Next week I'm going to Orlando for the annual International Conference on the Fantastic in the Arts, where I'll be leading a panel on vampires and other immortals. Here are some of the thoughts I've noted down for my part of the discussion:
In contemporary fiction, most authors who write about vampires tend to emphasize the vampire's status as an immortal rather than as a walking dead creature. Traditionally, immortality always has a price. The Struldbrugs in GULLIVER'S TRAVELS, although undying, age normally and are declared legally dead at the age of eighty. The ogre or sorcerer of folklore who ensures his invulnerability to death by removing his heart from his body and concealing it in some inaccessible location becomes, in the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, whose fear of death drives him to split his soul into seven pieces. Each fragment that is removed diminishes his humanity. The soulless quality of traditional vampires is symbolized by their inability to cast a reflection in a mirror. In the TV series BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, an essential component of vampirism is the replacement of the human soul by a demon. Angel and Spike, exceptions to the norm, have had their souls magically restored. The series never makes it clear exactly how the soul is defined; overall, it seems to be approximately equivalent to the conscience. Angel reveals in one episode that the return of his soul doesn't eject the vampire demon; both coexist within him.
Much vampire fiction portrays the price of immortality as loneliness and alienation from the surrounding flow of humanity. Immortals in the HIGHLANDER series suffer a similar fate. HIGHLANDER Immortals also share with many fictional vampires the inability to beget or bear children. Since Immortals drain each other's power through the "quickening" by cutting off the rival's head, they can be regarded as energy vampires who prey on their own kind rather than on ordinary people. The short-lived TV series AMSTERDAM, in which the protagonist receives immortality from a Native American woman as a reward, yet the condition seems more like a curse since it can be ended by true love, felt to me like "HIGHLANDER lite."
Peter Pan possesses immortality because he never grows up, but he is explicitly described as heartless. As a symptom of this condition, he readily forgets about people after a prolonged separation. Although he treats Wendy as an exception, Peter shows his tenuous grasp on both memory and the passage of time by mistaking her daughter for her. The price of his eternal childhood seems to be the loss of part of his humanity. The eternal child appears in vampire fiction as Claudia in Anne Rice's INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE; she is so changelessly frozen that her hair grows back to its length at her "death" hours after she cuts it. And of course the film LOST BOYS directly alludes to Peter Pan. Chelsea Quinn Yarbro's Count Saint-Germain retains all the scars he acquired as a living man, but he can never acquire new ones; all wounds heal without a trace, demonstrating the unchanging nature of vampire “life.”
Some fictional immortals achieve that condition, not by preserving their physical bodies, but by transmigration of the soul or personality into a new body whenever the old one becomes damaged or worn out, for example, the wizard in H. P. Lovecraft's "The Thing on the Doorstep." An evil sorcerer using that strategy appears as the villain in a fantasy series by Mercedes Lackey. A similar premise appears in a series by Octavia Butler. This kind of immortality, going back at least to the psychic vampirism of the title character in Poe's "Ligeia," is almost inevitably framed as evil.
Since the 1970s, many authors have shown transformation into a vampire as a positive change instead of an accursed fate. LOST BOYS, for example, invites, "Sleep all day, party all night, and never get old." Vampire romances, however, constitute the subgenre that most frequently represents the human lover's change into a vampire as a happy ending (those that don't take the opposite route and "cure" the vampire by restoring his mortality). Is this trend connected to the secular nature of our culture? Do such authors assume that most readers no longer regard the loss of one's soul as a fate to fear? Or, if they directly address the question, do they deny that becoming a vampire necessarily entails soullessness? In either of these cases, can we now have immortality without a price? If you were offered physical immortality as an ordinary human being in the prime of life and health (immortality without tangible disadvantages), would you accept? One of the few authors who presents this situation as mostly a Good Thing is Robert Heinlein in the Lazarus Long novels, and even Lazarus gets tired of life at the beginning of TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE. If you were offered unending existence as a vampire, with at least some of the traditional limitations, would you accept?
Margaret L. Carter (www.margaretlcarter.com)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Beauty and the Beast: Constructing the HEA
To some people it may seem somewhat narrow minded that readers of Romance insist on the Happily Ever After ending.
After all, HEA is so unrealistic, a childish fantasy. Thus people who read Romance must have something wrong with them, which means Romance as a field is not to be taken seriously, which is a topic we've discussed at length in this blog.
I think those readers are missing something important about the novel as an artform. As writers, our job is to explain what they're missing in "show don't tell" technique.
Whatever type of novel you prefer reading, you read it for the satisfaction, the validation of your world view in the artform.
The Romance as an artform is not different, even (or especially) when you cast the Romance plot against an alien background or involve a non-human character in the main plot thread.
The worldview that the Romance HEA validates is something like "No Man Is An Island" or in modern psychological research, that happier, healthier longer lives are lived by those who have firm and dependable Relationships.
Here's a recent report in a long list of such reports on marriage and health:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-heart-women5-2009mar05,0,5692637.story?track=rss
--------------
Reuters
March 5, 2009
Chicago -- Women in strained marriages are more likely than other wives to have high blood pressure and other risk factors for heart disease, researchers said today.
... and: The researchers found that women in marriages with high levels of strife were more prone to depression and metabolic syndrome, a cluster of symptoms including thick waist, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and abnormal blood sugar that significantly raise the risk of heart disease.
---------------
Oh? HEA is unrealistic, eh?
If a relationship crystallizes solidly, settles into a supportive and low-strife paradigm, then (science is beginning to discover) AS A CONSEQUENCE the future course of the partners lives will be ENHANCED by good health and an assortment of miseries that are absent. That is they will live "happily ever after" because of the formation of this Relationship.
There have been other studies that showed how women are physically healthier than men because of the maintaining of relationships with other women, particularly that of the confidant. Relationships cause consequences -- and good Relationships cause HEA.
Of course, humans being human, while you're living an HEA arc of a life, you will find other reasons to make yourself miserable. You never think of all the diseases and disorders and dysfunctions you DON'T have in your life, so you can't see that you are happy.
People who have this kind of very real misery in their life might want to read horror or tragedy -- soap opera stories of unrelenting misery -- to stay aware of the troubles they don't have, troubles worse than theirs. It's a way of convincing yourself you are happy. And there's nothing wrong with that. It can motivate changes in relationships to raise the odds of an HEA in life. HEA endings can do that too - spark aspiration.
So how does a writer construct an HEA ending?
Well, it's an ENDING.
There are 3 points in The Novel that have to be nailed before you can outline the novel. Beginning. Middle. End. Determine any one of those, and the other two become determined.
If the END must be "happy" - an up-beat ending - then the MIDDLE must be the worst point in the main character's life (utter ruin; total hopelessness; conquered, captured, vanquished, left for dead, stood up at the altar).
With a low Middle and high End -- the Beginning has to be the ORIGIN of the problem that nearly kills the main character in the Middle and which he overcomes to triumph in the end.
Solve this one problem and all his life-troubles are over for good. There's HEA potential in every other genre, even or especially Horror.
Plot is driven by Conflict. To have a conflict, you have to have at least two elements that conflict. This vs. That. An urgent MUST vs an equally formidable CAN'T.
In the Romance, the urgent MUST is provided by the attraction to the other party. Science has revealed why we feel that MUST.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_sc/sci_love_science
is an article on discoveries about brain chemistry and love. I think I've mentioned that here before, and on goodreads.com in SFRomance.
Add to that the subliminal awareness that our very lives depend on founding solid Relationships, and when a candidate for that Relationship appears it becomes an urgent emergency to "catch" that guy or gal.
Theory has it that it's the reproductive urge that drives us into Relationships. And that certainly seems reasonable -- BUT, if you don't live long enough to have and raise kids, reproduction becomes a moot point. I think we are aware in every cell of our bodies that our minute to minute existence depends on solid Relationships.
Mystically, the First Chakra (staying alive) always trumps the Second Chakra matters of reproduction. Our priorities are ordered for us on that basic a level. This premise lurks far in the background of my Sime~Gen novels.
The brain chemistry study shows us why we have the objective of establishing solid relationships. Relationships protect basic health so that we can reproduce.
Sothe URGENT MUST part of the conflict: "here is a POTENTIAL PARTNER; I must have this person or die!"
Your very life depends (literally) on reaching out to and securing that person in your life. That is not melodrama, it's science.
For all HEA Romances, that piece of the formula is established by the genre rules. The Urgent Must has to be an attraction to a partner and everything else is "complication" or background.
Now, the writer gets creative and the genre walls disappear into the distance. The writer can explore the universe finding things to prevent the attaining of this objective. What obstacles prevent people from forming partnerships?
The art of the romance novel lies in the variegated CAN'Ts writers have hurled at their characters.
What the CAN'T actually is does not matter as much as that it is just about equal to the MUST. To craft the HEA, there has to be a tangible chance that the Relationship won't gel.
But success has to be plausible, so the CAN'T has to have a "fatal flaw" that makes it believable that the two people do overcome this obstacle.
It is very possible that the low prestige of the Romance Novel (and particularly the Paranormal or SF Romance) comes from the choice of obstacle.
Some people may pick up Romances where the obstacle is fabricated, and in technical parlance, "contrived" so that it can be overcome. The "paper tiger" obstacle.
As a result, casual readers may judge all Romance to be "thin" -- a puppet show where the strings are visible.
Judging an entire genre by one or two novels is fairly common. Have you ever done that?
So, the Romance HEA is crafted from a scientificly verified array of MUSTS vs. artistically invented CAN'Ts. The HEA point is where the MUST overcomes the CAN'T -- i.e. the point where the conflict is resolved.
So tell me why all Romance isn't classed as Science Fiction Romance? If all Romance has the MUST part of the plot formula as a scientific premise, why isn't every Romance considered SFR?
The answer to this puzzle may be found by reading something outside the genre.
I have here a novel, a police procedural which raised the question of the HEA requirement again.
FLIPPING OUT by Marshall Karp. It's an April 2009 book I got from the amazon.com VINE program in ARC. It's copyright is held by a film company. I already posted my (4 star) review on amazon.
The intriguing premise is that a famous mystery writer is in a scheme to buy a run-down house, fix it up, write a murder mystery set in the house, then sell the house at auction on the day the book launches (complete with fictional murder victim's outline in tape on the bedroom floor).
It's set against the background of Hollywood. HUGE amount of money involved in the house flipping scheme -- very interesting background, like Columbo, a glimpse of the rich and famous.
It is a pretty good cut and dried, well turned and well written police procedural mystery with a nice clue-trail.
You can solve the mystery before the detectives do, but not TOO MUCH before, and the ending comes with a nice tricky TWIST shocker-scene, after which you get told what the detectives knew before you knew it. It's a good twist ending and provides a nice film moment for the climax. It's a good book.
Ah, BUT!!! There are many buts I didn't mention in my amazon review.
Reading this novel right in the midst of reading a sequence of fairly good fantasy novels, I found the contrast striking.
The mystery formula also requires an HEA ending. The mystery has to be SOLVED, and the reader has to feel satisfied that they could solve it as well or better than the detectives (but not a lot better because then it's too easy).
So while I'm thinking about the HEA reader requirement in Romance, I'm reading this mystery and second-guessing the detectives.
And I realized WHAT'S MISSING from FLIPPING OUT. It's a factor that I find very satisfying in say, Faye Kellerman's Peter Decker and Rina Lazarus series. And that is characterization. It's a reason I like Columbo and Murder She Wrote, too. The mystery and its solution hinge entirely on the psychology and relationships of the victims, suspects AND the detectives!!
FLIPPING OUT provides a huge, stark, high relief contrast to the psychological drama type mysteries that I love. The stringent absence of the psychology dimension makes for a dry, clean, stark, and austere reading experience (very much like old fashioned neck-up science fiction, I discussed last week) that is, no doubt, very satisfying to the reader looking for that simple puzzle without any psychological tangles.
FLIPPING OUT puts the emotional lives of the bereaved, terrified and frustrated characters in the background while the foreground focuses on the puzzle itself. That's what this genre is supposed to do.
So this book is perfect of its kind, but unsatisfying to me. Yet it has the perfect ending for a mystery. The detectives solve the case which is equivalent to the HEA where the gal gets her guy and vice-versa.
At the halfway point, the darkest hour, the detectives think they solved it -- everyone above them thinks it's solved. The perp was the last person in the world they'd suspect. They're crushed. Then they discover they're wrong, and the perp is actually someone even more last-person-in-the-world than they'd expect.
FLIPPING OUT is likely to be a best seller, very popular, might even make a movie. The author's other novels have garnered serious respect, the sort we'd love to see SFR get as a genre.
What does FLIPPING OUT have that Science Fiction Romance doesn't?
Could it lie in the CAN'T rather than in the MUST part of the conflict formula?
One really great Romance that did make it onto TV as a series is BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.
This series spawned a plethora of fanfic on paper on on the web, and some really great fan novels, too. It grabbed the imagination of the SFR type reader-fan. But why did it fail on TV?
The premise stalled the plot.
The premise was that the couple could NEVER get together. That's not bad in itself. The CAN'T has to be formidable.
But the characters accepted the CAN'T. They didn't fight it. They didn't try scheme after scheme (like I LOVE LUCY plots). They didn't attempt to go public. They didn't plan to run away. Neither was willing to sacrifice to go live in the other's world.
Neither of the main characters was HEROIC about overcoming the plot premise CAN'T. And in the end, the writers tried to salvage that, change and evolve the premise by revealing that one of the characters was actually of non-human (alien from outer space) blood -- but by then the audience was losing interest.
They hadn't sold the BEAUTY AND THE BEAST series as SFR so the audience deserted them when they tried to turn it into SFR, making the problem solvable.
Why did the audience lose interest? Because the MUST didn't show any progress toward overcoming the CAN'T. The conflict was not moving to a resolution without breaking the original premise.
There couldn't be an HEA unless you changed the premise - which is of course what the fanfic writers did.
So contrast and compare FLIPPING OUT with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and think about it. Too little psychology and the actions and reactions don't seem plausible enough to make a story interesting even if the plot is fascinating. Too much psychology and the story stalls dead in its tracks because there isn't the gumption to pay the price for conflict resolution.
To create the HEA effect (in any genre), the trick is matching the MUST (and its motives, conscious and subconscious) with the CAN'T (and its motives, conscious and subconscious), in such a way as to challenge each of the characters to overcome some internal barrier, to CHANGE (or ARC in screenwriting parlance) in a way that opens the opportunity for the MUST to overcome the CAN'T.
In the Murder Mystery Police Procedural the Must, Can't and HEA in the foreground is the whole, logical why-done-it puzzle. It's who knows whom and follow the money for motivation. The angst, grieving widowers, and fear of discovery are all way in the background, told rather than shown.
In the Alien Science Fiction Romance, the affairs of state, plot puzzles, science and logic of brain biochemistry are in the background, told rather than shown, while the angst, grief, fears, hopes, dreams, and fantasies are in the foreground, shown rather than told.
What is in the foreground and what is in the background very often determines the audience that will most appreciate the work of art.
Or the fanfic writers will reverse foreground and background to tell each other new stories.
For more on those psychological and spiritual internal barriers and how to construct them for your characters out of the material inside your reader's mind see my blog post:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/02/paradigm-shift.html
For a writing exercise related to setting up foreground and background and "worldbuilding" the background see my blog entry writing assignment and read the exercise posted as comments on
http://editingcircle.blogspot.com/2009/03/worldbuilding-trunk-ated.html
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.slantedconcept.com
After all, HEA is so unrealistic, a childish fantasy. Thus people who read Romance must have something wrong with them, which means Romance as a field is not to be taken seriously, which is a topic we've discussed at length in this blog.
I think those readers are missing something important about the novel as an artform. As writers, our job is to explain what they're missing in "show don't tell" technique.
Whatever type of novel you prefer reading, you read it for the satisfaction, the validation of your world view in the artform.
The Romance as an artform is not different, even (or especially) when you cast the Romance plot against an alien background or involve a non-human character in the main plot thread.
