I'm
perplexed about the "cream of the crop" mentality regarding elevating
some science fiction romance books (and authors) above others. I wouldn't say it's rampant, but I encounter it enough to be concerned.By "cream of the crop" I mean the idea of placing mainstream print books on a pedestal simply because they're released by a Big Six publisher. This situation manifests when the same authors are mentioned (in forums, blogs, comments, etc.) over and over and over again, as if no one else was writing books in this subgenre.
When
it comes to a niche subgenre like SFR, "cream of the crop" as defined
by mainstream print distribution is meaningless because there are so few books
in that category. You need an entire crop before you can identify the creamy
bits (no pun intended!). In fact, where SFR is concerned, the main crop right
now is actually comprised of digital-first titles.
Rather
than approach titles/author recommendations in terms of "cream of the
crop," I'd like to see a greater focus on connecting readers with SFR
books that are right for them. Maybe
the right book is a mainstream print release or maybe it's digital. Maybe it's
by a well-known author or it could be a book by someone no one's ever heard of,
with a single SFR title to her name. (Like space pirate heroines? Check out
Karin Shah's STARJACKED!).
Allow
me to illustrate from personal experience. I've blogged numerous
times
about Manda Benson's MOONSTEED and PJ Schnyder's A
GIFT FOR BOGGLE. Those digital-first stories are among two of the most
hardcore niche sci-fi romance titles. Because of their heavyset heroes, they'll
probably stay that way. But here's the thing: both books are perfectly suited
to my reading tastes. I define them as a best fit for me.
The
authors delivered stories and characters that I value highly. There are mainstream
print SFR titles, while competently written and packaged, that don't even come
close to matching the interest I have in MOONSTEED and A GIFT FOR BOGGLE. In
other words, medium isn't an influential factor in terms of my reading choices or defining "cream of the crop."
The question for me is, "Will this title deliver the elements I
enjoy?"
Here's
another way of examining the issue, using an example from outside SFR.
From
what I've learned in reading various reviews, indie author Kristen Ashley has released books
riddled with grammatical errors. And I don't mean a typo here and there--we're
talking errors that make some passages downright incoherent. Fans
themselves acknowledge this aspect about her books. Yet she delivers a type
of romance fantasy so high in demand that many, many readers are willing to overlook the multitude of
technical flaws.
Kristen
Ashley's success demonstrates why it can be advantageous to focus on the fantasies and
tropes SFR can deliver when making book recommendations, rather than medium or
distribution status. Readers may attach a higher value to a "best fit" story than rigorous editing or the paper a book is printed on.
Of
course, it can be challenging to make digital-first recommendations in light of the pedestal
mainstream print books still enjoy. A reader might indicate she wants a certain
type of book, say, one featuring an android hero. So you recommend a digital-first
title or three with exactly that
element, only to learn she meant a book written by a Big Name Author. Suddenly,
the trope is only valid if certain high profile, print-first authors write
them. Yeah, that can be frustrating. Shouldn't it just be about the story?
All
SFRs are equal regardless of medium, distribution status, or author. What makes
each story special is the meaning it has for individual readers. Therefore, I'd
like to advocate a "best fit" mentality when it comes to spreading
the word about science fiction romance.
Joyfully yours,
Heather