Star Trek could never have been as popular as it is now without the political side of the stories. But Star Wars did exceedingly well without it.

Star Wars — the original movie, with Luke the farmboy and Leia the princess involved in a rebellion against the evil empire — was ALL about politics. That was the point of the story, and without the political machinations, there wouldn’t have been a story and none of the main characters would ever have met.

I think some of the folks who are against politics in their books are assuming that “politics in a book” always means a bunch of serious people in suits lecturing on CNN, and pages of discussion about treaty details or the minutae of laws, or whatever. That’s not the case at all.

Star Wars is actually an excellent example of a very political story; it’s all about who has power and what they’re doing with it, and how other people are reacting to their use of power and taking action to try to change the political situation. It’s not boring and it’s not slow. You don’t get minutes-at-a-time of people lecturing the audience about the structure of the government or the details of the laws which have been changed or the rights which have been suspended. Instead you see some of the results of bad government (Vader, representing the evil Emperor, murdering random officers who displease him, and destroying an inhabited planet just to show off to the rest of the empire how super-bad his new toy is, to keep any of them from getting out of line) and what the protesters are doing about it (forming an organized rebellion, stealing the plans to the super-bad new toy and passing them on to other rebellion folks who can make use of them to destroy the thing). If you like Star Wars, even the original movie, then you like political stories.

Kate Elliott’s JARAN, for example, and Bujold’s Vorkosigan books

These are also very much political stories. (Also awesome books, BTW.) Jaran’s Tess is where she is because of politics; her brother is at the forefront of a political struggle between humanity and the ruling aliens. And once she’s on Rhui, she’s caught up in (relatively) smaller-scale political maneuverings, with Ilya working to unite all the Jaran and conquer the settled lands. And that’s not even looking at the later books. And Miles Vorkosigan’s stories are definitely political — his very existence is a political statement by his parents, who are working to drag Barrayar out of its barbaric past, and his individual adventures are all political on one scale or another — often on a very large scale.

A story having firmly incorporated politics does not mean it’s not also a story which is very much about people. Politics is about people, about how they interact and get along and share resources. Any writer experienced enough to show instead of tell can make it plain how things work and what’s going on and whether or not anything is wrong with the current situation without subjecting the reader to a huge narrative infodump, or to pages of boring “As you know, Bob…” lectures from the characters.

Romeo and Juliet is a political story. The whole point of it was to show how the political squabbling between their families affected those two particular people. And yet we never find out exactly what political points or beliefs separate the two families; we don’t need to know, because it’s not important to the story being told. The commentary in R&J is about political enmities in general, and the details of the particular political enmity used as an example are unimportant. It’s sort of a meta-political story. :) But again, the story wouldn’t exist without the politics.

Angie

The setting should play an integral part in the story and the characters should reflect at least some of those differences in their personalities and world views, or there’s not much point to the exercise.

If I’m reading SF, any SF, romance or otherwise, I want to know these characters do not live in my reality and what some of the differences are.

I don’t want the wall-paper of “cyber-dildos” that have no different function than my own. Tell me “she flipped up the synthetic flesh panel over the implant in her mons and shivered as she plugged the Midnight Rider’s neural net into her own nervous system. For the duration, she would “feel” everything through the lifelike dildo’s state-of-the-art sensors.”
(pardon the example, I am as yet uncaffinated)

You don’t have to blather on like a civics lesson. Just show me the hero being surprised by real food at breakfast. Or have the heroine take full sensory immersion entertainment for granted. Or have a guy never have had orange juice because there is no longer any trade with Florida or California. It’s little things like that which help build the world.

I once started a book with a smeary, smudged religious tract.

And that’s something else. Religion is an important part of many people’s lives. What’s it going to be like? Internet churches? (There are a few already) Paganism continuing to grow? Fundamentalism getting an even deeper hold? Islam taking over Europe? The Jews will keep on as they always have, I expect.

Sorry, I’m a geek, and the idea gets me geeking.

Plot getting in the way of the story…either I’m not awake enough to understand or that makes no sense.

However, Jane specifically refers to “futuristic” fiction, meaning set in a future that derives from our present.