The worldview that the Romance HEA validates is something like "No Man Is An Island" or in modern psychological research, that happier, healthier longer lives are lived by those who have firm and dependable Relationships.
Here's a recent report in a long list of such reports on marriage and health:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-heart-women5-2009mar05,0,5692637.story?track=rss
--------------
Reuters
March 5, 2009
Chicago -- Women in strained marriages are more likely than other wives to have high blood pressure and other risk factors for heart disease, researchers said today.
... and: The researchers found that women in marriages with high levels of strife were more prone to depression and metabolic syndrome, a cluster of symptoms including thick waist, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and abnormal blood sugar that significantly raise the risk of heart disease.
---------------
Oh? HEA is unrealistic, eh?
If a relationship crystallizes solidly, settles into a supportive and low-strife paradigm, then (science is beginning to discover) AS A CONSEQUENCE the future course of the partners lives will be ENHANCED by good health and an assortment of miseries that are absent. That is they will live "happily ever after" because of the formation of this Relationship.
There have been other studies that showed how women are physically healthier than men because of the maintaining of relationships with other women, particularly that of the confidant. Relationships cause consequences -- and good Relationships cause HEA.
Of course, humans being human, while you're living an HEA arc of a life, you will find other reasons to make yourself miserable. You never think of all the diseases and disorders and dysfunctions you DON'T have in your life, so you can't see that you are happy.
People who have this kind of very real misery in their life might want to read horror or tragedy -- soap opera stories of unrelenting misery -- to stay aware of the troubles they don't have, troubles worse than theirs. It's a way of convincing yourself you are happy. And there's nothing wrong with that. It can motivate changes in relationships to raise the odds of an HEA in life. HEA endings can do that too - spark aspiration.
So how does a writer construct an HEA ending?
Well, it's an ENDING.
There are 3 points in The Novel that have to be nailed before you can outline the novel. Beginning. Middle. End. Determine any one of those, and the other two become determined.
If the END must be "happy" - an up-beat ending - then the MIDDLE must be the worst point in the main character's life (utter ruin; total hopelessness; conquered, captured, vanquished, left for dead, stood up at the altar).
With a low Middle and high End -- the Beginning has to be the ORIGIN of the problem that nearly kills the main character in the Middle and which he overcomes to triumph in the end.
Solve this one problem and all his life-troubles are over for good. There's HEA potential in every other genre, even or especially Horror.
Plot is driven by Conflict. To have a conflict, you have to have at least two elements that conflict. This vs. That. An urgent MUST vs an equally formidable CAN'T.
In the Romance, the urgent MUST is provided by the attraction to the other party. Science has revealed why we feel that MUST.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_sc/sci_love_science
is an article on discoveries about brain chemistry and love. I think I've mentioned that here before, and on goodreads.com in SFRomance.
Add to that the subliminal awareness that our very lives depend on founding solid Relationships, and when a candidate for that Relationship appears it becomes an urgent emergency to "catch" that guy or gal.
Theory has it that it's the reproductive urge that drives us into Relationships. And that certainly seems reasonable -- BUT, if you don't live long enough to have and raise kids, reproduction becomes a moot point. I think we are aware in every cell of our bodies that our minute to minute existence depends on solid Relationships.
Mystically, the First Chakra (staying alive) always trumps the Second Chakra matters of reproduction. Our priorities are ordered for us on that basic a level. This premise lurks far in the background of my Sime~Gen novels.
The brain chemistry study shows us why we have the objective of establishing solid relationships. Relationships protect basic health so that we can reproduce.
Sothe URGENT MUST part of the conflict: "here is a POTENTIAL PARTNER; I must have this person or die!"
Your very life depends (literally) on reaching out to and securing that person in your life. That is not melodrama, it's science.
For all HEA Romances, that piece of the formula is established by the genre rules. The Urgent Must has to be an attraction to a partner and everything else is "complication" or background.
Now, the writer gets creative and the genre walls disappear into the distance. The writer can explore the universe finding things to prevent the attaining of this objective. What obstacles prevent people from forming partnerships?
The art of the romance novel lies in the variegated CAN'Ts writers have hurled at their characters.
What the CAN'T actually is does not matter as much as that it is just about equal to the MUST. To craft the HEA, there has to be a tangible chance that the Relationship won't gel.
But success has to be plausible, so the CAN'T has to have a "fatal flaw" that makes it believable that the two people do overcome this obstacle.
It is very possible that the low prestige of the Romance Novel (and particularly the Paranormal or SF Romance) comes from the choice of obstacle.
Some people may pick up Romances where the obstacle is fabricated, and in technical parlance, "contrived" so that it can be overcome. The "paper tiger" obstacle.
As a result, casual readers may judge all Romance to be "thin" -- a puppet show where the strings are visible.
Judging an entire genre by one or two novels is fairly common. Have you ever done that?
So, the Romance HEA is crafted from a scientificly verified array of MUSTS vs. artistically invented CAN'Ts. The HEA point is where the MUST overcomes the CAN'T -- i.e. the point where the conflict is resolved.
So tell me why all Romance isn't classed as Science Fiction Romance? If all Romance has the MUST part of the plot formula as a scientific premise, why isn't every Romance considered SFR?
The answer to this puzzle may be found by reading something outside the genre.
I have here a novel, a police procedural which raised the question of the HEA requirement again.
FLIPPING OUT by Marshall Karp. It's an April 2009 book I got from the amazon.com VINE program in ARC. It's copyright is held by a film company. I already posted my (4 star) review on amazon.
The intriguing premise is that a famous mystery writer is in a scheme to buy a run-down house, fix it up, write a murder mystery set in the house, then sell the house at auction on the day the book launches (complete with fictional murder victim's outline in tape on the bedroom floor).
It's set against the background of Hollywood. HUGE amount of money involved in the house flipping scheme -- very interesting background, like Columbo, a glimpse of the rich and famous.
It is a pretty good cut and dried, well turned and well written police procedural mystery with a nice clue-trail.
You can solve the mystery before the detectives do, but not TOO MUCH before, and the ending comes with a nice tricky TWIST shocker-scene, after which you get told what the detectives knew before you knew it. It's a good twist ending and provides a nice film moment for the climax. It's a good book.
Ah, BUT!!! There are many buts I didn't mention in my amazon review.
Reading this novel right in the midst of reading a sequence of fairly good fantasy novels, I found the contrast striking.
The mystery formula also requires an HEA ending. The mystery has to be SOLVED, and the reader has to feel satisfied that they could solve it as well or better than the detectives (but not a lot better because then it's too easy).
So while I'm thinking about the HEA reader requirement in Romance, I'm reading this mystery and second-guessing the detectives.
And I realized WHAT'S MISSING from FLIPPING OUT. It's a factor that I find very satisfying in say, Faye Kellerman's Peter Decker and Rina Lazarus series. And that is characterization. It's a reason I like Columbo and Murder She Wrote, too. The mystery and its solution hinge entirely on the psychology and relationships of the victims, suspects AND the detectives!!
FLIPPING OUT provides a huge, stark, high relief contrast to the psychological drama type mysteries that I love. The stringent absence of the psychology dimension makes for a dry, clean, stark, and austere reading experience (very much like old fashioned neck-up science fiction, I discussed last week) that is, no doubt, very satisfying to the reader looking for that simple puzzle without any psychological tangles.
FLIPPING OUT puts the emotional lives of the bereaved, terrified and frustrated characters in the background while the foreground focuses on the puzzle itself. That's what this genre is supposed to do.
So this book is perfect of its kind, but unsatisfying to me. Yet it has the perfect ending for a mystery. The detectives solve the case which is equivalent to the HEA where the gal gets her guy and vice-versa.
At the halfway point, the darkest hour, the detectives think they solved it -- everyone above them thinks it's solved. The perp was the last person in the world they'd suspect. They're crushed. Then they discover they're wrong, and the perp is actually someone even more last-person-in-the-world than they'd expect.
FLIPPING OUT is likely to be a best seller, very popular, might even make a movie. The author's other novels have garnered serious respect, the sort we'd love to see SFR get as a genre.
What does FLIPPING OUT have that Science Fiction Romance doesn't?
Could it lie in the CAN'T rather than in the MUST part of the conflict formula?
One really great Romance that did make it onto TV as a series is BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.
This series spawned a plethora of fanfic on paper on on the web, and some really great fan novels, too. It grabbed the imagination of the SFR type reader-fan. But why did it fail on TV?
The premise stalled the plot.
The premise was that the couple could NEVER get together. That's not bad in itself. The CAN'T has to be formidable.
But the characters accepted the CAN'T. They didn't fight it. They didn't try scheme after scheme (like I LOVE LUCY plots). They didn't attempt to go public. They didn't plan to run away. Neither was willing to sacrifice to go live in the other's world.
Neither of the main characters was HEROIC about overcoming the plot premise CAN'T. And in the end, the writers tried to salvage that, change and evolve the premise by revealing that one of the characters was actually of non-human (alien from outer space) blood -- but by then the audience was losing interest.
They hadn't sold the BEAUTY AND THE BEAST series as SFR so the audience deserted them when they tried to turn it into SFR, making the problem solvable.
Why did the audience lose interest? Because the MUST didn't show any progress toward overcoming the CAN'T. The conflict was not moving to a resolution without breaking the original premise.
There couldn't be an HEA unless you changed the premise - which is of course what the fanfic writers did.
So contrast and compare FLIPPING OUT with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and think about it. Too little psychology and the actions and reactions don't seem plausible enough to make a story interesting even if the plot is fascinating. Too much psychology and the story stalls dead in its tracks because there isn't the gumption to pay the price for conflict resolution.
To create the HEA effect (in any genre), the trick is matching the MUST (and its motives, conscious and subconscious) with the CAN'T (and its motives, conscious and subconscious), in such a way as to challenge each of the characters to overcome some internal barrier, to CHANGE (or ARC in screenwriting parlance) in a way that opens the opportunity for the MUST to overcome the CAN'T.
In the Murder Mystery Police Procedural the Must, Can't and HEA in the foreground is the whole, logical why-done-it puzzle. It's who knows whom and follow the money for motivation. The angst, grieving widowers, and fear of discovery are all way in the background, told rather than shown.
In the Alien Science Fiction Romance, the affairs of state, plot puzzles, science and logic of brain biochemistry are in the background, told rather than shown, while the angst, grief, fears, hopes, dreams, and fantasies are in the foreground, shown rather than told.
What is in the foreground and what is in the background very often determines the audience that will most appreciate the work of art.
Or the fanfic writers will reverse foreground and background to tell each other new stories.
For more on those psychological and spiritual internal barriers and how to construct them for your characters out of the material inside your reader's mind see my blog post:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/02/paradigm-shift.html
For a writing exercise related to setting up foreground and background and "worldbuilding" the background see my blog entry writing assignment and read the exercise posted as comments on
http://editingcircle.blogspot.com/2009/03/worldbuilding-trunk-ated.html
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.slantedconcept.com
Monday, March 09, 2009
CROSSING THE AISLES
(WARNING: Deadline brain still in full force)
I never gave any thought to genre when I was a child. Hell, I really never gave a whole lot of thought to genre until I signed a contract with my agent. But looking back at over half a century of being an avid reader, I know my reading choices were affected by several parameters—the least of which was a genre.
My choices as a child were limited by 1) what my mother brought home 2) what was in the local Five-&-Dime (and for those of you scratching your heads, ask—I am giving away my age here…) 3) what I had to read in school and 4) what was available from the Scholastic Book Club that month (also part of school). I had Golden Books (remember those? They’re still around). I read stories about talking rabbits and talking cats and talking butterflies. Was I reading fantasy? Damned if I know. I was reading a colorful book with hard cardboard covers and a gold foil spine. I was having fun. I was being pulled out of my me-ness and my world and into Someplace Else in my imagination.
I also had several large books of fairy tales, which I assume my parents or some relative bought. There was the usual Mother Goose stuff but there were also Aesop’s stories, and then one book that I remember treasuring that had to be someone’s original ideas. Thinking back, they had an almost Narnia quality to them but they weren’t the Narnia books. There was one tale of a clothes cabinet in an attic, and the little girl in the story could use it for all sorts of adventures (I’m thinking a mirror was involved). I remember one of the stories involved a pair of red shoes (Mary Jane style from the illustration that I can still—vaguely—see to this day). The other involved a dress she wore in a print of multi-colored pom-poms. I craved that dress. There was something about that particular dress and its colors, but what and how and why are all long since gone from my mind.
So perhaps I read adventure? Thriller? With a fantasy sub-plot?
In school Dick and Jane were always doing something. Was that general literary fiction? A precursor of Oprah meets Dr. Phil? Then when I was nine or ten my mother subscribed to Reader’s Digest Condensed Classics For Children, and every few months a nice big fat volume came in the mail. For me. Oh, joy. Oh, rapture. I fell in love with The Scarlet Pimpernel. I solved crimes with Sherlock Holmes.
I wouldn’t know a genre if it bit me in the behind.
At the end of every school year, the local library had a book sale, with the children’s books all on long tables. I was in heaven. I had my dollar which meant I could buy ten books, and I grabbed them based on cover images, title. Genre? No clue. “Does this look like fun?” was my only parameter.
I read The Hobbit in eighth grade. Not because I was browsing the fantasy section but because everyone else was reading The Hobbit. I never asked myself if I like fantasy or whether I’d find stories about not-quite-human creatures believable. “Suspension of disbelief” had no meaning to
me. After all, I’d cut my reading teeth on fairy tales. Reading about ogres and witches and fairies and talking mice and flying cats had opened my mind long ago.
I read for the sheer joy of the experience. Opening the first page of a book signaled to my mind an immediate shut off of here and now, of reality as I knew it. Even when I was a pre-teen and read You Have To Draw The Line Somewhere—a YA novel before such were labeled so—about a high school girl deciding between a regular college and an art school. No unreality in that but it was still not MY life or MY school or MY decision. So it required a shut off of here and now, which I gladly did. (If you think it’s amazing that I remember the title of a book I read when I was twelve, then you don’t understand the depth of my love affair with the printed word.)
I didn’t give one thought to whether or not I liked the genre.
Rather, the one common denominator in all that I read—once I could make my own choices—was “does this problem or situation sound interesting?” In essence, conflict. In essence, to quote Blake Snyder, I was interested in “it’s all about a guy who…” Whether the guy was a prince, a doctor, a magician or a high school student mattered not one bit.
In my twenties and later, I did a lot of book buying at the grocery store where, for the most part, there’s no genre separation. Oh, there’s a little, with romance books on the left of the long display and some science fiction and fantasy in a row at the bottom. Or vice versa. But as people read the back cover blurbs and replace them, the books just get put back…somewhere. So I chose much as I had a decade before at the school library sale—what looks like fun?
I first read Melissa Scott because I found her Five Twelfths of Heaven in a bin in K-Mart.
I found Sherrilyn Kenyon’s A Pirate of Her Own (writing as Kinley MacGregor) in a bin in TJ Maxx (or it might have been Beall’s Outlet…).
I found Austin Tappan Wright’s Islandia…I don’t know where. I only remember reading it in college so possibly it was on a rack in the IU bookstore.
I didn’t read back then with one eye tracking whether or not the author fulfilled the conventions of the genre. I read because it was all about a gal or guy who… and it wasn’t where or who I was.
It never occurred to me to read—or not read—a certain genre because it wasn’t cool or it wasn’t something a female would read or it wasn’t highly regarded by this-or-that person.
I read because for a couple hundred pages, I wasn’t me.
So why do you read? What did you read as a child and has that impacted what you read now?
And do you quiver with excitement over a bin full of mixed books in a bargain store…or do you need your genres properly cordoned off on shelves?
Inquiring minds want to know. ~Linnea
I never gave any thought to genre when I was a child. Hell, I really never gave a whole lot of thought to genre until I signed a contract with my agent. But looking back at over half a century of being an avid reader, I know my reading choices were affected by several parameters—the least of which was a genre.
