Lost Girls: Do They Work as Romance Heroines?

If you have a few moments, you might want to hop over to the Scandalous site to read Lost Girl and Finding Ourselves. (Note that Spacefreighters' Sharon Lynn Fisher is quoted, along with Linnea Sinclair).

The basis of the article is focused on the SyFy Channel series, Lost Girls, which centers on a "succubus fae." Yes, I raised my eyebrows too, since I've always considered fae (faeries) and succubus (demons) separate entities. Hurray for the power of creative mash-ups.

In this series, the central figure, Bo, apparently takes on partners of either sex and is allowed a great amount of sexual freedom in the story lines. There's a fair amount of commentary on why, although frowned upon by some groups, it makes for a great "sexually empowered" character.

No doubt. But does it make for a great Romance character? Now the slope is getting much slipperier.

So let's talk about sex.

Romance fiction, by it's very nature, has an unwritten law that once the heroine meets the hero, sex with another partner (at least to the level of sexual penetration) is out. The heroine is expected to be loyal to the hero no matter the level of their conflict or separation. 

The reverse is also true in many novels--the hero remains sexually loyal to the heroine--but certainly not all books follow this rule. (In the case of MM, FF and threesome Romances, you can switch out heroine or hero in the above statements as needed.)

I've read Romances where the hero is allowed a much greater freedom on this front than the heroine, and I've read reviews about one Historical Romance where the hero uses sex with another woman as a weapon against the heroine. Reportedly, he is later "redeemed" by excessive groveling to win back the heroine's love and respect. (Really? Groveling can make amends for a complete breech of trust and an intentional effort to crush a partner emotionally?) I haven't read the book, so I can't judge the dynamics of the story--there are some authors who could probably pull this off--but I'm not sure this sort of hero would be my cup of tea.

But that said, I do have characters in my work--both male and female--who cross the boundaries of sexual loyalty. Though I truly believe the circumstances warrant the breech of romantic etiquette, I know this is a button-pusher for some. There are bound to be some who object because they simply can't accept infidelity on the part of a character in any form, even if circumstances give the character good reasons for their actions or they remain mentally loyal to their partner. 

Romantic Erotica generally has more freedom to push the envelope on these taboos--or break it entirely. Straight erotica has no such rule and often ventures intentionally into the opposite extreme. The main characters have no sexual loyalty to any partner. The more action she or he gets, the better. 

With erotica's popularity, it seems some of these trends in sexual freedom for characters may transfer to more traditional romance, especially those that are indie published or don't have a Big Five editor who may request edits to avoid elements that could offend some readers. Though Paranormal Romance seems to be getting more liberal on this front, but these don't seem to be "true Romance." There is no central romantic partner per se, and so there is no one who would be wounded by the main characters actions. 

What I do think works well in all Romance are heroines who are self-assured and don't act out with petty jealousy when the hero is lusted after or even takes up with a rival. Though hurt on the inside by betrayal--whether real or merely perceived--strong characters remain tough and resolute on the outside. How they deal with infidelity (perceived or otherwise) helps define their strength of character. Conversely, if they are the one who has wronged a partner (perceived or otherwise) they are respectful of their partners feelings.

What are your thoughts? Do you think modern guidelines are relaxing and more sexual freedom will become a part of the Romance genre? 

As a writer, do you or would you include a character who ventures outside a partnership with the main love interest? 

As a reader, what are your preferences? Do you prefer characters who are totally true to their main romantic interest or could you accept a character who strays if their reasons for doing so are acceptable and forgivable?  

SFR GALAXY AWARDS HONOR THE BEST OF 2013

Stuck with your finger poised over the One-Click button, wondering what new SFR title to read next?  Let the 2013 SFR Galaxy Awards be your guide.  Six judges—authors, bloggers and SFR advocates all—have sifted through last year’s best and made their recommendations in categories contentious (Best Subgenre Mashup) to quirky (Best Animal Companion).  Every judge has her own way of honoring the authors and filmmakers who gave us 2013’s best SFR, but you’ll be the ultimate winner when you enjoy the work of the creative minds accepting this year’s SFR Galaxy Awards.

The Awards will be rolling out all day today on the SFR Galaxy Awards blog.  Check it out and scoop up some new titles to add to your TBR pile.

Cheers, Donna

Discovering Game of Thrones

A few weeks ago, with nothing of any particular interest on the 2,845 channels on satellite (okay, a minor exaggeration, even including all the music channels), I tuned in to the first episode of the HBO series Game of Thrones.

Turned out it was just the start of a marathon of the entire first season, which I watched and/or recorded, and promptly got hooked on the characters, premise, intrigue and world-building. Thanks to HBO-on-demand, I was able to record later seasons to get me up to speed on the this twisty turny epic in the space of a few weeks.

