Why isn't science fiction taken seriously?

[Red-Headed]

Why is science fiction not taken particularly seriously by the literary community? Is it because it is not considered to be real literature? Or is it associated too much with 'space opera’ a term first coined by Wilson Tucker in 1941 for the ‘hacky, grinding, stinking, outworn spaceship yarn’ as he defined it.

It is said that Doris Lessing didn’t receive the Nobel Prize in Literature until 2007 because she was considered to be a science fiction writer.

Just what is science fiction as a genre anyway? It could possibly be a didactic & prophetic literature with a sound basis in contemporary knowledge. Often it appears to be narratives of imaginary invention. It can deal with non-ordinary worlds or possibilities & alternate universes which may even help us deal with change in the real world. Does it really just appeal to those who wish to escape reality & identify with the cognitive estrangement that the genre seems to offer?

Writers like Olaf Stapledon developed many of their own personal philosophies in their respective novels. His theories of moral obligation as a teleological requirement & of ecstasy as a cognitive intuition of cosmic excellence are regularly examined in his works like Star Maker & Last & First Men. What about the brilliant inventiveness of Philip K. Dick & his interest in what we mean when we try to define ‘reality’. H.G. Wells has been accused of promoting his beliefs in eugenics in novels such as The Time Machine & The First Men in the Moon. How important is that compared to the astounding accuracies of his technological prophecies?


Is there a science fiction novel that has particularly impressed or influenced you, if so, what was it & why?

[Mrig]

Well... I haven't read any science fiction (simply b'cpz i am not interested in reading it) but i just wanna try giving this whole thing a prespective.

First of all, There are so many people who absolutely love Science fiction.
By saying 'not taking it seriously' if you mean getting honours or awards... then i would say that : If any book gives the joy of reading to its readers.... it succesful. The author / book does not need any way to reach it's audience.

May be the reader community for science fiction is relatively samller...but then how does it matter to its creator. You must give some time to other to develop their taste!

[Red-Headed]

Well... I haven't read any science fiction (simply b'cpz i am not interested in reading it)

This is really my entire point. You claim to have never read any because you aren't interested in it. Just what aren't you interested in? How is the genre defined?

First of all, There are so many people who absolutely love Science fiction.
By saying 'not taking it seriously' if you mean getting honours or awards... then i would say that : If any book gives the joy of reading to its readers.... it succesful. The author / book does not need any way to reach it's audience.

Yeah, & that, I suppose. I really mean that the literary community as a whole tend to look down on sci fi as an inferior art form.

If we termed it 'speculative fiction' instead would it matter? Stapledon was disappointed to discover that he was viewed primarily as a science fiction writer.

May be the reader community for science fiction is relatively samller...but then how does it matter to its creator. You must give some time to other to develop their taste!

I don't know what the demographics actually are but I bet they compare favourably with the reader community for 19th century moralising/satirical novels set in English Shire counties.

[Mrig]

1. The word 'Science Fiction' broadly defines the genre. And also every genre can be defined at a braod level only as it cannot be exclusive.

2. And I honestly feel NO any art is inferior. It much depends upon the creator and the receiver.... and not so much on those who would not want to recieve it. Somebosy not reading Science fiction should not be taken as : Science fiction is cosidered as inferior

3. I beg to differ on " I bet they compare favourably with the reader community for 19th century moralising/satirical novels set in English Shire counties." (how can you be so sure?)

[Red-Headed]

1. The word 'Science Fiction' broadly defines the genre. And also every genre can be defined at a braod level only as it cannot be exclusive.

I'm not so sure. How would you describe Sir Thomas More's Utopia? Is The Odyssey of Homer a form of (proto) science fiction?

2. And I honestly feel NO any art is inferior. It much depends upon the creator and the receiver.... and not so much on those who would not want to recieve it. Somebosy not reading Science fiction should not be taken as : Science fiction is cosidered as inferior

Don Delillo's non-sci fi novels are discussed far more than his sci fi. That's just one example.

