant you may or may not be perfectly normal every single time and there's the rub. :D
But to get back to your first point, define racy. Granted it's fantasy, but Robert Jordan doesn't have graphic scenes in his Wheel of Time books yet deals with a hero who is involved in what amounts to polygamous relationships. No, it's not racy in the "graphic" romance novel sense but in another sense, I'd definitely call it racy.
And I'm told in terms of fantasy it's rather light, even for Jordan. I suppose it depends on one's perspective. Always.
Isn't that a bit like saying that if it's abnormal it's okay for imagination & fantasies but if it's perfectly normal human behavior it's not?
Mm, that's my guess. The perception being of the readers under discussion is that because there's a speculative framework it's more acceptable--but I don't agree with it (just the messenger here!). Because for someone to be aversive to graphic sex in romance but be okay with it in SF--what's changed? The more exotic framework distances the subject vs. the more immediate realism of a romance.
Hope I clarified it better this round.
I'm still a few pages behind all of you, having just gone to look at the Marvin "War on Science Fiction" page and scrolled down furiously to sputter indignantly about that. I hope you do blog about that, but in all honesty, he has a few points. I am, however, floored that this is now supposed to be women's fault. FFS, I didn't have a penis last time I looked down and I have adored SF since I could turn on a TV. I read nothing else for years and years. I slurped up the Man Type (according to him) SF like milkshake and begged for more. Furthermore, I don't particularly enjoy Jack's whole omnisexual thing in Doctor Who, but just because I feel it's a bit out of place.
I'd better run off to the loo and just go check again.
Mm, that's my guess. The perception being of the readers under discussion is that because there's a speculative framework it's more acceptable--but I don't agree with it (just the messenger here!). Because for someone to be aversive to graphic sex in romance but be okay with it in SF--what's changed? The more exotic framework distances the subject vs. the more immediate realism of a romance.
Hope I clarified it better this round.
Oh, you weren't unclear the last time. I was simply thinking out loud and rambling a bit. As to what you're saying about what's changed when people switch genres to romance, I'd speculate ;) that it's the emotional threshold that gets crossed in romances that makes all the difference in the world to their comfort zone - and not the graphic physical sex itself.
I mean if they can read books where there are graphic scenes in science fiction or any other genre but balk at romances, what else is there?
Except maybe that the relationships are too tame... but that would just be petty of me. :D
No, seriously, I do suspect it's the deeper. emotions found in romances that throw people off even more than the grahic nature of the scene - if they're okay with said graphic scenes. This is not the same thing at all as regular romance readers who want sweet romances and balk at graphic sex scenes, mind you. That is a completely different animal. Those people would be shocked by what is found in the science fiction/fantacies we're talking about. ;-)
I'm still a few pages behind all of you, having just gone to look at the Marvin "War on Science Fiction" page and scrolled down furiously to sputter indignantly about that. I hope you do blog about that, but in all honesty, he has a few points. I am, however, floored that this is now supposed to be women's fault. FFS, I didn't have a penis last time I looked down and I have adored SF since I could turn on a TV. I read nothing else for years and years. I slurped up the Man Type (according to him) SF like milkshake and begged for more. Furthermore, I don't particularly enjoy Jack's whole omnisexual thing in Doctor Who, but just because I feel it's a bit out of place.
Oh, please, this attitude from them is just the reverse of the romance genre's "by women for women" mantra and anyone who's known me for years around this commmunity knows that this is one of my major pet peeves. Yes, I know it's how the books have been marketed and sold since the beginnings of the paperback boom, but that doesn't mean that Romance (notice the capital R there) should not be universal and for everyone any more than any other genre should be.
Except maybe women's fiction. Blech. Shudder.
Okay, deep breath and hastily stepping down off my soap box now before I get carried away. :)
You're not going to believe it, I wrote quite a long reply to that post and my son's cat just deleted it. His sister (the cat's sister, which belongs to my other son) went to sleep on a button on the keyboard the other day and opened 154 windows in Firefox.
Anyway, the gist of what I said was that the more I thought of this issue today the more flabbergasted I am by the opinion on Spearhead. What a crock of shit. When I read your comment up there, I was so ready to agree.
The whole issue also made me remember the Lambda award thing, where it seems there's a similar 'x writing for x' attitude involved. Here's a good opinion piece on that: http://www.mrlpressauthors.com/2009/09/the-little-lost-lambdas-some-thoughts-by-victor-j-banis/
{thoughtful look}
This sounds an awful lot like me:
“They’re fine with graphic scenes, but if it overwhelms the characterization and/or the plot, they’re going to hate it. They need a reason for sex, not just a place.”
It doesn't matter what genre I'm reading, or where I found the story. If the scene isn't focused on characters and character traits I like, I can't get to the end of a sex scene fast enough. I regularly drop into skimming mode, skipping ahead, then reading just enough to tell me if "they've gotten back to the good stuff" before I skip ahead again. {Smile}
Am I a prude? I don't think so. I can think of a few times when a sex scene turned out be one of the scenes I'll seek out in a book, but that's very rare. The skipping ahead is far more common. Unfortunately, so is dropping out and not coming back in because the scene firmed up my dislike for one of the characters. {lop-sided smile}
I know this puts me a bit outside of normal. It's not the only trait that does. {Smile}
Anne Elizabeth Baldwin
Oh, Anida, sorry about the cat drama. What a pain. Regarding the #Spearheadfail, I'm working on a post on the topic for next week.
@BevBB If you're still checking back, do you think the "by women for women" mantra is as vitriolic in nature? Maybe it is--you might know more--and I agree both represent extreme positions, but from what I've seen (which is to say in my limited experience), messages a la Spearhead from the SF side has been downright misogynistic at times (although not as extreme).
The romance mantra seems to be an attempt at being empowering vs. blaming the fault of anything questionable in romance on the male gender.
I could be wrong, though.
@Anne I know what you mean. I love a good sex scene, but if it's not powerful and organic to the story, I skim. Mainly I do it with scenes that take place after the initial consummation if I'm not learning anything new.
To me, the equivalent in SF stories is passages of hard SF technobabble--if they are straight out of a physics manual I skim/skip them. To me, both situations represent a breakdown in the storytelling as opposed to something inherently wrong with a sex scene or a description of speculative elements.
I'm still here - getting this on feed - but when I tried to respond, my comment ended up being the length of a post :D so I decided to put it up over on my blog tonight. It should go online around 9PM or so.
@BevBB Cool!
Post a Comment