My choices as a child were limited by 1) what my mother brought home 2) what was in the local Five-&-Dime (and for those of you scratching your heads, ask—I am giving away my age here…) 3) what I had to read in school and 4) what was available from the Scholastic Book Club that month (also part of school). I had Golden Books (remember those? They’re still around). I read stories about talking rabbits and talking cats and talking butterflies. Was I reading fantasy? Damned if I know. I was reading a colorful book with hard cardboard covers and a gold foil spine. I was having fun. I was being pulled out of my me-ness and my world and into Someplace Else in my imagination.I also had several large books of fairy tales, which I assume my parents or some relative bought. There was the usual Mother Goose stuff but there were also Aesop’s stories, and then one book that I remember treasuring that had to be someone’s original ideas. Thinking back, they had an almost Narnia quality to them but they weren’t the Narnia books. There was one tale of a clothes cabinet in an attic, and the little girl in the story could use it for all sorts of adventures (I’m thinking a mirror was involved). I remember one of the stories involved a pair of red shoes (Mary Jane style from the illustration that I can still—vaguely—see to this day). The other involved a dress she wore in a print of multi-colored pom-poms. I craved that dress. There was something about that particular dress and its colors, but what and how and why are all long since gone from my mind.
So perhaps I read adventure? Thriller? With a fantasy sub-plot?
In school Dick and Jane were always doing something. Was that general literary fiction? A precursor of Oprah meets Dr. Phil? Then when I was nine or ten my mother subscribed to Reader’s Digest Condensed Classics For Children, and every few months a nice big fat volume came in the mail. For me. Oh, joy. Oh, rapture. I fell in love with The Scarlet Pimpernel. I solved crimes with Sherlock Holmes.
I wouldn’t know a genre if it bit me in the behind.
At the end of every school year, the local library had a book sale, with the children’s books all on long tables. I was in heaven. I had my dollar which meant I could buy ten books, and I grabbed them based on cover images, title. Genre? No clue. “Does this look like fun?” was my only parameter.
I read The Hobbit in eighth grade. Not because I was browsing the fantasy section but because everyone else was reading The Hobbit. I never asked myself if I like fantasy or whether I’d find stories about not-quite-human creatures believable. “Suspension of disbelief” had no meaning to
me. After all, I’d cut my reading teeth on fairy tales. Reading about ogres and witches and fairies and talking mice and flying cats had opened my mind long ago.I read for the sheer joy of the experience. Opening the first page of a book signaled to my mind an immediate shut off of here and now, of reality as I knew it. Even when I was a pre-teen and read You Have To Draw The Line Somewhere—a YA novel before such were labeled so—about a high school girl deciding between a regular college and an art school. No unreality in that but it was still not MY life or MY school or MY decision. So it required a shut off of here and now, which I gladly did. (If you think it’s amazing that I remember the title of a book I read when I was twelve, then you don’t understand the depth of my love affair with the printed word.)
I didn’t give one thought to whether or not I liked the genre.
Rather, the one common denominator in all that I read—once I could make my own choices—was “does this problem or situation sound interesting?” In essence, conflict. In essence, to quote Blake Snyder, I was interested in “it’s all about a guy who…” Whether the guy was a prince, a doctor, a magician or a high school student mattered not one bit.
In my twenties and later, I did a lot of book buying at the grocery store where, for the most part, there’s no genre separation. Oh, there’s a little, with romance books on the left of the long display and some science fiction and fantasy in a row at the bottom. Or vice versa. But as people read the back cover blurbs and replace them, the books just get put back…somewhere. So I chose much as I had a decade before at the school library sale—what looks like fun?
I first read Melissa Scott because I found her Five Twelfths of Heaven in a bin in K-Mart.
I found Sherrilyn Kenyon’s A Pirate of Her Own (writing as Kinley MacGregor) in a bin in TJ Maxx (or it might have been Beall’s Outlet…).
I found Austin Tappan Wright’s Islandia…I don’t know where. I only remember reading it in college so possibly it was on a rack in the IU bookstore.
I didn’t read back then with one eye tracking whether or not the author fulfilled the conventions of the genre. I read because it was all about a gal or guy who… and it wasn’t where or who I was.
It never occurred to me to read—or not read—a certain genre because it wasn’t cool or it wasn’t something a female would read or it wasn’t highly regarded by this-or-that person.
I read because for a couple hundred pages, I wasn’t me.
So why do you read? What did you read as a child and has that impacted what you read now?
And do you quiver with excitement over a bin full of mixed books in a bargain store…or do you need your genres properly cordoned off on shelves?
Inquiring minds want to know. ~Linnea
Linnea Sinclair
// Interstellar Adventure Infused with Romance//
Available Now from Bantam: Hope's Folly
http://www.linneasinclair.com/
// Interstellar Adventure Infused with Romance//
Available Now from Bantam: Hope's Folly
http://www.linneasinclair.com/
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Where would you put Tarzan?
Where would you put Tarzan... if you were a GoodReads Librarian or a bookseller? I'm talking genre and category.
To check him out alphabetically, I plan to walk up the hill to my local library when the rain abates to see if he's shelved under Rice or Burroughs.
Is Tarzan Of The Apes science fiction? Fantasy? Romance? Or something else? There has been a very interesting discussion of the book and its sequels on GoodReads
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/112650.Tarzan_of_the_Apes
I was asked to weigh in on the Romance. In my view, it's not a Romance, because the noble Tarzan doesn't end up with Jane at the end of the book. Some would argue that a Romance does not have to have a HEA.
Then, there's Edgar Rice Burroughs's command of the language of Romance. The "smothering" of Jane's "panting lips" with masculine kisses.
Apparently ERB did not enjoy the attentions of his editors, and it seems, he successfully resisted them.
The discussion there (on Goodreads) has been wide-ranging, from cannibalism, morality, kissing, nature versus nurture, the Frenchman's idea of a civilized drink. So I won't rehash. I simply thought that some of our group might be interested.
And now for something completely different, and random:
The April issue of DISCOVER magazine arrived this weekend. It contains articles about manipulating chicken embryos to grow new little dinosaurs, about infrared bats, and money. And much more.
Money. For those who love the small of money, here's why. There's more cocaine residue on US paper currency than on any other nation's promissory notes. There's also staph bacteria and fecal matter. Maybe you could get C-difficile from the bank!!!!
Hmmm. Who handles cash? People who are worried about their credit. Who prints money? The government. In an alternative universe where unscrupulous people might be in charge, they could impregnate cash with superbugs, put it into circulation, and solve all manner of problems.
There's an article about brain boosting drugs, and a suggestion that India or China might gain a competitive global advantage if they allowed their workers to use it. One headline "Drugs such as marijuana, LSD, mescaline"..."can increase creativity."
Some of the music and poetry from the Flower Power years was pretty good. Weren't there quite a few modern authors "In Xanadu did Kublai Khan a stately pleasure dome decree" etc who felt that they did their best work when we would have pronounced them unfit to drive?
Artichokes aren't an illegal substance, so I freely admit that I think I write better when I drink artichoke tea. And, I have wilder dreams when I eat cheese last thing at night. Other authors swear by chocolate, or Pepsi.
Final thought. One of my family members is very keen on watching "It's Me Or The Dog", a program featuring dog trainer Victoria Stillwell (whose sartorial style reminds me of an off duty, very classy dominatrix, but that's another issue, and I hasten to say that she never, ever does anything cruel. Most of her discipline involves the giving or withholding of food treats, toys and praise).
Last night, Victoria recommended a combination of carrots and rice in the diet (of a stressed Weimeraner) to help it cope. I wonder whether carrots and rice at night would have a mellowing effect on us?
I may not get a chance to post next weekend. I shall be at the Amelia Island concours d'elegance.
Barbara Vey is celebrating a week of genre-based romance on her PW Beyond Her Book blog
http://www.publishersweekly.com/BeyondHerBook
Monday 9th is Paranormal/Futuristic day.
I heard (sorry, I did not memorize the link) that there is an editor on Twitter who announced yesterday that she is looking for a complete paranormal in a hurry as she has a sudden space to fill. I think it's Osbourne. Maybe a Tweet Beep, or #query would find it.
Best wishes,
Rowena Cherry
Space Snark (TM)
To check him out alphabetically, I plan to walk up the hill to my local library when the rain abates to see if he's shelved under Rice or Burroughs.
Is Tarzan Of The Apes science fiction? Fantasy? Romance? Or something else? There has been a very interesting discussion of the book and its sequels on GoodReads
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/112650.Tarzan_of_the_Apes
I was asked to weigh in on the Romance. In my view, it's not a Romance, because the noble Tarzan doesn't end up with Jane at the end of the book. Some would argue that a Romance does not have to have a HEA.
Then, there's Edgar Rice Burroughs's command of the language of Romance. The "smothering" of Jane's "panting lips" with masculine kisses.
Apparently ERB did not enjoy the attentions of his editors, and it seems, he successfully resisted them.
The discussion there (on Goodreads) has been wide-ranging, from cannibalism, morality, kissing, nature versus nurture, the Frenchman's idea of a civilized drink. So I won't rehash. I simply thought that some of our group might be interested.
And now for something completely different, and random:
The April issue of DISCOVER magazine arrived this weekend. It contains articles about manipulating chicken embryos to grow new little dinosaurs, about infrared bats, and money. And much more.
Money. For those who love the small of money, here's why. There's more cocaine residue on US paper currency than on any other nation's promissory notes. There's also staph bacteria and fecal matter. Maybe you could get C-difficile from the bank!!!!
Hmmm. Who handles cash? People who are worried about their credit. Who prints money? The government. In an alternative universe where unscrupulous people might be in charge, they could impregnate cash with superbugs, put it into circulation, and solve all manner of problems.
There's an article about brain boosting drugs, and a suggestion that India or China might gain a competitive global advantage if they allowed their workers to use it. One headline "Drugs such as marijuana, LSD, mescaline"..."can increase creativity."
Some of the music and poetry from the Flower Power years was pretty good. Weren't there quite a few modern authors "In Xanadu did Kublai Khan a stately pleasure dome decree" etc who felt that they did their best work when we would have pronounced them unfit to drive?
Artichokes aren't an illegal substance, so I freely admit that I think I write better when I drink artichoke tea. And, I have wilder dreams when I eat cheese last thing at night. Other authors swear by chocolate, or Pepsi.
Final thought. One of my family members is very keen on watching "It's Me Or The Dog", a program featuring dog trainer Victoria Stillwell (whose sartorial style reminds me of an off duty, very classy dominatrix, but that's another issue, and I hasten to say that she never, ever does anything cruel. Most of her discipline involves the giving or withholding of food treats, toys and praise).
Last night, Victoria recommended a combination of carrots and rice in the diet (of a stressed Weimeraner) to help it cope. I wonder whether carrots and rice at night would have a mellowing effect on us?
I may not get a chance to post next weekend. I shall be at the Amelia Island concours d'elegance.
Barbara Vey is celebrating a week of genre-based romance on her PW Beyond Her Book blog
http://www.publishersweekly.com/BeyondHerBook
Monday 9th is Paranormal/Futuristic day.
I heard (sorry, I did not memorize the link) that there is an editor on Twitter who announced yesterday that she is looking for a complete paranormal in a hurry as she has a sudden space to fill. I think it's Osbourne. Maybe a Tweet Beep, or #query would find it.
Best wishes,
Rowena Cherry
Space Snark (TM)
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Things Humankind Shouldn't Meddle With?
During the big East Coast snowstorm Sunday night and Monday, I thought about weather control. Cold and wet weather of any kind depress me, except that snow is okay if the electricity stays on and I can sit at home watching the white stuff through a window (but at the very time of year snow is most likely, I usually can’t). I’d happily welcome the ability to give everyplace a “Mediterranean” climate, like southern California in the summer. Fantasy fiction, however, often warns against too much tampering with weather. Magic that conjures rain to relieve drought in one location might disrupt the weather somewhere else. If our future science invents a reliable climate-changing technology, the same caution might apply. Couldn’t we arrange a Camelot-type climate, though? Long, mild springs, summers, and fall; short winters; rain only after sundown?
I own a copy of a provocative anthology from the early 1960s, HUMAN AND OTHER BEINGS, edited by Groff Conklin, on the theme of prejudice and what it means to be human. One story, called “All the Colors of the Rainbow” (I think), deals with alien visitors helping Earth learn how to use weather control technology. Two technicians, a young couple of an outwardly human species but with green skin, are traveling in the deep South. A thunderstorm is building; the husband reminds his wife that the natives won’t believe in the effectiveness of climate control if the alien experts show fear of the local weather. After driving through a hostile small town, whose inhabitants hate the idea of funny-looking foreigners from other planets barging in and telling them what to do, the couple is waylaid by a gang of men who beat them up and rape the wife. The husband takes revenge by diverting storm clouds to flood the valley.
The book contains lots of other good stories, for instance, one about “zombie” soldiers created from the tissues of dead troops. In another story a man learns his wife is an android the day after their wedding and sues for annulment. Though he still loves her, he feels bitterly betrayed because she concealed the fact that, as an android, she (supposedly) can’t conceive children. Androids in the universe of Robert Heinlein’s FRIDAY, a novel that raises the question of what constitutes “human” status, are definitely sterile. Friday unwittingly becomes pregnant when her body is used to smuggle a royal embryo between planets. In the end, she abandons her career as a special agent and settles down as a farm wife on a frontier world. Becoming part of a family puts to rest her doubts about her humanity.
If you can find a copy of HUMAN AND OTHER BEINGS, I recommend you pick it up; it’s a truly memorable anthology on a theme of perennial importance. Whether altering our climate or our own species, with the technological powers of the near future will come new responsibilities and ethical quandaries.
Margaret L. Carter (www.margaretlcarter.com)
I own a copy of a provocative anthology from the early 1960s, HUMAN AND OTHER BEINGS, edited by Groff Conklin, on the theme of prejudice and what it means to be human. One story, called “All the Colors of the Rainbow” (I think), deals with alien visitors helping Earth learn how to use weather control technology. Two technicians, a young couple of an outwardly human species but with green skin, are traveling in the deep South. A thunderstorm is building; the husband reminds his wife that the natives won’t believe in the effectiveness of climate control if the alien experts show fear of the local weather. After driving through a hostile small town, whose inhabitants hate the idea of funny-looking foreigners from other planets barging in and telling them what to do, the couple is waylaid by a gang of men who beat them up and rape the wife. The husband takes revenge by diverting storm clouds to flood the valley.
The book contains lots of other good stories, for instance, one about “zombie” soldiers created from the tissues of dead troops. In another story a man learns his wife is an android the day after their wedding and sues for annulment. Though he still loves her, he feels bitterly betrayed because she concealed the fact that, as an android, she (supposedly) can’t conceive children. Androids in the universe of Robert Heinlein’s FRIDAY, a novel that raises the question of what constitutes “human” status, are definitely sterile. Friday unwittingly becomes pregnant when her body is used to smuggle a royal embryo between planets. In the end, she abandons her career as a special agent and settles down as a farm wife on a frontier world. Becoming part of a family puts to rest her doubts about her humanity.
If you can find a copy of HUMAN AND OTHER BEINGS, I recommend you pick it up; it’s a truly memorable anthology on a theme of perennial importance. Whether altering our climate or our own species, with the technological powers of the near future will come new responsibilities and ethical quandaries.
Margaret L. Carter (www.margaretlcarter.com)
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Paranormal Romance
This post leads up to a workshop exercise in World Building.
A couple weeks ago, Linnea Sinclair asked on the Paranormal Romance forum at goodreads.com if SF Romance should be a subcategory under Paranormal Romance. I've been haunted by the topic ever since.
Opinions varied widely. People looking for "Paranormal" don't want any nuts-n-bolts mixed in with their ghosts, vampires and werewolves.
I can understand that. There are times I want my Paranormal straight up, no ice. But I always like my SF with some telepaths or other Scientific Law Breaking element.
That is one (of the many) things essential to a good SF story, the confounding of all expectations.