Though I'm not much of a Fantasy fan, I could easily justify this one as more of a SF crossover. After all, in this world there are years-long summers followed by years-long winters. We're talking about up to five years long and sometimes longer. That to me said "another planet with unstable orbit." Further, none of the lands or continents are recognizable as anywhere on ancient Earth, so in my SF-inclined mind, I could totally justify GoT as planet-based SF. And there are even a couple of romances--though very untraditional ones--so with a little bit of a stretch it might even qualify as SFR.

GoT is also devoid of the typical Fantasy creatures like faeries, elves or goblins. Okay, granted it does have a dwarf, though his character is one of the more fascinating inhabitants of the land of Westeros. And there is a giant. And dragons...but heck, dragons are common fair in SFR. They've been extinct for centuries with one kingdom, Harranhal, still bearing the scars of ruin from their last attack.

Oh, and Westeros also has direwolves. Gotta love the prehistoric twist.

And throw a formidable army of ice zombies into the mix, as well.

The combination is just enough to feel like an oh-so-familiar medieval Earth setting that's twisted into some very elaborate knots.

What fascinated me most about the complex politics and plethora of gray-area good-turned-bad and bad-turned-good personalities is the Surprises. With a capital S. No character is sacred in this series. Main characters and major players alike lose their heads or various other body parts. Nothing is predictable. The good guys don't always win and the bad guys often get exactly what they wish for--and you know how that saying ends.

Lord Ned Stark is played by Sean Bean

The inhabitants of the seven kingdoms of Westeros have been thrown into chaos by a series of events that began with the death of the Mad King, a Targaryen (Dragon banner). His current successor--not a Targaryen but a Baratheon (Stag banner)--claims the throne and marries the daughter from a powerful and wealthy competing House--the Lannisters (Lion banner)--to maintain the peace. He then enlists the help of a childhood friend and head of the focus House of the series--Eddard "Ned" Stark, Lord of Winterfell of the North (Direwolf banner). Lord Stark becomes his King's Hand, or chief advisor.

Here's a bit more about this development from the author:



Yes, the Houses and alliances are a lot to take in. The intro to the series might give you a better visual of the lay of the land.



But Peace never lasts long in this world. When the new king dies, the scramble to seize the throne sets off a series of beheadings, hostage-taking, uneasy alliances, and marriages-of-convenience. The first to be beheaded is Ned (Eddard) Stark, and the first to be taken hostage are his daughters. This, rightfully so, triggers a war with House Stark and Ned's son, Robb, raises an army and marches south toward the capital of King's Landing after being named King of the North.

One element of the series that rings a very clear chord with me. It's the sense of duty and honor surrounding those brave souls who dedicate themselves to the Night Watch, the elite rangers who take the oath to defend the wild, frozen territory north of The Wall. (By the way, one of these cold-weather rangers is Ned Stark's bastard son, Jon Snow.) The Wall is a seven hundred foot tall barrier of ice and earth that was constructed across the narrowest waist of the continent to keep murderous things in the frozen north contained in the frozen north. These murderous things include semi-wild humans called (appropriately enough) Wildlings, and the dread White Walkers, the unstoppable ice zombie army I mentioned before.



The first three seasons are infused with fear of the coming Winter (which is predicted to last for many long years, plunging the world into a frozen darkness), and the unstoppable army of White Walkers who apparently will not be stopped even by The Wall.

As this force gathers in the North, a new force is reborn in a land across the seas to the South. Dragons. Dragons have come back into existence at the hands of a young woman who is probably the most rightful of the many rightful heirs to the Iron Throne of King's Landing--the sole surviving Targaryen.

The Iron Throne of King's Landing

When the dragons are hatched, so is their omen--a magnificent red comet that can be seen throughout the realm even in daylight.

The subtext is clear. Something very bad is coming, and it may arrive from the North, from the South, or from both directions at once.

Game of Thrones was adapted from the Fantasy series written by George R.R. Martin, A Song of Ice and Fire. It seems the series title provides a very big hint about the battle that may be gathering in season four and beyond.

I highly recommend this series to fellow writers as a potential playground for the muse and a possible catalyst for many new themes and story ideas. Another great thing about GoT is the array of very strong and competent female characters. Warriors and warriors-in-waiting, strong-willed Ladies, wily Wildlings, rising queens and clever matriarchs, the series offers a welcome abundance of Girl Power and feminine might.

