Who Should Publish Science Fiction Romance?

This post is more of a lament on my part, having come across comments in the blogosphere a few months ago wherein some other folks lamented about the lack of hard SF elements in science fiction romance novels, mainly those released by romance publishers.

Consider also an issue that dovetails with the one above: There are concerns that some stories—released by SF publishers more often than not—leave readers cold when it comes to the romance. Either there isn’t enough of it, or the execution fell short of expectations, or both.

Both good romance and good science fiction involve a significant amount of craft, and there are plenty of great books in both genres to demonstrate the abundance of talent that abounds. Yet, another related observation I’ve seen put forth is that authors who do both well are few and far between. Is that really the case, or are there other considerations?

All of the above brings me to this point: Might it be beneficial to examine the writing and publishing of science fiction romance as a scope of competence issue? Scope of competence “…defines or limits what the individual within the profession may do and is determined by one’s education, training and experience.”

In other words, to what extent should readers expect an author to be well versed in both SF and romance? (To clarify: I'm not talking about authors getting degrees in astrophysics, psychology, and sex therapy!) Do the books on the market reflect such knowledge—or a possible lack of it?

Authors aren’t the only ones on the hot seat. Are editors equally versed in SF and romance regardless of publisher? Is the ideal an editor who’s had experience editing both SF and romance books? In light of our discussion about the early futuristic romances, are editors on both sides of the genre fence more competent now than they were 20 - 30 years ago?

I realize that scope of competence will never be a formal variable in publishing the way it is in the fields of mental health, law, or medicine, but how would you feel if more authors and editors expanded their science fiction romance skills by adapting the model of continuing education? For example, this might involve becoming more widely read in SF and romance novels, taking advanced workshops, or having manuscripts vetted by the relevant experts.

None of this could be realistically tracked, of course, and some authors and editors have already committed to these types of efforts. But given the concerns that have historically plagued SFR, I can’t help but brainstorm a few possibilities that could potentially address them.

And another thing—should authors write solely to the readership based on the publisher releasing their books? In some cases, it’s probably a balancing act between art and commerce (and career survival). I can understand why, say, inspirational romances won’t venture into experimental territory. I can understand why most hard SF novels won’t have the real estate available for a romance arc.

But why shouldn’t science fiction romance have a little more wiggle room, regardless of publisher?

The issue makes me wonder if publishers are bound by too much by branding when it comes to SFR. Stories from SF publishers could easily embrace more romance, and stories from romance publishers could embrace more science fictional elements. Or is the branding so hardwired that it will override variations in the stories across publishers by selecting out the ones that don’t fit the brand?

For example: Will we ever see a science fiction romance with hard SF elements from Harlequin? I imagine that if a Harlequin author wanted to pen a tale akin to Catherine Asaro’s SUNRISE ALLEY, his/her agent might have to shop the book elsewhere, either because of the perception/fact that Harlequin readers would frantically apply the brakes when it came to such a story, or the publisher itself is reluctant to allow their editors & authors to increase their scopes of competence.

Anyone can publish science fiction romance, of course, but the reality surrounding and constraining creative issues still bites the big one.

Joyfully yours,

Heather

Winner! Winner! Winner!

I just consulted our resident randomizer and the winner is...Susan Macatee! Congratulations, Susan, you've won the futuristic romance giveaway plus a book by science fiction romance author Linnea Sinclair.

Please send your address to sfrgalaxy "at" gmail and your books will be in transit ASAP. Thanks to everyone who entered. Your comments are always illuminating.

Joyfully yours,

Heather

Futuristic Romance Retrospective, Part III: Futuristic Romance vs. Science Fiction Romance

In light of our previous discussion about the futuristic romances of yore, today I pose ye this question: Is there a prevalent negative connotation with the term “futuristic romance” dating back to the SF-romance blends from the 80s and 90s? And if so, how much does it have to do with the very term “futuristic romance”?

To clarify, this discussion isn’t about differences within the subgenre itself. It’s about the marketing labels applied to stories that combine science fiction and romance (romantic SF excluded for the moment). My goal is be sensitive regarding the changing terminology of this subgenre while I speculate about what might be the new and best terms to describe it.