SF is about the effect of science on PEOPLE (human and not), about the approach to The Unknown, and about the way that Relationships affect what Science can and can't do.
SF was (not any more) about the maverick kid who solves adult problems by inventing something adults think is impossible. Today it's a much more adult and complex field, so it's much harder to define. Still, there is a unifying pattern in SF that joins it directly to Fantasy and thus Paranormal Romance.
So to set off the train of plot events leading to a unique Relationship, the SF story starts with an Idea.
The Idea has the form, "What if ..." or "If only ..." or "If This Goes On ..." And the idea that sparks the story leaps over all mental and emotional barriers. On internal emotional barriers: see my post from last week about The Tower Card and mental barriers
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/02/paradigm-shift.html
So SF relies on a story springboard that leaps over all mental and emotional barriers in the reader to suppose something that "simply can not be!" under the current understanding of reality. And right there, the reader is sucked into a world that can't exist. That's what's FUN about SF -- it violates the laws of reality as the reader knows them.
At core, SF is about breaking the rules that confine imagination.
Almost by definition, Science Fiction is about venturing outside your comfort zone.
But what's the difference between SF and Fantasy -- and between Fantasy and Romance?
Today, we're all looking to mix and match genres, to adventure where no woman has gone before, while most readers of Romance of any sub-genre don't want to be dragged outside their comfort zone. The comfort zone may enlarge or change, but the average Romance reader doesn't want to cross that borderline for fun.
Readers are looking for a good adventure into a unique but satisfying relationship, a story with an optimistic ending, HEA or better.
Part of the fun of the Paranormal Romance is finding that great story interwoven into a background that changes the story without distorting or marring it. (What if that hot new boyfriend is actually a Vampire?) The Romance has to grow out of the background, be caused by the background, but still be our own beloved story.
For years the Gothic satisfied that itch. Stories about inherited old houses with resident ghost, brooding mysterious neighbor, or spooky powers held endless fascination because they had endless variations.
And the Regency Romance delved into a period of history that twanged the fantasy nerve just as Western Romance did -- marvelously alien dress codes, women resisting or secretly thwarting the power men had over them, behavior and manners that could be an alien language. Regency England was indeed another planet! SF Fandom gravitated to the Regency Romance and to this day hold a Regency Ball at conventions -- The Regency Romance is SF.
Then the Vampire As Good Guy appeared, venturing over from the adult fantasy lines spun off of Science Fiction where the Vampire was usually a bad guy hero such as Linnea was talking about in her post
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/redemption-rake-and-reluctant-hero.html
Emma Bull's Hugo Award winning novel, War For The Oaks, launched an urban fantasy revolution, and before long we had Laurell K. Hamilton's genre busting Anita Blake urban fantasy. And of course Buffy. Now Harry Dresden in Butcher's THE DRESDEN FILES combines it all - bad guy hunk, angst, magic, even his ex who became a vampire. He's not a private eye. He's a private wizard! (that private wizard part is one of my oldest old time favorites)
But where did it all start? And what is the DIFFERENCE between SF and Fantasy and Romance?
How many of you remember the mid-1950's story which was Marion Zimmer Bradley's first sale, (I think to Vortex Magazine? 1952? Or Fantasy and Science Fiction in 1955?) called Centaurus Changeling which has been widely heralded as the very first SF story that had RELATIONSHIP in it at the plot level -- relationship beyond rescuing the damsel in distress.
Prior to publication of Centaurus Changeling, SF was "Neck Up Science Fiction" -- it was aimed at adolescent boys who didn't want to deal with emotions.
Marion Zimmer Bradley changed that aim of the genre and began to serve the interests of young women, too. But it didn't seem like it for yet another 20 years or so, though her Darkover novels were being published and scarfed up by an ever increasing fandom, mostly female.
So with Darkover as the thin sliver of a wedge, gradually SF with a relationship and emotion driven plot was introduced.
So what is Darkover? It's a story about telepaths who have all sorts of other ESP powers and with those powers on their far-away lost colony planet called Darkover, they do everything that Science does for us from heal the sick to mining and smelting metal, and even making atom bombs.
On Darkover, technology is driven by ethics. Morals. And passionate love affairs as well as passionless arranged marriages.
See my comment on Linnea Sinclair's post which is about Moral Hazard -
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/redemption-rake-and-reluctant-hero.html
So what is the Darkover series? Is it SF? Or is it Fantasy? World Wreckers is certainly one of the best Romances I've ever read and it's about ecological warfare. (she wrote it in response to Ursula LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness which is SFRomance too -- or more exactly Alien Romance which is the topic of this blog. I expect all of you have studied and dissected Left Hand of Darkness -- the Worldbuilding she did with that won her both the Hugo and the Nebula with one book.)
In Science Fiction, the scientific laws that are challenged or broken by the story premise are from the physics, math and chemistry we all know and love. The plot mysteries are solved by applying laboratory science.
The Fantasy field split off from SF, and for decades the only Fantasy readers were SF readers too. But gradually it came to be that only women wrote Fantasy and mostly only women read it. Then that changed too. I think there may be more men writing adult Fantasy today then women. (by "adult" I don't mean sexually explicit).
But I'm still looking for the DIFFERENCE where the split between SF and Fantasy occurred.
I see a similarity so glaring it wipes out all differences.
In Fantasy -- Paranormal, Urban, whatever -- in Fantasy the scientific laws that are challenged or broken by the story premise are from parapsychology, mythology, archeology, anthropology.
The thinking that generates that Law Breaking story premise is precisely the same as the thinking that goes into an SF story premise.
From the writer's point of view, Fantasy and SF are identical.
"What if were-creatures had legal rights?" (Laurell K. Hamilton created what is called in Hollywood a High Concept with that one.) And all of a sudden, Earth becomes a galactic civilization in microcosm with dozens of sentient species co-existing.
Both SF and Fantasy do alternate history and parallel worlds and time travel.
I see no real difference except in the backgrounding that delineates what is "real" and what is "not real" -- what can and what can not exist in the story-universe.
Which brings me back to the Tarot posts and the Astrology posts I've done on this blog. I've shown how I see Science as a branch of Magic, or of Philosophy. Science studies 1/44th of the reality structured by the philosophy illustrated by the Tree of Life.
Science is a special case of the much larger subject of Philosophy in which you can account for the Soul and all kinds of ESP type powers.
Neck-Up Science Fiction, Science Fiction pre-Marion Zimmer Bradley, deals with 1/44th of the realm of storytelling.
And clearly, from the discussion Linnea Sinclair stirred up on goodreads.com, the largest coherent market for novels (Romance Readers) cares as much or more for the BACKGROUND (i.e. the rules of science or magic behind the story) as they do about the Romance itself.
BACKGROUND is what readers see. WORLDBUILDING is how writers put it there to be seen.
Readers see a distinction based on the setting and background. Enjoyment is at least as dependent on the background as on the story.
A distinction which I see as no distinction at all is of vital importance to a huge readership, Paranormal Romance readers.
I think I see a reason for this. It is often referred to as "accessibility" -- and I'm not entirely sure what exactly that means.
But here's a blog post from 2005 discussing the accessibility of science fiction today. This pertains directly to another issue we've discussed on this blog, how to elevate the reputation of Romance in general but Alien Romance or SFR or PNR in the eyes of the general population.
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003914.html
He makes the point that SF just isn't "accessible" the way say Harry Potter is.
And I don't think it's the STORY as such that isn't accessible. It's the background that isn't accessible to the typical Romance reader.
Romance Readers aren't uneducated. They just have a different education, one that emphasizes philosophy, mythology, literature, sociology, psychology (Marion Zimmer Bradley's education was in psychology) -- the soft sciences.
Reading for relaxation, you want to play with what you know, not stretch to learn something new which is what you do at work all day every day. When your brain is tired, you want to stop learning.
So the challenge in Scalzi's blog is to create SF that's accessible like Harry Potter.
The challenge for us then is to create Alien Romance or Paranormal Romance with a background that's "accessible" to the sort of reader who would like the story.
And as we've seen with Laurell K. Hamilton, what it takes to reach a large audience is a High Concept (a trick I'm not good at.)
So when you're not good at something, you practice. Let's practice.
On my writing workshop blog, I'll put up a story opening and a challenge to wrap WORLDBUILDING around the story to make it accessible. This will call for OUTLINING which is what Blake Snyder calls a BEAT SHEET.
The BS Beat Sheet works perfectly for novels, and at this stage of developing the Worldbuilding for a story, it doesn't matter if it's a novel or a movie or TV Series, the essence of the craft is the same.
You can download Snyder's Beat Sheet for free here
http://www.blakesnyder.com/tools/
If you're a writing student, consider this part of your million words for the garbage can. If you're a publishing writer, come play with us and see if you can do something you've never done before.
I will dare to predict that one of you will learn something from this exercise that will solve the acceptability problem for SFR.
http://www.editingcircle.blogspot.com/
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
A couple weeks ago, Linnea Sinclair asked on the Paranormal Romance forum at goodreads.com if SF Romance should be a subcategory under Paranormal Romance. I've been haunted by the topic ever since.
Opinions varied widely. People looking for "Paranormal" don't want any nuts-n-bolts mixed in with their ghosts, vampires and werewolves.
I can understand that. There are times I want my Paranormal straight up, no ice. But I always like my SF with some telepaths or other Scientific Law Breaking element.
That is one (of the many) things essential to a good SF story, the confounding of all expectations.
SF is about the effect of science on PEOPLE (human and not), about the approach to The Unknown, and about the way that Relationships affect what Science can and can't do.
SF was (not any more) about the maverick kid who solves adult problems by inventing something adults think is impossible. Today it's a much more adult and complex field, so it's much harder to define. Still, there is a unifying pattern in SF that joins it directly to Fantasy and thus Paranormal Romance.
So to set off the train of plot events leading to a unique Relationship, the SF story starts with an Idea.
The Idea has the form, "What if ..." or "If only ..." or "If This Goes On ..." And the idea that sparks the story leaps over all mental and emotional barriers. On internal emotional barriers: see my post from last week about The Tower Card and mental barriers
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/02/paradigm-shift.html
So SF relies on a story springboard that leaps over all mental and emotional barriers in the reader to suppose something that "simply can not be!" under the current understanding of reality. And right there, the reader is sucked into a world that can't exist. That's what's FUN about SF -- it violates the laws of reality as the reader knows them.
At core, SF is about breaking the rules that confine imagination.
Almost by definition, Science Fiction is about venturing outside your comfort zone.
But what's the difference between SF and Fantasy -- and between Fantasy and Romance?
Today, we're all looking to mix and match genres, to adventure where no woman has gone before, while most readers of Romance of any sub-genre don't want to be dragged outside their comfort zone. The comfort zone may enlarge or change, but the average Romance reader doesn't want to cross that borderline for fun.
Readers are looking for a good adventure into a unique but satisfying relationship, a story with an optimistic ending, HEA or better.
Part of the fun of the Paranormal Romance is finding that great story interwoven into a background that changes the story without distorting or marring it. (What if that hot new boyfriend is actually a Vampire?) The Romance has to grow out of the background, be caused by the background, but still be our own beloved story.
For years the Gothic satisfied that itch. Stories about inherited old houses with resident ghost, brooding mysterious neighbor, or spooky powers held endless fascination because they had endless variations.
And the Regency Romance delved into a period of history that twanged the fantasy nerve just as Western Romance did -- marvelously alien dress codes, women resisting or secretly thwarting the power men had over them, behavior and manners that could be an alien language. Regency England was indeed another planet! SF Fandom gravitated to the Regency Romance and to this day hold a Regency Ball at conventions -- The Regency Romance is SF.
Then the Vampire As Good Guy appeared, venturing over from the adult fantasy lines spun off of Science Fiction where the Vampire was usually a bad guy hero such as Linnea was talking about in her post
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/redemption-rake-and-reluctant-hero.html
Emma Bull's Hugo Award winning novel, War For The Oaks, launched an urban fantasy revolution, and before long we had Laurell K. Hamilton's genre busting Anita Blake urban fantasy. And of course Buffy. Now Harry Dresden in Butcher's THE DRESDEN FILES combines it all - bad guy hunk, angst, magic, even his ex who became a vampire. He's not a private eye. He's a private wizard! (that private wizard part is one of my oldest old time favorites)
But where did it all start? And what is the DIFFERENCE between SF and Fantasy and Romance?
How many of you remember the mid-1950's story which was Marion Zimmer Bradley's first sale, (I think to Vortex Magazine? 1952? Or Fantasy and Science Fiction in 1955?) called Centaurus Changeling which has been widely heralded as the very first SF story that had RELATIONSHIP in it at the plot level -- relationship beyond rescuing the damsel in distress.
Prior to publication of Centaurus Changeling, SF was "Neck Up Science Fiction" -- it was aimed at adolescent boys who didn't want to deal with emotions.
Marion Zimmer Bradley changed that aim of the genre and began to serve the interests of young women, too. But it didn't seem like it for yet another 20 years or so, though her Darkover novels were being published and scarfed up by an ever increasing fandom, mostly female.
So with Darkover as the thin sliver of a wedge, gradually SF with a relationship and emotion driven plot was introduced.
So what is Darkover? It's a story about telepaths who have all sorts of other ESP powers and with those powers on their far-away lost colony planet called Darkover, they do everything that Science does for us from heal the sick to mining and smelting metal, and even making atom bombs.
On Darkover, technology is driven by ethics. Morals. And passionate love affairs as well as passionless arranged marriages.
See my comment on Linnea Sinclair's post which is about Moral Hazard -
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/redemption-rake-and-reluctant-hero.html
So what is the Darkover series? Is it SF? Or is it Fantasy? World Wreckers is certainly one of the best Romances I've ever read and it's about ecological warfare. (she wrote it in response to Ursula LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness which is SFRomance too -- or more exactly Alien Romance which is the topic of this blog. I expect all of you have studied and dissected Left Hand of Darkness -- the Worldbuilding she did with that won her both the Hugo and the Nebula with one book.)
In Science Fiction, the scientific laws that are challenged or broken by the story premise are from the physics, math and chemistry we all know and love. The plot mysteries are solved by applying laboratory science.
The Fantasy field split off from SF, and for decades the only Fantasy readers were SF readers too. But gradually it came to be that only women wrote Fantasy and mostly only women read it. Then that changed too. I think there may be more men writing adult Fantasy today then women. (by "adult" I don't mean sexually explicit).
But I'm still looking for the DIFFERENCE where the split between SF and Fantasy occurred.
I see a similarity so glaring it wipes out all differences.
In Fantasy -- Paranormal, Urban, whatever -- in Fantasy the scientific laws that are challenged or broken by the story premise are from parapsychology, mythology, archeology, anthropology.
The thinking that generates that Law Breaking story premise is precisely the same as the thinking that goes into an SF story premise.
From the writer's point of view, Fantasy and SF are identical.
"What if were-creatures had legal rights?" (Laurell K. Hamilton created what is called in Hollywood a High Concept with that one.) And all of a sudden, Earth becomes a galactic civilization in microcosm with dozens of sentient species co-existing.
Both SF and Fantasy do alternate history and parallel worlds and time travel.
I see no real difference except in the backgrounding that delineates what is "real" and what is "not real" -- what can and what can not exist in the story-universe.
Which brings me back to the Tarot posts and the Astrology posts I've done on this blog. I've shown how I see Science as a branch of Magic, or of Philosophy. Science studies 1/44th of the reality structured by the philosophy illustrated by the Tree of Life.
Science is a special case of the much larger subject of Philosophy in which you can account for the Soul and all kinds of ESP type powers.
Neck-Up Science Fiction, Science Fiction pre-Marion Zimmer Bradley, deals with 1/44th of the realm of storytelling.
And clearly, from the discussion Linnea Sinclair stirred up on goodreads.com, the largest coherent market for novels (Romance Readers) cares as much or more for the BACKGROUND (i.e. the rules of science or magic behind the story) as they do about the Romance itself.
