On another note – I’ve been wrestling for a sensible definition of urban fantasy and how it differs from paranormal romance, then I came across this excellent account at Juno Books:
http://juno-books.com/blog/?p=410

One point raised intrigues me too; how DO we define urban fantasy? (As opposed to horror.)

In Hammett’s The Maltese Falcon there’s a stunningly erotic love story between Sam Spade and Brigid O’Shaughnessy, which ends with
BEWARE MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD!
the scene in which he sends her to the gallows. Fabulous! Sexy! All those things. But let’s face it, it’s a hard-boiled novel and you don’t get entire sections of Sam Spade agonising about his feelings for the girl . It’s terribly terribly underplayed; but in other genres, writers can be much more explicit in writing about emotion.

It’s all about balance, as I say in my other reply on this page. Chandler is more plot than emotion; other genre writers have more emotion than plot.

And there are, and should be, and must be EXCEPTIONS TO EVERY RULE.

btw way Archie Goodwin, the detective hero of Rex Stout’s mysteries featuring fat detective Nero Wolfe, DOES care more about romance than the unfolding of the plot. (But even so, there’s nothing as emotionally intense in this books as the stuff you get in Dante Valentine – point bruised but not disproved!)

I’m glad you love Dante Valentine too and I don’t disagree with anything you say about the books and the range of urban fantasy. But hey! If you deny the power of the romantic strands in those books, you’re donig the books a grave injustice. Even when Jaf isn’t there there’s a love interest (Gabe isn’t it?) And Dante SUFFERS emotionally, as much as she does physically. It’s that range I love. But yes, of course, Lili is a highly sophisticated storyteller who writes action, suspense, magic, mood, the whole caboodle – so please don’t put me in the box that says ‘This person can only see one story element at a time’. I just ain’t that dumb narrrow-minded guy, and I don’t think anything in my blog says I am.

I may be pushing it to say that who-dun-its can’t have romance – Margery Allingham’s Campion stories for instance have wonderful romantic moments, and Nicholas Blake’s Nigel Strangeways books have strong elements of romance too. And though the Stiegg Larsson’s are arguably more thrillers than who-dun-its, there is a great emotional connection between Blomkvist and Lisbeth. But as a genre, it’s not known for its rich exploration of character.

But it’s all about balance. Who-dun-its & hard SF novels tend to be plot-biased; a lot of the UF I’ve read has been very character-biased, even though great plots are a must-have for the genre.

But generalisations are only generalisations; they’re there to provoke debate and thought. If I were to further generalise; UF (hard genre to define!) stories have to be supernatural thrillers to qualify, but there’s something about the genre that allows writers to easily and organically introduce themes of love and lust. But do you know what; generalisations are cautiously worded as that are BORING which is why I wrote more provokingly and boldly in my blog.

(By the way, in case some else come back at me – I DON’T believe that hard SF MUST be plot-biased; a lot of it is like that, and some of the great stuff is like. But I adore hard SF that can get deep into characters, and emotions, and tell love stories that matter. That’s why I’m reading so much UF; I’m learning from the masters on this.)

btw, I never liked Heathcliff either; I just thought that girls like him. Kate Bush did, didn’t she? But what do I know!

Good thing no one ever told Raymond Chandler that.

The Dante Valentine series is about one woman’s struggle for vengeance against evil, trauma, her past, the devil, and the corrupt government. And encapsulating an adventure story about a woman as ‘all about her love life’ is an idea I dislike on principle. Japhrimel isn’t even IN one of the books, and in none of the books is their relationship the main point.

Also – Heathcliff? Sexy? You’ll really have to explain that one to me. Japh was a jackass, but I don’t think he was as horrific as Heathcliff.

And I very much disagree that Urban Fantasy is inherently about emotions. Urban Fantasy done well is usually about a mystery, and/or cities, magical realism, magic, adventure, horror – any number of genres. Your assertion that detective novels cannot be written with more focus on the romance than the whodunit is completely untrue; I’ve enjoyed some and been aggravated by others depending on execution. And I’ve read plenty of sci-fi or fantasy that had tons of romance.

I agree with you that there is a strong subgenre that focuses on romance. There is in every genre of writing. I’m as dirty-minded as any girl, and have certainly enjoyed sensualization of fantastical concepts, but claiming this is ‘the rule’ is pushing it.

I have encountered interesting discussions about hard science fiction that may be applicable here. One notion goes that there is only so much room in a novel. To establish an intense level of technicality in a hard SF novel something else must get cut. A more balanced novel that develops characters or plot loses something that is quintessential to hard SF.

While the hard SF novel focus on technicality, the updated UF bodice-ripper substitutes sexuality. Perhaps it’s time for a new subgenre: Hard UF.

LOL And I DID get that seals were all about sensuality, but I didn’t see the whole waves/ocean/submissive stuff till you pointed it out. So true! Get it? True?

HOW COULD YOU NOT REALISE SELKIES ARE ALL ABOUT SEX. Harumph. You innocent little minx.

I am now going to accuse you of a version of the Intentional Fallacy ie you can’t judge a story by what the author intends. I think Jane and Ryu ARE in love – or at least, WILL BE in love – it’ll grow and develop as the books go by. Because that’s what readers will want and you will be powerless to resist.

That’s not to say characters – or people- have to be in love to have sex. If that were the case, poor James Bond would be celibate. But I don’t think anyone wants James Bond to be happily married (though he did get married in one book and was assassinated…)

But I do think readers will want Jane True to find, er, True Love.

Hahahahaha, I crack myself up. Okay, seriously, great post! To be honest, I hadn’t really thought of the selkie as a metaphor for sexuality but now that you point it out it’s REALLY obvious. I think especially the way they shift, literally taking on and off their seal coat. Implying that their animal nature is fundamentally a part of them, and their humanity as much a mask as their animality.

As you do point out, however, there are a lot of UF writers who DO eschew sex and, I think, write a more traditionally SF/F story set in modern times. As Hagelrat pointed out, a great example is Kat Richardson, whose fabulous books are all about the world and the powers.

Which leads me to one of the GREAT about UF, tho. It’s like a pick and mix genre, where you can literally cobble together whatever you want in your book…if you like a lot of action, or gadgetry (Jen Rardin’s a great one for gadgets), or science, or whatever, just stick ‘er in. There’s a lot less genre convention expectations in UF from both the reading public and from publishers.

And, as authors, we all really appreciate that, and each other’s work. Kat and I are on two totally opposite ends of the UF spectrum, and I ADORE her fiction and she has publicly called my book one of the best she read last year. Which is awesome! I see other genres bickering about who is and who isn’t a “real” [insert genre] writer, but there’s very little of that in UF.

My one suggestion for your post would be to think about how you use “love” and “sex.” I’ve gotten some flak from certain readers who HATE that Jane isn’t “in love” with Ryu. She likes him a lot, and they definitely have sexual chemistry, but she knows damned well she doesn’t love him. Which bothers some readers…they think Jane should only be having sex with someone she loves. I find this fascinating (as a woman and as an academic who studies power and sexuality) on about 400 levels, but I’m also a bit horrified. I wish they could see what you’ve seen–that Jane delights in sensuality–and appreciate that in her rather than judge her for it.

Mina Loy would be sad.

But the majority of Jane’s readers have really enjoyed her take on life, and many have cited her sexuality (it’s combination of sensuality AND clear-headedness) as one reason they enjoy the book. It might not be a love story, but I think it’s a damned good sex story.

Good blog, man.