Read more about Game of Thrones here:
Wiki of Ice and Fire: The Seven Kingdoms
Wikipedia: A List of Game of Thrones Episodes

OUT OF THE SWAMP--AGAIN: TIME FOR A NEW WOMEN'S REVOLUTION

Many of us were happy to see 2013 in the rear view mirror, not least because we could say “good riddance” to all the controversy and upheaval that churned through the science fiction literary world.  Not only did we no longer have to endure the seemingly endless online snarking back and forth about the validity of romance in SF, but that glimpse we had of the slimy underbelly of misogyny exposed in the science fiction community—among both writers and fans—was not pretty.

Those two issues not only arose at the same time; they were related in a fundamental way.  But I’m not here to stir that pot again.  In fact, I’m here to put it in context.  Judging from the statistics that have circulated through the media recently, the dinosaurs in the SF community may have been justified in throwing up their hands and crying, “What?”  The Jurassic Age, it seems, has been recreated everywhere while those of us with feminist sympathies (or maybe just those of us who are women) were busy trying to have lives.

Check out these numbers from Media Report to Women, a quarterly research publication established in 1972 to provide information on how various forms of media depict women and treat them on the job:

--TV News—Men reporting the news, 48%; women reporting the news, 40%; teams, 12% (2010).  That’s good right?  BUT female directors of the news broadcasts, 28.3% (2011).  And only 24% of those interviewed on the news broadcasts—for any reason-- were women; 81% of “experts” and 82% of spokespersons were male (2011).  Only 16% of stories focused solely on women (2010).

--TV Entertainment—Women accounted for just 25% of all producers, writers, creators and all other behind-the-camera personnel in 2010.  In case you were wondering, women made up only 15% of television writers.

--Film—For the top 250 domestic grossing films of 2010, women were a mere 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors.  For those keeping score at home, females chalked up a measly 10% of the writing credits on those films, and only 7% of the directing credits.

--Online—Now here’s a bright spot.  Women outnumbered men on the Internet in 2010, by 51.8% to 41.3%.  According to Media Report to Women, men prefer to use their (longer) online time to network for business; women use their (shorter) time for social networking purposes.  Men prefer user-generated sites like YouTube; women stream TV programs.  Hmm.

We already know the bad news about women in traditional publishing—how male writers outpublish females by an overwhelming margin (at least by the legacy publishers) and are reviewed by the hoary old institutions of the New York Times and others at disproportionate rates.  But as writers of genre fiction we have tended to think that is not our fight.  We have to pick our battles.  It’s not like the Sunday Times will ever be waxing lyrical about spaceships and aliens.  Let Jodi Picoult go to war over that one, right?

The trouble is, I begin to see a pattern.  Not just in our little corner of the literary world.  Not just, perhaps, in my job (teaching), or in yours (law enforcement or the military, or you name it).  Not simply in those places where the law may exist to mitigate it, but is seldom enforced because, well, who can afford to rock the boat these days?  But most glaringly in the media where all of us “live”, vicariously and 24/7.

What is the effect on our common culture—on our community—when for every GRAVITY we see, there are 50 LOCKOUT’s or RIDDICK’s?  How can we tell our daughters they can be anything they want to be when their most visible role models on television are dancers, models, underage pop singers and underpaid reporters who will soon be out of a job?  How do we protect them when one in five college women is a victim of sexual assault, when the military at its highest levels is rife with sexual harassment, when our highest officials are sexting pictures of themselves to staffers barely out of their teens?

Our job as writers of science fiction is to envision the future.  Those who have gone before us have imagined rocketships to the moon, landing on Mars, genetic manipulation, instant communication, computers with unbelievable capabilities.  But they have also seen populations controlled by their governments, constant surveillance in the guise of constant entertainment, World War replaced by the world at war, disconnection and despair, poverty and plague.  What is amazing is that so much of what they saw has come to pass.

Many of our modern “New Age” thinkers believe your thoughts create your reality.  To put it (very) simply, you can think the future you want into being.  By this theory, what was written has come to pass because the authors and their readers, believed in that vision sufficiently to lead us in that direction.  In a very simple example, the inventor of the cell phone, Martin Cooper, has said his inspiration for the device was the communicator used by Captain James T. Kirk in the original STAR TREK series.  He made that fictional vision a reality.

My point here is this:  We need a New Revolution, and we, as mostly female (and sympathetic male) authors of science fiction romance, must lead it.  If we can envision a future that ensures women have an equal role with men—in leadership, in the use of technology, in relationships—then we have a responsibility to argue for it.  We should make it a rallying cry, not for the worn-out tenets of feminist legalism, which seems to have met its limit, but for a new and more relevant visibility for feminine heroism, in all aspects of our lives.

If we believe it, we can write it.  And if we write it, we can make it happen.

Cheers, Donna