BACKGROUND is what readers see. WORLDBUILDING is how writers put it there to be seen.
Readers see a distinction based on the setting and background. Enjoyment is at least as dependent on the background as on the story.
A distinction which I see as no distinction at all is of vital importance to a huge readership, Paranormal Romance readers.
I think I see a reason for this. It is often referred to as "accessibility" -- and I'm not entirely sure what exactly that means.
But here's a blog post from 2005 discussing the accessibility of science fiction today. This pertains directly to another issue we've discussed on this blog, how to elevate the reputation of Romance in general but Alien Romance or SFR or PNR in the eyes of the general population.
http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003914.html
He makes the point that SF just isn't "accessible" the way say Harry Potter is.
And I don't think it's the STORY as such that isn't accessible. It's the background that isn't accessible to the typical Romance reader.
Romance Readers aren't uneducated. They just have a different education, one that emphasizes philosophy, mythology, literature, sociology, psychology (Marion Zimmer Bradley's education was in psychology) -- the soft sciences.
Reading for relaxation, you want to play with what you know, not stretch to learn something new which is what you do at work all day every day. When your brain is tired, you want to stop learning.
So the challenge in Scalzi's blog is to create SF that's accessible like Harry Potter.
The challenge for us then is to create Alien Romance or Paranormal Romance with a background that's "accessible" to the sort of reader who would like the story.
And as we've seen with Laurell K. Hamilton, what it takes to reach a large audience is a High Concept (a trick I'm not good at.)
So when you're not good at something, you practice. Let's practice.
On my writing workshop blog, I'll put up a story opening and a challenge to wrap WORLDBUILDING around the story to make it accessible. This will call for OUTLINING which is what Blake Snyder calls a BEAT SHEET.
The BS Beat Sheet works perfectly for novels, and at this stage of developing the Worldbuilding for a story, it doesn't matter if it's a novel or a movie or TV Series, the essence of the craft is the same.
You can download Snyder's Beat Sheet for free here
http://www.blakesnyder.com/tools/
If you're a writing student, consider this part of your million words for the garbage can. If you're a publishing writer, come play with us and see if you can do something you've never done before.
I will dare to predict that one of you will learn something from this exercise that will solve the acceptability problem for SFR.
http://www.editingcircle.blogspot.com/
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Redemption, the Rake and the Reluctant Hero
I have deadline brain. This means that the majority of my existence is—or should be—focused on getting my next contracted book out of the computer and to my editor at Bantam by May 1st. Being I’m only at twenty-thousand words (give or take five hundred) as of this moment, I’m in a fairly serious hurt. I need to create eighty thousand words (at least) in sixty days. And I have a major conference and a minor one tucked in there in April, houseguests for the next week due to the husband’s golf tourney (don’t ask—beyond my ken) and several other promotional and family obligations hovering in the background.So I’m going to ramble—as you can see from the title above—about redemption, the rake and the reluctant hero because 1) the title sounds good and 2) that’s what I want to talk about.
With Hope’s Folly’s release this week, I’ve been surfing blogs and review sites to see what readers and reviewers think of Philip and Rya. Beyond the obvious reasons for doing this there’s my curiosity about reaction to my character of Admiral Philip Guthrie who, in the world of romance novels, would fit more squarely under the Good Boy banner than the rogue or Bad Boy.
The romance genre—and science fiction romance hasn’t shied from this—is replete with rakes and rogues. Bad boys in need of reformation. Susan Grant penned the fabulous Reef in How To Lose an Extraterrestrial in 10 Days and the wonderfully sexy Finn in Moonstruck. Nora’s JD Robb has Roarke. Robin D Owens has Ruis and a ton of others. Rowena Cherry has her bad boy gods. And the list goes on. There’s even my Sully in Gabriel’s Ghost and Shades of Dark.
Bad boys are fun. And there’s something satisfying about watching a rake succumb to love. We root for Inara and Mal to finally get together in Joss Whedon’s universe. And author Colby Hodge has her sights set on Jayne… If anyone can reform Jayne, it’s Colby aka Cindy Holby.Philip Guthrie didn’t need reforming. Okay, he needed a kick in the pants over what happened between him and Chaz Bergren but Philip was and is a “good guy.” Honorable. Trustworthy. A veritable Boy Scout.
Which makes him a bit odd as a hero of a romance novel, even a science fiction romance novel. But as I write I’m beginning to discover the lure of the good man.
Good guys need love too.
Maybe I should get a bumper sticker printed up (do starships have a place for bumper stickers?)
Good guys also need redemption, maybe even more than those sexy rogues, because they are good guys. They know when they’ve failed. They hurt deeply when they’ve failed. They know what’s right and what’s wrong. Moreover, they know they’ve tried to do the right thing and when the right thing goes sour, they take the blame inside themselves.
Book reviewer (and former US Naval Academy instructor) Dr. Phil Jason uses this phrase in his review of Folly: “The tug of war between decorum and passion…” and I like that immensely. I think it nicely sums up what happens when a good guy gets his essence pushed to the limit.
http://philjason.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/linnea-sinclairs-steamy-sci-fi-saga/
Lurv-Ala-Mode reviews Philip thusly: “…the weight of this war and the Alliance’s position in it rests on his shoulders. He’s honor and duty-bound to put that above anything else, so he struggles a lot internally with his attraction to Rya. He’s also coming off the heels of the realization that he wasn’t ever there for his ex-wife, Chaz, as much as he could have been. He wasn’t fair to her, wasn’t there for her emotionally, and he wonders how he could ever make any relationship with a woman work.”
http://lurvalamode.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/arc-review-hopes-folly/
A rogue can struggle against doing what he sees to be the wrong thing, but the wrong thing is what comes naturally to him. The good guy, well, doing the wrong thing isn’t even in his vocabulary. So it becomes a very real “tug of war between decorum and passion.”
Which makes it, to me, somehow deeper. Somehow more threatening. As an author, you always ask yourself what a character has to lose? And a loss of honor, a loss of self-respect, is a huge thing.
http://lurvalamode.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/arc-review-hopes-folly/
A rogue can struggle against doing what he sees to be the wrong thing, but the wrong thing is what comes naturally to him. The good guy, well, doing the wrong thing isn’t even in his vocabulary. So it becomes a very real “tug of war between decorum and passion.”Which makes it, to me, somehow deeper. Somehow more threatening. As an author, you always ask yourself what a character has to lose? And a loss of honor, a loss of self-respect, is a huge thing.
Which brings me now to the reluctant hero. The good guy who’s essentially minding his own business but finds himself thrust into conflict because it’s not only the right thing to do, it’s the only thing to do. Even if he as no clue what he’s doing there.
He’s driven by something even deeper: part honor, part untapped potential and a very real knowledge that he—and someone he cares about—have their backs against the wall. And there’s no way out but the one he has to take.
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us most.” ~Maryanne Williamson
He’s driven by something even deeper: part honor, part untapped potential and a very real knowledge that he—and someone he cares about—have their backs against the wall. And there’s no way out but the one he has to take.
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us most.” ~Maryanne Williamson
That’s what drives Devin Guthrie—Philip’s youngest brother—in the next book. Devin, like Philip, is good people. Loyal, hard-working, honest. He just doesn’t think of himself as hero material.
Surprise.
Eighty thousand words to go.
Eighty thousand words to go.
~Linnea
HOPE’S FOLLY, Book 3 in the Gabriel’s Ghost universe, Feb. 24, 2009 from RITA award-winning author, Linnea Sinclair, and Bantam Books: http://www.linneasinclair.com/
“If we can’t do the impossible, then we need to at least be able to do the unexpected.” —Admiral Philip Guthrie
Jumping on the "bright blue scrotum"
There isn't a "bright" blue scrotum in my book, but there's a "glorious blue scrotum". Can you find it in the excerpt below?
For those who want to see the news video, it's at the bottom of this post.
In this scene, the villain --who is known as The Saurian Dragon-- has decided to convince an alien king Viz-Igerd that his queen is committing spectacular adultery. To that end, he has doctored a radio transmission from the man, Grievous, much as it is alleged Mr John Gibson's remarks were doctored
The Dragon considered. Grievous was a memorable character, and it was dangerous to underestimate an enemy. “The same, I think. But I cannot be positive. Dirty-pink Earthlings all look alike to me.”
“They look like Djinn!” Viz-Igerd agreed, blind drunk. The King seemed struck with the physical similarity. This was not the first time His Majesty had commented. Presumably, the splendid idea of breaking intergalactic law with one of a billion human women had taken root.
“I hope you can still hear me, Your Imperial Highness. I have to say that I would not have thought it of Princess Electra....” Tarrant-Arragon’s man appeared to continue his report without a pause. The editing had been smoothly done. “…There’s no way to put this delicately. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. Bunking… both of them.”
The Dragon narrowed his eyes, watching Viz-Igerd carefully. The re-use of “bunking” had been a calculated risk. It sounded sufficiently like ‘bonking’ for his seditious purposes.
By now, at least three official transmissions were curving their way around the space-time continuum at different speeds, and in different directions, all making reference to Electra-Djerroldina enjoying unlawful carnal knowledge of someone. Or not. The flow could not be staunched. The only sensible course was to goad Viz-Igerd into such a blind fury that he’d never take a rational moment to consider that ’Rhett would be the more plausible lover.
Other auditors would hear accurate versions, of course. And Viz-Igerd’s mind could always be wiped with Djinncraft, if exploratory mischief-making turned out not to be advantageous.
“Dragon! What is a Fust-er-Cluck?”
That one had obviously been festering in Viz-Igerd’s imagination for some moments.
“Where that human comes from, it means an orgy,” the Dragon mistranslated. “That is, various clumsy sex acts performed in rapid succession, with the greatest excesses condensed into a relatively brief time.”
He glanced at his victim. He refrained from discussing how many participants were required for an authentic orgy, as opposed to a Volnoth “Orgy of State,” where only the King copulated with the Queen, although they both watched multiple goings-on. Amusing as it would be to torment His Majesty, he did have to protect his only son. ’Rhett had to survive. He was the succession plan. ’Rhett would be the next Saurian Dragon, and all the sooner—perhaps— if he wanted to avenge Electra.
Yes, the Queen might have to be sacrificed. However, a show trial without a named co-conspirator might be difficult to orchestrate. Fortunately, he’d identified a satisfactory scapegoat in Prince Thor-quentin. No one cared about Thor-quentin.
“I imagine that your Queen and the vigorous young Great Djinn Prince are thoroughly enjoying the rut-rage.” He turned the screw, while gesturing blandly to the hologram, where the messenger was still speaking, and trying to scrape invisible dirt off his footwear. “It would be Electra-Djerroldina’s first rut-rage, would it not?”
Poor Viz-Igerd, unable to control his embarrassment, was displaying his… displeasure to hear that his queen was creatively fornicating her way to Earth. There was some species of primate on Earth—the name of it would come— that had a boiled-red face that turned redder the angrier it got. It seldom had to fight. The facial reddening was threat enough. Ah, yes! The red uakari. That was it.
Then, there was the ridiculous vervet monkey from somewhere on the African continent, which came with a violent red tallywhacker, shown off to great advantage—to those easily impressed or demoralized by that sort of thing— against a glorious blue scrotum. The Volnoth threat-to-mount had nothing on the vervet for sheer outrageous… cojones.
The Dragon discovered that his urbane finger steepling had turned to pantomime- villain hand rubbing, and stopped himself.
“Anyway, Sir,” Grievous continued, “it seems your sister can’t get it off… without… bunking… Prince Thor-quentin…”
“Bun-King?”
“Need you ask?” The Dragon sighed expressively. He’d never thought of phrasing it quite as Viz-Igerd did, and his unruly mind filled with a crinkly bed of lettuce, three kinds of runny cheese, man-handled meat, and all the trimmings.
“…And, Prince Thor-quentin is proving a right bugger.”
“What is a bugger, Dragon?” Viz-Igerd’s voice sounded choked, which was not altogether surprising, given the way His Majesty was twisting the chain of office around his neck, like a panicked Earthling bureaucrat “social” worker trying to loosen a knotted necktie.
This excerpt is from KNIGHT'S FORK by Rowena Cherry
This is the news video mentioning the monkey with the bright blue scrotum. It seems to be a different species from the vervet. Nevertheless, if something that is in ones book goes viral, one should jump on the band waggon.
For those who want to see the news video, it's at the bottom of this post.
In this scene, the villain --who is known as The Saurian Dragon-- has decided to convince an alien king Viz-Igerd that his queen is committing spectacular adultery. To that end, he has doctored a radio transmission from the man, Grievous, much as it is alleged Mr John Gibson's remarks were doctored
The Dragon considered. Grievous was a memorable character, and it was dangerous to underestimate an enemy. “The same, I think. But I cannot be positive. Dirty-pink Earthlings all look alike to me.”
“They look like Djinn!” Viz-Igerd agreed, blind drunk. The King seemed struck with the physical similarity. This was not the first time His Majesty had commented. Presumably, the splendid idea of breaking intergalactic law with one of a billion human women had taken root.
“I hope you can still hear me, Your Imperial Highness. I have to say that I would not have thought it of Princess Electra....” Tarrant-Arragon’s man appeared to continue his report without a pause. The editing had been smoothly done. “…There’s no way to put this delicately. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes. Bunking… both of them.”
The Dragon narrowed his eyes, watching Viz-Igerd carefully. The re-use of “bunking” had been a calculated risk. It sounded sufficiently like ‘bonking’ for his seditious purposes.
By now, at least three official transmissions were curving their way around the space-time continuum at different speeds, and in different directions, all making reference to Electra-Djerroldina enjoying unlawful carnal knowledge of someone. Or not. The flow could not be staunched. The only sensible course was to goad Viz-Igerd into such a blind fury that he’d never take a rational moment to consider that ’Rhett would be the more plausible lover.
Other auditors would hear accurate versions, of course. And Viz-Igerd’s mind could always be wiped with Djinncraft, if exploratory mischief-making turned out not to be advantageous.
“Dragon! What is a Fust-er-Cluck?”
That one had obviously been festering in Viz-Igerd’s imagination for some moments.
“Where that human comes from, it means an orgy,” the Dragon mistranslated. “That is, various clumsy sex acts performed in rapid succession, with the greatest excesses condensed into a relatively brief time.”
He glanced at his victim. He refrained from discussing how many participants were required for an authentic orgy, as opposed to a Volnoth “Orgy of State,” where only the King copulated with the Queen, although they both watched multiple goings-on. Amusing as it would be to torment His Majesty, he did have to protect his only son. ’Rhett had to survive. He was the succession plan. ’Rhett would be the next Saurian Dragon, and all the sooner—perhaps— if he wanted to avenge Electra.
Yes, the Queen might have to be sacrificed. However, a show trial without a named co-conspirator might be difficult to orchestrate. Fortunately, he’d identified a satisfactory scapegoat in Prince Thor-quentin. No one cared about Thor-quentin.
“I imagine that your Queen and the vigorous young Great Djinn Prince are thoroughly enjoying the rut-rage.” He turned the screw, while gesturing blandly to the hologram, where the messenger was still speaking, and trying to scrape invisible dirt off his footwear. “It would be Electra-Djerroldina’s first rut-rage, would it not?”
Poor Viz-Igerd, unable to control his embarrassment, was displaying his… displeasure to hear that his queen was creatively fornicating her way to Earth. There was some species of primate on Earth—the name of it would come— that had a boiled-red face that turned redder the angrier it got. It seldom had to fight. The facial reddening was threat enough. Ah, yes! The red uakari. That was it.
Then, there was the ridiculous vervet monkey from somewhere on the African continent, which came with a violent red tallywhacker, shown off to great advantage—to those easily impressed or demoralized by that sort of thing— against a glorious blue scrotum. The Volnoth threat-to-mount had nothing on the vervet for sheer outrageous… cojones.
The Dragon discovered that his urbane finger steepling had turned to pantomime- villain hand rubbing, and stopped himself.
“Anyway, Sir,” Grievous continued, “it seems your sister can’t get it off… without… bunking… Prince Thor-quentin…”
“Bun-King?”