While the label futuristic romance never quite went away, other labels sprung up alongside it: science fiction romance, speculative romance, intimate adventures, romantic space opera, paranormal/futuristic paranormal, and if we really want to split hairs, sci-fi romance.

Bit of a marketing morass, if you ask me.

But let’s return to futuristic romance for a moment. If indeed it has soured as a marketing category, why is the term still so prevalent? Is it simply a case of habit? Is it because the Internet’s vast repository of sites results in a regurgitation of the term every time one conducts a search regarding books in this subgenre? To wit:

In the Wikipedia entry for Romance novel, the subsection is “Science Fiction Romance,” but the definition starts off as “…The first futuristic romance [emphasis mine] to be marketed by a mainstream romance publisher…”

Authors Linnea Sinclair and Susan Grant gave cover quotes for debut author Jess Granger’s forthcoming book BEYOND THE RAIN (August 2009)…and both referred to it as a futuristic romance. Granger’s agent’s Web site also lists the book as such.

“When it comes to futuristic romance, it doesn't get better than Sinclair!" --Romantic Times BOOKreviews magazine. You can also see that quote on the cover of Linnea Sinclair’s forthcoming HOPE’S FOLLY. Susan Grant doesn’t get off that easily, either—in the January 2009 issue of Romantic Times, her forthcoming book WARLORD’S DAUGHTER is listed under the “Futuristic” category. And MOONSTRUCK has “Paranormal Romance” on the spine. (Is that more effective than just using “Romance” as on her previous novels?)

Or maybe futuristic romance went away in some circles, but not others. Apparently, many of those early books labeled futuristic romance were cringe-inducing enough that subsequent authors strove to distance themselves from the term altogether. But as we saw from the above examples, authors can’t seem to escape no matter how fast they run.

So back to marketing terms: If publishers want to reach the widest audience possible, why not use a term that is easily recognizable? “Science fiction” already existed at the time futuristic romance was coined. Why reinvent the wheel?

What exactly is meant by “futuristic”? Was it created as an attempt to soften the SF elements, or rather to convey that the romance was predominant? “Futuristic” implies stories set in a future time, but it also refers to advanced technology. Was the emphasis on the future intentional? Not all science fiction stories take place in the future (e.g., mundane SF, steampunk).

A major reason I chose the “Adventures in Science Fiction Romance” tagline for The Galaxy Express was simply for clarity. Speaking of clarity…

Marketing labels are extremely important. They convey information about a product and provide for ease of categorization. They also aid in branding books, authors, and genres.

If that’s the case, why split the marketing with various labels? This issue represents a great divide—inserting an unnecessary barrier within the subgenre. It might be the result of different publishers inevitably creating similar products but marketing them according to the demands of the imprint, without researching the competition or trying to outdo the competition. Then there’s the issue of publishers chasing sales by labeling a book according to current trends. Everyone wants authors to profit, but aren’t there more effective strategies?

Whatever the reason, the proliferation of various terms hinders effective brand identification, marketing, and promotion, both for individual authors and the subgenre as a whole. Readers need a certain amount of consistency. Musical chairs is fun when you’re a kid. As an adult trying to make informed purchasing decisions, not so fun.

I think readers are intelligent enough to realize that a few bad apples don’t define the subgenre as a whole, and that over time books and perceptions change. Neither do all readers contemplate books solely in terms of marketing labels.

Many readers are resilient in that they’re willing to give authors and stories repeated chances. I didn’t swear off all future science fiction films just because SANTA CLAUS CONQUERS THE MARTIANS sucked space eggs. And don’t forget that today’s youth are the adult readers of tomorrow. That represents an opportunity for a fresh start as well.

In light of the above issues, what are your thoughts on futuristic romance as a marketing label? Is the unsavory association with certain books unshakeable? Should it be flung to the far corner of the universe, or salvaged and given a makeover? What about science fiction romance? Does that term have an edge over futuristic romance, and if so, what is it?

Or should we consider another label altogether?

