SF Romance Rant
Oct. 19th, 2006 10:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsI think of myself as a writer in the romance genre. (This is a slightly different statement from "I think of myself as a romance writer.") That might not come as that big of a shock to many people. I've often discussed my own buying habits and my appreciation of the "hard" romance writers like Thea Divine, Robin Schone, and most especially Bertrice Small: that small cadre of women writers whose romance is heavily laden with explicit sex scenes. After all, I write science fiction laden with explicit sex scenes.
I've also often listed the writers I admire, and Small is up there because she writes convincingly, the way Bujold writes convincingly: seemingly without effort or stylistic intrusion, leaving the reader breathless, aroused, laughing, and tearing up in turn. I want to write with the scene-setting skill of Bujold, the romance of Mieville, the artistry of Helprin, the ballsy dialogue of Clute, the cluefullness of Stephenson or Stross. But ultimately I want to write what Bertrice Small writes, only I'm more comfortable on the bridge of a starship than I am in some 17th Century Irish castle. I'm no good at generating new sensawundas (a term apparently coined-- by Charlie Stross no less!-- in 1993) but I appreciate them and I like to think I'm good at being a tour guide to them: let me pull you in with the promise of nifty skiffy[?] backdrops and wonderful characters and some good sex and, oh, by the way, here are some of the consequences of what we learned last year in functional neurophysiology.
It is inevitable, therefore, that I have read romance writers who have dabbled in science fiction, and I have to tell you, the results are completely fucking awful. There isn't a single romance writer out there whose notion of SF does not grow beyond watching a few episodes of Star Trek. The field of "SF Romance" is filled with Completely Pointless Jargon Meant To Convey The Future and utterly lacks any of that sensawunda that's so important to the genre I love. When the writer gets down to the details of having their characters interact, there's something about the setting that inevitably turns most romance writers cold and sterile, and their characters become even more wooden and unrealistic than they would otherwise.
Romance writers doing science fiction don't get science fiction: they don't get that to be interesting to a science fiction reader you can't just show characters doing the wild thing on a Paramount backlot set. You have to make the reader think, too. You have to offer that sensawunda.
I remember reading an essay by Howard Jacobson in which he wrote that Black Lace Publishing in their guidelines warned against comedy because, as he put it, "laughter is the operation of intelligence, an act of criticism, and the moment you subject porn to intelligence it comes apart like a mummified artefact exposed to light." I disagreed with Jacobson precisely because I think smart people are sexy and fun, and laughter during sex is a hallmark of intelligence, and it's entirely possible to be critical of the absurdity of sex while reveling in the pleasure of it all.
I think part of the reason I've never been particularly strong on selling The Journal Entries is that I don't see anyone else succeeding in this business either: of selling smart sex or sexy science fiction, the "real" kind that doesn't read like a bug-eyed monster media tie-in written by Kevin J. Anderson. I'm probably just too cowardly to try and go first.
I've also often listed the writers I admire, and Small is up there because she writes convincingly, the way Bujold writes convincingly: seemingly without effort or stylistic intrusion, leaving the reader breathless, aroused, laughing, and tearing up in turn. I want to write with the scene-setting skill of Bujold, the romance of Mieville, the artistry of Helprin, the ballsy dialogue of Clute, the cluefullness of Stephenson or Stross. But ultimately I want to write what Bertrice Small writes, only I'm more comfortable on the bridge of a starship than I am in some 17th Century Irish castle. I'm no good at generating new sensawundas (a term apparently coined-- by Charlie Stross no less!-- in 1993) but I appreciate them and I like to think I'm good at being a tour guide to them: let me pull you in with the promise of nifty skiffy[?] backdrops and wonderful characters and some good sex and, oh, by the way, here are some of the consequences of what we learned last year in functional neurophysiology.
It is inevitable, therefore, that I have read romance writers who have dabbled in science fiction, and I have to tell you, the results are completely fucking awful. There isn't a single romance writer out there whose notion of SF does not grow beyond watching a few episodes of Star Trek. The field of "SF Romance" is filled with Completely Pointless Jargon Meant To Convey The Future and utterly lacks any of that sensawunda that's so important to the genre I love. When the writer gets down to the details of having their characters interact, there's something about the setting that inevitably turns most romance writers cold and sterile, and their characters become even more wooden and unrealistic than they would otherwise.
Romance writers doing science fiction don't get science fiction: they don't get that to be interesting to a science fiction reader you can't just show characters doing the wild thing on a Paramount backlot set. You have to make the reader think, too. You have to offer that sensawunda.