“Need you ask?” The Dragon sighed expressively. He’d never thought of phrasing it quite as Viz-Igerd did, and his unruly mind filled with a crinkly bed of lettuce, three kinds of runny cheese, man-handled meat, and all the trimmings.
“…And, Prince Thor-quentin is proving a right bugger.”
“What is a bugger, Dragon?” Viz-Igerd’s voice sounded choked, which was not altogether surprising, given the way His Majesty was twisting the chain of office around his neck, like a panicked Earthling bureaucrat “social” worker trying to loosen a knotted necktie.
This excerpt is from KNIGHT'S FORK by Rowena Cherry
This is the news video mentioning the monkey with the bright blue scrotum. It seems to be a different species from the vervet. Nevertheless, if something that is in ones book goes viral, one should jump on the band waggon.
World-building where the sun don't shine
Some of us push the envelope...
Some of us push it one bathroom fitting too far, no doubt.
JA Konrath is going to be on my Crazy Tuesday internet radio show at ten a.m. Eastern Time on March 3rd on the strength of his werewolf story S.A. which begins with a most unhappy --but healthy-- gentleman crossing a snowy parking lot, carrying a semi-see-through, blue plastic box containing a large stool sample. In fact, it's not a sample. It's the whole enchilada.
He's taking this vigorous specimen to his doctor because there's something unusual about it. There are coins in it. Now, it's nothing like that health insurance advert where the patient has money coming out of the wazoo, as the western oriental ER surgeon explained when making one of those mandatory predetermination phone calls.
The coins are small change. The doctor's advice about unhealthy midnight snacks is... priceless.
After a thorough rectal exam which brings to light many strange things and leads to some unpalatable conclusions in the mind of our hero, he waddles off to search the internet for clues as to whom he's been eating when the moon is full.
Just when I thought I'd read every dragonish permutation of bad people tasting good (or bad), or good people tasting bad (or good), JA Konrath comes up with a fresh twist.
This story is a riot. I laughed out loud three times in the first three pages. Of course, there are certain bathroom words that will make me laugh out loud. One of them is poop.
The would-be sci-fi writer in me appreciated the elegance of JA Konrath's solution as regards mass. The hero has a mind-boggling telephone conversation with a were-squirrel... who collects nuts... and he asks both questions that spring to mind, much to this reader's delight.
I'm not going to tell you what "S.A." means, because I enjoyed guessing.
"S.A." can be found in the anthology "Wolfsbane and Mistletoe"
However, I came not to praise J A Konrath, but to talk about craft. Poop struck me as a brilliant place to start, when one is creating a convincing introduction to a bewildered werewolf's world. Done right, starting with the scat is an excellent short cut to world-building.
I'm not a gentle reader. I don't suspend disbelief easily. I'm not programmed to trust my author, no matter how outrageously funny he is. Not at first, anyway.
I can give a turd the benefit of the doubt for several reasons. For a start, the narrator is embarrassed about it. That's believable. He's also frightened. He's not Mike Rowe (of Dirty Jobs), so he's probably not inclined to put it through a sieve. A few details suffice.
If there are bits of teeth, chips of bone, coins, buttons, a crucifix, a clump of dead man's beard... I get the picture. I don't worry about the force of a werewolf's bite, or his stomach capacity, or the inhuman speed of his digestive processes whereby the indigestible evidence of his midnight feast ends up in his morning toilet bowl.
There are a lot of ways you could go with an opening premise such as J A Konrath's. Much would depend on your editor, your length, your genre. If the requirements are heart pounding, action packed Horror, for instance, there is a limit to how many Tom Clancy-like factual briefings can be included.
I love those things!
The werewolf hero's search of the Internet was absolutely convincing to me. As I read (and this might not be such a good thing) I visualized Joe (J is for Joe) googling as if he were his own werewolf. That's the sort of thing I do.
JA Konrath and his new persona Jack Kilborn aren't my only guests this coming Tuesday. I shall also be joined by Lori Soard who has at least seven books in four genres in print, and several more books that are out of print. Also, visiting will be Michelle Pillow, who writes in almost every genre under the Paranormal umbrella.
Some of us push it one bathroom fitting too far, no doubt.
JA Konrath is going to be on my Crazy Tuesday internet radio show at ten a.m. Eastern Time on March 3rd on the strength of his werewolf story S.A. which begins with a most unhappy --but healthy-- gentleman crossing a snowy parking lot, carrying a semi-see-through, blue plastic box containing a large stool sample. In fact, it's not a sample. It's the whole enchilada.
He's taking this vigorous specimen to his doctor because there's something unusual about it. There are coins in it. Now, it's nothing like that health insurance advert where the patient has money coming out of the wazoo, as the western oriental ER surgeon explained when making one of those mandatory predetermination phone calls.
The coins are small change. The doctor's advice about unhealthy midnight snacks is... priceless.
After a thorough rectal exam which brings to light many strange things and leads to some unpalatable conclusions in the mind of our hero, he waddles off to search the internet for clues as to whom he's been eating when the moon is full.
Just when I thought I'd read every dragonish permutation of bad people tasting good (or bad), or good people tasting bad (or good), JA Konrath comes up with a fresh twist.
This story is a riot. I laughed out loud three times in the first three pages. Of course, there are certain bathroom words that will make me laugh out loud. One of them is poop.
The would-be sci-fi writer in me appreciated the elegance of JA Konrath's solution as regards mass. The hero has a mind-boggling telephone conversation with a were-squirrel... who collects nuts... and he asks both questions that spring to mind, much to this reader's delight.
I'm not going to tell you what "S.A." means, because I enjoyed guessing.
"S.A." can be found in the anthology "Wolfsbane and Mistletoe"
However, I came not to praise J A Konrath, but to talk about craft. Poop struck me as a brilliant place to start, when one is creating a convincing introduction to a bewildered werewolf's world. Done right, starting with the scat is an excellent short cut to world-building.
I'm not a gentle reader. I don't suspend disbelief easily. I'm not programmed to trust my author, no matter how outrageously funny he is. Not at first, anyway.
I can give a turd the benefit of the doubt for several reasons. For a start, the narrator is embarrassed about it. That's believable. He's also frightened. He's not Mike Rowe (of Dirty Jobs), so he's probably not inclined to put it through a sieve. A few details suffice.
If there are bits of teeth, chips of bone, coins, buttons, a crucifix, a clump of dead man's beard... I get the picture. I don't worry about the force of a werewolf's bite, or his stomach capacity, or the inhuman speed of his digestive processes whereby the indigestible evidence of his midnight feast ends up in his morning toilet bowl.
There are a lot of ways you could go with an opening premise such as J A Konrath's. Much would depend on your editor, your length, your genre. If the requirements are heart pounding, action packed Horror, for instance, there is a limit to how many Tom Clancy-like factual briefings can be included.
I love those things!
The werewolf hero's search of the Internet was absolutely convincing to me. As I read (and this might not be such a good thing) I visualized Joe (J is for Joe) googling as if he were his own werewolf. That's the sort of thing I do.
JA Konrath and his new persona Jack Kilborn aren't my only guests this coming Tuesday. I shall also be joined by Lori Soard who has at least seven books in four genres in print, and several more books that are out of print. Also, visiting will be Michelle Pillow, who writes in almost every genre under the Paranormal umbrella.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Guest blog: NFL vs Trek
Football Fans Are Crazier Than Star Trek Fans!
By Saul Garnell
http://freedomclubthebook.info
My good friend John called me up a while back and asked if I wanted to go to a football game. I said no, because I was going that weekend to the Star Trek con up in Vegas. He retorted with a mocking laugh, "Oh, I see you're one of those Star Trek fanatics huh?"
That comment got me a bit riled up. You see, I had been to a football game recently (the first one in my life actually), and I was shocked to witness; face painting, screaming, unsafe barbecuing, out of control boozing, and just plain old stupidity.
I tried in vain to explain to John that Football fans were way, "WAY", crazier than Star Trek fans, and that his comment about us being fanatics was uncalled for. He did not believe me.
I therefore came up with a way to prove my point. I decided to explain the life of a Star Trek fan in a world where Star Trek was as popular as the NFL. In this hypothetical world, my daily routine would be quite different, and would go something like this;
• First thing in the morning, get woken up by my Andorian alarm clock. The one that has two blue antenna smacking against the big center alarm bell.
• Grab breakfast, where I eat my Wheaties cereal featuring the face of Captain Kirk on the box. They rotate the face of each captain from time to time, but I stock up on Kirk because he's my favorite.
• While eating I turn on the TV and watch CNN. Of the 30 minute news update, 20 minutes is devoted to Star Trek news, where I can catch up on the highlights from last night's TV show. Great show last night, the Klingons were intercepted in the neutral zone! What a show!
• I shower and shave quickly. Naturally I use Brut after shave, because after seeing ads of women attracted to Bill Shatner like Orion slave girls, I'm a believer. If it works for Bill, it's gotta work for me.
• I jump in the car, and while sitting in traffic for an hour, I turn on the radio. I don't mind the traffic because it gives me a chance to listen to all the Star Trek commentary. Today's discussion is about salary caps for leading actors verses their supporting cast. Very interesting.
• Arrive at work, and go right to the coffee machine. All my work buddies are there talking about last night's show. "Wasn't that great! The Klingons were intercepted in the neutral zone during the last half. Great show!". Oops, it's now 9:30am, so I guess we overdid the Star Trek talk this morning. It's fine because my boss was there chatting it up too.
• Keeping a Star Trek news web page on my computer desktop, I work apathetically until 10am. Back to the coffee machine to continue the Star Trek chat. The conversation centers around the average number of photon torpedoes fired during the first quarter. Statistically speaking, most captains fire off 2.548439 more torpedoes against Klingon adversaries compared to Cardassians. Fascinating!
• 10:23 and I'm back at work. Sort of. That running banner on the Star Trek commentary web page keeps catching my eye. This week's Trekker convention is already sold out! Good thing I already have my tickets. I don't wanna be one of those losers buying overpriced tickets from a scalper.
• Lunch time with my colleagues. We decide to go out to the Star Trekooters bar down the street. Watching the big breasted Orion Slave Girl waitresses is always a nice distraction while riveted to the large screen TVs showing replays of last night's show. The Andorian ale and greasy food is an added plus.
• Back at work until 5pm. I then jump into my car and listen to more Stark Trek news. On the way I stop at the local 7-11 to pick up some snacks. One bag of potato chips and a case of beer. I see that they have a coupon on the chips bag for $1 off the price of entry to this weekend's convention. Big deal, I already have my tickets. Oh but look at that, Budweiser has Star Trek collector cans this month. If I buy two cases, I have a better chance of getting all the cans that feature supporting cast members. That would be way cool! I could finish my collection.
• After parking my car, I notice that I forgot to pick up this mornings paper laying in the driveway. The front page has my tire tracks on it,...but who cares about the front page? The center Trek section makes up most of the paper anyway.
• There's not much to eat. So I open the chips and keep a six pack next to me while I watch TV news; Commentary and upcoming highlights of this weeks Sunday Star Trek convention. Ahhhhh!
Now what would you say about this hypothetical person? Most people would say lock him up and throw away the key. He's a nut job. If he didn't spend that much time pre-occupied with Star Trek, he could really do something with his life. Why, without Star Trek he could become the Dalai Lama, or write a novel...or something right?!
Right?!
So if it's Star Trek, you're a nut. But if it's the NFL, Baseball, or the NBA, it's perfectly OK. Well, I wonder about that.
Saul Garnell is a member of a science fiction group on LinkedIn.com
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Alien Sex in IBIS
Speaking of the moral systems of alien societies based on nonhuman reproductive biology, a reader of this blog introduced me to IBIS (1985), by Linda Steele. Terrans stranded on the planet they call Ibis encounter a humanoid species with the biology and social structure of hive insects. Only the queen breeds. Drones (the only males) die after a single session of copulation. All other members of the group are queens-in-waiting or sterile female workers and warriors. The human male protagonist, thinking himself the only survivor of his group after an attack by the indigenous species, is captured by the queen and forced to become her lover. They gradually become attached to each other, although she continues to exercise control over him. When the other human survivors turn up and become captors of lower-ranked Ibis females, these people regard the protagonist as a traitor. He must face choosing between his crewmates and the queen, who is amazed that he survives their mating and fascinated by his intelligence, so unlike the males of her species. He professes to love her, and as far as she can (given the lack of any such concept in her culture), she seems to care for him.
The author labels this novel a “science fiction romance.” Yet calling it a romance in the conventional sense feels deeply problematic. No matter how much the queen claims to cherish the hero, he has the status of a pet—and her prisoner, whom she punishes for trying to escape. His infatuation with her arises to a great degree from her powerful pheromones, which compel him to join her in a protracted sexual frenzy regardless of his more rational wishes. By the end of the story, they seem to have moved closer to a truly intimate relationship, but a permanent imbalance of power remains.
The most unsettling aspect of this novel, for me, was that I realized how closely it mirrors one of the most popular romance tropes. It’s not unusual for hero and heroine to meet and fall in love because she becomes his captive. “Forced seduction” is fairly common, too, and like many female readers, I find this practice “hot” when the hero does the seducing. Why does the same pattern feel “wrong” when the hero is the forcibly seduced captive? Are our reading tastes really so much more ruled by sexist assumptions than we usually acknowledge? Or are these stories simply erotic fantasies detached from real-world gender relations and therefore nothing to worry about?
Margaret L. Carter (www.margaretlcarter.com)
The author labels this novel a “science fiction romance.” Yet calling it a romance in the conventional sense feels deeply problematic. No matter how much the queen claims to cherish the hero, he has the status of a pet—and her prisoner, whom she punishes for trying to escape. His infatuation with her arises to a great degree from her powerful pheromones, which compel him to join her in a protracted sexual frenzy regardless of his more rational wishes. By the end of the story, they seem to have moved closer to a truly intimate relationship, but a permanent imbalance of power remains.
The most unsettling aspect of this novel, for me, was that I realized how closely it mirrors one of the most popular romance tropes. It’s not unusual for hero and heroine to meet and fall in love because she becomes his captive. “Forced seduction” is fairly common, too, and like many female readers, I find this practice “hot” when the hero does the seducing. Why does the same pattern feel “wrong” when the hero is the forcibly seduced captive? Are our reading tastes really so much more ruled by sexist assumptions than we usually acknowledge? Or are these stories simply erotic fantasies detached from real-world gender relations and therefore nothing to worry about?
Margaret L. Carter (www.margaretlcarter.com)
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
A Paradigm Shift
In another context this week, I was asked to give clues to writers on how to handle Writer's Block. This blog entry is actually one (of many) such clues I have to offer. If Writer's Block seems to be a problem for you, follow the thinking here, then go find totally different input data and replicate this kind of thinking. Eventually, you'll find something to say that only you can say.
Two online newspaper stories came to my attention last week about social change starting to affect other levels of our culture while at the same time this Alien Romance blog began examining some ethics and moral issues, and now Linnea Sinclair has brought up a George R. R. Martin anti-hero -- pondering that character's value in a Romance!
Of course, the most alien aliens in Alien Romance or any Paranormal Romance are humans. It's not only that "verisimilitude" thing we're talking about -- it isn't just that we create our aliens to have something human in them so readers can understand them. It is that humans are in fact alienated from one another, at a very basic psychological level.
The icon, or symbolic representation of this is the Tower of Babel -- the Tower Card in most Tarot decks refers to this psychological barrier we carry. (My Not So Minor Arcana Tarot books do not include the Major Arcana like the Tower Card.)
Our minds are fragmented by these Tower barriers, and we are divided from one another by them. And yes, the differences between genders are included in that compartmentalization.
As a result, Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus.
Criminals are too alien to comprehend for law-abiding folks. Infanticide is unthinkable to those who haven't been driven over that edge. And so on through all the "immoral" and "unethical" acts.
When normally sane people are driven over that edge, I think they are striking OUT at an anguish that originates INSIDE themselves.