Actually, looking at how the term is used in the genre, I’ve gotten the impression that “futuristic” is just the Special Romance Term for science fiction. I usually call it “SF romance” because otherwise none of the people I talk to who aren’t genre romance fans know what the heck I mean. [wry smile]

I agree with you, though, that if you’re going to use an exotic setting, whether it’s historical or SF or fantasy or whatever, it should be for a reason. The setting should play an integral part in the story and the characters should reflect at least some of those differences in their personalities and world views, or there’s not much point to the exercise.

Angie

However, Jane specifically refers to “futuristic” fiction, meaning set in a future that derives from our present. I agree that the contrast and some sense of how we got there from here, or here from there, are important. Just as there’s no point in setting a story in a historical period if you aren’t going to do something worthwhile with the differences that characterize that period, and I don’t just mean the fashions. Then the setting is, as Jane says, mere “wallpaper.” I prefer knowing that the choice of an alternate time setting is integral to the story. In futuristic fiction, that has to mean some sense of the government and social structure, how it differs from ours, and how/why it developed that way.

In a regular science fiction novel, that doesn’t purport to be a romance, I would agree; but most of the people I’ve met who read futuristics don’t seem to want that, because if they did, they would go read sf. They want a romance with the sfnal trappings.

It’s really tricky to work that much worldbuilding into a romance novel that, by definition, has to focus on the central relationship. One of the ways to do that is to use common sfnal tropes with which the reader is already familiar, so detailed explication isn’t required. I think sfnal wallpaper is a valid choice, if that’s your aim. The point is that it’s fun. I love space opera, myself; I don’t get into most futuristic romances, but that’s only because my taste leans too far towards more mainstream sf.

However, maybe there’s room for SF with Romantic Elements? Something that is to futuristic romance as urban fantasy (in the current sense) is to paranormal romance? I’ve read books with that feel to them–Kate Elliott’s JARAN, for example, and Bujold’s Vorkosigan books are an excellent example–and would love to see that become a new trend.

There was an article all about paranormal romance in the latest issue of the SFWA Bulletin (pub of the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America)–I wonder if an influx of sf/f writers into romance will happen?

I have never seen — in my own personal world view — SciFi in any form as a platform for reforming society or whatever other Great Notion is out there.

A platform for reform is completely different from commentary. A platform sounds more along the lines of L Ron Hubbard, which… yuck.

As others have said above, there’s what the author knows and what the reader needs to know. When the author doesn’t know enough about how the world works, it shows, and the story’s believability suffers. When the reader knows too much, the story gets lost in the detail.

Different kinds of detail matter too. I don’t love the CL Wilson books in part because I find them over-detailed in inane ways. In Lord of the Fading Lands I’d appreciate less attention to clothing and *more* on how the world’s politics work. Both action and character development can be interrupted by the wrong kind of detail:

an important courtroom scene includes a lengthy description1 of Rain’s clothes. It doesn’t say anything new—we know he’s handsome, wealthy, and powerful—so rather than the fashion report, I’d like to see the legal and political interludes developed farther. These scenes are crucial to illuminate inter-kingdom politics, and to explain the villains.

So again, it goes back to what do you NEED to know. Star Trek could never have been as popular as it is now without the political side of the stories. But Star Wars did exceedingly well without it.

Completely ignoring politics and government and power distribution pretends that the characters live in a vacuum. Unless they’re literally stranded on a deserted planet, that’s a glitch. But it doesn’t take much to flesh out the setting and give me the impression that the characters do have a fully developed setting in which to move and act.

Angie

Yes, but there’s a difference between tossing in tidbits (assuming that’s the case in your examples) and writing a “political fantasy.”

If people want to use fiction to advance theories or agendas or do whatever else floats their boat, that’s fine. That’s great. More power to them. But I have never seen — in my own personal world view — SciFi in any form as a platform for reforming society or whatever other Great Notion is out there. Not interested, thanks. And that’s straight scifi. For SciFi Romances, I read for the Romance. Not the politics. Not the world building. For the characters first and the romance second. So, no, I don’t feel cheated if an author doesn’t world build government systems.

shenan

No offense, but I don’t care about any of that. It bogs the story down for me if an author goes into where a character’s clothes come from or what politics has to do with someone stealing someone’s truck. As far as it goes, just any old plot can bog a story down for me if the plot becomes the story. I read for characters. Even if I’m actually interested in the plot itself, I still need characters worth caring about to make the plot worth caring about. (And really, as much as I loved West Wing, I loved it for the characters. The politics in the episodes were at best a necessary evil. And frankly, I didn’t pay attention to the political details.)

shenan