Joyfully yours,

Heather

Futuristic Romance Retrospective, Part II: How They Went Astray

Today, I’d like to explore the underbelly of futuristic romances. Eh, no, not the bare, curvy belly of the heroine, oft caressed by the hero’s strong, warm hands. I’m talking about that other underbelly—the unsavory one whispered about in forums and emails whenever the subject of futuristic romances arises.

I know. Scandalous.

Specifically, I’m referring to those (many of which hail from the 80s to the late 90s) that have a reputation for cheesy plots, over reliance on romance genre stereotypes, and subpar—some might even say appallingly subpar—science fictional elements.

With an extraordinary history of science fiction novels dating back (arguably) to Mary Shelley’s FRANKENSTEIN, along with an equally amazing history of romance books extending back to the works of Jane Austen, pairing SF and romance was bound to be nothing short of spectacular. The Big Bang in overdrive, as it were.

So how did they go astray?

You’ve probably heard about futuristic romances being referred to as “historical romances in space.” Meaning that an SF backdrop has been substituted for a typical historical romance one, and little else changed. It’s true that in some—if not many of these tales—the SF elements are often window dressing, a means of lending the romance a sense of the exotic and nothing more.

Ironically, for many readers the “historical in space” aspect is part of the appeal. Renowned science fiction authors Sharon Lee and Steve Miller have a reputation for books with a “Regency in space” feel—and the description is intended as a compliment. And it’s not like a few strictly SF books don’t have a reputation for being a Western set in space. So that factor alone isn’t the problem (unless, perhaps, one is a hardcore hard SF fan).

Another complaint is that even if the SF elements existed to any significant degree, the author/editor sometimes got the science wrong. Or the SF was media derived instead of literary derived. But media tie-in SF novels are not only popular but also big business, so that last criticism is suspect as well.

One major oversight in some (most?) of the early futuristic romances would be the lack of any truly speculative elements. Including will-nilly references to starships, hyperdrives or space stations without delving into “what if?” exploration left the SF half of the stories gasping for breath.

Were these futuristic romance authors under a time crunch so severe that they may not have had the time to acquaint themselves with the then-current SF offerings? If they had, the SF sides of their stories might have read vastly different.

But editors played a role here as well. I’m going to quote author Marilynn Byerly, who commented about the subject during my previous post:

“Most romance editors knew nothing about science fiction so they couldn’t spot the problems, and they were absolutely certain that a romance reader wouldn’t understand most of the tropes of sf or the concept that a romance could be about an idea in the same way as a sf novel can.”

Other perceived flaws actually have nothing to do with the fact that it was a futuristic romance, and everything to do with impoverished craft. For example:

* Purple prose

* Over reliance on romance stereotypes & tropes (Alpha space pirate heroes; bland or naive heroines); forced seduction.

* Poor plotting—the problem in some stories was not the SF-as-backdrop, but the plot is a backdrop or afterthought. Still scratching my head over that one.

* The over dependence on complications instead of honest-to-goodness conflict. I can enjoy MARS ATTACKS scenarios or the heroine’s romance with an otherworldly barbarian, but nothing makes me snooze faster than a series of boring, easily resolved complications that don’t amount to a hill of beans. Without convincing conflict, the various tensions (emotional, sexual, psychological) suffered by a landslide.

Taste is very subjective, but it’s often an unspoken agreement among many readers who draw the line at some point when it comes to quality prose, story structure, and characterization. I mean, some of the aspects we enjoy about these books could also be considered some of the worst offenders when it comes to truly speculative fiction.

Somewhere along the way, futuristic romances jumped the shark. Somehow, they managed to lose not just potential science fiction readers, but loyal romance readers as well. Instead of firing up a bold new trend, futuristic romances almost suffered the fate of the dinosaurs. The reasons may be even more complicated than those I’ve laid out above.

Are there lessons to be learned here? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Joyfully yours,

Heather

Futuristic Romance Retrospective, Part I: The Pioneers

Though the evolution of science fiction romance as a distinct subgenre has its roots in fan fiction stories about Spock in love, the futuristic romances that emerged in the 1980s represented a mainstream acceptance for tales blending SF and romance. (“Futuristic romance” being the predecessor of “science fiction romance”). While romantic SF was nothing new at the time, character driven SF stories with a heavy emphasis on the romance arc from traditional print publishers were.

