Have you noticed?
My campaign is called "Putting the Science Back in Science Fiction Romance" and I've been posting articles about the space program and ship environments for several weeks now. Most of these articles involve undergoing research for my WIP in progress with the working title "Planets." I've discovered some valuable knowledge of the challenges of life in space, and I thought my blog would make a great venue to share the wealth.
Although hard science in SFR is not my thing and never will be, I believe using realistic details in my story, or imaginative details with a basis in science, is crucial. After all, science is Science Fiction Romance's first name. If it doesn't involve a scientific basis (with liberal doses of imagination applied, of course) then it's really futuristic fantasy or my favorite term FoaP (Fantasy on Another Planet).
Both of my earlier works pushed the envelope on the SFR a bit toward the fantasy and futuristic fantasy realms, but "Planets" by its very nature must incorporate a more--excuse the ironic term--grounded basis in scientific fact.
I hope sharing these links and insights with fellow Science Fiction Romance fans will help inspire your imagination as much as it has mine.
I'm so glad you are on this campaign.
ReplyDeleteI believe that authors have pretty much nailed the romance part of the equation--now let's bring on the science. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I think it's time to squash the assumption that female readers don't want any realistic science details in these stories.
I'm in the middle of reading a futuristic romance published in 1999 and also a recently finished unpublished science fiction romance. Let me tell you, when it comes to the science, the difference is astounding.
The futuristic, while interesting in some respects, contains absolutely laughable science and worldbuilding. It's the type of science you'd find in a children's SF cartoon. Not all futuristics suffer this fate, but this one does in spades.
The problem in one sense is the tone--it's trying to be a serious story but the cartoonish SF elements undermine it. At least with someone like Dara Joy, there's consistency between the tone and the other elements.
Now the unpublished SFR has wonderful worldbuilding and imaginative scientific ideas and details and in that regard it blows the futuristic out of the water. I can't say more because I haven't finished them yet.
In just under a decade, so much has changed regarding the technology in our everyday lives, and I can see the parallel between the books and the years in which they were written.
And with the technology we currently have, I will be surprised if I come across any more futuristic romances with such failings regarding the science. I understand that by nature they will focus more on the romance, but that's no reason to skimp on the science.
I'm very excited you wrote this because I was planning a related post in the very near future, so I'll be sure to link back to this.
Cheers!
Oh, Heather please do. Your comments on SFR verses "futuristic romance" is right on the mark, IMHO. I don't believe females are turned off by science, and if its included in the story without sounding like a technical manual (like some of the hard science fiction), it's fascinating stuff almost as intriguing as the romance itself.
ReplyDeleteI plan to continue my posts on the NASA space program soon. So much fabulous research material here that should be shared. It's amazing how much we didn't know and/or just plain forgot about the pioneering heroics behind real-life space exploration.
Thanks for your post. :)
[...]Finally, I’m taking up a virtual collection to support a great cause. Laurie Green of Spacefreighters’ Lounge eloquently emphasizes the importance of “Putting the Science Back in Science Fiction Romance” in I’m on a Campaign[...]
ReplyDelete