3. I beg to differ on " I bet they compare favourably with the reader community for 19th century moralising/satirical novels set in English Shire counties." (how can you be so sure?)

I'm not, it's just a guess.

[Mrig]

..that's the point. There cannot be an universal law for defining genres. Can you tell me what do you like reading and what you wouldn't like?

Stop guessing ..... be happy!

[Jozanny]

Red, part of it is due to the nature of the genre itself: Wells and Verne sound like fools when measured by today's standards in applied physics, or astronomy. And even writers who know the science (Asimov, Heinlein, etc) end up at times reading like farce. How, after all, can you take a dramatic hero seriously when he stays immortal within time by belching a work like Grok?

I happen to love the genre, but dismiss about 85 percent of it as formula driven drivel, but the exceptions are beyond great. Vonnegut is amazing. Sturgeon should have gotten a Nobel, and Lessing speaks for herself, though I only really know her works more or less grounded in realism.

Space opera, too, is most often closer to a western than fiction that is based on science--but writers like Vonnegut and Lessing exploit the genre to defy categorization.

[Red-Headed]

Red, part of it is due to the nature of the genre itself: Wells and Verne sound like fools when measured by today's standards in applied physics, or astronomy.

Yet they predicted the moon landings, the submarine, battle tank & aerial warfare. If they weren't that hot on the science (like the rather silly concept of 'cavorite' in The First Men in the Moon) the basic ideas were there.

My point was that sci fi isn't just about technology but about philosophical ideas. These tend to get overshadowed though.

And even writers who know the science (Asimov, Heinlein, etc) end up at times reading like farce. How, after all, can you take a dramatic hero seriously when he stays immortal within time by belching a work like Grok?

I was quite impressed with Stranger in a Strange Land when I was a teenager. Admittedly it's not Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, but Heinlein expounded his libertarian ideas in a quite confident, if workman like, way. I can appreciate these even if I don't agree with them.

I happen to love the genre, but dismiss about 85 percent of it as formula driven drivel,

Possibly, but you can say that there is drivel in all genres.

but the exceptions are beyond great. Vonnegut is amazing. Sturgeon should have gotten a Nobel, and Lessing speaks for herself, though I only really know her works more or less grounded in realism.

'A science fiction story is built around human beings with a human problem & a human solution which would not have happened without its science content.' ~ Theodore Sturgeon

"Ninety percent of SF is crud, but then, ninety percent of everything is crud."

~ Sturgeon's Law (1951)

Space opera, too, is most often closer to a western than fiction that is based on science--but writers like Vonnegut and Lessing exploit the genre to defy categorization.

You mean horse opera! It has often been noted that the majority of British science fiction appears to be apocalyptic, dystopian & pessimistic but American sci fi is more 'frontier', utopian & optimistic.

[Red-Headed]

..that's the point. There cannot be an universal law for defining genres. Can you tell me what do you like reading and what you wouldn't like?

Stop guessing ..... be happy!

I was trying to say that sci fi was difficult to define. Earlier you claimed it didn't interest you as a genre.

That's what interested me.

[Noisms]

I think the question should really be Why isn't genre fiction taken seriously?

It isn't just science fiction that the literary establishment sneers at. It's also fantasy, crime, historical fiction, romance, horror, you name it.

[Red-Headed]

I think the question should really be Why isn't genre fiction taken seriously?

It isn't just science fiction that the literary establishment sneers at. It's also fantasy, crime, historical fiction, romance, horror, you name it.

Yes, quite possibly. Fantasy & horror particularly I think. Sci fi does have that it's just a load of old Klingons & Daleks image a bit though.

Some of the most imaginative & philosophical works have been science (or speculative) fiction. I think this is what makes it different to a crime or romance novel. I mean, you could have a sci fi - fantasy, crime, historical fiction, romance, horror, you name it story.

