How to write romance in science fiction?

[Joshua Jones]

For me, a good romance is about a relationship building and developing over time. I often find the earlier stages more awkward - later relationships are often more developed.

I also agree about relationships not being eternally rosy is important - not avoiding the hard times in life. I grew up reading the likes of Maeve Binchy where things were very realistic and people separated and didn’t and they very much influence my writing of relationships. The Time Traveller’s Wife is another great example of relationships that undergo torrid strain. As anyone who reads my stuff knows I do mixed up-confused relationships - because that’s what actually happens in real life. We have love. And not-love. And routine. And good times and bad times. And families. And chaos. And joy and misery.

Why sff does romance so (overall) badly is, I think, down to the innate skew in the genre over time (mods, delete if I overstep) - that more male than female writers came to the fore - and relationships are often less of a focus in those books.

Allow the female sff writers to come to prominence (and that’s still an upward journey) and there will be more naturalistic romance, I believe. Not because we write it better, as such - but because we are more exposed to it in our ‘led-to/marketed-to-us’ books.

Well, hopefully, I will be bucking the trend that most guys don't write much natural or realistic romantic relationships in SF settings.

Just to throw this out there, do you think women have more natural EQ or do you think they are more likely to develop that aspect of themselves? It would seem that much literature for men about the opposite sex focuses on physical aspects of said sex, rather than emotional aspects, while similar literature focused on women is more balanced in that capacity. The reasons for this could be debated back and forth, but do you think it is more nature or development that causes women to typically have higher EQ?

 

[Onyx]

(which is not to say none, or indeed that none do it well)

Ouch.

And here I'd been enjoying the realism Amy and Randy's romance in Cryptonomicon.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Well, hopefully, I will be bucking the trend that most guys don't write much natural or realistic romantic relationships in SF settings.

Just to throw this out there, do you think women have more natural EQ or do you think they are more likely to develop that aspect of themselves? It would seem that much literature for men about the opposite sex focuses on physical aspects of said sex, rather than emotional aspects, while similar literature focused on women is more balanced in that capacity. The reasons for this could be debated back and forth, but do you think it is more nature or development that causes women to typically have higher EQ?

In my non-writing life I am a strategic management consultant and one of my areas of specialism is Emotional Intelligence

So...

Women, on the whole, tend to score better in both measurements of EI (trait and ability models - one measures natural emotional-led intelligence, one the ability to regulate emotions with intelligent responses) and seem to have a stronger EI ability.

However, many of the EI traits can be developed and strengthened - and men are just as able to do so as women.

Which leads to the eternal question with no clear answer - is it born or learned in women?*

Certainly I know many men with high EI and many women with the EI of a stone, so generalisations are dodgy to make

* one of the most interesting things to look at is the diagnosis of ASD. There used to be an erroneous belief it was a predominantly male syndrome. It’s not. It’s just easier to diagnose in males since women mask the social symptoms on which diagnosis is traditionally made. Again, though, nature/nurture is still unclear

 

[Joshua Jones]

By the same token, is a romantic genre novel about realistically portraying the romantic relationships of people, or is it a fantasy with little connection to reality?


This speaks to a larger idea: Does a genre novelist have to be an expert in the tropes of her genre to write a great genre novel? I would like to think that realistic SF or romance could be invented, from scratch, by any talented writer despite having never read an SF or romance story before. I think people's abilities to transform real life into literature ought to be more the result of perception and imaginative use of language than their ability to mimic what came before.

The biggest criticism that SFF readers have of new books is that they seem to just be re-hashings of familiar territory - "Tolkienesque", "like Heinlein's best". Great writing is when the author finds a new or unfamiliar way of describing something familiar or well understood.

I'm not rejecting the notion of being well read and finding nuggets wherever they are offered. I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that someone will be a better writer about intimate relationships because of the volume of exposure to romance novels. That sounds almost more like a handicap to being able to relate our own life experience through our characters.

Honestly, I don't think it is an either/or sort of thing. Going back to your fishing novel, why not go fishing and read the book? That way, you see the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature while having an objective experience to compare it against. You can potentially stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before you in writing, putting yourself in a position to surpass even them. But, if you just experience yourself, have to build from ground level, and cover the territory already covered by others.

So, I see value in both, as long as you aren't just copying what others have done.

 

[Joshua Jones]

In my non-writing life I am a strategic management consultant and one of my areas of specialism is Emotional Intelligence

So...