I remember reading an essay by Howard Jacobson in which he wrote that Black Lace Publishing in their guidelines warned against comedy because, as he put it, "laughter is the operation of intelligence, an act of criticism, and the moment you subject porn to intelligence it comes apart like a mummified artefact exposed to light." I disagreed with Jacobson precisely because I think smart people are sexy and fun, and laughter during sex is a hallmark of intelligence, and it's entirely possible to be critical of the absurdity of sex while reveling in the pleasure of it all.
I think part of the reason I've never been particularly strong on selling The Journal Entries is that I don't see anyone else succeeding in this business either: of selling smart sex or sexy science fiction, the "real" kind that doesn't read like a bug-eyed monster media tie-in written by Kevin J. Anderson. I'm probably just too cowardly to try and go first.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-19 06:39 pm (UTC)The average Romance writer is the girl who whined when we did an SF unit in 8th grade English because it was "too hard and too weird." The only reason she's writing it now is because her editor suggested branching out.
OTOH, those of us who consider ourselves Speculative Fiction (horror, paranormal, urban fantasy) etc are often frustrated by the conventions of the romance genre. I found that out working on a somewhat skiffy holiday story. (VirtualClone, for the fully integrated sensory experience) I threw in a twist, and the other paranormal/SF writers got it. The editors went "buh-zuhhhh?"
no subject
Date: 2006-10-19 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-19 07:30 pm (UTC)I would certainly love to have a book of the Journal Entries, though I understand why you haven't tried too hard to get them sold. It sort of goes along with why spec fic tends not to get literary acclaim: the critics just don't get it.
There's an essay on that topic that you might find interesting, and here's a snippet:
"Literary fiction (at least in its modern, trade-paperbacked incarnation) is, in large part, about damaged people. Throughout the course of the narrative, the characters explore, express, and potentially rectify that damage to arrive at a state of functional integration. They may also affect and change their environment in the process, but the chief action – and the chief demonstrable result – is internal.
Speculative fiction (at least in its classic incarnation) is, in large part, about highly functional people dealing with damaged situations. Throughout the course of the narrative, the characters explore and potentially rectify that situation in order to arrive at a functional environment. The characters may grow and develop throughout the course of the narrative, but the chief action and the chief and ultimate demonstrable result is external."
So many of your characters are not only highly functional, but well adjusted to their environments and capable of solving any number of problems. Add to that the great sex and pusblishers have no idea what to do with you.
It's unfortunate that going the print-on-demand route probably means giving up some rights that publishers require.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-19 07:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-19 07:58 pm (UTC)And I liked the hot sex. Especially the hot gay sex. Especially the hot gay kinky sex. <3 Aaden.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-19 08:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-19 08:31 pm (UTC)A lot of the robot stories I've been writing recently are about the moral challenge presented by the ability to impose behavioral cues to the preconscious that we would never accept being imposed upon ourselves, the conscious. In some respect they are damaged-- they're the ones who must accomodate to their surroundings, not the other way around. In some respects, though, the surroundings are damaged (such as in Dreamteam Calamaties) and the repair of those surroundings requires highly capable people. (One of the things I love about the Dreamteam Calamities arc is that two groups of highly capable people, whom I respect on both sides of the discussion, come to completely opposing conclusions about what must be done. It's that kind of ambiguity that makes that arc really nifty to me.)
That's one of the reasons I like Bujold. She does manage to pull off both.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-19 08:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-19 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-20 09:53 am (UTC)I consider myself an open minded straight guy, with no real attraction to other men but I still found the gay scenes a turn on.
And drek? Nice SR reference ;-)
Sex in SF - or Anywhere
Date: 2006-10-21 07:54 am (UTC)---
The problem I see is that liteature in general seems to avoid sex like the plague. So do mainstream movies (e.g. A.I.). Sex is part of life, and part of me ever writing anything at all was rebellion against what I feel were lacks in other stories. Seems that any amount of actual sex at all will get your book labeled Porn, and placed in that section where its sales aren't reflective of what they'd be if it was in the proper SF/Fantasy/Romance or whatever section otherwise applied. It will also not be considered "true SF" if it's Porn, which I guess means in the future as seen by SF, there will be no sex at all.
It seems such an obvious oversight, rather like building the first U.S.S. Enterprise with no bathrooms.
Btw, disappointed to still see no newer JE than "A Fragile Dream" from 8 months ago. At least, nothing newer on Drizzle.
I would find it fascinating to know more about Linia's life before she was recovered from the shipwreck into her present situation. What were her early days as a robot like. How did she awaken into independent, self-willed thought and action, and what did she do when she first achieved it. I seldom find that part of your AI's stories told in much detail.
---DB_Story
no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 09:43 am (UTC)