The strike doesn't solve the problem because the target is wrong, so they hit harder and HARDER until someone stops them. Every blow at the external target makes the internal pain worse, but they can't see how they are hurting themselves.
The Tower represents the barrier that divides the inner self from the outer world, and the shocking experience of discovering that the two are one. When you hit OUT, you hit IN too.
Until you've crossed one of those barriers, you don't know they exist.
Loss of Virginity is one such barrier we cross. Those on one side really can't communicate to those on the other side of that barrier.
Being "blooded" as a soldier is another. Committing your first criminal act, or trying your first alcoholic drink -- or drugging with friends, are also losses of virginity. Those who have done these things are forever alienated from those who have not.
Maybe computer gaming is such a barrier.
Turning 30 is another. (Saturn returns to its place when you're 28-29 and by the time you turn 30 you have crossed one of those divisions. You can't shout back across that chasm to the younger people.)
Crossing such a barrier is a Tower experience. You thought you knew it all. You discover you knew nothing. And you have no clue that you're wrong about that too. The Tower is a kind of cluelessness.
If you take the familiar barriers, language, age, innocence, and analyze them you can create an analogous barrier between human and non-human, then stretch and reach to connect in a Relationship across that barrier. That's Alien Romance.
Oh, I do wish my Boxmaster Trilogy had been published so I could refer you to just such an exercise. I have a few chapters of each of the volumes posted at http://www.simegen.com/jl/boxmaster/
I was writing about the shift in values from the Hero's values to the Husband's values.
The first volume was bought by a publisher that went under before publishing, but they said it was Heinleinesque. The very long third volume was presented to several agents and editors and none could get past the breaking of the SF trope into a gradual segue into the Romance trope in Chapter 4. This is not an action series, but it has action in it.
Several things I've encountered in the last few weeks have kept putting me in mind of the Boxmaster universe I built. I wrote it to be a paradigm shifting entry into the literature. It never got published. And now that paradigm is shifting under the impact of other forces.
The news articles I've seen recently fit into the pattern that's been developing in fiction publishing in general, but also exemplify a deep shift in the paradigm underneath our society. Fiction and movies (and gaming) don't cause change. They reflect it.
This paradigm shift is like an earthquake miles deep under the surface. It's felt only slightly on the surface, but it sets up fractures that will cause future quakes.
A deep paradigm shift has occurred this last few years, and we are starting (only starting) into massive change.
These social changes are of interest to writers (of any genre, but especially Romance) because they reveal much about the internal "life" of the readers. You can see what's happening inside the readers by what they strike out at. (News article blog comments on Yahoo for example reveal a lot.)
These newspaper (or News Service like AP, Reuters) articles surface only long after the actual events, very like scientific advances appear first in discussions at conferences and then maybe 5 years later, in the general press.
By the time it's in the newspaper, it's old news.
The ongoing significance lies in the simple fact that it is now coming to the consciousness of the readers of fiction and so writers have to adjust.
What were the two that caught my attention this week?
-----------------
a) PUBLISHING MELTDOWN:
http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail.jsp?key=352322&rc=al&p=1&all=1
b) HS & COLLEGE STUDENT EXPECTATIONS
for their lives
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/education/18college.html?_r=1&em
-----------------
I posted article b) to my facebook profile and it started a long discussion when another writer (former professor) Jonathan Vos Post commented on it on my facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=558182547&ref=profile
People who work with college students have seen the expectations shift over the last generation.
Put these two articles together and you see a trend.
The Web has conditioned a generation to expect whatever they want for free (well advertising, but ignorable advertising). They have never known a world without peer-to-peer music sharing, and other copyright violating activities.
There are many websites that post e-books that are under copyright protection. It's worldwide and nobody can make them stop.
Copyright doesn't mean much anymore.
As a result of the communications revolution, the firm footing under writers has dissolved in yet another way, too.
Article a) shows us that text on paper is not the business model of the future.
Well, you and I have known that for years. It's e-books and web-news!
But have you been thinking what free on the web means in terms of who pays for it?
"Who pays for it" is not something this youngest generation is equipped to think about because of their "expectations" as delineated in the NYTimes article. (see article b) )
In the world of young expectations (pre-Tower Experience - Virgin Expectations), nobody pays for anything.
They are entitled. The implications of that are huge. Grades are a proxy for wages and they aren't learning the cost of getting a wage. What about the government printing money to give everyone a check or build some handy things like bridges. Nobody pays for any of that. You just get entitled. If the government gives it to you, it's free. Right?
"Who pays for it" is an issue organically intertwined with all the issues of morality Rowena Cherry brought up in her post
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/02/things-we-take-for-granted-morality.html
People advocate Pro-Life choices, but avoid "who pays for it" and in what coin. (Personally, I'm pro-Life, but that's another issue.) Contraceptives and Abortion have wrought a social change in which young people see no COST to personal intimate behavior and so fall screaming off their Tower when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.
The core of all moral and ethical rules is the concept that everything has a cost if not a price. And cost is the pure essence of all business. Marriage can be a business as all Regency fans know.
A business model is a circuit diagram that shows how activity pumps money around in a circuit and multiplies the money to a profit.
You put this-that-the-other-thing in one end of the black box, and this-that-the-other-thing PLUS PROFIT comes out the other end.
The business model is the tracing of the circuit inside the black box.
The business model of NEWS is that a bunch of people scurry around the world scarfing up interesting tidbits of news, run home, write it up, turn it in and get paid. They then have the money to go out and do more scurrying. Someone has to go find the news -- and finding costs a lot. So whoever gets to read the news has to pay the reporter a living wage plus expenses.
Authors have a business model that used to go like this:
a) Buy a typewriter, paper, ribbons, white-out (or today, computer, backup device, net access) huge up-front investment
b) dream up something
c) ruin a lot of expensive paper by typing black squiggles on it. (wear out a computer keyboarding)
d) sell the ruined paper to a publisher
e) go through rewrite hell ruining more paper; galleys; eventually it's done
f) get paid more than it cost to buy paper, ink, reference books, computer whatever tools
g) buy more blank paper
h) ruin the new blank paper
i) sell it
A writer's business model is to sell ruined paper so they can buy more and groceries too.
It's a pump. You put in words, you get out money.
We have long since shifted from ruining paper to filling up external backup drives with files that tend to go obsolete before we can re-sell the words to another publisher.
Newspapers are just facing the fact (and resisting mightily -- this recession may convince them) that the business model has to shift drastically. Some papers in Philadelphia filed Chapter 11 this past week. At least it's 11 and not 7 (total liquidation).
People still want to know what's happening, but they want to know NOW not tomorrow, and NOW not when the 6PM news goes on. NOW - like on their blackberry.
But someone still has to scurry out and scarf up news and write it and post it -- and faster news costs more. Someone has to pay the reporter to scurry around, the editor to edit, the distributor to distribute (websites that really work cost a lot).
Now look at article b) about student expectations.
Their parents expect the news to pop up on their blackberry in real time. The kids grow up in a world of entitlement, where everyone has access. Parents even give kids cell phones.
Students go to schools where they don't have to trek across town to the library to stand in line to use the printed encyclopedia for a school paper. They google up what they want and cut and paste (and get caught usually). Kids don't understand plagiarism or paraphrasing -- in fact, the generation that grew up on copy machines missed out on the fine points of copyright and have passed that blindness on to their children who see even less use in copyright. To them copyright is even more immoral than infanticide.
I read another article last year about how the new crop of college grads is forcing businesses to change their office-behavior codes to allow multi-tasking which includes texting friends, surfing the web, IM'ing, tweeting, all while working, all while on the employer's clock. They are, you see, ENTITLED to spend their time how they want as long as they get the minimum done, just as they were in school. Just showing up (as it said in the education article) gets at least a B; maybe an A.
There's a generation that feels ENTITLED to do as they please on their employer's time because in school they could do as they pleased and still get good grades even if they missed deadlines.
Read that article b) . It illustrates a huge paradigm shift in values, a shift way way deep down-down-down inside everything that makes us who we are.
This is only the surface vibration. Only the beginning.
What you must do to get something you want -- that's the raw basics of ethics, morals, and economics -- AND ROMANCE.
Do you take what you want? Do you beg for it? Trade for it? Negotiate (which is an aggressive form of warfare)? How do you get what you want? How do you know the difference between want and need? When are you entitled to take what you need?
This "entitlement philosophy" represents a huge change in how we establish and maintain all our relationships, including love, including finding a soul mate.
Imagine feeling "entitled" to a soul mate!
Imagine what happens to marriage when both partners feel "entitled" to a perfect marriage without effort, without cost.
And there's one more surface vibration from this deep quake.
It is the shift away from text to images.
Read this one:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090219/tc_nm/us_hollywood_web_6
Hollywood struggles to find wealth on the Web (Reuters)
Posted on Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:14AM EST
Psychology has long established the power of visual images as greater than that of text or spoken words without images. Images penetrate to an emotional level that is unique because of the evolutionary position of the EYE -- the amount of data it collects and the brain areas responsible for interpreting that data are way high. Visuals pre-empt everything for us.
One huge trend that I see in all this is the older generations fighting mightily to STOP CHANGE, and as usual the younger people want everything "old" destroyed RIGHT NOW with a mad urgency that is insane because they haven't created something better to replace it with. Middle aged people are usually at the point where they have created something to replace the old with, something they think is better.
The technology revolution has accelerated this old, established cycle of progress so that the middle-aged can't establish their new before the young set out to destroy it.
But perhaps one of the reasons we have death in our world is that without death, entrenched elders would refuse all change, and change is life. (This is a reason I love Vampire novels).
The core definition of life is CHANGE.
So I think the objective of elder generations might be better served by guiding change into new pathways that are chosen with conscious and deliberate wisdom.
On the third hand -- has humanity ever done that?
Under what impetus from what outside source would the denizens of this galaxy (presumably somewhat related biologically) re-think this whole "change" issue?
What does it take to shift the human paradigm?
Are we at that point yet? Are we really at an evolve-or-die threshold in human history?
Will some Alien species arrive here at last only to discover a dead world, not an atomic cinder but an ecological collapse?
If not, how will we get through all this? If our paradigm of Life is shifting, what is it shifting into?
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
Two online newspaper stories came to my attention last week about social change starting to affect other levels of our culture while at the same time this Alien Romance blog began examining some ethics and moral issues, and now Linnea Sinclair has brought up a George R. R. Martin anti-hero -- pondering that character's value in a Romance!
Of course, the most alien aliens in Alien Romance or any Paranormal Romance are humans. It's not only that "verisimilitude" thing we're talking about -- it isn't just that we create our aliens to have something human in them so readers can understand them. It is that humans are in fact alienated from one another, at a very basic psychological level.
The icon, or symbolic representation of this is the Tower of Babel -- the Tower Card in most Tarot decks refers to this psychological barrier we carry. (My Not So Minor Arcana Tarot books do not include the Major Arcana like the Tower Card.)
Our minds are fragmented by these Tower barriers, and we are divided from one another by them. And yes, the differences between genders are included in that compartmentalization.
As a result, Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus.
Criminals are too alien to comprehend for law-abiding folks. Infanticide is unthinkable to those who haven't been driven over that edge. And so on through all the "immoral" and "unethical" acts.
When normally sane people are driven over that edge, I think they are striking OUT at an anguish that originates INSIDE themselves.
The strike doesn't solve the problem because the target is wrong, so they hit harder and HARDER until someone stops them. Every blow at the external target makes the internal pain worse, but they can't see how they are hurting themselves.
The Tower represents the barrier that divides the inner self from the outer world, and the shocking experience of discovering that the two are one. When you hit OUT, you hit IN too.
Until you've crossed one of those barriers, you don't know they exist.
Loss of Virginity is one such barrier we cross. Those on one side really can't communicate to those on the other side of that barrier.
Being "blooded" as a soldier is another. Committing your first criminal act, or trying your first alcoholic drink -- or drugging with friends, are also losses of virginity. Those who have done these things are forever alienated from those who have not.
Maybe computer gaming is such a barrier.
Turning 30 is another. (Saturn returns to its place when you're 28-29 and by the time you turn 30 you have crossed one of those divisions. You can't shout back across that chasm to the younger people.)
Crossing such a barrier is a Tower experience. You thought you knew it all. You discover you knew nothing. And you have no clue that you're wrong about that too. The Tower is a kind of cluelessness.
If you take the familiar barriers, language, age, innocence, and analyze them you can create an analogous barrier between human and non-human, then stretch and reach to connect in a Relationship across that barrier. That's Alien Romance.
Oh, I do wish my Boxmaster Trilogy had been published so I could refer you to just such an exercise. I have a few chapters of each of the volumes posted at http://www.simegen.com/jl/boxmaster/
I was writing about the shift in values from the Hero's values to the Husband's values.
The first volume was bought by a publisher that went under before publishing, but they said it was Heinleinesque. The very long third volume was presented to several agents and editors and none could get past the breaking of the SF trope into a gradual segue into the Romance trope in Chapter 4. This is not an action series, but it has action in it.
Several things I've encountered in the last few weeks have kept putting me in mind of the Boxmaster universe I built. I wrote it to be a paradigm shifting entry into the literature. It never got published. And now that paradigm is shifting under the impact of other forces.
The news articles I've seen recently fit into the pattern that's been developing in fiction publishing in general, but also exemplify a deep shift in the paradigm underneath our society. Fiction and movies (and gaming) don't cause change. They reflect it.
This paradigm shift is like an earthquake miles deep under the surface. It's felt only slightly on the surface, but it sets up fractures that will cause future quakes.
A deep paradigm shift has occurred this last few years, and we are starting (only starting) into massive change.
These social changes are of interest to writers (of any genre, but especially Romance) because they reveal much about the internal "life" of the readers. You can see what's happening inside the readers by what they strike out at. (News article blog comments on Yahoo for example reveal a lot.)
These newspaper (or News Service like AP, Reuters) articles surface only long after the actual events, very like scientific advances appear first in discussions at conferences and then maybe 5 years later, in the general press.
By the time it's in the newspaper, it's old news.
The ongoing significance lies in the simple fact that it is now coming to the consciousness of the readers of fiction and so writers have to adjust.
What were the two that caught my attention this week?
-----------------
a) PUBLISHING MELTDOWN:
http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail.jsp?key=352322&rc=al&p=1&all=1
b) HS & COLLEGE STUDENT EXPECTATIONS
for their lives
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/education/18college.html?_r=1&em
-----------------
I posted article b) to my facebook profile and it started a long discussion when another writer (former professor) Jonathan Vos Post commented on it on my facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=558182547&ref=profile
People who work with college students have seen the expectations shift over the last generation.
Put these two articles together and you see a trend.
The Web has conditioned a generation to expect whatever they want for free (well advertising, but ignorable advertising). They have never known a world without peer-to-peer music sharing, and other copyright violating activities.
There are many websites that post e-books that are under copyright protection. It's worldwide and nobody can make them stop.
Copyright doesn't mean much anymore.
As a result of the communications revolution, the firm footing under writers has dissolved in yet another way, too.
Article a) shows us that text on paper is not the business model of the future.
Well, you and I have known that for years. It's e-books and web-news!
But have you been thinking what free on the web means in terms of who pays for it?
"Who pays for it" is not something this youngest generation is equipped to think about because of their "expectations" as delineated in the NYTimes article. (see article b) )
In the world of young expectations (pre-Tower Experience - Virgin Expectations), nobody pays for anything.
They are entitled. The implications of that are huge. Grades are a proxy for wages and they aren't learning the cost of getting a wage. What about the government printing money to give everyone a check or build some handy things like bridges. Nobody pays for any of that. You just get entitled. If the government gives it to you, it's free. Right?
"Who pays for it" is an issue organically intertwined with all the issues of morality Rowena Cherry brought up in her post
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/02/things-we-take-for-granted-morality.html
People advocate Pro-Life choices, but avoid "who pays for it" and in what coin. (Personally, I'm pro-Life, but that's another issue.) Contraceptives and Abortion have wrought a social change in which young people see no COST to personal intimate behavior and so fall screaming off their Tower when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.