Women, on the whole, tend to score better in both measurements of EI (trait and ability models - one measures natural emotional-led intelligence, one the ability to regulate emotions with intelligent responses) and seem to have a stronger EI ability.

However, many of the EI traits can be developed and strengthened - and men are just as able to do so as women.

Which leads to the eternal question with no clear answer - is it born or learned in women?*

Certainly I know many men with high EI and many women with the EI of a stone, so generalisations are dodgy to make

* one of the most interesting things to look at is the diagnosis of ASD. There used to be an erroneous belief it was a predominantly male syndrome. It’s not. It’s just easier to diagnose in males since women mask the social symptoms on which diagnosis is traditionally made. Again, though, nature/nurture is still unclear

Indeed. Personally, I hold to a combined model, where people have areas of predisposition which are then developed through experience. So, I have no problem with the idea that women do naturally have higher EQ. Truthfully, it would match my perceptions from my daughters, who figured out how to tell if random people would pay more attention to them in the grocery store by being more outgoing or acting shy by the time they were 18 months old. But, I also think men get stymied in their teenage years by an overemphasis on female anatomy over mentality (which is driven by hormones and then intensified by marketing to teenage boys). So, I honestly think the EQ disparity is a combined issue of nature and nurture.

Just my 2 cents/pence worth, anyway.

 

[Onyx]

Honestly, I don't think it is an either/or sort of thing. Going back to your fishing novel, why not go fishing and read the book? That way, you see the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature while having an objective experience to compare it against. You can potentially stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before you in writing, putting yourself in a position to surpass even them. But, if you just experience yourself, have to build from ground level, and cover the territory already covered by others.

So, I see value in both, as long as you aren't just copying what others have done.

I think part of the problem is that it is unclear whether we are discussing how to portray realistic, intimate partner relationships in the context of a genre novel (SF, mystery, thriller), or we are discussing how to make a combination Romantic/SF novel. And whether the "best" romantic novels are realistic in their portrayals enough to warrant using their style in a realistic SF, mystery or spy novel.

It comes down to what level of escapism is desired. Some SF fans want to see Deanna and Riker get together by the unrealistic glow of the Warp engine. Others get their escapism from a portrayal of life that is so authentic feeling that the fantastic elements become convincing rather than being part of a larger suspension of disbelief.

You asked for this:

I am more interested in complex relationships between complex people who are trying to make their disparate interests mesh into a functional life where everyone gets what they want, where fights and tensions emerge, are made up over but not quite go away, inside jokes abound, and both sides genuinely love each other but may or may not be skilled at showing it.

If that's what you want, I would direct you to read an Updike or Bronte novel before anything labeled "romance".

Jo is right the people noted for writing about romantic relationships in SF are women. Women are also noted for writing coming of age stories. And then a bunch of women are not known for either and don't feel a strong draw to write a time travel/alien invasion/black hole novel with scenes of passionate love. I love several female SF writes like Connie Willis, but I can't think of any relationships that were necessarily more romantic than what Stephenson or Banks do (especially Banks' non-SF).

Tom Maddox's Halo has two convincing romantic relationships play out in the story - that might be a good read as well.

So decide if you want the romance to be authentic or appealing - I personally think they are as different as the real middle ages vs. sword and a sorcery fantasy novel.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Ooooh - and please bear in mind I don’t write romance and generally have very little romance in my dark dystopian stories* - can’t we have authentic and appealing relationships? Has the world come to that?

*Abendau does but in its 250000 words, about 15000 max focuses on romance.**

** but about 100000 focuses on various intricate relationships

 

[Onyx]

Ooooh - and please bear in mind I don’t write romance and generally have very little romance in my dark dystopian stories* - can’t we have authentic and appealing relationships? Has the world come to that?

Is "appealing" understood to be pleasant or eros? Connie Willis' Bellwether features a pleasant and appealing falling-in-love story between two researchers - no part of which is steamy. Use of Weapons has a chapter where the protagonist lives in a beach shack and a local woman regularly stays with him - realistic and vaguely erotic, it is a "romantic" section that isn't at all about a developing long term relationship.

A lot of what people find romantic is the falling-for story, which is all about anticipation and longing, not an actual romantic relationship. And then people find romance in "bodice ripping". And then there are portrayals of couples with good relationships, which either have the first kind of romance if one rescues or pines for the other, or is eros if the details of their intimate lives are portrayed for some purpose outside the plot, or it is neither.