As legend goes, the first official futuristic romance was SWEET STARFIRE (1986) by Jayne Ann Krentz. This trailblazing story presented readers with a tale of swashbuckling adventures among the stars, anchored by a tender romance. SWEET STARFIRE arrived at a time when single title books had become increasingly available, providing authors with more opportunities to stretch their creative wings.

SWEET STARFIRE kicked off a trend that stretched from the mid-1980s to approximately the late 1990s. Some classic reads include:

Jayne Ann Krentz’s SWEET STARFIRE & SHIELD’S LADY (writing as Amanda Glass)
Dara Joy’s “Matrix of Destiny” series: KNIGHT OF A TRILLION STARS, REJAR, & MINE TO TAKE
Johanna Lindsey’s WARRIOR’S WOMAN
Justine Davis’ LORD OF THE STORM & THE SKYPIRATE
Janice Tarantino’s THE CRYSTAL PROPHECY
Christine Michels’s IN DESTINY’S ARMS

For more information about these and other authors from the 80s and 90s, you can click on each author’s name in the list to your left and check out their Web sites.

There’s a lot to celebrate about these pioneering books. Mainstream acceptance of the subgenre, as mentioned above, is one. Stories blending SF and romance haven’t been big sellers the way historicals or contemporaries have been, but at least they had a seat or two at the table.

Also, readers who love science fictional settings but craved more access to the inner musings of the hero and heroine could have both in one convenient package. Romance readers who craved a sense of wonder in their stories suddenly had access to romances against the backdrop of exotic new worlds and technologies (think STAR WARS for the romance crowd).

Other folks may feel differently, but in addition to the unabashedly romantic appeal of futuristic romances from this time period, I enjoy them for another reason: the camp factor. Camp as in the Roger Corman films of the 1960s—fare like A BUCKET OF BLOOD, which are clearly low budget but strive to entertain despite those limitations and convey an endearing earnestness despite any flaws.

After all, every book shouldn't have its eye set on conquering the erudite heights of ULYSSES; a little literary comfort food is fine, too.

From wildly fantastical worlds and creatures to the telenovela style romances and hawt sex scenes, old school futuristic romances deliver a unique brand of entertainment that’s also an interesting time capsule of the decades in which they were written.

Plus, these books were packaged, in retrospect, in a decidedly retro way. It’s intriguing how so many covers from this era almost completely edge out the SF elements, as if to riotously assert the existence of love and romance in the future through bold, classic clinch covers, splashy colors, and overtly romanticized titles.

I applaud the work of authors who first ventured into this subgenre for a mainstream readership. It ain’t easy gaining ground in science fiction’s turf (even for SF writers!), and it ain’t easy luring uninitiated romance readers into strange new worlds. Indeed, tales that celebrate romance front and center in science fiction are infinitely worthy of our speculation.

Later this week we’ll chug along deeper into the territory of these futuristic romance predecessors to explore their impact on the subgenre, but now it’s time to celebrate them with a giveaway!

Tell your friends! Tell your plants! Tell your friends' plants! Just by leaving a comment for this post, one lucky passenger will win all five of the following books:

THE WHITE SUN by Stobie Piel
STARLIGHT, STARBRIGHT by Saranne Dawson
SOMEWHERE MY LOVE by Karen Fox
THE DAWN STAR by Stobie Piel
STAR CRASH by Elysa Hendricks

2/3/09--Fab update!

HOPE'S FOLLY author Linnea Sinclair is contributing three futuristic romances for the giveaway (gently used) PLUS she will also give the winner one of her books! Here are the titles:

TO TOUCH THE STARS by Tess Mallory
NIGHTHAWK by Kristen Kyle
FIRESTARTER by Kathleen Morgan

So that's a total of 9 free books for your reading pleasure! Thanks, Linnea!

The deadline for entering is midnight on Friday, February 6, 2009 (contest limited to U.S. residents). The lucky winner will be announced on Saturday.

To get the ball rolling, do you have a favorite pioneer futuristic romance? If so, share the love! If you’re an author, is there a pioneering scribe who influenced your work?

Joyfully yours,

Heather