It just seems to me that one of the most imaginative & original genres in literature has been given a reputation that it doesn't really deserve. Possibly because a lot of it is clichéd & substandard, but maybe because of other reasons.

[Niamh]

I think the question should really be Why isn't genre fiction taken seriously?

It isn't just science fiction that the literary establishment sneers at. It's also fantasy, crime, historical fiction, romance, horror, you name it.

thats a good point. The irony is that most of the books deemed "worthy" do fall under these genre heading, and could quite easily be placed there instead of a classics section. I wonder how an elitist would react if they had to fetch Dracula from becide Anne Rice or Laural K. Hamillton, Pride and Prejudice from a section full of Mills and Boon... and say perhaps Candide from amongst Jean Plaidy, Bernard Cornwell or Tracy chavalier! Heaven forbid!

I'm a lover of Fantasy Genres... not so much Sci Fi, but Adams Hitchhikers series are some of the most enjoyable books i've read.

[Red-Headed]

I'm a lover of Fantasy Genres... not so much Sci Fi,

I'm not so sure that they are that different in many respects.

but Adams Hitchhikers series are some of the most enjoyable books i've read.

They were better on the radio!

[mal4mac]

There are a number of science fiction novels that do make it into the literary canon. Just because a novel is in the science fiction canon doesn't debar it from the literary canon! For instance, H.G. Wells' science fiction stories, Huxley's Brave New World, and Orwell's 1984.

These novels are (i) a pleasure to read (ii) have great cognitive strength - they use and present ideas well. (iii) the characters are strong, believable and interesting. (iv) the writing is wonderful. Much canonical sf only scores well in category (ii) - e.g, "The City and the Stars" by Arthur C. Clarke, which I (recently) had to stop re-reading because it wasn't fun to read, the characters were 1- dimensional, and the writing was overblown and pretentious. The big ideas, when I could make them out through the mist, were impressive, though they were overwhelmed by tedious details and the other, non-technical, flaws I've already mentioned.

I was a sf obsessive all through my childhood. Then in my late teenage years I asked myself why Orwell, Huxley, and Wells were so much better than other sf writers. I read some good critics, who pointed out that they were writing good literature not just sf. So then I read good literature rather than sf, and never looked back, apart from trying to re-read Arthur C., which made me glad I had never looked back...

[Red-Headed]

There are a number of science fiction novels that do make it into the literary canon. Just because a novel is in the science fiction canon doesn't debar it from the literary canon! For instance, H.G. Wells' science fiction stories, Huxley's Brave New World, and Orwell's 1984.

Yeah, just about make it though, I reckon. I'd count A Clockwork Orange as sci fi as well.

"The City and the Stars" by Arthur C. Clarke, which I (recently) had to stop re-reading because it wasn't fun to read, the characters were 1- dimensional, and the writing was overblown and pretentious. The big ideas, when I could make them out through the mist, were impressive, though they were overwhelmed by tedious details and the other, non-technical, flaws I've already mentioned.

It was an early Clark novel though. I read the original to that Against the Fall of Night when I was a teenager. I have always wondered what the later novel was like. Like you, If I read it now I probably wouldn't enjoy it like I did the earlier one when I was younger. We change & mature as we get older. Although according to some of the posters on here it is better to be young & have less experience it seems. I thought I knew it all when I was eighteen as well. I'm wise enough now to realise I don't know a great deal at all (especially when I was eighteen). I'm optimistic though, I will learn more (hopefully). They say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but I'm not a dog. I guess that's why humans are the alpha-predator & dogs aren't.

I was a sf obsessive all through my childhood. Then in my late teenage years I asked myself why Orwell, Huxley, and Wells were so much better than other sf writers. I read some good critics, who pointed out that they were writing good literature not just sf. So then I read good literature rather than sf, and never looked back, apart from trying to re-read Arthur C., which made me glad I had never looked back...

I don't read that much sci fi these days, but a few novels I have really enjoyed. Stapledon's Star Maker was one of them.