If the relationship is already there, what is it that needs to happen to make it rise above simply being nice? And can that happen without the writer making the story mainly about the couple rather than about the events that make the book a mystery, thriller, spy novel, etc? Is the Constant Gardener a romantic novel?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

But the relationship is often not there in sf - or where it is, it’s often not fleshed our. I’m all for better portrayal of relationships - without the tropes. But I think our genre has a long way to go to fully embrace such books

 

[Onyx]

But the relationship is often not there in sf - or where it is, it’s often not fleshed our. I’m all for better portrayal of relationships - without the tropes. But I think our genre has a long way to go to fully embrace such books

In the broad scope, all sorts of things are terrible in SF, including bad science. I don't know if there is really anything constructive to be said about the specific failings of poor fiction when it is poor fiction.

So once we've separated the wheat from the chaff, how many SF storylines have room for a detailed, established, steamy, complex, fleshed out relationship that furthers the story itself if the story isn't about romantic relationships?

I mentioned Cryptonomicon because it actually does tell the story of how two of the main characters fall in love, but it does so within an enormous book with all sorts of expositional asides, history and even essays on culture and technology. Stephenson made room for everything, and then put it all in there. And nearly everything he writes violates all of our "infodump" rules in the process.

How many focuses can a SF story have? Is there room in a 500 page techno-thriller spaceship romp to not only explore their personalities in great depth but how those combine to form couples that are importantly appealing? I think some of this is at cross purposes when we consider the scope of grand SF.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Of course there is! Because romance and, more specific to the OP, relations shouldn’t need to be an ‘add-on’. They aren’t in real life — and they aren’t in pretty much any other genre. They’re a natural part of telling a story about people. it Doesn’t need to be an extra element to take up words.

As to stories that develop relationships in a sf setting without raising word count to do so or removing the focus beyond the sf story:

Dark Eden, Chris Beckett
Children of Time, Adrian Tchaikovsky
Luna by Ian McDonald
Anything by David Mitchell
Vorkosigan by Bujold
Becky Chambers
Dune

Many many more.

If an argument is that we don’t have room for this in a sf book then we have a barren genre that fails to provide the questions of humanity that it should. I don’t read genre books that don’t embrace relationships, and I don’t want to. I also don’t feel those readers who don’t like to read relationship-stuff should be forced to.

Our genre should be big enough to have room for both - or don’t you think that breadth and choice (for both readers and writers) is a good thing?

And yes -
I suspect what we look for in a great sf book is very different. It doesn’t make either less valid. Importantly, it shouldn’t make Joshua feel what he is writing has any less validity in the genre —and yet, there is often an innate snobbery that indicates it is.

 

[The Big Peat]

Is "appealing" understood to be pleasant or eros?

Either or both?

You're getting way into the various things people can mean when they say 'romance'. Not that you're wrong about there being a lot of ambiguity, but its kinda besides the point when in just about every possible definition, SF has a poor reputation. And the overlap between the possible definitions is broad enough that general advice is still worth a great deal.

Although stories in general have a bad rep for talking about romantic relationships that are both real to the ones we see around us and appealing in some form to read about.

 

[Onyx]

Of course there is! Because romance and, more specific to the OP, relations shouldn’t need to be an ‘add-on’. They aren’t in real life — and they aren’t in pretty much any other genre. They’re a natural part of telling a story about people. it Doesn’t need to be an extra element to take up words.

As to stories that develop relationships in a sf setting without raising word count to do so or removing the focus beyond the sf story:

Dark Eden, Chris Beckett
Children of Time, Adrian Tchaikovsky
Luna by Ian McDonald
Anything by David Mitchell
Vorkosigan by Bujold
Becky Chambers
Dune

Many many more.

If an argument is that we don’t have room for this in a sf book then we have a barren genre that fails to provide the questions of humanity that it should. I don’t read genre books that don’t embrace relationships, and I don’t want to. I also don’t feel those readers who don’t like to read relationship-stuff should be forced to.

Our genre should be big enough to have room for both - or don’t you think that breadth and choice (for both readers and writers) is a good thing?

And yes -
I suspect what we look for in a great sf book is very different. It doesn’t make either less valid. Importantly, it shouldn’t make Joshua feel what he is writing has any less validity in the genre —and yet, there is often an innate snobbery that indicates it is.

I don't understand your list - you said men don't write non-superficial relationships well. Why are listing five novels by men as examples?