The core of all moral and ethical rules is the concept that everything has a cost if not a price. And cost is the pure essence of all business. Marriage can be a business as all Regency fans know.
A business model is a circuit diagram that shows how activity pumps money around in a circuit and multiplies the money to a profit.
You put this-that-the-other-thing in one end of the black box, and this-that-the-other-thing PLUS PROFIT comes out the other end.
The business model is the tracing of the circuit inside the black box.
The business model of NEWS is that a bunch of people scurry around the world scarfing up interesting tidbits of news, run home, write it up, turn it in and get paid. They then have the money to go out and do more scurrying. Someone has to go find the news -- and finding costs a lot. So whoever gets to read the news has to pay the reporter a living wage plus expenses.
Authors have a business model that used to go like this:
a) Buy a typewriter, paper, ribbons, white-out (or today, computer, backup device, net access) huge up-front investment
b) dream up something
c) ruin a lot of expensive paper by typing black squiggles on it. (wear out a computer keyboarding)
d) sell the ruined paper to a publisher
e) go through rewrite hell ruining more paper; galleys; eventually it's done
f) get paid more than it cost to buy paper, ink, reference books, computer whatever tools
g) buy more blank paper
h) ruin the new blank paper
i) sell it
A writer's business model is to sell ruined paper so they can buy more and groceries too.
It's a pump. You put in words, you get out money.
We have long since shifted from ruining paper to filling up external backup drives with files that tend to go obsolete before we can re-sell the words to another publisher.
Newspapers are just facing the fact (and resisting mightily -- this recession may convince them) that the business model has to shift drastically. Some papers in Philadelphia filed Chapter 11 this past week. At least it's 11 and not 7 (total liquidation).
People still want to know what's happening, but they want to know NOW not tomorrow, and NOW not when the 6PM news goes on. NOW - like on their blackberry.
But someone still has to scurry out and scarf up news and write it and post it -- and faster news costs more. Someone has to pay the reporter to scurry around, the editor to edit, the distributor to distribute (websites that really work cost a lot).
Now look at article b) about student expectations.
Their parents expect the news to pop up on their blackberry in real time. The kids grow up in a world of entitlement, where everyone has access. Parents even give kids cell phones.
Students go to schools where they don't have to trek across town to the library to stand in line to use the printed encyclopedia for a school paper. They google up what they want and cut and paste (and get caught usually). Kids don't understand plagiarism or paraphrasing -- in fact, the generation that grew up on copy machines missed out on the fine points of copyright and have passed that blindness on to their children who see even less use in copyright. To them copyright is even more immoral than infanticide.
I read another article last year about how the new crop of college grads is forcing businesses to change their office-behavior codes to allow multi-tasking which includes texting friends, surfing the web, IM'ing, tweeting, all while working, all while on the employer's clock. They are, you see, ENTITLED to spend their time how they want as long as they get the minimum done, just as they were in school. Just showing up (as it said in the education article) gets at least a B; maybe an A.
There's a generation that feels ENTITLED to do as they please on their employer's time because in school they could do as they pleased and still get good grades even if they missed deadlines.
Read that article b) . It illustrates a huge paradigm shift in values, a shift way way deep down-down-down inside everything that makes us who we are.
This is only the surface vibration. Only the beginning.
What you must do to get something you want -- that's the raw basics of ethics, morals, and economics -- AND ROMANCE.
Do you take what you want? Do you beg for it? Trade for it? Negotiate (which is an aggressive form of warfare)? How do you get what you want? How do you know the difference between want and need? When are you entitled to take what you need?
This "entitlement philosophy" represents a huge change in how we establish and maintain all our relationships, including love, including finding a soul mate.
Imagine feeling "entitled" to a soul mate!
Imagine what happens to marriage when both partners feel "entitled" to a perfect marriage without effort, without cost.
And there's one more surface vibration from this deep quake.
It is the shift away from text to images.
Read this one:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20090219/tc_nm/us_hollywood_web_6
Hollywood struggles to find wealth on the Web (Reuters)
Posted on Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:14AM EST
Psychology has long established the power of visual images as greater than that of text or spoken words without images. Images penetrate to an emotional level that is unique because of the evolutionary position of the EYE -- the amount of data it collects and the brain areas responsible for interpreting that data are way high. Visuals pre-empt everything for us.
One huge trend that I see in all this is the older generations fighting mightily to STOP CHANGE, and as usual the younger people want everything "old" destroyed RIGHT NOW with a mad urgency that is insane because they haven't created something better to replace it with. Middle aged people are usually at the point where they have created something to replace the old with, something they think is better.
The technology revolution has accelerated this old, established cycle of progress so that the middle-aged can't establish their new before the young set out to destroy it.
But perhaps one of the reasons we have death in our world is that without death, entrenched elders would refuse all change, and change is life. (This is a reason I love Vampire novels).
The core definition of life is CHANGE.
So I think the objective of elder generations might be better served by guiding change into new pathways that are chosen with conscious and deliberate wisdom.
On the third hand -- has humanity ever done that?
Under what impetus from what outside source would the denizens of this galaxy (presumably somewhat related biologically) re-think this whole "change" issue?
What does it take to shift the human paradigm?
Are we at that point yet? Are we really at an evolve-or-die threshold in human history?
Will some Alien species arrive here at last only to discover a dead world, not an atomic cinder but an ecological collapse?
If not, how will we get through all this? If our paradigm of Life is shifting, what is it shifting into?
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
Sunday, February 22, 2009
VICARIOUS VERISIMIILITUDE: Morality and Immorality via Ramon Espejo
Talking about some of the extremes of human behavior and how we deal with these things, culturally, socially, segues in nicely with a book I just finished: HUNTERS RUN by George R.R. Martin, Gardner Dozois and Daniel Abraham. It fits nicely because the book’s main character (I’m not sure I can bring myself to call him protagonist or hero) is a man who has been characterized in reviews on Goodreads as an unrepentant asshole.And I think the reviewers are being kind.
Many readers hated the book because of Ramon Espejo. Others felt that his very asshole-ness made the book what it was. In the Q&A in the book’s last pages, Gardner states that early readers hated Ramon. It’s easy to hate Ramon.
It’s also hard to stop reading his story.
Ramon is a drunk, a woman-beater, a liar, a cheat. He’s a down-on-his-luck prospector on an alien planet. He’s a murderer. He has a hugely overblown view of himself.
He’s also tough, persistent, dogged and resourceful. He makes many bad decisions. He makes a few very good ones.
Ramon would be a difficult main character in a romance. Although he does a few heroic things, he’s not hero material. Not even with the recent trend in romance toward bad-boy protagonists. Not even with the trend toward blood-sucking dead guys as heroes.
Yet I found him a fascinating character and I actually cared enough about him to worry if he would live or die, fail or succeed. And so did a lot of other readers. And I wonder, with this talk about morality and society, how much vicarious nastiness we get out of our systems because of characters like Ramon. Or how much of our own nastiness we recognize in characters like Ramon and hence don’t feel quite that unusual.
We all have a dark side, good old Darth notwithstanding.
One of the criticisms often leveled at romance novels are that the main characters are too perfect. Too handsome. Too strong. Too caring. There have even been comments with the rise of the kick-ass heroine that we’re again creating characters with characteristics that are unattainable. Super Mom has spawned Super Fem Protagonist.Ramon Espejo represents some of the worst of in all of us.
So does Thomas Harris’ Hannibal Lecter but Hannibal the Cannibal was very outré. Larger than life, suave, manipulative. Intelligent. He was a number of good and worthy qualities gone bad.
Ramon’s just an asshole. And an uneducated one at that.
Then he stumbles on a secret that, if revealed, could cause the deaths of thousands. And he becomes, quite literally, his own worst enemy.
I don’t want to get into spoilers—I do encourage you to read this book if the issues of morality interest you at all—but it’s the “literally” where the book shines. And continues to take unexpected turns.
All I can say is the redemption I thought I saw coming for Ramon…doesn’t. But there is a redemption and it comes from another source. But uplifting…?
You need to see for yourself.
At only two hundred seventy six pages the book is a quick read. But I found it to be a very powerful one.
~Linnea
SHADES OF DARK, the sequel to Gabriel’s Ghost, July 2008 from RITA award-winning author, Linnea Sinclair, and Bantam Books: http://www.linneasinclair.com/
“You’ve told me many times I still need training. That a rogue Kyi like me is capable of utter destruction if I’m not careful. Then heed your own warning. Don’t force me to find out just what I’m capable of. Because when the dust settles, I will be the one left standing. And you know that.”
“You’ve told me many times I still need training. That a rogue Kyi like me is capable of utter destruction if I’m not careful. Then heed your own warning. Don’t force me to find out just what I’m capable of. Because when the dust settles, I will be the one left standing. And you know that.”
Things We Take For Granted: Morality
Congratulations to Linnea Sinclair for winning a P.E.A.R.L. award for Shades of Dark!
Margaret's gritty post about Infanticide was like a starter cannon for my thoughts on what we think of as normal and moral, and what shocks us.
I raced off to one of my favorite non-fiction tomes: SEX IN HISTORY by Reay Tannahill.
There's a wonderful quote in the front matter:
DON MARQUIS
Archy says
[Quoted as published.]
Reay Tannahill has also written FOOD IN HISTORY, and FLESH AND BLOOD: A HISTORY OF THE CANNIBAL COMPLEX.
The cover art is provocative. I'm not sure if the dark-winged goddess's crotch is the cynosure of all the kneeling dudes' eyes --with lines of sight depicted-- or if she is simultaneously blessing six worshippers with accurately directed, individual golden streams of enlightenment.
In the section of the book on "The Second Oldest Profession" (p79) the Greek historian, Herodotus is quoted as observing of the temple prostitutes:
Imagine living in that world!
In fact, elements of my own worldbuilding were inspired by this (the "Virgins' Balls at the Imperial Palace) although the custom was only for the benefit and enjoyment of the royal Tiger Princes.
My spymaster, Madam Tarra's courier courtesans were inspired by Austrian Prince Metternich's use of prostitutes as intelligence gatherers.
Back to SEX IN HISTORY.
Later, there is a very frank and amusing transcript of a letter from a material girl of the Athenian hetairai. A courtesan named Philumena reportedly wrote to a lover:
Chapter Four (p84) is a vivid and amusing reminder that some ancient Greeks and ancient Japanese societies apparently took male homosexuality and pederasty for granted.
And then, there's socially acceptable killing.
Recently, I read an interview with Marc Hauser, author of "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right And Wrong."
Apparently, most people cannot explain why their answers are different. Yet, the problem is basically similar. The life of one person who would not otherwise be killed is weighed against the lives of five others who are doomed to die unless there is an intervention.
I think I could take a stab at explaining, but that would take the fun out of the puzzle. I'd love to know what you think, though.
Do we learn our morals? Or are we born with a basic moral code? Almost every culture has some kind of "An eye for an eye..."/"Do as you would be done by" code of conduct.
I wouldn't stop there. I believe that quite a few animals have it as well.
Which brings me to "sacred cows" also known as political correctness.
One of the things I love about our genre is that we alien romancers can explore politically incorrect ideas without being uncomfortably offensive.
We are like the "allowed fools" of the European courts of the Dark Ages. Idiots and space aliens have immunity from the reprisals that good citizens face if they want to say something blasphemous, seditious, or iconoclastic.
For example:
Tigron Empire. 58th gestate in the reign of Djerrold Vulcan V Fictitious op ed piece.
Rowena Cherry
Space Snark
Margaret's gritty post about Infanticide was like a starter cannon for my thoughts on what we think of as normal and moral, and what shocks us.
I raced off to one of my favorite non-fiction tomes: SEX IN HISTORY by Reay Tannahill.
There's a wonderful quote in the front matter:
i suppose the human race
is doing the best it can
but hells bells thats
only an explanation
its not an excuse
DON MARQUIS
Archy says
[Quoted as published.]
Reay Tannahill has also written FOOD IN HISTORY, and FLESH AND BLOOD: A HISTORY OF THE CANNIBAL COMPLEX.
The cover art is provocative. I'm not sure if the dark-winged goddess's crotch is the cynosure of all the kneeling dudes' eyes --with lines of sight depicted-- or if she is simultaneously blessing six worshippers with accurately directed, individual golden streams of enlightenment.
In the section of the book on "The Second Oldest Profession" (p79) the Greek historian, Herodotus is quoted as observing of the temple prostitutes:
"Every woman who is a native of the country ... must once in her life go and sit in the temple and there give herself to a strange man.... She is not allowed to go home until a man has..." thrown his silver in her lap
Imagine living in that world!
In fact, elements of my own worldbuilding were inspired by this (the "Virgins' Balls at the Imperial Palace) although the custom was only for the benefit and enjoyment of the royal Tiger Princes.
My spymaster, Madam Tarra's courier courtesans were inspired by Austrian Prince Metternich's use of prostitutes as intelligence gatherers.
Back to SEX IN HISTORY.
Later, there is a very frank and amusing transcript of a letter from a material girl of the Athenian hetairai. A courtesan named Philumena reportedly wrote to a lover:
"Why do you boher writing long letters? I want fifty gold pieces, not letters. If you love me, pay up; if you love your money more, then don't bother me..."
Chapter Four (p84) is a vivid and amusing reminder that some ancient Greeks and ancient Japanese societies apparently took male homosexuality and pederasty for granted.
And then, there's socially acceptable killing.
Recently, I read an interview with Marc Hauser, author of "Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right And Wrong."
A trolley is coming down a track and it's going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will only kill one person (instead of five).
Is it right to divert the trolley?
A nurse approaches an ER doctor. "Doctor, we've got five patients in critical care; each needs an organ to survive." (Different organs.) "A healthy person has just walked in... we can (kill him and) take his organs and save the five..."
Is it right to kill the one?
Apparently, most people cannot explain why their answers are different. Yet, the problem is basically similar. The life of one person who would not otherwise be killed is weighed against the lives of five others who are doomed to die unless there is an intervention.
I think I could take a stab at explaining, but that would take the fun out of the puzzle. I'd love to know what you think, though.
Do we learn our morals? Or are we born with a basic moral code? Almost every culture has some kind of "An eye for an eye..."/"Do as you would be done by" code of conduct.
I wouldn't stop there. I believe that quite a few animals have it as well.
Which brings me to "sacred cows" also known as political correctness.
One of the things I love about our genre is that we alien romancers can explore politically incorrect ideas without being uncomfortably offensive.
We are like the "allowed fools" of the European courts of the Dark Ages. Idiots and space aliens have immunity from the reprisals that good citizens face if they want to say something blasphemous, seditious, or iconoclastic.
For example:
Tigron Empire. 58th gestate in the reign of Djerrold Vulcan V Fictitious op ed piece.
I've not yet heard anyone blame affirmative action for the bad decisions made by banks, personal-shuttle companies, brokerage houses, insurance companies, and so forth.
No reasonable, responsible, nice Tigron person would try to blame minorities for the current crisis. That would be like kicking the underdog.
And yet, over the last twenty gestates, Alderboran law and peer pressure has obliged interstellar companies to promote a token number of people whose best qualification for their job may have been their gender, their sexual orientation, their ethnic origins, or some other persuasion.
Not in every case. Of course.
Thus, there is a question. Is the best candidate in the job? Was that hermaphrodite Klargon teenager chosen to be the Babyliger-5 branch bank manager because his/her education and experience qualified him/her to make sensible loans to responsible customers? Wouldn't a sober, fifty-standard-year-old Mumblari who'd worked his way up through the ranks have been a safer hand at the tiller?
Does the Klargon teenager secretly suspect that he/she needs to make daring and heroic business decisions to prove to all and sundry that his/her promotion wasn't affirmative action?
Same goes for the color-blind Beancounter who got to overrule the designers and engineers of a top of the line, zero-gravity toilet system for the way station in the Kuyper Belt.
Rowena Cherry
Space Snark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