I'm not trying to say "Gotcha!", I just don't understand what it is you think is missing. I can think of many, many appealing romantic relationships in SF that I just presumed you were calling "superficial" when you said men don't write anything but. Now I just don't know what the hell we're talking about.

 

[Onyx]

Either or both?

You're getting way into the various things people can mean when they say 'romance'. Not that you're wrong about there being a lot of ambiguity, but its kinda besides the point when in just about every possible definition, SF has a poor reputation. And the overlap between the possible definitions is broad enough that general advice is still worth a great deal.

Although stories in general have a bad rep for talking about romantic relationships that are both real to the ones we see around us and appealing in some form to read about.

Because all adventure stories de-prioritize stable relationships to some extent - it isn't just an SF "problem". It is a pacing and structure problem, as well as a thematic issue.

Stable romantic relationships are part of stable, normal daily life. I would welcome an SF novel about people that stay home and grow microchips in their garden, but that isn't the form adventure fiction normally takes.

I don't point that out as an excuse for bad writing, which is how conversations like this often seem to go. If someone asks you "What is the book about?", either the answer involves the intimate relationship between two people or that is a rich detail of the book's milieu and not worth mentioning.

I think all SF novels should be well written, including in their depictions of romantic couples. What escapes me in this discussion is how much service a non-story element needs to include to qualify. That is a quantity question, not a quality question.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I don't understand your list - you said men don't write non-superficial relationships well. Why are listing five novels by men as examples?

I'm not trying to say "Gotcha!", I just don't understand what it is you think is missing. I can think of many, many appealing romantic relationships in SF that I just presumed you were calling "superficial" when you said men don't write anything but. Now I just don't know what the hell we're talking about.

I didn’t say men couldn’t write relationships in sf - what I said was women were more likely to but there are less of us.

So, for every x number of male writers there are significantly less female writers. So, of course, a list of sf novels doing anything will have more men - relationships are no different.

I was pretty clear about that earlier. You said ouch (perhaps you took my comment the wrong way?)

Many male writers write great relationships - but fewer have the focus of relationships compared to the women writers. Sadly there are very few high profile female sf writers IN COMPARISON to male writers - so of course my list includes some of the many male writers I enjoy very much

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Anyway, here goes. Women who write relationships in sf (apologies to my male colleagues left out)

Lois McMaster Bujold
Becky Chambers
Jodi Taylor
Jo Zebedee (sorry - couldn’t resist )
Jo Walton
Becky Chambers
Pat Cardigan
Elizabeth Moon
....

 

[Onyx]

Anyway, here goes. Women who write relationships in sf (apologies to my male colleagues left out)

Lois McMaster Bujold
Becky Chambers
Jodi Taylor
Jo Zebedee (sorry - couldn’t resist )
Jo Walton
Becky Chambers
Pat Cardigan
Elizabeth Moon
....

Yes, I definitely misread that post about men. I missed the "not" in there. Sorry.

Could you please give an example of a contemporary SF novelist that you think is otherwise excellent but always writes poor or superficial relationships? Maybe a good negative example would be illustrative.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Yes, I definitely misread that post about men. I missed the "not" in there. Sorry.

Could you please give an example of a contemporary SF novelist that you think is otherwise excellent but always writes poor or superficial relationships? Maybe a good negative example would be illustrative.

If the inter relationships are poor I don’t tend to read on - being a character led reader

(Actually - The Three Body Problem. Loved the setting, the sf, the writing. The character just didn’t work for me - not enough emotional depth. Many many other readers love it - just as it should be )

 

[Onyx]

If the inter relationships are poor I don’t tend to read on - being a character led reader

(Actually - The Three Body Problem. Loved the setting, the sf, the writing. The character just didn’t work for me - not enough emotional depth. Many many other readers love it - just as it should be )

That certainly qualifies, but Three Body really doesn't have character development, either. It is almost all exposition.

Also any story with only one character is also going to lack relationships, by definition. Or one where all the characters are machines might fail to have intimate romantic relationships as well.

I was more thinking of an author that had rich characters but not no qualifying romantic relationships.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

That certainly qualifies, but Three Body really doesn't have character development, either. It is almost all exposition.

Also any story with only one character is also going to lack relationships, by definition. Or one where all the characters are machines might fail to have intimate romantic relationships as well.

I was more thinking of an author that had rich characters but not no qualifying romantic relationships.

Pat Rothfuss Name if the Wind. Denna is just awful.

I might even find out if she’s supposed to be as unconvincing as she is before I’m 80....